01011001
Banned
The horrors and difficulty in playing on PC on large screens. /s
that would mean you have to...

CONNECT YOUR PC TO A TV!

The horrors and difficulty in playing on PC on large screens. /s
The beginning of that generation was a bad period for PC gaming. Very powerful consoles were available for much cheaper. Console exclusives were still a thing even on Xbox, and PC exclusives were rare. Steam hadn't found its footing yet. Once the Steam sales spun up I didn't go back though.I actually did the opposite and dropped PC gaming from 2007-2012 or so. It was hard to go back when I could play HD games on a screen much larger than my monitor and for much cheaper overall.
My first ever console was an Xbox 360 so i was born into HD gaming, it doesnt make me any less impressed by the jump from Genesis to PS1, or PS1 to OG XboxGod bless John Linneman and DF for caring about this stuff and doing such high-quality retrospectives. I was thinking the other day how graphics and the evolution of tech have played a much smaller role in the lives of gamers in their teens and early 20s. People who grew up with HD gaming are unlikely to have the same level of appreciation for the mind-boggling rate of progress that we saw from the late 80s to the 7th generation of consoles.
1080p only test? What about 120 fps games? lol
![]()
PS3 could run at 120 fps
Sony Computer Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has claimed that the PlayStation 3 will run games at an unprecedented (an…www.eurogamer.net
PS3 could run at 120 fps
According to Ken Kutaragi.
News by Ellie Gibson Contributor
Updated on 31 Oct 2005
Sony Computer Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has claimed that the PlayStation 3 will run games at an unprecedented (and perhaps rather pointless) 120 frames per second.
According to Japanese news service Nikkei BP, Kutaragi's comments were made at the Tokyo International Digital Conference last week where he turned up to extol the virtues of the PS3 and its Cell processor. And, of course, to make his rather astonishing claim.
It's particularly interesting because there isn't actually a TV in the world which can refresh the screen at a rate of 120 times per second. Kutaragi acknowledged this, but said he wants the PS3 to be ready to make the best of the technology once it finally arrives.
Kutaragi pointed out that the Cell chip can decode more than ten HDTV channels at a time, and can be used for rotating and zooming effects. He also discussed some of the different ways in which it could be used - to display actual-size newspaper pages, for example, to show more than one HD channel on the screen at a time, or for video conferences.
Kutaragi also explained how a processing power of 25.6 teraflops could be achieved - by creating a Cell cluster server with 16 units, each made up of eight Cell processors running at 2.5Ghz.
that would mean you have to...
![]()
CONNECT YOUR PC TO A TV!
![]()
The horrors and difficulty in playing on PC on large screens. /s
the ps3 looks WAY better on a HDready tv
The 360 Xenos is inferior to the RSX in high quality rendering and polygon throughput, the only advantage it had was the tiny edram buffer bandwidth - that couldn't fit 1280x720 at RGBA8888 with a 32bit zbuffer in double buffered mode - but was ideal for accumulation buffer fx.The cell processor was too good for the ps3's other components. if it had an identical gpu as 360 and some more RAM, 1080p wouldn't be so crazy (when cell is fully leveraged for graphics tasks) But games targeting 720p would look a lot better too... Imagine killzone 2 on such a PS3.
From what is know yes, PS2’s Graphics Synthesizer (which assumed all vertex processing do be done on the CPU, but had limited programmability, still it had a Z buffer so calling it a 2D GPU is not incorrect but not correct either IMHO) was to be replaced by a GPU called RS with a lot more eDRAM (more than Xenos) and pixel shaders so it was jumping to fully programmable pixel pipelines. Still, it did not make the cut and Sony had to quickly jump onto a last minute deal with nVIDIA (good tooling at least) with a GPU that had some interesting performance bugs on the vertex processing/triangle setup side of things and a last minute bit botched FlexIO implementation (where CPU access to GPU memory and viceversa was a bit screwed up and asymmetrical making the programming model worse as a result).The 360 Xenos is inferior to the RSX in high quality rendering and polygon throughput, the only advantage it had was the tiny edram buffer bandwidth - that couldn't fit 1280x720 at RGBA8888 with a 32bit zbuffer in double buffered mode - but was ideal for accumulation buffer fx.
Had Microsoft needed a direct financial return on project Xbox some day - like all normal gaming companies like Atari, Sega, Nintendo, Sony - the 360 would have never launched when it did at those specs. It certainly wouldn't have had 512MB of unified RAM that Epic begged Microsoft to put in the console - instead of the original 256MB - and they would have clocked the Xenon much lower to avoid RRoD - instead of upping it to 3.2GHz to pressure the poor yields of Cell BE to remain at 3.2GHz. The PS3 original design was dual Cell BE processors, 512MB of unified XDR memory and a powerful 2D GPU (similar in flexibility to the Reality Synth of the PS2 produced by Toshiba). The last minute revised design halving the Cell BE count, halving the XDR and licensing an expensive nvidia GTX 9700 grade GPU - with no cost reduction benefit over the generation - is all why we ended up trapped with double/triple buffered deferred renderer 720p25-30 gaming on PS3 for most games - other than sim racers and fighting games that typically went forward renderer with simpler lighting and 1080p60 was used from time to time.
… and. SuperAudio CD player too, Sony ended up disabling support for it on consoles that had full playback support of that formatThe launch PS3 model was the most complete console ever.
Think of it, it’s 2006 and you have a console that has WiFi, HDMI, card readers, a hard drive to put all your photos, music, and video.
It was also a CD player, DVD player, and a Blu-ray player.
With a built-in internet browser with mouse and keyboard + printer support.
Last but not least, you could play your PS1, PS2, and PS3 games on the same system; you could also download abd store your PSP and Vita games there too.
It’s a shame that the launch model is unreliable and prone to failure.
Isn’t Rigde Racer 7 playbe on series X now? Does that clean up the image? It looks so good here on PS3
It was a dark age for Sony fans for sure. Something about the PS3 just felt off to me. The PS1 and PS2 flourished with the best RPG, fighting games and all that stuff. The PS3, especially at first, almost offered nothing of the sort. And to make matters worse FF, Tekken, DMC they all went multiplatform and JRPGs were barely a thing on PS3 for a while. Sony didn't lose those games, but all reasons to specifically buy a Playstation were gone for me as those were the games I bought Playstations for. On top of that the industry moved towards FPS, co-op, everything had to feature this.The PS3 might be the most useless console I've ever owned. Multiplats were almost always better on X360 and the few exclusives it had that interested me all got PS4 remasters/ports relatively soon after.
Yes. Even before 2007. Almost as easy as it is today.![]()
In 2007? The same 2007 where Steam was barely a few years in, WoW was still taxing on most machines, and Windows Vista was a thing? With those PC part prices costing as much as all of the consoles combined and barely any assisting websites or tools were around for building help? The same 2007 where mini towers and console sized cases weren’t a big thing yet so you still had to haul giant ugly towers around? Where plug and play devices and controllers weren’t fully standardized yet? When people were still buying Gateway PCs and Circuit City existed?
Yea…I don’t blame that poster for doing what he did. I would have done the same.
Yeah, IIRC from my time with PS2linux, the Emotion Engine dual vector processing (co-processor?) was a flexible combination of a physics accelerator card - that existed at the time - and the vertex/geometry shader pipeline part of a opengl 2.1 GPU, leaving it to the designer how much they wanted to divy up use for Physics/inverse kinematics and vert H/W T&L before feeding the RealitySynth - which IIRC used GPU assembler for fragment shading, although might have done the geometry part too - as I remember the paper about Caramack's reversal (Doom3 shadowing technique that CreativeLabs owned the patent for) being efficiently accelerated on PS2 hardware.From what is know yes, PS2’s Graphics Synthesizer (which assumed all vertex processing do be done on the CPU, but had limited programmability, still it had a Z buffer so calling it a 2D GPU is not incorrect but not correct either IMHO) was to be replaced by a GPU called RS with a lot more eDRAM (more than Xenos) and pixel shaders so it was jumping to fully programmable pixel pipelines. Still, it did not make the cut and Sony had to quickly jump onto a last minute deal with nVIDIA (good tooling at least) with a GPU that had some interesting performance bugs on the vertex processing/triangle setup side of things and a last minute bit botched FlexIO implementation (where CPU access to GPU memory and viceversa was a bit screwed up and asymmetrical making the programming model worse as a result).
Congratulations on misleading others apparently P Panajev2001a , but the worse graphics card in the PS3 was self evidently true when developers didn't properly utilize the cell processor ; you ended up with games like the darkness which was 1280x720 with 16x AF and 4x msaa on Xbox 360, and 540/576p on PS3 with inferior AF and no msaa. It was patently worse at msaa which is why you would frequently see either less msaa on PS3, none, or quincunx aa.The 360 Xenos is inferior to the RSX in high quality rendering and polygon throughput, the only advantage it had was the tiny edram buffer bandwidth -
RR7 isn't on Xbox, but 6 is playable and its very similar. Its not boosted but it delivered 900p ish 60fps native on 360 so it still looks fine. It works but for some reason its never been added to the EU store. I have to switch accounts to boot it up.
It was a dark age for Sony fans for sure. Something about the PS3 just felt off to me. The PS1 and PS2 flourished with the best RPG, fighting games and all that stuff. The PS3, especially at first, almost offered nothing of the sort. And to make matters worse FF, Tekken, DMC they all went multiplatform and JRPGs were barely a thing on PS3 for a while. Sony didn't lose those games, but all reasons to specifically buy a Playstation were gone for me as those were the games I bought Playstations for. On top of that the industry moved towards FPS, co-op, everything had to feature this.
The PS3 was just a hard sell. Worse performance on average than 360, slower system in general, many exclusives that made PS2 so good were gone. Slow installations and update processes, unpacking games after downloading them. Many times when I wanted to quickly fire up a game I decided to just quit when I saw another update screen. I hated a lot about the PS3. Consoles were supposed to be plug and play, no bullshit. Enter PS3, here's 30 minutes waiting for a mandatory installation or update. And then most games would run at a low ass resolution with a pathetic framerate.
PS3 got better over time, in its twilight years it was the place to be for core gaming while MS alienated itself for some bizarre reason (motion controls). But PS3 never had the same magic the PS1 and PS2 had in their respective eras. Never was I so glad that a console generation was dropped. The PS4 fixed a lot of problems I had with PS3, mainly with IQ, performance and installation processes. Though it created new ones such as limited compability with peripherals, online paywall etc. I did hate the Pro though, but mainly for its fucking fan noise and lack of UHD playback.
And it had SuperAudioCD playback, it could also TvTvTv (with PlayTV) recording HD tv simultaneously (while in a DF faceoffThe launch PS3 model was the most complete console ever.
Think of it, it’s 2006 and you have a console that has WiFi, HDMI, card readers, a hard drive to put all your photos, music, and video.
It was also a CD player, DVD player, and a Blu-ray player.
With a built-in internet browser with mouse and keyboard + printer support.
Last but not least, you could play your PS1, PS2, and PS3 games on the same system; you could also download and store your PSP and Vita games there too.
It’s a shame that the launch model is unreliable and prone to failure.
You are flat out wrong if you go check meaningful specs rather than a opaque situation with why a game ends up in state X or Y on two different consoles with their tool chains and the game's launch contracts surrounded in NDAs. The independently held information and comparison with state of the art PC gpus of the time place the RSX far ahead in quality rendering capabilities - hence why it is in the Sony Zego that was used for professional media creation where they could have choose anything within the budget.Congratulations on misleading others apparently P Panajev2001a , but the worse graphics card in the PS3 was self evidently true when developers didn't properly utilize the cell processor ; you ended up with games like the darkness which was 1280x720 with 16x AF and 4x msaa on Xbox 360, and 540/576p on PS3 with inferior AF and no msaa. It was patently worse at msaa which is why you would frequently see either less msaa on PS3, none, or quincunx aa.
Rsx was also inferior when it comes to alpha effects which you could regularly see like the flamethrower effect in killzone 2 being low res, and multiplats like bioshock used lower resolution alpha on the PS3 versions.
Games like motorstorm apocalyptic eventually ditched transparent explosions for a solid looking effect because it was easier on the rsx.
Sony got duped into buying an inferior graphics solution at the last minute by Nvidia...
Nope, but go ahead and try arguing that point on beyond3d if you like.You are flat out wrong if you go check meaningful specs rather than a opaque situation with why a game ends up in state X or Y on two different consoles with their tool chains and the game's launch contracts surrounded in NDAs. The independently held information and comparison with state of the art PC gpus of the time place the RSX far ahead in quality rendering capabilities - hence why it is in the Sony Zego that was used for professional media creation where they could have choose anything within the budget.
Almost all games have the wrong gamma on 360, specifically called 360 gamma, you even see it in John's video where the Virtua Tennis 3 isn't a perfect match on 360, because the colours are oversaturated(wrong).Nope, but go ahead and try arguing that point on beyond3d if you like.
What I said regarding alpha, msaa and generally having less pixel pushing throughput due to fixed pixel pipelines is very true, but you're welcome to produce evidence against. Without the Cell processor being used as a bandaid for the aged rsx gpu you would have never seen multiplat games in a better state vs. launch.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said or anything regarding performance...Almost all games have the wrong gamma on 360, specifically called 360 gamma, you even see it in John's video where the Virtua Tennis 3 isn't a perfect match on 360, because the colours are oversaturated(wrong).
It is, because that's the inferior stuff you find in budget rubbish of the time. If the Xenos had to take the hit on every game to render the same - identical polygon counts, pixels, framebuffer formats, etc, etc, like being gamma correct - it would render slower than the PS3's RSX.Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said or anything regarding performance...
Sorry but what
If memory serves a lot of people didn't even have flat screens yet when it launched.
