gamespot:360 vs PS3 graphics comparison

DonnyDC · 12-03-2008, 01:07 AM

In Carmacks words the 360 is also a horrible console to work with. The guy hates working with multiple cores period. He went on a rant earlier on how the industry should still be working on higher clock speeds(ie. 7ghz single core cpus)

Bottomline, saying the PS3 is weaker because of multiplatform games is like saying the Xbox was weaker than the PS2 because its MGS2 port had more slowdown.

brianh · 12-03-2008, 01:24 AM

In this case, the answer to which console is better might be which is selling the most.

Because it all comes down to playing your buddies online. Xbox live simply kicks ass. I was very sceptical of it in the beginning but it's proven itself now.
And Sony's online play -just from my own experience- has a ways to go.

It's like a re run of the NES vs. the Sega master system. The SMS was techincally better, but we know how that turned out.

MikeRox · 12-03-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy X

2/ The benefits of the Cell can never be realised if the cell constantly has to use its 'extra' resources to bail out the RSX and do gpu work instead of cpu and dsp work.

Don't forget, originally the Cell was intended to do everything inc graphics by itself.

GLOW · 12-03-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRox

Don't forget, originally the Cell was intended to do everything inc graphics by itself.

There are PSN games that run purely on the Cell.

BeeF · 12-03-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

In this case, the answer to which console is better might be which is selling the most.

Because it all comes down to playing your buddies online. Xbox live simply kicks ass. I was very sceptical of it in the beginning but it's proven itself now.
And Sony's online play -just from my own experience- has a ways to go.

It's like a re run of the NES vs. the Sega master system. The SMS was techincally better, but we know how that turned out.

I think its all an opinion I don't think you can base which one is better on anything but a personal opinion. I love XBL and I love my Xbox, but I also love PS3 for the blu-ray and a couple select games. I don't think either one is actually better though. Except it is a fact that sony's online play is awful.

jusHD · 12-03-2008, 04:22 PM

I am so tired of this crap. I had both systems and played games like COD4 on both. The online is the same except for some friend features that the 360 has that the PS3 doesnt. I only have a PS3 now but still think highly of the 360 and this PS3 online crap is complete bullshit. It is just as good and actually more harder due to older players and not as many jackass's. Yeah no one has a mic and that can suck but I am already tired of listening to idiots anyway. And in my opinion COD4 was better graphically and online on the PS3 so calm down already with this crap. Just like in the HD movie war thing here on this forum do you guys work for MS or sony? If not get the fuck off their nuts already.

Nexgenrulz · 12-03-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jusHD

I am so tired of this crap. I had both systems and played games like COD4 on both. The online is the same except for some friend features that the 360 has that the PS3 doesnt. I only have a PS3 now but still think highly of the 360 and this PS3 online crap is complete bullshit. It is just as good and actually more harder due to older players and not as many jackass's. Yeah no one has a mic and that can suck but I am already tired of listening to idiots anyway. And in my opinion COD4 was better graphically and online on the PS3 so calm down already with this crap. Just like in the HD movie war thing here on this forum do you guys work for MS or sony? If not get the fuck off their nuts already.

Well put my brother!!!

railven · 12-03-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

I wonder why Sony picked such a bad choice for the video rendering in the ps3.

My memory is a little hazy but I kind of remember Sony being coy about the specs of the RSX.

I haven't gotten a RROD yet (knock on wood) but I'm not what you would call a hardcore gamer. I hadn't used my 360 for a long time until Gears 2 came out.
But the graphics in that game are jaw dropping. The thing that REALLY got me was how the screen would shake and rattle (and roll lol) when all kinds of crazy things were happening, but the framerate NEVER faltered.

I've played MLB the show for 6 months on the ps3 (LOVE that game too) and it had frame rate issues in a baseball game. Not really a big deal - it didn't make the game less fun - but I was VERY impressed by the smooth rates of gears 2.

The only thing about the 360 that sucks (imo) is the RROD issue. I've been lucky enough not to have it happen to me tho yet.

So when the ps3 has been out for 5 years and the graphics are KZ demo quality (hopefully) then MS will come out with the xbox 720 and be equal to Sony AGAIN.
That won't stop the fanboys from going bonkers, tho.

It's funny I got caught up in the Cell hype back then and I saw that Carmack interview where he said the 360 was a better console to work with and I thought "yeah right, bs".
The guy knew what he was talking about, huh?

The RSX was almost a last minute switch to drive down production costs and also allow port code of Xbox 360 code. The Xbox/Xbox360 are built mostly on PC code (Direct X.) The original design for the PS3 had two Cells and no GPU, it was Sony's intention to do again what they did with the PS2, use a CPU to drive graphics.

Of course, being late ot the game and seeing the popularity of the Xbox 360 SDKs, Sony had to change things. In the end it cost them more since the GPU in the PS3 isn't really designed into the core as the GPU is in the 360. The 360 is built around the GPU, while the PS3 is built around the CPU.

This is a primary reason why porting ot the PS3 from the 360 is harder and produces worse code than porting from the PS3 to the 360. However, in both situations the lead console tends to have the better end result.

Cowboy X · 12-03-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jusHD

I am so tired of this crap. I had both systems and played games like COD4 on both. The online is the same except for some friend features that the 360 has that the PS3 doesnt. I only have a PS3 now but still think highly of the 360 and this PS3 online crap is complete bullshit. It is just as good and actually more harder due to older players and not as many jackass's. Yeah no one has a mic and that can suck but I am already tired of listening to idiots anyway. And in my opinion COD4 was better graphically and online on the PS3 so calm down already with this crap. Just like in the HD movie war thing here on this forum do you guys work for MS or sony? If not get the fuck off their nuts already.

Just take a chill pill. The PS3 has some games that I am certain are better than the 360. the point is that the informed consumer who only wants one console out of the PS3 and 360 would make a better choice with the 360 .................. if they are into gaming due to some of the reasons mentioned in this thread. The PS3 is no slouch at all, and is to me a better media box. I bought mine as a Blu-Ray and media player along with it being a way to surf the net comfortably in the living room (I will be using a keyboard with a touch pad built in), so the gaming abilities are for me icing as I'd prefer to play on what I consider to be the best machine of all ........ the PC.

Cowboy X · 12-03-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLOW

There are PSN games that run purely on the Cell.

There are 'cell' phones that can easily run games at PSN quality.

Cowboy X · 12-03-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRox

Don't forget, originally the Cell was intended to do everything inc graphics by itself.

Cell is an all purpose multi-cpu/dsp cluster but it cannot with the amount of cores in the PS3 hold a candle to a purpose built GPU from ATI or Nvidia.

brianh · 12-03-2008, 09:31 PM

No one is saying the ps3 is bad.

I think both of them are basically equal.
Just in my own experience the sony network has been more of a headache.

But if someone wanted to buy a ps3 for blu-ray or the exclusive games, that's cool.

Cowboy X · 12-03-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by railven

The RSX was almost a last minute switch to drive down production costs and also allow port code of Xbox 360 code. The Xbox/Xbox360 are built mostly on PC code (Direct X.) The original design for the PS3 had two Cells and no GPU, it was Sony's intention to do again what they did with the PS2, use a CPU to drive graphics.

Of course, being late ot the game and seeing the popularity of the Xbox 360 SDKs, Sony had to change things. In the end it cost them more since the GPU in the PS3 isn't really designed into the core as the GPU is in the 360. The 360 is built around the GPU, while the PS3 is built around the CPU.

This is a primary reason why porting ot the PS3 from the 360 is harder and produces worse code than porting from the PS3 to the 360. However, in both situations the lead console tends to have the better end result.

The RSX had to be added in or Sony's costs would have gone through the roof if they had to put the number of cell cores/units in the PS3 to be able to handle the 360's Xenos.

I wished that Sony would have chosen a better GPU in particular one from ATI as Nvidia's sucked at the time. But I strongly believe that they needed to put a GPU in so that they could compete.

The PS3 ended up being a very unbalanced game console with an overly powerful CPU bridled to a relatively (to the competition) poor GPU. The cost issue related to having the Blu-Ray ability in the PS3 may well have played a part in Sony further shackling the system with very little RAM. The power of the Cell as I mentioned before has however helped them since the cell has been able to offload some calculations from the RSX and help balance things out a bit. But as we are seeing from many titles.............. :

Excellent CPU + Mediocre GPU (PS3) < Good CPU + Excellent GPU (360)

Finally. The problem of PS3 coding is that it is brand new and whether complicated or not ................... it seems very complicated compared to the 360 and PC. The 360 coding is just too easy and the PS3 does not have the clout or marketshare that the equally hard to code for PS2 had. So dev teams are much less amused when PS3 coding makes a multiplatform game months late. As you mentioned, the late arrival of dev kits based on near production PS3s meant that many coders were still very early in the learning code at launch. The great ease of the 360 is that the dev kit is easy to use, has programming language and rules that are familiar to many devs and PC and 360 games can be made simultaneously! 2 games in the time and price of 1.

Liquidx · 12-03-2008, 10:02 PM

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Cell in the PS3 basically a "dumbed down" version of the "real" thing? As in the "real deal" having 6 or 8 cores and the PS3's Cell only using 4 or something?

brianh · 12-03-2008, 10:04 PM

So you have a monster Cell processor combined with a mediocre GPU.
And then you have on the 360 side the reverse.

It's no wonder the two are so similar in graphics then.

12-03-2008, 01:07 AM	#31
DonnyDC High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,174	In Carmacks words the 360 is also a horrible console to work with. The guy hates working with multiple cores period. He went on a rant earlier on how the industry should still be working on higher clock speeds(ie. 7ghz single core cpus) Bottomline, saying the PS3 is weaker because of multiplatform games is like saying the Xbox was weaker than the PS2 because its MGS2 port had more slowdown. Last edited by DonnyDC; 12-03-2008 at 01:14 AM.

Similar Threads to gamespot:360 vs PS3 graphics comparison
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Alone in the Dark PS3 version delay explained	EddieDZ	Gaming & Systems	8	05-29-2008 03:49 PM
Mark Rein: PS3 UT3 Graphics better than Gears Of War	Nexgenrulz	Gaming & Systems	10	11-10-2007 10:51 AM
PS3 Price Cut Too Little Too Late	Cygnus	Gaming & Systems	8	05-30-2007 09:57 PM
NY Times picks Wii and 360 over PS3	Cygnus	Gaming & Systems	8	04-23-2007 11:16 AM
Sony's Grave Error: The $499 HDMI-Lacking PS3.	Razor05	Gaming & Systems	34	05-30-2006 03:40 PM

12-03-2008, 01:24 AM	#32
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	In this case, the answer to which console is better might be which is selling the most. Because it all comes down to playing your buddies online. Xbox live simply kicks ass. I was very sceptical of it in the beginning but it's proven itself now. And Sony's online play -just from my own experience- has a ways to go. It's like a re run of the NES vs. the Sega master system. The SMS was techincally better, but we know how that turned out.

12-03-2008, 04:22 PM	#36
jusHD HD pimp Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Corpus Christi Posts: 881	I am so tired of this crap. I had both systems and played games like COD4 on both. The online is the same except for some friend features that the 360 has that the PS3 doesnt. I only have a PS3 now but still think highly of the 360 and this PS3 online crap is complete bullshit. It is just as good and actually more harder due to older players and not as many jackass's. Yeah no one has a mic and that can suck but I am already tired of listening to idiots anyway. And in my opinion COD4 was better graphically and online on the PS3 so calm down already with this crap. Just like in the HD movie war thing here on this forum do you guys work for MS or sony? If not get the fuck off their nuts already.

12-03-2008, 09:31 PM	#42
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	No one is saying the ps3 is bad. I think both of them are basically equal. Just in my own experience the sony network has been more of a headache. But if someone wanted to buy a ps3 for blu-ray or the exclusive games, that's cool.

12-03-2008, 10:02 PM	#44
Liquidx iFanboy Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 1,245	Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Cell in the PS3 basically a "dumbed down" version of the "real" thing? As in the "real deal" having 6 or 8 cores and the PS3's Cell only using 4 or something?

12-03-2008, 10:04 PM	#45
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	So you have a monster Cell processor combined with a mediocre GPU. And then you have on the 360 side the reverse. It's no wonder the two are so similar in graphics then.