Love my PS3, but there's one thing I can't understand

[idealty]

Hey guys. I've been an observer of this forum for years now, but (as you can see) this is my first post. I love the community aspect of this forum and while we are all PS fans, it isn't as "fanboyish" as many others forums out there. Anyway, on with my post.

I'm thoroughly enjoying everything about my PS3 so far. However, if there is one weakness evident from the software currently available, it is the texture detail/resolution. Especially when looking at the current cross platform titles on both the PS3 and Xbox360, the current trend is for the 360 version to have better contrast, better color saturation, and sharper textures. At first, I attributed this to the "launch" titles on the PS3, but this problem is evident on almost every game I've seen from multiple developers (inclduing Sony first party games). So I've been searching for an explanation and from my current level of understanding, I'm coming up empty.

So the obvious place to look at for the source of this problem would be the memory, particularly the graphics memory. People keep saying how the PS3 memory architecture is lacking, especially compared to the Xbox360's, and I really don't see it. They both have their pluses and minuses and if anything I would expect the PS3 to have the advantage.

Similarities:

Both have a total of 512MB RAM
Both have graphics RAM running at 700MHz


Xbox360 Advantages:

Unified memory architecture means not defined limit for graphics RAM
Embedded 10MB RAM on daughter die


Xbox360 Disadvantages:

Limited graphics bandwidth to RAM pool due to "shared" bus between GPU and CPU
Possible that some games may require more system RAM, reducing the amount of graphics RAM available


PS3 Advantages:

Dedicated 256MB of graphics RAM means that the GPU will always have at least that amount to itself
Separate bus for graphics RAM means bandwifth not shared with CPU
GPU can render pixels to main RAM, giving it 512MB of accessible RAM


PS3 Disadvantages:

GPU lacks any embedded RAM



When I look at the big picture here, it's hard for me to see any significant disadvantages to either that would account for the differences we're seeing today. It's been long discussed that the 10MB of embedded RAM is not even enough to render even a full 720p frame with 4xAA, but it does help with lightening the load of some of the advanced graphical effects on the GPU. At the same time, the shared bus (I believe) is a pretty significant liability as that will result in the CPU and GPU fighting for the 22.4GB/s of memory bandwidth. Meanwhile, the PS3 GPU does have 512MB of RAM available to it and the separate buses means that there is more bandwidth available for graphics. I realize that the non-unifed architecture of the PS3 does have a negative impact on the main system RAM, but I don't see the graphics suffering too much in comparison.

So what could explain the lower graphical performance with textures, contrast, and colors? The openGL ES API vs DirectX? More time needed to understand the PS3? Or simply that the RSX is not capable of textures like those seen in games like Oblvion and GRAW on the X360? I'm purposely avoiding being overly technical here and don't pretend to be an expert on either GPUs (haven't coded for either). I would love some more insight on the matter. Thanks

[frosty]

I have to disagree. Most cross platform titles (Madden, Virtua Tennis, FNR3, Ridge Racer, I could go on and on) look much better on PS3. And the exclusive titles are few in number as of now. Resistance is the only one out there where texture resolution could even be worthy of a complaint.

[lips]

The only technical advantage I can see that xbox 360 has over ps3 is using 4x aa does not prevent itself from using 100% of its shaders and rops. Realistically, I don't see how the machine could saturate all its shaders, when ms claims nearly 100 billion shaders a second, input bandwidth would become a limitation. not to mention this provides you with nearly two thousand shader ops per pixel, its a bit redundant.

I don't see anything technically limiting ps3 from using more sophistacted textures. I would recommend giving devs few years, as only a few months provides a poor judgement of what is possible. Just using my imagination, I could assume any texture pixel could have 128bit for color and 32bit z-plain for bump. So I imagine 20 bytes a pixel, maybe your average texture is 32 to 128 in size, or around 300'000kilobytes a texture. So a texture buffer would allow for atleast 200 very complex textures. You can see where I am going with this.

[Xerxes]

To the general audience people will say they both look the same to me. :(

[saxdawg00]

To the general audience people will say they both look the same to me. :(

That's actually a compliment to Playstation 3, being that its their launch titles versus 2nd generation xbox games. I wonder what PS3 games will look like a year from now....

[Nights]

The same thing happend with the Dreamcast/PS2.

Examples:
Rayman 2
Soul Calibur - Tekken Tag (Textures are better in Soul Calibur)
Eco The Dolphin
Powerstone - Street Fighter EX2

[frosty]

To the general audience people will say they both look the same to me.

Which is it? lol.

[TheGreenElf]

From what I've played, Call of Duty and Madden look better on 360. Ridge Racer has better detailing on PS3. At this point its really up to developers.

[Garfunkel]

The 360 will (probably) always have an advantage over the ps3 in terms of texture resolution and sharpness due to the huge amount of bandwidth of the EDRAM daughter die. The ps3 other then that has very few weaknesses compared to the 360.

[masteratt]

God Of PlayStation is an engineering genius and if there is a weakness in the PS3s design, it's probably something that won't effect you.

(i am starting to develop a blind confidence for the PS brand =-o)

[Red_Eyes]

FNR3 looks better on the PS3. NBA looks better on the PS3. Virtual Tennis looks better on the PS3. So I don't see any problem. And with 2nd generation games, they'll look even better on the PS3.

[VG Aficionado]

The only technical advantage I can see that xbox 360 has over ps3 is using 4x aa does not prevent itself from using 100% of its shaders and rops.Only when you're running at resolutions lower than 720p, let alone 1080p. 10 MB aren't enough, it should have been 12 MB according to developers. MS dropped the ball with that, there are many games with forced upscaling from 600p and so, and it's noticeable. Anyway, the "free AA" thing is a myth, according to what I've been reading too. And wonder why GeOW has no AA.

[woundingchaney]

Only when you're running at resolutions lower than 720p, let alone 1080p. 10 MB aren't enough, it should have been 12 MB according to developers. MS dropped the ball with that, there are many games with forced upscaling from 600p and so, and it's noticeable. Anyway, the "free AA" thing is a myth, according to what I've been reading too. And wonder why GeOW has no AA.

GoW has no AA because of the engine and at 1080p the Xenos may have an advantage over the RSX (at 1080p primarily) due to memory access speed and system architecture and these slightly lower res. games your refering to run at twice the framerate of their ps3 counterparts.

I wasn’t too clear earlier on the difference between the RSX’s dedicated pixel and vertex shader pipelines compared to the 360s unified shader architecture. The 360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines capable of accepting either pixel or vertex shader operations whereas with the older dedicated pixel and vertex pipeline architecture that RSX uses when you are in a vertex heavy situation most of the 24 pixel pipes go idle instead of helping out with vertex work.

Or on the flip side in a pixel heavy situation those 8 vertex shader pipelines are just idle and don’t help out the pixel pipes (because they aren’t able to), but with the 360’s unified architecture in a vertex heavy situation for example none of the pipes go idle. All 48 unified pipelines are capable of helping with either pixel or vertex shader operations when needed so as a result efficiency is greatly improved and so is overall performance. When pipelines are forced to go idle because they lack the capability to help another set of pipelines accomplish their task it’s detrimental to performance. This inefficient manner is how all current GPUs operate including the PS3's RSX. The pipelines go idle because the pixel pipes aren't able to help the vertex pipes accomplish a task or vice versa. Whats even more impressive about this GPU is it by itself determines the balance of how many pipelines to dedicate to vertex or pixel shader operations at any given time a programmer is NOT needed to handle any of this the GPU takes care of all this itself in the quickest most efficient way possible. 1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360’s gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX.
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1
FNR3 looks better on the PS3. NBA looks better on the PS3. Virtual Tennis looks better on the PS3. So I don't see any problem. And with 2nd generation games, they'll look even better on the PS3.

FNR3 came out 8 months after the 360 version and in a crowd comparison by the Apollo it was rated visually inferior to the 360 version (although having played the game on both systems I would give the PS3 the nod, but not every aspect looks better some look noticeably worse).
NBA doesnt necessarily look better either there are some framerate issue but it does have a few more animations (it released 2-3 months later than the 360 version).
Virtua Tennis isnt out yet.

[joe]

http://www.allegorithmic.dreamhosters.com/index.php?PAGE=NEWS

"Allegorithmic is the leader in run-time texture synthesis."




http://www.profxengine.com/index.php?PAGE=GALLERY.RENDERS

... results.

[woundingchaney]

oops sorry guys accidentely quoted myself

[VG Aficionado]

GoW has no AA because of the engine and at 1080p the Xenos may have an advantage over the RSX due to memory access speed and system architecture.Huh? Pretty much the contrary. Phil Harrison said that it is not possible to double buffer a 1080p frame on 10 MB (http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=63536). Unless 360 does upscaled 1080p (pointless), I don't see how it will have an advantage. I think it's quite obvious 360 is a system designed for 720p and some AA, but not even 720p and 4xAA. I don't believe 360 is better for native 1080p all of a sudden when Microsoft representatives downplayed 1080p and deemed it impossible to produce next-gen looking results. They obviously weren't talking about PS3, since they hadn't seen what it could do at that resolution.

games your refering to run at twice the framerate of their ps3 counterparts.Since when does PGR3 run at twice the framerate of GT5?

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1This article is so misinformed that it can't be a reliable source.

[woundingchaney]

The article is from Nov 12 06, not very old at all.

As far as misinformed, I would consider taking the word of a rival company on the tech of another system misinformed.

I dont see why the edram has to be used to double buffer the frame in the first place. There is nothing suggesting that the edram has to be used in this scenario for that particular purpose that Im aware of.

Since when has GT5 been released and if your refering to GTHD then we have new car models attached to a ported PS2 game at a high res. Why wouldnt the game run at 60fps???

I dont really see any indication that the PS3 was built to support 1080p other than of course the BR movies and Sony using it as a headliner. Talk to any dev. and theyll say 1080p is not a realistic res. to achieve this gen.

[VG Aficionado]

The article is from Nov 12 06, not very old at all.I thought it was an old rehashed one, but I see it's just a misinforming one I had seen back then.

In vertex shader limited situations the 360’s gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX.This is utter bullshit. It seems to be always comparing theoretical maximums (just ludicrous since it would imply dedicating all resources to vertex shading, leaving nothing for pixel shading). And I don't even believe things are so simple and that extreme anyway.

As far as misinformed, I would consider taking the word of a rival company on the tech of another system misinformed.Indeed. "1080p is impossible" - Microsoft.

I dont see why the edram has to be used to double buffer the frame in the first place. There is nothing suggesting that the edram has to be used in this scenario for that particular purpose that Im aware of.The fact that you're unaware of something makes it unnecessary? :huh: That's no good argument by any means.

Since when has GT5 been released and if your refering to GTHD then we have new car models attached to a ported PS2 game at a high res. Why wouldnt the game run at 60fps???GTHD concept is GT5's prologue. It uses next generation assets and I don't see how it can be compared to GT4 in the least, mostly when it will be finished. If you really think it's just a ported PS2 game like the cancelled GTHD Classic, I don't think it's worth discussing with you.

Talk to any dev. and theyll say 1080p is not a realistic res. to achieve this gen.Lair's developer can't agree with you.

[joe]

The article is from Nov 12 06, not very old at all.

As far as misinformed, I would consider taking the word of a rival company on the tech of another system misinformed.

I dont see why the edram has to be used to double buffer the frame in the first place. There is nothing suggesting that the edram has to be used in this scenario for that particular purpose that Im aware of.

Since when has GT5 been released and if your refering to GTHD then we have new car models attached to a ported PS2 game at a high res. Why wouldnt the game run at 60fps???

I dont really see any indication that the PS3 was built to support 1080p other than of course the BR movies and Sony using it as a headliner. Talk to any dev. and theyll say 1080p is not a realistic res. to achieve this gen.


http://www.psu.com/node/2174

Factor 5: Lair to run natively at 1080p


During a lengthy interview with IGN, Factor 5 President, Julian Eggebrecht revealed that Lair will also be running at 1080p, and that it will be running natively at that resolution. "Lair is not upscaling or cheating to get to 1080p, we are natively running at the full 1920x1080 progressive resolution. Earlier this year we were quite skeptical if that would be possible, but the final kits really were a revelation in terms of power," he answered.

Eggebrecht also announced that the entire game will run at 1080p, and that developers chose the resolution after comparing it with 720p. "We absolutely love 1080p because of the detail that you can see. When we went up from 720 to 1080 I was blown away how much more of the artwork was visible. We started out being true 720p proponents, but since switching over to true 1080p via HDMI a few months ago I can't go back," he said.

Having the PlayStation 3 support 1080p has been one of the most controversial decisions in the gaming world, although games announced to be running in that resolution are quite rare. Currently, the games which will be running at 1080p also include Virtua Tennis 3, SEGA's upcoming title.

More 1080p PlayStation 3 titles are expected to be announced, especially after developers get the hang of developing for the PlayStation 3 and can take more advantage of all that it offers.


... same with RR7,clearly superior to RR6.

[joe]

Huh? Pretty much the contrary.

Since when does PGR3 run at twice the framerate of GT5?

This article is so misinformed that it can't be a reliable source.


... PGR3 runs at 30 fps,600p,utter shit.

[woundingchaney]

The fact that Phil is talking out of his ass is relevant. The PS3 doesnt have edram for the framebuffer yet it produces 1080p visuals. So perhaps Phil could explain why the edram "has" to be used in this scenario.

If your eliminating theoretical maximums then your crippling the RSX specs much more so than the Xenos ones. The whole concept of the USA is the allocation of pipes to do the intended job thus increasing performance over the old architecture (rsx). Its not just a coincidence that the entire gpu industry is moving to USA. In the old architecture its very common to see pipes sitting idle, its very common for it not to reach anywhere near its determined performance.

GTHD uses the same tracks the same interface infact damn near the same everything as GT4. How is this not a port.

Lairs developers are cheerleading for their game and the system it is developed on. What do you expect them to say.


@Joe
Im not saying games wont be released at 1080p, but there will be a tremendous amount of performace allocated to simply running this res. Its great to sit back and say that Lair is going to run at 1080p or this does or that does hell my old x800 could do 1080p that doesnt by any means make it a good decision.

RR7 came out a year later than RR6 (why wouldnt it be superior) and as far as "clearly" superior you may want to look at some of the detail and effects lost to support this res.

[Garfunkel]

I dont see why the edram has to be used to double buffer the frame in the first place. There is nothing suggesting that the edram has to be used in this scenario for that particular purpose that Im aware of.

You HAVE to double buffer when processing progressive especially 1080P

[woundingchaney]

You HAVE to double buffer when processing progressive especially 1080P


Right but it doenst have to be done on edram.

[VG Aficionado]

... PGR3 runs at 30 fps,600p,utter shit.To be honest, it's just a shinier PGR2 ;) Really, when I first saw it, I didn't want to think that's what next gen games were going to be because it was so underwhelming.

The fact that Phil is talking out of his ass is relevant.No, he isn't. Anyway, does that simple commentary make the whole 360-biased article true? How can "360 will outperform PS3 at 1080p, but hey, I can't provide any evidence, elaborate on this or even suggest a real context whatsoever" not be talking out of an ass?

The whole concept of the USA is the allocation of pipes to do the intended job thus increasing performance over the old architecture (rsx).Well, that surely justifies the 600p/30fps against 1080p/60fps :tardbang:

Lairs developers are cheerleading for their game and the system it is developed on. What do you expect them to say.I only expect their game to speak for itself, and it does.

Right but it doenst have to be done on edram.Yeah, let's use tiling to move it to that shared-bandwidth GDDR3, that will surely produce great results :drunk:
GTHD uses the same tracks the same interface infact damn near the same everything as GT4. How is this not a port.You just showed you don't know what you're talking about. GTHD concept downloadable demo is the very first look at GT5 and it's using an all new track and car models while still leaving resources available for car damage physics, weather effects, day/night cycle and whatnot in the near future. You're still thinking of the cancelled GTHD Classic which no longer exists. Don't keep this pointless.

RR7 came out a year later than RR6 (why wouldnt it be superior) and as far as "clearly" superior you may want to look at some of the detail and effects lost to support this res.Detail and effects lost? I saw reflective water rather than plain textures on RR7 compared to RR6, even though the comparisons widely posted weren't made using the same capturing method (the blurry text showed that they used some kind of analog interface) The sharpness was superior on other media anyway. In any case though, just tell me since when Ridge Racer games are supposed to be the greatest paradigm of a system's power at LAUNCH.

[Garfunkel]

Right but it doenst have to be done on edram.

yes, but then you will have a major bottleneck and bandwidth issue with the 360's architecture..

[woundingchaney]

yes, but then you will have a major bottleneck and bandwidth issue with the 360's architecture..

Much like the same issues we see with the PS3.

[VG Aficionado]

Much like the same issues we see with the PS3.Not so serious since the GDDR3 VRAM bandwidth is entirely dedicated to the GPU and not shared with the CPU in PS3.

[woundingchaney]

To be honest, it's just a shinier PGR2 ;) Really, when I first saw it, I didn't want to think that's what next gen games were going to be because it was so underwhelming..

Well then I guess the fact that the game got great ratings on release and is still considered to be a beautiful racer (outside of PS3 forums) doesnt matter.

No, he isn't. Anyway, does that simple commentary make the whole 360-biased article true? How can "360 will outperform PS3 at 1080p, but hey, I can't provide any evidence, elaborate on this or even suggest a context" not be talking out of an ass?..

This is a blank statement here, you could offer some sort of evidence to suggest that the PS3 is superior to handling 1080p visuals over the 360 instead of just claiming articles to be biased.

Well, that surely justifies the 600p/30fps against 1080p/60fps :tardbang:
ok sure.

I only expect their game to speak for itself, and it does.
Maybe it will maybe it wont. Have you played the game your speaking of???
Yeah, let's use tiling to move it to that shared-bandwidth GDDR3, that will surely produce great results :drunk:
Hey lets use a mere 256 ded. video ram to produce 1080p visuals. The entire idea revolving around 1080p is flawed. Cpi has spoke against it, Xbd has spoke against it (those you know). Other PS3 devs have spoke against along with several in the industry.

You just showed you don't know what you're talking about. GTHD concept downloadable demo is the very first look at GT5 and it's using an all new track and car models while still leaving resources available for car damage physics, weather effects, day/night cycle and whatnot in the near future. You're still thinking of the cancelled GTHD Classic which no longer exists. Don't keep this pointless.
Maybe you are right LOL. Is the one track available new??? Is the handling of cars new?? Is the soundtrack or interface new?? Is there car damage, are there weather effects, is there day/night cycles currently???
(Im asking here)

Detail and effects lost? I saw reflective water rather than plain textures on RR7 compared to RR6, even though the comparisons widely posted weren't made using the same capturing method (the blurry text showed that they used some kind of analog interface) The sharpness was superior on other media anyway. In any case though, just tell me since when Ridge Racer games are supposed to be the greatest paradigm of a system's power at LAUNCH.[/QUOTE]

Check the comparison in lack of background detail, check for lack of particle effects. Hmmm.....
http://www.gamingblog.org/entry/next-gen-title-war-rr6-vs-rr7/

Gotta love 1080p.

Im not saying that all around the title looks worse on the PS3 (infact I think it looks better). But in 2007 are we going to be comparing 2007 360 games to 2006 PS3 games??? I cant help but think a comparison between 2 titles seperated by a year is flawed.

[woundingchaney]

Not so serious since the GDDR3 VRAM bandwidth is entirely dedicated to the GPU and not shared with the CPU in PS3.

Oh really and what is to be done when 256 isnt sufficient, do you want next gen visuals or 1080p res.?? It seems that there may be issues revolving around accessing the other pool of mem. (or so we have statements regarding the issue).

[Sephiroth_VII]

Is this true:
TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.

The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.

[VG Aficionado]

Is this true:I can't discuss the tech, but for what it's worth, I can't see how PS3 or 360 games are so lacking compared to the current PC games as that guy suggests, pretty much the contrary. It makes me think he's quite far from the truth.

This is a blank statement here, you could offer some sort of evidence to suggest that the PS3 is superior to handling 1080p visuals over the 360 instead of just claiming articles to be biased.Man, you don't make sense. We've got yet to see native 1080p next-gen looking games on the 360 while we've already seen these games on PS3, yet the article claims 360 could do it better when the truth is that there's no real evidence that it could.

Oh really and what is to be done when 256 isnt sufficient, do you want next gen visuals or 1080p res.?? It seems that there may be issues revolving around accessing the other pool of mem. (or so we have statements regarding the issue).You're questioning 1080p and next gen visuals again, but I don't see how good developers can't combine both. Anyway, PS3 has just launched and I don't see so much unsolvable tech trouble as you do.

Maybe it will maybe it wont. Have you played the game your speaking of???I know that even in an early state, it looks great and that there's nothing like it on 360 or PC. People in this board have played it and agree that it's awesome.

Hey lets use a mere 256 ded. video ram to produce 1080p visuals. The entire idea revolving around 1080p is flawed. Cpi has spoke against it, Xbd has spoke against it (those you know). Other PS3 devs have spoke against along with several in the industry. Rather than being against it, I only see opinions which state that they'd rather dedicate those resources to other departments in their particular cases, but that doesn't mean there aren't titles that wouldn't benefit from 1080p or that nobody has good reasons to run their game at that resolution. 1080p may not be the holy grail of this generation's gaming, but that doesn't make 720p all good in comparison.

Maybe you are right LOL. Is the one track available new??? Is the handling of cars new?? Is the soundtrack or interface new?? Is there car damage, are there weather effects, is there day/night cycles currently???
(Im asking here)You really thought it was a GT4 port all the time and intended to argue based on assumptions! Give me a break, man.

To answer your questions: the track is all new. GT fans say the handling physics have improved (someone in the GT topics in this board said this too). I don't know about the soundtrack or the interface, could be new or not but I don't see how much it really matters for a free concept demo, even though I believe the interface is all new. The additional tech features aren't present at the moment, but Yamauchi has promised GT5 would feature them since they have the proper hardware now; they could have done that on PS2 before but not in acceptable quality. It wouldn't be a next gen game if it didn't have all those features when it hits retail, don't you think? Same game with shinier graphics means it's just last gen 1.5. I wouldn't buy GT5 if they discarded any of the new features, but I'm sure they'll deliver this time now that they have the resources to do so.

Anyway, whatever, wounding. I'm off to have a good time on Xmas day instead of hopelessly discussing with you. Merry Xmas to you all!

[stanDarsh]

Seph. That article you have quoted is full of errors.

First of all, an AMD 3200+ is not 3.2GHz it's 2.2GHz, 3200+ is just a name such as Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, the processor does not run at 6.4GHz.

Whilst a Processor like Cell or Xenon may not have as much general purpose code like a typical X86 or X64 processor does, it does not make it any less cheap or incapable. Both the Cell and Xenon are very capable processors, and each of them can still run an Operating System, as well as things like Streaming Video and other media, extremely well.

[Sephiroth_VII]

GTHD uses the same tracks the same interface infact damn near the same everything as GT4. How is this not a port.

It's using part of GT5's engine, GT5 car models, and GT5 tracks. It's a half-port.

Lairs developers are cheerleading for their game and the system it is developed on. What do you expect them to say.

It's not as much what they've said. LAIR is proof that PS3 can run a beautiful and huge game at 1080p with no framerate drops at all.


Seph. That article you have quoted is full of errors.

First of all, an AMD 3200+ is not 3.2GHz it's 2.2GHz, 3200+ is just a name such as Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, the processor does not run at 6.4GHz.

Whilst a Processor like Cell or Xenon may not have as much general purpose code like a typical X86 or X64 processor does, it does not make it any less cheap or incapable. Both the Cell and Xenon are very capable processors, and each of them can still run an Operating System, as well as things like Streaming Video and other media, extremely well.

I simply quoted the article Wounding posted a link to, and only because I thought it sounded strange. It seems that we agree.

[woundingchaney]

I can't discuss the tech, but for what it's worth, I can't see how PS3 or 360 games are so lacking compared to the current PC games as that guy suggests, pretty much the contrary. It makes me think he's quite far from the truth.

Man, you don't make sense. We've got yet to see native 1080p next-gen looking games on the 360 while we've already seen these games on PS3, yet the article claims 360 could do it better when the truth is that there's no real evidence that it could.
There is no evidence that it is better at handling 1080p visuals either (other than the hdmi output being superior to vga). Thats what Im saying here, MS has yet to target the res. if they do its possible their machine could outperform the PS3 at that res. (thats what this all started at), you intially stated the PS3 would perform better at 1080p.

You're questioning 1080p or next gen visuals again, but I don't see how good developers can't combine both. Anyway, PS3 has just launched and I don't see so much unsolvable tech trouble as you do.
Im questioning the existence of both. Yes we can run 1080p but not without hampering the visuals and detail at 720p (or framerate). Looking at the RR7 visuals I cant help but feel that I would rather have the detailed environment over a res. increase (opinion)



I know that even in an early state, it looks good and that there's nothing like it on 360 or PC. People in this board have played it and agree that it's awesome.

We are talking about Lair right? I believe it was playable at TGS, and it recieved quite a bit of criticism over the downgrade in visuals (maybe due to targeting the res.)

Rather than being against it, I only see opinions which state that they'd rather dedicate those resources to other departments in their particular cases, but that doesn't mean there aren't titles that wouldn't benefit from 1080p or that nobody has good reasons to run their game at that resolution. 1080p may not be the holy grail of this generation's gaming, but that doesn't make 720p all good in comparison.
I dont doubt there are titles that would benefit from 1080p but those are the less visually impressive titles to begin with. Targeting 1080p is not overly realistic for many titles to begin with.



You really thought it was a GT4 port all the time and intended to argue based on assumptions! Give me a break, man.

To answer your questions: the track is all new. GT fans say the handling physics have improved (someone in the GT topics in this board said this too). I don't know about the soundtrack or the interface, could be new or not but I don't see how much it really matters for a free concept demo, even though I believe the interface is all new. The additional tech features aren't present at this stage, but Yamauchi has promised GT5 would feature them since they have the proper hardware now; they could have done it on PS2 before but not in acceptable quality. It wouldn't be a next gen game if it didn't have all those features when it hits retail, don't you think? Same game with shinier graphics means it's just last gen 1.5. I wouldn't buy GT5 if they discarded any of the new features, but I'm sure they'll deliver this time now that they have the resources to do so.
For some reason I was under the impression that the track wasnt new, my mistake. If anything the track itself does look similar to the quality of GT4 at a higher res.

My statement was it was a port, not that the game was bad or anything of the like. If I was confused then I apologize, I was under the initial impression that the only change was to the car models.





Anyway, whatever, wounding. I'm off to have a good time on Xmas day instead of hopelessly discussing with you. Merry Xmas to you all!
Merry Christmas to you to VG.

[woundingchaney]

Seph. That article you have quoted is full of errors.

First of all, an AMD 3200+ is not 3.2GHz it's 2.2GHz, 3200+ is just a name such as Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, the processor does not run at 6.4GHz.

Whilst a Processor like Cell or Xenon may not have as much general purpose code like a typical X86 or X64 processor does, it does not make it any less cheap or incapable. Both the Cell and Xenon are very capable processors, and each of them can still run an Operating System, as well as things like Streaming Video and other media, extremely well.


The article never said the desktop processors are 3.2.

And I dont believe the article says they are "cheap" but that they can be assemble cheaper than what a desktop core can be.

[Sephiroth_VII]

We are talking about Lair right? I believe it was playable at TGS, and it recieved quite a bit of criticism over the downgrade in visuals (maybe due to targeting the res.)


Whoa!!! I played it a few weeks ago, and it was the most gorgeous game at the show, apart from GeoW. And that's not only my opinion, everyone I met in the PS3 booth said the same.

If there was a downgrade, it didn't show.

[woundingchaney]

Whoa!!! I played it a few weeks ago, and it was the most gorgeous game at the show, apart from GeoW. And that's not only my opinion, everyone I met in the PS3 booth said the same.

If there was a downgrade, it didn't show.

The downgrade refers to the supposed "real time" visuals (found at other shows, like gdc) in comparison to the gameplay visuals.

I believe that the first gameplay was shown at TGS, and recieved quite a bit of criticism about its visual quality.

[jaxmkii]

you know what?... I like my ps3. i will never support MS in anything (except FS) sick of theise arguments lets get back to digging up vids pics and developer concepts of games.

the 360 crippled itself with one fatal flaw, the DVD drive. that will be its end not any eram buffer or some triangle shader. its going to be its limpdick DVD drive and no motion sencor that will make it just look so 20th century gaming with a good GPU... humm reminds me of PC gaming.

[woundingchaney]

I give up guys, your right. The 360 is completely worthless it cant run 720p or 1080p as well as the PS3 (hell why would we need to prove this statement here). Damn thing has no motion sensing controller doesnt have a bd drive. Im selling it and buying more PS3 games. GTHD is the greatest thing I have ever seen at 1080p 60fps with good car models and empty environments and one car on the track. In every comparison of a 2006 PS3 title they look better than a 2005 360 title (who would have imagined that).

[OmniCloud]

I give up guys, your right. The 360 is completely worthless it cant run 720p or 1080p as well as the PS3 (hell why would we need to prove this statement here). Damn thing has no motion sensing controller doesnt have a bd drive. Im selling it and buying more PS3 games. GTHD is the greatest thing I have ever seen at 1080p 60fps with good car models and empty environments and one car on the track. In every comparison of a 2006 PS3 title they look better than a 2005 360 title (who would have imagined that).LOL...I understand your sarcasm and frustration man...but you should understand by now that many users still feel PS3 is the most powerful console and early impressions of the software kinda agree with that. (even if it's only by a little bit) The specs, the resolution, or any of the technical aspects of these systems don't really matter when the games are released. If Halo 3 comes out and it looks better than everything on the market, then 360 will be viewed as the most powerful console-no matter whats on the inside. These arguments are futile bro, and your only going to end up where you started from.

[woundingchaney]

LOL...I understand your sarcasm and frustration man...but you should understand by now that many users still feel PS3 is the most powerful console and early impressions of the software kinda agree with that. (even if it's only by a little bit) The specs, the resolution, or any of the technical aspects of these systems don't really matter when the games are released. If Halo 3 comes out and it looks better than everything on the market, then 360 will be viewed as the most powerful console-no matter whats on the inside. These arguments are futile bro, and your only going to end up where you started from.

Nah man its cool. The only thing is when a lame statement like the PS3 is superior to the 360 at 720p visuals and 1080p is thrown with no evidence to prove so, and infact evidence of the contrary it gets a little old.

If anything I probably head butt these statements a little too often LOL.

In the end it isnt real critical to me what system is more powerful.

[Applefiend]

This post of mine has gone a bit troll-y but it's what I honestly believe.

To be honest when I see guys say "Why don't you just span your game over 3 disks", errrm... OK, maybe you have a point. But I like Blu Ray a lot, and I'm very happy to have it on board, because when you have a huge space for assets at no extra cost... You may be tempted to use that.

I think all this stuff about 1080p is probably bollocks, as is a lot more of the stuff marketing people tout as advantages for PS3.

Here's 10 things I hate about 360 and PS3.

For 360:

1 - I'm a casual online game player, I play about 30 minutes a week at best, it isn't worth my while to pay for an online service I'll hardly use. So any 360 game I buy is online crippled. So I try and get the PS3 version, which will have enough online for a casual online gamer.

2 - The non stop obsession with online shooters uber alles. How many shooters can you play in a year? And PC ports in general.

3 - Region restrictions. PS3 games cost me around 55-58 US Dollars, 360 games must be bought in New Zealand and cost around 88 dollars. They just aren't worth the extra 30 dollars. Imported games are fab on PS3.

4 - Broken backwards compatability that manages to be even more broken than the PS3 BC. :) How did they do that? :) 360 BC more important to me than PS2 BC as my XBox is a noisy peice of junk, want rid of it.

5 - Limited HD Space - 20GB isn't enough.

6 - Downloables on XB Live limited to 64MB. A game based on Unreal 1.0 engine, pretty cool. But how about 2.0 or 3.0? Also XB Live games don't seem very good value.

7 - No homebrew on 360. At least not naughty homebrew like emulators. :)

8 - I don't like the 360 Pad as much as the sixaxis. The dpad on the 360 seems plain broken(Try playing frogger on it), the pad is too heavy, too big, feels cheap.

9 - HD DVD format inferior to Blu Ray.

10 - The franchises I like tend to be on PS3.

For as to why PS3 kinda sucks to me. :)

1 - No iPod support, 360 got this covered and iPod is a rival.

2 - No custom music playlists in games, 360 does this.

3 - Backwards compatability better than 360, 95% of games run, but Guitar Hero 2 doesn't, and PS2 games on PS2 is much better, the video output quality of PS2 games is very dissapointing.

4 - Worse PR and advertising... Ever. PS3 = PR disaster.

5 - Gamepads spazzing out. Gotta fix that.

6 - No Rumble a drag.

7 - No games that really blow away the best of 360 graphically for a machine that's out a year later and $100 more expensive. For me the blame lies with nVidia and RSX. They had one job, blow away the 360 GPU. For various reasons I don't think they've managed that. Also multiplatform games seem currently weaker on PS3, textures ofen seem worse.

8 - Lots of online games lack working voice comms.

9 - I miss achievement points.

10 - Loss of exclusive titles. I disagree with frosty, exclusivity is everything.

My 360 gripes are much bigger than my PS3 ones so I stick with the big black shiny thing. Also most of the PS3 gripes seem fixable.

I have a list of Wii gripes in my head but if I say them nobody on the Wii board will talk to me ever again. :)

[joe]

RR7 came out a year later than RR6 (why wouldnt it be superior) and as far as "clearly" superior you may want to look at some of the detail and effects lost to support this res.

... RR7 runs in 1080p resolution,"and effects lost to support this res" ., I dont know any,see www.gamebrink.com

[frosty]

ps3 hasn't lost any exclusives. There are no 3rd party exclusives anymore applefiend. That age died last gen. As soon as a game sells a million copies, count on a port being made. As for textures looking worse on PS3, care to back that up with some proof? Because every observation I've made thus far has been quite the contrary.

[woundingchaney]

ps3 hasn't lost any exclusives. There are no 3rd party exclusives anymore applefiend. That age died last gen. As soon as a game sells a million copies, count on a port being made. As for textures looking worse on PS3, care to back that up with some proof? Because every observation I've made thus far has been quite the contrary.

Well there is Starbreezes statement regarding advanced textures on the 360 in comparison to the PS3 version, which is mimmicked by epic (more usable memory, better allocation of memory).

There is also excellent texture work found on the 360 that isnt rivaled by what we are seeing on the PS3 (GoW, PDO, Kameo etc).

And there is better textures on the 360 version of Madden.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/p-3.html

And CoD3 found in same link.

And Tony Hawk in same link.

And Tiger Woods in same link.

Fight Night has better boxer textures but is seperated by 10 months of development but lacks background texture and detail (overall is stated as looking worse which is mimmicked by the Apollo presentation).

Once again we see this with NBA07 but it is seperated by 2-3 months of development (with framerate issues)

Need for Speed Carbon is quoted as having better building textures but lacking lighting and objects.

[Applefiend]

Best case is COD3, it looks better on 360 for sure. All this stuff about "Better lighting" is nonsense I think, the port is much weaker. Weaker textures, weaker frame rate. For ports that are better on PS3, that's a short list. Full Auto, maybe Marvel UL. I think Marvel is sharper on PS3.

But I think this is a first gen/launch title blues problem. We'll see how the multiplatform issue is in 8 months. I think the weaker 360 port problem is very real atm.

And for me the number of games you can get on system A and nowhere else is your primary reason to buy a console. Any erosion is bad. Any exclusive it gets is good for the system,any it loses is bad, just that simple. And GTA, VF, Assasin's Creed, all gone. Oblivion, Full Auto in return. More has been lost than gained. Of course PS has more exclusives to lose than the competition.

I don't subscribe to "Everything in the PS3 garden is rosy", I subscribe to "The PS3 garden is the best on averaqe".

[woundingchaney]

Best case is COD3, it looks better on 360 for sure. All this stuff about "Better lighting" is nonsense I think, the port is much weaker. Weaker textures, weaker frame rate. For ports that are better on PS3, that's a short list. Full Auto, maybe Marvel UL. I think Marvel is sharper on PS3.

But I think this is a first gen/launch title blues problem. We'll see how the multiplatform issue is in 8 months.

And for me the number of games you can get on system A and nowhere else is your primary reason to buy a console. Any erosion is bad.


I agree about lighting. Its simply too hard to judge lighting here. Given screenshots lighting could vary dramatically (although I like the color saturation of the 360, but this is opinion and is often described as difference in color between ATI and Nvidia).

I think Marv. is sharper on 360 but no real discernable difference there.

[game designer]

Best lighting in a game I've seen (and now played) thus far....

GT HD:


http://www.ps3power.com/images/storage/gthd.jpg

It's not just the car models that got a boost. The lighting, reflections, camera blur,motion blur, 3D spectators.... It's more than just GT 4.1 or something.

GD

[Applefiend]

Disagree on that one, Marv is full of 1080p native goodness and is just plain higher res and sharper, and has better controls (sixaxis support). It's the superior version.

I think some reviewers have scored it lower, but I'm right and they're wrong. :)

[woundingchaney]

Disagree on that one, Marv is full of 1080p native goodness and is just plain higher res and sharper, and has better controls (sixaxis support). It's the superior version.

I think some reviewers have scored it lower, but I'm right and they're wrong. :)

ok apple :aimhappy:

I have played it for both but of course I cant compare the 1080p support (yet).

[cliffbo]

I give up guys, your right. The 360 is completely worthless it cant run 720p or 1080p as well as the PS3 (hell why would we need to prove this statement here). Damn thing has no motion sensing controller doesnt have a bd drive. Im selling it and buying more PS3 games. GTHD is the greatest thing I have ever seen at 1080p 60fps with good car models and empty environments and one car on the track. In every comparison of a 2006 PS3 title they look better than a 2005 360 title (who would have imagined that).

happy christmas wounding, i feel your frustration LOL... hell that was entertaining reading. i still think Res looks better than GoW... JK ;) does it matter everyone... really? jingle bells... jingle bells... jingle all the way... got myself a subwoofer cos force feedbacks gone away...

[PSXBatou]

On another forum i regularly haunt the 360 fanboys are going ape shit on the PS3. Essentially saying the developers will develop first for the 360, then the PS3 since the 360 is easier to develop for. Along with other OMGWTFBBQ fan boy comments. I had to pull myself out of the thread as its hard to argue with the ignorant and delusional.

Here is the link if anyone here wants to chime in http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=262337 (feel free to delete the link if i cant post links to other forums here) It gets worse toward the end of the thread :D

[masteratt]

Best lighting in a game I've seen (and now played) thus far....

GT HD:


http://www.ps3power.com/images/storage/gthd.jpg

It's not just the car models that got a boost. The lighting, reflections, camera blur,motion blur, 3D spectators.... It's more than just GT 4.1 or something.

GD
Photo Realism.....Seriously.

I don't care if it's one car in an 'empty' track. If it plays and looks as awesome as GT: HD, you have to give props.
And 1080p at 60FPS is just that sweet tasting icing on the cake :thumpsup

[frosty]

The madden screens you supplied wounding, honestly look better on PS3 in all the close up shots. Look at the numbers on the shirts of the players in the third shot. I'll agree that the textures are slightly sharper, like on the logos on the helmets, but the lack of detail kinda negates that. It seems to support some of the comments I've heard devs say, about the memory advantages of 360 vs. the pixel shading advantages of PS3. If you look at how close PS3s textures are to 360s in those shots, the difference could easily be covered by added detail from shading effects. However, this isn't to say 360 isn't a good system as far as it's graphical capabilities, but I honestly feel that due to it's limitations in the shader dept. we'll see it hit it's performance ceiling first. That's just an opinion though.

[lips]

Heh, I didn't even know GeOW was without aa. When I first read about 11meg edram with 35 gbps access, I thought, its going to end up being used strictly for textures. I guess I wasn't alone thinking this. Atleast ps3 has a super huge texture cache too, and guess what, its on die.

[Viano]

oh the GTHD!!! loL

[Logan Cano]

wounding, PS3 is a better machine. CELL is a much better processor than the one in 360, its GPU has more shading power, even if it isn't as flexible. In fact, even when Xenos is using all of it's shading power for a single task, it is still outperformed by RSX. It's natural, it only has around 150 million transistors or so, compared to RSX's 300+ million.

My knowledge on the matter is very limited, however, I do know that the only way you can output to the TV is by storing the framebuffer on the EDRAM. That's the only way and that's why it can't output 1080p, apparently the 10MBs aren't enough to store a 1080p frame, even when tiling.

Right now, the machine is pretty recent, and it hasn't been in the hands of developers very long. The difference between PS3 and 360 will be much clearer later on, and it already is beginning to show now, with games like RR7 at 1080p (and no wounding, no effects were lost, you are wrong on that) and NBA2k7.

[joe]

The difference between PS3 and 360 will be much clearer later on, and it already is beginning to show now, with games like RR7 at 1080p (and no wounding, no effects were lost, you are wrong on that) and NBA2k7.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20061218/ggl.htm

... RR7 from 480i resolution to 1080p.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

when I read the title, I thought the post was gonna say, 'how'd they get that thing so damn shiny????
hahaha.

[Logan Cano]

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20061218/ggl.htm

... RR7 from 480i resolution to 1080p.

Mmmmm....I am having trouble seeing any kind of reduced detail, in fact I, upon close examination I can say I don't see anything changed. The image just looks sharper and better with the same detail in 1080p.

[julps31]

when I read the title, I thought the post was gonna say, 'how'd they get that thing so damn shiny????
hahaha.Lol...^

[Sephiroth_VII]

Nah man its cool. The only thing is when a lame statement like the PS3 is superior to the 360 at 720p visuals and 1080p is thrown with no evidence to prove so, and infact evidence of the contrary it gets a little old.

If anything I probably head butt these statements a little too often LOL.

In the end it isnt real critical to me what system is more powerful.
I just wanted to say that I didn't argue whether 360 could do 1080p better or not, just that LAIR looks amazing at 1080p, IMO.
Just wanted to clarify that;)
when I read the title, I thought the post was gonna say, 'how'd they get that thing so damn shiny????
hahaha.

I wish. Then we wouldn't have this pointless discussion right now.

[woundingchaney]

The madden screens you supplied wounding, honestly look better on PS3 in all the close up shots. Look at the numbers on the shirts of the players in the third shot. I'll agree that the textures are slightly sharper, like on the logos on the helmets, but the lack of detail kinda negates that. It seems to support some of the comments I've heard devs say, about the memory advantages of 360 vs. the pixel shading advantages of PS3. If you look at how close PS3s textures are to 360s in those shots, the difference could easily be covered by added detail from shading effects. However, this isn't to say 360 isn't a good system as far as it's graphical capabilities, but I honestly feel that due to it's limitations in the shader dept. we'll see it hit it's performance ceiling first. That's just an opinion though.

Thats cool frosty and your entitled to your opinion.

I have posted a comparison that disagrees with you and referred to titles very impressive titles in texture detail
along with references from dev houses (that have knowledge of both machines). In the end its all opinion.

I disagree about the ceiling and I think your putting too much emphasis on shader power. Once again opinion.

[woundingchaney]

wounding, PS3 is a better machine. CELL is a much better processor than the one in 360, its GPU has more shading power, even if it isn't as flexible. In fact, even when Xenos is using all of it's shading power for a single task, it is still outperformed by RSX. It's natural, it only has around 150 million transistors or so, compared to RSX's 300+ million.

My knowledge on the matter is very limited, however, I do know that the only way you can output to the TV is by storing the framebuffer on the EDRAM. That's the only way and that's why it can't output 1080p, apparently the 10MBs aren't enough to store a 1080p frame, even when tiling.

Right now, the machine is pretty recent, and it hasn't been in the hands of developers very long. The difference between PS3 and 360 will be much clearer later on, and it already is beginning to show now, with games like RR7 at 1080p (and no wounding, no effects were lost, you are wrong on that) and NBA2k7.


Well the Xenos using all its shader power in a single task outperforms the RSX (but that is theoretical).

I disagree about the all around better machine here. As I believe each one has its strengths in the end. You may turn out to be right, we will see. But to put a bold period at the end is a little early in the evaluation.

Think of it this way. 1 and a half years ago the PS3 was twice as powerful as the 360, then it was marginally more powerful, now it isnt performing as well but has potential - something about the scenario just doesnt sound right.

RR7 did lose effects and detail (as is evident in the pics posted), NBA 2k7 suffers from framerate issues there is a price to pay for 1080p in the end.

[woundingchaney]

I just wanted to say that I didn't argue whether 360 could do 1080p better or not, just that LAIR looks amazing at 1080p, IMO.
Just wanted to clarify that;)


I wish. Then we wouldn't have this pointless discussion right now.

LOL

Its cool man I think Lair looks pretty good from the last screens I have seen, but at this point I dont think it looks like the second coming that it was meant to be.

[lips]

I still don't really follow you chaney. I suspect you are trying to tell me it would be correct programming to perform vertex shading using all alu's at once and then perform all pixel shaders all at once on all alus. But had you not thought this means all polygons and textures must be loaded, unloaded and loaded again before rasterized?

[Logan Cano]

Well the Xenos using all its shader power in a single task outperforms the RSX (but that is theoretical).

I disagree about the all around better machine here. As I believe each one has its strengths in the end. You may turn out to be right, we will see. But to put a bold period at the end is a little early in the evaluation.

Think of it this way. 1 and a half years ago the PS3 was twice as powerful as the 360, then it was marginally more powerful, now it isnt performing as well but has potential - something about the scenario just doesnt sound right.

No, even in theory, RSX has more performance than Xenos. PS3 is an all around better machine, despite not being better in each and every aspect. It has the better CPU and the better performing GPU, not to mention more bandwidth.

PS3 is still twice as powerful, don't believe otherwise. Launch titles only show what time constrained developers with little knowledge of the machine could do, and even that is on par with what the X360 currently can do, with developers having worked on it for two years or more. Time is what they need to show what the PS3 can do, it's not instantaneous.

RR7 did lose effects and detail (as is evident in the pics posted), NBA 2k7 suffers from framerate issues there is a price to pay for 1080p in the end.

Evident?? Would you mind pointing out the differences?? I looked carefully for differences, either in detail or lightning and saw none.

[joe]

No, even in theory, RSX has more performance than Xenos. PS3 is an all around better machine, despite not being better in each and every aspect. It has the better CPU and the better performing GPU, not to mention more bandwidth.

PS3 is still twice as powerful, don't believe otherwise. Launch titles only show what time constrained developers with little knowledge of the machine could do, and even that is on par with what the X360 currently can do, with developers having worked on it for two years or more. Time is what they need to show what the PS3 can do, it's not instantaneous.



Evident?? Would you mind pointing out the differences?? I looked carefully for differences, either in detail or lightning and saw none.




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/marmoc/Various/Untitled-3.jpg

[masteratt]

Judging from Fight Night, RR, Motorstorm and of course GT: HD; I believe lighting can be done extremely well on PS3.
Maybe it's the easiest thing to grasp in the development.

So far the only thing I feel the PS3 is behind X360 graphically is textures. Hideo himself said they are running into some problems and I hope a fix is found very soon.

[VG Aficionado]

Well, it's quite obvious PS3's RR7 looks better than 360's RR6. Less jaggies, reflective water, sharper and better lit environments, etc. And all that running at more than twice the resolution and 60 frames per second. Not too shabby for a launch title, let alone a Ridge Racer title!

So far the only thing I feel the PS3 is behind X360 graphically is textures. Hideo himself said they are running into some problems and I hope a fix is found very soon.Don't you think the standard HDD will come in handy when streaming textures? ;) I'm sure 2nd generation titles and some current ones will not suffer from these issues.

[Garfunkel]

That is one of the fixes VG but it remains to be seen if it will be useful

[lips]

hmm.. I find it hard to believe many games use more than 50 megs of memory for textures in any level or scene creation. I mean this provides enough room for hundreds of textures. And thats assuming all textures are high res, bump mapped and uncompressed. Are you sure the issue is total ram capacity, and not bandwidth? In my mind devs should prevent the gpu from trying to reading the frame buffer at the same time as the gpu is attempting to read a texture. writes and reads are two different ops, so it is okay to read a texture while writing a raster. I think this would resolve the issue. The tricky part is you cannot always know what is going on at the gpu like you do with a cpu.

[joe]

Well, it's quite obvious PS3's RR7 looks better than 360's RR6. Less jaggies, reflective water, sharper and better lit environments, etc. And all that running at more than twice the resolution and 60 frames per second. Not too shabby for a launch title, let alone a Ridge Racer title!

Don't you think the standard HDD will come in handy when streaming textures? ;) I'm sure 2nd generation titles and some current ones will not suffer from these issues.



http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/8917/untitled3mo6.jpg

... texture resolution,additional foliage etc etc.

[Garfunkel]

hmm.. I find it hard to believe many games use more than 50 megs of memory for textures in any level or scene creation. I mean this provides enough room for hundreds of textures. And thats assuming all textures are high res, bump mapped and uncompressed. Are you sure the issue is total ram capacity, and not bandwidth? In my mind devs should prevent the gpu from trying to reading the frame buffer at the same time as the gpu is attempting to read a texture. writes and reads are two different ops, so it is okay to read a texture while writing a raster. I think this would resolve the issue. The tricky part is you cannot always know what is going on at the gpu like you do with a cpu.

I would consider both, but primarily bandwidth, i think the RAM capacity/speed/latency is fine.

[Chrome]

I had a good laugh at people who honestly think that the XBox360 could out proform the PS3 at 1080p, Remember these words " In one years time we'll see the PS3 getting further and further from the 360".
Anyone with brains enough shouldn't compare 2nd gen. releases with first generation titles, only game sites and people who are sheeps would sink so low.

Whom ever has a PS3 Devkit and a XBox360 devkit can answer this clearly for any doubters. Only a fool wouldn't take Cell into account when pushing graphic's and that understanding will ultimatley prove to be a masterstroke by Sony.

[idealty]

WOW. Didn't expect this thread to grow as fast as it did.

A little gaming history on me, I was a proud PSone owner who was looking forward to the PS2, before it was announced. I then becamse a staunch Dreamcast supporter and hated the PS2 because i felt the hardware did not deliver in some key areas. I eventually owned a PS2 and probably have enjoyed it more than any other console to that time. Last year (after never owning an original Xbox) I not only waited in line to get an X360 (came up empty) but bought one of of Ebay for almost twice the MSRP and received it during launch week. Meanwhile, I have been in love with the "promise" of the PS3 hardware since it was announced at E3 May 05 and was eagerly anticipating it until this month. After finally getting my hands on a PS3 and enjoying the past year of the X360, I sold my X360 to a friend and intend to use the PS3 as my sole next-gen console.

I wanted to provide that background since most of you do not know me and you guys will see that my input has no "fanboyism" associated with it as I go where the great games and hardware go. In my honest opinion, the PS3 has not disappointed one bit. However, I have seen and enjoyed X360 games like Kameo, GRAW, and Oblivion in the past year that showed some outstanding texture details and effects and have yet to see a PS3 game with that level of quality. Anyone who has owned and played the same (or similar) games on both platfroms WILL know what I am referring to. Certain aspects of all PS3 look outstanding and better than any X360 counterparts. However, from the crowds of FNR3, the outdoor environments in Resistence, the details on the grass and jerseys in Madden, some of the rocks in Motorstorm (demo), and the washed out look of COD3, it is clearly noticable that there is a pattern of "less than quality" textures, particularly when compared to the competition. I was thoroughly suprised to see this pattern and understand that there must be a reason for it. The reason may well be that they are launch titles and come next year we will see a huge increase in quality with Lair, Heavenly Swords, VF5 etc (it will interesting to see how detailed Oblivion looks on the PS3).

