GTA IV, quite famously, was delayed from being a 2007 release to being a 2008 release because of problems Rockstar were having with the Playstation 3 version of the game. And now Codemasters admit that whilst the Microsoft Xbox 360 version of Grid runs at a solid 30 fps the Playstation 3 version doesn’t. These are just two of the latest of a long stream of disappointments with the comparative performance of the PS3. What is happening here?
The enormous power of a modern game console comes from two processors working together. The CPU (Central Processing Unit) and the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit). Console manufacturers have traditionally bought in CPUs from manufacturers such as Intel and IBM whilst GPUs have come from the likes of nVidia and ATI.
For the PS3 Sony wanted to have a technology advantage so they developed, in conjunction with Toshiba and IBM, the Cell processor. A clean sheet design with many innovations this took $400 million and four years to develop. The intention was to use two of these in the PS3, one as CPU and one as GPU. However at the last minute Sony realised that the Cell GPU wasn’t up to the job so they went to nVidia and bought their 7800GTX GPU. This gave them a number of disadvantages:
- It wasn’t designed or optimised as a console GPU. It was designed and optimised as a PC GPU.
- The whole architecture of the console was compromised by the last minute change.
- The 7800GTX has less raw processing power than the Microsoft Xbox 360 GPU.
Microsoft had their fingers burnt by not owning the chips in the original Xbox, so for the 360 they decided that they wanted to own the rights to both processors. They sat down and co designed their GPU with ATI. By doing this they were able to optimise it’s capabilities for video game playing and also they were able to design it into the elegant system architecture of the Xbox 360. They also gave it a lot of raw power.
So although the Platstation 3 has a more powerful CPU than the Xbox 360 it seems to be less powerful as a gaming machine. And real world results with real games have so far proved this. As Richard Huddy of ATI said in an Edge magazine interview: “I think Xbox 360 technology is likely to outperform PlayStation 3 technology by a pretty healthy margin in the long run.” It looks like the GPU is holding the PS3 back.
118 comments ↓
This is totally biased, the PS3 has amazing games, look at the graphics in uncharted and ratchet and clank
hey brucie boy, stop with the flamebait comments, when games like Uncharted, MGS4, KZ2, Wipeout HD, and the soon to be revealed Resistance 2 are made and are superior to 360 games, then your statement automatically fails.
No. It’s a myth perpetrated by fantrolls.
There are PS3 games that look better than the 360 version. And that’s only using RSX. PS3 was designed so Cell could assist in graphics. The first game to use it is Killzone 2 which is being touted as the best looking game short of Crysis.
To all comments above. To anyone having done development on both platforms, Bruce’s comments are obvious.
The RSX is weak, get over it already.
This doesn’t prevent talented studios making PS3 exclusive low polygon, low texture memory games that look very nice indeed.
Outside of the console world, Blizzard is one of those studios who seem to know how to make 3 and half triangles look gorgeous.
I think the problem isn’t writing something specifically for the PS3 but trying to port something that was developed on the 360.
If you develop on the lowest powered chipset first and get that running smoothly at 30/60 fps then the ported version will be able to run at that speed, and then some.
This is kind of proved by Burnout Paradise, which was developed for the PS3 first then ported to the 360. Both versions run quite happily at 60fps.
The problem with this article is that it’s not looking at the games that stand out. You have a game like Mass Effect, but it comes to a crawl. You have Halo 3, but it’s far from 720p. You have Lost Odyssey, and it comes to a crawl. You have NG2, and it has framerate problems.
You then compare probably the best looking MP game out there, CoD4, and they both run the same.
Then you look at a 720p game like Uncharted that takes the cake so far without having to go into slideshow mode when there’s any kind of action on screen…
How biased is this review, 360 and PS3 may be equals at this time, but they definitely do not outperform each other, and speaking of ports, it always depends on the developers to spend time on each system. DMC4, Burnout all run at 60 fps, and there are other games as well. If you have a game specifically for PS3 such as MGS4, KZ2, Ratchet, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword they have definitely shown improvement from the rival system in terms in sound as well as visuals. The Nvidia technology at the time of the ATI card being implemented in each gaming system, shows the 7800GTX definitely being the superior at that time. Do some research before just flame baiting.
Sounds to me as another victory for xbox 360 and the ps3 boys are spitting there dummies out again
It’s funny to me how often people say the 360 is better then the ps3 or the other way around. I own both systems and I play the games that are fun to play. The only reason I choose 360 over PS3 is because of the achievements.The PS3 is going to get this same basic concept pretty soon so the only reason I would have to choose between the two systems is what one has better proformance, and the past shows,that the 360 win most of the time… If or when the PS3 starts to show it is the system Sony want us to believe it is I will be glad to choose their version. Until then, Bring on the 360 games…
Like the above comment the problem is when working a the same game on both platforms. There’s always one platform (360/P3) thats the lead platform then ported over to the rest. Most of the time the devs pick the 360 as the lead platform since a lot more find it easier to work on. Devs have said time and time again how much different the hardware is between the 360/PS3.
The PS3 can still display some great games and so far their exlusive titles always edge out any third party game on the PS3. Uncharted is easily one of its best looking games and its right up there with anything else thats out now. The quality in Uncharted is amazing and I really don’t see the PS3 GPU holding it back.
Bruce get with it it is not the hardware but the developer that is issue in performace of the games, when gaqmes are made (properly on the PS3 BOOM you have greatness, hence GT/ RATCHET/DRAKE ect ect,the 360 just can,t compare.
Xbox 1 had more powerful hardware than PS2, but the PS2 had better games. If you want to be a graphics whore, game on a PC, but they beat anything on consoles hands-down.
Get a console for the games, and don’t let idiots on the internet make you feel bad. Each console has its share of good exclusives, and you should get a console based on its games, not on any potential hardware advantage, since graphics do not equal a great game.
what that i smell do i smell the bullshit factor, the gta 4 for ps3 and 360 both run at same fps, the ps3 graphics rules look at games like mgs4 (ps3 exculsive), killzone 2(ps3 exclusive), gt5 (ps3 exclusive), the getaway 3 (ps3 excusive) the list could go on and on with great ps3 games. anyway the point is the ps3 rules over the 360 for power and performance and graphics processing.
Does this author even play games?! Because he obviously has no idea what he’s talking about. Rockstar said that problems on BOTH consoles led to the delay… the reason was speculation, as Rockstar never revealed the actual problems they were having. Secondly, virtually every review has confirmed that the PS3 version of GTA IV is the superior version; with a sharper image, less pop in, less load time, & slightly smoother play. Lastly, most games in the last seven months have either been equal on both consoles, or better on the PS3. This article is about 7-8 months too late to be taken seriously, horrible journalism.
to all, 1. the ps3 has a totaly diffrent rendering system and dosen’t need as much prosesing power.
It should also be noted that the best looking game on any of the consoles right now is on the PS3… Uncharted and MGS4 say “Hello, come take a look!” I don’t think we will see the 360 produce anything comparable until Gears 2 finally gets here.
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1
this artical compairs the raw prosesing power of both the ps3 & X-box 360 CPU and GPU. also keep in mind that the ps3 has a diffrent rendring system and needs less prosesing power.
I agree with Darren, Burnout Paradise developers thought the PS3 platform was best and the game shows why. If they can do it, why not the rest?
The real problem is developers going the CHEAP way of porting instead of building from ground up.
Save your money for quality games and these offenders will automatically come in line or be Wiped Out HD for ever.
By far,the months most biased,ignorant,and poorly written article on Video games.Congrats Bruce,you are well on your way to Kotaku status!
“And real world results with real games have so far proved this.”
*Sigh* What real world results are you talking about?Because as an owner of BOTH the Ps3 and the Xbox 360,I can EASILY tell you AND prove to you,that the best looking game across both platforms this generation is none other than Gran Turismo Prologue.There is literally NO game on the Xbox 360 that has graphics equivalent to and or surpassing GTP,and I’m more of a Forza fan.So who to believe;A marketer that has zero proof to back up his claims and assumptions,or a gamer who has both consoles,an HD screen,and the best looking titles on both?
