PS3 Cell Performance Comparison

Cell is compared to other CPUs

[kmis87]

Sounds powerful, just wish I could understand what it says.

[FordGTGuy]

they are comparing it to a bunch of computer cpus why not compare it to the 360 cpu?

[kmis87]

I think the group doing this comparison is more concerned about applications of the cell processor that don't involve gaming, hence the lack of comparison to the xenos processor.

[HyperBear]

If only i knew what all that meant, I could really give a sh!t. That says nothing about nothing about the PS3, just that the processor can do this that PC's cant. Doesnt show anything of how PS3 is good, or esp. the games. You dont buy a video game system for the processor, you buy it for the games. BIG WHOOPIE DO. (But it light of my response, PS3 has some good games, so it kinda works out).

[eques judicii]

this is for medical work i think... but i could be wrong. Doesn't mean this is good for gaming... and it definitely is not comparing this to any other multithread processors (which would be more relevant)

its probably a document to try to persuade the higher ups to upgrade their currect cpus so that they can be more "cutting edge"

that being said... the cell processor will probably be the way of the future, but I will wait until they are able to manufacture them efficiently and inexpensively before I ever get one for my computer. (don't need my spu's dying on me)

[Marriot VP]

yah guys, just wait a couple more months are you'll have CNet.com and other reputable organizations comparing the two consoles. Rather than PSM thinking absolutely everything about the PS3 is da bomb and nothing comes close to it. And yah OXM does some of that too, it is magazine's responsibility to promote their exclusive console their representing. The more they applaud it the more money they get from selling mags

It'll be nice to finally have all the cards layed down on the table. All I know is the difference is marginal. What matters most is the kind of games you want.

[DJ]

"A single SPE core outperforms the best general-purpose processor by a factor of 7."

That sentence grabbed my attention right away. And it actually is compared to G5/(PPC 970) processors (Xenos is a triple-core G5), and absolutely spanks it for these operations. I know some people are going to continously argue that Cell isn't built for games (as if games run on some magical code not used in any other applications), but it's best to ignore them.

What this document really proves is that Cell kicks ass for rendering and chewing through huge chunks of data. And a lot of that power is attributed to the fact that the SPEs have local storage instead of Cache, as well as the huge bandwidth of the EIB and fast XDR Ram.

[eques judicii]

I looked up mercury computer systems and it seems they are buddy-buddy with IBM, nvidia and terra soft (yellow dog linux)... these are all components of ps3 and so there is no reason to think this is unbiased...

I'll wait for a true gaming comparisons before passing judgement... because none of this is necessarily relevant to gaming

[zypher]

if they're biased then the PS3 has nothing to do with it. Sony isn't the only corp that designed the Cell, and the PS3 isn't the only device that uses it. Mercury Computer Systems, as far as i know, has no true vested interest in the Cell save for the fact that they are one of its third-party purchasers. and lets not forget that IBM also has a vested interest in the 360 and the Wii, since they also helped design both of those systems CPU's. Mercury Computer Systems analysis is pro-Cell true enough, but even still its more impartial than Microsoft's own analysis where they pitted Xenon against the Cell in a way to where the Xenon seemed superior. in the end, like you said, it comes down to the games. and so far, as far as graphics are concerned, both systems are tic-for-tac, so don't think i'm favoring one system over the other.

[eques judicii]

i didn't mean that it has to do with the ps3, sorry... i meant it has to do with promoting the cell processor.

i really just wanted to point out that this isn't necessarily an unbiased review of cell and that mercury has its on perogative... just like microsoft did when it broke down its comparison... the cell is a wonderful processor and should truly be successful.

Whether that success is in the gaming world, business world, or industrial world has yet to be seen... which is why it might be premature to add cell to a gaming device or might be a stroke of genius (if production costs can be streamlined rapidly.)

[4me2]

You can go www.mc.com and read up.

http://mc.com/about/
"Mercury provides comprehensive solutions and support to the world's top defense electronics contractors including AMS, BAE Systems, Boeing Company, Ericsson Microwave, General Dynamics Corporation, Israel Ministry of Defense, L3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon Company. Mercury content can be found in numerous airborne, land-based, and ocean-going platforms throughout the world, in applications that span the breadth of intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR)."

With above list of customers I doubt they are biased. They're not going play games with their reputations to make happy gamers and blogers around the world.

[eques judicii]

if you go to the partners page and look under hardware and software you will see the partners i was talking about. The cell processor is a world-class deal... but this is still promotional stuff for it, not a definitive comparison.

plus, to all those that think that this means that the ps3 is WAY more powerful than the 360 think again.. the cell processor can be more powerful, but that is probably at the level of servers (more expensive contruction of the chip set) I cannot believe that the chip that was tested here for aerospace/medical research is the same chip going into ps3's... similar - yes.. same tech - yes.. of the same quality and construction - doubtful.. this is solely because the chip used for gaming and costing under $1000 could not be the same as the one for servers costing $4k+++

so the comparison is probably true, at least in theoretical power of the cell used in research, but may or maynot be true for the chip inside the ps3.

[videl]

poor xbots.

[SimmoUK]

Ha you don't have to know much about games to see that the cell is way more powerful in the graphs...

[FirstknighT]

Wow...The CPU is powerful...but to bad that dont meant nothing when the best AAA games and exclusives are on 360!!! Atleast this year and next. It's all about the games anyway...and please dont waste my time listing all the games for both systems. I seen them already and the 360 has better AAA titles...no debate over that!

[FadeToBlack]

If you look at the last generation xbox games looked alot better than ps2 games yet ps2 sold more because it had more games.

[DEIx15x8]

Now if only it wasn't biased. I guarantee that if they chose a different processor tomorrow it would kill the cell. It's just like apple, some how the PPC creamed anything Intel could throw at it and then one day suddenly the Intel killed the PPC, it's all about who the tester wants to win. If they really wanted to they could make a Pentium I beat the cell.

[TheMART]

So with this Cell, why isn't there anything that can beat Gears of War this Christmas?

Again, it isn't about paper specs, it isn't about an emotion engine or TFLOPS. It's about the best games

[Karibu]

nuff said.

[12Volt]

... going to get right now.

Themart, one word for you: FRRRRPPPPP!!!!

[videl]

resistance, motorstorm, ridge racer look all better than gow, and they are launch games you moron.

[gsquad]

that the Cell chip is mort powerful then any single core processor on the market today. This is a true statement! And if you do some homework you would find that Cell is more powerful than any multi cored processor to date as well. Even the Tri-core of the X360.

What does this mean to gamers?
Just that Ps3 has MORE processing power.

The problem is that processing power doesn’t make great games, developers DO. So we can end the discussion about which system is more powerful, the answer is the PS3. But we all knew that even the fanboys.

That’s why Xbox fanboys stopped talking about processing power back in January and started talking about games, and who has the exclusives. Look, even Microsoft stopped talking about processing power and pushed their campaign towards games. (E3 06 all they talked about was games and even Phil said something like “well its like one company has a Ferrari and the other has a Porsche they both will fly”)

What you have here is benchmarking for the sale of the Cell chip or architecture. I have seen a similar presentation twice already at work. (Please read the presentation carefully the Xeon Single core chip was compared to a Single SPE and there are 7 working SPE’s in the PS3. So 3 Xeon chips to 7 SPE’s plus a PPE, you do the math.)

Here is the thing. Ps3 will always be more powerful, but Playstation was less powerful last time around and they where the market leader.

So even though X360 is not as powerful it still has a good chance of being the market leader this time around.

So X360 fanboys own up already and say “your right PS3 is more powerful”

PS3 fanboys own up already and say “your right X360 has more games”

And then let the war play out cause in the end, fanboys aren’t getting any money either way.

“Jump In” and “Wecolm3 Chang3”

P.s. Multi-threading will not make a difference in the power of the X360 compared to the PS3. Both can do multi-threading, and PS3 will still compile the code faster, Sorry just stating the facts.

[Antan]

LOL! seven bubbles you say??!!??!! very well written.

[peksi]

Holy crap did you see those frigin' graph bars?? I don't buy that with one bite but if half of that is true then PS3 is in for some awesome games.

According to that the damn thing's gonna use Xbox 360's much of CPU power for damn window wiping in racing games! Interesting to see what kinda tests will appear later.

[THAMMER1]

This is a file that explains the mercury cell. The cell it's self is a chip architecture there can and will be many different versions for Cell phones, dishwashers, cable boxes, and on and on. The version in this adobe file is not the same as the PS3 cell. You will notice that the near future mercury cell and other to come will replace a lot of silicone based chips. The cell is carbon technology and will be the future but do not think that this is a representation of what is in the PS3.

Note to Ps3 fans Sony refers to the PS3 cell as cell based chip not the mercury cell.

I’ll give some links in a few minutes.

[THAMMER1]

The PS3 dose have more peak power than the 360. But the consoles are almost the same.

[Raist]

Mercury isn't building Cells.
And there are no "different versions" of cells based on the same architecture. There is only one Cell, but the number of active SPEs will determine what the processor will be used for.
Since during production, some SPEs may not be functionnal, IBM plans to use the lowest chips for simple stuff such as TVs, cell phones etc.

You misunderstood those slides. Theu use "mercury cell algorithms", that is, algorithms that they developped for the cell.
They're not using cells they manufactured (since they don't)

There was an article from the berkeley university, published in a scientific journal a few weeks ago, that came to the same conclusions. So are they biased, to ?

So, for sure, the cell is a processing monster. Will this power be used for games is a good question, tho.

[THAMMER1]

I did not say Mercury isn't building Cells. There will many different versions of the cell. If you do not think so that is your choice. But you said it in yur own post
EX:And there are no "different versions" of cells based on the same architecture. There is only one Cell, but the number of active SPEs will determine what the processor will be used for.
Since during production, some SPEs may not be functionnal, IBM plans to use the lowest chips for simple stuff such as TVs, cell phones etc.
WTF are you syaing? They do but they do not. LOL

My post was not to slam the PS3 my post was to defunk the crap from the other post.

[Raist]

Dunno man, you said "This is a file that explains the mercury cell"
So what the hell did you mean with "the mercury cell"

For the "different versions", i don't see this as different versions. It's just that, out of the 8 SPEs, PS3 will use Cells with 7 active SPEs (one used for redundancy)
Problem is, manufacturing a multi-core processor doesn't have 100% yields. So some cells will end up having only 6, 5, 4 or even 3 active SPEs. Those "broken" Cells will be used for TVs, cell phones etc, since this kind of stuff doesn't need great processing power.

And for the second part of my post, i wasn't replying to you directly. Should have made another post maybe :P

[Deceased]

The Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version.

There are several reasons for this.

First, the Xbox 360 has a much more powerful custom built Graphics Processing Unit that uses the new Unified Shader technology that Windows Vista uses. Playstation 3 still uses the outdated Non-Unified Shader technology that has been in use for the last decade.

Currently, there are no PC graphics cards that use Unified Shader technology, because Windows Vista has not yet been released. ATI will release a Unified Shader PC graphics card at the end of 2006 or early 2007 when it gets closer to the release of Windows Vista. This is the same form of revolutionary technology that the Xbox 360 uses. The Playstation 3 uses a non-customized Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit that is based on four-year old technology that is outdated.

The second major advantage that the Xbox 360 has over the Playstation 3 is the number of polygons that can be displayed on-screen at once. The Xbox 360 can display 500,000,000 polygons on-screen at the same time, while the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second. This is the reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360, while the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 only runs at 30 frames per second.

The third reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 hardware has so much more General Purpose CPU power than the Playstation 3. The Playstation 3 uses outdated parallel processing that is very difficult for game developers to work with. The CPU of the Playstation 3 has only two threads, which means that Artificial Intelligence in Playstation 3 games is not as good as the Artificial Intelligence in Xbox 360 games. The Xbox 360 uses a tri-core CPU, each CPU core runs at 3.2 Ghz, and each core has two threads!!!

Basically what this means is that the Playstation 3 has one CPU, which coincidentally runs at 3.2Ghz--although rumors say that this has been reduced to 2.8Ghz. The Playstation 3 then uses each of its two threads to send signals to different processors that run parallel. This is very similar to the design used with the Sega Saturn, and the developers didn't like that system either.

Originally, the Playstation 3 was supposed to have two CPUs, but when Sony saw the Xbox 360, they were forced to remove one CPU and add a GPU that was never planned. The Playstation 3 was not originally intended to use parallel processing like it now does. PS3 was originall supposed to be designed in a way that was similar to the original Playstation, which would have been a good thing.

From the point of view of the Xbox 360, basically, it has three CPUs, each running at 3.2Ghz. Each CPU has two threads. Tecmo and Ubisoft have said that they can literally devote one of the CPUs and the two threads on it to controlling nothing but Artificial Intelligence! Ubisoft has already publicly stated that the Artificial Intelligence in the Xbox 360 version of Assassins Creed will be superior to the Artificial Intelligence in the Playstation 3 version.

One other reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 will be better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 RAM is so much superior to the Playstation 3 RAM. Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have 512MB of RAM; however, the Xbox 360 uses revolutionary new Unified RAM technology, while the Playstation 3 uses the same old Non-Unified RAM technology that has been used for decades.

Basically, what this means is that the Non-Unified 512MB RAM in the Playstation 3 has two separate sections of RAM: 256MB of RAM that can be devoted to help the CPU, and 256MB of Video RAM. No matter what happens, the Playstation 3 can NEVER use more than 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, even if only a small percentage of the other secion of 256MB of RAM is not being used.

The Xbox 360 uses 512MB of 100% Unified RAM. This means that the RAM can be used whenever and wherever the developers need it at any point in time. For example, if there is a need to use over 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, the Xbox 360 can devote more RAM to Video RAM. In a graphically intense section of a game where there is a need for much more detailed graphics, but a lower amount of Artificial Intelligence because there are fewer enemies on the screen, there might be a need for 384MB of Video RAM, while using 128MB of RAM to control things like Artificial Intelligence of the enemies. A boss encounter with only one enemy on the screen, but a GIANT boss with awesome graphics is a perfect example where the Xbox 360 has a HUGE technology advantage.

I fully agree with you and the editors of that website: The Xbox 360 version is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version. Actually, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. The fact of the matter is that the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 30 frames-per-second, while the Xbox 360 version runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like the very smooth Call of Duty 2.

Here are some website links that you can visit that talk about the reasons why games like Call of Duty 3 end up so much smoother looking on the Xbox 360:

xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/ 617951p1.html

oxm.co.uk/articles/news/hardw are/ps3_to_have_half_the_polygo
n_power_of_the_xbox_360

msxbox-world.com/xbox/feature s/article/179/PS3-Hardware-issu
es-Teething-troubles-or-a-dee per-problem?.html

theinquirer.net/default.aspx? article=32171

gamespot.com/news/6157113.htm l

blogs.usatoday.com/tech/2006/ 05/index.html

[DJ]

stop double-posting. And stop spreading this hilarious misinformation; GS is just going kick you down. =P

[Deceased]

One quick question: How can the PS3 version look better if it can't even run the game at 60fps like the 360?

The Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version.

There are several reasons for this.

First, the Xbox 360 has a much more powerful custom built Graphics Processing Unit that uses the new Unified Shader technology that Windows Vista uses. Playstation 3 still uses the outdated Non-Unified Shader technology that has been in use for the last decade.

Currently, there are no PC graphics cards that use Unified Shader technology, because Windows Vista has not yet been released. ATI will release a Unified Shader PC graphics card at the end of 2006 or early 2007 when it gets closer to the release of Windows Vista. This is the same form of revolutionary technology that the Xbox 360 uses. The Playstation 3 uses a non-customized Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit that is based on four-year old technology that is outdated.

The second major advantage that the Xbox 360 has over the Playstation 3 is the number of polygons that can be displayed on-screen at once. The Xbox 360 can display 500,000,000 polygons on-screen at the same time, while the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second. This is the reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360, while the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 only runs at 30 frames per second.

The third reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 hardware has so much more General Purpose CPU power than the Playstation 3. The Playstation 3 uses outdated parallel processing that is very difficult for game developers to work with. The CPU of the Playstation 3 has only two threads, which means that Artificial Intelligence in Playstation 3 games is not as good as the Artificial Intelligence in Xbox 360 games. The Xbox 360 uses a tri-core CPU, each CPU core runs at 3.2 Ghz, and each core has two threads!!!

Basically what this means is that the Playstation 3 has one CPU, which coincidentally runs at 3.2Ghz--although rumors say that this has been reduced to 2.8Ghz. The Playstation 3 then uses each of its two threads to send signals to different processors that run parallel. This is very similar to the design used with the Sega Saturn, and the developers didn't like that system either.

Originally, the Playstation 3 was supposed to have two CPUs, but when Sony saw the Xbox 360, they were forced to remove one CPU and add a GPU that was never planned. The Playstation 3 was not originally intended to use parallel processing like it now does. PS3 was originall supposed to be designed in a way that was similar to the original Playstation, which would have been a good thing.

From the point of view of the Xbox 360, basically, it has three CPUs, each running at 3.2Ghz. Each CPU has two threads. Tecmo and Ubisoft have said that they can literally devote one of the CPUs and the two threads on it to controlling nothing but Artificial Intelligence! Ubisoft has already publicly stated that the Artificial Intelligence in the Xbox 360 version of Assassins Creed will be superior to the Artificial Intelligence in the Playstation 3 version.

One other reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 will be better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 RAM is so much superior to the Playstation 3 RAM. Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have 512MB of RAM; however, the Xbox 360 uses revolutionary new Unified RAM technology, while the Playstation 3 uses the same old Non-Unified RAM technology that has been used for decades.

Basically, what this means is that the Non-Unified 512MB RAM in the Playstation 3 has two separate sections of RAM: 256MB of RAM that can be devoted to help the CPU, and 256MB of Video RAM. No matter what happens, the Playstation 3 can NEVER use more than 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, even if only a small percentage of the other secion of 256MB of RAM is not being used.

The Xbox 360 uses 512MB of 100% Unified RAM. This means that the RAM can be used whenever and wherever the developers need it at any point in time. For example, if there is a need to use over 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, the Xbox 360 can devote more RAM to Video RAM. In a graphically intense section of a game where there is a need for much more detailed graphics, but a lower amount of Artificial Intelligence because there are fewer enemies on the screen, there might be a need for 384MB of Video RAM, while using 128MB of RAM to control things like Artificial Intelligence of the enemies. A boss encounter with only one enemy on the screen, but a GIANT boss with awesome graphics is a perfect example where the Xbox 360 has a HUGE technology advantage.

I fully agree with you and the editors of that website: The Xbox 360 version is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version. Actually, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. The fact of the matter is that the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 30 frames-per-second, while the Xbox 360 version runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like the very smooth Call of Duty 2.

THE CELL IN THE PS3 IS A JOKE, LIKE THE CELERON OF CELLS!

[gsquad]

I usually don’t do things like this but when people post stuff like this that is just blatantly wrong and then double post, and then the make fanboy remarks at the end, I just have to stop the madness.

First off all of you links DON’T WORK!

Second four of the Six are not good sources so I read don’t have to go any farther to debunk you whole post but I will continue a bit longer.
(The reason that I say 4 of the six are not good sources OXM –Xbox fan site MSXBOX – Xbox fan site Blogs.usatoday.com- It’s a blog site anyone with a computer can write a blog doesn’t mean that they are intelligent or enlightened about the subject that they are writing about theinquirer.net – IT’S THE INQUIRER!)

So that leaves IGN and Gamespot. But the links that you game either doesn’t work or sends you to a page that updates news so where is the arctical?

Should I go on? Awhhh well I give you one or two more. Then if you want to use you last bubble to respond I will take the time to give you all the facts or you can

STOP BEING A FANBOY and read it for yourself!

Quote
The third reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 hardware has so much more General Purpose CPU power than the Playstation 3. The Playstation 3 uses outdated parallel processing that is very difficult for game developers to work with. The CPU of the Playstation 3 has only two threads, which means that Artificial Intelligence in Playstation 3 games is not as good as the Artificial Intelligence in Xbox 360 games. The Xbox 360 uses a tri-core CPU, each CPU core runs at 3.2 Ghz, and each core has two threads!!!
Quote

Wrong!

What is the Cell?
The Cell processor was co-designed by IBM, Toshiba and Sony. Configurations can differ, but here's what the PS3's Cell chip will be like:
PowerPC-based Core @ 3.2GHz
7 SPEs @ 3.2GHz
512KB L2 Cache
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPEs
Basically, a single Cell processor is designed to act like multiple processors working together, or even independently. A Cell processor has a single PowerPC Architecture Unit (PAU) and multiple Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). A Cell's PAU dolls out instructions to its various SPEs, which can then independently work on tasks. So for instance, one SPU might be programmed to run a game's AI while another handles physics. Since each one acts independently, multiple calculations can be done simultaneously. In other words, it's very powerful. In fact, it's powerful enough to perform 218 GFLOPS.

That means, for the layman person, that each SPU can handle 1 thread so that is 7 threads and one PAU for whatever you need to leverage it for, i.e. picking up the information and putting it together.
Xb360 6 threads PS3 7 threads and it still has the PAU

Next!

Quote
One other reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 will be better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 RAM is so much superior to the Playstation 3 RAM. Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have 512MB of RAM; however, …… The Xbox 360 uses 512MB of 100% Unified RAM. ….. For example, if there is a need to use over 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, the Xbox 360 can devote more RAM to Video RAM.
Quote

Wrong again!

How much RAM will the PS3 have?
256MB of XDR Main RAM @ 3.2GHz and 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM @ 700MHz, or a total of 512MB for the entire system. The RSX graphics chip can actually use all 512MB of system RAM; it is not limited to the 256MB of GDDR3 RAM.

Just cause you post long dosent mean that your post is valid or right!

Lastly just wait the system will be out soon enough!!

If you don’t like the PS3 DON’T GET ONE.

If you think that is a JOKE DON’T POST ABOUT IT just laugh.

But if you are worried that you system might not be as powerful as you think

Be jealous or sign up and get one!!

Where did I get my information?

More places than I could list but here is a good place for now! And the site works!

http://ps3.ign.com/articles...

“Jump In” and “Welcom3 Chang3”

[TheXgamerLive]

Notice 4 major errors or lies. Look.
Then look at sony's own spec's sheet, your even making bigger lies up than sony has.

[gsquad]

First get my name right!

Second don’t waste peoples time with

Quote “Qsquad. Look over your post, it's you that's wrong. ….Notice 4 major errors or lies. Look.
Then look at Sony’s own spec's sheet, your even making bigger lies up than sony has…… Quote

And then 1) don’t show any contrary evidence 2) get the facts, see that I did use a fact sheet and provided a link. 3) Call someone a liar and you didn’t even do your homework

You know how you remind me of someone ….. Jack Thomson.
Yeah! He does the same thing!

Bully case:
1) Showed no contrary evidence that the game actually affects kids 2) didn’t get the facts 3) Called Take-Two a liar and didn’t do his homework to find that Bully was about a kid trying to help his classmate not get bullied.

WOW do you see the resemblance!
I DO!

You ……ahhhggg…….. Wow, if I would have use a facts sheet from Sony you would have said “it’s from Sony so it’s not true.” You know what I am not going to keep talking to uninformed and lazy Xboxs fanboys! If you want to have a debate based on facts cool but you waste my time and everyone else’s time with two lines of BS! O and YOU don’t lie, you just offer ZERO incite because you know nothing! If you did you would prove IT!

Go look at my past posts, they have always be subjective and on-point, that’s why I have 7 bubbles, that’s why you have three, that’s why I get people from BOTH sides that say good post on a regular basis. (side note: Thank you to everyone how thinks that I have something to say and also to the people that use up one of there HARD EARNED bubbles just to tell me that it was well written or a good post. Thanks!)

“Jump In” and “Welcom3 Chang3”

[Raz3r1]

well written

[ApocalypseShadow]

i've seen since real top deal gamer.just a couple of things.if the 360 processor was so POWERFUL,then IBM would be using it for science.or ANY of these companies stepping up to make farms of cells to do complex calculations.name one company besides microsoft using xenon?NONE!ZERO!some people need to get it in their heads about the cell.that chip does more than any chip on the market.as for call of duty.i bet that game and most other games were produced on 360.then ported.what happens during porting?yes that's right.the game doesn't use the system to it's full ability.most games on 360 don't even run at 60fps.and don't run at 1080p at all.why is it so hard for some of you to see that a system coming out 1 year later will have significantly more power and more features?the xbox had it over ps2.the same thing is with ps3 and 360.the 360 has power.but the ps3 has more power.and more features.even if you patched,upgraded and added-on,the ps3 will still have more features out of the box like a web browser and linux.that's fact.and come nov. 17,microsoft will be in for a battle if sony starts firing on all cylinders.and no FAKE CG commercial of gears of war on tv will change that.why is microsoft using cg for the commercial instead of the game?looks like microsoft lies too.

[DJ]

Remember the CG videos that Microsoft posted for Gears, Forza, Fable, and Halo Wars? I'm actually glad that the trailers for games like Motorstorm, F1, and Resistance are strictly relying on gameplay footage. It shows a lot of confidence on Sony's part.

[eques judicii]

while it is true that forza, fable, and halo wars were all cg... there have never been cg gears of war trailers... it has always been in engine. Anyhow.. to say that sony has been "strictly" relying on gameplay footage is garbage (killzone and, yes, your precious motorstorm come to mind from E3 2005)

I'm not trying to flame you, just please realize that both microsoft and sony have used cg trailers to push their products... while epic games has not.

[gsquad]

Epic has used CG twice once on Gears and I will have the link at the bottom of this post and also on Unreal Tournament 07 that is coming out for PS3 And supposedly X360. So .... Everyone uses CG even Epic sorry!

I agree that Killzone was CG and even MotorStorm but .... MotorStorm is so close to the CG that it is crazy. I can't believe that games have come this far that the CG trailers, an idea, are even compared, let alone lived up to the final game. I mean if MotorStorm looks this good and it had to be rushed for launch, (because all games for launch are rushed, just how the “programming game” is played) Then what will happen when Killzone does come out.... ummm... only time will tell.

But think about this X360 will be going out all the big guns come next E3 (Halo 3, Huxly, etc..) Why do you think, or anyone else think (I don’t want you to think that I am picking on you) that Sony will not have Killzone come out in all its glory, with INGAME FOOTAGE!

It’s going to happen mark my words! Sony has learned a lot this time around and I think that they got the message loud and clear. You can’t show, the new age of gamer, a CG trailer and expect us to be all happy go lucky about it. We want to see ingame even if you have to say that it is a rough and still doesn’t have to polish on it.

“Jump In” and “Welcom3 Chang3”

Just a Few I won’t list them all but here are some GOW CG trailers with CG

Mad World Trailer
Whole thing CG
http://media.xbox360.ign.co...

HD Trailer
Part CG Part Ingame
http://media.xbox360.ign.co...

May 12, 2005 (no name) Old trailer but so is MotorStorms! Both are from E3 05!
Part CG Part Ingame
http://media.xbox360.ign.co...

[Adversary]

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems kinda like PS3 (or Cell fans if you prefer) have twice as many bubbles as 360 (or... Xenon[?]) fans. Anyone else seeing this? One word: Awesome.