IS PS3 graphically more advanced?-I have facts and links to back this up

And you probably dont think that ign is credible, since they said ps3 has better graphics and was better all aroundguitarrocker13

No, he said lately ps3 has more peak performance BUT only 1st party devs or anyone willing to spend a lot of time can get that extra 20% so will we see that? Maybe, with last guardianguitarrocker13

That was his initial statement. As I said, he backed off that statement. The PS3 has a tiny bit more peak power, but when it is buried under bottlenecks you have to sacrifice other things to even make use of that "extra power." And if you are making compromises to use extra power then that is kind of defeating the purpose... Things you don't even have to worry about on the Xbox 360 become MASSIVE performance problems on the PS3 just because it gets bottlenecked. One big example is Deferred Lighting(as opposed to Deferred Shading). Deferred Lighting is a way of lighting the game that uses a Deferred Pre-Pass Lighting and then does a Forward Rendered shading pass. It uses a lot less RAM and it has a number of other performance benefits. However, implementing it on the PS3 is a huge problem because you hit a bandwidth bottleneck that can only be avoided if you start compromising the entire method. You have to sacrifice things to make it work. The alternative solution is to abandon Deferred Lighting altogether and use a Deferred Shading method(fully Deferred rendering). However, doing that makes RAM become a problem because you now have to deal with a massive G-Buffer. And using MSAA is thrown completely out the window by doing Deferred Shading because that would just eat the entire RAM pool available, so you kind of have to use FXAA or MLAA(although before those came out you were just **** out of luck). And in terms of rendering the Deferred Shading, the RSX is a lot slower at it than the Xenos is, so to make up for the RSX you have to offload some of that to the SPUs. And since MSAA is basically impossible, you also have to do MLAA on the SPUs, and at that point things with genuine performance benefits like SPU Skinning become impossible because you don't have the SPU budget to do them anymore....

PS3 development is a nightmare. The system was designed in such a way that one single massive bottleneck(RAM bandwidth) can snowball into 40 other bottlenecks. Compromises HAVE to be made simply because the system has bottlenecks. And even though the PS3 does have more "peak" power, that doesn't matter in a reality where you have to contend with all the bottlenecks that exist within the system.... The reality is, the PS3 and Xbox 360 are basically equals in what they can accomplish. Both have their own set of advantages, but in the whole picture, there just isn't much of a gap.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]And you probably dont think that ign is credible, since they said ps3 has better graphics and was better all aroundKC_Hokie

bubut ign already said teh ps3 is better!!! they can't take it back!!! MS PAID THEM!!! :cry:

IGN also said ps3 was better graphically and all aroundguitarrocker13

Sony almost only put the cell in there so it must be pretty goodguitarrocker13

They didn't put it in there because after they started doing tests internally they discovered that it was going to be absolutely horrible. To even match the Xbox 360 with ONLY Cell processors would have required 2 FULLY enabled Cell Processors with all 8 SPUs available to developers and they would have needed to be clocked at like 4GHz. IBM initially intended to do that, and that would have worked(and honestly would have been incredible because as difficult as Cell programming is, the idea of a fully programmable console is kind of amazing... It would have had unbelievable results, and certainly would have ended up the superior system after developers figured it out). However, IBM's yields for the Cell processor were AWFUL. It forced Sony to delay the console for basically 1 year(they initially intended to release in 2005, and would have coincided with MS's Xbox 360), and the cost was just beyond unbelievable... It took IBM until 2007 to get their Cell yields under control. And even then, the cost was still staggering... What ended up happening was a 3.2GHz Cell with 1 SPU disabled(to increase yields) and another one locked into OS control. It wasn't what was intended and it doesn't perform like what was intended... Sony gambled and they took a hit because of it.

IGN said that game took the crown but they didn't say it made 360 better graphically crytek 3's engine runs better on 360, also LOT debunked thisguitarrocker13

Guerrilla games put defferred lighting on KZ3 and said that because of the spu's they could put an infinite amount.guitarrocker13

They used Deferred Shading, there is a difference. And as a result of Deferred Shading they used 36MB of RAM just for their G-Buffer... In a system that is definitely limited by the amount of RAM that it has, 36MB is a LOT.

Think logical friend they looked at both consoles and based off gpu and cell they said that. One game doesn'magically make the 360 have a better gpu, consoles dont changeguitarrocker13

Um.... it is factually accurate that the Xbox 360 has a better GPU. In just about every way that you can make a comparison the Xenos > RSX. Granted, the RSX is backed up by the Cell which can help it a lot more than the Xenon can help the Xenos, but that doesn't change the fact that as a GPU goes, the Xbox 360 has a far better one than the PS3.

Portal 2 looked better on PS3 also John Carmack replied back to your comment saying that the 360 was better in terms of the power they could take time to get out of it, but that the ps3 had more potential if you took a lot of time on it.guitarrocker13

in regards to portal 2, there was no clear cut winner

Also, as far as technical features go in the consoles, the 10MB of eDRAM in the Xbox 360 is probably the single most useful thing in either system. The eDRAM is the reason why bandwidth concerns regarding Deferred Rendering are basically non-existant on the Xbox 360. The eDRAM is why MSAA is so easy to implement on the Xbox 360. The eDRAM is versatile and flexible, and every single thing you use it for is taking pressure off the rest of the system, whereas the equivilent on the PS3(the Cell) proves to be quite different. Doing things on the Cell doesn't relieve pressure, it just relocates it to a different part of the system...

Right but gpu offloads to the cell, which makes it better all im saying is ps3 has a little better graphicsguitarrocker13

that isn't strictly true for all of the reasons that I have stated before. Sorry that you don't have a clue what I am talking about, but let me just inform you what a bottleneck is... A bottleneck in a console like this is sort of a point of convergence. It is an area of the system that is in high demand that cannot meet the demand. And the thing with a bottleneck in computer science is that when you hit one, you either have to find a way around it(which often causes all sorts of other problems) or you just wait to work through the bottleneck and you take a performance hit. Think of it like a massive room with only one exit. If you have 500 people in the room and only one exit, then that exit becomes a bottleneck. When people need to leave, you restrict their ability to leave because you can't fit more people through the doorin a given period of time. No matter how big the room is or how big the room on the other side of the door is, the ability for people to move between the rooms is restricted by the size of the doorway. In a console, a bottleneck is kind of like that. You could have a supercomputer and it would run like **** if it had an unavoidable bottleneck. Even if I had the fastest super computer in the world, if it only had 2MB of RAM and the program I was running needed 1GB, I could take a laptop with 1GB of RAM and probably run that program faster... A computer is only as fast as its slowest component.

Both consoles have bottlenecks, but I would argue that the PS3 has bottlenecks that are significantly more difficult to avoid. Bandwidth and RAM bottlenecks can't be substituted with something else. You can't trick a system into doing something if it doesn't have the bandwidth or the RAM to do it. The ONLY solution is to change the approach, and that is by definition a compromise. You sacrifice something to make it work...

ok but great developers have gotten past the bottlenecks, i dont think 360 could do UC3 or KZ3. Also read this and watch the video---http://n4g.com/news/769684/ps3s-power-confined-to-prosperous-exclusivesguitarrocker13

Naughty Dog's Lead Enginer & Graphics Programmer disagrees with you.

Also i understood what you meant but its hard to believe you over dev's. Not saying your wrong but it seems like dev's have gotten past that to see the ps3's potentialguitarrocker13

From a technical perspective, not many PS3 games do things that wouldn't also be possible on the Xbox 360(in one form or another... You obviously wouldn't do things the same way, but you could achieve basically the same results). I have said this for the past 5 years now, ART IS KING. On the consoles, ART is what matters in terms of graphics. A motivated developer that wanted to make a particular game could make it on EITHER of the two consoles. You wouldn't do things the same way, but you COULD make the same exact game on either console. How impressive a game looks really comes down to the art direction and what that art direction calls for in terms of tech.

Yeah he said fine, not as good or better though. Come on you agree that PS3 has a bit more potential but only great dev's can get thatguitarrocker13

Do NOT argue semantics because that is literally grasping at straws. If Naughty Dog wanted to make UC3 on the Xbox 360(and were allowed to... obviously they aren't given that they are owned by Sony), they could do it. And the game would look like UC3. It would be just as impressive and it would have the same features. That is what he was saying.

Did you watch video?guitarrocker13

Which video because way too many have been posted in this thread for "Did you watch video?" to be a genuinely answerable question.

guitarrocker13, you do realize this forum has a quote button, right?ferret-gamer

lol no need. i think most of the time he's just talking to himself.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]Did you watch video?KingsMessenger

Which video because way too many have been posted in this thread for "Did you watch video?" to be a genuinely answerable question.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]Did you watch video?guitarrocker13

Which video because way too many have been posted in this thread for "Did you watch video?" to be a genuinely answerable question.

It isn't entirely inaccurate, but you ignored the emphasis on "slightly." Even an exclusive isn't going to get much more out, and it certainly isn't going to make a big enough difference that a game becomes impossible to put on the Xbox 360. And the difference in graphics is minimal at best. Honestly, the technical difference is so small that smart use of the art budget would be more noticable. That is something that some PS3 fanboys have never really grasped it seems... There is a difference, but honestly it is so insignificant that the art that goes into the game would make a far greater difference. Yes, the Xbox 360 may have slightly less processing capability, but a good developer would face that situation by just making up for it with their art budget. You may be pushing slightly less, but by being smart about how you push what you have, the difference becomes nearly impossible to notice.

I was just trying to prove that ps3 has a bit more power and get rid of the false "360 more raw power idea"

And, I think i did

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

I don't have to read those link to know they're either opinions of first party devs, or random internet fanboys.

The PS3 isn't 20% stronger then the Xbox 360. It just isn't.

BlbecekBobecek

Says another random internet fanboy. Yet PS3 exclusives prove otherwise.

Not really...

I was just trying to prove that ps3 has a bit more power and get rid of the false "360 more raw power idea"

guitarrocker13

This is probably true.. but you can't even tell unless you're playing your PS3 in HD.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]guitarrocker13, you do realize this forum has a quote button, right?KarateeeChop

lol no need. i think most of the time he's just talking to himself.

:lol: Priceless.

I was just trying to prove that ps3 has a bit more power and get rid of the false "360 more raw power idea"

And, I think i did

guitarrocker13

Only a fanboy would say the Xbox 360 has "more raw power." Just like, to be quite honest, only a fanboy would argue that the PS3 can produce better graphics than the Xbox 360... The two systems may as well be identical because the gap in the "power" between them doesn't mean anything, that is how small it is... And that is all I was trying to prove.

And, I think I did.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]

I was just trying to prove that ps3 has a bit more power and get rid of the false "360 more raw power idea"

And, I think i did

KingsMessenger

Only a fanboy would say the Xbox 360 has "more raw power." Just like, to be quite honest, only a fanboy would argue that the PS3 can produce better graphics than the Xbox 360... The two systems may as well be identical because the gap in the "power" between them doesn't mean anything, that is how small it is... And that is all I was trying to prove.

And, I think I did.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]

I was just trying to prove that ps3 has a bit more power and get rid of the false "360 more raw power idea"

And, I think i did

guitarrocker13

Only a fanboy would say the Xbox 360 has "more raw power." Just like, to be quite honest, only a fanboy would argue that the PS3 can produce better graphics than the Xbox 360... The two systems may as well be identical because the gap in the "power" between them doesn't mean anything, that is how small it is... And that is all I was trying to prove.

And, I think I did.

yep, i agree that the 360 only has a slight edge in graphics for now. just like the critics said. ;)

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]

I was just trying to prove that ps3 has a bit more power and get rid of the false "360 more raw power idea"

And, I think i did

Only a fanboy would say the Xbox 360 has "more raw power." Just like, to be quite honest, only a fanboy would argue that the PS3 can produce better graphics than the Xbox 360... The two systems may as well be identical because the gap in the "power" between them doesn't mean anything, that is how small it is... And that is all I was trying to prove.

And, I think I did.

PS3 is slightly more powerful and the exclusives showed, UC3 and God of War 4 will show the pinnacle of console graphics this gen. gpuking

Right, glad we solved this, its only slightly better but i think that last guardian will prove this

No, he said lately ps3 has more peak performance BUT only 1st party devs or anyone willing to spend a lot of time can get that extra 20% so will we see that? Maybe, with last guardianguitarrocker13

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

Yeah, john carmack said that, haha give me one second to find the linkguitarrocker13

I'd love to see where Mr. Carmack said this.. The only positive thing out of his mouth regarding home consoles recently has been towards the Wii U, ironically.

I dont know if I would say im a fanboy just proving a point and the developer of Geronimo games proves it, in the videoguitarrocker13

It is Ronimo Games and they have only done Wii games and one XBLA/PSN title.

As I have REPEATEDLY stated, at first glance, you would think that there is more to be gotten out of the PS3. However, when you account for the NUMEROUS bottlenecks, the gap becomes less and less significant. In then end, YES there is more to the PS3, but that ultimately means nothing in terms of what can be accomplished and what a game would look like. Anything that you can do on the PS3 CAN be replicated on the Xbox 360. Both sides would have their own set of compromises, but a motivated developer can work out solutions on both sides.

A game like Uncharted looks good because Naughty Dog made it look good, not because the PS3 could do some magical thing that the Xbox 360 can't. The simple fact is, if Naughty Dog was owned by MS and MS gave Naughty Dog the same budget and same amount of time to make the same game, Uncharted could look pretty much the same on the Xbox 360. Same applies to pretty much every game.

And the idea that an EXCLUSIVE does things that a multiplatform game can't is not really accurate. BF3 is honestly going to be a good example of this. I think people will be surprised with the end result for BF3 and the simple fact is, what DICE is doing on a technical side is pretty impressive... Certainly up there or even beyond PS3 exclusive titles...

And honestly, tech isn't even the biggest factor. Lots of Crysis mods use the exact same assets and exact same engine, and produce a significantly better looking experience than the normal game. And there are time of day mods that literally just change a few variables that dramatically improve the look of the game...

Art is really the biggest factor in what makes a game visually appealing.