Printable View
xbox 360 kicks butt :slapass: :slapass:
seems ps3 wins some, and loses some. on the last pic the aliasing on the car for the xbox360 looks horrid.
Man its a tough call . Even tho the 360 seems not to have rendered some objects . Notice the water in the first pics . Much more realistic on the 360
Also the background building the Xbox looks much more realistic when you consider the lighting is coming from behind the buildings.
As for the unrendered images. Are thet even in the x-box game or was those images added for P3//
I give it to xbox. but its subjective at best.
I dont know what you guys are smoking, the xbox 360 version is night and day better.
but its not really fair... i mean the games had to be coded individually right? so how can we say its the power of the ps3 when it might just be the lazyness of the developer.
The water texture on the Ps3 is pretty bad though, hopefully they fix that. But i like the road texture on ps3 more then on 360
seems like the sharpness and contrast has been increased on the TV set for tehe 360 input...
also why cant this guy get equallly sharp shots from both games.
not the lazyness of the developer, PS3 actually can't supply enough power to render more details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Revv23
not only in this game,many games like COD3, Xbox360 is obviously better then PS3
x360
The Xbox also looks like it has much better lighting
Xbox 360 FTW. :woot:
Wow ps3 looks terrible :(
FGS, I've actually been trying to explain to everyone for ages that the PS3 graphics will always either be worst or on par with the 360s since it is quite seriously cut down 7800GTX/7900GTX whilst the 360 has much newer technology in terms of graphics, think of it as ATI's mid range DX9.9(basically DX10 ;)) card (X2600), which means visuals will be better on 360. But the PS3 does have a rediculous amount of CPU power which can be used to.. erm...
hmmm, weird...
Why is the review done in Korean?
South Korea is not that well educated when it comes to gaming consoles,
because no one has one... But household computer count is 1.9 computers
per house :)
no big surprise here.. X360 looks better than PS3.. what I am shocked about is that they are not using AA in the X360 screenies.
Those jaggies sent tears down my cheeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
This is direct consequences of the fact that PS3 has half of the XB360 Frame buffer memory!
Not quite, both have 512 MB total, its just that the ps3 splits its memory between the cell's xdr and the rsx's gddr3, wheras the xb 360 has a 512mb main store to feed both the cpu and gpu.
Considering the ps3 is only now being launched and developers have already had time to get to grips with the 360, any comparisons of games at the moment should only be taken as examples of those games and not the power of the console.
Given time both xbox and ps3 coding will get better, and when it plateaus then we'll have an idea of which was the better hardware approach.
That's what Sony gets for promsing a higher resolution....crappy detail.
I'll be interested to see what GTHD can pull outta the PS3.....
And for using a dx9 gpu..
Hey guys! Give it some time... the PS3 is much more complex, tedious, and annoying to program for! LoL, maybe when developement gets more mature and they finally know what to do with those 7cores the PS3 will whoop butt.
xbox 360 uses more detail but has horrible lighting and AA
PS3 uses less detail but has excellent lighting and AA
For example the gravel looks good on the X360 but has poor lighting and AA
For example the gravel looks poor on the PS3 but has good lighting and AA
The same can be said for the water, sky and hotel. You can actually see cloud volume (or substance giving a 3d shape) on the PS3. On the x360 the clouds look 1 dimensional, flat and out of place using improper lighting.
yes the xbox textures look better. but that AA is unacceptable. it is really really bad. i thought we were past these days.
either way i dont care much for consoles.
Wow thats quite a big difference.
Usually first gen PS games are way worse than later games, so we might see some improvement.
Furthermore Ridge Racer could aswell be programmed primary for XBOX360 and was just converted for PS3, who knows.
But if thats really everything the PS3 can do, then there arent many reasons to buy one.
Terribly disappointing.
PS3 looks like it has some serious shadow issues. Seems like they are missing them, or are faking them harshly.
I have Gears of war for 360 and I say its prolly one of the best shooters I've played to date on consoles or pc :) I do have a HD tv too though.
