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.
well, i own PS2PS3 and the original Xbox1
and i love all of them!i don’t care anything which is better as long as they are not faulty game consoles!! i will buy Xbox 360 in the near future only if the hardware problems are fixed ;v
complain all you like, he’s RIGHT. When it comes to power the 360 is the winner. When it comes to sales it’s the winner in America. And second only to the Wii worldwide. When it comes to games Sony is losing exclusives hand over fist.
It’s the two gen curse. Atari rules for 2 gens, got cocky and lost to Nintendo, Nintendo ruled for 2 gens, figured they could do what they want and lost to Playstation, which ruled for 2 gens and… guess what…. Their sales are unrecovarable. Even with the price drop it’s still selling less than half that of the Wii and no where near that of 360.
Developers are leaving because you can’t make a profit on a console with such low userbase. The same reason the very powerful gamecube got far less games then the underpowered PS2. it’s all about the userbase.
I also remind you you can’t enforce your taste on others. He’s talking tech specs, which if they mattered Xbox 1 would have won last round of the console wars.
I remind you like I do that annoying I-phone users with no I-life. Your console/operating system =/= your penis size. Taste is taste.
It may not push more polygons but the ps3 is far more practical for my entertainment needs. Xbox 360 doesn’t have blu ray or DVD up scaling to 1080p.
I have read this post and others around the same topic and it makes me laugh. Why is it when the truth is shed and developers are saying it in abundance that all these Sony Fanboys get pissed off, throw stats and carry on a rant. They are the developers, not you. Get over the fact that Sony pimped you into believing that your system was superior all in an effort to push Blu-Ray. Really and truly, did the PS2 do anything but play games? Did the Xbox do nothing else but play games? Did you say I can’t wait until the next generation so I can play games with better graphics or did you say I can’t wait until the next generation comes along so I can watch a Blu-Ray Movie? Really, When Nintendo had their original system and they went to Super Nindendo the big deal was 16bit graphics. Then after that it just got better until you come to this generation of consoles. Now ask yourself who has the games. All I hear is Sony Fanboy ranting about PS3 Specs and Blu-ray and Home and folding and everything else that has nothing to do with games. Then the games they have are plauged with development problems and poorer graphics and are not upto par. Your buying a gimic and unfortunatly your the bait. Come on it all about the games and nothing else. Everything else is extra. The only thing Microsoft did to improve games was make them better and add LIVE which is the perfect compliment to GAMES. If your looking for a system with games look to Microsoft and Nindendo. If your looking for a Blu-ray player buy a PS3.
first of all the ps3 has this 256 MB XDR @ 3,2 GHz
256 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz, GPU can access CPU memory
256+256= 512
360 as this 512 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz shared between CPU & GPU
10 MB EDRAM GPU frame buffer memory
only thing diffrent is that the 360 as that edram and its only 10mb
but that 512 is shared with both cpu and gpu its not split up like the ps3 is.
plus the playstation is alot faster then xbox 360 is. but you so called developers unlike a few dont know how to code for ps3 but soon that will change.
lol you got to be kidding about the polygons maknig the frame rates low just play cod4 on ps3 and xbox 360 there exactly the same 60fps
wrost case for ps3 polygon count: 400 million polygons per second (1.2 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per triangle)
Maximum (optimistic case) 750 million and more depending on how many triangle strips are used in the game
so if you still have issues with this then contact gurellia games and ask them by far ps3 out does xbox 360 in polygons why you think MS keeps talking about there shaders.
understand the tech befor you spit out garbage.
and also the reason sony took the other cell out because the fear of devs not knowing what to do with the cell for graphics.
Man, listen to the sad ps3 people. You have a machine that has half the power of the XBOX 360 - deal with it.
Sucked in by the SONY pr machine again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice . . .
It is a really big shame to hear the writer of the article calling game creators really lazy. Best said in this quote, “Because the Xbox 360 is so much easier for developers to develop games for and experiment with new types of gameplay.” Remember when the Playstation 1 came out, developers were intimidated by the new technology but in time they were able to develop great games.
And lets not forget that the Playstation 2 had about 8,571 game titles. This sir is where their bag of tricks lies. The 360 may have games now, but what about in a year when the Halo 3 hysteria dies. Halo 3 has the best launch in history, and i doubt theres another game capable of doing this.
Not to mention the 8 million units you say the 360 has over the PS3 includes a year the PS3 was not even in the fight. And if you align the launch dates of both consoles together, their weekly console sales are very close together with the exception that PS3 is doing a little better than the 360 when it was out this long.
And i am surprised you still have loyalty to the xbox. They made you get the huge control for the XBOX, they had a recall for the power cord on the XBOX. On the Xbox 360 if you want to match the ability of the PS3, you have to buy an HDVD player, the wireless adapter, and other things. At least Sony doesnt try to rip me off with 2.5 inch 10$ Halo 3 figurines.
Geeeeeee-whiz.
Who cares if a console has a jet engine strapped to it? The whole point of a gaming system is to PLAY GAMES! Throw all the tech stats out here you want, it’s irrelevant. If I had to choose, I would say I am a fanboy, but Microsoft made 2 better moves this round than Sony did:
-Microsoft learned from last time and launched earlier than Sony.
-Microsoft removed components like the hd movie drive and wireless adapter. This enabled them to offer the system at a significantly lower price, increasing sales.
Both systems have very good exclusive franchises, but Sony has more, and it sucks for people who only own one or the other (like me).
Bottom line, outside of exclusive titles, microsoft will end up with more titles and better titles because the have significantly more units in houses than does Sony. And since neither Sony nor Microsoft has ever done anything for me, I’m gonna go w/ better games every time.
hey guys take this with a gran of salt
Gamespot specifically said in the review of those sports games: “The Xbox 360 versions run smoothly at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution,
the issue isn’t so much the truth, or rather a lack thereof. technically cell can page both pools of DDR/XDR memory. another factual error on behalf of the author. how is this article supposed to vindicate anything it prints? it’s not even credible.
besides peddling your own agenda i congratulate PR for contributing absolutely nothing to the industry.