I have Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, and I have played it, thanks. Let's leave it at that.
Doubt it as you would not come here and unfairly compare a compressed demo with the actual game graphics, ive noticed the terrible graphics within the first minute of playing it.
Well - that's part of it. But - and don't accuse me of fanboyism here - the Xbox 360 has similar limitations. Yes - I know it's a different architecture - the PS3 has split 256/256, the 360 has a unified 512. But - there are some similarities too - the 360 has a 3 PPE core with extended AltiVec sets and a good ATi GPU. Assuming the textures and other assets eat up about the same space, the 360 seems to consistently use better AA.
You seem to lack hardware knowledge in general and you make up for it by posting information from random fanboy articles (you should really check your sources, because everyone knows that the RAM is the Main bottleneck in every single video card for AA & resolution no matter how powerfull the gpu is), the xbox360 doesnt have in any means the ram bottleneck that the ps3 has, xbox360 gets practically free anti aliasing from an embebbed 10mb ram, you can think about it as cpu cache if you like, the ram is so fast it would be ridiculous not to use it for bigger res or better AA, and that is something that ps3 and current PCs lack, ps3 makes up for it by using its SPE cores in alternative if properly programmed, embebbed ram doesnt transform into graphics quality, just better resolution and AA thx to its bigger bandwidth, it isnt usefull for anything else tbh.
Here's an example from
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face- ... -5-articlefull-on 4x multisampling anti-aliasing on Xbox 360, while using the 2x Quincunx technique on PS3. On a like-for-like basis, this means that the 360 has clearer visuals (2x QAA blurs every texture) but edge-smoothing is very similar.
This question has already been answeared in multiplatform games comparison.
Whether or not this is due to weakness in the nVidia RSX, or better RAM piplelines for the ATi doesn't matter. Like for like is killing the PS3 in comparison - it's already prevented me from buying Ghostbusters & Bayonetta for the PS3.
Take it on the devs and ask them why they dont want to buy the dev kit to use the SPE cores, personally i dont care, multiplatform graphics are horrible on both consoles, i use my gaming pc instead.
This is where the Digital Foundry site is useful. They just measure the visual performance of the games on each platform - good or bad. Sure - some conversions will be terrible. But some, like Resident Evil 5 are not. And, if the conversions are terrible, what does that say about Sony? What good is an extremely powerful machine if only a few folks are able to program it? (Sega Saturn all over again, right?)
Youre asking me the same question for the third time...
That isn't to say the PS3 can't do good games either. You've pointed out Killzone 2 and Gran Turismo 5. I'd add Infamous and Uncharted 2 to that list. Speaking of Uncharted 2, this article is worth a read:
Killzone 2 graphics are a masterpiece because they actually make proper use of the CELL, plenty of good exclusive games on there make use of the CELL including Uncharted 2.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncha ... blog-entryOf interest are these notes:
one of the core philosophies behind Naughty Dog's rendering tech is to offload as many tasks as possible from the GPU and stack them up on the SPU satellite processors of the Cell chip. In the case of Uncharted 2, post-processing techniques such as the game's phenomenal depth-of-field effect (pretty much the best seen on console to date) are hived off to the SPUs. It's an intriguing way of using resources. Presumably the GPU would be able to carry out the same task a lot faster, but if the RSX is otherwise engaged in a computationally more expensive task, it just makes more sense to use the SPUs to do the same job.
This is nothing new and has been done on killzone 2 aswell, basically the article is saying that CELL have a decent gflops performance which we all already knew since the first raytracing techniques used on the cell alone, does it make it better than an actual gpu just because it stacks with 1 perfectly? no...
Cell+GPU combo is the only reason of why ps3 has the graphics we have atm and they are constantly evolving everyday, games like gt5 uncharted 2 wipeout hd, killzone 2 will be nothing compared to the next games in 2 or 3 years in the future, not only it depends on code optimization but also sony has a decent reputation for overclocking their consoles quite decently, psp and ps2 are the example of that, and thats one of the only reason i bought myself a console, im quite interested into tech and i dont do it by reading magazines or fanboy websites
(by this im not trying to say you do but alot of ppl i know put to much faith into some random fanboy websites.) and the second reason i like playing its exclusive games, some of them for me are just to good to say no
To think of a Cell+Cell System is the same as saying Bye Bye Sega Saturn.
Please remember, im not here to fight over anything, just needed to clarify some things about ps3, after all you were always there for me when i had plenty of linux questions