360 vs PS3 graphics shootout round 2

[FudgeNuggets]

Score 360=2 PS3=0

There isn't a huge difference in most games but you can probably attribute what difference there is more to the 360s RAM superiority rather than the 360s slightly better ATI GPU over the PS3s Nvidia GPU.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/61...clk=multimodule&tag=multimodule;picks;title;1

 

[Hardin]

I like the color of the 360 component cable a little better. The ps3's component looked a little washed out. Maybe they should try the hdmi in the next comparison.

 

[CGR]

I didnt know it would be so different. Every image looked better on the xbox. Really surprised since Sony hyped their graphics so much.

 

[ShadowPho]

Want real graphics? Look outside the window! Can't beat that!

Well, sadly, that is being beaten

 

[Burninate]

I'm glad to see that Sony is finally starting to come around in the graphics department. I have a 360 and a PS3 and the 360 gets WAY more play time, as I only have Resistance on the PS3. Maybe some day soon my PS3 will be able to do more than play Blu-ray discs and upscaled DVDs.

 

[FudgeNuggets]

I've got you beat Burninate,I have a PS3 and ZERO games. To me the PS3 colours do look washed out and it looks like the developers are trying to overcompensate with the pixel blur/blending due to the lack of memory to produce the number of textures that the 360 can. I think it'll look better when the programmers learn to lay off the blur/blending.

 

[Hardin]

There are so many cross platform games now. I remember when the ps one was still big and it was big because it had many titles that the n64 never had but now why get a ps3 when nearly all of it's games are already on the 360?

 

[FudgeNuggets]

There are so many cross platform games now. I remember when the ps one was still big and it was big because it had many titles that the n64 never had but now why get a ps3 when nearly all of it's games are already on the 360?

BluRay movies

 

[Surfrider77]

I think its too early to tell. Especially the huge lack of titles on the PS3. I mean, simply look at the original release PS2 games and what was coming out a year or two down the road.

On top of that, has any games even touched the multi core whatsitcalled processor of the PS3 yet?

Remember the 360 has a lot more seniority under its belt for game development. Give the PS3 game developers some time to utilize the thing fully and I am sure it will come into its own.

Lets face it there are fck all titles for PS3 right now. R:FoM is probably the best out and it was a release title. Wait for the exclusives to start rolling out and not the simple ported games.

 

[OC Noob]

I like the color of the 360 component cable a little better. The ps3's component looked a little washed out. Maybe they should try the hdmi in the next comparison.

I'd like to see that too and the 360 Elite HDMI conection. I'll have to see if the PS3 title and demos I have look washed out (its connected via HDMI). A comparison of all 4 would be nice.

 

[Hazaro]

Wasn't this game along with many others made for 360 then ported to PS3?

 

[OC Noob]

Wasn't this game along with many others made for 360 then ported to PS3?

Yup, just like most titles were made for the PS2 and ported to the Xbox... except the Xbox always managed better gfx, even from day 1.

 

[FudgeNuggets]

True noob, port does not mean inferior by any stretch of the imagination. Most games that were available on Xbox1 and PS2 looked better on Xbox1.

 

[Hardin]

BluRay movies

As long as blueray lasts I think the ps3 will last and right now it looks like blueray is beating hd-dvd but we'll have to see.

 

[shard]

At least the PS3 is nice and shiny Oh, and plays movies.

Yeah not to surprised, the PS3 has had one hell of a bumpy road, definitely will have to see what happens in the future.

 

[tenchi86]

True noob, port does not mean inferior by any stretch of the imagination. Most games that were available on Xbox1 and PS2 looked better on Xbox1.

The comparison is really not fair however, as Xbox used general computer architecture and thus did not need much optimizations. The PS3 on the other hand basically requires a complete rewrite of the code to fully use the Cell. Also, even though the Xbox used a pretty standard design, games made specifically for it did end up looking much better usually. Anyway, I am not really seeing how the PS3 colors looked washed out. The Xbox is much darker and has a blur effect over all of it. I mean just look at the road texture or the detail on the robot in the last image. The Xbox however does look better on the far away shots. As for the Ram issue, they both have 512, the PS3 just has 256 of it in high speed graphics ram instead of one giant pool of slower shared ram. The X360 OS though does use less ram currently.

 

[Hardin]

The 360 has better color saturation in those screenshots. I guess it's a matter of opinion but the washed out colors in the ps3 are very obvious to me. I remember Call of Duty 3 for the ps3 having the same washed out colors when compared to the 360 version.

 

[deception``]

The comparison is really not fair however, as Xbox used general computer architecture and thus did not need much optimizations. The PS3 on the other hand basically requires a complete rewrite of the code to fully use the Cell. Also, even though the Xbox used a pretty standard design, games made specifically for it did end up looking much better usually. Anyway, I am not really seeing how the PS3 colors looked washed out. The Xbox is much darker and has a blur effect over all of it. I mean just look at the road texture or the detail on the robot in the last image. The Xbox however does look better on the far away shots. As for the Ram issue, they both have 512, the PS3 just has 256 of it in high speed graphics ram instead of one giant pool of slower shared ram. The X360 OS though does use less ram currently.

It doesn't matter which console has what architecture - all that matters is how those internals are being used to create games. Personally, I think that this comparison shows that the gap is closing, but still exists. There is no doubt in my mind that PS3 games should look better over time, but the same is to be said of the 360 so anything can happen in the long run. It's long been said that developers simply need to learn the Cell and then PS3 games will thrive - does that mean that we have learned everything there is about the 360? Hardly. It's true that it might be easier to develop for, but we have not seen the best of either console yet.

Also, the 360's 'giant pool of slower-shared ram' has allowed the console to have what many believe to be greater shadow depth up to this point. Few people can see the PS3's split of the ram as a selling point as it will be burdened even further with the arrival of Home in the fall. I'm not saying that the system will slow to a crawl, but all of these whizz-bang extras will take memory away from it should be used for - handling next-gen graphics and not a huge front-end system.

deception``

 

[-maddog-]

On the first set I found the PS3's had much higher quality textures.
Second set the PS3's looked somewhat washed out and suffered from aliasing.
Most of the rest just were washed out.


This isn't really much of a comparison, it's the gamedevs who choose what a game looks like. ie: on the first set the version made for the PS3 was clearly better designed.

 

[John G]

The comparison is really not fair however, as Xbox used general computer architecture and thus did not need much optimizations. The PS3 on the other hand basically requires a complete rewrite of the code to fully use the Cell. Also, even though the Xbox used a pretty standard design, games made specifically for it did end up looking much better usually. Anyway, I am not really seeing how the PS3 colors looked washed out. The Xbox is much darker and has a blur effect over all of it. I mean just look at the road texture or the detail on the robot in the last image. The Xbox however does look better on the far away shots. As for the Ram issue, they both have 512, the PS3 just has 256 of it in high speed graphics ram instead of one giant pool of slower shared ram. The X360 OS though does use less ram currently.

An arguement could be made that it is actually harder to port from PS2 to the Xbox1 than it is from the 360 to the PS3.

While the Xbox did use a standard PC CPU, the PS2 used nothing of the sort. People forget how strange the PS2 CPU was for its time and how steep the learning curve was to program for it.

With the new generation, both CPU's have the same in-order IBM Power PC core at heart. The 360 just has three of them while the PS3 has 1 plus all the SPE's.

The PS2 and Xbox1 had drastically different graphics chips. Sony's custom made versus Xbox's PC style nVidia chip.

Now, 360 and PS3 both have PC style ATI and nVidia chips which are very similar functionally.

So, the old generation was a PC type architecture versus something completely different...CPU's, memory, graphics, software, development tools, everything. Now, it's just SPE's versus extra cores and differing memory strategies...beyond that it's mostly software and development tools.


If the old generation really was easier to port, it's not because of easier architecture. It's because the Xbox1 hardware was quite a bit faster than the PS2. Developers doing ports frequently didn't concern themselves with inefficiencies in the code for the Xbox ports and simply let the faster hardware take up the slack.