# Xbox 360 1080P vs PS3 1080P



## mocha989

This isnt a thread about which console is better. im just flaming all over my couzin right now about how current gen consoles can not display true 1080P its all stretched and pixelized. he also think the RSX(7800GT equivalent chip) beats the Xbox 360 X1900XT chip which it doesnt. the X1900XT pisses all over the 7800GT. He also says PSN is better then XBL but i say XBL you get what you pay for. as in less lag and better service.


----------



## halifax1

I've seen very little difference between the Xbox 360 and the PS3 at 720P and 1080P.. so if they're close to being identical then there's no way the 360s GPU "pisses all over" the PS3s.

And not all games are stretched to 1080P. More and more are coming out that natively run it at that resolution.

And what the hell are you talking about? I've seen Xbox 360 games and PS3 games upscaled to 1080P and it is in no way pixelized.


----------



## JoeUbi

And you're trying to determine what?


----------



## mocha989

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JoeUbi* 
And you're trying to determine what?

nothing just saying how my couzin honestly doenst know anything lol


----------



## venom55520

the real moneymaker here is the cell broadband processor. i must admit, exclusives on the ps3 look a lot better than 360's. i mean, uncharted 2 looks like something from a PC.


----------



## mocha989

Quote:


Originally Posted by *venom55520* 
the real moneymaker here is the cell broadband processor. i must admit, exclusives on the ps3 look a lot better than 360's. i mean, uncharted 2 looks like something from a PC.

ohh yeah i agree physx are great. but i still cant believe he thinks that PS3 can do native 1080P and the 360 cant. when neither of them can and may start to


----------



## imadude10

I know forza 3 has a new system that finally runs 60 fps on the xbox 360. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between either the PS3 or X360 and I sit about ~8 ft away from a 46" tv. The upscaling on the PS3 while playing DVDs is much MUCH better than the xbox by far though.


----------



## JKBenchmarks

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mocha989* 
uhh i got what i know from on this website so im pretty sure i know what im talking about.

How sure are you?

The Xbox 360's GPU may have shaders, but it only has 48. This is on the level of 2400 HD performance. The 2400 HD performs worse than a 1600 Pro.

The 7800 GT scores about double the amount of 3DMark06 points than the 2400 HD.

Also, the Xbox 360 and PS3 run games at 720P usually. CoD4 runs at 1000x600 or something like that for both consoles, and GT 5 runs at 1080P on the PS3.

Get yer facts straight.


----------



## mocha989

Quote:


Originally Posted by *imadude10* 
I know forza 3 has a new system that finally runs 60 fps on the xbox 360. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between either the PS3 or X360 and I sit about ~8 ft away from a 46" tv. The upscaling on the PS3 while playing DVDs is much MUCH better than the xbox by far though.

well yeah blu ray lol. and cod 4 looks more vibrant in color for me on the 360. i campred them both on my monitor and tv


----------



## halifax1

This site, although amazing, has a lot of misinformation. You most likely got your information from a false post.

Games looking more vibrant does not mean one is drastically better than the other.

Resident Evil 5 ran better on 360 than it did on PS3. It doesn't mean the PS3 sucks. Some games look better on PS3 than Xbox 360. It doesn't mean either of them are drastically different.

They're actually very similar in terms of quality.

Most games you will tell a very small difference between the two.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mocha989* 
well yeah blu ray lol. and cod 4 looks more vibrant in color for me on the 360. i campred them both on my monitor and tv

What does Blu-Ray have to do with upscaling of DVDs?


----------



## mocha989

Quote:


Originally Posted by *halifax1* 
This site, although amazing, has a lot of misinformation. You most likely got your information from a false post.

i got it from the news section and then i got to the source to see what website it is from. its ifs from fudzilla i dont listen to it.


----------



## imadude10

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mocha989* 
well yeah blu ray lol. and cod 4 looks more vibrant in color for me on the 360. i campred them both on my monitor and tv

BluRay has nothing to do with upscaling DVDs to 720p or 1080p... Are you using HDMI for both devices? That could make a difference


----------



## Hexa

I may be completely off base here, actually I probably am. But are you guys sure the Blu Ray has nothing to do with upscaling dvd's to look better?

I only ask because I recently bought a new Blue Ray player and my old DvD's look simply amazing on it. On my 360 they look good, but no where near as good as on the Blu Ray player.


----------



## Ricdeau

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mocha989* 
well yeah blu ray lol. and cod 4 looks more vibrant in color for me on the 360. i campred them both on my monitor and tv

Did you recalibrate your TV for each system individually to judge them properly? As in not using the same settings for both systems.

Also I've seen just as much lag on Live as I have on PSN. I own both and play both online. Both systems have their merits and both have their downsides. To try to blanket statement that one is head and shoulders above the other is just ignorant. Neither side "pisses" on the other. Get your head on straight and then try to come back for a more civil conversation about the systems.


----------



## mocha989

Quote:


Originally Posted by *imadude10* 
BluRay has nothing to do with upscaling DVDs to 720p or 1080p... Are you using HDMI for both devices? That could make a difference

yes my they both run 1080p


----------



## halifax1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hexa* 
I may be completely off base here, actually I probably am. But are you guys sure the Blu Ray has nothing to do with upscaling dvd's to look better?

I only ask because I recently bought a new Blue Ray player and my old DvD's look simply amazing on it. On my 360 they look good, but no where near as good as on the Blu Ray player.

Probably has something to do with the upscaling chip in the devices, not Blu-Ray.


----------



## imadude10

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hexa* 
I may be completely off base here, actually I probably am. But are you guys sure the Blu Ray has nothing to do with upscaling dvd's to look better?

I only ask because I recently bought a new Blue Ray player and my old DvD's look simply amazing on it. On my 360 they look good, but no where near as good as on the Blu Ray player.

Most Blu-Ray players have an upscaling engine that stretches the image and fills in the details on the fly. So it's not the blu-ray drive itself, its the post processing that goes into displaying the image on the screen.

Edit: Gah! Halifax, you type too fast!


----------



## Dopamin3

Quote:


Originally Posted by *halifax1* 
Doesn't seem like you do either to be honest.

The first good post by Halifax, albeit condescending as usual.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JKBenchmarks* 
How sure are you?

The Xbox 360's GPU may have shaders, but it only has 48. This is on the level of 2400 HD performance. The 2400 HD performs worse than a 1600 Pro.

The 7800 GT scores about double the amount of 3DMark06 points than the 2400 HD.

Also, the Xbox 360 and PS3 run games at 720P usually. CoD4 runs at 1000x600 or something like that for both consoles, and GT 5 runs at 1080P on the PS3.

Get yer facts straight.

Pls get your facts right. The 360 GPU is based on R500 not R600. The shasers on the 360 GPU 48 are not the same as shaders on Hd2400, they are shaders from X1900 which are more powerful.


----------



## Hexa

Quote:


Originally Posted by *halifax1* 
Probably has something to do with the upscaling chip in the devices, not Blu-Ray.

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess you're ok even if you DO hate my analogies


----------



## halifax1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hexa* 
Thanks for clearing that up. I guess you're ok even if you DO hate my analogies









I just said it was a dumb one, I didn't say I hated it. There are good analogies and awful analogies. Yours just happened to fall in a the bad category. I didn't mean anything else by it. Don't take little things so seriously man.

Sorry if my honesty pisses some people off.


----------



## jtypin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mocha989* 
uhh i got what i know from on this website so im pretty sure i know what im talking about.

I got a diploma stating I am master of Earth from the internet.

I'm pretty sure I'm master of earth now.


----------



## JKBenchmarks

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er* 
Pls get your facts right. The 360 GPU is based on R500 not R600. The shasers on the 360 GPU 48 are not the same as shaders on Hd2400, they are shaders from X1900 which are more powerful.

Hmm, thanks for that info.

I hate this GPU's architecture.

It's not a 2400 HD, but it's not quite an X1900.


----------



## mocha989

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JKBenchmarks* 
Hmm, thanks for that info.

I hate this GPU's architecture.

It's not a 2400 HD, but it's not quite an X1900.

its close to X1900 though. i know for a fact the RSX is 7800GT


----------



## mocha989

my couzin thought the PS3 had a 8 core processor i was like no. it has a cell broadband processor


----------



## Hexa

I got no clue what either one of them have. I just know I enjoy the Xbox 360 more then the PS3. Not saying the PS3 is bad, in fact with the price drop I think the PS3 is a great deal considering it has a blu ray player.


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:



Originally Posted by *JKBenchmarks*


How sure are you?

The Xbox 360's GPU may have shaders, but it only has 48. This is on the level of 2400 HD performance. The 2400 HD performs worse than a 1600 Pro.

The 7800 GT scores about double the amount of 3DMark06 points than the 2400 HD.

Also, the Xbox 360 and PS3 run games at 720P usually. CoD4 runs at 1000x600 or something like that for both consoles, and GT 5 runs at 1080P on the PS3.

Get yer facts straight.



GT5 does not run 1080p. The only time GT5 runs 1080p is when you're in the trophy room and menus. When you select the "1080p" rendering thing, you don't get 1920x1080, you get 1280x1080 or whatever. Its better then the 1280x720 if you like less AA but, I personally don't consider it 1080p for real.

Very very few games do 1080p, and the ones that do such as Wipeout HD typically have dynamic frame buffers to them where they switch resolutions on the fly to keep performance at best, or are sports games. In fact, someone was telling me the other day that is dynamic frame buffer is in GT5 when its using that '1080p' rendering mode, but I don't know the truth behind that.

And yeah - the 600p crap with CoD4 and CoD:MW2 is absolutely horrible. It looks like turd on my 32" 1080p. I can't wait to get the PC version of MW2.


----------



## mmparkskier

After 3000+ posts, you still haven't learned that there is an edit button in the lower right hand corner? Stop double posting, it's getting annoying.

Pertaining to the question:

With consoles, I think GPU matters less than with PC. The coding for that specific GPU is what is important. This is where the xbox has the upper hand. It is easier for developers to program games to run on the xbox than on the PS3, making it seem as though the xbox's graphics are better (while in fact they are, the PS3 can perform identically with the right software coding). I forget where I read this... I'll try to dig up a link to cite a valid source.

Comparing the GPU in a console to the GPU in a computer seems foolish. Console games are specifically designed to run on that set of components, and nothing else. PC games need to cover a broader spectrum, essentially reducing the efficiency at which the graphics/audio are reproduced.

EDIT: I was wrong. It's the xbox's CPU that's easier to program for. Source so far (5 minutes of searching).


----------



## JKBenchmarks

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mocha989*


my couzin thought the PS3 had a 8 core processor i was like no. it has a cell broadband processor


With 7 SPE's, one which is used for the OS, and 1 PPE, it has 6 "cores."


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


After 3000+ posts, you still haven't learned that there is an edit button in the lower right hand corner? Stop double posting, it's getting annoying.

Pertaining to the question:

With consoles, I think GPU matters less than with PC. The coding for that specific GPU is what is important. This is where the xbox has the upper hand. It is easier for developers to program games to run on the xbox than on the PS3, making it seem as though the xbox's graphics are better (while in fact they are, the PS3 can perform identically with the right software coding). I forget where I read this... I'll try to dig up a link to cite a valid source.

Comparing the GPU in a console to the GPU in a computer seems foolish. Console games are specifically designed to run on that set of components, and nothing else. PC games need to cover a broader spectrum, essentially reducing the efficiency at which the graphics/audio are reproduced.



I don't believe anyone is comparing a console GPU to a PC GPU, although I agree with your post completely.
When people say its 'comparable to a 7800GTX' or whatever, its simply a point of reference.

Although, I do disagree on the console GPU not matter that much. The GPU performance graphic quality wise is truly different from a PC GPU, but - the resolution it can output goes hand in hand with that so it does matter a lot.


----------



## mmparkskier

Quote:



Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28*


I don't believe anyone is comparing a console GPU to a PC GPU, although I agree with your post completely.
When people say its 'comparable to a 7800GTX' or whatever, its simply a point of reference.

Although, I do disagree on the console GPU not matter that much. The GPU performance graphic quality wise is truly different from a PC GPU, but - the resolution it can output goes hand in hand with that so it does matter a lot.


Yeah, after a little research I'm finding that the xbox's GPU is stronger, and it does matter. Put simply, it's just more powerful. I just don't like how people reference the PC cards and compare them to the consoles.

From an article comparing XBOX to PS3:

*Performance*

Here's a tough one. On paper, the Playstation 3's Cell engine is more capable than XBOX 360's triple-core Xenon CPU. However, as our developer alluded to last year, the XBOX 360 is much easier to develop for. In other words, a lot of the Cell's power is going to waste. Although that is expected to change eventually, as always seems to happen with Sony's consoles (compare early PS2 games to current games, and the same goes for PS1), one year later we're still waiting for someone to fully exploit the system. Another indication that the PS3 is harder to develop for is the fact that almost all multiplatform games arrive weeks - if not months - after their 360 versions.

As we said last year, we fully expect the PS3 to win this category - eventually. To what extent, we're not sure (very likely it's only going to be the blockbuster first-party titles that take full advantage of Cell), and when this will occur, we're not sure either. Obviously, one full year wasn't enough.

*Graphics*

This is a sticky subject for a lot of fanboys. A very common argument in most flame wars is that the Playstation 3 simply "has better graphics". I'm not sure where that argument came from; Sony obviously did a good job of marketing the system. However, the argument is entirely false. The Xenos GPU on the XBOX 360 is superior the RSX on the PS3. This is one thing that didn't change in the past year.

Xenos simply has more power - higher fillrate, higher pixel processing power, higher vertex processing power, and better memory architecture. If you look at multiplatform games and contrast the graphics on the two consoles, XBOX 360 almost always leads. Whether they use a higher resolution
or higher quality antialiasing, games often look better and/or play smoother on the 360. We looked at a handful of multiplatform games a while back, and this was always the case.

Again, we have to consider that Cell has the potential to help with graphics on the Playstation 3. As developers become more familiar with the platform, they are going to come up with new tricks to help games run smoother, and allow them to look better. However, one year after its introduction we aren't seeing huge leaps (or even baby steps) towards this, except on a couple exclusive titles.

Source.


----------



## mocha989

Quote:



Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28*


GT5 does not run 1080p. The only time GT5 runs 1080p is when you're in the trophy room and menus. When you select the "1080p" rendering thing, you don't get 1920x1080, you get 1280x1080 or whatever. Its better then the 1280x720 if you like less AA but, I personally don't consider it 1080p for real.

Very very few games do 1080p, and the ones that do such as Wipeout HD typically have dynamic frame buffers to them where they switch resolutions on the fly to keep performance at best, or are sports games. In fact, someone was telling me the other day that is dynamic frame buffer is in GT5 when its using that '1080p' rendering mode, but I don't know the truth behind that.

And yeah - the 600p crap with CoD4 and CoD:MW2 is absolutely horrible. It looks like turd on my 32" 1080p. I can't wait to get the PC version of MW2.


yes thank you lol some brains finally.


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:



Yeah, after a little research I'm finding that the xbox's GPU is stronger, and it does matter. Put simply, it's just more powerful. I just don't like how people reference the PC cards and compare them to the consoles.

From an article comparing XBOX to PS3:

Performance

Here's a tough one. On paper, the Playstation 3's Cell engine is more capable than XBOX 360's triple-core Xenon CPU. However, as our developer alluded to last year, the XBOX 360 is much easier to develop for. In other words, a lot of the Cell's power is going to waste. Although that is expected to change eventually, as always seems to happen with Sony's consoles (compare early PS2 games to current games, and the same goes for PS1), one year later we're still waiting for someone to fully exploit the system. Another indication that the PS3 is harder to develop for is the fact that almost all multiplatform games arrive weeks - if not months - after their 360 versions.

As we said last year, we fully expect the PS3 to win this category - eventually. To what extent, we're not sure (very likely it's only going to be the blockbuster first-party titles that take full advantage of Cell), and when this will occur, we're not sure either. Obviously, one full year wasn't enough.

Graphics

This is a sticky subject for a lot of fanboys. A very common argument in most flame wars is that the Playstation 3 simply "has better graphics". I'm not sure where that argument came from; Sony obviously did a good job of marketing the system. However, the argument is entirely false. The Xenos GPU on the XBOX 360 is superior the RSX on the PS3. This is one thing that didn't change in the past year.

Xenos simply has more power - higher fillrate, higher pixel processing power, higher vertex processing power, and better memory architecture. If you look at multiplatform games and contrast the graphics on the two consoles, XBOX 360 almost always leads. Whether they use a higher resolution
or higher quality antialiasing, games often look better and/or play smoother on the 360. We looked at a handful of multiplatform games a while back, and this was always the case.

Again, we have to consider that Cell has the potential to help with graphics on the Playstation 3. As developers become more familiar with the platform, they are going to come up with new tricks to help games run smoother, and allow them to look better. However, one year after its introduction we aren't seeing huge leaps (or even baby steps) towards this, except on a couple exclusive titles.


I'm not one for comparing them specs to specs.
The 360 and the PS3 have had their fair share of bad ports and good ports. Most ports favor the 360, but there are some such as DMC4 and Burnout Paradise that favor the PS3 in comparison.

Though, I blame such ports on the developers who typically don't iron out all the differences. Such as, for example, the most recent one with Bayonetta. Sega threw the PS3 port to some 3rd party devs and it looks like utter crap for no legitimate reason. Yet, the PS3 has games like Uncharted 2. Sure, Uncharted 2 is done by Naughty Dog who under Sony's wing - but they are perfect examples that it isn't impossible to get a half decent looking games on there instead of the ugly crap like Bayonetta regardless of the GPU being 'lesser' then the 360. And I think quite frankly Uncharted 2 is the best looking game I've seen on a console and it manages 720p I believe.


----------



## mmparkskier

Quote:



Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28*


I'm not one for comparing them specs to specs.
The 360 and the PS3 have had their fair share of bad ports and good ports. Most ports favor the 360, but there are some such as DMC4 and Burnout Paradise that favor the PS3 in comparison.

Though, I blame such ports on the developers who typically don't iron out all the differences. Such as, for example, the most recent one with Bayonetta. Sega threw the PS3 port to some 3rd party devs and it looks like utter crap for no legitimate reason. Yet, the PS3 has games like Uncharted 2. Sure, Uncharted 2 is done by Naughty Dog who under Sony's wing - but they are perfect examples that it isn't impossible to get a half decent looking games on there instead of the ugly crap like Bayonetta regardless of the GPU being 'lesser' then the 360. And I think quite frankly Uncharted 2 is the best looking game I've seen on a console and it manages 720p I believe.



I just thought I'd share what I found. Also, Ratchet and Clank has always been Playstation exclusive, and I've heard that the most recent addition is great. Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to play it.

My point is, it's all about architecture and game developers, not so much raw computing power.

I don't think this helps the OP must, but he's too lazy to do his own research anyway. If you type a few words into Google, you can find a plethora of information comparing HD performance of the XBOX to the PS3.


----------



## mocha989

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mmparkskier*


I just thought I'd share what I found. Also, Ratchet and Clank has always been Playstation exclusive, and I've heard that the most recent addition is great. Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to play it.

My point is, it's all about architecture and game developers, not so much raw computing power.

I don't think this helps the OP must, but he's too lazy to do his own research anyway. If you type a few words into Google, you can find a plethora of information comparing HD performance of the XBOX to the PS3.


and Omega covered it all.


----------



## TestECull

Neither one of them can run today's games in true 1080P.

Mostly they run 1280x720, then they run the resulting image through an upscaler chip.

I used to have a 256MB X1900XT. Trust me. That thing wasn't going to be doing anything in true HD anytime soon. 1680x1050 was absolutely pushing your luck as far as widescreen went. I ran it at 1280x1024, and that ran fairly well. I'm sure a well-optimized exclusive with some on-CPU prerendering could run 1680x1050, but it would still have to upscale slightly.


----------



## ALiShaikh

Well.. Wipeout and a bunch of others ARE 1080p whatever your biased mind may think. 
And anyways, the 360 CAN'T do 1080p. I mean AT ALL. Not even in a picture.
Proof

  
 YouTube- 360 vs PS3: Graphics Resolution


----------



## rduffy123

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TestECull*


Neither one of them can run today's games in true 1080P.

Mostly they run 1280x720, then they run the resulting image through an upscaler chip.

I used to have a 256MB X1900XT. Trust me. That thing wasn't going to be doing anything in true HD anytime soon. 1680x1050 was absolutely pushing your luck as far as widescreen went. I ran it at 1280x1024, and that ran fairly well. I'm sure a well-optimized exclusive with some on-CPU prerendering could run 1680x1050, but it would still have to upscale slightly.


Get your facts straight, both consoles cant do 1080p. Forza3 is 1080p 60 fps. Lot of uninformed people in here, dont know what they talking about.

Wow idiots go learn to read something both do 1080p.


----------



## TestECull

Wow. Bad reading for both of you.

Do you not see where I mentioned they go through the upscaler chip? What your TV gets _is_ 1080P. It's upscaled in that chip. The GPU itself cannot handle running the games at that resolution, so they run it at a lower one then upscale.

For the average console gamer, meh the difference is negligible.


----------



## lockdownx1x

Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Mr Bear

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28* 
GT5 does not run 1080p. The only time GT5 runs 1080p is when you're in the trophy room and menus. When you select the "1080p" rendering thing, you don't get 1920x1080, you get 1280x1080 or whatever. Its better then the 1280x720 if you like less AA but, I personally don't consider it 1080p for real.

Very very few games do 1080p, and the ones that do such as Wipeout HD typically have dynamic frame buffers to them where they switch resolutions on the fly to keep performance at best, or are sports games. In fact, someone was telling me the other day that is dynamic frame buffer is in GT5 when its using that '1080p' rendering mode, but I don't know the truth behind that.

And yeah - the 600p crap with CoD4 and CoD:MW2 is absolutely horrible. It looks like turd on my 32" 1080p. I can't wait to get the PC version of MW2.

There is no true 1080p resolution on less than 40" TV's .. Monitors are different.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ALiShaikh* 
Well.. Wipeout and a bunch of others ARE 1080p whatever your biased mind may think.
And anyways, the 360 CAN'T do 1080p. I mean AT ALL. Not even in a picture.
Proof
[/url]

Of course, it upscales whatever is on the screen to that res.


----------



## ELmo1989

On my projector the 360 has bit better AA and is better.
but the ps3 can do darks alot better.


----------



## Ikrin

This should be in "Raves and Rant."


----------



## ALiShaikh

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rduffy123*


Get your facts straight, both consoles cant do 1080p. Forza3 is 1080p 60 fps. Lot of uninformed people in here, dont know what they talking about.

Wow idiots go learn to read something both do 1080p.


Get YOUR facts straight mister. Forza 3 runs at 60FPS, but only at 720p. 
Try to prove me wrong.


----------



## almighty15

PS3 has more games that are *RENDERED* in 1080p

360 has the better up scaler so in games that are upscaled, 360 will give the better results.

Besides 360 games tend to have better frame rates, more MSAA and rendered in a slightly higher resolution.

Does it matter anyway? Consoles suck ass tbh...


----------



## Delta_32-1

You all know that the Xbox 360 CPU is modified version of the cell chip. I also have this http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html very interesting article.


----------



## almighty15

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Delta_32-1*


You all know that the Xbox 360 CPU is modified version of the cell chip. I also have this http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html very interesting article.


No it's not.... Sony co-created Cell, you think they're going to let Microsoft use a derivative of it?









There was rumours that Xenon *WAS* what Cell was originally supposed to be but Sony wanted small specialised cores and thus the design was changed from a 3 core design to the Cell we have today.


----------



## Delta_32-1

Thank you for clearing that up, I always new something was fishy about that. Also the article I posted was just to show the hardware strength differences not anything more. Sorry should have clarified that info.


----------



## MalXenos

not 100 sure on the 360 but 1080P is great on ps3.

as for the comment about network service; ps3 is far better I think. Less lag








Overall trying to figure out what your getting at...


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mr Bear*


There is no true 1080p resolution on less than 40" TV's .. Monitors are different.

Of course, it upscales whatever is on the screen to that res.


What are you smoking?









Define 1080p for me. Please because you clearly have no idea what it means.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *almighty15*


PS3 has more games that are *RENDERED* in 1080p

360 has the better up scaler so in games that are upscaled, 360 will give the better results.

Besides 360 games tend to have better frame rates, more MSAA and rendered in a slightly higher resolution.

Does it matter anyway? Consoles suck ass tbh...


PS3 has a few games that are rendered in a resolution like 1280x1080, but I don't think the PS3 has anymore then the 360 really.

And yes, the 360 does tend to have better frame rates and more AA then the PS3's counterparts.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rduffy123*


Get your facts straight, both consoles cant do 1080p. Forza3 is 1080p 60 fps. Lot of uninformed people in here, dont know what they talking about.

Wow idiots go learn to read something both do 1080p.


First you say both consoles can't do 1080p. Then you say Forza 3 is 1080p.
Both statements not only contradict each other, but they are completely 110% wrong.
You sir are the uninformed person here and doesn't know what they are talking about.
The only idiot here is YOU.


----------

