DiRT 2 demo: PS3/Xbox 360 performance showdown

By Richard Leadbetter Published 28 August, 2009

Digital Foundry does its thing.

We've already taken a look at the underlying tech in DiRT 2 based on the initial b-roll Codemasters supplied to Eurogamer TV, but last week's release of the playable demo was the first hands-on experience we've had with the console versions of the new McRae game.

Powered by Codemasters' own EGO engine (in itself, an off-shoot of the multi-platform Phyre tech being championed in dev circles by Sony), DiRT 2 appears to be using essentially the same technological underpinnings as last year's Race Driver: GRID. So in terms of the basic brass tacks of the visuals, you're looking at native 720p for both versions, with the Xbox 360 using top-end 4x multisampling anti-aliasing to give a very clean presentation, while the PS3 drops down to 2x - an effect not quite so pronounced in this new game as it was in GRID.

You'll doubtless spot a few minor presentational differences between the visuals in the game as you check out the analysis video, in particular in the way that transparent alpha textures are handled. On PS3, you'll notice an almost interlacing-type effect (known as alpha to coverage) which reduces the amount of fill rate and bandwidth used on transparent effects. Aside from a few other minor, almost imperceptible visual differences, the games are closely matched... with one exception.

Both like-for-like and rolling gameplay scenes are compared in this demo analysis of DiRT 2.

Yes, similar to GRID, the biggest dividing line between the two games once again comes down to the v-sync issue, with the PS3 game once again demonstrating a tangibly larger amount of torn frames. It is noticeable on scenes packed with cars, but most impactful on the replays. Xbox 360 is also prone to dropping out of v-sync to maintain frame-rate, but it clearly happens far less often.

However, during in-game, you can easily be forgiven for not noticing so much of the tearing on the PS3 version, and it is an interesting example of how the mathematical certainties of automated analysis do not always tally with the perceptions of the human eye. Sometimes a game simply looks cleaner than it actually is... it's all about the context.

Generally speaking, where you're most likely to see a torn frame is in big, scene-changing effects (enormous explosions, Gears of War style, for example). Or, with fast lateral movement where parts of the swiftly moving scenery appear to "hang" in the air longer than they should do. Additionally, the further away from the centre of the screen the tear occurs, typically the less likely it is to be picked up by the human eye during intense gameplay, depending on context of course. Plus of course, most HDTVs still bizarrely operate with an overscan area, and tearing top and bottom that occurs in these areas will of course be invisible.

'DiRT 2 demo: PS3/Xbox 360 performance showdown' Screenshot 2
'DiRT 2 demo: PS3/Xbox 360 performance showdown' Screenshot 3

An example of how context dictates how much impact screen tear has on a particular scene. The left shot has next to no lateral movement and faraway scenery movement, resulting in a barely perceptible tear. The right shot is in stark contrast on both counts and is far more apparent.

When you're playing without the dashboard view in DiRT 2, a significant amount of the screen is taken up by the game's skybox, with only a limited amount of scenery encroaching into this area. Tears in this area will be much harder to spot, especially when you're travelling "into" the screen with little in the way of fast lateral movement.

Overall then, while engine performance seems to be in much the same ballpark as GRID on both versions, whether by accident or design, image consistency appears to be improved in the PS3 version of the new game.

DiRT 2 code is arriving too late to factor into Face-Off 21, but expect a deeper analysis of some description once the full retail version has arrived.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (101) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bazfrag #1 3 years ago

    "However, during in-game, you can easily be forgiven for not noticing so much of the tearing on the PS3 version, and it is an interesting example of how the mathematical certainties of automated analysis do not always tally with the perceptions of the human eye. Sometimes a game simply looks cleaner than it actually is... it's all about the context."

    Truth.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 10:44

  • IneptPercy #2 3 years ago

    Looks like this should be a treat if it runs as well as GRID does on my PC, 1080p 8xAA 60fps v-synced goodness.

    Shame its been delayed for Directx 11, will be interesting to see if that adds anything.

    Saying that I has a go on the 360 Demo and its looking god to me.

  • Miths #3 3 years ago

    Well, I guess I got a proper explanation to the question I asked in another comments thread a few weeks ago - why the sometimes ridiculously high "torn frames" percentages are often far beyond what I'm actually noticing with my own eyes during gameplay.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 10:51

  • welshben23 #4 3 years ago

    Has Nick got PMT today?

  • peterv #5 3 years ago

    So if i pause the game,look at it with a magnifying glass,then have another console paused on the same game.
    Then i may or may not notice something i usually dont.

    How did the world ever cope before Digitalfoundry,do people really get paid to do this stuff?

  • cianchristopher #6 3 years ago

    Nick - take it easy, okay?

    The PS3 is simply not as graphically advanced as the Xbox 360! Its close, but its not quite there! That's it! That's all there is to it!

    We all knew this was coming! We all know that in every single face-off that will ever be written in this generation that the Xbox 360 will come out on top! Everybody knows it! The PS3 can't win because its not as powerful. Simple as that! Exclusives can't be counted as they can't be compared! Fact!

  • IneptPercy #7 3 years ago

    "Has Nick got PMT today? "

    Much worse, than that he has SFBR (Sony Fan Boy Rage).

    There is 2 cures:
    1, Buying a 360 and actually realising it is good.
    2, Getting a Girlfriend which gives you better thing to concentrate on.

    So which is it going to be?

  • Xerx3s #8 3 years ago

    "Yeah mark my posts down, the truth hurts don't it. This shit belongs on system wars. But then again Eurogamer is full to the brim with fanboys so I guess they're feeding you what you want."

    The only truth that hurts is that you're an idiot and that need to take a good look in the mirror.

  • stepneg #9 3 years ago

    I thought the demo was a load of crap on both systems, the series used to be a great rally game now it's a fat turd with monster trucks and red necks, no thanks.

  • Darren #10 3 years ago

    Both demos are technically impressive and visually gorgeous but the Xbox 360 is the marginally better of the two as I didn't notice ANY screen tear when I tested it last night, not even during the replays on the busy Baja event. The PS3 version was fine for the Moroccan trailblazer event but the Baja multi-vehicle race had noticeable tear during packed corners and during the replays. Both consoles have significantly less tearing than the original DiRT so that's excellent.

    Ultimately though for me the decision for which version to buy (PC version isn't out while December so it's not a current contender) came down to the controller (I don't like steering wheels!) and the 360's is the one I prefer as it has superb triggers and tighter, more precise analogue sticks.

  • Bazfrag #11 3 years ago

    "Yeah mark my posts down, the truth hurts don't it. This shit belongs on system wars. But then again Eurogamer is full to the brim with fanboys so I guess they're feeding you what you want."

    Sing song time:

    Who are you to wave your finger?
    So full of it.
    Eye balls deep in muddy waters.
    Fuckin' hypocrite.

  • Moonprince #12 3 years ago

    "Exclusives can't be counted as they can't be compared! Fact! "

    lol...

  • peterv #13 3 years ago

    Next week Digitalfoundry investigate the quality of the ink on the box art.
    And are shocked to discover the Ps3 version suffers from slight smearing.
    And then wash their hands every 15 minutes.









    I'm not being serious you know.

  • IneptPercy #14 3 years ago

    Darren:- From previous posts i know you have a well spec'ed PC so why not just wait? Personnally I prefer to wait for better versions and in the case if its anything like GRID on the 360/PS3 vs PC it was night and day difference. You probably know that you can use a 360 controller on the PC too.

    Maybe I am just more patient, it just ssems a waste to build such a great machine then play worse versions of games on the consoles.

    As for things only being noticable if paused and zoomed, this isn't strictly true, yes DF may zoom on a small part of the screen to show a point, but if there is a similar effect accross the whole screen it can make a difference even if its only subtle. With that if you have the choice of 2 versions you may aswell get the better one even if it is only subtle differences.

  • swissorc #15 3 years ago

    Native 720p! hope the actual game is native 1080 !

    As for all the fan boy's ofcoarse the PS3 is more powerfull and a few more years it will be able to trump 360 big time just not this year and not next probably roll on 2011 PS3 exclusives I say
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 12:19

  • Zappa #16 3 years ago

    PS3 looks better 360 has a blurred look compared.

    Plus with PS3 version you can take screenshots which 360 doesnt do.

  • chubster2010 #17 3 years ago

    I'm with the naysayers - I really can't see how picking over tiny differences between versions benefits anyone.

  • SeesThroughAll #18 3 years ago

    Are you kidding me?

    Even without the vsync, nobody will tell or care about the difference between both versions while playing the game!

    However, during in-game, you can easily be forgiven for not noticing so much of the tearing on the PS3 version, and it is an interesting example of how the mathematical certainties of automated analysis do not always tally with the perceptions of the human eye. Sometimes a game simply looks cleaner than it actually is... it's all about the context.

    What's this rubbish about human perception?

    How about this for context: It's a video game FFS! It is all about human perception! If people can't tell about a 5 frame drop every 20 seconds, then I'd say it's a job well done!


    What are people to understand from all this? From now on, people with both consoles are going to make purchasing decisions based on frame drops?

    "Yeah, I have both consoles, and now that I read in a technical article that the PS3 version tears just a little bit more, I want the 360 version. Although someone playing it won't be able to notice, the PS3 version is vastly inferior!"

    If you can't tell what's wrong about the above statement, then there is something wrong with you.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 12:27

  • m0thr4 #19 3 years ago

    So, there are people on here saying this is a waste of time (being marked down) and a bunch of people saying it's not (being marked up).

    Stalemate?

  • muscleblade #20 3 years ago

    Even though the differences is minor. Im not a person that could live with having the sligthly inferior version. LoL.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 14:39

  • m0thr4 #21 3 years ago

    Edited by 2 at 29/08/09 @ 14:50

  • lagoonalight #22 3 years ago

    We have been over this so many times. Unless the game is ground up from the PS3 it is not going to win a faceoff on a PC calibrated game. Enough said. Well, heh, unless sony improves their toolset and frees up some more memory and then even you are considering the SPU's after the fact you have already went down the straight up PC as of now approach.

  • m0thr4 #23 3 years ago

    @muscleblade: Even though the differences is minor. Im not a person that could live with having the sligthly inferior version.

    Hate to tell you this, but that's what people mean by OCD in the comments above. Anyway, you're only looking at the graphics... I would say that the compatibility with the best force feedback steering wheel on the market, plus a quieter console with free online gaming service, more than makes up for a couple of imperceptible torn frames.

  • m0thr4 #24 3 years ago

    ... Unless the game is ground up from the PS3 it is not going to win a faceoff on a PC calibrated game...

    Depends what your criteria for winning is. There have been many occasions where both versions have equal faults (Fallout 3), and rare occasions where the PS3 has 'won' (Oblivion).

  • BadBoyBonner #25 3 years ago

    The PC version of GRID was far better for one thing for me and one thing only - Framerate. The console versions use an horrendous implementation of motion blur. Much the same as Project Gotham racing. Sure on the flat appex of a racing track motion blur is not that intrusive.

    However switching to one of the city tracks makes vertical apex very difficult to judge with precision as they appear a blurry, juddering mess. It was the same with the cones in PGR 3/4 racing - an eye-watering experience for sure.

    I prefer any racer that hits 60fps as opposed to 30fps with motion blur...

  • MasterNameless #26 3 years ago

    It's all relative too. It depends on whether the person playing has an eye for the the tearing and frame rate drops, no matter how small. I work in TV, and over the course of several years have trained my eye to spot aliasing, spatial patterning and frame rate issues(with badly made motion effects in my case). I wish to god I could untrain myself when watching tv, films and playing games, but what may be minor, unnoticable glitches to most, can be very jarring for me - especially aliasing and frame rate issues - it can definitely break the immersion at times.

    I may be an extreme example, but there are enough people that will notice these things to a greater or lesser extent - whether they work in the tv/film/games industry or just play so many games that they start to notice these things. As an owner of both consoles, I will yet again stand by these articles, I find them quite useful. Less so when the difference is ridiculously slight, but for the occassional game like Ghostbusters, they can be a bloody godsend!

    Edit: typo :/
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 12:45

  • IneptPercy #27 3 years ago

    "Even though the differences is minor. Im not a person that could live with having the sligthly inferior version. "

    I must admit I am the same, hence why I am a PC gamer.

    "Hate to tell you this, but that's what people mean by OCD in the comments above. Anyway, you're only looking at the graphics... I would say that the compatibility with the best force feedback steering wheel on the market, plus a quieter console with free online gaming service, more than makes up for a couple of imperceptible torn frames."

    Good point, the differences in most of these cases aren't enought to make you buy the other console, if you only own one of the consoles then its easy to pick. In your case having that steering wheel does make sense for you to get it on the PS3 much like some people buy on a console because they prefer the controller of which ever console for that type of game.

    It only comes down to people who own both consoles, and in this case why put up with more torn frames if you don't have too?

  • m0thr4 #28 3 years ago

    EarlBassett: EG, stop running this useless bullshit.
    This is a gaming site not a technicians forum.
    To be fair to them, you're reading the Digital Foundry part of the site, which does seem to be a technicians' forum.

    This is so pointless it is untrue.
    and to do it on a demo is bordering on self-parody

    Well, you have to remember... the people at Digital Foundry have built a career out of trying to prove that the Xbox 360 is better than the PS3 in terms of graphics. I see two flaws in their business model:

    1. Hardly anyone is interested - only people with OCD who desperately want to validate their decision buy an Xbox 360 instead of a PS3... or people with OCD who have both consoles and desperately want to avoid buying the 'inferior' version. the vast majority of people commenting in these threads complain about what a great big waste of time this is and only a handful defend it.

    2. Their work has rather dried up of late, as the differences are harder and harder to spot. When the differences were not obvious to the naked eye in screenshots, they started producing videos... when the differences in those videos were invisible, they bought an expensive video capture machine to produce HD video prrof... and when that wasn't enough, they built/bought a machine that would analyse the output and show us a graph of dropped/torn frames. I have to wonder what's next? Signed & witnessed affadavits from the developers? The Richard Leadbetter Show on cable (next to all the religious ones)?

    For now, they're pretty much stuck with paying for all this expensive equipment, and the salaries of anyone involved in Digital Foundry. In a recession, this is an interesting business decision, but I suppose they must be generating clicks, so they've no reason to stop.

  • Dizzy #29 3 years ago

    "For now, they're pretty much stuck with paying for all this expensive equipment, and the salaries of anyone involved in Digital Foundry"

    Lol. They sell services to games companies you muppet.

  • m0thr4 #30 3 years ago

    Good point, the differences in most of these cases aren't enought to make you buy the other console, if you only own one of the consoles then its easy to pick. In your case having that steering wheel does make sense for you to get it on the PS3 much like some people buy on a console because they prefer the controller of which ever console for that type of game.

    It only comes down to people who own both consoles, and in this case why put up with more torn frames if you don't have too?

    I agree, but you made the point yourself above - it's not just the G25 wheel compatibility that makes me go for the PS3 version, it's the whole PS3 being quiet, having a UI that I prefer, having online multiplayer that I don't have to pay for, and so on.

    When the torn frames are obvious, you're right - I certainly won't put up with them and will get the Xbox 360 version instead... but, to be honest, that hasn't happened with any game I've bought in the last year.

  • m0thr4 #31 3 years ago

    Lol. They sell services to games companies you muppet.

    I realise that, but I suspect business is slow there too... and articles like this are an attempt to advertise their services.

  • peterv #32 3 years ago

    Digitalfoundry motto- You don't need bionic eyes to work here,but it helps.

    I will not be satisfied till DF investigate the DNA of the various developers.
    Lets settle this once and for all.

  • muscleblade #33 3 years ago

    It's a bit like looking over the Mona Lisa with a microscope and saying... "ah, you see... he smudged the paint a bit there - FAIL!".

    Not always. Its easy to see that Ghostbusters, Assassins Creed and Batman AA looks a lot less fantastic on the PS3.
    And its psykologically not fun to know that there is a better looking version of the same game on another system that also has a much better controller.

  • Retroid #34 3 years ago

    I find these articles of at least some interest as the two HD consoles of this generation are far closer in capabilities than it ever has been in other generations. There was a gulf between coded-for-PS2 and coded-for-Xbox games, and the Gamecube shined on several occasions (Mario Sunshine being one).

    Far from seeing these as fanboy fodder (although some fanboys are so daft they'll leap on anything as proving their case / displaying TEH OBVEEUS BIAS) these are about shaming developers who do a poor job (like with Ghostbusters) and those who are doing a pretty bloody good job, actually (Codemasters, in this case).

    The differences are barely noticeable? Then that's something to celebrate! \o/

  • ClevBeast #35 3 years ago

    For those of us that have both consoles this was a useful review although in this case the differences are so slight it really doesn't sway me one way or the other. Personally i will be getting this on the PS3 due to more folk on my friends list expressing an interest, and not for any other reason. Demo is great, looking forward to getting Dirty

  • muscleblade #36 3 years ago

    @m0thr4

    Installing the games to the 360 Elite makes it just as quit as the PS3 and i dont use a steering wheel. I dont care that much about graphics tbh but shouldnt the PS3 be the best console out there when it comes to graphics.

  • m0thr4 #37 3 years ago

    @muscleblade Not always. Its easy to see that Ghostbusters, Assassins Creed and Batman AA looks a lot less fantastic on the PS3.
    See... I was with you until Batman AA, where I compared the demos on my Xbox 360 and PS3 and really couldn't see any differences.

    And its psykologically not fun to know that there is a better looking version of the same game on another system that also has a much better controller.
    I think if it affects you psychologically, then you probably need psychological help. OCD is a serious condition and I wasn't necessarily being flippant when I mentioned it above.

    Btw, I prefer the PS3 controller to the Xbox 360 controller.

  • cianchristopher #38 3 years ago

    No no no no no! Fuck all that bullshit you guys are spouting in the comments like "Drop this feature" or "Stop posting this nonsense". What, you're trying to censor it?

    This (Digital Foundry) is a very informative resource on the nature of graphics in modern videogames for the layman, that spells out the tricks and techniques that devs use to get their games running well on each platform. That's it!

    And you cry foul cos you don't like the results? Well go fuck yourself then! Fuck off from this website and don't come back. Its a fucking FACT that nearly all multiplatform games look and run better on Xbox 360. A fucking FACT! Don't argue with facts, you fucking idiots. These guys know what their doing. I've never seen a developer lash out at Digital Foundry and say that they're lying. Yet fanboys do it all the time. Bollocks!

  • SeesThroughAll #39 3 years ago

    And you cry foul cos you don't like the results? Well go fuck yourself then! Fuck off from this website and don't come back. Its a fucking FACT that nearly all multiplatform games look and run better on Xbox 360. A fucking FACT! Don't argue with facts, you fucking idiots. These guys know what their doing. I've never seen a developer lash out at Digital Foundry and say that they're lying. Yet fanboys do it all the time. Bollocks!

    Another rabid XBox fanboy pleased with the "informative service". Go masturbate with your Zune HD you twat.

  • m0thr4 #40 3 years ago

    @muscleblade: Installing the games to the 360 Elite makes it just as quit as the PS3
    Nope - disagree completely. Show me proof and I'll eat my words, but my 360, with a Talismoon Whisper fan that is a good deal quieter than the stock fan is still more than twice as loud as my PS3.

    and i dont use a steering wheel.
    Once you've used the G25 for driving games, there's no going back to a pad... but ignorance is bliss, I supposed.

    I dont care that much about graphics tbh but shouldnt the PS3 be the best console out there when it comes to graphics.

    No, there are fairly sound technical reasons why the PS3 has a serious disadvantage when it comes to graphics. That it manages to hold its own so well against the Xbox 360 despite this, in so many recent games, is a testament to the skill of some video game developers.

  • muscleblade #41 3 years ago

    Retroid has a very good point. I just find it funny that so many people thought that the PS3 would be the most powerful console when it comes to graphics this gen. Much better than the 360 actually. That they turned out to be equal when it comes to exclusives and that on multiplaform titles the 360 usually has the edge surprised a lot of people. Here in Norway most people are still convinced that the PS3 is far better than the 360 even though its not true at all.

  • m0thr4 #42 3 years ago

    @SomeRandomNoiseGen erator: And you cry foul cos you don't like the results? Well go fuck yourself then! Fuck off from this website and don't come back. Its a fucking FACT that nearly all multiplatform games look and run better on Xbox 360. A fucking FACT! Don't argue with facts, you fucking idiots. These guys know what their doing. I've never seen a developer lash out at Digital Foundry and say that they're lying. Yet fanboys do it all the time. Bollocks!

    So... nobody cried foul, nobody disputed the results. It's just that the results are so thin you could floss your teeth with them, begging the question, was it really worth publishing the article?

    Seriously, they're comparing demos now? What is the practical use of that information? That it's going to save me a couple of minutes downloading a demo for free?

  • El-Dev #43 3 years ago

    "That they turned out to be equal when it comes to exclusives"

    Really? The analysis of Uncharted 1+2, Wipeout HD, Killzone 2 and Halo ODST would kinda point to the PS3 having more technicaly impressive exclusives, according to DF.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 13:41

  • muscleblade #44 3 years ago

    "I think if it affects you psychologically, then you probably need psychological help. "

    Of course not. No need for that. I have a 360 with the best looking version. If i had a PS3 i would just trade it in for a 360. OCD problem solved. LOL.

    Btw: Regarding Batman AA - wait for the face off and you see what i mean.

  • peterv #45 3 years ago

    We all accept that the PS3 suffers against 360 to varying degrees in multiplat games.
    But is it really newsworthy?.By all means have a DF section, but to have an article about a demo being almost unnoticeably
    worse than another, unless you use certain techniques, is just comical.

  • m0thr4 #46 3 years ago

    Btw: Regarding Batman AA - wait for the face off and you see what i mean.

    I don't need to see the face off, as I already know what it's going to say: "Xbox 360 version runs in full 4x AA while PS3 version runs with something less than that. Xbox 360's frame rate is better than the PS3's and has fewer torn frames. Torn frames on the PS3 version are hardly noticeable and it doesn't affect the gameplay, and the PS3 version does have significatn exclusive content that the Xbox 360 version doesn't have. You pays your money, you makes your choice... blah blah blah".
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 13:37

  • m0thr4 #47 3 years ago

    Of course not. No need for that. I have a 360 with the best looking version. If i had a PS3 i would just trade it in for a 360. OCD problem solved. LOL.

    LOL at the way you completely missed my other description of OCD.

  • muscleblade #48 3 years ago

    "LOL at the way you completely missed my other description of OCD. "

    I didnt

  • m0thr4 #49 3 years ago

    Really? The analysis of Uncharted 1+2, Wipeout HD, Killzone 2 and Halo ODST would kinda point to the PS3 having more technicaly impressive exclusives, according to DF at least.

    I'm not sure I would agree with those specific games, but it's certainly true that the PS3 has more than 30 native 1080p games whereas the Xbox 360 (despite the misleading statements on game packaging) only has about 6 (all of which are straight-to-bargain-bin titles).

  • peterv #50 3 years ago

    Are the people at DF bored or are Eurogamer asking them to do these articles?
    If they want ,they can sift through my ZX Spectrum collection.
    I would like to know the tech specs of Sam Fox strip poker,i am unsure if the C64 version was better or not.

  • m0thr4 #51 3 years ago

    "LOL at the way you completely missed my other description of OCD. "

    I didnt

    Yeah you did.. because what I meant was that you still seem to have an Obsessive, even Compulsive desire to validate your choice of console as being "superior". Some would say this is a Disorder. You admitted yourself that it was purely psychological, implying that there was no reason behind it.

    The thing is, I don't pretend that the PS3 is superior or inferior to the Xbox 360. I also don't dispute any of the technical evidence that Digital Foundry produce as to which console has the edge in multi-platform releases. I just think that these articles are becoming less and less relevant.

    If a game is visibly worse on one platform, then simple screenshots and maybe the odd video should suffice. If you need to go to the lengths DF go to, with frame-by-frame analysis and graphs, then what's the purpose?
    Edited by 2 at 28/08/09 @ 13:54

  • GreyBeard #52 3 years ago

    Lol this series "jumped the shark" when it examined the video of the FFXIII demo from the blu-ray.

  • muscleblade #53 3 years ago

    @El-Dev

    You took the best looking PS3 games and compare them to a fantastic game that is famous for not being a looker but has superior gameplay. Where is Gears 1 + 2.

    From my experience COD4 is a game that looks just as good as both PS3 and 360 exclusives. The 360 version of that game actually looks better than the PS3 version so.......

  • El-Dev #54 3 years ago

    @m0thr4, those were just the articles from DF that sprung to mind that give rave reviews to the technical prowess of the PS3 exclusives. I can't really recall seeing many articles on 360 exclusives, probably because the same shit storm couldn't be whipped up as with PS3 exclusives. I do agree that the 360 usually runs the multi plats better but the PS3 appears to have the edge on games developed solely for it.

    As for Batman AA I got both demos, didn't notice too much of a difference, that combined with the Joker and me preferring the DS3 made it a no brainer to get it on PS3. From now on, I've only had my 360 for 3 months, I'll be getting my multi plats on 360 if there is a noticable difference in the performance over the PS3 version.

  • El-Dev #55 3 years ago

    "You took the best looking PS3 games and compare them to a fantastic game that is famous for not being a looker but has superior gameplay. Where is Gears 1 + 2. "

    More infamous since the DF article on it.

    Gears2 is an excellent looking game, just got it on Saturday and have been playing it all week. From what I can notice it is lacking the same polish that Uncharted had nearly 2 years ago. It is excellent though, with minimal screen tearing and great animations, with some excellent small features like the active reloading. One issue, which it shares with Uncharted though is the slow texture load ins after loading it up but this doesn't distract from what is an excellent game. I haven't got Gears1 yet, prob will get it at some point in the near future.

    Have DF done an in depth analysis of either GoWs? Done a quick google and it didn't come up. Also in the Halo ODST article they mentioned that KZ2 was the most technicaly impressive shooter so I'm guessing they included GoW in that.

  • muscleblade #56 3 years ago

    "Yeah you did.. because what I meant was that you still seem to have an obsessive, even compulsive desire to validate your choice of console as being "superior"."

    I should inform you that i have three 360 consoles and can easily afford a couple of PS3s too so no need to validate anything.
    I just dont want one as i have a fantasic standalone BluRay player that unfortunatly is gathering dust. I have played a few PS3 exclusives and their not bad at all - just not among my favourites thats all. I dont say the PS3 is a bad console , but its not the best either.

  • muscleblade #57 3 years ago

    "KZ2 was the most technicaly impressive shooter"

    I can agree on that - too bad the game doesnt have much else going for it then. Halo 3 with KZ2 grapics would probably not work on any consoles this gen. Bungie focused on gameplay Guerilla forcused on the grapihcs. I have played both games and i would say Bungie made the right descision.

  • cianchristopher #58 3 years ago

    @m0thr4: I like you, you seem like a nice guy. Aaawwwww yeah, baby! The Cole Train's back!!!

    In all seriousness, the game's out in, like, a week or something. you can take it for granted that the full game will be identical to the demo.

    As to whether the differences are so slight as to not warrant an artcle? Well, that's subjective. Don't get too worked up about it! The game is basically identical on both systems, we know, Richard told us. But, the Xbox 360 version is somewhat better. That's a fact.

    I've played both, and I've played GRID on both systems as well. The Xbox 360 version is better! Its got more AA and less screen tearing. That means its better. That's what that means. I repeat, that means its better. Better than the PS3 version. The Xbox 360 version is better than the PS3 version.

    (One more time) THE XBOX 360 VERSION IS BETTER THAN THE PS3 VERSION!!!!!!!!

  • septimus #59 3 years ago

    Played both versions. Seemed the same. 360 was upscaled to 1080P but it didn't look any better.

  • m0thr4 #60 3 years ago

    @muscleblade:
    I should inform you that i have three 360 consoles

    Yeah, and of course that's not OCD or anything...

    and can easily afford a couple of PS3s too so no need to validate anything.
    I just dont want one as i have a fantasic standalone BluRay player that unfortunatly is gathering dust. I have played a few PS3 exclusives and their not bad at all - just not among my favourites thats all. I dont say the PS3 is a bad console , but its not the best either.

    Why on earth would you buy a standalone BD player only to leave it gathering dust? Or own three Xbox 360s? Or feel the need to convince me that you're wealthy enough to "buy a couple of PS3s"?

    /backs away slowly, avoiding eye contact...

