360 has 48 pixel pipelines the PS3 has 24 pixel piplines its the same architecture as the 7800 gtx card or as powerful as 2 6800 cards!

still the 360 has double the pixel shaders 48 as the PS3 the newwest cared by nvidia have 90-to 110 plus shaders!

also I didnt know the cpu could do graphics it speeds up frames per second and can control ai and other movement but the graphics chip dos the actual rendering of a scene!

last but not least reagardless of the games native resolution I can turn particle effects offslighting effects off on a pc and play at a higher resolution.

the 360 will play all games at 1080p resolution on my sony sxrd I have an elite with hdmi. you set the resolution in settings

My ps3 lets the game set the native resolution usually all games on the PS3 run natively at 720p.

I dont see a difference when I play my 360 games at 480p 720p or 1080p the effects dont change IF its upconverted from a native resolution to run that way its still looks better upconverted at 1080p then 720p.

 effects in

?????? why cant the PS3 upconvertits 720p games like the 360 does!!

I do have both and I have built over 50 pc's visit www.tomshardware.com since its inception!

so if you really want the technical answers on your graphical blasts go there read a little then come back and post a rebuttal!

 

Ill admit...this thread is way over my head! : ) Im outta here!

MikeB said: HappySqurriel said: MikeB said: HappySqurriel said: For the most part, the difference between a PS2/XBox/Gamecube game and a PS3/XBox 360 game (in terms of graphics) is the advanced shader effects. In order to support the exact same shader effects at 1080p rather than 1080i/720p you need (roughly) twice the processing power in your shader hardware on your GPU. Realistically, the PS3 and XBox 360 can not support 1080p at 60fps without a noticeable downgrade in the quality of effects which are being used; being that many of the best looking games on either platform are 720p at 30fps, by moving to 1080p at 60fps the games would probably have been reduced to similar effects as the Wii currently produces (on 480p at 30fps). Yes with regard to the 360, but the PS3 is different due to its Cell processor. The Cell is very suitable for adding all kinds of effects, taking workload off the GPU and can even be used as additional pixel shaders. The 360's ideal rendering resolution is 600p with AA as this perfectly fits the EDRAM memory (highest FPS output). If you want to do HDR, AA usually need to be dropped to achieve good framerates due to tiling. The PS3 Cell/RSX approach is very different. The RSX is able to handle more shader ops per second than the Xenos, 96 (Xenos) vs 136 shader (RSX) ops per clock. In addition the Cell can do a lot of other stuff previously workload performed by graphic chips (freeing up workload for the GPU to do other stuff). Some perspectives by a Heavenly Sword coder (Heavenly Sword is a 1st generation PS3 title which uses (NAO32) HDR, 8xAF and 4x MSAA at 720p): http://pixelstoomany.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/why-gpus-are-not-so-good-at-post-processing-images/ Some additional comments from the devs behind Motorstorm: "If by cooperative rendering you're referring to SPUs supporting the RSX, I strongly believe that this approach will become far more widespread. In addition to reducing the vertex load on the RSX through the use of culling and vertex pre-processing, this approach also provides an efficient mechanism to introduce procedural geometry. Historically, CPUs have provided course grain scene culling using view frustums, occlusion planes, portal visibility and BSP-trees with GPUs left to perform fine grain rejection using guard band clipping, occlusion and backface culling. While such features improve fragment performance, they don't reduce vertex processing overhead. The leap in performance provided by Cell gives us the bandwidth to significantly reduce RSX time spent processing vertices that don't contribute to the final scene. The favoured approach is to use SPUs to generate minimal scene/instance specific index and vertex buffers from compressed data." You're an idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about (as usual) ... You can off load clipping and culling processes to the CPU in order to render less polygons and to limit the overall strain on the GPU, but when it comes down to your shaders you are limited to the shader hardware that your GPU has. Both the XBox 360 and PS3 have 48 shader pipelines with the XBox 360 having a more flexable architecture. You are wrong on all accounts, the RSX can pull off more shader ops per second. RSX + Cell crush the shader op potential compared to the Xenos. An interesting raytracing demo using exclusively SPEs for rendering graphics including MSAA, "IBM Interactive Ray-tracer (iRT) using three Sony Playstation3s (PS3) to render a model that is 75x more complex then those used in today's games. Ray-tracing is the rendering technique used by the film industry and is considered to complex for today's game systems. The code was written using IBM Cell SDK 2.0 on Linux. The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates. All images are at least 720p 4x multi-sampled, with dynamic light sources, procedurally generated atmosphere, and dynamic shadows." Sure they are using 3 PS3s for this, but PS3 games have the advantage of RSX to achieve more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8 Please don't start name calling and especially when you're wrong you only shed a bad light upon yourself. You don't grasp what can and cannot be achieved.

thats why when games are compared side by side the 360 visually with builtin hdr has better lighting efects you never here about details cause the PS3 Kicks supreme arse! No the gpus are similar the cell does have 7 spus and the 360 has 3 cpus each spu needs its own seperate code to opperate hince its a programmers nightmare! the cpu and architecture in a 360 does resemble a pc hence is easier to program for!

 

Here's the problem with the PS3 and future proof bullshit its gpu is outdated 24 pixel pipelines to 48 for the 360!

In 2-3 years the next configuration of 4 ghz cpu 4 core with an ati 256 pixel shader gpu and a blue ray dvd player the nex gen console 720 box or whatever will be backwards compatible straight out of the box! If sony and nvidia have a spat like MS did with nvidia PS4 wont have any BC with out software emulation period!

lastly most pc gamers like to upgrade so if a new "monsterfied" learned that word from GBJ the pres. LOL 360 comes out Ill be all over it. I do hope agraphics card as powerful as a 7800 gtx could graphicaly out perform the latest 8800gtx card but I doubt it!

PS I wouldnt quote sony devs. or sony on the capability of thier product they never met thier promises on the PS2 either!

 

Well,Xenos has 48 pipelines and RSX 32(24+8)but RSX pipelines work more efficiently(3.7 operations per cycle against Xenos 2).That coupled with the 50 extra megahertzs of the procesor gives RSX a slight advantge:100MSOPS for the RSX against 96 for Xenos.

1080p is 1920x1080. Most computers can't even play games smoothly at that res let alone a console. 1080p is a waste of money for console games... TV and movies is another story.

@ Daddo Splat

Your post is confusing, but I'll address this. You should notice a difference when outputting 480p or 1080p to your TV with regard to detail.

HDTVs do however have scalars, so it may not matter if the 360 upscales images or not (depending on filters or such vs the scalar chips inside your HDTV). HDTVs usually scale the 480p/720p output regardless as HD ready HDTV screens usually do not have a native 720p screen resolution.

I found a thread on another site with game resolutions.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

NJ5 said: For your information, I'm writing this post on a 24'' PC display running at 1920x1200. Regarding your rant about 16:10/16:9, it's irrelevant since I said "higher than 1080p".

Come back when you understand what "native resolution" of a monitor means.

I know there are legions of uninformed people like you, which will make stupid things as running at 1920x1200 on a 24" PC display (which can't display this resolution, as it can't pass its native one, it will downscale it), but I thought it was enough to clearly talk about "native" resolution. Guess it wasn't enough. Go educate yourself please before saying more nonsense.

FYI, my 22" CRT can accept even higher resolutions than 1920x1200, which doesn't mean it can display them. 

MikeB, if one Cell processor can so greatly improve the rendering of a scene in game while at the same time running the rest of the game's code why did Sony abandon their multiple Cell-processor per PS3 (in stead of a GPU) so early on in the PS3's design?

IIRC, Initially Sony planned on having 3 Cell processors in every PS3 as a way to give developers full flexability on how the performance of the system was allocated between core logic and graphical effects but abandoned that because an inexpensive GPU would outperform the entire system in rendering polygons with full effects. How would it be possible for a GPU (like the RSX) to outperform 3 Cell processors with what it is doing, and yet one (already taxed) Cell processor could boost performance of the RSX to nearly double?

ookaze said: NJ5 said: For your information, I'm writing this post on a 24'' PC display running at 1920x1200. Regarding your rant about 16:10/16:9, it's irrelevant since I said "higher than 1080p".   Come back when you understand what "native resolution" of a monitor means. I know there are legions of uninformed people like you, which will make stupid things as running at 1920x1200 on a 24" PC display (which can't display this resolution, as it can't pass its native one, it will downscale it), but I thought it was enough to clearly talk about "native" resolution. Guess it wasn't enough. Go educate yourself please before saying more nonsense. FYI, my 22" CRT can accept even higher resolutions than 1920x1200, which doesn't mean it can display them.

 

If you really want to look like a complete idiot, here you go:

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/V2/GetDocument.aspx?docid=0900a5a582102e0c&cc=uk&lc=en 

http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/hp-lp2465/4505-3174_7-31919307.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127277-page,1-c,monitors/article.html