Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

exca1ibur · Dec 10, 2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Because any console of that generation could run GT4 at 1080i. They all had the power to do it easily. Nintendo disabled it because for a large majority of games it simply wasn't an option. The same was true on the PS2, for most games it simply wasn't an option. SWG pretends because the PS2 could output at 1080i that makes it more powerful than the other systems, when that isn't true at all.

I disagree. Reason being its up to the developer to decide what they want their game to run at, not Sony. How do you know Sony 'disabled it'? It's an option THEY (developers) chose not to do, based on how THEIR game works. Sure not all games can't run 1080i depending on what is going on... thats THEIR call not Sony. How would Sony know how someones else game is going to run? So I can't go with it being 'tacked on', its an option based on what developers think will run well and be acceptable. GT4 was designed to run at 1080i. If other developers want to do that thats up to them to do so. The point being the system can and offers that option.

And again, the PS2 is a different monster than the PS3. With the PS2, developers over time could tweak their games with the emotion engine. I'd be really surprised if developers didn't know how to optimize their games for the GeForce 7800 by now. This isn't exactly mystical Sony hardware we're talking about. And no programming trick is suddenly going to make the PS3 have more video memory available. It's not a mater of having a dev kit. It's a mater of simply parts not being put onto the PS3. If the parts aren't there, we know what technically the console potentially can and can't do. And we know by the PS3's lack of memory it's not going to be able to run games like Gears of War without the texture quality taking a hit. It simply does not have the memory.

We don't know this, though? Have you programmed for it? I know I haven't, so how would either of us know? I'm inclined to say EA has MUCH more knowledge than either of our best guesses.

BTW I could care less about the video memory. I'm talking about the system as a whole unit. Developers always find new and better ways of doing things all the time. Obviously with EA making that statement ,(using 20% of the system), they feel there is much more they can do in time. Again, we have no idea what the developers can or can't do at this point. Its all talk, because we are on the first generation of games.

goMac · Dec 10, 2006, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

I disagree. Reason being its up to the developer to decide what they want their game to run at, not Sony. How do you know Sony 'disabled it'? It's an option THEY (developers) chose not to do, based on how THEIR game works. Sure not all games can't run 1080i depending on what is going on... thats THEIR call not Sony. How would Sony know how someones else game is going to run? So I can't go with it being 'tacked on', its an option based on what developers think will run well and be acceptable. GT4 was designed to run at 1080i. If other developers want to do that thats up to them to do so. The point being the system can and offers that option.

I'm assuming you're asking how I know Nintendo disabled it. Because the class of GPU they were using is perfectly capable of outputing at 1080i. It was probably a political decision. Nintendo wanted devs to concentrate on making games look great at SD, and not worry about reducing graphics quality to make it run well at HD. GT is a racing game. Most objects in it are actually flat. It doesn't take much power to push out flat objects at 1080i. Nintendo just wasn't in favor of developers cutting corners like that. Disagree with that mentality? Fine. But that doesn't mean the PS2 is more powerful than the Gamecube.

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

We don't know this, though? Have you programmed for it? I know I haven't, so how would either of us know? I'm inclined to say EA has MUCH more knowledge than either of our best guesses.

BTW I could care less about the video memory. I'm talking about the system as a whole unit. Developers always find new and better ways of doing things all the time. Obviously with EA making that statement ,(using 20% of the system), they feel there is much more they can do in time. Again, we have no idea what the developers can or can't do at this point. Its all talk, because we are on the first generation of games.

Again, assuming EA is right it doesn't matter how much of the Cell is untapped. The PS3's GPU will be the determining factor in graphical quality, and it doesn't have the VRAM to push lots of 1080p HD textures.

Here is an article that, surprise surprise, agrees with me on everything I've said so far. It's a technical dissection of the PS3. Highlights? Not enough VRAM to properly use Bluray's capacity. Can swap from RAM to VRAM but costly. Cell not really as powerful as Sony would like us to think.

GotFrag DPAD - DPAD Home News Story - End all arguments: PS3 vs 360

TETENAL · Dec 10, 2006, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's not a mater of having a dev kit. It's a mater of simply parts not being put onto the PS3. If the parts aren't there, we know what technically the console potentially can and can't do.

Just like you "knew" the GMA 950 can't do CoreImage.

goMac · Dec 10, 2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Just like you "knew" the GMA 950 can't do CoreImage.

Actually I said it does CoreImage quite well. It was CoreAnimation I was worried about, and I'd be glad to talk about that after 10.5 is out and I'm not under NDA.

exca1ibur · Dec 10, 2006, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

I'm assuming you're asking how I know Nintendo disabled it. Because the class of GPU they were using is perfectly capable of outputing at 1080i. It was probably a political decision. Nintendo wanted devs to concentrate on making games look great at SD, and not worry about reducing graphics quality to make it run well at HD. GT is a racing game. Most objects in it are actually flat. It doesn't take much power to push out flat objects at 1080i. Nintendo just wasn't in favor of developers cutting corners like that. Disagree with that mentality? Fine. But that doesn't mean the PS2 is more powerful than the Gamecube.

My point is that the developer is the one to make the call on what to do with THEIR game for the PS2 (so its not tacked on, as you say). Most powerful is a subjective argument based on the content, anyhow. You will never have a scenario to prove that unless they are both going to run at the same resolution in the first place.

Originally Posted by goMac

Again, assuming EA is right it doesn't matter how much of the Cell is untapped. The PS3's GPU will be the determining factor in graphical quality, and it doesn't have the VRAM to push lots of 1080p HD textures.

Here is an article that, surprise surprise, agrees with me on everything I've said so far. It's a technical dissection of the PS3. Highlights? Not enough VRAM to properly use Bluray's capacity. Can swap from RAM to VRAM but costly. Cell not really as powerful as Sony would like us to think.

GotFrag DPAD - DPAD Home News Story - End all arguments: PS3 vs 360

Again, we have opinions from people who don't program for the system. SHOW me the results, and I'll make a judgement. Like I keep saying, when we get out of the first generation and get companies with some experience then we will see. Its easy to play armchair programmer looking at specs. History has shown this over and over, from computers, to consoles far too long. The one that is always in flux is this thing we all know called SPEC, as an example.

Dark Helmet · Dec 10, 2006, 07:05 PM

GoMac I think you need to leave those of us who actually own or intend to own these system alone . You just run off and play with your Wii.

goMac · Dec 10, 2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

My point is that the developer is the one to make the call on what to do with THEIR game for the PS2 (so its not tacked on, as you say). Most powerful is a subjective argument based on the content, anyhow. You will never have a scenario to prove that unless they are both going to run at the same resolution in the first place.

You can compare the consoles all running at the same resolution. They all ran at SD, and at SD, the PS2 usually did not produce the best graphics. If running at 1080i is important to you, fine. That's still not an argument for the PS2 being the most powerful console with the fastest components.

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

Again, we have opinions from people who don't program for the system. SHOW me the results, and I'll make a judgement. Like I keep saying, when we get out of the first generation and get companies with some experience then we will see. Its easy to play armchair programmer looking at specs. History has shown this over and over, from computers, to consoles far too long. The one that is always in flux is this thing we all know called SPEC, as an example.

What exactly is your technical background for disputing what both I and the other author are saying about the PS3? It's very simple math. The textures are : this big :. The PS3 has : this much room : for textures. It doesn't require a dev kit to figure out what is going to happen there.

The workings of the Cell are widely known. The PS3 uses basically a GeForce 7800, the workings of which are also known. There is not much to leave to the imagination about how the PS3 works on a technical level. The PS3 is basically a Cell based PC in a box.

goMac · Dec 10, 2006, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

GoMac I think you need to leave those of us who actually own or intend to own these system alone . You just run off and play with your Wii.

I'm buying an XBox 360 next year when I buy my new TV. I don't see a problem with me talking about the PS3 vs. XBox 360. If you have anything constructive to contribute to the conversation you are welcome to.

exca1ibur · Dec 10, 2006, 07:17 PM

CLARIFICATION: I am NOT nor have EVER in this 'debate' talking about graphics. I don't care about the graphics when talking about the Cell.

Now that that is out the way...

My point is talking about what else can be improved in gaming with the Cell, if only 20% is being tapped. Hell, if 50% has been tapped. That still makes for a LOT of improvement on game play, Just based on the SAME graphics that are being displayed. (AI, physics, etc) was my example. I'll end this with my same 'echo'. I'll wait an SEE what can be done over the life of the system since you believe that this is as good as the system is ever going to be.

goMac · Dec 10, 2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

CLARIFICATION: I am NOT nor have EVER in this 'debate' talking about graphics. I don't care about the graphics when talking about the Cell.

Now that that is out the way...

My point is talking about what else can be improved in gaming with the Cell, if only 20% is being tapped. Hell, if 50% has been tapped. That still makes for a LOT of improvement on game play, Just based on the SAME graphics that are being displayed. (AI, physics, etc) was my example. I'll end this with my same 'echo'. I'll wait an SEE what can be done over the life of the system since you believe that this is as good as the system is ever going to be.

I wasn't debating that AI or physics could be improved. My point was that an 80% untapped Cell (if that is true) does not mean better graphics. Graphics are limited by the GPU and the VRAM.

itai195 · Dec 10, 2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by starman

To those that magically found $150 DVD players in 1999, please post the model numbers.

The PS2 cost $299 in 10/2000 IIRC. I bought a standalone Sony DVD player for around $150 in 6/2000. I don't know anyone who bought a PS2 to play DVDs, to this day I think it's one of those myths the gaming press is happy to perpetuate.

starman · Dec 10, 2006, 08:08 PM

Model?

itai195 · Dec 10, 2006, 08:12 PM

Sorry I don't remember the model of DVD player I bought over 6 years ago. It broke 3 years ago and was scrapped.

Dakar² · Dec 10, 2006, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by itai195

The PS2 cost $299 in 10/2000 IIRC. I bought a standalone Sony DVD player for around $150 in 6/2000. I don't know anyone who bought a PS2 to play DVDs, to this day I think it's one of those myths the gaming press is happy to perpetuate.

The PS2 was my first DVD player. It did that job for roughly 2 years before I bought a stand alone.

icruise · Dec 10, 2006, 08:54 PM

All of this debate about the cell is pretty meaningless. It's clear to me from actually playing PS3 games that the system is at least as powerful as the Xbox 360, and isn't that what's important? This means that who wins this round will largely boil down to who gets the best exclusive titles, just as it did in the last generation. Of course, things like online service and blu-ray support (and the price differential it brings) will affect some people's decisions one way or the other.

Eug Wanker · 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I got the first and only Toshiba progressive scan DVD player in 1999. It cost $1000.

Wasn't that $1000 in CAD? CAD$1000 was in the range of US$700 or less IIRC. But yeah, progressive scan players were expensive. I bought a Panasonic progressive scan player in 2001 for something like CAD$700 (which was something like US$450-490 at the time I think).

My $299 RCA from 1998 was 480i. It came out in 1997 actually, but at a higher price. The prices didn't drop until nearly a year later... which was still over 2 years before the PS2 came out.

P.S. It still works fine. My brother-in-law uses it.

P.P.S. I went into an electronics and photo shop in Chinatown the other day to get some passport pictures. They had my Panasonic player for sale... at CAD$700. I couldn't believe it. WTF are they thinking? I mean you can walk down the street and get a progressive scan player for less than 50 bucks these days.

Originally Posted by starman

To those that magically found $150 DVD players in 1999, please post the model numbers.

Heh. Sez the person who claims that the cheapest DVD players were $500 in late 2000.