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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PS3 vs 360: GRAPHICS

Please stop discussing Ray-Tracing guys... We're decades away from being able to use that in games.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
FJ-Warez said:
masterb8tr said:
FJ-Warez said:
masterb8tr said:
i'll use ray tracing from now on, but the ps3 can do something like that alone too

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7E4S_Yf92HI

 

So you are basing your point on a demo from 2005 (At this point the hardware as we know it didn't exist so all the GPU demos were based on the real PC-GPUs)

 

he says it runs on the cell, so unless he's lying i would think that its would be correct.

but if you say his lying i am sure you're correct

 

The video says "Demo of what the Nvidia RSX video card can do"

 

if you'd even bother to look at the video you'd see that its not



olibou21 said:
Fishie said:
olibou21 said:
masterb8tr said:
NJ5 said:
Emulate graphics? Geez, the thread is going down to the crapper again (thankfully I'm probably done with the discussion).

 

or ray tracing if you prefer.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zKqZKXwop5E

 

 

This demo was produced with 3 clustered PS3 and runs at a smooth 15 FPS ...

Not to mention there is no AI, no engine ...

Real time ray tracing won't be acheivable "in-game" with PS3.

Have you got anything beside tech demos to sustain your claim that Cell can emultate graphics ?

Please note Mifely has a real point even if the real usefullness of what he's describing can (as he does himself) be challenged.

Even worse, its on a blade server with FOURTEEN FULL CELL PROCESSORS

 

I had already seen this "car" video. There is another one on a sphere in a hall (much more beautiful).

I tend to confuse the hardware specs between those 2 demos ...

 

That (probably) isn't as impressive as you would think:

http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/~woop/rpu/pics/Spheres4-large.jpg

This was done in real time on a ray processing unit in 2005 that was under 1/20th of the potential performance they could get if they took advantage of the latest and greatest technology that was used in GPUs; hypothetically speaking they probably could have (roughly) 100 times that performance today and developers are saying that ray-tracing is not viable for games for several years.

 



olibou21 said:

Just to deal with the technical point of view for a minute :

To those who say "GPU wise, XBox360 has an (little) edge, but CPU-wise the PS3 has the (magical) Cell", may i just say the following :  i can play Crysis on high / very high settings with an Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 with both an Athlon 3500 and a C2D E6750. Difference on FPS between these 2 CPU ? 1-2 FPS !

So could we stop with this Cell thing, please ?

Those who who claim that the Cell can be a "GPU-bis" have really no clue what the are talking about ...

On the graphical pipeline, there are 3 main pipeline :

- Pixel Shaders : main power consummers. The Cell is 1000 miles to have the "power" to be really userfull on the subject. Let's say that Xenon and RSX are on par on the subject (RSX has the raw power edge but Xenon is more "versatile") .

- vertex shaders : on modern GPU there are far less vertex shaders parallel units than from first category. This is far less hungry on resources, so the Cell can successfully be an assistant on those. The fact is RSX has workload problems the Xenon has not ! The assistance the Cell can provide on those (as shown in game like HS and in a few time KZ2) is simply used to provide pixel efffects that can be made on Xenon alone ...

- filters (AA, AF and so on): i have less clues about them but all elements point to equivallence between these 2 GPU.

Bump for first intelligent post in this thread. Thank you. and welcome to VGC! You´ll like it here.

 



Well since you clearly misrepresented the opinions of at least 2 members in this thread, both of whom claim to have never said that (and you have never provided a link to them saying that), I'm locking this topic as it's just become a flame war location.

Well that and the reasonable resolution to the topic was reached quite early by d21 and Zenfolder, and now it's just bickering.



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
colonelstubbs said:
We should wait a year before having this discussion again....to see whether developers really can tap into the 'potential' of the ps3 and whether the 360 really has shot its load.

Just to add, Resistances developers claimed they used about 10% of what the PS3 is capable of with fall of man....if thats true, theres a lot more to come

Linik

 


http://www.psu.com/Original-Resistance-used-just-10--of-PS3s-power-News--a2563-p0.php Here you go flower

I hope my 360 doesn't RRoD
         "Suck my balls!" - Tag courtesy of Fkusmot

NJ5 said:
Please stop discussing Ray-Tracing guys... We're decades away from being able to use that in games.

Not if you look at Intel's roadmap (larrabee anyone ?).

But you are right, RT is NOT the subject of this topic.

One of the main problem is that those that know nothing on how 3D images are rendered confuse "graphics" and 3D, and those that know a little tend to associate the word "graphics" to "3D".

On the 3D departement, neither PS3 neither Xbox360 have an edge on the other, simply because their GPU are in the same class.

On the "graphics" one, the PS3 May (with a big "M") have one.

 



masterb8tr said:
FJ-Warez said:
masterb8tr said:
FJ-Warez said:
masterb8tr said:
i'll use ray tracing from now on, but the ps3 can do something like that alone too

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7E4S_Yf92HI

 

So you are basing your point on a demo from 2005 (At this point the hardware as we know it didn't exist so all the GPU demos were based on the real PC-GPUs)

 

he says it runs on the cell, so unless he's lying i would think that its would be correct.

but if you say his lying i am sure you're correct

 

The video says "Demo of what the Nvidia RSX video card can do"

 

if you'd even bother to look at the video you'd see that its not

 

Well, them let me put it for you in this way, why if the PS3 as he said is so powerfull why do they need to add a GPU, this so called real time demo even with the bad quality shows things that are usually done by GPUs, whats the point of showing of this demo if at the end the PS3 required a GPU in order to make good graphics... and after the CGI trailers of MotoStorm and KIllzone, I barely believe him anything about realtime on that point of the life of the Cell...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
Fishie said:
Mifely said:
The 360's GPU has a small edge in performance over the PS3's, as I understand it, but this doesn't usually show through in games, nor does the different memory architecture, as 360 apps tend to either split the 360's memory down the middle, making the architecture effectively the same as the PS3, or they use more memory for the CPU/app, and less for graphics.

The only real potential (note that this rarely means "realized", except for occasional exclusive titles) difference between the two platforms is this: The SPUs can act as "GPU helpers", and very powerful ones at that. In addition, there's a CPU side of graphics that the... uninformed.. tend to discount. Namely, animation performance -- blending animations is a colossal amount of work for a processor to do, and this is exactly the kind of thing the Cell excels at. It doesn't matter how many polygons you can push to the screen, if your animation blending was too slow to handle a large blend stack, or you only have a few animated characters onscreen at once. The PS3 blows the socks off the 360 in this dept -- but you'll never see cross-platform games perform differently due to this fact (except *maybe* team sports titles, eventually...), because the game needs to be designed fundamentally different to take advantage of it. As an example, you design your game to have 10 characters onscreeen at once... or 50. One way shows the power of the Cell, and causes you to lose a heckuva lot of money on your 360 port, and the other way makes both versions less impressive, but allows you to design the game to focus on the less impressive design.

You'll only ever see the difference in the exclusives, and even then not a signifigant number of them. Platform focus is why 1st/2nd party exclusives (like Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, MGS4, etc.) look so good compared to cross-platform games. As a general rule, the PS3's platform exclusives will tend to outdo the 360s, because it is, indeed, more capable -- it has much more disc space, and your game design can focus on things that the 360 cannot handle.

Games like Heavenly Sword used very early versions of PS3 middleware, I would wager, but you can still see a bazillion characters onscreen, animating in the very first scene of the game. The 360 would have to make due with billboarded characters, or by instancing rendered meshes, post-skinning (a la Dynasty Warriors -- the characters would number greatly, but they'd all be in the same animation state, or small subset of states). On the PS3, every guy can be animating in his own way, thanks to the Cell.

In my opinion, most users aren't going to notice such a thing, unless the game design somehow really takes this advantage in stride. Not many games do, or probably ever will. If they do, they'll be pretty impressive, though.

Seriously, where do you guys get this crap?

Even if what you said would be true it would mean that in a game with lets say 100 NPC`s onscreen all going trough unique motion that the data would have to be loaded for every single one of those chara`s independant from the others(instead of just using distancing and crowd physics).

Data for a hundred characters loaded individually?

 

Fishie, usually game characters all share the same animation data.  The work that bogs the processors down is called animation blending.  Taking data from a "run" animation and a "jog" animation, and blending them together based upon a characters forward movement speed, for example, to give a smooth transition from one animation to the next in the game.  This is a lot of work, especially if your character's skeleton has a large number of nodes ("bones"), and its something that the Cell's SPUs are *really* quick at.  Each Cell is individually a LOT faster than any of the 360 cores at this, as a matter of fact.  While the 360's cores tend to yield a general performance improvement over the PS3's PPU dual-thread core for more abstract programming (like game logic), those same cores also need to tackle tough math work like animation blending, which the PS3 SPUs absolutely slaughter the performance of the 360 cores at.  Unless you design the game around advantages like this one, or the fact that the SPUs can pump info right to the PS3 GPU (like do the work of skinning vertices based on the bone transforms, rather than delaying the GPU with that task... again a lot of work which scales with the number of skinned meshes you are rendering each frame), you're not going to see much of a difference between the two platforms.

If you *do* design your game to take those advantages into consideration, the PS3 is going to look better, no question.  No many games, and especially no cross-platform games, will ever be designed around the features of only one console, for obvious reasons.  The PS3 excels at the mathematics work behind the polygon pushing... so you might see, as a major "graphics" difference, characters in PS3 games using alot of face viseme blending, for nice looking facial animations and voice matching, whereas the 360 version would have to do with just a couple "pre-recorded" facial morphs.  The difference would be subtle (except in cases where your game has VO matching for multiplayer, perhaps), so calling this a difference is something of a stretch, and you'll NEVER see it in a static screenshot.  All that extra mathematical horsepower of the PS3 does have its uses, but they aren't showstoppers, unless the game is designed to take advantage of it -- like has 50 characters onscreen at once in a MMO, where everyone is blending different animations from their shared set, and thus looking different, etc.

In short, the PS3 is "better", but only if you consider things in motion to be something you're looking for, as far as graphics go... Higher character bone counts, more interesting characters onscreen at once, more subtle animations of the face, hands, etc., better looking hair... and so on.  Otherwise, they are effectively identical.



This thread is not going anywhere. its just full of useless fanboy bickering!

360 fanboy: gears 2 will look better than heaven!

PS3 fanboy: no, killzone 2 and resistance 2 will look best and they will run at 700fps!

360 fanboy: NGII looks better than mgs4!

PS3fanboy: Its all in the cell: power! Power!! POWER!!!

360fanboy: Halo 3, Bioshock, Mass Effect + JRPG exclusives + more games = best system!

PS3 fanboy: MGS4, Uncharted, Ressistance 2, Killzone 2 , LBP, FFXIII >>>>360 !

360 fanboy: PS3=expensive blu-ray player

PS3 fanboy: 360=RROD!

When is it enough?



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler