360 vs PS3 Graphics

[enz660hp]

Here we see that the box is a bit ahead of the ps3. Then it was noted that when the 360 first came out, games did not look as good on it as they do today. I think we will see the ps3 slowly inch ahead in the image quality & framerate battle next year. I do feel that Gamespot is a bit biased against the ps3. I saw some draw distance differences in the first test which I don't think was pointed out. Also, the lighting in the 360 version of Fight Night was too bright in my opinion, but then again, so was the ps3 version of the Tony Hawk game. Some of the shadows in Marval UA were sharper in the ps3 as well. These are only my observations, what do you people make if this? Discuss.

 

[sisq0kidd]

I liked the ps3 graphics better myself, but eh.

 

[40sTheme]

Hmm, looks like the PS3 will pull ahead later on. With launch titles looking nearly as good as the 360's year in titles, I can't imagine what they will look like. The Box's lighting is definitely far better, as well as reflections and depth of field effects.

 

[stickybytes]

I just saw the gamespot article and i think that the two consoles look pretty similar imo. Neither console's graphics are significantly better than the other and lets just remember that these are ps3 launch games and the headroom for improvement is pretty great.

 

[Zenoth]

One question: Who cares ?

 

[Midwayman]

It should be no surprise that the ps3's launch titles are better than the 360 launch titles graphically. Developers have had an additional year to figure out what sort of assets they can run on next-gen hardware. Most of the games are just recycled 360 assests running with a worse frame rate. Certainly the frame rates will come up in time, but there is no indication that that the ps3 will ever be more than marginally ahead in terms of graphics.

You can see the ps3 isnt doing some of the effects that the 360 is too. like in fight night 3, you can see bloom on the lights and motion blur that seems absent in the ps3 shots.

You can see on Tony hawk, that the ps3 is clearly using inferior textures (or filtering) compared to the 360 in the close ups on the road and flower bed.

So while the ps3 may have headroom, it also has alot of things to play catch up on.

 

[enz660hp]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
One question: Who cares ?

People who's brain doesn't give up on them.

Originally posted by: Midwayman

It should be no surprise that the ps3's launch titles are better than the 360 launch titles graphically. Developers have had an additional year to figure out what sort of assets they can run on next-gen hardware. Most of the games are just recycled 360 assests running with a worse frame rate. Certainly the frame rates will come up in time, but there is no indication that that the ps3 will ever be more than marginally ahead in terms of graphics.

ah yes, good point. That changes my opinion a bit.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
One question: Who cares ?

ATI > NVDA

I care

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Zenoth
One question: Who cares ?

ATI > NVDA

I care

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Zenoth
One question: Who cares ?

ATI > NVDA

I care

:thumbsup:

 

[secretanchitman]

8800GTX > 360 and PS3

8800GTX in SLI > *

out of those screenshots, i could tell some shots were better than others. for now, i would say that the 360 and PS3 are equal.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Obviously first gen PS3 titles wont be anything special... The impressive stuff will come later, just as it did with the PS2

 

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: Midwayman
It should be no surprise that the ps3's launch titles are better than the 360 launch titles graphically. Developers have had an additional year to figure out what sort of assets they can run on next-gen hardware. Most of the games are just recycled 360 assests running with a worse frame rate. Certainly the frame rates will come up in time, but there is no indication that that the ps3 will ever be more than marginally ahead in terms of graphics.

You can see the ps3 isnt doing some of the effects that the 360 is too. like in fight night 3, you can see bloom on the lights and motion blur that seems absent in the ps3 shots.

You can see on Tony hawk, that the ps3 is clearly using inferior textures (or filtering) compared to the 360 in the close ups on the road and flower bed.

So while the ps3 may have headroom, it also has alot of things to play catch up on.

I agree the PS3 graphics don't look as good in many of the games.

 

[thilanliyan]

I personally like the PS3 screenshots. The XBox screens look a bit faded especially in Need for Speed.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
8800GTX > 360 and PS3

8800GTX in SLI > *

out of those screenshots, i could tell some shots were better than others. for now, i would say that the 360 and PS3 are equal.

Actually in terms of GFLOPS and fillrate X1900XT/XTX and 7900GTX>360 and PS3
It's just that Xenos is somehow more "advanced" from an architectural point of view ..

Xenos is a better and more complete console IMHO.. But only games will decide in the near future who is the real winner in the console market..

 

[hans030390]

I don't think many of these games look very good to begin with.

Give the PS3 a year or two and I think we will be impressed.

Motor Storm, at times, looks very nice.

 

[tuteja1986]

I have the PS3 , Wii , XBOX 360 , PC with X1900XTX crossfire....

Anyways graphic on the 360 can beat the crap out of PS3 graphic at the moment.

The only game you can really compare are these since they came out same time for both platform.
COD 3 : Looks best on 360.
NF3 Carbon : lighting better on 360 , PS3 has sharper texture.
Madden : XBOX 360 has sharper texture
Tony Hawk : PS3 version has bad Lighting effect, 360 HDR and better frame rate make it the best version.

Now Gears of War , Viva Pinata , Dead rising , Kameo graphic beat anything PS3 has to offer at the moment.

 

[runninkyle17]

Has anyone mentioned the fact that none of the 360's games have utilized multiple processors yet. GOW still only really uses one of the cores.

I can't wait till we see what developers can do when they start to write full multi-threaded games!!!

PS3 is all well and good, but Sony has never been the company that makes happy with the consumers. MS hasn't either, but it looks like they are trying to do better with the 360. It will be interesting to see what competition will bring, but as for me I am perfectly happy with my 360 and most likely won't buy a ps3 until they have a dramatic reduction in price!!!

 

[BassBomb]

multithreaded game wont make the graphics better

to me there isnt a big difference.. its just a matter of image exposure (and possibly AF control)

 

[Stoneburner]

isn't the 360's graphics unit more powerful than the ps3's? From what i remember the ps3's gpu is somewhere between a 7800gtx and a 7900gtx. Considering how much work the gpu's actually do and that some devs were complaining about the cpu's on both, my guess would be that the 360 has more raw graphical power. Anyway, it doesn't seem like a comparison of the two consoles can work as well as just running a pc game on an ati system and a nvidia system considering the games are probably altered to some extent from one console to another. As for cell, i dont see how it benefits gaming much at all.

 

[Dainas]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
isn't the 360's graphics unit more powerful than the ps3's?

Actual GPU power is debatable. Sony deciding to once again to go completely inadequate on system/video ram, is what will probably have the PS3 pailing to the 360(and Xenos eDRAM) in graphics even after devs get the knack. Its supposed to have 256mb dedicated to the GPU..But I have no idea whats really going on witht that ram as even being an early title doesnt excuse such blah textures.

Not like this will stop them, having washed out textures compared to the established competition didn't even slow them down in the past.

 

[tuteja1986]

Stoneburner , 360 GPU went into production in late Apirl 05... PS3 went into production August 06. So which one do you think will be better ;?... Spec wise ATI GPU is better.

But i can confidentially tell you PS3 could way better graphic than XBOX 360. But only few developers will be able to achieve that. Games like FF13 , MSG , Devil May Cry , GT5 , Burnout 5... ect will have better graphic than 99.9% of 360 games.

 

[Arkaign]

This is a really stupid conversation to be having now

It's sort of like saying :

"Look, Oblivion on a X1950XTX looks waaay better than F.E.A.R. on a SLI 7800GT!"

After the devs gear up on both consoles, things will probably end up pretty much even. Some titles will look better on PS3, some on 360. A lot of it will come down to what kinds of games you want to play.

I'm thinking *generally* ..

Sports and FPS = 360 FTW

RPG, Racing, oddball Japanese stuff = PS3 FTW

Play what you like

PC for me

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
8800GTX > 360 and PS3

8800GTX in SLI > *

out of those screenshots, i could tell some shots were better than others. for now, i would say that the 360 and PS3 are equal.

Price of 8800 GTX > 360
Price of 8800 GTX = PS3

Price of GTX + other component to allow you to use GTX >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 or PS3

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: stickybytes
I just saw the gamespot article and i think that the two consoles look pretty similar imo. Neither console's graphics are significantly better than the other and lets just remember that these are ps3 launch games and the headroom for improvement is pretty great.

With how long the dev kits have been out and how long the PS3 was delayed, we may have skipped a lot of the "game infancy" phase.