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

Forums - Gaming - 360 & PS3 Graphical Differences Explained. Interesting Read!

Well written, if a little redundant, as it didn't actually provide any new information.



Around the Network

It was too long to read, but am I right in assuming that the right Drake is on the PS3 and the left one is on the 360?



explained things well enough. Certainly easy to understand just wish he'd gone into more detail about the differences between the GPU's and CPUs.
Made it sound like the 360 CPU is an off the shelf and not custum made for the 360 and gaming same with the GPU.



easily laid out, nothing new for the most part,

one thing that i dont get is why devs dont take the time to use the SPU's in the cell, that would provide better AA and allow for more vertex calculations, also along with the XDR ram having a clock speed of i think its 3.2 GHz things would look so much better,

for the 360 i think they should do what they did with computer games in the old days, ship games with 2-3 discs, install discs and play discs, install discs for the uncompressed textures and audio and the play disc with the actual game and pointers to the resources created with the install disc



Wasn't it Sony's original intention was to use the Cell for both CPU and GPU? After the less than stellar performance, it decided to add the RSX? The other thing I recalled that kinda made news was that the Cell SPU to cache bandwidth was terribly slow and that they recommended using the main memory instead?



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
Lord Flashheart said:
explained things well enough. Certainly easy to understand just wish he'd gone into more detail about the differences between the GPU's and CPUs.
Made it sound like the 360 CPU is an off the shelf and not custum made for the 360 and gaming same with the GPU.

It does seem like it needs a continuation, but I glad it was civil. Too many of these comparisons end up revealing the author's bias at some point.

Yeah.

No "this one is better" at the end of it. That's why I would have liked him to go into more detail and the history of the CPU's etc.



Does that means Uncharted 2, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Killzone 2 are not possible on 360?



@hduser, no its wary more efficient to use the SPU's, thats what Naughty Dog did with the visuals of U2 with no frame tearing, but the RSX is needed to render the image with the vector calculations already at hand.

@ lord Flasheart i know what you mean i wonder on how much time was spent on the R&D on both and kinda its progression



rccsetzer said:

Does that means Uncharted 2, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Killzone 2 are not possible on 360?


If you mean on one disk with the same visual fidelity then nope.  Way to try and ruin a thread early though.

 

Regarding the OP, I do think he completely ignored any of the other strengths the 360 architecture had in his eagerness to claim the wonders of the Cell.  Still at least there was no big factual conclusion at the end based on his opinion so on the whole reasonably balanced for these articles.



almcchesney said:
@hduser, no its wary more efficient to use the SPU's, thats what Naughty Dog did with the visuals of U2 with no frame tearing, but the RSX is needed to render the image with the vector calculations already at hand.

@ lord Flasheart i know what you mean i wonder on how much time was spent on the R&D on both and kinda its progression

I guess I was referring to this article http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1007286/ps3-hardware-slow-broken

I know it's an old article but I wonder if that is still the reality as this issue is no longer mentioned recently.