PS3 Vs Xbox 360: Which Has Better Graphics?

its alway going to be biased. As it people opinions not facts

Last word.

:p

Pete,

Who is TheTjalian guy. Looked on Google, & it just sounds like some guy on Youtube. Obviously the worlds technical frontrunner & most reliable source ever.

For all your technical talk you missed the simplest of points. If the 360 is easier to program for, & therefore easier to get the most out of, & it's been out longer than the PS3 which is apparently a bitch to program for, then explain Killzone 2. Explain Uncharted 2 (multiplayer beta is already out there). Explain the upcoming Heavy Rain. Explain the upcoming God of War III, & the upcoming (eventually) GT5. Whilst Forza 3 & Alan Wake do look awesome, all of the media are saying that PS3 exclusives (out & upcoming) are looking better than 360 exclusives. Why is that with all of the PS3's difficulties & technical limitations (according to TheTjalian).

The controller is not terrible, you just don't like it. I tried the 360 controller yesterday on a PC, & apart from the left analogue being in a different place, & a slightly different case shape, it's just a controller, & feels very simliar to the DS3. It is personal preference like you stated in your previous post, but you obviously don't believe that & it really was just the token gesture I thought it was to try & make you not sound like a fanboy. Whoops.

The Arcade - you still had to go get a hard drive though didn't you? & not everybody who's got a 360 will be able to get a cheap drive off ebay.

Natal - are you phsycic. It doesn't matter what technology is inside it - that makes no difference to sales. Look at the Wii, which has the weakest hardware & sells like crazy. Natal might be awesome, & might sell well, but you don't know that & neither do I. It does depend a lot on how Microsoft market it, & how it's boxed with the console. I'm not saying it will flop, I'm just saying it could.

Killzone 2 - this article is about graphics. Killzone 2 is graphically the best full console game out there, but Uncharted 2 is suppose to be better, & the multiplayer beta is already out there. Guess it's not a one off then. Is it just a 2 off, & will the number be adjusted up accordingly when GT5, GoWIII, Heavy Rain & I forgot The Last Guardian above. Can you have a 6 off?

The difference in most multiplatform games is nitpicking. The ports that ended up on the PS3 used to be bad so if all your bothered about is older games then yes, you'll be dissapointed. Most newer games are pretty much identical, which means the that PS3 ports have been getting better & better all the time.

The Dreamcast wasn't more powerful than the PS2, not by a long shot. It was a lot more powerful than the PS1 which is the market it was dropped into. It was the superior PS2 coming out that killed Sega's impressive little console.

The differences between the 2 are marginal, & the 360's online may well be superior...at a price.

I understand you're car analogy, but using a Honda is a bad choice (they're Japanese & therefore reliable). If we forgot that however, I bet the BMW is still a nicer place to sit.

It all depends on what you like, but this article is about graphics.

Not entirely true on point 1 - read the reasoning below:

It's a technical limitation. They just don't have enough memory to load every piece of downloadable content. They tried it, did some work-arounds, but the performance isn't there. They hope to have some, but they're going to have some, but they're going to have to pick and choose...

But since the Xbox 360 and the PS3 both have 512 MB of memory, PS3 people have been saying that there is no difference. Apparently there is. According to TheTjalian, the PS3 has 512 MB of memory, but it's divided into two: 256 MB for the system, 256 MB reserved for textures. The 360, in contrast, uses around 350 MB or more for textures and the rest for the system - however there is no system-imposed limit.

It seems that the same technologies that makes the PS3 stand out is the same reason it's not performing well. Hint? Two words: CELL, RSX. In an investigation by hardware gurus at Anandtech, they had something to say:

The downside to the RSX using the Cell for all vertex processing is pretty significant. Remember that the RSX only has a 22.4GB/s link to its local memory bandwidth, which is less than 60% of the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 7800 GTX. In other words, it needs that additional memory bandwidth from the Cell’s memory controller to be able to handle more texture-bound games.

Yikes! So even while the RSX G70 monster inside the PS3 is better than a GF 7800 GTX, it can't quite give its all to the system. It's like getting an elephant through a crevice - okay, okay, not that an elephant would make a great video card and all. And the Xbox 360 is not without it's own hiccups and mishaps. And the PS3 does perform on par with the 360, even with the limitations considered.

