If you haven't already seen it, here's my coverage of Sony's Playstation 3 announcement today. I wrote the story while sitting in Sony's press conference, so it was a bit rushed but I wanted to post some of my additional thoughts that didn't make it into the first article.
Let me start first with the design; to me, the Xbox 360 is very Apple-like while the PS3 is very clearly a Sony product. Personally I prefer the looks of the Xbox 360, but the PS3 doesn't look bad at all in real life.
Although I've yet to use it, the PS3's controller scares me. I'm going to try my hands at it this week, but I really have no idea where that design came from.
The demos on the PS3 were absolutely *amazing*. I wouldn't call them "movie-quality" yet, but the things I saw came very close. Words really can't describe, the demos just looked amazing.
Virtually all of the games/demos on the PS3 had some degree of aliasing, some were unacceptably bad for a console with this sort of power. Don't get me wrong, about 95% of the games looked great, but those that had aliasing looked great...with jaggies. I'm not talking PS2 level of aliasing, but far too much aliasing for this level of hardware.
Without a doubt, ATI and NVIDIA are on very diverging paths with these two consoles. ATI went with a strictly unified memory architecture while NVIDIA used a combination of local graphics memory and GPU addressable system memory. ATI is backing their unified shader architecture, while NVIDIA doesn't appear to have embraced that on the hardware side. I will know more about ATI's GPU later this week, so stay tuned.
The dual HD output feature of the PS3 is very interesting; I'm not sure how many folks will take advantage of the 32:9 aspect ratio mode. I'm wondering whether this feature was put in to support sending different content to separate TVs (e.g. stream video to one display while gaming in another). Then again, I'm not sure how many people have that many HDTVs within close proximity of each other.
Sony clearly wants the PS3 to be much more of a media center style device. The demos weren't only about games, they were about decoding HD streams, navigating through video and picture content, they were about the entire picture. With built in blu-ray, I think the PS3 will have a huge advantage over the Xbox 360 as it should be able to act as a HD-DVD video player as well as a game console.
The 1080p output of the PS3 isn't that big of a deal for me. Given that basically the entire installed base of HDTVs right now only support 1080i, I seriously doubt we'll see a push to 1080p only all that quickly. That being said, I don't doubt that there will be an obvious difference between 1080p and 720p games. Given that it is essentially a resolution change, I see no reason for all developers to offer both 1080p and 720p options in PS3 games unless there are frame rate limitations. I did notice that some demos played much smoother than others, but I think it is far too early to make any calls on performance a full year before the console's release.
I'd say that Sony has the more powerful CPU on paper, but I'm curious to see how much of that gets taken advantage of in the real world. Difficulty of programming aside, the fact of the matter is that console development houses are very much of the write once, compile many mindset. Given the similarity of the Xbox 360's cores to the PS3's PPE, I'm afraid that the array of SPEs may go relatively untapped on the PS3.
From the very start I felt that Sony couldn't possibly bring the Cell to market in the PS3 as a 90nm chip. Disabling one SPE is a particularly interesting move, but one that makes a lot of sense. And the loss of a single SPE isn't a huge deal as I don't foresee the PS3 really being bound by the number of threads its SPE array can execute.
Overall, the PS3 looks to me to be the more complete package. The hardware is a bit more complete than Xbox 360, but at the same time given that it won't launch for another 6+ months after the 360 launches I'm not too surprised. Sony didn't really play up a competitor to Xbox Live, although it is very clear that the PS3 will be a net-enabled box. I have a feeling that Microsoft may bring to the table a much more complete on-line play package, while Sony brings a more powerful, more complete console.
Sony's strength with the PS2 has always been its game library, which I think will continue to be a strength with the PS3 (especially with full backwards compatibility all the way back to PS1). It's just that this time around, Microsoft appears to have a much stronger game library than with the original Xbox - and it's that key difference that will make the 360 and the PS3 worthy competitors.
I will be reporting from the show all week, but for now it's time to enjoy 24 a full 3 hours later than I normally would - how do you west coast folks do it? :)
Take care.
Let me start first with the design; to me, the Xbox 360 is very Apple-like while the PS3 is very clearly a Sony product. Personally I prefer the looks of the Xbox 360, but the PS3 doesn't look bad at all in real life.
Although I've yet to use it, the PS3's controller scares me. I'm going to try my hands at it this week, but I really have no idea where that design came from.
The demos on the PS3 were absolutely *amazing*. I wouldn't call them "movie-quality" yet, but the things I saw came very close. Words really can't describe, the demos just looked amazing.
Virtually all of the games/demos on the PS3 had some degree of aliasing, some were unacceptably bad for a console with this sort of power. Don't get me wrong, about 95% of the games looked great, but those that had aliasing looked great...with jaggies. I'm not talking PS2 level of aliasing, but far too much aliasing for this level of hardware.
Without a doubt, ATI and NVIDIA are on very diverging paths with these two consoles. ATI went with a strictly unified memory architecture while NVIDIA used a combination of local graphics memory and GPU addressable system memory. ATI is backing their unified shader architecture, while NVIDIA doesn't appear to have embraced that on the hardware side. I will know more about ATI's GPU later this week, so stay tuned.
The dual HD output feature of the PS3 is very interesting; I'm not sure how many folks will take advantage of the 32:9 aspect ratio mode. I'm wondering whether this feature was put in to support sending different content to separate TVs (e.g. stream video to one display while gaming in another). Then again, I'm not sure how many people have that many HDTVs within close proximity of each other.
Sony clearly wants the PS3 to be much more of a media center style device. The demos weren't only about games, they were about decoding HD streams, navigating through video and picture content, they were about the entire picture. With built in blu-ray, I think the PS3 will have a huge advantage over the Xbox 360 as it should be able to act as a HD-DVD video player as well as a game console.
The 1080p output of the PS3 isn't that big of a deal for me. Given that basically the entire installed base of HDTVs right now only support 1080i, I seriously doubt we'll see a push to 1080p only all that quickly. That being said, I don't doubt that there will be an obvious difference between 1080p and 720p games. Given that it is essentially a resolution change, I see no reason for all developers to offer both 1080p and 720p options in PS3 games unless there are frame rate limitations. I did notice that some demos played much smoother than others, but I think it is far too early to make any calls on performance a full year before the console's release.
I'd say that Sony has the more powerful CPU on paper, but I'm curious to see how much of that gets taken advantage of in the real world. Difficulty of programming aside, the fact of the matter is that console development houses are very much of the write once, compile many mindset. Given the similarity of the Xbox 360's cores to the PS3's PPE, I'm afraid that the array of SPEs may go relatively untapped on the PS3.
From the very start I felt that Sony couldn't possibly bring the Cell to market in the PS3 as a 90nm chip. Disabling one SPE is a particularly interesting move, but one that makes a lot of sense. And the loss of a single SPE isn't a huge deal as I don't foresee the PS3 really being bound by the number of threads its SPE array can execute.
Overall, the PS3 looks to me to be the more complete package. The hardware is a bit more complete than Xbox 360, but at the same time given that it won't launch for another 6+ months after the 360 launches I'm not too surprised. Sony didn't really play up a competitor to Xbox Live, although it is very clear that the PS3 will be a net-enabled box. I have a feeling that Microsoft may bring to the table a much more complete on-line play package, while Sony brings a more powerful, more complete console.
Sony's strength with the PS2 has always been its game library, which I think will continue to be a strength with the PS3 (especially with full backwards compatibility all the way back to PS1). It's just that this time around, Microsoft appears to have a much stronger game library than with the original Xbox - and it's that key difference that will make the 360 and the PS3 worthy competitors.
I will be reporting from the show all week, but for now it's time to enjoy 24 a full 3 hours later than I normally would - how do you west coast folks do it? :)
Take care.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
125 Comments
View All Comments
justjoe - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link
After reading #106's view I tend to agree with him. I'd say that I'm an MS supporter and here's my reasons why.I hate Sony to the core for making us buy all their overpriced proprietory stuff, their shoddy products which break down way too easily and their refusal to support compatibility with their competitors.
Also I hate Sony because I swear all the Japanese game developers are sleeping with them. It's a fact that national pride is all important for the Japanese. While you Americans are outsourcing everything to foreign countries, the Japanese will never allow a foreigner to supercede themselves.
As for MS, unlike Sony products where I can actually refuse to buy any of, I don't have a choice when it comes to operating systems..
davidc538 - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
Im gettin a ps3 at debuteno - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
"The 1080p output of the PS3 isn't that big of a deal for me. Given that basically the entire installed base of HDTVs right now only support 1080i, I seriously doubt we'll see a push to 1080p only all that quickly."1080p is hitting the market now and with the surge of new HDTV channels this coming year you will see much more 1920x1080p screens in home's by the release of PS3.
Just remember the difference 480P DVD's made over 480i content. Imagine that now in a Hi Def picture. :) Can't wait.
Last note, coming from 640x480 up to 1280x720p is going to be a VERY nice upgrade in consoles. Can't wait for my favorite racing games on the new consoles.
dynamius - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
#106 gemini...thank god for someone like you who sees what's going on. at least on this site, a lotta people are technically knowledgable and know what they're talking about... unlike most game sites where idiot fan boys argue non-stop without a clue in the world what's going on.
i can't side with sony... i've hated them with a passion due to their lies and business practices and arrogance and proprietary formats... so i'm not getting a ps3 for the sony name alone, as with all their other products as well. but that's just me.
xbox 360 vs ps3? please... gotta wait til next year's e3 before any real debate is worthwhile. either way... both sony and microsoft are gonna rule this generation... about equal control of the market. both winners i know that much. i think xbox live will play a huge roll in where games are going...
