I was out of hdd space and money - it was an easy choice to uninstall a game to make room for more pr0n
Your sig shows a 9800GX2 - got an old 7900/7950 to test with or what? Specs of test rig please!
![[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
I was out of hdd space and money - it was an easy choice to uninstall a game to make room for more pr0n
Your sig shows a 9800GX2 - got an old 7900/7950 to test with or what? Specs of test rig please!
"Arg not this crap again - go re-read the thread, this time all the way through. The 360 and PS3 have comparable GPU horsepower to last generations cards (x19xx series and 79xx series respectively) And you do realize your example, Rainbow Six, was playable on a 9600GT at 1920x1200, a resolution the PS3 only dreams of being able to run at? We are talking well over twice the number of pixels than what the PS3 or 360 version is running..."
I meant the 9600GT. If you read my post all the way through I also said the cell was meant to be used to power the graphics as well as the GPU on the PS3. If you read the documents about the cell and PS3 that was exactly what the developers intended. The 360 has a more powerful GPU then the PS3 but everyone knows PS3 graphics are better because the cell is good at crunching away at numbers. The PS3 has a ton more head room then the 360. The 9600GT was also running a average of 40FPS not 60FPS like on the PS3. The 9600GT also doesn't have any AA like the PS3. You take all of that into factor and its close to a 9600GT. I'm not defending consoles because I own them nor am a fan boy of them. I don't own a PS3 or a Xbox 360. Instead I got a computer built just for gaming. I absolutely hate console controllers vs mouse and keyboard.
I meant the 9600GT. If you read my post all the way through I also said the cell was meant to be used to power the graphics as well as the GPU on the PS3. If you read the documents about the cell and PS3 that was exactly what the developers intended. The 360 has a more powerful GPU then the PS3 but everyone knows PS3 graphics are better because the cell is good at crunching away at numbers. The PS3 has a ton more head room then the 360. The 9600GT was also running a average of 40FPS not 60FPS like on the PS3. The 9600GT also doesn't have any AA like the PS3. You take all of that into factor and its close to a 9600GT. I'm not defending consoles because I own them nor am a fan boy of them. I don't own a PS3 or a Xbox 360. Instead I got a computer built just for gaming. I absolutely hate console controllers vs mouse and keyboard.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Here's an easy answer:
My sister had been playing Sims 2 on a five-year-old Dell with a GeForce MX420. Of course, the PSU gave-out (Dell PSU's = teh crap) so she needed a new PC to play Sims 2 and browse the internet/check e-mail/etc... so my 'rents got her an off-the-shelf HP from Best Buy for $550 that had Vista Home Premium, a 2.8GHz AMD Athlon dual core, 3GB of 800MHz DDR2 RAM, and a 500GB HDD (ofc, integrated graphics and sound). Fast-forward a couple of months and she decides she wants to play Guitar Hero 3. She doesn't own any consoles but has played GH and I have the PC version so she's specifically seen exactly what that will be like and she wants in but GH3 PC's system reqs go beyond integrated graphics. What to do? Grab a Palit 9600GT SONIC off NewEgg for $120 (less than half the price of a Wii) and slap it in. Boom, done, and pretty much for $120 (b/c remember- the $550 on the rest of the PC was money that was being spent anyway so imo shouldn't even be factored-in) she just got a rig that beats the crap out of the 360 and PS3- I probably shouldn't mention that she found Guitar Hero 3 PC for only $55 including the Xplorer at the local Target (and the 360 version was still $100- but that's another dirty little secret of consoles and their prices). And believe me, at 1280x1024 the 9600GT has zero problems totally dominating that with max settings (some props to Aspyr for the recent patch to try to help low-end systems b/c imo they should have done more to target those on the PC given that just about everyone has a PC and people who aren't necessarily interested enough in games to shell-out for a gaming PC or console are interested in Guitar Hero, but anyway they also did improve the lighting on the PC version compared to the 360 and added the option for increased crowd sizes on top of higher resolutions, 4xMSAA, and 16xAF- the latter two have to be forced from the nVidia CP though) at silky 60fps (which is more than I could say when I was playing GH3 on my friend's 360 the other day or the day before that...).
And of course, I haven't even mentioned all the modding you can do w/a PC that's either way more annoying to do with a console to the point it's not worth it or that's just flat-out illegal on a console (so yay to custom note charts in Guitar Hero 3 PC). And a little off-topic, but despite the initial announcements not mentioning a PC version of GH4, Apsyr pretty much totally managed the port and they just released a 1.3 patch today for GH3 PC (and they haven't released a patch in ages) and one of the record labels that has a deal w/Activision for GH4 sent out a press release and made a little slip-up, so between those three things I'd be extraordinarily surprised not to see GH4 on the PC (but, 'til then, I'll enjoy custom GH3 note charts, new Portal maps, and Team Fortress 2's new Gold Rush map =)
My sister had been playing Sims 2 on a five-year-old Dell with a GeForce MX420. Of course, the PSU gave-out (Dell PSU's = teh crap) so she needed a new PC to play Sims 2 and browse the internet/check e-mail/etc... so my 'rents got her an off-the-shelf HP from Best Buy for $550 that had Vista Home Premium, a 2.8GHz AMD Athlon dual core, 3GB of 800MHz DDR2 RAM, and a 500GB HDD (ofc, integrated graphics and sound). Fast-forward a couple of months and she decides she wants to play Guitar Hero 3. She doesn't own any consoles but has played GH and I have the PC version so she's specifically seen exactly what that will be like and she wants in but GH3 PC's system reqs go beyond integrated graphics. What to do? Grab a Palit 9600GT SONIC off NewEgg for $120 (less than half the price of a Wii) and slap it in. Boom, done, and pretty much for $120 (b/c remember- the $550 on the rest of the PC was money that was being spent anyway so imo shouldn't even be factored-in) she just got a rig that beats the crap out of the 360 and PS3- I probably shouldn't mention that she found Guitar Hero 3 PC for only $55 including the Xplorer at the local Target (and the 360 version was still $100- but that's another dirty little secret of consoles and their prices). And believe me, at 1280x1024 the 9600GT has zero problems totally dominating that with max settings (some props to Aspyr for the recent patch to try to help low-end systems b/c imo they should have done more to target those on the PC given that just about everyone has a PC and people who aren't necessarily interested enough in games to shell-out for a gaming PC or console are interested in Guitar Hero, but anyway they also did improve the lighting on the PC version compared to the 360 and added the option for increased crowd sizes on top of higher resolutions, 4xMSAA, and 16xAF- the latter two have to be forced from the nVidia CP though) at silky 60fps (which is more than I could say when I was playing GH3 on my friend's 360 the other day or the day before that...).
And of course, I haven't even mentioned all the modding you can do w/a PC that's either way more annoying to do with a console to the point it's not worth it or that's just flat-out illegal on a console (so yay to custom note charts in Guitar Hero 3 PC). And a little off-topic, but despite the initial announcements not mentioning a PC version of GH4, Apsyr pretty much totally managed the port and they just released a 1.3 patch today for GH3 PC (and they haven't released a patch in ages) and one of the record labels that has a deal w/Activision for GH4 sent out a press release and made a little slip-up, so between those three things I'd be extraordinarily surprised not to see GH4 on the PC (but, 'til then, I'll enjoy custom GH3 note charts, new Portal maps, and Team Fortress 2's new Gold Rush map =)
Heres some numbers to prove my point which was way more accurate of a guess then I thought. Its missing some numbers but heh. You get the point. I was wrong on the xbox having a more powerful GPU but still...
9600 GT: 208 GFlops
9800 GTX: 432 GFLOPS
Xbox 360
'Xenon' CPU: 115 Gflops
ATI GPU: 240 Gflops
Total: 1 tflops
PS3
Cell CPU: 218 Gflops Floating point
Nvidia RSX GPU: 356Gflops
Total: 2.18 tflops
9600 GT: 208 GFlops
9800 GTX: 432 GFLOPS
Xbox 360
'Xenon' CPU: 115 Gflops
ATI GPU: 240 Gflops
Total: 1 tflops
PS3
Cell CPU: 218 Gflops Floating point
Nvidia RSX GPU: 356Gflops
Total: 2.18 tflops
Actually, the PS3 and Xbox360 don't average 60fps, and the 9600GT *did* have AA - did you even look at the [H] evaluation? Regardless, drop the 9600GT down to 1280x720 and it won't even be close to a contest - the 9600GT will bitch slap the PS3 so hard its not even funny (at least when it comes to Rainbow Six - your game of choice).
Likewise, claiming the Cell will help with graphics is pretty laughable. The PS3 uses a modified OpenGL API - if the Cell could help with that, it would be, and Sony would have built its use straight into the API (that is pretty much the only way it really *could* help with graphics anyway)
Also, I highly doubt EITHER console has much headroom (if any) as games are already dropping to less than 720p to keep things playable - that doesn't bode well for the future.
Oh, and gflops/tflops don't mean shit. You also can't add CPU gflops onto the GPUs gflops and call it a "total" - it doesn't work that way.
Looks like no AA to me with highest settings....
There are no games that use the cell as a co processor for the graphics yet. I said the cell developers intended it to be as in the game developers haven't tapped into it all the way.
"The Cell Broadband Engineor Cell as it is more commonly knownis a microprocessor designed to bridge the gap between conventional desktop processors (such as the Athlon 64, and Core 2 families) and more specialized high-performance processors, such as the NVIDIA and ATI graphics-processors (GPUs)."
I also didn't mean the avg for 60 fps on consoles. The minimal is 60FPS. Gflops may not be 100% accurate but it gives you a good indicator as it is raw power. The PS3 cell definitely hasn't been tapped because the ps3 games are almost identical to its 360 counterpart yet its a lot faster. Please go get some facts instead of bluntly looking around the facts and assuming. Your arguments are weak as hell.
Looks like no AA to me with highest settings....
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images/articles/1210401090YFPmVmG37n_3_2.gif
And *I'M* saying that doesn't make any sense. All right, look, let me break it down for you since I don't think you are a programmer. When you program a game, you code for an API. In the PS3's case, I believe it is more or less OpenGL. Now, this API defines what you can, and cannot, do. You cannot get between the API and the hardware, meaning if the API doesn't support a feature (such as using a CPU co-processor for graphics or whatever you called it), you can't use it. You really can't merge the use of a CPU and a GPU in graphics easily with current APIs. A much much more likely scenario for the use of Cell is in physics and such, which also uses FP calculations. If a game ever comes out that uses the Cell to *directly* aid in the assistance of graphic rendering, then let me know. Until then, its all marketing.
Source? Not that it really matters, its marketing BS.
Yeesh, someone has been drinking the Kool aid. Consoles don't have a minimum anywhere close to 60FPS much less an average of 60FPS. The bar is significantly lower. Heck, some console games don't even have a minimum of 30FPS. So please, go get some facts. Also, I wouldn't call the RSX "a lot" faster than the Xenos (which has the whole unified shader thing going for it)
Am I the only one that sees something very wrong with these numbers?
No, those numbers are pure BS.
There is no way in hell a R580 derivative in the X360 nor some 7800 spinoff card in the PS3 would even come remotely close to crunching the same amount of numbers a 9800 GTX can.
Both of those GPUs have PC counterparts as well, and we all know that a card such as the 9800 GTX is easily 2-3 times faster than any of those GPUs.
People who don't use high end graphics cards and gamer's monitors (i.e. mainstream) tend to over-hype the PS3 and X360 because they don't know any better.
All of us here know the secret behind console games is the fact that they run on a TV. That means the resolution is crappy as hell and there's a LOT less work to do than your PC graphics card running Crysis at 1900x1200 on a 24" LCD or whatever.
Even "HDTV"s, so called "high definition" by their marketing teams, don't come close to the resolution on good LCD monitors.
So yea they can make things look nice on a big ass HDTV with a PS3, but it's not nearly as powerful as the current gen of graphics cards which can have better image quality with twice the pixels.
All of us here know the secret behind console games is the fact that they run on a TV. That means the resolution is crappy as hell and there's a LOT less work to do than your PC graphics card running Crysis at 1900x1200 on a 24" LCD or whatever.
Even "HDTV"s, so called "high definition" by their marketing teams, don't come close to the resolution on good LCD monitors.
So yea they can make things look nice on a big ass HDTV with a PS3, but it's not nearly as powerful as the current gen of graphics cards which can have better image quality with twice the pixels.
I saw it too, which is why I pointed out that flops don't mean crap. The 9600GT also has 312gflops, not the 208 party claimed. Then again, the 3870 has 496gflops, which is just more evidence that flops is irrelevant for GPUs - even as a "rough" metric.
Then again, apparently 'Xenon' CPU: 115 Gflops + ATI GPU: 240 Gflops = Total: 1 tflops. Not sure how that math works (I get 355 gflops total), but whatever.
(source: http://techreport.com/articles.x/14168 )
Yeah..... If you read that article they are estimating flops..
Taken directly from your source. I got mine from toms hardware which I would say is a lot more reliable.
"On paper, the 9600 GT looks overmatched versus the Radeon HD 3870, even though we've given the GeForce cards the benefit of the doubt here in terms of our FLOPS estimates. (Another way of counting would cut the GeForces' FLOPS count by a third.) We'll have to see how that works out in practice."
Xbox 360
'Xenon' CPU: 115 Gflops
ATI GPU: 240 Gflops
Total: 1 tflops
PS3
Cell CPU: 218 Gflops
Nvidia RSX GPU: 356Gflops
Total: 2.18 tflops
Theres a few numbers missing. The gflops you see above are programmable gflops. The total combines the non programmable gflops as well.
Also the 60fps is a cap that most developers follow. Theres a couple out there that run 30fps min. Every game I've played on the 360 definitely doesn't go below 30fps. Halo 3, Gears of War, Haze......
If your a programmer then you should know APIs are driver bound. You can look at any document about the cell or even look at how the architecture of it is laid out and realize that they wanted it to be far more then just a normal CPU. For the rest of you go do some digging.
Taken directly from your source. I got mine from toms hardware which I would say is a lot more reliable.
"On paper, the 9600 GT looks overmatched versus the Radeon HD 3870, even though we've given the GeForce cards the benefit of the doubt here in terms of our FLOPS estimates. (Another way of counting would cut the GeForces' FLOPS count by a third.) We'll have to see how that works out in practice."
Xbox 360
'Xenon' CPU: 115 Gflops
ATI GPU: 240 Gflops
Total: 1 tflops
PS3
Cell CPU: 218 Gflops
Nvidia RSX GPU: 356Gflops
Total: 2.18 tflops
Theres a few numbers missing. The gflops you see above are programmable gflops. The total combines the non programmable gflops as well.
Also the 60fps is a cap that most developers follow. Theres a couple out there that run 30fps min. Every game I've played on the 360 definitely doesn't go below 30fps. Halo 3, Gears of War, Haze......
If your a programmer then you should know APIs are driver bound. You can look at any document about the cell or even look at how the architecture of it is laid out and realize that they wanted it to be far more then just a normal CPU. For the rest of you go do some digging.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Well, yeah, but the small difference in core speed isnt really gonna make up for a 128bit bus, nor will the differences compare.
While the actual GPU's are comparable, the video card as a whole is nowhere near comparable, as ive said probably 8 times now, the memory and the memory bus are making it considerably less powerful.
That just helps to show that flops doesn't mean shit. If you cut the flops by a third, that simply means that flops mean less, as the 9600GT is faster than the 3870 - despite having far fewer flops. Flops don't matter at all - there is a reason very few review sites even bother to mention flops when covering a new card.
A "cap" is a maximum, not a minimum or average. You do know that, right? And APIs aren't driver bound. The API is created first, then the drivers are coded to support it. Regardless, you still want to basically SLI a CPU and a GPU. Look at the difficulty in SLIing two identical GPUs (both of which are built specifically to render graphics), and you expect amazing results when you do it with two drastically different architectures? Then again, there is the whole issue where you would start filling up system ram with data that is duplicated in vram to allow the CPU to contribute maybe 3-4 SPEs. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the overhead outweighs any benefits...
They are very close to comparable. Take a 7950GT 256mb, chop the memory bandwidth in half, and you have the RSX. The memory bandwidth shouldn't be an issue at the resolutions we are talking about, but core clock speed would. And 100mhz (7900GT has 450 vs 550 on RSX) is not a "small difference" - it is about a 20% bump in clock speeds
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Chopping the memory bandwidth in half is a huge difference, and is likely what enables the PC to use any form of AA at lower resolutions. The gpu clock speed will not make much of a difference, no where near as much as the bus.
Agreed, having 100% more bandwidth is definatly more benificial then a 20% clock speed advantage. At the resolutions we're talking about, 128bit vs 256bit is very much an issue, especially with AA/AF.
In light of this, my comparison with the 7900GT playing at 1280x1024 vs the PS3 at 1280x720 is probably a much more accurate comparison than previously thought.
Can you show us your data, your eyes don't convince me, sorry.
We are still talking pretty low resolutions and, consequently, textures here. I'll do some testing tonight when I get home, but the only "optimizing" you can do to get around a memory bandwidth limitation is to compress textures or use lower res textures. Either way, you take an IQ hit, which would make it another reason the PS3 can't compare graphically to PCs.
Of course, you can always just look at the comparison between an 8600GT (128-bit memory bus with 22.4GB/sec bandwidth) to a 7900/7950GT. The 8600GT can keep up in just fine in most games at lower resolutions, which would indicate that the bus isn't becomming a bottleneck
Are you saying that at resolutions of 1280x1024 or 1280x720 that the 8600GT with 128bit bus will perform identically to a similar card with a 256bit bus? Becuase it won't. We're not exactly talking about low resolutions, 720p and above is plenty high enough that it would benifit from greater bandwidth. And like I said previously, as far as IQ, both me and my cousin thought the PS3 was better than his 7900GT PC.
If by "because it won't" you mean "because it does", then yes, as is indicated by tons of benchmarks out there showing that the 8600GT can keep up with a 7900GT. Here, look: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/486/7/ At higher resolutions and with AA, the 8600GT falls behind. Lower the resolution and drop the AA, and the 8600GT is right back in there competing with the 7900GT.
This is all largely irrelevant though. Think about it. If the PS3 is running at quality X and getting 45 FPS, then if you run the same game on the PC at the same quality level at the same resolution and with the same AA/AF levels (if any) on a 7950GT, the extra memory bandwidth isn't going to be a factor in the card getting up to 45FPS. Higher FPS could be attributed to the memory bandwidth, but equal performance can not. Its the same textures taking up the same amount of space and using the same amount of bandwidth on both platforms.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
You really dont know dick about the 8600. It kept with the 7900 GT some of the time, and these were apparently in benchmarks. Play some real games with them, or ask someone who has. The 8600 sucks compared to high end 79xx series, plain and simple, and absolutely can not keep up. Hell, the 8600 bests the 7900 GT in 3dmark, but i dare you to play a game with either. The 7900 will shit on the 8600 when you actually play a game.
The only thing i can really think about here, is how your such a PC fanboy. You seriously stopped at nothing to try and get your point across that the PS3 is an inferior gaming product.
The only thing i can really think about here, is how your such a PC fanboy. You seriously stopped at nothing to try and get your point across that the PS3 is an inferior gaming product.
I'd just like to clear somethings up.
1.) At 720p, a 128-bit interface should be plenty.
2.) I know you're going to bring up the fact that anti-aliasing and how the small bandwidth is going to bottleneck the RSX/Xenos. Well, in a normal circumstance, it would. However, there's a couple of thing in each console that makes this point mute.
a.) Xbox 360's Xenos - It has a 10MB eDRAM die. This allows the Xenos to 4x FSAA, Z-buffering, and alpha blending with no appreciable performance hit. Now, keep in mind the Xbox already has a somewhat powerful GPU. So it all works out pretty nicely.
b.) The RSX + Cell - People seem to totally forget about the power of the Cell. I guess it's with good reason too because there hasn't really been any good exclusives (well, there hasn't been many PS3 exclusives for that matter) that makes good use of it (hopefully Haze and MGS4 will change this). However, the Cell is powerful and I like comparing it to the Larrabee or the PS2's CPU (difficult to use, but once it's mastered, it's very powerful). It could be used to do ray-tracing and among other stuff such as physics, etc. I think GT Prologue was the first game that really used the Cell processor much (in a hybrid rendering fashion). Furthermore, the PS3 has 256MB of 3.2 GHZ XDR to fall back on. 32MB of it is currently reserved for the MediaBar, so with further firmware update, I'm sure they could shrink the MediaBar memory usage lower, somewhat improving the PS3's performance in the further.
1.) At 720p, a 128-bit interface should be plenty.
2.) I know you're going to bring up the fact that anti-aliasing and how the small bandwidth is going to bottleneck the RSX/Xenos. Well, in a normal circumstance, it would. However, there's a couple of thing in each console that makes this point mute.
a.) Xbox 360's Xenos - It has a 10MB eDRAM die. This allows the Xenos to 4x FSAA, Z-buffering, and alpha blending with no appreciable performance hit. Now, keep in mind the Xbox already has a somewhat powerful GPU. So it all works out pretty nicely.
b.) The RSX + Cell - People seem to totally forget about the power of the Cell. I guess it's with good reason too because there hasn't really been any good exclusives (well, there hasn't been many PS3 exclusives for that matter) that makes good use of it (hopefully Haze and MGS4 will change this). However, the Cell is powerful and I like comparing it to the Larrabee or the PS2's CPU (difficult to use, but once it's mastered, it's very powerful). It could be used to do ray-tracing and among other stuff such as physics, etc. I think GT Prologue was the first game that really used the Cell processor much (in a hybrid rendering fashion). Furthermore, the PS3 has 256MB of 3.2 GHZ XDR to fall back on. 32MB of it is currently reserved for the MediaBar, so with further firmware update, I'm sure they could shrink the MediaBar memory usage lower, somewhat improving the PS3's performance in the further.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Yeah its not quite that simple, otherwise every game would have 4xAA, and they clearly dont, so the other factors you mentioned clearly dont make the point about the 128bit bus, MOOT.
Actually when I say "because it won't" I mean "because it won't"
"because it does" would be a wrong statement. We're not talking about 800x600 or 480i resolutions. We are talking about full HD resolutions here. To say that memory bandwidth won't make a difference is nothing short of a wrong statement.
You are right about this being irrelevant because I've played both and I know the PS3 looks better than a PC with 7900 series hardware. I'm done with this thread as it's getting stupid. We have people who have not even made a comparison having opinions on the matter and now all of a sudden memory bandwidth on a video card isn't important which is equally puzzling.
"because it does" would be a wrong statement. We're not talking about 800x600 or 480i resolutions. We are talking about full HD resolutions here. To say that memory bandwidth won't make a difference is nothing short of a wrong statement.
You are right about this being irrelevant because I've played both and I know the PS3 looks better than a PC with 7900 series hardware. I'm done with this thread as it's getting stupid. We have people who have not even made a comparison having opinions on the matter and now all of a sudden memory bandwidth on a video card isn't important which is equally puzzling.
Which is why there is a lack of AA in many X360 games correct?
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
4xAA my ass... The 360 can't even support 4xAA in Guitar Hero 3 (I have the PC version and there's a big image quality difference when I enable 4xMSAA even if I drop my resolution down to 1280x960 which is about as comparable as I can get with a 4:3 aspect ratio to 720p, but the difference here was greater than the extra 240p of vertical rez would account for given that without AA at that rez and in the 360 version a lot of stage/amp/wheel/etc... edges flicker and alias pretty badly but 4xMSAA totally smooths it out very noticeably- my friend has the 360 version and I played that a lot w/him before I got GH3 PC myself and I still play with him quite a bit and the image quality differences, imo, are very noticeable- as is the superior framerate stability of the PC version even w/larger crowds, better lighting, 1600x1200 rez, 16xAF, and 4xMSAA- all of this coming from what is pretty much as direct a port of the 360's C# code as you can get on the PC- hence the stupidly high system reqs for the game- and yet the 360 can't even handle it at a lower resolution and no AA or AF with a stable 60FPS).
Not to mention, there's no way the PS3 version of GTA IV has any AA given that it's already running at 630p instead of 720p (and even then an average of 28fps- but to be fair to uses some more post-processing, but from what I can glean not AA) and if it could support AA it could very likely support 720p instead which would have been preferable.
Not to mention, there's no way the PS3 version of GTA IV has any AA given that it's already running at 630p instead of 720p (and even then an average of 28fps- but to be fair to uses some more post-processing, but from what I can glean not AA) and if it could support AA it could very likely support 720p instead which would have been preferable.
not tryin to get all techy but,for example :
....my brothers 26" westy(720P) with an XB360 playing Test Drive Unlimited(for example) hardly looks like 2XAA on the console @ 720p,hardly looks like any sampling either,just plain 2XAA...
on the other hand,with my(x2 5000+@ 2.6(2GB DDR2 533) 8800GT i can run TDU @1440x900 with 4xAA with multi-sampling in CP and it plays butter smooth,40fps probably lowest in some spots 60-70 roughly...the xb360 version seems to be locked at around 30fps with mnimal AA....oh and i also play at 16xAF in cp also....
objects in the distance look much more clear and defined......
....my brothers 26" westy(720P) with an XB360 playing Test Drive Unlimited(for example) hardly looks like 2XAA on the console @ 720p,hardly looks like any sampling either,just plain 2XAA...
on the other hand,with my(x2 5000+@ 2.6(2GB DDR2 533) 8800GT i can run TDU @1440x900 with 4xAA with multi-sampling in CP and it plays butter smooth,40fps probably lowest in some spots 60-70 roughly...the xb360 version seems to be locked at around 30fps with mnimal AA....oh and i also play at 16xAF in cp also....
objects in the distance look much more clear and defined......
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Yeah- pretty much, claims of "free 4xAA" on the 360 are just as false as claims of "free 4xAA" on any PC gpu.
I never said the 128-bit bus limit was moot. I was just pointing out that it's much less of a factor @ 720p. 4xAA is what Microsoft/ATI says. I'm just quoting them. I'm sure most games on the 360 by now run at least 2xAA (and personally, I don't notice that much of an improvement @ 4x). What I read was, 2xAA is basically free, 4xAA = 5% performance hit. I don't know how much of it is true though. I just wanted to point out that you can't compare the Xenos to the X1900s without taking into account the eDRAM or comparing the RSX to a G71 card without taking into account the Cell processor or the 256mb of XDR.
TerranUp16
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,031
Well, 16xAF is supposed to be "free" on my 8800GTS 640mb, but it makes a 5-10% difference for Crysis between 0xAF and 16xAF. AA is far more performance-intensive than AF, so...
I probably shouldn't even mention that one of the most prominent engines used in 360 games only supports AA with a major performance hit (UE3) so I doubt ANY UE3 360 games use any AA at all (then again, that's not exactly different on the PC unless you really have high-end hardware to absorb the inordinate performance hit and then are willing to play at console-like FPS levels, but higher resolution certainly makes a big difference and can alleviate the lack of AA some, so...).
The Cell doesn't help with rendering, and the XDR is the system RAM, not the VRAM - so you can safely ignore those when comparing a G71 to the RSX in terms of graphical abilities.
Sources please.
I know I said I'm done with this thread, but this is merely an observation I'd like to point out in regards to GT5 and the PS3. When I played GT5 at my friends house not long ago, the PS3 fan got a lot louder than it has ever been before on any other game. While certainly not proof that the Cell is doing any rendering, it's conclusive enough for me that GT5 is doing something that none of the other games we've played have done.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Shit, you mean like...take advantage of the hardware more so than other games? But i thought the other guy said there wont be any games that can take better advantage?
Wait...you guys just raised the thermostat...didnt you...Its a well known fact that after a year or so, games cant get any better or take any better advantage of the hardware.../sarc
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
This is another one of your statements that is just completely wrong. Thats like saying there is no difference between a system with 9800GTX paired with a single core P4 and a 9800 GTX compared with Core 2 architecture...i mean...the systems graphical abilities will be the same right? Because it has the same video card?
Im pretty sure you mean you want to eliminate other variables...but in the case of consoles, you really cant do that since the hardware cant be changed, let alone there really isnt even a comparable commericially available consumer CPU to compare to the Cell
Shit, you mean like...take advantage of the hardware more so than other games? But i thought the other guy said there wont be any games that can take better advantage?
/sarc
I never said you can't take better advantage of hardware. I said that the RSX won't ever be faster than the 79xx series
You have got to be kidding me.