PS3 release date and price answer!!
- Thread starter joseph dobson
- 173 comments
- 7,300 views
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,285
In favour of the ps2? I say this as Ive only noticed xbox users compalin of 30fps.
- 3,802
99% of the time, the multiformat game will run better, and look better on the xbox.
Mercenaries is a very good example of this. Runs at 30 on the ps2, and looks abit rough, runs at 60 on the xbox, and is prettier. Alot of grade A ps2 games are made in Japan, and they seem to take more care in the artistic side of things, which is why the games look so good and run at 60. (looks at ICO). But even then the textures tend to be abit rough, and the lighting abit flat.
Xbox users only really complained at PGR2 on the whole 30 fps thing. Now the PS2 couldn't do that game full stop like the xbox can (it's simply pumping out to much graphical gubbins), but people would rather have slightly less detail, and more fps. GT4 on the ps2 is a good example of this. Technically, the game is average, low poly counts, arse textures, crap sounds and AI etc etc, but a silky smooth 60fps, and thanks to PD's great art direction it still looks really good if abit plain.
Flame away.
Young_Warrior
(Banned)
- 2,285
Cool.
- 201
anyone who thinks the PS2 can't hang with X-box should go play Tekken 5, or Soul Calibur 3... especialy in progressive scan modes...
But as for the PS3 and 360.
PS3 has mroe raw power. It's blunt ovbious.
360 main proc = 3.2 ghz 32 bits with 3 spes... so multiply 3.2 times 3.... 9.6 ghz total
PS3 main proc = 3.2 ghz 64 bits with 7 spes... multiply 3.2 by 7..... 22.4 ghz, but then effectively doulbe that since it's 64 bit rather than 32. 44.8 ghz of thoeretical processing power.... And with the processor alone being capable of 2 teraflops... I don't doubt it.
The video cards are pretty equal. PS3 might have a slight edge since it uses a card that can easily smoke any card on the market...
Ram is again, equal. 360 has double, but the PS3 uses faster ram. XDR, while 360 is using either DDR2 or GDDR3, I forget. But that equals it out.
The rest is up to the devs.
But based on what some of the devs are saying, they can't find a ceiling on the PS3 yet. What concerns me is the uber powerfull Cell proc the PS3 uses, and the fact that the rest of the system seems to not be on par with it. But from what has been shown, I think it's a non-issue.
360 is only days away, and I have a few friends picking em up. I'll prolly check out PGR3, expecting Ferrari's to drive semi-realistic and only be let down. But games like Gears of War and Call of Duty 2 I will be lookin forward to.
But as for the PS3 and 360.
PS3 has mroe raw power. It's blunt ovbious.
360 main proc = 3.2 ghz 32 bits with 3 spes... so multiply 3.2 times 3.... 9.6 ghz total
PS3 main proc = 3.2 ghz 64 bits with 7 spes... multiply 3.2 by 7..... 22.4 ghz, but then effectively doulbe that since it's 64 bit rather than 32. 44.8 ghz of thoeretical processing power.... And with the processor alone being capable of 2 teraflops... I don't doubt it.
The video cards are pretty equal. PS3 might have a slight edge since it uses a card that can easily smoke any card on the market...
Ram is again, equal. 360 has double, but the PS3 uses faster ram. XDR, while 360 is using either DDR2 or GDDR3, I forget. But that equals it out.
The rest is up to the devs.
But based on what some of the devs are saying, they can't find a ceiling on the PS3 yet. What concerns me is the uber powerfull Cell proc the PS3 uses, and the fact that the rest of the system seems to not be on par with it. But from what has been shown, I think it's a non-issue.
360 is only days away, and I have a few friends picking em up. I'll prolly check out PGR3, expecting Ferrari's to drive semi-realistic and only be let down. But games like Gears of War and Call of Duty 2 I will be lookin forward to.
- 3,802
Seriously. You don't have a clue (hell I don't really have that much of a clue), so just stop right there.
The xbox 360 doesn't use support style chips like the cell anyway, it uses 3 cores. That's 1 chip, 3 cores.
I doubt that. Sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.
Saying X has more CPU mhz then Y means utterly NOTHING anyway when both are different CPUs, from different companies, in different machines, with different ideas behind them.
Seriously, I'm bored of this "ps2 can keep up with the xbox graphically" argument. Just get over the fact the ps2 has worse graphics, no one actually cares anymore.
- 201
If your going to quote, me keep it in context.
And note I said PS3 has an edge in raw power. What is done with that power and the feature sets behind the hardware is what matters.
And actualy if you kept up on news and interviews I beleive it was KY who said that the team has yet to find the ceiling on the PS3.
As for my math, uhm, yep it's correct. However I added that it's theoretical power. What the power actulay is is affected by factors such as transfer rates, cache per spe, etc.
So please, don't tell me I don't have a clue.
Becuase well I just proved I do.
And while a 64 bit 2.2 hz proc can't truely do double the work of a 2.2 ghz 32 bit proc. It can do more work in the same number of clock cycles. It should also be noted, the software needs to be programmed to take advantage of the 64 bit capabilities, otherwise the performance advantages are not impressive.
This will create an issue for devs like EA who share the same engine across consoles, sicne 360 and Revolution will use 32bit procs, while PS3 is gunna use 64bits. This means we will likely see more console specific programming from the start on more games. Not like with last gen, where only 1st party games and big liscenses used engines programmed just for the hardware. Now in the later gen we have games all ove rthe place programmed to take specific advantages of each consoles hardware. This is mroe noticable on the PS2. And again I point to Tekken 5, soul Caliber 2, GT4, Madden 06, Resident Evil 4, and others. They are pushing graphics very similar in quality to what the xbox did early in it's life. Granted the x-box has also moved up in quality. Doom 3 is especialy notable. Cinsidering it's the only game to date that the devs said really pushed the x-box. And I buy it, no other game looks that good. I'm willing to bet that even HL2 will fall short, seeing as HL2's Source engine is made for ATI video cards and well Xbox uses an nVidia card. A card closely related to the geforce 3 line. Basically for HL2, valve must have spent some serious hours re-coding all those cheats to give ATI the upperhand in benchmarks....
Oh yes that's right, I know nothing....
sorry
I forgot!
And note I said PS3 has an edge in raw power. What is done with that power and the feature sets behind the hardware is what matters.
And actualy if you kept up on news and interviews I beleive it was KY who said that the team has yet to find the ceiling on the PS3.
As for my math, uhm, yep it's correct. However I added that it's theoretical power. What the power actulay is is affected by factors such as transfer rates, cache per spe, etc.
So please, don't tell me I don't have a clue.
Becuase well I just proved I do.
And while a 64 bit 2.2 hz proc can't truely do double the work of a 2.2 ghz 32 bit proc. It can do more work in the same number of clock cycles. It should also be noted, the software needs to be programmed to take advantage of the 64 bit capabilities, otherwise the performance advantages are not impressive.
This will create an issue for devs like EA who share the same engine across consoles, sicne 360 and Revolution will use 32bit procs, while PS3 is gunna use 64bits. This means we will likely see more console specific programming from the start on more games. Not like with last gen, where only 1st party games and big liscenses used engines programmed just for the hardware. Now in the later gen we have games all ove rthe place programmed to take specific advantages of each consoles hardware. This is mroe noticable on the PS2. And again I point to Tekken 5, soul Caliber 2, GT4, Madden 06, Resident Evil 4, and others. They are pushing graphics very similar in quality to what the xbox did early in it's life. Granted the x-box has also moved up in quality. Doom 3 is especialy notable. Cinsidering it's the only game to date that the devs said really pushed the x-box. And I buy it, no other game looks that good. I'm willing to bet that even HL2 will fall short, seeing as HL2's Source engine is made for ATI video cards and well Xbox uses an nVidia card. A card closely related to the geforce 3 line. Basically for HL2, valve must have spent some serious hours re-coding all those cheats to give ATI the upperhand in benchmarks....
Oh yes that's right, I know nothing....
sorry
I forgot!
- 3,802
I did. You were simply wrong.
Considering that the man is pretty much owned by Sony, what else would he say? If Bill Gates said the same thing, you'd fall over laughing. As would I.
Look just stop it okay. It's painful. Stop pretending that you actually have any kind of understanding of this stuff. You simply don't. Yes, you know some stuff, good for you, but you also make stupid mistakes (xbox 360 with SPE'S?), and blind assumptions based on nothing. "Oh it's 64 bit, so I'll just double the mhz" DOH!
I should also mention that the cores in the 360 are 64 bit power pc cores. So once again, your wrong. A common occurrence for you on thread it seems.
Sooo I guess by Your maths the xbox 360 is what? 3 zillion mhz?
What? No listen, games are optimized for consoles. I guess any game that's optimized is "cheating" in your eyes though.
Be a man, and admit your wrong, don't start with all the "context" crap.
- 30,061
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
A multi-format game is re-optimised for whatever format it's going on sale for, they don't program it for the PC then use the exact same code for the XB or PS, it'd only work on the PC if they did that then you'd have a load of packed and shipped disks that did nothing. Ofcourse the point of this comment is that pretty muchthe entire game gets tweaked including the graphics. Which is wh PC games tend to look best on a high spec PC and XB games tend to look better than PS2 ones. It'll be even more pronounced with the PC, XB360 and PS3 though since the programming for them will be much more different than the current consoles.
- 556
when i was at school there is a magazine called Flipside which compares all the new consoles and it says that the PS3 will come out Sping/ Summer in the UK, and it has a bit about thge contllers of the revolution, they look super cool!
code_kev
I've got to argue on this. GT4's car models have more poly's than all of the following games:
NFSU (All Consoles)
NFSU2 (All Consoles)
NFSMW (exception: 360)
SRS (All Consoles)
Juiced (All Consoles)
Burnout Revenge (All Consoles)
Fact is, GT4 outshines nearly all games. You can complain all you want btw Kev about how "thanks to art direction" etc etc. Fact is, other developers have the same abililty and opportunity to do the same and achieve similar looks, but they don't. It has to do with their talent as developers, and it's obvious if the competition can't look better (this includes Forza and it's plastic car models, because they do not look as "life like" as GT4's, regarldess of their superior poly count and texture).
Point is, technical specs of the models and game mean NOTHING. Final product and the acheived look = EVERYTHING.
So, with that said, your point is a rediculous one. Any game can support tons of poly's and great textures and still look like crap if it doesn't look believable.
- 3,802
And you bring this up because?
I should also mention that alot of those games have lower poly counts on their cars, but have WAY more cars on track, damage, better textures, and funky effects that GT4 doesn't have, Burnout Revenge especially.
SRS and Juiced are crap, so no one cares.
Welldone Tha_con, you MISSED my point. I was infact complimenting PD on their fantastic art direction, a skill that many companies lack.
And puulease, I don't give a rats ass for Forza, like I even play it anymore.
THATS MY FARKING POINT!
But on another point, I LIKE it when rather then using poor textures, they do cool stuff, like rendering all the bits in 3d etc. It's nice.
FFS!
- 5,051
- Labounti
I got to dissagree, the sound in GT4 is not crappy. The audio samples sound higher quality than say forza. Forza sounds like all samples are 96k bitrate while GT4 souns more like 128k bitrate. Many cars sound great so i dont know where the "crap sounds" comes from. With over 600 cars some are not going to get its real sounds.
I can tell you cars like the Zonda, Vanquish and Skyline sound better in GT4 than in Forza.
I can tell you cars like the Zonda, Vanquish and Skyline sound better in GT4 than in Forza.
- 3,802
Having 600 cars is no excuse. Why even bother if some sound great and some sound crap? I was under the impression from some people here that PD would NEVAR do a half arsed job? It's like going "well the games got 3000 cars, 1500 of them look REAL, but 1500 are boxes on wheels? Happy?".
My opinion of the crap sounds comes from the fact that my parents 1.3 ltr car sounds meaner then half the cars on GT4. After the audio delights of GTR, I expect no less from any other game, because I'm unfair.
I do agree on the audio lacking clarity on Forza. They got some of the grunt right, but it sounded all...fuzzy and poor.
My opinion of the crap sounds comes from the fact that my parents 1.3 ltr car sounds meaner then half the cars on GT4. After the audio delights of GTR, I expect no less from any other game, because I'm unfair.
I do agree on the audio lacking clarity on Forza. They got some of the grunt right, but it sounded all...fuzzy and poor.
- 30,061
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Imo the thing that makes GT4 sound good is the wind noise rather than the actual engine sounds. Playing games like EPR more recently I can tell you the engine noises in that afar better than GT4's, but it lacks that wind noise as your speed increases which does add to GT4's aural experience. The actual engine noises though not crap, arn't great either imo.
- 26,628
- OREGON
- a6m5zero
I don't have my PS2 hooked up to my Yamaha DD receiver or anything. The audio is thru my Panasonic TV(stereo). Now, I've never done 180 mph in some sportscar, but I'm not too impressed with the sound effects of Gran Turismo games. First time I noticed it lacking was in GT3. I wish there were more dynamic, mean sound to those cars. Some effects like the skidding tires sounds great.
It was brought up because you, again, sell this game short because you feel it doesn't live up to "your" standards, and you fail to compare it to the competition, where it is clearly better.code_kev
Point is, in the racing Genre, GT4 is the best looking, period, and it has BETTER textures than the games you mentioned. I'm confused. It also has better textures than burnout...sooo...please explain. Burnout uses a lot of simple solid color textures, and even then, a lot of the textures are not as good as GT4...play Burnout more, because you obviously don't.
code_kev
Complimenting or not, you sell them short in every other area, when they clearly have surpassed every other racing game on a console to date, visually, and as far as content.
Also I brought up Forza as a comparison, it has nothing to do with you.
code_kev
No, that is not your point. If it was, you would not complain about a few textures that are "not as good" etc etc. You nit pick because you feel you have to.
code_kev
Right, on what hardware again? Even the xbox is not capable of "rendering all the bits in 3D etc". PS3 and 360 are possible, but come on now. You just talk to talk. It's like wind to me, just air moving around in open space. GT4 looks good, it sounds on par with a lot of games, and much better than others, a few out shine it. It's enjoyable, has a lot of car's, tons of tracks (which are accurate more importantly) and it's a well modeled sim. So why nit pick because when you are in photo mode and zoom in to amazing lengths the headlight might be a little pixelated? Because you want to complain. Right?
- 129
it doesn't matter to me how long ps3 takes to hit nz shores, i'll still be playing gt4 and trying to save up for it long after it's released 
