gamespot:360 vs PS3 graphics comparison

Razor05 · 12-10-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bboncorr

You know i have been saying this for years but that gets you called a fanboy on this site. people don't care about games they care about numbers and how they can brag out their numbers being bigger with no real knowledge of how those numbers really breakdown in real life.

so without further ado, Razor you're a FANBOY.

bboncorr · 12-10-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor05

glad you took it that way because this site has gotten really up tight recently. some people love reporting posts for any reason and then get in a tissy when you report them back for saying the same exact type of things. guess they just can't take it when the truth is told, not that everything i say is supposed to be serious and should be taken as the truth, case in point what you quoted.

Razor05 · 12-10-2008, 10:23 AM

There are more important things in life to worry about. Life is too short, and the less stress the better.

Razor05 · 12-10-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bboncorr

glad you took it that way

Was there really another way?

Cowboy X · 12-11-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy X

The PS3's cell processor as good as it is, is constantly being held back by the poor RSX in 2 ways.

1/ The RSX is slower than the Xenos in the 360 and takes alot more work to get the same image quality............. and often does not.

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.

A perfect example occurred earlier this year when a leading game dev was interviewed and was gushing about the untapped power of the cell and how new techniques were being employed which could see the cell process textures like a beast (code speak for Cell doing the RSX's work). He went into the the fancy workarounds that could be used to significantly boost game performance or graphical quality or both. The PS3 fanboys were quite pleased and happily quoted the dev's words regarding its unused potential and bandied around the % figures given by the dev. They of course neglected to realize that these were programing routines being developed to get a around a serious performance impediment (RSX).

They also happily ignored a later part in the interview when the journalist asked him what sort of performance they might see if they tried the same with the 360. The dev then said that they had no need to do it because the 360's gpu was (is) a beast (relative) and because the 360 easily handled the code without any workarounds or CPU offsets.

Finally the RSX is based on the Geforce 7800 card and as such has some serious problems with image quality relative to ATI products like their X1000 line. So even in a game which performs quite well on the PS3 compared to the 360............... the 360 will still frequently have better image quality.

Edit: Fixed some spelling errors.

Cowboy X · 12-11-2008, 10:43 PM

I was trying to edit the post and ended up quoting it.

brianh · 12-11-2008, 10:53 PM

The ps3's graphic chip is based on the 7800?? I own the 7800.

Not exactly ps3 WOW Eye candy bleeding type stuff if you ask me.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised since the ps3 was designed, what 2-3 years ago?

That just seems very weird to me.
I consider my computer to be very old and obsolete now. Except for my raptor hard drives which are still respectable.

Pinoy · 12-11-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy X

Edit: Fixed some spelling errors.

Maybe you should fix the 'xenos is faster than the rsx' part too... the rsx runs 50 mhz higher

Cowboy X · 12-11-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

The ps3's graphic chip is based on the 7800?? I own the 7800.

Not exactly ps3 WOW Eye candy bleeding type stuff if you ask me.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised since the ps3 was designed, what 2-3 years ago?

That just seems very weird to me.
I consider my computer to be very old and obsolete now. Except for my raptor hard drives which are still respectable.

Always the problem with consoles. They are quickly outstripped by PC parts.

brianh · 12-11-2008, 11:28 PM

I MUCH prefer gaming on consoles. I don't miss pc gaming at all.

**kamspy** · 12-12-2008, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

I MUCH prefer gaming on consoles. I don't miss pc gaming at all.

Watched The Kingdom on blu a few weeks ago. Had a itch to kill me some terrorists virtually. Started playing COD4 on PC again. Decided I wanted to play it on LIVE with some friends from work so I bought the 360 version last weekend.

Good lord do the textures on the 360 (and PS3 ver) look like smoothed poo compared to PC. It isn't even a demanding game to run on PC (by today's standards). Playing through Gears 2 a second time after taking a break for a couple weeks also made some flat textures jump at me. But that's a testament to the campaign IMO. I was so enthralled my first time through I didn't even notice a few really low end textures taking up most of the screen (cut scenes that has the shoulder of one of the Gears taking up a third of the frame for example). But damned it that's not the best looking rain I've ever seen. That level at the confidential research lab (in the rain) was one of my gaming 'moments' for the ages.

Just wish I knew anyone that played it on PC online. I wish the damn Live for Windows thing would actually take off and allow cross platform gaming.

brianh · 12-12-2008, 02:08 AM

Yeah the graphics on PC games are awesome no doubt. But that's really the only thing about them that's good imo.

I know that PC graphics are better, but when I play any console game I don't see any game that makes me think it's really bad.

All of the negatives of pc gaming overshadow the graphic positives. And it helps if you buy new hardware every year or so.
No thanks.

**kamspy** · 12-12-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

Yeah the graphics on PC games are awesome no doubt. But that's really the only thing about them that's good imo.

I know that PC graphics are better, but when I play any console game I don't see any game that makes me think it's really bad.

All of the negatives of pc gaming overshadow the graphic positives. And it helps if you buy new hardware every year or so.
No thanks.

I can see where you're coming from, but I just can't help but buy those damn GPUs when they really evolve.

