Why the PS3 Always so Looks So Fucking Blurry in Comparison?

Attached: ihfaro.png (1418x746, 1.67M)

lots of games that ran worse rendered at a lower resolution on PS3 to mitigate it.

Because things are farther away in the ps3 version.

I'll take the one on the right cuz it has a guy carrying a hay bale

Moar filters means moar better! DUH!

devs didnt know how to allocate the ps3 resources very well
look up ps3 mgsv vs ps4

720p

Ps3 was a shit system to develop games on
Snoy marketed it as "the best way to push our console beyond 100%", but forgot to insert a fucking manual in the dev kits.
It's like what happened for the first Jak and Daxter game, half of it was cut for time constraints because the CEO made his own fucking language and decided that only him could compile the fucking code

I don't see any difference whatsoever, zoomer.

Because the PS3 generally played most multiplat games at sub 720p resolution and still ran worse than the 360 versions.

PS3 version ran at 1152x640, 360 actually ran it at 1280x720, this is the case with a lot of games on PS3. Call of Duty 4 was at 1024x600 on PS3 as well. Not to mention PS3 RDR had less foliage density, draw distance usually worse etc.
Fucking mouth breathing nigger.

PS3 had a better CPU but worse GPU.

It's more complicated than that. The IBM Cell (PS3) vs the IBM Xenon (360) are two different approaches. Xenon was a typical multi core processor with multi threading. Three whole 'cores' each with a SMT, so 6 total. Both were Power PC architecture (like Apple computers before they ran full intel) But IBM on the PS3 instead has one PPE (akin to a single core on 360) with 8 SPEs (with one being used by the OS) the SPEs are similar to how PCs back in the day had co-processors that handled math or even stuff like audio or what have you. These SPEs are not as strong as a single PPE. If used correctly you could get favorable performance out of a Cell chip, however MS saw past this bullshit and told IBM they would rather have had a traditional setup which ultimately won out because after the PS3 Sony went the same route. None of this even takes into account the GPUs or how the 360 or PS3 allocated memory btw. tl;dr 360 was generally better.

>ps3 is worse
>xb360 is better despite beeing analog
i have wii games that look better then xb360 games

512MB vram
lol
lmfao

Why is the PS3 getting so much discussion these days?
Everyone playing old PS3 games since the new generation of games is dead on arrival?

because some youtubers/twitch faggots are mentioning ps3 games and since the majority of nu-Any Forums follows that shit, youre going to see posts that reflect those faggots.

>If used correctly you could get favorable performance out of a Cell chip
of course. thats why first party games generally looked better but when it came to multiplatform games, they looked a lot worse.

i remember always thinking why we could get amazing looking games like god of war 3, uncharted, killzone 2 and 3 that also ran pretty good but then you get games that look like total ass and run like shit on ps3.

great post

This and the X360 had a EDRAM cache that allowed for 4x MSAA with no performance loss

256mb system ram and 256 vram split zoomer faggot

Not only the problem in resolution, but also in performance.
I still remember the day I went with a group of guys to rent a store where they had all kinds of consoles
a group of four played black ops 2 on a ps3 while the other one on x360, among those last ones I was
and me with the other guys playing x360 we could notice how slow it ran compared to how smoothly it ran on x360

Because it's interfacing with your refrigerators cpu

PS3 should just have used G80. Imagine what could have been.