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

Forums - Microsoft - Killzone 2 Quality/Graphics is possible on the X360!!

whatever on 15 June 2009
Boutros said:
http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=77041

This!  This thread is irrelevant now.  Should be locked.



Around the Network
Carl on 15 June 2009

Lol. Looks like the thread was garbage in the end up

http://xboxevolved.e-mpire.com/article/No_Title/5561.html



                            

Zizzla_Rachet on 15 June 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Zizzla_Rachet said:
CGI-Quality said:
Zizzla_Rachet said:
CGI-Quality said:
coolbeans said:

Can we please stop this Uncharted nonsense?

Look closely at the ground textures please, you proved leo-j correct.....

Allow me................

Now as I said, RE5 wins in the character models. But in terms of environments, it doesn't hold a candle to Uncharted. Btw, have you PLAYED both games? If you haven't, I see no reason to continue arguing.

Nonesense indeed.................

I have played both...And RE 5 on the PS3 only....And I still think RE5 looks better than Uncharted...But what does it matter if me and cool beans and maybe even more people think so..PS3 fans are just going to disagree

That doesn't apply to me. If I tjhink one looks better than the other, I could careless about what system it's on. Having played both versions of RE5 and Uncharted, I stand by my statement that Uncharted wins that in textures, lighting, facial animation and physics.

As for your HEAVY RAIN insults, I could careless what you think of the game. I'm going to enjoy what's there, and though I'm excited for Alan Wake too, I'm FAR more pumped for what Quantic Dream has to offer. Indigo is STILL one of the most unique experiences I've ever had, and I look forward to their next offering....period.

If gamers weren't so damn ungrateful this gen, you could have an appreciation for all of the industry's offerings.

Heavy Rain Insults?

The fact that the videos show no clothing animation is an Insult..That FBI agent is wearing a Tie with no Clip on it...And the tie is stuck his shirt...becuase of this  the game is subpar and anyone can see that..I'm making Insults or are you not willing to accept the truth? you did before...

Please....Just becuase you think it's the god send on the PS3 does not make the Clothing in Heavy Rain have Animation...And it's Facial animations are motion captured..another Fact.....Heavy Rain as it stands is not a technical achivement and trying to deny this is simply Fanboyism......Heavy Rain is sub par in technical terms when compared to Alan Wake (Running On Xbox 360)...As far as story goes...I don't know much about Heavy Rain's story....But a Good or great Story wont Eliminate it's short commings...Until Heavy Rain delivers something as simple as Clothing Animation it's just not impressive....

And as for your whole "Gamers are not grateful this gen" take a look at Xbox 360 sales for Multi Platform games that are good.....

 

You said HEAVY RAIN is not a technical achievement in any way, and then say people who believe otherwise are "fanboys". That's rather ridiculous because you're speaking subjectively, not factually. Sure, the cloth animations need work in HEAVY RAIN but so does the facial animation in Alan Wake. At the end of the day, your feelings towards Alan Wake aren't factual as mine aren't towards HEAVY RAIN.

Given the developers' backgrounds, I'm more excited for what Quantic Dream has to show than Remedy. That has nothing to do with "fanboyism" and just more faith in the companies that develop games.

Gamers are ungrateful this gen, sales don't prove otherwise. This very argument is an example. Why does it matter so much which games look better, just go enjoy them for cryin out loud. If you can't do that, oh well, that's your problem.

Rigtho......

 



 



AFFLICTION on 15 June 2009

i lol at this thread it brought out the xboys and the sony boys to the fight of the death



BMaker11 on 16 June 2009
Boutros said:
http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=77041

/thread. No more posting pics of RE5 looking like a Wii game. No more calling out Heavy Rain and propping up Alan Wake. No more anything. The game was running on PC, just like Crysis, and we know that PC Crysis (not console Crysis) just ain't what's happening on the consoles



Around the Network
Xigmund on 16 June 2009

This is my first visit to the Microsoft forum and wow...looks like it's better to stay away from here lol



can't wait for Track Season 2009/2010, guna beast out!

Travis Touchdown ERECTION CONFIRMED!

selnor on 16 June 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Staude said:
selnor said:
Staude said:
^Not only am I not wrong, but it's not smart to rely on one simple article when there are so many.

Now these are hard facts. They cant be argued with. It's up to you if you continue believing your so called evidence.


Now the 360’s GPU is one impressive piece of work and I’ll say from the get go it’s much more advanced than the PS3’s GPU so I’m not sure where to begin, but I’ll start with what Microsoft said about it. Microsoft said Xenos was clocked at 500MHZ and that it had 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines (48 unified shader units or pipelines) along with a polygon performance of 500 Million triangles a second.

Before going any further I’ll clarify this 500 Million Triangles a second claim. Can the 360’s GPU actually achieve this? Yes it can, BUT there would be no pixels or color at all. It’s the triangle setup rate for the GPU and it isn’t surprising it has such a higher triangle setup rate due to it having 48 shaders units capable of performing vertex operations whereas all other released GPUs can only dedicate 8 shader units to vertex operations. The PS3 GPU’s triangle setup rate at 550MHZ is 275 million a second and if its 500MHZ will have 250 million a second. This is just the setup rate do NOT expect to see games with such an excessive number of polygons because it wont happen.

Microsoft also says it can also achieve a pixel-fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second. This GPU here inside the Xbox 360 is literally an early ATI R600, which when released by ATI for the pc will be a Directx 10 GPU. Xenos in a lot of areas manages to meet many of the requirements that would qualify it as a Directx 10 GPU, but falls short of the requirements in others. What I found interesting was Microsoft said the 360’s GPU could perform 48 billion shader operations per second back in 2005. However Bob Feldstein, VP of engineering for ATI, made it very clear that the 360’s GPU can perform 2 of those shaders per cycle so the 360’s GPU is actually capable of 96 billion shader operations per second.

To quote ATI on the 360’s GPU they say.

"On chip, the shaders are organized in three SIMD engines with 16 processors per unit, for a total of 48 shaders. Each of these shaders is comprised of four ALUs that can execute a single operation per cycle, so that each shader unit can execute four floating-point ops per cycle."
  • 48 shader units * 4 ops per cycle = 192 shader ops per clock
  • Xenos is clocked at 500MHZ *192 shader ops per clock = 96 billion shader ops per second.

    (Did anyone notice that each shader unit on the 360’s GPU doesn’t perform as many ops per pipe as the rsx? The 360 GPU makes up for it by having superior architecture, having many more pipes which operate more efficiently and along with more bandwidth.)

    Did Microsoft just make a mistake or did they purposely misrepresent their GPU to lead Sony on? The 360’s GPU is revolutionary in the sense that it’s the first GPU to use a Unified Shader architecture. According to developers this is as big a change as when the vertex shader was first introduced and even then the inclusion of the vertex shader was merely an add-on not a major change like this. The 360’s GPU also has a daughter die right there on the chip containing 10MB of EDRAM. This EDRAM has a framebuffer bandwidth of 256GB/s which is more than 5 times what the RSX or any GPU for the pc has for its framebuffer (even higher than G80’s framebuffer).

    Thanks to the efficiency of the 360 GPU’s unified shader architecture and this 10MB of EDRAM the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost. ATI and Microsoft’s goal was to eliminate memory bandwidth as a bottleneck and they seem to have succeeded. If there are any pc gamers out there they notice that when they turn on things such as AA or HDR the performance goes down that’s because those features eat bandwidth hence the efficiency of the GPU’s operation decreases as they are turned on. With the 360 HDR+4XAA simultaneously are like nothing to the GPU with proper use of the EDRAM. The EDRAM contains a 3D logic unit which has 192 Floating Point Unit processors inside. The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU’s workload.

    Xenos writes to this EDRAM for its framebuffer and it’s connected to it via a 32GB/sec connection (this number is extremely close to the theoretical because the EDRAM is right there on the 360 GPU’s daughter die.) Don’t forget the EDRAM has a bandwidth of 256GB/s and its only by dividing this 256GB/s by the initial 32GB/s that we get from the connection of Xenos to the EDRAM we find out that Xenos is capable of multiplying its effective bandwidth to the frame buffer by a factor of 8 when processing pixels that make use of the EDRAM, which includes HDR or AA and other things. This leads to a maximum of 32*8=256GB/s which, to say the least, is a very effective way of dealing with bandwidth intensive tasks.

    In order for this to be possible developers would need to setup their rendering engine to take advantage of both the EDRAM and the available onboard 3D logic. If anyone is confused why the 32GB/s is being multiplied by 8 its because once data travels over the 32GB/s bus it is able to be processed 8 times by the EDRAM logic to the EDRAM memory at a rate of 256GB/s so for every 32GB/s you send over 256GB/s gets processed. This results in RSX being at a bandwidth disadvantage in comparison to Xenos. Needless to say the 360 not only has an overabundance of video memory bandwidth, but it also has amazing memory saving features. For example to get 720P with 4XFSAA on traditional architecture would require 28MB worth of memory. On the 360 only 16MB is required. There are also features in the 360's Direct3D API where developers are able to fit 2 128x128 textures into the same space required for one, for example. So even with all the memory and all the memory bandwidth, they are still very mindful of how it’s used.

    		•

    The GPU is irrelevent.

    The 360 is built like a pc.

    The ps3s architechture however. Is not.

    That is where you take a wrong turn and probably along with your article.

    In assuming it is.

    Like i've said multiple times. The spus are capable of doing graphical rendering. This basically means that not only can they be used for the things you usually use your cpu for, they can also calculate half of the picture before the rsx even gets it.

    The rsx that's optimised to work with coincidentially the processor.

    Normal processors arent very suited for rendering graphics, however, the ps3 processor is.

    Youre approaching it incorrectly.

    Okay.

    This is if you were to use the ps3 as a normal pc: (now this is an example but it'll give you the general idea. I hope)

    As you can see, with just using the ps3 like a general purpose machine they can't achieve the results they're looking for.

    In this case they want to render a certain amount of things within the frame.

     

    However, by shifting resources to the spus:

    As you can see. They can move all kinds of things to the spu and hence manage to get their desired results to run within the frame.

     

    The thing about the spus are that they don't just take a few loads of the rsx or the ppu. They take a lot of loads of both of them.

    They can be used to calculate your actual graphics, explosions, physics, reflections, bumps, AA.. etc.

    And that is why you can't view the ps3 as a normal computer.

    The rsx is a special built nvidia chip from their 7000series optimised to work with this interface and to work together with the cell and the spus.

    It's that simple.

     

    Interesting analysis my fiend, you just taught me something today.

    Brilliant. You just showed and told me exactly what the article says, if you had of read it, you would know.

    SPE's can do things like cloth animations etc that GPU's normally do. Your right ( as the article I posted showed ). But again like the article says this then takes away what the processor can concentrate on. If the Cell is busy calculatin GPU information it cannot be doing something else.

    As I mentioned, Cell helps out RSX. But what alot of people dont realise is the Xenos GPU in 360 is actually fast enough and advanced enough to help out Xenon CPU in 360. It's catch 20/20. Xenos is capable of doing mathematic equations like a normal CPU does. It can help run physics or even AI if it needs to. And it has the ability to fetch it's own instructions. This is where GPU's are going on PC's. They are putting GPU's and CPU's together so that GPU's can actually take the majority of the workload. ATI used Xenos as a master srtoke to test many Direct X 10 stuff. For instance Xenos has 48 Unified shader pipelines to RSX 8. The cell needs to help out judt to break even with that. But then Xenos needs to help out Xenon because Cell can achieve more. Your looking at 70GFLOPs actual peak in the best games of the gen on Cell, and 60 GFLOPS peak on best games on Xenon. Possibly even closer.

    Last gen PS2 actually had the best CPU. But it didnt have the best graphics. Something else the article shows.

    ~Either way, this gen it's closer between the 2 than last gen. That is something the article shows very well using IBM's official data, ATI's and Nvidia's. Everything used is official data.



    Staude on 16 June 2009
    Xigmund said:
    This is my first visit to the Microsoft forum and wow...looks like it's better to stay away from here lol

    When you enter these areas.. you have to be prepaired.

     

    Good precautions.

    -Wear a hazard suit. Not unlike the one gordon freeman wears.

    -Carry a crowbar. If it doesn't hurt you it's probably good for something

    -Always prepare to fight the mob... They will come and you never know which one either

    -Always put "in my opinion" when you write something. It's not a safeguard and it could still alert the mob, but it increases your chances of passing by the witch unnoticed.

     

    I hope these instructions will help you on your continued journeys.

     

    @selnor

    So you agree that the ps3 has the edge. That's good. I wish you would have told me right away.

     

    See, the cell actually has a peak performance closer to it's theoretical one than the 360 does, and it's ability to perform so many tasks at once is something that greatly increases its flexability. Now i'm not interested in re-igniting this debate. I'm really not. But while it takes a heavy load on the 360 to calculate such things as physics, it's a breeze to throw all of those over to one of the spus in the ps3.

    And that's just one example.

    And that's where the ps3 shows it's true potential and manages to move around potential bottlecaps.

     



    Check out my game about moles ^

    selnor on 16 June 2009
    Staude said:
    Xigmund said:
    This is my first visit to the Microsoft forum and wow...looks like it's better to stay away from here lol

    When you enter these areas.. you have to be prepaired.

     

    Good precautions.

    -Wear a hazard suit. Not unlike the one gordon freeman wears.

    -Carry a crowbar. If it doesn't hurt you it's probably good for something

    -Always prepare to fight the mob... They will come and you never know which one either

    -Always put "in my opinion" when you write something. It's not a safeguard and it could still alert the mob, but it increases your chances of passing by the witch unnoticed.

     

    I hope these instructions will help you on your continued journeys.

     

    @selnor

    So you agree that the ps3 has the edge. That's good. I wish you would have told me right away.

     

    See, the cell actually has a peak performance closer to it's theoretical one than the 360 does, and it's ability to perform so many tasks at once is something that greatly increases its flexability. Now i'm not interested in re-igniting this debate. I'm really not. But while it takes a heavy load on the 360 to calculate such things as physics, it's a breeze to throw all of those over to one of the spus in the ps3.

    And that's just one example.

    And that's where the ps3 shows it's true potential and manages to move around potential bottlecaps.

     

    I actually believe they are pretty much on par. For a start they are closer tha PS2 and Xbox 1.

    And Cells peak performance is nowhere near it's theoretical.

    Taken directly from IBM's full test of Cell running 8 SPU's

    Table 4. Performance of parallelized Linpack on eight SPUs

    Matrix size Cycles # of Insts. CPI Single Issue Dual Issue Channel Stalls Other Stalls # of Used Regs SPEsim Mea- sured Model accuracy Effi- ciency
    1024x1024 27.6M 2.92M 0.95 27.9% 32.6% 26.9% 12.6% 126 83.12 73.04 87.87% 35.7%
    4096x4096 918.0M 1.51G 0.61 29.0% 56.7% 10.8% 3.4% 126 160 155.5 97.2% 75.9%

    Notice the model accuracy is 97.2% and the efficiency is 75.9% of the theorectical Peak GFLOPS performance. Doing the math brings down the GFLOPS in a contolled environment test to 150 odd GFLOPS. Take away 1 SPE which is not used for games and another which is dorment for OS and we are closer to 120 GFLOPS. Again 120 GFLOPS is in a controlled environment and not in an unstable game code environment.

    This is directly from the link you posted in this thread. These figures will never change, unless Sony changes the CPU in the PS3. And that doesn't happen to consoles. Dont get me wrong both consoles are powerful but not nearly as powerful as PR BS portrays. It's like TRE. You cannot forget when Cell is doing Graphics it CAN'T be doing normal CPU work. So devs have to be careful how much CPU work time they take away from Cell.

    Likewise the same is said for 360. There is just a different set of boundaries for that machine.



    Staude on 16 June 2009

    ^it's peak limit is much lower than 120 gflops though. it's theoretical one was around there. But due to shared memory and bottlenecks it's much lower.

    Not to mention the synchronised tasks the cell can perform at any given time also gives an advantage.



    Check out my game about moles ^