Games: Playstation 3 [!OT]

**mrwiseman** · May 23rd, 2005, 06:08 PM

Ok, I took a look at it.

Firstly, they are biased towards the Xbox 360 from the start. Not a good signal (not because it's the Xbox 360, but because it's a bias).

The first chart, CPU General Purpose Performance Comparison, is bull. They made them 1 vs. 0.33. It doens't take a software engineer to do that. These are not real software conditions (more processors never scale perfectly save for specifically-designed grid computing, and before anybody asks, nope, games can't be done like this, don't believe what the press tells you); and it assumes these processors are identical which I don't know (they may be, they may be not).

CPU Floating Point Performance seems to be more of the same, although I haven't verified it with both system's specs.

Third chart: Shader Operations, even if it's accurate data, are hardly comparable. Their productivity depends on the Shader Model.

What do they mean by "total memory bandwidth"? They added all of them??? ROFLMAO. This can't be done by any engineer. If this were IRC, I'd submit this to bash.org.

Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3

Even their spelling is "provably" wrong. Unless they meant they proved something, and up to this point, all they proved with these cute charts is Microsoft paid them more than a meal to do this... Nothing they said was remotely close to a proof.

BTW, by this point the article is so biased it's lame. I'm out of it, it's just the same bull you'll find in magazines, videogame review sites, etc.

[ May 23, 2005 03:11 PM: Message edited by: -Wiseman- ]

**melfice** · May 24th, 2005, 09:12 PM

God Asists us... we are in engineers hands

It's a blog, probably the guy is a Micro$oft freak, and is totally confused by the numbers, and no, not always more is better! (perhaps 2.2V core voltage for processors against 1.6V [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

**Vegito** · May 25th, 2005, 04:02 AM

then why go on about it. Wait til you play a demo for all three systems then decided: z0mg the Revolution pwns all.

**Xellos** · May 25th, 2005, 02:46 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=provably

**melfice** · May 25th, 2005, 05:53 PM

You'll never get the bed without knowing something new...

**mrwiseman** · May 25th, 2005, 06:03 PM

Unless they meant they proved something, and up to this point, all they proved with these cute charts is Microsoft paid them more than a meal to do this... Nothing they said was remotely close to a proof.

You lose.

**Xellos** · May 25th, 2005, 06:20 PM

But it was a real word, which is why I posted that.

Unless you meant that provably was supposed to be probably. In which case, whoops.

**mrwiseman** · May 25th, 2005, 06:37 PM

"Probably" could have been wishful thinking (and less biased), but "provably" was simply a lie. That's why I mocked them by playing with the word in my reply.