Gamespot compares 360, PS3 graphics; calls it a tie
by Scott Jon Siegel 
{ May 27th 2008 at 2:27PM }
Though they ultimately rule that the Xbox 360 still slightly wins out in the overall, the difference is negligible enough that they're willing to call it a tie. The 360 rocks the boat in high-res textures and texture mapping, but the PS3 conquers in shadowing and anti-aliasing (whatever all that means).
Reader Comments (Page 4 of 4)
arrrgh @ May 27th 2008 3:37PM
1080p doesnt matter for shit when the game isnt even rendered in 720p before upscaling
Mr.ESC @ May 27th 2008 4:04PM
I don't know you but for me my HDTV is very helpful since I can spot more details.
Mr.ESC @ May 27th 2008 4:07PM
Also Screw you my HDTV is awesome.
joeyg @ May 27th 2008 3:06PM
although i'm annoyed with the pop-in on the 360...doesn't happen on my friends ps3 version.
btw...i played Track and Field on XBLA more than i played gta this weekend...TnF FTW!
Lavat @ May 27th 2008 3:15PM
It gets annoying when people say ,'Both consoles are great!! love both consoles!! no more arguing now yeeaaa!!!', Anyway...I chose the ps3 version because I feel that the ps3 is superior to the 360...But I traded in GTA because I got bored with it.
baby sea tuna @ May 27th 2008 3:17PM
Yeah, I know! It, like, totally sucks when people like more than one thing, huh?!
NATO_Duke @ May 27th 2008 3:39PM
Yeah, people should just make crap up to justify them only supporting one console. Just makes more sense. :P
LOONcarter @ May 27th 2008 3:24PM
No graphics can ever compare to Super Mario World on SNES. This dispute is a waster of f'n time!!!!
Drago Dracini @ May 27th 2008 3:25PM
>.> Am I the only person who thinks "Man fuck yo graphics, gimme some motha'fuckin gameplay ova hur." I mean, gameplay is what matters more than graphics, so long as we can tell things aren't walls and black things. If we can see and the graphics actually look nice enough that we can make things out clearly, WTF does it matter?
Vcize @ May 27th 2008 4:04PM
If gameplay is *ALL* you care about then why are you spending hundreds on new consoles when you can get old games with great gameplay for virtually nothing?
Sure, people want great gameplay, but that's still only one piece of the puzzle. Even to those that have gameplay #1 on their list, graphics are still a piece of the puzzle, and hence still worth discussing.
Drago Dracini @ May 27th 2008 4:10PM
Worth discussing yet, but starting flame wars no. And I'm, shelling out the cash for new consoles because the gameplay improves. ;p I like trying new things. The graphics are secondary. But God are they pretty.
KOBES-ACCUSER @ May 27th 2008 3:27PM
PS3 Pwns POOPBOX and Wiitarted
Mr.ESC @ May 27th 2008 4:09PM
In Riley's voice:N**a you are gay.
Drago Dracini @ May 27th 2008 4:11PM
@ MR. ESC. It's "Ni**a you gay" not "Ni**a you are gay."
KOBES-ACCUSER @ May 27th 2008 3:29PM
That might be one of the best sayings I have ever heard!
Marty @ May 27th 2008 3:29PM
*sigh*
If GameSpot said one or the other was better, they'd lose all their advertising from the insulted company.
And now I know I'm going to get kicked in the balls for this one, but when the PS3 came out a year after the 360, I really expected the fight to be over quickly. An extra year to develop CPU / GPU power higher and cheaper is usually a one-two punch to older machines... I honestly expected the PS3 to trounce the 360 in the graphics department, at the very least.
Is anyone else surprised that most of the games that go multiplatform between the two usually run better on the 360, and at seemingly no lesser resolution / detail? I'm not really all that surprised now, but in the beginning I was shocked.
AZ @ May 27th 2008 3:36PM
CoD4, Burnout Paradise run better on the PS3 (i have both consoles and have played both games on both) and even the Houser of Grand Theft Auto 4 prefers the PS3 version rendering over the 360. Please give us a list of games released in the last 6 months that are multi-platform that run better on the 360?
Scotto @ May 27th 2008 3:40PM
I wasn't surprised by the similarity in graphics potential, for a few reasons.
When the X360 released, the PS3's innards had already been announced. While the Cell processor has the POTENTIAL to be better than the 360's triple-core CPU, it's architecture is currently too cumbersome to take advantage of.
Secondly, while the BD-ROM format should allow for more varied and vivid texturing, RAM restrictions prevent the PS3 from being able to do so in many cases. Basically, while the BD-ROM allows for more raw storage, the system is unable to cache any more data at one time, than the X360.
Thirdly, and this is the big one - the X360's GPU is actually better than the one in the PS3.
Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses as far as hardware goes, which results in a more or less even plane of competition.
What I AM surprised at, is that Sony didn't implement key XBL software functionality from the get-go, despite coming out a year later. Things like in-game XMB, custom in-game music, background downloading, etc.
- Scott
arrrgh @ May 27th 2008 3:53PM
Funny i played cod4 on both and thought the 360 version was smoother
xFenixKnightx @ May 27th 2008 4:34PM
Arghh
You are correct I have COD4 for both and it is smoother. Especially on the campaign, many framrate hicups that just dont happen on the 360 version.
Marty I know exactly what you mean. For a while I thought that it was going to be another Dreamcast vs PS2 thing but 360 has proved otherwise. Sony overhyped its machine "next gen doesn't start till we say so" lol "4-D games" "Bluray is needed this gen" The list goes on. In the end when the PS3 does start to show a small difference it will be too late. I'll be ready to move on to the next Xbox in late 2010 or early 2011 baby. Gears 4 FTW!!! ;)
Marty @ May 27th 2008 4:43PM
Last 6 months? Why the time limit?
I remember that the last Tony Hawk game had FPS issues on PS3, according to IGN. GTA4 runs at a lower resolution so it can keep pace with 360. Orange Box on PS3 is a joke, and I'm sure you've heard about it.
I've not heard any news from the big game sites about Burnout or COD4 being better on PS3. Links?
Marty @ May 27th 2008 4:46PM
But anyway, I was not commenting on which system I thought was / is better. I'm just saying that, given the length of time Sony had to one-up MS with the PS3, I was just shocked what little difference the extra year of development time left.
John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ May 27th 2008 11:04PM
I think the majority of differences in the multiplatform titles is probably more software related than hardware related. If they use the 360 as the lead platform it stands to reason it will be the better version. Since the PS3 is completely different architecture than any other gaming console (ever) it lends its self to more ports. Maybe with the release of the phrye engine we will see more multiplatform titles start on the PS3 and not on the 360. I have read where some developers think games all around will be better when this happens.
People saying that GRID looks better than GT:P are obviously basing that off of their opinions. Its true there is no factual way to judge exclusives against exclusives. I think both consoles have good graphics but I prefer the PS3 for my own reasons.
Does this mean that the best graphics the PS3 is capable of have already come and gone? Probably not.
Does this mean that all multiplatform titles will look better on the 360? Probably not.
For the most part the differences seem negligible. The only major differences are when there are frame rate issues like in Madden. That made the PS3 version nearly unplayable in my opinion.
I guess we will see what the hardware is capable of in the second week of June. Saying the PS3 has already hit its ceiling is probably untrue. Saying the 360 has hit its graphical ceiling is also probably untrue. Hell I would bet the Wii will be capable of some amazing graphics before it is all said and done.
My point is that these consoles are in their infancy and as far as the PS3 goes some of its exclusives have the best visuals we have ever seen. Games like Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted and Gran Turismo Prologue are top of the line no matter what platform they are on.
Lets just enjoy our consoles and not argue over what multiplatform titles have a higher resolution. As I said its really a software issue and not a hardware issue. This comes down to the developers and what platform they choose to lead on contrary to popular belief.
voodoo_craig @ May 27th 2008 3:42PM
@Dale
Don't forget it's only half a game too!
ssuk @ May 27th 2008 3:42PM
I think by now, no one should give a damn. Xbox 360 fanboys will always say their lower price console is equal to one that costs more. However, they're plauged with a console that could red ring at any moment, it has an obsolete HD DVD drive (which in some ways is good, cheap player + cheap HD DVDs = Transformers in HD for £12. Awesome.) but the option to have an optional Blu-Ray player as well.
Playstation 3 fans will always say they have a premium console which they have, for now, free online play. Although how long that will keep up is to be determined. They have Blu-Ray built in, with the format war over and Sony the victors, PS3 owners can breath a sigh of relief. The PS3's shaky launch line-up has now a few AAA titles to get it's feet stuck into, with MGS4 just around the corner as well. But a console which has the graphical awe of a console which is a-hell-of-a-lot older. (Keep in mind what a single month can do for hardware and that a typical microchip now becomes obsolete every 4 months.)
One thing that must be said though, you must remember that although the PS3 and 360 currently draw in graphics, the visuals which are being utilised for the PS3 are only now pushing second generation. Compare an early, big developer's PS2 game, say "Devil May Cry" (Capcom) in 2001 and then put it up against the visuals for "Devil May Cry 3" several years later... Huge, exponential graphical improvement.
Developers will soon find ways of besting the graphics on both consoles, making amazing things happen. Question is, we know the Cell is a technical wonder and a technical nightmare in one, as the Cell's architecture gets put to the test and they find ways to better use the Cell, will that come to best the 360's older hardware? Or will both consoles remain in deadlock all the way to the console graveyard? As a neutral (although 360 owner, currently) I hope so. Means with multi-platform titles, you only have to really decide which controller you like best and how big your budget is.
Plus, better graphics don't always mean the better console. Infact, going by last generation, the most underpowered console won. Even though the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 and the Xbox was more powerful than the Gamecube, the PS2 came away laughing. And with the Wii powering on ahead as it is, history could be set to repeat itself.
Leobebes @ May 27th 2008 3:46PM
You wrote this whole thing out just to say.
"Hey guys were back to square one! Who knows?"
Drago Dracini @ May 27th 2008 4:19PM
O.o You lost me at cheese biscuit. Anyway, yea, graphics don't mean better game/console. You could have said that and had it mean the same thing. ;p
Mr Khan @ May 27th 2008 4:13PM
The 360-PS3 technical battle draws distinct comparisons to the technical clashes between GC and Xbox, and also to PlayStation and Saturn. In all three cases, PS3, Xbox, and Saturn all beat 360, GC, and PS1 on paper, but the practicalities of programming made the others easier to use. The Saturn's CPU had infinite potential, but was an absolute coding clusterfuck (a word that I use almost exclusively to describe Saturn programming). PlayStation programming was a breeze by comparison, so developers tapped the full potential of it far more readily. The Xbox's CPU was a Beast. More raw power, but it was ungainly, less nimble and poorly adapted to specific-purpose applications. It was essentially an off-the-shelf PC component, and everyone knows that PCs need more in the tech specs department to run the same thing that a console does with less. PSO Blue Burst, a PC port of a Dreamcast game, required 32 MB of dedicated V-RAM, 4 times the total V-RAM that the Dreamcast even had. Xbox's off-the-shelf PC architecture sits equal to the Wii in terms of actual power, but the GC's PowerPC architecture matched it.
Once again, we see the same thing. The CELL, the next big thing in supercomputing, is being applied to console gaming, while the workings of the 360 are more directly applicable to the console world, and ultimately better suited.
Iridium @ May 27th 2008 4:28PM
I'm sure they didn't enable full range RGB through HDMI when they made the comparison. Rather than use a source capture each photo should be of a 1080p monitor ISF calibrated for each console. Then you would have an accurate comparision.
NVIDIA and ATI default output gamma settings are different. That is why the PS3 is always a bit lighter. Using a source capture you can't make up for the fact that if you change the brightness and contrast on your TV you can make the PS3 output match the 360 in any game. Also NVIDIA chips usually output a slightly fuzzier image than ATI. Increasing the sharpness on your TV also makes up for this. I have taken screenshots into photoshop and just changed the brightness and contrast to make them look identical.
ATI also has a superior bumpmapping and texture filtering alogorithm but NIVIDIA wins on antialiasing in the generation the chips are from.
The 360 has a slight texture processing edge but the PS3 can render more onscreen objects at once and provide larger enviroments. Onscreen objects and enviroments aren't worth anything in multiplatform releases because developers have to program the game for the weaker system. Textures however are exactly the same in multiplatform releases. No developer would make two versions of every texture. The difference is in the filtering which ATI has the advantage. NVIDIA chips make up for this by being able to process textures faster than most ATI cards giving more frames per second.
So in the end the 360 will always have a slight lead in texture filtering but the PS3 will always have the ability to process more moving objects and render larger enviroments. Either way multiplatform releases will never showcase either systems fullest potential.
jigzat @ May 30th 2008 3:28PM
Good stuff, I knew the difference in processing power on both consoles but your technical analysis on graphics is great. Worth keeping it in my files.
KeenCommander @ May 27th 2008 4:37PM
What does it matter??? Both versions look great, this is just a fanboy war.
kobebryunt @ May 27th 2008 5:30PM
*sigh* This why I like the Wii. These discussions are redundant :)
finaldarklord @ May 27th 2008 5:34PM
Should this surprise anyone? I should hope not. Devs have been doing this since last gen, creating games for the weakest system and porting up. This is why you had games on the Cube and the Xbox looking no better than (or in many cases worse than) the PS2 version.
Same scenario here. If devs keep making code for the 360 and try to port it to the PS3, the 360 will look better or run better nearly every time. When you optimize the code for the PS3, you'll get results like GTA4 or better.
Think about it; Why is it that the best looking PS3 games look far better than the best looking 360 games? Why is it that when a dev takes the time to optimize code for the PS3, the results always turn out in the PS3's favor?
The hardware is there, its not even a question as to which system is the most powerful. It simply takes time and effort to optimize for the PS3, something most devs don't care enough to provide.
Anyway, it pisses me off, but for the most part I'm just glad to get the games.
Charlie_Six @ May 27th 2008 6:59PM
I have all the systems (including DS + PSP) and I think the 360, if it was more reliable, less noisy, and had a Blu-ray player, would be better than the PS3.
That being said, the PS3's motion controls would be a huge winner for Sony if they came out with a Wii-mote like accessory, and removed it from the Dualshock/Sixaxis. Simply put, motion controls in a gamepad are useless and awkward to use since they require a peculiar set of grip and arm movements. These movements may be familiar to waiters who bring food to tables in a restaurant, but besides them, they're pretty alien to people.
If we had a Wii-mote for the PS3, Sony could cut into the Wii's main advantage. Many Wii games could also then be ported to the PS3.
Alexander @ May 27th 2008 6:15PM
who cares about the graphics the PS3 has the better controls I have both systems and like the PS3 version better which i bought u rented the 360 version dont like so much but will buy later this year for dlc
Alexander @ May 27th 2008 6:16PM
i meant I rented
chez @ May 27th 2008 6:19PM
On a serious note we're a couple of years in now... When are we going to see the "power of the cell" and all that? From where I'm sitting it doesn't look like this magical Cell CPU and the RSX are that revolutionary. You can throw bluray into there too.
So either every game released and demoed for the PS3 is underperforming or the 360 is overperforming (what).
kobebryunt @ May 27th 2008 6:27PM
Sony is known for that. Remember the emotion engine
pwnfest @ May 27th 2008 6:21PM
ps3 owners should be sent back to school because they are obviously unable to do simple pro/con evaluations and see that the 360 is clearly superior. better games, better controller, better hardware, so what if a few die u just send it in and they send it back good as new and still better than ps3....the people who say they r on there 4th xbox are lying because they're too retarded to seal the box so ms sent it back unfixed. gamespot shuld just come out and say it instead of worrying that all the poopsocking nerds that will blast them for not lying and saying ps3 is better.
John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ May 28th 2008 12:45AM
Please tell me your kidding ...
The idiot festival continues!
zumakalis @ May 27th 2008 6:45PM
Why is everyone so enamored with the graphics in GRID. I
downloaded the demo when it was released and found nothing special about it (gameplay or graphics). To make a statement stating the graphics in GRID are better than GT5:P simply means you have never actually played GT5:P.
*side note* I deleted the GRID demo after an hour.
ZeroCorpse @ May 27th 2008 8:00PM
I have sex with your graphics!
AtomicPlayboy @ May 27th 2008 10:32PM
I'm sort of on the fence as to how to solve the nation's fanboy infestation. Euthanasia or forced sterilization? The former is effective, but unpopular and perhaps exteme. The latter is most likely unnecessary, given the breeding prospects of the group in question. Either way, we must protect future generations from the infantile ravings of this superlatively useless bunch, who would actually give a molecule of shit as to whether their favorite console was favored by others.
John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ May 28th 2008 12:48AM
I think your onto something here ... I am going to fund your research project ... Blank check is in the mail
EMOruffino @ May 27th 2008 11:34PM
im finally buying a PS3... i really could give a fuck on whats better. ill get all multi-console games for my 360 and the PS3 exclusive for the PS3. Problem goddamned solved.
John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ May 28th 2008 12:47AM
AMEN
I stopped buying games for my 360 after I had my 6th RROD since launch!
If your happy with it then by all means do so ... If it were not for a few games my 360 would have already been sold
Burnt Meatloaf @ May 28th 2008 6:51AM
Of course it's a tie.
It's ALWAYS a tie!
Please, enough of these comparisons unless there's an actual difference!
t_m @ May 28th 2008 9:40AM
Wow. So the console war is over, and it was a tie.
I never saw that coming! What are we gonna talk about on here now?
Oooh! I know... what's best, Pizza or Burgers? Personally I feel pizzas are best because they have more variation in toppings.
CZAR @ May 28th 2008 10:05AM
"PS3 conquers in shadowing and anti-aliasing (whatever all that means)."
Whatever all that means? Are you supposed to be a game blog? Isn't that common knowledge amongst us nerds?
WTF?!?!?!
jigzat @ May 30th 2008 3:23PM
@Scotto
I was about to say something like that. The PS3 strength is on processing power not graphics. Games that fully utilize PS3 cell processor will have more objects on screen or even better physics but right now we are stuck with multiplatform games that are supposed to be almost the same and lack of experience on asymmetric programming (PS3 Processor paradigm) which is a major problem for the whole software industry as is easier to develop for symmetric processors (XBOX360 latest INTEL Core) because you as a developer can develop the same way as always and still get some performance gain, but to fully utilize the processing power of both symmetric and asymmetric processors ( XBOX360 & PS3) you must program the same way.