PS4 4K resolution....here we go again

Whether it supports 4K or not is a moot point as no one will be able to see it. I mean, who is going to go out and buy a TV with that resolution? The TV studios aren't going to be broadcasting in it, most of them are still getting their heads around and playing catch up with 1080i.

Who is going to go out and replace their Blu-Ray collection? Nope, another stumbling block. And most of the games will have to be upscaled to that as most studios are struggling with developemnt costs to the point where one failed game can mean the closure of a studio.

Personally having had both a PS3 and 360 this generation, my PS3 has mainly used as a Blu-Ray player in the light of the 360's better controller and online features. Would I buy both again if the next Xbox ships with a BR player? No chance, let alone buy a whole new entertainment suite to display the games only (i.e. no tv channels) at 4K.

and that is assuming they will hit that target. Surely everyone can remember the BS promises they came out with during the PS3's development and the infamous KZ2 CGI trailers. I mean this is Sony we are talking about - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Now your just being a fanboy again....

TLOU is the best looking game ever made. It will win best graphics of 2013. Everyone knows it, including you. But because it's not on your precious dying platform AKA PC Gaming, you don't want to admit it.

ShadowMoses900

As I said, reminds me of some 1996 games, like Quake 1:

TLoU:

See?

They're comparable! :D

No one falls for your fake doctored TLOU images, I proved them to be fake millions of times. You are not fooling anyone anymore.

Here are the REAL images: www.NaughtyDog.com/The Last of Us

IGN also has REAL images. Every other image is either doctored, fake, or unreliable.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

Well, can't argue with that...

Reminds me of some PC games from 1996...

delta3074

Now your just being a fanboy again....

TLOU is the best looking game ever made. It will win best graphics of 2013. Everyone knows it, including you. But because it's not on your precious dying platform AKA PC Gaming, you don't want to admit it.

No. You are wrong. But it is not your fault, you have become misinformed by that fanboy Rocker (the biggest fanboy on this site). Do not fall for his fanboy lies.

For starters we need to kick 360 out of the equation, because it cannot compete with PS3 in graphics or power.

Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: The Hardware Throwdown - IGN

Now that the 360 is destroyed (this is why 360 has no games that can match KZ, UC, God of War ect....) we will turn our attention to PC. Fanboys like Rocker will try and tell you that PC destroys PS3, but the truth is that PS3 can rival PC games.

Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 PC

Killzone 3 HD Gameplay

Crysis 2 - PC Gameplay Max Settings [Full HD]

TLOU vs PC Witcher 2

The Last of Us Gameplay [HD]

The Witcher 2 - PC - Max Settings HD GamePlay

You can clearly see that PS3 games not only look better than anything on 360, but also rival PC games.

There is the truth. Now accept it, don't listen to Rocker, he will try to lie and spin this another way, probably with his classic fanboy line "they are bull shots". No one falls for that though, everyone sees right through it.

even those don't even come close to Crysis 2 or BF3 DX 11, please just stop , you are just embarrassing yourself seriously, theres a good reason that Herms are proud of there systems, mainly because no console on the Planet can match the Raw power of a PC, i have an intel Sandybridge dual core that Can Handle higher resolutions and anti-aliasing than the Ps3 could even dream of handling, nither the 360 or the Ps3 can even handle vanilla crysis with out a massive reduction in foliage and anti-aliasing,and before you start, the Ps3 version was not a port of the 360 version at all and the 360 version outperformed it.delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Now your just being a fanboy again....

TLOU is the best looking game ever made. It will win best graphics of 2013. Everyone knows it, including you. But because it's not on your precious dying platform AKA PC Gaming, you don't want to admit it.

ShadowMoses900

No. You are wrong. But it is not your fault, you have become misinformed by that fanboy Rocker (the biggest fanboy on this site). Do not fall for his fanboy lies.

For starters we need to kick 360 out of the equation, because it cannot compete with PS3 in graphics or power.

Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: The Hardware Throwdown - IGN

Now that the 360 is destroyed (this is why 360 has no games that can match KZ, UC, God of War ect....) we will turn our attention to PC. Fanboys like Rocker will try and tell you that PC destroys PS3, but the truth is that PS3 can rival PC games.

Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 PC

Killzone 3 HD Gameplay

Crysis 2 - PC Gameplay Max Settings [Full HD]

TLOU vs PC Witcher 2

The Last of Us Gameplay [HD]

The Witcher 2 - PC - Max Settings HD GamePlay

You can clearly see that PS3 games not only look better than anything on 360, but also rival PC games.

There is the truth. Now accept it, don't listen to Rocker, he will try to lie and spin this another way, probably with his classic fanboy line "they are bull shots". No one falls for that though, everyone sees right through it.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

As I said, reminds me of some 1996 games, like Quake 1:

TLoU:

See?

They're comparable! :D

delta3074

No one falls for your fake doctored TLOU images, I proved them to be fake millions of times. You are not fooling anyone anymore.

Here are the REAL images: www.NaughtyDog.com/The Last of Us

IGN also has REAL images. Every other image is either doctored, fake, or unreliable.

Stop being a fanboy. You didn't eve go to the link, if you did you would agree with me.

And both versions of Crysis were the same. Crysis 2: PS3 vs Xbox 360 vs PC -HD Comparison-IGN

If you say there is a difference, then your lying.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Now your just being a fanboy again....

TLOU is the best looking game ever made. It will win best graphics of 2013. Everyone knows it, including you. But because it's not on your precious dying platform AKA PC Gaming, you don't want to admit it.

ShadowMoses900

No. You are wrong. But it is not your fault, you have become misinformed by that fanboy Rocker (the biggest fanboy on this site). Do not fall for his fanboy lies.

For starters we need to kick 360 out of the equation, because it cannot compete with PS3 in graphics or power.

Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: The Hardware Throwdown - IGN

Now that the 360 is destroyed (this is why 360 has no games that can match KZ, UC, God of War ect....) we will turn our attention to PC. Fanboys like Rocker will try and tell you that PC destroys PS3, but the truth is that PS3 can rival PC games.

Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 PC

Killzone 3 HD Gameplay

Crysis 2 - PC Gameplay Max Settings [Full HD]

TLOU vs PC Witcher 2

The Last of Us Gameplay [HD]

The Witcher 2 - PC - Max Settings HD GamePlay

You can clearly see that PS3 games not only look better than anything on 360, but also rival PC games.

There is the truth. Now accept it, don't listen to Rocker, he will try to lie and spin this another way, probably with his classic fanboy line "they are bull shots". No one falls for that though, everyone sees right through it.

Yes, delta joined my noble cause, there is no going back...

There is nothing to spin here, I just watch your videos, and laugh...

Self-ownage at it's finnest!

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]No it's you who is not getting it, the Ps3 could never even come close in visual fidelity to a top end PC, especially games that run in DX11 The Ps3 can't even handle the resolutions that most Pc games can be rendered in let alone the 16xMSAA, a Core i7 CPU makes the Cell look like a speak and spell when it comes to Raw power and The gimped 7900 they call the RSX was obsolete before the Ps3 was even released and don't even get me started on RAM again, if you think a 512MB machine can match a PC with 4gb of RAM you are seriously deluded, you need to quit with this BS That a ps3 can Rival a top end PC in the graphics dept, i can't believe you are so deluded that you think TLOU can rival even crysis 2 or Battlefield 3 DX11, you seriously need your eyes checked sunshine, you have got to be meesing us about because Nobodys that dense,loldelta3074

No. You are wrong. But it is not your fault, you have become misinformed by that fanboy Rocker (the biggest fanboy on this site). Do not fall for his fanboy lies.

For starters we need to kick 360 out of the equation, because it cannot compete with PS3 in graphics or power.

Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: The Hardware Throwdown - IGN

Now that the 360 is destroyed (this is why 360 has no games that can match KZ, UC, God of War ect....) we will turn our attention to PC. Fanboys like Rocker will try and tell you that PC destroys PS3, but the truth is that PS3 can rival PC games.

Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 PC

Killzone 3 HD Gameplay

Crysis 2 - PC Gameplay Max Settings [Full HD]

TLOU vs PC Witcher 2

The Last of Us Gameplay [HD]

The Witcher 2 - PC - Max Settings HD GamePlay

You can clearly see that PS3 games not only look better than anything on 360, but also rival PC games.

