February 25th, 2013
Posted in 
| System Breakdown | Xbox 360 Stats | PlayStation 3 Stats |
| Resolutions: | Up to 1080p | Up to 1080p |
| # of Discs: | Single | Single |
| HD Install: | Optional | 512MB |
| Metacritic: |  |
 |
Come join us as we “crossbow” our way through Crysis 3 on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 to give you the “Heads Up” on which version out performs the other. Just remember, a Heads Up doesn’t have a winner or a loser – they’re designed to give our members a “Heads Up” on which version performs better on games that might have slipped through the cracks. In short, our members are the judge and jury on which version is the best. Heads Up winners and losers can be found on our Head2Head Index page. Check out the analysis below and enjoy.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Click The Image to Enlarge.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Click The Image to Enlarge.
More Sliders, Roll Overs,Poll and Analysis Video on page 2 >>>
Pages: 1 2
Tags: *To ensure color accuracy from the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii U output, the PlayStation 3 has RGB Full Range set to "Full" and Super White "On", and the Xbox 360 has Reference Level set to "Expanded" and HDMI Color Space set to "RGB". Our capture card we have captured segments from the AVS HD 709 . Blu-ray, HD DVD, & MP4 Calibration suite.
As you will see, each system matches each other at the SOURCE LEVEL. No contrast or gamma settings are manipulated before or after capturing our images/videos. We strongly believe that these types of corrections are done on a individuals preference and should not be adjusted by us. Finally, washed out looking images that are due to contrast or gamma differences will not have any influence on our final verdicts. Please Read through our F.A.Q page if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m voting for the vastly superior PS4 version, which delivers true Crysis-quality graphics on home console, not Cryshit like its Xbox 360 and PS3 counterparts.
Or, you know, PC…
Kidding, but given how terribly optimized it is for PC (my uber system chugged at Very High, pulling only 40 fps, and it’s 4x more powerful than the PS4 will be), and seeing as how the PS4 is running on an x86 architecture which basically makes it a PC with a custom OS, I doubt we’ll be seeing a very good version on the PS4.
sorry, I mean “x86″
@DRMaddock
Assuming that it does come to the PS4. *LOL* Whose idea was it to include PS4 as a voting choice in the first place?
By the way, I’m just curious but what choices of AA does game offer this time around, and which do you recommend (for a nice balance between quality and performance)? I remember last time it was some horrible temporal AA…
I don’t get why Crytek have a reputation of being graphics kings?
All they did was make 1 game that was just filled with high res textures and effects and not optimise it, any dev could do that, the game wasn’t even that good it is more like a long benchmark test than a game.
Then they said Crysis 2 would be the best looking console game and it is way off Uncharted, Killzone and GoW3, its not even in the top 5 best looking 3rd party games and Crysis 3 is not either.
So please tell me why people wet their pants at a Crysis game?
Its a 8/10 graphics and 8/10 gameplay/story game at the very best!
Hey DRMADDOCK, are you perhaps CPU bottlenecked? There are many games out there that utilize quad cores very poorly and the only way to get past that is to overclock. I for example cannot play Need for Speed Most Wanted (the new one) at 60 fps and I’m using a 3.3Ghz i5. The reason is that it uses a CPU expensive reflections on the water. The same goes for Guild Wars 2. Turning off reflections bumps up my fps and actually increases my GPU usage. If I had know so few games make full use of quad cores, I would have spent my money on an i3 and a better motherboard and cooling in order to overclock it.
@DRMADDOCK
tell me about it, I have an 15 3570k, gtx 590, and on high(not even ultra settings) that first level runs abysmally in places. Most the time it will run 45-60 with fxaa at 1440p with high res pack, and bit worse with smaa x2, but in that initial dash in rain it’s about 30fps, and there’s two or three moment, mainly after a cut scene where it stutters along for a bit at 11/14fps for apparently no reason whilst staring at a window with bow, or cause a rope swinging in background is apparently extremely taxing, and reduces frame rates by 23fps (google it lol)
If Crytek arent the worst developers Ive ever come accross, Im not sure who are. They have zero optimisational skills, and if you search for Crysis 2 tesselation is poor, you will find evidence of this, as they implemented it so badly, it’s hugely draining for no reason at all, and MALDO HD mod not only increases texture res, but fixes tesselation problems, and gets it running about 20fps on my pc completely maxed.
Theyre pathetic. I think they just talk about how great their games will look, and how demamnding they are , almost as a selling point, poorly optimise them utilise this to sell it to nerds like me who will buy better hardware to try get better results
pcgamer.com/2013/02/25/crysis-3-performance-issues-caused-by-ropey-physics/
i think the fact that BLOODIOS was doing a bit of light hearted trolling in regards to the PS4 option on the vote, was lost on Dr Maddock, who seemed a bit butt hurt to be honest! lol.
And for the record, the way the PS4 architecture is put together, it can’t be purely replicated on a PC. Close, or more powerful, but not exact. It truelly is next Gen. I posted a great link about it but is awaiting moderation and I don’t think LOT want it posted. Oh well.
I had Crysis 2 for both 360 and PS3 and found the former had consistently better performance throughout. This time round went only for the PS3 version (which I’ve been enjoying along with Crysis 1 which came with the pre-order) – makes me glad to see I wouldn’t have gained too much by buying the other version.
Great game though either way!
Im really dissapointed about the crappy xbox 360 version…WTF HAPPENED HERE? WHY SO CRAPPY TEXTURES??? what did CRYTEK with dedicated 512MB ram? this version is the worst crysis game c0onversion Ive ever seen in all my dissapointed life….the PS3 version smashes the 360 by much…a real shame. after all this I will sell this game for 20 dollars and drink some beer…console hardware like the crappy 360 should never happen again…if the xbox 720 will come with inferior hardware like their 360 piece of shit then forget about my purchase….this game does not even deserve to be pirated…
CRAP 100%
PS3 looked better on paper, but we all know how that turned out, especially with the majority of multi-plats. I do believe the tide will turn next gen though, as Sony has realised their mistake of not working close enough with developers when designing the PS3. It was alien to them. with the super-fast 8gb of ram, and the universally mastered x86 CPU, we will see some changes. Don’t write off MS though. I feel a massive retort coming on.
Hmmm… The ps3 version sure does have slightly better image quality. Perfromance-wise, I think it’s a tie. Anyways, the differences are minimal, just like with Crysis 2. By the way, how do you guys think Crysis 3 compares to Crysis 2 and other graphical beasts of console? I’m glad Crytek actually bothered to do AA this time around, Crysis 2 looked a bit blurry from far away. Anyways, I still think Halo 4 and Uncharted 3 look better, probably the new God of War too.
Odd to see the 360 version have such muddy textures. We all knew the PS3 would truly shine towards the end of it’s lifespan. As always. We have certainly seen evidence of that lately. And it’s not over yet.
Wow the ps3 has been winning so many game comparisons recently.
Where’s that Buying1999 dickhead?
I wonder if he still thinks xbox are having 90% wins as he says many times lol.
The Xbots always disappear when the PS3 comes out on top, hence why they haven’t been around in a while. Poor sportsmanship, but typical of that lot.
Oh, but I haven’t left at all! I have been too busy playing the back catalogue of vastly superior 360 versions released over the last six years! The internet ready blu-ray player has only been marginally victorious on below average games.
John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack, John Carmack.
you will always be an imposter buy”1″ng1999…..
Frankly the only thing that i see were is a piece of crap of a game that can even achieve a 30fps to give players some smooth play!Anyone that pics this either on any of the platforms is just stupid,this game is a waste of money and Crttek and EA dont deserve any kind of support!There are better games avaiable and coming that deserve to be pick up,so dont waste money on crap that runs at 20fps.The rest of the comments a leave to the known trolls and fanboys!
cant achieve 30fps what a crap!!
This does not look great on consoles. The aging hardware is really starking to show… looking forward to next gen consoles. The familiar architecture should make it much easier to make great pc-ports of all the great console-games
well i have the ps3 version not played it yet though, you would be hard pressed to see the 360 screen tear it seems unnoticeable to me, anyway im not here to gloat as the framerate is crap on both, crytek talk themselves up and the game looks nice but give me a halo 4 or killzone 3 with a rock solid frame rate any day, this smacks more of crytek knocking this one out asap which probably explains why the campaign is so short, crytek need to learn a lot more about cohesive story and presentation and stop bigging up the bling they bring, dissapointed.
