Why does 360 look (and run) better than PS3? (multi platform games)

[CTU_Agent24]

NOTE: This is not a fan war.

Why is it that on multi platform games; Xbox 360 looks and runs better that PS3?
I had thought the PS3 was meant to be more powerful than 360, but this does not appear to be the case.
Many reviews that i read comment that the game looks slightly better and runs smoother on the 360 than PS3... Anyone know why (or am i completely wrong)?

 

[Estarc]

Grand Theft Auto IV performs better (slightly) on the PlayStation 3 than on the XBox 360. But as for why the 360 wins out on other titles? I don't know, since I was under the same impression that the PS3 is more powerful.

Regardless, PS3 has less glitches and Metal Gear Solid 4, so...

 

[jsouth88]

It's because of the Cell processor in the PS3. It runs completely different from the processor in the 360. I don't know much of the technical side to it, but the 360's processor is supposed to be more traditional.

Many programmers (i'm looking at you valve) look at the Cell processor as more of a hassle than another opportunity to branch out to a wider range of gamers. This is why the Orange Box got bad reviews for PS3 and why Left 4 Dead isn't coming to PS3. Many companies don't find it neccesary or they see it is a pain in the ass, but I guess they forgot their job is to bring their games to everyone, even if it means a few grind nights.

To sum it up, the PS3 does have much more horsepower, but it takes some digging to get the most out of the system. Things are changing though. Many dev teams are using the PS3 first and then doing a faithful port to 360. Either way, they are both great systems, no doubt.

 

[blarggles]

The PS3 isn't more powerful that is just marketing Hype. Learn a bit about the hardware and software tools and you realise neither is faster they are both fairly even in capabilities.

They just have different architecture so porting titles from the 360 to the PS3 causes issues. Porting the other way is generally much easier. Which is why you find a lot of companies now leading on the PS3 when creating multi platform games.

Just down to the way memory is managed and the tools at their disposal.

 

[Cyclomega]

Apparently the installations only uncompress textures and put some graphical stuff in the cache, but only to reduce loading times, at least so far...

Thus, the PS3's memory is handled like crap on multiplatforms...

 

[blarggles]

Not disc memory. System and Video memory.

The PS3 uses 2 sets of 256mb, 1 for video 1 for system. The 360 uses 1 x 512mb which is for both the system and video. What this means is that the PS3 is always limited to only using 256mb for each thing. The 360 is not.

So if a scene requires more than 256mb of video memory but less than 256mb of system memory the 360 can shuffle it around and put say 312mb into video and leave 200mb for the system. The PS3 is unable to do this which is what caused many problems at first with porting games. But makes it easy to port the other way.

CPU wise the Cell is an amazing piece of tech. However its only truly great at FPU calculations. Gaming is more general and this is where its power drops drastically. As a result It becomes similar in capabilities to the 360. You also have the PS3 OS using 1 core for itself and reserving a 2nd. This does not happen on the 360 so what you end up with is 2 systems with different ways of doing things but almost identical results at the end when coded correctly.

The reason the PS3 installs items to the disc is also due to bluray. While it can store a lot of info the drive in the PS3 has slower read than the DVD drive in the 360 caused some problems again for early games with regards to loading times being rather long.

 

[The Wooster]

Just down to the way memory is managed and the tools at their disposal.

But that is what doesn't make sense. The memory capacity on PS3 is what, FIVE TIMES GREATER? Why develop a game and then find that you have to cut stuff out to make it fit on other platforms? At that point, the PS3 doesn't have to be more powerful, the disk can do all the extra work....

Apparently not. It's shitty read times make for piss poor data access which results in joys like the 25 minute install, the 8 gig install and my favourite, the two minute install between levels in MGS4. It would have taken me 20 seconds at most to get off my ass, walk over the ps3 and change the disk. The fact we've yet to see a game that uses all that space in an effective way is a bit of a kick in the teeth too.

I generally buy a game on the 360 over the ps3. Not because a particular version looks better, it varies by game, but because of small issues like my preference for the 360 controller, a dislike of half hour installs and the fact 720p games look kind of cross hatched on my tv. That being said I'm not into console multiplayer. If I was the fact that I have to pony up cash for live would factor into my decision. That being said (x2 mother fuckers!) the ps3 doesn't come with a headset and a headset would be vital to the kind of team based games I like to play. TF2, for example, would be horrendous without a headset.

 

[HuCast]

What about Final Fantasy XIII?

 

[Rotrmm]

Developers working primarily on the 360 version and later porting it to the Ps3, since though the Ps3 can handle anything on the 360, the 360 can't handle something built for the Ps3. Since the two use a different coding and a signifigantly different CPU, the version will highlight the 360s strengths and not the Ps3s. Supposedly this is changing, with a number of games being optimized for both platforms simultaneously, and some even supposedly being developed on the Ps3 (Mirrors Edge, or so I heard)

You seem to understand the principle, but have it backwards.

If first developed on the 360, then the PS3 usually struggles as it can't handle it. However, if the primary development platform is the PS3, then porting across to the 360 means the same performance because the 360 can easily handle titles built for the PS3.

 

[Cyclomega]

What about Final Fantasy XIII?

Wait and see, it seems like it will be released on both consoles, so we'll have another go at petty bickering between console loyalists.

 

[Corven]

What about Final Fantasy XIII?

what about it, it's coming out for the 360.

 

[stompy]

CPU wise the Cell is an amazing piece of tech. However its only truly great at FPU calculations. Gaming is more general and this is where its power drops drastically and as a result. It because similar in capabilities to the 360. You also have the PS3 OS using 1 core for itself and reserving a 2nd. This does not happen on the 360 so what you end up with is 2 systems with different ways of doing things but almost identical results at the end when coded correctly.

By any chance, do you know how powerful each core on the Cell is? I'm pretty sure that each core on the Xbox 360 is 3.2GHz, but I'm not sure how powerful the cores on the PS3 is.

As for the OP's question, it all comes down to optimisation. To my knowledge, they develop for the Xbox 360 first, then port over.

Though, if done properly, then it shouldn't really matter. If they held off the ported version, to optimise it to utilise the platform's strengths, then you shouldn't notice a difference.

 

[Rotrmm]

Grand Theft Auto IV performs better (slightly) on the PlayStation 3 than on the XBox 360. But as for why the 360 wins out on other titles? I don't know, since I was under the same impression that the PS3 is more powerful.

Actually, that's not true. While the PS3 has slightly less pop-in because of the mandatory install, it also runs at a lower resolution than the 360 version and at about 15-20% less FPS.

So, for example, the 360 version renders at 720P (HD resolution) while the PS3 runs at 600P (sub-HD) and upscales, which is why it's more blurry. Additionally, if for example the 360 version is running at 30FPS, the PS3 version will be running at 25FPS or thereabouts.