Posted on December 12, 2007,

Video Comparison of Portal on PS3 and 360

The above video will provide you with a side-by-side look at both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of Portal, just as you can see the difference between the two versions of Half-Life 2 here. (Hit that link if you don’t know what caused all this hubbub in the first place.)

Unlike Half-Life, Portal seems to be running perfectly smooth and looks visually identical to the 360 version. The only noticeable difference you’ll find in watching the video above is that the PS3 version of Portal apparently takes 7-10 seconds longer to load than the 360 version. Definitely annoying, but also most definitely not a game breaker when you’re playing a good game.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

18 Comments on Video Comparison of Portal on PS3 and 360

VATO

On December 12, 2007 at 10:08 pm

u can see clearly tha ps3 own hire :lol:

Kareem

On December 12, 2007 at 10:16 pm

A few seconds longer? I think its most noticeable when you die and the level has to reload. The PS3 appears to reloading the entire level again instead of doing a quick load.

SN

On December 12, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Did anyone notice the reflections on the 360 look better (lighting). The first scene with the silver squares with the X design is where I noticed superior lighting on the 360.

Those load times were not great on either system but near unacceptable for a “more powerful system” that is guaranteed to have a hdd in it. Poor PS3 can’t catch a break.

plko

On December 12, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Its simply a case of less development time and resources given to the PS3 version. It should in thoery load faster on PS3 really since there is a HDD and Blu Ray. Both are quicker than DVD.

Steve

On December 13, 2007 at 1:14 am

@plko:

Not necessarily true. Blu-Ray holds more data, no argument. To assume because it holds more data means it can read faster is a fallacy. Read speed has more to do with rotational speed and how much data is packed per rotation. The 360 obviously spins faster, but Blu-Ray packs more data per sector.

Quickly glancing at PS3 specs, it looks like the read speed of the PS3 is around 8.78MB/s. This is less than the 360′s supposid 12x DVD speed. In fact, towards the outer edge of the DVD, the 360 doubles Blu-Ray’s 2x at around 16MB/sec (DVD employs CAV vs. Blu-Ray being CLV).

Let’s also not forget that even if you could theoretically transfer a large chunk of data from a storage device, you still have the task of putting it into memory as fast as possible so your CPU/GPU can operate on it (which is the case with games). I like using my sucking soda through a staw analogy. The PS3 is using a smaller straw than the 360, even though its got a bigger cup.

Norbit

On December 13, 2007 at 1:46 am

Steve you don’t have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. The PS3 can cache data to the hard drive which means it has more memory free at any given time than the 360 because the 360 has to keep all current game info sitting in the RAM. The idea that the 360 has a memory advantage is 360 fanboy pseudoscience bull that comes from people looking at hardware specs but not having a clue how its actually used. The PS3 is a more powerful games console, just accept it. You are going to look very very stupid over the next year or 2 if you don’t.

Steve

On December 13, 2007 at 2:44 am

@Norbit:

The argument was optical drives, not hard drives. Get with the program.

When you actually come up with an intelligent argument, come back and we’ll listen. For now, learn some manners because you’re acting like an 8 year old.

The Man

On December 13, 2007 at 2:51 am

Norbit is mad cause his love is being exposed for what it is. Haha.

Kanadwen

On December 13, 2007 at 7:18 am

Wow Norbit…that was one stupid reply. Think before you speak? Type? Talk? Doin’ the jig!? =)

erathoniel

On December 13, 2007 at 8:27 am

See, no conspiracy!

Xboxlenny

On December 13, 2007 at 9:39 am

Again another Xbox 360 game looking better over its PS3 counterpart. Whats new? Xbox 360 mostly wins anyhow, probaly because of being a port to ps3, i dont know the true reason, nor do i care. Both look good to me.

Nickky

On December 13, 2007 at 10:09 am

Actually Steve, It doesn’t matter how much data that you cache to the PS3′s hdd, it still only has 256mb’s of ram for system and 256 for Graphics, that can’t change, and many games on the 360 do utilize disk cacheing if there is a hdd present so you point is moot. If disk caching was a relevent argument in the first place than the PS3 version of the game should look play better and have faster load times. Get a life and stop whining.
P.S.
even if in two years time the PS3 looks better than the 360, it won’t really matter for the simple fact that, even though the Xbox1 was at least 3x more powerful than the PS2 and the graphics in almost anygame looked better on the xbox it still undersold the PS2, Graphics do not a good game make. GAMEPLAY, GAMEPLAY GAMEPLAY. Drakes is the best the PS3 has and it is kind of boring and tedious, though, it was well written.

xenogear1

On December 13, 2007 at 10:13 am

Norbit!? What kind of stupid name is that? If it is after one of the worst movies of all time, I can’t imagine that it isn’t, than I don’t know if I can take anything you say seriously. I feel embarrased for you :oops:
what a stupid name.

SN

On December 13, 2007 at 11:41 am

Steve, thank you for educating some of the posters in regard to disc capacity vs data transfer rate (read speed). I wanted to reply with the same info last night but I was way too tired to put finger to keyboard.

Regards,

SN

TommyBoy

On December 13, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I wish they wouldn’t do these vids all they do is spark argument, plus so many of them pick inferior ports from the 360 to the PS3 for comparison…

TommyBoy

On December 13, 2007 at 12:34 pm

P.S. RAM for a console dosnt need to be all that big as long as its fast, and the PS3 is much much faster btw.

Gary Ablett

On December 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm

I love the look at games in 2 or 3 years comments, I buy a console to play games now not so I can say one machine is better than the other, guess we will have to wait 2 years for the results anyway. In the meantime Ill be playing my 360 while my PS3 gathers more and more dust. For all the fanboy comments yes I am a fanboy, a game fanboy not console fanboy like 95% of you

Averre

On December 13, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Norbit calling anybody a fanboy is the pot calling the kettle black…he doesn’t even own a PS3 yet every time it’s mentioned he’s there throwing in his two cents that is nothing but flat out bull****.

Gary has the right idea, a system is only as good as the games that are out for it…i have all three systems and looking back on my purchases this year i would’ve much rather held off on buying my PS3.