360 vs. PS3 Graphics Comparison

[Ji@nBing]

IGN's word on R6 Vegas:

  Quote

One area that Rainbow Six: Vegas on the PlayStation 3 does fall a little short on when compared to the other versions is with regards to visuals. It's a nice looking game to be sure, but the whole thing doesn't look quite as sharp as it could. Colors are a little duller and there isn't as much use of certain effects, like bloom lighting and such. Some folks may appreciate that aspect to a certain degree, but beyond that it still doesn't look quite as nice as what we've seen previously. Some texture work isn't quite as sharp, and the characters aren't as detailed as what's found in the 360 release, especially in the faces. Weapons that have been dropped pop in and out of view as you approach and walk away when they're but a mere 50 feet or so away.

360 the winner again, even in games released on the PS3 long after they are on the 360.

[Boz]

MiG, let me just explain what is happening now as I have a lot of friends that are actual developers for EA, Activision and THQ. The development of the games on the PS3 development kit is much more disorganized and complex to use. They have to jump through the hoops to get certain things done as opposed to XBox 360 version. They all say that's not really the major problem. The major problem is the disparity in hardware and PS3s lack of GPU power. They have to kill many things they have on 360 versions in order to do a proper port. I know they are not lying as I see reviews and comparisons for many games that are ports X360->PS3 and they lack a lot of things visually.

Also, another huge problem is that Sony is not flexible at all as far as licensing issues. A lot of smaller developers are not super hyped about joining the PS3 camp because they have to pay HUGE licensing fees for the Core/PS3 Development Kit. Sony is trying to recoupe for the lost money on consoles and this is definitely affecting developers to invest any more time or money into porting PS3 titles. They've already spent a lot just getting the dev kit, and Sony is very shut down and uncooperative as long as you are not giving them money. So it's really amazing to see statements from Sony how developers need to be more creative. How about they lower the prices and stimulate the developers instead of just trying to rip them off. This is PS3's biggest ENEMY right now.

The bottom line is, PS3 will lose the quality battle. They can hype the Cells power, but the fact will be, if it's not an exclusive PS3 game title, the port a gamer publisher will do will most likely be half assed. For example, FEAR game is a DISGRACE. On X360 is acceptable, on PS3 is down poor. This goes for Spiderman 3 title I think too. This is what I'm talking about. The developers will first try to utilize everything on X360 and make the game fully compatible for that, and then they will try the port somehow to PS3. That somehow will most likely lead to poorer visuals and performance on PS3.

For example, look at Tiger Woods '07 on Wii. Same deal, the game was developed for X360 first, then ported to Wii and it looks very grainy and edges are all blocky. The Wii is capable of antialiasing and the look should be MUCH better, but the fact that the game is ported makes the game what it is on Wii.

This is reality. For publishers, it's not about personal preference, it's about what console gives them easier developement, shorter dev cycles and eventually more money to leave in their pockets. The only reason they are even bothering is the actual tangible customers that have PS3 in their homes. Otherwise they wouldn't even bother.

[Gavin001]

The latest comparsion is the Darkness and there pretty much identical IMO!

[Julius Caro]

IMO, the only real comparison that could be made is when a game is being developed "independently" for both systems (so that one is not a port of the other). Otherwise, there system that will have the advantage will be the one the game was originally developed for. Now, if they perform additional work on the port for the ps3 (like they did with oblivion) then.. it's gonna look better on the ps3! So the question is still unanswered because the ps3 had additional graphic features the 360 didn't have.

One thing is which console has the best graphics now, and which has the power to deliver the best graphics. And if it CAN deliver the best graphics, I don't doubt that one day there'll be a game developed to take advantage of that.

[sn00pie]

The PS3 has far more power then the Xbox 360, that's clear. But the question is will that power ever really be used?

I think we have to wait until titles like Gran Turismo 5 come out to see the real power in the PS3. I agree with everything Boz said, it's obvious that there are less small developers for the PS3 then there are for say the 360. Afterall, it's there business, there in it to make money.

However, I think that will all change as the price of the PS3 comes down. More small developers will show up and the PS3 will begin to become popular.

The key price point for Sony to sell the PS3 should and could be about $400-500 CAD.

Edit: After reading the GameSpot article, I think these game/console better graphics, you know what I mean.

Xbox 360 - Armored Core 4, Def Jam Icon, NBA Street Homecourt, Virtua Tennis 3, MLB 2K7

PS3 - Oblivion

Result: I'm surprised at how most of the 360 games look better. Being the Sony fanboy that I used to be. :p

Edited July 1, 2007 by Game

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

  Game said:

The PS3 has far more power then the Xbox 360, that's clear. But the question is will that power ever really be used?

I think we have to wait until titles like Gran Turismo 5 come out to see the real power in the PS3. I agree with everything Boz said, it's obvious that there are less small developers for the PS3 then there are for say the 360. Afterall, it's there business, there in it to make money.

However, I think that will all change as the price of the PS3 comes down. More small developers will show up and the PS3 will begin to become popular.

The key price point for Sony to sell the PS3 should and could be about $400-500 CAD.

Edit: After reading the GameSpot article, I think these game/console better graphics, you know what I mean.

Xbox 360 - Armored Core 4, Def Jam Icon, NBA Street Homecourt, Virtua Tennis 3, MLB 2K7

PS3 - Oblivion

Result: I'm surprised at how most of the 360 games look better. Being the Sony fanboy that I used to be. :p

Funny though, if it's "more powerful" it should perform better and have better quality. Clearly that isn't the case. But that's just my opinion....

[planetik]

Apparently the next Madden and NCAA games will display 60fps for the 360 and 30fps for the PS3.

http://www.ripten.com/?p=332

However, I agree with the fact that the PS3 does have more processing power - Sony needs to get off their lazy asses and start making some decent documentation for the console if what developers are telling us is the truth.

[mluu510]

hehe, i knew i was right. the x360 is just better than the ps3 even though it's has less power. it's all about code optimization people. the ps3 is just too complex with its 16 cpu.

[SnowRanger13]

  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.

Yes my TV is only 720p and I have no use for 1080p, I'll even agree 1080p has little to no use in gaming at this time but to say 1080p will never be the standard? I'll bet by 2009 a large % of 50"+ size TVs being sold will be 1080p. Also when the next generation of consoles come out (yes x360 and PS3 are current now) I'm sure 1080p will be used in many games if not supported by all.

Your a bit wrong about PS3s hardware as well... Cell isn't exaclty 8 cores but thats to long to get into, and it doesn't just have 256MB of memory, it has 512MB (256MB for the CPU and 256 for the GPU)

[ClintEastman]

  cloudstrife13 said:

Your a bit wrong about PS3s hardware as well... Cell isn't exaclty 8 cores but thats to long to get into, and it doesn't just have 256MB of memory, it has 512MB (256MB for the CPU and 256 for the GPU)

Your right, the Cell is nothing like 8 cores, it's a general purpose CPU controlling 8 vector engines. Great at allot of things, most of them having nothing to do with gaming!

The main reason 360 games are looking better is because it has a more powerful, feature rich GPU. On the PS3 the cell can be used to off-load some of the graphics work, thing is that it's not straight forward so developers aren?t bothering.

[Emn1ty]

Ah... now I know why that "8 Core CPU" never seemed to be all that special. GPU RAM is not included in a RAM count. It is for the GPU to do general purpose rendering. So you can't say that a system has 512MB or RAM because the GPU has 256 onboard RAM. If you said that... the 360 would have near 1GB of RAM. Either way, the 360 has more RAM than the PS3, making it far more flexible.