Call of Duty 4: Larger burden on Sony PS3 than Xbox 360

Games like Call of Duty 4 run at a framerate of 60 frames per second on both systems. But Call of Duty 4 is a game that experienced technical problems with various bottlenecks due to the varying levels of action that occur on the screen. The game was originally designed to run at 60 frames per second at 720p, but it caused drops in the framerate.

The proof of this is the fact that Call of Duty 4 runs at a resolution of only 640p on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. This may be "equal" in terms of what is displayed on the screen, but the FACT is that Call of Duty 4 is putting a much larger burden on the PS3 than it is the Xbox 360.

Confirmation of this can be seen in the large number of games that "run smoothly at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360, but struggle to run at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3." That was a quote from Gamespot.

It's simple math: The Xbox 360 can display approximately 500,000,000 polygons per second, compared to 275,000,000 polygons per second for the Playstation 3.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Captain Tuttle3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

This should be epic.

Drinks are on me!

Rikitatsu3733d ago

a 360 game as good looking as Uncharted,MGS4, GT5P !

MJY2K3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

That's what I was thinking.

Fine, we all know about most multiplats running better on the 360 but why do many PS3 exclusives look/run so much better?

MrWonderful3733d ago

in the words of the human tourch "Flame On"

zapass3733d ago

this is so full of sh!t...

sonarus3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

There is no need to flame. This article is stupid. Author is talking out of his ass. This could be true in the days of madden running at 30fps on PS3 but not anymore. PS3 had rocky start with development, devs are catching up. The fact that devs had a full yr with the 360 before PS3 and also the fact that MSoft has better tools is the real reason for this. Not some BS imaginary numbers stated as fact.

Everytime they brought out a game the PS3 couldn't run it has been proven wrong.

chasuk083733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

I honestly dont care about this article, and im not concerned about an extra 30 frames the xbox has when our eyes can barely recognise them. This article is the same as the rest of them trying to put down the PS3, and its not working.

SixTwoTwo3733d ago

Let the products speak for themselves. Show me a 360 game that looks as good as Heavenly Sword or Uncharted or MGS4 or GT5P. Look at Killzone 2 on the horizon. I can't believe people are still able to fool themselves like this.

3733d ago
TayTayShaniqua3733d ago

"I can't believe people are still able to fool themselves like this. "

There are still people who sit out in console forums who are still trying to convince the world that 'teh Dreamcast was more powerful than teh PS2'.

Most of the Dreamcast fanbase latched on to the Xbox when the system died and are still spouting the same garbage to this very day.

TANOD3733d ago

Uncharted looks much better than Gears 1 and 2

mindedone3733d ago

I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I'm disagreeing with the Giant Wall of Text.

CrazzyMan3733d ago

People SHOULD know, that nowdays SHADER operation are much MORE important, then polys count.

AND PS3 OWNS in That.

============================= ================
5 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle (2 vector4 and 2 scalar (dual/co-issue) and fog ALU)
27 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
68 billion shader operations per second theoretical maximum ( ((5 ALU x 24 pixel pipelines) + (2 ALU x 8 vetrex pipelines)) x 500 MHz )
364 GFLOPS ( ((27 FLOPS x 24 pixel pipelines) + (10 FLOPS x 8 vertex pipelines)) x 500 MHz )
24 filtered and 32 unfiltered texture samples per clock
Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (in HS RSX _alone_ 3MT = 90MT/s)

2 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle (1 vector4 and 1 scalar, co-issued)
10 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
48 billion shader operations per second theoretical maximum (2 ALU x 48 shader pipelines x 500 MHz)
240 GFLOPS (10 FLOPS x 48 shader pipelines x 500 MHz)
16 filtered and 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock
Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second (in DR _with cpu_ only 4MT per frame with 30fps = ~120MT/s, 4 times less)
============================= ================

Taken from beyond3d:

In [b]Lost Planet[/b], each character is 10-20K polys. A VS robot is 30-40K polys. A background is about 500K. With shadows and other hidden rendering cost, it's about [b]3 million[/b] polys per frame.

Different platforms require different care, would not be surprised if ppl working on 360 and suddenly dropping their datasets onto RSX would not observe good numbers (and viceversa)
Now..I can't see how RSX, if used in the right way, should be so limited at vertex processing: in HS we easily render 2-2.5 MTriangles per frame at 30 fps without being VS limited and without making any use of CELL to speed up vertex shading and I know for sure that being more clever we could even go faster..[b](just using the GPU)[/b]

The numbers quoted about HS are slighty wrong..cause a few days a go I realized there's a bug in the code that computes the triangle count: in some cases it's more close to [b]3M triangles[/b] per frame mark than 2M.

Regarding cpu, yes its totally different arguments. The 360's is a very standard setup, a bunch of cores that can all see main memory. The advantage to this is that lots of thread coded written over the years can be ported to it easily. For example, Valve (the Half Life guys) are writing an entirely threaded engine for the PC. When it's done, porting it to the 360 will be easy. How about porting it to the PS3? Nope, won't work, it's a totally different setup. The PS3's main core is basically the same, but its spu's can't see main memory. Each one has 256k that it can work with, so you need to rewrite your code to pack things into 256k chunks, feed it to the spu's to process it, then copy it all back to main memory. In other words, you've gotta rewrite your code.

Now before I get jumped on here let me briefly mention the downsides. The 360's cpu setup is painfully easy to code for. But, they really aren't all that fast. Worse yet, all three cores use the same memory controller so the three cores are not three times the power of the one core on the PS3 due to some overhead. The PS3's spu's on the other hand are monstrously fast. You need to setup your data correctly to work with them, but once thats done then yes, [b]the 360's cpu setup is crap compared to fully working spu's.[/b] I say fully working because most current games out there barely even touch on them, it will take time to re-write everything. I haven't done spu coding....yet.

============================= ================

MOST games use 90-180 mln. polys per second, since using more you won`t have stable framerate.

300 mln. polys per second is ENOUGH for this gen.
That is 10 mln. with 30fps or 5 mln. with 60fps. And again, Lost Planet only 3 mln. with 30fps.

============================= ================
"The game was originally designed to run at 60 frames per second at 720p, but it caused drops in the framerate.

The proof of this is the fact that Call of Duty 4 runs at a resolution of only 640p on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3."
LoLz, then x360 version should be run at 720p IF it would depend ONLY on polys count. BUT it depend also on PROCESSING power, where x360 is WEAK.

Those 500mln. are theoretical and have NO use.

CrazzyMan3733d ago

Fanboys of`course will stay in DENIAL, but that won`t change how things are now:

Uncharted and MGS4 rules graphically in 3rd person action games.
GT5P rules graphically in racing games.
Naruto Storm rules graphically in fighting games based on anime.
FFXIII will show it`s greatness during next several months in JRPGs.
KZ2 will own graphically in FPS on consoles.
I could continue, but you people just will see it with your own eyes, when time will come. =)

SixTwoTwo3733d ago

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a 360 game that looks as good as the PS3 exclusives I named above (1.9). Anybody going to step up?

ChampIDC3733d ago

I'm still waiting for 360 and PS3 fanboys to just get along...

Dannagar3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )


I'm not sure what is so impressive about Uncharted. I bought it because Playstation 3 users on N4G are constantly bragging about it. It isn't bad but visually, It has an inconsistent frame rate, it has constant screen tearing. As far as what the PS3 hardware is doing in Uncharted, it's similar to Kameo with all the foliage, water effect, normal mapping on the rocks and lighting FX. Only Kameo doesn't have the problems of Uncharted. Kameo Looks better than Uncharted and it isn't even the best looking Xbox 360 game.

Forza 2 is better that Gran Turismo 5: Prologue in ever aspect (Physics and car damage). Metal Gear Solid 4 is impressive but it's linear and it's only for Metal Gear fans.

Dark General3733d ago Kameo Uncharted.

As for MGS4 being linear please play the game first. MGS3 and MGS2 was linear MGS4 however is not.

Dannagar3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

Half the pictures of Kameo on IGN/Gamespot are from the Xbox version or GameCube. The time of day makes a difference in Kameo's look. I have played Metal Gear Solid 4, if the Playstation 3 kept track of games I've played (for others to view like Xbox Live), you'd see that. I didn't like it and what I played was linear.


