PS3 power still untapped

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Odrec
Odrec

1897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#151 Odrec
Member since 2009 • 1897 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]

Dude, do you even know how game programming works? RAM is one of THE most important things. The differences between the consoles' CPU doesnt create more RAM. No matter how powerful your CPU is, you will still be limited by the amount of RAM you have. This should be common sense. My judgement isnt clouded because im speaking from experience. As i have said many, many times on here. You would never max out crysis on a quad core cpu, and a mid range GPU, but you can with a dual core, and high end GPU. This is because GPU is the most important thing in GAMING. People who argue that the Cell "can help out in graphics" dont understand what that means. The devs simply mean that jobs can be offloaded............jobs like lighting, post processing, physics, animations, but the Cell will never RENDER any graphics as fast as even the lowest of GPUs. Even if it was programmed to procedurally generate textures, it still would be slower, and it would STILL be limited by RAM. More powerful CPU means almost zip if you are still being choked off by RAM, in which BOTH consoles are. So if it makes you feel better to think that the PS3 is more powerful, then go ahead, but the fact remains is that the 360 doesnt have the games that you percieve to be on par with UC2 is that very few games have custom engines. Maybe its because its so much like a PC that devs just use existing engines, when PS3 is vastly different so standard PC engines dont work well. One could also argue the issue of dev talent, in which im more likely to concede. Limited RAM and the Cell's complexity is the great equilizer in this debate. IF PS3 had more RAM, then it could do more.

Skittles_McGee

You're talking as if the 360 GPU is miles ahead of the PS3. The fact is that it is not. Carmack himself said that in overall power the PS3 is in the lead and it will always be. And that stuff about custom engines is an excuse. The 360 can't reach the levels of PS3 exclusives because it lacks the power to do so, plain and simple. Overall the PS3 is the most powerful machine from those 2 and many developers have confirmed it either by saying it publically or by making games that look and play more impressively than anything on the 360. Keep saying to yourself that the 360 is more powerful but sorry, it just isn't.

Both systems are more powerful in certains areas but the actual difference isn't as extreme as you seem to think. The actual hardware in the consoles is on a pretty much even level. Its the storage space that differs the most. Don't mix "power" with "storage". They are vastly different.

I'm not confusing both. In processing power the Cell is a much more powerful processor than the Xenon, the 360 GPU has more RAM than the PS3 one but is not the difference as with the processor. Combining both and stuff like storage capacity the PS3 has more potential as a gaming machine than the 360. Maybe not miles away but certainly to consider it more powerful.

And for those saying I don't understand about computers I have a BSc in Computer Science so yes I know how to program and what the different parts of a computer work for.

Avatar image for Skittles_McGee
Skittles_McGee

9136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 Skittles_McGee
Member since 2008 • 9136 Posts

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Why do you say that though , Rare for an example has always been known for making some of the best games on there respective systems even since the days of the SNES. They still make good looking games today but even games like kameo and Banjo and kazoo are behind Ratchet and Clank for an example. I agree Sony does have overall more talented devs but its not like Microsoft has a bunch of chumps.

TheSterls

Because Rare isn't as talented as they used to be?

Kameo is easily among the best looking games on the 360 and it was a launch title :|

I'm going to have to really disagree :|
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#153 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

First of all NO, and secondly RAM is the most important asset in console development because its a closed environment. Since consoles can do more with less, even a 35-50MB differece would be noticeable. Again, im speaking objectively, not specifically about the systems because its up to the dev's abilities. Some devs are better than others, which is where sony miles ahead of MS, not in CPU power.

themerlin

Why do you say that though , Rare for an example has always been known for making some of the best games on there respective systems even since the days of the SNES. They still make good looking games today but even games like kameo and Banjo and kazoo are behind Ratchet and Clank for an example. I agree Sony does have overall more talented devs but its not like Microsoft has a bunch of chumps.

I don`t agree Banjo Kazzoie Nuts and Bolts looks awesome, the textures and shading are great in that game

I think it looks good to I just dont think it looks as good as a crack in time. Not near as much going on and Crack in time just looks better but yes Nuts and Bolts is still a fine looking title.

Avatar image for themerlin
themerlin

481

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#154 themerlin
Member since 2006 • 481 Posts

[QUOTE="themerlin"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Why do you say that though , Rare for an example has always been known for making some of the best games on there respective systems even since the days of the SNES. They still make good looking games today but even games like kameo and Banjo and kazoo are behind Ratchet and Clank for an example. I agree Sony does have overall more talented devs but its not like Microsoft has a bunch of chumps.

TheSterls

I don`t agree Banjo Kazzoie Nuts and Bolts looks awesome, the textures and shading are great in that game

I think it looks good to I just dont think it looks as good as a crack in time. Not near as much going on and Crack in time just looks better but yes Nuts and Bolts is still a fine looking title.

Banjo has better textures and shading by far. Graphics is not the amount of things going on.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#155 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] Because Rare isn't as talented as they used to be?Skittles_McGee

Kameo is easily among the best looking games on the 360 and it was a launch title :|

I'm going to have to really disagree :|

There are certinaly titles that look better but id put it in the top 20 you would disagree with that?

Avatar image for Skittles_McGee
Skittles_McGee

9136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 Skittles_McGee
Member since 2008 • 9136 Posts

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Odrec"] You're talking as if the 360 GPU is miles ahead of the PS3. The fact is that it is not. Carmack himself said that in overall power the PS3 is in the lead and it will always be. And that stuff about custom engines is an excuse. The 360 can't reach the levels of PS3 exclusives because it lacks the power to do so, plain and simple. Overall the PS3 is the most powerful machine from those 2 and many developers have confirmed it either by saying it publically or by making games that look and play more impressively than anything on the 360. Keep saying to yourself that the 360 is more powerful but sorry, it just isn't.Odrec

Both systems are more powerful in certains areas but the actual difference isn't as extreme as you seem to think. The actual hardware in the consoles is on a pretty much even level. Its the storage space that differs the most. Don't mix "power" with "storage". They are vastly different.

I'm not confusing both. In processing power the Cell is a much more powerful processor than the Xenon, the 360 GPU has more RAM than the PS3 one but is not the difference as with the processor. Combining both and stuff like storage capacity the PS3 has more potential as a gaming machine than the 360. Maybe not miles away but certainly to consider it more powerful.

And for those saying I don't understand about computers I have a BSc in Computer Science so yes I know how to program and what the different parts of a computer work for.

