The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

nuskins wrote:The PS3 is crap, unless you bought it for the Blu ray drive. Their "live" system is downright horrible and slower than my 1993 56K dial up. The controllers on the PS3 suck compared to the 360 too. My friend bought a PS3 and doesn't touch it unless its for Blue Ray, still games 99% of the time on the 360.

Live is great, and I don't mind paying for it either but Sony's service is not dial up slow... C'mon now, give credit where it's due. Plus the Home service is pretty slick, and is currently in Beta.

nuskins wrote:At least MS is standing behind the problem and giving everyone a 3 year warranty although that is no excuse for such poor manufacturing.

Yeah, some 2+ years after they knew they were dropping like flies.

nuskins wrote:The fact is not only is EA not developing for Sony, 95% of other game studios aren't either! So if you have a PS3, you will get ported games primarily. Unless you are a GTA fan, and if that is the case I am glad your on a PS3 for the future.

Hyperbole FTW. Dude, I hope you don't really believe that. 95% It's apparent that your a MS but lets sit the kool down.

Cappster wrote:Am I the only PC Gamer on these boards?

Too rich for my blood. I'd rather have a close platform instead of worrying about my $600 video card not being able to run a game 3 weeks after I buy it.

Cappster wrote: I have been contemplating buying either a 360 or PS3 but I have not for a few reasons. Like what is stated in other posts, Microsoft has manufacturing issues and PS3 is just overhyped to this point.

Supposedly MS will have the problems under their finger soon. THey've already added a 2nd heat sink to current models.

Cappster wrote: I want something with substance and I do not see it from Sony or Microsoft.

Sony has seemed to get their act together after E3. I can post some stuff if you're interested.

Both PS3 and 360 have some good titles and exclusives coming up. Ill have a PS3 within a few months. As you;ve said, nothing has come out to make you "need" a PS3. But that'll change come this holiday season. They have some heavy hitters coming.

For Cappster, here's some stuff to show you for the PS3 that has me excited to get one.

Note. EVERYTHING I'M SHOWING YOU IS CONFIRMED REAL TIME.

GT5




Metal Gear Solid



KillZone2



This shot compares the CG to the real-time footage. GUerilla came very close to matching the target footage released in [img]2005''http://generationdreamteam.free.fr/afrika/killzone2/KillZone2compa.jpghttp://generationdreamteam.free.fr/a ... 2compa.jpg[/img]

Ratchet and Clank




Heavenly Sword




Don't let anyone steer you wrong. There's great stuff coming out for both systems. I'd check out Bioshock for the 360 also. The stuff I posted is the stuff on Sonys end that basically mopped the floor with everything else. Except for Crysis but thats only for PC, you lucky dawg. lol

Thanks for the pix. I can tell you are passionate about gaming.

I do have a soft spot in my heart for gran turismo and GTA. Those games look very nice I have to say. If I had to choose right now between getting an xbox 360 or PS3, I would have to go with PS3 because of the fact that it comes with blu-ray and cost less than a 360 deluxe + HD dvd drive. One thing that has to be factored in is the price of a 1080p television to get those stunning visuals. One way or another, a person has to pay to play.

I guess one reason that I game mostly on PC's is because of the upgrade capacity. Take for instance that once I pay for the initial build (I do it myself and safe a lot of money), I can upgrade parts over the course over a few years if I choose my parts wisely at initial build. One technology that helps the most, as far as graphics, is SLI and/or crossfire. You can buy an 8800gts 320mb graphics card for under $300 and then 6-12 months later buy the same card for about half price and still pawn any game out there. The problem with PC gaming lies in the fact that games like GTA don't come out until later on for PC and its probably some ported piece of crap. The games made specifically for the PC look the best and have the right feel for the platform.

In this day and age of gaming, it is pretty much pick your poison. All platforms have pros and cons. You just have to choose which ones you can and cannot live with.

BTW, if I want to play Crysis, I have to update to a dx10 card and vista aka MEII. That is why I am eyeballing a return to console gaming.

Cappster wrote:Thanks for the pix. I can tell you are passionate about gaming.

I honestly don't play that much anymore... Im passionate about the technology behind the scenes. I mostly just play multiplayer games cus it's fun playing with other people.

Cappster wrote:I would have to go with PS3 because of the fact that it comes with blu-ray and cost less than a 360 deluxe + HD dvd drive.

Plus since Blu-ray appears to be the current leader, you don't have to worry about your collection being worthless over time.

Cappster wrote:In this day and age of gaming, it is pretty much pick your poison. All platforms have pros and cons. You just have to choose which ones you can and cannot live with.

I avoid PC gaming because of the cost and it's an open platform. 4 years from now I know ANY game I buy for my 360, wII or Ps3 will run on my system flawlessly. You don't get that security with PC games. And like you stated, almost all games are cross platform and usually come out on the consoles 1st anyway. Currently the developer for Crysis said that it will run on 360 or PS3 after (of course) heavy optimization. And it will ONLY come out on one of those systems... We shall see. My bet is that it'll come out on PS3.

BTW, if I want to play Crysis, I have to update to a dx10 card and vista aka MEII. That is why I am eyeballing a return to console gaming.[/quote]

IMO Buy a 360......

I don't know why CLL said its $400 for a 360 + $200 for the HD. The $400 system comes with the HD. Its the $299 core system that don't come with the HD. And as far as the $100 wireless goes. Why buy it unless you can't run a cord to it. Wireless is 54mbs but the wired eithernet connection is 100mbs. I stick to the wired connection anyway.

You want to talk graphis, I believe they can make a game with comparable graphics on the 360. PS3 was just purposely making the graphics for these upcomming games better than the 360 for competition. The 360 can = that when they choose to.

Lets compare. Both systems have a 3.2 ghz CPU. The PS3 has a better video card which is why everyone says its better. However, being a PC gamer you should understand this . The PS3 has 256MB on the video card and 256MB system ram. Thats 512 total. The 360 has only 10MB video but 512 MB system. Thats 522 total. Like a PC, the 360 will use the 512 system ram once the 10MB is used. Making the two very close. That does not work the other way around, meaning when the PS3 doesn’t have enough system ram (256MB) it can't borrow the video ram to push harder.

As you can tell I love my 360. As CLL noted the only advantage I see in a PS3 is the blue ray. But come on. They have already made an external HDDVD. If it comes to it and the 360 needs it, you know MS will make an external one.

Buy a 360, unless there is a game coming out for the PS3 that you just have to have. I do play mostly for the multiplayer games and thats why I like the 360 mostly.(And you can't play Halo on PS3). Because of the xbox live, you cant beat that.

BnGhog wrote:IMO Buy a 360......

I don't know why CLL said its $400 for a 360 + $200 for the HD. The $400 system comes with the HD. Its the $299 core system that don't come with the HD. And as far as the $100 wireless goes. Why buy it unless you can't run a cord to it. Wireless is 54mbs but the wired eithernet connection is 100mbs. I stick to the wired connection anyway.

I guess if you would have read our convo you would have noticed that we were taking about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. HD-DVD costs an additional $200... Unlike Sony, MS games can't take advantage of the storage increase available from nextgen formats and thats why GTA4 is an issue for the 360.

BnGhog wrote:You want to talk graphis, I believe they can make a game with comparable graphics on the 360. PS3 was just purposely making the graphics for these upcomming games better than the 360 for competition. The 360 can = that when they choose to.

But they have yet to. It is clear that the PS3 is slightly more powerful than the 360.

BnGhog wrote:Lets compare. Both systems have a 3.2 ghz CPU. The PS3 has a better video card which is why everyone says its better. However, being a PC gamer you should understand this . The PS3 has 256MB on the video card and 256MB system ram. Thats 512 total. The 360 has only 10MB video but 512 MB system. Thats 522 total. Like a PC, the 360 will use the 512 system ram once the 10MB is used. Making the two very close. That does not work the other way around, meaning when the PS3 doesn’t have enough system ram (256MB) it can't borrow the video ram to push harder.

Actually buddy, you have it backwards.

The PS3 has a more advanced CPU while the 360 has a slightly better GPU. Sony intended to have 2 cell processors in the PS3, one being the CPU and the other being a GPU. Through R&D they discovered that the CELL at that time wasn't suited for being a GPU, so they had to find a quick solution. They basically got an off the shelf GPU from NVIDIA (like the original xbox), and thats why it's not all the powerful. On the other hand, MS has a custom built ATI GPU built around the CPU from inception.

Your issue is that you're thinking of these consoles as PC's and they aren't, they're coded for differently. I'm sorry but you're incorrect. I'll post links later.

The Cell processor has 8 mini processors that run individually and can be divvied up to take on individual tasks such as AI, physics and the such. It can also aid the GPU which is a plus.

Both systems are quite capable. THe 360 is easier to develop for, and it shows in the great games that are out for it. The PS3 is a bit more complicated as was the PS2 but it's proven to be a deep system.

Think about it like this...developers are having a hard time coding for the PS3 and the games are comparable...imagine what will happen when they finally get the CELL under their belts. The games i showed you earlier are from teams that have begun to master the CELL.

I welcome any one to post comparable games from the 360...

BnGhog wrote:As you can tell I love my 360. As CLL noted the only advantage I see in a PS3 is the blue ray. But come on. They have already made an external HDDVD. If it comes to it and the 360 needs it, you know MS will make an external one.

And ADD-ON cannot be used for games. Thats why Sony has the upper hand in this dept. It also explains why Grand Turismo just crushed (as usual) the competition.

BnGhog wrote:Buy a 360, unless there is a game coming out for the PS3 that you just have to have. I do play mostly for the multiplayer games and thats why I like the 360 mostly.(And you can't play Halo on PS3). Because of the xbox live, you cant beat that.

I agree, Live is great and thats the main reason I own a 360. But take a lot at Sony's "Home" and honestly tell me that as a gamer it isn't cool looking.

See, the reason the games for the 360 looked better is easy.
1. It came out 1st and developers had more time with it.
2. The console is easier/simpler to develop for.
3. THe architecture has PC roots.
4. The GPU is great.

As predicted from many developers is that Sony's console wouldn't look too great coming out the gate and it hasn't. But they said once people got the CELL under their thumbs that the games would start to showcase the power. The games I posted showcase their dominace over comparable games on the 360.

The issue with the PS3 is/was this. SOnys developers tools aren't the best. The GPU in the PS3 isn't great due to it being off the shelf and not really designed for the PS3. What developers have had to do is use the CELL to work with the GPU. So in a way, logically the PS3 has at times 2 GPUs.

Pretty simple. I hope this has educated some of our posters. =)

BnGhog wrote:The PS3 has 256MB on the video card and 256MB system ram. Thats 512 total. The 360 has only 10MB video but 512 MB system. Thats 522 total. Like a PC, the 360 will use the 512 system ram once the 10MB is used. Making the two very close. That does not work the other way around, meaning when the PS3 doesn’t have enough system ram (256MB) it can't borrow the video ram to push harder.

Because in the beginning it was thought to be used 256 Mb of RAM. Rambus memory was signed many years before finishing the PS3 desing, when the A plan was to use two cells and no PC style GPU. After that in the last moments it was decided to use RSX and add more memory ( only because of Microsoft decission in increasing mem ? ). XDR is very expensive, so adding other 256 mb of this kind of memory was prohibitive, as well as RSX being better suited to conventional PC-GPU memory types ( the bridge between RSX and XDR was one of the last things to be designed in PS3 ).



The bottleneck simply isn't there as some believe it to be, and if it were, it would be a big issue, which thus far, many PS3 games have shown us that it clearly is not.

However, it is also in my understanding that the CPU cannot read well, at all, from the PS3's GPU memory (GDDR3) and that it's transfer rate is something like 5 megabytes a second? It's pretty slow, at least. But then again, I can't remember the last time I'd seen the CPU want to *read* the GPU's memory, when the GPU can simply write the information the CPU needs, and then the CPU can simply fetch it there.




I love technology, I could talk about this all day.



Cliff Notes: PS3 > 360 but not by as much as you may think. PS3 needs custom designed CPU coded for specifically to truly achieve potential. Console specs CANNOT be used in the same manner as the PC specs for yur emachine.

If you go back to sony's E3 press conference, Jen Huang made a point of stressing that all the memory could be utilized by the RSX. One of their slides states explicitly that the ps3 has 512mb of graphics render memory. According to Jen.

Cappster, like I said, the tech excites and drives me. I posted some quotes from developers mentioning and elaborating on the points I made.

Ok one more tidbit and I'm done. Here's a developer commenting on the power of the SPE's in Sony's CELL.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/07/05/inside-the-developers-studio-dylan-jobe/

"4. What did you do on this game that you couldn’t do on another platform?
It’s hard to answer this and not sound like a gratuitous SONY sales pitch

Although I would say it’s the sum-total of all of our natural phenomenon in the game. Our clouds, procedural water, atmospheric scattering, terrain, etc. All of this stuff runs in parallel on all 7 SPUs simultaneously every frame – I’m still not sure if the game community is giving enough credit to just how fast the SPUs really are."

Of course the number 7 is a little puzzling.

MotorStorm only uses between 15 and 20 percent of available SPU resource, so we’re aiming to achieve a 5 fold increase in SPU performance, which should allow us to do some awesome stuff!

Our SPU exploiting systems consist of:

i) Havok physics.
ii) Determination of object visibility.
iii) Concatenation of hierarchies.
iv) Billboard object culling and vertex buffer creation.
v) Updating of particles and vertex buffer creation.
vi) Updating of vehicle dynamics.
vii) Updating of vehicle suspension constraints.
viii) Audio (MultiStream).
ix) Video decoding.

Please detail how F1 CE is using the Cell processor's components, the PPU and the seven SPUs. (Example from an actual launch title: PPU for game logic; SPU 1 and 2 for shader effects; SPU 3, 4, 5 for PhysX physics simulation; SPU 6 for particle effects; SPU 7 for audio. Also SPUs 1-5 used during loading to reduce load times.)

We don't really use the concept of reserving certain SPUs for specific tasks. Instead we employ the concept of prioritized job lists that are executed by the SPUs whenever one is available. We use the SPUs for the following jobs: audio effects, particle system, physics (landscape collision, narrow phase and collision resolution), rain effects (rain droplets and rain splashes) and various render side jobs. The game logic is driven largely by the PPU. We use the SPUs together to collaborate on working through each frame that's displayed by the game. The SPUs are extremely versatile so they can be used to accelerate any in-game system.

How is F1 CE using the RSX graphics processor? Do the Cell and RSX work together on any part of the graphics pipeline, and if so, which one?

The SPUs are heavily involved in the graphics pipeline and do an enormous amount of work to eliminate inefficiency before anything arrives at the PPU and RSX. For example, the SPUs are powerful enough to decompress and check every triangle [polygon] before passing it on to the RSX. Triangles that are facing away from the player, or that are not on the screen can be 'trimmed' away by the SPUs, which hugely reduces the amount of redundant work sent to the RSX. This in turn lets the RSX get on with what it does best--drawing stuff on screen.

The SPUs can also be used to augment the RSX vertex shaders, making far more vertex-heavy tasks possible which is very useful for character animation. Additionally, the SPUs can be used to implement behavior very similar to geometry shaders--F1 CE uses them in this way to render seamless interpolated levels of detail for some scene elements. So in answer to the question "Do the Cell and RSX work together?" the answer is a resounding "Yes," and I think this is one of the real strengths of Playstation 3 that we'll see increasingly exploited by development teams going forward.

I think these excerpts can give you a fuller understanding of the possibilites that the CELL can bring to gaming IF utilized. Sadly developing costs are going up and it's hard for developers to really do the things they want.

One way Sony is fixing this is buy having their own studios create good developing tools and then sharing them with the smaller developers.

Me? I like games and tech. I'll have both systems soon and I like what CELL brings to the table in the terms of physics and interactivity that dont appear to be possible on the 360. HATERS BE DARNED.

Yeah, I am thinking of it like a pc. I didn't know the PS3 had 8 mini processors. However, I still don't see how that helps all that much. I understand what you are saying they can divy them to differnt tasks. But it still totals 3.2ghz same as 360. 3.2 is 3.2 divvied or not. A single processor can multitask. And the total is still 3.2. The single 3.2 processor may not be as good at it, But I don't think it can really be that big of a difference when the total processing is the same. As we see in football, more complex doen't always equal better results.

Now lets not forget the 360 has been blowing away the competition. Untill now. Why should the designers spend hours and hours of more time to make it even better when they were already beating the competition. Now these PS3 games are looking better 360 will have to step it up. And I think they will. Just IMO. Before the XBOX game consoles were not designed simular to a pc. They were completely different, electronics built from scratch. Xbox brought that way of thinking in to the game console world, now the sky is the limit for both PS and MS.

BnGhog wrote:Yeah, I am thinking of it like a pc. I didn't know the PS3 had 8 mini processors. However, I still don't see how that helps all that much. I understand what you are saying they can divy them to differnt tasks. But it still totals 3.2ghz same as 360. 3.2 is 3.2 divvied or not. A single processor can multitask. And the total is still 3.2. The single 3.2 processor may not be as good at it, But I don't think it can really be that big of a difference when the total processing is the same.

How about you read up on it. I've shown your the developers quotes. They've answered some of the same stuff your asking. I just think you don't want to understand.

C'mon dude, study up on it. The 8 SPE's in the CELL are darn intuitive for a gaming console and gives it an upper hand on the 360. Get over it...

Later technology is almost always better because stuff gets cheaper and it was released later. Last gen the 360 had the upper hand graphically. This gen, MS wanted a larger userbase so they came out 1st.

So you think the cores are in their for good looks? Just cus its runs at 3.2GHZ means what? FYI, the 360 has 3 cores. As far as you're concerned we should still be using one core. Intel, AMD, and IBM must have it all wrong.

BnGhog wrote: As we see in football, more complex doen't always equal better results.

Time to break out the 486's!

BnGhog wrote:Now lets not forget the 360 has been blowing away the competition.

Wrong again, homey. The Wii is the front runner with the 360 2nd and the PS3 closing the game in 3rd place. Check out the NPD numbers.


No disrespect at all dude, but you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. You keep stating stuff as fact when it isn't. I own both, I don't have the allegicance that some of you seem to have. I'm just showing Cappster the other side of the fence.

I don't even own a PS3 yet, I just enjoying play devils advocate to piss people off.

Seriously though, read up on this stuff. More specifically read about parallel processing.


Got bored, here's some more info.

As Sony put it however, branching is absolutely terrible for ALL processors. In their experience, they said, it is less terrible for the SPUs however. In the upcoming game Heavenly Sword, they said that moving the branching AI off of the Power Processor Unit (PPU) increased the performance of that particular process. In other words, the same branching ran better on the SPUs.

Microsoft and Xbox fans have long claimed that the triple-core PPC setup which the 360 enjoys is far superior for AI, however it appears that Sony’s internal developers have had better success with the code on SPUs. Now that Sony is working with other developers to enable them to do the same methods of development, we can expect that developing and adapting current algorithms to the Cell will become much more manageable for many developers.


Sony said that much of their success with the Cell has come from the development of a tool they call the SPURS Kernel, a small program which sits on each SPU and enables it to better perform the tasks that programmers use it for. This SPURS Kernel was included in the EDGE suite of tools, and we can expect that many of the developers who have been complaining of harsh learning curves, long development cycles and poor performance will soon be breathing a collective sigh of relief.

By Jordan LeDoux

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1727

Below is a chart showing how the WII annihilated the 360 and how Sony got off to a slow start due to it's high price and late launch. More recent figures show the gap closing between the PS3 and 360. The 360 has been out for a long time and was the ONLY conolse out for a while.




So far this year, the PS3 has marginally outsold the 360.

*note, charts dont include europe. do they still exist?

Yes they outsold 360 because most eveyone already had one.

"you don't want to understand"

Exactly I have MS shades on. PS3 is the darkside.

360 is better. I still don't think that we have seen the best 360 game yet.

"Wrong again, homey. The Wii is the front runner with the 360 2nd and the PS3 closing the game in 3rd place. Check out the NPD numbers"

No, graphics wise the WII is not even close, Isnt that what we were debating? Not sales.

My only point was the PS3 wasn't that much better in graphics. Which didn't you say.

"PS3>360 but not by as much as you may think."

"C'mon dude, study up on it"

Agreed, I haven't spent hours reading up on it.

"but you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. You keep stating stuff as fact when it isn't"

I haven't studied it or anything. But stuff I stated as facts. Like the 3.2ghz and the ram and video ram. Are posted on just about any site. How is that wrong?? Even sony says its 3.2 with 256md. How is that wong?? Because I was thinking of it like a pc. I said I was, and I was wrong. Thats the only fact I have stated. The rest is IMO as I have wote in my Postes IMO.

Still, 360 rules. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Oh one more thing

"Time to break out the 486's"

Dude some of the classic games were the best, and some more fun to play than some recent. My point, yes, like the WII out selling the comp. It doen't have to be the best(graphics wise) to be fun...

BnGhog wrote:I haven't studied it or anything. But stuff I stated as facts. Like the 3.2ghz and the ram and video ram. Are posted on just about any site. How is that wrong?? Even sony says its 3.2 with 256md. How is that wong?? Because I was thinking of it like a pc. I said I was, and I was wrong. Thats the only fact I have stated. The rest is IMO as I have wote in my Postes IMO.

The fact that you fail to [url]comprehend[/url]how it works pretty much says that you're wrong.

Your argument is basically this... I have a 350z and you have a Camry... Their both V6's so your Camry is just as fast as my 350z. Sorry dude it doesn't work that way.

BnGhog wrote:Lets compare. Both systems have a 3.2 ghz CPU. The PS3 has a better video card which is why everyone says its better. However, being a PC gamer you should understand this . The PS3 has 256MB on the video card and 256MB system ram. Thats 512 total. The 360 has only 10MB video but 512 MB system. Thats 522 total. Like a PC, the 360 will use the 512 system ram once the 10MB is used. Making the two very close. That does not work the other way around, meaning when the PS3 doesn’t have enough system ram (256MB) it can't borrow the video ram to push harder.

And that post right there where you have everything backwards proves that you don't understand the basics of each consoles strength and weaknesses.

BnGhog wrote:Still, 360 rules. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Nobody said it doesn't. I OWN a 360. It was all you 360 fans that got in an uproar. Don't get mad at me because unlike last gen the 360 isn't the strongest console.

I don't even know why I tried to post educational stuff cus it's apparent you're not going to read it. I only got into this because I was explaining stuff to capster and you came in spouting off with your incorrect statements.

BnGhog wrote:My only point was the PS3 wasn't that much better in graphics. Which didn't you say.

"PS3>360 but not by as much as you may think."

Bet yet you fail to understand how the CELL helps the PS3 excel in physics, AI and geometry over top of the 360.

This isn't even fair, lets put the specs aside. Let's just use our eyes. PS3 > 360. And this is 360's best racer.

Forza 2 on 360.



Gran Turismo 5 on PS3.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

BnGhog wrote:I haven't studied it or anything. But stuff I stated as facts. Like the 3.2ghz and the ram and video ram. Are posted on just about any site. How is that wrong?? Even sony says its 3.2 with 256md. How is that wong?? Because I was thinking of it like a pc. I said I was, and I was wrong. Thats the only fact I have stated. The rest is IMO as I have wote in my Postes IMO.

The fact that you fail to [url]comprehend[/url]how it works pretty much says that you're wrong.

Uhh... hummmm.......

? for u their..... Didn't I say just above that, that I was wrong. What I need to say it ten more times.

I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong. I was wrong.

There Is that better?

Your argument is basically this... I have a 350z and you have a Camry... Their both V6's so your Camry is just as fast as my 350z. Sorry dude it doesn't work that way.


Awwww, come one dude. No no no. Like a 35z vs a V6 Altima. They have the same engine, but differnt intakes and transmission and gear ratios, and some other stuff.

