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

[Cyclomega]

My bad too, I snapped on what he said.

 

[Woe Is You]

So as you can see, the PS3's GPU is clearly more powerful. 550 MHZ is 50 more than the 360, it has about twice as many transistors. Just because something isn't current generation, doesn't mean it's not as powerful.

Your right in the CPU department, but the PS3 wins the in the GPU.

Clock speed and the amount of transistors is largely irrelevant to what the thing is actually capable of rendering. The general agreement is that the Xenos is simply more efficient at what it does (as in actually rendering things), largely due to the unified shader architecture and its eDRAM. It also renders more triangles on screen than the RSX.

One thing I forgot to mention with the tools is that the SPEs require their own tools and compilers to work for, unlike the competition, which contributes to making the Cell a ***** to program for. So it's not just multiprocessing that's the problem, it's also that the different cores require different tools to work with. Like I've already said: the PS3 has a higher theoretical peak perfomance, but how many third-party developers have a huge incentive to develop solely for it, when it's the least selling console of this generation?

But of course, graphics-wise, this debate is largely irrelevant. We've already reached the point where art style is vastly more important than how many triangles you push on the screen.

 

[Woe Is You]

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.

Both systems run the games around 600p, only some of the earlier and less demanding games run at 720p. When you set your system to run at 1080p its not real, the image is just upscaled to that resolution.

Current gen consoles are in a fake HD stage right now. The only gaming that is running at native higher 'HD' resolutions are PC Games.

The hilarious thing was that in E3 2005, when MS and Sony were both ranting and raving how big of a change HD was to gaming, I wished I could walk up to the stage and tell them that HD games are already here and are no different from the current gen (then the Xbox/PS2). It was just that ridiculous.

 

[Credge]

Cause 360 is build by Microsoft. Microsoft is not some evil corporation they do in fact make some damn fine products. Look at everything from XP and back.

Like Windows 95 and Windows ME!

You've got a strong point there.

 

[Credge]

Current gen consoles are in a fake HD stage right now. The only gaming that is running at native higher 'HD' resolutions are PC Games.

This.

If a game does not advertise that it is in 720 or 1080p, then the game is not in either.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Both systems run the games around 600p, only some of the earlier and less demanding games run at 720p. When you set your system to run at 1080p its not real, the image is just upscaled to that resolution. Similar to the DVD players that upscale DVD to HD resolutions.

It's rarer for Xbox games to run at sub-720p than it is for PS3 games, and the vast majority of all games on both systems are 720p at least (though lower resolutions crop up in odd places on the PS3 sometimes, I refuse to believe that anything barring stone laziness made Guitar Hero 3 need to render at 1040x585 for the PS3). Soul Calibur IV on the Xbox is actually rendered at 1365x960 and downscaled for 720p displays (The PS3 version is missing some effects like lens flare as well).

The reason the PS3 versions of multiplatform games generally don't run as well is, quite simply, because it takes more effort to get them to run at a similar standard. That means it takes more money, and with at best 2/3 of the install base, spending more money on the version that is all but guaranteed to sell less is not good financial acumen.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Current gen consoles are in a fake HD stage right now. The only gaming that is running at native higher 'HD' resolutions are PC Games.

This.

If a game does not advertise that it is in 720 or 1080p, then the game is not in either.

All Xbox and PS3 games list their compatible output resolutions on the box. Without exception.

 

[Jumplion]

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.

Both systems run the games around 600p, only some of the earlier and less demanding games run at 720p. When you set your system to run at 1080p its not real, the image is just upscaled to that resolution.

Current gen consoles are in a fake HD stage right now. The only gaming that is running at native higher 'HD' resolutions are PC Games.

The hilarious thing was that in E3 2005, when MS and Sony were both ranting and raving how big of a change HD was to gaming, I wished I could walk up to the stage and tell them that HD games are already here and are no different from the current gen (then the Xbox/PS2). It was just that ridiculous.

Well, that's because it was a big change to gaming, escpecially for the consoles. I never saw many HD TVs during the PS2 Era, and i'm sure many people didn't have HD TVs [http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31530/113/] (I admit, the article is old but I couldn't find the specific one I wanted) during that time. Just because PCs had it, doesn't mean it was "main stream" so to say. I don't remember the PS2 having an HDMI port.

I highly doubt that many PC players even had HD Monitors and stuff, when the 360 was introduced with HDMI support then HD television sales rose slightly more and into the mainstream. The PC market is very secluded from the rest of it, with PCs having HD/Blu-Ray/DVDs/CDs much before any other media gets their hands on it.

Consoles evolve slowly along with most of the rest of the market, and example of this would be the DVDs. When the PS2 was introduced, DVD sales rose along with PS2 sales. When the PS3 was instroduced, more notice to Blu-ray as a storage device increased.

Heh, it's a bit funny, you're like my Shatnershaman in some ways.

 

[Zer_]

Wow even thinking that the PS3's GPU is in any way better then the 360's is pure ignorance.

 

[Woe Is You]

What were the big changes to the actual games again? We have more pixels on the screen, yes, but the games are pretty much the same as they were in the last generation. At least Wii's waggle changes things up a bit. The reason for no HDTVs was the simple reason that there was no benefit to having them: HD broadcasts were scarce and anything SD just turns butt ugly on a screen like that. Oh, and they were crazy expensive too.

I highly doubt that many PC players even had HD Monitors and stuff, when the 360 was introduced with HDMI support then HD television sales rose slightly more and into the mainstream.

Wait, what?

Just about any monitor above 15" was able to do 1280x960 or higher after the turn of the millennium. They aren't called HD monitors, because the resolutions were there before the whole term HD came commonplace. I can assure you, just about every gamer I personally knew was playing "HD" games way before this generation.

 

[Jumplion]

What were the big changes to the actual games again? We have more pixels on the screen, yes, but the games are pretty much the same as they were in the last generation. At least Wii's waggle changes things up a bit.

I highly doubt that many PC players even had HD Monitors and stuff, when the 360 was introduced with HDMI support then HD television sales rose slightly more and into the mainstream.

Wait, what?

Just about any monitor above 15" was able to do 1280x960 or higher after the turn of the millennium. They aren't called HD monitors, because the resolutions were there before the whole term HD came commonplace. I can assure you, just about every gamer I personally knew was playing "HD" games way before this generation.

Well I never heard about it until about halfway through the PS2's lifespan, but that's just me personally. I didn't even have an HD TV when I got my PS3, and as the article showed (which again, I admit is a bit old) that not many people have HD TVs, though that could have changed recently.

But HD was a big change for consoles, right when HD TVs (for watching not playing) were budding a bit more.

 

[Syphonz]

How is this thread not locked yet?