Game Over! said:
rocketpig said:
MrMafoo said:
Omac said:
People are saying later on PS3 is going to pull off better graphics.... I don't think so, with it's lackluster non shared ram and not as good GPU... The hard to program for crappy SPU CPU. PS3 will never overshadow 360 in the graphics department or online functionality. |
I try to ignore purely fanboy rhetoric, but this one I have to comment on. The PS3, in its architectural infancy, has already surpassed the 360. Ratchet and Clank could not be done on the 360. At specific types of math (not all), the PS3 is 20-30 times faster than the 360. As people learn how to tap into that power to produce a better gaming experience, you will see things you thought were not possible. I keep hearing about what can’t be done with the PS3 (and then see it done). I tire of people putting limits on incredibly smart developers just because they don’t know how to do it. Just because you have no idea how to harness the PS3 for an incredible gaming experience, does not mean no one does. At MIT, they have these contests where they give people a bag of parts, and see who can make the best competing robot out of them. What these guys come up with is amazing. Throw a super computer in front of the top developers in the world, and say “make me something”, and you will get things you have never seen before. |
I'm not doubting the PS3's power but I have played R&C and what about it makes the game impossible to do on the 360? It's a pretty game but there are a lot of pretty games coming out nowadays on both the PS3 and 360. And whether you want to admit it or not, there are limitations in the PS3 design. The dedicated RAM and video card are definitely weak links in the design (which isn't surprising at all since the design was changed last minute) and one could argue that the 360 is more intelligently designed in those departments. |
|
Whats your point on the video card? The video card is dedicated. The ram isnt but developers can still use both pools of ram if needed.
As for weaknesses, the forced shaders is a major issue with the Xenon. There is reasons why the RSX even though its slower can produce better shadows. Its because ATI's unified shader pipeline doesnt have stable drivers to alloweven and balanced transfers of light and dark. Overall yes the Xenon is a stronger video card but only slightly.
Another issue is that the Xenos (CPU) doesnt have enough power in a single core to be dedicated to assist with shading. With the CELL developers have 6 micro-processors to dedicate to different areas so a single SPE to assist with the overlaying of shaders in an environment.
Now to shock most people. The basic concept of a tri-core processer like the Xenos is quite brilliant. I'll commend Microsoft for managing to get the piece of hardware in before any chip designer thought of it. AMD has yet to release their tri-core's which will basically be their quad-core with a disabled core. Sadly core vs SPE, an SPE wins due to raw number crunching power. .
As for why can the 360 not run R&C. The answer is simple. Scale. If you look at the general size of each map they are huge with many secrets through out. Each level probably takes up 800MBs, plus the sound track, and cutscenes, etc. There would be a need for 3 DVD-DLs for a 360 version.
