Xbox 360

[Gryph]

I see your point. They shouldn't charge for the new XBE but I would not be surprised if that's how they used the Marketplace to download them. The way I see it is that Microsoft my charge a small fee ($1-$5) to download this recompiled XBE because they'll say something like "hey, we recompiled this for you and put it on our servers so we deserve a little compensation." Perhaps they may do it like they are doing with Halo 2 maps, pay some now (what a flocking ripoff that is, just absolutely pathetic) or get it free after a few months. Never underestimate the power of corporate greed. They won't pass up the chance to get money if they feel they can get away with it. Hell, the XBOX took a hit in every financial quarter except one so I think they might try to make up the loss any way they can.

 

That's just me and my mistrust of corporations talking.

[Gryph]

Alright, Microsoft cleared up their comments. They do have some sense. God I hate crappy reporting. I was wrong because of them.

"At launch, Xbox 360 will be backward compatible with the top Xbox games," Xbox PR manager Michael Wolf told GamesIndustry.biz today. "Our goal is to have every Xbox game work on Xbox 360. You will NOT need to purchase a new 'version' - your original games will work on Xbox 360."

[Inky]

sounds like a bunch of e3 hoodoo to me........

[Bluestinger X]

lol well if they would have just made that clear in the first place people wouldnt be speculating on it.

[Bluestinger X]

Xbox vs 360 comparison chart

 

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

 

How come sony was showing it being 3 times as fast?

[Wizard]

Because in theory Cell is faster then next gen PowerPC CPUs, which the Xbox 360 uses.

[O-Fear]

Here's a wallpaper I made for u 1024x768 users!

http://img138.echo.cx/img138/2408/gearsofwar27jp.jpg

Edited May 22, 2005 by O-Fear

[ken_cinder]

Because in theory Cell is faster then next gen PowerPC CPUs, which the Xbox 360 uses.

 

The PS3 IS running PowerPC...................mind you it's architecture is different in the way that, not just it's core is there, but several DSP in the same die. Quite frankly, that poses a serious heat dissipation issue IMO.

 

 

Oh and on another but related note, the performance specs Sony provided, had to have been whipped up by some tool for show. The final designs aren't even in yet, and how can you base performance on pre-rendered crap? Combining the performance of the DSPs and the GPU don't count for crap, 2+2 doesn't = 4 remember? You can't combine the GPU FLOPS with the CPU FLOPS and call it like it appears.

The CPU has to feed the GPU data first off, so theres some overhead that gives no actual output, and then theres the fact that if you were to "combine" the power, you wouldn't be able to use all of it, because unless the CPU and GPU were equal in power, one would be bottlenecking the other.

 

And look at the PS2, it's "power" was so hyped up that it was a blatant lie what they told people it was actually capable of.

[Gryph]

An interesting comparison but I wonder why they added the EDRAM bandwidth since it's not part of the CPU+GPU bandwidth pipeline. But the XBOX 360 is a beast which makes me like it even more.

[Lucandrake]

Make of it what you will, but be clear we know Microsoft has clearly slanted this info,

 

Does that mean they tinkered with some of the info (microsoft not IGN)

[Daeval]

Make of it what you will, but be clear we know Microsoft has clearly slanted this info,

 

Does that mean they tinkered with some of the info (microsoft not IGN)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It means they presented it in a deceptive way to make their system come out on top as much as possible. The statistics they gave for their own system might be true, but they did a lot of guesswork on the PS3, and obviously they're going to "guess" in their own favor. They might also have left things out of the comparison that would drastically change the results, etc, etc, etc. In other words, they did not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

Whenever you see one of these comparisons released by ANY of the people involved in the comparison, just gobble down the whole damn salt shaker before you read. 99.9999% of the time they fudged to make the "home system" look like it's years ahead of the competition - whether it's true or not. For all intents and purposes, these are cleverly crafted deceptions created by somebody's marketting department - in other words, they're about as meaningful as a poster of some happily smiling model, who's probably never played a game in her life, posing with a controller over a hype slogan.

 

You want real info? Wait until truly independent (IE, not being funded in any way by either company) third parties, with the equipment and know-how to scientifically test things, get ahold of both companies' release-spec machines.

Edited May 21, 2005 by Daeval