New 360 Pic

[Manatra]

Re: New 360 Pic

The PS3 is going to be a lot more powerful system then the PS2 is now. Also even when the PC are released with the same powerful processors and such the PS3 is dedicated to a specific function unlike a Computer. Which means it's processing abilities can greatly be tuned to gaming or just general entertainment which will basically make the PS3 and the to be released Computer consoles fairly equal in power. Some even debate that since the PS3 will be so much more focused then a PC in what it does that it'll be able to dedicate more of it's processing to that function or purpose which will then make the PS3 more powerful then the next generation PCs (When it comes to gaming).

PS3 being "focused" on something really has nothing to do with how powerful it is. PCs can be just as "focused" as the PS3. In fact, considering that there will be most likely versions of Linux out for the PS3, I could turn it into a computer and run OpenOffice on it if I felt like it. Yes it has raw power, just like the Xbox360 has raw power. However, both of these systems rely on multi core chipsets. Which means, to tap into that raw power you have to write multi-threaded applications, which is far easier said than done. On PCs today, the closest thing that games have come to being multi-threaded is when you use 2 GPUs (videocards) in tandem to render an image. And even then, all that is being done in most cases is the CPU tells one GPU to render the left side of the screen, and one GPU to render the right side of the screen. The major reason for this being is that the tools aren't really available to developers to write proper multi-threaded applications easily, and until that happens I doubt much of the power of the PS3 and Xbox360 will be tapped into.

I upgraded my pc's vid card from a 5600 to a 6600 GT and noticed a major increase in the draw distance. Like I could actually see the MH from across the bridge in Windurst Walls. Future video cards may even have further draw distances.

Draw distance is controlled by the program (in this case FFXI), the videocard has nothing to do with it. The videocard is just told what to draw. And even on older videocards you should be able to tell FFXI to draw at it's "maximum" distance.

square didnt plan dynamis too well, my bud has a geforce 6800 yadda yadda 2gb or ram and a 4ghz processor and he still gets 9/10 fps in dynamis with a full alliance whacking at a mob

This probably has more to do with the engine limitations than anything else. Most likely because when Squaresoft designed the engine and game they didn't exactly make it scale very well. Another example of this would be the game Half-Life. Even on a high end PC today, if you made an outdoors level in the middle of a field and stuff, the game would chug along at a low FPS. This is because it wasn't designed to scale all that well either. In essence, the engine can't handle large amounts of resources very well and thus, use of a computer's resources exponentially increase (RAM, CPU, etc.) A lot of the newer engines today (Unreal Warfare engine as an example) tend to scale much better.

The engine limitations are probably the main reason why Squaresoft isn't, and can't upgrade the graphics of FFXI on the Xbox360 outside of a few little things. They can increase the draw distance probably because the Xbox360 at the present moment can handle the increase in resources needed to render it. Whereas most PCs at the moment cannot. It wouldn't surprise me if in the future if the PC version received a patch where you could increase the draw distance even more in the options of FFXI as well.

[kuu]

Re: New 360 Pic

PS3 being "focused" on something really has nothing to do with how powerful it is. PCs can be just as "focused" as the PS3. In fact, considering that there will be most likely versions of Linux out for the PS3, I could turn it into a computer and run OpenOffice on it if I felt like it. Yes it has raw power, just like the Xbox360 has raw power. However, both of these systems rely on multi core chipsets. Which means, to tap into that raw power you have to write multi-threaded applications, which is far easier said than done. On PCs today, the closest thing that games have come to being multi-threaded is when you use 2 GPUs (videocards) in tandem to render an image. And even then, all that is being done in most cases is the CPU tells one GPU to render the left side of the screen, and one GPU to render the right side of the screen. The major reason for this being is that the tools aren't really available to developers to write proper multi-threaded applications easily, and until that happens I doubt much of the power of the PS3 and Xbox360 will be tapped into.

Yes and no. Computers are general machines such that for increased price, they have technology that focus towards "all-rounder" One such example is the "hyper-treading" technology of Intel, which is only fairly useful if you're running many programs or threads, which is laughable on PC games. Ram, sound card, video cards and other things also reflect this. Having DX 2d drawing acceration on a graphics card does not mean much in the game world.

Also there are other aspects besides hardware as well, and that's software. Games in consoles are written from the bottom up, while PC games are written from the top down. This is focused because people assume that you boot in XP, and have things running in backround, and thus an abstraction layer is used for both compatiblity(there's more then 1 kind of PC) and usage(do you only play ffxi?), slowing over all performance a a lot.

The idea of "drivers" on windows, is another sign of this. You can make it so that it interact with hardware directly, but that doesn't exist, because no one wants it to be so on a computer.

The case can be made that xbox is just a scaled down computer. But no one would play games on a computer without booting in an OS, or XP. You can make the case that techology is no different, but because of their backround, makes it so.

In the end no matter how you put it you need a $1000 computer to match up to a $200 console graphics. You can go theortical, but reality will never comform to it.

[Macht]

Re: New 360 Pic

Lol, dang I was in the middle of writing that Kuu... Beat me to it though

[Cade]

Re: New 360 Pic

PS3 being "focused" on something really has nothing to do with how powerful it is. PCs can be just as "focused" as the PS3.

VxMs ftw!

Sorry I'm taking computer tech classes lately an I'm proud of myself for understanding most of all that. lol

[fuz]

Re: New 360 Pic

I don't think xbox is going to be $200, I'm guessing a minimum of 300. Or hell, it might even be $360 just as a snide pricing scheme.

Then you add whatever accessories you want, the cost for memory card, maybe an extra controller, xbox live access, a keyboard/mouse, possibly a new tv/sound system for the HD rez, etc. I'm guessing when all is said and done the cost advantage of a console isn't too good. And then you realize it doesn't do nearly the same number of things a computer can do--it doesn't sound quite like the no-brainer gaming option it seems to be.

True, a current $1000 gaming computer isn't as good as an xbox in pure visual performance, but it certainly offers a lot more things besides games. We all need a computer these days anyhow.

Personally I don't think moving from ffxi on pc to xbox is a good move by itself--need to look at what future options the xbox has to distribute it's value in the long run. It you have a ridiculously outdated pc, xbox (or ps3) could be a good move for gaming. For anyone with an up to date computer system, It doesn't seem worth it unless there are other games you want in the future that are xbox only.

Well, that's my economic take on the situation--but if you've got money to burn, or are a passionate tech/gaming fan, go for it.

… *warning, semi-geek stuff ahead*

As for programming games to run better on the xbox than pc, there are some hurdles to overcome. The multi-processor design comes at a bad time--no gaming developer has any good experience with writing software optimized for that kind of processing since there have been no such equivalents in the PC world on such a large scale. Even looking at dual core PC’s, rarely do apps run significantly faster than single core CPUs--the main performance difference is that they don’t slow down as much. AFAIK, multi-core’s max performance potential isn’t terribly high, however the minimum in processing ability is greatly increased, which to me is much more important for smooth gaming.

There are rumors even, that the IBM multi-processor CPU that's in 360 and PS3 have not been developed well enough; that the design has more processing power than actual bandwidth will allow, creating bottlenecks that are limiting performance. A current estimate in effective real world processing instead of the tech demos range from slightly worse than current CPUs, to several times the performance, depending on apps. General median observations point to it being more or less equivalent to today’s top performing single core CPUs. However, almost everyone agrees that the consoles don't hold a candle to the power and versatility of current dual core designs from intel and amd--the only advantage the multi-core powerpc CPU in xbox/ps3 is the price. Current dual core tech from amd and intel is expensive, and low to modest in yields. Such an expensive CPU would not bring the proper value, nor would it be necessary due to the non-critical (read non-business) software it runs.

Basically, sony and MS paid for a cheaper processor, got one, and accordingly it performs like one. Is it significant? I would say no, the majority of brute video processing is still done by the video cards in the consoles. I don't think the (slight) superiority of the ps3's processing power will mean anything since both video GPUs in either console seem quite comparable, no matter what the marketing says.

The efficiency of console OS will account for some extra processing power, but I highly doubt it will be enough to surpass or even match the next gen PC equipment within a year of the console releases. It will however provide more games, with more performance, at a better price point for the majority of people (who have sucky computers). :3

[TheGrandMom]

Re: New 360 Pic

I don't think xbox is going to be $200, I'm guessing a minimum of 300. Or hell, it might even be $360 just as a snide pricing scheme.

Bare bones 360 is $299. Bells and whistles $399. FYI if you want to be in the FFXI beta you need to buy the one with the hard drive and thats $399.

[kuu]

Re: New 360 Pic

I don't think xbox is going to be $200, I'm guessing a minimum of 300. Or hell, it might even be $360 just as a snide pricing scheme.

you mean 360.

my 200 remark means somewhere in ps2->xbox land.

Xbox360 should out perform your current $2k computer on games. Until a couple of years down the road.

Then you add whatever accessories you want, the cost for memory card, maybe an extra controller, xbox live access, a keyboard/mouse, possibly a new tv/sound system for the HD rez, etc. I'm guessing when all is said and done the cost advantage of a console isn't too good. And then you realize it doesn't do nearly the same number of things a computer can do--it doesn't sound quite like the no-brainer gaming option it seems to be.

Since when did computers mean monitor's included? I don't see dell giving away any 21" LCD even on the most high end computers. And since when did people not have TVs. Memory cards? the next gen, epsically the PS3 will have multiple ways to stor it. And why would a normal console game need a keyboard, much less a mouse? It's not on my PS2. If I play MMO, it's another issue, but it's a option not a requirement.

You're trying to stack the cards where they should not be stacked. I don't go around adding shipping and handling on computers, or the cost of electricity, a console doesn't draw 100watts.

The efficiency of console OS will account for some extra processing power, but I highly doubt it will be enough to surpass or even match the next gen PC equipment within a year of the console releases. It will however provide more games, with more performance, at a better price point for the majority of people (who have sucky computers). :3

Not really. A consumer OS like XP is a abstraction layer. It acts as a translator to hardware. Such that by greatly enhancing what both users and programers can do on a computer is made at the cost of lots of resources.

A console doesn't suffer from much of this. Programers know what they're making on a console, and does not have to deal with much of an abstraction layer if any.

This is the reason why FFXI can run on 300mhz, no cache, 4meg of ram. By bypassing any need for extra "talking" you can quickly move in and out.

The designs of PS3 and Xbox360 are definitelly exotic, I made the case for it myself, but console game makers, are born and bred into this ideal. The first person to complain that there's not enough cache, or branch prediction gets escorted out the door.

[Agnastar]

Re: New 360 Pic

A console doesn't suffer from much of this. Programers know what they're making on a console, and does not have to deal with much of an abstraction layer if any.

This is the reason why FFXI can run on 300mhz, no cache, 4meg of ram. By bypassing any need for extra "talking" you can quickly move in and out.

More like Uniformity. Developers know what they're doing with the PS2 / XBOX360 hardware, with optimization, much more than the OS

And for another 2 cents, Sony's multicores is a waste. They won't be actually put into good use and won't matter now, for a LONG time. By then, software and other companies' hardwares will be different. GG on the futureproof, sony.

[kuu]

Re: New 360 Pic

More like Uniformity. Developers know what they're doing with the PS2 / XBOX360 hardware, with optimization, much more than the OS

And for another 2 cents, Sony's multicores is a waste. They won't be actually put into good use and won't matter now, for a LONG time. By then, software and other companies' hardwares will be different. GG on the futureproof, sony.

Read up -.-...it's even on the same page.

You can not have "Uniformity" on a PC without an OS like windows. Without an abstraction layer you would have to change the program for every peice of possible equipment. This your OS is slowing you down.

In the end no matter how you put it you need a $1000 computer to match up to a $200 console graphics. You can go theortical, but reality will never comform to it.

Sony has some vast long reaching strats and visions. Multi-core is advantageous when you have control over people to use it, and multi media purposes, such as the freaky 2 HDTV outputs. Surfing the next, chatting, and gaming? yep very possible.

All signs are good so far as PS3 leads the crowd in big names support.

[fuz]

Re: New 360 Pic

TV might have to be included because without HD or at least enhanced resolution, you won't take advantage of the 360's output. 720p on a TV only capable of 480i is just not going to do well. For computer monitors, they are often carried over from one computer to the next, just as TVs for consoles. I don't really see much difference, except that computer monitors are generally of better display quality. If you figure that 'everyone has a TV', you can also apply it to 'everone has a PC' as well. Either way some may have to upgrade completely, others, not at all.

Shipping on my computer was free from dell, even my custom built pc, the shipping costs are negligable. But that's not my point. Point is that the basic $299 price point for the 360 is not going to provide everything you need. Really, I have no idea how you would play ffxi on it (this is the main thing we're debaing here) without a keyboard. I don't even know if a s-video or component cable comes with the 360 for HD use. Maybe you have to pay for xbox live to connect online, maybe not, but I can say right now that $299 is not adequate for ffxi. My guess is more like $450-500, which isn't exactly cheap, just cheaper than a comparatively perfoming PC, that basically... only runs games.

Ffxi on ps2 runs at absolutly crap resolution, with really shoddy texturing. Yes it runs on it, and very efficiently, but it doesn't look good. No matter how efficient the hardware can run, it has limits and can't evolve like a PC. What it means on the 360 and ps3 is that though it has a head start in processing power in just transistors and efficiency, it will only carry it so far. How far, I don't have any idea yet, but the next gen GPUs for the PC are already carrying higher specs than the consoles. A year after that, dual core and the next round of GPU updates will occur.

Of course game devlopers will work on the PS3 and 360, there's just too much money to be made to give up on it. However, it doesn't get rid of the fact that the CPU is highly ususual--nor does it ignore the fact that the engineers at IBM that designed it, possibly made a significant error in allocating enough bandwith between the sub-processing units. IMO, it 'does not work as advertised'. It's not a joke either, since if it takes too long to get progams up to speed, it costs a lot of potential money in delayed devlopment.

However, MS being a software company--and one with unusually large resources, I expect them to help resolve programming issues with the cpu in efficiency and ease, better than sony.

But whatever; what I'm not debating that 360 and ps3 are cheap compared to a computer, but that these new consoles are not cheap in and of themselves. I don't just walk out and spend $400 for something, then a hundred or more for accesories like it was nothing. In addition to that, just for ffxi--it runs just fine on my computer, at nearly the same resolution, still has a decent draw distance, and can do a lot more things. So the cost saving for just ffxi does not always exist as reasonable. There needs to be more reasons (like more games that I want that are only on the consoles).

I really don't think sony has some far reaching vision of processor tech. I think what they want is simply the most power you can get which is enough to hold its ground, but for the least price. That's just business, or common sense.

[pearlsea]

Re: New 360 Pic

Computers for gaming mostly limited by the GPU, try upgrading the xbox's GPU, while PC gpu tech is constaintly advancing and upgradable. consoles make giant leaps every few years but PCs GPU's more slowly yet more consistantly. look at current PC tech compared to ps2/xbox, it whopps console ass, just cause the consoles can do it cheaper now dosent mean within 6 months from the launch pc cant beat it for the same price (only considering GPU)

The rest of the computer shouldent be a major factor (exept for a decent cpu) because id like to see all the console players try to use word or photoshop on ther consoles, If i realy wanted the best graphics now i would of waited for a xbox360 and dumped 800+ish (considering $CAN) on it but i wanted to be able to use applications too, also i cant afford new games so i download them, that wouldent be posible on a console.

PS: considing what 2 7800GTX in SLI can do now, PC tech will catch up sooner than you would think.

[fastcart]

Re: New 360 Pic

Because it was debated (not sure if it was resolved):

http://www.justgamers.de/?page=article&article_id=1914

JG: What are the detailed features of the Xbox 360 version? Which kind of graphical advance can we expect compared to the PC version?

Toshio Murouchi: The Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XI will support 1280x720p resolution and we believe that its biggest feature is that you can enjoy the gameplay on a beautiful HD screen in your living room. Then again, we did not re-create everything for this version, such as texture images, nor did we use the special graphical functions of the Xbox 360...

[Macht]

Re: New 360 Pic

More like Uniformity. Developers know what they're doing with the PS2 / XBOX360 hardware, with optimization, much more than the OS

And for another 2 cents, Sony's multicores is a waste. They won't be actually put into good use and won't matter now, for a LONG time. By then, software and other companies' hardwares will be different. GG on the futureproof, sony.

Actually the change to mulit-cores or cell technology is the next step in hardware development. Many places have already stated that they've reached the max hardware wise that they can get which is the 4GHz. So now to progress this measurement further many are looking into other options. This is were Multi-Processor Core vs. Cell comes into play.

See in a Multi-Processor core the system is subjected to Gelsinger’s law. Which basically states "Doubling the number of transistors increases performance by 40%". Most of the 40% is not even traced to the second processors core but more just that you've doubled the cache, thats it. On top of this the performance abilities you get as you increase the number of Processors is diminished with each added processor. So for example 2 cores = 40%, 3 cores = 55%, 4 cores = 68%, etc... just to get a 100% boost in comparison to 1 core you'd need like 8 cores. This is were Xbox's 360 limitation in it expandible design is flawed were PS3 has done something far greater.

The Cell architecture actually does change the program it isn't multi-threading but more precisely it's "Vector Programing" which is without a doubt the most powerful programing style there is. With vector programing cell breaks the program down into what is now called software cells which load into the hardware cells. PS3 practically is a single core with 8 worker cores, this means the main core is charged with doing the regular tasks while the 8 worker cores provide acceleration.

On top of this because of the Rambus I/O placed with the Cell processor it's able to enlist the aid of other cells on other devices that use cell processors. This makes what the cell processor do work in two ways, it can chain the cell processor to target 1 task and it isn't limited to it's own 8. Say a TV has open cells or a cell processor computer has open cells, it can chain all those cells to acomplish a task.

In the end you can have a chain of 8+ cells working to run something like video stream. you can have 2 cells working on demodulation, 1 cell handling error corrections, 1 cell handling demultiplexing & descrambling, 1 cell doing video/audio decoding, 1 cell doing video scaling, 1 cell doing display construction, and 1 cell doing constrast and brightness. That's 8 right there working on just 1 file sent, but say now 2 are being opened to run those first 8 are already taken but now you have 2 or 3 other systems with open cells to do processing, whatever is needing this done for the main processor to retrieve after and use can send out these requests to the other cells (software cell works in a 256KB environment per cell so even internet capability is possible, especially with broadband). So now it is not only your single system working to process the information but any other device with cell technology in it that your system can get ahold of, this is including devices that can be other the internet.

So basically with this design an upgrade is not updating your processor but just replacing devices that don't have a cell processor with one that does. Also since Cell Processor is architeture is around RISC processing there is no cache to limit it processing power, especially when you try to load something that's larger then the cache (When you do the system incurres a 7 cycle penalty per cycle working on this, which is were you get these ugly delays of the system stopping on you for minutes or hours).

Cell processor is actually a very intelligent design, and if the processing power really has met it's peak with a single processor in it's current design then the cell processor or multi-processor cores is the next step. I personally love the design of the cell processor and it's potential. Enough for now though, I really need to be going.

[Manatra]

Re: New 360 Pic

Doesn't matter how powerful the PS3 is with it's multi-core architecture. The fact is, developers don't have the tools to utilize it properly. The same can be said for the Xbox360. To quote Gabe Newell on the PS3:

There are incredibly few programmers who can safely write code in the PlayStation 3 environment.

(Source: http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.as...filter=&rp=357 )

Writing code in parallel flat out *sucks* and until the tool are available, that isn't going to change. This is the main reason why the PS3 and Xbox360 aren't going to be very big jumps over the PC in terms of graphics.

[kuu]

Re: New 360 Pic

Doesn't matter how powerful the PS3 is with it's multi-core architecture. The fact is, developers don't have the tools to utilize it properly. The same can be said for the Xbox360. To quote Gabe Newell on the PS3:



(Source: http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.as...filter=&rp=357 )

Writing code in parallel flat out *sucks* and until the tool are available, that isn't going to change. This is the main reason why the PS3 and Xbox360 aren't going to be very big jumps over the PC in terms of graphics.

Untrue. You're trying to put apples and oranges together just because they're both fruits.

We are talking about the CPU here not the GPU. While they are related, they are at same time doing different things. The PS3 will still have some amazing graphics to push out, the problem will be what developers do with it. (We know by now that ffxi can look loads better set at high rez if graphics cards allow)

Making a cinematic pictures isn't quite that hard, as they have a lot of pixels they can put. Where CPU largely comes in is what you do with it afterwards. As mentioned, physics, dynamic rendering, and many other things is where the cpu gets complex.

The game will "feel" lacking, but the eye candy is still going to be up there. Programers can choose to keep things single threaded traditional (give and take depending on what the game is doing), while upping graphics. Say having MvC remake, only replacing all bitmaps with high rez bitmaps, and HD mpg backround.

Of course this is like "worse case" senerio, most developers will make some use of the ps3 weirdness.

Now this brings us to another interesting problems, the Nividia GPU programmable pixel shader... This is both good and bad... it's good that you can do some amazing things, but at the cost of more customized coding. Well there should be tools to speed that, but it's more work in the end obviously. I doubt this is a requirement, but it's another thing to think about in the ps3 development cycle.

And finally a tid-bid from the PS3 news trinkling out. It seems that PS3 is even MORE powerful then the demos we saw(assuming they're rendered rt) The 1st development boxes sent out(which the demos were made in) had no GPU, and had a lower clockspeed Cell CPU( at about 75%). This means that whatever strangeous conditions those demos were made in, should be easier on the final version.