PS3 vs. 360 graphics debate should end already. PS3 has won.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

PS3: 2.0 TFLOPS

360: 1.0 TFLOPS

In terms of floating point calculations, PS3 >>>>>>>> 360.

CELL FTW! lol

AmyMizuno

The PS3 could probably produce twice the polygon count of the 360 (although memory would be a bottleneck). AmyMizuno

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]The PS3 could probably produce twice the polygon count of the 360 (although memory would be a bottleneck). AmyMizuno

The ps3's graphical abilities are overblown, it has a nice bottleneck, and a rigid memory structure, the 360 has a more advanced GPU, a flexible memory arcitecture, and a very easy cpu to program for, while the end results end up being the same, it has become well known, games made utilizing the triple core CPU of the 360 perform very poorly on the single core PS3

The reality is that both these syems are almost perfectly matched, if you looked at last gen the xbox was way more powerful than the PS2, that is not the case this time, Microsoft made a very powerful machine a full year ahead of sony, thats impressive

[QUOTE="Sihanouk"]

Even after so many professional sites went on records saying Uncharted has the best graphics on consoles, some lemmings here still refuse to believe. Now that GT5p is out, the debate should end already. If you have played GT5p and not say the PS3 has the best graphics on any console, then I regard you as nothing more than a blind fanboy.

Have you ever seen a more realistic looking game on any console? If you answer no, then the graphics debate has ended.

MortalDecay

I still say Gears of War, a 2 year old game, still looks slightly better than Uncharted. I mean, the character models, alone, are better looking.

I know it's the cow's natural instinct to try and end the war when one decent looking game comes out, but this gen is far from over. There will games that will most likely make Uncharted look like Superman 64.

I don't think its fair to compare Gears of War graphics to Uncharted graphics. First of all, there is almost no color in Gears of War, which relieves a lot of stress from the GPU and its memory, since it does not have to process any vibrant color or bloom effects. This means the devs can focus their resources on texture detail. On the other hand, Uncharted does feature lots of color and some bloomy effects, yet it can still rival Gears of War.

gt5 only has great car models.. and cars are easy to replicate. they can be done the same on 360.

both machines can produce very similar graphics

First of all, there is almost no color in Gears of War, which relieves a lot of stress from the GPU and its memory, since it does not have to process any vibrant color or bloom effects.

PandaBear86

nonsense... dull colours are colours to

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

First of all, there is almost no color in Gears of War, which relieves a lot of stress from the GPU and its memory, since it does not have to process any vibrant color or bloom effects.

Always-Honest

nonsense... dull colours are colours to

Yes, but having one tone for the whole screen (with no bloom) will definately decrese GPU usage. Maybe I exagerrated with the color, but Bloom does take alot of resources. I remember how bad my computer lagged when I enabled Bloom effects in NeverWinter Nights 2.

The debate should be ended, but the reasons you placed for that TC are ENTIRELY WRONG.

The fact is, the visual quality on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is so ridiculously close, people are just nitpicking over the most minute, and ultimately insubstantial details to have bragging rights. As if there was a gap between them like comparing PS1 and Gamecube.

And if one system has a new game that juuuuuust edges in graphics over the other platform? It's still young into this generation. The other will come out with something that tops that (again by just a small margin) as the two competitors escalate their battle of one upmanship. And NO, neither console has "maxed out its potential" after only 2 years as some fanboys like to say. Which is a GOOD thing for us gamers. We reap the benefits of their trying to earn our favor.

Also, many people overlook the importance of art direction and sty1e that it's not just about the technical graphics of polygons, texture resolution, surface refraction and such. Games like Okami and Killer 7 have a unique and beautiful sty1e

Bottom line - either one of these systems will give you a gaming experience with brilliant visuals that will pull you into an immersive world of both realism and art design. The battle for "graphics supremacy" is ultimately futile.

AdobeArtist

yup i watched a youtube vid for GT5 v Forza 2 even though forza 2 is like a year old know

they were picking out extremely minor things like ooo that reflection shoulnt be there because the sky is cloudy and this was in a city with lights i mean its pathetic

i will admit GT5 visuals look good but the gameplay isnt fun

and uncharted really doesnt look that great

[QUOTE="Always-Honest"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

First of all, there is almost no color in Gears of War, which relieves a lot of stress from the GPU and its memory, since it does not have to process any vibrant color or bloom effects.

PandaBear86

nonsense... dull colours are colours to

Yes, but having one tone for the whole screen (with no bloom) will definately decrese GPU usage. Maybe I exagerrated with the color, but Bloom does take alot of resources. I remember how bad my computer lagged when I enabled Bloom effects in NeverWinter Nights 2.

hold on GOW has no bloom have you not played the game its got plenty

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"][QUOTE="Always-Honest"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

First of all, there is almost no color in Gears of War, which relieves a lot of stress from the GPU and its memory, since it does not have to process any vibrant color or bloom effects.

Beaglesniffer

nonsense... dull colours are colours to

Yes, but having one tone for the whole screen (with no bloom) will definately decrese GPU usage. Maybe I exagerrated with the color, but Bloom does take alot of resources. I remember how bad my computer lagged when I enabled Bloom effects in NeverWinter Nights 2.

hold on GOW has no bloom have you not played the game its got plenty

or in denial ;)

So when gears of war was released the graphics war wasnt over, yet now the ps3 has a better looking game suddenly everythings done and dusted.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="AmyMizuno"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

PS3: 2.0 TFLOPS

360: 1.0 TFLOPS

In terms of floating point calculations, PS3 >>>>>>>> 360.

CELL FTW! lol

AmyMizuno

In other words, it makes low polygon count games look better than they actually are through optical illusions. It has it's side-effects though. For one, everything tends to look like it's made of plastic...

See, i was with you until your last two posts, now you are sounding less like a programmer, and more like a sony fanboy. Im also a programmer, i deal with software AND hardware though, so i know about both worlds. i want to share with you and everyone else an article written by one of my collegues on this subject. Hopefully this will clear up any confusion and misconceptions.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372?spage=1

The debate has been over. While some 360 fans refuse to admit it if they looked at any up coming game for each system they would shut up. But its known the PS3 has better graphics but again its all up to the developer and how much effort they want to put into the game. The PS3 has the capibility for greater graphics and better physics but the developer could just not harness the power well enough.

beinss

So when gears of war was released the graphics war wasnt over, yet now the ps3 has a better looking game suddenly everythings done and dusted.

marklarmer

swish! :P

gt5 only has great car models.. and cars are easy to replicate. they can be done the same on 360.

both machines can produce very similar graphics

Always-Honest

I bet you that it would have to be downgraded to run on the 360. The 360 can't process that many polygons.

Even polyphony digital said that it could only be done on the PS3.

WOW. are you kidding me? last gen in this very forum, XBOX fanboys would make thread after thread about how dominant the XBOX's graphics were, and EVERY COW in here would respond with: GAMEPLAY> GRAPHICS, every week I would hear "graphics don't matter", and "Lemmings are graphics whores" from the Cows. I would see "Another AAA for the PS2!", along with "PS2 sales destroying XBOX proving graphics don't matter" from the Cows.

NOW, the HYPOCRICY - "UNCHARTED has best graphics!!!!", "PS3 has the best GRAPHICS!!!", "Do you ONLY PLAY AAA games?" - to answer the last one, yeah PS2 Cows only played AAA games because that's all they talked about here at SW every damn day rubbing it in on the sheep and lemmings. Ya see last gen GS awarded the PS2 over 60 AAA games but now somehow they are magically biased against Sony according to PS3 Cows. And because of those great scores Cows responded with Gameplay>Graphics in every thread.

but the debate is over, both the 360 and PS3 have amazing graphics.

why can't people admit the truth: All games today look great, I'm blown away by a lot of these games, hell even multiplats like Splinter Cell Double Agent look amazing (to me anyway) especially on a Plasma screen. For anyone to argue that their system has better graphics than the other is WASTING TIME. Unlike last gen, you can't tell the difference, these games all look superb, and no doubt the PS3 has some fantastic looking games, but to claim that they could not be done on the 360 is POINTLESS. Your nitpicking over what? some small miniscule details? What will next Gen be like? these games look so close now that the graphics debate is DONE.

WOW. are you kidding me? last gen in this very forum, XBOX fanboys would make thread after thread about how dominant the XBOX's graphics were, and EVERY COW in here would respond with: GAMEPLAY> GRAPHICS, every week I would hear "graphics don't matter", and "Lemmings are graphics whores" from the Cows. I would see "Another AAA for the PS2!", along with "PS2 sales destroying XBOX proving graphics don't matter" from the Cows.

NOW, the HYPOCRICY - "UNCHARTED has best graphics!!!!", "PS3 has the best GRAPHICS!!!", "Do you ONLY PLAY AAA games?" - to answer the last one, yeah PS2 Cows only played AAA games because that's all they talked about here at SW every damn day rubbing it in on the sheep and lemmings. Ya see last gen GS awarded the PS2 over 60 AAA games but now somehow they are magically biased against Sony according to PS3 Cows. And because of those great scores Cows responded with Gameplay>Graphics in every thread.

but the debate is over, both the 360 and PS3 have amazing graphics.

why can't people admit the truth: All games today look great, I'm blown away by a lot of these games, hell even multiplats like Splinter Cell Double Agent look amazing (to me anyway) especially on a Plasma screen. For anyone to argue that their system has better graphics than the other is WASTING TIME. Unlike last gen, you can't tell the difference, these games all look superb, and no doubt the PS3 has some fantastic looking games, but to claim that they could not be done on the 360 is POINTLESS. Your nitpicking over what? some small miniscule details? What will next Gen be like? these games look so close now that the graphics debate is DONE.

gridlok

Yeah they both have amazing graphics, but the PS3 is starting to show it's power with games like Gran Turismo 5.

i have both consoles, and graphically ps3 looks better. but where ps3 is better at graphics, media and so on 360 is better at online at the moment and that made me get 360.shadowkiller11

even though 360 has media centre steaming and literally plug and play computer streaming with support for divx/avi video formats. they are pretty equal in the media capabilities

[QUOTE="AmyMizuno"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="AmyMizuno"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

PS3: 2.0 TFLOPS

360: 1.0 TFLOPS

In terms of floating point calculations, PS3 >>>>>>>> 360.

CELL FTW! lol

navyguy21

In other words, it makes low polygon count games look better than they actually are through optical illusions. It has it's side-effects though. For one, everything tends to look like it's made of plastic...

See, i was with you until your last two posts, now you are sounding less like a programmer, and more like a sony fanboy. Im also a programmer, i deal with software AND hardware though, so i know about both worlds. i want to share with you and everyone else an article written by one of my collegues on this subject. Hopefully this will clear up any confusion and misconceptions.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372?spage=1

[QUOTE="shadowkiller11"]i have both consoles, and graphically ps3 looks better. but where ps3 is better at graphics, media and so on 360 is better at online at the moment and that made me get 360.sammysalsa

even though 360 has media centre steaming and literally plug and play computer streaming with support for divx/avi video formats. they are pretty equal in the media capabilities

PS3 can do the same.

"Now the 360's GPU is one impressive piece of work and I'll say from the get go it's much more advanced than the PS3's GPU so I'm not sure where to begin, but I'll start with what Microsoft said about it. Microsoft said Xenos was clocked at 500MHZ and that it had 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines (48 unified shader units or pipelines) along with a polygon performance of 500 Million triangles a second."

------------------------------

"Want to know why Xenos doesn't need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It's just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it's the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos' MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable "streamout" which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos' other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360's GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI's unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner."

-------------------------------------

"1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360's gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360's GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times."

OUCH!360>>>>>>PS3!

The debate should be ended, but the reasons you placed for that TC are ENTIRELY WRONG.

The fact is, the visual quality on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is so ridiculously close, people are just nitpicking over the most minute, and ultimately insubstantial details to have bragging rights. As if there was a gap between them like comparing PS1 and Gamecube.

And if one system has a new game that juuuuuust edges in graphics over the other platform? It's still young into this generation. The other will come out with something that tops that (again by just a small margin) as the two competitors escalate their battle of one upmanship. And NO, neither console has "maxed out its potential" after only 2 years as some fanboys like to say. Which is a GOOD thing for us gamers. We reap the benefits of their trying to earn our favor.

Also, many people overlook the importance of art direction and sty1e that it's not just about the technical graphics of polygons, texture resolution, surface refraction and such. Games like Okami and Killer 7 have a unique and beautiful sty1e

Bottom line - either one of these systems will give you a gaming experience with brilliant visuals that will pull you into an immersive world of both realism and art design. The battle for "graphics supremacy" is ultimately futile.

AdobeArtist

Well said man. I've never played a game on PS3/360 and said, "Man, those graphics on PS3/360 suck!!!" It's kind of ridiculous. And all the multiplatform games that look better on 360/PS3, people will claim to be the "superior" version just because there is an extra jaggy on the building in the background.

I agree, TC. The graphic debate should end already, but not because there is a winner, but because there isnt.

[QUOTE="Beaglesniffer"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"][QUOTE="Always-Honest"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

First of all, there is almost no color in Gears of War, which relieves a lot of stress from the GPU and its memory, since it does not have to process any vibrant color or bloom effects.

-GeordiLaForge-

nonsense... dull colours are colours to

Yes, but having one tone for the whole screen (with no bloom) will definately decrese GPU usage. Maybe I exagerrated with the color, but Bloom does take alot of resources. I remember how bad my computer lagged when I enabled Bloom effects in NeverWinter Nights 2.

hold on GOW has no bloom have you not played the game its got plenty

Pretty dynamic lighting =/= Bloom

i got tiered of reading.....

lets put it this way!!

what is a game made of???

polygons, textures, lightning and pysiqs engine, ah and animation,...programing etc....

well isnt both systems capable of displaying the same high resolution of textures (now this alone makes or brakes any game)

this is what most blind people look the first moment they set their eyes on any new game!!!

guys its in the hands of the art directors.. the fate of the game, BAD ART = BAD GAME

second, if anyone wants to make this a real 360 vs ps3 thingy, ok

1- where the hell is that 7 days game for ps3, that were shown at e3... yeah real time my a$$

2- ps2 was great because of the talented developers who have worked on it..was shadow of colossus possible when the ps2 first came out ?

releasing the same game on both system, and comparing them is nonsense, a system war is when you note down what each console has provided the gamer with

are you ps3 owners satisfied??? , i would say, poeple who got a ps3 this year are more happy then those who got it last year.

"Now the 360's GPU is one impressive piece of work and I'll say from the get go it's much more advanced than the PS3's GPU so I'm not sure where to begin, but I'll start with what Microsoft said about it. Microsoft said Xenos was clocked at 500MHZ and that it had 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines (48 unified shader units or pipelines) along with a polygon performance of 500 Million triangles a second."

------------------------------

"Want to know why Xenos doesn't need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It's just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it's the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos' MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable "streamout" which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos' other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360's GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI's unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner."

-------------------------------------

"1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360's gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360's GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times."

OUCH!360>>>>>>PS3!

xX0LDSCH00LXx

Yes the Xenos is more powerful than the RSX, but the RSX does more than twice the floating point calculations. The CELL can also do things for the RSX and that allows the RSX to do more.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

The debate should be ended, but the reasons you placed for that TC are ENTIRELY WRONG.

The fact is, the visual quality on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is so ridiculously close, people are just nitpicking over the most minute, and ultimately insubstantial details to have bragging rights. As if there was a gap between them like comparing PS1 and Gamecube.

And if one system has a new game that juuuuuust edges in graphics over the other platform? It's still young into this generation. The other will come out with something that tops that (again by just a small margin) as the two competitors escalate their battle of one upmanship. And NO, neither console has "maxed out its potential" after only 2 years as some fanboys like to say. Which is a GOOD thing for us gamers. We reap the benefits of their trying to earn our favor.

Also, many people overlook the importance of art direction and sty1e that it's not just about the technical graphics of polygons, texture resolution, surface refraction and such. Games like Okami and Killer 7 have a unique and beautiful sty1e

Bottom line - either one of these systems will give you a gaming experience with brilliant visuals that will pull you into an immersive world of both realism and art design. The battle for "graphics supremacy" is ultimately futile.

carljohnson3456

Well said man. I've never played a game on PS3/360 and said, "Man, those graphics on PS3/360 suck!!!" It's kind of ridiculous. And all the multiplatform games that look better on 360/PS3, people will claim to be the "superior" version just because there is an extra jaggy on the building in the background.

I agree, TC. The graphic debate should end already, but not because there is a winner, but because there isnt.

Exactly my point. It will be a dead heat between these two platforms, as each developer gains more and more familiarity with the hardware, producing more stunning visuals, neither gaining a significant graphical lead.

AdobeArtist

AdobeArtist...he lives!

:o

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]Teufelhuhn

AdobeArtist...he lives!

:o

Teuuuuuufffffff... just the man we need for this thread. Impart your technical wisdom upon the masses :)

is it just me, or is the difference negligible?:|clone01

NO! EXTRA 3 PIXELS WILL DETERMINE THE RACE FOR..Second Place.

Sorry, the Wii is great and has already won the console war.

And the PC naturally, but that's your towering overlords.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]AdobeArtist

AdobeArtist...he lives!

:o

Teuuuuuufffffff... just the man we need for this thread. Impart your technical wisdom upon the masses :)

:lol:

I think you've got it covered. If anybody is actually looking at PS3 and 360 games and thinks either one has a significant edge, then they've been hanging out in SW for too long. :P

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]Teufelhuhn

AdobeArtist...he lives!

:o

Teuuuuuufffffff... just the man we need for this thread. Impart your technical wisdom upon the masses :)

:lol:

I think you've got it covered. If anybody is actually looking at PS3 and 360 games and thinks either one has a significant edge, then they've been hanging out in SW for too long. :P

And you know you've hanged out in SW too long when you paint a face on a Wii and start talking to "Wilson" :lol::lol: