PlayStation 3 More Powerful Than Xbox 2?
Posted by: Newsfactory on: 03/05/2005 05:28 PM [ Print | 13 comment(s) ] · 7726 views
Just spotted this posted in our Forums
by Wunderchu
Every time I've chatted about next-gen consoles with the development community, nobody has really been able to tell me which machine has the most horsepower... until now. One high-profile developer who has seen both PS3 and Xbox 2 technology recently whispered into my innocent ear?
The next PlayStation is way, way more powerful than Xbox 2. It's insanely powerful. But don't cry, all you Xbots out there--my source promises that we'll still be quite impressed with the capabilities of Microsoft's Xbox successor.
PS3 is "way, way more powerful than Xbox 2"
Every time I've chatted about next-gen consoles with the development community, nobody has really been able to tell me which machine has the most horsepower... until now. One high-profile developer who has seen both PS3 and Xbox 2 technology recently whispered into my innocent ear?
The next PlayStation is way, way more powerful than Xbox 2. It's insanely powerful. But don't cry, all you Xbots out there--my source promises that we'll still be quite impressed with the capabilities of Microsoft's Xbox successor.
PS3 is "way, way more powerful than Xbox 2"
« NVIDIA: 2005 Updates to be Shader Model 3.0 Based · PlayStation 3 More Powerful Than Xbox 2?
· A64 500Mhz HTT barrier broken on DFI LT UP NF4 SLI-D @ XtremeResources »
Comment
|
FailedCRC Unregistered |
#59708 Posted on: 03/05/2005 08:44 PM
who cares, games and gameplay is what counts |
Comment
|
calanthe Unregistered |
#59713 Posted on: 03/06/2005 12:20 AM
Who cares - I have more fun giving my grandmother a sponge bath. |
Comment
|
Dapple Unregistered Posts: 2 Joined: 2002-07-21 |
#59714 Posted on: 03/06/2005 12:59 AM
lol , now there is a game I never want to see :P |
Comment
|
Dapple Unregistered Posts: 2 Joined: 2002-07-21 |
#59715 Posted on: 03/06/2005 12:59 AM
lol , now there is a game I never want to see :P |
Comment
|
ewwhww01 Unregistered |
#59716 Posted on: 03/06/2005 01:03 AM
Sounds like a bunch of bull droppings to me. |
Comment
|
thomas997 Unregistered Posts: 11 Joined: 2003-04-21 |
#59717 Posted on: 03/06/2005 03:10 AM
PS2 was supposed to be amazingly powerful but they screwed up. It has about as much power as a dreamcast. |
Comment
|
Valagard Unregistered |
#59718 Posted on: 03/06/2005 06:24 AM
Less, Dreamcast has more power and it has 32MB ram for textures compaired to PS2's 2MB for textures |
Comment
|
Phalin Unregistered Posts: 3 Joined: 2002-07-28 |
#59719 Posted on: 03/06/2005 07:19 AM
I mean hey what more could you ask for then getting your news from a forum, the other day it was from a blog. Its getting weaker all the time. |
Comment
|
FaaR Unregistered |
#59720 Posted on: 03/06/2005 10:30 AM
Where do you people come from, planet mars? Trollopia? Dreamcast is far less powerful overall than PS2. For starters it does not have 32MB for textures, it has 16MB video memory, some of which will be taken up by the screen buffers. PS2 does not have 2MB for textures, it has 4MB on-chip video memory, major part of which is taken up by screen buffers. Doesn't matter though; PS2 has a bus to its graphics processor with considerably more capacity for this task alone than all of dreamcast's main RAM bandwidth (1.2GB/s compared to 800MB/s). The machine is designed to stream textures constantly into this memory. It can also use all of its main memory to store these textures (and they can be compressed as MPEG iframes too and unpacked before being used), whereas dreamcast's graphics chip cannot address anything at all outside its graphics memory range. PS2 fillrate is 1200 million textured pixels/sec and twice that untextured. Dreamcast - 100 megapixel. Wow, amazing huh? Just clearing screen buffers between drawing frames sucks around 10% fillrate on the DC, and if you want dual-textured polys it's 50Mpixel... That's well below Voodoo2 performance in raw numbers. I could go on, but what would the point be? Truth is, while dreamcast wins a few battles, in the war it's overwhelmingly inferior and anyone believing otherwise is either a deluded fanperson or an idiot. |
Comment
|
c4_toky Unregistered Posts: 24 Joined: 2004-12-28 |
#59721 Posted on: 03/06/2005 11:19 AM
What a "bring em out crying type of post"! ROFL all over the PS3 |
Comment
|
calanthe Unregistered |
#59722 Posted on: 03/06/2005 02:35 PM
I could ask for people who use the correct form of "than" and "it's" when making stupid comments; but I suppose proper English is unnecessary when all you can produce are unintelligent negative comments. |
Comment
|
Phalin Unregistered Posts: 3 Joined: 2002-07-28 |
#59726 Posted on: 03/06/2005 06:25 PM
LOL Fact is fact. Fourm posts and blogs, their is better places to get news. PS: Miss spellings, typos and poor grammar all for our superior minded intellectual EURO friends. |
Comment
|
thomas997 Unregistered Posts: 11 Joined: 2003-04-21 |
#59731 Posted on: 03/06/2005 10:33 PM
Yeah specs are wayy better but that means nothing with ps2 (they are all theoretical numbers). Maybe recently with the many years of coding they have been able to get some more life, but it was such a horrible design. |
