Post by: mlapaglia on November 13, 2006, 06:33:00 PM
Post by: echto on November 13, 2006, 06:35:00 PM
Post by: Doffo on November 13, 2006, 06:39:00 PM
QUOTE(echto @ Nov 13 2006, 08:42 PM) 
More fuel for the PS3 fire.
I second that!
Wait.... If you are meaning for the PS3 to burn and suck, then yes, but if you mean more glory for ps3, then Nien!
Post by: VerbatimDL24X on November 13, 2006, 06:44:00 PM
Post by: gerzand on November 13, 2006, 07:04:00 PM
Post by: Doffo on November 13, 2006, 07:07:00 PM
Wonder if Sony paid them to bring down the resolution/quality of the game and they will fully support the 720p on the PS3 so they think the ps3 is more superior!
Sorry, just an idea.
Post by: MN-Mod-Man on November 13, 2006, 07:07:00 PM
Post by: epsilon72 on November 13, 2006, 07:28:00 PM
Resolution being sub-720p on a next gen console is kind of pathetic...if games that are as graphics intensive as Gears of War can run in 720p, then why not these two?
Post by: ILLusions0fGrander on November 13, 2006, 07:36:00 PM
CoD3 and TH8 are both awesome games in my opinion, viewing on 1080
Post by: Woore on November 13, 2006, 07:40:00 PM
Post by: anonim1979 on November 13, 2006, 07:53:00 PM
Tony Hawk 8
http://www.gametrail...=...wmv&pl=game
Identical but PS3 has much worse framerate
Check IGN and Gamespot reviews:
"It's certainly disappointing that the PlayStation 3 is so far behind the Xbox 360 game. Framerate issues are apparent at every other turn, and the lack of online play really hurts. Project 8 is a worthy game to pick up, just preferably not on this system."
Tiger Woods
http://www.gametrail...=...wmv&pl=game
PS3 version has worse some trees made of 2 textures in X shape.
THE TREES ON PS3 VERSION ARE MADE FROM 2 TEXTURES!!!! IN X SHAPE!
WHAT A PAST GEN!
PS3 is lacking GPU power to display farther trees LOL!
PS2.5! FTL!
Post by: MeanMF on November 13, 2006, 07:53:00 PM
QUOTE(stupididiot @ Nov 14 2006, 03:23 AM)
does it matter if it's PAL or NTSC resolution???
or they all the same i.e. PAL 720p = NTSC 720p
NTSC is 480i at 60Hz, PAL is 576i at 50Hz. Once you start talking about 480p, 720p, etc. you're no longer talking about PAL or NTSC. 720p can have a variety of refresh rates, anywhere from 24Hz to 60Hz. You'll (very infrequently) see this written as 720p24 or 720p60.
Post by: Chigawaa on November 13, 2006, 08:20:00 PM
Just my opinion
Post by: mrjkwik on November 13, 2006, 08:32:00 PM
seeing these screenshots...
and watching the previously posted gametrailer comparisons, what comes to mind?
is it the system? or is it the developer?
the article has a lot of numbers that if accurate and the guy who wrote it knows what he's talking about, then the 360 "should" be the stronger system.
and there have already been developers that have openly stated that the 360 is easier to develop for.
so, is the system really "weaker", or has the developer just not figured out how to code the 360 yet, because there have been several games that do look great.
Post by: TheIceman72 on November 13, 2006, 08:50:00 PM
Post by: richie579 on November 13, 2006, 09:01:00 PM
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 13, 2006, 09:10:00 PM
QUOTE(anonim1979 @ Nov 13 2006, 10:49 PM)
Screenshots See here PS3 vs. Xbox 360 Comparison HD [1280x720]:
See first 2 X trees on PS3
http://i138.photobuc...im1979/tw-1.jpg
http://i138.photobuc...im1979/tw-2.jpg
water trail missing - the rest is the same
http://i138.photobuc...1979/thp8-1.jpg
http://i138.photobuc...1979/thp8-2.jpg
http://i138.photobuc...1979/thp8-3.jpg
those might have been great comparison shots but you can't see jack with all the Jpeg compression going on.
Post by: BigFerg on November 13, 2006, 09:19:00 PM
Post by: rasstar on November 13, 2006, 09:43:00 PM
I am not sure what you are talking about but the version for the Wii had to be downgraded because of the lack of power on wii. Less enemies and lower textures.
Post by: Kazaki on November 13, 2006, 09:44:00 PM
QUOTE(BigFerg @ Nov 14 2006, 12:26 AM)
What most of you guys are forgetting is that developers are not going to go to all the effort of creating two seperate games for each system so they had to dull it down for the PS3. Not the Xbox 360's fault that developers don't have the time or money to create stuff all over again for the 360. PS3 sucks.
Much like how Double Agent wasn't completely different on most versions.
Post by: IntestineMan on November 13, 2006, 10:10:00 PM
QUOTE(gerzand @ Nov 14 2006, 03:11 AM)
I can second this article. I was playing COD3 on 4 player split screen on a 120'' wall projected image on a 720P native Sanyo Z3 Home Theatre Projector and it looked like crap. I mean, it was about as hard to see what u were doing as playing halo2 on a 13'' tv back in the day. And belive me this projector rocks on every other game, so it wasnt its fault.
Post by: speedy_g on November 13, 2006, 10:12:00 PM
Post by: grim_d on November 13, 2006, 10:47:00 PM
Post by: jizmo on November 13, 2006, 11:35:00 PM
Reality seems to be entirely another thing. It seems that even the big developers are struggling hard to get games running at even at 30fps and in the end have to cheat by lowering the resolution.
Saints Row for example was supposed to look like its ace-looking interludes, but the frame rate was so appalling they had to cut a lots of things from the final build, even after taking extra six months for development. Don't get me wrong - Saint's Row looks good, but it could've looked much, much better if the developers would've had it their way and didn't have any problems with running all their stuff on the hardware.
Splinter Cell is playable when sneaking around, but if you start running around and gunning down the enemies for fun, the framerate will drop to downright unplayable. Also in SC: DA the multiplayer mode has been watered down and stripped from most of the effects to keep the framerate up.
PGR3, COD3 and THP8 all have lowered resolutions to keep up. Crytek says they're cannot put Crysis on NG consoles without compromises.
Unless they are running stuff with just one core now, or if the development tools are dragging behind really badly, I'd say forget about 60fps on x360. Let's see if normal developers can some day do even 720p 30fps without struggling and having to pour money into endless optimizations.
Post by: felang on November 13, 2006, 11:49:00 PM
Post by: SpaceBuddha on November 13, 2006, 11:50:00 PM
Activision's developers are either lazy, rushed or ignorant.
Post by: Zero420 on November 13, 2006, 11:52:00 PM
ZerO420
Great beginnings are not as important as the way one finishes.
Post by: deadparrot on November 14, 2006, 12:04:00 AM
QUOTE(grim_d @ Nov 14 2006, 05:54 AM)
petty stuff. who actually notices and more to the point who cares.
Exactly. My TV has a nativ res of 1024x768, but it has the world's most awesome scaler, so everything looks brilliant, even SD looks decent.
Post by: TheIceman72 on November 14, 2006, 12:39:00 AM
QUOTE(felang @ Nov 14 2006, 02:56 AM)
I am getting so tired of all this 360 vs PS3 crap. Maybe I should stop visiting the forums for a couple of months. I already spent a whole lot of money on my 360 and have no plans to buy anything else. Truth be told, most people buy game consoles for the games, who cares if the textures are a little more detailed on ps3 version or 360 version of same game... if the game sucks who cares. People should just start enjoying their $500 consoles and $60 games. I think halo 2 is still a lot of fun to play (split screen multiplayer especially) and of course it definitely looks like crap compared to new games. If developers have to lower resolution to give be able to give more stable fps and more advanced eyecandy then I say go for it. For example most people can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, I can if I look close but the difference isn't noticeable enough to justify the price difference between the two, especially if you're sort of close to the screen anyway... I don't know anyone that plays video games from the distance required for it to actually make a difference. COD3 is a great game and it looks awesome, better than most crappy games that do run at 720p so who cares...
Damn totally agreed. All I want is a fun game that does not bore me to sleep after one hour of play. That has some really good gfx. I don't care if it is 684,720,1080, or 900000. As long as it looks good on my TV who gives a rats? People are so cough up on gfx they forget how good the game is. In my opinion there just has always been better fun games on Saturn, Dreamcast, Xbox and the 360. Sony products dont do it for me, no matter how much Sony hypes them up to be.
Post by: maxlifo on November 14, 2006, 02:01:00 AM
Back to the original post. Where is M_hael when you need him?
Post by: mat989 on November 14, 2006, 02:28:00 AM
Post by: grim_d on November 14, 2006, 03:37:00 AM
QUOTE(unclepauly @ Nov 14 2006, 06:24 AM)
If you don't notice games running at lower res you must be on an old analog tv. or have cataracts. PGR3 looked blurry as fack compared to other games out there. It's easy to tell, sharp or blurry. Lasik does a pretty good job I hear.
Added* Just wanted to add that I have the THP8 Demo and it doesn't look blurry like PGR3 did. Haven't played COD3 yet though. Sony(sweet(sour?) irony) 55" 1080i.
i actually just bought an LCD HDTV, and to be quite honest i don't notice the lower res in PGR or THP8, i don't think PGR looked blurry, perhaps your confusing it with motion blur? Or maybe you shoud sit further back from your tv. Massive TV's are no use if your close enough to lick the thing.
Just like most people wont notice the difference between 1080i an 1080p, for movies maybe, but not games.
and by the way, I have perfect 20/20 vision.
QUOTE(mat989 @ Nov 14 2006, 09:35 AM)
It really amazes me how every time a flaw is discovered in the xbox, all xbox fanboys reply saying "who cares??!!" It reminds of the fox and the grapes story…It is easy to disparage what we cannot have.
how is developers not making there games run at full res an Xbox problem?
Post by: quarky42 on November 14, 2006, 05:00:00 AM
Getting sick of playing games at 480 just because I have a "Full Screen" aspect ratio. I've tried 720 and 1080 both of which my TV supports...the detail level is great, but the format sucks.
Post by: throwingks on November 14, 2006, 05:40:00 AM
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 14, 2006, 05:49:00 AM
QUOTE(grim_d @ Nov 14 2006, 12:54 AM)
petty stuff. who actually notices and more to the point who cares.
This isn't about resolution... it's about standards and compliance and a commitment to consumers.
MS made a commitment to consumers that they were REQUIRING a minimum of native 720p support in all games as a base standard. The made it clear that this was part of their rigorous certification process and that if a game didn't meet the requirements it was going to be denied release until it did.
When it got out that PGR3 didn't natively support native 720p in certain parts of the game (it was 1024x600 IIRC) It was disheartening because MS broke their own rule right out of the gate. Even still PGR3 was somewhat acceptable because they were trying to get as many games as possible right out of the gate. Other games fell a little short on features and what not and those kinds of things can be expected when trying to make a high profile release date.
PGR3 was the exception to the rule and it seemed that it was going to be the only exception. Now we have at least 2 more games that break that rule... The company making these games has already made games on this console, so they KNOW the limits of it's capabilities and what it can and can't do. These are also games that aren't completely vital for their release date seeing as there is now a substantial catalog of other games on the console to choose from.
So now we're begged to ask the question, what other rules is MS willing to break in their certification process? How rigorous is it really? How can we feel assured that the $60 product we're purchasing is truly well tested and holds the level of quality gamers would expect from a $60 game?
It's not about resolution it's about MS breaking their commitment. I, and many others purchased the Xbox 360 because MS was committed to ensuring that every game they made would play in High Def. How many other commitments are they willing to break? how many other commitments have they already broken but we just don't know about it? how many more will they break?
We all rag on Sony when they say one thing and do another, I feel that we should hold MS to the same standards...
QUOTE(quarky42 @ Nov 14 2006, 07:07 AM)
I wish the game industry would realize that 720 and 1080 means VERTICAL LINES ONLY. We still need to have an option to play the game in full screen or widescreen in HIGHDEF!
Getting sick of playing games at 480 just because I have a "Full Screen" aspect ratio. I've tried 720 and 1080 both of which my TV supports...the detail level is great, but the format sucks.
There is no such thing as fullscreen High Def... the format simply doesn't officially exist. You're asking them to support a format with no set standards. Just because you bought a TV that doesn't fall in line with the HDTV resolution standards doesn't mean every developer should have to go out of their way to break the standards to support your poor purchasing decision. It's no fault of the developers that you purchased a full screen set to display widescreen content.
Post by: lowendfrequency on November 14, 2006, 06:49:00 AM
Post by: slimsh8dynb on November 14, 2006, 07:27:00 AM
QUOTE(MeanMF @ Nov 13 2006, 10:00 PM)
NTSC is 480i at 60Hz, PAL is 576i at 50Hz. Once you start talking about 480p, 720p, etc. you're no longer talking about PAL or NTSC. 720p can have a variety of refresh rates, anywhere from 24Hz to 60Hz. You'll (very infrequently) see this written as 720p24 or 720p60.
....ur gonna have serious problems playing a game on a 720p 24hz tv...u would have sum serious flicker cuz fps would be way above refresh.
Post by: Pheidias on November 14, 2006, 07:51:00 AM
Post by: Ozy on November 14, 2006, 07:59:00 AM
Post by: penguin318 on November 14, 2006, 08:05:00 AM
QUOTE(Ozy @ Nov 14 2006, 04:06 PM)
I would like to hear from m_hael seeing as he made the game and is probably the only person here who truely understands it.
thats exactly what i was thinking
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 14, 2006, 08:44:00 AM
QUOTE(Cyberdude93 @ Nov 14 2006, 09:26 AM)
He might have just used a VGA cable and a CRT monitor. I'm all for 16:9, but 4:3 CRT monitors have got to be one of the cheapest ways to play games in HD if you don't care about the size of it, and I fail to see why 4:3 can only be done in low resolutions.
That's very true and the 360 does actually have the capability to support 4:3 VGA resolutions.
However there is no MS requirement for developers to support those resolutions, so it's optional. Which means that most developers don't support it.
I would imagine that the number of people using the VGA adapter is a fairly small percentage compared to those using TVs. I'm sure MS knows how many people use the VGA adapter based on cable sales and data retrieved from XBL (yes they can track that stuff). So I would also imagine that most developers are privy to that info as well and make their games support particular resolutions accordingly.
Post by: PatchBokov on November 14, 2006, 09:11:00 AM
Its pointless... comparing those 2 system at such a early stage.. Xbox360 release date was : November 22, 2005. Got dam right! Devellopers had nothing less than 1.2 years free to work to unleash the beast!.. And now, M$ fanboys ask the same result for a system with nothing more than 2-3 month of game devellopement ? That silly. Every one knows that launch titles mean = not ready and cheap. X360 launch titles were barely better than xbox games.
Post by: m_hael on November 14, 2006, 09:26:00 AM
period.
Post by: kidkinetix on November 14, 2006, 09:29:00 AM
Post by: m_hael on November 14, 2006, 09:50:00 AM
Post by: BumSki on November 14, 2006, 10:19:00 AM
This may be an issue that MS is aware of and is currently taking measures to prevent it. MS does require all games to go through a bug and defect free testing before the game is allowed to go “Gold”. My guess is that future releases will all get a line by line test to insure 1280x720 minimum res.
Post by: cmw9ers on November 14, 2006, 11:33:00 AM
QUOTE(Doffo @ Nov 14 2006, 03:14 AM)
One more thing..
Wonder if Sony paid them to bring down the resolution/quality of the game and they will fully support the 720p on the PS3 so they think the ps3 is more superior!
Sorry, just an idea.
If that was the case then sony's idea backfired .. Have you seen the reviews for THP8 on PS3? They say it has a terrible framerate and runs considerabley worse than 360's version lol (both Gamespot & IGN).
Post by: Ozy on November 14, 2006, 11:59:00 AM
QUOTE(m_hael @ Nov 14 2006, 04:33 PM)
no comment.
period.
I can respect that.
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 14, 2006, 01:58:00 PM
QUOTE(XLNC @ Nov 14 2006, 01:08 PM)
I agree with what you're saying, Gears of Wars is the first game to actually use some of 360's potential power and it's taken over a year to develop.
Alan Wake should push all 3 cores of the 360 by having some advanced physics and vast environments and landscapes with a great storyline, coming out in March for the 360 only, gotta get this one.
I can agree with your sentiments but every game made for the 360 uses all three cores, the whole media blitz about how some games were only running on one core was just garbage... Furthermore, almost every game made pushes the console to the max... it's not like they're leaving power to spare just sitting on the table. I've used the analogy before... imagine a box and the space in the box represents the processing power of the console, the paper you put in the box are the elements of the game. The more paper you can fit in the box the better the graphics, physics, and AI are. Early games are like crumpled up pieces of paper, developers are learning how to handle the paper and crumple it up a lot when putting it in a box. you might be able to only fit about 10 pieces in there all crumpled up before all three cores are maxed out... down the road you learn how to handle the paper better and you can place it in the box without crumpling them very much, instead of fitting only a few pieces of paper you can fit 100s and the game looks and plays more realistically.
In both scenarios all three cores were used to the max... but in the first scenario they were not used optimally.
QUOTE(XLNC @ Nov 14 2006, 01:08 PM)
I think with the PS3 you can't really judge it until we see a first party exclusive with time and money spent on the game i.e. MGS4.
First of all MGS4 is not a first party title, it's made by Konami and Sony does not own Konami.
Second of all there are at least 4 first party titles coming out for the PS3 at launch
QUOTE(XLNC @ Nov 14 2006, 01:08 PM)
Looking at the trailer of the new Getaway on the PS3 really does make me want to get a PS3, just check out how realistic everything looks and how cars flow so smoothly like in the real world.
The PS3 has another 256MB of RAM for the GPU alone, so is there an advantage of doing this, some people say it's a problem.
The PS3 does not have "another" 256MB of RAM
The PS3 has 256MB of ram that the CPU can use and 256MB of ram that the GPU can use... the Xbox 360 has 512MB that the CPU OR the GPU can use depending on how developers want to use it.
Both consoles have the same amount of ram... the differences is the PS3 limits developers as to how they want to use that RAM. On the 360 they could use 450MB just for graphics and the rest for AI, physics OS etc. or they could only use 25MB for graphics and the rest for Physics AI OS etc...
on the PS3 the most they could ever use for graphics is 256 and the most they could ever use for Physics AI etc is about 160MB (after you take out the required 96MB ram for the OS)
Post by: nickman on November 14, 2006, 04:06:00 PM
Wassup with that? It's not BIG if you compare with a PC.
I play games like Half Life 2 in 1280*1024 on my AMD 3200+ and an old ATI 9800 Pro.
Why can't a machine with 3 CPU's and a GPU xxx times more powerful then mine not even produce 1280*720 ?!?
Post by: grim_d on November 14, 2006, 04:58:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 14 2006, 12:56 PM)
This isn't about resolution... it's about standards and compliance and a commitment to consumers.
MS made a commitment to consumers that they were REQUIRING a minimum of native 720p support in all games as a base standard. The made it clear that this was part of their rigorous certification process and that if a game didn't meet the requirements it was going to be denied release until it did.
---
It's not about resolution it's about MS breaking their commitment. I, and many others purchased the Xbox 360 because MS was committed to ensuring that every game they made would play in High Def. How many other commitments are they willing to break? how many other commitments have they already broken but we just don't know about it? how many more will they break?
Whilst i agree with what your saying, and yes they may be breaking their commitments, if they hadnt performed these tests, would you have noticed, would anyone?
I didnt buy my 360 for HD, i feel lucky enough nearly a year down the line to now be experiencing it, although i dont have "true" HD due to my sets native res of 1366x768. I bought my 360 because i love playing games, just like ill get a wii..and just like ill get a ps3, when i can afford one.
At the end of the day MS is a big business like sony, and like sony, they lie through their teeth, but im willing to accept a few lines less on my tv, and as far as im concerned im getting high definition from these games, im not that picky.
Also im not AV guru like youself so i could be talking complete garbage, but i think THP8 still looks fantastic, as with PGR3, i havnt yet played COD3.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 14, 2006, 05:45:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 14 2006, 04:05 PM)
Both consoles have the same amount of ram... the differences is the PS3 limits developers as to how they want to use that RAM. On the 360 they could use 450MB just for graphics and the rest for AI, physics OS etc. or they could only use 25MB for graphics and the rest for Physics AI OS etc...
on the PS3 the most they could ever use for graphics is 256 and the most they could ever use for Physics AI etc is about 160MB (after you take out the required 96MB ram for the OS)
actually devs have 192MB of main memory and 224MB of video memory
Post by: Lunar Aura on November 15, 2006, 02:27:00 AM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Nov 14 2006, 05:56 AM)
what other rules is MS willing to break in their certification process? How rigorous is it really? How can we feel assured that the $60 product we're purchasing is truly well tested and holds the level of quality gamers would expect from a $60 game?
hahahahhahaha, shit... MS certification is a joke.
Remember their "no game patches" rule for xbox? Hi2u oblivion/gears of war/etc.
By breaking above rule, they also broke the rule of "You can play 360 games with even the Core system out of the box" since you either need a hard drive or memory unit to get aforementioned patches.
Personally, I think that having to patch broke games is a bigger offense than skimping on a few thousand pixels. Overall, "next-gen" is proving to be a bigger bumblef**k every other month!
Post by: unclepauly on November 15, 2006, 04:44:00 AM
They'll say whatever they need to to get what they want.
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 15, 2006, 05:50:00 AM
QUOTE(grim_d @ Nov 14 2006, 07:05 PM)
Whilst i agree with what your saying, and yes they may be breaking their commitments, if they hadnt performed these tests, would you have noticed, would anyone?
I didnt buy my 360 for HD, i feel lucky enough nearly a year down the line to now be experiencing it, although i dont have "true" HD due to my sets native res of 1366x768. I bought my 360 because i love playing games, just like ill get a wii..and just like ill get a ps3, when i can afford one.
At the end of the day MS is a big business like sony, and like sony, they lie through their teeth, but im willing to accept a few lines less on my tv, and as far as im concerned im getting high definition from these games, im not that picky.
Also im not AV guru like yourself so i could be talking complete garbage, but i think THP8 still looks fantastic, as with PGR3, i haven't yet played COD3.
I'm not disputing that these games look great, they do look great. In-fact out of the factors most professionals agree make for a "beautiful" picture resolution ranks 4th, behind contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy. Putting this in Video game graphics terms it meas that things like shadows and lighting effects are more important to the picture then resolution is.
The problem is Both MS and Sony played the numbers game instead and promoted that resolution was the most important factor.
<shameless plug>I have more on this in my latest blog entry </shameless plug>
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 14 2006, 07:52 PM)
actually devs have 192MB of main memory and 224MB of video memory
Thanks for correcting me
Post by: KAGE360 on November 15, 2006, 11:03:00 AM
QUOTE(unclepauly @ Nov 15 2006, 03:56 AM)
I've read that the 360's os uses 32mb and ps3's os uses 100mb. Anyone can dispute that?
the ps3 uses 96+MB for the OS while the 360 uses 16MB for the OS.
QUOTE
They claim that Sony constantly lies about specs (despite the fact that the PS3 came in right where they promised in in actual specs, save for the fact that they cut the extra gigabit ports that no one would have used regardless).
MS said this was the HD era, and that EVERY Game period would play at 60 FPS at 720p, and that the HD era also meant wireless.
MS said this was the HD era, and that EVERY Game period would play at 60 FPS at 720p, and that the HD era also meant wireless.
sony did not reach their specs, the RSX is actually 500MHz not 550MHz and the V-Ram runs at 650MHz not 700MHz.
also while microsoft did promise every game to be 720p, they did not mention any requirement of games running at 60fps. i dont remember any stupid comment about the HD era meant wireless, but it should be obvious to why they offer the Core package as a choice. the Core package is not part of the HD era since its not HD ready out of the box, its only HD capable.
i agree with all that twisted has said but i still believe that microsoft is the lesser of the two evils
Post by: incognegro on November 15, 2006, 11:57:00 AM
Post by: thax on November 15, 2006, 11:57:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Nov 15 2006, 07:10 PM)
the ps3 uses 96+MB for the OS while the 360 uses 16MB for the OS.
The x360 definately uses slightly more than 32 MB not including the frame buffers. The effective delta of available memory between the consoles about 64 MB.
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 15, 2006, 12:02:00 PM
QUOTE(thax @ Nov 15 2006, 02:04 PM)
The x360 definately uses slightly more than 32 MB not including the frame buffers. The effective delta of available memory between the consoles about 64 MB.
Where did you get your 32MB figure? because I've had the 16MB figure personally quoted to me from 2 different developers and one MS employee.
EDIT: Nevermind... I've now been told that it has since changed to 32.. you're correct. Kage and I were using old numbers.
Post by: waltlove on November 15, 2006, 01:16:00 PM
now for a question.... so since my TV only does 1360x768... native... I assumed that was in the range of 720... so in other words my games could look better if my TV only did 1280x720? WOW... Gears would look to good to play in that case... LOL I would be looking around more than I do now and dying... LOL I've actually been shopping around for a TV that does 1920x1080 now I just need to decide if I spend the extra grand for 1080p or not. Any hoo... both companies are here to make money at the lose of the other... there in this business to win and MS even said before they entered they wanted the majority share... and in business any means neccessary... and I don't think I'll be hurt long now that I know COD3 isn't 720... according to you all my TV isn't either... LOL but I'm cool with upscaling