Revolution, XBox360, or PS3?
 

I dunno which one I like better... how bout you?

im really into the looks and features of the revy, so thats my number one.. the ps3 will be badass too.

<offtopic>
dang, i'm behind. the newest console i have is a PS, and thats in its box in the closet. the rest of my consoles follow (in decending order): Sega Saturn, Sega Genesis/SegaCD, and finally Atari 2600.

hmm, i guess i'm not a gamer.

later
</offtopic>

lol aemon you're such a dork.. old ps and a 750 p3... :lol:

yeah, or i'm just content with what i have. i don't play that many games, why spend the money on a new console? my machine has enough power to do what i need it to do, why spend money uselessly? you don't need too killer of a machine to write html, php, and coldfusion.

anyway, i'm a bit above pissing contests. i have nothing to prove with my hardware.

later

Well, if you want to go there, *starts pissing* I win! ;)

PS3 is going to be the best, simply because of it's dual HDMI outputs.

a system being the best because of a spec.. if that were the case, the xbox would have won this round, being easily the superior box of the three hardware wise

Are you kidding me? It's tied at best. The only thing MS's chief Xbox officer can criticise about the PS3 is that it's overkill. In terms of performance, the 360 has better memory bandwidth, but the PS3 has better raw processing power (framerates vs. realism). For reference, Guardian.co.uk has info.

PS2 has 43% of the market share and xbox has like 27% and gamecube has like 13% and the rest is somewhere else.. I don't know if those were the exact numbers but they were close to that...

Hey, I know ps2 sucks, but it sold the most by far...


a 4000+ with onboard video isn't going to play good games...

the 360 has 3 3.2 ghz chips... give me a break...

bah.. you people dont get it.. the specs can be as high as ever.. still doesnt change the fact that its all about the games.

I agree. I dont think there is much of a competition there, whether your an AMD person or not. 3 Dual core 3.2s are going to perform better than a single 4000+. the only way that doesnt happen is if microsoft screws up the hardware drivers/configuration and makes the latencies high or something, which, from what ive read about the placement of the video memory with regaurds to the r520, they've done a very good job of avoiding.

Of course, it is always about the games. I never bought a PS2 cause i didnt like the titles. i have a PS1, but only for FF7. Rumor has it that they may rerelease FF7 for the PS3 or XBox360. im buying whichever one, if they do rerelease it. Otherwise, its between the 360 and the revolution for me, cuz i Miss all the N64 launch titles like starfox and goldeneye.

actually starfox 64 came out a couple months after the launch of n64 :)
the rumble pak debuted with it too ;)

lol that pos rumble pack.. good idea - terrible execution (batteries and weight distribution = WTF)

yea.. i remember the online flash videos advertiseing it lol

He was making an exageration. The PS3 isn't using a single 4000+. It's using a CPU called the "Cell" which contains 8 processors that can output 218GFlops, while the 360's 3 dual-core 3.2s put out 115GFlops. (I would definately not mind getting a version of Unix or Linux to run on either of those!) As for graphics power, there is very little consistent information from reliable sources because both are very secretive about the details, especially ATi. The information that is released is very comparable between both and very impressive, however.

This pole shouldn't even exist. PS3 is going to dominate the gaming industry just as it's predecessor gaming units. Heh, it's a joke to think that it's competition will even stand a chance.