What are the Real differences between consoles?

Overheal

From here,

Overheal wrote:

the problem really seems to be the PS3: Sony's answer to the niggling problem that essentially all that variates consoles is the controller, who has the latest hardware, and a proprietary disc drive. They just went and pulled a stupid with the Cel Processor if you ask me. Making a proprietary processor thats a bitch to code for: oh yes, thats progress.

Am I right? Or are there some true bonafide differences between consoles anymore? Were there ever?

Dont get me wrong competition is great and all that. I just figure if you broke down a Megadrive and a SNES that they effectively boil down to the same thing. a PS2 is a souped up PS1 and the Dreamcast was God's misunderstood lovechild.

Are there any I guess, Core differences? Its easier to explain differences between a DS and a PSP, but for most of these consoles it just seems like youre paying for the cosmetics and whichever company can secure the most exclusive licensing rights. Theyre just PCs with different fixed-configurations, at the end of the day.

You can see why Im a PC gamer. I build my own damn console, essentially, and I get to play whatever the hell I want. At a stretch I can probably get Ps2 games to run on this if I put the effort and scallywagging into it. but lets not

rizzla

It really is just small differences with the biggest difference being console exclusive games. Company's like to spout how it's more than just a console, it's a media centre, it's for social networking, etc. There all just bullet points on a power point presentation that fanboys like to list off to say their console is better. When it comes down to it though they're near enough identical.

I couldn't be bothered with PC gaming though, too much hassle. That's why I buy consoles.

BopNiblets

Overheal wrote: »

Theyre just PCs with different fixed-configurations, at the end of the day.

Agreed, I think I remember reading you could use a standard PC PATA DVD drive in the first XBox or something, lols.

If 360 or PS3 did spreadsheets what would be the difference except for price?

This is a dead giveaway of the disguised PC they've snuck into people homes and heads!


*looks forward to playing Uncharted 2 on PS3 emulator in the near future*

Retr0gamer

There's big differences between consoles. I'd try and explain but I think some one with more tech experience should take a stab at it. Basically the PS3 has an amazing processor but it's non standard compared to the 360 architecture which is based on standard PC architecture which everyone knows. The PS3 however is bottle necked due to a much inferior GFX chipset compared to the excellent chipset in the 360. The PS3's design with it's multiple satellite SPU's was meant to use it's SPU's to take strain of the gfx processor but most companies don't bother doing this leading to much inferior looking games on the PS3. Only really Sonys first party games have been made by developers that understand the architecture and make games that look as good as or arguably better looking than the 360. The PS3's also has some nice tricks up it's sleave to disguise some of it's inadequacies particularly in it's GPU where it has trouble with multiple transparency effects or distortion effects compared to the 360. The PS3 can dynamically lower the resolution during hectic moments and display an image through a transparency in much lower resolution.

It really was a big mistake Sony to go the route of proprietary architectre. The Cell processor isn't as amazing as they made it out to be, but that the usual Sony BS we heard with every new console. They should have learnt their lesson with the PS2 which had some shockingly bad looking games compared to the less powerful but much better designed Dreamcast especially in the early year or two. They should also have known to concentrate on a better gfx card instead of cpu since it's what made the PS1 so much better than the Saturn.

If you want to get a good insight on this read Richard Leadbetters excellent multiformat face off articles on digital foundry.

As for other consoles I can only really speak for the SNES and Megadrive which were again two very different beasts. The MD sound chip was a horrible FM synth chip, while the snes had a proprietary sony made DSP chip which is one of the greatest sound chips ever made and sounds gorgeous. It's a better sound chip than what was in the PS1. The megadrive could only display 64 out of a palette of 512 colours while the snes could display over 32000 colours and had transparency and mode 7 hardware scaling and rotation of a background plane. This is why the megadrive had such drab looking games compared to the SNES and only the very best developers could get transparency and fake rotation effects out of the megadrive late in it's life. Thes SNES had one big problem, it's main CPU was dire, almost the same speed as the master systems. Thats why games like gunstar heroes on the megadrive could turf around tonnes or sprites while snes games slowed down and flicked quite a bit. The snes had a high res mode but this was only ever used in the start menu of secret if mana and secret of evermore. The SNES was quite different from anything else at the time but was very easy to get to grips with while the mega drive was a doddle since it was based on the very common 68000.

One great example of how very similar hardware can differ is the megadrive and neo geo. Looking at the specs they are also the same console yet there's no way in hell the Megadrive could pull off Metal Slug.

Usually during the console war the hardware differs greatly from each other.

TomCo

http://beautifulpixels.blogspot.com/2008/08/multi-platform-multi-core-architecture.html

This helps explain the differences between the architectures of the major consoles around at the mo.

They really, really arent just PC's with different configurations. Console are special purpose machines designed, basically, just to play games. They are designed from the ground up just to do this.

PC's are general purpose computing devices that can do a million and one things, one of which is play games. The general purpose design of CPU's for PC's reflect this.

Stephen

Modern consoles are becoming more like general purpose PC's though - look at the PS3 with its Linux (although I believe they're dropping support for that in the slim), web browser, media streaming, blu-ray films, etc. Games are only one of many things it does. Even their advertising slogan (here in the US anyway) is "It only does EVERYTHING".

TomCo

Stephen wrote: »

Modern consoles are becoming more like general purpose PC's though - look at the PS3 with its Linux (although I believe they're dropping support for that in the slim), web browser, media streaming, blu-ray films, etc. Games are only one of many things it does. Even their advertising slogan (here in the US anyway) is "It only does EVERYTHING".

True, but they are still designed to a tighly specced known list of applications - the most important and influenetial (from a design point of view) of which is gaming.

Tea_Bag

Finally, a proper thread about the consoles that doesnt have "PS3/360 is better" etc. being an Xbox gamer myself, i sometimes wonder if the ps3 hasnt reached its full potential yet, with the coding for the Cell, whereas the 360 is just a tripple core PC that hasnt really got future "unlockable" potential.

Kiith

Tea_Bag wrote: »

Finally, a proper thread about the consoles that doesnt have "PS3/360 is better" etc.

Give it time.

PogMoThoin

Kiith wrote: »

Give it time.

Lets hope this works, there's never been a discussion about consoles on here that didn't turn into a flaming war

super_furry

As a gamer if a game I want is on both consoles, I'll go for the 360 version. The controller is the biggest deal for me - I think the 360's is brilliant and PS3's poor. Multi-player is a big factor for me too because most of my friends play on Xbox Live, with only a handful of PSN. Finally and least importantly, I'd go for achievements over trophies.

Having said that, my PS3 is seeing more action than ever thanks to Demon Souls and what I consider to be the game of the generation so far - Drakes 2.

CiDeRmAn

Unless the game is exclusive to a given format there is precious little between the two machines in real terms.
The performance differences will, undoubtedly become more pronounced as companies switch from using the 360 as the lead development plaform to the PS3, when compromises will have to be made given the extra horse power of the Sony machine.
But, for the time being, it's all the same.

In the long run, the next 3/4 years, the 360 is going to look really tired, unless Natal suceeds in re-launching it into the Wii customer sphere, where gameplay is more important than visuals.
And thats another thing, the sucessor to the Wii can be no more than 2 years away, and we will then have a console combining Nintys incredible grasp of the casual gamers wallet and proper current gen visuals.
It could steal the game from everyone, Sony and MS included.

Retr0gamer

The PS3 really doesn't have much extra horsepower over the 360 if any. The GFX card is really bottle necking the PS3.

cherryghost

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The PS3 really doesn't have much extra horsepower over the 360 if any. The GFX card is really bottle necking the PS3.

that and the fact sony are PROUD that it takes longer to develop games on the platform, not to mention Microsofts insanely long waiting list to approve patches for the games.

At the end of the day:

PS3 has better CPU grunt than a 360.
360 has more grunt in its GPU than a PS3.

which pretty much balances everything out!

Retr0gamer

Not really. A more powerful dedicated GPU for taking the load off the CPU is far more important than a more powerful CPU. As anyone with a PC knows you can get years of use out of a decent CPU but it's the GPU that usually needs upgrading every so often. The SPU's on the Cell were supposed to help out with the GPU load but just aren't optimised for it like a dedicated GPU and most third parties hardly use the SPU's. The biggest advantage of the 360 GPU is the 10MB of lightning fast eDRAM on board which gives it an edge in outputting more detail and effects a lot quicker.

I must admit the arrogance out of Sony's PR people has always been hilarious, were every flaw is made out to not be a flaw but a massive advantage

Nichololas

XBox owners talk like this, Wii owners talk like this.

PS3 owners have no one to talk to.

Overheal

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not really. A more powerful dedicated GPU for taking the load off the CPU is far more important than a more powerful CPU.

Heres some backup for that claim: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-gpu-wifi-hack,6483.html

Russian Hackers reportedly broke through WPA and WPA2 encryption using a brute force attack coupled with Nvidia’s GPUs. With no mention of which specific card was used in the discovery, the card supposedly increased password recovery up to 10,000 percent faster.

cherryghost

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not really. A more powerful dedicated GPU for taking the load off the CPU is far more important than a more powerful CPU. As anyone with a PC knows you can get years of use out of a decent CPU but it's the GPU that usually needs upgrading every so often. The SPU's on the Cell were supposed to help out with the GPU load but just aren't optimised for it like a dedicated GPU and most third parties hardly use the SPU's. The biggest advantage of the 360 GPU is the 10MB of lightning fast eDRAM on board which gives it an edge in outputting more detail and effects a lot quicker.

I must admit the arrogance out of Sony's PR people has always been hilarious, were every flaw is made out to not be a flaw but a massive advantage

im a pc gamer, i know that.

what im saying is gpu is bottlenecking the ps3, and the 360 cpu will bottleneck the gpu at some point, or even, its started already. who knows.

Overheal

at some point?

Wasnt crysis edit - ever launched on the consoles? It doesnt seem like they would max it out or anything near to it.

Zillah

Technologically any differences or problems to be found amongst the various consoles are an entirely unnecessary byproduct of marketing. As a PC gamer I can't help but look at the entire console market and shake my head in dismay at a very needlessly messy situation.

I understand the desire for a more direct livingroom put-in-and-play sort of gaming, but there has to be a better way. Technologically there is certainly a better way, but the way the market shapes the design process is no less real than the way the laws of physics shapes the design process.

Overheal

You have to understand that Console Gaming long predates modern-concept Personal Computing. I think Doom was one of the earliest Console-Killers of its generation. Still back then, Computers were incredibly finnicky. Consoles were too, but it was easier by leaps and bounds to work with a NES than it was watching Windows 95 kill itself over and over.

But now we're at this empass where because of Red Rings of Death and Cel Processors that the PC is now not only the lead in raw performance but its also beginning to take over in terms of platform stability. Nothing much stands in the way of PC Developers enabling Split screen mode; the support is already there for everything else (and split screen is there for a small few). And a platform like Steam seems more than capable of doing what Xbox Live can do - And more. For instance, I would see zero reason to play L4D on the 360 when I can play it in precisely the same fasion on the PC, usally with better results.

Thats why the Wii hopped on motion control and why PS3 hopped on six-axis and why 360 is going full steam with Natal. Not that anything will stop a PC from doing any of those things, but it seems like the Console Companies are desperately trying to hold their ground on the Console Market. Theyre struggling from what I can see, to find anything that differentiates them from a PC. And they almost keep shooting themselves in the foot, all but marketing them as TVPCs.

Im not trying to bash them I just have trouble seeing the appeal. It was great when I had an Xbox that could run Halo 2 and a PC that could barely run black and white. But now I've got a laptop that can squeeze Crysis while my friends are still waiting for their 360's to come home from Redmond.

gizmo

While I now own both the 360 and PS3, my first consoles since the SNES, even as a long term PC gamer who still has a high end PC for certain titles, I find it hard to agree with you Overheal.

Overheal wrote: »

Nothing much stands in the way of PC Developers enabling Split screen mode

Except for the fact that most PCs are typically plugged into smaller LCD screens than their living room kin and usually located either in some corner of the room or even it's own office making them unacceptable for group play. Sure you could have it set up in such a way that it is closer to the centre of the room or at least within display cable range but surely you realise that is not what PCs, in general, are built for.

Overheal wrote: »

...but it seems like the Console Companies are desperately trying to hold their ground on the Console Market. Theyre struggling from what I can see, to find anything that differentiates them from a PC. And they almost keep shooting themselves in the foot, all but marketing them as TVPCs.

I completely and utterly disagree with this. If anything it's the other way around this generation as the consoles have been one of the primary reasons for the continuing decrease in PC games sales or, if you want to look at it another way, the dwarfing of them when comparing multi-platform sales. Look at the likes of Modern Warfare, part of a series which started on the PC and made it's reputation there, but which now sees its PC sales pale in significance to its console counterparts. On top of this we also see MW2 and Operation Flashpoint 2 lose dedicated server support and revert to the console style of matchmaking, again another move to bring PCs in line with consoles.

Even outside of games we're seeing consoles adopt features of PCs - on the 360 you have increasing amounts of social networking interaction with the likes of avatars, Last.fm, Twitter and Facebook whereas on the PS3 you have features like the BBC iPlayer app, internet browser and the forthcoming movie and TV services already available on the former system. What they're basically doing is cherry picking the best elements of what mainstream entertainment audiences want from the PC/internet and putting it on consoles. To back all of this up you also have USB/Bluetooth keyboard/mouse support on the consoles which is used in both the above features and also in some games, something which I think will increase in usage as both this generation matures and certainly more so in the next-gen of consoles.

Overall, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we're more likely to see a transition of traditional console to consumer friendly gaming-HTPC rather than from a desktop PC. That being said at the end of the day we'll end up with something that will be quite similar on a technological level but which will be viewed differently as a "console" by mainstream consumers due to the focused marketing of the big three console manufacturers.

Overheal

Even outside of games we're seeing consoles adopt features of PCs - on the 360 you have increasing amounts of social networking interaction with the likes of avatars, Last.fm, Twitter and Facebook whereas on the PS3 you have features like the BBC iPlayer app, internet browser and the forthcoming movie and TV services already available on the former system. What they're basically doing is cherry picking the best elements of what mainstream entertainment audiences want from the PC/internet and putting it on consoles. To back all of this up you also have USB/Bluetooth keyboard/mouse support on the consoles which is used in both the above features and also in some games, something which I think will increase in usage as both this generation matures and certainly more so in the next-gen of consoles.

