GPU of PS3?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That neither console has programming that approach their processing power.

However, I am not impressed with the PS3s graphics.

I also realize the I own an ATi AIW 9800 Pro. with 128 MB ram, and a 256-Bit interface memory setup.

almost every other video card Ive seen short of 7900 and 7950 nvidias show the flaw of smaller memory interface.

When will they get it? 256-Bit is a no brainer?
 
That is the most load of bullshit I have ever seen in my life. How can they get away with comparing a PS3 to a supercomputer? Let alone a mid-range home-user desktop? That's just pathetic. :eek:
 
StealthyFish said:
yeah, I know. and since the hardware is also all standardized, many games are highly optomized for the hardware used, unlike computer games and applications, which can't really be written to be optomized for any certain hardware setup cause there are so many. But still, that's pretty stupid to spend 500+ dollars on a system that can only game. Yeah, there are the guys who spend 2000 dollars on a PC, but they get more than just gaming out of it. Office and home applications are also a part of that.

but hey, I'm no console gamer, so I don't really care much.
Click to expand...


I have considered buying one once they can be had for msrp. I am a novice when it comes to HD so please educate me if i am wrong.

Here is my thinking. I have a 57 inch DLP that i currently use an upconverting DVD player with. While I purchased the set for viewing Sports in HD, I do occasionally watch a movie on it.. Now a HD DVD player runs what? $800.

The PS3 has blue ray. If i buy one I get an Hight Def dvd player for 600 with a free consol no?

Let me know if my logic is faulty please.
 
Standalone HD-DVD players start at about $350 now, and are dropping fast. They'll be $100 soon enough. Standalone blu-ray players start at $715 since the blue laser is still pushing production and sony grabbed pretty much all of them for the PS3. This is the main reason why the PS3's release was so limited.

$300 xbox 360 core
$200 xbox hd-dvd addon
--------------------------------
$500 HD-DVD player with a console

$500 PS3 20GB
-------------------------------
$500 Blu-ray player with a console

As you can see, the console players cost exactly the same. But blu-ray and hd-dvd aren't compatible, and nobody knows which format will win the war. They both have advantages; blu-ray holds more data but hd-dvd holds enough data and is much cheaper to produce. So it's anyone's guess.
 
schizo said:
Standalone HD-DVD players start at about $350 now, and are dropping fast. They'll be $100 soon enough. Standalone blu-ray players start at $715 since the blue laser is still pushing production and sony grabbed pretty much all of them for the PS3. This is the main reason why the PS3's release was so limited.

$300 xbox 360 core
$200 xbox hd-dvd addon
--------------------------------
$500 HD-DVD player with a console

$500 PS3 20GB
-------------------------------
$500 Blu-ray player with a console

As you can see, the console players cost exactly the same. But blu-ray and hd-dvd aren't compatible, and nobody knows which format will win the war. They both have advantages; blu-ray holds more data but hd-dvd holds enough data and is much cheaper to produce. So it's anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

I think blu-ray is also MUCH harder to copy...and for that reason, the Major recording industry publishers love it...or they love it for another reason...either way, with their weight and support, majority of movies will be blu-ray, which means it will most likely succeed, whether its better or not :(
 
dp0001 said:
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

This mentions that the IBM Cell, costs 89$ - this proc supposed to have something like 8 cores
Click to expand...

yea i want one for that cheap. how do htey compare to our normal cpu's now adays?
 
tvdang7 said:
yea i want one for that cheap. how do htey compare to our normal cpu's now adays?
Click to expand...

Well they have 7 cores and 1 for redundancy...

uhm, they dont run X86 instructions (can you say itanium) natively...

They're fast as hell, but they dont interface with a known board (available for purchase, IBM has a few prototype blad motherboards, who knows when they'll be out/cost)... You'd have to design something from scratch, using the spec sheet/RE sony documents.

Worth it? Hell yeah!

A cell at 3ghz = 200GFLOPS...
 
schizo said:
Standalone HD-DVD players start at about $350 now, and are dropping fast. They'll be $100 soon enough. Standalone blu-ray players start at $715 since the blue laser is still pushing production and sony grabbed pretty much all of them for the PS3. This is the main reason why the PS3's release was so limited.
Click to expand...
Both HDDVD and bluray use blue-frequency lasers. The reason hddvd is cheaper is beacause they were first out of the gate and toshiba is taking a hit on each one sold.
 
Blu-ray also offers the advantage of having a coating made or applied to each disc that makes it really hard to scratch. Personally, if you have kids or you're a person who abuses discs, sad but I know many who do :confused: , then blu-ray is definitely a winner in that category.

I also seeing that being a huge benefit to rental company's, ie: blockbuster, netflix, etc. since it will potentially save them money in having disc repair kits or buying new discs all together. The storage benefit that someone else pointed out would also be a nice thing to have for data, video or future game titles where they don't want/need to compress audio or leave out something due to size constraints.

I see both technology's as being very good, but I hope blu-ray wins out b/c I think ultimately it has the best potential in the long run for everyone.
 
Both blu-ray and HD-DVD use the AACS copy protection mechanism. Blu-ray also has some kind of digital watermarking so it can't be replicated en masse.

The cell CPU doesn't support out of order execution or branch prediction like normal PC CPUs. This means it will be very fast at some operations (notably floating point) and very slow at others (like office work and browsing).

By "big enough", I meant that HD-DVD has enough capacity to hold any movie at full 1080p with tons of space for extras if it's all encoded with mpeg4 or vc-1. So blu-ray's extra capacity doesn't really matter as far as movies go, except for entire seasons of TV shows and such.

The coating was added because blu-ray is MUCH more susceptible to scratching and smudging than HD-DVD. This is because the actual data is much closer to the surface of the disk. HD-DVD data is deeper in, like normal DVDs.

Nobody knows who'll win. Actually, I don't care which one wins, as long as it happens soon. Dual "standards" suck.
 
Netrat33 said:
wow. that was stupid.

"Hey look, I flushed $600 down the toliet"
Click to expand...
No, beating the shit out of a PS3 when everyone else is whacking off for one is PRICELESS!
 
Actually, the guy actually looked like he knew how to use a sledgehammer.

And it wasn't their money, boys. www.smashmyPS3.com

Bought and broken using the money donated by people who wanted to see exactly that.
 
xFlankerx said:
Actually, the guy actually looked like he knew how to use a sledgehammer.
Click to expand...
Actually, actually, actually he didn't know how to swing a sledge. He was holding both hands together through the whole swing like he's never done it before. For a sledge, you are supposed to start with your hands shoulder width apart on the handle, swing it over your shoulder and down over your head bringing your hands together for the momentum of the swing.
 
xFlankerx said:
Firstly, the PS3 has an "official" Linux OS made for it, made by Terra Soft called "Yellow Dog Linux."
Click to expand...



Yellow Dog Linux distro was not created for the PS3. it is actually something that has been around for awhile now and the original YUM(Yellow Dog Updater Modified) package was created for Yellow Dog. it has since been ported to redhat and fedora, and is currently the standard package update tool for Fedora.
 
CEREAL_KILLER said:
Yellow Dog Linux distro was not created for the PS3. it is actually something that has been around for awhile now and the original YUM(Yellow Dog Updater Modified) package was created for Yellow Dog. it has since been ported to redhat and fedora, and is currently the standard package update tool for Fedora.
Click to expand...

Correct! I have YDL (version 3?) running on my ibook... 366mhz circuit 1999 lol. Lets me play with Sphere and RPG maker games on my wireless picture frame (BEST use for an old ibook ever).

you know, I was just thinking how awesome BRdvds really are... I was at the TRAIN STATION, waiting for the train (yeah, like I'd be there for any other reason :rolleyes: ), trying to figure out how to transfer 22gb of movies from my laptop to my desktop with a dead ethernet card.

24 rar's and a 1gb flash drive later... I almost bought myself a BR burner and some blanks.
 
w1retap said:
Actually, actually, actually he didn't know how to swing a sledge. He was holding both hands together through the whole swing like he's never done it before. For a sledge, you are supposed to start with your hands shoulder width apart on the handle, swing it over your shoulder and down over your head bringing your hands together for the momentum of the swing.
Click to expand...

Looks like Engadget agrees with me. :)

Engadget said:
Style points are to be awarded for the pimp getup, along with the sledgehammer badass who looked like he knew what he was doing.
Click to expand...
 
Albeit the majority of the initial release games are ports (no surprise), it will be only a short time until games specific to the PS3 platform come about.
 
StealthyFish said:
eh. I don't think it justifies the 500 dollar tag though. Maybe if that came with an allendale and 1Gb of RAM. Then I'll think about it :p :D
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Do you have any idea how weak the Xbox was compared to the PC (it had a celeron processor for god's sake) and how beautiful some of the games were???
 
Hulk said:
Are you serious?

Do you have any idea how weak the Xbox was compared to the PC (it had a celeron processor for god's sake) and how beautiful some of the games were???
Click to expand...
yea, I'd have to say the regular xbox graphics look like a celeron with a Geforce 3.
 
w1retap said:
yea, I'd have to say the regular xbox graphics look like a celeron with a Geforce 3.
Click to expand...

I believe it only had to drive a 640x480 screen. How much cpu/gpu does a game need at that res?
 
Noetic said:
I believe it only had to drive a 640x480 screen. How much cpu/gpu does a game need at that res?
Click to expand...
xbox1 could also do 720p with the right cables, and if the games supported it (most didn't.) Did you ever try running the pc version of halo @ 640x480 with a geforce3?
 
I didn't read the whole thread but from what i did read no one mentioned the fact that no matter how great the graphics are on a console, if you're not playing it on an hdtv then you're not fully realizing the graphic capability. So when weighing the price of a console versus PC factor in the price of the hdtv that you have to have to fully realize the graphic ability of the console.
 
IanG said:
xbox1 could also do 720p with the right cables, and if the games supported it (most didn't.) Did you ever try running the pc version of halo @ 640x480 with a geforce3?
Click to expand...
I used to play halo for PC on my old P3 and Geforce 2 GTS with on par graphics settings at 640x480 and I got playable framerates in the high 20's low 30's.
 
ZXN said:
I didn't read the whole thread but from what i did read no one mentioned the fact that no matter how great the graphics are on a console, if you're not playing it on an hdtv then you're not fully realizing the graphic capability. So when weighing the price of a console versus PC factor in the price of the hdtv that you have to have to fully realize the graphic ability of the console.
Click to expand...


Yeah I think the PS3 will look crappy on a regular tv, you need at least at 720p HDTV to see the nicer graphics. What kind of connector does the PS3 have?
 
I think that alot of you forget the games coded for the console alot of work is done with the CPU's in the system aswell.


It is not JUST thew GPU doing the work, why else do they toss in 3+ cell processors, to offload the work to the CPU as well, so now that 7900 just got a hella lot more powerful! then it's pc counter part.
 
IanG said:
xbox1 could also do 720p with the right cables, and if the games supported it (most didn't.) Did you ever try running the pc version of halo @ 640x480 with a geforce3?
Click to expand...

Indeed, few games were 720p capable. Many of us who game on PCs, would be pressed to remember when we played at 640x480.

I never owned halo for the PC, Perhaps we can compare another game of the geforce3 era. With the same parts, a system that can be specially tuned for the sole purpose of running games would be faster than one meant for general purpose. It is common sense.
 
Wich0 said:
ROFL, you know the funny thing is that to most console gamers the PS3's graphics are jaw dropping, I guess they've never played computer games at high res. I was at a Best Buy yesterday and I chuckled when I saw all the people camping out outside. I went inside to see the demo PS3 just to see the graphics, I was playing some racing game they had there and people around me were like "wow , it looks so real". I guest most people who are buying a PS3 are used to PS2 style graphics. I think I'll pass and stay with my pc. Also, why don 't they let you use a keyboard/mouse for FPS in a console?
Click to expand...

They are still living in the stone age lol at the time when PS2 was released. Back then, I admit PC lags far behind, year 2000. But now it looks like PC gamers have the last laugh.
 
silz said:
They are still living in the stone age lol at the time when PS2 was released. Back then, I admit PC lags far behind, year 2000. But now it looks like PC gamers have the last laugh.
Click to expand...

PC's have NEVER lagged behind consoles...PC gamers have always had the last laugh the only difference is our numbers are far larger and were laughing louder now then we where back then.
 
pfunkman said:
PC's have NEVER lagged behind consoles...PC gamers have always had the last laugh the only difference is our numbers are far larger and were laughing louder now then we where back then.
Click to expand...


Not really, in the past when a console first came out, it graphics power and just the graphics it could produce were often beyond that of a PC, perhaps not always the highest high high end, but often high end enough considering the price tag.- Again, because of the closed system

but now with cards like the 8800 out, i think it will be hard again for consoles to really be #1 in performance ahead of high end PC's.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Not really, in the past when a console first came out, it graphics power and just the graphics it could produce were often beyond that of a PC, perhaps not always the highest high high end, but often high end enough considering the price tag.- Again, because of the closed system

but now with cards like the 8800 out, i think it will be hard again for consoles to really be #1 in performance ahead of high end PC's.
Click to expand...

Name 1 console release that trumped the PC's graphics? i dont remember alot of games from the era of PS2 release but i do remember unreal tournament being cross platform and PC like usual blew it out of the water...By the time PS2 and XBOX came around PC's where already graphically superior.
 
OK kids...the PCs you're talking about cost over $2000, mmkay? If you take a $400 PC, it's going to get it's ass handed back to it by the X360. The consoles you're talking about cost less than 1/3rd to 1/5th the price of the PCs. We got that covered? Good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top