I wonder if that's because they fucked up with the PS3 after showing an empty case then realizing the hardware wouldn't fit in it?

@thecow - fuck the PS2, the Master System is still going strong in some countries, that's a life cycle to behold. ;) Though yeah, PS2 is the biggest selling console of all time.

but that's because it didn't share a market with Microsoft. Nintendo was still spinning the GameCube so they were irrelevant, and the original Xbox was pretty great but it was very scarce outside of the US and even then not as popular as the PlayStation. Right now Sony and Microsoft are a dual monopoly, so sales go more or less 50/50, causing none of them to sell more than Sony's previous single monopoly, but the two combined still probably sold more than the Xbox and PS2 combined.

Don't you think Sony made a mistake to announce what all the PS4 will have?
Now Microsoft knows what to work on with the xbox to make it better then the PS4..

Microsoft's next machine was speced ages ago (plus developers have had the dev kits for both machines for a while), they're more or less on par with each other. Can't say exactly as ATM we're basing everything on the vague info that has been provided by each company, its safe to say there wont be much of a difference between the two. Might get lucky & have some more numbers handed out at E3 etc.
It's going to come down to whichever has the better games & least retarded stuff forced on users... Or fanboys. :/

It's better for both companies if they have equal hardware.


Hardware doesn't particularly matter in consoles - people still bought xbox 360s even though their hardware is inferior.

Numbers don't always equate to performance. You only have to look at games that were released on both machines, the 360 versions generally looked & ran better whereas later PS3 would have additional exclusive content. Sony must've sucked a lot of Capcom cock for all that ;)

John Carmack probably gave the best example at his Quakecon when he talked about how much of a struggle it was to get Rage to run somewhat acceptably on the PS3. Or I could just point at Skyrim which is probably the best example of "superior hardware" not being superior at all.

Rage was a POS that didn't run acceptably on PC.


But Skyrim looks identical on either console? The only problem is Bethesda's failure to properly utilize memory - which is not to do with the power of the console, and I would say not even the hardware.

And that doesn't change that the hardware /is/ superior.

Runs fine on mine, runs fine on 360 too.


Skyrim & Oblivion were both better versions on 360, they not only ran better but also looked better.



Loving the PS3 draw distance etc, Oblivion runs on the computer equivalent of a calculator, no way a "superior" machine should've ended up with that...
The same applies to most games that were released on both machines. Fanboys are gonna fanwank 'n all that.


Not strictly true, in numbers yeah you could say superior but that isn't the whole picture... It's also why I made a comment about the PS3 not fitting in the case they showed resulting in a mobo redesign and a crippling cutback - the RAM. Downsizing to lower spec XDR and knocking in a 256/256 split crippled it, it simply doesn't provide enough bandwith to feed the processor.
Then of course there's the issue of how slow the access times are on Bluray drives, obviously a handicap when it comes to games that pull info on the fly.

Yes the PS3 was horrible to code for thus early games wouldn't be perfect, but it's been over 6 year now & it's still not showing any sign of getting better. The PS3 will be dying as the console that never had a chance to hit it's CPU limits because it wasn't possible to reach them with games.

I'll happily admit that on paper the PS3 should've been leaps & bounds ahead of the 360, but it just isn't in real world performance. Maybe if the PS3 had been the original spec it would've lived up to the numbers, shame really.

How soon after launch did you play it? Perhaps they patched all the problems - and there were a lot of them.

But it looks better on the PS3? Is the xbox even using anisotropic filtering?
Are you seriously not disgusted by the textures on the xbox, and are focusing on the distant trees?
Not sure how bethesda failed to work within the PS3's restrictions though, with instancing there should have been 0 problems with having even millions of trees. I guess it just goes to show how poor the technology is?


RAM and Blueray != power.

If you try to fry an egg in a microwave you are going to have a bad time - it's not the microwave's fault. Cheap ports and poor development are responsible for the misuse of PS3 hardware.

If you played Uncharted you can clearly see that it is Bethesda's failings. Looking at other games around, it looks like they make a "console version" for PS3 and xbox, but account for PC hardware, and thus fail to utilize the PS3 which is not standard architecture.

It's a shame really that something as simple as memory management is sooooo hard for these AAA devs.

On release, and as I said it ran perfectly fine. Given that my PC is far from top end I can't see how anyone would have problems unless they're using severely outdated hardware.


Neither of them were a "standard architecture" if you're following that logic. They both use similar architecture. Add the 3 vs 6+1 logical CPU thing and the PS3 should destroy the 360 on ports between the two. Graphically... The PS3 has a higher throughput on it's GPU, but we're talking a small percentage. None the less it has a severe processing advantage so on paper it should come out on top right?

So I'm going to pull some numbers.

Black Ops 2 (a good one since it's on all 3 current consoles)

console         360        ps3        wii-u
resolution      1080p     720p      1080p
average fps     56.94      51.72     48.39

None are close to PC standard, but providing the PS3 version is running at a lower native resolution than the other two it should perform better right? Seems Activision need to get some new coders cos they obviously don't know what they fuck they're doing... Lol Wii-U.

Far Cry 3

console        360        ps3
resolution     1080p     720p
average fps    23.82      22.62

Once again another game that was made to run at a lower resolution on the PS3 & isn't keeping up with the less powerful 360. Ubisoft need new coders too apparently...

Dishonoured

console        360        ps3
resolution     1080p     720p
average fps    29.73      29.10

Ps3 puts in a better show this time, but it's still running the game at a lower resolution natively.

Borderlands 2

console        360        ps3
resolution     1080p     720p
average fps    29.81      30.46

The numbers still don't add up to "superior".

Mass Effect 3

console        360        ps3
resolution     1080p     720p
average fps    29.65      25.64

Eh... That's a pretty big gap. Also I'm getting annoyed at all this 720p shit on the ps3. Took a bit of hunting but I found a game running native 1080p on the PS3. Also Bioware needs devs that know their shit, poor PS3 not being used properly...

SoulCalibur 5

console        360        ps3
resolution     1080p     1080p
average fps    58.85      58.71

That's more like it, but still no superiority to be found.

At this point I was hoping to find a Capcom game that was way better on the PS3 (after all Capcom love Sony) but outside of resolution differences on the early games from before the 360 had HDMI there's nothing of note.
Then again since Capcom games usually run on modest hardware there's no reason why the ports wouldn't be good.

Also have some lovely Bioshock 2 images.




Check out the reflections. :/ That's ugly as shit. Really Sony, REALLY?

Am I supposed to believe that no one outside of Sony is capable of making things for the console correctly? It's across the board, the technically superior machine generally isn't able to keep up; had it been one or two developers that struggled then sure, but it's not - it's pretty much everyone.

Hell most the new games aren't even natively running at 1080, they're being upscaled. That's something I'd expect from older 360 titles from before HDMI was added & 1080p support was enabled. I don't expect it from new games, is the PS3 being pushed that hard with modern stuff that they're having to make cuts? Possibly. Are the developers incompetent? Nope.


I never stated that, I pointed out two things that hobble the machine from being what it should've been. RAMBUS is a horrible technology where moving data quickly is concerned, the latency is a joke on anything that isn't a "predictable task" thus causing the PS3's processors to stall while they wait for something to do. Yeah you can get some pretty astonishing numbers from the PS3 where maths is concerned, but that isn't real world gaming performance. Those numbers need moved from one place to another and that's where the machine fails.

The PS3 should've been much better than it was, cutbacks were made, we got a far lesser machine. As I said earlier - It was a shame.