Sony PS3 275,000,000 polygons per second vs Xbox 360’s 500,000,000
Filed under: News | By: Daniel
Posted on: November 6, 2007 | 167 Comments
Kim Naroz left a really long comment on the post about the amount of power the developers are using form the Xbox 360 and Sony Playstation 3, he pointed out that the Sony PS3 display’s 275,000,000 polygons per second, compared to the 500,000,000 polygons per second of the Xbox 360.
My question is does this really matter?
Here is Kim Naroz’s Comment:
Someone needs to point out that the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second, compared to the 500,000,000 polygons per second of the Xbox 360.
That is the reason why games like John Madden Football 2008, NCAA Football 2008, All-Pro Football 2008, and many other games from EA Sports, 2K Sports, and so many others all run at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360, but only 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3.
Gamespot specifically said in the review of those sports games: “The Xbox 360 versions run smoothly at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, while the Playstation 3 versions struggle to run at 30 frames per second at 720p resolution.”
It isn’t just sports games with that problem. Look at all the Tony Hawk Skating games, Tom Clancy Splinter Cell: Double Agent, and F.E.A.R. They have frame rates that drop below 20 frames per second on the PS3 and go into slow motion it is so bad…even though the Xbox 360 versions have very smooth framerates.
Oblivion is NOW BETTER on the Xbox 360!!!
When Oblivion was released a year later on the PS3, it used a new shader design…that had NOTHING to do with hardware technology; it was just something put into the new version of the game as a software program. The download was released for the Xbox 360 later on, but the PS3 fanboys always pointed out, “But when you compare the actual discs, the PS3 one has some advantages (although the Xbox 360 version also has advantages, and was ALWAYS rated higher).
Oblivion: Game of the Year Edition is now available for the Xbox 360, and when you now compare Oblivion on the Xbox 360 to Oblivion on the PS3, there is NO DOUBT that the Xbox 360 version is significantly better; that is why it is rated higher!
The Playstation 3 version of Oblivon is a perfect example that what this man is saying about the Hard Drive of the PS3 being used to help out with memory limitations is NOT true. Consider the FACT that the Playstation 3 version of Oblivion does NOT allow the entire world to exist in the game at the same time, like the Xbox 360 version does. This is because of the Memory Bandwidth hardware bottleneck of the Playstation 3.
Also, when it comes to RAM, the Xbox 360 certainly DOES have fundamental advantages over the Playstation 3!
For example, the CPU of the PS3 can NEVER access more than 256MB of RAM at any point. The Xbox 360 CPU is free to access up to 512MB of RAM if there was a need. With the PS3, there are plenty of times when the CPU needs more than 256MB of RAM, and the Video-RAM of the PS3 is actually using less than 256MB of RAM, which means that if the PS3 had a Unified RAM environment–like the Xbox 360’s–then that unused Video-RAM could help the CPU, like it does on the Xbox 360. OBVIOUSLY, the Xbox 360 RAM design is much more flexible; it helps developers in ways that they enjoy working with.
Plus, it’s important to remember that the original design of the Playstation 3 called for the used of TWO Cell CPU processors–each with two Threads that could Send signals to the SPE subprocessors.
However, when Sony saw the design of the Xbox 360, and they saw how much better the Xbox 360 was, then Sony was forced to redesign the Playstation 3 very quickly in a way that hurt the PS3 system. This is nearly identical to what happened with Sega and the Saturn. Sega saw how much better the original PS1 was, and they were forced to quickly redesign the Saturn in a way that used parallel processing that was difficult to work with and was more expensive. This is EXACTLY what happened with the Playstation 3.
The original design of the PS3 was not even supposed to used a GPU, because it was going to have two of the Cell CPU processors. But when Sony saw the revolutionary ATI GPU in the Xbox 360 that was Custom designed for the Xbox 360, and was 1.5 years ahead of its time (since the PC didn’t see similar Unified Shader technology until January 30, 2007), then Sony was forced to removed one of the Cell CPUs in the PS3, and instead add a Nvidia GPU. But there was NOT time to custom design the GPU, so Sony was forced to included a four-year old generic GPU in the PS3. That is why people often point out the vast superiority of the Xbox 360 GPU.
Now that the PS3 only has one 3.2Ghz Cell CPU, it means that the PS3 has only two Threads capable of Sending signals to the six SPE sub-processors running parallel. Each of those six SPE processors is capable of Receiving a Threaded signal; however, the PS3 CPU is only capable of Sending two Threaded signals. This is where the hardware “bottleneck” of the PS3 reveals itself. Programmers often say that the PS3 has two arms (CPU Threads) that are trying to juggle six balls (SPE sub-processors). Obviously, that is NOT possible, and that is why the Playstation 3 hardware is such a BIG disappointment.
With the Xbox 360, Microsoft used a much newer and better form of technology. PCs often brag about their “dual-core” CPU design. The Xbox 360 actually takes that to the next level and used a “tri-core” CPU design, with each CPU using the most developer-favored videogame processor available–the PowerPC.
The Xbox 360 is literally the exact opposite when compared to the Playstation 3 in terms of hardware design and efficiency. The Xbox 360 has three 3.2Ghz CPUs, each with two Threads capable of Sending instructions. But the Xbox 360 doesn’t the outdated parallel processing environment of the PS3. There are no “sub-processors” to worry about with the Xbox 360. The signals can be focused on CPU and GPU commands. This literally means the Xbox 360 has six arms (CPU Threads) that are being asked to juggle only two balls (GPU and CPU functions).
THAT is why the developers absolutely LOVE the Xbox 360 and can design games so much more efficiently for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why games are released so much earlier for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why the overwhelming majority of Xbox 360 games offer better graphic and online performance on the Xbox 360.
THAT is NOT going to change!
It may be easier to port a PS3 game to the Xbox 360 than it is to port an Xbox 360 to the PS3 (since the Xbox 360 is more powerful in terms of videogame performance–500,000,000 polygons for the Xbox 360 is more than the 275,000,000 for the PS3), but the Xbox 360 will continue to be the Lead Platform this generation for two reasons:
(1) Because the Xbox 360 is so much easier for developers to develop games for and experiment with new types of gameplay.
(2) Because the Xbox 360 has sold over Eight-Million more systems than the Playstation 3, and that lead continues grow by hundreds of thousands of systems each month, in terms of Worldwide Sales.
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more news.
Let’s let the software do the talking…like the saying says, “Actions speak louder than words,” and “the proof is in the pudding.”
Fallout 3 is one of the biggest games of the year. It has been rated 10 out of 10 on the Xbox 360 by several sources already.
But the Playstation 3 version of Fallout 3 isn’t nearly as good as the Xbox 360 or PC versions.
Here’s what one of the IGN websites had to say:
“The latest issue of PSM3, the UK’s first dedicated PlayStation 3 magazine, has an exclusive review of Bethesda’s FallOut 3. The usual suspects has already posted scans of the article on the Internet, revealing that the editors of PSM3 admitted that “the PS3 version compares poorly to its Xbox [360] and PC counterparts.”
Today, the PSM3 staff tried to rectify this statement by saying that “the PS3 version looks the same as on Xbox, but things in the distance are slightly jaggier/rougher, the textures seem ‘muddier’ up-close and the frame rate is choppier, especially during the last few story missions.”
Too little, too late. The damage has been done.”
Justin, do you see the reasons why the Playstation 3 version is rated lower then the Xbox 360 and PC versions. It’s the same thing as always:
* Framerates that are choppy
* Lower resolution that produce “jagged” images
* Textures that are “muddier” and less vivid, because the GPU of the Playstation 3 isn’t nearly as advanced as the GPU of the Xbox 360
It doesn’t matter whether the PS3 is the “Lead Development” system or not. Like we saw with Soul Calibur 4, the PS3 was the Lead Development system, yet the Xbox 360 version had smoother framerates, 40% higher resolution, rumble, Achievements, and custom music…
Xbox 360 versions of games have always been better than Playstation 3 versions of games, new games like Soul Calibur 4 and Fallout 3 prove that isn’t going to change anytime soon.
No one said it was easy for programmers, but at 3.2Ghz it is easy from a technical standpoint. Second of all if we are going frame drops lets talk about games that actually experience it. I have been through Soul Caliber on both consoles and saw problems with neither. If you want a good example of a bad port, look at Orange Box. Orange Box was one of my biggest disappointments but frame dropping wasn’t the disappointing part of it, actually the texture mapping and poor lighting was the huge downfall here but that severely hurts the experience. It is a little hard to make any judgments on Fallout 3 because I could care less about current RPGs, I have never been a fan of anything Bethesda has produced personally and Bethesda has a history of bad programming for the PS3, just like RARE having a bad rep for 360 i.e. Perfect Dark. Functional threads or not, in the end it all comes down to raw data and the PS3 has the 360 beat by a VERY large margin. Lets look at just the hardware alone…
Xbox Ethernet= 10/100T wired only (wireless 100$ extra)
PS3 Ethernet=10/100/1000T wired and wireless G capable
Xbox PPC Processor Performance= 1TFLOP
PS3 Cell PPC Processor Performance=2 TFLOPs
360 HD Video Output=HDMI 1.2×1
PS3 HD Video Output=HDMI 1.3×1 with bandwidth support for 2x
360 Optical Drive=12x DVD Drive capable of dual layer DVD at 8.4GB
PS3 Optical Drive=BD-ROM capable of up to 50GB of data.
