@MikeB

Quote:

After reading up at sales stats websites I finally understand why there is so much conflicting data. I already thought this was the case.

Sales numbers are indeed confusing more than anything else.

Regardless, remember that 360 launched in all three main territories unlike the PS3, so numbers are split up differently.

In any case it's a good thing that Sony have improved their production rate so that those who really want a PS3 can get one at the moment.

@Trezzer

Quote:

The Xbox 360 is equipped with a 12x DVD drive

2x Blu-Ray would be slower than the average read speed of a 12x DVD drive reading single-layer DVDs. A 12x DVD drive (like the one in the 360) reads DVD9s (dual-layer discs) at 8x.

Hitachi has some specs on one of the drives used in the 360

5x to 12x (6.25 to 16 MB/s) Single Layer
3.3x to 8x (4.125 to 10.8 MB/s) Dual Layer

Quote:

It would be have been odd if the PS3s drive was faster since the load times are reported to be significantly longer than on Xbox 360.

This may be the case with single layer DVDs and also depends on the location of the disc being read. Also the PS3 version may have more data to read from disc, such as additional graphics. But if developers think the loading times are too much, every PS3 comes with a hard drive pre-installed which can be used to reduce loading times.

Last edited by MikeB on 04-Jan-2007 at 02:16 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Hitachi has some specs on one of the drives used in the 360

Yes, and as you well know the drive is always spinning at full RPM, so the numbers on Wikipedia seem quite reasonable.

Quote:

Also the PS3 version may have more data to read from disc, such as additional graphics.

That's not likely since the PS3 doesn't have as much texture memory as the 360.

Quote:

But if developers think the loading times are too much, every PS3 comes with a hard drive pre-installed which can be used to reduce loading times.

Yes, and even then reviews have said loading times were longer on PS3. I'm sure they can be improved but so far this is the case.

@Trezzer

Quote:

Yes, and as you well know the drive is always spinning at full RPM, so the numbers on Wikipedia seem quite reasonable.

No, the reading speed of DVD ROMs greatly differs depending on the location of the disk being read. Wikipedia states max data reads at the outer rings of a single layer DVD. All 12x DVD players read double layered DVDs at max x8 speeds and slower on the inner rings. This in not the case for the PS3 Blu-Ray drive can read at a sustained 9MB/s data transfer.

Some more food for thought regarding HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray:

BD bitrate: 54 Mbit/s
HD DVD bitrate: 36.55 Mbit/s
And they use the same codecs...

This and the fact that a Blu-ray disc can store more data (software and/or movie content) is the main difference between the two technologies. Not much else in reality, so in terms of quality people can argue as much as they want about both standards. But if a HD-DVD solution offers better picture quality than a Blu-Ray solution this has nothing to do with the Blu-Ray standard itself and other factors come into play.

Blu-Ray should offer better picture quality and if not then it may be due to things like worse quality cables, worse quality player and/or worse quality movie content.

@DonnieA2

Quote:

I own 3 26" HDTVs all do 1080i, two are LCDs one from Insignia the other from Oliviea, and a TUBE based HDTV from Samsung. The Samsung is the oldest but when I hook up either my media center PC over DVI or I hook up my xbox 360 I can tell the difference in resolution modes..

While there's no question here I'm making it one to explain why... Your TV setup is a a ratio of not only resolution of the screen, but distance of the viewer from the screene, along with quality of the user. The average user in the average American home has a viewing distance of 8-10 feet from the screen. A few people can notice a difference between 1080p and 720p around 50" and most everyone notices the difference if the screen is 60". So yes if you have a 26" screen and are sitting a distance that's abnormally close you may notice a difference. The difference between 720p and 1080i is less then 10% in pixels/per screen. The ideal sitting distances for the same sized TV displaying either resolution is nearly identical.

Now add on to this that most content is not currently at 1080p. DVDs are very common they're upscaled from 480i to your resolution. As you worked as a video guy you should know well the scaling issues and effects when this is done. Poor quality 480i content scaled to 1080p is going to look even worse. In videogames when the developer chooses to do 1080p and has to drop detail to keep the frame rate up it may invariably look worse then 720p.

So yes I stand by my comment the average person in the average home is not going to notice the difference between 720p and 1080p due to the average seating distance being 8-10 feet and average screensize which is under the 60" sized.

Now if you have a 26" screen and are sitting under 3', which is about the ideal distance, you're going to notice some differences. Though if you're sitting 1' you're now starting to interject other things which one may end up seeing. 1080i being about 10% more pixels will look slightly better. However, interlaced is a 30fps redraw of the screen by every other line. 720p is a 60fps redraw consequent lines. If you're viewing a hockey or football game one will be more likely to see pixelation and blurryness with the fast action on the interlaced screen.

Quote:

you can really tell the difference between 720p and 1080i in the texturing and just number of countable dots on the screen if you look really close

I think we are in agreement.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Jan-2007 at 03:51 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

But if a HD-DVD solution offers better picture quality than a Blu-Ray solution this has nothing to do with the Blu-Ray standard itself and other factors come into play. Blu-Ray should offer better picture quality and if not then it may be due to things like worse quality cables, worse quality player and/or worse quality movie content.

Why do you think Blu-Ray should offer better picture quality? I see little reason the output should not be equivalent.

HD-DVD using VC-1 was delivering higher bit rates and higher quality then Blu-Ray w/ Mpeg-2. Now that some Blu-Rays have swithed to VC-1 they are pretty equivalent. It will be interesting to see how Mpeg-4 changes, or not, the quality output of Blu-Ray. There's theory that it will but it's yet to be seen.

@Trezzer

Quote:

That's not likely since the PS3 doesn't have as much texture memory as the 360

I am happy with the fact that the 512MB RAM isn't unified for the PS3. The XDR memory controller interface (XIO) on the Cell BE is 72 bits-wide and is capable of operating at 3.2Ghz data rates providing 25.6 GB/s of total memory bandwidth. The RSX has access to this ultra fast XDR RAM.

FlexIO interfaces connecting the Cell BE to its companion chips provide an aggregate bandwidth of 40 GB/s!

The 'unified 512MB is better' rumour was started by Epic, which developed Gears of War exclusively for Microsoft Game Studios and claimed to have pushed the XBox 360 to its limits, at the time.

To quote a Heavenly Sword developer with regard to Gears:

"I was almost laughing at the GOW comment..I wonder what's so impressive in GOW that RSX could not do. "

"GPU wise I think 360 and PS3 have more or less the same power; once devs will start to use SPUs to speed up RSX things will start to be even more interesting"

Personally I am somewhat dissapointed some media claim Gears of War to have been the best game of 2006. After Half-life 2 and Mario 64 is that really the best overall game for 2006? After killing General Raam, for me it did not feel like a game worthy of being the "best", overall best looking XBox 360 game maybe, but personally parts of Kameo was more pleasing for my eyes. Even Half-life 2 from 2004 looks better and more impressive to me.

Last edited by MikeB on 04-Jan-2007 at 04:54 PM.

@BrianK

Blu-Ray discs supply more data to the player. More information using the some codecs allows more details, if the company recorded the movie in higher quality. Of course there are many other factors to consider, such as the display device. On a common 480p TV you might as well stick to DVD.

@MikeB

Quote:

overall best looking XBox 360 game maybe, but personally parts of Kameo was more pleasing for my eyes. Even Half-life 2 from 2004 looks better and more impressive to me.

And of course you said this earlier:

Quote:

GoW seems a tad slow (aiming and moving around) compared to the more impressive FPS since Quake, driving in the light cannon tank doesn't feel impressive at all especially compared to driving in a fast paced Half-Life 2 buggy. I think the XBox 360 may have technical difficulties for implementing such faster controls

But to prove you are balanced about the 360, your very short list of positive things you'd said included:

Quote:

I stated Gears of War is visuallly impressive and plays better with the XBox controller than I expected

I've leave you make your own conclusions on that.

