Xbox360/Wii/PS3 Tech Specs compared

[sabre2922]

Ive always agreed that Tech specs mean very little overall when comparing same generation consoles but I found this to be interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28seventh_generati on%29

------------------------------------------------------
Xbox360:Processor 3.2 GHz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed "Xenon"
115 GFLOPS
9.6 billion dot products per second

Wii:Processor "Broadway" (IBM) "No definitive specs released yet"

Playstation 3:processor Cell (POWER-based PPE with seven 3.2 GHz SPEs)
218 GFLOPS
18 billion dot products per second
---------------------------------------------------------


115Gflops on the Xbox360 compared to the Playstation 3's 218?
:hmm:

and thats just the processor comparisons; check the link and it seems that almost everything else on the PS3 doubles (or more) that of the Xbox360s, memory etc.

Im still getting a 360 and Wii Sony can eat their $500.00 U.S. for all I care.

[Ed Oscuro]

Eh, it's all about who you believe. Microsoft put out a release recently stating that the 360 had far better memory bandwidth than the PS3.

[jonnyutah]

basicly the ps3 and 360 achive rouhgly the same horsepower, only a different aproach to doing things. it's nvidia's next gen graphics tech vs. ATI's latest. actually ps3 and 360 have the most identical specs of two console systems released in the same generation ever. the main diference is sony using a new disk format. :)

[njiska]

Keep in mind you need to check and see if those are actual numbers or theoretical. It's like sold vs. shipped.

Beside's it's not the power you have but what you do with it. If you're stuck writing clunky code, it'll waste the extra power. Clean development is key.

Basically Tech specs only tell half the tale.

[Anthony1]

The PS3 is definitely much more powerfull than the 360, but the problem is, by the time developers can actually understand the system and tap into that power, Sony will be in 3rd place and the graphics superiority won't really matter at that time.


You can go back in the history of video games, and pretty much for every single generation of games, the most power system has ultimately lost the battle.



Atari 2600 = Champion Colecovision = loser

NES = Champion Master System = loser

Genesis = Champion (barely) Super Nintendo = loser

PS1 = Champion Nintendo 64 = loser

PS2 = Champion Xbox = loser

Xbox 360 = Champion PS3 = loser

[ProgrammingAce]

The PS3 is definitely much more powerfull than the 360

Not to start some flame war, but that's not true. In the end, both systems are VERY close in performance.

[zerohero]

The SNES was more powerfull than the Sega? I thought it was the other way around, and that SNES pretty much won.

[graboid9]

the Genesis was way more powerful than the SNES... it had BLAST PROCESSING!!!!! nothing can beat blast processing...ever.

[zerohero]

the Genesis way way more powerful than the SNES... it had BLAST PROCESSING!!!!! nothing can beat blast processing

Yea exactly, so I think he has that backwards.

[odyeiop]

ATI makes my pants do a hot hot dance.

[Richter]

the Genesis was way more powerful than the SNES... it had BLAST PROCESSING!!!!! nothing can beat blast processing...ever.and because of this, the Genesis does what Nintendont

[jonnyutah]

based on numbers alone the ps3 is not more powerful. I'll say that again. based on ps3 specs released by sony the ps3 is not more powerful overall. :)

just wait to untill we get some multi console games (360/ps3 coded games) to compare. that should be fun :)

[Anthony1]

The PS3 is definitely more powerfull than the 360, even Peter Moore would tell you that (off the record he would), but it should be more powerfull, considering it costs nearly twice as much. It just depends on how you want to position your console. Microsoft wanted to make the 360 as powerfull as possible, but they also wanted to keep the price relatively in check, and they wanted to launch early. Sony was going for a technological powerhouse, and wasn't as concerned about price or launch year.


Those two companies simply made different choices and one isn't better than the other. If we are simply talking about pure processing power, then the PS3 wins. Does that mean it's going to be the dominating console of this generation? Certainly not. Will the 360 be very close to the PS3 in terms of power? Sure. Will it come up somewhat short? Sure. Will it take a number of years for this to become obvious? Of course it will.


Early on, the PS3 and 360 will look virtually identical in power, it will take a number of years before the PS3 differentiates itself based on raw horsepower and visual splendor. Ultimately, I think by the time the PS3 clearly demonstrates it's superiority, it's going to be far too late for that console to be a serious contender for the No.1 spot.




The SNES is definitely more powerfull than the Genesis, it could display a vastly super number of onscreen colors, it could choose from a much larger palette of colors, and it could manipulate more sprites on screen and larger sprites. It also featured the famous Mode 7 effect. Did it have a slower processor? Yes. Did certain games feature some pretty horrendous slowdown? Yes. But still, the technology of the SNES is far beyond the Genny. Was the Genny a very capable little system, using every ounce of it's power to the fullest? Absolutely. The Genesis barely won the 16 bit battle, and when I'm talking about barely won, I mean, during the years when 16 bit was really mass market. Nintendo stayed focused on the 16 bit for a much longer time, while waiting for their N64, so they got alot of market share in the very late years, but when it really mattered, Genesis was in the No.1 spot by a slight margin.

[Ed Oscuro]

The PS3 is definitely more powerfull than the 360, even Peter Moore would tell you that (off the record he would)
ORLY

Well, he'll call Sony a pack of weasels, anyway (http://www.qj.net/Peter-Moore-Interview-With-Space-Ghost/pg/49/aid/39868).

[badinsults]

Anthony1, if you look at a computer in terms of "power" then the benchmark is always processor clock speed. The Genesis won that hands down, although the GPU was certainly not nearly as good. That being said, I don't think that it would be easy to compare the two processors, as they are significantly different in their architectures (later snes games could run just as fast as genesis games).


As for the PS3 specs, I don't believe they have even been finalized yet. And quite frankly I don't think most people even care about specs anymore.

[THATinkjar]

I don't really think - based on what we know - that the PlayStation 3 is considerably more powerful than the Xbox 360. Of course, when two consoles in the same generation launch a year apart, that is almost always going to give the latecomer a slight technical advantage. But this alone won't win the fight for Sony.

At the end of the day, aren't some people still struggling to note the vast difference between Standard Def and High Def? So any minimal difference between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 will surely be somewhat insignificant. If you're still on the fence, that 5% additional horsepower won't matter one iota.

This generation will, as so many have said before me, come down to five things: first-party games, the odd third-party exclusive, the interface (with the various bells and whistles), on-line play and additional downloadable content. For two systems that are all about graphics, it really isn't about the graphics now.

[njiska]

Food for thought: http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2006/04/30/ps3-smoke-and-mirrors-ibm-specs/

[nik]

it's all about the games baby

[THATinkjar]

Food for thought: http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2006/04/30/ps3-smoke-and-mirrors-ibm-specs/

Very interesting. Very, very interesting. Thanks for posting that link, njiska.

I'm happy with what Microsoft are doing, I don't actually see myself owning a PlayStation 3.

[kevin_psx]

Call me in 2008

when we have a clear-cut winner. I'll buy that one.

[Lord_Magus]

Specs don't really matter anymore. Hell, the quality of the games doesn't really matter either, if you think about it. The only thing that counts these days is having a few people running your marketing department and a solid brand name - and lo and behold, instant success.

Remember the golden rule of marketing: people will believe anything you tell them 3 times. Although the more informed DP crowd may be an exception to this rule, most people will end up buying the PS3 solely because it has TEH CELL TECHNOLOGY!1! Oh, and it also costs $600, so it must be better than its competitors, right? ;)

Hell, you'd be surprised how many people I've met who actually think that the PS2 was the most powerful console of the previous\current generation... :roll:

[njiska]

Call me in 2008

when we have a clear-cut winner. I'll buy that one.

Hey even Peter Moore himself said we'll know who wins the war after christmas 2007.

[Joker T]

I think Anthony1 wins for best technical knowlege on DP LOL

[swlovinist]

Tech specs dont mean shit, espically when the dam consoles are not even out yet. Obviously in the past, very inferior systems did very well against other superior systems. The next gen console war is not going to be won on tech specs, it is going to be on which console shows the consumer the best gameplay for the buck. One thing is for certain, a clear winner of the future video game industry could be held by any one of the three. It all depends on how the AVERAGE consumer views all three upcoming new consoles this year and beyond.

[jonnyutah]

You'll have to wait for the games made from the ground up to take advantage of each platforms strenths. right now we're only enjoying currnet gen ports and a few first gen games. (oblivian, graw, doa4, chrome hounds etc. good games but all are early first gen 360 games.

wait until fall and especially in 2007 to really see what 360 is all about. Mr. Kojima stated that mgs4 can be done on 360 but wasn't sure about the market and it was already a ps3 exclusive. given mr Kojinma's stance on ports would = a prefect port of the game, not a pixle left out :eek 2:

[njiska]

given mr Kojinma's stance on ports would = a prefect port of the game, not a pixle left out :eek 2:

I refer you to Exhibit A: Metal Gear Solid 2 Subsistence for Xbox

[Anthony1]

Hey, regarding specs for these systems, I don't remember hearing anything about the audio for the Nintendo Wii. Specifically, whether or not it can decode Dolby Digital 5.1 on the fly like the Xbox 1 and Xbox 360.

I imagine that it does, it would seem silly not to, but I don't remember hearing anything about it.