Urgent! Help Please!

[SimplyFresh]

Okay, so I have this "Converted" PS3 fan in my Math Class. We've had this 360 Vs. PS3 debate for 2 or 3 days now, but he continues to say the same thing over and over again like, "The PS3's GPU has 50mhz more in processing speed" or, "PS3 has Blu-Ray which lets game developers hold more storage".

As for me, I make a come back by saying, "The 360's ATI GPU has 10 eRam, which enables it to process Anti-Aliasing, Frame Buffering, Texture Filtering, etc. without any lag or crashing. The 50MHZ different does not change anything". And as for the Blu-Ray issue, "First of all, no game developer will ever use the full 54gb of storage space".

And yet he continues to say, "YES IT DOES!" and he continues to say the same damn thing over and over again.

Is there really a difference? does 50mhz really affect the PS3 GPu? Also, I mentioned stuff about Bandwidth and how it is very important. I also said 360 had 5x more then PS3. And just today he said PS3 has more bandwidth than Xbox 360. And he also thinks there is no significance to system bandwidth.

I also mentioned things like the 360 can overall perform better than the PS3 because the PS3 has very complicated architecture. I also say things like, "The Xbox 360 can perform "Procedural Synthesis". Yet, he still finds no importance for everything I say. He still continues to say, "Well, PS3 has Blu-Ray, do you know how amazing that is?" or, "PS3 still has a 50mhz advantage, that means PS3 can process graphics 50mhz faster".

And he goes on and on about the same damn thing. He also says things like, "The PS3 supports 1080p and 360 does not." And I'm like, "Uhhh... So?"

Anyway, can anyone help me shut him up? cuz seriously, I've explained many different aspects of the 360 like:

- Procedural Synthesis
- 10mb eRam
- What the ATI GPU is capable of doing
- 5x more Bandwidth
- 3 Core Processor (6 Threads)
- How the Cell Processor has many bottlenecks and has a poor architecture
- Games will overall run better on the Xbox 360
- How it is easier to make games for Xbox 360
- The Xbox 360 is meant to run at 100% Full Capacity
- The PS3 will only run at 70% of Power

I've mentioned many other things, yet he still thinks the Xbox 360 sucks compared to the PS3 and he still uses these to fight back with:

- Blu-Ray
- Supports 1080p
- Has a 50mhz Advantage in GPU speed.

Can someone please help me shut him up? And this question goes to the experts in these forums. If you are willing to educate me just write a brief summary of all the things I've listed above and then compare it to the PS3.

Also, give a overall summary explaining which console would run better and etc.

[Grindstone]

Well, you've got all the basics you need to defeat him, but you've gone into a "blind obedience" phase with the PS3 loyalist- and unfortunately, once they go there, there is very little to convince them otherwise. I'm sorry, he's lost.

There are so many comparisons out there at Anandtech, Arstechncia, et alii. debating the pro's and con's of both consoles. The end result is a "wash" by most analists understanding. I've heard that the Blu-ray may suffer from load times because it'll be a first gen drive. I have no proof to it though- just speculation. I am sure you are aware that the Cell prcessor is not designed for gaming and that it will be a programing nightmare for developers. As such, at least a couple of games have been pulled (not to mention the $17.5 million dollar startup costs for developers). Or the fact that the PS3 GPU will be outdated by the time the PS3 hits the markets, whereas the 360's GPU will be available at the end of `06.

Every little claim that Sony has purported to be PS3 capable (game trailers) can be done on the 360 as well. You may want to tell your gaming nemesis that whereas he will be waiting until late `06- early `07 to play his PS3, you'll be playing yours tomorrow.

Given that the consoles may be a wash in hardware, you have to look at other features such as the unified online gaming (XBL) and the multimedia aspects as well, coupled with the equipment shipping with the console.

First, XBL is awesome- there are significantly more good reasons to endorse XBL than negative. Sony will not have any unified service (which is odd since Nintendo will) and is leaving the online portion to the games. Many people believe that it will be free, but this is hopeful wishing. Even now some PS2 players pay a online service fee to play certain games. With the cost of game development going up, I am hard pressed to see software companies throwing away potential revenue for an online service. Add to it making new accounts with various developers everytime and I see a headache brewing for gamers.

Next are the packages: Premium v. Core. Obviously core is for less than casual gamers, IMO and not really worth it- unless you compare it what you get with the PS3, which at this point we are lead to believe is this; a console, one controller. The 360 Core is $299 as of now, I reckon the PS3 will be more, maybe $399 like the Premium- but you do not get that sort of deal (all things included in the premium package). But if the PS3 ships with what the Core has, and if the systems are a "wash", then they are still getting hosed.

Lastly I wonder about the Linux part of PS3. I really do not see this as being a huge selling point for most gamers- so it runs on Linux, who cares as long as it plays those pretty Killzone 2 graphics. Will it have the same features as the 360? It should if Ken K. really wanted it to be a multi-media machine/super-computer. Have we seem anything about it yet? I don't recall...

Of course, this all comes down to games. That's the real reason behind the Sony fanboisms (or at least it should be). Ultimately it will be a "which games look best on what system" war. The 360 will most likely win in that department as it is easier to develop for and will have about a year ahead of PS3 so developers will be able to utilize it better.

Best of luck to you, I've been in a few arguments myself, might as well be arguing politics, sports or religion. The end result is anger and justification.

[SimplyFresh]

Thanks a bunch Grindstone. I'll be sure to explain this stuff to him. But could you also explain to me in brief summaries by comparing each individual piece of hardware? Don't mean to trouble you but you can if you want to.

Here are the topics:
- Processor
- GPU
- Bandwidth
- Memory
- (And other little things)

[Grindstone]

Gosh, I'd love to rehash all that for you... but not today.
Here, pick any of the following articles for your informational pleasure from Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PS3+%2B+Xbox+360

I've read most of them, they should help you a) refine your argumentation and b) be a good source to reference to in support your conclusions. Best of luck- make us proud.

[P Mack]

Good. You don't have to go into tech specs. The 360 has a excellent GPU. Tell the nerd it is how devs use the power. If Sony offers all this confusion, how will devs use its "power"? The 360 is powerful yet easy on devs. tell him that.

[electricjoe13]

right power means NOTHING if developers can't use it all...lol It's like having a Porsche and only being able to press the gas pedal 3/4 of the way for as long as you'll own it....yeah it has alot of horse power I just don't see it all being used...thats all

[zCraven15]

tell that nerd to screw himself. he's stupid. Pardon my french.
the ps3 is supossed to go for $450 but u know what ever dony says it will be, it'll be a good $100 more. ps3 is too much money to put up a once. Games are supposed to cost $70, according to an article written 2 days ago. the 360 is going to win the race in the long run. just keep going with ur idea of the 360 being better, ur right dude.

[MostWanted]

If he givs you any more problems, tell him to come to Planet Xbox 360. We'll set him straight.