Support NeoGAF

[nib95]

Look, a bunch of people trying to rewrite history again.

Nope, 360 is easier to develop for because it is more powerful at mostly any metric. Period.
Sony throw a lot of money to the right studio, Naughtydog, to max PS3 capabilities. Microsoft throw that money to Kinect bullshit.

But no one, with a minimal of technical knowledge, would ever say PS3 is better, hardware wise, than 360. Because it isn't.

Get over it and play games.

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

The reason the raw performance figures did not line up with multi platform titles is because Cell and the PS3's RSX were notoriously difficult to develop for. Non unified split ram, multiples SPE's, less overall memory to work with etc. The GPU was actually weaker, and could only overcome it piggy backing off some heavy handed Cell SPE usage. Sony first party had the time and development resources to do this, which is why PS3 first party titles are the best looking and most technically impressive last generation.

 

[omonimo]

Look, a bunch of people trying to rewrite history again.

Nope, 360 is easier to develop for because it is more powerful at mostly any metric. Period.
Sony throw a lot of money to the right studio, Naughtydog, to max PS3 capabilities. Microsoft throw that money to Kinect bullshit.

But no one, with a minimal of technical knowledge, would ever say PS3 is better, hardware wise, than 360. Because it isn't.

Get over it and play games.

What it has to do more power to easy to develop? There are things on ps3 can be handle better, like AF or SSAO or physic where 360 exceed in the transparancies. But I'm not sure in what else 360 is superior to the ps3 exception for the transparancies.

 

[AmFreak]

But no one, with a minimal of technical knowledge, would ever say one is better than the other, hardware wise. Because such a general statement is bull.

FTFY

 

[entremet]

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

The reason the raw performance figures did not line up with multi platform titles is because Cell and the PS3's RSX were notoriously difficult to develop for. Non unified split ram, multiples SPE's, less overall memory to work with etc. The GPU was actually weaker, and could only overcome it piggy backing off some heavy handed Cell SPE usage. Sony first party had the time and development resources to do this, which is why PS3 first party titles are the best looking and most technically impressive last generation.

This makes sense. And also is pretty fair given the PS3 released a full year later.

However, given the current generation, it's crazy how big the power difference is for two comparable systems released virtually at the same time.

 

[ethomaz]

CPU: PS3 by a long shot
GPU: 360 but not that far
Memory: 360 but not that far

Overall: PS3... the CPU advantage is so bigger than the GPU/Memory combined on 360.

 

[nib95]

This makes sense. And also is pretty fair given the PS3 released a full year later.

However, given the current generation, it's crazy how big the power difference is for two comparable systems released virtually at the same time.

Yeap, very different situation now.

PS4 | GPU: 1.84 Tflops and CPU: 100 Glops, Total 1.94 Tflops

Xbox One | GPU: 1.31 Tflops and CPU: 109 Gflops, Total 1.41 Tflops

PS4 based on raw performance is 38% more powerful than the Xbox One, but without any of the previous issues that plagued the PS3, and with a whole host of other advantages over the XO. This time it's the PS4 with the unified ram, the higher ram bandwidth, the higher ram availability, considerably more compute capability etc. It's a completely different situation.

 

[AmFreak]

This makes sense. And also is pretty fair given the PS3 released a full year later.

However, given the current generation, it's crazy how big the power difference is for two comparable systems released virtually at the same time.

It's not really crazy, it's a consequence of neither of them trying.
What's a 40% difference on the gpu side (ps4) or a 10% difference on the cpu side (One), when they throw much faster hardware after you in the pc market?

 

[dr. apocalipsis]

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

The reason the raw performance figures did not line up with multi platform titles is because Cell and the PS3's RSX were notoriously difficult to develop for. Non unified split ram, multiples SPE's, less overall memory to work with etc. The GPU was actually weaker, and could only overcome it piggy backing off some heavy handed Cell SPE usage. Sony first party had the time and development resources to do this, which is why PS3 first party titles are the best looking and most technically impressive last generation.

Eh, let's talk about efficiency. All those SPE numbers look cool on paper, but there is no way you can use even a fraction of that compute power on real world gaming workloads. You can mask some things, but no software wizard can fix some hardware flaws. DMA and that memory subset is just terrible for any multicore system.

Even 360 GPU efficiency was around 60%, IIRC, with everything placed correctly.

Another fallacy is PS3 having a better CPU, what is a blatant lie. Xenos was a mediocre CPU with 3 cores and 1MB of cache. Cell is a bad CPU with 512kb of cache and single (same) core. For most CPU workloads, xenon will perform better by a league. Trying to measure CPU using GFLOPS is somehting terrible to do. That way you are only calculating VMX capabilities.

360 have way better GPU, way better CPU, and PS3 only have SPEs to close the gap somehow. Gimped by terrible architeture, not compute power.

There are people replying with subject interpretations about art one question about performance. Given a same code, it will run better on 360 most of the times. ND doing U3 on 360 could have delivered better IQ with less investment.

It doesn't matter if BETAMAX doesn't have Godfather Trilogy or Rocco Siffredi Antology, it looks better than VHS.

There is a question about wich one delivered better graphics, wich is a subjective question mostly invalidated by art direction. There is no question about wich machine performs better. Raw performance, performance per transitor, performance per watt. This revisionism should stop. Years ago this was funny, today is just some people trying to impose a lie.

 

[nib95]

Eh, let's talk about efficiency. All those SPE numbers look cool on paper, but there is no way you can use even a fraction of that compute power on real world gaming workloads. You can mask some things, but no software wizard can fix some hardware flaws. DMA and that memory subset is just terrible for any multicore system.

Even 360 GPU efficiency was around 60%, IIRC, with everything placed correctly.

Another fallacy is PS3 having a better CPU, what is a blatant lie. Xenos was a mediocre CPU with 3 cores and 1MB of cache. Cell is a bad CPU with 512kb of cache and single (same) core. For most CPU workloads, xenon will perform better by a league.

360 have way better GPU, way better CPU, and PS3 only have SPEs to close the gap somehow. Gimped by terrible architeture, not compute power.

There are people replying with subject interpretations about art one question about performance. Given a same code, it will run better on 360 most of the times. ND doing U3 on 360 could have deliver better IQ with less investment.

It doesn't matter if BETAMAX doesn't have Godfather Trilogy or Rocco Siffredi Antology, it looks better than VHS.

There is a question about wich one delivered better graphics, wich is a subjective question mostly invalidated by art direction. There is no question about wich machine performs better. Raw performance, performance per transitor, performance per watt. This revisionism should stop. Years ago this was funny, today is just some people trying to impose a lie.

There is so much wrong with this post, as there was with your last. The flop count numbers I posted don't exactly lie. On a side note, just go and compare some development presentations of some of the most technically proficient PS3 exclusives with those from some top 360 one's, and see how work load is shared and spread between the GPU and CPU, and how much more Sony developers were able to offload on to the Cell's SPE's than Microsoft developers were with the 360's CPU.

I presume you think PS3 exclusives look as good as they do purely because of development talent and nothing to do with it's hardware advantages? Or do you not think they're more technically adept than 360 exclusives at all?

 

[dr. apocalipsis]

There is so much wrong with this post, as there was with your last. The flop count numbers I posted don't exactly lie.

Trying to prove CPU superiority using GFLOP metric only tells one of this:

1. You have no idea of what are you talking about.

2. You know what are you talking about, but are just trying to goad ignorant masses.

3. Mix of 1 and 2.

On a side note, just go and compare some development presentations of some of the most technically proficient PS3 exclusives with those from some top 360 one's, and see how work load is shared and spread between the GPU and CPU, and how much more Sony developers were able to offload on to the Cell's SPE's than Microsoft developers were with the 360's CPU.

I'm cool with developers using whatever they have. But this doesn't change the fact that PS3 does almost the same than 360 but in a very unefficient and wasteful way.

 

[zebaz08]

Easier to develope for =/= more powerful

And to everyone talking about multiplats , isn't GTA V the most technichal demanding game from last gen? and that one looked better on PS3.

 

[kingkaiser]

For a change two awesome looking Xbox 360 games

Red Dead Redemption

Banjo Kazzooie: Nuts and bolts

 

[Bold One]

PS3 with prep time

DAT FUCKING REFERENCE

 

[entremet]

Nuts and Bolts was gorgeous. Game got tedious, however.

 

[HTupolev]

Trying to prove CPU superiority using GFLOP metric only tells one of this:

1. You have no idea of what are you talking about.

2. You know what are you talking about, but are just trying to goad ignorant masses.

3. Mix of 1 and 2.

...Unless the point is that the CPU can be leveraged toward graphical tasks that are heavy in patterned parallel computations.

 

[nib95]

Trying to prove CPU superiority using GFLOP metric only tells one of this:

1. You have no idea of what are you talking about.

2. You know what are you talking about, but are just trying to goad ignorant masses.

3. Mix of 1 and 2.

Lol, yes, ignore all the other parts of my post, and everything that readily disapproves your notions.

...Unless the point is that the CPU can be leveraged toward graphical tasks that are heavy in patterned parallel computations.

CELL is shitty at "being a CPU", yes. But that's not the point.

I don't think he gets that side of it….

 

[hodgy100]

Look, a bunch of people trying to rewrite history again.

Nope, 360 is easier to develop for because it is more powerful at mostly any metric. Period.
Sony throw a lot of money to the right studio, Naughtydog, to max PS3 capabilities. Microsoft throw that money to Kinect bullshit.

But no one, with a minimal of technical knowledge, would ever say PS3 is better, hardware wise, than 360. Because it isn't.

Get over it and play games.

The 360s hardware was better. It was much easier to develop for. But the ps3 is more powerful. No question.

 

[longdi]

I blame Nvidia being a corporate dick once again. Cell + something like a GT8700 level would raise hell! But they sold Kutaragi an aged old product while they were developing the new G80 secretly behind his back. Nobody expected Nvidia to launch a unified shader GPU back then, not even closest pal Sony. Kutaragi was so trustful of Jen, he let him have 20mins to himself at Sony's conference to market Nvidia.

And that is reason Nvidia is out of the console race now and forever, you see them desperately trying to push their Shield shit.

 

[Contra11]

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

I hope you dont use the same logic to compare between AMD and Nvidia PC graphic cards

 

[KernelPanic]

I blame Nvidia being a corporate dick once again. Cell + something like a GT8700 level would raise hell! But they sold Kutaragi an aged old product while they were developing the new G80 secretly behind his back. Nobody expected Nvidia to launch a unified shader GPU back then, not even closest pal Sony. Kutaragi was so trustful of Jen, he let him have 20mins to himself at Sony's conference to market Nvidia.

Wasn't G80 too big/hot/power hungry/expensive to be used in the PS3?

If Sony really wanted a unified shader GPU from them, I imagine they could have done it.

 

[dr. apocalipsis]

...Unless the point is that the CPU can be leveraged toward graphical tasks that are heavy in patterned parallel computations.

Why would anyone want to do that? You have a dedicated part to do that better and more efficiently.

No latency and bandwidth nightmares. Customized parts. Dedicated hardware acceleration for especific tasks.

Vs.

Cell (Discontinued).

 

[Barry Burton]

PS3 exclusives: GoW3, Uncharted 2/3, Last of Us.

360 for (most) multiplats.

 

[Farslain]

I thought Halo 4 had some surprisingly beautiful visuals at times.

Then I played The Last of Us, and well, nothing beats that.

 

[dr. apocalipsis]

Also, I see how many people blame Nvidia for PS3's flaws, what is insane.

It was Sony's fault for keeping at any cost an outdated design as Cell. Cell was a cool idea before unified shaders bursted into panorama and turned into gaming/computing holy grail.

Blame Nvidia, blame memory setup (the same setup as current high end PC's), blame lazyness, blame everything but Kutaragi's design.

Any other conjecture is just brand loyalism.

 

[dragonbane]

What do you base this on? Curious to know because everything done in those games technologically can be achieved on the 360 and was surpassed by multiplatform games.

There is no multiplatform game that overall looks better than Beyond or Uncharted 3 IMO. More technically impressive like GTA V or Crysis 3 maybe, but overall not as good looking. Also not sure how many multiplatform games even used physically based shaders, which Beyond uses for example.

 

[@Wreck]

ps3

 

[vcc]

It's not really crazy, it's a consequence of neither of them trying.
What's a 40% difference on the gpu side (ps4) or a 10% difference on the cpu side (One), when they throw much faster hardware after you in the pc market?

Last gen was a massive money pit for both of them. I don't think they are up for a repeat. They probably aimed for the most power $300 wholesale could buy and the XB1 made some compromises for other features.

 

[vcc]

Also, I see how many people blame Nvidia for PS3's flaws, what is insane.

It was Sony's fault for keeping at any cost an outdated design as Cell. Cell was a cool idea before unified shaders bursted into panorama and turned into gaming/computing holy grail.

Blame Nvidia, blame memory setup (the same setup as current high end PC's), blame lazyness, blame everything but Kutaragi's design.

Any other conjecture is just brand loyalism.

Cell was a dead end, krazy Kutaragi had a hard on for exotic hardware. The PS3 did have some very impressive graphical show cases.

 

[HTupolev]

Why would anyone want to do that? You have a dedicated part to do that better and more efficiently.

No latency and bandwidth nightmares. Customized parts. Dedicated hardware acceleration for especific tasks.

Vs.

Cell (Discontinued).

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion. This thread isn't about which console had a more sane design, it's about how computationally capable each console was.

The only meaningful relevant thing you've brought to the discussion regarding CELL's capability is your claim that "but there is no way you can use even a fraction of that compute power on real world gaming workloads", which isn't particularly true unless a lot of developers have flat-out lied about CELL's performance (KZ2's technical discussions suggest that for some graphical tasks, CELL even manages to compete with RSX, sometimes being a tradeoff with moderately lower op throughput but higher precision).

 

[K' Dash]

I must have played another version of GOW3, the "meh, this looks ok" version, but to each his own.

Also, people saying Beyond: seriously? A long cutscene plagued with QTEs?

UC3 and TLoU are the best looking games on PS3 hands down, nothing can touch them.

 

[Sanke__]

...does it matter?

Nope

 

[Xenon]

PS3 more powerful but hard to get the most out of it.

360 overall better system with more RAM.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

After Uncharted 3 and The Last of Us why is this even a debate? Yes Halo 4 looks amazing but it doesn't hold a candle to those PS3 exclusives. Especially when you consider how Uncharted 2 and 3 managed to maintain those incredible visuals with huge set pieces involving shifts in gravity and full moving environments with as much as 90 degree tilts!

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I must have played another version of GOW3, the "meh, this looks ok" version, but to each his own.

Also, people saying Beyond: seriously? A long cutscene plagued with QTEs?

UC3 and TLoU are the best looking games on PS3 hands down, nothing can touch them.

Doesn't matter if Beyond was "a long cutscene", what matters is that it's insane environments and character renders were displayed in-game and not by pre rendered cutscenes.

 

[GameAddict411]

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

The reason the raw performance figures did not line up with multi platform titles is because Cell and the PS3's RSX were notoriously difficult to develop for. Non unified split ram, multiples SPE's, less overall memory to work with etc. The GPU was actually weaker, and could only overcome it piggy backing off some heavy handed Cell SPE usage. Sony first party had the time and development resources to do this, which is why PS3 first party titles are the best looking and most technically impressive last generation.

these numbers are irrelevant, it's not apples to apples comparison like the PS4 and the XO, the X360 had a GPU far beyond what the PS3 had(it was ancient in comparison like for example an HD 6950 and an HD 7870). it was basically the GTX titan of the time. the EDRAM made several other advantages that the PS3 can't even touch. the shared fast memory pool, another advantage.


the PS3 had the cell processor, while really powerful did nothing when it comes to third party games. the difference in some games was jarring, in fact skyrim at some point becomes unplayable due to the ram split and the weaker GPU. the reason why so many first party games looked so good on the PS3 is because of talent and great programming. they took advantage of the pros and worked around the cons(hence why most games are really small in size). the X360 on the other hand was not as lucky, yeah it had some beautiful games but the talent to take the graphics to the other level was simply not there. i am 100% confident that if ND, SMS, or QD worked on the X360 games would have looked better.



there are a lot of developers on these boards, i am pretty sure they will say something similar.



edit: after turning my attention to these number, i don't think either of these consoles were able to reach half of that theoretical figures. 400 GFLOPs for the PS3? my laptop GPU runs console ports at 1080p with added effects and its not even 400 GFLOPS.

