| zeldaring said: Even when games that started being developed for ps3 as lead platform most 360 ports were on par. 360 was the much better in real world performance which is running games I don't see how this is debatable. Even the most talented developers in the world had to make red dead and gta4 lower resolution on ps3, then they made gtav lead for ps3 and it was on par just shows how 360 was that much better in real world performance,.I can do everything you can do with out problems but you can't. |
I think you will find Rockstar and it's game engine to heavily favor Xbox in that era.
It's undeniable at this point of how capable Cell actually was, it was just notoriously hard to build games for.
The Playstation 3's weak point was the DRAM setup and it's GPU, many effects on the Xbox 360 which was done on the GPU, was done on the Cell.
Case in point... The Xbox 360 got essentially free MSAA.
The Cell on the other hand ended up with a post-process effect where the CPU would "detect" edges in a scene and blur them together... So not only was the Xbox 360's AA superior in terms of visual quality, it also had a smaller impact to the hardwares resources and developers could focus on improving games in other areas.
Another example was the hardware Tessellator on the Xbox 360, games could use Tessellation (I.E. Halo 3's water effects) in hardware using N-Patches... But on the Playstation 3, it was done on the Cell, ironically this was a graphics effect that wouldn't become standard until the 8th gen consoles, but the games that did use it, provided some interesting results. (I.E. Frostbite powered games, Halo etc'.)
It wasn't until Naughty Dog started to leverage the SPE's in their entirety that we started to see the Playstation 3 flex it's hardware muscles.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
