PS3 and 360 graphic's capabilities. Explain the difference to me please.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Dno said:

LordTheNightKnight said:
My guess is that the speed of the Cell allows for better bandwidth use of the texture memory (since the other aspects of RAM, like size and speed, are fixed). This may not be the case with the frame buffer, which had to be reduced to make room.

So the things that are slightly better are part of the texture memory, while resolution is part of the frame buffer, which is not part of the memory of the 360, and thus slightly higher on that system.

In other words, it supports my claim that the 360 actually has a better frame buffer, but that the PS3's texture memory may be better utilized.

Buffer or whatever your saying aside, the difference is small but its there. The ps3 is stonger accoording to every dev out there. And thats pretty much it. It can hold a lot more onscreen, bigger disk space, cell and seven processers (xbox only has 3 and tops DVD9 vs blu-ray up to 50 gigs so far.)

ps3 has more high resolution games that do NOT upscale but are native 1080p. so i would guess that since xbox only has 3 native 1080p games and ps3 about 25 that ps3s frame rates are much better. Since it takes more power to run in 1080p native then 720p and then upscale.

What do you mean "but"? I would have to state the difference was not there for it to be a "but". Since I stated there was a difference, you just "corrected" me with my very point. Try actually reading my posts properly before you reply.

As for the buffer part, that is what the two parts of the VRAM are referred to. The texture buffer is the actual graphics, and the frame buffer is making them visible.