captainblacko
Honorable
- May 21, 2012
- 23
- 0
- 10,560
- Status
[citation][nom]bigfloppydonkeynose[/nom]I love how you people keep saying the ps3 has better hardware. It doesn't a 1 core processor is not more powerful then a 3 core processor. The games rendered in higher resolutions on the Xbox prove this. I own a PS3 and an Xbox and this isnt a fan boy post. IMO they both suck and i like my PC better. but when 9 times out of 10 the Xbox runs at higher resolutions that should clue you people in.[/citation]
wow, the stupidity...
im not 100% sure if this is the video i watched, but here
http
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPOxWl_sxIU
the ps3 prosser is better then the 360, by allot, but sucks so much to program for.
the reason mulitplatform games look worse on the ps3 is because 360 is the lead platform and its ported
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]The PS3 was never out-sold... nor is it a failure. It was always the cheaper console (in the long run) because the standard PS3 features were OPTIONAL add-ons... such as the HD ($130~200), Wireless WIFI ($90), memory cards, Wireles joysticks, HD-DVD player ($200).But you need to remember, the PS3 came out 1 year after the Xbox360 which had a 7million unit lead. That lead continues to this day pretty much. Was the 360 a failure when when had 14million units and PS3 had 7? Was the 360 a failure when they hit 21million units and the PS3 passed 15million?Keep in mind also, until about 22~25million units, many of the early 360s have died. Many 360 owners are on their 3~5th units... go ahead and count the UPGRADED models and many many 360 owners would upgrade to the newer model to reduce the chances of getting RODD.With a failure rate of 33%+ that means millions of 360s have lone since been retired or sold to 3rd world countries.In case you don't know... many refurbs ends up in the black/grey market.[/citation]
im on my 7th 360, 3rd i bought, and last one.
i only had 1 failure of the ps3 in the same time period.
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]LOL.... not going to happen. When a TOP selling game may sell 1 million on the PC market (not including the 2~5million pirate copies from people who wouldnt have bought the game anyway) vs. selling 20~60million copies on the two consoles... The developers are going to do consoles first... and make the PC an after thought.Microsoft themselves PROVES this point very well. hence, other than MS-Office, who needs a Windows computer?[/citation]
yea i dont believe that a single game ever sold more than 20 million on a console even when added together, even COD i doumt sold that well...
you also have to take into account that the pc has a profit margin of almost twice what the ps3 and 360 have, because you dont have to pay for the rights to put a game on them.
wow, the stupidity...
im not 100% sure if this is the video i watched, but here
http
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPOxWl_sxIUthe ps3 prosser is better then the 360, by allot, but sucks so much to program for.
the reason mulitplatform games look worse on the ps3 is because 360 is the lead platform and its ported
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]The PS3 was never out-sold... nor is it a failure. It was always the cheaper console (in the long run) because the standard PS3 features were OPTIONAL add-ons... such as the HD ($130~200), Wireless WIFI ($90), memory cards, Wireles joysticks, HD-DVD player ($200).But you need to remember, the PS3 came out 1 year after the Xbox360 which had a 7million unit lead. That lead continues to this day pretty much. Was the 360 a failure when when had 14million units and PS3 had 7? Was the 360 a failure when they hit 21million units and the PS3 passed 15million?Keep in mind also, until about 22~25million units, many of the early 360s have died. Many 360 owners are on their 3~5th units... go ahead and count the UPGRADED models and many many 360 owners would upgrade to the newer model to reduce the chances of getting RODD.With a failure rate of 33%+ that means millions of 360s have lone since been retired or sold to 3rd world countries.In case you don't know... many refurbs ends up in the black/grey market.[/citation]
im on my 7th 360, 3rd i bought, and last one.
i only had 1 failure of the ps3 in the same time period.
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]LOL.... not going to happen. When a TOP selling game may sell 1 million on the PC market (not including the 2~5million pirate copies from people who wouldnt have bought the game anyway) vs. selling 20~60million copies on the two consoles... The developers are going to do consoles first... and make the PC an after thought.Microsoft themselves PROVES this point very well. hence, other than MS-Office, who needs a Windows computer?[/citation]
yea i dont believe that a single game ever sold more than 20 million on a console even when added together, even COD i doumt sold that well...
you also have to take into account that the pc has a profit margin of almost twice what the ps3 and 360 have, because you dont have to pay for the rights to put a game on them.
- Jul 2, 2006
- 1,621
- 0
- 21,960
I run a repair shop and the rate the PS3's fail to 360 is the same, if not more. The PS3's suffer the same problems as the 360, it's called the Yellow Light Of Death instead of the Red Light Of Death. Stems from the exact same issues as the 360. PS3 lasers die in droves too. $30 to replace a 360 laser or $120 to replace a PS3 laser.
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
That's quite cheesy and also doesn't leave any room for the next generation...unless you want Xbox Infinity-squared.
blazorthon
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]bigfloppydonkeynose[/nom]I love how you people keep saying the ps3 has better hardware. It doesn't a 1 core processor is not more powerful then a 3 core processor. The games rendered in higher resolutions on the Xbox prove this. I own a PS3 and an Xbox and this isnt a fan boy post. IMO they both suck and i like my PC better. but when 9 times out of 10 the Xbox runs at higher resolutions that should clue you people in.[/citation]
Yeah, that's some nice BS that you've got there. The Xbox and PS3 both can't go beyond 720p unless they upscale and nothing changes that. Furthermore, the core count of a processor does not define the performance and you're ignoring the PS3's SPEs. What explanation do you have for the PS3 being used in servers and such, yet the Xbox 360 gets pretty much ignored here? The PS3's Cell CPU is far more powerful than you give it credit for.
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Really? Impressive to who 12-17 yr olds? My PC already drives circles around the next gen now not to mention how much it will a year from now since I upgrade every year with the top end hardware. Next gen on consoles isnt next gen. If developers would build games on the PC first then port to consoles life would be so much better in the gaming world.[/citation]
The problem with that is that unless consoles are much more similar to PCs in the future, the consoles would not be able to run the ports properly because they wouldn't have the performance for it unless they get specifically designed for porting, emulation, and such. Writing games for consoles and porting to PCs ensures that both industries will run the games, albeit the PCs won't run them as well as they have the full potential for (yet they still do it better than the consoles). A better solution would be to streamline porting and make the consoles more specialized for it and then port from PCs to consoles. The same is much less reasonable to do on the PCs because they are a much more diversified platform whereas the consoles are a single platform per generation.
Yeah, that's some nice BS that you've got there. The Xbox and PS3 both can't go beyond 720p unless they upscale and nothing changes that. Furthermore, the core count of a processor does not define the performance and you're ignoring the PS3's SPEs. What explanation do you have for the PS3 being used in servers and such, yet the Xbox 360 gets pretty much ignored here? The PS3's Cell CPU is far more powerful than you give it credit for.
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Really? Impressive to who 12-17 yr olds? My PC already drives circles around the next gen now not to mention how much it will a year from now since I upgrade every year with the top end hardware. Next gen on consoles isnt next gen. If developers would build games on the PC first then port to consoles life would be so much better in the gaming world.[/citation]
The problem with that is that unless consoles are much more similar to PCs in the future, the consoles would not be able to run the ports properly because they wouldn't have the performance for it unless they get specifically designed for porting, emulation, and such. Writing games for consoles and porting to PCs ensures that both industries will run the games, albeit the PCs won't run them as well as they have the full potential for (yet they still do it better than the consoles). A better solution would be to streamline porting and make the consoles more specialized for it and then port from PCs to consoles. The same is much less reasonable to do on the PCs because they are a much more diversified platform whereas the consoles are a single platform per generation.
blazorthon
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]LOL.... not going to happen. When a TOP selling game may sell 1 million on the PC market (not including the 2~5million pirate copies from people who wouldnt have bought the game anyway) vs. selling 20~60million copies on the two consoles... The developers are going to do consoles first... and make the PC an after thought.Microsoft themselves PROVES this point very well. hence, other than MS-Office, who needs a Windows computer?[/citation]
World of Warcraft peaked at something like 10 million subscribers. Then take into account the huge costs of upgrading up all the way to Cataclysm (need to buy at one-five versions if you include the upcoming expansion, depending on how you pay for them and how long you've been playing), the higher profit margins on a PC, the fact that the total number of people who have at least paid for one or a few versions are much greater than the current number of active subscribers, the sheer costs of subscribing, and the many other non-free elements of the game, WoW is probably far more profitable than several console games all by itself, let alone other PC games. Furthermore, you're acting as if MS Office and gaming are the only two reasons that people have computers and that is ignorance to an extreme. Beyond that, no console game sold anywhere near 60 million copies nor even nearly half of that.
World of Warcraft peaked at something like 10 million subscribers. Then take into account the huge costs of upgrading up all the way to Cataclysm (need to buy at one-five versions if you include the upcoming expansion, depending on how you pay for them and how long you've been playing), the higher profit margins on a PC, the fact that the total number of people who have at least paid for one or a few versions are much greater than the current number of active subscribers, the sheer costs of subscribing, and the many other non-free elements of the game, WoW is probably far more profitable than several console games all by itself, let alone other PC games. Furthermore, you're acting as if MS Office and gaming are the only two reasons that people have computers and that is ignorance to an extreme. Beyond that, no console game sold anywhere near 60 million copies nor even nearly half of that.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]wow, the stupidity...im not 100% sure if this is the video i watched, but herehttp/www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPOxWl_sxIUthe ps3 prosser is better then the 360, by allot, but sucks so much to program for. the reason mulitplatform games look worse on the ps3 is because 360 is the lead platform and its portedim on my 7th 360, 3rd i bought, and last one. i only had 1 failure of the ps3 in the same time period. yea i dont believe that a single game ever sold more than 20 million on a console even when added together, even COD i doumt sold that well... you also have to take into account that the pc has a profit margin of almost twice what the ps3 and 360 have, because you dont have to pay for the rights to put a game on them.[/citation]As a CPU as used in video gaming, the PS3's CPU is weak. It's got the vector power, but the low SISD power holds it back considerably. It's great for DSP- and GPU-like operations, but as a traditional CPU, it's pretty crippled.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Yeah, that's some nice BS that you've got there. The Xbox and PS3 both can't go beyond 720p unless they upscale and nothing changes that. Furthermore, the core count of a processor does not define the performance and you're ignoring the PS3's SPEs. What explanation do you have for the PS3 being used in servers and such, yet the Xbox 360 gets pretty much ignored here? The PS3's Cell CPU is far more powerful than you give it credit for.The problem with that is that unless consoles are much more similar to PCs in the future, the consoles would not be able to run the ports properly because they wouldn't have the performance for it unless they get specifically designed for porting, emulation, and such. Writing games for consoles and porting to PCs ensures that both industries will run the games, albeit the PCs won't run them as well as they have the full potential for (yet they still do it better than the consoles). A better solution would be to streamline porting and make the consoles more specialized for it and then port from PCs to consoles. The same is much less reasonable to do on the PCs because they are a much more diversified platform whereas the consoles are a single platform per generation.[/citation]
IBM hasn't made any more servers with the Cell and went with multicore PowerPC CPUs
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPOxWl_sxIUthe ps3 prosser is better then the 360, by allot, but sucks so much to program for. the reason mulitplatform games look worse on the ps3 is because 360 is the lead platform and its portedim on my 7th 360, 3rd i bought, and last one. i only had 1 failure of the ps3 in the same time period. yea i dont believe that a single game ever sold more than 20 million on a console even when added together, even COD i doumt sold that well... you also have to take into account that the pc has a profit margin of almost twice what the ps3 and 360 have, because you dont have to pay for the rights to put a game on them.[/citation]As a CPU as used in video gaming, the PS3's CPU is weak. It's got the vector power, but the low SISD power holds it back considerably. It's great for DSP- and GPU-like operations, but as a traditional CPU, it's pretty crippled.[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Yeah, that's some nice BS that you've got there. The Xbox and PS3 both can't go beyond 720p unless they upscale and nothing changes that. Furthermore, the core count of a processor does not define the performance and you're ignoring the PS3's SPEs. What explanation do you have for the PS3 being used in servers and such, yet the Xbox 360 gets pretty much ignored here? The PS3's Cell CPU is far more powerful than you give it credit for.The problem with that is that unless consoles are much more similar to PCs in the future, the consoles would not be able to run the ports properly because they wouldn't have the performance for it unless they get specifically designed for porting, emulation, and such. Writing games for consoles and porting to PCs ensures that both industries will run the games, albeit the PCs won't run them as well as they have the full potential for (yet they still do it better than the consoles). A better solution would be to streamline porting and make the consoles more specialized for it and then port from PCs to consoles. The same is much less reasonable to do on the PCs because they are a much more diversified platform whereas the consoles are a single platform per generation.[/citation]
IBM hasn't made any more servers with the Cell and went with multicore PowerPC CPUs
blazorthon
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2010
- 761
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]As a CPU as used in video gaming, the PS3's CPU is weak. It's got the vector power, but the low SISD power holds it back considerably. It's great for DSP- and GPU-like operations, but as a traditional CPU, it's pretty crippled.IBM hasn't made any more servers with the Cell and went with multicore PowerPC CPUs[/citation]
Of course the Cell is not being used in new systems as much anymore. It's almost ten years old. However, for the longest time, some of the most powerful super computers were built off of it.
Of course the Cell is not being used in new systems as much anymore. It's almost ten years old. However, for the longest time, some of the most powerful super computers were built off of it.
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]There is not going to be a significant difference in performance between the next xbox and the next playstation.Slight hardware differences don't sell consoles. The PS3 has the most impressive hardware in the current generation, but the difference is marginal and games look almost identical on PS3 and xbox360.I think the only real selling point of the xbox360 was the lower hardware price. (and then people pay for xbox live.....)The PS3 got outsold despite having better hardware, better exclusives and free online play.[/citation]
The PS3's cell processor resulting in bad ports for the first few years. Even games now still have issues (Skyrim). Xbox Live is generally better than PSN and party chat is a great feature that the PS3 doesn't have. It having better exclusives is personal opinion. Things like full achievement support from the start was another great thing Xbox 360 had.
Personally I feel the Xbox 360 is the better console. I do use my PS3 for PS1/2 classics, few exclusives and a blu ray player though.
The PS3's cell processor resulting in bad ports for the first few years. Even games now still have issues (Skyrim). Xbox Live is generally better than PSN and party chat is a great feature that the PS3 doesn't have. It having better exclusives is personal opinion. Things like full achievement support from the start was another great thing Xbox 360 had.
Personally I feel the Xbox 360 is the better console. I do use my PS3 for PS1/2 classics, few exclusives and a blu ray player though.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question NordPass issues with email masking?
- Started by Spotty352
- Replies: 0
-
Question low-cost laptop recommendations for gaming?
- Started by gutta
- Replies: 1
-
-
Question Buy a new Changingtouch lapdock recommendation- Started by Harold Robeson
- Replies: 1
-
Blacklisting phone with various variables- Started by Blindcracker
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question I need an App To Summarize Long Videos.- Started by Bren Rafi
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter