[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Um, again lol!!!! I know you're trying very hard not to be biased, but KZ2 does not have real HDR, it has a type of "fake-HDR", it is good none the less, the textures are also sub par, GEOW 2 is doing just as much on screen, and Farcry two does more than both. Did you see the tech demo of alan wake with the tornado BTW, and really in comparison to: GEOW,LP2, and KZ2, UC2 has nothing going on. Alan wake will also have a 36 by 36 sqaure MILE area to move around in as beautifully rendered as UC2 or better.

Camer999

what was lol about that? Did i not say the tri core can actaully do bigger things like huge enviroments because of the general purpose processors, and push higher quality textures? The ps3 doesnt have the bandwith to support huge environments. This is why infamous's framerates suffer at times. The ps3 is more powerful when calculating phsycis and when there is a lot more going on on screen.

I can see what you mean but what boggles the mind (I am not being a fanboy in this instance I am just pointing something out). Why does the 360 run Red faction better (a little), I mean that is the most physics intense game out there, so this leads me to believe with the level of physics calculating does not seperate the 360 and PS3 performance wise, what will?

Think about this mathematically. A multi core processor when it comes to games is going to be strong when dealing with 2 larger entities. Take a tornado for example sucking up a couple cars. A quad core or tri core processor with a lot of bandwith and a beefed up graphics card is going to excel at that because of the way it's rendering. A processor with one central processor and 7 synergistic processing units which are basically dumbed down risc processors that cant hold a lot of information but can calculate certain things on the fly before they even pass it to the gpu are going to excel when you are dealing with smaller details like being able to incorporate sound processing, more dynamic lighting, physics on a smaller scale which add up. Ultimately i think we are going to see things go the way of cell and multicore processors because as we know the whole is ultimately greater than the sum of its parts. The better smaller things the better bigger things ultimately. Right now the cell and multicore processors are on the other side of the spectrum from one another.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"]I really find a hard time believing that, shoot Alan Wake's already looking better graphically than K2 but then again it's had a bit longer to polish up (correct me if I'm wrong).Camer999

I agree alan wake looks awesome. But it is doing tricks however. Look at the lighting. KZ look at the detail in the smoke clouds and what they are doing from a physics perspective and all the little things going on at once, and tell me thats not impressive. there is a lot more going on on screen. I agree the tri core has advantages and can do the big things just as well from a design perspective. It actually has more bandwith and can push higher quality textures to the screen. But look at Uncharted 2 and the amount of detail in the environments. TAke for example that helicopter scene and how everything in the room gets sucked out the window and is all calculating from a physics perspective. You wont see something like that in alan wake. It will more just be a building getting destroyed or a tornado sucking up a couple cars, vs tons of objects like that. It really depends on how the game is designed and games have had to be designed differently on each system.

Um, again lol!!!! I know you're trying very hard not to be biased, but KZ2 does not have real HDR, it has a type of "fake-HDR", it is good none the less, the textures are also sub par, GEOW 2 is doing just as much on screen, and Farcry two does more than both. Did you see the tech demo of alan wake with the tornado BTW, and really in comparison to: GEOW,LP2, and KZ2, UC2 has nothing going on. Alan wake will also have a 36 by 36 sqaure MILE area to move around in as beautifully rendered as UC2 or better.

what was lol about that? Did i not say the tri core can actaully do bigger things like huge enviroments because of the general purpose processors, and push higher quality textures in certain regards? The ps3 doesnt have the bandwith to support huge environments. This is why infamous's framerates suffer at times. The ps3 is more powerful when calculating phsycis and when there is a lot more going on on screen.

What's **** hilarious is you are laughing at me when you said what i just did.

I really find a hard time believing that, shoot Alan Wake's already looking better graphically than K2 but then again it's had a bit longer to polish up (correct me if I'm wrong).moose_knuckler

I agree alan wake looks awesome. But it is doing tricks however. Look at the lighting. KZ look at the detail in the smoke clouds and what they are doing from a physics perspective and all the little things going on at once, and tell me thats not impressive. there is a lot more going on on screen. I agree the tri core has advantages and can do the big things just as well from a design perspective. It actually has more bandwith and can push higher quality textures to the screen. But look at Uncharted 2 and the amount of detail in the environments. TAke for example that helicopter scene and how everything in the room gets sucked out the window and is all calculating from a physics perspective and everything is being calculated from wind to lighting all at once. You wont see something like that in alan wake. It will more just be a building getting destroyed or a tornado sucking up a couple cars, vs tons of objects and so much going on all at once like that. It really depends on how the game is designed and games have had to be designed differently on each system.

"So can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?"

If you can give the specs to prove this. Games just say what devs are doing with the hardware. Specs say what it's capable of.

Redonkulous_D

Specs don't tell the whole story either because it has to do with how it's designed and how it can apply to games as well. From a straight computational standpoint the ps3 can do twice the floating point operations per second. But like i said it also has to do with design. It also has to do with who's developing and willing to develop for it like i said above as well. The reality is the ps3 is so different than a tri-core processor it's a big **** in a lot of ways.

so i guess my question has been answered. We can't agree which is more powerful. I think the ps3 is. That's not my opinion either. I really think it is from a technical standpoint lol. But in the real world it doesn't mean much. Like someone says the least powerful console usually wins. Because more people develop for it. It's easier to develop for. Easier to develop = more money etc.. It's cheaper, more people buy it. More people are inclined to develop for it. Microsoft has both the pc and 360 market. It's a domino effect.

that vid was confirmed to be on a high end pc btw..... I honestly don't know. Thats just what they said in an article that the trailer shown was running on a high end pc. But they do have vids from e3 over at gametrailers and you can see its running on the 360 because of the button popups. It still looks really good, but the video quality kind of sucks beause it's a cam.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Um, lol, someone posted 360 footage recently and a Quad-core would CRUSH the PS3.

Camer999

would you like to post this footage that is running on a 360 then? All of the stuff shown was confirmed to be on a quad core pc.

Go to this thread:Http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26903249&tag=topics;title

thanks. i just youtubed it actually. it looks great.

bu..bu..bu..but teh cell!!!

lol. anyways, yea, the ps3 is stronger.

CPU = PS3

GPU = 360

SilverChimera

I agree but it's not as simple as that. They are completely different architectures and need to be designed for differently. If the ps3 is designed for it can do things the 360 can't. The same can be said vice versa(look at the multiplats and there is usually a downgrade in performance), but in relative terms the ps3 is capable of doing more that the 360 can't imo. It shows in the games that are designed for each system. The main factor is most developers are first developing for a more traditional architecture because it's more cost effective for them. Because why would they develop first on the cell when it's the only processor of its kind. When it's more cost effective to develop for the 360 and pc first because mroe people have them.

@Walker34: More cores doesn't mean more powerful in gaming. A dual core is faster in many cases with games today than a quad core.

Nokanhav

yes you said it yourself.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"] something tells me you have never seen a silicon die/wafer.pyromaniac223

something tells me you haven't because I have. So you are saying a quad core can't match the ps3?

We are talking abotu gaming. Not general purpose computing. Most of what is done in gaming are highly specialized tasks. I think the cell could hold it's own against a quad core in a gaming environment. Yes the quad would ultimately show it's muscle in other areas but I think the cell would be able hold its own. One ppe and 7 risc processors are very capable in a gaming environment. Yes the quad would be able to kill it in certain areas.