crumas2 said:
Mazty said:
Ultibankai said:
Exactly, the PS3 is slightly inferior in terms of clock speed for textures and lighting, but slightly outdoes the 360 in terms of Physics, Particle effects, and the amount of things on screen at once. Part of the reason the PS3 version of Batman: AA has a better camera angle to show more details on screen. There was a site posted earlier in this very thread that explains these things.
*Notice the word Slightly*
There is no huge gap between these consoles that certain fanboys would have people believe. They are equal in many ways, and better than each other in a few. The 360's GPU is by a fair margin better than the PS3's, but the PS3's CPU is even greater than the 360's. When everything is said and done they are about equal, but one is definitely easier to harness. The quality bar for each console depends on the developers.
|
The CPU on the PS3 is far superior to that of the 360, and pushes the graphic capabilities far past the 360 as there is very little in it GPU vs GPU,, as the Cell doesn't suck for rendering. Plus, the PS3 has a permanent HDD, which allows for texture installation, which is a great advantage of the PS3.
|
You seem to really believe this, yet multi-plat developers say otherwise. Guess who I'm going to believe.
|
Yeah my thoughts too.
@Mazty
1. There isn't just a "little" between the two GPU's it's quite a gulf, hence why the PS3 has to use a blur to achieve AA.
2. The PS3 needs the permanent HDD for texture loading as the bluray drives don't read as fast as DVD so without it you would get texture pop in. This isn't an advantage, it was a necessary requirement.
3. The Cell does suck for rendering, it's not a GPU despite what most bullshitters will tell you. Every resource spent bolstering graphics takes away from other elements which is probably why we've not seen the advantage of the Cell's extra horsepower elsewhere in games.