Point 2 - the controller is terrible - the analogue is too loose, in the wrong place. Just laziness and ignorance on sonys part, they were going to re-do the whole thing but failed, again, to get their butt in gear.

Point 6 - no serious gamer? I got the arcade, then bought a drive on ebay for £20 - saved some cash. It IS required to enjoy the 360 but doesnt mean the arcade is useless.
If it wasnt for the demos i wanted to play I wouldnt have got a hd, glad i dont have to worry and its nice saving games tot he hard drive.

Point 7 - Natal wont flop - its a high def camera unit that will come into the control systems in most if not all games, and expands the limitations of working through control pads - kick ups in soccer, buzzing in quiz games, using your couch as a driving chair, its brilliant and what made the wii a hit.


Unfortunately, killzone 2, regardless of the graphics, isnt a good enough game to convert anyone to ditch their 360's or convince those ont he fence to buy a ps3 over 360, it has too many flaws.... good but play through a second time after the excitement and the reviews state there are a lot of things wrong with it. It's also a one off, even if you do think its the best game ever, 90% of the market are ports, which ports better? 360 Im afraid, which in relative terms means the graphics are going to be better more of the time. Not much in it but again, doesnt justify the ps3, just makes them equal - but one for more cash.
Dreamcast was more powerful the the ps2, saturn was better than the ps1, but it doesnt make the console, its the ammount of homes it gets into that matters - wii perfect example (although id never buy one now as the graphics are just too dated for my liking).

Id love the ps3 to be soo much better, because Im already getting over critical of the graphics on both (no longer wowed) but it doesnt make any logical sense to me when 360s are so much cheaper and do the same job with better online facilities and I can play almost anyone i know whs into games (some pc owners too on some games), my profile is for life and will go with me with all my achievements etc to the next console.

To me its the same as saying heres a bmw with 0-60 of 8.6, top speed of 150, and heres an Honda 0-60 in 8.4 but top speed of 147 but its 10 grand cheaper. BMWs still sell, but I couldn't justify one!

Pete,

A few things to point out.

1. The PS3 has 512MB RAM just like the 360. The difference is that it's shared on the 360 & it's split 256 cell/256 GPU on the PS3. Until quite recently 256MB RAM on a PC GPU was a very respectable amount, it's only in the past 12-18 months it's gone GPU RAM bonkers on PC's. The GPU RAM on the PS3 & the 360 run at 700mhz so they're exactly the same (the actual GPU chip is quicker on the PS3). The 256MB on the cell runs at 3.2ghz, that's over 4 & a half times faster than the RAM on the 360 so it's got a lot more throughput. Also the cell handles a lot of the graphics processing so it does a good job of supplementing the GPU if it's programmed for correctly. Yes the GPU on it's own merit isn't a good as the 360's due to the 360's GPU architecture, but the PS3 is well documented as being not normal to program for.

2. As pointed out above, it's different to program for than a 360 or PC. The likes of Guerilla have pointed out that it's not actually more difficult. It's just a big learning curve.

3. Online play. I have no problem admitting that the 360's online is better. You pay for it. It should be better.

4. The PS3 has a terrible controller - in your opinion. In my opinion there's absolutely nothing wrong with the DS3. I can use it for hours without any problems. Sixaxis can be good if used properly. It's perfect for the likes of Flower which is a damn good game, if a little different. You state at the end that it's personal preference (token diplomatic gesture to make you sound like you're not a 360 fanboy), & yet make your points like they're fact.

5. Agreed that multiplatform games are often superior on the 360, but apart from the odd exception the differences are usually just nitpicking.

6. No serious gamer would choose the cheapest 360 Arcade. The hard drive is invaluable for shutting up that noisy DVD drive, & save games, & Arcade/demo/trailer downloads. You'd just end up regretting buying it & having to fork out extra for Microsofts overpriced hard drive.

7. Natal - all we've seen is Microsofts press demo. Just like Sonys motion controller it could end up being a complete flop. We don't know how accurate Natal is yet. It may be awesome, but only time will tell on that. Personally I like having a controller. As you'd put it...personal preference.

8. I like Blu-Ray. It holds more data, & I can play hi-def movies. Games like MGS4 & Killzone 2 have already used that extra 41GB storage, & Killzone 2 has proved that you don't need an install if done properly. Install's aren't that big a deal anyway. 360 owners always slagged off the installs on PS3, but when it's an option on the 360 it's wonderful .. strange that.

9. I'm not going into the amount of 360's that have broken down. I bet even Microsoft has lost count. Yeah, yeah 3 year warranty, blah blah blah. Heard it all before.

10. The PS3 has already overtaken the 360 on graphics on exclusives. KZ2, MGS4, Uncharted 2 multiplayer beta demo is out there now. With GT5, Heavy Rain, the full Uncharted 2, & God of War III on the way things are looking good. I will say that both Alan Wake & Forza 3 do look awesome.

11. Wii 2 - why would Nintendo replace a console that is making a massive profit for them, & still selling faster than the other 2? Microsoft & Sony have also stated that they won't be bringing out new consoles for years. Sorry.

13. Sony already make a loss on every unit, & since it's release it's been selling at pretty much the same rate as the 360. Considering the price difference, that's not bad going. Oh, & don't quote American sales figures to me. America is not the world. The only thing Microsoft beat Sony to is getting their product out first at the cost of quality control.

I'm not suggesting for second that the 360 is a bad console (apart from the shoddy built quality), & graphically the PS3 & 360 are very close at the moment, but when almost every review of KZ2 states "the best graphics of any console game" I don't know how you can say the 360 is graphically superior. Or is every website biased in favour of the PS3? .... yeah, like anyone will believe that.

i have both of the systems.both xbox 360 and ps3 are 1080p so there's no difference, but xbox 360's graphics are more detailed.

do not know why up to now people are bickering on which is better. i got a friend who is obviously a ps3 fanboy and my god is HE irritating. he keeps on yapping about how powerful ps3 is. ok, its powerful, oh yeah its bluray. i try to avoid conversation so while he was sitting there beside me ranting about how ps3 owns 360 so much while I AM PLAYING re5 on my 360. i pity the fool who has friends like this. (yah i pity me, but he's my friend so what can i do.)
reality speaking, ps3 is indeed powerful than 360.
BUT...what to do with that??
would you like to own a more expensive console knowing a cheaper one provides the same performance and actually even better at times.
i don't want to be labeled as a 360 fanboy, i am not, i appreciate the ps3 technical prowess.
i think IT is the FUTURE OF GAMING.
BUT..right NOW, the PRESENT OF GAMING is 360. Hands down. if you are planning to buy a console now, buy a 360, you will get more than your moneys worth. thinking of buying ps3 for future gaming? then why buy PS3 NOW? buy it in the future. ever heard of a console being more expensive over time? NOPE. it gets cheaper as it gets older (not talking antiques here =p)
after 5 or 6 years 360 may be taken over by ps3, and then, at that moment buy your ps3 and appreciate all that blu-ray and technical power at a much cheaper price with more games to choose from and a more solid online network. think of it this way, ps3 is like an ultra modern car capable of ultra high speed. but it does not run on gasoline, it runs on something we dont have yet in our time. would you buy that now? or buy it in the future where it is cheaper and you can use it all the time because plutonium will be available to the masses LOL.

I dont understand where everyone gets this 'ps3 power' hype from! It is not more powerful except in the number crunching area (ie. rainfall) but it is now a known fact Sony rushed towards the end of the development, so ended up with a slow bus speed, unfinished nvidia graphics card and doesnt have enough ram in it to unleash the cores at the same time. Xbox can actually win int he power department right now, especialy frame rates which are important to me.
At the end of the day its whoever has the better developers, and as the developers get a lovely big dev pack with full instructions and familiarity, Sony give out what can only be described as a song sheet and a system thats really difficult to program to do the simple things on a 360.
Online play - 360 wins hands down - yes you need to pay, but shop around and you can get a year for £24, and you pay for a good reason because its superior and the uptime is 99.9%
Controls - the ps3 has the terrible ps2 controller, and the ps3 6-axis is a real joke. 360 is confortable and allows play for hours on end. Personal preference.
So, everyones got an xbox, because theyre cheap so all your friends are online, you get every game thats multi-port (and usually the best version due to development advantages), you get a classier box with the ps3, and if you want blu-ray (who needs it yet?) then ps3 is a cheap option to get on to that bandwagon.
Moving forward, have you seen the new xbox controller? There isnt one! YOU are the controller - we're talking a small scanner with cams which project your image on screen, and maps your lounge so you can drive an F1 car and change gear by moving you arm in a gear-change motion - it will be easy to program for so there will be a hgh take up of compatible titles. This overtakes the Wii, by thinking outside the box. Nintendo will upgrade their controlle rbut still flapping white ipod style cables around. Sony's response? Well, what can only be described as a stick with a bobble on the end that you wave around like a wireless wii remote.. hmm.
And back to price, you can get a 360 from £120, cheapest ps3 is still over £240.
Futureproofing is pointless, 360 will be supported if demand is there, the previous xbox didnt have that consumer demand so support was dropped, Sony kept providing ps2 support because it was stil selling by the bucketload! Now 360 is in the same price bracket the ps2 was a year or two ago its now selling cheap HD entertainment that I feel is better quality than the sony experience, I just wish the case/internals were a bit more up market as the ps3 clearly looks the best under a nice tv setup - but whats the point when all that power is throttled, and Sony so far havent delivered this 'super' console they promised, they've caught up with the 360, thats all - by the time the ps3 overtakes in the graphics department (if possible) the newer xbox 720 will be announced and we'll be moving all our profiles over to that! (but dont expect anything until end 2011 - plenty of xboxing left).

Wii 2 out next year, possbily with 360 graphics - could be good as mario will look great in HD.

I wish I could say the ps3 is the better model as style wise it looks great, and Im about to buy a console (And so, dont want it to be out of date in 12 months) but it really doesnt justify the cost, I've studied many screenshots and videos, you cant tell the difference between the 360 and ps3, partially because the developers dont feel the need to make one better than the other if it still wows and sells without the extra development.

I actually sold my xbox 6 months ago as I'd played every game possible to death, I wanted mobile gaming so thought the psp would be good and I'd get a ps3 to sync it etc. I do wish they made more 'fluffy' nintendo style games for 360, as you need a break sometimes (and why I feel the need to always buy a nintendo to!) However, Im going for another xbox as it offers so much for so little, all my work colleagues (and boss!) now have one, overlooking the case quality its a better product with exciting control system to come before its new big brother arrives. I sony want any hope of winning the sales war, they need to get the system in homes - cut the price, make a loss on every box and then make money from the games, get the consoles in the homes - unfortunately microsoft I think have beaten them to the post on that one too.

and all the talk about can only be done on a ps3 actually the 360 has better graphic power than the ps3. take it or leave it. or you could check this out from someone that produces games for all major platforms. Graphics: The XBOX 360 is a clear winner. The GPU is more powerful. It has more powerful fillrate, and far more pixel and vertex processing horsepower. Part of the reason is their choice of memory, and architecture of pixel and vertex procesing. I can�t get into details but the same vertex shader will run much slower on the PS3 than the XBOX 360. The 360 also has a clever new way rendering high definition anti aliased back buffers. To accomplish the same effect on PS3 is prohibitively expensive. For this reason I think many games will have no choice but to run in non-HD resolutions on the PS3 version, use a lower quality anti aliasing technique, or do back buffer upscaling. The end result in all cases is going to be noticeably worse image quality. so anything that they can do on the ps3 can be done on the 360 but oh so slightly better. ill stick with pc though so yall can have your consoles wich will be obsolete in another 5 to 6 years ill stick with just upping my pc. plus when it comes to it technology is ultimatly found through money and ms has def. got that over sony. rumors are ms is already working on there next console if its true or not is yet to be seen but in the end ms might actually talk sony into bighting when they offer em something they cant refuse and then death to the station once and for all. yay :D

@anythingbutsony

thx for making a name that already says your talking shit. the ps3 uses cell power and blu-ray, the disc can store 3 times more than an xbox cd, so more details. and even if the xbox 360 has more gpu power, that doesnt make better grapichs. it just makes the gpu overheat. the ps3 has way better lightning effect anyway, and only a few xbox 360 games run on 1080p