[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"] Don't remember it in that interview, but in another one he claimed something along the lines of that theoretically you could do something better on the cell given an infinite amount of development time. And Killzone 2 doesn't look better than most things on the 360 (see Mass Effect 2 with the fanboy goggles off) the extra development time really didn't amount to much.

Ilikemyname420

I saw Mass effect 2 wihtout fanboy google and no it doesn't port animation graphics effects lighting and particles in the level of Killzone 2,and Killzone 3 is even further away.

Saying the extra development time really didn't amount to much is actually seeing Killzone 2 with fanboy googles,there is more to a game that been just pretty which Killzone 2 exels in Killzone 2 is a complete pakage,not a one race pony,it look great in all aspect of the game not just one or 2 as a tarde off like Mass Effect 2 or Gears 2,the same was say about Gears 2 until they were compare side by side in a video and Killzone 2 how much more it had going for it than Gears 2.

I have post the link here like 10 times already but people seen to ignore it,hell on Gears 2 explotions generated little smoke and dissipated almost instanly on Killzone 2 it wasn't like that,Gears 2 had good lighitng but Killzone 2 one was just to much,bullet sparks look ok in Gears 2 on Killzone 2 they are ray traced which do a more realistic effect.

The list go's on.

If you don't know what you are arguing don't Killzone 2 uses Ray tracing in several parts of the game,you are incredibly miss informed,Cell can do Ray trace faster than a 7800GT OC can.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/sony-gamers-killzone-2/34201

This will teach you a thing or 2 about Killzone 2 which even today still look impressive,but better the narrator it self talk about the effects dude,just seeing that video make me wonder how any one could think that Killzone 2 is not graphically a game that is set abode the pack unlike what you claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTvYPiEi4eU

Here is Killzone 2 vs Gears 2 if you choose to ignore teh facts find,but again it is say it has Ray traced bullets,unlike gears 2,granades made a more real explotions with staying debree unlike gears,smoke last longer in Killzone 2 in Gears 2 it almost banish instantly and the lighting is superior in every way,oh don't forget the part at the end where the volumetric smoke interacting with the turbine engines.

Recently I came across a link on http://www.gpgpu.org that I found interesting. It described a method of ray-tracing quaternion Julia fractals using the floating point power in graphics processing units (GPUs). The author of the GPU code , Keenan Crane, stated that "This kind of algorithm is pretty much ideal for the GPU - extremely high arithmetic intensity and almost zero bandwidth usage". I thought it would be interesting to port this Nvidia CG code to the Cell processor, using the public SDK, and see how it performs given that it was ideal for a GPU. First we directly translated the CG code line for line to C + SPE intrinsics. All the CG code structures and data types were maintained. Then we wrote a CG framework to execute this shader for Cell that included a backend image compression and network delivery layer for the finished images. To our surprise, well not really, we found that using only 7 SPEs for rendering a 3.2 GHz Cell chip could out run an Nvidia 7800 GT OC card at this task by about 30%. We reserved one SPE for the image compression and delivery task. Furthermore the way CG structures it SIMD computation is inefficient as it causes large percentages of the code to execute in scalar mode. This is due to the way they structure their vector data, AOS vs SOA. By converting this CG shader from AOS to SOA form, SIMD utilization was much higher which resulted in Cell out performing the Nvidia 7800 by a factor of 5 - 6x using only 7 SPEs for rendering. Given that the Nvidia 7800 GT is listed as having 313 GFLOPs of computational power and seven 3.2 GHz SPEs only have 179.2 GFLOPs this seems impossible but then again maybe we should start reading more white papers and less marketing hype.

First let me introduce myself. My name is Barry Minor and I have been on the Cell processor project since the fall of 2000. Before Cell I developed 3D graphics processors for IBM and Diamond under the FireGL brand.

Cell has been a great project and from the beginning we have focused the architecture around graphics and video processing.

Like he say people should be reading more white papers and less marketing hype.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

The xbox came 20 months are the PS2 not just 1 year it was almost 2 in fact,the PS2 was release on march 2000 the xbox on november 2001 4 more months and it would had on PS2 2 full years.also the xbox graphics were over hyped before the console was even launch,and even with a huge difference in specs sony deliver GOW2 which has nothing to envy on NG or Tekken 5 on DOA 3 hell GT4 on Forza.?

And unlike the PS3 and 360 where both have the same ammount of Ram the xbox double the PS2 on ram and had a more advance GPU and CPU.

gamecubepad

I'm from the US. You must be from EU or JPN. In the US the PS2 launched October 26, 2000. In the US the Xbox launched November 15, 2001. That's 1yr.. The difference in power between the PS2 and Xbox was huge. I had both.

Let's not get off track. The difference in power between the PS3 and 360 it's literally insignificant according to the best game programmer in the world. Not only that, David Shippy the designer of the PS3's Cell CPU and 360's Xenon CPU plainly said that the 360 and PS3 are significantly different in hardware design, but equal in power...

""With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

"At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models," he concludes."

---

The poster I responded was bragging on GOW3 like many cows do, and to be honest, Enslaved looks on par even though it's multiplat and runs on UE3. I pulled these screens from the highest quality vid quality GS hosts, and it's obvious to anyone not wearing goggles that Enslaved is on level with GOW3 concerning gfx.(click for 720p)

Huge difference? I think not.

You seem overly defensive about the PS3, and making claims that the PS3 and KZ3 are on whole different than the 360 and games like Rage is going a little overboard. Do what you want, but I would tend to believe the guy who designed the Cell, and the best game programmer in the world over Sony hype and those who swallow it.

lol so because you seem to think that i am for a difference region that actually change the fact that the PS2 is 20 months older than the xbox is.?

The PS2 came out before the xbox was even publicly unveil the xbox was,in fact the ficticial xbox specs of 300 million polygons where reveal on march 10 2000,the PS2 was launch on march 4 2000.

So yeah it was almost 2 years in fact on PC 8 months is a generation of cards imagine 20,i also still own both dude and the graphical difference was minimal in multiplatform games,xbox games would show better aliasing better textures and some times better frame rates,but it was not because it was weak it was because dveloper did not care for it when the PS2 was the console that was doing to sell the most.

Unless a game was build on xbox and then ported there really wasn't a huge difference,in fact games like SC showed a marked difference in favor of the xbox,but games like that started on PS2 were mostly ported with minimal upgrades.

Then there is GOW1 and 2,Tekken 5 and GT4 that make the game bewteen the 2 console look much smaller,comparing NG with and average PS2 game it would result in a huge difference comparing God of War 2 vs NG would not.

Those screend look sad for GOW 3 dude find some better.

Here a 720P one no bullshot to keep it real,by the way i play that part and the screen doesn't even do justise to how fluid and vivid that sequense is.

Lets wait to see if Rage actually look better on 360 and PS3 than Killzone 3,because that was say about Crysis 2 on 360 and from what i saw no it doesn't,Rage and Crysis 2 will both look better than Killzone 3 but i think only on PC.

[QUOTE="Eltormo"]

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]

Gotta love cows eating this up. BTW also from Carmack: "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360," Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3." Would seem that he's saying the exact opposite, except these quotes are from 2009 where the OPs is from a 2006 G4 interview...hmmmm which to believe.

Ilikemyname420

You forgot the part after he say about the same then say cell is juts more powerful,he is a developer who like MS he was been conservative even so he actually claimed that with time you could get something great,guess what Sony did took its time to make Killzone 2 and it shows how much better than anything on 360 is graphically.

I saw Mass effect 2 wihtout fanboy google and no it doesn't port animation graphics effects lighting and particles in the level of Killzone 2,and Killzone 3 is even further away.

Saying the extra development time really didn't amount to much is actually seeing Killzone 2 with fanboy googles,there is more to a game that been just pretty which Killzone 2 exels in Killzone 2 is a complete pakage,not a one race pony,it look great in all aspect of the game not just one or 2 as a tarde off like Mass Effect 2 or Gears 2,the same was say about Gears 2 until they were compare side by side in a video and Killzone 2 how much more it had going for it than Gears 2.

I have post the link here like 10 times already but people seen to ignore it,hell on Gears 2 explotions generated little smoke and dissipated almost instanly on Killzone 2 it wasn't like that,Gears 2 had good lighitng but Killzone 2 one was just to much,bullet sparks look ok in Gears 2 on Killzone 2 they are ray traced which do a more realistic effect.

The list go's on.

If lets say The ps3 had. Mgs4 Demons souls Infamous And god of war 3 at launch and was 300$ Would it have won the console wars? I think it would have. Assuming the xbox was the same price. Right when the xbox gets RROD the ps3 would have gotten more fans and thus it would have owned the 360.DogOfWarIII

At $300 even with no games the PS3 would have out sell the xbox 360 far to easy.

Gotta love cows eating this up. BTW also from Carmack: "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower – no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360," Processing wise, the main CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's where a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3." Would seem that he's saying the exact opposite, except these quotes are from 2009 where the OPs is from a 2006 G4 interview...hmmmm which to believe.

Ilikemyname420

You forgot the part after he say about the same then say cell is juts more powerful,he is a developer who like MS he was been conservative even so he actually claimed that with time you could get something great,guess what Sony did took its time to make Killzone 2 and it shows how much better than anything on 360 is graphically.

[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]

The 360 is supposed to have similar power to the ps3 so I can only think that the devs on the ps3 have more talent. As the ps3 is clearly leading in the graphics dept this is impressive as it came out later and was said to be much harder to dev for.

gamecubepad

When the Xbox came out a year after the PS2 it had a significant edge in gfx, not so with the PS3 and 360. Cows really overhype GoW3's gfx way too much. Enslaved looks comparable running multiplat on UE3.

The xbox came 20 months are the PS2 not just 1 year it was almost 2 in fact,the PS2 was release on march 2000 the xbox on november 2001 4 more months and it would had on PS2 2 full years.also the xbox graphics were over hyped before the console was even launch,and even with a huge difference in specs sony deliver GOW2 which has nothing to envy on NG or Tekken 5 on DOA 3 hell GT4 on Forza.?

And unlike the PS3 and 360 where both have the same ammount of Ram the xbox double the PS2 on ram and had a more advance GPU and CPU.