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

Forums - Gaming - PS3 and 360 graphic's capabilities. Explain the difference to me please.

jake_the_fake1 on 01 May 2008
MikeB said:
@ LTKN

No IBM's design goal was to make the SPEs full processors being able to greatly facilitate any kind of program.

They dropped a lot of redundant and legacy stuff, which in no sense render them not being full processors. The only difficulty is redesigning legacy code efficiently, but the redesigned code will run better on any other multi-core or multi-processor CPU, the difference is that it's crucial and more benefial for the Cell, on other processors the benefit is smaller.

 on good example of SPE being full processors is Toshiba's SPURS engine, it's essentially a CELL processor but with out the PPU, just 3 SPE used to decode HD video, which Toshiba wants to put into it's HD tv.

 



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 01 May 2008
ToastyJaguar said:
Stockstar1138 said:
ToastyJaguar said:
What does upscale mean?

its when you make the pixel count being outputted match the number of pixels on the screen. Despite the fact that the native resolution and the resolution of the screen are different. They basically just multiply pixels to match the screens resolution, so there will be 2-3 pixels that are identical (thus giving no extra detail, but looking better).

 


 I'm playing my games in 1080i on the xbox 360, is that upscaled?


Probably not. If you are not playing in 1080p, you most likely have a TV that has a resolution of 1360x768. Your TV understands the 1080i (1900x1080) protocol, but in the end you don't have enough pixels to display it. So your 360 or PS3 will upscale to 1080i, and your TV will downscale it right back to 720p resolutions.

I would find out what the native resolution if your TV is, and if I am right, set your console to 720p, and see what it looks like. Often times, it looks better then 1080i.



Dno on 01 May 2008
TheBigFatJ said:
Dno said:

Buffer or whatever your saying aside, the difference is small but its there. The ps3 is stonger accoording to every dev out there. And thats pretty much it. It can hold a lot more onscreen, bigger disk space, cell and seven processers (xbox only has 3 and tops DVD9 vs blu-ray up to 50 gigs so far.)

ps3 has more high resolution games that do NOT upscale but are native 1080p. so i would guess that since xbox only has 3 native 1080p games and ps3 about 25 that ps3s frame rates are much better. Since it takes more power to run in 1080p native then 720p and then upscale.


No, that's not true.  The PS3 doesn't have "seven processors", it has a PPU and seven SPUs.  In reality, for most game engines, the SPU/SPEs are not the bottleneck, the PPU is.  That's where the Xbox has an advantage.

But you can use the SPUs to make up for the lack of as much general processing power as the Xbox has, to a large extent, and they can even do some things faster. 

ps3 has more high resolution games that do NOT upscale but are native 1080p. so i would guess that since xbox only has 3 native 1080p games and ps3 about 25 that ps3s frame rates are much better.

This part just isn't true.  You're wrong. 

The bottom line is this: while the PS3 and Xbox 360 are pathetically weak compared to even mid range modern computers, they're fairly evenly matched assuming a dev is willing to take time to rewrite parts of his engine to rely primarily on the SPEs.


Facts? links please?

Cause we all know most devs say the ps3 is stronger .... latest would be the ghost busters devs...... i want  links or facts on them being evenly matched as you are the 1st ive heard say this...



TheRealMafoo on 01 May 2008
FJ-Warez said:
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???


I would think explicitly telling each pixel what color you should be would always yield a better result then guessing. I would think the "softer" look is because of some other effect being applied. 



Dno on 01 May 2008

@ ThebigfatJ
http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20070721/4652/

Thats a link to TRUE 1080p games on ps3 and 360
Notice there are only 3 TRUE 1080p games on xbox which has been out for 2 almost 3 years and 24 on ps3 which has been out much shorter. that has a lot to do with disk space as well because holding HD content is not easy task. (microsofts 1st mistake when making the xbox)

and wether the are spu or ppu they can still be used to take some of the work off of each other. Making it easier for frame rate, water effects, less pop up, etc. Once fully learned how to work it will run much better then xbox. on xbox you dump everything on 1 cpu and hope it works. all computers are now muti-cpu or spu for no other reason then its better.



Around the Network
Dno on 01 May 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:
Dno said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
My guess is that the speed of the Cell allows for better bandwidth use of the texture memory (since the other aspects of RAM, like size and speed, are fixed). This may not be the case with the frame buffer, which had to be reduced to make room.

So the things that are slightly better are part of the texture memory, while resolution is part of the frame buffer, which is not part of the memory of the 360, and thus slightly higher on that system.

In other words, it supports my claim that the 360 actually has a better frame buffer, but that the PS3's texture memory may be better utilized.

