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

Forums - Sony - Why does the PS3 suck so much...

totalwar23 on 02 April 2008
Smidlee said:
FJ-Warez said:
 

 

GT5 Prologue not true 1080p - upscaled

"GT5 prologue demo is 1280x1080p (yamauchi know than in car game the vertical resolution is the most important for the visibility) but with MSAA 2x now ! it's a very good Compromise
they also very improved the display of grills and electric wires and aliasing problems (compare electric wires in GT-HD and in this demo, it's big big gap), the texture filtering is very clean and the HDR ligthing is awesome! All this in 60fps with 16 photorealistics cars, it's impressive the show room and the pit/garage is full 1920x1080 no AA"


1280 X 1080p is true 1080p just not in 16:9 format as neither does any 1080p movies.

nope. 1080p is usually associated with a 16:9 ratio. Even if it is 4:3, then it would be 1440 * 1080.

 



Around the Network
Smidlee on 02 April 2008
totalwar23 said:
Smidlee said:
FJ-Warez said:
 

 

GT5 Prologue not true 1080p - upscaled

"GT5 prologue demo is 1280x1080p (yamauchi know than in car game the vertical resolution is the most important for the visibility) but with MSAA 2x now ! it's a very good Compromise
they also very improved the display of grills and electric wires and aliasing problems (compare electric wires in GT-HD and in this demo, it's big big gap), the texture filtering is very clean and the HDR ligthing is awesome! All this in 60fps with 16 photorealistics cars, it's impressive the show room and the pit/garage is full 1920x1080 no AA"


1280 X 1080p is true 1080p just not in 16:9 format as neither does any 1080p movies.

nope. 1080p is usually associated with a 16:9 ratio. Even if it is 4:3, then it would be 1440 * 1080.

 


That why there is so much confusion over HD. 1080p doesn't mean 16:9 format. Again movies for examples. Most HDTV are usually in 16:9 format both 720p and 1080p yet  even then there are a few exceptions.



totalwar23 on 02 April 2008
Smidlee said:
totalwar23 said:
Smidlee said:
FJ-Warez said:
 

 

GT5 Prologue not true 1080p - upscaled

"GT5 prologue demo is 1280x1080p (yamauchi know than in car game the vertical resolution is the most important for the visibility) but with MSAA 2x now ! it's a very good Compromise
they also very improved the display of grills and electric wires and aliasing problems (compare electric wires in GT-HD and in this demo, it's big big gap), the texture filtering is very clean and the HDR ligthing is awesome! All this in 60fps with 16 photorealistics cars, it's impressive the show room and the pit/garage is full 1920x1080 no AA"


1280 X 1080p is true 1080p just not in 16:9 format as neither does any 1080p movies.

nope. 1080p is usually associated with a 16:9 ratio. Even if it is 4:3, then it would be 1440 * 1080.

 


That why there is so mauch confusing of HD. 1080p doesn't mean 16:9 format.


 Yes, 1080p simply means 1080 vertical lines but if I run a resolution of 100 * 1080, I could call it 1080p but it won't actually be the full 1080p everyone is thinking of which is 1920 by 1080. Therefore 1280 * 1080 is not full 1080p.



Smidlee on 02 April 2008
totalwar23 said:
Smidlee said:
totalwar23 said:
Smidlee said:
FJ-Warez said:
 

 

GT5 Prologue not true 1080p - upscaled

"GT5 prologue demo is 1280x1080p (yamauchi know than in car game the vertical resolution is the most important for the visibility) but with MSAA 2x now ! it's a very good Compromise
they also very improved the display of grills and electric wires and aliasing problems (compare electric wires in GT-HD and in this demo, it's big big gap), the texture filtering is very clean and the HDR ligthing is awesome! All this in 60fps with 16 photorealistics cars, it's impressive the show room and the pit/garage is full 1920x1080 no AA"


1280 X 1080p is true 1080p just not in 16:9 format as neither does any 1080p movies.

nope. 1080p is usually associated with a 16:9 ratio. Even if it is 4:3, then it would be 1440 * 1080.

 


That why there is so mauch confusing of HD. 1080p doesn't mean 16:9 format.


Yes, 1080p simply means 1080 vertical lines but if I run a resolution of 100 * 1080, I could call it 1080p but it won't actually be the full 1080p everyone is thinking of which is 1920 by 1080. Therefore 1280 * 1080 is not full 1080p.

I've never ever seen anything close running in 1:10 format. You are exactly right that 1080p only mean 1080 progressive vertical lines which is why movies includes in the format also.

For example Spider Man 3 Blu-Ray is running in according to the box " 1080p high definition/2.40:1" (that's 12:5)



totalwar23 on 02 April 2008
Smidlee said:
totalwar23 said:
Smidlee said:
totalwar23 said:
Smidlee said:
FJ-Warez said:
 

 

GT5 Prologue not true 1080p - upscaled

"GT5 prologue demo is 1280x1080p (yamauchi know than in car game the vertical resolution is the most important for the visibility) but with MSAA 2x now ! it's a very good Compromise
they also very improved the display of grills and electric wires and aliasing problems (compare electric wires in GT-HD and in this demo, it's big big gap), the texture filtering is very clean and the HDR ligthing is awesome! All this in 60fps with 16 photorealistics cars, it's impressive the show room and the pit/garage is full 1920x1080 no AA"


1280 X 1080p is true 1080p just not in 16:9 format as neither does any 1080p movies.

nope. 1080p is usually associated with a 16:9 ratio. Even if it is 4:3, then it would be 1440 * 1080.

 


That why there is so mauch confusing of HD. 1080p doesn't mean 16:9 format.


Yes, 1080p simply means 1080 vertical lines but if I run a resolution of 100 * 1080, I could call it 1080p but it won't actually be the full 1080p everyone is thinking of which is 1920 by 1080. Therefore 1280 * 1080 is not full 1080p.

I've never ever seen anything close running in 1:10 format. You are exactly write 1080p only mean 1080 progressive vertical lines which is why movies includes in the format also.

 

That was just an example. Nobody in their right mind would do that but from the definition of 1080p, I could claim 100 * 1080 is 1080p but in reality, you know the resolution would stink. Not saying that 1280 * 1080 is a bad resolution, it just isn't the full 1080p everyone expects from a modern HDTV.

Around the Network
Username2324 on 02 April 2008
sc94597 said:
totalwar23 said:
selnor said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
ssj12 said:
The strength about the PS3 is the processor not the GPU. The GPU is equal to the 7800GTX, no question on that. The 9800GX2 easily puts the RSX to shame but it will take a PC with a QX9770 and a 9800GX2 to outperform what the PS3 is truly capable of thanks to the CELL processor.

Yeah I agree, but nobody seems to use the CELL. It just lays there being unused. I really want to see what the cell is capable of as a gpu. The only problem I see is the small amount of ram , and low bandwidth compared to pc gpus.

 

 

Edit: But I don't agree it's that powerful. Maybe equivalent to a 8800gt single.

Laugh out freakin loud! So you go from being less than a 8400GT to close to a 8800GT, that's quite a jump my friend!

 

This thread has bad tech talk. Stop calling the Cell a GPU. It's not its a CPU. End of.

 


Now that is the truth.

@sc94597

Are you actually saying the Cell is equivalent to an 8800GT? Dear god...

Well I'm talking about if the cell is used as a second gpu along with rsx, maybe the outcome would be similar to a 8800gt. Oh and you tink I'm bad look at what SSJ12 thinks.

@ Therealmafoo I'm not a ps3 hater, I just like the wii more. I have a ps3 , and 360 btw.

@ Username, Why don't you go bother somebody else , you aren't worth talking to.

Once you grow up, quit spamming the forums with pointless threads and useless posts, and realize you know very little, then I will leave you alone and move on to the next person like you. Until that time, I shall remain and continue to try to make you realize all of the nonsense you post.

 



Andir on 02 April 2008

Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
Well I'm talking about if the cell is used as a second gpu along with rsx, maybe the outcome would be similar to a 8800gt. Oh and you tink I'm bad look at what SSJ12 thinks.

@ Therealmafoo I'm not a ps3 hater, I just like the wii more. I have a ps3 , and 360 btw.

@ Username, Why don't you go bother somebody else , you aren't worth talking to.

Once you grow up, quit spamming the forums with pointless threads and useless posts, and realize you know very little, then I will leave you alone and move on to the next person like you. Until that time, I shall remain and continue to try to make you realize all of the nonsense you post.

 


 You're going to be here a while.  Apparently the mods stopped caring  (aka: doing their "job" and cleaning up obvious troll threads) and this thread will be the new "technical thread" that pops up every few months.  All I am going to say is that if this was posted in the Nintendo forum with the title: "Why does the Wii suck so much..." it never would have made it past page 1.



It seems the mods need help with this forum.  I have zero tolerance for trolling, platform criticism (Rule 4), and poster bad-mouthing (Rule 3.4) and you will be reported.

Review before posting: http://vgchartz.com/forum/rules.php

Rock_on_2008 on 02 April 2008

Gee people going on about technical computer geek terms you definitely do not know what you are talking about.



sc94597 on 02 April 2008
totalwar23 said:
sc94597 said:
totalwar23 said:
selnor said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
ssj12 said:
The strength about the PS3 is the processor not the GPU. The GPU is equal to the 7800GTX, no question on that. The 9800GX2 easily puts the RSX to shame but it will take a PC with a QX9770 and a 9800GX2 to outperform what the PS3 is truly capable of thanks to the CELL processor.

Yeah I agree, but nobody seems to use the CELL. It just lays there being unused. I really want to see what the cell is capable of as a gpu. The only problem I see is the small amount of ram , and low bandwidth compared to pc gpus.

 

 

Edit: But I don't agree it's that powerful. Maybe equivalent to a 8800gt single.

Laugh out freakin loud! So you go from being less than a 8400GT to close to a 8800GT, that's quite a jump my friend!

 

This thread has bad tech talk. Stop calling the Cell a GPU. It's not its a CPU. End of.

 


Now that is the truth.

@sc94597

Are you actually saying the Cell is equivalent to an 8800GT? Dear god...

Well I'm talking about if the cell is used as a second gpu along with rsx, maybe the outcome would be similar to a 8800gt. Oh and you tink I'm bad look at what SSJ12 thinks.

@ Therealmafoo I'm not a ps3 hater, I just like the wii more. I have a ps3 , and 360 btw.

@ Username, Why don't you go bother somebody else , you aren't worth talking to.

First off, the RSX is what, an 7800GTX or around there. The 8800GT is roughly 2X more powerful than the 7800GTX.

Secondly, I'm going to quote HappySqurriel. Read below:

"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?

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?"

 

Please answer HappySqurriel's question.

Well my guess is that it would be easier to develop for at first.  I don't think the cell could replace the gpu rather then help give it more performance. Maybe I was overestimating a little though.

 



totalwar23 on 02 April 2008
sc94597 said:
totalwar23 said:
sc94597 said:
totalwar23 said:
selnor said:
Username2324 said:
sc94597 said:
ssj12 said:
The strength about the PS3 is the processor not the GPU. The GPU is equal to the 7800GTX, no question on that. The 9800GX2 easily puts the RSX to shame but it will take a PC with a QX9770 and a 9800GX2 to outperform what the PS3 is truly capable of thanks to the CELL processor.

Yeah I agree, but nobody seems to use the CELL. It just lays there being unused. I really want to see what the cell is capable of as a gpu. The only problem I see is the small amount of ram , and low bandwidth compared to pc gpus.

 

 

Edit: But I don't agree it's that powerful. Maybe equivalent to a 8800gt single.

Laugh out freakin loud! So you go from being less than a 8400GT to close to a 8800GT, that's quite a jump my friend!

 

This thread has bad tech talk. Stop calling the Cell a GPU. It's not its a CPU. End of.

 


Now that is the truth.

@sc94597

Are you actually saying the Cell is equivalent to an 8800GT? Dear god...

Well I'm talking about if the cell is used as a second gpu along with rsx, maybe the outcome would be similar to a 8800gt. Oh and you tink I'm bad look at what SSJ12 thinks.

@ Therealmafoo I'm not a ps3 hater, I just like the wii more. I have a ps3 , and 360 btw.

@ Username, Why don't you go bother somebody else , you aren't worth talking to.

First off, the RSX is what, an 7800GTX or around there. The 8800GT is roughly 2X more powerful than the 7800GTX.

Secondly, I'm going to quote HappySqurriel. Read below:

"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?

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?"

 

Please answer HappySqurriel's question.

Well my guess is that it would be easier to develop for at first.

 

Oh yeah, Sony really saved the developers. Thank goodness Sony did that to make the PS3 easy to develop for.

But I meant the question in the second paragraph. One GPU is stronger than 3 Cells combined in performance so how would one Cell suddenly double the RSX performance and perform its job as a general CPU?