 

[TomRL]

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

The reason the raw performance figures did not line up with multi platform titles is because Cell and the PS3's RSX were notoriously difficult to develop for. Non unified split ram, multiples SPE's, less overall memory to work with etc. The GPU was actually weaker, and could only overcome it piggy backing off some heavy handed Cell SPE usage. Sony first party had the time and development resources to do this, which is why PS3 first party titles are the best looking and most technically impressive last generation.

Well done, I've been meaning to find those numbers. Discussion is officially over now.

 

[nib95]

I am 100% confident that if ND, SMS, or QD worked on the X360 games would have looked better.

This is such a hilarious cop out theory. As if to suggest all developers working on Microsoft exclusives are incompetent versus those working on Sony exclusives. It's such an illogical viewpoint. Developers like Quantic Dream, and even Naughty Dog to an extent, prior to the PS3, weren't exactly the highest tier tech wizards. The Jak games look excellent, but imo they're still not God of War 2, Gran Turismo 4, Metal Gear Solid 2/3, Killzone etc level. Likewise Omikron and Fahrenheit aren't exactly graphical benchmark pushers either.

At some point you've got to let common sense take stage and appreciate the fact that actually, the PS3's hardware, specifically Cell/SPE optimisations and customisations, allowed PS3 exclusives developers to extract the kind of technical prowess they did. It's the superior, but far more complex hardware, as much as it is the developers.

 

[GameAddict411]

This is such a hilarious cop out theory. As if to suggest all developers working on Microsoft exclusives are incompetent versus those working on Sony exclusives. It's such an illogical viewpoint. Developers like Quantic Dream, and even Naughty Dog to an extent, prior to the PS3, weren't exactly the highest tier tech wizards. The Jak games look excellent, but they're still no God of War 2, Gran Turismo 4, Metal Gear Solid 2/3, Killzone etc. Likewise Omikron and Fahrenheit aren't exactly graphical benchmark pushers either.

At some point you've got to let common sense take stage and appreciate the fact that actually, the PS3's hardware, specifically Cell/SPE optimisations and customisations, allowed PS3 exclusives developers to extract the kind of technical prowess they did.

its not a cop out theory, you don't have any merits to say that they can't run at the same graphical level on the X360. its impossible to make direct comparison with first party games, when its comes to third party games.....oh i don't even need to say anything.

edit: i remember reading a thread(beyond3D? definitely not neogaf) far in the PS3 and X360 early days where a developers made a comparison working with the dev kits. he concluded that X360 was by far a better machine.

 

[nib95]

its not a cop out theory, you don't have any merits to say that they can't run at the same graphical level on the X360. its impossible to make direct comparison with first party games, when its comes to third party games.....oh i don't even need to say anything.

Whilst somewhat true, the best evidence is in the actual games. The PS3 generally and mostly consistently, has the best looking and more technically proficient exclusives, even those that are from developers that are not known for being historically benchmark pushing or elite tier.

edit: i remember reading a thread(beyond3D? definitely not neogaf) far in the PS3 and X360 early days where a developers made a comparison working with the dev kits. he concluded that X360 was by far a better machine.

And that is likely still true today. A console that is a bitch to work with, and takes so much additional time and unique optimisation to extract the most out of, is not an intelligently designed console. Add to that, early on many devs were negative on the PS3 as they didn't quite have a grasp on the Cell and how best to utilise it's SPE's. Only later on in the console's life did developers start getting to grips with, and as a result, get far better graphical output too.

 

[velociraptor]

It's not clear to me, sorry. I see A TON of multiplatform games, and all I see is Xbox games performing incredibly better, so much better in fact that it's not even funny.

Exclusives is just a subjective topic, since, if we use Naughty Dog's own words, graphics are just bells and whistles, and it's possible to mask a lot of weaknesses of a console with tricks, which ND are experts in pulling (not a bad thing).

The only objective thing to compare IMHO are multiplatform games, because they show you the real weaknesses of a console.

None of those multiplatform games look better than any of the exclusives.

Hell, GT6 runs at 1440x1080p resolution.

That itself is insane.

 

[dr. apocalipsis]

At some point you've got to let common sense take stage and appreciate the fact that actually, the PS3's hardware, specifically Cell/SPE optimisations and customisations, allowed PS3 exclusives developers to extract the kind of technical prowess they did. It's the superior, but far more complex hardware, as much as it is the developers.

 

[HTupolev]

the EDRAM made several other advantages that the PS3 can't even touch.

It gives the 360's GPU a BW advantage for games with small framebuffers. With larger buffers, tiling starts to trade off against the higher raw access speeds, and at the end of the day, the PS3 manages to compete just fine in the use of MSAA and such. Though 360 games continue to have some alpha advantages, it would seem.

the shared fast memory pool, another advantage.

Not in a strict sense. The split pool on PS3 is an architectural difficulty, but it means that the PS3 actually has significantly more total bandwidth available for accessing large pools. An RSX and a CELL contending over the 360's GDDR3 bus would perform like crap in many ways compared with an actual PS3 (as it stands, the memory bus available to just the RSX is comparable in speed to the 360's shared memory bus).

 

[blu]

Not really, no.

PS3 | RSX: 176 Gflops and Cell: 230 Glops, Total 406 Gflops

360 | Xenos: 240 Gflops and CPU: 77 Gflops, Total 317 Glops

PS3 based on raw performance is 28% more powerful than the 360.

That's not what I'd call 'raw performance', more like 'hypothetical performance' in one department alone (the combined fp32 ALU department). BTW, your CELL flops are for 8 SPUs, which in fact were 6 in the PS3 (available to apps), which makes the CELL figure drop to 180GFLOPS, overall flops to 356, thus a 12% difference to 360. Just saying.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

In terms of hardware based effects and processing, the 360 is the more powerful platform. The monstrous but hard to program for CELL on the PS3 gave it the flexibility to do advanced software based effects and rendering techniques which gave it certain advantages down the line over the 360. But in terms of practical of hardware based processing and rendering, 360 was the more powerful platform, as multiplats illustrated with both resolution and framer ate advantages.

 

[GameAddict411]

It gives the 360's GPU a huge BW advantage for games with small framebuffers. With larger buffers, tiling starts to trade off against the higher raw access speeds, and at the end of the day, the PS3 manages to compete just fine in the use of MSAA and such. Though 360 games continue to have some alpha advantages, it would seem.


Not in a strict sense. The split pool on PS3 is an architectural difficulty, but it means that the PS3 actually has significantly more total bandwidth available for accessing large pools. An RSX and a CELL contending over the 360's GDDR3 bus would perform like crap in many ways compared with an actual PS3 (as it stands, the memory bus available to just the RSX is comparable in speed to the 360's shared memory bus).

Apart from cod and the first uncharted I don't even recall any others games on the PS3 that used MSAA. Quiet a lot of games dropped aa Completely and resolution just to match the X360 but still ended up with performance problems. Its simply not efficient hardware, Crysis 3, the most advanced game graphics feature wise is so much superior on the X360. The crew is another proof that the Its just straight forwardly more powerful.


And don't let even begin with the GPU inside the PS3, it was a disaster considering that the PS3 launched a full year after the X360(1.5 if live outside the US).

 

[BouncyFrag]

Nuts and Bolts was gorgeous. Game got tedious, however.

I never played it. With a look?

 

[TomRL]

Hold up, the CELL is near 400GFLOPS? The PS4 Jaguar is only 102 GFLOPS.

 

[HTupolev]

Apart from cod and the first uncharted I don't even recall any others games on the PS3 that used MSAA. Quiet a lot of games dropped aa Completely and resolution just to match the X360 but still ended up with performance problems.

This list isn't exhaustive, but it should start to give you an idea.

There are LOADS of games on PS3 that use 2x hardware sampling (some of which use traditional multisample resolve, some of which use quincunx resolve), and a few with 4xMSAA.

Hold up, the CELL is near 400GFLOPS? The PS4 Jaguar is only 102 GFLOPS.

No, the CELL and RSX combined were being claimed to reach 406 GFLOPS (although as blu notes above, there are some issues with that figure, and not just in the "raw FLOPS numbers are stupid without clarification" sense).

 

[TomRL]

Oh yeah, of course.

 

[nib95]

Hold up, the CELL is near 400GFLOPS? The PS4 Jaguar is only 102 GFLOPS.

No, 400 is closer to the total Flop count including the GPU. And yes, the CPU in the new console is in many ways less capable than Cell, but it's also much easier to work with and X86 based.