split from PS3 Hacked

Just want to have a nice chat with your beer? Go ahead ;-)

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby Legendary_Agent » 17 Feb 2010, 23:19

rofl, what exactly are you trying to show me? that the gt5 demo is crap? :P if you can do better in 200mb file size then be my guest, gt5 prologue displays better graphics than that demo and its older, they compressed graphics AND sounds so ppl could download it fast, it was intended for driving physics only demo, even the demo says that it will not reflect the actual game graphics and quality of the real release.

Dont quite get your point mate.
Legendary_Agent
ydl addict
ydl addict
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 18:35

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby sirgrinalot » 17 Feb 2010, 23:24

Legendary_Agent wrote:Lol mate you can differ all you want, after all this is a free and an open forum :D

As for those silly game comparisons, i dont quite understand what youre trying to achieve with multiplatform games, they are all made on xbox360 hardware and later ported for ps3 with no SPE core optimization in pretty much every single multiplatform release, in other words, ppc 3.2ghz+gpu are the only processors running and the obvious hypervisor which is the seventh SPE core.

I know enough about xbox360vsps3 and frankly this is not what we are discussing here xD

But unfortunatelly my "unrealistic" expectations are quite real, infact we have games like granturismo 5 and killzone 2 already playing decently enough on ps3, they are called granturismo 5 and killzone 2 :P

And again you are basing your WHOLE information on PS3 specs from some pre-release speculations, the truth we do not have anything on the gfx card of the ps3 aside from the 256mb vram size, all other articles trying to guess it are just plain silly and unrealistic at their best attempt, possibly because of the xbox360vsps3 consolewar.


It has nothing to do with ps3 vs 360, Did you even read my post?

This Part:

sirgrinalot wrote:Sony's original ps3 design was without any rsx at all. They said everything could be done on the cell. Here is an article talking about how developers are going back to the cell without the aid of the rsx. Essentially the rsx was a crutch for developers until they got used to the cell and were comfortable using it.
PlayStation 3 80GB (CECHE01) (Upgraded to Western Digital Scorpio Blue 500GB), FW 3.15, YDL 6.2
Samsung LN-T3242HX 32" LCD
Logitech Bluetooth MediaBoard Pro
PS Network ID: sirgrinalot
User avatar
sirgrinalot
ydl lover
ydl lover
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 13:07
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby Legendary_Agent » 17 Feb 2010, 23:29

ppietro wrote:Perhaps it's best to think about it this way.

The RSX was designed in 2005 or so. These designs had to be in place before the launch of the PS3 in Nov. 2006. Once you've launched a console, you can't go back and redesign the chips - you can only reduce the process size during manufacturing. Otherwise, too many games will break. So - it's safe to assume that the RSX performance has remained relatively unchanged since console launch, with improvements in chip yield and heat dissipation.

Considering that nVidia designs are fairly cutting edge - would you really expect the RSX to have features from graphics cards like the 8xxx series released in 2007 or the 9xxx series released in 2008? Wouldn't it make more sense if nVidia simply delivered to Sony the best they had at the time, which is the 7xxx series?

Would you want to take the chance with a design that you hadn't even moved into production? Or would you want to take an established chipset, push it a little for the future and deliver that to Sony?

Just something to think about.

Cheers,
Paul


Ofc you cant, and those articles were not even sony official let alone updated, thats why i classify them as speculation talking about something with no backup nor evidence...
Sony never released the actual specs of the console at release date, all they said in an outdated pre-release statement was taht it was more than 2 times as powerfull as 2 6800gtx ultra.
Legendary_Agent
ydl addict
ydl addict
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 18:35

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby sirgrinalot » 17 Feb 2010, 23:35

Legendary_Agent wrote:Sony never released the actual specs of the console at release date


They didn't need to, the specs were all taken from measurements. For instance.

Because of the aforementioned layout of the communication path between the different chips, and the latency and bandwidth differences between the various components, there are different access speeds depending on the direction of the access in relation to the source and destination. The following is a chart showing the speed of reads and writes to the GDDR3 and XDR memory from the viewpoint of the Cell and RSX. Note that these are measured speeds (rather than calculated speeds) and they should be worse if RSX and GDDR3 access are involved because these figures were measured when the RSX was clocked at 550Mhz and the GDDR3 memory was clocked at 700Mhz. The shipped PS3 has the RSX clocked in at 500Mhz (front and back end, although the pixel shaders run separately inside at 550Mhz). In addition, the GDDR3 memory was also clocked lower at 650Mhz.


Taken from:

http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html
PlayStation 3 80GB (CECHE01) (Upgraded to Western Digital Scorpio Blue 500GB), FW 3.15, YDL 6.2
Samsung LN-T3242HX 32" LCD
Logitech Bluetooth MediaBoard Pro
PS Network ID: sirgrinalot
User avatar
sirgrinalot
ydl lover
ydl lover
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 05 Dec 2008, 13:07
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby ppietro » 17 Feb 2010, 23:43

Legendary_Agent wrote:rofl, what exactly are you trying to show me? that the gt5 demo is crap? :P if you can do better in 200mb file size then be my guest, gt5 prologue displays better graphics than that demo and its older, they compressed graphics AND sounds so ppl could download it fast, it was intended for driving physics only demo, even the demo says that it will not reflect the actual game graphics and quality of the real release.

Dont quite get your point mate.


I'll point it out for you:

Invoke the might of 1080p, and the framebuffer is set at 1280x1080. That's a 50 per cent resolution increase over 720p mode, with AA dropped to 2x.


2xAA at 1280x1080? No offense, but does that sound like a powerhouse GPU to you? Or something from around 2006 or so?

Also it's about the same at gt5 prologue - he's compared them:
In terms of actual rendering spec, not much has changed at all from the GT5 Prologue code.


Don't blame me - I'm just the messenger here. Take it up with Sony. :D

Cheers,
Paul
User avatar
ppietro
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 13 Sep 2007, 22:18

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby Legendary_Agent » 18 Feb 2010, 00:05

its cool dude im not fighting with you xD

But let me clarify you a bit about Gran turismo 5 PHYSICS Demo, nor they or the players gived a darn about the graphics in that very less than 1 month 200mb demo, it was all about the car driving physics and it got removed afterwards.

Gran turismo 5 prologue on the other hand has better graphics than that demo and performance is also better, screen resolution alone doesnt transform itself into performance, online races you have 16 cars all real time rendered with reflections and real time shadows, on a map with real time shadows, considerably high poli count and some pretty darn good advanced shaders that makes the game the best in car racing simulation graphics, i dont mind the resolution, the graphics are the best you can get in car simulation games also quite frankly i havent seen 1 shadow in gt5 that was pre-rendered, you wouldve known if you played the game for yourself.

Also you are forgetting 1 very important thing, resolution and anti aliasing eats ALOT of RAM performance, the ps3 has only 256mb of vram to do AA & resolution, this is one of the most important factors for high resolutions & anti aliasing, thats the reason why you see sick graphics in ps3 games but the resolution is toned down to 720p most of the time, no matter how fast and good the gpu is RAM always have been a huge bottleneck for res & aa, thats why you see cards with 2gb of vram for pcs these days :)

EDIT: sirgrinalot im not ignoring you, but ive already answeared those questions.
Legendary_Agent
ydl addict
ydl addict
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 18:35

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby Legendary_Agent » 18 Feb 2010, 00:19

Well guys im going to bed, gotta wake up in 7hours and 42minutes xD, nice chatting with you and im sorry i couldnt be more of help.
Legendary_Agent
ydl addict
ydl addict
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 18:35

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby ppietro » 18 Feb 2010, 01:46

Legendary_Agent wrote:Gran turismo 5 prologue on the other hand has better graphics than that demo and performance is also better, screen resolution alone doesnt transform itself into performance, online races you have 16 cars all real time rendered with reflections and real time shadows, on a map with real time shadows, considerably high poli count and some pretty darn good advanced shaders that makes the game the best in car racing simulation graphics, i dont mind the resolution, the graphics are the best you can get in car simulation games also quite frankly i havent seen 1 shadow in gt5 that was pre-rendered, you wouldve known if you played the game for yourself.


I have Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, and I have played it, thanks. Let's leave it at that. :D

Legendary_Agent wrote:Also you are forgetting 1 very important thing, resolution and anti aliasing eats ALOT of RAM performance, the ps3 has only 256mb of vram to do AA & resolution, this is one of the most important factors for high resolutions & anti aliasing, thats the reason why you see sick graphics in ps3 games but the resolution is toned down to 720p most of the time, no matter how fast and good the gpu is RAM always have been a huge bottleneck for res & aa, thats why you see cards with 2gb of vram for pcs these days :)


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 and have a steadier framerate.

Here's an example from http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face- ... -5-article
full-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.


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.

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?)

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:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncha ... blog-entry

Of 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 seems to partially confirm what sirgrinalot was mentioning, at least.

Cheers,
Paul
User avatar
ppietro
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 13 Sep 2007, 22:18

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby Legendary_Agent » 18 Feb 2010, 05:42

I have Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, and I have played it, thanks. Let's leave it at that. :D

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-article
full-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-entry

Of 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 :P (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 :P

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 :)
Legendary_Agent
ydl addict
ydl addict
 
Posts: 102
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 18:35

Re: PS3 Hacked

Postby ppietro » 18 Feb 2010, 09:29

Legendary_Agent wrote:
I have Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, and I have played it, thanks. Let's leave it at that. :D

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.


Dude - don't call me a liar. I have it. I have all of the Gran Turismo series - from Gran Turismo to Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. I have the steering wheels, the big screen TV - everything. You don't know me well enough to make that judgment.

One thing this board will not tolerate is disrespect to any of its members - even if you don't agree. Calling them liars is not winning you points here. You're coming very close to getting banned here - fair warning.

Legendary_Agent wrote:You seem to lack hardware knowledge in general


Perhaps it would help if I explained my technical background, and why I'm here on this board. I have a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, with a Minor In Physics. I have worked exclusively in the software industry for over 17 years at Microsoft and other Seattle software companies. In addition, my brother was an engineer at Sony - he designed some parts of the original PlayStation. He's also done design work for ATi, and he's currently working for ARM systems. We've discussed the PS3 & Xbox 360 chipsets extensively - much to all of our family's chagrin.

I also have an extensive collection of video game systems, dating all the way back to the Atari VCS, and a hardwired Pong unit. I routinely build x86 computers from scratch, I have a functional Solaris Ultra Sparc Unix workstation and an IBM 3270 Mainframe in the basement.

Be careful of your speculations - they're getting you in trouble here. See my warning above.

Legendary_Agent wrote:and you make up for it by posting information from random fanboy articles


As much as I hate to admit it as a Sony fan, I can't fault Digital Foundry's methods, and I find their reviews illuminating. They are not random fanboy articles - they are trying to bring scientific methods to subjective flamewars. If you don't agree with their conclusions, then look at their videos - they're not hiding anything there.

Legendary_Agent wrote: 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.


I know all of this. I've studied the 360 extensively. You're not telling me anything I don't know already - that's why I mentioned the AA differences in my previous post.

And - again - back to the original point of this thread, it doesn't seem like the PS3 has anything more in the RSX than an nVidia 7800 series chipset.

Legendary_Agent wrote: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.


They are buying the dev kit - one of my friends in Seattle worked for a PS3 developer and confirmed the kit. I can't tell you their names due to NDA, but they have it. According to him, that's not the issue. The issue is taking PC game code and trying to adapt it to the Cell + RSX. They're having a hard time adapting GPU code to SPU code - pure and simple. Not an easy lift, just like it wasn't an easy lift on the PS2. Instead, they've been using it for physics simulations, mostly, instead of graphics.

Legendary_Agent wrote: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 :)


Sorry - but now it seems like you're here to fight. So - I'm locking this thread to further postings. Please don't discuss it any further or you will be banned from this board. We'll leave it at this.

-Paul
User avatar
ppietro
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 13 Sep 2007, 22:18

Previous

Return to Speaker's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron