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

Forums - Sony - Remember when Sony said the PS3 would render at 120 fps? Forget it, 240fps

sieanr on 20 November 2008
Sardauk said:
konnichiwa said:
Well it is not the PS3 that runs at 240 but the PS3's.

 

Ok I  am maybe wrong but...

If I understand well, they manage (indeed) to display 240 frames in absolute number (4 *60 for each 1/4 of the screen section)... but this isn't one screen refreshed at 240 framerate right ?? It is still one big screen refreshed at 60 fps ?

They used 4 PS3 to add more pixels displayed on the screen (the goal was to present their new big projector), but not multiply the total FPS of the given display.

...

There we two displays. One was the super high resolution projector, running at 60fps. Another was a special projector running at 240fps, but a lower resolution

BMaker11 said:
240fps is pretty meaningless because the human can't even begin to perceive or appreciate it. I still believe that even with our current technology, it's a marvel. PLAY B3YOND!!!!!!!!!

Why? My computer breaks 4000fps at times in 3dmark03. CS Source stays above 300fps at all times. Its really not that amazing. 

 



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

Around the Network
arsenicazure on 20 November 2008

Even though the human eye cant percieve anything above 3 million colors or 60 FPS and even though quad HD screens are atleast 15 yrs away from being commercially viable..this is a good achievement.. i applaud you SONY..

so now....... wheres my price cut!



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

Staude on 20 November 2008
Mistershine said:
Didn't someone already demonstrate realtime raytracing with 9(?) PS3's? That seems much more betterer than running a game at a better res.

 

GT5:P does this :p



Check out my game about moles ^

Deneidez on 20 November 2008
arsenicazure said:
Even though the human eye cant percieve anything above 3 million colors or 60 FPS and even though quad HD screens are atleast 15 yrs away from being commercially viable..this is a good achievement.. i applaud you SONY..

so now....... wheres my price cut!

Its about 100-120fps and some ppl can do even beyond that.

 

Anyway, GT5:P is simple enough to be run in system like this. You cannot do this with games where theres a lot more stuff going on. Network just couldn't handle it. And about every system today can render at those resolutions and fps. The thing is there wouldn't be much stuff going on at those resolutions and fps. :)

 



New crap available on mi pages!

NNN2004 on 20 November 2008
Untamoi said:
afree_account said:

According to TR, even a 2 years old core 2 duo tops at 200 gflops.

Did you look at the side of the picture? Those numbers are mflops, not gflops. These again, these don't represent real theoretical maximum, only numbers from test program which is very unoptimized.

 

 

 what about the new i7 cores ???



Around the Network
arsenicazure on 20 November 2008
Deneidez said:
arsenicazure said:
Even though the human eye cant percieve anything above 3 million colors or 60 FPS and even though quad HD screens are atleast 15 yrs away from being commercially viable..this is a good achievement.. i applaud you SONY..

so now....... wheres my price cut!

Its about 100-120fps and some ppl can do even beyond that.

 

Anyway, GT5:P is simple enough to be run in system like this. You cannot do this with games where theres a lot more stuff going on. Network just couldn't handle it. And about every system today can render at those resolutions and fps. The thing is there wouldn't be much stuff going on at those resolutions and fps. :)

 

 

yup i just read up on that. my bad... the refresh rate is the limiting factor.. not the eye..

The Human Eye perceiving 220 Frames Per second has been proven, game developers, video card manufacturers, and monitor manufacturers all admit they've only scratched the surface of Frames Per Second. With a high quality non-interlaced display (like plasma or a large LCD FPD) and a nice video card capable of HDTV resolution, you can today see well above 120 FPS with a matching refresh rate. With some refresh rates as high as 400Hz on some non-interlaced displays, that display is capable of 400 FPS alone. Without the refresh rate in the way, and the right hardware capable of such fast rendering (frame buffer), it is possible to display as cameras are possible of recording 44,000 Frames Per Second. Imagine just for a moment if your display device were to be strictly governed by the input it was receiving. This is the case with computer video cards and displays in a way with adjustable resolutions, color depth, and refresh rates.

 

check out the full article here :

http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html

 

 



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

crumas2 on 20 November 2008
Jo21 said:

 

wait wat? the fail palm its for you. a quadcore maybe but a 1.6ghz dual core isn't.

and the SPE are cpu, they even have 256kb of cache EACH.

from IBM:

All things considered the theoretic 204.8 GB/s number most often cited is the best one to bear in mind. The IBM Systems Performance group has demonstrated SPU-centric data flows achieving 197 GB/s on a Cell processor running at 3.2 GHz so this number is a fair reflection on practice as well.

The kernel and scheduling is distributed across the SPEs. Tasks are synchronized using mutexes or semaphores as in a conventional operating system. Ready-to-run tasks wait in a queue for an SPE to execute them. The SPEs use shared memory for all tasks in this configuration.

in comparison to the 360 CPU:

from IBM:

115.2 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance

Xenon is a Tri-Core CPU PowerPC based better than intel x86 cpus,

by force a very high clocked intel x86 or quadcore cpu is needed to match ps3 or even 360 cpu.

 

SPEs/SPUs are not general purpose CPU cores.  They're specialized execution units that are very good for manipulating large amounts of similar data in useful and interesting ways.  Think bit-blitter or DSP on steroids.  They're very good at pre-processing video information before sending it to a GPU.

This is one of the reasons they're difficult to program, because it's not like programing a traditional CPU core.

They're better suited than a CPU for same tasks, and worse suited for others.

And I wouldn't invest too much energy in IBM's promotional "tech" literature... they will always try to paint their architecture in the best light by pointing out where a specific theoretical spec is better than the competition's.  The reality of what the system can be used for is almost always more complicated.

This all said, yes the PS3's architecture (not just the Cell) is very powerful in many ways, but it still doesn't have 8 cores.



selnor on 20 November 2008
FPSrules said:
i believe the playstation 4 will use the same processor in the ps3, the cell processor. Cell is without debate the most powerful processor ever created with 8 cores compare to PC currently using 2 and 360 using 3. and even though ps3 has been out for 2 years the cell's potential power is untapped.

i think ps4 will just have a much better graphics card, and cell of course

 

 Man alot of people are ill informed.

The cell has 1 core and 8 sPE's. Do some homework on what those SPE's can do. Because they CANNOT do all computing tasks. There are alot of jobs which only the Gemeral purpose core of the PS3 can do.

And PC's are actually at 4 General Purpose cores not 2. And there are numbers out there that show raw quad core PC CPU's outperforming the Cell in PS3 on every front with ease.



NJ5 on 20 November 2008

@selnor: Actually that's not correct, the SPEs can run any C code and are Turing-Complete.

Now as for running that code efficiently, that's another story entirely...



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

selnor on 20 November 2008
NJ5 said:
@selnor: Actually that's not correct, the SPEs can run any C code and are Turing-Complete.

Now as for running that code efficiently, that's another story entirely...

 

 Yes actually you are right. Like you say though they are no designed for that, so the performance for those is horrible in comparrison. Effectively there would be no gain in using them for those purposes.