Xbox 360 Vs. PS3: Graphics RAM battle?

[Mr. Hunt]

Originally Posted by |MaguS|

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

And GoW3 doesn't look like a dark pile of garbage.

[m3dude]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hunt

And GoW3 doesn't look like a dark pile of garbage.

nor does it come close to looking as good as the ps3 heavy hitters, which is our point.

id post comparison screens but unlike other developers with actual talent, epic doesnt release actual gameplay shots of their games, just offline prerendered marketing drivel

[prankstare]

The more I read about exclusive titles and developers taking more from the Cell processor, the worse I feel about having bought my 360 Slim just a month ago!

It appears that in 5 years from now, we can be seeing most titles or even multiplatform titles running much better on the PS3. The only problem I can't quite grasp is the memory limitation on the Sony console.

[jlippo]

Originally Posted by |MaguS|

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

There is no point of 16x with MLAA and it certainly doesn't mean anything similar it would as with normal sampling based AA. (MSAA or SSAA)
MLAA is a nice filter which calculates slopes between high contrast areas in a image and blends neighbour pixels to each other, in similar way as WU-lines.
So no, it really doesn't have 16 sub-samples per pixel, the blend is between 2 pixels.

For GPU GoW3 looks like 720p game without any AA method. (or post processing. )

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by prankstare

The more I read about exclusive titles and developers taking more from the Cell processor, the worse I feel about having bought my 360 Slim just a month ago!

It appears that in 5 years from now, we can be seeing most titles or even multiplatform titles running much better on the PS3. The only problem I can't quite grasp is the memory limitation on the Sony console.

I wouldn't worry too much as the Xbox is easier to program for and therefore is typically used as the test-bed. Plus, it has a far larger install base.

[Viral]

Originally Posted by 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.

Like how the CELL CPU was meant to have 7 SPE's but only 5 were enabled?

What you're talking about is a complete moot point. Whatever the first model console of a particular generations capabilities are, the games have to be designed to run on this machine. There's no point in releasing a faster model down the road if the games have to run on the older model too.

I have no idea where this apparent common knowledge that PS3 > 360 comes from. I would only say that it is sad that misinformation can spread like that and be accepted as fact by so many.

You guys are using subjective opinions of how games look to determine that one set of hardware is faster than another. I'm saying that these opinions being subjective as they are, that the main reason behind you forming them comes from a) the developer talent for getting the best graphics possible out of fixed hardware and b) devloper talent with regard to direction and creation of the artistic aspect to these games.

My stance, the 360 is better on paper and I believe has slightly more potential in practice... mainly because of being far less restricted by VRAM. The PS3 has proven to bring some better looking games to the table simply because of developer talent.

[prankstare]

Originally Posted by Viral

My stance, the 360 is better on paper and I believe has slightly more potential in practice... mainly because of being far less restricted by VRAM. The PS3 has proven to bring some better looking games to the table simply because of developer talent.

Despite my little knowledge on the subject, my guess would be a bit different: 360 is better in practice, but in theory, PS3 could deliver much more, and not just because of developers, but due to its powerful set of SPE's. I am a bit intrigued though trying to understand how they can overcome the lack of memory with the use of the remaining SPE's and manage to release some better looking games on the PS3 (if there isn't physical memory, where is it caching extra textures for example)..

I don't know if it's just placebo or not, but the more I read and research about the Cell CPU, the stumped I get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az0CXkyoWjg

[abcgamer]

PS3 is superior Cell processor can handle gfx instruction You can notice that with PS3 exclusive games like Killzone, God of war3 etc ...

PS3 has 8 SPE out of which 6 can be used and all post processing effect are handle by them. Since god of war3 they managed to do even aa on it. So RSX can do more things. Moreover streaming data from blu-ray disk give PS3 advantage too. John Carmack said PS3 blu-ray gives them advantage in texture streaming. PS3 dev has also undergone lots of changes and now devs are able to use it more properly. Memory is also improved since PS3 was released:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/23/70...s3-developers/

[jlippo]

Originally Posted by abcgamer

PS3 is superior Cell processor can handle gfx instruction You can notice that with PS3 exclusive games like Killzone, God of war3 etc ...

PS3 has 8 SPE out of which 6 can be used and all post processing effect are handle by them. Since god of war3 they managed to do even aa on it. So RSX can do more things.

All processors can handle gfx 'instructions' traditionally the only problem is the bus between graphics card and GPU and all that API s*** between them.
Both x360 and ps3 do not have that problem.

Also SPUs are used for a lot more than just post processing, including lighting in tiled deferred rendering and so on. (Uncharted2, Battlefield3..)
This requires careful planning though so it is not seen in every title, but it really has given a lot of possibilities for developers.
RSX simply is not that good GPU when comparing to almost anything at the time of release, it simply has numerous performance pitfalls.

[Viral]

Originally Posted by abcgamer

Memory is also improved since PS3 was released:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/23/70...s3-developers/

That's not memory improved, that's OS footprint reduced. It's great that Sony managed to do this, but the X360's OS footprint is still under half the size.

PS3 has 206MB usable XDRAM and 256MB usable GDDR-3
X360 has 487MB usable GDDR-3

[Yaboze]

I have both and can say that many of the multiple console titles look better on the 360, mainly because they were probably developed on that platform or the PS3 developers were lazy.

Two examples are Ghostbusters and Red Dead Redemption. However, this isn't the case on all multi console ports.

The first party AAA titles on the PS3 look AMAZING, like GoW3, Uncharted 1/2 and GT5. GT5 looks amazing on the PS3. Nothing on the 360 looks as good as these 3 titles.

Overall, I think the PS3 has better graphics IF the developers put the effort in and that typically only happens on Sony's own titles. This is kind of how it is on the Wii. All the Nintendo made games are awesome, 3rd party, not so much.

[ViN86]

Originally Posted by prankstare

The more I read about exclusive titles and developers taking more from the Cell processor, the worse I feel about having bought my 360 Slim just a month ago!

It appears that in 5 years from now, we can be seeing most titles or even multiplatform titles running much better on the PS3. The only problem I can't quite grasp is the memory limitation on the Sony console.

5 years from now we will have the next generation of consoles and it won't matter.