Cows --- Do you really believe some games can't be done on Xbox 360?

man we know 360 cant handle what wii has or some of the stuff ps3 has dont get jealous , microsofts controller just wont allow it,

and ya ps3 game of mgs4 can not be done on 360

and ya avid your right maybe we should try telling the sony fanboys that lol nintendo did not try to produce a power house just like sony didnt 2 gens in a row its a reversal of fortune lol, history repeats it self, the weakest console some how manages to out pace every thing more powerful then it

Crysis can't be played on an XBox360 or a PS3 alike without downgrading the graphics. So there's one game that can't be "done" (at least fully) on the 360.

Now the PS3 is a lot closer to the 360 than a $2500 PC, so you're asserting that any PS3 exclusive could make it to the 360. Developers have had more time to perfect the graphics on the 360 than they have on the PS3, and you can still do a side by side of the exclusives:

http://image.gamespotcdn.com/gamespot/images/2008/184/938611_20080703_screen034.jpg

http://image.gamespotcdn.com/gamespot/images/2007/262/926596_20070920_screen026.jpg

I tried my best to find the most comparable pictures I could without wasting my entire night. No doubt someone will complain because of the obvious flaws in the first picture. But that's just the thing. While the 360 is undoubtedly comparable to the Playstation 3 in graphical potential, but also undoubtedly trailing. If that's a big deal to you, feel free to pretend that all PS3 games would port just fine to the 360. It's not as if the PS3 is unanimously more powerful on paper and in practice, or anything.

If you're having trouble spotting the differences (didn't practice enough on the backs of cereal boxes I suppose), look to the graininess of the textures, the rendering of hair, the jaggedness of surfaces that should be smooth, and the sloppiness of certain bodily extremities. I think, with a close look, you should be able to spot the difference.

Before anyone complains, I'd compare a multiplatform, but they're all downgraded to utilize the resources of both consoles. They typically end up looking better on their console of origin, historically usually the 360. However, anyone who thinks that ANY multiplatform game looks as good on one of the consoles as EITHER Gears or Metal Gear Solid (or Uncharted, which also seems to be a technical improbability on the 360) has completely undermined their owned credibility already.

And yes people; that includes Call of Duty 4.

Of course, i'm always serious. Are you a blind fanboy I was referring to ?

WiiBalla

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

AvIdGaMeR444

Sony succeeded at a graphical powerhouse. I love how you lemmings always say "TEh 360 can haves a game just like uncharted or MGS4 anyday". oh really, well why doesn't it have one then???

Plus, the only reason PS3 was delayed by a year was so they could work the kinks out and not rush it and get a multi-billion dollar red ring of death problem.

This argument is pointless. Both are equal in graphics. Anyone claiming otherwise is deluding themselves.pyromaniac223

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

leimeisei

Sony succeeded at a graphical powerhouse. I love how you lemmings always say "TEh 360 can haves a game just like uncharted or MGS4 anyday". oh really, well why doesn't it have one then???

Plus, the only reason PS3 was delayed by a year was so they could work the kinks out and not rush it and get a multi-billion dollar red ring of death problem.

And I love how cows think that having MGS4 and Uncharted somehow automatically means that the 360 is not capable of those graphics. Yes, those 2 games look amazing. But it is very arrogant of any cow to think that a console that has been on the market less than 3 years could never produce graphics equivalent of teh Uncharted and teh MGS4. I didn't think God of War 2 graphics could ever be done on PS2, but it happened. I didn't think Donkey Kong Country graphics would ever be possible on SNES, but it happened. But hey...teh MGS4 and teh Uncharted are just so ridiculously graphically awestrikingly magnificent, that the 360 just can't ever produce anything on that level. :roll:

[QUOTE="leimeisei"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

AvIdGaMeR444

Sony succeeded at a graphical powerhouse. I love how you lemmings always say "TEh 360 can haves a game just like uncharted or MGS4 anyday". oh really, well why doesn't it have one then???

Plus, the only reason PS3 was delayed by a year was so they could work the kinks out and not rush it and get a multi-billion dollar red ring of death problem.

And I love how cows think that having MGS4 and Uncharted somehow automatically means that the 360 is not capable of those graphics. Yes, those 2 games look amazing. But it is very arrogant of any cow to think that a console that has been on the market less than 3 years could never produce graphics equivalent of teh Uncharted and teh MGS4. I didn't think God of War 2 graphics could ever be done on PS2, but it happened. I didn't think Donkey Kong Country graphics would ever be possible on SNES, but it happened. But hey...teh MGS4 and teh Uncharted are just so ridiculously graphically awestrikingly magnificent, that the 360 just can't ever produce anything on that level. :roll:

but the ps3 has only been out less than 2 years. you have to face the fact that the ps3 has superior hardware. its just a matter of developers actually getting around to learning how to code for the ps3. as for which console is better, technically it is the ps3 through superior hardware BUT the 360 has its fair share of games because of how easy it is to port to it off the pc so owners of both can be happy.

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

AvIdGaMeR444

but all that aside PS3 is more powerful so it will have things that can only be done on it, example if a game uses 7 SPEs of the cell it clearly cant be done on the 360...

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

zomgwtfbbqlol1

but all that aside PS3 is more powerful so it will have things that can only be done on it, example if a game uses 7 SPEs of the cell it clearly cant be done on the 360...

oh btw guy who said a game on the ps3 uses 7 spes...u obviously know nothing because one spe is DEDICATED to the ps3's os and it can not be used by a game leaving only 6 to the game.LibertySaint

"Ahh yiesh but when all shixz of the ESHPUs are ushed...." :roll:

ur title is knda misleading?

i honestly do think ps3 is better in terms of graphics then 360 (maybe not this year but in 1-2 years, yes i strongly beleive so) and im counting exclusive games because those are games meant to use the ps3 power.

i think games like mgs4, uncharted, GT5, etc. can be done on xbox 360, however it will take more then 1 disk, and use most of the 360s power.

like i siad, right now, there stil lthe same

but look at gears, its using alot of power of xbox so its a great looknig game

same with ps3 exclusives

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

A-LEGEND

but all that aside PS3 is more powerful so it will have things that can only be done on it, example if a game uses 7 SPEs of the cell it clearly cant be done on the 360...

All of you are so Stupid sometimes. you spout crap you dont understand because you "heard" it from somewhere else. "if a game uses all 7 spes" as if you know what the hell your talking about or even know what SPEs are. The facts of the matter are that the 360 has a more powerful GPU, and the PS3 has a more powerful CPU which when applied to gaming actually very much sucks. In plainly frank terms. the CELL SUCKS FOR GAMING and is amazing on PAPER. its like your all religious nut jobs that worshipththe PS3.

There is no hidden power, There is no superiority, The cell does ZERO for graphics and there is no problems other than the ones you make up such as "MGS4s, "complex" environments". what complex anything? what has ever been on the PS3 that has been complex? the way the walls in PDZ are textured is complex. The way the PS3 is riddled with low res textures because the GPU cant render them is NOT.

also to ur last comment UT3 had amazing textures, and Wardevil also has amazing textures on PS3

and please dont generalize me and fanboys.

The PS3 is just now begining to show what it can handle and in a short time from now the other system will really show it's weakness.jimm895

When does that ever happen, really? Teh hidden powerz of teh cellz ramping up games into the next stratosphere? I mean, I loved my SNES, but let's be honest, very few games ever looked or played better than SMW, and that came at launch. Same with Halo and the Xbox. But somehow, a year from now PS3 games are going to look heads and tails better? Please.

All of you are so Stupid sometimes. you spout crap you dont understand because you "heard" it from somewhere else. "if a game uses all 7 spes" as if you know what the hell your talking about or even know what SPEs are. The facts of the matter are that the 360 has a more powerful GPU, and the PS3 has a more powerful CPU which when applied to gaming actually very much sucks. In plainly frank terms. the CELL SUCKS FOR GAMING and thats it.

A-LEGEND

Specialised processors, number crunchers, vector processing units. Whatever people want to call them they are just processors that can only do specific types of calculations; which they do better than a general purpose CPU. Calculations which are then sent to the general purpose core; that is responsible for managing the SPE's and doing something useful with the information they send it.

In short creating a processor that vastly outperforms standard CPUs in certain tasks; and falls over itself in others. Some PS3 users think Cell is powerful overall, they don't realize it only excels in certain specialist work while multicore processors do better in others. PS3 kicks the 360s butt in physics work while 360 would dominate in AI, it all depends on the work being done and which is more suited to which processor type.

To be frank I'd be surprised if any developer can get all of them working hard, calculations require memory and PS3 only has as much memory as 360. If you are going to perform additional calculations to raise a PS3 game above 360 visuals, where do you get the additional resources to do that? They are already maxed out to bring a game up to 360 level before utilising the SPEs.

Something tells me this is relevant to MGS4 level size.

Theoretically you can use Cell to do additional shader work, pushing PS3 shader detail above 360, but Cell cannot work on its own and needs the other components to have the resources available to do that shader work.

Metal Gear Solid looks better than Gears of War already. If you believe that Gears of War 2 is going to look better than Gears of War, than you should be prepared to concede that the Playstation 3 has not yet maximized its graphical capacity, if the 360 hasn't. If Gears of War 2 DOESN'T look better than the original, then it has no chance of contending for next-gen console king. Either way, MGS4 is a superior technical (and visual aesthetic) achievement than Gears of War, and that means that the PS3 should have some kind of edge graphically. How significant that edge is is more questionable; but that it exists is almost crystal clear.

Why don't you guys save yourselves some time and wait for the FFXIII port?

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]oh btw guy who said a game on the ps3 uses 7 spes...u obviously know nothing because one spe is DEDICATED to the ps3's os and it can not be used by a game leaving only 6 to the game.A-LEGEND

"Ahh yiesh but when all shixz of the ESHPUs are ushed...." :roll:

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]

All of you are so Stupid sometimes. you spout crap you dont understand because you "heard" it from somewhere else. "if a game uses all 7 spes" as if you know what the hell your talking about or even know what SPEs are. The facts of the matter are that the 360 has a more powerful GPU, and the PS3 has a more powerful CPU which when applied to gaming actually very much sucks. In plainly frank terms. the CELL SUCKS FOR GAMING and thats it.

AnnoyedDragon

Specialised processors, number crunchers, vector processing units. Whatever people want to call them they are just processors that can only do specific types of calculations; which they do better than a general purpose CPU. Calculations which are then sent to the general purpose core; that is responsible for managing the SPE's and doing something useful with the information they send it.

In short creating a processor that vastly outperforms standard CPUs in certain tasks; and falls over itself in others. Some PS3 users think Cell is powerful overall, they don't realize it only excels in certain specialist work while multicore processors do better in others. PS3 kicks the 360s butt in physics work while 360 would dominate in AI, it all depends on the work being done and which is more suited to which processor type.

To be frank I'd be surprised if any developer can get all of them working hard, calculations require memory and PS3 only has as much memory as 360. If you are going to perform additional calculations to raise a PS3 game above 360 visuals, where do you get the additional resources to do that? They are already maxed out to bring a game up to 360 level before utilising the SPEs.

Something tells me this is relevant to MGS4 level size.

Theoretically you can use Cell to do additional shader work, pushing PS3 shader detail above 360, but Cell cannot work on its own and needs the other components to have the resources available to do that shader work.

Metal Gear Solid looks better than Gears of War already. If you believe that Gears of War 2 is going to look better than Gears of War, than you should be prepared to concede that the Playstation 3 has not yet maximized its graphical capacity, if the 360 hasn't. If Gears of War 2 DOESN'T look better than the original, then it has no chance of contending for next-gen console king. Either way, MGS4 is a superior technical (and visual aesthetic) achievement than Gears of War, and that means that the PS3 should have some kind of edge graphically. How significant that edge is is more questionable; but that it exists is almost crystal clear.

Why don't you guys save yourselves some time and wait for the FFXIII port?

OrwellJames

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"][QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]

All of you are so Stupid sometimes. you spout crap you dont understand because you "heard" it from somewhere else. "if a game uses all 7 spes" as if you know what the hell your talking about or even know what SPEs are. The facts of the matter are that the 360 has a more powerful GPU, and the PS3 has a more powerful CPU which when applied to gaming actually very much sucks. In plainly frank terms. the CELL SUCKS FOR GAMING and thats it.

LibertySaint

Specialised processors, number crunchers, vector processing units. Whatever people want to call them they are just processors that can only do specific types of calculations; which they do better than a general purpose CPU. Calculations which are then sent to the general purpose core; that is responsible for managing the SPE's and doing something useful with the information they send it.

In short creating a processor that vastly outperforms standard CPUs in certain tasks; and falls over itself in others. Some PS3 users think Cell is powerful overall, they don't realize it only excels in certain specialist work while multicore processors do better in others. PS3 kicks the 360s butt in physics work while 360 would dominate in AI, it all depends on the work being done and which is more suited to which processor type.

To be frank I'd be surprised if any developer can get all of them working hard, calculations require memory and PS3 only has as much memory as 360. If you are going to perform additional calculations to raise a PS3 game above 360 visuals, where do you get the additional resources to do that? They are already maxed out to bring a game up to 360 level before utilising the SPEs.

Something tells me this is relevant to MGS4 level size.

Theoretically you can use Cell to do additional shader work, pushing PS3 shader detail above 360, but Cell cannot work on its own and needs the other components to have the resources available to do that shader work.

oh btw guy who said a game on the ps3 uses 7 spes...u obviously know nothing because one spe is DEDICATED to the ps3's os and it can not be used by a game leaving only 6 to the game.LibertySaint

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

AvIdGaMeR444

I don't know if all PS3 games can be done on a 360 but I do know all 360 games can be done on a PS3.

Metal Gear Solid looks better than Gears of War already. If you believe that Gears of War 2 is going to look better than Gears of War, than you should be prepared to concede that the Playstation 3 has not yet maximized its graphical capacity, if the 360 hasn't. If Gears of War 2 DOESN'T look better than the original, then it has no chance of contending for next-gen console king. Either way, MGS4 is a superior technical (and visual aesthetic) achievement than Gears of War, and that means that the PS3 should have some kind of edge graphically. How significant that edge is is more questionable; but that it exists is almost crystal clear.

Why don't you guys save yourselves some time and wait for the FFXIII port?

OrwellJames

Why don"t you guys save yourselves some time and wait for the Bioshock port?

The Ps3 has no unlocked power, its the same graphically as the 360

also the cell has 8 SPEs, and like u said one is in use for the OS, so dosnt that leave 7?zomgwtfbbqlol1

1 for OS, 1 disabled for production yields, 6 for game work.

In truth, I would say that some graphical PS3 games are possible on the Xbox 360. The RSX is only slightly technically better that the Xbox 360's Xenos when you look at the specifications.

When you look at the PS3, however, you also get the Cell.

Compared to the Xbox 360's Triple cores (called Xenon) clocked at 3.2 GHz, the PS3's cell has one main core (the PPE) clocked at 3.2 GHz, along with 7(1 core is reserved for the OS, while 6 are available to developers) other sub cores (the SPE's) also clocked at 3.2 GHz.

How the whole cell works (I think) is like this:

The PPE core sends out information to any of the 6 SPE cores it has available. The SPE then processes the information, and sends it back to the PPE core.

Because of this, it is sort of like the PS3 has 7 cores for physics in video games. The cell is quite powerful for in terms of physics processing. This is sort of how the cell alone can emulate PS1 games.

The reason cows probably say this is in terms of physics, rather. While I would say that MGS4 graphics could be done on the Xbox 360, there are physics elements that the Xbox 360's Xenon might have problems with.

Take Shadow Moses for example. While the textures and details could most likely be recreated on the Xenos, the Xenon might have difficulty processing the blizzard effect, the snow on Snake's body, enemy AI, and occasionally explosions... at the same time.

In short, I would say that games could be done on both PS3 and Xbox 360 graphically, but in terms of physics, the PS3 has a better chance.

If the cell could also process graphics, however, that would be a different story...

I'll bet this post is riddled with mistakes. If you do find some, please tell me, but don't turn it into a flame.

qman101

The cell is sorta of a CPU/GPU hybrid that can do cpu and gpu tasks i think

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]also the cell has 8 SPEs, and like u said one is in use for the OS, so dosnt that leave 7?AnnoyedDragon

1 for OS, 1 disabled for production yields, 6 for game work.

What I find interesting is with all the money Sony poured into Cell and getting it into PS3, they probably could have gotten a much cheaper normal processor and doubled the systems memory.

With a 512mb/512mb split it would have guaranteed an 'immediate' visual difference between PS3 and 360 with higher resolution textures and normal maps, uncompressed thanks to Blu-ray, without being difficult for developers to program for. Thanks to the memory size PS3 would have been able to handle game level sizes that wouldn't work on 360, similar in the way Crysis maps won't fit in console memory, so they would have ensured exclusives stay exclusive and can boast it is by 'technological superiority' over 360.

