ill believe it when i see it. Theoretical numbers are worthless in real world applications. But if it is true then the PS3 should see a huge increase in visuals :) this can only be a good thing

1337 Gamer said: ill believe it when i see it. Theoretical numbers are worthless in real world applications. But if it is true then the PS3 should see a huge increase in visuals :) this can only be a good thing

did you not see me post?

Its a technique which has some serious drawbacks in terms of image quality. So no it doesn't give better AA than high end GPUs.

Killergran said: gamings_best said: *lots of pictures* snip - Show me 1 multiplat look that good............

LMAO Awesome lighting XDDDDD

Now that i have reread the article im going to ask for this thread to be deleted. Honestly the entire article is biased and completely made up by the author. and heres why

True


False




The reason PC's have "difficulty" doing this is because the gpu is doing everything from drawing the frame to post production and then pushing it to the screen. In the case of the ps3, you have the RSX drawing the image and then a dedicated SPE doing post production....2 processors working on one frame in sequence. The pc could do it 100 times better if nvidia or ati would release a driver for a dedicated post production processor.



No its not, they are maximum theatrical numbers that will never be achieved within a ps3, they are the numbers that could be achieved in a perfect world/perfect test bed environment....IE never going to happen



Umm no its not. Ibm blades with the I8 Cells are in super computers, not government data centers. Nice try fanboy




Let me break this down for you. AA on pc is hard because like i said, the GPU is doing everything from start to finish. On the Xbox 360 the gpu has a daughter package that allows for 4xAA to be preformed without any impact to performance...IE native AA on anything you want with no cost. On the ps3, the gpu lacks unified shaders and has no daughter packege...so all it can do is draw an image...thats it, any attempt at anything else comes at a massive performance loss, and that is where the SPE comes in. Devs are just figuring out that an SPE can be used for post processing, but it comes at the cost of an SPE...which means less cpu power for your game....but a prettier game overall.



True



Sort of True, they didn't want a "limited" gpu, it was the only thing available without crawling to ati and joining the ranks of the xbox


you have any proof for that buddy? cause i think its another story




Very True, a dedicated post production processor is a very good idea



True



False



True


Yet again, the xbox gets 4x for free, the ps3 has to pay for it with a spe


/end rant

phxprovost said: Now that i have reread the article im going to ask for this thread to be deleted. Honestly the entire article is biased and completely made up by the author. and heres why Interesting, the PS3 was initially designed NOT to have any graphics chip, everything was to be done on the cells. Now, developers are getting around to doing just that, using the cells for all of the graphics work and getting better results... False. The ps3 was originally supposed to use 2 cell cpus but that was scaped due to time constraints/cost/devkit development time "The PS3 is truly an amazing piece of hardware that is surprising everyone as time passes. Digital Foundry recently conducted an interesting analysis on the tech used in the game Saboteur, which revealed that the PS3 is capable of producing something even a high-end PC graphics card has difficulty with." The reason PC's have "difficulty" doing this is because the gpu is doing everything from drawing the frame to post production and then pushing it to the screen. In the case of the ps3, you have the RSX drawing the image and then a dedicated SPU doing post production....2 processors working on one frame in sequence. The pc could do it 100 times better if nvidia or ati would release a driver for a dedicated post production processor. "The Cell in conjunction with the GPU is capable of squeezing out 2.0 trillion floating point operations per second on the fly, which is super-computer worthy and out performs the Xbox 360’s 355 billion floating operation points/second. No its not, they are maximum theatrical numbers that will never be achieved within a ps3, they are the numbers that could be achieved in a perfect world/perfect test bed environment....IE never going to happen This is the type of tech running on the latest IBM Blades residing in our maximum security data centers near DC." Umm no its not. Ibm blades with the I8 Cells are in super computers, not government data centers. Nice try fanboy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Digital Foundry recently did an analysis showing that the post-processing tech, once thought to be MSAA, on the PS3 apparently is far more advanced than anything seen. Anti-aliasing or edge smoothing has always been a challenge even on the PC front.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let me break this down for you. AA on pc is hard because like i said, the GPU is doing everything from start to finish. On the Xbox 360 the gpu has a daughter package that allows for 4xAA to be preformed without any impact to performance...IE native AA on anything you want with no cost. On the ps3, the gpu lacks unified shaders and has no daughter packege...so all it can do is draw an image...thats it, any attempt at anything else comes at a massive performance loss, and that is where the SPE comes in. Devs are just figuring out that an SPE can be used for post processing, but it comes at the cost of an SPE...which means less cpu power for your game....but a prettier game overall. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Xbox 360 can do up to 4x MSAA via the built in graphics card. However, the PS3 has an NVIDIA card which really doesn’t do much in the post-processing department as it was initially intended to be left off the console. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ True ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Cell processor was originally supposed to handle all graphics processing, but due to concerns that it would be difficult for the developers to program on, a decision was made to incorporate a limited graphics card. " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sort of True, they didn't wanted a "limited" gpu, it was the only thing available without crawling to ati and joining the ranks of the xbox ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Sony’s intent was for the developers to utilize the Cell processors eventually leaning off the graphics card crutch. We have seen developers like Naughty Dog who have mostly moved off the graphics card in the PS3 and are now utilizing the SPUs fully in the Cell processor as seen in Uncharted 2. According to DF, the developers for Saboteur also utilized one of the SPUs to do the post-processing work resulting in edge-smoothing beyond the capabilities of a 16x MSAA found on high-end PC graphics card." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ you have any proof for that buddy? cause i think its another story ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The PS3 rendition of Pandemic’s The Saboteur is different though. It’s special. It’s trying something new that’s never been seen before on console, or indeed PC, and its results are terrific. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Very True, a dedicated post production processor is a very good idea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In a best-case scenario you get edge-smoothing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ True ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ that is beyond the effect of 16x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, effectively delivering an effect better than the capabilities of high-end GPUs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ False ~~~~~~ without crippling performance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ True ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Compare and contrast with Xbox 360 hardware, which tops out at 4x MSAA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yet again, the xbox gets 4x for free, the ps3 has to pay for it with a spe /end rant

read that back to yourself again, and see how false it is..................... / end rant

gamings_best said: read that back to yourself again, and see how false it is..................... / end rant

The ps3 will never, and i repeat NEVER do all graphics related operations on the Cell nor was it ever intended to be all on ONE cell.  how am i wrong? ohh i forgot, you must have used fanboy logic that leads to picking one random point and declairing false...no matter how little sense it makes for you to do so

There i revised my post for clarification

phxprovost said: Now that i have reread the article im going to ask for this thread to be deleted. Honestly the entire article is biased and completely made up by the author. and heres why Interesting, the PS3 was initially designed NOT to have any graphics chip, everything was to be done on the cells. True Now, developers are getting around to doing just that, using the cells for all of the graphics work and getting better results... False "The PS3 is truly an amazing piece of hardware that is surprising everyone as time passes. Digital Foundry recently conducted an interesting analysis on the tech used in the game Saboteur, which revealed that the PS3 is capable of producing something even a high-end PC graphics card has difficulty with." The reason PC's have "difficulty" doing this is because the gpu is doing everything from drawing the frame to post production and then pushing it to the screen. In the case of the ps3, you have the RSX drawing the image and then a dedicated SPE doing post production....2 processors working on one frame in sequence. The pc could do it 100 times better if nvidia or ati would release a driver for a dedicated post production processor. "The Cell in conjunction with the GPU is capable of squeezing out 2.0 trillion floating point operations per second on the fly, which is super-computer worthy and out performs the Xbox 360’s 355 billion floating operation points/second. No its not, they are maximum theatrical numbers that will never be achieved within a ps3, they are the numbers that could be achieved in a perfect world/perfect test bed environment....IE never going to happen This is the type of tech running on the latest IBM Blades residing in our maximum security data centers near DC." Umm no its not. Ibm blades with the I8 Cells are in super computers, not government data centers. Nice try fanboy "Digital Foundry recently did an analysis showing that the post-processing tech, once thought to be MSAA, on the PS3 apparently is far more advanced than anything seen. Anti-aliasing or edge smoothing has always been a challenge even on the PC front.' Let me break this down for you. AA on pc is hard because like i said, the GPU is doing everything from start to finish. On the Xbox 360 the gpu has a daughter package that allows for 4xAA to be preformed without any impact to performance...IE native AA on anything you want with no cost. On the ps3, the gpu lacks unified shaders and has no daughter packege...so all it can do is draw an image...thats it, any attempt at anything else comes at a massive performance loss, and that is where the SPE comes in. Devs are just figuring out that an SPE can be used for post processing, but it comes at the cost of an SPE...which means less cpu power for your game....but a prettier game overall. "The Xbox 360 can do up to 4x MSAA via the built in graphics card. However, the PS3 has an NVIDIA card which really doesn’t do much in the post-processing department as it was initially intended to be left off the console. True The Cell processor was originally supposed to handle all graphics processing, but due to concerns that it would be difficult for the developers to program on, a decision was made to incorporate a limited graphics card. " Sort of True, they didn't want a "limited" gpu, it was the only thing available without crawling to ati and joining the ranks of the xbox "Sony’s intent was for the developers to utilize the Cell processors eventually leaning off the graphics card crutch. We have seen developers like Naughty Dog who have mostly moved off the graphics card in the PS3 and are now utilizing the SPUs fully in the Cell processor as seen in Uncharted 2. According to DF, the developers for Saboteur also utilized one of the SPUs to do the post-processing work resulting in edge-smoothing beyond the capabilities of a 16x MSAA found on high-end PC graphics card." you have any proof for that buddy? cause i think its another story "The PS3 rendition of Pandemic’s The Saboteur is different though. It’s special. It’s trying something new that’s never been seen before on console, or indeed PC, and its results are terrific. Very True, a dedicated post production processor is a very good idea In a best-case scenario you get edge-smoothing True that is beyond the effect of 16x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, effectively delivering an effect better than the capabilities of high-end GPUs False without crippling performance. True Compare and contrast with Xbox 360 hardware, which tops out at 4x MSAA. Yet again, the xbox gets 4x for free, the ps3 has to pay for it with a spe /end rant

One thing, it's not false about developers using SPUs instead of GPU for graphics on PS3.  The problem is it seems to be mainly first party ones.  Uncharted 2 makes extensive use of the SPUs for graphics, as clearly stated in 'making of' videos and articles directly from the developer.  While the OP is indeed overly optimistic about what this means, there seems no doubt that the best scenario on the PS3 is to use and mix of SPU/GPU for the graphics.  This is foreign to many developers, particularly third party developers, so they tend to stick to CPU/GPU paridigam for 360/PS3 which hampers getting best results on the PS3.

So he's not being inaccurate when talking about this capability - I'd just argue that I don't see a huge amount of evidence most developers are getting up to speed with using the SPUs properly, although in theory the latest SDKs and Sony support is now getting this type of capability better visibility.

 

phxprovost said: gamings_best said: read that back to yourself again, and see how false it is..................... / end rant The ps3 will never, and i repeat NEVER do all graphics related operations on the Cell nor was it ever intended to be all on ONE cell.  how am i wrong? ohh i forgot, you must have used fanboy logic that leads to picking one random point and declairing false...no matter how little sense it makes for you to do so There i revised my post for clarification

no the point was that the guy said the ps3 was originally not going to have a gpu, you said false it was going to have 2 cell processors............................................................... with still isn't a gpu -_-. who cares how many cells, fact is the ps3 wasn't going to have a gpu like the guy said and like you proved, but yet "ITZ TEH FALSES, TOTAL BIAS CLOSE THREAD" and i'm using fanboy logic?

XxXProphecyXxX said: Garnett said: XxXProphecyXxX said: Garnett said: leo-j said: marc said: Yes yes... Go play some high end PC games then come back and tell me that your console can handle as many objects, and effect on high settings as a $400 PC. Never compare a console to the PC. You will get splattered & left to rot under a bus. My Radeon 3850 makes Fallout 3 look like its playing on a XB720 or PS4 and that card is 2 generations old and I have at least 8 mods running that quadruple the number of enemies in game. Last I checked the PS3 had trouble maintaining 30fps in vanilla Fallout 3 at about medium PC settings. Fallout 3 is one of the worst looking games this gen on consoles..   Play killzone 2 and then come back and say the ps3 can't handle good graphics. Fallout 3 looks bad on PS3? Sure   On 360 its gorgeous.     Yeh cause Im sure the difference are so HUGE that the ps3 version looks like a ps1 game compared to 360, funny thing is when games like U2,KZ2,heavy rain,GT5 which ppl can see that is a graphically advanced comapred to multiplat and 360 games ppl are so quick on the "but it's not that huge of a difference" but then the same ppl makes big deal out of mini differences from most multiplats "ZOMG no AA on ps3 version or you can see batmans cape its not black on 360 ZOMG 360 is better", is this really how sad you ppl are? 1.UC2 graphics are NOT that good, the only good thing i can say about them is the lighting thats it.  2.Heavy Rain has GTA graphics. (on high on PC, there still improving so i cant really say yet) 3.Fallout3 does look better on 360, it has better textures and what not. 4.GoW3 AND KZ2 are easly the power house graphic kings on PS3.  Thats for you.    now Marc   1.PC is NOT hard to dev for like PS3 is. 2.When the Fallout3 devs made it they had to work with the PS3/360 and PC. Which means the one that is hardest to dev for gets the least results.   Uhh ok im done here im not even going to continue cause most of the things you said is opinions. U2 graphics not that good?....wow even after all the best graphics award....=.= Heavy rain has GTA graphics? wtf.....makes no sense...=.= Fallout 3 looks better on 360? so the difference are not as big as your implying if so then you must also think Dragon age on ps3 looks vastly supirior than 360 with the same .5 score difference? =.=

Many people on here agree that KZ2 > UC2,UC2 Is just easier to look at because its colorful. The textures are bland but the colors are vibrant.

 

Heavy Rain and both GTA Have what in common? Very bland graphics, but Heavy Rain has facial expressions down to the tea.

 

I never said Fallout 3 was a last gen game on PS3, I said it looks better on Xbox 360, so unless he played it on 360 then he couldnt of said it was one of the worst looking console games. Its like me saying Dragon age  is fugly when im playing the gimped version.

 

@Reasonable

 

Since the PS3 has 40 more gflops than Xbox 360,in the processor division, and the devs make the extra glops go for the graphics,would it mean the 360 and PS3 are even?