give me proof

You are on a freaking video games website, look for yourself.

By the way, PS3 graphics are not better, they are usually equal.

Antiscopic filtering. Compare the ports and you'll realize that PS3 can do higher levels of it. Antiscopic filtering is one of the most demanding things in terms of graphics.vitz3

I hope you mean Anisotropic Filtering.

at youtube.com i see the clip say that ps3 has 3.2 procceser..... procceser of super computer it is true and that means that the ps3 is better than xbox

[QUOTE="vitz3"]Antiscopic filtering. Compare the ports and you'll realize that PS3 can do higher levels of it. Antiscopic filtering is one of the most demanding things in terms of graphics.Nagidar

I hope you mean Anisotropic Filtering.

Yeah. My bad. I wasn't sure how it was spelled so I used google as a spell-check. I look dumb.

at youtube.com i see the clip say that ps3 has 3.2 procceser..... procceser of super computer it is true and that means that the ps3 is better than xbox

yourz_stranger0

The Cell has 1 PPE and 8 SPE's (One disabled and one reserved for the OS), all run at 3.2Ghz, the PPE is the only one that has Hyper-Threading and Branch Prediction, the SPE's do not.

The Xenon, has 3 identical cores running at 3.2Ghz, all HT'd and all have Branch Prediction.

Its up to the devs to make games that properly utilize these two processors, as each is a completely different architecture.

EDIT: Both of these processors are In-Order processors and are heavily stripped down compared to desktop processors.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="vitz3"]Antiscopic filtering. Compare the ports and you'll realize that PS3 can do higher levels of it. Antiscopic filtering is one of the most demanding things in terms of graphics.vitz3

I hope you mean Anisotropic Filtering.

Yeah. My bad. I wasn't sure how it was spelled so I used google as a spell-check. I look dumb.

Yea, I kinda figured that, BTW, AF is usually handled by the GPU, not the CPU.

[QUOTE="vitz3"]Antiscopic filtering. Compare the ports and you'll realize that PS3 can do higher levels of it. Antiscopic filtering is one of the most demanding things in terms of graphics.Nagidar

I hope you mean Anisotropic Filtering.

That is correct and in the PC world people just say AF. And I have no clue what that guy is talking about how the AF is one of the most demanding things in terms of graphics. It is not by a long shot. Most current graphics cards can crank that to 16x AF with absolutely zero drop in performance.

"GPU not CPU"

I knew that. Next to full-HDR 16x AF is quite demanding. Throw in 4xAA and then you can compare performance.

"GPU not CPU"

I knew that. Next to full-HDR 16x AF is quite demanding. Throw in 4xAA and then you can compare performance.

vitz3

Its not quite demanding, older video cards can do AF x16 with barely a hitch in performance.

[QUOTE="vitz3"]

"GPU not CPU"

I knew that. Next to full-HDR 16x AF is quite demanding. Throw in 4xAA and then you can compare performance.

Nagidar

Its not quite demanding, older video cards can do AF x16 with barely a hitch in performance.

Then why do we see titles like GoW looking like they have only 2x AF enabled? Then Saints Row. Sitting around 4xAF. If it's not that demanding then it should always be sitting at 16xAF. No?

can any one give me proof that ps3 graphics is better than xbox360 plz.... give some proofyourz_stranger0

uh oh...now you did it. every PS3 fanboy is going to post screenshots of GT5 on this thread. personally, i care SO little about racers, it just doesn't get me that hyped.

can any one give me proof that ps3 graphics is better than xbox360 plz.... give some proofyourz_stranger0

Here is a question. What kind of proof would it take for you to change your mind. Sounds to me like your mind is made up and you will shoot down every single person who offers examples. So why bother?

HOwever, I'll bite. How about the fact that most developers have come forward and actually SAID SO. Many more developers have said the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 than vice versa.

Or how about the fact that first gen games like Resistance look MUCH better than the launch titles that came out for the 360. If launch titles are always the worst looking, and the PS3 is so terribly hard to develop for, why did PS3 launch games look better than 360 launch games?

Look, here is the simple fact. There is plenty of proof out there that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. Noticeably more powerful, not just the "barely noticeable" myth that lemmings put forward. The REAL question is what are developers going to do about it? A console can be a super computer, but if developers don't take the time or money necessary to learn the hardware, then that power won't be seen in terms of graphics.

I will also point out that power has NOTHING to do with how good or bad a game is. That is purely a development issue.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

"GPU not CPU"

I knew that. Next to full-HDR 16x AF is quite demanding. Throw in 4xAA and then you can compare performance.

vitz3

Its not quite demanding, older video cards can do AF x16 with barely a hitch in performance.

Then why do we see titles like GoW looking like they have only 2x AF enabled? Then Saints Row. Sitting around 4xAF. If it's not that demanding then it should always be sitting at 16xAF. No?

Thats your arguement? I have a 1650 Pro on one of my PC's that can do 16x AF without a hitch in performance, c'mon man, do some research first.

AF actually degrades AA, which is why most games don't use AF.

save your time.

the ps3 graphics don't match the xbox 360's graphics...

then again, the ps3 wasn't designed as gaming machine, per sony...

" AF actually degrades AA, which is why most games don't use AF."

Oh man this is painful. AA only applies to transparencies and polygon edges. AF only really shows it's colours on TEXTURES relative to the horizonal. In layman's terms.

It make ur groundz teh pretties details.

Show me proof that AF degrades AA. My rig and it's games disagree completely.

save your time.

the ps3 graphics don't match the xbox 360's graphics...

then again, the ps3 wasn't designed as gaming machine, per sony...

tango90101

Wow...just wow.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

"GPU not CPU"

I knew that. Next to full-HDR 16x AF is quite demanding. Throw in 4xAA and then you can compare performance.

vitz3

Its not quite demanding, older video cards can do AF x16 with barely a hitch in performance.

Then why do we see titles like GoW looking like they have only 2x AF enabled? Then Saints Row. Sitting around 4xAF. If it's not that demanding then it should always be sitting at 16xAF. No?

Antiscopic filtering. Compare the ports and you'll realize that PS3 can do higher levels of it. Antiscopic filtering is one of the most demanding things in terms of graphics.vitz3

AF is demanding? No, it's not. I think you're confusing it with anti-aliasing, which is demanding. Computers can easily turn AF up to 16x with minimal drop in performance these days, or even no drop.

[QUOTE="yourz_stranger0"]

at youtube.com i see the clip say that ps3 has 3.2 procceser..... procceser of super computer it is true and that means that the ps3 is better than xbox

Nagidar

The Cell has 1 PPE and 8 SPE's (One disabled and one reserved for the OS), all run at 3.2Ghz, the PPE is the only one that has Hyper-Threading and Branch Prediction, the SPE's do not.

The Xenon, has 3 identical cores running at 3.2Ghz, all HT'd and all have Branch Prediction.

Its up to the devs to make games that properly utilize these two processors, as each is a completely different architecture.

EDIT: Both of these processors are In-Order processors and are heavily stripped down compared to desktop processors.

I emphasis Heavily!! we are talking similarity with intel 3.

also TC look up anandtech.com they usualy go very deep in to hardware subjects and mite be useful to you.

just play the games you enjoy the most. graphics are good enough these daysAlways-Honest

i agree with that, why argue over minor graphical differances

[QUOTE="tango90101"]

save your time.

the ps3 graphics don't match the xbox 360's graphics...

then again, the ps3 wasn't designed as gaming machine, per sony...

SpruceCaboose

Wow...just wow.

yeah..that's what i thought when Ken Kuturagi stated, "We've never once called it a gaming machine"...

truly bizzarre...

the weak graphics in comparison to the 360 seems to underscore his statement...

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

"GPU not CPU"

I knew that. Next to full-HDR 16x AF is quite demanding. Throw in 4xAA and then you can compare performance.

vitz3

Its not quite demanding, older video cards can do AF x16 with barely a hitch in performance.

Then why do we see titles like GoW looking like they have only 2x AF enabled? Then Saints Row. Sitting around 4xAF. If it's not that demanding then it should always be sitting at 16xAF. No?

Put it this way. Ask them to render 1920x1080 progressive using 16x AF, 4x MSAA, and full HDR16 lighting. Don't expect a miracle.