funny..2 months ago they said the ps3 version was running better than the 360 version. Now they are saying both games are equal? :?lawlessx
Maybe they have discovered the hidden power of 360 :P
Crysis 2 dev: Both consoles are equal, but PS3 is 'lowest denominator'
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"][QUOTE="Orchid87"]
You might check the C2 beta videos then. Pop-up, screen tearing, excessive DOF, cartoonish unnatural animations, sterile MW2-esque environments, and don't forget that KZ3 has far better particle effects.
DOF is appropriately used, only when you're looking down the sights. The pop-up is only present at the beginning of the match, and, remember, it's alpha code. Based on the videos, the environment isn't sterile, concrete chips off walls, the dropship kicks up dirt, breakable glass, running water. Unless you think they should put tarp all over the place and have heavy 100 mile per hour winds constantly hitting the building to make it feel "alive". Crysis 2 has better lighting, employing dynamic global illumination, volumetric light beams and SSAO (which KZ2 did not have). The dynamic GI is not accurate and only a small amount of bounce is employed in the console version. It certainly did not put it on a huge advantage here. Speaking of lighting, the deferred lighting in kz2&3 are vastly better implemented, muzzle flash casts shadows, more dynamic light sources and better blooms. Killzone 3 has much better particle effect too, not only it has a lot more going on per frame, they are also affected by wind physics, colliding sparks and just tons more atmospheric effects such as snow flakes, debris, cinders and what not. Oh and MLAA > 0xaa. Global illumination:"light reflected by surfaces, and colored light transfers from one surface to another".[QUOTE="lawlessx"]funny..2 months ago they said the ps3 version was running better than the 360 version. Now they are saying both games are equal? :?PAL360
Maybe they have discovered the hidden power of 360 :P
They are not using ATI's tessellation hardware...Maybe it's because cows have evidence to back up the claim while on the other hand lemmings are too desperate in need of a messiah and they would hype it up no matter how different the truth appears to them. I mean just look at it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galgKO4tCog you honestly think that's the new console graphics king?[QUOTE="vaderhater"]This is how things work here....... See......... the cows could take a polished obvious turd of a game and raise it to the level of self imposed "graphics king" simply because they have greater numbers of them here. Its like a hive mind where all they have to do with their greater numbers is spam the topic to death.
gpuking
How are 2 or 3 PS3 games with no 360 version to compare with any kind of evidence?:| Evidence would be third party devs claims or great looking multiplats. Especially those with diferent teams developing for both platforms like Assassins Creed, RDR or Castlevania.
In theory, but you have design issues e.g RSX's pixel shader/math stall during texture fetch.So PS3 is more powerful, but being harder to develop for brings it down. Honestly, that is one sucky catch-22.
SPYDER0416
If FP32 Unit 1 is waiting for textures, the rest of the compute stack will stall. In modern GpGPUs, you have decoupled texture and shader/math design. For example for Radeon HDs 
From this interview:
http://www.gameblog.fr/blogs/eska/p_16980_mes-amis-les-devs-daniel-phillips
[QUOTE="Gameblog"]AKka:What was the Lead Console at the beginning of Crysis 2 dev ?
Daniel:At the start I believe it was the Xbox 360 that was used as the console benchmark. As of now though, we've switched to the PS3 as our "low end" benchmark. Not because it's inferior to the 360, but because it's just so much harder to develop on. It has very different specs compared to the 360.
---
AKka: Does the hardware difference between the 360 and the PS3 allow one of these version to look better?
Daniel:When I worked on A:CM I would have said yes to this question. During that project we found that the PS3 gave far better visuals than the 360. But having worked on Crysis 2, I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team. As it stands right now, the quality is near identical between the 360 and PS3 for Crysis 2 (and amazing)NotTarts
Lol, cows are picking parts of this interview and taking it out of context to fit their own cow needs. This is not hard cows. Please read slowly...
The key statement in that interview is this one:
"I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team." This is what I have been preaching here but it falls on deaf cow ears.
Then you hear this from the typical cow:
"Well what about UC2?GOW3? KZ2?"
First of all to me KZ2 was not that great looking. Too much blur and vaseline. Some Poor textures and some low poly structures in the environment. The game is overrated graphically and to me was a mess of a game because of the funky controls. GOW3 looks great but to me UC2 is the only ps3 game that impresses me graphically. But as others have already mentioned there are other games that are just as impressive graphically on the 360(Reach, RDR, Wake, etc...) and are doing FAR MORE things in their games than what is being done in UC2.
But anyway I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that because the quality is dependant on the programming team, cows cannot just say well UC2, KZ2, etc... Why? Because those are first party titles with development teams who were given the resources and time to throw their blood, sweat and tears into their game with graphics as a primary focus. I honestly believe that if you gathered the same teams (i.e. Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Guerilla, etc..) and they were given the same resources and the same length of time to complete their games as with the ps3, not only would the visuals be identical more or less but it would not shock me one bit if the same games looked slightly better than their ps3 counterparts.
Seriously, cows seem to be really hurting that it is coming out from respected developers that the 360 and ps3 are pretty equal in their capabilities. But that's what happens when you delude yourself into thinking that the ps3 is the second coming and then get hit with the truth.
As far as Crysis 2 vs. KZ3? I'll wait until both games are completed and I get to play them. Which reminds me... I'm too lazy to search for that post in here but some cow made the ridiculous claim that critics don't have good eyes and can't be taken seriously in response to someone saying that critics are already saying that Crysis 2 is already looking great and that Kz3 received no graphical accolades this past E3.
So if critics can't be taken seriously and don't have good eyes so then I guess I can't take them seriously when they were praising UC2 when it was released huh? Ya see how cows set themselves up and just make themselves look bad? You guys continue to spam and spit out nonsense only to serve your own cow needs and then act as though it is fact or the holy grail when in reality you guys make yourselves look bad when faced with the truth.
[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]Is that why crysis won FPS of the year over Bioshock and Halo 3?Sure if you're like Crytek and just throw as many shaders as you can at something in place of actual design or talent.
ferret-gamer
The only reason anyone bothered buying that overhyped short as heck POS is because "ooohhh shiny!"
I'm no great fan of Halo either, but nobody that I've seen at least ever talked about how great a game Crysis was, they talked about how good it looked and the whole thing was a sham anyways since everything it did could be done on DX9 instead of 10, if only they didn't try to lock it out of DX9.
nobody that I've seen at least ever talked about how great a game Crysis was, they talked about how good it looked and the whole thing was a sham anyways since everything it did could be done on DX9 instead of 10, if only they didn't try to lock it out of DX9.Aidenfury19
Crysis has a really great singleplayer gameplay with tons of sandbox fun. Ppl who say that it has only graphics obviously haven't played it.
[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]
With bull**** hyperbole like it's "laughable" compared to KZ2, let alone KZ3, it's no wonder people mistake you for a fanboy. Orchid87
You might check the C2 beta videos then. Pop-up, screen tearing, excessive DOF, cartoonish unnatural animations, sterile MW2-esque environments, and don't forget that KZ3 has far better particle effects.
lol, and this is what I've been saying from the beginning. I've been watching a few Crysis 2 beta gameplay and I thought it was rather meh that it looked worse than KZ2.
[QUOTE="NotTarts"]
From this interview:
http://www.gameblog.fr/blogs/eska/p_16980_mes-amis-les-devs-daniel-phillips
[QUOTE="Gameblog"]AKka:What was the Lead Console at the beginning of Crysis 2 dev ?
Daniel:At the start I believe it was the Xbox 360 that was used as the console benchmark. As of now though, we've switched to the PS3 as our "low end" benchmark. Not because it's inferior to the 360, but because it's just so much harder to develop on. It has very different specs compared to the 360.
---
AKka: Does the hardware difference between the 360 and the PS3 allow one of these version to look better?
Daniel:When I worked on A:CM I would have said yes to this question. During that project we found that the PS3 gave far better visuals than the 360. But having worked on Crysis 2, I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team. As it stands right now, the quality is near identical between the 360 and PS3 for Crysis 2 (and amazing)T-razor1
Lol, cows are picking parts of this interview and taking it out of context to fit their own cow needs. This is not hard cows. Please read slowly...
The key statement in that interview is this one:
"I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team." This is what I have been preaching here but it falls on deaf cow ears.
Then you hear this from the typical cow:
"Well what about UC2?GOW3? KZ2?"
First of all to me KZ2 was not that great looking. Too much blur and vaseline. Some Poor textures and some low poly structures in the environment. The game is overrated graphically and to me was a mess of a game because of the funky controls. GOW3 looks great but to me UC2 is the only ps3 game that impresses me graphically. But as others have already mentioned there are other games that are just as impressive graphically on the 360(Reach, RDR, Wake, etc...) and are doing FAR MORE things in their games than what is being done in UC2.
But anyway I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that because the quality is dependant on the programming team, cows cannot just say well UC2, KZ2, etc... Why? Because those are first party titles with development teams who were given the resources and time to throw their blood, sweat and tears into their game with graphics as a primary focus. I honestly believe that if you gathered the same teams (i.e. Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Guerilla, etc..) and they were given the same resources and the same length of time to complete their games as with the ps3, not only would the visuals be identical more or less but it would not shock me one bit if the same games looked slightly better than their ps3 counterparts.
Seriously, cows seem to be really hurting that it is coming out from respected developers that the 360 and ps3 are pretty equal in their capabilities. But that's what happens when you delude yourself into thinking that the ps3 is the second coming and then get hit with the truth.
As far as Crysis 2 vs. KZ3? I'll wait until both games are completed and I get to play them. Which reminds me... I'm too lazy to search for that post in here but some cow made the ridiculous claim that critics don't have good eyes and can't be taken seriously in response to someone saying that critics are already saying that Crysis 2 is already looking great and that Kz3 received no graphical accolades this past E3.
So if critics can't be taken seriously and don't have good eyes so then I guess I can't take them seriously when they were praising UC2 when it was released huh? Ya see how cows set themselves up and just make themselves look bad? You guys continue to spam and spit out nonsense only to serve your own cow needs and then act as though it is fact or the holy grail when in reality you guys make yourselves look bad when faced with the truth.
So much effort was put into this post lol.Lol, cows are picking parts of this interview and taking it out of context to fit their own cow needs. This is not hard cows. Please read slowly...The key statement in that interview is this one:"I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team." This is what I have been preaching here but it falls on deaf cow ears.Then you hear this from the typical cow:"Well what about UC2?GOW3? KZ2?"First of all to me KZ2 was not that great looking. Too much blur and vaseline. Some Poor textures and some low poly structures in the environment. The game is overrated graphically and to me was a mess of a game because of the funky controls. GOW3 looks great but to me UC2 is the only ps3 game that impresses me graphically. But as others have already mentioned there are other games that are just as impressive graphically on the 360(Reach, RDR, Wake, etc...) and are doing FAR MORE things in their games than what is being done in UC2.But anyway I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that because the quality is dependant on the programming team, cows cannot just say well UC2, KZ2, etc... Why? Because those are first party titles with development teams who were given the resources and time to throw their blood, sweat and tears into their game with graphics as a primary focus. I honestly believe that if you gathered the same teams (i.e. Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Guerilla, etc..) and they were given the same resources and the same length of time to complete their games as with the ps3, not only would the visuals be identical more or less but it would not shock me one bit if the same games looked slightly betterthan their ps3 counterparts.Seriously, cows seem to be really hurting that it is coming out from respected developers that the 360 and ps3 are pretty equal in their capabilities. But that's what happens when you delude yourself into thinking that the ps3 is the second coming and then get hit with the truth.As far as Crysis 2 vs. KZ3? I'll wait until both games are completed and I get to play them. Which reminds me... I'm too lazy to search for that post in here but some cow made the ridiculous claim that critics don't have good eyes and can't be taken seriously in response to someone saying that critics are already saying that Crysis 2 is already looking great and that Kz3 received no graphical accolades this past E3.So if critics can't be taken seriously and don't have good eyes so then I guess I can't take them seriously when they were praising UC2 when it was released huh? Ya see how cows set themselves up and just make themselves look bad? You guys continue to spam and spit out nonsense only to serve your own cow needs and then act as though it is fact or the holy grail when in reality you guys make yourselves look bad when faced with the truth.T-razor1so much win in this post, this guy didn't just hit the nail on the head, he drove the nail in with one hit,lol
[QUOTE="NotTarts"]
From this interview:
http://www.gameblog.fr/blogs/eska/p_16980_mes-amis-les-devs-daniel-phillips
[QUOTE="Gameblog"]AKka:What was the Lead Console at the beginning of Crysis 2 dev ?
Daniel:At the start I believe it was the Xbox 360 that was used as the console benchmark. As of now though, we've switched to the PS3 as our "low end" benchmark. Not because it's inferior to the 360, but because it's just so much harder to develop on. It has very different specs compared to the 360.
---
AKka: Does the hardware difference between the 360 and the PS3 allow one of these version to look better?
Daniel:When I worked on A:CM I would have said yes to this question. During that project we found that the PS3 gave far better visuals than the 360. But having worked on Crysis 2, I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team. As it stands right now, the quality is near identical between the 360 and PS3 for Crysis 2 (and amazing)
Lol, cows are picking parts of this interview and taking it out of context to fit their own cow needs. This is not hard cows. Please read slowly...
The key statement in that interview is this one:
"I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team." This is what I have been preaching here but it falls on deaf cow ears.
Then you hear this from the typical cow:
"Well what about UC2?GOW3? KZ2?"
First of all to me KZ2 was not that great looking. Too much blur and vaseline. Some Poor textures and some low poly structures in the environment. The game is overrated graphically and to me was a mess of a game because of the funky controls. GOW3 looks great but to me UC2 is the only ps3 game that impresses me graphically. But as others have already mentioned there are other games that are just as impressive graphically on the 360(Reach, RDR, Wake, etc...) and are doing FAR MORE things in their games than what is being done in UC2.
But anyway I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that because the quality is dependant on the programming team, cows cannot just say well UC2, KZ2, etc... Why? Because those are first party titles with development teams who were given the resources and time to throw their blood, sweat and tears into their game with graphics as a primary focus. I honestly believe that if you gathered the same teams (i.e. Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Guerilla, etc..) and they were given the same resources and the same length of time to complete their games as with the ps3, not only would the visuals be identical more or less but it would not shock me one bit if the same games looked slightly better than their ps3 counterparts.
Seriously, cows seem to be really hurting that it is coming out from respected developers that the 360 and ps3 are pretty equal in their capabilities. But that's what happens when you delude yourself into thinking that the ps3 is the second coming and then get hit with the truth.
As far as Crysis 2 vs. KZ3? I'll wait until both games are completed and I get to play them. Which reminds me... I'm too lazy to search for that post in here but some cow made the ridiculous claim that critics don't have good eyes and can't be taken seriously in response to someone saying that critics are already saying that Crysis 2 is already looking great and that Kz3 received no graphical accolades this past E3.
So if critics can't be taken seriously and don't have good eyes so then I guess I can't take them seriously when they were praising UC2 when it was released huh? Ya see how cows set themselves up and just make themselves look bad? You guys continue to spam and spit out nonsense only to serve your own cow needs and then act as though it is fact or the holy grail when in reality you guys make yourselves look bad when faced with the truth.
all i got from this is whah whah cows have better graphcs and excuses
[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]nobody that I've seen at least ever talked about how great a game Crysis was, they talked about how good it looked and the whole thing was a sham anyways since everything it did could be done on DX9 instead of 10, if only they didn't try to lock it out of DX9.
Orchid87
Crysis has a really great singleplayer gameplay with tons of sandbox fun. Ppl who say that it has only graphics obviously haven't played it.
I agree with this. The singleplayer portion of the game was definitely a lot of fun.
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] all i got from this is whah whah cows have better graphcs and excusesdelta3074thats not what he's saying at all, he's basically saying that devs know better than cows and the devs are saying both consoles are roughly equal and that the reason Ps3 exclusives look better is all down to the developers and has nothing to do with superior hardware, you lot don't get it, developers have more credibility than SONY fanboys, by saying developers are wrong you are just shooting yourselves in the foot and making yourselves look silly, none of you have any experience of coding on either hardware so how the hell do you guys know better than developers, answer: you don't and the only counter you can come up with is "what about UC2,Gow and KZ2" which quite frankly is a lame argument, i feel for cows, it must be terrible to believe for so long that the Ps3 was vastly superior to the 360 only for every dev to tell you you where wrong and the Ps3 is only 'marginally' more powerful than the 360, you also insult every quality first party SONY dev when you give the Ps3 the credit for how good looking the games are instead of giving the credit where it's due: the developers who code the games marrginally more powerful is still more powerful
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] all i got from this is whah whah cows have better graphcs and excusesTintedEyesthats not what he's saying at all, he's basically saying that devs know better than cows and the devs are saying both consoles are roughly equal and that the reason Ps3 exclusives look better is all down to the developers and has nothing to do with superior hardware, you lot don't get it, developers have more credibility than SONY fanboys, by saying developers are wrong you are just shooting yourselves in the foot and making yourselves look silly, none of you have any experience of coding on either hardware so how the hell do you guys know better than developers, answer: you don't and the only counter you can come up with is "what about UC2,Gow and KZ2" which quite frankly is a lame argument, i feel for cows, it must be terrible to believe for so long that the Ps3 was vastly superior to the 360 only for every dev to tell you you where wrong and the Ps3 is only 'marginally' more powerful than the 360, you also insult every quality first party SONY dev when you give the Ps3 the credit for how good looking the games are instead of giving the credit where it's due: the developers who code the games marrginally more powerful is still more powerfulmarginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lol
Who cares I'm getting it on PC anyway.
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="delta3074"]thats not what he's saying at all, he's basically saying that devs know better than cows and the devs are saying both consoles are roughly equal and that the reason Ps3 exclusives look better is all down to the developers and has nothing to do with superior hardware, you lot don't get it, developers have more credibility than SONY fanboys, by saying developers are wrong you are just shooting yourselves in the foot and making yourselves look silly, none of you have any experience of coding on either hardware so how the hell do you guys know better than developers, answer: you don't and the only counter you can come up with is "what about UC2,Gow and KZ2" which quite frankly is a lame argument, i feel for cows, it must be terrible to believe for so long that the Ps3 was vastly superior to the 360 only for every dev to tell you you where wrong and the Ps3 is only 'marginally' more powerful than the 360, you also insult every quality first party SONY dev when you give the Ps3 the credit for how good looking the games are instead of giving the credit where it's due: the developers who code the gamesdelta3074marrginally more powerful is still more powerfulmarginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lol ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still right
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] marrginally more powerful is still more powerfulTintedEyesmarginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lol ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still rightno they where not, because they where all saying the Ps3 was a 'supercomputer' and 'vastly more powerful than the 360' and they all touted it as the second coming of jesus christ, it's there own fault, cows hyped the Ps3 and the cell up to be something that it just wasn't, basically, the ps3 didn't meet the hype,they where wrong because they touted it to be 'far more' powerful than the 360, the reality is it has a little extra power that is gobbled up supporting a gimped GPU, yet again nvidia shafted another concole hardware manufacturer.
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="delta3074"]marginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,loldelta3074ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still rightno they where not, because they where all saying the Ps3 was a 'supercomputer' and 'vastly more powerful than the 360' and they all touted it as the second coming of jesus christ, it's there own fault, cows hyped the Ps3 and the cell up to be something that it just wasn't, basically, the ps3 didn't meet the hype,they where wrong because they touted it to be 'far more' powerful than the 360, the reality is it has a little extra power that is gobbled up supporting a gimped GPU, yet again nvidia shafted another concole hardware manufacturer. there were a lot of people like me who just said more powerful and people like me were right.
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] marrginally more powerful is still more powerfulTintedEyesmarginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lol ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still right Just because one does not show power at first does not mean it can become more powerful, in other words at the end all the day the 360 and ps3 are equal how bout you guys stop being blind about it? lest see 360 can do things better than the ps3 and vice versa, cant the ps3 do better physics from the cpu and the 360 bettter graphics from the Gpu?
[QUOTE="T-razor1"]Lol, cows are picking parts of this interview and taking it out of context to fit their own cow needs. This is not hard cows. Please read slowly...The key statement in that interview is this one:"I have found that the quality is all dependant on the programming team." This is what I have been preaching here but it falls on deaf cow ears.Then you hear this from the typical cow:"Well what about UC2?GOW3? KZ2?"First of all to me KZ2 was not that great looking. Too much blur and vaseline. Some Poor textures and some low poly structures in the environment. The game is overrated graphically and to me was a mess of a game because of the funky controls. GOW3 looks great but to me UC2 is the only ps3 game that impresses me graphically. But as others have already mentioned there are other games that are just as impressive graphically on the 360(Reach, RDR, Wake, etc...) and are doing FAR MORE things in their games than what is being done in UC2.But anyway I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that because the quality is dependant on the programming team, cows cannot just say well UC2, KZ2, etc... Why? Because those are first party titles with development teams who were given the resources and time to throw their blood, sweat and tears into their game with graphics as a primary focus. I honestly believe that if you gathered the same teams (i.e. Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Guerilla, etc..) and they were given the same resources and the same length of time to complete their games as with the ps3, not only would the visuals be identical more or less but it would not shock me one bit if the same games looked slightly betterthan their ps3 counterparts.Seriously, cows seem to be really hurting that it is coming out from respected developers that the 360 and ps3 are pretty equal in their capabilities. But that's what happens when you delude yourself into thinking that the ps3 is the second coming and then get hit with the truth.As far as Crysis 2 vs. KZ3? I'll wait until both games are completed and I get to play them. Which reminds me... I'm too lazy to search for that post in here but some cow made the ridiculous claim that critics don't have good eyes and can't be taken seriously in response to someone saying that critics are already saying that Crysis 2 is already looking great and that Kz3 received no graphical accolades this past E3.So if critics can't be taken seriously and don't have good eyes so then I guess I can't take them seriously when they were praising UC2 when it was released huh? Ya see how cows set themselves up and just make themselves look bad? You guys continue to spam and spit out nonsense only to serve your own cow needs and then act as though it is fact or the holy grail when in reality you guys make yourselves look bad when faced with the truth.delta3074so much win in this post, this guy didn't just hit the nail on the head, he drove the nail in with one hit,lol
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] marrginally more powerful is still more powerfulTintedEyesmarginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lol ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still right
You can put an aftermarket air filter on a car and make it marginally more powerful. That doesn't automatically mean it will always win in a race against the same car with a stock filter.
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] marrginally more powerful is still more powerfulTintedEyesmarginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lol ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still right few months ago carmack said they are the same,stop using old interviews as excuse.
ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still right[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="delta3074"]marginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,loltopgunmv
You can put an aftermarket air filter on a car and make it marginally more powerful. That doesn't automatically mean it will always win in a race against the same car with a stock filter.
i get that, im just using carmacks words[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="delta3074"]marginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lolTessellationok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still right few months ago carmack said they are the same,stop using old interviews as excuse.actually, he did say that in his last interview i think
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="delta3074"]marginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,loldelta3074ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still rightno they where not, because they where all saying the Ps3 was a 'supercomputer' and 'vastly more powerful than the 360' and they all touted it as the second coming of jesus christ, it's there own fault, cows hyped the Ps3 and the cell up to be something that it just wasn't, basically, the ps3 didn't meet the hype,they where wrong because they touted it to be 'far more' powerful than the 360, the reality is it has a little extra power that is gobbled up supporting a gimped GPU, yet again nvidia shafted another concole hardware manufacturer.
what was the other "gimped gpu" used in a console?
no they where not, because they where all saying the Ps3 was a 'supercomputer' and 'vastly more powerful than the 360' and they all touted it as the second coming of jesus christ, it's there own fault, cows hyped the Ps3 and the cell up to be something that it just wasn't, basically, the ps3 didn't meet the hype,they where wrong because they touted it to be 'far more' powerful than the 360, the reality is it has a little extra power that is gobbled up supporting a gimped GPU, yet again nvidia shafted another concole hardware manufacturer.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still righttheuncharted34
what was the other "gimped gpu" used in a console?
Nvidia was the provider of the gpu in the original xbox. It wasn't gimped, but due to the way the contract was written, microsoft was not allowed to manufacture the chips themselves or redesign it and make it smaller without nvidia's permission, which they did not grant.
As a result, every xbox manufactured from the day it released to the day it was discontinued cost microsoft roughly the same amount of money, and was of the same design, which is why there was never a "slim" xbox.
Consequently, microsoft went with ati for this generation.
no they where not, because they where all saying the Ps3 was a 'supercomputer' and 'vastly more powerful than the 360' and they all touted it as the second coming of jesus christ, it's there own fault, cows hyped the Ps3 and the cell up to be something that it just wasn't, basically, the ps3 didn't meet the hype,they where wrong because they touted it to be 'far more' powerful than the 360, the reality is it has a little extra power that is gobbled up supporting a gimped GPU, yet again nvidia shafted another concole hardware manufacturer.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still righttheuncharted34
what was the other "gimped gpu" used in a console?
not a 'gimped gpu' , they shafted MS with the first xbox by charging them a huge amount for the GPU, and then shafted them again this gen, MS had to pay them to allow any sort of BC with the 360. Nvidia actually made a profit from the original xbox, MS didn't.[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]
[QUOTE="delta3074"]no they where not, because they where all saying the Ps3 was a 'supercomputer' and 'vastly more powerful than the 360' and they all touted it as the second coming of jesus christ, it's there own fault, cows hyped the Ps3 and the cell up to be something that it just wasn't, basically, the ps3 didn't meet the hype,they where wrong because they touted it to be 'far more' powerful than the 360, the reality is it has a little extra power that is gobbled up supporting a gimped GPU, yet again nvidia shafted another concole hardware manufacturer.topgunmv
what was the other "gimped gpu" used in a console?
