I don't see much of a difference in graphics between PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360

Sigh...

I really thought (when looking through this discussion thread) that someone would actually post an actual good argument, but I was (sadly enough) dissapointed. Either way, I might as well end this debate right here: Okay, when looking at the hardware (not software, like most people did throughout this discussion) the Xbox 360 have a 3 X 3.2 Ghz CPU (You have to understand that the CPU have to keep up with the GPU for the best performance), while the GPU is 550 Mhz. The PS3 is equiped with a 7 X 3.2 Ghz CPU (One of the cores are used for backup (or something?), making The PS3's CPU performance exactly twice as powerful as Xbox 360's) and a 500 Mhz GPU. As most of you might understand this means that the PS3's CPU are 3 X 3.2 Ghz more powerful than the Xbox 360, but Xbox 360's GPU are 50 Mhz more powerful than the PS3. If you analyze these numbers: You may notice that PS3's CPU are vastly more powerful than the Xbox 360's, however Xbox 360's GPU are slightly more superior. If you add the CPU and GPU performance together the PS3 is the one coming out victorious and by a large margin!

I noticed that some of you metioned pixel rendering (Pixels per second) and I researched this, luckily I came to an conclusion: Xbox's Pixel/sec is twice as powerful as PS3's Pixel/sec 60% of the time (This might be hard to understand, but altogether xbox 360's pixel/sec is 35% better than PS3's Pixel/sec, however I calculated that Xbox 360's Pixel rendering are about 50-70% more powerful than PS3's Pixel rendering), but you have to understand that the pixel/second is a part of Xbox 360's GPU, and because Xbox 360's Pixel/second is (roughly) twice as powerful (compared to PS3) it would only give the Xbox 360's GPU a 2X boost and not the overall performance. The results would be: GPU 550 Mhz X 2 = GPU 1100 Mhz, and this would mean that Xbox's GPU is 600 Mhz more powerful than PS3's GPU, but that can't live up to PS3's 3 X 3.2 Ghz CPU advantage. This would still make the PS3 the most powerful machine!

As I metioned before: The CPU have to keep up with the GPU for the best performance. Some of the arguments I saw in this thread was that the Xbox 360's GPU made up for the PS3's CPU superiority. If this really is true then the GPU had to be 8 times as powerful as it actually is, but then the CPU wouldn't be able to keep up with the it's own GPU. This would cause the FPS (Frames per second) to drop significatly. That's like microsoft shooting themselves in the foot, you really think they would do that?

The reason why multiplatform games usually looks a tad better on the xbox 360, is because they take moreadvantage of the Xbox 360's GPU and leave the PS3's massive CPU in the shadows. The reason for this is that it's easier for developers to create games with the weakest console as the mark and then port it over to the more powerful one. This is usually not a problem, but we all know that ports have been done with mixed results (you can either make it better, worse or the same). As for those who think that crysis 2 is the new landmark for graphical performance... Really? Did any of you ever play Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2? Maybe you meant it's the graphical landmark for the Xbox 360? Because that's the console stopping it from becoming even more impressive.

I realize that I presented some really complicated numbers and I want to make them easier (somehow) to understand: PS3 = (CPU) 3200 EP (Epic power (1 Ep = 1 Mhz)) X 6 (Because there are 6 cores) + (GPU) 500 EP = 19 700 Epic power. Xbox 360 = (CPU) 3200 EP X 3 (3 cores) + (GPU) 1100 EP = 10700 Epic Power

Conclusion: The Playstation 3 has 9000 more Epic Power compared to Xbox 360.

Wow, console graphics are a joke. These screenshots, even the bullshots, seriously look worse than the graphics that I had with my computer that I built in early 2007.

really ?? bec they said " Killzone 2 still has a slight graphical advantage over crysis 2 " and thats kz 2 and then they said " it's clear that Killzone 3 graphics engine has received some major tweaking from it's predecessor. Considering how bad ass Killzone 2 looked we expected Killzone 3 to look slightly better, but that's simply not the case. The amount of Deferred lighting, particles and post-processing effects occurring the entire time you're playing are absolutely mind blowing. Killzone 3 has set the graphical bar once more, and the attention to detail is on a level of its own. Let it be known, Killzone 3 has dethroned Killzone 2 as the best looking First Person Shooter plain and simple. On the other hand " that means that kz 2 that have better gfx then crysis 2 got dethroned by killzone 3 by along shot what that tell's you ??shadi2020

Everyone here doesn't use Lens of Truth for a reason. They're incredibly biased and lately they've shown an extreme amount of fanboyism for the PS3. I forget the name but the other comparison website is far better. LoT also refuse to include PC in their comparisons but I think the other site does too because PC would win every time.

Every damn comparison ends up being opinion-based. KZ2 is not as good as people claim it is and KZ3 is just a marginal step above it. Crysis 2 easily has the better visuals.

[QUOTE="shadi2020"]really ?? bec they said " Killzone 2 still has a slight graphical advantage over crysis 2 " and thats kz 2 and then they said " it's clear that Killzone 3 graphics engine has received some major tweaking from it's predecessor. Considering how bad ass Killzone 2 looked we expected Killzone 3 to look slightly better, but that's simply not the case. The amount of Deferred lighting, particles and post-processing effects occurring the entire time you're playing are absolutely mind blowing. Killzone 3 has set the graphical bar once more, and the attention to detail is on a level of its own. Let it be known, Killzone 3 has dethroned Killzone 2 as the best looking First Person Shooter plain and simple. On the other hand " that means that kz 2 that have better gfx then crysis 2 got dethroned by killzone 3 by along shot what that tell's you ??ChubbyGuy40

Everyone here doesn't use Lens of Truth for a reason. They're incredibly biased and lately they've shown an extreme amount of fanboyism for the PS3. I forget the name but the other comparison website is far better. LoT also refuse to include PC in their comparisons but I think the other site does too because PC would win every time.

Every damn comparison ends up being opinion-based. KZ2 is not as good as people claim it is and KZ3 is just a marginal step above it. Crysis 2 easily has the better visuals.

[QUOTE="shadi2020"]really ?? bec they said " Killzone 2 still has a slight graphical advantage over crysis 2 " and thats kz 2 and then they said " it's clear that Killzone 3 graphics engine has received some major tweaking from it's predecessor. Considering how bad ass Killzone 2 looked we expected Killzone 3 to look slightly better, but that's simply not the case. The amount of Deferred lighting, particles and post-processing effects occurring the entire time you're playing are absolutely mind blowing. Killzone 3 has set the graphical bar once more, and the attention to detail is on a level of its own. Let it be known, Killzone 3 has dethroned Killzone 2 as the best looking First Person Shooter plain and simple. On the other hand " that means that kz 2 that have better gfx then crysis 2 got dethroned by killzone 3 by along shot what that tell's you ??ChubbyGuy40

Everyone here doesn't use Lens of Truth for a reason. They're incredibly biased and lately they've shown an extreme amount of fanboyism for the PS3. I forget the name but the other comparison website is far better. LoT also refuse to include PC in their comparisons but I think the other site does too because PC would win every time.

Every damn comparison ends up being opinion-based. KZ2 is not as good as people claim it is and KZ3 is just a marginal step above it. Crysis 2 easily has the better visuals.

Lens of Truth actually has some decent comparisons in there but the Killzone games really exposed their fanboy side. If you look at what was written in those latest Killzone comparisons and how it was said it comes off as a bit unprofessional. As a matter of fact those LoT articles just reinforce the notion that reviewers just like everyone else have opinions and that you should never go into reading a review article with the attitude that their write-up is the end-all/be-all of opinions. By the way I agree with you: Crysis 2 graphics > KZ2 & KZ3 graphics.

The graphical difference has always been overblown; normally just comes down to what looks pretty in one's eyes.Stevo_the_gamer

TC the problem with your post is that all those games you mentioned are multiplats some of which are from years ago. Now the difference between multiplats on ps3 and 360 is very small. However, when you stack up exclusivesgraphicsthen the ps3 wins hand down. Exclusive wise gears 2 is the best looking game on the 360. But its not better looking than the ps3 exclusive games. Gears 3 looks great but I think Epic said that its te same engine from gears 2 just updated a bit. W

Generally it has less to do with which console is "better" but rather which console the game is made for. PS3 exclusives have been looking better for a while now though.

That's because you have two eyes and a brain able to think for itself.

Seriously, two different HDTVs probably effect graphics more than platforms, especially as of late.

I mean, you can tell It's there and all. But just barely. Not enough for PS3 fanatics to comdemn 360 owners.

I have all 3 systems...I can say that I see no real difference in KZ3,which ive played and beat, and GOW3,which ive seen played..I see no real leaps in graphics with either..same to me..a non issue.

the gospel of sw has always been the five or six games on ps3 that look better than anything on 360 are more important than the 400 multiplats that look better on 360. ;)

the gospel of sw has always been the five or six games on ps3 that look better than anything on 360 are more important than the 400 multiplats that look better on 360. ;)

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

the gospel of sw has always been the five or six games on ps3 that look better than anything on 360 are more important than the 400 multiplats that look better on 360. ;)

monatomic

[QUOTE="monatomic"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

the gospel of sw has always been the five or six games on ps3 that look better than anything on 360 are more important than the 400 multiplats that look better on 360. ;)

thats the multi platforum but the exclusives show the difference take a look at god of war 3 or killzone 3 or uncharted and you will now there is nothing like them in graphicsshadi2020

This is what those games actually look likeMozelleple112

Generally it has less to do with which console is "better" but rather which console the game is made for. PS3 exclusives have been looking better for a while now though.

hakanakumono

lol OP is banned Awesome.Cherokee_Jack

That's what made me click on this thread. I saw he created it but was like "Wasn't he banned a while ago?" then saw February 2011. lol

Agree. Most of the differences are so minor that you can't really see it with normal gameplay...

That's because for all intents and purposes the graphical difference between the same title on each platform is negligible. The hardware in both boxes is woefully outdated.

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

That's because for all intents and purposes the graphical difference between the same title on each platform is negligible. The hardware in both boxes is woefully outdated.

sts106mat

Well forgive me for contributing to the necromancy but my statement has been accurate for years.

really Crysis 2 looks just as good as Killzone.

JordanizPro

Okay, this is real easy.

Step 1) Put your PS3 & 360 side by side and have both running what their fans say is the best looking game

Step 2) Put these on...

Step 3) Now just try telling me the PS3 doesn't blow the 360 away :o g'head, just try. :twisted: