What is preventing Xbox 360 games in delivering PS3 visuals?
Gears of War was the first game to really raise the bar visually this generation. A lot of gamers who played the game back in 2006 said that’s how next gen games should look like. The game’s great visual effects and high resolution textures made those gamers say OH SHIT many times. Then, Uncharted the first graphical showcase for the PS3 released. The game showed what the PS3 hardware is capable of and made a lot of doubters rethink their minds.
After that, PS3 graphical dominance continued with games such as MGS 4, Killzone 2 and the recently released Uncharted 2, which blows the competition out of the water.
Anyway, we have been discussing what are the reasons that prevent Xbox 360 games in delivering the same visual fidelity seen in PS3 games, and the conclusions of the discussion are:
1. Xbox 360 disk format:
DVD 9 format is preventing developers from creating: bigger environments without sacrificing quality, better overall experience and more badass graphics.
2. Not every Xbox 360 console is loaded with a hard disk:
Hard disk = More solutions for the developers.
3. Too much focus on Unreal Engine 3:
Resident Evil 5 does look better than Gears of War 2.
4. Xbox 360 First Party developers are still using recycled graphic engines:
Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, and Fable 2.
While it’s too late to fix some of the issues in this list like the lack of hard disk in every Xbox 360 console and the Xbox 360 disk format, the other issues can be resolved.
So, that’s our take on this. Have anything to share? post it in the comment section.
Hottest Articles
Games we recommend
Polls
Loading ...Share & follow
Uncharted wasn’t the first game to show really good PS3 graphics: that Game was Heavenly Sword, followed by Lair, which is still the only game that’s 1080p native that has huge levels. Then Ratchet and Clank came out, so there were a few games that showcased PS3 games before Uncharted.
Posted on October 18th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@ pixelsword
Heavenly Sword, Lair, and Ratchet and Clank graphics are good, but it was Uncharted that really showed the power of the PS3.
Posted on October 18th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
wtf? The processor is what’s preventing the 360 from delivering visuals. The blu-ray disc format has more space, but smaller games could still look nice.
Posted on October 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
What sort of pathetic news story is this?
Is this your failass attempt at getting a few hits?
Sort it out guys. How the f*ck are you ever gonna be taken seriously as a news site with sh*te like this? =/
p.s I own a ps3 and 360 so it’s not the subject of this story that bothers me, but the obvious reasons for which you have posted it.
Posted on October 18th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
The truth is the Cell processor makes the PS3 a lot more powerful than the 360. The 360 has a good video card but the PS3 has a decent video card too and the SPUs in the Cell make i so PS3 games can do a lot more. Most developers still haven’t caught on to this. Naughty Dog said they even used some machine code in Uncharted 2. When you program in machine code you know the programmers are serious. Uncharted 2 has shown everyone what the PS3 is really capable of. Will other developers try to match that? It comes down to resources and money for most of the, I guess. Too bad. I hope they do it though. I can see how great games will look in two years if they take the next step.
It does help to have a hard drive and Blu-ray player though. Those mean the developer doesn’t have to worry about making the game fit a limited space.
Posted on October 18th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
i love sony, there devs, santa monica , insomnic, suker punch, media molecule, studio liverpool , studo cambridge, studio london, japan studio, gureilla, naughty dog, team ico, polophony digital, incognito (warhawk/twisted metal series) zipper interactive (SOCOM:NAVY SEALS series) big big, evoloution, san-diego tudios sony bend and SOE sony online entertainmen. are the best.
yes ,, ur thinking , ive herd’ a few of them, ur’ thinking, …i havnt counted that list,…there are lots..as you can see. lol.
microsoft has about 6 now, or maybe 7, even so, not very impressive
now back to the start, i love sony, uncharted 2, is the best game ever, fullstop.
now , another point is that unfornutaly, microsof have been pushing the unreal ungine 3, which can run equal on both consoles but best on a pc obv.
unfortunatelt point 2. is that ms robably are readying nex-gen engines for the 360 now that everyone pretty much does have a hard drive. damn.
this is seen in splinercell, and halo reach upcoming games.
he problem is, whilst ms is milking halo dry, sony has 14 games, hell 14 game developers chucking out a game per 2-3 . i think is game over , sony’s boffins are right on it, even with ms new engines, sony will be readying gran turismo 1080p, god of war 1080p, twisted metal , (probably 1080p) and a host of others . (killzone 2 also 1080p) xbox has a last minuite signal upscaler that puts the low rez 720p or sometimes less through to 1080i,. playstation has 1080p native, which is the pure signal from the box, and therefore, kicks the shit out of xbox. it also upscales dvd to 1080p, and blu-ray is obv 1080 anyway.
so to relate to this ariticle again, the game is over, or will be when eyetoy re-releases,
this is because microsoft cant program anything to compete with god of war, i think this wil’ be clear soon if uncharted wasnt a big enough of a hint. peace out hope you enjoyed , alex c ,
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:05 am
sorry for spelling, also , iv’e herd gran turismo god of war heavy rain and everything’ from sony’ is eyetoy compatible. sik. peace
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:09 am
“sony will be readying gran turismo 1080p, god of war 1080p, twisted metal , (probably 1080p) and a host of others . (killzone 2 also 1080p) ”
Killzone 2 is not 1080p. It is 720P native. MOST PS3 and xbox360 games are 720P native…
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:11 am
I will freely agree that Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 look better than anything on xbox, but you lose all credibility when you say RE5 looks beter than Gears of War 2. Saying that leads me to believe that you never actually played the game.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:14 am
@ Ryan
Gears of War 2 is one of my most favorite games this generation and in my opinion it’s the best game on Xbox 360, but visually Resident Evil 5 look better.
By saying Resident Evil 5 does look better than Gears 2 is a prove that the Xbox 360 can do more, but there are some issues preventing the console from reaching its peak. As an example, Lost Planet 2 is using an upgraded engine of the one used in Resident Evil 5 (MT Framework) and believe me, the game will be a graphical showcase for both of the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:25 am
nothing but truth
xbox doesn’t have a gem that really stands out from the rest, if you look at
Splinter cell & Alan Wake both games look graphicly the same and the games are still in development and don’t even come near uncharted 2 graphics
now many will disagree, and those people obviously didn’t play Uncharted 2
its the best looking console game out there
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:27 am
I wouldn’t say RE5 looks better than Gears 2, too stiff
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Lets see….
PS3 Games that are scary real..
Uncharted 2
Killone 2
God of War 3
Heavy Rain <– Looks Like its a movie.
Uncharted: Drakes Fortune
Lair
Heavenly Sword
Now for 360
Gears of War 2
Residennt Evil 5
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Seriously?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Since when does Fable 2 use a recycled engine?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 1:07 am
If you are only talking about visuals, than only your last two points are valid. The lack of HDD and DVD9 have little to nothing to do with graphics. Now, one could perhaps use the HDD and more disk space to improve graphics, but the title of this article is something along the lines of why 360 is not delivering PS3 visuals, and nothing PS3 has done so far needed a HDD or Bluray to do, thus could be done on 360 if developers stopped using UE3 as a crutch, and put a little more effort into getting top notch visuals out of 360 hardware.
Its just not a priority for 360 developers, it was Sony who made grand claims about the graphical capabilities of the PS3, MS never made such claims, so they don’t need to push its devs to prove anything. We do see more innovation in gameplay from 360 exclusives however.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 1:25 am
I agree with all of your comments on which games look the best on the ps3 but if i read correctly none of you even mention Metal Gear Solid 4. Easily one of the best looking games out on the ps3 right now. And its a year old and it still looks amazing.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Is this article real? Seriously?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 1:40 am
[...] the rest here: VG Arabia » What is preventing Xbox 360 games in delivering PS3 … Easy AdSense by Unreal Filed under All, ER, Games, How, Me, Uncategorized, [...]
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 1:49 am
A hard drive is needed in every unit and a disc format with greater capacity. Both of which the PS3 has sold with every unit.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 2:27 am
[...] Go here to see a original: VG Arabia » What is preventing Xbox 360 games in delivering PS3 … [...]
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 2:36 am
What a crock of $hit this article is, seriously.
first things first – I own all consoles this generation, same with the generation before and the generation before, and all the way back to the NES – so im not a fanboy of ANY console.
a few things wrong with your article:
1. you say that Uncharted blew everything away in its day. it most certainly did not. it looked great, no doubt about it – but it suffered from texture pop/load-in, horrible aliasing, screen tearing every other second, and was very, very linear with very little actually explorable areas.
2. MGS4 is no graphical masterpiece. SOME of the character models in it were second to none at the time of release, but the rest of the games graphics were lacking. about 75% of the textures in the game-world were muddy and low resolution, and the games framerate took a nosedive the second you swung the camera around in anything but the smallest of locations
3. Killzone 2 looks great, but it employs many tricks to do so. it uses VERY low resolution textures, and pretty poor character models, but hides it all behind its ‘analogue’ style filters. make everything blurry when you move, give it film grain, and it all looks kinda realistic, but it doesnt change the fact that if you just stop and look at it, its not that impressive.
4. it is 100% fact that DVD is in NO way a limiting factor in the graphics a game has. we’re 4 years into this generation, and from BEFORE day 1 people from sonys fanboy camp have been saying that DVD is too small……….yet there have been only ~4 multi-dvd games, all of them being FMV heavy RPGs except for 1 (Forza 3). the graphics of a game take up a MINISCULE amount of space – the big space eaters are sound and video. most of the biggest in-game world games this generation dont even take up half of a DVD – proven by the fact that when you install the entire game on your 360 they take up 4gb or less.
5. the hard disks in the PS3 dont help graphics, they help get the load times in check because of the slower read speed of the PS3s blu-ray drive compared to the 360s faster DVD drive.
6. the 360 has a better GPU, fact. this is not debatable, its a well known fact. the Cell Processor is a good number cruncher, but it CANNOT do the GPUs job. the GPU gets the graphics on the screen, not the CPU.
7. the 360 has a MUCH better RAM setup than the PS3, and again, this is not debatable.
8. recycled graphics engines? the Halo 3 engine has been used for 1 game, and 1 ‘expansion’ (ODST). thats it. Fable 2s engine has been used for………Fable 2, and thats it. Forza 3, a first party title, uses a brand new graphics engine, just like Forza 2 did before it. thats 3 engines in 3 games for turn 10.
and anyway, as the Unreal Engine 3 has shown, just because its widely used doesnt mean its not the best.
and another thing – before anyone says that the PS3 has so many 1080p games, just stop right there:
killzone 2 is not native 1080p.
gran turismo 5 is not native 1080p.
wipeout hd is not native 1080p.
the 360 CAN do native 1080p just as well as the PS3 can – which is not very well for anything other than the most basic of games. they are just not powerful enough.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Shit in their pants, now that’s a grown up thing to say. I guess if you are 12….
What a moronic article,,, at least I know what site to avoid.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 5:17 am
The space of a dvd does limit the graphical presentation.
Consindering we’ve seen muti-disk games last gen and games that nearly filled dual layer dvds, the no way they and higher bit rate sound files and have higher details in their characters on screen and maybe even more characters on screen than last gen.
Remember devs have multiple times the ram and processing power than last gen.
Why fill them with low resolution items of last gen or resort to compression?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 6:05 am
The 360 may have the better gpu but the ps3 has the better cpu. The cell I’ve read can also do some of the work that the gpu should do. So at the end of it all the cell + the rsx > 360′s cpu and gpu.
You seem to dwell on the aspect of the gpu alone as if the gpu alone renders the game
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Much better ram set up? Really?
512mb pooled between gpu and cpu and with a speed of speed of 768mhz is better than ps3′s 2 separate banks 256mb ram on its gpu and cpu? Bear in mind the speeds are 768mhz and 3.2 ghz.
I can’t say i agree with your statement
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 6:43 am
@Bling:
compression SHOULD be used on basically everything on the disk. it speeds load times up with absolutely no drop in quality. look at gears of war 2s graphics and tell me DVD is too small. that game is 6gb. look at mass effect and tell me DVD is too small. or gta4, or fallout 3, or oblivion, or……the list goes on.
the GPU is what gets the picture on the screen. the cell does not. youve been reading too many sony first party developer press releases and interviews.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 6:49 am
I like how you nit picked on killzone 2. How about in gears where there is very limited activity onscreen at a time and the fact that apparently everything seemed to be made of cement?
All games will seemingly skim on so aspect
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Bling, youre talking about the texture load in. this happens for maybe 2-3 seconds right when you load up a level. big whoop.
oh and uncharted has the same ‘problem’, its what happens when the engine uses streaming textures.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 6:55 am
The gpu is what renders the game? So what exactly does the cpu do? Surely not the system’s os in the background only?
When you compress something quality is lost. If you compressed something and didn’t lose quality what what exactly were you doing then?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 7:01 am
You will either have a reduced value into your memory (faster loading) or spend more time loading to decompress the value.
If compression was the answer then these consoles would be equipped with cd rom drives
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 7:10 am
the CPU is what does all the processing that runs the game. you could run the game without outputting a thing to the screen, by not using the GPU. you however could NOT run a game without using the CPU and only using the GPU.
think about your computer – if you type stuff on the keyboard, the CPU is the thing thats registering that and making the computer do what it does. the GPU is just the thing taking the CPUs instructions and putting them on the screen. the GPU can only handle so much before it starts falling over, thats why new GPUs come out with more and more memory etc – because it doesnt matter how good your CPU is if the GPU cant keep up.
on the compression topic – go get a nice bitmap image and have a look at it for a while. now save it – dont just change the filename – as a JPEG. the filesize will have decreased to probably about 5% of the original bitmaps, but i can guarantee that you will not be able to tell the difference without getting a microscope and spending hours looking for a difference.
thats compression. you underestimate just how good compression algorithms have gotten.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 7:18 am
de-compressing data takes up absolutely NO processing time on these consoles. its basically ‘on-the-fly’ de-compressing. stop kidding yourself, we’re not living in the dark ages anymore.
you try and tell me the difference in quality between storing the value of, for example:
uncompressed: 55.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
compressed: 55.[100]3.
tell me, whats the difference? apart from saving a LOT of storage space?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 7:22 am
On the compression topic. That was a bad example in that it’s too old. It is kind of like .cda vs .mp3 . Truth is is that in today’s standards we are probably at the .jpg and .mp3 and .mp4 level. Just how much more can we compress our data? That is why we had hd dvd and blu-ray. If compression was the answer why not compress our hd files to fit a dvd or even a dvd quality movie to a cd? Compress is always possible but your not going to compress a .jpg to fit a as 5% .gif. We passed the bitmap and .wav times
On the cpu and gpu topic i think we can simply say the final output on your tv is compliments the two. In an ps3 master piece devs always seem always concentrate on how well they used the cell. The difference between a well done game and a port is how the dev utilised their resources and not simply the gpu.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 7:51 am
De-compression would that as long as it took to compress it
Just like a rule of physics that evey action has a equal and opposite reaction. If they file wasn’t compressed that much it wouls take that much to decompress it
Compression it todays games would be 112 kbps mp3 .audio files vs 128 kbps ones. Not 1mb bitmaps vs 200kb .jpeg s.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Rage is said to be, by the developers, over 1tb when uncompressed. thats on 2-3 9gb dvds.
1tb is 1000gb. 1000gb into 27gb worth of DVD. try telling me again that compression isnt used much in games.
virtually every game released on any console other than the PS3 uses compression. the only games that dont use it are the ones that their developers need to brag about how big the games filesize is in GB because their parent company, Sony, need to tell us how Blu-Ray is the future. then these games have mandatory 4gb+ installs and horrible load times because of the lack of compression, but hey, at least they get to brag, right?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 8:11 am
The longer load times are because of umcompressed data it is because of the ps3′s 2x blu-ray drive
A standard hdd saves you some loading time and wear and tear on the drive. That is of course once you use the install feature.
A 1tb game? I doubt. Not even a 3hour hd movie takes that amount of space. A doubt a game would take that much
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 8:40 am
you doubt it, but you also dont seem to know too much about everything else youre talking about so that doesnt surprise me.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 8:50 am
lol ended up turning into a flame war between two people on what the gpu does and what it doesn’t do….that hilarious.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 9:15 am
So lets say it is 1tb, then they compress it to under 8.5 gb. You really think nothing was lost in that transition. Ask yourself what is really being taken out. Is it
Voice acting?
Using lower bit rate audio?
Take out a few levels?
Cut back on cut scenes?
Do they use lower bit rate video files?
You must be dreaming if you think such transition was lossless. Are you telling me these devs are defying a law of physics?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 9:37 am
ill tell u one thing 360 gays xbot are burning coz uncharted is the greatest game ever created.u xbot have shit game this year and next year u dont even have exclusive.one thing 360 does have to be proud of 54.4 defective rate on console.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 9:54 am
the ps3 will win this consol war and it will have nothing with graphics(well perhaps som). all hail to 3d gaming,something that no saggy ass xbox game will do.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 11:08 am
What a pathetic attempt at writing! Unless, of course, the idea was for Ahmad Arabia to make a fool of himself, in which case the jerk succeeded excellently.
There are good and interesting arguments to be made for both systems, but this article is amature rubbish.
A website to be avoided.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
3d gaming? gimme a break. wat a stupid childish concept. am i the only one that thinks that gimmick is f*cking retarded. a true gamer wont bitch about the gpu and what not. uncharted was amazing, i loved it. but why would you lie blatantly about these games?
i brought killzone 2 back to the store the next day after i bought it. that game was an absolute mess. its hard enough for me to use the tired dragged out playstation controller(get with ergonomics sony!) im tired of this flame war. ps3 has some decent games, 360 never lets me down. on a related note i probably get more use outta my n64 and 32bit genesis.
o yea and the havok engine is amazing. and halo’s thing isnt amazing graphics. its a great arcade fps. people chill. and dont even bring up the psn. seriously
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
No controller is perfect.
Try playing a fighter with the 360 controller.
While the controller may be great for shooters, the ps controller isn’t crap but for fighters the ps controller wins.
At the end the Dualshock 3 controller is the best allrounder.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
actually the article is right the engines being used in the 360 are old and overused while ps3 continues to make engines from the ground up for all of their exclusives. i own both systems and love’em the same but i get more with my ps3 visually & more fun on PSN which is free by the way. but the 360 can get visuals like the ps3, FF13 is going to be on both systems and that was said that it could only be done on ps3 3 years ago. p.s they’re equal in power so nay one is better than the other…
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The XBOX 360 outperforms the PS3 at pretty much every turn. Has no one here ever read the version comaprions at http://www.eurogamer.net?!!
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Did you really just say that the Dualshock 3 controller is the best all arounder?? What a bunch of shit that is haha. While it may be good for fighters as you said thats all its really good for. Fps’ suck with it and you don’t need a specific controller for rpgs so in the end with there being more fps out then really anything else the 360 controller wins at the end of the day. And no im not a fan boy i have both systems and i love the 360 controller more. But seriously like kyle said if your a true gamer whats it matter. True gamers are the gamers that have both systems and enjoy them equally while realizing that both have their own faults. Not this bullshit where people argue over graphics and which game looks better. Last time i checked graphics don’t control the gameplay.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
@Trinod
If your talking about comparison of Multiplatform games then dont even bring it up, everyone knows that ps3 version suffers because games are first made on th 360 then is PORTED over to the ps3, a process that saves both time and money. If the game was worked on the ps3 first, they would probably have to take steps to downgrade it so it would play as smooth on the 360.
@Compresssion argument
Compression and Disc space does matter believe it or not some of the 360 games probably use the GPU to decompress image datas while the CPU is busy processing. While B-Ray’s uncompressed datas means it just has to be processed then rendered leaving the GPU much more room to render images hence it can ps3′s GPU can probably run at the same speed as the 360′s GPU rendering wise.
There is also the factor of having more space to increase the details of your image files to make every look pretty, obviously though the more you compress means the more processing it takes to decompress it, and if your decompressing so many image datas that not only will it take longer it can also strain the hardware your using to decompress that data (GPU or CPU). Sure you can keep compressing a data but that would be a chance at a data lost during the decompression process (yes a few bits of data is loss during decompression due to it being skipped unintentionally or just processed the wrong way… that 5.[100]3 might lose one of those 3′s and actually end up as 5.[99]3 when its uncompressed.
If the 360 had the processing power the ps3 had it can probably afford to give Gears of War’s character models more polygons and making them less… Inflated than they look (If you look closely enough youll notice they are indeed bulky specially torso and those two boob circles on their chest, unfortunately Master Chief whom I admire suffer from low polygons as well [Insert Sad Face].) Their engine upgrade that got more models on screen was thanks to low polygon count so that the CPU has less stress and therefore keep count of all those moving models on screen. GPU wasnt too much of a factor thanks to the very… monochromatic look of grey… light grey… some black… a little bit of red for blood splatters and some Orange in GoW2, ok maybe some yellow shades for the muzzle flashes.
Yes uncharted was suffering from a few technical issues… but Uncharted 2 doesnt, yes Killzone 2 uses some tricks to make the game look gorgeous but who doesnt… and just like Uncharted wait till they release their second killzone or some other ps3 game entry on the ps3 when they have gotten a better feel for the programming and hardware manipulation just as Naughty did with Uncharted.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Unfortunatly it is the lazyness of developers and their lack of dedication. Both Consoles are nice and Powerfull so Hardware wise there is only a inor limitation (Blu-Ray and the lack of 3 SPUs) but that shouldnt be the major problem it is.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Joe. If you reałly don’t think disc size matters. Then tell us all why is it that why don’t use CDs anymore?
Heck we all know that dvd-5 discs are cheaper than dvd-9 discs.
If there was lossless compression possible, why not use it to have all games realease on DVD5 on smaller?
Nothing in life is free so what’s the cost of compression?
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Who cares about visuals if a game sucks. Talk about game play innovation, then tell me about visuals.
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Personally my priority in any game is FUN! It doesn’t matter how great a game looks if it isn’t fun, I could list a dozen games for either system that looked spectacular but were utter crap. Heck the Nintendo DS still outsells consoles and you can literally count the pixels in some of there games. Nuff said!
Posted on October 19th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Wow, half of you really don’t know the first thing about how gpu’s, cpu’s or even computers work for that matter. All you stupids out there that would like to think that he storage has nothing to do with it, think again. And however stupid person was saying you don’t loose anything in compression needs to learn how images are stored on a computer.
The developers saying that a game is really over 100 gb is true. The amount of data your cpu computes even when you watch a 300 mb movie is many GB’s, but does that uncompressed figure mean anything? No. Get a clue. Fan boys that don’t even stop ever learn things are even more pathetic then your average fanboys.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 3:01 am
lol the PS3 fanboy brigade is here, someone mustve posted a link to this article on the PS forums.
the facts:
- the 360 has a better GPU than the PS3.
- the 360 has more usable memory than the PS3, and a better (shared) memory setup than the PS3.
those 2 factors alone remove any doubt about which console can have the better graphics. its like you trying to say that your 32mb graphics card from 5 years ago can pump out better graphics than my 1gb graphics card from today simply because your CPU is a different architecture to mine, even though mine is just as powerful. its just not how it works.
RE: Compression, no i didnt say that nothing gets lost in compression – it does. but the stuff that gets lost in compression is stuff that the human eye physically cant detect. like i said in my image example, got get a bitmap and convert it to jpeg and find a difference. good luck, cause you wont, even though you just compressed the file down to <5% of the original size.
you fanboys make me sick. multi-console ownership is the way to go.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Joe….You do an amazing job defining just about every xbox 360 fan boy who hears that maybe just this once….JUST THIS ONCE the PS3 may be doing something better than the Xbox 360.
I’ve been behind SONY since the day they announced the Playstation 3. I own psp ps3 original xbox and Wii.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Yeah dimwits make me sick as well. Ahem cough*joe*cough Lets do some basic math, assuming that joe can do any, because so far almost none of his console related “facts are correct if you actually bother to check. Nvidia (PS3) specs: 4400 mp/s 1100mv/s 13200mt/s
Ati (xbox 360) specs: 4000mp/s 1500mv/s 8000mt/s Oh and for extra lets include memory bandwidth: Nvidia: 22.4 GB/s Ati: 22.4 GB/s. Now as you can see if you can read, the nvidia unit either ties or beats the ati unit in all but one area (verticies/second) Ok so you gpu argument it crap, lets see, what else did you say… Oh, they both have the same physical amount of memory, (xbox has 10 MB if you want to get picky…) and the OS’s differ in how much they use by as little as 20 mbs. This isn’t taking into acount that the PS3 actually has real graphics ram and the xbox has to share standard ram.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 4:20 am
great, another PS3 fanboy who doesnt actually know anything about computers.
some reading on the GPUs: http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=19237
the memory setup in the PS3, while yes it has some blazingly fast ram for the GPU, is severely bottlenecked by the design of the PS3, meaning any advantage it wouldve given is negated. shared memory is best when working with video games, as while one developer might use 400MB of RAM at any given time for graphics and only 112MB for the CPU, another developer might use 400MB of RAM for the CPU at any given time and only 112MB for the GPU. on the 360 this is no problem – on the PS3, it literally cant be done.
@Ben, ive had a PS3 since launch and a 360 since launch – if the PS3 was doing things the 360 couldnt do that would be great, id be happy because either way i get to play the games. its not though, and all this talk of Uncharted 2 not being possible on the 360 is just rubbish. i buy every console on launch, have done since the mega drive/snes – im a HUGE video game fan, not a fanboy of a particular brand. you have NOTHING to gain by being an idiotic fanboy of a multi-billion dollar company that couldnt give 2 $hits about you.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Yeah, and when do games running under 720 p ever really need more than 256 mb of graphics ram? And the PS3 doesn’t even upscale, so it uses even less.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 4:46 am
worst. comeback. ever.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Biggest dip ever. My statement it true, look up some articles a Guru3d
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 7:25 am
I agree. the problem is that ps3 users are affected because every time a multi platform game comes out it has the same resolution and graphics for both consoles, therefore ps3′s capabilities arent used at a maximum. so basically 360 is postponing next gen games and is a load ps3 users have to bear
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 7:47 am
your statement is far, far from true.
you find us all some articles showing that 360 and PS3 games will/have never used more than 256MB of RAM at any instance of time, then get back to me.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Joe
you are a xbot
the problem you mentioned. About uncharted
( texture popup , screen tearing every “other” second and
as problem are grossly exaggerated)
I played through the whole game and have experiend tearing once !
I do see sone antialiasing in a few occassions but they were far fro
horrible. Considering I have a 58″ tv, that’s saying alot.
Finally critics already have consensus that this is the best looking console game ever made
why still deny a fact and make up bs to further your arugment?
