It comes down to the individual games and the resolution of one's television. 1080p isn't the standard yet for games, nor is it the standard for televisions, and that makes it a tough call. Factor in the possibility that when an 'exclusive' makes its way to another system, if enough time has passed there should definitely be a few improvements but that's in the hands of the developer and not necessarily the power of the console at work. They're both really good and I can't tell the difference. Some people say that the PS3 is sharper and that the 360 is softer, and depending on the game one could be better and more appropriate than the other. As of yet, it's too close to call and it isn't worth getting worked up about one way or the other.

The PC.

That is all.

@CrazzyMan
"Omg, we can do incredible looking graphics, if we just render few objects."
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_humanhead_home.html

@MikeB
"Omg, we can use nearly two times more triangles with static meshes!"

@Both...
Blah -.-

MikeB... come on,just let it go already... the title is called " 360 or ps3 graphics better" not Xeon vs Cell. The 360`s custom ATI chip is better than the 7800 GTX on the ps3 because it can do more complex shaders and take advantage of DirectX 10. I didn`t say 8800 GTX,but 7800 GTX,so...DirectX 9 only on ps3.

Also regardless of the cells processing power, the PS3's bandwidth holds the system back. For example even though the Ps3 can acces memory simultaneously with CPU and GPU at the same time it is significantly slower at doing so than the 360. In the time it takes PS3 CPU and GPU to acces memory once each at the same time, the 360 cpu can access twice and GPU 3 times or vice versa. Even though the 360 has to do it in turn! So thats 2 read and writes to memory for PS3 (1 cpu and 1gpu) and 5 read and writes for 360 (2 cpu and 3 gpu or vice versa) in the same time frame. The bandwidth numbers are available so you can do the math.

It's a major issue, considering that any info the CPU proccesses HAS to come from the memory first. Hence PS3 cell is limited.

One more time,just let it go... Enjoy your Sony Blue Ray player that can also play games and stop justifying your purchase,you got a great deal anyway.
In Europe,ps3 is twice more expensive than 360,and by september 7 the ps3 will be twice more expensive than 360. This Xmass will be very interesting.

Jessman said: The PC. That is all.

 

No need to make wise cracks Jess. It is PS3 V's X360 graphics comparison. If only we had a spare $2000 lying around to by top of the range gaming PC to play Crysis on maxed settings.

360 =$250 console Vs PS3 = $400 console. there is no comparison PS3 based on that is better. PS3 has blu-ray and has the best exclusives games in MGS 4, UnCharted and GT 5 Prologue that have blown the X360 games out of the water in regards to PS3 having the superior graphics.

neither, Wii has best graphics

^ Fuck.

He is back.

@ Stan85

It's PS3 vs 360, not RSX (styled to take advantage of the Cell) vs Xenos. No Playstation or Nintendo console ever had Direct X, which is a Microsoft technology and thus not relevant.

It's about comparing the specs and with that the RSX has more raw power to offer than the Xenos, the Cell can help graphics and is a lot more powerful than the Xenon. The PS3 has 2 seperate buses to graphics and system RAM increasing bandwidth, the PS3 has Blu-Ray disc and a default harddrive (which can be relied on for caching).

Look the Xenos is a great chip for its time, but if you look only at the few things it does very well you will loose sight of the big picture.



The bandwidth situation is much better on the PS3.



Because the Cell is so powerful and has an enormous internal bandwidth with 8 seperate processors, they picked relatively expensive XDR Ram which is much faster and provides far less latency than GDDR3.

eliasg said: 360! Gears of War 2!!!!

 

PS3! Killzone 2!!!!







Now where did this get us??

Dgc1808 said: eliasg said: 360! Gears of War 2!!!!   PS3! Killzone !!!! Now where did this get us??

PS3!! KZ2 + R2!!!