BnGhog wrote:Lets compare. Both systems have a 3.2 ghz CPU. The PS3 has a better video card which is why everyone says its better. However, being a PC gamer you should understand this . The PS3 has 256MB on the video card and 256MB system ram. Thats 512 total. The 360 has only 10MB video but 512 MB system. Thats 522 total. Like a PC, the 360 will use the 512 system ram once the 10MB is used. Making the two very close. That does not work the other way around, meaning when the PS3 doesn’t have enough system ram (256MB) it can't borrow the video ram to push harder.

And that post right there where you have everything backwards proves that you don't understand the basics of each consoles strength and weaknesses.

I said I didn't study it.....If you don't know much and do a basic search to find the stats.... thats what you come up with...... Unless you take it to the next step to find out exactly what the cells do....Which I said I didnt do that.....wait a minute.....didn't I already say I was wrong.....I cant remember.

BnGhog wrote:Still, 360 rules. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Nobody said it doesn't. I OWN a 360. It was all you 360 fans that got in an uproar. Don't get mad at me because unlike last gen the 360 isn't the strongest console.

I never do get mad.....

I don't even know why I tried to post educational stuff cus it's apparent you're not going to read it. I only got into this because I was explaining stuff to capster and you came in spouting off with your incorrect statements.

Ummm yeah. Thats right. I the 350z is faster because of gear ratios and other stuff.

Really though, Dont get me wrong, I do find that info interesting and Im glad you posted. And I didn't mean to come off shounding like I really arguing or mad or anything. Just I like the 360 better. I did state what I found in a basic search, as we all know now, that wasn't exactly the big picture.

BnGhog wrote:My only point was the PS3 wasn't that much better in graphics. Which didn't you say.

"PS3>360 but not by as much as you may think."

Bet yet you fail to understand how the CELL helps the PS3 excel in physics, AI and geometry over top of the 360.

That doesnt mean that Im a progammer and was suppose to know before you said something. Again I havnt sat down and studied it.



I don't care anyway, 3.2 is 3.2. Ha I said it again. JK

He should still buy a 360. Unless you just have the cash.
If capster is going to spend that $300 on a new video card why not just spend $399 on a 360 and join the xbox live party.

My turn

First, I want to comment on processors and clock speed. With both the 360 and the PS3 being clocked at 3.2, while it seems like they are equals, doesn't necessarily mean that it's so. Take for example, if you have a 3.2ghz pentium 4 processor and you benchmark it against a quad core core2 clocked at 3.2, the pentium will be CRUSHED. Why you ask? efficiency. We all love clock speed but a more efficient processor will take more advantage of the clock speed than a non-efficient one. Heck, take a 2.4ghz quad core2 and match it against a 4ghz pentium and the core2 will still pawn the pentium (I used computer processors because that is what I know).

My second point of emphasis brings me to the video card. I would take more VRAM for graphic power over system/DDR RAM for graphic power. Why you ask? It's pretty simple. With VRAM being embedded on the video card, it is much more efficient to send and retrieve instructions. This especially true for higher resolution games. If I am running a computer game at 1080p (1920x1200), I would take an 8800gtx 768mb and 1 gig of DDR2 over an 8800gts 320mb and 2gig of DDR2 RAM. Don't get me wrong, system RAM is important for graphics but that is not where most of the raw computing power comes from.

I do not know much about how the cell processor operates but if it performs gflops on each core like a regular gpu (when I say regular, I mean high end) video card can, than you have a lot of horsepower. GPU's can do many more processes per clock than a CPU can do per clock.

Like CLL was saying, programmers have yet to take advantage of the extra processing power because they have to code it a certain way to optimize the way that the PS3 is configured. It reminds me of the situation in the PC world where a lot of programs cannot take advantage of the total processing power of say a quad core processor. They have to code for the instructions to be able to execute in a certain way to make it faster.

I think the main factor that will limit the 360 is the fact it doesn't have native HD-DVD support. Without higher capacity discs, there is only so much information that will fit onto a single dvd. Blu-ray can fit something like 50GB compared to a possible 8.4 on a dvd. That is a big disparity.

We will see within about 6 months time (hopefully) if the true power of the PS3 will shine or if it is just a bunch of technical hooplah that looks good on paper.

Grand Theft Auto IV gets shot back to 2008 PDF Print E-mail
Games and Entertainment
By Mark Raby
Friday, August 03, 2007 10:21

New York (NY) - Take Two's anticipated Grand Theft Auto IV will miss the pivotal holiday timeline for 2007, adding several months to the wait time for fans of the series.

The newest addition in the open-ended street life game series, which was originally given a release date of October 18, has been pushed back to spring 2008.

Grand Theft Auto IV will be the first GTA title for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, and as such will be the first entry to support high definition video output.

GTA IV was expected to be part of a colossal melee for this holiday season, with powerhouses like Halo 3, Lair, and Rock Band all converging in the final months of the year.

Rockstar said it needed to push back the release date because of increased development time required to fit everything into the game.

"Every aspect of the game and its design has been completely transformed. The game is huge and is pushing the hardware platforms to their absolute limits. The top engineers from Sony and Microsoft are working closely with the team in Edinburgh right now, helping us to fully leverage the power of both platforms," said Rockstar Games founder Sam House in a statement.

Sounds like it will be cool. The GTA world has always been so large, I don't think they could ever enhance the graphics because of the size. (im just guessing) That has always been one of my issues with it, is that it was too cartoonish...IMO Sounds like this one will look better and they are putting more time into it.

BnGhog wrote:Sounds like it will be cool. The GTA world has always been so large, I don't think they could ever enhance the graphics because of the size.

The size definitely hampers how far they can push the graphics. But you also have to take the size of the sandbox as part of the graphics IMO. They've definitely been improved though.

BnGhog wrote:That has always been one of my issues with it, is that it was too cartoonish...IMO

I think you answered your own question almost. I read an interview with the developer where it was stated that the lack of power of the previous gen of consoles forced the cartoony look. There simply wasn't enough HP to do the realistic stuff, in a realistic way. LOL

But with the next gen of consoles, they can get more realistic like you like.

Nice.

Id sure like to know how you quoted like that.

BnGhog wrote:Nice.

Id sure like to know how you quoted like that.

DUde, I'm sorry. I forgot about your PM. Here we go...

Above my name there is a button that says "quote". Click that button to quote my entire post. This is what it'll look like.

*Note that I included a * symbol in the quote tag so that you can see how it looks. The yellow text is where you would begin to type. You want to type your reply to my quote/post after the [/quote] tag.

[*quote="CLL"]360 rawks!![/quote] Chris I agree with you, I'm glad you don't like the PS3 anymore.

Well.....Ok....Thanks

I know the quote button is there. How do you split up quotes, I mean you did that in two parts up there.

I have been doing a copy and paste kind of thing. After I hit the quote. I can just keep copying and pasteing.

Like say you wanted to type a comment between "Nice" and "Id sure like to know how you quoted like that." In my post. I tried to just do quote, then typed in between, but what I type there is the same color as the quote. The only way Ive been able to do it is, hit the quote, delete the part of the quote Im not taking about. Typed what I want there. Then copied it. Then go back, Quote it again, Paste in what I did the first time. then delete again what I want to delete. Im not making any sense here am I.

Anyone who likes GTA and owns a 360 should check out Saints Row. Its a fun GTA clone that improves on the mechanincs of GTA...I am actually hoping GTA copies some of the mechanics...or even improves upon them.

BTW last thougts on 360 and PS3 war...buy both.

trey53 wrote:Anyone who likes GTA and owns a 360 should check out Saints Row. Its a fun GTA clone that improves on the mechanincs of GTA...I am actually hoping GTA copies some of the mechanics...or even improves upon them.

BTW last thougts on 360 and PS3 war...buy both.

I agree on both accounts. Saints row rawks!

I accually agree on the 360 PS3 war, Im just hating because I can't buy both.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Hyperbole FTW. Dude, I hope you don't really believe that. 95% It's apparent that your a MS but lets sit the kool down.

I have bantered about this on AVS over a year ago. Most if not all multiplatform games are first developed for the 360, then ported to the PS3. No Kool aid here bro, just going on what I have researched over the years. If you have hours to kill and this stuff interests you here are a couple of threads with more info than most will ever need. The first thread is the most important to all here who want a processor analysis. The second is more slanted towards game development.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=758390

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=826784


Enjoy.