Is there a clear winner on the 360 vs ps3 graphics power?

[claudio]

no baised answers please, if your a ps3 fan it isnt a reason to say its more powerful.

so who is the clear winner in terms of graphics? if there is a winner?

[claudio]

if you feel like explaining why please do so, i would like to understand, thanks. examples?

[dsheinem]

In terms of sheer horsepower, the PS3 wins. However, it's harder to program for the PS3 so many cross-platform games look better on the 360 (as it is closer to PC architecture). When programmed well, first party PS3 games tend to be the best looking of this generation (better than the 360's exclusives or cross-console games).

That said, the difference (so far) isn't (usually) huge. And since the best looking games for a system tend to come out near the end of it's lifespan, it's still too early to say with certainty who will "win." That said, based on sheer system specs alone, I'd bet that PS3-exclusive games will start looking significantly better than 360 games in another year or so - which is when the next Xbox will probably be announced.

[Dylan]

Dsheinem summed it up nicely. Based on raw specs, I would imagine that the PS3 will pull ahead with some nice titles at some point, but the quality of graphics is variable from game to game.

[claudio]

thanks for the input,

im looking for real evidence, not the computer numbers inside the case.

i wanna know which has successfully come out with the best most powerful graphical showcase at this point, just to be clear.

but yes, i know from the ps2 that it wasnt until recent that it really got cranking. complex architecture takes time to tap.

looks like ps3 will win in end as long as developers dont get lazy, unless the 360 has alot of potential we dont know about yet.

[the7k]

I was almost going to vote Xbox 360 because of how multiplatform games tend to look... but thinking about it, I've yet to see anything on the Xbox 360 that rivals Uncharted 2. Even Flower is an absolute eye-orgasm.

[claudio]

we all know how some of the most powerful systems dont get tapped into the end.

it was VERY clear for example, that just like the ps3 the sega saturn was a very powerful system that was complicated to program for but on paper much more powerful than the ps1. unfortunately for the saturn they did not have enough time to finish shenmue, now will they have enough time to tap into the ps3's full potential? we will see.

edit: i tried to embed video below, guess it doesnt work here. here is the link


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Frag Mortuus]

I agree with all said. I have both. I prefer the 360 mainly for the online support. Yes the PS3 has fine online, its free, you can still talk to your friends, blah blah blah. But, I feel that Microsoft's implementation is better. I am an achievement whore. I love to get the achievements and compare to my friends to see what they have, gets tips on how to get the ones I still need, and so on. Some times my friends and I will get online together just to try and get achievements that we dont already have. I know that the PS3 has trophies, but Sony hasnt made them mandatory on games, which means that some of the best games dont have them (im looking at you MGS4). Cross game chat is also really cool. Also, I like the 360 controller a lot. I think it is the most comfortable controller to date.

As far as graphics are concerned, I agree with all that has been said. The PS3 wins hands down in raw horsepower, but the 360 is easier to develop for, hence sometimes the games look better on 360. In most cases the differences are so minimal that you wont tell a difference, even when the games are side by side. There are some instances though that you can tell a difference. The most notable is The Orange Box. On the PS3 it really doesnt look that great, even Valve has stated that they just rushed it out inorder to get it done. On the other hand, Dragon Age: Origins looks way better on the PS3. Lastly, Bayonetta was a game that Ive heard looks terrible on the PS3. Sega didnt do the PS3 code for that game, they had an outside source do it basically because they didnt really want to in the first place.

The best way to sum it up is that both systems look great. Neither one, I think, will ever be declared a clear winner because both games have what I call "Demo Material". Games that are shining examples as to what the system can really do. On the 360 you have games like Far Cry 2, Gears of War 2, Mass Effect 2, that all look amazing. Then you have games on the PS3 like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 2, and Heavy Rain which look like a movie.

I know that first part isnt what you were talking about, but I just wanted to put in my 2 cents.

[Niode]

On paper both architectures are very similar.

They're both 6 thread machines. They both have similar GPUs.

The key difference between the two machines is the fact that the 512MB RAM in the 360 can be used wherever the developer wants. The PS3 is limited to strictly 256MB RAM for CPU and 256MB GPU. You can't swap between them. Therefore the 360 will always have the texture edge. There's no way to get around it. Textures fill RAM. When you are limited to just 256MB that is going to throttle frames per second. It's also the reason why PS3 games have terrible texture pop in (even first party games, just play a game of Uncharted 2 online when you move from one end of the map to the other quickly). The 256MB RAM simply cannot hold the required amount of textures. So it has to load it from the incredibly slow BD-ROM drive.

I don't think that the PS3 has 'more horse power' just look at the port of Ninja Gaiden Σ2. I would never call Tecmo a lazy developer, but looking at the port and comparing it to the original there are clear examples of where the 360 simply beats it hands down in texture and vertex power. Cutscenes are clearly cut down, the amount of enemies appearing on screen is significantly cut down. The amount of enemies that engage you is limited to a maximum of 6 on screen at once, compared to the 360's 8. The amount of severed limbs piles up in the 360 version. The PS3 version gets rid of them from the scene almost instantly. The way the PS3 is limited with it's non-unified shader setup can be a boon sometimes since their will always be pixel shaders available. The offset to that is the lack of vertex shader performance (hence the above problem).

All in all it's not so much the devs being lazy with ports, it's about where the devs make sacrifices to get the code to run well enough on the PS3. Sacrifices they simply don't have to take with the 360's unified setup (RAM can be used for CPU and GPU in whatever ratio the devs choose and shaders can be assigned to whatever task the devs need them to do).

[lisalover1]

It's a difficult question. Do you mean, do games look better on a certain console, or is there more powerful hardware in one console? The 360 has had a curious advantage in some games; sometimes slight, sometimes quite noticeable.
Here's some links showing what I'm talking about [warning, links NSFW!]:
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/09/1 ... -xbox-360/
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/07/1 ... esolution/
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/10/1 ... -disaster/

If you want to look at it from just a graphical hardware perspective, then the PS3 is the winner. However, there are a ton of other factors that contribute to a game's final graphical output. I think the two consoles are actually quite close, and getting closer; much like the 2600 and Intellivision.