Alby_da_Wolf said:
cyberninja45 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
cyberninja45 said:
osamanobama said:
cyberninja45 said:
osamanobama said:
cyberninja45 said:
dahuman said:
sigh..... PS3 is DLNA certified for down streaming HD videos, it's not an ideal device for up streaming HD videos unless you are running off the gigabit ethernet since you'd want the device to handle more than one stream, in which the memory print would become a problem due to the PS3 having shit for ram, the most it'd be able to do is acting like a file server in this case since coding it to encode videos to different devices via different profiles at the same time would be a pain in the ass for Sony. |
and im talking about upstreaming wireless here.
But Im just waiting for him when he realizes the ultimate Truth. PS3 is not design to run games above(or any where near) 1560P. XD
Am just giving him the many other reason why this wont work.
|
you do realize that the PSV is "only" qHD (960x540), so why would we care if it streams 1560p (a resolution way higher than 1080p) it only has to stream qHD, as resolution thats still higher than the wiiU controller
|
Are u joking or do I really have to explain here? Oh I said run not stream
|
it doesnt need to run games with that resolution, to stream games at qHD, yet alone at 1080p or lower. not to mention the Vita has its own cpu/gpu.
u clearly have no idea what you are talking about other than just making wild speculation. just wait for the PSV to come out.
youll be eating lot'O crow
|
OH boy. guess I got to explain.
Assuming the game is processed in the ps3 and then stream to the PSV and hdtv.
1080p + 540p= 1620p >1560p>1080p.
Now if u now have to resort to processing graphics in the PSV. Well like I said this thread is irrelevant.
|
Not. Data processed and sent, pixels, triangles, other polygons, etc, are proportional to the area, 540p needs 1/4 of the data needed for 1080p to be sent. 1080p+540p needs the same throughput of 1350p, 1080p+1080p needs the same of 1620p, actually.
|
Ooooook buddy.(trying not to laugh here)
Well then u do realise that the whole point of the WiiU is to look at completely differnt viewpoints of the game and not spliting of same viewpoint right. So your "nice" little solution there ( which doesnt even rectify the issue) doesnt apply. LOL(sorry couldnt help it)
|
I corrected my maths, they were wrong (actual results are even lower) after you quoted my post, but anyway, looking at two different viewpoints implies more calculations in different stages, before rendering, it loads more the CPU, while projecting different scenes from different points of view actually implies sending different data and different matrices for the projections, so more internal throughput, with some overhead to replace the transformation matrices too instead of just sending extra data but the same load on raw GPU computing power and the same end result throughput. If they were the same scenes from the same point of view there would actually be a huge saving in calculations, as the lower res scene could just be made downscaling the high res one. Anyway, I wrote data PROCESSED and sent, so I never assumed there were the simplification allowed by the easy case of the same scene at two different res, don't put different words and meanings in what I wrote. It's just matter to know whether 1207p (the correct value) + the overhead for using different matrices exceeds or not the max power needed for a 1560p single scene with one point of view. Oh, I forgot, as GPUs have multiple shaders, actually the work could be split quite easily in theory, it all depends on how much independently they can work, but the fact that stereoscopic 3D is supported implies that the GPU can handle two different sets of transformation matrices at a time.
|
