Here is a side-by-side
Comparison of GPU specs
Clockspeed in MegaHertz: 550 (PS3), 500 (360)
GigaFlops (Billions of Floating Point Operations Per Second): 1,800 (PS3), 240 (360)
Billions of Dot Products per Second: 1,800 (PS3), 240 (360)
Millions of Polygons per Second: 900, 1,800 with CPU handling culling (PS3), 500 (360)
Shader operations per clock cycle: 136 (PS3), 96 (360)
Billions of Shader operations per second: 74.8, 100 with CPU (PS3), 48 (360)
Texture lookups per clock cycle: 24 (PS3), 16 (360)
Texture lookups per second: 13,200 (PS3), 8,000 (360)
Vertex/Pixel Shader pathways: 24 pixel, 8 vertex (PS3), 48 shared (360)
Shader ops per pathway: 5.7 (PS3), 2 (360)
Video RAM
Amount in Megabytes: 256 Dedicated, 256 Shared (PS3), 10 Dedicated, 512 Shared (360)
Clockspeed in MegaHertz: 700 Dedicated, 3,200 Shared (PS3) Unknown Dedicated, 3,200 Shared (360)
So as you can see, 360’s GPU is not superior to RSX in any single way. Using official specs.
As for Bluray vs DVD
Disc Transfer rate in Megabytes per Second
-Single Layered discs
PS3: 9 (average: 9)
360: 6.65 to 16 (average: 13.3)
-Dual Layered discs
PS3: 9 (average: 9)
360: 4.389 to 10.64 (average: 7.5145)
Seek times are also faster on Bluray since the data is packed far closer together. And 99% of 360 games come on dual layered discs
The PS3 has the upper hand in all areas. Theoretically, the GPU is about 2-3x faster on the PS3. Although the 360's unified 48 pipe architecture is very efficient, it only performs 2 operations per pipeline. The PS3 has dedicated 24pixel and 8 vertex, but they are both capable of 5.7 operations per pipeline.
The use of 7 cores on the PS3 might seem overkill, but in reality it allows for physics headroom. More objects onscreen with more interactivity with the environment, such as destroying buildings + trees.
The entire performance is dependant on programming. If games would make use of the PS3's entire power, games would appear somewhat better and more interactive. But not by a whole lot.
The Xbox 360 has the right formula with the unified architecture, but needs a boost when it comes to shader speed and ops per cycle. The 360 is obviously easier to program since it is much more straightforward.
What everything boils down to, if a game would be perfectly programmed for both consoles; in terms of visual quality, would be slight to medium noticeable visuals such as additional viewing distance and maybe better AF/AA for PS3. In terms of performance, identical visual quality would yeild about 1.5x to 2x the framerate on the PS3.
To me that is not a reason whether to decide on one or the other, since the visual quality would only be noticed through side-by-side comparison and even then, once you really get into a game you pay less attention to graphics. Sometimes better graphics do help enhance the experience, also makes it easier to see vilans in the distance etc...
Real world; programmers seem to optimize games very well for the 360. They have a very good grasp on its hardware and the united architecture is a programming paradise. Games will tend to look better on the 360 since the optimisation is easier. On the PS3, programming specific instructions for vertex and pixel shaders is difficult and time consuming. Several programmers will instead decrease visuals until a suitable level of performance/visuals compromise is achieved. If programmers would balance the pixel/vertex shaders and instructions per cycle, they would be able to crank the visuals way up. The Cell processor is majorly untapped, and won't be for another while. Parallel processing is just at its programming birth and very little programmers are SME's in the matter.
When it comes to real world, the 360 has had the upper hand for a while now, and as PS3 titles are comming out, the PS3 is looking better and better as programmers get the hand of the code. The PS3 will continue to look better as games take advantage of its full potential.
As for selecting a console, any of the two are perfectly suitable for gaming. I would say they are even. Tough choice
-D
Comparison of GPU specs
Clockspeed in MegaHertz: 550 (PS3), 500 (360)
GigaFlops (Billions of Floating Point Operations Per Second): 1,800 (PS3), 240 (360)
Billions of Dot Products per Second: 1,800 (PS3), 240 (360)
Millions of Polygons per Second: 900, 1,800 with CPU handling culling (PS3), 500 (360)
Shader operations per clock cycle: 136 (PS3), 96 (360)
Billions of Shader operations per second: 74.8, 100 with CPU (PS3), 48 (360)
Texture lookups per clock cycle: 24 (PS3), 16 (360)
Texture lookups per second: 13,200 (PS3), 8,000 (360)
Vertex/Pixel Shader pathways: 24 pixel, 8 vertex (PS3), 48 shared (360)
Shader ops per pathway: 5.7 (PS3), 2 (360)
Video RAM
Amount in Megabytes: 256 Dedicated, 256 Shared (PS3), 10 Dedicated, 512 Shared (360)
Clockspeed in MegaHertz: 700 Dedicated, 3,200 Shared (PS3) Unknown Dedicated, 3,200 Shared (360)
So as you can see, 360’s GPU is not superior to RSX in any single way. Using official specs.
As for Bluray vs DVD
Disc Transfer rate in Megabytes per Second
-Single Layered discs
PS3: 9 (average: 9)
360: 6.65 to 16 (average: 13.3)
-Dual Layered discs
PS3: 9 (average: 9)
360: 4.389 to 10.64 (average: 7.5145)
Seek times are also faster on Bluray since the data is packed far closer together. And 99% of 360 games come on dual layered discs
The PS3 has the upper hand in all areas. Theoretically, the GPU is about 2-3x faster on the PS3. Although the 360's unified 48 pipe architecture is very efficient, it only performs 2 operations per pipeline. The PS3 has dedicated 24pixel and 8 vertex, but they are both capable of 5.7 operations per pipeline.
The use of 7 cores on the PS3 might seem overkill, but in reality it allows for physics headroom. More objects onscreen with more interactivity with the environment, such as destroying buildings + trees.
The entire performance is dependant on programming. If games would make use of the PS3's entire power, games would appear somewhat better and more interactive. But not by a whole lot.
The Xbox 360 has the right formula with the unified architecture, but needs a boost when it comes to shader speed and ops per cycle. The 360 is obviously easier to program since it is much more straightforward.
What everything boils down to, if a game would be perfectly programmed for both consoles; in terms of visual quality, would be slight to medium noticeable visuals such as additional viewing distance and maybe better AF/AA for PS3. In terms of performance, identical visual quality would yeild about 1.5x to 2x the framerate on the PS3.
To me that is not a reason whether to decide on one or the other, since the visual quality would only be noticed through side-by-side comparison and even then, once you really get into a game you pay less attention to graphics. Sometimes better graphics do help enhance the experience, also makes it easier to see vilans in the distance etc...
Real world; programmers seem to optimize games very well for the 360. They have a very good grasp on its hardware and the united architecture is a programming paradise. Games will tend to look better on the 360 since the optimisation is easier. On the PS3, programming specific instructions for vertex and pixel shaders is difficult and time consuming. Several programmers will instead decrease visuals until a suitable level of performance/visuals compromise is achieved. If programmers would balance the pixel/vertex shaders and instructions per cycle, they would be able to crank the visuals way up. The Cell processor is majorly untapped, and won't be for another while. Parallel processing is just at its programming birth and very little programmers are SME's in the matter.
When it comes to real world, the 360 has had the upper hand for a while now, and as PS3 titles are comming out, the PS3 is looking better and better as programmers get the hand of the code. The PS3 will continue to look better as games take advantage of its full potential.
As for selecting a console, any of the two are perfectly suitable for gaming. I would say they are even. Tough choice
-D