RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:
Really? 3rd Parties such as Id Tech 5 & Crytek, two of the most tech driven in existence (and two of the devs that people such as yourself & RAZurrection use as references with graphics discussions), have agreed that the PS3 has more raw power, but that's besides the point. Unless you can factually prove that Sony somehow falsified their statements, you can't say what promises were broken.
One things for sure selnor, you use reviews as the template when judging graphics and right now, reviews are giving the nod to the PS3.
|
Yeah, see here's another problem, there's links and articles available which state the direct opposite, but you treat it like it's fact.
|
Let's have em.
|
John Carmack interview with Wired re: PS3
"It's not a bad console; it's certainly far better than everything else
except maybe the Xbox 360. In an ideal world PlayStation 3 will be more
powerful, but for the vast majority of the cases, you'll be able to
effectively exploit more power from the 360."
Rage preview/interview
"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off..."
Another interview
, "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."
...
..."Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there.
...
"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."
on blu-ray
"And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't.."
Crytek
Cavet Yerli on Cryengine 3
"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"
http://www.destructoid.com/how-does-cryengine-3-run-differently-on-ps3-and-360--132464.phtml
.. If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" - This after commenting that they wanted to make Crysis 2 the most shader heavy game yet.
Odds are though i'm sure you will counter these statements with your own. My question is, why do you think your links over-rule mine?
Especially when we have previews like this
Rage runs faster on 360
"You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine (CryEngine 3) appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video."
which, in apperently real-life situations paint an opposing picture.
|
