The ultimate PS3 - XBOX 360 comparison thread!

Well I voted xbox 360. Oblivion. Halo. Gears of war.

 

I think the Wii and PC gaming should be added to the comparison.

 

The reason I've heard for the not-very-amazing GPU is much simpler than that. Sony initially planned not to include a GPU at all. After all, they were putting in a small supercomputer as the CPU, surely that could take care of rendering too.
(The Cell has some weaknesses, but ironically, they're on the CPU side. It is relatively well suited for doing a GPU's work, so Sony's plan made some sense.)
However, for whatever reason (The Cell turned out less powerful than they'd hoped, or GPU's advanced faster than they'd thought, or more likely, a combination of both), Sony very late realized that they needed a dedicated GPU to compete. By then, it was too late to get one custom-developed like the 360 had. So instead, they went to NVidia, and got them to adapt the 7900.
That has a couple of interesting implications:
- The PS3 is stuck with a, compared to the 360, not very well integrated, and less powerful, GPU. It's basically a desktop part, unlike the 360's GPU which is designed to work well with the rest of the system.
- The PS3 now has half of its CPU sitting idle (because it was meant for GPU kind of work, which now isn't done on the CPU after all. It's not very well suited for general purpose processing, so it sits mostly idle, occasionally being used for audio/video streaming and decoding, and a bit of physics)
- The PS3 became even more expensive than originally planned (because they had to add an extra chip)
(I think I had something for one more bulletpoint, but I can't remember what it was now )

No, because it's very different from everything else on the market, and becaues it's not really designed as one cohesive whole. In fact, it's pretty much a complete reversal from last generation. This time, the PS is the one that's basically built like a PC (all separate parts duct-taped together), and the XBox that's a console in the traditional sense (all parts are made to work efficiently together with no bottlenecks). That's one reason the PS3 is harder to work with. Another is the CPU which just isn't very well suited for games.

Still, the PS2 was a pain to develop on too (not because it was powerful, on the contrary, because you had to really jump through some hoops to get it up to a competetive level)

It's not something that "gets worked out", really. it's something developers have to learn to live with, and which will always be harder to work with than the 360.
However, as I said above, difficulty in programming for it doesn't mean games won't be made on it. A more important factor is market share. If it becomes as popular as the PS2, then you can bet that everyone will develop for it, no matter how hard it is. If it doesn't? Well, then it might be more reasonable to focus on the popular and easy to work with consoles...

 

But if you look at PS2, it was unusual for programming too (at first)

 

Still the texture fill rate of PS3's GPU is higher than the Xenos. If you compare a 7900GTX to a 1950XTX but whereas the 1950XTX has more shader operations. I assume it's the same for the PS3's and 360's GPU's.

I own a Xbox 360, but have changed my mind regarding the GPU in PS3. Don't say it's inferior to the 360's since it's not. Just look at the desktop market, where a 7900GTX isn't inferior to a 1950XTX.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=383&card2=442

Just in shader operations

 

Here's my look on how to choose to buy your console:

Buying a next gen console


Playstation 3

Who wants it?: Those who want a machine that can really do it all, play DVDs, Blu-ray disc, games, surf the web, use linux as an OS on it.. it can basically do it all. For a price

Notable Genres: Quite a wide selection of game genres available for the PS3, but when you put it in perspective with the 360 it seems it will be much less of a shooter system than the 360.

Notable games: Metal Gear Solid 4, Kill Zone 3, MotorStorm, Heavenly Sword, Army of Two (will be for 360 also), Tekken 5, Virtua Fighter 5, Resistance: Fall of Man (note many of these games haven't come out yet)

Best Game: Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (port)

Value: $600 for a Blu-Ray player! Sweeet.. $600 for a gaming console.. ehh... $600 for a Blu-ray player and gaming? That's what makes the PS3 worth it. Those with HDTVs and want to want nice crisp high def dvds on it, look no further. Right now gaming is iffy on it.. but expect some great exclusives

What are you missing? It's too early to tell but it looks like first-person shooters are just non-existent on the PS3.. and the ones that do exist are also ported from the 360. Good online support


Xbox 360

Who wants it? Gamers with a passion for shooters, online gamers, etc.

Notable genres: Shooters, few sports, guitaring

Notable games: Halo 3, Guitar Hero II, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (and expansion), Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas (isn't this a port), Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 & 2, Viva Pinata, Lost Planet, Army of Two (port to PS3), Crackdown, a few Xbox Live Arcade Titles

Best Game: Gears of War, no kidding

Value: Dece value for a gaming machine.. but Xbox Live does set you back a bit. But the service is astounding and really simplifies playing games online, you can chat with friends while gaming easy as pie. Really a strong point for the system.

What are you missing? High def support (unless you get the Xbox 360 Elite.. almost the price of a PS3). Yes there is an HD-DVD player, but it doesn't play games, which means there is no benefit for gamers, as games are still restricted to 9gb of space, versus 50gb. But if Gears of War can fit, and Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (3 gb to spare) then I'm sure developers really don't need that extra 40gb yet.


Wii

Who wants it: Anyone but hardcore gamers.. even then. Family friendly, kids can play, teens can play, parents can play..

Notable Genres: Pointy games? Basically the Wii can do anything.. so expect anything (except good graphics)

Notable games: Erm this is easy. Mario, Zelda, Metroid Prime, Super Smash Bros., Pokemon something or another, etc. Wii sports (surprisingly fun)

Best Game: Wario Ware, Mario games, Zelda games

Value: Best value of the 3. Low price ($250), unique controller, and.. weak graphics. If you can get over that this system rocks.

What are you missing? Bleeding edge (kind of) graphics.


DS

I had to include this.. it had the most holiday sales of any game system. I love my ds

Who wants it?: Kids, teens.. anyone on the go

Notable Genres: There are quite a few, strategy, pointy games, quirky games, weird games

Notable Games: Yoshi's Island, Elite Beat Agents, Pokemon Diamond and Pearl, Castlevania, Advance Wars, Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time, Sonic

Best Game: There really is no ASTOUNDING game yet, but most the games are really fun

Value: For superb gaming, $130 doesn't seem like much, now does it? Its also sexy, it folds, and it has a touch screen.

What are you missing? Not much, works just as a portable should, but the online service is bad (friend codes?) but wifi battles with your friends rock!

 

Indeed PS3 is leading folding@home while xbox can't do anything to that regards even with it's new Xeon CPU.

I don't know what laptops today can beat PS3 power in folding@home ?

 

The CPU of XBOX360 is not Xeon it's Xenon it's totally different from intel's server line CPUs.

 

Thanks for the correction, and how does it compete with Xeon and C2D ?

 

I think it's best if you read the first post and then I will explain more.

 

Nothing. If anything has a chance at competing with the Cell in this kind of tasks, it's a high-end GPU. PC CPU's are nowhere near competetive.

Just don't think this carries over to games performance. The Cell is a very specialized small supercomputer. It is extremely powerful at a small number of very specific tasks, such as this. For everyday stuff (like running a game), it is average at best. A Core 2 CPU could run circles around it in many game-related tasks.

 

i chose ps3 because:

blu-ray (not an add-on)
1080P support
wireless controllers with NO "AA" BATTERIES (lightweight)
sixaxis control
on-line is free
folding@home (supporting health research)
all the possibilities and potential it has as a machine

the xbox is a pure gaming machine, yes u can add on a hd dvd, but who likes add-ons?? when i buy a system i dont want to have to go out and buy extras.

i have played both systems extensively, though xbox360 has and will always have more games, no ps3 game has pushed the system to its full potential yet.
Though Gran TurismoHD looks amazing and will be even better when the full version arrives.

i havent read into the xbox 360 elite yet, what does it offer in addition to the "old" xbox 360?

 

just an hdmi port for 1080p support and a 120 gig hdd

 

A lot of people would rather save that money though, and buy a gaming console for *games*, and then, if they need one, buy a dedicated HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player separately.
Or to turn your question around, the 360 is a pure gaming machine. Why should gamers spend extra money buying a machine that does things they don't need? It works both ways.

I agree with you, the PS3 starts looking attractive if you're planning to buy a blu-ray player anyway.
But if you only want to play games, it's a lot of money to pay for something you're not interested in.

 

I voted 360 because I am sure as most people have said:
-Xbox Live
-Cheaper Tag
-Better Selection
-More owners
-Halo 3

 

I'm guessing most of you don't realize the 360 has 1080p support without the hdmi connection? It even supports it through component connection! Ever heard of the HD VGA cable that outputs in true native 720 and 1080p? Include the HD DVD player and you can watch HD dvds in 1080p plus it up res's your standard dvds to those upper resolutions as well. You can buy a 360 premium with a HD DVD player on ebay for under 600 bucks this very moment! You don't need the elite for anything other than the larger hard drive, period. Assuming you have a VGA connection on your flat panel.

Get your facts straight.

 

I vote for PS3, time will prove it's power, and will get cheaper as well

 

so you vote for the future of the ps3? Okay, I vote for the future of the ps4. It will probably be better at some point, but that doesn't help us now does it? That sounded mean....I just wanna say we are talking about at present, not eventually.

 

We're not talking about the "present", we're talking about the general question of which console is better.

You HAVE to consider the future of the PS3 since the 360 had the 1 year jump-start, so in all honesty comparing them only at present is ENTIRELY unfair, as many publishers had the 360 before the PS3 and thus got more into the development of it, resulting in piss-poor ports.

The PS3 is the better console because:
- Blu-Ray > HD-DVD. Due to storage (quantity) and bit-rate (quality)
- Future game developers already know that it's graphical power is far superior than the 360's ONCE it works and finally develops the coding to support all 6 components of the Core processor
- The 360 had a **** launch of games as well, relatively like the PS3's, however the quality of games in development at this time since the PS3's launch is the better than the games of development in the same timespan since the 360's. Currently the PS3 is functioning much like the 360, using only two processors since it's more flexible for ports. Blame the 360 for that.
- The Playstation Network is ENTIRELY free.
- Better media support
- Better library of downloaded games (arguable, but the rate of which it's expanding is much better than that of XBL's)
- It's attractive. Sure, it's bigger, but it's sleek, curvy piano black finish is better than the awkwardly shaped 360, not to mention the 360 adds on the lbs with the bulky brick of an A/C adapter and the beast of an HD-DVD extension (in which with that purchase the console is more expensive than the PS3)
- The fact that there is a "core" 360 system limits game development capability. See: GTA4

 

XBox 360. Quite frankly, these are supposed to be all about the games, and thats what the 360 focuses on, while the PS3 is more a supercomputer with a Bluray drive. The 360 has a ton of great games both out now, and scheduled for the future; and the PS3 is losing developers to the Xbox team.

 

Just to make a few things clear:

1) The PS3 does not come with Linux preloaded on it. You have to purchase it (Yellow Dog Linux), and wireless and 3D hardware acceleration do not work (nor does the media card reader AFAIK).
2) While Blu-Ray has more space than HD-DVD, most early reviews put HD-DVD in better quality than Blu-Ray as far as picture is concerned ( http://www.highdefdigest.com/feature_blurayvshddvd_firstcomparison.html)
3) Xbox 360 does 1080p through VGA, Component, and HDMI (with the Elite). And unlike the PS3, all games are required (by Microsoft) to be not only 720p, but also 1080i. While all PS3 SKUs support 1080p easily, most games don't make use of it. Also, if you have a 1080i HDTV (like an older one, especially rear-projections), the PS3 will downscale a 720p game DOWN to 480p, or DVD/Wii quality. The Xbox 360 will output 1080i just fine.
4) Using VGA, the Xbox 360 can give you several resolutions, including 720p, 1080p, and several in-between resolutions that you would expect from a computer. It will also up-scale DVDs to higher resolutions. HOWEVER, VGA is still an analog format, and like component, does not feature as crisp of a picture at 1080p as HDMI or DVI (digital formats), nor does it support HDCP, which will eventually be required HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies.

 

Actually it's starting to reverse.

Check out the recent SCEA Gamer's Event.

No, it's free, and who cares about the 3d hardware acceleration? That's what the PS3 games are for.

Is this really a NEGATIVE point? You're pointing out a flaw with YDL, which is actually in itself a huge advantage to the PS3.

This doesn't statistically make any sense whatsoever. Besides, that review (in August 1st, 2006?!?! honestly!) was based on the very first Blu-Ray releases. The higher bitrate itself is the determinant that Blu-Ray has the better quality.

I've seen both on the same films on the same TV. I know.

Ouch, with the Elite. Too bad that makes up for a vast, vast minority. Besides, the PS3 does it with Component and HDMI. Sure it doesn't have a VGA output (honestly, who gives a flying ****) but it has many more outputs than the 360 altogether.

Durr. 1080i on 720p/1080i televisions are actually an upscaled 720p picture. That's why those TVs actually can't play 1080p either, because they only actually have 720 (sometimes 768 or something like that) lines of resolution.

