Am I the only professional male in Vancouver that's over the age of 35 and hooked on Xbox?
Maybe I need help?
Maybe I need help?
Xbox Rox Ma Sox
- Thread starter FuZzYknUckLeS
- Start date
H
Hardatwork
I think you're fine as long as it's not a SP XXX box... mucho dinero. Just make sure you sit up straight and don't sit too close to the TV...
Well I won't reveal my age, but I do own an XBOX. The only game worth playing is Grand Theft Auto anyways. That alone will keep you busy for days on end. I finished GTA #3 to 100% completion, and I'm working on Vice City... but with so many movies to watch in my "to watch" pile, I don't have time for XBOX. I want to finish Vice City so I can get San Andreas.FuZzYknUckLeS said:Am I the only professional male in Vancouver that's over the age of 35 and hooked on Xbox?
Maybe I need help?
You are never too old for video games. I think they should have them at old age homes. I knew I guy that was in his 80's that would have loved one, especially battlefield, he was a war vet so shooting things comes naturally to him. It would definately keep their brain active, better than most of the crap on TV.
Ps3
To me the choice between the two is plain and simple. Hint it starts with a p ends with an n and has the number 3 after it. I think this not only because i myself am a Playstation man but it also has a overall system rating of 2 teraflops and the Xbox 360 only has a mere 1.2!
However, whenever you look at console technical specs, you also have to take them with a whole truckload of salt since the game console market has a long history of making a big deal out of numbers that don't really matter, or even making up numbers that have a tenuous grasp on reality. Remember the internal data precision arguments? That specification measurement became useless fairly quickly once marketing departments start adding different specification numbers together to get up into 64-bit or 128-bit range (OK, Turbografix started doing it back when we were still in the 16-bit era).
Console specifications are a lot like statistics in that you can really change perceptions by paying special attention in selecting what you measure and how you go about measuring it. Microsoft may have been the first manufacturer to announce its next-generation console, but in order to gain that advantage Microsoft also had to reveal its console specs first--giving a fat target-list for Sony's marketing team. Do you really think that Sony would have even mentioned the 51-billion-dot-product-operations per second number during the PS3 press conference if Microsoft hadn't boasted that the Xbox 360 could do 9-billion-dot-product-operations per second? What if we told you that Sony combined the CPU and GPU performance numbers to come up with the 51-billion number while Microsoft only reported its CPU performance number? The Xbox 360 actually has 33.6-billion-dot-product-operations per second if you also include GPU performance.
I am not saying to ignore specifications altogether--most of them are relevant in some way or another. And we're going to talk about the specifications that really jumped out at us at first glance. Let's start with the processor. Sony has announced that the PlayStation 3 will have a 3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units. The PS3 spec-sheet says that there's an eighth SPE reserved for redundancy--whatever that means. The Xbox 360, in comparison, has a multicore PowerPC processor that has three dual-threaded cores that can handle six total threads at a time. You might be able to call the Cell's SPEs overgrown math units, but we think Sony's Cell processor wins from a brute power perspective.
The Xbox 360's ATI graphics core also throws a wrench into our graphics comparison since it uses a new-fangled Unified Shader Architecture that mixes up pixel- and vertex-pipelines and makes comparison to older video card technology very difficult. The Xbox 360 graphics core may have 48-pipelines, but we don't know how powerful they are compared to dedicated pixel and vertex pipelines.
