Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
which has better graphics?
- Thread starter DCSMAC
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have both systems and they both connect via HDMI to the same 42" LCD. I can notice practically no difference in the graphics. Technology wise I believe the PS3 should have a slightly better graphic spec, although I do not have those specs and figures in front of me, if you google comparisons on the two there are charts out there.
From a real use perspective, I have not seen any difference. I even have played COD 4 on both to compare. Nothing. Maybe on a larger TV you could see something.
For me the difference is;
Blue-Ray is awesome on the PS3, the movies are mind-blowing
The PS3 is considerably more quiet than my 360 premium
Xbox live and the entire online experience of the 360 is far superior to Sony's offering. From the content to the movies and TV shows available.
I also like the 360's User interface quite a bit more
From a real use perspective, I have not seen any difference. I even have played COD 4 on both to compare. Nothing. Maybe on a larger TV you could see something.
For me the difference is;
Blue-Ray is awesome on the PS3, the movies are mind-blowing
The PS3 is considerably more quiet than my 360 premium
Xbox live and the entire online experience of the 360 is far superior to Sony's offering. From the content to the movies and TV shows available.
I also like the 360's User interface quite a bit more
Well, the PS3 can have slightly better graphics. Mostly because of the large space on Blu-ray disks for more textures and models. But cross-console games always look almost exactly the same.
heh, got rid of most of my post
heh, got rid of most of my post
Huh? Right, lol.
The 360 has a slightly faster GPU which controls these graphics the OP seems to want. BluRay has absolutely no effect on graphic quality at all. BluRay just means more storage space, it's not a magic plastic disc that somehow can render twice as many objects on screen compared to a DVD. That would be like painting a racing stripe down your car to make it go faster.
It's probably worth noting that all these big AAA games are much lower res than what you'd expect. GTA IV runs at 720p on a 360, but 630p (IIRC) on a PS3. COD4 (both platforms) is also a low res, alongside Halo 3 and MGS4 is also rumoured to be less than 720p. The PS3 exclusive Haze is 576p (IIRC).
More storage space and a better processor do not translate exactly to better graphics, spkyer. A processor doesn't show graphics, it's more of the brain.
Currently, both systems are about equalthe 360 has a better graphics card than the PS3, while the PS3 has a better processor. Most cross-platform games (GTA IV, for instance) look slightly better and run better on the Xbox 360, while exclusives for both consoles look and run excellently.
In short, don't buy either system for the graphics, they're already very good. Buy the one that has the games you want to play.
A processor doesn't show graphics, it's more of the brain.Currently, both systems are about equalthe 360 has a better graphics card than the PS3, while the PS3 has a better processor. Most cross-platform games (GTA IV, for instance) look slightly better and run better on the Xbox 360, while exclusives for both consoles look and run excellently.
In short, don't buy either system for the graphics, they're already very good. Buy the one that has the games you want to play.
That isn't true. The following is taken from the Arstechnica review of GTA IV.
source.
That is definitely true.
it totally 100% depends on the game and if it had good programmers/designers that can get the most out of a system. Maybe in 3 or 4 more years when the systems are being used closer to their potential we will see. It's only year 2/3 of the cycle so we haven't seen the best both systems can produce yet.
as for the whole "ZOMG 576p! 640p! teh PS3/360 iS fAiL!!! Bungie had it right when they said
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it's practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet's propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings.
as for the whole "ZOMG 576p! 640p! teh PS3/360 iS fAiL!!! Bungie had it right when they said
In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152x640 image and the scaled 1280x720, it's practically impossible to discern the difference. We would ignore it entirely were it not for the internet's propensity for drama where none exists. In fact the reason we haven't mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings.
^Exactly SK.....you nailed it on the head. It depends on the programers/developers and what they can pull out of the system. When MS is publishing a title you see the best out of that system as well with Sony Published games....its the developers.
People on the net are just nitpicking over "this game is RUMORED to run at this/that" .....does it really matter....do they look different...NO.
There are exceptions when a 3rd party game breaks the mold and pushes out a really graphically impressive(BioShock, COD4, Oblivion) game but that doesn't happen everyday.
Its all about the effort the developers put into their game.
Bless
People on the net are just nitpicking over "this game is RUMORED to run at this/that" .....does it really matter....do they look different...NO.
There are exceptions when a 3rd party game breaks the mold and pushes out a really graphically impressive(BioShock, COD4, Oblivion) game but that doesn't happen everyday.
Its all about the effort the developers put into their game.
Bless
Hmm...Actually Halo 3 isn't rumored to run less than 720p, it's been confirmed that it runs at 640p. It was actually discovered by the same guy who found out that the PS3 version of GTA IV ran at 630p instead of 720p.
