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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
wrote in message ... 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. we are not 'there' in computer graphics. does a race game look like real life cars - in the same way a crappy low resolution AVI can ? - does a desert in fallout 3 look like a real life desert? does a character in a modern game look like a real person? no no and no. we are still in the 'looks like a cartoon 'era. -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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, 1:15*pm, wrote:
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. I see PC gaming as the lowest level on the gaming rung. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 16:26:54 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote: wrote in message .. . 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. we are not 'there' in computer graphics. does a race game look like real life cars - in the same way a crappy low resolution AVI can ? - does a desert in fallout 3 look like a real life desert? does a character in a modern game look like a real person? no no and no. we are still in the 'looks like a cartoon 'era. Whether or not the graphics are "there" is a subjective discussion we could debate all day I suppose. I don't think it makes much sense to choose a specific game (i.e. Fallout 3 etc) and say because the artistic style of that game is not realistic enough to your tastes, that it is a benchmark for what current technology is capable of. While I've had plenty of fun with some of Bethesda's games, I wouldn't say realistic graphic style is their strong point. Many 3D artists are also into comics and related drawing styles, so a cartoony look often creeps into their work by design. To me, how much fun I have with a game is all that matters. "Good" graphics (which I define as not only visually appealing but also running consistently smooth on whatever machine I'm running it on) do not necessarily have to be realistic to be immersive to me. TF2 was a good example of cartoonish graphics that resulted in a game that I enjoyed. Arma2 is an example of a very ambitious attempt at realism which probably makes some tradeoffs in the fun-factor area in order to do so. Maybe I am one of those where a certain level of surrealism can enhance the gameplay. You mentioned race games.. I find the graphics in Grid to be as realistic as a racing *game* needs to be. Do they look like real cars? The answer probably depends on who you ask. If I want total realism, I should hope someone comes out with a contraption that is perfectly modeled like the inside of a car, which I can sit in...and, it has features built in that actually break my legs in real life if I slam into a wall too hard. Very realistic! Fun? I guess, if you want a true racing sim you gotta take the real life bumps and bruises along with it. Instead of playing first person shooters, lets just get real guns and go out in a field somewhere and shoot at each other. Granted there won't be any respawns when we die, but at least its realistic. Isn't the whole reason we are playing games to get away from reality a bit? Isn't exercising our imagination part of the fun? Is what we really are after is an interpretation of real life that plays off metaphors of reality, without requiring us to experience the less pleasant aspects of the same real life activity? This is why I don't think graphics need to be perfectly realistic, only immersive, and to me even graphics with varying levels of cartoonishness or surrealism can still be immersive. Your mileage may vary. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT), argento32
wrote: On Aug 1, 1:15*pm, wrote: 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. I see PC gaming as the lowest level on the gaming rung. Then you're clearly out of touch with it. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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, 2:38*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT), argento32 wrote: On Aug 1, 1:15*pm, wrote: 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. I see PC gaming as the lowest level on the gaming rung. Then you're clearly out of touch with it. Enjoy your moms basement and your WOW. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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, 10:26*am, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote: wrote in message ... 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. we are not 'there' in computer graphics. does a race game look like real life cars - in the same way a crappy low resolution AVI can ? - does a desert infallout 3look like a real life desert? does a character in a modern game look like a real person? no no and no. we are still in the 'looks like a cartoon 'era. -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... I 100% fully agree that we are "not there yet" in graphics. Especually real-time in-game graphics for games. Think about this, lets take one of the first 3D graphics demos for PC, the extremely crude, blocky Virtua Fighter Remix demo by Nvidia for their NV1 chip used in the Diamond EDGE 3D card, shown in 1995. This is PRE-3Dfx Voodoo1, folks. Now go all the way forward to the very best current tech demos from AMD & Nvidia for DX10 and upcoming DX11 GPUs, demos from the last year or so, i.e. AMD's Cinemo 2.0 demos for RV770, or the new DX11 demos of the last month or so We have come a very long way. If you don't believe in tech demos, lets just look at games. Take VQuake (for Rendition Verite) or GLQuake from the mid 1990s, and compare that to Crysis of today. In either case, demos or games, we've come a very long way. Yet, we're not even half way "there" yet, to totally realistic graphics. We will not get there in our lifetimes. All we will see is a continual improvement. We have had roughly 15 years of real-time 3D graphics on PC and console. In another 15 years, we will have improved greatly, but still have many years to go. There is no end in sight, unless however there comes a time when real-time graphics are concidered "good enough", like what happened with sound cards a decade or so ago. However, graphics is a different medium than sound. Graphics might not parallal audio. Anyway, I do not believe in the idea of "diminishing returns" for computer graphics. Current real-time graphics look pathetic compared to where they could be. I don't expect total life-like realism, like watching real footage of real-life, but I do hope that realtime graphics can mimic pre-rendered CG of years past. Obviously pre-rendered CG can be many steps ahead of real-time, because each frame of CG can get hours or days of render time, whereas real-time has to be rendered in 1/60 or 1/30 of a second. With that said, current real-time graphics have already surpassed some of the lower-end CG of the 1990s, like the stuff used for FMV in PlayStation1 game intros & cut-scenes. I'm talking about low-end stuff, not film-quality CG like Toy Story. I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. Many would say PC graphics have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll
wrote: I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. Many would say PC graphics have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true. Interesting that you mention Toy Story (2005). Compare that to say Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). Even 8 years later that film has phenomenal artwork. Games wise I think Toy Story has been surpassed and I don't think we are too far from equaling the Final Fantasy film. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT), argento32
wrote: On Aug 1, 2:38*pm, wrote: On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT), argento32 wrote: On Aug 1, 1:15*pm, wrote: 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. I see PC gaming as the lowest level on the gaming rung. Then you're clearly out of touch with it. Enjoy your moms basement and your WOW. I'm too busy enjoying your sister's vagina and her hummer skills. Now THAT's what makes me go "wow". |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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
"Memnoch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll wrote: I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. Many would say PC graphics have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true. Interesting that you mention Toy Story (2005). Compare that to say Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). Even 8 years later that film has phenomenal artwork. Games wise I think Toy Story has been surpassed and I don't think we are too far from equaling the Final Fantasy film. You mean 1995 for Toy Story :-). I agree with your statement though. I actually went and saw FFTSW at theatres, and though I was blown away by the graphics animation in that movie, still unrivalled even for any PC animation to this day, but the story was pretty weak so I thought it was not worth it. That and the fact it was a total box office bomb. I wondered if if the producers and distributors (Square and Columbia Pictures respectively) put any thought into the risk of making this movie. It cost nearly $140m to make (probably would be cheaper today with the newer graphics technologies), but it barely broke even, if at all, even with rentals included after the theatre gig was up. On opening weekend, there were only about 60-70 people in the whole theatre and it opened in over 2600 theatres nationwide. By week four, it was down to less than 150 theatres being shown. By week six, theatres gave up on it. It ranks right up there with some of the biggest budget bombs ever made. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will runat only 20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps.Meanwhile the Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps
Air Raid wrote:
"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said. BS to English: "We just dont have the know-how". |
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 |