Staredit Network

Really? Because it is in mine. I bought a DS over a PSP because I couldn't afford the PSP. I had $200 dollars. I could have bought a DS and 2 games, or a PSP. Guess what I picked.


The games on my DS that I have:
Star Fox Command
Metroid Prime:Hunters
Mario Kart DS
2 out of three of those games are rated T. Yes, that definately means all the games are meant for four year olds.


So your a fanboy. Who would've guessed?



So?

I am just saying that generally all the games made for nintendo hand helds are like super marios bros. games where you are an animated character playing a sport or something. Yes I realize that the DS is when they started getting away from that but they still have these games.

Just because Nintendo doesn't fill their games with violence, sex, language, and blood, doesn't mean they aim their games at little kids. It just means they have family values.

And Metroid Prime 1 was rated T. It's an old Gamecube game.

Simply stating this proves your ignorance on the subject, perhaps if you'd actually tried different consoles and games instead of sticking with pre-decided upon prejudices against companies, you wouldn't have people calling you a fanboy.

*Syphon goes off to play Resident Evil 4 on his GCN.

No, I may like Sony's Playstation more than nintendo. I just know that most of the games made for nintendo have been mario brothers, donkey kong, and some other animated games. Playstation doesnt have any of these.

There is one thing I would like to say about this topic.

Opinions can't be right or wrong..

It seems like the Wii is just a Gamecube with a new controller and wireless internet. It doesn't seem like they made any improvements graphics-wise like the PS3 and Xbox 360 have. Can somebody tell me if I'm right because I don't know a lot about this.

Nintendo has a fair share of games that appeal to older gamers, and Sony has a fair ammount of games that appeal to small children.






Wii has sufficient graphics improvements, but the PS3 and 360 clearly have more photorealistic effects. Graphics don't make your games more fun to play.

Which is why we see relatively-enormous speedrunning communities, such as TAS and SDA, who would rather play NES/SNES/N64/SMS/Genesis/Saturn/PS games than recent-or-new-generation games.

I think we should all read:
http://thewiikly.zogdog.com/article.php?ed...n=10&article=89

Yes I know but the Sony doesnt just have these for games. The first games that were made for the Playstation were the more advanced games. Sports and Shooting were what started on the Playstation. The nintendo started off the super mario brothers stuff. Of coarse every gaming system has everything now to reach every crowd of people but the nintendo has much more animated games then any other.

Actually, Nintendo had sports games long before it ever began developing the SNES disc addon that became the Sony Playstation. All games are animated, deal with it, just because you think a platformer is non-entertaining doesn't mean it is. There's plenty of people in the world who would much rather have another generic platformer than another generic FPS.

EDIT - Also, both of those games are PS2 exclusive.

Actually, Nintendo created the first ever first person shooter. Duck Hunt FTW!

7-7, just because Nintendo has family values that they leave in their games doesn't mean they design their games for children only. A lot of their fanbase is kids who played Super Mario Bros. back in the 80's.

I like how everyone who supports the PS3 has only one argument: it has better graphics and therefore it is better. The irony is, because it only has 256MB of VRAM, the graphics will never outdo the 360. In fact, the 360 has the potential to outdo the the PS3 in terms of graphics.

The only reason I can see to own a PS3 is if you really want to play Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. Those are the two major franchises that Sony still has exlusively.

Not 100% true, the PS3 works better on stuff like geometry better than the XBOX360.

The PS3 has better graphics than the 360. THe 360 is so based on its HiDef that without it the graphics look horrible. THe PS3 doesnt and both on HiDef the PS3 and the 360 are similar.

No it doesn't.

---

Where did you get this from?

---

Where did you get this from?

---

"the ps3 and the 360 are similar"
Except for the price, and the fact that the 360 has much more RAM to work with.

STOP BEING A FANBOY!! yeesh :\

Okay, the PS3 and the 360 are basically identical. Yes the price, but to play HiDef DVD's you buy this thing for what, $200, that would fill in to about 600. How much is the PS3, god 600. So that would solve that little problem. And the reason why the PS3 doesnt have that much ram is because half of it is taking up by the BlueRay which by the way is better than DVD's.

No, they are not.

---

Buy a HD DVD player when it isn't expensive and useless. Why don't you try to buy a PS3 without a Blu Ray? OH WAIT, YOU CAN'T, LOL!

---

The reason why they don't have more RAM is because Sony stupidly tried to push the format Blu Ray, which ends up making the PS3 cost more, without adding anything really useful. Blu Ray player, cool. Only problem is, there is no use for Blu Ray's YET. Regardless of why, the fact is it's true, and is limited to what it can do because of it.

What the heck? They both have 512mb of memory except that PS3 has 256mb of XDR and GDDR3 Ram each while 360 is all GDDR3. I would personally have to say that the G70-based gpu for the PS3 can outperform the ATI chip in the 360, but you obviously know everything, so God forbid somebody has a dissenting opinion. Yes, God forbid that the PS3 has twice the floating point performance of the 360 or better memory bandwidth. Let's not forget that the PoS Cell processor has 7 cores that are identical to the 3 in the 360.

You know what's funny though? The new G80 can push out four times as many triangles per second as the XBox 360. Before the consoles came out, PC hardware was already beyond them. Do you know how much Ram I'm putting in my PC come June? 4 GB! That's just system Ram (not what you cutely refer to as "VRam"). The R600 has 1 GB of your fabled "VRam" at faster speeds even. Wow, my computer will be able to push out much better framerates with better image quality at higher resolutions!

Stop whining about your precious consoles and bow to the power of the PC!

*Edit* I'd like to add that optical drives are likely to become rather obsolete in the next decade with the advent of 100+ MB/sec mainstream broadband and improved flash drives.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Read some of that stuff, should tell you a lot, like...
"The Xbox 360 GPU has more processing power than the PS3's. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance."

"Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth."

"CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3."

"The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games."

Now then, you were saying..?

Yeah, but the OS's that computers use do slow them down a bit, and you will be able to play any 360 game with a 360, but can you say that about a computer? Even though I am a total computer fanboy

Yes, the r600s are supposed to be beasts

256mb for their GPU alone really isn't enough, where the 360 has more freedom, as it has 512mb of memory to share between the CPU and GPU.. Second off, the unified shaders they have I'm pretty sure out perform the PS3's...

[i think]Also, wouldn't recommend 4gb of RAM with a 32bit OS. It can't address that much memory as well, 3 gigabytes would work better. ~.~ But 3gbs sucks for upgradabillity and you can't have 3 gigabytes in dual channel... but anyway, all this probably doesn't matter as 64 bit OS's will come into play soon..[/i think, i will doublecheck later ]

Computer's OS take up a large space of Computer's RAM. Not to mention all the program it turns on after the OS boots up. Anti-virus, CD Runners, Printer etc. Drivers and others.

Yes, you sent us a cute little summary by Microsoft. I actually checked up on the memory and stuff. I honestly have no idea how Microsoft reached the conclusion that the 360 has more processing power because they're both based on IBM's Power-PC core. It's just that the PS3 has 7 cores compared to the 360's 3. Also, you only get higher memory bandwidth if you factor in the stupid 10mb of eDRAM


Lol - good job using a vague statement to make a "point."


Only if you count the eDRAM connection. In fact, this is, ah, somewhat limited byt the fact that the 360 memory interface bandwidth is a whopping 22.4 GB/sec. Both the PS3's and 360's GDDR3 memory has 22.4 GB/sec bandwidth. The PS3's XDR Ram has bandwidth of 25.6 GB/sec. Yes, the connection after the GDDR3 memory interface to the eDRAM on the 360 is a whopping 256 GB/sec (because it's embedded), but the eDRAM is only 10 MB in size and won't help out nearly as much as the GDD

R3/XDR Ram. Excluding the eDRAM (which is useless for memory intensive, i.e. all, games), the PS3 has better memory bandwidth.

Also, most of the floating point performance comes from the graphics chips. I believe the G70-based chip in the PS3 churned out nearly 1.8 Teraflops of floating point performance, which is twice that of the ATI chip in the 360. Comparatively, the Cell processor is also better than the 360 processor in terms of floating point performance, but it's still insubstantial compared to the graphics processors.

Why do you think AMD bought ATI? They're developing a new processor called "Fusion" which combines a CPU and GPU into one package. CPUs are excellent at some calculations and GPUs are excellent at others. They compliment each other fairly nicely, and when put together, you'll see something like a theoretical 1000% performance increase without even advancing the architectures of the two technologies.

Back to the subject of the PS3 vs. 360 debate. 512 mb of shared memory is nice, but often you don't want to share the memory. In cpu intensive scenes, the 360 will see a drop in fps. However, by partitioning the memory, the PS3 ensures that the GPU will always have enough memory to churn out frames. To put the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, the PS3 gpu can do 74.8 billion shader operations a second compared to the 360's 48 billion.

In conclusion, by taking Microsoft and Sony's words well salted, the PS3 is better than the 360 technology-wise, but they're both going to deliver top notch performance. Oh, by the way, the R600 can do ~103 billion shader operations a second.

*Edit* Deathawk, Vista is definitely 32- and 64-bit. It comes out in January, and I believe it can handle up to 256 terabytes of memory (the 64-bit one). Besides, I believe all Intel and AMD processors are 64-bit now, and they see serious performance gains by running in a 64-bit environment over a 32-bit environment. So yes, when I build my computer, it's going to have 4 GB of system memory in it for a 64-bit OS.

The 10 mbs of RAM helps with anti-aliasing, you'd think it won't help much but it does.

I'm not totally sure nor sold that the floating point performance comes from the graphic chip, so if you want to reinforce that point with a source, then that would be nice. Anyway,
For the PS3, their CPUs are for floating point, which don't really work well with games. Multipurpose processors work much better(FOR GAMING). Read more here. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p2.html

I'm sure games are programmed well enough to distrubute memory to each of them correctly, y'know..

r600 isn't even out yet, you might not want to believe everything you hear YET. Althought, I wouldn't doubt it, you should wait for it ~.~

Just because 64 bit OS's and processors are out, which I know they are doesn't mean you should make the switch right away. Wait until things are programmed for 64 bit, but I guess 4gb of RAM right now is future proof.

Ya, they have 80 out now so 64 should be just fine to upgrade now because they are already past that. You dont have to wait for things to come out that only work on that, it just makes everything on that 80 or 64 run faster. The faster the better right!