360 vs. PS3 Graphics Comparison

[Rahul]

U ask me , 360 looks slightly better , but i guess its just because the PS3 is reportedly very very hard to code over.

But still who knows 360 may be more powerful, i guess well know in 2 years that which console is better , till then ill stick to my 360

[Meshuggah]

  sundayx said:

Skewed screens IMO, all the shots on the PS3 is brighter, not just the graphics, the text, everything, like intentionally brightening the screen. Plus the blurring on the PS3, intentional, even the text is blurred, come on, that ain't a good comparison!

  SacrificialSoldier said:

Agreed. Bad comparison. Dose not even look professional.

  Quote

We took all our screenshots at 720p using component video cables. The Xbox 360's component output has more color saturation than the PS3's. Users can adjust TV display settings to account for the color differences, but we did not modify the color levels in the images because we wanted to preserve the original output as much as possible.

:rolleyes:

[TDQuiksilver]

Oy... regarding coloring. Has anybody on Neowin besides me even ran with the RGB full option on the PS3? My does it bring out the colors. Very nice addition in the latest firmware. But I guess that's not the topic at hand. As stated, the differences are minimal at best. There are other games that should be compared, not just port jobs. :rolleyes:

[Pheee]

The screens look quite close, but reading the text, the PS3 has more frame rates issues. So its not only graphics, but performance they were talking about.

[Kerm]

  acies said:

look pretty much the same.

Yep.

[Emn1ty]

  Nightz said:

it's true that the 360 is easier to develop for, but you're making it seem like the ps3's hardware will go untapped for the rest of this console generation. developers will figure out how to use the ps3's hardware, and libraries and middleware will be developed that will lead to better looking ps3 games and an easier porting process, whether it be from 360 to ps3 or vice versa. it will get easier to develop for the ps3 in time, as it did for the ps2. it may not necessarily lead to better looking ps3 multiplatform games, but you can't guarantee that the 360 will always look better. we will start seeing multiplatform games that look much more similar on the ps3 and 360 than we do now though.

The PS3 hardware will, inevitably, go untapped forever. There are 2 out of 8 cores on the system that cannot be utilized by any game, no matter what. The PS3 is a monster of a machine, with out of proportion specs (decent GPU, 8 core proc, only 256MB of ram...). Its probably very annoying.

About the ports... what else can we compare? We need to compare the same game to see visual differences. That is the BEST way to compare. Comparing two games of different developers and styles gets us nowhere.

Now, the reason why the PS3 fails is this... 1080p is NOT standard, nor will it ever be standard for televisions. It can be READ and CONVERTED by most TV's, but not displayed. 1080p is only noticeable or needed on TV's bigger than 55". So, why make a console 1080p native, why make any game 1080p native? There is no reason nor market for it, its just a number that fools consumer's. Most TV's will display in 720p or 1080i, not 1080p. That is the standard. So stop boasting this 1080p crap when it doesn't mean a thing visually. The colors are what matter.

[Boz]

  Pandemonium said:

The PS3 hardware will, inevitably, go untapped forever. There are 2 out of 8 cores on the system that cannot be utilized by any game, no matter what. The PS3 is a monster of a machine, with out of proportion specs (decent GPU, 8 core proc, only 256MB of ram...). Its probably very annoying.

About the ports... what else can we compare? We need to compare the same game to see visual differences. That is the BEST way to compare. Comparing two games of different developers and styles gets us nowhere.

Now, the reason why the PS3 fails is this... 1080p is NOT standard, nor will it ever be standard for televisions. It can be READ and CONVERTED by most TV's, but not displayed. 1080p is only noticeable or needed on TV's bigger than 55". So, why make a console 1080p native, why make any game 1080p native? There is no reason nor market for it, its just a number that fools consumer's. Most TV's will display in 720p or 1080i, not 1080p. That is the standard. So stop boasting this 1080p crap when it doesn't mean a thing visually. The colors are what matter.

not only what you said, but 1080p resolution on consoles cannot provide smooth 60fps. Sony will try to sell it to you, but we all know that's just not gonna happen. They can separate physics and assets on several cores, yes, but the graphics processors in these consoles are just simply unable to process 1920x1080 in 60fps. Btw, you do need 60fps constant framerate for smooth experience, because anything below that will feel like stuttering when there's a bunch of details in the scene. What the developers can do is seriously cut back on graphic details if they try to push the game at 1080p, but this is not the point right? This is why, all games that are coming out right now are mostly 720p, it's their sweet spot, where games look stunning and the speed is optimal. This is where it will stay, possibly 1080i, but they'll seriously have to cut back on details if they push that too.

So 1080p, what for? Blu-Ray movies of course, which again proves that Sony's statements how they didn't include BD player to force format are BS, they did it EXACTLY because of that. Also, as you said it, 1080p benefit is only visible on TVs 55" and above. There's simply no point and will not be relevant for at least several years.

[Gavin001]

There both so so similar the only differences in must of the games is the colour is alot more 'vibrant' on the 360 also in MLB the ps3 add's 10 pounds to all the characters :p

[Elliott]

:/ Framerate issues, washed out color, more jaggies, and less AF on PS3. Ouch.

[Windam]

Why would Ken design the PS3 in such a debacle if what the above is true?

[Spookie]

  TDQuiksilver said:

There are other games that should be compared, not just port jobs. :rolleyes:

How do you compare games which aren't on both platforms then? :/

Oh right then it wouldn't be a comparision! :D

[Gavin001]

  Elliott said:

:/ Framerate issues, washed out color, more jaggies, and less AF on PS3. Ouch.

Play Warhawk and try to say that :)

[Emn1ty]

Despite the fact Warhawk was delayed how many times?

[Keito]

It really really looks like they weren't using the Full RGB version on the PS3 side, which makes the colours more vivid and saturated, that really annoys me.

Next to that, I think that the ports and the fact that most are made for 360 first does have an effect. Like someone said before me, coding for the 360 is easier, so they'll do that and port it later because they'll have a framework to work upon then. Makes perfect sense to me, but doesn't make for equal/better graphics on the PS3.

Oh well, they just should've used Full RGB and then it'd be harder to tell colourwise.

[Ji@nBing]

Those of you saying the graphics look worse just because it's ported from the 360, take a look at IGN's early impressions of Virtua Fighter 5 on the 360, ported from the PS3:

  Quote

While Virtua Fighter 5 is a port of the PS3 version, refinements have been made to pretty things up. The aliasing issues, which were quite noticeable in the PS3 version, are gone from the 360 build. There's no shimmer, no ugly jagged lines -- Virtua Fighter 5 on 360 is beautiful. There are a lot of nice, subtle effects that add a nice touch to the environments, such as early-morning fog rolling across the arena. The backdrops are clean and colorful and the game runs smooth as a thoroughbred.

I'll?let?you?draw?your?own?conclusions...?

[Nightz]

^that's because it came out later and the developers had time to touch it up and make it look prettier. same goes for oblivion on the ps3. can't really draw much from that other than the fact that having more time to work on a game will lead to better graphics.

[Ji@nBing]

  Nightz said:

^that's because it came out later and the developers had time to touch it up and make it look prettier. same goes for oblivion on the ps3. can't really draw much from that other than the fact that having more time to work on a game will lead to better graphics.

If that's the case, why do some games such as Fight Night Round 3 and many others still look worse on the PS3? Even games that were on the 360 a year or so before they came out on the PS3.

[Rahul]

Actually as i have said earlier , PS3 is gonna be a success the day we start using computers with the Cell Processor , as long as we use native processors & the 360 utilizes a similar technology , they will always be easier to code foras more is known about this kind of processor.

so IMHO 360 wins at least for some time.

[nexx]

It's not just a more familiar architecture. The Xbox 360 has a better GPU and far superior development tools, and it was all available a year earlier and in greater numbers.

[Emn1ty]

  Rahul said:

Actually as i have said earlier , PS3 is gonna be a success the day we start using computers with the Cell Processor , as long as we use native processors & the 360 utilizes a similar technology , they will always be easier to code foras more is known about this kind of processor.

so IMHO 360 wins at least for some time.

The PS3 is too much too soon. Octocores aren't even going to be available except on Mac Pro's first, and even then the PC industry doesn't determine the Console industry numbers. The PS3 is already in a rut, and it doesn't seem to be getting any ground either.

[SonComet]

  Rahul said:

Actually as i have said earlier , PS3 is gonna be a success the day we start using computers with the Cell Processor , as long as we use native processors & the 360 utilizes a similar technology , they will always be easier to code foras more is known about this kind of processor.

so IMHO 360 wins at least for some time.

The cell as it is in the PS3 is a horrible general usage computer processor. Same goes for the 360 CPU. So while we're going to get more cores in computers as time goes on they won't be like these processors.

[MiG-]

On the point of the PS3 being harder to develop for, nobody can actually prove this... unless they are a PS3 dev. I mean tbh, the only obstacle i can see is the issue of managing different threads on the PS3, and trying to use all the power of the flaming thing.

For a start, most dev's hardly know how to code for 2 CPU's, never mind 3+. There is obviously things to consider such as SDK's and what not, but at the end of the day, if all the functions are defined, and a good overview is given of how to do a few different things, then whats the problem ? Most dev's these days what things laid on a fricken plate where they just type HDR(object); and it creates HDR. Meh, i can imagine the PS3 having alot of unused power.

Same as fricken PC's tbh, look at the amount of power, and how well its utilised. Does make your head spin tbh.

[Ironman273]

  MiG- said:

On the point of the PS3 being harder to develop for, nobody can actually prove this... unless they are a PS3 dev. I mean tbh, the only obstacle i can see is the issue of managing different threads on the PS3, and trying to use all the power of the flaming thing.

For a start, most dev's hardly know how to code for 2 CPU's, never mind 3+. There is obviously things to consider such as SDK's and what not, but at the end of the day, if all the functions are defined, and a good overview is given of how to do a few different things, then whats the problem ? Most dev's these days what things laid on a fricken plate where they just type HDR(object); and it creates HDR. Meh, i can imagine the PS3 having alot of unused power.

Same as fricken PC's tbh, look at the amount of power, and how well its utilised. Does make your head spin tbh.

And that's why we take developer's opinions on this matter. Many developers have come out to say how difficult it is to code for it. I don't know what sort of further proof you'd require.

[MiG-]

  Ironman273 said:

And that's why we take developer's opinions on this matter. Many developers have come out to say how difficult it is to code for it. I don't know what sort of further proof you'd require.

Source code for both consoles, doing a complex process.. such as generating a Map for HDR, rendering models, or managing threads.

Thats proof.

[Emn1ty]

It isn't that it is difficult to begin with, its how easy the console makes it MiG. The 360 has powerful and easy to use dev software for Arcade and hard core game development. Microsoft put in alot of compatibility and user friendliness on the 360 on both players and developers.

The PS3 is rather different, and doesn't make it easy at all. Most likely with a complex dev software and unfriendly issues with development that need to be worked around. Especially having to work with the mismatched hardware.