Small changes and better looking graphics on the 360 are the highlights.
Let the fanboy wars begin... ... again.
Is it the hardware? Is it the developers? Is it a fake? What type of ammo will the fanboys use?
boiled ham and beans
Maybe we should give odds. i'm giving 3-1 that we are going to see someone create their own screenshot comparison using links to a magazine's pictures. They won't bother doing shot-for-shot, but they'll show shot a from console b and say 'LOOK, LOOK how this P0wnz anything on console C' 2-1 will be the "Developers haven't figured out how to use the system" followed by the "they have had just as much development time" rebuttal 1-1 says that we'll get the usual "Console A rocks. If console B is so good why aren't you playing Game x or waiting in line to buy it." Did I miss anything
I would have thought the ps3 version would have won because it had 1 year more of dev time and it was also rr7 asopposed to the xbox 360s rr6.
Could've sworn RR7 looks better than RR6...
I agree,RR7 is looks better than RR6.
I would have thought that R7 on the ps3 would look better than R6 from a year ago on the 360. I guess the proof is in the pudding. From the screen shots of the same section of the game the 360's year old version looks much better than the ps3's new version. Common sense told me that games released at the same time would look better on the 360 in just about every case. But I assumed that a game that is the next in the series and exclusive to the ps3 would look better. But nope. But it could be that R7 is in 1080p. Which, if it is, would be why there isn't as much graphical fidelity. As Sony has said at TGS...."In most cases the 720p games look better than the 1080p games". Well, anyone who has bought a 360 or intends to this christmas, has made the absolute right choice in a next gen video game console. Thanks Microsoft.
"Thanks Microsoft" You're welcome.
OMG! i seriously hope that people don't take this to be a genuine PS3/360 comparison.
How many games does it take! lol, it's the third game this month not counting this one although it might be fake. Dev's are coming out of the closet telling the world the truth. You know Devs will probly add extra effects and detail with ports, they have that choice with the 360.
Dev's will have a harder time working with the limited available resources the PS3 has. PS3 and the 360 will go down their own evolutionary paths with the PS3 going down the path of large games with fun gamplay with CGI mixed gameplay and the 360 going down the path with high Quality graphics advanded skill based gamplay and games built for online.
COD 3 in 60 fps with rumble, or in 30 fps without rumble? Hard choice if you're a retard.
It's just the non-depth of color and poor black deepness and poor lighting rAnge and that piss yellow haze in all PS3 tittles with true to life art(non Anime)looks bad for Sony.
I don't know. I believe that both consoles are capable of generating good HD graphics. And as much as I like to trigger Sony's fanboys I don't think this pictures are real. This would be an insult to the PS3 and I know the PS3 can do better than this. If this is true, Namco was lazy... Sucks! I refuse to believe this is real. Why! Why! Why! ok... now back to Gears of War.
Dev's will have to choose wisely with PS3's abundent capablities. The PS3 almost has all the same amount goodies when it comes to the graphical specs but it can't dissplay as much as the 360 at any given time, that's why Dev's say games like Prey and GoW! cant be done on PS3 not enough memory for detail is one thing but lacking in it so much where devs can't even produce the true to life graphics 360's coming out with would of hurt Sony bad! if it wasn't for 1080p to fool the brain in thinking clearer means better graphics.
Since when does the ps3 have less memory available for the gpu? Last time I checked they both had 512MB. And could you give me a link to where a dev actually says that Gears can't be made to run on a ps3 (don't give me the one where the blogger takes the quote from a dev about how it can't run on a 256MB machine and sticks it in after he poses the question to imply that a dev actually said that, when in reality the interview with the dev had nothing to do with ps3).
Additionally, PS3 games seem to have far more onscreen at one time than 360 games as a general rule...
Your in denial buddy. Just get your ps3 and you will get what you deserve in your overpriced console. You have been on this site long enought to see quotes from the developers of Prey and Gears of War. They both say their games are not possible on the ps3. You are so full of it. Just run to Target and witness for yourself that the ps3 is inferior. Its playable buddy. And Motorstorm is a joke and Nba07 is horrible. And once again. There have been many many articles posted stating that the ps3's split ram cannot ALL be allocated for graphics. You have to jump through programing loops for a less than optimal gain. And even then you can't use all of the ps3's ram. Sony split the ram because the Cell processor needs it to work. So there is no way all 512 ram can be used for textures or graphics. Sony carefully words the split ram when they talk about it. Sony says that developers can access all the ram.....And thats true. Just not all for textures or graphics. How many developers do you need to say this before you get it? All you have to do is look at Resistance compared to COD3 for the 360. There is no comparisson. The textures on Resistance are muddy and dull. The detail in COD3 and frame rate is stunning. I won't even mention GOW. Because every reviewer on the Planet has stated that no ps3 game even comes close to the level of detail. So you can be in denial all you want. There has been over 10 articles posted about this very topic with devs stating that the ps3 can't use all 512 ram for graphics. Your only rebutle is that Sony has stated that devs can access all the ram. ha ha ha ha. Thats common sense. The ram is there for a reason. 256 dedicated for graphics and 256 dedicated to the cell and system ram. WOW. Bad move by sony using the cell. Thanks Microsoft.
"And Motorstorm is a joke" i think you're the first person that's said that. weird. even the most diehard 360 fanboys concede that Motorstorm looks gorgeous and cool. its also weird that you refer to Resistance and it's "muddy and dull" graphics, but say nothing about the fact that at least one site's review crew gave it a higher score than both COD 2 and COD 3, and only 1/3 of a point lower than the 360 golden-child GOW. sure, Resistance is about the only worth-while game in the PS3's launch lineup, but what system has ever launched with many worth-while games? initial PS3 games may not look $200 better than 360 games, but they are hardly sub-360 in quality, as this comparison tries to imply.
You're a moron if you believe that the devs can't access all the RAM. Your claims are about as dumb as if I was to say that the 360's cpu can't access its RAM because it isn't directly connected to it, and that this necessarily means the 360 will have worse physics, ai, particle effects,etc. And the 360 can't exactly use 512MB of RAM for textures either, there are other things that use system RAM. I'd also appreciate a link, just one, where a developer makes the claims that the ps3 gpu can't use the RAM, or that Gears couldn't be made to run on a ps3. Since there are apparently 10 of them that wouldn't be asking much.
And you're funny Topgamer. You know very well why PS3 doesn't use 512 ram for graphics... and neither X360. Cpu need some too. You say RSX can use only 256 textures and the games look almost the same?? What? Does PS3 have something magical texture ram in it?? Or are you saying RSX is more powerfull that graphics card in X360?? Oh yeah, there's still that 60fps1080p difference... Why you and other Xbots need to compare whole time GOW to PS3 titles?? Whole year and thats what you got? One boring game, with detailed characters. Sure, let's make Recistance also 4 vs. 4 game. Oh my god how much better than GOW it would look. Or lets put only 4 cars in Motorstorm and take away terrain formation, physics and sh1t.
PS3 skies look nicer.
What do you think of the PS3's Cell architecture? How much harder is it for developers to write asymmetric multiprocessing code that will run on the PPE and the SPE's? How difficult will it be to port code that is tuned for the Cell over to the 360 while maintaining good performance? Do you think Sony made the architecture complex deliberately to make porting that way harder, or were they just trying to get maximum performance out of their system? I don't think the Cell is as well designed for game development as Sony would have you believe. Some aspects of the SPEs, such as the lack of branch prediction, make them particularly unsuited to running most game code, which contains a lot of branches. They appear to be designed more for serialized streaming math code, more common in video codecs and audio processing, the traditional domain of digital signal processing chips. The memory architecture of the SPEs, specifically their lack of automatic cache coherency in favor of DMA transactions, seems like a lot of overhead is needed to feed work units to the SPEs and copy the results back to system memory. The PPE appears to be essentially identical to one of the Xbox 360 cores, except without the VMX128 enhancements and with half the cache. However, a much greater assortment of work has to be crammed into this single core—all of the game loop, all of the rendering commands, and the system allegedly takes over some time as well. Only the second and third cores on Xbox 360 use a small timeslice to provide cool stuff like the Guide, music playback, Dolby Digital encoding, and more things that we can add in the future to all games, past and present. I think porting from Xbox 360 to PS3 will be reasonably difficult, since the Xbox 360 has a lot more general purpose processing power that can be flexibly reallocated, and all of the Xbox 360 CPU cores have equal access to all memory. The asymmetric nature of the Cell could easily lead to situations where the game has too little of one type of processing power and too much of another. And the content might suffer as well, since you'll never see a PS3 title with more than 256MB of textures at any given time, due to the split graphics and system memory banks. When we announced 512MB of unified memory on Xbox 360, I think all of our game developers (and the artists too) did a little happy dance. It's easier to use and gives developers much more flexibility in how they allocate memory for various resources. In terms of performance, I think that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 will essentially be a wash. We ran the numbers a while back and the two systems come up surprisingly close in theoretical peak performance, despite the one year difference in release dates. However, I know for a fact that we have a great advantage in software and services—our development environment and tools are years ahead of the competition, and this will ensure that Xbox 360 game developers can easily realize all of this performance and make superior games. Xbox 360 is a great system to develop on, a real pleasure—and I believe our developers agree. http://arstechnica.com/arti... So, with all the ps3's floating point processing and its measily 256k ram for graphics....if developers put in a ton of work,sweat, and blood and MONEY...they can get games to look good. But 3rd party devs will continue to stuggle and 1st party devs will always be a few steps behind 360 developers. It is what it is. I'm sorry if the truth dissappoints you and your hopes for the ps3. It will have great games. But clearly the 360 is the next gen video game system to beat....And Sony will from this point on be fighting and up hill battle. Once again....Go to Target and play the ps3 for yourself. I, and many other gamers there this weekend was NOT impressed one bit. Motorstorm was the one game I thought would be fun. The demo wasn't folks. And I have seen ONE game on the ps3 that rivals the games I have been playing on the 360 for just about a year. The reviews that are coming in speak for themselves. Sure Resistance got a 9.1 from IGN. That puts it right with a few of the 360 launch titles from a year ago according to IGN. I personally after reading the review...came to the conclusion it was a simpathy score from IGN. They gave the lasting apeal a 9.5 due to the online multiplayer and from I have read...the online network isn't even fully up and running yet. Hmmmmmm....Its clearly the game to get for the ps3 if you get a ps3. But its not a system seller. I have seen it running in person. It looks on par with COD2 from last year on the 360. But it doesn't compare to COD3 or Gears of War or even Prey for that matter. The textures on the walls and ground are sub par. You will all see soon enough. Its clearly not worth the price of admission in my opinion. But it is what it is. A Good game but not quite up to snuff with what the 360 has been doing for a year now.
my left testicle that you didn't understand a word you just copy pasted.
Could you please give a link that isn't from a Microsoft employee? Also, could you give the links that I asked for, not this other link. "In this interview, Matt Lee attempts to present a more technical look into the PS3 compared to Xbox360. He is definitely on the development side to things so I assume he holds enough completely knowledge of computer hardware and what hardware means to software. He’s written DopeWars, worked on an MMO for PC called Mythica, and straight from there moved to the Game Technology Group in Microsoft where he now advises other developers on how to write efficient code for Xbox360. Matt was asked at some point during the interview to explain the Xbox360 architecture. I have already familiarized you with the Xbox360 architecture but you should compare it to his. In this section he made note about AltiVec(VMX-12 instruction set because he was asked to explain it. Matt answered and mentioned some of the additions to the VMX-128 instruction set which were either specific to Direct3D. He also said that the best way to multithread a game has not been decided yet. When asked about if the Xbox360 hardware had anything to help accelerate physics, Matt pointed out the VMX-128 instruction first, then fell back to the symmetrical cores, 6 hardware threads to spread out the code, unified memory architecture, and even goes further to say the GPU could be used to accelerate physics because it is a math monster and architected reasonably well to handle general purpose calculations. After saying this about his hardware, he had more to say about the PS3 when asked about it: When asked about the Cell architecture he specifically says the Cell isn’t designed for gaming as much as Sony would have us believe and immediately focuses on the SPEs. He attacks it for not having branch prediction – which is true, but when you look at the stream/SIMD/vector processing paradigm, branches are rare. Whenever it can’t be avoided, the SPEs have minimal hardware to allow software hints to avoid the penalties of doing so. It seems to me that IBM/Sony/Toshiba went out on a limb to make sure the SPEs did what they needed while avoiding things that cause performance hits. He also says that the SPEs are poorly suited to run most game code – wait a second, define “most game code” for us Matt. On the screen, general-purpose code takes up the most volume and even takes up the most space in memory. But in execution time, most game code isn’t general purpose and branch heavy. Additionally, the 8 operational cores of the Cell, with 2 threads on one core provides for more thread space for parallelizing games. But I guess he forgot to give Playstation 3 the same consideration after mentioning the space to spread code across 3 cores. He then says(in typical MS fashion) a line similar to “it can only do this” and points out that the SPEs are only good for serialized streaming math code that digital signal processors typically do. He may be right in what it is good for, but he is wrong if he thinks it is the only thing they are good for. Use your own judgment on what the SPEs are good for by understanding what they do, and understanding the things developers have processors do to solve them. His next attack goes at the memory architecture (local store) of the SPEs and he says the lack of automatic cache coherency (traditional cache behavior) seems as if it would cause a lot of overhead to work with, having to copy results to system memory through DMA transactions. The problem with this statement is that he is restricting the operational nature of the SPEs to writing results of computations to system memory. This is far from the truth as it isn’t by any means a necessary action SPEs have to take and is less than optimal in many situations as all 7 SPEs and PPEs would be sharing 25.6GB/s bandwidth. An approach that works far better is using the most out of the element to element communication bandwidth on the EIB, and only accessing system memory when necessary. SPEs are also likely to output data to other input/output devices such as the graphics card, sound hardware, or to other elements to use in a typical game scenario. Writing out to system memory for communication and processing game data is merely the easiest approach in developer’s eyes as it changes the information passing approach to information sharing which is automatic. The fact of the matter is that the SPE local storage has the speed of a traditional cache, but requires manual control. This makes it harder to use, but allows the execution speed to be deterministic and constant and could possibly even exceed the efficiency of a traditional cache if it used that way purely. Assuming there is no need for this level of control, developers can fall back to letting compiler or middleware tools handle the SPE local storage for them. Matt then moves focus to the PPE and says that the Cell lacks the VMX-128 enhancements. That is true, but why does he isolate that part of the Cell and ignore over 40% of the Cell’s die space? Considering the SPE instruction set is dedicated to vector processing, and is considered a superset of the functionality provided in VMX, the SPEs could be called a VMX enhancement too. It just breaks compatibility and goes down it’s own path for accomplishing the goals. The difference is like apples and oranges - except there are 7 SPEs, and 3 VMX-128 enhanced units. He also quickly mentions that the single PPE in the Cell has half of the cache size, but fails to mention that Xbox360 is splitting this cache with 3 cores that do not have explicit control over the cache coherency. If the Xbox360 cores were actually running independent threads working on independent data, the behavior of the cache would be very unstable and each core would need to take an piece of the pie – dividing the cache size by 3. The Cell’s PPE is the only consumer of it L2 cache unless access is granted through the PPE’s execution. Additionally, each SPE has its own cache speed memory. I’m failing to see how on chip memory is actually a limitation for the Cell, but not for the XBox360. I guess the Xbox360 advantage needs to be qualified as 512kb of extra automatic cache. Whatever that means next to the extra 1280kb of total on-chip memory in the Cell is up to the developer’s ability to put it to good use. He also says that all of the “work” has to be crammed onto the PPE in addition to the base PS3 functionality that will be available anywhere. The only “work” that has to crammed on the PPE is the work developers feel is better suited to run there rather than the SPEs. Rendering commands by far don’t have to come from the PPE as any core inside the Cell has equal access to other elements inside the Cell and out. Sending rendering commands is equivalent to any communication with the FlexIO bus. Additionally, he doesn’t know where the system level functionality were the console is placed, and the last official indication of this is that an SPE is used for that purpose. Matt moves on and states that porting will be difficult (which is true – conversion from SIMD to general purpose and reverse and reconsidering how to use the bandwidth efficiently on both platforms). He says this in a manner which strongly implies that general purpose processing is what is needed and is more easily relocated inside the Xenon. I find it rather difficult to even concoct a reasonable scenario where relocating code between cores(keeping same thread pairings) provides any significant performance difference. Granted in the Cell, code may not be easily movable between an SPE and PPE, does it actually matter? One of the ugliest pieces of information Matt shares is related to the RSX. He was very direct in mentioning that the audience that actually cared about the 512MBs of shared memory was the developers, and it is important to note that this is the only audience that would care for this since it is as a matter of developer ease, and not performance gains. What he said that was completely wrong was the “you'll never see a PS3 title with more than 256MB of textures at any given time, due to the split graphics and system memory banks” comment. Perhaps he was thinking of the PC world where the bandwidth between system RAM and CPU and video RAM and GPU is in the single digit GB/s order of magnitude. Thus textures in system memory will make a game drag if they are accessed frame by frame. Unlike a PC, the Cell and RSX are able to communicate with 35GB/s bandwidth, and the Cell has 25.6GB/s bandwidth to its XDR RAM. This translates to 25.6GB/s bandwidth between the RSX and system memory. More importantly, this extra bandwidth is coming from a separate bus than video memory meaning that developers might actually want to do this intentionally to increase total bandwidth to the RSX. Rest assured, Matt and Microsoft’s insight is that developers will never want to have split memory banks because it’s just that much easier to share bandwidth and not have to consider the difference. I firmly believe in the causes of developer ease, but I also believe that when making a console to appeal to gamers through performance, hardware comes first. He finishes up his technical breakdown with his overall belief on the performance difference and calls it a “wash” due to theoretical peak performance numbers that Microsoft ran in the past. I think he is referring to that information in the previously mentioned IGN article which is rather skewed. When you compare theoretical peak processing performances, the Xbox360 is actually twice outdone in floating point operations and many other mathematical operations. I think he means to say that practical performance might be a wash if he anticipates developers will not take advantage of the Playstation 3’s power. Of course, Matt does make sure he states that Microsoft’s development tools a years ahead of the competition. This scale is in terms of ease of use as power in a development tool is hard to quantify and isn’t ultimately responsible for the quality of the code that comes out. Technically C# is 20 years ahead of C++ and 30 years ahead of C, but that doesn’t prevent C/C++ from doing all of the same things and possibly even more that their successors." http://ps3forums.com/showth... I can copy and paste too, btw. Specifically read that paragraph about having more than 256MB of textures at once.
TopGamer, whether with this sceenname or another, you have never once posted what you refer to as "facts" backed up by a single unbiased source, as fanboys(you included) on either side would want to put it. Every time someone that works for, or with, Sony has said something good about the PS3 you and others have jumped all over it saying its inherently biased, but then go and use Microsoft sponsored articles or interviews with Microsoft as an uniased source. Simply put this is hypocritical, and additionally the world does quite work that way. In reality next to no one on this site, and next to no one in the gaming community (note I'm not referring to the industry, but the community) understands tech specs at all, and yet they rant and rave on a daily basis as if they do, when it is ENTIRELY easy for any hardware company to manipulate what is presented to show what they want. I can assure you Microsoft has done this every time, just as I can assure you Sony has done the same. Likely each to similar degrees. Additionally, any developer is going to support what they prefer to work on and claim that is best, so listening to the dev's isn't necessarilly any better. Look at it this way, it'd be comercial suicide to "insult" the platform you are working on...I'd say its fairly evenly split as to dev's praising one console over the other, with the exception of online capabilities. Also, assuming the 360 OS takes up an equal ammount of RAM or more compared with that for the PS3, the PS3, as kmis87 pointed out is actually better of than the 360 when it comes to RAM because the RSX can access its dedicated 256 just as fast as the 360 GPU can, while accessing the Cell's dedicated 256 at a higher bandwidth. Sony has never stated, and neither has any dev I might add, that a special workaround is needed. This has just been assumed, but considering that Sony explicitly stated from the beginning that this sort of communication was their goal, from a hardware perspective it doesn't make any sense to think that its at all complicated, or non optimal. In fact, its better from a performance point of view to have it organized this way than for the CPU to constantly have to route its data through the GPU whether to read or write from the RAM. When its all said and done though, none of this matters and ammounts to nothing more than posturing by people looking to validate a several hundred dollar purchase they made (this applies to both sides). Why don't you stop with your holier than thou attidue towards anyone that happens to be supporting the PS3 and accept that people will enjoy their PS3 when they get one. That applies conversely to anyone trying to imply that its impossible to enjoy playing the 360 as well.
I'm not sure where this guy get's his info, but he sounds pretty informed. He states that "When you speak to developers privately, they express a stunning level of frustration. Repeated delays in the delivery of online APIs, delays in coming-up with online testing kit, incomplete or missing libraries, promised features that are never delivered. The list goes on and on. They have to deal with the bloat of the OS, which eats up nearly 100 MB of memory (and one SPU), and provides very little functionality to the game. In comparison, the OS for the Xbox is rumored to only use up 3.5 MB." That only leaves 412MB for games, and if it's true that 64MB's are dedicated to the browser then that's 164MB's! Around 32% of the PS3's memory going to non-gaming functions. Again, don't know if this is true, but it's an interesting read. http://www.innerbits.com/bl...
Have you ever worked on programming for the PS3 or the 360? You seem to be well advised and I am just curious.
nambo, if I'm not mistaken, the 64 MB used is the only thing reserved while a game is in use, its not specifically for the browser, its for the operating system and is used primarily by the browser when not in a game.
i dont know which is real but i am assuming that this is the real one but i dont know http://boardsus.playstation...
sony fan boys are comin out the wood work and putting xbox back in there place! Anyway my i think if the 360 is tht good why they playing it!!!!