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.
I wander how long it will take for the fan boys to start mud slinging.
That it took exactly 12 minutes.
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.
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.
- "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.
did u accually read the artical
"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.
One quick point. How can it be confirmed long ago if the specs aren't even released? Seriously.
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.
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.
Do you also have the original Star Trek episode names and numbers memorized?
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.
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." <--------------:)
its always fun t pwn those n00bs.
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.
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.
For Deaseased and Jin to start a cat fight. Man you guys are sad.
No real excuss for the ps3 running at 30 FPS since Call of Duty 2 for the xbox 360 at launch also ran at 60FPS. This is unless the ps3 is trying to do 1080p, which I doubt because the journalist would have obviously stated that.
Show a link saying that those games will be running in 1080p at 60 fps when released. I'm not calling you a liar. I just haven't seen the official announcement. I know those games are shooting for 1080p...but 60 fps...i haven't seen that one. And what most people don't know is that at TGS all the ps3 games were being viewed on 1080p tv's. The 360 games were being shown on Standard HD tv's. So when people say..."wow the ps3 games look fantastic"...Much of it is in the TV's they are using. When I play my 360 on my 1080p Samsung TV....it looks notibly better than when I play it on my Sharp Aqua 1080i tv. When the 360 is up converted to 1080p and de interlaced....the games will look better for those people who actually have 1080p tv's. But if you don't have a 1080p tv...you won't see what all the editors are seeing when they talk about how good the ps3 games look. Its mostly reliant on the TV you are viewing it on. If you have a standard HD tv and you play ps3 or 360 games....the differences between the two will be minimal. But once you put either on a 1080p tv...it is a tad sharper and smoother. thats why when they compared the nba 2k7 and the virtua tennis to the 360 versions...they said it was a tad better looking....But if they were to play the 360 on a 1080p tv...they would see they are probably a lot more simular if any differnce at all. Now, it will always come down to the developers. Multi platform games release simultaniously will most always run and look better on the 360. But when games are released a month or more after the 360 version you might see a few upgrades....thats common sense. But games made by Microsoft..."Gears of War" and games made by sony...."motorstorm" will utilize their system the best and most likely look and play better. How they will compare head up? Is yet to be seen. Will the ps3 "premier first party" game look as good as the 360's? We'll see. I have to give the nod to the 360 from all I have read. But stay tuned.
Confirmation of 1080p 60fps NBA 07: http://www.gametrailers.com... RR 7 has already been confirmed for 1080p 60fps: http://static.flickr.com/88... 2K7 may be 1080p 60fps as well, but I haven't read anything on that. Just the better A.I., graphics and cloth animations for the PS3 version (developers words): http://ps3.ign.com/articles...
Xbox live is where the online action is. IM OUT.
You laid that S#!t down bro. Nice post.
Ps3 will be better im sorry but the Xbox360 is old already unlucky for the ppl who payied 4 one should of waited! and ps3 fanbois know ur only upset about this inside!
this is a pretty ignorant statement... the 360 is not old, in fact this article says its running cod3 better than the ps3..
Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to say....and you fail. I have a had a 360 since launch and love it. So not only do I have my 360 and have been playing it, but now I have saved so I can buy a PS3 and enjoy both if I choose. I would say you Sony Fanboy are the unlucky one. You have denied yourself quality gaming all in the name of being a fanboy. I truly hope when you get your PS3 it meets all your expectations and makes you feel justified in your purchase. Sadly, I think you will be left a little short of feeling completely good about the PS3. As for Call of Duty 3. I am excited for this game as I loved Call of Duty 2 on my 360.
but we can thank Sony for that, putting out doubt.
it has already been confirmed that the ps3 gpu is running at 500MHz, the gpu calculations i stated above were perfectly valid. We all know that spec wise, the ps3 has only gone downhill, and was less pwerful than the 360 to begin with.
The PS2 was 10X more powerful than any Super computer when it launched. The PS3 will be 5X more powerful than the 360. Period!. Play beyond with 4D and an improved PS2 emotion engine.
