• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

360 vs PS3 Graphics

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
My PC's graphics look better than the PS3's.

Than again, most people can say that..... the difference is that you pay 900+ dollars for a console and game that you play with 20 year old tech (gamepad) rather than the established industry standard of a point and click system.

ie, mouse.

There are more WoW players (I hate Wow, btw) than there are xb360, wii AND ps3 owners.... combined.


Don't know what the hype is with all these consoles (except for the new gamestyle of the Wii)..... but PC's have had these graphics levels for years.


Plus you can use your PC for more than a paperweight after you spend the 10 minutes of the day you might spend playing games on it.
 
The thing is though, the PS3 has that NV chip which is more or less a 7900GTX or a G70 architecture and the 360 has the R500, kinda like a X1900XTX.

The filtering on the GTX/G70 as we know (except for a few who refuse to achknowledge it) isn't as good as the XTX which has the high quality AF.

So surely at their maximum settings the 360 has to have the better looking textures?

Thoughts?
 
Gaming will eventually need to find a new direction once we've all gotten photorealism. Ever-bettering the graphics is all well and good but it seems like the only thing the next gen developers are paying any attention to. You don't neccessarily need photorealism to have a great game. Look at pacman or Wind Waker or Goldeneye or Katamari Damacy.

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
My PC's graphics look better than the PS3's.

Than again, most people can say that..... the difference is that you pay 900+ dollars for a console and game that you play with 20 year old tech (gamepad) rather than the established industry standard of a point and click system.

ie, mouse.

There are more WoW players (I hate Wow, btw) than there are xb360, wii AND ps3 owners.... combined.


Don't know what the hype is with all these consoles (except for the new gamestyle of the Wii)..... but PC's have had these graphics levels for years.


Plus you can use your PC for more than a paperweight after you spend the 10 minutes of the day you might spend playing games on it.
Click to expand...

Oh cut out your PC BETTER THAN CONSOLE ALWAYS YEAH noise. It really annoys me when people can't see both sides of an argument. The PC is fantastic as a multifunctional machine, including internet, business and games, but the console is a dedicated multiplayer gaming experience. If there was no point in it or demand for it there wouldn't be the console games market. Getting three friends around and having a blast at super smash bros isn't anything like levelling your WoW character with people you've never met. They're different experiences and they're not inherently better than the other; it's like comparing classical music to rock; it's the person's choice depending on how they feel and what they're doing at the time that matters and not whether rock plays notes faster than classical, for example.

As for your pointless remark about consoles using "20 year old tech" with regards to the gamepad, if you hadn't noticed not only have the gamepads changed quite radically over the years yet remained suited for the purposes they were designed, but in regards shelf life here you're way off: the first mouse was invented in 1963, fourty three years ago.
 
I almost thought I was seeing the image quality comparision between G70 and G80. 🙂 Undoubtedly the PS3 graphics will get better over time, but so will the graphics on 360. Though I'm afraid that PS3 will still inherit the weakness of G70 architecture.

Thinking about it, there shouldn't have been much difficulty in coding those games in comparison. I doubt any of those games are effectively utilizing extra cores in either console, so CPU wise they're probably in equal field. Knowing the incompetency of many design houses and/or the greediness of the publishers, it's highly likely that those games are using only one core of each console. (Forget multi-threading using extra 2 cores in 360 or 7 SPEs in PS3, they're just sitting there for the time being) Therefore, as far as CPU usage in those games is concerned, it comes down to ONE low-end Power PC.

Now, GPU wise - G70 has been out for much longer than R500. (especially if you count NV40) Programming for G70 shouldn't be too hard for the devs.

So I would attribute the better graphics in 360 to:

1. Inefficient porting (self-explanatory)
2. G70's inferioirty to R500 - As seen by less polys, lesser lighting, lesser filtering, more jaggies, less bandwidth, and so on.

For PS3 to truly shine, devs must utilize the SPEs, thus reducing the workload on G70. Otherwise, as things are now (sans Gears of war), it becomes 1 PPC + R500 (360) vs 1 PPC + G70 (PS3) and the outcome isn't hard to guess. If devs don't adapt the hardware changes (i.e. being lazy) and publishers rush things out, PS3 will have a hard time matching/exceeding the 360's graphics.
 
"Stoneburner , 360 GPU went into production in late Apirl 05... PS3 went into production August 06. So which one do you think will be better ;?... Spec wise ATI GPU is better"

what kind of comment is that!? though you redeem yourself at the end.

By your logic Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 is better than the nvidia 6800 ultra because it came out later.
🙂

At any rate, there is no doubt that the xbox 360 has the better graphics solution than the PS3.

And graphics will look the same as the artists textures will be the same. How one goes about the optimizations will make a small difference.

the difference is in..how many objects/size of maps/particles/fps and such like can the graphics system push out ...

so comparing screenshots is not the way to go 🙂
 
Originally posted by: lopri
For PS3 to truly shine, devs must utilize the SPEs, thus reducing the workload on G70. Otherwise, as things are now (sans Gears of war), it becomes 1 PPC + R500 (360) vs 1 PPC + G70 (PS3) and the outcome isn't hard to guess. If devs don't adapt the hardware changes (i.e. being lazy) and publishers rush things out, PS3 will have a hard time matching/exceeding the 360's graphics.
Click to expand...

I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head. I remember hearing that Cell could actually do some basic sort of rendering on its own as well (Not sure if that info is reliable, but just pointing it out), so if that's true, maybe devs could (eventually) put it (And the 256 XDR RAM) to better use. In that case, I predict this sort of outcome over time:

-1st party games will have an edge on the PS3, more noticably at the end of this console generation's lifetime, but only a slight difference will be present over the next year or so.
-Big 3rd party devs will probably be able to make games look about equal on both systems, and wont want to waste time making use of a barely noticable amount of extra power in the PS3 just to give it a slight edge.
-Smaller 3rd party devs wont want to truly optimize on the systems, making it an R500 vs G70 battle, giving the 360 a slight advantage in this case.

Regardless, it's all pure speculation.
 
First and foremost, I do not see why everyone has been tricked into believing that the PS3 has more graphical potential than the 360. Everyone has been buying into the Cell hype far too much.

Architecturally, the PS3 GPU is a slightly modified Geforce 7800GTX at best. It has 256MB of video memory, leaving the rest of the system with 256MB for everything else.

The 360's gpu is a unified shader design, just like the Geforce 8800GTX. The Xenos has 48 unified shaders.

If any of you all recall, Anandtech had an article discussing the performance of the two next gen consoles in real world terms.(This article was slashdotted, but copies of it may be able to be found if one looked hard enough) They concluded that the PS3 GPU was similar in performance to the G70, while the Xenos would perform similarly to a 24 pipe R420. Now think about that for a minute. The G70 is a 24 pipe NV40 and little more. If a 16 pipe R420 beats a 16 pipe NV40, then wouldn't logic say that a 24 pipe R420 would beat a 24 pipe NV40?

The PS3 is a 3.2Ghz in-order processor capable of running two threads itself, while also having seven SPE processors. The Xbox 360 is three of those 3.2Ghz processors minus the SPE. Developers and Anand have both stated that the Cell processor is definitely not the processor for games. Most developers have stated that all of the SPEs will go without being used as they are too specific and linear to be of any real use. Developers have also stated that they dislike the in order processing of these processors, and that will limit the performance output severely. Processor wise, it is a complete tossup. If a developer could perfectly use the seven SPEs and the single processor of the PS3, and another developer could use all three of the 360 processors perfectly, the overall cpu power output would be in favor of the PS3. Keep in mind, however, that it is much easier to use the three cores of the 360 than it is to use the single core and the seven SPEs of the PS3.

People tend to say that the PS3 has a memory advantage over the 360. This is completely false. The PS3 has 256MB of system memory and 256MB of video memory. The 360 has 512MB of memory that can be used for anything. This means that developers can dedicate as much memory as they feel necessary to video and system. They are not forced to abide by the constraints of a set hardware setup; they make the memory of the system change to suit the needs of their software.

Now for video. The G70 has 24 pixel pipelines and 8 vertex processors. The Xenos(R500) has 48 unified shaders. Each of the unified shaders is not as capable as one of the pixel or vertex pipelines of the G70. Same story here as for the memory of the systems. The unified shader architecture is completely flexible and programmable in real time. Developers can have more or less pixel shaders and more or less vertex shaders to suit the various scenes of the software. The hardware changes to suit the software, not the other way around.


I am not saying that one console is better than the other. I am saying that it is far too early to just flat out and say the PS3 is superior to the 360 technologically, especially considering all of the hardware advantages the 360 has over the PS3. Some would argue about pricing as a way to say which console is faster using the "It's more expensive, so it must be better" mentality. Keep in mind, the primary reason for the $600 price tag of the PS3 is the blue ray drive, something that with out, the PS3 would probably cost the same as a 360.
 
Many of the close ups of the PS3 games looked real jaggy. Especially Wolverine. And even though some of the HDR effects in Fight Night on the X360 were more realistic, I appreciate how the PS3 version tones it down, it doesn't blind me.
 
My Summary:

Need for speed: PS3 wins. Looks like the lighting has more dynamic range. Pixel shaders look better too.
Call of Duty 3: Xbox wins. Looks like the xbox has more dynamic range
Madden 07: Xbox wins. More shadows and it looks like textures are higher rez. Ps3 looks like it has better lighting shaders though.
Ultimate alliance: xbox wins. But's it's really close on this one. The xbox looks like it has a little better dynamic range. Since this game exists for low end consoles also, I don't think it really pushes the envelope.
nba07 : draw. No big differences.
Fight Night Round 3: xbox wins. Xbox lighting model seems to provide better glare effects.
Tony Hawk: Xbox wins. It seems like the excessive glare on the P23 screen is more a developer error than a rendering problem. The xbox's edge is the higher texture resolution.
Tiger woods: Ps3 wins. It seems to have better foliage AA. Perhaps due to better transparency AA on the PS3?
 
I think Dguy nailed it. Besides all he said, i dont understand how cell will help graphically. Iff the spe's are used properly it may speed up the game (FPS) but I dont see how it can affect graphic quality very much if at all. The graphics are determined by the gpu and the 360 gpu is superior.
 
I think the key for xbox 360 is for developer to fully reaize the use of its powerful 3 x 3.2 ghz processor. Anyone remember seeing Alan Wake? That game got pretty good graphic and physic that wi pretty much destory most of the ps3 game out there.

Remember here, I am not saying ps3 suck, both MGS4 and FFXIII look wicked awosome, but I think this has more to do with deveoper than the system capability itself.
 
Need for speed: PS3 wins.
Call of Duty 3: Xbox wins.
Madden 07: PS3 wins.
Ultimate alliance: xbox wins.
nba07 : draw.
Fight Night Round 3: PS3
Tony Hawk: ps3
Tiger woods: draw.
 
Originally posted by: SophalotJack
My PC's graphics look better than the PS3's.

Than again, most people can say that..... the difference is that you pay 900+ dollars for a console and game that you play with 20 year old tech (gamepad) rather than the established industry standard of a point and click system.

ie, mouse.

There are more WoW players (I hate Wow, btw) than there are xb360, wii AND ps3 owners.... combined.


Don't know what the hype is with all these consoles (except for the new gamestyle of the Wii)..... but PC's have had these graphics levels for years.


Plus you can use your PC for more than a paperweight after you spend the 10 minutes of the day you might spend playing games on it.
Click to expand...

Umm...how much do you spend on your PC to keep it "up to date enough" to play the most cutting edge games? For me to switch my PC to something able to play...we'll say Crysis, It's going to cost me somewhere around $1200+. And when the next teir of games comes out if I want to keep playing at a "respectible" frame rate I'm going to have to upgrade something again.

Or I can drop $400 on an Xbox 360 and play for 5 straight years worth of the "best" games (for that console at least) at the best frame rate.

Lets recap:

$400 once

$1000 2-3 times

Don't get me wrong, overall I enjoy the experience of an FPS more on the PC, but consoles definately have a place and purpose in my living room.
 
Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
Originally posted by: secretanchitman
8800GTX > 360 and PS3

8800GTX in SLI > *

out of those screenshots, i could tell some shots were better than others. for now, i would say that the 360 and PS3 are equal.
Click to expand...

Price of 8800 GTX > 360
Price of 8800 GTX = PS3

Price of GTX + other component to allow you to use GTX >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 or PS3
Click to expand...

PC = gaming, photoshop, browsing, benching, overclocking, etc, endless number of things you can do

gaming console = gaming, maybe viewing some phototos/ videos and browsing the web?


 
Originally posted by: enz660hp
Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
Originally posted by: secretanchitman
8800GTX > 360 and PS3

8800GTX in SLI > *

out of those screenshots, i could tell some shots were better than others. for now, i would say that the 360 and PS3 are equal.
Click to expand...

Price of 8800 GTX > 360
Price of 8800 GTX = PS3

Price of GTX + other component to allow you to use GTX >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 or PS3
Click to expand...

PC = gaming, photoshop, browsing, benching, overclocking, etc, endless number of things you can do

gaming console = gaming, maybe viewing some phototos/ videos and browsing the web?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but of those functions you listed how many need a $700 video card?
 
My summary:

NFS Carbon: PS3

COD3: 360

Madden: Tie (they should update the PS3 pictures to show shadows on the field)

Marvel: Tie (I thought the outside shots went to PS3, the inside shots to 360)

NBA: PS3 (the hardwood alone made the difference. PS3 hardwood looked very real)

Fight Night: 360 (though the last two pics were not very good comparables I think)

Tiger: PS3 (particularly the last shot as the tree looks very much real and much more full)

Tony Hawk: 360 (could barelty see anything in the first 2 PS3 shots)

So I have:

PS3: 3 outright wins

360: 3 outright wins

Ties: 2

Hopefully they do something like this again in about a year when we can really see what both machines can do.

KT
 
I bought a PS3 yesterday and still haven't opened the box yet. Whatever free time I've had I spent playing Gears of War. And to think I originally bought the 360 as a hold over till the PS3 came out and now I'm thinking of simply selling off the PS3 without opening it and making a little cash off it instead--if I can get $200-$300 profit I'll use that money towards an R600 😀
 
Originally posted by: kabob983
Originally posted by: SophalotJack
My PC's graphics look better than the PS3's.

Than again, most people can say that..... the difference is that you pay 900+ dollars for a console and game that you play with 20 year old tech (gamepad) rather than the established industry standard of a point and click system.

ie, mouse.

There are more WoW players (I hate Wow, btw) than there are xb360, wii AND ps3 owners.... combined.


Don't know what the hype is with all these consoles (except for the new gamestyle of the Wii)..... but PC's have had these graphics levels for years.


Plus you can use your PC for more than a paperweight after you spend the 10 minutes of the day you might spend playing games on it.
Click to expand...

Umm...how much do you spend on your PC to keep it "up to date enough" to play the most cutting edge games? For me to switch my PC to something able to play...we'll say Crysis, It's going to cost me somewhere around $1200+. And when the next teir of games comes out if I want to keep playing at a "respectible" frame rate I'm going to have to upgrade something again.

Or I can drop $400 on an Xbox 360 and play for 5 straight years worth of the "best" games (for that console at least) at the best frame rate.

Lets recap:

$400 once

$1000 2-3 times

Don't get me wrong, overall I enjoy the experience of an FPS more on the PC, but consoles definately have a place and purpose in my living room.
Click to expand...


Which is why I can't wait till some developer bucks the system and creates a shooter/rts that will allow for mouse+keyboard on 360/PS3.

Yes I realize a lot of people don't have a coffee table to place said M/KB, but if support was included and if the consoles supported it I for one would get it.
 
ATM I'd say the Wii is on the way to doing this. It's close at least (as described to me, the Wiimote is more like a mouse than a laser pointer). But I agree, the mouse + keyboard would open up the system for a whole new group of games. RTS games, MMO's, etc would all be alot easier with those two components.
 
Originally posted by: Ivan244
Originally posted by: kabob983
Originally posted by: SophalotJack
My PC's graphics look better than the PS3's.

Than again, most people can say that..... the difference is that you pay 900+ dollars for a console and game that you play with 20 year old tech (gamepad) rather than the established industry standard of a point and click system.

ie, mouse.

There are more WoW players (I hate Wow, btw) than there are xb360, wii AND ps3 owners.... combined.


Don't know what the hype is with all these consoles (except for the new gamestyle of the Wii)..... but PC's have had these graphics levels for years.


Plus you can use your PC for more than a paperweight after you spend the 10 minutes of the day you might spend playing games on it.
Click to expand...

Umm...how much do you spend on your PC to keep it "up to date enough" to play the most cutting edge games? For me to switch my PC to something able to play...we'll say Crysis, It's going to cost me somewhere around $1200+. And when the next teir of games comes out if I want to keep playing at a "respectible" frame rate I'm going to have to upgrade something again.

Or I can drop $400 on an Xbox 360 and play for 5 straight years worth of the "best" games (for that console at least) at the best frame rate.

Lets recap:

$400 once

$1000 2-3 times

Don't get me wrong, overall I enjoy the experience of an FPS more on the PC, but consoles definately have a place and purpose in my living room.
Click to expand...


Which is why I can't wait till some developer bucks the system and creates a shooter/rts that will allow for mouse+keyboard on 360/PS3.

Yes I realize a lot of people don't have a coffee table to place said M/KB, but if support was included and if the consoles supported it I for one would get it.
Click to expand...


Your prayers have been answered by some clever Chinese: http://www.xcm.cc/xcm_xfps_360.htm
 
Interesting, but wasn't there a device like that for the original Xbox that just didn't work very well with the games? Wonder if this one is any better??
 
I guess people are taking their shots at the Ps3 while they still can. Because anyone who has studied the two hardwares knows that its just a matter of time till the Ps3 is producing better games than the Xbox360.
 
I preferred the PS3 ones for the most part. Just a couple of the PS3 ones had a lower texture quality. Them claiming the Xbox's victory over these screenshots is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top