• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Graphics: Xbox 360 vs PS3

These are all ports. All the textures are the same across both systems.

Just wait for some PS3 only software to come out before making judgement.

Plus, the RSX and Cell processor are both new chips... Just look how the PS2 progressed from launch date to now...

Eh, I really don't care, I'm a windows gamer...
 
i agree with arcygenical, even though i'm not the ps3's biggest fan, i think it is only fair that we wait for the 2nd wave of ps3 games to come out. look what Gears of War did for the 360. the ps3 is bound to have some amazing software with such series' as God of War and Tekken. just wait =D even I"M excited
 
And gamespot is biased! Should have seen the scandal last week or so regarding their PS3 page, was quite the outrage lol.

And I'd say wait until March until some decent PS3 games come out! I'm waiting for Heavenly sword:

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=65777&page=4

Those are scans of a magazine showing screenshots, not the screenshots themselves.

In the meantime enjoying my PS3 and my buddies Xbox lol.
 
If the RSX is modified 7900GTX, then I think the PS3 is in trouble. 1080p content is not easy to pull off without the extra horsepower. From my observation, the PS3's biggest problem is the FRAMERATE! Motorstorm ran at 10-15fps in the beginning scene, and 30fps at best when there are no cars on screen.

This was all being played on a 720p tv so I don't understand why the slow downs. I can't even imagine what framerates will be like in 1080p mode, considering it's pushing almost 2x the pixels. You guys should go to walmart/bestbuy and check it out.
 
Apoxi said:
i agree with arcygenical, even though i'm not the ps3's biggest fan, i think it is only fair that we wait for the 2nd wave of ps3 games to come out. look what Gears of War did for the 360. the ps3 is bound to have some amazing software with such series' as God of War and Tekken. just wait =D even I"M excited
Click to expand...

Oh here is a list of games upcoming:

Full Auto 2: Battlelines 12/7/06
Blazing Angels 12/12/06
Sonic the Hedgehog 12/19/06
College Hoops 2K7 1/15/07
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 2/1/2007
Godfather 2/5/2007
F.E.A.R. 2/6/2007
Bladestorm: Hundred Years War 2/15/07
Fatal Inertia 2/15/07
NBA Street Homecourt 2/19/07
Eye of Judgment 3/1/2007
Formula One Championship Edition 3/1/2007
Ghost Recon: Advanced WarFighter 2 3/1/2007
Heavenly Sword 3/1/2007
Lair 3/1/2007
MLB 07: The Show 3/1/2007
MotorStorm 3/1/2007
Rainbow Six: Vegas 3/1/2007
SingStar 3/1/2007
Def Jam Icon 3/6/2007
Medal of Honor Airborne 3/6/2007
Virtua Fighter 5 3/13/07
Armored Core 4 3/20/07
Virtua Tennis 3 3/20/07
Coded Arms Assault 3/30/07
Golden Axe 3/30/07
Haze 3/30/07
Indiana Jones 3/30/07
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames 3/30/07
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent 4/1/2007
Turok 4/1/2007
World Snooker Championship 2007 4/1/2007
Army of Two 4/2/2007
Assassin's Creed 4/2/2007
Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway 4/2/2007
The Darkness 4/2/2007
Monster Madness 4/3/2007
Spider-Man 3 5/1/2007
Stranglehold 5/1/2007
Half Life 2 6/1/2007
Heavy Rain 6/1/2007
Hellboy 6/1/2007
Interstellar Marines 6/1/2007
Project Offset 6/1/2007
Rogue Warrior 6/1/2007
Sega Rally 6/1/2007
Stuntman 2 6/1/2007
The Club 6/1/2007
Unreal Tournament 07 6/1/2007
Warhawk 6/1/2007
Colin McRae: DIRT 6/30/07
Alone in the Dark 7/1/2007
Fifth Phantom Saga 7/1/2007
Hot Shots Golf 5 7/1/2007
Killzone 2 7/1/2007
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots 7/1/2007
Tekken 6 7/1/2007
The Getaway 3 7/1/2007
The Outsider 7/1/2007
NCAA Football 2007 7/3/2007
Dark Sector 9/4/2007
Monster Kingdom 10/1/07
The Wall 10/1/07
Grand Theft Auto IV 10/16/07
Eight Days 12/1/07
Eyedentify 12/1/07
Final Fantasy XIII 12/1/07
Frontlines: Fuel of War 12/1/07
Gran Turismo 5 12/1/07
WarDevil: Enigma 12/1/07
Afrika 12/31/07
Final Fantasy Versus XIII 12/31/07
Romance of the Three Kingdoms 12/31/07
Sam Suede: Undercover Exposure 12/31/07
Urban Mysteries 12/31/07
 
Huh? The architecture of the two is about as different as you can get. Do you have links or arguments to support this?
 
I don't get the argument of some of those posters. COD2 and Oblivion were first gen x360 games and both of them look as good as the best ps3 games out now.
 
deeznuts said:
Huh? The architecture of the two is about as different as you can get. Do you have links or arguments to support this?
Click to expand...

Both consoles have DirectX 9 / Shader Model 3.0-class GPUs that run at almost the same speed, and have almost the same number of shader ALUs. PS3 has more, 360 uses its more efficiently.

Both consoles have a total of 512MB RAM.

Both consoles use an IBM PowerPC-based CPU at 3.2ghz. PS3 has stream processors, 360 has multi threads/cores. Both can be used to accelerate physics + similar calculations.

It all balances out. But right now, the PS3 is a year behind, more expensive, looks worse and can't keep steady frame rates.
 
Thank you, you just showed that they don't have similar architectures.

Similar power you could have said, but you said similar arch. Kinda like saying the Kentsfield and QuadFX have similary architectures, because it all balances out at the end.



EDIT: By the way I just looked at the review, can anyone say for a fact that one system is better then the other? Only thing I noticed were brightness and contrast issues. I wonder if these "reviewers" used the same TV and calibrated the TV for each console, or just left it at default for both machines, thereby rendering the review useless. They shoudl have used AVIA or Video Essentials to do a proper test. If not, very amatuerish.
 
deeznuts said:
Kinda like saying the Kentsfield and QuadFX have similary architectures,
Click to expand...

hardly. It's more like comparing two Mac G5s with Nvidia and ATI cards in them.

deeznuts said:
EDIT: By the way I just looked at the review, can anyone say for a fact that one system is better then the other?
Click to expand...

The texture res, lighting, object detail and frame rate leaves me in no doubt which is better right now. The PS3 will catch up. But that will take time.

deeznuts said:
Only thing I noticed were brightness and contrast issues. I wonder if these "reviewers" used the same TV and calibrated the TV for each console, or just left it at default for both machines, thereby rendering the review useless. They shoudl have used AVIA or Video Essentials to do a proper test. If not, very amatuerish.
Click to expand...

The pics look like direct feed captures to me, not photos of a screen.
 
meatfestival said:
hardly. It's more like comparing two Mac G5s with Nvidia and ATI cards in them.
Click to expand...
Ok your analogy equates the Xenon and Cell processor as being identical. whatever floats your boat.


The texture res, lighting, object detail and frame rate leaves me in no doubt which is better right now. The PS3 will catch up. But that will take time.
Click to expand...
True, true. Can't disagree with any of this, however being a close second after two or three weeks of release and "ported" games (I'm not sure all of them are) leaves a lot of potential for the PS3. We'll have to wait until next year.
 
Singuy said:
If the RSX is modified 7900GTX, then I think the PS3 is in trouble. 1080p content is not easy to pull off without the extra horsepower. From my observation, the PS3's biggest problem is the FRAMERATE! Motorstorm ran at 10-15fps in the beginning scene, and 30fps at best when there are no cars on screen.

This was all being played on a 720p tv so I don't understand why the slow downs. I can't even imagine what framerates will be like in 1080p mode, considering it's pushing almost 2x the pixels. You guys should go to walmart/bestbuy and check it out.
Click to expand...