1080i has been known to be the worst high-def gaming resolution as well. Everyone knows 720p>1080i. 720p: 60fps, 1080i: 60/2fps w/ upscaled picture.

1080p only supports 24fps, at max 30. Only the most top end televisions are coming out with 1080p/60 -- and I think it's just the ones that take in HDMI 1.3.

I'll give you this. However if your television doesn't take 720p, it's probably about time to get one. PS2 and DVDs are now upscaled to 1080 though (1.8 firmware update released today).

So does the PS3 via DVI or HDMI, minus the "in-between resolutions", whatever the **** that means.

Yup. VGA looks like ****. I was about to say it until I read this part.

So, great. If you have a 16:10 monitor that only takes in VGA, the 360 is for you. Have fun with it.

 

It's not a flaw of YDL, Sony deliberately restricted access of custom installed OS'es to this hardware, and in addition they can only use 256MB of memory and access one of the SPEs. This greatly limits what custom software can be run on the machine.

I was thinking of buying a PS3 mainly as a High Def media center, but the lack of wireless, 3D acceleration and the card reader all make it significantly less attractive.

 

http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/index.php?submit=software&submitimg[software][ydl]=1
The free version comes with no support and no guarantees that it will work, but it's there if you know what you're doing with Linux. Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that Bluetooth is not usable out of the box, and you have to have Component or HDMI cables to use it. Wi-fi support has been added, so I'll concede that.

It is a negative point for many people. If Sony wanted an OS to run on their machine, they should have made it run correctly. Sony doesn't make a computer with hardware that Windows won't run on without either telling Microsoft how the hardware works or creating their own drivers.

Bitrates alone don't mean much. The codec makes more of a difference than bitrate, which is why a 128kbps AAC file sounds better than a 128kbps mp3 file. This is why many people use 192kbps if they use mp3s, but many audiophiles stick to better formats such as ogg vorbis and FLAC because they have higher quality. Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2, which is basically a DVD format with with a higher bitrate. HD-DVD uses VC-1, which is a codec designed from the ground up for HD content. While MPEG-2 has gotten better over the months since the initial releases, the fact still remains that many movies out there are worse looking than their HD-DVD counterparts. Here is a more recent article if you would like.

And I love how Sony is nice enough to provide you with those cables. Honestly, you pay $600 for a hi-def machine (that not only games in hi-def, but also views hi-def movies), and Sony gives you a crappy Composite cable? The 360 comes with an integrated composite and Component cable, and the Elite has the same cable PLUS an HDMI cable included (at least $50), and it still costs over $100 less. And actually, I can't see how the PS3 has more outputs than the 360 overall, when they're the same except that 360 supports VGA, but maybe I'm missing something.

I still don't understand how this comes as any consolation to the early HD adopters who have a 1080i TV. Personally, my dorm building has one HDTV, and it is an early 1080i-only TV. I can hook my Xbox 360 up to it and still enjoy hi-def gaming, and it doesn't look as good as on my 720p TV, but it's still hi-def.

So why do you love 1080p so much then? Do you have a brand new 1080p TV with HDMI 1.3?

PS3 only supports DVI through an HDMI to DVI adapter, not natively. What I mean by "in-between resolutions" is that using VGA, you can set the resolution to 1366x768, which is what most TVs native res actually is (rather than 720p, which is 1280x720). VGA also means that you can hook the 360 up to a monitor and game at high resolutions even in 4:3 mode if your computer monitor happens to be 4:3.

Actually, many people say that it looks better than Component, and a recent Xbox 360 update made the picture clarity and color saturation much better. Of course, HDMI still looks better, but it's digital and the real difference comes in 1080p.

 

The irony of this is you say all the features that make the PS3 a home media center are unnecessary. All a console is needed for is gaming, but then you have the ignorance to criticize the PS3 becuase of potential bugs in YDL. Besides, ask ANY current YDL user if they're not happy with it. There's a reason why it's so popular. The fact is that it's a beneficial OS for the PS3. It makes sense that component or HDMI cables are needed to use it - the thing needs an extremely high resolution.

What a slanted point. Microsoft's purpose for Windows is to be an operating system. I don't see the 360 doing anything near this, so shut your trap. It's not an OS that the PS3 supports. It can run MANY OSs in the future. YDL just happened to be the first and here you are complaining about that as if it's a feasible issue with the PS3.

No. MPEG-2 is only one supported codec.

A film with 1080p AVC MPEG-4: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeandeadmanschest.html

A film with 1080p VC-1 codec: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/lettersfromiwojima.html

 

Just keep it cool and friendly please

 

lol dontcha jus love these fanboy fights?

regarding display potential

honestly, the average console gamer probably won't have such high def TVs for a while til it becomes cheaper worldwide. they are still very expensive and their benefits are limited to movies and games, not sure about tv and especially tv worldwide.

well at least this topic keeps this argument from spreading. I gave up on these pointless arguments a long time ago. neither one of you will win cuz you are trying to convince the other who is adamant about their stance. and now using insults is when the futility of the argument begins to show

theyre both good consoles....

 

For the last generation, this was true. However Sony is pushing the PS3 as much as a marketing tool for Blu-Ray as it is as a console. Gaming is not all that matters for this machine. However, it plays Blu Ray perfectly well, and for the moment at least Linux and 'true' media center functionality are not important for most PS3 owners, and if the market demands it Sony could unlock all kinds of extra functionality. But, we are a tech enthusiast community, not the majority of console owners and whatever Sony could do, they haven't done it yet. Lack of this functionality might not impact the overall sales significantly, but it does make the PS3 less attractive to us.

As you mentioned the 360 is crap for this too, but I wasn't claiming that the 360 is better in this respect, merely that the Linux functionality of the PS3 isn't all it's cracked up to be.

There are two senses of the word bargain here, the PS3 fulfils one, but not the other. To give a stupid example say they bundled the PSP with 500GBs of solid state storage and sold it for $500, it would be a bargain in that you would be recieving very expensive cutting edge hardware for less than the manufacturing/dev costs, however the gaming experience you got from the hardware would not be good value.

The PS3 is obviously different, in that it has the promise to eventually produce games which are significantly better in terms of graphics, physics or AI than those on the 360. However these titles aren't here yet, and so the machine is CURRENTLY too expensive to be a bargain gaming experience.

I agree that it isn't an important, but most computer monitors are 4:3.

I'm not sure about this, until recently I was using a Sony 24" CAD CRT monitor and the VGA input was pretty good, and BNC was almost the equal of HDMI.

 

In the interest of stopping a flame war, I'm not going to go in and quote everything you (Raiser Roofer) said and try to prove you wrong again. What I am going to say, is keep the childish comments to yourself. DO NOT refer to me as retarded, DO NOT refer to my life as sad because I don't have the most uber-cool new technology, and DO NOT insult me again. I WILL NOT be as nice the next time. I never said anything about the PS3's functionality being unnecessary; it's one of the reasons I like it. I like computers, and the more I have, the better, and the PS3 would make a good third (actually 4th) computer for me to lay around, especially considering I'm an avid Linux user.

But to make a few things clear, the "bugs" as you call them in YDL are due to hardware vendor support, and will be the same with any OS offered on the PS3 in the future, as the only OS they will surely be able to secure on the PS3 will be Linux-based, which features the same general kernel (where most of the Linux drivers are stored). Until Sony releases drivers or hardware specs, no future OS will work with all the hardware. Also, 4:3 computer monitors are quite common, much more common than widescreen monitors. Do you even know what 4:3 means? The 360 will natively output to 1080i, which is what I meant when I said all games will support 1080i (and in fact 1080i is lower quality than 720p so a max of 720p on a game does not hinder its 1080i performance, even according to you). And you don't have to listen to me when I say that VGA is better than component; source 1, source 2. It really depends on your TV, and VGA will upscale DVDs.

Also, could you point me to a good 720p HDTV for under $200? I have yet to see one of these great deals.

 

Way to link an article that is almost a year old

 

Way to quote a post that's 4 days old and has been discussed for a whole page.

 

I mean the future of current PS3, not a PS4.

See the new firmware 1.80 and how it added great features to current and future PS3 owners.

1. Upscaling game or DVD output to 1080p
2. You can now copy saved data from PlayStation® format software and PlayStation®2 format software to a memory card or a memory card (8MB) (for PlayStation®2).
3. You can now display images or play music or video files that are stored on a personal computer or digital video recorder with DLNA Media Server functionality over a network.
4. You can now connect a USB printer to print images.
Using remote play outside the home (via the Internet)
You can now use remote play over the Internet.
5. Video
o Super-White and x.v.Color output are now supported.
o Downscaled output of Blu-ray Discs is now supported. When 720p is selected as the video output setting of the PS3™ system, Blu-ray Discs that were recorded in 1080p or 1080i resolution can be played in 720p resolution.
6. Game
You can now move copy-prohibited saved data for PlayStation® format software and PlayStation®2 format software to a PS3™ system

And much more, check it here http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=1545920

 

the debate between the 360 and the ps3 boils down to two things: online features and hardware. And if you want the latest and greatest harware i would recommend the ps3, but for the best online experience the 360 wins.

 

The hardware really is a subject of controversy.
If you have read my guide you would know...

 

Why Xbox offers better online? I'm asking since I never used it.

 

Xbox live gold is pretty slick, the downside for me is that you have to pay. It's not so much the cost but the principle, I don't like having to pay for somthing I have been doing on PC for free for the past 10 years.

I haven't tried the PS3's online multiplayer so I can't comment, but I have heard others complaining about it.

 

yeah I have only heard complaints about PS3's online service, I haven't tried it either. I've heard its hard to find friends and games.

I understand what your talking about though, with paying for live service. But for the quality of the service, $50 a year is not bad at all.

And Arabian, some things i like about xbox live: the arcade- gives a place to play some casual games which is nice every once in a while, well integrated with the 360 and all of its games, easy to find friends and games to join, ability to play with pc gamers (not sure if this is available now but with Vista its possible and I'm not sure if the PS3 has this ability), and there is a wide variety of things available for download in the Marketplace including movie rentals that offer hi def movies.
Although since you do pay for this service it would be nice if Microsoft would give you a free rental or something every once in a while, but they don't.

 

I'm used to the PS controls so I can't be bothered going over to the different XBOX system despite the better graphics.

 

Well the 360 might not always have better graphics, it's GPU is significantly more advanced than the G70, and the eDram helps with AA and AF, but as programmers get more used to the Cell they will be able to use it to do some of the rendering because it has such good FP performance.

 

So the real question just came to my mind, can't Sony ship a newer PS3 with more ram and and more advanced gpu now?

 

They could, but I doubt that they would. The PS3 launch had enough bad publicity and the price is high enough that a lot of people would be pretty ****** off if suddenly PS3 games started coming out which wouldn't run on the original hardware. Also devices like that haven't got a history of being very succesful, they aren't quite the same but the Mega CD and CD32 were big flops for Sega when the original Genesis/Megadrive sold very well.

Also, I think the Cell in the PS3 may be able to write directly to the VRAM, so it kind of has 512MB of RAM.

 

i see the beyond3d article on the xenos is quoted here....very good. that is a really worth while read if you are interested. it is long, but i think they explain things very well.

its probably one of the better write ups i have read ever.

i dont know if its been mentioned already, but RSX is essentially a G70 gpu. it is very similar to the 7800GTX 512 which was basically a phantom of a card when it arrived, but its 550Mhz core clock put it much higher than the preceeding 7800GTX and it was quite a power house. i believe RSX is essentially the same...even the clock speeds.

now the G70 is old hat in the PC realm, but it should serve the PS3 very well, it has a lot of raw power....and should be allowed to stretch its legs a little without the overheads generally associated with windows and its API's

 

Nice info about the PS3 GPU, so what's more poweful GPU now? Elite or PS3?

 

I have a bunch of PS games around so I'll stay with sony just so that I can play them, and I've already been caught in the hooks of what will probably (but not certainly) be PS3 exclusive series/titles.

 

Elite is pretty much the same as any other xbox, the only differences with the elite are an HDMI/HDCP chip on the board, a slight change of component layout (though the components are basically the same) and a bigger HDD. Consoles don't really get performance upgrades.

 

Cool montage here

I'm encouraging people to get 360s so then multiplayer games are on as I have a 360 controller Dodgy logic I know

 

Excuse my early morning stupidity, but what? Do you mean you have a 360 controller on PC?

 

Of course. I use the 360 controller for racing and Pro Evo when I have a spare 5 min. It does have a usb connector

See this guide

 

I didn't think there were going to be many (if any) games that supported cross platform multiplayer.

 

I usually avoid console threads, but here is all the info you ever wanted on the insides of an xbox 360 including the Xenos.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2610&p=1

Both graphics are ok, the PS3 effectivly has a 7800 series chip in it which is fairly simialr. Ofc their weak points are their CPUs.