The ps3 and 360 are probably equal in graphics power, but the ps3 really shines in CPU crunching, for things like physics and ai.

360's 512 megs of video ram is the killer screenshot helper though , thanks to the Gears of War team for convincing Microsoft to do it.

How is it that this is the ONLY account I've heard of that says the PS3 version isn't suffering in framerate? Where are the rampant accounts and blog posts all over the internet posting the opposite?

You know the difference are pretty freakin minor.

These comparisons for the most part are things a player would not even notice unless he was playing both games side by side. This is like stupid comparisons places gamespot made where they are zooming in on background texturing of a far off building in some racing game, when in motion both games look identical and really no one would notice these things.

Just from looking at the photos, I'd have to say that the 360 picture looks slightly better; however, I would need to see it in action before making any final judgments.

So the japanese call them "jaggies" as well. Lean something new everyday!

eh...more importantly, how come some previous articles I can't comment on?

Just at first glance, the 360 version has more effects going for it. The light refraction from the heat sources in the 360 version look great. So does the building reflection in the glass on the left side of the screenshot. And nicer edges, which does not necessarily mean fullscreen anti-aliasing. Still, it stands to reason that the 360 might look better because it had a little more polish time than the PS3 version.

The XBox 360 version looks anti-aliased to me. Considering that the Xenon can do anti-aliasing for "free," I don't see why they wouldn't do it.

So, the bottom line is that most gamers wouldn't notice the difference?

That's how I've felt about pretty much all of these 360 vs. PS3 comparisons so far.

Am I the only one who's bored with the whole PS3 vs. 360 debate? As it stands, they appear to be pretty comparable machines, graphics wise. It's not going to come down to what games they share, but rather the quality of their respective exclusives.

You can't release a 360 game that doesn't have FSAA - it's a technical requirement. 4xAA is virtually free on the GPU the 360 uses anyway, so there's no reason not to use it.

Not sure what he means by a "blur filter" - if he's referring to the NTSC flicker filter, well, that's only for SD - if he's talking about a general blur effect, that's something done with a pixel shader on the GPU, and could be written easily on both the PS3 and the 360. Not sure how the performance would stack up which could be a reason not to include it on one platform vs. another.

Also, I'm not quite sure I understand the difference between an effect rendered in hardware vs. an effect rendered in software - both the PS3 and the 360 have a multitude of highly programmable chips that can do a variety of different things - everything you see is rendered using a program running on a given processor. It's not like there's a special motion blur chip in the PS3 that's not in the 360.

The two main differences I see in quality are the reflection on the building on the side and what appears to be real-time lighting from the glowing parts on the robot on the upper-extension thingie. That sort of implies the 360 is doing more advanced effects, but who knows.

Simple. Look at any screenshot of ATI vs NVIDIA. The two chipsets have different PQ levels out of the box before you even throw different API's at them. Either way I'm glad to see developers take advantages of the unique offerings of each platform instead of dumming down a game to make it look the same across the board.

No huge differences, true, but on those screenshots I'd say the 360 version is looking better.

I'm not surprised, though.

At the same time I think it is too early to really be making a news story out of the differences seeing it's a demo. This is still an interesting article, though.

is there an issue with comments this morning?

i dont think this is a fair comparison because they arent of the same Frame, if you look the camera is not in the same position, explaining the lack of reflection perhaps, the gun on top also has appeared to have moved up explaining why it looks different, same goes for the shin section, less light is being shown making it appear darker.

Im a wii owner and do not wish to purchase a ps3 or 360, but i am a very experienced 3d Designer and having spent many years with shaders, renderers etc i know that the slightest movement can cause materials to appear differently.

I am curious to know what hardware rendering effects the ps3 can do compared to the 360.

Nope, it's antialiasing. 2x AA is a requirement on all X360 games, since it is done for 'free' - no performance penalty.

Not be a rabid fanboy or anything but the 360 version does seem to look better. Minus the shoulder gun.

Who gives a shit? IT'S ARMORED CORE DUDE!

@everyone who reminded me of the "free" AA on the 360. Next time I post, I will have my daily coffee first.

But like some have already pointed out, the graphical differences are a moot point.

As long as the game makes all my sub woofers shake the neighbourhood with every explosion, then all is good.

It could be the eye of the beholder, but the 360 version does look a little bit nicer, but there's not much in it. I would imagine seeing them both in motion would be the best way to really gauge which looks the best.

I'm sure both versions of the game will be equally disappointing to all but the most hardcore AC fans.

>We can't compare the two versions until the actual 360 version is released.

Uh, then why are you doing it now?

Yeah, the shots are not at the same point in animation. He should have found a closer scene to compare.

That said, 360 wins this one because the PS3 has got aliasing problems...again. Any other differences are too small for me to notice with the shots being so different.

Also, 360 AA is free at 720P but at 1080 resolution, there is some performance cost IIRC. The special RAM buffer is only 10MB because it is built into the GPU daughter-chip and runs just as fast and costs a lot.

"Nope, it's antialiasing. 2x AA is a requirement on all X360 games, since it is done for 'free' - no performance penalty."

4xAA is done for free on the 360 according to all the tech docs. Its free because of the very fast ram embedded on the GPU.

The 360 is capable of producing better effects then the PS3 simply because the GPU is more advanced with its unified shaders and the fact that it has more potential ram to work with.

Actually, more than anything, this tells you that the Japanese are starting to realise that the PS3 isn't the powerhouse of graphical muscle it was made out to be.

The lighting on the 360 version is superior, as is the environmental effects. The game does indeed have anti-aliasing as most people noticed (blur filter indeed!) though, this is not free as most people seem to think. It just costs less than would be the case on anything but the new DX10 cards. Not suprising as it uses some DX10 techniques to achieve it.

The PS3 version suffers from framerate issues, this is not down to the Cell but, rather down to the PS3's choice of GPU. Trade off is that the PS3 runs cooler than the 360 and so suffers from less hear stress failures.

Botton line is that the Japanese (although they will never truly adopt a foreign games system) are realising that they may have sold the 360s capabilities way short. Mainly due to some excellent Sony PR about the apparent power of the PS3. As with all things in life however, great power is only advantageous if it is able to be applied to the right things.

"Subtler heat haze effects" ??? You mean NO heat haze effects... None of the straight lines going through the highlighted area or any place in that picture is refracted.

Oh and blurring? lol... That was a cheap shot.

@vindicated:
The only difference on the gun is it's lit up by the lights underneath and you're viewing the bottom of it in the 360 shot. How is that a minus?

@Duophonix:
Agreed, it's crucial to use shots with the same camera angle if one is to compare reflections since reflection is exactly that; Light, angle, eye/POV. Apparently what you see in the windows in the 360 shot is a reflection of something next to or close by what you see in the PS3 shot.
I'm not gonna say for sure though but it looks like the reflection in the 360 shot seems to have some displacement in it making those "bulges" It may however just be whatever is reflected actually look like that.

In the end however it's pointless to compare these things since the difference is minor and all it does is feed the flamers and fanboys.
I'm buying all these consoles. When I'll be deciding on what machine to get a specifig game for when it's out for them all it's gonna be more about the price + overall performance than looks and pointless effects that doesn't really make a difference in the end, being there or not.

See? The Cell is too complicated even for the Japanese!

hahaha .... xbox 1.5 ....

I own both systems and that statement still pisses me off. I am so glad to see xbox 1.5 holding it's own against the 4D supercomputer.

Whether it is "free" or not, AA on 360 is performed by a semi-separate chip so that the GPU doesn't have to waste time on it. That is where the EDRAM buffer lives. Not inside but beside the GPU.

The PS3 is a good console. Nothing more.

Why do so many people believe Sony when they say they are going to bend the laws of physics and give you hardware for under a $1000 bucks that will somehow outperform everything NASA and hollywood have combined?

When have they ever lived up to this hype?

PS1? nope.

PS2? nope.

Some good TVs. Walkman. (thanks guys, you made the 80s a lot more fun) Some decent stereo gear.

A whole shitload of useless proprietary formats (yeah, beta was great until you had to change tapes to finish an average-length movie).

Where was I?

O yeah, get over it people. PS3 is not gods cellphone. It is a good game system. Roughly equivilent in power to the 360, with larger optical media and more limited RAM distribution.

There will be no miracles here.

I'm gonna be the first to say that I think the PS3 version looks better.

Well, maybe not better, but 'cleaner'. The lines are sharper on the PS3. The edges of the AC look a bit better defined. The effects on the 360 look better in a still, but the PS3 might look fine when in motion. Other then that, there's very little to tell. The camera angle change really messes things up when trying to do a direct comparison though

Considering the devs have 1 year less experience at PS3 coding, and the well publicised (by 360 owners) lack of GPU performance, I think it stands up pretty well!

They look more or less the same to me. The Japanese blogger seems to have noticed some jaggies on the legs in the PS3 version which aren't there in the 360 one, but I honestly couldn't tell.

heh the 1st gen PS3 vs 2nd gen 360 is getting old fast. Later this year the excuse will be 2nd gen PS3 vs 3rd gen 360 is the reason for the difference.

once again, the 360 looks better than the PS3. this is nothing new. great job of showing up to the party late, and in an uglier dress, sony.

the ps3's edges is more sharper and the graphics are cleaner. i do like how the heat on the 360 makes blurs around the heat like they would do in real life, and i like the glassyness of buildings and the reflection. but i do believe that the ps3's phsyics and ai will be superior to the 360's

"Actually, more than anything, this tells you that the Japanese are starting to realise that the PS3 isn't the powerhouse of graphical muscle it was made out to be."

I think it says more that programming on the PS3 still hasn't really been figured out yet. Hopefully that new kit that the Phil and the boys were doling out at GDC will help make that a little bit easier for everyone. If I remember correctly, one of the key components of that kit was graphics oriented.

I think it's far too early to be comparing things like this right now. It's taken a year for the 360 to get this far in terms of utilizing effects like these.

I mean, you can go ahead and compare all you want, but those of us who are smart will save the judgements until the PS3 has had ample time to be learned by those that have the ability to make the difference.

I think it's great that developers are able to push the 360 this far already. I look forward to the PS3 getting to that point eventually, too.

AgainstOne: I laughed.

360 has looked better to me in each comparison, but honestly, they are so close it is not that significant. When you have to search two still shots to notice the differences, who cares? That said, I wouldn't say "the next generation started when Sony said it started," unless "next generation" means worse lighting, less texture, and crappy online features.

Microsoft has minimum requirements for all software released on the system (including XBLA) telling all developers that each game must be released in at least 720p with 2x AA. The anti aliasing doesn't cost the GPU anything, so why the crap wouldn't the 360 be using it all the time?

The demo has hit Xbox Live?

I'm not seeing it on there. Can anyone else confirm that the demo is on Xbox Live?

@CheapyD: i loled!

I'm going to have to say that this is almost the exact opposite situation of Oblivion. For Oblivion, Bethesda was able to spend some more time on the PS3 version to make it look a bit better than the Xbox 360 version and now the 360 version is a bit more polished than the PS3.

Why do jaggies still exist in the first place? Neither system should ever have a single jaggy at this point. This is an issue we've been trying to solve since like 1981.

Guard
The demo has hit Xbox Live in Japan only.

As for the actual screen shots, they look pretty similar, and I can't decide which one is better.

Not to derail the heated arguing over which console is better, but ... I just logged into live, and I don't see the demo. There's a trailer for Armored Core 4. There are some THeme packs. There is not a Demo for Armored Core.

Thanks for getting my hopes up for nothing.

To claim there is any kind of a difference worth talking about between these two screenshots is completely absurd. Period.

Aslum... there IS a demo for AC4.. in japan. If you go back to March 2nd you can read all about it for yourself.

What "blur" ?

The AA-question has been commented enough times already, but still I'm asking, what "blur"? Xbox one has no "blur" chip installed, nor does the 360.

Also, what "software rendered" effects can you find on the 360 shots that are "hardware rendered" on PS3?

The shots are ok, one can compare if one wishes, but that analysis simply makes no sense. Also, as they're not moving, commenting on the "heat haze" effect (software, is it? ;) is sorta pointless, but I could swear there's zero to none in the PS3 shot.

The heat haze effect is in reference to one of the missions in the 360 demo, entitled Desert Wolf the horizon has a very pronounced heat haze effect. On the the 360 version it's fixed to the camera and generally looks ugly. The PS3 version implements the haze in a more subtle manner. In addition, the 360 demo has very nasty clipping issues that those screenshots don't illustrate (as in your AC's leg will just clip through water, which isn't very convincing). Both games play identically however, which is all that matters (unless you attribute your self worth to a piece of gaming hardware, which isn't all that rational).

two things:

2x Antialiasing is NOT free on Xbox 360. The process of scaling a double sized image down to a single sized antialiased image is free, but you've still got to render an image twice the size in the first place. A 720p antialiased image on the Xbox takes as much GPU effort to process as a 1280p image on PS3 without the antialiasing on. And Microsoft don't let you ship games without AA.

Secondly, visual effects programming on Xbox 360 == visual effects programming on PS3. It's all just shader model 3, people. If one machine has fewer effects than the other, it's because the programmers couldn't do it quickly enough. If they've got the same effects but they look diffrent, that'll be down to ATI's and NVidia's hardware implementation, just like it is on PC.

Of course in the end it's all subjective anyway. What counts is whether it looks nice. And as far as frame rate goes, the casual observer has no way of telling whether it's the CPU or GPU at fault.

In choosing between the PS3 and 360 versions of the same game, the deciding factor is achievements. The 360 has them, the PS3 doesn't.

@ez054098: The PS3 version has the same game content, the unlockable parts are identical. Plus, the PS3's online service is free.

@Streaks: Usually the difference between 2nd and 3rd gen titles is much much smaller than the difference between 1st and 2nd gen. Also as time progresses you get to a point where the difference between the two generations is so small that it is unnoticible. Graphically, It would be similar to the shape of a Pareto Curve. So, no, a generational gap is not always an excuse, but early in a console's lifetime should be acknowledged.

"Effects in the PS3 version seem to be hardware rendered, while in the Xbox 360 version, they are software rendered."

well, there goes any credibility

@ez054098:

By the time this game comes out, Home will have been released, allowing you to have all the rewards and trophies you could want.

And I hear tell you won't even have to use "The Sims" like interface to see peoples rewards, either, if that is a deciding factor for you.

One of the comments on that blog says something along the lines of "i'm glad 360 has rumble"

PS3 wins this time. I just got done downloading the 360 demo and the PS3 does look much better. But, this is only the demo, things can change before the final product is released. I plan on buying the 360 version for the achievements.

I would like to point this out. Fuck both of those screens. The PS3 version of the game has a versus mode which both screens (p1 p2) are both about 13inches wide. I wonder if that will change on the 360 version. It was hard as hell to play Vs mode because the screens are so damn small....

@PapaBear: Home will be out next week?

@niledeltadisco:

I wasn't aware that this game would be out next week. I assumed it was down the line a ways.

My mistake, then.

I guess I have to retract my statement and say that in this instance 360 wins on this front for added features. Achievement tracking would be nice for a game like this.

While Home WILL track your stats once it is releases, it is a long while off, so I have to call a "kudos" to Microsoft on this one.