Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

PS3 vs. Xbox 360

  1. May 17, 2005 #1
    It is true, Xbox will be coming out first (christmas this year) but is it worth it to wait for the PS3? Sony better hurry up if you ask me, I'm a PS fan so no doubt my money is on the PS3; I mean it has bluray, the cell processor (2.x TFlops), etc., etc. too much features to mention, I just want a black one right now so that I can put some neon lights on it and make it look cooler. Nintendo is coming out with the revolution too but its not on my mind :).

    What do you people think about these these next generation consoles and which impress you the most. E3 is here!!!
  2. jcsd
  3. May 17, 2005 #2
    It is my understanding that the Xbox 360's processor will perform a bit slower than Sony's E3, however, I think that new systems will both be extremely great. I am impressed with how real the new games look for these systems! Too bad I'm not much of a gamer anymore... :(

    It's amazing how Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo seem to stay on the same page when it comes to new consoles. I guess that's what gives the consumer an edge for the console race! I do think that having new consoles every few years is a crazy system, just like computers and cell phones.
  4. May 17, 2005 #3
    I don't think that Nintendo has been on the same page though because I was impressed with the fact that they came out with a very small console but deep down everyone knows that it can't compete with with the PS3 or the Xbox 360. Nintendo just keeps putting themselves in a deeper hole everytime.
  5. May 17, 2005 #4
    That's true. The only thing holding it up are the Nintendo-only "classic" games such as Zelda, etc.
  6. May 17, 2005 #5
    I've seen the Game Cube system and I'm pretty impressed with it.

    New XBOX this christmas huh? Darn, I bought one last christmas and don't want to buy a new one already. Oh well, they will be cheaper by the time I'm ready to buy one. Maybe I'll get the PS3 instead.

    Do you know if the games from the older systems will be compatable with the newer ones?
  7. May 17, 2005 #6
    Yep you would be able to (smart move by nintendo).

    One of the good things is that all the consoles have made their games backward compatible. The ps3 would be able to play all ps2 games but the xbox 360 would play select games from the xbox collection (most likely halo).
  8. May 18, 2005 #7
    The Nintendo system will be a hit I think for one reason. While it is only something on the order of 3 times faster than the gamecube you can go online and play all the games from nes onward, and that is a system worth buying.
  9. May 18, 2005 #8
    I first thought that the Nintendo Gamecube was targeted more toward younger children than older teens/adults, but I certainly know of a 30-year-old person who has a Gamecube. I guess it's just the type of games you like. :)
  10. May 18, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'd be playen Zelda from N64 even if i were 40 :D
  11. May 18, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    New zelda this year!!!
  12. May 18, 2005 #11
    yes it really is who the market is, nintendo is aimed at younge kids, which need parents to buy it, so they cant jump too far into the technology market because they cant afford to raise the price too steep, whereas the 360 and ps3 is towards the adult generation, whom have jobs and can easily slap down cash for one
  13. May 19, 2005 #12
    I'm keeping a close eye on this one.

    I've yet to get a PS2 from playing other peoples consoles, but I will do in a week or so. I was going to wait until PS3 is release but rumours has it that it will be in March 2006. Can't wait for that long with games like Need for Speed and GTA out.

    One disappointment I'm hearing is the controller is a weird elongated boomerang design that is wireless, and you won't be able to put your old controllers in.

    http://www.ps3land.com/ps3-pictures/picture54.php [Broken]

    Still think PS3 is an easy winner though, everyone I know plays it over any other console.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  14. May 19, 2005 #13
    Poor Nintendo's demise...

    Nintendo is in deep trouble it seems... I haven't seen much info on their new console, but I did hear that its going to be DVD based, which I think is a bad move. With the PS3 using Blu-Ray, Nintendo (and the XBOX 360) will again be out classed in storage capacity. I've also heard that it will be again under powered compared to sony and microsoft's consoles. It will also be made small and "cute". Sound familier? The Game Cube and the N64 had these same handicaps, and of course did poorly in the market place. So following that, Nintendo again will run a distant 3rd to the others. Nintendo needs to stop trying for "cute" and go for powerfull.

    The only thing that kept Nintendo afloat during these last few years was their portable sales. Nintendo had a portable monopaly. But with the PSP out and (I believe) out selling the DS,I think Nintendo will soon go the way of Sega.
    Last edited: May 19, 2005
  15. May 19, 2005 #14

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I just wanted to throw in that I'm having a total gas with the PSP. At first I thought I'd only use it when stuck at the DMV or getting my tires changed, but the feature of turning it on right where you left the last game going is great. The wireless feature of playing against other PSP owners is great too. The graphics are really good, you can download music like for the Ipod, and you can watch movies on it. Great fun.
  16. May 20, 2005 #15
    The PS3 is definitely the winner and the price would be high too (maybe starting around $500). Microsoft has to have something up their sleeves, and although they would be launching first (in the US) that strategy wouldn't necessarily help them as it did for the PS2.

    If you are worried about the controllers, no need to because there are wireless controllers for the PS2_ not sure if they would work on the PS3. Plus as soon as these consoles get out there would be tons of aftermarket components.
  17. May 23, 2005 #16
    The 360's three 3GHz processors add up to about 1 teraflop, nothing that great. But Sony's cell processor will be running at 2.18 teraflops. Better than any processor that will be out on computers for years. Microsoft is just doing what it did before, making a computer with a fancy cover that's plagued with poor design. While Sony is actually inventing something new and not just getting a good deal on old computer parts, putting it in a box and calling it a console.

    Another thing about 360 is it's controler is going to be too much like the crappy XBox controler. Three words: TOO DAMN BIG! How many freakin' buttons do you need?! Sony's PS controller is by far the best controler I've ever used.

    Aside from the SNES, the greatest console of all time, the PS1 and PS2 are the best consoles I've every played. I have no dought Sony will school Microsoft yet again.
  18. May 23, 2005 #17
    From gamepro.com
    Sony pulled out all stops, revealing the look of the console, specs, and launch date. Slated for release in Spring 2006, the PlayStation 3 features a PowerPC-base core running at 3.2 GHz, 256MB of XDR RAM at 3.2 GHz, 256MB GDDR3 VRAM at 700 MHz, Bluetooth wireless controllers, built in WiFi (802.11b/g), and RSX, a state-of-the-art next-gen GPU by Nvidia with a clock speed of 550 MHz. Similar to the Xbox 360, the GPU is able to freely access the 512MB of RAM, lacking the constraints seen in conventional PCs. And continuing its tradition, the console is backwards compatible--as is the Xbox 360. "

    "While each effect in of itself is subtle, when all combined the added ambiance is noticeably improved from what's seen in top-end PC graphics. The PS3 also seemed to have significantly more complex polygonal models than the Xbox 360. While the 360's rather disappointing Ghost Recon 3 looked like a minor facelift from Ghost Recon 2, Killzone on the PlayStation 3 was an eyeopener--undoubtedly the most beautiful looking FPS game to date (Quake 3 and Half-Life 2 pale in comparison). When comparing the graphics between the 360 and the PS3, the latter has graphics that are true to the phrase "next-generation" while the 360 seems more like a respectable upgrade (say, the jump from PS One to PS2) from the original Xbox. "

    In short PS3 hands down has much more powerful hardware than 360, but the biggest question is whether this translates into better games.
  19. May 23, 2005 #18
    I'm not happy with the XBox controller either. It's not the size that bothers me. It's the buttons. They are too small and awkward. The black and white buttons are useless for any kind of fast reaction time. I like the triggers for the XBox. They have good pressure sensitivity and are actually useful, as opposed to the PS controller.

    Hey. This thread has over 900 views and like a dozen posts. Is that unusual?
  20. May 24, 2005 #19
    I think the xbox's controller is too big especially for kids. maybe they didn't design that controller for kids but i find it hard to believe that a 9 year old can play with it comfortably.
  21. May 24, 2005 #20
    JEebus christo no they don't. Microsft CLAIMS a total system performance of 1 teraflop, and thats not all from the processor. The majority is from the GPU. Further, saying 1 teraflop is nothing great is a little short of ridiculous. Less than 500 computers in the world are faster than 1 teraflop. Not 500 models, 500 physical mahcines. Not a single one of them has fewer than 200 processors.

    NO. The cell runs at 218 Gflops. total system performance is 2.18 Tflops. Again, I'm very suspicious of this number, as they are claiming the GPU hits 1.8 Tflops. And more like better than any computer with less than 200 processors for years.

    I think you're missing the irony in IBM screwing over MS by making the cell for Sony and giving MS the three year old PPCs. 10 year over due irony in fact.

    I never thought it was big. People must have really small hands because i've never had problems with it. In fact i think that the Dual Shock, while a good controller is too small. Makes the R1/R2 and L1/L2 buttons a pain in the ass.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook