No, you don't understand....

Wikipedia

Btw theres a significant difference between peak and achieveable flops.

That's all theoretical. Untill someone actually uses a PC CPU for MSAA x16 or SSAA, what the Cell did is very impressive as it would seem that no PC CPU could do AA without taking a massive performance hit. Unless someone has proof showing me otherwise of course.

nope

I saw the chip layout diagram, I didn't see any ROP units in it. However im probably stupid and completely oblivious to the built in capacity for 16x multisampling AA and supersampling AA.

Why everyone is acting like theres no pixel shaders? Those can easily do the job and it would leave much more resources for GPU, if this technique is used. As for CPU, lets see the cost of this technique.

"Linked off Real-Time Rendering, Alexander Reshetov's Morphological Antialiasing Paper is quite awesome. Unoptimized approach is about 150 cycles/pixel in a CPU implementation. For real-time performance, I bet you could amortize the cost of something like this over multiple frames!

EDIT: Yeah, after a second look, amortizing this over multiple frames would be tough! See second post..."

http://farrarfocus.blogspot.com/2009/07/morphological-antialiasing.html

Its tied to amount of pixels. Lets choose resolution 1280x720(I guess this one was used in saboteur). That would mean 1 280 * 720 * 15 = 13 824 000 cycles for each 1/30 second(saboteur again?). That means 414 720 000 cycles per second. Cycles per second mean hertz, but as we know hertz really do not tell the whole story about computers ability to calculate. So we have to use MIPS, which is Millions of Instructions Per Second. Lets say one cycle is one instruction. I think someone mentioned i7. i7 can do 76 383 MIPS at 3.2 GHz, which means smoothing 1280x720 picture with morphological antialiasing will take about 415 MIPS. That means smoothing such a pic takes 415 / (76 383 / 100) = 0.543314612 percent of computing power of i7. Oh, and did you see the unoptimized word in the article? :)

(If cycles = herzt, it would mean that smoothing such a pic would take about 13% of computing power of i7.)

Boy, the PC lovers really high-jacked this thread. Are you guys really that sensitive that just because some console has done something different, maybe even better, you have to jump all over it? PC gaming may not be what it used to be, but is that really any reason to become hostile? Besides, everyone's moving on to consoles, even Crytek. And why not, it's a smart choice, especially for consumers.

You put down $500-$600 at launch (~$200-300 if you wait) on hardware and you're set for this gen (6-8 years). All games are guaranteed to run. With a PC, they are constantly putting out newer Graphics Cards and other various parts that can effect gaming. And with the lack of standardization that is on consoles, you will probably have to buy a newer card, or maybe more ram, as more advanced games come out. Plus with a console they are always finding better ways to utilize its hardware, so we get better looking games. Games that can stand toe to toe with PC games. They may not be the most optimized graphics, but they still impress. Besides most people won't even take the time or money to upgrade their PC's to be able to play on the highest of settings, anyway. And even Crisis, which is still a good looking game by todays standards, isn't perfect.

And really, to just come out and say that UC2 and KZ2's graphics suck? How bias and just untrue that is. Especially when gaming sites are giving them awards and praise in that area, this one included. They may not be perfect, but they are definitely better than the majority of what's out there. If you love PC gaming, that's all fine and dandy. But the second you start bashing another platforms graphics/gameplay for no real reason at all, that's when you start crossing the line between fan and "fanboy."

what? ^^; MLAA has been around awhile. I don't even see that much hostility in this thread lol. Console games also don't look better nor is it toe to toe, if anything, that's what's dragging the advancements down atm, but that's mainly the cost side, PC versions will continue to look better, you make no sense. =P

The technique is not unique to the PS3 and actually is something that can be applied to the PC and 360. The only edge smoothing that the PS3 has in hardware is the quinnxx which we all know looks like crap because it blurs the textures and make the games look like they have Vaseline smeared all over the place.

PS3 has MSAA too o_O;

wow this thread totally died...