I don' t really see it as biased. It is more like the truth.
By the way, I predict the xbox 360 will have twice as good of graphics as the PS3. Unified shader pipelines and the cpu and gpu sharing memory pretty much blows the PS3 away.
The PS3 looks like it was slapped together in 2 hours.

The console is just huge along with the controller.

The GPU and CPU don' t even share memory. This is about as stupid as it gets right here. Bottleneck for sure.

Seperate pipelines for pixel and vertex shaders. Will be a new thing with the xbox 360 so I can see why they don' t have it, but they are getting their asses handed to them for not doing it.

No hard drive included, you have to buy it seperate. Wow, that is going be really suck, hard drives can be used for a lot, caching for faster loading, game saves, game updates. I could see a lot of games requiring you have th hard drive addon. Especially the games with online play.

CELL processor basically sux. Doesn' t have all of the functions normal CPUs have so it has to do multiple instructions just to do one instruction that the 360' s cpus will be able to do. Even though it has 7 cpus it will most likely be barely more powerful than the 360s or even less powerful for games.

All games support 1080p. What a waste of power. Barely any tvs support 1080p. Not that many people will even have 720P capable tvs, but will probably buy them because they will be able to afford it. Since all games have to support 1080p they will be wasting tons of power with the higher resolution that people with only 720p won' t get to see. Since the 360 is going with 720p people with 720p tvs, which will be most people, will get to see all of the power going to use. Playing games at 720p on xbox 360 will look way better than playing games at 720p on a PS3.

The bottleneck for performance in games is almost always the GPU. Not the CPU. For both the xbox 360 and PS3 they kinda went overboard with the cpus. Of course the games will be designed to use more CPU since they have all that extra power, but the bottleneck will deffinetly be the GPU.

So there is my reasoning for not liking the PS3. It seriously looks like they just had a nub design it. There are way too many bottlenecks within the PS3 especially with the memory. THe only thing that will really make the PS3 better looking than current generation consoles is Shader 3. Which is the main reason all of the next gen games look so good. Basically shader 3.0 displays 100 times the polygons without actually using polygons and the power needed to produce them.
I don' t really think that is bias at all, it is looking at the facts and comparing them straight up.

Just like when I buy a video card. I' m not an ATI or nVidia fanboy. I just look at what is better at the time for the games I' ll be playing and go with that.

I don' t really see it as biased. It is more like the truth.

That right there pretty much proves you have a biased opinion. It' s obvious you' ve paid attention to all the released specs of the machines, so have most people around here. That' s all they are though, released specs. I' ve yet to hear a game developer complain about there worries that they will be bottlenecked programming for the PS3, ahhhh, but what would game developers know, it' s us, the fans who sit on our asses all day, search google for " PS3 specs" and then come and paste it hear so it looks like we' re the shit that know what we' re talking about. The topic was which system are you going to get, so that' s great, you' ve told us, just don' t go yapping about " the truth" . At least wait until the systems are out for that.

Actually I' m doing a little game developing myself. And it is what I plan on doing for a job. And some developers have been complaining about the hard drive not being included. Some developers won' t even develop for sony because of what they have been doing with their systems, like team ninja.

If I was developing for PS3, I probably would not be complaining. It still is going to be powerful, just not as powerful as the xbox 360. And complaining about the system would not be good for them if they are making a game with that system and want more systems to sell so more games can sell.

And I actually do know what I' m talking about. It isn' t just from reading either. I actually use different architectures and have had classes on them in college.

I don' t see it as bias when mainstream news reports that PS3 will be more poweful than xbox 360 either. They just don' t understand what any of the sepcs mean and see the simple numbers of floating point calculations released by sony and think, oh PS3 has a bigger number so that must mean it is more powerful. They are just ignorant, not bias.

If anything I think you are the bias one, for claiming someone to be bias by pointing out xbox 360 is more powerful than PS3. Are you a sony fanboy and don' t like to hear the truth that xbox 360 is more powerful? Are one of the extreme hardcore fanboys that believe PS2 is more powerful than xbox 1?

If you honestly think the Sony is going to release a LESS powerful machine, half a year after 360, then happy days for you. I had classes on Neural psychology:Anatomy of the brain in College, but it sure doesn' t make me a brain surgeon. Until you are developing for the two respective systems, don' t tell me where the bottlenecks exsist, especially when nary a game for either is finished. As for the fanboy comments, you got me. Oh no wait. obviously you' ve barely taken the time to read through this topic alone, never mind all the other topics discussing the next generation systems, or you' d know that the only company I' ve ever been a fanboy for is Nintendo, and right now with their recent actions I' m so digusted with them, I' m thinking of revoking my membership.

ORIGINAL: locopuyo

Actually I' m doing a little game developing myself. And it is what I plan on doing for a job. And some developers have been complaining about the hard drive not being included. Some developers won' t even develop for sony because of what they have been doing with their systems, like team ninja.

If I was developing for PS3, I probably would not be complaining. It still is going to be powerful, just not as powerful as the xbox 360. And complaining about the system would not be good for them if they are making a game with that system and want more systems to sell so more games can sell.

And I actually do know what I' m talking about. It isn' t just from reading either. I actually use different architectures and have had classes on them in college.

I don' t see it as bias when mainstream news reports that PS3 will be more poweful than xbox 360 either. They just don' t understand what any of the sepcs mean and see the simple numbers of floating point calculations released by sony and think, oh PS3 has a bigger number so that must mean it is more powerful. They are just ignorant, not bias.

If anything I think you are the bias one, for claiming someone to be bias by pointing out xbox 360 is more powerful than PS3. Are you a sony fanboy and don' t like to hear the truth that xbox 360 is more powerful? Are one of the extreme hardcore fanboys that believe PS2 is more powerful than xbox 1?

Dude, it doesn' t matter if you are going to college to develope for a game console. You haven' t seen or touched the hardware. You have no idea what any of the next gen machines are capable of. Right now we are going of technical specifications and releases by the companies themselves and not developers. Taking classes in developement does give you a better understanding and more of an edge than the average gamer though. Rather than actually using the knowledge you gained in the school, you neglected it and prefer to use your schooling as a title to make yourself look smart.

Half your comments don' t make sense. For starters Team Ninja has yet to say they aren' t working on the PS3. There are even rumors going around that Ninja Gaiden will be jumping to the PS3. Do I believe it? No. There is always a chance it could happen though.

From a technical standpoint, the PS3 is more powerful in certain areas. It' s floating point calculations top the 360 by a long shot. Those don' t play a huge part in games though. That' s why even though it is more advanced in some aspects, the 360 is is better suited for game processing. When comparing the graphics card the 360 does have the edge thanks to the integrated ram. the ATi card is f*cking amazing and really doesn' t need to draw off the CPU. The PS3 lacks that ability.

The main difference in the power of the system is how they are put together. Imo, I' m pretty sure the PS3 will be " the more powerful system" in terms of specs. In performance though I think the 360 will out do it. In the end the overall power will be so close you won' t be able to tell the difference. this next generation will be all about the games, exclusives, and online functionality. If you are going off which system is more powerful you have a pitiful arguement.

To finish off I' d like to say I am going to a school that specializes me in Game art and Design, aka making videogames. All my teachers work in the industry and have for years. the lead of my program has seen the new systems. Well, the only real system he' s seen is the 360 because it actually had hardware inside of it. I' m personally getting the 360 on the day it comes out simply because of the games and it' s amazing features. I' m not sure about the PS3 yeat because I' m pissed at Sony for lying to the public about what its console is capable of. If they do pull off the outrageous claims they showed off at E3 I' ll be the first in line to buy one. If not, screw the system. I' ll wait or a huge price drop.

hold on, nobody can say what is going to be the better console, no of those console has even been played by the public yet or even realsed. Alot can happen in these months after e3 [like a controller redesign, eh sony?]. Suire you can guess that which is more powerfull, but thats all your doing, Guessing, its not like you got both machines hooked up to 3dmark05 or something.

But from my lastest studys of specs, i can tell you that the playsation 1 is twice as powerfull as the Nintendo 64!, you guys are saying the same thing as that, alltough it dosent seem as stupid.

*cough*There were playable demos of 360 games at E3*cough*

Actually it is a lot closer to saying the Dreamcast is twice as powerful as the PS2. Which is not the case. But if you look at games you may be convinced the DC outpowers the PS2.

And the only other people I see get so pissed off about other people using facts to come to a conclusion are hardcore fanboys. And yes I have read every post on this topic, are you quitting smoking or something?

But if you look at games you may be convinced the DC outpowers the PS2.

I honestly never got that impression despite being a rabid Sega fanboy ;).. I' ve seen the PS2 do things that I know deep down would have the Dreamcast coughing up silicon blood ;).. PS2 is really good with particle effects and pushing around tons of characters onscreen. Companies like Namco and Koei seem to show off that capability of the hardware nicely in some of their games.

However stuff like Soul Calibur for the Dreamcast never really impressed me cause it' s a fighting game and those aren' t too difficult for capable developers to make look good and get running smoothly on gaming hardware without experiencing noticeable performance hits. Even Namco said that CG quality graphics can be achieved a lot easier in fighting games than in action/adventure games since the backgrounds in fighting games tend to remain the same throughout the fights, which is a lot less work on the processor than roaming around fully realized 3D game worlds in action/adventure/platforming games.. I imagine that the Dead or Alive games may be small exceptions to Namco' s fighting game comment since the backgrounds can change a little during each fight.

Now a game like Shenmue IS impressive to me cause you' re moving around an expansive, highly detailed 3D game world... By far I' d have to say the Dreamcast game that impressed me the most was Ecco The Dolphin. Friggin game looked so good it was like watching a Jacques Cousteu BBC special on Oceanic life, lol..