  • SeesThroughAll #61 3 years ago

    What a wanker. I guess for some people knowing that the 360 version is better is sufficient compensation for their tiny penis/lack of sexual skills.

    Here, let me make you feel better about yourself: THE PS3 IS SHIT! IT FUCKING SUCKS!

  • m0thr4 #62 3 years ago

    @cianchristopher: With regard to Grid, then yes I am in complete agreement with you, the PS3 version was visibly worse and therefore unacceptable. I didn't need Digital Foundry to tell me that 2 weeks after the release date either. That is the point at which I buy the Xbox 360 version, as I did in the case of Grid as it didn't work properly with the G25 wheel either.
    Edited by 2 at 28/08/09 @ 14:16

  • m0thr4 #63 3 years ago

    By the way, Lens Of Truth have done a comparison of Batman: Arkham Asylum on PS3 and Xbox 360. The results are quite surprising and it will be interesting to see what Digital Foundry make of it.

    http://www.lensof truth.com/?p=14110

  • muscleblade #64 3 years ago

    @m0thr4

    Nice one. Still waiting for the Eurogamer face off.

    Not bad though.

  • cianchristopher #65 3 years ago

    @m0thr4: That Lens of Truth article didn't even mention the fact that the Xbox 360 version has 2x AA whereas the PS3 version has none at all. In my book, that's crap. Anti Aliasing is a crucial part of a "which graphics are better" debate. Also, they pretty much ignored the benefits of SSAO on the 360 version (again completely absent on the PS3 version) which is also a big plus for the Xbox.

    Instead they said stuff like "ooh the camera's a bit further back from Batman on the PS3" and "we think the lighting and shadows are better". Which is fair enough, and I'm not disputing the camera, lighting or shadows preference. But DF at least provide details on framerate drops and torn frames and anti-aliasing etc. So I'll take their word for it over the Lens of Truth.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 14:35

  • Xerx3s #66 3 years ago

    "Depends what your criteria for winning is. There have been many occasions where both versions have equal faults (Fallout 3), and rare occasions where the PS3 has 'won' (Oblivion)."

    Not to rain on your parade or anything but Oblivion looked better because it had over a year extra dev time. They patched the 360 version with TSI release. FO3 was patched on the 360 as well.

  • Xerx3s #67 3 years ago

    "Nope - disagree completely. Show me proof and I'll eat my words, but my 360, with a Talismoon Whisper fan that is a good deal quieter than the stock fan is still more than twice as loud as my PS3. "

    If you read up on the tweakers forums, you would know that the talis moon fans are just as loud and often louder than the stock fans. If you bought one, you wasted money. You would have been better off buying a stock nidec fan which produces next to no sound at all and costs less.

  • Darren #68 3 years ago

    @IneptPercy - "Darren:- From previous posts i know you have a well spec'ed PC so why not just wait? Personnally I prefer to wait for better versions and in the case if its anything like GRID on the 360/PS3 vs PC it was night and day difference. You probably know that you can use a 360 controller on the PC too.

    Maybe I am just more patient, it just ssems a waste to build such a great machine then play worse versions of games on the consoles."

    Well you clearly are a more sensible person than me too but I just cannot wait four months for the PC version knowing that there's a decent console version around from 11th September. So I'll be buying both the 360 and PC versions, trading in the former to offset the cost of the latter. I'm doing the same with Batman: Arkham Asylum and Resident Evil 5 too by the way (I have the 360 version now). Fortunately I was able to resist buying Red Faction Guerilla for the consoles because they're spoilt by hideous amounts of screen tearing, something that won't be an issue on the PC. :)

    Had the PC version of DiRT 2 been available at the same time as the console versions then the choice would have been easy, I'm only buying Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age and BioShock 2 for the PC for example. Sadly more and more multiformat games are being delayed on the PC and I suspect that the publishers know that multiplatform owners will be tempted to go for the more expensive console version rather than wait, that's probably one of the reasons they delay so many games.

  • Retroid #69 3 years ago

    m0thr4 : "Seriously, they're comparing demos now? What is the practical use of that information?"

    That they'll usually be pretty good representations of the final product? Especially this close to release.

  • m0thr4 #70 3 years ago

    m0thr4 : "Seriously, they're comparing demos now? What is the practical use of that information?"

    Retroid: That they'll usually be pretty good representations of the final product? Especially this close to release.

    I can see why you feel obliged to defend DF, but... "pretty good representations"? Listen to yourself.
    Edited by 1 at 28/08/09 @ 15:28

  • m0thr4 #71 3 years ago

    @Xerxes

    Well my Talismoon fan is quieter than the original fan in my Xbox 360 Premium, that's for sure. I don't think the Nidec fan was available at the time I bought it, as I did loads of research on ways to quieten down my Xbox 360.

    Still... kind of absurd that anyone should have to open the machine up at all in order to make it as quiet as the PS3?

  • m0thr4 #72 3 years ago

    @cianchristopher: I'm sure DF's nit-picking machine will tell us about dropped/torn frames and different methods of anti-aliasing, whereas this article is showing some very visible differences between these two games. You don't need to wait for DF to confirm these - you can see them in the respective demo versions, for what that's worth.

  • IneptPercy #73 3 years ago

    Fair enough it is just plain impatience then, I avoided Resi 5 so am yet to play it and I do have a 360.

    It just seems that I spent a lot of money on my PC so to get the best value for money I should use it even if it does mean waiting.

    Arguements or waiting go both ways, neither of us is doing the right thing I suppose.

    Personally: cheaper + better graphics - longer wait > more expensive - worse graphics + less waiting.

    In the case of Dirt 2, if its anything like GRID, after playing the PC version I found the frame rate of the 360 version unacceptable and unplaybale.

  • bratmandu #74 3 years ago

    Another day, another EG console fanboy baiting article.

    How about - you know, some NEWS or something?!

  • rotmm #75 3 years ago

    @efh, "Why do DF never use Full RGB on their PS3 videos? It really buggs me, as pretty-much everyone who has a PS3 uses it. (It's almost essential)"

    They always do.

    So you need be bugged no more.

  • cyber_nicco #76 3 years ago

    I don't understand all the whining. The article seemed quite reasonable - going out of its way to downplay the importance of the difference. Furthermore, it ended by saying that the PS3 version is much improved relative to implementation in GRID. Other than that it is just stating the facts.

    Is it safe to assume most of the negative posts come from PS3 owners?

  • Miths #77 3 years ago

    @evilfoxhound

    Actually the "correct" setting for HDTVs is limited rather than full RGB. Most HDTVs accept a color range from 16 to 235 ("limited";), as opposed to 0 to 255 ("full";) for typical PC (LCD/CRT) monitors.
    Choosing full for a HDTV will effectively cut off the lowest and highest ranges of the color spectrum, particularly visible in the lower end where it will often mean less shadow detail as everything below a certain threshold is just displayed as black (which many people seem to like though, even if it's at the cost of fine detail).

    Full also seems to provide a higher contrast across all or most of the color spectrum, although I can't really recall if I've come across the technical explanation for this "symptom" of using the incorrect (full) RGB setting.

    So the "proper" thing to do for videophiles is to use the correct RGB setting for your display (ie. limited for the vast majority of HDTVs) and then calibrate your TV/monitor properly to achieve the black level, contrast, color etc. settings you like (or which are measurably correct if you're really serious about your setup and pay for professional TV calibration, but I doubt most of us are willing to go quite that far :)).
    Edited by 2 at 28/08/09 @ 17:20

  • Dizzy #78 3 years ago

    I think the Digital Foundry articles are, in most cases, pretty fun and interesting to read because they give me some insight into what techniques are being used by engine devs. Personally I don't do that anymore... I am too old school for that I think but it is still fun to read.

    All the non-technical people should stop moaning and just stay out of these threads since most of you seem to think they are flamebait or fanboy ravings.

    These are not the articles you are looking for.
    /waves hands

  • Dizzy #79 3 years ago

    By the way, Lens Of Truth have done a comparison of Batman: Arkham Asylum on PS3 and Xbox 360. The results are quite surprising and it will be interesting to see what Digital Foundry make of it.

    Seriously... do not mention these guys again. They have no clue.

    ANd I didn't read what they wrote. I read one of their first articles and it was a total joke on the technical front.
    Edited by 2 at 28/08/09 @ 17:28

  • TRUTH #80 3 years ago

    Virtua Fighter 5, Virtua Tennis, Assassin Creed etc where all designed for PS3 from the ground up - Remember how Sony boasted how 360 cannot handle VF 5 or Assassin Creed (Was PS3 exclusive 1st); but all three looked better on 360!

  • des #81 3 years ago

    People that are complaining about DF are actually making it more popular.
    Irony...

  • canIdoyabombsforya #82 2 years ago

    "I'm with the naysayers - I really can't see how picking over tiny differences between versions benefits anyone"

    If Sony cease bull####g their system specs in the next gen, because of comparisons like this, every non fanboy with money in their pocket for a new console will benefit.
    The PS3 was touted has being able to handle dual screen gaming remember.

  • TRUTH #83 2 years ago

    The PS3 was mean't to be x3 more powerful then 360, able to do 4D and best online system - the problem is PS3 has proved to do none of them!

  • CrunchinJelly #84 2 years ago

    ^^^^

    TWAT

  • Skurmedel #85 2 years ago

    I still don't get the point with people coming into this section, whining about it being technical and about graphics. It's the whole fucking point of the section. I do understand if some might question the validity of the claims sometimes and et cetera but come on.

    I don't like the sports sections in my newspaper, therefore I don't read them. I don't open the paper, read them and then go "who gives a fuck about sports".

    Anyway, anybody with the two consoles will appreciate this article even if it was quite shallow... but maybe the differences are so small there wasn't a whole lot to report on.
    Edited by 2 at 28/08/09 @ 21:52

  • TheNinkyNonk #86 2 years ago

    If there was ever evidence that someone needed a blowjob, digital foundry is it.

  • el_pollo_diablo #87 2 years ago

    The only thing more pointless than these articles is the act of posting a comment about how pointless these articles are.

  • makeamazing #88 2 years ago

    I dont have a problem with game Comparison webpages, Like comparetheMeercatconsole.... (jk) ... but the DF is over the top. First comparing a demo... a demo is just that, its not even complete code in many cases... usually a demo is made from a seperate branch to the main game, when the main game is still in development. Its like reviewing a game thats not complete or yet released, you wouldnt do it.

    Secondly if they need an expensive machine to tell them there are differences, then its pointless... because when i am at home playing games I DONT have this expensive machine that can tell me that the game skipped a frame that i didnt notice. Its about time the DF started testing games that have a real world use.... but with the two consoles being so close I acutally think unless someone does a real bad job of one version then there is no point to DF... which means they cannot do comparisons which get them lots of complaining customers.

  • TRUTH #89 2 years ago

    Dirt 2 has gone the wrong way - it's all to Americanized with it's silly X-Sportism. I was hoping for a rally game that made you take risk for reward that skill and excitement of watching your car being pushed/damaged/gather with dust-dirt(seems to be missing on Dirt 2) and the risk of ending a race when driving at high speed on a narrow cliff - all part of rallying!...Now Dirt 2 seems more of a glam bling NFS off road; seems more dumbed down with more of the antitheses of real rally taking a back seat - Sad!

  • VandelayIndustries #90 2 years ago

    Miths "Actually the "correct" setting for HDTVs is limited rather than full RGB. Most HDTVs accept a color range from 16 to 235 ("limited";), as opposed to 0 to 255 ("full";) for typical PC (LCD/CRT) monitors.
    Choosing full for a HDTV will effectively cut off the lowest and highest ranges of the color spectrum, particularly visible in the lower end where it will often mean less shadow detail as everything below a certain threshold is just displayed as black (which many people seem to like though, even if it's at the cost of fine detail)."

    +1!

    I had my PS3 set to full RGB up until I played Resistance 2, couldn't see a damn thing on that game. Some helpful soul posted on the forums here that setting it to 'Limited' would help, and recently I changed my 360 from 'Intermediate' to 'Standard' because I was having similar issues, most notably with BF 1943.
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/09 @ 02:09

  • Retroid #91 2 years ago

    m0thr4: "I can see why you feel obliged to defend DF, but... "pretty good representations"? Listen to yourself."

    Ummm.... what? Or are you labouring under the (entirely incorrect) assumption that I'm 'employed' by EG in any capacity? I'm not. I've just been around long enough for people to trust me with some of the keys, nothing more. If EG staff / affiliates talk what I consider to be bollocks I will say so and that'll have to stand on its own merits, not because I'm 'one of them'.

    As for "pretty good representations"; are you suggesting there are going to be major code & asset changes between the final code and a demo? This is taking the fact that most demos these days are undertaken towards the end of the dev cycle, with 'E3 demos' being some of the exceptions.

  • stodge #92 2 years ago

    I have Dirt and Grid on the PS3 and the tearing is incredibly bad. Surprisingly so given that each console is a solid, defined platform, unlike a PC. You'd think they could remove the tearing somehow. I'm going to pass on Dirt 2.

  • Skurmedel #93 2 years ago

    You could look at it from another point as well. Demos are supposed to be representative of the final product. It should show me how good the game is so I want to buy it. If it doesn't represent the final game well, they've done a poor job on the demo. If the demo sucks, it doesn't bode very well does it?

    I do agree that there might be problems with doing a test on a demo, but it still gonna be at least indicative of how well it will perform. And that something you can mitigate with a re-comparison at the time of release.
    Edited by 1 at 29/08/09 @ 02:45

  • Darren #94 2 years ago

    @stodge - Yes, developers could remove tearing completely by enabling v-sync (all the time) but those incredibly pretty graphics, 1280x720 resolution and 2X/4X AA come at a price and that is a 30 fps framerate with occasional tearing on the consoles. The developers obviously consider this a reasonable compromise rather than toning the graphical quality down and enabling v-sync permanently.

    I noticed tearing in Race Driver GRID on the 360 but it was extremely rare and not intrusive so it never bothered me at all. I think the developers made the right choice for that game and all indications are that tearing will be even rarer on DiRT 2 (at least on the 360) so, again, it's probably the right decision. After all people expect stunning graphics with current hardware (Wii aside!) so they're under a lot of pressure to deliver them.

  • TRUTH #95 2 years ago

    Tearing could be to your tv - I noticed my Pioneer KRP 50A was pure quality and noticed no tearing, lovely deep colors too...Took the console to my mates who had a Bravia 40", and did notice a few hiccups and more unfilled detail on the side of the screens then usual missing/filling in late on screen - the graphics did not seem as sharp too!

  • Darren #96 2 years ago

    @TRUTH - Viewing distance, screen size, image processing and picture settings such as brightness and contrast, etc. can make tearing harder (or easier) to spot from one model of TV to another but if a game has tearing then it is *still* there regardless of the display you're watching it on.

    The TV cannot magically fix it as you seem to be implying since it is a game related issue where the frame buffer becomes messed up with parts of different frames. All the TV does is display the contents of that frame buffer so a game with tearing will already have its frame buffer messed up before it's even sent to the TV!!! This is why you occasionally see screen grabs, taken directly from the frame buffer, with evidence of tearing in them. If tearing was a TV issue then it would not be possible to capture a torn frame via a screen grab from the frame buffer like Digital Foundry do. Richard Leadbetter had problems capturing non-torn screenshots from Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood for this reason (almost every frame output by the game was torn). ;)

    I've tried many different types of games over the years and seen screen tearing on all of them, where the game has tearing, whether they're running on CRT TVs, PC monitors or large screen HDTVs. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there, sometimes it can be very minor and hard to see - Digital Foundry touched on this in the third to last paragraph of the article - plus it isn't consistent either (e.g. playing through the same level twice is unlikely to show tearing in the same place or to the same degree).

  • Spekingur #97 2 years ago

    Someone mentioned earlier that Oblivion was superior on the PS3. Clearly, it is the PC version that is superior.

  • Nephirion #98 2 years ago

    I pass because of the annoying American voice over :o

  • X #99 2 years ago

    Have them both but I'll just get the 360 version anyway due to Live friends and achievements.

  • bemaniac #100 2 years ago

    i literally dribble and want for this game so badly i would quite simply shell out anything upto £50 to get this for either console. PS3s and Xbox360s are both cheap enough consoles now with aqequate HDD sizes and you'd always want to run it off HDD too. I have both consoles and choose to buy it for xbox360 before i saw this because i make up my own mind testing the demos before i read this. My system seems to get a better ping to xbox live too the psn seems to lag a bit in this house.

  • Darren #101 2 years ago

    Spekingur - "Someone mentioned earlier that Oblivion was superior on the PS3. Clearly, it is the PC version that is superior."

    I'd agree with you that the PC version is vastly superior to the consoles ones but as for the PS3 version being superior to the 360 version, well that's subjective. There are some improvements to the PS3 version like the proper 1280x720 resolution instead of being upscaled from 1120x640, and texture filtering is better as are loading times. Against that though there's no AA unlike the 360 version, and the framerate is noticeably worst in places, better while travelling across the countryside but bizarrely sluggish indoors and in the towns. Overall I personally prefer the 360 version as the sub-720p resolution plus AA look nicer than the 720p one with no AA on the PS3. It's all a matter of personal preference though.