The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Product name: PlayStation 3
* 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- base 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.
Note: Still can't beat xbox 360
* 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- base 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.
Note: Still can't beat xbox 360
Page:
ssxpro wrote:
> In which case (and I apologize if I'm wrong because of my lack of
> knowledge), but it sounds like we're actually agreeing.
No need to apologise ssxpro - maybe I went OTT as well! It's just that I've read so much from so many people who say this and that, and they just don't have a clue. Clearly you do...now, moving on...
Some of you might find it boring, and that's fine - don't comment it then. I actually do find it interesting, and when SONY come along and announce specs. that make Microsoft quiver, you have to sit up and take notice.
Yes, I know, it's the games that matter, and I'll be enjoying my XBox 360 games along with my PS3 games - I don't care about the brand, console name, colour, style, or power difference.
> In which case (and I apologize if I'm wrong because of my lack of
> knowledge), but it sounds like we're actually agreeing.
No need to apologise ssxpro - maybe I went OTT as well! It's just that I've read so much from so many people who say this and that, and they just don't have a clue. Clearly you do...now, moving on...
Some of you might find it boring, and that's fine - don't comment it then. I actually do find it interesting, and when SONY come along and announce specs. that make Microsoft quiver, you have to sit up and take notice.
Yes, I know, it's the games that matter, and I'll be enjoying my XBox 360 games along with my PS3 games - I don't care about the brand, console name, colour, style, or power difference.
Ohoho... Just realised it was a video.
I see your point.
I see your point.
ssxpro wrote:
> Also, I'm not convinced that the post below this one (assuming it
> hasn't already been deleted), which leads to a rather nasty webpage,
> should be there or allowed near this site.
Buh?
Art.com nasty?
> Also, I'm not convinced that the post below this one (assuming it
> hasn't already been deleted), which leads to a rather nasty webpage,
> should be there or allowed near this site.
Buh?
Art.com nasty?
Nah, that was Pro Evo (Hi Previo, if you're reading!). Also, I'm sure we're all agreeing with eachother in this topic, so no need to argue. Save that for a time when there's a serious conflict of opinion.
Also, I'm not convinced that the post below this one (assuming it hasn't already been deleted), which leads to a rather nasty webpage, should be there or allowed near this site.
Also, I'm not convinced that the post below this one (assuming it hasn't already been deleted), which leads to a rather nasty webpage, should be there or allowed near this site.
Bullett wrote:
> Ice Crystal, you should die a horrible death immediately.
[URL]http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?ih1i0atzrls[/URL]
> Ice Crystal, you should die a horrible death immediately.
[URL]http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?ih1i0atzrls[/URL]
ssxpro wrote:
> The X-Box 2 has been coached by Bill Gates to run as fast as it can,
> which turns out to be faster than the PS3. However, they didn't
> realise the rules of the competition, where as Sony did and have made
> the PS3 is willing to take full advantage of trains, cars, buses,
> planes and any other method of getting things done more quickly.
"Done more quicky" = faster in my book.
PS3 = Faster, XBOX 360 = Slower.
Aftershock wrote:
> So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted"
> view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt,
> the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin, and the
> sooner people start to accept that, the better.
PS3 = Faster, XBOX 360 = Slower.
I see a certain pattern, even though Aftershock seems to have, misunderstood the meaning of what ssxpro said. Also, I thought you were a notable? Or was that the other pro...?
> The X-Box 2 has been coached by Bill Gates to run as fast as it can,
> which turns out to be faster than the PS3. However, they didn't
> realise the rules of the competition, where as Sony did and have made
> the PS3 is willing to take full advantage of trains, cars, buses,
> planes and any other method of getting things done more quickly.
"Done more quicky" = faster in my book.
PS3 = Faster, XBOX 360 = Slower.
Aftershock wrote:
> So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted"
> view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt,
> the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin, and the
> sooner people start to accept that, the better.
PS3 = Faster, XBOX 360 = Slower.
I see a certain pattern, even though Aftershock seems to have, misunderstood the meaning of what ssxpro said. Also, I thought you were a notable? Or was that the other pro...?
Aftershock wrote:
> Are you for real? I started reading your post thinking you might
> also be knowledgeable, but clearly not.
Hi, nice to meet you.
