Why would anyone not own a gaming PC?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] the rsx has access to ALL memory seperatly from the CPU, you do not need to use the CPU for the rsx to fetch things out of memory. There is 0 difference from a unified memory, and adding two different types of memory into one big pool for a particular chip. the only reason why 360 is a little bit better is because both the GPU, and CPU have access to one 512mb memory bank at the same speeds, and the calls are directly process and fetched through the GPU so the GPU has less latency fetching from memory.

savagetwinkie

The 360 is a little better in what way? Fetching memory? Yes . Overall performance? No

True, when devs actually use the spe's properly is where you start to see the diffrence to bad most multiplat devs dont bother.

i just realized you didn't really add anything, and just went on about useless nonsense

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] What you dont understand is that all the data is stored onto the system memory before being processed and gets redirected to what ever component needs its data. Thats nothing new, the PS3 memory is split and is not unfied or shared in that way. 04dcarraher

http://www.talkplaystation.com/ps3s-ram-and-rsx-explained/

"The RSX can freely use as much of the 512MB total RAM that the PS3 has because the Cell doesn't need much RAM because its fast enough. And the fact that the PS3 has XDR means that it has faster access to data files"

You were saying?

You were arguing that the Ps3 could only use 256mb of ram for graphics were you not? And we proved you wrong with stone cold facts. Move on.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Yup. I'm a huge SF fan, but 4 bored me after a week. I even played the Street Fighter EX versions more then SF4.

WhenCicadasCry

What was so bad about SF4?And I will tell you im alsoa huge SF fan and ssf4 is alot better . You have more characters but the thing that gives it the most replay value are the extra online modes and the community seems to alot more active.

It's not that it was bad, it just felt too basic. I know it offers the easy to grasp, hard to master, but it wasn't enough to keep me interested. :P I'm more of a Marvels Vs Capcom guy. I'm not sure if Card Saga Wars is released yet, but even you can't deny it looks awesome right? :D

Link vs cloud is pretty epic, i hope the guys dont get caught who made it they would probably get in alot of trouble for copyright infringement. Also what about Marvel vs Capcom 3 I dont think thats coming to pc.

Money and a surprising amount of people have no idea how computers work, so they are hesitant to game on a PC. I know i know in wonderful gamespot nerd land everyone is tech savy but in the real world thats not the case majority of the time. Consoles are a more social experience also, by society standards and stereotypes pc gamers are still the nerd playing in their momas basement. Its sad but its true.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The 360 is a little better in what way? Fetching memory? Yes . Overall performance? No

TheSterls

True, when devs actually use the spe's properly is where you start to see the diffrence to bad most multiplat devs dont bother.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

What was so bad about SF4?And I will tell you im alsoa huge SF fan and ssf4 is alot better . You have more characters but the thing that gives it the most replay value are the extra online modes and the community seems to alot more active.

TheSterls

It's not that it was bad, it just felt too basic. I know it offers the easy to grasp, hard to master, but it wasn't enough to keep me interested. :P I'm more of a Marvels Vs Capcom guy. I'm not sure if Card Saga Wars is released yet, but even you can't deny it looks awesome right? :D

Link vs cloud is pretty epic, i hope the guys dont get caught who made it they would probably get in alot of trouble for copyright infringement. Also what about Marvel vs Capcom 3 I dont think thats coming to pc.

Don't think so, unfortanately. I'll definitely buy it for the 360 though. The epic battles me and my brothers have fought back in the Dreamcasts days were awesome.

Stopped at number 1. 500 dollars? Build it? Why pay 500 dollars for something i have to make when i can just buy a Slim thats built for me thats 300 dollars? Sorry but the good gaming isnt worth it in my eyes.

EDIT: Nevermind, just saw your sig. Now this topic makes sense.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

http://www.talkplaystation.com/ps3s-ram-and-rsx-explained/

"The RSX can freely use as much of the 512MB total RAM that the PS3 has because the Cell doesn't need much RAM because its fast enough. And the fact that the PS3 has XDR means that it has faster access to data files"

You were saying?

You were arguing that the Ps3 could only use 256mb of ram for graphics were you not? And we proved you wrong with stone cold facts. Move on.

wich it clearly states the RSX has access to all the RAM it needs. There are only 50mb of memory that it does not have access to as it is dedicated for basic system usage such as the OS.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] You need to read your own facts before posting. I didnt say anything about it not being able to use all its 512mb memory. The memory is split up to different jobs which you dont understand. It cant free up 512mb just for the gpu usage, because it would not function. That why theres seprate memory for system use and video use. 04dcarraher

wich it clearly states the RSX has access to all the RAM it needs. There are only 50mb of memory that it does not have access to as it is dedicated for basic system usage such as the OS.

Yes the RSX can use the XDRAM its right there in the link . You are basically implying that the Ps3 uses an identical architecture to the pc and you are wrong. You are arguing with linkns provided eventhough you have no knoweldge of ever developing a game for the system. You are also still implying that a 6600gt will outperform the Ps3 wich it will not and we proved that as well yet now you seem to be ignoring that.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] 360 is better in performance in most cases because in most cases the ps3 is under utilized while the 360 is notsavagetwinkie

True, when devs actually use the spe's properly is where you start to see the diffrence to bad most multiplat devs dont bother.

RDR was not desgined for the PS3 and proof of that is you will not see one PS3 gameplay video of the game before the game was released, it was all 360 . Also Infamous 2 looks to visually trounce RDR . When looking at excluisves the diffrene becomes quite apparent and even some of the most impressive multiplats look far better on PS3 . FF13 is just one recent example . According to John Carmack Rage also looks better on ps3 wich is also a very impressive open world game.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

wich it clearly states the RSX has access to all the RAM it needs. There are only 50mb of memory that it does not have access to as it is dedicated for basic system usage such as the OS.

TheSterls

Yes the RSX can use the XDRAM its right there in the link . You are basically implying that the Ps3 uses an identical architecture to the pc and you are wrong.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

True, when devs actually use the spe's properly is where you start to see the diffrence to bad most multiplat devs dont bother.

TheSterls

RDR was not desgined for the PS3 and proof of that is you will not see one PS3 gameplay video of the game before the game was released, it was all 360 . Also Infamous 2 looks to visually trounce RDR . When looking at excluisves the diffrene becomes quite apparent and even some of the most impressive multiplats look far better on PS3 . FF13 is just one recent example . According to John Carmack Rage also looks better on ps3 wich is also a very impressive open world game.

edit: and ff13 and rage look better on ps3 because of texture compression on 360, NOT because the system is more powerful, in fact carmack also says if you install the 360 version then it alleviates that issue!

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

wich it clearly states the RSX has access to all the RAM it needs. There are only 50mb of memory that it does not have access to as it is dedicated for basic system usage such as the OS.

Yes the RSX can use the XDRAM its right there in the link . You are basically implying that the Ps3 uses an identical architecture to the pc and you are wrong.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] no the only games that had a marginal difference were 3 games, all other games seemed to perform better on 360 or look better. And an engine like the one in RDR just proves this, it was designed primarily with ps3 first and still under performs. And you can't claim lazy dev's since its probably the best looking open world game on consoles. the way the spe's are designed are fairly ineffiencient unless you have specific types of loads, most games don't lend them selves to those specific types of loads because they are dynamic in nature.savagetwinkie

RDR was not desgined for the PS3 and proof of that is you will not see one PS3 gameplay video of the game before the game was released, it was all 360 . Also Infamous 2 looks to visually trounce RDR . When looking at excluisves the diffrene becomes quite apparent and even some of the most impressive multiplats look far better on PS3 . FF13 is just one recent example . According to John Carmack Rage also looks better on ps3 wich is also a very impressive open world game.

Uncharted 2, GOW3, KZ2 look better then anything on the 360 its as simple as that. Could RDR use the Spu's?sure it is butis it using themto there full potential? Um NO the game is doing a horrible job at texture compression and if you look at videos of infamous 2 it looks better then RDR especially in the areas of textures and character models not to mentio its rendering entire citites as opposed to open landscapes.

Every game has shortcomings in visuals but if the 360 is more capable its bug budget exclsives should look superior. There is no excuse for Halo:Reach not to look better then KZ3 if the 360 is indeed more powerfu and yet it doesnt.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] You dont understand, can it use all its memory use yes can a Pc use all its memory yea can the 360 use all its memory yes.It being able to use all its memory does not mean its special. What your not understanding in the specs of the PS3 they designed the ps3 to have dedicated vdeo memory and system memory split into 256mb and 256mb and thats why theis two different types of memory in the Ps3 Memory: 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz and 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz , while the 360 has a unfied memory. The PS3 Cell can not augment the RSX , nor can the RSX use the XDR memory as its own because its designed to use the video memory given. And no streaming data that gpu uses anywats off the system does not translate into the gpu using more the 256mb. Because all data get stored onto the system before being provessed and shipped off to be used.04dcarraher

Yes the RSX can use the XDRAM its right there in the link . You are basically implying that the Ps3 uses an identical architecture to the pc and you are wrong.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] You dont understand, can it use all its memory use yes can a Pc use all its memory yea can the 360 use all its memory yes.It being able to use all its memory does not mean its special. What your not understanding in the specs of the PS3 they designed the ps3 to have dedicated vdeo memory and system memory split into 256mb and 256mb and thats why theis two different types of memory in the Ps3 Memory: 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz and 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz , while the 360 has a unfied memory. The PS3 Cell can not augment the RSX , nor can the RSX use the XDR memory as its own because its designed to use the video memory given. And no streaming data that gpu uses anywats off the system does not translate into the gpu using more the 256mb. Because all data get stored onto the system before being provessed and shipped off to be used.04dcarraher

Yes the RSX can use the XDRAM its right there in the link . You are basically implying that the Ps3 uses an identical architecture to the pc and you are wrong.

Its not out of this world but does basic things to put it ahead of GPU's that came out before it in overall performance and you seem to completely ignore that fact. You act as if hte spu rendering the entire lighting system , streaming textures, running entire animation designes , handling post processing effects is non existant.You just compare it to a system with low end GPU's and then make claims such as the 6600gt can outperfom it wich it cant and you have yet to post proof of it doing so on any recent game.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

RDR was not desgined for the PS3 and proof of that is you will not see one PS3 gameplay video of the game before the game was released, it was all 360 . Also Infamous 2 looks to visually trounce RDR . When looking at excluisves the diffrene becomes quite apparent and even some of the most impressive multiplats look far better on PS3 . FF13 is just one recent example . According to John Carmack Rage also looks better on ps3 wich is also a very impressive open world game.

TheSterls

Uncharted 2, GOW3, KZ2 look better then anything on the 360 its as simple as that. Could RDR use the Spu's?sure it is butis it using themto there full potential? Um NO the game is doing a horrible job at texture compression and if you look at videos of infamous 2 it looks better then RDR especially in the areas of textures and character models not to mentio its rendering entire citites as opposed to open landscapes.

Every game has shortcomings in visuals but if the 360 is more capable its bug budget exclsives should look superior. There is no excuse for Halo:Reach not to look better then KZ3 if the 360 is indeed more powerfu and yet it doesnt.

Uncharted 2, gow3, kz2 aren't that special and aren't really that much better if at all. They do different things, thats it, but overal I don't think they are the best console games, games like ME2 look just as good and in some cases better.

If anything rage proves that the 360 can dish it out, the texture compression i mentioned is the ONLY reason it looks worse on 360, because the ps3 has blu-ray and has uncrompessed textures. INstalling the the game to the hard drive on the 360 is supposed to fix the problem, and same with ff13, its the videos that look better, but the 360 renders the game in a more crisp look meaning.... better looking in terms of processing power

Some people are intimidated by PC gaming and barely find their way around a PC for internet, when you consider that the whole mod argument goes out the window considering they may even have issues just getting the game installed and running.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] the game engine of rdr was from gta4 which was oringinally designed for the ps3, to say its not using the SPE's is pure rubbish. Infamous 2 doesn't look that good, animations its good, but like all your "graphics kings" it has a lot of short comings, uc2/kz2/mgs4/gow3/infamous2 all have short commings during gameplay segmants, your to busy looking at the pretty animations to notice them though.savagetwinkie

Uncharted 2, GOW3, KZ2 look better then anything on the 360 its as simple as that. Could RDR use the Spu's?sure it is butis it using themto there full potential? Um NO the game is doing a horrible job at texture compression and if you look at videos of infamous 2 it looks better then RDR especially in the areas of textures and character models not to mentio its rendering entire citites as opposed to open landscapes.

Every game has shortcomings in visuals but if the 360 is more capable its bug budget exclsives should look superior. There is no excuse for Halo:Reach not to look better then KZ3 if the 360 is indeed more powerfu and yet it doesnt.

Uncharted 2, gow3, kz2 aren't that special and aren't really that much better if at all. They do different things, thats it, but overal I don't think they are the best console games, games like ME2 look just as good and in some cases better.

If anything rage proves that the 360 can dish it out, the texture compression i mentioned is the ONLY reason it looks worse on 360, because the ps3 has blu-ray and has uncrompessed textures. INstalling the the game to the hard drive on the 360 is supposed to fix the problem, and same with ff13, its the videos that look better, but the 360 renders the game in a more crisp look meaning.... better looking in terms of processing power

KZ3 is said to be much larger then KZ2 and the AI in KZ2 was far more impressive then it was in any of the Halos. The fact is kZ3 looks better thats pretty obvious by looking at the videos. Superior animations, textures, lighting etc . Open cities are easy to render? There is simply more going on screen at a time all they have to do in RDR is stream the same basic fields over and over agian untill you get into an area that has a diffrent setting. For an example when you get into black water and start to see the snow you will notice the game chugs a little bit more before you get there. Why ? Because its actually has to stream in a diffrent backround.

ME2 looks better then UC2 ? LOl really? Its using far lower lvls of geometry and the backround textures are far lower as well. It also has much simpler animations and the entire profesinal media is going agrees with me. You dont ever see anyone claiming ME2 was the best looking game on consoles. And these graphic king arguments are not just here on SW games like KZ2, GOW3 and UC2 all had profesional media outlets claim they were the best looking games around no 360 game has ever gotten that claim from anybody since the orignal GeoW.

Also you must not own FF13 the ps3 ingame visuals look far superior featuting better texture and running the game at 720p oppsed to the 360s 576p

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=18555Its pretty obvious the PS3 version clearly looks better during ingame visuals and cutscenes.

"When the Lens of Truth analyzed in-game footage captured, the quality was spot on down to the hair. But oddly enough, that's where the game had issues. On the PlayStation 3, hair had nice transparencies, although not perfect. The Xbox 360 however had transparency issues with their hair. The transparency would make for a strobe effect which was downright distracting. Another small difference would also be the shadows on characters. The PlayStation 3 had more self-shadowed characters and it was not exclusive to in-game. The difference was also noticeable in pre-rendered cut scenes using game assets. This leads to the main graphical issue which, in turn, ties into performance"

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yes the RSX can use the XDRAM its right there in the link . You are basically implying that the Ps3 uses an identical architecture to the pc and you are wrong.

Its not out of this world but does basic things to put it ahead of GPU's that came out before it in overall performance and you seem to completely ignore that fact. You act as if hte spu rendering the entire lighting system , streaming textures, running entire animation designes , handling post processing effects is non existant.You just compare it to a system with low end GPU's and then make claims such as the 6600gt can outperfom it wich it cant and you have yet to post proof of it doing so on any recent game.

[QUOTE="clyde46"]

Money, most people dont like to spend it.

argetlam00

Yet, PC games are cheaper than console games (especially when we start talking Steam deals) and you get far more than gaming with a new PC.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] No the RSX cant use the XDR directly as if it was its own video ram. Having video/3D data stored on system memory then having that data shiped to the gpu to process and render that does not mean its special, because all computers do that. Believing that PS3 is so out of this world different in how a computer works is crazy. 04dcarraher

Its not out of this world but does basic things to put it ahead of GPU's that came out before it in overall performance and you seem to completely ignore that fact. You act as if hte spu rendering the entire lighting system , streaming textures, running entire animation designes , handling post processing effects is non existant.You just compare it to a system with low end GPU's and then make claims such as the 6600gt can outperfom it wich it cant and you have yet to post proof of it doing so on any recent game.

It cant put out as high quality assets at equal resolution at even playable framerates therefore its not capable of better graphics. A 6600gt could never run DMC4 for an example at max settings 720p res and 60fps .

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Uncharted 2, GOW3, KZ2 look better then anything on the 360 its as simple as that. Could RDR use the Spu's?sure it is butis it using themto there full potential? Um NO the game is doing a horrible job at texture compression and if you look at videos of infamous 2 it looks better then RDR especially in the areas of textures and character models not to mentio its rendering entire citites as opposed to open landscapes.

Every game has shortcomings in visuals but if the 360 is more capable its bug budget exclsives should look superior. There is no excuse for Halo:Reach not to look better then KZ3 if the 360 is indeed more powerfu and yet it doesnt.

TheSterls

Uncharted 2, gow3, kz2 aren't that special and aren't really that much better if at all. They do different things, thats it, but overal I don't think they are the best console games, games like ME2 look just as good and in some cases better.

If anything rage proves that the 360 can dish it out, the texture compression i mentioned is the ONLY reason it looks worse on 360, because the ps3 has blu-ray and has uncrompessed textures. INstalling the the game to the hard drive on the 360 is supposed to fix the problem, and same with ff13, its the videos that look better, but the 360 renders the game in a more crisp look meaning.... better looking in terms of processing power

KZ3 is said to be much larger then KZ2 and the AI in KZ2 was far more impressive then it was in any of the Halos. The fact is kZ3 looks better thats pretty obvious by looking at the videos. Superior animations, textures, lighting etc . Open cities are easy to render? There is simply more going on screen at a time all they have to do in RDR is stream the same basic fields over and over agian untill you get into an area that has a diffrent setting. For an example when you get into black water and start to see the snow you will notice the game chugs a little bit more before you get there. Why ? Because its actually has to stream in a diffrent backround.

ME2 looks better then UC2 ? LOl really? Its using far lower lvls of geometry and the backround textures are far lower as well. It also has much simpler animations and the entire profesinal media is going agrees with me. You dont ever see anyone claiming ME2 was the best looking game on consoles. And these graphic king arguments are not just here on SW games like KZ2, GOW3 and UC2 all had profesional media outlets claim they were the best looking games around no 360 game has ever gotten that claim from anybody since the orignal GeoW.

Also you must not own FF13 the ps3 ingame visuals look far superior featuting better texture and running the game at 720p oppsed to the 360s 576p.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] No the RSX cant use the XDR directly as if it was its own video ram. Having video/3D data stored on system memory then having that data shiped to the gpu to process and render that does not mean its special, because all computers do that. Believing that PS3 is so out of this world different in how a computer works is crazy. 04dcarraher

Its not out of this world but does basic things to put it ahead of GPU's that came out before it in overall performance and you seem to completely ignore that fact. You act as if hte spu rendering the entire lighting system , streaming textures, running entire animation designes , handling post processing effects is non existant.You just compare it to a system with low end GPU's and then make claims such as the 6600gt can outperfom it wich it cant and you have yet to post proof of it doing so on any recent game.

it processing the data so the rsx doesn't have to is it helping rendering the scene, like the 360 has soemthing like twice the vertice setup while rendering vs the rsx and it has to use the CELL to help render

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] halo reach does more than kz3 in terms of scope with ai and vehicles, and it looks pretty dam good for the size of battles they go for. And no RDR looks just as good as infamous 2 easily. Open cities are eaiser to render since its amainly straight edges all over the place, and the draw distance is limited because of buildings in the way...

Uncharted 2, gow3, kz2 aren't that special and aren't really that much better if at all. They do different things, thats it, but overal I don't think they are the best console games, games like ME2 look just as good and in some cases better.

If anything rage proves that the 360 can dish it out, the texture compression i mentioned is the ONLY reason it looks worse on 360, because the ps3 has blu-ray and has uncrompessed textures. INstalling the the game to the hard drive on the 360 is supposed to fix the problem, and same with ff13, its the videos that look better, but the 360 renders the game in a more crisp look meaning.... better looking in terms of processing power

savagetwinkie

KZ3 is said to be much larger then KZ2 and the AI in KZ2 was far more impressive then it was in any of the Halos. The fact is kZ3 looks better thats pretty obvious by looking at the videos. Superior animations, textures, lighting etc . Open cities are easy to render? There is simply more going on screen at a time all they have to do in RDR is stream the same basic fields over and over agian untill you get into an area that has a diffrent setting. For an example when you get into black water and start to see the snow you will notice the game chugs a little bit more before you get there. Why ? Because its actually has to stream in a diffrent backround.

ME2 looks better then UC2 ? LOl really? Its using far lower lvls of geometry and the backround textures are far lower as well. It also has much simpler animations and the entire profesinal media is going agrees with me. You dont ever see anyone claiming ME2 was the best looking game on consoles. And these graphic king arguments are not just here on SW games like KZ2, GOW3 and UC2 all had profesional media outlets claim they were the best looking games around no 360 game has ever gotten that claim from anybody since the orignal GeoW.

Also you must not own FF13 the ps3 ingame visuals look far superior featuting better texture and running the game at 720p oppsed to the 360s 576p.

"However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off

The PS3 version looks superior in every conceviable way there will not be one head to head comparison that claims otherwise. Also ME2 uses the UE3.0 engine it uses low poly models with advanced shaders and normal mapping. ME 2 may use higher polys then say GeoW but its no where near UC2. Also KZ3 doesnt look worse then KZ2 in any way shapre or form if anything they look about the same so far with imprived particle effects and larger enviorments.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Its not out of this world but does basic things to put it ahead of GPU's that came out before it in overall performance and you seem to completely ignore that fact. You act as if hte spu rendering the entire lighting system , streaming textures, running entire animation designes , handling post processing effects is non existant.You just compare it to a system with low end GPU's and then make claims such as the 6600gt can outperfom it wich it cant and you have yet to post proof of it doing so on any recent game.

It cant put out as high quality assets at equal resolution at even playable framerates therefore its not capable of better graphics. A 6600gt could never run DMC4 for an example at max settings 720p res and 60fps .

Dont have the money and keeping your pc up to date and "safe" is a hassle, something consoles never had to do.

Though i game somewhat on my pc (only diablo 2,wc 3, sc 2, league of legends and WoW on it) its not even a true pc...it plainly sucks and w/e i get the money i have to buy a hole new one.

No the RSX cant use the XDR directly as if it was its own video ram.
04dcarraher

Having video/3D data stored on system memory then having that data shiped to the gpu to process and render that does not mean its special, because all computers do that. 04dcarraher

What you're describing never happens, because it's a console. If data needs to go in the GDDR it just gets put there, there's absolutely no reason to have it in the XDR memory first. You can even stream right off the disk into the GDDR if you wanted to. It's not like a PC where only the driver can touch GPU memory, and so you have to read data into CPU memory first and then hand it off to the driver.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

KZ3 is said to be much larger then KZ2 and the AI in KZ2 was far more impressive then it was in any of the Halos. The fact is kZ3 looks better thats pretty obvious by looking at the videos. Superior animations, textures, lighting etc . Open cities are easy to render? There is simply more going on screen at a time all they have to do in RDR is stream the same basic fields over and over agian untill you get into an area that has a diffrent setting. For an example when you get into black water and start to see the snow you will notice the game chugs a little bit more before you get there. Why ? Because its actually has to stream in a diffrent backround.

ME2 looks better then UC2 ? LOl really? Its using far lower lvls of geometry and the backround textures are far lower as well. It also has much simpler animations and the entire profesinal media is going agrees with me. You dont ever see anyone claiming ME2 was the best looking game on consoles. And these graphic king arguments are not just here on SW games like KZ2, GOW3 and UC2 all had profesional media outlets claim they were the best looking games around no 360 game has ever gotten that claim from anybody since the orignal GeoW.

Also you must not own FF13 the ps3 ingame visuals look far superior featuting better texture and running the game at 720p oppsed to the 360s 576p.

TheSterls

"However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off

The PS3 version looks superior in every conceviable way there will not be one head to head comparison that claims otherwise. Also ME2 uses the UE3.0 engine it uses low poly models with advanced shaders and normal mapping. ME 2 may use higher polys then say GeoW but its no where near UC2. Also KZ3 doesnt look worse then KZ2 in any way shapre or form if anything they look about the same so far with imprived particle effects and larger enviorments.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Again the Cell doesnot render anything while the RSX is their. The Cell calulates and processes the data for the RSX offloading those jobs for the RSX from processing that data, in which the RSX only has to render that already processed data. I didnt claim anything about performance about the 6600 outdoing the RSX (7800) I was pointing out what more memory can do then just having less but faster memory. Better graphics and higher resolutions does not mean out perform speed wise I was talking about being able to have better graphics because it has more resources to call upon.04dcarraher

It cant put out as high quality assets at equal resolution at even playable framerates therefore its not capable of better graphics. A 6600gt could never run DMC4 for an example at max settings 720p res and 60fps .

DMC4, RE5, SC.C , ME2 are several games where the console version uses the exact same texture assets at max settins as the pc version. You could not push the assets above the ones on consoles with a 6600 or 7800gt on any current game and get a playable framerate. And L4D was yet again another pc port, it wasnt even released on the PS3 and GeoW on the 360 looks better then the pc running it on medium settingsPERIOD so how is a 6600gt going to outperfrom that. You act like ALL games are using gimped settings and they dont.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] Much larger from kz2 isn't saying much and from screens its still not on the same scope as halo... And just because there are parts that look better in kz3 you can't say which is more powerful from whats given, the games aren't a 1:1 comparison, and each have a different focus in development, kz3 looks worse compared to kz2 which I think says more. Can you provce its using lower levels of geometry? and where? is it character models? maps? the maps in UC2 are pretty much corridor shooters? Proffesional media is based on observations and opinions which isn't reputable facts and I've seen plenty of people claim ME2 as superior. secondly ff13 doesn't render at 576p, the prerendered videos are compressed to that size. 360 has lack of self shadows but has a better filter for distance giving a sharper overall image during gameplaysavagetwinkie

"However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off

The PS3 version looks superior in every conceviable way there will not be one head to head comparison that claims otherwise. Also ME2 uses the UE3.0 engine it uses low poly models with advanced shaders and normal mapping. ME 2 may use higher polys then say GeoW but its no where near UC2. Also KZ3 doesnt look worse then KZ2 in any way shapre or form if anything they look about the same so far with imprived particle effects and larger enviorments.

Yes its called a crappy port the PS3 gets them all the time. If you read the digtial foundry comparison when the 360 versions look better many of ps3 version are not even using the spu's hence some games dont even have AA wich is pathetic because the SPU's can basically emulate 4XMSAA flawlessly with no hit to the GPU as seen in GOW3.

i havent even played any computer game since Crysis so i would have to say consoles are better especially PS3,360 :)

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]No the RSX cant use the XDR directly as if it was its own video ram.
Teufelhuhn

Having video/3D data stored on system memory then having that data shiped to the gpu to process and render that does not mean its special, because all computers do that. 04dcarraher

What you're describing never happens, because it's a console. If data needs to go in the GDDR it just gets put there, there's absolutely no reason to have it in the XDR memory first. You can even stream right off the disk into the GDDR if you wanted to. It's not like a PC where only the driver can touch GPU memory, and so you have to read data into CPU memory first and then hand it off to the driver.

It being a console does not mean it defies basic computer operations. all data has to be stored onto memory before being processed and assigned to the proper device or place. Data from the harddrive or disk has to buffered and processed by the cpu before being used. It cant read data off the storage device then go directly to the gpu and say here you go. Theoptical drive does not do the main processing its the cpu.The CPU is the brainsit has to take the data and process and direct the data to the right place, and the XDR is it memory, everything goes through the cpu and system before it goes anywhere else.

i havent even played any computer game since Crysis so i would have to say consoles are better especially PS3,360 :)

Night-Wolf93

Go purchase Starcraft 2 right now. :evil:

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

"However, experienced eyes out there know a legit shot when they see one, and soon the Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off

The PS3 version looks superior in every conceviable way there will not be one head to head comparison that claims otherwise. Also ME2 uses the UE3.0 engine it uses low poly models with advanced shaders and normal mapping. ME 2 may use higher polys then say GeoW but its no where near UC2. Also KZ3 doesnt look worse then KZ2 in any way shapre or form if anything they look about the same so far with imprived particle effects and larger enviorments.

TheSterls

Yes its called a crappy port the PS3 gets them all the time. If you read the digtial foundry comparison when the 360 versions look better many of ps3 version are not even using the spu's hence some games dont even have AA wich is pathetic because the SPU's can basically emulate 4XMSAA flawlessly with no hit to the GPU as seen in GOW3.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

It cant put out as high quality assets at equal resolution at even playable framerates therefore its not capable of better graphics. A 6600gt could never run DMC4 for an example at max settings 720p res and 60fps .

DMC4, RE5, SC.C , ME2 are several games where the console version uses the exact same texture assets at max settins as the pc version. You could not push the assets above the ones on consoles with a 6600 or 7800gt on any current game and get a playable framerate. And L4D was yet again another pc port, it wasnt even released on the PS3 and GeoW on the 360 looks better then the pc running it on medium settingsPERIOD so how is a 6600gt going to outperfrom that. You act like ALL games are using gimped settings and they dont.

How about a budget of $200. PC gaming isn't going to do much for me there.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

It absolutely can, and people do it all of the time. It comes with performance implications and has to be mapped out for the GPU ahead of time, but other than that the GPU is quite happy to read or write to it.
That is only if their is extra memory to use which in most cases it cant since their nothing to spare.

why wouldn't there be anything to spare, most of the assets are graphical in nature and if you have a game on 360 that uses 300mb's of textures you have to fit it in somehow...

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
Having video/3D data stored on system memory then having that data shiped to the gpu to process and render that does not mean its special, because all computers do that. 04dcarraher

What you're describing never happens, because it's a console. If data needs to go in the GDDR it just gets put there, there's absolutely no reason to have it in the XDR memory first. You can even stream right off the disk into the GDDR if you wanted to. It's not like a PC where only the driver can touch GPU memory, and so you have to read data into CPU memory first and then hand it off to the driver.

It being a console does not mean it defies basic computer operations. all data has to be stored onto memory before being processed and assigned to the proper device or place. Data from the harddrive or disk has to buffered and processed by the cpu before being used. It cant read data off the storage device then go directly to the gpu and say here you go. Theoptical drive does not do the main processing its the cpu.The CPU is the brainsit has to take the data and process and direct the data to the right place, and the XDR is it memory, everything goes through the cpu and system before it goes anywhere else.

It being an embedded design, a game has more flexibility when loading stuff, you can load something onto the data bus and have the cpu tell the vid card to load it directly into gddr3.

the reason why PC's do this is because a program doens't have direct access to hardware, the hardware is abrasticted out through API's to create a standardizeation. Becuase your working with variable hardware it needs to be processed first, if your working on a system like ps3 you know exactly what hardware your working with and where it needs to go. why would you read something, store it to memory, then read it again and send it to the vidcard to store, just read and store to vid card.

Detail and resolutions is all dependant on memory (resources) not all about processing power. Better graphics needs memory to store and process then render that. the higher the detail and resolution the more memory is used.04dcarraher

This is why you dont see too many demanding 1080 games on ethier the PS3 or 360 because their isnt enough memory tocalc store that data. Games like the Unreal engine on high settings with 4xAA above 1280x720 uses more then 400mb of video memory. 04dcarraher

This why all console games have really really tweaked out settings with low medium and high settings, with small linear levels, baked on static graphics&effects. 04dcarraher

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

I don't game on a PC so that people like you can make threads like this. :P

Also I just don't like it. I don't like gaming on a small screen, I don't want to hook my PC up to my TV, I don't like using a keyboard, I don't want to buy a controller to configure with my PC.

argetlam00

Define small screen.

Just your average monitor compared to a 40+ inch HDTV. I just don't care to get involved in PC gaming.

But without any other debate I will answer your question with the only true and obvious answer:

Consoles have been in the home since the 70s and PCs have not.

You could game on a PC back then but how much was a home computer in the 70s? Could you really even buy one? I have no idea but I do know you could go buy an Atari 2600 at the store. I don't think I had a PC until the 90s? Possibly late 80s but it was dial-up back then and they didn't have anything you couldn't do on a console game wise and if they did I didn't know or care about it which is the point really. Where could you get games for the PC in the 70s? People making games for PCs in the 70s were bored college students and the games were either text based adventures or stuff like Pong but less known. Console gaming was prominent in households before PC and internet was. That's why plenty of people don't own a gaming PC. We grew up on consoles, not PCs. Now people are growing up on both so who knows.

People always toss out Uncharted 2 when bashing the 360 and say "oh yea the 360 doesn't have any game that looks as awesome graphically as UC2 so there 360 fanboys!!!!!"

So what are the games on the PC that are superior to a console game like UC2s graphics? Serious question. I don't pc game so I would have no clue. All I ever hear is about multiplat titles looking betteron the PC than PS3 or 360 but what about PC exclusives(or anything) that outdoes the mighty PS3s claim to fame of Uncharted 2's graphics.

They are very expensive, regardless of what you tell me. I've had people help me build a PC, but no matter how we do it it ends up costing more than a PS3 and a 360 combined.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

It absolutely can, and people do it all of the time. It comes with performance implications and has to be mapped out for the GPU ahead of time, but other than that the GPU is quite happy to read or write to it.
That is only if their is extra memory to use which in most cases it cant since their nothing to spare.

why wouldn't there be anything to spare, most of the assets are graphical in nature and if you have a game on 360 that uses 300mb's of textures you have to fit it in somehow...

Having video/3D data stored on system memory then having that data shiped to the gpu to process and render that does not mean its special, because all computers do that. 04dcarraher

What you're describing never happens, because it's a console. If data needs to go in the GDDR it just gets put there, there's absolutely no reason to have it in the XDR memory first. You can even stream right off the disk into the GDDR if you wanted to. It's not like a PC where only the driver can touch GPU memory, and so you have to read data into CPU memory first and then hand it off to the driver.

It being a console does not mean it defies basic computer operations. all data has to be stored onto memory before being processed and assigned to the proper device or place. Data from the harddrive or disk has to buffered and processed by the cpu before being used. It cant read data off the storage device then go directly to the gpu and say here you go. Theoptical drive does not do the main processing its the cpu.The CPU is the brainsit has to take the data and process and direct the data to the right place, and the XDR is it memory, everything goes through the cpu and system before it goes anywhere else.

It being an embedded design, a game has more flexibility when loading stuff, you can load something onto the data bus and have the cpu tell the vid card to load it directly into gddr3.

the reason why PC's do this is because a program doens't have direct access to hardware, the hardware is abrasticted out through API's to create a standardizeation. Becuase your working with variable hardware it needs to be processed first, if your working on a system like ps3 you know exactly what hardware your working with and where it needs to go. why would you read something, store it to memory, then read it again and send it to the vidcard to store, just read and store to vid card.

It being a console does not mean it defies basic computer operations. all data has to be stored onto memory before being processed and assigned to the proper device or place. Data from the harddrive or disk has to buffered and processed by the cpu before being used. It cant read data off the storage device then go directly to the gpu and say here you go. Theoptical drive does not do the main processing its the cpu.The CPU is the brainsit has to take the data and process and direct the data to the right place, and the XDR is it memory, everything goes through the cpu and system before it goes anywhere else.

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

What you're describing never happens, because it's a console. If data needs to go in the GDDR it just gets put there, there's absolutely no reason to have it in the XDR memory first. You can even stream right off the disk into the GDDR if you wanted to. It's not like a PC where only the driver can touch GPU memory, and so you have to read data into CPU memory first and then hand it off to the driver.

It being a console does not mean it defies basic computer operations. all data has to be stored onto memory before being processed and assigned to the proper device or place. Data from the harddrive or disk has to buffered and processed by the cpu before being used. It cant read data off the storage device then go directly to the gpu and say here you go. Theoptical drive does not do the main processing its the cpu.The CPU is the brainsit has to take the data and process and direct the data to the right place, and the XDR is it memory, everything goes through the cpu and system before it goes anywhere else.

It being an embedded design, a game has more flexibility when loading stuff, you can load something onto the data bus and have the cpu tell the vid card to load it directly into gddr3.

the reason why PC's do this is because a program doens't have direct access to hardware, the hardware is abrasticted out through API's to create a standardizeation. Becuase your working with variable hardware it needs to be processed first, if your working on a system like ps3 you know exactly what hardware your working with and where it needs to go. why would you read something, store it to memory, then read it again and send it to the vidcard to store, just read and store to vid card.

04dcarraher

How about a budget of $200. PC gaming isn't going to do much for me there.

2-10-08

Neither with console...