There is the truth. Now accept it, don't listen to Rocker, he will try to lie and spin this another way, probably with his classic fanboy line "they are bull shots". No one falls for that though, everyone sees right through it.

The tech geniuses at IGN proved otherwise. So did my in-depth comparison. And many PS3 games are in 1080p like PS3 Skyrim and several others, and PS3 has better graphcis than anything on 360, because 360 is not strong enough, which is what IGN proved.

You are just a fanboy, not a tech genius like IGN. So their word is >>> than yours.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

No one falls for your fake doctored TLOU images, I proved them to be fake millions of times. You are not fooling anyone anymore.

Here are the REAL images: www.NaughtyDog.com/The Last of Us

IGN also has REAL images. Every other image is either doctored, fake, or unreliable.

ShadowMoses900

Stop being a fanboy. You didn't eve go to the link, if you did you would agree with me.

And both versions of Crysis were the same. Crysis 2: PS3 vs Xbox 360 vs PC -HD Comparison-IGN

If you say there is a difference, then your lying.

No it's not more bologna by Sony. It's supporting a resolution that TVs have. It's like 1080p Support, but the games have to be made to go 1080p, same kinda thing.

[QUOTE="delta3074"]even those don't even come close to Crysis 2 or BF3 DX 11, please just stop , you are just embarrassing yourself seriously, theres a good reason that Herms are proud of there systems, mainly because no console on the Planet can match the Raw power of a PC, i have an intel Sandybridge dual core that Can Handle higher resolutions and anti-aliasing than the Ps3 could even dream of handling, nither the 360 or the Ps3 can even handle vanilla crysis with out a massive reduction in foliage and anti-aliasing,and before you start, the Ps3 version was not a port of the 360 version at all and the 360 version outperformed it.tormentos

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]even those don't even come close to Crysis 2 or BF3 DX 11, please just stop , you are just embarrassing yourself seriously, theres a good reason that Herms are proud of there systems, mainly because no console on the Planet can match the Raw power of a PC, i have an intel Sandybridge dual core that Can Handle higher resolutions and anti-aliasing than the Ps3 could even dream of handling, nither the 360 or the Ps3 can even handle vanilla crysis with out a massive reduction in foliage and anti-aliasing,and before you start, the Ps3 version was not a port of the 360 version at all and the 360 version outperformed it.delta3074

Stop being a fanboy. You didn't eve go to the link, if you did you would agree with me.

And both versions of Crysis were the same. Crysis 2: PS3 vs Xbox 360 vs PC -HD Comparison-IGN

If you say there is a difference, then your lying.

PS3 can do it because it's a super computer.

I showed you this before but you denied it, probably because 360 is all you got and you know it can't do graphics like the PS3 can. A shame you just won't buy a PS3, it is SO much better than 360. I have both, I know.

Only thing 360 does better is faster updates, but thanks to PS+ (which destroys XBL btw) I haven't even seen an update screen since I got Plus because it auto updates.

My in-depth comparison showed that Killzone 3 rivals PC Crysis on Max settings. There was not much of a difference.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

No. You are wrong. But it is not your fault, you have become misinformed by that fanboy Rocker (the biggest fanboy on this site). Do not fall for his fanboy lies.

For starters we need to kick 360 out of the equation, because it cannot compete with PS3 in graphics or power.

Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3: The Hardware Throwdown - IGN

Now that the 360 is destroyed (this is why 360 has no games that can match KZ, UC, God of War ect....) we will turn our attention to PC. Fanboys like Rocker will try and tell you that PC destroys PS3, but the truth is that PS3 can rival PC games.

Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 PC

Killzone 3 HD Gameplay

Crysis 2 - PC Gameplay Max Settings [Full HD]

TLOU vs PC Witcher 2

The Last of Us Gameplay [HD]

The Witcher 2 - PC - Max Settings HD GamePlay

You can clearly see that PS3 games not only look better than anything on 360, but also rival PC games.

There is the truth. Now accept it, don't listen to Rocker, he will try to lie and spin this another way, probably with his classic fanboy line "they are bull shots". No one falls for that though, everyone sees right through it.

