Here's a side-by-side image comparison of both console versions of Skate, highlighting some differences.
This is actually one of the first comparison I can say, i clearly see more anti-aliasing problems with the xbox than I do on the Ps3, PS3 wins in my opinion in terms of static imagery. Although i think the xbox is more than capable of doing away with those jaggie giving more dev. time, i think this is something we will have to live with multiplatform games, and actually that's why i am pretty outspoken against multiplatform games because it brings down the overall potential of any game, on any system. you have got to work with simutaneous release schedules as well as a lowest common denominator (unless the games are built totally separately from each other)
UnSurprisingly IGN scored the x360 version higher.
BUT we all know IGN and GAMESPOT
IGN and GS gave TWO WORLDS a 7.0 and 6.8 respectively when unbiased sites like DOUPE CZ (polish) and GAMESPY have given the game 1/10 and 2/10 respectively . They termed it as the worst RPG ever created .
for video comparisons
people just go here
ps3 version looks miles better
BTW PEOPLE HERE IS THE HD FOOTAGE of comparison video
yea PS3 VERSION LOOOOKS milesssssss better at HD.
I wonder if upscaled to 1080p x360 version would become washed out since eDRAM becomes ineffective at 1080p.
I agree with you STELLA --x360 is a 480p console actually
you dont have to quote from IGN cuz the VIDEO proves that ps3 version is wayy better
@ STELLA ----you are so sweet habibti
BTW edram is not a system/video ram..It is just a catalyst that makes up for the lack of bandwidth for x360 and is effective only at rez of 720p and lower.
X360 has a low bandwidth of 25.6g/s( shared by both vdo+system)
ps3 has 48g/s of bandwidth ( 25.6g/s for video and 22g/s for system)
ps3 has XDR ram @3.2ghz . This is what makes the difference
@dreaver ...the bandwidth for eDRAM doesnt contribute to the overall system /vdo bandwidth.
It is just there to compensate for x360 lack of total bandwidth --22g/s
and is ineffective at 1080p . This is why no x360 game can run NATIVELY at 1080p at 60 fps.
RR7 ran at 1080p at 60fps on ps3(if u are unaware)
ps2 had 4m of eDRAM too which makes up for lack of VDO /SYSTEM bandwidth but only at lower resolutions
RSX can do 136 shader ops per second
x360 can do 96 shader ops per second
ps3 can do 51 billion dot products per second
x360 can do 33 billion dot products per second
The PS3 version is obviously better.
The jaggies that plague 360 games is directly due to the stupid graphics hardware design with the too small for 720p 10megs of EDRAM.
What that means is that developers are faced with a choice of having to either write a custom tile renderer to break up each scene into parts that can fit a section of the frame buffer and its AA information or give up on decent AA.
A tile renderer is both a pain in the ass to write and hurts performance. So almost no developers bother with it. Instead they usually just put out bogus screenshots with fake AA - PGR3,Forza 2,Gears of War are the worst culprits of trying to lie about the EDRAM problem on the 360.
The 360 is really a 480p system being forced to handle a resolution it wasn't designed for, 720p. A 4xAA 480p framebuffer fits exactly into the 10meg EDRAM.
If Microsoft didn't force developers to run their games at 720p 360 games could have the same high quality AA as PS3 games.
Do you even know what you're talking about?!
QUOTED FROM IGN:
"The PS3 and Xbox 360 versions are almost identical, save two things. The PS3 features some limited Sixaxis control. You can maneuver your board with tilts and do powerslides by pulling up. It's pretty much useless though and is off by default for good reason. The other difference, unfortunately, is one that has become commonplace among EA's multiplatform titles. skate on PS3 is the cross-eyes sister to the 360 version. There's a lot of aliasing issues and the game in general is blurry (possibly to hide some of the jaggies). The framerate, which is perfect on 360, is choppy on PS3. It isn't enough to affect the gameplay, but it's certainly noticeable."
EDIT : here is the link for the non believers;
There's no need to post a quote from the ign review as these comparison shots prove the point that there are more jaggies on the 360 version opposed to the PS3 version. The whole point of this comparison was to point out that the ign was wrong in terms of jaggies and textures with side by side proof. Framerate however should be better on the 360, unless proven wrong.
All your doing is making up bull sh1t, and all of you that agreed with Stella are also obviously sonyfanboys in denial. The 360 is completly capable of 720p, and 1080p, while showing up the PS3 and making all of you sonyfans mouths drop in amazment. Both consoles can handle 1080p let alone 720p, and by saying other whys prves your a sonyfanboy. Both consoles show off great graphics but when it comes down to it almost all multi platform games look better on the 360, and the 360s exclusives have also looked better than the PS3s. The 360 outperforms the PS3 on every level(better exclusives, better online, more customization, easier for developers wich means better games and less time it takes to make the games, graphics so far have looked better on the 360, more user friendlt, and it's cheaper) the only thing the PS3 has over the 360 is free online, but I would gladly pay 60 bucks a year for a better online service. And as for the 360 being less reliable I havn't had any problems with my 360, and now they have a 3 year warranty and there making more reliable 360s and fixing the old ones.
Both consoles are worthy of being nextgen but the 360 is a better console.
Why does Motorstorm look and run so much better than Skate or any game coming out of EA, though?
Why does MGS4 and Grand Turismo 5 look and run so well, too? Same with Killzone 2 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma.
i don't care that a mag are website say they look identical. i can see with my own eyes the ps3 looks better
its nice to see these sort of comparison but even better if it wasnt followed by a ton of fanboy comments.
actually ...now that i think of it... i think this thread is complete BS. In the IGN review the guy specifically gave the ps3 version .2 lower because of the antialising and choppy framerate. so obviously whoever posted this lied and changed the names of the consoles to the pictures , labeling the ugly ones as 360.
obviously since its posted in the ps3 fanboy website
Were taken from a comparison video. And in that video the ps3 version did look like those pictures.
Hey, something new! Now, no, no, not the quality is bad, now the consoles have been changed in the picture. Because it is known as a fact the "XBox 360 is the better console"(TM). (whohaha).
OMG!! Do you really think that sonyboys can do this? pix replacements
But .... smells like it is xbot's style .... did you do that before? Where did you hear/see that at first time?
Do you hear an inner voice on regular basis? Did it ask you to kill your parents?
Never know what PS3 fans are up to.
They don't tell us if PS3's using HDMI or what 360 they're using or what cables no way of knowing if they tampered with anything.
Anistropic Filtering levels; it's completely dependent on the hardware.
Derrrrrrrr. That's the problem with every comparison video and shot, but until now when a comparison favors the ps3 you didn't see that. If a ps3 fanboy would have said that bs about the cables and such you all would have flamed him and called him a sonyfangirl. I find it too convenient you are just figuring this out now that no comparison shot can be trusted, yes even the one you always back up. well guess what these shot here are just as reliable as the one's that favor the 360!
you sure know your stuff LOL
ill look forward to hear you same thing next time theres a comparison where the ps3 looks worse but i wont hold my breath.
..had the PS3 version been the lesser of the two, even if it had come DIRECTLY from Microsoft, Xbots would be approving this in an instance.
There would be no questioning of cables, or labels.
Sad, isn't it?
Nice job with the edit. Heh.
well are you forgetting its a EA game. and by being so its automatically superior on the 360. ill even go as far as to say EVERY EA game has been superior on the 360. and since yesterdays IGN review said the same thing this is obviously BS made up pictures
do you mean EA create its games better for the 360 advisedly?
Hm... Then I'm not going to invest my money in bribery. I'd better do in technology....
it is weird
Xbox360's version runs better.
Even multiplatform games are Xbox360 exclusives in a sense, because sony versions get released after months/years ... and they're inferior versions.