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Shared memory is better?
So if you had 2gb of ram and an integrated video card ‘lets say an radeon x300 ati’
Would that be better for games than an ati hd 3200 card and 1 gb of ram?
We will assume the cpu is the same.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 11:11 am
@ Joe
Here are two facts
Ps3 has the better cpu
More memory doesn’t magically give you better graphic power.
You can have 8gb of ram and a poor integrated intel gpu. You won’t be running crysis on high settings
Or you can dual high speced ATI 5000 series cards and with less ram say 4gb produce better visuals.
Posted on October 20th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@Jay, i own the game (the joys of having both a PS3 and 360) and yes, screen tearing is prevalent every few seconds in uncharted. let me guess – you never saw any framerate drops in MGS4 either? or you didnt see any low res textures in Killzone 2? of course you didnt
you also must not know what anti-aliasing/aliasing is if you ‘saw some antialiasing in a few occasions and it was far from horrible’.
@Bling, yes, for video games shared memory is better. your example is ridiculous and pointless – do these consoles have integrated video cards? no, they have their own separate GPU. and the 360 has the better GPU and better RAM setup, fact.
The PS3 doesnt have a proven better CPU. if you listen to sony, sure it does – but if you listen to the people that actually worked on BOTH CPUs (yes, thats right – they were both made by IBM in a large part) youll find that theyre both virtually the same performance wise. the difference is the Cell makes you jump through hoops to get results, whereas the Xenon lets you get on with the job because its easy to program for.
Posted on October 21st, 2009 at 3:30 am
heres a bit of reading for you ‘uncharted didnt have screen tearing’ people:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-analysis-uncharted-article?page=3
explains – and shows – why Uncharted had so MUCH of it, and how they eliminated it in Uncharted 2.
Posted on October 21st, 2009 at 3:36 am
The ps3 doesn’t have the better processor than the 360?
So why does IBM use it in the world’s fastest supercomputer roadrunner?
Posted on October 21st, 2009 at 10:35 am
because its design lends itself very well to number crunching, which is what a supercomputer is all about. video games arent all about number crunching, in fact very little of video game processing is.
like i said, the people from IBM that worked on making BOTH of the CPUs said that theyre basically the same performance wise. they made the Cell first, then used what they learned from making that to make the Xenon CPU for the 360.
Posted on October 22nd, 2009 at 4:34 am
It would be nice to hear you state whichof the CPUs is better.
Posted on October 24th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
xbox and ps3 are so similar in graphic quality
idiots
Posted on October 25th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Pretty sure words in this post are transposed. Because of the 360′s superior graphics chip, it typically can render sharper more detailed graphics. Texture size only plays a part in really large games, and when that happens, the game gets put on multiple disks. Lossless compression algorithms are very efficient decompressing on the fly. For these reasons is why games typically look better on the 360. Not to say ps3 games can’t look good, but it takes alot more work to get close to the same visuals.
Posted on October 25th, 2009 at 8:34 am
visit this site plz and see yourself :
http://www.lensoftruth.com/?cat=47
xbox 360 kickass ps3 in about all games !!!
Posted on October 26th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Bling:
Bling Said,
It would be nice to hear you state whichof the CPUs is better.
for video games, the Xenon is better. the 3 core dual threaded multipurpose approach is much more efficient and easier for developers than 6 single purpose SPUs found in the Cell. they both process at the same speed too – 3.2GHz – so dont try saying the Cell is faster.
for purely number crunching, the Cell has the advantage. if video games were just number crunching theyd be onto a winner. its not, so theyre not.
Posted on October 27th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Joe,
All computing is number crunching.
For all your explanations & technical mumbo jumbo, I have a few words..
Killzone 2
Uncharted 2
“The best” games graphically on any console at the moment. End of story.
You can state that Gears of War 2 technically blah blah blah, or go on about the tricks that KZ2 uses, & that it’s cheating. You can state that the 360 is technically superior as many times as you want, but where are the games that prove it?
The simple fact is the reviews are in & graphically nothing touches these 2 games. If you want to dispute the reviews stating hype or bias or whatever that’s your problem, but the majority has spoken, & the PS3 with it’s weak @rse GPU has the best looking games on it at present.
Yes, multiplatform games usually end up a little better on the 360 due to the porting issue, & that’s fine. I get the same game for the same price & the quality is usually so close as to be a non issue (barring the odd exception), but multiplatform games are just there to waste the time until the exclusives come out.
