Does the 360 hold the ps3 back?

  • 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#101 Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts

[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]

Just to follow up to my previous thread do you think the fact most multiplat developers develop for the 360 and then port to the ps3 holds the ps3 back? IE developing for the lowest common demoninator or do you think the 360 is just easier to develop for and more powerful. I think it's a combination of ease of development and microsofts muscle in the pc market. Not that the hardware is necessarily better. The 360 does have a more powerful gpu and a more traditional architecture but the cell is actually more advanced. It shows in the exclusives and when developers take advantage of it imo.. This is one reason why I don't like Microsoft.

obamanian

Actually PS3 holds back 360, with its separted last gen RAM design and the last gen afterthought GPU

Oh obamanian, notorious lemming extraordinaire.... not surprising you don't know how ps3 works. The ps3 has the same amount of ram as 360. 512 mb. And guess what, yeah it's 2 separate chips, 256 for cpu, 256 for gpu, but guess what the rsx gpu can use the cpu system ram too. So it works the same considering that the cpu usually uses less ram. Then you got to take into account the speed of the ram 700mhz for all the 360 ram, 3.2ghz for the cell's 256mb of XDR memory, super fast, and 256mb of GDDR 700mhz for the other 256mb. The PS3 Gpu is not a bad component, the custom rsx based of G71 core is a great chipset, coupled with the spu's of the cell it's a freakn monster. The multiplats don't take advantage of this, except for a few like burnout paradise, but 1st/2nd(uncharted, killzone2, gow3) and some 3rd party(mgs4) exclusives do take advantage of the spu's.
Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#102 Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts
Nope,the ps3 holds back by itself thanks to sony for creating a horrible architecture.McdonaIdsGuy
Then why did you buy one, if you hate it? You made that clear in so many posts. And you display a ps3 sig. Why buy something you hate? It makes no sense.
Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#104 Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts
[QUOTE="irish4eva"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]If the 360 was holding the PS3 back, or devs were deving on the "lowest common denominator" then the PS3 should NEVER have any problems running multiplats.............no?? I mean if the 360 is "weaker" to the point of holding it back, why would it struggle to the point where 80-90 percent RUN better, and to an extent, LOOK better (no matter how minor) that the superior console?? Last gen, Xbox and no problem running PS2 ports, and for the most part, looked BETTER than PS2, why isnt it that way with the PS3?? It would seem as if PS3 were the one holding 360 back simply because of the split memory pool (not console power) just a thought :PIronBass
Because all games that were developed on the ps3 first were better looking>>>burnout paradise

Dead Space wasn't... Nor Mirror's Edge.

Unreal Engine3, is not optimized for the ps3 .. .it uses a HDR lighting method that the RSX can't do any AA with it on. Like most multiplats that use either unreal3 engine or gamebryo, they lack AA on ps3 due to obsessive use of hdr lighting. It was the same on Geforce 7900 cards for PC... it wasn't til the geforce 8 series where you could enable hdr in Oblvion, or games like Rainbox Six Vegas. But games like Half-life 2 on pc could use HDR and AA on that card becuase the method used to do the HDR. That is why Killzone2 can use AA and HDR. Or other 1st party games, like uncharted, mlb the show etc... These games use engines built around the ps3 architecture, not middleware that was made for the 360 and adapted to work passably but not efficiently on the ps3.
Avatar image for chaoscougar1
chaoscougar1

37603

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#105 chaoscougar1
Member since 2005 • 37603 Posts
where is the logic in this? we arent comparing duke nukem 3D to Killzone, the difference in graphics is so negligable that most people wouldnt notice/care enough to notice
Avatar image for spencer_119
spencer_119

1027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 spencer_119
Member since 2004 • 1027 Posts

no only the ps3 can hold the ps3 back

Avatar image for Makari
Makari

15250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107 Makari
Member since 2003 • 15250 Posts

no only the ps3 can hold the ps3 back

spencer_119
^^^ this. the PS3 does a far better job of holding itself back than almost anything else could hope to.
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#108 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
[QUOTE="Midnightshade29"][QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="irish4eva"] Because all games that were developed on the ps3 first were better looking>>>burnout paradise

Dead Space wasn't... Nor Mirror's Edge.

Unreal Engine3, is not optimized for the ps3 .. .it uses a HDR lighting method that the RSX can't do any AA with it on. Like most multiplats that use either unreal3 engine or gamebryo, they lack AA on ps3 due to obsessive use of hdr lighting. It was the same on Geforce 7900 cards for PC... it wasn't til the geforce 8 series where you could enable hdr in Oblvion, or games like Rainbox Six Vegas. But games like Half-life 2 on pc could use HDR and AA on that card becuase the method used to do the HDR. That is why Killzone2 can use AA and HDR. Or other 1st party games, like uncharted, mlb the show etc... These games use engines built around the ps3 architecture, not middleware that was made for the 360 and adapted to work passably but not efficiently on the ps3.

H.A.W.K can enable HDR + AA on Radeon X700 (DX9b) i.e. integer based HDR + hardware AA.
Avatar image for brennan7777
brennan7777

3253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 brennan7777
Member since 2005 • 3253 Posts

Do any of you realize that when you say a game looks better on a system its just a matter of opinion?...just a thought.

Avatar image for Shattered007
Shattered007

3139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#110 Shattered007
Member since 2007 • 3139 Posts

Do any of you realize that when you say a game looks better on a system its just a matter of opinion?...just a thought.

brennan7777
Do you realize that saying games dont look better on a system maybe a sign of vision problems?
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#111 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]If the 360 was holding the PS3 back, or devs were deving on the "lowest common denominator" then the PS3 should NEVER have any problems running multiplats.............no?? I mean if the 360 is "weaker" to the point of holding it back, why would it struggle to the point where 80-90 percent RUN better, and to an extent, LOOK better (no matter how minor) that the superior console?? Last gen, Xbox and no problem running PS2 ports, and for the most part, looked BETTER than PS2, why isnt it that way with the PS3?? It would seem as if PS3 were the one holding 360 back simply because of the split memory pool (not console power) just a thought :PMidnightshade29
Come on man there you go with that favortism again, you know the first xbox was a hell of a lot more powerful than the ps2, it had a 733mhz pentium 3 coppermine chip and a modified Geforce 3 graphics card and 64mb ram 3, basically a early 2000's gaming rig in a box. (My Gaming PC in 2002 was a 650mhz coppermine with a geforce 3 and 512mb ram) Compared to the ps2 which which had a 299mhz emotion engine mips 5900 cpu(risc processor with an fpu and two vector units), 32mb ram, the gpu (graphics synthesizer) was only 147 mhz and but had 4mb edram.
The xbox beat the ps2 in performance, unless you weren't following gameing last gen than you would know this. The xbox nearly doubled the ps2 performance, in every category and had real programable pixled shaders.(the water in morrowind example) that the ps2 didn't have. The only thing the ps2 had was supper fast embedded edram on the graphics chip for v-ram, while the xbox shared it's 64mb , the ps2 could use som from the 32mb rdram main ram, but the 4mb edram was super fast 48gb/s compared to 3.2gb/s on xbox. The xbox was way more powerful in genreal so it wasn't that hard at all to port games.
For ps3 vs. 360 - The ps3 uses an entirely new cell processor which is a powerhouse on floating point performance, Just look up folding at home it beats pc intel cpu's on floating point calculations. And the ps3 uses multiple spu's ... It's hard to convert 3 general cores processing to the 7 spus and 1 general core of the ps3... that is why ports aren't equal all the time, but if you look at games like burnout paradise, games that were made first on ps3, than they actually look better. The fact is a port is a port, if a dev is lazy they are lazy. No solving that. As far as the graphics, the gpu isn't really what gives the 360 an advantage in Anti-Aliasing, the 360 has a built in 4mb edram ...hmmm wonder where they got that idea from? lol..but instead of using that as main gpu ram it uses that for the frame buffer which is incredbly fast ram that does up to 4x AA with little hit in performance. The rsx has to do that on its base ram. As far as memory split is concerned, Both have 512mb of ram , and the ps3 has 256 for gpu and 256 for cpu, but the gpu can use the 256 cpu ram as well.
The 360 is holding the ps3 back...you can see this in every Sony exclusive. The games that are programed for the ps3 with their own engines are gorgeous! The multiplats if done on ps3 first look better, and most multiplats don't look to far apart, ususlaly the only difference is the 360 having more AA as it's standard because of that edram.

Xbox1's GPU is a cut down** Geforce 4 TI i.e. dual pipelined vertex shaders and quad pipelined pixel shaders. Geforce 3 only has 1 pipelined vertex shaders. **IGP memory architecture i.e. not much different to nForce1 PC chipset.

Avatar image for brennan7777
brennan7777

3253

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 brennan7777
Member since 2005 • 3253 Posts

[QUOTE="brennan7777"]

Do any of you realize that when you say a game looks better on a system its just a matter of opinion?...just a thought.

Shattered007

Do you realize that saying games dont look better on a system maybe a sign of vision problems?

"look" is a matter of perspective. Some people may like the look of a realistic looking game while others may like the look of a more cartoonish game...like i said its all opinion.

Avatar image for jerkface96
jerkface96

9189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113 jerkface96
Member since 2005 • 9189 Posts
where is the logic in this? we arent comparing duke nukem 3D to Killzone, the difference in graphics is so negligable that most people wouldnt notice/care enough to noticechaoscougar1
This, all those comparison pics that a lot of sights post up, are very unnoticeable, you really have to look hard at every detail to actually see that one games blade of glass on the 360 is slightly better than the PS3
  • 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Browse Boards
Jump to Top

×

Move topic to another board

Pick a board and hit submit

  • (Or search for a more specific forum)
    • Close