After seeing the first Voodoo card it was over for me.

brianh · 12-12-2008, 03:20 AM

That's funny because I remember reading about in 2000 and 2001 the great graphics coming to pc's "soon". Then I saw Halo 1's graphics and it was like "they're here now!".

The death knell for pc gaming imo, was when consoles went HD. It became way too much hassle to keep the upgrade cycle going when the graphics of these machines -while not as good as promised so far- still look GREAT.

And oh ya, using Xbox live is just too easy. Oh the nightmares of PC gaming online.

To be fair, I'm sure online pc gaming has improved, but I just don't really care anymore.

railven · 12-12-2008, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

That's funny because I remember reading about in 2000 and 2001 the great graphics coming to pc's "soon". Then I saw Halo 1's graphics and it was like "they're here now!".

The death knell for pc gaming imo, was when consoles went HD. It became way too much hassle to keep the upgrade cycle going when the graphics of these machines -while not as good as promised so far- still look GREAT.

And oh ya, using Xbox live is just too easy. Oh the nightmares of PC gaming online.

To be fair, I'm sure online pc gaming has improved, but I just don't really care anymore.

Remember, Halo was originally a Mac game ported to DX, and the original Xbox was basically a PC with a stripped OS kernel and modified DX9.

People who say PC gaming is expensive need to re-visit the PC world.

1. You don't have to upgrade your PC hardware bi-annually, annually, or even every other year. The games/software don't scale that fast. If you want all the graphics on high, like Mike argued, and need higher than 60FPS maybe you will want to upgrade, but in the end you don't have especially if you have a moderate setup (running games at 1280x768 or the more common 1440x960 doesn't require as much juice as running at full 1920x1080 or 2560x1600)

I'm not trying to sell PC gaming to anyone, but like other posters contest other people's opinions I'm just doing the same.

Don't forget, majority of console games aren't true HD, they are upscaled internally by the machine. Some look good, some (on a bigger screen) look bad as you can see the stretching of the textures.

But again, I've been gaming for over 20 years and have a tendency to critic games more so than most gamers. Me saying "I hate how AA isn't used on all objects" doesn't translate to its a bad game. But more of a testament to the lacking of power both the PS3/360 have compared to the promises made by the devs. Halo 3 - perfect example. For them it was either Super HDR or AA, couldn't have them both which just sucks since the HDR is gorgeous but the glaring jaggies takes away from it.

12-10-2008, 10:23 AM	#63
Razor05 HD = 65 beautiful inches Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 3,296	There are more important things in life to worry about. Life is too short, and the less stress the better. __________________ Panasonic TH-65PZ850U Sony KDL37XBR6 Panasonic TH-37PX50U Cambridge Audio Azur 640R & 740C Paradigm Studio 60's, 20's, CC-590 & Seismic 12 Panasonic DMP-BD35 Toshiba HD-XA2 & A35 Motorola VIP1200 Monster HTFS1000, PB2100 AA 1154a MW2 LE Xbox 360 & Halo3 LE + HD-DVD GT: Razor59 Sony PS3 slim GT:Razor_59 Sony PSP

12-11-2008, 10:43 PM	#66
Cowboy X High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 912	I was trying to edit the post and ended up quoting it. __________________ HD A-30 PS3 80gb LG HD DVD/Blu-Ray Combo Drive Denon HT 7.1 speakers Logitech Harmony 880 pro remote Samsung HLT 61A750 Onkyo TX SR 606 donations welcome HD DVD 14 Blu-Ray 13

Similar Threads to gamespot:360 vs PS3 graphics comparison
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Xbox 360 vs PS3 Graphics compare	360kid	Gaming & Systems	22	12-07-2006 10:22 PM
Xbox 360 vs PlayStation 3: It's "Fight Night" at the Apollo	Razor05	Gaming & Systems	6	12-06-2006 08:25 PM

12-11-2008, 10:53 PM	#67
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	The ps3's graphic chip is based on the 7800?? I own the 7800. Not exactly ps3 WOW Eye candy bleeding type stuff if you ask me. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised since the ps3 was designed, what 2-3 years ago? That just seems very weird to me. I consider my computer to be very old and obsolete now. Except for my raptor hard drives which are still respectable.

12-11-2008, 11:28 PM	#70
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	I MUCH prefer gaming on consoles. I don't miss pc gaming at all.

12-12-2008, 02:08 AM	#72
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	Yeah the graphics on PC games are awesome no doubt. But that's really the only thing about them that's good imo. I know that PC graphics are better, but when I play any console game I don't see any game that makes me think it's really bad. All of the negatives of pc gaming overshadow the graphic positives. And it helps if you buy new hardware every year or so. No thanks.

12-12-2008, 03:20 AM	#74
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	That's funny because I remember reading about in 2000 and 2001 the great graphics coming to pc's "soon". Then I saw Halo 1's graphics and it was like "they're here now!". The death knell for pc gaming imo, was when consoles went HD. It became way too much hassle to keep the upgrade cycle going when the graphics of these machines -while not as good as promised so far- still look GREAT. And oh ya, using Xbox live is just too easy. Oh the nightmares of PC gaming online. To be fair, I'm sure online pc gaming has improved, but I just don't really care anymore.