By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Crysis 2 Versus Killzone 2 Screenshot Comparison

STEKSTAV on 18 March 2010

What's the topic as of late? I see blu ray vs dvd, i see RAM memory, i see PC hardware, i see PS3 core speeds. Im lost.. what are we talking about?



Around the Network
Random Canadian on 18 March 2010

PC Fanboys are bashing PS3 fanboys with a huge Nooo-shit-sherlock bat.
PC > Consoles in graphical ability, really? whoda thought.

Oh and KZ3 will look way better then crysis 2 for PS3 because crysis team builds software for computers not yet even in alpha testing and has no experience working in tight boundaries of a console.

Or option B, EA does the console ports and its still lose lose and worse then Kz3 but runs at 15 FPS



rocketpig on 18 March 2010
STEKSTAV said:
What's the topic as of late? I see blu ray vs dvd, i see RAM memory, i see PC hardware, i see PS3 core speeds. Im lost.. what are we talking about?

The power of love.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

jhuff394 on 19 March 2010
Booh! said:
Garcian Smith said:
jhuff394 said:

I study this stuff right now.. I could get technical into this stuff but I won't.... I'll make it simple Cell processor combined with RSX produces more GFLOPS than any Personal computer available...(prove me wrong) First party developers study Cell all day and all night and nothing else.. They take advantage of it and produce games like God of War 3.. You don't have that with PC games.. no dedicated developers to make games on specific CPU/GPU specs..... Anyways I have seen Crysis in Ultra High ... I have seen God of War 3 in 720p ... I promise you God of War 3 is technically more impressive then any pc game.... More proof is that the games are racking up 35 Gb of space on blu-ray discs PC doesn't have that By the way just because Im new to the site doesn't mean i dont know what I'm talking about.... In the end you might be upset that the ps3 is just like your gaming pc but hundreds cheaper... lol i got upset about that too its no big deal tho you have both.. Oh and also why compare killzone 2 to crysis... Boys ill give you all crysis on that battle...but crysis to GOW3 noway lolol

I'll take a shot at this one.

The PS3's Cell processor features a single main PowerPC-based core clocked at 3.2 GHz and seven vectorized SPUs. While pretty powerful technology in 2006, however, the Cell cannot hold a candle to today's PC CPUs for gaming. In synthetic benchmarks and without its SPUs, the Cell ranks at about the speed of a low-end (1.6 GHz) PowerPC G5 - a CPU based off of circa-2002 technology. This is the most useful metric in comparing the Cell to modern processors, because despite theoretically making the Cell an eight-core CPU, the SPUs are (in layman's terms) highly crippled: among other things, they require a vectorized instruction set and have no local cache. This means that, not only do programs need to be developed specifically around the Cell's architecture, but the program itself also needs to be suited exactly to the Cell's architecture to take full advantage of it. Therefore, while the Cell has very high theoretical processing muscle, this muscle only really shows in synthetic benchmarks and doesn't really have much practical application in games without using the SPUs in a highly unoptimized way. This is why, despite having greater theoretical processing power than, say, a good Core 2 Duo, games optimized for the C2D can feature more processor-intensive tricks and effects than games optimized for the Cell. And furthermore, this is why the Cell can't even touch a modern high-end LGA1366 CPU for most applications. (If it could, then people would just use the much cheaper, 4-year-old technology instead.)

And while we're at it, let's talk about the PS3's graphical architecture for a sec. The PS3 runs an NVidia GPU that's somewhere close to a 7800 GTX in performance, albeit with a slightly higher clockspeed and crippled VRAM. The 7800 GTX was a high-end card in 2005, but today it's slow as hell. Here's a rough comparison between it and modern cards (synthetic benchmark results, but I can't find a more direct comparison). As you can see, the 7800 GTX is (theoretically) beaten in performance today by a $60 Radeon 4670. It's this weakness in graphical hardware that has led to many PS3-exclusive developers ignoring the GPU and using the Cell's SPUs to emulate a GPU instead - a workable, but imperfect, solution that still leads to most graphically intensive games being capped at 30 FPS at 1280x720.

