XBox 360 more powerful than PS3 - ATi

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-06-11 02:26pm

Courtesy of Bit-Tech

In short, Xenos is better than RSX, and next gen games are going to lean very heavily on the GPU for a lot of the heavy math (After all, whiz-bang graphics are going to draw the punters).

(there are PC games that do this already, where the processor itself is almost an afterthought to the need for a stonking GPU)

Oh yes, forgot to add, backwards compatibility via emulation, processor emulation is apparently OK, proprietary GPU calls 'will cause hassle'.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-06-11 02:49pm

I wouldn't be surprised if the 360 is more graphically powerful.... after all, from what I've read, ATI put a lot more effort into tuning their chip for consoles than nVidia did (embedded RAM, anyone?).

But graphics aren't going to be the big thing this generation... physics and AI, I think, will play a much more important role. Now, Ars Technica thinks that neither the 360 nor the PS3 has a CPU that's well designed for either task, so I'm going to sit back and wait to see what's what.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-06-11 05:04pm

No offense, but EVERYONE always says they are the most powerful.

Go take a look at Apple's PowerMac G5 benchmarks sometime.

ATi will claim they are better, NVidia will claim they are better...

BTW, Arstechnica did say the Cell will actually provide a slight graphics boost since its designed somewhat like a GPU with the SPE's doing dedicated tasks, if I'm saying it right.

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2005-06-11 05:42pm

He's indeed given a lot of fairly good technical info about the X360's GPU, but he's putting a big PR spin on it. I also highly doubt his Xenos > RSX claim seeing how he has never seen the RSX. Anyways, I'm of the opinion that later hardware tends to be more powerful than older hardware. Given the lack of info I'm not going to claim more than that.