PS3 vs 360 graphics

Nickg said:
where? where have these fanboys been saying how much better PS3 gfx would be over xbox360?

i am sure it has been common knowledge (at least to the people on here) that the gfx will be virtually indiscernable between the 2 consoles given the constraints of the 2 GPU's...

so im not sure where all this is coming from

Indeed. And even if one or two people have foolishly made such outlandish claims, that doesn't mean that anyone else who says anything positive about the PS3 should be tarred with the same brush!

It's not on these forums is it?, it out there in the real world..

After things like the gadgetshow, gamer.tv, BBC News, etc, etc and all the marketing releases, who all touted the PS3 as the most powerful console ever, with all the superlatives thrown in, almost everyone I talk to is under the impression the PS3 is one generation on from the 360..

But at the end of the day there always has been and always will be school yard arguments of these things.. it's part of life..

Just grin and bear it usually works best..
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
I thought the PS2 was 2000 and the Xbox was late 2001?
Did Microsoft not stop making the Xbox because Nvidia stopped producing the chipset?
Yes, PS2 from early 2000 to late 2006 = virtually 7 years.
Xbox late 2001 to late 2005 = 4 years.

Regardless of the reasons, my point is that it benefits nobody but the large corporations who make consoles, and rich consumers. It does not benefit most people for consoles to be chopped and changed every few years.
 
dirtydog said:
How is it in consumers' interests for consoles to be brought out every few years? The PS2 has lasted about seven years hasn't it? The Xbox lasted about four before Microsoft unceremoniously killed it. I'm not sure how you think this benefits consumers other than those who have pots of cash.

It's not in some ways but is in others, from a pure monetary point of view i'ts not as it's another 300 odd quid that you have to spend, however in some ways it is, as it stands you have two consoles that are graphically about the same and unless they smehow get around the GPU's of the two consoles that will stay the same, now the next box is due in 2-3 years, which will have new and improved Gpu's which means that plausably for the last 2-3 years of the PS3's life you could be in a situation where you have a vastly superior rival console, again eating even more of Sony's market share away from them.

MS is in this fight to not only beat sony but crush the PS, just like they have to every other OS in mainstream computing, and they are playing the long game, against a company that has nothing like the resources of MS.

The 360 is really MS first proper attempt, the x-box was a bit of a rushed job just to get themselfs into the market, and to walk in with your first console and get 17% of the market share is no mean feat, especially against sony having all the advantages in their court, now MS have a lot of the advantages and while the PS3 will still dominate mabye the 360 will climb to 25% of the market share, then with the next one they will get more and more and begin to reel Sony in.

In a way i think it's a good thing, as hopefully a healthy competitive console industry means better consoles for us but more importantly it should also mean better games, until the x-box for me console gaming was getting a little stagnant as Sony was so far ahead of everyone else, that they were resting on their laurels, as were game developers. Hopefully with a competitive market we will see some more innovative stuff from both sides of the battle.

Thats what i think anyways.
 
Spud21 said:
It's not in some ways but is in others, from a pure monetary point of view i'ts not as it's another 300 odd quid that you have to spend, however in some ways it is, as it stands you have two consoles that are graphically about the same and unless they smehow get around the GPU's of the two consoles that will stay the same, now the next box is due in 2-3 years, which will have new and improved Gpu's which means that plausably for the last 2-3 years of the PS3's life you could be in a situation where you have a vastly superior rival console, again eating even more of Sony's market share away from them.

MS is in this fight to not only beat sony but crush the PS, just like they have to every other OS in mainstream computing, and they are playing the long game, against a company that has nothing like the resources of MS.
You are right - MS are not acting in consumers' interests but in their own. That's why I am confused when people here treat Sony as the evil villain of the piece and MS as the white knight. They are both large faceless corporations whose aim is to maximise revenue. But in fact Sony has at least not screwed over people who bought its last console, as MS have done with the Xbox by both releasing a new console after only four years, and by dropping the old Xbox like a stone immediately the 360 was released - in contrast to how Sony continued to support the PS1 when the PS2 came out.
 
dirtydog said:
You are right - MS are not acting in consumers' interests but in their own. That's why I am confused when people here treat Sony as the evil villain of the piece and MS as the white knight. They are both large faceless corporations whose aim is to maximise revenue. But in fact Sony has at least not screwed over people who bought its last console, as MS have done with the Xbox by both releasing a new console after only four years, and by dropping the old Xbox like a stone immediately the 360 was released - in contrast to how Sony continued to support the PS1 when the PS2 came out.

Just interested how they aren't supporting the x-box ? there are games still being released for the x-box, well play has a load of new releases just out and more on their way, you are going to miss out on some games, but you can still pretty much get any tipe of game you want, NFS carbon is out on the box if you want a driving game, the last incarnation of fifa and all of those have also come out, metal slug 5 (ooohhhhh) is coming out too. So it seems to me that they are still supporting the x-box, alright the support isn't great but it's still support. X-box's are still abundant in the shops with a massive back catalogue, afaik you can still play on live with an old x-box, mabye they have stopped directly supporting it as they know there are enough consoles and games around to satisfy the demand.

Neither are white nights, just Sony cares much less about europe than MS seem to, which is why you get a somewhat biased anti sony lobby.
 
A bit off OP here :)

From my point of view, it has been less about the capabilities of the console itself and more about the manufacturing mess that is the PS3 production line. It makes me wonder what state the PS3 was in a year ago when they decided to push release back so far.

SONY have been quoted as promising to get 1Mil PS3s out in the North American arena by Dec31st after having managed to get a measly 200K out for launch. It seems that SONYs worst enemy is itself - the machine may very well be a stonker, but it doesn't help if no-one can own it.

On top of that there is the blue ray drama - adding a fair whack onto production costs for both the unit and the media which has of course been passed onto the consumer - early adopters won't be bothered by this but once they all have one in their hands, there had either be a really decent price drop or SONY is going to see a massive drop in sales.

Back to the OP - I honestly can't see a huge difference in visual quality, however there is enough to lean towards the 360 as the contrast and textures look nicer - I can't stand the bloom effect where everything looks like a cheesy chick flick moment on the PS3, I much prefer the crisp high contrast version from the 360.

It'll be curious how long it will take joe public to make a comparison or if they will just continue to perceive the PS3 as being the next 'next' generation rather than a delayed next generation.

I'll certainly be sitting back and watching with interest.
 
Spud21 said:
Just interested how they aren't supporting the x-box ? there are games still being released for the x-box, well play has a load of new releases just out and more on their way, you are going to miss out on some games, but you can still pretty much get any tipe of game you want, NFS carbon is out on the box if you want a driving game, the last incarnation of fifa and all of those have also come out, metal slug 5 (ooohhhhh) is coming out too. So it seems to me that they are still supporting the x-box, alright the support isn't great but it's still support. X-box's are still abundant in the shops with a massive back catalogue, afaik you can still play on live with an old x-box, mabye they have stopped directly supporting it as they know there are enough consoles and games around to satisfy the demand.

Neither are white nights, just Sony cares much less about europe than MS seem to, which is why you get a somewhat biased anti sony lobby.
Sony brought out the PSone after the PS2 had been released IIRC - and continued to produce it for a long time after the PS2 came out. Whereas AFAIK MS stopped production of the Xbox shortly after the 360 came out, no? But the main complaint I have is that they brought out the new console after only four years.
 
dirtydog said:
Sony brought out the PSone after the PS2 had been released IIRC - and continued to produce it for a long time after the PS2 came out. Whereas AFAIK MS stopped production of the Xbox shortly after the 360 came out, no? But the main complaint I have is that they brought out the new console after only four years.

Yeah, and it wasn't for the love of the consumer - more of what is in their pockets ;)
 
dirtydog said:
You are right - MS are not acting in consumers' interests but in their own. That's why I am confused when people here treat Sony as the evil villain of the piece and MS as the white knight. They are both large faceless corporations whose aim is to maximise revenue. But in fact Sony has at least not screwed over people who bought its last console, as MS have done with the Xbox by both releasing a new console after only four years, and by dropping the old Xbox like a stone immediately the 360 was released - in contrast to how Sony continued to support the PS1 when the PS2 came out.

You come across as very bitter and selfish towards MS for not supporting YOUR console of choice.The userbase of the PS1 and PS2 were so huge that it would be economically viable to continue to support these formats.The Xbox didn't have this luxury so they had to move on and get a head start or else.
 
i-bert said:
You come across as very bitter and selfish towards MS for not supporting YOUR console of choice.The userbase of the PS1 and PS2 were so huge that it would be economically viable to continue to support these formats.The Xbox didn't have this luxury so they had to move on and get a head start or else.
The Xbox has (had) millions of users worldwide. Huge by any standards.

I wouldn't say I am selfish, just confused why everyone here thinks the sun shines out of MS's backside :)
 
Ok I will post here, been watching this thread for a while and its about time for my 2p.

Price :
PS3 vs. 360 console price comparisons are BS, we can not give an accurate comparison because we do not know for definite what the price of these 2 consoles will be on the PS3 launch in the UK (whenever that will be). Further more, there has not been a like for like comparison yet the fact is Sony (and their fanboys) have been adding things on to the 360 to inflate its cost (or picking the core and comparing it to a 60gb ps3) or hiding additional costs on the PS3 like the HDMI cable (or saying "I have a Bluetooth headset so that saves me £25")

It is a simple fact that to play high definition games it is way cheaper to do so with a 360 than it is a PS3.

Graphics:
The regular, intelligent, reasonable posters in this forum are well aware that Graphics have hit a point of diminished returns. The hardware difference is not great enough between these consoles for there to be a huge difference in quality. As we have seen in the beginning of this thread the 360 and PS3 games look very alike, the only difference being the lighting and some background details in the 360 version (on the most part). This is probably estimate to the 360s better development environment and architecture. We will probably find that the 360 versions of games will always have the nicer touches in them.

Architecture:
the PS3 has 1 PPE and 7 SPEs one of the SPE is taken up by system requirements with an optional second also being taken up.
The 360 has 3 dual core processors. Which means effectively 6 processors, not that much difference. Oh and these 6 processors are better designed for game operations. Overall I think the best way to describe the 2 as this.

A Lorry has a higher number of horse-power than a f1 car. But which will win a race? The F1 obviously. The Lorry needs more power to pull its own weight. The PS3 is a lorry, the 360 is closer to the f1 car.
I'm not saying the 360 vastly out performs the PS3, that is not the case, the two consoles will always be very close in performance. Some things the PS3 will do better other things will be done better on the 360. But there will never be a case where one console is vastly superior in an area.

Also the "PS3 is a custom built machine, where as the 360 is an over glorified PC in a white box!" statement is utter BS and whoever said that clearly knows sweet FA about either consoles. What makes that statement worse is that Sony are constantly touting the PS3 as a computer and that all components are upgradeable, like a PC.

The 360 has very little to do with a PC, most of the main components are custom built tailored for the 360, unlike the PS3 which has an almost "off the shelf" graphics card.

Having an architecture that is too advanced and complicated is far worse than a simple to program for. Games publishers want to make maximum profit. If it takes 10000 hours to build a 360 game but 15000 hours to build a PS3 game, and you need "Smarter Programmers" then that will cost a considerable amount more. Chances are there will be much fewer PS3 only games than there will be 306 games. We have already seen a lot of publishers move away from the PS3 and many more have criticised it for various reasons.

The argument "People managed it on the PS1 and PS2" is not really valid anymore as there were no immediate competitors to the PS1 on 2. The N64 came out much later than the PS1 and SEGA were already in huge financial difficulty when the dreamcast came out, and were not able to compete with the PS2. Hence Publishers had no choice but to develop games for the PS3. The 360 has come out earlier, costs less, is equal in power, easier to develop for and has a large install base. These factors give the publishers a lot of choice, I hope Sony was nice to their partners in the past because if they treated them anywhere as badly as their customers we might see some fallout in that area.

Install Base:
As I have stated the PS3 is going to cost publishers a lot more to make games, this can not be argued (unless you are an idiot). This means that they need to sell either a lot more copies, or the same amount an a much higher mark-up. I read somewhere that a PS2 game requires 100k sales to break even, a PS3 will take approx 500k. Sony games go into the budget/platinum range after 400k sales. So that mean that games will become budget games before they even break even on the PS3.
The ratio of game purchases to console purchases is 5:1 per year at the moment for the 360. If the PS3 had a similar attachment rate, then only 5- 10 games in the next 12 months will break even. Can developers take that sort of financial risk? Will they ever risk releasing on the same week as another major release (regardless of platform)?

Sony will make up the Sales over time, once they sort out their manufacturing issues. However to get 500k sales per game they will need an absolutely massive install base to attract the Publishers. MS currently has about 16x the install base of the PS3.

IMO if the PS3 does not get within 25% of the MS install base by the end of 2007 then the publishers will begin to look at the 360 as the market to focus on, with the ports going to the PS3. Simply there are more people to sell the game to, and it is cheaper to make the game on this console.


Has Sony released a great console? No. IMO they have only managed to release a console that is equivalent to the console MS released last year, at a much higher price. They did release great consoles in the Previous 2 generations. But imo the innovation this round has been lead by Microsoft and Nintendo. Sony has only been keeping up with the current trends. Will the PS3 sell? Well I think the demand will be higher than the supply for the first year, but I honestly feel, having played on both, and by industry analysis, the PS3 sales may slow down by the middle of 2008 where as the 360s will remain constant.
Will the PS3 damage Sony's image? Yes, it has with a lot of people that were not tied to owning one console. I was planning on getting all 3. I'm sceptical I will even own a PS3. ( I certainly wont until the price is at least £150). I think this damage will extend to the general consumer public over course of the next 2-3 years and the PS4 will have a much tougher time getting acceptance into peoples living rooms. Than the PS3 has currently.


If you have managed to read this far... People will shoot down any unfounded, or incorrect statement on OcUK. It just so happens a lot of people posting "Pro PS3" statements, are making unfounded, inaccurate statements.

Oh and before anyone says it, I am not a 360 fanboy, I am a console fanboy, I just happen to own and really like the 360 ATM. Sony has simply done nothing to draw me away from that (the Wii has and I will get one in about 3 months time).
 
Last edited:
This thread seems to be all about PS3 fans defending their beloved sony and 360 fans trying to rub salt into the wound.

Bit sad when you consider the subject matter. My games console is fun, i will own whichever console i deem most fit for purpose. When i NEED a PS3 i'll buy one the same goes for the WII.

Why there has to be this big debate about it i dont know (inevitable i geuss) but i have to wonder what IS IT that is making you all get personal about this? what is making you take sides? These are all products of mega-corporations, cunningly marketed to pry money from your pocket and on the whole are responsible for massive losses to the collective social stucture and moral fibre of humanity. You know, when you get down to the brass tax. Why does it make everyone so angry? If only we fought so hard and passionately for REAL issues maybe we could improve everything for everyone rather than making another rich company richer.

Just an abstract musing
 
I hate the way most of these threads always go way off topic.

From what I've seen so far the graphics look almost even. There are slight differences that joe public isn't going to notice.

My opinion is that of current games available the 360 has the better graphics of the 2 but its a minor lead.
 
dirtydog said:
Sony brought out the PSone after the PS2 had been released IIRC - and continued to produce it for a long time after the PS2 came out. Whereas AFAIK MS stopped production of the Xbox shortly after the 360 came out, no? But the main complaint I have is that they brought out the new console after only four years.
I think you'll find that was due to differing circumstances, and MS were effectively forced to cease XB production.
Sony were in a position to miniturise and cost cut the PS in such a way as to produce the PSone for minimal price and still make a profit on the hardware - in effect creating a new market for parents buying consoles for either very young kids or the poorer areas of society, whilst maintaining their core demographic for the PS2.
MS were in a situation where they had signed an agreement for nVidia to supply the XB chipset at a set fee, and were unable to take over production, miniaturise or costcut effectively. They could have maintained production, but at a cost where they would have still been losing money on every unit sold and also hitting market share on their new console due to the pricepoint.
- it's unfortunate, but MS learnt a lesson the hard way with regards to component suppliers, and have altered strategy significantly with 360.
 
t@xman said:
I think you'll find that was due to differing circumstances, and MS were effectively forced to cease XB production.
Sony were in a position to miniturise and cost cut the PS in such a way as to produce the PSone for minimal price and still make a profit on the hardware - in effect creating a new market for parents buying consoles for either very young kids or the poorer areas of society, whilst maintaining their core demographic for the PS2.
MS were in a situation where they had signed an agreement for nVidia to supply the XB chipset at a set fee, and were unable to take over production, miniaturise or costcut effectively. They could have maintained production, but at a cost where they would have still been losing money on every unit sold and also hitting market share on their new console due to the pricepoint.
- it's unfortunate, but MS learnt a lesson the hard way with regards to component suppliers, and have altered strategy significantly with 360.
Time will tell. Let's have this discussion again in 2009 ;)
 
sc(+)pe said:
I hate the way most of these threads always go way off topic.

From what I've seen so far the graphics look almost even. There are slight differences that joe public isn't going to notice.

My opinion is that of current games available the 360 has the better graphics of the 2 but its a minor lead.

Yeah - totally agree on both points. Taken from a numbers point of view, being 'fairly even' probably won't cut the mustard. I'd hate to see it go the way of the Dreamcast.

It will be very interesting to see what the actual purpose developed games look like on PS3 i.e. MGS and GT5 etc. and then port them back the other way. IIRC the XBOX port of GTA: San Andreas wasn't quite as flash as we might've liked, when the vast majority of the graphics on the XBOX were streets ahead of the PS2. It may yet be (altho I have some serious doubts) that the differences are simply down to the lack of knowledge out there for porting/creating games on the PS3.

As much as I was prepared to sit back and watch with the PS3, SONY seems to be doing everything in it's quite considerable power to handycap itself.
 
Kronologic said:
Ok I will post here, been watching this thread for a while and its about time for my 2p.



Architecture:
the PS3 has 1 PPE and 7 SPEs one of the SPE is taken up by system requirements with an optional second also being taken up.
The 360 has 3 dual core processors. Which means effectively 6 processors, not that much difference. Oh and these 6 processors are better designed for game operations. Overall I think the best way to describe the 2 as this.

A Lorry has a higher number of horse-power than a f1 car. But which will win a race? The F1 obviously. The Lorry needs more power to pull its own weight. The PS3 is a lorry, the 360 is closer to the f1 car.
I'm not saying the 360 vastly out performs the PS3, that is not the case, the two consoles will always be very close in performance. Some things the PS3 will do better other things will be done better on the 360. But there will never be a case where one console is vastly superior in an area.

i dont think the XBOX360 has 6 cores. it has 1 CPU with 3 cores AFAIK.

"Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU
- 3 symmetrical cores at 3.2 GHz each
- 2 hardware threads per core
- 1 VMX-128 vector unit per core
- 1 MB L2 cache"

each core does MORE, but lends to less flexability because there are only 3 cores, not 6. however the 6 leads to complexity on the PS3 making it expensive to develop for.

F1 car vs a Truck? erk can you say torque? how does this actually relate to the xbox360 and the ps3?

what sony did that REALLY frustrates me, discontinue the Network Adapter! where the hell can i buy one?!
 
Back
Top Bottom