Xbox360 or PS3?which is better

Discussion in 'Consoles & console games' started by eshban, Jan 9, 2007.

  1. allstopp

    allstopp Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTX SLI
    Absolutely, when the gaming console that has been out for over a year is still the home to better looking games.
     
  2. allstopp

    allstopp Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTX SLI
    Why do you think that just because I have a nice system that I have money to burn? I spent the money that I did on this system so that I would be set for at least a couple years without having to upgrade. And your argument of consoles being overrated is just plain foolish. I made my choices on what PC hardware to get and what console to get based on what they have to offer.
     
  3. UnclePappi

    UnclePappi Banned

    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Asus 680 2gb 1250mhz

    Triangle Setup
    Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
    PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

    Vertex Shader Processing
    Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

    Filtered Texture Fetch
    Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
    PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

    Vertex Texture Fetch
    Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
    PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

    Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
    Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

    Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
    Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
    PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

    Multisampled Fill Rate
    Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
    PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

    Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
    Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
    PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

    Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
    Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
    PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

    Frame Buffer Bandwidth
    Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
    PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
    PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
    PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

    Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
    Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
    Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
    Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
    PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
    PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
    PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

    Shader Model
    Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
    PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

    Xbox 360 has the advantage in most cases.

    I stand by my 7800gt vs. mid-range r600(in performance) claims.

    I'm done.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2007
  4. Deadman93723

    Deadman93723 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    BFG GTX 260 OC2 MaxCore
    OK fine, maybe overated is not the right word, maybe more like hyped-up, or just plain overpriced, when they first come out.

    The only reason I said "money to burn" was because your processor ALONE was about $1000, a C2D E6600 is more than enough right now, but hey, if you got the money, I'm not going to hate.
     

  5. Keitosha

    Keitosha Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,869
    Likes Received:
    111
    GPU:
    Vega56 8GB
    LOL! Even the N64 had AA in StarFox 64. :D
     
  6. allstopp

    allstopp Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTX SLI
    For right now, sure. But as I said, I plan on keeping this PC for at least 2 years, and well, while dual core is all the rage now, quad core is imminent ;)
     
  7. reno_skychaser

    reno_skychaser Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    XFX R9 290 4GB
    High end PC: $2000
    Console: $400-600 ; HDTV capable of 1080p: $1300-skys the limit

    Price for either is relatively the same. Buy whichever has the games you want. If its about hardware and not the games, buy a PC.
     
  8. allstopp

    allstopp Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTX SLI
    You don't need a TV like that to enjoy a console. ANd if you wanted to play on a LCD monitor in widescreen you can get a 22" LCD (samsung 225BW) for less than $400
     
  9. reno_skychaser

    reno_skychaser Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    XFX R9 290 4GB
    Console fanboys dont really appreciate resolution so much as screen size. 1080p is still a relatively low resolution to consider "high-end".
     
  10. allstopp

    allstopp Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTX SLI
    You think 1080p is low??? 1080p resolution is 1920x1080. But the monitor I suggested is a 1680x1050 resolution monitor. By comparison I play at 1920x1200 on my 24" LCD. Which is only slightly higher than 1080p. 1920x1200 is currently the highest resolution you can get on a widescreen LCD. And considering that 1080p is 1920x1080 I really don't see how you think that 1080p is a low resolution.
     

  11. reno_skychaser

    reno_skychaser Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    XFX R9 290 4GB
    http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-0863

    1080p is extremely low when the size of the screen is taken into account is more or less what I meant.
     
  12. UnclePappi

    UnclePappi Banned

    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Asus 680 2gb 1250mhz
    They actually have higher res than that but not commercially yet.
     
  13. Saucy

    Saucy Master Guru

    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    6800 Silencer5 (16x1,6vp, 425/1147)
    Mine Too! Dell 2405FPW?
     
  14. allstopp

    allstopp Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTX SLI
    yep ;)
     
  15. Recrofne

    Recrofne Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    GeForce GTX 560 Ti
    At least LedHed is making sense.

    People shouldn't try to compare a PC with console so much, they are in completely different leagues, just look at the facts.

    Yeah.
     

  16. Saucy

    Saucy Master Guru

    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    6800 Silencer5 (16x1,6vp, 425/1147)
    This is a little off topic, but one thing that allstopp said sounded a little funny.

    Just to clarify, you're not suggesting that a single big purchase (It must have been at least 3 grand for your PC) is less expensive than intermittent upgrades of low/midrange components, are you? I wasn't sure whether to interpret that statement as saying that it is better in terms of convenience or terms of expense. Thanks,

    -Saucy
     
  17. egorn5

    egorn5 Banned

    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA 7950GX2 "Superclocked"550/1400
    lol definatly.

    I've got 40)samsung HDTV hooked up to mine and ittakes the pi$$.
     
  18. allstopp

    allstopp Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTX SLI
    It's a matter of my convenience and cost to be precise. I fell into the lull of upgrading to a high end video card about every six months or so and quite frankly, I got tired of it. I don't buy midrange cards, because at the rate that PC hardware is made obsolete, it's almost silly. I want to be able to game at 1920x1200 with settings maxed. I can't stand to play out of my monitors native resolution. I guess it's a matter of my personal tastes and that I don't want to sacrifice.

    Just for instance over the last year I've swapped CPUs 4 times and went through 4 different video cards. I went from a single core 3500+ to and dual core 4400+, then on to an E6600, and now my final QX6700 quad. On the video cards side I went from a 7800GT, to a 7900GT, to a X1900XTX and now to my 8800GTXs.

    I realize that my components I have now are not even being fully utilized and I'm OK with that, because that's why I bought them. They have plenty of head room and it'll be quite some time before they need upgrading to play my games the way I like them :)
     
  19. Saucy

    Saucy Master Guru

    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    6800 Silencer5 (16x1,6vp, 425/1147)
    While the logic behind that method may seem better, I've found that in practice purchasing midrange, previous generation hardware every year or two can provide a satisfactory gaming experiance for all but the most demanding games while keeping costs to a minimum. For instance, my current setup which is a little less that a year old cost me $240 + the cost of a few componants I already owned, the total cost being about $550 (less than the cost of my monitor, lol). I can play maxed out HL2 at 1920x1200, and newer games such as FEAR work well at 1600x1200 although I can't turn on AA or other graphical goodies.

    In a few months, I'll upgrade to a low cost C2D system (e6420, x1950xt) that will handle vidtually anying you can throw at it. By keeping this up, I end up paying nothing for my PCs, because they sell for more than they cost to build (The only things I have to keep are my hard drive and monitor :) ). Thus the cycle continues and at any given point the only games I can not play maxed out on my PC, I can play on my 360.

    Although buying an ultra high end PC may seem nice (If you have the money, anyways), it is the fastest depreciating investment you can make. The cost of cheap components, however, will stay relatively stable for a year or so, enabling you to sell with little or no net loss (Net gain in my case-- I was offered $800 for this PC last week).

    Well, this all has virtually nothing to do with xbox's or playstations, but I've already typed up this long post and I couldn't bear deleting it. So sorry in advance for getting offtopic.

    -Saucy
     
  20. DeatHRattlE

    DeatHRattlE Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    E-VGA 7800GT CO
    Ill wait for some great games to come out for sony then make a decision. Also I will wait to see if any of the new video formats start eclipsing DVD(I hope not). Sony should have had some monster games on deck for release and they kind of blew it. Most of the good xbox games will be on PC and PS3 should have some good exclusives. And halo continues to disappoint.
     

Share This Page