Unless someone has an arcade. Which I assume everyone has, because thats always the argument over the PS3. Is that the 360 costs less. Well duh, it comes with less.
Unless someone has an arcade. Which I assume everyone has, because thats always the argument over the PS3. Is that the 360 costs less. Well duh, it comes with less.
mmntech
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2007
- 17,501
- 12
- 0
Having multiple discs can mean increased manufacturing costs as well. Say you have five machines printing discs. Would you rather have all five producing five different titles or tie two up making the same title. This is the most likely reason why console publishers have been resistant to multiple discs. This is why bluray holds an advantage. I still believe ms should have invested in HD-DVD more than they did.
As for frame rate, 60fps is really only avantageous for certain things where you want to render high speed motion smoothly, such as in racing the genre. Most of time, LCD ghosting cancels that advantage out on HDTVs. Therefore, rendering say a shooter at 60fps can be a waste of processing power. Reducing frame rates to 30fps still produces smooth motion and allows for higher resolutions, better textures, or more polygons on the same gpu. Obviously 60fps is preferred but isn't necessary for the most part. I'm speaking from my pc gaming on mid range hardware background here. I'm well versed in tradeoffs. Lol
As for frame rate, 60fps is really only avantageous for certain things where you want to render high speed motion smoothly, such as in racing the genre. Most of time, LCD ghosting cancels that advantage out on HDTVs. Therefore, rendering say a shooter at 60fps can be a waste of processing power. Reducing frame rates to 30fps still produces smooth motion and allows for higher resolutions, better textures, or more polygons on the same gpu. Obviously 60fps is preferred but isn't necessary for the most part. I'm speaking from my pc gaming on mid range hardware background here. I'm well versed in tradeoffs. Lol
I am not sure but there is not difference between PS3 & XBOX360
4× 36Mbit/s at 144 Mbit/s (18 MByte/s) PS3
12× 10.5Mbit/s at 126 Mbit/s (16 MByte/s) XBOX360
Also even if it did I don't think that it matters in the scenario i implied.
What I said was, if you break a 25GB BD game into multiply DVDs you will need more than 25GB becauce in each DVD there will part with the same Code & Graphics data that repeats in all DVDs.
And that propably 36Gb is more than enough in order the Graphics data to be equivalent.
I get your point, but the PS3 actually has a 2x BR drive, and I've heard that in some games assets are duplicated across the BR disc in order to speed up loading and alleviate pop-in. Which means the PS3 cannot always accomodate 25 gigs of unique data, lessening its advantage over the 360 even more.
Yes you are right. I had the feeling that it was 4X, like I said I was not sure.
And i'm too lazy to check.
Correct again, but I suppose the difference this kind of repetion will do is not that great in the BD space consumption.
I'm not sure I just speculate, If you read in the press something different probably the one who wrote it, knows better.
Originally posted by: Kromis
Remember Heavenly Sword with its 7GB of uncompressed sound?I think it was 7GB
Yes I remember something, I think a programer from the team was participating in another site's forum and gave some details about the game & PS3 back then but I don't remember anything else.
Sequential transfer rate isnt the issue - seek time is. It takes quite a bit longer to get to data when the laser has to go across disc to get it, and optical drives have atrociously low seek times as it is. A slower rotational speed only makes the situation worse. Most loads require quite a few seeks back and forth, and each seek can be a fraction of a second. If the laser has to travel less distance between each, it helps load times quite a bit.
Duplicating the data across the disc gives it multiple targets for each file, so it can choose from the closest spot for each particular file.
PieIsAwesome
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2007
- 4,054
- 1
- 0
60 FPS may not be necessary but it looks A LOT better. If we argue that anything that makes things look better but is not necessary is a waste of processing power, then "higher resolutions, better textures, or more polygons" are also wastes of processing power.
Higher framerate=better graphics (up until around 60 FPS for me, because after that I don't notice any difference), just like higher resolution, better textures, better filtering, more AA, etc also means better graphics.
Yes you are correct with your point.
Do you know what is the "average" percent of data repetition in a BD? (or worst case scenario if you can't speculate for "average")
If the PS3 duplicated everything once, it would still hold 25GB of unique data per disk.
An even better way to deal with this is to work with a platform that you know will have a HDD and simply have files that can cause issues installed which gives you significantly improved load times.
The difference between 30FPS and 60FPS is night and day on consoles or PCs with even a moderately decent display. I will gladly take superior gameplay and a reduction in visuals.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter