Consoles are not even close to graphics king.

  • 115 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for calvinsora
calvinsora

7076

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 59

User Lists: 0

#101 calvinsora
Member since 2009 • 7076 Posts

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="marcogamer07"]

Well hey, if you can tell how a game looks just by watching videos on Youtube without actually playing it, then good for you. More power to you. But people's definitions of best graphics...I wouldn't necessarily say they are all right or wrong, but rather opinionated. You say that good graphics depend on the art style and overall presentation, where as another guy will refer to the game's technical abilities. No one's definition is right or wrong, I'm just saying that you can't really judge how a game looks without being there and playing it. But then again, that's my opinion.

marcogamer07

Sorry, I might have worded it incorrectly. I don't mean that people can't prefer the technology aspect of graphics, I was more talking about the fact that some think it's the ONLY definition. Of course, I will eventually try the game out, but I wasn't really targeting Crysis in particular. I merely used it as an example, I could've gone with any other game with high levels of graphics. For instance, I think Super Mario Galaxy 2 has better graphics than Red Dead Redemption, and those are games I both own and love. RDR is by far technically superior, but I like SMG2's styIe far more.

Then that's good if you feel that way. My point is there will possibly be an Xbox 360/PS3 fanboy any minute in this thread that's gonna come in and rip your comment apart. :P

Oh, I've been ready for a long time :lol: Sometimes I feel ashamed that I'm a fan of PS3 with the elitists walking around in its fandom.

Avatar image for Lionheart08
Lionheart08

15814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#102 Lionheart08
Member since 2005 • 15814 Posts

Who the hell said they were? Damn, you PC players are insecure.

XboximusPrime

As much as the PS3 vs 360 graphic threads annoy me, frankly PC fanboys are no better when it comes to it. It seems like every other day there's a new thread dedicated to how PC is just superior to consoles in every possible way. :P

Avatar image for calvinsora
calvinsora

7076

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 59

User Lists: 0

#103 calvinsora
Member since 2009 • 7076 Posts

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

Who the hell said they were? Damn, you PC players are insecure.

Lionheart08

As much as the PS3 vs 360 graphic threads annoy me, frankly PC fanboys are no better when it comes to it. It seems like every other day there's a new thread dedicated to how PC is just superior to consoles in every possible way. :P

Basically, fanboys are all equally infuriating on all sides. They all live in a world where gaming is about arguing, not fun. Weird, I must say.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#104 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="hexashadow13"]

So saying that most PC gamers have better rigs then consoles would be wrong.

Well that is hard to tell, steam isnt everyone, and they list a good 12 million i think more powerful than console(can remember exact numbers when i calculated). But i put the "other catagory" as not more powerful and that may contain super powerful cards along with crappy ones.

Also depends on definisiton of PC gamer, because if you include cheap home computer used to play farmville then no most PC gamers dont have computers more powerful than a conosle

but being more powerful doesn't mean it has better graphics

it all comes down to optimization

Look there's no way in hell that a 7800gt should be able to run Uncharted 2 (even at 720p)

but there comes the magic optimization.

For today's raster workloads, the RSX/Geforce 7 is an aging GPU. From http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=57736&page=5 ------------------------ "I could go on for pages listing the types of things the spu's are used for to make up for the machines aging gpu, which may be 7 series NVidia but that's basically a tweaked 6 series NVidia for the most part. But I'll just type a few off the top of my head:" 1) Two ppu/vmx units There are three ppu/vmx units on the 360, and just one on the PS3. So any load on the 360's remaining two ppu/vmx units must be moved to spu. 2) Vertex culling You can look back a few years at my first post talking about this, but it's common knowledge now that you need to move as much vertex load as possible to spu otherwise it won't keep pace with the 360. 3) Vertex texture sampling You can texture sample in vertex shaders on 360 just fine, but it's unusably slow on PS3. Most multi platform games simply won't use this feature on 360 to make keeping parity easier, but if a dev does make use of it then you will have no choice but to move all such functionality to spu. 4) Shader patching Changing variables in shader programs is cake on the 360. Not so on the PS3 because they are embedded into the shader programs. So you have to use spu's to patch your shader programs. 5) Branching You never want a lot of branching in general, but when you do really need it the 360 handles it fine, PS3 does not. If you are stuck needing branching in shaders then you will want to move all such functionality to spu. 6) Shader inputs You can pass plenty of inputs to shaders on 360, but do it on PS3 and your game will grind to a halt. You will want to move all such functionality to spu to minimize the amount of inputs needed on the shader programs. 7) MSAA alternatives Msaa runs full speed on 360 gpu needing just cpu tiling calculations. Msaa on PS3 gpu is very slow. You will want to move msaa to spu as soon as you can. Post processing 360 is unified architecture meaning post process steps can often be slotted into gpu idle time. This is not as easily doable on PS3, so you will want to move as much post process to spu as possible. 9) Load balancing 360 gpu load balances itself just fine since it's unified. If the load on a given frame shifts to heavy vertex or heavy pixel load then you don't care. Not so on PS3 where such load shifts will cause frame drops. You will want to shift as much load as possible to spu to minimize your peak load on the gpu. 10) Half floats You can use full floats just fine on the 360 gpu. On the PS3 gpu they cause performance slowdowns. If you really need/have to use shaders with many full floats then you will want to move such functionality over to the spu's. 11) Shader array indexing You can index into arrays in shaders on the 360 gpu no problem. You can't do that on PS3. If you absolutely need this functionality then you will have to either rework your shaders or move it all to spu. Etc, etc, etc...
Avatar image for marcogamer07
marcogamer07

