PS3 Cell Barely More Powerful than Wii CPU

[QUOTE="PoppaLemming"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="PoppaLemming"]

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"]I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.Killfox

You gotta love cows :lol:

So tell me, WHEN if ever will it be unlocked? Either it's unlocked already or it will never be unlocked. I love it how you cows blindly bought into the hype

Got to love lemmings. There just as misinformed as cows are. I would take cell over that 3 core CPU thats equivilant to a pentium 4 at 3Ghz.

What about zero exclusive AAA's in almost a whole year

Would you take that too? :lol:

If your talking about PS3. Then NGS might get AAA. If your talking about PC. We already have 2 AAA and a a crap load of AA. Higher standards pal.

NGS = port. I love how cows feast on thelemmings yesterday lunch leftovers

and i'm part hermit too so :P

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]Subrosian. In the midst of all this CPU debate, where would that leave the 360s CPU, out of curiosity? I dont usualy ask these kinds of questions because they sometimes lead to fanboy flamewars, but you seem to quell everyone pretty well. You seem to know your stuff.subrosian

The first Xbox was only capable of startlingly impressive effects because of the hardware inside its GPU.

In any case, from what I've heard, making multithreaded apps run alright on the 360 is much easier than developing code for the Cell.

Keep in mind though, a lot of what creates the incentive to do either is the install base - a developer like Epic has some serious financial reasons to create a game like Gears of War, and as much as they complain about Microsoft, they still take their money, and they're going to be developing Gears 2 on the system. If the PS3 sales turn around, the liabilities become an asset - if the PS3 goes on to sell 30 million consoles by summer 2009, publishers are going to say "okay, use the Cell" to their developers.

From now, through at leastuntil the end of 2008, I'd say the 360 CPU was a better choice - making a system easy to develop for at the very least allows easy PC ports - and despite being "not really exclusive" having titles like Oblivion earlier, and having titles like Bioshock that the competition doesn't have is never *harmful* to a system. If Microsoft continues to hold a lead in sales through 2009 ~ 2010, it really will be over for the PS3 - and there is always the massive threat that Nintendo will unleash a new handheld in Japan - which would take away a lot of holiday sales.

So, my opinion is that the 360 CPU was the right move to make, and that Sony made a move that only works if you can guarantee you're going to be in the first place spot.

But unified memory 1) leaves less room available for applications and 2) is not as fast as dedicated video memory

Additionally, the XDR pool of memory available to the Playstation 3's Cell is faster. Therefore, unified memory is only an asset in that it is "easier to develop for." In your "business" questions, you asked me why the Cell has not overtaken general purpose processors in the PC market.

I pose another question to you: why hasn't unified memory overtaken dedicated video memory on the PC platform? You can find unified memory on low end PCs, with the issues above that I specified, but high-end PCs are noticably different. There is little vantage to unified memory besides being cheaper and easier to develop for.

There is a rumor that exists at this very moment that has yet to be confirmed or denied that Epic games is making an exclusive Playstation 3 game. They also support the platform, as Mark Rein says it's still "the one to beat." You obviously underestimate the staggering drawing power of the Garden State.

Again: If the 360 CPU is so brilliant to develop for, why is your example Gears of War? As Mark Rein said, UT3 was ported from the PC platform to the PS3 platforms with no surprises and good, even unexpectedly good, performance, within a short period of time back in 2005.

Oblivion came out on the 360 earlier because the 360 releasedearlier. The Wii is destroying both the 360 and the PS3 worldwide and their sales are both disappointing. I don't expect the 360 lead to continue for much longer, and, once we see an equivalent number of titles on the Playstation 3 that look equivalent or better than those on the Xbox 360 (which should happen in about 2-3 months), we should see the Playstation 3 pick up in pace substantially.

We're already seeing this. Factor Five says: "this game is not possible on the Xbox 360. [reason, reason, reason, reason.]"

Naughty Dog: "This game is not possible on any other platform [reason reason reason reason]."

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="PoppaLemming"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="PoppaLemming"]

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"]I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.PoppaLemming

You gotta love cows :lol:

So tell me, WHEN if ever will it be unlocked? Either it's unlocked already or it will never be unlocked. I love it how you cows blindly bought into the hype

Got to love lemmings. There just as misinformed as cows are. I would take cell over that 3 core CPU thats equivilant to a pentium 4 at 3Ghz.

What about zero exclusive AAA's in almost a whole year

Would you take that too? :lol:

If your talking about PS3. Then NGS might get AAA. If your talking about PC. We already have 2 AAA and a a crap load of AA. Higher standards pal.

NGS = port. I love how cows feast on lemmings yesterday lunch

and i'm part hermit too so :P

Wait so when was it officially announced by system wars that it was considered a port??? Just curious.

Example of general processing above. 4 days, 80 times faster than Intel Woodcrest, presumably general purpose processor.

The guy who said it can't run Linux applications is eating his words right now, I hope. Watch the video.

Redfingers

that program was an opengl 3d library (mesa) that's hardly general.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="Ontain"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]I want to see the Wii handle the phsyics, load times, and lighting of Oblivion. Not to mention all of the different A.I. things (speech, 24 hour need system). When it can do that and still look as good as the PS3 version, then I will believe that.Ontain

it'll never look as good as the ps3 because it doesn't have HD and wasn't meant for it (so it doesn't need as much power for that) and it doesn't have as much memory. even if the CPU was exactly the same as the ps3 it would never be able to match what the ps3 could do.

You're forgetting the GPU, the hard disc, and the Blu Ray drive.

yes to the GPU, the hard drive doesn't really matter much for graphics and neither does bluray. the thing that limits the ps3 is the memory. at least compared to pcs and even the 360 to some extent

But I digress. Uncharted Drake's Fortune developers Naughty Dog say of the game:

"The Blu Ray drive is absolutely necessary for this game. We are constantly streaming data from the hard disc and the Blu Ray drive, from textures, audio, level data, animations, everything, to make maximum efficient use of memory."

Three birds with one stone. That's memory, hard disc, and Blu Ray drive misconceptions smashed.

Wait so when was it officially announced by system wars that it was considered a port??? Just curious.

Killfox

All fanboyism aside. NGS is a polished port.

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="PoppaLemming"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="PoppaLemming"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="PoppaLemming"]

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"]I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.PoppaLemming

You gotta love cows :lol:

So tell me, WHEN if ever will it be unlocked? Either it's unlocked already or it will never be unlocked. I love it how you cows blindly bought into the hype

Got to love lemmings. There just as misinformed as cows are. I would take cell over that 3 core CPU thats equivilant to a pentium 4 at 3Ghz.

What about zero exclusive AAA's in almost a whole year

Would you take that too? :lol:

If your talking about PS3. Then NGS might get AAA. If your talking about PC. We already have 2 AAA and a a crap load of AA. Higher standards pal.

NGS = port. I love how cows feast on lemmings yesterday lunch

and i'm part hermit too so :P

Wait so when was it officially announced by system wars that it was considered a port??? Just curious.

All fanboyism aside. NGS is a polished port.

YeahI know. I just thought maybe it was considered an exclusive since its a completely different console.

[QUOTE="Killfox"]Wait so when was it officially announced by system wars that it was considered a port??? Just curious.

PoppaLemming

All fanboyism aside. NGS is a polished port.

Team Ninja, as crazy as they are, would fight you tooth, nail, and claw over that accusation.

[QUOTE="PoppaLemming"][QUOTE="Killfox"]Wait so when was it officially announced by system wars that it was considered a port??? Just curious.

Killfox

All fanboyism aside. NGS is a polished port.

YeahI know. I just thought maybe it was considered an exclusive since its a completely different console.

Now that's not a bad thing. I'll be getting a PS3 after E3 sometime and that game will be on my list no doubt about it

[QUOTE="PoppaLemming"][QUOTE="Killfox"]Wait so when was it officially announced by system wars that it was considered a port??? Just curious.

Redfingers

All fanboyism aside. NGS is a polished port.

Team Ninja, as crazy as they are, would fight you tooth, nail, and claw over that accusation.

What they reallyneed to do is fight tooth, nail, and claw and give us rabid fans a sequel

"So you're comparing one in-order PowerPC unit to a full out-of-order G5? Of course the G5 is faster. Nobody said it wasn't. But the power of the Cell includes numerous co-processors that are actually better than you'd expect at general purpose code as long as you multithread it. Trust me: this comparison is totally irresponsible. The idea of the Cell is that to take advantage of its potential, you have to write code specifically for it. A single-threaded benchmark that is written without any Cell-specific code is wasting 90% of its power."

A comment on one of Sub's links.

"

We're on the same page. I wasn't trying to imply that just running a bunch of threads would show the power of the PS3. The Cell's one PPE can run at most two threads concurrently, and it can only execute one instruction per cycle, regardless. The benefit of having two threads running is that when one stalls for a memory access, the other can fill in the gaps. I'd say that probably gets you about a 40% performance boost, as you said.

To really utilize the power of the Cell, you have to keep those SPEs busy which can't be done by simply multithreading. They require code written specifically for them that can only be run on them. The PPE is basically the guy with the whip behind the team of horses (the SPEs). It's his job to coordinate their efforts and motivate them. If you just have that guy with the whip trying to pull the carriage all by himself, he's going to seem pretty ineffective. It's only by utilizing all of the horses that you can move the carriage at a rapid pace."

The first comment is wrong, however, as the first link shows, Geekbench actually has both single and multithreaded benchmarks, this is true. A comment on the second link added that.

Still, the point here is that the Cell's SPE's have more general purpose computing power than anybody took them for if these comments are to be believed, whereas the rest of you were simply considering them invalid additions that flail their arms ineffectively unless very specialized code is thrown at them, which they apparently gobble up rabidly.

"In summary, the cell processor is specifically not designed for PPU usage. The out-of-order execution units were deliberately removed to make room for the SPU cores and whilst this means "any old code" may run slower, code that is written to target the cell processor can realise much better performance gains than the out-of-order unit can possibly hope to achieve."

This guy apparently optimizes code around the SPUs. He supports your claim that it's not very capable of running general purpose code, but it's also fairly obvious from earlier comments that the SPUs are more than capable of running the same code, and not taking them into account is, as stated, fairly irresponsible, as it's neglecting the entire structure and function of the Cell.

Still, the business arguments do not make good tech arguments. It's been stated innumerable times that the Playstation 3 is actually easier to develop for than the Playstation 2, and it was my understanding that the Playstation 2 was actually HARDER to develop for than the Gamecube. The issues on the Gamecube simply stemmed from a variety of complications in business management itself whereas the Playstation 2 enjoyed an unprecedented bump due to a large number of factors. It really hit the "sweet spot" and that managed to force all third parties to write code specifically around the Playstation 2.

So inherent difficulty in getting code to run on the platform isn't the only thing that determines its success or developer's interest in utilizing the platform, this much is obvious. Considering that the Playstation 3 literally has more titles coming out this next year than the Xbox 360 and considering it has more notable titles coming out this summer, I don't think the difficult optimizations are truly bothering anyone.

As Teuf said, the Edge tools provide a series of more simple optimized operations that practically any developer can run and understand. It takes the first party knowledge (again, something you're not taking into account) and spreads it about.

I'm glad I found out that this comparison has some inherent flaws, as well, in addition to your benchmarks.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="PoppaLemming"][QUOTE="Killfox"]Wait so when was it officially announced by system wars that it was considered a port??? Just curious.

PoppaLemming

All fanboyism aside. NGS is a polished port.

Team Ninja, as crazy as they are, would fight you tooth, nail, and claw over that accusation.

What they reallyneed to do is fight tooth, nail, and claw and give us rabid fans a sequel

I definitely agree.

But I digress. Uncharted Drake's Fortune developers Naughty Dog say of the game:

"The Blu Ray drive is absolutely necessary for this game. We are constantly streaming data from the hard disc and the Blu Ray drive, from textures, audio, level data, animations, everything, to make maximum efficient use of memory."

Three birds with one stone. That's memory, hard disc, and Blu Ray drive misconceptions smashed.

Redfingers

streaming was done last gen too. just from dvd instead. it's not something you can do in a multiplayer setting either without getting lag. also what ever you stream would still need to sit in the ram. this means other stuff needs to leave ram. thus you are still limited by the ram.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]Subrosian. In the midst of all this CPU debate, where would that leave the 360s CPU, out of curiosity? I dont usualy ask these kinds of questions because they sometimes lead to fanboy flamewars, but you seem to quell everyone pretty well. You seem to know your stuff.Redfingers

The first Xbox was only capable of startlingly impressive effects because of the hardware inside its GPU.

In any case, from what I've heard, making multithreaded apps run alright on the 360 is much easier than developing code for the Cell.

Keep in mind though, a lot of what creates the incentive to do either is the install base - a developer like Epic has some serious financial reasons to create a game like Gears of War, and as much as they complain about Microsoft, they still take their money, and they're going to be developing Gears 2 on the system. If the PS3 sales turn around, the liabilities become an asset - if the PS3 goes on to sell 30 million consoles by summer 2009, publishers are going to say "okay, use the Cell" to their developers.

From now, through at leastuntil the end of 2008, I'd say the 360 CPU was a better choice - making a system easy to develop for at the very least allows easy PC ports - and despite being "not really exclusive" having titles like Oblivion earlier, and having titles like Bioshock that the competition doesn't have is never *harmful* to a system. If Microsoft continues to hold a lead in sales through 2009 ~ 2010, it really will be over for the PS3 - and there is always the massive threat that Nintendo will unleash a new handheld in Japan - which would take away a lot of holiday sales.

So, my opinion is that the 360 CPU was the right move to make, and that Sony made a move that only works if you can guarantee you're going to be in the first place spot.

But unified memory 1) leaves less room available for applications and 2) is not as fast as dedicated video memory

Additionally, the XDR pool of memory available to the Playstation 3's Cell is faster. Therefore, unified memory is only an asset in that it is "easier to develop for." In your "business" questions, you asked me why the Cell has not overtaken general purpose processors in the PC market.

I pose another question to you: why hasn't unified memory overtaken dedicated video memory on the PC platform? You can find unified memory on low end PCs, with the issues above that I specified, but high-end PCs are noticably different. There is little vantage to unified memory besides being cheaper and easier to develop for.

There is a rumor that exists at this very moment that has yet to be confirmed or denied that Epic games is making an exclusive Playstation 3 game. They also support the platform, as Mark Rein says it's still "the one to beat." You obviously underestimate the staggering drawing power of the Garden State.

Again: If the 360 CPU is so brilliant to develop for, why is your example Gears of War? As Mark Rein said, UT3 was ported from the PC platform to the PS3 platforms with no surprises and good, even unexpectedly good, performance, within a short period of time back in 2005.

Oblivion came out on the 360 earlier because the 360 releasedearlier. The Wii is destroying both the 360 and the PS3 worldwide and their sales are both disappointing. I don't expect the 360 lead to continue for much longer, and, once we see an equivalent number of titles on the Playstation 3 that look equivalent or better than those on the Xbox 360 (which should happen in about 2-3 months), we should see the Playstation 3 pick up in pace substantially.

We're already seeing this. Factor Five says: "this game is not possible on the Xbox 360. [reason, reason, reason, reason.]"

Naughty Dog: "This game is not possible on any other platform [reason reason reason reason]."

I do not see *anything* on the PS3 by September that threatens the 360 - so your claim of 2 ~ 3 months is extremely spurious - or at least the result of an extreme bias. Frankly, when you have Square-Enix saying "yeah, we're not touching your platform until after April 2008" I say "okay, it is bad business to be on the PS3 right now".

Any turnaround is going to be slow - and no matter how you want to play with your words on this, being in last place is bad news for PS3 owners, I should know, I was a Dreamcast and Gamecube owner last generation.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]Subrosian. In the midst of all this CPU debate, where would that leave the 360s CPU, out of curiosity? I dont usualy ask these kinds of questions because they sometimes lead to fanboy flamewars, but you seem to quell everyone pretty well. You seem to know your stuff.subrosian

The first Xbox was only capable of startlingly impressive effects because of the hardware inside its GPU.

In any case, from what I've heard, making multithreaded apps run alright on the 360 is much easier than developing code for the Cell.

Keep in mind though, a lot of what creates the incentive to do either is the install base - a developer like Epic has some serious financial reasons to create a game like Gears of War, and as much as they complain about Microsoft, they still take their money, and they're going to be developing Gears 2 on the system. If the PS3 sales turn around, the liabilities become an asset - if the PS3 goes on to sell 30 million consoles by summer 2009, publishers are going to say "okay, use the Cell" to their developers.

From now, through at leastuntil the end of 2008, I'd say the 360 CPU was a better choice - making a system easy to develop for at the very least allows easy PC ports - and despite being "not really exclusive" having titles like Oblivion earlier, and having titles like Bioshock that the competition doesn't have is never *harmful* to a system. If Microsoft continues to hold a lead in sales through 2009 ~ 2010, it really will be over for the PS3 - and there is always the massive threat that Nintendo will unleash a new handheld in Japan - which would take away a lot of holiday sales.

So, my opinion is that the 360 CPU was the right move to make, and that Sony made a move that only works if you can guarantee you're going to be in the first place spot.

But unified memory 1) leaves less room available for applications and 2) is not as fast as dedicated video memory

Additionally, the XDR pool of memory available to the Playstation 3's Cell is faster. Therefore, unified memory is only an asset in that it is "easier to develop for." In your "business" questions, you asked me why the Cell has not overtaken general purpose processors in the PC market.

I pose another question to you: why hasn't unified memory overtaken dedicated video memory on the PC platform? You can find unified memory on low end PCs, with the issues above that I specified, but high-end PCs are noticably different. There is little vantage to unified memory besides being cheaper and easier to develop for.

There is a rumor that exists at this very moment that has yet to be confirmed or denied that Epic games is making an exclusive Playstation 3 game. They also support the platform, as Mark Rein says it's still "the one to beat." You obviously underestimate the staggering drawing power of the Garden State.

Again: If the 360 CPU is so brilliant to develop for, why is your example Gears of War? As Mark Rein said, UT3 was ported from the PC platform to the PS3 platforms with no surprises and good, even unexpectedly good, performance, within a short period of time back in 2005.

Oblivion came out on the 360 earlier because the 360 releasedearlier. The Wii is destroying both the 360 and the PS3 worldwide and their sales are both disappointing. I don't expect the 360 lead to continue for much longer, and, once we see an equivalent number of titles on the Playstation 3 that look equivalent or better than those on the Xbox 360 (which should happen in about 2-3 months), we should see the Playstation 3 pick up in pace substantially.

We're already seeing this. Factor Five says: "this game is not possible on the Xbox 360. [reason, reason, reason, reason.]"

Naughty Dog: "This game is not possible on any other platform [reason reason reason reason]."

I do not see *anything* on the PS3 by September that threatens the 360 - so your claim of 2 ~ 3 months is extremely spurious - or at least the result of an extreme bias. Frankly, when you have Square-Enix saying "yeah, we're not touching your platform until after April 2008" I say "okay, it is bad business to be on the PS3 right now".

Any turnaround is going to be slow - and no matter how you want to play with your words on this, being in last place is bad news for PS3 owners, I should know, I was a Dreamcast and Gamecube owner last generation.

Square enix said "There wont games out from them until 2008." Not that they are not going to make games until then. Wow some people need to learn how to read.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]Subrosian. In the midst of all this CPU debate, where would that leave the 360s CPU, out of curiosity? I dont usualy ask these kinds of questions because they sometimes lead to fanboy flamewars, but you seem to quell everyone pretty well. You seem to know your stuff.Killfox

The first Xbox was only capable of startlingly impressive effects because of the hardware inside its GPU.

In any case, from what I've heard, making multithreaded apps run alright on the 360 is much easier than developing code for the Cell.

Keep in mind though, a lot of what creates the incentive to do either is the install base - a developer like Epic has some serious financial reasons to create a game like Gears of War, and as much as they complain about Microsoft, they still take their money, and they're going to be developing Gears 2 on the system. If the PS3 sales turn around, the liabilities become an asset - if the PS3 goes on to sell 30 million consoles by summer 2009, publishers are going to say "okay, use the Cell" to their developers.

From now, through at leastuntil the end of 2008, I'd say the 360 CPU was a better choice - making a system easy to develop for at the very least allows easy PC ports - and despite being "not really exclusive" having titles like Oblivion earlier, and having titles like Bioshock that the competition doesn't have is never *harmful* to a system. If Microsoft continues to hold a lead in sales through 2009 ~ 2010, it really will be over for the PS3 - and there is always the massive threat that Nintendo will unleash a new handheld in Japan - which would take away a lot of holiday sales.

So, my opinion is that the 360 CPU was the right move to make, and that Sony made a move that only works if you can guarantee you're going to be in the first place spot.

But unified memory 1) leaves less room available for applications and 2) is not as fast as dedicated video memory

Additionally, the XDR pool of memory available to the Playstation 3's Cell is faster. Therefore, unified memory is only an asset in that it is "easier to develop for." In your "business" questions, you asked me why the Cell has not overtaken general purpose processors in the PC market.

I pose another question to you: why hasn't unified memory overtaken dedicated video memory on the PC platform? You can find unified memory on low end PCs, with the issues above that I specified, but high-end PCs are noticably different. There is little vantage to unified memory besides being cheaper and easier to develop for.

There is a rumor that exists at this very moment that has yet to be confirmed or denied that Epic games is making an exclusive Playstation 3 game. They also support the platform, as Mark Rein says it's still "the one to beat." You obviously underestimate the staggering drawing power of the Garden State.

Again: If the 360 CPU is so brilliant to develop for, why is your example Gears of War? As Mark Rein said, UT3 was ported from the PC platform to the PS3 platforms with no surprises and good, even unexpectedly good, performance, within a short period of time back in 2005.

Oblivion came out on the 360 earlier because the 360 releasedearlier. The Wii is destroying both the 360 and the PS3 worldwide and their sales are both disappointing. I don't expect the 360 lead to continue for much longer, and, once we see an equivalent number of titles on the Playstation 3 that look equivalent or better than those on the Xbox 360 (which should happen in about 2-3 months), we should see the Playstation 3 pick up in pace substantially.

We're already seeing this. Factor Five says: "this game is not possible on the Xbox 360. [reason, reason, reason, reason.]"

Naughty Dog: "This game is not possible on any other platform [reason reason reason reason]."

I do not see *anything* on the PS3 by September that threatens the 360 - so your claim of 2 ~ 3 months is extremely spurious - or at least the result of an extreme bias. Frankly, when you have Square-Enix saying "yeah, we're not touching your platform until after April 2008" I say "okay, it is bad business to be on the PS3 right now".

Any turnaround is going to be slow - and no matter how you want to play with your words on this, being in last place is bad news for PS3 owners, I should know, I was a Dreamcast and Gamecube owner last generation.

Square enix said "There wont games out from them until 2008." Not that they are not going to make games until then. Wow some people need to learn how to read.

Square-Enix won't be putting any software out on the PS3 until after April 2008, and frankly I would see them releasing FF XIII in holiday 2008. That's quite a ways away... and certainly *not* a vote of confidence in the short term potential of the platform.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]Subrosian. In the midst of all this CPU debate, where would that leave the 360s CPU, out of curiosity? I dont usualy ask these kinds of questions because they sometimes lead to fanboy flamewars, but you seem to quell everyone pretty well. You seem to know your stuff.subrosian

The first Xbox was only capable of startlingly impressive effects because of the hardware inside its GPU.

In any case, from what I've heard, making multithreaded apps run alright on the 360 is much easier than developing code for the Cell.

Keep in mind though, a lot of what creates the incentive to do either is the install base - a developer like Epic has some serious financial reasons to create a game like Gears of War, and as much as they complain about Microsoft, they still take their money, and they're going to be developing Gears 2 on the system. If the PS3 sales turn around, the liabilities become an asset - if the PS3 goes on to sell 30 million consoles by summer 2009, publishers are going to say "okay, use the Cell" to their developers.

From now, through at leastuntil the end of 2008, I'd say the 360 CPU was a better choice - making a system easy to develop for at the very least allows easy PC ports - and despite being "not really exclusive" having titles like Oblivion earlier, and having titles like Bioshock that the competition doesn't have is never *harmful* to a system. If Microsoft continues to hold a lead in sales through 2009 ~ 2010, it really will be over for the PS3 - and there is always the massive threat that Nintendo will unleash a new handheld in Japan - which would take away a lot of holiday sales.

So, my opinion is that the 360 CPU was the right move to make, and that Sony made a move that only works if you can guarantee you're going to be in the first place spot.

But unified memory 1) leaves less room available for applications and 2) is not as fast as dedicated video memory

Additionally, the XDR pool of memory available to the Playstation 3's Cell is faster. Therefore, unified memory is only an asset in that it is "easier to develop for." In your "business" questions, you asked me why the Cell has not overtaken general purpose processors in the PC market.

I pose another question to you: why hasn't unified memory overtaken dedicated video memory on the PC platform? You can find unified memory on low end PCs, with the issues above that I specified, but high-end PCs are noticably different. There is little vantage to unified memory besides being cheaper and easier to develop for.

There is a rumor that exists at this very moment that has yet to be confirmed or denied that Epic games is making an exclusive Playstation 3 game. They also support the platform, as Mark Rein says it's still "the one to beat." You obviously underestimate the staggering drawing power of the Garden State.

Again: If the 360 CPU is so brilliant to develop for, why is your example Gears of War? As Mark Rein said, UT3 was ported from the PC platform to the PS3 platforms with no surprises and good, even unexpectedly good, performance, within a short period of time back in 2005.

Oblivion came out on the 360 earlier because the 360 releasedearlier. The Wii is destroying both the 360 and the PS3 worldwide and their sales are both disappointing. I don't expect the 360 lead to continue for much longer, and, once we see an equivalent number of titles on the Playstation 3 that look equivalent or better than those on the Xbox 360 (which should happen in about 2-3 months), we should see the Playstation 3 pick up in pace substantially.

We're already seeing this. Factor Five says: "this game is not possible on the Xbox 360. [reason, reason, reason, reason.]"

Naughty Dog: "This game is not possible on any other platform [reason reason reason reason]."

I do not see *anything* on the PS3 by September that threatens the 360 - so your claim of 2 ~ 3 months is extremely spurious - or at least the result of an extreme bias. Frankly, when you have Square-Enix saying "yeah, we're not touching your platform until after April 2008" I say "okay, it is bad business to be on the PS3 right now".

Any turnaround is going to be slow - and no matter how you want to play with your words on this, being in last place is bad news for PS3 owners, I should know, I was a Dreamcast and Gamecube owner last generation.

Yet Square Enix has a "blank slate" for development on the Xbox 360. Bad example.

Lair, Heavenly Sword, Warhawk. Those seem fairly effective examples.

No, they don't destroy the Xbox 360 singlehandedly but they definitely compare to the lineup, and, for Lair and Heavenly Sword, at least, they appear to be only possible via the Playstation 3 platform. Julian Eggebrecht has spoken relentlessly about this.

I don't attempt to base my opinions on internet rumors and PS3 exclusive developer comments, I simply mine my facts from them and discuss them. Factor Five is not and never was a Sony-exclusive developer. They are simply making an exclusive game on the Playstation 3. How many games did they make on the Gamecube/N64? Did you know that they considered developing on both the Xbox 360 and the Wii before settling on the Playstation 3?

Dreamcast and Gamecube did not have the largest first party development studios and gigantic third party developers like Square Enix, Polyphony Digital, and Kojima's Foxhound studios.

For a single person to make a single car in Gran Turismo 5, it takes 180 days. For a single car. Some of the developers have cots and sleeping bags so they can take power naps during the day, presumably so they don't have to go home.

Yet this game is releasing in 2008, maybe even late 2008, because Sony is willing to give them all the time they need.

If you were to say "this game stands a chance of being ported," or being cancelled, I would probably laugh out loud. It's a fairly ridiculous statement.

Also, the reason this game will not have full car damage (among other things) is because the developer wants it to be perfect. What does he mean by perfect? When he reworks the entire physics engine and allows for realistic light reflections off of each individual panel on the car, which would each react realistically to collisions. They plan to add this as a downloadable content feature some time after their game releases.

To me, it seems like they're in it for the long haul. That's more of a sign of commitment than spitting out a game in 2007 could ever be.

Additionally, I find it amusing that you think I am betting on a pony at all. Perhaps I simply want to play the videogame that developers are spending most of their lives on.

"Also, I am under the impression given all IBM literature that the Main Issue Queue and the Vector/Scalar Queue can both dual-issue: the main Issue Queue feeds up to two instructions per cycle to either the FXU, the LSU, etc... or to the Vector/Scalar Queue (which affords to execute Vector/Scalar FP instructions out of order compared to the rest of the code, as stated in the IBM's manuals). The Vector/Scalar Queue can issue up to 2 instructions."

Uh oh, this silly-billy on your first link is reading the IBM manuals! You can see how uninformed he obviously is on the architecture of the PPE in the Cell. You should go tell him that IBM is teh biased.

Wow, the guy in the video mustbe desperate to bash PS3. After saying that the Cell is only 2x more powerful by using irrelevant data, he goes on and whines about the weight. I seriously laughed out loud watching this...

:|

http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/01/ps3-cell-processor-less-than-2-times-as.html

After doing benchmark tests on both the Wii and PS3's CPU it was found that the PS3's Cell processor which is over 3GHz was only about equal to a 1.5 GHz CPU. While the Wii's Broadway chip was about 8oo MHz. If benchmarking is to be believed, then the Cell processor is less than twice as fast as the Broadway. More tests should be made but this is a interesting find no doubt.

PS3OWNS

This is why you shouldn't smoke crack.

For a single person to make a single car in Gran Turismo 5, it takes 180 days. For a single car. Some of the developers have cots and sleeping bags so they can take power naps during the day, presumably so they don't have to go home.

Yet this game is releasing in 2008, maybe even late 2008, because Sony is willing to give them all the time they need.

If you were to say "this game stands a chance of being ported," or being cancelled, I would probably laugh out loud. It's a fairly ridiculous statement.

Also, the reason this game will not have full car damage (among other things) is because the developer wants it to be perfect. What does he mean by perfect? When he reworks the entire physics engine and allows for realistic light reflections off of each individual panel on the car, which would each react realistically to collisions. They plan to add this as a downloadable content feature some time after their game releases.

To me, it seems like they're in it for the long haul. That's more of a sign of commitment than spitting out a game in 2007 could ever be.

Additionally, I find it amusing that you think I am betting on a pony at all. Perhaps I simply want to play the videogame that developers are spending most of their lives on.

Redfingers

In any case, two statements. First, 180 days better not be "most of" a developer's life. Six months isn't the majority of anyone's career, let alone their *life* - unless they're hiring infants, I think you have a bit of an *exaggeration* here, don't you?

Second, what difference does it make? GT4 wasn't a realistic driving simulator, even if you bought force feedback steering wheel and pedals, it was not really like driving an actual car - so make it a fun game. The PS3 version, with its rumble free controller, is not going to be this "zomg it's real" driving sim for most people. Yeah, the graphics - great - but honestly, all I see here is a belligerent Sony fan, not someone who simply cares about games.

The only game I actively hype is Too Human, because frankly I like the storyline (which I've seen) and I trust Dyack to make fun gameplay - that' its. I'm not claiming ridiculous things - which claiming GT will be "perfect" or that forcing some poor guy to sleep in a cot for a year will lead to some better game. I have no delusions about what's going on - and when Sony proves all this marketing hype they've been feeding us for two years, I'll buy their system. So far everything that has been hyped - Resistance, Motorstorm, et cetera - has been meerly adequate - nothing astounding has shown up.

When it does, I'll change my tune, but I'd stop the hype train - I don't see anything wrong with asking to see a game and a release date before going "it's the end of the world as we know it, Sony has redefined gaming". They claimed that with the PS2's "emotion engine" and well, that didn't stop GCN, XBOX, and PC from having stellar titles that it didn't.

Frankly, the business arguement is all that matters. There are plenty of great technologies that have not taken off simply because the business sense wasn't there. Was Microsoft as successful company because Bill Gates hired excellent techies - or because he had the sense to hire a business savant like Steve Ballmer? Google is where it is because all of the C.S. docs went over to the MBA programs and said "give me a bag full, we need to make money".

The game Sony is playing right now is marketing - specifically, it's job is spin-control and marketing. The PS3 wasn't supposed to be $600 - that was a motherf****** disaster, and they know it - that's why the price will likely be coming down by $100 ~ $200 by year's end. Samuel L. Jackson should be paid to come out and say that, frankly, because it's so true.

And as I've said - from the busines sperspective, it does not make sense to develop on the Pse yet, the profitability for multi-million dollar PS3 exclusives is not there yet. Given the short shelf life of software, it's not like you can even make a game now and say "well, people will pick it up a year from now when the PS3 takes off.

My personal date for a PS3 "it's a worthwhile buy" is Summer / Fall 2008. I've said this before, and I'm sticking by it. My gut feelings on these issues are rarely , if ever wrong. Anyone picking one up now is eating the inevitable price adjustments, they're eating months with a substandard library (for whatever reason), and they're absorbing the risk that the system doesn't turn around, that it becomes a niche player.

A consumer can afford a risk sometimes that publishers cannot, so we'll see - so far I've been right, the "360/PC first" mentality has helf true since the PS3's launch, and where it turns around might be so long run that it doesn't matter.

thearticle is old and y are you comparing wii to PS3 in terms of hardware.........

you know to make yournews a little more believable get aRECENT Article

Best thread ever.Ben-Nice

Even then. Thats an understatement.

:|

http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/01/ps3-cell-processor-less-than-2-times-as.html

After doing benchmark tests on both the Wii and PS3's CPU it was found that the PS3's Cell processor which is over 3GHz was only about equal to a 1.5 GHz CPU. While the Wii's Broadway chip was about 8oo MHz. If benchmarking is to be believed, then the Cell processor is less than twice as fast as the Broadway. More tests should be made but this is a interesting find no doubt.

PS3OWNS

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

For a single person to make a single car in Gran Turismo 5, it takes 180 days. For a single car. Some of the developers have cots and sleeping bags so they can take power naps during the day, presumably so they don't have to go home.

Yet this game is releasing in 2008, maybe even late 2008, because Sony is willing to give them all the time they need.

If you were to say "this game stands a chance of being ported," or being cancelled, I would probably laugh out loud. It's a fairly ridiculous statement.

Also, the reason this game will not have full car damage (among other things) is because the developer wants it to be perfect. What does he mean by perfect? When he reworks the entire physics engine and allows for realistic light reflections off of each individual panel on the car, which would each react realistically to collisions. They plan to add this as a downloadable content feature some time after their game releases.

To me, it seems like they're in it for the long haul. That's more of a sign of commitment than spitting out a game in 2007 could ever be.

Additionally, I find it amusing that you think I am betting on a pony at all. Perhaps I simply want to play the videogame that developers are spending most of their lives on.

subrosian

In any case, two statements. First, 180 days better not be "most of" a developer's life. Six months isn't the majority of anyone's career, let alone their *life* - unless they're hiring infants, I think you have a bit of an *exaggeration* here, don't you?

Second, what difference does it make? GT4 wasn't a realistic driving simulator, even if you bought force feedback steering wheel and pedals, it was not really like driving an actual car - so make it a fun game. The PS3 version, with its rumble free controller, is not going to be this "zomg it's real" driving sim for most people. Yeah, the graphics - great - but honestly, all I see here is a belligerent Sony fan, not someone who simply cares about games.

The only game I actively hype is Too Human, because frankly I like the storyline (which I've seen) and I trust Dyack to make fun gameplay - that' its. I'm not claiming ridiculous things - which claiming GT will be "perfect" or that forcing some poor guy to sleep in a cot for a year will lead to some better game. I have no delusions about what's going on - and when Sony proves all this marketing hype they've been feeding us for two years, I'll buy their system. So far everything that has been hyped - Resistance, Motorstorm, et cetera - has been meerly adequate - nothing astounding has shown up.

When it does, I'll change my tune, but I'd stop the hype train - I don't see anything wrong with asking to see a game and a release date before going "it's the end of the world as we know it, Sony has redefined gaming". They claimed that with the PS2's "emotion engine" and well, that didn't stop GCN, XBOX, and PC from having stellar titles that it didn't.

Frankly, the business arguement is all that matters. There are plenty of great technologies that have not taken off simply because the business sense wasn't there. Was Microsoft as successful company because Bill Gates hired excellent techies - or because he had the sense to hire a business savant like Steve Ballmer? Google is where it is because all of the C.S. docs went over to the MBA programs and said "give me a bag full, we need to make money".

The game Sony is playing right now is marketing - specifically, it's job is spin-control and marketing. The PS3 wasn't supposed to be $600 - that was a motherf****** disaster, and they know it - that's why the price will likely be coming down by $100 ~ $200 by year's end. Samuel L. Jackson should be paid to come out and say that, frankly, because it's so true.

And as I've said - from the busines sperspective, it does not make sense to develop on the Pse yet, the profitability for multi-million dollar PS3 exclusives is not there yet. Given the short shelf life of software, it's not like you can even make a game now and say "well, people will pick it up a year from now when the PS3 takes off.

My personal date for a PS3 "it's a worthwhile buy" is Summer / Fall 2008. I've said this before, and I'm sticking by it. My gut feelings on these issues are rarely , if ever wrong. Anyone picking one up now is eating the inevitable price adjustments, they're eating months with a substandard library (for whatever reason), and they're absorbing the risk that the system doesn't turn around, that it becomes a niche player.

A consumer can afford a risk sometimes that publishers cannot, so we'll see - so far I've been right, the "360/PC first" mentality has helf true since the PS3's launch, and where it turns around might be so long run that it doesn't matter.

You aren't attempting to compare Forza 2's color customization with a fully fleshes out car model that has been meticulously detailed across 180 days, are you? You apparently seem to believe that they are making Forza 2 models in those 180 days. No, that's wrong. You apparently seem to believe that they are making Forza 2 PAINT JOBS overtop preexisting Forza 2 models in those 180 days.

Further, I didn't say they're making 1 car for the game. I assume that across the last 2 years and the upcoming year and a half they will probably make several cars per person unless they plan to sit on their hands after the fact. Additionally, with GTHD, GT1-4 on the backlog I think they've been at it longer than you think.

But, seriously, let's be overly literal because we think it's cute to do so. Someone is spending 180 days on a single car in the game and I think it's worth $600 alone just to "drive" that car around a virtual track. Yeah, I do. I doubt they're getting $600 pay in those 180 days, they're getting multiple times that....a $600 price of entry is just silly for that kind of marvelous quality.

I understand how someone could feel a remote degree of dissatisfaction that the game will be incomplete at its 2008 launch, still, knowing that a tremendous amount of hard wark from crazy bushido Japanese businessmen warms my heart. Knowing that they continue the hard work, pursuing a physics system that destroys Forza's both in terms of realism and meticulous detail that may or may not ever be completed, warms my heart further. Forza's car damage is nothing to be proud of: GT5 won't be emulating it, and that's enough of a verification for me.

And last time I checked, we were talking about graphics. If we were talking about what some guy could make in 2 hours in his game room we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Let me refresh your memory: we are talking about the Cell processor, which cost billions of dollars and probably hundreds of man-hours, research, and labor to produce, and games that take years to produce and continue ongoing development well after release. That's shocking to me. It's literally shocking to me. Not because I like Gran Turismo, GT4 is noticably absent from my game library, but because it's just so bizarre, like from another world, with some alternative code of ethics, at work.

That versus the Windows Live initiative. Blech. Tell me again why I should be interested in Microsoft's business practices, their shady (not to mention shoddy) hardware and buggy software. Still, how irrelevant could this possibly be to the discussion. We're not talking about Microsoft, we're not talking about Forza, we're not talking about my box, your box, the Xbox, the crackbox, we're talking about the Cell and the Broadway CPU.

Why you possibly turned this into a "PS3 is going to fail and you're a stupid Sony fanboy" argument is beyond me. I'm not really interested in having this debate, simply because I've had it a million times, in a million different places, and I can feel my life draining out of me as we speak of it, like I'm going to be some internet goblin roaming around spouting acid at enemies who support a different brand name than I do.

Frankly, I don't even like Sony. I kind of like Phil Harrison, and I know he's in a tricky position, and even he's made mistakes, but I'm not licking his junk for him. I'm just attempting to make a valid value asessment. Yes, you get Forza before we get GT5. Does that make it better than GT5? Why would you even try to imply that in this situation? GT5 is worth what it's worth because of the labor, love, and intense fervor at which those men work, not because it "STOMPS TEH FORZA!"

And I actually have a healthy amount of respect for Microsoft, Forza (which I know I'd buy if I had an Xbox 360), and Bioware, and all that. Why are you sitting here giggling to yourself that some man is powernapping under his desk so I can have an amazing racing game to play? I think that's awesome, but maybe that's just me.

And if you want to get into it, the Sixaxis is great. Force feedback didn't contribute a damn thing back in the PS1-PS2 days and I always felt I could do without it. Now I've realized that to be true. Plus, hey, buy a wheel, or one of the new force-feedback controllers when they most assuredly come out before GT5 does. The Sixaxis has produced franchises: Super Rub-a-Dub, Warhawk, and Lair. Force feedback cannot boast the same outcome.

And I'm sorry if I seem belligerent, but imagine if you stood in front of a beehive and just poked it for an hour and a half. It must have been all the blood rushing to my brain last night, sorry if I sounded "irritable" to you.

I'd further like to inform you that I am not impressed by GRAW 2, Oblivion (which I own for the PC, a platform that I prefer...I played Counter Strike this morning and entered a zen state of gaming bliss), Rainbow Six (which I own for the PS3 and honestly wouldn't even compare to Counter Strike for a moment), or Gears of War, let alone Halo.

Let me tell you what I am impressed by: Mass Effect. That game looks great. And I hope you enjoy it. Actually, I take that back. I might hope you'd enjoy if it you hadn't just called me a belligerent Sony fanboy and made fun of Polyphony Digital for, apparently, having too much commitment.

Too Human isn't worth hyping. Crysis is worth hyping, Mass Effect is worth hyping, Ratchet and Clank, Lair, Heavenly Sword are worth hyping. So is Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brawl, etc. That's just IMO of course. I hope Too Human is a great game just like I hope I get proven wrong with every movie I throw in the DVD player when my expectations start low. But apparently that doesn't work for you, because you wouldn't be happy until your prediction about Sony becoming Dreamcasted and jumping the shark for your ultimate "left out in the rain for 2 generations" revenge comes true.

Plus, my brother and I are PC gamers first, and always have been. Diablo, Space Quest, Fallout, Warcraft....I eat this crap up. My brother bought a PS3, then upgraded his PC so he can play Crysis at max. Tell him he doesn't care about games. Tell me I don't care about games.

Apparently you see something in Gears of War that I don't, apparently you see something in Viva Pinata and Lost Planet that I don't. But, frankly, I see something that you don't in Folklore, Ratchet, Uncharted, Warhawk, God of War, Sigma, and Heavenly Sword. I think all of those games will eat Too Human alive.

Not only that, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Blue Dragon are all 8 million times more hypeworthy than Too Human. IMO, but whatever. You're allowed to have your opinion. Before you start, yes, I've seen developer interviews, I've looked at this game more extensively than the average person. I don't know a whole lot about the story but I know enough about the game mechanics and the look of the game and the concept (Norse mythology and uber fantasy technology) to get a good idea.

Anyway, none of this matters. Saying that the PS3 will poop out is just absolutely ignorant given all the lovely upcoming first party software that isn't going anywhere.

[QUOTE="PS3OWNS"]

:|

http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/01/ps3-cell-processor-less-than-2-times-as.html

After doing benchmark tests on both the Wii and PS3's CPU it was found that the PS3's Cell processor which is over 3GHz was only about equal to a 1.5 GHz CPU. While the Wii's Broadway chip was about 8oo MHz. If benchmarking is to be believed, then the Cell processor is less than twice as fast as the Broadway. More tests should be made but this is a interesting find no doubt.

deepdreamer256

Here's the thing: there are 7 SPEs that this comparison did not take into consideration. This comparison only measured the PPE, which is the "train conducter." These SPEs can probably all blaze through these applications at a similar or comparable rate to the PPE, and there are 7 of them.

Additionally, the test used general purpose code, which has not been optimized for the Cell. It is an inherently misleading comparison.

[QUOTE="deepdreamer256"][QUOTE="PS3OWNS"]

:|

http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/01/ps3-cell-processor-less-than-2-times-as.html

After doing benchmark tests on both the Wii and PS3's CPU it was found that the PS3's Cell processor which is over 3GHz was only about equal to a 1.5 GHz CPU. While the Wii's Broadway chip was about 8oo MHz. If benchmarking is to be believed, then the Cell processor is less than twice as fast as the Broadway. More tests should be made but this is a interesting find no doubt.

Redfingers

Here's the thing: there are 7 SPEs that this comparison did not take into consideration. This comparison only measured the PPE, which is the "train conducter." These SPEs can probably all blaze through these applications at a similar or comparable rate to the PPE, and there are 7 of them.

Additionally, the test used general purpose code, which has not been optimized for the Cell. It is an inherently misleading comparison.

[QUOTE="Ben-Nice"]Best thread ever.Killfox

Even then. Thats an understatement.

I know. I don't even know why I'm arguing with people. Should there be some infinitely knowledgeable person explaining how a little demonstration by some amateur using tech information with little or no backing or credentials shouldn't be trusted?

Instead I've seen people arguing in favor of what this man said because there is some truth in the benchmarks, even if they are completely and utterly slanted against the Playstation 3 and almost completely and utterly irrelevant to the power of the Playstation 3 in the first place.

Is the Playstation 3 good at general purpose processing? Answer, yes. Is the PPE in the center of the Cell good at general purpose processing? No, not really. Does that matter? No. The Playstation 3 can run a full desktop operating system with applications all over the place, a first in the console space. The Xbox 360 cannot run a seperate OS, it does not run Linux apps, and neither does the Wii. So what is the point of this argument?

Still, I have learned something, and that's that the PPE is not very efficient at general purpose code (however, it was designed to control the SPEs, not to process code, correct? The PPE simply directs the SPEs, which then process code...is this a mistaken impression?) and the Wii's broadband is the only out-of-order processor this generation.

I don't understand why this became a PS3 bashathon though, seeing as the Wii would probably smack a general purpose core on the 360 up something awful as well, leaving a 1/2 or similar comparison, blurring the lines and making us wonder what all these consoles are good for until we do a direct comparison of the games themselves.

Something everyone needs to take note of is that although the Xbox 360 Xenos has three general purpose processor cores, the Playstation 3's SPEs can also process general purpose code in addition to blazing through optimized code by a factor of multiple times over a general purpose processor, meaning they're probably even equivalent with regards to general purpose processing.

Note, nearly everything I wrote is speculation, but I don't care. Just don't flame me too hard.

I cannot BELEIVE you actually typed up, that the PS3 will be best because some "exclussive" PS3 developpers have said their games are only possible on the PS3 because of "reason reason reason", where the only reason they have given is "Teh cell". that should have shot your whole argument out the window the momment you said it. the truth is that its total crap. these are the types of developpers, who like guerilla at E3 05 said, killzone is only possible on the PS3, when all they showed wasa CGI trailer. no i didnt say all the PS3 games are CGI. dont go there.

and WHILE were on that logic of yours, then i guess because Epic said that Gears of War was only possible on the 360 because of its RAM setup, then i guess that PS3 cant surpass the 360 in graphics after all.I would much ratehr beleive epic then some other random developper who is making warhawk, or heavenly sword.

and hell why dont i just throw this forgoten little link in it too.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

go to the CPU section. id like both of you to read it. it has never been debunked. just forgotten.

I cannot BELEIVE you actually typed up, that the PS3 will be best because some "exclussive" PS3 developpers have said their games are only possible on the PS3 because of "reason reason reason", where the only reason they have given is "Teh cell". that should have shot your whole argument out the window the momment you said it. the truth is that its total crap. these are the types of developpers, who like guerilla at E3 05 said, killzone is only possible on the PS3, when all they showed wasa CGI trailer. no i didnt say all the PS3 games are CGI. dont go there.A-LEGEND

Factor Five is not an exclusive developer. I can't believe you didn't actually read the post where I typed up the fact that they are not an exclusive developer. They've never touched a Sony platform before they decided to make Lair, and even considered the Wii and the Xbox 360 until they saw exactly what they wanted in the Sixaxis controls and the Playstation 3.

Since you seem to believe that he is mistaken when he says the things he says, I want you to refute the things he says, like you did with Guerilla Games and their Infamous Killzone 2 presentation at E3 05.

Julian Eggebrecht said that the maps are 32x32km large, with 25,000 soldiers and hundreds of dragons. Show me a 360 game with these numbers, then show me one with this level of detail simultaneously. The Lair demo takes up 4 gigabytes and showcases a single level. Explain to me how this can be stored on a single DVD-9. Julian says that the Playstation 3's Cell is the only processor capable of the fluid dynamics (which compose the waves and undulations in the water...this is also in Crysis, but I believe Eggebrecht was referring to console platforms) and progressive mesh. Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles.

Again, show me something with those numbers, that scope, and all of those features in a game and I will concede your point.

And Naughty Dog, although they are a first-party developer, said that the demo level for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune does not fit on a single DVD-9. Given this knowledge, explain to me how this game is possible on the Xbox 360. Additionally, this game is streaming level data, animations, environments, textures, animations, and sounds from the hard drive and the Blu Ray drive. Explain to me how this game would stream all of this from the nonexistent hard drive in both the Wii and Xbox 360 and how it would stream all of this information from the DVD-9 they each use.

Until you do so, don't even comment about this topic.

Joke thread, lol? Nintendo made a white gamecube with a motion controller and Sony made a powerhouse. They're not even close to comparable.lilrush

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"]I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.gromit007

That is the most ridiculous statement ever on SW. I hated it the first time it was said, and I still hate it. It doesnt matter if its serious or sarcasm...I HATE IT.

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]I cannot BELEIVE you actually typed up, that the PS3 will be best because some "exclussive" PS3 developpers have said their games are only possible on the PS3 because of "reason reason reason", where the only reason they have given is "Teh cell". that should have shot your whole argument out the window the momment you said it. the truth is that its total crap. these are the types of developpers, who like guerilla at E3 05 said, killzone is only possible on the PS3, when all they showed wasa CGI trailer. no i didnt say all the PS3 games are CGI. dont go there.Redfingers

Factor Five is not an exclusive developer. I can't believe you didn't actually read the post where I typed up the fact that they are not an exclusive developer. They've never touched a Sony platform before they decided to make Lair, and even considered the Wii and the Xbox 360 until they saw exactly what they wanted in the Sixaxis controls and the Playstation 3.

Since you seem to believe that he is mistaken when he says the things he says, I want you to refute the things he says, like you did with Guerilla Games and their Infamous Killzone 2 presentation at E3 05.

Julian Eggebrecht said that the maps are 32x32km large, with 25,000 soldiers and hundreds of dragons. Show me a 360 game with these numbers, then show me one with this level of detail simultaneously. The Lair demo takes up 4 gigabytes and showcases a single level. Explain to me how this can be stored on a single DVD-9. Julian says that the Playstation 3's Cell is the only processor capable of the fluid dynamics (which compose the waves and undulations in the water...this is also in Crysis, but I believe Eggebrecht was referring to console platforms) and progressive mesh. Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles.

Again, show me something with those numbers, that scope, and all of those features in a game and I will concede your point.

And Naughty Dog, although they are a first-party developer, said that the demo level for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune does not fit on a single DVD-9. Given this knowledge, explain to me how this game is possible on the Xbox 360. Additionally, this game is streaming level data, animations, environments, textures, animations, and sounds from the hard drive and the Blu Ray drive. Explain to me how this game would stream all of this from the nonexistent hard drive in both the Wii and Xbox 360 and how it would stream all of this information from the DVD-9 they each use.

Until you do so, don't even comment about this topic.

im so happy you didnt understand that a company making an exclussive game for a platform is an exclussive developper for that platform until the game is complete. second i dont care for your half- assed explanation for dvd9. that is you ONLY argument in that entire post. Oblivion was over a hundred GB and was compressed to much less than a dvd9. if you look on wiki they have FULLgames that look better than alot of next gen games that are only on a few kbs. so dont ever talk about compression.

"Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles"

your a typical case of deseased brainwashing. its disgusting. you have been brainwashed by a company. its absurd. first of all no other game likeLAIR has been announced for the 360. and like you said that you are impressed by mass effect, well you should be, because that game is DOZENS of times larger than Lair with DOZENS the times more detail on over a hundred planets. so why dont you just shut your trap and crawl back into your whole until another developer comes out and says their game is only possible on the god station 3. and id LOVE for you to dispute mark reign for saying gears is only possible on the 360. oh and i almost forgot about the hardrive and your uncharted game. that game is 1. more linear than tomb raider, and 2. oblivion used the hardrive when it was there. the fact that oblivion ran on a core console with no hardrive kills yorur hardrive point. developers program their gamesto use the hardrive when its there. and the fact that you make it sound like PS3 games cannot be created without the hardrive in place as standard even further exposes the pathetic read speeds of the trojan called bluray.

[QUOTE="gromit007"]

[QUOTE="Unstoppable_1"]I'm not sure I trust sme internet website I never heard of. The power of the cell processor hasn't been unlocked yet.REVOLUTIONfreak

That is the most ridiculous statement ever on SW. I hated it the first time it was said, and I still hate it. It doesnt matter if its serious or sarcasm...I HATE IT.

As it turns out, it actually is. Look at Folding@Home, read the IBM white paper, watch the video with the Linux CEO says that in 4 days they optimized Mesa, an open-source graphics library, to run 80 times faster than the Intel Woodcrest, a server processor. This was only on the Cell processor, since Linux cannot currently access the GPU.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]I cannot BELEIVE you actually typed up, that the PS3 will be best because some "exclussive" PS3 developpers have said their games are only possible on the PS3 because of "reason reason reason", where the only reason they have given is "Teh cell". that should have shot your whole argument out the window the momment you said it. the truth is that its total crap. these are the types of developpers, who like guerilla at E3 05 said, killzone is only possible on the PS3, when all they showed wasa CGI trailer. no i didnt say all the PS3 games are CGI. dont go there.A-LEGEND

Factor Five is not an exclusive developer. I can't believe you didn't actually read the post where I typed up the fact that they are not an exclusive developer. They've never touched a Sony platform before they decided to make Lair, and even considered the Wii and the Xbox 360 until they saw exactly what they wanted in the Sixaxis controls and the Playstation 3.

Since you seem to believe that he is mistaken when he says the things he says, I want you to refute the things he says, like you did with Guerilla Games and their Infamous Killzone 2 presentation at E3 05.

Julian Eggebrecht said that the maps are 32x32km large, with 25,000 soldiers and hundreds of dragons. Show me a 360 game with these numbers, then show me one with this level of detail simultaneously. The Lair demo takes up 4 gigabytes and showcases a single level. Explain to me how this can be stored on a single DVD-9. Julian says that the Playstation 3's Cell is the only processor capable of the fluid dynamics (which compose the waves and undulations in the water...this is also in Crysis, but I believe Eggebrecht was referring to console platforms) and progressive mesh. Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles.

Again, show me something with those numbers, that scope, and all of those features in a game and I will concede your point.

And Naughty Dog, although they are a first-party developer, said that the demo level for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune does not fit on a single DVD-9. Given this knowledge, explain to me how this game is possible on the Xbox 360. Additionally, this game is streaming level data, animations, environments, textures, animations, and sounds from the hard drive and the Blu Ray drive. Explain to me how this game would stream all of this from the nonexistent hard drive in both the Wii and Xbox 360 and how it would stream all of this information from the DVD-9 they each use.

Until you do so, don't even comment about this topic.

im so happy you didnt understand that a company making an exclussive game for a platform is an exclussive developper for that platform until the game is complete. second i dont care for your half- assed explanation for dvd9. that is you ONLY argument in that entire post. Oblivion was over a hundred GB and was compressed to much less than a dvd9. if you look on wiki they have games that look better than alot of next gen games that are only on a few kbs. so dont ever talk about compression.

"Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles"

your a typical case of deseased brainwashing. its disgusting. you have been brainwashed by a company. its absurd. first of all no other game liek this has been announced. for the 360. and liek you said that you are impressed by mass effect, well you should be, becauser that game is DOZENS of times larger than Lair with DOZENS the times more detail on over a hundred planets. so why dont you just shut your trap and crawl back into your whole until another developer comes out and says their game is only possible on the god station 3. and id LOVE for you to dispute mark reign for saying gears is only possible on the 360. oh and i almost forgot about the hardrive and your uncharted game. that game is 1. more linear than tomb raider, and 2. oblivion used the hardrive when it was there. the fact that oblivion ran on a core console with no hardrive kills yorur hardrive point.

The word exclusive is spelled with one "s" and the word "developer" is spelled with one "p."

I don't understand why you're telling me I have been brainwashed by these companies. I simply asked you to find a game with these aspects included into the game.

Mass Effect cannot and does not display environments of the same size and scope of Lair. You have zero indication that Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is a linear game, and the developer said that it is not possible on a DVD-9. So even if it is a linear game, it is even more remarkable that it is not possible on a DVD-9. He said it doesn't fit. Meaning you cannot squeeze or compress it into that area.

The games that take up kilobytes of information as opposed to gigabytes use a specific kind of technology that has not been used on the Playstation 3 or the Xbox 360 and both games that use this technology have been suspended indefinitely. There is no indication that these are reconcileable with modern gaming.

As far as I can discern, Lair, which uses a custom built engine and is currently in alpha to beta transitory stages right now, is both larger and more detailed than Mass Effect. Mass Effect used as much compression as humanly possible and still is barely able to be contained by the DVD-9. Perhaps if it used streaming data of all kinds like Uncharted Drake's Fortune, highly advanced mo-cap tech like Uncharted, had 32x32km maps like Lair, 25,000 NPCs and hundreds of dragons per level like Lair, and high-res movies and audio like Uncharted and Lair it would take a dramatically larger chunk of the disc....and, of course, at this point, there would be no more space to expand.

Crysis and Lair have been announced and use progressive mesh and fluid dynamics. Apparently there is no way to prove or disprove whether they are possible on the Xbox 360 beyond Julian Eggebrecht's statement that it is not possible on the Xbox 360. I'll take this information as true, and you'll continue to ignore it and go about your day.

"Diseased" is spelled with an "i."

Oblivion did not stream textures, audio, level data, animations, and environments. Oblivion probably cached a few things to the hard drive like it does on the PS3. This game is possible without a hard drive, it just has atrocious loading times and in-game loading segments that last 10-20 seconds. I've seen the game running on an Xbox 360 Core. It's noticably less impressive than you make it out to be. It chugged like nothing I've seen in my life. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune not only streams cached data from the hard drive and Blu Ray disc, it does so with the effect of having no loading times. Is this the case in either the Xbox 360 Core or premium version of Oblivion?

It was not Mark Rein that said that Gears of War is only possible *IN ITS CURRENT STATE* on the Xbox 360, it was another employee of Epic Games. This person said something about the RAM. This was obviously completely and utterly incorrect, as the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360 have equivalent amounts of RAM: 512.

The only differences are as follows: The Xbox 360's RAM is unified and is 512 of GDDR3 RAM, while the Playstation 3's RAM is divided between main RAM (accessed by the CPU) and video RAM (accessed by the GPU). The Playstation 3's video RAM is GDDR3 while the main RAM is 256 XDR RAM. The difference between unified and dedicated RAM is as follows: unified RAM is not as fast as dedicated video RAM and leaves less available RAM for applications. Unified RAM is typically found on lower-end PCs, the same sort of PCs that use integrated graphics, while dedicated video RAM is typically found on higher-end PCs, the sort that runs Battlefield, and Crysis at max graphical detail and resolution. Unified memory is also cheaper and apparently easier to develop for, theoretically. Additionally, the XDR RAM used by the Cell is actually higher-bandwidth than the GDDR3 that's used in the unified memory of the Xbox 360 and the video memory of the PS3.

The Xbox 360 is probably going to be split 256MB VRAM and 256MB main RAM in almost all situations, seeing as this is probably going to be optimal 90% of the time. You're not going to be able to split them on the fly in the middle of an application because this is simply unfeasible. So, in summation, it's 512 versus 512 and the only advantage is in favor of the PS3.

Further, UT3 was ported from the PC to the PS3 with "no surprises," and runs great. This is the same engine, the same developers, and, I would argue, looks a hell of a lot better than Gears of War.

Or I could just say "BUT EPIC IS TEH BIASED" and whine for fifteen minutes and call you a diseased brainwashed goon, but I'm NOT going to do that because I have more respect for you, Epic, and myself.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"]

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]I cannot BELEIVE you actually typed up, that the PS3 will be best because some "exclussive" PS3 developpers have said their games are only possible on the PS3 because of "reason reason reason", where the only reason they have given is "Teh cell". that should have shot your whole argument out the window the momment you said it. the truth is that its total crap. these are the types of developpers, who like guerilla at E3 05 said, killzone is only possible on the PS3, when all they showed wasa CGI trailer. no i didnt say all the PS3 games are CGI. dont go there.A-LEGEND

Factor Five is not an exclusive developer. I can't believe you didn't actually read the post where I typed up the fact that they are not an exclusive developer. They've never touched a Sony platform before they decided to make Lair, and even considered the Wii and the Xbox 360 until they saw exactly what they wanted in the Sixaxis controls and the Playstation 3.

Since you seem to believe that he is mistaken when he says the things he says, I want you to refute the things he says, like you did with Guerilla Games and their Infamous Killzone 2 presentation at E3 05.

Julian Eggebrecht said that the maps are 32x32km large, with 25,000 soldiers and hundreds of dragons. Show me a 360 game with these numbers, then show me one with this level of detail simultaneously. The Lair demo takes up 4 gigabytes and showcases a single level. Explain to me how this can be stored on a single DVD-9. Julian says that the Playstation 3's Cell is the only processor capable of the fluid dynamics (which compose the waves and undulations in the water...this is also in Crysis, but I believe Eggebrecht was referring to console platforms) and progressive mesh. Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles.

Again, show me something with those numbers, that scope, and all of those features in a game and I will concede your point.

And Naughty Dog, although they are a first-party developer, said that the demo level for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune does not fit on a single DVD-9. Given this knowledge, explain to me how this game is possible on the Xbox 360. Additionally, this game is streaming level data, animations, environments, textures, animations, and sounds from the hard drive and the Blu Ray drive. Explain to me how this game would stream all of this from the nonexistent hard drive in both the Wii and Xbox 360 and how it would stream all of this information from the DVD-9 they each use.

Until you do so, don't even comment about this topic.

im so happy you didnt understand that a company making an exclussive game for a platform is an exclussive developper for that platform until the game is complete. second i dont care for your half- assed explanation for dvd9. that is you ONLY argument in that entire post. Oblivion was over a hundred GB and was compressed to much less than a dvd9. if you look on wiki they have FULLgames that look better than alot of next gen games that are only on a few kbs. so dont ever talk about compression.

"Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles"

your a typical case of deseased brainwashing. its disgusting. you have been brainwashed by a company. its absurd. first of all no other game likeLAIR has been announced for the 360. and like you said that you are impressed by mass effect, well you should be, because that game is DOZENS of times larger than Lair with DOZENS the times more detail on over a hundred planets. so why dont you just shut your trap and crawl back into your whole until another developer comes out and says their game is only possible on the god station 3. and id LOVE for you to dispute mark reign for saying gears is only possible on the 360. oh and i almost forgot about the hardrive and your uncharted game. that game is 1. more linear than tomb raider, and 2. oblivion used the hardrive when it was there. the fact that oblivion ran on a core console with no hardrive kills yorur hardrive point. developers program their gamesto use the hardrive when its there. and the fact that you make it sound like PS3 games cannot be created without the hardrive in place as standard even further exposes the pathetic read speeds of the trojan called bluray.

the read speed of bluray is countered by duplicating the game data, so that it is read faster, or at a faster rate, if that is more understandable. the streaming of data to the point in which there is no loading means the data is duplicated many times over, yet there is much space left to spare. at the rate of streaming, data is continuously loaded onto and unloaded from the system/video RAM. this is opposed to periodically loading data onto the RAM in chunks (distinct levels divided by load screens). do you realize that kind of advantage? it does not mean better graphics of course, but it is something unique that cannot be done on a normal DVD. on a DVD, there is not enough space for the amount of duplicated data neccesary for continuous streaming.

by the way, if redfingers was brainwashed by Factor 5's propaganda, then aren't you brainwashed by epic for their comments on RAM differences? you accept their word, and demand a rebuttal, but you denounce another developer for their words, which have equal merit.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="deepdreamer256"][QUOTE="PS3OWNS"]

:|

http://revoeyes.blogspot.com/2007/01/ps3-cell-processor-less-than-2-times-as.html

After doing benchmark tests on both the Wii and PS3's CPU it was found that the PS3's Cell processor which is over 3GHz was only about equal to a 1.5 GHz CPU. While the Wii's Broadway chip was about 8oo MHz. If benchmarking is to be believed, then the Cell processor is less than twice as fast as the Broadway. More tests should be made but this is a interesting find no doubt.

deepdreamer256

Here's the thing: there are 7 SPEs that this comparison did not take into consideration. This comparison only measured the PPE, which is the "train conducter." These SPEs can probably all blaze through these applications at a similar or comparable rate to the PPE, and there are 7 of them.

Additionally, the test used general purpose code, which has not been optimized for the Cell. It is an inherently misleading comparison.

7 spes, one reserved for the OS, another can be taken by the OS at anytime. So realistically, 5 SPEs. Not only that these SPEs are only good at 128bit vector math, (which is why it's doing good at folding) it would not have helped the PS3 that much anyways.

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"][QUOTE="Redfingers"]

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]I cannot BELEIVE you actually typed up, that the PS3 will be best because some "exclussive" PS3 developpers have said their games are only possible on the PS3 because of "reason reason reason", where the only reason they have given is "Teh cell". that should have shot your whole argument out the window the momment you said it. the truth is that its total crap. these are the types of developpers, who like guerilla at E3 05 said, killzone is only possible on the PS3, when all they showed wasa CGI trailer. no i didnt say all the PS3 games are CGI. dont go there.Redfingers

Factor Five is not an exclusive developer. I can't believe you didn't actually read the post where I typed up the fact that they are not an exclusive developer. They've never touched a Sony platform before they decided to make Lair, and even considered the Wii and the Xbox 360 until they saw exactly what they wanted in the Sixaxis controls and the Playstation 3.

Since you seem to believe that he is mistaken when he says the things he says, I want you to refute the things he says, like you did with Guerilla Games and their Infamous Killzone 2 presentation at E3 05.

Julian Eggebrecht said that the maps are 32x32km large, with 25,000 soldiers and hundreds of dragons. Show me a 360 game with these numbers, then show me one with this level of detail simultaneously. The Lair demo takes up 4 gigabytes and showcases a single level. Explain to me how this can be stored on a single DVD-9. Julian says that the Playstation 3's Cell is the only processor capable of the fluid dynamics (which compose the waves and undulations in the water...this is also in Crysis, but I believe Eggebrecht was referring to console platforms) and progressive mesh. Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles.

Again, show me something with those numbers, that scope, and all of those features in a game and I will concede your point.

And Naughty Dog, although they are a first-party developer, said that the demo level for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune does not fit on a single DVD-9. Given this knowledge, explain to me how this game is possible on the Xbox 360. Additionally, this game is streaming level data, animations, environments, textures, animations, and sounds from the hard drive and the Blu Ray drive. Explain to me how this game would stream all of this from the nonexistent hard drive in both the Wii and Xbox 360 and how it would stream all of this information from the DVD-9 they each use.

Until you do so, don't even comment about this topic.

im so happy you didnt understand that a company making an exclussive game for a platform is an exclussive developper for that platform until the game is complete. second i dont care for your half- assed explanation for dvd9. that is you ONLY argument in that entire post. Oblivion was over a hundred GB and was compressed to much less than a dvd9. if you look on wiki they have games that look better than alot of next gen games that are only on a few kbs. so dont ever talk about compression.

"Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles"

your a typical case of deseased brainwashing. its disgusting. you have been brainwashed by a company. its absurd. first of all no other game liek this has been announced. for the 360. and liek you said that you are impressed by mass effect, well you should be, becauser that game is DOZENS of times larger than Lair with DOZENS the times more detail on over a hundred planets. so why dont you just shut your trap and crawl back into your whole until another developer comes out and says their game is only possible on the god station 3. and id LOVE for you to dispute mark reign for saying gears is only possible on the 360. oh and i almost forgot about the hardrive and your uncharted game. that game is 1. more linear than tomb raider, and 2. oblivion used the hardrive when it was there. the fact that oblivion ran on a core console with no hardrive kills yorur hardrive point.

The word exclusive is spelled with one "s" and the word "developer" is spelled with one "p."

I don't understand why you're telling me I have been brainwashed by these companies. I simply asked you to find a game with these aspects included into the game.

Mass Effect cannot and does not display environments of the same size and scope of Lair. You have zero indication that Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is a linear game, and the developer said that it is not possible on a DVD-9. So even if it is a linear game, it is even more remarkable that it is not possible on a DVD-9. He said it doesn't fit. Meaning you cannot squeeze or compress it into that area.

The games that take up kilobytes of information as opposed to gigabytes use a specific kind of technology that has not been used on the Playstation 3 or the Xbox 360 and both games that use this technology have been suspended indefinitely. There is no indication that these are reconcileable with modern gaming.

As far as I can discern, Lair, which uses a custom built engine and is currently in alpha to beta transitory stages right now, is both larger and more detailed than Mass Effect. Mass Effect used as much compression as humanly possible and still is barely able to be contained by the DVD-9. Perhaps if it used streaming data of all kinds like Uncharted Drake's Fortune, highly advanced mo-cap tech like Uncharted, had 32x32km maps like Lair, 25,000 NPCs and hundreds of dragons per level like Lair, and high-res movies and audio like Uncharted and Lair it would take a dramatically larger chunk of the disc....and, of course, at this point, there would be no more space to expand.

Crysis and Lair have been announced and use progressive mesh and fluid dynamics. Apparently there is no way to prove or disprove whether they are possible on the Xbox 360 beyond Julian Eggebrecht's statement that it is not possible on the Xbox 360. I'll take this information as true, and you'll continue to ignore it and go about your day.

"Diseased" is spelled with an "i."

Oblivion did not stream textures, audio, level data, animations, and environments. Oblivion probably cached a few things to the hard drive like it does on the PS3. This game is possible without a hard drive, it just has atrocious loading times and in-game loading segments that last 10-20 seconds. I've seen the game running on an Xbox 360 Core. It's noticably less impressive than you make it out to be. It chugged like nothing I've seen in my life. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune not only streams cached data from the hard drive and Blu Ray disc, it does so with the effect of having no loading times. Is this the case in either the Xbox 360 Core or premium version of Oblivion?

It was not Mark Rein that said that Gears of War is only possible *IN ITS CURRENT STATE* on the Xbox 360, it was another employee of Epic Games. This person said something about the RAM. This was obviously completely and utterly incorrect, as the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360 have equivalent amounts of RAM: 512.

The only differences are as follows: The Xbox 360's RAM is unified and is 512 of GDDR3 RAM, while the Playstation 3's RAM is divided between main RAM (accessed by the CPU) and video RAM (accessed by the GPU). The Playstation 3's video RAM is GDDR3 while the main RAM is 256 XDR RAM. The difference between unified and dedicated RAM is as follows: unified RAM is not as fast as dedicated video RAM and leaves less available RAM for applications. Unified RAM is typically found on lower-end PCs, the same sort of PCs that use integrated graphics, while dedicated video RAM is typically found on higher-end PCs, the sort that runs Battlefield, and Crysis at max graphical detail and resolution. Unified memory is also cheaper and apparently easier to develop for, theoretically. Additionally, the XDR RAM used by the Cell is actually higher-bandwidth than the GDDR3 that's used in the unified memory of the Xbox 360 and the video memory of the PS3.

The Xbox 360 is probably going to be split 256MB VRAM and 256MB main RAM in almost all situations, seeing as this is probably going to be optimal 90% of the time. You're not going to be able to split them on the fly in the middle of an application because this is simply unfeasible. So, in summation, it's 512 versus 512 and the only advantage is in favor of the PS3.

Further, UT3 was ported from the PC to the PS3 with "no surprises," and runs great. This is the same engine, the same developers, and, I would argue, looks a hell of a lot better than Gears of War.

Or I could just say "BUT EPIC IS TEH BIASED" and whine for fifteen minutes and call you a diseased brainwashed goon, but I'm NOT going to do that because I have more respect for you, Epic, and myself.

congrats for you guys actually thinking out your posts, didnt expect anything but rabid fanboyism judging from the thread title alone

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"][QUOTE="Redfingers"]

[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"]I cannot BELEIVE you actually typed up, that the PS3 will be best because some "exclussive" PS3 developpers have said their games are only possible on the PS3 because of "reason reason reason", where the only reason they have given is "Teh cell". that should have shot your whole argument out the window the momment you said it. the truth is that its total crap. these are the types of developpers, who like guerilla at E3 05 said, killzone is only possible on the PS3, when all they showed wasa CGI trailer. no i didnt say all the PS3 games are CGI. dont go there.Redfingers

Factor Five is not an exclusive developer. I can't believe you didn't actually read the post where I typed up the fact that they are not an exclusive developer. They've never touched a Sony platform before they decided to make Lair, and even considered the Wii and the Xbox 360 until they saw exactly what they wanted in the Sixaxis controls and the Playstation 3.

Since you seem to believe that he is mistaken when he says the things he says, I want you to refute the things he says, like you did with Guerilla Games and their Infamous Killzone 2 presentation at E3 05.

Julian Eggebrecht said that the maps are 32x32km large, with 25,000 soldiers and hundreds of dragons. Show me a 360 game with these numbers, then show me one with this level of detail simultaneously. The Lair demo takes up 4 gigabytes and showcases a single level. Explain to me how this can be stored on a single DVD-9. Julian says that the Playstation 3's Cell is the only processor capable of the fluid dynamics (which compose the waves and undulations in the water...this is also in Crysis, but I believe Eggebrecht was referring to console platforms) and progressive mesh. Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles.

Again, show me something with those numbers, that scope, and all of those features in a game and I will concede your point.

And Naughty Dog, although they are a first-party developer, said that the demo level for Uncharted: Drake's Fortune does not fit on a single DVD-9. Given this knowledge, explain to me how this game is possible on the Xbox 360. Additionally, this game is streaming level data, animations, environments, textures, animations, and sounds from the hard drive and the Blu Ray drive. Explain to me how this game would stream all of this from the nonexistent hard drive in both the Wii and Xbox 360 and how it would stream all of this information from the DVD-9 they each use.

Until you do so, don't even comment about this topic.

im so happy you didnt understand that a company making an exclussive game for a platform is an exclussive developper for that platform until the game is complete. second i dont care for your half- assed explanation for dvd9. that is you ONLY argument in that entire post. Oblivion was over a hundred GB and was compressed to much less than a dvd9. if you look on wiki they have games that look better than alot of next gen games that are only on a few kbs. so dont ever talk about compression.

"Show me an Xbox 360 game that uses either progressive mesh or fluid dynamics. Finally, Eggebrecht said the game has "so many physics calculations, so many animations, so much on screen," that it is not possible on any other platform, let alone last generation consoles"

your a typical case of deseased brainwashing. its disgusting. you have been brainwashed by a company. its absurd. first of all no other game liek this has been announced. for the 360. and liek you said that you are impressed by mass effect, well you should be, becauser that game is DOZENS of times larger than Lair with DOZENS the times more detail on over a hundred planets. so why dont you just shut your trap and crawl back into your whole until another developer comes out and says their game is only possible on the god station 3. and id LOVE for you to dispute mark reign for saying gears is only possible on the 360. oh and i almost forgot about the hardrive and your uncharted game. that game is 1. more linear than tomb raider, and 2. oblivion used the hardrive when it was there. the fact that oblivion ran on a core console with no hardrive kills yorur hardrive point.

The word exclusive is spelled with one "s" and the word "developer" is spelled with one "p."

I don't understand why you're telling me I have been brainwashed by these companies. I simply asked you to find a game with these aspects included into the game.

Mass Effect cannot and does not display environments of the same size and scope of Lair. You have zero indication that Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is a linear game, and the developer said that it is not possible on a DVD-9. So even if it is a linear game, it is even more remarkable that it is not possible on a DVD-9. He said it doesn't fit. Meaning you cannot squeeze or compress it into that area.

The games that take up kilobytes of information as opposed to gigabytes use a specific kind of technology that has not been used on the Playstation 3 or the Xbox 360 and both games that use this technology have been suspended indefinitely. There is no indication that these are reconcileable with modern gaming.

As far as I can discern, Lair, which uses a custom built engine and is currently in alpha to beta transitory stages right now, is both larger and more detailed than Mass Effect. Mass Effect used as much compression as humanly possible and still is barely able to be contained by the DVD-9. Perhaps if it used streaming data of all kinds like Uncharted Drake's Fortune, highly advanced mo-cap tech like Uncharted, had 32x32km maps like Lair, 25,000 NPCs and hundreds of dragons per level like Lair, and high-res movies and audio like Uncharted and Lair it would take a dramatically larger chunk of the disc....and, of course, at this point, there would be no more space to expand.

Crysis and Lair have been announced and use progressive mesh and fluid dynamics. Apparently there is no way to prove or disprove whether they are possible on the Xbox 360 beyond Julian Eggebrecht's statement that it is not possible on the Xbox 360. I'll take this information as true, and you'll continue to ignore it and go about your day.

"Diseased" is spelled with an "i."

Oblivion did not stream textures, audio, level data, animations, and environments. Oblivion probably cached a few things to the hard drive like it does on the PS3. This game is possible without a hard drive, it just has atrocious loading times and in-game loading segments that last 10-20 seconds. I've seen the game running on an Xbox 360 Core. It's noticably less impressive than you make it out to be. It chugged like nothing I've seen in my life. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune not only streams cached data from the hard drive and Blu Ray disc, it does so with the effect of having no loading times. Is this the case in either the Xbox 360 Core or premium version of Oblivion?

It was not Mark Rein that said that Gears of War is only possible *IN ITS CURRENT STATE* on the Xbox 360, it was another employee of Epic Games. This person said something about the RAM. This was obviously completely and utterly incorrect, as the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360 have equivalent amounts of RAM: 512.

The only differences are as follows: The Xbox 360's RAM is unified and is 512 of GDDR3 RAM, while the Playstation 3's RAM is divided between main RAM (accessed by the CPU) and video RAM (accessed by the GPU). The Playstation 3's video RAM is GDDR3 while the main RAM is 256 XDR RAM. The difference between unified and dedicated RAM is as follows: unified RAM is not as fast as dedicated video RAM and leaves less available RAM for applications. Unified RAM is typically found on lower-end PCs, the same sort of PCs that use integrated graphics, while dedicated video RAM is typically found on higher-end PCs, the sort that runs Battlefield, and Crysis at max graphical detail and resolution. Unified memory is also cheaper and apparently easier to develop for, theoretically. Additionally, the XDR RAM used by the Cell is actually higher-bandwidth than the GDDR3 that's used in the unified memory of the Xbox 360 and the video memory of the PS3.

The Xbox 360 is probably going to be split 256MB VRAM and 256MB main RAM in almost all situations, seeing as this is probably going to be optimal 90% of the time. You're not going to be able to split them on the fly in the middle of an application because this is simply unfeasible. So, in summation, it's 512 versus 512 and the only advantage is in favor of the PS3.

Further, UT3 was ported from the PC to the PS3 with "no surprises," and runs great. This is the same engine, the same developers, and, I would argue, looks a hell of a lot better than Gears of War.

Or I could just say "BUT EPIC IS TEH BIASED" and whine for fifteen minutes and call you a diseased brainwashed goon, but I'm NOT going to do that because I have more respect for you, Epic, and myself.

two things. 1. your ego couldnt help but correct typos. taking a half hour to type up a post with perfect punctuation doesnt make you look anymore professional or smart. secon everything in that post are assumptions that rely heavily on your fanboyism towards the playstation. Third, if you really respected anythign besides your ego and your will to win an argument you already lost, then i suggest you "heed my respected will and learn to read"

i get my information from here, http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1 . you get it from Devs sony pays to talk about garbage and propaganda in order to sell their games and the systems those games will exclusively be played on.

read it and ocme back. Your UT argument is also flawed because while everyone was saying the 360 couldnt handle UT3, it finaly could. what does your argument turn into? oh well "i guess i could call Epic biased." you havent gotten the slightest bit or respect in this thread and for good reason. enough of your assumptions. welcome to the real world.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

i also love the way you slid that "the PS3s ram is used in high end PCs while the 360s ram is used in low-end PCs." your already sounding like your father company. why havent you applied for the propaganda job Kutaragi USED to have? read that link and youll see how wrong you are about the ram. you know what? you can take your playstation devs ideas as fact to feed your sleeping needs, ill take this link you have never read, or will ever read (because touching it would be some sort of blasphemy) and keep it close as the only real breakdown.