That's not to say that the PS3 versions don't look great on their own, but there appears to be a common hardware related reason why developers seem to have trouble matching the quality of certain X360 games in regards to textures. I'm trying to understand what that reason is. This thread was't meant to start a system flame war. I have seen first hand that both systems are great and have (and will have) great software to show off their potential. Just wanted to clarify my purpose for this post and share more about myself. Carry on!

[frosty]

However, I have seen and enjoyed X360 games like Kameo, GRAW, and Oblivion in the past year that showed some outstanding texture details and effects and have yet to see a PS3 game with that level of quality.

HAve you seen the PS3 version of Oblivion? From the comparison shots' I've seen, it has sharper textures. However, if you watch the "evolution of motorstorm" video I made, you will see the texture issue being addressed perfectly in it's final release.

[lips]

I would consider both, but primarily bandwidth, i think the RAM capacity/speed/latency is fine.

definitely true. I was just making note for the sake of conjecture, nothing more.

[stanDarsh]

Idealty. Welcome to the forums in any event. Whatever platform/s you choose be happy with your purchase and enjoy it!

It's still early days for PS3, launch deadlines and deadlines in general, and a number of other reasons can result in poor texture quality. I'd love to see what PS3 and XBox360 games look like in a years time!

[Garfunkel]

definitely true. I was just making note for the sake of conjecture, nothing more.

LOL yeah it is not a capacity thing, only really bandwidth but there are ways around this so i wouldn't worry. At the end of the day the 360 MAY have a very slight advantage on texture quality/detail over the ps3 due to the edram (not on 1080p). But if devs can compress the textures and cache them right the advantage will be whittled away.

[lips]

LOL yeah it is not a capacity thing, only really bandwidth but there are ways around this so i wouldn't worry. At the end of the day the 360 MAY have a very slight advantage on texture quality/detail over the ps3 due to the edram (not on 1080p). But if devs can compress the textures and cache them right the advantage will be whittled away.

We will have to wait and see. we still do not know many things about xbox 360 gpu capabilites. For instance, does xenos really access its daughter die independantly from the fsb and gddr3 memory controller? At any rate, you can only read from one memory into cache at a time. I don't see the performance gain here. We don't even know if the cpu xenon can access memory while xenos is accessing its daughter die! ps3 would be considerable faster if it cannot. It would take some chip design razzle dazzle to allow it.

[Garfunkel]

same with the RSX, we know very little

[lips]

yeah. except we do know ps3 does use flexIO to communcate with rsx. It is the most sophisticated interexchange going, or so they tell us.

[Garfunkel]

except for maybe PCI-E v2.0 which is not out yet.

[woundingchaney]

LOL yeah it is not a capacity thing, only really bandwidth but there are ways around this so i wouldn't worry. At the end of the day the 360 MAY have a very slight advantage on texture quality/detail over the ps3 due to the edram (not on 1080p). But if devs can compress the textures and cache them right the advantage will be whittled away.

Actually it is also a capacity thing (potentially).

The PS3 uses more ram for the oc, and there is no edram for the framebuffer (LOL I think I have this right, thus giving the 360 more usable ram). The RSX could use from cell's pool of ram since there is adequate bandwith to support this although with the amount of references we have heard about this it seems there may be an issue surrounding it. Something tells me that it may be complicated allocating a pool and a portion of a pool to video ram (other than a few statements though from a few dev houses).

@Frosty- I havent seen any noticeable texture diff. in the PS3 comparison shots nor have the devs spoke of any difference in the visuals of the game (they have only spoke of draw in and background loading, and stated that visually the game would look like the other versions of oblivion) and once again we find the Oblivion version releasing a year later.

MS mud is impressive (you are refering to this I believe) never said it wasnt but in a texture comparison to other 360 titles I believe it falls short.

@VG - are you suggesting streaming texture info on the fly?? I personally cant see a hdd being fast enough although it should be useful considering loading times (if used).

@Joe - very good compasion do you have a link
here is another
http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-comparisons-27828.phtml

@ lips- Im not sure what you are asking me here? From scene to scene there may be a dramatic call for pixel>vertex or vertex>pixel the architecture allows for the bottlenext to be addressed considerably more efficient than previous architectures (such as limited ded. pipes). Do I think that it is feasable or better yet a good theory to run all alus at a single task (such as 48 ded. to pixel) no I do not. Although it seems what we are currently seeing in titles is the splitting of the alu (32 to pix 16 to vert etc) and this is hindering the performance of the card by an estimated 20 - 25 percent efficiency.

I cant remember who it was asking me for info regarding MEMexport.
Perhaps this helps

MEMEXPORT

In addition to its other capabilities Xenos has a special instruction which is presently unique to this graphics processor and may not necessarily even be available in WGF2.0 and this is the MEMEXPORT function. In simple terms the MEMEXPORT function is a method by which Xenos can push and pull vectorised data directly to and from system RAM. This becomes very useful with vertex shader programs as with the capabilities to scatter and gather to and from system RAM the graphics processor suddenly becomes a very wide processor for general purpose floating point operations. For instance, if a shader operation could be run with the results passed out to memory and then another shader can be performed on the output of the first shader with the first shader's results becoming the input to the subsequent shader.

MEMEXPORT expands the graphics pipeline further forward and in a general purpose and programmable way. For instance, one example of its operation could be to tessellate an object as well as to skin it by applying a shader to a vertex buffer, writing the results to memory as another vertex buffer, then using that buffer run a tessellation render, then run another vertex shader on that for skinning. MEMEXPORT could potentially be used to provide input to the tessellation unit itself by running a shader that calculates the tessellation factor by transforming the edges to screen space and then calculates the tessellation factor on each of the edges dependant on its screen space and feeds those results into the tessellation unit, resulting in a dynamic, screen space based tessellation routine. Other examples for its use could be to provide image based operations such as compositing, animating particles, or even operations that can alternate between the CPU and graphics processor.

With the capability to fetch from anywhere in memory, perform arbitrary ALU operations and write the results back to memory, in conjunction with the raw floating point performance of the large shader ALU array, the MEMEXPORT facility does have the capability to achieve a wide range of fairly complex and general purpose operations; basically any operation that can be mapped to a wide SIMD array can be fairly efficiently achieved and in comparison to previous graphics pipelines it is achieved in fewer cycles and with lower latencies. For instance, this is probably the first time that general purpose physics calculation would be achievable, with a reasonable degree of success, on a graphics processor and is a big step towards the graphics processor becoming much more like a vector co-processor to the CPU.

Seeing as MEMEXPORT operates over the unified shader array the capability is also available to pixel shader programs, however the data would be represented without colour or Z information which is likely to limit its usefulness.

ATI indicate that MEMEXPORT functions can still operate in parallel with both vertex fetch and filtered texture operation

[Garfunkel]

Actually it is also a capacity thing (potentially).

Yes, but it is still primarily a bandwidth issue

The PS3 uses more ram for the oc, and there is no edram for the framebuffer (LOL I think I have this right, thus giving the 360 more usable ram).

true {mostly}

The RSX could use from cell's pool of ram since there is adequate bandwith to support this although with the amount of references we have heard about this it seems there may be an issue surrounding it. Something tells me that it may be complicated allocating a pool and a portion of a pool to video ram (other than a few statements though from a few dev houses).

Tosh.

@Frosty- I havent seen any noticeable texture diff. in the PS3 comparison shots nor have the devs spoke of any difference in the visuals of the game (they have only spoke of draw in and background loading, and stated that visually the game would look like the other versions of oblivion) and once again we find the Oblivion version releasing a year later.

MS mud is impressive (you are refering to this I believe) never said it wasnt but in a texture comparison to other 360 titles I believe it falls short.

i agree

@VG - are you suggesting streaming texture info on the fly?? I personally cant see a hdd being fast enough although it should be useful considering loading times (if used).

Depends, i also don't think so but you never know.

@ lips- Im not sure what you are asking me here? From scene to scene there may be a dramatic call for pixel>vertex or vertex>pixel the architecture allows for the bottlenext to be addressed considerably more efficient than previous architectures (such as limited ded. pipes). Do I think that it is feasable or better yet a good theory to run all alus at a single task (such as 48 ded. to pixel) no I do not. Although it seems what we are currently seeing in titles is the splitting of the alu (32 to pix 16 to vert etc) and this is hindering the performance of the card by an estimated 20 - 25 percent efficiency.

I agree

[woundingchaney]

Yeah I agree that as of right now it is primarily a bandwith issue.

[Garfunkel]

rest assured it is an issue that can be overcome and in a few years we will probably rarely see any problems.

The 360 has it's own weaknesses of course.

[woundingchaney]

rest assured it is an issue that can be overcome and in a few years we will probably rarely see any problems.

The 360 has it's own weaknesses of course.

Oh very much so and my statements arent associated with the 360 being a superior console (more along the lines of each offering advantages).


Are you really only 16?????

[Garfunkel]

Oh very much so and my statements arent associated with the 360 being a superior console (more along the lines of each offering advantages).

I know ;)

[stanDarsh]

The differences this round I doubt with be that much between PS3 and Xbox 360. I slightly give PS3 the upper hand hardware wise, but I'm knitpicking. In any event, any console you choose, you really can't go wrong.

Wii is very fun to play and even know Zelda is it's main game to get at present, there are a lot of great games on the horizon.

Xbox 360, has the best library of any next gen console at present which is not surprising considering it's now been out for over a year.

PS3, while slow to start will pick up in the coming months with Heavenly Sword, Virtua Fighter 5, Lair, Motorstorm etc. I expect sales of PS3 hardware to be pretty high even when PS3s are produced in much higher numbers than they are currently.

[joe]

@Joe - very good compasion do you have a link
here is another
http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-comparisons-27828.phtml



... I am very sorry,but you are very wrong,these images are taken under different circumstances /see text blur/,and yes .. PS3 has much better screen resolution,equal or better texture resolution,aditional foliage,it do have reflective water etc.

[VG Aficionado]

@VG - are you suggesting streaming texture info on the fly?? I personally cant see a hdd being fast enough although it should be useful considering loading times (if used).Well, I'm no expert, but I'd love to see this if possible: imagine GTAIV for PS3. Given Rockstar can take full advantage of the standard HDD, they could require a mandatory, short one-time install of part of the game's content the very first time you play it. While the system performs this task, let the player enjoy some minigame or any other kind of pastime. When it is done, you'll see the purpose of this when playing: HDD and Blu-ray drive streaming at once. I think the installed HDD content should be stuff that would require many random disc accesses like pedestrians and vehicles, making the Blu-ray drive more efficient by just being in charge of streaming environments and music/voice acting only. Even the music could be streamed from the HDD too. Additionally, enable virtual RAM and free Blu-ray drive's resources for a higher streaming capability. And no, this wouldn't be done just for the sake of shorter or seemingly inexistent loading times, but to maximise the performance of the streaming engine to allow greater quality visuals and whatnot.

This is something I can only see possible by having a standard HDD (any PS3 in the world) or by requiring a HDD (sorry 360 core). Yeah, yeah, now you will argue that the HDD attach rate is high and all ;) The question is whether Microsoft will allow dividing their customer base or not, because the core base is a minority they are not ignoring... although I wouldn't be surprised if they did so very soon.

... I am very sorry,but you are very wrong,these images are taken under different circumstances /see text blur/,and yes .. PS3 has much better screen resolution,equal or better texture resolution,aditional foliage,it do have reflective water etc.Indeed, I really don't see any downgrades, pretty much the contrary despite being rendered at more than double the resolution. I also said before that the blurred text meant that an analog cable was used for PS3's case.

[woundingchaney]

If you guys do not see texture detail downgrades it is simply because you choose not to.

Texture detail (all around background track etc) remains higher on the 360 version as does water detail. Although the 360 version supports reflections Im unsure if they are static or dynamic. Now going on to foliage, yes I believe the foliage is fuller on the PS3 version but overall I believe background detail and fullness is better on the 360 version.

There is controversy over the framerate on the PS3 version as well. It seems some reviews/issues are pointing to framerate issues (primarily during turns) with the version although there is controversy surrounding this and shouldnt be viewed as a staple to the argument/debate.

I prefer the rich color of the 360 version over the washed out PS3. Although this is only opinion and I can see where someone would prefer the illuminated aspects of the PS3.

The game releases a year later than its predecessor. Im not sure why we are hampering on this as by all rights the newer version should be superior, although it clearly isnt in every way. As I have said I think that overall the PS3 rr7 does infact look better but if your suggesting that in every way it is superior then I adamantly disagree and depending on the resolution of the given tv it would primarily be a consumer decision/opinion. (although rr7 at 1080p would look better than rr6 at 720p).

@Vg

If your suggesting a 5600rpm can stream texture detail on the fly then why even use ram?? Surely this would have been incorporated on pcs a while ago. Im calling nonsense on the whole issue primarily because it simply doesnt make sense. The reason why we load to ram is because it is dramatically faster than and more efficient than cacheing from the hdd. Cacheing from the hdd is faster than streaming from optical media but I cant see it taking the place of ram, is this what you are suggesting.? (perhaps Im confused on what you are suggesting, infact I believe I am)

And there are titles available and titles in the making that require the hdd for 360 there are also many titles that detect the presence of the hdd and incorporate into their programming as if the game was built around the presence of the hdd all along. I think your trying to make the existence of a standardized hdd a more prevalent factor than what it is or will be.
-Although I do believe a standard hdd is preferable.

[Garfunkel]

The differences this round I doubt with be that much between PS3 and Xbox 360. I slightly give PS3 the upper hand hardware wise, but I'm knitpicking. In any event, any console you choose, you really can't go wrong.

Wii is very fun to play and even know Zelda is it's main game to get at present, there are a lot of great games on the horizon.

Xbox 360, has the best library of any next gen console at present which is not surprising considering it's now been out for over a year.

PS3, while slow to start will pick up in the coming months with Heavenly Sword, Virtua Fighter 5, Lair, Motorstorm etc. I expect sales of PS3 hardware to be pretty high even when PS3s are produced in much higher numbers than they are currently.

the difference will end up being noticeable (ps3 with the upper hand) but no where near ps2 vs xbox.

@wounding: GTA: SA was streamed almost completely off the DVD, now that i think of it, the caching of textures to hdd is plausible and will be done. The reason it hasn't been done on pc's is because pc's tend to have more RAM then needed, no game truly uses 2GB in a gaming rig so really no need. Also, the HDD for PC's will be doing that as well as reading/writing the general game data at the same time, which is bad.

[woundingchaney]

the difference will end up being noticeable (ps3 with the upper hand) but no where near ps2 vs xbox.

I think that is really a fair statement and very possible. Although I wouldnt associated a complete upper hand I do believe it is possible the PS3 could prove better suited at more tasks than the 360.

[joe]

I prefer the rich color of the 360 version over the washed out PS3. Although this is only opinion and I can see where someone would prefer the illuminated aspects of the PS3.


http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/6475/rr6360201xea0.jpg
rich colors

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/9030/rr7ps3949su7.jpg
washed out ??

[woundingchaney]

the difference will end up being noticeable (ps3 with the upper hand) but no where near ps2 vs xbox.

@wounding: GTA: SA was streamed almost completely off the DVD, now that i think of it, the caching of textures to hdd is plausible and will be done. The reason it hasn't been done on pc's is because pc's tend to have more RAM then needed, no game truly uses 2GB so really no need. Also, the HDD for PC's will be doing that as well as reading/writing the general game data at the same time, which is bad.

PC games do not are not built around the existence of 2 gig or ram, maybe 1 gig and in the future 1.5 gig at most (in years 2 at most maybe depends on a lot of factors). Also this is suggested amounts the game must consider background rescources being used by various processes.

Im saying streaming from the HDD is faster than optical media but it still need be loaded to ram, ram is the main limitation to info available at a given time. I cant help but feel that the hdd is simply too slow for items like texture detail. (Am I completely confused here???)

[VG Aficionado]

I prefer the rich color of the 360 version over the washed out PS3. Although this is only opinion and I can see where someone would prefer the illuminated aspects of the PS3.To be honest, I don't see how darker and blurrier would be considered richer, according to that side-to-side car and environment comparison. Anyway, this will end up being a matter of taste for most people. However, the water on the 360 version is definately not reflective, it's just plain and dull.

(perhaps Im confused on what you are suggesting)Yes, I'm afraid every time I argue what I just posed you understand it incorrectly. You keep thinking in PC terms and keep forgetting PS3 is a uniform, standard piece of hardware. What I suggested should definately be possible and solid enough to guarantee that the game performs exactly as good on every PS3. The physical RAM doesn't stream, it is streamed to. The HDD and Blu-ray drive stream to it. When you suggest shorter loading times, it seems you're assuming just loading, not streaming. I do mean the ability to recreate an open world by streaming different chunks of data from the HDD and the disc drive at once to physical RAM, therefore maximising the efficiency. On the virtual RAM issue, I'm just speculating given the fact that the HDD could have enough resources to make a portion of the streaming to the physical RAM faster in some cases; for instance, temporally storing what the Blu-ray drive streamed a short while ago to be used again immediately if needed, and erase its content and refill it as it follows suit. This is a different concept that is not incompatible nor has to be implemented at once with the original idea I'm posing (HDD + Blu-ray simultaneous streaming).

there are also many titles that detect the presence of the hddThis is not good, because it means the experience will be inferior for core customers.

[Viano]

rich colour?
PS3 supports 1080p and hdmi1.3 so whaz up?

[Goki]

Ok im just gonna jump myself into this thread here, but looking at the pic Joe posted, the top one seems better, but i think its because of the green of the grass, and the car on the bottom is further away from the edge where the grass is thus making it seem less detailed.

[VG Aficionado]

Ok im just gonna jump myself into this thread here, but looking at the pic Joe posted, the top one seems better, but i think its because of the green of the grass, and the car on the bottom is further away from the edge where the grass is thus making it seem less detailed.I definately appreciate more detail on the PS3 title. The colours actually are improved since you can see 360's sky is white while PS3's sky is blue, which makes the PS3 version more correct IMO.

[woundingchaney]

X amount of ram, does it matter where this info supply comes from??? You can fit so much into ram, it seems what your saying is already being used. The existence of an hdd will make streaming and loading faster but it is not going to allow for more texture as that is dependant on the amount of usable ram. Isnt this concept being used with the optional install of certain games??? The use of the hdd allows for faster refreshing of ram but that isnt by any means revolutionary.

And if your suggesting this is a new concept why wouldnt this concept have been used in the past when we seen a standardized hdd in the xbox.

[joe]

Ok im just gonna jump myself into this thread here, but looking at the pic Joe posted, the top one seems better, but i think its because of the green of the grass, and the car on the bottom is further away from the edge where the grass is thus making it seem less detailed.

... you know,I always change game´s brigtness/saturation/gamma corection/luminance tu my taste,so .. talking about washed colors is .. hm.

[joe]

I definately appreciate more detail on the PS3 title. The colours actually are improved since you can see 360's sky is white while PS3's sky is blue, which makes the PS3 version more correct IMO.

... watch the tree shadows.

[woundingchaney]

where are you getting your pics from Joe??

[joe]

where are you getting your pics from Joe??

... from your link,and which are from gamebrink.com /forums,posted cca 1 month ago/.

[woundingchaney]

... from your link,and which are from gamebrink.com /forums,posted cca 1 month ago/.

The pics you posted dont resemble the ones when in the link it seems to be the same shot with augmentations.



If you look at your shots in one window and then follow the link in another they look considerably different.

[woundingchaney]

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/6475/rr6360201xea0.jpg
rich colors

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/9030/rr7ps3949su7.jpg
washed out ??




http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-comparisons-27828.phtml


Do you have a link??

[joe]

http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-comparisons-27828.phtml


Do you have a link??

... as I said ... www.gamebrink.com /forums,user news/


http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/3772/rr7qz1.gif

teh o´matic washed colors remover

[Smokey]

i showed my missus the original "colourful" 15 min MGS then i showed her the more "washed out" version which everyone complained about and after watching them i asked her which one she liked best and it was the "washed" out version. same here actually i cant notice any detail change & MGS aint meant to be "rosy".............this is just a example of differences in detail which we percieve. but i gotta say she didnt notice that i bought a 42inch plasma (i had to point it out LOL)

[woundingchaney]

... as I said ... www.gamebrink.com /forums,user news/


teh o´matic washed colors remover


Ok could I get a more direct link.

Please.

And from your pics I still like the color saturation of the top one. I have yet to see how this effects texture detail here.

Are you trying to prove that a 2007 game looks better than a 2006 game?? I have already stated that.

[joe]

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20061218/ggl.htm
... I think,it was already posted,but who knows /RR7 .. 480i vs 1080p etc./


could I get a more direct link.
... I cant find it,and there were full resolution images,real 1920x1080 beauty.



Are you trying to prove that a 2007 game looks better than a 2006 game?? I have already stated that.
... OK.

[woundingchaney]

Thats cool man.

I would agree the rr7 game would look better at 720p than 1080p.

[Kabbage]

LMAO wounding.... we get it... Xbox360 is better in every aspect. You Win.

[woundingchaney]

LMAO wounding.... we get it... Xbox360 is better in every aspect. You Win.

Man come on now thats not what Im saying, thats never what I have said throughout this whole thing.

[Kabbage]

Man come on now thats not what Im saying, thats never what I have said throughout this whole thing.Ok then the 360 is better in every aspect that matters. PS3 has washed color, bad lighting, bad games, bad textures, bad architecture, and any games that can be argued in PS3's favor either looks the same or is a direct result of more dev time and nothing more.

*Wonders how this is different from his first post*

[VG Aficionado]

X amount of ram, does it matter where this info supply comes from??? You can fit so much into ram, it seems what your saying is already being used. The existence of an hdd will make streaming and loading faster but it is not going to allow for more texture as that is dependant on the amount of usable ram.That's not the point! The point is maximising the streaming performance. Simply because there's that well defined RAM limit, this is where the best possible streaming solution that will be able to put stuff in and out of RAM faster than others becomes the best solution. The faster it is, the more clever tricks it will allow and the more detail it will be able to provide in the given circumstances. When having two standard devices that could stream at once, it makes sense to believe that streaming on it will perform better than any other system with only one standard streaming device and another that may help or not, specially when the respectively standard and optional devices are HDDs. This is not just about loading times per se.

Isnt this concept being used with the optional install of certain games??? The use of the hdd allows for faster refreshing of ram but that isnt by any means revolutionary.As far as I know, the optional install of PS3 games so far only work as loading time savers in games that load one entire level at a time, and we've got yet to see an open-ended world on PS3. WarHawk is said to be a huge, seamless world, so that could be the first example of what I expect to see in terms of streaming performance. Same goes to Burnout 5 and MGS4.

And if your suggesting this is a new concept why wouldnt this concept have been used in the past when we seen a standardized hdd in the xbox.Actually, I remember reading that GTA3 on Xbox was significantly technically superior in terms of streaming compared to the PS2 version because of what I posed. I don't mean it's new, I mean it can be done on PS3 while it would be more troublesome (up to impossible based on mandated restrictions) on the 360.

... watch the tree shadows.Yeah, those are definately more correct in the PS3 title. The reflections on the car also look sharper.

teh o´matic washed colors removerROFL! So true in many cases.

[AbominatioN]

For me the all in around better console is definitely the PS3. For the following reasons:

1) The game franchises
All the games I have played (and liked) are still here. Many are not exclusives any more, but still here nonetheless. Also new fresh IPs are coming.

2) Hardware

2.1) GPU
RSX is a powerful gpu. I don't know if RSX is better/worst than the xenos. But I really like the gfx I see from the "launch" titles, and it's going to get better every year.

2.2) CPU
CELL is the most powerful cpu in all the consoles. No other cpu is entering the HPC market, and that proves a lot about its huge power. Difficult to program? Yes! Excellent results? Hell yes!!!

2.3) HDD
Both SKUs have an hdd that I can replace with the biggest 2.5" HDD i can afford. Nothing like the "proprietary" format of the xbox2. 100E (IIRC) for a 20GB hdd ?!?!

2.4) BD
BD is inside the PS3 for the games. 25GB/50GB for BD instead of 7GB for DVD. And as an added bonus I can play BD movies. No add-on drive (+200E) just for playing HD-DVD movies.

2.5) Misc h/w
2.5.1) HDMI v1.3 (no competitor has it)
2.5.2) 1Gb Ethernet port (xbox2 has 100Mb)
2.5.3) wifi (for the 600E PS3)
Yes you can put a usb add-on to xbox2 (also as an add-on for the 500E PS3), but it will cost you 60E (IIRC) + one usb port out of the total 3 of xbox2. (4 total usb ports on PS3)
2.5.4) cf/sd/duo memory card readers (for the 600E PS3)

3) Online
Free online gaming! No 60E/year.

4) Other functionality
LINUX !!! And this is the 2nd best reason (the 1st is the games) the PS3 is for me, the best console ever. For the majority of the console users, LINUX means nothing. But full LINUX on PS3 is for the hardcore (and those new users willing enough to learn) users, a gift beyond heaven. I've been using LINUX for 3 years on a CEL@300MHz/256MB ram/ 4.2GB hdd/4MB vga, pc with exceptional stability (uptime: 98 days and counting!!!) and functionality (Internet browsing, icq/msn/yahoo/aim, e-mail, web/ftp/e-mail server, and more...). And this is my primary (and only) pc at home.

So in the end you can argue about "xenos is better/PS3 games have less textures/fx" all you want. I know that for me, the PS3 is the all around better console. :beer:

[Smokey]

I've been using LINUX for 3 years on a CEL@300MHz/256MB ram/ 4.2GB hdd/4MB vga, pc with exceptional stability (uptime: 98 days and counting!!!) and functionality (Internet browsing, icq/msn/yahoo/aim, e-mail, web/ftp/e-mail server, and more...). And this is my primary (and only) pc at home.
damn!

[VG Aficionado]

For me the all in around better console is definitely the PS3. For the following reasons:

1) The game franchises
All the games I have played (and liked) are still here. Many are not exclusives any more, but still here nonetheless. Also new fresh IPs are coming.

2) Hardware

2.1) GPU
RSX is a powerful gpu. I don't know if RSX is better/worst than the xenos. But I really like the gfx I see from the "launch" titles, and it's going to get better every year.

2.2) CPU
CELL is the most powerful cpu in all the consoles. No other cpu is entering the HPC market, and that proves a lot about its huge power. Difficult to program? Yes! Excellent results? Hell yes!!!

2.3) HDD
Both SKUs have an hdd that I can replace with the biggest 2.5" HDD i can afford. Nothing like the "proprietary" format of the xbox2. 100E (IIRC) for a 20GB hdd ?!?!

2.4) BD
BD is inside the PS3 for the games. 25GB/50GB for BD instead of 7GB for DVD. And as an added bonus I can play BD movies. No add-on drive (+200E) just for playing HD-DVD movies.

2.5) Misc h/w
2.5.1) HDMI v1.3 (no competitor has it)
2.5.2) 1Gb Ethernet port (xbox2 has 100Mb)
2.5.3) wifi (for the 600E PS3)
Yes you can put a usb add-on to xbox2 (also as an add-on for the 500E PS3), but it will cost you 60E (IIRC) + one usb port out of the total 3 of xbox2. (4 total usb ports on PS3)
2.5.4) cf/sd/duo memory card readers (for the 600E PS3)

3) Online
Free online gaming! No 60E/year.

4) Other functionality
LINUX !!! And this is the 2nd best reason (the 1st is the games) the PS3 is for me, the best console ever. For the majority of the console users, LINUX means nothing. But full LINUX on PS3 is for the hardcore (and those new users willing enough to learn) users, a gift beyond heaven. I've been using LINUX for 3 years on a CEL@300MHz/256MB ram/ 4.2GB hdd/4MB vga, pc with exceptional stability (uptime: 98 days and counting!!!) and functionality (Internet browsing, icq/msn/yahoo/aim, e-mail, web/ftp/e-mail server, and more...). And this is my primary (and only) pc at home.

So in the end you can argue about "xenos is better/PS3 games have less textures/fx" all you want. I know that for me, the PS3 is the all around better console. :beer:Great post! :clap:

[joe]

I've been using LINUX for 3 years on a CEL@300MHz/256MB ram/ 4.2GB hdd/4MB vga, pc with exceptional stability (uptime: 98 days and counting!!!) and functionality (Internet browsing, icq/msn/yahoo/aim, e-mail, web/ftp/e-mail server, and more...). And this is my primary (and only) pc at home.


... he he,CEL/300Mhz .. CELL/3.2Ghz
... wind of change.

[woundingchaney]

That's not the point! The point is maximising the streaming performance. Simply because there's that well defined RAM limit, this is where the best possible streaming solution that will be able to put stuff in and out of RAM faster than others becomes the best solution. The faster it is, the more clever tricks it will allow and the more detail it will be able to provide in the given circumstances. When having two standard devices that could stream at once, it makes sense to believe that streaming on it will perform better than any other system with only one standard streaming device and another that may help or not, specially when the respectively standard and optional devices are HDDs. This is not just about loading times per se.

As far as I know, the optional install of PS3 games so far only work as loading time savers in games that load one entire level at a time, and we've got yet to see an open-ended world on PS3. WarHawk is said to be a huge, seamless world, so that could be the first example of what I expect to see in terms of streaming performance. Same goes to Burnout 5 and MGS4.

Actually, I remember reading that GTA3 on Xbox was significantly technically superior in terms of streaming compared to the PS2 version because of what I posed. I don't mean it's new, I mean it can be done on PS3 while it would be more troublesome (up to impossible based on mandated restrictions) on the 360.

Yeah, those are definately more correct in the PS3 title. The reflections on the car also look sharper.

ROFL! So true in many cases.

So basically your saying that an hdd will improve the streaming for integrated expansive worlds. I completely agree and I have said that.

This would mainly come into play regarding sandbox titles. Where the 360 is reported to have problem/issues in incorporating flying in titles. I look for hdd on the 360to be mandatory in games that have this option (GTA4 for example).

[woundingchaney]

Ok then the 360 is better in every aspect that matters. PS3 has washed color, bad lighting, bad games, bad textures, bad architecture, and any games that can be argued in PS3's favor either looks the same or is a direct result of more dev time and nothing more.

*Wonders how this is different from his first post*

Thats not what I have said at all. I am sorry that you interpreted it that way. Do I feel that current cross platform titles look and run better on teh 360 yes (in many cases).

What game that does look better on the PS3 side cannot be associated with more dev time??

I dont think the PS3 architecture is bad, I think regarding the gpus the architecture of the Xenos is more advanced though.

Textures so far look noticeably better on the 360.

Color saturation is an opinion and I have stated it that way.

Im not sure what I have said about lighting.

[Kabbage]

Thats not what I have said at all. I am sorry that you interpreted it that way. Do I feel that current cross platform titles look and run better on teh 360 yes (in many cases).

What game that does look better on the PS3 side cannot be associated with more dev time??

I dont think the PS3 architecture is bad, I think regarding the gpus the architecture of the Xenos is more advanced though.

Textures so far look noticeably better on the 360.

Color saturation is an opinion and I have stated it that way.

Im not sure what I have said about lighting. SO basically my post was spot on.

PS3 sucks you win.

[woundingchaney]

Actually these statements are based primarily around the concept statements in this