Nvidia was the provider of the gpu in the original xbox. It wasn't gimped, but due to the way the contract was written, microsoft was not allowed to manufacture the chips themselves or redesign it and make it smaller without nvidia's permission, which they did not grant.
As a result, every xbox manufactured from the day it released to the day it was discontinued cost microsoft roughly the same amount of money, and was of the same design, which is why there was never a "slim" xbox.
Consequently, microsoft went with ati for this generation.
oh. I didn't know that. Well that sucks... I wonder why they were such **** about it lol, I mean were they too lazy to srhink the die size or what?
[QUOTE="topgunmv"]
[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]
what was the other "gimped gpu" used in a console?
theuncharted34
Nvidia was the provider of the gpu in the original xbox. It wasn't gimped, but due to the way the contract was written, microsoft was not allowed to manufacture the chips themselves or redesign it and make it smaller without nvidia's permission, which they did not grant.
As a result, every xbox manufactured from the day it released to the day it was discontinued cost microsoft roughly the same amount of money, and was of the same design, which is why there was never a "slim" xbox.
Consequently, microsoft went with ati for this generation.
oh. I didn't know that. Well that sucks... I wonder why they were such **** about it lol, I mean were they too lazy to srhink the die size or what?
shrinking the die size would mean shrinking tha amount they where charging MS for the GPU[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="delta3074"]marginally means by an 'insignificant' amount, and being easier to develope for is a bigger advantage than a miniscule amount of extra power,lolTessellationok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still right few months ago carmack said they are the same,stop using old interviews as excuse. where is that
[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] ok but carmack still said more powerful but very small difference at the end of the day, cows were still rightTintedEyesfew months ago carmack said they are the same,stop using old interviews as excuse.
where is that
"The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360
[QUOTE="theuncharted34"][QUOTE="delta3074"]no they where not, because they where all saying the Ps3 was a 'supercomputer' and 'vastly more powerful than the 360' and they all touted it as the second coming of jesus christ, it's there own fault, cows hyped the Ps3 and the cell up to be something that it just wasn't, basically, the ps3 didn't meet the hype,they where wrong because they touted it to be 'far more' powerful than the 360, the reality is it has a little extra power that is gobbled up supporting a gimped GPU, yet again nvidia shafted another concole hardware manufacturer.delta3074
what was the other "gimped gpu" used in a console?
not a 'gimped gpu' , they shafted MS with the first xbox by charging them a huge amount for the GPU,and then shafted them again this gen, MS had to pay them to allow any sort of BC with the 360. Nvidia actually made a profit from the original xbox, MS didn't.microsoft has an ati graphics card in the 360 dubbed "Xenos" Or if you were saying Nvidia would have charged microsoft for BC, then ok. Personally I can't stand Nvidia anyway. Too me there cards are oversized, overpriced, use alot more power than Amd cards, and produce more heat. I am not an fan of Nvidia. This is just icing on the hate cake :P
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Tessellation"] few months ago carmack said they are the same,stop using old interviews as excuse.Ilikemyname420
where is that
"The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360 lol do u know how old that is and thats just one game, im talking about carmack saying they are equal, cuz i know he said ps3 was more powerful
not a 'gimped gpu' , they shafted MS with the first xbox by charging them a huge amount for the GPU,and then shafted them again this gen, MS had to pay them to allow any sort of BC with the 360. Nvidia actually made a profit from the original xbox, MS didn't.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]
what was the other "gimped gpu" used in a console?
theuncharted34
microsoft has an ati graphics card in the 360 dubbed "Xenos" Or if you were saying Nvidia would have charged microsoft for BC, then ok. Personally I can't stand Nvidia anyway. Too me there cards are oversized, overpriced, use alot more power than Amd cards, and produce more heat. I am not an fan of Nvidia. This is just icing on the hate cake :P
me niether, pound for pound ATI/AMD cards offer far more value for money, nice to see i am not the only one who hates Nvidia[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"]
where is thatTintedEyes
"The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360
lol do u know how old that is and thats just one game, im talking about carmack saying they are equal, cuz i know he said ps3 was more powerful The quote you were referencing came from 2005 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2005/10/1556.ars
.....the one I posted was from 2009....
[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"]
where is thatTintedEyes
"The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360 lol do u know how old that is and thats just one game, im talking about carmack saying they are equal, cuz i know he said ps3 was more powerful
I, love my ps3. I believe it has better exclusives, a wider variety of exclusives, online as good as XBL and it's free, And it's first party games are better looking. But one thing that can't really be argued is the power. The xbox 360 and the ps3 are roughly the same in power, with a slight edge going to the ps3, but harder to develop for. This really isn't an issue.
Just praise the developers for being so awesome, not the ps3 :P they deserve it.
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]
"The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360
I, love my ps3. I believe it has better exclusives, a wider variety of exclusives, online as good as XBL and it's free, And it's first party games are better looking. But one thing that can't really be argued is the power. The xbox 360 and the ps3 are roughly the same in power, with a slight edge going to the ps3, but harder to develop for. This really isn't an issue.
Just praise the developers for being so awesome, not the ps3 :P they deserve it.
i wish it wasnt an issue but people keep quoting me even though there was nothing wrong with that i said[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]
Ilikemyname420
"The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360
lol do u know how old that is and thats just one game, im talking about carmack saying they are equal, cuz i know he said ps3 was more powerful The quote you were referencing came from 2005 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2005/10/1556.ars
.....the one I posted was from 2009....
the consoles havent changed since 2005[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]The quote you were referencing came from 2005 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2005/10/1556.ars[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]
lol do u know how old that is and thats just one game, im talking about carmack saying they are equal, cuz i know he said ps3 was more powerfulTintedEyes
.....the one I posted was from 2009....
the consoles havent changed since 2005
Both quotes are from Carmack In one he states the PS3 "is probably marginally more powerful." and this was before the PS3 was even released so it's basically theoretical..... 4 years later he says that the GPU in the PS3 is slower than the 360 and that the CPU is about the same.
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"] The quote you were referencing came from 2005 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2005/10/1556.ars
.....the one I posted was from 2009....
Ilikemyname420
the consoles havent changed since 2005
Both quotes are from Carmack In one he states the PS3 "is probably marginally more powerful." and this was before the PS3 was even released so it's basically theoretical..... 4 years later he says that the GPU in the PS3 is slower than the 360 and that the CPU is about the same. im sure he was actually using the ps3 even though it wasnt released
[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]
the consoles havent changed since 2005TintedEyes
Both quotes are from Carmack In one he states the PS3 "is probably marginally more powerful." and this was before the PS3 was even released so it's basically theoretical..... 4 years later he says that the GPU in the PS3 is slower than the 360 and that the CPU is about the same. im sure he was actually using the ps3 even though it wasnt released So what you are saying is he was right then but wrong now?
[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]
the consoles havent changed since 2005TintedEyes
Both quotes are from Carmack In one he states the PS3 "is probably marginally more powerful." and this was before the PS3 was even released so it's basically theoretical..... 4 years later he says that the GPU in the PS3 is slower than the 360 and that the CPU is about the same. im sure he was actually using the ps3 even though it wasnt released Still he basically corrected himself. Which is why it's silly to use the 2005 quote when the guy basically shoots down said quote 4 years later.
im sure he was actually using the ps3 even though it wasnt released So what you are saying is he was right then but wrong now? what?[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]
[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]
Both quotes are from Carmack In one he states the PS3 "is probably marginally more powerful." and this was before the PS3 was even released so it's basically theoretical..... 4 years later he says that the GPU in the PS3 is slower than the 360 and that the CPU is about the same.soulitane
So what you are saying is he was right then but wrong now? what? Let me explain then, you seem to be ignoring the article where he says they are equal even though it is the more recent one.[QUOTE="soulitane"]
[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] im sure he was actually using the ps3 even though it wasnt released
TintedEyes
im sure he was actually using the ps3 even though it wasnt released Still he basically corrected himself. Which is why it's silly to use the 2005 quote when the guy basically shoots down said quote 4 years later. looks like he is just talking about specific parts not the entire consoles power, this isnt like the article from 2005[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]
[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]
Both quotes are from Carmack In one he states the PS3 "is probably marginally more powerful." and this was before the PS3 was even released so it's basically theoretical..... 4 years later he says that the GPU in the PS3 is slower than the 360 and that the CPU is about the same.Ilikemyname420
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment