If you are going to put in the time and money into a gaming pc you better get 60 fps however for consoles. 30 fps is fine, since we are talking about hardware that is much older. and 30 fps is the standard.
most multiplatform games are bettter on xbox 360 cos developers cant be fucked to convert properly to ps3. but official games on ps3 cannot be supported on xbox 360 (unable to support). overall ps3 is more powerful.
i have both console. and before buying game i always see to it that the game im buying are good in graphics. that why i always watch game comparisson in youtube. and i find out almost all game graphics are good in xbox. i just play ps3 bcz of there exclusive. but lots of my game specially old game are played in my xbox. sorry for my english.
@eddiep2788 it only shows the difference between the frames per second on both consoles.. 20 fps are low and laggy, 30 and more are perfect. in many games ps3 is a few fps slower than the 360, because ps3 is harder to code. :D understood?
@eddiep2788 Well, it is difficult to notice as long as you are not looking at that game-play live on 720p or 1080p screen. Older games Framerate is just terrible for PS3 users, frame-rate drops everywhere.
@XcRuNkJoShYx 60fps are perfect! , 30fps are poor for PC and I'm talking about a 500$ PC tested in 720p with all filters at top still achieving 60+ fps.Of course if you want to play at 1920x1080(1080p) ,you should lower the filters and graphics or invest more.But its ok playing pc at 720p because consoles are rendered at 720p (1280x720),so it doesnt make me less gamer.So PC for the fucking win.
@95928225 yea 60 are perfect. some console games are running on 60 fps also. but i have a shitty pc and counter strike source is running at 30.. 30 is pretty ok
@XcRuNkJoShYx Yeah, some games are at 60fps in consoles but in sub HD 640p with zero antialiasing.On the other hand, I soar 60fps like 80fps or 90fps but I lock my games at 60fps.However, in multiplayers where you have to be fast like COD, RE5 mercenaries,etc I unlock them to get hot records.
P.D I game at 1360x768 (720p) because it's my LCD tv resolution, that's why I gain high fps.Hope someone gives me the money to buy a full hd tv soon.
@LilRunt5 in most games the xbox's frame rate is "capped" at 30fps, so it doesnt get any lower. unfortunetly this means that there is often whats called " frame tearing" So when there are large amounts of bodies on the screen and the xbox cant handle the limited 30fps target the screen literally "tears".
both ps3 and xbox screen tear but xbox it tends to happen more on the ps3 due to the limit on FPS.
aside from that, ps3 overall does run far cary 2 better. Wait for Crysis 2, you'll see. :)
The main reason why i sold my ps3 and bought a computer is boring framerate cap in games. Seriously, who the heck thought it was a good idea to cap a first person shooter at 30fps.... Any decent pc can run this at 50fps+
yea but its worth it :) also the fact my computer does 10 times more than a ps3 and xbox combined , its def money worth spent , its for pleasure and work and education :)
finally, why do i have to spoon feed you information? you know so little about these well documented issues. go research it for yourself, i encourage anyone to confirm the FACT for themselves that ps3 has less available memory than 360, because of its bloated operating system and split system/video design. 360 even has an extra 10mb for its framebuffer, this daughter die is pretty much the key to the bandwidth and anti aliasing advantage 360 has over ps3. again, just do some research ignoramous
im really bored of the bollox you spew when sooooo many of these videos and 9 out of 10 multi games 360 wins hands down. then you claim total shite like ps3 is superior in every department hardware wise, except the one that actually COUNTS. i.e in running games. absolute classic fanboy statement pahahahahahaha :-)
and its easy to explain why its sub par on ps3. the most they built the game for was 224mb of graphics memory. so when they go to 360, they find they have a considerable amount of memory to spare, bandwidth etc and use it vastly improving the textures and resolution. simples :-)
r u fucking kidding me? ok, PS3's hardware is FAR MORE superior than the 360's, im not only talking about the CPU, but every aspect of it, so u can't argue about that, PERIOD. the reason y devs have trouble developing game for the ps3 and end up messing everything because of cell, it has a different architecture than Xenon. so the main reason y devs screw up ps3 games is because of the software (developing process), and not because of the hardware. so in hardware, PS3 wins, hands down.
ps3's hardware isnt superior in every way. only in your wet dreams. face facts lad, you just dont know shit about these consoles and their hardware. just a typical moronic knuckle dragging ps3 fanboy. seeing as these things were designed to be games consoles, its fair to say that throwing some hardware together and coming out poorer GAMING performance makes it a fail. 360 is a slicker machine from a hardware erspective, much better designed for its purpose. that would be running GAMES
im EXTREMELY sorry but U have to face the fact, search ANYWHERE u want, and the results will be the same, ps3's hardware is more superior than the 360, and its just pointless to argue with u cuz u r a fanboy.
yup search anywhere you want and it will confirm everything i said. about the operating system size, about the extra memory and bandwidth 360 has for its framebuffer, about how developers say its fantastic platform to develop for in contrast to the struggle on ps3. theresults bear this out. i hope people will indeed, find out for themselves and see i am correct :o)
for what? getting RROD? after playing on games for a good length of time. Unlike the PS3 which could play this game for 4-5 hours and not get as hot lol 360 is badly designed im afraid, wow 4 frames less than the 360 version yet at least it wont collapse after playing time. Every time u turn on the 360 u seem to worry day after day that it MIGHT get RROD. If 360 had the better hardware, then why does it get RROD? and the PS3 doesnt?
for GAMING obviously. and i think that people hide behind the RROD problem like ps3 has no problems. when it does. i have had two ps3s fail on me due to the bluray diode. no electronics is fail safe. RROD is alwasy seized upon by fanboys trying to disguise the simple fact 360 is better at the thing everyone actually cares about - gaming. and yes those 4 frames at such a low speed is the difference between smooth gameplay and not. if it were 60 frames dropping to 56 then ok, no problem.
System failure has nothing to do with how powerful the hardware is, just how stable it is. The launch versions of the 360, released in 2005, had problems with the rrod. Why? Because the memory (RAM) was built too close to the cpu heatsink. The cpu heatsink transfers too much heat to the memory, the memory fails, and red ring. Xbox 360's manufactured after 2007, have a better cpu heatsink, and therefore has a less chance of getting the rrod. Also, they have a 3 year warranty.
this is actually a game where i found DX10 to be beneficial rather than performance sapping. it actually appears to improve performance for me, and equivalent settings in DX10 seem to be higher quality than in DX9, in particular the shadows. so medium shadows in DX10 IMO look as good as high in DX9. definitely one to run in vista, if you can
Both consoles WAS great. But now it's like trying to run games of 2009 on a 3yo pc. You'll still get some fucktards to say "CONSOLES GOOD! PC BAD!" thought.
all this videos showing the PS3 and the 360 running games at 30fps (not always estable) mean that this consoles have reached their limi? (sorry for the bad english) :S
but cryengine3 just shows how far behind the PC consoles still are.
and in 2 years time, when consoles HAVE reached their limit, a PC will STILL be moving onwards.
this game looks terrible here compared to how it looks on my PC, and i get an average 45FPS.
and thats a very mid-range PC as well. not all setting turned right up, at only 1152x1064 (i know thats high to a console, but on PC thats a bit low nowdays)
you can get a PC with a decent core 2 duo, even a triple core if you go amd, and a 9600 for easily under 600 bucks which is what the ps3 cost when it launched
hard drive space isn't that important to me really. my new build has 500gb HD and its just fine. disc space is just for the ammount of games you can have at the same time
but if its OLD old games you want, then space should still not be an issue, cos most old games are about 1-2GB, depending on how old.
i have a 260GB drive, and thats fine. im never playing more than a couple games at a time, and i just uninstall as i go. most games only get 1 play, and thats it, so only the odd one will ever get a reinstall anyway. and i could (if needed) uninstsall one to install another. how many games you want on your drive, ffs? heh
the 360 has a slight higher framerate, but 25-30 is good enough anyway. and both consoles are optimized to have around 30 fps.
i did notice the ps3's graphics were a little blurry, but that can be some kind of motion blur, or that the capture card used isnt that good for using with a ps3.
but this doesnt matter. both consoles run the game with good fps and great graphics.
yeah, i played fc2 for the 360 and with those graphics i really expected to get some framerate lag, but i have played for like 10-20 hours (total) and i havent noticed any framerate lag yet. so the 360 handles far cry 2 really good!
The games are digitally captured over HDMI and the duplicate frames are counted by software, thus producing a 'real life' frame rate. The software then produces a graph which can be overlaid over the original video.
The HDMI standard is to output 60 frames per second, so as long as every frame is captured, I can count the duplicates and produce digitally accurate results :)
you can't put a game developed for 360 next to a port of it on a different system simply because the game was designed for the 360. most games that are multiplatformed have to be designed at the very peak of what the lesser system can do. I'm not a fanboy, I own both systems, but if they created a game for ps3 using all 6 of its processors, it wouldn't work on the 360 as a multiplatform.
thats absolutely true, the 360 gpu is the most recent one. But the ps3 has a better processor. The 360 has more Ram than the Ps3 too. The ps3 has 256mb and the xbox 512mb. I own a ps3. wish sony could fit some more ram in the ps3 :/
ps3 has 512MB memory like 360 has lol. its just split into system and graphics, like a PC. this allows ps3's CPU to have its own bus and bandwidth, whereas 360 being unified has to share main bus between the CPU and the GPU. both designs work fine, 360's is maybe more suited as a console, ps3's is more conventional like a PC
that was the gayest thing i've ever heard, "the 360 gpu is the most recent one" LOL AT UR FACE!! "I own a ps3. wish sony could fit some more ram in the ps3" AHGAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
it is true that 360's GPU design is a generation ahead of ps3's. in effect, it IS more recent and modern. ps3 games struggle to match 360 texture wise simply because ps3's operating system consumes upwards of 80MB, at least 32 of that out of its graphics memory and the rest from system. 360 uses just 32mb for EVERYTHING, which gives devs instantly 50mb plus for extra quality textures, as well as being able to configure how much they want to assign to graphics with the unified bank total memory
its well known. ghostbusters dev recently said that ps3 has less available memory among other devs. this is referring to the fact 360 inside a game uses just 32mb of the unified memory, leaving 480 free for the dev to allocate as they see fit. 280 for graphics, 200 for system? no problem. ps3 however reserves 32mb from the video 256, and another 50ish from system 256 depending on the firmware version. thus devs have considerably less memory to work with on ps3 for GAMES
so if for example a dev designs a x360 game using 280mb vid mem and 200 system, porting to ps3 presents a problem. MAX graphics they have is 224mb for video on ps3, and 200 or so system. so what do you do? you could try and share system memory to graphics if there is some free, but you have major bandwidth penalties. so most devs simply work with what they have got. that means reducing texture and detail to account for the massive 60mb or so gap between available video mem on 360 to ps3
but the fact is, ps3 was the lead platform form for ghostbusters, and yet the textures are not as good as the 360's version, care to explain? well u r just going to send the same post as ur previous one, so im just gonna go ahead, the spokesperson who claimed that the ps3 has less unfied memory is dumb, because NO DEV, complained about that before, because that spokesperson doesn't know shit of wut he is saying
its well known ps3 has less avilable memory. it was known loooooong before ghostbusters. ghostbusters dev is simply the latest to admit it. go research this, its again, just the truth. 360 has more memory avilable, and its split as seen fit by the dev. thats just another reason on the list of why ps3 lags behind 360 development tools and platofmr.
hehe show me proof then talk, and second of all, did u even see the ghostbusters comparison video, the 360 version has SEVER FRAME RATE ISSUES!!! i totally lol'd at that
dang. you are such a fanboy. 360 is running with a vast array of superior textures at near double the resolution and according to you, it has framerate issues? thats bullshit. otherwise it too would have been reduced down horribly like ps3 was. face facts kid
as i said. this isnt a new issue. its a long held fact for the past few years. dear me. you really dont know a lot about these consoles hardware do you? really, you shouldnt bother commenting if you dont
u know wut, just stop commenting, cuz u know that u r a fanboy, because u don't have a ps3, and u urself proved that, so IM EXTREAMLY SORRY THAT U DON'T HAVE A PS3 BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE U MORE LESS FANBOY
i own a ps3. and whatever you have read and believe about and what sony have said was merely theoretical performance and Pr hype. on PAPER, ps3 may seem more powerful. thats how sony want you to think. however in practice, the past 3 years have proven what the real truth is. and that is 360 is just much easier to extract performance from, and it shows in nearly all multi games. :-)
What the hell is your problem? First of all, what was gay about may comment retard? You talk such nonesense that i wanna puke. All i am saying are facts. And i wont change my ps3 for a xbox 360. The xbox 360 cpu is weak, they had to make gta 4 map smaller becaouse of that, so you xbox 360 owners wouldent cry, microsoft gave rockstar some thousands to make shitty addons. The ps3 will last much longer than the xbox. In 4 months we are going to have more games than the xbox. No more replys to fags.
if you sit far away from the tv.. 30 fps isnt actually that bad. It's terrible on a pc monitor though
llJAFYll 2 months ago
If you are going to put in the time and money into a gaming pc you better get 60 fps however for consoles. 30 fps is fine, since we are talking about hardware that is much older. and 30 fps is the standard.
Zain844 5 months ago
The game is shit.. So no matter where you play it it's still shit
topografer 5 months ago
most multiplatform games are bettter on xbox 360 cos developers cant be fucked to convert properly to ps3. but official games on ps3 cannot be supported on xbox 360 (unable to support). overall ps3 is more powerful.
MrSniperscope 7 months ago
In xbox framerate, textures, and colors are better.
But I still don't like fc2
Xenzorg 8 months ago
@Xenzorg thats actually quite false, i have a pretty nice pc and it plays much sharper at a higher res with 60 fps rather than xbox's 28-30.
FalloutMan493 6 months ago
green line for xbox and blue is for ps3. im going to buy this game for xbox
jeffbalbon 8 months ago
i have both console. and before buying game i always see to it that the game im buying are good in graphics. that why i always watch game comparisson in youtube. and i find out almost all game graphics are good in xbox. i just play ps3 bcz of there exclusive. but lots of my game specially old game are played in my xbox. sorry for my english.
jeffbalbon 8 months ago
shiiiit... can somebody explain this to me?
please... I don't really see any differences
:S
help, anyone?
eddiep2788 1 year ago
@eddiep2788 it only shows the difference between the frames per second on both consoles.. 20 fps are low and laggy, 30 and more are perfect. in many games ps3 is a few fps slower than the 360, because ps3 is harder to code. :D understood?
XcRuNkJoShYx 1 year ago
@XcRuNkJoShYx ok, I understand it but it's sorta difficult for me to notice
but now I know why some games are laggy
Thanks :D
eddiep2788 1 year ago
@eddiep2788 Well, it is difficult to notice as long as you are not looking at that game-play live on 720p or 1080p screen. Older games Framerate is just terrible for PS3 users, frame-rate drops everywhere.
xYukicore777 9 months ago
@XcRuNkJoShYx 60fps are perfect! , 30fps are poor for PC and I'm talking about a 500$ PC tested in 720p with all filters at top still achieving 60+ fps.Of course if you want to play at 1920x1080(1080p) ,you should lower the filters and graphics or invest more.But its ok playing pc at 720p because consoles are rendered at 720p (1280x720),so it doesnt make me less gamer.So PC for the fucking win.
95928225 11 months ago
@95928225 yea 60 are perfect. some console games are running on 60 fps also. but i have a shitty pc and counter strike source is running at 30.. 30 is pretty ok
XcRuNkJoShYx 11 months ago
@XcRuNkJoShYx Yeah, some games are at 60fps in consoles but in sub HD 640p with zero antialiasing.On the other hand, I soar 60fps like 80fps or 90fps but I lock my games at 60fps.However, in multiplayers where you have to be fast like COD, RE5 mercenaries,etc I unlock them to get hot records.
P.D I game at 1360x768 (720p) because it's my LCD tv resolution, that's why I gain high fps.Hope someone gives me the money to buy a full hd tv soon.
95928225 11 months ago
I always wanted to play a first person shooter at 25-30fps and with a gamepad.
MrBlackCrow 1 year ago
well i believe the xbox version doesn't have vsync on and the ps3 does !
thecomputerist 1 year ago
OOOO can anyone else notice the tearing on the 360? and less on the ps3?
Avataryoutuification 1 year ago
30frames per second? that would feel really laggy if you played with a mouse.
xy274 1 year ago
@xy274 I KNOW, I PLAY BC 2 AND GET SOMETIMES LESS THAN 30 FPS AND ITS ANNOYING. Though on ps3 it looks fine..
Avataryoutuification 1 year ago
wow thats how much you get on these consoles! i just got my Crossfire set up HD 5770 and i run the game at 60 PFS always! is that normal?
fernasobri1920 1 year ago
Ps3 is tripping balls. The Frame Rate isnt as good as Xbox. But other than that i can't see a diffrence.
Telonelemon3 1 year ago
30fps for xbox360, and less than that for ps3...shit and here I am sweating it because my computer only gets 40-55 instead of fucken 60 lmfao
Cpillin425 1 year ago
PS3 IS BETTER
TW15T3DBU113T 2 years ago
@TW15T3DBU113T How? I saw 360 at 30 when ps3 was going to 26 and 28
LilRunt5 1 year ago
@LilRunt5 in most games the xbox's frame rate is "capped" at 30fps, so it doesnt get any lower. unfortunetly this means that there is often whats called " frame tearing" So when there are large amounts of bodies on the screen and the xbox cant handle the limited 30fps target the screen literally "tears".
both ps3 and xbox screen tear but xbox it tends to happen more on the ps3 due to the limit on FPS.
aside from that, ps3 overall does run far cary 2 better. Wait for Crysis 2, you'll see. :)
geetarwanabe 1 year ago
@TW15T3DBU113T sure not
waYNEgoezS1ck 1 year ago
"DigitalFoundry" you should Highlight the framerate numbers area, sometimes i cant see sh*t
GeForce47 2 years ago
watch in HD.
chadheck96 2 years ago
360 wins AGAIN! On my PC this game runs 40-80 fps in 1080p on Ultra High settings.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago
PS3 ports of games are always sooo much less superior in graphical quality. especially Assassins creed
kmann1994 2 years ago
someone help me solve my shitty frate rate on my xbox.
ps i have a ps3 anyways but i switch on my xbox a lot more
randonessdude123 2 years ago
sold my 360 and all its crappy games, and got a ps3 with a gaming PC and now I enjoy tons of games.
880User088 2 years ago
LIAR, nobody would be stupid enough to downgrade their Fallout 3 to the worst version on PS3 if they already had a 360.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago
Are you Dumb ? I didn't own Fallout 3 for the PS3, I just had it on PC.
880User088 2 years ago
No , you're dumb and proving my point that PS3 is inferior to 360.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago
WHAT ? I DIDN'T PROVE ANY POINT YOu JACKASS. and I didn't say anything about fallout 3 PS3 so SHUT UP.
