Visual comparison - Xbox vs PS3 vs PC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fudzy
  • Start date Start date
I'm with Valante (post #2) on this if they are trying to compare a machine's capability
since most of the ports to PS3 is just sad and you only notice its power when you look at
the exclusives and 1st party titles where the devs put some effort into it.
 
Yeah, but saying it twice doesn't make it any truer ;)

The thing is, even if the exclusives do look better, that plays to the exact problem with the PS3. The number of exclusives are tiny compared to 3rd party games. And if it's just 2-3 games that look marginally better, who's going to care? Only the fanboys.

The thing is Sony have actually finally realised that. That's why there's no price cut. They accept that the PS3 will not make it to the mass market this generation and are just trying to make it profitable.
 
Xyber said:
I'm with Valante (post #2) on this if they are trying to compare a machine's capability
since most of the ports to PS3 is just sad and you only notice its power when you look at
the exclusives and 1st party titles where the devs put some effort into it.
Click to expand...
I shake my head in disbelief once again.

How exactly to do you compare the performance/graphical ability of a console with no common benchmark? :rolleyes:
 
Iwojima said:
I shake my head in disbelief once again.

How exactly to do you compare the performance/graphical ability of a console with no common benchmark? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

+ 10000000000000^99

This is EXACTLY the problem.

You can't decide which fruit is better when comparing Kiwis, Bananas and Peaches.

It doesn't make sense. In no way.
 
iDenTiTy said:
+ 10000000000000^99

This is EXACTLY the problem.

You can't decide which fruit is better when comparing Kiwis, Bananas and Peaches.

It doesn't make sense. In no way.
Click to expand...
I think you've misunderstood what I said. Given a common engine and common game assets you can pretty much get a feel of the ability of each console (unless a shoddy port from one to the other was done)

Trying to compare 2 engines on 2 different platforms, however, is just plain useless. ;)
 
PS3 is a financial failure, Xbox 360 is a piece of crap and PC's are bank account consumers... Theres only one console: Sega Megadrive 2 you nubs. NOOOBS!
 
Iwojima said:
I think you've misunderstood what I said. Given a common engine and common game assets you can pretty much get a feel of the ability of each console (unless a shoddy port from one to the other was done)

Trying to compare 2 engines on 2 different platforms, however, is just plain useless. ;)
Click to expand...

Even then, you can't.

The platforms are so radically different - you just can't.
Yes, they are consoles, but games aren't developed the same way on each.

Xbox uses DirectX for the most part, while PS3 uses a pseudo-propriety standard.
The way a game functions on either is as a result of the approached development methods on either console.

Exclusives will always look better, run better etc.

This is why fanboism is "boyish"..

:)
 
iDenTiTy said:
Even then, you can't.

The platforms are so radically different - you just can't.
Yes, they are consoles, but games aren't developed the same way on each.

Xbox uses DirectX for the most part, while PS3 uses a pseudo-propriety standard.
The way a game functions on either is as a result of the approached development methods on either console.

Exclusives will always look better, run better etc.

This is why fanboism is "boyish"..

:)
Click to expand...
I agree with you for the most part, but would argue that with regards to the API used in each console (DirectX for the Xbox and the PS3's lesser known standard) that it speaks to the capabilities of each console just as the hardware does.

That is, if one API is weaker/less capable than the other that it stands to reason that it puts that console at a performance/visual disadvantage.
 
Iwojima said:
I agree with you for the most part, but would argue that with regards to the API used in each console (DirectX for the Xbox and the PS3's lesser known standard) that it speaks to the capabilities of each console just as the hardware does.

That is, if one API is weaker/less capable than the other that it stands to reason that it puts that console at a performance/visual disadvantage.
Click to expand...

If what you're saying is that an API is only as good as the hardware it interfaces with, then yes. I agree.

But since the APIs are different, as the hardware is, its a moot point.

Is OpenGL 3.0 any worse than DirectX 10? No. It's different. Both are equally capable. Yet, require different development approaches.

:)
 
The PC clearly wins, but is the margin really that big? Considering that the 360 is almost 3 years old, it's quite impressive that it's games still look almost as good as it does on a PC which in all likelihood costs between R10k - R15k. And that's not even looking at the slowdown and the convenience of relaxing on a couch vs. sitting hunched at a desk.
 
iDenTiTy said:
Is OpenGL 3.0 any worse than DirectX 10? No. It's different. Both are equally capable. Yet, require different development approaches.
Click to expand...
In terms of capabilities and support for rendering methods (e.g. bump/parallax mapping, etc) they are pretty much both on par (OGL being slightly behind if memory serves) however in terms of performance the jury is still out as to which one is better.

That is pretty much what I'm getting at: If the API is (relatively speaking) not up to scratch in both performance/rendering capability and is causing the console to render a game poorer than the alternative console then it is a point against the console itself for having a sub-standard API.
 
Smooth Criminal said:
The PC clearly wins, but is the margin really that big? Considering that the 360 is almost 3 years old, it's quite impressive that it's games still look almost as good as it does on a PC which in all likelihood costs between R10k - R15k. And that's not even looking at the slowdown and the convenience of relaxing on a couch vs. sitting hunched at a desk.
Click to expand...

Well that's what 3 years constant practice does..

Look at it this way;
1
For PC
You have 3 years to release a title. (Any genre)
You have any number of different configurations to deal with.
You have many vendors' hardware to support.
You need to validate and verify the software for all the above conditions.

2
For Console (Exclusive)
You have 3 years to release a title. (Any genre)
You have 1 SDK. 1 platform (Exclusive titles).
You have 1 set of configurations (controllers + headset etc.).
You have 1 vendor.
Validating and verifying to above conditions.

3
For Console (Multiplatform)
You have 3 years to release a title. (Any genre)
You have >1 SKUs. 2-3 platforms.
2-3 sets of configurations.
2-3 vendors.
Validating and verifying to above conditions.

When you have a time constraint, you will invariably have to make trade-off decisions. As a developer, you would start with the easier one, and end with the more difficult one.

From the above, it is far easier to follow number 2.

No surprise that developers can squeeze out the graphics we see today from consoles introduced 2-3 years ago.

:)
 
Iwojima said:
In terms of capabilities and support for rendering methods (e.g. bump/parallax mapping, etc) they are pretty much both on par (OGL being slightly behind if memory serves) however in terms of performance the jury is still out as to which one is better.

That is pretty much what I'm getting at: If the API is (relatively speaking) not up to scratch in both performance/rendering capability and is causing the console to render a game poorer than the alternative console then it is a point against the console itself for having a sub-standard API.
Click to expand...

But that is it. No API is inherently inferior to another. The approaches are different.

Some need more versatility in developers others - more capability.

:)

PS Apologies for double posting.
 
iDenTiTy said:
No surprise that developers can squeeze out the graphics we see today from consoles introduced 2-3 years ago.
Click to expand...
Precisely why I don't believe all this nonsense about the current gen consoles having already peaked in terms of graphical beauty. Just look back to the last few titles released for the PS2 when it was fast becoming previous gen like Shadow of the Colossus and God of War 2. I'm sure there were people who said the same thing about the PS2 years before those 2 titles. :rolleyes:
 
iDenTiTy said:
When you have a time constraint, you will invariably have to make trade-off decisions. As a developer, you would start with the easier one, and end with the more difficult one.
Click to expand...
Yep that part I understand, but the question is mainly whether the slight graphical improvement is worth the extra investment every couple of years. And that's not taking into account the usual trade-offs between consoles and PCs :)
 
iDenTiTy said:
But that is it. No API is inherently inferior to another. The approaches are different.
Click to expand...
Right and wrong.

One API might implement the same feature differently (ie. using a different method, mathematical equation, etc), but the performance will differ due to differences in the code efficiency of that implementation.

Take bump mapping as an example. It's used massively in most modern games. DirectX may accomplish this effect one way and OpenGL another. If one is implemented less efficiently than the other then it will either look or perform worse than the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct3D

To build on the DirectX/OGL comparison check the above link to see that there are definitely questions about both performance and common features between API's. Unfortunately we don't have info on Sony's proprietary API to compare to DirectX.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X