Username2324 said: TheRealMafoo said: Ok, so this is not another GTA4 thread, but I am going to use that game as an example. It's purely a hardware discussion. On the 360, GTA4 has 80 lines of resolution more then the PS3. All things equal, more resolution = better visuals. But the 360 version actually looks worse. Why is that? For that to be the case, the PS3 has to be better in other areas to compensate for the loss of resolution. What are those area's? Are they lighting, pixel shading, AA, frame buffer? I hear the 360 has a more powerful GPU, so where is the issue coming from? I know pop up is from disk speed, but I am not talking about pop up. Does anyone have a white-paper then can direct me to on this, or a clear explanation? GTA4 really isnt the game to be using as an example. It is actually very surprising the PS3 version looks better considering it was ported from the 360, simply put the PS3 is more powerful, and if GTA4 had led on the PS3 it would probably look quite a bit better. In answer to your original question, both have different methods of rendering lightning and physics, the PS3 simply outclasses the 360.

Care to offer proof of that? 

@FJ-Warez
In reference to your upscaling comment, the 360 does not upscale. It's native 720. I think native always look better then the best upscaling (I would think anyway), so while that might be true, it probably has no relevance in this case.

@LordTheNightKnight
In reference to better unitizing texture memory, what does that buy you? Do you mean the quality of the textures used on the PS3 is higher then the 360? I could see that being the case, and if so, it would explain the difference (and make since being the 360 loads off DVD). Although, I have not heard this to be the case. Have you?

@Rock_on_2008
You say they look the same. Even if they do look the same, that still means the PS3 is doing something better to make up for the lack of resolution.

I am still not sure what it is! :)

The difference is so tiny its just pathetic.

I don't really care about the potential of the hardware, but in terms of games 360 multiplatform used to look better than PS3 multiplatform games in most areas. Burnout and GTA 4 are close to identical.

The issue is that what you get depends not just on the console, but the code.
And its here were it gets messy as of course you have code written just for the PS3 (Uncharted or R&C say) and code written just for 360 (with maybe a wee glance at the PC) like GoW and Mass Effect. Then you get code (allegedly) written for both using custom developed tools (normally on a PC) like DMC4.

Then you get code written for the 360 and ported...

The upshot is that of course not only will the code be of varying quality anyway, but that by the nature of the two consoles to get the best from both you need code really tuned to each (either via exclusives or efforts like COD4 and DMC4).

In this case (GTA) I'd say that if you squint and read between the comments from Rockstar (I'm ignoring all others as not being valid) then the following where the challenges they faced during development of the game:

1) PS3 architecture (and lack of familiarity with thereof)

2) 360 lack of HDD

As a result it seems the had 360 code ready earliest but it took the longest to optimize and they had to focus purely on streaming approaches.

The PS3 code came later and they were able to use HDD.

The result, from what I can see, is that they decided to drop resolution slightly on PS3 and increase post-processing effects and lighting. The result, coupled with the HDD, is a 'slightly' better looking game on PS3.

If you compare the actual specs of the two machines I'd say that graphicaly they should be able (in ideal circumstances - i.e. good well written and optimized code for each) be able to produce very similar results.

If the PS3 has a real advantage its more in the field of processing code (say AI or physics) as it has more raw processing horsepower available - but again, to see that in use someone's going to have to code for it. And with multi-platform games the trend is to get them the same not have one blow the other out the water (You can be sure EA didn't want to produce crap ports for PS3 initially for example).

What difference there is will only, I believe, truly be seen in exclusive titles that optimize every line for that console. The GoW2 is sure to become a benchmark for 360, while the next Uncharted, and GT5 are sure to show PS3 in a very good light also.

I always like reading your posts Reasonable, you should post more often.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Reasonable said: The issue is that what you get depends not just on the console, but the code.

I have a good example from the past that might help.

About ten years ago,  a group introduced a "games system" called NUON that was definitely more powerful than the current standard, the Playstation1.  They also touted an easy development environment, C-code programming compatibility, etc.  This all sounded great, but what came out through the cracks afterwards was that how the PS1 handled colour was very different from how the NUON did, and straight code porting left the NUON dramatically slower.

Natively implemented design and programming is always better where possible. 

I saw GTA4 at my freinds house on 60 inch sony lcd tv on a ps3 and I have it at my house on a 58 inch HP plasma on 360.

There isn't any difference between the games. There is a tiny bit less pop up in the ps3 version which I assume is because of the hard drive.

I don't see any of this extra resolution/frame buffer-AA bs you people talk about...and if anyone does see the difference and is claiming one version is better than the other because of that...it may be time to re-evaluate your life.

First of all, the storage has nothing to do with it. When I wrote "memory", I meant RAM, not ROM. This is about what can fit in the RAM at one time. Since both have about 512MB, they can only fit so much.

As for the PS3, the Cell is fast, I've seen a video where it did real time ray tracing, as in actually calculating how all of the light would travel in a scene, which even CGI-dedicated PCs can barely do. Now this video it was at 15fps, and it was just illuminating a scene used in late 1970s CGI, but the point is that even that far is absolutely incredible.

However, the PS3 still has just 512MB to work with (one of the reasons that scene was limited). Now the speed of the Cell can't change the size of the RAM. It can't change the speed (either clock or latency), yet it can change the bandwidth, since unlike the other fixed factors, the specs listed for those are theoretical maximums.

So by optimizing the bandwidth, the Cell can partly get around the limited RAM size. As for why it works better with the texture buffer than the frame buffer, it's likely due to both the nature of frame buffers and the fact that they are just as dependent on pipelines on the GPU, which the speed of the Cell cannot effect (all the pipeline numbers are fixed).

So the PS3 can likely have better texture memory, while the 360 can likely have better frame memory.

TheRealMafoo said: @FJ-Warez In reference to your upscaling comment, the 360 does not upscale. It's native 720. I think native always look better then the best upscaling (I would think anyway), so while that might be true, it probably has no relevance in this case.

 Yeap, 360 does not uptscale, but the PS3 upscales and the final output ends up looking better, even with the AA in the 360 the PS3 version is more smooth, like I posted before the most reasonable explanation to this is the use of a real good upscale technique...(probably they are using a small amout of blur...)... If not, why most of the reviews are pointing to the softness of the PS3 version???