If SONY gave you the option to overclock your ps3 for GT5, would you?

[brainfade]

Oveclocking won't compensate for weak components. There just isn't enough RAM on the PS3 for everything it set out to achieve.

+1 smartphones have better RAM than the PS3.

 

[vandaliser]

GT5 is far from the PS3s limits, the problem is the cell architecture which is hard to program and has notorious issues with screen tearing and somehow PD failed to handle this , cause others can. Hell even GT HD concept, which I played today(!), looks significantly better overall, no tearing at all!

So answer to topic hell no!

This is the year 2011 not 2007. Developers have all now understood how to program for the cell. Both sony first party and third party developers. Like any new technology it takes time to learn and understand it.


And screen tearing has nothing to with cell.

Overclock for GT5? LOL! GT5 doesn't even come close to pushing the PS3. Any minor issues with this game are the fault of shoddy workmanship on the part of PD.

Try out LA Noire if you want to see a PS3 sweat. (complete turd of a game though, IMO)

So tell me which racing developer is pushing the stuff PD is doing on the ps3? I am not asking for loads. Just name me one.

+1 smartphones have better RAM than the PS3.

Not really. The ps3 has faster RAM than smartphones. The main memory of the ps3 is XDR RAM which runs at a whooping 3.2ghz. Yes. 3.2ghz That's full processor speed.

If you said that they have more ram than the ps3 then yeah some do. But in terms of speed and bandwidth they lag behind console RAM

 

[GTShadowKing]

Why didn't Sony put more RAM in the first place, if they knew this would be crap?
...Maybe the PS3 would cost 800$ then...

 

[Tenacious D]

The 60gig might have cost $700. SONY no doubt made a judgment call much like MS did at what would make the PS3 viable for a decade. Initially, MS was going to give the 360 128MB of ram, but the developers lobbied for at least half a gig, so this is probably the compromise that made everyone content.

Both systems really need a gigabyte at least. But with new systems on the horizon in two years or so, I can see them having 4-6GB which even late in their lifecycles shouldn't be anywhere near as cramped.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

This is the year 2011 not 2007. Developers have all now understood how to program for the cell. Both sony first party and third party developers. Like any new technology it takes time to learn and understand it.

And screen tearing has nothing to with cell.

Way to misinterpret my post, I said cell architecture, cell itself is fine the bottlenecks surrounding it however aren't. The little ram the system has doesn't help either of course.

Why didn't Sony put more RAM in the first place, if they knew this would be crap?
...Maybe the PS3 would cost 800$ then...

Maybe it would who knows, from what I read the weak GPU is a bigger problem tho and seems to be a strange afterthought since they wanted to put two cells and no GPU at first which supposedely caused to much heat tho and the idea got scrapped.

 

[G36E]

The PS3 doesn't need a over clock, just more RAM , it handles every game perfectly as it should, an over clock would be handy though if we still had the install other OS option

 

[Bigbazz]

PS3 runs too hot to overclock it, the realistic performance gains you could safely aquire would be next to non existant.

 

[Bigbazz]

The best thing about playing on a console is that you don't have to upgrade your harware for any particular game.
So I disagree 100% that this is the best way for the future.👎

And ontopic I voted that I would not take the change.
The PS3 is getting hot enough as it is.

You don't have to upgrade but you also don't get the same quality as the PC. Not much changes if you don't upgrade, other than the consoles have better optimisation. But you take a 2007 top end computer and a PS3, the 2007 computer will still run the current games at a higher quality than the PS3. Albiet the 2007 computer would have cost a lot more than a PS3, but then it was no secret that sony lost a lot of money on every single console because they sold them too cheap.

Bang for your buck a console will come out on top, but the idea that you have to keep updating a PC for every game is so far wrong. I had my old computer from 2006 (Athlon FX60, 2gb DDR1, Radeon HD3870) recently running skyrim on medium settings with 2x AA and 1650x1050 resolution (higher than either console runs). The FPS was not great with it (20-40fps), but the FPS really isnt that great on the consoles either and I would definitely say with the right settings tweaked, that computer would run it better. When it came to F1 2011 it certaintly did a better job than the PS3, and when Crysis 2 came out my old computer was running that at 50-60fps at 1920x1080 resolution, meaning it performed and looked better than either console version, ultimately because they did a fantastic job of optimising the PC version of it, which isnt always true for crossplatform titles.

The idea that you always have to keep updating the PC comes with people always wanting to run the games on the highest graphics settings, you can't compare that to the consoles.

 

[Turkey :D]

I think Gran Turismo should move to the PC with PS3 and PC cross-game multiplayer.

 

[Jubby]

I think Gran Turismo should move to the PC with PS3 and PC cross-game multiplayer.

Respectfully, no. 2 reasons come to my mind.

Sony doesn't have enough to gain on PD moving to the PC, why do you think GT hasn't crossed over to the Microsoft platform?
----and----
We already have to wait 2-5 years for the next edition, I don't want to wait an additional 6 months to 3 years so they can get a PC edition correct too.

 

[Watt2159]

I think Gran Turismo should move to the PC with PS3 and PC cross-game multiplayer.

Hell no, online would suck because it would be easy to mod/hack on PC, and I have a grudge against PC gamers as it is.