The PlayStation 3 has a pretty strong Nvidia graphics processor, but you can see how Sony may be afraid of the specification sheet comparison by the pipeline number conveniently omitted from the PS3 graphics specifications. We're guessing that the RSX graphics processors has a traditional, non-unified shader engine, so it likely has a smaller total "pipeline" number than the ATI chip. Even if the RSX's normal pipelines are more powerful than the Xbox 360's pipes, Sony doesn't want to risk printing a lower "pipeline" number since people won't understand that it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
So how many traditional pipelines does the RSX have? Sony has revealed that the RSX GPU has a 550MHz core clock and has over 300 million transistors. Sony has also stated that the chip is more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra cards put together. Your first guess might be that Nvidia simply doubled the pipeline number on the 6800 Ultra to make the RSX, but you also have to remember that the Ultra only clocked in at 400MHz. If the "double" performance measurement is based on fill-rate performance rather than hardware, the clock speed increase up to 550MHz is clear sign that the hardware improvement isn't from a pure doubling of pipelines. We're guessing that the actual pipeline count is going to be at 24, which is about right for 300 million transistors and, at 550MHz, has just a slightly larger fill-rate than two GeForce 6800 Ultras clocked at 400MHz. Since the GeForce Ultra had 6 vertex pipelines, the RSX likely has 6 more vertex pipes in addition to the 24 pixel pipelines.
From a memory standpoint, both systems are roughly equal with about 512MB of memory dedicated to system and graphics. The Xbox 360 has Unified Memory Architecture that lets the CPU and GPU share the system's 512MB of memory. The PlayStation 3 on the other had has 256MB of XDR memory and 256MB of GDDR3 memory dedicated to graphics. We still have to take a closer look at the memory bandwidth differences, but game developers will be happy with the graphics bandwidth and memory space available for both systems.
The PlayStation 3 comes with an array of data storage and transfer features. Whereas the PlayStation 2 only supported a memory card and the optional hard drive attachment (for a brief time), the PlayStation 3 supports numerous forms of portable media. The PlayStation 3 has 6 USB 2.0 ports, a memory stick slot, an SD slot, and, in stark contrast to many of Sony’s other consumer electronics products, the system actually supports compact flash. Sony even saved a space for a removable 2.5” hard drive.
The Xbox 360, in comparison, doesn't have as much in the way of media support. It has two memory card slots and a handful of USB ports that are rumored to accommodate a host of devices like the iPod, USB memory sticks, and even Sony’s own PSP. However, the real power of the 360 is in its networking ability. We can't forget that Bill Gates's new system can also reach across the network to access media from local, Windows-based PCs.
Sony and Xbox took different strategies when it came to decide on an optical drives. Sony decided to use the PS3 to further its own Blu-ray format, which allows for discs that can hold about 54GB each. The Xbox 360 will support dual layer DVDs, which can hold about 9GB worth of data. Both consoles will support older media formats such as CD-ROMs, conventional DVDs, and user-created DVDs. You'll impress a lot of ladies with the Blu-ray line, but the Xbox 360's normal DVD should serve you just fine in the near future.
Sony’s PlayStation 3 provides numerous A/V output hookups. The upcoming console comes with not one but two HDMI outputs, and PlayStation 3 will be able to utilize both at the same time to output two 1080p video streams at the same time allowing for dual-screen HDTV gaming. Microsoft hasn't finalized the console AV outputs yet, but we do know that the Xbox 360 has the more practical offerings with 720p and 1080i support. Both systems process multi-channel surround sound audio in software.
Network connectivity is going to be an enormous part of the next generation of consoles since destroying your neighbor in Halo 2 is fun, but making that random stranger cry on Xbox Live is priceless. Sony’s Playstation 3 comes with a built-it Ethernet adapter, and also includes an 802.11 b/g wireless adapter. The Xbox 360 comes with a built-in Ethernet adapter, but the 802.11 a/b/g wireless adapter will cost extra.
But you don't have too agree with me of course, why not tell me what you think and reply
To me the choice between the two is plain and simple. Hint it starts with a p ends with an n and has the number 3 after it. I think this not only because i myself am a Playstation man but it also has a overall system rating of 2 teraflops and the Xbox 360 only has a mere 1.2!
However, whenever you look at console technical specs, you also have to take them with a whole truckload of salt since the game console market has a long history of making a big deal out of numbers that don't really matter, or even making up numbers that have a tenuous grasp on reality. Remember the internal data precision arguments? That specification measurement became useless fairly quickly once marketing departments start adding different specification numbers together to get up into 64-bit or 128-bit range (OK, Turbografix started doing it back when we were still in the 16-bit era).
Console specifications are a lot like statistics in that you can really change perceptions by paying special attention in selecting what you measure and how you go about measuring it. Microsoft may have been the first manufacturer to announce its next-generation console, but in order to gain that advantage Microsoft also had to reveal its console specs first--giving a fat target-list for Sony's marketing team. Do you really think that Sony would have even mentioned the 51-billion-dot-product-operations per second number during the PS3 press conference if Microsoft hadn't boasted that the Xbox 360 could do 9-billion-dot-product-operations per second? What if we told you that Sony combined the CPU and GPU performance numbers to come up with the 51-billion number while Microsoft only reported its CPU performance number? The Xbox 360 actually has 33.6-billion-dot-product-operations per second if you also include GPU performance.
I am not saying to ignore specifications altogether--most of them are relevant in some way or another. And we're going to talk about the specifications that really jumped out at us at first glance. Let's start with the processor. Sony has announced that the PlayStation 3 will have a 3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units. The PS3 spec-sheet says that there's an eighth SPE reserved for redundancy--whatever that means. The Xbox 360, in comparison, has a multicore PowerPC processor that has three dual-threaded cores that can handle six total threads at a time. You might be able to call the Cell's SPEs overgrown math units, but we think Sony's Cell processor wins from a brute power perspective.
The Xbox 360's ATI graphics core also throws a wrench into our graphics comparison since it uses a new-fangled Unified Shader Architecture that mixes up pixel- and vertex-pipelines and makes comparison to older video card technology very difficult. The Xbox 360 graphics core may have 48-pipelines, but we don't know how powerful they are compared to dedicated pixel and vertex pipelines.
The PlayStation 3 has a pretty strong Nvidia graphics processor, but you can see how Sony may be afraid of the specification sheet comparison by the pipeline number conveniently omitted from the PS3 graphics specifications. We're guessing that the RSX graphics processors has a traditional, non-unified shader engine, so it likely has a smaller total "pipeline" number than the ATI chip. Even if the RSX's normal pipelines are more powerful than the Xbox 360's pipes, Sony doesn't want to risk printing a lower "pipeline" number since people won't understand that it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
So how many traditional pipelines does the RSX have? Sony has revealed that the RSX GPU has a 550MHz core clock and has over 300 million transistors. Sony has also stated that the chip is more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra cards put together. Your first guess might be that Nvidia simply doubled the pipeline number on the 6800 Ultra to make the RSX, but you also have to remember that the Ultra only clocked in at 400MHz. If the "double" performance measurement is based on fill-rate performance rather than hardware, the clock speed increase up to 550MHz is clear sign that the hardware improvement isn't from a pure doubling of pipelines. We're guessing that the actual pipeline count is going to be at 24, which is about right for 300 million transistors and, at 550MHz, has just a slightly larger fill-rate than two GeForce 6800 Ultras clocked at 400MHz. Since the GeForce Ultra had 6 vertex pipelines, the RSX likely has 6 more vertex pipes in addition to the 24 pixel pipelines.
From a memory standpoint, both systems are roughly equal with about 512MB of memory dedicated to system and graphics. The Xbox 360 has Unified Memory Architecture that lets the CPU and GPU share the system's 512MB of memory. The PlayStation 3 on the other had has 256MB of XDR memory and 256MB of GDDR3 memory dedicated to graphics. We still have to take a closer look at the memory bandwidth differences, but game developers will be happy with the graphics bandwidth and memory space available for both systems.
The PlayStation 3 comes with an array of data storage and transfer features. Whereas the PlayStation 2 only supported a memory card and the optional hard drive attachment (for a brief time), the PlayStation 3 supports numerous forms of portable media. The PlayStation 3 has 6 USB 2.0 ports, a memory stick slot, an SD slot, and, in stark contrast to many of Sony’s other consumer electronics products, the system actually supports compact flash. Sony even saved a space for a removable 2.5” hard drive.
The Xbox 360, in comparison, doesn't have as much in the way of media support. It has two memory card slots and a handful of USB ports that are rumored to accommodate a host of devices like the iPod, USB memory sticks, and even Sony’s own PSP. However, the real power of the 360 is in its networking ability. We can't forget that Bill Gates's new system can also reach across the network to access media from local, Windows-based PCs.
Sony and Xbox took different strategies when it came to decide on an optical drives. Sony decided to use the PS3 to further its own Blu-ray format, which allows for discs that can hold about 54GB each. The Xbox 360 will support dual layer DVDs, which can hold about 9GB worth of data. Both consoles will support older media formats such as CD-ROMs, conventional DVDs, and user-created DVDs. You'll impress a lot of ladies with the Blu-ray line, but the Xbox 360's normal DVD should serve you just fine in the near future.
Sony’s PlayStation 3 provides numerous A/V output hookups. The upcoming console comes with not one but two HDMI outputs, and PlayStation 3 will be able to utilize both at the same time to output two 1080p video streams at the same time allowing for dual-screen HDTV gaming. Microsoft hasn't finalized the console AV outputs yet, but we do know that the Xbox 360 has the more practical offerings with 720p and 1080i support. Both systems process multi-channel surround sound audio in software.
Network connectivity is going to be an enormous part of the next generation of consoles since destroying your neighbor in Halo 2 is fun, but making that random stranger cry on Xbox Live is priceless. Sony’s Playstation 3 comes with a built-it Ethernet adapter, and also includes an 802.11 b/g wireless adapter. The Xbox 360 comes with a built-in Ethernet adapter, but the 802.11 a/b/g wireless adapter will cost extra.
But you don't have too agree with me of course, why not tell me what you think and reply
I think the gist is that playstation3 is better than Xbox360 cause its got better bells and whistles and do-hickies. I can't be sure though cause I'm not fluent in Geekese.Havoc said:HUH? You mind repeating that in english?
from my own small sample of friends who have played both all say that xbox is better than playstation because it has better graphics although slighlty better and that the xbox has a hard drive and you don't need to fiddle around with memory cards
Yea is true for PS2 and XBox
Yea is true slightly is the word here for the old ps2 and xbox but we are talking about the next generation of console here.
So as you were saying ?
Yea is true slightly is the word here for the old ps2 and xbox but we are talking about the next generation of console here.
So as you were saying ?
i can tell this is going to need a lot of research..
with the newspapers saying a nicely equipped xbox could cost as much as a thousand dollars come christmas time and the ps3 not coming out untill spring time i think it would be in everyone's best interest to wait until both consoles are readily available. you can geek out as much as you like over the two systems but the deciding factor for me will be the releases both consoles are planning through the first year. i'm a gigantic metal gear solid fan, and a resident evil fan so i think i'll be leaning towards the ps3. xbox, however, brought us the splinter cell franchise which is pretty kick ass too.
have you ever wondered where nintendo is in all this? we haven't heard half as much info as we have with sony and xbox and apparently nintendo isn't launching their new platform until late 2006. i hope they aren't going down the same road sega has. remember the dreamcast?
with the newspapers saying a nicely equipped xbox could cost as much as a thousand dollars come christmas time and the ps3 not coming out untill spring time i think it would be in everyone's best interest to wait until both consoles are readily available. you can geek out as much as you like over the two systems but the deciding factor for me will be the releases both consoles are planning through the first year. i'm a gigantic metal gear solid fan, and a resident evil fan so i think i'll be leaning towards the ps3. xbox, however, brought us the splinter cell franchise which is pretty kick ass too.
have you ever wondered where nintendo is in all this? we haven't heard half as much info as we have with sony and xbox and apparently nintendo isn't launching their new platform until late 2006. i hope they aren't going down the same road sega has. remember the dreamcast?
