Devs Problems: Lack of memory on Sony PS3 and storage on Xbox 360

[Raptor]

From product-reviews.net:

That will possibly be the only major problem for devs for both consoles in the near future.
1). Lack of memory on the PS3.
2). Lack of storage space on the Xbox 360.
Watch out for that one. It will be here sooner than you think, if not already.

But everyone, just bear this in mind. The Xbox 360, for all the bagging it gets, is really quite a powerfull piece of kit. It has 3 seperate PPC cpus, which basically equates to 6 hardware threads. It has more memory to play with, a superior GPU, and superfast bus rate.

All the BS talked about GOW pushing the 360 is almost toss. Sorry. It was only running on two thread system. And even that engine was very buggy and "heavy" at the time. If not totally overated in its own right as well.

Honestly, if MS decided to put some form of a HD disc in it, Blu Ray or HD-DVD, the damn thing would be almost future proof, with the exception of the over heating, ofcourse.
Because, as it stands, the PS3 only has the storage space over the 360. Its not anymore "advanced" at all, and in many ways, slightly less.

Full Story: product-reviews.net

[{{909}}]

thank you MS and Sony for making the console scene so bloody boring. I preferred the days when all you needed to know was if it was 8 or 16bit.

[lithho]

i wolud like to see hd dvd in the 360, maybe then it would sell more films

[Mario87]

The 360 CPU has 3 twin threaded cores, and the PS3 has 7 single threaded cores along side the PPU which controls those cores! So how the 360 has a better CPU than the PS3 is beyond me?! It might be easier to code for, but in no way does that make it better (more powerful).

Yes, Sony was stupid only putting in 256 MB of RAM for the system and 256MB of RAM for the GPU! But the CELL has 7 SPU's and a PPU controlling the SPU's, right now pretty much all games use the PPU to do all the hard work! But Sony have said that the SPU's should be the one's doing the work, and the PPU should just be controlling the SPU's, nothing more!

The power of any system is measured in the number of FLOPS (FLoating point Operations Per Second) it can handle, the more FLOPS the more powerful what your tesing. The PS3 CPU is capable of 2.0 TFLOPS (TeraFLOPS) and the 360 is capable of 1.0 TFLOPS...the figures speak for themselves.

As for 360 having a quicker bus rate, I dont know where he got those figures from...the PS3 has a 3.2GHz bus (capable of 25.6 Gbps bandwidth) and the 360 has a 700MHz bus (capable of 22.4Gbps bandwidth).

And with regards to the 360 having a better GPU, I couldn't find any info on how many FLOPS each GPU can handle, but I found some info about the RAM, bus speed, etc.

The 360 has 512MB of GDDR RAM for the GPU with a speed of 700MHz, the GPU core has a clock of 500MHz and the video memory bandwidth is 21.6Gbps.

The PS3 has 256MB of XDR RAM for the GPU with a speed of 700MHz, the GPU core has a clock speed of 550MHz and the video memory bandwidth is 22.4Gbps!

Overall they seem quite close (apart from the CPU power, where the PS3 wins hands down on that, and the available RAM where the 360 wins hands down on that!), but its all about how the developers make use of what they have!

Some parts on the 360 are better than the PS3, and vice versa!

[Fearless]

i estimate easy 300 gamesaves/files on a 20gb hd, add the arcade games and its full.

i have 6/20gb left now purely from just having gamesaves/94 arcade games.

the 120gb hardrive should resolve that if/when i get an elite.

[mysterym]

The 360 CPU has 3 twin threaded cores, and the PS3 has 7 single threaded cores along side the PPU which controls those cores! So how the 360 has a better CPU than the PS3 is beyond me?! It might be easier to code for, but in no way does that make it better (more powerful).

Yes, Sony was stupid only putting in 256 MB of RAM for the system and 256MB of RAM for the GPU! But the CELL has 7 SPU's and a PPU controlling the SPU's, right now pretty much all games use the PPU to do all the hard work! But Sony have said that the SPU's should be the one's doing the work, and the PPU should just be controlling the SPU's, nothing more!

The power of any system is measured in the number of FLOPS (FLoating point Operations Per Second) it can handle, the more FLOPS the more powerful what your tesing. The PS3 CPU is capable of 2.0 TFLOPS (TeraFLOPS) and the 360 is capable of 1.0 TFLOPS...the figures speak for themselves.

As for 360 having a quicker bus rate, I dont know where he got those figures from...the PS3 has a 3.2GHz bus (capable of 25.6 Gbps bandwidth) and the 360 has a 700MHz bus (capable of 22.4Gbps bandwidth).

And with regards to the 360 having a better GPU, I couldn't find any info on how many FLOPS each GPU can handle, but I found some info about the RAM, bus speed, etc.

The 360 has 512MB of GDDR RAM for the GPU with a speed of 700MHz, the GPU core has a clock of 500MHz and the video memory bandwidth is 21.6Gbps.

The PS3 has 256MB of XDR RAM for the GPU with a speed of 700MHz, the GPU core has a clock speed of 550MHz and the video memory bandwidth is 22.4Gbps!

Overall they seem quite close (apart from the CPU power, where the PS3 wins hands down on that, and the available RAM where the 360 wins hands down on that!), but its all about how the developers make use of what they have!

Some parts on the 360 are better than the PS3, and vice versa!

Just enjoy the games on either system mate, I don't really care which is more powerful.

[lithho]

im the same, i would have a ps3 as i had a ps1 and 2 and spent i dont know how many hours on both, BUT and this is the big one for me, apart from warhalk i have found nothing on ps3 that (a) isnt already on 360 and looking the same or running better (b) games a cheaper for 360 and im not on about downloads, and (c) the lack of rumble in the ps3 is being sorted but i cant play a driving game with out it and these are the games i spend alot of time playing. Its just not a good enough games system for me yet and i know its got all the other functions like blueray, but they dont matter at all to me, its all about the games. So even if the ps3 is the more powerful console i dont care its about the games.

[Mario87]

Just enjoy the games on either system mate, I don't really care which is more powerful.

I was just showing that the guy quoted in RAPs post is basically just speaking shite! If he's gonna say one console is better than the other, there's no need to bullshit saying that the 360 has quicker bus speeds, etc when it clearly doesn't!

I was basically picking his argument apart and prooving that he's speaking out his arse!

[lithho]

I was just showing that the guy quoted in RAPs post is basically just speaking shite! If he's gonna say one console is better than the other, there's no need to bullshit saying that the 360 has quicker bus speeds, etc when it clearly doesn't!

I was basically picking his argument apart and prooving that he's speaking out his arse!

fair enough, ive never read a post by you that isnt either informative or wrong so i will take your word for it

[Mario87]

fair enough, ive never read a post by you that isnt either informative or wrong so i will take your word for it

didn't realise all my posts were wrong mate....

I know what you mean tho! I try not to steer peeps wrong, so I either make sure I know what im posting, or I just dont post.

[ant3b]

well im enjoying pro evo on the ps3 more than xbox.. but thats about it oh and i play tekken

[fe_man2007]

Maybe I am missing the point but didnt the article actually say the 360 has a more powerful GPU not CPU ? The rest was talking about how the Cell works and the issues with it, not a saying the 360 has more muscle. Just mentioning it as HermanN's post, which is not indispute factually, seems to be addressing a statement that wasnt actually made (unless I missed it which is possible)

As I see it and I am only posting because I am bored at work and not to up the 360 or put down the PS3 is that.

1. Games on the 360 seem (to me - a punter) to be easier to develop and hence run better and are released quicker generally which is all good.

2.Various Dev's seem to be saying the same thing for what thats worth.

3. There is such a dirty PR war going on that I stuggle to believe anything I read anymore.

4. God I am bored of hearing - it only runs in 720P !! not 1080P - who cares. Seems gamers want to be like football fans and pick sides these days.

This last point has got nothing to do with this post but I fancyed a rant.

[EvilBoB]

Wow - this story is a well informed, piece of crap isn't it...

It has 3 seperate PPC cpus

NO! It has 1 cpu with 3 cores!

All the BS talked about GOW pushing the 360 is almost toss

WTF!? Now there's journalism no-no number one - "BS" and "toss" used in a sentence. Sounds more like a forum post than an official journalists quote!

the PS3 only has the storage space over the 360. Its not anymore "advanced" at all, and in many ways, slightly less.

/golfclap.... Way to go to have read the specs that were announced before either console was released.

The bot that is posting these stories should imo be disabled. Most of the stories are bollocks and not well researched. There are thousands.. no millions of websites and everyone wants to be a critic. The fact of the matter is eluded by feman in his post - people are being forced to fight over formats now and it's all "toss"

[Mario87]

Maybe I am missing the point but didnt the article actually say the 360 has a more powerful GPU not CPU ? The rest was talking about how the Cell works and the issues with it, not a saying the 360 has more muscle. Just mentioning it as HermanN's post, which is not indispute factually, seems to be addressing a statement that wasnt actually made (unless I missed it which is possible)

As I see it and I am only posting because I am bored at work and not to up the 360 or put down the PS3 is that.

1. Games on the 360 seem (to me - a punter) to be easier to develop and hence run better and are released quicker generally which is all good.

2.Various Dev's seem to be saying the same thing for what thats worth.

3. There is such a dirty PR war going on that I stuggle to believe anything I read anymore.

4. God I am bored of hearing - it only runs in 720P !! not 1080P - who cares. Seems gamers want to be like football fans and pick sides these days.

This last point has got nothing to do with this post but I fancyed a rant.

yes mate, your right, they didn't mention anything about the CPU, but I just thought that seeing as they are saying how 360 has a "superfast" bus (700MHz is NOT "superfast" (most PC's run quicker clock speeds on their RAM!), the 3.2GHz in the PS3 is "superfast") and I was disputing it, I thought I might as well cover a few other topics in case someone tries to say "yea but 360 has a better CPU than the PS3" or something! Saves me typing things out over several posts when I can just put it into one.

[ant3b]

Herman it was a very good read. mate i was intrested and i can see your point! ps3 cpu is way better in theory.. but can they put this into practice.. lets hope so.. plus the memory runs faster which can be a boost.. but there is no replacing 256mb of ram .. so this actually kick its self in the teeth

[Mario87]

yup! if only Sony had put in 512MB of RAM! Then it wouldn't have any drawbacks!

[mysterym]

Microsoft were about to put 256mb of ram into the 360, epic convinced them not to by sending them demo's showing the differences between 256mb and 512mb.

[Mario87]

yea, Epic showed MS that GoW wouldn't run properly with only 256MB, so they upped it to 512MB, and that extra 256MB of RAM per console cost them a couple of billion dollars if I remember rightly!

[Gavin M]

they could have delayed the ps3 a further 8 month and it wouldnt have mattered, its not like you would have missed out on anything special. id let my dog chew myn if she wanted to, iv only used it a handfull of times since i got it. before anyone starts i always prefered the PS over the xbox, but youv gotta admit they havent gotten off their arse's yet to do anythin good with it. i dont care how powerful a console is, i still play my ps1 now and again, and my n64, and my dreamcast, and my nintendo.
consoles were a thing of simplicity, u buy it, stick a game in and away u go, now theyv turned everyone into computer geeks, arguin over cpu's and ram.quite frankly the only kinda ram i wana see is when i smash in my pal's car on destruction derby, what a mint game that is!

[fe_man2007]

It was worth it

I think I remember reading something about Sony originally planning to not have a seperate GPU in the PS3 becuase the cell was going to be so powerful it would do everything. Then something happened and it was changed just before production and this is the reason for the very high (on paper) spec for the cell and its relatively weak (on paper) graphics - the lack of memory is somthing sony seems to always do, worked on PS2 but then there was no competition that round (xbox 1 was too little to late to be a real threat) so maybe they thought it would not be a problem this time.