PS3 graphics, and PC graphics

[DEATHMASTER]

Dont spoil yourself

 

[Cole]

Someone could also make a optimized game for the n64 and then port it really unoptimized to the ps3 where it runs shittier and say. See n64 is more powerfull. But that is simply not the case. When test are run to compare consoles they are optimized enough for each console to give a decent estimate of which one is stronger. And if thy architectures differs a lot then you can also just test for what kind of aplication each console is better suited, for one with heavy physics use, or poly's or AI. Now if two consoles are about the same strength then you can't draw certain conclusion. But if they are not a test will clearly show. You use unrealisticly bias methods of comparison to illustrate your point, and draw your conslusion.

But the fact is, as I stated before:
The fact is, when it comes to comparing the speed of 360 and Ps3 and Pc, it is the skill of the programmers who made the application.

Yes I have to use unrealistic bias methods. You think Microsoft or Sony don't? Go buy a Nvidia card it will show how many times more powerfull there graphic cards are compared to previous generations. You think that isn't biased? You think when Sony says "We have 2x more power than the 360", that statement is not biased? Guess what this is what they do.

Yeah it's all biased because guess what? They can make it that way. They can say this card is "1,000 times more powerfull" using bias statements.

When Microsoft compares there bandwidth compard to Ps3 bandwidth it's completely biased. Microsoft just has 10megs of ram with extremely high bandwidth for AA and AF. So Microsoft said "Hey we have TONS OF MORE BANDWIDTH". When really most of that bandwidth was for that little 10megs of ram. Sony had to take a different direction because they wanted to do dual output at 1080p.

Guess what man, you cannot compare them directly, it is the programmers skill with the archiecture and compiler he is using that will measure the performance.

Hey on second thought? Who cares if the Ps3 or Xbox 360 is faster? Why even compare? If you can make something work faster in Java then in C++, and you are looking for speed why would you code it in C++? If you can code something more efficently in C++ then why use Java? C++ is faster due to it being natively compiled. Yet if you can make it run faster in Java, you code it in Java.
You should care about the Developers who make the games. There the ones who are gonna decide if the game will run smooth, look good, and be fun. You should never choose a console based on it's power, as virustype2 said once that you should. You should choose a new upcoming console based on the games and developers.

 

[Insano]

Go buy a Nvidia card it will show how many times more powerfull there graphic cards are compared to previous generations. You think that isn't biased?

Those tests are done in techdemo's (Aquamark) in the same environment.

You can't let the PS3 and Xbox360 fight against eachother in one big (pokemon) arena.

PS: I'm just commenting on those two sentences, I didn't really read anything else of your post

 

[Cole]

Those tests are done in techdemo's (Aquamark) in the same environment.

Nvidia: Hey, lets use this underclocked graphic card!
or
Nvidia: Lets force one to run this super complex scene in 1.1 shaders, the new one in 3.0.

You can't let the PS3 and Xbox360 fight against eachother in one big (pokemon) arena.

You can but it is not the skill of the pokemon(console) that wins will win the match, it is the skill of the player(developer).
Note: I hate Pokemon.

 

[Insano]

Nvidia: Hey, lets use this underclocked graphic card!
or
Nvidia: Lets force one to run this super complex scene in 1.1 shaders, the new one in 3.0.

What's the problem? If the old one only has 1.1 shaders and the new one has 3.0, why shouldn't he be allowed to use that new technology? It's like saying to a pokemon master with a Venusaur that he can't use it, because the nooby pokemon master he has to battle with only has a bulbasaur.

I would even say that in general, new tech slows down cards. For example an ati radeon 9800 pro running HL2 on Directx 9 and a geforce4 mx 440 running HL2 on Directx 7. The 9800 pro is obviously going to run HL2 faster, but it also has to calculate these really neat eye-candy features which aren't presented in the framerate.

 

[Cole]

What's the problem? If the old one only has 1.1 shaders and the new one has 3.0, why shouldn't he be allowed to use that new technology? It's like saying to a pokemon master with a Venusaur that he can't use it, because the nooby pokemon master he has to battle with only has a bulbasaur.

I said force one to run in 1.1. Meaning it is forced to run the same exact scene and pull off the same effects in 1.1 when it could do 3.0. But they are forcing it to run in 1.1.

The 9800 pro is obviously going to run HL2 faster, but it also has to calculate these really neat eye-candy features which aren't presented in the framerate.

Well it's not that 1.1 shaders can do less than 2.0, 2.0b or 3.0. But 2.0, 2.0b and 3.0 can do them MUCH MUCH faster. Since they are much faster, you now allowed to do much more with them.

 

[Insano]

But you are just comparing the raw power of both cards, while there are other things that give them advantages. You're just saying to the best card: no, you can't use that new tech that makes you godlike, because the poor old card doesn't support it.

It just doesn't work like that, the comparison should show how cards run in a real setting, where all those techs are allowed.

 

[Cole]

But you are just comparing the raw power of both cards, while there are other things that give them advantages. You're just saying to the best card: no, you can't use that new tech that makes you godlike, because the poor old card doesn't support it.

Actually im saying "You old card, you may support this but im going to make these tests even harder for you to make my newer card look even better"

It just doesn't work like that, the comparison should show how cards run in a real setting, where all those techs are allowed.

Im not telling you how I would compare stuff!
I'm telling you what companies will do to make things biased, slanted, tilted, making them look better, a new product look better.

 

[Space Farm]

This thread is hilarious! Minerel states something, which is completely correct, then some guy comes along and tries to argue with him without really reading and understanding what he's saying.

 

[X-FacToR]

Apperently microsoft are closing the network between xbox 360 owners & pc owners for "security" reasons. But the word on the street is that the PS3 will be able to run hand & hand over the network with PC users.

 

[VirusType2]

You should care about the Developers who make the games. There the ones who are gonna decide if the game will run smooth, look good, and be fun.

You should never choose a console based on it's power, as virustype2 said once that you should. You should choose a new upcoming console based on the games and developers.

THATS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I SAID OR MENT!


You continue to take what I said 7 months ago out of context to deform it to however you want!

Of course one of the major things to consider before you buy a console is the games, and I would never say otherwise. However, in the post were you put my quote in your signature, I was comparing identical games (Need For Speed, Madden, King Kong, etc.) but with a much higher graphic quality! So take notice that most of the games will be ported to all platforms with varying degrees of graphical quality.

There are many other reasons for buying a particular console besides games too Minerel! What about price? Features? These are just as important, but since you know everything and you didn't mention that then we should only purchace a console based on the games! Who would buy a $599 console(PS3) with 5 games when one could buy a comparable $399 console(X360) with 160 games? Did you notice that most of the games will be available for all platforms? Of course you shouldn't buy console based soely on its power and I never said that. I told the guy that most of the games will be for all platforms, but they will look better on the 360! If everyone just bought the system with the most power, and that was the only reason, we'd be all be ****ing idiots for buying a PS3! Besides, it's not always the system with the most power. Imagine a 1000 horsepower car with bald tires and poor handling racing against an 800 horsepower car with much better handling!

You can never find out what is better only by judging power. If that was the case, the Nintendo Wii would be the dumbest peice of shit idea ever. Instead it seems like it is set to be the most successful console ever!


Let me clarify:

Some guy wrote a post, sounded completely clueless, and asked why he should buy an Xbox 360 instead of a Gamecube, playstation 2, or Xbox.

I was a bit annoyed by this post, since there were about 6 threads full of reasons to buy or not buy one, and so I gave a quick answer.

This is part of what I said:

When playing the latest game would you rather have the best graphics possible or good graphics. that should be your deciding factor between 360 and any other game console.

You didn't quote the whole thing I said - only the part that fits your purpose.

I also said in that same post, the reasoning behind my statement, which was that "mostly the same games come for all the systems. The main difference is the graphics. "

Most of same games can be played on all the systems, therefore I will say it again! If you want good graphics, then buy one of the current consoles, but if you want the best graphics, then buy the damn Xbox 360!


I gave examples! Madden, Need for Speed, plus most of the Xbox 1 games can be played on the 360, except now they have improved resolution! (better graphics)

Here is even more proof that most of the games are the same for all the systems, the main differences are the graphics. You can, or soon will be able to buy versions of these games for one of the older consoles, or the Xbox 360!

This is a list of the announced or available games for the Xbox 360 that also have versions of the same games available for one of the older consoles like PS2 or Xbox 1, EXCEPT WITH BETTER GRAPHICS

Fifa, amped, armored core, burnout, wolfenstien, dance revolution, dead or alive, dead or alive xtreme beach volleyball 2, dynasty warriors 5, fable 2, fight night, final fantasy, forza motorsport 2, full auto, the godfather, golden axe, grand theft auto, gundam, halo, hitman, lego star wars, the lord of the rings, medal of honor, moto GP, NBA 2k6, NCAA football, NBA live, Need for speed: most wanted, ninja gaiden, perfect dark, king kong, phantasy star, project gotham racing, quake 4, resident evil, ridge racer 6, rumble roses, Scarface, Sega rally, Sonic the hedgehog, the sopranos, spider
man, stuntman , superman, shadowrun, Tenchu, test drivev, tiger woods, Tokyo Extreme racer, Tom clancy Ghost, Rainbow Six, splinter cell, Tomb raider, tony hawk , top spin, turok, unreal tournament, virtua tennis, winning eleven, wwe smackdown, X men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_360_games

Isn't it safe to say that the versions of these games for the X360 are mostly the same games, except that they have the best graphics when played on the 360?

Certainly it's all about the games, but versions of these games are available for the older consoles like PS2 and Xbox 1! Now you can get them for X360 with much better graphics! The games will be good for any of the systems!


Get a new signature! Why should my NAME be in your signature?!

It's a bit annoying and strange to see my name under everything you say as your signature. Besides, you took what I said out of context and changed it's meaning because you hate consoles (especially the X360), and you hate me. I'm sorry that PC games are dying, believe me! With Windows Vista, I'm sure they will make a nice comeback, since there will be one hardware type for GPU. Hopefully they can get a standard of multi-threaded CPU's, and/or use compiling software that can easily compile single threaded code into multi-threaded code. (IBM)


Finally,
I also may have said at one time that the Super Nintendo had the best graphics, since the only other consoles available were the turbo graphics 16 and SEGA genesis. So you see, some things that people say are subject to change with time. In case that example wasn't plain as the writing on the wall, I will make another example. A few years ago, someone inevitably has said that the ATI 9800 PRO graphics card is the fastest graphics card available. Would you quote that and leave it in your signature to this day?

The games are good no matter what system you buy. This is not the days of the Atari in the early 80's.

 

[Insano]

Actually im saying "You old card, you may support this but im going to make these tests even harder for you to make my newer card look even better"

Im not telling you how I would compare stuff!
I'm telling you what companies will do to make things biased, slanted, tilted, making them look better, a new product look better.

As I said before, there are independent sources (game magazines, ...) that can verify how much faster a new card really is in a techdemo like Aquamark or in the newest games (F.E.A.R., Oblivion, ... ).

Is it unfair for the old card to do the comparison on a new game like F.E.A.R.? If you buy a new card, you're going to use it for new technologies/games, so isn't it obvious that you want to know how much faster the card is in that area?

This thread is hilarious! Minerel states something, which is completely correct, then some guy comes along and tries to argue with him without really reading and understanding what he's saying.

I didn't read the rest of his post, because I'm not really interested in the discussion he was having. I just noted that his comparison with a PC graphics card is irrelevant.

 

[Cole]

Calm down Virus lol. If you want your name out of my sig, all you have had and have to do is ask nicely.

As I said before, there are independent sources (game magazines, ...) that can verify how much faster a new card really is in a techdemo like Aquamark or in the newest games (F.E.A.R., Oblivion, ... ).

And I was talking about Nvidia comparing its graphic cards on its boxes to its old graphic cards.

I'm not talking about independent sources, im talking about Companies slanting information to make their product look better than it actually is.

You quoted me "Go buy a Nvidia card it will show how many times more powerfull there graphic cards are compared to previous generations. You think that isn't biased?"
Well you see when you buy an Nvidia Card on the box and probably in some booklet or something they show how powerfully there graphic card is compared to previous generations. These are Nvidia's benchmarks not somebody elses. Im not talking about an independent source. Im talking about a company and their product.

 

[Gray Fox]

Calm down Virus lol. If you want your name out of my sig, all you have had and have to do is ask nicely.


And I was talking about Nvidia comparing its graphic cards on its boxes to its old graphic cards.

I'm not talking about independent sources, im talking about Companies slanting information to make their product look better than it actually is.

You quoted me "Go buy a Nvidia card it will show how many times more powerfull there graphic cards are compared to previous generations. You think that isn't biased?"
Well you see when you buy an Nvidia Card on the box and probably in some booklet or something they show how powerfully there graphic card is compared to previous generations. These are Nvidia's benchmarks not somebody elses. Im not talking about an independent source. Im talking about a company and their product.

But this discussion is about comparing graphics and power of consoles and pc's. And obviously the only realible source are independent ones. But does this mean that you do believe it is possble to compare different consoles and PC's to each other, as long as iti s done by independent sourcers that threat all involved equally.

 

[Cole]

But does this mean that you do believe it is possble to compare different consoles and PC's to each other, as long as iti s done by independent sourcers that threat all involved equally.

I believe that the people who actually code the games, the programmers, are the only ones who are able to say which one is faster. I also believe that there decision will be based on how well they understand and can use each platform.

So two guys can say completely different things..one stating the 360 is faster the other Ps3 faster. They are both completely right, because one of them knows how to take advantage of the 360 better and the other the Ps3 better and they could have also been doing completely different "stress tests" on the platform.(One of them used more physics oreinted tests, the other more Graphic oreinted Tests).

But this discussion is about comparing graphics and power of consoles and pc's.

He quoted me when I was explaining people and bias. In that part of what I was writing, I was not comparing power I was supporting my statement that when Microsoft or Sony give out numbers that they will be bias by using Nvidia as an example.

 

[stewie_griffin]

i would say if you're going to just play games on a PC, and NOTHING else, you'd do better with a PS3 or xbox 360, in the long haul you'd be spending about the same on the 360 and the games as opposed to buying a whole new system with LCD monitor and whatnot. Then again, take half life 2 and the original... you can add mods to the PC version and not the consoles. Yet with online capability and hard drives on the consoles, expect to see addons via internet, probably like steam is doing. I was going to buy a 360, but then saw that it could not work as a tivo as well, which i figured would be easy to do, considering the hard drive and Gates touting as it being more than a gaming rig.

 

[Cole]

Then again, take half life 2 and the original... you can add mods to the PC version and not the consoles. Yet with online capability and hard drives on the consoles, expect to see addons via internet, probably like steam is doing. I was going to buy a 360, but then saw that it could not work as a tivo as well, which i figured would be easy to do, considering the hard drive and Gates touting as it being more than a gaming rig.

Developer only mods. Why? Because if lets say 90% of the people decided on the pc, "Hey lets get a 360 for this game, don't matter cuz either way where gonna get mods", they you have 90% less people on the Pc version possibly getting involved with modding. Thus a massive...drastic...catastrophic decrease in modifications. Of course 90% isn't a realisitic number, but about 10%-20% is....so thats a significant decrease though.

Gates touting as it being more than a gaming rig.

lets not forget Gates has designed Vista much more around games than Xp.