GTA IV Face-Off Frame-Rates and FAQ

By Tom Bramwell Published 12 May, 2008

More on the measurements.

Following on from last Thursday's Grand Theft Auto IV: PS3 vs. Xbox 360 Special, author Rich Leadbetter told me that he'd found an even more precise way of measuring average frame-rates and wanted to update you on this. He also thought it would be a good idea to answer a few of the more commonly asked questions about his methodology. The Frame Rate Tests section of the piece has now been tweaked accordingly, and here's Rich's commentary on it:

The Xbox 360 vs PlayStation 3 GTAIV face-off certainly caused some controversy across forums far and wide, partly because it contained what is most likely the first ever frame-rate test for a console game; tests we're going to continue in future face-off coverage.

Most of the controversy seemed to surround the fact that 360's results would be influenced by the inclusion of frames subject to v-lock screen tear. Over the weekend I worked with notable tech experts, including the now infamous 'Quaz51' in refining the frame-rate detector. It's now extremely sensitive to the point where it can detect frame-rate even on a static screen (i.e. a car moving at 0mph).

More than that, we can now detect how many torn frames there are in any clip.

The GTA piece has now been updated with the new data, but in the interests of openness, here are the revised results, alongside the old ones.

Test1
Old 360: 31.990fps
Old PS3: 26.460fps
New 360: 31.627fps (3.77% torn frames in full capture)
New PS3: 26.504fps

Test2
Old 360: 28.624fps
Old PS3: 23.452fps
New 360: 29.233fps (4.26% torn frames in full capture)
New PS3: 23.989fps

Test3
Old 360: 35.252fps
Old PS3: 29.041fps
New 360: 35.662fps (2.37% torn frames in full capture)
New PS3: 29.523fps

Test4
Old 360: 26.076fps
Old PS3: 26.081fps
New 360: 26.015fps (6.07% torn frames in full capture)
New PS3: 25.803fps

Test5
Old 360: 26.712fps
Old PS3: 23.781fps
New 360: 26.507fps (4.9% torn frames in full capture)
New PS3: 23.781fps

Test6
Old 360: 33.798fps
Old PS3: 28.313fps
New 360: 33.713fps (2.35% torn frames in full capture)
New PS3: 28.313fps

A few common questions and answers then, to explain the results and to answer some questions that have arisen since the article was published.

  1. What does the torn frame percentage actually mean?
    Regardless of the game performance, the video output of the Xbox 360 (and indeed PS3) pumps out 60 frames per second. So in the case of Test1, for example, over the course of the entire clip, 3.77 percent of the frames were torn. So it's not 3.77 percent of the measured frame-rate, but of the complete 60Hz output of the console's video processor.
  2. Why bother including this stat?
    Screen tear can have a huge impact on picture quality. For example on one test I did on the Race Driver GRID demo, 360 ran at a constant 30fps while PS3 averaged at 28.76fps. Not so much difference there you might think, until you factor in that almost 40 percent of the 60Hz output of the PS3 version was torn frames, versus 0 percent on 360.
  3. Why haven't the 360 scores been adjusted downwards by the torn frame percentages?
    For the same reason that the v-locked PS3 results have also changed - the scanner itself is now far more precise. Weirdly, the imprecision in the old version mostly compensated for the v-lock issue, so by and large the results haven't really changed that much.
  4. If GTA IV on Xbox 360 isn't v-locked, why is the amount of torn frames so low?
    Actually it dynamically switches between two different v-lock settings (versus one on PS3) only dropping out of sync very rarely - around two percent to six percent of the time. More than that, the tearing will usually only appear in areas of the screen you don't see (the overscan area of your display), making it even less of an issue.
  5. How accurate can the tests be bearing in mind changes in lighting, weather, traffic, people etc?
    The whole point of multiple tests is to produce an average, an overall trend if you will. The captures were taken with the same weather conditions and at the same time of day on both consoles. The only variable would be people and cars on the streets in the outdoor scenes. For a truly 1:1 comparison, Test1 is of the entire intro sequence which should be identical on both machines. Test3 is indoors and again should be like-for-like.

Check out the Grand Theft Auto IV: PS3 vs. Xbox 360 Special for more on how the two versions compare.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (112) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • syphaa #1 4 years ago

    Not that bothered to be honest.
    So much uproar over which is the best version...THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME!

  • BiscuitBase #2 4 years ago

    The PC version is best

  • woodnotes #3 4 years ago

    "THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME!"

    Obviously not. I'll take the extra 5fps, thanks. :p

  • Psychotext #4 4 years ago

    Here we go again...

  • Hendo #5 4 years ago

    These comparison stats are the most cynical attempt at raising hits that I've seen in quite some time.
    Not to mention tedious to read.

  • coojam #6 4 years ago

    I've got the 360 version and the PS3 version my mate had looked better. He was playing on a 1 yr old Panasonic 42" Plasma through HDMI, I was on a 4 yr old Dell 26" through VGA. This framerate balls really doesn't matter does it.

  • woodnotes #7 4 years ago

    Hopefully we'll get some comparisons regarding the molecular structure of the discs and cases soon, not to mention the print and paper quality of the manuals.

  • Kinkster #8 4 years ago

    This entire discussion has to be the most pointless in videogame history. The game is mooted as 10/10 on both machines, so really? It's the equivilant of saying a Snes game was better than it's Megadrive counterpart because it could display a few more colours!

  • GamesConnoisseur #9 4 years ago

    I ll be goddamn honest, I ABSOLUTELY CANT STAND screen tearing. Be clear of that, it was enough to make me play Dead Rising via Component when I prefer VGA connection. I played and completed GTA4 (410 gamerpoints so far) via VGA and never noticed screen tearing. We also know there are gamers out there who would drop the game like ton of bricks if its had game- immersion-spolings screen tearings.

    So interesting that there are few percentage of screen being torns on X360 and happy for EG to go with this means of measuring the fps and screen tearing, but would like to know by what percentage it would become an issue, ie noticeable for us gamers?

    I did not realise that PS3 demo of GRID have 40 percent (of 60 hz output) screen tearing and will download that and see if its noticeable at that level and thus know approx what percentage will become an issue.

  • bad09 #10 4 years ago

    @ woodnotes

    The print in the 360 manual is much easier to read than the PS3 version and guess what, if you are careful, no tearing!

  • des #11 4 years ago

    Good to see that eurogamers tech is going forward

  • CannonAnBall #12 4 years ago

    Dear Lord, not again. Please.

    Surely there is more important things to argue about?

  • Psychotext #13 4 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur: Where did you see that 40% stat for GRID?

  • Weezer #14 4 years ago

    Rich's evenings must just fly past...

  • des #15 4 years ago

    @Psychotext
    Article

  • mazk #16 4 years ago

    Come on Eurogamer, why pointlessly support the eternally boring console war with this crap? Face offs I understand, I'm quite interested in which version should get purchased myself. But this stat crap, when nearly everyone has the bloody game anyway is just adding fuel to the fire. We are not all 14 year old boys with hard-ons for Microsoft you know!

  • chrisjm #17 4 years ago

    'Come on Eurogamer, why pointlessly support the eternally boring console war with this crap? '

    page impressions = $$$

  • MattyD #18 4 years ago

    So if most of the tearing happens in the overscan area you'll get a much worse picture over VGA or HDMI with Just Scan... Hmmm

  • Weezer #19 4 years ago

    'almost'?

    So not then.

  • Psychotext #20 4 years ago

    @des: Ahh, thanks.

  • stoopidgreg #21 4 years ago

    so... pretty much the same results as before.

  • YobRenoops #22 4 years ago

    I don't care.

    I just don't care.

    I really really don't care.

    As long as the game plays I'm just not fussed.

  • Darren #23 4 years ago

    Ha... so I was right last week about seeing what looked like tearing in the overscanned area of the game when playing it at 1360x768 (Optimal Resolution) with HDMI then! :D

    Even so it's barely noticeable and if you play the game at 720p or 1080p on the 360 you won't see any tearing at all which is really impressive. I wish other developers would use this method too because I'd rather tearing was hidden in the overscanned parts of the screen personally.

    P.S. This article does seem a bit anal and definitely very geeky! LOL

    P.P.S. I still prefer the look and feel of the 360 version over the PS3 version if I think about it although in playing both I've learned that the differences make absolutely no difference to my enjoyment of the game.

  • Psychotext #24 4 years ago

    I do like the idea of testing console game framerates though.... maybe it will encourage developers to optimise a little more.

  • Darren #25 4 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur - The PS3 demo of GRID has a lot more screen tearing than the 360 IMO, you'd have to be blind not to notice it really, at times it's as bad as Colin McRae DiRT on the 360, especially the drift track. That EG claim the 360 version is locked at 30 fps is odd because it does also have some very minor tearing, particularly on the San Francisco track but it's very rare overall. Also I noticed that if I was downloading something in the background on the 360, the camera pan of the cars at the start of the race sometimes had tearing too but it doesn't happen once the download has finished! Weird! LOL

  • BobsUncle #26 4 years ago

    @coojam, was that sarcasm? I can't tell. if not, well...

    Your Test:
    1) Connect PS3 to a high quality plasma HDTV via HDMI. High quality output to high quality panel.
    2) Connect Xbox to a much smaller LCD via VGA. Low quality output to low quality panel.

    Result:
    Games look better on brand new Panasonic plasma compared to knackered little old Dell monitor SHOCKER for MASSIVE DAMAGE! :-)

    It must have been sarcasm.

  • Darren #27 4 years ago

    @evilfoxhound - Yep, BDs are certainly more durable than DVDs in my experience. For example, none of the Blu-ray discs that have come loose in the post have been scratched but all my DVDs that come loose have been... remember the Halo 3 Collector's Edition fiasco? It's reason enough that I'm glad BD survived and HD DVD didn't actually! :)

  • Uncle_Fishboy #28 4 years ago

    GIVE IT A FUCKING REST YOU NERDS.

  • ps3owner #29 4 years ago

    oh man. why is it so fucking windy outside? anyone know?!

  • miiiguel #30 4 years ago

    I'm going to play outside, sharp rocks hide all the good stuff.

  • mcmonkeyplc #31 4 years ago

    /Waits for Swam.

  • gizmo #32 4 years ago

    LOL!!

    Framerate doesn't matter.

    Said the PS3 user!

    Yep, I like my framerates as low as possible, just love that chugging slideshow effect - it's why I play games! Sheesh!

  • Darren #33 4 years ago

    Here's a question for someone technically minded... how on earth did Rockstar get the 360 version to only tear in the overscanned area of the screen? I mean that is impressive when you think about it and could be very useful for other games too that suffer from intermittent tearing. Is it some new programming technique or something?

  • AJUK #34 4 years ago

    So 96% of the time there is no tearing? That sounds good to me :)

    Why do Eurogamer keep insisting on these bloody articles? Both of these games are the same, the differences between the two versions are so miniscule that we are talking about tiny differences in a pixel here or there, a miniscule (and unoticeable to the human eye) change in frame rates and so on. These are really pointless differences.

    Enough already.

  • SeesThroughAll #35 4 years ago

    PS3 owner: Who cares about framerate?

    360 owner: 5 fps makes all the difference in the world! I win!!1!!!11!

  • Darren #36 4 years ago

    It's just as much about anti-aliasing as the framerates IMO and the PS3 version doesn't have any, just a crude blurring effect that emphasises the jaggies from the lower rending resolution rather than hiding them. In my opinion obviously. I did stop caring about it when I played the games though which ultimately proves that perhaps the differences really aren't that important after all. If I had to pick only one, I'd definitely go for the 360 version though...

    /runs

  • JayeM #37 4 years ago

    Didn't notice one bit of tearing.

  • Phily50 #38 4 years ago

    I didn't understand a word of that.

    /goes back to playing doom on PC
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 14:02

  • stoopidgreg #39 4 years ago

    "Nobody I know has ever seen a scratch on a PS3 disc, even in the trade-in section."

    that's because PS3 games are so shit they get traded in after just playing them for a few minutes.

    i kid!!

  • The_Programmer #40 4 years ago

    What would be the PS3's framerate be if it was running at a true 720p like the 360 is ?

  • davisorle #41 4 years ago

    @The_Programmer
    "What would be the PS3's framerate be if it was running at a true 720p like the 360 is ? "

    lol! So true... Well apparently even this article wont make any difference to the ones that just don't want to admit something even with proof shoved in their face. Cause this is kind of that case.

    Btw I'm thrilled that a website like EG is actually doing those tests now cause I honestly believed that even this site didn't want to do anything of the kind that proved that Sony's console isn't what ppl believe ( well for now at least it does suck. thats what i mean and nothing more ). Respect to the guys at this page from now on for doing all this specially cause they got no reason to try to prove anything. Worked for me though.

  • Widge #42 4 years ago

    If by 'suck' you mean 'barely different' then by all means!
    Its not like its totally outclassed like the PS2 was to the Xbox... now that was a rather visible and definite gulf in ability there.

  • davisorle #43 4 years ago

    @evilfoxhound
    "Nobody ever mentions that the PS3 version comes on a BR disc that is almost scratch proof :) "

    Thats cause noone cares cause makes no difference in the gaming experience :) simple :p

    @coojam
    Well when u move from a 26" to a 42 plasma it should also look like a different game. Try connecting the PS3 version on the 26" and say that again... Btw yeah the fraame do matter A LOT. That's why we pay so much on a new graphic card even if they offer just 3fps extra than a vga card that's actually more than 100euros cheaper. Also for your information a 3d app with under 30fps rate is actually noticable to one over 30fps cause anything over 30fps is completelly smooth to the eye.

    @gizmo

    LOL! ahaha good one :p

  • drumbaby #44 4 years ago

    So....360 version = poop?

  • BradMillette #45 4 years ago

    I don't understand a goddamn word of this article.

  • davisorle #46 4 years ago

    @Arbiter
    Did it even make it to 30fps so it can really matter? And what you ask is scientific? Didn't know that

  • superdelphinus #47 4 years ago

    nice to see autism is alive and kicking

  • phatb0y #48 4 years ago

    Instant pagehits!

    Next Episode: Manual & Case Face-Off

    The nerdrage continues...

  • GamerG #49 4 years ago

    So the 360 runs at a higher resolution and has a better frame rate?!?

    Yet the 360 came out 1 year before the PS3, someone at Sony needs to lose their Job.

  • Widge #50 4 years ago

    The PS3 case opens faster than the 360 one, plus is more aerodynamic which means that in the event of a hurricane, will actually fly to safety rather than crash and burn like a weighty flaming log.

  • #51 4 years ago

    Poor journalism strikes again.

  • davisorle #52 4 years ago

    @evilfoxhound
    LMAO! That was funny dude. im still fucking laughting with my friend here lol.

    @Widge sorry m8 I laughted enough with last post :p

    @DaemonB
    1st they are doing their job apparently since the sony fans attacked them for giving fake results which is a big deal. 2nd If i were them i'd even sue the ones that accused me of that and take money of them lol. They just can't cause of the site they work for. Bad for them :p 3rd We meat again! ( I'm sick and I'm stuck watching movies with friends and checking the net now :S )

  • WinterSnowblind #53 4 years ago

    Is it poor journalism? Or the fact you only own a PS3 and don't want to believe what they said? Think about it..

    Personally I find it funny that the roles have switched now. Before the game was released it was all the PS3 fans saying how much better the PS3 version is because of it's slight superiority and the 360 fans claiming it doesn't matter. Now it's the PS3 fans who think it doesn't matter.. it's the exact same discussion we were having before, but in reverse!
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 14:43

  • Mindstorm #54 4 years ago

    BR durability: the last line of defence.
    To the end... my men, we'll fight to the EEEND!!!!

  • Bigglesworth #55 4 years ago

    These articles (and their comments!) are such a laugh - good on EG for hitting on such a moneyspinner ;)

    Out of interest, does any of the technical details actually come from the developer, or is it all assumed by 'notable internet experts'?

  • davisorle #56 4 years ago

    Too funny up till now. ( No reason to attack DeamonB he is cool PS3 owner at least ) I just hope this doesn't turn up ugly. The tardteam hasnt spotted the thread either really don't like the article's results. "BR durability: the last line of defence" Is anyone keeping notes here? all the good ones are coming up lol

  • BraveArse #57 4 years ago

    If ever there was proof that Fanning the Fanboy Flames means plenty $$$ for EG then this is it. It's stupid and it's cynical.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 15:00

  • Laika #58 4 years ago

    Please don't feed the fanboys, EG. I'm begging you.

  • GitSomE_UK #59 4 years ago

    Oh sweet Jesus will this ever end.

  • darkphoenix #60 4 years ago

    Every gamer in the world should be thankful to Eurogamer.

    Congratulions for you professionalism!

    Everyday it becomes more and more my number 1 gaming site!


    Thank you very much.

  • BraveArse #61 4 years ago

    Can someone please tell me why this means anything to anyone at all? And has it got worse because more PC stat-monkeys are ditching their money-shredders and moving to consoles? It was bad when we moved to HD - but it just gets worse with every major release now imo.

  • #62 4 years ago

    davisorle get well soon!

    WinterSnowblind
    I dont own any consoles. I play my sons xb360. I have zero allegiance to any format/brand. Infact ive only recently got into consoles after coming from EVE-online for 3 years, and we all know ho wmuch time that game takes to play..

    I just find these articles boring, surely theres more to report than tiny frame rate comparisons?. This is just getting anal, like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Tbh I have said it, I personally do like the look of the PS3 GTA regardless of the tiny frame rate comparison but I don't care in the end, the game is a good game and surely when all is said and done this is what counts, not the fact theres dithering on the 360 and less FPS on the Ps3.

    On a positive note, EG has found a pure form of profit, via these articles :p

  • peterfll #63 4 years ago

    I never got around to posting on the original comparison thread (what was the point?). But again I'd like to thank EG for this type of analysis. I don't trawl the 'net looking for this info, and its not available in the printed media I buy (Edge, GamesTM don't seem to want to court the controversy).

    So for those of us who own both consoles and really just want to read these articles to make an informed purchasing decision I thank you. If there are other motives behind publishing, I really couldn't care less.

    ps I too think the GRID Demo on the PS3 is appalling compared to the 360, jagged and torn to hell, so much for the new Codemasters engine being cross-platform.

  • GamesConnoisseur #64 4 years ago

    Disappointing re GRID PS3 screentearings, thanks Darren. EG Tech team is the best around and this article proves it!

    I ordered PS3 version as was under the impression that despite having cool X360 version that i was happy with, but heck my PS3 owning mates would be lonely without me so might as well go for what was generally belived then as the slightly visually superior version of GTA4.

    Wow, what a week turn around, now I can see for myself on my HDTV set up that EG got it brutally right spot on, I am still happy with PS3 and its do have plus points over X360. Although I consider X360 to be the overall better version, but only just.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 15:29

  • miiiguel #65 4 years ago

    I know 2008 is the year May68 pseudo-maoist-revolution has its 40 years old, but, let it go already...
    When an article/review is printed that a suporter of a brand doesn't like, it's all like "oh the money!"; "oh you like money, you impure evil!"; "MS is a monopolist!"; "EA is evil";...

    Haven't you heard "to get rich is glorious!" (Deng Xiaoping)

  • Darren #66 4 years ago

    @GamesConnoisseur - The demo of GRID is from an unfinished build so it may be that the PS3 version further behind than the 360 one so it may run as well by the time it's released. Other than more tearing and ever so slightly inferior anti-aliasing in the PS3 demo, both games actually look identical graphically. Looks to me from the numerous plays I've had that the smoke effects have more of an impact on the game's framerate and thus the tearing on the PS3.

  • NOSAVIOUR #67 4 years ago

    Some people need to get out more, and yes i'm including you eurogamer.
    If people really care about this kind of shit....

    /speechless

  • davisorle #68 4 years ago

    @Arbiter
    Well i do get your point. You are right on what you are saying but the thing is that you lead it elsewhere from what this topic is about. It's simply telling you what the results of the curent state is with those 2 versions. What you are asking for is vor a new special edition of 3Dmark ( curently renewed to Vantage 1.0 I think ) for consoles :) That would actually be awesome if it was possible to prove if that bottleneck on the PS3 hardware would pop up or not.

    DaemonB, Thanks a lot man :) At least i have planned movies time / women time ( single again so i think i am allowed to be putting it that way ) / resting & a little online time. Eve huh? Well Im into WoW - Lotro atm and waiting to check Conan. Was in beta testing aproved but too much work at the time and never made to try it out :S

  • Monkey_Puncher #69 4 years ago

    I really don't give a shit, and I'm playing it on a 360. Just play and enjoy the game you fucking morons!

  • qwerty123 #70 4 years ago

    So what you’re saying Arbiter is that you have a slow car and I have a fast car but if we have a race I’m not allowed to go faster than your top speed because it won’t be fair? Only joking, I actually see your point. Anyway I own the 360 version and enjoy the game but was a bit disappointed with the frame rate; you just can’t take in the detail of the city while moving around.

  • Widge #71 4 years ago

    Its got a better frame rate than the old ones, esp considering the consistency of the graphics. Praise be for no more invisible roads and buildings!

  • Bangaioh #72 4 years ago

    This is sooooooooooooooo anal! Damn, will you guys at EG get laid!

  • anamenos #73 4 years ago

    Ps3 does not deserve its money

    360 is the best console in history SONY fanboys!!!

  • CallousB #74 4 years ago

    As far as I'm concerned any game with a framerate that fluctuates that much isn't ready for release on either platform.

    No excuse for not to having at least a constant 30fps this gen. You may want to throw in loads of detail and effects... but if you have a sucky framerate it's all wasted. I'm amazed so many reviewers let it slide...it damages the gameplay, graphics and immersion IMO.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 16:48

  • Widge #75 4 years ago

    I think the focus on what the hardware is pushing around has come drastically to the forefront this generation, and is it a good thing. I heard no moans of the previous GTA games chugging framerate, or the likes of God Of War having tearing, strange pop in on Halo 2's cut scenes etc... more focus on what were fantastic games.

  • Darren #76 4 years ago

    I think you're been a bit harsh, CallousB. GTA IV is a game that has to run on an HDD-less console with just 512 MB of memory for the graphics, sound and code. It's also a huge open-world game with loads going on so it's unfair to expect this game to run at a consistent 30 or 60 fps when it's running complex physics and A.I. routines. The visuals and animation are far more detailed than the old GTAs but the new machines don't have unlimited power. It's very difficult to make a sandbox game with a consistently smooth framerate when events are unpredictable. That GTA IV runs as well as it does without the framerate dropping to unplayable levels or the screen tearing like a certain Saints Row did pre-patch yet looks and runs better than before is commendable IMO... on both the PS3 and Xbox 360. Personally I've found GTA IV to have the most immersive game world this side of Oblivion, the few issues don't spoil it at all for me.

  • miiiguel #77 4 years ago

    Widge, Chuckie Egg was also a bit jaggy and no one complained about it. Complainers, are most of times, ppl geting too old to play video-games, they seem to lost the ability to apreciate them "as is".

  • djed #78 4 years ago

    he didn't bother to put the wii version in there... know why? because mario is HUNDRED FRAMES PER SECONDS GUARANTEED, BITCH!

    true story.

  • des #79 4 years ago

    If you want 60 fps games on a console buy Wii
    I blame fanboys for this

  • el_pollo_diablo #80 4 years ago

    I genuinely do appreciate the effort, but you really shouldn't bother with features like these.

    There's no point.

  • Machiavellian #81 4 years ago

    On Arbiter issue about framerate being lock or unlock. In most situations when a developer locks the framerate on a game ti's because the game can have a crazy amount of fluctuation. In other words, the PS3 version probably runs the game at 30fps but then it can jump to 60fps and drop just as fast to 25fps. Such wild fluctuation's can make the scenes look like they are stuttering. The game would look a lot smoother if it is locked at 30fps and only drop to 25fps then back to 30 thus the drop in frames are not that noticeable.

    The 360 on the other hand evidently runs the game at a pretty constant rate above 30fps and it doesn't fluctuate that much and this is the reason that it's frames are unlocked. Since the tearing is only seen within the overscan this also makes the 360 ideal for keeping it unlocked.

    So my point is that Arbiter point though correct really doesn't make a difference in the EG analysis. The 360 as a hold maintains a constant framerate above 30fps which gives a slight framerate advantage but nothing to call you PS3 friends up and call them losers.

  • fatboy996 #82 4 years ago

    I think those complaining about the article are missing the point of the articles which is trying to find out if one of the following is true :-

    a) sony lied about the power of the ps3 and developers are unable to match/ or better the 360 version
    b) developers are lazy gits and not optimizing for the ps3
    c) the way games are made is wrong for consoles, i.e. have one lead platform and then port a version over to the other console. Maybe its time that they should switch and develop games as they do for the PC, i.e. the core game has common code and then uses specific libraries for the graphics base on the hardware that you own.

  • Machiavellian #83 4 years ago

    @el_pollo_diablo

    Actually, I think people shouldn't waste their time whining about articles like this. If it's something you do not care for, why waste the time even reading it or even commenting on it. EG have plenty of articles that I care nothing about and I do not waste my time reading them or commenting in them because there is no point.

    I always wonder why you get so many people that come into the face off just to complain that the face off is not needed. Why do they waste their time either reading the face off or just going into the comments to say how they do not like the face offs. If fanboys are going to argue every point SO WHAT. Just because it means nothing to you it evidently means something to someone else even if they are fanboys. What I see in most of the comments is a selfish attitude that an article has to appeal to their personal belief of standard. As if these lone individuals do not have the capacity to just move on.

    This article is for people that care about the subject. For some like me, it's something to file away as knowledge about a game. For others it's a means to attack with fanboy rethoric. For people like you and others, it's a means for you to show how above you are and state how this is not important or the article was not needed. In other words, it hit home with just about every group which makes it a hit.

  • TRACTORBOY1971 #84 4 years ago

    For the idiot like me, I did not understand this artical at all, I can see the Xbox has a better frame rate, but has something to do with a tear something ( someone please explain)
    All I know is that I have been playing GTA IV for over 20 hours and only 31% complete - wow -.

    I also know I have this on xbox 360, I do own a PS3, but my mate and I enjoy our on-line gaming ( when my wife lets me), and everytime we buy a game on PS3 and try to go on line, we can either play, but can't chat, or not even find each other to play with ( please no pervy remarks), or the blue tooth does not register, or like motorstorm, can play and not talk, I know they say you get what you pay for, and PSN is free, but I do expect it to work everytime, and I don't mind giving MS £40 a year to have a fantastic experiance, if Sony's on-line was as good, I would not mind paying them £40 either. I have even had voice chat on xbox 360 and then played motorstorm just to talk about what course to choose next.....insane

    So Sony needs to get their arse in gear, stop p**ing on us in europe with delayed releases etc, sort out the on-line and give us some decent exclusive games, I know we have Killzone 2 coming soon, but we were shown this over 3 years ok. Even the multiply platform games are coming in later then xbox 360 (rock band).

    Sony where is home?, why is pain not on-line multi player - I played this with my friend in Scotland, and I would have purchased this if it had the ability to play on-line, we could have had hours of fun, bowling and smahing up things, but no - sony thought it would best not put this on-line, it is crying out got on-line play.

    I have now got of my soap box and now back sitting down, I want my PS3 to be better, I want to play more games on it, I have had it since launch and it mainly gathers dust ( which is often, since the dust really shows on the shiny black surface). Sony, please please please make your machine great!!!!! - because MS is going to beat you hands down if you don't pull your finger out of your backsides.

    Rant over





    Edited by 2 at 12/05/08 @ 18:31

  • Zappa #85 4 years ago

    OMG when will it end? talk about troll's quaz and this guy.Its amazing B3D hasnt put a end to this CLEAR fanboi trolling these guys get off.

  • davisorle #86 4 years ago

    @anamenos
    Man change it to "ksanamenos" :p

    I still remember when the PS3 was about to come out all the possesed fans saying that exacly those 2:
    1st Next Gen is coming finally ( when millions were playing xbox for more than a year already )
    2nd PS3 is like a Ferrari. Luxury item.

    Luxurius my ass... I mean I so hoped the PS3 would be priced at a more logical limit and I would stop hearing about the BR fuz. I actually thought I would get to buy me a second console. Instead it's incredibly overpriced for a console but its also no good for such a new and expensive piece of hardware ( crap ). That's what's pissing me off.And yeah, the fact it has such a lower framerate is pathetic in it's case. 5 frames out of 30 is a really big percentage dont you think? If it was the xbox with that lower framerate.. Then i guess you could excuse it cause you paid that much less don't you think? Favlos Kuklos = O

    @TRACTORBOY1971

    LOL "(someone please explain )" again lol! Im not making fan of you man ^^ And btw all of your post makes complete sence. I can;t agree more. Have a good night though cause im running ( im late! )
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 18:35

  • TRACTORBOY1971 #87 4 years ago

    Zappa - who are you saying are fanboys

  • TRACTORBOY1971 #88 4 years ago

    Zappa, who are you calling fanboys

  • Zappa #89 4 years ago

    quote-Luxurius my ass... I mean I so hoped the PS3 would be priced at a more logical limit and I would stop hearing about the BR fuz.

    ?? in US you get Bluray,wifi,and40 gigs for the same price as a 20 gig 360 with live for only a year.

    360 is a clear rip off compared.

    Here is 360 true cost to somewhat match PS3.

    36020gig= $350
    wifi=$75
    Chargekit=$15
    5.1dongle=$45
    Bluray?=$190
    live=$50
    ------------------=$725
    Edited by 2 at 12/05/08 @ 18:46

  • jetsetdemo #90 4 years ago

    @TRACTORBOY1971
    Yes, i know exactly what you mean. It's no rant and you are not alone in your frustration.

  • Machiavellian #91 4 years ago

    @Zappa
    And you better thank MS every day because if it wasn't for the 360 you can bet your bottom that the PS3 would not be priced at 400 US. Actually, you can thank MS for the price in Europe as well. Unfortunately you can also thank MS for the missing BC too.

    Now I will say this, if you do not need BR and Wifi means nothing to you then as a game machine, the PS3 is not on par. PSN is definitely no where close to being on par as Live but then again thats my opinion and I have all the consoles and handheld devices.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 18:42

  • davisorle #92 4 years ago

    @Zappa

    lol! yeah THAT was only a year in the US ok... If thats enough for u sure. Now go use that extra 20 gigs to install games that i dont have to on my xbox and then still have issues. Have you thought of that? If not pls do so cause on the xbox I play the same games without installation. And don't tell me you will be reistalling your games to catch up. Pls don't say it. If I wanted installation I'd still play only on my pc since I paid so much to build a new one. Wifi... Ok what about it? It's no use to me so i still don't get you. My rooter is right behind my xbox and the Pc is hidden right next to those in my living room all conected to my Home Cinema. Ofc you don't care but i also don't care about the one year later that you got it in the US. Or half before Europeans. So you can keep the 20 extra gigs... Well done. I bet you get all the advantages up and running in your console and enjoying the crap out of it right? If so, im glad for you. Thought that ppl that owned a PS knew already what "having a large choice of good games" meant. Guess thats also not true.

  • miiiguel #93 4 years ago

    you don't have a GTA 4 capable machine yet? man... you suck...

    edit: that was bad, I'm sorry. You're just a revolted kid, my bad.
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 19:09

  • Plumby #94 4 years ago

    If the ps3 is locked to 30fps the average frame rate comparison is cr@p. eg.

    Ps3 xb360
    26 26
    30 34
    24 24
    28 28
    30 35

    Ave 27.6 29.4

    or am I missing something?

  • makeamazing #95 4 years ago


    I really do think it's more a mountain out of a molehill. Of course perhaps I would say that because I own a PS3. Having played GTA on the PS3 I am really happy with it, no performance problems yet, and it looks great. So the 2-5 FPS people are saying that its different has had no bearing on my enjoyment of the game.

