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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 smoothing beyond that of high-end PC graphics card

Garnett on 16 January 2010
leo-j said:
marc said:
Yes yes... Go play some high end PC games then come back and tell me that your console can handle as many objects, and effect on high settings as a $400 PC.

Never compare a console to the PC. You will get splattered & left to rot under a bus. My Radeon 3850 makes Fallout 3 look like its playing on a XB720 or PS4 and that card is 2 generations old and I have at least 8 mods running that quadruple the number of enemies in game. Last I checked the PS3 had trouble maintaining 30fps in vanilla Fallout 3 at about medium PC settings.

Fallout 3 is one of the worst looking games this gen on consoles..

 

Play killzone 2 and then come back and say the ps3 can't handle good graphics.

Fallout 3 looks bad on PS3? Sure

 

On 360 its gorgeous.

 

 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Around the Network
XxXProphecyXxX on 16 January 2010
Garnett said:
leo-j said:
marc said:
Yes yes... Go play some high end PC games then come back and tell me that your console can handle as many objects, and effect on high settings as a $400 PC.

Never compare a console to the PC. You will get splattered & left to rot under a bus. My Radeon 3850 makes Fallout 3 look like its playing on a XB720 or PS4 and that card is 2 generations old and I have at least 8 mods running that quadruple the number of enemies in game. Last I checked the PS3 had trouble maintaining 30fps in vanilla Fallout 3 at about medium PC settings.

Fallout 3 is one of the worst looking games this gen on consoles..

 

Play killzone 2 and then come back and say the ps3 can't handle good graphics.

Fallout 3 looks bad on PS3? Sure

 

On 360 its gorgeous.

 

 

Yeh cause Im sure the difference are so HUGE that the ps3 version looks like a ps1 game compared to 360, funny thing is when games like U2,KZ2,heavy rain,GT5 which ppl can see that is a graphically advanced comapred to multiplat and 360 games ppl are so quick on the "but it's not that huge of a difference" but then the same ppl makes big deal out of mini differences from most multiplats "ZOMG no AA on ps3 version or you can see batmans cape its not black on 360 ZOMG 360 is better", is this really how sad you ppl are?



Garnett on 16 January 2010
XxXProphecyXxX said:
Garnett said:
leo-j said:
marc said:
Yes yes... Go play some high end PC games then come back and tell me that your console can handle as many objects, and effect on high settings as a $400 PC.

Never compare a console to the PC. You will get splattered & left to rot under a bus. My Radeon 3850 makes Fallout 3 look like its playing on a XB720 or PS4 and that card is 2 generations old and I have at least 8 mods running that quadruple the number of enemies in game. Last I checked the PS3 had trouble maintaining 30fps in vanilla Fallout 3 at about medium PC settings.

Fallout 3 is one of the worst looking games this gen on consoles..

 

Play killzone 2 and then come back and say the ps3 can't handle good graphics.

Fallout 3 looks bad on PS3? Sure

 

On 360 its gorgeous.

 

 

Yeh cause Im sure the difference are so HUGE that the ps3 version looks like a ps1 game compared to 360, funny thing is when games like U2,KZ2,heavy rain,GT5 which ppl can see that is a graphically advanced comapred to multiplat and 360 games ppl are so quick on the "but it's not that huge of a difference" but then the same ppl makes big deal out of mini differences from most multiplats "ZOMG no AA on ps3 version or you can see batmans cape its not black on 360 ZOMG 360 is better", is this really how sad you ppl are?

1.UC2 graphics are NOT that good, the only good thing i can say about them is the lighting thats it. 

2.Heavy Rain has GTA graphics. (on high on PC, there still improving so i cant really say yet)

3.Fallout3 does look better on 360, it has better textures and what not.

4.GoW3 AND KZ2 are easly the power house graphic kings on PS3. 

Thats for you. 

 

now Marc

 

1.PC is NOT hard to dev for like PS3 is.

2.When the Fallout3 devs made it they had to work with the PS3/360 and PC. Which means the one that is hardest to dev for gets the least results.

 



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

XxXProphecyXxX on 16 January 2010
Garnett said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:
Garnett said:
leo-j said:
marc said:
Yes yes... Go play some high end PC games then come back and tell me that your console can handle as many objects, and effect on high settings as a $400 PC.

Never compare a console to the PC. You will get splattered & left to rot under a bus. My Radeon 3850 makes Fallout 3 look like its playing on a XB720 or PS4 and that card is 2 generations old and I have at least 8 mods running that quadruple the number of enemies in game. Last I checked the PS3 had trouble maintaining 30fps in vanilla Fallout 3 at about medium PC settings.

Fallout 3 is one of the worst looking games this gen on consoles..

 

Play killzone 2 and then come back and say the ps3 can't handle good graphics.

Fallout 3 looks bad on PS3? Sure

 

On 360 its gorgeous.

 

 

Yeh cause Im sure the difference are so HUGE that the ps3 version looks like a ps1 game compared to 360, funny thing is when games like U2,KZ2,heavy rain,GT5 which ppl can see that is a graphically advanced comapred to multiplat and 360 games ppl are so quick on the "but it's not that huge of a difference" but then the same ppl makes big deal out of mini differences from most multiplats "ZOMG no AA on ps3 version or you can see batmans cape its not black on 360 ZOMG 360 is better", is this really how sad you ppl are?

1.UC2 graphics are NOT that good, the only good thing i can say about them is the lighting thats it. 

2.Heavy Rain has GTA graphics. (on high on PC, there still improving so i cant really say yet)

3.Fallout3 does look better on 360, it has better textures and what not.

4.GoW3 AND KZ2 are easly the power house graphic kings on PS3. 

Thats for you. 

 

now Marc

 

1.PC is NOT hard to dev for like PS3 is.

2.When the Fallout3 devs made it they had to work with the PS3/360 and PC. Which means the one that is hardest to dev for gets the least results.

 

Uhh ok im done here im not even going to continue cause most of the things you said is opinions.

U2 graphics not that good?....wow even after all the best graphics award....=.=

Heavy rain has GTA graphics? wtf.....makes no sense...=.=

Fallout 3 looks better on 360? so the difference are not as big as your implying if so then you must also think Dragon age on ps3 looks vastly supirior than 360 with the same .5 score difference? =.=



arsenicazure on 16 January 2010
richardhutnik said:
almcchesney said:
hey richardhutnik pulling a multiplat is like grabbing a game on windows 95 and trying to play it on windows xp and complaining its inferior because of bugs due to compatibility issues, if a multiplat where to be re-written for both consoles and "optimized" i have no doubts which one would take the cake, and OP thats a good article not too much new though, recently i did a research paper for my college course over the cell broadband architecture and since 2007 all the articles said that it would be faster and more efficient than any processor out there, (its actually being utilized in the worlds second fastest computer in the world). but the thing is getting the talent to utilize it.

So, this means that if a game is on the PC also, then the PC version would look the same as console versions?

Anyhow, we are talking about anti-aliasing here.  If there is some technique that will somehow make the PS3 anti-aliasing look better than the 360, it should be used.  But, developers haven't, because these techniques haven't gotten out.  There is no excuse to say, "Well all games developed across platforms look the same" because the PC versions usually look superior.   The only thing you can use to accurately measure how normal game development works, is to go multi-platform.  It is in the practical environment of this that you see what game libraries are like.

So, what I am saying is that it isn't a simple "slam dunk" to say the PS3 is clearly superior by a wide margin than the 360 (aka a "beast") if the games aren't showing it, and the information isn't getting out.  And yes, the PS3 and Cell do have awesome tricks in them.  But they need to get utilized to matter.  So, it is good to end up writing about such, such as here.

This



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

Around the Network
gamings_best on 16 January 2010

 

almcchesney said:
hey richardhutnik pulling a multiplat is like grabbing a game on windows 95 and trying to play it on windows xp and complaining its inferior because of bugs due to compatibility issues, if a multiplat where to be re-written for both consoles and "optimized" i have no doubts which one would take the cake, and OP thats a good article not too much new though, recently i did a research paper for my college course over the cell broadband architecture and since 2007 all the articles said that it would be faster and more efficient than any processor out there, (its actually being utilized in the worlds second fastest computer in the world). but the thing is getting the talent to utilize it.

 

 

I could go on but I think they get the point. I love how xbox fanboys talk about graphics as if exclusives don't exist. Yes the ps3 is a monster, and these games are the tip of the ice burg. Show me 1 multiplat look that good............

the ps3 is extremely difficult for average developers to develope for, and for Microsoft sake, it better stay that way

 

 



FKNetwork on 16 January 2010

*tag



phxprovost on 16 January 2010

I demand sony themselves to release the white papers for the cell and the RSX, until then im declaring shenanigans on the numbers they are throwing around. Considering last time i checked the ps3's cell is rated at ~200GFLOPS SP..which i dont believe because IMB's monster of a Cell is pushing around the same numbers. That means that the nvidia's ~5 year old chip has to pick up the slack at 1.8TFlOPS............which is 1000000% impossible considering fermi is just going to touch that number. I call BS. No im not a fan boy talking about stuff i dont know, im simply showing you the math dosnt add up.



arsenicazure on 16 January 2010

If GFLOPS were the only indication of better graphics- the PS2 would look miles ahead of the XBOX.



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

Killergran on 16 January 2010
gamings_best said:

*lots of pictures*

snip - Show me 1 multiplat look that good............



This is invisible text!