zarx said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Eh, it's doing hardwired shader effects that weren't in any widespread use last gen, on any hardware. Even Xbox had limited use of stuff like normal or bump maps, and no real self-shadowing or anoything along those lines.
thats what i said it is better but not as much as this gen
In terms of effects, it is indeed doing things are more often seen on 360 and PS3 than last gen systems, and it's doing this pre-release, in demos that were put together in about 3 months.
it will do things similar but not upto the mark.its in between
And 3DS is pretty easily a generational leap from DS, which is all that really matters. The fact that it handily outperforms PSP from all vantage points (geometry, textures, lighting, effects) is beside that somewhat.
just being better than PSP does nothing.you have to have a pretty big leap like between two generation and 3DS is not doing that.its in between.
I expect Wii 2 to be pretty similar, a generational step up from Wii and outperforms 360/PS3 decently.
Wii2 will not be generational leap as it will not do PS4 and 720 graphics which is what generational leap should like being same level with other.not when PS4 and 360 comeout they release PS360 type hardware
PS3 is still pushing boundries though and is still expensive,will we see as powerful as PS3 in CPU department as Nintendo will not make a console costlier than $299
|
|
I wouldn't rule out the chance of Nintendo releasing a console that is more powerful than the PS4 and next box lol.
so you saying Wii2 will cost over $299
I am saying I wouldn't rule it out.
even if the CPU is not more powerful than the CELL but as the CELL is not very good at some CPU tasks
what tasks?
it just needs to be properly optimized.people were only saying that when CELL first launched
It is well documented that the CELL's SPEs lack Branch predictors and the ability to directly access memory and the lack of cache mean that out of order instructions slow down the CELL. that's not to say any other CPUs can match it when it comes to in order tasks like encoding/decoding video etc. For games the CELL architecture has to be worked around more than it directly helps but it makes up for it with it's bandwidth.
but at tasks that GPUs are good at it is much better than just about any other CPU
really and which at CELL's price does the job?
as I don't know what price Sony pay for the CELL I don't know exactly but if you have that price and know how much just a custom CPU/GPU would cost sony I could tell you but that kind of info is unavailable to me.
you could argue that a good modern GPU combined with a good CPU would overall far outperform the PS3.
at PS3's price,show me?
and also prove me how can you compare a different architecture CELL with other CPU as people are still finding out to use it and people find it easier to work on intel and AMD simple CPU's
same as above. I don't really get this question are you asking how I would compair the performance of the CELL with a desktop CPU? if so there isn't really any way without testing them fully but as a guide we use GFLOPS as a rough indication.
back in when the CELL was being developed SONY wanted a single chip that would be the best of both worlds allowing all processing to be handled on one chip, but it didn't really work out like that as IBM routed the design in that of a CPU with GPU like components and they ended up with the worst of both worlds but still a incredibly powerful chip. Since then the trend has been to make GPUs more CPU like and while modern GPUs aren't as good at traditionally CPU tasks as the CELL, for the things that the CELL is better than a normal CPU at a modern GPU is far far better, that is stuff physics rendering tasks etc.
and you think SONY won't improve it and put the same in PS4 and Wii2 will be stronger and will be expensive
Well considering that IBM stopped developing the CELL line Sony would have to pay for the development by it's self which would cost tens of millions so no I d0on't see them making changes to the architecture themselves. They may pay for an up scaled version, an extra PPE and 8 more SPUs etc but that won't change the limitations of the architecture but would be insanely powerful tho.
But I am getting off topic I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo release a console capable of doing 3D at 1080p (3-4* the PS360 should do it) with some gimmick that none of us have thought of.
PS3 can already do 1080p 3D as it has HDMI 1,3,360 can only do 720p 3D with HDMI 1.2
also more power is needed to make 2D and 3D same quality which PS3 has ATM.so Wii2 HAVING 1080P 3D won't be a big thing
I never said it couldn't technically do it but if you think that any game more complex than your average PSN game will run at 1080p in 3D when very few 2D games run above 720p on the PS3...
I was talking about being powerful enough to run games at 1080p reliably while being as complex as PS360 games.
I do know it won't have a projector built in as a good projector is as big as a current console and costs thousands of $$$ not something you want built into the console. Also they are not gonna use a kinect style control scheme as none of their franchises would work with it and it has serious problems with any game that isn't a dance or sports game as far as I can tell.
As for Bue-ray Nintendo could use it but I think they will use a proprietary disk probably based on Blu-ray like they did with the gamecube.
yes i agree
|
@TheVoxelman on twitter
