For those with IGN insider

[jdoggg12]

The PS3 version gets its butt handed to it, in almost all aspects. I have a 360 (don't play much, i stick with PC) and am wondering why the 360 version looks so much better. My best friend has a PS3. i dont have a preference for one or the other, other than prefering the controller for the 360.

360 (according to the review):
loads 10+ seconds faster
better lighting
better textures
etc


Was it just poor coding in the port to PS3?

 

[wazzledoozle]

360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

360 Has 512MB ram that it can share in between cpu and gpu. While the PS3 has 2 x 256mb. 256mb for the GPU and another 256mb for the CPU that cannot be shared.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

It's not that simple. Case in point: Oblivion on PS3 is a bit better in both load times and in texture/draw distance.

The hardware have different strengths, and it ends up being the developers skill.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

It's not that simple. Case in point: Oblivion on PS3 is a bit better in both load times and in texture/draw distance.

The hardware have different strengths, and it ends up being the developers skill.

Well considering it came out a Year later it better be better on the PS3.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

It's not that simple. Case in point: Oblivion on PS3 is a bit better in both load times and in texture/draw distance.

The hardware have different strengths, and it ends up being the developers skill.

Well considering it came out a Year later it better be better on the PS3.

Thats what i thought too. hmmm....



Maybe its like the nvidia vs ati... it seems the older 8800s are still faster than the yet to be released 2900s.


So does it follow that:

xbox has the better gfx - good for fps games
ps3 has the better cpu - good for physics/massive games

Or am i way off base?

 

[ColdFusion718]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

It's not that simple. Case in point: Oblivion on PS3 is a bit better in both load times and in texture/draw distance.

The hardware have different strengths, and it ends up being the developers skill.

Well considering it came out a Year later it better be better on the PS3.

Thats what i thought too. hmmm....



Maybe its like the nvidia vs ati... it seems the older 8800s are still faster than the yet to be released 2900s.


So does it follow that:

xbox has the better gfx - good for fps games
ps3 has the better cpu - good for physics/massive games

Or am i way off base?

That's the general break down, yes.

 

[toolboxolio]

Isn't FEAR close to 3 years old.... ??


Xbox1080^40 + PS2324252425 = less than modern gaming.


/thread.

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

It's not that simple. Case in point: Oblivion on PS3 is a bit better in both load times and in texture/draw distance.

The hardware have different strengths, and it ends up being the developers skill.

The 360 version had a patch; it matches the PS3 pretty much pixel for pixel now.

 

[Auryg]

Originally posted by: ColdFusion718

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

It's not that simple. Case in point: Oblivion on PS3 is a bit better in both load times and in texture/draw distance.

The hardware have different strengths, and it ends up being the developers skill.

Well considering it came out a Year later it better be better on the PS3.

Thats what i thought too. hmmm....



Maybe its like the nvidia vs ati... it seems the older 8800s are still faster than the yet to be released 2900s.


So does it follow that:

xbox has the better gfx - good for fps games
ps3 has the better cpu - good for physics/massive games

Or am i way off base?

That's the general break down, yes.

General break down, yeah..but the cell processor is a lot harder to utilize correctly. Just like the emotion engine was. Sony should really just use an IBM processor.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: ColdFusion718

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
360 simply has a more advanced GPU, and more memory. You know, things that count for 3d performance.

It's not that simple. Case in point: Oblivion on PS3 is a bit better in both load times and in texture/draw distance.

The hardware have different strengths, and it ends up being the developers skill.

Well considering it came out a Year later it better be better on the PS3.

Thats what i thought too. hmmm....



Maybe its like the nvidia vs ati... it seems the older 8800s are still faster than the yet to be released 2900s.


So does it follow that:

xbox has the better gfx - good for fps games
ps3 has the better cpu - good for physics/massive games

Or am i way off base?

That's the general break down, yes.

General break down, yeah..but the cell processor is a lot harder to utilize correctly. Just like the emotion engine was. Sony should really just use an IBM processor.

Sony should just go with plain vanilla x86 processors of any kind.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Yeah, even a dude like John Carmack thought PS3 is difficult to develop for.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
The PS3 version gets its butt handed to it, in almost all aspects. I have a 360 (don't play much, i stick with PC) and am wondering why the 360 version looks so much better. My best friend has a PS3. i dont have a preference for one or the other, other than prefering the controller for the 360.

360 (according to the review):
loads 10+ seconds faster
better lighting
better textures
etc


Was it just poor coding in the port to PS3?

Since the Xbox 360 and PC share a reasonably similar software platform AFAIK, porting from Xbox -> PC or PC -> Xbox is reasonable easy without too many changes (case in point: Rainbow 6: Vegas).
The PS3 port probably required much more work, and more specialisation to get it to work nicely on the PS3 due to its specialised CPU and different platform, so the PS3 version would require more work to get it running well and efficiently, while the 360 requires less work, so it's not just "poor coding", more "more coding required, probably the same effort put in"

 

[Kromis]

Damn, I don't have Insider so I can't watch!

 

[BabaBooey]

There has not been a game yet that played or looked better on the 360...give me a break...:roll:

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Tick

Sony should just go with plain vanilla x86 processors of any kind.

Not really. No one else does.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
The PS3 version gets its butt handed to it, in almost all aspects. I have a 360 (don't play much, i stick with PC) and am wondering why the 360 version looks so much better. My best friend has a PS3. i dont have a preference for one or the other, other than prefering the controller for the 360.

360 (according to the review):
loads 10+ seconds faster
better lighting
better textures
etc


Was it just poor coding in the port to PS3?

Since the Xbox 360 and PC share a reasonably similar software platform AFAIK, porting from Xbox -> PC or PC -> Xbox is reasonable easy without too many changes (case in point: Rainbow 6: Vegas).
The PS3 port probably required much more work, and more specialisation to get it to work nicely on the PS3 due to its specialised CPU and different platform, so the PS3 version would require more work to get it running well and efficiently, while the 360 requires less work, so it's not just "poor coding", more "more coding required, probably the same effort put in"

Well the 360 Version of Rainbow Six blew away the PC Version.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Auryg


General break down, yeah..but the cell processor is a lot harder to utilize correctly. Just like the emotion engine was. Sony should really just use an IBM processor.

Sony does use an IBM processor. The cell.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
The PS3 version gets its butt handed to it, in almost all aspects. I have a 360 (don't play much, i stick with PC) and am wondering why the 360 version looks so much better. My best friend has a PS3. i dont have a preference for one or the other, other than prefering the controller for the 360.

360 (according to the review):
loads 10+ seconds faster
better lighting
better textures
etc


Was it just poor coding in the port to PS3?

We don't know how they developed the game. I'd imagine if they coded the game for the 360 and then did a quick and dirty port to the PS3, it would be better optimized for the 360. If they did it the other way around, you'd see the opposite effect.

The PS3 is overhyped, though. The cell processor is nothing special as far as processors go. It's just an immensely hyped one.

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Tick

Sony should just go with plain vanilla x86 processors of any kind.

Not really. No one else does.

The first Xbox does.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
The PS3 version gets its butt handed to it, in almost all aspects. I have a 360 (don't play much, i stick with PC) and am wondering why the 360 version looks so much better. My best friend has a PS3. i dont have a preference for one or the other, other than prefering the controller for the 360.

360 (according to the review):
loads 10+ seconds faster
better lighting
better textures
etc


Was it just poor coding in the port to PS3?

Since the Xbox 360 and PC share a reasonably similar software platform AFAIK, porting from Xbox -> PC or PC -> Xbox is reasonable easy without too many changes (case in point: Rainbow 6: Vegas).
The PS3 port probably required much more work, and more specialisation to get it to work nicely on the PS3 due to its specialised CPU and different platform, so the PS3 version would require more work to get it running well and efficiently, while the 360 requires less work, so it's not just "poor coding", more "more coding required, probably the same effort put in"

Well the 360 Version of Rainbow Six blew away the PC Version.

That's because they didn't change anything, which means it was basically a game optimised for the Xbox 360 and ported over to the PC without really ANY work done at all, hence the poor PC performance. I's easy to port, but that doesn't mean it works well straight off, you still need to do *something*, just not as much as PC <-> PS3 or Xbox 360 <-> PS3.
They even REMOVED stuff somehow in the PC version of R6 and made it worse (no widescreen support in the PC version, while HD resolution on the 360 is widescreen by nature).

 

[dwell]

Wow a PC->Xbox->PS3 port does not look good on the PS3. *shocked*

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
The PS3 version gets its butt handed to it, in almost all aspects. I have a 360 (don't play much, i stick with PC) and am wondering why the 360 version looks so much better. My best friend has a PS3. i dont have a preference for one or the other, other than prefering the controller for the 360.

360 (according to the review):
loads 10+ seconds faster
better lighting
better textures
etc


Was it just poor coding in the port to PS3?

Since the Xbox 360 and PC share a reasonably similar software platform AFAIK, porting from Xbox -> PC or PC -> Xbox is reasonable easy without too many changes (case in point: Rainbow 6: Vegas).
The PS3 port probably required much more work, and more specialisation to get it to work nicely on the PS3 due to its specialised CPU and different platform, so the PS3 version would require more work to get it running well and efficiently, while the 360 requires less work, so it's not just "poor coding", more "more coding required, probably the same effort put in"

Well the 360 Version of Rainbow Six blew away the PC Version.

That's because they didn't change anything, which means it was basically a game optimised for the Xbox 360 and ported over to the PC without really ANY work done at all, hence the poor PC performance. I's easy to port, but that doesn't mean it works well straight off, you still need to do *something*, just not as much as PC <-> PS3 or Xbox 360 <-> PS3.
They even REMOVED stuff somehow in the PC version of R6 and made it worse (no widescreen support in the PC version, while HD resolution on the 360 is widescreen by nature).

If its gonna get poor sales why care?

 

[50cent1228]

360 all thye way

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Chris
Wow a PC->Xbox->PS3 port does not look good on the PS3. *shocked*

well considering the claimed overwhelming power of the ps3 ...it should.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Chris
Wow a PC->Xbox->PS3 port does not look good on the PS3. *shocked*

well considering the claimed overwhelming power of the ps3 ...it should.

Obviously it was hype. PS3 does have some very strong aspects, but porting a game over to a different computer architecture kills performance.