To tone it down a little I think both consoles have awesome graphics, & the differences are not so great as to make it a big deal, & yet individuals feel the need to argue against the mass reviews as if their opinion is fact.
It’s the same as the PS3 fanboys making random stupid comments about how rubbish Halo 3 is (just because it isn’t on their platform). Personally I’m not that fussed about it but it got awesome reviews, so it has to have something going for it (enjoyed the first Halo, couldn’t get into the 2nd, & don’t have a 360 for number 3).
The majority of professional people who review games for a living have spoken, & the PS3 is graphically superior at present. Come back when the 360 has an exclusive that graphically outstrips KZ2 of UC2 & we’ll take your technical mumbo jumbo seriously.
Posted on November 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Gears of War 2 looks better than Killzone 2 and at LEAST as good as Uncharted 2. many games look better than Killzone 2. Uncharted 2 is definitely up there with the very best graphically though, im not debating that. Killzone 2 is not.
Posted on November 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
Joe,
To quote myself “& yet individuals feel the need to argue against the mass reviews as if their opinion is fact.”
You’re entitled to that opinion, even if it is in the minority.
Posted on November 4th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I am joe and i’m an xbot faggot
Posted on November 10th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Quote Joe “Gears of War 2 looks better than Killzone 2 and at LEAST as good as Uncharted 2. many games look better than Killzone 2. Uncharted 2 is definitely up there with the very best graphically though, im not debating that. Killzone 2 is not.”
Thanks for trying to mollicoddle us poor hard done by PS3 owners with your half compliments. The gesture was nice, but you’re still quoting your opinion as fact even though nigh on all of the reviews, which were done by people who actually get paid to review stuff disagree with you.
You’re wrong Joe, get over it.
Posted on November 11th, 2009 at 9:13 am
lol
maybe when you guys have actually played some of the 360 games you despise so much you can talk.
Posted on November 18th, 2009 at 8:36 am
@ joe
you might own both systems,( though by your statements I highly doubt it ) but it is quite clear you are an MS fanboy, plain and simple. Just do us all a favor and admit it. If you TRULY owned both systems, you would NOT put so much effort in bashing one or the other.PERIOD
Posted on January 9th, 2010 at 2:30 am
I agree! Joe seems to be a MS Fanboy and its ok to admit that, it’s good that you will stick with whoever you like. But I have both systems, and I can admit that PS3 has the edge on graphic power. After playing Uncharted 2 and really paying attention to the detail that Naughty Dog has done, I am impressed! You guys can argue all year long, not sure why some people are not seeing the greatness of Uncharted 2? Maybe its my tv? Get a Panasonic plasma TS-G10 1080p and I promise you will see the beauty in Uncharted2. But anyways, back to the topic…I am not a computer genius, but I am a hardcore gamer and I have both systems. And both are great consoles when it comes to power and graphics, but now since Naughty Dog has made the PS3 shine in all catagories; graphics, gameplay, realism, physics, lighting, and one loading wait screen in whole game is brilliant! I can see PS3 is on top of this debate, I even think God of War 3 and Heavy Rain doesn’t even look as amazing as UC2(just my opinion, please I don’t want to argue). But in my opinion, Naughty Dog pushed the PS3 on top. Thanks guys for reading, and MS fanboys please save some money, buy a PS3, and play Uncharted2…you guys won’t have to make silly excuses anymore
Posted on January 9th, 2010 at 5:54 am
I’ve read an article or two, quoting IBM, stating that the power difference between the two systems is negligible. (do a web search) IBM had a hand in the dvelopment of both processors. The most probable reason is that there has not been an engine built specifically for the Xbox 360 to take advantage of it’s strengths. It is more cost effective for companies to use, or modify, an existing engine than to build one from scratch.
Posted on January 9th, 2010 at 5:58 am
Both systems have advantages and the disadvantages cause of the advantages. Example: because of the way the ps3 was set up with the SPU’s it is more difficult for developers to program for it. The reason for this is because the developers have to program seperately for the SPU’s for them to have the same programing. Which comes down to time and recources on the developers side. As far as the 360 set up, it was great for Microsoft not to change the way the developers have been programming games so that it would be much easier for them. That is why they program primarily for the PC/360 first and port it over to the PS3. That being said, since it is the same programming and developers don’t have to be as creative as other developers like Naughty Dog. If these same developers porting games that are “lazy” or don’t have enough resources and time for innovation were to focus on the 360 hardware and take advantage of it the 360 would have just as good looking games as uncharted 2.
Posted on January 9th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
lolol, all of you are so funny. It seems everyone here works either at naughty dog or konami, lmfao.
Posted on January 11th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Add your comment