If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
In article , Tim O wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Air Raid wrote: The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals. I realize this post is intended to start a flame war, and as a fan of PC gaming, I often try to wind up the console players, but lets take a serious look at the issue. Rage was programmed by id, traditionally a PC game company. The XBox360 shares so much architecture with the PC, that it's not surprising an id game would run well on it. I thought the 360 was more akin to a PowerPC mac? The few technical articles I've read about the PS3 seem to infer that its an extremely powerful console, but that power is difficult to exploit. Sony built something great, but also very proprietary. If you look at their technology through the years, that is very typical Sony. For programmers that aren't completely immersed in PS3 architecture, making a port must be very difficult. Maybe these companies should look for better , more capable programmers and not the hacks that they hire. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:51:09 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote: "William" Wparks023@gmail wrote in message .. . On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert P Holley Too bad the consolers haven't realized PC games always have been and always will be superior, in every way. on a pc costing the price of an xbox 360 ? and its a shame there's less and less big games getting released for the pc every year due to nobody wanting to pay for them. Perhaps then we need new, tougher anti-piracy software so that people have no choice but to buy the software? ;-) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:30:31 -0400, Tim O wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Air Raid wrote: The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals. I realize this post is intended to start a flame war, and as a fan of PC gaming, I often try to wind up the console players, but lets take a serious look at the issue. Rage was programmed by id, traditionally a PC game company. The XBox360 shares so much architecture with the PC, that it's not surprising an id game would run well on it. The few technical articles I've read about the PS3 seem to infer that its an extremely powerful console, but that power is difficult to exploit. Sony built something great, but also very proprietary. If you look at their technology through the years, that is very typical Sony. For programmers that aren't completely immersed in PS3 architecture, making a port must be very difficult. This is a bit of a shocker for me. A console port that doesn't work well on a console as well. LOL |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack blah blah blah
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:05:48 +0100, Shawk
wrote: Nice troll... certainly got a number of bites. I'd give it 8/10 except that with the x-posted groups the replies were entirely predictable - it was hardly a challenge. 6/10 is fair I think. Nice (although somewhat vacant) attempt to gain attention and a feeling of self importance by adding a follow up. I'll wait to see how your attempt turns out before giving it a final score though. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack blah blah blah
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:01:20 -0400, William Wparks023@gmail wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:05:48 +0100, Shawk wrote: Nice troll... certainly got a number of bites. I'd give it 8/10 except that with the x-posted groups the replies were entirely predictable - it was hardly a challenge. 6/10 is fair I think. Nice (although somewhat vacant) attempt to gain attention and a feeling of self importance by adding a follow up. I'll wait to see how your attempt turns out before giving it a final score though. In that case let me jump in! I score Shawk's follow-up high for accuracy, but deduct a bit for scoring such a mediocre troll above 5/10. On the other hand you gave those stylistic points right back with your IKYABWAI ... ... so in all I dunno about a final verdict either. Should the ref keep calling out the seconds after ...9, 10, or mightn't it be better to just call in the medics? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run atonly 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps.Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Air Raid wrote: The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than thePlayStation 3version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals. I realize this post is intended to start a flame war, and as a fan of PC gaming, I often try to wind up the console players, but lets take a serious look at the issue. Rage was programmed by id, traditionally a PC game company. The XBox360 shares so much architecture with the PC, that it's not surprising an id game would run well on it. Actually that is not really true. Although the Xbox 360 shares much in common with PC architecture on the software side, as far as Microsoft's tools, development environment, DirectX API, etc, but if you take a close look at the actual hardware architecture of the 360, it's not a PC at all. The Xenon CPU is a custom triple-core PowerPC. No PC uses PowerPC CPU that I'm aware of. The Xenos GPU, is also a custom piece of silicon, that has no direct PC counterpart. Although PC GPUs that shipped after the 360, starting with the R600 (Radeon HD 2900), took after the 360's GPU, it would not be correct to say the 360's graphics architecture is based on any PC design. The embedded graphics memory is one of many features that make the 360's Xenos GPU a very "anti PC" architecture. It's not unlike the GameCube & Wii, which, like 360, use a PowerPC CPU and a highly custom, console- specific GPU created from the ground up specifically for the console. Unlike the original Xbox which used a GPU (NV2A) very similar to the GeForce 4. Overall, Xbox was just a slightly modified PC in almost every way, from it's Celeron/Pentium III CPU, to its bus architecture, to its GPU. The PS3 actually has more PC-based architecture in it than the 360 does. While the CELL CPU is totally alien to PC architecture, the RSX GPU is very much a PC-based design, it's basicly a stripped down GeForce 7800. The few technical articles I've read about the PS3 seem to infer that its an extremely powerful console, but that power is difficult to exploit. Sony built something great, but also very proprietary. If you look at their technology through the years, that is very typical Sony. For programmers that aren't completely immersed in PS3 architecture, making a port must be very difficult. The PS3 is really not much more powerful than the Xbox 360. The biggest advantage PS3 has, is the amount of floating point performance it gets from the CELL CPU (over 200 GFLOPs) It's roughly twice that of the Xbox 360 CPU (over 100 GFLOPs) . It's very hard to get all the performance from the CELL because the performance is divided up between the 7 SPE units. While the 360 CPU is easier to use because it's got 3 identical PowerPC cores. The 360's Xenos GPU is very much superior to the RSX GPU in PS3. For the most part, the extra power that CELL has, has to go into making up for the shortcomings of RSX, just to get roughly upto the 360's level in graphics. Sure there are some PS3 games specifically written to take full advantage of the architecture which outperform any 360 game, yet there are so many more 360 games that outperform the same game on PS3, and some 360-only games that outshine anything on PS3. Overall the 360 and PS3 are very close in capability, much closer than PS2 and original Xbox. Both consoles are well behind even modern low-end PCs that have decent gaming performance. example: the AMD RV770 GPU used in Radeon 4850 has 1 TFLOP (1000 GFLOPs) of raw shader/compute performance for graphics, while Xenos and RSX have 200 ~ 250 GFLOPs of shader performance, that's 1/5 or at best, 1/4 that of a current low-end PC graphics card. On the highest- end of PC gaming, with 4 AMD GPUs on two cards, (CrossFire 4870X2s) you get 4800 GFLOPs (4.8 TFLOPs) of raw performance, and that was as of fall 2008, almost a year ago. That is 20 times the performance of the 360's Xenos GPU (240 GFLOPs). The gulf in performance between the highest-end PC configuration and 360 / PS3 is about the same as the gulf between 360 / PS3 and the Wii's Hollywood GPU (12 GFLOPs). I must say, as a console gamer, I am already looking forward to the next-gen Xbox3 and PS4, as well as the rumored 'Wii HD' As a tech enthusiast, as far as the PC side, I am looking forward to the upcoming DX11 GPU from AMD & Nvidia, the R8xx/Evergreen and GT300, as well as Intel's 'manycore' Larrabee architecture. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack blah blah blah
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:09:46 GMT, " gnomon wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:01:20 -0400, William Wparks023@gmail wrote: On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:05:48 +0100, Shawk wrote: Nice troll... certainly got a number of bites. I'd give it 8/10 except that with the x-posted groups the replies were entirely predictable - it was hardly a challenge. 6/10 is fair I think. Nice (although somewhat vacant) attempt to gain attention and a feeling of self importance by adding a follow up. I'll wait to see how your attempt turns out before giving it a final score though. In that case let me jump in! I score Shawk's follow-up high for accuracy, but deduct a bit for scoring such a mediocre troll above 5/10. On the other hand you gave those stylistic points right back with your IKYABWAI ... ... so in all I dunno about a final verdict either. Should the ref keep calling out the seconds after ...9, 10, or mightn't it be better to just call in the medics? Looks like we may be winding down, so I give Shawk a 2/10 and his sock-puppet account (which he likes to crossdress while using) a .5/10 at the peak of my optimism. If we can get a few more, I've got plenty of scoring to dole out? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:13:43 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll
wrote: On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Tim O wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Air Raid wrote: The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than thePlayStation 3version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals. I realize this post is intended to start a flame war, and as a fan of PC gaming, I often try to wind up the console players, but lets take a serious look at the issue. Rage was programmed by id, traditionally a PC game company. The XBox360 shares so much architecture with the PC, that it's not surprising an id game would run well on it. Actually that is not really true. Although the Xbox 360 shares much in common with PC architecture on the software side, as far as Microsoft's tools, development environment, DirectX API, etc, but if you take a close look at the actual hardware architecture of the 360, it's not a PC at all. The Xenon CPU is a custom triple-core PowerPC. No PC uses PowerPC CPU that I'm aware of. Which is really a testament to how good DirectX is at running on multiple CPU platforms. What a shame that the PS3 came out with the selling point that it was some sort of super computer of the future, with all sorts of mind boggling possibilities, when the reality is that the aging XBox 360, despite it's on-paper specs, simply had a much more mature software architecture with which to build games upon. The Xenos GPU, is also a custom piece of silicon, that has no direct PC counterpart. Very true, because the average 3 year old PC runs circles around it. We would need to go back further to find a true PC counterpart. Although PC GPUs that shipped after the 360, starting with the R600 (Radeon HD 2900), took after the 360's GPU, it would not be correct to say the 360's graphics architecture is based on any PC design. The embedded graphics memory is one of many features that make the 360's Xenos GPU a very "anti PC" architecture. It's not unlike the GameCube & Wii, which, like 360, use a PowerPC CPU and a highly custom, console- specific GPU created from the ground up specifically for the console. Not disagreeing, would just like to once again point out that all these games, despite their higher price tag, not only perform inferior to their PC versions, but also lag behind in terms of control options, modifications and the like. Unlike the original Xbox which used a GPU (NV2A) very similar to the GeForce 4. Overall, Xbox was just a slightly modified PC in almost every way, from it's Celeron/Pentium III CPU, to its bus architecture, to its GPU. They should have made the 360 more like a PC, since a PC is better at gaming. The PS3 actually has more PC-based architecture in it than the 360 does. Difficult to imagine. The PC and Sony are kind of like a water and wood combination.. the result can be pretty in the short term and tends to rot over time. While the CELL CPU is totally alien to PC architecture, the RSX GPU is very much a PC-based design, it's basicly a stripped down GeForce 7800. How unfortunate for those that paid a lot for this crapstink thinking they would get entertainment value out of it. The few technical articles I've read about the PS3 seem to infer that its an extremely powerful console, but that power is difficult to exploit. And power that is difficult to exploit is not very powerful is it? Sony built something great, but also very proprietary. If you look at their technology through the years, that is very typical Sony. That's Sony alright. Every technology decision is founded in "how can we lock them into our brand?", rather than "how can we make our brand known for value proposition to the consumer". Just like Apple. For programmers that aren't completely immersed in PS3 architecture, making a port must be very difficult. Making a fun game has been a challenge for them too. The PS3 is really not much more powerful than the Xbox 360. The biggest advantage PS3 has, is the amount of floating point performance it gets from the CELL CPU (over 200 GFLOPs) It's roughly twice that of the Xbox 360 CPU (over 100 GFLOPs) . If only processing floating point numbers were fun, this would make for great gaming! The 360's Xenos GPU is very much superior to the RSX GPU in PS3. Therein lies the crux of the thread subject line. For the most part, the extra power that CELL has, has to go into making up for the shortcomings of RSX, just to get roughly upto the 360's level in graphics. Sure there are some PS3 games specifically written to take full advantage of the architecture which outperform any 360 game, yet there are so many more 360 games that outperform the same game on PS3, and some 360-only games that outshine anything on PS3. And almost all of them, where a port to PC was even attempted, perform better than either one, offering better graphics, even with lots of other services running in the background, an e-mail client, the PC doubling as a web server, and so forth. Overall the 360 and PS3 are very close in capability, much closer than PS2 and original Xbox. Both consoles are well behind even modern low-end PCs that have decent gaming performance. Amen brother. I must say, as a console gamer, I am already looking forward to the next-gen Xbox3 and PS4, as well as the rumored 'Wii HD' The innovative Wii controller throws a whole different topic in. They did something nobody else was doing, focused on having fun, and benefitted from it. Hats off to Nintendo. As a tech enthusiast, as far as the PC side, I am looking forward to the upcoming DX11 GPU from AMD & Nvidia, the R8xx/Evergreen and GT300, as well as Intel's 'manycore' Larrabee architecture. Is there really any evidence that DX11 will be that more compelling than DX10? And was DX10 really that much more compelling than DX9? I'm not trying to be overly skeptical here, as I look forward to new technology too, but I get the increasing sense (especially after eyeballing FC2 at DX10 at high resolutions with everything maxed) that we are "there" when it comes to graphic quality, and that game developers should be focusing on things like immersion, value to consumer, overall fun factor. Breaking away from the hyped corporate marketing-team inspired bull**** and focusing on how to appeal to gamers rather than buyers of well advertised crap. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run atonly 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps.Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Aug 1, 4:00*am, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:13:43 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll wrote: On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Tim O wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Air Raid wrote: The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than thePlayStation 3version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals. I realize this post is intended to start a flame war, and as a fan of PC gaming, I often try to wind up the console players, but lets take a serious look at the issue. Rage was programmed by id, traditionally a PC game company. The XBox360 shares so much architecture with the PC, that it's not surprising an id game would run well on it. Actually that is not really true. *Although the Xbox 360 shares much in common with PC architecture on the software side, as far as Microsoft's tools, development environment, DirectX API, etc, but if you take a close look at the actual hardware architecture of the 360, it's not a PC at all. * The Xenon CPU is a custom triple-core PowerPC. No PC uses PowerPC CPU that I'm aware of. * Which is really a testament to how good DirectX is at running on multiple CPU platforms. *What a shame that the PS3 came out with the selling point that it was some sort of super computer of the future, with all sorts of mind boggling possibilities, when the reality is that the aging XBox 360, despite it's on-paper specs, simply had a much more mature software architecture with which to build games upon. The Xenos GPU, is also a custom piece of silicon, that has no direct PC counterpart. Very true, because the average 3 year old PC runs circles around it. We would need to go back further to find a true PC counterpart. Although PC GPUs that shipped after the 360, starting with the R600 (Radeon HD 2900), took after the 360's GPU, it would not be correct to say the 360's graphics architecture is based on any PC design. *The embedded graphics memory is one of many features that make the 360's Xenos GPU a very "anti PC" architecture. It's not unlike the GameCube & Wii, which, like 360, use a PowerPC CPU and a highly custom, console- specific GPU created from the ground up specifically for the console. Not disagreeing, would just like to once again point out that all these games, despite their higher price tag, not only perform inferior to their PC versions, but also lag behind in terms of control options, modifications and the like. Unlike the original Xbox which used a GPU (NV2A) very similar to the GeForce 4. Overall, Xbox was just a slightly modified PC in almost every way, from it's Celeron/Pentium III CPU, to its bus architecture, to its GPU. They should have made the 360 more like a PC, since a PC is better at gaming. The PS3 actually has more PC-based architecture in it than the 360 does. * Difficult to imagine. *The PC and Sony are kind of like a water and wood combination.. *the result can be pretty in the short term and tends to rot over time. While the CELL CPU is totally alien to PC architecture, the RSX GPU is very much a PC-based design, it's basicly a stripped down GeForce 7800. How unfortunate for those that paid a lot for this crapstink thinking they would get entertainment value out of it. The few technical articles I've read about the PS3 seem to infer that its an extremely powerful console, but that power is difficult to exploit. And power that is difficult to exploit is not very powerful is it? Sony built something great, but also very proprietary. If you look at their technology through the years, that is very typical Sony. That's Sony alright. *Every technology decision is founded in "how can we lock them into our brand?", rather than "how can we make our brand known for value proposition to the consumer". *Just like Apple. For programmers that aren't completely immersed in PS3 architecture, making a port must be very difficult. Making a fun game has been a challenge for them too. The PS3 is really not much more powerful than the Xbox 360. *The biggest advantage PS3 has, is the amount of floating point performance it gets from the CELL CPU (over 200 GFLOPs) *It's roughly twice that of the Xbox 360 CPU (over 100 GFLOPs) . If only processing floating point numbers were fun, this would make for great gaming! The 360's Xenos GPU is very much superior to the RSX GPU in PS3. Therein lies the crux of the thread subject line. For the most part, the extra power that CELL has, has to go into making up for the shortcomings of RSX, just to get roughly upto the 360's level in graphics. *Sure there are some PS3 games specifically written to take full advantage of the architecture which outperform any 360 game, yet there are so many more 360 games that outperform the same game on PS3, and some 360-only games that outshine anything on PS3. And almost all of them, where a port to PC was even attempted, perform better than either one, offering better graphics, even with lots of other services running in the background, an e-mail client, the PC doubling as a web server, and so forth. Overall the 360 and PS3 *are very close in capability, much closer than PS2 and original Xbox. * Both consoles are well behind even modern low-end PCs that have decent gaming performance. Amen brother. I must say, as a console gamer, I am already looking forward to the next-gen Xbox3 and PS4, as well as the rumored 'Wii HD' The innovative Wii controller throws a whole different topic in. *They did something nobody else was doing, focused on having fun, and benefitted from it. *Hats off to Nintendo. As a tech enthusiast, as far as the PC side, I am looking forward to the upcoming DX11 GPU from AMD & Nvidia, the R8xx/Evergreen and GT300, as well as Intel's 'manycore' Larrabee architecture. Is there really any evidence that DX11 will be that more compelling than DX10? *And was DX10 really that much more compelling than DX9? I'm not trying to be overly skeptical here, as I look forward to new technology too, but I get the increasing sense (especially after eyeballing FC2 at DX10 at high resolutions with everything maxed) that we are "there" when it comes to graphic quality, and that game developers should be focusing on things like immersion, value to consumer, overall fun factor. *Breaking away from the hyped corporate marketing-team inspired bull**** and focusing on how to appeal to gamers rather than buyers of well advertised crap. Screw tech talk. I find PC Gaming annoying and prefer console gaming. I don't care what the power under the hood is. I know what I like though and PC gaming isn't for me I'll take my PS3 and 360 anyday. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:57:35 -0700 (PDT), argento32
wrote: On Aug 1, 4:00*am, wrote: On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:13:43 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll wrote: On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Tim O wrote: On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Air Raid wrote: The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than thePlayStation 3version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals. I realize this post is intended to start a flame war, and as a fan of PC gaming, I often try to wind up the console players, but lets take a serious look at the issue. Rage was programmed by id, traditionally a PC game company. The XBox360 shares so much architecture with the PC, that it's not surprising an id game would run well on it. Actually that is not really true. *Although the Xbox 360 shares much in common with PC architecture on the software side, as far as Microsoft's tools, development environment, DirectX API, etc, but if you take a close look at the actual hardware architecture of the 360, it's not a PC at all. * The Xenon CPU is a custom triple-core PowerPC. No PC uses PowerPC CPU that I'm aware of. * Which is really a testament to how good DirectX is at running on multiple CPU platforms. *What a shame that the PS3 came out with the selling point that it was some sort of super computer of the future, with all sorts of mind boggling possibilities, when the reality is that the aging XBox 360, despite it's on-paper specs, simply had a much more mature software architecture with which to build games upon. The Xenos GPU, is also a custom piece of silicon, that has no direct PC counterpart. Very true, because the average 3 year old PC runs circles around it. We would need to go back further to find a true PC counterpart. Although PC GPUs that shipped after the 360, starting with the R600 (Radeon HD 2900), took after the 360's GPU, it would not be correct to say the 360's graphics architecture is based on any PC design. *The embedded graphics memory is one of many features that make the 360's Xenos GPU a very "anti PC" architecture. It's not unlike the GameCube & Wii, which, like 360, use a PowerPC CPU and a highly custom, console- specific GPU created from the ground up specifically for the console. Not disagreeing, would just like to once again point out that all these games, despite their higher price tag, not only perform inferior to their PC versions, but also lag behind in terms of control options, modifications and the like. Unlike the original Xbox which used a GPU (NV2A) very similar to the GeForce 4. Overall, Xbox was just a slightly modified PC in almost every way, from it's Celeron/Pentium III CPU, to its bus architecture, to its GPU. They should have made the 360 more like a PC, since a PC is better at gaming. The PS3 actually has more PC-based architecture in it than the 360 does. * Difficult to imagine. *The PC and Sony are kind of like a water and wood combination.. *the result can be pretty in the short term and tends to rot over time. While the CELL CPU is totally alien to PC architecture, the RSX GPU is very much a PC-based design, it's basicly a stripped down GeForce 7800. How unfortunate for those that paid a lot for this crapstink thinking they would get entertainment value out of it. The few technical articles I've read about the PS3 seem to infer that its an extremely powerful console, but that power is difficult to exploit. And power that is difficult to exploit is not very powerful is it? Sony built something great, but also very proprietary. If you look at their technology through the years, that is very typical Sony. That's Sony alright. *Every technology decision is founded in "how can we lock them into our brand?", rather than "how can we make our brand known for value proposition to the consumer". *Just like Apple. For programmers that aren't completely immersed in PS3 architecture, making a port must be very difficult. Making a fun game has been a challenge for them too. The PS3 is really not much more powerful than the Xbox 360. *The biggest advantage PS3 has, is the amount of floating point performance it gets from the CELL CPU (over 200 GFLOPs) *It's roughly twice that of the Xbox 360 CPU (over 100 GFLOPs) . If only processing floating point numbers were fun, this would make for great gaming! The 360's Xenos GPU is very much superior to the RSX GPU in PS3. Therein lies the crux of the thread subject line. For the most part, the extra power that CELL has, has to go into making up for the shortcomings of RSX, just to get roughly upto the 360's level in graphics. *Sure there are some PS3 games specifically written to take full advantage of the architecture which outperform any 360 game, yet there are so many more 360 games that outperform the same game on PS3, and some 360-only games that outshine anything on PS3. And almost all of them, where a port to PC was even attempted, perform better than either one, offering better graphics, even with lots of other services running in the background, an e-mail client, the PC doubling as a web server, and so forth. Overall the 360 and PS3 *are very close in capability, much closer than PS2 and original Xbox. * Both consoles are well behind even modern low-end PCs that have decent gaming performance. Amen brother. I must say, as a console gamer, I am already looking forward to the next-gen Xbox3 and PS4, as well as the rumored 'Wii HD' The innovative Wii controller throws a whole different topic in. *They did something nobody else was doing, focused on having fun, and benefitted from it. *Hats off to Nintendo. As a tech enthusiast, as far as the PC side, I am looking forward to the upcoming DX11 GPU from AMD & Nvidia, the R8xx/Evergreen and GT300, as well as Intel's 'manycore' Larrabee architecture. Is there really any evidence that DX11 will be that more compelling than DX10? *And was DX10 really that much more compelling than DX9? I'm not trying to be overly skeptical here, as I look forward to new technology too, but I get the increasing sense (especially after eyeballing FC2 at DX10 at high resolutions with everything maxed) that we are "there" when it comes to graphic quality, and that game developers should be focusing on things like immersion, value to consumer, overall fun factor. *Breaking away from the hyped corporate marketing-team inspired bull**** and focusing on how to appeal to gamers rather than buyers of well advertised crap. Screw tech talk. I find PC Gaming annoying and prefer console gaming. I don't care what the power under the hood is. I know what I like though and PC gaming isn't for me I'll take my PS3 and 360 anyday. It's okay man. A lot of people just stick to playing tic tac toe on paper because it gives them a headache to try to wrap their feeble minds around the technology. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
30fps Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 probably delayed until '08 due to programming issues - Xbox 360 version is likely in early '08 | AirRaid[_3_] | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | September 12th 07 04:52 PM |
what would it take to run these maxed at 60fps? | Spaceman | Nvidia Videocards | 1 | March 18th 06 02:47 PM |
hardware needed to run the best at 60fps? | Spaceman | Ati Videocards | 2 | March 14th 06 02:30 AM |
Iam getting 60fps with doom 3 and a Radeon 9600 pro ? | OCZ Guy | Ati Videocards | 6 | August 17th 04 10:08 PM |
Are their different versions of the dawn demo ?? as i have version as i have 1.0.2.0 ? | We Live For The One We Die For The One | Ati Videocards | 11 | September 26th 03 08:05 PM |