Here’s the irony of your flawed logic;Not only is the best looking game of this gen on Sony’s platform,but the NEXT best looking game after GT5P,is also a Sony exclusive.Take a guess at which game I’m talking about,I’ll even give you a hint;It rhymes with Departed.
i own both systems and ps3 ovrall is more powerfull but yea the 360 has better online and more games but in the end ps3 is a better system ovrall , PS3’s rsx gpu is based prety much as 7800/7900GTX and the 360 gpu is more powerfull then the ATI 1900 PS3 CPU is 2x as powerfull then the 360 cpu , but both Nvidia and ATI give differnt looks of graphics ATI is more like PIPELINES AND VERTEX SHADERS while Nvidia cards are Transistors prety much and when u port a 360 game to a ps3 not good but if its just worked on ps3 or exclusive to ps3 it will look much better!
Do you know anything about the ps3. If I remember correctly the ps3 was built similiarly to the ps2 with one and several different processors rather than leaving all the processing dedicated to one processor, and like the ps2 developers are only making ports of 360 games using only the gpu since there hasnt been any company besides 1st party and konami to really delve in the power in the playstation 3. for instance all ea games. why take the time and investment of programming a new game of the same game when you can just port it over. Next time get your story straight and do more research….Sony fanboy lol.
Right so how do you explain uncharted and Gran Turismo 5: prologue? Now go on name me a game which has better graphics than them on a console?
Now answer this, if the GPU is so weak how do you explain the little graphical powerhouse known as Killzone 2?
Now it’s recomended that you research before you post, the RSX doesn’t process all the calculations, its job is shared with the Cell.
Very biased review full of non truths. I have all 3 next gen systems and after playing the best that each has to offer at this time I can honestly say without no bias that the PS3 has the best all around games so far.
Drakes, Ratchet, Heavenly, Warhawk, RFOM, GT, Motorstorm have been much better exclusives than the 360 has to offer. I enjoyed GOW, Halo, BioShock and Mass Effect but they seemed high def games of a previous genre.
The PS3 games stated above were innovative. I have finished some of them over 5 times.
With no bias, so far the PS3 is leading the 360 in overall excitement of this generation.
The Xbox 360 GPU also happens to be responsible for the high failure rates on the whole hardware, with so much been generated by the GPU, the cheap ass soldering cant handle such temperatures. Its funny how you point out that Sony did some “last minute” changes to the hardware. Well Im glad it went that way, since thanks to those “Last Minute Changes” my PS3 after 18 months of heavy usage with Blu Rays, Music, Games, and DVD. Its still running as good as it was the very first time I purchased it. Im so glad I have a reliable system, do you feel that confident about your precious ATI GPU powered system?????
It’s very interesting how the ps3 owners always talk about the future… They can play games that doesn’t even has a release date… Maybe it’s because they already finished Uncharted forty times and there is nothing else to do while wait for MG4…
It’s very sad.
nVidia has said themselves that the RSX was specificly made for the PS3. So the claim it was made for PC is a lie. Also it was always ment that the Cell processor and RSX was to work together.
The developers are just having a hard to getting a hold on the new cell technology, has nothing to do with the RSX, and are having trouble learning how to get the cell and RSX to work together right which is why Sony is sending out helpers to the devs.
So really this whole article is a massive lie.
oh and its funny that Brucie left out that because of Micorsoft’s decision to make their own GPU that it caused billions of dollars in lose because of the RROD that was caused by a poor GPU.
Brucie is a very obvious X-box fan.
Like everyone says Its a whole different ball game from a multi platform game to an exclusives.
I’ll admit looking at the PS3 and Xbox 360 on a Multi platform game, Xbox usually has an edge over certain aspects of its graphics e.g lighting, fps. Games like Grid and Madden are good examples. Madden ran at only 30fps on PS3. Grid looks slightly better on the Xbox ( This is based on a comparison Video I saw),but when it boils down to each consoles exclusives, PS3 Exclusives look better, had more time put in to them.
When the PS3 first came out and just before it came out it was surrounded by all this negative buzz which In turn I believe made any Developer think that Xbox360 was going to win the Next Gen Fight. Therefore I reckon they spent more time on the Xbox Side of things when developing a multi platform game.
At the end of the day like someone said before PC graphics will always be better, but at a hefty sum and even then when you get a good Graphics Card there is a better one coming out.
Personally I think Consoles are better for people who want a good Gaming system that can’t be updated so it makes you feel like everyone else who owns one is the same as you which is true. The Only thing a console can seem different is how good a TV you have, The cable connecting it, How good your Sound system is and how good your internet connection is. I think in a few years PS3 will have equal or better graphics in its multi platform games.
And next time round you can Guarantee that the Consoles will kick ass, PS4 when it releases will make sure it has the best of everything and a good entertainment box. It will Have XMB and Home and all the other things ready,because Sony will have learned it’s lesson this time round. It’s made a few mistakes, but Sony know these ones and expect them to be picked out.
The Xbox540 or 720 or whatever you want to call it, Will address its RROD issue Hopefully, lose its fee’s and have everything ironed out that you hear about as well as them over charging for extras, it should all be built in ready to go no more fee’s.
Anyways Enjoy your consoles. Don’t argue about them. I own a PS3 and I love it though I am sick of Delays and things Taking to long. I also want more Kick Ass Actions and promises to be kept. But I also want to obtain an Xbox 360 because that has some good asspect’s to it to.
try getting mgs4 on a 360 disc ,uncharted,resistance 2,gt5,final fantasy etc forget specs for a minute what about space hd needs it dvd hasn,t got it.gt5 runs at 1080p,60fps no 360 title as done this yet,ng2 hd settings 545 n.g.s 1080p 60fps,bottom line cost to develop simple as.gears of war 2 exspect 545 to 620 tops in the hd department and will have same fate as ng2 pop ups galore and frame drops joker
u see if there is an article stating the truth…everyone who is a ps3 fanboy jumps on it quick… tryn to stomp it out as though its a fire that was just started in their living room.. i mean cmon really… if ur like your console, keep it to yourself. Why are you trying to convince the rest of the world ps3 is better. Do you own stock in sony? Or are you employed by them? lol if not get a life….
The problem is too obvious.. Anything that is Developed on 360 then ported to PS3 will never use the strengths of the PS3.. If developers ever began using the PS3 as the lead platform, then porting to Xbox 360 the same problem would occour.. they would have to tone down the graphics etc.. it is true that the PS3 is harder to program for, but it is also true that is is capable of turning more “flops”.. really at this point its up to the devs, but I can tell you NO MATTER WHAT.. which ever platform something is developed for, it will look best on that platform. Whatever platform it is ported to will always look like poo comparatively.. unless they spend MEGA time rewriting alost all of the code to be optmized.. and devs are cheap.. they wont do that..
I think there are many nice looking games for both systems. For me there are two important titles on PS 3 only: Gran Turismo and MGS 4. And the only 360 title I’d like to play is coming to PS 3 too: Bioshock.
Never thought about a 360 so far. Motorstorm, Uncharted, GT 5 Prologue and MGS 4 unmask this review as biased.
This article tells it like it is. PS3 has been out 2 years and still gets out performed by 360. Sony lied to its fans and now the sony fanboys are crying bitter tears.
Here is a test, put a kickass cpu in a computer, put in an average video card. Then put a lesser cpu in the computer and put in a kickass video card. You tell me which will provide the better gaming experience on average.
This if for Jake , the games u named for the PS3 no offense but they sucked for u to say that these games are far better than the 360 is rediculous and im sony fan. but im not going to deny that the 360 has done a better job than sony at releasing there games and designing there console. What is the problem with sony and the development of there gamse and the cancelation of there games such as 8 days and the getaway which will never be developed.The games u named are good games no doubt and disrespect to thoses developers but they are not better than any of the 360 exclusives and to say that just means that love sony and find any excuse to put them on top.There is only one game that sony has that will legendary and that MGS4 and that game took almost five years to be completed.
The article is correct. But teh cell…!!!
lol Cell is good for playing games like CHESS.
If Sony had stuck with their original vision maybe PS3 would be good…………
A couple of years from now we’ll all look back on this and laugh as we play our PS3s.
Metal Gear Solid 4 is the most graphically impressive game ever released on any console ever. This shows that even if the hardware isn’t optimized as it could be, clever programming can work around it. This will not even be a topic of conversation in another year or two when other developers finally stop being lazy (they won’t be able to ignore the PS3 install base any longer) and optimize their code for the system.
how are the developers being lazy when cost millions to make a game and when a developer like niga theory create a game on the PS3 only they dont even break even and so now there future titles are multiplatform and the sony fan boys get all upset but no one supported there game and the game was good. Its amazing how we call developers lazy when the best decision is to save money as much as possible when making a game. And its obvious that its a smart decision to develop games on the 360 cause most developers are doin it
The GPU isn’t holding back the PS3, its the Bluray drive. Look at how many AAA games requiring a harddrive install in gigs before you can start playing it.
to one of the above comments, Getaway 3 was discontinued.. games on the ps3 look great, so i dont see it holding the system back.
look both system look stellar, i mean be happy for both of them, you could be stuck with Wii graphics.
Look at the exclusives, as it’s clear to see, that even with a 1 year headstart, and despite being more tricky to program for, the PS3 exclusives far outclass the 360 exclusives.
Paper specs show the RSX and Xenos to be very close on spec, each one has it’s advantages and disadvantages, however the real power is how the PS3 can use the Cell AND the RSX together.
Quote:The PS3 rendering architecture is designed to be used like this:
The PPE functions as a controller for the entire system.
The SPEs function as the heavy lifters for game logic, physics, and dynamic vertex work. They also are used for some pixel work.
(I’ve been saying the exact same thing folks)
The RSX functions as the main pixel painter, but it is also used for static geometry.
A PS3 engine will start off with the PPE spawning off tasks to the SPEs and acting as the central control point for the engine. Static geometry is put onto the RSX. PPEs start cranking through tasks in parallel, usually setup to double buffer the data they operate on. A SPE will have its code uploaded, then it starts a DMA fetch for its initial data into to one half its local memory, and then it starts ping ponging back and forth: work through one half the local memory while the second half is being DMAed in, then swap. Ideally you have it setup so that you are effectively hiding almost all of your data loading latencies with the double buffer setup and chaining SPEs together where you do animation, deformation, physics, transformation, lighting all going on in parallel.
The heavy vertex work being done, that data is then sent off to the RSX to be rasterized along with the resident static vertex data. So in effect the PS3’s Cell RSX combo is one giant unified rendering system. Depending on the nature of your game, your division of labor between the RSX and Cell will be different. It is entirely possible to do all vertex work on Cell or none. And the same for pixel painting.
What the design of the PS3’s rendering architecture brings to developers is the unification of your physics, collision, dynamics, and geometry. On systems like desktop pcs or the 360 you have a division between your geometric data and collision/physics data with each of them sitting in GPU and CPU space respectively. The latest Factor 5 interview talks in general about this design of the PS3 and the Lair engine.
The RSX does exactly what it was designed to do, have the pixel painting power to handle 1080p output. The extra vertex power is a nice addition. The RSX in isolation is not very interesting to talk about. Or is a comparison to standard desktop graphics cards or the Xenos.
The points about the graphics processors in the article are valid, and very impressive things can be done with the PS3’s cell processor to assist the graphics rendering, but anyway my point is..
Killzone 2, MGS4, GT5 DEMO, may well look impressive graphically, but developers aren’t going to spend 5 years and millions of moolah developing a game to take advantage of the PS3.
Argue all you want fanboys about which console has the better hardware. It’s all about developing software at the end of the day, and the xbox 360 SDK offers so much more to a developer than the PS3 SDK. That will keep the xbox 360 ahead of the PS3.
How come no-one talks about Haze anymore by the way?
tell u what… why dont u donate about 15 mil to a company so that it looks good…. rather then spend the 1 mil to put it on 360 lol…
ah come on guys…
this is getting boring. why do sony fanboys claim that msg4 is the best looking game???? have you played it yet? are you even willing to look exactly at the graphics when you play it? if you do you will find a lot of low res textures etc (you can tell by the videos)… but do you care? no… you just love to play an awesome game with GOOD graphics! every game from the other side (xbox360) will be dissed for every graphical flaw it has without looking at the game itself!
GET A LIFE! and get a girlfriend! GOSH!
why do you thing development of killzone 2 etc etc takes so long? just because of fun? no it’s HARD to programm for the ps3! thats a fact and every company has HIGHER cost and a low install base (look at your software sales). they don’t wanna close their studios… you want that???? thats why a lot of developers go multiplatform!
and it’s better for you customers because competition keeps the efforts of the developers high… or do you want a monopoly? (think of the hundreds of ****** games for the ps2 and now the wii)
ENJOY YOUR CONSOLE AND YOUR GAMES! don’t be jealous just because!!!!
but fact is that bluray is (beside of the low streaming speed and the often necessary installation) better for bigger an more epic games! sad microsoft made the mistake with the dvd… and be happy otherwise there would be few you could be “proud” of.
but in the end i don’t care… too old to be biased
maybe i could help some fanboys of realising how you are controlled by the multinational companys
hammerzeit
“elegant system architecture of the Xbox 360″ Lol!
Bruce,you are a fanboy in disguise!!!
You mean ATI was bashing the nVidia powered PS3? This is completely shocking to me…
This statement is FALSE:
“The intention was to use two of these in the PS3, one as CPU and one as GPU.”
The original plan was to have the CELL work as both the CPU and the GPU, when the engineers realized the CELL fell short of this goal they when with a last minute change with the help of NVIDIA. The RSX is NOT the same GPU as the 7800GT’s but similar. In the initial dev kits 7800GT GPUs were used, but soon after NVIDIA designed the RSX. The biggest problem that developers have pointed to is the way the RAM is divided up between the CPU an GPU and all the problems that come with memory contraint and smaller bandwidth. Bruce, if you want people to take your “journalism” seriously you will have to actually read-up on the BS you are reporting.
Metal Gear Solid 4 is not the best looking game (how’s that time machine working for you?) – it doesn’t even run in HD resolution – it’s not even 720p native.
That aside – I think it’s about time someone wrote an article like this because it is truth.
My PS3 is the most underwhelming thing in my entertainment center….
You don’t know what you’re talking about sir. It doesn’t matter how much power the PS3 has if the developers don’t take advantage of the power. Uncharted seems to be a great looking game and others so you’re claim isn’t accurate.
In the “long run” bruce, the Cell can compensate for the GPU short comings. The PS3 CPU is far more powerful than the 360’s CPU. The PS3’s problems stem from developers that are accustom to the PC dev friendliness of the 360. Formula 1 cars are faster than stockcars, but if you put a stockcar racer behind a F1 car… the results are less than ideal.
I love how the PS3 Fanboys immediately come to the rescue for their machine. Hey guess what, if your machine was doing so well then why don’t you just shutup and let the games do the talking. What a bunch of *****. For every 1 360 fanboy there is 20 ps3 fanboys ready to explain why their machine is so cool. I knew a lot of Atari Jaquar fanboys also who did a lot of explaining…..it’s 64-bit! Shuck it Trebek!
It would make sense right, but then why are kojima productions rockstar naughty dog capcom and infinity ward able to release games that equal the xbox 360. Just because ubisoft can’t seem to dev. for the ps3 doesn’t mean its not possible? Maybe its the laziness of the 3rd party dev.s who would rather work with simpler tech, or possibly these production companies have poor management?
Talk about not knowing what your talking about. Nvidia worked closely with Sony to develop the custom GPU to specifically run with the Cell Processor.
The Cell Processor was not an after thought either. They always intended to use Grid Computing for the PS3.
The problem with some early games is that the PS3 is more difficult to learn for Developers. Many Developers already have this learning curve behind them and are now realizing how much power they have yet to tap into.
Ratchet and Clank can’t even be developed for the 360 because it lacks the capabilities. Crysis is another.
Get your facts straight. Most current games are just as good on both systems. This comes with Developers maturing with the PS3 coding process. REMEMBER that the 360 was out 1 year before the PS3 and Developers had it figured out when they started making the first PS3 games.
The AAA titles that are on the Horizon for the PS3 will set a new benchmark for Graphics. This statement comes from many top developers who understand the power inside the PS3.
Last thing is this. Current PS3 games are using less than 30% of the PS3 capabilities. Not power. Capabilities. This includes the GPU.
I currently own an Xbox360 and a Sony PS3……as of Christmas of 2007 I have not really played my xbox360.
Since Christmas of 2007 I have played R&CTOD, HS, RFOM, GT5, Folklore, Uncharted and in two days the game that will make me cry with joy MGS4.
After playing RFOM,GT5,Folklore,R&C TOD, HS,and Uncharted there is no game currently on 360 that can live up to these titles graphically(the only game that stands out graphically for 360 is GOW). ME very overrated…H3 just as overrated.
I have to say this article kinda sucks…….PS3 EXCLUSIVES are the best looking games out there even HAZE beats the best 360 has.
My 360 turns back on in November 2008(GOW2)…until then I will be playing MGS4, GT5, LPB, SCOOM, RFOM2, Afrika(ps3 REGION free), Motorstorm2,Tekken 6, Bioshock enhanced(again), all only on PS3……with its ****** GPU……
“This article tells it like it is. PS3 has been out 2 years and still gets out performed by 360. Sony lied to its fans and now the sony fanboys are crying bitter tears.”
out performed ?? you are blind, or you don’t want to see uncharted, ratchet and clank, mgs4, killzone2, etc and it’s only the beginning.
Sony never intended to use a cell processor as the GPU. You’ve completely made this up or took it from someone who did. It’s actually kind of a dumb thing to say since the cell has no specific instruction sets for graphic processing. Of course it’s completely viable to dedicate cell SPU for pixel shading, etc… which helps it to compete and exceed the performance of the 360.
wow. fanboys don’t be insulted. the ps3 is a good system beside all of the countless hours spent installing and downloading the games to play horrible games.
lol, to say that the PS3 underperforms the Xbox 360 is grossly inaccurate. The PS3 executives out shine almost everything on the 360, this is just the truth.
I have both consoles, and I am always blown away when I see articles like these saying the PS3 is in some way inferior to the 360.
Will see when gears of war 2 shows some gameplay footage, they better be atleast on pair with Haze graphics and no more 585p@20fps flops ok.
@# 34 Are you serious? Warhawk is way better than gow/majority of the 360 library(if not all). The ability to do many things online ie flying, gun turret,missle turret,tank,stab,land mines, oh yea air mines, rocket launcher,binoculars/Air Strike,jeep,Apc,Flamethower,Drop Ship(up to 6 ppl in a missile turret plus can pick up a jeep or tank). Damn the list can go on SERIOUSLY.Compared to just running,chain sawing your enemy over an over gets tired FAST.Yea i agree ps3 is harder to develop for but By Far the best, and most innovative more Versatile game is Warhawk Point blank.Pick it up 1 day an you’ll understand. when i get tired of flying, I jump in the tank, tired of the tank place sum land mines an protect the base Tired of doing those things go an capture the flag or take over sum base’s, gow aint got nothing besides single player (same fps)an a little better graphics because warhawk is online only (which is its advange), an yea ive played gow online,single player for hours. @#37 WELL PUT AND STRONGLY AGREE
…. also to further disprove your misinformation about the PS3’s pre-development; There is no way Sony would have had 2 Cell processors. The costs of having 2 CELL processors would make that “theory” of yours impossible. The CELL processer, apparently something you had not researched, has a very complex architechure. When chip makers like AMD and Intel were FIRST discussing multi-core processors almost all developers were up in arms complaining about the difficulty working with the new tech. CELL is basicly an 8 core processor, something that scares most programmers. Even 360’s 3 core processor has posed problems for developers who want to take full advantage of the hardware. Once developers stop being a bunch of sissies, the Cell will compensate for the GPU which, by the way, is a very powerful chip in its own right.
Ok for the record this guy must a fanboy or something, not seeing or telling all the facts on both systems. I’m no tech whiz guy or anything but the xbox 360 has 3 cores at 3.2 ghz and the ps3 has 7 let me say that again 7 there’s gotta be more power somehow SEVEN it’s just dev’s have not yet learn how to use them yet, except maybe the guys who made GTP the game looks photorealistica at 60 fps. The gta4 thing it’s because it’s rockstar’s first ps3 game so they are gonna have trouble getting to know the system, also let me tell u that imsoniac is learining how to use the ps3 well specially with rachect and clank looking like a pixar movie at 60fps. Eat ur heart out whoever wrote this article u need to do some reasearch before u can even start talking all that noise, yes the xbox360 has more games right now and that’s only because they came out first so they got that advantage but MGS4 will be another breakthru in ps3 tech you’ll see it already looks good it’s just beeing hated for it being complex then again it’s the japanesse behind it so they are real smart people and pobably only they know what they built but until then in the long run will see which games look any better on whatever console.
This isn’t right at all. The problem lies not in the architecture, the problem is that most devs are more willing to work on 360 because of its larger install base. Also, devs who work on the PS3 must adapt to the Cell architecture, by allocating processes to different SPEs. The best looking PS3 game is far better than the best looking 360 game (Uncharted vs Gears, arguably). PS3 is a much more powerful console, it just depends on the developers’ willingness to spend the time and resources to make the most of it.
Oh please. For all those fans who say they have both a 360 and a PS3 and prefer the graphics on the 360 are complete liars. Me (PS3 owner) and my mate (360 owner) have swapped consoles for a month to try out the exclusives and both admit the PS3 is slightly better. Uncharted, GTA, COD4, Dirt, Oblivion all look and run better on the PS3. So stop believing the lies by 360 fanboys (who just say anything to wind up PS3 owners) . If everyone thought the 360 was better no one would buy a PS3. If you love games you would had played Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, Stardust HD, Ratchet & Clank, Assassins Creed, Resistance, etc. The only decent 360 exclusives in my opinion are Gears of War and Mass Effect. Halo 3 is dull to say the least and Mass Effect is long-winded. You can feel it… the 360 is running out of steam… clinging onto old graphical wins like Madden 07. If you actually compare Grid side-by-side the PS3 runs better. See it yourself before believing the hype.
“#35 Jon Smith on 06.10.08 at 9:44 pm
The article is correct. But teh cell…!!!
lol Cell is good for playing games like CHESS.
If Sony had stuck with their original vision maybe PS3 would be good…………
play metal Gear solid 4 and uncharted, then come back to me with the “But teh cell…!!!” argument, dumbA**
Comments like #5 make me laugh at how uneducated you guys are, to commentor #5, do you own a PS3?I highly doubt that…no, I promise that you don’t…
The people making all the negative comments about the PS3 here or anywhere are always favorers of another console or hardware…..these people ARE NOT, un biased in any way, so you guys loose credibility..
As to what the blogger said, while the RSX isn’t as advanced as the 360’s GPU, it isn’t miles behind lagging….
As Nvida said, the RSX is like two 6800’s, 360’s GPU I don’t think is more powerful, just more capable, basically, it seems to me Sony’s focus was its CPU and Microsofts was its GPU.
With that said, Xenon excels and Cell Excels, but that does not make 360 GPU any stronger….
On the topic of games, 360 came out a year ahead, has a wider fanbase, similar pc architect, as for comparing third party games, it’s no wonder 360 would excel….exclusives, that’s a different story…
Killzone 2’s graphics are above and beyond anything on the 360, Uncharted is above and beyond Gears of anything 360, Gran Turismo 5, looks better than any other game on the 360, forza included…..
Cell+RSX easily beats out 360 in terms of performance and graphics, it just has to be tapped and dedicated to..
That’s my input on it, 360 fanboys and other console favorists alike, you don’t have to take what I say to heart, but before this gen is over PS3 will be in high second or top, and we’ll see who gets the last laugh….patience, is key…
This is a excuse for developers who don’t optimize their games.
Look man the Playstation 3 is far from being held back and weak seriously its come a long way since its been released. Playstation 3 has the next generation inside of it. Look at the xbox 360 its old and becoming weak it cant hold alot of space for games ill tell you the facts, ps3 can hold sooo much space look at mgs4 its 50gb in size! thats two discs in one wow and in the future ps3 will be even bigger in size thats why killzone 2 hasnt been released yet because theyre trying to put as much into it as possible and make it the best graphics game you’ll see. Haha the xbox 360 cant compare to that the most it can hold on one disc is 8gbs thats terrible and the most it will ever be able to hold is 30gbs and thats with and upgrade in which you pay alot of money for. By the way when the graphics are being compared on xbox 360 and ps3 they always compare the games developed for xbox 360 and ported to ps3. Think people ofcourse the graphics wont be the same it wasnt developed for ps3! Think a little bit before you act
I’d be willing to accept this opinion……
Had there been any technical analysis to back up…..anything.
Lots of heresay and overthinking of off hand developer comments.
Probably shoulda considered that the cell processor can handle graphics work as well.
The xbox 360 has so many better games!!!! Period!!!! I own both consoles- and truly…… I can’t ell the difference in graphics. However….. games run better on the 360. That is the truth. Everyone else is splitting hairs. Personally…..I play my 360 alot more. I wish they had a Blue Ray drive, and I really wouldn’t need my playstation. I just figured if I was going to buy a blue ray player…..why not be able to play some games as well. It really is the only reason to buy a Playstation3….if you can afford a Blue Ray player. Thats it!!!! If movies are good for you on DVD, than 360 is way better. Take it from someone with no preference at all!!!
This is a topic that kind of fell under the radar since the initial comparisons and the ensuing firestorm of fan flaming back in the fall of 06′.
Basically what the admin of this site is saying is completely correct in that the GPU of the PS3 is quite a bit slower than the one in the 360. The PS3 has a GPU that is almost pipe for pipe identical to the 7800GTX 256MB from the PC market. While the GPU in the 360 is in most accounts the exact same silicon of the PC market X1800XTX 256MB (the memory amount really has nothing to do with the architecture of the GPU itself and is separate to the GPU die.)
In real world performance in PC titles the X1800XTX usually has between a 15 and 25% advantage in performance as it was really designed to be a competitor for the Nvidia 7900GTX 512MB which was the refresh part or replacement for the 7800GTX 256MB.
As we have seen with the large number of dead consoles though, to maintain this performance level the X1800XTX ran much hotter than the competing Nvidia GPU’s and used significantly more wattage as well. A situation that AMD/ATI is still trying to remedy till today in its GPU’s. At my University myself and my cousin (he is a Quantum Mech. student ) tested the heat dissipation properties of these competeing GPU’s for a research thesis.
The whole idea of having the cell processor act as a back-up to the GPU is up surd as it would take more than 16 cell processors working in parallel to even approach the performance envelope of a modern GPU.
While most people are aware that the cell is very fast due to its single core and 8 synergistic SPU structure (7 active, 1 reserve) very few people are aware that a GPU such as the upcoming Nvidia GT280 (next few weeks) have a single core and 128 shader processors which are quite a bit more efficient per shader proc. than the SPU’s in the cell due to their inately parallel design which is very geometry friendly (aka they really like drawing 3D images, lots of polygons and textures).
In conclusion however as was mentioned above, “Call of Duty 4″ ran quite well on both consoles, it also scaled extremely well on all PC GPU’s from both AMD/ATI and Nvidia. This goes to show just how much efficient code makes a difference when running graphically intensive applications. (insert comment regarding the lack of efficiency in the CryEngine2 here, love the game/hate the amount I spent to run it at acceptable FPS.)
PS: Don’t be hatin, all consoles have their good and bad points, take the good with the bad or buy both and be happy!
I am a software developer with a master’s degree in CS, so I can confirm PS3 is vastly inferior to Xbox 360 as a game console.
During its inception, CELL’s architecture was mainly guided by Toshiba, who previously engineered and supplied infamous(formerly the most difficult console to program for prior to PS3) Emotion Engine to PS2, for its own audio/video processing requirement and CELL is excellent for streaming audio/video processing, but is almost useless for general purpose applications(aka games). For gaming, CELL is roughly equal to a 800 Mhz Pentium III(Yes, a Pentium III) in extractable performance, or slightly faster than the original Xbox. RSX in the meanwhile is indeed a downgraded GeForce 7800GTX that Kutaragi Ken(father of PlayStation) purchased from nVIDIA for just $30 million(Sony spent 100 times that amount on CELL), because Kutaragi Ken ran out of time and money to do a proper GPU for PS3, and decided to go for the nVIDIA option. Due to bandwidth limitations, RSX performs similar to GeForce 7600GT, not 7800GTX. Compare RSX to XGPU2, which was designed just for Xbox 360 from scratch at no expense spared, and ran so well it overheated(This is the cause of infamous red ring of death. XGPU2 ran faster and hotter than Microsoft expected)
Based on publictly released development material and benchmark figures(namely Sony’s own EDGE library), PS3 has roughly 1/4th the power of Xbox 360, with RSX capped at 45 million polys/s ingame while Xbox 360 easily pushes through 180 million polys/s.
1/4th the rendering power of Xbox 360 is pretty unbelievable to non-programmers, but that the numbers we see.
A rough performance equivalency is as follows.
PS3 :
PPE : A 800 Mhz Pentium III
RSX : GeForce 7600GT
Xbox 360
XCPU2 : 2 x 3.2 Ghz Dual-Core Pentium IV Extreme Edition 840(Source : Capcom Lost Planet Team)
XGPU2 : GeForce 8800GTS(Source : Capcom Lost Planet Team)
Deadmeat,
To say that teh 360 GPU= 8800GTS is just stupid and highly inaccurate. Remember that an 8800 GTS is more powerful than ATI’s 3870, the best single card GPU ATI has recently created. Do you really expect that ATI’s newest technology is not as powerful as their GPU’s from 3 years ago in the 360?
You can argue that the 360 is >the PS3, but please don’t give us **** about 360 GPU = Nvidia 8800 GPU
BTW, those cards can run games at 1900*1200 Resolution while the 360 struggles to run games at a resolution > 700
@all who still claims PS3 is superior than X360
check next gen games’ native resolution here:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
@Mun2004 & Deadmeat
You’re about the only people here or on share sites such as N4G that have the ability to withdraw bias and realise that this article is a technical discussion and not at all about specific games on either platform. I do question Bruce’s motives in publishing this though as the article really doesn’t tell industry insiders anything new. Developers will always find ways around such problems with efficient code but the 360 in terms of games programming is very much a V12 to the PS3’s 4-litre.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
xbox360 is better for gaming, GPU & Direct X give it a boost. my ps3 is my blu ray player if microsoft bring out a more quiet, reliable, nice looking, blu ray 360 i will buy one and lose the ps3. seriously. i dont even play the ps3. sorry sony but the ps3 doesnt do it for me like the ps2 did.
its lost that special feeling about it.
Sony didn’t use the Cell processor as a GPU because it was too expensive to be able to release it at an acceptable price. By MS rushing the 360 Sony was forced to rush the PS3 as well. Both consoles therefore are compromised. In the PS3 architecture the Cell must take on part of the work that’s being traditionally assigned to the GPU. Developers are only now learning how to best make use of this but it will probably prove to be very valuable knowledge now that GPUs, after years of specialization, now are being turned into PUs that can take on non-graphics tasks as well.
In the end, let the games do the talking and currently there’s little on 360 (nothing I guess) that hasn’t been matched on the PS3 graphics wise. Though I for one would wish developers stopped with the graphics obsession and focussed on better gameplay more.
@Deadmeat
In practice, your PC GPU comparison seems reasonable.
I disagree with the CPU comparison, though.
I wouldn’t compare the 360’s CPU to a double dual core pentium 4 though. In-order execution cripples the average instruction per clock tick and by experience, for general purpose code, the 360 CPU underperforms a single pentium 4 core. Microsoft has made a very good job of optimising their compiler, but it’s not enough.
That said, for *specific* computations like physics and maths (transformations, ray casting etc…) the 360 CPU can approach a double dual core P4. It’s important to point out that during a typical game computation cycle, not 100% of the time is spent doing math intensive work. Certain games may lend themselves more to it, like for instance Burnout, but other games will need more generic code (for AI, for instance), in which case the P4 will easily outperform an optimised 360 code.
Also, notice that in theory the CELL should beat the pants of both the 360 and the p4 *for math intensive computations only*, if properly delegated on the 6 available SPUs. So a burnout-style(or wipeout…) game where general purpose code is limited should be more at ease on the CELL, but an AI heavy game like, say, a game like fable, wouldn’t fare so well on the CELL. I did say in *theory* though, as given Sony’s tools and compilers are not excellent, to say the least, it requires a lot more effort to squeeze these extra percents out of the CPU, and means development times are greatly increased (that means games being delayed or requiring a few more months/years to get out).
Finally, there’s a last element that one shouldn’t ignore. The xbox 360 has a unified memory for both the GPU and the CPU. This means the developper has the flexibility the spend more of his “memory credit” into graphical appearance (ie. textures and vertex/animation data), something the PS3 doesn’t enjoy.
So in short:
PS3 GPU > 360 CPU for math/DSP happy code.
PS3 CPU << 360 CPU for general purpose code.
Once again, and I repeat it :
RAW CONSOLE HARDWARE POWER DOESN’T MAKE GAMES AND ART.
I’VE SEEN BEAUTIFUL GAMES RUNNING ON LOW SPEC MACHINES (Okami anyone??) AND UGLY AS SIN ONES ON HIGH SPEC MACHINES.
Okay, let me rephrase my “in short” (which somehow got scrambled):
PS3 GPU > 360 GPU
PS3 GPU >> 360 GPU for math/DSP happy code.
PS3 CPU << 360 CPU for general purpose code.
Damn, I need some rest!
PS3 GPU > 360 CPU for math/DSP happy code.
PS3 CPU << 360 CPU for general purpose code.
This time it’s the right one!
I used to be a PS fanboy and the last thing you want to hear is someone dissing your console, the only reason i didnt get a PS3 was the dam price of the thing.i only brought a 360 cos it was half the price of a PS3 and upon reading the article it just shows that even though the PS3 came out much later than the 360 they are equal machines, this is bad because you would have thought that a consol brought out 2 years after the 360 would be able to out perform the cheaper 360
Blaming developers and programmers is ridiculous, so a developer is supposed to dump more money into making the ps3 game play better. That is by far the most asinine statement. It’s all about money and sony should have made it more attractive for the developers who are doing multi-platform games. Instead they look like chumps because it is more EXPENSIVE (man hours) to get it to run the same as the the 360. It’s KISS keep it simple stupid, and sony missed it…
Hey Guys!
Listen I own a PS3 and love it, if you want the same game thats on the XBOX-360..and save money and get better performance , just purchase the PC version. The PC will always be better than the XBOX-360 port!
Trust me on Vista and DX10 you can’t go wrong with games like Bioshock, Mass Effect , and the Halo series!
See now you can have both, save $10 to $20 on the PC version from the Xbox and play the best the PS3 offers
Enjoy!
His comments are not lies here. Hes simply stating that the GPU is holding back the ps3 games from outperforming the 360 ones. And hes right. If you look at every ps3 game out there, you’ll notice that none of them outperform the best 360 games. None. Take your fanboy glasses off already. The 360’s GPU was designed for the consoles while the ps3 one is an off the shelf pc card build for PC’s. I dont see what the whole fuss is about? He never said the ps3 sucked or doesn’t have good games. Its just not what Sony promised.
Please get your facts right.
The PS3 was never planned to be a dual CBE box.
The 7800GTX was designed for the PS3 from the start.
The CBE development took about 6 years and 8 billion $.
Even if you use the RSX just as a framebuffer and do ALL calculations on the CPU you have more power than a 360.
I have been told this by a developer:
The xenos has a claimed 240GFlops possible in the shaders. Given that it takes 4 ops to perform a transformation to screen space we can say its theoretical maximum poly throughput is 60,000,000,000 polys/sec.
The RSX has 8 vertex shaders each capable of 10 Flops per cycle. So .. well … thats 40GFLOPS @ 500MHz. Max poly through put is 10,000,000,000 polys/sec.
The information provided here is completely wrong.
When GTA was delayed, Rockstar admitted that it wasn’t just the PS3 versions fault that caused the delay.
The RSX is more powerfull than 7800GTX and is a different chip. It has better specifications and is much closer to 7900GTX specs.
While a few games has suffered graphically, it is because they are first made on the Xbox, then having it’s code transferred to the PS3, which will dumb it down. But if you look at games like Uncharted, you will see that it has better graphics than any Xbox game out there. So does Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII. You just have to master what you make your game for. A multiplatform title will always underachieve individually on a console.
It’s pointless to compare crappy ports. Those don’t max out either machine. If you want to see what a machine can do you have to look at dedicated programming efforts., ie., console exclusives.
Games that have been completely optimized for the Xbox360 like PGR4 and Gears are simply not at the same level as games that have been made exclusively for the PS3. Not a single Xbox360 game would have a developer think they couldnt replicate it on PS3 while there are quite a few PS3 games (such as GT5, Ratchet, Uncharted) which are simply in a higher class than anything on Xbox360.
To Olivier
> I wouldn’t compare the 360’s CPU to a double dual core pentium 4 though.
Actually two dualcores(Four core in total). And I didn’t make the comparison, Capcom’s Lost Planet programmer did, because Lost Planet was initially developed for a two dualcore Pentium 4 EE 840, then ported to Xbox 360 when the game was 80% done for a final optimization. Capcom develoeprs couldn’t stop praising Xbox 360 enough, this being the best-engineered and most powerful console they worked with.
There is a lot of false assumption that XCPU2’s core is identical to PPE’s. They aren’t. While Sony and Toshiba didn’t consider PPE to be important and took whatever IBM fed them, XCPU2 core was heavily modified to boost single thread performance. The modifications were
1. Different SMT algorithm : On XCPU2 core, the main thread gets all of CPU cycle and switches to secondary thread only at page miss and interrupt, so the CPU cycle time split is 75:25. PPE does 50:50 all the time. This technique, combined with other enhancements, permits individual demanding thread to run much quicker on XCPU2 than it does on PPE, as much as twice as fast.
2. Larger and More efficient L2 cache : XCPU2’s cache is double the size of PPE’s.
3. Secondary Address ALU : XCPU2 has secondary ALU in its Load/Store unit so that integer calculation and address calculation can be done in parallel. PPE uses integer APU to do both.
> Also, notice that in theory the CELL should beat the pants of both the 360 and the p4 *for math intensive computations only
Who cares about “in theory”. What matters is “in practice”.
To anti
> The 7800GTX was designed for the PS3 from the start.
Nope. It was a 6-month $30 million hack job.
> The CBE development took about 6 years and 8 billion $.
And RSX took 6 months and $30 million
> Even if you use the RSX just as a framebuffer and do ALL calculations on the CPU you have more power than a 360.
I went to school for 6 years(BS and MS) and write code for a living 9 hours a day. And you?
To Bruce
> The xenos has a claimed 240GFlops possible in the shaders. Given that it takes 4 ops to perform a transformation to screen space we can say its theoretical > maximum poly throughput is 60,000,000,000 polys/sec.
> The RSX has 8 vertex shaders each capable of 10 Flops per cycle. So .. well … thats 40GFLOPS @ 500MHz. Max poly through put is 10,000,000,000 polys/sec.
Who cares about theoretical stuff. What people actually managed to get out ingame is 45 million/s for PS3, and 180 million/s for Xbox 360.
To Marius
> The information provided here is completely wrong.
> When GTA was delayed, Rockstar admitted that it wasn’t just the PS3 versions fault that caused the delay.
Actually Rockstar did blame PS3.
> The RSX is more powerfull than 7800GTX
Actually about half as powerful thanks to bandwidth starvation.
> and is a different chip. It has better specifications and is much closer to 7900GTX specs.
RSX was engineered by 50 engineers in 6 months for $30 million.
In conclusion, Xbox 360 and PS3 doesn’t even belong in same generation in the eyes of game programmers; PS3 is more like Xbox Turbo.
Let me say just one thing:
The PS3 is the new PSP, they promised “PS2 Quality graphics” and delivered “Quasi-Dreamcast Quality graphics”, now looking forward: Does it really matter if the PS3 CPU, GPU and BluRay capabilities are that powerful if we are still playing the same games over and over? I cannot think on any game needing “so much power”. It´s all about the “experience”, and the “magic” of the experience is something achivieable on a PS2. What we really need is minds of the like of Miyamoto, Kojima, Itagaki…, give em whichever console you like and they will bring “magic”
Why are PS3 fans so sensitive and violently defensive?
Yes uncharted looks good, but for a game to look that good on the PS3 it takes enormous time and resources, this should not be if the system is “more powerful.”
As with the xbox vs the PS2 last gen, if the PS3 is as powerful as Sony claims, then it should out perform the 360 with ease, and without extra effort and money, and this is even in a situation with a ported game.
Sony greatly exagerated the performance of the PS3, and it is bizarre that so many of you have trouble getting that fact since Sony has a history of over promising and under delivering.
Grow up people, Sony is not a child that you need to defend, they lied to us like they have done before, the least you can do is have the brains and intestinal fortitude to call them on it.
I couldn’t care less which is more powerful but find the stupid PS3 fanboy comments on this page most amusing. Anything indicating the 360 could be better? No! It can’t be! U a noob and know nothing wot u r talking about!
Get a life, the lot of you.
GT5 runs in a full 60fps. So whats the problem. maybe these companys that makes games need to spend more time learning how the ps3 works. my 360 is ****.It was a gift and it ***** out all the time . If it gets warm just alittle goodnight.Lets talk internet.One low bandwidth person in a room and I kicked off. I have yet to have any kind of problem with my playstation. Halo,GTA 4 Grid rainbow six, these games to me do not look any better on the 360.If a company isn’t spending time on game development that isn’t sony or microsofts problem.
Wow. Time after time after time…The poo is beginning to stack up on the PS3. When will the fan boys finally wake up and demand more from Sony. The PS3 has abosolutely 0 going for it right except for blue ray, and you still have to install your games to play them. If I had been an early adoper of the ps3 and shelled out $600 for this…I’d probably shoot myself.
As the owner of a Wii, 360, and a PS3, and have roughly 6 games on each, I can easily say that, IMHO, the 360 is the best games machine no question, but the PS3 is much better as a media center.
An to all the fanboys that quote this or that regarding what developer says what, everyones got an opinion, and they aren’t going to agree. Valve says the PS3 should be scrapped and Sony perform a Do-over, others say PS3 has the most power. It really hasnt mattered.
It’s about the games stupid. And so far, sorry to say, the PS3 lacks in that department just as the Xbox lacked against the Ps2. I know 6 other people that have PS3’s, and they own like two games, and mostly use it for media center. The others I know that are interested want it for the blu ray player, and the games come in very second.
In games the Wii and the 360 has won this generation it seems. it cracks me up that Sony has so many fanboys that seem to forget all their tresspasses, their stupid statements, and their arrogance, yet call out MS for the same stuff.
And the MS fanboys shoud remember that MS has been humbled in the console race, but should they ever become the major winner, will replace sony with the same arrogance.
Dont buy a console due to brand name, but it for the games!!!!!
and about the ps3
bluray check
wireless check
harddrive check
blutooth check
hdmi 1.3 check
free online multiplayer check
1gb ethernet port check
MGS4 check
about the 360
none of the above(unless you pay $$$ and even if you pay you dont get hdmi1.3,1gb ethernet, blutooth and MGS4)
3 red ring of dead CHECK(last night third time this has happened what tha ****)
You Sony fan-boys are pathethic! why cant you just accept the facts and stop crying!!!
Bruce is not the only guru in gaming industry who says the same about Sonys flawed PS3, just about every programmer agrees with him.
Gogo!
A nice article indeed.
But hardware aint all
Smart Fanboys buy the console for the games, dumb fanboys buy the console based on reputation..
Why does fanboys fight so god damn mutch?.. Why are you spamming and screaming.
If you are 2 Highttech computer enginers that accualy made the consoles.. have a fight.
But low dudes spamming their own different opinions..?
I like the Xbox 360 because.. “I LIKE IT!”.. end of story and no one can change my mind x)
A BIG “+” for Deadmeat…
But its entertaining to read all the FANBOY reactions.. so keep going please…
mgs4 is OK, but there are some low res textures used…(i tried to compare it with the old Xbox360’s Splinter Cell Double Agent and SCDA looked better)
Uncharted is OK, but well…there are some low res as well and not so detailed texture on the character…
GT5P is superb, but i dunno whether GT5P’s cars are still “physically unbreakable” like Forza 2… if so then no wonder PS3 can render such graphic because of there is no damage system…
I wanted to buy a ps3 so bad but now I’m gonna buy a xbox 360
Because this cell processor legend started to boring people.
@Deadmeat
> Who cares about “in theory”. What matters is “in practice”.
I know, read my whole post (as a matter of fact, the next sentence)
I know the difference between the PPU and a Xbox 360 core, having done quite a lot of work on both.
I can see some applications where the 360 CPU could perform equally the dual core P4 (number crunching ones) but from experience, despite Microsoft’s excellent compiler, the “average code” execution isn’t quite up to the pentium’s.
That said, this is a bit out of topic, and at least we agree on the GPU
@Deadmeat
“Who cares about “in theory”. What matters is “in practice”
You’ve been talking theoretical all day!
Plus the point of your whole argument was to say how weak the PS3 was in comparison, but soon as people state figuresz to the opposite its ‘we’re not talking theoretical.
Ok So you were there to oversee all the contract negotiations and know EXACTLY how much Sony/nvidia spent on making and developing the RSX?! What a joker. All Hearsay.
What kind of professional (with a masters no doubt) takes the time out to write such obviously biased statements? This is such a tired old argument anyway.
You now compare the CELL to a 800Mhz Pentium 3, but an the 360 cpu which is also an ‘in-order CPU’ is (of course) as good as a full on 3.2 Ghz dual core ‘out-of-order’? Xbox Turbo??? That definitely belongs to 360 with its Loud-as-hell DVD9 tech and proprietary HD’s.
A Masters doent mean youre ill-informed or unbiased, or you didnt pay attention or cheated your way through
and, whilst displaying some knowledge you obviously fell asleep at some points or just pushing a fanboy agenda.
My question to you and 360 fanboys Worldwide this:
With 360’s 1 year head start, and game development being very similar to PC’s on 360 and it being much easier to develop and the CPU AND GPU being so much better than those of the “Xbox Turbo”/PS3 as you call it- how the hell do games like GTA 4, Burnout, DMC 4, COD 4, Bioshock (from early screens) look the SAME????
(And to some people’s tastes BETTER LOOKING ON PS3?)
Even if a 360 fanboy says the game X looks better on 360 surely it would be a whitewash, not “look it looks more colourful on PS3″, “slightly better aliasing” and other minor differences that most people cannot make out.
FACTS are that recent games=last 6/7months starting with COD, that are multiplat (INCLUDING GRID) look pretty much even. That is a fact. It is also a fact that PS3 has been out 1 year less. And is Harder to program for (according to devs).
So what can we expect when the devs actually know what theyre doing?? E.g. like with Ps2, and Ps1 (compare Tekken 1 graphics to Tekken 3) A whole lot better i.e. MGS4. This is undeniable, it is being universally hailed as a technical masterpiece. Even those like Eurogamer who gave it an 8, hailed its technical prowess, and dropped points for things like install times.
Ps3 is nowhere near an Xbox turbo, that comment sold you out as the fanboy that you are. More like a 360 Turbo given all the factors (time on the market, difficult to program, and multiplats now looking near enough identical).
And I didnt need a masters to figure that out.
every game for ps3 that i have owned since i bought a ps3 has a choppy frame rate. the gpu obviously can’t maintain a smooth frame rate and nice visuals like the 360 can. pretty much sony convinced me to buy a 360 after making the mistake of buying a ps3 for 600 dollars. i owned call of duty 4 for ps3 and 360. guess which version ran smoother and looked better? xbox 360. ps3 version had a choppy frame rate when a lot of intense battle started going on. 360 version maintains it’s smooth game play.
metal gear solid probably has the best graphics for ps3 so far. but guess what. it has a choppy frame rate. cut scenes are all choppy, as far as game play, there are certain points that are choppy with out too much going on. just a tip from you to me, try not to alert the enemy cause once you do and you have a lot of enemies chasing snake, it may become difficult to elude the enemy once the frame rate drops. come on this game was in development for 2-3 years and it STILL isn’t perfect. i agree that the ps3 gpu is inferior. maybe they should have concentrated on game play rather than the movies any way. you spend 75% of the time watching cut scenes than playing.
I feel this is all just ****. For Sony to throw in a GPU last minute sounds unlikely. There was a article here on N4G from a developer saying that there is nothing wrong with the PS3 GPU you just have to know how to get the most out of the system and it will perform just fine, you should go look for that article cause he explains it better than me. Oh I found it please read.
Memory limitation is PS3’s ‘biggest challenge’
The PS3’s 256MB of memory, half that of the Xbox 360, is the biggest challenge developers face when making games on Sony’s console, Monster Madness producer Lee Perez has told VideoGamer.com.
Perez, who has worked closely on the development of Monster Madness and upcoming DS game Ninja Town, said that while the PS3 has half the memory of the 360, its Cell processor can in theory allow developers to “offset” those problems.
Speaking specifically about the unique challenges PS3 development presents, Perez said: “The biggest thing is the memory. The PS3 only has 256 megs of memory. The 360 has 512 so you have twice the memory when you load a level. Now the offset to that is the Cell processor, so if you understand and your engine can understand how to use the multiple cores in tandem you can offset that. Theoretically you can do a lot more, especially if you have a lot of physics objects because it’s very math intensive, not memory intensive. So finding that sweet spot where your game does well in both and it takes advantage of its individual skills is tough.”
If you guys are going to compare graphics be reasonable about it. You don’t compare MGS to Gears. Why? Because they are not on both systems! You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. COD4 PS3 version runs half the frame rate as the 360 version. You must be refering to pre-release hype. There are FEW ps3 cross platform games that look as good or better than 360 games while still running as fast a frame rate, and AI, and Textures.
Multiplatform Developers have been telling you this since day one! Just like ps2 and xbox(1) days people make excuses for years and never admit it or try the 360 on the EXACT same tv as they run their ps3’s. A cheap walmart tv on a DEMO version of a game does not count.
#105 slim jim on msg choppy on movies? NOOOOO please tell me you have not played it on anyone else’s ps3. (cause I’m hoping it was just your hardrive is a little fragmented, or you didnt get the new 2.41 firmware, I can hope cant I!). That is going to be one of the things I look forward to on the PS3 the MG cut scenes (as soon as the systems price drops later this year). I can only see it dropping after that executive making a 150 million sold target, or he is trying to make everyone have hope for the future.
@Jackson:
You said this:
“Yes uncharted looks good, but for a game to look that good on the PS3 it takes enormous time and resources, this should not be if the system is “more powerful.””
Um…Uncharted came out only a year after the ps3’s launch, and only a year and a half after it was announced (E306).
The only ps3 games that could’ve arguably taken “enormous time and resources” are Killzone 2 and FFXIII.
In reality, Killzone 2 hasn’t been in development all that long. It was announced at E305 in the form of a CGI trailer, because they hadn’t begun development on the actually game at all, and they didn’t begin full production until just prior to Killzone: Liberation’s release, and that game didn’t come out until November of 2006.
As for FFXIII, that’s just Square being Square.
If you look at MOST ps3 titles, they haven’t taken that long to be developed. Just look at Insomniac’s titles (Resistance 1/2, Ratchet & Clank), Uncharted, MotorStorm 1/2, and many others.
Hell, even Polyphony Digital, the kings of delays, managed to get GT5 Prologue out just over a year after launch, and GT5P has more content than many full games. Not to mention it LOOKS stunning.
It doesnt matter which is more powerful what matter sis which has a better games and that is the 360 the PS3 will never catch up to what the 360 is offering FOr example on the next update will be to install the whole game onto the hard drive with an entirely diffrent dashboard while ps3 owners are crying for more games and a decent online system.Many are making the switch to 360 already cuz theyre tired of waiting for Sony to catch up
to Brucie:
I wrote severals comments but yea it don’t see them but that’s ok even if you don’t post then i hope you read them the rsx is more weaker but faster than ati gpu (360) but the fact is that rsx is design to run side by side with cell, the outcome of that is that those areas that rsx falls short to 360 gpu the cell will compensates many developers since they chose not to work with cell they used the rsx and thats why many many games cross platt will look better on 360.
fanboys keep insisting that the 360 is more powerful since carmack said it on an interview, and the truth is that games on the ps3 will simply start looking better and better now that sonys exclusives are been develop some what (proper) look at killzone2 and uncharted2 and tell me if the rsx is an issue for sonys titles the answer to that is no. i own an 360×2 and their titles are overrated with the exception of gears2, and if am not mistaken is close to 360 limits.
to slim jim:
mgs4 has no choppy framerate but ninja2.gears2 and severals 360 titles as well thats fanboy talk every game has weakness but what makes the game perfect is you if mgs4 is not good for you thats cool but that your opinion but the one thing mgs4 has flawless framerate
Welcome to 2009, where KillZone 2 has better graphics then any other 360 game, like the Gears of War 2 game as a good example.
And thats not it.
The ATi guy said at the Edge article (2005) that 360 would win in the long run. Well what else could he say about his own product..?
Its not over yet.
While x360 had its peak with Gears of War 2, Ps3 has games like God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5 and Uncharted 2 to prove that it can be as good as a brand new powerful 2009/2010 gaming pc.
I play on every next gen console. And one thing i learned is that PS does not keep their word as MS.
And if MS says GoW2 is not their PEAK then you should believe them. As for PS3 always promising games and then changing the release date. GT5, GT5 on PS3 as a GT fan i am starting to think its going to be a PS4 game.
I love killzone 2 but the game is overrated. Its far from getting the stature of CoD4 online (X-box live). AND it is far from a thread for HALO3 even with better graphics. Plus the reason why PS3 fan boys hate Halo is because they can’t buy it on PS3. So as one who owns AND plays with every next gen console i can say that even with KZ2 the X360 is the better console. especially for online gaming. I still like my PS3 but let’s face it X360 RULES.
I own both the 360 and ps3 They are both great systems but the ps3 i think has really great exclusives compared with the 360 like Kz2 MGS4 Resistance 2 motorstorm and socom they are amazing games. While the xbox has gears of war Really fun cause of the gore and halo it was best on the original xbox. the 360 controller i thinks superior. Also there is a Game MAG it has over 256 people one game look it up thats a ps3 exclusive!!!!!!!!!!!! But i think they are both Amazing systems i know 360 has more sales than the ps3 but the Ps3 wins and is worth the extra money!! Ps3 is AMAZING and Xbox is AWESOME but not as great
Also what happened with the wii i got it played it first week that was it LOL
Here’s a real world example. Tekken 6, a game soon to be released in October 27, 2009 that was originally a Playstation exclusive franchise that later became cross-platformed with the Xbox 360.
Namco originally made Tekken 6 under PS3 architecture, which is what the current arcade machines are currently running on. Yet, when it was ported over to Xbox360, the graphics (in terms of HD resolution) are showing 720p resolution or higher while the PS3 version is showing a pitiful 1024×576 resolutions.
A CLEAR DOWNGRADE.
While I am a huge Tekken fan, following the series since Tekken Tag for the PS2, and a current owner of the PS3, you MUST admit that the GPU on the Xbox 360 is probably superior to that of PS3.
Read this for the actual findings. I am not pulling this out of my ass or anything.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-not-so-high-definition-article
Thanks.
The only reason games look crappier on the PS3 than the 360 is because of the developers. Now that dedicated developers from the likes of Naughty Dog and Guerilla games have put the effort into developing for the PS3’s SPUs and GPU it is getting to its full potential while the 360 has nowhere to go because it is maxed out.
The PS3 is a more powerful system and it is only just started to show it this year.
Plus the PS3 system has alot of free stuff on its network, I especially like the huge VidZone music video service Sony is paying for. And the free online gameplay and downloads. And Home. Oh, and Blu-ray.
Leave a comment