Makes you think.

What I find interesting is with all the money Sony poured into Cell and getting it into PS3, they probably could have gotten a much cheaper normal processor and doubled the systems memory.

With a 512mb/512mb split it would have guaranteed an 'immediate' visual difference between PS3 and 360 with higher resolution textures and normal maps, uncompressed thanks to Blu-ray, without being difficult for developers to program for. Thanks to the memory size PS3 would have been able to handle game level sizes that wouldn't work on 360, similar in the way Crysis maps won't fit in console memory, so they would have ensured exclusives stay exclusive and can boast it is by 'technological superiority' over 360.

Makes you think.

AnnoyedDragon

I think sony has learned its lesson with the cell, so many promises they are yet to live up too

Wow, Cows calling Avidgamer a Lemming? Too many whippersnappers on this board, I tells ya...

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]also the cell has 8 SPEs, and like u said one is in use for the OS, so dosnt that leave 7?zomgwtfbbqlol1

1 for OS, 1 disabled for production yields, 6 for game work.

What I find interesting is with all the money Sony poured into Cell and getting it into PS3, they probably could have gotten a much cheaper normal processor and doubled the systems memory.

With a 512mb/512mb split it would have guaranteed an 'immediate' visual difference between PS3 and 360 with higher resolution textures and normal maps, uncompressed thanks to Blu-ray, without being difficult for developers to program for. Thanks to the memory size PS3 would have been able to handle game level sizes that wouldn't work on 360, similar in the way Crysis maps won't fit in console memory, so they would have ensured exclusives stay exclusive and can boast it is by 'technological superiority' over 360.

Makes you think.

AnnoyedDragon

I'm not talking about games Sony owns the rights to. I'm talking about cows saying that the graphics for a game are so great on the PS3 that it is impossible for it to be done on 360. You actually believe this? :lol: This when 360 has been proven over and over to have the best looking multiplats (for the most part...there are a couple of exceptions). "But, but, but teh Uncharted!" Yes, cows...I'm certain even that beauty of a game could be done on 360.

Just face it cows...even though PS3 released a year after 360, graphical superiority has not been proven with PS3. Excluding Wii and PS3, all other consoles in history that have released a year or more after the competition have ALWAYS produced better graphics (no, I'm not counting silly add-ons like SegaCD, 32x...I mean actual consoles). But not with teh PS3. :lol: I'm really not even counting Wii, because Nintendo didn't try to have a graphical powerhouse. Sony did...

AvIdGaMeR444

Isn't the PS3's RAM divided into traditional and dedicated graphics memory, the former being clocked at 3.2Ghz versus the latter at 700MHz same as the 360? While I'm not a PC gamer and thus not particularly nuanced in the field of graphics technology everything I've read has said that, regarding rendering and physics, the 6 usable components of the Cell processor are each good at specific types of functions, and the 256MB of dedicated graphics memory was able to utilize processing power far more efficiently.

I'm sorry PC gamers I'm probably slaughtering this so feel free to correct me. Nevertheless, the side by side comparison shows two consoles that are superficially nearly identical (512 MB RAM 3.2GHz Processor) but subtly (though importantly) quite different. Here's some important differences that I'd like to hear some knowledgeable opinions on:

-Sound processing is software-based in 360 and hardware-based in PS3. Does this mean extra processing power/RAM is used in the 360?

-PS3 has GDDR3 and XDR RAM, 360 only has GDDR3. How is this significant as regards efficiency of processor resources?

-What's the difference between 3 dual-threaded cores and 7 single-threaded cores? The different components of Cell apparently support a diverse multitude of operations, but I haven't been able to find a lot of specific information on this, most likely because it seems to be quite complicated.

-PS3 has a dedicated processor for OS and 360 does not, but both feature in-game OS options. Is this a problem for the 360?

I'd appreciate honest and well-thought-out answers. Console gamers need not apply; you may be in love with your console but you know absolutely nothing about it. So unbiased PC guys, what's the verdict?

There's also more information here although this guy seems incredibly biased against the PS3 (BC on 360 is "over 300 XBox games compatible" but on PS3 it's "Only partial support for Playstation 2." Come on guy).

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

Both systems are basically equal. Some games will look better than others. It dosen't mean that one console is inferior to the other. I don't understand why people think this. PS3 and Xbox 360 are essentially equal graphics wise. It basically goes like this:

PC > Xbox 360 = PS3 > Wii.

Any game that is on 360 could be done on PS3 and any game that is on PS3 could be done on Xbox 360.

Isn't the PS3's RAM divided into traditional and dedicated graphics memory, the former being clocked at 3.2Ghz versus the latter at 700MHz same as the 360? While I'm not a PC gamer and thus not particularly nuanced in the field of graphics technology everything I've read has said that, regarding rendering and physics, the 6 usable components of the Cell processor are each good at specific types of functions, and the 256MB of dedicated graphics memory was able to utilize processing power far more efficiently.

I'm sorry PC gamers I'm probably slaughtering this so feel free to correct me. Nevertheless, the side by side comparison shows two consoles that are superficially nearly identical (512 MB RAM 3.2GHz Processor) but subtly (though importantly) quite different. Here's some important differences that I'd like to hear some knowledgeable opinions on:

-Sound processing is software-based in 360 and hardware-based in PS3. Does this mean extra processing power/RAM is used in the 360?

-PS3 has GDDR3 and XDR RAM, 360 only has GDDR3. How is this significant as regards efficiency of processor resources?

-What's the difference between 3 dual-threaded cores and 7 single-threaded cores? The different components of Cell apparently support a diverse multitude of operations, but I haven't been able to find a lot of specific information on this, most likely because it seems to be quite complicated.

-PS3 has a dedicated processor for OS and 360 does not, but both feature in-game OS options. Is this a problem for the 360?

I'd appreciate honest and well-thought-out answers. Console gamers need not apply; you may be in love with your console but you know absolutely nothing about it. So unbiased PC guys, what's the verdict?

There's also more information here although this guy seems incredibly biased against the PS3 (BC on 360 is "over 300 XBox games compatible" but on PS3 it's "Only partial support for Playstation 2." Come on guy).

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/xbox360_ps3_wii.asp

OrwellJames

the cell was released prematurely to be put into the ps3 to compete, it was suppose to do all this procedural work so u wouldn't need much memory, but as it turns out that was a fail...not epic fail tho because it can be done. It just takes a very, very long time for lil gains.LibertySaint

Hang on, procedural? As in procedural generation?

If that is what you are refering to; procedural generation does not reduce memory usage. If I recall correctly instead of storing something; procedural generation is a program with instructions that tells the computer how to build something, generating the same item from a much smaller file. However that item will use just as much memory as its pre built counterpart.

Unless there is a specific reason you want game assets generated, Blu-ray storage means there isn't any need to reduce file sizes to that level. It would actually be in the advantage to not generate content from scratch every time it is used, it adds additional processing work.

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]the cell was released prematurely to be put into the ps3 to compete, it was suppose to do all this procedural work so u wouldn't need much memory, but as it turns out that was a fail...not epic fail tho because it can be done. It just takes a very, very long time for lil gains.AnnoyedDragon

Hang on, procedural? As in procedural generation?

If that is what you are refering to; procedural generation does not reduce memory usage. If I recall correctly instead of storing something; procedural generation is a program with instructions that tells the computer how to build something, generating the same item from a much smaller file. However that item will use just as much memory as its pre built counterpart.

Unless there is a specific reason you want game assets generated, Blu-ray storage means there isn't any need to reduce file sizes to that level. It would actually be in the advantage to not generate content from scratch every time it is used, it adds additional processing work.

But what u said makes me think....wait to show that information, the file will have to be stored somewhere, right? so the ram space will be used up...meaning procedural generation is not a gain on the ps3, it is useless and is only useful on the 360 because of the size of the storage medium of the game.

lol thanks hehe

At the moment there is not a single game shown on the 360 that looks better than Heavy Rain most definetly. I don't care what type of game it is, because you guys compared different genres graphics to eachother all the time, so this does in fact count.Cedmln

"it is useless and is only useful on the 360 because of the size of the storage medium of the game."

It still reduces loading times from the storage medium, so no, not at all. Sadly the PS3 and 360 have comparable data transfer rates.

And for the last time, there is not a chance that RE5, or ANY MULTIPLAT EVER, is going to look better than either MGS4 or Gears. Period.