Two Worlds 2's developer: PC and PS3 have a little bit more power

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] but he still said himself ps3 was more powerful, thats all i said :)fun-da-mental

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

Majority of the game code like physics, animations, AI, Particles effect, data streaming, multi threading computations are primarily runs on raw CPU power. 360's graphics chip is slightly more powerful but PS3 has lot more processing power. According to IBM, PS3's 7 SPUs, each with 4 parallel vector cores produces 100+ Giga flops of peak performance, combined that with blue ray media capable of holding 5x storage, makes it a very powerful machine overall;)

360 gpu is not really slightly more powerful...actually when you look that you have to dedicate ND said 40% for vertex culling on spus(which 360 DOES NOT NEED) because RSX has alot of problems with vertices,when you see that you have to do post processing on spus but you make that when gpu is idle on 360 since its unified shaders(all 48 alus doing it)...there is quite a lot spus have to do to match xenos,and you have to remember there are 3 cores on 360,each with VMX128 units that are quite high on flops,those flops equal 3 spus...you have to run all those 3 core processes on Cell also.When you look at it that way its not like ps3 has so much power to spare...

the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either wayTintedEyes

thats completly subjective at this point. I played those 3 PS3 games andi agree they look beautifull. So does RDR on 360

PC only has a little more power? wat?Guppy507

He is talking about my computer :P

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either wayPAL360

thats completly subjective at this point. I played those 3 PS3 games andi agree they look beautifull. So does RDR on 360

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either wayTintedEyes

thats completly subjective at this point. I played those 3 PS3 games andi agree they look beautifull. So does RDR on 360

It does.Lets be fair.UC2 and GOW III rule when it comes to console graphics.BUT that does not say that RDR is any less impressive as far as tech goes...hell,RAGE got the most praise and awards in this years E3 while going against C2 and KZ3,rushing to the top at 60 fps :P

So we can agree that what majority of journalists say is how it really is?

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either wayTintedEyes

thats completly subjective at this point. I played those 3 PS3 games andi agree they look beautifull. So does RDR on 360

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

I hope you have a good link for that otherwise you are just talking nonsense...Here,from Ati...

http://www.motherboardpoint.com/ati-xenos-x360-gpu-summary-t73793.html

"ATI suggests that their testing achieves an average of 95% efficiency of the shader array in general purpose graphics usage conditions"

Bus-A-Bus

unless i have a link? modern day gpus dont come anywhere near 100% efficiency, just because pixel and vertex operations are never stalled by each other doesnt mean the gpu never stalls, you just completely avoided my cache miss comment

do you even know how graphics programmers interact with gpus, especially the xenos on 360? they do it through abstraction layers APIs ie directx, they have no idea when the gpu is stalling nor can they program around those stalls

i like how you keep bringing up the RSX regarding the ps3s theoretical performance, good thing they keep shifting those vertex jobs over to the cell so they dont have worry about stalling the rsx's pixel jobs

You see,this is why i dont really like SW...You are fool if you post sources of your posts.I could understand you saying your opinion about game but you cant squash what company that makes gpu has said,and if old shader architecture efficiency is about 65% its more than possible to be 95%.Again,you did not provide any link thus your opinion worths nothing on SW.

what did they say? that their gpu never stalls? that it never suffers a cache miss?

all youre doing is talking about the rsx's lack of unified shaders which causes pixel shading stalls while vertex processing and vice versa

where are all these stalls when the vertex processing isnt even happening on the rsx?????

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

unless i have a link? modern day gpus dont come anywhere near 100% efficiency, just because pixel and vertex operations are never stalled by each other doesnt mean the gpu never stalls, you just completely avoided my cache miss comment

do you even know how graphics programmers interact with gpus, especially the xenos on 360? they do it through abstraction layers APIs ie directx, they have no idea when the gpu is stalling nor can they program around those stalls

i like how you keep bringing up the RSX regarding the ps3s theoretical performance, good thing they keep shifting those vertex jobs over to the cell so they dont have worry about stalling the rsx's pixel jobs

i_am_interested

You see,this is why i dont really like SW...You are fool if you post sources of your posts.I could understand you saying your opinion about game but you cant squash what company that makes gpu has said,and if old shader architecture efficiency is about 65% its more than possible to be 95%.Again,you did not provide any link thus your opinion worths nothing on SW.

what did they say? that their gpu never stalls? that it never suffers a cache miss?

all youre doing is talking about the rsx's lack of unified shaders which causes pixel shading stalls while vertex processing and vice versa

where are all these stalls when the vertex processing isnt even happening on the rsx?????

edit: a quick little fact, in order to match xenos vertex setup of all 48 pipelines you would need to dedicate all 6 spu's + rsx to match it

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

You see,this is why i dont really like SW...You are fool if you post sources of your posts.I could understand you saying your opinion about game but you cant squash what company that makes gpu has said,and if old shader architecture efficiency is about 65% its more than possible to be 95%.Again,you did not provide any link thus your opinion worths nothing on SW.

savagetwinkie

what did they say? that their gpu never stalls? that it never suffers a cache miss?

all youre doing is talking about the rsx's lack of unified shaders which causes pixel shading stalls while vertex processing and vice versa

where are all these stalls when the vertex processing isnt even happening on the rsx?????

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

unless i have a link? modern day gpus dont come anywhere near 100% efficiency, just because pixel and vertex operations are never stalled by each other doesnt mean the gpu never stalls, you just completely avoided my cache miss comment

do you even know how graphics programmers interact with gpus, especially the xenos on 360? they do it through abstraction layers APIs ie directx, they have no idea when the gpu is stalling nor can they program around those stalls

i like how you keep bringing up the RSX regarding the ps3s theoretical performance, good thing they keep shifting those vertex jobs over to the cell so they dont have worry about stalling the rsx's pixel jobs

i_am_interested

You see,this is why i dont really like SW...You are fool if you post sources of your posts.I could understand you saying your opinion about game but you cant squash what company that makes gpu has said,and if old shader architecture efficiency is about 65% its more than possible to be 95%.Again,you did not provide any link thus your opinion worths nothing on SW.

what did they say? that their gpu never stalls? that it never suffers a cache miss?

all youre doing is talking about the rsx's lack of unified shaders which causes pixel shading stalls while vertex processing and vice versa

where are all these stalls when the vertex processing isnt even happening on the rsx?????

RSX already stalls between shading and texturing...And im quite sure xenos or any unified shader gpu misses cache or stalls but why would it be more than 5% of time?I guess that 5% is the time it is idle...

Originally Posted by Mintmaster(b3d,gpu engineer)
"It's great for peak texture throughput, but texture instructions cost math ops and trilinear/aniso cost even more. You can have shaders where adding more texture ops are free on Xenos, but they will always cost you on RSX, so I don't know if "texture-happy" is particularly apt.

It's not just the texture access, but the math ops, vertex shader ops, setup cycles (more iterators needed), and RAM. You add them all up and it might solve all their problems at once."

"Remember I said "some shaders". If a shader is heavy on math, you can add texture instructions and it will run at the same speed on Xenos. The texture units run in parallel to the math units.

On RSX, doing this will slow the shader down, because the texture units use part of the math units, and the way it's designed, the shader program can't proceed until the texture instruction is done. This inflexible but simple design is one of the reasons that RSX has such high peak rates for its size. "

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

savagetwinkie

Majority of the game code like physics, animations, AI, Particles effect, data streaming, multi threading computations are primarily runs on raw CPU power. 360's graphics chip is slightly more powerful but PS3 has lot more processing power. According to IBM, PS3's 7 SPUs, each with 4 parallel vector cores produces 100+ Giga flops of peak performance, combined that with blue ray media capable of holding 5x storage, makes it a very powerful machine overall;)

edit: btw, the cells job is primarily fixing what the rsx can't do to keep up with the xenos

ai is branch intensive and not something you'd see on FP calucations which is the SPU's job

physics/animations/particle effects all benefit from parrallel processing, so a graphics card is suitable for those calculations. In fact thats why nvidia has Physx built in, to give it much more complex physics system.

You obviously don't know the basic fundamentals of computers and programming. Graphics card is has nothing to do with parallel processing, it just a specialized board that has dedicated processor for rendering graphics . You don't need a GPU to write multi threaded application, you can do almmost everything on CPU, including drawing pixels on a screen. Back in the days, we had games like star craft and diablo that didn't depend on graphics card to run :)

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"]the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either wayTintedEyes

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

thats completly subjective at this point. I played those 3 PS3 games andi agree they look beautifull. So does RDR on 360

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] ok if you dont think it looks better they will always win graphics awards though.TintedEyes

Yes only 3 of them that have:more talented devs as far as tech goes,time,money,engines...Just for the fact,the guy from Santa Monica that was responsible for shadows got 3 YEARS to make the best he can with it,i cant imagine MS giving so many time not for shadows but game in general.Not to talk about no co op,linearity etc.What about games like RE2 or now Twisted Metal?Why dont they look as good as those 3?Because of developer talent thats why...

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] but graphics awards doesn't mean more powerful, i mean think of it this way, you will always be able to design a game that will look better than 360, but you will always have to design everything in line to meeting conditions for peak power but... and this is kind of ironic with your sig, while the ps3 might be able to reach peak adhering to those conditions, 360 does everything else betterBus-A-Bus

Yes only 3 of them that have:more talented devs as far as tech goes,time,money,engines...Just for the fact,the guy from Santa Monica that was responsible for shadows got 3 YEARS to make the best he can with it,i cant imagine MS giving so many time not for shadows but game in general.Not to talk about no co op,linearity etc.What about games like RE2 or now Twisted Metal?Why dont they look as good as those 3?Because of developer talent thats why...

The PC has a little more power?

Doesn't he mean alot more power?

Snagal123

Its obvious ps3 is more powerful. Aside from ps3 and 360 PR devs agree ps3 is more powerful and it shows.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

what did they say? that their gpu never stalls? that it never suffers a cache miss?

all youre doing is talking about the rsx's lack of unified shaders which causes pixel shading stalls while vertex processing and vice versa

where are all these stalls when the vertex processing isnt even happening on the rsx?????

i_am_interested

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

Majority of the game code like physics, animations, AI, Particles effect, data streaming, multi threading computations are primarily runs on raw CPU power. 360's graphics chip is slightly more powerful but PS3 has lot more processing power. According to IBM, PS3's 7 SPUs, each with 4 parallel vector cores produces 100+ Giga flops of peak performance, combined that with blue ray media capable of holding 5x storage, makes it a very powerful machine overall;)

fun-da-mental

edit: btw, the cells job is primarily fixing what the rsx can't do to keep up with the xenos

ai is branch intensive and not something you'd see on FP calucations which is the SPU's job

physics/animations/particle effects all benefit from parrallel processing, so a graphics card is suitable for those calculations. In fact thats why nvidia has Physx built in, to give it much more complex physics system.

You obviously don't know the basic fundamentals of computers and programming. Graphics card is has nothing to do with parallel processing, it just a specialized board that has dedicated processor for rendering graphics . You don't need a GPU to write multi threaded application, you can do almmost everything on CPU, including drawing pixels on a screen. Back in the days, we had games like star craft and diablo that didn't depend on graphics card to run :)

EDIT: if you don't understand what a parallel processor is, its a processor that is similar to a multicore CPU, it might not have seperate cores but it does array math in one cycle, a normal cpu would have to go through the array in a linear fasion doing each op on a seperate cycle. This is why they needed GPU's. CPU's couldn't handle the graphics.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] ok if you dont think it looks better they will always win graphics awards though.TintedEyes

two worlds developer (ok, but the worst open world fantasy game) versus john carmack and crytek,ummmm, i think i will go with carmack, i never even relly heard of this other guy.lol, and in the poll dragonboot did about how much more powerful the Ps3 was he stated 15-25%, 5% is not even worth talking about, and this guy lost all credibility when he stated no one has a PC more powerful than a Ps3, lol, mine (sorry. my wifes i have just been informed) is more powerful than a Ps3,most mid range PC's wipe the floor with the Ps3delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"]two worlds developer (ok, but the worst open world fantasy game) versus john carmack and crytek,ummmm, i think i will go with carmack, i never even relly heard of this other guy.lol, and in the poll dragonboot did about how much more powerful the Ps3 was he stated 15-25%, 5% is not even worth talking about, and this guy lost all credibility when he stated no one has a PC more powerful than a Ps3, lol, mine (sorry. my wifes i have just been informed) is more powerful than a Ps3,most mid range PC's wipe the floor with the Ps3dragonboot

Check his post history. Its obvious hes a Sony.....always writing 2 page essays for every post. Lost all credibility when he said PS3 + Blu Ray = 3D.

erglesmergle

Didn't these guys make one of the worst games this gen? I'd rather take the words of a developer who created Crysis, and are pretty much the gods of technology, along with John Carmack, over these devs. :?

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

Check his post history. Its obvious hes a Sony.....always writing 2 page essays for every post. Lost all credibility when he said PS3 + Blu Ray = 3D.

dragonboot

Because the 360 is less powerful and because it uses DVD, 3D development on Xbox 360 is much less practical than on the PS3. This is the main reason why Microsoft doesn't invest in 3D games like Sony does.

edit: i would like to mention that 360 already does something similar to that, its called local co-op which renders two screens at completely different angles...

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

Majority of the game code like physics, animations, AI, Particles effect, data streaming, multi threading computations are primarily runs on raw CPU power. 360's graphics chip is slightly more powerful but PS3 has lot more processing power. According to IBM, PS3's 7 SPUs, each with 4 parallel vector cores produces 100+ Giga flops of peak performance, combined that with blue ray media capable of holding 5x storage, makes it a very powerful machine overall;)

fun-da-mental

edit: btw, the cells job is primarily fixing what the rsx can't do to keep up with the xenos

ai is branch intensive and not something you'd see on FP calucations which is the SPU's job

physics/animations/particle effects all benefit from parrallel processing, so a graphics card is suitable for those calculations. In fact thats why nvidia has Physx built in, to give it much more complex physics system.

You obviously don't know the basic fundamentals of computers and programming. Graphics card is has nothing to do with parallel processing, it just a specialized board that has dedicated processor for rendering graphics . You don't need a GPU to write multi threaded application, you can do almmost everything on CPU, including drawing pixels on a screen. Back in the days, we had games like star craft and diablo that didn't depend on graphics card to run :)

Speak for yourself. Your POV is fine during 90s, but not in 21st century. The GPU has plenty to do with parallel processing i.e. refer to GpGPU.

The GPU is one example of a parallel data processor and most uses explicit parallelism concepts i.e. think of Intel Itanium in an extreme form. The middleware normally hides the GPU's micro-architecture.

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/10

With the capability to fetch from anywhere in memory, perform arbitrary ALU operations and write the results back to memory, in conjunction with the raw floating point performance of the large shader ALU array, the MEMEXPORT facility does have the capability to achieve a wide range of fairly complex and general purpose operations; basically any operation that can be mapped to a wide SIMD array can be fairly efficiently achieved and in comparison to previous graphics pipelines it is achieved in fewer cycles and with lower latencies. For instance, this is probably the first time that general purpose physics calculation would be achievable, with a reasonable degree of success, on a graphics processor and is a big step towards the graphics processor becoming much more like a vector co-processor to the CPU.

The latest Xbox 360 Slim has single chip package IBM CPU + ATI GPU.In another words, Xbox 360 has it's own "CELL".

AMD Llano fused multi-core K10.5 and ATI DX11 GPU (480 "many-core" stream processors).

Note that Starcraft1 uses DirectX APIs (usually accelerated by 2D GFX card). First "GPU"refers to a custom ASIC processor known as NVIDIA Geforce 256.

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] multithreading is primarily run on a cpu.... you ser need to spend more time on wikipedia

edit: btw, the cells job is primarily fixing what the rsx can't do to keep up with the xenos

ai is branch intensive and not something you'd see on FP calucations which is the SPU's job

physics/animations/particle effects all benefit from parrallel processing, so a graphics card is suitable for those calculations. In fact thats why nvidia has Physx built in, to give it much more complex physics system.

savagetwinkie

You obviously don't know the basic fundamentals of computers and programming. Graphics card is has nothing to do with parallel processing, it just a specialized board that has dedicated processor for rendering graphics . You don't need a GPU to write multi threaded application, you can do almmost everything on CPU, including drawing pixels on a screen. Back in the days, we had games like star craft and diablo that didn't depend on graphics card to run :)

BTW more threads doesn't automatically mean better performance. Technically, you can similar or even better performance on single core but faster CPU. It all boils down to how you structure your code. Only difference is that in GPUs, these smaller programs called shaders and renderers are built accross multiple threads and cores.

As for my original point, besides graphics there is lot more running in a game besides graphics. There is lot more processor intensive jobs that normally runs on CPU, like your game code, AI, sound, disk seek/streaming and other algorithms.

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

Check his post history. Its obvious hes a Sony.....always writing 2 page essays for every post. Lost all credibility when he said PS3 + Blu Ray = 3D.

[QUOTE="dragonboot"]

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

Check his post history. Its obvious hes a Sony.....always writing 2 page essays for every post. Lost all credibility when he said PS3 + Blu Ray = 3D.

savagetwinkie

Because the 360 is less powerful and because it uses DVD, 3D development on Xbox 360 is much less practical than on the PS3. This is the main reason why Microsoft doesn't invest in 3D games like Sony does.

edit: i would like to mention that 360 already does something similar to that, its called local co-op which renders two screens at completely different angles...

[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"]The link said the game will run smooter on the 360 "am i sensing another crappy framerate issue like bayonneta for the ps3 version?? If the ps3 is more powerfull it will games smooter compared to the 360. And for you "dragonboot" stop deceiving yourself thinking you're deceiving others.The ps3 is not powerful than the xbox 360 in any way since all these games listed below runs & look better on the 360 but craped on the ps3. LIST OF CRAPY GAMES ON PS3: #.1 Bioshock #.2 Lost planet #.3 F.E.A.R #.4 Assasins creed 1 & 2 #.5 COD4:MW #.6 Gta4 #.7 Ghost bursters #.8 Fallout 3 #.9 Bayonneta #.10 Read dead redemption #.11( am tired of listing because i can't list the 99% of multiplat that looks worse on the ps3) stop bringing up KILLZONE 2,UNCHARTED 2 & GOD OF WAR 3 because if you take off your fanboy googles MASS EFFECT 2,METRO 2033 & ALAN WAKE on the 360 are as good looking as those games. You can't force people to accept your opinion "dragonboot.dragonboot

Virtually all of the eleven games you listed received the exact same scores on most websites for both the PS3 or the 360 versions. The differences, if you read the reviews, are basically insignificant, except for maybe Bayonetta. IGN actually prefers GTA4's graphics on the PS3. You also didn't mention Dragon Age, Final Fantasy 13, or other games that are better on the PS3.

If you read my initial post in this thread, the developers would rather make the 360 version better because the 360 has a larger install base. Furthermore, most of the games you listed were all developed on the 360 as the main console. If it's the other way around, like Final Fantasy 13, the PS3 version is better. How a mulitplatform game looks depends not on the power of each console but on which console is the priority. Multiplatform developers tend to give the 360 priority because the 360 has a larger install base. However, this advantage is decreasing because the PS3's install base is now only about 4 million less. Furthermore, the PS3's install base has now reached critical mass such that even Valve has appologized to PS3 owners and decided to make Portal 2 the better version on the PS3.

I think you lost your credibility when you said Mass Effect 2, Metro 2033, and Alan Wake are graphically equal to KILLZONE 2,UNCHARTED 2 & GOD OF WAR 3. If you intend to respond to me, please take a moment and read the reviews of several sites about the 6 games, paying particular attention to how the games are lauded for its graphics. Be prepared to be disappointed in how much reviewers love the graphics of the PS3 games' relative to the 360's.

I can't force people to accept my opinion, not if they stubbornly ignore the facts, not if they keep believing in professionals who have produced nothing on the 360 that can match the PS3's best. Nothing in 5 years.

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] multithreading is primarily run on a cpu.... you ser need to spend more time on wikipedia

edit: btw, the cells job is primarily fixing what the rsx can't do to keep up with the xenos

ai is branch intensive and not something you'd see on FP calucations which is the SPU's job

physics/animations/particle effects all benefit from parrallel processing, so a graphics card is suitable for those calculations. In fact thats why nvidia has Physx built in, to give it much more complex physics system.

You obviously don't know the basic fundamentals of computers and programming. Graphics card is has nothing to do with parallel processing, it just a specialized board that has dedicated processor for rendering graphics . You don't need a GPU to write multi threaded application, you can do almmost everything on CPU, including drawing pixels on a screen. Back in the days, we had games like star craft and diablo that didn't depend on graphics card to run :)

EDIT: if you don't understand what a parallel processor is, its a processor that is similar to a multicore CPU, it might not have seperate cores but it does array math in one cycle, a normal cpu would have to go through the array in a linear fasion doing each op on a seperate cycle. This is why they needed GPU's. CPU's couldn't handle the graphics.

[QUOTE="dragonboot"]

[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"]The link said the game will run smooter on the 360 "am i sensing another crappy framerate issue like bayonneta for the ps3 version?? If the ps3 is more powerfull it will games smooter compared to the 360. And for you "dragonboot" stop deceiving yourself thinking you're deceiving others.The ps3 is not powerful than the xbox 360 in any way since all these games listed below runs & look better on the 360 but craped on the ps3. LIST OF CRAPY GAMES ON PS3: #.1 Bioshock #.2 Lost planet #.3 F.E.A.R #.4 Assasins creed 1 & 2 #.5 COD4:MW #.6 Gta4 #.7 Ghost bursters #.8 Fallout 3 #.9 Bayonneta #.10 Read dead redemption #.11( am tired of listing because i can't list the 99% of multiplat that looks worse on the ps3) stop bringing up KILLZONE 2,UNCHARTED 2 & GOD OF WAR 3 because if you take off your fanboy googles MASS EFFECT 2,METRO 2033 & ALAN WAKE on the 360 are as good looking as those games. You can't force people to accept your opinion "dragonboot.savagetwinkie

Virtually all of the eleven games you listed received the exact same scores on most websites for both the PS3 or the 360 versions. The differences, if you read the reviews, are basically insignificant, except for maybe Bayonetta. IGN actually prefers GTA4's graphics on the PS3. You also didn't mention Dragon Age, Final Fantasy 13, or other games that are better on the PS3.

If you read my initial post in this thread, the developers would rather make the 360 version better because the 360 has a larger install base. Furthermore, most of the games you listed were all developed on the 360 as the main console. If it's the other way around, like Final Fantasy 13, the PS3 version is better. How a mulitplatform game looks depends not on the power of each console but on which console is the priority. Multiplatform developers tend to give the 360 priority because the 360 has a larger install base. However, this advantage is decreasing because the PS3's install base is now only about 4 million less. Furthermore, the PS3's install base has now reached critical mass such that even Valve has appologized to PS3 owners and decided to make Portal 2 the better version on the PS3.

I think you lost your credibility when you said Mass Effect 2, Metro 2033, and Alan Wake are graphically equal to KILLZONE 2,UNCHARTED 2 & GOD OF WAR 3. If you intend to respond to me, please take a moment and read the reviews of several sites about the 6 games, paying particular attention to how the games are lauded for its graphics. Be prepared to be disappointed in how much reviewers love the graphics of the PS3 games' relative to the 360's.

I can't force people to accept my opinion, not if they stubbornly ignore the facts, not if they keep believing in professionals who have produced nothing on the 360 that can match the PS3's best. Nothing in 5 years.

He's sure is PERSISTENT. Now if only he was a thug. :P

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="dragonboot"] Please don't demonize me by misquoting me. I said PS3 power + Blu-ray = limited 3D on Xbox 360. I am absolutely right. The 360 doesn't have enough power to compete against the PS3's best in standard games. It would appear even more underpowered for 3D games because 3D games require more processing power. Furthermore, because of Blu-ray, the PS3 can have two versions (one standard and one 3D), but the 360's DVD doesn't have enough space for both versions on the same disk.

Because the 360 is less powerful and because it uses DVD, 3D development on Xbox 360 is much less practical than on the PS3. This is the main reason why Microsoft doesn't invest in 3D games like Sony does.dragonboot

edit: i would like to mention that 360 already does something similar to that, its called local co-op which renders two screens at completely different angles...

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

Check his post history. Its obvious hes a Sony.....always writing 2 page essays for every post. Lost all credibility when he said PS3 + Blu Ray = 3D.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="dragonboot"] Please don't demonize me by misquoting me. I said PS3 power + Blu-ray = limited 3D on Xbox 360. I am absolutely right. The 360 doesn't have enough power to compete against the PS3's best in standard games. It would appear even more underpowered for 3D games because 3D games require more processing power. Furthermore, because of Blu-ray, the PS3 can have two versions (one standard and one 3D), but the 360's DVD doesn't have enough space for both versions on the same disk.

Because the 360 is less powerful and because it uses DVD, 3D development on Xbox 360 is much less practical than on the PS3. This is the main reason why Microsoft doesn't invest in 3D games like Sony does.dragonboot

edit: i would like to mention that 360 already does something similar to that, its called local co-op which renders two screens at completely different angles...

Xbox 360 has ATI/DX10's 3DC+ texture compression, large frame-buffer bandwidth and decoupled texture unit/shader unit design.

Both Xbox 360 and PS3 has different strengths and weaknesses.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="dragonboot"] Please don't demonize me by misquoting me. I said PS3 power + Blu-ray = limited 3D on Xbox 360. I am absolutely right. The 360 doesn't have enough power to compete against the PS3's best in standard games. It would appear even more underpowered for 3D games because 3D games require more processing power. Furthermore, because of Blu-ray, the PS3 can have two versions (one standard and one 3D), but the 360's DVD doesn't have enough space for both versions on the same disk.

Because the 360 is less powerful and because it uses DVD, 3D development on Xbox 360 is much less practical than on the PS3. This is the main reason why Microsoft doesn't invest in 3D games like Sony does.

dragonboot

http://www.develop-online.net/features/407/BUILD-Defered-rendering

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.

He points out there some subtle advantages in terms art process too. "Because you take all the lighting calculations out of your shaders, it makes them a lot less complicated

Comparing GeOW2 (Unreal Engine3) vs KZ2 is not like apple vs apples comparison. Like KZ2, Crysis 2 uses Deferred Rendering for Lights on PC, Xbox 360 and PS3.

CryEngine 3 SDK was released last year.

[QUOTE="dragonboot"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] apparently you don't know what your talking about, you don't need two versions, one for 3d, and the other not, its using all the same assets, except the end result will render two frames at slightly different angle for each eye

edit: i would like to mention that 360 already does something similar to that, its called local co-op which renders two screens at completely different angles...

savagetwinkie

So the 360 can do a more intensive co-op blah, blah. Yet, more than 6 years of game development, the 360 can't produce a game that equals to Killzone 2 released more than a year ago.

The PS3 is more powerful than the 360, but not powerful enough to make 3D games have the same resolution as the standard games. At the very least, people have the option to play standard games with higher resolution and 3D games with lower resolution. From impressions of PS3 3D games like Killzone 2 and Motorstorm, 3D can make the games even more immersive.

[QUOTE="dragonboot"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] apparently you don't know what your talking about, you don't need two versions, one for 3d, and the other not, its using all the same assets, except the end result will render two frames at slightly different angle for each eye

edit: i would like to mention that 360 already does something similar to that, its called local co-op which renders two screens at completely different angles...

ronvalencia

Xbox 360 has no graphics kings. Even after more than 6 years of game development. I need to see 2 full HD games on one disk. I need to see a graphics king on the 360. I don't need more mumbo jumbo technical talk.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="dragonboot"] I do know what I am talking about. The code for 3D implementation itself takes up space. More importantly, Blu-ray allows developers to have 2 different texture types ( a higher resolution for the standard game and a lower resolution for the 3D game). 3D games tend to have a lower resolution than a standard game. More textures=more space needed=bad for Xbox 360. Whatever the 360 does with respect to 3D will appear insignificant relative to what the PS3's 3D support.dragonboot

So the 360 can do a more intensive co-op blah, blah. Yet, more than 6 years of game development, the 360 can't produce a game that equals to Killzone 2 released more than a year ago.

The PS3 is more powerful than the 360, but not powerful enough to make 3D games have the same resolution as the standard games. At the very least, people have the option to play standard games with higher resolution and 3D games with lower resolution. From impressions of PS3 3D games like Killzone 2 and Motorstorm, 3D can make the games even more immersive.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="dragonboot"] I do know what I am talking about. The code for 3D implementation itself takes up space. More importantly, Blu-ray allows developers to have 2 different texture types ( a higher resolution for the standard game and a lower resolution for the 3D game). 3D games tend to have a lower resolution than a standard game. More textures=more space needed=bad for Xbox 360. Whatever the 360 does with respect to 3D will appear insignificant relative to what the PS3's 3D support.dragonboot

Xbox 360 has no graphics kings. Even after more than 6 years of game development. I need to see 2 full HD games on one disk. I need to see a graphics king on the 360. I don't need more mumbo jumbo technical talk.

So, it's artwork then, which is subjective.

You talk about "The code for 3D implementation.. etc" yet you dismissed "technical talk"?

We are four years into this generation, and besides the PS3 having four better looking games, the performance of both consoles have been practically equal. For all practical purposes, they are pretty much the same. IronBass

Only four better looking games? I don't think so.

Best looking console games according to professional reviewer's reactions:

RPG: Final Fantasy 13 (PS3 version)
Baseball: MLB: The Show
First person shooter: Killzone 2
3rd person shooter: Uncharted 2
Action Adventure: God of War 3
Platforming: Ratchet and Clank and LittleBigPlanet.
Racing: GT5(p)

More?

For all practical purposes, they are not pretty much the same. Xbox 360's hardware is too limited to produce graphics kings or to compete against the PS3 in 3D games.

Four better looking games? Best looking console games according to professional reviewer's reactions: RPG: Final Fantasy 13 (PS3 version) Baseball: MLB: The Show First person shooter: Killzone 2 3rd person shooter: Uncharted 2 Action Adventure: God of War 3 Platforming: Ratchet and Clank and LittleBigPlanet. Racing: GT5(p) More? For all practical purposes, they are not pretty much the same. Xbox 360's hardware is too limited to produce graphics kings or to compete against the PS3 in 3D games. dragonboot

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="dragonboot"] I do know what I am talking about. The code for 3D implementation itself takes up space. More importantly, Blu-ray allows developers to have 2 different texture types ( a higher resolution for the standard game and a lower resolution for the 3D game). 3D games tend to have a lower resolution than a standard game. More textures=more space needed=bad for Xbox 360. Whatever the 360 does with respect to 3D will appear insignificant relative to what the PS3's 3D support.dragonboot

Xbox 360 has no graphics kings. Even after more than 6 years of game development. I need to see 2 full HD games on one disk. I need to see a graphics king on the 360. I don't need more mumbo jumbo technical talk.

PS3 has no graphics kings i.e. that title belongs to Crysis v1.2/Crysis Warhead on the PC.

[QUOTE="dragonboot"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Xbox 360 has ATI/DX10's 3DC+ texture compression.ronvalencia

Xbox 360 has no graphics kings. Even after more than 6 years of game development. I need to see 2 full HD games on one disk. I need to see a graphics king on the 360. I don't need more mumbo jumbo technical talk.

[QUOTE="IronBass"]We are four years into this generation, and besides the PS3 having four better looking games, the performance of both consoles have been practically equal. For all practical purposes, they are pretty much the same. dragonboot

Only four better looking games? I don't think so.

Best looking console games according to professional reviewer's reactions:

RPG: Final Fantasy 13 (PS3 version)
Baseball: MLB: The Show
First person shooter: Killzone 2
3rd person shooter: Uncharted 2
Action Adventure: God of War 3
Platforming: Ratchet and Clank and LittleBigPlanet.
Racing: GT5(p)

More?

For all practical purposes, they are not pretty much the same. Xbox 360's hardware is too limited to produce graphics kings or to compete against the PS3 in 3D games.