Xbox 360 not as useful as PS3 for Folding-at-home Options

[panosvo]

Yes thats correct our xbox360 is for games.
But they could try to see the power of xbox 360 using the ATI graphics card and the 3core power PC

[UltimateNinja9]

They calculate data faster from the small number of PS3s running folding@home than from all the other PCs and OSes running it combined (Check the TFLOPS here). Although that may seem irrelevant to games, the fact is that any game that's in 3D has to do tons of vector calculations, which is what the PS3 does best. The only problem with the PS3 is lazy game developers. Most developers make a game on the 360 then nerf it for a quick PS3 port instead of rewriting it to take advantage of the PS3's architecture. However, not all developers are lazy and eventually the PS3 will have enough killer apps to become more popular than the 360. The only reason that there are a lot of developers making games for the 360 right now is because they're just trying to "milk it" while it's still in the lead.

[gehx]

Good thing I want to play games and not fold protein or I would be screwed.

[1nsan3]

then keep your folding, i dont mean any disrespect to sufferers of Alzheimer's but my 360 is for games.

I agree, again i don't mean any disrespect neither, im sorry to those who have or may get alzheimer's, but yes I did not buy my game console, so the world can use a part of it for what they want.

[Tripme]

I don't even know why they call it a PS3 when in all acutallity its just a slightly watered down PC. If I want to donate some CPU time, I'll let my PC handle the task, not my gaming machine.

[jdsony]

Yeah but I bet you guys never thought of maybe making a game out of this. Protein Folding Fighter and it's many sequels will be out on the PS3 soon.

[TexT]

Yep MS made the mistake of designing the 360 for playing video games instead of curing cancer.

Good going MS.

[spinr34]

i can't argue with Vijay there. the cell processor is a monster. also, they just released a new version of folding@home for the ps3 which made it even faster so it is really killing any competition now. i wouldn't run folding@home on my 360 because there are other things to do on it. there is nothing to do on my ps3, so it folds all day and night.

for proof, here's my folding stats. i have one of the highest single user, single cpu counts with a ps3. i really think that my friend and i are the highest for ps3 besides the ones that are run at the folding@home headquarters. other than that, my ps3 does nothing. i spent 3 days outside of Target, almost got fired from my job, and $600 for a video game machine that just folds. thx sony!

[jessbasl]

They calculate data faster from the small number of PS3s running folding@home than from all the other PCs and OSes running it combined (Check the TFLOPS here). Although that may seem irrelevant to games, the fact is that any game that's in 3D has to do tons of vector calculations, which is what the PS3 does best. The only problem with the PS3 is lazy game developers. Most developers make a game on the 360 then nerf it for a quick PS3 port instead of rewriting it to take advantage of the PS3's architecture. However, not all developers are lazy and eventually the PS3 will have enough killer apps to become more popular than the 360. The only reason that there are a lot of developers making games for the 360 right now is because they're just trying to "milk it" while it's still in the lead.

So the ps3 being able to crunch folding proteins makes it faster at vector calculations? Care to elaborate, i always thought the gpu was doing that.

[Knasen]

I knew this project existed on the net but I have honestly no idea of how I should join my 360 to this project and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, perhaps thats one of the reasons the 360 is so low on the stats.

Also, while we 360 owners have fun playing games with our consoles the poor ps3 fanboys doesn't have any fun games to play so the only useful thing they can do is running that stuff... poor ps3 guys and girls

[Nytemunkey]

They calculate data faster from the small number of PS3s running folding@home than from all the other PCs and OSes running it combined (Check the TFLOPS here). Although that may seem irrelevant to games, the fact is that any game that's in 3D has to do tons of vector calculations, which is what the PS3 does best. The only problem with the PS3 is lazy game developers. Most developers make a game on the 360 then nerf it for a quick PS3 port instead of rewriting it to take advantage of the PS3's architecture. However, not all developers are lazy and eventually the PS3 will have enough killer apps to become more popular than the 360. The only reason that there are a lot of developers making games for the 360 right now is because they're just trying to "milk it" while it's still in the lead.

Hmm, good story, but there is a big hole in your logic, its a little something called GPU.

What could game developers optimize with the cell while they are stuck with what the GPU can do? I got it! You can play crappy games while folding! YEsss

[Martinchris23]

The only problem with the PS3 is lazy game developers. Most developers make a game on the 360 then nerf it for a quick PS3 port instead of rewriting it to take advantage of the PS3's architecture.

I defy you to say that to the face of a game developer.

The reason games are being ported over is due to the massive overhead which the CELL processor carries with it. It's not a gaming CPU and writing for it is a very difficult task. If they were to rewrite all the games, there wouldn't be anything out for it yet. Remember that the dev kits came out a few months before launch, so time was of the essence.

I'm sure in time that games will be released worthy of the CELL, but right now having one just for Folding seems a little pointless.

[TexT]

The only problem with the PS3 is lazy game developers. Most developers make a game on the 360 then nerf it for a quick PS3 port instead of rewriting it to take advantage of the PS3's architecture.

PS3 has more CPU power
which it has to use to help its RSX which is inferior to Xenon

This post has been edited by TexT: May 3 2007, 07:31 PM

[komodothesly]

Lawl.

I was just talkin to a guy today in my school about this.
He was like hey xbox 360 fanboy. I told him this ...

While you help learn a cure for finding diseases with your folding @home, I'll be on live fraggin' away in Gears of war.

[jaygould30]

UltimateNinja9, well done reading general articles on the subject of the PS3 vs. 360 but lacking any real knowledge on the subject. Game developers are lazy but Sony is a genius for trying to rework the entire architecture of PC and gaming development? Did you ever think that it isn't game developers that are lazy but that it's increasingly more difficult to go about programming for the architecture scheme that Sony implements? Don't forget to combine that with the horrific tools they provide developers. But I guess we should listen to you since you have all the experience in the world and discredit all the talented game developers that speak out on the topic.

As far as Folding@Home goes, I wouldn't be surprised if the PS3 was much better then anything else. Seeing as the whole console is built around the CPU handling EVERYTHING. But for gaming the strength of the xbox GPU combined with it's CPU makes up any difference and puts both on level playing ground. It's like running "Super Pi" on your PC. Sure having fast times is proof of your increased CPU & Memory speeds that might make some programs run faster (Solitaire, Word, Notepad), but at a certain point it doesn't exactly add anything to your gaming experience. Thats where higher "3DMarks" come into play. Folding@Home doesn't use any GPU power does it? So obviously the PS3 will win out, but to use it as some type of proof that the PS3 is better suited for gaming is ridiculous. Furthermore, why discredit the 360 (or any PC for that matter) when every little bit counts? Seems rather stupid to me. Maybe all those PC users that have been running this crap on their old PC's should just shut them off now because obviously they mean nothing. He should choose his words a little better I think.

This post has been edited by jaygould30: May 3 2007, 07:56 PM