nottheking
Distinguished
- Jan 5, 2006
- 311
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]Actually the PS3 does have games available at 1080i resolution. Once the video is deinterlaced by the TV's video processor it becomes 1080p video (assuming the TV's video processor does it right).[/citation]
True, it may technically no longer be "interlaced," but it won't increase the framerate any. And actually, the PS3 can outright output 1080p in some games... But that's beside the point. With as it stands, most top-shelf PS3 games are capped to 720p, just like how the 360 actually can't even reach THAT with its top-shelf games.
[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]The Cell processor more than makes up for any shortcomings the nVidia GPU might have.[/citation]
Er, no it doesn't. The Cell isn't specialized in regards of handling graphics code, and it actually doesn't have all that much more than the RSX has. furthermore, there's the distinct problem that making any use of it to boost the graphics, as I described in a previous wall-of-text comment, has the drawback that you very quickly run out of instructional power that the game's CORE needs, resulting in the entire game slowing down and becoming unplayable. While it's possible to get some use out of it, the fact remains that it's not meant as a crutch.
[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]99.9% of PC graphics cards with massive amounts of video memory are budget cards that use the large frame buffer as a marketing ploy.[/citation]
Er, not quite. High-end cards don't come with less than 512MB, and most typical *IS* 1GB. While there are some low-end cards that do use it to try to seem impressive, there most certainly *IS* use for more than 256MB, even at normal HD resolutions. As I understand, there are a few games, (most notably sports titles like Madden, as they're the ones that run 1080p natively) where the PS3 version actually runs a lower framerate than the 360 version, because it has to resort to spilling over from the VRAM into the main memory.
True, it may technically no longer be "interlaced," but it won't increase the framerate any. And actually, the PS3 can outright output 1080p in some games... But that's beside the point. With as it stands, most top-shelf PS3 games are capped to 720p, just like how the 360 actually can't even reach THAT with its top-shelf games.
[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]The Cell processor more than makes up for any shortcomings the nVidia GPU might have.[/citation]
Er, no it doesn't. The Cell isn't specialized in regards of handling graphics code, and it actually doesn't have all that much more than the RSX has. furthermore, there's the distinct problem that making any use of it to boost the graphics, as I described in a previous wall-of-text comment, has the drawback that you very quickly run out of instructional power that the game's CORE needs, resulting in the entire game slowing down and becoming unplayable. While it's possible to get some use out of it, the fact remains that it's not meant as a crutch.
[citation][nom]techguy378[/nom]99.9% of PC graphics cards with massive amounts of video memory are budget cards that use the large frame buffer as a marketing ploy.[/citation]
Er, not quite. High-end cards don't come with less than 512MB, and most typical *IS* 1GB. While there are some low-end cards that do use it to try to seem impressive, there most certainly *IS* use for more than 256MB, even at normal HD resolutions. As I understand, there are a few games, (most notably sports titles like Madden, as they're the ones that run 1080p natively) where the PS3 version actually runs a lower framerate than the 360 version, because it has to resort to spilling over from the VRAM into the main memory.
Facebook
Twitter