# The definitive 360 vs PS3 guide



## HrnyGoat

There has been much discussion lately over the PS3 and Xbox 360. Both have their loyal fanboys, often spreading misinformation about each console. This has lead to heated arguments, and seemingly endless debate. So I have decided to write about each, and hopefully correct some of the misconceptions out there. So lets start with one of the most significant areas, the graphics processor.

Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to promote one console over another, I am just debunking various myths about each console.

*GPU*

The Xbox 360 and the PS3 use two very different GPU architectures. The RSX in the PS3 is based on the G70 (N47) family of GPUs, which includes the 7800 series and 7900 series. The R500 "Xenos" in the 360 is built from the ground up, more closely related the R600 than other GPU designs of the day. Here we will examine the specs of each GPU and compare them.

*RSX*
Core clock: 550MHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz (DDR)
Memory size/type: 256MB GDDR3
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwdith: 22.4GB/sec
Vertex Shaders: 8
Pixel Shaders: 24
Texture units: 24
ROPs: 8
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 300 million
- G70 based

*R500 "Xenos"*
Core clock: 500MHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz (DDR)
Memory size/type: 512MB GDDR3 (shared with CPU)
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwidth: 22.4GB/sec
Vertex Shaders: n/a
Pixel Shaders: n/a
Unified Shaders: 48
Texure units: 16
ROPs: 8
Process: 90nm/80nm
Transistor count: 337 million
- Unified Shader architecture
- 10MB EDRAM daughter die

Does the fact that the R500 has 48 shaders make it twice as powerful as the RSX? No, it does not actually. Let us dispel that misconception. The pixel shaders in the G70 architecture consist of 1 scalar ALU and 2 vec4 ALUs, while the shaders in the R500 architecture feature 1 scalar ALU and vec4 ALU. This means the RSX has 24 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs, while the R500 has 48 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs. The R500 does has the advantage due to having more scalar ALUs - but nowhere near double the power of the RSX. Lets look deeper into this architecture and examine how each design affects performance.

In addition to having half the scalar ALUs, the G70 is generally inefficient when it comes to pixel shader operations. Though the G70 can do more work per pixel, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader, it is very hard for the GPU's compiler to provide enough data per pixel to keep both vector ALUs busy. If 4 pieces of data cannot be grouped together with an instruction; for example, if only 2 pieces of data are fed into the vec4 ALU, it is only being utilized 50%. This is inefficient. That is why both the G80 and the R600 have ditched the vec4 design in favor of an all scalar architecture. Scalar units can only do 1 operation per clock, but they are fully independent of each other, meaning that different operations can be assigned to each one, allowing all of them to be fully utilized. Therefore, a more efficient design.

Also, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader even further reduces efficiency. Say a pixel only needs 2 operations performed on it. You have 6 data slots going to waste. ATI opted for pushing double the pixels, rather than double the operations per pixel. In this case, if a pixel needs 2 operations, you're only wasting 2 slots. If a pixel needs more than 4 operations, it will have to go in for another pass, but that fact that the R500 pushes double the pixels makes up for this.

You may also notice that the R500 has 16 texture units, while the RSX has 24. Do not be fooled by this, as the architecture is completely different. The RSX may have 8 more texture units, but nVidia decided to integrate the texture units into the shader hardware in order to reduce transistor count. The drawback to this is that each shader/texture cannot process a pixel and a texture at the same time. It can only do one or the other. ATI's approach uses fewer texture units, but they are completely separate from the shader hardware, meaning that the R500 can simultaneously process pixels and textures.

The R500 is designed with efficiency in mind. Though it has 22.4GB/s of external memory, it has another bus linking the main GPU core to a daughter die, with a bandwidth of 32GB/s. Within the daughter die are the ROPs and a 10MB EDRAM framebuffer. Each of the 8 ROPs has a 32GB/s link to the EDRAM, for a total bandwidth of 256MB/s. The EDRAM can be thought of a large cache. With such a large amount of bandwidth, the R500 can do 4x AA, alpha blending and z-buffering with almost no performance hit. The R500 can also get away with fewer ROPs because of this, since they are not sitting idle as much, waiting for data to be sent/retrieved from memory. In the case of the RSX, it too is not just limited to 22.4GB/s memory bandwidth. It also has 15GB/s of write bandwidth and 20GB/s of read bandwidth through the Cell processor. However, data has to pass through two memory controllers and hop over two serial buses to reach the Cell's XDR RAM. This adds a significant amount of latency, making it undesirable for a number of GPU functions.

Another feature, less known, is that the R500 features a programmable tessalator. This allows the GPU to interpolate a low poly model and convert it into a high poly model. This is used extensively in Gears of War. What this does is takes load off the CPU as it does not have to send as much vertex data to the GPU. I'll explain how this factors in later.

Since the R500s shaders are unified, they can perform both vertex and pixel shader operations. This allows for total utilization of all the shaders, and a significant reduction in bottlenecking. The fact the the R500 has more scalar ALUs, more evenly distributed vec4 ALUs, unified shader architecture, decoupled texture units and massive bandwidth gives it an edge over the RSX, and in fact allows it to keep up with its higher-clocked desktop counterpart, the R580. The ATI team behind the R500 went out of their way to eliminate internal bottlenecks and make the R500 very efficient over all. The RSX also cannot perform AA on FP (floating point) surfaces. So it is unable to perform FP-based HDR and AA. However, it can get around this by using interger-based HDR, with a slight reduction in quality. Though not incredibly more powerful, the 360 does come out on top in terms of graphics processing power.

*CPU*

Now that we've covered the GPU design, lets explore the CPUs used in each system. Both consoles use IBM-designed CPUs based on the PowerPC architecture, each clocked at 3.2GHz. However, again, both designs vary greatly. The 360 uses a 3.2GHz triple core processor codenamed Xenon, while the PS3 features a single core CPU with 8 SPEs (sub cores), codenamed Cell. To get a better picture, lets look at the specifications for each CPU.

*Cell*
Core clock: 3.2GHz
Memory clock: 3.2GHz
Memory size/type: 256MB XDR RAM
Memory bus width: 64-bit (serial)
Memory bandwidth: 25.6GB/s
Cores: 1 PPE + 8 SPEs (1 disabled for yield improvement)
Hardware threads: 2
L1 cache: 32KB data + 32KB instruction
L2 cache: 512KB
Local store: 256KB (x8, 1 disabled)
System bus: 35GB/s (20GB/s to RSX, 15GB/s from RSX)
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 235 million

*Xenon*
Core clock: 3.2GHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz
Memory size/type: 512MB GDDR3 (shared with GPU)
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwidth: 22.4GBs
Cores: 3
Hardware threads: 6
L1 cache: 32KB data + 32KB instruction (x3)
L2 cache: 1MB (lockable)
System bus: 21.6GB/s
Process: 90nm/65nm
Transistor count: 165 million

Just from looking at specs, you can clearly tell the Cell CPU is the more powerful of the two. But how much more powerful? In order to do so, we will need to take a close look at the underlying architecture of both CPUs.

*Cell*

We will start with the Cell processor. In this case, IBM has taken a radical departure from traditional CPU design. The Cell can be thought of as a hybrid design between a CPU and GPU. It features a very parallel execution architecture. It has traditional CPU core, referred to as the PPE (Power Processing Element) and 8 supplemental execution units known as SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements). Each SPE has a 256KB local store, rather than a cache. The PPE features traditional L1 and L2 caches. The CPU elements are connected using an element interconnect bus (EIB), a ring bus similar to the one found on the R500 and R600 series of GPUs.

Within each SPE, you have 128 128-bit registers, a 128-bit vector unit, a direct memory access (DMA) controller and a 256KB local store. Each SPE can do 4 32-bit operations, either floating point or integer. This SIMD unit is much like the vec4 units found in the R500 and RSX. At 3.2GHz, each SPE is rated at a peak theoretical performance of 25.6 Gigaflops. Each SPE can access memory on its own, but instructions still have to be issued to it by the PPE. The 256KB of local store behaves differently than a cache, as it is controlled by the software and loads only what it needs to work on. This is more efficient that cache, however, it can generate some overhead as it is software controlled.

The heart of the Cell is the PPE, which is a more traditional CPU and is similar to the cores found in the 360's Xenon. It utilizes a traditional cache system, with 32KB L1 data + 32KB L1 instruction and 512KB of L2. It has a traditional FPU and an integer unit. The PPE also features an AltiVec unit, a vector processor commonly found in POWER-based chips. This is capable of 25.6 Gigaflops at 3.2GHz, which interestingly is the same as an SPE. The PPE's function is to assign tasks to each of the SPEs, perform general tasks that the SPEs are unable to perform and supplement the SPEs with addition execution power.

*Xenon*

Now, on the 360's Xenon. The Xenon uses a traditional CPU design, though a triple core is rather unconventional, as most CPUs come in single, dual or quad core packaging. Each core resembles the Cell's PPE, however, more robust. Each core has a VMX128 unit, which is essentially a beefed-up AltiVec unit with additional registers (one set of registers per thread, for 256 total. Each core also features a traditional FPU and integer unit. The L1 cache system is the same, with 32KB data and 32KB instruction. The L2 cache is 1MB. This may not seem like much for 3 cores, but the massive number of registers in each CPU helps to offset this. In addition to this, sections of the L2 are lockable, so that data in that section will remain on cache until released. This prevents essential data from being flushed back out to memory and having to be reloaded, resulting in the CPU stalling while it waits for the data. This helps to improve memory performance, and acts similar to the local stores found on the Cell's SPEs. The L2 cache is also directly readable by the GPU, meaning the CPU does not have to send data to the CPU; the GPU can pull it straight from the L2 cache, resulting in less processing overhead.

Even though the Xenon is simpler than the Cell, it should in no way be considered underpowered. Both CPUs are considerably more powerful then what you'd find in a desktop. Many claims have been made saying that these CPUs are weaker due to only supporting in-order execution. This is untrue. The compiler only needs to optimized for in-order execution. While these CPUs would be weaker on code compiled for an OOO (Out Of Order) execution CPU, they run just fine on code compiled for in-order execution. Furthermore, both CPUs support multiple hardware threads, allowing them to better compensate for the lack of OOO hardware.

*Comparing the two CPUs*

Theoretically, the Xenon can achieve a maximum performance of 116 gigaflops, while the Cell, in combination of the PPE and the 8 SPEs can achieve a maximum of 205 Gigaflops. But in reality, these numbers are never reached, due to inefficiencies in the architecture. But the question here is, which CPU gets closer to its maximum theoretical performance? For this, we have to identify where in the architecture potential bottlenecks can occur.

In the Xenon, each core is independent of the other, meaning what goes on in one core does not affect the other. In the Cell, the SPEs are dependent on the PPE for tasks to be issued to them. This may not be a problem normally, but if the PPE is under significant computational load, that can affect how it handles the SPEs, thus the SPEs may end up waiting for an overworked PPE to deliver them tasks. Additionally, the Cell only supports two hardware threads, raising the possibility that not enough tasks can be put on two threads to keep the SPEs busy, in some situations. The Xenon supports 6 hardware threads (2 per core), allowing to be more effective at multitasking. Thus, the cores can be kept busy more of the time.

Another issue is the element interconnect bus (EIB) on the Cell. Originally, IBM had wanted to use a crossbar to connect all the cores, but the number of transistors would have become prohibitively high. So to save die space, IBM went with a ring bus-type interconnect. This has lower bandwidth and higher latency than a crossbar, which can induce delays within the CPU, especially during periods of peak data transfer. The cores on the Xenon communicate over a crossbar and through the shared L2 cache, much like how cores communicate on Intel's Core 2 Duo architecture.

The SPEs in the Cell are also limited in what types of instructions they can execute. For any instruction that cant be handled by the SPEs, they must be handled by the PPE. This limits the Cell's capability in some instances. It also puts more load on the PPE and again can overload the PPE, leaving the SPEs waiting for tasks to be issued. The Xenon has 3 cores that can handle any type of task given to them. While not as powerful as the Cell, it is more flexible.

Yet another issue brought up is the Cell's on die memory controller. It has been claimed that this gives it an advantage over the Xenon, as had been said about AMD's CPUs compared to Intel's. However, with the advent of the Core 2 Duo, the memory controller claims were debunked, the location of it has a negligible impact on performance, whether on die or not. It should be noted that the Cell uses a serial bus to connect to the memory. The XDR RAM used is designed by Rambus and is based on RDRAM. For anyone who remembers RDRAM, it had more bandwidth than the parallel DDR modules used at the time, but the latency was very high. So high in fact that it negated any speed advantage it had over DDR, and was eventually phased out. While XDR is improved, it still has higher latencies than the GDDR3 memory used on the 360.

Also, it should be brought up that you don't have all 8 SPEs in the Cell available for gaming. One is disabled for yield improvement, one is reserved exclusively for the operating system, even if not being used. Another can be taken by the operating system if needed. This only leaves 5 SPEs available to the game at any given time. It should also be noted that the SPEs lack branch prediction. One of the claims made is that the Cell is far better for AI and physics. While this is true for physics calculations, AI code is extremely branch intensive and is filled with conditional statements. Thus, the Cell's performance suffers when it comes to AI, as only the PPE features branch prediction. The Xenon is better suited for AI in this case, as all three of its cores include branch prediction.

Despite its shortcomings, the Cell is still an incredibly powerful processor. However, the Xenon is not too far behind. And the fact that the R500 features a programmable tessalator may even negate any speed advantage that the Cell has - when it comes to gaming anyways.

*Media*

Now to discuss the media used by each console. The 360 features a 12x DVD drive, supporting up to 8.5GB for games. The PS3 features a 2x Blu-Ray drive that supports up to 50GB for games. Now the PS3 may seem to have an enormous space advantage, but the real question here is do we really need that much space? Short answer: no. There are some people who religiously, even fanatically believe that games need more space than what is available on DVD. This is simply not true. And I will explain why.

The biggest use of space on a game disk is textures. Left in their raw .BMP format, they take up enormous amounts of space. Now, one may claim that with Blu-Ray, you can use uncompressed textures, but doing so would be downright foolish - especially with lossless compression techniques available. Not only are uncompressed textures a waste of space, they take considerably longer to load as well, especially with the 2x Blu-Ray drive having less read bandwidth than the 360's 12x DVD drive (9MB/s vs 15.9MB/s). At the very least, you can employ a lossless format like .PNG. However, their are some very advanced compression algorithms available, that can significantly reduce the amount of space used by textures, without any noticeable reduction in quality. The textures can be loaded much more quickly, and both consoles have more than enough CPU power to decompress textures on-the-fly.

The second biggest consumer of space is audio. Again, you can have it completely uncompressed, but what's the point? There are plently of lossless compression codecs available. Again, this results in less space used and faster load times. You can go even further and compress to, say, 128kbps MP3. Really, who is going to notice when the vast majority of the market owns a TV set with a sub-par sound system, namely the one or two speakers built into the TV set? Not saying they have to compress audio this much, but they could technically get away with it.

The rest of the data includes such things as geometry data (vertex coordinates), texture data (texture location, name of texture used), shader code, physics code and AI code, etc. Since this is all text (some of it compiled), it does not take up a significant amount of space, and is easily compressible. (This text is only 25KB)

Say for instance, you have a texture library of 4GB (compressed, lossless). This should be more than enough for any game. How so? Well, for starters, textures can be used more than once. For example, an asphalt texture can be used for more than one street. The same texture can be made to look different by using different lighting techniques, different shader codes (code for a shader effect is only a couple kilobytes in size), applying different normal maps in addition to other techniques such as blending (combining two or more textures to create the appearance of a new texture).

Add to this, say 1GB of lossless compressed audio - thats several CDs worth. On top of this add the game code, so make that about 500MB. Then add another 1GB for miscellaneous data. That all adds up to about 6.5GB - and this is a more extreme scenario. With effective use of textures, audio, and coding, practically any game can fit on a dual-layer DVD with room to spare. Take for example Oblivion. A very large game, with high resolution textures and tons of trees and other complex objects. Yet, it only occupies 4.11GB - less than a single-layer DVD. This is due to effective texture management, among other things. And to further prove this point, a game called .kkrieger features UT 2004 quality graphics in a 96KB package. Granted, it is only a single level, but it shows what can done using advanced compression techniques. Developers don't have to come even this close to these extremes to make a game fit on a DVD. By the time games actually need more than 8.5GB of space, games will be well beyond the capability of either console. PC games still fit on a DVD, so why does a console with a 7800GTX need 50GB? It doesn't.

http://www.theprodukkt.com/kkrieger <-- .kkrieger official site.

*Power consumption and noise*

A big complaint about the 360 is fan noise. It may come as a surprise to learn that the PS3 actually consumes more power. The reason for it being less noisy is because of the large fan the PS3 uses. It can move more air with less noise. However, the PS3 does not run cooler than the 360. In fact, it puts out more heat as it consumes more power. Both consoles need adequate ventilation, and putting either one in a confined space will cause it to overheat.

Another common misconception is that overheating causes the RROD (red ring of death) on the 360. That is actually not the cause. I have written a FAQ on this if you wish to read up on it: http://www.overclock.net/xbox/183174-why-360s-fail.html
Update: It is believed that the newer Zephyr and Falcon motherboards may not be affected by this, or at least to a lesser degree. However, official numbers are not yet available to show this is in fact the case.

