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.

FJ-Warez on 01 May 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
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. 


Did you read my post or are you just talking with yourself??

The softness of the image comes from "the upscale and most likely a blur filter",  this is why the image looks smoother and with better AA, is a nice trick to hide the jaggies and hide some lack of detail...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
Around the Network
MikeB 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.

Just some upset 360 kids, nothing to worry about.

Here's the more mature Beyond3D thread discussing the same pictures:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47872

IMO, you're a bad bad mod...



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

jake_the_fake1 on 01 May 2008
MikeB said:
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.

Just some upset 360 kids, nothing to worry about.

Here's the more mature Beyond3D thread discussing the same pictures:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47872

IMO, you're a bad bad mod...


 just as I thought.

beyond3d forums is a great place for good tech discussions :)



selnor on 01 May 2008

LOL. Havent we passed this yet? There is barely a difference in end product. PS3 has an ever so slight edge.



Shameless on 01 May 2008

Tech threads are so ridiculously boring and pointless. /leaves



Around the Network
ChronotriggerJM on 01 May 2008

I dunno I actually like these tech threads :P I've learned so much about the way video games works thanks to all the heated debates :) I used to think it was so simple but these guys really show me whats going on xD



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

Dno on 01 May 2008
LordTheNightKnight said:
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.


Yea dvd9 and Blu-ray have nuthin to do with Games or power......

 

More space is better for bigger games.... HD and everything esle.. i was proving why its stronger... if you dont see that then im done.



LordTheNightKnight on 01 May 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
I dunno I actually like these tech threads :P I've learned so much about the way video games works thanks to all the heated debates :) I used to think it was so simple but these guys really show me whats going on xD

It's really not. Even without designing games, I know that every piece of detail means room is left out for other details. It's simple math. You want double the chracters in a scene? Well you can't have the texture resolution be so high. And vice versa. 



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:
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.


Yea dvd9 and Blu-ray have nuthin to do with Games or power......

 

More space is better for bigger games.... HD and everything esle.. i was proving why its stronger... if you dont see that then im done.


I didn't claim the had nothing to do with it. It's just that the importance of storage size is not as pronounces as it was in past gens.

Plus my discussion was about texturing versus screen resolution. The disc size can only help with texture so much, since those textures still have to fit into the RAM. More space would just mean fewer textures are reused, but they would have to wait until different parts of the game to show that off.

As for screen resolution, 3D graphics are rendered, not stored (aside from textures), so it doesn't need blu-ray to run in HD. The RAM and the GPU pipelines are more important for that. The PS3 is pretty good in that regard.

Listen, I am not claiming the PS3 is weak. I'm just pointing out that the PSe may not have the best resolution, but that would allow for better actual graphics anyway. 



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

ChronotriggerJM on 01 May 2008

@LTNK no I know that :P I'm just saying I really had no clue how all the ram/rom/pipelines/etc etc affected game production, I'm really glad you guys helped shed some light on all that :P I might have to check out Beyond3d sometime, this stuff really is pretty interesting ^_^



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.