-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
First PS3 and XBOX 2 Screen shots?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
UNCjigga
Lifer
I think these types of scenes are entirely possible in a next-gen console. Hell, they were possible with a Radeon 9800 back in the day. The problem is developers have no incentive to make these games if they only run on 1% of the hardware. Even the current generation of consoles is held up with cross-platform games--Madden and others are held to lowest common denominator (gamecube or PS2) and then slightly adjusted to look better on Xbox.
The thing to remember with consoles is that they will be running at 640x480 or at best 720P. This gives them more leeway for framerate vs. PCs. Next gen consoles will probably have AA on by default when running at 480p, with user-selectable algorithms for CRT/plasmas vs. LCDs.
The first pic can easily be duplicated on current PC hardware running at 800x600 or lower. The 'glow' effect in the lighting is already used in FarCry and certain levels of Doom3. The trees/leaves are all T&L-happy vertex shaders, with pixel shaders used for lighting/shading.
The second pic is just an example of using cinematic rendering effects (motion blur etc.) This probably wouldn't be used during gameplay, but would be enabled when doing 'instant replay' or similar reviews. There aren't enough elements visible on the screen to determine if its beyond what your average 9800 can do. For example, can we tell if the crowd is fully rendered vs. sprites? Or whether individual blades of grass are rendered during gameplay or just during this cutscene closeup?
Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if games looked this good or better. Maybe the virtual pron industry will benefit from this?? 🙂
The thing to remember with consoles is that they will be running at 640x480 or at best 720P. This gives them more leeway for framerate vs. PCs. Next gen consoles will probably have AA on by default when running at 480p, with user-selectable algorithms for CRT/plasmas vs. LCDs.
The first pic can easily be duplicated on current PC hardware running at 800x600 or lower. The 'glow' effect in the lighting is already used in FarCry and certain levels of Doom3. The trees/leaves are all T&L-happy vertex shaders, with pixel shaders used for lighting/shading.
The second pic is just an example of using cinematic rendering effects (motion blur etc.) This probably wouldn't be used during gameplay, but would be enabled when doing 'instant replay' or similar reviews. There aren't enough elements visible on the screen to determine if its beyond what your average 9800 can do. For example, can we tell if the crowd is fully rendered vs. sprites? Or whether individual blades of grass are rendered during gameplay or just during this cutscene closeup?
Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if games looked this good or better. Maybe the virtual pron industry will benefit from this?? 🙂
FFactory0x
Diamond Member
Will The xbox 2 or ps3 be able to have gfx like that FINEST HOUR COMMERICIAL
FFactory0x
Diamond Member
What a crock. Look what this guy says
I have a couple things to say. First of all, that top pic could definitely be X-Box 2, but the bottom one, provided it IS a real-time shot, could only be PS3. And don't ever say it's impossible for videogames to do motion blur, anything's possible. Think of when you were still playing PS1 and the cinemas looked so much better than the gameplay and you wished it was the other way around. Well, with PS2 and X-box it is. PS2 and X-box both allow cinema-quality graphics, which motion blur can be programmed into somewhere along the lines. It usually isn't because it doesn't look realistic. But for one example, Need for Speed Underground displays a ton of motion blur to hide a low framerate.
But, here are the system specs for the Next-Box and PS3.
You can think of X-Box 2 as a really suped up Apple G5. It has triple 64-bit processing power, as opposed to the G5's dual, and an incredibly high-powered graphics card. The coin that will determine what chip company Microsoft will turn to (Nvidia or ATI) has been tossed, but it's still in the air. Microsoft also plans to completely ditch their system's hard drive. Why? Because they're trying to be like Nintendo for some really stupid reason. They probably won't go through with it, but it's a pretty powerful rumor. So, there you go. That's X-Box 2 in all its glory. I've already seen very impressive screenshots from the next Morrowind game that will be the first game released on X-Box 2. Impressive? yes. The amount of bump-mapping and lighting effects the machine can carry out is incredible. However, is it something I've never seen before? Absolutely not. PCs will quickly over-power the X-Box 2 and it will become obselete. Halo 3, of course, will save it. It is also said that Halo 3 is supposed to launch the same day PS3 does.
