Poll: Is there honestly enough of a graphics difference between the 360 and PS3 to make it a selling point
- Thread starter Piotr621
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So trivial yellow particles suddenly become important, because now it's done with a better physics model? Heh. There's infinitely better ways to showcase a physics model.Mazty said:
Not it isn't. They've overdone it. Just go look ouside at real plants.
I can see all of the PS3 users voting yes here for some reason...
Im sorry I mean the PS3 fan boys, I guess there are some nice understanding PS3 users, I just always get stuck with the trolls =/
No, there isn't enough of a difference
There is a difference when it comes to PC and console though
Im sorry I mean the PS3 fan boys, I guess there are some nice understanding PS3 users, I just always get stuck with the trolls =/
No, there isn't enough of a difference
There is a difference when it comes to PC and console though
The PS3 does have inferior graphics but honestly they're the same console at the end of the day.
(Note to PS3 fanboys: It's true, it may have better specs but in execution it's underperformed the 360 on numerous occasions)
(Note to PS3 fanboys: It's true, it may have better specs but in execution it's underperformed the 360 on numerous occasions)
No difference between them. Hardware isn't really that different in actual gaming terms.
Wish people would stop looking at numbers and just ignore them...They make very little difference. Look at your desktop computer now compared to one a few years ago. I bet in a lot of cases the one from a few years ago has a "Faster CPU" In that it has more GHZ. However the current system will be much much faster with slower clock speeds. Due to better architecture design. Same thing applies with Consoles. Numbers aren't everything.
Some games look better on 360 some better on PS3. It just depends on the Developer. The PS3 is also just as close to its ultimate performance as the 360 is...Right now.
What people need to understand is that while right now current engines and tech look fairly good on the systems. Look at the later PS2 games they were as good as the Xbox games visually. Even though the Xbox had twice the power of the PS2. It isn't about numbers it is about the developers and how well they have coded it. You could make an old halflife 1 map that would bring the PS3 to its knees in terms of processing power. However, it wouldn't look good. Yet Games run very well on it that look better. Because the engine is better optimised etc.
The actual consoles hardware capabilities are so close in gaming terms its pointless arguing about them. People get stuck on that 200gflops bollocks. However, that is all it is. Bollocks. Yes it can do that...in synthetic benchmarks. In the real world...no chance. That is where things start to get much closer with the systems. The PS3 technically has the more powerful CPU. While the 360 technically has the more powerful Graphics system. PS3's memory is faster. While the 360's is a unified system so it works differently and isn't limited the same to how much it can utilize for one thing.
Which is why right now both systems are at there current limits of what they can do. Yet I guarantee in a couple years both will have much better looking games on them.
End of the day, the people coding the games for them make much more impact. Than the hardware is not the most important bit. Which is why some games look better on PS3 and some better on 360. Neither is best. Pick the one with the games you want to play.
Or, stop being tight, buy them both like I did. That way it doesn't matter
Wish people would stop looking at numbers and just ignore them...They make very little difference. Look at your desktop computer now compared to one a few years ago. I bet in a lot of cases the one from a few years ago has a "Faster CPU" In that it has more GHZ. However the current system will be much much faster with slower clock speeds. Due to better architecture design. Same thing applies with Consoles. Numbers aren't everything.
Some games look better on 360 some better on PS3. It just depends on the Developer. The PS3 is also just as close to its ultimate performance as the 360 is...Right now.
What people need to understand is that while right now current engines and tech look fairly good on the systems. Look at the later PS2 games they were as good as the Xbox games visually. Even though the Xbox had twice the power of the PS2. It isn't about numbers it is about the developers and how well they have coded it. You could make an old halflife 1 map that would bring the PS3 to its knees in terms of processing power. However, it wouldn't look good. Yet Games run very well on it that look better. Because the engine is better optimised etc.
The actual consoles hardware capabilities are so close in gaming terms its pointless arguing about them. People get stuck on that 200gflops bollocks. However, that is all it is. Bollocks. Yes it can do that...in synthetic benchmarks. In the real world...no chance. That is where things start to get much closer with the systems. The PS3 technically has the more powerful CPU. While the 360 technically has the more powerful Graphics system. PS3's memory is faster. While the 360's is a unified system so it works differently and isn't limited the same to how much it can utilize for one thing.
Which is why right now both systems are at there current limits of what they can do. Yet I guarantee in a couple years both will have much better looking games on them.
End of the day, the people coding the games for them make much more impact. Than the hardware is not the most important bit. Which is why some games look better on PS3 and some better on 360. Neither is best. Pick the one with the games you want to play.
Or, stop being tight, buy them both like I did. That way it doesn't matter
How about a proper car crash or something. Those yellow particle effects may seem impressive to you, but that is really just nothing.Mazty said:
If you think I'm a troll you shouldn't respond to me in the first place. It makes you look stupid.
Especially if you take this much time between posts to cherry pick a poorly done photograph to try and prove your point.
They are the same, and always will be.
Don't listen to:
a) Fanboys
b) Sony
In legitimate benchmarks of all the consoles by neutral reviewers, it was found that each of the PS3's cores has the processing power of an 800MHz Pentium 3. This means that on a perfectly multithreaded game, you will get the same power as you would if you took your old Windows 98 machine, liquid cooled it, and overclocked it to 6.4GHz (there is of course trade off between the faster bus/memory speeds and multiple processors, but it's essentially the same.).
In short, the 360 and PS3 are virtually on par, and neither will reach a status where it is significantly better than the other for the majority of games.
Also, Cell Processor Assembly sucks balls.
Don't listen to:
a) Fanboys
b) Sony
In legitimate benchmarks of all the consoles by neutral reviewers, it was found that each of the PS3's cores has the processing power of an 800MHz Pentium 3. This means that on a perfectly multithreaded game, you will get the same power as you would if you took your old Windows 98 machine, liquid cooled it, and overclocked it to 6.4GHz (there is of course trade off between the faster bus/memory speeds and multiple processors, but it's essentially the same.).
In short, the 360 and PS3 are virtually on par, and neither will reach a status where it is significantly better than the other for the majority of games.
Also, Cell Processor Assembly sucks balls.
Personaly I went for the PS3 but its all down to personal preferance, I just think the 360s controllers are garbage, dont want to get a year and a half out of a console or deal with microsofts shitty European customer support branch EVER again. And I hate fps which is 90% of the 360's game library really.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much in it. Some Sony exclusives are starting to look like they can hold a frame rate like a ************, but when you consider current expense, you could get between two and five extra games when you buy a 360 (depending on model). Really, you need to start looking at exclusives, and if there is anything on either that you're going to regret not being able to play.
The PS3 controller is one thing I don't get. It is clumsy the thumb sticks are in very awkward positions. People either have ridiculously tiny hands if they say the PS3 pad is better or quite simply have screwed up hands. The 360 pads ergonomics are massively better. I don't get sore thumbs playing my 360. I get off my PS3 and my thumbs actually crack and ache. Sony really need to sort out the ergonomics the pad is fine if you play with only the D pad but as soon as you want to use the analogues...awful. Where as the 360 is shit for D-Pad great for analogue.Nmil-ek said:
What has the 360 suddenly been downgraded to not support HD...damn all those 360 games I have with 1080P on the back and my 1080P TV are pointless now. They are the same. Both can do 1080P, both have HDMI output. Both do component output...there is no difference. Some people do talk some bollocks.Xazetuf said:
That is one thing that annoyed me about Sony though. Why with this amazing Bluray playing HD media centre / games console. Do we only get a Composite cable included for video out? What the hell is with that? Not even an RGB scart cable. Yet MS give component, HDMI cables etc with their systems in the box. Also a decent length USB lead with the PS3 to charge the pads would be nice as well. Don't understand Sony's decision with that. I mean it would only cost another couple of pounds to add them into the box. Did annoy me having to buy extra cables to hook it up to my TV and amplifier.