dcm06's forum posts
[QUOTE="dcm06"]sorry re-read the blog thing yeah see where the writer stated that sorry.
thinicer
Uh, the writer is not the developer. Sorry.
thats why i said sorry realized i read it wrong lol.
[QUOTE="dcm06"]The confirmation that the PS3 version of UT3 will be able to run user-created content, including maps, custom game modes, and mods. This marks the first time that a seemingly PC level of diverse, user-generated game additions will be available on a home console. Epic Games vice president Mark Rein commented on the news: VandalvideoYou do realize that a lot, if not the vast majority, of mods will never see the light of day on the PS3 right? Mods have tons of custom resources that require extra power from the system, and with a comprehensive means to optimize mods for the PS3 then there will be terrible framerate and system resource issues involved, let alone the kinds of legal heat that could come from some mods.
well really i dont care if ps3 has mods or not im getting pc version. just letting people remember that epic said something about consoles having mods.
[QUOTE="Viviath"][QUOTE="cobrax25"][QUOTE="Perception1"]Well, PS3 will be getting the best UT3 mods. It's a start.cobrax25
no it wont...at best it will be getting maps...full conversion mods are something entirelly different, and have much higher requirements then the original game.....not to mention are multi-filled, and unlikely to work on a completly different archetechture.
first of all the topic said "mods" not "full conversion mods" second of all, although your supposition is sound, you have no way of knowing if thats true. Maybe a few TC mods will hit the PS3. Only time will tell. So please dont spout your opinions as fact.
explain to me how you would do something like this on a PS3....
a Mod gives you directions on how to make it work...
open up the game files...find file "X", make a backup of this file, delete file "X" and put in file "Y" into the folder, rename the file so that the extension and everything else is supported....
you simply cant do that on a console...you dont have the ability to open game files, for one....
well heres where epic confirmed it,was after e3 2007 and i dont believe they have cancelled or said otherwise.
Another major boon for Sony: The confirmation that the PS3 version of UT3 will be able to run user-created content, including maps, custom game modes, and mods. This marks the first time that a seemingly PC level of diverse, user-generated game additions will be available on a home console. Epic Games vice president Mark Rein commented on the news:
"The game takes full advantage of the power of the PlayStation 3 system, and Unreal Tournament 3 will, for the first time, allow users to create robust user-created content, known as 'mods,' on the PC version and play them on the PlayStation 3 system. We're extremely excited about this, and we feel this will bring a level of creativity, innovation, and replayability not previously seen on home consoles."
[QUOTE="dcm06"]so are you saying the developer that stated that is wrong? . With that said, the console similarities end when it comes to textures, lighting and resolutions, because those three areas make the PlayStation 3 version definitely excel over the Xbox 360 SKU.
thats nothing much but they still said it. but the developer shouldnt have stated that cause both versions are probably going to look similar.
thinicer
The developer never stated that. The writer was voicing his own personal opinion on how the different versions will look and probably did so based on all thehyped power andgraphics potential of the PS3 that Sony is responsible for.Either that, or he misheard or misremembered whatever Infinity Ward said to him. IWnever, ever told the writer to say that, and I know this for a fact. I have a very close friend who works for Infinity Ward and was heavily involved with the production of the game, and he has confirmed that the PS3 version will not be the superior one. According to his own words, he said the Xbox 360 version will have slightly better textures and won't see as many frame rate dips as the PS3 version. But overall, they will both look very similar visually and no matter what Sony fans should be very pleased with the version they get because it's the best multi-plat title to date.
But the PS3 version is not going to be better. Sorry.
sorry re-read the blog thing yeah see where the writer stated that sorry.
The PS3 version is not going to look better than the Xbox 360 version. This author is wrong.thinicer
so are you saying the developer that stated that is wrong? . With that said, the console similarities end when it comes to textures, lighting and resolutions, because those three areas make the PlayStation 3 version definitely excel over the Xbox 360 SKU.
thats nothing much but they still said it. but the developer shouldnt have stated that cause both versions are probably going to look similar.
no game can really kill another game might make it less popular but not kill it. no matter what side your on you cant deny that killzone 2 graphics are awesome. but how awesome hows the framerate hows the story the battles no one really knows until the game comes out.
hope no one hypes this as a halo killer
To help understand the numbers, graphs, charts, and whatnot in the report, we're going to use the abstract summary at the beginning of the report to show how the PS3 is proving its muscle through facts, not fanboyism. They summed the report up with this: "The SPEs use the Cell/B.E. DMA list capability to gather irregular fine-grained fragments of texture data generated by the GPU. They return resultant shadow textures the same way. The
shading computation ran at up to 85 Hz at HDTV 720p resolution on 5 SPEs and generated 30.72 gigaops of
performance. This is comparable to the performance of the algorithm running on a state of the art high end GPU. These results indicate that the Cell/B.E. can effectively enhance the throughput of a GPU in this hybrid system by alleviating the pixel shading bottleneck."
It seems there is a reason behind devs choosing to stick with the 720p resolution if that's the case. You can download the report and check it out for yourself here if you'd like and draw your own conclusion, but we think this tells us the PS3 made the right decision in creating a hybrid solution with the Cell and GPU. Leave us your take!
This may sound ludicrous but GPUs (Graphical Processors Units) already deliver similar or even higher sustained performance in many non-graphical applications [GPU10] . The technology in the Cell is similar to that in GPUs so such high performance is certainly well within the realm of possibilities. The big difference is though that Cell is a lot more general purpose so can be usable for a wider variety of tasks.
The Cell architecture can go further though, there's no reason why your system can't distribute software Cells over a network or even all over the world. The Cell is designed to fit into everything from (eventually) PDAs up to servers so you can make an ad-hoc Cell computer out of completely different systems.
What if we told you that Sony combined the CPU and GPU performance numbers to come up with the 51-billion number while Microsoft only reported its CPU performance number? The Xbox 360 actually has 33.6-billion-dot-product-operations per second if you also include GPU performance.
We're not saying to ignore specifications altogether--most of them are relevant in some way or another. And we're going to talk about the specifications that really jumped out at us at first glance. Let's start with the processor. Sony has announced that the PlayStation 3 will have a 3.2GHz Cell processor that consists of a PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units. The PS3 spec-sheet says that there's an eighth SPE reserved for redundancy--whatever that means. The Xbox 360, in comparison, has a multicore PowerPC processor that has three dual-threaded cores that can handle six total threads at a time. You might be able to call the Cell's SPEs overgrown math units, but we think Sony's Cell processor wins from a brute power perspective.
The PlayStation 3 has a pretty strong Nvidia graphics processor, but you can see how Sony may be afraid of the specification sheet comparison by the pipeline number conveniently omitted from the PS3 graphics specifications. We're guessing that the RSX graphics processors has a traditional, non-unified shader engine, so it likely has a smaller total "pipeline" number than the ATI chip. Even if the RSX's normal pipelines are more powerful than the Xbox 360's pipes, Sony doesn't want to risk printing a lower "pipeline" number since people won't understand that it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
So how many traditional pipelines does the RSX have? Sony has revealed that the RSX GPU has a 550MHz core clock and has over 300 million transistors. Sony has also stated that the chip is more powerful than two GeForce 6800 Ultra cards put together. Your first guess might be that Nvidia simply doubled the pipeline number on the 6800 Ultra to make the RSX, but you also have to remember that the Ultra only clocked in at 400MHz. If the "double" performance measurement is based on fill-rate performance rather than hardware, the clock speed increase up to 550MHz is clear sign that the hardware improvement isn't from a pure doubling of pipelines. We're guessing that the actual pipeline count is going to be at 24, which is about right for 300 million transistors and, at 550MHz, has just a slightly larger fill-rate than two GeForce 6800 Ultras clocked at 400MHz. Since the GeForce Ultra had 6 vertex pipelines, the RSX likely has 6 more vertex pipes in addition to the 24 pixel pipelines.
Memory and Media
From a memory standpoint, both systems are roughly equal with about 512MB of memory dedicated to system and graphics. The Xbox 360 has Unified Memory Architecture that lets the CPU and GPU share the system's 512MB of memory. The PlayStation 3 on the other had has 256MB of XDR memory and 256MB of GDDR3 memory dedicated to graphics. We still have to take a closer look at the memory bandwidth differences, but game developers will be happy with the graphics bandwidth and memory space available for both systems.
The PlayStation 3 comes with an array of data storage and transfer features. Whereas the PlayStation 2 only supported a memory card and the optional hard drive attachment (for a brief time), the PlayStation 3 supports numerous forms of portable media. The PlayStation 3 has 6 USB 2.0 ports, a memory stick slot, an SD slot, and, in stark contrast to many of Sony's other consumer electronics products, the system actually supports compact flash. Sony even saved a space for a removable 2.5" hard drive.
The Xbox 360, in comparison, doesn't have as much in the way of media support. It has two memory card slots and a handful of USB ports that are rumored to accommodate a host of devices like the iPod, USB memory sticks, and even Sony's own PSP. However, the real power of the 360 is in its networking ability. We can't forget that Bill Gates's new system can also reach across the network to access media from local, Windows-based PCs.
Sony and Xbox took different strategies when it came to decide on an optical drives. Sony decided to use the PS3 to further its own Blu-ray format, which allows for discs that can hold about 54GB each. The Xbox 360 will support dual layer DVDs, which can hold about 9GB worth of data. Both consoles will support older media formats such as CD-ROMs, conventional DVDs, and user-created DVDs. You'll impress a lot of ladies with the Blu-ray line, but the Xbox 360's normal DVD should serve you just fine in the near future.
360 xenos
On a purely hardware level, ATI's Xbox 360 GPU (codenamed Xenos) is quite interesting. The part itself is made up of two physically distinct silicon ICs. One IC is the GPU itself, which houses all the shader hardware and most of the processing power. The second IC (which ATI refers to as the "daughter die") is a 10MB block of embedded DRAM (eDRAM) combined with the hardware necessary for z and stencil operations, color and alpha processing, and anti aliasing. This daughter die is connected to the GPU proper via a 32GB/sec interconnect. Data sent over this bus will be compressed, so usable bandwidth will be higher than 32GB/sec. In side the daughter die, between the processing hardware and the eDRAM itself, bandwidth is 256GB/sec.
At this point in time, much of the bandwidth generated by graphics hardware is required to handle color and z data moving to the framebuffer. ATI hopes to eliminate this as a bottleneck by moving this processing and the back framebuffer off the main memory bus. The bus to main memory is 512MB of 128-bit 700MHz GDDR3 (which results in just over 22GB/sec of bandwidth). This is less bandwidth than current desktop graphics cards have available, but by offloading work and bandwidth for color and z to the daughter die, ATI saves themselves a good deal of bandwidth. The 22GB/sec is left for textures and the rest of the system (the Xbox implements a single pool of unified memory).
The GPU essentially acts as the Northbridge for the system, and sits in the middle of everything. From the graphics hardware, there is 10.8GB/sec of bandwidth up and down to the CPU itself. The rest of the system is hooked in with 500MB/sec of bandwidth up and down. The high bandwidth to the CPU is quite useful as the GPU is able to directly read from the L2 cache. In the console world, the CPU and GPU are quite tightly linked and the Xbox 360 stands to continue that tradition.
Weighing in at 332M transistors, the Xbox 360 GPU is quite a powerful part, but its architecture differs from that of current desktop graphics hardware. For years, vertex and pixel shader hardware have been implemented separately, but ATI has sought to combine their functionality in a unified shader architecture.
conclusion the ps3,360 are both very powerful machines graphics dont matter the developers is what really matters when it comes to these awesome systems.
Log in to comment