ShadowMoses900

The tech geniuses at IGN proved otherwise. So did my in-depth comparison. And many PS3 games are in 1080p like PS3 Skyrim and several others, and PS3 has better graphcis than anything on 360, because 360 is not strong enough, which is what IGN proved.

You are just a fanboy, not a tech genius like IGN. So their word is >>> than yours.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]No dude, i am right because i actaully understand how the hardware actually works, everything in a top end PC is more powerful than everything in the Ps3, the CPU's are more powerful, The Graphics cards are more powerful and they have more RAM, basic maths and common sense backs up what i am saying, you are just totally clueless when it comes to hardware and as such you shouldn't really even be talking about such things, and NO nothing on the Ps3 rivals crysis 2 on highend let alone DX11 if you think that then you should seriously consider getting a guide dog for the blind quite frankly. And that IGN throwdown has been debunkede more times than i can remeber, the Fact that the 360 can upscale ALL of it's games to 1080p and The Ps3 cannot makes the resolutions section a flat out lie quite frankly.delta3074

The tech geniuses at IGN proved otherwise. So did my in-depth comparison. And many PS3 games are in 1080p like PS3 Skyrim and several others, and PS3 has better graphcis than anything on 360, because 360 is not strong enough, which is what IGN proved.

You are just a fanboy, not a tech genius like IGN. So their word is >>> than yours.

:lol: at denying IGN!

Your only denying it because it doesn't support your 360. Everything they said is true, they get paid for their tech know how, they have the skills to get hired by the biggest gaming website in the world. You do not, IGN >>> You.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Stop being a fanboy. You didn't eve go to the link, if you did you would agree with me.

And both versions of Crysis were the same. Crysis 2: PS3 vs Xbox 360 vs PC -HD Comparison-IGN

If you say there is a difference, then your lying.

ShadowMoses900

PS3 can do it because it's a super computer.

I showed you this before but you denied it, probably because 360 is all you got and you know it can't do graphics like the PS3 can. A shame you just won't buy a PS3, it is SO much better than 360. I have both, I know.

Only thing 360 does better is faster updates, but thanks to PS+ (which destroys XBL btw) I haven't even seen an update screen since I got Plus because it auto updates.

My in-depth comparison showed that Killzone 3 rivals PC Crysis on Max settings. There was not much of a difference.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The tech geniuses at IGN proved otherwise. So did my in-depth comparison. And many PS3 games are in 1080p like PS3 Skyrim and several others, and PS3 has better graphcis than anything on 360, because 360 is not strong enough, which is what IGN proved.

You are just a fanboy, not a tech genius like IGN. So their word is >>> than yours.

ShadowMoses900

:lol: at denying IGN!

Your only denying it because it doesn't support your 360. Everything they said is true, they get paid for their tech know how, they have the skills to get hired by the biggest gaming website in the world. You do not, IGN >>> You.

poor PS3 fanboys dont know Sh!t from Shinola aka Meaning: Possessing poor judgment or knowledge.

If the PS3 are so powerful how come they fail at matching and or surpassing PC abilities or for that matter 360 abilities. The PS3 is not unlimited because the sub par Cell

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]The tech genius? 'While the Xbox's menu screens support 1080p display, Microsoft only requires its games to support 720p. The PS3 features a significant number of games that support 1080p. That's to say nothing of the PS3's support for Blu-ray movies and the growing focus on 3D gaming'.' Flat out lie, the Ps3 and 360 both have there fair share of Native 1080p games, Darkstar one on the 360 is Native 1080p, most games on both consoles are in native 720p the difference i that the 360 can actually upscale ALL of them to 1080p the Ps3 cannot 'Once again, the Xbox's total amount of RAM is slightly misleading, as the system RAM and video RAM are shared. The PS3's XDR RAM is also far more fast and efficient than the Xbox's GDDR3 RAM, running at a speed of 3.2 GHz compared to 700 MHz.' What about the FACT that the 360 has more usable RAM due to a lower OS footprint and the Exrta 10Mb of Edram that has a massive system bandwidth?, obviously IGN are so good that they failed to take many things into account when doing there not so technical analysis delta3074

:lol: at denying IGN!

Your only denying it because it doesn't support your 360. Everything they said is true, they get paid for their tech know how, they have the skills to get hired by the biggest gaming website in the world. You do not, IGN >>> You.

