Groups

    Graphics for Ps3 and Xbox 360...which is better ?..

    Or is there any difference within the 2?

    20 Comments

    Xbox360 Ftw

    not really much in it to be honest. some games better on ps3, some better on xbox360. flip of the coin to it. plus it also depend on the connection and tv your using.

    Graphics - no massive difference between PS3 and 360
    (I have been told that Resident Evil 5 looks a lot better on 360 than PS3 by someone who works in the industry and has played both)

    360 - better selection of games
    360 - better exclusive titles
    360 - xbox live is superb (worth every penny of £35 per year)

    PS3 has little big planet
    PS3`s internet service is free for a reason

    I have both consoles and all the main games for both. I hardly ever play any of my ps3 games. LBP hooked me for a couple of days until gears of war2 came out. My main use of the PS3 is to watch Blu Rays.

    I could not give you one reason to choose a PS3 over a 360

    Generally, titles available on both will look better on which ever console was used as the lead design. This is usually the 360 but some studios have begun to move to the PS3. Differences are usually un-noticable anyway

    Most reviews give the xbox 360 the edge graphics wise, The problem the PS3 has got is something to do with the gpu architecture. It's harder to develop games for it, Hence why games are generally released on PS3 after they've been released on xbox 360.

    The Sega Saturn had the same problem, The PS3 has loads of potential power and could match or even better the xbox 360 but the developers need to work out how to get the best out of it.

    Your just get fanboys spouting in this thread.

    Graphically, there is not much difference, one game may have better AA on the 360 but better lighting on the PS3 etc.

    Like said above, the PS3 has the potential, and now devs are starting to use it as the lead developing console due to finally getting to grips to it.

    Without getting all 'fanboy', the 360 has a better GPU than the 360, has a UMA (unified memory architecture) meaning it can use a large proportion of the 512MB for GPU processes and is far easier to develop for.

    The PS3 only has 256MB dedicated to the GPU - whilst the CPU can help with GPU processes, it makes it a much harder task to do so hence why a lot of 3rd party games are developed on the 360 and then ported over to the PS3.

    There are some fundamental architectual problems with the PS3 meaning it'll never achieve anything like the 2 Teraflop figure quoted by Sony, but it'll definitely improve from where it is right now.

    too much stigma about graphics these days, they are good enough to see whats going on. We need to see a drag back in better gameplay first rather than spending 80% of the the development time creating a 'new space age' gfx engine for every game, license somone elses and spend the time making a wicked game with well designed and thought out levels, Half-Life 1 modded Quake 2 engine sweet level design. Half-Life 2 spent too much time developing a gfx engine and missed out creating a story-line and a game that actually lasted.

    IMO - I blame the credit crunch anywho

    I have got both consoles and can give you a honest opinion.

    If you have a 1080p TV then the graphics are better in the XBOX 360. Otherwise I think there is no difference.

    I give you an example I hope you know a bit about computer games so you understand what I am talking about.

    Pretty much every single game in the XBOX 360 is 720p, 1080i and 1080p, but the same game for the PS3 is normally 720p and if you are lucky 1080i, but there are not many 1080p.

    When I bought Beijing 2008 for the PS3 it looks awfull at 1080p because the game is only 720p, the lines and the colours where not quite right. In computer terms is like having the option of Antialias turned off or at 2x.
    The problem is that the PS3 or the TV had to upscaled the game to 1080p and to be honest is not doing a good job, had similar problems with other games. The only PS3 game that I got which is not 1080p that did not have this problem is Metal Gear Solid 4 which looks amazing at 1080p. But Metal Gear Solid 4 is like a diferent league and if you want that game well you have no other choice than to get a PS3.

    I am very fussy with graphics so I just took the Beijing game back and swapped it for the XBOX 360 version and it looks superb and smooth. Like having Antialias at 8x or more. and even the colours were much better at 1080p.

    I hope this gives you an idea, as I said I got both and loved having both but I used my XBOX 360 85% of the time and the PS3 and the PC the other 15%. And normally when I buy a game I would probably get it for the XBOX 360 most of the time.

    I own a 360 but have seen and played some of GTA IV on both consoles, you can compare screenshots here :

    ]http//ww…htm

    I find the way the PS 3 handles graphics is different than the 360 in lighting, it has a blur about it in motion, this gives it a cinematic feel in GTA IV whereas the extra sharpness in the 360 version gives it a more "clinical" feel.

    I actually think that the blur/smearing at least in that title works better when you see the game moving rather than static screen shots shown in the link above, it adds an element of realism against the 360s sharp clinical look.

    Overall for games though I prefer the wealth of titles the 360 offers, and the only game really I am envious of PS3 owners is Little Big Planet, compare that to the wealth of titles the PS3 doesn't have, I feel I made the right choice (right now blu ray doesn't interest me enough....purely looking at a gaming perspective, 360 offers it all)

    I think as actual machine, the PS3 obviously has a bit more power and a few more bell's 'n whistles - it was released a l-o-n-g time after the 360 though!

    As an actual games console the difference inbetween the two in negligable, afterall most titles are released across both formats, so it's in Microsoft and Sony's interests to be somewhere near parity as it makes getting games out alot quicker and easier..... imo.

    At this moment there's no difference, but the 360 is the better 'games' console.

    Banned

    not much in it at the moment as games are being held back graphically wise on the PS3 by the 360 which is inferior. Give it a while and the PS3 will come out on top by a mile (once developers have got around the difficult learning curve for the ps3 architecture).

    Ahh this has been discussed so many times before. At the moment I don't think anyone will see much difference between the two, PS3 however has much greater potential.

    Xb0xGuru;3503334

    Without getting all 'fanboy', the 360 has a better GPU than the 360, has … Without getting all 'fanboy', the 360 has a better GPU than the 360, has a UMA (unified memory architecture) meaning it can use a large proportion of the 512MB for GPU processes and is far easier to develop for.The PS3 only has 256MB dedicated to the GPU - whilst the CPU can help with GPU processes, it makes it a much harder task to do so hence why a lot of 3rd party games are developed on the 360 and then ported over to the PS3.There are some fundamental architectual problems with the PS3 meaning it'll never achieve anything like the 2 Teraflop figure quoted by Sony, but it'll definitely improve from where it is right now.



    I think you'll find that the PS3 actually has the superior GPU. Unless you can explain how exactly is a 550MHz NVIDIA RSX GPU with dedicated 256Mb GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 650MHz and the ability to steal a further 192Mb of the super fast main memory is worse than an an ATI Xenos duel core chip running at 500MHz which has to share the 512MB of main memory with the rest of the system? The PS3 can take a total of 448Mb RAM for graphics whereas theoretically the 360 could steal the whole 512Mb, but this is impossible unless you're running a tech demo as the system needs it for many many other things while running a game. In the real world and I'd expect at most the same 448Mb max for graphics as a sensible realistic value taking into account that it will need to be used for other things.

    The 360 has a max theoretical floating point perfomance of 240 gigaflops, the PS3 2 teraflops (tera being an order of magnitude larger than giga, and floating point performance being very important for graphics). The vast majority of this floating point performance potential comes from the GPU in both cases. The PS3 can throw out up to 750 million polygons a second, the 360 up to 500 million. The PS3 can manage 100^9 shader operations a second, the 360 48^9 shader operations a second. etc. etc.

    On paper the PS3 blows the 360 out of the water. The 360 is much easier to develop for though, and that's the main problem. That's why in the real world at the moment there is very little difference between the two graphically. The PS3 is a highly parallel system and game developers just aren't used to working with parallel architectures. Once that clicks, then the PS3 will show what it's really capable of.

    The other problem with the PS3 is that because the 360 is so much easier to develop for it's being tended to be used as the "main" platform for cross platform games. As such the PS3 is being constrained by what the 360 can do. It's much much quicker to do a simple port, changing only what is necessary to get it running, than to rewrite an entire game for a different platform. The very fact that the PS3 is so different to the 360 is both it's biggest advantage and it's achilles heal.

    I think you're seeing the absolute best the 360 can do now, as the pop-up issues, glitches etc. in the current crop of games indicate. Whereas the PS3 hasn't peaked yet....

    Oh and just in case I get accused of fanboyism: I own a 360 but not a PS3.....:whistling:. I find the current crop of games on 360 much more to my taste. FFXIII would've been the big pull on PS3 for me, but now that's coming out on 360 then I currently see no reason for it being worth my while to buy a PS3.

    Original Poster

    wow, thanks folks...

    Banned

    megalomaniac;3503749

    Ahh this has been discussed so many times before. At the moment I don't … Ahh this has been discussed so many times before. At the moment I don't think anyone will see much difference between the two, PS3 however has much greater potential.I think you'll find that the PS3 actually has the superior GPU. Unless you can explain how exactly is a 550MHz NVIDIA RSX GPU with dedicated 256Mb GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 650MHz and the ability to steal a further 192Mb of the super fast main memory is worse than an an ATI Xenos duel core chip running at 500MHz which has to share the 512MB of main memory with the rest of the system? The PS3 can take a total of 448Mb RAM for graphics whereas theoretically the 360 could steal the whole 512Mb, but this is impossible unless you're running a tech demo as the system needs it for many many other things while running a game. In the real world and I'd expect at most the same 448Mb max for graphics as a sensible realistic value taking into account that it will need to be used for other things.The 360 has a max theoretical floating point perfomance of 240 gigaflops, the PS3 2 teraflops (tera being an order of magnitude larger than giga, and floating point performance being very important for graphics). The vast majority of this floating point performance potential comes from the GPU in both cases. The PS3 can throw out up to 750 million polygons a second, the 360 up to 500 million. The PS3 can manage 100^9 shader operations a second, the 360 48^9 shader operations a second. etc. etc.On paper the PS3 blows the 360 out of the water. The 360 is much easier to develop for though, and that's the main problem. That's why in the real world at the moment there is very little difference between the two graphically. The PS3 is a highly parallel system and game developers just aren't used to working with parallel architectures. Once that clicks, then the PS3 will show what it's really capable of.The other problem with the PS3 is that because the 360 is so much easier to develop for it's being tended to be used as the "main" platform for cross platform games. As such the PS3 is being constrained by what the 360 can do. It's much much quicker to do a simple port, changing only what is necessary to get it running, than to rewrite an entire game for a different platform. The very fact that the PS3 is so different to the 360 is both it's biggest advantage and it's achilles heal.I think you're seeing the absolute best the 360 can do now, as the pop-up issues, glitches etc. in the current crop of games indicate. Whereas the PS3 hasn't peaked yet....Oh and just in case I get accused of fanboyism: I own a 360 but not a PS3.....:whistling:. I find the current crop of games on 360 much more to my taste. FFXIII would've been the big pull on PS3 for me, but now that's coming out on 360 then I currently see no reason for it being worth my while to buy a PS3.


    Great explanation :thumbsup:

    At the moment almost exactly the same but the PS3 would be able to add that little extra polish if they made the effort as can be seen in LittleBigPlanet.

    megalomaniac;3503749

    Ahh this has been discussed so many times before. At the moment I don't … Ahh this has been discussed so many times before. At the moment I don't think anyone will see much difference between the two, PS3 however has much greater potential.I think you'll find that the PS3 actually has the superior GPU. Unless you can explain how exactly is a 550MHz NVIDIA RSX GPU with dedicated 256Mb GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 650MHz and the ability to steal a further 192Mb of the super fast main memory is worse than an an ATI Xenos duel core chip running at 500MHz which has to share the 512MB of main memory with the rest of the system? The PS3 can take a total of 448Mb RAM for graphics whereas theoretically the 360 could steal the whole 512Mb, but this is impossible unless you're running a tech demo as the system needs it for many many other things while running a game. In the real world and I'd expect at most the same 448Mb max for graphics as a sensible realistic value taking into account that it will need to be used for other things.The 360 has a max theoretical floating point perfomance of 240 gigaflops, the PS3 2 teraflops (tera being an order of magnitude larger than giga, and floating point performance being very important for graphics). The vast majority of this floating point performance potential comes from the GPU in both cases. The PS3 can throw out up to 750 million polygons a second, the 360 up to 500 million. The PS3 can manage 100^9 shader operations a second, the 360 48^9 shader operations a second. etc. etc.On paper the PS3 blows the 360 out of the water. The 360 is much easier to develop for though, and that's the main problem. That's why in the real world at the moment there is very little difference between the two graphically. The PS3 is a highly parallel system and game developers just aren't used to working with parallel architectures. Once that clicks, then the PS3 will show what it's really capable of.The other problem with the PS3 is that because the 360 is so much easier to develop for it's being tended to be used as the "main" platform for cross platform games. As such the PS3 is being constrained by what the 360 can do. It's much much quicker to do a simple port, changing only what is necessary to get it running, than to rewrite an entire game for a different platform. The very fact that the PS3 is so different to the 360 is both it's biggest advantage and it's achilles heal.I think you're seeing the absolute best the 360 can do now, as the pop-up issues, glitches etc. in the current crop of games indicate. Whereas the PS3 hasn't peaked yet....Oh and just in case I get accused of fanboyism: I own a 360 but not a PS3.....:whistling:. I find the current crop of games on 360 much more to my taste. FFXIII would've been the big pull on PS3 for me, but now that's coming out on 360 then I currently see no reason for it being worth my while to buy a PS3.



    I was just gonna say that.
    Apart from the Final Fantasy bit as I find those games a bit boring.

    lol, must.....have....game....with....best...graphics.....

    Graphics are great at the moment, we've reached a plateau, gameplay people, gameplay.

    Banned

    I suppose if it's just a games machine you want, then the 360 is your man.

    I'm another one who is lucky enough to own both PS3 and 360.

    At the moment, my PS3 is on ALL the time. I use it for watching blu-rays and downloaded TV shows (I get them off UKNova, pop them on a memory card and watch them on the PS3), listening to music and of course playing LBP.

    Yes, the games library on 360 is much bigger and there's a huge online gaming community.

    And as other people have said, it's not really about graphics any more (you'd honestly not notice the difference between the two machines graphics wise unless you were very a-nal!)

    Original Poster

    Just a bit delayed...but thanks all
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. How dangerous is Donald trump?2297
      2. Any PS4 News Here29213614
      3. Sad news about Barcelona2399
      4. What do you feel like whinging about today?1917257

      See more discussions