360 vs PS3 graphics shootout round 2

[blueswitch]

I think the 360 versions were looking better, not just color saturation which can probably be tuned somewhat...but distant objects looked clearer, there were more reflections, and especially in Oblivion the textures were much better. I think the extra RAM is giving it a boost, which may prove to be a bigger edge than CPU.

I don't own either console...but it seems every article or discussion on PS3 graphics always draws out the "wait until they learn to program for it" which maybe thats true...but we're not comparing today's 360 graphics to what might be on the PS3 a year from now....maybe once they learn to program for it the cell processor will get up and fly around the room....but right now it's evident that the 360 looks better and Sony greatly over hyped their consoles abilities.

 

[tenchi86]

John G: Ports to the Xbox would still have been easier, because right now you have two systems that require specialized code. You cannot simply take the code of the Xbox360, say it is PowerPC and think it should somehow fully work on the PS3. The Xbox360 is 3 general purpose CPUs working together. The PS3 on the other hand is one general purpose CPU and 8 SPEs, which in regards to the SPEs is nothing like normal CPUs. In the old days however, since the Xbox used a general Intel CPU it would have been much easier to convert your code over to the appropriate language, and would really not have required much optimization from the start as all languages pretty much were at the time designed around an x86 single core processing unit. Now I am not saying the PS3 is going to look 5x better in the future like some. The system could very run into a bottleneck such as the GPU or Ram and I know this, but the ports of last gen and this gen really should not be compared and used as proof of something or disproof of something else.

Blueswitch: I will admit the Tech Demos of the PS3 were probably pretty far out there. Though if you look at PS2 Tech Demos and then look at the PS2 launch games you would have thought the same, if you then go back and look at current games however the difference really grows pretty small. I know that is proof of nothing, but Sony did come pretty close to their targets last generation, and odds are they may come pretty close this generation too. A lot of the current hype though I think comes from the tech articles that are not even from Sony but from developers that claim modern games like Motorstorm or Resistance are using less then 40% of the SPEs,(Yes, I know those could be considered in house developers but most people still consider them truthful statements) or even those articles from people who "claim" to be developers such as that article that said the Cell was 20X faster then a Woodcrest. People see these and think awesome are games are going to look so much better in the future, this is of course not taking into account other bottlenecks the PS3 does has.

Image Wise: Some of the ones that would not load for me finally did load, and honestly besides the brightness I think they are pretty close. It is more of a preference thing from what I can see in those images more then just one side clearly being better.

 

[FudgeNuggets]

Tenchi is mostly right. A correction though, there are 7 SPEs (1 is disabled on the PS3 version of the Cell).

Now an argument: I think it would've been equally if not more difficult to port from an PPC RISC architecture (PS2) to an x86 CISC architecture (Xbox1) as porting from a tri-core PPC architecture to a PPC-cell architecture as the fundamental PPC code is the same.

Last: I don't think it's pure preference when you can obviously see missing textures all over in the PS3 versions (pay particular note to the buildings in Spider-Man3). The programmers can be blamed for the fuzziness on the PS3 compared to the 360 simply because they overdid the blur/blend pixel effects to try to hide the jaggies.

 

[John G]

John G: Ports to the Xbox would still have been easier, because right now you have two systems that require specialized code. You cannot simply take the code of the Xbox360, say it is PowerPC and think it should somehow fully work on the PS3. The Xbox360 is 3 general purpose CPUs working together. The PS3 on the other hand is one general purpose CPU and 8 SPEs, which in regards to the SPEs is nothing like normal CPUs. In the old days however, since the Xbox used a general Intel CPU it would have been much easier to convert your code over to the appropriate language, and would really not have required much optimization from the start as all languages pretty much were at the time designed around an x86 single core processing unit. Now I am not saying the PS3 is going to look 5x better in the future like some. The system could very run into a bottleneck such as the GPU or Ram and I know this, but the ports of last gen and this gen really should not be compared and used as proof of something or disproof of something else.

Of course the code won't just flow right over because they are both Power PC based... Software is completely different. But, there isn't much worry of hardware based incompatibilities or one chip being able to provide efficient acceleration for certain tasks and not for others on the main core.

Also, the strategies for using additional cores versus SPE's are not all that different. Certain tasks are offloaded onto extra general purpose cores or onto SPE's. People doing a port just need to code those offloaded tasks into a form that is acceptable for an SPE to run (assuming they even can be).

Specialized code is a relative term. All code is specialized. x86 based PC Windows DirectX code is specialized. At best, it's something that some programers might be familiar with. But, a Japanese programmer of the time might have primarily been familiar with N64 and SNES code.

In the end, I don't think the PS3 is in any special situation. If the hardware were drastically faster as Sony tends to claim, we would already see some clear superiority in at least some games. We would likely see some results that the 360 would likely never match in its entire life cycle, as we did with the Xbox1 in some of its early releases (Morrowind, DoA, Halo, etc.) I think what we are seeing now is the result of both consoles having very similar real-world hardware capabilities along with the 360 having a year's head start.

 

[rainless]

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?

Heh... The PS3 will STILL have titles the Wii will never have.

 

[FudgeNuggets]

Heh... The PS3 will STILL have titles the Wii will never have.

and vice versa, your point

 

[Hardin]

Heh... The PS3 will STILL have titles the Wii will never have.

Thats why I only mentioned the 360 . The wii is unique but when people get bored of flailing their arms around they'll notice the poor graphics and get back to the real next gen consoles imho.

 

[tenchi86]

The reason to get a PS3 even if some of it's games are on the X360 is, you are not born with an X360. Just because the game is on another system does not mean it is any less fun on your system. Also, say I wanted Warhawk, Drakes Fortune, and Unreal Tournament I would of course get the PS3. If I instead wanted Halo 3, Forza, and Unreal Tournament then I would go Xbox. Anyway that is offtopic, and the argument over which is harder to port too is mute as right now none of us have developed for both systems and none of us really know. The thing I don't think a lot of people are realizing though is Sony has mainly been hyping the Cell, which so far appears to be true. Most games are only using about 30% of it. The problem is the other parts of the PS3 are being used 100%.

 

[Hardin]

I don't even know what Warhawk and Drakes Fortune are so I'm glad I don't have a ps3 I guess.

 

[tenchi86]

Offtopic: Warhawk is a mix between UT2k4 and Socom. Drakes Fortune is an adventure game. I am yet to play Drakes Fortune, but Warhawk is probably my favorite game of the last year or so. Anyway all I was saying is it gets old going into stores like EB and hearing over and over the "Why get a PS3 when the Xbox360 also has those games." story. Well you get a PS3 because you are not born owning an X360 so just because it also has them means nothing.

 

[Hardin]

It might get old but its true. Not just for people who already have the 360 but for the people that don't have either. The 360 is cheaper so if they wanted a multi platform game it would make sense to be able to play the same game at a lower price.

 

[deception``]

The reason to get a PS3 even if some of it's games are on the X360 is, you are not born with an X360.

This is pretty silly. Nobody is born with either console [or a Wii for that matter]. People buy consoles based on what features and games it has to offer. Price also plays a role, which is one of the main reasons why more people have flocked to the 360 than the PS3. You are correct that multi-platform titles don't make a system "less fun," but if you can play the same games on a $400 system versus a $600....that's just a no-brainer for so many people.

The thing I don't think a lot of people are realizing though is Sony has mainly been hyping the Cell, which so far appears to be true. Most games are only using about 30% of it. The problem is the other parts of the PS3 are being used 100%.

Also a pretty moot point. People buy consoles NOW based on what it can do RIGHT NOW. I don't care what percentage of a CPU Sony/MS/Nintendo claim is being used now - all people care about is if the damn system has the games you want. Do you play God of War wondering how much of the PS2's power is being used? I don't think so.

It might get old but its true. Not just for people who already have the 360 but for the people that don't have either. The 360 is cheaper so if they wanted a multi platform game it would make sense to be able to play the same game at a lower price.

BINGO.


deception``

 

[FudgeNuggets]

This is pretty silly. Nobody is born with either console [or a Wii for that matter].deception``

I was born with a Wii LOL!!!! The name jokes are never going to get old until right.....about.......oh 6 months ago...

 

[Hardin]

 

[tenchi86]

This is pretty silly. Nobody is born with either console [or a Wii for that matter]. People buy consoles based on what features and games it has to offer. Price also plays a role, which is one of the main reasons why more people have flocked to the 360 than the PS3. You are correct that multi-platform titles don't make a system "less fun," but if you can play the same games on a $400 system versus a $600....that's just a no-brainer for so many people.




