Originally Posted by XDanger
OK bad sauce ,also where I read ...
"the new combined CPU/GPU chip used in the new Xbox 360 is theoretically faster than the individual chips in older models. But in order to ensure proper functionality, Microsoft was forced to install a "frontside bus replacement block" that introduces latency and forces the chip to run at the same speed as the older model."
I call it gimped as I take it as meaning the same as capped but whatever you wanna call it.
I have no strong feeling in this debate but saying 360 > PS3 seems to go against common "knowledge" which is fine.
Like how the CELL CPU was meant to have 7 SPE's but only 5 were enabled?
What you're talking about is a complete moot point. Whatever the first model console of a particular generations capabilities are, the games have to be designed to run on this machine. There's no point in releasing a faster model down the road if the games have to run on the older model too.
I have no idea where this apparent common knowledge that PS3 > 360 comes from. I would only say that it is sad that misinformation can spread like that and be accepted as fact by so many.
You guys are using subjective
opinions of how games look to determine that one set of hardware is faster than another. I'm saying that these opinions being subjective as they are, that the main reason behind you forming them comes from a) the developer talent for getting the best graphics possible out of fixed hardware and b) devloper talent with regard to direction and creation of the artistic aspect to these games.
My stance, the 360 is better on paper and I believe has slightly more potential in practice... mainly because of being far less restricted by VRAM. The PS3 has proven to bring some
better looking games to the table simply because of developer talent.