PS3 or xbow 360 most powerful

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't help thinking that MS has a tendancy to rush devs into releasing games before they are fully finished.I have no facts on this but it is just my opinion.
Whereas sony seem happy for them to take as much time as they want.Examples being KZ2 and GT5.
Maybe if MS gave devs as much time as they wanted games would look much better.
Of course,exception to this is Alan Wake:p
 
The 360 can support better graphics but it is held back by it's dvd drive capacity unlike PS3 who can place 20gb off uncompressed high quality textures which they do.
 
wannabedamned said:
Without a doubt, Which is strange as the 360 does have the superior GPU.

Just goes to show development counts for more than hardware when it's as close as it is this Gen.
Click to expand...

It's because the PS3 doesn't have the typical CPU/GPU/RAM system. The PS3 exclusives use the CPU to render graphics. This is also why ports are usually worse on the PS3 because they don't make use of this.
 
on paper the ps3 is the most powerful, the exclusives show this, but it suffers from not being as easy to code for as the 360 (and PC) so seems to end up with poorly optimised ports, multiplats seem to run better of the 360.
 
vincent1989 said:
on paper the ps3 is the most powerful, the exclusives show this, but it suffers from not being as easy to code for as the 360 (and PC) so seems to end up with poorly optimised ports, multiplats seem to run better of the 360.
Click to expand...

As the OP shows, on paper the 360 is the most powerful for raw graphical processing power. The PS3 devs just seem to have more talent and use a lot of clever tricks to push the system.
 
edGfaCTor said:
The 360 can support better graphics but it is held back by it's dvd drive capacity unlike PS3 who can place 20gb off uncompressed high quality textures which they do.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true, 360 developers can use a 2nd DVD is they so choose, Forza 3 being a recent example, most just don't because 9.4 GB is enough what with the advanced compression techniques available these days.

Cost is probably another reason, although 2 DVD discs are still probably cheaper to produce than 1 Blu-Ray.

Either way, disc capacity has nothing to do with the raw power of a console...
 
Kreeeee said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

This is sometimes true, John Carmack has already stated that up and coming game 'Rage' could suffer lower resolution textures due to the limited space on DVD's as he can't really spread the game across 3 discs on the 360 version, he also mentioned that it is definitely a lot easier to work on the 360 version (no surprises there), and it involves more “sweat equity” to develop for the PS3, but PS3 has more theoretical raw performance than the 360.
 
Last edited:
Kreeeee said:
As the OP shows, on paper the 360 is the most powerful for raw graphical processing power. The PS3 devs just seem to have more talent and use a lot of clever tricks to push the system.
Click to expand...

The post in the op only compares the GPUs when, as i'm sure you know, the Cell can be very effective at pre-processing in order to aid the GPU. This throws things out of balance and thus 'on paper' comparisons really can't be used as the systems process graphics in a very different manner. Yes talented devs are incredibly important, but i wouldn't say the 360 is certainly more powerful at graphics processing, in truth i bet no one really knows which has the greatest capabilities.

Elfmeister. said:
My question is how good would Uncharted, MGS4, WipeoutHD, GT5P, etc look on the 360, better, same or worst?
Click to expand...

No one really knows the answer to that, as i stated above the two systems work in very different ways so to say 'yep, the 360 could definitely do that' just isn't possible. I'd wager it could though.
 
Last edited:
That's kinda the point I was making Streeteh :p

On paper the 360 is better for raw graphical processing but tricks such as SPE pre/post processing and particle effects and clever devs counter that.
 
Kreeeee said:
That's kinda the point I was making Streeteh :p

On paper the 360 is better for raw graphical processing but tricks such as SPE pre/post processing and particle effects and clever devs counter that.
Click to expand...

True.

Also with regards to Uncharted being possible on the 360 I'm sure that is possible but at the same quality as the PS3 version, I'm not so sure, according to Christophe Balestra (co-president of Naughty Dog) he seems quite sure that it is not,

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

"I guarantee that this game couldn't be working on Xbox 360. It would be impossible. I'm 100 per cent sure of this,"

"You can play the entire game without loading. We don't require an install. We're doing all the post-processing effects on the SPUs [Synergistic Processing Units]. The quality of the depth of field we have, you can't do that on the Xbox. We've invested a lot of time maximising the power of the machine,"

"First of all, we fill the Blu-ray 100 percent, we have no room left on this one. We have 25GB of data; we're using every single bit of it."
 
Streeteh said:
The post in the op only compares the GPUs when, as i'm sure you know, the Cell can be very effective at pre-processing in order to aid the GPU. This throws things out of balance and thus 'on paper' comparisons really can't be used as the systems process graphics in a very different manner. Yes talented devs are incredibly important, but i wouldn't say the 360 is certainly more powerful at graphics processing, in truth i bet no one really knows which has the greatest capabilities.



No one really knows the answer to that, as i stated above the two systems work in very different ways so to say 'yep, the 360 could definitely do that' just isn't possible. I'd wager it could though.
Click to expand...

The sheer size of KZ2 and MGS4 means one thing is a certainty. There'd be a hell of a lot of disc swapping involved. :p
 
lowrider007 said:
This is sometimes true, John Carmack has already stated that up and coming game 'Rage' could suffer lower resolution textures due to the limited space on DVD's as he can't really spread the game across 3 discs on the 360 version, he also mentioned that it is definitely a lot easier to work on the 360 version (no surprises there), and it involves more “sweat equity” to develop for the PS3, but PS3 has more theoretical raw performance than the 360.
Click to expand...
Hard to ignore a comment from Carmack (though I guess thats something you have to deal with on megatexturing) - pretty much my view on the subject...

Though it makes you worried that the PS4 is going to suffer the PS3s stigma for being difficult to develop for (Sony arent going to get rid of the Cell) - especially with some developers (like Valve) already declaring their non-interest for working on the PS3...

The concept of the Cell (and I guess Larrabee) potentially seem to be the way of the future - just something that hasnt been fully realised and may not be at the console level (think thats what the PS3s legacy will be IMHO)

With regards to the figures on the OP Id take them with a pinch of salt as they only seem to consider the GPUs, the PS3 as a platform doesnt only use the GPU to produce graphics (Id presume the X360 would be the same to a certain extent) and that element cant be ignored when it comes to 'raw performance'...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom