Graphics: 360 has the best

if you look at ps3 exclusives like uncharted 2, yes they look really good. wanna know why? it's a VERY linear game with no open areas at all. the devs have control of everything. I have yet to see a semi open world game on ps3 like halo 3.

360 has a stronger GPU, but the un-unified RAM in the Ps3's GPU lets it send Graphical information to the CELL BE and BD, so the RSX has a lot more space to use for graphics total. So it depends on whether you're talking about the GPU itself(360 wins), or all the graphical capabilities combined(PS3 wins).

DuDZZ wrote:

The 360 by proof has a better gpu... which helps alot

Yup
check out this factual video


360 PWNZ!!

SonicandTails wrote:

sorry i took so long and it says the 360 graphics chip is much better then the PS3

i get 401 error.... link doesnt work

Coool ps3rd fanboys gonna cry now

This is indeed true. Wait is this SonicandTail4life? What is up?

i guess people forget the the cell can also produce graphics, they didnt get killzone and uncharted 2 on just the rsx....360's graphics are fine

Grunt06 wrote:

i guess people forget the the cell can also produce graphics, they didnt get killzone and uncharted 2 on just the rsx....360's graphics are fine

No its that people underestimate that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3.

2010 games prove this, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, ME2, Splinter Cell Conviction.

ghost23 wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

i guess people forget the the cell can also produce graphics, they didnt get killzone and uncharted 2 on just the rsx....360's graphics are fine

No its that people underestimate that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3.

2010 games prove this, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, ME2, Splinter Cell Conviction.

well from a hardware stand point the cell and the rsx both working on graphics cant be matched right now, its almost like having 2 gpu's in one system, im not saying 360 doesnt have some untaped potential but still idk about the best

Grunt06 wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

i guess people forget the the cell can also produce graphics, they didnt get killzone and uncharted 2 on just the rsx....360's graphics are fine

No its that people underestimate that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3.

2010 games prove this, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, ME2, Splinter Cell Conviction.

well from a hardware stand point the cell and the rsx both working on graphics cant be matched right now, its almost like having 2 gpu's in one system, im not saying 360 doesnt have some untaped potential but still idk about the best

3 if you include installed graphics on the BD disc. Still near equal grpahics.

3DO Was Something wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

i guess people forget the the cell can also produce graphics, they didnt get killzone and uncharted 2 on just the rsx....360's graphics are fine

No its that people underestimate that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3.

2010 games prove this, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, ME2, Splinter Cell Conviction.

well from a hardware stand point the cell and the rsx both working on graphics cant be matched right now, its almost like having 2 gpu's in one system, im not saying 360 doesnt have some untaped potential but still idk about the best

3 if you include installed graphics on the BD disc. Still near equal grpahics.

im not really gonna get started in this because why i am pro xbox 360 i do know what im talking about unlike half the people who just post shit, the reason 3rd party games look like shit on ps3 is because in order for a game to look good on ps3 it has to use a hybrid graphics engine, which means the engine cant just use the cpu for cpu work and the gpu work for the gpu! graphics engines that work well on ps3 are hybrid, meaning that while the gpu does do gpu work the cell aka cpu is also doing gpu work and off loading it onto the gpu. the main reason you have to install ps3 games to the harddrive is because the blu-ray drive in the ps3 only reads at 2x which is fast enough for movies but not games so alot of developers will put part of the game on the hardrive so it can load fast enough, when it comes down to it the 360 is more like a pc, while good for a short time its so called untapped potential will dwindle as the where the complex ps3 will take longer to excel and over time can push way more details in graphics when used the right way, developers are just now catching onto the ps3, the 360 can produce better graphics but the gap will start to increase between ps3 and 360 graphics, i love me 360 but from a tech stand point the ps3 will soon over excel the 360, but that doesnt mean better games! get schooled before you just post thinking that something is better based on what you heard

Both systems have bottlenecks, but the 360's bottleneck is greater than the PS3's. The GPU's are only as powerful as the entire system allows.

Grunt06 wrote:

3DO Was Something wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

i guess people forget the the cell can also produce graphics, they didnt get killzone and uncharted 2 on just the rsx....360's graphics are fine

No its that people underestimate that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3.

2010 games prove this, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, ME2, Splinter Cell Conviction.

well from a hardware stand point the cell and the rsx both working on graphics cant be matched right now, its almost like having 2 gpu's in one system, im not saying 360 doesnt have some untaped potential but still idk about the best

3 if you include installed graphics on the BD disc. Still near equal grpahics.

im not really gonna get started in this because why i am pro xbox 360 i do know what im talking about unlike half the people who just post shit, the reason 3rd party games look like shit on ps3 is because in order for a game to look good on ps3 it has to use a hybrid graphics engine, which means the engine cant just use the cpu for cpu work and the gpu work for the gpu! graphics engines that work well on ps3 are hybrid, meaning that while the gpu does do gpu work the cell aka cpu is also doing gpu work and off loading it onto the gpu. the main reason you have to install ps3 games to the harddrive is because the blu-ray drive in the ps3 only reads at 2x which is fast enough for movies but not games so alot of developers will put part of the game on the hardrive so it can load fast enough, when it comes down to it the 360 is more like a pc, while good for a short time its so called untapped potential will dwindle as the where the complex ps3 will take longer to excel and over time can push way more details in graphics when used the right way, developers are just now catching onto the ps3, the 360 can produce better graphics but the gap will start to increase between ps3 and 360 graphics, i love me 360 but from a tech stand point the ps3 will soon over excel the 360, but that doesnt mean better games! get schooled before you just post thinking that something is better based on what you heard

Mate, developers have said that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3, these people have degrees in computer science so you can't argue with them. I'm not going to go on pretending I understand a lot about hardware because I don't and I doubt you have the same knowledge as game developers.
While there are some components of hardware that the PS3 excels in, there are also a lot of components that the 360 excels in which the cells can't do.

Also when I hear about PS3 hardware, there are always a few constant terms, "potential", "future". It's as simple as this. I want to play good games NOW, not in five years. In five years, the PS3 might reach its full potential and shows us some pretty amazing graphics, but then new XBOX will be out and Sony once again will be playing catch up.

ghost23 wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

3DO Was Something wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

ghost23 wrote:

Grunt06 wrote:

i guess people forget the the cell can also produce graphics, they didnt get killzone and uncharted 2 on just the rsx....360's graphics are fine

No its that people underestimate that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3.

2010 games prove this, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, ME2, Splinter Cell Conviction.

well from a hardware stand point the cell and the rsx both working on graphics cant be matched right now, its almost like having 2 gpu's in one system, im not saying 360 doesnt have some untaped potential but still idk about the best

3 if you include installed graphics on the BD disc. Still near equal grpahics.

im not really gonna get started in this because why i am pro xbox 360 i do know what im talking about unlike half the people who just post shit, the reason 3rd party games look like shit on ps3 is because in order for a game to look good on ps3 it has to use a hybrid graphics engine, which means the engine cant just use the cpu for cpu work and the gpu work for the gpu! graphics engines that work well on ps3 are hybrid, meaning that while the gpu does do gpu work the cell aka cpu is also doing gpu work and off loading it onto the gpu. the main reason you have to install ps3 games to the harddrive is because the blu-ray drive in the ps3 only reads at 2x which is fast enough for movies but not games so alot of developers will put part of the game on the hardrive so it can load fast enough, when it comes down to it the 360 is more like a pc, while good for a short time its so called untapped potential will dwindle as the where the complex ps3 will take longer to excel and over time can push way more details in graphics when used the right way, developers are just now catching onto the ps3, the 360 can produce better graphics but the gap will start to increase between ps3 and 360 graphics, i love me 360 but from a tech stand point the ps3 will soon over excel the 360, but that doesnt mean better games! get schooled before you just post thinking that something is better based on what you heard

Mate, developers have said that the 360 has the same graphics potential as the PS3, these people have degrees in computer science so you can't argue with them. I'm not going to go on pretending I understand a lot about hardware because I don't and I doubt you have the same knowledge as game developers.
While there are some components of hardware that the PS3 excels in, there are also a lot of components that the 360 excels in which the cells can't do.

Also when I hear about PS3 hardware, there are always a few constant terms, "potential", "future". It's as simple as this. I want to play good games NOW, not in five years. In five years, the PS3 might reach its full potential and shows us some pretty amazing graphics, but then new XBOX will be out and Sony once again will be playing catch up.

most developers who say that are working on the 360, the 360 is basically an outdated computer, by the time they reach full potential of the ps3 the next batch of systems will be here, all the 360 has is a tri-core cpu running at 3.2 ghz which the intel or amd counterpart can be found in most computer stores today, yes the 360's gpu is better then the ps3's but its also pretty old tech, in order for us to see the full power of the 360 hardware is for them to put games on multiple disk, because really high textures and graphics require alot of space, the biggest place where ps3 can excel is the blu-ray, why it cant read fast enough to play alot of games without installing the 50gb disk size is good for over doing textures and graphics! sorry "mate" but if you heard a developer say that then they are probably working on 360, im not saying it doesnt have some untapped power but at this point why does it really matter when we have already had amazing games on 360 that dont set the bar for graphics, to be honest i think 360 graphics will look a tad bit better then gears of war 2 when it does hit its top power, but reach seems to be interesting because they are rebuilding the graphics engine from the ground up for 360, so we will see

dont qoute that please ..... it took a while for my sucky laptop to scroll down

Lt Xplosi wrote:

dont qoute that please ..... it took a while for my sucky laptop to scroll down

lol sorry

Grunt06 wrote:

Lt Xplosi wrote:

dont qoute that please ..... it took a while for my sucky laptop to scroll down

lol sorry

lol it is okay mate i qoute spamm still unaware of it just that my laptops mouse scroll doesnt work i have to use the funny holding tablet down thing scroll

Uncharted 2 > Killzone 2 > Final Fantasy 13 >God of war3 >Alan Wake > Heavy Rain and Splinter Cell


In terms of graphics , just my opinion and just the games that came to my mind!

Good Zahn wrote:

Uncharted 2 > Killzone 2 > Final Fantasy 13 >God of war3 >Alan Wake > Heavy Rain and Splinter Cell


In terms of graphics , just my opinion and just the games that came to my mind!

lol....umm....CRYSIS!!!!!!

my list was only about console games, because u cant really compare pc games, because of the many different hardware setups. At the most PC Crysis sucks.

Good Zahn wrote:

my list was only about console games, because u cant really compare pc games, because of the many different hardware setups. At the most PC Crysis sucks.

lol...yes you can they are the same thing besides better graphics, and crysis is awesome

Damn you gotta love 404 error

u guys honestly believe that 360 has better graphics just because of the framerate? cmon u guys are sad, im a 360 owner and you guys are just being very biased towards 360, ive seen my friend playing killzone and that game was said to have low framerate, i didin't see a problem it looked great, framerate doesnt mean shit unless its super low which no next gen game has,

KillzoneKilla wrote:

u guys honestly believe that 360 has better graphics just because of the framerate? cmon u guys are sad, im a 360 owner and you guys are just being very biased towards 360, ive seen my friend playing killzone and that game was said to have low framerate, i didin't see a problem it looked great, framerate doesnt mean shit unless its super low which no next gen game has,

well yes and no...any frame rate over 28 is good, our human eyes cant see the difference after that, thats why most dont go under 30 fps but if you want to see a game that has low fps on 360 go pick up quake 4, its a joke sometimes on that game!

KillzoneKilla wrote:

u guys honestly believe that 360 has better graphics just because of the framerate? cmon u guys are sad, im a 360 owner and you guys are just being very biased towards 360, ive seen my friend playing killzone and that game was said to have low framerate, i didin't see a problem it looked great, framerate doesnt mean shit unless its super low which no next gen game has,

Thats where you're wrong. I would much rather a steady frame rate with good graphics than amazing graphics but a shitty frame rate.

Take ME1 for example, that looked amazing for its time but the frame rate was just like a kick in the balls for me.