Ouch, the frame rate of this game is quite awful on both systems. I imagine the input lag to be enormous. It really waters down the gunplay when you have such high input lag. I remember my Killzone 2 playthrough where my motto was spray and pray.
i wish to see Tomb Raider H2H next please…
There is a mistake in 3° clip 360′s avarage, it’s impossible that is 34 fps, on the video the framerate on 360 is always under 25 fps
I’m pretty sure it’s a simple typo averaging with 34.16 gets me 28.63fps final avg, with 25.16 for clip 3 i get 25.64fps final avg, much closer to the final avg (25.58)provided at the bottom by lot
A tip to the folks out there with 3D TV’s – try this game out in 3D. There is no hit to framerate (which let’s face it, is god-awful in 2D already) but the game REALLY shines with regards to visuals – jagged edges are for some reason better obscured in 3D which with the added immersion really makes C3 a great experience!
I guess eurogamer lied when they said xbox was sharper had a better frame rate and run at a higher Rez then in the demo face of ? But I guess looking at screen shots are more accurate than the people playing the game and telling us what’s what
Eurogamer & LOT have been contradicting one another for quite a while now. I trust this site more these days.
The demo looks alot worse in general, beside that there is capture card bias and artifacting from compression, the only way to do a proper comparison is to get a raw uncompressed video file and take a frame from it, which both LOT and DF do not do, likely because they do compression on the fly and its unpractical as uncompressed video is around 5gb every 10 mins when recording at 720p 30.
I wonder how many fanboys will rip into me after pointing that out.
Eurogamer have tec backgrounds they know there stuff . Do you ever see eurogamer df compare fmv cut seens as game footage this site does it all the time so how can you trust that ? You just can’t df is the most trusted.take a look at this sites mgs head to head nearly all fmv screen shots that’s misleading is it not.we know ps3 does far better fmv but in game they look the same and are both vsync but the xbox has like a 10 fps advantage which is a big advantage in anyone’s book.lens can’t be trusted for screen shot comparsoins.
LoT, have you ever considered doing blind comparisons and not disclosing which is which until a user votes? It would be interesting to see what would come out of a blind A/B comparison when you take reader bias out of the choice.
Not taking a side on this game, just saying.
That’s a neat idea. I’ll pass it on to Jamie and Shawn.
So…some day to another (end of 2012) games on PS3 looks better and run smoother than xbox360 ??? better textures ??? 5 or 6 year xbox 360 was better. why that change now ?
.
I’m very curious about it. Looks suspicious.
360 initially had the edge due to its easy development path(easier to program)
the ps3 having very custom hardware is designed to perform really well with the catch being difficult development to get that extra horse power, now after 7 years the dev tools are better the kits are cheaper and more people have experience, it was only a matter of time. the same happened on ps2 (dev wise)
at the end games started to look really good. a great example is BLACK by ea
I have to say it looks a lot better than the multiplayer demo.
PS3 won, but still who cares? It’s yet another boring FPS. What about the Tomb Raider H2H??
@LoT staff, while you guys are at it picking ideas, you may also wish you check your capturing equipment once again, instead of deleting comments from users who suggest these things, direct feed images posted in other comparison sites show a huge gulf in image quality compared to what you guys post as images, especially for the 360 version of Crysis 3, the images posted here show lower image quality, which isn’t the actual case.
Hate to be the one accusing you of intentional bias, but these kind of very obvious things leave little to the imagination
oh also, the global FPS average based on the 3 clips you’ve posted is 28.6 frames per second for the 360, not 25.
Again, proof reading helps
Sorry to sound like a dick LoT staff, but these mistakes are very amateurish.
34.16 is a typo if you watch clip3 it rarely hits 30fps(a vsync limit) and has some major dips to less than 20fps and with that i’m pretty sure it supposed to be 24.16, and even with that the average isn’t 25.58 but its much closer, btw if you do the averages on the ps3 numbers the final avg is also not the same, and with that information I assume that either lot has bad data or they are using a final average based on more gameplay then shown in the video.
Yet again once the full analysis of this game is out there on the internet(eurogamer have their face off up), the 360 is the proven winner against the ps3.
The ps3 version runs at an even lower sub hd res than the 360(just like crysis 2)and suffers in heavy areas when long draw distances are involved.
If ever you wanted proof that screenshots can be misleading(especially on LOT it seems), here it is.
To be fair though, I wouldn’t touch the console versions when the pc version is clearly the way to go on this kind of game(despite the framerate being a bit variable on pc too).
The 360 and ps3 are sadly showing their age now when lots of things are happening on the screen at one time.
Exclusives on both consoles(uncharted, halo 4)don’t suffer as much because they’re not trying to compete with a superior version(pc crysis 3 for example).
Trying to cram a technically superb pc game in the consoles these days is asking for trouble(and major cutbacks).
Thank god the new consoles are almost here
i would call it a close tie(7.1pcm support basically makes it even as they look basically the same anyway with a slight edge to 360)
and btw the screens are not misleading the 360 in lots is running off the disc(they do point this out)where as the df 360 is more than likely loading off the hard drive
(FYI the resolution difference is almost certainly due to the limitations on the hardware scaler in the ps3(as far as i know sony has not fully unlocked the hardware scaler), as 1152 is a non standard horizontal resolution, they probably had to pick 1280, 1024 or 960 or they get no hardware scaler and would have to do it in software which would cause additional blurring also the extra pixels are negligible it would maybe get them 1-3fps improvement)
Both versions are sub-HD
Best textures and zero screen tearing for PS3 version.
Easy win…
Android123 did you check df you are 100% right. I would say a lot of these shots on xbox are during the texture bug df mentioned and its not the first time this site has used pitchures during a texture load.
I think these “heads up” analysis are really incomplete. I have to agree that the screen shots favor the PS3 but the Digital Foundry analysis (which is much more in depth) clearly indicates that the 360 version is the recommended console version of the game….citing more stable framerates, sharper overall image (due to higher native resolution and less upscaling), and better draw distances on the 360. It’s curious that the PS3 images in the LOT heads up do have sharper textures and it def could be due to the texture loading bug or not being installed on the hard drive. Either way, I was initially dissappointed that I picked this up on 360 instead of PS3 when I saw this heads up but now I’m glad I stuck with it. I come to this site to get a reliable analysis to help determine which version of a game to buy and these incomplete and rushed “heads up” articles don’t really give me a good idea which version is better. I will still check out this site out but I’m going with Digital Foundry for my purchasing decisions…this head up was very misleading IMO. I understand that LOT rules to follow and limits on what they can do…but if they can’t give me a clearer picture of which console version is recommended then whats the point of this site?
Which site is correct? This site shows the 360 version being low res and Digital Foundry shows the PS3 version being low res.
What’s going on?
Either way… it’s not like resolution is going to make this game any more fun.
Strange. The DF screenshots show the textures to be mostly a match with only the slightly higher res of the 360 giving it a slight advantage in sharpness. It must be an installation issue as I’m pretty sure DF install the 360 disc to the HDD for their comparisons.
and what is up with the 360s FPS average? I’m not a math wiz or anthing but I’m pretty sure it’s impossible for the global average to be less then any of the individual 3 samples…typo I’m guessing?
…and this no installing on the hard drive is a dumb rule IMO. I’m not here for fanboy battles and I don’t care which system “wins”. I love both systems and I simply want to know which version is recommended. I install every game on the 360 hard drive as I’m sure many gamers do these days. I think the better way to do this would be to install every game and have a disclosure that states the anaylsis was done with the game installed and results may vary if you run the game from the disc. This way, the majority of us who have hard drive space on our 360s can truly know which is the recommended version. If I pick up a PS3 version based on a LOT analysis, but find out that the game runs better when installed on the 360, I’m going to feel like I was misled and made the wrong choice. I know the developers should probably recommend that you install the game, but seriously, to say the PS3 version in superior just because the developer didn’t recommend for you to install the game is like winning on a technicality and it doesn’t really tell me which version is preferrable…which is all I care about. Ok, I’m done ranting LOL
The reason they don’t install unless its recommended is because a majority of 360s that have been sold have a 20gb harddrive or less, people generally don’t have the harddrive space, at least lot tells you that what they did where as df did not say that they used a harddrive or not.
the visual differences are almost nonexistent , there is a very small performance difference(both lot and df show 2-3 fps in 360s favor).
the only major difference is that the ps3 has better sound as it supports 7.1 uncompressed audio which the 360 cannot due to hardware limitations(ps3 hdmi 1.3a, 360 hdmi 1.2) and its got a high quality Sony DAC for analog connections also.
(the disc image is also larger on ps3 fairly consistently on most games due to uncompressed audio)
its really sad that people overlook sound quality,but then again people settle for low quality mp3s so its to be expected.
best advice : if it looks same from 1 meter away and runs similarly, then the difference is negligible , just get the version for the console you play the most or have the most friends to play with.
i guess people don’t like better sound….
You make a fair point, Selling. I play both consoles equally (probably PS3 more nowadays) so I don’t have a preference. Yes, I’m super anal about buying the best version of a game…if I wasn’t I probably wouldn’t be visiting these kinds of sites for info. I could be wrong, but I would probably guess that most people who have less then 20gb of storage on their 360 are not going to be frequenting sites like Lot and DF to determine which versions of games to buy. I can understand the reasoning both ways, but if you can’t do both (compare installed and uninstalled) then to me it makes more sense to install the game to show us the max potential. Just my opinion, which I’m sure is influenced by the fact that I install my games so I want to know LOL.
looks like a 360 win to me just as the last game was, though there is not much in it, theres a lot of feedback on the df article slagging of lensoftruth but i honestly prefer there way of leaving the decisions to there readers, df are not bias as in they prefer one console over another but they are bias when it comes to performance, they will allways go with performance over graphics case in point resi 5 which had a lower framerate on ps3 and hideous screen tear on 360, winner: 360, and thats just one of many examples and i detest that, surley its up to the consumer to choose which they prefer and after playing both versions i prefered ps3, they also never take into account ps3s superior sound, anyway i digress most of the time they are right and that normally means a 360 win, thats just fact.
M8 if you still have rez evil 5 on the xbox or have an xbox set the dashboard to 720p then try Rez 5 it has zero screen tear it works for shadows of the damed as well.to tell the truth it works for all mt framework games on xbox I know shadows is unreal 3 but it works for it. if you mess about with different games with xbox you will get different results like darksouls do not install it on xbox you get a better framerate from disc plus do not install Rez 5 it runs better from disc to.just mess about with different options you will see yourself.
the problem with DIGITAL FOUNDRY is that they mad2e the faceoff with the new tittle update installed, this patch fixes the macroblocking issue on the textures, now with that bug fixed the xbox 360 is showing the textures porperly, another advantage of the 360 version is that the draw distance is noticeable higher, in therms of performance I can say its a tie, cause the xbox has slighty more fps, but has acreen tearing, the ps3 has none screantearin but the fps drop is too high, also the PS3 native resolution is lower: at 1152×720 on 360 and 1024×720 on the PS3
I THINK LENS OF TRUTH STAFF SHOULD DO A NEW H2H WITH THE PATCH INSTALLED TO SEE THTE CHANGES…maybe it brings more improvements.
but by the way, the xbox 360 wins with less blurry visuals, better draw distance and more FPS, and the ps3 with 0 screen tearing, but thats somenthing to not care about on the 360 version: ITS UNNOTICEABLE
I forgot to tell: HDD INSTALL WONT FIX THE TEXTURE BUG: but the new update does
that good to know its a bug and not a dvd bandwidth limitation,glad they patched it.
It really doesn’t matter which one wins. They both look like complete ass.
I WONDER: why PS3 fanboys tends to “focus” on sound advantage when PS3 loses to 360???
I’d dare to wager those fanboys just a have a single HDTV to play with their “superior” PS3, and if so, beware of the area 51 cientists: they will want to learn about your SUPER HUMAN hearing abilities and open their heads in the name of cience.
You must not know much about sound or audio. You probably listen to your 360 through 1 watt 1/2″ speakers from your RCA tv, or your toots awesome Turtle Beach headset. I for one have $5000 invested into my audio setup so your damn right sound is a huge priority to me. I will take a better sounding game and play it on an sdtv over a shitty sounding game on a hdtv. Ears do not lie like your Eyes do. And I am not a fanboy, I own 2 of every console so I buy what is better overall, but PS3 Audio always Wins.
Yo can be an exeption, but these ps3 fanboys that have never inverted in superb sound systems (like my Bose home teather) just want to use sound like a way out.
Sound is not my priority, I just play.
But in your case you have the right to speak about sound…they probably NOT
I only brought sound to the table because its a real difference, ok sure 7.1 surround isn’t something the majority of users will use but the uncompressed sound is something almost any one can appreciate if they take the time to listen carefully(no more different then carefully analyzing the image quality).
The visual and performance differences are minimal but they are notable,just as the sound is notable. that’s why i say its a tie.
(not really a fan-boy [see buying1999] )
Sorry but you lost me at the moment you said Bose. Bose is just crap with expensive marketing and hasn’t made anything decent since the 80′s. To your point though, I am saying don’t just assume that there aren’t tons of people who care about audio quality out there. Audio is what really seals in the immersion factor to video games. That is one thing Sony Nailed and if Microsoft is smart they will step up their audio big time on the next system, because Dolby Digital was crap even when the 360 came out. even the Wii U was smart enough to go with uncompressed PCM audio.
if BOSE is crap then what is the best then?
FISHER???
PIONEER??
No and no.. if you want something that actually sounds decent it totally depends what you are going to use it for. If you like bose, buy some used Bose composite 3-way speakers from the 80′s . They’re cheap and sounds great with a decent amplifier like NAD, Cambridge or Denon to name a few. Go for a amplifier that is nothing more than an amplifier – it’s always the better solution.
personally i really like NAD because their amps are voltage-adaptive, which means the amplifier boost the hard-to-hear-frequencies which can get blurred with low volume. Just a tip. The cheaper solution is to buy a soundcard and a really decent 5.1 or 7.1 headset.. but it will never match a decent stereo.
I’m a real hifi-geek (i used to work with it) but i will take great stereo over crap-surround-sound any day of the week. As i recently burned out my amp (poof!) i use my spare, which is only stereo. It’s a very old (70′s) 50 watts (the real deal, not RMS) amp, and it’s just peachy with every stereo setup i can do at home. I miss surround a little bit for gaming, but musik i always prefer stereo….. so not a great loss.
@Zolrak: if you have any questions regarding hifi, feel free to send me a message.
Runs max on my GTX 670 & 2500k OC’d on 1920×1080, or high 5760×1080. Either way looks really good, prefer 5760×1080 though, so much more details visible
The power of the ps3 was just a lie, if crytek’s claims
Of theres 100% full cOnsole power used,
Get over soniers, the ps3 is not as powerful as sony said.
its easy to have such a good looking exclusive games: thanks to BLURAY TEXTURE AND VIDEO STREAMING, even the super nes could do it…thats why we see that when ps3 bds are slighty scratched the game freezes: its loses sinchonization with the texture streaming.
BUT WHEN A MULTIPLAT ENGINE DEMANDS POWER… The ps3 falls short in most multiplats: of course because theres no bluray texture trick nor video running in the background.
With such low memory, all ps3 soniers never wondered why textures looke soo hi-res: bluary streaming; why sO many polygon count: bluray video running in background using system cache and avanced streamin tech.
OF COURSE ITS POWERFUL…OF COURSE
Zolak i think you need a lie down and to take youre daily meds, leave this feedback to the grown ups, theres a good chap.
Its as powerful as they said, problem being it (was/is) pain to program.
The cell, Its a fast chip but it comes at a price , an spu is a lot simpler than a normal cpu core, meaning less functions are available, what it loses in flexibility it gains in performance.
Gpus are a good example of this , they are specialized for graphical calculations and they also ridiculous performance numbers as a result (2tflops on a midrange gpu vs 0.132tflops intel 3960x).
The cell is inbetween a gpu and a cpu, it is specialized like a gpu but retains more functionality and keeps the performance, this makes things difficult as nothing like it existed at the time and maybe even to this day as technology shifted in a different direction(dedicated gpu and
cpu). Devs simply didn’t know how to use the cell at all, opting to only use the single ppe core (some devs still do that)
As for crytek they said that about Crysis 2, they are probably just hyping up the game, there is almost always room for optimization.
BTW funny that you mention texture streaming considering that the 360 relies on texture streaming off the disc a lot more , given that most ps3 games require some kind of install, but either way both consoles rely heavily on texture streaming, the 360 has the downside of having to use compressed textures(sometimes), video and audio due to limited disc space
Also FYI the polycount has nothing to do with video or textures for that matter its the number of triangles it can render to make 3d models, more polygons = more complicated shapes.
BUT there is one MAJOR crutch that the ps3 has and that is the divided memory, that divided memory can put limits on render distance and texture size, it can be worked around by memory swapping, but that is a major pain, even now.
you should probably calm down ,after all your getting all worked up about two machines that let you play video games in a very similar if not identical way.
Selling2000
I don’t think it’s as powerful as they said cause what they said was 1920 x 1080p @ 60fps which was very rarely the case. But in the hands of a first party developer, well funded, top talent, large team and a couple of years making a linear game then yeah the PS3 kicks ass better than 360. I could probably count the number of games that made me think the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 on one hand in what 6-7 years? Was it worth it? Definitely not. If Sony put gamers first then instead of the Blu Ray drive there would have been a DVD drive more or less like the 360 one (say faster for arguments sake), more RAM and a more easier to use yet still powerful processor (say quad instead of 360 tri). All of this would’ve been cheaper, easier on developers and ensured the PS3 won every single multi platform H2H as well as the exclusives.
It seems like Sony have learned their lesson and the next PS4 is just a powerful ‘supercharged’ PC (exaggerated I know) and if rumours are correct than the next Xbox will be noticeably less powerful and so the PS4 could not only have the better looking exclusives but also the superior multi-platform games without question rendering the H2H LOT and DF do almost pointless.
@Badassbab
1920×1080 games at 60fps are doable on both the 360 and ps3 problem was that at launch the average “consumer” couldn’t tell the differnce between an upscaled 720p game with aa from a 1080p game, and didn’t really care for 60fps that much(some exceptions ie COD), fancy graphics took precedent over every thing else, something sony didn’t prepare for and microsoft did(the edram die on the gpu reduces the performance penalty on msaa and other stuff but only on a frame buffer that is 640p or lower, they looked ahead and didn’t see resolution as a priority and they were right to think that.
There are a few 1080p “60″ games on ps3 and more greater that 720p games that are between 1280×1080 and 1600×1080 , i can think of a few, wipeout hd(has dynamic horizontal resolution to maintain 60fps so mostly 1080p but not always) and ridge racer 7, superstardust hd , as for 360 i think there are a few arcade titles.
Its as powerful as they said(numbers don’t lie) however they definitely over-hyped “1080p60 games” @ launch especially resistance , to expect games that look like resistance to run at 1080p at launch was a a massive oversight, considering how little experience they had with the hardware.
And on top of that devs(in general) didn’t end-up targeting 1080p 60fps with graphics around 1.5 to 2.5x better than the ps2 as sony predicted, they went sub hd /720p at 30 as the target so they could make their games look a lot better (i would argue 7-14x better than ps2 in some cases).
I think Mark Cerny said it best during the ps4 conference when he said the ps3 was designed before the media centralized livingroom, as a single purpose device like they ps2 before it. essentially designed for a console future that never came to be , based around increasingly custom technology to deliver high performance and longevity.
they definitely made the right choice with the ps4 , however i feel sad to see the custom hardware go ( that billion dollars that sony spent to develop the cell wasn’t really worth it now considering it was supposed to be a longterm investment) , and the technical impossibility for ps3 games to work natively or by emulation(very unlikely) on ps4 (psn titles especially).
On a side note bluray was the right choice, games like mgs4 would not have been possible ( coming in at 30gb 4 dual layer dvds is already ridiculous, having to install each act as well would be 10x worse), not to mention the it being a piracy deterent,
SOME INFO ps3 2x CLV bluray reads around 9mb/s at all times.the xbox360 12x CAV dvddrive read speeds on sl(4gb) discs start at 9.3MB/s and peak @ 15.85 at the edge of the disc, on dl(8gb) discs start at 4.5MB/s then at the edge peak at 10.6MB/s, they are basically the same these days , only games on a sl disc have a distinct advantage.
as for design choices, a standard four core cpu would have crippled the ps3
The gtx 7900 derivatived rsx , though it is technically faster than the 360s custom ati solution, is crippled in many ways that make it for all intents and purposes slower, first being crippling the bus width from 256bit to 128 bit, halving the dedicated videomemory bandwidth from 44gb/s to 22gb/s, second being the ROPs(very important) are halved.
The cell makes up for these inadequacies with its ability to take gpu load. all multi plat ps3 games would be inferior with a 4 core PPC cpu
The cell was the right choice for the gpu they chose, had the gpu been better than yes a 4core ppc cpu would have been a better choice but at that point its not really anything like a ps3 any more it a different machine.
….GEEZ LOUISE I write too much for my own good, better stop now
It’s Interesting that most of games released recently are superior on PS3 … PS4 is already confirmed for me!
YEAH I played this on the XBOX 360,..Going to buy the PS4 and the new Xbox this year,…I don’t care which one is the best console, as long as I can play exclusive games on both platform that’s enough for me…
In the end of console generations is always easier to see which is the best system.