It took FEAR and Oblivion years to get released on ps3 after their release on Xbox360, to match the latter's quality.
Simultaneous multiplatform release = suckfest for sony's console.
It's no secret I do not trust PS fans or their media and sources. Too many slanderish methods and tricks, Hell I just cought a PS3 supporter the other day trying to fool people using pics from older PGR games miximg them with PGR4 pics. No need to list the dozens of other PS3 misshaps.
listen to all the xbums crying like babies Ha Ha face the facts the pictures Dont lie what a difference blame anything you want but the 360 version looks lazy and crap Fact This is what next gen is about pitty your 360 can't handle it want more proof does your precious Halo 3 look any better than Halo 2 !!!
reviews dont lie either. so 360 version>>>ps3 version.
Huh... well since this thread is full of people on my ignore list I cant really comment on what they have said... however, these screens are taken off of the Gamevideos.com comparison. They are the correct screens and they do represent the consoles correctly. Download the HD version from Gamevideos.com if you dont believe me.
So all you people saying this is fake can go ahead and download it for yourself. I am not going to say either way because I dont think its a big enough difference when in motion to really give a sh!t but fanboys need to point out every little thing about every game. You dumba$$es are so worried about proving which system is better that you seem to have forgotten that gaming is for fun and no matter what system you have this game should be something different than Tony Hawk.
can kiss my A$$ infact all the people who think its cool to say your ignored well it aint your just a bunch of over sensitive loosers
OMG! how dare you use that avatar!
or maybe people dont like to have to read through the same sh!t by the same people over and over and over and over and over and over and over. The people on my ignore list are trolls that do nothing to move along conversation, they say nothing but fanboyish comments in order to start flame wars. Over sensitive? NO. Dont want to read the same stuff over and over and waste my time? YES.
lol sorry dude but ive had this avatar forever... it has nothing to do with you personally... but it is funny as he!!
"Huh... well since this thread is full of people on my ignore list I cant really comment on what they have said..."
Good one... My ignore list is getting larger by the day as well... LOL...
Is it true Sony went to Wikki Pedia and tried to tarnish Halo 3?, if so sould I believe PS3 forums?, like I was saying about the member on this site and PGR4 should I take you people with a gran of salt.
Would'nt be that hard to switch sides on the pictures and call the PS3 version 360 etc. Why else would IGN say that the PS3 version had more than the 360 version.
Hmmm...Who should you trust? An obviously biased forum like ps3forums.com or one of the biggest (if not the) gaming sites known for it's great reviews and objective journalism? Hard choice, innit?
If this is true i think IGN gave this .2 off b/c of anti-aliasing then thats some messed up stuff, but I don't think they would do that b/c they are bias (they might have and i'm not completely ruling it out)I think they would do that to stir up the pot and get hits to their site. Hey thats just me and my two cents.
edit: by they I mean the reviewer, and not necessarily IGN.
IGN gave this .2 off ......
so tthat guy was a fanboy...
then again this was created by EA and its presient Peter Moore of xbox
Who can say they would notice these differences in-game?
The answer is nobody.
Well, when IGN 'noticed' it the other way, the Xbots were out in full force.
What's changed now? It's against the precious 360?
People need to have an objective view on such matters, rather than subjective.
Then again, if they did, we wouldn't have quality idiocy coming from fanboys of all consoles and companies.
Lol. Who gives a damn. If it plays the same, who gives a damn about a miniscule difference. 360 fanboys and PS3 fanboys are both blowing this and the IGN review out of proportion. Its not like this is Madden 08.
As usual... this pictures were specifically made to make the xbox 360 look bad. Ofcourse there will be a response to this and more comparisons will be released to prove this article useless...
Sadly PS3 fanboys will believe anything their Fanboys sites tell them.
If this information would come out of a non-sony fanboy site than I would probably believe it... but since the source is hard core anti-xbox 360 site.. than I will take this as BS...
Besides... take a look at where these videos came from. They are not DIRECT Feeds.. they are print screens from "Game Videos" clips... you want one version to look worst? ALl you have to do is change the size and zoom.
Next time you Sony fanboys try doing a comparison.. you may want to try using a direct feed.
yo why can u admit that the game looks like crap on the dumbox360. and how in the hell do u see zooming in the game, cause i can't see it. the problem is that when a game looks better on the PS3 ya ms fanboys get all mad ya can take it admit it the ps3 looks better
I can't really see much of a difference you guys. One a little brighter or darker than the other? SLight AA here and there.
There is a difference but it's very slight.
You post all that bullshit because of this very first game thats being released at the same time" supposedly looks better?.
Sorry, there's no merit to this. It's fixed. The ps3 version is the worse version here not the better.
look at an actual comparison done by an official gaming site and not a pissed off sony fan.
powerofgreen it was a sony employee, not the whole company of SOny who decided to mes around with halo.
the ps3 version seems better, period.
you xbots are so immature, what if ign's review of skate was vindicated? Or just plain wrong?
once again, xbots are just mad that their version sucked, and too immature to take it like men.
Besides, it's EA, what a coincidence that since peter moor's arrival at EA things have been turning out really strange, and he was payed alot of money too, hmmm i wonder why.
This is so sad.
and IGN said the 360 version was better? No way.
It's the ps3 version that should score higher not the 360 one and we all know that. The comparison is speaking for itself.
well the 360 version apparently isn't riddled with framerate problems like the usual ps3 game.
The 360 version has 2x Anti-aliasing while the PS3 looks like it's at 4x. The anistropic filtering level on the 360 version isn't all that high either. Black Box games has more experience with the 360 hardware, but this will probably be the standard within a year or so. PS3 has a bandwidth and memory advantage, which is why I say that.
I bet Microsoft is kicking themselves for making the 360's GPU ED-RAM 30% the capacity it should have been; it really would've put Xenos on equal footing with RSX. =/
uhh, 360 has more memory allocation with the inclusion of the edram, but nice try DJ.
"it really would've put Xenos on equal footing with RSX."
Not even close.
The stupid too small EDRAM design on the 360 just makes life miserable for developers and ends up giving 360 games poor AA most of the time.
Xenos is just a PC graphics card with the addition of the stupid EDRAM.
The PS3 is a modern graphics system where there is no 'graphics card' RSX is a fillrate monster that can handle 1080p with ease(GT,RidgeRacer,Lair,...) while Cell is a transform/vertex monster.
To compare Xenos with just the RSX half of the PS3's Cell/RSX rendering system makes no sense.
where do you get your information from. you know nothing of what you are talking about. the edram is godsend not a problem, the fact that the ps3 has split 512mb memory is a bigger problem, and the 360 has already been prove to have a massive bandwidth advantage. Please if you may supply some proof of what you are sayin, i'll supply mines, it's only fair since you keep posting this nonsense up and down this forum.
I said it before, but sony does not need any fake help from fanboys. all you make it seem like is that the ps3 isn't living up to all it's expectations, so you have to make up stuff on the competition to make it look better.
If sony has the goods, then in time we will see, but stop making up nonsense about things you know nothing about. Also everyone already knows that the RSX has been outdated from the PS3's release, but they haven't (fully) utilized the tech that's in the 360's GPU yet.
all this makin up stuff makes sony seem worse off than they are, and it's because of stupid fanboys. for example.... Sonyprotection site? what the hell is that, seriously unless you have stock in sony i see no need for stupid things like that.
Skate is an incredible game, why can't we just enjoy it, unless you have both systems this stuff shouldn't matter to most of these diehard fanboys. Grow up fanboys.....
didn't i already explain about the differences in bandwidth to you. I had more than one website that both said the same thing in reference to bandwidth. Plus wasn't my comment directed towards STELLA. but anyway, all computer literate people i have spoken to have said that the daughter die is an ingenious inclusion to the 360 gpu, and that the unified architecture is superior. There are plenty of website to back me up on that. The RSX has been proven to be already outdated when the ps3 was released. nVidia already has more powerful gpu's out. and they are planning on releasing a unified architecture gpu themselves.
The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.
The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.
the 360s GPU has more processing power than the ps3's, the 360's gpu can do 80 GPU shader operations per second while the ps3 can do 74.8 GPU shader operation per second.
Can you explain which aspects of the RSX make it inferior in comparison to Xenos? It's got twice the memory bandwidth, twice the lighting/polygon transform capabilities, and 4x the texture cache in regards to Xenos. True, Xenos uses shaders that switch between pixel and vertex functions, but they're not as powerful as RSX's dedicated pixel and vertex shaders. Even ATI admitted that nVidia has them beat in terms of GPU power.
You are a moron. Really. Come up with something like "I work in the gaming industry and can say first hand, this is that, bla bla". But you edit your comment and add some more "but I heard this guys saying, that...". Bullocks.
I have some gaming background (as a SW engineer for about 15+ years now, more 20, actually - time flies), and whatever Stella is saying makes too much sense from an engineering standpoint. Compared to the bullshit you are talking. Come up with facts and prove that we're wrong.
What I find hilarious, though, is, how you guys simply add bandwidth. The PS3 has a bandwidth advantage, true (no shared access, though full ~24GB/sec in case both use exclusive access to their mem areas - not if the RSX does DMA from/to RDRam, though), but this does not simply result in 48GB/s, it is still 24 or whatever.
Same for the EDRam. Just because that little cache mem is extremely fast, doesn't add anything to the overall bandwidth (I'd be curious who can even access that mem. I am pretty sure, that would be a bit tricky anyhow - is it linear addressable ? From the cpu ? gpu ? I doubt the cpu can even access that mem). And as others said before, this is a frame buffer cache memory to implement AA, while it is to small to store a complete frame in 720p, you need a tile (or line buffer) to render first and then do another composing step afterwards.
The PS3 otho could use its full RDRam mem to store a buffer an do post processing with the full SPU bandwidth - tiling makes sense, because you could do up to 6 portions at the same time! (well, sure, would imply, the the RSX renders into RDRAM and then transfers the buffer to the DMAC (or video logic), so you get a little bit of "delay" (neglectable: the bandwidth needed at [email protected]
That tile in the EDram work significant different than with the SPU. The earlier is a pre-render setup, while the second is a post render step.
what are u talkin about? when have i ever said that i was part of the industry. and like you are implying just because you have some background, does that mean you are proficient with these two new pieces of hardware (let me answer that, NO!). If so, then you need to start developing games for these two systems. Whose the moron, now.
Thanks to the efficiency of the 360 GPU’s unified shader architecture and this 10MB of EDRAM the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost. ATI and Microsoft’s goal was to eliminate memory bandwidth as a bottleneck and they seem to have succeeded. If there are any pc gamers out there they notice that when they turn on things such as AA or HDR the performance goes down that’s because those features eat bandwidth hence the efficiency of the GPU’s operation decreases as they are turned on. With the 360 HDR+4XAA simultaneously are like nothing to the GPU with proper use of the EDRAM. The EDRAM contains a 3D logic unit which has 192 Floating Point Unit processors inside. The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU’s workload.
In order for this to be possible developers would need to setup their rendering engine to take advantage of both the EDRAM and the available onboard 3D logic. If anyone is confused why the 32GB/s is being multiplied by 8 its because once data travels over the 32GB/s bus it is able to be processed 8 times by the EDRAM logic to the EDRAM memory at a rate of 256GB/s so for every 32GB/s you send over 256GB/s gets processed. This results in RSX being at a bandwidth disadvantage in comparison to Xenos. Needless to say the 360 not only has an overabundance of video memory bandwidth, but it also has amazing memory saving features. For example to get 720P with 4XFSAA on traditional architecture would require 28MB worth of memory. On the 360 only 16MB is required. There are also features in the 360's Direct3D API where developers are able to fit 2 128x128 textures into the same space required for one, for example. So even with all the memory and all the memory bandwidth, they are still very mindful of how it’s used.
The 360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines capable of accepting either pixel or vertex shader operations whereas with the older dedicated pixel and vertex pipeline architecture that RSX uses when you are in a vertex heavy situation most of the 24 pixel pipes go idle instead of helping out with vertex work.
Or on the flip side in a pixel heavy situation those 8 vertex shader pipelines are just idle and don’t help out the pixel pipes (because they aren’t able to), but with the 360’s unified architecture in a vertex heavy situation for example none of the pipes go idle. All 48 unified pipelines are capable of helping with either pixel or vertex shader operations when needed so as a result efficiency is greatly improved and so is overall performance. When pipelines are forced to go idle because they lack the capability to help another set of pipelines accomplish their task it’s detrimental to performance. This inefficient manner is how all current GPUs operate including the PS3's RSX. The pipelines go idle because the pixel pipes aren't able to help the vertex pipes accomplish a task or vice versa. Whats even more impressive about this GPU is it by itself determines the balance of how many pipelines to dedicate to vertex or pixel shader operations at any given time a programmer is NOT needed to handle any of this the GPU takes care of all this itself in the quickest most efficient way possible. 1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360’s gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360’s GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times
where did u cut and paste this nonsense? um sure u have no idea what are u talking about. give me scintific charts are analysis not mambo jumbo google cut and paste. scietific comparisons shows PS is 3x o 10x outperforms ur dumpBOX. have no time to bring it again as it was posted here like zillion times. c ya!!
i don't need to make things up, sorry i'm not a fanboy like you. you probably just listen to what people tell you, and believe all the hype. I'm sorry but i don't take what people tell me at face value, i'll actually look things up. Everything i've (cut and pasted) like you've said has been from microsoft's released hardware specs, and sony's released hardware specs. Also the comparison was done by a professional, but like i said when you can use spell check, i'll post the link, but it doesn't seem like you'll understand the information that will be presented.
You guys are like little kids arguing over who has a bigger piece of candy really sad.
lets wait for the reviews of gamespy and gamespot, I don't trust IGn anymore, their reviews are really strange.
it's dissapointing to see the media biased against the ps3, it's sad we can't even trust the media anymore.
the graffiti one is confusing because it's at a different angle, and so it looks clearer but it's the same. Anyways, the AA on the ps3 one is better but the textures on the 360 look slightly better
The PofS3 screenshots have a game trailer logo but the Xbox 360 does not. This is 100% fake!!!
I have played this demo in 1080i and did not see any jaggies
They are screenshots of a video comparison.
IGN explained that the PS3 version was slightly inferior due to the Anti-Aliasing issues yet the video comparison from Gametrailers shows the 360 being the weaker in that regard.
This was the purpose of the thread on the PS3 Forums. PlayStation owners have a short piece of string when it comes to trust the gaming media due to the low scores of their games lately, this comparison actually supports their claim of unfair reviewing from IGN although this is not irrefutable proof, I agree. However, this comes from the same source (Gametrailers) as people here have used in the past when arguing when a game looked better on the Xbox 360 so why the hypocrisy when it's the other way round?
Peter Moore Has not been an EA employee long enough to effect anything its the most moronic sh*t Sony fans spew. Can EA really crank out games in a mof a couple of months?.
Anyways this is agenda driven and has been tampered with in some way IGN would have pointed it out.
FAKE FAKE FAKE...
#31, Why do you use terms like "XBOT"?...
You never know, the trade off the the ms and ea exucutives might have been talked about for a good year.
I doubt it is a coincidence that peter moore left ms to ea, and an exec from Ea left to ms to take his place at the same exact time.
Considering that the site is called PS3forums, and that the shots aren't at the same part (If that means anything) I'm going to go with IGN instead of what COULD be, COULD be a fanboy.