> In terms of raw CPU "SPEED - cycles per second", both are
> the same @ 3.2GHz each.
Had I known that much, my post would have changed accordingly. I'd simply been told that the X-Box had a 9GHz CPU, with no mention that it was split into three equally sized cores.
> So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted"
> view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt,
> the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin.
In which case (and I apologize if I'm wrong because of my lack of knowledge), but it sounds like we're actually agreeing.
> Are you for real? I started reading your post thinking you might
> also be knowledgeable, but clearly not.
Hi, nice to meet you.
> In terms of raw CPU "SPEED - cycles per second", both are
> the same @ 3.2GHz each.
Had I known that much, my post would have changed accordingly. I'd simply been told that the X-Box had a 9GHz CPU, with no mention that it was split into three equally sized cores.
> So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted"
> view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt,
> the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin.
In which case (and I apologize if I'm wrong because of my lack of knowledge), but it sounds like we're actually agreeing.
These numbers are all good and dandy but it's the games that will make me choose which I want.
Erm, me thinks some people are taking this crap an ickle bit too seriously. To the general gamer (me), all those numbers will mean squat all, and I'm sure they don't give a crap about them to be honest. Erm, aye.
ssxpro wrote:
> FM, its happening quite a lot, even to those who I think are quite
> knowledgeable on the subject. That 3.2 GHz stands out in people's
> eyes. They point out that PCs manage that in their sleep these days
> and that X-Box 2 will have (was it 9?). Its good to see somebody
> point out the truth about PS3's power.
>
> The way I see it in my simplistic little way:
>
> The X-Box 2 has been coached by Bill Gates to run as fast as it can,
> which turns out to be faster than the PS3...
Are you for real? I started reading your post thinking you might also be knowledgeable, but clearly not.
In terms of raw CPU "SPEED - cycles per second", both are the same @ 3.2GHz each. It doesn't matter if there are 3 cores, or 8 cores, the overall SPEED of the consoles remains at 3.2GHz each.
Now, with the Intel and AMD wars, we all (should) know that you cannot compare the clock speed of one architecture over another, because one CPU might be able to do more calculations per cycle than the other.
For the record, XBox only runs at 1 Teraflop (1 trillion floating-point operations per second), whereas PS3 runs at 2 Teraflops - twice as much computational power. In defence of the XBox 360, that is better at doing "general calculatios", but in this respect, the PS3 has more than enough grunt in that department. What matters going forwards are floating point calculations for the advanced physics, AI, "emotion" and "immersion" that gamers demand these days.
So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted" view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt, the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin, and the sooner people start to accept that, the better.
Quite how this will translate into games (which is what really matters), nobody can really say yet. At the end of the day, it all comes down to how easily developers can access the power available in these machines.
> FM, its happening quite a lot, even to those who I think are quite
> knowledgeable on the subject. That 3.2 GHz stands out in people's
> eyes. They point out that PCs manage that in their sleep these days
> and that X-Box 2 will have (was it 9?). Its good to see somebody
> point out the truth about PS3's power.
>
> The way I see it in my simplistic little way:
>
> The X-Box 2 has been coached by Bill Gates to run as fast as it can,
> which turns out to be faster than the PS3...
Are you for real? I started reading your post thinking you might also be knowledgeable, but clearly not.
In terms of raw CPU "SPEED - cycles per second", both are the same @ 3.2GHz each. It doesn't matter if there are 3 cores, or 8 cores, the overall SPEED of the consoles remains at 3.2GHz each.
Now, with the Intel and AMD wars, we all (should) know that you cannot compare the clock speed of one architecture over another, because one CPU might be able to do more calculations per cycle than the other.
For the record, XBox only runs at 1 Teraflop (1 trillion floating-point operations per second), whereas PS3 runs at 2 Teraflops - twice as much computational power. In defence of the XBox 360, that is better at doing "general calculatios", but in this respect, the PS3 has more than enough grunt in that department. What matters going forwards are floating point calculations for the advanced physics, AI, "emotion" and "immersion" that gamers demand these days.
So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted" view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt, the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin, and the sooner people start to accept that, the better.
Quite how this will translate into games (which is what really matters), nobody can really say yet. At the end of the day, it all comes down to how easily developers can access the power available in these machines.
Page: