Squilliam said: Rock_on_2008 said: Comparing the PS3 against the X360 is like comparing the X360 against the Wii. The more advanced console is far superior in every single way. PS3 nails X360. In the same way the X360 nails the Wii. Purely based on a graphical analysis.    Comparing a PC to a PS3 is the same comparison. Comparing an Xbox360 to the PS3 is like comparing a Japanese Vtec to a 1980s V8. Sure one has more torque but engine size isn't the best indication on who will win a drag race.

We only compare consoles it is fairer playing field. PC is not a console. Comparing a $2000+ Gaming PC with a $400-500 console is not a fair comparison. PC's can be upgraded whereas the PS3 is stuck with the same specs for its lifetime.

 

MikeB said: @ Squilliam Who cares, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune looks better than anything on the 360 running at 30 FPS as well. Looks != technical impressiveness. Do you take into account the fact that Uncharted uses a lot of the same textures whereas GTAIV uses a lot of different ones and to boot the Xbox360 game is multiplatform. GTAIV is more technically impressive than Uncharted, Uncharted is more artistically impressive. Ratched & Clank: Tools of Destruction at 60 FPS is technically more impressive than Ninja Gaiden 2. They are different styles of games. YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO COMPARE THEM. Claims of the 360 being on par with the PS3 technically are false, claims of the PS3 being well more powerful are correct. Funny that the games actually tend to indicate a slight superiority or equality in multiplatform game comparisons on the side of the Xbox360. So theres actually very little proof that the PS3 can show off more powerful graphics.

 

 

Rock_on_2008 said: Squilliam said: Rock_on_2008 said: Comparing the PS3 against the X360 is like comparing the X360 against the Wii. The more advanced console is far superior in every single way. PS3 nails X360. In the same way the X360 nails the Wii. Purely based on a graphical analysis.    Comparing a PC to a PS3 is the same comparison. Comparing an Xbox360 to the PS3 is like comparing a Japanese Vtec to a 1980s V8. Sure one has more torque but engine size isn't the best indication on who will win a drag race. We only compare consoles it is fairer playing field. PC is not a console. Comparing a $2000+ Gaming PC with a $400-500 console is not a fair comparison. PC's can be upgraded whereas the PS3 is stuck with the same specs for its lifetime.

Lets see, the PC smokes the PS3 in Folding, Rendering resolution, texture quality and frame rates. Lets make that clear from the start. In absolute terms the PS3 cannot compete with a decent $500-600 PC. Its not a $2000 gaming pc - that argument has been refuted more times that I can count.

Also in "fair terms" you have to consider that the fair market value for the components in the 40gb PS3 is about $650 if Sony and the retailer actually made a profit on selling the machine itself. If you try to refute this then I just have to compare the other aspects of the value differential, such as game cost and value of the other services. Either way $650 stands tall especially considering you yourself have used the price of Live as an argument against the Xbox360. The fact that both Sony and the retailer make up the difference from the games is NOT lost on me.

 

 

So many replies, so little time...

@MikeB

Oh, so you are saying that when they spend equal time to create a game on both systems X360 game will be better? They need more time to get the PS3 game even par with X360-version. = (takes more money, less profitable)

Let me tell you that I know how to make a program for heterogenenous platforms as well as I know how to do it on homogenous ones. Also I know what PS3 can do and what it cannot do. Hopefully you know what kind of process branch predicting is really, because I really doubt it. All I say is that you can't predict all branches on limited hardware in complex programs.

Well, you are partly true. One way they are(FLOPS), but other way they really aren't(IPS). (Well, 'you', not sure what is copy&paste and what is not.)

Lots of potential and not so much to show. Makes me wonder...

 

@NJ5

If I remember correctly one cannot use even theoretically 100% of processing power on heterogeneous platform in complex programs(It was something like 80%).

 

@MikeB

Can you use nothing but 'superior', 'unmatched' and 'powerful' when you talk about PS3? Sorry, but in games you can't get even near to 100% with CELL. :)

 

@Loud_Hot_White_Box

Lets see, are you talking about CELL or XENON? Anyway, X360 has better GPU and also AI runs much better on it because it can run two times more instructions per second, but you are right about physics and storage capacity.

 

@obieslut

So... Shall we see those reliable sources or are you keeping them by yourself and telling us only the results? And no ps3fanboy.com isn't realiable source.

 

@Rock_on_2008

You are so full of, uhm... Well, you know. Even $400 PC can beat the most powerful machine on the earth aka PS3. I wonder who is so stupid that he/she would buy a regular gaming PC for $2000.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpO4FwTpR3Q

 

@MikeB

I hope you really did read my posts and really understanded those, because I begin to doubt that you really didn't.

Squilliam said: MikeB said: @ Squilliam Who cares, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune looks better than anything on the 360 running at 30 FPS as well. Looks != technical impressiveness. Do you take into account the fact that Uncharted uses a lot of the same textures whereas GTAIV uses a lot of different ones and to boot the Xbox360 game is multiplatform. GTAIV is more technically impressive than Uncharted, Uncharted is more artistically impressive. Ratched & Clank: Tools of Destruction at 60 FPS is technically more impressive than Ninja Gaiden 2. They are different styles of games. YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO COMPARE THEM. Claims of the 360 being on par with the PS3 technically are false, claims of the PS3 being well more powerful are correct. Funny that the games actually tend to indicate a slight superiority or equality in multiplatform game comparisons on the side of the Xbox360. So theres actually very little proof that the PS3 can show off more powerful graphics.

???!! show me this superiority in one multiplatform game.

 

makingmusic476 said: NJ5 said: davygee said: Post now fixed, see a few posts above for better Uncharted pics!!!   I saw it, and my opinion is still what I said before. Great art direction with nice colorful graphics which are quite detailed. Technically, nowhere near as impressive as everyone makes it seem like (from reading PS3's fans post you'd think Uncharted was technically far above other console games). You'll see technically better games both on PS3 and 360 as the gen goes on.   Are we looking at the same games? And to compare it to your shot of NG2: Just look at the ground textures and fence in that NG shot and compare it to all the stuff on the wall in the Uncharted shot.

those two games look like they are from a diff generation lmao.

 

NG2 looks like an original XBox game.

UnCharted is far superior looking than NG2.

WOW I forgot how AMAZING Uncharted looks. I need to play it again. Naughty Dog FTW.

Oh and regarding Gears vs. MGS4: They just follow different strategies. In MGS4 the detail is astonishing. Everything is crystal clear and perfect down to the last bootlace. I am pretty sure Snake has 5 times the polygons of one of the Gears marines. On the other hand the Unreal Engine uses very complex lighting. this makes it harder to distinguish details but it looks more like a render movie.

Now NG2 looks like a Xbox game? Only someone who didn't play Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) would say that... The environments are much more complex, there's tons more happening in the screen with more (and more detailed) enemies who don't disappear when dead, blood, framerate doesn't drop to 30 fps when using Ninpo...

I think some people must have forgotten how the previous generation looked like.

In any case, I agree that Uncharted has more detail than NG2, my point was that NG2 couldn't push as much due to increased framerate and more enemy models on the screen. Another important point is that much of Uncharted's beauty is due to art direction and colourful graphics - in the age of grey/brown "realistic" graphics (such as Gears of War's or MGS4's), that explains why people think Uncharted is so awesome.

As I said - art direction, great... technically, not above other big games on either PS3 or 360.

 

NNN2004 said: Squilliam said: MikeB said: @ Squilliam Who cares, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune looks better than anything on the 360 running at 30 FPS as well. Looks != technical impressiveness. Do you take into account the fact that Uncharted uses a lot of the same textures whereas GTAIV uses a lot of different ones and to boot the Xbox360 game is multiplatform. GTAIV is more technically impressive than Uncharted, Uncharted is more artistically impressive. Ratched & Clank: Tools of Destruction at 60 FPS is technically more impressive than Ninja Gaiden 2. They are different styles of games. YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO COMPARE THEM. Claims of the 360 being on par with the PS3 technically are false, claims of the PS3 being well more powerful are correct. Funny that the games actually tend to indicate a slight superiority or equality in multiplatform game comparisons on the side of the Xbox360. So theres actually very little proof that the PS3 can show off more powerful graphics.     ???!! show me this superiority in one multiplatform game.

Army of Two = 1280x720 (no AA)
Army of Two = 1280x720 (2xAA)

Condemned 2 = 1280x720 (no AA)
Condemned 2 = 1280x720 (2xAA)

Dark Sector = 1152x640 (no AA)
Dark Sector = 1280x720 (no AA)

Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (no AA)

Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (4xAA)

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 = 1280x720
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 = 1280x720 (2xAA)

Grand Theft Auto IV = 1152x640 (no AA)
Grand Theft Auto IV = 1280x720 (2xAA)

LEGO: Indiana Jones = 1280x720 (no AA), 960x1080 (no AA)
LEGO: Indiana Jones = 1280x720 (2xAA)

Top PS3, bottom Xbox360.

Frame rates GTAIV : Test1
Old 360: 31.990fps
Old PS3: 26.460fps
New 360: 31.627fps (3.77% torn frames)
New PS3: 26.504fps

Test2
Old 360: 28.624fps
Old PS3: 23.452fps
New 360: 29.233fps (4.26% torn frames)
New PS3: 23.989fps

Test3
Old 360: 35.252fps
Old PS3: 29.041fps
New 360: 35.662fps (2.37% torn frames)
New PS3: 29.523fps

Test4
Old 360: 26.076fps
Old PS3: 26.081fps
New 360: 26.015fps (6.07% torn frames)
New PS3: 25.803fps

Test5
Old 360: 26.712fps
Old PS3: 23.781fps
New 360: 26.507fps (4.9% torn frames)
New PS3: 23.781fps

Test6
Old 360: 33.798fps
Old PS3: 28.313fps
New 360: 33.713fps (2.35% torn frames)
New PS3: 28.313fps

Grid:

Like-for-like comparisons
These tests are taken from the pre-event cut-scenes, generated by the game engine. Aside from the camera wobbling differently, everything is the same.

Test1- BMW Event Intro
360: 30fps (6.72% torn frames)
PS3: 28.226fps (39.52% torn frames)

Test2- Nissan Silvia Event Intro
360: 30fps (no torn frames)
PS3: 30fps (no torn frames)

Test3- Mustang Event Intro
360: 30fps (no torn frames)
PS3: 29.748fps (11.76% torn frames)

In-game tests
Basically the event is allowed to start, car accelerates full throttle until just before it hits scenery. Scenery is like-for-like, car AI introduces a variable here. But with two tests full of cars and AI in effect, it's a decent enough indication of performance cross-platform. Note that in Test5, there are no CPU cars as it's a drift challenge.

Test4- BMW Race Start, accelerate forwards
360: 30fps (v-locked)
PS3: 28.76fps (32.38% torn frames)

Test5- Nissan Silvia Race Start, accelerate forwards
360: 30fps (v-locked)
PS3: 30fps (18.07% torn frames)

Test6- Mustang Race, accelerate forwards
360: 30fps (v-locked)
PS3: 26.722fps (39.79% torn frames)


Methodology then. The fps detector counts the number of duplicated frames in its sample. The actual amount of screen being measured can be preset. To measure a precise fps, only one line of 1280 pixels from the centre of the screen is sampled.

To measure the amount of torn frames, the whole screen is sampled. Dupe frames from this test minus the dupe frames from the one line test are worked out as a percentage of the whole sample. This should work on any 2VBL game, like Race Driver GRID appears to be. Bear in mind that this percentage is of the entire 60fps output of the console, not of the measured frame rate.

In the case of GRID it also appears to be the case that the whole game isn't v-locked on PS3, and the more challenging intro sections on the 360 version can also tear. However, in-game 360 appears to be v-locked.

So how sensitive is the scanner? Will sampling just one line fool the scanner if the actual screen is completely static to the human eye? No, the scanner is actually so sensitive that even when the camera is static and there's no perceived movement at all, we can still detect a 30fps update. Here we are in GRID, at 0mph.