THE OFFICIAL PS3 vs. XBOX360 vs. Wii thread

Which do you like better: 360, PS3, Wii

  • 360

    Votes: 117 43.7%

  • PS3

    Votes: 89 33.2%

  • Wii

    Votes: 62 23.1%
  • Total voters
    268
alchemist83

alchemist83

New Member
ghostfacesuk said:
Found this on YouTube, I dunno if this is real or not but it wouldnt surprise me one bit that sony done a half ass job for the backwards compatibility of PS1/2 games.

The TRUTH about the PS3's backwards compatibility...

EDIT: Oh yeah, does anyone have hardware specs of the Nintendo Wii?
Click to expand...


If you buy a PS3, then surely your gonna want to play PS3 games over PS2 or PS1 games. And if you have PS1 / PS2 games already then you prob have a PS1 or PS2 already to play em!

look at its specs, its a crazy mofo

CPU: Cell Processor

PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
Total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
GPU: RSX @550MHz

1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines
Sound:

Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-based processing)
Memory:

256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
System Bandwidth:

Main RAM -- 25.6GB/s
VRAM -- 22.4GB/s
RSX -- 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB -- 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)
System Floating Point Performance:

2 TFLOPS
Storage:

Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1
I/O

USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
Memory Stick standard/Duo, PRO x 1
SD standard/mini x 1
CompactFlash (Type I, II) x 1
Communication:

Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2)
Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 b/g
Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
Controller:

Bluetooth (up to 7)
USB 2.0 (wired)
Wi-Fi (PSP)
Network (over IP)

AV Output

Screen size: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
HDMI: HDMI out x 2
Analog: AV MULTI OUT x 1
Digital audio: DIGITAL OUT (OPTICAL) x 1
Disc Media:

CD PlayStation CD-ROM, PlayStation 2 CD-ROM, CD-DA, CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW, SACD, SACD Hybrid (CD layer), SACD HD, DualDisc, DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side)
DVD: PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM, PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW
Blu-ray Disc: PlayStation 3 BD-ROM, BD-Video, BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE

With a 60gb harddrive and the option to change the O/S
 
tlarkin

tlarkin

VIP Member
really the true winner of the console wars in IBM, since all of their processors are in all of the systems.

Crazy specs the PS3 definitely has, however, those specs are just riduculous for a home gaming system. Not to mention, the technology utilizing the PS3 is a small percentage of what it is actually capable of. So, for example, did you know that most PS3 games right now have what a dev would call "filler data". Though it has been proved that sony does infact use this, despite that blu ray is suppose to have constant read times, it seems to be blown out of proportion.

It seems to me that Sony Devs are just getting sloppy. Whenever higher capacity technologies come out, compression technology gets better with it typically at a constant rate.

Just look at what MS did with the 360, they fit like every half life game on one dvd-9 disc. So, its not like Blu ray really has that much advantage. Sure perhaps in the future when games start actually taking up 50+ gigs of data to run. Sure higher quality audio is going to take up more space, however, there are so many awesome lossless compression archiving format for audio. I have started using OGG and FLAC myself, and they are lossless audio rips.

However, that doesn't even really prove my point, since I listed a couple of open source formats. Anyone who makes a consumer product is obviously going to want you to buy and use their products/formats. Which is why I still haven't bought an ipod yet, but probably will soon because the open source apps for it are getting very reliable and strong now, since IMHO, itunes sucks and I hate it.

Moving on....

The PS3 also has a 7 core Cell processor used in a blade server built by IBM. Now, if anyone has ever worked on actual rack mount servers here, they should know a few things. Servers are stored in server rooms for several reasons:

1) Control tempature - they get freaking hot
2) They are loud and make lots of noise (lots of high speed fans)
3) Convience of course, centralizing your servers in one location
4) Climate control (moisture, and stuff like that)

Now, when you take a 7 core processor that is designed to run in a rack mount server, in a controlled climate and temapture and with out the super high speed system blowers, what is going to happen? What happens when games start utilizing the extra cores and start heating up the PS3 to higher temaptures. Anyone who games on a PC, knows that gaming can really stress out hardware, much more than basic PC functions. I would say 3-D rendering kills a system a bit more, but gaming is one of the best stress tests you can give a computer.

So, really when it comes down to the bottom line, the PS3 is not a bad concept at all. The PS3 is a bad concept at this current time. I think Sony should have made the PS3 actually the PS4 and probably comprimised the price and hardware specs. Also, this would allow for them to use more tested hardware on a consumer market. I also think that they should leave blu ray out of it completely. Some of the best looking games out there don't use anywhere close to 25 gigs of data. The fact that sony is putting in tons of uncompressed files on there to fill up that space means that the technology is not even being properly utilized.

Not to mention when games do get that big, access time is going to be a pain for a blu ray laser to access specific data on a 50 gig disk. Then you toss in the files it loads on the HD for quick access (currently I think it can take up to liek 4 gigs on some games) and that will decrease seek times. However, it increases heat because now you havea HD spinning and consuming power. Where as the Wii runs completely off solid state memory, which was the smarter way to go IMHO. If sony could afford to toss a blu ray drive in the PS3 why couldn't they just go ahead and use solid state memory for those temp files, load files, etc. It would have decreased the power used and the heat generated.

I have played all three systems and I own a Wii, and I can honestly say that the release games for the PS3 look no better at all over the 360, and in fact in some cases I think the 360 looks better
 
Yasu

Yasu

New Member
maxmad said:
a lot of people think the 360 is better than the ps3,but the ps3 has better graphics
Click to expand...

...

Actually if you compare the graphics between the 360 and PS3 games then they're pretty much exactly the same, but some of the 360 games look a tad bit better and some of the PS3 games look a tad bit better. Also, power means absolutely nothing if the developers don't use it properly...but most people think better hardware means that every damn thing that pops up on screen must look better than another system...So, yeah...[/pwnt]
 
Blue

Blue

<b>VIP Member</b>
I am not interested in the PS3, not even slightly. But You guys must realize that the PS3 is brand new. It is not fair to judge what looks best until the developers have a good chance to get used to the new hardware. You ever notice that first gen games always look worse then 2nd,3rd and so on?. There is a chance that in about 2 years time, PS3 games will look better then xbox 360 games.

we do not need the [/pwnt] comments here please, I understand were you are coming from, maxmad's comment was a tad fanboyish. But still, a little self control would be nice.
 
DCIScouts

DCIScouts

VIP Member
To continue what Blue said, take a look at some of the games from the same series that were released on the same console. For instance, look at Madden 2001 (I think that was the first one...) for PS2 and the Madden 2006, the game looks sooooo much better. So, you gotta wait about a year before you can really compare the 360 and PS3.
 
tlarkin

tlarkin

VIP Member
[-0MEGA-];526711 said:
Wow, it only supports 480p? Thats pretty sad.
Click to expand...

I think you are failing to grasp that most people in the world do not own HD TVs, so really its not like it matters, plus I almost want to bet it will be scaleable. Just like the 360 did with an update
 
Blue

Blue

<b>VIP Member</b>
Wow, it only supports 480p? Thats pretty sad.
Click to expand...
You just learned this? Anyway 480p really does look just fine. I'm sure if you run the Wii on a decent T.V., use component cables, it will look very good.

Also, for the price of the Wii... Did you really expect much more?
 
Geoff

Geoff

VIP Member
Blue said:
You just learned this? Anyway 480p really does look just fine. I'm sure if you run the Wii on a decent T.V., use component cables, it will look very good.

Also, for the price of the Wii... Did you really expect much more?
Click to expand...

I never was into console gaming, so I never bothered to look at detailed specs. But even a tube TV is practically 480p, and that looks pretty bad when comparing it to 720p or 1080p.
 
C

crosslogic89

New Member
DCIScouts said:
Well, for me, I really don't care what the power is, if the games are fun and addictive, that system is probably the one I will get, if any. At this point, the system that looks the best to me is the Wii, regardless of price. So many games these days are a variation on a theme, where Nintendo seems to be getting the most original games. Anybody want to play Super Monkey Ball??? :D
Click to expand...

BEST SYSTEM REGARDLESS OF PRICE???

i think we all know that the PS3 is the best system regarless of price... simply because of newer hardware than the 360... however 360 owns PS3 because its a shit ton cheaper and it has better games. Plus xBox live is amazing.

but i guess its just a personal preference.
that statement was still rediculous tho.
 
DCIScouts

DCIScouts

VIP Member
crosslogic89 said:
BEST SYSTEM REGARDLESS OF PRICE???

i think we all know that the PS3 is the best system regarless of price... simply because of newer hardware than the 360... however 360 owns PS3 because its a shit ton cheaper and it has better games. Plus xBox live is amazing.

but i guess its just a personal preference.
that statement was still rediculous tho.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how my statement was ridiculous. I am simply stating that if price was not a factor, I would be getting a Wii, even though it is the cheapest I think that it is the best, for me. I feel that the innovative features of the Wii are much better than the 360 or PS3 (which are pretty much the same as the XBox and PS2 with just some more upgraded parts, where the Wii is a completely different approach to gaming at home.) When I was looking at the systems, the XBox has about 1 game that I would want to play on it, the PS3 about 2, and the Wii about 4 or 5, that to me, makes it a much better system. Plus any one of those Wii games would be more enjoyable than Halo 2 any day. (Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 is great, but Super Monkey Ball, Smash Bros., Red Steel, etc. have seemed to be a lot more fun from what I've played...)

I apologize if this next section is rude, but I feel it needs to be said... So, I take by your statement that newer hardware makes something better? Let's take a look then at a GeForce 6900 vs a GeForce 7200. The 7200 is newer by quite a few months, yet definitely is not a better piece of hardware. And I'm sorry but my experiences with XBox live have been very negative with a lot of cocky little 14 and 15 year olds who think they are gods because they do well at a GAME. Swearing and talking trash the entire time, my friend and I had to mute them once it was soooo bad.

Now, I agree that the PS3 has the potential to be the most powerful system, but that's a situation that is still largely theoretical and unproven. (It is on paper, but that doesn't always result in a more powerful system in reality...) And I would hope that the XBox would have more "good" games since the developer kits for the PS3 have only been out for 6 months and not about 2 years as with the 360. And the PS3 has of yet to release some more games from their exclusive series like Final Fantasy and such... So, next time you want to bring your fanboy crap to the discussion, bring some proof with you so that you don't end up sounding riduculous yourself.
 
C

crosslogic89

New Member
The statement that the Wii is a better system than the PS3 or 360 in anybody's opinion is rediculous. I never said anything about games, how much fun you have, or what games you or me like. Everybody knows that the hardware in the PS3 far outdoes any other system. As stated earlier, The Wii has only a little more power than the original xbox.

I'm talking about systems here, bud, not what's "funner" (which is bound to change from person to person anyway, i know that, I aint that stupid).

I have played xbox live countless hours. If you cant put up with it, leave the server, go play sumthin else. Usually, if kids act like they are gods in a game, They are cuz they can pwn yer ass any day of the week. But if that's STILL too much for you, that's why they let you make custom teams, servers, matches, etc.

You're right in that PS3 has fewer games... but i wasnt talking about numbers, was I? In my opinion, xbox has ALWAYS had better games than playstation. but that's just my opinion, feel free to argue with me, wont change my mind.

Get whatever you want to, I'm not trying to argue with you.
but if you look at the poll above, i think you'll see that the mojority agrees with me.
 
striker

striker

New Member
I heard that the 360 has 4 processors and the game that are out now on the 360 only use 2. Also I heard that halo 3 will be the first to use all 4. So we haven't seen what the 360 is capable of. I prefer the 360 because I like games that they have. I still don't have a 360, but will soon buy one. I wanted to wait a year to make sure they fix any bugs in the system, and I still have games that I haven't finished with yet.
 
C

crosslogic89

New Member
I thot it was 3

hmm

yeah ur right we havent fully seen what 360 can do. I'm actually waitin to get a 360 for when halo 3 comes out, for the same reason u stated. Halo Wars is supposed to have pretty advanced graphics as well.
 
maroon1

maroon1

New Member
striker said:
I heard that the 360 has 4 processors and the game that are out now on the 360 only use 2. Also I heard that halo 3 will be the first to use all 4. So we haven't seen what the 360 is capable of. I prefer the 360 because I like games that they have. I still don't have a 360, but will soon buy one. I wanted to wait a year to make sure they fix any bugs in the system, and I still have games that I haven't finished with yet.
Click to expand...

360 has 3 cores, PS3 has 7 cores and Wii has 1

From what I heard, oblivion was the first game that can use the three cores in xbox360
 
bigsaucybob

bigsaucybob

New Member
I would tend to agree that the Wii is the "funner" console. But I have heard plenty of terrible things about it, so lets not give it that much praise. They are all fun consoles.

Next, I would tend to agree with crosslogic89, I personally have found the Xbox and Xbox 360 alike to ALWAYS have better games regaurdless of how long it has been out.

I have never played a game on the PS2 or PS3 where I can say that I would buy the console to play that game. With Xbox or Xbox 360, I can.

Xbox Live is amazing, btw.

No matter what, no single console is better overall. Each console appeals to a different persons need. IMO, there is no way to "vs." all the consoles.

IMHO, the Xbox 360 offers the best value console for what you are getting, now and for the next 3-6 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top