GameSpot: Xbox 360 Vs. PlayStation 3 Graphics Comparison: Now With PC!

GameSpot writes:

"Back in 2006 (when the current generation of consoles was still called the next generation) we did our first Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 graphics comparison. Since then we've released rounds 2, 3, and 4, but we hadn't touched the third rail--the PC--until now. The graphics comparison features started out as a way to examine which console had better graphics, but readers began asking us to include PC image comparisons for games available on all three platforms. We focused on more recent games for our current comparison, because those are the games people are still buying and playing. You'll likely recognize many of the shots from our previous graphics comparisons. The results aren't terribly surprising, but the differences are still interesting to see. A well-equipped PC beats both consoles easily--of course, that same PC also costs three to four times more than either of the consoles."

Read Full Story >>
tehReaper5391d ago (Edited 5391d ago )

I think the second to last screenshot looks better on 360, and the last screen shot looks better on PS3(EDIT: eh, now that I look at it, the PS3 version is just bolder in the background, nevermind). That's just me.

MURKERR5391d ago

where each console is utilised to the best of their abilities,whats the point in doing multiplat games?

Jamegohanssj55391d ago

If you remember Bethesda gimped the PS3's version of Fall Out. Of course it's going to look like crap.


Kushan5391d ago

That wouldn't work, you can't compare completely different games because the whole thing is subjective. Imagine comparing something like Gears of War to Uncharted - sure, they're kinda similar gameplay-wise, but Uncharted is set mainly in forested areas, whereas GoW is set in Urban areas. Both games will have been designed with this in mind and thus the engine optimised for such things.
Even FPS games will be designed in near-entirely different ways from each other - Fallout 3 was designed for large, sprawling landscapes, but Halo 3 was designed for somewhat large, but smaller overall "Chunks" of level (if that makes sense).

The comparisons are pointless anyway, the difference in the level of detail between the two consoles is so minuscule that it makes no difference to the gameplay at all. It's never going to be a deciding factor over which console is best or which console joe public is going to buy, for that we need to look at the exclusive games and extra features each provides. Graphical comparisons reveal nothing.

MURKERR5391d ago

do genres of -shooters,adventures,racing,rp g's

each CONSOLE has exclusive games in those genres just do a graphics comparison

The Killer5391d ago

they know that ps3 exclusives is on a different level and will make 360 exclusives looks cheap, thats why they dont do it! i mean which 360 exclusive even looks close to MGS4?? or uncharted? killzone 2? did u guys see uncharted 2?? heavily rain?? do u think any 360 exclusive will even come near them in graphics??

the answer is big NO! so they want to take an easy way to make the 360 games looks better or on par with ps3 game by comparing multiplat games!!

Agent VX5391d ago

"The Killer" ROTFLOL.... been sniffing the model glue again???

The only, and I mean "ONLY" title on the PS3 that can be argued that is the best graphically on both consoles is MGS 4, and that is really stretching it. I think GeOW2 does a lot of things better graphically than MGS4. But one can argue that overall MGS 4 looks slightly overall better as one can argue GeOW 2 looks slightly overall better.

As for Uncharted, it looks great but doesn't come close to beating GeOW2 graphically. And don't be quick to ring Killzone 2's bell, Sony titles have a high tendency to graphically degrade as programming continues.

The evidence "CLEARLY" shows overall that 360 games not only play better, run better but actually look better. But I guess silly Sony fanboys like to ignore these facts.

Pika-pie5391d ago

I had both 360 and PS3 versions of this game to decide which to play over xmas.

Aliasing on the 360 is way better, a lot less jaggies than the PS3 version. This seems to depend on the time of day but its really not a big deal as the game still looks fantastic...... The 360 has a lot of screen tearing in high detail areas.. like when walking round Megaton or in a large battle with a lot of detail.

In the end last weeks trophy patch sealed the deal for me and I went with the PS3 version.

thewhoopimen5391d ago (Edited 5391d ago )

I think character models textures were slightly higher on geow2 than mgs4, but MGS4's looked much more seamless. I caught many a time, plates on the shoulder plates clipping into the walls, arms legs on geow2.

Anyway, my chief gripe with your argument is that you know (as I know if you played with mgs4) that everything in MGS4 from faraway up to magnifying glass range was readable and sharp (if not super high quality texture). Geow2 had a huge vaseline effects from 300+ feet away. It doesn't even have upclose textures. Did you try reading the bulletin board in the hospital? Completely unreadable. Take some time and look around Naomi's ramshackle clinic in MGS4. Did you notice how empty it was with NPCs running around anywhere compared to MGS4's marketplace in the 1st chapter?

Did you notice how MGS4 cars sitting in the 1st act actually have real suspensions that rattle when explosions occur? Geow2's empty hulks dont' even explode or flip when a grenade is tossed nearby.

There is no comparison between the two titles. Geow2 felt rushed even compared to the first game. MGS4 is a far more polished title with far more going on onscreen, better CG, better rail sequences (brumak vs. Metal gear ride) (drill rig vs. MGS4 motorbike rail OR MGS4 on Drebin's armored vehicle). More interesting weapons array, more approaches to objectives, more unique texture assets(50Gb does add up). Geow2 still looks like a skeleton world to me. Boxes boxes, empty stalls, only bunks no kitchens, no maintenance rooms, just empty corridors with occasional rooms filled with repeating junk. Notice how locusts just walk around. They don't take pisses, they don't lounge, etc. They just wait around until you show up to pop you.

Ital50Stal5391d ago

two words, one title...."Alan Wake"... msg4 n killzone cant compare to alan wake.
compare those screens

Kushan5391d ago

No, some of you just don't get it - you cannot compare two different games on two different platforms, it just doesn't work. Even if they're the same genre, the whole design of the game may be completely different. Lets take an example: Bioshock Versus Resistance: FOM. Bioshock is INSIDE the whole time, FOM goes outside AND inside - the engines have to be designed to cope with this and thus various compromises are made here and there, regarding things like clipping and object occlusion.

Or, if you don't get that, try thinking back to when you were a young boy at school - ever do a thing called "Fair testing"? Well let me refresh your memory - fair testing is the concept where you test something by changing just ONE variable. So in a lab, that one variable might be a substance that's added to a chemical - the lab equipment, the conditions, etc. are always the same, otherwise you can't prove that the substance being added to the chemical is what's causing the change. The same logic applies here, to really tell which console is superior, you can't compare one game to another, you have to compare the SAME game or you'll have changed too many variables and thus the comparison is void.

Jamegohanssj55391d ago (Edited 5391d ago )

Wow guys really. The Playstation 3 version of Fall Out looks bad. I mean the game as a whole looks bad, but Bethesda screwed us. Everyone knows that I love the PS3 and this is coming from a true fan. How in the hell do you make Oblivion look good on PS3, but make Fall Out look like garbage?


CViper5391d ago (Edited 5391d ago )

LOL at thinking otherwise.

the 360 Gets better ports than the PS3. thats definitely a fact.

But come on folks, no one in their right mind called GEARS 2 out for having bullshots or even being close to CGI.

The same way Bully's PS2 port on the 360 was inferior to the PS2 game. Is the same way developers make shotty PS3 ports.

And the PS3's exclusives all stomp all over multiplatform games and the 360's exclusives which are all based on MULTIPLATFORM engines.

Uncharted/Gran Turismo5p/Heavenly Sword/Resistance1&2/Motors torm1&2/MetalGearSolid4/Ra t chet & Clank ALL have better graphics than:

Halo3 & Gears.

I challenge AgentVX or any of the other delusionals to post videos of Gears vs Uncharted/MGS4 or even Stills.

Captured on TV or Capture Card.

LOL if you honestly think Gears2 with the unreal engine is running the latest and greatest in rendering.

The model detail for Gears2 is so remarkably low for 2008 standards. Everything all the 'detailed armor' is off of a image. Unlike Snake or Nathan Drake who actually has bullets/belt models.


God, I cant wait.. PLEASE AgentVX PLEASE GOD post some pictures of Gears and Uncharted.


no "BUH BUH BUH" just post the images since Gears 2 is so CLEARLY superior. lol..

lol @ using Multiplats to show off game hardware, what the hell is wrong with this gen of gaming.

If the 360's ports show that the hardware is superior to the PS3 due to it running PORTED MULTIPLATFORM GAMES BETTER.

THEN THE PS2 is superior to the 360, since BULLY ran better on the PS2 RIGHT?

Or is it "buh buh it was a bad port." I guess the 360 is the only console that is allowed to have badly coded ports then and the new-dev-difficult-ps3 isn't. Right?


Gears2 is an AMAZING BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED GAME. Its just not technically superior or advanced compared to Uncharted/MGS4/Killzone2.

Nathaniel_Drake5391d ago (Edited 5391d ago )


Wow, you broke the record for the fastest time to land on my ignore list

DarK-SilV5391d ago

"two words, one title...."Alan Wake"... msg4 n kill zone cant compare to alan wake"
so you want to compare the PC version of Alan Wake which was running in 1080P to MGS4 and kill zone2
let us see the Xbox360 version then we can compare them

ChampIDC5391d ago

You guys wanting to compare console exclusives are forgetting one thing. The PS3 both came out a year later and is more expensive than the 360. If it didn't have better graphical capabilities, that would be pretty sad.

Besides, I'm sick of these stupid graphics comparisons. Games are about FUN. People always seem to forget that.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 5391d ago
tatotiburon5391d ago

wow pc versions of fallout 3, dead space and cod5 kills the console versions

power of Green 5391d ago

I was just in the GTA4 PC vs 360 thread below and I agree, the PC version crushes the 360 version.

Magic_The_Celt5391d ago

Well duh, PC versions of games can and will always crush console counterparts

Danja5391d ago

PC version looks the best again...there isn't much of a difference between the console versions

lokiroo4205391d ago (Edited 5391d ago )

Well said!

Sonyfanclubpresident5391d ago

excluding the PS3 from my comment.
That's just a plain rip off!

Sorry fellow droids.
Facts is facts.

Nicaragua175391d ago

LOL the ps3 has some of the best looking games this gen,silly Xbots.Anyways,the PC versions look better than the console versions,and the ps3 versions look better than the Xbox 360 versions.

Ps3Fanboy7775391d ago

Nothing you can do, like most 360 users they care about numbers, not actual games.

SONYSLAVE5391d ago (Edited 5391d ago )

-Instead of a cross bar it got a ring bus in the cpu.
-Instead of a unified graphics pipeline it got a split pipe.
-Instead of a unified system memory it got a segmented memory.
-Instead of a large cache of fast frame buffer it got nothing.
-Instead of a fully programmable GPU it got something more fixed function.
-Instead of 3 actual CPU cores got only 1.
-Instead of a fast optical drive it got a slow one.
-Instead of strong dev tools it got weak ones.
-Instead of a fully tailored OS it got Linux.
-Instead of an online infrastructure it got nothing.
-Instead of being light small and efficient it was larger, heavier & less power efficient.
-Instead of launching on time it was 1-1.5 years late.
-Instead of good marketing it had poor marketing.
-Instead of vibration at launch, it launched without it.
-Instead of a global launch it had a staggered launch.
-Instead of good value it had a high price and a format problem.
-Instead of stable SKUs they were all over the place.
-Instead of backwards compatibility it lost it to weak hardware and cost cutting.
-Instead of good developer support it had weak developer support.
-Instead of a good library, mid way through the cycle it still has a poor library.
-Instead of generating a profit it's never expected to recoup its investment.
-Instead of Sony becoming a processor company it had to toss its Cell fabs.
-Instead of Cell being a commercial success its totally flopped.
-Instead of strengthening the brand it's almost killed it <<<<

BLUR1115391d ago

No it's just way of smacking you in the mouth and telling you that playstation is NO LONGER King.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5391d ago
40cal5391d ago

I just put GTA IV and World at War in my PS3 because I did not think that they looked as bad as the PS3 screen shots in the article. And they don't. Now I don't know where Gamespot gets these shot from but I have to say that the images on my LCD at the house look more like the PC shots they used than any.

Are these source shots? Do they not adjust the system settings? Or did they adjust the game visual settings? I don't know. I am just saying the games look better then the shots at my house?