Much more powerful? No. More powerful, yes, but don't try to overblow it. That being said, the CPU is one of the lowest factors in determining how a game runs. Considering the GPUs are essentially equal in power with a slight difference in memory, one system isn't going to run a game the other can't. The only reason a game on one system might not run on the other is compatibility. Beyond that, you have similar levels of graphical power. Processing power doesn't make graphics. One of the most important factors in a game's graphics is textures. Textures rely solely on system memory. So really, in terms of pure graphical output, the only major difference is which system's storage media can hold more. But to actually run something on the system, they're on an even playing field.
Avatar image for Skittles_McGee
Skittles_McGee

9136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157 Skittles_McGee
Member since 2008 • 9136 Posts

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Kameo is easily among the best looking games on the 360 and it was a launch title :|

TheSterls

I'm going to have to really disagree :|

There are certinaly titles that look better but id put it in the top 20 you would disagree with that?

Yes. Unless we're talking purely exclusives, which I'm assuming we're not since its top "20".
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#158 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="themerlin"] I don`t agree Banjo Kazzoie Nuts and Bolts looks awesome, the textures and shading are great in that gamethemerlin

I think it looks good to I just dont think it looks as good as a crack in time. Not near as much going on and Crack in time just looks better but yes Nuts and Bolts is still a fine looking title.

Banjo has better textures and shading by far. Graphics is not the amount of things going on.

Tools of destruction has better lighting, better character models , higher poly counts in the enviorment. And the amount of stuff going on is realative as its simply pushing more polygons and has more on the screen at a time.

Avatar image for Odrec
Odrec

1897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#159 Odrec
Member since 2009 • 1897 Posts
[QUOTE="Odrec"]

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] Both systems are more powerful in certains areas but the actual difference isn't as extreme as you seem to think. The actual hardware in the consoles is on a pretty much even level. Its the storage space that differs the most. Don't mix "power" with "storage". They are vastly different.Skittles_McGee

I'm not confusing both. In processing power the Cell is a much more powerful processor than the Xenon, the 360 GPU has more RAM than the PS3 one but is not the difference as with the processor. Combining both and stuff like storage capacity the PS3 has more potential as a gaming machine than the 360. Maybe not miles away but certainly to consider it more powerful.

And for those saying I don't understand about computers I have a BSc in Computer Science so yes I know how to program and what the different parts of a computer work for.

Much more powerful? No. More powerful, yes, but don't try to overblow it. That being said, the CPU is one of the lowest factors in determining how a game runs. Considering the GPUs are essentially equal in power with a slight difference in memory, one system isn't going to run a game the other can't. The only reason a game on one system might not run on the other is compatibility. Beyond that, you have similar levels of graphical power. Processing power doesn't make graphics. One of the most important factors in a game's graphics is textures. Textures rely solely on system memory. So really, in terms of pure graphical output, the only major difference is which system's storage media can hold more. But to actually run something on the system, they're on an even playing field.

I think I never said much more powerful unless I was referring to the Cell which yes, it's much more powerful. I agree that the GPU is crucial for gaming but in this case the difference in GPU is not that significant. The processing power can provide significant differences in real-time calculations and the storage capacity is certainly a pro. I basically agree with what you said.
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#160 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

People who accept false statements are fools.

TheSterls

so are people who say that articles are false without any proof to back up there claim,lol

You never answered my question though. Why would he say they had to rezise the PS3's textures if it was the lead platform? You dont alter are downgrade something if its the lead platform . He gives himself away in his own interview. Your the kind of guy who thinks OJ simpson was innocent because he said so lmao.

no, i believed OJ simpson was guilty, i got owned when the cleared him, and no, i believe the article because your speculation is not enough for me to debunk what he says,end of,niether of us know enough about developing games to make any assumtions about what the guy meant when he said what he did,in that enviroment an official article is greater than an internet poster, especially a blatant SONY supporter
Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#161 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17887 Posts

Why do you say that though , Rare for an example has always been known for making some of the best games on there respective systems even since the days of the SNES. They still make good looking games today but even games like kameo and Banjo and kazoo are behind Ratchet and Clank for an example. I agree Sony does have overall more talented devs but its not like Microsoft has a bunch of chumps.

TheSterls

Rare isnt a good example because A) Kameo was built on an engine designed for the Gamecube (started off as a gamecube game), and Nuts and Bolts engine was superb, easily on par with Ratchet. Im going to do something that i usually dont, and voice my dissatisfaction with MS. I honestly think MS is holding back 360. Not on purpose, but because they run the games division like a corporation. Maybe its because they are new to this business, i dunno, but sony seems to have a more laid back approach, and gives devs more freedom for creativity. At the beginning of the generation, MS limited how devs could manipulate the GPU, so there was only straight forward developing. Sony never did stuff like that, it was always "you make games how you make games". Through the years, MS has figured out that games need creativity..........not long dev cycles....but you have to allow them freedom (which is why bungie went indy). I still think Sony is ahead in graphics because they have superior devs who have creative freedom (David Jaffe said the same thing), and not because the console is vastly more powerful as they have their PR say to the public. If anyone understood game development (on PC or otherwise) they could see through the PR crap, and realize that these consoles are closer than any other gen in gaming history. The maker of both CPUs has stated this. Fanboys just CHOOOSE to ignore it because it makes them feel better i suppose

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#162 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Why do you say that though , Rare for an example has always been known for making some of the best games on there respective systems even since the days of the SNES. They still make good looking games today but even games like kameo and Banjo and kazoo are behind Ratchet and Clank for an example. I agree Sony does have overall more talented devs but its not like Microsoft has a bunch of chumps.

navyguy21

Rare isnt a good example because A) Kameo was built on an engine designed for the Gamecube (started off as a gamecube game), and Nuts and Bolts engine was superb, easily on par with Ratchet. Im going to do something that i usually dont, and voice my dissatisfaction with MS. I honestly think MS is holding back 360. Not on purpose, but because they run the games division like a corporation. Maybe its because they are new to this business, i dunno, but sony seems to have a more laid back approach, and gives devs more freedom for creativity. At the beginning of the generation, MS limited how devs could manipulate the GPU, so there was only straight forward developing. Sony never did stuff like that, it was always "you make games how you make games". Through the years, MS has figured out that games need creativity..........not long dev cycles....but you have to allow them freedom (which is why bungie went indy). I still think Sony is ahead in graphics because they have superior devs who have creative freedom (David Jaffe said the same thing), and not because the console is vastly more powerful as they have their PR say to the public. If anyone understood game development (on PC or otherwise) they could see through the PR crap, and realize that these consoles are closer than any other gen in gaming history. The maker of both CPUs has stated this. Fanboys just CHOOOSE to ignore it because it makes them feel better i suppose

i think you may have just let a monster out of the bag,lol
Avatar image for Skittles_McGee
Skittles_McGee

9136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#163 Skittles_McGee
Member since 2008 • 9136 Posts

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Odrec"]

I'm not confusing both. In processing power the Cell is a much more powerful processor than the Xenon, the 360 GPU has more RAM than the PS3 one but is not the difference as with the processor. Combining both and stuff like storage capacity the PS3 has more potential as a gaming machine than the 360. Maybe not miles away but certainly to consider it more powerful.