Also a pretty moot point. People buy consoles NOW based on what it can do RIGHT NOW. I don't care what percentage of a CPU Sony/MS/Nintendo claim is being used now - all people care about is if the damn system has the games you want. Do you play God of War wondering how much of the PS2's power is being used? I don't think so.



BINGO.


deception``

I don't think you are at all getting what I am saying.

1. People also don't usually but a 400$ system for just one game. My only point is it is very annoying hearing people talk like since a game is on the X360 I or anyone for that matter should no longer care about. If that was the only game I was getting X system for then great, but it's not. So whether it is on the X360 or not does not matter, what matters is I will be able to enjoy and play that game on my system.

2. What is your point here? I never said people buy a system because of how much % of each SPU a game uses. We are in a thread talking about graphics not why people buy systems. I really have no idea where you got that we were talking about how to sell a system. If you are talking about Hype then I disagree with you. As you hype the future of something, such as people think Halo 3 will be awesome and hype it. Do they have any idea though until it comes out?

3. As I said before I don't know people who buy a system for one game but if you do then great, still not at all my point. All I was saying is Mutliplatform or not those games will make X system more fun, and at the end of the day that is what matters. For instance the last time I went into a game store (awhile ago might I add) I was asking about some release dates on Multiplatform games but specified the PS3, when the clerk replies, "There is no reason to own a PS3, all these games are on the X360." Well honestly I am happy for the X360, but those games are still a reason to own the PS3, just the price is a reason not to.

 

[Hardin]

Of course they don't buy it for one game but if they find several games they like and most of them are cross platform then they will probably choose the 360 because it's cheaper. If you want to play Tekken or Resistance then they'll pick the ps3 but many of the playstations big titles like Metal Gear Solid and GTA are cross platform now so there aren't many games to differentiate it from the 360.

 

[deception``]

I don't think you are at all getting what I am saying.

SNIP

I understood what you are saying. You just don't give me enough credit:

1. You're tired of all the 'this game is on the 360 so why bother with the PS3' comments. I hear that loud and clear. However, many people favor the 360 largely because of its price. It also makes multiplatform titles for MOST people [not you, clearly] more attractive on the 360 because it is cheaper. I am sorry that these comments ruffle your feathers, but they likely are not going away. If you are completely satisfied with your PS3 purchase that should be enough and you should worry less about what others are saying. Who gives a damn what the guy at the store said? Ignore him and move on.

2. Most people don't make expensive purchases based on hype. To the average person, the Cell means absolutely nothing. Most people could also care less about things such as Folding@Home or what internals the 360 has. Hell, I cannot tell you how many people think that XBL is an absolute rip-off; this should give you some insight on the fact that the mindset of the average consumer is not the one that you or I might share. What's the point? You might buy the PS3 based on the Cell and features such as Home, but most people buy consoles based on what games are available and for what cost [including the hardware]. If you care to disagree with me, just look at recent sales trends. They tell a very specific story: the PS3 is way too expensive, the Wii is priced just right [even with a weak slate of titles], and the 360 is priced somewhere in between.

Sorry guy, but hype doesn't move consoles. When a person [read: average joe] buys today, they make a decision based on (a) the cost of the hardware and (b) what titles are available now.

deception``

 

[tenchi86]

1. I am not saying you should not prefer the X360 when it comes to Multi platform, as it is cheaper and you clearly should. All I am saying is it is getting tiring when I talk to people who act like the only games a PS3 has is say Layer, and Final Fantasy as those are the only ones not Multi platform. Multi platform or not game like UT, Madden, Fight Night all should still count towards a consoles library.
(Also just a note. If I was buying a system for general titles like Madden, GTA, ect then yes I would of bought an X360. If the games are the same of course I am all for paying less. Thing is I also like a few other games/features which is what tipped me towards getting an PS3.)

Deception did you even read my post on part 2? haha
2. Basically repeating what I said before, we were not talking about selling consoles. I never said the Cell, or any other aspect of the PS3 should sell the PS3 since it is powerful. All I said is why some people are still hyped by the PS3s power. Which as I said in my last post, has nothing to do with selling a console.

Sorry guy, but hype doesn't move consoles. When a person [read: average joe] buys today, they make a decision based on (a) the cost of the hardware and (b) what titles are available now.

Firstly, it does. If you think the Hype for Lair, or Halo 3 does not move consoles you are completely wrong. Secondly, I never said it did sell consoles, infact I never said anything sold consoles as I was not at all talking about selling consoles. You may want to reread my post.

 

[deception``]

1. I am not saying you should not prefer the X360 when it comes to Multi platform, as it is cheaper and you clearly should. All I am saying is it is getting tiring when I talk to people who act like the only games a PS3 has is say Layer, and Final Fantasy as those are the only ones not Multi platform. Multi platform or not game like UT, Madden, Fight Night all should still count towards a consoles library. (Also just a note. If I was buying a system for general titles like Madden, GTA, ect then yes I would of bought an X360. If the games are the same of course I am all for paying less. Thing is I also like a few other games which/features which is what tipped me towards getting an PS3.)

This is nothing more than sour grapes. If you don't like this banter then just ignore it.

Deception did you even read my post on part 2? haha
2. Basically repeating what I said before, we were not talking about selling consoles. I never said the Cell, or any other aspect of the PS3 should sell the PS3 since it is powerful. All I said is why some people are still hyped by the PS3s power. Which as I said in my last post, has nothing to do with selling a console.

I read part 2. However, based on that point people could be 'hyped' for any of the three systems for different reasons. We don't know what any of the three systems are really capable of right now [yes, that includes the Wii]. Some people seem to think that the 360's peaked due to the achievement that is Gears of War, but I'm sure there's more to a console that's barely 2 years old. Your "point" here is still moot.

Firstly, it does. If you think the Hype for Lair, or Halo 3 does not move consoles you are completely wrong. Secondly, I never said it did sell consoles, infact I never said anything sold consoles as I was not at all talking about selling consoles. You may want to reread my post.

Of course, when you talk about huge franchise titles such as Halo 3 and Final Fantasy...those are games that people might buy a system in anticipation of. However, this is the exception not the rule. NOBODY is buying the PS3 because of the Cell processor. That's absurd. People are buying the PS3 because of BD, the build quality, because PSN is free, etc.....the Cell processor is not in that list. Currently, the only tangible benefit of the Cell is Folding@Home. Most people that know or care about folding are reasonably tech-savvy and likely already have a PC that folds.

deception``

 

[tenchi86]

This is nothing more than sour grapes. If you don't like this banter then just ignore it.



I read part 2. However, based on that point people could be 'hyped' for any of the three systems for different reasons. We don't know what any of the three systems are really capable of right now [yes, that includes the Wii]. Some people seem to think that the 360's peaked due to the achievement that is Gears of War, but I'm sure there's more to a console that's barely 2 years old. Your "point" here is still moot.



Of course, when you talk about huge franchise titles such as Halo 3 and Final Fantasy...those are games that people might buy a system in anticipation of. However, this is the exception not the rule. NOBODY is buying the PS3 because of the Cell processor. That's absurd. People are buying the PS3 because of BD, the build quality, because PSN is free, etc.....the Cell processor is not in that list. Currently, the only tangible benefit of the Cell is Folding@Home. Most people that know or care about folding are reasonably tech-savvy and likely already have a PC that folds.

deception``

1. I pretty much do ignore it. I see no harm though in expressing my opinion on an internet forum.

2. My point is not moot because I had no point. I still don't think you are getting it. All was saying is why some people are hyped about the power of the PS3. I never said people buy systems based on that hype, I never said the hype was true, and I never said it is not possible to be hyped about anything.

3. I NEVER SAID PEOPLE ARE BUYING THE PS3 BECAUSE OF THE CELL. I hate to do that but it is starting to get annoying. I am not sure how the hell you got on the topic of selling systems but you need to just drop it. It is offtopic and I never mentioned it. Just because I mentioned why some people are still hyped for the PS3 does not mean I think those people are going to then go out and buy the PS3. I think you are the one not giving me enough credit here, not the other way around. It is common sense that something like the Cell is not why people buy the PS3.



Really this is all completely off topic. So say your final words and be done with it, because I am not replying to these subjects anymore.