Its official the PS3 has made a game that looks better then Crysis!

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

Yet console games look like plutonium-infused African elephant **** with 10 year old garbage juice compared to Crysis. Hmm, I wonder what consoles graphics are then, if Crysis is overhyped... Oh wait, you're using double standards to make consoles look better, my bad.

12345678ew

The technology that has been infused in that will no doubt cancel out the 10 year old console technology and therefore will be slightly more powerful than the most powerful PC. hahaha

And if you took that by itself.....holy crap.....well we would have desktop computers powerful enough to run the software that simulates human intelligence.

we do. have u seen the study at stanford? by simulating a more powerful chip, on a real chip, you can figure out what the simulated one figures out. idk about you, but it sounds to me like you could repeat that enough times to beat a quantum computer with a pentium D

'True' simulations of the brain most likely wont occur until we have the processing speed required to do so. This is also what will allow true artificial intelligence to be created. (once the software that is needed to run with the hardware is created)

I dont think Ive read the Stanford study but I would think that they took maybe 5 seconds and expanded it to hours. They can get an idea but the really cool simulations wont happen until they can simulate it in real time.

hahaha... Are you saying that we can combine a bunch of 'crap' to create a computer that can process two bits of information at once?

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Quantum computers are nonlinear computers and therefore not Turing-compliant. You can't simulate a quantum computer with a Turing-compliant one. Anyway, while it is true that you can simulate a more-powerful machine with a less-powerful one, you pay for it: usually in that it takes this side of eternity to complete. And last I checked, 3D rendering in gaming is time-sensitive.

washd123

technically you can simulate anything on anything doesnt mean itll be accurate.

[QUOTE="12345678ew"][QUOTE="Trmpt"]

The technology that has been infused in that will no doubt cancel out the 10 year old console technology and therefore will be slightly more powerful than the most powerful PC. hahaha

And if you took that by itself.....holy crap.....well we would have desktop computers powerful enough to run the software that simulates human intelligence.

HuusAsking

Quantum computers are nonlinear computers and therefore not Turing-compliant. You can't simulate a quantum computer with a Turing-compliant one. Anyway, while it is true that you can simulate a more-powerful machine with a less-powerful one, you pay for it: usually in that it takes this side of eternity to complete. And last I checked, 3D rendering in gaming is time-sensitive.

I think your saying that quantum computers are going to have more processing power than a human brain and therefore it wouldnt be fair for it to be the type of computer to pass a test that is supposed to see whether or not machine intelligence is at human level, which isnt exactly right because 'standard computers' are going to be able to pass it with a certain amount of processing power and software that is complex enough to do so. So what happens when processing power far exceeds the power of the brain? Just because it is far more powerful than a human brain it cant be allowed to pass the Turing test? I dont think that is true because computers are going to leave huimans in the dust in areas that include processiing power. Just because it is more powerful than a human doesnt mean that it cant be allowed to paa the Turing test. I mean that doesnt sound right at all.

If there is some other reason that creates the situation that makes quantum computers incompatible with the turing test I would like to know. Other than the reason that I explained above I would also think that you said that because of how it processes two bits of information at once.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="12345678ew"]we do. have u seen the study at stanford? by simulating a more powerful chip, on a real chip, you can figure out what the simulated one figures out. idk about you, but it sounds to me like you could repeat that enough times to beat a quantum computer with a pentium DTrmpt

Quantum computers are nonlinear computers and therefore not Turing-compliant. You can't simulate a quantum computer with a Turing-compliant one. Anyway, while it is true that you can simulate a more-powerful machine with a less-powerful one, you pay for it: usually in that it takes this side of eternity to complete. And last I checked, 3D rendering in gaming is time-sensitive.

I think your saying that quantum computers are going to have more processing power than a human brain and therefore it wouldnt be fair for it to be the type of computer to pass a test that is supposed to see whether or not machine intelligence is at human level, which isnt exactly right because 'standard computers' are going to be able to pass it with a certain amount of processing power and software that is complex enough to do so. So what happens when processing power far exceeds the power of the brain? Just because it is far more powerful than a human brain it cant be allowed to pass the Turing test? I dont think that is true because computers are going to leave huimans in the dust in areas that include processiing power. Just because it is more powerful than a human doesnt mean that it cant be allowed to paa the Turing test. I mean that doesnt sound right at all.

If there is some other reason that creates the situation that makes quantum computers incompatible with the turing test I would like to know. Other than the reason that I explained above I would also think that you said that because of how it processes two bits of information at once.

I think your saying that quantum computers are going to have more processing power than a human brain and therefore it wouldnt be fair for it to be the type of computer to pass a test that is supposed to see whether or not machine intelligence is at human level, which isnt exactly right because 'standard computers' are going to be able to pass it with a certain amount of processing power and software that is complex enough to do so. So what happens when processing power far exceeds the power of the brain? Just because it is far more powerful than a human brain it cant be allowed to pass the Turing test? I dont think that is true because computers are going to leave huimans in the dust in areas that include processiing power. Just because it is more powerful than a human doesnt mean that it cant be allowed to paa the Turing test. I mean that doesnt sound right at all.

Trmpt

*head explodes* :P on topic, no. heavy rain is certainly no slouch, but i think crysis has considerably better graphics.

Not the Turing test--the Turing machine.HuusAsking

Quantum computers are nonlinear computers and therefore not Turing-compliant. You can't simulate a quantum computer with a Turing-compliant one.HuusAsking

Oh so you're saying that a turing complient computer cant simulate a quantum computer because it is incapable of running things as fast as a quantum computer?

If it is a 'turing machine' that means that it past the 'turing test'. Once it passes the turing test it is only going to improve in performance. So I would think that 'turing machines' will eventually get to the point where it is as powerful as a quantum computer and therefore would be able to simulate it. What if the 'turing machine' replaces its hardware with something that resembles a quantum computer?

This is all taking into consideration that quantum computers are actually going to be VASTLY superior to what current computers are capable of doing at the time of the creation of the quantum computer.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

Not the Turing test--the Turing machine.Trmpt

Quantum computers are nonlinear computers and therefore not Turing-compliant. You can't simulate a quantum computer with a Turing-compliant one.HuusAsking

Oh so you're saying that a turing complient computer cant simulate a quantum computer because it is incapable of running things as fast as a quantum computer?

If it is a 'turing machine' that means that it past the 'turing test'. Once it passes the turing test it is only going to improve in performance. So I would think that 'turing machines' will eventually get to the point where it is as powerful as a quantum computer and therefore would be able to simulate it. What if the 'turing machine' replaces its hardware with something that resembles a quantum computer?

This is all taking into consideration that quantum computers are actually going to be VASTLY superior to what current computers are capable of doing at the time of the creation of the quantum computer.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Quantum computers are nonlinear computers and therefore not Turing-compliant. You can't simulate a quantum computer with a Turing-compliant one.HuusAsking

Oh so you're saying that a turing complient computer cant simulate a quantum computer because it is incapable of running things as fast as a quantum computer?

If it is a 'turing machine' that means that it past the 'turing test'. Once it passes the turing test it is only going to improve in performance. So I would think that 'turing machines' will eventually get to the point where it is as powerful as a quantum computer and therefore would be able to simulate it. What if the 'turing machine' replaces its hardware with something that resembles a quantum computer?

This is all taking into consideration that quantum computers are actually going to be VASTLY superior to what current computers are capable of doing at the time of the creation of the quantum computer.

So your definition of a Turing computer is that it is a linear machine. What if a non-linear turing complient machine is created after the first linear type one? Things gain more complexity as time goes on.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Trmpt"]

Oh so you're saying that a turing complient computer cant simulate a quantum computer because it is incapable of running things as fast as a quantum computer?

If it is a 'turing machine' that means that it past the 'turing test'. Once it passes the turing test it is only going to improve in performance. So I would think that 'turing machines' will eventually get to the point where it is as powerful as a quantum computer and therefore would be able to simulate it. What if the 'turing machine' replaces its hardware with something that resembles a quantum computer?

This is all taking into consideration that quantum computers are actually going to be VASTLY superior to what current computers are capable of doing at the time of the creation of the quantum computer.

Trmpt

So your definition of a Turing computer is that it is a linear machine. What if a non-linear turing complient machine is created after the first linear type one? Things gain more complexity as time goes on.

lol, this thread as been seriously derailed :Pnavyguy21

lol, this thread as been seriously derailed :Pnavyguy21

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]lol, this thread as been seriously derailed :Pkieranb2000

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]I'm saying a linear or Turing-compliant computer (that is, any computer that could reduce to a Turing machine) cannot properly simulate a quantum computer because they don't work on the same principles. A quantum computer cannot be reduced to a Turing machine--that's why I say it's not Turing-compliant.HuusAsking

So your definition of a Turing computer is that it is a linear machine. What if a non-linear turing complient machine is created after the first linear type one? Things gain more complexity as time goes on.

I just read the definition of 'turing machine'. It does run in a linear way. The way I was thnking of it was that any type of computer that is capable of passing the Turing test is a turing complient machine, regardless of how it crunches the numbers.

How did it get to a 'turing machine' anyway lol? We were talking about simulating human intelegence, which would involve the 'turing test', not a 'turing machine'. I was saying how quantum computers will be usable in passing the turing test.

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]lol, this thread as been seriously derailed :PTruedUp

[QUOTE="TruedUp"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] It's for the best. At least the argument now makes sense.kieranb2000

EDIT: Screw it, googled it. Yeah it's on the PC, so technically, the PC version would still look better? Atleast it would make sense if it did...

[QUOTE="TruedUp"][QUOTE="kieranb2000"] It's for the best. At least the argument now makes sense.kieranb2000

[QUOTE="kieranb2000"][QUOTE="TruedUp"] Crysis wins again. Yay... :/TruedUp

EDIT: Screw it, googled it. Yeah it's on the PC, so technically, the PC version would still look better? Atleast it would make sense if it did...

Maybe when Crysis 2 comes out, PS3 owners will be able to claim they have a game that looks better than Crysis. Doubtful, but possible.kieranb2000

EDIT: Screw it, googled it. Yeah it's on the PC, so technically, the PC version would still look better? Atleast it would make sense if it did...

Oh yes the PC version will definitely look better. But if Crytek pull some clever tricks, then maybe the PS3 version will look better than the first game did on PC. It isn't likely, but it could happen.kieranb2000

anythin could 'look' better but itll never have better graphics.

already it looks like mediumhigh settings at 720pat best theyll hit high settings

Wow just saw the screenshots, and i have seen crysis gameplay and screenshots, and i can honestly say Heavy Rain's graphics blows crysis graphics away.

So don't worry about the flaming you receive, thats just jealous PC fanboys that now have no choice but to whine to themselves that a console has finally matched and maybe exceeded there supposed superior PC hardware, meanwhile they'll never admit it in this forum, but those screenshots prove the true power of the PS3 is finally being utilized.

Now not only are the PC's being matched graphically, but the 360 is being left in the dust graphically...good find man. Heavy Rain and PS3 rule and i can't wait to get my hands on that game.

But if Crytek pull some clever tricks, then maybe the PS3 version will look better than the first game did on PC. It isn't likely, but it could happen.kieranb2000

Impossible would be better fitting.

Honestly how does anyone think it could happen? Never mind all CryEngine 3 media that has been released, a little bit of hardware knowledge should have alarm bells going off with anyone.

Again my texture analogy from before explains why this is impossible.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Trmpt"]

So your definition of a Turing computer is that it is a linear machine. What if a non-linear turing complient machine is created after the first linear type one? Things gain more complexity as time goes on.

Trmpt

I just read the definition of 'turing machine'. It does run in a linear way. The way I was thnking of it was that any type of computer that is capable of passing the Turing test is a turing complient machine, regardless of how it crunches the numbers.

How did it get to a 'turing machine' anyway lol? We were talking about simulating human intelegence, which would involve the 'turing test', not a 'turing machine'. I was saying how quantum computers will be usable in passing the turing test.

Wow just saw the screenshots, and i have seen crysis gameplay and screenshots, and i can honestly say Heavy Rain's graphics blows crysis graphics away.

So don't worry about the flaming you receive, thats just jealous PC fanboys that now have no choice but to whine to themselves that a console has finally matched and maybe exceeded there supposed superior PC hardware, meanwhile they'll never admit it in this forum, but those screenshots prove the true power of the PS3 is finally being utilized.

Now not only are the PC's being matched graphically, but the 360 is being left in the dust graphically...good find man. Heavy Rain and PS3 rule and i can't wait to get my hands on that game.

Knight-of-NINE

heavy rain is just button sequences. thats just boring, its an interactive movie thats just boring

Wow just saw the screenshots, and i have seen crysis gameplay and screenshots, and i can honestly say Heavy Rain's graphics blows crysis graphics away.

So don't worry about the flaming you receive, thats just jealous PC fanboys that now have no choice but to whine to themselves that a console has finally matched and maybe exceeded there supposed superior PC hardware, meanwhile they'll never admit it in this forum, but those screenshots prove the true power of the PS3 is finally being utilized.

Now not only are the PC's being matched graphically, but the 360 is being left in the dust graphically...good find man. Heavy Rain and PS3 rule and i can't wait to get my hands on that game.

Knight-of-NINE

It would greatly save your credibility if you knew what a computer was.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Then it's no longer a Turing machine. Linearity is part of the definition and design.HuusAsking

I just read the definition of 'turing machine'. It does run in a linear way. The way I was thnking of it was that any type of computer that is capable of passing the Turing test is a turing complient machine, regardless of how it crunches the numbers.

How did it get to a 'turing machine' anyway lol? We were talking about simulating human intelegence, which would involve the 'turing test', not a 'turing machine'. I was saying how quantum computers will be usable in passing the turing test.

We were talking about computing power and the ability to create lifelike graphics. Someone brought up the quantum computer, then someone (as a joke) brought up that any computer could simulate any other computer. Then, as is my **** I stepped in with the reality check and pointed out that a quantum computer is nonlinear and thus non-Turing (I took a full run of CS in college) and therefore cannot be reasonably simulated by a Turing-compliant (in this case, meaning one that can be reduced to a Turing machine).

You must have misinterpreted the post haha, because we were talking about simulating human intelligence.

The Turing 'test' is completely different from the Turing 'machine' and it really had no relevancy to the core discussion. (the subdiscussion that is)

You must have misinterpreted the post haha, because we were talking about simulating human intelligence.

The Turing 'test' is completely different from the Turing 'machine' and it really had no relevancy to the core discussion. (the subdiscussion that is)

Trmpt

I was answering specifically to this:

we do. have u seen the study at stanford? by simulating a more powerful chip, on a real chip, you can figure out what the simulated one figures out. idk about you, but it sounds to me like you could repeat that enough times to beat a quantum computer with a pentium D12345678ew

I was the one who brought up Turing--in this case, the Turing machine, to point out that quantum computers, being nonlinear, cannot be reduced to a Turing machine like the ones before us now. It was to show they were too dissimilar.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

You must have misinterpreted the post haha, because we were talking about simulating human intelligence.

The Turing 'test' is completely different from the Turing 'machine' and it really had no relevancy to the core discussion. (the subdiscussion that is)

HuusAsking

I was answering specifically to this:

we do. have u seen the study at stanford? by simulating a more powerful chip, on a real chip, you can figure out what the simulated one figures out. idk about you, but it sounds to me like you could repeat that enough times to beat a quantum computer with a pentium D12345678ew

I still dont know how this is being argued over. If a game is made to fully push a computer to it's max ( or whatever max is at that time) it will always look better, I am a ps3 fan boy, but nothing can even compare close..CLOSE to a fully loaded pc. Crysis at maxc settings on a loaded pc is almost to good for your eye's to even see. My friend has a $4,000 custom pc and wow. I'v never seen anything like it. When he puts crysis on max setting's everything looks so damn real. You even have like a mile draw distance with over hundreds of things going on and IT ALL LOOKS GOOD STILL! Dont want to admit, but crysis win's end of story. If that wont convinve you just look at what the minimum and reccomended requirments are for crysis, thsoe settings which arent max are about what a ps3 or even a 360 put out at 3/4 power to maxed out.

This thread shows that cows really wanted graphic kings after last gen when the Xbox beats the PS2 in specs but not in games. And now they go against PC? Now I see why we have console graphic kings and not just graphics kings.

Now I see why we have console graphic kings and not just graphics kings.

mitu123

They exclude PC from any graphics comparison thread, criticising PC gamers when they try to take part, then they go make threads like this :roll:

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Now I see why we have console graphic kings and not just graphics kings.

AnnoyedDragon

They exclude PC from any graphics comparison thread, criticising PC gamers when they try to take part, then they go make threads like this :roll:

Wow just saw the screenshots, and i have seen crysis gameplay and screenshots, and i can honestly say Heavy Rain's graphics blows crysis graphics away.

So don't worry about the flaming you receive, thats just jealous PC fanboys that now have no choice but to whine to themselves that a console has finally matched and maybe exceeded there supposed superior PC hardware, meanwhile they'll never admit it in this forum, but those screenshots prove the true power of the PS3 is finally being utilized.

Now not only are the PC's being matched graphically, but the 360 is being left in the dust graphically...good find man. Heavy Rain and PS3 rule and i can't wait to get my hands on that game.

The topic title is still making me cry though. Then and Than mix-ups are...disgraceful. Seeing one is like watching the scene in Bambi where [spoiler] Bambi's mother dies. [/spoiler]

I was answering specifically to this:

[QUOTE="12345678ew"]we do. have u seen the study at stanford? by simulating a more powerful chip, on a real chip, you can figure out what the simulated one figures out.idk about you, but it sounds to me like you could repeat that enough times to beat a quantum computer with a pentium DHuusAsking

I was the one who brought up Turing--in this case, the Turing machine, to point out that quantum computers, being nonlinear, cannot be reduced to a Turing machine like the ones before us now. It was to show they were too dissimilar.

This is really late but I was just re-redeading some posts and noticed that you said that a turing 'machine' cant simulate a quantum one, which is true. But I think that the poster was trying to say that you can beat a quantum computer with a turing one that has enough power. This would never happen though because quantum computers are going to take over and linear computers will most likely stop advancing because they would start concentrating on the quantum type of computer.

So the original idea was that since you can use a less powerful chip to simulate a more powerful one you could, theoretically, take a less powerful chip and combine a bunch of them to beat a quantum computer, not in the sense of actually simulating it, but in the sense that you could figure out what it is doing faster than what was possible by the quantum computer, or beat it in a race.

This is the worst System Wars thread in a month.

Oh a cgi movie broken up with QTE's.............meh

vaderhater

I'm a huge PS3 fan, but even I disagree.