By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox 360, my saviour in the current gen

GOWTLOZ on 10 April 2018
curl-6 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Your second comparison seems selectively biased against PS3, showing Kratos from afar when his character model would be less detailed while comparing it to a screenshot from right behind Fenix. Not an accurate comparison.

I did say 360 had some advantages, not sure why you needed to post these screenshots. Never did I say Cell was a miracle chip, but it was a very powerful and impressive CPU and that is undeniable.

Seems pretty fair to me; the God of War shot being pulled further back shows more of the game's impressive environments. I think they both look pretty good. Finding like-for-like shots was difficult as I used only Digital Foundry captures to ensure I avoided bullshots.

PS3 did have the more potent CPU than the 360 when properly leveraged, that is indeed undeniable. On the other hand, I think 360's own advantages allow it to hold its own visually. Having played or seen in action first hand pretty much all PS3's leading graphical showpieces, I never saw anything that looked to me like it significantly outshone Gears 3 or Halo 4.

Yes that is if you look for a generational difference in graphics. That's not possible especially because the cell CPU is still just that, a CPU not a GPU. It can't handle graphical complexity as well as an actual GPU could but it was capable of other impressive stuff. The biggest problem with the PS3 is its lack of ram which held back texture quality like you see in GOW A shot. We don't know what the Cell could do with a GPU that didn't bottleneck it and atleast 1GB memory.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 10 April 2018
GOWTLOZ said:
curl-6 said:

Seems pretty fair to me; the God of War shot being pulled further back shows more of the game's impressive environments. I think they both look pretty good. Finding like-for-like shots was difficult as I used only Digital Foundry captures to ensure I avoided bullshots.

PS3 did have the more potent CPU than the 360 when properly leveraged, that is indeed undeniable. On the other hand, I think 360's own advantages allow it to hold its own visually. Having played or seen in action first hand pretty much all PS3's leading graphical showpieces, I never saw anything that looked to me like it significantly outshone Gears 3 or Halo 4.

Yes that is if you look for a generational difference in graphics. That's not possible especially because the cell CPU is still just that, a CPU not a GPU. It can't handle graphical complexity as well as an actual GPU could but it was capable of other impressive stuff. The biggest problem with the PS3 is its lack of ram which held back texture quality like you see in GOW A shot. We don't know what the Cell could do with a GPU that didn't bottleneck it and atleast 1GB memory.

The Cell isn't that impressive though.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

GOWTLOZ on 10 April 2018
Pemalite said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Yes that is if you look for a generational difference in graphics. That's not possible especially because the cell CPU is still just that, a CPU not a GPU. It can't handle graphical complexity as well as an actual GPU could but it was capable of other impressive stuff. The biggest problem with the PS3 is its lack of ram which held back texture quality like you see in GOW A shot. We don't know what the Cell could do with a GPU that didn't bottleneck it and atleast 1GB memory.

The Cell isn't that impressive though.

It was for its time. This is 2006 we're talking.



Player2 on 10 April 2018

The 360 at home has been collecting dust for months. There's no new system at home, but I'd rather spend my time playing something great on MAME than OK-ish to good games (at best) on 360. We have 15 games for it and I wouldn't say any of them is great. And I had to buy a non-official controller because the d-pad in the 360 controller is the worst one I've used in my life, fighting games were unplayable.



0D0 on 10 April 2018

I'm still playing my PS3



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


Around the Network
Ruggarell on 10 April 2018

A PS3 with CFW will last you years.



Pemalite on 10 April 2018
GOWTLOZ said:
Pemalite said:

The Cell isn't that impressive though.

It was for its time. This is 2006 we're talking.

It was only great at single precision floating point when leveraging iterative refinement though.
Most other tasks, the performance tanked.

It wasn't that impressive even in 2006. What was is impressive was it's design philosophy.
Otherwise it was a relatively low-cost sensitive part that offered decent performance for the price... A Supercomputer on a chip it was not.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

curl-6 on 11 April 2018
GOWTLOZ said:
curl-6 said:

Seems pretty fair to me; the God of War shot being pulled further back shows more of the game's impressive environments. I think they both look pretty good. Finding like-for-like shots was difficult as I used only Digital Foundry captures to ensure I avoided bullshots.

PS3 did have the more potent CPU than the 360 when properly leveraged, that is indeed undeniable. On the other hand, I think 360's own advantages allow it to hold its own visually. Having played or seen in action first hand pretty much all PS3's leading graphical showpieces, I never saw anything that looked to me like it significantly outshone Gears 3 or Halo 4.

Yes that is if you look for a generational difference in graphics. That's not possible especially because the cell CPU is still just that, a CPU not a GPU. It can't handle graphical complexity as well as an actual GPU could but it was capable of other impressive stuff. The biggest problem with the PS3 is its lack of ram which held back texture quality like you see in GOW A shot. We don't know what the Cell could do with a GPU that didn't bottleneck it and atleast 1GB memory.

Oh I'm not expecting a generational difference, that would be unreasonable given they came out only a year apart. 

We can never know what PS3 could've done with a better GPU and 1GB of RAM cos, well, PS3 didn't have that. It was what it was. And it did pull off some amazing looking games in its day. But so did the 360.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 12 April 2018

JamesGarret on 13 April 2018

From 2006 up until the end of 2009/start of 2010, the 360 was my favorite system of the 7th gen, then the PS3 took its place when games like Uncharted 2, Demon´s Souls, God of War 3 and others started coming out.

I remember my first "now this IS next gen I´m seeing" moment was playing Oblivion after leaving the initial area, when the game gives you a beautiful view of the world...then the next jaw dropping experience was playing the first Gears.Back then it ruled the TPS scene.

Then it took the RPG crown that belonged to the PS2 and had two games I really enjoyed back then, Lost Odyssey and Tales of Vesperia, and others not so much (Blue Dragon for example), but you could tell MS was trying hard to capture the PS2 audience.

RROD aside, it was also a far easier machine for developers to program for and usually had the superior version of multiplat games compared to the PS3.

That system had passion behind it, the One feels 'soulless' in comparison.



S.T.A.G.E. on 13 April 2018
JamesGarret said:
From 2006 up until the end of 2009/start of 2010, the 360 was my favorite system of the 7th gen, then the PS3 took its place when games like Uncharted 2, Demon´s Souls, God of War 3 and others started coming out.

I remember my first "now this IS next gen I´m seeing" moment was playing Oblivion after leaving the initial area, when the game gives you a beautiful view of the world...then the next jaw dropping experience was playing the first Gears.Back then it ruled the TPS scene.

Then it took the RPG crown that belonged to the PS2 and had two games I really enjoyed back then, Lost Odyssey and Tales of Vesperia, and others not so much (Blue Dragon for example), but you could tell MS was trying hard to capture the PS2 audience.

RROD aside, it was also a far easier machine for developers to program for and usually had the superior version of multiplat games compared to the PS3.

That system had passion behind it, the One feels 'soulless' in comparison

The gameplan wasn’t much different. The only difference is Microsoft didn’t have third party exclusive clout like they did last gen when Sony stepped on their own toes. They leveled out the exclusivity disparity and made a lot of games multiplatform. While they were focused on third party Sony was ready with first party. The first party issue with Xbox has always existed. It was destined to be exposed