Graphics for dummies: PS3 vs. Xbox 360

You all realize that the reason there's a tsunami headed towards Japan is due to their illogical hubris. They never should have purchased of all those PS3 units... The fools. Now they will be smitten.

Hah, I just noticed she didn't root the discriminant properly, it's over b^2-4ac, not just b^2-4. NOOB!

"What it TRULY boils down to for the vast majority of people out there is that they don't care about the specs of a console. All most people care about is "How good are the games available for it?"

So then why upgrade from the current generation at all? People get so caught up in the hype of new console launches that they forget that more power doesn't mean more interesting games. All we ever get is a new coat of paint on an old game.

His article is - sadly - also filled with old and sometimes wrong information.

He should have left the BluRay discussion out of it; clearly not his field. And no mention of HDD vs. no HDD.

I like the part early on about "PS3 CPU information provided by Sony"

Sony has never stretched the truth about any of their numbers.

Well, I for one am not impressed with the NES releases in 2006. I think it's time to upgrade to something more powerful.

Would somebody pleeeease think of the teraflops?!

Yes, it really is about gameplay. But you can't demonstrate the "fun" aspect with a screenshot or even a vid clip. Shiny graphics attract gamers, and slick gameplay keeps them hooked.

I've spent the past few days playing a lot of Gears of War, which looks great and plays even better. Campaign co-op with a friend over Live is top-notch.

But I also come back to Super Mario Kart, Chrono Trigger, and Zeld OoT on a regular basis... and always will.

This is interesting...

There are many titles that are currently claiming to already be filling up an entire Blu-Ray disc, but I’d be lying to myself if I said I actually see visual signs of it. There just isn’t anything yet that makes me say “This is a result of having Blu-Ray”. From talking to developers none seem to be concerned with the 360’s disc space and there are some that say they expect disc space to become an issue only if games use a lot of high definition movie content. With the graphical horsepower we have today the need for CG video is dropping significantly, but even so 360 titles like Blue Dragon appear to have a healthy dose of CG video and “The Darkness” reportedly has over 4 hours worth of high def movie footage in addition to the actual game, all on the same disc.

FYI : Any fanboys hoping to just skip to the end and see "The winner is..." will be very disappointed.

This (extremely well written) article will not cure fanboy-ism. It will likely cause fanboys to revert back to using the (effectively disproved) MS/Sony numbers out of sheer confusion and jingoistic impulses.

Here's a question though... Will devs flock to Wii for the simple fact that it provides a straight forward (and familiar) programming environment?

Actually, people care about top quality graphics more than realized. People are willing to put stake and faith into the PS3 for the sole reason of having high end graphic capabilities. The public needs to realize that a graphic superior game still doesn't guarentee good gameplay or good plot.

Some of the best games which look good can still be boring as hell.

Summary (my interpretation anyway)

Both CPUs have cut down features that would prevent them working well as PC processors.

PS3 CPU is superior and would work better with graphics code, more things happening at once and possibly physics as well. (but it is harder to program for)

360 Cpu is better for AI due to having 3 identical cores.

Blu-Ray thus far shows no advantages as the PS3 does not have enough Ram to exploit them. It also loads slower than a the 360s DVD drive. He still thinks that Blu_raay has advantages in HD movie content in games and allows for the fact that unforseen advantages may appear.

360 Gpu is better than the PS3 Gpu. It is more powerful and better designed.

360 Gpu is equivalent to ATI R600 (with a few advantages and disadvantages)

PS3 GPU is equivalent to 7800GTX (with a few advantages and disadvantages)

"Here's a question though... Will devs flock to Wii for the simple fact that it provides a straight forward (and familiar) programming environment?"

No.

The best bang for the buck right now is PS2: cheap to develop for and a huge install base that GC+Wii wil never reach. Not only that, but, each PS3 is a PS2, so the install base grows with each PS2 or PS3 thats sold.

There's also XBL (as soon as MS removes that silly 50mb cap) and that Sony download thingy (which has no file size limit). So, its not like Wii has a strangle hold on cheap development.. far from it.

The reason Booger is that we are forced to. In order to get the new games coming out then we need to upgrade to the newer consoles. This is a shame really since next-gen consoles are far too early. It takes years to fully get the potential from a console and as soon as that is realized they go to the next gen and the entire process starts over again. Which is why you always see a huge gap in quality gaming design between the older more polished last gen games just leading into the more shiny lesser designed and more buggy next gen games.

Conclusion: PC is still king in horsepower and the 360 is better balanced compare to the PS3. Both are very good piece of hardware considering the price.

So like always, get the system that have the games you want to play.

"Some of the best games which look good can still be boring as hell."

I completely agree, i've already completed and sold Gears of War which was a huge disappointment.

"Hah, I just noticed she didn't root the discriminant properly, it's over b^2-4ac, not just b^2-4. NOOB!"

If you were a model who got paid to smile and hold a piece of chalk on a board that someone else had chalked up, I doubt you'd really care if your discriminant was rooted properly.

FUCK CHEAP TO DEVELOP FOR, if these guys want to go bigtime, and they want to be superstars (cliffy b. im looking at your general direction) then theyd better get to spending and finding ways to recoup it, whether it be realistic billboards with real ads in a racing game where it can add to realism and serve as a source of income or selling episodic content, w.e. im tired of the moaning over the up front investment of making a video game.

"I completely agree, i've already completed and sold Gears of War which was a huge disappointment."

I find it hard to believe that you have even played Gears of War. Funny that you mention Gears because it is a great example of how you can have amazing graphics and good, solid gameplay. If you have already "completed" Gears of War you are missing out on it's great online multiplayer. Your loss I guess.

I'm so busy playing Gears of War and downloading a Rainbow Six Vegas demo while listening to MP3's in game and chatting to my buddies over xbox live using the 360 webcam that I almost forgot the PS3 even existed.

I freely admit that the PS3 is more powerful with better hardware. But... how does eye candy make a game more fun? If your character in a FPS now had individually-rendered arm hair, does that make the game somehow better? Would Daikatana be any better with greatly improved graphics? I think that we are approaching the point of diminishing returns in graphics.

The key here, though, is price. By definition, half of the US population makes median income or below. Those are the sorts of people who are MUCH more likely to pick up a Wii than a PS3. Sony has effectively alienated a full half of the population from purchasing their product. Nintendo, on the other hand, is the best bet for those whose pockets do not run over, and they are also cheap enough to be picked up as a 2nd system for people who have deep enough pockets to get a 360 or a PS3.

The Wise old Man - read the article, you'll see that the 360 is more powerful

http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360

enough said...

Ok so Joystiq -or anyone-...would you care to summarize?? Will Ps3 start to make the xbox 360 look like last-gen in a few months?? Is it really twice as powerful?

Game-play is what matters yea - everyones right - but the higher power the system, the more gameplay POSSIBILITIES open up. Like the addition of the 3-d adventure on the ps-1/n64. Also - how much fun is the physics engine in Half-Life 2? What about the never before reached on screen enemy count for deadrising on the 360? More power also means more detail. POWER of a system definitely matters in regards to gameplay!

The article says the GPU of the X360 is almost twice as powerful as the PS3's GPU... it even suggests that the X360 could handle 1080p better than the PS3.

Unfortunately most HDTVs do not accept 1080p over an analogue source, almost eliminating this advantage.

As JPRacer said, follow the games that you like...

Maximus - stop smoking crack, ok, Gears is amazing, period. Regardless of how short it is.

I guess only time will tell....funny most of the PS3 games that are on the 360 are getting lower reviews than there 360 counterparts........HMMMMM......I wonder why that is...

One more Gears comment......find me a better looking game on the PS3 one year from now.....NOT!!!!

no. this quote from that article is enough said:

"CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment."

And maybe at last the POS3 fans can stop assuming those of us who have said time and again that the 360 has a more suitable/flexible GPU/CPU combination and a superior graphics chipset can finally stop calling us fanboys (ironically) and see that we are merely informed gamers who know what we are on about, the fact is you are likely to end up with WORSE looking games on your holy system that costs far more than it's worth in gaming terms. Knock yourself out with the inferior Blu-Ray format if it makes you feel any better (I'm sure PSP owners are loving UMD right now thanks to all those SONY movies).

Sony has too many other interests (bluray, movie studios) to cater purely to gamers (as MS is doing) but you fanboys just can't see it can you?

"I find it hard to believe that you have even played Gears of War. Funny that you mention Gears because it is a great example of how you can have amazing graphics and good, solid gameplay. If you have already "completed" Gears of War you are missing out on it's great online multiplayer. Your loss I guess."

Why so? It took about 7 hours to play through.. graphics and sound are top notch but it's severly lacking in the variety/holding interest stakes. I got real tired of the hide/duck/shoot gameplay. My 360 isn't hooked upto LIVE so all i'm interested in is single player games and as a single player game it's lacking.

Hahahahaha.

"The best way for PS3 to stay competitive with the 360 is to stick with 720P"

Sony??? I thought the PS3 was the true HD console???

Lies, Lies ....Damn Lies!!!

Pure conjecture... Sounds like a Star Trek Next Gen episode sounds like real science but still only fiction.

I play games for two reasons: the gameplay and the graphics. I've stuck through games before with lousy graphics, but it is rare. The thing is, I have played more games with lousy gameplay but incredible graphics. I just like to see what art the designers can come up with, and I tend to get sucked into the world more than the story or even the mechanics (guns, etc.). But I also know I won't keep playing if the gameplay is terrible. I'm playing Double Agent right now, even though I am bored with the series, and would probably never had touched it on any other consoles (and I am one of those who beat the very first game), because I think the graphics add to the realism. They went all out -- snow, rain, water, glaring sun. I know I'll play GoW and love it, even though I'm not into the gore. I will probably do somehting like, kill the guys and then wander back through levels trying to figure out the art.

Sony fooled us with the Ps2 is more powerful than Dreamcast Lies.

Fooled us that Psone was more powerful than the N64.

Now this?

3rd time unlucky Sony!!!

"26. Maximus - stop smoking crack, ok, Gears is amazing, period. Regardless of how short it is."

Not smoking anything pal, just telling it how it is. Gears is a good game but not a patch on the real top quality games of recent times such as Halo and Resident Evil4. If you're into online play then i'm sure it's well worth getting but if you're not it's a rental.

QUOTE: "Will Ps3 start to make the xbox 360 look like last-gen in a few months?? Is it really twice as powerful?"

That is a veiw held in abundance by the technically ignorant (not the guy who posted this but mass market gamers and kids and fashion followers). All articles and interviews with developers have ALWAYS stated, shown, highlighted that the Xbox360 is in fact more powerful where it counts (for games) and that the PS3 is bottlenecked.

THE INESCAPABLE FACT IS:

SONY PUT AN INFERIOR GRAPHICS CHIPSET INTO THE PS3 TO REE UP FUNDS TO INCLUDE THE NON-NEEDED BLU-RAY DRIVE. IF THEY HAD ALSO PUT IN A GPU TO COMPETE WITH THE 360 THE PRICE OF THE PS3 WOULD GO EVEN HIGHER. RATHER THAN DITCHING THE NON-NEEDED BLU RAY DRIVE AND ACTUALLY GIVING THE PS3 A SUPERIOR GPU TO JUSTIFY ITS PRICE THEY ARE BASICALLY SELLING YOU A MOVIE PLAYBACK DEVICE WITH AN INFERIOR GAMING CONSOLE TACKED ON. IF GAMES ARE YOUR THING THEN THE XBOX 360 IS CERTAINLY BETTER SUITED TO THE TASK AND IN MOST CASES CAN SURPASS THE PS3 GRAPHICALLY.

Yes it was "shouting" but maybe the volume can get through to the Sony-Zealots... your money is going on BLU-RAY and CELL which are to gain market acceptance for Sonys partners and not to improve gaming at all, that is why they skimped on "non sony" Ram and GPU which are two of the 3 most important parts in a console! pfffft

As far as games are concerned, both systems have different ways of using their processors to the best advantage.

When it all comes down to it is the games. Will the fact that one console is more powerful than the other make any difference on the quality of games coming out for each system?

Its the games that count, bring that and you will have the gamers.

fester, you do realize that MS is as interested in your living room as Sony, right?

Movie downloads, portable music/video players, .wmv streaming, and a tie-in with Vista makes MS just as guilty.

Another part of the article also says that the PS3 should be able to handle environmental effects and physics code better than the X360.

When it comes down to it, there is no clear winner in hardware between the PS3 and X360... both have advantages.

fester , you are an idiot!
I havent read a dumbest post ever!

PS3 is more powerful even than you small brain!

>:

How much do you get paid by sony to post on every joystiq thread about the wonders of the PlayStaTion? I hope a lot.

Wise old man:

Tsunami! made me lol.

Fanboys:

Let's see the x360 and ps3 keep up with a quad core, two geforce 8800 sli cards. I'd just like to see the comparision between the two, that's all i'm saying. Yeah, i know that would cost... $2,000, but for a COMPUTER, not a game console painted up like a computer, like some kind of hussie (i'm looking at you ps3). And, for those of you who are saying that ps3 will rule the day because it is like a computer, that didn't really help xbox last round, did it. I enjoy the flame wars though.

@31

My point EXACTLY!! Sure online is fun sometimes but I dont want a game that the only reason to buy it is a good multi-player mode (ie halo 2, defend it if you want but you know the story sucked) What happened to great stories, developed characters, plot twists, and replay value. Playing a game after i beat it used to be my favorite part of owning games. Everyone in the world has played through FFVII more than once even know they know they cant save Aeris, But how many people are going to replay GoW because of the plot twists??

Graphics power/performance isn't as important as fanbois like to think. It's the developers that make the difference.. devs like Square, Team Ninja, Team ICO, Polyphony, KCET and others will make amazing looking games regardless of the console. The PS2 is supposedly underpowered and yet God of War, Okami, FFXIII, Resident Evil4 all look incredible due to the imagination, design and talented coders behind them. Gears of War looks fantastic, now that's finished let's see what Epic can do with Unreal Tournament07 as that's their focus now on the PS3.

Maximus

Yeah Gears takes about 7 hours on casual to beat. Everyone that I have talked to starts right back up on a harder difficulty upon beating the game. On Hardcore the AI is a lot smarter and I am assuming that Insane is even more difficult. Not to mention that the co-op is a blast. You don't need live to appreciate that.. just friends.

"Yeah Gears takes about 7 hours on casual to beat. Everyone that I have talked to starts right back up on a harder difficulty upon beating the game. On Hardcore the AI is a lot smarter and I am assuming that Insane is even more difficult. Not to mention that the co-op is a blast. You don't need live to appreciate that.. just friends."

Actually it isn't, you know what the difference really is? When playing on casual the enemies take about 7 or 8 shots to kill. When on the next difficulty level they take about double that.. i've played parts of the game on different difficulty settings and the enemies run to exactly the same positions but just take more shots to kill.

Yeah maybe co op is great but why can't we have a decent length single player game? Believe it or not there are plenty of gamers who don't play online.

I'm that much of a nerd I know that the picture is of the quadratic formula which is used to figure out what x is in more complicated quadratic equations. I also noticed that she's writing it down wrong. It should be all over 2a, not 4a^2 (or at least that's what I've been taught)

Brilliant article everyone interested in the upcoming battle should take a read

You're all missing the point here. The REAL zinger in that article is that Sony's RSX is clocked at 74,800,000,000 shader operations per second! That's like a billion shader operations per second! :O

Choice comments from the article:

The author starts off by stating that he who has the higher numbers isn't necessarily the best.

"Now before I get into it I’d like to point out that while both consoles have powerful CPUs both Sony and Microsoft have played a dirty little numbers game with everyone… numbers that can easily be misinterpreted by most people to mean “The one with the highest numbers must be the better of the 2” and that isn’t how it works at all (atleast not all the time and here is the kicker both Sony and Microsoft want you to misinterpret the numbers). "

and

"Even while taking all of this into consideration, the CPUs can’t reach those crazy performance numbers; the PS3’s cell still comfortably comes out on top in terms of overall floating point capability, but it should be known that the available power on the PS3’s cell will be significantly more difficult to harness than the available power on the 360’s CPU."

He also talks historically...

"It’s also worth mentioning that even the PS2 CPU had more than twice the GFLOPS of the original Xbox’s CPU, but it didn’t necessarily lead it to being the performance winner. This time around, while the cell has the GFLOPS advantage, its advantage isn’t quite as big as the PS2 CPU had on the Xbox. This teaches us that there is more than one meter of real world performance."

Microsoft is more developer oriented..

"Microsoft made a better decision from the perspective of the developer; it's still difficult, but much easier compared to working with the Cell architecture."

Sony excels with graphics..

"Ignoring the difficulties of programming for the PS3 CPU, it should be known that the PS3’s CPU is very good when it comes to vertex-related operations because the PS3’s CPU handles graphics code better than the 360’s CPU."

Only with time the games will tell you which is the better machine. So let's roll foo!

Programming and AI...

"The 360 CPU however, due to its 3 symmetric General Purpose Cores, is not only much easier to program for than the cell, but having 3 PPE capable of handling things such as AI also means the 360’s CPU will be the better of the 2 CPUs when it comes to AI code."

The OS...

"Everything comes at a cost and here are the costs for the 360.

32MB of the 512mb of available GDDR3 RAM
3% CPU time on Core1 and Core2 (nothing is reserved on Core0)

The costs for the PS3’s operating system are as follows

32mb of the 256mb of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
64mb of the 256mb of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved
1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games have to give it up if requested)

Now the thing that probably jumps at people the most is the fact that the 360 uses much less resources to run its operating system. "

Duh, Microsoft is an operating system company.

Imagine if Microsoft and Sony ever worked together on a game console. Oh wait, they did once in the past...

At last, all the Sony hype can settle down. This is the 3rd in depth article I have read that states the same thing: The specs on the PS3 and 360 are very similar with no clear winner (let alone the landslide Sony and their fans have been ranting about). In fact, even though the 360 is almost a year old, it has a better GPU (by far) and a much wider system bandwidth. So the breakdown goes something like this:

CPU advantage:
360~PS3

Xenon core is a more general purpose CPU which can handle most game code better while the Cell streams exceptionally well and can lend a helping hand in grpahics and *possibly* physics.

GPU advantage:
360>PS3

We have a VERY clear winner here. The ATI designed Xenos in the 360 is far and away the better graphics chipset over the nVidia RSX featured in the PS3.

BANDWIDTH advantage:
360>PS3

By leaps and bounds. It's been said over and over that the PS3 is severely bottlenecked in bandwidth. Doesn't matter if the Cell turns out to be the second coming of Christ as Sony has led us to believe, the rest of the system won't be able to keep up.

CONCLUSION:
The Cell CPU in the PS3 is going to have to carry the console. The 360 is a more well rounded machine and actually has more power in the graphics department. While crafty coding may help circumvent the seeming limitations of the PS3, it will take devs a while to unlock the potential of the horribly complicated 8 core Cell. As multi-threaded games start becoming more abundant, the 360 will have the natural advantage as it is easier to program for and has 6 general purpose threads and a powerhouse for a GPU. Cross platform games therefore may end up looking and playing better on the 360. Exclusives will depend on a case by case basis on either system.

I hope this article clears some things up. Sony's machine is not all it's cracked up to be and is not a clear winner over the 360. In fact, the 360 may end up being the more powerful console in the eyes of the end consumer. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages however. Cheers to all un-biased gamers out there. It's a good time for us.

Maximus: your concern is a valid one, but quite simply, the world needs high-quality co-op games far more than it needs high-quality single player games.

Co-op multiplayer, especially internet co-op, has been one of the most neglected aspects of gaming in the past few generations.

I'm with you on the beef of your concern, (or the beef of your beef) that is developers rely too heavily on a competitive internet multiplayer model to make up for other shortcomings in their game. That's a general problem with gaming nowadays, an excessive pandering to an anti-social overcompetitive group of online gamers. Personally, I can't stand playing over the internets. However, a well-developed co-op model (and no, team games and R6 don't count) is a definite step in the right direction.