Anyway, just buy the console that has the most appealing titles to you. Both the 360 and the PS3 are equal in terms of processing power. I got the PS3 because I like Sony's exclusives compared to Microsoft's exclusives. I don't care much for Halo, but Gears of War is awesome. Sony's got MGS, Final Fantasy, God of War, Uncharted, etc. So I chose the console based on those exclusives.
I'm just waiting for MS to redesign the 360 so it doesn't have the dreaded RROD, which is actually another reason I stayed away from the 360.
-EDIT-
BTW, don't listen to all this crap about resolution. Everyone likes to say this and that is better, but generally you wouldn't really notice any differences between multi-platform games. Like this junk about 360 looking better because it has a scaler built into the console, so it runs at 1080p, yada yada yada. It doesn't matter if the 360 has a built in scaler, because it's EXACTLY the same as passing the native signal to the TV, and then the TV does the scaling. The ONLY good thing about the 360 scaler is if you have an older HDTV from like 6-8 years ago, where there was only 1080i.
Well, I knew this was a bit wrong and a bunch of people would be like "ZOMG WAHTSKTJAKJ!!!!!" but Blu-ray has some effect on graphics because it allows for more textures and models with 50GB of space.
It was a simple comparison based on what the OP wanted to know. I believe resolution is quite important in some genres, though I don't think it necessarily makes things look better, if anything it shows up polys and low textures.
Personally I'd take low res with lots of AA over high res and no AA any day of the week. Just that resolution is part of "graphics".
Not really. The 360 scaler does a very good job, much better than most HDTV's I've seen (including our new Samsung). A TV cannot just magically create frames, it estimates and throws them onto the screen. The 360 scaler actually throws out a full progressive 1080p picture thanks to the scaler.
And of course resolution is important. It's half the friggin reason why people slam on the Wii ("oh no it's just 480p"...). Higher resolution=more detail. I mostly play FPS games and I had to lower my TF2 graphics quality so I can play it as a resolution that makes sniping even slightly useful.
But more textures and models allows for more different things, less repetition. But I'll stop this now and just won't reply anymore
.
Of course the 360 scaler does a better job than a TV scaler. I should have stated that it's still not the "native" resolution of a game, so technically it doesn't make a difference. It's the same as having a 640p game upscaled to 720p. But of course they'd have to upscale it to 720p, otherwise your TV would be like "WHAAA?! 640p?! WHAT'S THAT?! OMGZZ!!"
Well, I would think. I mean they all have so many different textures and such and MGS4 fills a blu-ray disk (but probably all video, lol).
sorry that is wrong. More storage space does not mean bigger / better textures. In fact in that regard the PS3 is the weaker system as it can only allocate 256mb to GPU and textures, whilst the 360 can use more than that (up to 512) and therefore it can handle bigger textures than the ps3.
This is blatantly obvious in some multi format games such as Turok, where the texture and geometry detail is toned down for the Ps3. It also explains why a lot of multi format games have worse frame rates in the ps3 version even though it technically has a better Cpu, its restricted memory on the Gpu is a bottleneck that developers are struggling with.
So irrespective if Bu ray can store bigger textures, the ps3 doesn't have the GPU memory to handle them. So you are utterly misled.
Irrespective of all this both consoles are pretty much identical. But were still a long way from every game full 1080p and dual hdmi that we were once upon a time promised.
But yeah this has been covered to death at this stage.
lol.
But yea everything I said is simple fact, but then I've only been stating resolution which is a cold hard number and nothing that can "look better" dependant on what system somebody has. This also includes a faster GPU in the 360. Hardly something subjective.
Also what MRU said is right too. What wild "fanboy" statements are you referring to?
The above lol was also to the COD4 performance. Where on earth did you actually read that? If the PS3 version is at 20% performance then why didn't they take that opportunity to increase the resolution, use uncompressed textures and sound?
ROFL! Because it's not worth the extra time and effort to make use of the PS3's awesome architecture, even it it's only using 20% threshold.
ROFL! Because it's not worth the extra time and effort to make use of the PS3's awesome architecture, even it it's only using 20% threshold.
So you actually believe the 20% performance joke? Wow.
And it isn't any extra time or effort. You just set the resolution when the game boots up. 20% performance, we should be seeing a 1080p CoD4... But we're not so, do we have a FUD smiley?
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Call+of+Duty+4+20%25&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 is none existent.
But Jimmi, everybody knows that the PS3 is barely being used and that the Xbox 360 is almost maxed out! How could you dare doubt the PS3 gods like that?
To Eraserhead above: I was referring to more than just GTA IV, but later on I'll go find the link that stated GTA IV was slightly better on Xbox 360.
To Eraserhead above: I was referring to more than just GTA IV, but later on I'll go find the link that stated GTA IV was slightly better on Xbox 360.