After crysis 2, is it possible for the 360 to run uncharted and killzone?

Gears 3 is living proof that the 360 could run uncharted and killzone. Hell it's proof that it surpasses them both as well.

Espada12

Of course yes. It just requires 3-4 discd for KZ 3, though.

People just overrated the PS3 hardware, for a console it's the best, but in reality it sucks, the GPU and RAM hold it back, I would even say the Cell isn't that great either. Because of this, 360 is pretty similar to the PS3 while doing worse than it in some areas, just it lacks devs that push the system.

mitu123

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

[QUOTE="bryn8150"][QUOTE="Zoza24"]

Meh, the Coding thats been done in Uncharted 2 is totally Different than fromCrysis 2..

Besides!, Crysis 2 is Sub HD, While Uncharted 2 runs 720p, Yeah go Figure..

People should reconsider their story if Uncharted can run on the 360 or not, Since Uncharted 2 is a pretty Heavy based SPU game, I wouldnt expect Xbox 360 to pull off something like that..

It suprises me the mentallity the most people have, Once there is a Multiplat game that looks great and awesome, it now suddently means that Xbox 360 and PS3 are strong alike? :/

God!, stay away from gamedevelopment if you do not have the knowledge to know how coding works, and especially in a Game Engine like CryEngine 3 that works totally different from the Game Engine's thats been exlusively made for Ps3 games.

Its all about the possibillities of its game engine thats using the hardware properly with orwithout any sacrifices..

Steppy_76

SPU is based on PowerPC's VMX/AltiVechttp://www.research.ibm.com/cell/SPU.html

It has always been possible imo.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

People just overrated the PS3 hardware, for a console it's the best, but in reality it sucks, the GPU and RAM hold it back, I would even say the Cell isn't that great either. Because of this, 360 is pretty similar to the PS3 while doing worse than it in some areas, just it lacks devs that push the system.

sethman410

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

Having 7 VMX like units(i.e. SPU) with 128 register storage for each SPU is not generation a head.

SPU is not architecturally advance like the ones in AMD Radeon HD/NVIDIA Geforce CUDA GpGPU i.e. multi-thousands register storage e.g. AMD Radeon HD 48x0 has 2.5 megabytes worth register storage. Register storage is fastest known data storage tech.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

People just overrated the PS3 hardware, for a console it's the best, but in reality it sucks, the GPU and RAM hold it back, I would even say the Cell isn't that great either. Because of this, 360 is pretty similar to the PS3 while doing worse than it in some areas, just it lacks devs that push the system.

sethman410

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

People just overrated the PS3 hardware, for a console it's the best, but in reality it sucks, the GPU and RAM hold it back, I would even say the Cell isn't that great either. Because of this, 360 is pretty similar to the PS3 while doing worse than it in some areas, just it lacks devs that push the system.

delta3074

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

People just overrated the PS3 hardware, for a console it's the best, but in reality it sucks, the GPU and RAM hold it back, I would even say the Cell isn't that great either. Because of this, 360 is pretty similar to the PS3 while doing worse than it in some areas, just it lacks devs that push the system.

delta3074

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="sethman410"]

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

sethman410

"NVIDIA Tesla GPUs Power New IBM Servers", http://www.nvidia.com/object/io-1274193529581.html

Sega's RingEdge arcade gaming machines uses NVIDIA's Geforce 8800 GS.

------------------------------------------------

On Xbox 360 vs PS3, David Shippy's statement factors in "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360". http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3

"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores… it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

PS; AMD Xenos(Xbox 360 GpGPU) has 64 threads which covers it's 48 stream processors.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="delta3074"]yeah, the cell is so great that IBM have cancelled all research into cell technology in favour of CPU/GPU hybrids and SONY are using there cell manufacturing plant to produce semiconductors for cameras and phones, you just spouted a ton of BS, there will be NO UPGRADED CELL chips, the Cell is done mate IBM cancels cell research and developement http://n4g.com/news/431744/ibm-cancels-cell-processor-developmentronvalencia

"NVIDIA Tesla GPUs Power New IBM Servers", http://www.nvidia.com/object/io-1274193529581.html

Sega's RingEdge arcade gaming machines uses NVIDIA's Geforce 8800 GS.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="sethman410"]lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.sethman410

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

People just overrated the PS3 hardware, for a console it's the best, but in reality it sucks, the GPU and RAM hold it back, I would even say the Cell isn't that great either. Because of this, 360 is pretty similar to the PS3 while doing worse than it in some areas, just it lacks devs that push the system.

sethman410

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

[QUOTE="sethman410"][QUOTE="delta3074"]yeah, the cell is so great that IBM have cancelled all research into cell technology in favour of CPU/GPU hybrids and SONY are using there cell manufacturing plant to produce semiconductors for cameras and phones, you just spouted a ton of BS, there will be NO UPGRADED CELL chips, the Cell is done mate IBM cancels cell research and developement http://n4g.com/news/431744/ibm-cancels-cell-processor-developmentdelta3074

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="sethman410"] Well thanks for somewhat proving me wrong, but cancelling does not prove anything though.sethman410

"NVIDIA Tesla GPUs Power New IBM Servers", http://www.nvidia.com/object/io-1274193529581.html

Sega's RingEdge arcade gaming machines uses NVIDIA's Geforce 8800 GS.

David Shippy's states both consoles are about the same level. It looks like the PowerPC team has looked at ATI's handywork...

Sony(SCEA)'sstudypaper on "Deferred Pixel Shading on the Playstation 3" and comparative performance to Geforce 7800 GTX. Can be found from http://research.scea.com/ps3_deferred_shading.pdf

Quote

D. Comparison to GeForce 7800 GTX GPU

We implemented the same algorithm on a high end state of
the art GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX running in a
Linux workstation. This GPU has 24 fragment shader
pipelines running at 430 Mhz and processes 24 fragments
in parallel. By comparison the 5 SPEs that we used process
20 pixels in parallel in quad-SIMD form.

The GeForce required 11.1 ms to complete the shading
operation. In comparison the Cell/B.E. required 11.65 ms
including the DMA waiting time

From Sony's own words, 5 SPEs(with DMA) is roughly equal to Geforce 7800 GTX.

From DX9 era GPU, Sony didn't compare against AMD's Radeon X1900 i.e.full speed 32bit FP performance.

It's too bad Sony did not pick "off-the-self" Radeon X1900 i.e. it will give ATI powered PS3 withtwo Fold @ Home capable processors i.e. enough to rival the Geforce 8800. It reduces the need for CELL topatchthe GPU. AMD's "Close-to-Metal" CTM middleware for Radeon X1900 exposes it's beyond DX9c compute features.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="sethman410"] Well thanks for somewhat proving me wrong, but cancelling does not prove anything though.mitu123

As a command processor, the answer is yes, but not in raw FLOPs i.e. this is why a gaming PC has GpGPU i.e. math-processor array device. The gaming PC follows Xbox 360's compute model.

The gaming PC has the extreme ends of both command processor (wide Out-Of-order CPU) and math-array processor (GpGPU).

AMD Bulldozer 4 module(8 logical cores) has 8 128bit wide FMA (4 operand format) i.e. it can easily match CELL's 8 VMX kitbash (3 operand format).

As an integrated gaming device, AMD Llano with +400 stream processor would be the better choice i.e. hybrid Crossfire with another 400 stream processor Radeon HD.

No, it isn't possible. Unless of course they have to nerf the game in some way - but then of course if we were going that route, any game could be run on just about any console - so what's the point?KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="sethman410"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

People just overrated the PS3 hardware, for a console it's the best, but in reality it sucks, the GPU and RAM hold it back, I would even say the Cell isn't that great either. Because of this, 360 is pretty similar to the PS3 while doing worse than it in some areas, just it lacks devs that push the system.

mitu123

lolwut. You would think that because it hasn't been proved to be great YET. Wanna know why? Because it's being bottlenecked. Most ps3 games are probably only using 20% or less of the cell. The cell is like generations ahead. Hell, Sony says they're going to use 7 of those same cells in ps4, not exact same cells but same fundamentals.

CELL is nearly a perfect match for the old school Geforce7/RSX GPU i.e. patches/fixes RSX's design flaws.

A better designed GPU requires less patching/fixing. From the mid-2000s, the market only has two powerfull GPU vendors i.e. ATI or NVIDIA.It looks like this trend will continue.

no, 360 just doesnt have the capable processing power like ps3's cpu.

It has always been possible.

jimmypsn

Lol no since Crysis isn't the best looking game on consoles, not to mention the performance issues.

Of course yes. It just requires 3-4 discd for KZ 3, though.

Zensword

Nope Killzone and Uncharted are actually 720p.

Gears 3 is living proof that the 360 could run uncharted and killzone. Hell it's proof that it surpasses them both as well.

Espada12

It will work with some changes.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Gears 3 is living proof that the 360 could run uncharted and killzone. Hell it's proof that it surpasses them both as well.

JasonDarksavior

thats why i bookmark threads like this...so i can comeback to it and read what everyone thought of a game months before it came out....and then compare it to what actually happened

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Gears 3 is living proof that the 360 could run uncharted and killzone. Hell it's proof that it surpasses them both as well.

JasonDarksavior

Crysis 2 looks worse than KZ3, is sub-hd, and has fps and screen tearing issues. But lems won't have anything better until Gears 3.

[QUOTE="JuarN18"][QUOTE="xMinijackx"] lol you blind?beganoo

I just finished Crysis 2 on my 360 and I own a PS3 so I've played Uncharted 2 and KZ3.

Crysis 2 is close enough but it doesn't look as good as those games.

[QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

It has always been possible.

ZoomZoom2490

According to the LOT analysis, it runs (averagely) 1fps lower than Killzone 3.

I would'nt call Crysis 2 "thew best looking game on consoles" to be honest.... Sure it does some things amazingly compared to what else we get but not without a prize. Looking at fx Killzone 3 I can't help but think that Crytek wanted the bar set higher in certain aspects but did'nt exactly have as much of a feel for console architecture as Guerilla does.

Crysis 2 certainly has moments where it blows every other console game out of the water but there are also certain gfx/performance letdowns that you just don't see in KZ3 to the same degree.

Ultimately, I'm disapointed that the PC version suffered hugely from going multiplat while Crytek still set the bar a little higher than they should have and ended up with something that does'nt undeniably ascend any thrones and does'nt exactly perform great either.

According to the LOT analysis, it runs (averagely) 1fps lower than Killzone 3.

DreamCryotank

unfortunately, that's just an average score. Not unlike comparing a dual GPU setup with a slightly slower single GPU, fluctuations as well as when the fps drop are imortant as well.

I would'nt call Crysis 2 "thew best looking game on consoles" to be honest.... Sure it does some things amazingly compared to what else we get but not without a prize. Looking at fx Killzone 3 I can't help but think that Crytek wanted the bar set higher in certain aspects but did'nt exactly have as much of a feel for console architecture as Guerilla does.

Crysis 2 certainly has moments where it blows every other console game out of the water but there are also certain gfx/performance letdowns that you just don't see in KZ3 to the same degree.

Ultimately, I'm disapointed that the PC version suffered hugely from going multiplat while Crytek still set the bar a little higher than they should have and ended up with something that does'nt undeniably ascend any thrones and does'nt exactly perform great either.

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

According to the LOT analysis, it runs (averagely) 1fps lower than Killzone 3.

Filthybastrd

unfortunately, that's just an average score. Not unlike comparing a dual GPU setup with a slightly slower single GPU, fluctuations as well as when the fps drop are imortant as well.

Fluctuations figure into the average.

If there are a lot of them, it'll drag down the overall count by a lot.

[QUOTE="JasonDarksavior"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Gears 3 is living proof that the 360 could run uncharted and killzone. Hell it's proof that it surpasses them both as well.

TheAcountantMan

I still think UC2 is the best looking game on consoles.

But I'm sure it would be possible to bring them to the 360. Just need some talented devs.

[QUOTE="xMinijackx"][QUOTE="campzor"]well crysis 2 doesnt look as good as those games... so i doubt it.AncientDozer

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"][QUOTE="xMinijackx"] lol you blind?campzor

360 can easilly run anything

I wonder if PS3 could run Alan Wake 1-2, Codename Kingdoms, Fable 4, Crysis 2 crisp looking and Gears 3 though

First off Crysis 2 is NOT the best looking console game, but one of the best that the 360 has to offer, after renting it on the 360 I can safely say that . So how can some of the best looking games this gen run on the 360 which has been behind in terms of the best overall graphics a console can output for a few years now , they can't . The last game that I had in my 360 that I could truthfully say was the best looking game this gen was gears 1 and how many years ago was that. The thing with Crysis 2 is that there are flaws like pop-in, ALOT of awful looking textures, bad dips in fps and other glitches in this game that hold it back. There are a FEW great looking moments in this game that are CLOSE to the best but as a whole it's way too inconsistent. I truly feel that if you own a ps3 and a 360 and then tried Crysis 2 for 360 then play Killzone 3 , God of War , or Uncharted 2 that you would understand (I know some will still claim otherwise and that's fine), but for the ones that only own a 360 and haven't played those games and make the claim that it is the best looking game or bash the other games without trying them is very biased and how can you respect an opinon like that. Killzoned please don't ask that ridiculous question again about Alan Wake lol, it's a good looking game for sure but it not in the same league as Killzone, Uncharted and even Crysis for that matter. The fact that you even ask in the first place and after reading some of your posts makes me discredit your opinon instantly .xxtg82xx

I have both systems and have played all of the games you mention and Crysis 2 looks better then Killzone 3 and is far more impressive. It is more wide open with more destructible environments and with an unbelievable lighting system. Killzone 3 performs more stable because it simply is not doing the the things done in Crysis 2 and not on the same scale anyway. People need to accept and let go of the fact Crysis 2 is proof the 360 can produce the same/ even possibly better level of graphics than the PS3. The PS3 just has better developers that build custom engines and take time to show what it can do. The only thing the 360 lacks in comparison to PS3 is development talent not graphical power.

360 can easilly run anything

I wonder if PS3 could run Alan Wake 1-2, Codename Kingdoms, Fable 4, Crysis 2 crisp looking and Gears 3 though

killzoneded

Yes the lighting in Crysis is some of the best I have seen. The environments are not as vast as you claim it's fairly straight forward go from here to there with some different ways of approaching a situation . For your claim that people need to accept that the 360 can do just as good if not better than the ps3, I don't. As I said this is the closest the 360 has been to claiming the best in console graphics in how many years and again the game doesn't quite cut it. I don't care if the lighting is as good as it is if there are low res textures everywhere and pop-in and very low dips in fps. Have you seen all the stuff going on in Killzone 3 ? It's like a non-stop action movie. The single player looks better as a overall package and the multiplayer , well thats not even debatable. Do you not think that the developers could have added in some extra eye candy with Killzone if they made those types of sacrifices ? sure they could have, and Killzone still looks better without those sacrifices. It's pretty sad that one game in the last 3 -4 years that can compete but still falls short of the ps3 exclusives, I really wanted to be amazed when I rented it for my 360 for all the good things said about it, as I wanted a 360 game that could compete graphically with the exclusives in my ps3 collection, and while it is the closest it's been in a LONG time I came away disappointed again. xxtg82xx

Yes I have played and beaten Killzone 3 and it is not as impressive as Crysis 2...IMO...just like it is your opinion Killzone 3 is better. For years the 360 has gotten better looking multiplats including Crysis 2 which even Playstation magazines have stated is the best looking shooter on PS3. Take Mass Effect 2, the PS3 version came how much later and uses a newer engine and is still only marginally better looking than the 360 version. I am sure if Naughty Dog went multiplat and worked on the 360 they could amaze us just as much with the 360. So again I stand by my statement that when compared to the PS3 the only thing the 360 is lacking is development talent not graphical power.

The 360 could never in a million years run uncharted or killzone, they are owned by sony :P. The 360 could of course run something that looks almost the same, minus the way the graphics are rendered. Of course we will never know because MS doesnt care about maxing graphics, only selling the popular franchises.