Overall, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we're more likely to see a transition of traditional console to consumer friendly gaming-HTPC rather than from a desktop PC. That being said at the end of the day we'll end up with something that will be quite similar on a technological level but which will be viewed differently as a "console" by mainstream consumers due to the focused marketing of the big three console manufacturers.

Right. They will wind up being the XPSs etc. of Home Theatre Gaming. Similarly tailored to gaming, but hopefully to FSM they will not be so proprietary - Xbox 360 Hard Drives? Really, Microsoft?

So do you think we would see that? Settop Gaming machines tailored for 4-player roflstomp, but with some or the same interlopability of PCs and PC hardware: There should be nothing in the way of a Console Gamer (eg.) Upgrading their Hard Drive, or their Processor, or their RAM. The only kick in that whole plan seems to be Tray to Play.

DARK-KNIGHT

jesus why does anyone care which is better?

its all about personal preference not telling people buy whichever as x is **** lol!

anyways i have started to play jenga recently and its so much fun lol:)

Overheal

raycaulwell wrote: »

jesus why does anyone care which is better?

its all about personal preference not telling people buy whichever as x is **** lol!

anyways i have started to play jenga recently and its so much fun lol:)

Im not bashing anything here (though if I was - well **** how could I? The PS3 is a joke and the 360 is a big melting ball of Fail. But you can send your counter-arguments to my PM box).

At the moment, here in this thread, I am just GENUINELY Interested in the State of Console Gaming and ultimately the Future of Console Gaming (And henceforth, the Future of Home Gaming)

Its pointless bashing any platform. They ALL have problems. PCs included. Preference is all about which one you can tolerate most.

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

Right. They will wind up being the XPSs etc. of Home Theatre Gaming. Similarly tailored to gaming, but hopefully to FSM they will not be so proprietary - Xbox 360 Hard Drives? Really, Microsoft?

So do you think we would see that? Settop Gaming machines tailored for 4-player roflstomp, but with some or the same interlopability of PCs and PC hardware: There should be nothing in the way of a Console Gamer (eg.) Upgrading their Hard Drive, or their Processor, or their RAM. The only kick in that whole plan seems to be Tray to Play.

Actually I see them more like the Popcorn Hour of gaming, basically a specifically built PC on the inside but with all the fiddly and boring bits hidden from the user and with similar functionality at a higher level. A practical example of this is the aforementioned app integration of Twitter/Facebook/iPlayer into the current consoles.

As for hardware, I think we're going to disagree here. For one I don't think that a console can ever have upgradeable hardware outside of hard drive space. If you do then you're immediately introducing a barrier to entry for the consumer as well as limiting a manufacturers ability to benefit from economics of scale over time. This is on top of the fact that consoles aren't designed for people who either know or, in many cases, want to upgrade their machine. They just want to buy a console that will last them 3-5 years where they know every game they pick up off the shelves will work and where they can look in magazines, read previews and know that whenever that fantastic looking game is going to be released that it'll work on their machine, problem free. The same cannot be said as assuredly from a PC gamers standpoint unfortuantely.

PogMoThoin

Now this is just pulling the piss

Overheal

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Now this is just pulling the piss

Ladies and Gentlemen: Exhibit A.

If consoles were still Innovating, they wouldn't be very worried about this sorta crap.

and thats the other problem too, its great they keep the price of the console low but then they go and pull dick moves like this just so they can keep themselves afloat: Whats the point??

tman

Overheal wrote: »

Dont get me wrong competition is great and all that. I just figure if you broke down a Megadrive and a SNES that they effectively boil down to the same thing. a PS2 is a souped up PS1 and the Dreamcast was God's misunderstood lovechild.

I wouldn't go that far... The SNES had far greater colour range (Mega drive was limited to 256 colours iirc, and it really showed!), it had a FAR superior sound chip (listen to the DKC soundtrack and try to argue otherwise!)
They were definitely a lot further apart technically then the PS3 and 360 are today.

In other words, mega drives are gay

Retr0gamer

The SNES had Super Metroid. Therefore it was better.

noodler

I don't think I understand enough about computers to contribute in a meaningful way on the viability of some sort of upgradeable console. (maybe thats a problem, I am not exactl a technophobe so if I am a little bewildered what about all the lads with PS3s/360s/wiis who onl bought it for the odd game of Fifa).

However, I will agree with Overheal regarding hardware reliability. Nothing, bar the odd printer, has even physcially broken for me on a PC. No matter, how many CDs, DVDs etc that I rip the laser never burns out in particular.