FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


PS3 vs. Xbox





alexdude
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better
TarsajumaClan
We have a ps3 fanboy in the house obviously...

Half that stuff you listed is not necessary...
brucedes
The PS3, while the specs seem better (Note how you forgot to mention the memory sizes, of which the Xbox has more Razz), is only better theoretically. Sure the PS3 has 7 cores, but it's hard to effectively utilise that number, so it doesn't make much difference, thus in real-world performance, they are pretty much equal.

I am not a fanboy, by the way, I think both systems have their pros and cons (Xbox has a much better online interface, while the PS3 has better connectivity), but I don't think you should post numbers, and then only the ones which make it seem better, to boot. Why not post screenshot comparisons, stuff that really makes a difference.
master12
PS3 may look better but the xbox is more affordable for the normal class.

Also gameplay is a serious factor, and in my opinion, xbox exceeds that.
reddishblue
Wow thats excellent, will you pay $599 US for it? Will you even notice the extra power, your wallet will notice the lack of cash though.
Whong
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better


PS3 definitely beats Xbox 360, at least in specs, but the rest is upto the games! In the end, the quality of the games is what counts, not the specs really that much! Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy
spykE
PS3 slightly beats the Xbox 360 in specs and I think you'll nearly see no difference. I love the Xbox 360 more because it's a lot cheaper and there aren't as many bugs as the PS3 is having right now.
Heart Ticket
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better


Bah i only care about the live... and Sony copied Xbox Live so its obviusly going to suck more. I'm not getting it unless the remake for FF7 comes out but they decided not to release it so screw paying 500 for something which usually has crap games anyway... come on ps2 games wernt exactly WOW!

James
Telnven
Heart Ticket wrote:
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better


Bah i only care about the live... and Sony copied Xbox Live so its obviusly going to suck more. I'm not getting it unless the remake for FF7 comes out but they decided not to release it so screw paying 500 for something which usually has crap games anyway... come on ps2 games wernt exactly WOW!


Sony didn't copy Xbox live although I do agree with you when you say that PS2 games weren't exactly "wow" I don't understand why people make such a fuss about the best console - its all down to personal taste. As for me I'm waiting for the outcome,

Sam
CtrlAltDeleteDie
Well seeing as Blu-ray sucks and devs are having problems reading quickly, you might want to leave that out.

edit: and this just kills me.

Quote:

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940


You can definatly leave out the hdds, the wireless adapter, the gold (which is really 49.99 because it's 79.99 for the headset which you should already have), and the hd dvd player.

You just made it look like the PS3 kills the x360 in every aspect. I'm not bashing the ps3, but it really has a long way to go to be on par with all the other systems out now.
eLto
TarsajumaClan wrote:
We have a ps3 fanboy in the house obviously...

Half that stuff you listed is not necessary...


and we have a bitter 360 fanatic aswell. I'm a sony fanboy too, but most of the stuff he noticed is indeed necessary, and he didn't even say anything about RAM or wireless capabilites. All feats that matter in these two consoles, and all feats that are better on the ps3. I'm not saying that the 360 is a bad console. I've played it alot, and love it, but the ps3 IS better, tech wise. We just want everyone to aknowledge it.
reddishblue
eLto wrote:
TarsajumaClan wrote:
We have a ps3 fanboy in the house obviously...

Half that stuff you listed is not necessary...


and we have a bitter 360 fanatic aswell. I'm a sony fanboy too, but most of the stuff he noticed is indeed necessary, and he didn't even say anything about RAM or wireless capabilites. All feats that matter in these two consoles, and all feats that are better on the ps3. I'm not saying that the 360 is a bad console. I've played it alot, and love it, but the ps3 IS better, tech wise. We just want everyone to aknowledge it.

Shame that you guys only have Jak and Daxter, Metal Gear Solid and Ratchet and Clank, we on the other hand get nearly every game released (excepting Nintendo ones) and we also get Halo, Gears of War and Perfect Dark Zero as well as tones of others, and we have Live, which owns, and we cost nearly half as much, seems the PS3 hasn't got much going for it, except for your treasured gimmicks.

Until next time "Ridge Racer, Riiiiiiiidge Raaaacer!"
JinTenshi
Heart Ticket wrote:
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better


Bah i only care about the live... and Sony copied Xbox Live so its obviusly going to suck more. I'm not getting it unless the remake for FF7 comes out but they decided not to release it so screw paying 500 for something which usually has crap games anyway... come on ps2 games wernt exactly WOW!

James


If you said Sony copied xBox live, I can say xBox copied PS1. They copied the entire console. Really. =.=" What kind of lame thing are you trying to point at? Everyone can launch a Live community, just cause xBox launched it first, doesn't mean PS was copying it. I personally hate the controller of xBox, it's bulky + I don't like the games on it. Don't flame me, it's down to personap preferences.

Ridge Racer beats Gotham-something. I've tried both and Ridge Racer pawns with all the awesome drifting and intense beautifully crafted graphics.

Quit comparing PS3 with xBox 360, cause PS3 is launched later than xBox 360, which obviously makes the system alot better. Should xBox launch another console now, I'm sure it would also be slightly 1 notch above PS3. Quit comparing and keep playing. Wink Lets just get our favourite consoles and play our favourite games. We can shut up about this already.
Agent ME
Some of your numbers in pricing are off.

You don't need a wireless adapter, and there are cheaper non-official-but-just as good $50 ones. Gold service 1 year costs $50. And you don't need the HD-DVD player for gaming - though it is a nice add-on.

And the 360 can support 1080p native - just most games now don't support it natively.
Osmodius
CtrlAltDeleteDie wrote:
You just made it look like the PS3 kills the x360 in every aspect. I'm not bashing the ps3, but it really has a long way to go to be on par with all the other systems out now.


The PS3 itself is the best console on the market. Since the Wii is just two N-Gages stuck together, I don't even consider it next gen - this is a two horse race.

The only real problems with the PS3 are the price and the limited range of games. Right now it has very little going for it - there's really no reason to buy one - but that'll change when MGS4 comes out. Hopefully Sony will get another revolutionary exclusive or two and recapture the market altogether.

Of course, if the PS3 doesn't get more good exclusives, and MGS4 is ported over to XBox 360, even a Sony fanboy like myself will have no reason to choose PS3 over 360.
reddishblue
Osmodius wrote:
The PS3 itself is the best console on the market. Since the Wii is just two N-Gages stuck together, I don't even consider it next gen - this is a two horse race.

Say what?
Where did you get that from? The Wii is far more powerful then five N-Gages, it equals the last gen Xbox in power.
And BTW, limited games and mind boggling price is an excellent reason NOT to buy the console, and I don't even know what MGS4 is, therefore it can't be that important, Games and Internet Capabilities are all that matters, not crappy gimmicks.
Osmodius
reddishblue wrote:
The Wii is far more powerful then five N-Gages, it equals the last gen Xbox in power.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

It's still too weak to be considered next-gen.

reddishblue wrote:
And BTW, limited games and mind boggling price is an excellent reason NOT to buy the console


I did state this.

reddishblue wrote:
and I don't even know what MGS4 is, therefore I'm clearly not a gamer.


Fixed.
reddishblue
Osmodius wrote:
reddishblue wrote:
and I don't even know what MGS4 is, therefore I'm clearly not a gamer.


Fixed.

Oh come on, Metal Gear Solid is so overrated, it plays exactly like Splinter Cell, and don't tell me I am not a gamer because of that, I do not have a Playstation, I don't care about Metal Gear Solid.

And if you would like to prove that I am wrong about the Wii, why don't you link to the reputable source of the info you used, otherwise my claim is just as plausible as yours.
Satori
Have any of you gamer nuts even played a wii?? You're all bashing it and touting the 360 and ps3...but have any of you even played it? You won't hear anyone with a wii boasting about it's graphics or processing power because those things are only important to hard core gamers. The fact of the matter is that the wii is *different* than the norm. Hardcore gamers make up a small minority of the population. The Wii reaches out to a much broader market of gamers and even non gamers. I got my MOM and her cousin to play my wii! I've never seen them play a video game before. Not only that, they were actually enjoying it!

Don't get me wrong...I'm not bashing the 360 or the ps3. I'm sure they're awesome with their graphics and their processors. They certainly have their place. I am merely noticing that hardly anyone is even mentioning the Wii, which in it's own right, certainly has it's place too. It's not hard to see why once you've played one!

And you definitely can't count it out of the running. The 360 is only in the lead because it has had a years head start. The wii has FAR outsold the ps3 even without all the bells and whistles.

I guess I'm just a Nintendo fan at heart Smile
Handermier
The Wii? Well, I want to get one because of it's innovations. Nintendo could easily compete in graphics with Sony and Microsoft, but why not start their own race? Innovation. A controller you move instead of button mash? In my eyes, they are going to be leading that race for a long time. Nintendo was always ahead in something in the gaming industry. Now, they are going to be doing it again.

Microsoft and Sony will fight. Everyone will say this and that. There is no clear answer. XBox has more games since he has been out londer. PS is new and has a lot of features that aren't fully figured out yet. Later on will PS take over? Maybe. Is XBox leading? Yes. Where is Wii? Sitting back doing the same as the PS. With more games and ironing out the kinks the race will become clearer, but XBox has the lead in the race at the moment.

It isn't about what each system has inside it. It is about what you enjoy. Game library, the potential, or the innovation.

Yeah, my personal preference is the XBox, then Wii, and finally PS3. I only want one hugely expensive console. I like to get my money out of them. Wii is reasonable cheap for them. So, yeah my little rant.

-Handermier
Osmodius
reddishblue wrote:
Oh come on, Metal Gear Solid is so overrated, it plays exactly like Splinter Cell, and don't tell me I am not a gamer because of that, I do not have a Playstation, I don't care about Metal Gear Solid.

And if you would like to prove that I am wrong about the Wii, why don't you link to the reputable source of the info you used, otherwise my claim is just as plausible as yours.


When I say the Wii is as powerful as two N-Gages stuck together, that's me exaggerating because the Wii is so weak compared to the next-gen consoles. I repeat, the Wii is more powerful than two N-Gages. If you say the Wii is as powerful as the XBox, that's fine, I believe you. My point is that they shouldn't have released a console as weak as the XBox in late 2006. Frankly, I don't care that it's for a "younger market". I just wish people would stop calling it a next-gen console.

As for Metal Gear Solid, it may have spawned games like Syphon Filter and Splinter Cell, but by no means do they play the same way. Metal Gear Solid's strongest points are the unique stealth system, plot that beats any movie I've ever seen, and the science-fiction element of the series. The series focuses heavily on realism (while not sacrificing gameplay) but still somehow pulls off including a 'vampire', invisibility devices, a bandana that gives you infinite ammo, a device protecting you from bullets, weird floating platforms (MGS3).. the list goes on.

Extreme realism in a game has been done - Hostile Intent and Red Orchestra to name two examples. Blending fantasy and reality is a challenge that so far, only Kojima has mastered. All elements of MGS considered--it was the very best game of any system for a long time. MGS2 failed miserably, but MGS3 recaptured the awesomeness of the original. I guarantee you, Guns of the Patriots will be the best game ever, and there may never be a better game developed.

I didn't mean to be argumentitive, but Metal Gear Solid changed the face of gaming, and it will mean the difference in this console war.

The only problem is, can you justify spending so much more on a console that will only have one fantastic game. If Sony can get a good catalogue of titles out there before MGS4's release, the PS3 has a real chance to be the #1 console.
JinTenshi
reddishblue wrote:
Osmodius wrote:
reddishblue wrote:
and I don't even know what MGS4 is, therefore I'm clearly not a gamer.


Fixed.

Oh come on, Metal Gear Solid is so overrated, it plays exactly like Splinter Cell, and don't tell me I am not a gamer because of that, I do not have a Playstation, I don't care about Metal Gear Solid.

And if you would like to prove that I am wrong about the Wii, why don't you link to the reputable source of the info you used, otherwise my claim is just as plausible as yours.


Ask this question : Which came first. And the answer is obvious. MGS. and MGS is an original series and has excellent plot. The story is engaging. ( though the latest installment had little updates to it )

PS3 does have some games lined up. DMC 4, Resident Evil 4, FFXIII and indeed MGS 4.

To the rest, PS3 would take some time to sell. ( Like all their previous consoles ) You can't expect them to sell 5 million in one day. Wink Plus we all would wait for the prices to stabilize and drop before we actually bought the console.
TheMatrixHasYou
ps3 rocks
x360 sucks
LostOverThere
Sony tried to turn a console into a super computer - unfortunately for them, it's not working out that well at the moment. Sad
reddishblue
Satori wrote:
Have any of you gamer nuts even played a wii?? You're all bashing it and touting the 360 and ps3...but have any of you even played it? You won't hear anyone with a wii boasting about it's graphics or processing power because those things are only important to hard core gamers. The fact of the matter is that the wii is *different* than the norm. Hardcore gamers make up a small minority of the population. The Wii reaches out to a much broader market of gamers and even non gamers. I got my MOM and her cousin to play my wii! I've never seen them play a video game before. Not only that, they were actually enjoying it!

Yes I have played the Wii, many times in fact, one of my best friends has one, but we are real gamers and we do not care about the inferior, BTW I don't like the feel of the Wiimote.
Satori
reddishblue wrote:
Yes I have played the Wii, many times in fact, one of my best friends has one, but we are real gamers and we do not care about the inferior, BTW I don't like the feel of the Wiimote.


Hahahahaha...real gamer. I think what you meant to say was "hardcore gamer" or "I take myself very seriously gamer" or maybe "I have nothing better to do than play serious hardcore games gamer."

You call the Wii "inferior" but fail to define the basis for your claim. The two things you will likely say are inferior, I already acknowledged as such (those being graphics and processing power.) But what it lacks in those areas, it makes up for with it's ingenuity. Nintendo has chosen to compete in a different way than sony and microsoft. They have decided to be innovative. There is nothing innovative about better graphics or more processing power. There is nothing innovative about having the same old controller and same use for the controller as before. So, sure the 360 and the ps3 have great graphics and processing power...but they are completely devoid of anything innovative, anything novel or new.

As for your complaint about the wiimote, that just boils down to personal preference and opinion (which you're of course entitled to.) I personally have never liked the feel of the xbox or ps controllers. The most comfortable controller to me was the gamecube controller (though they weren't thinking straight when they put that stupid z button on like they did. They should've had 2 sets of shoulder buttons all built like the single set they had.) But either way, it was always the most comfortable in my hands. The wiimote is different, yes, but to me it fits quite comfortably in my hand (like a nice tv remote.)

The whole point of my previous post was to point out that ps and xbox aren't anything new. Sure they're "next-gen" in terms of graphics and processors...but that's really it. Oh, and you can play a blu-ray disc on your ps and an hd-dvd on your xbox (if you buy an upgrade.) But these things only appeal to "hardcore gamers" and not to the masses. Nintendo has broadened the gaming market with their innovative approach and for that, they will be greatly rewarded.

Osmodius wrote:
I just wish people would stop calling it a next-gen console.


Get over it. It's next-gen in it's own right. It innovates beyond the norm. It cares not about following the herd and instead creates it's own path distinctly separate from the others. In fact, I would call it MORE next-gen than ps3 or 360. I would bet money that when sony and microsoft release their NEXT new systems, they will follow in Nintendos footsteps (by using motion sensor technology.)
johnsonap
Not sure if correct place to ask this, but does anyone know how long they will continue to produce PS2 games for now the PS3 is out (don't fancy the big expenditure at the moment?)
Satori
johnsonap wrote:
Not sure if correct place to ask this, but does anyone know how long they will continue to produce PS2 games for now the PS3 is out (don't fancy the big expenditure at the moment?)


I don't have an answer for you, but if someone else doesn't give you one, I suggest you start a new thread with the same question, so that more people see your question (and therefore you're more likely to get an answer) Smile
Soulfire
The PS3 is amazing! The graphics are superior to anything, the gameplay is amazing (Resistance: Fall of Man rocks) and with complete backwards capability?!

I thought the PS2 had good graphics, but it looks like an old Atari system compared to PS3.

Superb!
dan751
PS3 has 7 cores?? Woah woah woah! The PS3 system has a total of 9 processors!
1 core (the primary core that controls all the rest) is a PowerPC based core.
1 of the remaining 8 cores (or SPEs "synergistic processing elements) is redundant to increase manufacturing yields.
1 of the 7 remaining SPEs is dedicated to the operating system (XMB and the like).
The remaining 6 SPEs are for multi-tasking in games (generally).

And the Xbox360 has 3 dual-cores, for a total of 6 cores, each running at 3.2 GHz (same speed as PS3 [approx.]).

I have both the Xbox360 and the PS3. They're both really nice systems. But it breaks down to not how much more powerful one system is to another, or how much more one system costs, but what kind of games you like to play and how and who you like to play with.

Xbox Live is currently demolishing the Playstation Network (in my opinion), which will change with Playstation Home is released. I personally think that Xbox Live is better put together. There is better support for Xbox Live Gold and it is generally better put together so far, but I believe that's because it's a paid service.

But as I stated above, it's how/what you play, not which is better.
greatfire
Newsflash, power isnt everything. If you consider wii not powerful enough to be a next-gen platform the you really should count the ps2 as a last-gen console. The ps2 had the least power out of xbox ps2 and gamecube. and now allow me to point out ps3 flaws. if its got all that power how come it sttruggles when you are viewing more the a couple webpages. and whats with the media viewer, scrolling vertically through all my music, not gonna happen.
Osmodius
greatfire wrote:
Newsflash, power isnt everything. If you consider wii not powerful enough to be a next-gen platform the you really should count the ps2 as a last-gen console. The ps2 had the least power out of xbox ps2 and gamecube.


All those consoles ARE last-gen. The PS2 had the least power out of last-gen's consoles and was most popular because it was released first, and now the roles are reversed and the 360 is less powerful than the PS3, but more popular because of the early release.. and of course the price differences between PS2 and XBox, and 360 and PS3.

Unlike most fanboys I don't care how popular my favorite console is, as long as Sony continue to support it, and nothing goes horribly wrong with MGS4.
Bubbel
but think about the games..

ps3 doesn't have halo and ea games
JinTenshi
Bubbel wrote:
but think about the games..

ps3 doesn't have halo and ea games


PS3 does not have EA Games? Are you living in a hole or what? Who made Need For Speed Underground? Who made NBA series? PS3 does not have EA Games? I think you must be dreaming.

As for Halo, yeah sure, it's exclusive on xBox 360 blablabla. To hell with it. For FPS I prefer the good old computer, keyboard and mouse interface. And games like Unreal Tournament is way better than Halo if you ask me, but we're not discussing that here.

All in all, poor point you have pointed out here. Good try, but not good enough.
eday2010
There is something you dummies need to get through your head: a system's power doesn't make it "the best". What makes it the best are the games. Your super game system can be as powerful as 10 Pixar Renderfarms, but if the games suck, so does the system.

Ask anyone who grew up in the 8-bit era in North America which system was the best. They'll say the NES. Why? Because of the games. The NES console itself was a piece of garbage compared to the Sega Master System. The SMS was twice as fast (Hell, the clock speed for the SMS was 0.01 MHz slower than the SNES), had 4 times the amount of onboard RAM as the NES, 8 times the Video RAM, a higher colour palette, twice the on-screen colour, equal sprites per screen and similar resolution, making it the better system according to some of you. But in reality it wasn't better because it didn't have the number of games of exposure that the NES did over here (due to evil monopolistic tactics by Nintendo).

so instead of whining about which of the three consoles out now is the best, how about just shutting the hell up and enjoying your console and let others enjoy their consoles without having to listen to you trying to claim that yours is the best. You are unlikely to change anyone's mind who has already decided which one they like best. This gay fanboyism isn't accomplishing anything except making you look as such. The best console will be determined by the games and the people who want to play them, not by what's under the hood. Suffice to say, at the end of this generation of consoles, if more people buy a Wii than the other two systems, then Wii will be the best console even though it's not super powerful. Likewise for the 360 and PS3. Games are about fun, not power.

A lot of people like the PS3, a lot like the Xbox 360, and a lot like the Wii. Accept it and get over it.
david901
i would say XBOX 360 are better than PS3 i have heard PS3 are all buggy so i didnt buy 1 i was going to buy one but a mate reconnanmanted me to NOT BUY ONE and stick with my XBOX 360
eday2010
I think it was a comparison of Call of Duty 3 that I saw where the Xbox 360's graphics were better than the PS3's, but that doesn't say much since the 360 was out longer and programmers had more time to learn the system. In another couple years it would be a good time to compare the same game on both systems and see which looks better. But again, graphics aren't the most important factor in a game. they mean nothing if the game sucks Smile
eday2010
Riveting post.

Yes, it indeed rules third place. 4th place if you include the PS2 sales.
nbeerbower
I like the Xbox the best. Very Happy
spinout
Still the xbox games dominates in prestanda -> how long until Ps3 programmers catchup? Still few games to ps3...

I suppose the prize will be my guidianze - prob buy a xbox - even thougt I like ps3 better...

well I just drool over the graphics - esp the fight night.... and I have watched the coming UFC game videos --- uuuuhhhhuuu I want that one... more drooling...
ZeroXD
I own all three gaming consoles(xbox, ps3, and wii), but I'll state it ahead of time so you guys don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm not an expert and this is just my opinion.

I think the 360 is probably the better gaming system at this moment, as it has the most games and a very well established online service with a large amount of users. You will never have to game alone if you don't want to.

PS3 is more powerful gaming system (potentially) but with it's high cost and small library of games, it's will have a long long way to go to ever become serious competition for the 360.

Now, to be honest, I really hope PS3 picks up a lot more titles soon because in the greater picture, I really want the PS3 to do better and make blu-ray discs more common. I want blu-ray to win the format war (I love the idea of being able to make a computer run off some sort of linux live disc with 50 or more gigs of data available)
minty
Some concepts to think about as to why PS3 costs more than XBOX360:

First and foremost, PS3 uses Blu-Ray technology which is far superior to HD DVD, and a more original name (WTF is up with everything being called High Def?? What's next, Ultra High Def, come on be original). Blu-Ray takes a lot more time and money to produce and is based on completely different technology than regular DVDs, which HD-DVD is based on.

Second, unlike HD-DVD, Blu-Ray has not taken off yet, which also raise the price.

Here are a few reasons for the popularity of the XBOX360 being higher than that of the PS3:

First, the XBOX360 came out a year before the PS3. This caused for a lot of the bugs to be fixed prior to the PS3 coming out. Furthermore, with having a year under its belt, Microsoft was able to reduce the price a little bit for the holiday season, while the PS3 was still expensive because of the Blu-Ray technology.

Second, just like their OS, Microsoft released their product early on without making sure most, if not all, bugs were fixed. Microsoft runs a half-a** campaign were they release something quick and fast and fix it later. Would you buy a car like this? This makes it easier for them to sell their products for a lot less, since less manhours are needed for the initial investment process.

One last thought:

Microsoft's XBOX was out for what 3 yrs before the release of the XBOX360?? Well the PS2 was out for over 7 yrs prior to the release of the PS3. Just by this it shows that Sony had more time and energy put into the build of the PS3 than Microsoft did for the XBOX360. Therefore, PS3 will be better in quality with the extra manhours put into it.
madpotatokipp
the 360 is by far the better system of the two, and its cheaper
monsterskuad
xbox hands down. but we cant forget how ps1 and ps2 both became better systems down the line, game designers learned how to utilize the full potential of the system and witht he ps3 having 7 cores it may soon blow the 360 out the water. personally im waiting for another price drop Very Happy
BLAK
I've got XBOX360 and I personally don't like because sometimes when I play it frozes so I have to restart the console... I don't like Microsoft's products full stop. Smile
eday2010
Or 7 cores may prove too complicated to program for effectively. The Sega Saturn has multiple processors, and developers found it hard to program for. It's pretty much a wait-and-see situation for the moment. No one can really be called the winner yet.


Osmodius wrote:
The PS3 itself is the best console on the market. Since the Wii is just two N-Gages stuck together, I don't even consider it next gen - this is a two horse race.


A two-horse race where both horses are losing to a "non-next-gen" console. that says A LOT about those two systems, doesn't it?

Osmodius wrote:
My point is that they shouldn't have released a console as weak as the XBox in late 2006. Frankly, I don't care that it's for a "younger market". I just wish people would stop calling it a next-gen console.


Wish all you want, but regardless of power, it's a next-gen console. The previous home console Nintendo released was the Gamecube. Any home console they release after that is the next generation console, regardless of power. It has to do more with chonology than power. And if you want to base it on power, it's more powerful than the Gamecube, which still makes it next-gen.

Osmodius wrote:
All those consoles ARE last-gen. The PS2 had the least power out of last-gen's consoles and was most popular because it was released first...


Wrong AGAIN, biatch. The Sega Dreamcast was the least powerful out of the last generation of consoles and it was released first. Wrong twice in one sentence. Wow.
eday2010
minty wrote:
(WTF is up with everything being called High Def?? What's next, Ultra High Def, come on be original


Actually, yes. That is what is next. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video
war3brasil
Im sorry but, altrought the ps3 has better hardware, the performance in xbox is way better. PS3 have a little collection of games, it was a disappointment for sony for sure... and its losing its unique titles. Sad
Ghengis
I thought I'd weigh in since I just "completed my collection" with a PS3. I got a Wii on launch, a 360 shortly thereafter (basically sold to me with early footage of Bioshock, billed as "System Shock 3" -- I was not disappointed!) and a PS3 a couple weeks ago.

I love the *idea* of the Wii, and about 4-5 games that have come out so far. That's not *bad*, but I would like to see more AAA titles that appeal to my tastes. Online is terrible, the store is a joke -- no demos, no DLC that I don't already have the ROM for. But I got it for Zelda, and I don't really regret that since Mario, Metroid, and RE4 came out. Crappy multiplayer support doesn't spoil those games.

The 360 has a lot of games that look pretty neat. After Bioshock and Mass Effect, there's a lot of games I might buy... eventually... if they drop in price. Not a lot really *grabs* me so much I'd pay 60 bucks for them, but maybe if I can grab e.g. Eternal Sonata used for ~30 bucks, I'd probably do that. Maybe I'm just picky? The store is awesome, though I haven't actually *paid* for a lot of 360 content yet.

The PS3 is an amazing piece of technology. The 360 kinda-sorta supports networked media, but the interface is a bit clunky. The PS3, on the other hand, has really well thought-out media support with a nice interface, PSP connectivity, HD movies, etc... I just wish there were more than 2 or 3 games I wanted to play. I got Ratchet, I'll probably get Drake and Resistance sometime soon-ish. Then it's mostly cross-platform stuff I could get for 360 (and really don't care much one way or the other about) until e.g. Little Big Planet and FF XIII (I have to beat 12 first!). I think Sony made the wrong decision forcing people to buy a Blu-Ray player when they might not want/need one; I think if the unit had been a hundred bucks cheaper, you'd have seen more buyers
- and therefore a bigger market
- and therefore more developers willing to take a gamble making a PS3 game
- and therefore more expertise developed using the unique architecture of the system
- and therefore more good games
- and therefore more people willing to buy a system
and so on and so on. I'm glad I got it, but I'm also glad I got it last. A lot of analysts say the PS3 is going to come from behind to win in the long run. That's not impossible, especially since the PS3 wins the hardware battle (by the numbers anyway), and could pull ahead in visual quality as people gain a better understanding of the architecture. But they've set themselves up with a really big gap to close first.
eday2010
But your tastes may not be the taste of the mass market and non/casual gamers. And that is who the Wii is targeted towards. I will be getting a Wii in the new year. I don't need 15 awesome games coming out per month because I wouldn't buy that many. There are already quite a few that I want to get, and that would keep me busy for a while. A system doesn't need 1000 games for it, especially when most are forgettable title. I prefer quality over quantity. 1000 crappy games isn't better than 200 top of the line games.

But who knows, maybe I will end up hating the Wii. But I doubt it. Some of my friends who have played it love it.
ps3consolewar
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better


prices may be out of date now, but i agree with you, and whoever else called me, or him a fanboy, is just a wii or 360 fanboy and should not be taken seriousley.

go to http://ps3consolewar.webs.com
eday2010
ps3consolewar wrote:
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better


prices may be out of date now, but i agree with you, and whoever else called me, or him a fanboy, is just a wii or 360 fanboy and should not be taken seriousley.

go to http://ps3consolewar.webs.com


I won't call you a fanboy. But I will call you a dummy. Graphics mean squat. Gameplay and fun are what matter. Graphics are secondary. The PS3 may be able to execute a few more theoretical teraflops, and move a few more polygons, but if those polygons are no fun for the gamer to move around the screen, then all those teraflops aren't worth the shit that comes out of my ass. If a console doesn't have the fun games, then the processing power is useless. All that power isn't helping the PS3 move out of last place, is it?
st-games
PS3 is tehnically better than XBOX 360, there is no question about it

but there is not game that can show us what PS3 can do, and XBOX 360 can not

I bought XBOX 360, because it has better games (Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Forza 2, HALO 3, Assassins Creed, Rock Band, Orange Box, Mass effect, gears of war, virtua fighter...)
some of them, ps3 has too, but XBOX 360 has more
eday2010
st-games wrote:
PS3 is tehnically better than XBOX 360, there is no question about it

but there is not game that can show us what PS3 can do, and XBOX 360 can not

I bought XBOX 360, because it has better games (Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Forza 2, HALO 3, Assassins Creed, Rock Band, Orange Box, Mass effect, gears of war, virtua fighter...)
some of them, ps3 has too, but XBOX 360 has more


You are a smart gamer. alexdude and ps3consolewar are not. Technically better and actually better are two different things Smile
spinout
I would easily bye the PS3 cos of the noiselevel, that is a complete disaster for the xbox360!
And it gets very hot...

How hot do a PS3 get in comparisment?

THe price is the hold-up - as soon as the price go down for PS3 I buy that n scrap the 360... (or sell to a deaf person... Smile )

I wonder if there is a specially designed n noise absorbing refrigerator to buy for the 360...??
Ghengis
Dunno what "model" (hardware revision) you got, but my 360 never had a noise problem. Maybe it's because I've got a whole mess of other technology in the same area -- TV, PC, PS3, 360, home theater, etc. If the rest of the room were whisper-quiet, it might stand out, but how many people play video games in that sort of environment?

Anyway, I like both systems for different reasons. If you have a use for a media streaming box, the interface on the PS3 is arguably better -- for instance, my MythTV box has trouble keeping up with the streaming, so I can copy it to my PS3 hard drive to avoid skipping. The 360 doesn't let you do that. Each box has different pros and cons...
enygmasoft
PS3 Wins hands down because blue ray is soooooooooooo much better than its X-Box 360 counterpart, which is HD DVD.
Maddo
So you're going to spend like 600 dollar for one BR player?

Dude, the Xbox can also play games in HD. And that's where you actually buy a console for, not for the specs, not for the graphics, not for Blu-Ray players, but for the games. As said before, a console is about the games, not about the graphics. I may sound a bit grumpy now, but seriously, does the PS3 has a game like Halo? Or CoD? The MP mode blows away all graphics and stuff, Halo sucks in graphics, but the gameplay is awesome, Gears of War's graphics are one of the best, the multi-player is also awesome. So guys, if you want to buy a console, seriously, just go to a friend or someone who has a Xbox or a PS3, and try it out.
eday2010
Maddo wrote:
So you're going to spend like 600 dollar for one BR player?

Dude, the Xbox can also play games in HD. And that's where you actually buy a console for, not for the specs, not for the graphics, not for Blu-Ray players, but for the games. As said before, a console is about the games, not about the graphics. I may sound a bit grumpy now, but seriously, does the PS3 has a game like Halo? Or CoD? The MP mode blows away all graphics and stuff, Halo sucks in graphics, but the gameplay is awesome, Gears of War's graphics are one of the best, the multi-player is also awesome. So guys, if you want to buy a console, seriously, just go to a friend or someone who has a Xbox or a PS3, and try it out.


Might as well give up. There just seem to be some people so dense and so stupid that they don't understand that. they see bigger numbers on one console and they automatically think that that makes the console the best. there is obviously no getting through to dummies like that Rolling Eyes
Maddo
Hehe, I noticed that already. Mad

But alright, I own a 360, probably going to buy a PS3/Wii, probably the Wii, Mario Galaxy. Very Happy
eday2010
Maddo wrote:
Hehe, I noticed that already. Mad

But alright, I own a 360, probably going to buy a PS3/Wii, probably the Wii, Mario Galaxy. Very Happy


Mario Galaxy is a insanely great game. It's what Mario Sunshine should have been Smile
Fire Boar
eday2010 wrote:
Maddo wrote:
Hehe, I noticed that already. Mad

But alright, I own a 360, probably going to buy a PS3/Wii, probably the Wii, Mario Galaxy. Very Happy


Mario Galaxy is a insanely great game. It's what Mario Sunshine should have been Smile


Oh, I actually preferred Mario Sunshine to Mario Galaxy... both were great games but I felt that MS took the great parts of 64 and slickened them up for the gamecube, adding new and challenging challenges, fun side-quests and a huge number of Shine Sprites to get. Galaxy has a load of cool and wacky planets to explore, but each galaxy is pretty similar to the next - three stars, plus one being repeated in the form of a comet, plus one hidden, plus one from the purple comet. Huge variety but not quite as fun as Sunshine IMO. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Back on topic...

I'd go for the Wii60 if I could get any two consoles. They each have games unique to one another, and the 360 has Mass Effect! That's one game that I really want to get, but can't because I don't have an XBox360. Still, it might be released on the PC some time.

Right now I can't think of a good reason to buy the PS3. It's... got blu-ray, but I don't really notice the difference. As far as video enjoyment goes, I'm perfectly content with my standard 4.4 gigabyte DVDs. I think Wii games also use similar or identical disks for their games. Sure, it's not huge, but games are much easier to make with a small filesize than a large one. Developers can be inventive and take risks on the Wii without too much backlash. Plus, in most places the Wii is the most popular of all the consoles, so even if the game doesn't work they'll still get more sales than if they sold it on a different console.
eday2010
If I were to buy one of these two consoles, I would pick the 360 over the PS3. It has a nice assortment of games, including a lot of games the PS3 has, plus Xbox Live, which really appeals to me since Sega is releasing games on there. Sure, I can have those on my Wii as well, but the XBL releases are updated and tweaked. Maybe when the price comes down even more I will get a 360. It will make up for not having paid for any copy of Windows I have used in the last 10 years Wink
bloodtiger10
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940

NOW which system looks better


Now you can have all PS# things and the 360 is cheaper with more games, HALO, Forza, you can play old games unlike the PS3, and it has a better graphics card!!!!
0bobby0
Yeah maybe you have more games that are cheaper...But when dis the Xbox360 got out??? Long time ago...But the Ps3 got out just this nobemeber 3months ago...That's why the games are so expensive...
eday2010
0bobby0 wrote:
Yeah maybe you have more games that are cheaper...But when dis the Xbox360 got out??? Long time ago...But the Ps3 got out just this nobemeber 3months ago...That's why the games are so expensive...


What year do you live in? The PS3 came out in 2006, not 2007.
bloodtiger10
dude just admit it the xbox 360 has better games (first person shooters), Better graphics, Better uptime, less likly to fail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Ghengis
Apropos of nothing, is there a forum here that I can visit that doesn't allow posters under the age of 12?

Seriously, all the fanboys here sound like they're in middle school. Look at this gem:
Quote:
dude just admit it the xbox 360 has better games (first person shooters), Better graphics, Better uptime, less likly to fail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

If this guy is over 10 years of age I'll eat my hat. Let me introduce you to Mister Period and all his friends:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/10/11
andrewsmith24
whatever it is but for me PSP is the best.
amperx
alexdude wrote:
CPU

PS3 - 7 cores x 3.2 Ghz
XBOX 360 - 3 cores x 3.2 Ghz

GPU

PS3 - 550 Mhz, 1.8 TFLOPS, 512 mb total memory, 42 piplines
XBOX 360 - 500 Mhz, 1 TFLOPS, 512 total memory, 26 piplines

VIDEO/AUDIO

PS3 - 1080p, 7.1 uncoded sound
XBOX 360 - 1080p(upscale not native), 7.1 coded

DISC FORMAT

PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
XBOX 360 - HD DVD, 30 gb, 60 gb possible on one disc

HARD DRIVE

PS3 - up to 1 terabyte
XBOX 360 - up to 120 gb

PRICE

PS3 - $600(system) + $60(HDMI) + $100(160gb HDD) = $760
XBOX 360 - $400(system) +$100(wireless adaptor) + $170(120gb HDD) + $70(gold service 1yr) + $200(HD DVD player) = $940



Actually we cant deny that the ps3 kicks the xbox to shame when it comes to specs, like literally xbox is a pc that bill gates wanted to call a console, so its specs is obviously only upto that level.

but xBox still rocks for me, compared to the ps3, cause there are a lot of XBOX games i can download easilly, i dont wanna wait downloading blue ray size games for the ps3 lol
QrafTee
amperx wrote:
Actually we cant deny that the ps3 kicks the xbox to shame when it comes to specs, like literally xbox is a pc that bill gates wanted to call a console, so its specs is obviously only upto that level.

but xBox still rocks for me, compared to the ps3, cause there are a lot of XBOX games i can download easilly, i dont wanna wait downloading blue ray size games for the ps3 lol
Well that's not exactly true. In most specs the PS3 "rocks out," but one part that really matters is the GPU--anyone to builds computers know this--and this is where the 360 outshines the PS3 (save for the overheating issue).
digitalhaze
QrafTee wrote:
amperx wrote:
Actually we cant deny that the ps3 kicks the xbox to shame when it comes to specs, like literally xbox is a pc that bill gates wanted to call a console, so its specs is obviously only upto that level.

but xBox still rocks for me, compared to the ps3, cause there are a lot of XBOX games i can download easilly, i dont wanna wait downloading blue ray size games for the ps3 lol
Well that's not exactly true. In most specs the PS3 "rocks out," but one part that really matters is the GPU--anyone to builds computers know this--and this is where the 360 outshines the PS3 (save for the overheating issue).


The overheating issue is no longer an "issue" with the new Xbox 360 Slim.
QrafTee
digitalhaze wrote:
QrafTee wrote:
Well that's not exactly true. In most specs the PS3 "rocks out," but one part that really matters is the GPU--anyone to builds computers know this--and this is where the 360 outshines the PS3 (save for the overheating issue).


The overheating issue is no longer an "issue" with the new Xbox 360 Slim.
Um... Microsoft says that with every new SKU, but they're always wrong: http://n4g.com/news/548213/xbox-360-slim-overheating-issues-already-discovered

Also, Microsoft has taken back their 3-year warranty and replaced it with a 1-year warranty. In addition, people who have taken apart the unit has noticed that it's using the same old uncapped capacitors and the old x-clamps. Lastly, it's still prone to the disc scratching issue seen in the older models. Basically, same problems in a different casing (and a shortened warranty).
vibrants
Enthusiast PC wins, obviously? kk
QrafTee
vibrants wrote:
Enthusiast PC wins, obviously? kk
True, but expensive.
wombatrpgs
vibrants wrote:
Enthusiast PC wins, obviously? kk

Well, that's not really the point of the debate... Or I could randomly start being a GBC fanboy. Then again, it's not as if there's any real point to these "debate" things as there's no one who's going to change their opinion.
alugueldelanchaangra
PS3 - Bluray, 50 gb, possible 200 gb storage on one disc
Starrfoxx
PS3 definitely! It's just better since you can store everything on Blu-ray, while Xbox has to use more than one disk to do the same storage.
wombatrpgs
Technical specs aren't everything... I'd emphasize the actual games more...
QrafTee
wombatrpgs wrote:
Technical specs aren't everything... I'd emphasize the actual games more...
Absolutely right. Games like Killzone 2, Infamous, Littlebigplanet, Fallout 3, Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2, Starcraft, Starcraft II, League of Legends, Borderlands, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Team Fortress 2, Alien Swarm, Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Mario Kart Wii, Mod Nation Racing, and Left 4 Dead makes the consoles.
spinout
there is not a versus - just listen to them!!!!

PS3 = SILENT!!!

XBOX360 = AIRPORT sounds and getting so hot it breaks after a while!!!
QrafTee
spinout wrote:
there is not a versus - just listen to them!!!!

PS3 = SILENT!!!

XBOX360 = AIRPORT sounds and getting so hot it breaks after a while!!!
I've heard the new Xbox 360 Slims have a lower failure rate and is much more silent... I guess better late than never--although their failure rates have dropped for awhile now.
spinout
360 slim... hm, ps3 slim have I heard of - and they (in most cases) are even more silent than the fat ones...

The gaming era might have come to xbox 360 also Laughing
wombatrpgs
Just to get this straight, are we debating this purely on technical terms?
LostOverThere
Quote:
Just to get this straight, are we debating this purely on technical terms?

Seems the only objective way to debate this. Otherwise it's simply perspective and opinion. Both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have a great line up. It really depends on what floats your boat, games wise.
smsmcfarland
-deleted-
dazzsser
The XBOX has the Halo Series! But i like the PS3, Because the game network is free!!
QrafTee
dazzsser wrote:
The XBOX has the Halo Series! But i like the PS3, Because the game network is free!!
Halo doesn't have the same "oomph" it once had when Halo 2 came out.
wombatrpgs
QrafTee wrote:
Halo doesn't have the same "oomph" it once had when Halo 2 came out.


Very true... I think the whole FPS mechanics have been seized and altered by too many related games in the genre for the series to have its same effect. It's still the only FPS I was ever any good at, though.
recked
Obviously the XBOX will be in lead due to the amount of Nintendo games being converted for the XBOX such as crash bandicoot, Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark...etc.
LostOverThere
Quote:

Obviously the XBOX will be in lead due to the amount of Nintendo games being converted for the XBOX such as crash bandicoot, Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark...etc.

Crash Bandicoot has always been most prominent on Sony consoles, the last Banjo Kazooie game we had was in 2008 and for BK was a disaster, and we haven't had a new Perfect Dark game since Zero in 2005, not to mention none of these games really moved systems.

I'm not saying Nintendo is safe, but if they get overtaken it definitely wont be because of Crash Bandicoot, Banjo Kazooie or Perfect Dark.
smsmcfarland
Lets finally put this to rest guys. Dreamcast ftw.
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LcZgwrGypo
spinout
The last era is here, PS3 never succeded with the graphix but was more stable and playable, and free networking...

I hope they fix up a new version, PS4 that can handle the graphics - and completely silent!!
alugueldelanchaangra
this is a good fight
ham65
PS3 is better than xbox.
wombatrpgs
ham65 wrote:
PS3 is better than xbox.

Oh ho, you convinced me.
LostOverThere
wombatrpgs wrote:
ham65 wrote:
PS3 is better than xbox.

Oh ho, you convinced me.

Who needs evidence when you can have truly unbiased blanket statements. Smile
nvision
ps3 no doubt...!!!
ujjawall
TarsajumaClan wrote:
We have a ps3 fanboy in the house obviously...

Half that stuff you listed is not necessary...


and we have a bitter 360 fanatic aswell. I'm a sony fanboy too, but most of the stuff he noticed is indeed necessary, and he didn't even say anything about RAM or wireless capabilites. All feats that matter in these two consoles, and all feats that are better on the ps3. I'm not saying that the 360 is a bad console. I've played it alot, and love it, but the ps3 IS better, tech wise. We just want everyone to aknowledge it.
QrafTee
ujjawall wrote:
TarsajumaClan wrote:
We have a ps3 fanboy in the house obviously...

Half that stuff you listed is not necessary...

and we have a bitter 360 fanatic aswell. I'm a sony fanboy too, but most of the stuff he noticed is indeed necessary, and he didn't even say anything about RAM or wireless capabilites. All feats that matter in these two consoles, and all feats that are better on the ps3. I'm not saying that the 360 is a bad console. I've played it alot, and love it, but the ps3 IS better, tech wise. We just want everyone to aknowledge it.
It's funny that he said wireless wasn't necessary because even Microsoft realized that it is a necessity and finally embedded it into their Xbox 360 Slim console.
Related topics
xbox 360
the battle between revolution, ps3, and xbox 360
ps3 vs xbox 360
PS3 vs Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
never ending game.
[Official]Wii
Game quality between PS3 and XBox 360
ps3 vs xbox 360
reply ps3 thread - end of...
Ps3 Or Xbox 360
XBOX 360 vs PS3
The Question Everyone Is Fighting About...PS3 or XBOX 360?
What's the better controller? Ps3 or Xbox?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Sports and Entertainment -> Games

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.