It looks like Microsoft has released a comparison article about the Xbox 360 and PS3 specs and how they compare. While I doubt that any AnandTech reader would even begin to take a Microsoft-authored article about Xbox 360 to be unbiased, I have received a number of emails asking me to analyze the comparison and provide some direction as to what is real and what isn't.
I've spent a good portion of this weekend doing just that, and I'm hoping to start publishing my findings either here as blog entries or as a series of Insider Stories on the front page beginning tomorrow.
If you have any specific questions about the analysis done by Microsoft (you can read it here) or any other spec-related questions, post them here and I'll try my best to address them in the article.
Take care.
I've spent a good portion of this weekend doing just that, and I'm hoping to start publishing my findings either here as blog entries or as a series of Insider Stories on the front page beginning tomorrow.
If you have any specific questions about the analysis done by Microsoft (you can read it here) or any other spec-related questions, post them here and I'll try my best to address them in the article.
Take care.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
View All Comments
G-Unit - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link
no one seemed to object to sony's marketing hype when they claim that their console is faster than xb360 (even though no final consoles of either platform actually exist). now it's microsoft's turn to fight marketing with marketing.GhandiInstinct - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link
Anand,Sorry, not too aware with specifics of that particular aspect of gpus, really wanted to mean to ask the difference in architecture with the RSX and ATi's card. I heard the word synthesized somewhere = )
Knitecrow - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link
The Console Wars -- The Next Generation:The whole X360 specs vs. PS3 specs have spawned a perpetual flame war across most dedicated gamming sites -- the likes of which I’ve not witness in my life time.
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics:
I believe both Microsoft and Sony are responsible for pushing the myth that is flops. It gives the perception that 1Tflops has some significance or actually means something. While Microsoft seems to have bent numbers, it seems Sony, in typical “Sony Style”, only made up numbers to make them look bigger than Microsoft numbers.
Architecturally I can see each console having it advantage and disadvantage: with the edge given to Sony for raw power and to Microsoft for a well balanced architecture has looks easier to code and harness. But nowhere do I see the difference being 2X or even 1.5X as Sony have you believe.
Time Line:
- Microsoft throws out 1Tflop number, and reconfirms some of the specs on its website. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm
- Sony steals Microsoft’s thunder by showing CGI game footage and/or tech demos and throwing out PS3 specs -- impressive numbers that trump X360’s specs.
- Given the stark contrast between PS3 and X360 powerful as assessed from games footage -- it is not surprising to learn of the alpha kits and that game footage only represent 1/3 of actual power. Surprisingly Microsoft didn’t play up this fact before.
- Allegations arise over authenticity of Kill Zone 2 footage and the entire Sony presentation.
- Superior architecture of the R500 in X360 convinces many that it is the more powerful. Tech sites such as anandtech are used to justify such claims
- Infamous comparison by Major Neilson and posted verbatium by IGN. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
- Some developers add to the fire by stating PS3 is the superior platform:
Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3
http://news.com.com/In+console+smackdown,+games+ar...
“The choice boiled down to performance, Eggebrecht said at E3 in Los Angeles. His company has worked with Microsoft's Xbox 360, but found PlayStation 3's 3.2GHz Cell chip offered more processing power. The additional performance allows the gang at Factor 5 to more easily simulate the real world for a better game experience, he said.”
Anand, I look forward to what you have to say like so many other gaming enthusiasts. Undoubtly, every word will be analyzed by fanboys to determine a winner. I must warn you fanboys show a rabid ferocity that surpasses most soccer hooligans.
JoeS - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link
Sony's VP confirmed KILLZONE footage was actual game play in video interview here:http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748475/vids_1.h...
Don't know whether to believe him or not. Not saying he's being deliberately deceitful, but sometimes these guys feel compelled to answer all the questions thrown at them in an interview even though they don't have all the answers.
Randy - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link
This is interesting. I know that the 360 demos were running on alpha hardware capable off approximately 30% (or so the press says) of total system power.Meanwhile the Sony hype machine has been going, showing off pre-rendered stuff claiming it was realtime (see Killzone 2). The other side of it is if memory serves me correctly Sony overhyped the PS2 at it's unvieling, showing off things that were a bit far-fetched and I also remember the PS2 having some serious design flaws that hampered it's performance.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think it's a whole lot closer than what the press is saying. I egarly await your article.
JoeS - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link
With Microsoft's Allard's interview (http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9096... and this latest response, it certainly appears that MS was sent reeling by Sony's E3 presentation and is clearly on the defensive.Curious about the significance of this statement:
"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."
This comment seems to run counter to your review of the Cell processor's multiple SPE design as the superior gaming chip design:
"The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are NOT APPROPRIATE for game programming."
I'm a big fan of your site and look forward to seeing your evaluation of the MS comparison.
Omihall - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
Do you feel that you can definitively say whether the Xbox 360's GPU is better than the PS3's? Based on what has been presented it would seem to be especially if the edram is used to it's full potential beyond just Antialiasing.msva124 - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
This is a dissapointment....when I saw the title "Console wars get dirty" I thought it had something to do with porn.Shawn Blais - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
Can you discuss how the improved FLOP capabilities of the CELL will impact the system Graphics?Where will all this power show through? Will it be Graphically? or more AI and Physics?
Also, how do you expect the 4XAA to factor in? The ATI chip will provide it at a 1-4% performance hit. Any idea on the NVIDIA performance hit with 4XAA and how they compare?
thx!
ChrisH - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link
Why do MS and other companies keep doing likes like adding together bandwidth in different areas of the system to get "Total Bandwidth"? So you can make multiple busses and add them together to get a larger total when having one, fast, unified bus might be faster in real world performance, but you can't add them up to a big number? Can you break down the differences between the bus architectures of the PS3 and Xbox 360 since I'm sure that MS chart is incredibly misleading. Thanks.