IS PS3 graphically more advanced?-I have facts and links to back this up

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]No, he said lately ps3 has more peak performance BUT only 1st party devs or anyone willing to spend a lot of time can get that extra 20% so will we see that? Maybe, with last guardianAdobeArtist

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]No, he said lately ps3 has more peak performance BUT only 1st party devs or anyone willing to spend a lot of time can get that extra 20% so will we see that? Maybe, with last guardianguitarrocker13

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]No, he said lately ps3 has more peak performance BUT only 1st party devs or anyone willing to spend a lot of time can get that extra 20% so will we see that? Maybe, with last guardianguitarrocker13

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

Judging by the time frame of your first post.. You've had about 12 hours to find it. :lol:

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]No, he said lately ps3 has more peak performance BUT only 1st party devs or anyone willing to spend a lot of time can get that extra 20% so will we see that? Maybe, with last guardianguitarrocker13

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

Yet again, I would like to point out that he has backed off from those statements and amended them... That was 2006 after he had just seen the specs officially announced at E3. He hadn't worked on the system yet. He is smart enough that what he said wasn't "wrong" even though he hadn't even worked on the system yet(Computer Science is fairly predictable and when you know what you are doing, you know what hardware can do without even touching it). However, theoretical performance is not real world performance. And every bottleneck you run into takes you further and further away from the "theoretical peak." Xbox 360 isn't that far from its theoretical peak because it was designed that way. Unified Shaders, Unified RAM, eDRAM to mitigate bandwidth issues, Predictable and stable performance on both the GPU and CPU... If you do a good job with it, you can basically hit the "peak." On the PS3, it is practically impossible to hit peak performance. You are bound to hit a bottleneck somewhere.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]I dont know if I would say im a fanboy just proving a point and the developer of Geronimo games proves it, in the videoKingsMessenger

It is Ronimo Games and they have only done Wii games and one XBLA/PSN title.

As I have REPEATEDLY stated, at first glance, you would think that there is more to be gotten out of the PS3. However, when you account for the NUMEROUS bottlenecks, the gap becomes less and less significant. In then end, YES there is more to the PS3, but that ultimately means nothing in terms of what can be accomplished and what a game would look like. Anything that you can do on the PS3 CAN be replicated on the Xbox 360. Both sides would have their own set of compromises, but a motivated developer can work out solutions on both sides.

A game like Uncharted looks good because Naughty Dog made it look good, not because the PS3 could do some magical thing that the Xbox 360 can't. The simple fact is, if Naughty Dog was owned by MS and MS gave Naughty Dog the same budget and same amount of time to make the same game, Uncharted would look pretty much the same on the Xbox 360. Same applies to pretty much every game.

And the idea that an EXCLUSIVE does things that a multiplatform game can't is not really accurate. BF3 is honestly going to be a good example of this. I think people will be surprised with the end result for BF3 and the simple fact is, what DICE is doing on a technical side is far more impressive than anything Sony's First Party devs have done(this is based on a set of like 3 technical white papers that DICE has published). I don't know what the final game will look like, but the tech in BF3 is without a doubt the most impressive on the consoles, just like Crysis 2 was honestly the most impressive tech on the consoles.

People always seem to want to insist that UC2 looks better than Crysis 2, and I guess you could make that argument, but from a tech side, I don't know how anyone could legitimately make an argument for UC2 or really any other games over Crysis 2. Which sort of comes back to the art argument that I always make. Tech is really just one part of what makes a game look a particular way.

And honestly, it isn't even the biggest factor. Lots of Crysis mods use the exact same assets and exact same engine, and produce a significantly better looking experience than the normal game. And there are time of day mods that literally just change a few variables that dramatically improve the look of the game...

Art is really the biggest factor in what makes a game visually appealing. Comparisons in tech can be made all day long, but honestly, if you really want to get down to it, Crytek and DICE have everyone beat on basically every platform. And Epic certainly isn't far behind(although they aren't at the bleeding edge...) While I would never say Naughty Dog's tech is crappy, I genuinely don't believe that it is the most impressive tech...

