Better Graphics; PS3 or XBOX 360?

[Bussta]

This might be the most asked question in the world, but what do people honestly think without reeling off the hardware stats, which console will have the edge in graphics. Xbox turned out to have smoother graphics than the PS2, so do you tthink Xbox will continue it's reign in that department or will Sony come out on top.

A good example of the current gen was the GTA series, the Xbox versions were graphically superior to the PS2 ones, so will this continue or will they be almost identical?

[zap2]

On Paper that last gen went
xBox
GameCube
PS2
DreamCast

This gen
PS3
xBox 360
Wii


Now if software for each system will use all its power, its yet to be knowen

[Mackilroy]

Currently, we have no idea. I'm thinking most games will be very close in graphical power - as in, you couldn't tell no matter what system (I'm referring to the PS3 and X360, of course) you were using.

[wwooden]

It's almost going to be impossible to tell. If a game is made for both systems, it will look pretty much identical and maybe only have a few changes that accomidate for the extra features of each system (i.e., Live for XBox or the controller of the PS3), graphics wise they will look the same.

Any exclusive games each system have can't be compared because they will be......exclusive. Sure, people might be like "look at the lighting affects" of this particular exclusive game, but you wouldn't know if this is better than the other system because it doesn't have the game.

If you're trying to decide which system to buy, I would look at which one has the exclusive games you want to play the most. If you want to play Halo 3, you're going to need an XBox 360, same goes for PS3 games. Any other games should be very similar.

[raggedjimmi]

Yup, almost impossible to tell. PS3 though can output a 1080p signal, which is the super don of commercial HD.

[jdechko]

Currently, we have no idea. I'm thinking most games will be very close in graphical power - as in, you couldn't tell no matter what system (I'm referring to the PS3 and X360, of course) you were using.

Only in HD resolutions. I say this because the whole debate is more or less useless for SD/ED (480p) resolutions which all 3 systems have more than enough power for. If you don't have a HD set, then most everything will balance out graphics-wise (as long as the textures aren't crap).

If everything were finalized, on paper, the PS3 would have the highest theoretical resolution at 1080p. But in reality, the previous poster's are right that there will be no discernable difference (at 720p or 1080i) between cross-platform PS3 and 360 games.

[MacRumorUser]

:rolleyes: Actually the 360 GPU is superior to the PS3's GPU on paper, but CPU is slightly superior on the PS3 than the 360

So graphically technically the 360, though with optimisations carried into the CPU for the PS3 it could nudge it.

Though in reality, what you will find is there will be NO discernible difference between the 360 & PS3 graphics wise.

1080p is NOT a mandatory output from the PS3, only a few games will ever output that high (like GT4:Vision ~ as it's basically a ps2 game which already supported 1080i) - 95% of games will lockdown 720p/1080i in order to maximise framerate.

Remember one upon a time Sony telling us the PS3 will have two 1080p hdmi screen outputs : bless :rolleyes:

[sb58]

there's a point where graphics are going to get so good no one will be able to tell which is better =/

[zap2]

there's a point where graphics are going to get so good no one will be able to tell which is better =/


its true, and we are almost there, on a basic TV, most people won't see a huge difference from the Wii, 360 and PS3..on an HD TV, the Wii will lose ground

[mkaake]

I'd agree with the last few posts... in SD, they'll all look pretty good.

As for HD?

Well, I've never bought into the specs game, so I'd wait until the Wii and PS3 are actually out. I know we've seen a lot of pre-rendered stuff for the 3, so it'll be veerrrryyy interesting seeing actual game footage to figure out what 'looks better'.

[raggedjimmi]

:rolleyes: Actually the 360 GPU is superior to the PS3's GPU on paper, but CPU is slightly superior on the PS3 than the 360

So graphically technically the 360, though with optimisations carried into the CPU for the PS3 it could nudge it.

Though in reality, what you will find is there will be NO discernible difference between the 360 & PS3 graphics wise.

1080p is NOT a mandatory output from the PS3, only a few games will ever output that high (like GT4:Vision ~ as it's basically a ps2 game which already supported 1080i) - 95% of games will lockdown 720p/1080i in order to maximise framerate.

Remember one upon a time Sony telling us the PS3 will have two 1080p hdmi screen outputs : bless :rolleyes:

Call me a fool, but I thought all PS3 games were going to be 1080p?

Whats very, very funny. No matter how much money all these companies are pouring into graphics, they still look fake. HD, SD, whatever. Even CG movies look fake. I'd love for a super expensive console to match the graphics produced by a cheap video camera and 480i TV.

[mkaake]

Call me a fool, but I thought all PS3 games were going to be 1080p?

Whats very, very funny. No matter how much money all these companies are pouring into graphics, they still look fake. HD, SD, whatever. Even CG movies look fake. I'd love for a super expensive console to match the graphics produced by a cheap video camera and 480i TV.

part of my first reply, which I deleted before posting, went on into a mini rant to talk about how much I hate that they're trying to make games so realistic... not only will it always look fake to the human eye, but I play games to escape reality. Realism here and there doesn't hurt, but I'm really starting to enjoy games that don't pretend to be real. It's just so much more fun that way...

[Mord]

On Paper that last gen went
xBox
GameCube
PS2
DreamCast

This gen
PS3
xBox 360
Wii


Now if software for each system will use all its power, its yet to be knowen


in real world performance:

last gen:

xbox
gamecube
dreamcast
ps2

this gen

360 = ps3 personally i'd give the edge to the 360 but it's too close to call really.
wii

[MacRumorUser]

I'd love for a super expensive console to match the graphics produced by a cheap video camera and 480i TV.

Bit of an oxymoron there Jimmi. They are not capturing or producing 'graphics' in the sense of rendering a 3D world, merely capturing and playing back a 'real' image in a digital format.

It's like saying I want a painter to produce the exact same scene detail for detail as I can take in a photograph of the same scene.

[raggedjimmi]

Bit of an oxymoron there Jimmi. They are not capturing or producing 'graphics' in the sense of rendering a 3D world, merely capturing and playing back a 'real' image in a digital format.

It's like saying I want a painter to produce the exact same scene detail for detail as I can take in a photograph of the same scene.

Aye, its more a reflection on how much these DX10 graphics cards are going to cost, how much the PS3/360 are etc, in 2006 (almost 2007) and we still can't make something look real. If we're not at real yet then don't fob me off with semi-real wannabe graphics that get laughed at years down the line. I want to get to that stage where I'm flicking through TV channels, land on a video game channel and say "oh sorry, I thought that was Coronation Street".

Until realism is here I want mind bending art direction at any resolution (DS, Wii, 360, PC etc).

[MacRumorUser]

Well it is true, that often the pursuit of 'realism' in a game leads to over emphasis on the not real - like Gran Turismo and its unbreakable cars.

Or fantastic graphics like G.R.A.W - but your soldier cant jump over even the tiniest little stone.

If anything more detail, often simply highlights the not real nature of the game and then ironically tends to be far less immersive because it's harder to forget the blatant boundaries enforced on us.

Give me Okami, LocoRocco any day of the week in comparison.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

As MacRumorUser said above - the XBOX has a more powerful GPU, but the PS3 has a more powerful CPU.

Either way, I agree with the idea that the games/content should drive your purchase, not the quality of the system - which is why, although I'm not a Nintendo fan at all (sorry), I think the Wii will do very well. Microsoft also does a good job with working with developers (just look at Windows), helping the 360 secure a large amount of developers. The PS3, from what I've heard, is highly difficult to develop for, but the results are supposed to be pretty impressive.

[greatdevourer]

Well it is true, that often the pursuit of 'realism' in a game leads to over emphasis on the not real - like Gran Turismo and its unbreakable cars.

Or fantastic graphics like G.R.A.W - but your soldier cant jump over even the tiniest little stone.

If anything more detail, often simply highlights the not real nature of the game and then ironically tends to be far less immersive because it's harder to forget the blatant boundaries enforced on us.

Give me Okami, LocoRocco any day of the week in comparison. Precisely, hence why Physics is now coming forward as the new thing for games, even with separate PPUs.

The industry should take it's cues from the fighting genre - throw "ultra-realism" outa the window and concentrate more on the player than on the game

EDIT: Wait, a PS3 vs 360 thread that hasn't turned into a horrendous flame war?!? I guess Onizuka must be on holiday...

[2nyRiggz]

The Phandom system is better than all the next gen console....its so powerful they forgot to release it........8 years ago.




Bless

[greatdevourer]

The Phandom system is better than all the next gen console....its so powerful they forgot to release it........8 years ago.




Bless Ah, yes... the Phantom... best scam in gaming history. Pity he got found out...

[MacRumorUser]

Lol! the phantom..... to be fair, the keyboard and mouse combo was quite nice for it though.

[Mavimao]

I had this discussion with some people at another forum.

First I found this link:

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

And then on that forum page, there was this comment:

Hype? Seriously, the idea of having 9 processors sounds REALLY impressive when compared to the 360's tri-core design. Even once you realize that there's only one primary CPU, one of the processors is disabled, and that one of the sub-processors is used for the operating system, the remaining 6 cores still sounds impressive. Especially when you see super-computer benchmarks coming out of a single chip.

However, super-computers have traditionally focused on maximum thoroughput at the expense of latency. Since the data passing through the computer is usually just number-crunching, the data can be passed along a wire capable of moving hundreds of bytes per CPU cycle to each CPU in the series. The fact that it can take up to several seconds for the data to reach the processor is of no concern. Since the data is being streamed as fast as the processor can handle it, there are no wait states caused by an unexpected branch. In fact, in many programs there's practically no branching at all! (This can also be seen in the SIMD instructions in today's desktop processors. You probably know these instructions as MMX, SSE, and Altivec.)

Back in the real world, general purpose computers branch. A LOT. Which means that a super-computer designs are only applicable in specialized areas like multimedia processing. (Thus the addition of SIMD instructions to modern CPUs.) For all the other processing, you're dealing with dynamic data sets that will require fast memory accesses that are difficult to parallelize. Which can drop the number of processors you can actually use at any given time.

As well as this from someone who has a dev kit who couldn't say much because of NDA:

One thing I can tell you, is that most people ditched OpenGL on the PS3, there is a better way to talk to the GPU. ;-)

In about a year from now, you will see the true power of the Cell chip come to light, distributed computing is not a new concept. ****, at work, we can use almost any machine in the building for distributed compiles of huge projects.


Until the parallel processing on the PS3 has been mastered (much like the PS2 parallel processing), the 360 and PS3 are roughly the same. Minus the fact that the 360 will never be able to output a 1080p resolution.

So... interpret that as you wish.

EDIT: Here's the forum link I was quoting:

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91922&st=0

[Uma888]

in real world performance:

last gen:

xbox
gamecube
dreamcast
ps2

this gen

360 = ps3 personally i'd give the edge to the 360 but it's too close to call really.
wii

Same here, To this day i havent seen any Playable footage of a ps3 game, only pre rendered ****

[HGW]

PS3 is a good leap ahead of the others.

[GFLPraxis]

Same here, To this day i havent seen any Playable footage of a ps3 game, only pre rendered ****

Then you haven't been paying much attention. I've actually PLAYED a PS3, side by side an XBox 360 (Sega had an XBox 360 and PS3 side by side running the new Sonic game), looked identical.

Heavenly Sword was very, very impressive though.

[Mavimao]

PS3 is a good leap ahead of the others.

Did you read my post above?

[greatdevourer]

PS3 is a good leap ahead of the others. How so? In size? Price?

[MacRumorUser]

It doesn't matter how sensible most posters are, or how universal consensus replies have generally been, you will always get one :rolleyes:

[HGW]

a game can be made to be virtually similar on each machine, doesnt mean that thats the systems true power.

to get the most out of a machine takes a few years, be glad to come back to this discussion in about 3 years time for a debate, if you dont see it

[Mackilroy]

Perhaps not, HGW, but in three years games for both systems will be even more optimized, thus taking us back to square one. I'm betting the PS3 and X360 will still be very close in five years, let alone three. And since the PS3 supposedly has a ten-year lifespan, five years from now Microsoft will release the next Xbox and leapfrog Sony, thus putting them behind. Unless Sony thinks it can dictate release schedules (and apparently they think the industry revolves around them) or push the PS3 to equal hardware that's coming five years from now, they're going to lose.

[raggedjimmi]

Tch, why stop at 3 years? Lets go the whole hog and look at the Xbox 1.7 and the PS4.

What I'm seeing today is identical graphics on 2 systems.

[HGW]

Perhaps not, HGW, but in three years games for both systems will be even more optimized, thus taking us back to square one. I'm betting the PS3 and X360 will still be very close in five years, let alone three. And since the PS3 supposedly has a ten-year lifespan, five years from now Microsoft will release the next Xbox and leapfrog Sony, thus putting them behind. Unless Sony thinks it can dictate release schedules (and apparently they think the industry revolves around them) or push the PS3 to equal hardware that's coming five years from now, they're going to lose.

perhaps not what? you dont know what your talking about! xbox3 and ps3 are seemingly identical because the developers havent learnt the strengths, PS3 is stronger on paper. (ask a programmer) thus in 3 years time things will not be as you say.
of course sony dictates release schedules, if they want to release before after microsoft ect. why do you think they cant.
and lastly why are you talking about sony using the the ps3 to beat the next generation of consoles.

[Mord]

perhaps not what? you dont know what your talking about! xbox3 and ps3 are seemingly identical because the developers havent learnt the strengths, PS3 is stronger on paper. (ask a programmer) thus in 3 years time things will not be as you say.
of course sony dictates release schedules, if they want to release before after microsoft ect. why do you think they cant.
and lastly why are you talking about sony using the the ps3 to beat the next generation of consoles.


the ps3 is only faster if gigaflops is all you place your value in, all other specs compared the 360 has a slight edge in acctual polygon pushing power.

devs have said they cant get their titles working smoothly in 1080p, so they are working with 1080i and 720p just like the 360.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

A better question might be, considering the fact that the PS3 has an EXTRA year in development and costs 100-200 dollars MORE than the XBOX 360, which has a better feature set?

My answer: the Xbox 360.

[Mord]

A better question might be, considering the fact that the PS3 has a year in development and a 200-dollar premium on the XBOX 360, which has better graphics?

that type of false logic is what killed the dreamcast, actual real world performance is key, the ps3 uses a bas design, it's way overdesigned and uses components that won't work well with each other, it's just a weak ass ppc core with a bunch of vector units and a beefed up 6800, the fact that sony is slow as **** developing the thing and yields are low due to the piss poor design does not automatically make it better.

[GFLPraxis]

perhaps not what? you dont know what your talking about! xbox3 and ps3 are seemingly identical because the developers havent learnt the strengths, PS3 is stronger on paper. (ask a programmer) thus in 3 years time things will not be as you say.

Not necessarily.
The PS3's processor is technically capable of a lot more in terms of floating point calculations. However, with the design of the processor, it is VERY hard to maximize performance out of it, and the XBox 360 actually has better integer performance.

Cell is much better at rendering, which might give the PS3 a minor boost graphically. However, while RSX (PS3's GPU) has a higher clock speed, the XBox 360's Xenos GPU has a much better design and looks to have the best performance.


So XBox 360 has a better graphics card, PS3 has a better processor, but it's hard to take advantage of that processor.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY: The GPU's have the exact same feature sets. The XBox 360's does antialiasing more efficiency but the two do the exact same things in terms of what hardware capabilities they had. There are no shaders or effects that one can do that the other can't.

The XBox's GPU could actually do certain effects the other two systems couldn't, plus could push much more polygons over the PS2 (barely any polygon-pushing advantage over the GameCube though). That's why some games looked visibly much better.

I suspect the biggest difference you'll ever see between a XBox 360 and PS3 game is that the PS3 game has a couple extra thousand polygons which your human eye can't even pick up. Although it is possible that the PS3 might be able to pull off better feats of physics once they've got programming the CPU down.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

that type of false logic is what killed the dreamcast, actual real world performance is key, the ps3 uses a bas design, it's way overdesigned and uses components that won't work well with each other, it's just a weak ass ppc core with a bunch of vector units and a beefed up 6800, the fact that sony is slow as **** developing the thing and yields are low due to the piss poor design does not automatically make it better.

What? Re-read my post - I'm advocating the XBOX 360? Considering it was developed much more quickly than the PS3 and that it still carries a lower price tag, I believe that it is superior.

...although "weak ass" would be the last thing I'd call the PS3's processor...

[GFLPraxis]

A better question might be, considering the fact that the PS3 has a year in development and a 200-dollar premium on the XBOX 360, which has better graphics?

Actually, it's only a $100 premium (since the $499 PS3 is the same as the $399 XBox 360 feature-wise, having a 20 GB hard drive), and that $100 difference is because of Blu-ray.

As for the extra time in development...regardless, the GPU's still have the same feature set, so there won't be any difference visually other than the number of polygons, which will be too small for you to notice individually anyway.

Hopefully developers will be able to pull off cool tricks with the Cell processor (more onscreen, better physics, etc), IF it lives up to the hype. I haven't seen anything to indicate that yet but I'll hold out hope.

[Mord]

What? Re-read my post - I'm advocating the XBOX 360? Considering it was developed much more quickly than the PS3 and that it still carries a lower price tag, I believe that it is superior.

...although "weak ass" would be the last thing I'd call the PS3's processor...


the actual general purpose cpu core is lame, and the vector units are never going to be utilized to their full capability, it's like having a house with 8 toilets and a small bedroom, unless games developers design the code equivilent of a man with 8 anuses it's not going to work well.

on paper people are amazed by the 250Gflop claim, but thats never going to happen in real life performance, not even close if your doing anything actually useful, if the cell used 2x 970 type ppc's and 6x SPE's then it'd be a kick ass design but as it is it's just too specialized and won't be used properly.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Actually, it's only a $100 premium (since the $499 PS3 is the same as the $399 XBox 360 feature-wise, having a 20 GB hard drive), and that $100 difference is because of Blu-ray.

As for the extra time in development...regardless, the GPU's still have the same feature set, so there won't be any difference visually other than the number of polygons, which will be too small for you to notice individually anyway.

I'm not really a fan of video games - but this is an interesting conversation, as it has to do more with hardware capabilities than the games themselves (which I'm completely unfamiliar with).

Anyway, there's more than just the 20 GB hard drive difference between the lower-end Xbox and higher-end Xbox models, right? When I purchased the premium edition, it came with a high-definition cord, a remote control, and the hard drive. Is the PS3 hard drive removable? And I heard that the lower-end PS3 isn't even HD compatible, making your '100-dollar' argument irrational? :confused:

(seriously, though, I'm really not sure - let me know! :) )

[HGW]

my values in gameplay

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

the actual general purpose cpu core is lame, and the vector units are never going to be utilized to their full capability, it's like having a house with 8 toilets and a small bedroom, unless games developers design the code equivilent of a man with 8 anuses it's not going to work well.

on paper people are amazed by the 250Gflop claim, but thats never going to happen in real life performance, not even close if your doing anything actually useful, if the cell used 2x 970 type ppc's and 6x SPE's then it'd be a kick ass design but as it is it's just too specialized and won't be used properly.

Are you telling me you've never needed 8 toilets???? :eek: :p

I've been in complete agreement with you this whole time - just admit it, you totally misread my first post...;) :p

[Mord]

Are you telling me you've never needed 8 toilets???? :eek: :p

I've been in complete agreement with you this whole time - just admit it, you totally misread my first post...;) :p


you miswrote it, even GFL took it the same way, you say considering the ps3 has had allot more work put into it and it'll cost more which will have better graphics which by the way you put it indicates the PS3, unless i'm blind and missing a whole section where you explain that sony is retarded and cant design a cd rack.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

you miswrote it, even GFL took it the same way, you say considering the ps3 has had allot more work put into it and it'll cost more which will have better graphics which by the way you put it indicates the PS3, unless i'm blind and missing a whole section where you explain that sony is retarded and cant design a cd rack.

Well damn :p .

What about now (I edited it)?

[MacRumorUser]

LOL! They argue / debate except they're both saying the same thing :rolleyes: ye muppets :D

At the end of the day 85-90% of games are multiformat, and you can guarantee ps3 & 360 will look the same. The other 10-15% exclusives - we will never be able to compare.. Why? they're exclusives :D

[MacRumorUser]

I just double posted.. now i'm a muppet.... :o

i'll post this from the article Mavimao posted instead of wasting this space..

When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

[Mavimao]

Am I on peoples' ignore lists or something?

I posted a link to an article discussing the tech differences between the 360 and the ps3 on page one.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Thank you Hector for confirming my suspicions. That bathroom analogy was, interesting, but effective.

[raggedjimmi]

Am I on peoples' ignore lists or something?

I posted a link to an article discussing the tech differences between the 360 and the ps3 on page one.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Thank you Hector for confirming my suspicions. That bathroom analogy was, interesting, but effective.

sorry? who said that? is someone there???

;) sorry.

if PS3=360 for graphics power, then oh dear. nVidia announced today that the 360 can not handle DX10. So Ps3 and 360 are DX9. eeps. no graphically fully featured Crysis for you!

[sikkinixx]

360 = ps3 personally i'd give the edge to the 360 but it's too close to call really.
wii

how can you give the edge to 360 since the PS3 isnt released yet? :confused: you cant judge it by screen shots or video, it always looks different on your TV then what you see over the net....

[ReanimationLP]

sorry? who said that? is someone there???

;) sorry.

if PS3=360 for graphics power, then oh dear. nVidia announced today that the 360 can not handle DX10. So Ps3 and 360 are DX9. eeps. no graphically fully featured Crysis for you!

And how the hell would nVidia know?

I think nVidias just pissed because MS dumped them for this generation. :rolleyes:

[GFLPraxis]

Am I on peoples' ignore lists or something?

I posted a link to an article discussing the tech differences between the 360 and the ps3 on page one.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

Thank you Hector for confirming my suspicions. That bathroom analogy was, interesting, but effective.

That article is practically a joke, written by Microsoft.
Arstechnica's comparisons are much less biased.


I'm not really a fan of video games - but this is an interesting conversation, as it has to do more with hardware capabilities than the games themselves (which I'm completely unfamiliar with).

Anyway, there's more than just the 20 GB hard drive difference between the lower-end Xbox and higher-end Xbox models, right? When I purchased the premium edition, it came with a high-definition cord, a remote control, and the hard drive. Is the PS3 hard drive removable? And I heard that the lower-end PS3 isn't even HD compatible, making your '100-dollar' argument irrational? :confused:

(seriously, though, I'm really not sure - let me know! :) )

Nah, the lower-end PS3 doesn't lack HD, it lacks a HDMI port. HDMI is required for 1080p and is used by newer HDTV's. The XBox 360 doesn't have HDMI in ANY of it's models.
So the low end PS3 has to use component just like the XBox 360, so they are even more similar. And yeah, the PS3 hard drive is removable.

People are whining about the lack of HDMI port because Sony promised dual HDMI outputs running at 1080p each for the basic PS3 at E3 2005, then came out and said "You need to get the $600 model to do 1080p".


They're basicly the same (360 and PS3), except the PS3 has Blu-ray and costs $100 more, and of course the hardware inside is based on totally different architecture.



Oh, FYI for all; I'd rather purchase a PS3 over XBox 360 any day. XBox 360 lacks enough games that appeal to me though, and PS3 costs too much for a poor college student like me (since I'm getting a new iMac and possibly a MacBook in preparation for going to Uni, plus a Wii- there goes most of my savings), so I'm not getting either anytime soon :(

[GFLPraxis]

sorry? who said that? is someone there???

;) sorry.

if PS3=360 for graphics power, then oh dear. nVidia announced today that the 360 can not handle DX10. So Ps3 and 360 are DX9. eeps. no graphically fully featured Crysis for you!

Uh, are you joking?

A) NVidia doesn't make the 360's GPU.
B) PS3 does not use DirectX.

[Mavimao]

That article is practically a joke, written by Microsoft.
Arstechnica's comparisons are much less biased.

If that were to be true, then I apologize for posting it. Could you link arstechnica's comparisons.

I don't plan to get either console, but I am interested in the technology in the PS3 and how this cell chip is supposed to change the world, but off the record I don't see any evidence as to why the cell chip is so wonderful for gaming.

[sikkinixx]

If that were to be true, then I apologize for posting it. Could you link arstechnica's comparisons.



Doug Perry states at the beginning of the article that MS sent it to them and they have left it unaltered, and that there is an obvious bias in it.


And does anyone else find it a little ironic that Sony is staking so much on Cell and Blu-Ray yet Toshiba (HD-DVD guys) helped create Cell?

HDMI is required for 1080p and is used by newer HDTV's

I read that PS3 can do 1080p over component, just that in x amount of years when that HDCP stuff comes into play people won;t be able to use it for Blu-Ray movies

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/specs.html (the 20GB model does say 1080p)

[GFLPraxis]

If that were to be true, then I apologize for posting it. Could you link arstechnica's comparisons.

I don't plan to get either console, but I am interested in the technology in the PS3 and how this cell chip is supposed to change the world, but off the record I don't see any evidence as to why the cell chip is so wonderful for gaming.

Cell technical discussion:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars/1

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/playstation3.ars

The last page of the second XBox 360 technical discussion (before launch) has some comparisons:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars/7
In short, the PS3 may fare a bit worse than the Xenon on non-graphics code, but on the upside it will probably fare a bit better on graphics code because of the seven SPEs.


There's others I can't seem to find at the moment too.

Fact is, though, that nobody has managed to benchmark both systems and everyone with a PS3 is under NDA. We'll probably get an accurate idea after launch.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Nah, the lower-end PS3 doesn't lack HD, it lacks a HDMI port. HDMI is required for 1080p and is used by newer HDTV's. The XBox 360 doesn't have HDMI in ANY of it's models.
So the low end PS3 has to use component just like the XBox 360, so they are even more similar. And yeah, the PS3 hard drive is removable.

Sounds good to me - so those who argue that the Xbox 360 costs 200 dollars less than the PS3 are a bit misleading...

[GFLPraxis]

I read that PS3 can do 1080p over component, just that in x amount of years when that HDCP stuff comes into play people won;t be able to use it for Blu-Ray movies

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/specs.html (the 20GB model does say 1080p)

Right, HDCP was the big complaint.

For those that don't know, Blu-ray has a copy protection scheme- IF studios choose to enable copy protection, it will only play the videos in high definition if you have a DRM-protected TV and playback device. HDCP is that DRM.

Component doesn't do HDCP- HDMI does. So the idea is that in a few years, if studios start using the copy protection, a PS3 with component won't be able to play DRM-protected movies in high definition.

(Neither would an XBox 360 with a HD-DVD drive though, so this is no difference between PS3 and XBox 360)



Sounds good to me - so those who argue that the Xbox 360 costs 200 dollars less than the PS3 are a bit misleading...

Yup, the $300 XBox 360 is vastly inferior to the $500 PS3, lacking a hard drive (or any kind of memory for that matter), which is a $99 upgrade.
The XBox 360 is really $100 cheaper.

However, parents getting games for their children don't know the difference and just see XBox 360: $300, PS3: $500.

[raggedjimmi]

RE: the DX10 thing, ATI (sorry, not nVidia) were just saying that it won't be as easy as originally thought to port across DX10 games. the 360 and PS3 features the same prowess as DirectX 9.

1up reports that ATI has debunked a rumor that Xbox 360 could be upgraded to support DirectX 10 via a patch. "Xbox360 cannot run DX10," an ATI spokesperson told 1up. Currently, Microsoft's console runs an advanced version of DirectX 9, which, according to ATI, features "memory export that can enable DX10-class functionality such as stream-out."

It's difficult to say when and if studios that are developing cross-platform titles for Xbox 360 and Vista will hit a roadblock because of DirectX variances between the two platforms, but certainly a game like Crytek's Crysis, which does support DX9 with some DX10 features, could be optimized and ported to consoles.

[2nyRiggz]

A better question might be, considering the fact that the PS3 has an EXTRA year in development and costs 100-200 dollars MORE than the XBOX 360, which has a better feature set?

My answer: the Xbox 360.


What?:confused: ...I'm sorry I missed it but yeah...what?



Bless

[2nyRiggz]

Same here, To this day i havent seen any Playable footage of a ps3 game, only pre rendered ****

Where have you been...I've seen a lot of playable footage....check out IGN, Gamespot or even e3 they had gaming footage.....That rock is warm isn't it..




Bless

[zap2]

so those who argue that the Xbox 360 costs 200 dollars less than the PS3 are a bit misleading...

No.. anyone who says "the xBox is 200 less then the PS3", would be correct, if the features that each system have make it worth the extra money, well thats out side of a comment that one system is cheaper then the other.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

What?:confused: ...I'm sorry I missed it but yeah...what?



Bless

What's so confusing? PS3 has had an extra year of development and costs more than 100 dollars more than the Xbox 360 - right? :confused: :confused:

[2nyRiggz]

What's so confusing? PS3 has had an extra year of development and costs more than 100 dollars more than the Xbox 360 - right? :confused: :confused:

I get that part but where is the question you are trying to ask? Maybe I had too much orange juice tonight..

A better feature set?

Bless

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

No.. anyone who says "the xBox is 200 less then the PS3", would be correct, if the features that each system have make it worth the extra money, well thats out side of a comment that one system is cheaper then the other.

But what if you wanted to compare two systems with similar specs? Then, wouldn't it be more accurate to compare the high-end Xbox with the low-end PS3 because they both have the 20 GB hard drive? (Again, I don't know anything about video games, but I enjoy the technology/hardware aspect and do want to know how the marketshare will look once Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all released their systems)

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I get that part but where is the question you are trying to ask? Maybe I had too much orange juice tonight..



Bless

Basically the same question that the OP is asking - I don't think there's too much argument over whether the PS3 is the most powerful system or not (on paper, the PS3 really is the most powerful system). However, considering that it has taken Sony an extra year to put it together and costs an extra 100 bucks, I'm not sure if the extra horsepower is worth it...

[2nyRiggz]

I don't think the year apart difference will matter much as it did this gen.....only thing will matter is the games and that price tag...which I don't mind for what I'm getting.

I'm not sure if the extra horsepower is worth it...

Stick around until they release the true monster that is the PS3.....that might change.

Bless

[raggedjimmi]

I'm a little worried about what this horsepower means. I'm currently sat here using my PowerBook and external monitor and HDD. the only sound to be heard is the PB fan on its slowest setting and the HDD gently spinning (fan-less casing). Yet I have a fully working computer.

Sony believe the PS3 is a computer, yet it lacks the power (system 256mb RAM? ouch) it's apparently as noisy as hell. They're certainly not aiming this at my end of the market who want a quiet computer, if the thing is "a computer" which according to the European courts, isn't.

a- "Hey do you like my PS3? *boots up* it can be used as a computer"
b- "Whoa, that's top!"
a- "yea it can do everything A COMPUTER CAN DO"
b- "SORRY? WHAT?"
a- "IT CAN DO WHAT-EVER A COMP-UTER CAN DO"
b- "I SEE!"
a- "SOUNDS LIKE THE RSX IS KICKING IN!"
b- "SEX?"
a- "Kickass!"
b- "RICE?"

[Killyp]

Yeah, the PS3 is basically a Linux computer with a fancy graphics card.

Also, the fact that it has these shape shifting processors (according to someone at my school who has gone off to uni to do computer science) means that it's very easy to write a virus for it that would cause it to overheat, or short out.

Also, the real time rendering PS3 screenshots aren't really that impressive. XBox 360 however we know is more than capable of producing incredible graphics...

[mkaake]

Eek... the discussion is on the brink of turning into every other PS3 / 360 / Wii discussion on these boards!

Anyway, my vote is probably going to have to go for the SNES - the graphics were good enough to understand what was happening on screen, but not so pretty that you focused on them instead of the game.

[greatdevourer]

Basically the same question that the OP is asking - I don't think there's too much argument over whether the PS3 is the most powerful system or not (on paper, the PS3 really is the most powerful system). However, considering that it has taken Sony an extra year to put it together and costs an extra 100 bucks, I'm not sure if the extra horsepower is worth it... Bear in mind that all the G/TFLOP figures they push are only if you use it fully and correctly - 2 things that are unlikely to happen, with the possible exception of the very end of the lifespan. When they say "theoretical output", they really do mean "theoretical, ie, not real"

[Jossceluch]

The PS3 has better graphics hands down, check out the game Rainbow Six: Vegas, that game is like REAL, all enviornments are interactive, and the lighting effects are just BEAUTIFUL!! :cool:

[raggedjimmi]

The PS3 has better graphics hands down, check out the game Rainbow Six: Vegas, that game is like REAL, all enviornments are interactive, and the lighting effects are just BEAUTIFUL!! :cool:

It doesn't look real though. And it looks like any 360 game I've seen. :confused:

[duffman9000]

Yeah, the PS3 is basically a Linux computer with a fancy graphics card.

Also, the fact that it has these shape shifting processors (according to someone at my school who has gone off to uni to do computer science) means that it's very easy to write a virus for it that would cause it to overheat, or short out.

Also, the real time rendering PS3 screenshots aren't really that impressive. XBox 360 however we know is more than capable of producing incredible graphics...

Tell your friend to get a clue. If anything, IBM tried to make it as difficult as possible to run unsigned code on PS3. There were articles posted on Ars (IIRC) that detail the entire history.
<End Anti-FUD rant>

[the kid 05]

The PS3 has better graphics hands down, check out the game Rainbow Six: Vegas, that game is like REAL, all enviornments are interactive, and the lighting effects are just BEAUTIFUL!! :cool:

to bad its pre-rendered...

[MacRumorUser]

The PS3 has better graphics hands down, check out the game Rainbow Six: Vegas, that game is like REAL, all enviornments are interactive, and the lighting effects are just BEAUTIFUL!! :cool:

You are taking the piss right? It looks identical to the 360 version of the same game. :rolleyes:

This thread has got tiresome and it wore itself out after page 1. Put it to rest.....

[duffman9000]

The PS3 has better graphics hands down, check out the game Rainbow Six: Vegas, that game is like REAL, all enviornments are interactive, and the lighting effects are just BEAUTIFUL!! :cool:

Do you realize that it is also being developed for the XBOX 360?

Before making a decision as to which system is better, see them in person. I've played Oblivion on my friends 360 (i also have it on pc). Console advantage: big screen and easy access from couch. That's all. Seeing it in HD i expected so much more, but AA and AF were a letdown. Sure Oblivion is difficult on hardware but if that game is any indication, these next gen consoles are big yawners in regards to image quality.

Will the PS3 have better image quality? Not with the RSX.

[GreatDrok]

I bought a 360 a few months back. Since then I have bought 4 games, none at full price. I bought Halo 2 because I got sick of waiting for the PC/Mac version. It was OK but suffered from some really nasty graphical glitches most likely down to the emulation which meant I had to keep stopping the game and reloading it. I haven't tried to run any more Xbox games on it because of this. I thought Halo was supposed to be fully supported. I bought Burnout Revenge which was fun but graphically it wasn't massively better than Burnout 3 was on the PS2. I bought that Table Tennis gaming and an extra controller trying to get my wife interested but she prefers Monkey Ball on the Game Cube (and frankly, who doesn't?) and I bought a copy of Far Cry which was really crap and barely playable compared with the PC version (what do you mean I can't go through the woods? I can see the place I want to sneak to but there is an invisible barrier which pushes me onto the path and gets me shot at!!!!) so I swapped it for a pre-owned copy of Quake 4 which at least looks graphically impressive but not as good as Doom 3 on my rather ancient PC.

Before Quake 4 I was *THIS CLOSE* (really tiny distance) to selling it but I have given it another chance but there are so few games out there and very little coming and the lack of reliable Xbox emulation makes it pretty pointless.

Oh and worst of all, the thing is loud. Really loud. The fans aren't too bad, it is the noise of the DVD drive. The disc spins so fast it sounds like a jet taking off. Much louder than my first gen PS2.

Will I buy a PS3? Probably, but not for about 6 months at least but I'll be first in line for a Wii......

Performance? Its all about the games. PS3 will have the entire PS/PS2 back catalogue and will reliably play them if Sony is to be believed. Xbox had a pathetic catalogue anyway and the fact that the 360 can't play the games reliably means it really stinks. The Wii supports all the Game Cube games and controllers (yay, I can still use my wireless 'Cube controllers) and gives you an enormous back catalogue of games to choose from right back to the NES days :)

There better be a good game for the 360 soon though because I am nearly done with Quake 4...... :mad:

[Killyp]

Tell your friend to get a clue. If anything, IBM tried to make it as difficult as possible to run unsigned code on PS3. There were articles posted on Ars (IIRC) that detail the entire history.
<End Anti-FUD rant>

Doesn't that just make it much more difficult to code games?

[duffman9000]

Doesn't that just make it much more difficult to code games?

No it does not.

[GFLPraxis]

Sony believe the PS3 is a computer, yet it lacks the power (system 256mb RAM? ouch)

It's got 512 MB of RAM. They may be seperate 256 MB sticks but the system can use all of it if necessary.

[duffman9000]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060427-6694.html

Some more tidbits. Sure, if a person wants to void their warranty, they can attack the hardware all they want. Even their software solution may not be foolproof, but they didnt make it easy.

I for one have no problem voiding any warranty on any of my hardware(done). But will the gamer that just received a $600 console from mom or dad dare to void their warranty? Not if they value their adolescent years.

[MacRumorUser]

I bought a 360 a few months back. Since then I have bought 4 games, none at full price.
There better be a good game for the 360 soon though because I am nearly done with Quake 4...... :mad:

Can you read?

I ask this out of genuine interest, because your experience of 360 titles which you find so disappointing really is quite mind boggling in retrospect?


Quake 4 sucks ass in deed, any review made that perfectly clear and yet you still bought it :rolleyes: Yeah that's the 360's fault :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Burnout Revenge is the same game as the xbox & ps2 version, albeit with HD graphics tacked on should you be playing via Hd, otherwise you may as well be playing the xbox version. Again EVERY review made that patently clear, is that the 360 fault or EA's?

Then you bought FarCry another port of an Xbox title, and again was disappointed... Errr what did you expect.....

And then your playing HALO2 another xbox game :rolleyes:

In future i'd suggest you pick up a magazine and read the reviews - you seem to need them more than most. :p


Backwards compatibility only matters for a short while in a consoles life-span. Is there anyone seriously contemplating buying a ps3 to play ps1 games?

[MacRumorUser]

It's got 512 MB of RAM. They may be seperate 256 MB sticks but the system can use all of it if necessary.

Sorry Praxis your wrong..

Inthe PS3 - the System can only access the 256mb, gpu can only access 256.
512 total

It's the 360 that can dynamically assign and address memory.

[Mackilroy]

I bought a 360 a few months back. Since then I have bought 4 games, none at full price. I bought Halo 2 because I got sick of waiting for the PC/Mac version. It was OK but suffered from some really nasty graphical glitches most likely down to the emulation which meant I had to keep stopping the game and reloading it. I haven't tried to run any more Xbox games on it because of this. I thought Halo was supposed to be fully supported. I bought Burnout Revenge which was fun but graphically it wasn't massively better than Burnout 3 was on the PS2. I bought that Table Tennis gaming and an extra controller trying to get my wife interested but she prefers Monkey Ball on the Game Cube (and frankly, who doesn't?) and I bought a copy of Far Cry which was really crap and barely playable compared with the PC version (what do you mean I can't go through the woods? I can see the place I want to sneak to but there is an invisible barrier which pushes me onto the path and gets me shot at!!!!) so I swapped it for a pre-owned copy of Quake 4 which at least looks graphically impressive but not as good as Doom 3 on my rather ancient PC.

Before Quake 4 I was *THIS CLOSE* (really tiny distance) to selling it but I have given it another chance but there are so few games out there and very little coming and the lack of reliable Xbox emulation makes it pretty pointless.

Oh and worst of all, the thing is loud. Really loud. The fans aren't too bad, it is the noise of the DVD drive. The disc spins so fast it sounds like a jet taking off. Much louder than my first gen PS2.

Will I buy a PS3? Probably, but not for about 6 months at least but I'll be first in line for a Wii......

Performance? Its all about the games. PS3 will have the entire PS/PS2 back catalogue and will reliably play them if Sony is to be believed. Xbox had a pathetic catalogue anyway and the fact that the 360 can't play the games reliably means it really stinks. The Wii supports all the Game Cube games and controllers (yay, I can still use my wireless 'Cube controllers) and gives you an enormous back catalogue of games to choose from right back to the NES days :)

There better be a good game for the 360 soon though because I am nearly done with Quake 4...... :mad:

You should try games like GRAW and Oblivion, not ports. ;) And if Halo 2 isn't working (it works excellently – as in no problems – for other people), then delete the emulation profile and redownload it.

[2nyRiggz]

Performance? Its all about the games. PS3 will have the entire PS/PS2 back catalogue and will reliably play them if Sony is to be believed.


:confused: Why wouldn't they be believed in this department when this is not the first time they brought this to us?:rolleyes:



Bless

[Mord]

You should try games like GRAW and Oblivion, not ports. ;) And if Halo 2 isn't working (it works excellently – as in no problems – for other people), then delete the emulation profile and redownload it.

oblivion is a port, though an ok one.

[greatdevourer]

You should try games like GRAW and Oblivion, not ports. ;) And if Halo 2 isn't working (it works excellently – as in no problems – for other people), then delete the emulation profile and redownload it. How do you do that? (And I have checked google)

[GFLPraxis]

Sorry Praxis your wrong..

Inthe PS3 - the System can only access the 256mb, gpu can only access 256.
512 total

It's the 360 that can dynamically assign and address memory.

From what I've heard from developers, despite the fact that 256 MB is on the GPU and 256 MB is there for the CPU, developers can choose which to use at any time- if they feel they want to give the GPU some of the system RAM they can, no problem.

[Mackilroy]

oblivion is a port, though an ok one.

Well, I meant that it's not available on other consoles (and I do know it's available for PCs). *shrug*

GreatDrok: Actually, only games which comply with Sony's TRC will be available –*which is supposedly anywhere from 50-80 percent of PS1/2 games. So already you've lost a fifth of them, with many more potentially not meeting the requirements.

As for deleting the data, go to the System tab, go to Memory, pick the storage device, go to Games, to go Halo 2, press Y, and you can delete it in there. Then stick Halo 2 in and it should re-DL the emulator for you.

[PD4Ever]

For 360 I recommend Dead Rising. Call of Duty 2 is awesome for both single player and multiplayer. (Call of Duty 3 is coming out in november so COD2 will drop in price after that) Prey is fun single player for just a solid fps but the online multiplayer is rediculously laggy. GRAW is amazing as well as Oblivion. And Geometry Wars on Live Arcade is incredible for $5. Trade those games in that you dont like and get some of the ones I mentioned above. Ebgames and Gamestop have a trade 2 360 games and get a new 360 game for $9.99.

BTW I love Burnout cept I have it for regular Xbox. I played the demo though on 360 and the added HD looked great but still was the same game. Try out the demos on Live (theyre free) before you buy and hopefully you wont be dissapointed.

[greatdevourer]

As for deleting the data, go to the System tab, go to Memory, pick the storage device, go to Games, to go Halo 2, press Y, and you can delete it in there. Then stick Halo 2 in and it should re-DL the emulator for you. Other than losing my halo save, nothing's happened. Still doesn't work. And a load of XBox1 games refuse to work with HD at all. Is my 360 just f***'ed, then?

[GreatDrok]

You should try games like GRAW and Oblivion, not ports. ;) And if Halo 2 isn't working (it works excellently – as in no problems – for other people), then delete the emulation profile and redownload it.

I've looked at these and they really aren't my cup of tea. I think this is the biggest problem I have with the 360, there aren't many games and some of the ones people like the most aren't the sort I like to play. The Ghost Recon stuff doesn't really do it for me and Oblivion, no, yuck. I didn't mind Halo 2, not as good as 1 and it stopped very suddenly. The graphical glitches happened quite a way in, don't like the sound of deleting the emulation profile if it means I lose my position. Saving my progress, dopping back to the menu and then reloading would clear the glitch (appears as a semi-transparent image covering a good chunk of the screen).

I know I haven't bought many good games but the problem has been that there aren't many good games to buy. Quake 4 isn't great but it is at least maintaining my interest and is much better than Farcry was (I knew it was an Xbox port but this early in the life cycle you expect that.)

Its sad really. Compared with the Xbox, the 360 is really nicely put together. The controller is better than the PS2 too.

[Mord]

Other than losing my halo save, nothing's happened. Still doesn't work. And a load of XBox1 games refuse to work with HD at all. Is my 360 just f***'ed, then?

i take it your useing the vga adapter?

[ictiosapiens]

I've looked at these and they really aren't my cup of tea. I think this is the biggest problem I have with the 360, there aren't many games and some of the ones people like the most aren't the sort I like to play. The Ghost Recon stuff doesn't really do it for me and Oblivion, no, yuck. I didn't mind Halo 2, not as good as 1 and it stopped very suddenly. The graphical glitches happened quite a way in, don't like the sound of deleting the emulation profile if it means I lose my position. Saving my progress, dopping back to the menu and then reloading would clear the glitch (appears as a semi-transparent image covering a good chunk of the screen).

I know I haven't bought many good games but the problem has been that there aren't many good games to buy. Quake 4 isn't great but it is at least maintaining my interest and is much better than Farcry was (I knew it was an Xbox port but this early in the life cycle you expect that.)

Its sad really. Compared with the Xbox, the 360 is really nicely put together. The controller is better than the PS2 too.


Have a look at Kameo, its very nintendo like... I did quite enjoy it... My only gripe was that it was a bit short... It's probably the Microsoft new policy for Rare... Why make a really cool and game with loads of content, when you can divide it by 3 and make 2 shorth sequels...

[MacRumorUser]

I know I haven't bought many good games but the problem has been that there aren't many good games to buy.

You havent bought ANY good games / well Burnout is good - the others :(

Don't know what to buy? Please a simple little research will save you paying money for old rope....

Prey = same as Quake 4 / Doom 3 but 100x better on all accounts.

Full Auto = similar destruction to Burnout Revenge but with even more bang and time manipulation

Condemned = a million times better FPS than FarCry, with amazing graphics - great story - and offering somthing new.

Those three are much better choices for examples of 360 power than the utter trash you picked up.

If arcade racers arent so much of a necessity - then go for PGR3

Kameo as previously mentioned is a great Fantasy Adventure RPG with more arcady action. It looks amazing too.

Dead or Alive 4 - arcade style fighter that is a joy to play and look at - beware it's a tough game though.

Call of Duty 2 - again a far better FPS than FarCry & Quake 4 combined - plus some...

[greatdevourer]

i take it your useing the vga adapter? I usually am, yes

[Mord]

I usually am, yes

vga adapters play hell with backwards compatibility as some games are not compatible with the video output needed for VGA as VGA has no PAL/NTSC encodeing, especially in the uk as they can only run 60Hz, oh and allot of demo's don't seem to like the vga adapter.

[greatdevourer]

vga adapters play hell with backwards compatibility as some games are not compatible with the video output needed for VGA as VGA has no PAL/NTSC encodeing, especially in the uk as they can only run 60Hz, oh and allot of demo's don't seem to like the vga adapter. My experience with demos has been good. No compat problems at all with those. And I thought all games supported 60Hz on the XBox anyway?

[MacRumorUser]

My experience with demos has been good. No compat problems at all with those. And I thought all games supported 60Hz on the XBox anyway?

Yes on NTSC version ~ A lot of Pal games no.

[Haoshiro]

From what I've heard from developers, despite the fact that 256 MB is on the GPU and 256 MB is there for the CPU, developers can choose which to use at any time- if they feel they want to give the GPU some of the system RAM they can, no problem.

That is true of the 360, not PS3. :)

[GFLPraxis]

That is true of the 360, not PS3. :)

No, the 360 has shared ram, and developers have to choose where it goes. The PS3 has them seperated, and I could have sworn that the technical analysis I read stated that developers could use the video ram as system ram and vice versa if they chose to.

[MacRumorUser]

No, the 360 has shared ram, and developers have to choose where it goes. The PS3 has them seperated, and I could have sworn that the technical analysis I read stated that developers could use the video ram as system ram and vice versa if they chose to.


Maybe, but every technical preview I've read all has always stated that this is one of the biggest things for developers seperating the two, that the ps3 can only ever access 256 each, whereas with 360 developers can throw in extra ram to the processor if the graphics arent using it and vice versa, whilst the ps3 will be locked.......

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Maybe, but every technical preview I've read all has always stated that this is one of the biggest things for developers seperating the two, that the ps3 can only ever access 256 each, whereas with 360 developers can throw in extra ram to the processor if the graphics arent using it and vice versa, whilst the ps3 will be locked.......

I've heard this too...:)

[MacRumorUser]

I've heard this too...:)

Yep double read my mags and this is the case...

Also another point raised (by jimmi but kinda contradicted by praxis) :-

It means that if Sony do give us a 'linux' computer - you will only have 256mb to play with (which is not a huge amount) and the graphics power is pretty much going to waste as most games and some programs for linux are written to take advantage of X86 architecture, meaning these wont work in the PS3 linux regardless.

[sikkinixx]

this ram splitting doesnt seem to be hurting the PS3's ability to pump out sweet graphics (MGS4 trailer in HD :D)

edit:

oh! and this is from IGN

How much RAM will the PS3 have?
256MB of XDR Main RAM @ 3.2GHz and 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM @ 700MHz, or a total of 512MB for the entire system. The RSX graphics chip can actually use all 512MB of system RAM; it is not limited to the 256MB of GDDR3 RAM.

can't find the updated FAQ version so this is from last year (they have an awful search function to find articles)

[MacRumorUser]

How much RAM will the PS3 have?...

? :confused: Weird.... Oh well it looks like we'll have to wait till its released to know for sure.

Just looked at Gamespot and they seem to confirm that too

The PlayStation 3 has 256MBs of Rambus XDR memory and 256MBs of GDDR3 memory dedicated to graphics. Nvidia also claims that the RSX can take advantage of the combined 512MBs of memory, since it is capable of writing directly to system memory, but the 256MBs dedicated to graphics memory should be plenty for now.

So yep Edge & GameTM publications have it wrong going on this :confused:

[Mord]

it can do it but it's IO is not at all fast, it's like 2-5MBps compared to GBps talking to the cpu/gpu's own ram, while it's possible it's not acctually useable.

[MacRumorUser]

it can do it but it's IO is not at all fast, it's like 2-5MBps compared to GBps talking to the cpu/gpu's own ram, while it's possible it's not acctually useable.

I see. So it's impractical and any benefit of extra ram would be nulified by the poor IO performance making the ability to do so redundant, thereby effectivly limiting ram in 'real' world circumstances to 256mb

[raggedjimmi]

and with that balance is restored once again.

[greatdevourer]

it can do it but it's IO is not at all fast, it's like 2-5MBps compared to GBps talking to the cpu/gpu's own ram, while it's possible it's not acctually useable. Also, they only say that the graphics can borrow from the main RAM (which, iirc, is very much like TurboCache), but the CPU can only access a maximum of 256

[2nyRiggz]

and with that balance is restored once again.

Indeed....until the next outbreak that will happen in 3, 2, 1....




Bless

[GFLPraxis]

this ram splitting doesnt seem to be hurting the PS3's ability to pump out sweet graphics (MGS4 trailer in HD :D)

edit:

oh! and this is from IGN

How much RAM will the PS3 have?
256MB of XDR Main RAM @ 3.2GHz and 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM @ 700MHz, or a total of 512MB for the entire system. The RSX graphics chip can actually use all 512MB of system RAM; it is not limited to the 256MB of GDDR3 RAM.

can't find the updated FAQ version so this is from last year (they have an awful search function to find articles)

That was what I remember. Thanks for finding it.

[MacRumorUser]

Indeed....until the next outbreak that will happen in 3, 2, 1....

