Fine. I'll prove that the ps3 isn't the best console out their. Hopefully after you read this you'll quit being so god damn ignorant like most Sony fanboys are..
Sales:
You can say whatever you want and give your opinion but facts speak louder. Bloomberg recently reported that ps3 low sales will cause MASSIVE financial losses for the end of its last financial quarter. Bloomberg says it will be up to 664$ Million dollars.
Source:
http://www.firingsquad.com/
Their are reasons why Ken Kutaragi is no longer in charge of SCE. Kutaragi is being blamed for this whole mess. Now if we go by the numbers in each country will figure out that ps3 is having a low performance compared to what was expected. Like in April of this year, the ps3 was surprisingly outsold by the gameboy Advance, the numbers are the following:
Nintendo DS: 471,000
Nintendo Wii: 360,000
Sony Playstation 2: 194k
Sony PSP: 183,000
Xbox 360 (including Elite) 174,000
GameBoy Advance: 84,000
Playstation 3: 82,000
Source:
Http://spong.com/
Performance:
Prepare your little brain for the technical stuff. The following are the technical specifications for both consoles, these numbers were made public by Sony and Microsoft themselfs. Let's start with the CPU shall we?
CPU of the xbox 360:
# 90 nm process, 165 million transistors
(# 65 nm process SOI revision in 2007)
Three symmetrical cores,
each one SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz
# one VMX-128 SIMD unit per core, dual threaded.
# 128x128 register file
for each hardware thread, 2 sets per VMX unit.
1 MB L2 cable (lockable by the GPU)
# Dot product performance:
9.6 billion per second ( 33.6 billion per second combined with the GPU)
115 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance
# ROM storing Microsoft private encrypted keys
Now, here is the PS3's CPU:
PowerC-Base core @3.2 GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB LB cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
Dot Product performance at 22.4 billion (51 billion when combined with the GPU)
1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
Total float performance: 218 GFLOPS
If you analyze those numbers you'll see that the advantage goes to the ps3. Oh, but don't celebrate quite yet!
Both of the CPU's were tested under controlled environments, these numbers are just THEORETICAL, and do not represent how well the consoles preform. The most important example is that, according to this PS3's CPU produes 218GFLOPS. However, this test was done using the 8 SPE that cell has, however, the PS3 only dedicates 6 SPE for games. If you take that into consideration the number of GFLOPS produced can be reduced significantly. IBM, which tested a Cell in a controlled environment running the 8 SPE of Cell, it yielded a performance of 155.5GFLOPS. if it took 8 SPE to do that, theirs no way in hell a 6 SPE will be able to achieve that level of performance. Again, this was a CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT, they didn't include important elements such as DMA or the memory system. Take all that into consideration and the performance is reduced to 73.4GFLOPS, and even that is out of reach.
Its also a fact that PS2 had produced twice a much as the original XBOX, and that didn't even make the ps2 preform any better.
This is the explanation of why the specification numbers don't always determine how well a console will preform in the real world. Their is a difference between theoretical numbers and REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE!
The ps3 has one PowerPC core, similar to the 3 PowerPC cores of the 360. The ps3 also has 8 SPE, the 8th is disabled to improve yields and the 7th is used to run the operating system. That leaves us with 6 SPE available for games. >_>
Thanks to the 3 cores o the xbox 360 its able to work better with A.I and scripting then the ps3, because it has ONLY ONE CORE.
GPU:
Initially were told that the RSX (the ps3's video card) is capable of 1.8 Terraflops, which is NOT true. Rest assure that RSX will never achieve this type of performance.
Example:
the X1900XTX has far more raw horse power then the RSX, clocked at 650MHz speed, along with 24 more pixel shader Pipelines and yet X1900XTX is just over 500 GFLOPS. And to think a Videocard with far less raw horse power can achieve that level of performance is just plain IMPOSSIBLE!
0bv Sony shows this completely unreal levels of performance to hype their console, but it is far beyond of what it is really capable of. And you say us 360 owners were fooled? Think again you idiot..
The RSX is pretty much a 7800 GTX class GPU in some cases worse in some cases better, nothing that is really new.. Now the same cant be said about the 360's GPU at all.
the 360 GPU is a excellent piece of work, far more advanced with much better performance.
The ATI Xenos was clocked at 500MHz and it was 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader along with a polygon performance of 500 million triangles a second. Good... Fucking.... Game...
Can the 360's CPU achieve that? You damn right it can. But their would be no color, nor would their be any pixels at all. 0bv because of its 48 shader units are capable of performing vortex operations and they were all used to produce triangles in this test. 0bv in real world performance, not all 48 are used for triangles, their has to be color and pixels too.
Other GPU's are only capable of dedicating 8 shader units to vortex operations.
Operating System:
PS3:
32 MB out of the 256 MB that's available
GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
64 mb of the 256mb available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
1 SPE of the 7 constantly reserved 1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games must give it up if its requested)
XBOX 360:
32MB of the 512MB available GDDR3 RAM
3% CPU time on Core1 and Core2 (nothing is reserved on Core0)
The Xbox 360 wins because it is able to dedicate less memory to run its operating system, and more memory to run games. Nobody knows how the 360 can use such little amount of memory for this, some say its because of microsofts experience with operating systems.
Last but not least,
BLU RAY:
Some people say that because of blu-ray has more capacity games will have more graphics, well this aint true. the fact is that ps3 has two separated memory pools of 256MB a pop, it can best dedicate 256MB of memory to textures at any given moment..
However, Xbox 360 uses unified memory for a total of 512MB. That alone is a major limiting factor for blu-ray. blu-ray will lead to longer games? LOL!! Mass Effect will have over 60 hours of gameplay and Oblivion has over 120 hours. Compression also needs to be taken into consideration, and it has come a long way. Both consoles have amazing compression abilities.
Having more space does NOT mean the ps3 wont have to compress data, as it helps reduce load times. Speaking of which DVD's load faster than blu-rays, actually their are more cons then pros in the addition of blu-ray, it might benefit Sony, but NOT the customer.
I ask you again.. Who got fooled??
YOU DID!!
Will PS3 games have more levels and the kind of game content that would define a game experience?? People forget that whatever you see in a game level takes up space in memory. If the PS3 had 2 GB of ram THEN BluRay would be effective. But so far its just a motherfucking luxury.
Sources:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?a...
360 GPU from ATI and Microsoft
http://forum.teamxbox.com/printthread...
Long article explaining the 360 GPU
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/
IBM White paper regarding PS3 CPU performance
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks.
block diagram of 360 gpu provided by ATI
http://www.techreport.com/etc/2005q2/...
block diagram of 360 cpu
http://media.arstechnica.com/articles...
block diagram of PS3 cpu
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks...
Interview with John Carmack about the CPUs of the 360 and PS3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8
A picture provided by sony telling what the ps3 gpu is
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/d...
Picture showing the 360 GPUs daughter die, something no other GPU has
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xeno...
John Carmacks entire interview at Quackcon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...