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]No, he said lately ps3 has more peak performance BUT only 1st party devs or anyone willing to spend a lot of time can get that extra 20% so will we see that? Maybe, with last guardianguitarrocker13

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

Yeahhhh, that's what I thought.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

KingsMessenger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

Yet again, I would like to point out that he has backed off from those statements and amended them... That was 2006 after he had just seen the specs officially announced at E3. He hadn't worked on the system yet. He is smart enough that what he said wasn't "wrong" even though he hadn't even worked on the system yet(Computer Science is fairly predictable and when you know what you are doing, you know what hardware can do without even touching it). However, theoretical performance is not real world performance. And every bottleneck you run into takes you further and further away from the "theoretical peak." Xbox 360 isn't that far from its theoretical peak because it was designed that way. Unified Shaders, Unified RAM, eDRAM to mitigate bandwidth issues, Predictable and stable performance on both the GPU and CPU... If you do a good job with it, you can basically hit the "peak." On the PS3, it is practically impossible to hit peak performance. You are bound to hit a bottleneck somewhere.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

AdobeArtist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

Yeahhhh, that's what I thought.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

OK, you keep throwing out this 20% number around repeatedly. Just where are you getting that from? Did John Carmack calculate this? Cliffy B? ANY credible developer? Just how exactly are you quantifying the performance difference between PS3 and X360, what ever that may be?

AdobeArtist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8

http://www.videogamer.com/news/carmack_ps3_has_more_raw_performance_than_xbox_360.html

Still looking for the 20% one. But i have read the article, just give me a little time to find it

Yeahhhh, that's what I thought.

Just an fyi.. I love you.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]I dont know if I would say im a fanboy just proving a point and the developer of Geronimo games proves it, in the videoguitarrocker13

It is Ronimo Games and they have only done Wii games and one XBLA/PSN title.

As I have REPEATEDLY stated, at first glance, you would think that there is more to be gotten out of the PS3. However, when you account for the NUMEROUS bottlenecks, the gap becomes less and less significant. In then end, YES there is more to the PS3, but that ultimately means nothing in terms of what can be accomplished and what a game would look like. Anything that you can do on the PS3 CAN be replicated on the Xbox 360. Both sides would have their own set of compromises, but a motivated developer can work out solutions on both sides.

A game like Uncharted looks good because Naughty Dog made it look good, not because the PS3 could do some magical thing that the Xbox 360 can't. The simple fact is, if Naughty Dog was owned by MS and MS gave Naughty Dog the same budget and same amount of time to make the same game, Uncharted would look pretty much the same on the Xbox 360. Same applies to pretty much every game.

And the idea that an EXCLUSIVE does things that a multiplatform game can't is not really accurate. BF3 is honestly going to be a good example of this. I think people will be surprised with the end result for BF3 and the simple fact is, what DICE is doing on a technical side is far more impressive than anything Sony's First Party devs have done(this is based on a set of like 3 technical white papers that DICE has published). I don't know what the final game will look like, but the tech in BF3 is without a doubt the most impressive on the consoles, just like Crysis 2 was honestly the most impressive tech on the consoles.

People always seem to want to insist that UC2 looks better than Crysis 2, and I guess you could make that argument, but from a tech side, I don't know how anyone could legitimately make an argument for UC2 or really any other games over Crysis 2. Which sort of comes back to the art argument that I always make. Tech is really just one part of what makes a game look a particular way.

And honestly, it isn't even the biggest factor. Lots of Crysis mods use the exact same assets and exact same engine, and produce a significantly better looking experience than the normal game. And there are time of day mods that literally just change a few variables that dramatically improve the look of the game...

Art is really the biggest factor in what makes a game visually appealing. Comparisons in tech can be made all day long, but honestly, if you really want to get down to it, Crytek and DICE have everyone beat on basically every platform. And Epic certainly isn't far behind(although they aren't at the bleeding edge...) While I would never say Naughty Dog's tech is crappy, I genuinely don't believe that it is the most impressive tech...

So because one game studio that has about 9 employees and hasn't developed a damn thing for the 360 says the PS3 has better architecture then it must be true?!

...Well, I guess this thead is over now.

Sure but the developer said ps3 has slightly more performance, and he is right it has slightly more performance, but thats it, also just wondered are you a pc person or ps3 or 360, btw i know hardware too, and designing but the last thing i did lately was make some maps for quake 3 and 4guitarrocker13

It doesn't matter that it has slightly more performance. OK? It REALLY doesn't matter. It makes absolutely no difference at all in what a game would come out looking like. Because, in the real world, where you have development budgets and limited time to make the game, nobody(Not even a First Party dev) is going to be able to make the PS3 do something that can't be replicated or equaled in one form or another on the Xbox 360. The two consoles are just so very close that there really isn't even a point arguing which one is "better" because the difference is so small that it doesn't even begin to make a difference...

And I am a PC guy more than anything.

And don't claim that you know hardware, because you don't.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]Sure but the developer said ps3 has slightly more performance, and he is right it has slightly more performance, but thats it, also just wondered are you a pc person or ps3 or 360, btw i know hardware too, and designing but the last thing i did lately was make some maps for quake 3 and 4KingsMessenger

It doesn't matter that it has slightly more performance. OK? It REALLY doesn't matter. It makes absolutely no difference at all in what a game would come out looking like. Because, in the real world, where you have development budgets and limited time to make the game, nobody(Not even a First Party dev) is going to be able to make the PS3 do something that can't be replicated or equaled in one form or another on the Xbox 360. The two consoles are just so very close that there really isn't even a point arguing which one is "better" because the difference is so small that it doesn't even begin to make a difference...

And I am a PC guy more than anything.

And don't claim that you know hardware, because you don't.

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

It is Ronimo Games and they have only done Wii games and one XBLA/PSN title.

As I have REPEATEDLY stated, at first glance, you would think that there is more to be gotten out of the PS3. However, when you account for the NUMEROUS bottlenecks, the gap becomes less and less significant. In then end, YES there is more to the PS3, but that ultimately means nothing in terms of what can be accomplished and what a game would look like. Anything that you can do on the PS3 CAN be replicated on the Xbox 360. Both sides would have their own set of compromises, but a motivated developer can work out solutions on both sides.

A game like Uncharted looks good because Naughty Dog made it look good, not because the PS3 could do some magical thing that the Xbox 360 can't. The simple fact is, if Naughty Dog was owned by MS and MS gave Naughty Dog the same budget and same amount of time to make the same game, Uncharted would look pretty much the same on the Xbox 360. Same applies to pretty much every game.

And the idea that an EXCLUSIVE does things that a multiplatform game can't is not really accurate. BF3 is honestly going to be a good example of this. I think people will be surprised with the end result for BF3 and the simple fact is, what DICE is doing on a technical side is far more impressive than anything Sony's First Party devs have done(this is based on a set of like 3 technical white papers that DICE has published). I don't know what the final game will look like, but the tech in BF3 is without a doubt the most impressive on the consoles, just like Crysis 2 was honestly the most impressive tech on the consoles.

People always seem to want to insist that UC2 looks better than Crysis 2, and I guess you could make that argument, but from a tech side, I don't know how anyone could legitimately make an argument for UC2 or really any other games over Crysis 2. Which sort of comes back to the art argument that I always make. Tech is really just one part of what makes a game look a particular way.

And honestly, it isn't even the biggest factor. Lots of Crysis mods use the exact same assets and exact same engine, and produce a significantly better looking experience than the normal game. And there are time of day mods that literally just change a few variables that dramatically improve the look of the game...

Art is really the biggest factor in what makes a game visually appealing. Comparisons in tech can be made all day long, but honestly, if you really want to get down to it, Crytek and DICE have everyone beat on basically every platform. And Epic certainly isn't far behind(although they aren't at the bleeding edge...) While I would never say Naughty Dog's tech is crappy, I genuinely don't believe that it is the most impressive tech...

Zophar87

So because one game studio that has about 9 employees and hasn't developed a damn thing for the 360 says the PS3 has better architecture then it must be true?!

...Well, I guess this thead is over now.

Also they have developed for 360 guitarrocker13

Nothing that has been released. And at the time that the interview was conducted for that video, they were less than 1 month in on development for Awesomenauts, which is their first XBLA game...

Also check this link.. haha apparently the airforce used 1260 ps3's for its super computer---- go down to fututre developmentsguitarrocker13

That has nothing to do with gaming.

