• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Dissecting the Hardware: Xbox 360 vs PlayStation 3

by Alec Matias, Jun 27, 2005 7:24am PDT
Related Topics – xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Sony

Hot on the heels of the fanboy article comes this compare-and-contrast piece by AnandTech, thoroughly looking at the hardware of both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. If you want to learn how consoles are built architecturally, this is what you need. They also try to answer questions that definitely have a bit of mystery to them, such as "will Sony deliver on 1080p?"

Graphics-wise the 360's Xenos GPU and the PS3's RSX are fairly different in implementation, but may end up being very similar in performance. Treating Xenos as a 24-pipe R420, it could be quite competitive with a 24-pipe RSX despite a lower clock speed. The unified shader architecture of the Xenos GPU will offer an advantage in the majority of games today where we aren't very geometry limited. The free 4X AA support offered by Xenos is also extremely useful in a console, especially when hooked up to a large TV. ... In the end it seems that Microsoft was more focused on spending money where it counts (e.g. CPU, GPU, HDD) and skimped on areas that would have otherwise completed the package (e.g. more USB ports, built in wireless, router functionality, flash card readers, HDMI support in the box, etc...). Whereas Sony appears to have just spent money everywhere, but balanced things out by shipping with no hard drive.
AnandTech also gives us a clue as to how game development will be different in the future. For instance, multi-threading will double or even triple development time. Also, the Xbox 360's environment takes on a more "general purpose" appeal, thus making it easier to develop for. Of course, AnandTech wasn't crazy enough to declare a winner; there are still far too many unknowns at this point and in the end, isn't it all about the games anyway?


Read all the News


Comments

27 Threads* | 255 Comments
  • #57
    Refresh Thread
    By: NoCopy x
    Reply
    From a market strategy perspective, I think MS is right on the money and Sony is making a few key mistakes.

    Although MS's "GamerGirl" (or whatever they called her) presentation was cheesy, the fact still remains that MS is clearly trying to open up the market to non-gamers, or people who wouldn't normally consider buying or using a console machine. In addition to that, they are providing current Xbox owners with features they had to hack to get in this current generation.

    Whereas Sony seems to be trying to play the one-up hardware game, attacking MS's dominance in the console graphics market right now. It is almost as if they are trying to fight this generation’s console war with next generation technology; except their entire online strategy (and community) is still a bunch of question marks at this point. Maybe that will improve by launch but really they are going to have to pull out something good to compete with Live on that front.

    At this point, even if MS looses some loyalists to the (questionably) better hardware of the Playstation 3, they are poised to pick up those numbers and more with their broad target audience. I say questionably because no one really knows who is going to win the better hardware battle but with the PS3 launching a good time after Xbox 360 it’s a safe bet Sony will take that crown.

    The Sims is still one of the best selling PC games, and really, all it’s going to take for MS is one Sims type game (or even Sims itself) with user created downloadable content (made possible by the built in HD) to pick up that broad market share.

    This is just my speculation, but I believe Sony loyalists will still keep PS3 at number one but I wouldn’t be surprised if MS picks up significant market share on them. Even if Sony can launch an incredible online strategy at this point, it’s going to be hard to compete on the content front (both user made and downloadable) without a built in hard drive.

    Just my thoughts.
    Jun 27, 2005 10:45am PDT