Most stuff is internally rendered at 720p and up scaled on the way out to 1080i/p. But also remember that these boxes are dedicated to just games and they can be optimized much more than the same hardware for a PC and get more out of them and the games can run right at 30fps the entire time. While I dont agree with alot of the things that have surrounded Sony and the PS3 up until launch, in all fairness it just launched a month ago and has no really good games (yet) to give it any kind of edge or to show what it can fully do. Look how long it took the PS2 to reach its full potential in games, it was so much harder to code for so it took longer to really reach its full capabilities. As some have already said come back to this fight next year and see then. I am no fan boy of either, I owned a ps2,xbox, and GC, and hope to own all of the new ones as well at some point. The fact being for me that at the moment the 360 appeals more and that is why I got it last year and why I will wait to get a PS3 for a little while. In the end the whole graphics debate overshadows what should really matter, GAMEPLAY. Who cares if you have a perfect 10 looking Women if she doesnt know how to use it and make it worth your while and fun!
 
meatfestival said:
Both consoles have DirectX 9 / Shader Model 3.0-class GPUs that run at almost the same speed, and have almost the same number of shader ALUs. PS3 has more, 360 uses its more efficiently.
Click to expand...

The PS3 is coded in OpenGL though, oh and how exactly do you know the number of shader ALU's since other then Clocks and Memory no other information about the RSX has been released from Nvidia and Sony.

If the RSX is modified 7900GTX, then I think the PS3 is in trouble. 1080p content is not easy to pull off without the extra horsepower. From my observation, the PS3's biggest problem is the FRAMERATE! Motorstorm ran at 10-15fps in the beginning scene, and 30fps at best when there are no cars on screen.
Click to expand...

So a single 7900GTX can't play a game at 1920x1080 smoothly on a PC? Also what version of Motorstorm were you playing since the one on the PSN played pretty dam smooth, I never got a huge frame rate drop like you described when the race starts.

Oh but Im guessing you actually don't own a PS3 but rather played one at Best Buy with 6 month old demos still in them...
 
I agree with Blauman. You play a game because it's fun, not because it has GOOD graphics. That's a pathetic reason to play a game.
 
EDIT::
Disregard. Was gonna link the gamespot article, but someone beat me to it above.
 
exactly, dont ati and nvidia favor differnent software, like ones better than he other at opengl and the other better at directx! so stop being dumbasses. even though they arent pc's u kinda have to compare the gpu in the consles to the pc ones, hey have the same to manufatures! even though i dont noe enough about consle game software, im pretty sure one of somethings favors to either consle gpu. plus its mostly the developers fault, the powers waiting there for them they have to learn how to use it and thats where 360 gets the upper hand because its a year into the game, and i bet all those games were made for the 360 first and then ported to the ps3! dont argue wiht me unless u make the dam games or u have very good evidence.
 
|MaguS| said:
how exactly do you know the number of shader ALU's since other then Clocks and Memory no other information about the RSX has been released from Nvidia and Sony.
Click to expand...

If it's based on G70 then it'll have the same 24 pixel shader pipes which = 48 pixel ALUs + however many vertex. It will need at least that many to compete with Xenos.
 
meatfestival said:
If it's based on G70 then it'll have the same 24 pixel shader pipes which = 48 pixel ALUs + however many vertex. It will need at least that many to compete with Xenos.
Click to expand...

Because its based off it doesn't mean its an exact clone... Look at the 7600GT or the 7900GTX are they similar to the 7800GTX in any form? No not really... Hell the 7300 is technically based off the 7800GTX does that mean it should have similar performance? Yeah tons of hardware sites made articles about the RSX and what not but guess what... none actually had any real solid facts, they all were putting out guesstimates on what they knew of Nvidia and the released information... nothing is known about how the GPU actually works.
 
So a single 7900GTX can't play a game at 1920x1080 smoothly on a PC? Also what version of Motorstorm were you playing since the one on the PSN played pretty dam smooth, I never got a huge frame rate drop like you described when the race starts.

Oh but Im guessing you actually don't own a PS3 but rather played one at Best Buy with 6 month old demos still in them...
Click to expand...

Actually no...a single 7900GTX has trouble playing games at 1920x1080(I am currently running using a westinghouse 1080p tv as a computer monitor and had the 7900GTO in my system overclocked). I got 15-25 FPS in Need for speed carbon(max details), and I got 15FPS in medievil 2. I am assuming piss poor performance once UT 2007 comes out using the Unreal 3 engine(like gears of war).

GTX is a good card for 1280x1024, but not 1920x1080 with newer games.
 
All i know is that at the moment, there is absolutely no reason (other than MGS4) for me to purchase a PS3 since I have an XBOX360. I am not crazy about blu-ray, so the PS3 better give me some truly groundbreaking games for me to spend 600 bucks. As far as the graphics are concerned, they look about the same (except for Gears and a couple of other very good 360 titles).

I like Xbox Live, I like the games, and I like where the 360 is headed.

I am not a fanatic or spokesperson for Microsoft-- I own and enjoy the PSone and PS2, but the PS3 just doesn't look too appealing to me. :(
 
Actually Xenos has more in common with DX10 than DX9. Xenos has unified shaders and uses a similar architecture to R600; though R600 will have more pixel pushing power. Xenos also uses embedded DRAM, which no desktop graphics cards nor any other consoles use. Xenos and RSX are very very different. IMO having Xenos designed from the ground up for consoles greatly benefited Microsoft, whereas Sony's original plan was to use Cell for graphics as well, and they ended up turning to nVidia relatively late in the development cycle.

If both systems recieved all the same games I would see little to no reason to get a PS3. However, I am sure that there will be some decent exclusives that will make the PS3 worth having.

meatfestival said:
Both consoles have DirectX 9 / Shader Model 3.0-class GPUs that run at almost the same speed, and have almost the same number of shader ALUs. PS3 has more, 360 uses its more efficiently.

Both consoles have a total of 512MB RAM.

Both consoles use an IBM PowerPC-based CPU at 3.2ghz. PS3 has stream processors, 360 has multi threads/cores. Both can be used to accelerate physics + similar calculations.

It all balances out. But right now, the PS3 is a year behind, more expensive, looks worse and can't keep steady frame rates.
Click to expand...
 
since they are all EA games why not compair last years version on 360 to ps3? How much of a difference is there on that. See first gen on both systems. And to me need for speed looks better on the ps3.
Also why was nintendo wii left out? Just wanna see all the difference.
Gears of war didnt wow me anyway.
Plus doesnt that make you think to whats the point of getting a ps3 this year if it totaly sucks? You buy its games then your gonna wanna buy next years version becuase they will look better. 360 is better in everyway. the things you can do with it when hooked up to a home theater is amazing. Media center is just so sweet on 360 with watching tv and recording.. movies. It does everything.
 
meatfestival said:
hardly. It's more like comparing two Mac G5s with Nvidia and ATI cards in them.
Click to expand...

Not really. If you had two Mac G5's, one with Nvidia and the other ATI, you could put a game DVD in one and play it, then remove it and shove it in the other machine and play it there too.

You can't take an Xbox360 DVD out of your Xbox360 and shove it in a PS3, and have it work.

Hence, your statement is pretty much outright wrong.

The difference in architecture between the Cell processor and the triple cores on the Xbox360 are more like having a Mac PowerPC chip and an Intel CPU. Very, very different.

If they were so similar, nobody would be complaining how hard it is to code for the PS3, would they?:p

meatfestival said:
The texture res, lighting, object detail and frame rate leaves me in no doubt which is better right now. The PS3 will catch up. But that will take time.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's no discernible difference in the lighting, object detail, or texture rez from what I saw on that website. Where there IS a difference is the darn brightness of the PS3 screenshots in CoD and that other game.

All the PS3 needs to do to catch up from those screenshots is to take every frame, put it in photoshop, and hit the "auto brightness" command. I don't know why they don't have some internal brightness/contrast control in the games.
 
|MaguS| said:
Because its based off it doesn't mean its an exact clone... Look at the 7600GT or the 7900GTX are they similar to the 7800GTX in any form? No not really..
Click to expand...

If you recall the PS3 launch in May 2005, they said it had the equivalent power of two 6800 ultras. They also showed the Luna demo. This was just before the 7800GTX launch. Sounds like the 7800GTX to me. It's probably now more likely to be based on the 90nm G71 since it runs at 500Mhz.
 
Particleman said:
Actually Xenos has more in common with DX10 than DX9.
Click to expand...

It's still limited to Shader model 3.0 with some extensions but it does have a more modern design than RSX.
 
Charles said:
Not really. If you had two Mac G5's, one with Nvidia and the other ATI, you could put a game DVD in one and play it, then remove it and shove it in the other machine and play it there too.

You can't take an Xbox360 DVD out of your Xbox360 and shove it in a PS3, and have it work.

Hence, your statement is pretty much outright wrong.

The difference in architecture between the Cell processor and the triple cores on the Xbox360 are more like having a Mac PowerPC chip and an Intel CPU. Very, very different.

If they were so similar, nobody would be complaining how hard it is to code for the PS3, would they?:p
Click to expand...

You're taking my analogy too literally.

It's absolutely nothing like the difference in architecture between an Intel and an IBM chip.
The PS3's main PPC core is pretty much identical to the three that the 360 has. It is therefore probably quite easy to compile the same generic code for either console. The fact that people already have Linux running on the PS3 is testament to this.

The big difference is in the 360's multi cores vs the Cell's SPEs. This is where specific optimisations could be made and where the difficulty lies.

My understanding is that writing multi-threaded code isn't easy to begin with, but the unconventional nature of the Cell SPEs makes it even harder. The 360 has another advantage with its reportedly excellent developer kit.
 
I'm scratching my head to why it's titled 'Ouch'?

The PS3 shots are sharper and seem more detailed, the 360 shots seem to 'washed out' and bright...the 3rd and 4th pics especially, the detail on the roadand buildings are better on the ps3, as is the car. Must be the only one that can see this.....

Having said that they probably look pretty much identical when sat in front of a tv playing them.
 
Apoxi said:
i agree with arcygenical, even though i'm not the ps3's biggest fan, i think it is only fair that we wait for the 2nd wave of ps3 games to come out. look what Gears of War did for the 360. the ps3 is bound to have some amazing software with such series' as God of War and Tekken. just wait =D even I"M excited
Click to expand...

Yea but at this rate, PS3 2nd gen games will have to compete with Xbox360s 3rd gen games as we all know ClifyB is already started on GOW2 :)
 
Jbirney said:
Yea but at this rate, PS3 2nd gen games will have to compete with Xbox360s 3rd gen games as we all know ClifyB is already started on GOW2 :)
Click to expand...

Oh, totally. I never said that wasn't the case. Infact, PS3 developers need to get their ASS IN GEAR if they want to overtake the 360...

All I said was, we don't know the PS3's potential. Ceteris paribus, we can't make a judgement quite yet.
 
meatfestival said:
Irrelevant. Both machines have, for all intents and purposes, very similar architecture and almost equal power.
Click to expand...


And that's exactly why they LOOK similar. The models are the same, the textures are the same. All you see is DIFFERENCES in the way the SCENE is rendered.

We have no idea how optimized these games are for the Cell, let alone if they're even pushing it close to it's maximum potential.

Almost everything, like energy, loses quality when transformed from one form to another. Ports generally conform to this rule too... Just look at the pre-intel Mac game scene, each game is pretty much hacked to get to run on the PPC architecture.

A grounds up game will be MUCH more of a telltale situation for the PS3, as it will be designed FOR the cell... Not a collection of translated code, hacks and interpretations to get it to run on the new arch. Running code that simultaneously takes advantage of up to SEVEN cores is TOUGH. You need to keep track of everything. Let alone the Cell is a hard processor to code for, just like the old Emotion Engine was.
 
yeahhhh. PS3 sucks, a lot compared to x360,

-look at the characters, in most of the games x360 does a way better anti-aliasing
-look at texture quality, x360 games have better quality textures pretty much everywhere
-looks like ps3 only doing trilinear filtering , where the 360 is doing anisotropic filtering, whatever the case, x360 is definitely doing better quality filtering
-PS3 clearly shows lack of bump-mapping in the superhero game
-look at the sharp textures accross the board on the x360 against blured textures almost everywhere on the ps3
-look at the missing details in games on ps3 that are displayed in the x360 titles,
-and even with all these differences, x360 still gives better FPS,


im a pc gamer myself and these differences in the comparison are not hard to spot , and all of them are in favor of x360
 
Didn't Sony just fire their President / CEO ?

Isn't Sony really really regretting entrenching themselves so deep with Blu Ray?

I mean the first thing this new head at Sony said way something in the line of I don't foresee there being a PS4.

Can Sony even survive if PS3 ( hypothetically speaking ) tanks big time.

Sony is in an awful place right now financially ( according to Wall Street ) and ontop of that they are trying to introduce a new system thats overpriced, hard to program for ( a major issue ), while at the same time pushing Blu Ray down everyones throat. I can't comment on Sony's future with the PS3 but as far as marketing and business decisions 101, they are failing miserably atm.

If Microsoft actually developes a slew of quality RPG's Sony is dead in the water.
 
It's becoming more increasingly obvious that although the PS3 seems to have more inherent graphical potential than the X360, it doesn't capitalize on that. And therein lies the problem, because as of right now, the only positives that Sony has over X360 are, 1) It has/would have better graphics than X360, 2) They have MGS4 and FFXIII. Those are the ONLY things the PS3 has going for it. Period.

Against Sony are a myriad of complaints: It costs too much, Sony's online is much worse, Blu-ray is moot 'cause no one cares enough, the upscaling/downscaling problems the PS3 has make it a joke, and all the other functionality is too gimmicky (PSP connectivity, SIX-AXIS tacked on motion sensing, eye toy, etc).

We all had to have known that the promise of 1080p was too good to be true. I knew it the moment that they were saying it that 1080p content as "common" on PS3 was marketing bullshit. I contend that except for a few PS3 from the ground-up titles, very very few games will pull off 1080p at decent (30+) frame rates. Hell, you need X1950XTXs in crossfire to get that kind of FPS in Oblivion at 1920x1200. And you think the PS3 alone will do that for ya? BS. 1080p is too many pixels.

Microsoft is doing well at all the things that Sony should have. And X360 doesn't have framerate issues because 720p is what the system was made for, and it can handle it well. I've been a Sony fan, a Nintendo fan, and to this day hate Microsoft as a company, but there is no question that as a hi-def next generation system, the X360 beats the PS3 every which way. It's better priced, has a more ergonomic controller, has great exclusives here and on the way, will look just as good at 720p as PS3 will at 1080p (and who cares abour 720p/1080p beside 50"+ plasma/projector owners), and has a 10x better online experience. Exclusives are the only thing that will save Sony's tail, but I hope that people won't fall for that crap and instead just wait for FFXIII and MGS4 to be ported to a popular, more worthwhile system, not an over-priced, underpowered, Bluray-adoption pushing machine. Because at this point, that's what it is. Sony trying to save their tail because of costly investments (Cell / Bluray) that no one cares enough for. If these things don't become huge technologies, Sony is in it deep because they won't be pulling in patent/component revenue on these high-cost research technologies. At this point, PS3 is a last ditch effort to save Sony and it really doesn't seem to me that consumers should pony up so much money just to save Sony's ass. The other alternative gets you more of what you want (good gaming), and PS3 gets you maybe better graphics, a few exclusive titles that are likely to be ported anyway, and saves Sony's ass. All told, the PS3 is not worth it's price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top