gizzard - Sunday, May 22, 2005 - link
I guess in some ways the next generation of consoles are catching up with PC's. At this time I prefer PC's. Until they can make a console in a nice neat package that does everything my computer can do I aint interested. The console is a gaming machine and I am sure the next generation ones will do it well but it looks like you will need to buy a HDTV in order to enjoy it. In the long run it is gonna cost you no matter how you look at it. I would say the better choice is the PS3 since it plays the older games and those can be had for a song. Spend your money wisely a fool and his money is soon parted. I used to own an ATARI 2600 and you know how that ended.clauzii - Saturday, May 21, 2005 - link
Having none of the consoles at all, I´m BTW in to the pure fact of raw horsepower...Anonymous - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
#104"ATI did clarify that although Microsoft isn't targetting 1080p (1920 x 1080) as a resolution for games, their GPU would be able to handle the resolution with 4X AA enabled at no performance penalty."
I think 1080p games will be rare. How many 720p Xbox games have you played? I'll be happy to get 720p in all 360 games.
clauzii - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
It´s of course gameplay thats most important, but if the machine is faster AND have a good gameplay, it WILL be better??From the specs, Microsoft and SONY have been pretty open until now, and this is what they say:
Macrosoft XBox360 a little over a Teraflop total
SONY PS3: Around 2 Teraflops
It IS a matter of good development tools and good programmers, which will B better in the end but WITHOUT DOUBT the PS3 has the bigger/faster engine overall. FACT!
So we just have to wait, to see the right stuuf, and NOT some LAME XBox360 demo on NON XBox hardware - Buhhh Macrosoft. Wait if U can´t show....
Neila - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
Didn't the Cell clocked at 4.8GHz?I think it's very likely that the SPEs are underclocked and one of them was "turned off" just temorary.
Just like PSP running on 222MHz out of the possible 333MHz, I bet the PS3 has some of it's potential locked at the moment. And having 3.2x7 upped to 4.8x8 may be useful one day.
With regard to the dual HDTV, I don't know if you noticed but there was a suggestion (not on the side) that it may be used with "pannels"... I'm not aware of similar technology avial. at this moment, but this may be very useful for custom-sized video walls, and then you will be able to enjoy the super-wide feature directly.
Gemini - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
I've been reading all the hundred or so comments posted, and the majority of the posts seems to be trying to defend which console, XBox 360 or PS3, is better than the other. But none is actually saying the real reason why they are defending their choice except by spouting out unnesscessary techono babble that no one person will really care.If both MS and Sony are not exaggerating their specs, both their consoles are pretty on par with each other. It is just like a 500 HP car vs a 510 HP car...there is not much difference. Sure they both used different technologies, XBox 360 with 3 "General" CPUs and PS3 with ONE Cell CPU. XBox with ATI's GPU with the 10MB mem on the GPU and Nvidia's GPU with all its mysterious capabilities. But in the end, it doesn't matter what tech they uses....they are essentially both powerful consoles. So why are people still trying to best another saying one console will be better than the other?
The real reason why people are defending their choices by spouting techno babble without giving the real reason is because they don't want to admit that they are influenced by consumer loyalty. That's RIGHT!!! These people are either loyal to Gates' MS or the Japanese's Sony. I'm not afraid to admit it....I'm a loyal Sony consumer, so whatever opinion I have with these consoles, I will say the PS3 rocks XBox 360s World!!!
But why would I say that? When I was but a wee eighth grader, I was with my friends in the playground just doing nothing. Then suddenly one of my friends started talking about Nintendo and Sony PS1. We started talking about which was better. I was then a loyal Nintendo consumer, so my obvious reaction was that Nintendo was much better. Even though PS1 was better in tech than the SNES, and N64 was still rumored to be created. I still defended Nintendo by stating all these facts about the new Rumored console Nintendo was going to make. To make things short... I left the conversation still a Loyal Nintendolite. So a few years went by and N64 came out, but the hype was not as great as people thought. The reason is because Nintendo took too long to make N64 and thereby lost the majority of Game contracts with the good game companies. So most of the N64 games were all "kiddie" games and not that appealing to High School + people...which I was now. It was around the time when PS2 first came out....I think I played Onimusha 1 or something and I got hooked to the PS2 and spent all my money....400 BUCKS to buy one. But I still didn't yet become a loyal Sony Consumer...it was when I got into college around 2003 that I played FFX that I got hooked. I then started to play FFVII FFVIII FFIX and FFX-2....that I was so hooked to the FF series that I dl the emulations of them....and we all know that the FF series will probably not stray to XBOX...at least that's my opinion. And since there were other games I liked from the old PS1, I then became a strong supporter PS2.
Now Because both PS3 and XBox 360 are so on par with each other technologically, the only thing that is affecting my choice is because I want a console that can play my old PS1 and soon to be old PS2 games with one machine with the possibility that there will be games that are only for PS3 that are fun the same as my old ones are. So I don't care about the technology...I care about SONY and PS3.....
PS3 ROCKS.......so does XBox 360...but I don't care about MS......