And for those saying I don't understand about computers I have a BSc in Computer Science so yes I know how to program and what the different parts of a computer work for.

Odrec

Much more powerful? No. More powerful, yes, but don't try to overblow it. That being said, the CPU is one of the lowest factors in determining how a game runs. Considering the GPUs are essentially equal in power with a slight difference in memory, one system isn't going to run a game the other can't. The only reason a game on one system might not run on the other is compatibility. Beyond that, you have similar levels of graphical power. Processing power doesn't make graphics. One of the most important factors in a game's graphics is textures. Textures rely solely on system memory. So really, in terms of pure graphical output, the only major difference is which system's storage media can hold more. But to actually run something on the system, they're on an even playing field.

I think I never said much more powerful unless I was referring to the Cell which yes, it's much more powerful. I agree that the GPU is crucial for gaming but in this case the difference in GPU is not that significant. The processing power can provide significant differences in real-time calculations and the storage capacity is certainly a pro. I basically agree with what you said.

Except when you said...

"The 360 can't reach the levels of PS3 exclusives because it lacks the power to do so, plain and simple"

But if you agreed with me that the playing field is even, then...?

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#164 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Why do you say that though , Rare for an example has always been known for making some of the best games on there respective systems even since the days of the SNES. They still make good looking games today but even games like kameo and Banjo and kazoo are behind Ratchet and Clank for an example. I agree Sony does have overall more talented devs but its not like Microsoft has a bunch of chumps.

delta3074

Rare isnt a good example because A) Kameo was built on an engine designed for the Gamecube (started off as a gamecube game), and Nuts and Bolts engine was superb, easily on par with Ratchet. Im going to do something that i usually dont, and voice my dissatisfaction with MS. I honestly think MS is holding back 360. Not on purpose, but because they run the games division like a corporation. Maybe its because they are new to this business, i dunno, but sony seems to have a more laid back approach, and gives devs more freedom for creativity. At the beginning of the generation, MS limited how devs could manipulate the GPU, so there was only straight forward developing. Sony never did stuff like that, it was always "you make games how you make games". Through the years, MS has figured out that games need creativity..........not long dev cycles....but you have to allow them freedom (which is why bungie went indy). I still think Sony is ahead in graphics because they have superior devs who have creative freedom (David Jaffe said the same thing), and not because the console is vastly more powerful as they have their PR say to the public. If anyone understood game development (on PC or otherwise) they could see through the PR crap, and realize that these consoles are closer than any other gen in gaming history. The maker of both CPUs has stated this. Fanboys just CHOOOSE to ignore it because it makes them feel better i suppose

i think you may have just let a monster out of the bag,lol

LOL what else is he gonna say? Oh yea the one we did for Microsoft sucks that one for Sony is great. lmao im more curious about what the devs say when it comes to performance posibilities.

Avatar image for DonPerian
DonPerian

3773

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#165 DonPerian
Member since 2005 • 3773 Posts
I'm sure we've 'tapped it' some time ago....
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#166 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]so are people who say that articles are false without any proof to back up there claim,loldelta3074

You never answered my question though. Why would he say they had to rezise the PS3's textures if it was the lead platform? You dont alter are downgrade something if its the lead platform . He gives himself away in his own interview. Your the kind of guy who thinks OJ simpson was innocent because he said so lmao.

no, i believed OJ simpson was guilty, i got owned when the cleared him, and no, i believe the article because your speculation is not enough for me to debunk what he says,end of,niether of us know enough about developing games to make any assumtions about what the guy meant when he said what he did,in that enviroment an official article is greater than an internet poster, especially a blatant SONY supporter

I support both but I do like the PS3 better then the 360 the diffrence between me and most people on this forum is I own both consoles so I can make a logical and rational choice you however do not. Check my gamertag TheSterls its the same on both Xbox live and PSN. I wouldnt be aruging for the Playstation if it wasnt blatantly obvious that it is more powerful. How much so? Nobody knows but UNC2 and KZ2 look better then anything i have on my 360 and unlike most cows im not just looking at screenshots to make my comparisons .

ps. So you beleive OJ is innocent because the jury said so? lmao hmmmmm regardless I dont see why you dont use common sense in your argument. Ports get downgraded we all know that . They dont downgarde texture res on games that are the lead platform we only have dozens of other multiplats to show that yet you fail to accept that.

Avatar image for Odrec
Odrec

1897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#167 Odrec
Member since 2009 • 1897 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] Much more powerful? No. More powerful, yes, but don't try to overblow it. That being said, the CPU is one of the lowest factors in determining how a game runs. Considering the GPUs are essentially equal in power with a slight difference in memory, one system isn't going to run a game the other can't. The only reason a game on one system might not run on the other is compatibility. Beyond that, you have similar levels of graphical power. Processing power doesn't make graphics. One of the most important factors in a game's graphics is textures. Textures rely solely on system memory. So really, in terms of pure graphical output, the only major difference is which system's storage media can hold more. But to actually run something on the system, they're on an even playing field.Skittles_McGee

I think I never said much more powerful unless I was referring to the Cell which yes, it's much more powerful. I agree that the GPU is crucial for gaming but in this case the difference in GPU is not that significant. The processing power can provide significant differences in real-time calculations and the storage capacity is certainly a pro. I basically agree with what you said.

Except when you said...

"The 360 can't reach the levels of PS3 exclusives because it lacks the power to do so, plain and simple"

But if you agreed with me that the playing field is even, then...?

I agree in that the most significant factor is probably the storage right now and that the PS3 is basically more powerful overall. That the 360 can reach the level of PS3 exclusives I don't agree with but I guess we'll have to wait until the end of this gen to see.
Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#168 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17887 Posts

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"][QUOTE="Odrec"]

I'm not confusing both. In processing power the Cell is a much more powerful processor than the Xenon, the 360 GPU has more RAM than the PS3 one but is not the difference as with the processor. Combining both and stuff like storage capacity the PS3 has more potential as a gaming machine than the 360. Maybe not miles away but certainly to consider it more powerful.

And for those saying I don't understand about computers I have a BSc in Computer Science so yes I know how to program and what the different parts of a computer work for.

Odrec

Much more powerful? No. More powerful, yes, but don't try to overblow it. That being said, the CPU is one of the lowest factors in determining how a game runs. Considering the GPUs are essentially equal in power with a slight difference in memory, one system isn't going to run a game the other can't. The only reason a game on one system might not run on the other is compatibility. Beyond that, you have similar levels of graphical power. Processing power doesn't make graphics. One of the most important factors in a game's graphics is textures. Textures rely solely on system memory. So really, in terms of pure graphical output, the only major difference is which system's storage media can hold more. But to actually run something on the system, they're on an even playing field.

I think I never said much more powerful unless I was referring to the Cell which yes, it's much more powerful. I agree that the GPU is crucial for gaming but in this case the difference in GPU is not that significant. The processing power can provide significant differences in real-time calculations and the storage capacity is certainly a pro. I basically agree with what you said.

Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#169 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="navyguy21"] Rare isnt a good example because A) Kameo was built on an engine designed for the Gamecube (started off as a gamecube game), and Nuts and Bolts engine was superb, easily on par with Ratchet. Im going to do something that i usually dont, and voice my dissatisfaction with MS. I honestly think MS is holding back 360. Not on purpose, but because they run the games division like a corporation. Maybe its because they are new to this business, i dunno, but sony seems to have a more laid back approach, and gives devs more freedom for creativity. At the beginning of the generation, MS limited how devs could manipulate the GPU, so there was only straight forward developing. Sony never did stuff like that, it was always "you make games how you make games". Through the years, MS has figured out that games need creativity..........not long dev cycles....but you have to allow them freedom (which is why bungie went indy). I still think Sony is ahead in graphics because they have superior devs who have creative freedom (David Jaffe said the same thing), and not because the console is vastly more powerful as they have their PR say to the public. If anyone understood game development (on PC or otherwise) they could see through the PR crap, and realize that these consoles are closer than any other gen in gaming history. The maker of both CPUs has stated this. Fanboys just CHOOOSE to ignore it because it makes them feel better i suppose

TheSterls

i think you may have just let a monster out of the bag,lol

LOL what else is he gonna say? Oh yea the one we did for Microsoft sucks that one for Sony is great. lmao im more curious about what the devs say when it comes to performance posibilities.

i think it's clear that the cell has an advantage over the CPU in the 360, the ability to assist the RSX is definitly a plus over the 360 CPU, the 360 has the better GPU,more USABLE RAM and an extra 10Mb of Edram, which almost cancels out the advantages of the CELL, but when the RSX and the CELL work together the PS3 can produce better visuals than the 360 could, but not by a mindblowing amount, the PS3 has a slight edge over the 360,it is slightly more powerful, but it's nothing compared to the difference in power between a PS2 and the origina billbox
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#170 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

You never answered my question though. Why would he say they had to rezise the PS3's textures if it was the lead platform? You dont alter are downgrade something if its the lead platform . He gives himself away in his own interview. Your the kind of guy who thinks OJ simpson was innocent because he said so lmao.

TheSterls

no, i believed OJ simpson was guilty, i got owned when the cleared him, and no, i believe the article because your speculation is not enough for me to debunk what he says,end of,niether of us know enough about developing games to make any assumtions about what the guy meant when he said what he did,in that enviroment an official article is greater than an internet poster, especially a blatant SONY supporter

I support both but I do like the PS3 better then the 360 the diffrence between me and most people on this forum is I own both consoles so I can make a logical and rational choice you however do not. Check my gamertag TheSterls its the same on both Xbox live and PSN. I wouldnt be aruging for the Playstation if it wasnt blatantly obvious that it is more powerful. How much so? Nobody knows but UNC2 and KZ2 look better then anything i have on my 360 and unlike most cows im not just looking at screenshots to make my comparisons .

ps. So you beleive OJ is innocent because the jury said so? lmao hmmmmm regardless I dont see why you dont use common sense in your argument. Ports get downgraded we all know that . They dont downgarde texture res on games that are the lead platform we only have dozens of other multiplats to show that yet you fail to accept that.

don't rub it in, i am still saving for my PS3, i only want 2 games for it,but one of them i absolutely fell in love with,i have been saying all along that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360,but not by a mindblowing amount, also,where did i say i believed Oj was innocent because a jury said so?
Avatar image for Odrec
Odrec

1897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#171 Odrec
Member since 2009 • 1897 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"] Much more powerful? No. More powerful, yes, but don't try to overblow it. That being said, the CPU is one of the lowest factors in determining how a game runs. Considering the GPUs are essentially equal in power with a slight difference in memory, one system isn't going to run a game the other can't. The only reason a game on one system might not run on the other is compatibility. Beyond that, you have similar levels of graphical power. Processing power doesn't make graphics. One of the most important factors in a game's graphics is textures. Textures rely solely on system memory. So really, in terms of pure graphical output, the only major difference is which system's storage media can hold more. But to actually run something on the system, they're on an even playing field.navyguy21

I think I never said much more powerful unless I was referring to the Cell which yes, it's much more powerful. I agree that the GPU is crucial for gaming but in this case the difference in GPU is not that significant. The processing power can provide significant differences in real-time calculations and the storage capacity is certainly a pro. I basically agree with what you said.

Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)
Avatar image for ToScA-
ToScA-

5783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#172 ToScA-
Member since 2006 • 5783 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Why do you say that though , Rare for an example has always been known for making some of the best games on there respective systems even since the days of the SNES. They still make good looking games today but even games like kameo and Banjo and kazoo are behind Ratchet and Clank for an example. I agree Sony does have overall more talented devs but its not like Microsoft has a bunch of chumps.

navyguy21

Rare isnt a good example because A) Kameo was built on an engine designed for the Gamecube (started off as a gamecube game), and Nuts and Bolts engine was superb, easily on par with Ratchet. Im going to do something that i usually dont, and voice my dissatisfaction with MS. I honestly think MS is holding back 360. Not on purpose, but because they run the games division like a corporation. Maybe its because they are new to this business, i dunno, but sony seems to have a more laid back approach, and gives devs more freedom for creativity. At the beginning of the generation, MS limited how devs could manipulate the GPU, so there was only straight forward developing. Sony never did stuff like that, it was always "you make games how you make games". Through the years, MS has figured out that games need creativity..........not long dev cycles....but you have to allow them freedom (which is why bungie went indy). I still think Sony is ahead in graphics because they have superior devs who have creative freedom (David Jaffe said the same thing), and not because the console is vastly more powerful as they have their PR say to the public. If anyone understood game development (on PC or otherwise) they could see through the PR crap, and realize that these consoles are closer than any other gen in gaming history. The maker of both CPUs has stated this. Fanboys just CHOOOSE to ignore it because it makes them feel better i suppose

Watch them conveniently avoid this post. Especially that link of yours.
Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#173 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17887 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="Odrec"] I think I never said much more powerful unless I was referring to the Cell which yes, it's much more powerful. I agree that the GPU is crucial for gaming but in this case the difference in GPU is not that significant. The processing power can provide significant differences in real-time calculations and the storage capacity is certainly a pro. I basically agree with what you said.Odrec

Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)

If you seriously think the Cell in the PS3 out performs a quad core CPU, then you have lost the little credibility that you may have had :|

CPU's ability @ number crunching means squat in the game development arena. Quad core CPU runs circles around the Cell in geneal purpose processing dude. Just stop please........youre digging a hole :|

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#174 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts
[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="Odrec"] I think I never said much more powerful unless I was referring to the Cell which yes, it's much more powerful. I agree that the GPU is crucial for gaming but in this case the difference in GPU is not that significant. The processing power can provide significant differences in real-time calculations and the storage capacity is certainly a pro. I basically agree with what you said.Odrec

Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)

so the PS3 is more powerful becuase of it's future potential, tell me, what year in the future did you travel to to verify that Fact, because i fail to see how something is more powerful in the hear and now because of what it will be in the future, i will tell you the future of the power of the PS3, even further behind top end PC's than it is now
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#175 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]no, i believed OJ simpson was guilty, i got owned when the cleared him, and no, i believe the article because your speculation is not enough for me to debunk what he says,end of,niether of us know enough about developing games to make any assumtions about what the guy meant when he said what he did,in that enviroment an official article is greater than an internet poster, especially a blatant SONY supporterdelta3074

I support both but I do like the PS3 better then the 360 the diffrence between me and most people on this forum is I own both consoles so I can make a logical and rational choice you however do not. Check my gamertag TheSterls its the same on both Xbox live and PSN. I wouldnt be aruging for the Playstation if it wasnt blatantly obvious that it is more powerful. How much so? Nobody knows but UNC2 and KZ2 look better then anything i have on my 360 and unlike most cows im not just looking at screenshots to make my comparisons .

ps. So you beleive OJ is innocent because the jury said so? lmao hmmmmm regardless I dont see why you dont use common sense in your argument. Ports get downgraded we all know that . They dont downgarde texture res on games that are the lead platform we only have dozens of other multiplats to show that yet you fail to accept that.

don't rub it in, i am still saving for my PS3, i only want 2 games for it,but one of them i absolutely fell in love with,i have been saying all along that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360,but not by a mindblowing amount, also,where did i say i believed Oj was innocent because a jury said so?

Because you said you got owned when the jury cleared him , I was simply saying it doesnt matter what the jury says I still think hes guilty. Just like I dont care what the dev says if your title looks worse then about 95% of the multiplats on the market and the game you are making is based off a movie product that is owned by Sony then that sounds like marketing BS and ive been around long enough to figure that out.

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

delta3074

Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)

so the PS3 is more powerful becuase of it's future potential, tell me, what year in the future did you travel to to verify that Fact, because i fail to see how something is more powerful in the hear and now because of what it will be in the future, i will tell you the future of the power of the PS3, even further behind top end PC's than it is now

PS3 games keep looking better though and they hold up very well with current pc titles regardless of the power diffrence. We dont see that same leap with 360 exclusives coming out this year.

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#177 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

navyguy21

Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)

If you seriously think the Cell in the PS3 out performs a quad core CPU, then you have lost the little credibility that you may have had :|

CPU's ability @ number crunching means squat in the game development arena. Quad core CPU runs circles around the Cell in geneal purpose processing dude. Just stop please........youre digging a hole :|

You should look up some dev diaries and yes some wasy the Cell does beat a quad core cpu. For general purpose processing no it doesnt not even close but it can however render visuals better then a quad core cpu which in the case of the PS3 is very important. Uncharted 2 dev diary regarding the animations basically talk about how the cell is used and why being so good at number crunching is what makes it so effective in rendering the animations as its the SPU's that are dedicated to that task.

Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#178 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17887 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="Odrec"] Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)TheSterls

If you seriously think the Cell in the PS3 out performs a quad core CPU, then you have lost the little credibility that you may have had :|

CPU's ability @ number crunching means squat in the game development arena. Quad core CPU runs circles around the Cell in geneal purpose processing dude. Just stop please........youre digging a hole :|

You should look up some dev diaries and yes some wasy the Cell does beat a quad core cpu. For general purpose processing no it doesnt not even close but it can however render visuals better then a quad core cpu which in the case of the PS3 is very important. Uncharted 2 dev diary regarding the animations basically talk about how the cell is used and why being so good at number crunching is what makes it so effective in rendering the animations as its the SPU's that are dedicated to that task.

wow dude, just..............wow :|

Avatar image for Shattered007
Shattered007

3139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#179 Shattered007
Member since 2007 • 3139 Posts
All this and yet when Crysis 2 comes out it will look better than any game out on either platform and probably look and play better on the 360 but it wont count because it's a mutiplat. Kinda like Mass Effect 2 doesn't count because it on the PC too or how Alan Wake doesn't count because it might end up on the PC later or how Halo: Reach was all CGI and wan't in-game. But hey, even if every game site comes out and say (Insert 360 title name here) looks better than anything on the market right now. it will be "Teh Bias".
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#180 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"] If you seriously think the Cell in the PS3 out performs a quad core CPU, then you have lost the little credibility that you may have had :|

CPU's ability @ number crunching means squat in the game development arena. Quad core CPU runs circles around the Cell in geneal purpose processing dude. Just stop please........youre digging a hole :|

navyguy21

You should look up some dev diaries and yes some wasy the Cell does beat a quad core cpu. For general purpose processing no it doesnt not even close but it can however render visuals better then a quad core cpu which in the case of the PS3 is very important. Uncharted 2 dev diary regarding the animations basically talk about how the cell is used and why being so good at number crunching is what makes it so effective in rendering the animations as its the SPU's that are dedicated to that task.

wow dude, just..............wow :|

I dont no why thats so hard for you to understand a Quad-core CPU is made for general purpose processing Ive got a I970 in mine . It does not render graphics woth a crap comapred to any type of Cell processor. It doesnt need to as pcs have alot higher end GPU's but I dont see why this concept is so hard for many hermits to understand. i guess thats what happneswhen you comapre two totally diffrent architectures.

Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#181 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I support both but I do like the PS3 better then the 360 the diffrence between me and most people on this forum is I own both consoles so I can make a logical and rational choice you however do not. Check my gamertag TheSterls its the same on both Xbox live and PSN. I wouldnt be aruging for the Playstation if it wasnt blatantly obvious that it is more powerful. How much so? Nobody knows but UNC2 and KZ2 look better then anything i have on my 360 and unlike most cows im not just looking at screenshots to make my comparisons .

ps. So you beleive OJ is innocent because the jury said so? lmao hmmmmm regardless I dont see why you dont use common sense in your argument. Ports get downgraded we all know that . They dont downgarde texture res on games that are the lead platform we only have dozens of other multiplats to show that yet you fail to accept that.

TheSterls

don't rub it in, i am still saving for my PS3, i only want 2 games for it,but one of them i absolutely fell in love with,i have been saying all along that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360,but not by a mindblowing amount, also,where did i say i believed Oj was innocent because a jury said so?

Because you said you got owned when the jury cleared him , I was simply saying it doesnt matter what the jury says I still think hes guilty. Just like I dont care what the dev says if your title looks worse then about 95% of the multiplats on the market and the game you are making is based off a movie product that is owned by Sony then that sounds like marketing BS and ive been around long enough to figure that out.

it's not a very good marketing strategy is it, why would they say the PS3 was the lead platform for a game that looks considerably better on the rival system,that makes themselves look bad doesn't it? you failed to take that simple piece of logic into account, things are not as clean cut as you would like to believe,i have been around long enough to realise that to reach a conclusion you have to explore all avenues and take every variable into account, there is not enough in that article that would lead me to the conclusion that termianl reality where lying,just because i didn't come to the same conclusion as you,does not mean i am somehow less intelligent than you,or less open minded, so please spare me the 'you don't agree with my opinion,therefore you are wrong and ignorant' routine
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#182 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

All this and yet when Crysis 2 comes out it will look better than any game out on either platform and probably look and play better on the 360 but it wont count because it's a mutiplat. Kinda like Mass Effect 2 doesn't count because it on the PC too or how Alan Wake doesn't count because it might end up on the PC later or how Halo: Reach was all CGI and wan't in-game. But hey, even if every game site comes out and say (Insert 360 title name here) looks better than anything on the market right now. it will be "Teh Bias".Shattered007

Mass Effect doesnt win because it has horrible texture pop in , framerate dips and looks marginally better then the first one . Alan Wake doesnt look as good as UNC2 if you beleive that then thats your own problem . Hao Reach isnt CGI but bungie does add special effects in there in-game cinematics hell you can even see the textures pop in on halo 3 . So if the 360 does have a title that looks better then anything on ps3 ill be sure to know as I own both but right now I dont see it happening.

Avatar image for Shattered007
Shattered007

3139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#183 Shattered007
Member since 2007 • 3139 Posts
[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

You should look up some dev diaries and yes some wasy the Cell does beat a quad core cpu. For general purpose processing no it doesnt not even close but it can however render visuals better then a quad core cpu which in the case of the PS3 is very important. Uncharted 2 dev diary regarding the animations basically talk about how the cell is used and why being so good at number crunching is what makes it so effective in rendering the animations as its the SPU's that are dedicated to that task.

wow dude, just..............wow :|

I dont no why thats so hard for you to understand a Quad-core CPU is made for general purpose processing Ive got a I970 in mine . It does not render graphics woth a crap comapred to any type of Cell processor. It doesnt need to as pcs have alot higher end GPU's but I dont see why this concept is so hard for many hermits to understand. i guess thats what happneswhen you comapre two totally diffrent architectures.

Exactly right...it doesn't render because it doesn't need to so to conclude that it can't render or wont render on par with the Cell in current PS3 systems is a strech.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#184 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]don't rub it in, i am still saving for my PS3, i only want 2 games for it,but one of them i absolutely fell in love with,i have been saying all along that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360,but not by a mindblowing amount, also,where did i say i believed Oj was innocent because a jury said so? delta3074

Because you said you got owned when the jury cleared him , I was simply saying it doesnt matter what the jury says I still think hes guilty. Just like I dont care what the dev says if your title looks worse then about 95% of the multiplats on the market and the game you are making is based off a movie product that is owned by Sony then that sounds like marketing BS and ive been around long enough to figure that out.

it's not a very good marketing strategy is it, why would they say the PS3 was the lead platform for a game that looks considerably better on the rival system,that makes themselves look bad doesn't it? you failed to take that simple piece of logic into account, things are not as clean cut as you would like to believe,i have been around long enough to realise that to reach a conclusion you have to explore all avenues and take every variable into account, there is not enough in that article that would lead me to the conclusion that termianl reality where lying,just because i didn't come to the same conclusion as you,does not mean i am somehow less intelligent than you,or less open minded, so please spare me the 'you don't agree with my opinion,therefore you are wrong and ignorant' routine

They would look bad either way , the point is they probably think the average gamer wouldnt notice yet they didnt count on comparison sights to question them . And when they were asked about it they stated they had to resize the textures and render it at a lower resolution. Im not saying you are ignorant are stupid but you claimed I was wrong because the dev said it was the lead platform and I simply stated valid reasons why it wasnt. The fact it looked consderbly worse then most other multiplats on the market and that there was a connection with the fact that the game is based off a movie property that was owned by Sony and the dev mentioned downgrading parts of the game on the Sony platform are all valid reasons.

Avatar image for Shattered007
Shattered007

3139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#185 Shattered007
Member since 2007 • 3139 Posts

[QUOTE="Shattered007"]All this and yet when Crysis 2 comes out it will look better than any game out on either platform and probably look and play better on the 360 but it wont count because it's a mutiplat. Kinda like Mass Effect 2 doesn't count because it on the PC too or how Alan Wake doesn't count because it might end up on the PC later or how Halo: Reach was all CGI and wan't in-game. But hey, even if every game site comes out and say (Insert 360 title name here) looks better than anything on the market right now. it will be "Teh Bias".TheSterls

Mass Effect doesnt win because it has horrible texture pop in , framerate dips and looks marginally better then the first one . Alan Wake doesnt look as good as UNC2 if you beleive that then thats your own problem . Hao Reach isnt CGI but bungie does add special effects in there in-game cinematics hell you can even see the textures pop in on halo 3 . So if the 360 does have a title that looks better then anything on ps3 ill be sure to know as I own both but right now I dont see it happening.

1 Mass Effect =/= Mass Effect 2... From what I've seen so far in Mass Effect 2 (yes, on the 360) Those have been majorly addressed. 2 Opinion=/= Fact nor did I say Alan Wake> Uncharted 2 but it does show that the 360 isn't miles behind the PS3 3. I guess will have to wait til E3 to see how good Halo: Reach will look like.
Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#186 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17887 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

You should look up some dev diaries and yes some wasy the Cell does beat a quad core cpu. For general purpose processing no it doesnt not even close but it can however render visuals better then a quad core cpu which in the case of the PS3 is very important. Uncharted 2 dev diary regarding the animations basically talk about how the cell is used and why being so good at number crunching is what makes it so effective in rendering the animations as its the SPU's that are dedicated to that task.

TheSterls

wow dude, just..............wow :|

I dont no why thats so hard for you to understand a Quad-core CPU is made for general purpose processing Ive got a I970 in mine . It does not render graphics woth a crap comapred to any type of Cell processor. It doesnt need to as pcs have alot higher end GPU's but I dont see why this concept is so hard for many hermits to understand. i guess thats what happneswhen you comapre two totally diffrent architectures.

Because CPUs dont render graphics, the GPU does............even in your beloved Cell, the RSX renders the graphics, the CPU assists in other tasks, not graphics rendering. Whe the cell "helps out" its doing other tasks like lighting, physics, animation, sound, etc. It doesnt render anything you "see". On PC, the GPU does the grunt work yes, but the cell is not, or will not be on par with a quad core at ANYTHING except maybe number crunching, and again, games are not built around number crunching
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#187 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]wow dude, just..............wow :|

Shattered007

I dont no why thats so hard for you to understand a Quad-core CPU is made for general purpose processing Ive got a I970 in mine . It does not render graphics woth a crap comapred to any type of Cell processor. It doesnt need to as pcs have alot higher end GPU's but I dont see why this concept is so hard for many hermits to understand. i guess thats what happneswhen you comapre two totally diffrent architectures.

Exactly right...it doesn't render because it doesn't need to so to conclude that it can't render or wont render on par with the Cell in current PS3 systems is a strech.

Its a completely diffrent aricitecture they do not render visuals as that is not there purpose and no they will not beat processors that are desgined to do so in that area. Cell and Libra are examples of processors that are desgined to render visuals without GPU's

Avatar image for 13C
13C

1024

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#188 13C
Member since 2010 • 1024 Posts

The power of all systems that are pushed is never unlocked till the end of the gen and even then Im sure they could be pushed further.

Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#189 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]wow dude, just..............wow :|

navyguy21

I dont no why thats so hard for you to understand a Quad-core CPU is made for general purpose processing Ive got a I970 in mine . It does not render graphics woth a crap comapred to any type of Cell processor. It doesnt need to as pcs have alot higher end GPU's but I dont see why this concept is so hard for many hermits to understand. i guess thats what happneswhen you comapre two totally diffrent architectures.

Because CPUs dont render graphics, the GPU does............even in your beloved Cell, the RSX renders the graphics, the CPU assists in other tasks, not graphics rendering. Whe the cell "helps out" its doing other tasks like lighting, physics, animation, sound, etc. It doesnt render anything you "see". On PC, the GPU does the grunt work yes, but the cell is not, or will not be on par with a quad core at ANYTHING except maybe number crunching, and again, games are not built around number crunching

Lighting is rendering my friend so is animations those are all visual effects and yes it does those better then a Quad core pc processor would do . Almot all the lighting in UNC2 is handled by the processor not the GPU, therefore it frees the GPU up for other task like more complexed Geometry. The animations were also handled almost completley on the processor.

Avatar image for Ontain
Ontain

25501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#190 Ontain
Member since 2005 • 25501 Posts
if games can't fully tap the power of my quad core PC which is very easy to take advantage of, i don't see them using the spe's fully anytime soon.
Avatar image for Shattered007
Shattered007

3139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#191 Shattered007
Member since 2007 • 3139 Posts

[QUOTE="Shattered007"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I dont no why thats so hard for you to understand a Quad-core CPU is made for general purpose processing Ive got a I970 in mine . It does not render graphics woth a crap comapred to any type of Cell processor. It doesnt need to as pcs have alot higher end GPU's but I dont see why this concept is so hard for many hermits to understand. i guess thats what happneswhen you comapre two totally diffrent architectures.

TheSterls

Exactly right...it doesn't render because it doesn't need to so to conclude that it can't render or wont render on par with the Cell in current PS3 systems is a strech.

Its a completely diffrent aricitecture they do not render visuals as that is not there purpose and no they will not beat processors that are desgined to do so in that area. Cell and Libra are examples of processors that are desgined to render visuals without GPU's

"Dffrent aricitecture" meaning there is no current language made to produce graphics off an AMD/Intel processor. But even if there were, there would be no way to benchmark both on an equal level. My point being, your comment is a strech...there's no way to tell if you are right are wrong.

It's like saying that the PS3 works in outter space...Yeah, you might be right but there's no way to test that so what's the point of stating it as a fact?

Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17887

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#192 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17887 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

I dont no why thats so hard for you to understand a Quad-core CPU is made for general purpose processing Ive got a I970 in mine . It does not render graphics woth a crap comapred to any type of Cell processor. It doesnt need to as pcs have alot higher end GPU's but I dont see why this concept is so hard for many hermits to understand. i guess thats what happneswhen you comapre two totally diffrent architectures.

TheSterls

Because CPUs dont render graphics, the GPU does............even in your beloved Cell, the RSX renders the graphics, the CPU assists in other tasks, not graphics rendering. Whe the cell "helps out" its doing other tasks like lighting, physics, animation, sound, etc. It doesnt render anything you "see". On PC, the GPU does the grunt work yes, but the cell is not, or will not be on par with a quad core at ANYTHING except maybe number crunching, and again, games are not built around number crunching

Lighting is rendering my friend so is animations those are all visual effects and yes it does those better then a Quad core pc processor would do . Almot all the lighting in UNC2 is handled by the processor not the GPU, therefore it frees the GPU up for other task like more complexed Geometry. The animations were also handled almost completley on the processor.

ok, let me specify since you are being such a smart arty, the CPU does not DRAW anything, it processes NUMBERS, which is what animations, physics, and lighting is."complex geometry" still would be limited by the abilities of the GPU. It doesnt create something that isnt there. Offloading to the CPU just FREES CYCLES in the GPU, thats it. Stop watchin those SONY FUNDED dev diaries, i have a PS3, and ive seen them. What they say is true, but only in regards to the PS3, a quad core will still beat both consoles easily, deal with it
Avatar image for Odrec
Odrec

1897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#193 Odrec
Member since 2009 • 1897 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

navyguy21

Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)

If you seriously think the Cell in the PS3 out performs a quad core CPU, then you have lost the little credibility that you may have had :|

CPU's ability @ number crunching means squat in the game development arena. Quad core CPU runs circles around the Cell in geneal purpose processing dude. Just stop please........youre digging a hole :|

Maybe you're the one who needs to inform yourself a little bit before talking. How do you know that what the Cell can do means squat in the game development area when you're NOT a game developer and many game developers have said that the PS3 is a more powerful console? Here is a benchmark of the Cell against general purpose CPUs. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cellperf/#sec3 The Cell BE is a best-of-breed design that delivers significant computational power, high bandwidth, excellent power and performance, and leading area efficiency within the constraints of a process technology. With eight decoupled SPU SIMD engines, each with dedicated resources including DMA channels, the Cell BE has eight times more SIMD capability (for up to 16-way data parallelism) than traditional processors with vector architecture extensions, such as the PPC970 in the G5. The PPE is also free to process other applications even while all SPUs are in use. The Cell BE can perform especially well in cases where a general-purpose processor would normally get tied up by a single SIMD application. With its performance density and efficiency, the Cell BE can outperform leading-edge processors on a variety of workloads by approximately an order of magnitude, in some cases more, when software is tuned and optimized for this architecture. Another news of a Cell-based architectures excelling against a general purpose quad CPU on another different task. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/06/09/spursengine_video_encode/ Maybe for some general purpose task the quad is better but as far as how the machine is capable for gaming it is still more powerful as stated by many actual game developers.
Avatar image for TheSterls
TheSterls

3117

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#194 TheSterls
Member since 2009 • 3117 Posts

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Shattered007"] Exactly right...it doesn't render because it doesn't need to so to conclude that it can't render or wont render on par with the Cell in current PS3 systems is a strech.Shattered007

Its a completely diffrent aricitecture they do not render visuals as that is not there purpose and no they will not beat processors that are desgined to do so in that area. Cell and Libra are examples of processors that are desgined to render visuals without GPU's

"Dffrent aricitecture" meaning there is no current language made to produce graphics off an AMD/Intel processor. But even if there were, there would be no way to benchmark both on an equal level. My point being, your comment is a strech...there's no way to tell if you are right are wrong.

Its not a strech its simply not programmed to do so , processors like Cell and libra have lots of paralell processoing power they are designed for visuals its simply better in that aspect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyPhq6kJ2U0

Here is a video of a Cell processor doing graphic rendering with no GPU there is a better one of the PS3 processor but I cant find it right now.

Avatar image for CODnut
CODnut

47

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#195 CODnut
Member since 2008 • 47 Posts

Yawn...we heard this before, well as of November of 2009 the PS3 was officially on the market 3 years and in dev's hands for almost 4, so how long does it take exactly to tap this mystical true power of the PS3 ?

Cause' from where i sit multiplats still look and play better on 360, so again i ask when will this " TRUE POWER " be tapped into already, because we're all still waiting to be amazed.

Avatar image for KingsMessenger
KingsMessenger

2574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#196 KingsMessenger
Member since 2009 • 2574 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]OMG, not this crap again :roll:iKINGBOBi

Ok, if no one will read the article:roll:, the gist of it is that PS3 has the ability to do 16xMSAA. Digital Foundry is the testers, and developers Pandemic made quotes about it as well.

If I am correct in assuming that you are refering to the PS3 version of Saboteur(given that your link doesn't work unless you have a N4G account).

It isn't 16xMSAA...

It is a smart edge-blurring technique. It has more in common with a MLAA(Morphological Anti-Aliasing) technique than MSAA. Here is the original paper on MLAA.

And there is absolutely nothing stopping developers from implementing that exact same method on the Xbox 360. Sure, the Cell processor is better suited to doing that sort of computation, but the Xbox 360 is still capable of doing it, just not in the same way

Avatar image for 13C
13C

1024

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#198 13C
Member since 2010 • 1024 Posts

if games can't fully tap the power of my quad core PC which is very easy to take advantage of, i don't see them using the spe's fully anytime soon.Ontain

since your cpu isnt used for graphics Im sure the cell does a better job at processing gpu related tasks since it was built to act like a cpu with gpu functions

Avatar image for 13C
13C

1024

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#199 13C
Member since 2010 • 1024 Posts

Yawn...we heard this before, well as of November of 2009 the PS3 was officially on the market 3 years and in dev's hands for almost 4, so how long does it take exactly to tap this mystical true power of the PS3 ?

Cause' from where i sit multiplats still look and play better on 360, so again i ask when will this " TRUE POWER " be tapped into already, because we're all still waiting to be amazed.

CODnut

1 muiltiplate recently has looked better on the 360. 2 recent muiltiplates looked better on the ps3

Bay Vs dragon age/Dark

Avatar image for Odrec
Odrec

1897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#200 Odrec
Member since 2009 • 1897 Posts

[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]Ok, im really starting to think that you are just letting your fanboyism speak for you. The differences in the GPUs are bigger than the CPU differences. Sure, the Cell is FASTER than the 360s CPU, but only at stream processing. Games are not built that way. Games require much more generap purpose programming, which the Cell would be limited. This is why the general purpose processesing is done PPE in the PS3, and the cores handle the small nuggets of work like sound, physics, lighting, etc. This is extremely hard to optimize because game code is not readily designed to be broken up = custom engines have to be created = longer dev cycle = more money invested = PS3 exclusives tend to shine because of custom engines, but lets not forget the tons of money/time that goes into it. The CPUs are closer than you think, as stated by the people who made the thing, ill take their word over yours ;)

delta3074

Look out the benchmarks for Cell against current quadcore CPUs, the Cell beats the crap out of them in processing power. That a game is going to use that power is not the matter and "it depends" as the developer says. But the POTENTIAL (please take a minute or two to understand this) of the machine makes the PS3 more powerful plain and simple. ;)

so the PS3 is more powerful becuase of it's future potential, tell me, what year in the future did you travel to to verify that Fact, because i fail to see how something is more powerful in the hear and now because of what it will be in the future, i will tell you the future of the power of the PS3, even further behind top end PC's than it is now

That's what benchmarks are for to measure the potential of the machine or device. That's the only way to measure and objectively say which is more powerful. But we must not go to the future since right now there are no games that look as good on 360 as they do on PS3. So the PS3 beats the 360 in potential and actual empirical data.