Fishie said: MGS4 1024x768=786432 Pixels resolution Gears 1280x720=921600 Pixels resolution Gears of War runs in a higher resolution then MGS4 does.

 

dont forget the mgs4 get 30-60FPS

obieslut said: Fishie said: MGS4 1024x768=786432 Pixels resolution Gears 1280x720=921600 Pixels resolution Gears of War runs in a higher resolution then MGS4 does. dont forget the mgs4 get 30-60FPS

Actually its more like 20-30. :)

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=30734

leo-j said: Fishie said: Dallinor said: Fishie said: MGS4 1024x768=786432 Pixels resolution Gears 1280x720=921600 Pixels resolution Gears of War runs in a higher resolution then MGS4 does.    That's great and all. As I stated already though, what does it matter if one game has a higher resolution or more pixels- per-second if it still doesn't look as good? Someone stated that MGS4 runs in a resolution far higher then Gears could ever hope for, that statement was flat out wrong so I set him straight thats all.   leo-j I dont appreciate it when someone who links to flv videos to prove graphical superiority and who`s only exposure to a title has been company hype and crappy net movies calls me blind for disagreeing with his oppinion on a title I have actually PLAYED.   You have played MGS4? Then why are you doubting the game doesnt look better than Gears of war? There is no doubt in the games visuals, unless your lying. You have played KILLZONE 2?

Im currently up to the Crying bitch in MGS4, I think gears has the edge for the reasons I posted earlier in terms of "looks" perhaps not quality. I don't usually look to hard at console games so I don't know. 

Multi-plat comparisons are only a demonstration of which console is easier to develop for and/or which one is the lead platform for most projects. The way to compare their relative graphical prowess is looking at their exclusives.

From a purely graphical standpoint: (imho)

MGS4>GT5:P>Uncharted>Gears>Mass Effect

Retrasado said: Multi-plat comparisons are only a demonstration of which console is easier to develop for and/or which one is the lead platform for most projects. The way to compare their relative graphical prowess is looking at their exclusives. From a purely graphical standpoint: (imho) MGS4>GT5:P>Uncharted>Gears>Mass Effect

Multi-plats show usually which one is better. If PS3 is so great , how come its not even at par with X360 graphics in multi-plats? You can't really compare exclusive games, because they have their own strenghts. Well, let me show you. Two screenshots from both Gears and Uncharted. I am sure you can see which one is from which one.

See the ground(Btw, its usually the first place which will suffer when you need more resources for other places.) and tell me can you really say that those grounds in uncharted look better than the ones in gears?

@ Deneidez

The more impressive multi-platform games are about on par.

The reason why sometimes the PS3 version is worse is due to being different in various ways and companies resorting to cheap quick & dirty ports.

Let me give you an example, the PS3 has 6 very fast SPEs for games to take advantage of (in addition to the PPE and OS workload is offloaded onto a 7th SPE). They are different compared to the PPE or Xenon core, even more legacy bagage and non-crucial features are left out but have extremely fast local memory.

One of the things left out is a branch predictor, a branch predictor can enhance performance for branchy software. But the far more efficient method by eliminating branches as much as possible and manually implement branch hints to avoid mispredictions, this approach is required for the SPEs to get the best results out of them, such code will also perform better on the triple core Xenon, but the benefits will be smaller in comparison.

The 8 processor PS3 Cell is much more powerful than the triple core Xenon, it's CPU is basically made out of 3 PPE-like cores, but there's many legacy code which aren't hand optimized like this, so for such code you have things up and running well on all 3 Xenon cores in a shorter amount of time and with less effort. On the PS3 you only have things up and running this easily on its PPE.

What developers are now doing is rewriting their software as parallel and asynchronous as possible while moving more and more components over to the SPEs in a proper manner.

It's an effort and time consuming process, but every bit of work done for one game is a step you won't have to take for your next game. That's why I stated years ago before the PS3 launched it will take quite some time before developers get the most out of the PS3's architecture, while of course still acknowledging the Cell's immense potential.

MikeB said: @ Deneidez Multi-plats show usually which one is better. If PS3 is so great , how come its not even at par with X360 graphics in multi-plats? The more impressive multi-platform games are about on par. The reason why sometimes the PS3 version is worse is due to being different in various ways and companies resorting to cheap quick & dirty ports. Obviously they couldn't have worked as long on a PS3 version of the game if it looks worse. So if the game looks better its due to superior PS3 powerz and if it looks worse its the fault of the developers. Let me give you an example, the PS3 has 6 very fast SPEs for games to take advantage of (in addition to the PPE and OS workload is offloaded onto a 7th SPE). They are different compared to the PPE or Xenon core, even more legacy bagage and non-crucial features are left out but have extremely fast local memory. One of the things left out is a branch predictor, a branch predictor can enhance performance for branchy software. But the far more efficient method by eliminating branches as much as possible and manually implement branch hints to avoid mispredictions, this approach is required for the SPEs to get the best results out of them, such code will also perform better on the triple core Xenon, but the benefits will be smaller in comparison. The 8 processor PS3 Cell is much more powerful than the triple core Xenon, it's CPU is basically made out of 3 PPE-like cores, but there's many legacy code which aren't hand optimized like this, so for such code you have things up and running well on all 3 Xenon cores in a shorter amount of time and with less effort. On the PS3 you only have things up and running this easily on its PPE. Why do I keep getting the feeling you don't understand what you're saying? What developers are now doing is rewriting their software as parallel and asynchronous as possible while moving more and more components over to the SPEs in a proper manner.Specify, what is the proper manner. It's an effort and time consuming process, but every bit of work done for one game is a step you won't have to take for your next game. That's why I stated years ago before the PS3 launched it will take quite some time before developers get the most out of the PS3's architecture, while of course still acknowledging the Cell's immense potential. You do realize that they can talk about potential and never actually intend to use even half of it right? From what i've seen even KZ2 doesn't use more than the 4 inline SPEs half as much as they could. So why would developers want to use more?

 

 

The 360 gets better multiplatform games for the following reasons:

1) Microsoft is the master of vendor lock-in. Most PC game companies are in so deep with directx and various MS tool-chains that they can get anything done in OpenGL is amazing to me. They most likely had to hire new talent as it is not uncommon for the pure MS developer to develop a rather extreme form of stockholm syndrome.

This is the primary reason for poor ports by PC game companies to either the PS3, Wii, OSX, or Linux. Plan9 support is also poor.

2) IBM's C+intrinsics compiler for the SPE's was not producing reliable code last year. It barely does now. The fact that nobody even bothers to mention this means not a single one of you seems to have an ounce of programming experience on the cell. Now that doesn't mean you can't talk about it, but maybe, just maybe some of you should be less certain of your positions.

3) Blur technique versus AA. Funny stuff. I'll leave it at that.

MikeB said: @ Deneidez Multi-plats show usually which one is better. If PS3 is so great , how come its not even at par with X360 graphics in multi-plats? The more impressive multi-platform games are about on par. The reason why sometimes the PS3 version is worse is due to being different in various ways and companies resorting to cheap quick & dirty ports. Let me give you an example, the PS3 has 6 very fast SPEs for games to take advantage of (in addition to the PPE and OS workload is offloaded onto a 7th SPE). They are different compared to the PPE or Xenon core, even more legacy bagage and non-crucial features are left out but have extremely fast local memory. One of the things left out is a branch predictor, a branch predictor can enhance performance for branchy software. But the far more efficient method by eliminating branches as much as possible and manually implement branch hints to avoid mispredictions, this approach is required for the SPEs to get the best results out of them, such code will also perform better on the triple core Xenon, but the benefits will be smaller in comparison. The 8 processor PS3 Cell is much more powerful than the triple core Xenon, it's CPU is basically made out of 3 PPE-like cores, but there's many legacy code which aren't hand optimized like this, so for such code you have things up and running well on all 3 Xenon cores in a shorter amount of time and with less effort. On the PS3 you only have things up and running this easily on its PPE. What developers are now doing is rewriting their software as parallel and asynchronous as possible while moving more and more components over to the SPEs in a proper manner. It's an effort and time consuming process, but every bit of work done for one game is a step you won't have to take for your next game. That's why I stated years ago before the PS3 launched it will take quite some time before developers get the most out of the PS3's architecture, while of course still acknowledging the Cell's immense potential.

I  don't get it ...

What were the main points of those who created the Cell ?

- Rise the frequency

- Rise the number of cores

- Build a monster in floating point calculation (by putting lots of vector units online).

This was done at a time where the desktop CPUs counterparts were stuck with 2 core and limited growth possible in frequency (at that time, 2002-2003)

These objectives were attained by, between other things, reducing the logic inside the CPU of "non-essential features" like you said. As an example, a SPU has only something like 20M transistors.
As a consequence, the instruction featureset of both the PPE and the SPU have been vastly reduced.

The problem is the complexity of managing the execution of the code have been pushed back to the software.

I have read on B3D that a modern blockbuster is something like 1M lines of code.

I don't understand how redefining the way the developpers work (which they have to) can be classified as "trivial" in your mind.

Another thing on what i would like informations too is how this CPU will change what we'll have on screen in a few time. Development on the PS3 has started since 3 years or so. We haven't seen anything that cannot be done on a conventionnal CPU. We haven't seen anything that suggest a direction, "a proof" if i may say.

So, why so much faith in its capabilities ?

 

alephnull said: The 360 gets better multiplatform games for the following reasons: 1) Microsoft is the master of vendor lock-in. Most PC game companies are in so deep with directx and various MS tool-chains that they cant get anything done in OpenGL is amazing to me. They most likely had to hire new talent as it is not uncommon for the pure MS developer to develop a rather extreme form of stockholm syndrome. This is the primary reason for poor ports by PC game companies to either the PS3, Wii, OSX, or Linux. Plan9 support is also poor. 2) IBM's C+intrinsics compiler for the SPE's was not producing reliable code last year. It barely does now. The fact that nobody even bothers to mention this means not a single one of you seems to have an ounce of programming experience on the cell. Now that doesn't mean you can't talk about it, but maybe, just maybe some of you should be less certain of your positions. 3) Blur technique versus AA. Funny stuff. I'll leave it at that.

 

1.- Thats a real shame, but thats how the world works now...

2.- Be carefull MikeB may comeback and post a lot of quotes

3.- The only game I have seen this is on DMC4, does another example exist?