PS3 video

Take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7CNYSbOVxU
Go on admit it it looks good

Now that IS looking amazing but it wont look any better on a SD TV than my 360 will it???

But that looks great if it IS in-game-footage.

Very dodgy quality aside...it looks ok.

I wouldn't say it's any more impressive than the 360 Afterburner trailer although Warhawk could be free roam rather than 'on-rails'.

And what the hell happened to the fighter when it ran into that warship!?!? It just stuck there then reversed away from it...I know it's early so it can be forgiven...for now!

Nice find btw!

looks good looks very good

Not Impressed, Yager for the Xbox looked just as good.

I think it has the edge over the 360 in graphics department. No question on that. But Im not sure if it will be better online. PStwo online sucked, but the Sony Network sounds intriguing. Still great find, the scene on the street was outstanding.

Originally Posted by Steve I think it has the edge over the 360 in graphics department. No question on that.

yes there is a question on that. The only two realtime Graphics that hve been shown for the PS3 are Untold Legends and WarHawk none of them have show Graphics better then that of the 360.

Doesn't look bad.

Didn't see anything that the 360 hasn't been able to pull off yet though.

Point killr. PS2 was my console when I seen all the tech - demos etc but when the reviews were coming through I jumped ship. But still, if they are real they look pretty impressive.

Scrounge up the Armored Core trailers. The 360 version looks better to my eye than the PS3. Steve, the PS3 will probably only have the edge in graphics if their devs can push the limits of the hardware, which won't happen at launch.

Also, given Sony's history of having horrible libraries for dev's, and Microsoft's continuing pattern of giving boatloads of tools to devs, we may even see the little 360 churn out better in-game eye candy than the PS3, and this will probably be true for more than half of each console's library.

Looks nice, but nothing shocking in graphics department.

Listen, you cant be impressed with these graphics after seeing the Xbox 360s power. Were you impressed by the Xbox's graphics compared to the PS2s? No. But were the graphics better? Yes. Same here just flip flopped imo.

360 is much better than the ps3 just look at both sets of hardware 360 owns ps3 and if any u guys think that oblivion is good well that dosent use all the power of teh 360 because it dosent use the multi core aspect of teh 360 and it stil looks amazing and runs good on the 360. Even bethseda said it will take game developers at least a year maybe 2, 2 figure out the full power of the 360.

Actually, a side-by-side comparison really shows the PS3's hardware is better. At least, in terms of theoretical limits of numbers none of us understand.

How can you say PS3s graphics are better if Sony has not even released a gameplay video? When games start coming out, thats when you can say 360s graphics are not as good as PS3s or vise versa.

Originally Posted by sharplayer How can you say PS3s graphics are better if Sony has not even released a gameplay video? When games start coming out, thats when you can say 360s graphics are not as good as PS3s or vise versa.

agreed

is oblivion really only running on 1 core, f**k me if it is thats Amazing

Well until i see some actual footage of a game and not tech-demos i wont be convinced! So come on lets see what killzone really looks like

Well thing is he didnt say the graphics were better. He said the hardware of the graphics were better.

And they are. Ideally.

It's looking alright..first game looked poor..but that could be due to screen quality. Everything else was above par, not bad.

I'm no tech-wizard, but here is a quoted article from some magazine:

"It all looks roughly like-for-like, but things get complicated very quickly. Sony's Cell has the main chip linked to seven sub-processing units that can handle much of the processing, while Xbox 360's chip actually has three cores running on it, each running two hardware threads, making it capable of processing six threads (streams of code) at a time. So 8-6 to PS3 then? Well, not quite. The Cell's processing units reputedly aren't that good at the kind of code that games use, leading many to claim that its massive theoretical power will actually lag behind the blazing Xbox 360 multi-core PowerPC.

NVIDIA and ATI have been going at it on the PC graphics front for years, trading the speed crown repeatedly, and the edge currently lies with ATI's Radeon GPU. Both are putting brand new technologies to test in the new consoles that PC gamers won't see until well into 2006. With ATI's brand new shader technology and an extra 10mb eDRAM of super fast memory on the chip, plus regular DDR3 RAM, we think the Xbox will run faster no matter how cunningly Sony links the Cell, its 256mb of graphics RAM and the GPU together.

The key to this battle is ATI's unified shader architecture that combines pixel and vertex shaders from the current generations of GPU in one-blinding, 48 pipe-fast process. We don't think that NVIDIA had anything that can match it - in fact, it has stated that the RSX chip has little more than twice the power of its current GeForce 6800 Ultra GPU for the PC"

Originally Posted by NeoKubrick The Cell's processing units reputedly aren't that good at the kind of code that games use

Actually, if I recall correctly, they're very well suited for some things that games do, like audio and physics. What they aren't good at are things like AI.

I'm not really impressed as the hype of the PS3 has killed itself for me. It is going to do this, it is going to do that , blah! blah! Until Sony actually release anything in the way of hard facts and evidence to back up those claims I'm not interested.

Oh and guys don't let this thread turn into a



argument please I couldn't stand another one of those!