| archer9234 said: I get were you coming from. But this is wrong. While Yes, making the resoluion change isn't a big deal. Everything needed for that is what causes the expense. You aren't going to like PS1 game models in 1080 res. People are going to expect high detailed models with clothes physics, lighting, maps that have day/night cycle, bump maping, volumeteric shadows etc. |
The resolution doesn't cost a thing, not a cent.
It's the assets that costs, those same higher-quality assets would also see benefits even if a game isn't at "HD".
Converesly, games have historically always increased the quality of the "graphics" despite being limited at certain resolutions.
For instance the jump between the origional NES and the PS2 had the same resolution ceiling, yet there is a stark difference in graphics.
Converesly, running a PS3 at PS2 levels of resolution, there is a stupidly large difference in fidelity still.
Again, resolution itself, costs nothing to implement, it's not the sole contributer to graphics, far from it and people's focus on that "magical number" needs to change, I could argue that contrast plays a far more significant role than resolution in better image quality.
The cost of a games development is always going to increase because we, as consumers demand ever increasing levels of graphics quality, regardless if you run at 640x480 or 1920x1080, it's just easier for people to blame resolution.
| CrazyGPU said: 1- How anyone even disputes this? ask Ubisoft. In their benchmarks showed in the game developement conference in Europe they show that PS3 CPU is faster than PS4. Cerny made the PS4 with powerfull programable graphics to be able to do physics tasks with gpu in a couple of years, there are plenty of interviews about that. http://gamingbolt.com/ubisoft-discovers-that-ps4-gpu-is-twice-as-powerful-as-xbox-one-gpu |
No offense, but Ubisoft doesn't know which way it's going anymore, their insane, ludicrous claims in the past have been incredibly humorous.
Their track record even recently, more so, that link also has no *real* technical information either.
As for the Cell vs Jaguar.
Yes, Cell is going to be more powerfull at Iterative Refinement Floating Point mathematics, however you throw Integer at it and it suddenly turns into a 486 DX66, it's not going to have peak performance with everything, always, that's why the Cell is slower.
If I were to create a proper analogy... Think of them as Cars, travelling down a highway, Jaguar will sit happily at 100 kilometers per hour constantly, never changing in speed(As it's equally adept, regardless of the math/instructions that are being used.), while the Cell will travel down the highway at 50 kilometers per hour, sometimes thanks to Wind Direction, Air Temperature, Traffic levels, Road and Tyre quality and fuel levels it can accellerate to 150 kilometers per hour, but because conditions change constantly cannot maintain that speed for very long.
And because of such, Jaguar will always reach the end of the highway first.
| CrazyGPU said: The computing power measure for games today is Teraflops, like it or not. Mostly because GPUs calculations are measured that way. Mostly teorethical Teraflops like I wrote above, but some make real world teraflop capability, like the ubisoft graphs. |
There is so much wrong with this...
So are you saying that FLOPS is all you need for an ACCURATE and DEFINITIVE comparison between completely different processing architectures?
If you answered yes, then please leave this thread, no really, please leave and never speaketh to me again.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
