Of course, since Halo 3 has launched, and we know the resolution it runs at (1138x640), articles like these are awesome
They promise 1080p @ 60fps and deliver less than a third of the resolution @ like 30-40fps, hehe...![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
360,ps3= pc equivalent
- Thread starter Bman123
- Start date
Of course, since Halo 3 has launched, and we know the resolution it runs at (1138x640), articles like these are awesome
They promise 1080p @ 60fps and deliver less than a third of the resolution @ like 30-40fps, hehe...Of course, since Halo 3 has launched, and we know the resolution it runs at (1138x640), articles like these are awesome
My point exactly...
I don't see how you could use a 1 year old "demo" of a demo game as proof that GT 5 Prologue runs in 1280x1080.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Because nothing to the contrary has been provided? You have given us nothing to suggest that has changed.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Well, like I said- you could call 1280x1080 1080p if you really stretch its definition
Is it running upscaling to run 1080p?
Oh, you don't know...infact if it does it's not in Microsofts best interest to say so...they have gotten a lot fooled by their FLOPS numbers game...not a wise PR move to decalre that your console is "cheating"...due to inferioer hardware.
One could ask you the same question, and the answer would be the same. You don't know. Now I'm not saying it is or it isn't right now, what I am saying is "you dont know" isn't an argument in either parties favor beucase there is no solid evidence, much less proof to backup either claim. With that said...
http://www.psu.com/Gran-Turismo-5--Prologue-preview--a0002132-p0.php
I got this from a quote on another forum, but the guy didn't provide a link.
That is still a preview from December 10th, 2007. That really doesn't mean anything. Also, no one has provided any links where the developers say that it runs at 1920x1080. There have been links where that was promised, but that doesn't mean much.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Well, in the absence of proof, most 360 and PS3 games run at 720p or worse, so given that the last independently verified resolution we've heard GT5 running at is 1280x1080 already puts it above most games on those platforms.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Speaking of the next consoles, Sony seems to be indicating 2013 the earliest and Microsoft seems to be perfectly content to extend the overall lifetime of the 360 (despite that the lifetime of each, individual 360 is abysmal, xD). AMD is already talking about having 12-core processors launched by 2010 (and we know that Intel is working on launching an Octo-core ones later this year or early next, with a 16-core not too far behind)... and that's just on the processing side of things; graphically, we have the GTX 260 and GTX 280 launching in June supposedly and ATi will be launching its HD 485 and HD 4870's around the same time. What will the hardware disparity between high-end (or, just looking at how affordable the Q6600 has become as well as the 9600GT and HD 3850, even budget) PC's and consoles be like on the eve of the launch of the Xbox 720 (which I assume will launch first given the rhetoric coming from the two companies and b/c Sony likely needs to bring its PS3 division into the realm of profitability before it can support full r+d of the PS4)? Whatever you want to say about CELL's power, it won't be able to compete with Octo-cores or 12-cores or 16-cores and I'd wager that in real-world performance the better Intel quad cores atm can outperform it.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Certainly- that effect will really become very visible when/if 8800's become baseline PC gpu's at the 6800's are starting to be now- but MS and Sony both seem to be off in their own worlds when it comes to the effectiveness of the hardware in their consoles... but then again, we're sitting here, on the [H]Forums of all places, and actually having to prove the PC's graphical superiority... And I guess part of the problem there is that a PC game really isn't considered "maxed-out" until it's at 1920x1200 resolution and running at a very stable 30+ fps depending on the game, while most of the more taxing console games barely chug along at 30fps at 720p if they're lucky (1920x1200 already requires the gpu to render 2.5x as many pixels as 720p does and some console titles, like GTA IV PS3 and Halo 3, don't even manage to hit 720p) so you end-up comparing an apple to an orange while those with the apple don't spend enough time in front of an orange to realize the disparity between the two. Hoping that the GTX 280 and this next big wave of gpu's will finally "max out" Crysis and once that happens I think you may start to see developers and publishers pay a little more attention to making their games look a bit nicer on the PC.
What do ya mean "unless the wii really dominates"? The Wii already IS dominating
In the US the 360 has slightly more units sold, but as soon as you leave the US, the Wii owns with its 45% of the market ( http://vgchartz.com/ )TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
And even in the US, the only reason the 360 has more units sold is because of its 14 month head start. The Wii outsold the 360 by a ratio of nearly 7:1 in April in the US despite the release of GTA IV.
The Wii is also the first one to run out of steam. Keep that in mind. Unless This E3's or something amazing happens. Most of Nintendo's big franches have been spent, just like Xbox's Halo 3. The Wii should start declining after Wii fit. The Wii is ok, but I can't imagine seeing a Wii going strong in 2010, or etc. So it has a head start, but its far from dominating. I wouldn't be surprised if its the last this generation as well. Just look at its current memory problems already. And every single person that I know that bought a Wii, tell me, don't bother. Its not bad system, but personally I like my gamecube better.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
The Wii definitely eclipses the GC imo- MP3 is the best of the MP's, Mario Galaxy easily whips both Mario Sunshine and Luigi's Mansion (and, imo, dethrones Mario 64), Twilight Princess thwacks Wind Waker, and even just adding Wii controls to Resident Evil 4 produces the best version of that. Brawl is an iterative improvement on Melee that really has nothing to do with the Wii, but nevertheless after having played Brawl the thought of going back to Melee is one I cast aside quickly- there just isn't any reason. I can't say much about Mario Kart Wii because I haven't picked it up yet, though from what I've heard while it's not a match for Mario Kart 64 in its heyday, it is better than DoubleDash (atm, I'm too busy with TrackMania to bother with MarioKart Wii and I'm at this point more just waiting for it to hit the bargain bin).
Yes, Nintendo has exhausted its first wave of big, first party titles, but now is the chance for third party developers. WiiWare is interesting in that I'm hoping to see a lot of experimentation there (already Animales de la Meurte looks excellent and there are a lot of other WiiWare titles that could be excellent- and the key with WiiWare isn't even so much with WiiWare itself but with its ability to reveal the commercial validity of various game types on the Wii to publishers). The Conduit is another interesting upcoming Wii game (though I'm somewhat less interested after having gotten my Wiimote working with my PC extremely well) in terms of its showcase of what the Wii can do graphically when properly utilized and in terms of just the type of game it is which we really haven't seen much of on the Wii. Then there are titles like Bloom Blox which I really need to rent and try-out because I have heard only excellent things about that. Wii Fit looks meh, but Skate It Wii will be using the Balance Board as a skateboard so it will be interesting to see how that turns out. Basically, if third party support kicks-up (and it seems to be doing that, finally) the Wii can put-up more than a good fight- and it's definitely better than your GC (I originally got a Dreamcast the day it released so when that basically died-out in 2003 I picked-up a GameCube and that has been my primary console- besides my PC which really I used mostly for RTS games and Battlefield '42/Vietnam/2 until more recently- until I had the short stint with the 360 that ended in an explosion and then I picked-up a Wii, and the Wii really has, imo, exceeded my GC in every way possible).
For Nintendo though, I would really like to see them at this point separate their focus between casual and hardcore gamers, since that is my one huge complaint with the Wii is just that it gets a flood of crappy games despite a few gems- and even those gems could have been taken further if the Wii had better hardware to work with. But catering more to the hardcore would drive the price of the Wii up and increase its complexity (though, imo, it is, ironically, probably the most complex console of the market to operate though). Personally would prefer Nintendo to just not even try to continue supporting hardcore games on the Wii and to instead focus on integrating the Wiimote and Nunchuck and all such peripherals into PC development and maybe even go and make their own Nintendo PC or something along those lines (not that you couldn't use your own, just giving a prebuilt set-up option to those who don't want to deal with figuring-out what they need) and to just update the hardware config of that every year or something. It's a total pipedream of course, but yeah... from my experimentations w/the Wiimote and my PC so far, Wii + more power = wiin in the hardcore department. Meh, this of course is all just stemming from my utter annoyance w/the total lack fo AA on the Wii and insanely low resolution (sigh- even 10 feet away the aliasing just gets really bad at times, but giving credit where credit is due, the artistic design of some Wii games like Metroid Prime 3 and Super Mario Galaxy is so good that it largely negates the weakness of the hardware).
I wouldn't compare it to a Phenom at all, because a Phenom is a CISC based monolithic quad core with one of the cores disabled, while the Xbox 360's processor is a RISC based PowerPC CPU.
Basically, the RSX on the PS3 is a 7800. It's G70 based, much like the 7800GTX. It's pretty similar to the 7800GTX 512mb, only it has a cut down memory clock and only 256mb of video memory.
The Xbox 360's GPU is pretty comparable to a Radeon HD2xxx series GPU, and IIRC it was the very first GPU to have a unified shader architecture.
What do ya mean "unless the wii really dominates"? The Wii already IS dominating
And I'd also be willing to bet that if you could walk into a store and readily find a Wii to buy, that it would be ahead of the 360 easily. I highly doubt it's running out of steam since they're almost always sold out.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Yeah- it sold over 700k units in April, but it generally has only sold between 300k and 500k units purely because of supply constraints. As those continue to become less of a factor, the Wii will continue to post 7:1 sales ratios against the 360 (you must understand- my GRANDPARENTS have never taken an interest in any type of videogaming at all until the Wii- but a little bit of time with Wii Tennis and Wii Bowling at my house changed that; they were not able to find a Wii on the shelf until last month though, and even then it was the last one at 8:15am at Target on a Sunday- and Target opens at 8am).
While we're on the topic of the Wii, with the launch of WiiWare I finally used the $15 gift card to GameStop I got for my birthday to grab a Wii LAN Adapter. Those things cost $30 at GameStop... (online prices really weren't any better). You know what the thing does? It just takes a LAN cable and converts it into a USB connection... $30 for that... bleh. I got a Bluetooth dongle for my PC that's the size of a penny that hooks into my USB for $20... and the latter lets me do a LOT more (including using the Wiimote on my PC
)...TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Yeah, I know- I used to use a wireless card to connect to my wireless router via my PC, but it's simply too far from where I am so I eventually just wired the connection. The Wii's wireless receiver is apparently even weaker than the card I had installed, so... Beyond that, I'll just have a cable connection in college this fall and no router at all so I'll need the LAN Adapter for then anyway.
I just hope Wii doesn't become number 1, I could careless if its the casual machine of choice, etc But its bad enough we are barely getting any high end games, coupled with the fact that games are already limited by the consoles, now add the Wii, gaming is going to be terrible. I love fun, theres plently of games I play casually, but I also like 80+ hour games, and if this keeps up, I am going to be . Even Dragon Quest, which was decent on the Wii, is nothing compared to the earlier installments, so thats worries me a little.
. Even Dragon Quest, which was decent on the Wii, is nothing compared to the earlier installments, so thats worries me a little.It's already #1 (world wide) and I think it's a good thing. Maybe Sony will learn that they don't need to constantly re-invent the wheel with every new console. There's no need for such a specialized and expensive CPU that only a select few developers have the ability to exploit, and even then, 2 years after the fact.
Look at the 360, simple and effective. Using existing technology that's easy(er) to code for and looks nearly as good as the PS3. Maybe next time they can stick an 8 core intel CPU in there and a nice ATI or nVidia GPU, sell it for $400 instead of $600 and be able to attract both consumers and developers to their concole.
Sony simply got carried away with the PS3 and overhyped it even more so than the PS2 which I didn't even think was possible.
Look at the 360, simple and effective. Using existing technology that's easy(er) to code for and looks nearly as good as the PS3. Maybe next time they can stick an 8 core intel CPU in there and a nice ATI or nVidia GPU, sell it for $400 instead of $600 and be able to attract both consumers and developers to their concole.
Sony simply got carried away with the PS3 and overhyped it even more so than the PS2 which I didn't even think was possible.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Ugh... Too simple... Effective only at overheating and blowing-up. MS did too much to beat Sony to the market by a year and ended-up with a console that was laden with hardware that was, ironically, ahead of its time for the price point they wanted to sell it for- MS cut corners to cut costs everywhere they could on the 360. It's ridiculous that an aftermarket cooler is basically required if you expect the thing to last more than a year and to not be a huge fire hazard in your home.
Hell, if what we're hearing about how the PS3 is handling GT 5 Prologue is true, that may not even be as stable as we'd originally thought either.
Anyway, what I like about the Wii being in front in terms of the console race is that imo the Wii is everything a console should be- it's small yet durable allowing it to find a home in any family room, focuses on offline multiplayer, pushes an innovative and genuinely different control scheme, and is just flat-out fun. Imo, the PS3 and 360 are more like sub-types of PC's than they are consoles.
I've played GT5 Prologue on a few PS3 systems already, have not had issues with any of them. Only thing that happens is that the fan spins faster which is completely normal.
As far as the 360 issues, those are simple problems that have to do with cooling an inadequate power bricks. There is nothing wrong with the type of hardware it's using (CPU/GPU)
As far as the 360 issues, those are simple problems that have to do with cooling an inadequate power bricks. There is nothing wrong with the type of hardware it's using (CPU/GPU)
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
The fan having to spin faster is fine as long as that's all that happens- guess I'm just a bit wary after what happened w/the 360.
In terms of the 360, like I said, MS cut corners on everything that was not the cpu and/or the gpu. Even the cpu and gpu should really have been held-off production until they could have been produced on 65nm fabs, but adequate cooling *could* have compensated for that. However, they used a 90nm fab process and provided grossly inadequate cooling (the biggest issue I have found with the 360 is that the thermal grease they use literally melts and that will get EVERYWHERE in the damned thing and THAT is what causes the explosions b/c the thermal grease gets into little nooks and crannies where it shouldn't be and causes combustion reactions- that also is what causes the progressive overheating where the 360 will first be able to go an hour before freezing, then 45 minutes, then 30, etc... until it's freezing at the Xbox logo screen because the thermal grease is literally melting off and the more that melts off the faster the 360 overheats). I mean, seriously, I had a second generation 360 and placed it in a really open area (there was nothing for ~2 meters around it in any direction) and the thing ended-up blowing-up. I mean, just wtf.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Still on the "360 = simple and effective" tangent. The issue w/the PS3 really is that it's tough to figure out what particular piece of its hardware is driving its cost up in relation to the 360- CELL is more complex and more capable, but is it more expensive than the 360's tri-core when you compare the power to price ratios? Or is the PS3's Blu-Ray drive accounting for much of its cost? Or perhaps the Sixaxis, which is also much more complex than the 360's analog (in fact, in some ways the Sixaxis is more complex than the Wiimote because it has gyros- which I suppose kinda furthers my issue with the Wii in that I feel Nintendo has done an excellent job with it of creating something that can really cater to the masses and that *could* greatly raise the bar for game control, but because of Nintendo's own attempts to ensure that the Wii is cost-accessible to the average person and because it is a console and there is no option for, "Well, I WOULD pay a little extra IF I could get a little extra" its capabilities are limited)? It's tough to look at the overall price of the PS3 and what it packs and then to compare it to the 360 and to really be able to come away with a true idea of which one is more "effective".
If MS had truly done what it needed to do to ensure that its console would be reliable, the price difference between the two might well have just been the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. And, ofc, going forward, Sony now has done the requisite R+D for CELL to iterate on it for the PS4 and etc- perhaps the PS3 really is just being used by Sony as a transitional tool (though their claims of a 10 year lifetime seem to contradict that) and with the initial R+D for CELL out of the way and paid for by the time the PS4 rolls around and with Blu-Ray being more of a standard for physical media, they may well have the more "effective solution". But, once again, we just don't know (shrugs). I would agree that an Intel quad core or something with a better nVidia gpu w/a unified architecture probably would have served Sony better in the short-run for the PS3.
It's not tough in the least bit. Look at the sales figures and game availability. That is afterall the desired effect of a gaming console is it? To sell and play games on? PS3 is not achieving what it set out to do, the other two consoles are.
A more complex and capable CPU is virtually useless when only a small fraction of developers are willing/able to take the time to exploit it's true potential while at the same time driving the price higher.
A more complex and capable CPU is virtually useless when only a small fraction of developers are willing/able to take the time to exploit it's true potential while at the same time driving the price higher.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
As of now that's the case, but the 360 had a 14 month head start and developers are still acclimating to the PS3- if it gets some games that can demonstratively utilize its extra horsepower compared to the 360 then the burden is on MS to probably accelerate their plans for their next console- which would probably mean a repeat of what happened with the 360, and are people really going to stand for 50% failure rates twice? About three of my friends have gone through more than 5 different 360's (one of them went through 9) while all of them have had to RMA at least two. The ones who went through 5+ just stopped trying (one just got a PS3, one did what I did and just upgraded his PC and got a Wii, and the other upgraded his PC and got a PS3) and a few of my other friends who've gone through a few have just switched over to PS3's and are trying to use their PC's whenever possible and most of the rest (with a few exceptions) just feel "locked-in"- they don't have any confidence in their 360's at all anymore but have invested too much money in them and have too many games for them to justify plopping down $400-600 for a PS3 (and, of course, when they got their 360's they also neglected doing anything with their PC's so they really need to get entirely new rigs instead of just slapping in 9600GT's or something similarly cheap)- but ultimately I get the vibe from them that they're going to wait for MS to prove to them that their next offering is stable before they even consider it. The others who will probably jump all over the Xbox 720 or whatever it will be on Day 1 despite the problems they've had with their 360's are huge fans of Halo 3, so 'nuff said.
We can easily eliminate the 14 month head start advantage by looking how many units have been sold month to month since the PS3's release. If we take a look at that, the 360 has been beating the PS3 every month from late 2006 (PS3's release) until February of 2008 where the PS3 took the lead. Much of why the PS3's sales grew is beucase of price drops. Had the price been reasonable from the start, the PS3 would be in a MUCH better position right now with more games and a larger base.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
True, but if you want to go that route, the 360's price has not remained constant, and the PS3's price drops have not come because of the removal of CELL or anything but rather b/c of changes in HDD sizes and other features. And, I might add, Sony very easily could have dropped the initial price of the PS3 by AT LEAST $100 by going with a standard DVD drive instead of Blu-Ray, but Sony is benefiting from including Blu-Ray on the PS3 much as Microsoft is benefiting from getting the initial business of many consumers (such as my friends) who now "want out" but really can't "get out" so they continue to buy 360 games and continue to pad MS with the royalties that are the true method in which it makes money just as Sony hypothetically gets to sell more Blu-Ray discs with every PS3 purchased.
Problem this generation is simple. Xbox 360 is the lead SKU as opposed to the playstation, as soon as microsoft sends out the next Xbox, Sony has to respond within 1 to 2 years. Because the install base. They can't afford to let Microsoft one up them again with the lead. I can't see the Xbox 360 going much further than 2010, then PS4 2012.
Yeah, no shit they didn't remove Cell
Who cares "why" the price dropped. Again you seem to go off on some wild tangent that has nothing to do with the conversation. The point is that it was too expensive during it's initial release which scared off buyers which in turn scared off developers which is why the PS3 had been struggling until very recently. Now that the price is more in-line with it's competition, it's selling better. Please try and not overanalyze what I'm saying... If it's too expensive, it won't sell. It's really THAT simple.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Yeah, no shit they didn't remove Cell
Who cares "why" the price dropped. Again you seem to go off on some wild tangent that has nothing to do with the conversation. The point is that it was too expensive during it's initial release which scared off buyers which in turn scared off developers which is why the PS3 had been struggling until very recently. Now that the price is more in-line with it's competition, it's selling better. Please try and not overanalyze what I'm saying... If it's too expensive, it won't sell. It's really THAT simple.
Ok... but now you're just shifting the focus of the discussion. What we had been discussing was Sony's decision to go with the more unorthodox and more expensive (certainly this time around it was just for the R+D if nothing else) CELL as opposed to just going with an adapted PC processor.
I'm not shifting focus at all, you're just not making the connection.
Because they went with the more complex design, it expensive and slow to catch on and it didn't catch on until the price dropped. They don't have to remove the cell processor for the price to drop, as with everything technology, prices drop with time. Just like the 8800GT was $300+ when it first came out and now can be found for under $200. They didn't remove the chip to make that happen.
Had the used an existing yet perfectly capable technology to begin with, they would have avoided all that and been able to introduce it at a much more attractive price.
Because they went with the more complex design, it expensive and slow to catch on and it didn't catch on until the price dropped. They don't have to remove the cell processor for the price to drop, as with everything technology, prices drop with time. Just like the 8800GT was $300+ when it first came out and now can be found for under $200. They didn't remove the chip to make that happen.
Had the used an existing yet perfectly capable technology to begin with, they would have avoided all that and been able to introduce it at a much more attractive price.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Ok... but my point was that CELL is not necessarily the only thing in the PS3 that caused the price to rise to where it was. And I did make the connection... And I also wasn't saying that Sony should remove CELL or saying that you were saying they should...