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#105 marcogamer07
Member since 2008 • 1615 Posts

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

Who the hell said they were? Damn, you PC players are insecure.

Lionheart08

As much as the PS3 vs 360 graphic threads annoy me, frankly PC fanboys are no better when it comes to it. It seems like every other day there's a new thread dedicated to how PC is just superior to consoles in every possible way. :P

That's why they are called fanboys, rather than just PC gamers or PS3 owners or 360 owners. They'd rather argue with people and gloat about the product they own just because they own it, and refuse to accept the other platforms as valid gaming systems.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#106 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

but being more powerful doesn't mean it has better graphics

it all comes down to optimization

Look there's no way in hell that a 7800gt should be able to run Uncharted 2 (even at 720p)

but there comes the magic optimization.

hexashadow13

Wrong, a 7800GT would be able to to run UC 2 and at better graphical settings if they spend time coding the game to that hardware. Console optiminization also means alot of cutting and toning down quality in items, textures resolutions etc. If PS3 had a normal Geforce 7800 gpu with full specs(RSX is a gimped G70 chipset) and 512mb of video memory UC 2 would look alot better, UC 2 isnt all that great looking in all aspects.

But then it would only work that way on a Geforce 7800 and not other cards. And I highly doubt it could be ported in the first place without the PS3s SPUs. Most of the power for the best looking PS3 games comes from them. Not the GPU.

This is wrong i.e. refer to PS3's LinuxPPC+SPUs only setup.You only have 6 SPUs to play with.

Sony(SCEA)'s studypaper 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. RSX has slightly clocked higher than G70 i.e. near G71.

A real game will include texture fetch operations i.e. it will slow down RSX/G7X.

Avatar image for Hakkai007
Hakkai007

4905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107 Hakkai007
Member since 2005 • 4905 Posts

Sorry, I might have worded it incorrectly. I don't mean that people can't prefer the technology aspect of graphics, I was more talking about the fact that some think it's the ONLY definition. Of course, I will eventually try the game out, but I wasn't really targeting Crysis in particular. I merely used it as an example, I could've gone with any other game with high levels of graphics. For instance, I think Super Mario Galaxy 2 has better graphics than Red Dead Redemption, and those are games I both own and love. RDR is by far technically superior, but I like SMG2's styIe far more.

calvinsora

Some people forget how much a difference Resolution and AA+AF can make.

I was playing some of my last gen console games on PC earlier and some games had a little bit improvement while others were a lot better.

.

.

.

Since it seems mods don't mind me posting the pics as long as I provide proof of ownership I will post those first then the gameplay screenshots.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And the screenshots.

.

.

.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#108 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

Nice pics Hakkai007.

Avatar image for nunovlopes
nunovlopes

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 nunovlopes
Member since 2009 • 2638 Posts

[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

[QUOTE="hexashadow13"] According to steam, which doesn't represent the entire majority of PC gamers but should be good enough for comparison purposes, most PC gamers game at 1280 x 1024. Pretty low resolution considering how much PC gamers tout how they can have higher resolution. I also doubt that all of them have rigs that can play the newest games at max settings on resolutions higher then that.hexashadow13

Are there monitors with that native rez?

Not sure. I've only gamed at 1440x900 myself tbh.

1280x1024 low res?!? ROFL

1280x1024 is a higher resolution than 1440x900, it simply uses a 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 16:10. Nowadays there aren't many monitors with that native resolution because most people moved on to 16:10 monitors, but it still is a good resolution. It was particularly good when 15'' and 17'' monitors were common.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
jun_aka_pekto

25255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#110 jun_aka_pekto
Member since 2010 • 25255 Posts

[QUOTE="hexashadow13"][QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

Are there monitors with that native rez?

nunovlopes

Not sure. I've only gamed at 1440x900 myself tbh.

1280x1024 low res?!? ROFL

1280x1024 is a higher resolution than 1440x900, it simply uses a 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 16:10. Nowadays there aren't many monitors with that native resolution because most people moved on to 16:10 monitors, but it still is a good resolution. It was particularly good when 15'' and 17'' monitors were common.

