Devs Problems: Lack of memory on Sony PS3 and storage on Xbox 360

[wraggster]

That will possibly be the only major problem for devs for both consoles in the near future.
1). Lack of memory on the PS3.
2). Lack of storage space on the Xbox 360.
Watch out for that one. It will be here sooner than you think, if not already.

But everyone, just bear this in mind. The Xbox 360, for all the bagging it gets, is really quite a powerfull piece of kit. It has 3 seperate PPC cpus, which basically equates to 6 hardware threads. It has more memory to play with, a superior GPU, and superfast bus rate.

All the BS talked about GOW pushing the 360 is almost toss. Sorry. It was only running on two thread system. And even that engine was very buggy and "heavy" at the time. If not totally overated in its own right as well.

Honestly, if MS decided to put some form of a HD disc in it, Blu Ray or HD-DVD, the damn thing would be almost future proof, with the exception of the over heating, ofcourse.
Because, as it stands, the PS3 only has the storage space over the 360. Its not anymore "advanced" at all, and in many ways, slightly less.

http://www.product-reviews.net/2007/11/03/devs-problems-lack-of-memory-on-sony-ps3-and-storage-on-xbox-360/

[jovmilan]

The writer of this artical did not do the research he should have, he probably got his info from an xbox fan site.

Plain and simple, the 360’s GPU is NOT more powerful, and the CPU certainly isnt. If you really want a way to compare the GPUs without having to look at all the specs and what not, just think of this; The Xeon is just a modified Radeon X1950XT, and the RSX is a modified 7800GTX. Technically neither is “more powerfull” than the other, they just do calculations differently.

The CPUs are an entirely different playfield.
The cell is an early form of a hybrid of a CPU/GPU which is what AMD/ATI is trying to make. It uses a single PowerPC core which has similar performance to an AMD Athlon 64 3200, and its aided with 7 SPUs that do simple calculations. very similar to pixel pipelines or pixel shaders on GPUs. so the cell is going to be very beneficial for media-based applications.

as for the Xenos, its just a Hyper-Threaded version of the PowerPC. very similar to the P4 HT, only instead of the HT acting as 2 processors it acts as 3. it still is a very powerful processor, but for what its made for, it has nothing on the cell.

i just got done beating halo 3, and i noticed something that Gears did also, there are moments in the game where armor or textures do not load, and it looks like a blob of mud. im sure everyone who has played gears knows what im talking about. and i thought it was just the way gears was programed, but since Halo 3 does the same thing, its got to be something else…

dont get me wrong, i just bought my 3rd 360, and its for a reason. the hardware is nowhere near as impressive as the PS3, but the online gameplay is awsome, i hope PSN will get there someday. and since bioshock and halo 3 where huge dissapointments, i hope mass effect and too human make up for it.

to all you xbox die hard fan boys, why does Killzone 2 look so much better than anything out on 360? or Heavenly sword? or Rachet and Clank? or MGS4? even GT5 looks far better than Forza ever thought about. now that may be the blu-ray advantage, but its got to be something else.

one thing that i thougt was severly impressive for the PS3 was how well it runs UT3. a side by side comparison of a PC with a Nvidia 8800 ultra, 4 gigs of ram, and a quad core intel, which rounds to about 3 grand, the now 400 dollar PS3 version looks just as good, and the physics are actually superior, unless you want to include the ageia physics processor, the its pretty equal.

The other thing, the main thing i hear about the PS3 as far as trash talking goes, is the lack of games, now if i remember correctly, and i know cause i had one when it first came out, it didnt have shit for games until Gears came out. The PS3 has had 2 very distinguished titles very close to its release time, Motorstorm, and Resistance. Resistance looks as good as halo3 by the way, and that was just a launch title for the PS3.

So dont get me wrong, i have both systems, and they both do what they do very well, but when i hear shit about the PS3’s hardware being inferior to the 360s, i have to correct. same with the lack of games. oh and the sales of the 360 are almost exactly how the original xbox sold. look at the figures, the PS3 is doing no worse, its not doing much better either though.

I just respect sony for trying to make an advance in the hardware for the gaming world. they spent millions on developing the cell, while the other companys just took something that was already there, and shaved, and added something else to make it “their’s”.

u cant argue with this…

[Nicko01]

wow jovmilan, nice job.
That really did need to be corrected.

[goity]

Lack of main memory compared to 360? Rubbish! The GPU can access the full 512mb of RAM on the ps3.

[Napalm-Death]

[Educational Rant]
Good post, maybe that'll teach the 360 fanboys that think their console is perfect. :cool:

[VexnadFett]

The person who wrote that article is a tad crazy... i mean, who's giving the 360 a hard time? sorry, who's "bagging" on the 360? (official verb for fanboys?)
well, regardless the 360 is a fine piece of machinery ran by a company that requires the user to pay a bill to play online with others and refuses to add a HD-dvd drive in the console for fear that the console would be utterly shut out in a high price comparison with the ps3... but maybe that's just my view on the matter ^-^

[wolfpack]

personally i like the 360 better

the only games that would sway me into buying a ps3 is Final Fantasy VII Remake, FFXIII and Metal Gear Solid 4.

And as for jovmilan, Bioshock and Halo 3 is NOT a big disappointment, look at the reviews and the opinions of others before you start stating that.

[Mazu]

He meant/said that halo 3 and bioshock were a big disappointment to him.

[robotdevil]

Cell processor is far more than an athlon 3200 though, it's actually closer to core 2 in architechture and runs at 3.2Ghz (if I remember correctly). And core 2 is NOT dual core (that's the core 2 duo) but rather a processor generation.

A fine rant though, and very well written I should add.

*edit*

PS3 is also running ultra high-speed RAMBUS, 360 is a cross between DDR and DDR2 (think DDR2 speeds with DDR latency) still good, but as far as transfer rates go it's 8800 vs 2900.

[Shadowblind]

A clear indicator that I have too much time on my hands

I don't have to write an article to say that your full of crack when you wrote this. It doesn't take an Xbox fan to agree with what the guy said. It takes a gamer that doesn't own a PS3. One not bias. Frankly, the limit for both the Ps3 and the 360 have not been tapped. Or close to tapped. And no, there is yet to be a single game in existance with the graphical acheivement of Gears of War.

And the "slightly less" advanced parts of the PS3 refer to its extreme lack of small features that make the system just more fun. As it goes, 360 wins hands down in little fun features that just make life better.

[Triv1um]

And as for jovmilan, Bioshock and Halo 3 is NOT a big disappointment, look at the reviews and the opinions of others before you start stating that.

Since when do reviews include everyones point of views. Reviews arnt always right, and that is one persons view (the reviewers)

[Elven6]

I don't know much about which one does what better, but saying Folding@Home proves what is superior is garbage. They could implement in on the 360 if they wanted to, but they don't for some reason. And isn't the 360 proccesor able to do 3 cores? Not hyperthreaded.

[pibs]

what a biased rant lol
fanboys usually only have one of the systems so they automatically believe its far superior than the other. Console comparisons is no better than some dudes comparing their penis size because even if they end up winning they just saw another dudes shlong.
stop obsessing over one or the other

[irongiant]

I don't have to write an article to say that your full of crack when you wrote this. It doesn't take an Xbox fan to agree with what the guy said. It takes a gamer that doesn't own a PS3. One not bias. Frankly, the limit for both the Ps3 and the 360 have not been tapped. Or close to tapped. And no, there is yet to be a single game in existance with the graphical acheivement of Gears of War.

And the "slightly less" advanced parts of the PS3 refer to its extreme lack of small features that make the system just more fun. As it goes, 360 wins hands down in little fun features that just make life better.

What little fun features are you referring to?

As far as making life better, then the PS3 wins hands down for me. The 60GB HDD, wireless without having to buy an adaptor, the memory card slots, blu ray built in and free online play are big advantages.

[F9zDark]

Frankly, the limit for both the Ps3 and the 360 have not been tapped. Or close to tapped. And no, there is yet to be a single game in existance with the graphical acheivement of Gears of War.


First off, Valve devs said TF2 maxed the 360 and that the PS3 had more than enough head room. It was in an interview on N4G and various other gaming sites before Newell had it removed with threats of legal action. (kinda funny, his own devs don't agree with him and state it publicly, he puts his lawyers to work...)

Secondly, RS6, UT3 are all Unreal Engine games, that use the same engine as GoW. So I think it has been matched. As well, the Unreal Engine that exists right now is already superior to the one in GoW.


I don't know much about which one does what better, but saying Folding@Home proves what is superior is garbage. They could implement in on the 360 if they wanted to, but they don't for some reason. And isn't the 360 proccesor able to do 3 cores? Not hyperthreaded.

Stanford University basically said:
"We could do it on the 360, but it would offer nothing significant to the project and we wouldn't want to be responsible for what could happen." (obviously referring to 360 meltdowns).

Sorry, but I think a group of scientists and computer engineers would know a lot better than any of us.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/05/ps3-beats-xbox-360-in-console-folding-war/

Here's one. I'll try to find the other where my paraphrased quote came from. But this should be enough to quell the notion that the 360 is even comparable to the PS3, in terms of raw computing power. It is not even close. But raw computing power isn't enough for great games, making the Cell the PS3's achilles heel of sorts...