Now I don' t know how you get off coming in here calling us a bunch of fanboys, when I KNOW that most of these people, including myself have had good and bad things to say about all upcoming consoles. The only thing I' ve seen you do in this topic is praise 360 and bash PS3 spouting your ' mad programming' skills learned in college from professor whogivesa****. Interestingly enough, the two members who did have a problem with your comments, Rampage and myself aren' t Sony fanboys in anyway. Rampage has stated again and again his interestin the 360, and myself in the Revolution.

I do appreciate your joke about the quitting smoking though. No, no I' m not, but I do have a great work environment that in the summer gives me ample time to be at the computer with nothing to do.

The GPU and CPU don' t even share memory. This is about as stupid as it gets right here. Bottleneck for sure.

I' m no expert, but surely not sharing memory reduces the bottleneck...
you know as the CPU can write/read to its memory at full speed and the GPU can do the same.
If it where shared wouldn' t it effectivly halve the bandwidth when GPU and CPU where reading at the same time?
correct me if i' m wrong.

Actually the transfer of info would be smoother. In the 360 it' s more of a circulation flow. In the PS3 the info is jumping around from CPU to RAM to GPU to RAM to etc., etc., etc...

It' s almost a good idea on Sony' s part but they fell short since all the meory is seperate. In the case of the 360 there is seperate RAM reserved for the GPU but it' s built right into the graphics card itself. This allows for a much faster tranfer of information and give the 360 the ability to do anti-aliasing and a few other effects without hindering the systems performance at all. that' s something the PS3 can' t do.

It' s a lot of technical mumbo jumbo and quite frankly even after being school for this stuff a year now a lot of it is still mid boggling and I have an " A" average.

All you guys need to know is that both systems are so powerful that we won' t be using their full potential any time soon. They are f*cking super computers. Just get the one that has better games and feature in your opinion.

360 is the only way to go for me. The faster I can play NBA LIVE in crazy high-definition graphics the better. Also Tecmo, Rare, and Sega Have some other good games coming in. Maybe once the PS3 gets to about $100 and Metal Gear Solid 4 is good I might buy it. Till then I' m going to Target and buy me a new George Foreman Grill with removable plates for $99.99(tax not included). F**k Wal-Mart!!

What Rampage is saying makes a lot of sense, all of it, not just the technical parts. While the PS3 is more powerful in raw computing when it comes to games the 360 is better suited for the job. That being said, if we had the money we would all buy all 3 of the upcoming Consoles. But, if not, we should choose based on games and services, which, IMO 360 has/will have more of that I will be interested in due to support from Rare, Bungie, Epic, etc. And also you cant throw out the wildcard that is Xbox Live. Ask anyone who owns an Xbox and Live what they like most about the XBox and the answer will be live. But then again sony is creating their own " knock-off" (for lack of better word) that will most likely draw critisism due to Sony' s switch in position (servers should be ran by devs according to them at the moment) and for the simple fact that Microsoft did it first. Conclusion: the next gen will rock no matter what system(s) you own, and its all down to preference and loyalty.

Well if sony live up to their promise of putting Linux on the sold seperate hard-drives it might be tempting to buy a PS3 just for that. Considering the CELL processor is actually good for raw computing. It would make a very very powerful Linux system. I' ll have to see what the final thing looks like though. If it is only 300 bucks compared to a equivilent computer that would cost around 3000 if not more it would be worth it for a lot of people and probably businesses too. Sony better be making sure they aren' t losing money on the hardware if this ends up happening, becase these types of people probably wouldn' t be buying many games if any. Also I think the linux thing could be a big piracy risk. But that wouldn' t stop me from buying it, I just think Sony may change their mind because of that.

The only reason why 360' s games look like they are better than the ps3' s is because the 360 is closer to launch than the ps3. The ps3 is a while off yet but the 360 is meant to be coming in novemeber. 360 has some quialty titles coming out for it [watch out for ' the outfit!' ] but ps3 has the most solid launch titles of the 3 next gen [asumeing all nintendos launch titles have the word ' mario' in it] once the hype of 360 has dyed down a little, the ps3 will be getting all hyped.

[Oh and rampage, the 360 wasnt playable at e3, the games where, yes but not on finalised 360 hardware, it wasnt even on 360 hardware! the games where powered by some G5 computers]

Did I not say that the games were playable? I never said the console was. That means the games will look and play even better on the final console.

Also, you are talking about Xbox 360 games looking better than PS3 games? How would you know? We haven' t seen any PS3 games.The 3 or 4 we have seen are also going to be on the 360.

no,no i wasnt talking about grahpics at all rampage, i was talking about how people seem to think the games are better for 360 [like gameplay wise] they say the 360 has lods of orginall games unlike ps3 which is all sequals, which is true to a point, but the reason the 360 games look so ' orginal' is becuase its much closer to reasle, therefore much more info is given about them. I hope that made sense.

Brain says PS3 - Heart says ' 360. LIVE is a real selling point - despite being shamed repeatedly by the entire gaming community.

Is there any option but to get both? Hmm - wonder how the wife will see that

I' m sure that most people in here realize that a machine can be the right one for you, even if it isn' t the most powerful in terms of technology.