Chris

Last edited by clebin on 04-Jan-2007 at 05:01 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Blu-Ray discs supply more data to the player. More information using the some codecs allows more details, if the company recorded the movie in higher quality.

Thanks for the info on that point of view. But, the more data answer is theoretical. In the real world testing using VC-1 on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD you will find reviews of similar movies and find that HD-DVD nuges by a hair but the movies are mostly equivalent. So having a faster rate on Blu-Ray for the content in the same compression type seems to not give Blu-Ray any real world noticeable advantage.

Now Mpeg-4 for Blu-Ray is coming. It'll be interesting to see how it completes vs VC-1 on Blu-Ray or in VC-1 on HD-DVD. Additional interest will come in testing Mpeg-4 on HD-DVD, it is an approved format. The VC-1 actuals don't show any advantage for Blu-Ray. It'll be interesting to see if Mpeg-4 does.

U2's Rattle and Hum is an Mpeg-4 title. It was met with mostly negative reviews with comments of noisy and artifical looking. Some said better then Mpeg-2 content but not as good as VC-1... We'll see how/if Mpeg-4 really does make the Blu-Ray shine.

@clebin

So what's the problem?

Positives:
+ Looks visually impresssive (but to me Half-Life 2 looks more impressive)
+ Good controlls for aiming and taking cover
+ Rumble nice for shooting guns (albeit IMO a bit too much rumble overall)

Negatives:
- Lack of freedom to move around like in most other FPS games.
- Characters lack charisma, Boomers too stupid to be taken seriously.
- Too short and non-involving story line.
- General Raam did not impress me. The giant spider or Beserker were more impressive, I was more expecting something like that huge monster which tries to destroy your vehicle when you leave the villa.

Overall though I will give the game 82%, for graphics I would give it 94%, lastability around 75% due to multiplay.

I don't think Gears of War was the best game of 2006, just the most hyped. My opinions does not say anything about the XBox 360, unless of course Epic was right about the game being just about as good as it gets for the XBox 360.

@MikeB

Quote:

But if a HD-DVD solution offers better picture quality than a Blu-Ray solution this has nothing to do with the Blu-Ray standard itself and other factors come into play.

Certainly.

There are lots of factors. Bottom line is though: When both of them are at their finest the viewer will have a hard time telling them apart.

You may have heard about the choices Sony made about mastering their own BluRay titles, where they do nothing to remove artifacts from the original material in order for the final product to be as close to the source material as possible.

In a sense that is a good thing, but it may end up giving BluRay a disadvantage since I doubt most movie fans actually prefer seeing artifacts, dirt etc. from the original master whether it's true to the master or not. As far as I know Sony are the only ones doing this, though, so other BluRay titles will most likely have a quality that's more like that of HD-DVD titles. Sony are keen on staying with MPEG2 while others go with VC-1 as is the standard on HD-DVD. In reality hardware support for current codecs could have kept us using the medias we already have instead of bumping the storage capacity. It's technology for technology's sake. That said HD-DVD has proven itself to be more than capable in comparison to BluRay. Yes, BluRay can store more on a single disc, but at the end of the day you max out at some point where it makes no sense to increase the bitrate further - and HD-DVD covers it.

I'm not going to bother linking again to the HD-DVD vs BluRay I linked to earlier, because you probably didn't bother to read it anyway since you go on about this.

@MikeB

Quote:

On a common 480p TV you might as well stick to DVD.

Yes and no. You don't get as big a benefit from HD-DVD or BluRay as on a 720/1080 display, but there is a discernible difference. Often the picture is a bit clearer and you have less of the artifacts that you typically see on dvds (especially in scenes with lots of black).

@clebin

Quote:

Sorry Mike, but you've made your thread and you must lie in it (I've been waiting to use that line!) Maybe we've gone too far in the 360 direction but it's understandable. Several of us have become frustrated with your posting in this thread, so please take a look at why. When people are making really salient points, you skip over them, Helgis-style, and post some publicity - user feedback, a positive quote, a screenshot. That's not debating.

This entire debate is about things which are by their nature subjective, there's no "absolute truth" to defeat one side or the other with. This thread is as such liable to go on forever without any conclusion. Neither system is likely to show a decisive advantage anytime soon.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@MikeB

Quote:

unless of course Epic was right about the game being just about as good as it gets for the XBox 360.

Why do you keep repeating this crap? You read the interview. If you didn't it's your own fault.

For me Gears of War wasn't the best game of 2006. It was the second best. Viva Piñata was the best - and certainly the most overlooked. That said Gears of War is far better than anything I've played in the genre and one that's sold lots and lots of 360s. I'm on my second tour of Gears of War - something I haven't done in a shooter since the original Halo. Playing it on a higher difficulty level makes it a whole new (and far more brutal) game.

@MikeB

Well, I challenged you with this:

Quote:

And worse, I can't remember one single sliver of a complement for the 360 in 32 pages

You disputed it:

Quote:

You are wrong there I mentioned the XBox 360's "Nice looking system interface", ability to use custom soundtracks during gameplay, I stated Gears of War is visuallly impressive and plays better with the XBox controller than I expected, I like Kameo and Tomb Raider Legend very much, upscales DVDs, etc.

But that's not representative of what you've actually been saying about GoW, and have just repeated. It was never a complement. You now say your comments say nothing about the XBox 360 anyway. To that, I would respond:

1) What does "I think the XBox 360 may have technical difficulties for implementing such faster controls" mean?

2) If it says nothing about the XBox 360, why did you list it as proof of your complements towards the 360? In that case, you can knock off Kameo and Tomb Raider too.

In short, your proof of objectivity wasn't very good.

Chris

EDIT: I've made my point so I won't keep picking. There are some really interesting things in this thread about high-def, the new drives, etc.

Last edited by clebin on 04-Jan-2007 at 06:50 PM.
Last edited by clebin on 04-Jan-2007 at 06:06 PM.

@Trezzer

Do you think I'm stupid to wait for Viva Pinata to lose the cheap over-sized limited edition box? I might cave in before they put it in a proper DVD-type box.

Chris

@clebin

See, I just went out and bought a regular edition. I hadn't seen the limited edition one till today (the one I saw was actually *smaller* than regular 360 cases - I held it up next to a regular one).

That I first picked up a Norwegian edition and didn't notice till I came home (in a Danish store no less) and had to go swap for a Danish version (where there's no dub) is a different matter.

Either way

@clebin

You have to read my comments in proper perspective.

"Epic manager Preston Thorne claims Gears of War is as good as it gets for Microsoft's console. "We pushed the 360 to the limits," Thorne said at Wednesday night's launch party. "

Quote:

If it says nothing about the XBox 360, why did you list it as proof of your complements towards the 360?

I meant my comments on the visuals were positive rather than negative.

The game is visually impressive, just like Genji is for the PS3. The japanese may love that game, but it's surely not my type of game. I just don't agree with the endless hype Microsoft and XBox fans created around 'Gears of War'.

Personally I think the XBox 360 can be much better visually, but in the end I have higher expectations for some games currently under development for the PS3.

Last edited by MikeB on 04-Jan-2007 at 07:41 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Negatives: - Lack of freedom to move around like in most other FPS games.

Correction, please ensure you're assigning things to the proper genre if you're trying to use the genre to define things.
- Lack of freedom to move around like in most other TPS games.
Even that's a bit wrong as the online play is open.

Quote:

I don't think Gears of War was the best game of 2006, just the most hyped. My opinions does not say anything about the XBox 360, unless of course Epic was right about the game being just about as good as it gets for the XBox 360.

I agree I'd say Obilivon is likely my favorite.

Your view of Epic is not the full picture. They did state that they pushed the Xbox360 to it's limits. But, also a bit later they stated they had learned quite a bit and would get more out of the 360 on the next game. Epic clearly things they can squeeze more out with less. GoW is not as good as it's gets nor does Epic believe that GoW is the best you can do with the 360.