View Single Post
Old 02-05-11, 07:37 PM   #31
Ninja Prime
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Xbox 360 Vs. PS3: Graphics RAM battle?

Originally Posted by XDanger View Post
Isn't that just the way things are?

Xbox 360
3.2 GHz Xenon processor
3 dual-threaded cores
Maximum 77 GFlops

3.2 GHz Cell processor
7 single-threaded cores (plus 1 backup core)
Maximum 230 GFlops

The newer 360's cpu/gpu is gimped to perform like the old models which is lame, Newer games could have higher framerates and just have the fsb block on a switch or something for compatibility, obviously I don't know **** though.

I also think the consoles hold each other back because of the different way they work to each other forcing devs to take the lowest common denominators of each ,
one has lower bandwidth and a slower CPU but the other has less disposable ram so to get a game to work easily on both you have the cut corners on both ends...
Hey while we're just making up specs, I heard 360 has a NINJAFX processor with 500 Tflops DP performance, brah!

The real specs of the 360s CPU core are 115.3 Gflops, and the spec of the PS3s neutered Cell would be 153.6 Gflops. Not that much of a difference, considering the hoops and programming hurdles you have to jump through just to get a reasonable percentage of that peak out of the Cell.

This is mostly irrelevant to graphics performance anyway, considering on the GPU front, the 360 is far more powerful, easy to use/program and versatile.

Fact is, average PS3 titles look worse, ports look worse, and the top end exclusives that they program to the nuts and spend millions and years in development only match the 360 games they are popping out every year or so.
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote