Although Microsoft are trying to push their console as the most powerful again, but they can't make the numbers work. All of this bullshit pre-launch hype and nobody is stopping at the chance to pull one over on the consumer:
They claim "The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell. Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors."
Everyone knows floating point power is what drives graphics, which is the most processor intensive task. General purpose processing power may be made to aid with graphics but cannot take over the bulk of the work, this is insanely inefficient... all functions would be performed in software, as the processor is just as is described: general purpose, like an x86 or PowerPC CPU. In fact, it is a PowerPC CPU in the XBox 360, like the GameCube's main CPU now.
The larger XBox 360 CPU cache (1MB vs 512k) will not make a difference in instances where data is random, as in games. In more business-oriented applications where paths are repetitive and it makes sense to go back and fetch or calculate the same data over and over, a cache will help, but not in a game environment. Take a look at real world history: the Celeron back in the day was considered a great gaming CPU as you could overclock it, having half the cache of the higher priced Pentium II CPUs did not make a difference in games.
They claim "Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance: The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU."
The comparisons are close, but:
"The PS3 does have the additional 7 DSPs on the Cell to add more floating point ops for graphics rendering, but the Xbox 360's three general purpose cores with custom D3D and dot product instructions are more customized for true graphics related calculations."
That's it, although general purpose cores are not well suited for graphics related calculations. If they are indeed customized, then they should not be called general purpose, but again the floating point power of the PS3 and the overall bandwidth of the memory makes this irrelevant (see below).
"Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth."
As Sony did with the PS2's video processor cache to inflate the numbers, MS are only counting the 10MB of embedded DRAM (EDRAM) in their graphics part on the XBox 360. The CPU and main memory bandwidth is 22GB/sec. Microsoft had claimed advanced anti-aliasing on the XBox 360, and the 10MB EDRAM will be dedicated to these operations (as quite a lot of RAM is required to store a large framebuffer and speed is required to perform bandwidth-hungry anti-aliasing). This is where the EDRAM goes, and in the overall picture, anti-aliasing is but a part. Any modern graphics card does anti-aliasing and the PS3 no doubt has a solution. Perhaps it does not compare, but anti-aliasing alone will not carry the XBox 360 to the top, and will anyone be able to tell the difference?
I'm not saying that the XBox 360 is definitely less powerful, but right now nobody can know and everyone is trying to inflate their numbers so take it with a grain of salt. Microsoft are doing a particularly poor job of trying to bend their numbers, though, as their arguments were easily picked apart.
> And as retro loving as I am, even I feel that they have now beat the dead horse
> that is old NES games commercially 4 or 5 times (SNES Mario collection, GBC
> Mario remake, GBA classics line, even Animal Crossing NES games, etc). The fact
> that they might try to sell Mario 3 to the public AGAIN really comes off as
> greedy and smug. Just put them all on one disc and sell it for the GC already
> like was promised way back when.
This pisses me off as well.
> Sony is all about sequels apparently from their announced lineup (MGS4, Killzone
> 2, etc). Is there just no more creativity in gaming? I may be forced back to PC
> games, that is the ones that aren't fantasy MMO and FPS.
Sure there's creativity. I guess you thought Mario World and Yoshi's Island weren't creative sequels? Or Contra III: Alien Wars? Metroid Prime? Tons of games' sequels are creative. Sony has helped create a lot of new franchises and do come up with original games, such as Ico, Lumines, Warhawk, Jumping Flash (Hell, I would love a sequel to Jumping Flash)...
> And it's so typical for Sony to show super polished pre-rendered FMV as ingame
> video. All of the three do this (MS photshoppng lens flare into screencaps,
> GC Mario 128 demo), but not as blatant perhaps as this.
MS shows pre-rendered video, games not on the original hardware, and dev-kit screenshots (at like 1280, and they expect you to believe this is the X-Box) all the time. Unforunately everyone is continuing this trend with the next-gen consoles... But MS started this before the XBox even launched (remember doctored amped screens, etc)
> And the rumored price points of these things....I'm a huge gaming fan but $460
> for a system is truly insane. I haven't missed a console upgrade in my life, but
> I refuse to pay $300, let alone more, for a video game console that likely will
> be more flash than substance.
Agreed, I won't be buying any at these prices either. It's ridiculous when you think that the XBox is still nearly $200 and it's in its LAST YEAR of production. Shouldn't it be $99 by now? At least the Cube is, and the PS2 is $150...