You shouldn't need any third party stuff for CS:S if I remember right, as I have the reciever and use if for my couple racing games and sometimes as my movement function with FPSs (with mouse for looking). Frankly using the gamepad sucks for FPS when using it to aim and look. However for your question, there is a good piece of user made software called "Xpadder" that works remarkably well. It lets you bind gamepad functions as if they were keyboard keys, and the program makes use of the analog functions as well. It's really cool to be able to use a my 360 controller for flying in BF2 and then instantly switch back to mouse and keyboard for ground combat.
I have prepared myself for Crysis. It is my dream, my baby, and my destiny with my computer. We must have Crysis, we must play Crysis, we must beat Crysis.
Crytek is amazing and I love them so. I was actually playing Far Cry some today. Good times.
It's roughly about 50-60% of the way through the game. You got to just continously pound the helicopter with lead and rockets. Eventually it'll go down, you just got to be good about getting behind cover and firing at the right oppurtunities.
well the ram is ddr3 so its better than what we have on pc right now.but they do have corsair ddr3 sticks out now.its not cheap though.the mb that use it arent available either so really doesnt matter does it.
FireFalkon
the ps3 doesn't use DDR3 RAM, it uses custom XDR RAM. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XDR_DRAM
XDR RAM is freaking fast as hell not to mention I think it delivers 4 or 8 bits at a time, not 2 like in DDR2.
Wasn't it proven that despite being actually decent at geometry work, the Cell was actually quite terrible at shaders? I've heard about how it may be capable of radiosity calculations, but so far, nothing has come to my attention that's amazing or incredible. Cell is overrated and to do all those graphics calculations that everyone hopes it could, it doesn't have the right architecture to get those classes of pure GFLOPS in graphics calculations. If I remember right, I think I heard that, used as a GPU purely, the Cell was equal to something on the likes of a GeForce 6200, and that makes me laugh.
Cell is still obviously a great at floating point calculations like physics but other than that I don't see the Cell being the Alpha-Omega of processor design. However, it may be the beginning of highly-parallel CPUs considering Cell is supposed to bridge the gap between CPUs, GPUs, and PPUs (physic processing units). Even still Cell really isn't too useful for game consoles without a true graphics processor, and frankley Sony could have done better than a G72 (or is G70?), as the GeForce 7800 is somewhat limited. I actually view the Xenos GPU in the 360 like a I view the Cell in the PS3. They are amazing pieces of technology. Xenos may be eclipsed very much already by PC graphics processors but it was the first of the unified shader graphics processors, and it kicks the crap out of the 7800 not just in theoretical numbers but it can actually achieve close to it's theorecticals in actuall games.
Wow, that sounds great!! What if I over Clock the GPU a little? Should the Extra RAM help out to for all High?4elf
The GeForce Go 8700GT is technically an overclocked Go 8600GT and at stock speeds the 8700GT hits 10000 MTexels/Sec theoretically. That's pretty good and should work quite well in DX10 mode for Crysis. Not maximums but pretty nicely though.
I do think the Cell is a great processor, but like my basis was: I don't think its the alpha and omega. And when it comes to my PC enthusiasm, it's not just games but developement and all that good stuff as well not to mention the lack of control over PC software. I can see MS supporting gaming schools and asking them to support x86 and PowerPC all the way and that is a very practical thing to do, I mean come on, why wouldn't they as making a game for both PC and 360 is easy as pie for them and a great way to make money, not to mention both platforms are very good and have substantial user bases? But still why would their be any memory benefits to pre and post processing? If you're thinking of procedural generation then I could give you a point there but at the same time even with procedural generation on the developer's side, so much other stuff must be stored in RAM.
Cell may be a powerhouse, but its bottlenecked by the RSX and the RAM. Even if you were to use the Cell for graphics, it could never achieve the level of precedence of a dedicated graphics processor which runs many more floating operations at once. Supposedly radiosity calculations are possible on the Cell, but what about everything else? Using the Cell to get a little bit better graphics in some regard and killing your physics, AI, and orchestration capabilities isn't smart. Using all these properties will take all the skill of developers to use correctly and efficiently, but even still PCs will quickly eclipse the consoles CPU capabilities and graphics cards themselves will be utilized to do physics and such. You talk about upgrading and the amount of money it takes to do so, but when you think about buying a decent computer you need in the first place, you can add hardware to that PC that costs the same as a PS3 and get better graphics, as well as buy games from the vast library of PC gaming not to mention game mods and cheaper games.
My 8800GTS will easily probably last 3+ years before I really need to replace it, but even still despite that, the 8800GTS will be crapping all over the 360 and PS3's graphics capabilities forever. Not to mention I love tinkering with aspects of my system like a car person loves tinkering with his car. Tinkering, personalization, games and the sheer enjoyment of all that combined is what make me love PC gaming, oh and not to mention the practicality of a computer, Linux, open sourced programs like Open Office, my mouse and keyboard, my music on there, and oh God I love Youtube. 64 player online battles in PC games make me happy too.
Should play well. The GeForce Go 8700GT is an overclocked version of the 8600GT. Even with DX10 on it's side though, I imagine the GPU having difficulty with the highest graphics settings and 256 MB of VRAM will kinda be a limitation too, but even still you'll run quite a playable Crysis, on a notebook no less, and it should be massively good times.
So here's my settings predictions for your MacBook Pro:
DX10 graphics will be set to medium-highs, with 2x Anti-Aliasing, 8-16x Antistrophic filtering. If their is any CPU scaling options, they will be at maximums.
So yes, you should have a fun time playing Crysis, not in all it's glory and gory goodness but in plenty of it.
[QUOTE="KraigA"]the rams not good enough to make the ps3 last..gizmo_logix
The RAM is only an issue if you write code for a PC/360. The Cell/RSX architecture doesn't work like the PC/360. The Cell's SPUs do a lot of pre and post processing. And once the devs start to get better use of these SPUs you'll start to see the longevity of the PS3. If the PC/360 is ALL YOU KNOW. Of course it's "hard" to learn the PS3. But this is very typical of American thinking. They think that the world revolves around them. Using a little country slang.... There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Let's see, Sony and Toshiba fund IBM, AN AMERICAN CORPORATION, to design and produce such a processor idea. It was designed at an IBM facility near Austin, Texas. And yes, RAM is an issue with either console. Even with data compression, it can be a pain as half of the PS3's RAM has to be used as a framebuffer for processing the image and displaying it (that's all the VRAM for you plus with some games a bit of XDR RAM like Oblivion). Even if the 256 MB of XDR RAM was left untouched from video/frame buffering usage needs, about 30 MB is needed for the OS, and then you have to deal with what room is left for textures, geometry, game engine, sound, etc. Frankly the consoles are severely constrained by their RAM limitations. It would have been so much smarter to have equiped the PS3 and 360 with a full gigabyte of RAM. HDD data streaming so far is the PS3's only hope in alleviating that, but even still it'll only go so far in helping even with the huge data transfer rates of XDR RAM as you're then limited by a slow 5400 RPM hard drive, and lol streaming off a Blu-Ray disc is so slow, slower data rates than the 12x speed DVD drive in the 360.
LOL Pre and post processing require data to process in the first place in order to get desired results and such processes don't lessen RAM needs one bit, as the programs need RAM as well.. And the Cell processor isn't this Godsend that Sony and Sony fanboys love to tout. The Emotion Engine was touted the same way as well, but in the end the PS2 got ripped apart by the likes of the Gamecube and Xbox when it came to overall hardware performance. When it comes to floating point performance, the Cell is pretty athletic but in terms of general processing power, it's not to useful, but then again a console doesn't need much in the way of "general processing power." But in actuallity the Xenon CPU in the 360 probably could achieve better artificial intelligence as it's got the architecture for it and so far the Xenon has proven to be quite the performer as well since no game has even needed more than two of the cores. Oblivion utilized only one core. So as you can tell I don't think the PS3 is this super amazing machine that everyone else thinks it is. Neither is the 360, and both consoles have major flaws in their design.
Log in to comment