So which is more powerful PS3 or X360?

[Thunderscope]

Just curious since the PS3 was supposed to have the ALMIGHTY CELL Chip and all but it only has one 3.2GHZ chip while the X360 has 3, not that power matters as the PS2 has proven. Also they said the graphics GPU is more powerful than 2 6800 put together so whats the conclusion, can I get some comparisons?

[guyver2077]

yea obviously on paper ps3 is on top....(unfortunately)

[Zmonkay]

supposedly the PS3 will absolutely trounce the competition in terms of power (at least I read in a magazine that game developers are saying that), but I'd say both PS3 and xbox 360 are dang ugly, I don't like the curves on them (they won't fit as nicely on the shelf I don't think)

[Quackzilla]

You don't even know what the PS3 will look like yet.

[PenguinMaster]

You don't even know what the PS3 will look like yet.

Check Gamespot.com

EDIT:PS3 is more powerful.

[Zmonkay]

Check Gamespot.com

EDIT:PS3 is more powerful.

Picks are up at IGN too

[MorPhiend]

You don't even know what the PS3 will look like yet.

That Spider-Man PS3 is officially the one.

[Monsta Mack]

On paper: PS3

In executions?: Too early to tell, but if Ghost Recon 3 was any foreshadower, the XBox360 is capable of looking beautiful.

The E3 video was too choppy for me to see PGR3 in action.

My prediction: PS3 sadly.

[RAMSTORIA]

i dont know why people are saying they are sad that the ps3 is more powerful, who cares which one is more powerful, the next-gen games are going to look so mind boggling amazing no matter what... it really, as it always has, comes down to gameplay

[Zoglog]

I think it's too early to tell even tho the PS3 seems to be more powerful on paper. anyone got a clip or screenshot of this supposed spiderman rendering on the ps3?

[Xevious]

Are you guys sure about the PS2 being more powerful? I am reading the spec on these webpages:

PS3
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614682p1.html

Xbox 360
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/612/612995p1.html

And I'm not exactly sure which one is more powerful.

[sansfreud]

ps3 more than likely... just wait for the numbers of how many polygons each of those babies can pump out in a second, that'll tell for sure

[onikage]

PS3 seems to be more powerful, which came as a surprise to me.

[Dante Devil]

On paper: PS3

In executions?: Too early to tell, but if Ghost Recon 3 was any foreshadower, the XBox360 is capable of looking beautiful.

The E3 video was too choppy for me to see PGR3 in action.

My prediction: PS3 sadly.

Why sadly? As long as we gamers are given great games aren't we all winners?

[CoffeeEdge]

And hey...according to the BrokenSaints guy, the Revolution outpaces them both. ;)

[PawnTakesKing]

Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Cell processor? Sony touted it for the longest time only to have it excluded from the PS3? What gives?

[PawnTakesKing]

And hey...according to the BrokenSaints guy, the Revolution outpaces them both. ;)

Yeah, but if the Revolution isn't capable of HD output, it's a moot point.

[Monsta Mack]

Why sadly? As long as we gamers are given great games aren't we all winners?

Don't get me wrong, I love the XBox for It's games, not the graphics.

However, MS has a MUCH larger pocket then Sony has when it comes to finances, and for MS to come out second place in terms of graphics? It's downright dissapointing.

Graphics have been the main attraction for the XBox when It was first launched (and Halo) , and the 360 should sport just as beautiful graphics while taking down Sony on the side in terms of visuals.

Things have changed over the years the XBox was launched. There are actually alot of games worth buying for the system, and Live has given console gaming a whole new twist in terms of multiplayer experience. However, MS said their system would be the most powerful console out on the market, and from early previews this seems to be not the case.

I'm still getting a 360 no matter what (unless It's over say $500 on launch) , but I'm a bit dissapointed that the 360 isn't the clear cut winner in the graphics department.

Here's hoping my perspective changes over the next few months, and that the 360 will look just as good as the PS3.

[Ugamer_X]

Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Cell processor? Sony touted it for the longest time only to have it excluded from the PS3? What gives?
What have you been reading today?...The PS3 uses Cell.

[CappyCobra]

What have you been reading today?...The PS3 uses Cell.
Actually, it's the SELL processor. It does 5.7 trillion MegaHypes Per Second!
(Of course I kid) ;)

[PawnTakesKing]

What have you been reading today?...The PS3 uses Cell.

Sorry...the OP's wording threw me off, since he said "the PS3 was *supposed* to use the almighty Cell processor." I took the "supposed" to mean that Sony had abandoned putting the Cell in PS3 and had gone with a PowerPC chip similar to the XBox 360's.

Anyway...uh...good work Sony.

[greendc27]

I think its way to early to say which is more powerful. I'm waiting til I see games actually playing on them.

[gokou36]

i dont know why people are saying they are sad that the ps3 is more powerful, who cares which one is more powerful, the next-gen games are going to look so mind boggling amazing no matter what... it really, as it always has, comes down to gameplay
Its the fanboys that say this.


My question is, how the ps3 might/will be more powerful than xbox. I only see ps3 with 256MB, don't see xbox's. I see ATI's GPU(xbox360) with more than 512MB but I don't see Nvidia's(ps3). Someone enlighten me please!

[JDMxB]

You must not be paying very good attention then.

From what I saw personally at the Sony Conference today--it totally blew everyone in the crowd away. Hardware wise, it trounces everything i've seen so far from the Xbox camp--Ricardo and Jeff @ Gamespot seemed to agree with us as well during the layover between the two conferences.

Watch the conferences--they show everything... PS3 with Nvidia RSX that is more powerful than two 6800 Ultras in SLi config, etc.

[CoffeeEdge]

Yeah, but if the Revolution isn't capable of HD output, it's a moot point.
Well, we'll see about that. I'm pretty confident that that isn't going to be the case (no HD support).

[gokou36]

You must not be paying very good attention then.


Well i've seen the ps3 video but not the xbox360 one. Plus i'm talking about specs on the sheet.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

As someone else stated, the "power" debate can rage on and on. The PS2 was much less powerful than the Xbox but it won the last console wars. It had a year jump on the competition and tons of great games. The 360 is going to have the jump this time. Let's see if they can gain some momentum with the initial lineup of games to try to get some headway on Sony.

In the end, as it has always been, it's about the games.

That being said, Perfect Dark 0 being AWOL from E3 is not a good sign for Msoft.

[magilacudy]

I'm just going to wait until epobirs says for sure before I make up my mind. Otherwise all these other posts are just filler. :p

[Xevious]

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-1985-x-x-x?tag=boxcar_all_features_headline

Here is the best comparsion I've seen (so far) on the PS3 and the Xbox 360.

Its seems that PS3 has a slight edge but not much....

I think though the key thing is the architecture and what game developers feel more comfortable with. I always heard that Xbox is more game developer friendly in the past. Also, they plan on releasing Halo 3 at the same time of the PS3 lauch which makes things interesting.

[Kayden]

It saddens me to see Microsoft gain in marketshare... Not because I'm a Sony fanboy, but because I really despise MS's business practices.

No asshat, I don't have a problem with them trying to make money. I have a problem with them buying up all competition they can and then either porting it or destroying it outright...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The most important thing is how good the cross platform games are going to look, which is about 85% of the market anymore. This of course based on sales, not individual titles.

Developers will be working based on the lowest common denominator again. Like the Xbox games looked like PS2 titles, PS3 titles may have look like Xbox 360 titles. So what difference does it really make?

Everything looks better, the online experience on both will be superior to what we have now and I'll be buying both.

[Xevious]

Here is something I picked up at CGtalk which I find very interesting:

Well, between the two consoles, paper specs and production specs are totally different beasts...yet they fare VERY similar...
The PS3 is going to be extremely difficult to program gameplay for, because the Cell processor is damn hard to write code for. Way harder than PS2.The PS3 has the same amount of RAM as XBOX 360, but less of it will be accessible to graphics – XBOX 360 has a full 512MB for graphics while PS3 has 256MB graphics / 256MB other data.
PS3 may have potential to bring prettier graphics [again totally based on the competency of the developer] but not so much prettier that it’s a generational leap. For instance PS3 does not have any embedded RAM on their console, which probably means less in the way of alpha blended particle goodness.
Don't forget that these are still games...no matter how good the graphics are if the gameplay stinks you have nothing but a polished turd in your hands.


