The belief that the PlayStation 3 is a better, more powerful and more accomplished games console than the Xbox 360 has been labelled a myth.
Games developer Jason Booth says that Xbox 360 graphics will always be better and that PS3-exclusive titles will "continue to suck". The former Guitar Hero and Rock Band dev made the interesting comments on his blog.
"I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the PS3," he says. "They often mention how the PS3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job.
"Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the PS3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck."
PS3 games suck?
Booth says that the fill rate and shader processing on the Xbox is superior to that of the PlayStation 3.
"Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance.
"Additionally, the shader processing on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the PS3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power."
Xbox 360 more powerful?
He also said that even though the Cell processor inside the PS3 is super-powerful, usually that power cannot be harnessed.
"Game code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the break-up is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or underutilised. On top of that, it's usually not CPU speed that restricts the visuals in games - it's fill rate."
Your comments (3) Click to add a new comment
louis058
February 5th 2009
3. WHO CARES? i have played both consoles, and i was too busy playing the damn games to even care about the "better graphics" which are more like "slightly better graphics" to me. the xbox is cheaper, the ps3 has blu-ray player and is quieter (also don't notice that its quieter) and is more expensive. the wii hasn't got the great games like Gears of War, Fable II, Halo, Tom Clancy's EndWar, Red Alert 3 or GTA, but has a very innovative and unique control system, and it is the cheapest. if it were me i would buy the xbox 360, cos i don't care about the graphics of the ps3 (no, i honestly don't notice them!) or that it has blu-ray player as i prefer DVDs, but it is cheaper!
just buy whichever one you prefer, there's no point arguing about these things
Alert a moderator
suplex57
November 29th 2008
2. atogon wat a post super amazing lol made me laugh n its all true xbox loser SUCK some!
Alert a moderator
atogon
July 25th 2008
1. LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Tsk tsk this is so funy
Is this news are just some bias crap from a loser company thats just hate to loose, ok lets say in some weird dream reality you’re right the Xbox 360 is more powerful than the ps3 what doe’s that prove oh
Aren’t WII winning right now and they have the weakest graphics out of the 3 system? You guys are such a Microsoft suck up stop crying it’s not going to help you remember it’s never the strong it’s about the cunning
Ps2 wipe the floor with Xbox 1
And you idiots were crying about the same thing oh Xbox is more powerful that’s all
They can say, it’s a new gen I think they would have change
Guess Windows vista thought them nothing
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments