CES Fallout: Sony expected to herald "next gen 1.5"

As a side note; I believe they both have 2 threads per core.

360 - 6 hardware threads in total.
PS3 - 2 hardware threads in total.

Doesn't the cell have 4 cores?

The Cell processor actually has 8 cores but one is turned off for some bullcrap reason that sony gave...so essentially the cell has 7 cores.

People are all talking about the power differences between the xbox 360 and ps3 and how much better the ps3 is gonna be. Well I have yet to see sony produce any real-time graphics on the so called ps3 hardware that looks as good as the 360. Why well because all of their tech demos were bogus.

Anyway so you want to pull down ps3's pants and say it has a bigger processor then the 360 and brag about how much more awesome a 7 core chip will be...well i have news for you the 360's 3 cores are not being fully utilized in games right now for multiple reasons. First of all synching all 3 cores for a game engine is not the easiest thing to do. I do not know at all the compiler for the cell processor works but I would be suprised if it did the thread synching itself because that would be a huge task to undertake. Sure it may work at some level but for the most demanding of games you would not want to settle for somethine less than optimal. This makes me think that much of game design is still going to be single threaded for this generation regardless of the number of dies on the cpu.

About the 360, i think MS encourages developers to program for 2 of its cores but i am willing to bet that they want that third core reserved for xb live and dashboard processing. I can be at any point of pgr3 and pess the dash button and stream music from my computers down stairs onto my x360 wirelessly without as much as a hitch in any form of game performance. That just goes to show that the processor is not being fully used for the game and processor power is not going to be the killer for this gen. It really is all going to depend on what the graphics chip can spit out. The ps3 technically has a much more powerful graphics chip, but I will tell you first and foremost unless sony ups the ram from 512 to 1 gig they will miss out on taking advantage of all the ps3 has to offer.

Will the ps3 knock you dead with graphics...not when you see second gen x360 games...heck i would be suprised if first gen ps3 games look even as good as the second gen x360 games.

I fully expect a turn over this gen in the console market. Oh and i am somewhat biased as I hate totally hate sony more then i hate MS. i really am a nintendo fanboy but i am enjoying my x360 despite my hatred for MS.

Christian

I don't know how Spong just turned into Sony fan boy site by making comments like PS3 will be much more powerful than XB360 without any proof. Speaking of PS3 games will much better than XB360 later in time, it sounds awefully similar to Sony's comment to cover up inferior hardware design of PS2 back in 2001: "Emotion Engine is so powerful, once developers use the full power, PS2 graphics will be totally better than its competitors". I'm still waiting for that miracle game, and don't know how much longer I should wait. How about Sony's dinasaur demo for PS1 that's supposed to turn into a game?

Sony is a marketing company that sells hardware, and people should realize that.

Yeah i was pretty suprized by how pro-sony the article was. It didn't really seem as if there was any more then lip service to balance it. anyway i guess it was just an opinion.

I realise that this interview's old, but in an interview (http://xbox.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3143150 - its the box marked gabe newell on the next gen, large video download) Newell s**ts on both the ps3 and the 360. In it he asks why there's such a focus on hardware, when for him (and admittedly its from a PC developer pov) its about being able to deliver content and support effectively. He also suggests that sony's hardware architecture forces developers into creating products purely for the ps3.

To my mind i haven't seen anything since that interview about either the ps3 or 360 that changes that view. In fact I can't see where Sony really sits in to the next gen at all (despite pwning this one). I don't doubt the ps3 will kick arse, but the majority of psone and ps2 owners I know are more casual gamers - due to the success of the brand etc, etc. but I can't see how a huge initial price tag attracts them, especially when there will be no noticable difference between graphics. the 360 is gunning for the online aspect heavily and the revolution is, well revolutionising control and getting non-gamers in. I don't see the same drive towards a solid killer aspect of the ps3.

its like the ps2! only faster!

Right, this has gone on long enough! :-)

CPUs
The Cell CPU currently slated for use in the PS3 is clocked at 3.2 GHz and has one PPE core (which supports two hardware threads) and seven SPEs (which act in a similar manner to the PS2's vector units). IBM's figures state that Cell has a theoretical maximum performance of 218 GFLOPS and a real-world estimated performance of 165 GFLOPS (75.9% of theoretical max).

The XBox 360 CPU (Xenon) is clocked at 3.2 GHz and has three identical PPC-based cores which each support two hardware threads. Xenon has a theoretical maximum performance of 115.2 GFLOPS.

Even matching IBM's estimated real-world performance estimate for the PS3's Cell against Xenon's theoretical maximum, you can see that the CPU contest goes to the PS3. If we take a similar percentage of theoretical max for a real-world performance estimate that IBM used for Cell, then Xenon is only 52% the speed of Cell in PS3, i.e. just over half as fast.

GPUs
NVIDIA claim 33 billion dot products (matrix multiplications) per second for the RSX and 74.8 billion shader operations per second.

ATI claim 9.6 billion dot products per second and 48 billion shader operations per second for the XBox 360 GPU - Xenos.

The above figures are all theoretical maxima. Again, based on those figures the PS3 comes out ahead.

The rest
Sony claim 35 GB/s bandwidth between the CPU and GPU, Microsoft claim 21.6 GB/s. These are aggregated figures due to both systems having two way buses.

The PS3 will have 256 MiB Rambus XDR DRAM and 256 MiB GDDR3 VRAM. The XBox 360 has 512 MiB GDDR3 RAM.

I'm sure the above speed figures are also theoretical maxima. Still the PS3 comes out ahead on system bandwidth. The PS3 also comes out ahead on memory due to the PS3's XDR memory being clocked at 3.2 GHz and both systems' GDDR3 memory being clocked at 700 MHz.

Conclusion
As far as hardware performance goes, the PS3 looks to be a winner.

Sure, there are questions about how developers are going to be able to use that power and the 360 does have the advantage that it will have been in developers hands for quite a while by the time the PS3 comes out. However, what we have been hearing from developers looks good for the PS3 - powerful and easy to program for.

Of course time will tell and there is no law that says the most powerful console must have the most entertaining games, just look at the DS for your counter-example, but it does seem that the PS3 will give developers more potential to work with.

All figures above are easily findable on the net, most of them I found on the Wikipedia pages for PS3 and XBox 360.

That's a good point. What Gabe Newell actually refers too is that both Xbox360 and PS3 have designed these multi-core set-ups for a few reasons.
1) both have to invest less money into developing a really powerfull single-core CPU. Instead they push the cost towards publishers and developers because they have to spend a lot of money just getting to know the hardware (developers hate multi-core anythings).
2) both have complex designs so they can force developers to lock development on one of the 2 consoles increasing exclusives... problem is, third parties have all converted to the multi-platform religion.
Chances of an multi-core engine being built in the next year: zero. they need 4 years at least.

And if anyone didn't know yet, 5% of core 1 and 2 of the Xbox360 is reserved for non-gaming purposes, primary one being spyware (its MS, what did you expect), secondary being al that stuff someone said he did while playing.

One core, seven SPEs. A bit like one main block and seven turbos making one engine, to extend the over-used car metaphor. By contrast the 360 has three main blocks.

The "bullcrap" reason that the Cell in PS3 will only have seven SPEs is to improve the yield of the CPU wafers and hence keep costs lower.

Oh well, they must be right then!

I'll check wikipaedia again in five minutes for a more correct version of the facts.

Of course using the oft-mentioned car analogy is awful because it doesn't really cross over at all. Damn you Bill Gates for confusing everybody.

As far as the 360 playing catch up, this generation I'd have to say that xbox development (specifically graphics, although with some games like Splinter Cell, breakable glass and lights) has kinda stagnated, whilst in cross-platform games developers are beginning to inch ps2 performance to only just below xbox. The only example for this off the top of my head (and its pretty crap as an example) is the warriors, where it looked equally bad on both systems.

"It might not do some of the clever things the Xbox 360 does, but it is a more powerful, more capable, more flexible and more dynamic piece of kit. It will, eventually, play better-looking games that its competitor and the Japanese will actually buy it."


Does the hardware matter anymore? Its all about the games right? And between 360 and ps3 I can't see that there's any more flexibilty (aside from MORE graphics, MORE people on screen, MORE shiny stuff) or anywhere left for innovation. Are we going to get more genres on either the 360 or ps3 this time next year? If we're really really lucky we'll get sequels to Halo and Metal Gear Solid. The most unexpected thing I've seen for next gen consoles (not including the Rev, cos I haven't seen any proper games for that) is Gears of War's 2nd Person pov and that's a bit sad.

The article I'll just ignore for the moment because both sides of the fence have said it already and it's sad to see that article. Now as for all this PS3 & Xbox 360 mud slinging and who has the most manhood under the hood, enough already.

PS3 looks good but it's only on paper, nothing more. No one here has the system, no consumer has played it or will be till either E3 or later. Spec's on any piece of paper can look f'ing great till the end result and we can all be blue in the mouth about how geat or bad it is but doesn't matter.

Xbox 360 is out right now, people are playing it, can play it and can give whatever review, thought or comment they want because they can have it in there hands and play it. I like the system but I'm not nuts over it and can't wait till the developers get there feet wet some more with it and we start seeing the 2nd gen games coming out in the months ahead and the same for the future.

PS3, whenever it does come out, I'll will get it. Why? Not because it's more powerful, has blu-ray but because I'm just a gamer who plays games and I know that each system will have a certain game that will only come out for that one system. I'm not happy with Sony and there console design ideas or the fact of pushing blu-ray on the consumer(and yes you don't have to buy one if you don't want it) but they don't leave you with much choice.

MS comes out with HD-DVD but as an add-on. Not the greatest idea either but then again, it's not a supported format either yet, just like blu-ray. PC still supports DVD and will be for awhile which is fine with me as DVD still has some years of life in it.

Nintendo I will wait and see what they do and if it looks good when it comes out, I'll get that as well.

You don't have to get something you don't want or like but don't sit there and start claiming that something is great if it's not even out in the public to play yet, that's all.

At a glance, one you get over the parallel stuff, the Cell's pretty easy to program. It does make the code somewhat less portable, however. It's getting your head around it that's the hardest thing.

I agree with thane_jaw that I don't think power will be defining, and this whole "make a loss on your system" aspect is beginning to get stupid.



This made me laugh. Like Kojima programs.



"The fastest and most powerful game console on the planet."

Remind you of anyone? ;)

As if a multiplatform game is a true depiction of graphic potential for any system. Using multiplatform games for comparison purposes is foolish. MP games are about sending out the most copies of a title as fast as possible to as many people as possible -- therefore, graphics and whatnot are not optimized for any system. you end up with the best graphics that they have time for that will run on the lowest system specs. THAT'S why graphics on the PS2 are comparable to the Xbox on multiplatform games.

Besides, when is Rockstar known for graphics? They always look like "attack of the abstract block drawings."

lol, Microsoft LIE all the time about everything, to make themselves look better or just to convenient themsleves. As for the statement that 360 and PS3 are at the same level in terms of power, they are lying through their teeth. There have been numerous RECORDED incidents of them lying about there products and you can find it here:

www.f**kmicrosoft.com

I realise that multi platform games always go with lowest common denominator, however with instances like splinter cell and soul caliber2 its a relevant point as aside from these cross-platform games, there is no real direct comparison between systems (there's no bleep test to see how well they can do fancy flying transparent elephants). HOwever this next gen the slightly less powerful system? that'll be the 360 (despite all the talk about 2 cars, I'd go with the ps3 probably being slightly more powerful, like the xbox is this generation). In this era of expensive budgets just to get games going, I'd lay a fair wager that mp games will continue not to be optimised for either system for cost purposes(as optimusp says the multi-core architecture is going to create enough headaches as is). This would render the question of graphics and indeed hardware mute, at least for multi-platform games. Which with large companies like EA (not to bitch about them but they seem the most relevant publisher to talk about, they get a bad enough press as it is for merely being highly competitive...) will be a significant amount of titles.

The point wasn't just about graphics (although I said that because its most obvious difference), at this point in time everybody's got jet engines (just to mix up the analogies even more). There will be little or no difference on mp games or indeed graphics and effects wise in games in general (and to be fair, those of us in england if we wanted to buy a decent big high def tv screen we should have started saving yesterday. we're not going to see this stunning new affordable wave of graphics til at least 2007).


Oh and rockstar do have sucky graphics, but hey they make up for it with the rest of the package.