Killzone 2 only used half the PS3's processing power!!!

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

So if you guys believe GG and other Sony 1st party studios when they say that "game x cant be done on console y" or "we only use 33.46% of ps3 power" do you now believe KZ2 can be done on 360?I mean...after all,it only uses 50% of its power :P

Anastasia1997

So do you believe this quote that GG said than? :)

R3 graphics > KZ3 graphics. :)

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

So if you guys believe GG and other Sony 1st party studios when they say that "game x cant be done on console y" or "we only use 33.46% of ps3 power" do you now believe KZ2 can be done on 360?I mean...after all,it only uses 50% of its power :P

Bus-A-Bus

So do you believe this quote that GG said than? :)

the 60% spe's quote? That part is true. GG actually said they used 50% of the ps3's power?

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"] There isnt a game being released on 360 that looks anywhere near KZ2, sonot until then can you prove sotheuncharted34

So do you believe this quote that GG said than? :)

the 60% spe's quote? That part is true. GG actually said they used 50% of the ps3's power?

Nope.Back than they said they use 60% so that would mean that ps3 is almost twice as powerfull as 360 if you believe that quote and think that 360 cant achieve those graphics.

And yes...KZ2 AND KZ3 fire effects make me puke :? i never noticed they were so bad...

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"]

[QUOTE="GnR-SLaSh"] I can't stop looking at your friggin' signature :Ptheuncharted34

you know what? I have faith in R3. They're going back to the darker tone, they brought the weapon wheel back, the graphics recieved a huge jump, And they still have 8 months to polish the single player, graphics, and the multiplayer. I Think it's going to be incredible. This is Insomniac after all :)

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

So do you believe this quote that GG said than? :)

Bus-A-Bus

the 60% spe's quote? That part is true. GG actually said they used 50% of the ps3's power?

Nope.Back than they said they use 60% so that would mean that ps3 is almost twice as powerfull as 360 if you believe that quote and think that 360 cant achieve those graphics.

And yes...KZ2 AND KZ3 fire effects make me puke :? i never noticed they were so bad...

they said 60% of the spe's. They never said that about the overall power. It won't let me link it, just type in killzone 2 60% on google.

it's on playstation universe.

You're close to being half right. Killzone 2 only used "60%" of the spe's. It was using all 100% of the PPE and the RSX graphics processor.

And for killzone 3 they offloaded enough to max out the spe's "workload" to 100%.

Basically what they improved on in kz3 is, they used the same engine (why not? it's great.) they removed all the excess blur, switched the 2xQuincux AA for MLAA, which saved them 18 mb's of video RAM.

And then they optimised their code to a t. Getting sharper textures, and bigger scale out of the deal. And better AA.

It may be killzone 2.5, (graphically at least), but the game has a great artstyle. In fact, it's one of my favorite art styles ever.

And I dare you to call it greyzone! :evil: :P

theuncharted34

MLAA does not give them 18 megs back...its not "fixed case",it depends on the game...than again if you want to do MLAA you'll have to move your frame buffer to main memory soo... :)

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]

Apparently Killzone 2 only used 50% of the PS3's processing power. If this is true, how amazing is Killzone 3 going to be? We're yet to see a console game really surpass KZ2 graphically, and this is only using half of the PS3's power?!?!

http://www.digitalscrutiny.com/content/2010/12/killzone-2-used-half-the-ps3s-processing-power/

Anastasia1997

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]If they really do have an extra 50% of processing power to play with... any chance of 60fps? Bus-A-Bus

60fps is ALMOST 3 times harder to achieve.In general, this means you have ~1/3 the time in comparison with 30fps, due to fixed cost overhead which can't be removed.Thats why I respect job that Treyarch done with BO.

Black Ops is the worst optimized game out of the Call of Duty series.

It is so horrible I think they were drunk when they made the game.

Every other Call of Duty runs great except Black Ops.

And the game doesn't even look as good as World at War.

Lmao, Sev is so dead in this pic.

Blabadon

I would be dead too....

....from looking at those awful graphics.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

the 60% spe's quote? That part is true. GG actually said they used 50% of the ps3's power?

theuncharted34

Nope.Back than they said they use 60% so that would mean that ps3 is almost twice as powerfull as 360 if you believe that quote and think that 360 cant achieve those graphics.

And yes...KZ2 AND KZ3 fire effects make me puke :? i never noticed they were so bad...

they said 60% of the spe's. They never said that about the overall power. It won't let me link it, just type in killzone 2 60% on google.

it's on playstation universe.

I know what they meant,thank you anyway.They do standard things on SPUs though,nothing out of ordinary...Post processing,light pre pass,vertex processing...thats what i get they do for helping RSX.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

You're close to being half right. Killzone 2 only used "60%" of the spe's. It was using all 100% of the PPE and the RSX graphics processor.

And for killzone 3 they offloaded enough to max out the spe's "workload" to 100%.

Basically what they improved on in kz3 is, they used the same engine (why not? it's great.) they removed all the excess blur, switched the 2xQuincux AA for MLAA, which saved them 18 mb's of video RAM.

And then they optimised their code to a t. Getting sharper textures, and bigger scale out of the deal. And better AA.

It may be killzone 2.5, (graphically at least), but the game has a great artstyle. In fact, it's one of my favorite art styles ever.

And I dare you to call it greyzone! :evil: :P

Bus-A-Bus

MLAA does not give them 18 megs back...its not "fixed case",it depends on the game...than again if you want to do MLAA you'll have to move your frame buffer to main memory soo... :)

I read somewhere GG saved 18 mb's of video ram by taking out the quincux AA. And moving MLAA to the main memory.

EDIT: could be wrong though.

And here I had finally forgotten Sony has a habit of saying this about all their games...

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]

Lmao, Sev is so dead in this pic.

Hakkai007

I would be dead too....

....from looking at those awful graphics.

Th ps3 is a magic box with limitless power..........:roll:

How many people actually read the article? He said that the kz3 engine is more optimized and when they imported a kz2 level into the new engine it only used half of the ps3's processing power. Not that kz2 only used 50% of the ps3's power but their new engine is much more optimized.ferret-gamer

And 8 pages later people still doesn't realize this... They just want to rant and whine and bash the PR's. :lol:

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]

Lmao, Sev is so dead in this pic.

Hakkai007

I would be dead too....

....from looking at those awful graphics.

would you just stop? I can't understand why people go to such lengths to bash a game or system.

From now on you're the new cutecakes.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]

Lmao, Sev is so dead in this pic.

ferret-gamer

I would be dead too....

....from looking at those awful graphics.

Th ps3 is a magic box with limitless power..........:roll:

Advid-Gamer

cause you aint got level 40 a-spec mah boi!

What did you do before this gen?ferret-gamer

It's a joke.....just don't understand how people hype Killzone 2's graphics when even Fear 2 looks better.

I still play games from last gen. I am playing Thief Deadly Shadows right now.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

You're close to being half right. Killzone 2 only used "60%" of the spe's. It was using all 100% of the PPE and the RSX graphics processor.

And for killzone 3 they offloaded enough to max out the spe's "workload" to 100%.

Basically what they improved on in kz3 is, they used the same engine (why not? it's great.) they removed all the excess blur, switched the 2xQuincux AA for MLAA, which saved them 18 mb's of video RAM.

And then they optimised their code to a t. Getting sharper textures, and bigger scale out of the deal. And better AA.

It may be killzone 2.5, (graphically at least), but the game has a great artstyle. In fact, it's one of my favorite art styles ever.

And I dare you to call it greyzone! :evil: :P

MLAA does not give them 18 megs back...its not "fixed case",it depends on the game...than again if you want to do MLAA you'll have to move your frame buffer to main memory soo... :)

We can assume he was born in 2007.freedomfreak

Nope I was born June 22, 1982 :)

[QUOTE="Blabadon"]

Lmao, Sev is so dead in this pic.

I would be dead too....

....from looking at those awful graphics.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]If they really do have an extra 50% of processing power to play with... any chance of 60fps? Hakkai007

60fps is ALMOST 3 times harder to achieve.In general, this means you have ~1/3 the time in comparison with 30fps, due to fixed cost overhead which can't be removed.Thats why I respect job that Treyarch done with BO.

Black Ops is the worst optimized game out of the Call of Duty series.

It is so horrible I think they were drunk when they made the game.

Every other Call of Duty runs great except Black Ops.

And the game doesn't even look as good as World at War.

Yea im sure it does not ;)

While ill agree to some extent that it is quite inconsistent COD its best moments BY FAR eclipse WAW or MW2.

For example,that WMD snow level is sight to behold.Also,that city in Vietnam...or Vorkuta and that one mission at beginning where you go to kill Dragovich and sabotage missile etc.

Here,this is one of the best graphics i have seen in FPS,and its 60fps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

There is some pretty crazy stuff Black Ops does that big majority of 30fps titles dont.Just look at their depth of field quality,lighting in some levels,character models,great skin shaders,wet shaders etc.Yea its great :)

O rly? ThenI suppose every game on PC except Crysis and Metro 2033 look abysmal? BTW, thats Pre-alpha image of KZ2Anastasia1997

The best looking console game is way way down the list when you count PC games.

Probably not even in the top 30.

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"] We can assume he was born in 2007.Hakkai007

Nope I was born June 22, 1982 :)

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

You're close to being half right. Killzone 2 only used "60%" of the spe's. It was using all 100% of the PPE and the RSX graphics processor.

And for killzone 3 they offloaded enough to max out the spe's "workload" to 100%.

Basically what they improved on in kz3 is, they used the same engine (why not? it's great.) they removed all the excess blur, switched the 2xQuincux AA for MLAA, which saved them 18 mb's of video RAM.

And then they optimised their code to a t. Getting sharper textures, and bigger scale out of the deal. And better AA.

It may be killzone 2.5, (graphically at least), but the game has a great artstyle. In fact, it's one of my favorite art styles ever.

And I dare you to call it greyzone! :evil: :P

Anastasia1997

MLAA does not give them 18 megs back...its not "fixed case",it depends on the game...than again if you want to do MLAA you'll have to move your frame buffer to main memory soo... :)

They look like crap.Seriously,very low resolution.Just look at them couple pages earlier...Give me that quote.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="freedomfreak"] We can assume he was born in 2007.freedomfreak

Nope I was born June 22, 1982 :)

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"]O rly? ThenI suppose every game on PC except Crysis and Metro 2033 look abysmal? BTW, thats Pre-alpha image of KZ2Hakkai007

The best looking console game is way way down the list when you count PC games.

Probably not even in the top 30.

Yea im sure it does not ;)

While ill agree to some extent that it is quite inconsistent COD its best moments BY FAR eclipse WAW or MW2.

For example,that WMD snow level is sight to behold.Also,that city in Vietnam...or Vorkuta and that one mission at beginning where you go to kill Dragovich and sabotage missile etc.

Here,this is one of the best graphics i have seen in FPS,and its 60fps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

There is some pretty crazy stuff Black Ops does that big majority of 30fps titles dont.Just look at their depth of field quality,lighting in some levels,character models,great skin shaders,wet shaders etc.Yea its great :)

Bus-A-Bus

If you are saying Black Ops runs at 60fps on consoles then do you have proof?

I still found World at War to look better. Black Ops had some cool moments though.It's just that the game was horribly optimized for the PC. I have no clue what they did to make it run so bad on the CPU but my guess it they did a horrible porting job from the consoles CPU architecture.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-killzone-3-tech-analysis?page=2

heres the link about the 18mb's of ram. on page 2. thought I was right.

The article is pretty interesting :)

Lets not turn this into a pc vs ps3 graphics debate please. :?ferret-gamer

Not trying to it's the console fanboy that is making the statement that Killzone 2 looks better than any PC game except Crysis and Metro 2033.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-killzone-3-tech-analysis?page=2

heres the link about the 18mb's of ram. on page 2. thought I was right.

The article is pretty interesting :)

theuncharted34

Ok.I apologize,I thought SM said they gained 18 megs ;) But yea,its not fixed,it depends on the game.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

60fps is ALMOST 3 times harder to achieve.In general, this means you have ~1/3 the time in comparison with 30fps, due to fixed cost overhead which can't be removed.Thats why I respect job that Treyarch done with BO.

Black Ops is the worst optimized game out of the Call of Duty series.

It is so horrible I think they were drunk when they made the game.

Every other Call of Duty runs great except Black Ops.

And the game doesn't even look as good as World at War.

Yea im sure it does not ;)

While ill agree to some extent that it is quite inconsistent COD its best moments BY FAR eclipse WAW or MW2.

For example,that WMD snow level is sight to behold.Also,that city in Vietnam...or Vorkuta and that one mission at beginning where you go to kill Dragovich and sabotage missile etc.

Here,this is one of the best graphics i have seen in FPS,and its 60fps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

There is some pretty crazy stuff Black Ops does that big majority of 30fps titles dont.Just look at their depth of field quality,lighting in some levels,character models,great skin shaders,wet shaders etc.Yea its great :)

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-killzone-3-tech-analysis?page=2

heres the link about the 18mb's of ram. on page 2. thought I was right.

The article is pretty interesting :)

Bus-A-Bus

Ok.I apologize,I thought SM said they gained 18 megs ;) But yea,its not fixed,it depends on the game.

yeah. They'll at least be savin 10mb's though.

But yeah I can't wait for killzone 3 :D

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Yea im sure it does not ;)

While ill agree to some extent that it is quite inconsistent COD its best moments BY FAR eclipse WAW or MW2.

For example,that WMD snow level is sight to behold.Also,that city in Vietnam...or Vorkuta and that one mission at beginning where you go to kill Dragovich and sabotage missile etc.

Here,this is one of the best graphics i have seen in FPS,and its 60fps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

There is some pretty crazy stuff Black Ops does that big majority of 30fps titles dont.Just look at their depth of field quality,lighting in some levels,character models,great skin shaders,wet shaders etc.Yea its great :)

Hakkai007

If you are saying Black Ops runs at 30fps on consoles then do you have proof?

I still found World at War to look better. Black Ops had some cool moment though.It's just that the game was horribly optimized for the PC. I have no clue what they did to make it run so bad on the CPU but my guess it they did a horrible porting job from the consoles CPU architecture.

Naw Im saying that Black Ops runs at 60fps smoothly(at least on 360,on ps3 10fps less on avg) but in lots of instances looks better than big majority of FPS running at 30fps.Thats why i said-look at their depth of field quality(some of the best i have seen on consoles but its 60fps),lighting,fire effects(great fire effects),skin shader,wet shader,character models etc.Its great,really is.

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"]O rly? ThenI suppose every game on PC except Crysis and Metro 2033 look abysmal? BTW, thats Pre-alpha image of KZ2Hakkai007

The best looking console game is way way down the list when you count PC games.

Probably not even in the top 30.

Wow. Who made the decision to do that? Devs these days...:roll:

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Black Ops is the worst optimized game out of the Call of Duty series.

It is so horrible I think they were drunk when they made the game.

Every other Call of Duty runs great except Black Ops.

And the game doesn't even look as good as World at War.

Anastasia1997

Yea im sure it does not ;)

While ill agree to some extent that it is quite inconsistent COD its best moments BY FAR eclipse WAW or MW2.

For example,that WMD snow level is sight to behold.Also,that city in Vietnam...or Vorkuta and that one mission at beginning where you go to kill Dragovich and sabotage missile etc.

Here,this is one of the best graphics i have seen in FPS,and its 60fps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

There is some pretty crazy stuff Black Ops does that big majority of 30fps titles dont.Just look at their depth of field quality,lighting in some levels,character models,great skin shaders,wet shaders etc.Yea its great :)

Who said i dont??Where did you read that?I think KZ3 looks brilliant(i hate fire effect res though,but its understandable considering PS3 bandwidth) and i have always said that ;) About R3 I think it looks good,not incredible but quite good.

BTW just look at that video at 8:07 starting till end...it looks marvelous :)

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Yea im sure it does not ;)

While ill agree to some extent that it is quite inconsistent COD its best moments BY FAR eclipse WAW or MW2.

For example,that WMD snow level is sight to behold.Also,that city in Vietnam...or Vorkuta and that one mission at beginning where you go to kill Dragovich and sabotage missile etc.

Here,this is one of the best graphics i have seen in FPS,and its 60fps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

There is some pretty crazy stuff Black Ops does that big majority of 30fps titles dont.Just look at their depth of field quality,lighting in some levels,character models,great skin shaders,wet shaders etc.Yea its great :)

Bus-A-Bus

If you are saying Black Ops runs at 30fps on consoles then do you have proof?

I still found World at War to look better. Black Ops had some cool moment though.It's just that the game was horribly optimized for the PC. I have no clue what they did to make it run so bad on the CPU but my guess it they did a horrible porting job from the consoles CPU architecture.

Naw Im saying that Black Ops runs at 60fps smoothly(at least on 360,on ps3 10fps less on avg) but in lots of instances looks better than big majority of FPS running at 30fps.Thats why i said-look at their depth of field quality(some of the best i have seen on consoles but its 60fps),lighting,fire effects(great fire effects),skin shader,wet shader,character models etc.Its great,really is.

no way dude. Black ops looks average. And I can respect you're opinion, but how does black ops have great fire effects, but killzone 2 has bad fire?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]How many people actually read the article? He said that the kz3 engine is more optimized and when they imported a kz2 level into the new engine it only used half of the ps3's processing power. Not that kz2 only used 50% of the ps3's power but their new engine is much more optimized.Gue1

And 8 pages later people still doesn't realize this... They just want to rant and whine and bash the PR's. :lol:

Which means the exact same thing.

Regardless of whether you think KZ2 only used 50% of PS3's processing performance, or that they are claiming they managed to optimize it to the point where 50% additional processing performance became available, they are claiming PS3's processing power is twice as capable as what KZ2 achieved.

Quite frankly I think this is getting pathetic. Every game they pull this, it's like they think it's all that's needed to get PS3 gamers hyped. Then again, they had them believing they were buying a super computer during launch; so "more power" probably is all that's needed to send some of them bouncing...

Naw Im saying that Black Ops runs at 60fps smoothly(at least on 360,on ps3 10fps less on avg) but in lots of instances looks better than big majority of FPS running at 30fps.Thats why i said-look at their depth of field quality(some of the best i have seen on consoles but its 60fps),lighting,fire effects(great fire effects),skin shader,wet shader,character models etc.Its great,really is.

Bus-A-Bus

I doubt it was run anywhere near 60fps on consoles.

It had a lot of slow down in some parts.

And the console version doesn't look as good as the PC version.

I am comparing the PC version of World at War to the PC version of Black Ops.

Modern Warfare 2 was the best looking CoD game though.

And if you mention fire effects World at War also had great fire effects especially when you get the flamethrower and can light a field on fire.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

If you are saying Black Ops runs at 30fps on consoles then do you have proof?

I still found World at War to look better. Black Ops had some cool moment though.It's just that the game was horribly optimized for the PC. I have no clue what they did to make it run so bad on the CPU but my guess it they did a horrible porting job from the consoles CPU architecture.

theuncharted34

Naw Im saying that Black Ops runs at 60fps smoothly(at least on 360,on ps3 10fps less on avg) but in lots of instances looks better than big majority of FPS running at 30fps.Thats why i said-look at their depth of field quality(some of the best i have seen on consoles but its 60fps),lighting,fire effects(great fire effects),skin shader,wet shader,character models etc.Its great,really is.

no way dude. Black ops looks average. And I can respect you're opinion, but how does black ops have great fire effect, but killzone 2 has bad fire?

Black Ops is INCONSISTENT,but some levels really do look exquisite.Like that Vietnam City,Vorkuta,WMD etc.

I just linked you a video of WMD,just look at it and be honest and say what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

Fast Forward to 8:02...

And here are fire effects...much better than KZs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC07zxwCJDc

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Naw Im saying that Black Ops runs at 60fps smoothly(at least on 360,on ps3 10fps less on avg) but in lots of instances looks better than big majority of FPS running at 30fps.Thats why i said-look at their depth of field quality(some of the best i have seen on consoles but its 60fps),lighting,fire effects(great fire effects),skin shader,wet shader,character models etc.Its great,really is.

Hakkai007

I doubt it was run anywhere near 60fps on consoles.

It had a lot of slow down in some parts.

And the console version doesn't look as good as the PC version.

I am comparing the PC version of World at War to the PC version of Black Ops.

Modern Warfare 2 was the best looking CoD game though.

And if you mention fire effects World at War also had great fire effects especially when you get the flamethrower and can light a field on fire.

Well judging by DF analysis 360 version runs at 57fps avg. if Im not mistaking.

No.I have all COD on 360 and best moments from Black Ops simply look better than MW2,no contest.

Hey Bus-A-Bus, dont you have some juicy Crysis news to tell? I'm getting desperate for a fix. Just a taste???

Hey Bus-A-Bus, dont you have some juicy Crysis news to tell? I'm getting desperate for a fix. Just a taste???

Filthybastrd

Have you seen newest scans? :)

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Naw Im saying that Black Ops runs at 60fps smoothly(at least on 360,on ps3 10fps less on avg) but in lots of instances looks better than big majority of FPS running at 30fps.Thats why i said-look at their depth of field quality(some of the best i have seen on consoles but its 60fps),lighting,fire effects(great fire effects),skin shader,wet shader,character models etc.Its great,really is.

no way dude. Black ops looks average. And I can respect you're opinion, but how does black ops have great fire effect, but killzone 2 has bad fire?

Black Ops is INCONSISTENT,but some levels really do look exquisite.Like that Vietnam City,Vorkuta,WMD etc.

I just linked you a video of WMD,just look at it and be honest and say what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pka2d6Ng5ko

Fast Forward to 8:02...

And here are fire effects...much better than KZs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC07zxwCJDc