ZEQ2 Lite

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Before you post. DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A FLAME WAR!

So I was wondering which Console did you like better. I was just wondering what people around here thought which one is better suited to your personal reasons.

I personally like the PlayStation 3 better considering I grew up with Sony all my life & I love the games it has. I also love the controller. You also can't beat free online also. The Graphics are amazing too but that's not the reason why I got it. Blu-Ray came in handy too for movies & games.

Considering I learned blu-ray is much tougher then DVDs. The 2 big things I didn't like about 360 is b/c of the red ring of death & that the online isn't free for 360.

So what is your collection of unsupported data on which console you like more?

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Just by reading the title this is bound to end up becoming a console war.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Damaera wrote : Just by reading the title this is bound to end up becoming a console war.

I hope not. I'm on InfintryMugen forums. Not war at all yet. If people are mature about it & aren't an "KAIZO" about it. & respect everyone's opinion. Then all should go good.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

well as you said...I grew with sony to even still have a PS1 and played the PlayStation 2 to ..and as you said..the BLUE RAY is a really good addition and hels out at the movies and games..plus the sony always had VERY good games....
about Xbox 360...well a friend of mine has an xbox...never played on a Xbox 360 but still saw lots of review's on internet and so ...but let me tell you I would choose a PlayStation 3 ANYTIME over a Xbox 360 just for the games it has

Postscript: and as I saw over the internet...the PlayStation 3 is not even using all of its ''full power'' in the games...were the Xbox 360...uses some more ..(not full power either but ...you got the point) so with enough addons/patches and other stuff it actually can improve without buying lots of stuff where for the xbox360 you need to buy a lot of stuff to get to use some other stuff where its all included in the PlayStation 3...

anyway...my point of view....would get a PlayStation 3 over the xbox360...
what's yours ?

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Moderator : Post marked as non-objective and bias. Please disregard.

PlayStation 3 is better anyways weater you like it or not . in hardware it has better graphics and more gpu power , and more processing power. the erlier PlayStation 3 used to run PlayStation 2 and ps1 games , I don't know abot know versions. in
xbox 360 arcade , arcade+ and go pro are good, elite has more features and power but has a lot of bugs and gets loved pretty easily

Thursday, March 04, 2010

PlayStation 3 I also used PlayStation all my life and the PlayStation 2 had some of the greatest Dragon Ball Z games

Thursday, March 04, 2010

As you can see, this has already turned into pointless fanatical enthusiastic young child posturing with zero knowledge about the actually systems involved, at least no more than "I play this one more so I choose it." Be warned, this is a long post, first going into the actual facts regarding the hardware and then into my personal opinions about the two consoles.


Why are people saying the PlayStation 3 has the more powerful GPU? That's utter nonsense. The PlayStation 3's GPU is basically nothing more than a GeForce 7800GT with northbridge functionallity. It's really underpowered being a DX9 level chip and not even the most powerful of the DX9 chips. It's such a bogstandard chip because of major mistakes Sony made thinking the Cell Processor was powerful enough to handle everything including graphics. Think of it as a last minute addition to the hardware set. The chip's so underpowered that developers HAVE TO offload post processing and even vertex processing opperations off the GPU and onto the Cell's SPU's if they want quality effects with good performance. Obviously this is far from an efficient way of doing things.

The Xenos chip in the 360, however, is an asbolute powerhouse completely custom made by ATI and was the very basis of their DX10+ chip design. While not fully a DX10 chip it has the unified shader architecture and a substantial amount of features above and beyond that of any DX9 chip, such as programmable vertex fetches, a superset of HLSL features, a absolutely huge & fast framebuffer and very efficient and cheap read/write between CPU & GPU memory.

The 360 out performs the PlayStation 3 by a long way if you're just considering the GPU. That's a technical fact as anyone who has studied up on the actual hardware knows and anyone who has actually fiddled with graphics programming on the 360 will know.

The CPU's are a different matter, though. The Cell processor is mindblowingly fast at floating point operations, it seriously leaves the 360's Xenon processor in the dust. However, it's really not at all good at general purpose computing code, just calculations. It's got a ton of stream processing power but each SPU is as ill-advised, so to speak, as a GPU's shader unit. A tiny portion of memory is sent to the SPU, it does a calculation and send the output back to the main code.

The cell's main core is just a bog standard PPC core with two threads available. It has to manage the SPU's, tell them what to do, handle what they output and shift memory between the main cache and the individual SPU chache's as well as run all the general purpose code. So while the Cell is amazing at doing certain types calculations in a snap it's extremely limitted for general code execution when compared to proper multicore architecture, such as the Xenon. It leads to pipeline stalls & cache thrasing very easilly, which is a possibly major reason for performance issues on a lot of the PlayStation 3 versions of multiplatform games (along with certain others like Haze, Lair, etc.)

The Xenon is a triple core chip with two threads per core, it doesn't have the stream processing power of the Cell but it does have a superwide vector processing unit (512bit if I remember correctly?) and very efficient memory access patterns. In PC terms, this chip still beats the ever loving snot out Intel or AMD Quad cores, at least for gaming purposes.

As I said, it's nowhere near as powerful for floating point calculations as the Cell, but for everything else it's top dog and games are far from just floating point calculations. Games by their very nature make use of extreme amounts of branching, looping code with heavy memory access, which is something the Cell is actually very bad at, despite the marketting propaganda put out. The chip was made as Sony's all purpose answer to image processing, it was chosen for the PlayStation 3 for the same reason as bluray: a feeble attempt to make it the industry standard. It worked for bluray, not for Cell.

So, hardware wise, the PlayStation 3 is better at raw number crunching, 360's better at graphics and general purpose code. Further the PlayStation 3's split memory architecture adds latency and restrictions on memory access while the 360's unified architecture is fast, efficient and pretty much unrestricted.

Depending on the purpose, either could be said to be better in a technical discussion but the absolutely fact of the matter is that in the real world, when it comes to gaming, they're pretty much equal: PlayStation 3 has the upperhand in certain calculations, 360 has the upperhand in graphics power.

Anyone who claims the PlayStation 3 is so obviously more ultra amazingly powerful than the 360 has obviously been listening far too much to Sony marketting execs and other fanatical enthusiastic young children without actually investigating the information for themselves.

What it comes down to is personal choice and preference. Personally, I prefer the 360, it's interface is solid, it's games are great, it's controller doesn't give me cramp, it's online support is second to none and well worth the pittence they charge, I can even make my own games for it without having to hack it or shell out many thousands of pounds to apply for a DevKit.

The PlayStation 3 sitting in my front room is quite literally gathering dust. While there's a few games I would like to play on it they don't interest me enough to go out and buy them. I was sorely disappointed in how unintuitive and, to be honest, backwards, the user interface was. Extremely disappointed how nothing in it's OS is actually integrated as it should be but all completely seperated and the more recent additions obviously bolted on top. The Web Browser was a complete waste of time compared to the one on the Wii. That controller shape always gives me cramp. All in all, barring the bluray drive, for a console which costs so much more I was seriously underwhelmed. Overall the whole thing just felt like such a "chaser" without any actual innovations of it's own, barring a new media format.

Even it's online support was a complete disappointment after having used Live for 3+ years. I know the PlayStation 3's online network is free and is losing money hand over foot, but I keep hearing all these statements that it's online support has managed to catch up with Live, which it quite clearly hasn't just by looking at the lack of cross-game communications and invites. Sure, Live costs £40 a year (so much money ) but for the quality of the ever improving service that's provided it's an absolute steal, especially considering a lot of people who complain about such a price are quite happy to pay twice as much to play a single MMO for a year.

As far as the RRoD goes, it doesn't bother me in the slightest considering the two times it's happened on my launch day console I had the thing back with in a week with no charge, which is a far better experience than I have ever had with a console manufacturer and repairs. My PS1 died twice through shoddy parts and my flatmate went thorugh three PlayStation 2's due to their Disc Read Errors. In both cases, it was a heck of an effort to get Sony to take them for repairs and even then they wanted £50 to fix them each time despite each being in warrenty.

I'm of the opinion that every piece of high end electronic equipment WILL cease functioning at some point, it's the nature of such devices (offnote: this is why things such as the Cell are made with redundant elements, so they can maintain yield even when a couple of SPU's on a chip are buggered) it's how the companies deal with such failures that really matters.

Further more, the PlayStation 3 suffers from pretty much exactly the same issue as the RRoD, instead called the "Yellow Light of Death." Independant console repair companies have been reported as recieving just as many PlayStation 3's with the YLoD as 360's with RRoD's with regard to the relative life-time cycles.

The difference is, Sony is flat out denying that these problems exist to any degree and will continue to deny it until they lose a lawsuit over it, much like the DRE's with the PlayStation 2 and shoddy components in the PS1's. Just because your console hasn't died doesn't mean there isn't inherent faults in the hardware, which basically makes the whole thing of hardware failures an utter non-issue between the two. If people were Wii fans, on the otherhand, it would be a legitimate point as unlike the PlayStation 3 and 360, the Wii has pretty much no reported inherent hardware faults, unless you count Wiimotes flying through TV screens

My personal choice is the 360, I like it's games, I like the hardware, I like the software, I like the interface, I like the experience. It's the only console I've been so impressed with other than the Dreamcast which was quite literally 5 years ahead of it's time. If I couldn't have a 360 then my next choice would be a Wii as the games on that thing are just SOOO much fun.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

wall of text on drugs. Anywayys that was brilliant and right on the money, I actually never knew that 360 had better graphical power. Anyways I personally have grown up with Sony and Nintendo.So I've had a SNES, PS1, PlayStation 2,and Gamecube. the 360 was my first microsoft console and I've had terrible luck with them too....6 RRoD's. So I have a PlayStation 3 now and my current 360 collects dust *laughing out loud*. Alex is it your job to test the posting limits?

Thursday, March 04, 2010

The PlayStation 3 and the 360 are nothing in front of the PC

yes the pc if you have the money that is to upgrade

Thursday, March 04, 2010

you're rite there is a fully customizable pc from sonic hyper boom . the height option it it are more than us$25000

3.2 ghz core2extreme with 32mb cache ()normal p4 have1mb)

4gb ram 2gb in each slot.

liquid system

1000hd space

2gb ATI graphik card (latest)

Blu-ray dvd drive
super dvd combo drive

nvidia mother board

Thursday, March 04, 2010

what the heck....

for 25000 dolars you can buy better specifications then that....I think that there is no computer (customly) that costs like that

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Moderator : Post marked as non-objective and bias. Please disregard.

I could care less about the facts I like the playstation3 better it's my opinion although I didn't read the full post if I did I would have a major headache

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Buksna wrote : what the heck....

for 25000 dolars you can buy better specifications then that....I think that there is no computer (customly) that costs like that

\

sorry its 2500$ us

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Considering all that very expensive PC kit is only used for pointless, superfluous eyecandy right now, there's really no difference in the actually capabilities of the games released between the PC and consoles. Infact, buying a PC which is comparable to a 360 or PlayStation 3 in performance and capabilities would cost two to three times as much as the console. That sort of eliminates that whole arguement of "PC's are capable of more" when there's such a vast discrepency in the costs.

Really, developers still have tremendous amounts of room to grow with the DX9 level hardware in the consoles and that the vast majority of PC games still have. Sure, developers have said "we're using 100% of the power of the PlayStation 3/360/whatever" but then again you could use 100% of the power of a machine just showing a box on the screen. It's all matter of how that power is used and the PlayStation 3 & 360 both have SUBSTANTIAL amounts of power developers can make far better use of.

In all honesty, though, when you have to put up with complete and complete draconian bullshit from publishers like Ubisoft, the PC is one of the least appealing platforms for general gaming in my opinion.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Alex wrote : As you can see, this has already turned into pointless fanatical enthusiastic young child posturing with zero knowledge about the actually systems involved, at least no more than "I play this one more so I choose it." Be warned, this is a long post, first going into the actual facts regarding the hardware and then into my personal opinions about the two consoles.


Why are people saying the PlayStation 3 has the more powerful GPU? That's utter nonsense. The PlayStation 3's GPU is basically nothing more than a GeForce 7800GT with northbridge functionallity. It's really underpowered being a DX9 level chip and not even the most powerful of the DX9 chips. It's such a bogstandard chip because of major mistakes Sony made thinking the Cell Processor was powerful enough to handle everything including graphics. Think of it as a last minute addition to the hardware set. The chip's so underpowered that developers HAVE TO offload post processing and even vertex processing opperations off the GPU and onto the Cell's SPU's if they want quality effects with good performance. Obviously this is far from an efficient way of doing things.

The Xenos chip in the 360, however, is an asbolute powerhouse completely custom made by ATI and was the very basis of their DX10+ chip design. While not fully a DX10 chip it has the unified shader architecture and a substantial amount of features above and beyond that of any DX9 chip, such as programmable vertex fetches, a superset of HLSL features, a absolutely huge & fast framebuffer and very efficient and cheap read/write between CPU & GPU memory.

The 360 out performs the PlayStation 3 by a long way if you're just considering the GPU. That's a technical fact as anyone who has studied up on the actual hardware knows and anyone who has actually fiddled with graphics programming on the 360 will know.

The CPU's are a different matter, though. The Cell processor is mindblowingly fast at floating point operations, it seriously leaves the 360's Xenon processor in the dust. However, it's really not at all good at general purpose computing code, just calculations. It's got a ton of stream processing power but each SPU is as ill-advised, so to speak, as a GPU's shader unit. A tiny portion of memory is sent to the SPU, it does a calculation and send the output back to the main code.

The cell's main core is just a bog standard PPC core with two threads available. It has to manage the SPU's, tell them what to do, handle what they output and shift memory between the main cache and the individual SPU chache's as well as run all the general purpose code. So while the Cell is amazing at doing certain types calculations in a snap it's extremely limitted for general code execution when compared to proper multicore architecture, such as the Xenon. It leads to pipeline stalls & cache thrasing very easilly, which is a possibly major reason for performance issues on a lot of the PlayStation 3 versions of multiplatform games (along with certain others like Haze, Lair, etc.)

The Xenon is a triple core chip with two threads per core, it doesn't have the stream processing power of the Cell but it does have a superwide vector processing unit (512bit if I remember correctly?) and very efficient memory access patterns. In PC terms, this chip still beats the ever loving snot out Intel or AMD Quad cores, at least for gaming purposes.

As I said, it's nowhere near as powerful for floating point calculations as the Cell, but for everything else it's top dog and games are far from just floating point calculations. Games by their very nature make use of extreme amounts of branching, looping code with heavy memory access, which is something the Cell is actually very bad at, despite the marketting propaganda put out. The chip was made as Sony's all purpose answer to image processing, it was chosen for the PlayStation 3 for the same reason as bluray: a feeble attempt to make it the industry standard. It worked for bluray, not for Cell.

So, hardware wise, the PlayStation 3 is better at raw number crunching, 360's better at graphics and general purpose code. Further the PlayStation 3's split memory architecture adds latency and restrictions on memory access while the 360's unified architecture is fast, efficient and pretty much unrestricted.

Depending on the purpose, either could be said to be better in a technical discussion but the absolutely fact of the matter is that in the real world, when it comes to gaming, they're pretty much equal: PlayStation 3 has the upperhand in certain calculations, 360 has the upperhand in graphics power.

Anyone who claims the PlayStation 3 is so obviously more ultra amazingly powerful than the 360 has obviously been listening far too much to Sony marketting execs and other fanatical enthusiastic young children without actually investigating the information for themselves.

What it comes down to is personal choice and preference. Personally, I prefer the 360, it's interface is solid, it's games are great, it's controller doesn't give me cramp, it's online support is second to none and well worth the pittence they charge, I can even make my own games for it without having to hack it or shell out many thousands of pounds to apply for a DevKit.

The PlayStation 3 sitting in my front room is quite literally gathering dust. While there's a few games I would like to play on it they don't interest me enough to go out and buy them. I was sorely disappointed in how unintuitive and, to be honest, backwards, the user interface was. Extremely disappointed how nothing in it's OS is actually integrated as it should be but all completely seperated and the more recent additions obviously bolted on top. The Web Browser was a complete waste of time compared to the one on the Wii. That controller shape always gives me cramp. All in all, barring the bluray drive, for a console which costs so much more I was seriously underwhelmed. Overall the whole thing just felt like such a "chaser" without any actual innovations of it's own, barring a new media format.

Even it's online support was a complete disappointment after having used Live for 3+ years. I know the PlayStation 3's online network is free and is losing money hand over foot, but I keep hearing all these statements that it's online support has managed to catch up with Live, which it quite clearly hasn't just by looking at the lack of cross-game communications and invites. Sure, Live costs £40 a year (so much money ) but for the quality of the ever improving service that's provided it's an absolute steal, especially considering a lot of people who complain about such a price are quite happy to pay twice as much to play a single MMO for a year.

As far as the RRoD goes, it doesn't bother me in the slightest considering the two times it's happened on my launch day console I had the thing back with in a week with no charge, which is a far better experience than I have ever had with a console manufacturer and repairs. My PS1 died twice through shoddy parts and my flatmate went thorugh three PlayStation 2's due to their Disc Read Errors. In both cases, it was a heck of an effort to get Sony to take them for repairs and even then they wanted £50 to fix them each time despite each being in warrenty.

I'm of the opinion that every piece of high end electronic equipment WILL cease functioning at some point, it's the nature of such devices (offnote: this is why things such as the Cell are made with redundant elements, so they can maintain yield even when a couple of SPU's on a chip are buggered) it's how the companies deal with such failures that really matters.

Further more, the PlayStation 3 suffers from pretty much exactly the same issue as the RRoD, instead called the "Yellow Light of Death." Independant console repair companies have been reported as recieving just as many PlayStation 3's with the YLoD as 360's with RRoD's with regard to the relative life-time cycles.

The difference is, Sony is flat out denying that these problems exist to any degree and will continue to deny it until they lose a lawsuit over it, much like the DRE's with the PlayStation 2 and shoddy components in the PS1's. Just because your console hasn't died doesn't mean there isn't inherent faults in the hardware, which basically makes the whole thing of hardware failures an utter non-issue between the two. If people were Wii fans, on the otherhand, it would be a legitimate point as unlike the PlayStation 3 and 360, the Wii has pretty much no reported inherent hardware faults, unless you count Wiimotes flying through TV screens

My personal choice is the 360, I like it's games, I like the hardware, I like the software, I like the interface, I like the experience. It's the only console I've been so impressed with other than the Dreamcast which was quite literally 5 years ahead of it's time. If I couldn't have a 360 then my next choice would be a Wii as the games on that thing are just SOOO much fun.

WE ARE NOT fanatical enthusiastic young children! WE JUST LOVE OUR CREATOR!

Friday, March 12, 2010

I own a 360 but I prefer a PlayStation 3 they are of a much higher standard of gaming (lloyd of war beats Halo)
not forgetting little big planet