*Features*

Here is a list of standard features and US prices of each SKU:

*PS3*

*20GB model* (discontinued in US)
Price: $500
Hard drive: 20GB 2.5" SATA (replaceable)
WiFi: No
Controller: Wireless
Media: Blu-Ray
Video: Composite, Component, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 4 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100/1000, Bluetooth
Extras: None

*40GB model*
Price: $400
Hard drive: 40GB 2.5" SATA (replaceable)
WiFi: Yes
Controller: Wireless
Media: Blu-Ray
Video: Composite, Component, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 2 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100/1000, Bluetooth, 802.11 B/G
Extras: Free Movie (Spiderman 3)
Note: Backwards compatibility disabled in this model

*60GB model* (discontinued in US)
Price: $600
Hard drive: 60GB 2.5" SATA (replaceable)
WiFi: Yes
Controller: Wireless
Media: Blu-Ray
Video: Composite, Component, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 4 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100/1000, Bluetooth, 802.11 B/G
Extras: Card reader, chrome trim

*80GB model*
Price: $500
Hard drive: 60GB 2.5" SATA (replaceable)
WiFi: Yes
Controller: Wireless
Media: Blu-Ray
Video: Composite, Component, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 4 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100/1000, Bluetooth, 802.11 B/G
Extras: Card reader, chrome trim, free game (Motorstorm)

*Xbox 360*

*Core package* (discontinued)
Price: $275
Hard drive: None (Can be added, proprietary upgrade)
WiFi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wired (accepts wireless)
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA
Audio: RCA stereo, optical
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: None

*Arcade package*
Price: $275
Hard drive: None (Can be added, proprietary upgrade)
WiFi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wireless
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: 256MB memory card, 5 free arcade games

*Premium package* (old)
Price: $400
Hard drive: 20GB (upgradeable, proprietary)
Wifi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wireless
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA
Audio: RCA stereo, optical
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: Component cable, Live headset

*Premium package* (new)
Price: $350
Hard drive: 20GB (upgradeable, proprietary)
Wifi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wireless
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: Component cable, Live headset, 2 free games (Forza 2, Marvel Ultimate Alliance)

*Elite package*
Price: $450
Hard drive: 120GB
WiFi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wireless
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: Component cable, Live headset, HDMI cable, 2 free games (Forza 2, Marvel Ultimate Alliance)

If you are looking at an all-in-one home entertainment package, the PS3 is the better buy. But if you simply want a game console, or want a console + a few additional features, or don't have an HDTV, the 360 is the way to go. If you are going to play HD DVD or Blu-Ray, you need at least a 720p capable TV set, preferably a 1080i or 1080p set. A decent sound system is also recommended.

*Advantages and Disadvantages of each console*

*Xbox 360*

*Advantages*
- Lower cost
- More powerful graphics processor
- Larger game library
- Proven online system
- Optional features

*Disadvantages*
- No built-in WiFi
- Noise level
- Online play is not free
- No option for built in hi-def player
- Potential for defective hardware

*PS3*

*Advantages*
- More features
- More CPU power
- Free online play
- Less noise

*Disadvantages*
- Expensive
- Has features that not everyone needs or wants to pay for
- Weaker graphics processor
- Online system is unproven at this time
- Smaller game library
- No VGA output

Another possible advantage that the PS3 has is HDMI 1.3. However, I did not decide to include this in the list, as games will not be affected by this. I will give a rundown of the new features and how they affect games and video:

- Increased bandwidth: Does not affect gameplay or video, as output is capped at 1920 x 1080, progressive scan.
- 30, 36, and 48 bit color: Will not affect games as they are rendered at 24-bit color. Video support is entirely optional.
- Lossless audio codec support: Will not affect games, since audio is decoded on the console. HD DVD and Blu Ray support this, but the audio is usually decoded on the player, as is the case with the 360 and PS3. So this has no real affect on video either.
- Mini connector: For camcorders, does not affect consoles.

So really, the fact that the 360 Elite only uses HDMI 1.2 does not really mean anything. It does not affect games, and only affects video if you are using an external decoder, rather than using a pre-decoded audio stream. And by the time videos and TVs support greater than 24-bit color, it will be several years down the road.

Another thing I chose not to put on the list was Folding at Home (FaH) support on the PS3. Sure, its a noble cause, but did Sony do it for the philanthropic value or for the publicity? One look at all the hype generated on the internet should give you your answer. Sony got one thing out of this - free advertising. Much like how a number of celebrities give to charity simply for publicity. So this should not affect your decision on purchasing a console, per se. By going with a 360, you are also indirectly contributing to charitable causes, as Bill Gates is the world's #1 philanthropist. So either way, you should not feel guilty in not purchasing one console over the other.

I wrote this to dispel a number of misconceptions about both consoles, and to help anyone deciding on which console to purchase. You may notice I didn't include the Wii, as it should speak for itself - and shows that the majority of people simply want a low-priced system that does strictly gaming, rather than a media powerhouse. Still, for those wanting eye candy and lots of features, the 360 and PS3 also make great choices.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Good guide. I agree with most apart from the media storage. I Agree we dont need 50GB for games yet and such. However I think its nice to have the space available for mass extra content perhaps in the future not just on games but films also.


----------



## HeartOfAHydra

I think its a good guide, so rep+ first of all. Second of all i think saying the Cell is only beating the Xenon by a little is an understatement in my opinion. Because even if they have very similiar specs one thing that sets them apart is the cores, 3 vs. 8. It's like comparing a dual core to a quad core when Alan Wake comes out. And honestly i like the graphics Nvidia produces more than ATI so saying that the 360 has better graphics on your Pro's & Con's part is generally an opinion. And last but not least let me say that the PS3 is made to be a 10 year system, when games start to actually be 100% next generation (Oblivion was one of the first Next-Gen games ever) i'm assuming the Code will be more advanced, Textures will, Physics, AI, Environments, Levels, Length of games, etc. will all grow and so will the size. You might think the 7800 GTX in the PS3 won't be able to keep up that long but i doubt that to be honest, the PS2 has such an old Video Card yet the games can still wow people. God of War 2 for example.

Anyway goodjob, I just dont think the extra space thing will get reconized until people actually see how Next Generation games start to get. I mean N64 & PS1 games only took up a few 100 MB's, then the PS2 and XBOX came and more than doubled that, so trusting the timeline i say games will definately start taking up way more space.


----------



## dhrandy

This is the greatest guide I've ever seen!







This should be a sticky.


----------



## GibbyGano

This is what always makes me have a good laugh at Sony's expense. They had an eternity to work on PS3 after the 360 came out and they spent more time slipping in Blu-Ray that they made the whole console suffer. Never thought I would see the day that an American corporation dominates the console marker.


----------



## RADEON

Awesome unbiased comparison! Definitely Rep+







.

I've seen the kkreiger demo before. I think it actually uses instructions to render the textures, not decompressing pre-rendered textures.


----------



## Oldboy

needs some editing:
1. XBOX has a Better Graphics Card, NOT Better Graphics...(your giving a bias)
2. PS3 has the largest library of all 3 next gen consoles....(PS2/PS1 does count in this)
3.Xbox has smaller library, less variety of games
4.PSP owners can connect to their PS3 wirelessly, trade info and ps1 games...

And Gibby: Sony had the console finished, but delays for Blu Ray are what screwed it up, and if they had gone back to change the cpu/gpu it would have been even longer before it had come out, and probably cost even more....

Good Guide


----------



## nitrousflash

nice guide man, totally unbiased for the most part. rep+.


----------



## danm

Nice guide. Rep+


----------



## LopsidedMocha

even though some of it sounds biased its a very nice guide rep+


----------



## FrankenPC

I own both consoles...so I really don't have a bias. I enjoy both. But, the PS3 is infinitely more useful ATM simply because of the HDMI 1.3 Blu-Ray player. I purchased a 52" Samsung HDMI 1.3 LCD recently and watched my first "deep color" movie across HDMI 1.3 and it was astounding. Everyone who has seen the picture quality and color depth has been blown away.


----------



## jonny1989

Quote:



This is what always makes me have a good laugh at Sony's expense. They had an eternity to work on PS3 after the 360 came out and they spent more time slipping in Blu-Ray that they made the whole console suffer. Never thought I would see the day that an American corporation dominates the console marker.


True they did spend to much time on the blu ray crap.But also in a sence the Americans did win this one.Where do you think that all the parts for the ps3 come form.Thy are made in the US.Nvidia,IMB,Hitachi,and a lot of the othere parts are Made by US companys.Sony didnt even make Blu ray by them selves the had to get a halp for the Americans on that one.All sony realy dones it puts it togethere and slapes there name on it.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Why do I get the feeling there not all american parts in the PS3 !.


----------



## jonny1989

Quote:

Why do I get the feeling there not all american parts in the PS3 !.
Yes yes i know not all of them are american but I would have to say all the mager parts are such as the cpu,gpu,hard drive,But the ram is made in other places.Also blu ray whas co developed with american compays.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Yeah I was merely stating that some of the parts would have been produced elswhere. The PCB and such.


----------



## J3r3my

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FrankenPC* 
I own both consoles...so *I really don't have a bias*. I enjoy both. But, *the PS3 is infinitely more useful* ATM simply because of the HDMI 1.3 Blu-Ray player. I purchased a 52" Samsung HDMI 1.3 LCD recently and watched my first "deep color" movie across HDMI 1.3 and it was astounding. Everyone who has seen the picture quality and color depth has been blown away.

orly?









Anyway great article. Maybe not totally unbiased but pretty close. Worth a sticky with a few improvements.


----------



## raveneon

Good review. However in the end no matter the horsepower it all comes down to software. For me the 360 has way to many FPS and racing games. The PS3 just doesn't have enough games period. So we will have to wait and see what they come up with.


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HeartOfAHydra* 
I think its a good guide, so rep+ first of all. Second of all i think saying the Cell is only beating the Xenon by a little is an understatement in my opinion. Because even if they have very similiar specs one thing that sets them apart is the cores, 3 vs. 8. It's like comparing a dual core to a quad core when Alan Wake comes out.

Comparing cores in this case is like comparing GHz. Its not the whole picture. The VMX128 units in the Xenon are more powerful than the SPEs or the AltiVec unit in the PPE. Each core also has traditional FPUs and interger units. So you cannot make a direct comparison. Id say the Cell is no more than 50% faster than the Xenon. The Cell clearly beats it, but the Xenon shouldnt be considered weak by any means.

Quote:

And honestly i like the graphics Nvidia produces more than ATI so saying that the 360 has better graphics on your Pro's & Con's part is generally an opinion.
Simply because you like it better doesnt mean its better. I put months of research into this, it is a logical conclusion, not my opinion.

Quote:

And last but not least let me say that the PS3 is made to be a 10 year system
It wont last that long. In about 5 or 6 years, with the rate tech is advancing, people will be screaming for a new console.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oldboy* 
needs some editing:
1. XBOX has a Better Graphics Card, NOT Better Graphics...(your giving a bias)

Ok, it has _potential_ for better graphics.

Quote:

2. PS3 has the largest library of all 3 next gen consoles....(PS2/PS1 does count in this)
3.Xbox has smaller library, less variety of games
But what really sells a console is its library of current generation of games. However, I will edit my post to include that the PS3 does have a larger list of backwards-compatible games.

Quote:

4.PSP owners can connect to their PS3 wirelessly, trade info and ps1 games...
That was implied as part of "more features" on the list.


----------



## J3r3my

I dare someone to Digg this


----------



## jesusofwales

Very informative and even handed guide! Rep+

Anyone who found it interesting may like to look at this article:

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

Some of the info is a little outdated (it was written shortly before the 360 was released) but it is, for the most part, still relevant and very detailed so could probably be used to add to the guide.

It might also be worth mentioning that some games are actually starting to take advantage of the increased capacity of Blu-Ray;
- Resistance: Fall of Man uses 16GB of space on the disk.
- Warhawk is planned to be packed with HD demos, interviews, trailers etc. on the same disk. Source.
- The PS3 version of Stranglehold will be bundled with a HD version of the movie Stranglehold again on the same disk. Source.

Admittedly only one of those is an example of an actual game requiring more than a standard DVD, and it was probably under a bit of pressure from Sony considering it was pretty much the PS3's poster child at launch.

As for the speed of the Blu-ray drives (2x Blu-ray vs 12x DVD), thanks to the HDD in all PS3s, games (Oblivion for instance) can pre-install parts of the game to the HDD for even faster access than the 360's DVD drive.

Also worth a mention is that Dan Houser said that the lack of HDD's in some 360s and the capacity of DVDs is a limiting factor in GTA IV's development.

This isn't really relevant to the games, but Blu-Rays are damnably near indestructible.

Well, theres my take on Blu-ray.


----------



## RADEON

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jesusofwales*


...

This isn't really relevant to the games, but Blu-Rays are damnably near indestructible.

.


That test is pretty lame. Just read the comments below it.









I've had PS1 games that were totally shot that would still play. Blu-ray is an optical disc just like everything else, and will consequently behave as such when subjected to various forms of abuse. Some things will screw discs up instantly, while others don't seem to affect them. It all depends on how the surface defects scatter the laser light, regardless of what format it is.


----------



## bucdan

did u steal this off a web ..you??


----------



## jesusofwales

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RADEON* 
That test is pretty lame. Just read the comments below it.









I've had PS1 games that were totally shot that would still play. Blu-ray is an optical disc just like everything else, and will consequently behave as such when subjected to various forms of abuse. Some things will screw discs up instantly, while others don't seem to affect them. It all depends on how the surface defects scatter the laser light, regardless of what format it is.

Those are valid points, and it is difficult to accurately measure the durability of any disk with a test as unscientific as the one I linked. The reason I mentioned it was because of the Hard Coating that is necessary and supposedly increases durability to levels far beyond that of DVD. I've seen a lot of equally unscientific "tests" of this while wandering the tubes that come to a variety of conclusions on the subject.

I have an incredibly clumsy brother (with whom I split the cost of the PS3) who has rendered several DVDs unreadable, but has yet to so with a Blu-Ray (still early days admittedly







) so for me its just a nice feature to have around.


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FrankenPC* 
I own both consoles...so I really don't have a bias. I enjoy both. But, the PS3 is infinitely more useful ATM simply because of the HDMI 1.3 Blu-Ray player. I purchased a 52" Samsung HDMI 1.3 LCD recently and watched my first "deep color" movie across HDMI 1.3 and it was astounding. Everyone who has seen the picture quality and color depth has been blown away.

I agree with Franken. I own both consoles as well and find myself using the PS3 a lot more. I'm particularly big on streaming media and hi-def movies. The PS3's way of streaming video and music is better than having to use Media Center with the 360.

But anyway, Nice guide HrnyGoat. Good to see you back.


----------



## VulcanDragon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jesusofwales*


I have an incredibly clumsy brother (with whom I split the cost of the PS3) who has rendered several DVDs unreadable, but has yet to so with a Blu-Ray (still early days admittedly







) so for me its just a nice feature to have around.










Hmm...I don't necessarily want to insult your brother, but it takes more than "clumsy" to ruin a DVD. It takes complete disregard for the disc, basically. With even a modicum of care, DVDs are pretty durable. If they weren't, the movies you rent would be toast in a couple of rentals...people aren't very careful with those.

Anyway, if durability is the gold standard, then Atari 2600 cartridges win the race. You can destroy the casing, run over it with a car, etc.; and the cartridges still work. You have to take a hammer to the curcuit board to truly kill one of those things. (Some guy did this as an experiment several years ago.) Amazing how "scratch resistant" is the new standard for durability when you compare it to this.


----------



## jesusofwales

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VulcanDragon*


Hmm...I don't necessarily want to insult your brother, but it takes more than "clumsy" to ruin a DVD. It takes complete disregard for the disc, basically. With even a modicum of care, DVDs are pretty durable. If they weren't, the movies you rent would be toast in a couple of rentals...people aren't very careful with those.


Don't worry about insulting my brother, I heartily endorse it! He can be pretty heavy handed and absent minded (which is a bad combination when it comes to disks) and has shut cases onto disks, dropped them, dropped things onto them etc. basically all the things the manufacturer warns against. Most of the time they are fine, but sometimes the disks have stopped working completely or cut out after a particular scene or level. The hard coating seems to be ideal for the kind of stresses my brother would subject the disks to.

And as for rentals, I've had some bad experiences with scratched and stuttering disks in the past. I rented a copy of _Nosferatu_ that was so scratched I physically could not access 3 chapters to name one.


----------



## RADEON

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VulcanDragon*


Hmm...I don't necessarily want to insult your brother, but it takes more than "clumsy" to ruin a DVD. It takes complete disregard for the disc, basically. With even a modicum of care, DVDs are pretty durable. If they weren't, the movies you rent would be toast in a couple of rentals...people aren't very careful with those.

.


LOL. I've seen some pretty screwed up rental movies that still played.

It's all about how you scratch them. Thin hairline scratches that usually result from normal wear and tear don't really seem to effect anything unless they build up really badly. Deep gouges are usually the culprit, since they scatter the light really well. A disc that gets into a situation that would gouge it badly enough probably won't be saved by any scratch resistant coating. It's probably the same as the scratch resistant coatings on some eyeglasses. It keeps them from getting scratched from normal cleaning, handling, ect., but probably not if you drop a screwdriver on them.


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bucdan* 
did u steal this off a web ..you??

No, this is my own work. Try searching, but you wont find it anywhere else.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElMikeTheMike* 
I agree with Franken. I own both consoles as well and find myself using the PS3 a lot more. I'm particularly big on streaming media and hi-def movies. The PS3's way of streaming video and music is better than having to use Media Center with the 360.

But anyway, Nice guide HrnyGoat. Good to see you back.

I think Microsoft opted to focus more on games, while Sony focused more on media.

And actually, Im not back yet. Im only here for today and then Im back to where Ill have no internet access.


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jesusofwales* 
Very informative and even handed guide! Rep+

Anyone who found it interesting may like to look at this article:

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

Some of the info is a little outdated (it was written shortly before the 360 was released) but it is, for the most part, still relevant and very detailed so could probably be used to add to the guide.

It might also be worth mentioning that some games are actually starting to take advantage of the increased capacity of Blu-Ray;
- Resistance: Fall of Man uses 16GB of space on the disk.
- Warhawk is planned to be packed with HD demos, interviews, trailers etc. on the same disk. Source.
- The PS3 version of Stranglehold will be bundled with a HD version of the movie Stranglehold again on the same disk. Source.

Admittedly only one of those is an example of an actual game requiring more than a standard DVD, and it was probably under a bit of pressure from Sony considering it was pretty much the PS3's poster child at launch.

As for the speed of the Blu-ray drives (2x Blu-ray vs 12x DVD), thanks to the HDD in all PS3s, games (Oblivion for instance) can pre-install parts of the game to the HDD for even faster access than the 360's DVD drive.

Also worth a mention is that Dan Houser said that the lack of HDD's in some 360s and the capacity of DVDs is a limiting factor in GTA IV's development.

This isn't really relevant to the games, but Blu-Rays are damnably near indestructible.

Well, theres my take on Blu-ray.

Nice info there mate. I think its a great Idea that such games as Oblivion partly install on the HDD for faster access later.


----------



## jesusofwales

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ENTERPRISE*


Nice info there mate. I think its a great Idea that such games as Oblivion partly install on the HDD for faster access later.


Thanks, you might have heard, but Kojima now thinks Blu-Rays are too small!

DVD vs Blu-Ray is discussed in a little more detail starting here if you're interested.


----------



## J3r3my

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jesusofwales*


Thanks, you might have heard, but Kojima now thinks Blu-Rays are too small!

DVD vs Blu-Ray is discussed in a little more detail starting here if you're interested.


I have to agree with this comment

Quote:



There is no way they need 50gb for a game. He can blow all the smoke he wants put in all reality he just doesn't want to take the time to compress his data like everybody else.


I think Kojimas lost his mind...


----------



## ENTERPRISE

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jesusofwales*


Thanks, you might have heard, but Kojima now thinks Blu-Rays are too small!

DVD vs Blu-Ray is discussed in a little more detail starting here if you're interested.


Nice !. Hmm yeah ok then of course Blu-ray hasnt got enough storage...What was I thinking..50GB is actually very small...We need ''Grey-ray'' featuring 100 GB storage.

Go Kojima !


----------



## HrnyGoat

Guide has been updated to reflect recent events.


----------



## Valllldondo

Good thread +rep

I do not think you are going to get a more unbiased comparison regarding the 360 & PS3...

Its just a shame some daft fan boys came on and did the usual "open the mouth before thinking-mince"...

In the end both systems will be a success...
1 system is not going to completely dominate the other...


----------



## J3r3my

I think the Premium with the HDMI is still called the Premium.


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *J3r3my* 
I think the Premium with the HDMI is still called the Premium.

I've done some research and some places still call it the Premium, Newegg calls it the Platinum, some other retail sites call it the Pro package, and MS just calls it the Xbox 360. So I guess any of the name will work for it, I think everyone knows what SKU you are talking about.


----------



## blade007

Quote:



"Has features that not everyone needs or wants to pay for"


i dont find this a disadvantage for the PS3


----------



## Zeraphil

Good guide man.
However, I think hardware comparisons are a bit excessive, if you just focus on the fact that you buy a -video game console- to play -video games-. I wouldn't dish out 600 bucks for a video streamer and a media center, I have my PC for that.

The focus of the "vs." part should be what exclusive games can be found on either system, and what games you really want to play.

Mass Effect, BioShock, Halo 3 vs. Lair, Afrika, MGS4. Dunno if it should be a seperate guide talking exclusivity or if it should be a part of the guide itself. My 2 cents, anyways.


----------



## HrnyGoat

This was primarily intended to be a hardware comparison, but I may opt to include game titles. Good suggestion.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blade007*


i dont find this a disadvantage for the PS3


Some people may be on a budget and have no desire to watch Blu-Ray movies, especially if they only have a standard def TV set.


----------



## The_Rocker

Great comparison man... However, even though you have concluded that the 360 has a more powerful gfx unit, the ps3 will in the future take the lead because of its ability to play games from blue ray discs which hold far more tha a dvd9.
Excellent guide...


----------



## blade007

Quote:



Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat*


This was primarily intended to be a hardware comparison, but I may opt to include game titles. Good suggestion.

Some people may be on a budget and have no desire to watch Blu-Ray movies, especially if they only have a standard def TV set.


what? how is having alot of features a disadvantage, you still have the option to use those features or not; id say its more of an advantage than a disadvantage


----------



## VulcanDragon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blade007*


what? how is having alot of features a disadvantage, you still have the option to use those features or not; id say its more of an advantage than a disadvantage


A feature is not an advanatage when a) the feature is not wildly in demand, and b) it increases the cost. Consumers view those features as simply paying extra for something they will never use.

This is a generic truth, it is not a PS3-speficic comment. The same argument could be made about the price-to-new-features in the X360 Elite.


----------



## claymanhb

Quote:



Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat*


There has been much discussion lately over the PS3 and Xbox 360. Both have their loyal fanboys, often spreading misinformation about each console. This has lead to heated arguments, and seemingly endless debate. So I have decided to write about each, and hopefully correct some of the misconceptions out there. So lets start with one of the most significant areas, the graphics processor.

*GPU*

The Xbox 360 and the PS3 use two very different GPU architectures. The RSX in the PS3 is based on the G70 (N47) family of GPUs, which includes the 7800 series and 7900 series. The R500 "Xenos" in the 360 is built from the ground up, more closely related the R600 than other GPU designs of the day. Here we will examine the specs of each GPU and compare them.

*RSX*
Core clock: 550MHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz (DDR)
Memory size/type: 256MB GDDR3
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwdith: 22.4GB/sec
Vertex Shaders: 8
Pixel Shaders: 24
Texture units: 24
ROPs: 8
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 300 million
- G70 based

*R500 "Xenos"*
Core clock: 500MHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz (DDR)
Memory size/type: 512MB GDDR3 (shared with CPU)
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwidth: 22.4GB/sec
Vertex Shaders: n/a
Pixel Shaders: n/a
Unified Shaders: 48
Texure units: 16
ROPs: 8
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 337 million
- Unified Shader architecture
- 10MB EDRAM daughter die

Does the fact that the R500 has 48 shaders make it twice as powerful as the RSX? No, it does not actually. Let us dispel that misconception. The pixel shaders in the G70 architecture consist of 1 scalar ALU and 2 vec4 ALUs, while the shaders in the R500 architecture feature 1 scalar ALU and vec4 ALU. This means the RSX has 24 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs, while the R500 has 48 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs. The R500 does has the advantage due to having more scalar ALUs - but nowhere near double the power of the RSX. Lets look deeper into this architecture and examine how each design affects performance.

In addition to having half the scalar ALUs, the G70 is generally inefficient when it comes to pixel shader operations. Though the G70 can do more work per pixel, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader, it is very hard for the GPU's compiler to provide enough data per pixel to keep both vector ALUs busy. If 4 pieces of data cannot be grouped together with an instruction; for example, if only 2 pieces of data are fed into the vec4 ALU, it is only being utilized 50%. This is inefficient. That is why both the G80 and the R600 have ditched the vec4 design in favor of an all scalar architecture. Scalar units can only do 1 operation per clock, but they are fully independent of each other, meaning that different operations can be assigned to each one, allowing all of them to be fully utilized. Therefore, a more efficient design.

Also, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader even further reduces efficiency. Say a pixel only needs 2 operations performed on it. You have 6 data slots going to waste. ATI opted for pushing double the pixels, rather than double the operations per pixel. In this case, if a pixel needs 2 operations, you're only wasting 2 slots. If a pixel needs more than 4 operations, it will have to go in for another pass, but that fact that the R500 pushes double the pixels makes up for this.

You may also notice that the R500 has 16 texture units, while the RSX has 24. Do not be fooled by this, as the architecture is completely different. The RSX may have 8 more texture units, but nVidia decided to integrate the texture units into the shader hardware in order to reduce transistor count. The drawback to this is that each shader/texture cannot process a pixel and a texture at the same time. It can only do one or the other. ATI's approach uses fewer texture units, but they are completely separate from the shader hardware, meaning that the R500 can simultaneously process pixels and textures.

The R500 is designed with efficiency in mind. Though it has 22.4GB/s of external memory, it has another bus linking the main GPU core to a daughter die, with a bandwidth of 32GB/s. Within the daughter die are the ROPs and a 10MB EDRAM framebuffer. Each of the 8 ROPs has a 32GB/s link to the EDRAM, for a total bandwidth of 256MB/s. The EDRAM can be thought of a large cache. With such a large amount of bandwidth, the R500 can do 4x AA, alpha blending and z-buffering with almost no performance hit. The R500 can also get away with fewer ROPs because of this, since they are not sitting idle as much, waiting for data to be sent/retrieved from memory. In the case of the RSX, it too is not just limited to 22.4GB/s memory bandwidth. It also has 15GB/s of write bandwidth and 20GB/s of read bandwidth through the Cell processor. However, data has to pass through two memory controllers and hop over two serial buses to reach the Cell's XDR RAM. This adds a significant amount of latency, making it undesirable for a number of GPU functions.

Another feature, less known, is that the R500 features a programmable tessalator. This allows the GPU to interpolate a low poly model and convert it into a high poly model. This is used extensively in Gears of War. What this does is takes load off the CPU as it does not have to send as much vertex data to the GPU. I'll explain how this factors in later.

Since the R500s shaders are unified, they can perform both vertex and pixel shader operations. This allows for total utilization of all the shaders, and a significant reduction in bottlenecking. The fact the the R500 has more scalar ALUs, more evenly distributed vec4 ALUs, unified shader architecture, decoupled texture units and massive bandwidth gives it an edge over the RSX, and in fact allows it to keep up with its higher-clocked desktop counterpart, the R580. The ATI team behind the R500 went out of their way to eliminate internal bottlenecks and make the R500 very efficient over all. The RSX also cannot perform AA on FP (floating point) surfaces. So it is unable to perform FP-based HDR and AA. However, it can get around this by using interger-based HDR, with a slight reduction in quality. Though not incredibly more powerful, the 360 does come out on top in terms of graphics processing power.

*CPU*

Now that we've covered the GPU design, lets explore the CPUs used in each system. Both consoles use IBM-designed CPUs based on the PowerPC architecture, each clocked at 3.2GHz. However, again, both designs vary greatly. The 360 uses a 3.2GHz triple core processor codenamed Xenon, while the PS3 features a single core CPU with 8 SPEs (sub cores), codenamed Cell. To get a better picture, lets look at the specifications for each CPU.

*Cell*
Core clock: 3.2GHz
Memory clock: 3.2GHz
Memory size/type: 256MB XDR RAM
Memory bus width: 64-bit (serial)
Memory bandwidth: 25.6GB/s
Cores: 1 PPE + 8 SPEs (1 disabled for yield improvement)
Hardware threads: 2
L1 cache: 32KB data + 32KB instruction
L2 cache: 512KB
Local store: 256KB (x8, 1 disabled)
System bus: 35GB/s (20GB/s to RSX, 15GB/s from RSX)
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 235 million

*Xenon*
Core clock: 3.2GHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz
Memory size/type: 512MB GDDR3 (shared with GPU)
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwidth: 22.4GBs
Cores: 3
Hardware threads: 6
L1 cache: 32KB data + 32KB instruction (x3)
L2 cache: 1MB (lockable)
System bus: 21.6GB/s
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 165 million

Just from looking at specs, you can clearly tell the Cell CPU is the more powerful of the two. But how much more powerful? In order to do so, we will need to take a close look at the underlying architecture of both CPUs.

*Cell*

We will start with the Cell processor. In this case, IBM has taken a radical departure from traditional CPU design. The Cell can be thought of as a hybrid design between a CPU and GPU. It features a very parallel execution architecture. It has traditional CPU core, referred to as the PPE (Power Processing Element) and 8 supplemental execution units known as SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements). Each SPE has a 256KB local store, rather than a cache. The PPE features traditional L1 and L2 caches. The CPU elements are connected using an element interconnect bus (EIB), a ring bus similar to the one found on the R500 and R600 series of GPUs.

Within each SPE, you have 128 128-bit registers, a 128-bit vector unit, a direct memory access (DMA) controller and a 256KB local store. Each SPE can do 4 32-bit operations, either floating point or integer. This SIMD unit is much like the vec4 units found in the R500 and RSX. At 3.2GHz, each SPE is rated at a peak theoretical performance of 25.6 Gigaflops. Each SPE can access memory on its own, but instructions still have to be issued to it by the PPE. The 256KB of local store behaves differently than a cache, as it is controlled by the software and loads only what it needs to work on. This is more efficient that cache, however, it can generate some overhead as it is software controlled.

The heart of the Cell is the PPE, which is a more traditional CPU and is similar to the cores found in the 360's Xenon. It utilizes a traditional cache system, with 32KB L1 data + 32KB L1 instruction and 512KB of L2. It has a traditional FPU and an integer unit. The PPE also features an AltiVec unit, a vector processor commonly found in POWER-based chips. This is capable of 25.6 Gigaflops at 3.2GHz, which interestingly is the same as an SPE. The PPE's function is to assign tasks to each of the SPEs, perform general tasks that the SPEs are unable to perform and supplement the SPEs with addition execution power.

*Xenon*

Now, on the 360's Xenon. The Xenon uses a traditional CPU design, though a triple core is rather unconventional, as most CPUs come in single, dual or quad core packaging. Each core resembles the Cell's PPE, however, more robust. Each core has a VMX128 unit, which is essentially a beefed-up AltiVec unit with additional registers (one set of registers per thread, for 256 total. Each core also features a traditional FPU and integer unit. The L1 cache system is the same, with 32KB data and 32KB instruction. The L2 cache is 1MB. This may not seem like much for 3 cores, but the massive number of registers in each CPU helps to offset this. In addition to this, sections of the L2 are lockable, so that data in that section will remain on cache until released. This prevents essential data from being flushed back out to memory and having to be reloaded, resulting in the CPU stalling while it waits for the data. This helps to improve memory performance, and acts similar to the local stores found on the Cell's SPEs. The L2 cache is also directly readable by the GPU, meaning the CPU does not have to send data to the CPU; the GPU can pull it straight from the L2 cache, resulting in less processing overhead.

Even though the Xenon is simpler than the Cell, it should in no way be considered underpowered. Both CPUs are considerably more powerful then what you'd find in a desktop. Many claims have been made saying that these CPUs are weaker due to only supporting in-order execution. This is untrue. The compiler only needs to optimized for in-order execution. While these CPUs would be weaker on code compiled for an OOO (Out Of Order) execution CPU, they run just fine on code compiled for in-order execution. Furthermore, both CPUs support multiple hardware threads, allowing them to better compensate for the lack of OOO hardware.

*Comparing the two CPUs*

Theoretically, the Xenon can achieve a maximum performance of 116 gigaflops, while the Cell, in combination of the PPE and the 8 SPEs can achieve a maximum of 205 Gigaflops. But in reality, these numbers are never reached, due to inefficiencies in the architecture. But the question here is, which CPU gets closer to its maximum theoretical performance? For this, we have to identify where in the architecture potential bottlenecks can occur.

In the Xenon, each core is independent of the other, meaning what goes on in one core does not affect the other. In the Cell, the SPEs are dependent on the PPE for tasks to be issued to them. This may not be a problem normally, but if the PPE is under significant computational load, that can affect how it handles the SPEs, thus the SPEs may end up waiting for an overworked PPE to deliver them tasks. Additionally, the Cell only supports two hardware threads, raising the possibility that not enough tasks can be put on two threads to keep the SPEs busy, in some situations. The Xenon supports 6 hardware threads (2 per core), allowing to be more effective at multitasking. Thus, the cores can be kept busy more of the time.

Another issue is the element interconnect bus (EIB) on the Cell. Originally, IBM had wanted to use a crossbar to connect all the cores, but the number of transistors would have become prohibitively high. So to save die space, IBM went with a ring bus-type interconnect. This has lower bandwidth and higher latency than a crossbar, which can induce delays within the CPU, especially during periods of peak data transfer. The cores on the Xenon communicate over a crossbar and through the shared L2 cache, much like how cores communicate on Intel's Core 2 Duo architecture.

The SPEs in the Cell are also limited in what types of instructions they can execute. For any instruction that cant be handled by the SPEs, they must be handled by the PPE. This limits the Cell's capability in some instances. It also puts more load on the PPE and again can overload the PPE, leaving the SPEs waiting for tasks to be issued. The Xenon has 3 cores that can handle any type of task given to them. While not as powerful as the Cell, it is more flexible.

Yet another issue brought up is the Cell's on die memory controller. It has been claimed that this gives it an advantage over the Xenon, as had been said about AMD's CPUs compared to Intel's. However, with the advent of the Core 2 Duo, the memory controller claims were debunked, the location of it has a negligible impact on performance, whether on die or not. It should be noted that the Cell uses a serial bus to connect to the memory. The XDR RAM used is designed by Rambus and is based on RDRAM. For anyone who remembers RDRAM, it had more bandwidth than the parallel DDR modules used at the time, but the latency was very high. So high in fact that it negated any speed advantage it had over DDR, and was eventually phased out. While XDR is improved, it still has higher latencies than the GDDR3 memory used on the 360.

Also, it should be brought up that you don't have all 8 SPEs in the Cell available for gaming. One is disabled for yield improvement, one is reserved exclusively for the operating system, even if not being used. Another can be taken by the operating system if needed. This only leaves 5 SPEs available to the game at any given time. It should also be noted that the SPEs lack branch prediction. One of the claims made is that the Cell is far better for AI and physics. While this is true for physics calculations, AI code is extremely branch intensive and is filled with conditional statements. Thus, the Cell's performance suffers when it comes to AI, as only the PPE features branch prediction. The Xenon is better suited for AI in this case, as all three of its cores include branch prediction.

Despite its shortcomings, the Cell is still an incredibly powerful processor. However, the Xenon is not too far behind. And the fact that the R500 features a programmable tessalator may even negate any speed advantage that the Cell has - when it comes to gaming anyways.

*Media*

Now to discuss the media used by each console. The 360 features a 12x DVD drive, supporting up to 8.5GB for games. The PS3 features a 2x Blu-Ray drive that supports up to 50GB for games. Now the PS3 may seem to have an enormous space advantage, but the real question here is do we really need that much space? Short answer: no. There are some people who religiously, even fanatically believe that games need more space than what is available on DVD. This is simply not true. And I will explain why.

The biggest use of space on a game disk is textures. Left in their raw .BMP format, they take up enormous amounts of space. Now, one may claim that with Blu-Ray, you can use uncompressed textures, but doing so would be downright foolish - especially with lossless compression techniques available. Not only are uncompressed textures a waste of space, they take considerably longer to load as well, especially with the 2x Blu-Ray drive having less read bandwidth than the 360's 12x DVD drive (9MB/s vs 15.9MB/s). At the very least, you can employ a lossless format like .PNG. However, their are some very advanced compression algorithms available, that can significantly reduce the amount of space used by textures, without any noticeable reduction in quality. The textures can be loaded much more quickly, and both consoles have more than enough CPU power to decompress textures on-the-fly.

The second biggest consumer of space is audio. Again, you can have it completely uncompressed, but what's the point? There are plently of lossless compression codecs available. Again, this results in less space used and faster load times. You can go even further and compress to, say, 128kbps MP3. Really, who is going to notice when the vast majority of the market owns a TV set with a sub-par sound system, namely the one or two speakers built into the TV set? Not saying they have to compress audio this much, but they could technically get away with it.

The rest of the data includes such things as geometry data (vertex coordinates), texture data (texture location, name of texture used), shader code, physics code and AI code, etc. Since this is all text (some of it compiled), it does not take up a significant amount of space, and is easily compressible. (This text is only 25KB)

Say for instance, you have a texture library of 4GB (compressed, lossless). This should be more than enough for any game. How so? Well, for starters, textures can be used more than once. For example, an asphalt texture can be used for more than one street. The same texture can be made to look different by using different lighting techniques, different shader codes (code for a shader effect is only a couple kilobytes in size), applying different normal maps in addition to other techniques such as blending (combining two or more textures to create the appearance of a new texture).

Add to this, say 1GB of lossless compressed audio - thats several CDs worth. On top of this add the game code, so make that about 500MB. Then add another 1GB for miscellaneous data. That all adds up to about 6.5GB - and this is a more extreme scenario. With effective use of textures, audio, and coding, practically any game can fit on a dual-layer DVD with room to spare. Take for example Oblivion. A very large game, with high resolution textures and tons of trees and other complex objects. Yet, it only occupies 4.11GB - less than a single-layer DVD. This is due to effective texture management, among other things. And to further prove this point, a game called .kkrieger features UT 2004 quality graphics in a 96KB package. Granted, it is only a single level, but it shows what can done using advanced compression techniques. Developers don't have to come even this close to these extremes to make a game fit on a DVD. By the time games actually need more than 8.5GB of space, games will be well beyond the capability of either console. PC games still fit on a DVD, so why does a console with a 7800GTX need 50GB? It doesn't.

http://www.theprodukkt.com/kkrieger <-- .kkrieger official site.

*Power consumption and noise*

A big complaint about the 360 is fan noise. It may come as a surprise to learn that the PS3 actually consumes more power. The reason for it being less noisy is because of the large fan the PS3 uses. It can move more air with less noise. However, the PS3 does not run cooler than the 360. In fact, it puts out more heat as it consumes more power. Both consoles need adequate ventilation, and putting either one in a confined space will cause it to overheat.

Another common misconception is that overheating causes the RROD (red ring of death) on the 360. That is actually not the cause. I have written a FAQ on this if you wish to read up on it: http://www.overclock.net/xbox/183174-why-360s-fail.html

*Features*

Here is a list of standard features and US prices of each SKU:

*PS3*

*20GB model* (discontinued in US)
Price: $500
Hard drive: 20GB 2.5" SATA (replaceable)
WiFi: No
Controller: Wireless
Media: Blu-Ray
Video: Composite, Component, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 4 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100/1000, Bluetooth
Extras: None

*60GB model* (discontinued in US)
Price: $600 (dropped to $500 to clear remaining inventory)
Hard drive: 60GB 2.5" SATA (replaceable)
WiFi: Yes
Controller: Wireless
Media: Blu-Ray
Video: Composite, Component, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 4 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100/1000, Bluetooth
Extras: Card reader, chrome trim

*80GB model*
Price: $600
Hard drive: 60GB 2.5" SATA (replaceable)
WiFi: Yes
Controller: Wireless
Media: Blu-Ray
Video: Composite, Component, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 4 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100/1000, Bluetooth
Extras: Card reader, chrome trim

*Xbox 360*

*Core package*
Price: $275
Hard drive: None (Can be added, proprietary upgrade)
WiFi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wired (accepts wireless)
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA
Audio: RCA stereo, optical
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: None

*Premium package* (discontinued)
Price: $400
Hard drive: 20GB (upgradeable, proprietary)
Wifi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wireless
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA
Audio: RCA stereo, optical
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: Component cable, Live headset

*Platinum package*
Price: $350
Hard drive: 20GB (upgradeable, proprietary)
Wifi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wireless
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: Component cable, Live headset

*Elite package*
Price: $450
Hard drive: 120GB
WiFi: No (adapter sold separately)
Controller: Wireless
Media: DVD, HD DVD optional
Video: Composite, Component, VGA, HDMI
Audio: RCA stereo, optical, HDMI
Connectivity: 3 USB, 1 Ethernet 10/100
Extras: Component cable, Live headset, HDMI cable

If you are looking at an all-in-one home entertainment package, the PS3 is the better buy. But if you simply want a game console, or want a console + a few additional features, or don't have an HDTV, the 360 is the way to go. If you are going to play HD DVD or Blu-Ray, you need at least a 720p capable TV set, preferably a 1080i or 1080p set. A decent sound system is also recommended.

*Advantages and Disadvantages of each console*

*Xbox 360*

*Advantages*
- Lower cost
- More powerful graphics processor
- Larger game library
- Proven online system
- Optional features

*Disadvantages*
- No built-in WiFi
- Noise level
- Online play is not free
- No option for built in hi-def player
- Potential for defective hardware

*PS3*

*Advantages*
- More features
- More CPU power
- Free online play
- Less noise

*Disadvantages*
- Expensive
- Has features that not everyone needs or wants to pay for
- Weaker graphics processor
- Online system is unproven at this time
- Smaller game library
- No VGA output

Another possible advantage that the PS3 has is HDMI 1.3. However, I did not decide to include this in the list, as games will not be affected by this. I will give a rundown of the new features and how they affect games and video:

- Increased bandwidth: Does not affect gameplay or video, as output is capped at 1920 x 1080, progressive scan.
- 30, 36, and 48 bit color: Will not affect games as they are rendered at 24-bit color. Video support is entirely optional.
- Lossless audio codec support: Will not affect games, since audio is decoded on the console. HD DVD and Blu Ray support this, but the audio is usually decoded on the player, as is the case with the 360 and PS3. So this has no real affect on video either.
- Mini connector: For camcorders, does not affect consoles.

So really, the fact that the 360 Elite only uses HDMI 1.2 does not really mean anything. It does not affect games, and only affects video if you are using an external decoder, rather than using a pre-decoded audio stream. And by the time videos and TVs support greater than 24-bit color, it will be several years down the road.

Another thing I chose not to put on the list was Folding at Home (FaH) support on the PS3. Sure, its a noble cause, but did Sony do it for the philanthropic value or for the publicity? One look at all the hype generated on the internet should give you your answer. Sony got one thing out of this - free advertising. Much like how a number of celebrities give to charity simply for publicity. So this should not affect your decision on purchasing a console, per se. By going with a 360, you are also indirectly contributing to charitable causes, as Bill Gates is the worlds #1 philanthropist. So either way, you should not feel guilty in not purchasing one console over the other.

I wrote this to dispel a number of misconceptions about both consoles, and to help anyone deciding on which console to purchase. You may notice I didn't include the Wii, as it should speak for itself - and shows that the majority of people simply want a low-priced system that does strictly gaming, rather than a media powerhouse. Still, for those wanting eye candy and lots of features, the 360 and PS3 also make great choices.



One disadvantage of the PS3 is that it can't upscale 720p games to 1080i like the 360. I have a 52" tv from 2003 that does 480i/p and 1080i and I have to play 720p games in 480p on that TV. My 360 doesn't have this problem. I solved this by playing 720p games on my tiny 32" lcd in my room.

Another is the PS3 has no IR port so without buying an adapter you can't use a universal remote, you have to get their bluetooth one. These are just things I've noticed.


----------



## Shadowrunner340

one advantage i could see with the blu-ray games is that the games don't necessarily have to LOOK that much better, but you could, in all reality, make LONGER games.

anybody remember the old Phantasy Star series on the Master System and the Genesis? Not to mention early Final Fantasy games. those were games that could take WEEKS of normal playing (not the 16 hours a day during the summer that i did







) to beat.

there hasn't been a game recently that could get you that involved in a long, well thought out storyline. i would love to see those again. if only there were writers that could do it without a story getting stupid halfway through.

very nice guide, btw


----------



## VulcanDragon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shadowrunner340* 
there hasn't been a game recently that could get you that involved in a long, well thought out storyline. i would love to see those again. if only there were writers that could do it without a story getting stupid halfway through.

Disagree. I put 104 hours into Final Fantasy 12. I believe that's the most I have ever put into any CRPG (non-MMO) _ever_. And I've been doing this for 25 years now.

And if anyone thinks FF12's plot "got stupid" halfway through, then I suspect nothing is going to satisfy you. Definitely one of the most mature, but still quite JRPG, style storylines I have played.


----------



## blade007

Quote:


Originally Posted by *VulcanDragon* 
A feature is not an advanatage when a) the feature is not wildly in demand, and b) it increases the cost. Consumers view those features as simply paying extra for something they will never use.

This is a generic truth, it is not a PS3-speficic comment. The same argument could be made about the price-to-new-features in the X360 Elite.

so all in all the disadvantage would be the price, we already have that as a disadvantage, if you look at having alot of features as a disadvantage, your only looking at the fact that we're paying more for it, that goes under the disadvantage category of "expensive", but if you look at the fact it has alot of features by itself, that is an advantage, those features might not be used now, but will most likely be used in the future; call it futureproof


----------



## sumdude77

i didnt get all the way through it but it seems like a great guide


----------



## VulcanDragon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blade007* 
so all in all the disadvantage would be the price, we already have that as a disadvantage, if you look at having alot of features as a disadvantage, your only looking at the fact that we're paying more for it, that goes under the disadvantage category of "expensive", but if you look at the fact it has alot of features by itself, that is an advantage, those features might not be used now, but will most likely be used in the future; call it futureproof

You can try to separate it that way if you like, but it's not a realistic economic model. Adding features increases price...that's almost always a given. And there is a soft price point over which the total package becomes "too expensive" to succeed. So the two are intimately tied together.

If you insist on keeping them on separate lists, then you need to follow a more granular accounting model. For every feature, you automatically add a "price of that feature" to your disadvantages column. You simply cannot lump them all into a single "Price" line item for intelligent discussion, because not all features cost the same and have the same ROI.

And this is the stumbling block most "Blu-Ray in the PS3" defenders disagree with me on. The argument that the features justify the price does make sense when viewing the Blu-Ray movie player alone. But when you add that line item to the rest of the PS3's feature/cost list, the overall cost of the unit has crept above what the market will widely accept. But strike that one feature and its associated costs, and the console is now down to a price point proven to move units...and with a feature list proven to be sufficient for gamers (based on the X360, of course).


----------



## Oldboy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat*


Some people may be on a budget and have no desire to watch Blu-Ray movies, especially if they only have a standard def TV set.


That goes against either system though since both still costs hundreds to purchase before even getting a game. Let alone expense accessories, and then there is no budgeting here, it's either you go all out or you don't play.... Even the Wii is expensive, since a second controller is $60 plus the $40-50 game, and you're already at $350 before getting the memory card and whatever else you are going to want...

Next Gen gaming isn't cheap, so if you are spending that kinda dough on a 360 you can easily afford a PS3 also if you save for an extra week or two...


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Oldboy*


That goes against either system though since both still costs hundreds to purchase before even getting a game. Let alone expense accessories, and then there is no budgeting here, it's either you go all out or you don't play.... Even the Wii is expensive, since a second controller is $60 plus the $40-50 game, and you're already at $350 before getting the memory card and whatever else you are going to want...

Next Gen gaming isn't cheap, so if you are spending that kinda dough on a 360 you can easily afford a PS3 also if you save for an extra week or two...


To be fair, I had to list disadvantages for each console, and price would be considered a disadvantage of the PS3 when compared to the 360.


----------



## Oldboy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat*


To be fair, I had to list disadvantages for each console, and price would be considered a disadvantage of the PS3 when compared to the 360.


well i think that's getting to a mute point now, since you can get a used PS3 for less than a brand new Elite now, and it still has more features included, so slowly but surely that arguement is going out the window.


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Oldboy*


well i think that's getting to a mute point now, since you can get a used PS3 for less than a brand new Elite now, and it still has more features included, so slowly but surely that arguement is going out the window.


Of course that is obviously biased, as you can also purchased a used 360.


----------



## Oldboy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat* 
Of course that is obviously biased, as you can also purchased a used 360.

Well i doubt anyone will get a used PS3 for $50, even though i just bought a 360 for $50







To bad i have to wait to get a new one from microsoft(which i've heard on kotaku is taking less than a month now







)


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oldboy* 
Well i doubt anyone will get a used PS3 for $50, even though i just bought a 360 for $50







To bad i have to wait to get a new one from microsoft(which i've heard on kotaku is taking less than a month now







)

$50? I take it you got an RRoDed console?


----------



## Oldboy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat*


$50? I take it you got an RRoDed console?










yes, hence the wait....i doubt i'll use it much though since there's only one game i want for the system currently(Forza 2), so i'll probably just give it to my gf.


----------



## VulcanDragon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat* 
$50? I take it you got an RRoDed console?









Still...$50 for a RRoD that Microsoft is replacing is an awesome deal.


----------



## sepheroth003

360 uses DVI to do high def right? How does it compair to PS3 on HDMI? Im actually amazed how good games look on my PS3.

Im not a fanboy, I still hate sony, but I bought this for Blu-Ray because fo Blockbuster Online









//edit Also, how does 360 get digital sound from it if your using DVI? I got PS3 with HDMI to TV and Optical to reciever.


----------



## inplainview

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sepheroth003*


360 uses DVI to do high def right? How does it compair to PS3 on HDMI? Im actually amazed how good games look on my PS3.

Im not a fanboy, I still hate sony, but I bought this for Blu-Ray because fo Blockbuster Online









//edit Also, how does 360 get digital sound from it if your using DVI? I got PS3 with HDMI to TV and Optical to reciever.


According to HnryGoat's guide:

360 Platinum and Elite run HDMI and Component + optical out.

Premium and Core only run Component + optical out.


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VulcanDragon*


Still...$50 for a RRoD that Microsoft is replacing is an awesome deal.










It is a good deal, I wish I had thought of that.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sepheroth003*


360 uses DVI to do high def right? How does it compair to PS3 on HDMI? Im actually amazed how good games look on my PS3.

Im not a fanboy, I still hate sony, but I bought this for Blu-Ray because fo Blockbuster Online









//edit Also, how does 360 get digital sound from it if your using DVI? I got PS3 with HDMI to TV and Optical to reciever.


The 360 has HDMI and can carry audio, but if you wish you can also use the RCA or optical connections for audio.


----------



## rocketman331

The HDMI on the 360 Elite doesn't carry audio. HDMI 1.3 carries audio while the Elite's 1.2 doesn't. The PS3 is the only HDMI console that carries audio.


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rocketman331*


The HDMI on the 360 Elite doesn't carry audio. HDMI 1.3 carries audio while the Elite's 1.2 doesn't. The PS3 is the only HDMI console that carries audio.


All specifications of HDMI carry audio. HDMI 1.3 has the addition that it can carry uncompressed audio and support greater than 24-bit color, but thats about all it has over HDMI 1.2.


----------



## NoSkill

seems like quite a biased article


----------



## VulcanDragon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat* 
All specifications of HDMI carry audio. HDMI 1.3 has the addition that it can carry uncompressed audio and support greater than 24-bit color, but thats about all it has over HDMI 1.2.

Perhaps, but it must be that not all components choose to implement that. My friggin cable box for example...Time Warner's HD DVR, but no audio over the HDMI line, only video. Not that I care with my current setup, since I run the audio to an older, pre-HDMI receiver (optical) and the video to the TV (HDMI). But it's still annoying...eventually I'll want to upgrade the receiver to one that has HDMI switching, but I'll still need to use digital audio from the cable box (unless Time Warner gets me a better HD cable box by then).


----------



## Oldboy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *VulcanDragon*


Perhaps, but it must be that not all components choose to implement that. My friggin cable box for example...Time Warner's HD DVR, but no audio over the HDMI line, only video. Not that I care with my current setup, since I run the audio to an older, pre-HDMI receiver (optical) and the video to the TV (HDMI). But it's still annoying...eventually I'll want to upgrade the receiver to one that has HDMI switching, but I'll still need to use digital audio from the cable box (unless Time Warner gets me a better HD cable box by then).


I suggest you ditch junky cable and get DirecTV....Alot easier and better


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NoSkill*


seems like quite a biased article


How so? One of the biggest myths out there is that the PS3 is light years ahead of the 360, so the article does spend a lot of time debunking that. Tell me, how is attempting to level out the playing field biased?


----------



## Oldboy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HrnyGoat* 
How so? One of the biggest myths out there is that the PS3 is light years ahead of the 360, so the article does spend a lot of time debunking that. Tell me, how is attempting to level out the playing field biased?

Well the CPU is ahead but anyone that cares also knows the GPU is weaker than the 360. Let's all agree to disagree and just play the games. Damn, i hate M$ but i do now own a 360(extremely cheap) so i won't complain until it craps the bed a few weeks after i get my new one....


----------



## MangoMan

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HeartOfAHydra* 
I think its a good guide, so rep+ first of all. Second of all i think saying the Cell is only beating the Xenon by a little is an understatement in my opinion. Because even if they have very similiar specs one thing that sets them apart is the cores, 3 vs. 8. It's like comparing a dual core to a quad core when Alan Wake comes out. And honestly i like the graphics Nvidia produces more than ATI so saying that the 360 has better graphics on your Pro's & Con's part is generally an opinion. And last but not least let me say that

SPE's are not processor cores. They are no where near cores and if you would have read his write up you would have seen that. And there are only 5 always avaliable not 8. Again read the article.


----------



## Hewlett-Packard

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GibbyGano* 
This is what always makes me have a good laugh at Sony's expense. They had an eternity to work on PS3 after the 360 came out and they spent more time slipping in Blu-Ray that they made the whole console suffer. Never thought I would see the day that an American corporation dominates the console marker.

They are both made in china


----------



## BxAlbo1

where would the 360's graphics power fall in terms of mainstream cards we have today?


----------



## HrnyGoat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BxAlbo1*


where would the 360's graphics power fall in terms of mainstream cards we have today?


Id say between an X1950Pro and an X1900XT.


----------



## HrnyGoat

Updated with new prices and SKUs.


----------



## Mootsfox

Nice guide, lots of info.

I don't agree with the media section though, I'll remind you of a famous quote.

Quote:



640K oughta be enough for anyone.


----------



## Fox_Smash

great guide,been looking forward to something like this. 
rep+.


----------



## Hellisforheroes

awesome guide. its worth adding that all PS3 models other than the 40gb are discontinued in europe.


----------

