@ LTKN

The 360 will have to split its main memory between CPU and GPU as well. Actually the PS3 approach potentially allows for more data to be pushed from main memory towards the GPU as both memory types within the PS3 are seperate.

Believe what you want to believe, just don't put words into my mouth on forums please. If you feel the need, you are free to quote me and link to the original thread for context.

LordTheNightKnight said: MikeB said: @ Darc Requiem Mike, we all know that if the situation was reversed and the PS3 version ran at the higher resolution without a hard drive install you would have used it as a testament to the power of the Cell. You would but saying how Cell allowed GTA4 on PS3 to run at a higher resolution at a near identical frame rate without the benefit of a hard drive install. How the 360 hardware couldn't handle the game at 720p despite the hard drive install etc. etc. No per se, it would depend on developer clarifications. Please back up your statements, I didn't claim the 360 couldn't handle Halo 3 in 720p at rock stable 30 FPS neither, actually I stated the 360 should be. Well it ran at 640p in 60fps, not 30fps. The only thing keeping it from 720p/60fps was the extensive lighting engine. Take that out, and the game would be 720p.

Halo 3 is 30 FPS and drops below this in some parts of the game. Yes without HDR it would have been easier to accomplish, but with HDR I also think 720p should have been achievable on the 360.

I'd have my input to this thread, too.

Here it goes... LOL!

LordTheNightKnight said: MikeB said: @ Darc Requiem Mike, we all know that if the situation was reversed and the PS3 version ran at the higher resolution without a hard drive install you would have used it as a testament to the power of the Cell. You would but saying how Cell allowed GTA4 on PS3 to run at a higher resolution at a near identical frame rate without the benefit of a hard drive install. How the 360 hardware couldn't handle the game at 720p despite the hard drive install etc. etc. No per se, it would depend on developer clarifications. Please back up your statements, I didn't claim the 360 couldn't handle Halo 3 in 720p at rock stable 30 FPS neither, actually I stated the 360 should be. Well it ran at 640p in 60fps, not 30fps. The only thing keeping it from 720p/60fps was the extensive lighting engine. Take that out, and the game would be 720p.

 http://www.gamegrep.com/news/5430-halo_3_runs_640p_native_resolution/

I thought Halo3 averaged at 30fps. 

MikeB said: @ LTKN The 360 will have to split its main memory between CPU and GPU as well. When did I mention the processors splitting memory? And when did I claim that was only with the PS3? I only mentioned the frame buffer, which is not a processor, but a chunk of the RAM. Actually the PS3 approach potentially allows for more data to be pushed from main memory towards the GPU as both memory types within the PS3 are seperate. How can it have its own approach, if it has to split its memory "as well"? Believe what you want to believe, just don't put words into my mouth on forums please. I'm not putting words. That would making stuff up. Those of us on that thread know what you stated.  If you feel the need, you are free to quote me and link to the original thread for context. If you can't be bothered to recall an argument you made, that means you don't really think through your arguments, since they

And that thread is not really relevant to this now anway. The point is that the PS3 and 360 don't have large frame buffers, and processors can't magically change that. So they have to have lower resolutions than PC games to fit all the textures, polygons, mapping, shading, and effects of their PC counterparts.  Both have just a little over 512MB. The 360 has the EDRAM, and the PS3 can utilize the Cell for greater bandwidth, but at the very best that ups the potential RAM to 640MB. 

So both systems have to limit their memory, and the best way it to limit the resolution. That is my point.

You are correct in many things but this can be a valid point but doesn't have to. The PS3 (as the PS2 and I would imagine the 360 also) may have far less RAM and VRAM than a PC but they have awfully fast memory access a huge bus and fast memory.
Historically you would have the textures and models of the whole level in memory. If you would do this with PS3/360 then they would be severly disadvantaged against PCs. But this is not the approach a dev should take. Instead he has to stream the needed textures and models into the memory depending on what is going on on screen.
You have to do this for big worlds anyway also on Pc but you have to be far more aggressive on Ps3/360. This isn't easy and of course there are some limitations but if you have different levels of detail for further away textures/models you have essentially no hard limitation.

Kyros said: So they have to have lower resolutions than PC games to fit all the textures, polygons, mapping, shading, and effects of their PC counterparts. You are correct in many things but this can be a valid point but doesn't have to. The PS3 (as the PS2 and I would imagine the 360 also) may have far less RAM and VRAM than a PC but they have awfully fast memory access a huge bus and fast memory. Historically you would have the textures and models of the whole level in memory. If you would do this with PS3/360 then they would be severly disadvantaged against PCs. But this is not the approach a dev should take. Instead he has to stream the needed textures and models into the memory depending on what is going on on screen. You have to do this for big worlds anyway also on Pc but you have to be far more aggressive on Ps3/360. This isn't easy and of course there are some limitations but if you have different levels of detail for further away textures/models you have essentially no hard limitation.

Well in that case, a lower resolution would make sense, since that would mean the frame buffer has less of a chance of clogging any of the bandwidth. Is that right? 

Its not a bad thing, it cleverly disguises the graphics of some objects which seem abit nastier on the 360.

a lower resolution would make sense since you essentially have more "cache" left over. Because thats all the memory is at this point. But I think nobody is disputing the fact that its easier to develop games in 720p than in 1080p.

The question is how big the drawback would be. There is 256mb VRAM.

The framebuffer is 1920*1080 * 3b ~ 6mb.
Then you have z Buffer ~ 6 mb
Depending on you blending needs at least an o additional puffers (stencil, HDR rendering ...)
so in total I don't know 24mb? vs. 12mb for 720p

Other used buffers for example for shadow mapping do not depend on the output resolution. So I am not sure if the higher resolution would be that terrible if you look at it from a memory standpoint.

I would think that the fact that you suddenly have twice the screen pixels in 1080p i.e. that your shader and texturing pipelines have suddenly only 50% time per pixel is a bigger problem. But honestly I have no idea.

gebx said: MikeB said: @ NJ5 I just did a quick search and it seems to me that some of PS3's best games in terms of graphics (Uncharted and R&C) are 720p. I agree those are maybe the best looking console games so far (for both PS3/360), but they haven't fully adapted their game engines for the PS3 yet. Gran Turismo 5: Prologue (cars look amazing, realtime replays are like watching movies) and Super Stardust HD (insane amount of high speed activity and effects) in 1080p are very impressive. Using Super Stardust HD as the pinacle of PS3's graphics after a year and a half after its launch is SAD!! Its not a compliment in any way and makes me laugh everytime you use it as an the example

Obviously you have either never played it, or have a crappy TV. The game looks amazing, while it may not be the pinacle of the PS3's graphics that does not mean it is not good looking. It tops any XBL game.