IGN knows more than you do, sorry. They get paid for their expertese, you do not have any expertese to get a job in that area. Skyrim was just due to Bethesda being lazy, the fact is that most devs have no problem with PS3, this is why most multiplats are identical.

The bad ports just come from bad devs, when you use the PS3 exclusively for power, then you get amazing games like TLOU, UC, KZ ect....all of which mop the floor with 360, this is why 360 has not won a single best grapihcs award since PS3 came out. 360 is holding games back, if all devs just made them for PS3 they would all look so much better.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/qv6s2i/annoyed-gamer-episode-1--seven-year-console-cycle----really-

And don't lie, you want a PS3. You know it's the far superior system. You know you want that UC, that KZ, that free online, TLOU, the Blu Ray, you know it. Only reason why you probably got 360 to begin with was because it was all you could afford at the time.

Most 360 owners have a PS2, just got 360 because it was all they could afford or all their parents could afford. They would choose PS3 over 360 if they had a choice. You can't have a prefernece if 360 is all you have. A man who only eats McDonalds does not prefer it over a 5 star steak.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

:lol: at denying IGN!

Your only denying it because it doesn't support your 360. Everything they said is true, they get paid for their tech know how, they have the skills to get hired by the biggest gaming website in the world. You do not, IGN >>> You.

ShadowMoses900

IGN knows more than you do, sorry. They get paid for their expertese, you do not have any expertese to get a job in that area. Skyrim was just due to Bethesda being lazy, the fact is that most devs have no problem with PS3, this is why most multiplats are identical.

The bad ports just come from bad devs, when you use the PS3 exclusively for power, then you get amazing games like TLOU, UC, KZ ect....all of which mop the floor with 360, this is why 360 has not won a single best grapihcs award since PS3 came out. 360 is holding games back, if all devs just made them for PS3 they would all look so much better.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/qv6s2i/annoyed-gamer-episode-1--seven-year-console-cycle----really-

And don't lie, you want a PS3. You know it's the far superior system. You know you want that UC, that KZ, that free online, TLOU, the Blu Ray, you know it. Only reason why you probably got 360 to begin with was because it was all you could afford at the time.

Most 360 owners have a PS2, just got 360 because it was all they could afford or all their parents could afford. They would choose PS3 over 360 if they had a choice. You can't have a prefernece if 360 is all you have. A man who only eats McDonalds does not prefer it over a 5 star steak.

Oh come on, shut up already, your elitism is becoming boring. You don't know what you're talking about, and haven't backed up a single statement you made with facts :(

Completely useless for PS4 games... I highly doubt the PS4 will be powerful enough to render actual games in native 4k... Hell even high end PCs have some trouble with it.

For movies... now that would be awesome.parkurtommo

I agree. it will just be impossible to run games on 4K resolution.

Native 4k resolution, 120 fps, Quadrasonic 6D with Smellovision, 6 HDMI ports, dual 16 core processors, 168 gigs of memory, and Wonderbook. Sony I'm ready.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

:lol: at denying IGN!

Your only denying it because it doesn't support your 360. Everything they said is true, they get paid for their tech know how, they have the skills to get hired by the biggest gaming website in the world. You do not, IGN >>> You.

ShadowMoses900

IGN knows more than you do, sorry. They get paid for their expertese, you do not have any expertese to get a job in that area. Skyrim was just due to Bethesda being lazy, the fact is that most devs have no problem with PS3, this is why most multiplats are identical.

The bad ports just come from bad devs, when you use the PS3 exclusively for power, then you get amazing games like TLOU, UC, KZ ect....all of which mop the floor with 360, this is why 360 has not won a single best grapihcs award since PS3 came out. 360 is holding games back, if all devs just made them for PS3 they would all look so much better.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/qv6s2i/annoyed-gamer-episode-1--seven-year-console-cycle----really-

And don't lie, you want a PS3. You know it's the far superior system. You know you want that UC, that KZ, that free online, TLOU, the Blu Ray, you know it. Only reason why you probably got 360 to begin with was because it was all you could afford at the time.

Most 360 owners have a PS2, just got 360 because it was all they could afford or all their parents could afford. They would choose PS3 over 360 if they had a choice. You can't have a prefernece if 360 is all you have. A man who only eats McDonalds does not prefer it over a 5 star steak.

sony will require a manditory install of the entire cable station before you can watch a show.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]The tech genius? 'While the Xbox's menu screens support 1080p display, Microsoft only requires its games to support 720p. The PS3 features a significant number of games that support 1080p. That's to say nothing of the PS3's support for Blu-ray movies and the growing focus on 3D gaming'.' Flat out lie, the Ps3 and 360 both have there fair share of Native 1080p games, Darkstar one on the 360 is Native 1080p, most games on both consoles are in native 720p the difference i that the 360 can actually upscale ALL of them to 1080p the Ps3 cannot 'Once again, the Xbox's total amount of RAM is slightly misleading, as the system RAM and video RAM are shared. The PS3's XDR RAM is also far more fast and efficient than the Xbox's GDDR3 RAM, running at a speed of 3.2 GHz compared to 700 MHz.' What about the FACT that the 360 has more usable RAM due to a lower OS footprint and the Exrta 10Mb of Edram that has a massive system bandwidth?, obviously IGN are so good that they failed to take many things into account when doing there not so technical analysis delta3074

:lol: at denying IGN!

Your only denying it because it doesn't support your 360. Everything they said is true, they get paid for their tech know how, they have the skills to get hired by the biggest gaming website in the world. You do not, IGN >>> You.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]i am denying it becuase it technically inept article which wasn't 'in depth' in any sense of the word and because i trust far more credible sites like Neo-Gaf who actually explain there findings in much greater detail, Skyrim proved how 'efficient' the split RAM architecture in the Ps3 actually is,loldelta3074

IGN knows more than you do, sorry. They get paid for their expertese, you do not have any expertese to get a job in that area. Skyrim was just due to Bethesda being lazy, the fact is that most devs have no problem with PS3, this is why most multiplats are identical.

The bad ports just come from bad devs, when you use the PS3 exclusively for power, then you get amazing games like TLOU, UC, KZ ect....all of which mop the floor with 360, this is why 360 has not won a single best grapihcs award since PS3 came out. 360 is holding games back, if all devs just made them for PS3 they would all look so much better.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/qv6s2i/annoyed-gamer-episode-1--seven-year-console-cycle----really-

And don't lie, you want a PS3. You know it's the far superior system. You know you want that UC, that KZ, that free online, TLOU, the Blu Ray, you know it. Only reason why you probably got 360 to begin with was because it was all you could afford at the time.

Most 360 owners have a PS2, just got 360 because it was all they could afford or all their parents could afford. They would choose PS3 over 360 if they had a choice. You can't have a prefernece if 360 is all you have. A man who only eats McDonalds does not prefer it over a 5 star steak.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]680 has a theoretical peak of 3 TFlops for 32bit single-precision arithmetic. 480 has a theoretical peak of 1.5 TFlops for 32bit single-precision arithmetic.Rocker6

I see...

What about your favorite HD 7970, how does it stack up?

HD 7970 Ghz Edition just past 4 TFlops for 32bit single-precision arithmetic.

Radeon HD 79x0 has better support for IEEE 754 floating point standards compared to PS3's SPEs and VMX/Altivec.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

IGN knows more than you do, sorry. They get paid for their expertese, you do not have any expertese to get a job in that area. Skyrim was just due to Bethesda being lazy, the fact is that most devs have no problem with PS3, this is why most multiplats are identical.

The bad ports just come from bad devs, when you use the PS3 exclusively for power, then you get amazing games like TLOU, UC, KZ ect....all of which mop the floor with 360, this is why 360 has not won a single best grapihcs award since PS3 came out. 360 is holding games back, if all devs just made them for PS3 they would all look so much better.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/qv6s2i/annoyed-gamer-episode-1--seven-year-console-cycle----really-

And don't lie, you want a PS3. You know it's the far superior system. You know you want that UC, that KZ, that free online, TLOU, the Blu Ray, you know it. Only reason why you probably got 360 to begin with was because it was all you could afford at the time.

Most 360 owners have a PS2, just got 360 because it was all they could afford or all their parents could afford. They would choose PS3 over 360 if they had a choice. You can't have a prefernece if 360 is all you have. A man who only eats McDonalds does not prefer it over a 5 star steak.

04dcarraher

90 nm RSX ranges from 120-140 watts during normal use(1) i.e. power consumption similar to 7850's 130 watts.

1. http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/03/sony-says-the-40gb-ps3-is-still-using-90nm-chips/

There's exponential power curve between 860Mhz and 1Ghz.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="delta3074"]i doubt IGN knows more than the guys at Neo-Gaf dude.ronvalencia

90 nm RSX ranges from 120-140 watts during normal use(1) i.e. power consumption similar to 7850's 130 watts.

1. http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/03/sony-says-the-40gb-ps3-is-still-using-90nm-chips/

the Cell at full load used 90-100w at 90nm which leaves around 90w for the RSX, that was a nice find for total TDP though I was esimating the RSX TDP, however the

Geforce 7800GT(G70) and 7900GTG71) both used 82w.

when the PS4 comes out it'll render every gaming device useless with the Vita combo. Play anywhere!

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] People overlook the power and cooling requirements that influence the prices of these consoles. For example normal 7870 has a TDP of 175w at 28nm, while the 360's Xenos gpu had a TDP of around 90w. then the RSX had about 85w TDP both at 90nm. Your looking at a gpu that needs 2x the cooling and power. And then that is not including what the CPU's will need and will produce heat wise. I think that with the next xbox will only see a gpu at or under AMD 7770 performance only using 80w or less. Now Sony could play the waiting game to see what MS does and throw in a gpu like a 6850 performance wise and totally own MS without sacrificing too much. Note that even a measly AMD 6670 using only 63w is at least 4x faster then whats in current consoles not including all other advancements. However a console being able to smoothly render native 2k or even 4k resolutions will cost an arm and a leg. Depending on the game and developers both the 360 and PS3 trade blows but they are nearly equal in actual graphical abilities because both consoles only have 512mb of memory to work with. 04dcarraher

90 nm RSX ranges from 120-140 watts during normal use(1) i.e. power consumption similar to 7850's 130 watts.

1. http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/03/sony-says-the-40gb-ps3-is-still-using-90nm-chips/

No, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

First gen PS3 has 380 watts PS with 195-209 Watts for FF13.

How often do Sony think people buy new TVs?

Everyones only just got standard Hi Def LCDs.

1080p, 3D, 4K. They need to slow down their road map a bit.

HalcyonScarlet

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

90 nm RSX ranges from 120-140 watts during normal use(1) i.e. power consumption similar to 7850's 130 watts.

1. http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/03/sony-says-the-40gb-ps3-is-still-using-90nm-chips/

ronvalencia

No, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

First gen PS3 has 380 watts PS.

4K Resolution means nothing to me. I'm not buying upgrading from 1080P for at least 10 years. I just want a good damn game system, that is all. Make it have better framerates, and graphics, and load times and game stuff. Do not care about resolution anymore.

Sure they can support it but even pc struggle with suround at 3x 1080p

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] :roll: that's the whole system not the RSX 04dcarraher

No, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

First gen PS3 has 380 watts PS.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/24.html

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

No, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

First gen PS3 has 380 watts PS.

ronvalencia

Ive seen other reviews showing upto 130w usage from the 7870, reason I dont like techpowerup.... however also that the ghz edition of the 7870 do get to the 175w TDP. Problem is that even with a 100w+ tdp based gpu like a 7850 still needs a dual slot cooler to efficiently do the job. Look at all the issues with single slot based coolers used with the 8800GT's while they had a 105w TDP.

Even still a ghz edition 7870 would still not be able to pull off 2-4k resolutions with normal gaming.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] However it did not use all of that PSU , the PS3 90nm models used at best 200w, the 90nm and 65nm cpu had a 280w psu but only used at best 150w. the Cell at full load used at most 100w at 90nm which leaves around 90w or so for the RSX, that was a nice find for total TDP though being around 200w I was estimating the RSX TDP, however the Geforce 7800GT(G70) and 7900GTG71) both used 82w. 04dcarraher

Ive seen other reviews showing upto 130w usage from the 7870, reason I dont like techpowerup.... however also that the ghz edition of the 7870 do get to the 175w TDP. Problem is that even with a 100w+ tdp based gpu like a 7850 still needs a dual slot cooler to efficiently do the job. Look at all the issues with single slot based coolers used with the 8800GT's while they had a 105w TDP.

Even still a ghz edition 7870 would still not be able to pull off 2-4k resolutions with normal gaming.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Lol The military are idiots a whole 500 TFLOPS with 1700 Cell processors, in 2009 You could have grabbed 537 GTX 280's with CUDA and used them and would have been faster.....

In 2010 They could have used GTX 480's which you would only need 370 of them.

GamerwillzPS

So, what say you, how many 680 GTX's would you need to match those results?

I'm curious :P

@Shadow

If PS3 is indeed such a supercomputer, than why can't it pull off 1080p w/ 60 FPS in any game using a more complex 3D engine?

Why won't it allow for 64 player maps in BF3?

That's exactly what I'm saying. No offense ShadowMoses, but it seems that you're blind to what you're seeing in PS3 games. They're no way look as good as PC. So just drop the 'supercomputer' nonsense for good.

Shadowmoses is the same guy that thinks modded Morrowind looks better than Skyrim on his pc....he has an integrated GPU and a first gen dual core cpu. Total fanboy and willfully ignorant

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

hoosier7

Ive seen other reviews showing upto 130w usage from the 7870, reason I dont like techpowerup.... however also that the ghz edition of the 7870 do get to the 175w TDP. Problem is that even with a 100w+ tdp based gpu like a 7850 still needs a dual slot cooler to efficiently do the job. Look at all the issues with single slot based coolers used with the 8800GT's while they had a 105w TDP.

Even still a ghz edition 7870 would still not be able to pull off 2-4k resolutions with normal gaming.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] However it did not use all of that PSU , the PS3 90nm models used at best 200w, the 90nm and 65nm cpu had a 280w psu but only used at best 150w. the Cell at full load used at most 100w at 90nm which leaves around 90w or so for the RSX, that was a nice find for total TDP though being around 200w I was estimating the RSX TDP, however the Geforce 7800GT(G70) and 7900GTG71) both used 82w. 04dcarraher

Ive seen other reviews showing upto 130w usage from the 7870, reason I dont like techpowerup.... however also that the ghz edition of the 7870 do get to the 175w TDP. Problem is that even with a 100w+ tdp based gpu like a 7850 still needs a dual slot cooler to efficiently do the job. Look at all the issues with single slot based coolers used with the 8800GT's while they had a 105w TDP.

Even still a ghz edition 7870 would still not be able to pull off 2-4k resolutions with normal gaming.

PS4 would need to convert CELL's power consumption allocation into a proper GPU renderer.

For example, AMD APU with 7850 IGP + 7850 GPU in CrossfireX setup with clockmesh tech and no overclock headroom. 7850 IGP + 7850 GPU would have a total of 64 ROPs @860 MHz.

~209 watt budget would be pushed to the limit.

sony will require a manditory install of the entire cable station before you can watch a show.

Riverwolf007

:lol:

As someone who's worked with 4k and 5k footage professionally I highly doubt next gen hardware will support realtime rendering at that size. It chugs just cutting it together even on a powerhouse box. Of course I don't know how videogames actually handle rendering the image but I imagine its more taxing than FCP7 or Premiere moving clips around.

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

I just want a powerful enough console for 60 frames to be the standard but the focus on graphics from developers it's so huge that they rather drop it to 30 frames to be able to make prettier games. But if you ask me, 60 frames make the games look prettier too and it helps gameplay greatly.

parkurtommo

How would that possibly make sense ever?

4K Resolution means nothing to me. I'm not buying upgrading from 1080P for at least 10 years. I just want a good damn game system, that is all. Make it have better framerates, and graphics, and load times and game stuff. Do not care about resolution anymore.

immortality20

Resoloution=graphics dumbass

Are TVs even made in 4k?

AmayaPapaya

[QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

720p/1080p upscaled to 4k. The blurriness becomes extremely blurry.:lol:

Wasdie

1080p on my iPad 3rd gen looks fine depsite the massive resolution increase.

Now your just being a fanboy again....

ShadowMoses900