Its not a huge difference, and I think Crytek did a great job on both to me. The 360 wins in the texture and framerate war. Some of the textures on ps3 are downright ugly(see prophet in the ice screenshot page 2)

It pretty much comes down to this summary:

Outside of these differences, almost every other visual element is common to both consoles, with motion blur just as strong on gun reloads or quick pans, and the lightshafts falling down between illuminated tree leaves operating to equal effect. No doubt the more obvious dividing factor between the two versions is performance - as you'll see in the video below, the 360 commands a considerable advantage here in the same like-for-like case.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis-face-off?page=3

lol @ the guy on this forum saying he thought 360 version "lagged more" .... Wishful thinking.

The PS3 version lacks a lot of foliage interaction. Even Far Cry 2 on my PS3 does a better job with foliage interaction.

Glad I'm a 360 gamer.

I really am pissed. PS3 has little to no foliage interaction while the 360 has interaction with every single tree. There are also huge FPS drops on PS3, sometimes it feels like I'm playing with rocksolid 10 fps.
Now my expectations are even higher for Far Cry 3, I hope those Canadians don't deliver a **** up game like the second Far Cry.

Yeah while the framerate is nothing to brag about on either, its down right terrible on ps3. It was hitting 24fps just barely moving through the jungle-no action and right beside it, the 360 was holding 32fps same scene. The only reason its important is how close both systems are to the danger zone of framerates, and the ps3 dips alot more and less stable at an already critical area.

Yeah I wish I could play it on a high end PC at 60fps+ lol, but I'm also not glad to stuck with the ps3 version either.

its the story of this generation of consoles, PS3 getting jipped on multi platform titles.

Oh well, we get Uncharted 3 in a few weeks

Well and then 360 gets a beautiful recreation of Halo 1 and already have Forza and Gears this year. Its not fair that the ps3 has gotten the shaft this much, for this long.

I'd prefer Uncharted 3 to those listed

It's not Crytek's fault. Crysis it a very GPU dependent game, and the PS3 GPU is known to be weaker. They still look very similar though.

It's not Crytek's fault. Crysis it a very GPU dependent game, and the PS3 GPU is known to be weaker. They still look very similar though.

Of yeah, they look similiar, but its the performance that is the real difference here. 10-12 fps less in some areas is quite a bit, considering the ps3 is 1 year newer tech.

"..considering the ps3 is 1 year newer tech."

The GPU is actually weaker than the one from the 360 and the Ps3 has overall less ram.
Because of Sonys twisted hardware construction the Ps3 is only theoretically faster.. but the most parts are a bit weaker than the Xbox -counterparts. The only thing you can do is to use the full CELL capacity for the texturestreaming to compensate the low amount of ram.. but that doesnt solve the problem with the rather weak GPU. So with the CELL used to 100% for calculating physics AND streaming textures... the weak GPU and the low amount of ram show the ugly truth. So the Ps3s potential doesnt get overlooked by the devs...they use it the best they can, but with examples like Crysis remastered the console is brought down to its knees even with a hell lot of optimization.

So why do PS3 exclusives do look "better"?
They "seem" to look better because they are build ( and with that i mean draw distance toghether with leveldesign and levelstructure etc.)
with the PS3s limitations in mind. Its easier to make rather small areas or rooms look really good and detailed (but with nothing else to calculate like physics or animations) than a landscape with millions of foliage textures and shadows that interact physically correct.

"..considering the ps3 is 1 year newer tech."

The GPU is actually weaker than the one from the 360 and the Ps3 has overall less ram.
Because of Sonys twisted hardware construction the Ps3 is only theoretically faster.. but the most parts are a bit weaker than the Xbox -counterparts. The only thing you can do is to use the full CELL capacity for the texturestreaming to compensate the low amount of ram.. but that doesnt solve the problem with the rather weak GPU. So with the CELL used to 100% for calculating physics AND streaming textures... the weak GPU and the low amount of ram show the ugly truth. So the Ps3s potential doesnt get overlooked by the devs...they use it the best they can, but with examples like Crysis remastered the console is brought down to its knees even with a hell lot of optimization.

So why do PS3 exclusives do look "better"?
They "seem" to look better because they are build ( and with that i mean draw distance toghether with leveldesign and levelstructure etc.)
with the PS3s limitations in mind. Its easier to make rather small areas or rooms look really good and detailed (but with nothing else to calculate like physics or animations) than a landscape with millions of foliage textures and shadows that interact physically correct.

I don't doubt you are right, butl if its easier then why can't the xbox "seem" to look just as good.

I guess its a lesson learned for Sony, not to aim to make a machine thats 1% better than the competition when you have a years first look at what the competition is. Why they wouldn't they have thrown in a gig of ram instead of the 2 x 256 to give it a clear advantage

"Why they wouldn't they have thrown in a gig of ram instead of the 2 x 256 to give it a clear advantage."

If you look at the prices on the worldwide market for rammodules then you will get a clue.
Its unstable as hell. The productioncosts for the console would also differ so much in a very short period of time. Also bigger ram would increase the costs and with the ups and downs for ram on the market it would be hard to calculate a controlled price.

Both consoles have 512mb RAM.

Sorry Mickey but the Ps3 has only 256 Mb

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1683/4

either way, sony dropped the ball by not building a well rounded rig for its gamers, the RAM and GPU are both gimped bigtime. A powerful cpu is great, but not when its dragging dead weight.

its the story of this generation of consoles, PS3 getting jipped on multi platform titles.

Oh well, we get Uncharted 3 in a few weeks

Yeah for most multi-platform games the PS3 does get the short end of the stick. I mean most developers do confirm that the PS3 is "harder" or to quote Naughty Dog "Just different" to design for. But as for exclusive titles the PS3 most certainly has the upper hand. I mean the XBox 360 is made just like a PC, it runs off of 1 tri-core processor whereas PS3 is very different with 1 PPE and 8 SPE's (1 for redundancy). So even though PS3 is the stronger system, game design is HUGE when it comes to multi-platform games

As for the console version of Crysis 1 the 360 definitely has the better frame rate as you can see in the videos in the OP but as for textures and AA it's just the opposite. http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-crysis-screenshot-comparison/

"I mean the XBox 360 is made just like a PC"

Whoa... that is not correct as you said it.
In fact consoles are all PowerPC -structured and nowhere near the hardwarestructure of a PC.
The only difference between PS3 and 360 would be (as you mentioned it correctly ) the structure of the CPU.
Naughty Dog`s quote made me lough though. They can easily say something like that because theyve only produced PS3 exclusives for the last years. I think the idea behind the CELL was to put the main calculating all on the CPU site so the developers can compensate thea weak memory and GPU. But games like Crysis with massive physics calculation huge textures, particles and KI even the CELLS threads are used to max (though it isnt such a strong CPU compared to high end Quadcores on PC). I said it many times before... you have to build the game with the hardwarearchitecture in mind to get the best results out of the PS3. But to be fair: a Uncharted or Killzone isnt anywhere near the technical complexity of Crysis 1.

Has anyone seen actual Uncharted 3 footage? Looking amazing for a console!

Sorry Mickey but the Ps3 has only 256 Mb

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1683/4

WOW Sorry but you have this completely backwards sir. The PS3 is superior in every aspect to the XBox 360 except in wireless internet connection(and DVD read speed, but who cares?!). Where the 360 has up to n wireless connection and the PS3 only g. And that whole "theoretical" thing you're talking about, you're TOTALLY BACKWARDS. The 360's GPU is THEORETICALLY (THEORETICALLY much faster might I add) faster than the PS3's because of it's 10MB of eDRAM. But in general usage of the GPU's (which is 90%+ of the time) the PS3 is faster putting out higher performance and running at 550MHz(been known to reach 700MHz) as compared to the 360's 500MHz. If you look at the numbers on paper one might say "geez the 360's GPU can theoretically be almost 10x faster with it's eDRAM!", but that person would indeed be an idiot. Something that most people don't know or simply choose not to mention is that the "THEORETICAL" performance can only be had when running on a SD (standard definition) tv. The reason why being 10 tiny MB of eDRAM (although fast) is wayyy too little. 10MB of eDRAM can't even store 1 720p image. For this reason many 360 games (entire Halo series on 360, PGR3, PGR4 and MANY more) only run at 640p. Which is not even HD anymore it is ED (enhanced definition)(lol E 8=D). There is a way around this though with a process called "TILING". Tiling breaks the image into individual parts for processing and then reassembles them for display. BUT tiling takes time and much much CPU usage which would negate this whole so called "THEORETICAL" advantage.

Another thing you got completely wrong was the amount of RAM. The PS3 has 256mb of DEDICATED vRAM and 256mb of RAM SHARED as apposed to XBox 360 having 512mb vRAM SHARED throughout the whole system through a UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE. So the 360 doesn't even have ANY dedicated vRAM. Not sure if you got your information from fanboy sites or what happened there but researching and not jumping to conclusions would be appreciated.

So to sum this up the XBox 360 has 1 tri-core processor running at 3.2Ghz, maximum wireless internet capability of n, ATI GPU with 512mb vRAM running at 500Mhz with unified memory architecture , when sharing RAM from GPU acts the same as 700Mhz of DDR, and uses up to dual layer DVD-ROM. XBox 360 has an overall system floating point performance of 1 TFLOP. The PS3 has 1 PPE running at 3.2Ghz, 8 SPE's running at 3.2Ghz each (1 for redundancy), nVidia GPU with dedicated 256mb vRAM running at 550Mhz, 256mb XDR RAM at 3.2Ghz, when sharing memory from GPU the vRAM acts the same as 700Mhz of DDR, and uses up to dual layer BD-ROM. Playstation 3 has an overall system floating point performance of 2 TFLOPS.

Other notes, the XBox 360 has a slightly faster DVD read speed(12x as apposed to PS3 8x), a 1mb cache when the PS3 has 512k cache, and the PS3 has the additions of Bluetooth, Blueray(already mentioned), and DTS HD 7.1 audio where as the 360 has 5.1 non HD audio. Another thing is that the PS3 has many games (basically all first party games and many non first party) that run at 1080p where the XBox 360 can only run it's desktop in 1080p and MAXES it's games out at 720p.

Everything stated above IS FACT and in noway fanboy twisted. Go check the numbers if you want, they're all correct and the information precise. To put this in a little bit different of a perspective the Nintendo Wii U is projected to be about 50% more powerful than the PS3 and at least 80% more powerful than the XBox 360.

Didn't mean to rant and nothing against you at all, just that your postS were completely false and were reeking fanboy stench.

Sorry Mickey but the Ps3 has only 256 Mb

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1683/4
Total RAM in both consoles is the same. The PS3 just has 256mb dedicated vRAM and 256mb system RAM. The Xbox doesn't make the distinction.

@ Chomp

My infos are from wikipedia and from the site i quoted earlier -) Nvidia press conference about the rsx.
I used the term "ram" for the amount of memory available for the CPU. The GPU ram is on another paper.
And so im right by saying "The PS3 has 256MB of Rambus XDR DRAM, clocked at CPU die speed.
Also im more than dispassionate about the whole consolewar going on. I own every platform and i can easily say "the PC is KING".
Comparing consolehardware is like a comparison between bad vs. worse for me.
What bothers me the most is when consolefanboys try to compare console hardware with high end PC hardware when they dont even know the difference between normal desktop PC-hardware structures and powerpc structures.

Definitely not in an argument there about PC being the most superior as I too am a multi-platform owner. But using the term "RAM" in that way is incorrect and makes no sense. Especially when one could say the 360 has 0 dedicated vRAM. Also you do realize that Wikipedia is not an official source but edited by anyone. I mean you could go on Wikipedia right now and say that the Nintendo Wii is capable of grilling burgers as well as having 2GB of vRAM.....

I dont think wikipedia is manipulated that much and full with false info.
You can check the sources of every given info , especially for the technical details of hardwareparts or consoles.
And as im not an hardwaredeveloper or a gamedeveloper or a computer scientist i use RAM the way im used to as a PC-user.
And i always use RAM for the "rammodules" just because of the fact that i cant manipulate the GPU Vram by upgrading. Maybe its not perfectly adequate for powerpcstructures but its not totally incomprehensible to realize what i mean.

Hey I'm not saying Wikipedia is manipulated with a lot of false info. Just that it's not official in any regard, that's all. :/

But a good example of console strength is looking into exclusives. A perfect example of this is Mass Effect 2(or Ninja Gaiden 2 an even better example). Mass Effect 2 on release was a XBox 360 exclusive but then later released on the PS3. In which the PS3 plays an original XBox 360 exclusive better(visuals and performance) than the 360 does. Vs Final Fantasy 13 which was a PS3 exclusive which was later released on 360 in which it looks noticeably worse on 360.

Not to be knocking on the 360 at all though, that's just the way it is. I mean the 360 does play a lot of third party games better (at least most early ones). A good example of that would be Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare.

Another Wii U vs perspective (on gpu clock speed). http://geekti.me/wp/2011/04/wii-2-is-80-more-powerful-than-360/