Gee, how funny

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

There is less of a compromise in a unified set up, versus what the PS3 has.  You're stuck with 256/256, and you're given the option of having whatever ratio you want with the unified architecture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except your always going to be sacrificing one thing for another. Use too much on graphics and your game will move like a slug.

 

When you have a fixed ammount, then you can push each aspect to the limit without any worries of compromising either.

 

Dedicated memory also seems to be superior at what it does. Since you wont ever be able to go beyond what you have in the big pot with unified memory, it's always going to be either a juggling act or a compromise if your seeking to bring the most out of the system.

[kirottu]

I can look at Gears of War from 6 months ago if you want.  The game still looked superior to games shown on the PS3 right now.  If that would make you feel better. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I can

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well, I can

[kirottu]

I just googled "ps3 games" and got this: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I just googled "ps3 games" and got this: http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh well thanks anyway for the link.

 

Lair interests me, but anything dragon related does. I'm a bit suprised NI are doing a PS3 game, they don't exactly push the boundires when it comes to graphics (Makai Kingdoms is a good game though).

 

Final Fantasy says it all really

 

Warhawk looks nice not particularly psyched by it though any more than I was by GoW.

 

Noticed a few of those games were carrying dec 2006 release dates. Which would be pretty on course with a march/april release. Unless of course GS just made them up

Edited November 8, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Oh a Shin Megami Tensei game

 

heres the link for the lazy (like me)

 

http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?type=ga...es&dlx_type=all

 

Not much there unless your familiar with the names or companies unfortunately.

[Epiphany]

Except your always going to be sacrificing one thing for another. Use too much on graphics and your game will move like a slug.

 

When you have a fixed ammount, then you can push each aspect to the limit without any worries of compromising either.

 

Dedicated memory also seems to be superior at what it does. Since you wont ever be able to go beyond what you have in the big pot with unified memory, it's always going to be either a juggling act or a compromise if your seeking to bring the most out of the system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not following your logic. If you have 512 megs of unified memory, you can make it 256/256 and "push each aspect to the limit without any worries of compromising either". You seem to be thinking that with limitations (dedicated memory) developers will maximize those limitations and when they're presented with a unified architecture they'll suddenly throw everything out the window and sacrifice stuff for the other - which is not the case. There are times when you don't need X for video, but rather X-64, so they can give that extra 64 to the system itself.

 

With the unified shaders of Xenos, the GPU will be working at a more optimal level, so I'm going to guess that the amount of video RAM will not be as important as it will with the PS3. The USA plus the eDRAM will give it a programing edge, as well as a bandwidth edge for processing FSAA, using the Z buffer, among many other things with only a 5% performance hit. That frees up extra resources in the long run.

 

Well, I can

[mkreku]

There is no compromise, there is choice, and it's up to the developers.

Really? So if an Xbox 360 developer needs 1 GB for graphics and 400 MB for program code, the unified memory architecture takes care of that too? Wow, UMA most be much better than I thought if it provides developers with 'no compromises'!

 

In the real world, where the rest of us lives, there's more choice with UMA but ALSO more compromises. A program is never static in its memory usage, as it usually varies dramatically from time to time. A developer would have to set the RAM limits himself, but when he does that he has to take into account the worst possible scenarios, as I bet writing realtime memory allocation between GPU and CPU would be extremely difficult to do. That's just my (somewhat educated) guess from only a few years of high level programming though.

 

The static PS3 design is easier in that the developers always know what they have available, but it also lessens the degree of choice from the developers point of view. Still, this is the common setup and the one most developers are used to working with. It hasn't been a problem for the last 20 years, so I am sure they'll cope with it this time around too.

 

I would love to hear a developers point of view on this, as I've always thought UMA was more of a hassle than a blessing. Maybe that's about to change or maybe I've been wrong from the start?

[Epiphany]

Really? So if an Xbox 360 developer needs 1 GB for graphics and 400 MB for program code, the unified memory architecture takes care of that too? Wow, UMA most be much better than I thought if it provides developers with 'no compromises'!

 

If the console had 1.4 gig of unified memory, then 1 BG for video and 400 MB for the system would be fine. Oh, but I see what you were trying to do, you were implying that the entire sentence you quoted had me saying that 512 megs of UMA is like having an unlimited pool of RAM that will allow developers to fly to the moon and back in a matter of seconds. How typical of you.

 

 

In the real world, where the rest of us lives, there's more choice with UMA but ALSO more compromises. A program is never static in its memory usage, as it usually varies dramatically from time to time. A developer would have to set the RAM limits himself, but when he does that he has to take into account the worst possible scenarios, as I bet writing realtime memory allocation between GPU and CPU would be extremely difficult to do. That's just my (somewhat educated) guess from only a few years of high level programming though.

 

Yet with UMA, it's easier to program for.

 

The static PS3 design is easier in that the developers always know what they have available, but it also lessens the degree of choice from the developers point of view. Still, this is the common setup and the one most developers are used to working with. It hasn't been a problem for the last 20 years, so I am sure they'll cope with it this time around too.

 

Yet a unified approach is easier to program for, it gives them more choice (which developers like to have). Unless of course, you can find a cynical developer that would rather have boundaries on everything they do, with no choices. Yeah, they'll work with it, but it won't be as easy as it is to program for on a unified setup - as is evidence by Xbox games, and the fact that XNA allows for quick ports to and from PC development.

 

It's in the tools, and while I understand you hate to be anything but negative, you continually deny the facts that are right there for you to read.

 

end of discussion

[kirottu]

It's subjective, but the vast majority of gamers I've seen on the internet agree that Gears of War is the most impressive game, graphically.  The creatures, the environments, the character models, the details on the weapons, and the lighting are all among the best ever seen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is pretty as hell. The new Unreal engine really seems to be capable of great graphics.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It is pretty as hell.    The new Unreal engine really seems to be capable of great graphics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lets hope it's capable of more than that

[Judge Hades]

I will remain skeptical on the Unreal's performance til a game with substance is release. Pretty pictures are irrelevant.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I will remain skeptical on the Unreal's performance til a game with substance is release.  Pretty pictures are irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldnt say irrelevent. But certainly not enough to start gushing over.

 

Some nice pics down in the NJ forum

[Judge Hades]

When a traditional CRPG is made with the engine then I will pay attention to it.

[Epiphany]

It is pretty as hell.    The new Unreal engine really seems to be capable of great graphics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lets hope it's capable of more than that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What else do you want it to do?

 

It's a graphical engine that offers streaming levels and powerful physics. The quality of the game beyond that is in the hands of the developers.

 

When a traditional CRPG is made with the engine then I will pay attention to it.

 

Lost Odyssey is supposedly using it. Mass Effect is using it.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Why are these subjects still being debated? Ease of use and power are pretty clearly divided in this case. The PS3 possesses more potential power for those who have the time and inclination to conform to its particular standards, but the 360 ultimately presents a friendlier (easier) environment.

 

You know how the PS2 actually possessed superior fill rate potential compared to the Xbox? Big deal. It didn't really matter because the PS2 had infuriating memory standards. 32 megs, 4 megs for textures, guys. How many PS2 games did we see that actually looked as good as Xbox games despite having a superior fill rate?

 

If you think that devs aren't going to use all of those 256 megs of video memory on the PS3 in the next gen, remember that one of the major hits on new titles is in textures. Normal maps, specular maps, not to mention the size of the diffuse textures themselves. By the way, regardless of platform and memory availability, devs who don't want to walk a trail of tears create memory maps and program memory managers if they are serious about planning ahead.

[Judge Hades]

I said traditional CRPGs, Epiphany. You know, games like Fallout and BG.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

When it comes to video memory vs unified memory are they the same point for point ? IE would you get the same using 256 of dedicated video memory as you would using 256 of "generic" memory ?

[Epiphany]

I said traditional CRPGs, Epiphany.  You know, games like Fallout and BG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Last I read, Lost Odyssey was a traditional TB style game.

[Judge Hades]

It all depends on how the game is programmed.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Enchant Arm looks interesting from a background perspective. Visually nothing there that isnt in FFXII by the look of it.

 

Blue Dragon probably has the most pedigree (just looking at who is involved). That one if anything could tempt me to shell out for a 360.

 

Far East of Eden looks like an alpha version of GC game. Not much else to go on yet.

 

I'm taking a rental only approach with Bioware I've pretty much lost interest in the direction they are going.

 

Lost Odessy isnt really doing it for me at the moment. Might change though, you never know.

 

I'm still totally skeptical about the space issue anyway so If I see any of these appearing on one disk it better not have 20 hours of gameplay because of it.

[mkreku]

You know how the PS2 actually possessed superior fill rate potential compared to the Xbox?  Big deal.  It didn't really matter because the PS2 had infuriating memory standards.  32 megs, 4 megs for textures, guys.  How many PS2 games did we see that actually looked as good as Xbox games despite having a superior fill rate?

I really don't think it was the unused fill rate potential that made Playstation 2 games look inferior to their Xbox counterparts. I think it was more the simple fact that the Playstation 2 was a weaker machine overall, with half the internal RAM of the Xbox, half the CPU clock cycle rate (not that it is directly comparable) and one full year between releases (and subsequently technology). I'm actually surprised that the differences between the best looking Xbox games and the best looking Playstation 2 games aren't bigger, considering the advantage the Xbox has in hardware specifications on paper.

 

Which are the best looking Xbox games by the way? The best I've seen on the Playstation 2 would probably be God of War and perhaps Resident Evil 4 (amazingly enough).

[Epiphany]

I really don't think it was the unused fill rate potential that made Playstation 2 games look inferior to their Xbox counterparts. I think it was more the simple fact that the Playstation 2 was a weaker machine overall, with half the internal RAM of the Xbox, half the CPU clock cycle rate (not that it is directly comparable) and one full year between releases (and subsequently technology). I'm actually surprised that the differences between the best looking Xbox games and the best looking Playstation 2 games aren't bigger, considering the advantage the Xbox has in hardware specifications on paper.

 

Which are the best looking Xbox games by the way? The best I've seen on the Playstation 2 would probably be God of War and perhaps Resident Evil 4 (amazingly enough).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Much like the PS3/Xbox 360 - the PS2 was touted as having more "potential" power than the other consoles. Sony works in theoretical numbers, and not actual specs. When they saw the 1TFLOP for the X360, they just estimated "2 theoretical TFLOPS" for the PS3. Smoke and mirrors.

 

Regardless, of the top of my head the best looking Xbox games would have to be:

 

Conker - unsure about framerate, but I believe it's a steady 30fps in 480p/16:9

Doom 3 (runs at 30fps in 480p/16:9)

Ninja Gaiden (runs at 60fps in 480p/16:9)

Splinter Cell 3 - steady 30fps - graphically if you compare it to the PS2 version, it's generations ahead

 

Many will argue that Panzer Dragoon: Orta would be up there as well.

[metadigital]

Yes, but when developers are unsure as to how much people have, they can't make a judgment on exactly how much of the RAM is allocated to video vs the rest of the system. Sure, they could add variables such as

I think you trailed off mid-sentence there. And you can still make judgements as to how much of the RAM is allocated to video.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ran out of memory?

There is less of a compromise in a unified set up, versus what the PS3 has.  You're stuck with 256/256, and you're given the option of having whatever ratio you want with the unified architecture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except your always going to be sacrificing one thing for another. Use too much on graphics and your game will move like a slug.

 

When you have a fixed ammount, then you can push each aspect to the limit without any worries of compromising either.

 

Dedicated memory also seems to be superior at what it does. Since you wont ever be able to go beyond what you have in the big pot with unified memory, it's always going to be either a juggling act or a compromise if your seeking to bring the most out of the system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could easily argue that the added flexibility granted by being able to increase graphics capacity in acutely-demanding situations is a positive advantage. Fixed ratios are just making the developers work to some arbitrary standard, wheras being able to manage the CPU/GPU RAM manually will involve more overhead but give more power where it can be applied for greatest use: no point in having the GPU redlining whilst the CPU is sitting on its hands with nothing to do, after all.

 

There is no reason to believe that dedicated RAM is necessarily any faster, either.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I could easily argue that the added flexibility granted by being able to increase graphics capacity in acutely-demanding situations is a positive advantage. Fixed ratios are just making the developers work to some arbitrary standard, wheras being able to manage the CPU/GPU RAM manually will involve more overhead but give more power where it can be applied for greatest use: no point in having the GPU redlining whilst the CPU is sitting on its hands with nothing to do, after all.

 

There is no reason to believe that dedicated RAM is necessarily any faster, either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would depend on what you ended up sacrificing to do it.

 

I was wondering that earlier. Point for point is 256k of dedicated graphic memory superior to 256k of generic memory.