PS3 details

MrPinK

MobileInfantry wrote:

To all the fanboys who insisted that Killzone will in fact look identical to the video and will have the same level of detail :rolleyes:

While I also don't think that the footage shown truely represents the in-game look of Killzone 2, have you just quoted a guy who writes an Xbox column on the internet as proof of what the final version will be like? Or is this David Clayman connected with Guerilla Games?

LegacyUser

Yeah is that meant to be taken seriously? A guy from Xbox saying it is not real. DUH

Nietzschean

Altheus wrote:

I have no doubt the Cell processor is quite an excellent piece of kit, but just like the "Emotion Engine" and the "3D" Playstation before it, I dont think any of Sony/IBM/Toshiba's figures can be trusted.

Ummmm fair enough if you've trust issues with Sony, but what have IBM lied over?


And the ps3 isn't the cell processors first use, IBM don't get to lie over supercomputer proformance to the US govt. somehow i'd be think'n. Then there is the linpack test , its not exactly new and is what was used on the bluegene l cluster......

BloodBath

Jesus Altheus get a bloody clue will you. It's people like you that drive me mad.

What you seem to be saying is that it was a video, that is absolutely inconclusive about the real power of the chip, just like the games Sony is showing at E3, it's prerendered búllshít until proven otherwise.

As for the Xbox360 being 2.5/3 times as fast as a high end PC, I call bull****. It's not. It's proprietary, and software will run faster on it sure. It's basically an Apple XServe with an excellent GPU, so whether you believe that Apple's G5 tech is 2.5 times as fast as the new dual-core 64-bit PC processors is up to you.

Some of the clips were not pre-rendered. Do you think every single company that demoed impressive graphics was lying? Do you know anything about pc hardware or the hardware of the new consoles? Do you think I pulled the 2.5-3 times figure out of my arse? The graphics cards in both systems are "next" gen ati and nvidia cards. That alone make it twice as powerful as current gen pc cards. I know the next gen cards will be out in a couple of months which will even things up a bit but nothing newer will be out by the time the consoles are launched. As for the processors I was mainly referring to the cell being capable of a hell of a lot more in games than any currently available pc processor which pushed the figure up to 2.5-3 times more power.

These companies are talking about 1080i like it's going to revolutionise gaming, I've been running games at 1280x1024 with FSAA since the Radeon 9700 Pro, and beyond in certain circumstances.

It's not a pc it's a console so it is revolutionary.

The back catalogue is certainly an impressive weight to carry through to the next generation of consoles, but to be honest, I wouldnt be surprised if a PS2 emulator pops up on the Xbox360.

There is no ps2 emulator that's even close to being finished. You won't see a fully working one anytime soon.


Now pull your head out of your arse and stop talking crap please.

steviec

most of those movies look very achievable and some were probably rendered on the actual box but in non-real-time
....
Sony's cell demos were extremely cool and inspiring but are totally achievable, and over time even surpassable, by third developers

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615178p1.html

I'd be inclined to pay more heed to the vice president of the creators of the most technically advanced multi-platform game engine around than the editor of an X-Box website.

If you read the article you'll note that he also says the console is easy to program for and the main obstacle to there being real time gameplay was that developers have had so little time with the console. After all, the 360 is being released this year and needs games ready for release soon, the PS3 doesn't.

The X360 is very powerful too, they're both going to achieve a lot more than the PC can for at least a couple of years. The next gen PC GPUs will be able to compete with the consoles, and the PPUs might also, but few games are going to require a PPU at first and it will take some time for PCs to catch up. Even when they do, console games tend to have bigger budgets(with the odd exception) and because there's no worries of millions of different hardware/software setups and compatibility issues console games tend to squeeze more out of their systems than PCs do too. The PS2 is 6 years old, but would a game that looks like Gran Turismo 4 even run on a 5 year old PC that hasn't been upgraded? And the PS2 didn't have anything like the advantage over PCs when it was first released as the new consoles do today.

Nietzschean

Altheus wrote:

As for the Xbox360 being 2.5/3 times as fast as a high end PC, I call bull****. It's not. It's proprietary, and software will run faster on it sure. It's basically an Apple XServe with an excellent GPU, so whether you believe that Apple's G5 tech is 2.5 times as fast as the new dual-core 64-bit PC processors is up to you.

pro·pri·e·tar·y Audio pronunciation of "proprietary" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-pr-tr)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a group: had proprietary rights; behaved with a proprietary air in his friend's house.
2. Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital.
3. Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug.

So you wanna tell me which processors arn't proprietary then?

Firstly its not apple's tech, its IBM's. And secondly, you've given no benchmark so anything, this isn't about believe its about benchmarks, and ibm powerpc processors are used in its own high end servers aswell which have phenominal proformance. And comparing current power pc processors to amd opertrons and intel EMT64 , the power pc processor destroyed them both(the opertron destroying the xeon too) at floating point calcuations.

If you have some hard evidence of the PS3's speed, and I'm not talking about hypothetical articles, then maybe there's some argument to be made.

See previous post.

As yet the Cell processor sounds great. It's essentially a fancy multi-core with specialised subsets which is great, I cant wait for the x86 processors to follow suit... wait... arent they?

They arn't because intel doesn't have the tech for it, x86 is generally accepted to be a horrible architecture and is only surviving because of the sheer ammount of software for it.

BloodBath

Exactly stevie. You have to beat this info into people with a stick though. They would sooner beleive BS conspirecy theories posted up on some crap website. Educate yourself and form your own opinion.

MrPinK

Darth Bobo wrote:

They arn't because intel doesn't have the tech for it, x86 is generally accepted to be a horrible architecture and is only surviving because of the sheer ammount of software for it.

Off topic, but some of the cell processor fanboys are predicting that the cell may be the chip that manages to topple x86. They reckon that it could be able to gain such a performance gap over x86, that it would be able to emulate x86 with a negligible performance hit for software. If it can do that, then there's no good reason for anyone to stick with x86.

steviec

MrPinK wrote:

Off topic, but some of the cell processor fanboys are predicting that the cell may be the chip that manages to topple x86. They reckon that it could be able to gain such a performance gap over x86, that it would be able to emulate x86 with a negligible performance hit for software. If it can do that, then there's no good reason for anyone to stick with x86.

This article details that:

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html

It's an interesting theory, although I'm not sure. x86 processors have never really looked weaker than they do right now though. And the sort of mass-production needed for the PS3 (aswell as many many other projects both IBM and Sony have planned for the cell) should really bring the price down too.

Altheus

IBM PowerPC Benchmark inflation: http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

What processors arent proprietary? CISC processors with RISC elements.

An XBox is roughly a treble core Xserve at 3.2Ghz capable of up to a hypothetical 1TFlop, right?

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/26.3.shtml

There have not been any real-world benchmarks whatsoever from Sony. So there's only estimations to deal with.

As far as PS3 hardware... an extract from the interview of the developer of Killzone II (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/616/616591p1.html?fromint=1)

Have you found PS3 easy to work with?

Jan-Bart: Yes, we're really impressed with it. The Cell is amazingly powerful, and the graphics CPU [the RSX, co-developed with Nvidia] in there... it's actually hard to mimic it on our development PCs, we have to see it on the PS3 hardware itself. It's really nice to be working with such powerful hardware.

That would give me the impression that there is no actually PS3 hardware yet, just emulations and simulations through PCs. That would also mean that all of the 'in-game' footage would have been run on similiar 'virtual machines' rather than any silicon. Essentially everything is a simulation run to spec.

From the Unreal 2007 interview:

"Sweeney said, the development environment is made up of parts we're already intimately familiar with: OpenGL, NVIDIA graphics, Linux, and PowerPC"

"But most of those movies, which I probably watched three or four during rehearsals for the event, look very achievable and some were probably rendered on the actual box but in non-real-time."

Wait, my P4 can render amazing POV-ray scenes... but not in real time.

If memory serves me correctly, PCs have always been the place for true revolutions based on technology, hardware and software. From the Wolf3D, Civ, Monkey Island, 7th Guest, Doom, Quake, Half-Life, Rendition Verité, 3Dfx VooDoo, Glide, OpenGL.

As a gamer I want to see real footage, off live hardware, not stats and 'impressions', or 'renders'. I cannot take that seriously, and it's not just a distrust for Sony, it's a distaste for their smoke and mirrors tactics.

Altheus

steviec wrote:

This article details that:

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html

It's an interesting theory, although I'm not sure. x86 processors have never really looked weaker than they do right now though. And the sort of mass-production needed for the PS3 (aswell as many many other projects both IBM and Sony have planned for the cell) should really bring the price down too.

Extract:

Given that we don't have the chip yet to test and there is no hard data to look at, it is thus safe to assume any figure I give should be taken with a pinch of salt. I would have thought this would have been obvious to anyone reading it, evidently not.

steviec

Altheus wrote:

Extract:

Given that we don't have the chip yet to test and there is no hard data to look at, it is thus safe to assume any figure I give should be taken with a pinch of salt. I would have thought this would have been obvious to anyone reading it, evidently not.

Yes that was all written months and months ago, and based on detailed patent applications and piecing together what other info was available. I was just pointing it out as the source of the theories that cell could replace x86.

Altheus

I was just pointing the those claims were entirely fabricated by the author, and hold no water in reality.

Much more recent articles are suggesting the use of Cell processors as parts of the graphics card rather than a replacement of the CPU. Bear in mind it's a specialised for floating point operations and very much a media-centric environment, like a games console, rather than a home/office computer running an operating system.

Jimboo_Jones

Im getting a Ps3, you can go on and on about you teraflops and floating point thingys, but the PS3 demos have me in a sweat

I also give billy boy more than enough of my hard earned cash!

LegacyUser

yeah me too. I can never explain what it is but I just prefer the way things look on the playstaion 2 over the xbox. I really don't know what it is because I know the xbox has far better gfx than ps2 but still...

TerrorFirmer

cheesedude wrote:

yeah me too. I can never explain what it is but I just prefer the way things look on the playstaion 2 over the xbox. I really don't know what it is because I know the xbox has far better gfx than ps2 but still...

Now thats just either plain wierdness or die hard fanboyism.

You perfer the way things look on the ps2?

In other words poorer textures, ropier visuals and inferior view distance?

LegacyUser

Yes me the fanboy. Sold my ps2 after not having played it in two years. If anything I am more nintendo as I have owned more nintendo probucts in my life than playstation.

Yeah I prefer the way things look on ps2.

madrab

you dont have to be a ps2 fanboy to prefer the ps2, you could be a anti-ms fanboy (ohh oxy-moronic )

anyway back to your discussion

LegacyUser

nerd talk!

Altheus

cheesedude wrote:

yeah me too. I can never explain what it is but I just prefer the way things look on the playstaion 2 over the xbox. I really don't know what it is because I know the xbox has far better gfx than ps2 but still...

It's called fantastic marketing.

CyberGhost

for me it's easy Gran Turismo, Tekken = buying PS3

steviec

I hope they do more than that video showed with Gran Turismo. In an interview a few months ago Polyphony were saying a big thing with the next generation version of the game would be proper crash physics and damage, they finally have a system that does it justice. They really need that to stop the game going stale. I liked the 20 or so cars on track at once though, that's definitely a good thing, make things a lot more like real racing then. For me thats why I prefer the feel of the racing in Toca, it's wheel to wheel and they really capture the atmosphere of motorsport, even if the handling is crap. If GT can match it's handling and graphics to that sort of atmosphere it'll be fantastic.

Nietzschean

Altheus wrote:

Bear in mind it's a specialised for floating point operations and very much a media-centric environment, like a games console, rather than a home/office computer running an operating system.

WTF?! have a look on www.top500.org , do you really think bluegene l is just one big playstation 3 for doing raytracing in realtime?

astrofool

just for everyone to mull over, there was absolutely no real ps3 or xbox360 hardware doing anything at all at E3. All the gameplay clips were either cgi, or running on devboxes, which would have a helluvalot less power than either of the consoles (probably running debug versions as well). For instance, the xbox360 in game demo's were running on a dual core G5.

TerrorFirmer

you dont have to be a ps2 fanboy to prefer the ps2

No, but you most certainly have to to say "I perfer the visuals on my ps2"

Pretty much the same as saying that you prefer inferior graphics.

jesus_thats_gre

astrofool wrote:

just for everyone to mull over, there was absolutely no real ps3 or xbox360 hardware doing anything at all at E3. All the gameplay clips were either cgi, or running on devboxes, which would have a helluvalot less power than either of the consoles (probably running debug versions as well). For instance, the xbox360 in game demo's were running on a dual core G5.

You are wrong. ATI had a fully working Xbox 360 working at their stand along with the wireless controllers to boot.

Any Xbox 360 game running the the G5 units all had wired controllers.

Corben Dallas

"No, but you most certainly have to to say "I perfer the visuals on my ps2"

Pretty much the same as saying that you prefer inferior graphics."
Not so Mobile Inf, example.........

Have u seen GT4 running? the level of Gpx power, detail, reflections on display is better than any equivilent on Xbox and this from an 'inferior' system.
+ (ive not seen it meself) In hte Us on NTSC the have 1080i support in GT4 appartently its eye poping.

Ciaran500

vs.


Hmmmm

L5

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

You are wrong. ATI had a fully working Xbox 360 working at their stand along with the wireless controllers to boot.

Any Xbox 360 game running the the G5 units all had wired controllers.

working maybe, but the alpha development kits are only running at roughly 1/3 the power of the final version. MS is giving out the Beta kits next month.

Retr0gamer

Corben Dallas wrote:

"No, but you most certainly have to to say "I perfer the visuals on my ps2"

Pretty much the same as saying that you prefer inferior graphics."
Not so Mobile Inf, example.........

Have u seen GT4 running? the level of Gpx power, detail, reflections on display is better than any equivilent on Xbox and this from an 'inferior' system.
+ (ive not seen it meself) In hte Us on NTSC the have 1080i support in GT4 appartently its eye poping.

Play Forza Motorsport on the xbox. GT4 is terrible in every department compared to it.