Bless

And whats the next post ?



Originally Posted by sikkinixx
this ram splitting doesnt seem to be hurting the PS3's ability to pump out sweet graphics (MGS4 trailer in HD )

edit:

oh! and this is from IGN

How much RAM will the PS3 have?
256MB of XDR Main RAM @ 3.2GHz and 256MB of GDDR3 VRAM @ 700MHz, or a total of 512MB for the entire system. The RSX graphics chip can actually use all 512MB of system RAM; it is not limited to the 256MB of GDDR3 RAM.

can't find the updated FAQ version so this is from last year (they have an awful search function to find articles)

That was what I remember. Thanks for finding it.

But lets not forget

it can do it but it's IO is not at all fast, it's like 2-5MBps compared to GBps talking to the cpu/gpu's own ram, while it's possible it's not acctually useable.

To which I replied

I see. So it's impractical and any benefit of extra ram would be nulified by the poor IO performance making the ability to do so redundant, thereby effectivly limiting ram in 'real' world circumstances to 256mb

And so Jimmi said..
and with that balance is restored once again.

And back to Riggz :)

Indeed....until the next outbreak that will happen in 3, 2, 1...

It's like Pulp Fiction all over again... :D
Can we move on yet?

Forward 1 step, backwards 2... :D

[raggedjimmi]

I've still got to see that film too.

[AlmightyG5]

There is an Article , that says that Virtua Tennis looks better on the PS3 than the 360 side by side....i'll find the link...

LINKY: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/727/727917p1.html

"Sega also placed the PS3 version directly next to the Xbox 360 build allowing us to see the slight differences between the two. This was made more interesting by the fact that the two games are being developed by separate companies with AM2 working on the PS3 title and Sumo Digital developing the 360 version. Plainly put, the PS3 looked a little better with sharper textures and incredibly detailed player models. It was almost eerie when we noticed the veins sticking out in our character's forehead."

proof.

[sikkinixx]

There is an Article , that says that Virtua Tennis looks better on the PS3 than the 360 side by side....i'll find the link...

LINKY: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/727/727917p1.html

"Sega also placed the PS3 version directly next to the Xbox 360 build allowing us to see the slight differences between the two. This was made more interesting by the fact that the two games are being developed by separate companies with AM2 working on the PS3 title and Sumo Digital developing the 360 version. Plainly put, the PS3 looked a little better with sharper textures and incredibly detailed player models. It was almost eerie when we noticed the veins sticking out in our character's forehead."

proof.

too bad the crowd looks so....um...bad ;)

[MacRumorUser]

"Sega also placed the PS3 version directly next to the Xbox 360 build allowing us to see the slight differences between the two. This was made more interesting by the fact that the two games are being developed by separate companies with AM2 working on the PS3 title and Sumo Digital developing the 360 version. Plainly put, the PS3 looked a little better with sharper textures and incredibly detailed player models. It was almost eerie when we noticed the veins sticking out in our character's forehead."

proof.

Or not. 2 different teams, AM2 are the masters of Sega arcade titles so them developing the PS3 version gives that version a slight advantage.....

and it is only slight 'a little better' is hardly momentus is it?

If AM2 were developing the 360 version as well, then it would be more interesting if there was a difference.

If you look at a game like Sonic on both PS3 & 360 being developed internally by the same team, the game looks identical on both formats....

[AlmightyG5]

Or not. 2 different teams, AM2 are the masters of Sega arcade titles so them developing the PS3 version gives that version a slight advantage.....

and it is only slight 'a little better' is hardly momentus is it?

If AM2 were developing the 360 version as well, then it would be more interesting if there was a difference.

If you look at a game like Sonic on both PS3 & 360 being developed internally by the same team, the game looks identical on both formats....
It doesn't matter who makes the game. Say the article was comparing Halo 3 to Resistance Fall of Man, and Resistance looked better on the PS3. Then that slight difference still means that the PS3 graphics are better. Of course if a company makes a game for the PS3 and 360, the games will look the same. Why would the company work harder on one than the other. Nice excuse, but it shows that the the developers for the PS3 can output better graphics.

[MacRumorUser]

Nice excuse, but it shows that the the developers for the PS3 can output better graphics.

Here we go again, fanboy attacks.

It's not making excuses :rolleyes: Its called being objective, and intelligent enough to see the full picture.

By your reasoning...

Genji on the Playstation 2, looks better than Scaler on the Xbox.
Does that mean the ps2 has better graphics ? No....

It is only when a game is developed by 1 developer/team and there is a noticeable difference, then we clearly see how one piece of hardware has an advantage. If the same thing happens over a number of titles then it is confirmed.

[raggedjimmi]

It doesn't matter who makes the game. Say the article was comparing Halo 3 to Resistance Fall of Man, and Resistance looked better on the PS3. Then that slight difference still means that the PS3 graphics are better. Of course if a company makes a game for the PS3 and 360, the games will look the same. Why would the company work harder on one than the other. Nice excuse, but it shows that the the developers for the PS3 can output better graphics.

Thats an easy one - one GPU could apply non-programmable things into the game. extra bloom/HDR, more AA, more Anisotropic filtering etc. heck even polygon smoothing.

take the same multiplatform game and apply the GPU's own magic to it and see what happens.

[GFLPraxis]

It doesn't matter who makes the game. Say the article was comparing Halo 3 to Resistance Fall of Man, and Resistance looked better on the PS3. Then that slight difference still means that the PS3 graphics are better. Of course if a company makes a game for the PS3 and 360, the games will look the same. Why would the company work harder on one than the other. Nice excuse, but it shows that the the developers for the PS3 can output better graphics.

But then how do you know that Resistance Fall of Man didn't just have better designers?

There are some XBox games that are inferior to GameCube games, does that mean the GameCube is more powerful under all circumstances?

I remember Ultimate Spider-Man was a good comparison of current gen consoles. It had an airbrush effect that blurred out distant buildings so the console wouldn't be overwhelmed having to draw so much. Well, each version had a different view difference. PS2 was MUCH shorter than either the GameCube or XBox version, and the XBox version had the longest view distance.

[Mackilroy]

It doesn't matter who makes the game. Say the article was comparing Halo 3 to Resistance Fall of Man, and Resistance looked better on the PS3. Then that slight difference still means that the PS3 graphics are better. Of course if a company makes a game for the PS3 and 360, the games will look the same. Why would the company work harder on one than the other. Nice excuse, but it shows that the the developers for the PS3 can output better graphics.

Nice try, but in addition to what everyone else has said, here's some more: better graphics can mean a better engine, not a more powerful machine. Let's say one game used the SCX engine (what was used with Chaos Theory) and the other used Unreal Engine 3. OF COURSE whichever game uses UE3 will look better, because it's a better engine. It doesn't mean that either console is weaker or stronger.

Even though the PS3 is a nice machine, and looks to be getting a good number of very nice games, I'm amazed that there are still major Sony fanboys… (Oni, I'm not counting you as you have an actual brain unlike some fanboys. And that applies to fanboys for the other consoles too).

[Indo]

I was waiting for that Virtua Tennis thing to be posted. Even though there are different teams, the Xbox 360 was released last year and devs have had a lot more time with the console.

We'll have to see at Tokyo Game Show all the playable titles, there is going to be 27 of them.

[Mackilroy]

I was waiting for that Virtua Tennis thing to be posted. Even though there are different teams, the Xbox 360 was released last year and devs have had a lot more time with the console.

We'll have to see at Tokyo Game Show all the playable titles, there is going to be 27 of them.

Yes, devs have, but does Sumo Digital?