Is The GPU Holding The PS3 Back? Short Answer, NO
There is an article on Bruce On Games, entitled Is The GPU Holding The PS3 back. Primarily, I think that this is a load of bulls**t. The Xbox 360 might have higher memory system bandwidth, CPU floating operations, GPU shader operations and what not than the PS3, but in the real world it all amounts to meh. Absolutely nothing. It doesn’t matter how powerful a hardware is if game developers can’t tap its true potential.
The main reason that I think for PS3 games performing poorly is due to that developers have had more time to familiarize with the 360 hardware and tools than that of the PS3. The PS3 is powered by Nvidia’s 7800GTX and the more-than-capable Cell processor. So, obviously, hardware constraints are not at play here. Developers had more time to work out the kinks with the 360 because it was released about a year earlier than the PS3.
This issue has been brought in the limelight because the recently released GRID by Codemasters, perform at a solid 30 Frames Per Second on the 360 and suffers from hiccups on the PS3 version. How true is that? While I [still] don’t own GRID on the 360, but my friends do, and they often have stuttering frame rates. And so does the PS3.
And hear this, they were talking about the demo version and not the final product. Here is what executive producer Gavin Raeburn had to say. “Secondly, our performance tests show that the 360 is running at a rock solid 30fps and the PS3 rarely drops, being rock solid 99% of the time. San Fran in the demo is probably our worst performer when the action gets really heavy on a couple of those long straights”.
For a complete breakdown of both the consoles hardware and how they compare to each other, read this article Xbox 360 Vs. PS3.
Aug 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I want to know one thing – with what PC configuration I would be able to play all the future XBOX and PS3 Games?
I mean, lets say XBOX 360 got 2GHz Processor, 500Mhz GPU and 1GB RAM. Now if I buy a PC with the same configuration ( 2GHz Processor, 500Mhz GPU and 1GB RAM ) will I be able to play all the present and future games to come. If not, then why? Consoles can run games with low Specs?
If yes PC of what configuration I should buy compared to XBOX 360 and PS3? Thanks.
Aug 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
@ Hasan
In theory it should work. But in reality, you need to have a special emulator (like the Sega emulator) to play the games. And trust me, these softwares are buggy like hell.
I tried a PS2 emulator, and of all the games I tried, only one booted up (Burnout Revenge) but it was unplayable. Anyway, don’t count on it anytime soon. To make those emulators, you need a proprietary code and you can’t have that legally.
Besides, game consoles are specially designed for games. You will notice lag even on a similarly configured PC because the software won’t be optimized.
Aug 4th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
@ Gaming Wiz
I was kinda talking about PC versions of those console games.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Who posted that article?as if he never read what a game dveloper sez abt the ps3 graphics power?all game dvelopers say ‘we can work confidently with the xbox360 taking advantage of its gpu…but when we have to port it to the ps3 the quality of the game has to be brought down’
Dec 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
@ farhan – id love to see the link to that quote u just cooked up out of ur fanboy ass. as for the rsx. the recent games are proof enough. Batman Arkham Asylum performs better on the ps3. oblivion has better all around graphics on the ps3. bioshock has better graphics on the ps3. and mostly all other games run the same. I remember Assassins creed which has better contrast of lighting but more jittery framerates than the 360. dragon age origins got .5 rating more for the ps3 simply because graphics are so much better on it.And not to mention MGS 4 is still the best technical showcare there is on any platform. The graphics quality of ps3 exclusives are far better than 360 ones. uncharted 1 and 2 . kz 2. mgs 4. heavenly sword. motorstorms. valkyria chronicles. Its rather that the 360 is easier to dev for because its architecture and design is similar to a pc is the reason 360 has better looking games and not all devs put the same effort in for the ps3 versions.. thats where the difference lies. so if anything is wrong with the ps3 .. its lack of dev kits and user friendlyness for devs.
Jan 28th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Hmmm, couple of weeks ago I had fight with a person who was defending PS 3 under the blame for the developers.
Things is (I own both) when a gamer buys a game for his console, *he plays it on THAT CONSOLE, not on the developers ass* 😛 😛 😛 😛
Whatever the reason the guilt or the victim is the console. I do not look into too deep what the developers have done, I just sense -it is my console.
Having been playing with this two consoles, I should say both has its own pros and cons.
The X 3 has EDID feature, no matter what type of display you have (be it VGA, or DVI-D, HDMI) the X3 immediately detects it, and adjusts to that optimal resolution. PS 3 somehow lacks it. I connect my PS 3 to my monitor’s DVI-D and it sense it as an HDMI- what the heck. I connect the X3 and it immediately recognizes it is a DVI-D.
Again, recent gamespot graphics comparison of A C II proved AC II had better (sharper) textures on X 3 than on PS 3.
If its the developers fault, then WHY THE HECK they still sucks at porting properly Cross platformers to the PS 3s EVEN after 3/4 years of its releases dudes?
Again peep come here and blame the developers defending the PS 3.
From my personal experience (I have 32″ HD TV, and a 19 inch DVI-D, VGA Capable LCD monitor), I think PS 3 suffers from *slight* jaggedness and less textures than the X3.
Those phenomenas were occured when played UC II, Resistance, Infamous.
The PS 3’s main POWER is it’s Hardware (CPU) potential- heavy rain, killzone 2, and heavenly sword are the examples.
Only drawback I found for ma X 3 is its bulkier gamepad, heavy sound when the game is not installed. PS 3’s gamepad way smooth, smart and light and it does not fart much like the X3. 😛