880User088 2 years ago
Yeah you totally PROVED MY POINT, faggot. You got fallout 3 for PC because the ps3 runs games like SHIT.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago 2
did I say that fallout 3 runs better on ps3 ? NO.
and fallout PC version pwns BOTH PS3 & 360 versions. YOU Gay Jackass.
880User088 2 years ago
Yeah that's what you said, faggot. I'll keep my 360 version so my PC can do things whilke I'm playing, COCK SUCKER.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago
I don't care whether you'll keep it or not, all I care about is that I got rid of that piece of garbage.
880User088 2 years ago
You got rid of your ps3, cool.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago
I meant the 360 not the PS3
880User088 2 years ago
No, you meant ps3. No one would be stupid enough to get rid of the SUPERIOR console.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago
Yeah I agree with you, PS3 is the SUPERIOR console.
880User088 2 years ago
Yeah I agree with you, you can't comprehend what you read, but at least you know the 360 is the SUPERIOR CONSOLE. Kudo for that.
DominoEffect66 2 years ago
compared to PC both run like shit lol.
slatanic2142 2 years ago
i am gonna sold my ps3 all ps3 game
and buy xbox360 >S 250
30fps for xbox 360 aand 40-50++fps for gts250
raydenPGD111 2 years ago
haha i sold my 360 for the ps3 and i tell u what, i have not regretted it once, you will regret it
bluntman860 2 years ago
thax god i not done it yet...
i am Still gonna buy my second ps3 2MONTH fm now
why
no 1 reason is cus NVIDIA gpu insides
2. FREE online
3. BLUE-RAY no i dont care about blue-ray becuz watch too long blue-ray i got YLOD 3 cuz ps3 exclusive game is better!
...
raydenPGD111 2 years ago
The main reason why i sold my ps3 and bought a computer is boring framerate cap in games. Seriously, who the heck thought it was a good idea to cap a first person shooter at 30fps.... Any decent pc can run this at 50fps+
MrBlackCrow 2 years ago
WTF.... ps3 has better framerate compared to crappy xbox 360!
i was playing cod 4.. 4 player split screen and 1 of my m8s called in an air
strike and the game became sooo..laggy
but it wasnt online... so it was the framerate.
when i played cod 4 on ps3... 4 player split screen... i called in a air strike and a chopper and there was no framerate issues what so ever.
xbox cant even cope with an air strike where as ps3 can cope with an air strike and a chopper...lol
husslecozimhere 2 years ago
Does Far Cry 2 has constant frame rate issues in the PS3?
roms3 2 years ago
haha , i get like 50fps on my PC , WOOO ! beat that console noobs
girlsdrinkfeck 2 years ago
yeah, but your computer also COSTS more than a 360 and ps3 combined.
Sniffy92 2 years ago
yea but its worth it :) also the fact my computer does 10 times more than a ps3 and xbox combined , its def money worth spent , its for pleasure and work and education :)
girlsdrinkfeck 2 years ago
For the most part the 360 has a better framerate, but it still runs just as fine.
spongeaang98 2 years ago
they look the exact same.
FlameSnipe 2 years ago
the 360 has better framerates FACTUAL EVIDANCE just watch the video , they both look the same tho.
manabog 2 years ago
my 360 compared to my ps3 has a shit frame rate. send in a airstrike on cod4 on my xbox and the game is sluggish.
randonessdude123 2 years ago
finally, why do i have to spoon feed you information? you know so little about these well documented issues. go research it for yourself, i encourage anyone to confirm the FACT for themselves that ps3 has less available memory than 360, because of its bloated operating system and split system/video design. 360 even has an extra 10mb for its framebuffer, this daughter die is pretty much the key to the bandwidth and anti aliasing advantage 360 has over ps3. again, just do some research ignoramous
projectraven1 2 years ago
suck my prick!! wut a fanboy u r!!
nocodenull 2 years ago
im really bored of the bollox you spew when sooooo many of these videos and 9 out of 10 multi games 360 wins hands down. then you claim total shite like ps3 is superior in every department hardware wise, except the one that actually COUNTS. i.e in running games. absolute classic fanboy statement pahahahahahaha :-)
projectraven1 2 years ago
6 out of 10 not 9
nocodenull 2 years ago
and its easy to explain why its sub par on ps3. the most they built the game for was 224mb of graphics memory. so when they go to 360, they find they have a considerable amount of memory to spare, bandwidth etc and use it vastly improving the textures and resolution. simples :-)
projectraven1 2 years ago
r u fucking kidding me? ok, PS3's hardware is FAR MORE superior than the 360's, im not only talking about the CPU, but every aspect of it, so u can't argue about that, PERIOD. the reason y devs have trouble developing game for the ps3 and end up messing everything because of cell, it has a different architecture than Xenon. so the main reason y devs screw up ps3 games is because of the software (developing process), and not because of the hardware. so in hardware, PS3 wins, hands down.
nocodenull 2 years ago
ps3's hardware isnt superior in every way. only in your wet dreams. face facts lad, you just dont know shit about these consoles and their hardware. just a typical moronic knuckle dragging ps3 fanboy. seeing as these things were designed to be games consoles, its fair to say that throwing some hardware together and coming out poorer GAMING performance makes it a fail. 360 is a slicker machine from a hardware erspective, much better designed for its purpose. that would be running GAMES
projectraven1 2 years ago
im EXTREMELY sorry but U have to face the fact, search ANYWHERE u want, and the results will be the same, ps3's hardware is more superior than the 360, and its just pointless to argue with u cuz u r a fanboy.
nocodenull 2 years ago
yup search anywhere you want and it will confirm everything i said. about the operating system size, about the extra memory and bandwidth 360 has for its framebuffer, about how developers say its fantastic platform to develop for in contrast to the struggle on ps3. theresults bear this out. i hope people will indeed, find out for themselves and see i am correct :o)
projectraven1 2 years ago
"much better designed for its purpose."
for what? getting RROD? after playing on games for a good length of time. Unlike the PS3 which could play this game for 4-5 hours and not get as hot lol 360 is badly designed im afraid, wow 4 frames less than the 360 version yet at least it wont collapse after playing time. Every time u turn on the 360 u seem to worry day after day that it MIGHT get RROD. If 360 had the better hardware, then why does it get RROD? and the PS3 doesnt?
Draken4426 2 years ago
for GAMING obviously. and i think that people hide behind the RROD problem like ps3 has no problems. when it does. i have had two ps3s fail on me due to the bluray diode. no electronics is fail safe. RROD is alwasy seized upon by fanboys trying to disguise the simple fact 360 is better at the thing everyone actually cares about - gaming. and yes those 4 frames at such a low speed is the difference between smooth gameplay and not. if it were 60 frames dropping to 56 then ok, no problem.
projectraven1 2 years ago
but its not. dropping down to 25 frames and below means the game starts to feel sluggish.
projectraven1 2 years ago
System failure has nothing to do with how powerful the hardware is, just how stable it is. The launch versions of the 360, released in 2005, had problems with the rrod. Why? Because the memory (RAM) was built too close to the cpu heatsink. The cpu heatsink transfers too much heat to the memory, the memory fails, and red ring. Xbox 360's manufactured after 2007, have a better cpu heatsink, and therefore has a less chance of getting the rrod. Also, they have a 3 year warranty.
Sniffy92 2 years ago
Psp plays at 40-50 fps lmao.
o0Lelouch0o 2 years ago
It's an awesome idea to cap a first person shooter game at 30fps, really...
MsSheenaRamone 2 years ago
this game cant hack it on the ps3 whenever you shoot someone! for a shooter thats pretty bad init??
myinsizer 2 years ago
this is actually a game where i found DX10 to be beneficial rather than performance sapping. it actually appears to improve performance for me, and equivalent settings in DX10 seem to be higher quality than in DX9, in particular the shadows. so medium shadows in DX10 IMO look as good as high in DX9. definitely one to run in vista, if you can
projectraven1 2 years ago
Or Windows 7 now.
It is much more gaming friendly.
Interleap 2 years ago
this is like using v sync without triple buffering played on a low end gpu using a monitor with a refresh rate of 60hz
THEYELLABOI44 2 years ago
Both consoles WAS great. But now it's like trying to run games of 2009 on a 3yo pc. You'll still get some fucktards to say "CONSOLES GOOD! PC BAD!" thought.
Sheena8500 2 years ago
all this videos showing the PS3 and the 360 running games at 30fps (not always estable) mean that this consoles have reached their limi? (sorry for the bad english) :S
Reaperss 2 years ago
no it doesnt
frame rate depend on the developrs
god of war 3 ganna run @ 60 fps with 1080p resloution on ps3 .
what about cryengine 3?
KILLERWSYAN 2 years ago
but cryengine3 just shows how far behind the PC consoles still are.
and in 2 years time, when consoles HAVE reached their limit, a PC will STILL be moving onwards.
this game looks terrible here compared to how it looks on my PC, and i get an average 45FPS.
and thats a very mid-range PC as well. not all setting turned right up, at only 1152x1064 (i know thats high to a console, but on PC thats a bit low nowdays)
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
not as much clouds on the xbox version.
so thats how they're using up the remaining 50gb on the blueray disc, clouds...
AkWillman 2 years ago
framerates on ps3 do go down but graphically the game is 99.9% identical
ninjaseven 2 years ago
wow ps3 it downs for like 20 fps... on cheap pc u can get 30 + fps on max settings..
slaveknight 3 years ago
lol a cheap pc with what a core 2 due or quad core cpu and at least a 9600 overclocked geforce card
THEYELLABOI44 3 years ago
you can get a PC with a decent core 2 duo, even a triple core if you go amd, and a 9600 for easily under 600 bucks which is what the ps3 cost when it launched
ninjaseven 2 years ago
yeah key words (when it launched) BLU RAY PLAYER INCLUDED
THEYELLABOI44 2 years ago
yea thats true, but pc plays games off the hard drive, so disc space isn't really an issue when it comes to PC for gaming.
ninjaseven 2 years ago
I have a 320gb harddrive and its an issue for me.......i think a terabyte is needed for any true gamer
THEYELLABOI44 2 years ago
hard drive space isn't that important to me really. my new build has 500gb HD and its just fine. disc space is just for the ammount of games you can have at the same time
ninjaseven 2 years ago
yea but i dont like deleting old classics because i always end up wanting to play them later lol
THEYELLABOI44 2 years ago
lol that is true, i still play good ol diablo 2 and the first HL XD
ninjaseven 2 years ago
but if its OLD old games you want, then space should still not be an issue, cos most old games are about 1-2GB, depending on how old.
i have a 260GB drive, and thats fine. im never playing more than a couple games at a time, and i just uninstall as i go. most games only get 1 play, and thats it, so only the odd one will ever get a reinstall anyway. and i could (if needed) uninstsall one to install another. how many games you want on your drive, ffs? heh
i have 15 now, mostly new, some over 10GB
w0bbl3r 2 years ago
how smaller your hard drive how faster loads on my pc!!
erikouwehand 2 years ago
useless video!
nwLohmann 3 years ago
Both systems were captured entirely losslessly via HDMI. Every byte of information from the digital output is preserved in the capture.
DigitalFoundry 3 years ago
pretty much the graphics look the same.
the 360 has a slight higher framerate, but 25-30 is good enough anyway. and both consoles are optimized to have around 30 fps.
i did notice the ps3's graphics were a little blurry, but that can be some kind of motion blur, or that the capture card used isnt that good for using with a ps3.
but this doesnt matter. both consoles run the game with good fps and great graphics.
Sniffy92 3 years ago
but the 360 version still looks and runs slightly better
THEYELLABOI44 3 years ago 2
yeah, i played fc2 for the 360 and with those graphics i really expected to get some framerate lag, but i have played for like 10-20 hours (total) and i havent noticed any framerate lag yet. so the 360 handles far cry 2 really good!
Sniffy92 3 years ago
how did you get the fps meter to display on the 360?
and all the fanboys need to stop their getting their panties in a bunch over what system is better.
SWAT518 3 years ago 2
There is no FPS meter.
The games are digitally captured over HDMI and the duplicate frames are counted by software, thus producing a 'real life' frame rate. The software then produces a graph which can be overlaid over the original video.
So in short, I do all the work myself.
DigitalFoundry 3 years ago
I see.. so as long as you capture at a rate higher than that of the games, you can do this? very cool.
SWAT518 3 years ago
The HDMI standard is to output 60 frames per second, so as long as every frame is captured, I can count the duplicates and produce digitally accurate results :)
DigitalFoundry 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ps3s SUCK!!!
slayerboy9715 3 years ago
OMG ! The max FPS are 30?? WTF...
yotony 3 years ago 6
lol, 360 has crap for shadows.
also, what a wate a time as you cant see any difference...lol what a fanboy!!!
freeweed 3 years ago
useful. thx
Junkfoodjoe 3 years ago
I don't see shit... I never had framerate issues actually.
JVRWi 3 years ago
Which is fine except that both Xbox 360 and PS3 are ports of the original PC code, optimised for each individual platform.
DigitalFoundry 3 years ago
you can't put a game developed for 360 next to a port of it on a different system simply because the game was designed for the 360. most games that are multiplatformed have to be designed at the very peak of what the lesser system can do. I'm not a fanboy, I own both systems, but if they created a game for ps3 using all 6 of its processors, it wouldn't work on the 360 as a multiplatform.
agey55 3 years ago
PS3 came out (2006) a year later than 360 (2005) but 360 actually has a newer, more modern GPU than PS3's RSX.
airraideagle 3 years ago
thats absolutely true, the 360 gpu is the most recent one. But the ps3 has a better processor. The 360 has more Ram than the Ps3 too. The ps3 has 256mb and the xbox 512mb. I own a ps3. wish sony could fit some more ram in the ps3 :/
erik8bis 2 years ago
ps3 has 512MB memory like 360 has lol. its just split into system and graphics, like a PC. this allows ps3's CPU to have its own bus and bandwidth, whereas 360 being unified has to share main bus between the CPU and the GPU. both designs work fine, 360's is maybe more suited as a console, ps3's is more conventional like a PC
projectraven1 2 years ago
that was the gayest thing i've ever heard, "the 360 gpu is the most recent one" LOL AT UR FACE!! "I own a ps3. wish sony could fit some more ram in the ps3" AHGAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
nocodenull 2 years ago
it is true that 360's GPU design is a generation ahead of ps3's. in effect, it IS more recent and modern. ps3 games struggle to match 360 texture wise simply because ps3's operating system consumes upwards of 80MB, at least 32 of that out of its graphics memory and the rest from system. 360 uses just 32mb for EVERYTHING, which gives devs instantly 50mb plus for extra quality textures, as well as being able to configure how much they want to assign to graphics with the unified bank total memory
projectraven1 2 years ago
which one consumes more graphic memory, XMB or NXE?
nocodenull 2 years ago
its well known. ghostbusters dev recently said that ps3 has less available memory among other devs. this is referring to the fact 360 inside a game uses just 32mb of the unified memory, leaving 480 free for the dev to allocate as they see fit. 280 for graphics, 200 for system? no problem. ps3 however reserves 32mb from the video 256, and another 50ish from system 256 depending on the firmware version. thus devs have considerably less memory to work with on ps3 for GAMES
projectraven1 2 years ago
so if for example a dev designs a x360 game using 280mb vid mem and 200 system, porting to ps3 presents a problem. MAX graphics they have is 224mb for video on ps3, and 200 or so system. so what do you do? you could try and share system memory to graphics if there is some free, but you have major bandwidth penalties. so most devs simply work with what they have got. that means reducing texture and detail to account for the massive 60mb or so gap between available video mem on 360 to ps3
projectraven1 2 years ago
but the fact is, ps3 was the lead platform form for ghostbusters, and yet the textures are not as good as the 360's version, care to explain? well u r just going to send the same post as ur previous one, so im just gonna go ahead, the spokesperson who claimed that the ps3 has less unfied memory is dumb, because NO DEV, complained about that before, because that spokesperson doesn't know shit of wut he is saying
nocodenull 2 years ago
its well known ps3 has less avilable memory. it was known loooooong before ghostbusters. ghostbusters dev is simply the latest to admit it. go research this, its again, just the truth. 360 has more memory avilable, and its split as seen fit by the dev. thats just another reason on the list of why ps3 lags behind 360 development tools and platofmr.
projectraven1 2 years ago
hehe show me proof then talk, and second of all, did u even see the ghostbusters comparison video, the 360 version has SEVER FRAME RATE ISSUES!!! i totally lol'd at that
nocodenull 2 years ago
dang. you are such a fanboy. 360 is running with a vast array of superior textures at near double the resolution and according to you, it has framerate issues? thats bullshit. otherwise it too would have been reduced down horribly like ps3 was. face facts kid
projectraven1 2 years ago
LOL, that was said by a spokesperson, NOT A DEV, so thats not good enough to prove that XMB uses more graphics memory than NXE
nocodenull 2 years ago
as i said. this isnt a new issue. its a long held fact for the past few years. dear me. you really dont know a lot about these consoles hardware do you? really, you shouldnt bother commenting if you dont
projectraven1 2 years ago
u know wut, just stop commenting, cuz u know that u r a fanboy, because u don't have a ps3, and u urself proved that, so IM EXTREAMLY SORRY THAT U DON'T HAVE A PS3 BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE U MORE LESS FANBOY
nocodenull 2 years ago
i own a ps3. and whatever you have read and believe about and what sony have said was merely theoretical performance and Pr hype. on PAPER, ps3 may seem more powerful. thats how sony want you to think. however in practice, the past 3 years have proven what the real truth is. and that is 360 is just much easier to extract performance from, and it shows in nearly all multi games. :-)
projectraven1 2 years ago
What the hell is your problem? First of all, what was gay about may comment retard? You talk such nonesense that i wanna puke. All i am saying are facts. And i wont change my ps3 for a xbox 360. The xbox 360 cpu is weak, they had to make gta 4 map smaller becaouse of that, so you xbox 360 owners wouldent cry, microsoft gave rockstar some thousands to make shitty addons. The ps3 will last much longer than the xbox. In 4 months we are going to have more games than the xbox. No more replys to fags.
erik8bis 2 years ago
At 1:18. What do those vertical green lines indicate above the horizontal green line? Is that good or bad?
DreadRaptor85 3 years ago
And this is after the 1.03 patch, eh? Bummer.
bukipup 3 years ago
PS3 has much smoother graphics I prefer them but they are more or less the same to be honest
DarkSplicer93 3 years ago
The anti-aliasing method (quicunx) blurs texture detail on PS3, but it is 720p.
DigitalFoundry 3 years ago
PS3 version lower res? It looks blurry.
sub21ubi 3 years ago
X360 is out-performing the PS3 here.
Enkei1989 3 years ago
You need to do that on bigger stuff like shooting an rpg-7 or a mortar and blowing alot of stuff up.That would cool to watch.
silverfang6 3 years ago