In addition, a true system wide breakdown is more like:



PS2: 20 GFlops

Xbox: 50 GFlops

Xbox360: 120 GFlops

PS3: 200 GFlops

Here is the source link:
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=240955&page=2&pp=15

[Kayden]

Here is something I picked up at CGtalk which I find very interesting:

Well, between the two consoles, paper specs and production specs are totally different beasts...yet they fare VERY similar...
The PS3 is going to be extremely difficult to program gameplay for, because the Cell processor is damn hard to write code for. Way harder than PS2.The PS3 has the same amount of RAM as XBOX 360, but less of it will be accessible to graphics – XBOX 360 has a full 512MB for graphics while PS3 has 256MB graphics / 256MB other data.
PS3 may have potential to bring prettier graphics [again totally based on the competency of the developer] but not so much prettier that it’s a generational leap. For instance PS3 does not have any embedded RAM on their console, which probably means less in the way of alpha blended particle goodness.
Don't forget that these are still games...no matter how good the graphics are if the gameplay stinks you have nothing but a polished turd in your hands.


In addition, a true system wide breakdown is more like:



PS2: 20 GFlops

Xbox: 50 GFlops

Xbox360: 120 GFlops

PS3: 200 GFlops

Here is the source link:
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=240955&page=2&pp=15

:wall::wall::wall::wall:

Wasn't one of the initial complaints about the ps2 that it was too hard to program? That, and it handles 2d like an NES?

[MorPhiend]

:wall::wall::wall::wall:

Wasn't one of the initial complaints about the ps2 that it was too hard to program? That, and it handles 2d like an NES?

Developers yesterday were saying that PS3 is very easy to develop for.

[epobirs]

It saddens me to see Microsoft gain in marketshare... Not because I'm a Sony fanboy, but because I really despise MS's business practices.

No asshat, I don't have a problem with them trying to make money. I have a problem with them buying up all competition they can and then either porting it or destroying it outright...

Yeah, I remember when they bought up all of those other console companies. Taking over Nintendo's campus was so convenient, what with them being across the street practically.

Think first, then post. I does wonders for your public image.

[epobirs]

The PS3 has numerical advantages in several ares but it remains to be seen how that works out in practice. Things like memory management could turn out to be tricky on Cell, depending how well Sony's claimed miracle kernel deals wit hthe issue. If badly it could cause a lot of stalls and hold up the pipeline. Bad thread management could do the same on Xbox 360 but the methodology is better known and covered in CS texts.

While the main memory of the PS3 is divided into two types it was stated that graphics data could be stored anywhere. For a really big open environment this could be necessary but the GPU is going to favor one memory half over the other for access speed. It's seems very similar to the days of the Amiga. You had one big chunk of RAM but the lower section of it (originally 512K, then 1 MB) had faster access time for the coprocessors. This was referred to as Chip RAM.

In general, it seems all three companies are playing out the neuroses acquired in the last generation. Sony wants to cast off the image of being the least powerful and is pursuing the power crown for the next gen, albeit at a cost. Microsoft was tormented by cost issues and is now making sure they have a machine that is strong but not so muscular it cannot ramp down in price easily. Nintendo in the console business is feeling like the kid always pick last for teams, so they're looking for a new game they can run and bask in their past glories.

[the_deej]

i dont know why people are saying they are sad that the ps3 is more powerful, who cares which one is more powerful, the next-gen games are going to look so mind boggling amazing no matter what... it really, as it always has, comes down to gameplay




I agreee

[Kayden]

Yeah, I remember when they bought up all of those other console companies. Taking over Nintendo's campus was so convenient, what with them being across the street practically.

Think first, then post. I does wonders for your public image.

I was talking about Microsoft as a whole, not just the portion that deals with the Xbox/videogames. They've done some pretty underhanded things like buying out developers for linux tools and then just locking up the code or porting it to windows.

PS, Ass.

[epobirs]

I was talking about Microsoft as a whole, not just the portion that deals with the Xbox/videogames. They've done some pretty underhanded things like buying out developers for linux tools and then just locking up the code or porting it to windows.

PS, Ass.

You've got a lot to learn about the real world of business. For every dire act attributed to Microsoft another by a competitor is ignored. They've just become a convenient boogey man for companies that couldn't sell eternal youth.

[Kayden]

You've got a lot to learn about the real world of business. For every dire act attributed to Microsoft another by a competitor is ignored. They've just become a convenient boogey man for companies that couldn't sell eternal youth.

I'm not saying they're the only people being naughty, they're just the only one that I've witnessed repeated exposure to. I hope all crooked businesses fail... but thats very naive. Its just a shitty fact that shit like this is not only common place, but more or less encouraged.

[Drocket]

As has already been said, the PS3 will the most powerful system, in the end. I predict, though, that its going to lauch insanely, ridiculously late, to the point where people are going to be debating as to whether it qualifies as even being in the same generation as the XBox 360. Cell technology is sweet and has a lot of promise, but its just not ready for prime time. I doubt Sony is even going to make a passing effort to make the announced launch date - they're just trying to distract away from the 360.

[KaneRobot]

Obviously from a Sony PR standpoint with the charts and graphs they showed at their pre-E3 conference, the PS3 totally blows away the 360.

Keep in mind this quote from the Gamespot article that Xevious linked to on page 2...

Microsoft...had to reveal its console specs first--giving a fat target-list for Sony's marketing team. Do you really think that Sony would have even mentioned the 51-billion-dot-product-operations per second number during the PS3 press conference if Microsoft hadn't boasted that the Xbox 360 could do 9-million-dot-product-operations per second?
Stuff like that is obviously going to skew perception a bit.

So in reality...I'm sure the PS3 will be more powerful, of course. It has to be - it's coming out at least 6 months (if not more) after the 360! But I seriously doubt it's going to be blowing anything away, especially not in the first two years or so. Maybe later on in the console's lifespan when developers get used to the PS3 they'll start pulling off stuff that the 360 isn't capable of, but anyone wanting to buy a 360 that is worried (for some reason) that the games will look like total crap compared to the PS3's lineup can probably rest easy.

I'm guessing the graphics gap between the two consoles will be similar to the current PS2-XBox gap - meaning somewhat noticeable, but nothing to trade in your system over. I don't have any evidence to support that - just seems like it to me.

The PS3 is going to be extremely difficult to program gameplay for, because the Cell processor is damn hard to write code for. Way harder than PS2.

Interesting. Sony and a few developers have been trumpeting that the PS3 will be easy to program for, but obviously that could have been PR spin. Or it could have been true. IT'S ALL A MYSTERY TO ME

[dafoomie]

Think of it this way. Compare 360's 3 PPC cores to PS3's 1 PPC core, plus 7 SPE's. An SPE is a very stripped down, very specialized processor that can only handle certain tasks. For multiplatform games, lowest common denominator might enter the equation, and the SPE's may not be effectively used. Its going to be difficult to program for the PS3 and it'll be a while before the system's full potential is reached. It has the potential to be more powerful, if used right.

It will be very interesting to see how this works out in the real world. I'll be buying both, so I'll get to see this first hand. My theory is that 360 will look better until about a year after the PS3 is out, then PS3 could take the lead graphically, but I think they'll end up about the same. Its like trying to compare apples and oranges, their CPU's and GPU's are completely different.

[WildWop]

Came across a fantastic breakdown on the Guardian GameBlog (via Gizmodo)

Here (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2005/05/18/ps3_and_360_battle_it_out_in_the_specs_department_ what_in_the_world_do_they_mean.html#more)

[Sk]

IGN says the XBOX 360 is running at 1/3rd its real power heres a link.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/615/615667p1.html

[howlinmad]

The most powerful is the one that the beholder holds....of course.

Seriously, I'm sure the PS3 will "spec" x amount of polygons above whatever the Revolution and 360 can do. Sony said lots of things about the PS2.
It's still too early to tell real world performance specs, which is what matters after it's all said and done. One thing for certain though, all three are going to kick some serious ass.

As said before, on paper, probably the PS3. Personally, I'm more interested in what games each has.

[WolfPac_Ite]

I am really interested in whether the Revolution will be weak compared to the 360 and PS3, and what is Revolutionary about it.

[help1]

For those who dont know:

The mroe powerful, the better.

EX: If PS2 wasn't so lacking, killzone wouldn't have sucked, could have had wide open spaces and vehicles.

[Wet Ninja]

IGN posted a comparison of the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Interestingly enough, the comparison was written by Microsoft, so it's a bit biased. Of course, it declares Xbox 360 the winner.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

[Ugamer_X]

http://www.majornelson.com/

Original article created by this guy and posted here...I'd like to see some of our more tech-saavy CAG's break it down for us.

[electrictroy]

I'll answer this qustion in 2007 (after I've seen the actual games & played them & compared the two consoles).

We can sit here all day and argue which console is more powerful (specs say PS2 - yeah right), but in the end, it comes down to the *programmers* and how much real power they can extract.

troy

[dafoomie]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that technically, the Sega Saturn was more powerful than the PS1, it had 2 Hitachi processors running paralell. It didn't have many games that looked great, because it was very difficult to program for. It also came out at $100 more than the PS1. Remind you of anything?

[epobirs]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that technically, the Sega Saturn was more powerful than the PS1, it had 2 Hitachi processors running paralell. It didn't have many games that looked great, because it was very difficult to program for. It also came out at $100 more than the PS1. Remind you of anything?

That brings into question what you want the machine to do. The Saturn got trounced largely because the rapid adoption of 3D gaming caught Sega by surprise and the Saturn was painful to use for that task. It could be done but the difference in producing 3D games for Saturn and PS1 was far, far worse than the annoyances of the PS2 compared to its competitors. It was really a mess with three major changes to the chipset after developers had already started work.

PArt of the problem wa that the Saturn wasn't a proper SMP system. There were two CPUs with power flowing to them and connections to memory and the VDP busses but there was no well thoguht method for how those CPU were to be applied effectively. Until Sega delivered same updates to their dev kits the developers were completely on their own. Even after that point you were largely locked into doing games the way Yu Suzuki's team thought was best. (The software update was largely a packaging of their work on the second Daytona title for Saturn.) If you game wasn't well suited for their system, it was back to the drawing board again.

[opportunity777]

On paper a lot of things are nice, but if developing games for it is too cumbersome you may see only few games that can truly tap the potential of the system. That goes for any system though not just the PS3.

[cdeener]

As a gamer does it really make a difference because if you are a true gamer in the end you will end up just owning both.

[Monsta Mack]

As a gamer does it really make a difference because if you are a true gamer in the end you will end up just owning both.

Well in due time of course, yes. I will own all three systems when they drop low enough, and the big hits are cheap. But for a good 2-3 years one system will be mine, and thats the box. yeah!

[electrictroy]

I'll answer this qustion in 2007 (after I've seen the actual games). We can sit here all day and argue which console is more powerful (specs say PS2 - yeah right), but in the end, it comes down to the *programmers* and how much real power they can extract. BTW, history shows that the winning concole is NOT the most powerful:

1977-84 = Atari (technically inferior to Intellivision)
1985-90 = NES (technically inferior to Sega MS)
1991-95 = SNES (technically inferior to Sega Genesis)

1996-00 = PS1 (technically inferior to N64 and Sega Saturn)
2001-05 = PS2 (technically inferior to Cube and Box)


If history continues that trend, the winner will NOT be the most-advanced system.

troy

[willardhaven]

The SNES was inferior to the Genesis? I thought the video output on the SNES was of a much higher quality.

There are a lot of things that could happen, XBox 360 could suffer the fate of Dreamcast, as Sony seems to know how to control a market.

As long as I get to play games like Jak 2, Sly Cooper, Disgaea, Silpheed, Castlevania and other PS2 gems, I don't really care which console I play it on.

Is PS3 also compatible with PSOne games?

[jennie25]

i dont know why people are saying they are sad that the ps3 is more powerful, who cares which one is more powerful, the next-gen games are going to look so mind boggling amazing no matter what... it really, as it always has, comes down to gameplay

I am still yet to see anything that truly pushes todays generation graphics to the next level, but that's cuz I don't believe in the next level anymore, I mean seriously, what more can you really do (and killzone 2 did look nicely polished, and the FFVII tech demo was quite nice, brought back a few good memories even though I hate everyone for thinkin that was/is the best FF game ever)? I don't know, I just can't wait for the new zelda, that is all I care about playing!

[Noodle Pirate!]

The SNES was inferior to the Genesis? I thought the video output on the SNES was of a much higher quality.

There are a lot of things that could happen, XBox 360 could suffer the fate of Dreamcast, as Sony seems to know how to control a market.

As long as I get to play games like Jak 2, Sly Cooper, Disgaea, Silpheed, Castlevania and other PS2 gems, I don't really care which console I play it on.

Is PS3 also compatible with PSOne games?


I also would like to know if ps3 can play ps1 games. I'm thinking no cause that would be too convenient. :P

[jam3582]

I also would like to know if ps3 can play ps1 games. I'm thinking no cause that would be too convenient. :P

yea it can http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614620p1.html

[bone_matrix]

The PS3 is backwards compatible with both PS2 and PS1 games. I don't remember where I read it, but I'm pretty sure it was in the conference at E3.

[dafoomie]

The SNES was inferior to the Genesis? I thought the video output on the SNES was of a much higher quality.

There are a lot of things that could happen, XBox 360 could suffer the fate of Dreamcast, as Sony seems to know how to control a market.

As long as I get to play games like Jak 2, Sly Cooper, Disgaea, Silpheed, Castlevania and other PS2 gems, I don't really care which console I play it on.

Is PS3 also compatible with PSOne games?
The Genesis was inferior, and the Genesis was the #1 console of the 16 bit era, until the very end when SNES finally overtook it.

Though the Genesis was faster and could have faster games (Sonic), the SNES had better looking graphics and better sound.

[cyberlian]

How will the 360 and the nintendo rev. compare spec-wise? For instance Xbox>Gamecube>PS2 (spec wise)

[MorPhiend]

Read here:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=994062

[Sk]

The Genesis was inferior, and the Genesis was the #1 console of the 16 bit era, until the very end when SNES finally overtook it.

Though the Genesis was faster and could have faster games (Sonic), the SNES had better looking graphics and better sound.
You are correct the genesis had a faster processor and the images moved a hell of a lot faster than the SNES. Games like sonic could never be pulled off on the SNES.

However the SNES was the better system in terms of graphics.

[dafoomie]

You are correct the genesis had a faster processor and the images moved a hell of a lot faster than the SNES. Games like sonic could never be pulled off on the SNES.

However the SNES was the better system in terms of graphics.
Thats what I'm saying. SNES had better graphics and audio, Genesis was able to have faster games like Sonic.

[MadChedar0]

Thats what I'm saying. SNES had better graphics and audio, Genesis was able to have faster games like Sonic.

Because of "Blast Processing" right? ;)

[dafoomie]

Because of "Blast Processing" right? ;)
Because Genesis had a faster processor, thats all there is to it.

I love those old ads though. They're so rediculous sometimes. Kinda reminds me of the "Emotion Engine" though.

[MorPhiend]

Because Genesis had a faster processor, thats all there is to it.

I love those old ads though. They're so rediculous sometimes. Kinda reminds me of the "Emotion Engine" though.

I read an article somewhere on overclocking your Genesis so you don't get slowdown. I've often thought of trying that. Imagine hitting an enemy in Sonic with multiple enemies on screen and having 150 rings burst out of you, yet it remains full speed...:D

[jughead]

Well I just watched the killzone video and was like "woh". That game looks better than any xbox 360 game. It doesn't matter though, Xbox has halo and that is the way that I am going. Halo for life.

[epobirs]

You are correct the genesis had a faster processor and the images moved a hell of a lot faster than the SNES. Games like sonic could never be pulled off on the SNES.

However the SNES was the better system in terms of graphics.

Nonsense. The only reason you couldn't have Sonic on the SNES was that Sega owned it. There were a number of third party games for the SNES that were blatant Sonic clones. They ran fine but lacked the brand and design quality.

There were certain aspects of the Genesis that handled high loads better but that was also with a lesser palette and displayed color range. The CPU difference is less meaningful than many assume. Clock speed can only be a measure of performance when comparing nearly identical chips. Even x86 designs can vary wildly, as seen in the difference in performance vs. clock speed from Intel and AMD products.

The 65816 in the SNES ran at a clock rate around 28% of the M68000 in the Genesis but things get complicated from there. There were numerous instructions on the 65816 that executed in much fewer cycles than the M68K equivalent. (Back in those days most instructions required multiple clock cycles while modern chips try to perform multiple instructions in a single clock.) As a result the actual difference in perfoming the same tasks couldn't be estimated without knowing the stats for each instruction. If you were building a system for certain kinds of demanding tasks the M68K was a better choice. The 65816 had no equivalent of Motorola's memory controller for providing hardware memory protection in multitasking situations. (This became intergrated into the CPU with the 68030.) For gaming the distinctions between the two were pretty minor. Nintendo chose the 65816 because they were considering having the new machine be backward compatible and since everything was done in assebly language back then the similarity to the 6502 was a big help in repidly migrating developers.

The SNES was a more complex system and had more of a learning curve than the Genesis. The Sega machine in many ways was an Amiga with character mapped modes and a lot more sprite handling rather than bit mapped orientation of the Amiga. Ports from the Amiga were one of the things that helped in the early period before Sega sued Nintendo to get equal access to third party publishers.

[electrictroy]

I HAD AN AMIGA! Second best computer ever (right after the Commodore=64).





REVISED - History shows that the winning concole is NOT the most powerful:

1977-84 = Atari (technically inferior to Intellivision)
1985-90 = NES (technically inferior to Sega MS)
1991-95 = SNES = Genesis (virtual tie)

1996-00 = PS1 (technically inferior to N64 and Sega Saturn)
2001-05 = PS2 (technically inferior to Cube and Box)


If history continues that trend, the winner will NOT be the most-advanced system.

troy

[PsyKyX]

Just want to let you guys know, the videos I saw at E3 from Sony were render... including Killzone 2 despite what you might hear. In terms of graphical prowess it's going to be
PS3>Revolution>Xbox 360
Don't let that fool you though. They are very close in comparison.
And the game that looked best in action was UT 2K7 (a pc game).
MS fault this gen though is not going for a next-gen storage media. Sony and Nintendo will be playing that war with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD while MS has the 9GB DVD...
Oh, and the next gen consoles are backwards compatible by emulation and not chipset.

[dafoomie]

Just want to let you guys know, the videos I saw at E3 from Sony were render... including Killzone 2 despite what you might hear. In terms of graphical prowess it's going to be
PS3>Revolution>Xbox 360
Don't let that fool you though. They are very close in comparison.
And the game that looked best in action was UT 2K7 (a pc game).
MS fault this gen though is not going for a next-gen storage media. Sony and Nintendo will be playing that war with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD while MS has the 9GB DVD...
Oh, and the next gen consoles are backwards compatible by emulation and not chipset.
The amount of storage on a disc isn't going to matter, most games don't even come close to using all of a regular DVD. If anything, Blu-Ray will make PS3 more expensive, since nobody makes either the discs or the drives yet, while regular DVD drives are ubiquitous. The small amount of storage on Gamecube didn't hurt them, they just used multiple discs when necessary.

[MorPhiend]

The amount of storage on a disc isn't going to matter, most games don't even come close to using all of a regular DVD. If anything, Blu-Ray will make PS3 more expensive, since nobody makes either the discs or the drives yet, while regular DVD drives are ubiquitous. The small amount of storage on Gamecube didn't hurt them, they just used multiple discs when necessary.

Seriously. And then after playing 20 or 30 hours of a game I have to switch the disc. Not bad at all, especially considering the advantages of a small disc.

But you are right. J. Allard has talked about that. Very few Xbox games even needed a second layer on one disc. There really is no point in putting media in your machine that is not either finalized, nor standardized yet...

[PsyKyX]

With huge storage capacities expect uncompressed audio and video, not to mention textures and such. the 360 is going to get the shaft here for sure.
Oh, and Toshiba and some others are holding out on Sony. They don't want to form a standard - Sony doesn't want to get Betamaxed. If Sony truely believed Blu-Ray was almighty they wouldn't have tried to find common ground and the other companies know this.

