Gamers: PS3 or Xbox?

[cloudnine]

I hope UT3 comes out for PS3 before the end of the year, though I'm doubting it more and more.

 

[CoachZ]

I hope UT3 comes out for PS3 before the end of the year, though I'm doubting it more and more.

What about Eye of Judgment?

 

[defpearlpilot]

360 for sure imo.

People say that the ps3 is more powerful but I've yet to see it. As far as I see it, the ps3 is crippled by the lack of memory and the 360's downside is using dvd9's.

The PS3 is technically more powerful. Ram is the biggest thing holding it back, but you can get around that. The biggest thing is that the 360 dev. software has been around a lot longer than the PS3 dev. software. Sony is finally listening to its developers and changing the software based on their input (which wasn't exactly something they used to do). People are more familiar with the 360 dev. tools because there's nothing really "new" like the cell processor.

Yes it is more powerful. The reason why people are developing easier on the X360 is because of the ports of the DirectX libraries and similar APIs that provide the audio layer. The memory issue of the PS3 can not be worked around unless they start tapping into the Cell's capabilities. You would most definitely need to make use of one of the cores for swapping out segments that are buffered to the hard drive. Blu-Ray is far too slow to be used a swap device so the data would have to be precached to the hard drive. Also, how well you can swap out the data depends on the front side bus as opposed to the IPC of the CPU. You need a faster "tick" rate to transfer data on the bus than the processor doing instructions so there isn't any jitter while precaching. That's most likely one of the reason why Epic is having issues with porting Unreal Tournament 3 to the PS3 with their streamed map technology which loads up newer segments instantly.

How do you used a RO device for swap?

 

[CoachZ]

How do you used a RO device for swap?

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Didn't mean to mention Blu-Ray in such a manner. What I meant is that Blu-Ray is a little slow to continuously read from. The drives are what? 1x? Slow transfer rates for large amounts of data which is why something like a hard drive would be better.

 

[OneArmedScissor]

I THINK it's 2x.

 

[Code001]

I THINK it's 2x.

Yes, it's 2x. However, you have to remember something. Let's think way back to when DVD burners just came on the market. They were 2x, yet were burning faster than a CD at 2x. Blu-Ray operates in the same manner. That 2x ≠ 2x on a DVD burner. A DVD at 1x moves data at 1350 kB/s vs the Blu-Ray at 1x which moves data at 36 Mbit/s. But again, HDs are already being used to transfer data which is how they're getting around this issue.

 

[CoachZ]

I THINK it's 2x.

Yes, it's 2x. However, you have to remember something. Let's think way back to when DVD burners just came on the market. They were 2x, yet were burning faster than a CD at 2x. Blu-Ray operates in the same manner. That 2x ≠ 2x on a DVD burner. A DVD at 1x moves data at 1350 kB/s vs the Blu-Ray at 1x which moves data at 36 Mbit/s. But again, HDs are already being used to transfer data which is how they're getting around this issue.

That is how they are getting around it.

In order of highest to lowest in terms of processing speed:
L1 cache of a processor
L2 cache of a processor
Memory
Hard drive
Optical drive

From what I gather, the PS3 is doing what the Xbox/360 did: At initial loading, it dumps a precache on the HD which is then loaded into the RAM. Passing textures directly from Blu-Ray drive to the memory would be amazingly slow. You can see this in Metroid Prime 3, the loading times are terribly slow. The game loads more segments of the game when doors open but the door openings are significantly slower than the first two games.

The speed of the drive would significantly increase the loading times.

 

[Code001]

That is how they are getting around it.

In order of highest to lowest in terms of processing speed:
L1 cache of a processor
L2 cache of a processor
Memory
Hard drive
Optical drive

From what I gather, the PS3 is doing what the Xbox/360 did: At initial loading, it dumps a precache on the HD which is then loaded into the RAM. Passing textures directly from Blu-Ray drive to the memory would be amazingly slow. You can see this in Metroid Prime 3, the loading times are terribly slow. The game loads more segments of the game when doors open but the door openings are significantly slower than the first two games.

The speed of the drive would significantly increase the loading times.

The entire thing was how the PS3 gets around the 256 meg RAM limit. I also don't see how Blu-Ray and Nintendo's Wii disks can be comparable? The speeds are different. Using Metroid Prime 3 as an example of bad loading issues with an optical disk is nice and all, but that format is different. So far, I don't know of any PS3 games experiencing that issue. On top of that, wouldn't the speed of the drive decrease loading times due to it being faster? I don't see where you're going with the last sentence.

 

[CoachZ]

That is how they are getting around it.

In order of highest to lowest in terms of processing speed:
L1 cache of a processor
L2 cache of a processor
Memory
Hard drive
Optical drive

From what I gather, the PS3 is doing what the Xbox/360 did: At initial loading, it dumps a precache on the HD which is then loaded into the RAM. Passing textures directly from Blu-Ray drive to the memory would be amazingly slow. You can see this in Metroid Prime 3, the loading times are terribly slow. The game loads more segments of the game when doors open but the door openings are significantly slower than the first two games.

The speed of the drive would significantly increase the loading times.

The entire thing was how the PS3 gets around the 256 meg RAM limit. I also don't see how Blu-Ray and Nintendo's Wii disks can be comparable? The speeds are different. Using Metroid Prime 3 as an example of bad loading issues with an optical disk is nice and all, but that format is different. So far, I don't know of any PS3 games experiencing that issue. On top of that, wouldn't the speed of the drive decrease loading times due to it being faster? I don't see where you're going with the last sentence.

2x is pretty slow. The #x rating system is relative to the amount of data and 2x BR is 9 megabytes a second. The point I was trying to convey is that optical mediums hold large amounts of data but are slow. This is a fact. Also a drive doesn't run always at that fixed rate. The drive's ability to transfer faster depends on the physical rotation speed of the drive. Now, what are we trying to discuss here? And as a random FYI, once upon a time Kenwood released 72x CD-ROM drives. They spun the CDs fast that they shattered the discs.

 

[Code001]

You're the one who brought up optical mediums in the first place. BTW, Mythbusters actually had an episode on the shattering of CDs at high speeds. They were able to get them to shatter at 52x or something like that. Granted, they just clamped the CDs to a router and took it up to speed (meaning no support), but it was a cool episode.

 

[defpearlpilot]

How do you used a RO device for swap?

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Didn't mean to mention Blu-Ray in such a manner. What I meant is that Blu-Ray is a little slow to continuously read from. The drives are what? 1x? Slow transfer rates for large amounts of data which is why something like a hard drive would be better.

"1x" has a different meaning depending on the type of drive that you are talking about. 1x for CD-ROMs is 150Kbps, 1x for DVD is 1350Kbps and 36MBps for Blue ray. But the problem is most likely seek time.

 

[CoachZ]

How do you used a RO device for swap?

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. Didn't mean to mention Blu-Ray in such a manner. What I meant is that Blu-Ray is a little slow to continuously read from. The drives are what? 1x? Slow transfer rates for large amounts of data which is why something like a hard drive would be better.

"1x" has a different meaning depending on the type of drive that you are talking about. 1x for CD-ROMs is 150Kbps, 1x for DVD is 1350Kbps and 36MBps for Blue ray. But the problem is most likely seek time.

I spoke about that already. 2x Blu-Ray is 72Mbps or 9 megabytes a second.

 

[shreder75]

a couple of links for your consideration =D

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/14855/Sep ... S3-5-to-1/

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/14856/Sep ... are-Sales/

comes down to games games games!

 

[OneArmedScissor]

To be fair, as far as the seemingly absurd difference in game SALES goes, the 360 has a year head start over the others, so the game library is a bazillion times larger and more developed. A year from now, that's going to look COMPLETELY different. I think it takes about two years before they "get the kinks out," so to speak, and consoles really get rolling. The 360 has just now reached that point, and the "first generation" of big name PS3 and Wii games still have yet to arrive.

As well as the 360 is doing, and as good as some of the games are, I think it's going to take a dive once they all become more set apart from each other, just because people will get tired of it, and move on to one of the others. After two years, I'd venture to guess that most people can afford another few hundred dollar console. Being way ahead of the game like they were with the 360 still isn't such a good thing, even if they did manage to keep from becoming obsolete when the other consoles came around.

 

[Code001]

To be fair, as far as the seemingly absurd difference in game SALES goes, the 360 has a year head start over the others, so the game library is a bazillion times larger and more developed. A year from now, that's going to look COMPLETELY different. I think it takes about two years before they "get the kinks out," so to speak, and consoles really get rolling. The 360 has just now reached that point, and the "first generation" of big name PS3 and Wii games still have yet to arrive.

As well as the 360 is doing, and as good as some of the games are, I think it's going to take a dive once they all become more set apart from each other, just because people will get tired of it, and move on to one of the others. After two years, I'd venture to guess that most people can afford another few hundred dollar console. Being way ahead of the game like they were with the 360 still isn't such a good thing, even if they did manage to keep from becoming obsolete when the other consoles came around.

So true that it's not even funny.

 

[Digital Jams]

To be fair, as far as the seemingly absurd difference in game SALES goes, the 360 has a year head start over the others, so the game library is a bazillion times larger and more developed. A year from now, that's going to look COMPLETELY different. I think it takes about two years before they "get the kinks out," so to speak, and consoles really get rolling. The 360 has just now reached that point, and the "first generation" of big name PS3 and Wii games still have yet to arrive.

As well as the 360 is doing, and as good as some of the games are, I think it's going to take a dive once they all become more set apart from each other, just because people will get tired of it, and move on to one of the others. After two years, I'd venture to guess that most people can afford another few hundred dollar console. Being way ahead of the game like they were with the 360 still isn't such a good thing, even if they did manage to keep from becoming obsolete when the other consoles came around.

Sonpwnge......

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topst ... w-ps3.aspx

 

[OneArmedScissor]

They're clearly lost at sea, but I can't deny that a $400 combination next generation video game console and movie player will sell like mad before Christmas, especially since the 360 has already seen two Christmasii.

There's no Super Smash Bros. Brawl before Christmas, so it's unlikely that the Wii will outright overtake it.

 

[Code001]

Sonpwnge......

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topst ... w-ps3.aspx

That artcile is so fucking stupid that it's not even funny.

"A typical PlayStation 2 owner probably has a nice library of video games. The new PS3 won't play any of them."

Uh, the typical PS2 owner WILL ALREADY OWN A PS2! They can use the PS2 to play those games (which won't look any different on the PS3, just like how PSX games didn't look any different on the PS2). If they want backwards compatibility so bad, they can get the new 80 gig which is bundled with a game for $100 more. Granted, I think it was pretty stupid to not include a chip to at least allow emulation backwards compat. like the Euro and 80 gig models have, it's still not a huge blow to Sony. Backwards compatibility is a mere bragging rights issue. The people will already own the consoles that played the old games, and that original machine will most likely play them better (especially since the PS3 doesn't even have a memory card slot).

Also, I like how the writer mentions "half the storage" when it's already double the storage of the first 20 gig launch, and the 80 gig isn't even out until November. Somehow, a jump from 60 gigs to 40 gigs doesn't seem like HALF the storage space to me....

Next time, try finding an article that isn't out there just to smear a company. It's extremely biased articles that make me sick, and it can be seen on all sides of this videogame console war.

 

[Code001]

Oh, and Sony must be doing something right to get a 1050% increase in sales on the new upcoming 80 gig:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/movers-and-shakers/videogames/

 

[CoachZ]

Well, I enjoy this thread considering I'm considering picking up a console within the next month or so. Now that I got my hands on a new CPU, I don't need an X360 to play Gears of War or UT3. Sucks for you X360 dudes as the PC port of Gears is extended and has more content.