Finally, we get to God of War 3. The God of War series has always used certain cheap tricks to make the game look better than it really should; specifically, locking the camera so that the game never renders too much at once, making the environments as non-interactive as possible, and pre-scripting nearly every possible interaction via QTEs and canned animations. Compare this to the first Crysis, where environments are heavily interactive: Grass and foliage sway as you walk through it, buildings crumble under artillery fire, hell, pretty much anything short of the ground itself can be destroyed or interacted with in some fashion. By comparison, God of War 3 doesn't even have a physics engine. So while GoW3 may look impressive (at only 1280x720 with morphological AA, the benefits of which over multisampling AA are questionable), graphics aside it's basically a circa-2003 PS2 game with a shiny coat of paint. The lack of anything else for the PS3's hardware to do meant that the devs could free up pretty much everything else for graphical processing, and furthermore the complete lack of interactivity, combined with the game's linearity, meant that the devs could control exactly what was onscreen at any given time, a luxury that few other games can share. This is why GoW3 is perhaps the best looking game on the PS3: The devs made every sacrifice possible in other areas of the game in order to increase the eye candy factor.

I'm sure some of the other PC gurus can add to this explanation, too.

o) false, that benchmark was made at the end of 2006, running linux on a ps3. The guest os on the ps3 is virtualized and at that time linux wasn't optimized for running on cell processors, it ran in powerpc compatible mode; so that benchmark means nothing.

o) the RSX uses a custom bus, the NVIDIA 7800 and 7900 cards were crippled by low speed VRAM and low bandwidth, while this could be not the case with the RSX.

o) original research?

Yes I HAVE STATED... SHOW ME A CPU/GPU COMBO THAT PERFORMS MORE THAN PS3's 1.8 TeraFlops... I promise I will take everything i've said back if you can show me this....

Or even prove that you can find a consumer available CPU that performs more than the Cell's 218 GFLOPS

The Core I7 performs 50 GFLOPs just for a minor comparison..

Your CPU talk is inaccurate, as I have not seen a CPU available yet that is more powerful.. even in 2010.. unless of course you show me a link to one, which I will gladly accept and admit that I am wrong. Show me this Circa 2002 chip lol that is more powerful, that is completely bogus.

And obviously yes the RSX GPU is definately rather old school, but we are measuring overall power, and the RSX was specifically built to be used with the cell, and the combo of both can produce unmatched power.

And on God of War you do make many good points about camera tricks and linearity making it easy to focus all on graphics.. Ill give you that.. but im still saying in the end.. I have not seen a game that looks better as of this date in 2010..



“Absolutely, we can do much more with it. I don’t know if we are even close to 50 percent of PlayStation 3’s power at this point,” said Asmussen about God of War 3.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

rocketpig on 19 March 2010

Actually, the RSX WAS NOT built specifically for the Cell. Now you're just making shit up.

The original PS3 had TWO Cell chips but for various reasons (cost being a huge one), that was scrapped mid-design. To quickly patch things up and get a working product, Sony contacted Nvidia and used an almost off-the-shelf design for the RSX chip. It was nearly an eleventh-hour decision.

The 360s chip, on the other hand, is a design made specifically for Microsoft. Not that I'm saying its a better chip (though it very well could be), but it's obvious that PS3 has a little more processing power (though I'm hearing that devs have turned to using SPUs to complement the RSX, which makes me question how well that chip is really integrated into the system).




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Garcian Smith on 19 March 2010
jhuff394 said:

Yes I HAVE STATED... SHOW ME A CPU/GPU COMBO THAT PERFORMS MORE THAN PS3's 1.8 TeraFlops... I promise I will take everything i've said back if you can show me this....

Or even prove that you can find a consumer available CPU that performs more than the Cell's 218 GFLOPS

The Core I7 performs 50 GFLOPs just for a minor comparison..

Your CPU talk is inaccurate, as I have not seen a CPU available yet that is more powerful.. even in 2010.. unless of course you show me a link to one, which I will gladly accept and admit that I am wrong. Show me this Circa 2002 chip lol that is more powerful, that is completely bogus.

And obviously yes the RSX GPU is definately rather old school, but we are measuring overall power, and the RSX was specifically built to be used with the cell, and the combo of both can produce unmatched power.

And on God of War you do make many good points about camera tricks and linearity making it easy to focus all on graphics.. Ill give you that.. but im still saying in the end.. I have not seen a game that looks better as of this date in 2010..

If the four-year-old Cell found in a $299 game console can outperform a $1000 Core i7, then why aren't people using the Cell for CPU-intensive tasks instead of the i7?



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

meehan666 on 19 March 2010

http://www.slashgear.com/ati-radeon-hd-5970-5-teraflop-graphics-card-debuts-1863721/



Garcian Smith on 19 March 2010
meehan666 said:
http://www.slashgear.com/ati-radeon-hd-5970-5-teraflop-graphics-card-debuts-1863721/

Pure ownage.



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

mirgro on 19 March 2010
Garcian Smith said:
jhuff394 said:

Yes I HAVE STATED... SHOW ME A CPU/GPU COMBO THAT PERFORMS MORE THAN PS3's 1.8 TeraFlops... I promise I will take everything i've said back if you can show me this....

Or even prove that you can find a consumer available CPU that performs more than the Cell's 218 GFLOPS

The Core I7 performs 50 GFLOPs just for a minor comparison..

Your CPU talk is inaccurate, as I have not seen a CPU available yet that is more powerful.. even in 2010.. unless of course you show me a link to one, which I will gladly accept and admit that I am wrong. Show me this Circa 2002 chip lol that is more powerful, that is completely bogus.

And obviously yes the RSX GPU is definately rather old school, but we are measuring overall power, and the RSX was specifically built to be used with the cell, and the combo of both can produce unmatched power.

And on God of War you do make many good points about camera tricks and linearity making it easy to focus all on graphics.. Ill give you that.. but im still saying in the end.. I have not seen a game that looks better as of this date in 2010..

If the four-year-old Cell found in a $299 game console can outperform a $1000 Core i7, then why aren't people using the Cell for CPU-intensive tasks instead of the i7?

I think next time I make a PC ill just go get a PS3 and canibalize it to save me out a lot on my costs it seems.



Booh! on 19 March 2010
Garcian Smith said:
jhuff394 said:

Yes I HAVE STATED... SHOW ME A CPU/GPU COMBO THAT PERFORMS MORE THAN PS3's 1.8 TeraFlops... I promise I will take everything i've said back if you can show me this....

Or even prove that you can find a consumer available CPU that performs more than the Cell's 218 GFLOPS

The Core I7 performs 50 GFLOPs just for a minor comparison..

Your CPU talk is inaccurate, as I have not seen a CPU available yet that is more powerful.. even in 2010.. unless of course you show me a link to one, which I will gladly accept and admit that I am wrong. Show me this Circa 2002 chip lol that is more powerful, that is completely bogus.

And obviously yes the RSX GPU is definately rather old school, but we are measuring overall power, and the RSX was specifically built to be used with the cell, and the combo of both can produce unmatched power.

And on God of War you do make many good points about camera tricks and linearity making it easy to focus all on graphics.. Ill give you that.. but im still saying in the end.. I have not seen a game that looks better as of this date in 2010..

If the four-year-old Cell found in a $299 game console can outperform a $1000 Core i7, then why aren't people using the Cell for CPU-intensive tasks instead of the i7?

They are: 

For physics, graphics related and signal processing tasks, the cell processor, being a vector processor, can crush any modern scalar processor (like the i7).