Gamespot Picture Comparison (XXX vs PS3)

[FendersRule]

Gamespot recently has done a nice comparison screen comparisons, with some of the newest games between the PS3 and the XXX system.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/620...ag=picks;img;6

Fallout 3: XXX clearly takes the cake by a wide margin. In-fact, I don't believe that I'm going to buy this title for the PS3 anymore, and might opt for the PC version instead.

Soulcalibur IV: PS3 takes the cake slightly here. Shadows are more pronounced, and textures seem to be at a higher resolution.

Dead Space: I like the PS3's darker look, but the PS3 suffers from some shadow problems as seen in the picture. Overall, really a tie.

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed : XXX takes the cake here clearly. Everything is just higher resolution, and clearly looks better.

Call of Duty: World at War : This is really hard to judge. I'd just have to say tie. The PS3 has a darker cinematic look which I like, but the XXX seems to have slightly more details, which really don't matter to me on this game. This one is a Tie.

Madden NFL 09: Tie on this one, enough said.

Mortal Kombat vs. DC : XXX takes the cake slightly here. Look at the backgrounds.

Final for me:

PS3: 1
XXX: 3
Tie: 3

The cell processor has been out for at-least 2 years now, and we should be seeing some better results than this for our systems. Are game producers still not able to utilize the full cell processor after all this time?

Discuss.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Gamespot recently has done a nice comparison screen comparisons, with some of the newest games between the PS3 and the XXX system.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/620...=picks;i mg;6

Fallout 3: XXX clearly takes the cake by a wide margin. In-fact, I don't believe that I'm going to buy this title for the PS3 anymore, and might opt for the PC version instead.

Soulcalibur IV: PS3 takes the cake slightly here. Shadows are more pronounced, and textures seem to be at a higher resolution.

Dead Space: I like the PS3's darker look, but the PS3 suffers from some shadow problems as seen in the picture. Overall, really a tie.

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed : XXX takes the cake here clearly. Everything is just higher resolution, and clearly looks better.

Call of Duty: World at War : This is really hard to judge. I'd just have to say tie. The PS3 has a darker cinematic look which I like, but the XXX seems to have slightly more details, which really don't matter to me on this game. This one is a Tie.

Madden NFL 09: Tie on this one, enough said.

Mortal Kombat vs. DC : XXX takes the cake slightly here. Look at the backgrounds.

Final for me:

PS3: 1
XXX: 3
Tie: 3

The cell processor has been out for at-least 2 years now, and we should be seeing some better results than this for our systems. Are game producers still not able to utilize the full cell processor after all this time?

Discuss.

yup..its going to take some time..and the results are going to be worth it.

the Playstation 3 has (2) GPU's, the Cell and the RSX

Look at what i just posted this will explain alot why:

for those that do not agree i have stated once before that the Cell Processor in the playstation 3 is a CPU/GPU Chip. well here is the proof straight from :

Peter Hofstee, chief architect of the Cell BE microprocessor. Taken during his presentation at the University of Delaware ("The Cell Broadband Engine Processor: A highly programmable C/GPU")

DR. Hofstee has stated this here is the PDF

lanl.gov/orgs/hpc/roadrunner/rrinfo/RR%20webPDFs/Cell_Hofstee_Non_Conf.pdf

and how AMD and ATI are also heading in that same direction.

so in effect your playstation 3 has 2 types of GPU's in the system



CPU/GPU's

[Forrestandjen07]

There is a porn gaming system out?

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by Forrestandjen07

There is a porn gaming system out?

,that or Vin Diesel has his own gaming system...

[Uniquely]

Not surprising since both consoles have virtually identical graphical cabpabilities. In most cases, it just comes down to which system is easier to optimize for and right now that is the 360.

[Forrestandjen07]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

Not surprising since both consoles have virtually identical graphical cabpabilities. In most cases, it just comes down to which system is easier to optimize for and right now that is the 360.

appearntly it is illegal here to say 360, might want to swap that out with some X's

[Driver_King]

404 – Page Not Found

We're sorry, but we were unable to find the page you requested.

Our guess is that you’re trying to find one of the pages in the search results below.

For further assistance or to report a broken link, please visit the GameSpot Help Center.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Forrestandjen07

appearntly it is illegal here to say 360, might want to swap that out with some X's

I know right...... the fanboy bias does get pretty extreme here sometimes. Like in order to like blu-rays you have to hate any game console that is not the ps3.

