PS3 OS hogs 19% more system power than 360?

[Aift]

PS3Portal.com has posted an article called "Inside the PS3" that takes a look at how the competing consoles utilize resources while running the OS in the background of games:

...Everything that one wants to do involving software on a Game Console, specifically while the user is playing games, comes at a cost. In the case of the Xbox360, this cost is approximately 2% of total CPU time and 6.25% of the Xbox360's total available RAM. Balancing these out, one could argue that MS has removed a total of 4% of the Xbox360's total available system power in order to provide these features and more which were not mentioned.

...In the case of the PS3 this equates to 25% of the available Cores on the CPU and 18.75% of the available RAM in the system. Balancing these out, one could argue that Sony has removed a total of 23% of the available system power in the PS3 for these features

Of course, this is all based on anonymous sources. The author even admits he doesn't quite know what he's talking about. But then, we are Xbox fanboys and this could be blood in the bathtub. Is MS simply better at coding than Sony (as some PS3 fans seem to fear), or is Kutaragi's time-bending 4D OS simply doing more, i.e. multi-video chat? Does hogging nearly a quarter of system resources mean the PS3's bells and whistles are coming at the expense of its games?

[Thanks Joe]

Source - www.xbox360fanboy.com

Quote:
PS3 portal has some juicy information that has come to them by way of some anonymous, yet informative sources. You know what that means: it must be true! be cautious about what you read. Even they go as far to say that all this could change before the end. But either way, the information sounds pretty insightful.

At any rate, these guys have some in-depth facts about the upcoming next-gen console. The details start out like any good diagnosis would: with a comparison! Giving you a rundown of the Xbox 360 system sets the reader up for what to expect when talking about the PS3. Some of the information regarding the behind-the-scenes processing is laid out below:

- 32MB of the 256MB of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
- 64MB of the 256MB of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
- 1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved
- 1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games have to give it up if requested)

This is about 23% of the total system power for the PS3, which is a far cry from the 4% set aside for the Xbox 360's OS. Of course we still don't know what kind of applications Sony has in mind for this nearly-quarter allotment, or if that's even going to be the final specification! Even so, we'd like to believe they have a lot in store for gamers when it comes to the operating system's functionality.

[Thanks, Joe]

Source - www.ps3fanboy.com

[ONI 23]

Well that sure does open the door for alot of good speculation. Interesting stats, Thanks for the info Aift!

[trj156]

haha, both got the same info but twisted it around to make their respective console sound better.

[TRIGGER M4N]

I Don't believe Sony and there huge HYPE campaign.

[Curry]

Originally Posted by trj156

haha, both got the same info but twisted it around to make their respective console sound better.

Both are from Joystiq too

I read the article on 360FB too but didn't bother posting it on Xboxic because I think the PS3P source is bullshitting them.

[E2K]

Well it still is total BS if you ask me.

I did some time ago 3d mark 2001 on my pc.
A friend said it would run better on win98SE, instead of WinXP.
So i installed both, clean.
In XP of my 512 MB ram, there was around 120 filled with 'windows'
on the 98SE it was more like 40.

You all expect the 98SE to outperform the XP, but it was the other way around, 100 point more on the XP... at 12000, so it didnt even matter anyway.

When you start a game the OS gets 'minimized', so i dont think that the PS3 will be 40% slower than xbox, because the OS uses more Memory.

Also, they don't say where they get the info from.

[ARCHA1C]

It's hardly an issue... reaching a console's theoretical maximum takes years, and even that "maximum" isnt necessrily maxing the cpu out, it's just a balance of all the aspects of a game, combined with the in-console engine's ability. Even if the PS3's OS is using up that much processor, it will likely never be infringing on the PS3's ability to render gameplay elements. And you have to remember that in the PS3 there is going to be a free "core" sitting dormant on the cpu from the get-go.... Bottom line.... GAMES... Screw the technical mumbo jumbo.......

[Nino]

Originally Posted by ARCHA1C

Bottom line.... GAMES... Screw the technical mumbo jumbo.......

Amen!

[Rival24]

We talk about Xbox 360 hardware all the time

[Curry]

Originally Posted by ARCHA1C

Bottom line.... GAMES... Screw the technical mumbo jumbo.......

90% agree. I spoke with people @ MS today and they were asking me about how I'd think the PS3 was going to match up. The MS guys are most definitely keeping track of where the PS3 is going to end up compared to what they've put on the market. But their idea is comparable to my technie one: GPU comparable in strength, CPU potentiallty much stronger but realistically comparable.

[E2K]

Originally Posted by Curry

90% agree. I spoke with people @ MS today and they were asking me about how I'd think the PS3 was going to match up. The MS guys are most definitely keeping track of where the PS3 is going to end up compared to what they've put on the market. But their idea is comparable to my technie one: GPU comparable in strength, CPU potentiallty much stronger but realistically comparable.

I do not want to be rude, but it's not that weird if the PS3 is more powerfull.
On paper it has faster everything.
This is a fact.

Also that the dev time makes better games, true a bit, but not that much. See also: the xbox1. Doa ultimate is nice graphics, but Doa3 also, and more like the same.
Maybe this means that the developer has great skill at programming.

People say that Gt4 was better graphically and faster than Forza on the xbox.
But on paper, the xbox is better.
Still. Gt4 looks a lot like Gt3, and that game came out in japan on march 2001 or something, within one year of the console.

So, I think, for example xbox360 racegames will look like PGR3, but they will develop into smoother framerate, better Ai, faster loading, etc.
The graphic processor shader performace and stuff doesn't really get optimized that much, if you look at other previous games.

back ontopic:
it not fair to compare based on personal preference.

Wait untill E3, which is in 3 weeks or so. Then you can compare the playable demo's to the demo's of the xbox360 and then you can compare again.

I wish i could say that i'm back to steel battalion, but it's not at my home, but at my room (in the town i study in)

[Curry]

Originally Posted by E2K

I do not want to be rude, but it's not that weird if the PS3 is more powerfull.
On paper it has faster everything.
This is a fact.

If it's a fact I can demand proof of you. Which you don't have The GPU is theoretically slightly inferior to the 360's, the CPU is potentially much more powerful but not in a way that can easily be used for games. In reality it will have a lot of power but will not outrun the 360 by double figures or anything if its true potential is ever tapped.

Also that the dev time makes better games, true a bit, but not that much. See also: the xbox1. Doa ultimate is nice graphics, but Doa3 also, and more like the same.

DOA is a bad example ofcourse on Xbox 1. Compare Halo 1 and Half-Life 2 mmkay?

People say that Gt4 was better graphically and faster than Forza on the xbox.
But on paper, the xbox is better.

Comparing 2 completely unrelated games (apart from the fact that they're both racers) is no use in this whole story. Actually any game comparison is no use in this whole story. On paper, GPU's are nearly equal and Cell has more potential power but less raw power than 360 CPU. That's all we can say about it right now, and hands-on testing will have to do the rest.

[E2K]

Originally Posted by Curry

If it's a fact I can demand proof of you. Which you don't have The GPU is theoretically slightly inferior to the 360's, the CPU is potentially much more powerful but not in a way that can easily be used for games. In reality it will have a lot of power but will not outrun the 360 by double figures or anything if its true potential is ever tapped.

DOA is a bad example ofcourse on Xbox 1. Compare Halo 1 and Half-Life 2 mmkay?

Comparing 2 completely unrelated games (apart from the fact that they're both racers) is no use in this whole story. Actually any game comparison is no use in this whole story. On paper, GPU's are nearly equal and Cell has more potential power but less raw power than 360 CPU. That's all we can say about it right now, and hands-on testing will have to do the rest.

Thanks for in the end repeating what i said.

I am too old to argue about what is better on paper, because I think you believe that the xbox360 really is more powerfull. I cannot change that.
Also all your arguments are based on opinions or fabricated truth, see also you emotion engine-toy story statements.

What I meant by the race games is this:
The Xbox might be faster, but this doesn't mean the games will be, like forza vs GT4.

This translates as:

The PS3 might be faster, but this doesn't mean the games will be.

So higher specs doesn't make a better game. But it can. I mean ICO is not that technical, but I don't think that on a N64 you could have the same (graphical) atmosphere. So there you go.

[Curry]

Originally Posted by E2K

Thanks for in the end repeating what i said.

Not really, you said "On paper it has faster everything. This is a fact." It's not a fact, not even close. On paper the specs are simply comparable to the 360, with the Cell potentially much faster or much slower (!!!) than the triple-core 360 CPU. There are no facts supporting the claim that it "has faster everything". The facts that we know, being publicly known hardware specs, suggest a similarly powered console with large potential in the CPU department that may or may not go untapped.

I am too old to argue about what is better on paper, because I think you believe that the xbox360 really is more powerfull. I cannot change that.

I cannot remember saying that the 360 is more powerful. Neither have I said the PS3 will be more powerful. I have not even said they will be comparable in strength. I have just said the currently known info suggests they will be comparable in raw power.

Also all your arguments are based on opinions or fabricated truth, see also you emotion engine-toy story statements.

Apart from the fact that I have not made any statements like that in this topic they would've been quite welcome as proof that Sony has a good reputation for overhyping their own equipment while not showing it to everyone, only to end up with hardware unable to fulfill expectations but still selling on the hype.

So higher specs doesn't make a better game. But it can. I mean ICO is not that technical, but I don't think that on a N64 you could have the same (graphical) atmosphere. So there you go.

Now that's facts indeed

[E2K]

Originally Posted by Curry

I cannot remember saying that the 360 is more powerful. ...

Originally Posted by Curry

The GPU is theoretically slightly inferior to the 360's, the CPU is potentially much more powerful but not in a way that can easily be used for games.

If this were not a forum where i could be banned, i'd say you're full of shit

[Rival24]

Originally Posted by E2K

If this were not a forum where i could be banned, i'd say you're full of shit

He said GPU, not the entire system

[E2K]

weird, looks like my post got removed.
It was something like this:

Originally Posted by Rival24

He said GPU, not the entire system

Originally Posted by Curry

the CPU is potentially much more powerful but not in a way that can easily be used for games.

Yeah Rival24, you are right, he forgot the RAM

When the xbox was about to bomb, to be released i mean there were forums where kids stated to be developers, claiming that the ps2 would be more powerful, the processor would be lower clocked, but more and more powerful, the graphics faster than xbox, etc etc.

"History is never repeated" it once showed on a trailer i think, but maybe they were wrong

[VEXED FEAR]

Originally Posted by E2K

"When the xbox was about to bomb, to be released i mean "

"History is never repeated" it once showed on a trailer i think, but maybe they were wrong "

My dad could beat up your dad, my mom can scratch your mom's eyes out and my dog can tear your dog apart....do you get my point now? Obviously you're a PS3 fanboy and we all know it, it's pretty obvious with some of the statements you say. But for the love of God, stop with the "My system can power on faster than yours can" crap. We understand that the PS3 will be a next gen console, we don't deny it, so there's no reason to smash on the 360 to prove that, or that the 360 is indeed NOT next gen. Unlike you, there are some of us here who note the good and bad points of both systems, none of us deny the other system it's power but WE DO NOT state "facts" that this system or that system is more powerful on paper in EVERY aspect. I really don't see that! I've seen unbiased reviews on both consoles from people who actually know what they're talking about and they point out the bad and good of both consoles. Then there's also this going on.... 1) You're playing the numbers game. Just because this console is 7 inches taller and weighs 10 pounds more, doesn't mean it has any advantage. You have to look at what those numbers represent. 2) There are some system components in both consoles that are extremely powerful but get bottlenecked because another hardware component can't transfer that data quick enough for example. So, that power also comes to a waste. 3) You have to look at the systems overall, how each hardware component works with the other and not just "Hey, my GPU is 10 times better so I'm awesome and the console wars are over!". Plus didn't Sony have the INFERIOR PS2 console to the Xbox, still being the number one console out there because of the FACT, that they do have a bigger game library? It all depends on how each party plays their cards. Personaly, I think Microsoft has too much damn money to spend to actually lose, look at that balloon fight for example. They've been doing a lot of crazy and extroadinary things, how can people ignore your presence when it's so clear like that?

As far as history goes....we battled fanboys back in 2001, and we continue to battle them in 2006!

PS: Take just a basic course in some sort of computer class *sigh*

[TRIGGER M4N]

Though this is a Xbox site, and it is indeed a interesting read and a lot of things have been said. Wasn't this thread asking for someone, like E2K to surf the net, look for Xbox sites, then cause mayhem?

The bottom line is: No one EXACTLY knows what is going on or going to happen, and like Curry said, MS are watching Sony, and they no doubt have plans, so lets keep all the fanboyism to a low.

[VEXED FEAR]

Hey, if Microsoft is watching Sony then I'm sure Sony is watching Microsoft. This only means good things for us, the consumer. The more these two companies duke it out, the more killer app games, pepripherals and hardware you'll see. Competition only means better and better games.

I would like to add something about the PS3 having "this much" power but not being able to use it at this pointt. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing but it sounds like some hardware wasn't checked.

[E2K]

Originally Posted by VEXED FEAR

I would like to add something about the PS3 having "this much" power but not being able to use it at this pointt. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing but it sounds like some hardware wasn't checked.

Here is my point.
You make it sound like i am the fanboy.

When the ps3 be out, and there was ps3ic.com, I'd also object when i saw bullshit posted regarding the xbox.

I never opened a topic here where I said that the xbox fanboy community fabricated the "sony says ps2 will have better graphics than toy story".
I only responded to something curry said.

Same with this.

You state something, as you can see quoted above here.
Where is this based on?
i think other bullshit fanboys said.
You ignore the reality. And make it sound like some hardware was badly designed, and the power cannot be used etc.
Then again, who says this?

Konami?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...altime&pl=true

Sony (the getaway)?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...etaway&pl=true


Or do you believe some xbox site where they speak to "true developers", or even "microsoft"?

I hope you get my point now.

I do not like the character art of mgs4, nor the games they showed in the second footage, but I cannot deny the graphical power that is on display.

So then again, who should we believe? Real developers who show us realtime footage, or this:

the PS3 having "this much" power but not being able to use it at this pointt. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing but it sounds like some hardware wasn't checked

I understand that this site says 'xboxic', but it doesnt say anywhere 'fanboy'.

So concentrate on the xbox, and don't make fanboyed statements towards other consoles.
Unless they are true, and contain actual information.

[Curry]

I don't see too much fanboyism in this thread, in fact we even have a firm rule against fanboyism

What I see in this thread is that Sony's hype machine is already working nicely. Like I said to a few people this weekend, Sony can take a tin box, fill it with horse shit and market it for $600, and millions of people will buy it because it says "Playstation 3" on the top. They're not, they're building a good console. One which has, all facts analyzed that are available and that I can analyze with 20+ years programming experience and having been an administrator myself on a huge PC hardware site for several years, similar
specs to the Xbox 360 and potentially much more capacity in the CPU department which will quite probably go untapped most of the time.

[E2K]

Interresting point.

As I can tell from you point of view, millions* of people buy xbox360, not because of hype. But because of games right? Oh, plus the xbox live.

On the other hand, gamers do not want to play Metal Gear Solid 4, or a next generation Final Fantasy.
They get a console because of a hype machine.
That is what you mean?


offtopic:
I did not want the xbox.
Am i a fanboy because i only could afford 1 console at a time, and for example did not feel like trading in the ability to play Tekken, Soul Calibur3 and Virtua Fighter 4 to play Dead or Alive? before you quote check the 'for example' part.

Recently I wanted to play Steel Battalion, so I bought what i needed to play it. If the xbox was still 480 euro, i'd think twice.


* no actual sale numbers have been released

[VEXED FEAR]

Originally Posted by E2K

Here is my point.
You make it sound like i am the fanboy.

When the ps3 be out, and there was ps3ic.com, I'd also object when i saw bullshit posted regarding the xbox.

I never opened a topic here where I said that the xbox fanboy community fabricated the "sony says ps2 will have better graphics than toy story".
I only responded to something curry said.

Same with this.

You state something, as you can see quoted above here.
Where is this based on?
i think other bullshit fanboys said.
You ignore the reality. And make it sound like some hardware was badly designed, and the power cannot be used etc.
Then again, who says this?

Konami?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...altime&pl=true

Sony (the getaway)?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...etaway&pl=true


Or do you believe some xbox site where they speak to "true developers", or even "microsoft"?

I hope you get my point now.

I do not like the character art of mgs4, nor the games they showed in the second footage, but I cannot deny the graphical power that is on display.

So then again, who should we believe? Real developers who show us realtime footage, or this:





I understand that this site says 'xboxic', but it doesnt say anywhere 'fanboy'.

So concentrate on the xbox, and don't make fanboyed statements towards other consoles.
Unless they are true, and contain actual information.

You just mentioned you were a fanboy so don't make sound like I'm trying to make you look like a monster, it's not an evil word you use to condem someone to the depths of hell lol. Anyways, you explained your reason for picking Playstation over Xbox and that's fine. To be honest with you, I picked up one console and that was the Xbox. Before that I had the Playstation. I thought the Xbox was so great at first but no one thought it would have a game shortage. I mean, look at it, both Nintendo and Sony have a great library of games, and many of their games are cross platform, so why would Xbox have this problem, wouldn't they be able to get the same games? Unfortunately it wasn't so and after the first little while of having my Xbox, I though "Hey, this is pretty shit!". I had a big stack of Playstation games and if I had goten a PS2, I could have been playing them right now. I was just a little disappointed with the Xbox a bit down the road but it picked up a bit later on. I think where they got me is with Xbox Live. Sure, Playstation has a network you can play on for free but I don't know, Xbox Live is so nicely put together I don't mind paying for it, it's incredible. And for me, I believe that's where the future of the console lies and the future of gaming lies....online gaming.

I think where Curry was going with you comparing GT4 to PGR3 is that they're completely different games, designed for completely different things. And if you take into consideration that Xbox has a large online gaming network while Sony doesn't have one that is that big, maybe you'll understand what I'm saying. And I don't know about next gen, but let's be honestwith the current gen here....almost every game that came out at the SAME TIME for both platforms looked better on the Xbox. I will agree that ports from the PS2 to the Xbox didn't go so well though, but these are games that have been milked so much on their original console, that I doubt the developers are going to build another game of THE SAME game for something like that Xbox. Check out Metal Gear for the Xbox for an example of that. It was a beautiful game, but sometimes the framerate wasn't doing it, and we know the Xbox had more power under it's hood that made it more than capable of doing the job.

A lot of the games you purchased when some of you first picked up the 360 didn't run so smoothly online at first, right? Right! Do you know why though? You're trying to pump major graphics and major resolutions through the same broadband ethernet cable you were using for your original Xbox. I think back in the day a lot of the battle was to be fought with the hardware, but today I think a large portion of that fight will be brought to the table with the developers. One of the challenges the developers have to go through is not only making those games look good, but getting them to run smooth, especially if they're going to be online games. Many new ways of using graphics will be explored this gen, I'm sure of it since developers are going to be fighting to have those cutting edge graphics without pumping massive data sizes through ethernet cable. So, yes, a lot of it is optimizing.

The thing is that I believe you mentioned the graphic processor shader was pretty powerful on Sony's side but it's almost untapped power until someone learns how to optimize for it. I just don't see how Sony would be the only one to get this advantage. I don't think the developers for Sony say "Hey, we're at this level with the graphic processor shader right now, but some day we'll get to this level with the same shader". No, I don't buy it. I think they look at that hardware and they know from the start where they can take that piece of hardware, they just have to iron out the directions to get to that location first. I just think that this applies for both companies. I think they have their own set of hardware but they will both try to optimize as much as possible. I would say it's unfaire to put a cap on the 360 and say that things can't be optimized.

And while I do visit mainly sites that hold the 360, because obviously I'm interested in games that I can actually play on my console, I do visit cross platform sites. The reason for that is that I KNOW there are TWO SIDES and that each side will try and beef up their console as much as possible, no matter what. It's the "fanboy" syndrome. And hey, if I spent $600 on a new console to find out some other jerk got something better I'd say "Hey, go to hell, your console is shit!" too. And basicly the people are fighting the battles for the two companies, Sony and Microsoft. Hell, let them do their own fighting, it's inevitable anyways and the more they fight, the better products we get.

Also, don't get me started with Killzone 2 and it's realtime footage. And please don't tell me it was real in-game footage, because we all know, that's a lie!

[Curry]

Originally Posted by E2K

Interresting point.

As I can tell from you point of view, millions* of people buy xbox360, not because of hype. But because of games right? Oh, plus the xbox live.

On the other hand, gamers do not want to play Metal Gear Solid 4, or a next generation Final Fantasy.
They get a console because of a hype machine.

I am completely missing your point I think. Or more probably, you are completely missing mine. You continuously try to accuse me of saying things I didn't say, or more frequently explicitly said the opposite of. I have already said games should be the deciding factor.

You know as well as I do that the prime reason the PS3 will outsell the 360 is because it is called Playstation. That having that name implies you will be getting Tekken and MGS is just an obvious consequence. To reverse your remark: if MGS4 sucks horse balls Sony has still sold a lot of PS3's based on the hype that they generated on MGS4, a PS3 exclusive. Hence they made lots of money on those boxes only because they're called Playstation, and those buyers didn't give a flying fuck about whether the box was filled with horse shit.