360 Graphics > Ps3 Graphics!

I wonder if this could be true.
I saw this Gamespot thread:

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26168810

And it brought lots of stuff to my attention and built upon stuff I had already noticed.
Eg: Uncharted 2.
According to one of the guys in there it uses procedural textures.
Also that sort of ties in with one thing I noticed when playing Uncharted 2, the up close texture detail isn't as good as a lot of games I've seen. For example, Gears Of War. Unfortunately I can't find any pics on the internet of actual close-ups of UC2's textures (funny huh....how a game with apparently breathtaking graphics is shown in all the pics only from a distance?)
But here is a pic of ground in gears:

https://2img.net/h/oi42.tinypic.com/2925l6c.jpg

And here's a pic of a brick wall in Gears:




(In case you didn't notice, if you look up close to the brick walls in Uncharted, they are FLAT! There is no sign of them sticking out, unlike in Gears Of War)

But there's one thing in that thread that really shocked me. One person said how Uncharted 2's textures don't match Perfect Dark Zero's. I couldn't believe this at first because PDZ was a very early Xbox 360 title.
Though, surprisingly, they were right:
https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img525/7213/pdz042qk8.jpg
https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img139/9978/pdz5ny3.jpg

Okay, imo the character models are awful in PDZ but it's funny isn't it, how the "beast" that is Uncharted 2 and what ps3 owners claim can't be done on 360, has had games that not only rival it's graphics but even have slightly better graphics in areas, than it. http://img.jeuxvideo.fr/00208374-photo-perfect-dark-zero.jpg



What do you guys think?

Shhh, PS3 fanboys might hear you.

You know, the zooming in crap is absolutely retarded. It reminds me of when people went batshit insane about Alan Wake not being fully 720p after they zoomed in. The fact is, it's all irrelevant. If you need to zoom in to notice something, it is irrelevant. Because you wouldn't notice while playing, so really, who cares? Part of this relies on art design as well. Gears is a fantastic looking game, but I find U2 to look even better. It doesn't matter what the developer did to make a game look good, all that matters is that it looks good.

But people claiming that it can't be done on the 360 are fools. The PS3 isn't as good with textures, though, and that's been known since launch. And, while the PS3's potential is greater than that of the 360's, it isn't by much.

TheJester wrote:

You know, the zooming in crap is absolutely retarded. It reminds me of when people went batshit insane about Alan Wake not being fully 720p after they zoomed in. The fact is, it's all irrelevant. If you need to zoom in to notice something, it is irrelevant. Because you wouldn't notice while playing, so really, who cares? Part of this relies on art design as well. Gears is a fantastic looking game, but I find U2 to look even better. It doesn't matter what the developer did to make a game look good, all that matters is that it looks good.

But people claiming that it can't be done on the 360 are fools. The PS3 isn't as good with textures, though, and that's been known since launch. And, while the PS3's potential is greater than that of the 360's, it isn't by much.

Uncharted 2 has amazing lighting and post processing. Though IMO AW has better lighting and PP effects. Alan Wake's native resolution is actually alot closer to 720p considering that textures, shadow maps, post processing effects + HUD, run 720p or higher. Plus AW's framebuffer resolution is 720p before it hits the X360's output scaler. They reduced the opaque geometry resolution to use 4xMSAA with no real performance penalty. Good trade off IMHO. Keeping a mostly 720p image with 4xMSAA > full 720p image with 2xMSAA. But yea, resolution shouldn't determine which game looks better even on a technical level. AW's framebuffer took up 80 MBs of space on the RAM, that's like twenty times as much as a regular 720p buffer...so obviously it's more important on what detail goes on each pixel instead of the quantity of the pixels.

Some games have better graphics on 360 and some on PS3. I for one did not think UC2's graphics were that great. Yeah, the draw distance looks great but other than that it didnt have much.

Quote :

The lack of environmental damage in the game[Uncharted 2] is also disappointing. Sure the game looks better than Gears of War et al., but at least they let you shoot up the scenery.

-Gamepro http://www.gamepro.com.au/slideshow/332675/nine_most_overrated_games_2009/?image=14

Alan1994 wrote:

Shhh, PS3 fanboys might hear you.

Lmao! Good, I want them to

TheJester wrote:

You know, the zooming in crap is absolutely retarded. It reminds me of when people went batshit insane about Alan Wake not being fully 720p after they zoomed in. The fact is, it's all irrelevant. If you need to zoom in to notice something, it is irrelevant. Because you wouldn't notice while playing, so really, who cares? Part of this relies on art design as well. Gears is a fantastic looking game, but I find U2 to look even better. It doesn't matter what the developer did to make a game look good, all that matters is that it looks good.

But people claiming that it can't be done on the 360 are fools. The PS3 isn't as good with textures, though, and that's been known since launch. And, while the PS3's potential is greater than that of the 360's, it isn't by much.

I agree slightly. If you want to argue that the system is capable of better graphics than the other system, you don't need to zoom in but you need to look close at the textures and prove that when you're playing the game, there's good texture quality always there. In terms of reviewing a game's graphics, yeah it's not necessary to zoom in as such.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Some games have better graphics on 360 and some on PS3. I for one did not think UC2's graphics were that great. Yeah, the draw distance looks great but other than that it didnt have much.

Yeah, I guess you're right. But I had to point out that the guys who say Uncharted 2 isn't possible on 360 are stupid.
I was talking to a guy on youtube, he's an amigo of mine now but we still like to have console debates, and he's convinced 360 can't handle games like Uncharted 2 and so while I was searching for pics to back up my argument, I stumbled across that gamespot thread and it enlightened me even further

demondragondude wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Some games have better graphics on 360 and some on PS3. I for one did not think UC2's graphics were that great. Yeah, the draw distance looks great but other than that it didnt have much.

Yeah, I guess you're right. But I had to point out that the guys who say Uncharted 2 isn't possible on 360 are stupid.
I was talking to a guy on youtube, he's an amigo of mine now but we still like to have console debates, and he's convinced 360 can't handle games like Uncharted 2 and so while I was searching for pics to back up my argument, I stumbled across that gamespot thread and it enlightened me even further

People who think that are stupid. The 360's power is way underrated, it is possible of so much more. Maybe not as much as PS3, but everything on PS3 so far can be done on 360. Just maybe needs multiple discs. 360 is actually very powerful.

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech. If PS3 is indeed more powerful its not by very much despite what PS3 fanboys would like to believe.

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. PS3 has immense processing power as well as bluray storage. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Exactly. Jeeze, I wish there were more people like you on the internet, people who actually know what they are talking about!

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Exactly. Jeeze, I wish there were more people like you on the internet, people who actually know what they are talking about!

Thank you,sir. The same compliment back to you.

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech. If PS3 is indeed more powerful its not by very much despite what PS3 fanboys would like to believe.

QFT!

I've heard a lot of mixed stuff about the ps3's power actually.

One site says Sony never released the specs of the rsx or something
One site says that the SPE thingys which ps3 has, can't work together with the cell itself or something like that.
One site says ps3 can handle physics better than 360, which may be right
One says 360 can handle better texture detail, which is probably right
One site also says the opposite.

My stance is that they're pretty much equal and even if it were true that Uncharted 2 looks better than any 360 game (which I agree with to a certain extent - I just think the texture detail isn't the best), 360 could handle it if it had it and it will get games that look better than it. Over time different games raise the standards. For example, for a while Gears was the best looking game of the two systems, so it seemed 360 was more powerful, until ps3 got games that began looking better and if you wait, 360 will do the same.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Some games have better graphics on 360 and some on PS3. I for one did not think UC2's graphics were that great. Yeah, the draw distance looks great but other than that it didnt have much.

Yeah, I guess you're right. But I had to point out that the guys who say Uncharted 2 isn't possible on 360 are stupid.
I was talking to a guy on youtube, he's an amigo of mine now but we still like to have console debates, and he's convinced 360 can't handle games like Uncharted 2 and so while I was searching for pics to back up my argument, I stumbled across that gamespot thread and it enlightened me even further

People who think that are stupid. The 360's power is way underrated, it is possible of so much more. Maybe not as much as PS3, but everything on PS3 so far can be done on 360. Just maybe needs multiple discs. 360 is actually very powerful.

Yes I definately agree. But the funny thing is, even if ps3 were realllly a lot more powerful than 360, most multiplats look better on 360 and so if you look at the libraries, 360 on the whole has better graphics and ps3 only excels in 1st party.
But yeah I agree with you.

Thing is, as much as I love 360 and consider it a better system I can see why different people would love ps3 even more. I have to admit that they are equal systems for different reasons.

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. PS3 has immense processing power as well as bluray storage. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Omg how did you find all that stuff out?! XD

demondragondude wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. PS3 has immense processing power as well as bluray storage. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Omg how did you find all that stuff out?! XD

The internet is your friend lol

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. PS3 has immense processing power as well as bluray storage. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Omg how did you find all that stuff out?! XD

The internet is your friend lol

Hehe actually it's Google is your friend ;P

But I meant how did he understand it? Because every time I look at that kind of stuff I never understand it at all!

demondragondude wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. PS3 has immense processing power as well as bluray storage. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Omg how did you find all that stuff out?! XD

The internet is your friend lol

Hehe actually it's Google is your friend ;P

But I meant how did he understand it? Because every time I look at that kind of stuff I never understand it at all!

Well, if he is anything like me, he just learned what it meant from the internet, like i did.

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. PS3 has immense processing power as well as bluray storage. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Nice explanation. That really proves that the 360 has a load of power left in it.

lets not forget that at the time, the 360 had the best looking game ever, Gears of War

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

demondragondude wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Master_Chief wrote:

Those PDZ shots really show the advantages of the unified shader architecture that the 360 GPU has as well as being better at textures. PS3 seems to excel at more CPU related tasks. Both consoles are pretty comparable in "power" with each having their own strengths and their own weakness. At least thats my take on it as an owner of both consoles and some research I've done on the tech.

I absolutely agree. The 360 has a better GPU but the PS3 CPU is very good which takes some of the power off of its GPU.

Exactly. The cell can take over some rendering tasks taking some of the work off of the GPU. The cell cant do stuff like pixel shading so thats one of the tasks that the RSX GPU will do. But in that category the Xenos GPU has an advantage with more advanced shader effects. Also the 360 has access to more texture memory due to the unified RAM as opposed to the split RAM on the PS3. PS3 has immense processing power as well as bluray storage. Both are very powerful machines each in their own way.

Omg how did you find all that stuff out?! XD

The internet is your friend lol

Hehe actually it's Google is your friend ;P

But I meant how did he understand it? Because every time I look at that kind of stuff I never understand it at all!

Well, if he is anything like me, he just learned what it meant from the internet, like i did.

Yep, thats what I did too.

This explains why 360 hardware is better.

I was kinda disappointed when I found out Uncharted 2's cut-scenes were pre-rendered using the in-game engine (I thought they were all real-time) which made my jaw-drop, not as spectacular now I know its not real-time.

But look at God of War 3. All its cut-scenes are real time and its the best game I've seen this gen and one of the best I played.

What Im trying to get at his I'd love to see MS release/publish a game that can rival the likes of GoW 3 in terms of graphics (Possibly Gears 3?)

Like what they did in 06 with Gears 1. That just blew me away when I first played it. I havent got that feeling on the 360 since then. (Im only regarding graphics not gameplay)

DarkSwarm85 wrote:

This explains why 360 hardware is better.

Love that vid.
The guy seems so educated.