Buffer or whatever your saying aside, the difference is small but its there. The ps3 is stonger accoording to every dev out there. And thats pretty much it. It can hold a lot more onscreen, bigger disk space, cell and seven processers (xbox only has 3 and tops DVD9 vs blu-ray up to 50 gigs so far.)

ps3 has more high resolution games that do NOT upscale but are native 1080p. so i would guess that since xbox only has 3 native 1080p games and ps3 about 25 that ps3s frame rates are much better. Since it takes more power to run in 1080p native then 720p and then upscale.


What do you mean "but"? I would have to state the difference was not there for it to be a "but". Since I stated there was a difference, you just "corrected" me with my very point. Try actually reading my posts properly before you reply.

As for the buffer part, that is what the two parts of the VRAM are referred to. The texture buffer is the actual graphics, and the frame buffer is making them visible. 


i read your post and i think its wrong.

... and you should read mine properly.

Xbox is weaker then the ps3..... i dont no how you are confused about a but..... its used to state a differnece. the difference is as ps3 and xbox 360 have almost the same power  BUT the xbox is a little weaker. it will be noticeable in the future when games like heavy Rain and Killzone come out. It will be even not noticable when gears of war two comes out and its almost the same looking (even tho it was great) as the 1st with little effects added here and there.



LordTheNightKnight on 01 May 2008
MikeB said:
@ LTKN

No IBM's design goal was to make the SPEs full processors being able to greatly facilitate any kind of program.

They dropped a lot of redundant and legacy stuff, which in no sense render them not being full processors. The only difficulty is redesigning legacy code efficiently, but the redesigned code will run better on any other multi-core or multi-processor CPU, the difference is that it's crucial and more benefial for the Cell, on other processors the benefit is smaller.

Oops. I mean full processor as in acting as a full PC CPU. No, one SPE cannot be one, since that would defeat the purpose of its design. They are powerful processors, but they are not processing cores like the Xenon. That would make the SPEs cost a lot more. The SPEs are closer to suped-up vector units, which are full processors, but just specialized at dedicated numbers cruching. This is not a knock. Vector units were used on supercomputer CPUs for years, because they allowed the most powerful numbers crunching. That is what the SPEs do. Making them as capable as a PC CPU would be not only redundant,* but also counterproductive, since that would take away processing power needed for the Cell to work.

* Yes, one SPE handles the OS, but that's all it does, and all it needs to do.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight on 01 May 2008
Dno said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Dno said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
My guess is that the speed of the Cell allows for better bandwidth use of the texture memory (since the other aspects of RAM, like size and speed, are fixed). This may not be the case with the frame buffer, which had to be reduced to make room.

So the things that are slightly better are part of the texture memory, while resolution is part of the frame buffer, which is not part of the memory of the 360, and thus slightly higher on that system.

In other words, it supports my claim that the 360 actually has a better frame buffer, but that the PS3's texture memory may be better utilized.

Buffer or whatever your saying aside, the difference is small but its there. The ps3 is stonger accoording to every dev out there. And thats pretty much it. It can hold a lot more onscreen, bigger disk space, cell and seven processers (xbox only has 3 and tops DVD9 vs blu-ray up to 50 gigs so far.)

ps3 has more high resolution games that do NOT upscale but are native 1080p. so i would guess that since xbox only has 3 native 1080p games and ps3 about 25 that ps3s frame rates are much better. Since it takes more power to run in 1080p native then 720p and then upscale.


What do you mean "but"? I would have to state the difference was not there for it to be a "but". Since I stated there was a difference, you just "corrected" me with my very point. Try actually reading my posts properly before you reply.

As for the buffer part, that is what the two parts of the VRAM are referred to. The texture buffer is the actual graphics, and the frame buffer is making them visible.


i read your post and i think it wrong.


You didn't read it properly then. If you did, you would know that storage is not about resolution. RAM and pipelines are, so blu-ray vs DVD9 has no business there. Also, you should look at what kinds of games are 1080p, on both systems. They aren't as resource intensive as 600p-720p games, so they don't prove the PS3 can do higher resolution, they just prove the PS3 got more games that didn't use the resources as much.

Finally, if you read my post properly, you would have seen I did admit there is a difference beteen the systems, so writing, "but it's there", when I DID state it's there, just shows you didn't read my post right. You clearly just skimmed through it.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

mrstickball on 01 May 2008

MikeB, you got nailed on NeoGAF for posting those stupid 400% pictures. Why are you trying to fool people here too?

And FYI, those pictures MikeB showed are from 2 totally different types of screen captures, which caused the pixelation on the 360 version.

I don't know why we haven't banned this guy yet.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

jake_the_fake1 on 01 May 2008
mrstickball said:
MikeB, you got nailed on NeoGAF for posting those stupid 400% pictures. Why are you trying to fool people here too?

And FYI, those pictures MikeB showed are from 2 totally different types of screen captures, which caused the pixelation on the 360 version.

I don't know why we haven't banned this guy yet.

 I assume MikeB grabbed those pics from the beyond3d.com forum as they had a thread about dithering and those pics where used their.