SixTwoTwo3733d ago

How can you compare Uncharted with Cameo??? I'll give you credit for being original with that one though lol. And MGS 4 linear? The game gives you two choices. Shoot your way through. Or sneak your way through. If thats linear then what isn't?

SL1M DADDY3733d ago

Try and not post up flame bait like this. I know it's a nice thought to have an article reach 1000° but when you post up trash like this it makes you look pretty sad.

And involving myself in the argument I will add... How did Kojima work his magic and get MGS4 to run so well on the oh-so crippled PS3?

Gee... Maybe it's not that PS3 that is so crippled after all.

Dark General3733d ago

Some of the screenshots may be from the gamecube and xbox versions of the game but the one i linked to is not. look at the button commands on the screen Rt and Lt. Though the twilight time shot you linked to does look better. But certainly not better than Uncharted in my opinion (and i don't even like Uncharted's art direction much). As for MGS4 being Linear i played through the game twice now i can definitely tell you for sure it's not linear. Try going up a different street or looking at your surroundings for alternate ways because they are definitely there.

@SixTwoTwo: You must have gotten my comment mixed up. I was saying that MGS4 is NOT Linear and that Uncharted looks better than Kameo. You might want to reread what i typed out above.

fusionboxer3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

This guy started listing a whole host of statements with the only support/source being gamespot.

I may be wrong, but I can't call that a totally reliable source. The fact of the matter is that developers are coming out and proving this article wrong with their astonishment of the ps3's cell.

When resistance 1 came out Insomniac said the cell processors allowed them to construct more things on screen at once then any other platform to date. By assigning specific tasks to one of 6 usable cores, The physics, animations, shaders, and AI could each work in tandem to provide super smooth gameplay and action on screen without even the slightest bit of lag.

Despite what the haters say about Resistance 1, later levels had you and 50 of your friendly soldiers going at it in a war against literally hundreds of chimera all acting differently according to the battle. It was impressive no doubt and really built up to the climax of the game. All of it was running at 30fps, but it never dropped once.

Also I can't help, but see certain games come to mind that throw this article for a loop. Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran turismo, Resistance, Oblivion, uncharted, warhawk and even heavenly sword are some examples. Warhawk and resistance have ALOT going on at once with zero framerate drops, while oblivion runs smoother and streams faster on the ps3. And not to mention Uncharted and Heavenly swords brilliant textures.

So I don't know... I can't list a huge list of specs because it'd be pointless and go right over our heads, but the numbers he listed had very little to do with the games themselves other then visuals. He didn't list anything about the physics, AI, or anything really gameplay related other then the supposed framerate issues. And even then there are too many solid examples (not data spreadsheets) to prove this guy AND gamespot wrong (again).

Isaac3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

Dannagar you are so full of FAIL. There is no game on Xbox 360 looking as good as Uncharted, a 1st year game, funny you compare it to Kameo which looks like a Gamecube game with a few bells and whistles. Halo 3, a 2nd year FPS, did not manage to look considerably better than Resistance 1, a launch title, and it runs at sub-HD resolutions, even though it is First Party. Gears 2, a 3rd year game, barely looks better than Gears 1.

However, that does not surprise me, not even a little bit, considering it is made with Unreal Engine, something Epic is already done with, hell they were done with it when the generation started because that is the point of a Middleware engine, they have merely tweaked it.

And BTW, when Forza 2 looks or sells as good as the GT franchise, we will talk. After all, Gran Turismo is the professional simulator, and the reason it does not have car damage is because it has the support of industry professionals, not because it cant be done. Nobody outside the Xbox fanboy world knows what Forza is, everybody knows what Gran Turismo is, after all it sold the same as Grand Theft Auto 3 on PS2. Neither Halo 3 or 2 nor Gears can claim a cypher like that.

3733d ago
Dannagar3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )


You don't know any better because you haven't played any better. I would be upset too if I only owned a Playstation 3. And If I only owned a Playstation 3, I'd probably try to make myself feel better by plugging my own system.

I own both system (Actually, all systems). If I want to enjoy PS3, I do. If I want to enjoy Xbox 360 I do. I just call it how I see it.

BTW, Forza 2 is the professional simulator and it out does Gran Turismo in ever aspect. Xbox 360 owners have had it more than a year (the full version). Playstation 3 owners have a $39.95 demo. I'm not stupid enough to buy it. By the time Gran Turismo 5 comes out, Xbox 360 owners will have Forza 3. You can make excuses as to why Gran Turismo is missing Feature and licenses that Forza has but all they are are excuses.

OgTheClever3733d ago

i think this must be some kind of record.

twoface3733d ago

If you do really own a PS3, you don't seem to want to enjoy it too much. If not, I don't think you would have said the comments you did - MGS4 being too linear and GT5P is a demo scam, all this in a thread about polygons. Well done!

Dannagar3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

You can send me a friend invite over the PSN if you'd like. My user name is Dannagar (providing you have Firmware 2.4). If I thought the Playstation 3 was a top notch system, then you'd hear me praising it but I don't. I have a lot of issues with PS3.

I wasn't a fan of the Original Xbox (though I own it and about 20 games). I thought the Original Xbox had way too many Shooter and not enought diversity. To me, the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 switched places. The larger percentage of big budget PS3 games are Shooter (Resistance2, Killzone 2, Socom, Haze, Metal Gear, etc.) By all means, that isn't why I enjoyed the Playstation 2.

I think all the installing is Bull S#$T!. Even Demos have to be installed. You can download a demo off Xbox Live and you just play it without any kind of installation. The Playstation 3 firmware updates take me 3 hours and they happen often. Xbox Live updates are like a minute or so.

The games I'd like to see (on PS3) haven't even been announced yet. Playstation Network has a weak line up of Arcade style games. Hearing the same guys, talking about the same games everyday (since the PS3 has been released) is old.

Uncharted wasn't bad, it just wasn't anything (visually) I hadn't seen on the before. To hear fanboys praise it like it's something special gets under my skin. It's hardly the best looking game out there; BioShock looks better, so does Assassins Creed.

As for this practice Sony started of releasing partially finished games such as Gran Turismo 5 Prologe, WarHawk and Socom, I think that's crap too. What a great company Sony is for releasing Half finished games and charging $40 a pop.

All the things I'd hope (many years ago) would make it into the Gran Turismo series are now in Forza. So for me, the Playstation 3 isn't any good. Maybe at some point in time, they'll release some game I enjoy on PS3.

twoface3733d ago

I don't think you got me correctly.
You have your gripes with PS3, and I have my issues with 360. Customer dissatisfaction is always a good starting point for product improvement.

But what's MGS4 being too linear to do with technical capabilities of PS3 to draw polygons?
What's GT being the number one racing simulator game even praised by professional racers, but being a worse simulator game in your opinion than Forza 2 got to do with PS3's capability to draw polygons?

Dannagar3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )


I'm trying to think of the most impressive polygon pushing game out and after much though, I think it's Dead Rising. What other games has 1000's and 1000's of fully detailed on screen Zombies/Enemy's at once (with no hint of slow down)?

However, Visuals, Resolution, frame rate, game play all come down to the resources, money, time, talent and heart invested in a game. It doesn't matter what the hardware stats are. It's not hardware that makes good games, it's good games that make good hardware.

twoface3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

I think we are getting a bit of zen here.
You can't look at the whole without looking at the one (i feel enlightened by myself).
These are the basic building blocks of gameplay.

And good games do not make good hardware. Sorry to bring this into the discussion, but no matter what Gears or Mass Effect did, 360 still remained an unstable piece of hardware.
But with good hardware, that adds as another basic building block to the overall equation in games creation.

To sum it up, everyone has their own opinion. That's why we are individuals and not whole. It's obvious that ours differ, so I'm gonna have to stop here before we compile a book which no one is interested in reading. Ciao

Dannagar3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

The Playstation 2 wasn't that reliable. I was the weakest of the three last generation consoles. However, it was the best not because of fantastic hardware stats but because of spectacular games. Whats Good hardware without good games? I'm tired and going to bed. Take care - Dannagar

twoface3733d ago

i think you forgot to mention the price, and when it got successful in relation to that.
Anyway, goodnite

chewy3173733d ago

COD4 Burden Story Is Fake

TheSixthAxis: "Apparently Daniel and his mate Mike Zoran don't really like the PS3, and spent all day Friday writing about 'cores' and 'fill-rates'.

But who's this - Mike Zoran - haven't we heard from that guy before? Oh, yeah, wasn't he the guy that was exposed as being a Microsoft 'fan' 2 years ago?"

Tainted Gene3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )


"Uncharted" 2007
9.0 Graphics
'There's no doubt the game looks great and that the use of in-game assets for the movies is seamless transition, but there's still a fair amount of screen tearing and texture pop in."

"Gears of War" 2006
10 Graphics
"The most beautiful game on the Xbox 360. Amazing attention to detail and vibrant, diverse environments make for a feast for the eyes, even on a standard-definition set."

1st year games for both PS3 and X360...................
Just to let u know

+ Show (35) more repliesLast reply 3733d ago
Stryfeno13733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

Damn, E3 is around the corner so what is up with this old news? I dont think anyone cares because the sells say something different.

Spike473733d ago

what's the point of this article? Haven't we heard this 100 times already.

Many games this gen on PS3 and xbox360 have taught me that gameplay is top priority.

Heck should this be considered news? I'm not gonna report this, but I don't have to approve it.

ChampIDC3733d ago

Yeah, to me, gameplay is also top priority. As long as graphics aren't total crap, I'm fine with toned down graphics. I'd rather have a quality game that looks decent than an excellent-looking game that just plain sucks. Alone in the Dark anyone?

techie3733d ago

GT5p is 1280by1080 at 60fps...

and COD4 is 600p not 640p

This article fails.

Name the 60 fps games on the 360 please.

Apocalypse Shadow3733d ago

the questions deep is:

why aren't ALL games after microsoft's 1080p update "1080p?"

if 360 is so powerful or more powerful than ps3 or has more memory than ps3,then why aren't games in 360's third year 1080p/60fps?

why are microsoft INHOUSE games not hitting 1080p/60fps?doesn't microsoft have billions of dollars to invest in better game engines?

oh,and forza2 had to back off of detail to hit 60fps.(which is backed by the devs comments.)madden took 2 years to get 60fps.

i see DEEP that there are still gamers that think 360 is more powerful than ps3.or that ps3 is holding 360 back.the FUD continues.they gave you disagrees.

apocalypse................... ......

x C H 3 3 Z Y3733d ago

itz gran turismo 5 prologue 1920*1080 60fps

techie3733d ago

Of course there are 60fps 360 games - but nice test to see who's concentrating - unlike this article.

Shadow - that isn't a question Microsoft have to answer. The console supports 1080p, every game needn't render at it. Same with the PS3. Developers must choose what best suits their game engine.

Cheezy: GT5p is not 1080p. It's 1280by1080 (1920by1080 in the garage, at the cost of 0xAA)

segasage3733d ago

then you landed flat on your face...

you no longer credible..

Dannagar3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

60 fps isn't that special. Playstation One, Sega Saturn and N64 have plenty of games that run at 60 fps. At least a quarter of the 360 library runs at a rock solid 60 fps.
Just glancing at my collection alone:
Virtua Fighter 5
Call of Duty 2
Call of Duty 3
Call of Duty 4
Devil May Cry 4
Bomberman Act Zero
Sonic The Hedgehog
Virtua Tennis 3
SEGA Superstars Tennis
Rumble Roses
Dead Or Alive 4
Ace Combat 6
Ninja Gaiden II
The Simpsons Game
Ridge Racer 6
Spider-Man: Friend or Foe
Eternal Sonata
Tetris Evolution
Test Drive Unlimited
All the Koei games
Phantasy Star Universe
All the EA and 2k Sports games run at 60 fps
All the Guitar Hero's
All Lego Star wars/Indiana Jones
Nearly all the Xbox Live titles run at 60 fps. Many at 1080p such as Soul Calibur.

Actually... There's a hellish amount of games that run at 60 fps. It's nothing special. Maybe I should start listing the Playstation One games that run at 60 fps.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3733d ago
omni_atlas3733d ago

So why is the asian guy (PS3) b*tch slapping the white dude (xbox) in the article link?