That has everything to do with price and parallel programming. The Cell is a good processor for a supercomputer because if you sit 1000 of them in a network, they all work together really well. They don't run especially hot. And in general, they are ideal for what you need out of a supercomputer(since most supercomputers are just doing heavy duty math anyway, and most consumer CPUs aren't as fast as the Cell at raw math(though they do pretty much everything else better, expect maybe parallelism). But that has nothing to do with gaming.

Guitarrocker I am going to be fairly blunt. You have obviously drank the Sony koolaid.

The PS3 is not a super computer.

The PS3 is not way more powerful than the 360. MAYBE 5% better on a good day.

360 and PS3 both have games coming up that are virtually equal in performance. GEOW3/UC3.

DOZENS of sites have stated that the 360 version of Crysis 2is the best looking console game available.

It is fairly obvious that you are not a reasonable individual and are a big Sony fanboy.

Just accept the fact that the PS3 and 360 are both garbage in terms of graphical fidelity. Arguing which garbage is better is a waste of time.

If you want good graphics and gameplay get a PC.

If you want average graphics and good gameplay get a console. Doesnt matter which one.

I dont know why people always say killzone 3 looks so great i think 2 looked better.

The cell may have had great potential but when the video card(which is generally considered the most important part of graphics) is generally considered of a lesser quality than 360s and most say the cell's potential will probably never be met because it keeps a game taking 5 years and still not perfect(GT5 anyone?).

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]Also check this link.. haha apparently the airforce used 1260 ps3's for its super computer---- go down to fututre developmentsKingsMessenger

That has nothing to do with gaming.

That has everything to do with price and parallel programming. The Cell is a good processor for a supercomputer because if you sit 1000 of them in a network, they all work together really well. They don't run especially hot. And in general, they are ideal for what you need out of a supercomputer(since most supercomputers are just doing heavy duty math anyway, and most consumer CPUs aren't as fast as the Cell at raw math(though they do pretty much everything else better, expect maybe parallelism). But that has nothing to do with gaming.

here is ps3 performance ---- http://9.bb/3MI

PS3 does 1.8 TFLOPS---- 204 from cpu at best theoretical performance

360 does 1 TFLOP------115.2 from cpu at best theoretical performance

guitarrocker13

The quoted FLOP numbers are meaningless i.e. does it include fix function units?

Anyway, NVIDIA G7X/RSX's 32bit floating point has performance issues e.g. pixel shader/stream processor stalls during texture fetch operations (GPU's speak for CPU load/store function). Similar issue is applicable to SPE. This stall problem is mitigated by AMD's Ultra-Thread or NVIDIA's Gigathread technologies i.e. verylarge hyper-thread/SMT pool.

NVIDIA's RSX is based G70.

NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX's pixel shader peak is ~165GFlops, vertex shaderis ~34.4GFlops,thusthe total is around ~200GFlops.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=51677

There's no way NVIDIA RSX/G70/G71 would beat Geforce 8800 GTX (G80).

An example of practical SGEMM benchmarks 1 TFLOPS (32bit floating point) from AMD Radeon HD 4870 (RV770) GPU is http://forum.beyond3d.com/archive/index.php/t-54842.html

Also check this link.. haha apparently the airforce used 1260 ps3's for its super computer---- go down to fututre developmentsguitarrocker13

Guitarrocker I am going to be fairly blunt. You have obviously drank the Sony koolaid.

The PS3 is not a super computer.

The PS3 is not way more powerful than the 360. MAYBE 5% better on a good day.

360 and PS3 both have games coming up that are virtually equal in performance. GEOW3/UC3.

DOZENS of sites have stated that the 360 version of Crysis 2is the best looking console game available.

It is fairly obvious that you are not a reasonable individual and are a big Sony fanboy.

Just accept the fact that the PS3 and 360 are both garbage in terms of graphical fidelity. Arguing which garbage is better is a waste of time.

If you want good graphics and gameplay get a PC.

If you want average graphics and good gameplay get a console. Doesnt matter which one.

Fizzman

Yeah, but that is one exclusive on 360, PS3 has much more exclusives that look top notch. Also, GeoW3 is not quite up there - it looks great indeed but Uncharted 3 and even Uncharted 2 are still a bit better.

And they were proven wrong. Once the hypa vanished, it was obvious that Crysis 2 has issues that really keep it away from the console graphical throne. (see lens of truth Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 head 2 head comparison) - 4000 people voted in the poll and almost 80% (!!!) agree that Killzone 3 is better.

In the end the difference between 360 and PS3 in terms of graphical capabilities is very small but it is there anyone who isnt blinded by fanboyism sees it.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Guitarrocker I am going to be fairly blunt. You have obviously drank the Sony koolaid.

The PS3 is not a super computer.

The PS3 is not way more powerful than the 360. MAYBE 5% better on a good day.

360 and PS3 both have games coming up that are virtually equal in performance. GEOW3/UC3.

DOZENS of sites have stated that the 360 version of Crysis 2is the best looking console game available.

It is fairly obvious that you are not a reasonable individual and are a big Sony fanboy.

Just accept the fact that the PS3 and 360 are both garbage in terms of graphical fidelity. Arguing which garbage is better is a waste of time.

If you want good graphics and gameplay get a PC.

If you want average graphics and good gameplay get a console. Doesnt matter which one.

Yeah, but that is one exclusive on 360, PS3 has much more exclusives that look top notch. Also, GeoW3 is not quite up there - it looks great indeed but Uncharted 3 and even Uncharted 2 are still a bit better.

And they were proven wrong. Once the hypa vanished, it was obvious that Crysis 2 has issues that really keep it away from the console graphical throne. (see lens of truth Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 head 2 head comparison) - 4000 people voted in the poll and almost 80% (!!!) agree that Killzone 3 is better.

In the end the difference between 360 and PS3 in terms of graphical capabilities is very small but it is there anyone who isnt blinded by fanboyism sees it.

PS3 is slightly more powerful and the exclusives showed, UC3 and God of War 4 will show the pinnacle of console graphics this gen. gpuking

In the end the difference between 360 and PS3 in terms of graphical capabilities is very small but it is there anyone who isnt blinded by fanboyism sees it.

BlbecekBobecek

Are you implying you're not?

Lets solve this once and for all, im not a fanboy, but i can see the facts,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8&search=john%20carmack%20g4

‪http://n4g.com/news/769684/ps3s-power-confined-to-prosperous-exclusives

http://n4g.com/news/805672/lightbox-interactives-josh-sutphin-explains-why-starhawk-is-so-awesome-and-only-possible-on-ps3

http://www.hiphopgamershow.com/2011/04/guerilla-games-beat-the-cryengine-3-on-consoles-sony-exclusives-still-1/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MakQpMSKP7I

http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p2.html

http://n4g.com/news/739134/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis-lens-of-truth/com

‪Xbox 360 vs. PS3: Round 4 (CPU)‬ - YouTube

See the truth is the PS3 has about 20% more power because of the cell processor being able to do the same stuff that the gpu does. BUT, most multiplat games look better on 360 because the only way to get them up to par to it is to spend a lot of time on it, and to get games that are much better then whats capable on 360, you have to go through blood, sweat, and tears- aka UC3, Last Guardian, game informer also said that kz3 has made a new graphical benchmark. Also I included IGN because they are definitely biased torwards 360 yet even they agree PS3 has more potential.

Also I am not a playstation fanboy, in fact until PS3 i was more a nintendo person. I have a NES ,Genesis , N64 , Gamecube , PS2 , PS3.

In my opinion the best system of all time is the NES

guitarrocker13

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"]Digital Foundry is a great site and it said that ps3 is superior get over it, also this link was an article talking about what DF saidtheuncharted34

The ps3 and 360 are completely even power wise. The 360 has a more advanced gpu, and the ps3 has the more advanced cpu. They balance each other out.

I think *you* need to get over it, and stop upsessing over graphics. I like eye candy as much as the next guy, but it doesn't mean a thing unless the games themselves are well made.

Indeed. Surprisingly, the console easier to develop for needed more time to reach it´s peak (finally they are even). This basically proves that, when it come to 360 and PS3, it´s all about devs tallent and priorities.

here is ps3 performance ---- http://9.bb/3MI

PS3 does 1.8 TFLOPS---- 204 from cpu at best theoretical performance

360 does 1 TFLOP------115.2 from cpu at best theoretical performance

guitarrocker13

debunked yeah sure give me a link. This isn't something you debunk if you dont give a link i will assume your lyingguitarrocker13

I have already gave you a picture and MLAA benchmarks that shows MLAA being done PC DX10 GPU.

Posting again.

From http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=583531

Hey guys,

After some years asking questions here and wasting everyone's time, now we are proud to give something back to the comunity

We have developed a very fast implementation of MLAA on the GPU, both for PC and Xbox 360. In PC it runs 11.8x faster than MSAA 8X (0.44ms on a 9800GTX+), and in the Xbox it only requires 3.79ms to perform anti-aliasing on a 720p image. For comparison, the God of War III implementation requires 20ms of a single SPU (4ms using 5 of them).

The technique will be published in GPU Pro 2 next year, but in the meantime, here you can find more information (we will upload the demo and the source code soon): http://www.iryokufx.com/mlaa/

Cheers!,
Jorge

PS; Lower ms ~= better hardware performance.

AMD Radeon HD 5x00/6x00's driver side MLAA settings. This debunks any claim that "high-end" PC is incapable of MLAA.

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

In reference to http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-saboteur-aa-blog-entry and I quote.

"In the meantime, what we have is something that's new and genuinely exciting from a technical standpoint. We're seeing PS3 attacking a visual problem using a method that not even the most high-end GPUs are using."

DF's statement is BS. i.e. refer to the above AMD Radeon HD's control panel screenshot.

Eurogamer didn't factor in AMD's http://developer.amd.com/gpu_assets/AA-HPG09.pdf

It was later corrected by Christer Ericson, director of tools and technology at Sony Santa Monica and I quote

"The screenshots may not be showing MLAA, and it's almost certainly not a technique as experimental as we thought it was, but it's certainly the case that this is the most impressive form of this type of anti-aliasing we've seen to date in a console game. Certainly, as we alluded to originally, the concept of using an edge-filter/blur combination isn't new, and continues to be refined. This document by Isshiki and Kunieda published in 1999 suggested a similar technique, and, more recently, AMD's Iourcha, Yang and Pomianowski suggested a more advanced version of the same basic idea".

AMD's Iourcha, Yang and Pomianowski's papers refers to http://developer.amd.com/gpu_assets/AA-HPG09.pdf

To quote AMD's paper "This filter is the basis for the Edge-Detect Custom Filter AA driver feature on ATI Radeon HD GPUs".

Eurogamer's "not even the most high-end GPU are using" assertion would be wrong. From top to bottom GPUs, current ATI GPUs supports Direct3D 10.1 and methods menstioned AMD's AA paper.

Try again Mr PS3.

I might pointout that AMD Radeon HD 2900 XT doesn't have a proper MSAA hardware and any MSAA was doneon unified shaders/stream processors. Radeon HD 38x0 restored MSAA hadware and dumped the ring bus (the ringbus designer was forced to move to Intel i.e. Intel Sandybridge and Intel Larrabee sports a ringbus design).

Also 360 doesn't support full 1080p until the new slim model, and only 1 game- which upscales, and still doesn't support hdmi 1.4guitarrocker13

Refer to http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

Xbox 360's

1. Fifa Street 3 (Year 2008 ) renders at 1920x1080 (4xAA).

2. NBA Street Home court (demo, Year 2007) renders at 1920x1080 (4xAA).

3. Virtua Tennis 3 (Year 2007) renders at 1920x1080 (2xAA). AMD Xenos GPU can render 1920x1080.

What you said is BS.

here is ps3 performance ---- http://9.bb/3MI

PS3 does 1.8 TFLOPS---- 204 from cpu at best theoretical performance

360 does 1 TFLOP------115.2 from cpu at best theoretical performance

guitarrocker13

Where's +1 TFLOPs of IEEE 754 (32bit floating point format)from G71's shader/stream compute units?

[QUOTE="Zophar87"]

[QUOTE="guitarrocker13"] I realize what your saying but you haven't developed games ronimo has. they have used the ps3 a lot so they know the architecture and what they said speaks for its self. You are very smart but you haven't developed for ps3, and i have to go with their statement since they have developed on ps3. All this means is ps3 has a bit more peak performance

guitarrocker13

So because one game studio that has about 9 employees and hasn't developed a damn thing for the 360 says the PS3 has better architecture then it must be true?!

...Well, I guess this thead is over now.

Since the TC is now banned, I'm just gonna close this Topic.