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

well there both more or less the same.

its just with bluray and cell, ps3 is able if managed well to acheive more on screen than 360.

this opinion was viewed by dice with the game mirrors edge, and the developers of ghost busters the game.

imo certain games on ps3 like uncharted, gt5p and mgs4 are better than anything on 360, although that doesnt mean 360 hasnt got good graphics, it has, its just that if both are pushed in graphics dept, ps3 wins



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Around the Network
leo-j said:
Fishie said:I am a lot more knoledgeable and sane then you are thats for sure.

Dont tell me you are stupid enough to believe the firmware(which isnt even stored on the HDD to begin with)/OS are 5 gigs large?

 

It is for on the fly installation of files to circumvent the shitty speed of the BD drive.

 

Its already been said that the only reason why the HDD has 5 gigs of data stored onto the system is for firmware.

The ps3 does not use any of this so called "fly installation" if this were true there wouldnt be any install needed for games since it has 5GB to manage with.

 

 

 

 So all those developers I talk with are big fat liars?



olibou21 said:

Just to deal with the technical point of view for a minute :

To those who say "GPU wise, XBox360 has an (little) edge, but CPU-wise the PS3 has the (magical) Cell", may i just say the following :  i can play Crysis on high / very high settings with an Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 with both an Athlon 3500 and a C2D E6750. Difference on FPS between these 2 CPU ? 1-2 FPS !

So could we stop with this Cell thing, please ?

Those who who claim that the Cell can be a "GPU-bis" have really no clue what the are talking about ...

On the graphical pipeline, there are 3 main pipeline :

- Pixel Shaders : main power consummers. The Cell is 1000 miles to have the "power" to be really userfull on the subject. Let's say that Xenon and RSX are on par on the subject (RSX has the raw power edge but Xenon is more "versatile") .

- vertex shaders : on modern GPU there are far less vertex shaders parallel units than from first category. This is far less hungry on resources, so the Cell can successfully be an assistant on those. The fact is RSX has workload problems the Xenon has not ! The assistance the Cell can provide on those (as shown in game like HS and in a few time KZ2) is simply used to provide pixel efffects that can be made on Xenon alone ...

- filters (AA, AF and so on): i have less clues about them but all elements point to equivallence between these 2 GPU.

 

epic failure, you cant compare your pc cpu to the cell. The cell is very different and can emulate graphics alot better than quad and dual core.

 

gta5p, mgs4, uncharted all looks better than gears of war and if i am not mistaken that is the best looking 360 yet.



Uncharted does cache about 2 gigs of data to the hard drive. It occurs during the cutscenes. This is actually the best way to do it because it does not inconvenience the player with an install and you get the increased performance by streaming from the hard drive. If the 360 had a hard drive, developers would pre-cache to it as well. I believe that is one of the complaints you will hear about developing for the 360.

@NJ5 - fixed.



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Emulate graphics? Geez, the thread is going down to the crapper again (thankfully I'm probably done with the discussion).



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
Fishie said:

I am a lot more knoledgeable and sane then you are thats for sure.

Dont tell me you are stupid enough to believe the firmware(which isnt even stored on the HDD to begin with)/OS are 5 gigs large?

 

It is for on the fly installation of files to circumvent the shitty speed of the BD drive.


For corroboration, PS3 firmware versions are between 95-130Mb in size. Mentioning Gb is just silly.

Installation is also used to negate the slow seek time of the BD drive.



Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see what is so dramatically different between:

High Resolution: http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/735/735731/gears-of-war-20060927115541718.jpg

and:

High Resolution: http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/875/875766/metal-gear-solid-4-guns-of-the-patriots--20080521004525284.jpg

Each game has its own elements which it is doing better, potentially because they're taking advantage of the special features of the system as well as the limitations of the game.



NJ5 said:
Emulate graphics? Geez, the thread is going down to the crapper again (thankfully I'm probably done with the discussion).

 

or ray tracing if you prefer.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zKqZKXwop5E

 



WoW, this thread like all the others fails, because as already stated, we have yet to see the full potential of either system. It's like those old 1080i vs 720p threads, lol. Lets make comparisons at the end of 2009, early 2010, shall we. Starting this right now is like me saying back in 2007 that the Original Gears proves the 360 had better graphic than PS3 because the only game at the time to compare it to was RFOM. Please, just give it some time, everyone, you are going to beat yourselves to death over this one.



masterb8tr said:
olibou21 said:

Just to deal with the technical point of view for a minute :

To those who say "GPU wise, XBox360 has an (little) edge, but CPU-wise the PS3 has the (magical) Cell", may i just say the following :  i can play Crysis on high / very high settings with an Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 with both an Athlon 3500 and a C2D E6750. Difference on FPS between these 2 CPU ? 1-2 FPS !

So could we stop with this Cell thing, please ?

Those who who claim that the Cell can be a "GPU-bis" have really no clue what the are talking about ...

On the graphical pipeline, there are 3 main pipeline :

- Pixel Shaders : main power consummers. The Cell is 1000 miles to have the "power" to be really userfull on the subject. Let's say that Xenon and RSX are on par on the subject (RSX has the raw power edge but Xenon is more "versatile") .

- vertex shaders : on modern GPU there are far less vertex shaders parallel units than from first category. This is far less hungry on resources, so the Cell can successfully be an assistant on those. The fact is RSX has workload problems the Xenon has not ! The assistance the Cell can provide on those (as shown in game like HS and in a few time KZ2) is simply used to provide pixel efffects that can be made on Xenon alone ...

- filters (AA, AF and so on): i have less clues about them but all elements point to equivallence between these 2 GPU.

 

epic failure, you cant compare your pc cpu to the cell. The cell is very different and can emulate graphics alot better than quad and dual core.

 

gta5p, mgs4, uncharted all looks better than gears of war and if i am not mistaken that is the best looking 360 yet.

emulate graphics !?

Have you got the slightest idea how a 3D space is rendered on screen ? I sugest you search some informations on Internet and learn 2 monthes just to have the basics ...

You have no basics on 3D.