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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PS3 VS. X360 multi-plat Graphics Comparison

Squilliam on 01 July 2008
FJ-Warez said:
Squilliam said:
FJ-Warez said:
alephnull said:

@Squilliam MikeB is talking about large dense matrix multiplication with single precision floating point elements.

@FJ-Warez AA isn't magic. All the techniques boil down to blur filters.

 

I was looking for more games that use it rahter than an explanation, lol...

 

Ok not what you want but you made me look and then I realized that isn't what you want.

 

Lol again, I know whaw FSAA and MSAA are but I was looking for more games that trends to use motion blur to hide the lack of use of some form of AA, so far I can recall DMC4... Thanks...

I don't think they used motion blur to hide Aliasing, its more a low frame rate/cinematic/realistic visual reasoning AFAIK. If you're looking for games that use scaling I think there are plenty though which might be what you're looking for.

 



Tease.

Around the Network
Loud_Hot_White_Box on 01 July 2008
Fishie said:

 

Gears runs in a higher resolution then MGS4.

1. fanboys of both sides agree, that don't mean shit.

2. MGS4 looks better than GoW, period.

 



alephnull on 01 July 2008

@FJ-Warez I'm not sure they were hiding anything. They probably just thought "motion blur" made the game look "faster".



FJ-Warez on 01 July 2008
Squilliam said:
FJ-Warez said:

 

Lol again, I know whaw FSAA and MSAA are but I was looking for more games that trends to use motion blur to hide the lack of use of some form of AA, so far I can recall DMC4... Thanks...

I don't think they used motion blur to hide Aliasing, its more a low frame rate/cinematic/realistic visual reasoning AFAIK. If you're looking for games that use scaling I think there are plenty though which might be what you're looking for.

 

They made a comment about it[the devs], they try to merge two frames and add MB in order to hide the lack of AA, there is a thread about it in B3D...

 



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
HappySqurriel on 01 July 2008
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
Fishie said:
 

 

Gears runs in a higher resolution then MGS4.

1. fanboys of both sides agree, that don't mean shit.

2. MGS4 looks better than GoW, period.

 

 

Actually, when you're talking about how powerful hardware is the resolution two games are running at makes a huge difference ...

If you have one game that averages 25fps at 1024x768 and another game that averages 30fps at 1280x720, the first game is rendering 70% as many pixels as the second game so it has (roughly) 140% of the time to render each pixel (assuming identical hardware performance). In other words, small differences in resolution and frame rate can have a large impact on how a game looks.



Around the Network
Fishie on 02 July 2008
leo-j said:
Fishie said:
Dallinor said:
Fishie said:
MGS4 1024x768=786432 Pixels resolution
Gears 1280x720=921600 Pixels resolution

Gears of War runs in a higher resolution then MGS4 does.

 

 That's great and all. As I stated already though, what does it matter if one game has a higher resolution or more pixels- per-second if it still doesn't look as good?

Someone stated that MGS4 runs in a resolution far higher then Gears could ever hope for, that statement was flat out wrong so I set him straight thats all.

 

leo-j I dont appreciate it when someone who links to flv videos to prove graphical superiority and who`s only exposure to a title has been company hype and crappy net movies calls me blind for disagreeing with his oppinion on a title I have actually PLAYED.

 

You have played MGS4? Then why are you doubting the game doesnt look better than Gears of war? There is no doubt in the games visuals, unless your lying. You have played KILLZONE 2?

 

Reread my posts, nowhere did I say that Gears looks better then MGS4 does and yes I have played Killzone 2.

 



Fishie on 02 July 2008
Jordahn said:
"MGS4 1024x768=786432 Pixels resolution Gears 1280x720=921600 Pixels resolution Gears of War runs in a higher resolution then MGS4 does." It's posts like these that really show fanboyism. You just take a piece of the pie while ignoring the big picture, the overall experience.

 

 Nope, it was a reaction to a REAL fanboy post, one that said MGS4 ran in a resolution soà high Gears could only dream of it while in reality Gears does run in a higher resolution.

Just pointed that out, nothing more, nothing less.



Fishie on 02 July 2008
sieanr said:
Jordahn said:
"MGS4 1024x768=786432 Pixels resolution Gears 1280x720=921600 Pixels resolution Gears of War runs in a higher resolution then MGS4 does." It's posts like these that really show fanboyism. You just take a piece of the pie while ignoring the big picture, the overall experience.


That was in response to a guy who said MGS4 runs at a higher resolution than Gears

So once again you dont have a point

 

 QFT



Fishie on 02 July 2008
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
MrMarc said:

As games get even better looking the PS3 is really going to struggle, it's GPU just cannot keep up with the 360's and we're in a generation where that is more important that any raw CPU power.

I honestly can't believe anymore it's down to development issues rather than just simple old technology constraints. Whenever I tell people that the PS3 cannot possibly be more technically capable than the 360, this is all the evidence I need, and there's still no proof showing otherwise.

In the end it's all down to the games.

The games don't show ANYTHING conclusively other than development issues...especially since PS3 exclusives are smokin'.   In my opinion, the small difference in GPUs doesn't counterbalance the better physics and AI capabilities, mandatory hard drive, and storage capacity of PS3.  Granted, it takes some effort to bring those first two differences out.  I usually buy console exclusives, though, and that's part of it.

I remember a developer saying early on that the systems would probably be about equivalent in terms of the "looks" of their graphical output, but that PS3 would end up being able to have more stuff going on onscreen at once.  I definitely think that things will turn out just about like that.

On another note: what site was doing 4-game on 4-game head-to-head comparisons...last I checked, PS3 was winning most of them.  CoD4 PS3 got the nod over CoD4 360, for instance, in part because online gameplay is smoother over the PSN.

 

That was on Kikizo long before the PS3 released, I actually helped out with that article and it got a shitload of flak from the fanboys who refused to believe that the PS3 would do anything but totally obliterate the 360, PC`s and anything planned for the next decade.

 



TheRealMafoo on 02 July 2008
HappySqurriel said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
Fishie said:

 

Gears runs in a higher resolution then MGS4.

1. fanboys of both sides agree, that don't mean shit.

2. MGS4 looks better than GoW, period.

 

 

Actually, when you're talking about how powerful hardware is the resolution two games are running at makes a huge difference ...

If you have one game that averages 25fps at 1024x768 and another game that averages 30fps at 1280x720, the first game is rendering 70% as many pixels as the second game so it has (roughly) 140% of the time to render each pixel (assuming identical hardware performance). In other words, small differences in resolution and frame rate can have a large impact on how a game looks.

 

So if I run EchoCrome at 1900x1080 @ 60 fps, it looks better then Gears of War?