The PS3 continues to underperform the Xbox 360, game after game. Could there be a fundemental problem with the design that will prevent it ever delivering the goods?
(Culture, Dev, Industry, PS3, Tech, Xbox 360)
STUPID ARTICLE look at MGS4,look at uncharted and theres been multi-plat games that perform better on ps3 or run identical=cod4,burnout,oblivio n etc
when a game is made specifically for the ps3 the hardware shows it worth,common sense tells you that 360 and ps3 hardware are totally different so lazy developers who try to port a game over from the 360 to ps3 will have troubles its like putting a mini cooper engine into a ferrari it wont work,recently certain developers have learned to use the ps3 hardware as the current multiplat titles shows,but there will always be those lazy developers out there
i guess this article has come about to stop the positive feeling about mgs4 juggernaut
In any case of the matter, development time makes all the difference in the world. You can compare Xbox 360 and PS3 Oblivion or Unreal Tournament III, it comes down to the time you invest in your game.
Anyone with a brain that works (everyone except fanboys) knows the GPU in the 360 is technically superior to the GPU in the PS3. But I thought the whole idea behind the PS3 was the CELL was supposed to be the deal breaker? You know, support the GPU, use the extra co-processors to help enhance things like video quality and physics?
Doesn't matter what is the truth or not though. Because those that are objective will never convince a fanboy on any side that their platform is anything but light years ahead of the other.
Sony fans should be happy that the 360 did not incorporate dedicated GDDR3 RAM on the GPU - because then there would be NO DOUBT about which is better.
But both consoles suck. One because of the slow ass RAM, the other because of lack of RAM. Take your pic, they were both underpowered before they even launched.
You people are so closed minded. There is no room for discussion with you corporate zealets Someone says something against your console and you go right into defense mode repeating Uncharted, KZ2, MSG4 and RROD.
First of all out of all you games you Sony fans point to ONLY Uncharted is actually released for people to play and judge for themselves so if you're going to lean on KZ2 screenshots you fail.
Second if you defenders would read the article you'd see he backed up his assertions with detailed evidence. But none of you Sony fans care all you saw was the title and went right into post a comment defending your master.
The FACT is and I've been saying it forever is... If you are a real gamer that cares about games more than corporations the only route is to own all three current generation consoles. But you people that sold you soul to a corporation won't do that. You don't want to think for yourself and actually play the games before forming your opinion. You take what has been told to you and run with it like its gods law. It must be fact because its the ONLY thing you WANT to believe.
I love these wannabe engineers in here posting their simple minded nonsense too. These people can barely program their microwave but know all about how the Cell and GPU work together... Yeah in your wet dreams. Fake following corporate sheep.
Its not about being a 360 fan or a PS3 fan for me... Its about having my own mind and making my own judgements without bias. You people love bias. Its the foundation for your sad lives. This is why the world is falling apart because you people care more about being "right" than being "correct". *Spits*
Look at 1.4 gettings mass disagrees for stating actual F'ing facts. But you didn't get past his first sentence to see he said that PS3's RAM is better (fact) because his first sentence wasn't favorable to your master. Sad pukes you people are.
It is obvious that the article was written by a 360 fanboy and is simply flame bate here on the N4G site.
If the PS3 was at fault for bad ports then you would not have games like COD4, DMC4, Burnout: Paradise, Dark Sector and so-forth look so good if not better on the PS3.
It is a developer issue and it is left soley up to the lack of developer talent and resources. Games that port from one console and it's architecture will not magically port over by themselves and the developers that know this pour money into the game and do it right by producing two games from the ground up. Doing so created two games that run great instead of one on the lead platform and a poorly driven port on the other platform.
Only an idiot would think that the hardware for the PS3 is what is holding it back. And yes, people bring up Uncharted, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, UTIII, GT5:P, Ratchet and Clank, and many more when an idiot brings this topic up. Why? because these games prove the idiots wrong and they show that there are devs that care about making games for the platform and KNOW how to do so.
The RSX is much stronger than most of you think. The RSX is stronger than the 360's GPU.
There is a site, ProFX, these guys make middleware for 360, PS3, PC etc. They have a page in which there is a render, it stated that the 360 can do this render in 10 seconds, the 8800 GTS in 5 seconds. The PS3 isnt on this page, but it used to be on this page, and it was saying for the PS3, 2 seconds. (it appears it was Nvidia and/or Sony that wanted the PS3's time off this site, for reasons unkown).
There are lots of threads on the PS3forums about the RSX. There is also a thread that shows the pictures of the site when it did have the PS3's time displayed. Just search for those threads about the RSX, lots of stuff is explained and discussed about the RSX.
The thing that is holding the graphics back is, the RSX still not fully accesable. It is expected to open the pipelines for the RSX these coming months (or maybe it is allready opened, not sure).
There is also another factor that holds the graphics back, and that is the render method. Killzone 2 has great graphics because it is using deffered rendering. Warhammer will (maybe) have even better graphics then Killzone 2, Warhammer is using fully procedural rendering (it will be the first game to use fully procedural rendering). The game will be native 1080p and no anti-aliasing. For Procedural rendering there is no anti-aliasing needed, which is a plus.
There are procedural games out now, but none is fully procedural. These only use aspects of procedural rendering techniques for the textures for instance. Uncharted and MGS4 use procedural rendering for textures.
@jack erm to be precise.. the Xenos on its own, is apparently better than the RSX.. yes, but the RSX + Cell is better than Xenos + Xenon.. I am not sure if mainman's argument about the rendering is true, i will look it up later.. but if he is right, this means that the PS3 is better even if its part by part..
but yes, like mainman says, the RSX is still not fully accessible by developers..
aside from the hardware, the problem for PS3 under performing compared to Xbox 360 is, in fact, lazy developers port.. look at burnout paradise, it was developed on PS3 first, then ported to 360, both run at the same frame rate, look at CoD4, they were both created simultaneous, no porting was involved (between PS3 and 360 that is, not sure about PC).. creating a game for a more powerful system, and porting it to a less powerful system, is much easier, and you get much more stable result.. but if you port it from a less powerful system to a more powerful system.. you get much less quality!
while i don't agree with posters calling other posters idiots, i must say that... ...that was a well said post SL1MDADDY. it has always amazed me how people throw up multiplatform ports as a means to justify that the 360 is more powerful, never once even considering the notion that 360 (which is usually the lead platform) and the PS3's archetict is vastly dissimilar. the author of the article must not have done his homework, because if so he would've mentioned the fact that to date, the most graphically demanding multiplatform games perform either equal (GRID and DMC4) or better (Burnout Paradise, CoD4, Oblivion) on the PS3. he would've also mentioned the fact that to date, the 360's most graphically impressive game (Gears of War) has a similar cousin on the PS3 (UTIII) which sports enhanced graphics using an engine that internet dogma says doesn't work well on the PS3. put in exclusives, and the "PS3 is superior" argument just gains much stronger legs to stand on.
bruceongames should change his name to bruceondrugs or bruceonMSpecker because this article is a load of horse dung. Both the PS3 and 360 have their pros and cons and lately most multi platform titles are nearly identical in every way.
This article is flamebait by a bias moron and nothing more.
you do know how much this decision cost microsoft don't you?
"Microsoft had their fingers burnt by not owning the chips in the original Xbox, so for the 360 they decided that they wanted to own the rights to both processors. They sat down and co designed their GPU with ATI. By doing this they were able to optimise it’s capabilities for video game playing and also they were able to design it into the elegant system architecture of the Xbox 360. They also gave it a lot of raw power."
The Xbox 360 recall a year ago happened because "Microsoft wanted to avoid an ASIC vendor," said Lewis. Microsoft designed the graphic chip on its own, cut a traditional ASIC vendor out of the process and went straight to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., he explained.
But in the end, by going cheap--hoping to save tens of millions of dollars in ASIC design costs, Microsoft ended up paying more than $1 billion for its Xbox 360 recall.
To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.)
So yes designing your graphics chip without understanding heat dissipation wasn't such a smart idea was it?? The fact you include the paragraph praising ms for designing it's own chip says a lot about your lack of understanding about the gpu design process.
bruceongames = a middle-aged fanboy hobbyist who has no track record in the games industry
bruce you can be smarter than this and less fanboyish too
@ All the people that replied to me... I never said the article was totally unbiased did I? All I said was you Sonys don't even want to discuss anyhing. You've all made up your minds based solely on your emotional love for your system.
1.6 sure loves to call me an idiot yet doesn't refute anything I said. All he did was once again spout his opinion as fact and call anyone that disagrees an idiot. You list all those games as being better on PS3 yet its once again only your opinion. A lot of peopole would disagree with most of the multiplatform games you list but it doesn't matter because YOU only believe the opinion that was given to you by your master. All you care about is defending your team and calling people names.
I'm not attacking the PS3. I'm attacking blind followers that spout their garbage biased defence for everything. You people flip flop on everything from rumble being last generation to limited edition consoles being desperate for MS but awesome for Sony.
Flip flop on everything day to day then whine when your game gets .2 less score than you want claiming they were bribed.
So call me an idiot all you want... At least I take the time to experience both consoles for myself before forming my opinion. At least I have my own opinions rather than repeating the company talking points like you followers do. Go ahead and take my bubbles its a badge of honor on this crap site.
sonarus thats because those two run on umatched game engines! no games on the 360 have been in development for as long as those two, and none have had game engines crafted as good as those two.
the only thing your post and those two games you write about prove is that they are unmatched with investment aqnd man hours.
it doesn't prove that the 360 couldn't handle or run those game engines. just that nothing has yet been created to equal their engines.
fanboys should think....that includes 80% of n4g before touting supposedly unbeatable games.
1.15 Correct me if I'm wrong but the 360 does have games with a longer dev time, point being Too Human. At least I think thats the game. 10 years in the process from what I heard. So yes 360 do developers take extra time to hone their games as well (even though the process started back in the ps1 days).
if you want a one-sided, totally uninformed article to laugh at. Here's one for you. Brought to you by our friendly "Gaming Veteran" bruce. Thanks for the good laugh, Bruce. Great comedian tend to act stupid and clueless to make us laugh. You are definitely a great comedian.
read that...Its a good comparison of two completely different GPU's...the 360 hands down has an advantage in terms of on paper specs...but the laymen wouldn't see how arbitrary some of these specs are when comparing the two...
it goes back to the comparisons of which the cards of which the 360 and PS3 GPUs are based off of...MS used an entirely different memory allocation setup with the 360 than what ATI would use for a PC...while Sony kept the hardware more PC like (with semi-unified memory, but more or less dedicated memory to both the CPU and GPU)...the fact that the two chipsets are so different in hardware configuration in the two consoles, making on paper comparisons nearly entirely moot...
real world comparisons of actual games paints a much clearer picture though...the PS3 has a larger OS footprint than the 360 currently, by about double...when you are only dealing with 512mb total...that is a big deal...while the PS3 OS runs off of server class XDR ram, the RSX can also use that...making more ram unavailable to the RSX alos...probably a major reason that multiplatform games usually have slightly lower res textures on the PS3...
but read through that...on paper you would see that the 360 has 48 pixel pipelines compared to the RSX only having an unconfirmed 24...without any knowledge of what exactly that is, you would assume the 360 setup is superior...
the ATI card, as usual, has more pipelines but does not outperform the RSX with half...
I would recommend ignoring the rest between the Cell and 360 CPU...everyone knows the Cell gets trashed at general operation speed, mostly becuase of it having only a single 3.2ghz PPU...its the main reason that development for the Cell is tricky, in that it takes radical amounts of parallel code (very time consuming and very expensive) in order to get it to sing...once that happens though, there is no end in site to how much performance it delivers...there was never any question between the 360's very PC'ish 3 core processor compared to the Cell at general code...another issue of comparing apples to oranges...
overall the main point is that games show the difference...the PS3 has arguably the most impressive exclusives, with MGS4 being at the forefront currently...on paper specs between the two will point to one over the other as a hands down winner...when a developer approaches the PS3 with a pot of cash and infinite time basically, it shows without question (MGS4 and KZ2 being examples of 50+ million dollar exlusives, that have both been in development for nearly 4 years)...when you are dealing with limited resources, time and personel, the 360 has a definite edge...but just because multiplatform games (that do not push either system to the limit) generally end up slightly better (in the past more than now) on the 360...it does not mean the 360 has any true advantages of the PS3 in raw performance...
@Kleptic i fail to see how is it possible that ps3 has 7 SPE's and the 360 has 3 core CPU's yet they can have more on screen and we saw the opposite in games??
what he means by sprite? how is it possible the 360 CPU have have more individuals sprites on screen and not ps3 that has more CPU's???
and how is it possible that RSX is more powerful than 360 ATI GPU while it have 512 RAM??
that article is confusing and saying many bull$h!t! about specification we cant argue about it but about whats more powerful the only thing i agree about is more pipelines doesnt mean better performance!! a pipe like is just a check-house that r connected by a chain, so if a task was sent to the first pipe line then it will move to the second pipe line after the job in the first pipe line is done, and if the task was in the end of the chain and the last chain finished its operations on the task, the task wont move forward until all the other tasks in the chain is done as well, then they all move at the same time to the next step or chain!
@TL24 Sony is scared of homebrew on their console so the locked up enough so that hackers can't gain access. They don't want another PSp on their hands. unfortunately this also prevents developers from accessing parts of the GPU.
I believe the RSX is holding the PS3 back. Since the Cell is so powerful any GPU would hold it back. Of course the RSX is still far better than the 360's GPU. One of the many reasons why I roll wit tha Triple.
TheKiller...who said the 360 has more 'sprites' on screen?...not sure what you are asking...
and JasnHenry...why do you keep saying that?...BOTH CONSOLES HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RAM!!!...people have been saysing the 360 has more ram, for absolutely zero reason, since both consoles launched...it is simply not true...
the PS3 has dedicated ram for the CPU and the GPU...similar to a gaming PC with a dedicated GPU...it has 256mb of GDDR3 for the RSX...the CPU has 256mb of server class XDR...the RSX can borrow some of the XDR if developers see fit, but the Cell can not use any of the GDDR3, because of the drastically less bandwidth of GDDR3 compared to the XDR...hence the 'semi-unified architecture' of the PS3...and for those of you slow at math (looking at your jasnhenry) that is 512mb total ram for the PS3...
the 360 uses a fully unified ram setup, in which there is one bank of 512mb's of GDDR3...it is allocated to the CPU and GPU as developers see fit...this is an architecture similar to a budget laptop with an integrated graphics chip (I am only saying in terms of architecture, not that the 360 is running a crappy Intel GMA of some kind)...it is a result of in house GPU integration from MS, and is not necessarily superior or worse than the more traditional PC architecture...
360 512mb total (w/ 10mb for special purpose EDRAM, useless at HD resolutions)
PS3 512mb total
Very very simple answer! The same GPU in a pc, can do way more than 1920X1080 at 60fps. (Shoot, it can go as high as 2560x1600)
Now, why would the SAME GPU, in a PS3 not be able to do it!!!! Even if you would put a 8800 GPU in it, it would just be more overkill since the PS3 will never display more than 1920X1080 at 60fps.
Now, some devs can make games already that works, so sure enough, it's not the hardware. Only thing left? Lazy devs who don't want to learn how to program the cell correctly.
Even the actual PS3 GPU is probably overkill! Think about it, 5 years old graphic cards could do 1920X1080 then.
Look, I don't agree with the article. However, it's silly to praise a game that's not even out (for those of you declaring Kill Zone 2 as the best visuals on a Next Gen System). It's not due until next year. Why don't you wait unit it's out before you start bragging. It might turn out to be the next Haze.
Well, I personally can see how the Xenos could be more powerful than RSX based on specs. But all in all, it seems they are pretty comparable.
If any of you are ACTUAL computer geeks and know what you're talking about, Anand wrote up a detailed breakdown of the two consoles back during the launching days. Although things have changed in the graphic card world since then, the breakdowns are still there.
The Xbox 360 and the PS3 use two very different GPU architectures. The RSX in the PS3 is based on the G70 (N47) family of GPUs, which includes the 7800 series and 7900 series. The R500 "Xenos" in the 360 is built from the ground up, more closely related the R600 than other GPU designs of the day. Here we will examine the specs of each GPU and compare them.
RSX
Core clock: 550MHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz (DDR)
Memory size/type: 256MB GDDR3
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwdith: 22.4GB/sec
Vertex Shaders: 8
Pixel Shaders: 24
Texture units: 24
ROPs: 8
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 300 million
- G70 based
Does the fact that the R500 has 48 shaders make it twice as powerful as the RSX? No, it does not actually. Let us dispel that misconception. The pixel shaders in the G70 architecture consist of 1 scalar ALU and 2 vec4 ALUs, while the shaders in the R500 architecture feature 1 scalar ALU and vec4 ALU. This means the RSX has 24 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs, while the R500 has 48 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs. The R500 does has the advantage due to having more scalar ALUs - but nowhere near double the power of the RSX. Lets look deeper into this architecture and examine how each design affects performance.
In addition to having half the scalar ALUs, the G70 is generally inefficient when it comes to pixel shader operations. Though the G70 can do more work per pixel, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader, it is very hard for the GPU's compiler to provide enough data per pixel to keep both vector ALUs busy. If 4 pieces of data cannot be grouped together with an instruction; for example, if only 2 pieces of data are fed into the vec4 ALU, it is only being utilized 50%. This is inefficient. That is why both the G80 and the R600 have ditched the vec4 design in favor of an all scalar architecture. Scalar units can only do 1 operation per clock, but they are fully independent of each other, meaning that different operations can be assigned to each one, allowing all of them to be fully utilized. Therefore, a more efficient design.
Also, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader even further reduces efficiency. Say a pixel only needs 2 operations performed on it. You have 6 data slots going to waste. ATI opted for pushing double the pixels, rather than double the operations per pixel. In this case, if a pixel needs 2 operations, you're only wasting 2 slots. If a pixel needs more than 4 operations, it will have to go in for another pass, but that fact that the R500 pushes double the pixels makes up for this.
You may also notice that the R500 has 16 texture units, while the RSX has 24. Do not be fooled by this, as the architecture is completely different. The RSX may have 8 more texture units, but nVidia decided to integrate the texture units into the shader hardware in order to reduce transistor count. The drawback to this is that each shader/texture cannot process a pixel and a texture at the same time. It can only do one or the other. ATI's approach uses fewer texture units, but they are completely separate from the shader hardware, meaning that the R500 can simultaneously process pixels and textures.
The R500 is designed with efficiency in mind. Though it has 22.4GB/s of external memory, it has another bus linking the main GPU core to a daughter die, with a bandwidth of 32GB/s. Within the daughter die are the ROPs and a 10MB EDRAM framebuffer. Each of the 8 ROPs has a 32GB/s link to the EDRAM, for a total bandwidth of 256MB/s. The EDRAM can be thought of a large cache. With such a large amount of bandwidth, the R500 can do 4x AA, alpha blending and z-buffering with almost no performance hit. The R500 can also get away with fewer ROPs because of this, since they are not sitting idle as much, waiting for data to be sent/retrieved from memory. In the case of the RSX, it too is not just limited to 22.4GB/s memory bandwidth. It also has 15GB/s of write bandwidth and 20GB/s of read bandwidth through the Cell processor. However, data has to pass through two memory controllers and hop over two serial buses to reach the Cell's XDR RAM. This adds a significant amount of latency, making it undesirable for a number of GPU functions.
Another feature, less known, is that the R500 features a programmable tessalator. This allows the GPU to interpolate a low poly model and convert it into a high poly model. This is used extensively in Gears of War. What this does is takes load off the CPU as it does not have to send as much vertex data to the GPU. I'll explain how this factors in later.
Since the R500s shaders are unified, they can perform both vertex and pixel shader operations. This allows for total utilization of all the shaders, and a significant reduction in bottlenecking. The fact the the R500 has more scalar ALUs, more evenly distributed vec4 ALUs, unified shader architecture, decoupled texture units and massive bandwidth gives it an edge over the RSX, and in fact allows it to keep up with its higher-clocked desktop counterpart, the R580. The ATI team behind the R500 went out of their way to eliminate internal bottlenecks and make the R500 very efficient over all. The RSX also cannot perform AA on FP (floating point) surfaces. So it is unable to perform FP-based HDR and AA. However, it can get around this by using interger-based HDR, with a slight reduction in quality. Though not incredibly more powerful, the 360 does come out on top in terms of graphics processing power. "
Dan-boy, you should steer clear of the "think before you post" argument. From what I've read from you, you'd do fine to pay attention to your own comments, rather than anyone else's.
Its not about power I think if you gave two developers 5 years to create a game on both the PS3 and 360 the PS3 would undoubtedly be the superior product. In saying that the PS3 is such a pain in the ass to develop for it levels the playing field when your dealing with 2-3 year development timeframes.
stfu? I don't see why I should. As for hunting down idiotic comments of yours, I don't see why I should do that either. I'm not going to lengths just to expose a hypocrite, that would be sad.
If you really want to see it, read your own comments, rather than waiting for me to post them. My point is, you're constantly insulting other people regarding their intelligence, while exhibiting very little yourself.
AS i said wooly feel free to link my posts which paint me as a hypocrite, or comments where i expose myself as an idiot!?
the bottom line is, i attack moronic fanboys..of which there is plenty on here. if your claim that i am something, then atleast have something of mine to put under scrutiny.
but, the underlying reason for your to dig me out is because i said that killzone and gt are just running on superior game engines nothing else. and would most probably be able to run on the 360..
where as if i had said they were unplayable on the 360, you would've given me bubbles instead. thats how it works on here.
as you can see im out of bubbles. so if you want to continue, then pm me.
I'm not going to PM you, and I can assure you, I took no offence to anything you said in this article, or any other for that matter, that's not how I am. I also did not take away any of your bubbles, or click the disagree button on your comments, that's not my agenda.
If you want to carry on attacking these "moronic fanboys" you speak of, then that's fine by me, all I'm saying is that your arguments revolve mostly around insults against your subject's intelligence, which I feel, in some cases, is hypocritical on your part.
And if anyone wants to view your comments, they can click on your name, then click on "comments", and they'll appear in chronological order. It's simple, and doesn't really constitute me posting links to them.
If you need more bubbles, I'm happy enough to give one to you.
Dan boy How do you think some game remakes are made? There is still a core code that that can be traced back to a games predecessor. Socom Confrontation has remakes of the multi player maps in the new game, from previous Socom games that still have common ties in engine coding (I think I saw that in an X play interview). Even though too human started development for the PS1, commonalities probably still exist, so it has been in development for a while, most likely due to developer issues. So maybe you should go to the open zone and spend some more time not thinking before you post.
The PS3 bandwidth The bandwidth between the cell and the RSX keeps the cell from really helping a lot in the rendering. Yet procedural effects that are random can use on the flp pre-made stuff sent from the cell. Like say a fractal or a volumetric volume. Procedural texturing would help the PS3 yet it would also help the xbox 360 also. The system bus is what is going to hold back your frame rate though. Lots of things go into this yet just look up the speed of the system bus for the PS3 and do the math for what you need for a true HD display. It's possible the RSX is being under feed by how the system bus is set up.
Also too if you know any thing about HD graphics you should go to the z brush forums to see what they used to make those graphics on uncharted then take a look at the in game graphics. They look good still but they have been optimized heavily. It's very possible that bandwidth with in the system it self became a problem when using two cells since intel and IBM are running into the same problems with their multicore project and the only solution seems to be GPUs in the CPU.
This stuff is more complicated than you think. It's not a matter of opening and closing stuff. The problem with the PS3 is it's stuck being a console idea with PC parts. Every one knows you need certain things to make PC parts work well. This does not mean that the PS3 will not have great graphics and games but this may mean that the system has flaws that will keep you from seeing what Mr ken want you to see on screen. You can not blame him for thinking big yet he was like 5 years too soon it seems. The GPU is very weak compare to what SONY could have gotten. I mean it's already $600 what is another $100 for a 8800?
Seriously I wish more tech sites would talk about this and many have try ars technica for one. This guys are one of the best for understanding what the metal is doing and they do interviews with the people who made the stuff meaning less PR.
Wow this guy doesnt play much does he? Nothing Ive seen on our 360 can touch the ps3 power wise I mean just look at Lair real dragon flying in huge open levels in the air on the ground massive armies to claw n eat hoards of dragons and flying enemies to kill... Sure it got some grief over the 6 axis (which btw works. Then look at the other exclusives like HS, uncharted msg4 in two days... Anyone surprised that more and more ports are looking and playing better on the ps3 now? Nope no doubt the ps3 has more guts than the 360 maybe not as much as id hoped but its still early and Sony's mo has always been to wake the beast slowly.
This was the guy that had a deep hate for bluray and ps3, and talked so much smack about them.. he hated bluray and ps3 since they came out.. all of his articles were full of extremely stupid opinions.. don't pay attention to his articles anymore.... he's just a hateful blinded man
just look at what he wrote about the ps3
"Seriously there is still no good reason why anyone should buy a PS3. Next year Sony will be releasing some AAA exclusives (MGS4 Q2 and GT5 Q3) that will change this. However by then there will be even more good reasons to buy a 360 instead."
he's just talking non-sense trying to come up with stuff so he can get paid... too bad he's trying while talking crap about sony.. someone should tell him that the hate of the ps3 is coming to an end
didn't know that. naruto was cell shaded yeh...if naruto has cell shading, it's done it to a pefection (if the frame rates are okay of course). Never seen the process done so well...Prince of persia looks to be good then..
you can't consider a gpu without examining the cpu to which it is linked. the cell has architecture similar to a gpu and can do things like vertex processing faster than anything. if it requires calculations the cell can hammer it. it's why the cell rules at folding@home. that program had it's roots in a graphics program and the cell kicks but in that area. so in conjunction with it's gpu, it becomes a far better graphics solution than the 360.
I must respectfully disagree with your comment that folding@home started as a graphics program, since the original client came out back in 2000 and was entirely CPU based. There weren't even GPU based calculations for folding@home until less than 2 years ago. Yes, PS3 kicks butt at folding, since the folding@home program we use on our PS3's was made specifically for the system, but all that proves is that PS3 is very good at crunching numbers. The Cell chip itself has much more practical use in the medical field than it does in gaming, and is only just recently beginning to prove itself in other areas. This article has a few good points, even if it does ignore obvious achievements (Uncharted) as well as upcoming games (KZ2, FF13, etc.) I think what this article should have been about was ease of development, not system power. And I doubt anybody can deny the ease of development on MS's platform.
Also, on a side note, the RSX IS underpowered in comparison to the 360's GPU, based on officially released tech specs from both companies.
i should have been a little clearer. i was not referring to the tinker md although tinker is a molecular modeling program. i stand by what i said which is you can't compare gpus in a vacuum without regard to the systems in which they are placed. the cell has issues with processes that require decision making type functions. it is why jade raymond made her now famous statement that later had to be retracted regarding the ps3 ability to run crowd ai in assassin's creed.
but there were ways around that by dedicating use of the spus. the cell flies at vector processing and similar data chunk calculations. just like a gpu. it also assists in matters like ray tracing speeding up the gpu. in the short, you can't compare gpus alone.
This is very true, which is the reason why I didn't spout any fanboy garbage about 360 somehow being better than PS3. I firmly believe that PS3 is a much more powerful system all around, and in the end, will end up being the lead platform for nearly all game development, with the exception of 360 exclusive titles. I appreciate you not spouting a bunch of fanboy nonsense at me though, unlike SOME people in this thread. Bubbles for you.
Just goes to show - if you look hard enough there are still some people talking sense in here that can have a reasoned conversation.
Thanks you for restoring my faith guys..
As has been mentioned, the issue here is not to do with hardware capabilities, but ease of use. Those imbued with an understanding of the PC method of doing things, will only understand that methodology, and therefore be convinced of superiority by looking at PC techniques (like equating graphic prowess by looking a GPU functionality. Those with a broader understanding, realize this is is not the way to understand the relative horsepowers.
What cannot be disputed, is that making an architecture based on one coders had developed for for ages, together with a tool set that most coders were already familiar with meant that the power of the 360 was much more easily accessible to those that could already code for PC. I would suggest we have regularly seen the machine tapping the bulk of its potential as a result.
The non-standard approach to the architecture employed by Sony, meant that only the nimblest of developers have been able to exploit its potential as yet. Those dev house that lead with PC type code, will always struggle to port such a code structure to the PS3. Its not a structure you port to, you need to plan around its strengths to start with to enable you to obtain the power. Archaic dinosaur dev houses like E.A. find this particularly hard, as like any large company, they find it difficult to change their approach and get it right. I know, I worked for E.A. and have witnessed their issues first hand.
That 'Brucey boy' gets it so utterly wrong, is not in the least surprising. He worked in Marketing. In every software house I've worked, Marketing are despise,d as they have no idea at all about games, hardware or just about anything. They are good at wasting money on company lunches though..... and talking sh*t.
Indeed, Bruce has managed to write the worst game related tripe on the net on several occasions - often disguised with pseudo intellectual language I'll grant you, but utter rubbish in almost everything he has ever typed. I particularly remember his article proclaiming that all children should play GTA4. Ironic justice if someone were to shoot him, I must admit I wouldn't shed a tear! :)
Sony's mistake Was making such a pain in the arse architecture in the first place - DSPs are poorly suited for general cpu type code (which is what games have lots of). Sure you can compensate for it by redoing all your algorithms to take advantage of the SPU - but the fact that you have to do that means you cannot take the time to optimize other aspects of the game.
In the end, there are certain things you can do on both machines that you cannot do on the other but there is no real advantage in technical performance. However, the annoyance in having to take the time to get the PS3 to fly is going to cost Sony in the long run. Unlike the PS2 era - MS provides good tools and it is relatively easy to get good performance from the XBOX 360. That is why you see so many PC/360 games - it just makes sense. If the PS3 was vastly more powerful then this would be irrelevant but the reality is that they are pretty close and it is a lot easier to get most of the performance out of the XBOX 360. So the XBOX 360 is going to continue to enjoy an advantage on a number of games.
And I don't buy the fact that you couldn't do any game on the other console - you might have to make some slight changes but I suspect most people wouldn't be able to see the difference when playing the game. However, if you spend the same amount of money then the PS3 version will look worse. That has to be a concern for Sony given they have a smaller install base.
JESUS H CHRIST on a stick, how many times do I have to read someone's uninformed opinion on why SPU's are not suited for gaming. The SPU's on the PS3 have 4 8 bit registers for data i/o. Traditional sequential processing IS NOT what the SPU's are meant for. The PPU handles that, think of it like the orchestrator and the SPU's are the orchestra. hey guys i need this scene raytraced (ok boss) and off they go. That is why you have never seen raytracing in PC games. THe CPU's can't handle it and process logic at the same time. Sony didn't go and reinvent CPU processing, they only opened up the bottlenecks that was holding CGI gaming back.
To see armchair pundits, ridicule, belittle and downright flame Sony for what I consider a damn good piece of tech is what the internet is all about isn't it? lol
I wonder if they said the same thing when the 360 came out and all the 360 was getting was PS2 ports with minimal graphic improvements. I buy a console based on it's exclusive not on games I can play on PC and other consoles. When the 360 can release a game that looks as good as Killzone2 then I will listen
why can't bruce and the ninja gaiden dude send in their resume's and fill out a microsoft application like everybody else who wants to work for bill gates!
its the devs that make the game, not the console. it seems like there starting to get the hang of it. some games look/run better on the ps3. if the devs want to be lazy and just port the games over from the 360 then theirs your problem right there.
"Could there be a fundemental problem with the design that will prevent it ever delivering the goods?" - are you stupid? look at the games that sony makes and tell me what the problem is... tick tock, tick tock... the developers! DUH!~~
mercenary's 2- the devs said its going to look better on the ps3, why?, probably cause the devs are getting use to the ps3.
The two systems are on par with each other, but the 360 does seem to run most games better so far. At the very least, the PS3 will never blow the 360 away like Sony once promised. The 360 just plain rules.
I love my PS3 and I also love my 360. But fact of the matter is, they are both very close, I do give the PS3 the slight edge, but nothing more. People keep thinking the ps3 is some form of pandora's box that one day will be figured out by all the devs and BOOM, we will be blown away, but that won' t happen. Even the ever so Hyped MGS4 "Wich I am enjoying a lot" push our beloved PS3 to the limits and has some crappy stutters and FPS issues. Kojima is easily the premiere Dev team atm on the PS3 and even they see it's limits.
Try clicking the links If you click the links in the article you will see that everything in it is supported by facts. Some people may not like these facts but they are there and they are open knowledge.
1) The PS3 GPU is a PC part optimised for that job. The 360 GPU was a co design between ATI and Microsoft that is optimised for the console role.
2) The on paper performance statistics of the 360 GPU are far higher than the PS3 GPU.
3) The PS3 GPU was a last minute fix so the architecture of the machine is not optimised for it.
Three reasons that added together mean that there is a huge GPU performance difference between the two consoles. The PS3 claws some of this back because of the sheer power of the Cell processor. However real world results have the 360 outperforming the PS3 because of the reasons stated. And the 360 will maintain this superiority because it is built in to the hardware of the machine.
Like I say, click the links and read the facts before posting misinformed comments here.
This article would have more credibility if titles like Ratchet, Uncharted, CoD4, Killzone 2, MGS4, etc didn't exist.
A shoddy port is a shoddy port, period. Hardware is only half of the equation.
Also, the article summary is pure fanboy flamebait. Fact. That's the thing about facts, if you take away logical progression, anything can be proven "true."
Actually if you look at the overall specs the PS3 is clearly superior.
The 360's GPU has on board edram and thats its greatest difference from the ps3's RSX.
The PS3 dominates in floating point calcs by aprox 2 to 1.
It streams textures at a faster rate. 6mb per second vs 360s 4 mb per second.
PS3 has a flexible architecture that has yet to be fully optimized, where as DVD9's and the Tradition pc chipset with a boosted gpu is a what you would call just slapped together in comparison.
360 has more bottle necks then the PS3. PS3s chipset has a slightly larger bandwidth. Data transfers faster between all the components. Though the 360s gpu has a higher bandwidth then RSX due to on board edram.
Its like 360 is someone upgrading a pc with a new gpu. PS3 is a totaly redisigned pc with next gen technology.
i actually believe that sony still hasn't released the specs of the rsx yet. it might be a glorified 7900, but it might have a trick or two up its sleeve.
anyone who actually has been keeping track of how the ps3 architecture works is that the rsx is supposed to put out lots of textures and polygons. its not meant to do things that gpu's are normally supposed to in pcs. the cell takes care of everything under what is see on the surface, and the rsx takes care of the looks. its been mentioned many times by kaz and ken
Brucie boy, No. when a game like Burnout Paradise is built with the PS3 in mind then ported to the 360, with both version looking about 99.9 percent identical, then the question in mind is "why are developers not making games with the PS3 in mind first?" instead of the flamebait article that you just did.
What? I do not understand where this last minute RSX GPU started but it is WRONG. Nvidia and Sony announced that Nvidia will develop the GPU for the PS3 back in 2002 or 2003. This was NOT a last minute fix as you have and many others have said. I will try to find the original article announcing the partnership and post it here. Nvidia was getting its rear kicked in royalties lost from going with the Xbox. They dicided that partnering with Sony on the creation of a dedicated GPU designed SPECIFICALLY to work with the Cell was more lucrative. As for the RSX being less powerfull than the 360's GPU again you are WRONG.
Look at PS3 exclusives and then look at 360 exclusives.
PS3 exclusives have MUCH bigger worlds with more going on all around you. Uncharted, RaC, and the illfated Lair DWARF anything I have seen on the 360.
Gears looks good but you can see that the worlds in that game/ levels are SMALL and thier are never more than a few enemies on screen, on top of that, the backgrounds are STATIC. Halo3 has much bigger worlds but look how crappy it looks to a PS3 exclusive.
What about MGS4? GT5? KZ2? and this friday we will see R2.
Stop with the Sony hate...please. It is sooooo anoying.
sei sei sei....hooooooooooooooo
ooooohhhhhhkkkkkkaaaaayyyyyyy y
FUD = fail Oh dear, are you actually quoting forums from 2006?
A quote from a guy from ATI. What would you expect the person from ATI would say?
You certainly have no knowledge of how devs are using the GPU AND the SPE's. I would suggest you look into Mike Acton's research papers, and his implementation in real world games.
Here you go Brucie boy "Apparently, Nvidia has been working on the chip for the last two years, according to company CEO Jen-Hsun Huang. That would put the start of company's involvement in PS3 development at least eight months before ATI confirmed its Xbox 2 design win. Then, it was suggested that Nvidia and Microsoft had fallen out over how much the latter owed the former for its graphics technology, and that led to the decision to adopt ATI chippery."
So, Brucieboy, it would appear that the Graphics chip for the PS3 was started BEFORE the graphics chip for the 360. So, how is that last minute again?
One thing is clear, the Microsoft anti-Sony viral campaign is alive and well in the LEMMING infested United States.
And so you do not say that I made that up...here is the link to the entire article.
where the hell does it say that the RSX is a last minute fix? and the RSX is a PC optimised part? and the Xenos is faster than the RSX? dude.. get your facts right.. the only thing is that the RSX has alot of what the 7800 has, but its NOT a PC optimized part.. remember, RSX was designed to work with the CELL.. while it is based on the 7800, it is more powerful than the 7800 and Xenos if it works with the CELL!!
Bruce Bruce Bruce [shakes head] Article after article and time after time, you prove to be nothing more than a 40 year-old virgin who takes hate and turns it in to what you call news with no evidence to back up your fail-phyllic rants, with your grandmother's permission ofcourse. This is strike number three my friend. Any credible journalist would supply their own links to the so-called evidence of this heresay that regards the, and I quote, "slapped together" gpu bs. Provide your own links other than to those of YOUR OWN BLOGS. LOL. You fail at life, let alone journalism.
Agreements were already in hand along time ago with nvidia, yes cells main goal was to do graphics as well, which by the way it still can, even hdr. and very well i might add.
Also the 12x dvd speed you speak of is on the outer layer, which is where most of the graphics data is stored on dvd for 360. but thats single, on a dual layer, the speed is the same as a blu-ray disc.
and don't get me started on polys or pixel shading, or even vertex work.
I'll just say this, cell can do amazing vertex work with spu's.
Take a look at insomiacs paper on the spu subjects.
so many questions for bruce 1.where in your "performance assessment" is how well each machine actually runs. i mean, the failure rate for 360 largest for any electronics ever. in comparison that way: ps3 wins.
2.how does the 360 outperform the ps3 visually? 360 has no games close to visual quality of ratchet,uncharted, HS, GT5p, MGS4, KZ2, FF13, FFv. well, i'll give them 2: bioshock and gears. but how does that equate to superior performance?
3. kind of a follow-up to 1:when you are attempting(and very poorly)to break down ps3 "problem", why don't you break down the 360 hardware in same way? there are all sorts of problems leading to heat issues, console failure, houses burning down...etc
come on bruce, a poorly written, biased, article with your biased view of "facts as you see them". i'd say you're better than that, but probably not.
If you click the links in the article you will see that everything in it is supported by facts.
I see no facts though, only made up facts.
Some people may not like these facts but they are there and they are open knowledge.
1) The PS3 GPU is a PC part optimised for that job. The 360 GPU was a co design between ATI and Microsoft that is optimised for the console role.
2) The on paper performance statistics of the 360 GPU are far higher than the PS3 GPU.
3) The PS3 GPU was a last minute fix so the architecture of the machine is not optimised for it.
1) The PS3 GPU doesn't exist on a PC GFX card, if it did it would be a part of the Nvidia 8000 serises GFX cards, reason why it's not on a PC GFX card because it doesn't have any of the directX parts in the RSX it not a PC designed GPU, in fact it'd be more a console driven GPU than the ATi GPU in the 360 for that reason alone.
2) the RSX has a different design spec but the RSX is designed for HD display specs where as the 360 is only based on 720P standard HD design specs, ATi have always designed their GPUs to alway have the full shaders, and colour options in their GPUs the main reason why they have had a lower pixel display rate etc due to the extra processing on the ATi GPU, this how ever doesn't make the RSX a lessor GPU it actually does a quicker full HD Frame than what the 360 GPU can do a 720P frame in.
3) NVidia have spent a few years designing the RSX and isn't dump in GPU as you'd like to think.
This has been stated by NVidia themselves about the RSX.
Three reasons that added together mean that there is a huge GPU performance difference between the two consoles. The PS3 claws some of this back because of the sheer power of the Cell processor. However real world results have the 360 outperforming the PS3 because of the reasons stated. And the 360 will maintain this superiority because it is built in to the hardware of the machine.
Like I say, click the links and read the facts before posting misinformed comments here.
the 360 is held back by the CPU, it always will because the GPU has no effect on how to handle 3D mechanics, it's after that does the GPU come into play.
lol, I wait to see if the 360 will ever display a fullHD image for a game, seeing as it's current version is a gimped 1080I picture format, which none of the 360's games output.
Bruce you are missing one important thing in your blog and post. The PS3 uses fixed pipeline shader 24 for each type. The xbox 360 uses unified shader tech which is what is used in the 8800 and the ATI GPUs. That fact along means if your game uses more than 24 of a certain type of shader you will be hit in performance yet the xbox 360 makes it easy to use 32 of one type of shader or all 48 of them for one type of shader. This is where the ports will loose quality. The Cell can not replace the extra shader pipelines in the RSX with out a server problem with bottle necking. The PS3 may be slightly more powerful on paper but that power means nothing with out flexibility. The xbox 360 does not need it's cpu to make up for problem hardwired into the system like a lack of flexibility because it is actually a lot more like ATI's next gen parts.
The thing that people may not understand is that uncharted looks good because of the artist not the tech. It's the same with killzone2. The PS3 is still going to look good and many of you may not even notice the things missing yet when you have effect heavy games you will run into problem because they will depend on how many shaders you can throw on screen. Yet if a way is found to help the PS3 over come this thing it would be a great thing as many companies do not have artist like uncharted crew.
The difference will not be in the actual effects but your frame rate. The PS3 can do any thing that the xbox 360 can but the speeds will wildly vary and I think this is the main problem. The only way to fix it is not to rely on lots shaders to make you game look pretty which is harder to do these days LOL.
To everyone who knocked this article. It is a big pity that this article failed approval because some people who don't know what they are talking about didn't like it. The truth about these machines should reach a wider audience.
What I posted is not lame and not spam. It is fact as any developer who has worked on both machines will tell you.
I am sorry that Sony fanboys cannot face up to the facts.
I am not a fanboy for any machine, just an industry professional reporting the facts as I find them.
For instance the PS3 is beautifully built. To a vastly higher standard than the 360, which was built down to a price.
Here is a comment someone has added to the original article:
"To all comments above. To anyone having done development on both platforms, Bruce’s comments are obvious.
The RSX is weak, get over it already.
This doesn’t prevent talented studios making PS3 exclusive low polygon, low texture memory games that look very nice indeed.
Outside of the console world, Blizzard is one of those studios who seem to know how to make 3 and half triangles look gorgeous."
the fact that you backed up yourself with a comment about Poly count and Texture resolution is absoultely rediculously destroyed by the magnicently TEXTURED and stupendously high polygon pushing KILLZONE 2.
Uncharted is low texture, low polygon now? I did not know that. Thank you for opening my eyes!
Excuse me while I hope back to Halo 2.5 then, a true revolution in game visuals at 640p! Or perhaps we can play Ninja Gaiden Update Pack 4, running at a native 585p I believe it was? Yes, the 360 runs circles around the PS3. Silly me!
You have to know your audience Bruce and you can obviously see the age/maturity level of the kid's who are getting upset by your article that is backed up by facts.
They are very sensitive over that Duderaider game.
He'd be blowing himself lol...in all honesty, I wish the RSX would've been based on the 8 series and not the 7 series which was over quickly, but also you have to factor in that the Cell can handle graphics without needing the GPU, so the Cell and the fact that the PS3 even has a GPU already makes it produce good visuals.
Yes, it would probably give better visuals if it was based on a later series, but everyone in the industry is still stratching their head on what the Cell and RSX is really capable of.
Some first party devs like Guerilla, Insomniac, and Naughty Dog seem to be up to the challenge of making games that stand out above any console games we've ever seen. Some multiplat devs don't want anything to do with it...Square Enix is working on Crystal Tools for FF13 and taking full advantage of the PS3's specs...it's still too early to say what's holding what back. All we know is first party games look a certain way that defines the PS3 while multiplats truly look like ports that can be thrown on any console.
And who knows if a PS3 exclusive could be handled on another console, but we do know that many Xbox 360 exclusives have all of a sudden been later released on the PC or PS3, so really...what's holding the PS3 back and how good do PS3 games really have to look? I think the Killzone 2 trailer before launch just threw off everyone's judgment and everyone has been letting their aggression out on every PS3 game that has come out since. "Resistance??? that doesn't look anything like Killzone 2...did Sony lie??? 6/10"
To sum my rant up....wait, it's too early to know until the real heavy hitters for the PS3 come out, but I have yet to see a console game look better than Uncharted.
Yeah, and you should definitely listen to GiantEnemyCrab whose username reeks of maturity and non-fanboyism.
If you don't have or haven't played a PS3, you probably wouldn't understand why this article seems rediculous (and once again, please refer to the authors other anti-ps3 articles).
Before you go mouthing off about facts, i'll give you a couple
1) Nothing on the 360 looks better than GT5p(1080p native), Uncharted, MGS4 (1080p),motorstorm and HS all look better than GOW on the 360. As for the matter of multiplats COD4 oblivion and GTA4 all look better on PS3 (especially GTA4 despite the so-called lower resolution).
2) The 360 is nearly maxed out (97% I believe) according to some certain developers, so if it's going to outperform the PS3 in the long run how comes it hasn't so far especially when it's been out 1 year longer than the PS3 and the first to the third party devlopers had more time to work on the 360? If that is the case it should have shown the PS3 a clean pair of heals in terms of performance by now shouldn't it?
@ GiantEnemyCrab "You have to know your audience Bruce and you can obviously see the age/maturity level of the kid's who are getting upset by your article that is backed up by facts."
Says you, the guy with a user name that is distinctly a derogatory fanboy remark against the PS3. You fail little troll. Move on to the Open Zone, they miss you over there.
As for Bruce... Get a life and stop being such a closet fanboy. You write articles that reek of fanboyism and yet you cannot even openly admit to being a Microsoft Butt Toy. Go home and write something that actually makes sense and stay away from console talk, it isn't doing you any good to write about stuff you know nothing about.
You have obviously a short memory when it comes to games made on Playstation platforms. They get better over time no matter what the GPU, the Cell's architecture is already being exploited in games like R2 and KZ2 and this only the second generation games and they already look better than anything on the 360. Your GPU argument is tired and lame, its been done before. You should use your eyes and do some more research on actual games, not statistics.
Gpu this, Cpu that!! The last time I checked I didn't play a cpu or a gpu, I played games!!! Let the games do the talking!
Just curious though, what happens if we just take the cpu and other components out and leave the gpu? Can we still play games? Can we develop for them?
This dude goes on and on about how the gpu for xbox is more powerful than the PS3, yet claims that he is not a fanboy and that all this is fact. Ok then why not compare the cell to the cpu in the xbox then?
it is rare to find an article that is THAT false, even in the gaming industry...
the RSX is based off of the 7800 GTX...but it has a lot of differences...and NVIDIA was approached only a year after Cell development began...I have never heard of this "cell GPU" that they were trying before, doesn't mean that it didn't happen...but definitely means it was scrapped very early...
the GRID demo ran under 30fps on the PS3...but was confirmed to be fixed for the final game...leaving the 2 version nearly identical...as stated in the freakin' link the guy put up...also, GTAIV was CONFIRMED to be delayed to do "large scale multiplatform development"...not just the PS3...why everyone just omits the fact that Houser said that developing GTAIV for the 360 and not being able to use a standard HDD was a huge challenge is beyond me...
crap article...crap author...Nearly every respectable developer has commented on the main issue with the PS3 being development tools at first...and now its mostly an issue of OS footprints...the PS3 still uses about twice the ram for the OS as the 360...that number is continuously falling (down from over triple when the system launched)...couple that with the fact that coding for the Cell is still challenging...and multiplatform games take a hit...
this avoids the issues of 1st party games though...SCE has somehow created some of the best looking games of this generation without question...just because GRID ran slightly better on the 360 doesn't mean that GT5:P isn't the most impressive looking racing game to date...or that Uncharted is arguably the best looking console game ever made...this is the first generation that i have heard idiots drone on so much about multiplatform games...they don't prove which system is superior...they just prove which system is 'easier' with a limtied budget and time...
Exactly juken This guy bruce has been posting articles from his blog since the first day he stepped foot in the door at n4g. The contributers guidlines clearly state that you are not supposed to do this. Al of his articles are flamebait and mostly anti Sony. I swear.
I've never seen a Limey want to ride MS dong so much in my life.
oh plz Uncharted looks pretty but it aint that pretty. I have played both Uncharted and Gears and I still think Gears looks better. It is just that Uncharted is more outdoors and has a lot of sunlight and bright jungle environments. If you play Gears in those environments you would see better if not as good detail. You ps3 owners act like Uncharted is generations ahead of every game out there now. Sorry but ur best game so far was only worth a rental which could be beaten in a few sittings. Not a bad game though.
Well.. for a start COD4 runs on a lower resolution that on the 360 just so they can get the frame rate up.. People keep complaining that the PS3 devs are lazy, if it takes 100 man days on the PS3 to do something that can be done in 60 man days on the 360, how much better do you think the results on the 360 would be if we spent 100 man days on the 360 effort??
Plain and simple, the 360 is proving it self again and again that it's a better platform for games.
^^no...CoD 4 was 600p on both consoles...don't make crap up just to fit your agenda...
the best looking game on the 360 is a multiplatform game that looks identical on the PS3...I know that stings, but making shat up won't change it...funny though, CoD 4 is not the best looking game on the PS3...
@ The Lazy One Lead platforms get the most attention. Then they port to the next platform. Lazy developers port in such a way that they do not pour the necessary resources into the port but rather skimp. Developers that know how to get the best of both consoles know that you need to allocate the necessary resources to both consoles and in some cases, build the game on both from the ground up. It takes more money and resources and is the path to a great game on both platforms. Lazy devs take the easy way out and just throw a port together. Having a hint of understanding, this would have been something you would have figured out yourself, but I should have known not to expect anything like this from a fanboy troll...
LOL... nope. Both consoles have "old" GPU's. But the fact the hardware is standard allows developers to squeeze that bit much more compared to PC GPU's because they can fully optimize.
Both consoles have a ways to go yet, and over time the CPU's will be used to do more and more to lighten the load on their aging GPU's.
This article "may" be relevant in 3-4 years, but not now.
In fact, worthy of a > pfft...
(ps... lack of memory will be a concern before the GPU)
This has got to be the most Retarded article that has ever been typed! the same thing can be said about the XBox 360 CPU saying is the CPU on the XBox 360 underperforming the PS3 considering theres nothing on that console that can match Killzone 2 or Uncharted or even the PS3 exclusives for that matter
considering the Xbox 360 is also known for
XBox 360=Unreal Engine 3
I never seen that console use any other engine besides that engine has anyone have?
and plus BioShock is one of those improvements that this article is wrong considering its going to be better then the original one that is on XBox 360.
the 360 is no better at running UE3 than the PS3...UT3 is still the best looking released UE3 game so far...Gears 2 will most likely top it...but there is no reason that the PS3 couldn't run it either (fanboys said the PS3 couldn't run Gears, yet UT3 looked better...go figure)...
the 360 is easier to develop for with limited people, limited money, and limited time...the best looking games on the system are ALL UE3...its been squeezed without a doubt...the only thing the 360 did was got Gears out the door first...and no one had seen a big budget UE3 game at that point...that immediately made everyone think the 360 was the king of visuals...but seriously...what game on the 360 looks better so far?...arguably nothing...yet the PS3, without question, have released games that are superior...and some upcoming games that absolutely trash it...one of them drops tomorrow around midnight...
see...case in point...UT3 uses the newest version of UE3 currently...and has more stuff on screen, better draw distances, better textures, and better lighting than the version used for Gears 1...
that, console wise, is only on the PS3 right now...but it doesn't change the fact that its the best looking and running UE3 game right now...confirmed by Epic...
so if you are going to say Gears and CoD 4 'hold that position atm'...switch gears for UT3...it would make Epic happier...
I take it he doesn't release that the PS3 GPU is only used for a small amount of the calculations the CELL perform's the rest, really if it wasn't for sony limiting the amount of calculations which can be assigned for the cell to do, the graphical power would be crazy.
Still i still think the one thing which may hold it back in the future will be the RAM
By calling the shortcomings of the PS3 and only presenting the positives of the 360, i feel this article is bias. There are some good points raised but when you mix truth with one sided opinions it doesn't produce the results intended. This article will now fall to the hands of the fanboys to fight over.
What graphics 'You think look better' IE Uncharted..etc...is just 'your opinion'. The majority of the time, 'with provable testing' IE multiplatform games the 360 does win out in the end.
The lazy developer BS is starting to get old. Game developers have been working with both consoles for over 2 years.
Personally I don't really care but this censorship is amusing to say the least. Kind of pathetic in a way.
This comment coming from a bloodmask a 360 fanboy with two bloodmask accounts on N4G that somehow gets all his lame articles approved on N4G. bruceongames article is pure fud and he is basing his points on old information. I guess he's never played Burnout Paradise on the PS3 which was much better than the 360 and ran smoother despite both consoles running the game at 60fps.
Nice way to compare totally different games. It's curious that when the comparison is made against the exact same games, the Xbox 360 outperforms the 95% of times with difference that go from abysmal to not very noticeable, while the underperforming in the 5% (or less) is rare and the gap in performance (if any) is minimal.
@Aquanox... My intent is not to bash any games, it's to prove that the article is quite pathetic and unfounded. The article basically says that the PS3 is behind the 360 and being held back by its GPU, the assumption of this obviously coming from shoddy PORT jobs, without looking at any exclusive titles or GOOD ports.
If this article were truth, then there would be NO titles on the PS3 that ran better than anything comparable on the 360, which is what I'm getting at. Notice when a game is deved on both systems (Burnout, DMC, CoD, etc) they turn out pretty much equal. How can the PS3 be lagging behind the 360 if it pushes out EQUAL (and in other cases, as presented, BETTER looking) titles? If the article focused on PS3's more complex nature, fine. But read it man, its pure FUD and Anti-PS3 BS. Frankly from a grown man, its beyond pathetic and laughable.
Notice that 90% of the games that "underperform" are ported FROM the 360, in a quick and sloppy manner, without any attempt made to tackle the different PS3 architecture. I'm not saying the PS3 is a cakewalk, it is quite complex, and that is a failing. It's like shoving a person who drives automatic into a manual car. He can figure it out, but he isn't going to win any races right away. "The PS3 continues to underperform the 360" is just a flatout lie. FACT. It has nothing to do with which console you prefer, its BS.
be careful SL1MDADDY you don't want to get bloodybaby (#3 xbox360 fanboy on N4g) angry. He has a penchant to go "Waaaaah waaaaah" and he'll try to get you banned.
I will tell the fans of the site as we are the ones who usually approve and keep the site moving. My opinion is likely plenty of other people on this site and right above your comment. Read around to see if people think he's credible. I for one don't. He's just trying to make a name for himself and its lame.
The 360's GPU may be better, no sh*t, because the RSX isn't a standalone graphics card, nobody takes into account that the RSX was designed to use OpenGL to it's fullest extent, and what can OpenGL produce?, EVERYTHING DirectX 10 can produce and a whole lot more.
The Burnout developers confirmed in a podcast that the Xenos being more powerful is a myth, the power of the RSX was just restricted....
"However at the last minute Sony realised that the Cell GPU wasn’t up to the job so they went to nVidia and bought their 7800GTX GPU. This gave them a number of disadvantages:
It wasn’t designed or optimised as a console GPU. It was designed and optimised as a PC GPU.
The whole architecture of the console was compromised by the last minute change.
The 7800GTX has less raw processing power than the Microsoft Xbox 360 GPU."
That's just the truth. You Sony fans can say all you want, but it is like that...
@ Jamie Foxx
"look at MGS4,look at uncharted and theres been multi-plat games that perform better on ps3 or run identical=cod4,burnout,oblivio n etc"
MGS4 is said by Kojiama himself: that he didn't get it up in graphical terms like he wanted, mainly because of the Cell. I have it here printed in a magazine from a reviewer that played MGS4 for days on Konami invite in Japan.
Multiplats that run better on PS3? Don't think so:
COD4 textures were better on the 360 if you zoom in. Burnout was made on PS3 first then ported to the 360 and run about equal. Oblivion got a year extra devtime, while the 360 version was a straight PC port. It just ran a tad better with a year extra time.
Focus on those games multiplat that release on the same time. The PS3 version always is worse period.
THere are more games to mention that run bad on the PS3 then those that run equal or better.
@ DarkArcani
"Uncharted?
or Killzone2?"
Uncharted? I've played it, looked nice but not the best graphics ever as hyped by PS3 fanboys.
KZ2? Not released yet?
@ Rick G@Ystley
"Killzone 2, Motorstorm 2, Heavy Rain, Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm, FFXIII, Versus XIII, and etc. "
Same, calling those games that haven't even released yet.
Sony actually said themselves they got it wrong with the Cell. They thought they could cut costs so the PS3 would be cheap to produce. In the end they had to buy the GPU last minute. The architecture of the PS3 ain't right because of that and got delayed again.
The Cell on paper is strong. For streaming video and calculating how many light years a planet is from here. But not optimal for gaming. It's like putting a Ferrari motor in a Lada. A lot of marketingblabla and many costs, but not optimal for the result in the end.
oh, mart, the fact that you run xboxkings, the biggest badest biased site in the the universe, basically destroys your credibility on this site. HAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAA HHAAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
too soon to tell We are only in the 4th year of the console wars(4th being since the Xbox 360 launched). Such accusations on one's processing power should be saved towards the end say..2012? Developers are just starting to get used to the Ps3's archietecture as far as exploiting its raw computing power. The only reason the 360 look solid in graphics because its not as powerful and will reach iits potential faster because it still uses DVD-ROMs
Um... ...the 360 launched on November 22nd, 2005...which was less than 2 1/2 years ago. Combine that with the fact that there WAS no "war" until the PS3 and Wii launched a year later...and it's only been a 1 1/2 year console war. You fail at 1st Grade math. :o
It was both. Slow PS3 development is what pushed back the release date, and 360 hardware held back the game's potential. There's telltale signs of these problems if you look closely at both versions.
haha oh well... i meant potential i don't care how long a game takes as long as it's not a downgrade from a previous one.playing gta4 was kinda like playing gta3 with better graphics.like they say id rather do other things then watch t.v. i mean if they cut that aspect of the game i can care less but the list of things they could have put in the game that didnt end up making it to the final game i bet was to much for the 360 to handle.
Uhh Martini? That actually IS my point. LOL Yes, PS3 version runs at a lower resolution, but the framerate is pretty much identical across both versions (i.e. great most of the time). I had to correct you on that. The signs are in the resolution of the TV feeds, the texture quality, lighting quality, etc. I won't name which versions though.
The implementation of Natural Motion was also a big holdup, but a necessary one, and I'm glad they did since that technology adds a lot more believability to both the NPCs and main characters.
Edit: Thanks for the framerate info Martini. It borders on nerdy, but shows that they got both versions running fairly well. But I'm not sure why you keep acting like you're arguing Against me. I hate to repeat myself, but PS3 development was one of the reasons for the game's delay. Building a PS3-specific engine took a LOT of effort since porting 360 code ever doesn't work well, and 360 development did start earlier.
The next GTA game should be a lot better in terms of technical specs.
DJ is full of it as always... Read the article - 360 has better frame rate then ps 3 these are the facts http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Test One: Game Intro
360: 31.627fps
PS3: 26.504fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Two: Clean Getaway
360: 28.624fps
PS3: 23.989fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Three: Final Destination
360: 35.662fps
PS3: 29.523fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Four: Station Face-Off
360: 26.015fps
PS3: 25.803fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Five: Rigged to Blow
360: 26.507fps
PS3: 23.781fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Six: Ivan the Not So Terrible
360: 33.713fps
PS3: 28.313fps
So the results clearly show that over the course of the entire clip, 360 out-performs PlayStation 3 in every one of the six scenarios presented here. Indeed, on the longer vids, with a larger average sample, we're seeing a good 17 to 18 percent variance. Tests on gameplay (playing through the same mission, but not rendering identical scenes, obviously) saw a similar range of variance too. For example, the 'Ivan the Not So Terrible' stage has a nice range of in-car, on-foot, rooftop and cut-scene action. 30.106fps average on a 360 runthrough, compared with 26.733fps and 26.696fps on two separate PS3 captures of the same mission.
The bottom line is that no matter what material I put through the detector, 360 came ahead in all tests, sometimes dramatically so.
Remember, the delay was to make the PS3 version up to par with the 360...
and lower resolution? yeah right, now would you think Rockstar will be dumb enough to software scale the game from 640p to 720p?, as software scaling takes power away from running the game....lol
crimsonfox you know killzone 2 looks better :D, but theres one thing that articles like these still confirm, Microsofts viral marketing campaign against sony is alive and well. if this guy is actually a part of the games industry as he said, then it confirms that there is biasness in the industry, it confirms what we have known since the beginning with sites like gamespot, 1up and guys like brucie right here, biasness against sony cause they get Microsoft checks to speak against sony.
@Martini
"excuses excuses....LOL"
ROFL no comback? cause you know its true, go play burnout or devil may cry 4 on both platforms, then come back to me
jack, you pulled one of the worst Halo 3 pictures you could find from the online portion. Halo 3 has some of the best HDR lighting this gen and the picture you posted did not truly represent what Halo 3 looks like.
RSX actually shares features with the 8800 series. And has some enormous hardware advantages over Xenos. Developers agree that they can get 2~3 times better performance out of RSX compared to its ATI counterpart; this is partially due to chip performance, but also due to the environments these chips were put in.
RSX has a huge amount of bandwidth at its disposal, as well as a powerful CPU to feed it instructions and also do GPU functions (i.e. pre-culling, skinning, lighting, and even rendering/compositing) before even touching RSX. This makes sense since RSX is biased towards pixel functions, and all gaming GPUs technically suck at polygon processing.
Xenos has a limited amount of bandwidth at its disposal, and relatively weak CPU to feed it instructions. Also, the bandwidth and memory are shared (as seen in low-end PCs and Laptops) which leads to performance issues. If the CPU eats up a large amount of bandwidth, the GPU suffers, and vice versa.
Now back in 2006, it was easy to argue that RSX was nothing more than a 7800 series chip. But current games like Uncharted and Killzone 2 prove otherwise.
This looks like a spam... The guy posted this to his own website. If you look at the info history you can see how many report it has, and it was approved by 1 person only. Is the "News Bot" really a N4G moderator or is it this guy's bot?
Look at his scoring history, this post was added 1 day and 10 hours ago, and it magically got approved again 20 minutes ago.
Seems like he's either hacking or using bots or something to bump the article rating...
The article would've had me untill... I saw Killzone 2, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, Heavy Rain: The Origami Killer (screen shots looked amazing), WarDevil: The Beast Within (cinematics is said to be in-game graphics as well, we'll soon see), and maybe others.
The_Lazy_One The PlayStation 3 is on its second year and those games are supose to hit this year. I can't even say Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is out yet.
20°
10°
10°
30°
Ad 
20°
look at MGS4,look at uncharted and theres been multi-plat games that perform better on ps3 or run identical=cod4,burnout,oblivio n etc
when a game is made specifically for the ps3 the hardware shows it worth,common sense tells you that 360 and ps3 hardware are totally different so lazy developers who try to port a game over from the 360 to ps3 will have troubles its like putting a mini cooper engine into a ferrari it wont work,recently certain developers have learned to use the ps3 hardware as the current multiplat titles shows,but there will always be those lazy developers out there
i guess this article has come about to stop the positive feeling about mgs4 juggernaut
Doesn't matter what is the truth or not though. Because those that are objective will never convince a fanboy on any side that their platform is anything but light years ahead of the other.
Sony fans should be happy that the 360 did not incorporate dedicated GDDR3 RAM on the GPU - because then there would be NO DOUBT about which is better.
But both consoles suck. One because of the slow ass RAM, the other because of lack of RAM. Take your pic, they were both underpowered before they even launched.
Someone says something against your console and you go right into defense mode repeating Uncharted, KZ2, MSG4 and RROD.
First of all out of all you games you Sony fans point to ONLY Uncharted is actually released for people to play and judge for themselves so if you're going to lean on KZ2 screenshots you fail.
Second if you defenders would read the article you'd see he backed up his assertions with detailed evidence. But none of you Sony fans care all you saw was the title and went right into post a comment defending your master.
The FACT is and I've been saying it forever is... If you are a real gamer that cares about games more than corporations the only route is to own all three current generation consoles. But you people that sold you soul to a corporation won't do that. You don't want to think for yourself and actually play the games before forming your opinion. You take what has been told to you and run with it like its gods law. It must be fact because its the ONLY thing you WANT to believe.
I love these wannabe engineers in here posting their simple minded nonsense too. These people can barely program their microwave but know all about how the Cell and GPU work together... Yeah in your wet dreams. Fake following corporate sheep.
Its not about being a 360 fan or a PS3 fan for me... Its about having my own mind and making my own judgements without bias. You people love bias. Its the foundation for your sad lives. This is why the world is falling apart because you people care more about being "right" than being "correct". *Spits*
Look at 1.4 gettings mass disagrees for stating actual F'ing facts. But you didn't get past his first sentence to see he said that PS3's RAM is better (fact) because his first sentence wasn't favorable to your master. Sad pukes you people are.
Don't be such an idiot please.
It is obvious that the article was written by a 360 fanboy and is simply flame bate here on the N4G site.
If the PS3 was at fault for bad ports then you would not have games like COD4, DMC4, Burnout: Paradise, Dark Sector and so-forth look so good if not better on the PS3.
It is a developer issue and it is left soley up to the lack of developer talent and resources. Games that port from one console and it's architecture will not magically port over by themselves and the developers that know this pour money into the game and do it right by producing two games from the ground up. Doing so created two games that run great instead of one on the lead platform and a poorly driven port on the other platform.
Only an idiot would think that the hardware for the PS3 is what is holding it back. And yes, people bring up Uncharted, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, UTIII, GT5:P, Ratchet and Clank, and many more when an idiot brings this topic up. Why? because these games prove the idiots wrong and they show that there are devs that care about making games for the platform and KNOW how to do so.
There is a site, ProFX, these guys make middleware for 360, PS3, PC etc. They have a page in which there is a render, it stated that the 360 can do this render in 10 seconds, the 8800 GTS in 5 seconds. The PS3 isnt on this page, but it used to be on this page, and it was saying for the PS3, 2 seconds. (it appears it was Nvidia and/or Sony that wanted the PS3's time off this site, for reasons unkown).
There are lots of threads on the PS3forums about the RSX. There is also a thread that shows the pictures of the site when it did have the PS3's time displayed. Just search for those threads about the RSX, lots of stuff is explained and discussed about the RSX.
The thing that is holding the graphics back is, the RSX still not fully accesable. It is expected to open the pipelines for the RSX these coming months (or maybe it is allready opened, not sure).
There is also another factor that holds the graphics back, and that is the render method. Killzone 2 has great graphics because it is using deffered rendering. Warhammer will (maybe) have even better graphics then Killzone 2, Warhammer is using fully procedural rendering (it will be the first game to use fully procedural rendering). The game will be native 1080p and no anti-aliasing. For Procedural rendering there is no anti-aliasing needed, which is a plus.
There are procedural games out now, but none is fully procedural. These only use aspects of procedural rendering techniques for the textures for instance. Uncharted and MGS4 use procedural rendering for textures.
erm to be precise.. the Xenos on its own, is apparently better than the RSX.. yes, but the RSX + Cell is better than Xenos + Xenon..
I am not sure if mainman's argument about the rendering is true, i will look it up later.. but if he is right, this means that the PS3 is better even if its part by part..
but yes, like mainman says, the RSX is still not fully accessible by developers..
aside from the hardware, the problem for PS3 under performing compared to Xbox 360 is, in fact, lazy developers port.. look at burnout paradise, it was developed on PS3 first, then ported to 360, both run at the same frame rate, look at CoD4, they were both created simultaneous, no porting was involved (between PS3 and 360 that is, not sure about PC).. creating a game for a more powerful system, and porting it to a less powerful system, is much easier, and you get much more stable result.. but if you port it from a less powerful system to a more powerful system.. you get much less quality!
...that was a well said post SL1MDADDY. it has always amazed me how people throw up multiplatform ports as a means to justify that the 360 is more powerful, never once even considering the notion that 360 (which is usually the lead platform) and the PS3's archetict is vastly dissimilar. the author of the article must not have done his homework, because if so he would've mentioned the fact that to date, the most graphically demanding multiplatform games perform either equal (GRID and DMC4) or better (Burnout Paradise, CoD4, Oblivion) on the PS3. he would've also mentioned the fact that to date, the 360's most graphically impressive game (Gears of War) has a similar cousin on the PS3 (UTIII) which sports enhanced graphics using an engine that internet dogma says doesn't work well on the PS3. put in exclusives, and the "PS3 is superior" argument just gains much stronger legs to stand on.
should change his name to bruceondrugs or bruceonMSpecker because this article is a load of horse dung. Both the PS3 and 360 have their pros and cons and lately most multi platform titles are nearly identical in every way.
This article is flamebait by a bias moron and nothing more.
you do know how much this decision cost microsoft don't you?
"Microsoft had their fingers burnt by not owning the chips in the original Xbox, so for the 360 they decided that they wanted to own the rights to both processors. They sat down and co designed their GPU with ATI. By doing this they were able to optimise it’s capabilities for video game playing and also they were able to design it into the elegant system architecture of the Xbox 360. They also gave it a lot of raw power."
here's a hint:
http://www.n4g.com/industry...
The Xbox 360 recall a year ago happened because "Microsoft wanted to avoid an ASIC vendor," said Lewis. Microsoft designed the graphic chip on its own, cut a traditional ASIC vendor out of the process and went straight to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., he explained.
But in the end, by going cheap--hoping to save tens of millions of dollars in ASIC design costs, Microsoft ended up paying more than $1 billion for its Xbox 360 recall.
To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.)
So yes designing your graphics chip without understanding heat dissipation wasn't such a smart idea was it?? The fact you include the paragraph praising ms for designing it's own chip says a lot about your lack of understanding about the gpu design process.
bruceongames = a middle-aged fanboy hobbyist who has no track record in the games industry
bruce you can be smarter than this and less fanboyish too
Please fully explain why the RSX is not fully accesable? This sounds very interesting and I'd like to know more about it guys, thanks!
I never said the article was totally unbiased did I? All I said was you Sonys don't even want to discuss anyhing. You've all made up your minds based solely on your emotional love for your system.
1.6 sure loves to call me an idiot yet doesn't refute anything I said. All he did was once again spout his opinion as fact and call anyone that disagrees an idiot. You list all those games as being better on PS3 yet its once again only your opinion. A lot of peopole would disagree with most of the multiplatform games you list but it doesn't matter because YOU only believe the opinion that was given to you by your master. All you care about is defending your team and calling people names.
I'm not attacking the PS3. I'm attacking blind followers that spout their garbage biased defence for everything. You people flip flop on everything from rumble being last generation to limited edition consoles being desperate for MS but awesome for Sony.
Flip flop on everything day to day then whine when your game gets .2 less score than you want claiming they were bribed.
So call me an idiot all you want... At least I take the time to experience both consoles for myself before forming my opinion. At least I have my own opinions rather than repeating the company talking points like you followers do. Go ahead and take my bubbles its a badge of honor on this crap site.
thats because those two run on umatched game engines! no games on the 360 have been in development for as long as those two, and none have had game engines crafted as good as those two.
the only thing your post and those two games you write about prove is that they are unmatched with investment aqnd man hours.
it doesn't prove that the 360 couldn't handle or run those game engines. just that nothing has yet been created to equal their engines.
fanboys should think....that includes 80% of n4g before touting supposedly unbeatable games.
and open ur eyes and see what uncharted and MGS4 can do!!
and look what will resistance 2 and killzone 2 and motorstorm 2 and GT5 and probably FF13 will do!!
i think these examples should shut up any doubters on ps3 capabilities
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 360 does have games with a longer dev time, point being Too Human. At least I think thats the game. 10 years in the process from what I heard. So yes 360 do developers take extra time to hone their games as well (even though the process started back in the ps1 days).
read that...Its a good comparison of two completely different GPU's...the 360 hands down has an advantage in terms of on paper specs...but the laymen wouldn't see how arbitrary some of these specs are when comparing the two...
it goes back to the comparisons of which the cards of which the 360 and PS3 GPUs are based off of...MS used an entirely different memory allocation setup with the 360 than what ATI would use for a PC...while Sony kept the hardware more PC like (with semi-unified memory, but more or less dedicated memory to both the CPU and GPU)...the fact that the two chipsets are so different in hardware configuration in the two consoles, making on paper comparisons nearly entirely moot...
real world comparisons of actual games paints a much clearer picture though...the PS3 has a larger OS footprint than the 360 currently, by about double...when you are only dealing with 512mb total...that is a big deal...while the PS3 OS runs off of server class XDR ram, the RSX can also use that...making more ram unavailable to the RSX alos...probably a major reason that multiplatform games usually have slightly lower res textures on the PS3...
but read through that...on paper you would see that the 360 has 48 pixel pipelines compared to the RSX only having an unconfirmed 24...without any knowledge of what exactly that is, you would assume the 360 setup is superior...
http://forums.afterdawn.com...
the ATI card, as usual, has more pipelines but does not outperform the RSX with half...
I would recommend ignoring the rest between the Cell and 360 CPU...everyone knows the Cell gets trashed at general operation speed, mostly becuase of it having only a single 3.2ghz PPU...its the main reason that development for the Cell is tricky, in that it takes radical amounts of parallel code (very time consuming and very expensive) in order to get it to sing...once that happens though, there is no end in site to how much performance it delivers...there was never any question between the 360's very PC'ish 3 core processor compared to the Cell at general code...another issue of comparing apples to oranges...
overall the main point is that games show the difference...the PS3 has arguably the most impressive exclusives, with MGS4 being at the forefront currently...on paper specs between the two will point to one over the other as a hands down winner...when a developer approaches the PS3 with a pot of cash and infinite time basically, it shows without question (MGS4 and KZ2 being examples of 50+ million dollar exlusives, that have both been in development for nearly 4 years)...when you are dealing with limited resources, time and personel, the 360 has a definite edge...but just because multiplatform games (that do not push either system to the limit) generally end up slightly better (in the past more than now) on the 360...it does not mean the 360 has any true advantages of the PS3 in raw performance...
i fail to see how is it possible that ps3 has 7 SPE's and the 360 has 3 core CPU's yet they can have more on screen and we saw the opposite in games??
what he means by sprite? how is it possible the 360 CPU have have more individuals sprites on screen and not ps3 that has more CPU's???
and how is it possible that RSX is more powerful than 360 ATI GPU while it have 512 RAM??
that article is confusing and saying many bull$h!t! about specification we cant argue about it but about whats more powerful the only thing i agree about is more pipelines doesnt mean better performance!! a pipe like is just a check-house that r connected by a chain, so if a task was sent to the first pipe line then it will move to the second pipe line after the job in the first pipe line is done, and if the task was in the end of the chain and the last chain finished its operations on the task, the task wont move forward until all the other tasks in the chain is done as well, then they all move at the same time to the next step or chain!
Sony is scared of homebrew on their console so the locked up enough so that hackers can't gain access. They don't want another PSp on their hands. unfortunately this also prevents developers from accessing parts of the GPU.
and JasnHenry...why do you keep saying that?...BOTH CONSOLES HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RAM!!!...people have been saysing the 360 has more ram, for absolutely zero reason, since both consoles launched...it is simply not true...
the PS3 has dedicated ram for the CPU and the GPU...similar to a gaming PC with a dedicated GPU...it has 256mb of GDDR3 for the RSX...the CPU has 256mb of server class XDR...the RSX can borrow some of the XDR if developers see fit, but the Cell can not use any of the GDDR3, because of the drastically less bandwidth of GDDR3 compared to the XDR...hence the 'semi-unified architecture' of the PS3...and for those of you slow at math (looking at your jasnhenry) that is 512mb total ram for the PS3...
the 360 uses a fully unified ram setup, in which there is one bank of 512mb's of GDDR3...it is allocated to the CPU and GPU as developers see fit...this is an architecture similar to a budget laptop with an integrated graphics chip (I am only saying in terms of architecture, not that the 360 is running a crappy Intel GMA of some kind)...it is a result of in house GPU integration from MS, and is not necessarily superior or worse than the more traditional PC architecture...
360 512mb total (w/ 10mb for special purpose EDRAM, useless at HD resolutions)
PS3 512mb total
Until Xbox 360 gets a game as good looking as KZ2, this article is void.
The same GPU in a pc, can do way more than 1920X1080 at 60fps. (Shoot, it can go as high as 2560x1600)
Now, why would the SAME GPU, in a PS3 not be able to do it!!!! Even if you would put a 8800 GPU in it, it would just be more overkill since the PS3 will never display more than 1920X1080 at 60fps.
Now, some devs can make games already that works, so sure enough, it's not the hardware. Only thing left? Lazy devs who don't want to learn how to program the cell correctly.
Even the actual PS3 GPU is probably overkill! Think about it, 5 years old graphic cards could do 1920X1080 then.
i read the link u provided and it said 360 CPU can provide more individual sprite on screen at the same time than the ps3 cell!!
If any of you are ACTUAL computer geeks and know what you're talking about, Anand wrote up a detailed breakdown of the two consoles back during the launching days. Although things have changed in the graphic card world since then, the breakdowns are still there.
http://www.anandtech.com/sh...
"Until Xbox 360 gets a game as good looking as KZ2, this article is void."
Until PS3 releases KZ2 and it looks as good as some claim, your argument is void. ;)
this guy is a major idiot and anyone who talks KZ2 and Uncharted are idiots as well.
in my whole gaming life i own all consoles played all hyped most anticipated games and have a KICK ass gaming rig.
it goes like this
Crysis (PC) > METAL GEAR 4 > ANYTHING ELSE
best looking game ever EVER on a console is MG4
why the hell people talking about KZ2 i have no idea.
-------
if someone says how do you know about MG4, i'll spoil the whole game for him in a message.
BEST GAME EVER!
"from overclock.net
GPU
The Xbox 360 and the PS3 use two very different GPU architectures. The RSX in the PS3 is based on the G70 (N47) family of GPUs, which includes the 7800 series and 7900 series. The R500 "Xenos" in the 360 is built from the ground up, more closely related the R600 than other GPU designs of the day. Here we will examine the specs of each GPU and compare them.
RSX
Core clock: 550MHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz (DDR)
Memory size/type: 256MB GDDR3
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwdith: 22.4GB/sec
Vertex Shaders: 8
Pixel Shaders: 24
Texture units: 24
ROPs: 8
Process: 90nm
Transistor count: 300 million
- G70 based
R500 "Xenos"
Core clock: 500MHz
Memory clock: 1400MHz (DDR)
Memory size/type: 512MB GDDR3 (shared with CPU)
Memory bus width: 128 bit
Memory bandwidth: 22.4GB/sec
Vertex Shaders: n/a
Pixel Shaders: n/a
Unified Shaders: 48
Texure units: 16
ROPs: 8
Process: 90nm/80nm
Transistor count: 337 million
- Unified Shader architecture
- 10MB EDRAM daughter die
Does the fact that the R500 has 48 shaders make it twice as powerful as the RSX? No, it does not actually. Let us dispel that misconception. The pixel shaders in the G70 architecture consist of 1 scalar ALU and 2 vec4 ALUs, while the shaders in the R500 architecture feature 1 scalar ALU and vec4 ALU. This means the RSX has 24 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs, while the R500 has 48 scalar ALUs and 48 vec4 ALUs. The R500 does has the advantage due to having more scalar ALUs - but nowhere near double the power of the RSX. Lets look deeper into this architecture and examine how each design affects performance.
In addition to having half the scalar ALUs, the G70 is generally inefficient when it comes to pixel shader operations. Though the G70 can do more work per pixel, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader, it is very hard for the GPU's compiler to provide enough data per pixel to keep both vector ALUs busy. If 4 pieces of data cannot be grouped together with an instruction; for example, if only 2 pieces of data are fed into the vec4 ALU, it is only being utilized 50%. This is inefficient. That is why both the G80 and the R600 have ditched the vec4 design in favor of an all scalar architecture. Scalar units can only do 1 operation per clock, but they are fully independent of each other, meaning that different operations can be assigned to each one, allowing all of them to be fully utilized. Therefore, a more efficient design.
Also, having 2 vec4 ALUs per shader even further reduces efficiency. Say a pixel only needs 2 operations performed on it. You have 6 data slots going to waste. ATI opted for pushing double the pixels, rather than double the operations per pixel. In this case, if a pixel needs 2 operations, you're only wasting 2 slots. If a pixel needs more than 4 operations, it will have to go in for another pass, but that fact that the R500 pushes double the pixels makes up for this.
You may also notice that the R500 has 16 texture units, while the RSX has 24. Do not be fooled by this, as the architecture is completely different. The RSX may have 8 more texture units, but nVidia decided to integrate the texture units into the shader hardware in order to reduce transistor count. The drawback to this is that each shader/texture cannot process a pixel and a texture at the same time. It can only do one or the other. ATI's approach uses fewer texture units, but they are completely separate from the shader hardware, meaning that the R500 can simultaneously process pixels and textures.
The R500 is designed with efficiency in mind. Though it has 22.4GB/s of external memory, it has another bus linking the main GPU core to a daughter die, with a bandwidth of 32GB/s. Within the daughter die are the ROPs and a 10MB EDRAM framebuffer. Each of the 8 ROPs has a 32GB/s link to the EDRAM, for a total bandwidth of 256MB/s. The EDRAM can be thought of a large cache. With such a large amount of bandwidth, the R500 can do 4x AA, alpha blending and z-buffering with almost no performance hit. The R500 can also get away with fewer ROPs because of this, since they are not sitting idle as much, waiting for data to be sent/retrieved from memory. In the case of the RSX, it too is not just limited to 22.4GB/s memory bandwidth. It also has 15GB/s of write bandwidth and 20GB/s of read bandwidth through the Cell processor. However, data has to pass through two memory controllers and hop over two serial buses to reach the Cell's XDR RAM. This adds a significant amount of latency, making it undesirable for a number of GPU functions.
Another feature, less known, is that the R500 features a programmable tessalator. This allows the GPU to interpolate a low poly model and convert it into a high poly model. This is used extensively in Gears of War. What this does is takes load off the CPU as it does not have to send as much vertex data to the GPU. I'll explain how this factors in later.
Since the R500s shaders are unified, they can perform both vertex and pixel shader operations. This allows for total utilization of all the shaders, and a significant reduction in bottlenecking. The fact the the R500 has more scalar ALUs, more evenly distributed vec4 ALUs, unified shader architecture, decoupled texture units and massive bandwidth gives it an edge over the RSX, and in fact allows it to keep up with its higher-clocked desktop counterpart, the R580. The ATI team behind the R500 went out of their way to eliminate internal bottlenecks and make the R500 very efficient over all. The RSX also cannot perform AA on FP (floating point) surfaces. So it is unable to perform FP-based HDR and AA. However, it can get around this by using interger-based HDR, with a slight reduction in quality. Though not incredibly more powerful, the 360 does come out on top in terms of graphics processing power. "
in development for 10 years..lol are you stupid? do you think too human is gonna run on a game engine that was made for the ps1 lol???
the idea has been on paper for that long, they started the work a couple of yeard ago.
what did i say about thinking before posting?
feel free to link my previous comments, and add links that prove me wrong.
i'll check back to see what you can come up with.
otherwise....stfu.
I think if you gave two developers 5 years to create a game on both the PS3 and 360 the PS3 would undoubtedly be the superior product. In saying that the PS3 is such a pain in the ass to develop for it levels the playing field when your dealing with 2-3 year development timeframes.
If you really want to see it, read your own comments, rather than waiting for me to post them.
My point is, you're constantly insulting other people regarding their intelligence, while exhibiting very little yourself.
feel free to link my posts which paint me as a hypocrite, or comments where i expose myself as an idiot!?
the bottom line is, i attack moronic fanboys..of which there is plenty on here. if your claim that i am something, then atleast have something of mine to put under scrutiny.
but, the underlying reason for your to dig me out is because i said that killzone and gt are just running on superior game engines nothing else. and would most probably be able to run on the 360..
where as if i had said they were unplayable on the 360, you would've given me bubbles instead. thats how it works on here.
as you can see im out of bubbles. so if you want to continue, then pm me.
If you want to carry on attacking these "moronic fanboys" you speak of, then that's fine by me, all I'm saying is that your arguments revolve mostly around insults against your subject's intelligence, which I feel, in some cases, is hypocritical on your part.
And if anyone wants to view your comments, they can click on your name, then click on "comments", and they'll appear in chronological order. It's simple, and doesn't really constitute me posting links to them.
If you need more bubbles, I'm happy enough to give one to you.
How do you think some game remakes are made? There is still a core code that that can be traced back to a games predecessor. Socom Confrontation has remakes of the multi player maps in the new game, from previous Socom games that still have common ties in engine coding (I think I saw that in an X play interview). Even though too human started development for the PS1, commonalities probably still exist, so it has been in development for a while, most likely due to developer issues. So maybe you should go to the open zone and spend some more time not thinking before you post.
The bandwidth between the cell and the RSX keeps the cell from really helping a lot in the rendering. Yet procedural effects that are random can use on the flp pre-made stuff sent from the cell. Like say a fractal or a volumetric volume. Procedural texturing would help the PS3 yet it would also help the xbox 360 also. The system bus is what is going to hold back your frame rate though. Lots of things go into this yet just look up the speed of the system bus for the PS3 and do the math for what you need for a true HD display. It's possible the RSX is being under feed by how the system bus is set up.
Also too if you know any thing about HD graphics you should go to the z brush forums to see what they used to make those graphics on uncharted then take a look at the in game graphics. They look good still but they have been optimized heavily. It's very possible that bandwidth with in the system it self became a problem when using two cells since intel and IBM are running into the same problems with their multicore project and the only solution seems to be GPUs in the CPU.
This stuff is more complicated than you think. It's not a matter of opening and closing stuff. The problem with the PS3 is it's stuck being a console idea with PC parts. Every one knows you need certain things to make PC parts work well. This does not mean that the PS3 will not have great graphics and games but this may mean that the system has flaws that will keep you from seeing what Mr ken want you to see on screen. You can not blame him for thinking big yet he was like 5 years too soon it seems. The GPU is very weak compare to what SONY could have gotten. I mean it's already $600 what is another $100 for a 8800?
Seriously I wish more tech sites would talk about this and many have try ars technica for one. This guys are one of the best for understanding what the metal is doing and they do interviews with the people who made the stuff meaning less PR.
Nothing Ive seen on our 360 can touch the ps3 power wise I mean just look at Lair real dragon flying in huge open levels in the air on the ground massive armies to claw n eat hoards of dragons and flying enemies to kill... Sure it got some grief over the 6 axis (which btw works. Then look at the other exclusives like HS, uncharted msg4 in two days... Anyone surprised that more and more ports are looking and playing better on the ps3 now?
Nope no doubt the ps3 has more guts than the 360 maybe not as much as id hoped but its still early and Sony's mo has always been to wake the beast slowly.
he hated bluray and ps3 since they came out.. all of his articles were full of extremely stupid opinions.. don't pay attention to his articles anymore.... he's just a hateful blinded man
just look at what he wrote about the ps3
"Seriously there is still no good reason why anyone should buy a PS3. Next year Sony will be releasing some AAA exclusives (MGS4 Q2 and GT5 Q3) that will change this. However by then there will be even more good reasons to buy a 360 instead."
http://www.bruceongames.com...
and then on bluray's victory he writes
"Is Blu-ray a Microsoft victory?"
http://www.bruceongames.com...
he's just talking non-sense trying to come up with stuff so he can get paid... too bad he's trying while talking crap about sony.. someone should tell him that the hate of the ps3 is coming to an end
Uncharted?
or Killzone2?
Held back? I don't think so.
And don't even get me started on Killzone 2, Motorstorm 2, Heavy Rain, Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm, FFXIII, Versus XIII, and etc.
The 360 doesn't even have a single game that looks better than Ratchet & Clank Future: TOD or Uncharted, even though it launched in 2005.
I'm pretty sure they're talking about half-assed ports that come from Ubisoft and EA.
yeh...if naruto has cell shading, it's done it to a pefection (if the frame rates are okay of course). Never seen the process done so well...Prince of persia looks to be good then..
Also, on a side note, the RSX IS underpowered in comparison to the 360's GPU, based on officially released tech specs from both companies.
but there were ways around that by dedicating use of the spus. the cell flies at vector processing and similar data chunk calculations. just like a gpu. it also assists in matters like ray tracing speeding up the gpu. in the short, you can't compare gpus alone.
Thanks you for restoring my faith guys..
As has been mentioned, the issue here is not to do with hardware capabilities, but ease of use. Those imbued with an understanding of the PC method of doing things, will only understand that methodology, and therefore be convinced of superiority by looking at PC techniques (like equating graphic prowess by looking a GPU functionality. Those with a broader understanding, realize this is is not the way to understand the relative horsepowers.
What cannot be disputed, is that making an architecture based on one coders had developed for for ages, together with a tool set that most coders were already familiar with meant that the power of the 360 was much more easily accessible to those that could already code for PC. I would suggest we have regularly seen the machine tapping the bulk of its potential as a result.
The non-standard approach to the architecture employed by Sony, meant that only the nimblest of developers have been able to exploit its potential as yet. Those dev house that lead with PC type code, will always struggle to port such a code structure to the PS3. Its not a structure you port to, you need to plan around its strengths to start with to enable you to obtain the power. Archaic dinosaur dev houses like E.A. find this particularly hard, as like any large company, they find it difficult to change their approach and get it right. I know, I worked for E.A. and have witnessed their issues first hand.
That 'Brucey boy' gets it so utterly wrong, is not in the least surprising. He worked in Marketing. In every software house I've worked, Marketing are despise,d as they have no idea at all about games, hardware or just about anything. They are good at wasting money on company lunches though..... and talking sh*t.
Indeed, Bruce has managed to write the worst game related tripe on the net on several occasions - often disguised with pseudo intellectual language I'll grant you, but utter rubbish in almost everything he has ever typed. I particularly remember his article proclaiming that all children should play GTA4. Ironic justice if someone were to shoot him, I must admit I wouldn't shed a tear! :)
Was making such a pain in the arse architecture in the first place - DSPs are poorly suited for general cpu type code (which is what games have lots of). Sure you can compensate for it by redoing all your algorithms to take advantage of the SPU - but the fact that you have to do that means you cannot take the time to optimize other aspects of the game.
In the end, there are certain things you can do on both machines that you cannot do on the other but there is no real advantage in technical performance. However, the annoyance in having to take the time to get the PS3 to fly is going to cost Sony in the long run. Unlike the PS2 era - MS provides good tools and it is relatively easy to get good performance from the XBOX 360. That is why you see so many PC/360 games - it just makes sense. If the PS3 was vastly more powerful then this would be irrelevant but the reality is that they are pretty close and it is a lot easier to get most of the performance out of the XBOX 360. So the XBOX 360 is going to continue to enjoy an advantage on a number of games.
And I don't buy the fact that you couldn't do any game on the other console - you might have to make some slight changes but I suspect most people wouldn't be able to see the difference when playing the game. However, if you spend the same amount of money then the PS3 version will look worse. That has to be a concern for Sony given they have a smaller install base.
on a stick, how many times do I have to read someone's uninformed opinion on why SPU's are not suited for gaming. The SPU's on the PS3 have 4 8 bit registers for data i/o. Traditional sequential processing IS NOT what the SPU's are meant for. The PPU handles that, think of it like the orchestrator and the SPU's are the orchestra. hey guys i need this scene raytraced (ok boss) and off they go. That is why you have never seen raytracing in PC games. THe CPU's can't handle it and process logic at the same time. Sony didn't go and reinvent CPU processing, they only opened up the bottlenecks that was holding CGI gaming back.