...I'll try to be civil with this reply... ok, trying to keep composed... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"But currently, the game's running slower than on 360." "PS3 version is currently running at 30 frames-per-second, as opposed to Xbox 360's supposed 60 frames-per second." Now there you go. And I'd rather have COD3 running double the framerate on my 360 then have Virtua Tennis 3 in 1080p! So what console is the powerhouse? 360 is
What'll you do if the PS3 version ends having a slight graphical edge? Just a hypothetical situation (they obviously won't do it due to lowest common denominator strategies). I'm still curious as to why it's being stated that the 360 is supposedly at 60 FPS instead of saying it straight up. It's a bit confusing. BTW, it's funny that now it's been proven for the eleventh time that the PS3 has an actual, tangible, working online network the haters have resorted to attacking the system's specs with false information that was either concocted by Microsoft, ATI, or themselves. Nothing about the RSX has been 'confirmed'. There were leaked specs, but we don't even know if those were for the preliminary RSX or the final chip. (originally the PS3 dev kits were running nVidia 7800's and 2.4Ghz Cell chips, along with only 256MB of Ram)
man by looking at this ibm break down. the cell is doing even less than what youve been stating. but thats a test on Linpack, not a game. if it was it could be they right amount that Sony is claiming or, at worst, half of wut you just stated..... point is we dont actually KNOW wut the cell is capable of. sincd they can barely get it running at 70% Efficiency
Xbox players at least can feel secure our on-line network is operational, dependable, always playable, and a huge game community larger than Sony players. We are confident. Are sony players? With no proven technology nor a whispher from beta-testers of the percieved on-line play. Only a we will use this or that statements. What about WE (sony) are using this format for our on-line play statements!
...with his comparison. Well it's even not his and he doesn't understand what he copy pastes. Dx10, unified shaders, etc - this all sounds great(that's why I get me a new PC), but even G80/R600 won't have enough horsepower to take enough advantage of it(that's why I'll wait for second gen dx10 cards and quad Core 2 Duo, before I'll get me a new PC). Both G80/R600 are way more powerful than Xenos, but even these cards won't be enough for 2nd/3rd gen dx10 games. GF5800 and R9700 also support dx9, but you can forget running dx9 games with full effects on such cards, if you do, you will have the bullet time effect all over your screen. So what does these mean for Xenos? A GPU that was released way before dx10. A GPU that's way less powerful than R600/G80. A GPU that uses a 1st gen unified shaders. It means Xenos won't be in any way cabable of taking advantage of all these beautiful things. Just not enough horsepower to do it. The 1st gen unified shaders are just not advanced enough to do it. Xenos was just an experiment for ATI, they learned from it for their battle with NVidia. Xenos has no power advantage over RSX, the only advantage the unified shaders give Xenos is that this architecture uses the hardware more efficient. More efficient, doesn't mean more powerful. It just means that all pipelines are always working, cause they do both vertex and pixel. Also fact is that todays specialised pipes have a better performance per pipe than Xenos's 1st gen unified pipes. 5950 and X1950 have greater shader performance than Xenos although using less pipes. Xenos's unified shaders sound great on paper, newset technology this and that, but it's not advanced enough and Xenos doesn't have enough horsepower to make it to any advantage besides efficiency. People can copy paste the possibilies of dx10 and unified shaders all they want, this surely is great, but it's just the common sense that you can't expect all these things from Xenos. It's not without a reason that 360 games doesn't look better than today's PC games. It's not without a reason that 360 performs Oblivion like a mid to low end PC. It's not without a reason that devs are saying PS3 is more powerful. It's not without a reason that 1st gen PS3 games look better than most 2nd gen 360 games. PS3 is just more powerful than 360, even without using unified shaders. And well, I wonder from where Nathaniel have it that RSX ALUs work on vector4s. Sadly the only source for such claims are some forums where some Msfanboys are making same comparsions like he did here.
I'm not exactly tech savvy, but that was quite an informative post indeed, Enforcer, you've definitely brought some things to light. Edit: Might I add, I appreciate when someone backs up their claim with information that they know based on their own research and knowledge, as opposed to simply following a source because...it's a source.
while Bladestar got promoted to 6. Enforcer argues in a mature manner and backs up his statements while Bladestar just kind of yells at everyone...did I miss something?
And still the haters continue to hate...hahaha The restlessness is begining to set in. Today was the first preorder day. The diference about the two versions of this game is that PS3 will ve free to play it online....hahahha
All u guys do is lie to trick ppl into buying a ps3 over a 360. Even ubisoft is now saying the 360 has the hardware advantage, and theyr a nonbiased, crossplatform company, what they have in store for the next splinter cell games cannot be handled by the ps3, only 360 and computers. On top of that I gave u perfectly valid links, as always, to back my arguements, I have researched over a yr, and only sony fanboys on their forums and pro-ps3 sites say that xenon is inferior to rsx. Did u not have any clue that getting info from fan forums is just the dumbest thing u can do, and is just setting u up t get pwned? Try and back urselves with claims from official sources, not ur [email protected]$$ fan forums, u probably couldve been using a 3rd grader's claims for all we know. My point is, whay are u so against letting the people decide based on truth? Does it not strike u that even if ppl know that the 360's more powerful, they will still get the ps3 regardless cuz they like the games better?-Cus believe me, power alone is not the deciding factor for most ppl.
had you stated exactly what it is that he's supposedly lying about. Besides that, you claim to have done over a year of independent research, but rather than sharing that knowledge in your response, you would rather make claims about tricking others into buying systems, and saying only fanboys say that sonys system is better. I'm sorry, but that's just juvenile. Regarding Ubisofts claims, you act as if they are the only company to favor one particular system, like no other conpany has said that their games may turn out better on PS3 hardware. For as smart as you claim to be, you should know that no two individuals, let alone companies, will program a game the same exact way, meaning that other people with different and various preferred methods MIGHT just prefer the PS3 in terms of power. Ubisoft's word isn't the gospel, you know. Besides that, they said it themselves, the 360 will be their main platform for development, and the upcoming Rainbow Six is even a port to the PS3, so from that alone you can safely assume that they probably just PREFER the 360. Don't twist the truth please, what do you think that does to your credibility? Now, about your valid links, as you claim them, I looked at the three you gave in your post, and from what I've personally observed, they're not exactly as concrete as you would have everyone believe. I'm not saying that they're BS, (well, one OBVIOUSLY is)but you backing them up as being official is hardly 100% accurate. The IBM link seemed good to go, I didn't see any ridiculous PR, just charts and graphs regarding the Cell, cool, no problem, looks good to me. The one about DX10 wasn't exactly kosher though, as it clearly states at the top, that the interviewers sat down with ATI about their unified architecture. Again, I'm not saying that they were lying through their teeth or anything, because all the info seemed to make sense, but the thing is, you claim that info from sony related sources are BS, but a claim from ATI regarding their own product is truth? Newsflash, companies, for the most part won't stress much on the negative about their product , especially when there's fierce competition out there, so with that in mind, how can you take ATI's word, but when something is released by a Sony supporter, it's automatically BS? Doesn't make much sense, does it? The IGN article was commented on by the very people that posted it. I notice how you neglected to start that link on the first page, where it states in black and white that IGN isn't endorsing this particular claim, and that Microsoft has CLEARLY SLANTED the info. So much for that "official" source, huh? You said you want to let people decide based upon the truth, yet it seems like you are sugarcoating things just as much, if not more, than those you criticize, and that angst-filled post may suggest you have a chip on your shoulder, considering all you did was more or less complain about people not believing you. There's no doubt in my mind that you know a thing or two, as the post you have further above was quite informative, but when you can't even defend your own comments once they're contested(in a mature manner anyway), you lose whatever credibility you had. Explain why whoever was lying about what, don't point the finger and then you might make some sense.
ps3 is powerful -GPU- we stil don't know yet ps3 hasn't realeaase . if you watch all interview deloper keep saying ps3 is powerful they need time to unleash the power of cell . go to gametrailers watch the new interview of NBA 2K7 they say ps3 is powerful
CPU is optimal voor scientific calculations, but is it for games??? And the little bit of power extra has been proven marginal. Won't make that big of a difference. Not to forget, for graphics it's especially the GPU that counts. So why do you think Sony didn't bring the 'official' spec's out yet? They always talk big about specs on paper, like the Cell. It's of no use, but they just like TFLOPS (like with the PS2, which was the weakest in graphics although the TFLOP blabla) and other stuff never seen again in games. So why didn't they release anything yet? A month before launch? Because they know the RSX will be slaughtered by the 360 GPU. Just simple that. The RSX can't do HDR and 4 x AA at the same time in 720p or 1080p. 360 can. So it's not only COD3, it's now Ubisoft also on other games like Rainbox Six. This gen games are developed on 360 and ported to PS3. Expect lower graphics, less options, just a minor game experience on the PS3. http://www.g4tv.com/pile_pl...
"Enforcer of the Lies and DJ, Sir Nathaniel - 8 Hours ago | Let him/her speak All u guys do is lie to trick ppl into buying a ps3 over a 360. Even ubisoft is now saying the 360 has the hardware advantage, and theyr a nonbiased, crossplatform company, what they have in store for the next splinter cell games cannot be handled by the ps3, only 360 and computers. On top of that I gave u perfectly valid links, as always, to back my arguements, I have researched over a yr, and only sony fanboys on their forums and pro-ps3 sites say that xenon is inferior to rsx. Did u not have any clue that getting info from fan forums is just the dumbest thing u can do, and is just setting u up t get pwned? Try and back urselves with claims from official sources, not ur [email protected]$$ fan forums, u probably couldve been using a 3rd grader's claims for all we know. My point is, whay are u so against letting the people decide based on truth? Does it not strike u that even if ppl know that the 360's more powerful, they will still get the ps3 regardless cuz they like the games better?-Cus believe me, power alone is not the deciding factor for most ppl." All we do is trying to trick ppl into buying a ps3 over a 360? Sorry but we are at the PS3 section. I don't care about the 360 fanboys, I don't go to the 360 section and try to convince it's fanboys to buy a PS3. All I do is enforcing the truth when I see some MSfanboys ridiculously putting the PS3 down. Ubisoft didn't say 360 is more powerful. They said: "we’re developing with 360 as our main development platform and porting to PS3 means that there’s less memory available for us to use, but we’re trying to minimise any drop in quality" and then the journalist wrongfuly concluded: "Such comments sugget that the gap in performance between Playstation3 and Xbox 360 is nowhere near as powerful as some would like us to believe and that the console may even be less able than Microsoft’s" With such conclusion he shows that he doesn't have a clue about developing for PS3 and 360. PS3 architecture and memory is too different from the 360's and simple ports will cause problems. Ubisoft encounters memory problems while porting, but if they would develope this game from the ground for the PS3 there would be no problems. It's stated by every dev that to take advantage of PS3's power you have to develope for it from the ground and Ubisoft as they said, don't do it. The PS3 360 comparison was a ridiculous MS propaganda, your only valid links were about dx10 and Cell. Funny that it took you 1 year for a research that can be done under 1 hour. I didn't post any links and I didn't do any reasearch for the things I said. I used just my experience and the common sense. It's something you obviously miss if you really think Xenos will take full advantage of dx10 and unified shaders. I can promise you that you are for a big surprise once you find out the truth in a few years. Lastly how can I expect from somebody to understand the links he posts when he even doesn't understand my simple post. I nowhere said RSX is more powerful and I nowhere said that I'm getting my info from fan forums. I only said Xenos ain't more powerful than RSX and that you are using fan forums for this ridiculous comparison: "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." Please start to read at least the posts correctly and please post here any credible source with such a comparison and which states RSX ALUs work on vector4s. I'm sure you won't find any, cause this is just propaganda to put the PS3 down invented by some MS fanboys.
u just make sh!t up, meanwhile all I'v doe is use valid sources, u just say theyr invalid cuz they dont tell u wat u wanna hear. BTW, if the ign article of MS's analysis really was invalid, why is it that sony NEVER slammed it as the did to th donwgrade rumors? obviously, because it was correct, therefore, it just better for them to remain silent about it than put themselves on the spot over the issue.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.