@rocketpig,
Thats cool man, if you run across it, please post it.
Resolution is dumb. People act like 1080P/720P is all that matters in terms of GOOD GRAPHCX. How the game is programmed is so much more important (char models, texturing, blahblah) than the stupid output. I'm so sick of hearing about this stuff. It's just a new thing to market to undiscerning consumers. I mean it's a little nicer, but it's no revolution. Plastic-looking people look even plastic-ier in 1080p.
If people was really that important, everyone should just play everything on bigger and bigger CRT PC monitors.
@GhaleonUnlimited
Resolution is dumb??
| MikeB said: @ Entroper The difference between Xenos and RSX in raw specs is very slight. The RSX has 24 pixel-only pipelines that do 2 vector ops per cycle, and it also has 8 vertex-only pipes that do one vector op per cycle. The Xenos has 48 pixel-or-vertex pipelines that do one vector op per cycle. Correct, but note with regard to those 48 ops vs 48 ops per cycle, on the Xenos you would perform vertex ops dragging down the potential pixel shader op figure. The more vertex ops you dedicate the lower this figure, in comparison with the PS3 there's no real top potential advantage to unified shaders. |
There is always an advantage to unified shaders. If you have a vertex-heavy load and are using the RSX's 8 vertex pipelines at 100%, then you aren't using the pixel pipelines at 100%. Vice versa, if you have a pixel-heavy load, you aren't using the vertex pipelines at 100%. Unified shaders can handle any load at optimum efficiency. RSX also loses some efficiency with the 2 ops/cycle design, since there aren't always 2 ops available to perform every cycle.
IIRC, Initially Sony planned on having 3 Cell processors in every PS3 as a way to give developers full flexability on how the performance of the system was allocated between core logic and graphical effects but abandoned that because an inexpensive GPU would outperform the entire system in rendering polygons with full effects. How would it be possible for a GPU (like the RSX) to outperform 3 Cell processors with what it is doing, and yet one (already taxed) Cell processor could boost performance of the RSX to nearly double?
Not only does RSX have more floating-point performance, it is also custom-designed to handle texture caching, bilinear filtering, and all that jazz. The Cell could do all that, but you would get a LOT less performance out of it. Even going by the announced specs: RSX = 1.8 TFLOPS, Cell = 218 GFLOPS. It's a difference between special-purpose flops and general-purpose flops.
@DMJ, it sounds to me like you just want an excuse to bash the mods for being anti-PS3. The OP was about PS3 games not being in 1080p. Shams's post was about PS3 games not being in 1080p. Just because someone has something negative to say about Sony or the PS3 doesn't mean they're trolling. Realize that I'm very excited about getting a PS3 and playing GT5, and I see nothing wrong with pointing out the reality of the PS3's capabilities.
| HappySqurriel said: MikeB, if one Cell processor can so greatly improve the rendering of a scene in game while at the same time running the rest of the game's code why did Sony abandon their multiple Cell-processor per PS3 (in stead of a GPU) so early on in the PS3's design? |
By having a PC world like dedicated graphic chip the design is much more similar and it's far easier to port legacy code. Also the RSX has other strongpoints than a Cell, so that approach is more powerful for now. It's more useful to have a dentist and a doctor in a village than having only two dentists.
| Kyros said: I will support the point that most games are not designed for 1080p because higher resolution means less details on screen and most people do not have 1080p displays (me included) so I am quite content that developers go for more details in 720p instead of putting out less details in 1080p. This doesn't reflect directly to the limitation of the hardware. Its more a question of your target group. And the 1080p owners are a pretty small group at the moment. But this discussion goes round and round and round and ... |
Higher resolutions means more details can be shown. You are probably confused and meant added effects, adding realtime effects requires performance, however with higher resolutions assuming infinitive power more effects at higher detail can be done.
Power however isn't infinitive, but at some point adding more effects isn't really desirable (like a woman using too much make-up). In animationed movies there is no such realtime power limitation, so what artists come up with is as intended with all bells and whistles attached, if your game reaches such levels of quality that artists feel no need to add more effects to improve image quality I would say its better to use any spare power for upping the resolutions and upping frames per second for fast paced games (1080p, 60 FPS).
| Hapimeses said: I find the whole lesser-resolutions-are-acceptable arguments somewhat odd. By comparison, 720p is typically 1280x720, and 1080p is typically 1920x1080. I know what I'd rather have displaying on my screen. Indeed, when I play old games that run in low resolutions, such as Baldur's Gate that runs at 800x600 (if I remember correctly), it looks like crap on my monitor: the resolution is too low, details are jaggy and lost, faces are blobs, etc. However, to answer the OP: The PS3 does run games in 1080p, there just aren't many of them. Indeed, many of the PSN titles run in that resolution, as do Blu Ray movies. Thus, a 1080p display is well worth the asking price, as many titles will look sharper, and movies will look far better. Further, many developers are apparently close to making 1080p run smoothly on the PS3, so the next generation of PS3 titles will also look better on a 1080p set. Also, much like a monitor will show more on-screen when you up the display resolution, the PS3 displays more on-screen when you up its resolution to 1080p for a 1080p TV. For example: the XMB shows more, you see more when browsing the internet, and similar. In short: 720p sets for PS3 are not worth it if you can afford a 1080p TV, so, if you can, buy 1080p every time. I have, and I'm hugely happy with what I have. |
I basically agree with what you said, but I have one thing to add:
I don't quite understand those who say that the difference between 720p and 1080p is barely noticeable. Just look at this graphic that MikeB posted:
You can clearly see that the diffence between 1080p and 720p is much larger than the difference between 720p and 480p. Unless you're looking to purchase a small tv, 1080p should be one of your top priorities, imo. If you don't care about 1080p over 720p, then why care about HD at all? Just get a cheap EDTV, since the details obviously don't matter.
rocketpig I do not see what you try to prove. The difference between pc and console is that there are pcs with different power playing the same game. Providing an option for 3024*2048 and 4aa makes sense since only much more powerful pcs than the ones targeted will use them. On consoles you have one performance level and you will try to get the optimum out of it. And this means that in higher resolutions the power used for aa will be used for more important things. I don't see the problem you have with this concept. If you add more pixel shader pipelines developers WILL find ways to use them even in low resolutions and in the end they will decide what looks better. Add the low 1080p userbase to this and you know why games on consoles rarely use this resolution. Different detail settings like on pcs are simply not there on consoles. And to the last poster yes there is a level of graphical quality where adding doesnt make much sense but for example the trickfilms you mentioned render hours for a frame so this level is far far in the future.
@ Entroper
| MikeB said: @ Entroper There is always an advantage to unified shaders. Unified shaders is an advantage, but not an advantage over the PS3. If you have 50 people who can either be a doctor or a dentist, does not mean there's advantage over having 100 people, 50 of them only being able to be a doctor and 50 people only able to be a dentist. You get more work done in the latter case. The RSX/Cell vs Xenos/Xenon is like such a situation. |
Except it isn't 50+50 vs. 50, it's 48+8 vs. 48. :P And I never claimed Xenos was faster! I claimed the difference is less than the specs would indicate at face value.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