To see armchair pundits, ridicule, belittle and downright flame Sony for what I consider a damn good piece of tech is what the internet is all about isn't it? lol
and all the 360 was getting was PS2 ports with minimal graphic improvements. I buy a console based on it's exclusive not on games I can play on PC and other consoles. When the 360 can release a game that looks as good as Killzone2 then I will listen
"Could there be a fundemental problem with the design that will prevent it ever delivering the goods?" - are you stupid? look at the games that sony makes and tell me what the problem is... tick tock, tick tock... the developers! DUH!~~
mercenary's 2- the devs said its going to look better on the ps3, why?, probably cause the devs are getting use to the ps3.
Because they don't want to work for Bill Gates, just lick the sweat off his balls.
.
with there DVD-Drive, and there Monopoly Strategy where is the news about that.
Bots oh man...
I totally agree with that
If you click the links in the article you will see that everything in it is supported by facts. Some people may not like these facts but they are there and they are open knowledge.
1) The PS3 GPU is a PC part optimised for that job. The 360 GPU was a co design between ATI and Microsoft that is optimised for the console role.
2) The on paper performance statistics of the 360 GPU are far higher than the PS3 GPU.
3) The PS3 GPU was a last minute fix so the architecture of the machine is not optimised for it.
Three reasons that added together mean that there is a huge GPU performance difference between the two consoles. The PS3 claws some of this back because of the sheer power of the Cell processor. However real world results have the 360 outperforming the PS3 because of the reasons stated. And the 360 will maintain this superiority because it is built in to the hardware of the machine.
Like I say, click the links and read the facts before posting misinformed comments here.
A shoddy port is a shoddy port, period. Hardware is only half of the equation.
Also, the article summary is pure fanboy flamebait. Fact. That's the thing about facts, if you take away logical progression, anything can be proven "true."
B. shouldn't the title of the article read "Is the GPU holding the WII back?"?
The 360's GPU has on board edram and thats its greatest difference from the ps3's RSX.
The PS3 dominates in floating point calcs by aprox 2 to 1.
It streams textures at a faster rate. 6mb per second vs 360s 4 mb per second.
PS3 has a flexible architecture that has yet to be fully optimized, where as DVD9's and the Tradition pc chipset with a boosted gpu is a what you would call just slapped together in comparison.
360 has more bottle necks then the PS3. PS3s chipset has a slightly larger bandwidth. Data transfers faster between all the components. Though the 360s gpu has a higher bandwidth then RSX due to on board edram.
Its like 360 is someone upgrading a pc with a new gpu. PS3 is a totaly redisigned pc with next gen technology.
anyone who actually has been keeping track of how the ps3 architecture works is that the rsx is supposed to put out lots of textures and polygons. its not meant to do things that gpu's are normally supposed to in pcs. the cell takes care of everything under what is see on the surface, and the rsx takes care of the looks. its been mentioned many times by kaz and ken
when a game like Burnout Paradise is built with the PS3 in mind then ported to the 360, with both version looking about 99.9 percent identical, then the question in mind is "why are developers not making games with the PS3 in mind first?" instead of the flamebait article that you just did.
I do not understand where this last minute RSX GPU started but it is WRONG. Nvidia and Sony announced that Nvidia will develop the GPU for the PS3 back in 2002 or 2003. This was NOT a last minute fix as you have and many others have said. I will try to find the original article announcing the partnership and post it here. Nvidia was getting its rear kicked in royalties lost from going with the Xbox. They dicided that partnering with Sony on the creation of a dedicated GPU designed SPECIFICALLY to work with the Cell was more lucrative. As for the RSX being less powerfull than the 360's GPU again you are WRONG.
Look at PS3 exclusives and then look at 360 exclusives.
PS3 exclusives have MUCH bigger worlds with more going on all around you. Uncharted, RaC, and the illfated Lair DWARF anything I have seen on the 360.
Gears looks good but you can see that the worlds in that game/ levels are SMALL and thier are never more than a few enemies on screen, on top of that, the backgrounds are STATIC. Halo3 has much bigger worlds but look how crappy it looks to a PS3 exclusive.
What about MGS4? GT5? KZ2? and this friday we will see R2.
Stop with the Sony hate...please. It is sooooo anoying.
sei sei sei....hooooooooooooooo
ooooohhhhhhkkkkkkaaaaayyyyyyy y
Oh dear, are you actually quoting forums from 2006?
A quote from a guy from ATI. What would you expect the person from ATI would say?
You certainly have no knowledge of how devs are using the GPU AND the SPE's. I would suggest you look into Mike Acton's research papers, and his implementation in real world games.
Here are some examples for your education:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
EDIT: I am actually embarrassed that I bothered responding to this person. Please educate yourself on game development.
"Apparently, Nvidia has been working on the chip for the last two years, according to company CEO Jen-Hsun Huang. That would put the start of company's involvement in PS3 development at least eight months before ATI confirmed its Xbox 2 design win. Then, it was suggested that Nvidia and Microsoft had fallen out over how much the latter owed the former for its graphics technology, and that led to the decision to adopt ATI chippery."
So, Brucieboy, it would appear that the Graphics chip for the PS3 was started BEFORE the graphics chip for the 360. So, how is that last minute again?
One thing is clear, the Microsoft anti-Sony viral campaign is alive and well in the LEMMING infested United States.
And so you do not say that I made that up...here is the link to the entire article.
http://www.theregister.co.u...
Article after article and time after time, you prove to be nothing more than a 40 year-old virgin who takes hate and turns it in to what you call news with no evidence to back up your fail-phyllic rants, with your grandmother's permission ofcourse. This is strike number three my friend. Any credible journalist would supply their own links to the so-called evidence of this heresay that regards the, and I quote, "slapped together" gpu bs. Provide your own links other than to those of YOUR OWN BLOGS. LOL. You fail at life, let alone journalism.
Agreements were already in hand along time ago with nvidia, yes cells main goal was to do graphics as well, which by the way it still can, even hdr. and very well i might add.
Also the 12x dvd speed you speak of is on the outer layer, which is where most of the graphics data is stored on dvd for 360. but thats single, on a dual layer, the speed is the same as a blu-ray disc.
and don't get me started on polys or pixel shading, or even vertex work.
I'll just say this, cell can do amazing vertex work with spu's.
Take a look at insomiacs paper on the spu subjects.
http://www.insomniacgames.c...
http://www.insomniacgames.c...
...
1.where in your "performance assessment" is how well each machine actually runs. i mean, the failure rate for 360 largest for any electronics ever. in comparison that way: ps3 wins.
2.how does the 360 outperform the ps3 visually? 360 has no games close to visual quality of ratchet,uncharted, HS, GT5p, MGS4, KZ2, FF13, FFv. well, i'll give them 2: bioshock and gears. but how does that equate to superior performance?
3. kind of a follow-up to 1:when you are attempting(and very poorly)to break down ps3 "problem", why don't you break down the 360 hardware in same way? there are all sorts of problems leading to heat issues, console failure, houses burning down...etc
come on bruce, a poorly written, biased, article with your biased view of "facts as you see them". i'd say you're better than that, but probably not.
I see no facts though, only made up facts.
Some people may not like these facts but they are there and they are open knowledge.
1) The PS3 GPU is a PC part optimised for that job. The 360 GPU was a co design between ATI and Microsoft that is optimised for the console role.
2) The on paper performance statistics of the 360 GPU are far higher than the PS3 GPU.
3) The PS3 GPU was a last minute fix so the architecture of the machine is not optimised for it.
1) The PS3 GPU doesn't exist on a PC GFX card, if it did it would be a part of the Nvidia 8000 serises GFX cards, reason why it's not on a PC GFX card because it doesn't have any of the directX parts in the RSX it not a PC designed GPU, in fact it'd be more a console driven GPU than the ATi GPU in the 360 for that reason alone.
2) the RSX has a different design spec but the RSX is designed for HD display specs where as the 360 is only based on 720P standard HD design specs, ATi have always designed their GPUs to alway have the full shaders, and colour options in their GPUs the main reason why they have had a lower pixel display rate etc due to the extra processing on the ATi GPU, this how ever doesn't make the RSX a lessor GPU it actually does a quicker full HD Frame than what the 360 GPU can do a 720P frame in.
3) NVidia have spent a few years designing the RSX and isn't dump in GPU as you'd like to think.
This has been stated by NVidia themselves about the RSX.
Three reasons that added together mean that there is a huge GPU performance difference between the two consoles. The PS3 claws some of this back because of the sheer power of the Cell processor. However real world results have the 360 outperforming the PS3 because of the reasons stated. And the 360 will maintain this superiority because it is built in to the hardware of the machine.
Like I say, click the links and read the facts before posting misinformed comments here.
the 360 is held back by the CPU, it always will because the GPU has no effect on how to handle 3D mechanics, it's after that does the GPU come into play.
lol, I wait to see if the 360 will ever display a fullHD image for a game, seeing as it's current version is a gimped 1080I picture format, which none of the 360's games output.
The thing that people may not understand is that uncharted looks good because of the artist not the tech. It's the same with killzone2. The PS3 is still going to look good and many of you may not even notice the things missing yet when you have effect heavy games you will run into problem because they will depend on how many shaders you can throw on screen. Yet if a way is found to help the PS3 over come this thing it would be a great thing as many companies do not have artist like uncharted crew.
The difference will not be in the actual effects but your frame rate. The PS3 can do any thing that the xbox 360 can but the speeds will wildly vary and I think this is the main problem. The only way to fix it is not to rely on lots shaders to make you game look pretty which is harder to do these days LOL.
Welcome to PC gaming by the way!
It is a big pity that this article failed approval because some people who don't know what they are talking about didn't like it. The truth about these machines should reach a wider audience.
What I posted is not lame and not spam. It is fact as any developer who has worked on both machines will tell you.
I am sorry that Sony fanboys cannot face up to the facts.
I am not a fanboy for any machine, just an industry professional reporting the facts as I find them.
For instance the PS3 is beautifully built. To a vastly higher standard than the 360, which was built down to a price.
Here is a comment someone has added to the original article:
"To all comments above. To anyone having done development on both platforms, Bruce’s comments are obvious.
The RSX is weak, get over it already.
This doesn’t prevent talented studios making PS3 exclusive low polygon, low texture memory games that look very nice indeed.
Outside of the console world, Blizzard is one of those studios who seem to know how to make 3 and half triangles look gorgeous."
You sir are somewhat of a joke.
Excuse me while I hope back to Halo 2.5 then, a true revolution in game visuals at 640p! Or perhaps we can play Ninja Gaiden Update Pack 4, running at a native 585p I believe it was? Yes, the 360 runs circles around the PS3. Silly me!
They are very sensitive over that Duderaider game.
Yes, it would probably give better visuals if it was based on a later series, but everyone in the industry is still stratching their head on what the Cell and RSX is really capable of.
Some first party devs like Guerilla, Insomniac, and Naughty Dog seem to be up to the challenge of making games that stand out above any console games we've ever seen. Some multiplat devs don't want anything to do with it...Square Enix is working on Crystal Tools for FF13 and taking full advantage of the PS3's specs...it's still too early to say what's holding what back. All we know is first party games look a certain way that defines the PS3 while multiplats truly look like ports that can be thrown on any console.
And who knows if a PS3 exclusive could be handled on another console, but we do know that many Xbox 360 exclusives have all of a sudden been later released on the PC or PS3, so really...what's holding the PS3 back and how good do PS3 games really have to look? I think the Killzone 2 trailer before launch just threw off everyone's judgment and everyone has been letting their aggression out on every PS3 game that has come out since. "Resistance??? that doesn't look anything like Killzone 2...did Sony lie??? 6/10"
To sum my rant up....wait, it's too early to know until the real heavy hitters for the PS3 come out, but I have yet to see a console game look better than Uncharted.
If you don't have or haven't played a PS3, you probably wouldn't understand why this article seems rediculous (and once again, please refer to the authors other anti-ps3 articles).
1) Nothing on the 360 looks better than GT5p(1080p native), Uncharted, MGS4 (1080p),motorstorm and HS all look better than GOW on the 360. As for the matter of multiplats COD4 oblivion and GTA4 all look better on PS3 (especially GTA4 despite the so-called lower resolution).
2) The 360 is nearly maxed out (97% I believe) according to some certain developers, so if it's going to outperform the PS3 in the long run how comes it hasn't so far especially when it's been out 1 year longer than the PS3 and the first to the third party devlopers had more time to work on the 360? If that is the case it should have shown the PS3 a clean pair of heals in terms of performance by now shouldn't it?
"You have to know your audience Bruce and you can obviously see the age/maturity level of the kid's who are getting upset by your article that is backed up by facts."
Says you, the guy with a user name that is distinctly a derogatory fanboy remark against the PS3. You fail little troll. Move on to the Open Zone, they miss you over there.
As for Bruce... Get a life and stop being such a closet fanboy. You write articles that reek of fanboyism and yet you cannot even openly admit to being a Microsoft Butt Toy. Go home and write something that actually makes sense and stay away from console talk, it isn't doing you any good to write about stuff you know nothing about.
The dude just wants hits for his site and you guys are giving him them. Can't you see that your being manipulated?
a short memory when it comes to games made on Playstation platforms. They get better over time no matter what the GPU, the Cell's architecture is already being exploited in games like R2 and KZ2 and this only the second generation games and they already look better than anything on the 360. Your GPU argument is tired and lame, its been done before. You should use your eyes and do some more research on actual games, not statistics.
The last time I checked I didn't play a cpu or a gpu, I played games!!! Let the games do the talking!
Just curious though, what happens if we just take the cpu and other components out and leave the gpu? Can we still play games? Can we develop for them?
This dude goes on and on about how the gpu for xbox is more powerful than the PS3, yet claims that he is not a fanboy and that all this is fact. Ok then why not compare the cell to the cpu in the xbox then?
Article=Fail!
...M$:News4Gamers.con!!! ;-D
The xBox 360 is holding the PS3 back!!!
Do Any games on xBox 360 look better than...
Uncharted???
Ratchet&Clank:Tools of Destruction???
MGS4???...
Er NO!!!;)
the RSX is based off of the 7800 GTX...but it has a lot of differences...and NVIDIA was approached only a year after Cell development began...I have never heard of this "cell GPU" that they were trying before, doesn't mean that it didn't happen...but definitely means it was scrapped very early...
the GRID demo ran under 30fps on the PS3...but was confirmed to be fixed for the final game...leaving the 2 version nearly identical...as stated in the freakin' link the guy put up...also, GTAIV was CONFIRMED to be delayed to do "large scale multiplatform development"...not just the PS3...why everyone just omits the fact that Houser said that developing GTAIV for the 360 and not being able to use a standard HDD was a huge challenge is beyond me...
crap article...crap author...Nearly every respectable developer has commented on the main issue with the PS3 being development tools at first...and now its mostly an issue of OS footprints...the PS3 still uses about twice the ram for the OS as the 360...that number is continuously falling (down from over triple when the system launched)...couple that with the fact that coding for the Cell is still challenging...and multiplatform games take a hit...
this avoids the issues of 1st party games though...SCE has somehow created some of the best looking games of this generation without question...just because GRID ran slightly better on the 360 doesn't mean that GT5:P isn't the most impressive looking racing game to date...or that Uncharted is arguably the best looking console game ever made...this is the first generation that i have heard idiots drone on so much about multiplatform games...they don't prove which system is superior...they just prove which system is 'easier' with a limtied budget and time...
This guy bruce has been posting articles from his blog since the first day he stepped foot in the door at n4g. The contributers guidlines clearly state that you are not supposed to do this. Al of his articles are flamebait and mostly anti Sony. I swear.
I've never seen a Limey want to ride MS dong so much in my life.
I have played both Uncharted and Gears and I still think Gears looks better. It is just that Uncharted is more outdoors and has a lot of sunlight and bright jungle environments. If you play Gears in those environments you would see better if not as good detail. You ps3 owners act like Uncharted is generations ahead of every game out there now. Sorry but ur best game so far was only worth a rental which could be beaten in a few sittings. Not a bad game though.
People keep complaining that the PS3 devs are lazy, if it takes 100 man days on the PS3 to do something that can be done in 60 man days on the 360, how much better do you think the results on the 360 would be if we spent 100 man days on the 360 effort??
Plain and simple, the 360 is proving it self again and again that it's a better platform for games.
the best looking game on the 360 is a multiplatform game that looks identical on the PS3...I know that stings, but making shat up won't change it...funny though, CoD 4 is not the best looking game on the PS3...
I like how these same "lazy developers" seem to have no problem making great games on the 360.
Lead platforms get the most attention. Then they port to the next platform. Lazy developers port in such a way that they do not pour the necessary resources into the port but rather skimp. Developers that know how to get the best of both consoles know that you need to allocate the necessary resources to both consoles and in some cases, build the game on both from the ground up. It takes more money and resources and is the path to a great game on both platforms. Lazy devs take the easy way out and just throw a port together. Having a hint of understanding, this would have been something you would have figured out yourself, but I should have known not to expect anything like this from a fanboy troll...
The Open Zone is datta way --->
for a while now. I haven't seen similar problems with 360 ports from PS3 leads. ggnore
Both consoles have a ways to go yet, and over time the CPU's will be used to do more and more to lighten the load on their aging GPU's.
This article "may" be relevant in 3-4 years, but not now.
In fact, worthy of a > pfft...
(ps... lack of memory will be a concern before the GPU)
Retarded article that has ever been typed! the same thing can be said about the XBox 360 CPU saying is the CPU on the XBox 360 underperforming the PS3 considering theres nothing on that console that can match Killzone 2 or Uncharted or even the PS3 exclusives for that matter
considering the Xbox 360 is also known for
XBox 360=Unreal Engine 3
I never seen that console use any other engine besides that engine has anyone have?
and plus BioShock is one of those improvements that this article is wrong considering its going to be better then the original one that is on XBox 360.
the 360 is easier to develop for with limited people, limited money, and limited time...the best looking games on the system are ALL UE3...its been squeezed without a doubt...the only thing the 360 did was got Gears out the door first...and no one had seen a big budget UE3 game at that point...that immediately made everyone think the 360 was the king of visuals...but seriously...what game on the 360 looks better so far?...arguably nothing...yet the PS3, without question, have released games that are superior...and some upcoming games that absolutely trash it...one of them drops tomorrow around midnight...
that, console wise, is only on the PS3 right now...but it doesn't change the fact that its the best looking and running UE3 game right now...confirmed by Epic...
so if you are going to say Gears and CoD 4 'hold that position atm'...switch gears for UT3...it would make Epic happier...
I take it he doesn't release that the PS3 GPU is only used for a small amount of the calculations the CELL perform's the rest, really if it wasn't for sony limiting the amount of calculations which can be assigned for the cell to do, the graphical power would be crazy.
Still i still think the one thing which may hold it back in the future will be the RAM
There are some good points raised but when you mix truth with one sided opinions it doesn't produce the results intended. This article will now fall to the hands of the fanboys to fight over.
You people try and censor the news so the administator of the website..(Newsbot) has to approve this?
Are you really that insecure?
http://n4g.com/PopUpPages/O...
What graphics 'You think look better' IE Uncharted..etc...is just 'your opinion'. The majority of the time, 'with provable testing' IE multiplatform games the 360 does win out in the end.
The lazy developer BS is starting to get old. Game developers have been working with both consoles for over 2 years.
Personally I don't really care but this censorship is amusing to say the least. Kind of pathetic in a way.
Ninja Gaiden II - Slowdown at 585p.
Resistance - Rock solid 30fps at 720p. (With upwards of 30 people on screen no less!)
Halo 3 - Stuttering 30fps at 640p.
Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact.
Who's insecure?
If 30,000 Polygons on the Nathan Drake character is lowpoly... you know what, no. Not even going to bother with you. It's a waste of my time.
I didn't report it, but just look at the history of his articles and you will see which way he leans.
@ OnslaughtX -
Nice way to compare totally different games. It's curious that when the comparison is made against the exact same games, the Xbox 360 outperforms the 95% of times with difference that go from abysmal to not very noticeable, while the underperforming in the 5% (or less) is rare and the gap in performance (if any) is minimal.
My intent is not to bash any games, it's to prove that the article is quite pathetic and unfounded. The article basically says that the PS3 is behind the 360 and being held back by its GPU, the assumption of this obviously coming from shoddy PORT jobs, without looking at any exclusive titles or GOOD ports.
If this article were truth, then there would be NO titles on the PS3 that ran better than anything comparable on the 360, which is what I'm getting at. Notice when a game is deved on both systems (Burnout, DMC, CoD, etc) they turn out pretty much equal. How can the PS3 be lagging behind the 360 if it pushes out EQUAL (and in other cases, as presented, BETTER looking) titles? If the article focused on PS3's more complex nature, fine. But read it man, its pure FUD and Anti-PS3 BS. Frankly from a grown man, its beyond pathetic and laughable.
Notice that 90% of the games that "underperform" are ported FROM the 360, in a quick and sloppy manner, without any attempt made to tackle the different PS3 architecture. I'm not saying the PS3 is a cakewalk, it is quite complex, and that is a failing. It's like shoving a person who drives automatic into a manual car. He can figure it out, but he isn't going to win any races right away. "The PS3 continues to underperform the 360" is just a flatout lie. FACT. It has nothing to do with which console you prefer, its BS.
Don't just take the Sony fanboys word for it when they say that Uncharted is the best looking console game -
http://www.ripten.com/2007/...
http://bestof.ign.com/2007/...
Just do a search and you will find that the rest of the web finds Uncharted to be the best looking console game around.
Bruce is a douche and to fall for his dribble in this article makes anybody look silly.
you don't want to get bloodybaby (#3 xbox360 fanboy on N4g) angry. He has a penchant to go "Waaaaah waaaaah" and he'll try to get you banned.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ That someone is spamming to devs is holding PS3 back.
no name website getting approved. I would have flagged this one as lame and uncredible for sure.
to the administrator of N4G if you have a problem with it. He is the one who approved it. Or does your opinion override his?
http://n4g.com/PopUpPages/O...
as we are the ones who usually approve and keep the site moving. My opinion is likely plenty of other people on this site and right above your comment. Read around to see if people think he's credible. I for one don't. He's just trying to make a name for himself and its lame.
they are just not good in ps3 programming thats why the ports are underperformed...
We just don't know much about it.
The 360's GPU may be better, no sh*t, because the RSX isn't a standalone graphics card, nobody takes into account that the RSX was designed to use OpenGL to it's fullest extent, and what can OpenGL produce?, EVERYTHING DirectX 10 can produce and a whole lot more.
The Burnout developers confirmed in a podcast that the Xenos being more powerful is a myth, the power of the RSX was just restricted....
Next.
It wasn’t designed or optimised as a console GPU. It was designed and optimised as a PC GPU.
The whole architecture of the console was compromised by the last minute change.
The 7800GTX has less raw processing power than the Microsoft Xbox 360 GPU."
That's just the truth. You Sony fans can say all you want, but it is like that...
@ Jamie Foxx
"look at MGS4,look at uncharted and theres been multi-plat games that perform better on ps3 or run identical=cod4,burnout,oblivio n etc"
MGS4 is said by Kojiama himself: that he didn't get it up in graphical terms like he wanted, mainly because of the Cell. I have it here printed in a magazine from a reviewer that played MGS4 for days on Konami invite in Japan.
Multiplats that run better on PS3? Don't think so:
COD4 textures were better on the 360 if you zoom in. Burnout was made on PS3 first then ported to the 360 and run about equal. Oblivion got a year extra devtime, while the 360 version was a straight PC port. It just ran a tad better with a year extra time.
Focus on those games multiplat that release on the same time. The PS3 version always is worse period.
THere are more games to mention that run bad on the PS3 then those that run equal or better.
@ DarkArcani
"Uncharted?
or Killzone2?"
Uncharted? I've played it, looked nice but not the best graphics ever as hyped by PS3 fanboys.
KZ2? Not released yet?
@ Rick G@Ystley
"Killzone 2, Motorstorm 2, Heavy Rain, Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm, FFXIII, Versus XIII, and etc. "
Same, calling those games that haven't even released yet.
Sony actually said themselves they got it wrong with the Cell. They thought they could cut costs so the PS3 would be cheap to produce. In the end they had to buy the GPU last minute. The architecture of the PS3 ain't right because of that and got delayed again.
The Cell on paper is strong. For streaming video and calculating how many light years a planet is from here. But not optimal for gaming. It's like putting a Ferrari motor in a Lada. A lot of marketingblabla and many costs, but not optimal for the result in the end.
a dreaded Wall of Text of Sh!T!
...
...
Shut-up.
Please, for the sake of humanity.
but we've seen a lot of them in action and they put all your theories to rest
the Cell isn't optimal for gaming your right, but the devs are starting to take advantage of it and this is only the beggining
in a year or so, PS3 will have the better multi-plats (optimised dev tools) and those great looking games will have been released
but you'll still be here yapping on about some BS
We are only in the 4th year of the console wars(4th being since the Xbox 360 launched). Such accusations on one's processing power should be saved towards the end say..2012? Developers are just starting to get used to the Ps3's archietecture as far as exploiting its raw computing power. The only reason the 360 look solid in graphics because its not as powerful and will reach iits potential faster because it still uses DVD-ROMs
...the 360 launched on November 22nd, 2005...which was less than 2 1/2 years ago. Combine that with the fact that there WAS no "war" until the PS3 and Wii launched a year later...and it's only been a 1 1/2 year console war. You fail at 1st Grade math. :o
1 disagree...apparently from someone who ALSO failed 1st Grade math. :D
was it the 360 that held back gta4 or was that ps3???
Slow PS3 development is what pushed back the release date, and 360 hardware held back the game's potential. There's telltale signs of these problems if you look closely at both versions.
Your hardware ended up running in lower resolution and worse average frame rate, what is your point ?
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
i meant potential i don't care how long a game takes as long as it's not a downgrade from a previous one.playing gta4 was kinda like playing gta3 with better graphics.like they say id rather do other things then watch t.v. i mean if they cut that aspect of the game i can care less but the list of things they could have put in the game that didnt end up making it to the final game i bet was to much for the 360 to handle.
Yes, PS3 version runs at a lower resolution, but the framerate is pretty much identical across both versions (i.e. great most of the time). I had to correct you on that. The signs are in the resolution of the TV feeds, the texture quality, lighting quality, etc. I won't name which versions though.
The implementation of Natural Motion was also a big holdup, but a necessary one, and I'm glad they did since that technology adds a lot more believability to both the NPCs and main characters.
Edit: Thanks for the framerate info Martini. It borders on nerdy, but shows that they got both versions running fairly well. But I'm not sure why you keep acting like you're arguing Against me. I hate to repeat myself, but PS3 development was one of the reasons for the game's delay. Building a PS3-specific engine took a LOT of effort since porting 360 code ever doesn't work well, and 360 development did start earlier.
The next GTA game should be a lot better in terms of technical specs.
Read the article - 360 has better frame rate then ps 3 these are the facts http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Test One: Game Intro
360: 31.627fps
PS3: 26.504fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Two: Clean Getaway
360: 28.624fps
PS3: 23.989fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Three: Final Destination
360: 35.662fps
PS3: 29.523fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Four: Station Face-Off
360: 26.015fps
PS3: 25.803fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Five: Rigged to Blow
360: 26.507fps
PS3: 23.781fps
See it on EGTV.
Test Six: Ivan the Not So Terrible
360: 33.713fps
PS3: 28.313fps
So the results clearly show that over the course of the entire clip, 360 out-performs PlayStation 3 in every one of the six scenarios presented here. Indeed, on the longer vids, with a larger average sample, we're seeing a good 17 to 18 percent variance. Tests on gameplay (playing through the same mission, but not rendering identical scenes, obviously) saw a similar range of variance too. For example, the 'Ivan the Not So Terrible' stage has a nice range of in-car, on-foot, rooftop and cut-scene action. 30.106fps average on a 360 runthrough, compared with 26.733fps and 26.696fps on two separate PS3 captures of the same mission.
The bottom line is that no matter what material I put through the detector, 360 came ahead in all tests, sometimes dramatically so.
and lower resolution? yeah right, now would you think Rockstar will be dumb enough to software scale the game from 640p to 720p?, as software scaling takes power away from running the game....lol
it was 360 lead platform, ROFL so of course the frame rate is faster on the 360 HAAHAHHAAHHAHAAHHAH
BTW look at these pictures, need i say more?
Related image(s)
what the hell was the point to those screens?
killzone looks better?
"need i say more?"....yes
you know killzone 2 looks better :D, but theres one thing that articles like these still confirm, Microsofts viral marketing campaign against sony is alive and well. if this guy is actually a part of the games industry as he said, then it confirms that there is biasness in the industry, it confirms what we have known since the beginning with sites like gamespot, 1up and guys like brucie right here, biasness against sony cause they get Microsoft checks to speak against sony.
@Martini
"excuses excuses....LOL"
ROFL no comback? cause you know its true, go play burnout or devil may cry 4 on both platforms, then come back to me
And has some enormous hardware advantages over Xenos. Developers agree that they can get 2~3 times better performance out of RSX compared to its ATI counterpart; this is partially due to chip performance, but also due to the environments these chips were put in.
RSX has a huge amount of bandwidth at its disposal, as well as a powerful CPU to feed it instructions and also do GPU functions (i.e. pre-culling, skinning, lighting, and even rendering/compositing) before even touching RSX. This makes sense since RSX is biased towards pixel functions, and all gaming GPUs technically suck at polygon processing.
Xenos has a limited amount of bandwidth at its disposal, and relatively weak CPU to feed it instructions. Also, the bandwidth and memory are shared (as seen in low-end PCs and Laptops) which leads to performance issues. If the CPU eats up a large amount of bandwidth, the GPU suffers, and vice versa.
Now back in 2006, it was easy to argue that RSX was nothing more than a 7800 series chip. But current games like Uncharted and Killzone 2 prove otherwise.
The guy posted this to his own website. If you look at the info history you can see how many report it has, and it was approved by 1 person only. Is the "News Bot" really a N4G moderator or is it this guy's bot?
Look at his scoring history, this post was added 1 day and 10 hours ago, and it magically got approved again 20 minutes ago.
Seems like he's either hacking or using bots or something to bump the article rating...
I saw Killzone 2, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, Heavy Rain: The Origami Killer (screen shots looked amazing), WarDevil: The Beast Within (cinematics is said to be in-game graphics as well, we'll soon see), and maybe others.
Related image(s)
You named one released game... SUPER!
The PlayStation 3 is on its second year and those games are supose to hit this year. I can't even say Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is out yet.