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.Aries_Split post=9.72729.775655 said: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.
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.Codgo post=9.72729.775982 said: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.Rotrmm post=9.72729.771195 said: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.Estarc post=9.72729.771155 said: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.
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.
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.
Like Windows 95 and Windows ME!Ozu08865 post=9.72729.774727 said: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.
This.Codgo post=9.72729.775982 said: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.
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).Codgo post=9.72729.775982 said: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.
All Xbox and PS3 games list their compatible output resolutions on the box. Without exception.Credge post=9.72729.776055 said:This.Codgo post=9.72729.775982 said: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.
If a game does not advertise that it is in 720 or 1080p, then the game is not in either.
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.Woe Is You post=9.72729.776005 said: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.Codgo post=9.72729.775982 said: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.Rotrmm post=9.72729.771195 said: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.Estarc post=9.72729.771155 said: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.
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.
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.
Wait, what?Jumplion post=9.72729.776431 said: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.
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.Woe Is You post=9.72729.776507 said: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.
Wait, what?Jumplion post=9.72729.776431 said: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.
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.