@ sieanr
think you still don't understand what 1080p means, it means there are 1080 lines.
To compare this to 480p (as you are likely from the US), both 640x480 as well as 720x480 are often used 480p standards. For example consumer 1080i HDV camcorders record in 1440×1080 pixels instead of 1920x1080.
MikeB said:
IMO you are overestimating the technical possibilities of the XBox 360. 7.1 audio and fitting all of that content on a single disc is technically impossible on the XBox 360. IMO there are also too many hardware limitations to make a FPS game like Halo 3 running at 1080p/60FPS feasible on the XBox 360. IMO 720p is the optimal resolution for XBox 360 FPS games, pushing for 60 frames per second will probably prove to be quite a challenge and I wouldn't be surprised UT3 will eventually be 30 FPS on the 360, though if Epic would be the best developing company to make this happen. |
I didn't catch the single disc comment.
Your opinion of the 360's resolution capabilities doesn't seem to take the actual facts into account. The facts are that aside from a weaker CPU, the RAM and GPU are greater than the PS3's. The advantage is moderate (as in the RAM is about 10%-25% greater), but that does mean the Cell cannot raise the graphics as far above the 360 as you claim. "IMO" all you want, that won't change those facts. The PS3 will have the best graphics with proper programming, but the 360 will be close.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
this is the problem with low-power machines, the vii run at 30000p and have a blooray disc reader to live a full hd experience
| MikeB said: @ sieanr think you still don't understand what 1080p means, it means there are 1080 lines. To compare this to 480p (as you are likely from the US), both 640x480 as well as 720x480 are often used 480p standards. For example consumer 1080i HDV camcorders record in 1440×1080 pixels instead of 1920x1080. |
And really, do you actualy think the PS3 could run Halo 3 at 1080p and 60fps? Thats just mind blowingly stupid.
see above
Maybe you missed the part where fp10 would have had severe banding and fp16 wouldn't have offered alpha blending and a few other features they wanted.
Maybe you can enlighten me as to why you think they could have gotten 720p with AA?
And only a handful of people are question their explanations, but whatever.
I see what you did there - change the argument when you don't like where things are going. Still, the Darkness used the PS3 as its lead platform and that was only 540p. Hmm....
IMO there are also too many hardware limitations to make a FPS game like Halo 3 running at 1080p/60FPS feasible on the XBox 360. IMO 720p is the optimal resolution for XBox 360 FPS games, pushing for 60 frames per second will probably prove to be quite a challenge and I wouldn't be surprised UT3 will eventually be 30 FPS on the 360, though Epic would be the best developing company to make this happen.
IMO only an idiot would think the PS3 can run FPS games at 1080p and 60fps while still being visualy competitive with 360 titles.Â
IMO if not for the paltry 10mb EDRAM, the 360 would be far better suited for 1080p than the PS3, whereas its about equal now. Since you frequent B3D so much I'm sure you've seen the threads about this.
Oh, and you aren't going to like this little bomb. UT3 is only 720p on the PS3 and at 30fps, and all this from a developer who you say is one of the best. Maybe that also happens to be the "optimal" resolution and framerate for the PS3 as well... perhaps the two systems are far more similar than you think.Â
Then again, this must be moot since the 360 is the lead for the UT3 console versions. Oh shit.
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"
| sieanr said: XBox 360 to PS3 ports don't count I see what you did there - change the argument when you don't like where things are going. Still, the Darkness used the PS3 as its lead platform and that was only 540p. Hmm.... |
Yes, and people were able to easily notice the PS3 version of 'the darkness' looked inferior to the 360 version. IGN did a comparison and said that the PS3 version appeared lower resolution and also didn't run as smoothly as the 360 version.
How does that prove you right? It doesn't even relate to your previous comment, nor to my reply. The comment you made, and I replied to was about DRAW DISTANCE affecting the resolution. How does Bugnie's reply, which was about LIGHTING affecting resolution, prove you right and me wrong?
You stated that lower resolution allowed for greater draw distance. I said that was not necessarily the case, and the bottleneck is more likely with the amount of memory in the framebuffer, likely caused by HDR rendering. Bungee came out and said that their resolution limitation is due to a shortage of memory in the frame buffer, due to HDR -- High dynamic range (lighting) rendering which is exactly what I suggested.
Draw distance is not necessarily a fill rate limitation. It could be a CPU limitation, for example. That's my point.
Ah, thanks. I took intro to logic quite a few years ago and didn't bother to articulate what I meant as carefully as I should have, but you're correct. And my suggestion that the original statement was rubbish and founded on nothing more than an uneducated guess is still true.
| sieanr said: meaning its impossible for the PS3 to exactly duplicate what the 360 is doing in Halo 3. But thats just me, maybe I'm crazy. |
| sieanr said: perhaps the two systems are far more similar than you think. |
Sometimes I love reading your posts. It's like a swimmer, paddling for their life. Would say anything as long as it fit their purpose. In this case, there's no way the PS3 could do Halo, but since the PS3 has a game that runs at 720p/30 the systems must be as powerful as each other.
And for the record, the Halo shots look just as blurry in the background. But blur doesn't mean it's a skybox. It simply means the developers applied a simple blur to the image to focus your attention to the main stage instead of having you stare off into a pack of pixelated trees or waterfalls.
Because we all know that the systems have the same architecture and they would achieve the same results in the same manner. (Deferred Rendering vs Multi-buffer rendering) They are different methods with different, but still interesting results, however due to the Cell architecture, Deferred rendering doesn't require some expensive and miniscule 10MB of dedicated ultra fast memory to swap buffers. It simply renders and manipulates the images on seperate SPUs and combines them in a different manner. Which interestingly enough, allows for higher resolution rendering. I fully believe that a deferred rendering method used on the PS3 could go Halo 3 in 720p on the PS3 with no problem. This is where you break down and lose all sanity in the firm belief that somehow the 360 is more powerful because a few fanboys buffed up the image of the Xenos architecture to make their console of choice look better on some web page.
It seems the mods need help with this forum. I have zero tolerance for trolling, platform criticism (Rule 4), and poster bad-mouthing (Rule 3.4) and you will be reported.
Review before posting: http://vgchartz.com/forum/rules.php
Andir said:
Sometimes I love reading your posts. It's like a swimmer, paddling for their life. Would say anything as long as it fit their purpose. In this case, there's no way the PS3 could do Halo, but since the PS3 has a game that runs at 720p/30 the systems must be as powerful as each other. And for the record, the Halo shots look just as blurry in the background. But blur doesn't mean it's a skybox. It simply means the developers applied a simple blur to the image to focus your attention to the main stage instead of having you stare off into a pack of pixelated trees or waterfalls. Because we all know that the systems have the same architecture and they would achieve the same results in the same manner. (Deferred Rendering vs Multi-buffer rendering) They are different methods with different, but still interesting results, however due to the Cell architecture, Deferred rendering doesn't require some expensive and miniscule 10MB of dedicated ultra fast memory to swap buffers. It simply renders and manipulates the images on seperate SPUs and combines them in a different manner. Which interestingly enough, allows for higher resolution rendering. I fully believe that a deferred rendering method used on the PS3 could go Halo 3 in 720p on the PS3 with no problem. This is where you break down and lose all sanity in the firm belief that somehow the 360 is more powerful because a few fanboys buffed up the image of the Xenos architecture to make their console of choice look better on some web page. |
You had me until you put down the 360 with NO ACTUAL FACTS. Claiming fanboys buffed up the Xenos proves nothing, without any evidence of the actual power of the GPU.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
Andir said:
Sometimes I love reading your posts. It's like a swimmer, paddling for their life. Would say anything as long as it fit their purpose. In this case, there's no way the PS3 could do Halo, but since the PS3 has a game that runs at 720p/30 the systems must be as powerful as each other. And for the record, the Halo shots look just as blurry in the background. But blur doesn't mean it's a skybox. It simply means the developers applied a simple blur to the image to focus your attention to the main stage instead of having you stare off into a pack of pixelated trees or waterfalls. Because we all know that the systems have the same architecture and they would achieve the same results in the same manner. (Deferred Rendering vs Multi-buffer rendering) They are different methods with different, but still interesting results, however due to the Cell architecture, Deferred rendering doesn't require some expensive and miniscule 10MB of dedicated ultra fast memory to swap buffers. It simply renders and manipulates the images on seperate SPUs and combines them in a different manner. Which interestingly enough, allows for higher resolution rendering. I fully believe that a deferred rendering method used on the PS3 could go Halo 3 in 720p on the PS3 with no problem. This is where you break down and lose all sanity in the firm belief that somehow the 360 is more powerful because a few fanboys buffed up the image of the Xenos architecture to make their console of choice look better on some web page. |
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"
@ LordTheNightKnight
Your opinion of the 360's resolution capabilities doesn't seem to take the actual facts into account. The facts are that aside from a weaker CPU, the RAM and GPU are greater than the PS3's.
Not really, the PS3's GPU is more powerful and there are the flexible SPUs to take workload off the GPU. The much weaker CPU found in the XBox 360 is sharing its bandwidth with the GPU. It's a much more bottlenecked design.
With regard to RAM, the XDR RAM is faster and there's the default harddrive inside the PS3. With proper streaming of data there's plenty of RAM to deal with.
IMO there's quite a gap with regard to potential.
@ sieanr
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
