360 performs better than PS3

quarryman

Here
So the results clearly show that over the course of the entire clip, 360 out-performs PlayStation 3 in all but one of the six scenarios presented here. Indeed, on the longer vids we're seeing a good 17 to 18 percent variance. Tests on gameplay (playing through the same mission, but not rendering identical scenes, obviously) saw a similar range of variance too. For example, the 'Ivan the Not So Terrible' stage has a nice range of in-car, on-foot, rooftop and cut-scene action. 30.704fps average on a 360 runthrough, compared with 26.522fps and 26.274fps on two separate PS3 captures of the same mission.
The bottom line is that no matter what material I put through the detector, 360 came ahead in all tests, sometimes dramatically so.




Didn't expect that. So we were made wait an extra 6 months so they could code the game correctly for the PS3? And in the end it performs worse than the 360.



Not that I care of course. *pats xbox 360*

Ciaran500

That test isn't really valid. PS3 version is limited to 30fps, 360 one is free to run as fast as it can. e.g. if he was staring at a wall for a second during the test the 360 one may have hit 40fps while the PS3 one would be stuck at 30fps skewing the average

Although from my experience the 360 version runs at a noticably higher frame rate.

quarryman wrote: »

Didn't expect that. So we were made wait an extra 6 months so they could code the game correctly for the PS3? And in the end it performs worse than the 360.

No evidence at all that the delay was to work on the PS3 version.

corcaigh07

ha, only 6 minutes and the fanboy baiting worked

Ciaran500

corcaigh07 wrote: »

ha, only 6 minutes and the fanboy baiting worked

Huh? I said the 360 version runs better...

Doesn't mean the way the did the tests is correct.

quarryman

Ciaran500 wrote: »

No evidence at all that the delay was to work on the PS3 version.

oh, i thought that was the reason.

*googles*

edit:
found loads of links to indicate that it was
here
here
here

GrumPy

*pats 360 and says good boy*

*rubs dust of ps3 and say there, there*

Captain Chaos

I have and play both versions and in my experience the 360 version looks a bit better and has a better frame rate. I only bought the PS3 version because it was ment to look better and play smoother, what a load of BS, hardware specs mean nothing by themselves, its how the game is optimised thats a big factor aswell.

1huge1

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I have and play both versions and in my experience the 360 version looks a bit better and has a better frame rate. I only bought the PS3 version because it was ment to look better and play smoother, what a load of BS, hardware specs mean nothing by themselves, its how the game is optimised thats a big factor aswell.

You have both???

jimmy2180

Looking through the vids on eurogamer, I have to say the PS3 looked a little blocky. In particular the footage side by side in the bowling alley.

Being biased as a 360 owner, I do have to conceed that the lighting is a little crisper on the PS3. Despite the limit on the frame rate hindering the PS3 in relation to gameplay, the 360 does overall look a lot prettier than its counterpart.

projectmayhem

for less then 4fps performance improvement i'll gladly take free online MP.

GrumPy

projectmayhem wrote: »

for less then 4fps performance improvement i'll gladly take free online MP.

That doesn't work properly? with a crappy controller? :rolleyes:
Odd choice, but fair.

Otacon

Irish GrumPy wrote: »

That doesn't work properly? with a crappy controller? :rolleyes:
Odd choice, but fair.

I have not had any issues myself with the multiplayer, except for stupid, inept team-mates! :mad:

As for the controller, I have been using it since the PS1 so I prefer it to the 360s. Though I will conceed that I loved the GameCube one the most...:pac:

projectmayhem

Irish GrumPy wrote: »

That doesn't work properly? with a crappy controller? :rolleyes:
Odd choice, but fair.

it works fine. it had a patch but i haven't even tried MP yet anyway.

...and the controller has suited me (and a fair few of us) since the ninetees.

steviec

The multiplayer worked fine for me before the patch. The first couple of nights it didn't work but since then its been fine.

And definitely much much prefer the sixaxis to the 360 pad.

I'll eventually get the 360 version for the DLC though, it'll be a good excuse to play through the game a second time. I'll be curious about which performs better, because up until Eurogamer's comparison, just about every other report I've read said the PS3 had longer draw distance and less pop in, quicker load times, better shadows and lighting and roughly the same framerate. I haven't had a chance to compare them myself though.

Stephen

I prefer the 360 pad - triggers for accelerator and brake ftw.

projectmayhem

Stephen wrote: »

I prefer the 360 pad - triggers for accelerator and brake ftw.

sixaxis has the same control scheme

Patricide

Been a playstation player for years and i used to prefer the dual shock 2 but the minor tweaks they made in the change for the sixaxis killed it for me.

The big one of course is the lack of rumble(which is coming back soon though) this made the controller feel way too light and flimsy. Also the way the r2 and l2 buttons are feels just WRONG in my opinion.

Still though glad i bought my x box over the ps3 and at times like this its good because for every playstation fanboy that says that the 360 is **** etc, i have this to shut em up.

manyoo88

well i have the dualshock3 (imported:D) and i have to say myself it is a big improvement to the sixaxis. i find the l2 and r2 buttons grand tbh. A little off topic but the 360 controller is only good for FPS. Its a piece of s*** for sports and fighting games. Don't jump to your conclusions that I am a ps fanboy cause I own all 3 consoles atm(360, PS3 and Wii)

So what if the 360 slightly performs better than the ps3. the 360 was the lead development platform for the game. Hopefully in the future they start the development on the PS3 first and then port it over to the 360 so that no platform suffers. Just look at Burnout Paradise for example.

Giblet

The PS3 definatley has framerate problems that the Xbox doesn't suffer from immensely. The main reason I'd say is that the PS3 API is a crap for exploiting the full power of the PS3 and the fact that it has 256 RAM which Sony use 96mb of, compared to 512 usable for GFX which MS take 32mb.

manyoo88

at the end of the day its only 4fps the difference. Its not going to ruin the experience. look on metacritic and game rankings both versions have 99 out of 100 and 97% respectively (actually on game rankings the ps3 version is ranked .1% greater than the 360:P).

delta_bravo

manyoo88 wrote: »

at the end of the day its only 4fps the difference. Its not going to ruin the experience. look on metacritic and game rankings both versions have 99 out of 100 and 97% respectively (actually on game rankings the ps3 version is ranked .1% greater than the 360:P).

Both of which are too high

projectmayhem

The Hitcher wrote: »

The PS3 definatley has framerate problems that the Xbox doesn't suffer from immensely. The main reason I'd say is that the PS3 API is a crap for exploiting the full power of the PS3 and the fact that it has 256 RAM which Sony use 96mb of, compared to 512 usable for GFX which MS take 32mb.

PS3 has another 256mb RAM available on Cell, which i believe is fully accessable to programmers.

anyway, with this conversation i popped my brothers' copy of gta into my 360 and my copy of gta in my ps3 and had a go and which was better/worse. i could post some details/videos/pics/impressions, make a website, podcast and write a book... but in the end, basically the experience is the exact same. the ps3 renders things a little different to the 360 and vice-versa... but that doesn't detach from the world or anything.

the framerate is in no way noticable (i tested this by smashing a car into a bunch of cars and see what happened with traffic getting messed up on star junction) though there was a small jolt on the ps3 (a jolt of under a second).

other then this i think the ps3's draw distance is better (marginally) and there seemed to be more pedestrians on the ps3 version, but that could just be the algorithm... since it is fairly random.

so, i would throw out any arguments about system specs etc. because it's rubbish. the only real arguments anyone has is which controller they prefer to use.

if the games are equal i'd go with ps3 over 360 for no reason other then i'm more used to the controller, the online is free (and working now) and the console doesn't sound like a pneumatic drill in my room.

Giblet

projectmayhem wrote: »

so, i would throw out any arguments about system specs etc. because it's rubbish. the only real arguments anyone has is which controller they prefer to use.

That other 256 is not used by the gpu, whereas the full 512 on the 360 can be used by whatever. It's not rubbish if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of why the frames are suffering. I agree that on both platforms, you'll have an enjoyable experience. The average joe probably wouldn't even notice either, but if you want the cold hard facts, I see that as the primary reason along with a difficult API as to why the performance is not as good (or even better, which I'm confident is possible). Mulitple render targets, passes for all the fancy shadowing and shader effects add up.

Here's what is killing performance.

Rendering Shadow Maps With Actors: Scene most likely rendered at half resolution with no textures.
Render Scene: Full res textures with fragment program baking the shadow map.
Render Targets: (Lower res scene using clip planes for special effects such as reflections and water passed to a fragment program): Probably requires 1 or 2 passes, each probably half res at framerate or framerate/2.

How much RAM do you think this would take up? The PS3 doesn't even render at 1280x720, probably slightly lower if they were being killed by framerate. The 360 renders at 1280, most likely because they had the RAM.

GrumPy

projectmayhem wrote: »

sixaxis has the same control scheme

No it doesn't, It feels too light, The analog sticks feel clumsy, and the triggers are curved the wrong way and are not fun to use imo. And I always thought the playstation pad was great, I experienced gaming in the 90's too. :rolleyes:

Otacon

Irish GrumPy wrote: »

projectmayhem wrote: »

sixaxis has the same control scheme

No it doesn't, It feels too light, The analog sticks feel clumsy, and the triggers are curved the wrong way and are not fun to use imo. And I always thought the playstation pad was great, I experienced gaming in the 90's too. :rolleyes:

What has that got to do with the control scheme?

The only thing I possibly agree with there is it being light but that doesn't actually bother me in the slightest.

manyoo88

well the sixaxis is light but the DualShock 3 has solved that problem. I think the biggest thing wrong with the 360's controller is that big ol battery pack sticking out the back of it. And the d-pad of course.

projectmayhem

The Hitcher wrote: »

That other 256 is not used by the gpu, whereas the full 512 on the 360 can be used by whatever. It's not rubbish if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of why the frames are suffering. I agree that on both platforms, you'll have an enjoyable experience. The average joe probably wouldn't even notice either, but if you want the cold hard facts, I see that as the primary reason along with a difficult API as to why the performance is not as good (or even better, which I'm confident is possible). Mulitple render targets, passes for all the fancy shadowing and shader effects add up.

the extra memory on cell can be used for GPU processing afaik. that's why there's only 256mb normal ram in the system. that was sony's reasoning for doing that when everyone wanted 512mb ram, or more.

as for the API... it's just as good as the 360's XNA business, it's just not as nice to work on.

in reality no one is going to notice the difference unless they've a debug ps3 that can display the FPS information.

The Hitcher wrote: »

Rendering Shadow Maps With Actors: Scene most likely rendered at half resolution with no textures.
Render Scene: Full res textures with fragment program baking the shadow map.
Render Targets: (Lower res scene using clip planes for special effects such as reflections and water passed to a fragment program): Probably requires 1 or 2 passes, each probably half res at framerate or framerate/2.

How much RAM do you think this would take up? The PS3 doesn't even render at 1280x720, probably slightly lower if they were being killed by framerate. The 360 renders at 1280, most likely because they had the RAM.

i don't know the specifics there but taking your word for it, it's not exactly dismal reading... the difference isn't exactly massive.

any ram issues they may have had at that kind of level would have been somewhat resolved by having data installed on the HDD...

Nailz

Irish GrumPy wrote: »

That doesn't work properly? with a crappy controller? :rolleyes:
Odd choice, but fair.

Doesn't work properly? It works absolutely grand for me, I don't understand what problem you have, your connection?
And this one really confuses me, crappy controller? Right what ever you say... you prefer a fat, heavy, American block to a slim, light, Jap' with SIXAXIS which has worked for most people for a decade and a half?! :rolleyes:

*walks over to 360, cleans it and check if it still works after 6 months of abandonment...*

quarryman

Does anyone know how they actually get these FPS values? Do they run it in some sort of debug environment?

Ciaran500

quarryman wrote: »

Does anyone know how they actually get these FPS values? Do they run it in some sort of debug environment?

Its all in the article.

Giblet

projectmayhem wrote: »

as for the API... it's just as good as the 360's XNA business, it's just not as nice to work on.

No major company uses XNA, that's more a hobbyist stripped down managed code API with a lot of boiler plate code. Any data swapped to the harddrive would cause the performance issues too, they still have to load them into RAM!