Sounds like a bunch of meaningless technobabble to me. Especially since the new games on both platforms are looking so good.

Edit: Don't know why all the disagrees. This stuff is of absolutely no consequence now. The hardware is finalized, so developers have to do whatever they have to do to make the games good.

Frankly if most people don't even know about half of the features of their respective console why the hell would they care about specs and details which they wouldn't even understand.

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say this. I don't know any of the stuff they were talking about, but if a game looks good it looks good. example mass effect, kz2, haze, and cod4. So unless you're going to look at every single little detail who cares.

that while the Xbox boasted 116 million polys per second, when shaders and bump mapping and alpha mapping and junk are added in, you'd never get anywhere near that amount. Most Xbox games run at 10-20 million polys per second, if I'm not mistaken. The Xbox 360s gpu has a way more efficient architecture than that of the Xbox and you'll actually get close to 10 million polys on screen at once (500,000,000 polys per second divided by 50 frames per second) in xbox360 games. That means for every one poly in an Xbox game, you could have 25 in an Xbox 360 game.
</soapbox>

I'm readin' through all the comments so far n' I see loads of disagree's to folks who are pretty much sayin' all this f*ck shyt is meaningless to US. Yeah, it's good to know you got a Blu-ray compatible machine and that your games are HD in 720 or 1080i or your system has 3 CPU's etc, etc. But this whole article is absolutely MEANINGLESS to 99.9% of us, it ain't that serious.

All the disagree's show me that I'm obviously wrong and most of you have major degree's in whatever field this b.s. is related to. I find this to be a bit odd considering the loads of b.s. I've seen unloaded from one fanboy to the other, time after time after time again n' again.

thanks muchly, but i don't need a degree to read and understand that article. it seems like everyone saying this article is "technobabble" is a little defensive. it's no more technobabble than half the stuff on this site.

what words gave you trouble? pixel? cache? the?

;)

This original article says,
MS and Sony promote the HD games in their consoles, but judging from both specs, It might be hard to create HD game, in the true meaning, with Xbox360 and PS3.
That's all.
There is no mention about 360 VS PS3 or 360>>>PS3 or 360<<<PS3 thing.

Good read but it was know that both consoles didn't put enough tech (Be it RAM, bandwith of other specs and more) to fully and easily support HD.
Still, with HDMI, games look stunning and I'm not complaining.

I was expecting this article to be about actual problems with HD on the consoles, instead i see facts basically saying that developers aren't doing things right... meh... whatever... i still need to buy me a damn 1080p HDTV >.<

Anyone notice the original article was written in April 26, 2006???
That's more than a year ago, and programmers now have better ideas of how to get better performance on both platform.

There is nothing new here...

Yeah the orignal article is from a year but the dev who wrote it recently updated it, What you read was the update.

In the 360’s defense, the RADEON X1600 XT can more then handle 1280x720 (you may know this as “720p” which is just a VERY old resolution put on a larger monitor (HDTV). Game consoles are not like PC’s where 90% of your video is all the GFX card, they have custom hardware to assist.
The problem is, no self respecting gamer accepts 1280x720 as their “max” unless they cannot afford anything better.

The PS3 is in a little better shape, its GFX card is equitant to the Nvidia 7800 GTX. On a PC, this card can handle “most” modern games at UXGA (1920x1200, 1600x1200, or 1920x1080. depends on your monitor size and shape eg. Wide screen monitor, 1080p HDTV)
Even still, with decent AA and AF the 7800 GTX will have problems handle some game, like Oblivion. Remember that was supposed to be in 1080p for the PS3, its not, only 720…

Modern day PC gaming rigs have SLI or ATI’s crossfire. This is where you have 2 (or more) graphic cards doing the exact same thing. In theory this doubles your graphics capabilities but honestly is about an 80% improvement.

If people keep accepting 1280x720 as a “good hd” resolution (max on 360) then both systems will be ok for a bit, 360 lacking first, ps3 can blow away 1280x720. but as console games start DEMANDING higher quality video (UXGA, 1080p) the 360 is just plain out of luck, and the PS3 has about 3 years IMO before modern games will require more graphic power.

As a console and PC gamer, anything less then UXGA is unacceptable, if its not in 1080p on the PS3, ill get the PC version or I wont get it at all. Only “must have” 360 exclusives ill buy, and most of thouse have PC counterparts that can run at UXGA (bioshock, Halo, etc)

Though it doesn't really include to much PS3 information, the AA in the PS3 would be particularly interesting, IMO.

For that matter, "not HD" is pretty overrated. Consoles since forever were always known to require a programmer going closer to the metal then e.g. he/she would do on a PC (where API compatibility is rated higher and a HW component can be upgraded).

But a fixed feature set of the HW allows a programmer to come up with tricky solutions, which some people might think not possible if one would believe the spec sheets alone.

So what does that mean ? Well, yeah, maybe not HD according to the books, but neither is a the cell a casual multicore design. Braking boundaries sometimes requires thinking outside of the box. And I'd say, the games out for the 360 and PS3 show that.

Every challenge activates braincells and prohibits that we become dump robots...use 'em.

I don't think so keep dreaming.

So the PS3 is more powerful?

Interesting article. I'm glad to know that my mid-range Geforce 6800GS PC (which I built a year ago) has a broader GPU bandwitdth(and is an all around better machine) than the 360's X1600XT (pathetic) equivelent. Granted, the 360 doesn't have to multi-task like a pc- but its lack of speed communicating with the CPU (L2 cache is unusable, everything stored in RAM) makes it a workhorse (which is probably why it overheats so much <weak 12watt fan doesn't help either>). I have never liked ATI GPU's anyway, and am glad that the PS3 is powered by Nvidia. 360 uses a FP10-32bit buffer to store instuctions, not utilized by the PS3, but PS3 has so many more resources available to allocate bandwidth/memory (FP16-64bit) which will make the games look and run much better than 360 when developers learn to use all of its SPU's and are able to efficiently and safely employ the broader FP16-64bit buffer. In the end, as far how games will look-is all about the PS3- as I have said a long time ago (and so have the Epic Games GOW team) that the 360 has hit its performance peak with Gears of War. This article makes interesting light of how a serverly downscaled MGS 4 port to the 360 would look, and judging from the info-MGS 4 would definitely have to be compressed with downscaled texures in order to facilitate 360's bandwidth requirements (a crappy version of the game). Some of the more advanced graphics from the game (I have heard the rumor of Snake's camo suit) may even have to be omitted.

Lets not forget how the technically superior xbox got spanked by the "lesser" ps2 last gen. It all comes down to the games, not the hardware.

Now back too some Resistance & Gears! :)

Its funny in how all the cows come in and talk only about the 360, but last i checked the articles title was...
Xbox 360 and PS3!

""Developer E: If you think HDR rendering as a premise, PS3 is worse than Xbox 360.""

So basically both systems suck at hd rendering, with the ps3 being the worse.

I have no idea what that geek is saying in that article.

is not as powerful as a PC that is a couple thousand? I certainly hope so!

whatever the deal is, i know for a fact bioshock has texture pop-in and some bad anti-aliasing in places. definitely does not seem anti-aliasing is "free" in bioshock. wonder how jaggy it would be on the ps3? arrgh, damn the damnned jaggies, i hate em'!