While were on the subject, PS3 is going to take a bite out of the X-Box 2 and spit it right out into video game history. Don't take me as a Sony fanboy. Really, I'm an X-Box guy, but the Playstation 3 is revolutionary. It's prototype, developed two years ago, was based on the processing of dime-sized liquid silicon cells that each had a 1 ghz processor of their own. The cells themselves were processed by a CPU that took 400 million dollars for IBM, Toshiba, and Sony to research and develop. The machine featured 250 cells in all. The resulting CPU Clock-Speed? 250 ghz. X-Box doesn't even run at 1 ghz.
OH AND BY THE WAY, THE X-BOX IS NOT 128 BIT, IT BOASTS A 32-BIT 733 MHZ INTEL PENTIUM III PROCESSOR AND A 64 MB NVIDIA GEFORCE X, CUSTOM-MADE FOR THE CONSOLE. The GeForce X is about as powerful as a GeForce 3 computer graphics chip.
OH AND ONE MORE THING, DOOM 3 IS COMING OUT ON X-BOX IN A FEW MONTHS. NOT X-BOX 2.
Back to PS3, you can compare it to the movies. Think human brain when thinking about its hardware. It basically has unlimmited processing power. 250 ghz is REALLY unnecessary, but very possible.
So, that top screenshot could easily be X-Box Next or 2 or whatever you want to call it. But that bottom shot, if it's a real-time raw shot, is definitely PS3. And that looks a lot like Donovan McNabb, I'm looking at his picture right now and comparing it.
In limited agreement with locopuyo, it's true that a videogame will probably never look exactly like real life. But as the hardware evolves, the graphics will become more and more dependent on the programmer's/artist's capabilities. Eventually, a system's hardware WILL be able to handle real-life-cinema quality graphics, but it's doubtable that any programmers would ever be able to achieve that level of detail in their creations.
Is there anything else I need to say...uh...oh...
Now that I read up a little, perhaps both shots are for upcoming games that will launch on both systems. EA is not a first-party developer, so they'll make their games for multiple systems. However, it is still most likely that the shots are from PS3 because EA usually makes their games primarily on Sony's systems. Either way, the PS3's game graphics will be much more capable. If they are the same as X-box 2 for a while, it's simply because the programmers aren't taking full advantage of the hardware yet.
And I still highly doubt that bottom shot could be done on X-Box 2.
Ask me questions, I know all.
I have a couple things to say. First of all, that top pic could definitely be X-Box 2, but the bottom one, provided it IS a real-time shot, could only be PS3. And don't ever say it's impossible for videogames to do motion blur, anything's possible. Think of when you were still playing PS1 and the cinemas looked so much better than the gameplay and you wished it was the other way around. Well, with PS2 and X-box it is. PS2 and X-box both allow cinema-quality graphics, which motion blur can be programmed into somewhere along the lines. It usually isn't because it doesn't look realistic. But for one example, Need for Speed Underground displays a ton of motion blur to hide a low framerate.
But, here are the system specs for the Next-Box and PS3.
You can think of X-Box 2 as a really suped up Apple G5. It has triple 64-bit processing power, as opposed to the G5's dual, and an incredibly high-powered graphics card. The coin that will determine what chip company Microsoft will turn to (Nvidia or ATI) has been tossed, but it's still in the air. Microsoft also plans to completely ditch their system's hard drive. Why? Because they're trying to be like Nintendo for some really stupid reason. They probably won't go through with it, but it's a pretty powerful rumor. So, there you go. That's X-Box 2 in all its glory. I've already seen very impressive screenshots from the next Morrowind game that will be the first game released on X-Box 2. Impressive? yes. The amount of bump-mapping and lighting effects the machine can carry out is incredible. However, is it something I've never seen before? Absolutely not. PCs will quickly over-power the X-Box 2 and it will become obselete. Halo 3, of course, will save it. It is also said that Halo 3 is supposed to launch the same day PS3 does.
While were on the subject, PS3 is going to take a bite out of the X-Box 2 and spit it right out into video game history. Don't take me as a Sony fanboy. Really, I'm an X-Box guy, but the Playstation 3 is revolutionary. It's prototype, developed two years ago, was based on the processing of dime-sized liquid silicon cells that each had a 1 ghz processor of their own. The cells themselves were processed by a CPU that took 400 million dollars for IBM, Toshiba, and Sony to research and develop. The machine featured 250 cells in all. The resulting CPU Clock-Speed? 250 ghz. X-Box doesn't even run at 1 ghz.
OH AND BY THE WAY, THE X-BOX IS NOT 128 BIT, IT BOASTS A 32-BIT 733 MHZ INTEL PENTIUM III PROCESSOR AND A 64 MB NVIDIA GEFORCE X, CUSTOM-MADE FOR THE CONSOLE. The GeForce X is about as powerful as a GeForce 3 computer graphics chip.
OH AND ONE MORE THING, DOOM 3 IS COMING OUT ON X-BOX IN A FEW MONTHS. NOT X-BOX 2.
Back to PS3, you can compare it to the movies. Think human brain when thinking about its hardware. It basically has unlimmited processing power. 250 ghz is REALLY unnecessary, but very possible.
So, that top screenshot could easily be X-Box Next or 2 or whatever you want to call it. But that bottom shot, if it's a real-time raw shot, is definitely PS3. And that looks a lot like Donovan McNabb, I'm looking at his picture right now and comparing it.
In limited agreement with locopuyo, it's true that a videogame will probably never look exactly like real life. But as the hardware evolves, the graphics will become more and more dependent on the programmer's/artist's capabilities. Eventually, a system's hardware WILL be able to handle real-life-cinema quality graphics, but it's doubtable that any programmers would ever be able to achieve that level of detail in their creations.
Is there anything else I need to say...uh...oh...
Now that I read up a little, perhaps both shots are for upcoming games that will launch on both systems. EA is not a first-party developer, so they'll make their games for multiple systems. However, it is still most likely that the shots are from PS3 because EA usually makes their games primarily on Sony's systems. Either way, the PS3's game graphics will be much more capable. If they are the same as X-box 2 for a while, it's simply because the programmers aren't taking full advantage of the hardware yet.
And I still highly doubt that bottom shot could be done on X-Box 2.
Ask me questions, I know all.
UNCjigga
Lifer
I should correct my previous statement. What I meant was that rendering the scene was possible given current hardware and current DirectX 9 software. Framerate is another issue on the good ol' 9800. Framerate might still be an issue on these new consoles, but again, they'll still be run at lower resolutions (unless they do 1920x1080!)
Koing
Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
Your not going to get 1600x1200 resolution.
You are more then likely going to get 1280x720P though 🙂
I'd love higher but it will seriously kill the frame rate and most people have normal tv's that are not HDTV compatible.
I like alsoh ope they have at least VGA but DVI would be better 😀. Hell HDMI is 'likely' also but at least VGA and I'll be happy.
The stupid thing when people show graphics and stuff off like this is that MOST of them are not IN GAME SHOTS but in replayor whatever. WHO the hell drives the car with a view like that?!
Koing
Goosemaster
Lifer
Experience tells me not to believe a word of that 😀..the inflated No.'s that is😀
FleshLight
Diamond Member
And this my friends is why marijuana should be legalized. Do you know how hard it is to develop software that will take advantage of two processors, much less 250?
RaynorWolfcastle
Diamond Member
Are you saying that some of what you quoted is inaccurate?!?!?
:Q<- Shock and Awe
jelkukipik
Senior member
I beleive the car pic will be the next console.I dont beleive the football tho
GTaudiophile
Lifer
ATI seems to have done well with R500.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
