PS3 v. XBOX 360

[cutter311]

Ok, so here's my issue: If I don't want to get divorced, I need to pick ONE console. I have a raincheck on a 20g PS3 (raffles FTW), so that's in play. But after doing some reading, I'm even more confused than I was a week ago (which is pretty confused) when comparing the 360 and PS3.

What I'm looking for is someone who has played both (or hell, even just seen games on both). How do the compare? Depth of background (buildings, sporting event crowds, trees, anything)? Smoothness of play? General look and feel?

My initial thinking was that the PS3 was gonna blow the doors offa the 360. Not so much anymore. But I wanted to ask the peeps who have probably done side-by-sides what they thought.


Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks!

[TimPV3]

360 for now. While PS3 may have some larger crowds, ATM 360's games run smoother (Tony Hawk's Project 8 for example) than the PS3's, but considering it's only launch I'd imagine all those problems would be gone by next year.

As long as you can get a PS3 later, go with the 360 now.

[Chacrana]

In terms of the general look and feel of games, the 360 and PS3 are pretty much identical. Right now, the 360 is the better system since it's actually got some decent games on it... though I think the PS3 will definitely have the better selection within a year. If you want instant gratification, get the 360, but I do think that the PS3 is a far better choice in the long run.

[Vinny]

Go to a store and look/play the demo of Gears of War. You won't have any trouble making a decision.

[SteveMcQ]

So you're basing your choice mainly off of graphics? Seems that way from the questions you posed.

That said, GOW is pretty damn amazing.

As far as right now though, I think there's really no other choice but 360 if you're in it to play games and more specifically, play games with friends online. The games are there and the structure is there and proven for online with Live.

[Vinny]

So you're basing your choice mainly off of graphics? Seems that way from the questions you posed.

That said, GOW is pretty damn amazing.

As far as right now though, I think there's really no other choice but 360 if you're in it to play games and more specifically, play games with friends online. The games are there and the structure is there and proven for online with Live.

Well, when you come down to it... the games will probably play the same (minus a few tilt features of PS3 games) so graphics are a good way to go.

[SteveMcQ]

Well, when you come down to it... the games will probably play the same (minus a few tilt features of PS3 games) so graphics are a good way to go.There's Live on 360 though, if you're big into the online component.

[DaveD]

360 already has a decent library of games, amazing online capabilities, and it's cheaper. PS3 will be pretty sweet in about a year, so 360 is currently the system to own. Dead Rising, Gears of War and Oblivion, three games worth having too (although Oblivion will be on the PS3 next year).

[red flare graf]

Gears of War kicks all the ass!

[Negative]

Get a divorce.

[slvrdrgn123]

Get a divorce.Was about to say the same thing. Killing two birds with one stone, why not?

[jkam]

I had a PS1 and I have a PS2 and I'm thinking XBOX 360 is the way to go this time.

[horrido]

Both systems are comprable. Don't let anyone tell you that the PS3 will be better in one year - pure unadulterated speculation, and company hype. Maybe - maybe not, but if it is, it wont be by much. XBox live is a consideration only if you want to play games multiplayer online. If you are into that, you should get the 360. If you are leaning toward a PS3, I would wait a while to see how things pan out with the launch. Launch problems for systems are common, and they try to cover them up.

Also, if you buy a PS3 you will be starving for good games for the next 12 months.

[cutter311]

Was about to say the same thing. Killing two birds with one stone, why not?

being single AND a game junkie? Not a good combo for my libido...A good woman who is cool w/ me gaming aaaaannnd enjoys things not be discussed on a gaming site. PRICELESS...I'll suck it up and make a decision. I don't have that much free time anyway ;)

PS: Thx fer the info. This is what I was hoping to hear.

I just hope WM still has the 360 Prem. w/ the $50 rebate going...

[jollydwarf]

If people are basing their Gears gushing on the multiplayer, then I guess I'll never really know (to the extent that they do, anyway), as I'm not big on online play. Actually, check that--I'm not big on the 'community' one is forced to play with. What I do know, however, is that for however beautiful the game looks, the single-player campaign is really tedious.

You watch, critics and gamers alike are going to be totally changing their tune about this game within a couple months. They are bamboozled by the graphics and that's the fucking truth...Ruth!

EDIT: But regardless, get a 360 now and think about the PS3 a year and a price drop later.

[dmes65]

http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360

[help1]

Multiplayer - 360
Single play- .... prob ps3?

[Apossum]

What?

Who the fuck says "buy a 360 or ps3 or I'm getting a divorce!" :lol:

I guess that's none of my business, anyhow...

Think of it this way--

PS3 is an investment.

360 has good games right now.

[Kendro]

If its 360 or PS3 for the next 2 years, I'd go with 360. If it is "you can only have one next-gen system for the next 5 years," I'd go with PS3. As great a value the 360 is (price per performance), and as awesome its robust online network is, I'd repeatedly bend over for Sony (unwillingly) for the simple fact that Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid is Sony loyal. Such a shame too, 360 owners deserve those franchises.

[paz9x]

If its 360 or PS3 for the next 2 years, I'd go with 360. If it is "you can only have one next-gen system for the next 5 years," I'd go with PS3. As great a value the 360 is (price per performance), and as awesome its robust online network is, I'd repeatedly bend over for Sony (unwillingly) for the simple fact that Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid is Sony loyal. Such a shame too, 360 owners deserve those franchises.
we'll see just how loyal konami is with mgs4. i doubt itll be an exclusive.
personally if you want loads of rpgs get a ps3 otherwise im VERY happy with my 360, i had almost 200 ps2 games but the 360 floats my boat this gen.
that said im sure ill have a ps3 in the next year or 2.

good luck.

[Noodle Pirate!]

You should consider which console has games you want NOW. The ps3 might be more fun in the long run( I dont have one yet so i dont know) but 360 has tons of games that you can play now that are great.
Also look at the franchises you like on each system. 360 won't have jak/ratchet/killzone etc. Maybe also consider which one you have more current gen games for to use on the BC part.

[PenguinMaster]

If you have a high quality gaming PC, I'd get a PS3. If not, I'd get a 360. 360 has a lot of great games now and more coming out that I care about than the PS3. But a lot of the great games coming out for the 360 are also on PC.

Another factor is your TV. If you have an HDTV that only supports 1080i, you won't be able to play most PS3 games in HD.

[MillerTime2523]

Go to a store and look/play the demo of Gears of War. You won't have any trouble making a decision.
Agreed.

Also, if you look at the difference in reviews between the games for PS3 and 360 (like at IGN or GS) The 360 versions have gotten at least .5 more than their PS3 counterparts. THP8 is one example of this from GS, and I forgot the other.

[dpatel]

As it stands, right now, the 360 is better at the moment. Cheaper prices, better online, more games, and cheaper games. PS3 doesn't have much going for it, but that's only natural, since it was just released. I am personally only getting one, and am going for the PS3. It doesn't look too great right now, but they have got a lot of games coming out next year that I really want.

What I would do to decide, is make a list of exclusives on either consoles (current and future). The system with the most would be your best choice. Because, aside from exclusives, the two don't differ too much.

[Apossum]

we'll see just how loyal konami is with mgs4. i doubt itll be an exclusive.
personally if you want loads of rpgs get a ps3 otherwise im VERY happy with my 360, i had almost 200 ps2 games but the 360 floats my boat this gen.
that said im sure ill have a ps3 in the next year or 2.

good luck.


If they port it, it will suck. Kojima makes his games tailored to the system, which was why the Xbox couldn't handle Substance.

[millrat1030]

I have to agree most people, it's the games. If you can afford to drop another chunk next year, get 360 now and PS3 next year. If this is a one time thing choose wisely. Look at the games out now and those coming in the next year. I have a PS3 and I have to say there isn't a launch title that says buy a PS3. Come march though Motorstorm and Heavenly Sword look very promising. Yet 360 has Gears of War now, and Halo 3 someday. Good luck making your choice.
P.S. dmes65 your link was lame. It's no secret the PS3 is a more powerful system, the question is how long will it take developers to become comfortable with it. If developers figure out how to use the PS3 to it's full potential we'll see just how powerful. Of course the Xbox 720 could be out by then.

[SteveMcQ]

What's the word from developers on the Emotion Engine the PS2 used? Didn't Sony herald it as the next damn big thing and the greatest chipset ever (or something to that effect)? Did most developers ever feel like they maxed it out or figured the chipset out fully?

[Xellos2099]

Again, ps3 is not more powerful than a 360. ps3 use a modify version of a nvidia 7800gtx as graphic and a 360 use a prototype form of a R600.

[gcurbelo]

[QUOTE=cutter311;2406438]Ok, so here's my issue: If I don't want to get divorced, I need to pick ONE console.


Okay, Okay ... Who makes more money? Who pays the bills? I am surprise your wife would even care.

[millrat1030]

Again another 360 fanboy refuses to admit that PS3 is more powerful.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=sub#more (http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=sub#more)
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/20/ny-times-the-ps3-isnt-that-great/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b43c7d6-758b-11db-aea1-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=f38b85e4-51de-11da-9ca0-0000779e2340.html

It's more powerful, but doesn't mean it's better. The games will determine that. We can judge when 2nd gen games for the PS3 come out. Right now Gears looks pretty awesome, so let's compare it to a 2nd gen PS3 game in a few months.

[HarassmentPanda]

Again another 360 fanboy refuses to admit that PS3 is more powerful.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=sub#more (http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=sub#more)
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/20/ny-times-the-ps3-isnt-that-great/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b43c7d6-758b-11db-aea1-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=f38b85e4-51de-11da-9ca0-0000779e2340.html

It's more powerful, but doesn't mean it's better. The games will determine that. We can judge when 2nd gen games for the PS3 come out. Right now Gears looks pretty awesome, so let's compare it to a 2nd gen PS3 game in a few months.

You linked to 3 articles from 3 publications that passively say the PS3 is more powerful but do so without any technical data or apparent credibility. None of these sites are known for their "technical expertise." One of the headlines is even "PS3 is not that great." Regardless, the 360 DOES have a much more advanced graphics processor, but the PS3 has a more advanced main processor. The 360 is also much easier to program for. There maybe some AAA titles many years down the line that look phenomenal on PS3's Cell, but that's still a ways off. There has also been a history of consoles with more sophisticated main processors that didn't necessarily produce better graphics (Genesis v. SNES, PS2 v. Xbox, etc.)

The 360 certainly has a better library to choose from at the moment and I don't think the Playstation is going to have as many exclusives this time around. Capcom is seeing success on the 360 with games like Dead Rising and will be bringing the next installment of Resident Evil to the system. (There are additional rumors that Microsoft may buy Capcom, but who knows if that's true. Although it would mean Resident Evil and Devil May Cry exclusives for the white box.) Addtionally, Square Enix has pledged to show support for the 360 and, although Final Fantasy XIII is still most likely to remain a PS3 exclusive, subsequent games in the series could easily see multiplatform release. As far as MGS4 is concerned, Kojima has been facing heavy pressure from Konami to bring the game over to the Xbox.

RPGs will still most likely be dominant on PS3, but this is pure speculation based on overwhelming Japanese support.

Being an audio/videophile I'm also supportive of the 360's HD-DVD add-on. While it doesn't achieve the same TrueHD sound quality of stand alone units, the picture quality and load speed of the 360 HD-DVD drive is incredible. The lack of super high-end sound support is likely to go unnoticed by most normal home theatre users because the speakers simply aren't good enough to translate the difference. Based on HD-DVDs higher sales numbers, larger amount and higher quality of movie releases, and better picture quality compared to Blu-Ray, I think it's the format of the future despite Blu-Ray's higher storage capacities.

I wish I could offer more reasons for my preference (online support is a big one), but this post is already too long as is.

Anyway, whichever decision you make I'm sure you'll be happy as long as the wife is happy. Better yet, get her a Wii to go along with whichever system you choose. My girlfriend hates videogames generally, but the Wii and DS have piqued her interest. She's had fun with Wii Sports and the Mario DS titles. See if you can trojan horse a love (or at least tolerance) for video games through one of these systems and then convince her that a PS3 AND Xbox 360 are necessary. :)

[Spades22]

Hmm well right NOW, with everything thats currently out, I'd go 360. Simply cause there are actually games for it. Though I bet in a year or two, that opinion will shift to the PS3, unless all their 3rd party support dies... but I'd go PS3 for the free online and better games that I like that WILL hopefully come out. If you're looking for a console for only a year or maybe 2 years though, I'd say xbox 360. I see 360 as mainly the shooter console or sports, with online a necessity if you want to enjoy the games a lot. I see the PS3 as the more RPG console with not as good shooters as 360(no Halo!) and same sports games...also lots of platformers. Anyway thats why I'd go PS3, I like RPGS, platformers, puzzle, strategy... but I guess we don't know for sure if the same companies will make the quality games we saw on PS2.

[bortle]

If people are basing their Gears gushing on the multiplayer, then I guess I'll never really know (to the extent that they do, anyway), as I'm not big on online play. Actually, check that--I'm not big on the 'community' one is forced to play with. What I do know, however, is that for however beautiful the game looks, the single-player campaign is really tedious.



Don't mean to take this too far OT but I thought I'd present an alternate viewpoint:

Like jollydwarf I find many Xbox live people to be annoying to the point where it's sometimes hard to deal with multiplayer. However, I disagree with his opinion on the single player being tedious. I found the single player in Gears very enjoyable and have played through a couple times on my own and once in co-op mode (again, annoying if you have to randomly hook up with someone but enjoyable if you can play with a friend). I only say that because I usually quit half way though shooters because I find them tedious, Gears was an exception.

Anyways, I'd say go with the 360 for now, Gears and Viva Pinata are both really fun and Lost Planet and Bioshock will be coming relatively soon.

[CappyCobra]

What?

Who the fuck says "buy a 360 or ps3 or I'm getting a divorce!" :lol:

I guess that's none of my business, anyhow...

Think of it this way--

PS3 is an investment.

360 has good games right now.
I keep my investing decisions strictly to my stock portfolio. ;)
Buy for the now if you can't wait and get a 360. If you can afford to hold out, wait a year and let the dust settle from the PS3 launch and see how the games hold up. If it's not to your liking, at least you have a good two years of 360 backlog to fall on ;)

[millrat1030]

HarrassmentPanda stick to system info, you obviously no nothing about Blu-ray vs HD-Dvd. If you did, you would know what you said was way off. Picture quality on both are damn near the same. Your average person cannot tell the difference. The sound quality is way off. I have a cheap surround sound system and you can tell a difference. As far as the HD-Dvd add on for 360, not the quality of stand alone players. To get the true quality of HD you need HDMI or DVI. The transfer alone from the usb from the HD drive to the 360 causes quality loss, though minor a loss all the same. The movies coming to Blu-ray vs HD-Dvd is a matter of opinion. HD-Dvd more dramas and romance comedy, few action. Blu-ray has more studio support and movies like X3 and Crank. I know the first thing everybodys going to say "sony fanboy", but what everyone forgets is Blu-ray is not sony. Blu-ray is sony, panasonic, samsung, and philips. Will Blu-ray when the format war? I believe yes, but it is way to early to know. I leave you with one question though. Name me one format with smaller capacity that has ever won a format war.

[Wolfpup]

Ok, so here's my issue: If I don't want to get divorced, I need to pick ONE console. I have a raincheck on a 20g PS3 (raffles FTW), so that's in play. But after doing some reading, I'm even more confused than I was a week ago (which is pretty confused) when comparing the 360 and PS3.

What I'm looking for is someone who has played both (or hell, even just seen games on both). How do the compare? Depth of background (buildings, sporting event crowds, trees, anything)? Smoothness of play? General look and feel?

My initial thinking was that the PS3 was gonna blow the doors offa the 360. Not so much anymore. But I wanted to ask the peeps who have probably done side-by-sides what they thought.


Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks!

You can't compare them now, as you're looking at a hand-full of 1st generation Playstation 3 games versus a solid library of second generation 360 games.

So here's some things to think about:

-The Playstation 3 has the most raw power, if it's important to you to have the absolute most powerful system, but they're pretty close. It'll probably be like the Genesis and SNES situation, something like that. Most games that are on both platforms will look the same without really studying them. I suspect in a few years some games targeting the PS3 exclusively will look noticeably better, but not so much that it should really sway your decision.

-The 360 is LOUD. The PS3 is about as quiet as a slim PS2.

-The PS3 has real backwards compatibility with PS2 and PS1 games if that matters to you, the 360 has very limited backwards compatibility with X-Box games.

-The 360 has better online matchmaking and may always work better for that, but it costs $50 a year versus free on the PS3, which may sway you one way or the other depending on how much you use that.

-PS3 will PROBABLY be more reliable than 360, going by past experience with X-Box 1 and 360 versus the PS2.

Besides that, you'd just want to look at games coming up in the next two years that have been announced. The PS3 will almost certainly have been Japanese support as the 360 is doing even worse in Japan than the X-Box did (which is to say, it's dead). That said, Microsoft has a ton of great 1st and 2nd party exclusives on the 360-Fable 2, Alan Wake, Lost Oddessy, Banjo Kazooie 3, and Mass Effect. While Sony's got stuff like Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy 13/13 versus, and the Naughty Dog untitled adventure. There's probably more yet to be announced for the PS3 than 360 just because it's only just now come out (ie we'll hear a lot more at e3 or whatever it is this year).

So yeah, just go where you think will have more games you want to play. I have to agree that long term if you're not sure, the PS3 is probably a safer bet for more variety, but if you like Microsoft's games, then it's a great choice.

[Kaijufan]

Again another 360 fanboy refuses to admit that PS3 is more powerful.
http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=sub#more (http://reviews.cnet.com/Sony_PlayStation_3_60GB/4505-6464_7-31355103.html?tag=sub#more)
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/20/ny-times-the-ps3-isnt-that-great/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b43c7d6-758b-11db-aea1-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=f38b85e4-51de-11da-9ca0-0000779e2340.html

It's more powerful, but doesn't mean it's better. The games will determine that. We can judge when 2nd gen games for the PS3 come out. Right now Gears looks pretty awesome, so let's compare it to a 2nd gen PS3 game in a few months.

Actually the PS3 processor is only slightly more powerful then the 360 CPU, although the cell is more difficult to program for and the PS3 OS takes up more CPU time then the 360's. Also the 360 GPU is more advanced then the PS3 GPU and has more RAM to work with. It's all in this well written article. (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1)

[Wolfpup]

One thing I forgot to mention is the 360 for sure works with PC monitors, which can be VERY useful for some situations :D

The Playstation 3 MAY be able to with a cheap HDMI > DVI cable, but I haven't heard of anyone actually testing it yet.

Actually the PS3 processor is only slightly more powerful then the 360 CPU, although the cell is more difficult to program for and the PS3 OS takes up more CPU time then the 360's. Also the 360 GPU is more advanced then the PS3 GPU and has more RAM to work with. It's all in this well written article. (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1)

The PS3's CPU has quite a bit more hardware. It is harder to program, but it definitely has more raw power. Both are low end for general purpose computing, but pretty high end for some specialized stuff.

The 360's GPU is a unified shader design, which you can argue is "more advanced", but it doesn't have more raw power. Both GPUs have the same amount of memory to work with. The PS3's GPU most likely has double the ROPs (16 versus 8) meaning it can throw twice as many pixels out/s without affecting much of anything.

That article's claim about efficiency of the GPUs is bogus. With double the ROPs, there's no way a 360 can touch a PS3 at higher resolutions, which is why games render at 720p or occasionally lower. Then too, 360's GPU can't just arbitrarily devote any number of shaders to pixel or vertex data-it can only do it in three groups. And developers are smart enough to make sure RSX's various parts stay fed-they're not going to design some game where half the hardware is always sitting idle. Each of RSX's shaders actually does more work too. They're both really good GPUs for the price, but there's no way you can say 360's GPU is flat out better.

EDIT: Just noticed that articles claims about efficiency with AA. A lot of 360's hardware is hardwired to only doing AA, but the system as a whole can't get anywhere near the efficiency that article claims, as 360 has limited memory bandwidth compared to the PS3. Once that 10MB is used up, everything else has to be composited in main RAM, and the higher the AA setting and the higher the resolution, the more has to be rendered in main RAM (which is yet another reason 360 games are rendered at 720p or below while some PS3 games do 1080p. Probably almost always multiplatform titles (ie Marvel Ultimate Alliance), as they'll be designed for the lowest common denominator, and will basically get a higher resolution "free" on PS3 because of the extra ROPs and memory bandwidth. PS3 exclusives will probably almost always be 720p as it'll be able to do much more detailed graphics at that resolution).

It should probably take less optimization to make a 360 game than a PS3 game though.

[Morpheus]

Both GPUs have the same amount of memory to work with.

I don't feel like getting into all your mistakes, but I will tell you that the 360 has more ram and the better memory architecture. 10mbs of embedded Dram says hi, unified memory throws in a high five, and PS3's ram hogging OS/GUI waves. Plus, PS3 split memory architecture FTL.

[rickonker]

I think 64 MB of RAM is reserved by the PS3's OS at all times, and it's much less for the 360.

[Wolfpup]

I don't feel like getting into all your mistakes, but I will tell you that the 360 has more ram and the better memory architecture. 10mbs of embedded Dram says hi, unified memory throws in a high five, and PS3's ram hogging OS/GUI waves. Plus, PS3 split memory architecture FTL.

It does not have more RAM. Having separate video and main RAM will make it a bit harder to program stuff for (with the same results), but it gives it basically double the memory bandwidth (360 has that 10MB video RAM of course, but it doesn't even hold a single frame).

I think 64 MB of RAM is reserved by the PS3's OS at all times, and it's much less for the 360.

I've seen nothing legit about the PS3's OS RAM usage, but the 360's is supposed to have something like 40ishMB reserved for it if I'm remembering right. That's providing networking support and all the live features, so it's not too terrible.

[Morpheus]

It does not have more RAM. Having separate video and main RAM will make it a bit harder to program stuff for (with the same results), but it gives it basically double the memory bandwidth (360 has that 10MB video RAM of course, but it doesn't even hold a single frame).



I've seen nothing legit about the PS3's OS RAM usage, but the 360's is supposed to have something like 40ishMB reserved for it if I'm remembering right. That's providing networking support and all the live features, so it's not too terrible.

Its 512mb of RAM + 10mb of embedded DRAM = 522mb of RAM. That is more than the 512mb of RAM the PS3 has. Don't even try to bring up the kb of RAM from the cores on both systems because it still means 360 has more RAM. Learn to add.

Last time I read about the OS for the PS3 it ended up hogging around 64mbs of RAM (could have changed but I doubt it is less than 360's). 360's OS only uses 32mb of RAM (last time I checked). This is probably mostly due to Microsofts background in making OS's.

The only good thing coming from PS3 RAM setup is the 256MB XDR Main RAM 3.2GHz speed.


I suggest reading the Memory Bandwidth section on the chart at the following link:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6125087/index.html?type=tech

Each has their pluses and minuses in that department.

[Dante Devil]

I gotta go with the 360. I really wanted a PS3, but look at the games that are out there. Resistance is the only one worth playing. The 360 has Gears of War, FEAR, Call of Duty 3, Rainbow Six 3, and Splinter Cell ready to play NOW! I do want to a PS3, but I think I am willing to wait a year before I get one.

[rickonker]

Ok I looked up the OS usage for the 360 and PS3.

The 360 uses 32 MB of RAM and 3% of 2 of the 3 cores.

The PS3 uses 96 MB of RAM and 1 of the SPEs, and another SPE can be used at any time.

You know everyone seems to have accepted that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 but I'm not even sure about that anymore. Also from 8 SPEs, we're down to 5 or 6 being available for games.