Wow looks like a comparison between DX8 and DX9 almost. But shhhhhhhhhhhhh the people in line for 2 weeks must not know....
Why are 360 enthusiasts using the statement of "PS3 has more development time then 360" as their national anthem when a PS3 game shows slightly better graphics?
My question is 2 fold:
1. Shouldn't the 360 games get just as much development time? I fail to see the difference.
2. If the 360 is not getting the quality development time for it's games, how can that be PS3's fault?
Why cant the photographer take equal quality pics?
im sorry but that TV looks like complete dog doo doo for the PS3 its not even about the PS3 shots being bad (Yes i realize even the best photographer cant turn nothing into something) but that TV in the first pic just looks so muddled and untrue in the color aspect.
something seems fishy here to moi
the 360 pics have got a deeper contrast, notice the TV itself being darker than with the PS3. of course it looks better :rolleyes:
Not true, the TV itself is exactly the same in all pics. However he could cave adjusted the contrast on the tv itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
I don't under stand this, Microsoft has a 2x AA minimum requirement, and 4x AA should be pretty much free in terms of performance hit..
I didnt buy a 360 till close to the 1 year mark for it I will wait fora PS3 atleast until the 3rd batch :)
not true. it's the same TV, and shots from the same angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
blame PS3's image processor/scalar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
uhhh, not quite he said exactly what i said, notice how crisp and clean other REAL shots of the PS3 are, that TV has been changed, it is too highly saturated in some aspects, cant possibly be the PS3... especially considering other images from PS3, to have a TV saturate colors that bad Black wouldnt look black it would look grey, which it doenst always do meaning someone played not so nice with the TV OSD's
IMHO, the PS3 wins this one overall... Look at the last 2 pics... The backgrounds and cliffs are modeled a LOT better there, the car has "no" jaggies, and the shadows look more detailed... I do agree that the water could have been a lot better though...
In the first pic, the water again is quite bad, but otherwise, the quality is very good... With the X360 it looks like somebody took a blue plastic-bag and put it across the screen... :)
The PS3 isn't as bad as people want it to be ;)
Best Regards :toast:
blame it all on the tv and photochops?Quote:
Originally Posted by bullet2urbrain
ps3 gfx (dx9) is relatively the same as xbox 360 (dx 9.5). big surprise? hell no.
Everyone here is so quick to judge. These are hardly comparisons. Why don't you just wait and read about it from a real reviewer.
Yea I wouldn't be too quick about drawing conclusions especially at comparisions that are this inexact. ;)
However judging these pictures at best the PS3 pics reminds me of usual DX9.0c gfx but with better AA than X360 while X360 showed somewhat downscaled DX10 IQ but with lack of AA. :D
I still don't get it why Sony paired such CPU with such gfx card though, CPU is wasted money, would have been much better to include a not so advanced CPU and focus on a better gfx card for that money.
Feels a bit like running E6600 @ 3.6GHz with a 7800GTX 256MB which works but could work a lot better with more well balanced parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
I think the pretense of development time may differ depending on the asker/answerer. I think the general excuse is development time = time to market.
Then development time can mean development time, meaning the PS3 can be seen as orders of magnitude more difficult to code for, but I take that to mean general system/API logic development. GFX and scene rendering (from design->final product, not in game play) on both platforms usually happens on very similar equipment (big ass render farms) so time spent rendering, is just that. I guess there can be a whole other layer of coding in getting the gpu to effectively & accurately render your source scenery&imagery before you leave it (as we can see in that ps3 shot) can be a whole other challenge and probably considerable development time on its own.
If ps3 gets more development time is the accusation, it certainly doesn't look it from these shots (or the time spent didn't accomplish as much).
It's definately true it takes time for sony platform games to come into their own, and one shot by shot comparison is not enough to make judgement yet ( and I agree there seems to be a bit of 'camera bias' if that term exists lol). I'm sure there'll be a different type of game where the PS3 will shine as is always the case.
If it doesnt make you happy, you can always use that thousand or more (as I'm scared to even speculate what some early adopters and idiotic parents will be willing to shell out to make their (9.5/10 chance) undeserving brat happy) brick to do some crunching ;)
That lightning is with 99% probability due to different tv-contrast ratios or different camera settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
the 360 owns the ps3 however both have major faults. the 360's aa is unacceptable and the ps3's detail and lighting are unacceptable. the winner here is computers. if there was a comparison with a pc and say a e6600 and 1900xt it would own at the same res. but i am very disappointed in the ps3 it came out a year after the 360 and gets owned? come on sony use better parts the rsx is not good enough that simple
the api for xbox360 is the same direct x which is the easiest one that exist also ports for pc are linear or form pc to xbox360 so coding for xbox360 its a charm
instead they say for ps3 is another history ps2 and ps3 alike both ultra hard to code for specially to take advantage of the cell processor so if you want to make something good for ps3 you need a lot more time of coding than in xbox360....
PC> PS3 and Xbox 360. PC owns both of them.
looks like ill be getting the 360
but the pictures could go either way i guess, in the first few it does look like the x360 looks better to me
i think i may end up shelling out the 600 bucks or so to get the system another controller 2 games and the wireless network adapter
i'm no ps3 fan, but the ps3 screens are better, i think the contrast just needed to be adjusted or something...
mainly, look at the water in the xbox, no waves...
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
i think you have got the two mixed up.
I think you are right...oopsQuote:
Originally Posted by Revv23
Wii FTW!!! lol
Not a $500 PCQuote:
Originally Posted by Kerby1280
instead of buying a whole new pc, spend the $500 on an 8800gts for ur current pc :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by onewingedangel
Thats hardly comparing like for like then. If you think upgrading your pc would be better for you then fine, but your hardly comparing like for like comparing a whole product to a single component upgrade. Also a console is a set expenditure - you won't have to continuously upgrade your system to play the latest games.
The ps3 looks like a good investment to me - when they drop to £200-250 I'll get one, if only for blu ray playback and final fantasy and tekken games. Graphics, physics and ai will only get better as devs get to grips with the hardware as we have seen over the past few years.
When Final Fantasy x came out for ps2 I'd argue it was better looking than the pc games of the time - despite the far lower hardware spec - the developers were better able to put the hardware to efficient use.
yeah this is the question that hit me this holiday:
do i want a PS 3 ($599 + $50 accesories) or a GeForce 8800GTX($649)?
oh and did i mention that my GeForce 7800gtx 256 sli + e6400 has been running game maxed out(at least on my 19" 1280x1024 monitor) until Flight Simulator X. There are no games i wanna play this year that makes me wanna upgrade.
but i might get R600 or G81 nex year for games like: Tiberium Wars, Supreme Commander, Crysis. I doubt G80 can run those games well.
Hey, i know i will pick PS3(if i can find one :( ). Oh i already got a Xbox 360. Bought one April this year.
dead on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
i'm not sure how anyone can say that xbox360 has better lighting. when i look straight up at a building downtown at around noon the side that isn't facing the sun happens to be quite bright regardless since... well... light reflects and hits the back of the building. the 360 is rather dim and dull in comparison. and i'll reiterate about the antialiasing on the 360 as others have; it's poor and unacceptable.
the ps3 falls short on filtering BIG TIME. look at that bridge in the distance on that juxtaposed shot. the 360 is far and away better. however, the ps3 still has an overall better image quality.
as many have said, it's mostly subjective.
The Ps3 version looks like crap compared to the 360. But it may just be the game's fault. We'll just have to wait and see for that.
One thing I don't understand about the PS3: Why did they pair such a powerful (in theory at least) processor with such an old graphics card? Where are they going to use all the proccessing power? Physics?
Yeah u doo that! buy an 8800gts to that comp u bought at the same time as ps2 came out!Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
what was it? pIII 1ghz?
It's the diff between OpenGL(PS3) and something close to DirectX(Xbox360)
I'm gonna' pick up an xBox 360 this holiday season... and look for a great deal on a 50-56" 1080p DLP tv too!
Samsung 5087W is a nice one ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie