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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - When will we get 1080P as a standard?

dib8rman on 20 May 2008

MikeB - The ps3 is a powerful machine yes, the Cell is just where it stops at.

The DRM's on the PS3 are so minimal they make little to no difference on buffering the images so there goes your 1080p unless they can make higher resolution images use less space. To top it off the Ram allocated to this is 256 or 512 partitioned, it's enough to run stuff that's been running on PC back in 2003 with ease.

The key difference is back then that much ram with a processor and a graphics set would cost you about 1300+ USD

or 800 USD depending.

Either way the PS3 is the 'cheapest' way to get a 1080i display or even better 720p.

Also resolution directly = clarity of the image, if it's an image of a turd at 1080p you can see that turd on a TV like it's right in front of you in real life... almost.

Does that mean you want to examine or you could appreciate the intricities of the turd... no.

There are a few other parts to making something look good but resolution is just helping you see what already looks good.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

Around the Network
TheBigFatJ on 20 May 2008
MikeB said:

I already addressed this many times, the PS3 from a technical perspective provides great technological benefits as well as shortcomings compared to modern gaming PCs. These advantages relate to Blu-Ray disc (7.1 lossless audio and graphics data streaming) and the Cell processor. Disadvantages relate to non-upgradeable system memory, GPU performance and the fact that PC games are usually entirely stored onto the harddrive.

Other long term PS3 related advantages is a fully standard basic hardware configuration with probably a decade of shelf space, which means developers will exploit and optimise for every bit of juice they can pump out of the hardware in course of time. Secondly for multi-theaded games one CPU core on a Windows box will usually be entirely dedicated to the host OS due to Windows being very inefficient draining CPU cycles (and system memory, which makes its system RAM advantage far less significant than total numbers would suggest).


Did you ever run performance diagnostics on your machine? I'm sure you were curious how often your system was context switching while you were running your games, since you are certain that Windows is consuming so many resources. Take a look -- you'll be surprised. And, Windows XP uses less than 100MB of memory at startup with a fresh install. Try again, my friend. It's also not consuming lots of memory from my video card, which, incidentally has more memory than your whole PS3. And it does more Gigaflops than your PS3's Cell + RSX, since you seem only to understand theoretical numbers.

You basically said, "The PS3 has the advantages of a console." You then list its disadvantages, which are the disadvantages of a console. If you added to the fact that the GPU is very, very slow, add that the Cell processor is "fucking slow", then I think we could agree on all points.

But, don't worry, Mike. In a few years the PS3 will show its true power and we'll all be bowing to it. It's truly an amazing piece of technology, and no one but Sony could manage to create a computer that powerful. Hell, if they could, we'd all have flying cars and pills that make our poop smell like roses.

Now if only the rest of the world could catch up to Sony's amazing alien technology and learn how to use /properly/ so that it could show us all what gaming would look like 10 years in the future.



MikeB on 20 May 2008
TheBigFatJ said:
MikeB said:

What?

Within a couple of years PS3 games will run circles around what most currently sold PCs are able to achieve by that time. Cell and Blu-Ray are going to make a long term difference.


You are dillusional. 50GB is tiny in PC terms, as PCs already have TB drives available. Storage limitations for PCs are much higher than those for the PS3.


Name me a couple of 50 GB PC games which pushes modern PCs?

Terrabyte harddrives can be used on the PS3 as well, but to think the average consumer has a Terrabye harddrive is being dillusional. Have fun installing 10 50 GB games stored on more than 60 DVDs.

Like it or not future PCs are going to come with Blu-Ray drives before PC developers are really going to start using such potential. 



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Words Of Wisdom on 20 May 2008
TheBigFatJ said:
MikeB said:

I already addressed this many times, the PS3 from a technical perspective provides great technological benefits as well as shortcomings compared to modern gaming PCs. These advantages relate to Blu-Ray disc (7.1 lossless audio and graphics data streaming) and the Cell processor. Disadvantages relate to non-upgradeable system memory, GPU performance and the fact that PC games are usually entirely stored onto the harddrive.

Other long term PS3 related advantages is a fully standard basic hardware configuration with probably a decade of shelf space, which means developers will exploit and optimise for every bit of juice they can pump out of the hardware in course of time. Secondly for multi-theaded games one CPU core on a Windows box will usually be entirely dedicated to the host OS due to Windows being very inefficient draining CPU cycles (and system memory, which makes its system RAM advantage far less significant than total numbers would suggest).


Did you ever run performance diagnostics on your machine? I'm sure you were curious how often your system was context switching while you were running your games, since you are certain that Windows is consuming so many resources. Take a look -- you'll be surprised. And, Windows XP uses less than 100MB of memory at startup with a fresh install. Try again, my friend. It's also not consuming lots of memory from my video card, which, incidentally has more memory than your whole PS3. And it does more Gigaflops than your PS3's Cell + RSX, since you seem only to understand theoretical numbers.

You basically said, "The PS3 has the advantages of a console." You then list its disadvantages, which are the disadvantages of a console. If you added to the fact that the GPU is very, very slow, add that the Cell processor is "fucking slow", then I think we could agree on all points.

But, don't worry, Mike. In a few years the PS3 will show its true power and we'll all be bowing to it. It's truly an amazing piece of technology, and no one but Sony could manage to create a computer that powerful. Hell, if they could, we'd all have flying cars and pills that make our poop smell like roses.

Now if only the rest of the world could catch up to Sony's amazing alien technology and learn how to use /properly/ so that it could show us all what gaming would look like 10 years in the future.


Hey rocketpig, do you remember when MikeB used to annoy you as much as he's annoying TheBigFatJ?  ^_^



obieslut on 20 May 2008
MikeB said:
PS360ForTheWin said:
Its already standard for PC, will be standard nexgen for PS4/XBOX720, dont know about the Wii2.

No way it's standard, my monitor only goes up to 1024p max. Even many currently sold PCs would crawl to run Crysis in such a resolution.


Crysis is an extreme case, but with game like COD4 the pc does it with ease whilst also running an antivirus check, Recoding videos and Defragmenting a HDD.  I would love to see a console do all that without RRoDing on you or without the ps3 flashy light thing

Around the Network
MikeB on 20 May 2008
Profcrab said:
MikeB said:
HappySqurriel said:
MikeB said:

What?

Within a couple of years PS3 games will run circles around what most currently sold PCs are able to achieve by that time. Cell and Blu-Ray are going to make a long term difference.



The Cell processor will have similar performance to processors that were released using a similar process and have a similar number of transistors


Plenty of research documents show you are plainly wrong. In terms of raw processing power the Cell can perform multiple times faster than commonly sold x86 desktop CPUs today at all optimised software tasks. The x86 CPUs carry around lots of legacy garbage and non-crucial (note I am not saying useless to everyone) features. I look at the Cell as a processor adopting the philosophy of achieving elegance trough simplicity.


The cell processor was designed to be a next generation workstation/server chip by IBM. Gaming applications are altogether different. Games are not designed the same way as most office and commercial apps. The true statement is that most of the power of the Cell is untapped. The ugly underside of that true statement is that games don't need most of what the Cell has to offer. Sony further handicapped it by giving a small amount of memory dedicated to it. Games on the PS3 will improve as developers use it more efficiently but what must be understood is that it is not a gaming processor. The games will not improve as dramatically as you believe. This vast untapped potential it has is better used in a server farm. This is why people have looked at the PS3 for those applications.


There are two kinds of Cell naysayers I see dominant on forums. Those who claim the Cell is optimised for multi-media applications and thus is useless for serious stuff and others like you who seem to claim the opposite.

The Cell chip is a multi-media powerhouse, excellently suited for gaming purposes as well as for building a new unrivalled supercomputer. There are however various considerations, that's why I stated back in 2005 it's going to take a long time before developers will get the most out of this CPU relating to redesigning legacy game engines.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

obieslut on 20 May 2008

However consoles are made for gameing, they are made to be small (kinda) silent cough cough x360 lol. na thats loud.

To plug into your tv and not install masses amount of data into a hardrive.

I mean this is just though so dont grill me, the pc is good for games but if it did not like install 10gb for each game ie GeOW. then would it still have such an edge over the consoles, mmmmmmmm



MikeB on 20 May 2008
TheBigFatJ said:
MikeB said:

I already addressed this many times, the PS3 from a technical perspective provides great technological benefits as well as shortcomings compared to modern gaming PCs. These advantages relate to Blu-Ray disc (7.1 lossless audio and graphics data streaming) and the Cell processor. Disadvantages relate to non-upgradeable system memory, GPU performance and the fact that PC games are usually entirely stored onto the harddrive.

Other long term PS3 related advantages is a fully standard basic hardware configuration with probably a decade of shelf space, which means developers will exploit and optimise for every bit of juice they can pump out of the hardware in course of time. Secondly for multi-theaded games one CPU core on a Windows box will usually be entirely dedicated to the host OS due to Windows being very inefficient draining CPU cycles (and system memory, which makes its system RAM advantage far less significant than total numbers would suggest).


Did you ever run performance diagnostics on your machine? I'm sure you were curious how often your system was context switching while you were running your games, since you are certain that Windows is consuming so many resources. Take a look -- you'll be surprised. And, Windows XP uses less than 100MB of memory at startup with a fresh install. Try again, my friend. It's also not consuming lots of memory from my video card, which, incidentally has more memory than your whole PS3. And it does more Gigaflops than your PS3's Cell + RSX, since you seem only to understand theoretical numbers.

You basically said, "The PS3 has the advantages of a console." You then list its disadvantages, which are the disadvantages of a console. If you added to the fact that the GPU is very, very slow, add that the Cell processor is "fucking slow", then I think we could agree on all points.

But, don't worry, Mike. In a few years the PS3 will show its true power and we'll all be bowing to it. It's truly an amazing piece of technology, and no one but Sony could manage to create a computer that powerful. Hell, if they could, we'd all have flying cars and pills that make our poop smell like roses.

Now if only the rest of the world could catch up to Sony's amazing alien technology and learn how to use /properly/ so that it could show us all what gaming would look like 10 years in the future.

 

For instance I did use an equivalent of SnoopDOS on the PC, it was useless to me as Windows does so many seemingly useles things in the background while being completely idle from the user perspective, it gave me a headache and I didn't know what most of the files were used for anyhow (it's a very closed system).

An interesting quote from Tim Sweeney (head developer at Epic, a highly acclaimed long time PC developer):

"keep in mind that the Windows XP driver model for Direct3D is quite inefficient, to such an extent that in many applications, the OS and driver overhead associated with issuing Direct3D calls approaches 50% of available CPU cycles. Hiding this overhead will be one of the major immediate uses of multi-core. " Source: AnandTech interview



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

TheBigFatJ on 20 May 2008
MikeB said:
TheBigFatJ said:
MikeB said:

What?

Within a couple of years PS3 games will run circles around what most currently sold PCs are able to achieve by that time. Cell and Blu-Ray are going to make a long term difference.


You are dillusional. 50GB is tiny in PC terms, as PCs already have TB drives available. Storage limitations for PCs are much higher than those for the PS3.


Name me a couple of 50 GB PC games which pushes modern PCs?

Terrabyte harddrives can be used on the PS3 as well, but to think the average consumer has a Terrabye harddrive is being dillusional. Have fun installing 10 50 GB games stored on more than 60 DVDs.

Like it or not future PCs are going to come with Blu-Ray drives before PC developers are really going to start using such potential.

So you are contending that you can add a TB drive to a PS3, after telling me its a standardized platform?  Now name me a couple of 50GB PS3 games that are out now.

Yes, saying the average user has a TB drive is dillusional.  Did I say that anywhere, or are you trying to deflect this argument because you have no hope of making a rational point?

My point is that the PS3 has all kinds of very low limitations, wheras the PC has much higher limitations.  A 40GB hard drive?  A cell processor?  A geforce 7600 256MB?  Small, slow, slower. 



MikeB on 20 May 2008
TheBigFatJ said:
MikeB said:
TheBigFatJ said:
MikeB said:

What?

Within a couple of years PS3 games will run circles around what most currently sold PCs are able to achieve by that time. Cell and Blu-Ray are going to make a long term difference.


You are dillusional. 50GB is tiny in PC terms, as PCs already have TB drives available. Storage limitations for PCs are much higher than those for the PS3.


Name me a couple of 50 GB PC games which pushes modern PCs?

Terrabyte harddrives can be used on the PS3 as well, but to think the average consumer has a Terrabye harddrive is being dillusional. Have fun installing 10 50 GB games stored on more than 60 DVDs.

Like it or not future PCs are going to come with Blu-Ray drives before PC developers are really going to start using such potential.

So you are contending that you can add a TB drive to a PS3, after telling me its a standardized platform? Now name me a couple of 50GB PS3 games that are out now.

Yes, saying the average user has a TB drive is dillusional. Did I say that anywhere, or are you trying to deflect this argument because you have no hope of making a rational point?

My point is that the PS3 has all kinds of very low limitations, wheras the PC has much higher limitations. A 40GB hard drive? A cell processor? A geforce 7600 256MB? Small, slow, slower.


MGS4 (developer would have liked more space than is available on dual layer Blu-Ray disc) is soon to be released, I expect games like Killzone 2 and Final Fantasy XIII to use 50 GB discs as well. Even this early in the console's lifecycle games like (using 2:1 compression) Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction or Motorstorm are already pushing the limits of 25 GB discs. That more data than top PC games use.

It's easy to imagine sequels, providing more tracks, more audio, bigger games in general providing more graphics diversity or higher quality textures to demand more space.

40 GB is more than sufficient of tapping well into Blu-Ray's streaming capabilities, stuff will be temporarily stored on the harddrive, Uncharted for example requires no harddrive installation but uses the harddrive for this and likewise does Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction which only requires a 417 MB install. Play those games, they are some of the technically most impressive games currently available. But keep in mind my sig below.  



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales