- Status
nebun
Distinguished
- Oct 20, 2008
- 1,160
- 0
- 19,240
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]the browser sucksmultiplayer should always be free unless mm, you shouldnt be praised for doing something right thats been done right for 30+ years what does hdmi 1.4 mean to average people? CPU with nearly 3 times the bandwidth, but the gpu is held back, so in reality the ps3 is more powerful cpu the 360 more powerful gpu, so they tend to balance.
clock per clock, the cell is way behind on what a average new cpu does. but when the software is specialised for the cell, it can barely par of current intel quad core with ht, and not the high end ones either.[/citation]
that's why we have CUDA, my friend...try it...you will love it
clock per clock, the cell is way behind on what a average new cpu does. but when the software is specialised for the cell, it can barely par of current intel quad core with ht, and not the high end ones either.[/citation]
that's why we have CUDA, my friend...try it...you will love it
I've said it before and I'll say it again the the Console makers need to do is create one main box each one Playstation, one Xbox, and one Nintendo these Boxes should have at their release the best CPU's at least 4 GB of Memory if not more a user upgradeable hard drive and some sort of optical for now i would say BR. Now there we have a basis of a good to moderate computer.
Each console maker comes out with 3 user replaceable GPU's Good, Better, Best if you want to make things easier on consumers bundle your console with the Good GPU and it's a complete Console. Users who then decide that they want better Graphics in their games can choose to get the Better or Best GPU's then you have each Game manufacturer rate their games with Good Better Best (we don't want to confuse people now) and if a game requites Better or Best GPU that means the person with only the Good GPU shouldnet buy that game with out upgrading their console.
Now some might say this puts console games makers in an awkward position for having to code for multiple GPU's but are we really talking about that much more work when most of them are making the game for the computer already and have to optimize the game to work with my computer with an ATI 5770 and John's down the street with 3X Geforce 580's I really don't think we would be asking much more from the Devs
Now you have a market with consoles that can take advantage of the Higher end GPU market spec with all the Fancy DX 11 stuff out here and then you stop people yelling about a console port of Crysis 2 and having to wait for a patch for DX 11 and then every few years you do a refresh on the GPU's CPU's are not getting faster they stay around 2.4-3.4 GHZ with conventional air cooling whats really cranking up is the Cores they are getting onto a single CPU so every 4-5 years come out with a new box and then you have the GPU's separate i think it could work but i don't really thing it will happen it's to smart fort hem to do it
Each console maker comes out with 3 user replaceable GPU's Good, Better, Best if you want to make things easier on consumers bundle your console with the Good GPU and it's a complete Console. Users who then decide that they want better Graphics in their games can choose to get the Better or Best GPU's then you have each Game manufacturer rate their games with Good Better Best (we don't want to confuse people now) and if a game requites Better or Best GPU that means the person with only the Good GPU shouldnet buy that game with out upgrading their console.
Now some might say this puts console games makers in an awkward position for having to code for multiple GPU's but are we really talking about that much more work when most of them are making the game for the computer already and have to optimize the game to work with my computer with an ATI 5770 and John's down the street with 3X Geforce 580's I really don't think we would be asking much more from the Devs
Now you have a market with consoles that can take advantage of the Higher end GPU market spec with all the Fancy DX 11 stuff out here and then you stop people yelling about a console port of Crysis 2 and having to wait for a patch for DX 11 and then every few years you do a refresh on the GPU's CPU's are not getting faster they stay around 2.4-3.4 GHZ with conventional air cooling whats really cranking up is the Cores they are getting onto a single CPU so every 4-5 years come out with a new box and then you have the GPU's separate i think it could work but i don't really thing it will happen it's to smart fort hem to do it
sdeleon515
Distinguished
- Jul 12, 2010
- 14
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]the browser sucksmultiplayer should always be free unless mm, you shouldnt be praised for doing something right thats been done right for 30+ years what does hdmi 1.4 mean to average people? CPU with nearly 3 times the bandwidth, but the gpu is held back, so in reality the ps3 is more powerful cpu the 360 more powerful gpu, so they tend to balance. clock per clock, the cell is way behind on what a average new cpu does. but when the software is specialised for the cell, it can barely par of current intel quad core with ht, and not the high end ones either.[/citation]
Funny...I was always somehow making similar claims about how Intel was all about the CPU and AMD about the GPU. Funny how nick~picky ppl can be. To the point, there are reasons why the Xbox can't handle games like Uncharted and why cross~platform titles look better on the Xbox. Given how popular consoles are (and that is as cheap alternatives to gaming/enthusiast PC's), no one is going to ditch the console market on the developer end.
