The cell really is pretty nifty

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

Celtic_34

Because someone owns the IP rights to those games. Those are Sony-exclusive and will never see the light of day on another platform. Its not the hardware allowing them to do this. Its publishers saying they can only create this game on this platform.

I know that. But why isn't another develop makinh them. I gave a list of 10 games on the ps3 that look great. I was given a list of games back. only 3 of which aren't on the ps3. What I'm saying is if the PC is so much better why don't they have their own developers making games that look better?

But why does MLB 2k11 look like crap? Why doesn't it look better than the Show?

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

Celtic_34

Because someone owns the IP rights to those games. Those are Sony-exclusive and will never see the light of day on another platform. Its not the hardware allowing them to do this. Its publishers saying they can only create this game on this platform.

I know that. But why isn't another develop makinh them. I gave a list of 10 games on the ps3 that look great. I was given a list of games back. only 3 of which aren't on the ps3. What I'm saying is if the PC is so much better why don't they have their own developers making games that look better?

Actually 8 of them aren't on the PS3. Go over that list again. Other developers can't make them because Sony owns the rights to the game. Sony paid out some cash to these developers to have them develop exclusively for the PS3. That is because Sony has its own platform to make a profit. Games also sell their platform. PC has no platform so Sony wouldn't benefit. They COULD have the games ported to PC if they published them, but that'd draw interest from owning a PS3.

"transistor count" is not at all equivalent to "performance".

Teufelhuhn

It's not, but it's strongly correlated as very clearly shown by the graph.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Because someone owns the IP rights to those games. Those are Sony-exclusive and will never see the light of day on another platform. Its not the hardware allowing them to do this. Its publishers saying they can only create this game on this platform.

Ironbash

I know that. But why isn't another develop makinh them. I gave a list of 10 games on the ps3 that look great. I was given a list of games back. only 3 of which aren't on the ps3. What I'm saying is if the PC is so much better why don't they have their own developers making games that look better?

I don't doubt that. The game is also on how many dvd's. The PC is at a huge advatnage for stuff like that. The graphics aren't that great. But the amount of content is ridiculous. There are certain games that would suffer on consoles. I'm not denying that. But they are few and far between these days. Gaming in general has suffered because of consoles. The entire RTS genre is dying a slow death because of it.

But why does MLB 2k11 look like crap? Why doesn't it look better than the Show?

Celtic_34

Different developer, different engine.

But why does MLB 2k11 look like crap? Why doesn't it look better than the Show?

Celtic_34

Because MLB 2k11 is a multi-platform , as a result devs have less time to optimize for each platform. MLB the show is an exclusive, devs can put all their efforts into making a game for one platform, removing the hassle of needing to port and tweak.

It's nice that you think I've been duped. I've basically stated that the PC can push more graphics because of it's bandwith and it's more powerful GPU. If you are talking about pushing graphics in a huge open and interactive world the PC trumps the ps3. But that's where you are mistaken. Is I'm not duped. I'm basically calling it as I see it. I never said the ps3 was better. I never said it was more powerful.

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

Celtic_34

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

It's nice that you think I've been duped. I've basically stated that the PC can push more graphics because of it's bandwith and it's more powerful GPU. If you are talking about pushing graphics in a huge open and interactive world the PC trumps the ps3. But that's where you are mistaken. Is I'm not duped. I'm basically calling it as I see it. I never said the ps3 was better. I never said it was more powerful.

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

osan0

Can people even read?

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

Celtic_34

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

"transistor count" is not at all equivalent to "performance".

KiZZo1

It's not, but it's strongly correlated as very clearly shown by the graph.

End of thread

Why do people keep insulting me and telling me I'm delusional and brainwashed? Is that so? All I said was the ps3 was pretty nifty and has it's advantages. Like the person before said it's not all about transistor count. The pentium processor was used for years for various different applications because it was well designed. All I ever said is the ps3 is proprietary hardware. You basically have the cell with it's 7 spe's, blu-ray, the rsx and low bandwith. It's a vector processing core. For certain tasks it's perfectly fine and has advantages.

I never said the ps3 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You are assuming I'm brainwashed here when everything I've said is true. The PC has advantages. It can push a massive amount of graphics but in the real world it's not being utilized either.

I'm not here saying what you think I am. For gaming purposes the ps3 has advantages. Like I said why are arcade machines designed on proprietary hardware? They are designed for specific tasks.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="osan0"] your not serious. the PS3 has the PC beaten in big open world games? http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/43354/Grand-Theft-Auto-IV-PC-Graphics-Settings-Detailed this is from a document published by R* themselves. try again. the PC version of GTA4 is more advanced than the console version and puts a far bigger demand on the PC (especially in the area of shadows). the PS3 simply can not run GTA4 at the PCs highest settings...not even remotely close. the draw distance can be almost 5X as big on the PC. the detail distance up to 10X. it can deal with more cars etc and it can do all this while running games at higher resolutions. and this, for the record, is considered a bit of an optimized port. the PC still gets it done.omenodebander

Can people even read?

Here's a little advice for you tc, stop lying about your knowledge of hardware. Yes, I am calling you out on your b.s. No one in their right mind would go around touting the cell as some magical uber chip that surpass the latest chips out in the markt place today.

And no one in their right minds would say such stupid things like, "a high end pc would struggle to run games like Mlb or killzone 2 or 3".

nEXT, QUIT NOW! Your claims are silly and you keep looking the fool. Your credibility is gone, and all that jazz about you knowing anything about hardware is all a lie.

ALIE.

Like I said can anyone even read? When was i touting it as some magical uber chip that surpasses latest chips on the market today? AGain people are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I am not saying anything you think I am.

I never said I know everything about hardware. IT's everyone else. You are saying I'm a fool man. When apparently you know everything. When you don't.

You basically have the cell with it's 7 spe's, blu-ray, the rsx and low bandwith. It's a vector processing core. For certain tasks it's perfectly fine and has advantages.

Celtic_34

no it doesn't have any advantage over a high-end PC from 2006.

Why do people keep insulting me and telling me I'm delusional and brainwashed? Is that so? All I said was the ps3 was pretty nifty and has it's advantages. Like the person before said it's not all about transistor count. The pentium processor was used for years for various different applications because it was well designed. All I ever said is the ps3 is proprietary hardware. You basically have the cell with it's 7 spe's, blu-ray, the rsx and low bandwith. It's a vector processing core. For certain tasks it's perfectly fine and has advantages.

I never said the ps3 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You are assuming I'm brainwashed here when everything I've said is true. The PC has advantages. It can push a massive amount of graphics but in the real world it's not being utilized either.

I'm not here saying what you think I am.

Celtic_34

The Cell hasnt had any advantages in processing power or abilites even in the year it was released or even today compared to Pc nor even the 360 until around 2008 when they finally took the time to code games for the Cell.

I think it's high time that this thread be locked. All the TC is doing is repeating the same stuff over & over while ignoring facts pointed out by everybody.

Why do people keep insulting me and telling me I'm delusional and brainwashed? Is that so? All I said was the ps3 was pretty nifty and has it's advantages. Like the person before said it's not all about transistor count. The pentium processor was used for years for various different applications because it was well designed. All I ever said is the ps3 is proprietary hardware. You basically have the cell with it's 7 spe's, blu-ray, the rsx and low bandwith. It's a vector processing core. For certain tasks it's perfectly fine and has advantages.

I never said the ps3 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You are assuming I'm brainwashed here when everything I've said is true. The PC has advantages. It can push a massive amount of graphics but in the real world it's not being utilized either.

I'm not here saying what you think I am. For gaming purposes the ps3 has advantages. Like I said why are arcade machines designed on proprietary hardware? They are designed for specific tasks.

Celtic_34

When you say silly things like "a PC would melt if it tried to run Killzone 3" you will be called out.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

You basically have the cell with it's 7 spe's, blu-ray, the rsx and low bandwith. It's a vector processing core. For certain tasks it's perfectly fine and has advantages.

MK-Professor

no it doesn't have any advantage over a high-end PC from 2006.

are you an expert? lol. What's funny is I had this same argument with a bunch of people a couple years ago that were all experts and I was a moron. I later read an article from the designer of both the 360 and ps3 who said exactly what I was. I'd tend to believe him.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

You basically have the cell with it's 7 spe's, blu-ray, the rsx and low bandwith. It's a vector processing core. For certain tasks it's perfectly fine and has advantages.

Celtic_34

no it doesn't have any advantage over a high-end PC from 2006.

are you an expert? lol. What's funny is I had this same argument with a bunch of people a couple years ago that were all experts and I was a moron. I later read an article from the designer of both the 360 and ps3 who said exactly what I was. I'd tend to believe him.

Come on now.... need real proof?

^that's all fine and dandy, but when I see PS3 games outdoing PC and 360 games in the processing department......it kinda says the opposite. granted, maybe naughty dog and GG are vastly superior developers......i dunno. but, from my experience PS3 games can excel vs the competition.

^that's all fine and dandy, but when I see PS3 games outdoing PC and 360 games in the processing department......it kinda says the opposite. granted, maybe naughty dog and GG are vastly superior developers......i dunno. but, from my experience PS3 games can excel vs the competition.

lespaul1919

again, outdoing in what way? As pointed out by everyone else, the cell is not a magical chip. It cannot outperform the chips in the current pc generation in ANY WAY. The ps3 exclusives are fine and all that,

But stop deluding yourselves.

Do I know everything and every technical aspect? No I don't. But I'm not some foolish fanboy here with goggles either. I'm looking at this logically. Yes there are more powerful processors out there. PC architecture in general is different. It's not that different but it's different. Is the cell obsolete by todays standards? Probably. It was probably obsolete when it rolled out the door. But they are still designing these systems to be able to keep up with the software that is out there.

These chips are perfectly fine and as the coding gets better so will the games. Will the games be designed to take advantage of its strengths and weaknesses? Yes but where there is money to be had people will take advantage of it. That's more than the pc can say in a lot of cases.

It's proprietary hardware. The cell is at an advantage when coding certain tasks. Development tools also have a lot to do with that and optimizing the hardware at hand.

The reality is there are more ps3's in peoples homes than high end pc's. So what is the advantage of having a pc like that? Absolutely nothing. The reality is developers and tools are going to be designed for the architecture that is out there. Are they going to be making games for a low end pc that is even farther behind the curve than the ps3? The 360?

The reality is games are being optimized to run on the ps3's hardware.

Developers are more willing to delve into the inner workings of the cell even moreso than the 360 at this point. The 360 is even more outdated.

I think it's high time that this thread be locked. All the TC is doing is repeating the same stuff over & over while ignoring facts pointed out by everybody.

garland51

End of thread

04dcarraher

^that's all fine and dandy, but when I see PS3 games outdoing PC and 360 games in the processing department......it kinda says the opposite. granted, maybe naughty dog and GG are vastly superior develops......i dunno. but, from my experience PS3 games can excell vs the competition.

lespaul1919

Optimization cannot over come hardware limits and both consoles and both are almost on the same footing. PS3 or 360 cant out do Pc :roll: its not physically possible. Every Multiplat game looks and usaully runs bettter on Pc ....

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Do I know everything and every technical aspect? No I don't. But I'm not some foolish fanboy here with goggles either. I'm looking at this logically. Yes there are more powerful processors out there. PC architecture in general is different. It's not that different but it's different. Is the cell obsolete by todays standards? Probably. It was probably obsolete when it rolled out the door. But they are still designing these systems to be able to keep up with the software that is out there.

These chips are perfectly fine and as the coding gets better so will the games. Will the games be designed to take advantage of its strengths and weaknesses? Yes but where there is money to be had people will take advantage of it. That's more than the pc can say in a lot of cases.

It's proprietary hardware. The cell is at an advantage when coding certain tasks. Development tools also have a lot to do with that and optimizing the hardware at hand.

The reality is there are more ps3's in peoples homes than high end pc's. So what is the advantage of having a pc like that? Absolutely nothing. The reality is developers and tools are going to be designed for the architecture that is out there. Are they going to be making games for a low end pc that is even farther behind the curve than the ps3? The 360?

The reality is games are being optimized to run on the ps3's hardware.

i5750at4Ghz

Thats also false. You just talk out of your *** a bunch.

What was the highest selling game last year? WAs it a pc title?

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Do I know everything and every technical aspect? No I don't. But I'm not some foolish fanboy here with goggles either. I'm looking at this logically. Yes there are more powerful processors out there. PC architecture in general is different. It's not that different but it's different. Is the cell obsolete by todays standards? Probably. It was probably obsolete when it rolled out the door. But they are still designing these systems to be able to keep up with the software that is out there.

These chips are perfectly fine and as the coding gets better so will the games. Will the games be designed to take advantage of its strengths and weaknesses? Yes but where there is money to be had people will take advantage of it. That's more than the pc can say in a lot of cases.

It's proprietary hardware. The cell is at an advantage when coding certain tasks. Development tools also have a lot to do with that and optimizing the hardware at hand.

The reality is there are more ps3's in peoples homes than high end pc's. So what is the advantage of having a pc like that? Absolutely nothing. The reality is developers and tools are going to be designed for the architecture that is out there. Are they going to be making games for a low end pc that is even farther behind the curve than the ps3? The 360?

The reality is games are being optimized to run on the ps3's hardware.

Celtic_34

Thats also false. You just talk out of your *** a bunch.

What was the highest selling game last year? WAs it a pc title?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

End of thread

alienlegion

Your forgetting one thing all those games that are multiplatform are made for the consoles in mind. which limits in what they can do in everyway. Pc market tends to create games also for the widest range of users which means Pc that areworse then consoles to ones that blow them out of the water. Your also see that chart was for CPU processing power not overall poerformance but even though since consoles are and have been left in the dust since 2006. You have to play true Pc games that take advantage of the hardware and not use casual and multiplatform games as a basis of the systems abilities.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]

Thats also false. You just talk out of your *** a bunch.

DroidPhysX

What was the highest selling game last year? WAs it a pc title?

I would venture there aren't more high end pc's in peoples homes than ps3's being sold. Maybe there are more PC's in offices. If high end pc's are being sold they aren't for home use or gaming.

^that's all fine and dandy, but when I see PS3 games outdoing PC and 360 games in the processing department......it kinda says the opposite. granted, maybe naughty dog and GG are vastly superior developers......i dunno. but, from my experience PS3 games can excel vs the competition.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

^that's all fine and dandy, but when I see PS3 games outdoing PC and 360 games in the processing department......it kinda says the opposite. granted, maybe naughty dog and GG are vastly superior develops......i dunno. but, from my experience PS3 games can excell vs the competition.

04dcarraher

Optimization cannot over come hardware limits and both consoles and both are almost on the same footing. PS3 or 360 cant out do Pc :roll: its not physically possible. Every Multiplat game looks and usaully runs bettter on Pc ....

that's the way it should be considering the graph, and I'm sure it's just the certain dev's take the time to add those things where the PC devs dont.....but whatever. all I know is that there are certain PS3 exclusives that impress me technically in a way that no PC or 360 games have. granted those little touches don't really make the game better per sa, but.....it definitely adds to the immersion....makes it feel real. instead of a stale/dead environment like 98% of games.

[QUOTE="osan0"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

It's nice that you think I've been duped. I've basically stated that the PC can push more graphics because of it's bandwith and it's more powerful GPU. If you are talking about pushing graphics in a huge open and interactive world the PC trumps the ps3. But that's where you are mistaken. Is I'm not duped. I'm basically calling it as I see it. I never said the ps3 was better. I never said it was more powerful.

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

Celtic_34

Can people even read?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

What was the highest selling game last year? WAs it a pc title?

Celtic_34

I would venture there aren't more high end pc's in peoples homes than ps3's being sold. Maybe there are more PC's in offices. If high end pc's are being sold they aren't for home use or gaming.

Um in 2010 there was more Direct x 11 gpu's sold then both consoles combined... So I would say there are more Pc 's more powerful then magical PS3.... then your forgetting all Pc's made for gaming since 2006 which still out do the PS3. AKA The Geforce 8's to GTX 500's and AMD's 3000's to 6000's......

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

no it doesn't have any advantage over a high-end PC from 2006.

MK-Professor

are you an expert? lol. What's funny is I had this same argument with a bunch of people a couple years ago that were all experts and I was a moron. I later read an article from the designer of both the 360 and ps3 who said exactly what I was. I'd tend to believe him.

listen kid this is a high-end PC from 2006 (Qx6700, 4B, 8800GTX) that PC play any maltiplat better than the ps3, and what i mean better is higher resolution, more fps, better settings etc. if you think that ps3 is more power full then why is not play the same exact games better than this pc from 2006? the answers is simple... a PC from 2006 is more power full than the ps3.

TC why you didn't replay to my post? You finally understand that a PC from 2006 is more power full than a ps3?

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] What was the highest selling hardware? PCs or PS3s?04dcarraher

I would venture there aren't more high end pc's in peoples homes than ps3's being sold. Maybe there are more PC's in offices. If high end pc's are being sold they aren't for home use or gaming.

Um in 2010 there was more Direct x 11 gpu's sold then both consoles combined... So I would say there are more Pc 's more powerful then magical PS3.... then your forgetting all Pc's made for gaming since 2006 which still out do the PS3. AKA The Geforce 8's to GTX 500's and AMD's 3000's to 6000's......

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] What was the highest selling hardware? PCs or PS3s?04dcarraher

I would venture there aren't more high end pc's in peoples homes than ps3's being sold. Maybe there are more PC's in offices. If high end pc's are being sold they aren't for home use or gaming.

Um in 2010 there was more Direct x 11 gpu's sold then both consoles combined... So I would say there are more Pc 's more powerful then magical PS3.... then your forgetting all Pc's made for gaming since 2006 which still out do the PS3. AKA The Geforce 8's to GTX 500's and AMD's 3000's to 6000's......

Yeah but what's your point? more games still sold on the consoles. A developer is going to be much more inclined to try to max out the consoles than they are a pc. The pc is somewhat irrellevant. They haven't even maxed out these consoles yet. Yes the PC can display things at a much high resolution and give you a crystal picture in certain scenarios and you can run games at a higher res. I'm not disputing that. I'm also not disputing the PC has advantages as far as certain kinds of games. It absolutely does. Consoles are bad for gaming in ways. But as far as actual game design it's pretty much irrelevant. Certain games are just going to suck on the PC and vice versa. I remember for years fighting games on the PC were just horrible because they aren't designed for it. Street Fighter IV is the first fighting game that was designed with PC's in mind. More power to you, but it's not a norm.

It's just more efficient to design games for proprietary hardware sometimes. The ps3 is at an advantage because it has a central processor with multiple spe's and it is coupled with blu-ray.

If developers are designing for that architecture and then porting to the pc you are going to run into problems.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

^that's all fine and dandy, but when I see PS3 games outdoing PC and 360 games in the processing department......it kinda says the opposite. granted, maybe naughty dog and GG are vastly superior develops......i dunno. but, from my experience PS3 games can excell vs the competition.

lespaul1919

Optimization cannot over come hardware limits and both consoles and both are almost on the same footing. PS3 or 360 cant out do Pc :roll: its not physically possible. Every Multiplat game looks and usaully runs bettter on Pc ....

that's the way it should be considering the graph, and I'm sure it's just the certain dev's take the time to add those things where the PC devs dont.....but whatever. all I know is that there are certain PS3 exclusives that impress me technically in a way that no PC or 360 games have. granted those little touches don't really make the game better per sa, but.....it definitely adds to the immersion....makes it feel real. instead of a stale/dead environment like 98% of games.

Even those great PS3 games, have major flaws and they used shortcuts and tricks used to cover them. GOW3 or example had some awful looking textures and UC 2 and Killzone's too along with massive blur. When you have linear/small type of games you can do a bit more since you dont have t spend all those resources on draw distances.