Call of Duty 4: Larger burden on Sony PS3 than Xbox 360

Dear Mister,
It is the worst fanoyist article I have read in months! All the technical stuff written down on here is fals and wrong. Please go back to school before writting down “so called” technical articles !!. The XBOX360 is able to claculate 1 teraflop erp second whereas the PS3 is able to calculate 1.8 teraflops per second. Punto.

And what is the point of this Article?You’re an absolute joke if you think GameSpot comparisons are to be used as a source of comparison,they’re the same guys who gave Mass Effect an 8,Bioshock a 9,and Ratchet&Clank a 7.HOW are they credible again?

Not only do you sound worried,that is,afraid of the momentum of the Ps3.But your Article comes off as nothing more than a last ditch attempt to bash the Playstation 3 for the FEW multi-platform games that run better on the Xbox 360(Don’t even ATTEMPT to prove me wrong,as I own almost all Multiplat games they have used in their Comparisons).You’re probably not going to allow this comment,since it exposes the obvious desperate nature of the Fanboys posing as Journalists Online.

Horribly designed Site,horribly written Article.Shoot me an Email once your Site is even remotely considered as a credible source by Gamers.

-ShootingPool

The biggest fail of an article I have ever read, where is the source for the following:
“It’s simple math: The Xbox 360 can display approximately 500,000,000 polygons per second, compared to 275,000,000 polygons per second for the Playstation 3.”
Made up garbage.

The Gamespot comparison was also laughable. It’s been shown numerous times and stated even by non-PS3 fanboys, that Gamespot has the PS3 video on ‘Limited’ rather than ‘Full’ for it’s settings. Gamespot refuses to change the settings. Watch Youtube for REAL comparison videos of the same games. So using Gamespot as a source is horrible ‘journalism’ knowing the PS3 isn’t set on ‘Full’.

I have to agree with the others. This is a fanboy rant. With no credible or reliable sources being used beyond personal fanboyism.

Explain MGS4 then bub.

Morne

This article is false and misleading. The PS3 can push way more polygons than the 360. The reason the 360 has won comparisons so far is because most multi platform titles have lead on 360. Porting a 360 title to the PS3 architecture is not very effective and usually ends up with a substandard product, as has been seen too many times.

A Sierra dev of the new Ghostbusters title recently stated the exact opposite of what this article is saying. He said that PS3 users are getting short changed because the title is also releasing on 360. If the title were a PS3 exclusive they would of been able to have TWICE as many polygons on screen at once but had to reduce it due to the 360′s inability to cope with it.

The problems so far with third party PS3 games are down to the devs either not understanding the machine properly or porting a 360 built game to save on development costs. The machine is more than capable as has been shown in first party games.

I suggest you do some research and get your facts straight before posting more lies.

That is not the way consoles work, evidently you are not a game developer and by the sound of your inference you will never be, not even a mediocre one. The reason the 360 video card can process 500 million triangles per second and the PS3 video card can process 275 million triangles per second is because the 360 GPU has access to twice the RAM, so if anything the RSX is actually faster per unit of RAM according to your numbers. However, the Cell processor, unlike 360s processor, also processes graphics. Theoretically speaking, the PS3 can calculate more floating point operations per second but you have to program it adequately. Of course, this is nothing you will ever understand, especially not after knowing you have an agenda.

Anyway, comparing specs is pointless across consoles since all games run differently and all consoles have different specific capabilities, the proof is in the pudding, and I have yet to see a game looking as good as Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted or Killzone on 360. The 360 has Gears of War, which is its best looking game, but it still does not measure up to the games I just mentioned.

This kind of articles is so 2005. Anyway, I just called the national education services, the short bus should be arriving soon for you.

Poor PS3 fanboys! Can’t take the truth, can you? I suppose all the failures of your system are getting to be too much to bear… Call of Duty, Orange Box, Haze… games just can’t run as well on the PS3 as they do on the 360. The PS3 was rushed out only as a Trojan Horse for Blu-ray anyways so enjoy all your Blu-ray movies (with the pauses in between scenes) that nobody else is buying. Sony really messed up this race. Well, hopefully one day MS will buy Sony and then we can get the next ICO/SOTC game (the ONLY game that really interests me on the PS3) on the Xbox and it will just be them vs. Nintendo.

Correction, the PS3′s GPU can only display 275,000,000 polygons while the 360′s GPU can display 500,000,000 polygons, that side of things is always carried out on the GPU in the 360, while on the PS3 it was designed so that the cell can take over these tasks while the rsx takes just some of the bulk and the less intensive tasks.

This is a new, unknown architecture that is misunderstood, people are misunderstanding it by judging the whole PS3 on just one or two pieces of hardware.

Developers are already advancing, and will hopefully get far ahead very soon, the 360 has used about 85% of it’s power already, 2 PS3 exclusives have already far exceeded all 360 exclusives.

I sense a tiny, itty bitty bit of bias in this article.

Yeah, that was so stupid. Get your thumb out your butt and read how things work.

Evidently Matt, you are a 360 fanboy if you think this is “truth”. The ignoramus that wrote this article used the poorest arguments to support his position. If he had cited any other game that runs better on 360 than PS3 instead of COD4 which runs as good on both platforms (unless you look at reviews on metacritic, gamestats and gamerankings and you will see the PS3 is rated a bit higher),I would believe it, but of course, making that kind of inference is really stupid, especially nowadays that there is so much information from developers mouths and from technologically savvy individuals.

Even the guys that made Call of Duty 4 said that there is a long way to go until the PS3 reaches its max potential. They never said that about Xbox 360, and I actually believe them since there is nothing looking better than Gears of War on 360 even after almost two years, not even Halo 3.

COD4 runs as good on both because it was started at the same time on both platforms, not just on 360. How is it a “larger burden” if it is running equally good? Somebody might have dropped the writer of the article when he was born because that is the stupidest attempt at inference I have ever read.

also @ IBM the 360 shares 512 mb between its GPU and CPU the PS3 has 256 for each of its GPU and CPU. Thereby creating more stability as both the GPU and CPU have their own separate pool to draw from totaling 512mb

“Even the guys that made Call of Duty 4 said that there is a long way to go until the PS3 reaches its max potential” except that COD4 looked like crap on the PS3 compared to the 360. Why was that if the PS3 is so much more magical and wonderful, hmm?

lol @my “also “… they wouldnt even allow me to post my first comment

“Even the guys that made Call of Duty 4 said that there is a long way to go until the PS3 reaches its max potential” except that COD4 looked like crap on the PS3 compared to the 360. Why was that if the PS3 is so much more magical and wonderful, hmm?”

That is your opinion, not a fact. I suggest you read reviews, they all say the PS3 version runs just as good, with a few reviewers giving it the edge (that is why it has a slightly better score on review databases) for having a more informed non-fanboy opinons, hmm?

Hey, 2006 called, they want their fanboy console comparisons back.

“also @ IBM the 360 shares 512 mb between its GPU and CPU the PS3 has 256 for each of its GPU and CPU. Thereby creating more stability as both the GPU and CPU have their own separate pool to draw from totaling 512mb”

The Cell processor can actually access the video memory too, therefore you have some of the flexibility that the 360 has too. Also, the XDR RAM that the cell utilizes runs faster on PS3, 3.2 Ghz to go on par with the cell processor which runs at the same clock speed. On the other hand, the 360 RAM runs @700Mhz (give or take), which causes bottlenecks to the Xenos (360s CPU) because the later runs at 3.2 Ghz.

Matt,

None of this even matters. Enjoy your videogames! We should all consider ourselves lucky that we’re not sitting in the dirt, starving with flies walking all over us.

@Matt

apparently you have not played the PS3 version of the game, nor have read the comparison articles that prove 360 version and ps3 versions are almost equal in terms of graphics. Give me one article that showed that 360 version was superior
damn kids nowadays

ok, couple of things u need to do:

1. research
2. buy a ps3
3. play ps3 exclusives like mgs4
4. research
5. visit other sites other than gamespot
6. did i already mention research??

The main mistake of the author is his/her “simple” math.
Author forgot that XBox 360 is capable to display half a billion poligons per secon using ALL ITS 48 universal pixel shaders. That means that if someone deside to putput all those pixels on a screen he would have no GPU power left for other tasks like texturizing, shaders effects (like moire, volumetric smoke, parictles), anizotropic filtering etc. Yes, RSX is capable to display only 350 (not 250) million polygons per second but it hasn’t unified archetecture like Xenos has. It means that RSX is actually capable to output that number of polygons, and still has additional shader pipelines for shader effects, textures etc because RSX has specific pipelines for different tasks of 3D rendering .

Thus, 500 000 of Xenos’s polygons is a synthetic number, that reflects only theoretical maximum power of Xenos, that is not accessible in real life. Substituting from this number the power needed to provide other 3D rendering tasks, we will get a much smaller number…

It is simple math ppl

This article actually made me stupider as I read it. I think that means your disease is communicable.

this is the lamest article I have ever read. The numbers you use, the specs, where in the blue hell did you get this #’s from?. Why dont you compare Gt5: Prologue to Forza or PGR, your precious box cant save you there. Explain Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, hell even Ratchet and Clank. Explain the second generaton titles that are coming out on PS3 with the ones that came out for your box. Compare Killzone and Uncahrted with Gear of War and…ahh….oh yea your 640p”nexGen” Halo experience. Its funny how you xbots praise GearsOfWar as your savior, yet its not even a first party title. Microsoft Studios cant even do what Epic is doing with the box. Lol

How come Grand Theft Auto 4 streams better on PS3Oh and if your going to use numbers to make comparisions, the be aware that the PS3 will actually win:
More preprocessing power 204 GFLOPS single precision float, 15 GFLOPS double precision, the PS3 has 256 MB of Rambus XDR DRAM, clocked at CPU die speed(XDR)which clocks at 650MHZ, True 1080P out put(not upscaled), HDMI 1.3, BluTooth EDR 2.0, 6 3.2 GHz cores, 1 3.2 GHz PPU and 1 3.2 SPU for the OS and security,512 total memory(256mbx2), user-friendly upgradeable HDD, integrated Wi-Fi. Oh and it doesn’t require brick size A/C Adapter, or Strap-on HD DVD drive.

“Its funny how you xbots praise GearsOfWar as your savior”

whats even funnier is that gears of war creaters Midway, they almost made multiplatform title Unreal Tournament 3 – which is exactly same graphics as GOW if not better!

This article is full of fanboyism and false info. BTW it contains a lack of links and texts to proof the article claimings

stuffs mention in the article is OLD as hell and proven BS a long time ago

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/top-developers-slam-ps3-broken-allegations

Wow, PS3 fanboys are kinda sensitive! Anyways, the article doesn’t feel too authentic. All that I have experienced so far points to PS3 being a powerhouse (especially MGS4). However, the truth of the matter is that some third party common games DO look better on the 360 (i’ll take Madden for the 360 anyday). But that’s only cause developers are yet to learn to take full advantage of the cell (i’ll blame SONY for this one… juding from what i have read so far, the SONY dev kits are not exactly joy to work on).
And to the guy comparing GOW and Resistance, have you really played these two games? I really doubt it, mebbe you have played one of them tops. Anyways, Resistance is way behind GOW in terms of overall game play (if I owned only a 360, I wouldn’t really miss Resistance…and surely not Killzone). MGS4 is totally a different story… the 360 surely cannot pull off MGS4 with its MASSIVE content (kudos to Kojima). But then the 360 has HALO, which is right up there as one of the most exciting games ever to grace the console world. Final score, tie!
And please, stop the fanboyism… you are misleading people just to make two super-rich corporates richer!

Hello Daniel,

There are number of presumptions, inaccuracies, and false statements in your article.

1. Call of Duty 4 is rendered at 600p (1024by600) at 60fps on both consoles, not 640p. The framerate is also relatively solid on both the PS3 and Xbox 360, but does fluctuate on both.

It’s no secret the resolution was dropped to achieve 60fps at the graphical fidelity Infinity Ward were aiming for http://www.ripten.com/2007/11/22/infinity-ward-asked-about-cod4-sub-hd-resolution/.

There are few signs that the PS3 is the “weakest link” at Infinity Ward, though it can be presumed that they had more trouble on this platform due to a number of reasons – mainly that it’s harder to “get into” the system due to Cell and Split Memory.

2. “p” does not stand for Polygons, but for pixels – the resolution a console can render at has little to do with how many polygons it can render (what makes up objects and characters in the game world), though of course as consoles increase in power the resolution they produce will grow as will the number of polygons. Both consoles are pushing many polygons, and due to Cell, it has been reported that the PS3 may be able to push just a few more.

3. You are making a hell of a lot of assumptions (when translating “polygons” into “pixels”) based on a 600p (you say 640p) resolution on COD4 – presuming the PS3 is the weaker console….and then presuming that the PS3 can only render 720p at 30fps, as opposed to the Xbox 360 720p at 60fps.

First off, you’re adding naughts, this would be 27,648,000 pps (approx 27.5million) and 55,296,000 pps (approx 55million) respectively – not 275million and 550million respectively.

Secondly, aren’t you ignoring 720p games running at 60fps on the PS3? Like Burnout Paradise? Ninja Gaiden Sigma? Devil May Cry 4? How about higher than 720p games that run at 60fps? Like Virtua Fighter 5 (1024by1024), GT5p (1280by1080), NBA07/08 (1920by1080), Super Stardust HD (1280by1080)…the list goes on.

That means the PS3 can render the maximum 1080p at 60fps…that is 124,416,000 (or approx 125million pixels). Your evidence and premise fail badly to reach any conclusive conclusion.

Due to these major errors – all of your inferences are false.

4. I won’t go into details but your reports on Blu-ray read times is also false, perhaps misled by Mike Zoran. Moreover, the advantage of a HDD needn’t be met with a large install – Uncharted Drakes Fortune performs no install, but caches through the PS3′s HDD to achieve zero loading during the game.

5. The PS2 had eDRAM. And you’ve failed to make a point of what its actual advantage is. Sounds as bad as “The PS3 has Teh Cell, that means it’s the bestest”. Xenon’s eDRAM is meant to allow for “free anti-aliasing” – which so far has not proved itself. Moreover, to get through this 10mb of eDRAM means you have to perform tiling…and to tile through this eDRAM your resolution has to be lower than 720p.

I would be happy to publish my rebuttal of your article, but I will give you time to respond – or more intelligently, to pull your article completely.

Usually I see myself as above fanboy arguments, owning to the fact that they are pointless, and I own both 360 and ps3 (and a good PC rig), and have no interest in owning a wii (good as it may be).

However, I am getting sick of 360 fanboys trying to make the 360 out to be more powerful. Its not. Get over it. Its older. of course its going to be less powerful. For gods sake the PS3 is using the most powerful/versatile processor in the world, developed by computing giants. The ps3 has great games, and so does the 360. Its not dead yet, but it IS less powerful. Stop crying, and enjoy the great games being released for 360.

This article is just flat-out wrong, and smacks of typical fanboy ignorant hearsay bias and nontechnical mumble-jumble. The PS3 is widely regarded as the MORE POWERFUL machine, more powerful than the XB360. There is no proof anywhere that the XB360 can display more polygons per second than the PS3, nor is the metric of “polygons-per-second” claimed by Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo a reliable indicator of graphical performance anyway. Trusting a company’s claim of polygons-per-second is like trusting an HDTV company’s claim of their LCD’s contrast ratio. Polygons-per-second has NEVER historically been a good indicator of graphical power, PERIOD.

The biggest reason that some multiplatform games have performed better on the 360 than the PS3 is that developers have yet to come to grips with the specialized PS3 hardware, particularly its unique and nontraditional Cell processor. The Cell processor is not trivial to develop for, and is a very different beast than what programmers have seen in the past, whereas the 360 is closer to the familiar PC processor, and has a quicker learning curve for them to overcome, allowing them to achieve results quicker on the 360. Another factor that doesn’t help the PS3 is the fact that many multiplatform titles were developed first on the 360, and later ported to the PS3, which isn’t ideal in and of itself to tailor a game to the strengths of the PS3, but also hurts because the porting process was usually done in a less than optimal way that doesn’t do the best job to leverage the Cell processor.

Load times identical??? This guy is smoking crack. PS3 games loads faster thanks to the game data installation. I have both consoles and when I see PS3 and XBOX 360 games, 360 is no comparison in terms of graphics.

Seemingly I got pushed by your unconventional reasoning – moving from resolution to polygons in the blink of an eye to justify your argument.

It would help if you provided sources and continued along a logical line of thought. You are still referring to COD4 low resolution and trying to relate it to polygons.

It is true that the PS3′s RSX has been guessed to process 250million triangles per second, as opposed to Xenon’s 500million per second http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1082499&postcount=6 – but it’s not as simple as that. There are other factors included, and by the examples I gave…ie. GT5p (rendered at 60fps at 1280by1080) is certainly not a low polygon game.

i suggest staying away from technical discussions when you don’t understand the content, nor do you provide trusted sources to back your arguments (for want of a better word).

“Matt // Jul 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm

“Even the guys that made Call of Duty 4 said that there is a long way to go until the PS3 reaches its max potential” except that COD4 looked like crap on the PS3 compared to the 360. Why was that if the PS3 is so much more magical and wonderful, hmm?”

Chris, you really are a tosser aren’t you 360 fanboy?

The PS3 use the cell to process graphice as well which, quite franyl, shits all over the 360. Once developers begin to maximise this the 360 is going to look llike a real lame horse!!!

As for the author, how insecure can you get? What a feckin idiot

let’s see it took only ONE YEAR for the PS3 to match or exceed the graphics of the 360 which two TWO YEARS! (MGS4, Uncharted, GT5p and more…) THIS ARTICAL IS BOGUS!

Fanboys of any console makes me laugh. Nothing funnier then hearing fanboys calling other fanboys. All you guys calling the author a fanboy are fanboys themselves. Unless you are being by MS or Sony to defend there consoles then shut up. People pulling out there butts numbers like 360 is at 85% of its power, but mad at the author for pulling numbers out his butt.

PS3 guys only want to believe positive articles on there system and the same with 360 guys. Yet when a negative article comes out it is dismissed as biased and fanboyish. I have both systems and can careless what somebody writes, if you enjoy the system you bought then enjoy it and be quiet. Unless you are being paid by MS or Sony why the extreme loyalty. People acting like the authors of these articles are talking about your mothers

first things first,i own all 3 consoles!im not a fanboy! im a gamer! and i really have to agree in the major point of this article “YES,THE GREAT MAJORATY OF MULTIPLATFORM GAMES RUNS MUCH BETTER ON THE 360!!if you guys so call gamers can see that is just because of two points,”BLIND FANBOYISM,OR NOT OWN A 360 !!!”. by the way MGS4 is a GREAT GAME !! BUT RUNS AT 30frames per second !! and not totally constant!!

Haha!

I must say: great article!

It’s amazing to see how (for at least a paragraph or two) you manage to convice the reader you know what you’re talking about. But then, the rest of the article happens…

Why do people write about subjects they don’t know anything about? Why?

This article is bullcrap through and through. It takes one little tidbit of information and tries to build a whole article around assumptions and omitting all the contextual information about how the Cell works together with the RSX to produce the PS3′s visuals.

The PS3′s architecture is entirely different than the 360′s and each has its strengths, but you can’t directly compare them like this. What a sad, worthless piece of misleading writing.

And to think this is linked from the Google main page. Hopefully less-in-the-know people scroll down to the comments to get the real story before taking this as truth because this is one of the most biased, fabricated articles I’ve ever read.

These message boards are filled with sony fanboys. Yes his article is incredibly biased. But look at the facts, almost all of the multiplatform titles have a lower framerate on the ps3 than the 360. If the ps3 which came out a year after the 360 is so much more powerfull than wouldn’t that be the opposite. Stop defending your companies as if you would die for them. Every company has its problems. Microsoft=rrod Nintendo= third parties Sony=harder to develop on and framerate issues. Each company has its strong points too. So please don’t let other people get to you. you are entitled to your own opinion. YOU WILL NOT CONVINCE EACH OTHER THAT THE OTHER CONSOLE IS BETTER. SO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

Whatever the truth, it still will never get you the exclusives for both consoles and its game quality that you count, not polygons. I own all 3 systems – way more polygons than your single 360….

lol what utter rubbish,these r the guys that put 2video`s of a car game together i cant remember the name now and they said one was the ps3 version and one was the 360 version and they made the 360 version look better but it was reveealed they made a mistake and both video`s was the ps3 version…..so one of the vidoes`s was dumbed down to make the ps3 look bad,prove there in the bill gates pocket….oh and the ps3 also has 500,000,000 polygons its just that this can be split in half to 250,000,000 so what u talking about know ur hardware u idiot,i`ve heard the opposite that is the 360bringing down the ps3 not to metion oblivion n the devs agree has better graphics then the 360 n pc verions,oh n mgs4 just blew ur crappy 360 away pal,im not even a fan boy just facts im afraid,il agree it might be a little hard to code for buts thats just cause of lazy devs use to working on the 360 first

Just accept it, man. Xbox 360 is a dying horse or should i say…very fragile it can die any day since you bought it!

One question, have you even asked infinity ward about this?Or did you just make numbers out of your head? Considering as stated in previous comments infinity ward said the ps3 has a long way too go?

well if the ps3 can only display 275,ooo polygons per second, how is each car in GT5 200,000 polygons.

Wow I thought MGS4 looked a lot better than COD4 with more polygons on screen, higher resolution textures and a framerate that I’ve never seen drop but I guess COD4 was the best the PS3 can do. I guess that means all the Killzone 2 gameplay was fake.

Also it must of meant that when Naughty dog said that they were only using a third of the PS3′s power they were lying.

Right Pete!! Just let them compare MGS4 of PS3 to any games of XBOX(already out or still coming). I think they cant even start a letter with their comparison..

He’s like comparing a Ferrari and a Mitsubishi Car with Nitros. The Ferrari maybe faster, but look how fast a Mitsubishi Car will be when using Nitros.. It will blow you away..

The PS3 is a console with Nitros..

Wow Matt, you really are using your shit cannon at full power today. First you say…

“Wow I thought MGS4 looked a lot better than COD4 with more polygons on screen, higher resolution textures and a framerate that I’ve never seen drop…”

And then

“…but I guess COD4 was the best the PS3 can do.”

What your saying is that you thought it looks better than COD4 but the best is COD4. Talk about contradicting yourself.

“I guess that means all the Killzone 2 gameplay was fake. Also it must of meant that when Naughty dog said that they were only using a third of the PS3’s power they were lying.”

Yeah, the E3 2007 showing was surely fake, also the latest showing this year at GDC. The final product will be a completely different game. When did Naughty Dog say that they were using “a third of PS3’s power”? As I said before, the proof is in the pudding, and Uncharted was the best looking game on PS3 until MGS4 came out. I look forward to whatever 360 has to try and beat PS3, but I doubt that will happen since Alan Wake appears to be vaporware, and Gears 2 looks only marginally better than the first Gears. The following showdowns should be interesting:

Metal Gear Solid 4 vs Gears of War 2

Uncharted vs Gears of War

Killzone/Resistance 2 vs Halo 3

GT5:P vs PGR4,

GT5 vs Forza 2

Come up with your own conclusions, do not let your fanboyism blind you, douchebag.

OH MY GOD!

Just enjoy whichever system you have and quit with the comparisons. There is so much more that magazines and game sites could write about then these stupid comparison deals. I myself do not have a Xbox360, but I have seen games running on it and think to myself that if you it then you are getting a great experience, but I do have a PS3 and realize too that I am having a great experience. To finish this comparison thing off I would also say that I have a Wii and am having a great time and experience with this system also which can’t compare in graphics with either the Xbox360 or PS3. JUST ENJOY PLAYING VIDEO GAMES!!!!

I fully admit that I am a fanboy …. or fan man if you will… BUT I am a fanboy of ALL that is video games . THIS is what lead me to purchase all three systems . there are some GREAT GAMES to be had on each and every one of these systems . And there are things about each that I can honestly say I like more than the other consoles .BUT… your article reaks of total one sided stupidity. Your abilities as a journalist are OBVIOUSLY flawed at the core. I for one can not understand who in their right mind would have hired you and I would prefer it if you would go back to making those “find the item” spreads in Cricket magazine as I can see that THAT is about your level of journalistic knowledge . It Truly does disgust me that some people are THIS ignorant about the topics that they write about . Just looking to hop in on the hype and force traffic to this mouse hole of a web site. Just because you live with your mommy and daddy and have no real job which limits your fundage and ability to purchase all three consoles you make something up on the fly to justify your choice and make yourself feel a little better about your life in general.

Wow Matt, you really are using your sh1t cannon at full power today. First you say…

“Wow I thought MGS4 looked a lot better than COD4 with more polygons on screen, higher resolution textures and a framerate that I’ve never seen drop…”

And then

“…but I guess COD4 was the best the PS3 can do.”

What your saying is that you thought it looks better than COD4 but the best is COD4. Talk about contradicting yourself.

“I guess that means all the Killzone 2 gameplay was fake. Also it must of meant that when Naughty dog said that they were only using a third of the PS3’s power they were lying.”

Yeah, the E3 2007 showing was surely fake, also the latest showing this year at GDC. The final product will be a completely different game. When did Naughty Dog say that they were using “a third of PS3’s power”? As I said before, the proof is in the pudding, and Uncharted was the best looking game on PS3 until MGS4 came out. I look forward to whatever 360 has to try and beat PS3, but I doubt that will happen since Alan Wake appears to be vaporware, and Gears 2 looks only marginally better than the first Gears. The following showdowns should be interesting:

Metal Gear Solid 4 vs Gears of War 2

Uncharted vs Gears of War

Killzone/Resistance 2 vs Halo 3

GT5:P vs PGR4,

GT5 vs Forza 2

Come up with your own conclusions, do not let your fanboyism blind you, douchebag.

MGS4 didnt have as much going on “on screen at once”. The game needed to load each time you moved into a new area. Yes that game was very cool but it was able to do what it did because it had so many loading screens, an hdd install and it also had to load later parts of the game. I like my ps3 but i always move back to my xbox because it actually delivers. Forget when people say one is better than the other because that is not the case, the case is that Ps3 was supposed to be this huge powerhouse that would stomp on xbox and really its only been about equal. Thats where all the fire came from. Im sure xbox lovers were scared that the ps3 would put the xbox to shame and when it didnt all hell broke loose because the fans started wars that are pretty lame. I just want my ps3 to finally be what it was supposed to be and not have problems like the 2.40 bricking situation and the no headset in box and the over priced rumble controller and the large hdd installs. Go ahead and get all pissy about how those arent really problems and they are like that for a reason yadda yadda etc. Im just saying that if the ps3 is so great (yes i have one and i do like it) why hasnt it pounded the xbox? Will it ever? I hope so but it looks like the next xbox will be out by the time the Ps3 shows what its really got under that hood.

SOOOUUURRCESSSS….
SOOOUUURRCESSSS….
where are you?

360 can push more polygons than the PS3 huh?

[quote]
Gran Turismo 5: Prologue, PS3, 2007
Cars – 200,000 polygons

Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, PS3, 2007
Main characters – ~20,000-30,000 polygons
Drake – ~30,000 polygons
Pirates – ~12,000-15,000 polygons

Mass Effect, X360, 2007
Sheppard + armor + weapons – ~20,000-25,000 polygons

Gears of War, Xbox 360, 2006
Wretch – 10,000 polygons with diffuse, specular and normal maps
Boomer – 11,000 polygons with diffuse, specular and normal maps
Marcus – 15,000 polygons with diffuse, specular and normal maps[/quote]

[url]http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43975[/url]

[quote]So really to answer the question, its all about the polygons. Nathan Drake and the other main characters are in the upwards of 25k to 30k polygons. Probably one of the highest for a next gen game. It really wouldn’t have been possible without our amazing programmers and engine as well as the sheer power of the PS3. I know that term goes around a lot but really, the machine is a beast![/quote]

[url]http://www.ripten.com/2008/01/17/richard-diamant-uncharted-interview-part-1-background-and-character-creation/[/url]

Yeah… I don’t think this article is well informed.

Also @ Matt

Go to bed fanboy the people here already have proven you’re an idiot, no need to help them.

The 12-yr-old fanoboy who wrote this article is a desperate and pathetic idiot

Matt…listen to Patrick, he knows what hes talking about, unlike u, ignorant, and u dont even have good sources, stop making shit up plz.

We all know he wrote the article so he could kick back and watch everyone explode.

Sources would have been nice too, from anyone making an argument. Many thanks to the ones who did.

Anybody think this idiot is just trolling for hits to this pathetic site, and causing a stir to get a ridiculous headline on goodle search? Don’t feed into it by wasting your time writing defense posts, just stop visiting this site, that’s the best way to hit this amateaur where it hurts

Daniel, nice job. Your check is in the mail!

this is not true America and don’t forget we made bush president

In reply to Matt
shut up and stop embarrassing yourself even more than you already have. I’m shocked that no one picked up on this “Call of Duty, Orange Box, Haze… games just can’t run as well on the PS3 as they do on the 360.”
Haze is exclusive to Ps3 so how would you know that it runs better on 360

Just to let everyone no before they flame me, i have all three consoles and has to be said, i prefer the ps3 overall

GT5:Prologue… Nuff’ said!

whos the moderator? they are terrible. What a wimpy moderator

Wah- wah you sony boys got your panties in a wad. Xbox blew the ps2 out of the water graphically from day one and yet the ps2 still came out on top – its games dumbasses, not graphics that make a system. Just like the psp was supposed to blow the DS out out of the water because of superior graphics – lmao. Fact is the ps3 hasn’t blown the 360 out graphically yet and is nearly 2 years old and is still 6 million units behind the 360. And at the rate the ps3 is “catching up” in sales it’ll be 7-10 years from now. I owned all four systems last gen and have 2 of the systems this gen, I’ll get a ps3 when it has something I want that isnt on the 360 or Wii. Until the I keep lmao at you fanboys saying how superior the ps3 is, and how much potential it has. Fuck potential – give me games, something sony did the last 2 generations.

this is actually proof that ps3 fanbabies are the worst. the truth about a “powerful system” comes out and look at the rabid fans try to make up for it. honestly people. do us ALL one favour. shut the FUCK up already. deal with it.

Funny isn’t it. In the last two years of visiting forums for PS3, 360 and PC debates. PS3 owners don’t even bother visiting the 360 sites, yet some weird reason the xbots always come onto PS3 forums and slag that machine off. Is M$ paying bored IT students studying ASP.net to bug the hell out of PS3 forums? Propaganda shit like they did with M$ office vs Lotus, IE vs Netscape, Java vs M$ java, etc. Windows vs MacOS. Anyway I digress… Metal Gear is graphically better than Gears of War, Gran Turismo is better than Forza. COD4, Burnout Paradise, GTA4 all run slightly better (but look much better) on PS3. Run them side-by-side for real and not on biased videos (with colour, brightness, contrast biases)

This website has accomplished what they set out to do. Gain traffic by appealing to fanboy argument.

I dont care who says what about what system the 360 and ps3 are kick ass in there own right. I do my home work on the games and whos making the games. I’m no fanboy by any means I’m a gamer baby!! thats all that matters to me pimps and playas yall can talk smack to each other all day I dont give a lol well yall know what I’m sayin. If theres a multi platform game that comes out that I want to play and I do have all three systems so what ever system that game will play best on then I’ll get the game or that system end of story. You guys go on and on about the same old thing. A true gamer will have at least two systems so stop bitchin about whos got more of this or that cus I dont give a ssssh- it.

who invented the term “fanboy?”…. what a valuable mother fu$@er.

1. MS genuinely cares about the customers by making next-gen affordable.
2. Xbox Live is the best online service ever conceived. 360 also has the best, most diverse online gaming community.
3. 360 has the best library and the most developer support from only the cream of the crop.
4. 360 doesn’t rely on cheap gimmicks and doesn’t need to pander shamelessly to the casuals.
5. 360 has the best accessories from harddrives to wireless controllers to innovotive concept of customizing the look of the 360 with unique faceplates and everything else in between.
6. MS stole Nintendium from Nintendo. 360 is built sturdy as a rock as long as you take real good care of it (open ventilation, never vertical, don’t disturb the system while it’s running, take short breaks every few hours, simple thing like that).
7. Plays DVD movies without need of an extra accessory.
8. Best warranty in the business (Three years parts & labor).
9. Microsoft doesn’t force useless stuff on you like Bluray or hard drives. You can tailer your 360 to suit your own needs.
10. Microsoft is the market leader in next-generation consoles (Wii doesn’t count sorry Nintendo fans).

Age of Conan
Alan Wake
Banjo Kazooie 3
Bioshock 2
Command and Conquer 3: Kane’s Wrath
Crash Time
Culdecept Saga
Dark Messiah of Might & magic: Elements
Dead Island
Elveon
Fable 2
Guilty Gear 2: Overture
Gears of War 2
Halo Wars
Huxley
Infinite Undiscovery
Kingdom Under Fire: COD
Left 4 Dead (4 player co-op zombie killing!)
Lost Odyssey
Ninja Gaiden II
Operation Darkness
Postal 3
Project Offset
Sabotage
Sacred 2
Supreme Commander
Tales of Vesperia
Splinter Cell Conviction
Too Human
Universe at War: Earth Assault
Warhound
World in Conflict

GTAIV: Superior Xbox 360 Version
-Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
-Superior Madden & FIFA
-Saints Row 2

I’m not gonna get into too much depth, because quite frankly, I don’t know which is better these days.

However, I will point out something that shows the bias of this author. The author states:

“Gamespot has conducted a Graphics Comparison … each year … Xbox 360 has been declared the winner of the Graphics Comparison each of the three years: 2006, 2007, 2008.”

Now this quote from Gamespot’s May 2008 conclusion:

“Overall, the PlayStation 3 outputs visuals that are either on par with the Xbox 360 or only slightly behind.”

That quote really doesn’t support what the author is stating. If they’re willing to bend the truth about that, then they probably are about other things as well.

Article seems to be written by a Xbox fanboy while all the comments seem to be written by ps3 fanboys. bloody hell you idiots have your head so far up your a***es all your doing is talking s***. Graphics aren’t the what makes a game great, its the experience. I have a 360 myself and play a fair ammount of Ps3 at my mates place but to me PS3 is a console made for asians and asian wanna-bes. call me racist but what they make and develope is rubbish.
Sorry folks, played MGS4 and thought it was pretty average, graphics were okay i guess, but ive seen better and played better games. And don’t you dare say Rachet and Clank is a game or Final Fantasy, the greatest game PS3 has is Grand Turismo that game is a graphical master piece, better than PG4 and Forza on the 360 by a mile.

Hey IBM i just want to point out mass effect is one of the most beautiful games I have ever seen, much, much better lookin than GOW…I think you need to have your eyes checked. But personally I think both PS3 and 360 are great, the Wii on the other hand, i hate, if they had decent graphics, and games i would want one, but it doesn’t.

“well if the ps3 can only display 275,ooo polygons per second, how is each car in GT5 200,000 polygons.”

—-Terry, it’s called LOD. Look it up.

So much fail here. No wonder there’s like a thousand comments. What a pos article.

the ps3 gpu is less powerful than that in the x360. not for the reasons listed in the article though. they factor but aren’t the entire cause.

there is numerous reasons, fillrate, both gpu’s run at the same core speed, 500MHz, the x360 has, in a usual situation, 32 pixel pipelines running and the ps3 has 24, that leaves 8 vertex pipelines running on a ps3 and 16 running on an x360. this is why the ps3 lags in triangles per second and pixels per second.

secondly the memory issue, they both use 512MB of total memory, the x360 has one pool of 512MB the ps3 has two pools of 256MB, the issue here is that most games need video memory. you don’t build a software program that has 256MB of memory running simultaneously and expect it to run well. an operating system like windows xp needs that much memory, a video game does not. the gpu can fetch inofrmation from the cpu’s pool on the ps3 but looking for data where it’s not meant to be takes longer. conversely the memory is all in one place on an x360 so if your core game engine only uses 100MB the remaining 400MB can be dedicated to models and textures.

next shader model 3.0+ vs shader model 3.0, the x360 has access to beyond shader model 3 features, referred to as such because at that stage sm4.0 wasn’t actually defined so the x360 could not possibly be shadermodel 4. the x360 supports geometry instancing and various other features that the off the shelf gpu in the ps3 does not. these features are probably being added via cell’s spu’s to bridge the gap. so the end result isn’t as obviously behind

the gpu in the ps3 IS behind the x360 in graphic performance, any apparant gains you see over the x360 in exclusives is probably more related to the cells spe’s than the video card. but in doing so they need to sacrifice any features the spe’s could have brought to the game.

can anyone tell me what first party game on 360 looks as good as any PS3 first party game. Thats were the real numbers come from you know 60 frames per second 1080p you know stuff like that which the 360 has yet to do but the PS3 has quite alot of and for 1 if you dont have the elite or a newer 360 you shouldn’t even mention 1080p cause you’ll never experience it at least in it true unscaled form and stop bragging about what the 360 can do in sub HD thats so much better than what the PS3 is because hello no one should bragging that both consoles are doing under what they should be lol when the 360 can put out anything unscaled you know the way a HD console should do you let me know and this would explain why the 360 has a better hardware scaler and the PS3 has a inferior software scaler to me the only reason to have scalers in a game because the console needs help so by microsoft adding a better scaler in the 360 just means they know they were building a inferior console aside from the ever so popular RROD

I have to admit that this kind of article is really entertaining and so are the comments! Really! If this article would have contained informations and facts, it would not have been that amusing and probably I would not have entirely read it. Also I read ALL of the comments and had so much fun. Wy can’t live be as trivial and amusing as console wars?

Did we just skip the end of the Gamespot article or what?

“After going through another eight games, we’ve found a few trends that follow both of these consoles around. Outside of Rainbow Six Vegas 2, our findings didn’t show any drastic differences in image quality between the two consoles–nothing compared to what we found when we compared first-generation games in our original comparison feature. The PlayStation 3 generally lags behind the Xbox 360 in high-quality textures and the depth/normal maps that go with them. However, in the same games, the PlayStation 3 sometimes comes ahead with better shadowing and antialiasing. Games on the PS3 do tend to be blurrier than their Xbox 360 counterparts, but the PlayStation 3 games can look just as good as the Xbox 360 games when developers put some effort into it, as is evident with both Grand Theft Auto IV and Burnout Paradise. Overall, the PlayStation 3 outputs visuals that are either on par with the Xbox 360 or only slightly behind”.

Hardly a blow-out.

Entertaining article Daniel, even more interesting comments.

Wow! Look at the lengths a fanboy can go to prove his console is better than the other. Grow up and appreciate the games not the hardware, dumbass!

1st thing, i find the
article funny.
but even more funny is the dimwits who come to argue, that the PS3 is better.
each and everyone has played into the PS3 Fanboy stereotype

if any of the replay were anyway subjective, they would be valid.
except that nearly everyone, is saying how good the PS3 is.
so what!!
i have both and a wii

am not concerned by, whats better, that’s beneath me.
and it should be for the rest of you.

both the HD consoles are excellent.
just enjoy them.
they both have great features.

i just don’t get.. the PS3 is better thing by fanboys.

the fact is, even though the wii is 480P max
that is still out selling both, even though i don’t play mine, it`s for the kids.

its nice to have, buy not essential.

i would never take sides, its Not a war!!

you guys should not take the bait, it just make the fanboys look desperate.

what is funniest, fanboys will hate this:
sony has implemented a lot of M$`s ideas.

i think its a great idea.
and does not concern me at all.
anything to improve each console is good news,
IE update 2.40
that’s excellent news to be able to chat to my buddies on PS3 like on 360.

just enjoy, there are loads of games on each system that take my eye.
i used to pay those on 360 due to achievements, but i have trophies now, so that just expands my gaming.
wii should follow next.

come on guys, really! apart from fanboys of one system, who cares????

Just face the truth sony fanboys, every mutliplatform game is better on xbox360, even the games that first have developed for playstation 3 such as Virtua Fighter and Unreal Tournament are looking better on xbox360. Playstation3 just sucks.

@Anonymous
1. “MS genuinely cares about the customers by making next-gen affordable.” You must not have bought yours at launch. They were not inexpensive.
2. “Xbox Live is the best online service ever conceived. 360 also has the best, most diverse online gaming community.” I’ll save my money and play on PSN any day.
3. “360 has the best library and the most developer support from only the cream of the crop.” That’s funny because I thought PS3 had the same third party developers.
4. “360 doesn’t rely on cheap gimmicks and doesn’t need to pander shamelessly to the casuals.” Umm…yeah, they do.
5. “360 has the best accessories from harddrives to wireless controllers to innovotive concept of customizing the look of the 360 with unique faceplates and everything else in between.” The proprietary HDD’s are laughable.
6. “MS stole Nintendium from Nintendo. 360 is built sturdy as a rock as long as you take real good care of it (open ventilation, never vertical, don’t disturb the system while it’s running, take short breaks every few hours, simple thing like that).” You are a joke. RROD does not care if your POS360 is flat, on it’s side or stored in a clean room. No amount of TLC can save your investment.
7. “Plays DVD movies without need of an extra accessory.” Are you serious?
8. “Best warranty in the business (Three years parts & labor).” Ummm….the only reason for this warranty is because 33% of the POS360′s bought by consumers have had to be returned. They did this to avoid a class action lawsuit, not because your special.
9. “Microsoft doesn’t force useless stuff on you like Bluray or hard drives. You can tailer your 360 to suit your own needs.” Or in other word’s “Buy our core system, it has nothing but a controller. You can’t save your game progress or play online because you didn’t get a HDD, but hey, you can still watch DVD’s!
10. “Microsoft is the market leader in next-generation consoles (Wii doesn’t count sorry Nintendo fans).” In the US. And yes, the Wii count’s.

this is at Anonymous post 73 who made me cringe

“1. MS genuinely cares about the customers by making next-gen affordable.”
Well if you call cutting the price of a console that started near the price of the ps3 so more people would buy it then yes, but adding costs like paying to play online, paying for add ons to the the console any good no. Ms are the worst money grabbers in the world, they try and cover it up by making it look like you have got the console for £180 when your really paying £300 plus to make it wireless controllers and online compatible (xbox live fee) and all the other stupid add on that ps3 comes built in with with no other extra costs once bought.

“2. Xbox Live is the best online service ever conceived. 360 also has the best, most diverse online gaming community.”
ps3 is catching up, for free

“3. 360 has the best library and the most developer support from only the cream of the crop.”
only because it was rushed out so people would start buying it, thats why most games are on 360 because devs are used to now making games for 360. But that’s slowly changing now that they understand what can be made on a 50gb blue ray disc compared to last gen 9gb dvds

“4. 360 doesn’t rely on cheap gimmicks and doesn’t need to pander shamelessly to the casuals.”
don’t really get you here, I personally haven’t read any digs from sony at xbox. But I have read pathetic digs from ms at sony i.e the whole gta loading time, how xboxers can do a few things in the time it takes ps3 to install the patch.
Shame on them for being pathetic

“5. 360 has the best accessories from harddrives to wireless controllers to innovotive concept of customizing the look of the 360 with unique faceplates and everything else in between.”
yeh of course they do, thats how they make more money, but ripping you off at the beginning and not having these as part of the console, so yeh buy accessories at a stupid price while the ps3 comes with them already.

“6. MS stole Nintendium from Nintendo. 360 is built sturdy as a rock as long as you take real good care of it (open ventilation, never vertical, don’t disturb the system while it’s running, take short breaks every few hours, simple thing like that).”
yeh but they forgot one small thing, a little rubber ring that goes on the dvd reader that stops the reader from scratching you games. While ps3 has that in there, blue ray discs are known for being very durable and even with a load of scratches can still be read. Plus you get red ring of death.

“7. Plays DVD movies without need of an extra accessory.”
so does the ps3 and ps2, you say that like its amazing, its last gen. Ps3 can watch dvd’s plus blue ray

“8. Best warranty in the business (Three years parts & labor).”
yeh only because it has such a high break down percentage, and most of my friends that have an xbox have told me that MS make excuses to why they can’t replace they’re faulty xbox but are still stupid to go and buy another, most of them have gone through 3 xbox’s most of them being paid for by them.

“9. Microsoft doesn’t force useless stuff on you like Bluray or hard drives. You can tailer your 360 to suit your own needs.”
yeh because it doesn’t have the rights off sony to use blue ray. Also they can charge you for good accessiors for a much higher price if they’re not included in the console

“10. Microsoft is the market leader in next-generation consoles (Wii doesn’t count sorry Nintendo fans).”
For now yes because they released the console a year early, and they bribe software makers to make exclusive titles or release games earlier on xbox or exclusive dlc.
sales figures are rapidly declining for xbox and are boosting for ps3 so not for long will ms have they’re dirty hands on the neck of the gaming market

although you probably won’t come back and read this response i felt i had to say it all and hope it gets published in the comments lol

you are such of FVKIN STUPID you dont even know what your talking about!!!
dont waste your time reading this article!

What is the point of this article? To show how ignorant you are. I was watching an interview on Gamespot and a developer said the PS3 pushes way more polygons, you just have to know how to take advantage of the Cell Processor. I’ve played CoD4 on both systems and they both look and run fine. I’ve noticed that games built from the ground up on the PS3 look better than 360 exclusives. GTA IV had a seven minute load time. DMC 4 was too long but that was Capcoms fault and if the 360 didn’t have hard drive restrictions then the developers would make 360 owners install games on their hard drive too, which I have no problem with because it does make the game faster. This article is pathetic, misinformed and ignorantly biased. Do us all a favor, when your 360 red rings get a PS3 and see what the real next generation of gaming is like.

“Thanks to Mike Zoran”

This guy also goes under the name mikemgoblue on 1up (as well as other places) who was exposed and shown to be a Microsoft employee that was basically trying to deface the ps3 all over the internet

Some other links to Mr. Zoran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_mgoblue
http://www.1up.com/do/my1Up?publicUserId=5758035
http://mike_mgoblue.1up.com

Well done Product-reviews.net

Such a jerk..

for the final word on this matter from the master himself

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8361/ps3rocksxu0.jpg

Xbox Fanboys…

<<>>

To Xbox Fanboys…

“Why So Serious?…”

Why even bother to comment this Xbox fanboy idiotic review?
Ah well, I’ll do it anyway.

It’s not like we’re back in mid 2007 where all the third party ports are much worse on PS3 than on 360 (for lack of efforts/ understanding of the system – Hello, Lost Planet). We’re in 2008 people, and Ports are mostly on par, when the devs take the effort to do it correctly, as it has been proven with GTA4 and other ports (which include COD4 and DMC4, at least as good on PS3 than on 360).

Since mid 2007, we’ve also had GT5, Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword. Some of the most beautiful games seen on -any- platform.

And since then, We’ve also had MGS4. This game alone puts to shame all the devs who underperformed on PS3, and prove definitively which platform is truly next gen.

This end of year lineup will finish to establish the PS3 as the lead console for HD (The Wii, with its casual target, will probably continue to dominate in numbers)
WipEoutHD, SOCOM, Siren, Tekken 5, Bioshock PS3, Crysis PS3, Valkyria Chronicles, RESISTANCE 2:FOM, Little Big Planet, InFamous, Motorstorm2, Heavy Rain, The Agency and perhaps even FF XIII. Not counting the Evolution of the PS3 system with Home, Life and the Video Store.

Enjoy your current lead in the US, 360 fans, it’s arriving to an end

As per the article, worthless fanboy drivel imo.

this is not true at all, go here and you will find out. http://www.jlsnet.co.uk/index.php?page=ps_specs . the max ps3 polygons can go up to is 500-700 million polygons.

zx

Hey Greg if you check the release schedule half of those games will come out in 2009 or beyond (The Agency, Infamous, FF XIII, Heavy Rain and I hope you meant Tekken 6). Also, Crysis PS3 ended up being a rumor. Sorry to burst your bubble, but next year will be the year of the PS3 especially with God of War 3, which kick the ass of the other game abbreviated as GOW. (if you don’t believe me go to IGN in the PS3 section and check the left side under Sections and somewhere there should be the latest release dates that the publishers have given to the journalists)

PS3fanboy says: “The XBOX360 is able to claculate 1 teraflop erp second whereas the PS3 is able to calculate 1.8 teraflops per second. Punto.”

Wow, I thought even the most rabid Sony fanboys had accepted the fact that Sony’s “2 Teraflop” number is total BS. Here’s the ‘facts’, as supplied by Sony:

1) RSX has 1.8 TFLOP’s of computing power, while Xbox 360′s GPU has about half that number.

2) RSX needs help from the Cell processor (namely to prep polygons) in order to try and keep up with Xbox 360′s GPU.

Pretty weird, huh? Sony touts RSX as being twice as powerful as 360′s GPU, but it can’t keep up with 360′s GPU. Pure fantasy.

Then there are the Ps3′s MAJOR memory constraints. Split memory, a bulky OS that takes twice the RAM as 360′s and memory bandwidth issues that don’t exist on 360 mainly because of that very clever eDRAM, which has 192 floating point processors onboard. While PS3′s RSX is trudging back and forth to main memory at a pitiful 32 GbPS, the eDRAM is flying along at 256 GbPS.

PS3 = low textures, low polygon counts, low framerate.

PS3 DOES NOT = 1080P gaming at 60 FPS, 1080P gaming at 120 FPS (thank you ken), or even 720P gaming at 60 FPS.

Sony paid Fox $150 million and Warner $500 million to win the Blu-Ray battle, but no matter what they pay Square-Enix, Konami and all the other devs, they have already lost the console war.

Sony’s PS3 losses (cash AND PS2/PSP profits): $5.4 billion and counting. PS3 can’t keep up with a system that is a year older. Deal with it Fanboy.

Games apart, I’m very proud the the PS3 CELL processor is used on the fastest super computer on the planet: RoadRunner! And I quote:

«It is the Cell processors that are doing most of the heavy lifting though. The 6000+ Opterons in the compute blades contribute only 44 teraflops, while the 12,000+ Cell chips contribute 1,332 teraflops.»

http://www.hpcwire.com/topic/processors/IBM_Roadrunner_Takes_the_Gold_in_the_Petaflop_Race.html

And where is Xbox 360?

You just have to love PS3.

“1) RSX has 1.8 TFLOP’s of computing power, while Xbox 360’s GPU has about half that number.

2) RSX needs help from the Cell processor (namely to prep polygons) in order to try and keep up with Xbox 360’s GPU.

Pretty weird, huh? Sony touts RSX as being twice as powerful as 360’s GPU, but it can’t keep up with 360’s GPU. Pure fantasy.”

As said above, RSX need optimization because it is not as flexible as 360s GPU. RSX is theoretically more powerful but it needs to take special advantage of the card, something which happens rarely. On the other hand, 360s GPU almost always runs at full power since it is optimized for the programmers. Learn to read, funny how you throw the term fanboy without looking in the mirror.

“PS3 = low textures, low polygon counts, low framerate.”

Is that why uncharted has more polygon counts per character than Gears of War?

“PS3 DOES NOT = 1080P gaming at 60 FPS, 1080P gaming at 120 FPS (thank you ken), or even 720P gaming at 60 FPS.”

Is that why War Devil runs at 1080p and 60 frampes per second? Is that why Ridge Racer runs at 1080p60fps while on 360 it runs at 720p and 30fps? Is that why Ninja Gaiden Sigma runs at 720p and 60fps while on 360 Ninja Gaiden 2, a game that does not look better, runs at 585p? Why is it that first party games ony Sony run in HD while they do not on Xbox 360? Silly fanboys.

“Sony paid Fox $150 million and Warner $500 million to win the Blu-Ray battle, but no matter what they pay Square-Enix, Konami and all the other devs, they have already lost the console war.”

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. When PS3 launched, 360 was 10 million ahead of PS3, now it is only 5 million ahead even though the 360 already has Halo 3 and is cheaper while PS3 has been battered by the press and is barely warming up. What do you think will happen once PS3 gets the games that are coming this year and next? I will let you do the math. Oh wait, fanboys dont do math, they only speculate and use fallacious arguments. Poor fanboys.

I own a DS, a PSP, a PS3 and a 360 and soon I will own a Wii. I feel sorry for you Xbox rabids that have to bash the competition to feel better about your purchase, especially since you are missing out on a lot of things since this particular generation there is no winner on most fronts like last gen was.

Hey guy’s what you fighting over polygons for both consoles i have, and both console i buy games for. To be perfectly honest i like both and although not trained professional at counting polygons, in fact ive never tried because 1. prefer to get on and play games and 2. they almost look identical. As long as they work who really cares so instead of pratting around on forum arguing of figures about these things just use and have fun. ps at least we still not all playing on orignal gameboys?

ronhoward post 99

“Sony’s PS3 losses (cash AND PS2/PSP profits): $5.4 billion and counting. PS3 can’t keep up with a system that is a year older. Deal with it Fanboy.”

so are microsoft, heres prouf to backup my argument compared to your nonesense
http://www.newrowley.com/2007/01/microsoft_continues_to_lose_mo.html
search it on google if you don’t believe me, i would say ms are more in the shit because they won’t make that money back from the xbox unlike the ps3

Guess what?!! I’m enjoying my MGS4 as much as my GOW2.

I’m happy!!, so why all of you can’t be???

The guy who posted this article got what he wants “YOUR TIME” (even thought what he said is 100% false).

by the way things going, i expect to see PS3 games running along has smooth has the 360 ones,probably wend M$ realease the 720 machine !!! devs by them will have full acknowledge of the cell potential! but in the other hand most likely M$ will lunch a killer machine,super user friendly for devs like the 360, and the story will be exactly like this generation “SONY RUNNING RUNNING AFTER THE LOSTS OF THIS GENERATION!” “WAKE UP SONY THE FUTURE IS TODAY! AND I DONT CARE ABOUT THE CRAPY FEATURES YOUR TEAM REALEASE ON EVERY NEW FW UPDATE ,, I CARE ABOUT GAMES,PLAIN AND SIMPLE !!

Wow, ‘Z’ and DrogonPT sure seem hurt by the facts.

Here’s a few more for you. The Cell chips in roadrunner aren’t the same as the chips in Ps3. They have an extra SPE and a better memory controller. But here’s the real painful fact for the Sony fanboys.

Sony says that their weaker PS3 Cell chip delivers 212 GFLOPS. Lets see, that would be 12,000 Cell chips multiplied by 212 GFLOPs = 2,544 TeraFLOPS. Why are there half as many Teraflops in Roadrunner when it has more powerful processors?

Lets face it, you’ve been lied to. RSX is weak, and Cell delivers half the computing power that Sony bragged it would……or is IBM a Xbot too? lol

Actually ‘Ron’, the Cell in the PS3 does have all 7 SPE’s, one is disabled to assist the OS. It’s there, just not usable. We’re not hurt by facts, cause you’re not using any

Morne

Poor ron, he has been owned so hard, he did not even bother to refute any claims, he simply makes random bullsh1t statements; the cell that is used by the PS3 is just 75% as powerful as other cells, so? It is still way better than 360s processor, and it also functions as a GPU. The PS3 is used by the scientific community to simulate every kind of scientific experiment because it can do just about any calculation you want, something I can not say about your favorite console.

The 360 is built to save the programmers job, even though consoles are not PCs, but it seems that this fact is something your thick skull will never be able to absorb apparently as you show no signs of having functional gray matter. Poor fanboy, I bet he cant afford to own all consoles this gen so he has to bash one.

Sony did not lie about the performance, what people fail to realize is that to take advantage of the actual performance of the cell processor and the RSX, you have to program adequately, the way first party programmers are doing it. Unfortunately for Sony, you may need a Ph. D. to be able to squeeze out as much power out of the Cell as papers say, and a very skilled graphics programmer.

As I said before, the RSX is not weak, it is streamlined to get more horsepower in exchange for difficulty of programming, its 24 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders render 136 operations per cycle, while 360s unified shaders render each 98 operations per cycle, which is slower, but not bad considering they are unified. RSX runs at 550 Mhz while the Xenos runs at 500 Mhz. The RSX shader pipeline has a total of 32 shader processors while the Xenos has a total of 48. Do the math, and the RSX gives you a theoretical 2.4 trillion shader operations per second while the Xenos gives you a total of 1.9 trillion shader operations per second.

That is impressive for both, however the problem with the RSX is that to actually achieve that you need to control the programming environment, and programmers that are not really good or are lazy or simply not have the time to optimize the code are gonna have a better time with the Xenos which can take sh1tty graphics code since every shader processor can admit either pixel or vertex shading programs. That is why most exclusive games on PS3 eclipse the exclusives on 360, while early multiplatform games are crap since developers are used to PC-like environments where you do not have to optimize the code for a particular platform.

The numbers I am actually giving for the RSX understate the power of the RSX since these are only estimated specs, nVidia actually said the RSX is an optimized product when compared to the 7800GTX, and in fact some developers at EA compared it with the 7900 GTX which is even better. If you do not believe me, do your research on Beyond3D and Ars Technica, or better yet learn anything about computers.

And when you say somebody is hurt by facts, save it, you are just embarrasing yourself by projecting your psyche to us, nobody cares about your sad life so do not seek to put a label of what you are on the rest of us, ok? It is time to sleep, remember you can not miss school, kiddo.

“Actually ‘Ron’, the Cell in the PS3 does have all 7 SPE’s”

Actually Mornelithe, 7 isn’t ‘all the SPE’s', you dummy. PS3′s Cell chip has up to 8 SPE’s, but because of yield issues, Sony set the standard at 7 SPE’s.

“what people fail to realize is that to take advantage of the actual performance of the cell processor and the RSX, you have to program adequately, the way first party programmers are doing it. ”

Listen to this tard. RSX is a PC GPU, you fool. No secrets, no magic, no hidden powers to unlock and no PHd required. The fact is, Sony admits that RSX is outperformed by 360′s GPU, WHATEVER THE REASON. Sony admits that Cell HELPS RSX try and keep up. 1st and 2nd party software for PS3 are optimized at great expense, something most developers wont/can’t do just to make Sony’s foolish design look good.

Please don’t say ‘kiddo’ anymore. It make me think of you as someones grandpa. Before you preach about the use of the term fanboy in this thread, try doing some reading first.

Again, this is nonsense. The ps3 processes 450,000,000 polygons, not half the 360! As well as this, the FPS of a game is not entirely based upon a graphics chip, but rather the processor and the graphics ship combined, along with the speed of the hard disk, speed of RAM in all areas, amount of cache available etc.etc.

Most games are not optimized for the Ps3, but rather created for 360 then poorly ported over. This is a very incorrect article.

LOL a complete bollox article by a clear rampant 360 fanboy, M$ says your cheque’s in the post m8! I can’t believe this article even got printed, it’s pseudo-technical nonsense. And using the Gamespot (with known affiliations to MS) as a source to back up his rant is just hilarious!

The only thing this article gets right is the bit about developers catering for the lowest common denominator – that is why the 360 (being the lowest common denominator) is the lead platform on multiplat games – when the PS3 is not held back by the poorly made Windows PC clone that is the 360 you get games like MGS4, GT5, Unchartered, Ratchet & Clank, and coming up Motorstorm 2, Resistance 2, Kill Zone 2, FFXIII etc.

This article belongs back in 2005 with the other false tech-studies released by Microsoft (yes, they really were that desparate).

The saddest thing is, I actually think this guy believes this stuff!!!

One of the worst articles I’ve read in a long time, this site has just lost all credibility for posting it…

“Actually Mornelithe, 7 isn’t ‘all the SPE’s’, you dummy. PS3’s Cell chip has up to 8 SPE’s, but because of yield issues, Sony set the standard at 7 SPE’s.”

Actually Ron, games only use 6 SPE’s, but still, the Cell is way faster than anything on your favorite console (BTW, has it RROD yet? Elite cost just another billion to microsoft).

“what people fail to realize is that to take advantage of the actual performance of the cell processor and the RSX, you have to program adequately, the way first party programmers are doing it. ”

“Listen to this tard.”

I am glad your little feelings are affected, bozo.

“RSX is a PC GPU, you fool.”

Uh, no. RSX is not used in any PC out there. Of course, all components in all consoles share some similarities with their PC cousins, but if any console shares anything with a PC, it is mostly the 360 (unified memory, unified shaders, PC processor, etcetera).

“No secrets, no magic, no hidden powers to unlock and no PHd required.”

As I said above, you need an experienced graphics programmer for the RSX, not a Ph.D., unlike the Cell which is multicore programming, so most of the experienced people with that are Ph. D.’s, and that is proven by the amount of people using PS3′s at universities. You need to learn to read or improve your reading comprehension.

“The fact is, Sony admits that RSX is outperformed by 360’s GPU, WHATEVER THE REASON.”

Oh really? Where does it say? It is not valid to take false information out of your ass.

“Sony admits that Cell HELPS RSX try and keep up. 1st and 2nd party software for PS3 are optimized at great expense, something most developers wont/can’t do just to make Sony’s foolish design look good.”

Sony admits? Where? Sony said the Cell processor can be used for graphics. If anything, RSX was meant to help the Cell processor so that the Cell isn’t burdened with all the load, not the other way around. Evidently you know nothing about the Cell processor or PS3 so you shouldn’t be talking.

Anyway, as I proved you above, with NUMBERS, the RSX is more powerful than the Xenos, RSX can process half a trillion more shader operations per second than the Xenos. The only problem is that it has to be done under adequate conditions, and some developers barely know how to do that, and are more art oriented than tech oriented. Which is why Sony has had to provide EDGE tools, and soon a cross-platform engine.

Sony screwed up by making a machine that is too hard to code for and whose maximum power can only be achieved by taking the time to develop for the console; however, most developers do not have the time or money to optimize the code, especially since 360 programmers do not need to optimize the use of RAM, the use of pixel and vertex shaders, and transform their code into code usable by SPEs. So, it was not underpowering PS3, they made it too complex. But I am sure this is too hard for you.

“Please don’t say ‘kiddo’ anymore. It make me think of you as someones grandpa. Before you preach about the use of the term fanboy in this thread, try doing some reading first.”

Try doing some reading? Ha, just like you read anything about those of us that proved how wrong you and the article writer wrong? Go back to school, kiddo, I couldn’t care less about what you think.

Wow this is a great article. Really helps to make informed purchasing decisions. I now see the 360 really is a beast of a machine.

“Wow this is a great article. Really helps to make informed purchasing decisions. I now see the 360 really is a beast of a machine.”

Are you stupid? Hopefully for your own sake, you were being sarcastic.

“Sony said the Cell processor can be used for graphics. If anything, RSX was meant to help the Cell processor so that the Cell isn’t burdened with all the load, not the other way around. ”

I realize now that I am talking to a very ill informed person. You really need to do more reading about how Sony planned to use JUST cell chips in PS3 because they thought each chip would deliver 1 TFLOP and the system wouldn’t need a dedicated GPU. That’s right, dummy, you can do graphics on a CPU….IF it’s powerful enough. When it became clear that Cell couldn’t do the job, Sony grabbed up Nvidias latest PC GPU (RSX) and added flex-IO. That’s why when Sony first introduced PS3, they aid it would support 2 screens, just like PC video cards do.

I’m done schooling you. Waaaayyy too much for you to learn before you can have an intelligent conversation on this subject.

Hahaha, poor Ron Howard, Z schooled him with numbers and not facts pulled out of his ass unlike Ron, but Ron loves pretending otherwise and also has to resort to personal insults. Z, please let me continue to own him for you.

Ron, if you knew ANYTHING about the Story of the PS3, you would know that the PS3 was actually planned to have 4 cell processors. However, that would have resulted into being too expensive, especially since it would have needed more RAM (at least 2 Gigs) to actually take advantage of that, so they instead decided to reduce the specs to a Cell processor and a GPU.

Evidently, you know jack sh1t about what the Cell processor can do. Just so you know, the Cell processor can do ray-tracing up to 5 times faster than an NVidia 8800 GTX. To put it into perspective, the Cell processor craps on any GPU at several tasks. That is why when talking about Scientific Computing, Cell processor is the new thing, not GPUs, not Xbox 360, not Power PC or Intel.

That is why here at Stanford there are classes and seminars (in conjunction with the MIT) regarding how to take advantage of the cell processor in Linux programming environments (like Yellow Dog, though many here like other distributions) for applications in quantum physics, medicine, optimization and biologically related processes, especially those that includes a lot of visual feedback like black hole simulation, no help needed by the RSX (though we would love to have access to that beast). I do not expect you to know what I am talking about anyway.

You know what I expect from you though? For you to take another argument out of your ass and not deal with facts and numbers, just bogus claims as usual. I see you did not know what more to say about the RSX, so you had to mention the Cell processor because that was the only thing left to address. Too bad you knew nothing about its history and PS3 development history. Z is probably done with you like me, and so is everyone else.

Poor fanboy, you can kill yourself now.

Delusional xbots are tossing around links to this BS article at an alarming rate.

lol I tell the fanboys PS3 wasn’t supposed to have a GPU, then IBM repeats it like he’s telling me something I didn’t know.

IBM can’t read, like the other fanboys. Now you can all act like you ‘won’ and run off in ignorant fanboy bliss and find a game that uses ray tracing. rofl!

The Story of the cell processor in the PS3, or how it was supposedly gonna be a 4x Cell processor system. Knowing this, the RSX was later added to make the system cheaper and to compensate for the 3 cell processors found in the PS3, so contrary to Ron “Xbug” Howard’s claims, the RSX was added to aid the single celled PS3 for graphics, not because the Cell was weak, but because the cell was expensive.

Sony needed the power comparable to 4 cell processors but they also needed a system less expensive than a PS3 with two cell processors. Since the Cell processors were mostly going to be used for graphics, the ideal solution was a GPU in order to deliver a similar amount of performance for that dedicate purpose, since the Cell can do a lot more things which is why it is more expensive.

The only problem with that kind of architecture is that for the Cell, the RSX and the split RAM you need to optimize your code in order to achieve maximum performance, which is why it will take time to see the PS3 achieve its peak.

Sony even added more memory to the PS3, just like Microsoft to the Xbox 360, since both were gonna be originally 256 MB of RAM systems. The difference is that Sony streamlined the RAM, meaning they added 256 MB of XDR RAM, optimal for the Cell, while 256 MB of GDDR3, optimal for the RSX.

On the other hand, Microsoft had a cheaper solution and easier to program for, but at the expense of bottlenecks impacting overall performance, which is ironic considering fanboys think the 360 is bottleneck free.

Microsoft also had to add a few hardware tricks in order to have a good upscaler because they knew their system was not very capable of rendering in HD, that is why you see more games running in HD or higher resolutions on PS3 than on 360, like Ridge Racer.

After all the things we have been taught in class that we can simulate with the cell processor, it doesn’t surprise me that the PS3 has the best looking exclusives, with most things on screen be it visual effects, polygons or objects.

The fanboy delusion will never cease to amaze. Anyway, check what I found:

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3644254

For those that don’t have a subscription to the economist, read this:

http://www.boosman.com/blog/miscellaneous/

February 10, 2005

The Economist on the Cell

“As its name suggests, the Cell chip is designed to be used in large numbers to do things that today’s computers, most of which are primitive machines akin to unicellular life-forms, cannot. Each Cell has as its “nucleus” a microprocessor based on IBM’s POWER architecture. This is the family of chips found inside Apple’s Power Mac G5 computers and IBM’s powerful business machines. The Cell’s “cytoplasm” consists of eight “synergistic processing elements”. These are independent processors that have a deliberately minimalist design in order, paradoxically, to maximise their performance.”

“A program running on a Cell consists of small chunks, each of which contains both programming instructions and associated data. These chunks can be assigned by the nucleus to particular synergistic processors inside its own Cell or, if it is deemed faster to do so, sent to another Cell instead. Software chunks running on one Cell can talk to chunks running on other Cells, and all have access to a shared main memory. Since chunks of software are able to roam around looking for the best place to be processed, the performance of a Cell-based machine can be increased by adding more Cells, or by connecting several Cell-based machines together.”

“All of this means that programs designed to run on Cell-based architecture should be able to fly along at blistering speeds—and will run ever faster as more Cells are made available. The prototype Cell being discussed this week runs at 256 gigaflops (a flop — one “floating-point” operation per second — is a measure of how fast a processor can perform the individual operations of digital arithmetic that all computing ultimately boils down to). A speed of 256 gigaflops is around ten times the performance of the chips found in the fastest desktop PCs today; the Cell is thus widely referred to as a “supercomputer on a chip”, which is an exaggeration, but not much of one. On the top500.org list of the world’s fastest computers, the bottom-ranked machine has a performance of 851 gigaflops. A machine based on only four Cell chips would easily outrank this…”

Cell’s debut will be in Sony’s next-generation games console, the PlayStation 3, which is expected to contain four of the beasts.”

“If the PlayStation 3 does include four Cell processors, and if they run at 256 gigaflops, and if a PlayStation 3 were available today, it would place 387th on the Top 500 list. That’s staggering.”

“After talking with my friend and colleague David Smith, I’m convinced the Cell has the potential — if it lives up to the promises made for it — to be an industry-changing event. Ray Kurzweil and many others have long argued that at some point, Moore’s Law will continue through the use of highly parallel architectures, as opposed to continually increasing the clock speed and word length of today’s microprocessors. Much evidence exists for this. Most recently, Apple’s chief financial officer called a hypothetical PowerBook equipped with a G5 processor “the mother of all thermal challenges”. The Cell addresses such challenges by providing high levels of performance using large numbers of efficient RISC-based processor cores. Instead of one very fast processor, how about eight that are moderately fast? And that’s just on one chip.”

No Ron, the reason we are schooling you is not because you knew the PS3 was not supposed to have a GPU, it is because you are making up bogus claims and actually taking yourself seriously, you even said that the Cell aids RSX, not the other way around. You can’t even address numbers and how the Cell and RSX should be used for games, I don’t expect much for you, just to keep calling us “rofl sony fanboys rofl”, as if that actually helped your argument. Poor ron.

The history of the cell processor shows how wrong you are. And yeah, no game uses raytracing (yet), but the Cell processor is good for lots of things, not just raytracing; that is why the cell processor is expensive and the RSX was needed to aid a single cell processor. Obviously, that is something you will never understand because apparently you are too dense and you’ll only keep making a comback with “rofl you sony fanboys don’t know anything rofl”.

I thought you were done? It seems that you have too much of an emotional attachment to this discussion and just have to keep coming back. Come back when you know anything. Poor fanboy.

Who gives a flying fuck which console can generate the most polygons or whatever. The fact of the matter is, both consoles can render sublime looking games and there hasn’t been a multi-platform game yet where I have been able to tell the difference between the two. Why does it matter and why do so many people seem to care about this stuff??!!

Really? Last time i check Uncharted is better than anything on the Xbox 360 graphic wise.
Halo 3? LOL
Uncharted is even superior to games like Gears of War and Bioshock, and MGS4?
GTA4 looks and loads a lot better on the PS3, the 360 version just cames with better standart brightness, witch can easly be change on the PS3 version for optimal performance and that leaves the X360 version beind for good.

This is just none sence, you are patetic and i don’t know if you are being paid to write that stuff. I’ve work in a company that makes 3d special effects for tv ads and some movies, i am familiar with the PS3 hardware and i can tell the your numbers are wrong…

Sorry, PS3 has already outsold the X360 in Japan, Europe and USA is not far away.

The original Xbox sold around 25 millions world wide, the PS1 sold 106 millions, the PS2 is over 120 millions and still selling, do you need a picture?

I wasn’t going to write this down, because you really can’t understand, but here it goes.

1st how do you calculate the number of poligons a GPU is able to pull for second?

You said that the PS3 is able to pull 270 million triangles per secondand the X360 500 million per second, right?

So for you to know that’s just a pointless measurement,where’s the context? How were these numbers measured? There are loads of different ways you can measure tri performance, and just putting up headline figures like that tells you nothing.

In fact, the PS2 had better tri performance than the Xbox, on paper, everyone knows that the Xbox was more powerful at running real games, but if you just wanted to fill a screen with 2D, flat colour, unlit triangles, then the PS2 was much better at that, so it looked great in benchmarks. That just shows how meaningless this measurement is, it’s really pointless and “so 2005″ a a user said here.

for f sake. they are both good. both have + and -. Bottom line is what makes you want to play a game, cuz youre a fanboy or do you really want the best experience. The 360 is just a more mature system. I have both and love the 360 for games, PS3 for movies. Not to mention, the PS3 controller BLOWS!

its a silly arguement, be happy we have both to play.

PS3 Rules, MS drools!

if the ps3 is more powerful then y doesnt gtaIV run at native 720p on it like it does on the 360 version

Ha these comments are great, not just the cliche fanboy wars about what console is better then what, but because some of the users claim youtube as a ‘reliable’ source, so if it is then all the other videos on the site must be reliable sources for a documentation. Next, the the teraflop BS rants against each other are choice backing up power on who’s better because neither developer will ever get close to exploiting that much power from a system but it’s there in ‘theory’ so it makes the console better because it has more ‘power’, and then the polygons are just a cute rant, and the only advantage the 360 has in giving it more polygons is because it has twice the amount of ram. However my favorite is discrediting a source of information (gamespot) because it gave your favorite game (ratchet and clank) a 7 *tear* *tear* because it’s like one guy runs ALL of gamespot. Now i have no problem against either system, both are cool in their own ways (all ps3s having Hard drives, 360s larger library of games so far), but at the end of the day does it matter what resolution the game is in if it doesn’t affect gameplay? Have a nice day, and please please please… try to get out of highschool..

You are an idiot along with all of the other PS3 fanboys here who cant accept the truth.

PS3 IS WEAKER THAN XBOX 360!

Since the console has been released, 99% of the multiplatform games are worse on PS3. If PS3 were stronger would it not have stopped this inferior port trend a while ago?

Someone here said look at MGS4 on ps3 for proof, well im telling u look at MGS Rising when it comes out on both systems, and i bet u the 360 will run/look better.

Sony's first party busts their ass trying to live up to the "power of the ps3" Killing themselves to make decent looking games while microsoft makes good games that are actually fun at a quicker pace.

Enjoy your 6 year Gran Turismo 5 disappointment ps3 fans, Forza 3 wins this round, look at metacritic and gamerankings for overall average scores

You have dealt with many engaging points in this post. I came across this article by searching Msn and I must confess that I am currently subscribed to your site, it’s very fine (;