Xbox 360 Vs. PS3: Graphics RAM battle?

[XDanger]

Originally Posted by Viral

Are you even being serious? In what aspect does PS3 have a significant performance advantage over 360?

Isn't that just the way things are?

Xbox 360
3.2 GHz Xenon processor
3 dual-threaded cores
Maximum 77 GFlops

PS3
3.2 GHz Cell processor
7 single-threaded cores (plus 1 backup core)
Maximum 230 GFlops

The newer 360's cpu/gpu is gimped to perform like the old models which is lame, Newer games could have higher framerates and just have the fsb block on a switch or something for compatibility, obviously I don't know **** though.

I also think the consoles hold each other back because of the different way they work to each other forcing devs to take the lowest common denominators of each ,
one has lower bandwidth and a slower CPU but the other has less disposable ram so to get a game to work easily on both you have the cut corners on both ends...

[prankstare]

Originally Posted by jlippo

In terms of just bandwidth unified memory is inferior, but as we know x360 has edram and that does help a lot.
In terms of flexibility unified is superior, although on case of x360 edram hinders this a quite a lot.

Biggest difference distant objects is how developers use their LoD and memory, so we cannot really say what machine is better in this case until we get definite answer from developers.

Well, I am just assuming if the main 512MB is unified, then there'd be less than actual 512MB for graphics than a system with 512MB "dedicated" for graphics (like PS3 has, but only 256MB in this case).

I own a 360 Slim and the LoD in most games is ridiculous, in my opinion. The PS3 is a bit superior on this matter.

"keep up" lol. when coded for exclusively ps3 is more capable than xbox

Hey, I'm not sure I get it right, but this could be true only because of the massive blu-ray storage space, which allows PS3 to have some advantage in few exclusive titles, mainly due to compression rates and how much devs can put onto a disc (remember N64 cartridges, LoL). Even so, either the PS3 GPU/Memory would be the bottleneck or devs being lazy to optimize them.

Originally Posted by XDanger

Xbox 360The newer 360's cpu/gpu is gimped to perform like the old models which is lame, Newer games could have higher framerates and just have the fsb block on a switch or something for compatibility, obviously I don't know **** though.

What? Gimped? You mean capped?

AFAIK, Xenos CPU is capable of up to 115.2 GFLOPs whereas Cell is up to 204 GFLOPs and only 6 SPE's available, not 7.

Originally Posted by Viral

So you really don't think Gear of War 2 comes close to any PS3 game? You're delusional.

Even though I agree that PS3 has the better looking exclusives they don't even look better in every way. Most of it is just superior art direction.

A lot of PS3 Exclusive titles are far beyond better looking then X360 titles. Look at Uncharted 2 and God of War 3. The level of AA and Texture Quality while still running at 720p native resolution and a locked 30fps hasn't even come close on the X360. Look at Alan Wake that was championed on the X360 as a gorgeous game yet it ram a below 720p resolution and was a "smaller" game then the two I mentioned.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by |MaguS|

A lot of PS3 Exclusive titles are far beyond better looking then X360 titles. Look at Uncharted 2 and God of War 3. The level of AA and Texture Quality while still running at 720p native resolution and a locked 30fps hasn't even come close on the X360. Look at Alan Wake that was championed on the X360 as a gorgeous game yet it ram a below 720p resolution and was a "smaller" game then the two I mentioned.

You must have special eyes because playing on my PS3 or on my XB360, I have noticed very little by way of visual differentiation.

You clearly never have played God of War 3 or Uncharted 2 then...

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by |MaguS|

You clearly never have played God of War 3 or Uncharted 2 then...

Yes, I actually have and they are very good looking games.

But I was equally impressed with Gears of War 2 and Forza, for example.

Looking just at the art design of exclusives doesn't mean much.

My point is that both consoles do a very good job with the tech they have, and I haven't seen much by way of one dominating the other.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by XDanger

Isn't that just the way things are?

Xbox 360
3.2 GHz Xenon processor
3 dual-threaded cores
Maximum 77 GFlops

PS3
3.2 GHz Cell processor
7 single-threaded cores (plus 1 backup core)
Maximum 230 GFlops

The newer 360's cpu/gpu is gimped to perform like the old models which is lame, Newer games could have higher framerates and just have the fsb block on a switch or something for compatibility, obviously I don't know **** though.

I also think the consoles hold each other back because of the different way they work to each other forcing devs to take the lowest common denominators of each ,
one has lower bandwidth and a slower CPU but the other has less disposable ram so to get a game to work easily on both you have the cut corners on both ends...

Hey while we're just making up specs, I heard 360 has a NINJAFX processor with 500 Tflops DP performance, brah!

The real specs of the 360s CPU core are 115.3 Gflops, and the spec of the PS3s neutered Cell would be 153.6 Gflops. Not that much of a difference, considering the hoops and programming hurdles you have to jump through just to get a reasonable percentage of that peak out of the Cell.

This is mostly irrelevant to graphics performance anyway, considering on the GPU front, the 360 is far more powerful, easy to use/program and versatile.

Fact is, average PS3 titles look worse, ports look worse, and the top end exclusives that they program to the nuts and spend millions and years in development only match the 360 games they are popping out every year or so.

[Viral]

As ninja said above, the specs you posted are way off. CPU doesn't really matter that much unless what you have is grossly underpowered. 360 and PS3 are pretty close, with the 360 making up for its lower compute power by being easier to work with.

Originally Posted by |MaguS|

A lot of PS3 Exclusive titles are far beyond better looking then X360 titles. Look at Uncharted 2 and God of War 3. The level of AA and Texture Quality while still running at 720p native resolution and a locked 30fps hasn't even come close on the X360. Look at Alan Wake that was championed on the X360 as a gorgeous game yet it ram a below 720p resolution and was a "smaller" game then the two I mentioned.

I finished both of those games and I don't see how they look better than Gears of War 2. In some areas they look better, others worse. They do both have better art direction IMO, but that has nothing to do with the hardware being used and everything to do with the developers.

While you're talking about resolution, maybe you should take a look at this database:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Alan Wake does run below 720p, but it uses 4xAA. Obviously the developers thought this looked better than 720p with no AA and by all means they could be right. I personally haven't played the game. Anyhow there are a large number of games on both consoles that render below 720p. More multiplatform games run at higher res/IQ settings on the 360. Say what you will, but I think that's pretty clear cut.

What's more any multiplatform game that uses awful Quincunx AA on PS3 looks horrible compared to it's 360 counterpart. Just look at Assassins Creed 1 and 2 as well as Red Dead Redemption for examples of this.

[XDanger]

OK bad sauce ,also where I read ...
"the new combined CPU/GPU chip used in the new Xbox 360 is theoretically faster than the individual chips in older models. But in order to ensure proper functionality, Microsoft was forced to install a "frontside bus replacement block" that introduces latency and forces the chip to run at the same speed as the older model."

I call it gimped as I take it as meaning the same as capped but whatever you wanna call it.

I have no strong feeling in this debate but saying 360 > PS3 seems to go against common "knowledge" which is fine.

[m3dude]

ps3 games sweep all graphics awards every year, you must need glasses

[bacon12]

Never thought I would give a damn enough to post about it, but PS3 stomps the 360 in performance. You guys that are arguing that it doesn't aren't paying attention, look at the platform exclusives of the last few years and compare. It isn't even close.

Developers are just lazy when they make games, and often don't put enough into the PS3 and PC versions of the game and they are inferior.

Looks at blops for proof of that.

Originally Posted by Viral

As ninja said above, the specs you posted are way off. CPU doesn't really matter that much unless what you have is grossly underpowered. 360 and PS3 are pretty close, with the 360 making up for its lower compute power by being easier to work with.



I finished both of those games and I don't see how they look better than Gears of War 2. In some areas they look better, others worse. They do both have better art direction IMO, but that has nothing to do with the hardware being used and everything to do with the developers.

While you're talking about resolution, maybe you should take a look at this database:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Alan Wake does run below 720p, but it uses 4xAA. Obviously the developers thought this looked better than 720p with no AA and by all means they could be right. I personally haven't played the game. Anyhow there are a large number of games on both consoles that render below 720p. More multiplatform games run at higher res/IQ settings on the 360. Say what you will, but I think that's pretty clear cut.

What's more any multiplatform game that uses awful Quincunx AA on PS3 looks horrible compared to it's 360 counterpart. Just look at Assassins Creed 1 and 2 as well as Red Dead Redemption for examples of this.

And yet God of War 3 runs at 720p with 16xMLAA.