http://ps3.qj.net/Havok-4-5-Enjoy-ALL-your-SPUs-in-FULL-PS3/pg/49/aid/80351

"Havok 4.0 on a PS3 Cell ran comparable to a triple-core PC. Now, if Havok's PR is to be believed, multiply that by 5 to 10."

if true, kinda puts quad cores to shame

Tails10

Well first of all, Havok 4.5 is supposed to improve performance on all multicore architectures, not just Cell so the difference wouldn't be 5-10 times which is no doubt a huge exageration in the first place.  Second we have no idea what "triple-core" CPU they were using since no such CPU exists.  They may have merely been extrapolating performance from a dual core P4 ruuning at slow speeds.

My second point is that even if Cells architecture does lend itself particularly well to physics, that doesn't mean its well suitaed to other CPU tasks.  certainly it gets creamed by even one core of the Quad for anything that relies on more general purpose performance.  So AI, scripting and overall game control will suffer in comparison.

And my final point is that there are other devices in a PC which can handle physics to an even greater extend than a quad core CPU.  Namely the PPU and a DX10 GPU.

Anyway, until I see some real world examples of Cell vs Core2 Quad in Havok 4.5 then im taking this with a pinch of salt.

[QUOTE="DementedDragon"]but can it play VF5, Heavenly Sword and White Knight Story?  :DSpartan070

Exclusives?  You mean like Quake Wars, Crysis, Stalker, Alan Wake, C&C3, the Halo series, Gears of War and any number of other AAA games that are on PC and not PS3?

[QUOTE="Only_the_Truth"]

You all need to distinguish between DX10 the API, and what is more commonly referred to when calling something DX10 - a DX10 complient hardware featureset.

Having features in hardware that are considered DX10 complient IS a big deal because it means your GPU is actually capable of more than a less advanced GPU.

Of course taking a console with a fixed hardware feature list and then adding a newer version of the DX API will of course add nothing in terms of features unless they weren't exposed in the already existing API.

iwo4life

A feature is a feature whether its exposed in DX, OGL or both.  The most advanced version of OGL at the moment exposes less hardware than DX10 and therefore there is very little which you can access through OGL that you could not access in DX10.

Besides, the RSX core is very well documented.  Its slightely beyond DX9c requirements but thats it.  There are no significant hiddenfeatures that DX9c doesn't already expose.

You all need to distinguish between DX10 the API, and what is more commonly referred to when calling something DX10 - a DX10 complient hardware featureset.

Having features in hardware that are considered DX10 complient IS a big deal because it means your GPU is actually capable of more than a less advanced GPU.

Of course taking a console with a fixed hardware feature list and then adding a newer version of the DX API will of course add nothing in terms of features unless they weren't exposed in the already existing API.

Since there has been alot of talk about that the PS3 not having DX10 related threads lately i though this would be fitting.
Now I don't know too mutch about computer programing, but isn't it right to say that you don't program in DX? you program in C++ etc.
Anyway, isn't it posble to do coding that gives the same result in both DX and openGL? since they structures are very similar? Not that the code is the same but has the same ingame effect like HDR lighing etc.
trasherhead

Magus was spot on but to simplify a little, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what API your using in the console if the hardware itself doesn't support those features which DX10 is designed to use.  And the PS3 doesn't have certain features which in the PC space are required to be considered DX10 complient.

The API (OGL or DX) is simply a way of talking to the hardware, but when we say something is DX9 or DX10, we arn't really talking about the API you use to talk to it, we are talking about the features of the hardware itself.  The features of RSX are equivilent to DX9c complience, as are those in Xenos.

Only_the_Truth can you tell me exactly what mods are you using? because i really want my game to look like that screen.

Thanks
Nolakk

To be honest with you, I can't remember properly.  I know im using most, if not all of Qarls stuff so thats Qarls Texture pack 2 plus 2 or three other files for distance textures.

Im also using a mod called something like "make eveything visible" which shows more distant objects like ruins and buildings that wouldn't nornmally show until much nearer.  Add to that natural environments and natural wildlife (but not natural weather, I hate the way it makes eveything so bright and utopia like).

Im also using parallaxed worlds (I think thats what its called) which adds superb parallax mapping to most buildings and im running a tweaked ini with denser grass, longer draw distances and all water reflections turned on (amoungst numerous other tweaks).

On tip i would give when tweaking the ini is if your using the ditance improving textures above, make sure you leave the "ugridstoload" figure at 5.  Anything higher will screw up the distance textures and have a heavy impact in framerate.  Simply increasing your view distance in the ini can have much the same effect without the downfalls.

Also, for gameplay I STRONGLY suggest Ocsuro's Oblivion overhaul, it changes many things and adds a ton of content but most importantly, it gives the game a real leveling system so you can actually feel like your progressing.

And 360 or current PC's will? What dream you living in bud? Stay out of Cloud Nine please.chrismunx

Well yes, modern DX10 PC's most certainly could.

There is one HARD fact here, Oblivion was not made ground up for 360, meaning it looks half of what possibly could, and it is a 1st gen title, meaning it looks another half of what it could beavenger_dot

Oblivion is far more optimised for the 360 than it is for any one PC setup so your point is meaningless.  Even with less optimisation the PC version looks better so if both versions were optimised ot the max the difference would be even greater in favour of the PC.

Meaning 360 could run Oblivion 4x better if it was made ground up AND was a 3rd gen title, maybe far better than the pc with mods version we see now, which frankly only has some more bumped and detailed textures, that Kameo EASILY rivals anyway

4x better?  Uh yeah :roll:

No the 360 could never run Oblivion as well as the modded PC version because it doesn't come close to the memory requirements which approach 2.5GB total on a Vista system.

And no, Kameo doesn't have a patch on the modded PC version.  Yes it looks nice but as someone who owns both I can easily say that modded Oblivion is head and shoulders above Kameo.

Of course i am not blind, a pc could run it EVEN better with a 8800GTX card, it is obvious, but that pc pics is totally possible on 360, that is all

Yeah whatever.  I guess thats why the 360 version looked so much worse eh?  The PC version is less optimised than the 360 version and all it has had applied are a few amature, homemade mods.  Are you telling me the devs are incapable of the same feats with all there funding and experience?

Anyway, all this rubbish about the 360 "could" have done this and "could" have done that is worthless.  It didn't, and the result is that PC gamers get the much better experience.

Then why didn't it look like that on pc from the start anyway ? avenger_dot

Because its a straight port from the 360 version of course.  I don't know what your trying to get at with that point as we already know the PC is capable.  Its purely a matter of developer effort.

And you can't call those VASTLY superior, it is just one bump map shader in the distance, and reflections in the water, and some a bit more detailed textures, all could easilly be done on 360 if it had more ram and a year to optimize, it was just a 1st gen game on 360, remember ?

I can call it vastly superior because it is obviously, vastly superior.  Bot the distance and close up textures are clearly far improved, as is the water and the level of object detail.  Its like looking at an xbox 1 game compared to the same game on X360.

The 360 simply could not have handled that level of detail.  Give it more memory?  Err why don't you give it faster memory and a second GPU aswell eh?  Sure if you make the 360 more powerful it could manage that detail but what does that tell us about the real 360 in the real world?  Nothing.

And yes it was a first gen game but the 360 version got just as much attention as the PC version and the PC version looked better even without the mods.  In fact the PC version with mods actually looks better than ANY 360 game available today and yes, that includes Gears or War.

3rd-4rth gen games on cosnoles can be 2x-3x better looking, this is ALWAYS the case in ALL consoles to date

They will be better looking than the 360 version, sure.  But whether they will look as good as the modded PC version is debatable.  Anyway, we will be on ES5 by then which will probably look as good as or better than Crysis.

And the game was FAR from made round up for 360 too, so the question is, can YOU confirm 360 could not run with those textures and the right optimizations/tricks ?

Nor was the game made for the PC from the ground up and yes I CAN confirm that the 360 is completely incapable of running at those detail settings regardless of what optimisations you make because they require over 512MB of graphics memory alone.  Maybe with a lot more optimisation the game could have looked similar to the PC version but bottonm line is that it didn't, and with the same level of effort being put into both the PC version ended up looking better. 

Shack: Can you offer any insight into how much of that was made possible by the PS3 hardware versus simply the additional development time?

Pete Hines: IT WAS ENTIRLY DUE TO EXTRA DEVELOPMENT TIME. It's not like the PS3 can do this and the others can't, it's actually something we were considering doing for the other platforms as well. We specifically did it here because we had some time and one of our graphics programmers said he could do it. Things like that are in the PS3 version,

http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2007/020807_petehines_1.x

TOPIC CREATOR PWNED, BY BETHSEDA DEVS.

XBOX 360 IS MORE POWERFUL, MORE CAPABLE SYSTEM THAN PS3.

boboisback

Err, the topic creator, i.e. me, never said anything about the PS3 being more powerful than the 360.  The shots were posted to show how much better the PC version of the game is than either console.