I think you missed my stats ;-)

So your not talking any where close to 360 hardware.

@below
way to throw it in reverse, I think, I dont understand box boy I guess.

Xbox360 excels the Ps3 in everything except hardware.

what just happened here?

you are right... Very well said.

"And the more cores you have, the harder it is to keep them fed with stuff to process when you're making a game. That's why although the PS3 has a huge amount of power on paper, it's much harder to get that power out of the system, due to the way you have to juggle threads and stuff in a game."

I know you're not bashing, just making a point, and I'm not attacking you, just countering your point.

I dont think thats neccessarily true. All hes saying is you cant have a processer running 100% all the time, like you cant drive a car top speed all the time, you need to slow for corners. They need to leave space for something else coming up.

Saying that what PS3 power is hard to tap doesn't ring true to me. There would always be plenty of things to do for the SPU's, you can dedicate whole cores just for the physics, or for the particle effects, whatever, but they still need to leave headroom too for things about to happen. Thats not different for any proccesser.

You're right but things need to carefully allocated on PS3. With XB you can chuck all they work in a blender and let the CPU go for it but PS3 needs specific instructions on which core does what, thats why its more complicated, but its also why its move powerful, things are alot neater when stored in their own place and each SPU does its own job.

Obviously I dont have the technical jargon to explain all of this properly and I may be off abit, but from what I've read on Cell I have the jist of it pretty well.

Bathyj, even though you disagree with me, I want you to know that I appreciate your constructive tone. I wish more people on this site were as diplomatic as you.

But, back to the points at hand. What you say about the Xbox isn't quite true, the processor isn't like on a PC where you can have as many threads as you like and just let the OS sort out which goes where, each core is "in order", which to my understanding basically means you can't just have threads willy-nilly jumping around the place like you can on a desktop processor ("out-of-order", but the flip side is that in-order is cheaper). I believe that each core on the 360 can handle 2 separate threads (In a system similar to Intel's Hyperthreading), giving you a total of 6 threads to work with. This means you have to carefully decide what those threads are doing at any one time. There's no need to dedicate an entire thread to just one operation, you can leave your threads in a "Pool" and grab them as you need them (So for example, the thread that does physics might do some scene culling later on).
I believe the PS3's SPUs are similar in that regard, but don't quote me on that as I haven't looked into it.

Still, think of it this way, whenever a processor isn't running at 100%, you're sort of "wasting" processing time. It's very unlikely that all cores will be running at 100% at any given time, simply due to how it all works, so the more cores you have, the harder it is to keep multiple cores running at 100% - eventually, one core is going to be finished before another and there's always going to be a "bottleneck" somewhere where the rest have done their job for that frame and you're waiting for the final thread to finish, so the amount of computing time you "waste" goes up with the number of cores.

I hope that makes sense lol.

Whoa someone out there that feels the same as me. I agree, because when you play it yourself you make your own review so if you go online and see not many people liked it you may not like it either, being afraid to pick it up. Ah its hard to type what im trying to explain but i guess thats the best i can..

You mean like having trouble getting those high end 360 multiplatform games to work right on a PS3?

You don't understand how that works, do you Jason?

I think he understands it... he just acts stupid to piss off some people.

Well... I HOPE he understands it... I mean noone can be that stupid.

He's trying to show some love for Sony.

I liked Hancock.

when it was a hilarious comedy. the second half was weak sauce.

my theory about what happened with Hancock was this:

Studio A wanted to produce an all around super hero comedy sendup.

Studio B wanted to make a serious, angsty super hero movie, in line with all the others out there.

in the end, they made a compromise, and took the first half of the comedy super hero movie, and the last half of the serious super hero movie, and meshed them together.

somewhere, in my heart, i know there is the hilarious last half of the super hero comedy, and the serious first half of the serious super hero comedy.

i'm joking of course, but that's what the movie feels like: to totally different super hero movies slapped together because the studios that threw down money to make it couldn't decide if they wanted to do a comedy, or a dark super hero movie.

ON TOPIC: i wish Alan Wake would just come out already. if Heavy Rain hits before Alan Wake does, i'm going to laugh. both are right up my alley (i miss adventure games), and i'd love to have both this year, honestly.

Is not like they can't max it out, it is more like they need to leave some resource for some other post-processing processes...

Quote:

"Any developer obviously tries to use all of the available hardware resources. {{{{But it’s unrealistic to assume having all cores at 100% at all times.}}}

Just as an example, {{{sometimes you need to stream new data in and decompress that on the fly}}}", and for that you need additional resource.

Have you seen what happens when a PC processor goes all the way to 100%? Your PC crashes. From this I could say that the X360 have been maxed out a long time ago. If the PS3 is in its 2 year and the X360 on its third, the answer it's pretty obvious... A full year ahead with easier development... mmmmmmm... What would be you answer?

English is the native language of this site; I suggest you learn it, before attempting to post again.

But I just cant believe you bought a 360 for this game. Nobody knows anything about this... why would you buy a gaming console for a game noone (including you) knows anything about?

You're crazy.

I hope Alan Wake is good. I wish I had a 360 also... not for Alan Wake though (for other games) at least not yet since I know nothing about it.

I hope you're not disappointed...
Thats a lot of money to waste on a gaming system for a game that you dont even have the slightest inklink will be good or not.

For all you know it's an RTS game! :)

I also bought it because of Wake. Why? Because it's made by Remedy...And Remedy never disappoints me with their games.

It's like Valve

I agree that the 360 is cheap and I also think the games in there are great.

I just dont understand why would you buy it for Alan Wake since noone knows anything about it... for other games (Gears, Mass Effect...) I get it, they are hella fun.

well in a sense he is right since we haven't really seen a gameplay trailer of Alan Wake. XD

There is however a tech demo. That's the closes to gameplay they have shown

Doesnt make much sense...but it does make you think.

I doubt it's true, but you also cant rule out the fact that MS has a lot of money.

a lot.

And they'll USE it.

Sorry but that is not true.Alan Wake is published and funded by Microsoft games Studios.Also remedy is just a small team of 28 and stated in a previous article that they don't know how to code games for the PS3.The trailer you saw was running on a PC.

They likely were active in the past, but its been over a decade and have since expired.