I was granted access to the instruction set manuals for the Cell BE and from my close understanding the Cell could easily execute instructions designed for the PPC 540 chip that the 360 is based on. From taking a look at what parallel computing has to offer in the form of Nvidia’s Cuda I have no less doubt that the PS3 can very easily stamp the crap out of low cache the 540 offered in the 360. We can already see the not so lazy companies squeezing out high performance optimizations that were no doubt only introduced fully in games made within the last 2 years for PC. Killzone 2 feature motion blur which is an incredibly graphics taxing effect that has really only graced Crysis and Crysis Warhead in full effect. As it stands most Xbox exclusives make it to PC at the very least eventually and my computer makes a joke out of both consoles. It still stands to fact that the Cell architecture as well as the GPU that feeds from it feed from simple parallel processing which has time and time again been a proven method for producing the best graphics imaginable. Games that look good on Xbox that have been ported to PS3 look terrible because they were made by companies that haven’t resolved the changes involved in massively threaded execution i.e. Valve, Bethesda, and Ubisoft. These companies also have to satisfy the PC market which undoubtedly has much higher standards than consoles. Crysis Warhead with all of its settings set to enthusiast makes my machine hot and I am running extremely premium made components, so if these companies cannot fill their entire market they will inevitably fail or get bought by EA.
whats his name Kim Naroz give him a job!..anybody that can get into that much detail deserves one unlike some journalist that say..”uh the 360 has reached its limits?”..with no facts to back it when they should be saying DVD has reached its limits.
nice read by the way though there were some wordin’ mistakes but it happens to eveybody..but it seems like you’re hatin’ on him since he brought facts to the table since polygons do count in gaming since all games are polygon based..shaders and such just knock out the jaggies and both consoles are prety good at that though i’m getting annoyed with the ps3s blur everything effect instead of using anti-aliasing..lazy if you ask me.
Actually I am pretty sure that anti-aliasing is entirely designed to knock out jaggies. That’s what anti-aliasing is. The difference here is that games that only high end PC can produce are using effects that take advantage of the way the human eyes and brain perceive things and the ps3 monopolizes on this. I have no reason to war here, my PC can beat the ever living @#$%^ out of both my PS3 and 360 but I have to look at this from a developer’s perspective (being as I am a developer). Both companies are struggling because there have been huge advancements direct proceeded by launch such as cheaper more advanced die processes. But lets look at this from a real persective and make it easy for the game nuts that have no idea as to what goes into developing. Anyone who has a good gaming PC knows that the processor is just a feeding trough for games and handles little more than physics and data bus this is where the PS3 is superior in spades. A dual channel GPU opens up the possibility for AFR and SFR which could easily take a games and double its performance or even take a game that produces a substandard 24FPS on the 360, with AFR you could see 48 to 50. Poor framerates are due to bad developers not bad console designers. I have seen what massive threading can do and it is truly amazing a program that can yield all 4 logical threads of an i7 can shatter the Core 2 extremes at triple the price. In reaity is takes a lot of FPU time to produce effect like motion blur and texture mapping is FAR beyond just removing jaggies. Advanced texture mapping produces the real meat and potatoes of a worlds detail. A 3D opject can have infinite polgons and still look like a VirtualBoy game without texture mapping. I see one advantage to 360 and that is that is has a community accessible developing environment and the PS3 requires a 10,000 dollar monstrosity to alpha on.
This crap makes me laugh, all the old hardware junkines gawfing at how they can produce 500,000,000 polygons in slow multi_threading and giving polygon numbers that only utilize the stream processors and one processing unit. Combine all of PS3’s SPE’s plus its stream cores and you can expect 900,000,000 polygon performance, so not only does it beat the piss out of xbox, it probably beats the piss out of the next console Microsoft has to offer.