ps3 does not have superior hardware. i will use logic.

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

Umm.... why does anyone care if the PS3 is slightly more powerful than the 360 or vice versa? When the difference is so slight that its almost indistinguishable to the human eye... then who gives a crap.

360 has some nice looking games, as does the PS3. PC destroys them both.

Last gen, it was obvious which system was superior in visuals... so it would have made sense to talk about it... I don't see any point in debating PS3 vs 360 in terms of visuals. Unless its a multiplat that clearly looks superior/inferior on a given platform. ie: Bayonetta

PS3 has Blu-Ray and backwards compatibility. King me.

PS3 has Blu-Ray and backwards compatibility. King me.

gamecubepad

Exclusives on PS3 look better than Exclusives on 360, which **** all over your argument.

Ports save money. A dev isn't going to make a multiplat for PS3 and then 360. They just copy and paste.

On topic: Logic?? What's that?

huh.

so in any interview with any dev, where have you heard them associate 'power' to '360'? has there been a time where they used both words in a sentence?? i mean, fanboys will be fanboys and will never admit to anything. but the devs, ever since the ps3's launch, have already said in countless of interviews how powerful the ps3 is. like in every interview that's what they say, first-party or 3rd-party. i mean, you can't deny facts. here in SW we al lsay, yeh they're about the same, but in real life have we seen something top Killzone 2 which was released more than a year ago? yes, Uncharted 2 and GoW3. and people go, "Alan Wake and Reach will be teh graphics king!" but sadly, they're not even released yet. i am willing to bet they wont be able to top GoW3. bu-bu-but GoW3 is linear and Reach is open-world! but does Reach even have Titan levels? huh.

backwards compatibility not anymore.civic_misfit

Oh. That sucks.

Well, I read this article from the Cell(PS3) and Xenon(360) co-creator that says the PS3 DESTROYS the 360. Let me dig it up.

Alright, found it. Here's an excerpt...

But Gamasutra also asked him about the relative power of the two systems -- since he worked so intimately on them, does he have an opinion on which was the more powerful?

"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores… it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

"At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models," he concludes.

Cell Co-creator Talks Consoles' Relative Strengths

Then again, he could be wrong. I mean, I'm sure there's tons of users here on SW that know way more than him. >__>

Logic would also suggests that the devs are guilty of being lazy when making PS3 ports. Your logic also doesn't explain why PS3 has the best looking titles between the 2 consoles.

your arguement is very flawed. How can ports represent what power a console has? If anything the ps3 and 360 are much the same when it comes to graphical showcase. It's just up to the developers to create the better looking games. And if you're a fanboy and you care so much about graphics then you'll come to sw and brag about your console getting the "graphics king" lol.

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

The PS3 and the Xbox 360 have an entirely different architecture. More different than between the PS2 and original Xbox, were one used to be able to almost compare them more like one compares PCs: Xbox was more powerful, therefore multiplatform games usually looked better. It was easy to do. Now, Xbox 360 is doing things more classically, while the PS3 went a different and more unique route. It was designed to have lots of work offloaded to Cell's SPUs. If a mutliplatform game is programmed along more conventional lines..., and then just dumped on the PS3, it sure won't utilize much of the PS3's power. It will still run with RSX and Cell, the latter then being used as a conventional CPU, which is not what it was designed for. So the PS3 could be more powerful, but one would never significantly see that in multiplatform games.

Multiplatform games are just a bad comparison..vice versa.

well both are powerful but on multiplatform games tend to lean towards 360 because usually the 360 or PC will be a lead platform as its easier also with middleware like Unreal they are designed for all but tend to perform better on Pc-esque architectures as we have sene a few times with Unreal Engine 3 ins some cases.

On the other hand the PS3 has a diffrent way of deploying its power and a totally diffrent beast from the 360 in terms of hardware.The cell has been proven to be a valuable little piece of kit when used correctly and in some cases has shown its good at doing graphical computations helping to take load off the RSX and most of these are pioneered by 1st party devs like ND,GG who both have used the cell as far as im aware for some graphics computation.The 360 may have more VRAM from the get go but at the same time this number can feel a little neutered in an arguement if a developer was capable of.

Also i seen GTA:Vice city was brought up i would like to remind you there was a big gap in the release between the PS2 and Xbox double pack version and the fact porting was given to Rockstar Vienna afaik who specialised in porting to PC architecture which the xbox shared.Pent 3 based processor and an Nvidia GPU based on Geforce 3 anyone? of course they coul optimise the heck out of the game much like any game if given the time.IF the 360 version of FF were delayed but it wasnt it could have had more polish if you know what i mean.

Both are equal with some things tipping the balance to PS3 especially in the department that most of Sony's first party have really pushed the console showing what it can do.Where as at the same time a fair margin of 360 exclusives are using a UE3 engine framework as what i see an easy way out and meaning that imho opinion we dont see the absolute potential of the machine.Im being honest Halo reach has a shot at graphics king on consoles if they can exploit the hardware like the way ND did with Uncharted.

I don't understand why you thought to use logic over facts when trying to assert something as true.

The intelligent thing to do would have been to apply logic to the facts; you could have tried to explain why the PS3 has superior hardware in some aspects, and at the same time why it trails the 360 in multi-platform games.

But then such a topic has already been discussed to death, and isn't really as controversial.

This isn't a very intelligent thread. And it reminds me of Amy Mizuno.

Something is not superior if it is not capable of being superior for the majority of times. This is logic.ocstew

You are choosing to interpret the word "superior" yourself as most of the time.

This is not logical. This is foolish.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Something is not superior if it is not capable of being superior for the majority of times. This is logic.sbfriends

You are choosing to interpret the word "superior" yourself as most of the time.

This is not logical. This is foolish.

eh, basically the same power, ps3's exclusive devs just know more tricks.

ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="sbfriends"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Something is not superior if it is not capable of being superior for the majority of times. This is logic.ocstew

You are choosing to interpret the word "superior" yourself as most of the time.

This is not logical. This is foolish.

This. Lol.

[QUOTE="sbfriends"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Something is not superior if it is not capable of being superior for the majority of times. This is logic.ocstew

You are choosing to interpret the word "superior" yourself as most of the time.

This is not logical. This is foolish.

What an ironic condescending tone.

Let me put it in terms you'll understand: if something is physically capable of doing more than something else, it matters not whether, for the majority of the time, any arbitrary developer can extract it or not. Is this practical? No. No one is talking about the practicality of the PS3.

An assertion was made that the PS3 hardware is not superior to the 360, and the proof that was used was not fact - it was logic.

You're choosing to apply your own arbitrary opinion/interpretation onto something, when in reality this does not constitute adequate proof.

This is not logical. One has to question whether you believe your own fallacies.

Well, its a fact that PS3 and 360 are technically on par but TC, you are not going anywhere if you want to convince Sony fanboys about that. Sony hype machine is too strong making some here even think PS3 is more powerfull than a high end PC :?

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="sbfriends"]

You are choosing to interpret the word "superior" yourself as most of the time.

This is not logical. This is foolish.

What an ironic condescending tone.

Let me put it in terms you'll understand: if something is physically capable of doing more than something else, it matters not whether, for the majority of the time, any arbitrary developer can extract it or not. Is this practical? No. No one is talking about the practicality of the PS3.

An assertion was made that the PS3 hardware is not superior to the 360, and the proof that was used was not fact - it was logic.

You're choosing to apply your own arbitrary opinion/interpretation onto something, when in reality this does not constitute adequate proof.

This is not logical. One has to question whether you believe your own fallacies.

[QUOTE="sbfriends"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"] ...let me put it in terms you'll understand. Something is not superior to another thing if it fails to be superior most of the time. I'm not defining superior..... Do you get it? Ps3- better 3 times. 360- Better- 214819823048 timesocstew

What an ironic condescending tone.

Let me put it in terms you'll understand: if something is physically capable of doing more than something else, it matters not whether, for the majority of the time, any arbitrary developer can extract it or not. Is this practical? No. No one is talking about the practicality of the PS3.

An assertion was made that the PS3 hardware is not superior to the 360, and the proof that was used was not fact - it was logic.

You're choosing to apply your own arbitrary opinion/interpretation onto something, when in reality this does not constitute adequate proof.

This is not logical. One has to question whether you believe your own fallacies.

The mark of superiority is what can be achieved - usually determined by first achieving it.

By your own admission, the PS3 has beaten the 360; however this is a poor measure of what can be achieved, as it's arbitrary and at the ultimate discretion of the developers. I believe there are benchmarks out there proving what is capable of what.

Furthermore, this post seems to agree that this topic is ultimately flawed in its "logical" assumption, given the remarkable lack of "evidence".

Unfortunately, your proof is not "proof" of superior hardware. You may want to revise your argument to which is the superior "system" as opposed to "hardware". The former takes software into consideration and seems to be what you want to argue.

I have no bias - I don't actually care which is the more superior. I personally like the 360 over the PS3. However, I would prefer a decent argument over incoherant ramblings. The accuracy in any assertion is important if the people making it want any credibility.

There is a big difference between "system" and "hardware".

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

360 is lead HD console this gen, that means that evrey multiplat is developed for it first then ported (90% of the time). Thats why it looks worse on the PS3 and high system specs for PC.

And neither have realy superior hardware, PS3 has better processor (harder to program) and bluray, 360 has more RAM and a bit better GPU, its easier to program too, but it seems that the playing field is leveling with most multiplats looking preaty much the same on both consoles.

Wall of text.... You may want to revise your argument to which is the superior "system" as opposed to "hardware". The former takes software into consideration and seems to be what you want to argue.

I have no bias - I don't actually care which is the more superior. I personally like the 360 over the PS3. However, I would prefer a decent argument over incoherant ramblings. The accuracy in any assertion is important if the people making it wants any credibility.

There is a big difference in "system" and "hardware".

sbfriends

[QUOTE="sbfriends"]Wall of text.... You may want to revise your argument to which is the superior "system" as opposed to "hardware". The former takes software into consideration and seems to be what you want to argue.

I have no bias - I don't actually care which is the more superior. I personally like the 360 over the PS3. However, I would prefer a decent argument over incoherant ramblings. The accuracy in any assertion is important if the people making it wants any credibility.

There is a big difference in "system" and "hardware".

ocstew

In its context your initial argument wasn't any more right the first time. My correction extends past your own comments, too. So please don't think I'm personally addressing you with what I am saying. This topic is incredibly flawed, and unless there's some kind of acknowledgement by the people participating in it, there's little point in it existing.

People who agree with the original post and claim the hardware on one is better - having decided this by opinion - are doing themselves a disservice.

Something is not superior if it is not capable of being superior for the majority of times. This is logic.ocstew

Well, its a fact that PS3 and 360 are technically on par but TC, you are not going anywhere if you want to convince Sony fanboys about that. Sony hype machine is too strong making some here even think PS3 is more powerfull than a high end PC :?

PAL360

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

"if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware(graphically speaking)" This statement is wrong.

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

Refer to http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-metro2033-article

Since the members of 4A Games (Metro 2033)help designed NV40, they criticises Sony's docs for sub-optimal code-path.

"For me personally, the PS3 GPU (they like tocall it RSX for some reason) was the safe choice because I was involved in the early design stages of NV40 and it's like a homeland: RSX is a direct derivative of that architecture. Reading Sony's docs it was like, 'Ha! They don't understand where those cycles are lost! They coded sub-optimal code-path in GCM for that thing!"

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Something is not superior if it is not capable of being superior for the majority of times. This is logic.tommyas

Over all the PS3 does have superior hardware...It cost more mula to pull the same (or better) graphics from it so devs don't usually do it. A port is a port is a port and the PS3 gets the short end of the stick. I will say that if a Microsoft team and a Sony team had their own in house devs work on a mutiplat that would prabably look even if they were optimized for their respective console and Not Unreal Engine 3.5 based.Shattered007

The performance is dependent on software. Both Xbox 360 and PS3 have advantages and disadvantages.

Your logic doesn't sound too good.

My logic tells me only exclusives that are built from the ground up are the true representation of a particular system, add to that a good developer.

Look at the differences between multiplats that comes for PS3, 360 and PC, they don't look that much more good graphically and feature wise on the PC, does it mean PCs are having trouble to compete with consoles ( inferior hardware )? nope.

It just mean the games are not built for the PC, on the other hand, look at a game like Crysis and how untouchable it is.Look at PS3 exclusives compared to 360 exclusives.

Multi-console developers need to make almost the same experience for all systems to warrant the most sales on each system , you say Im wrong, I say look at the inferior multi-plats that came for PS3 and look at their sales data and compare them with polished PS3 multiplat game sales.

So in conclusion, I believe that PS3 is superior to the 360 hardware until they come up with something that will blow one of the graphical beasts on the PS3.

HAZE-Unit

With Killzone 2, Refer to http://www.develop-online.net/features/407/BUILD-Defered-rendering

Developer GSC Game World explained it was the ideal choice in the case of that particular game because of its lower geometry and pixel-processing requirements, and lower CPU overhead, compared to a traditional forward shading engine

Because you project your lights into the scene as a post-process, you're not lighting any pixels that are hidden behind any other pixels," says Jan-Bart van Beek, art and animation director at Guerilla, describing one of the advantages that convinced the studio make the early decision to use deferred rendering in Killzone 2.

Killzone 2 uses an efficient rendering method for lights. Crysis 2(CryEngine3) also uses deferred rendering for lights.

Well, its a fact that PS3 and 360 are technically on par but TC, you are not going anywhere if you want to convince Sony fanboys about that. Sony hype machine is too strong making some here even think PS3 is more powerfull than a high end PC :?

PAL360

Well, its a fact that PS3 and 360 are technically on par but TC, you are not going anywhere if you want to convince Sony fanboys about that. Sony hype machine is too strong making some here even think PS3 is more powerfull than a high end PC :?

most multiplats look better on 360 than ps3. there are 2 games that look fantastic on ps3. if ps3 had truly better hardware then all games should look better on ps3. therefore a logical person cannot come to the conclusion that ps3 has better hardware (graphically speaking). we know that PC has better hadware than consoles because multiplats and exclusives look better on pc. xbox was proven to be more powerful than ps2 because both multiplats and exclusives looked better on xbox. I have used logic to present an argument on system wars. i hope that the matter is settled.

civic_misfit

Statement:PS3 has the best hardwareso allmultiplats look better on the ps3

this must be proven for all multiplats

But as we all know some multiplats look better on Xbox360 so we have disproven this statement

therefore the PS3 does not have the best hardware

By the same logic it can be proven the Xbox 360 does not have the best hardware either.

Therefore no conclusion in terms of the hardwarre can be made from multiplats only

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Well, its a fact that PS3 and 360 are technically on par but TC, you are not going anywhere if you want to convince Sony fanboys about that. Sony hype machine is too strong making some here even think PS3 is more powerfull than a high end PC :?

TintedEyes

Like a few who constantly make threads about how Uncharted2 looks better than Crysis

your right the ps3 does not have superior hardware.

my pc does.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="PAL360"]

Well, its a fact that PS3 and 360 are technically on par but TC, you are not going anywhere if you want to convince Sony fanboys about that. Sony hype machine is too strong making some here even think PS3 is more powerfull than a high end PC :?

PAL360

Like a few who constantly make threads about how Uncharted2 looks better than Crysis

Regardless, no game on the 360 to date comes close to Uncharted 2's visuals.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] Like who?KratosTwin

Like a few who constantly make threads about how Uncharted2 looks better than Crysis

Regardless, no game on the 360 to date comes close to Uncharted 2's visuals.

I know that may be hard to see if you still have teh cell, teh 60fps in dual 1080p, teh 4D hype goggles on.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] Like who?KratosTwin

Like a few who constantly make threads about how Uncharted2 looks better than Crysis

Regardless, no game on the 360 to date comes close to Uncharted 2's visuals.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] Like who?KratosTwin

Like a few who constantly make threads about how Uncharted2 looks better than Crysis

Regardless, no game on the 360 to date comes close to Uncharted 2's visuals.

Yep, a few come close and according to some previews, Alan Wake already looks at it´s level. The diference is that no console game comes close to Crysis on a high end PC