Funny...I was always somehow making similar claims about how Intel was all about the CPU and AMD about the GPU. Funny how nick~picky ppl can be. To the point, there are reasons why the Xbox can't handle games like Uncharted and why cross~platform titles look better on the Xbox. Given how popular consoles are (and that is as cheap alternatives to gaming/enthusiast PC's), no one is going to ditch the console market on the developer end.
[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]I think a refresh is needed. There are games which you can clearly see need a little -alterations- to play in 4 person multiplayer, and there are games like L. A. Noire which lag at times, as well as Armored Core 4 up close to smoke effects. I don't see why people are complaining AT ALL that there are better gaming consoles being developed. You don't want better-looking games with better AI, Physics, bigger worlds? Pshh.. Then go back to PS1 and play FFVII some more.[/citation]
what you say has some merit, but it also costs more to develop those bigger better games, and companies are willing to take less risk doing so. so what we end up getting is a watered down fps 3ps rpg action game hybrid, and the only real difference is story.
i honestly prefer lesser graphics, running off an uber system. you can get rid of jaggies because they are played at higher resolutions.
physics in most games are only superficial and hold no real value, in fact, something like volumetric smoke, while it looks good when you are looking for it, is just a rendering bottle neck because that crap takes such a large amount of processor to render... its almost not worth it, you need to have smart physics implementations, and the only ones i see now are just an add it to everything model, which is nice, but not needed at all.
ai, yea... the cell can push better ai than the 360, but you know what they use those cores for? you got it, better graphics. you know what they will do in a more powerfull system? right, still use it to push better graphics, not better ai.
and bigger worlds... cant be done. look at gta, oblivion, fallout 3 and nv
everything there was paced there by a programmer. with arena and daggerfall they had a random map generater, so it made a entire country sized map, but thats not realistic in current gen any more if you want the games of some amount of quality.
[citation][nom]neblix[/nom]I dunno guys, I'm rooting for new consoles with better hardware.It's better for PC Gamers who don't want console ports of Crysis 2 with outdated or non-revolutionary graphics.[/citation]
i would also like games built for the pc, but i also don't like having to upgrade my system 3 times a year to play games at maxed settings, or running dual gpus. before the current gen consoles, developers threw more hardware at crappy engines instead of optomiseing them to get more out of the hardware.
[citation][nom]derwin75[/nom]I would never ever waste my money on any console machines because their technologies are always behind it times when compare to high-end PC. PC always win in every ways. Companies make console version for profits and that's it. Xbox 360's hardware is unreliable and PS3's software and network suck!!! Sony and Microsoft don't care about that, they only want money!![/citation]
consoles generally come out, and kick the pc's a$$ for a year before the pc over takes it, unless you get a retardedly expensive setup.
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Both the ps3 and xbox 360 are very out of date the video cards inside them have been off the market for years, the new gpu's are so much more powerful and support dx11 consoles do not even support dx10.The cpu's are also out of date there is a 100 core cpu that sony could use which would be overkill there are 8 and 10 core cpu's out there which would blow away what is used now.Funny thing is i would rather play a game on my pc because i buy and new pc every year and buy that fastest that is out there i find nothing beat the graphics my pc can put out that is why my ps3 is collecting dust.[/citation]
dx10 had nothing that couldnt be faked in dx9, only rendered a bit better. dx11 was the only real upgrade, and even now, graphics cards cant fully support dx11 features without begin to bogged down on a single card.
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]"In fact, the current console isn't even middle-aged, with a life expectancy of around ten years"You have got to be god damn well kidding me. With its 512mb ram it was outdated the day it was released.[/citation]
for gaming purposes, there is really no reason to have over 2gb or ram right now. look at the requirements for most games. the only reason they break 1gb of ram is because we also have other programs running in the background.
and its video ram is low because they were never able to really do 1080p, though next round they will.
[citation][nom]cylent[/nom]Seeing that the Cell processor was designed to be scalable, it would be wise to use 2 of the "upgraded" (single memory space) Cell processors in parallel. 16 SPUs (handling 2 threads each) and a modern graphics processor would easily do the trick. This would also help the issue of backwards compatibility with PS3 games.[/citation]
however they still want to sell old systems too. you know why the ps2 was taken out, and the emulation was stopped? they want to sell ps2s still.
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]Would be nice to have unified game disks that would work on XOBX, PC and PS3/4. Just put different executables..[/citation]
that would be nice, now tag another 14$ onto the game minimum, because sony gets 14$ and microsoft get 14$ for every game sold. also add another 6-12$ for publishers who figure people who buy that would have bought the game 2 times minimum. you are looking at a about 20-30$ extra per game for that kind of setup.
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]these new consoles need to have the ability to upgrade the GPU if the customer wants to do so....just like the top end laptops[/citation]
i get called retarded every time i mention this, and various solutions. such as have 2-3 hdmi cables connect the external gpu to the internal components, you would lose less than 10% the max the card can put out, but you would gain the ability to upgrade.
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]that's why we have CUDA, my friend...try it...you will love it[/citation]
i hate it. cuda is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. trying to tie it to a single gpu line was the flaw in it, because when half the people cant use it, why bother. how many games came out with major cuda use? not many because no one want to limit the game in such a way.
[citation][nom]secolliyn[/nom]I've said it before and I'll say it again the the Console makers need to do is create one main box each one Playstation, one Xbox, and one Nintendo these Boxes should have at their release the best CPU's at least 4 GB of Memory if not more a user upgradeable hard drive and some sort of optical for now i would say BR. Now there we have a basis of a good to moderate computer. Each console maker comes out with 3 user replaceable GPU's Good, Better, Best if you want to make things easier on consumers bundle your console with the Good GPU and it's a complete Console. Users who then decide that they want better Graphics in their games can choose to get the Better or Best GPU's then you have each Game manufacturer rate their games with Good Better Best (we don't want to confuse people now) and if a game requites Better or Best GPU that means the person with only the Good GPU shouldnet buy that game with out upgrading their console. Now some might say this puts console games makers in an awkward position for having to code for multiple GPU's but are we really talking about that much more work when most of them are making the game for the computer already and have to optimize the game to work with my computer with an ATI 5770 and John's down the street with 3X Geforce 580's I really don't think we would be asking much more from the Devs Now you have a market with consoles that can take advantage of the Higher end GPU market spec with all the Fancy DX 11 stuff out here and then you stop people yelling about a console port of Crysis 2 and having to wait for a patch for DX 11 and then every few years you do a refresh on the GPU's CPU's are not getting faster they stay around 2.4-3.4 GHZ with conventional air cooling whats really cranking up is the Cores they are getting onto a single CPU so every 4-5 years come out with a new box and then you have the GPU's separate i think it could work but i don't really thing it will happen it's to smart fort hem to do it[/citation]
cant do it that way, 1gpu at a time, an upgrade available every 2 years, and games stay runable on the newest 3 gens. if you dont want to upgrade your gen 1 gpu when gen 4 comes around, well to bad for you, toy already had 6 years of console life no need to hold everyone back because you wont upgrade.
you have to force compatibility, but it would be like running crysis 1 at different teir graphics settings, not 2 where you see no difference.
also ram in a console would only need 1gb, maybe 2 at most, because you aren't running an os, unless you want 4gb so 1gb can be for in game, and 3gb can be a ram drive to make loading even faster.
what you say has some merit, but it also costs more to develop those bigger better games, and companies are willing to take less risk doing so. so what we end up getting is a watered down fps 3ps rpg action game hybrid, and the only real difference is story.
i honestly prefer lesser graphics, running off an uber system. you can get rid of jaggies because they are played at higher resolutions.
physics in most games are only superficial and hold no real value, in fact, something like volumetric smoke, while it looks good when you are looking for it, is just a rendering bottle neck because that crap takes such a large amount of processor to render... its almost not worth it, you need to have smart physics implementations, and the only ones i see now are just an add it to everything model, which is nice, but not needed at all.
ai, yea... the cell can push better ai than the 360, but you know what they use those cores for? you got it, better graphics. you know what they will do in a more powerfull system? right, still use it to push better graphics, not better ai.
and bigger worlds... cant be done. look at gta, oblivion, fallout 3 and nv
everything there was paced there by a programmer. with arena and daggerfall they had a random map generater, so it made a entire country sized map, but thats not realistic in current gen any more if you want the games of some amount of quality.
[citation][nom]neblix[/nom]I dunno guys, I'm rooting for new consoles with better hardware.It's better for PC Gamers who don't want console ports of Crysis 2 with outdated or non-revolutionary graphics.[/citation]
i would also like games built for the pc, but i also don't like having to upgrade my system 3 times a year to play games at maxed settings, or running dual gpus. before the current gen consoles, developers threw more hardware at crappy engines instead of optomiseing them to get more out of the hardware.
[citation][nom]derwin75[/nom]I would never ever waste my money on any console machines because their technologies are always behind it times when compare to high-end PC. PC always win in every ways. Companies make console version for profits and that's it. Xbox 360's hardware is unreliable and PS3's software and network suck!!! Sony and Microsoft don't care about that, they only want money!![/citation]
consoles generally come out, and kick the pc's a$$ for a year before the pc over takes it, unless you get a retardedly expensive setup.
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Both the ps3 and xbox 360 are very out of date the video cards inside them have been off the market for years, the new gpu's are so much more powerful and support dx11 consoles do not even support dx10.The cpu's are also out of date there is a 100 core cpu that sony could use which would be overkill there are 8 and 10 core cpu's out there which would blow away what is used now.Funny thing is i would rather play a game on my pc because i buy and new pc every year and buy that fastest that is out there i find nothing beat the graphics my pc can put out that is why my ps3 is collecting dust.[/citation]
dx10 had nothing that couldnt be faked in dx9, only rendered a bit better. dx11 was the only real upgrade, and even now, graphics cards cant fully support dx11 features without begin to bogged down on a single card.
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]"In fact, the current console isn't even middle-aged, with a life expectancy of around ten years"You have got to be god damn well kidding me. With its 512mb ram it was outdated the day it was released.[/citation]
for gaming purposes, there is really no reason to have over 2gb or ram right now. look at the requirements for most games. the only reason they break 1gb of ram is because we also have other programs running in the background.
and its video ram is low because they were never able to really do 1080p, though next round they will.
[citation][nom]cylent[/nom]Seeing that the Cell processor was designed to be scalable, it would be wise to use 2 of the "upgraded" (single memory space) Cell processors in parallel. 16 SPUs (handling 2 threads each) and a modern graphics processor would easily do the trick. This would also help the issue of backwards compatibility with PS3 games.[/citation]
however they still want to sell old systems too. you know why the ps2 was taken out, and the emulation was stopped? they want to sell ps2s still.
[citation][nom]dimar[/nom]Would be nice to have unified game disks that would work on XOBX, PC and PS3/4. Just put different executables..[/citation]
that would be nice, now tag another 14$ onto the game minimum, because sony gets 14$ and microsoft get 14$ for every game sold. also add another 6-12$ for publishers who figure people who buy that would have bought the game 2 times minimum. you are looking at a about 20-30$ extra per game for that kind of setup.
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]these new consoles need to have the ability to upgrade the GPU if the customer wants to do so....just like the top end laptops[/citation]
i get called retarded every time i mention this, and various solutions. such as have 2-3 hdmi cables connect the external gpu to the internal components, you would lose less than 10% the max the card can put out, but you would gain the ability to upgrade.
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]that's why we have CUDA, my friend...try it...you will love it[/citation]
i hate it. cuda is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. trying to tie it to a single gpu line was the flaw in it, because when half the people cant use it, why bother. how many games came out with major cuda use? not many because no one want to limit the game in such a way.
[citation][nom]secolliyn[/nom]I've said it before and I'll say it again the the Console makers need to do is create one main box each one Playstation, one Xbox, and one Nintendo these Boxes should have at their release the best CPU's at least 4 GB of Memory if not more a user upgradeable hard drive and some sort of optical for now i would say BR. Now there we have a basis of a good to moderate computer. Each console maker comes out with 3 user replaceable GPU's Good, Better, Best if you want to make things easier on consumers bundle your console with the Good GPU and it's a complete Console. Users who then decide that they want better Graphics in their games can choose to get the Better or Best GPU's then you have each Game manufacturer rate their games with Good Better Best (we don't want to confuse people now) and if a game requites Better or Best GPU that means the person with only the Good GPU shouldnet buy that game with out upgrading their console. Now some might say this puts console games makers in an awkward position for having to code for multiple GPU's but are we really talking about that much more work when most of them are making the game for the computer already and have to optimize the game to work with my computer with an ATI 5770 and John's down the street with 3X Geforce 580's I really don't think we would be asking much more from the Devs Now you have a market with consoles that can take advantage of the Higher end GPU market spec with all the Fancy DX 11 stuff out here and then you stop people yelling about a console port of Crysis 2 and having to wait for a patch for DX 11 and then every few years you do a refresh on the GPU's CPU's are not getting faster they stay around 2.4-3.4 GHZ with conventional air cooling whats really cranking up is the Cores they are getting onto a single CPU so every 4-5 years come out with a new box and then you have the GPU's separate i think it could work but i don't really thing it will happen it's to smart fort hem to do it[/citation]
cant do it that way, 1gpu at a time, an upgrade available every 2 years, and games stay runable on the newest 3 gens. if you dont want to upgrade your gen 1 gpu when gen 4 comes around, well to bad for you, toy already had 6 years of console life no need to hold everyone back because you wont upgrade.
you have to force compatibility, but it would be like running crysis 1 at different teir graphics settings, not 2 where you see no difference.
also ram in a console would only need 1gb, maybe 2 at most, because you aren't running an os, unless you want 4gb so 1gb can be for in game, and 3gb can be a ram drive to make loading even faster.
SO many playstation fanboys. I love how he said Playstation has better lifespan than xbox. HAHAHA thats funny. I will never go back to PS3, the new Xbox was like the shining light. PS3 is trash. And that's not just user preference.. thats receiving two bad refurbished ps3's, after the first 2 died on me.
masterofevil22
Distinguished
- May 13, 2010
- 22
- 0
- 18,560
PS3 sucks balls and most renders are done well below the resolution at which the Xbox 360 renders the same game. It's a blue ray player that happens to play games. The 360 is a game machine that also happens to play movies at 1080p.
Just look at the CPU's. The PS3 has basically got a DSP chip that excels at asynchronous data execution, a.k.a data in a stream i.e music, movies, etc. The 360 has a more traditionally CPU that excels in synchronous out of order execution calculations, a.k.a games; they have a lot of crap going on that doesn't come in a stream; physics, AI, animation, etc.
To boot the Xbox's GPU is far superior to the ps3's.
ps3's got 24 shaders total, 16 vertex, 8 pixel and they're stuck doing only that. Also, it's only got access to half the systems memory, 256mb.
360's got a 48 unified shader GPU with access to all 512mb of total memory AND 10mb of what is essentially GPU L1 cache that's got 10x the bandwidth of even the Rambus mem of the ps3, it's got an insane 256Gigabytes per second bandwidth!! That's enough memory to act as a very effective frame buffer helper and basically lets the 360 do AA for free, as well as a lot of other post process effects like motion blur.
Either way, both machines are old and I'd like a new console generation please, STAT. If nothing else it will give dev's an excuse to develop games that take advantage of the latest PC hardware that we've all spent soo much money on. Let's see it boys!! I'm ready for the NextGEN!!
Just look at the CPU's. The PS3 has basically got a DSP chip that excels at asynchronous data execution, a.k.a data in a stream i.e music, movies, etc. The 360 has a more traditionally CPU that excels in synchronous out of order execution calculations, a.k.a games; they have a lot of crap going on that doesn't come in a stream; physics, AI, animation, etc.
To boot the Xbox's GPU is far superior to the ps3's.
ps3's got 24 shaders total, 16 vertex, 8 pixel and they're stuck doing only that. Also, it's only got access to half the systems memory, 256mb.
360's got a 48 unified shader GPU with access to all 512mb of total memory AND 10mb of what is essentially GPU L1 cache that's got 10x the bandwidth of even the Rambus mem of the ps3, it's got an insane 256Gigabytes per second bandwidth!! That's enough memory to act as a very effective frame buffer helper and basically lets the 360 do AA for free, as well as a lot of other post process effects like motion blur.
Either way, both machines are old and I'd like a new console generation please, STAT. If nothing else it will give dev's an excuse to develop games that take advantage of the latest PC hardware that we've all spent soo much money on. Let's see it boys!! I'm ready for the NextGEN!!
[citation]however they still want to sell old systems too. you know why the ps2 was taken out, and the emulation was stopped? they want to sell ps2s still.[/citation]
The Emotion Engine in the original 60GB was taken out to reduce the manufacturing costs of the PS3 as well as for heat management issues. The early 80GB had limited PS2 emulation as the majority of the Emotion Engine was removed leaving only the two vector processors and for a time Sony tried to fix the issues that plagued the emulator. Ultimately, Sony couldn't fix the issues with PS2 compatibility in its emulator and thus abandoned it. This is why the PS2 still sells.
By building a PS4 around the Cell architecture again it reduces the research and development costs for the new system. If they were to produce a PS4 that was capable of full backwards compatibility to the PS3 (through similar though, expanded hardware) then they could shut down/re-task the PS3 production line entirely, thus reducing manufacturing costs. All that's left is shopping for a graphics processor that would need to be backwards compatible with the RSX, if they go to nVidia again this should not be an issue. I suspect that in this scenario software developers would benefit from not having to go through the trial and error associated with a new SDK. If Sony can pull the above off, they'll still have only 2 systems on the market. This time one of them will carry a 4 instead of a 3.
The Emotion Engine in the original 60GB was taken out to reduce the manufacturing costs of the PS3 as well as for heat management issues. The early 80GB had limited PS2 emulation as the majority of the Emotion Engine was removed leaving only the two vector processors and for a time Sony tried to fix the issues that plagued the emulator. Ultimately, Sony couldn't fix the issues with PS2 compatibility in its emulator and thus abandoned it. This is why the PS2 still sells.
By building a PS4 around the Cell architecture again it reduces the research and development costs for the new system. If they were to produce a PS4 that was capable of full backwards compatibility to the PS3 (through similar though, expanded hardware) then they could shut down/re-task the PS3 production line entirely, thus reducing manufacturing costs. All that's left is shopping for a graphics processor that would need to be backwards compatible with the RSX, if they go to nVidia again this should not be an issue. I suspect that in this scenario software developers would benefit from not having to go through the trial and error associated with a new SDK. If Sony can pull the above off, they'll still have only 2 systems on the market. This time one of them will carry a 4 instead of a 3.
[citation][nom]sdeleon515[/nom]Funny...I was always somehow making similar claims about how Intel was all about the CPU and AMD about the GPU. Funny how nick~picky ppl can be. To the point, there are reasons why the Xbox can't handle games like Uncharted and why cross~platform titles look better on the Xbox. Given how popular consoles are (and that is as cheap alternatives to gaming/enthusiast PC's), no one is going to ditch the console market on the developer end.[/citation]
the xbox gpu has more bandwidth, the ps3s cell gets used to make graphics better more often than not. the strengths of these two consoles never really get used.
multiplatform games look better on xbox because they develop on there, port to ps3. uncharted can go on the 360, its just a matter makeing it right. same for any good looking 360 game could go on ps3.
yea they are a good alternative, but you only need a 600$pc to game, and the gaming aspect is only about 100$ premium, unless you want to go into extreme overkill territory.
[citation][nom]masterofevil22[/nom]PS3 sucks balls and most renders are done well below the resolution at which the Xbox 360 renders the same game. It's a blue ray player that happens to play games. The 360 is a game machine that also happens to play movies at 1080p. Just look at the CPU's. The PS3 has basically got a DSP chip that excels at asynchronous data execution, a.k.a data in a stream i.e music, movies, etc. The 360 has a more traditionally CPU that excels in synchronous out of order execution calculations, a.k.a games; they have a lot of crap going on that doesn't come in a stream; physics, AI, animation, etc. To boot the Xbox's GPU is far superior to the ps3's.ps3's got 24 shaders total, 16 vertex, 8 pixel and they're stuck doing only that. Also, it's only got access to half the systems memory, 256mb.360's got a 48 unified shader GPU with access to all 512mb of total memory AND 10mb of what is essentially GPU L1 cache that's got 10x the bandwidth of even the Rambus mem of the ps3, it's got an insane 256Gigabytes per second bandwidth!! That's enough memory to act as a very effective frame buffer helper and basically lets the 360 do AA for free, as well as a lot of other post process effects like motion blur.Either way, both machines are old and I'd like a new console generation please, STAT. If nothing else it will give dev's an excuse to develop games that take advantage of the latest PC hardware that we've all spent soo much money on. Let's see it boys!! I'm ready for the NextGEN!![/citation]
you REALLY don't get how the cell works do you? like you said its fairly powerful, but to make it do that kind of crap with games is fairly complicated. if they learned how to do it right though, the ps3 cpu could go 10 years without NEEDING a refresh, in this contest need = cant keep up at all.
the xbox gpu has more bandwidth, the ps3s cell gets used to make graphics better more often than not. the strengths of these two consoles never really get used.
multiplatform games look better on xbox because they develop on there, port to ps3. uncharted can go on the 360, its just a matter makeing it right. same for any good looking 360 game could go on ps3.
yea they are a good alternative, but you only need a 600$pc to game, and the gaming aspect is only about 100$ premium, unless you want to go into extreme overkill territory.
[citation][nom]masterofevil22[/nom]PS3 sucks balls and most renders are done well below the resolution at which the Xbox 360 renders the same game. It's a blue ray player that happens to play games. The 360 is a game machine that also happens to play movies at 1080p. Just look at the CPU's. The PS3 has basically got a DSP chip that excels at asynchronous data execution, a.k.a data in a stream i.e music, movies, etc. The 360 has a more traditionally CPU that excels in synchronous out of order execution calculations, a.k.a games; they have a lot of crap going on that doesn't come in a stream; physics, AI, animation, etc. To boot the Xbox's GPU is far superior to the ps3's.ps3's got 24 shaders total, 16 vertex, 8 pixel and they're stuck doing only that. Also, it's only got access to half the systems memory, 256mb.360's got a 48 unified shader GPU with access to all 512mb of total memory AND 10mb of what is essentially GPU L1 cache that's got 10x the bandwidth of even the Rambus mem of the ps3, it's got an insane 256Gigabytes per second bandwidth!! That's enough memory to act as a very effective frame buffer helper and basically lets the 360 do AA for free, as well as a lot of other post process effects like motion blur.Either way, both machines are old and I'd like a new console generation please, STAT. If nothing else it will give dev's an excuse to develop games that take advantage of the latest PC hardware that we've all spent soo much money on. Let's see it boys!! I'm ready for the NextGEN!![/citation]
you REALLY don't get how the cell works do you? like you said its fairly powerful, but to make it do that kind of crap with games is fairly complicated. if they learned how to do it right though, the ps3 cpu could go 10 years without NEEDING a refresh, in this contest need = cant keep up at all.
Griffolion
Distinguished
- May 28, 2009
- 263
- 0
- 18,930
:S Is this the same Sony that said a few months ago that there is no point even talking about the PS4 because they are still focusing very much on their PS3 strategy? Looks like they needed to out this to bring investor interest back after all the hacks.
I'd normally have a good moan about this based on product life cycles and whatnot, but I'm actually pleased to hear it - and I wish Microsoft would follow suit.
I develop for 360 and PS3 and can vouch first hand for the desire for more memory, above anything else. Having 512MB of memory is really, really holding games back (the PS3 more so, since that 512MB is segregated into separate graphics memory).
I develop for 360 and PS3 and can vouch first hand for the desire for more memory, above anything else. Having 512MB of memory is really, really holding games back (the PS3 more so, since that 512MB is segregated into separate graphics memory).
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 639
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]lol nice dig at america and 3rd world.that said, its harder to make the internet fast in bigger areas. are there any other countries that are as big as america, spread out as america, and have faster internet? im asking the question seriously because i dont know.most asian countries that boast faster internet are barely bigger than california, and have large pop densities in small areas, making it simple to upgrade infrastructure.[/citation]
According to the fcc report of the other day, scandinavian countries have lower population densities than most us states (not all), and if I'm not mistaken, we have faster connections as well.
I mean I live like 7km from the nearest town (population of less than 1000 people), and I've got a 50Mbit fiber (and the hardware has a gigabit transciever and ethernet port)
According to the fcc report of the other day, scandinavian countries have lower population densities than most us states (not all), and if I'm not mistaken, we have faster connections as well.
I mean I live like 7km from the nearest town (population of less than 1000 people), and I've got a 50Mbit fiber (and the hardware has a gigabit transciever and ethernet port)
feeddagoat
Distinguished
- Apr 11, 2010
- 149
- 0
- 18,630
there was no way ps3 was gonna last 10years. If it released when the 360 did then maybe. Sony needs to cover off anything MS and Nintendo do with their next gen. PS3 released too far after the 360 and struggled with the high price tag compared. I wonder how much the developers of Unreal put the cat among the pigeons with their higher system requirements.At least graphics and hopefully AI will improve even more.
I'm happy with this since PS3 has, love film, bbc iplayer and blue ray built into it I might pick up a one as a media center and a few games for on the side for next to nothing.
The other thing I find ironic is eyetoy came out at the end of PS2 life, Move came out practically at the end of PS3 life.
I'm happy with this since PS3 has, love film, bbc iplayer and blue ray built into it I might pick up a one as a media center and a few games for on the side for next to nothing.
The other thing I find ironic is eyetoy came out at the end of PS2 life, Move came out practically at the end of PS3 life.
kawininjazx
Distinguished
- May 22, 2008
- 292
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]Murissokah[/nom]"Already"? I'd be surprised if they hadn't. Last I checked PS3 graphics were based on a GeForce 7 series GPU. About time for an update.[/citation]
Just because it's a GeForce 7 GPU doesn't mean it runs like a PC GeForce 7 series. Look at the games, they look and run amazing at 1080p. The original XBOX is a Pentium III with a GeForce 4, that couldn't play anything on a PC like it can on the XBOX. There's a difference. The PS3 should be able to run for another 4 years no problem.
Just because it's a GeForce 7 GPU doesn't mean it runs like a PC GeForce 7 series. Look at the games, they look and run amazing at 1080p. The original XBOX is a Pentium III with a GeForce 4, that couldn't play anything on a PC like it can on the XBOX. There's a difference. The PS3 should be able to run for another 4 years no problem.
I don't even know where to start..
Consoles never look better then pc, they be on par (and that's debatable at best).
You don't have to upgrade your system 3 times a year to play on max settings (not only that you can keep it on med/high and still have better then consoles), but maybe you just got money to blow so you feel the urge to. I don't know but it makes me sick when people spout of that stupid crap. I'm still on xfired 4890, still running fine on high-ultra settings on most games, and how long have those been out again.. KK
You can't make an upgradeable console (well you could) it completely defeats the purpose. A console is easy to develop for because they don't have to take in a bunch of different specs. So at best you would only end up being able to upgrade what they want you to, upgrade with what they want you to upgrade with. And you can expect that would cost quite a lot.
PS3, XBOX, and PC all have their pros and cons, to say one is clearly better then the other just shows fanboism. When the bottom line comes down to what YOU like to do with what you use.
Consoles never look better then pc, they be on par (and that's debatable at best).
You don't have to upgrade your system 3 times a year to play on max settings (not only that you can keep it on med/high and still have better then consoles), but maybe you just got money to blow so you feel the urge to. I don't know but it makes me sick when people spout of that stupid crap. I'm still on xfired 4890, still running fine on high-ultra settings on most games, and how long have those been out again.. KK
You can't make an upgradeable console (well you could) it completely defeats the purpose. A console is easy to develop for because they don't have to take in a bunch of different specs. So at best you would only end up being able to upgrade what they want you to, upgrade with what they want you to upgrade with. And you can expect that would cost quite a lot.
PS3, XBOX, and PC all have their pros and cons, to say one is clearly better then the other just shows fanboism. When the bottom line comes down to what YOU like to do with what you use.
RADIO_ACTIVE
Distinguished
- Jan 17, 2008
- 275
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]Murissokah[/nom]"Already"? I'd be surprised if they hadn't. Last I checked PS3 graphics were based on a GeForce 7 series GPU. About time for an update.[/citation]
Yep they do hold us back don't they, I bet the next gen consoles only have 8/9 series GPUs in them lol
Yep they do hold us back don't they, I bet the next gen consoles only have 8/9 series GPUs in them lol
tdenton1138
Distinguished
- Nov 1, 2007
- 13
- 0
- 18,560
[citation][nom]derwin75[/nom]I would never ever waste my money on any console machines because their technologies are always behind it times when compare to high-end PC. PC always win in every ways. Companies make console version for profits and that's it. (emphasis added) Xbox 360's hardware is unreliable and PS3's software and network suck!!! Sony and Microsoft don't care about that, they only want money!![/citation]
Um... Companies make all versions for profits, otherwise they cease to be companies... sheesh.
Um... Companies make all versions for profits, otherwise they cease to be companies... sheesh.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion What new phone technology trends should we keep an eye on?- Started by Vandna Jadhav
- Replies: 2
-
Question What if the EU forced laptop makers to allow upgradeable ram and storage?
- Started by kionbo2
- Replies: 2
-
Question Best laptops for a student going to high school
- Started by joninte2
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question Why are windows laptop cameras so bad compared to other's?
- Started by bakriwa5
- Replies: 2
-
Question Which games are you playing right now please suggest me some- Started by happyclub
- Replies: 8
Facebook
Twitter