Yup. The vertical res of 1024 is much better than 900. You see less left to right. But, the image quality is better. It is an oddball res since 1280x960 is 4:3. But, 1280x1024 was common with CRT and earlier LCD monitors.

Avatar image for Eltormo
Eltormo

990

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 Eltormo
Member since 2010 • 990 Posts

[QUOTE="hexashadow13"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Wrong, a 7800GT would be able to to run UC 2 and at better graphical settings if they spend time coding the game to that hardware. Console optiminization also means alot of cutting and toning down quality in items, textures resolutions etc. If PS3 had a normal Geforce 7800 gpu with full specs(RSX is a gimped G70 chipset) and 512mb of video memory UC 2 would look alot better, UC 2 isnt all that great looking in all aspects. ronvalencia

But then it would only work that way on a Geforce 7800 and not other cards. And I highly doubt it could be ported in the first place without the PS3s SPUs. Most of the power for the best looking PS3 games comes from them. Not the GPU.

This is wrong i.e. refer to PS3's LinuxPPC+SPUs only setup.You only have 6 SPUs to play with.

Sony(SCEA)'s studypaper 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. RSX has slightly clocked higher than G70 i.e. near G71.

A real game will include texture fetch operations i.e. it will slow down RSX/G7X.

IBM leaders discuss the future of gaming

GPUs vs Cell

Blogged under Cell by Barry Minor on Wednesday 30 November 2005 at 7:39 pm


Recently I came across a link on http://www.gpgpu.org that I found interesting. It described a method of ray-tracing quaternion Julia fractals using the floating point power in graphics processing units (GPUs). The author of the GPU code , Keenan Crane, stated that "This kind of algorithm is pretty much ideal for the GPU - extremely high arithmetic intensity and almost zero bandwidth usage". I thought it would be interesting to port this Nvidia CG code to the Cell processor, using the public SDK, and see how it performs given that it was ideal for a GPU. First we directly translated the CG code line for line to C + SPE intrinsics. All the CG code structures and data types were maintained. Then we wrote a CG framework to execute this shader for Cell that included a backend image compression and network delivery layer for the finished images. To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%. We reserved one SPE for the image compression and delivery task. Furthermore the way CG structures it SIMD computation is inefficient as it causes large percentages of the code to execute in scalar mode.This is due to the way they structure their vector data, AOS vs SOA. By converting this CG shader from AOS to SOA form, SIMD utilization was much higher which resulted in Cell out performing the Nvidia 7800 by a factor of 5 - 6x using only 7 SPEs for rendering. Given that the Nvidia 7800 GT is listed as having 313 GFLOPs of computational power and seven 3.2 GHz SPEs only have 179.2 GFLOPs this seems impossible but then again maybe we should start reading more white papers and less marketing hype.

This is a nice read on Cell and Raytracing and how Cell was able to out ran a 7800GT OC by 30% when Cell alone could only do 179.2 Gflops and the 7800gt OC can do 313 Gflops.

GameTomorrow
IBM leaders discuss the future of gaming

Beyond Polygons

Blogged under Uncategorized, Cell by Barry Minor on Tuesday 26 July 2005 at 10:45 pm


First let me introduce myself. My name is Barry Minor and I have been on the Cell processor project since the fall of 2000. Before Cell I developed 3D graphics processors for IBM and Diamond under the FireGL brand.

Cell has been a great project and from the beginning we have focused the architecture around graphics and video processing. Once we had the architecture locked down I started writing a real-time ray-caster for Cell optimized around height-maps. As the design of the renderer progressed it became very apparent that Cell was not just good but stellar at such tasks. We found that we could ray-cast 720P images (1280×720) of complex scenes at frame rates greater than 30 frames/sec with a single Cell processors (50x a G5 VMX processor) and double that rate with a two way SMP configuration. Cell has the potential to move a new clas of previously off-line rendering algorithms to real-time speeds thereby pushing us beyond polygon rasterization.

I think you will initially see hybrid approaches where backgrounds are rendered with ray-casting and foregrounds are rendered with GPU rasterized polygons but with the focus of people like Philipp Slusallek full blown real-time ray-tracing on Cell will be a reality.


This is the real difference Cell it was build for graphics and video processing.

Avatar image for Insecticidius
Insecticidius

265

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113 Insecticidius
Member since 2010 • 265 Posts
The 360 may be far away but the PS3 sure has games that can at least compete with the PC, even without those high end resolutions and AA rates the graphics of games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 are beast.
Avatar image for AmayaPapaya
AmayaPapaya

9029

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#114 AmayaPapaya
Member since 2008 • 9029 Posts

Wasn't it obvious?

And...

I hate it when people post pictures so big:|

Avatar image for Arach666
Arach666

23285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

#115 Arach666
Member since 2009 • 23285 Posts

Wasn't it obvious?

And...

I hate it when people post pictures so big:|

AmayaPapaya
I hate papayas myself. :o