[Sk]

I HAD AN AMIGA! Second best computer ever (right after the Commodore=64).





REVISED - History shows that the winning concole is NOT the most powerful:

1977-84 = Atari (technically inferior to Intellivision)
1985-90 = NES (technically inferior to Sega MS)
1991-95 = SNES = Genesis (virtual tie)

1996-00 = PS1 (technically inferior to N64 and Sega Saturn)
2001-05 = PS2 (technically inferior to Cube and Box)


If history continues that trend, the winner will NOT be the most-advanced system.

troy
That is true, but you also have to take into account that Atari, Nintendo, and Playstation were all the brand name standard when it came to gaming in their respected eras. It was simple marketing, brand loyalty, and good timing that made all those consoles winners. In each of those eras when you wanted to play a video game or even thought of a console you'd say I'm playing an Atari or I'm playing Nintendo. Hell I still know moms that ask their kids if their going to play nintendo even if their using a playstation.

This next gen will be harder to determine a winner from the fact that both XBOX and Playstation have become household names with a good amount of brand appeal and customer loyalty. Thats something the first Xbox lacked and I think now that people own or have used an Xbox they will be more welcoming to buy an Xbox 360. Both the Playstation and Xbox brands are now household names and I could see this battle being a close draw kind of how the Genesis and SNES fought it out.

Nintendo Revolution on the other hand is kind of the wild card, I think of it more as a console that compliments other consoles in your stable. It basically fills in what other consoles lack. At least thats my point of view.

[CappyCobra]

... REVISED - History shows that the winning concole is NOT the most powerful:

1977-84 = Atari (technically inferior to Intellivision)...
No Love for the Colecovision? Best early 80's console EVAR! :D

[CappyCobra]

I think MS's decision to stick with DVD-DL is a wise one. It's proven technology. It's highly commoditized (i.e. Cheaper). And it's been refined for several generations so there is a substancially less issues with DRE's.

[electrictroy]

No Love for the Colecovision? Best early 80's console EVAR! :DThe generation that included Colecovision & Atari's 2nd console - the 5200 - only lasted 1 year. They were both great consoles, but they were killed by the 1983 crash, and they died after only a few thousand units were sold. They are a mere curiosity now, having made almost no impact on videogames.




It's not really true to say the Cube was not harmed by its small discs. There are several recent games that have extra mini-games on the PS2/Xbox versions, but not the Cube, because there simply wasn't enough room.

And there are other games like Eternal Darkness, that relied heavily on pre-recorded videos. They suffered from extreme compression & artifacts, again due to lack of space.



Finally, Blu-Ray is slowly but surely becoming the new standard (the HD-DVD folks are negotiating with Sony to use their compression software on the Blu-Ray hardware... thereby forming a unified standard). So, Blu-Ray won't drive up the price of PS2s..... on the contrary, the Blu-Ray drives will be in every home, become as common as dirt, and just as cheap..... same as happened with DVDs during the last 6 years.

I remember in 1999 people were saying Sony made a mistake choosing DVD for the PS2. Those people were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

So we're going to see Xenosaga 6 or FF15, recorded in 1280x1080 HD resolution, plus various mini-games, filling up all 50 megs of the PS3 blu-ray disc....... and the Xbox 360 will be stuck with only 1/6th the space, and unable to hold a FF-type game.




And if you still don't believe, look at the largest games on each system:
ATARI = 0.06 of a megabyte
-NES = 0.5 meg
SNES = 4 meg
N64 = 64 meg
PS2 = 9000 meg

Games are constantly expanding. By 2010, we'll be seeing games with 50,000 maybe even 100,000 megabytes.

troy

[electrictroy]

Nonsense. The only reason you couldn't have Sonic on the SNES was that Sega owned it. There were a number of third party games for the SNES that were blatant Sonic clones. They ran fine but lacked the brand and design quality.
Really? Can you name some of the titles? I don't remember any SNES-clones that ran as fast as sonic?


BTW, ever play Sonic on the original 8-bit Sega Master System? It's... interesting. Not as advanced as the Genesis version, but still fun: http://web.utanet.at/nkehrer/nose.html

troy