i will agree the consoles needed more power the xdr was a waste, there was no need for it to be that fast. both consoles went for faster more expensive when quantity matters far more than speed in these matter, the busses are normaly the bottle necks never able to keep up with the true speed of ram processor comunication. both consoles should have had 1 gig or better, it would have allowed for larger more detailed maps, more people in game and things seen in battle field bc but better, and none of this retarded disapering bodies or people poping out of nowhere as there would be enough ram to hold them in chae... hds are just to slow for this, the help, but really ram is the best

i disable hd catching on my computer when i know i wont be photoshoping or working with video, and its so much fast like a difrent machine..... though if you do use up all avalible ram you Fd

I bow to your superior knowledge then MikeB

Rock_on_2008 said: olibou21 said: MikeB said: Crytek for instance states a port of Crysis to HD consoles would be pretty straight forward.    Could you give us numbers, please ? If a port was made what do you expect quality-wise from it ? I mean i would like to see a couple of resolution and quality settings compared to PC. For example i play at 1280*1024 and high/very high quality settings. I use a TOD and a tweak to gain some FPS and some more quality. What do you expect from Xbox360 and PS3 ports ? On a another note, when will you come back on earth and understand that GPU pure brute force and its dedicated RAM size and bandwith are far far far far more important for graphics than the Cell or an optimized RAM subsystem ?   Crytek has stated time and time again there are no plans of Crysis being ported to consoles. Crysis is PC only.

 

Crytek boss Cevat Yerli: "Crysis could be on the 360 or PS3."

IGN (26 June 2008): "There's a lot of critique about this decision, "Why don't we just go for console?" And yes, it could be done; it could be done pretty straightforward."

So can be done, but they won't for various reasons (IMO, for one they got a lot of praise on the PC for being cutting edge, they may fear console ports may dampen the praise somewhat, there's a lot of guns aimed at games developers alledgedly dumbing down their PC games to suit consoles, as often there's not much of a difference except for many optional higher resolutions and/or higher framerates on top end PCs)

MikeB said: Rock_on_2008 said: olibou21 said: MikeB said: Crytek for instance states a port of Crysis to HD consoles would be pretty straight forward.    Could you give us numbers, please ? If a port was made what do you expect quality-wise from it ? I mean i would like to see a couple of resolution and quality settings compared to PC. For example i play at 1280*1024 and high/very high quality settings. I use a TOD and a tweak to gain some FPS and some more quality. What do you expect from Xbox360 and PS3 ports ? On a another note, when will you come back on earth and understand that GPU pure brute force and its dedicated RAM size and bandwith are far far far far more important for graphics than the Cell or an optimized RAM subsystem ?   Crytek has stated time and time again there are no plans of Crysis being ported to consoles. Crysis is PC only.     Read what I stated, Crytek boss Cevat Yerli: "Crysis could be on the 360 or PS3." IGN (26 June 2008): "There's a lot of critique about this decision, "Why don't we just go for console?" And yes, it could be done; it could be done pretty straightforward."

Mike, this was an honest question and i perfectly understood your point.

There is no flamebait here. It is just, as you often mention this point, that i wanted some numbers.

I too think a port should be possible, there is no debate on this this. Just what would you think the settings could be ?

 

@ olibou21

Depends entirely on the developer aims and the state of the game engine. The Cell processor is potentially well more powerful for gaming than even a top Quad core x86 CPU, RAM limitations would mean the devs would have to resort to smart streaming with regard to textures and geometry (from Blu-Ray disc onto the harddrive and from there into memory when needed), audio quality can be top notch 7.1 by applying streaming.

IMO good high end PC to PS3 game port:

- For some graphics setting (effects and such), a PS3 port could be as good or even better.
- Resolution limited to 720p and framerate locked at 30 FPS (console games often need to run at a slower pace in terms of movement anyhow, this to better suit the way games are controlled), this compared to the PC version being able to go much higher. Also more Anti-aliasing on the PC. (but do you need it? I only have a 17 inch flatscreen monitor vs a large screen HDTV)
- Better quality textures on the PC, as games are usually entirely installed on the harddrive (faster supply of data).
- The PS3 can potentially have more action on screen due to the Cell processor and PCs having to take into account the average PC owner's specifications.
- Blu-Ray disc could store more graphics, audio variety and other additional content.

MikeB said:   On a PC you can't use CPU memory for the graphics card unlike is the case with regard to the PS3's GPU. Cheap unified memory solutions on the PC (like some laptops) are similar as the 360's situation. This is a cheaper but less powerful approach as only CPU or GPU can access the memory at a time. Technically it's far better for the GPU to be able to access its own memory and the CPU to be able to access its own memory simultaneously. Bandwidth is very important to a GPU, low latency is very important to CPUs, both are negatively impacted with a unified memory setup.

First one is PS3 and second one is X360. Uhm, cheap unified memory solution? Too bad that GPU on X360 can use all ram at speed 22.4GB/s as RSX can use only its own memory as fast(local memory = RSX memory). Why in hell are you flaming and trolling in every thread using wrong info as facts?

Uh... RSX ability to run shaders is crap compared to todays GPU:s and no CELL can't help that much.

Huh? FPS doesn't affect pace of game. Of course you don't need better resolutions because you cant get them. 17 inch flatscreen monitor. Uh... Are you serious? 22" LCD costs like $200-300, you know how much that big HDTV:s cost(Not to mention that those even can't have as big resolutions as monitors.). :D

Humm? Better quality textures don't have anything to do with harddrives. Its all about videomemory. You should know that, if you really know how stuff works. I am really beginning to doubt that you really don't.

While CELL is crunching better shaders it can outrun PC CPU at the same time, haha. Thats best one so far. Too bad that PCs can handle again more because of memory. Of course theres some simulations that can be done faster on CELL than well... moderate CPU.

You can always use multiple DVD:s. Usually devs on PC go for cheapest way.

Btw, how about AI? Can CELL handle advanced AI? Well, I can answer for that one and answer is that no, it can't. SPU isn't suited for running regular instructions. You can of course use branch predicting, but when theres billions of branches you just can't do it on such a limited hardware.

PCs have the advantage and disadvantage of a faster changing system with many options.

the big advantages are that current pc hardware is allready more powerfull that the hd consoles now, and in the coming years the gap will increase more and more.
But that alos brings the disadvatage that developers have no specific system to target, the cannot optimise that heavy for the special hardware like they can on consoles.
On pc they need a big memory eating OS running in background to provide an API that allows them to talk with all kinds of gfx cards/ sound cards... without a full os running all the time games on pcs would probably need a lot less memory too, but then game devs would have to adjust the games specifically for each possible hardware.
Also developers cannot just target their games at the best possible hardware on pcs or sales would be too bad (crysis showed that to some limits, most people are not willing to update their pc just for one shooter that maybe looks good but has not much more to offer than looks).

So at the current püoint in time the hd consoles can deliver about similar graphic details & effects as the more powerfull pcs just cause the devs can better optimise the games for that hardware. This will probably stay for a limited time since the devs are getting better with optimising on the consoles, while on the pc side the average hardware improves. But over time there will probably come more and more games for pcs that won't be portable to consoles aynmore without sacrificing some graphics...

@ Deneidez

I am not flaming nor trolling. Do you understand those figures and diagram?

The 360 CPU goes through the GPU to the main Ram, it's unified and can only be accessed by either CPU or GPU. In the PS3 memory architecture the GPU and CPU can both access the seperate main RAM simultaneously.

Maybe you don't understand the role of the EDRam within the diagram. It's important to understand all data first goes to the main RAM, from there it goes to the EDRam, sadly the EDRam amount is only limited to 10 MB, meaning at 720p with AA or HDR (the main purpose of this RAM) tiling will take place, data constantly moving in and out the EDRam/main RAM. If there would have been more EDRam it would have been a nice design, would there have been even less EDRam to work with this design would be useless for a high definition console.

Not everything is done by GPU shaders in terms of effects. And yes, the Cell can help a lot in many different ways.



The faster the game the more relevant framerate becomes. 24 FPS is the framerate of holywood movies, some games are paced much quicker than movies thus can benefit from higher framerates.

Framerate is important with regard to movement perception. 24 frames per second can look perfectly smooth movement to the human eyes/brain.



What does cost have to do with this... I can buy one in a jiffy, but I don´t like a bigger screen on my desk. A HDTV in the living room is an entirely different situation for me, where I sit comfortably on the couch with a wireless controller in my hand or watch a high definition movie.

Same on the consoles



Of course, researchers are even using the Cell to mimic parts of the human brain.

But it requires different game engine approaches than implemented in some games. Better, more intelligent approaches.

NJ5 said: Rock_on_2008 said: 4GB system RAM and over PC's with multiple high speed processors with two top of the range graphics cards. Consoles would not stand a chance against a $2000 and above PC. I wonder what price PC would be on par with a X360 and PS3 in regards to technical specs and processing capabilities? X360 = $400 PC PS3 = $600 PC ^My guesses assuming you build the gaming PC yourself As of April, you can build a $500 PC which runs Crysis on high settings @ 1024x768, 37.1 fps: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-graphic-game,1907-4.html

 

LOL.  When I read this thread title in the forum I knew that someone was going to post one of these charts about Crysis.  And here we go. LOL.