note to readers: if you put details on full wack even on a fx5200, you can basically get the same "special ps3 only" image quality in the 2nd screenshot in that link. try it.
I'm running a GeForce 2 GTS right now actually, and in Far Cry the water is nice and transparent (although slow, lol) --- now tell me the effects cant be shown on a GF2 and I'll grab a screenshot to prove it for you. For goodness sake, I'm talking about DX7 hardware here, and it looks better than the first screenshot... lol.
(as a side note, I can get it to run about 40fps on 1024x768 with middle detail, and at 2048x1536 I get 3 fps
woot)AIWGuru,
I agree about the general capilities of PS3 like you've describled later,
but what i'm trying to make clear is that the picture quality obtainable (at decent rendering rates) - which includes the actual image impact when you see it (e.g. first time you see HL2 graphics) is NOT much different at all between PS2 and PS3. Even PS1 and PS2 didn't have absolutely major differences (maybe slightly tellable in HL2, not much), but with PS3 the leap visually isn't that huge, and you won't get instantly tellable differences. Far cry programmers (if they decided to spend time) could brush up PS2 to generate PS3 quality graphics. it would just be more of a mission, that's my point from the start.
I agree about the general capilities of PS3 like you've describled later,
but what i'm trying to make clear is that the picture quality obtainable (at decent rendering rates) - which includes the actual image impact when you see it (e.g. first time you see HL2 graphics) is NOT much different at all between PS2 and PS3. Even PS1 and PS2 didn't have absolutely major differences (maybe slightly tellable in HL2, not much), but with PS3 the leap visually isn't that huge, and you won't get instantly tellable differences. Far cry programmers (if they decided to spend time) could brush up PS2 to generate PS3 quality graphics. it would just be more of a mission, that's my point from the start.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
Have you guys seen the video of the 6800U launch LAN or been to the LAN yourself?
CryTek at the LAN specifically stated that the rocks on the side of the walls are done by displacement mapping, a feature EXCLUSIVE to PS3.0
Also softshadows are added into Farcry.
Displacement mapping and softshadows are two NEW features DX9.0C
CryTek at the LAN specifically stated that the rocks on the side of the walls are done by displacement mapping, a feature EXCLUSIVE to PS3.0
Also softshadows are added into Farcry.
Displacement mapping and softshadows are two NEW features DX9.0C
of course they're not.
do you guys believe EVERYTHING someone tells you?
especially if its nvidia?
do you guys believe EVERYTHING someone tells you?
especially if its nvidia?
And I conceded that point a LONG time ago. (even though it's somewhat wrong as vgames points out) You don't seem to get the new point that I brought forward.
even a parhelia can do displacement mapping.
soft shadows have been hyped by 3dfx/nvidia for like the last 6 years. it's not even a "feature", just a rendering method that can be implemented in various ways, some of the old nvidia fx demos have it.
soft shadows have been hyped by 3dfx/nvidia for like the last 6 years. it's not even a "feature", just a rendering method that can be implemented in various ways, some of the old nvidia fx demos have it.
i don't work for crytek and don't know the relationship/money involved between crytek and nvidia so don't know..
Those aren't the real specs according to Xbitlabs.com, I trust them, I think they are a helluva lot more reliable than the Inquirer.. here they are; linkage.
Specs for NEW RADEON!!!
the 12 pipe, slower clocked chip will be released first, the 16 pipe, faster chip later. That's probably why we're seeing conflicting information.
If PS3 allows better use of the shader potential then the game developers would be able to do more in any given scene, thus providing better graphics. I'm sure this kind of stuff matters about as much as PS2 in the last generation of hardware, as few good games made use of it. Just a bragging rights thing. I'm sure doing the same graphics in P2 and P3 would show little to no difference, but thats not the point. With PS3, you have the potential to do better graphics on PS3 supported hardware.
Of course, I'm no expert, but that seems the gist of it.
As I see it, PS2.0 code can be optimised to run more effieciently using PS3.0 hardware due to the branching & arbitrarily long instuctions. This does NOT add functionality, but programmability. Therefore better graphics would not be the word to use here... it would be more efficient on the hardware to use PS3.0, leading to longer shader rountines by coders! Nothing else...
UlricT,
exactly what im trying to say, thanks.
You can argue programmability allows more functionality, but that's like saying 64bit CPUs give better graphics. Yes they *could* give better graphics but in practise the main aim is to takeaway programmability limitations.
anyway, I think the bottom line is, that unless you're a developer wanting to experiment, it's next to useless buying a 6800 for shader model 3. They'll have Geforce 9 out by the time a game actually requires that level of programmability to be feasable. There's guys here that bought GF3 for Doom3, then GF4 was "the card" for the game, then it was FX5900, and now we're on 6800, and it's just wasting money on hype.
It makes more sense for anyone choosing between X800 and 6800 to choose one that'll run HL2, Doom3, etc better, and that means a card that peforms well on base DX8 and DX9. I reckon ATi will have the edge there if the 16-pipe X800 (4 radeon 9600xts in parallel, same clock speed) really does get released.
exactly what im trying to say, thanks.
You can argue programmability allows more functionality, but that's like saying 64bit CPUs give better graphics. Yes they *could* give better graphics but in practise the main aim is to takeaway programmability limitations.
anyway, I think the bottom line is, that unless you're a developer wanting to experiment, it's next to useless buying a 6800 for shader model 3. They'll have Geforce 9 out by the time a game actually requires that level of programmability to be feasable. There's guys here that bought GF3 for Doom3, then GF4 was "the card" for the game, then it was FX5900, and now we're on 6800, and it's just wasting money on hype.
It makes more sense for anyone choosing between X800 and 6800 to choose one that'll run HL2, Doom3, etc better, and that means a card that peforms well on base DX8 and DX9. I reckon ATi will have the edge there if the 16-pipe X800 (4 radeon 9600xts in parallel, same clock speed) really does get released.
....which in turn leads to better graphics. Instead of running 2 shaders, you can now run 4.
Also, anandtech's review of the 6800 Ultra provides an example where PS 3.0 can provide capabilities that PS 2.0 cannot. I already quoted it in its entirety. It's in reference to a forest of trees.
And the longer shader routines are for better graphics, or some sort of improvement that either wouldn't possible in PS2, or result in a performance hit, which maybe unacceptable to the user. Perhaps this is turning into a semantics issue, but seems like PS3 could still give you better graphics if you utilize PS3's feature set.
apoppin
Lifer
I have been of this opinion since the nV30 debacle and I still say it; even the x800xt will struggle against the 6800ultra as nvidia optimizes it's drivers . . . probably ~ +20% for this new core.
I have seen this too. The 12 pipe card will be released on the 26th and the 16 pipe card on the 5th... I think there is supposed to be an XT model soon after that?
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
Now who needs to read ?
What's your point?
He was talking about PS 3.0 quality being superior to PS 2.0, then he provides a comparison involving PS 1.1 and PS 3.0. WTH does that have to do with PS 2.0?
i thought the second pic was ps2.0 vs ps3.0
i'm not quite clear at this point whether it is or not because i didnt read of any statements made by nvidia other than the first pic is ps1.1.
if the second pic is 1.1 as well, then i had a mistake. it happens
Its way to early to tell, honestly.
Though im somewhat impressed with the NV40, i also saddened by the fact that it doesnt have as much horsepower. For something requiring two power sources, i expect a much higher core clock and memory.
ATI may just pull it out. Their crown is on the line.
Should be interesting here in a few weeks.
Though im somewhat impressed with the NV40, i also saddened by the fact that it doesnt have as much horsepower. For something requiring two power sources, i expect a much higher core clock and memory.
ATI may just pull it out. Their crown is on the line.
Should be interesting here in a few weeks.
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