By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim PS3 vs Xbox 360 Comparison Video

lestatdark said:
dahuman said:

This game is pretty awesome looking no matter the graphics....

 

It really does look amazing, even more if you've got a PC to run it on Ultra







Just some of my personal favourite screenshots out of the dozens I've already taken, and i'm just 5 hours in the game xD.

not exactly where I was getting at, just saying it's probably a game people can enjoy no matter the graphics, but amazing is more like this and Skyrim has nothing on this lol:



Around the Network
Khuutra said:
lestatdark said:
D-Joe said:
anyone have performance problem(PC ver)of this game
sometimes the frame-rate drop to 30 in some place,whatever i set the graphics to low or ultra(i can sure i closed vsync)

Haven't suffered it yet, then again i'm barely off the initial dungeon and I'm just taking my first steps on Skyrim's main map. I'm at Ultra definition, V-Sync on and 2x AA, 16x AF, framerate between 40-45

What kinda rig you got? I can run Witcher 2 at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings (sans ubersampling) and maintain a smooth 30fps so I assumed I'd chew up Skyrim and spit it out, but I want to be sure.

You probably have a rig better than mine, since mine's a laptop  

It's running an i7 2630-QM (2.0 and 2.9 at Turbo boost), 8 GB Ram, ATI Radeon 6770M 2GB overclocked (has the same clock speeds as a 6870M, Geforce 560M GTX).
I ran The Witcher 2 at 1366x768 (maximum screen resolution) at Ultra and with Ubersampling at 30 FPS too (had to cut off the V-Sync though), so you'll bound to get much better FPS than mine. Oddly enough, Skyrim performs better on the outdoors than indoors (it's somewhat more fluid for me). 

@dahuman - Well there's not much that can touch Battlefield 3 PC Ultra settings at the moment in sheer graphical fidelity, but I find Skyrim's graphical style much more appealing than BF3's one. I'm not much into the ultra-realistic artstyle.



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

lestatdark said:
Khuutra said:
lestatdark said:
D-Joe said:
anyone have performance problem(PC ver)of this game
sometimes the frame-rate drop to 30 in some place,whatever i set the graphics to low or ultra(i can sure i closed vsync)

Haven't suffered it yet, then again i'm barely off the initial dungeon and I'm just taking my first steps on Skyrim's main map. I'm at Ultra definition, V-Sync on and 2x AA, 16x AF, framerate between 40-45

What kinda rig you got? I can run Witcher 2 at 1920x1080 with Ultra settings (sans ubersampling) and maintain a smooth 30fps so I assumed I'd chew up Skyrim and spit it out, but I want to be sure.

You probably have a rig better than mine, since mine's a laptop  

It's running an i7 2630-QM (2.0 and 2.9 at Turbo boost), 8 GB Ram, ATI Radeon 6770M 2GB overclocked (has the same clock speeds as a 6870M, Geforce 560M GTX).
I ran The Witcher 2 at 1366x768 (maximum screen resolution) at Ultra and with Ubersampling at 30 FPS too (had to cut off the V-Sync though), so you'll bound to get much better FPS than mine. Oddly enough, Skyrim performs better on the outdoors than indoors (it's somewhat more fluid for me). 

@dahuman - Well there's not much that can touch Battlefield 3 PC Ultra settings at the moment in sheer graphical fidelity, but I find Skyrim's graphical style much more appealing than BF3's one. I'm not much into the ultra-realistic artstyle.

shit if you want appealing and high graphical fidelity then I got this here for you:



dahuman said:

This game is pretty awesome looking no matter the graphics....


LOL I spit my coke all over my keyboard... DAMN, why didnt you warn us^^

.. this is SO hilarious, thanks for the laugh mate, was worth the cleaning up. ;)



I'm a Foreigner, and as such, i am grateful for everyone pointing out any mistakes in my english posted above - only this way i'll be able to improve. thank you!

I think i have the console versions to thank for this.

After I preordered Skyrim with some tip money i realized my computer was over 3 years old, and was a straight off the shelf model except a video card that was also 2 years old.

Didn't think it'd run... ended up auto setting my graphics to high quality of all things.



Around the Network
Adobo said:
at the end they are the same but mid-high end pc wins.


To me its an amazing feat.  Blue Dragon was on 3 DVD's and the game content and graphics were not anywhere near Skyrim.  This brings up many questions for me.. how much data on the DVD is compressed.. if any ?  If data is compressed.. 7 Gigs of data can easily become 11 gigs.. even by playing off the disc some data can be read and uncompressed since DVD speeds are much faster then bluray..  Many of the best selling bluray games on PS3 like GTA IV only use more space then their Xbox 360 counterpart because they include all world regions on the Disc ( IE, DVD North American version saves space because there is no french audio.. no japanese audio, or cutscenes - while bluray off balances its extra cost by shipping all regions on one disc )

There is a video here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHLuDL3DEA in which this guy says ( whether by bug or not ) that loading the game to HD results in lower quality textures.  After deleting the game from his HD and clearing the  XB 360 cache in settings he played from the disc and the video does appear to show more detail.  I can't verify this because Im not buying the game till the end of the week..

Other then that as i mentioned above the amount of game content alone makes this game a winner on any of the platforms..

The only REAL losers are homes that are solely Wii owners, which dont even have the option to play this game unless they are PC gamers as well.. but many aren't simply because ( in reality )  you either are a PC gamer or you aren't.  Those dedicated to PC gaming either have PC controllers for gaming or comfortable affinity for using the keyboard.  Lets not forget if you play this on PC you likely have a Graphics card equipped to give you the better quality.. Most avg 600 dollar PC's won't cut the mustard..



ClassicGamingWizzz said:
i learn one thing with this thread , never post this vs again :S

btw i am playing in my ps3 , the lens of thruth pics are right

it may sounds fanboyism i think you can edit the thread and put every(about 5 i think)screenshots/videos comparsion to there



Honestly, who cares which looks better? They're practically identical.



D-Joe said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
i learn one thing with this thread , never post this vs again :S

btw i am playing in my ps3 , the lens of thruth pics are right

it may sounds fanboyism i think you can edit the thread and put every(about 5 i think)screenshots/videos comparsion to there

I cant verify it for a for a few  more days, but the comparison video most people are looking at supposedly used the low resolution textures of the 360..

Also.. this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHLuDL3DEA  says even by running the game from Hard drive alone on the 360 it will show lower quality textures..

Other then that the only question in my mind is ( regardles of whether the quality is better or not )  how did they get that much content on one DVD for 360 owners when Blue Dragon which had less content and lower quality graphics came on 3 DVD's..  Is it possible they compressed data on the 360 version ?

Looking at format limitations of DVD ..There is no reason the game shouldn't look alittle better on bluray because its possible to put bigger textures on a disc with more space.  This is why BF3 has an extra disc for 360 owners.. so you can enjoy the high resolution textures ( if you care to load them... mostly meaning: if you have a 27 inch screen you might not notice much, but on a 60 inch like mine you definately will ) ...Either way Im buying this game.  The space available on DVD-  recently improved on the 360 .. Gears of War 3 was the first game to use the new XGD3 format and Epic still  only needed  to use 7.2 gigs for the longest Gears game....( they used 7.2 Gigs... but up to 7.95 gigs was possible with the new XB 360 format )... previous to this only 6.8 gigs has been available to developers... so the new format makes another GIG available.. Which is actually alot when you're already pushing the envelope..

If Bethesda can make a game a quality game of this caliber and stick it on one DVD it gives credit to the old saying that better graphics and more space alone don't equate to a better game... I think only Wii owners are gonna feel left out on this one..



rf40928 said:
D-Joe said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
i learn one thing with this thread , never post this vs again :S

btw i am playing in my ps3 , the lens of thruth pics are right

it may sounds fanboyism i think you can edit the thread and put every(about 5 i think)screenshots/videos comparsion to there

I cant verify it for a for a few  more days, but the comparison video most people are looking at supposedly used the low resolution textures of the 360..

Also.. this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHLuDL3DEA  says even by running the game from Hard drive alone on the 360 it will show lower quality textures..

Other then that the only question in my mind is ( regardles of whether the quality is better or not )  how did they get that much content on one DVD for 360 owners when Blue Dragon which had less content and lower quality graphics came on 3 DVD's..  Is it possible they compressed data on the 360 version ?

Looking at format limitations of DVD ..There is no reason the game shouldn't look alittle better on bluray because its possible to put bigger textures on a disc with more space.  This is why BF3 has an extra disc for 360 owners.. so you can enjoy the high resolution textures ( if you care to load them... mostly meaning: if you have a 27 inch screen you might not notice much, but on a 60 inch like mine you definately will ) ...Either way Im buying this game.  The space available on DVD-  recently improved on the 360 .. Gears of War 3 was the first game to use the new XGD3 format and Epic still  only needed  to use 7.2 gigs for the longest Gears game....( they used 7.2 Gigs... but up to 7.95 gigs was possible with the new XB 360 format )... previous to this only 6.8 gigs has been available to developers... so the new format makes another GIG available.. Which is actually alot when you're already pushing the envelope..

If Bethesda can make a game a quality game of this caliber and stick it on one DVD it gives credit to the old saying that better graphics and more space alone don't equate to a better game... I think only Wii owners are gonna feel left out on this one..

WAT?