[Forrestandjen07]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

the link is broken, you have to copy it with the end of it aswell and then paste it

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by Forrestandjen07

the link is broken, you have to copy it with the end of it aswell and then paste it

Fixed, give it a go now guys.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

Not surprising since both consoles have virtually identical graphical cabpabilities. In most cases, it just comes down to which system is easier to optimize for and right now that is the 360.

not true at all, one has better tools for development thats true which makes it easier to optimize. but for graphics capabilities..no

so in effect your playstation 3 has 2 types of GPU's in the system...

identical in visual in most cases yes but is also subject to art style and OPINION, but as for speed no
because , in effect the playstation 3 has a Hardware GPU acceleration chip not only in graphics but also in 3d acceleration. thats dedicated hardware that greatly help's the RSX GPU. something of which the x360 does not have. on the same token. the x360 has more embeded ram for its GPU to offset AA without useing the GPU or CPU resources compared to the PS3 which does not have that. there is strengths in each system.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Fixed, give it a go now guys.

thank's i posted the info anyway.

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by joeorc

not true at all, one has better tools for development thats true which makes it easier to optimize. but for graphics capabilities..no

so in effect your playstation 3 has 2 types of GPU's in the system...

identical in visual in most cases yes but is also subject to art style and OPINION, but as for speed no
because , in effect the playstation 3 has a Hardware GPU acceleration to help the RSX GPU. something of which the x360 does not. on the same token. the x360 has more embeded ram to offset AA without useing the GPU or CPU resources compared to the PS3 there is strengths in each system.

Texture Resolution is NOT opinion, and this is what the XXX seems to do better in just about all of the cases. It's a fact that higher resolution = better.

Many people defend the PS3 by stating it's hardware qualities such that you have done. It really don't make a difference if it cannot produce the same quality of something with less hardware qualities.

I btw, do NOT own a XXX, and never intend to own one.

My point is this, when are we going to see better results? Is 2 years enough?

Also, I'm starting to see less support that "games don't look as good on the PS3 because they are not made for them". Ok, then why are the PS3 exclusives running at 720p, and not 1080p?

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Texture Resolution is NOT opinion, and this is what the XXX seems to do better in just about all of the cases. It's a fact that higher resolution = better.

Many people defend the PS3 by stating it's hardware qualities such that you have done. It really don't make a difference if it cannot produce the same quality of something with less hardware qualities.

I btw, do NOT own a XXX, and never intend to own one.

My point is this, when are we going to see better results? Is 2 years enough?

please do not go there.

Have you built your own graphics engine in the past 4 years..look
you do know that for example which engine is older..

killzone 2's engine
or
the UNREAL III engine...

Epic has had more time more perfect development tools for their Engine over time than GG.
see my point.


I just posted why..the API's are not as well developed for the playstation 3 right now. the Cell Processor GPU functions have not been anywhere near tapped. and prob. will not be this generation. did you not look at or read DR. hofstee's pdf.
it states where the trend's are in GPU's and CPU's both AMD, Intel, and ATI and Nvidia all are in development of CPU/GPU chips which by the way the "Cell Processor: IS"

the Cell Processor's Development Tool's are still being advanced forward. and as the Cell get's tweaked, so will its tools. just like any processor.

if you know SLI and crossfire configuration's are better than a single GPU at performing tasks, than you know where i am getting at. Resolution is only part of it. its not the End all be all because ART direction and Art style have alot to do with how people view the visual's of a game that they may like the art style of one but hate or dislike the art style of another. some may like the art style of KZ2 over GEARS does that mean one looks better than the other....thats OPINION...

get it now.

you could have the highest resolution on a game but if the art style is crappy -Once again that is One Person's Opinion over another's, but it still stands true. its subjective to each persons Opinion.

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by joeorc

please do not go there.

Have you built your own graphics engine in the past 4 years..look
you do know that for example which engine is older..

killzone 2's engine
or
the UNREAL III engine...

see my point.


I just posted why..the API's are not as well developed for the playstation 3 right now. the Cell Processor GPU functions have not been anywhere near tapped. and prob. will not be this generation. did you not look at or read DR. hofstee's pdf.
it states where the trend's are in GPU's and CPU's both AMD, Intel, and ATI and Nvidia all are in development of CPU/GPU chips which by the way the "Cell Processor: IS"

the Cell Processor's Development Tool's are still being advanced forward. and as the Cell get's tweaked, so will its tools. just like any processor.

if you know SLI and crossfire configuration's are better than a single GPU at performing tasks, than you know where i am getting at. Resolution is only part of it. its not the End all be all because ART direction and Art style have alot to do with how people view the visual's of a game that they may like the art style of one but hate or dislike the art style of another. some may like the art style of KZ2 over GEARS does that mean one looks better than the other....thats OPINION...

get it now.

You are still making the fallacy of mixing "art style" (opinion) with resolution (fact). These two entities are NOT the same thing.

Time for some metaphors. Art style is the scenery (opinion), whilst resolution is the glasses of the viewer. I have no idea which viewer would actually PREFER to look at "art" with more jaggies, blurriness, and less detail.

In simple, more realistic terms, if you had the chance to play Little Big Planet at 1080p, or 720p, which would you choose? The answer is obvious. Switching to this resolution does not effect the "art" in anyway. Infact, it makes the "art" sharper, clearer, and better to look at.

So I must repeat my question, why are most PS3 exclusives only available in 720p. I mean, weren't these games designed for the cell processor?

[mikejet]

I don't understand why Sony needs to make the PS3 so hard to develop for, or why their SDK's are so expensive.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

You are still making the fallacy of mixing "art style" (opinion) with resolution (fact). These two entities are NOT the same thing.

Time for some metaphors. Art style is the scenery (opinion), whilst resolution is the glasses of the viewer. I have no idea which viewer would actually PREFER to look at "art" with more jaggies, blurriness, and less detail.

In simple, more realistic terms, if you had the chance to play Little Big Planet at 1080p, or 720p, which would you choose? The answer is obvious. Switching to this resolution does not effect the "art" in anyway. Infact, it makes the "art" sharper, clearer, and better to look at.

So I must repeat my question, why are most PS3 exclusives only available in 720p. I mean, weren't these games designed for the cell processor?

and if your Graphics engine was not built from the ground up..for a new processor design than what..thats the point..most developers have, not had enough time to develop Engine to take advantage of the GPU' abilities of the Cell. that does not mean that the hardware is not there.

resolution is resolution both systems can produce 1080i to 1080p. your engine for games would have to be made to perform at that resolution, that you set but also there are things you may want to have that may reduce other aspects of another. lighting, particle effects..etc.

but like i said if you would have to build your own engine, like Ted price and other's has that takes time. compared to x360 processor which is a more in common with a standard power 5.

the software is what drives the hardware.
without it you would not have as much capability on hand until you do.

lets take your example:

Time for some metaphors. Art style is the scenery (opinion), whilst resolution is the glasses of the viewer. I have no idea which viewer would actually PREFER to look at "art" with more jaggies, blurriness, and
less detail.

which is based on the pixel
which is based on the skill of the artist to put them together to form a picture, like i said if your artwork sucks "OPINION") resolution will show more of it. each square of each individual pixel forms the overall picture so if your art sucks, so would the resolution show just that. which is still based on OPINION.

[Monkey]

The cell processor has been out for at-least 2 years now, and we should be seeing some better results than this for our systems. Are game producers still not able to utilize the full cell processor after all this time?

The PS3 has the best first party games with the best graphics and sound hands down so far.

I used to think the 360 was better at textures due to early EA and UBI multiplatform games... then I played Uncharted, nothing on the 360 compares. Then there are games like Ratchet & Clank, Gran Turismo 5, Motorstorm, Metal Gear Solid 4.. Nothing on the 360 comes close to these games in their genres.

For 3rd party games really depend on the title. Pick another three titles and the PS3 may come ahead 2 to 1. Overall I wouldn't be surprised if the 360 had more with the upper hand due to the first year UBI and EA titles most of the time having the edge on the 360.

There isn't any set rule now as to which system you can count on having a better version, it really comes down to the individual title.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by mikejet

I don't understand why Sony needs to make the PS3 so hard to develop for, or why their SDK's are so expensive.

take for instance: Epic built their Engine for other developers to make games for while paying Epic to use epics engine.

Instead Sony wants to do the same thing. but that also goes for any company it comes down to a bid war the best tools for the cheapest cost. right now That would be Epic. but later Sony's engine tools would be cheaper later on not just right now , remember 1st party and 2nd party is not just competeing for consumers $$ but they are also competing against other development studio's not just internal studios but also other PUBLISHER's development studio's they need a balance upfront any edge they can get.

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by Monkey

The PS3 has the best first party games with the best graphics and sound hands down so far.

I used to think the 360 was better at textures due to early EA and UBI multiplatform games... then I played Uncharted, nothing on the 360 compares. Then there are games like Ratchet & Clank, Gran Turismo 5, Motorstorm, Metal Gear Solid 4.. Nothing on the 360 comes close to these games in their genres.

For 3rd party games really depend on the title. Pick another three titles and the PS3 may come ahead 2 to 1. Overall I wouldn't be surprised if the 360 had more with the upper hand due to the first year UBI and EA titles most of the time having the edge on the 360.

There isn't any set rule now as to which system you can count on having a better version, it really comes down to the individual title.

and what development tools that studio, or publisher has on hand...a perfect example of this is there were times when SONY, and Microsoft sent internal development studio heads to help 3rd parties.

that's why there are some 3rd party studios seeking people with experience with the cell processor, and even still some are looking for experience with Parallel processing in general. there are quite a few developers that have not worked with Parallel processing, let alone with a Hybrid Cpu/Gpu like the Cell, or for that matter AMD's or Intel's new Hybrid Cpu/Gpu which is going into new PC's in the near future.