    The thing is alot of people don't have both consoles and wont be staring closely at two screens seeing these minute differences. So it does'nt make much difference at the end of the day. I'm certainly not going to trade in my PS3 which I'm really liking to get another machine because of such minor issues (seemingly different sites claim different problems, disadvantages and advantages of each platform).

    I also am surprised by comments about grid tearing on the PS3 demo, I downloaded the demo and it works perfectly, I havent noticed any problems. So I wonder if the types of screens are making the difference? I'm running my PS3 on a wide screen TV. It just seems strange that EG at times have mentioned tearing (for both GTA and Grid) but many people havent had any problems. All seems alittle strange.

    PS Grid is great :D

  • #96 4 years ago

    makeamazing your missing nothing.

    What is I find unbelievable is that if you so wished you can make the numbers say what ever you wanted. The difference in FPS per console is not enough to even post this article and all it does is to serve more arguments over who's epeen is bigger.

    What EG should do is capture a video where theres clear slowdown on both consoles and post that instead of trying to better one console over another with silly non existent numbers, something I honestly think they're guilty of.

    Also on my copy of GTA (360) ive seen some screen tearing, does this stop me enjoying the game no, and I haven't read any issues on PS3 regarding this, seems strange that EG magically finds this issue, unless im reading that article wrong.

    Just play the damn game, ignore this site and others and be happy :) Life is too short.

    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 20:19

  • chrisola #97 4 years ago

    As an avid PC gamer, consistent frame rates are king!

    somebody should develop a benchmark program for the consoles, maybe 3dmark (like someone suggested).

    Where are all the console tech demos anyway? It's pretty cool on the PC to run 3dmark and see just what your GFX can do!




  • J.C #98 4 years ago

    EG is fast becoming the laughing stock of all game site's. remember their PS3, is the true next gen console article a few years back? they still seem to have the ability, to annoy almost everybody here. no matter what console they own :(
    Edited by 1 at 12/05/08 @ 21:04

  • StooMonster #99 4 years ago

    I own neither PS3 nor 360, I'm not a bot or a shrill of either flavour, but I used to make video games and am interested in video processing.

    It's immediately apparent to me that there is a disparity in performance of these two consoles running the same game, and that is how many pixels each is rendering per second; when considering the performance of these two platforms one should compound FPS with resolution and look at PPS.

    PPS (pixels per second) is calculated simply by multiplying frame resolution (horizontal pixels multiplied by vertical pixels) by the temporal measure of FPS (frames per second).

    Let's look at the five tests:

    Test 1
    360 = 31.627 fps x 1280 x 720 = 29,147,433 pixels per second
    PS3 = 26.504 fps x 1152 x 640 = 19,540,869 pps

    Test 2
    360 = 29.233 fps x 1280 x 720 = 26,941,133 pps
    PS3 = 23.989 fps x 1152 x 640 = 17,686,610 pps

    Test 3
    360 = 35.662 fps x 1280 x 720 = 32,866,099 pps
    PS3 = 29.523 fps x 1152 x 640 = 21,766,717 pps

    Test 4
    360 = 26.015 fps x 1280 x 720 = 23,975,424 pps
    PS3 = 25.083 fps x 1152 x 640 = 18,493,194 pps

    Test 5
    360 = 33.713 fps x 1280 x 720 = 31,096,901 pps
    PS3 = 28.313 fps x 1152 x 640 = 20,874,609 pps

    Summary
    Test 1 = 360 renders 49% more pixels per second than PS3
    Test 2 = 360 renders 52% more pps than PS3
    Test 3 = 360 renders 51% more pps than PS3
    Test 4 = 360 renders 30% more pps than PS3
    Test 5 = 360 renders 49% more pps than PS3

    Average of 5 tests = 360 renders 46% more pixels per second than PS3 in GTA4 in the five EuroGamer tests.

  • KillerMonkey #100 4 years ago

    ^ Yes, now we just need to figure out if that's because of:

    1) PS3 is actually pretty shit compared to the 360
    2) The devs couldn't properly code for the PS3/didn't take the time to optimize for it

  • canIdoyabombsforya #101 4 years ago

    "Why bother compare?" they cry.
    Maybe because the Sony marketing keyboard warriors, were appearing on forums claiming the PS3 version was better *before* it was released. Found out again Sony.

  • BadBoyBonner #102 4 years ago

    StooMonster

    You could then also divide the 360's number of pixels by the PS3's screen resoloution to give an approximation of how fast the game may run if downgraded.

    i.e.

    Test 1

    29,147,433 / (1152x640) = 39.533736165364583333333333333333 FPS over PS3's 26.504.

    Clearly it isn't going to be wholly accurate (physics and AI routines running independent of resolution etc) but it goes someway to show the difference.

    And clearly if it didn't give a SIGNIFICANT SPEED BOOST then Rockstar wouldn't have lowered the resolution, would they?

    Or better still - work out how much slower the PS3 would be at the 360 resolution ;-)

    Or even better show the speed of the PS3 at 360 res against the 360 at PS3 res! lol
    Edited by 2 at 12/05/08 @ 22:42

  • BadBoyBonner #103 4 years ago

    Could not resist

    Test One (if 360/PS3 res were reversed)

    360 = 39.53 fps
    PS3 = 21.20 fps

    Ouch, I'm sure Sony are glad they didn't do that!

  • Bigglesworth #104 4 years ago

    I tried to suggest it earlier but I'll spell it out: these tests mean nothing without hard facts from the developer. You can't simply look at a game running, nor indeed use some third party software (that has only just been made able to detect the difference between frames of a static image -wtf??) and pull some method of comparison out of your arse. To then try to make out that this is somehow precise and meaningful is laughable!

    There are so many different ways to code a rendering engine. The article writer can't even decide if each platform is v-sync'd, or how many 'v-lock settings' are being used. Is it or isn't it? Is it locked until it frames out, then released? Is it capped at 60fps? 50fps? 30 or 25? You don't know without getting the engine specs from the dev. The idea that you can also get a 'controlled' test situation by simply placing a camera at point X and looking at point Y is also flawed. There is no way to know what the data structures hold from one frame to the next, nor how they got into the their current state based on the previous demand on the renderer.

    The fact that people are using articles like this to continue their crusades is almost unbelievable :) I say almost, as commenters here have always spouted the most colourful crap when it came to framerate and v-syncing on the previous-gen consoles. Now that v-syncing has fallen out of fashion the bullshit has been taken to whole new levels! Keep it up guys ;)

  • #105 4 years ago

    Bigglesworth

    +1
    I completely agree. Nice post. Im trying to sit on the fence on this one, as I don't actually own either console but I have access to my sons.

    StooMonster
    So the 360 is superior, then why does the ps3 look better? TO me this indicates the numbers mean nothing. I really wish R* would address the dithering/shimmering issue and why they added it.

  • chrisola #106 4 years ago

    this is worse than ATI vs Nvidia or AMD vs Intel...at least in those battles you have access to you know, actual benchmarking software whic is proven to be accurate.

    GTA IV is awesome. It is awesome on either system. It will be awesome when it comes to the PC (if it does).

    If you have both consoles, the ONLY deciding factor is: what do my friends have because i want to play on-line with them!

  • StooMonster #107 4 years ago

    @ Bigglesworth: "bullshit has been taken to whole new levels" is ironic. The details of how a game engine works and what data structures are held between frames is as relevant to the player as the endianness of the CPU -- little- or big-endian -- i.e. it is completely and utterly irrelevant. The only relevant comparison in a games where the assets (i.e. graphics, models, textures) are identical is the output on screen, how assets are utilised to create the output is immaterial.

    This is why EuroGamer's new benchmark is exciting and valid, it's a solution that counts the number of individually rendered frames per second, including torn ones; which combined with resolution has been the standard means of comparing gaming performance on PC for years.

    Now that EuroGamer has the ability to accurately benchmark the graphical output of 360 and PS3, we should see many more interesting Face-Offs but backed up with quantifiable data rather than opinion. :)

    Personally I'll like to see them backfill their previous Face-Offs with this new tool and get accurate rather than subjective examinations of frames per second.

    @ DaemonB: do not put words into my mouth, I did not say one console was superior to the other, I simply pointed out that in these tests in this game the 360 is rendering 46% more pixels per second than the PS3.

  • ianegg #108 4 years ago

    Does anyone know what EG uses the term "v-lock"? Google says that nobody else on the entire internet uses it, and I certainly had never come across it before I started reading EG. I'm assuming it's something different to v-sync and my google-fu is weak.

  • Yaz #109 4 years ago

    DaemonB wrote: "So the 360 is superior, then why does the ps3 look better?"

    He's not saying that, and the PS3 version looks slightly better to some, the 360 slightly better to others. There's no difference besides personal preference.

    Besides, we discussed this in the other thread. You insisted that the PS3 version has better explosions and more people/assets based ONLY upon videos and screenshots taken under *different* conditions, such as on Gametrailers, and yet at the same time you conveniently dismiss Richard's results here based upon controlled conditions. Have you even looked at the comparison videos here yet? For example, lighting and explosions; http://ww w.eurogamer.net/tv_video.php?pl...

  • Gradius #110 4 years ago

    I enjoyed this article, and some of the more technically minded posts have also been interesting here. One thing, I don't understand why technical comparisons like this get people up in arms tbh. If you're a 360 owner gloating because yours is the technically superior version then you're twat, we all know the 360 does well with multi platform titles, gloating about that is like so 2007. if you're a PS3 owner bitching then you're also a twat, many people (including some of you here) believe the PS3 version to actually look slightly nicer regardless of lower res etc, so look, you BOTH have the best version, so just be happy you bunch of maniacs! :-)

  • WangFu #111 4 years ago

    DaemonB Wrote: "I really wish R* would address the dithering/shimmering issue and why they added it."

    It looks like they're using alpha-to-coverage mask technique instead of alpha blending in their scene, which is the cause of the dithering in the main scene and on some signs. That, combined with the dithering of the shadows to make them look softer results in the dithered image. I can only assume that the alpha-to-coverage mask is to avoid the issues normally associated with deferred lighting and transparency, or maybe just to limit overdraw. Limiting the amount of transparent objects in the scene is more efficient for their renderer. This appears to be the same for both platforms, but single-pixel samples are getting blurred over on PS3, due to the lower resolution render being hardware scaled. In this case, from an image quality point of view, it might've been better for the X360 to have been rendered to a lower resolution too.

    The PS3 GPU just cannot handle the fill-rate for full 720p as well as the X360's GPU can. That's a fact, and these framerate tests seem to back it up. No need for everyone to moan and complain about it. Would be better for people to try to analyse the techniques employed in these games and consider the technicalities of what's going on.

  • buiyo #112 3 years ago

    Measurement Video Test1
    http://zoome.jp/ps360 /diary/82/