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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Have graphics for consoles peaked with this generation?

FJ-Warez on 26 June 2008
leo-j said:
NJ5 said:
leo-j, as usually you're overreacting. No one is saying the PS3 is less powerful.

You don't know how to debate, so just don't.

 

 Im not overreacting at all, it seems that every 360 game is more technically powerful than the PS3, including GTA 4.

 

Well, let me put it this way...

360:

Better AA

Higher Resolution

PS3:

Better Lighting

Less pop-in

Lower load times

 

The PS3 is superior in mattesr non-related to the power of the CPU-GPU (HDD and load times) and in one feature not included in the 360 (HDR which explains why it features better lighting) but the 360 shows improments on issues more tied to the power of the machine, what does this mean???

 

The devs were capable to achieve better performance from the CPU-GPU from the 360, that doesn't meant that the PS3 is less powerfull but the choose to leave it that way...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
Around the Network
sc94597 on 26 June 2008
leo-j said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

Wow, you certainly like to pout don't you ...

Your (initial) argument was that Sony always puts the best CPU and GPU into their console, and it has been demonstrated by FJ-Warez that this couldn't be the case (because the RSX is a downgraded version of the 7800GTX which was available late 2005) and can be argued simply by looking at how games like FEAR and Oblivion perform worse on the PS3 than they do on PC hardware that was available in 2006.

Does this mean that the PS3 is junk? No, but it does discredit your argument why the PS4 would be bleeding edge hardware. Certainly, Sony will claim that their hardware is bleeding edge, but that is part of the PR game to seperate you from your money more than anything else.

 

If that were true, and the PS3 can barely do any better visuals than FEAR or OBLIVION, we wouldnt be having UNCHARTED, MGS4, OR KILLZONE 2 completely destroy those games visually.

you have to understand that the PS3 has a very different CPU than any PC. Sony was about to release the PS3 without a GPU.

 

Of course not, but the pc ran those games better, and probably could run these games you mentioned better if it was developed for pcs.

Edit: Also that was when they were also going to give it three cells. Then they decided a gpu was better.

 



leo-j on 26 June 2008
HappySqurriel said:
leo-j said:

Which is why we have killzone 2 looking better than anything on consoles "technically and visually".

 

So was Lair before we found out that it had massive frame rate issues ...

It is (amazingly) foolish to argue how a game demonstrates the power of the console when we haven't seen the released version of it yet. Many companies in the past have used PC hardware to release videos of games for consoles in the past, and when the game was actually released it didn't look or perform nearly as well; I'm not claiming that this is what is happening with Killzone 2, but without seeing the released version it is foolish to claim how great it is.

Well considering its been playable since GDC 08, your telling me its going to have massive framerate issues just because you assume it will?

Sure.

 



 

mM
HappySqurriel on 26 June 2008
leo-j said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

Wow, you certainly like to pout don't you ...

Your (initial) argument was that Sony always puts the best CPU and GPU into their console, and it has been demonstrated by FJ-Warez that this couldn't be the case (because the RSX is a downgraded version of the 7800GTX which was available late 2005) and can be argued simply by looking at how games like FEAR and Oblivion perform worse on the PS3 than they do on PC hardware that was available in 2006.

Does this mean that the PS3 is junk? No, but it does discredit your argument why the PS4 would be bleeding edge hardware. Certainly, Sony will claim that their hardware is bleeding edge, but that is part of the PR game to seperate you from your money more than anything else.

 

If that were true, and the PS3 can barely do any better visuals than FEAR or OBLIVION, we wouldnt be having UNCHARTED, MGS4, OR KILLZONE 2 completely destroy those games visually.

you have to understand that the PS3 has a very different CPU than any PC. Sony was about to release the PS3 without a GPU.

 

Right ...

Your argument that those games completely destroy those games visually is imprecise and impossible to verify. Regardless, we haven't seen a released game for the PS3 which has the same technical challenges (large open world for oblivion as an example) which demonstrates higher quality visuals though ...

 



HappySqurriel on 26 June 2008
leo-j said:

Well considering its been playable since GDC 08, your telling me its going to have massive framerate issues just because you assume it will?

Sure.

 

I'm not saying it will ...

But no one ever mentions in previews that a game struggles to maintain a framerate above 25fps at a resolution below 720p in previews either; as we've seen demonstrated by several PS3 and XBox 360 games that have been released.

 



Around the Network
Squilliam on 26 June 2008
leo-j said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

and Oblivion perform worse on the PS3 than they do on PC hardware that was available in 2006.

 

 

If that were true, and the PS3 can barely do any better visuals than FEAR or OBLIVION, we wouldnt be having UNCHARTED, MGS4, OR KILLZONE 2 completely destroy those games visually.

you have to understand that the PS3 has a very different CPU than any PC. Sony was about to release the PS3 without a GPU.

 

Yet you could say that the PS3 Oblivion is the superior version. ^^ except for the fact that consoles don't like games that require such huge amounts of ram with an open world.

That GPU thing - 1. If so then perhaps Sony screwed up, they perhaps could have had a g80 derivitive and wiped the floor with the Xenos. I've always wondered why they DIDN'T 2. It needs some sort of GPU hardware, otherwise how does it do all those needed raster ops etc?

 



Tease.

leo-j on 26 June 2008
HappySqurriel said:

Right ...

Your argument that those games completely destroy those games visually is imprecise and impossible to verify. Regardless, we haven't seen a released game for the PS3 which has the same technical challenges (large open world for oblivion as an example) which demonstrates higher quality visuals though ...

 

 

 Oblivion runs better on the PS3 than on the 360, better lighting, textures, framerate, less loading times etc..

Also, yes its not released yet but you can count FAR CRY2 as a game with  a large open workd with significanly better graphics than oblivion.



 

mM
leo-j on 26 June 2008
HappySqurriel said:

I'm not saying it will ...

But no one ever mentions in previews that a game struggles to maintain a framerate above 25fps at a resolution below 720p in previews either; as we've seen demonstrated by several PS3 and XBox 360 games that have been released.

 

 

 Well since you would believe anything negative about consoles its plausible to assume that.

Still so funny how you all still believe MGS4 runs at 27fps(now 20fps on average).



 

mM
HappySqurriel on 26 June 2008
leo-j said:
HappySqurriel said:

Right ...

Your argument that those games completely destroy those games visually is imprecise and impossible to verify. Regardless, we haven't seen a released game for the PS3 which has the same technical challenges (large open world for oblivion as an example) which demonstrates higher quality visuals though ...

 

 

 Oblivion runs better on the PS3 than on the 360, better lighting, textures, framerate, less loading times etc..

Also, yes its not released yet but you can count FAR CRY2 as a game with  a large open workd with significanly better graphics than oblivion.

 

Now all it has to do is have a higher frame rate at a similar visual quality to PC hardware that is 2 years old for you to have a point at all



HappySqurriel on 26 June 2008
leo-j said:
HappySqurriel said:

I'm not saying it will ...

But no one ever mentions in previews that a game struggles to maintain a framerate above 25fps at a resolution below 720p in previews either; as we've seen demonstrated by several PS3 and XBox 360 games that have been released.

 

 

 Well since you would believe anything negative about consoles its plausible to assume that.

Still so funny how you all still believe MGS4 runs at 27fps(now 20fps on average).

Where did I say Metal Gear Solid?

You seem to be having a problem with reading comprehension lately