Top
200°

PS3 Call of Duty 3 to have multi-player

A GameDaily hands-on with the PS3 version confirms with developer Treyarch that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions will incorporate 24-player online multiplayer across multiple game modes, including Deathmatch and Capture the Flag.

The story is too old to be commented.
THAMMER14003d ago

I wander how long it will take for the fan boys to start mud slinging.

Captain Tuttle4003d ago

That it took exactly 12 minutes.

Deceased4003d ago

Yeah and I'm sure resistance will run real smooth with 40player online, it can't even keep up with the 360 on 24 player online. I guess the 360 gpu is more powerful after all.

JIN KAZAMA4003d ago

Didnt you read it, its still in development. They'll have it running fine. Also, Virtua Tennis, NBA2K7, RidgeRacer..etc, are all in 1080P on the PS3 okay. All running at 60FPS.

D R Fz4003d ago

- "currently running at 30 frames-per-second"
- " supposed 60 frames-per second."

Moral of the story, we know nothing. There is still little over a month left and nothing is written in stone as of the moment. Therefore, I can say that the title will give me the same experience on either console whether it is gameplay or online.

daboosa4003d ago

did u accually read the artical

Aflac4003d ago (Edited 4003d ago )

"I guess the 360 gpu is more powerful after all."-thats been confirmed quite long ago.

The 360’s Xenos GPU is slightly more powerful for running current graphics engines and, in terms of complying with Windows Graphic Foundation 2.0 (compatible with future versions of Direct X, shader models, etc.) is a full-generation ahead of the RSX. "One of the key ideas behind a unified architecture is to move the GPU from a rendering only processor to a complete compute processor. Right now all the GPU does is render 3D and displays it on your screen (yes it does more like 2D, video etc... but for the point of this article we are talking about 3D). With a unified architecture the GPU becomes more. It becomes a processor that can do almost anything that needs code processed. This means the GPU can take on more functions like physics, AI, animation and many other processes that can benefit the gaming experience. DirectX 10 and a unified GPU architecture helps a video card become an all-in-one Swiss army knife of game processing. Those are the ideas at least, how it all works out is up to the game content developers"
( http://enthusiast.hardocp.c... According to this article, the unified memory of the 360 and the unified shaders, developers have the ability to use the vector processing power of the GPU, which is a big plus as it allows the developer to use the shaders when they need extra processing power.
"However, using Sony's claim, 7 dot products per cycle * 3.2 GHz = 22.4 billion dot products per second for the CPU. That leaves 51 - 22.4 = 28.6 billion dot products per second that are left over for the GPU. That leaves 28.6 billion dot products per second / 550 MHz = 52 GPU ALU ops per clock.

It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s, while the Xbox 360 GPU ALUs work on vector5s. The total programmable GPU floating point performance for the PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * 550 MHz = 228.8GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS."

Note, this calculation was made before the downgrade of the ps3's GPU from 550MHz to 500MHz, so redo the equation:
PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * (updated speed-->)500 MHz = 208.0GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS.

ps3 GPU went down from 228.8 GFLOPS to 208.0 GFLOPS
360 GPU has remained at 240.0 GFLOPS

I could be wrong, but isn't 240.0 GFLOPS higher than 228.8 GFLOPS? And isn't 208.0 GFLOPS lower than 228.8 GFLOPS???

My sources:
IBM's own white papers on the cell:
www-128.ibm.com/developerwork s/power/library/pa-cellperf/?c a =drs-#table4
The IGN article of analysis:
xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/ 617951p3.html

P.S. when u copy paste these links into the address bar, delete any spaces this site inserts between characters, idk y it does that, it's retarded.

kmis874003d ago

One quick point. How can it be confirmed long ago if the specs aren't even released? Seriously.

Deceased4003d ago (Edited 4003d ago )

Everyone already know the gpu in the ps3 will use vector4's that what the 6800 nvidia cards use, so his calcualtions are correct. That is why both nvidia and ati are making unified gpu's for pc's they are more efficient, powerful, and can do both physics and AI as well. The information he got was from the SONY press release about the RSX which states:

Below are the specs from Sony's press release regarding the PS3's GPU.

RSX GPU

550 MHz
Independent vertex/pixel shaders
51 billion dot products per second (total system performance)
300M transistors
136 "shader operations" per clock

and the clock was dumbed down to 500mhz so it is even slower.

The PS3 does have the additional 7 DSPs on the Cell to add more floating point ops for graphics rendering, but the Xbox 360's three general purpose cores with custom D3D and dot product instructions are more customized for true graphics related calculations.

The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.

HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices.

D R Fz4003d ago

Could you have been anymore on point with your comment. Like the rest of the world, I know that Sony has not yet released the final specs for the system so where is nathaniel getting his specs from. Even funnier, deceased said he already knew. Lol. Anyways the point of the matter is that we can all speculate but nothing is certain until we have a hold of the final product.

Arkham4003d ago

Do you also have the original Star Trek episode names and numbers memorized?

kmis874003d ago

Doesn't the ps3 have 48Gb/s of bandwidth that the cpu and gpu have to share while the 360 only has 22.4 between the two? Also, how old was that press release, and since nothing about the actual structure or performance is known all of the calculations rely on inferred information. "It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s." From what I understand about what Nathaniel wrote, all of his calculations about gigaflops and stuff derives from this assertion. All of this crap that you're arguing comes down to an "if." Also, it's all well and good copying and pasting crap from all over the internet to justify your points, but if that stuff comes from biased sources, it's all worthless. For instance, Nate's so called "IGN article of analysis." That's just Microsoft's analysis based on assumed spec numbers and suspect comparisons. Case in point, MS claims to have over 5 times the bandwidth of the ps3. Anyone who wholeheartedly believes this crap is just blinding themselves to the bias they know is there. Also, who the hell cares about the number of gigaflops your console can perform?

Lastly, WHY THE HELL ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS ARGUMENT? I clicked on this to find out about Call of Duty 3 multiplayer and now I get to ready about fanboys bickering over which console is better, using biased numbers, and biased analysis. This is why I hate most people.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4003d ago
Deceased4003d ago (Edited 4003d ago )

Sir nathaniel I already knew that, i just like pi$$ing of sony fanboys who think their console is more powerful when it isn't. I can't help it, if I see someone claiming something that is wrong, I will argue and fight till I finally get the point across that the 360 GPU is MORE POWERFUL!!!

BTW thanks for giving links to facts so JIN, DJ and all the rest with STFU!!!!

Also daritefeacherz, they stated "In this case, it's from the writer's hands-on impressions, and while we can't be sure the PS3 version's running at 30 FPS or the Xbox 360 one exactly at 60FPS, it's clear there's a difference between the two, at least, and that's what matters." <--------------:)

Aflac4003d ago

its always fun t pwn those n00bs.

DJ4003d ago

I've already disproved that so-called 'fact sheet' a long time ago since the data was produced by ATI in reference to nVidia's RSX chip, a chip that ATI has not even touched, let alone seen the specs for.

Every calculation that ATI provided was based off the assumption that the RSX is 6800 architecture. This is easily explainable since nVidia stated at E3 '05 that the RSX was more than twice as powerful as their 6800 graphics card.

At the time however, the 6800 was the top of the line GPU, and even the 7800 cannot do 1.8 Tflops. To think that Sony would pay nVidia $30 million to shove old architecture into their PS3 is simply foolish.

It obviously has custom architecture, as well as some really powerful processing power. Want evidence? Just look at games like Resistance, Motorstorm, F1, Heavenly Sword, Eight Days, FFXIII, etc.

It's nice that Microsoft and ATI attempted to do so much damage control after Sony beat them down at E3 '05, but pretty pathetic as well.

D R Fz4003d ago (Edited 4003d ago )

We see your point but we don't get the picture. You are comparing games that haven't come out yet. You haven't even played the games yet. What makes you know more about any of the games Jin mentioned compared to what we know? Exactly, nothing. Therefore you have to wait a little while before you can make such comments.

Show all comments (43)
The story is too old to be commented.