I Need Help Choosing Between a Xbox 360 or Ps3

[Punisher12 0]

It has come down to this decision. Just recently I put a HD TV in my house which of course will be bad *bottom* with a new system.Whats missing?A system.It has came down to a Console System.Looking through the internet does not help me on my decision at all.Xbox 360 = Better Content etcPS3 = Smoother Shading etcIn your opinion which is better?Someone told me that HD Discs will probably rise over BlueRay due toback in the day when VHS was out, the reason why a lot of people went for VHSwas because it had Porn.Thats pretty much why HD and Xbox 360 would rise.Anyways, i'm desperate on a decision here.

[mojoman 0]

I'd go with the xbox 360. THere are a lot mroe games for the 360 then the PS3. The PS3 is good and all, but I think it costs just too much to play some games. THe lowest price costs more than the pro and I think the elite version of the 360. Next, you got Halo 3 for the 360 which is coming out soon :XD:

[husker 0]

Right now, it just too hard to decide. After the PS3 dropped their price by $100, they are posing some competition for the 360. The PS3 has some nice features like good graphics, Blu-ray, bigger hard drive, etc. Honestly, I would stick the the 360. They have better games, Xbox Live, and a lower price. Xbox360 gives you great gaming, while the PS3 gives you a better gaming experience if that makes any sense :XD:.

[rayzoredge 2]

I'd go with the xbox 360. THere are a lot mroe games for the 360 then the PS3. The PS3 is good and all, but I think it costs just too much to play some games. THe lowest price costs more than the pro and I think the elite version of the 360. Next, you got Halo 3 for the 360 which is coming out soon :XD:

I have to agree if you're going for the gaming aspect.

The 360 definitely has a larger game library and it's a pretty good buy for a gaming system. The PS3 surpasses the 360 in specifications but there aren't that many games out there that push these limits. It also depends on what you're a fan of.

Xbox 360 already has a ton of successful hits and will be having more (Halo 3, for instance). I haven't been paying attention to the PS3 game library as of late, but I liked Resistance: Fall of Man, along with the upcoming Killzone 2. Of course, I'm only naming off first-person shooters... you'll have to do some homework yourself as to what system hosts better games for whatever genre you enjoy most.

There is also the entertainment factor of the systems to consider. Microsoft is supporting HD-DVD, whereas Sony is pushing its Blu-Ray technology with the PS3. If you're looking for a Blu-Ray player, the PS3 will do that AND be a pretty good gaming console at the same time AND be at least several hundred dollars cheaper than a stand-alone BR player. With the 360, you will have to purchase an add-on to play HD-DVD movies. There isn't that much of a difference that most people will see between the two disc formats aside from different, format-exclusive features, but then again, you may not even miss them. The format war is still going on, and usually one side wins. If your decision also includes this factor, hopefully you pick the winner.

Both consoles support high definition video output and digital sound output, so no questions there.

Both consoles have their ups and downs. Hope this helps out a bit.

[downsy007 0]

man i have 360 and u cant beat a 360 easpically the graphics i have had my 360 for nearly a year

[rayzoredge 2]

I would also like to note that the PS3's GPU (NVIDIA RSX) boasts slightly-better specifications than the 360's (ATI Xenos), but the 360's GPU hosts an on-board eDRAM die that supposedly keeps a performance load off of the processor itself (similar to AMD's processor design).

 

Of course, you would only care if you absolutely needed to know which console trumps the other in graphical capability.

There are various articles and discussions on which is better, but I'm sure they are all biased. Unfortunately, I haven't found any benchmarks for either consoles... but you can rest assured that both consoles are very similar and not that far apart from each other as far as graphics go, I would think.

In my opinion, even with PS3's figures, the Xbox 360 may win in the gaming department as the eDRAM developed by NEC would improve gaming performance by a bunch since everything is unified.

However, none of this matters if developers don't take advantage of the power of the hardware. :XD:

[delivi 0]

I'd suggest that you go with XBox 360.Because, * It is a lot cheaper than PS3 with nearly the same permofrmance. * A huge list of Game Titles * The Games for XBox 360 are cheaper than those of PS3 * XBox Live has an excellent online content and good for multiplayer gaming * You can interface your PC with XBox. * The next OS Windows Vienna is being developed and it will integrate all the Microsoft devices and make them interconnected, so you become future proof if you are using a PC.

[fffanatics 0]

I would say that you should go with the PS3 if you want a system that will be amazing for the next few years and not just another 1 or so. The XBOX 360 has a bunch of very good games at the moment and the graphics appear the same as the PS3 at the moment, but it has to do with it being out longer. In the next year or so the developers will have figured out how to utilize all of the power the PS3 has to offer and its graphics will clearly dominate. Plus, the PS3 has some amazing games lined up to come out and that will help them.

[Kioku 0]

In my personal opinion, rendering graphics isn't vital towards gameplay. If the main character was a giant cube hopping through a world full of badly shaded polygons, I'd be happy if the gameplay as A-OKAY. If the game had graphics that would be the envy of any Square-Enix deveoper but played poorly-- you can see where I'm going with this.

[birudagmawi 0]

PS3 is my vote...

 

It Offers:

Free Online Games

Superb Rendering Power

Fairly Cheap in relation to the features it has

Light, better controller

[coldfusion 0]

i would personally buy a xbox 360 although i have a ps1 and ps2 and ps2mini im just sick of the fact that the lasers on them die so easily xboxs have a bit more life on em thats my point of view abd the xboxs r cheaper than the ps3's

Edited September 3, 2007 by coldfusion (see edit history)

[rayzoredge 2]

Some of us haven't been reading the thread all the way...

I did point out that the numbers are very similar when it comes to graphical capability. Although the RSX trumps the Xenos by a slight bit, the Xenos has a different chip architecture, which reminds me of AMD's on-die cache as opposed to Pentium's bridges, which makes single tasks a lot more efficient with AMD. This is true with the Xenos GPU.

Unless someone can provide actual benchmarks to prove that statement wrong, I can safely say that both consoles differ slightly, if at all, in graphical processing and output.

But now, for the CPUs...

From Wiki:
 

The PS3 uses the Cell microprocessor, which is made up of a PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and six accessible 3.2 GHz Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). A seventh runs in a special mode and is dedicated to aspects of the OS and security, and an eighth is disabled to improve production yields. The floating point performance of the whole system (CPU + GPU) is reported to be 2 TFLOPS.[1] PlayStation 3's Cell CPU achieves 204 GFLOPS single precision float and 15 GFLOPS double precision. The PS3 has 256 MB of Rambus XDR DRAM, clocked at CPU die speed.

Xenon is a CPU that is used in the Xbox 360 game console. The processor, internally codenamed "Waternoose" by IBM[1] and "XCPU" by Microsoft is based on IBM's PowerPC technology, consisting of 3 independent cores on a single chip. Each of the cores has two symmetric hardware threads (SMT), for a total of six hardware threads available to games. Each individual core also includes 32 KiB of L1 instruction cache and 32 KiB of L1 data cache. The processors are labelled "XCPU" on the packaging and are manufactured by Chartered. Chartered will reduce the fabrication process in 2007 to 65 nm, thus reducing manufacturing costs for Microsoft.

 

The name "Xenon" was repurposed from the code name for the Xbox 360 in early development.

 

Specifications

• 
  
• 90 nm process, 65 nm process upgrade in 2007 (codenamed "Falcon"), 165 million transistors (possible 45 nm process dated around 2008)[2]

Three symmetrical cores, each two way SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz[2]

SIMD: VMX128 with 2� (128�128 bit) register files for each core.[2]

1 MiB L2 cache[2] (lockable by the GPU) running at half-speed (1.6 GHz) with a 256-bit bus

51.2 gigabytes per second of L2 memory bandwidth (256 bit ďż˝ 1600 MHz)

21.6 GB/s Front-Side Bus[2]

Dot product performance: 9.6 billion per second

116 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance

Restricted to In-order code execution[2]

ROM storing Microsoft's Secure Bootloader

Big endian architecture.

As you can see from CPU specifications, both the PS3 and the 360 share six functional "cores," all clocked at 3.2GHz. However, I personally can't tell which one could be better, since they both are completely different designs and I'm not exactly an expert with hardware.

Simply put, we could say that both consoles are comparable with processing power. However, only benchmarks will be able to tell which console is actually better at processing data and rendering graphics.

I'm not sure how fair it is to belittle the 360 because of its "infamous red rings of death," as the PS3 has suffered its own problems as well.

Edited November 18, 2016 by OpaQue (see edit history)