The daily source for all next-generation console news, including: PlayStation 3, Revolution, Xbox 360 & More!
View Press Release
Archives
Previous Posts
- Breaking Tradition: Xbox 360, PS3 & Nintendo Revol...
- PlayStation 3: The Games Uncovered - up to 34 Titl...
- Sony / IBM / Toshiba Open PS3's Cell Processor
- Nintendo Revolution Technical Specs
- Planning your Xbox's Retirement
- PS3 & Xbox 360 E3 Demonstrations - Fact or Fiction?
- High Definition DVD format war: Toshiba "let the m...
- Has Microsoft's lost focus?
- Nintendo Revolution Controller Tid Bit
- E3 2005 Games Round-Up
Links
Friday, May 27, 2005
Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 - Round 3
"Q: Will the Xbox 360 beat the PS3 technically?
A: It's not likely, considering that Microsoft has taken less time to design the Xbox 360 and the PS 3 will be able to take advantage of technology advances that emerge well after Xbox 360's fall 2005 launch date. Microsoft included three IBM PowerPC processors each running at 3.2 gigahertz and each capable of running two threads at once. That means it has six parallel threads. The PS 3 will run at around 4 gigahertz, with one IBM PowerPC processor controlling eight smaller processing elements. One weakness of the Microsoft solution is that the three processors share a relatively small amount of cache, 1 megabyte. Microsoft will also use lower-cost but slower memory, compared to the PS 3's Rambus-based XDR memory and Flex I/O interconnect. Sony is also betting that BluRay high-definition storage disks will give it an advantage. Microsoft, by contrast, is likely to do a better job with the online features than its rivals, analysts say. Developers say that the Sony machine will likely be more powerful, but harder to program."
A: It's not likely, considering that Microsoft has taken less time to design the Xbox 360 and the PS 3 will be able to take advantage of technology advances that emerge well after Xbox 360's fall 2005 launch date. Microsoft included three IBM PowerPC processors each running at 3.2 gigahertz and each capable of running two threads at once. That means it has six parallel threads. The PS 3 will run at around 4 gigahertz, with one IBM PowerPC processor controlling eight smaller processing elements. One weakness of the Microsoft solution is that the three processors share a relatively small amount of cache, 1 megabyte. Microsoft will also use lower-cost but slower memory, compared to the PS 3's Rambus-based XDR memory and Flex I/O interconnect. Sony is also betting that BluRay high-definition storage disks will give it an advantage. Microsoft, by contrast, is likely to do a better job with the online features than its rivals, analysts say. Developers say that the Sony machine will likely be more powerful, but harder to program."
The PS2 was a serious challange to program. The PS3 is setting up things with open development as well as using items that have been standard in the industry. I don't think this will be an issue.
¶
D.Vader // 5/27/2005 04:29:00 PM //
PermaLink
rofl. you are an idiot. ps3 run at around 4ghz? if by 4, you mean 3.2, then you are correct.
Microsoft has a small cache, 1 mb?
Sony has less, at 512
Oh, and in terms of slower memory? What are you talking about? Please go in to details. Xbox has 256gb/s GPU memory bandwith, Sony has 48gb/s
Do you mean bandwith, or latency? Cause if you mean latency, you are also wrong. The NVIDIA GPU has higher memory latency than the ATI chip. But this could mean nothing, cause all you have to do to fix this is have a bigger memory cache in the chip. Lets hope ATI did this.
You need to research before you post.
Xbox 360 and ps3 will be the same in terms of GPU to CPU performance as of release. The ps3 CPU's are actually quite ahead of their time and have the potential to reak havoc on the xbox 360 in terms of performance, but with only 1 general purpose core, it will be quite hard for developers to actually use the performance.
The cost of the ps3 is insane. The cost of the blu-ray drive alone is 500 dollars, add 300 on to that for system cost and you got 800 dollars.
The cost of an xbox 360 will be around 300-400 dollars, as all their money went into gpu/cpu, and not expensive, and kind of usefull technology like blu-ray
Sony will have to bend over backwards in order to compete with microsoft in terms of price.
D.Vader
rofl. you are an idiot. ps3 run at around 4ghz? if by 4, you mean 3.2, then you are correct.
Hey Jim. Peep the date on the article dood. The original specs were to have the PS3 cpu at 4Ghz. Things change.
Microsoft has a small cache, 1 mb?
Sony has less, at 512
Sony is opting for an "In-Order" CPU, which will require dramatically less cache memory. Cache memory is crucial for "Out-of-Order" CPUs such as the Xbox 360 and Revo.
Oh, and in terms of slower memory? What are you talking about? Please go in to details. Xbox has 256gb/s GPU memory bandwith, Sony has 48gb/s
You are quoting out of term, the only memory in the X360 that goes 256GB/S is the 10MB EDRAM. Which is basically Video Cahce memory. PS3 doesn't require as much cache memory or bandwidth because of the CPU design.
Do you mean bandwith, or latency?
I didn't write the article. I made a few comments.
Cause if you mean latency, you are also wrong. The NVIDIA GPU has higher memory latency than the ATI chip. But this could mean nothing, cause all you have to do to fix this is have a bigger memory cache in the chip. Lets hope ATI did this.
Just saying something is better is not proof. Show me some specs, at least my readers have the benefits of clicking the links to get the facts. You just spout them off like it's comman knowledge.
You need to research before you post.
You should back up what you say, before your mouth gathers a foot!
Xbox 360 and ps3 will be the same in terms of GPU to CPU performance as of release. The ps3 CPU's are actually quite ahead of their time and have the potential to reak havoc on the xbox 360 in terms of performance, but with only 1 general purpose core, it will be quite hard for developers to actually use the performance.
That simply isn't true. Xbox 360 is rated at 1 Teraflop, the PS3 is 2 teraflops, no matter which way you slice it, 2 is better then 1. Of course there will be a development learning curve just as there was with the PS2, at the end of the day though, the PS3 will bring the best experience, IMO.
The cost of the ps3 is insane. The cost of the blu-ray drive alone is 500 dollars, add 300 on to that for system cost and you got 800 dollars.
Again, where do you get your information from? From what I have seen on the net, the PS3 will not exceed $400. Considering the video card technology that the RSX uses, $400 will be a steal, the Nvidia 7800's cost quite a bit more then that and the RSX promises even more power.
The cost of an xbox 360 will be around 300-400 dollars, as all their money went into gpu/cpu, and not expensive, and kind of usefull technology like blu-ray
Kind of usefull technology? We are talking about next gen systems here. Hi-Def content will require more then the Dual Layer DVD Xbox 360 is using. The DVD in the Xbox 360 will have to be upgraded to compete in the Hi-Def world. You should really read more of this site. We have about every news story that has been told about the next gen systems since May 2005.
Blu-Ray discs are ready for production at 50GB, with 100GB and 200GB in development.
Sony will have to bend over backwards in order to compete with microsoft in terms of price.
Yeah the market leader is going to have to bend over backwards.
You make me laugh X-FanBoy! :)
Please come again!
-=Kim Kaze=-
Interesting thoughts and quotes. It seems everyone has something to share on this hot topic and like the last generation, ultimately yes there are trends, yes there are markets but for each ONE OF US as INDIVIDUALS, we are going to (or at least we should) be buying whatever best suits us - our wallet, our homelife and social circles. NOT someone else's techy talk or someone else's social statements.
For me, despite the fact we don't yet know a lot about it, I am gonna wait to see more on the Revolution and then compare them all. Not on guess work. For me, I have a game-ready PC and consoles already, plus a FT job so really there's no rush to fill my very first possible evening with Xbox360 or PS3 goodness.
I am gonna' wait. I am gonna choose based on the games that *I* like and the future articles written by non biased sources (as best one can get) nearer the time when hardware and actual games have been tested.
The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Think about it :)
D.Vader
To each his own. PS3 is looking very good.
JLC
there goes vader always shutting ppl up....lol while i do believe you have a point,.. my input is that ps3 will be fater in some areas and xbox will be fater in other areas and both are pretty powerfull systems and we are looking at a great generation of new games forget about nintendo all they will have isa nice controller.....lol
D.Vader
WTF is "fater"???
:) You seem like you have some passionate views, if you want email me an article.
theconsolewars@gmail.com
You still haven't answered my question - will you be this active in our forums?
Xbox 360 appears to have a better video card and PS3 appears to have a better CPU. If I had to choose, I would pick graphics card over CPU advantage. The games will look very similar (as they do with Xbox and PS2), however Xbox360 has a headstart to the market and a great lineup of games to start with. If the Xbox puts out, then I probably won't invest in a PS3.
I have a friend who is absolutely shitting himself over the xbox 360, okay its going to be good, but not THAT good... its only a console jeez, whats worse is that hes trying to make me buy one but i keep saying i wont buy anything until both ps3 and xbox are out, its too early to decide IMO.