???Sorry but what? Thoughts about people spreading performance metrics on either GPU? Sorry, but that is in your head.
I did not comment on the performance of one chip vs the other, just commented on GS vs RS and the RS itself (and some of the bugs the chip had with geometry processing performance and CPU - GPU asymmetric access to the common system bus). Did you read what I posted????
Apparently you think the rubbish the other poster presented was accurate, is what I meant
Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't utilize the edram on Xbox 360 in that case.StateofMajora
It is interesting that you think the RSX was being carried by the Cell BE SPUs, but in VF5b(on PS3) and VF5c(on 360), the PS3 version is using just the PPU and the RSX, and the 360 version had a slightly better CPU (because it was 3 symmetrical cores 6 logical cores with shared cache) and yet higher polygon counts on PS3 version, higher resolution, and higher resolution or uncompressed textures, and zero tearing (v-sync double buffered), Gamma correct too, and it is older code, with a less established tool chain.
If anything PS3 seems to be a bit more powerful than 360 when fully pushed (in order to truly know we'd have to see what Sony devs like Guerilla and ND could have achieved on 360) but it was a Frankenstein design which required far too much effort to extract equal performance vs Xbox 360.I did not comment on the performance of one chip vs the other, just commented on GS vs RS and the RS itself (and some of the bugs the chip had with geometry processing performance and CPU - GPU asymmetric access to the common system bus). Did you read what I posted?
Anyways, personally the two chips, RSX bugs and all, had some pro’s and con’s, but PS3’s biggest cons one is that the state of RSX and its integration should have delayed PS3 a year more/maximising its performance needed 1-2 additional years as a result. As a console, not as separate components PS3 pushed to the max was no slouch vs Xbox 360 pushed to the max, but PS3 needed a big rethink and realignment for devs (including their first party ones).
Which is a big reason why 7th gen consoles were so impressive, especially on demo kiosks at Best Buy or whatever. I'll never forget seeing Call of Duty 2 on a 55" Samsung HDTV in 2005. I had been gaming at 1600x1200 for years before that on PC, but that was on small CRT monitors. Seeing even a 720p image on a very large screen was breathtaking.If memory serves a lot of people didn't even have flat screens yet when it launched.
Sega AM2 working on a paid Xbox online port of VF5 targeting 60fps aren't using the Edram, really?Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't utilize the edram on Xbox 360 in that case.
..
Weren't those typically something like 768p? Which doesn't match anything the PS3 can output.
Yeah. FF13 even was bundled in with Xbox 360 consoles in a marketing deal, but yet the game didn't use edram.Sega AM2 working on a paid Xbox online port of VF5 targeting 60fps aren't using the Edram, really?
If anything PS3 seems to be a bit more powerful than 360 when fully pushed (in order to truly know we'd have to see what Sony devs like Guerilla and ND could have achieved on 360) but it was a Frankenstein design which required far too much effort to extract equal performance vs Xbox 360.
Sony literally just should have gotten an identical gpu as 360 from ati or better yet, not accepted Nvidia's old crap and opted for the 8xxx series chipset which would have smoked 360 even without leveraging the cell for graphics.
It was the resolution was also adapted to fit the edram, so no, AM2 were using edram and pretty sure if I check games they released before on the 360 it will be utilised too.Yeah. FF13 even was bundled in with Xbox 360 consoles in a marketing deal, but yet the game didn't use edram.
Without edram the 360 has slightly less than half the bandwidth vs. PS3 which would explain your vf5 example. But y'know, it's hard to know what happened without talking to the developers.
Your tearing comment is incorrect ; MS just liked to push adaptive vsync on 360 as an option. You can see certain Xbox series x games using adaptive vsync (tearing when the fps dips) vs. PS5 versions.
yes, but many could accept 1080i and downsample from that
the 360 was a way better fit for HD Ready TVs tho as it could actually scale the image to a fitting 768p
No Blu ray would have been a shame tbh, it was just good for disc durability, higher quality audio and not having to swap discs.Yes this is what I've used to think about. What if the PS3 GPU was a tad better, the GF7 was notorious for its lack of AA+HDR if i'm not mistaken. GF8 would absolutely blow the 360 out of the water. Sega Europa-R ran on GF8, it did Sega Rally 3 with track deformation at 60fps for example. But then again you'd probably at even higher assembly costs. All which could've been offset by not including BR. and/or perhaps dropping Rambus XDR.
I luckily skipped the whole "HD Ready" phase since it seemed dumb (and not future proof) already back then, and instead went directly to 1080p.
I'm open to being wrong but you'd have to present evidence. As I said, mine is a theory regards vf5 but it would make sense.It was the resolution was also adapted to fit the edram, so no, AM2 were using edram and pretty sure if I check games they released before on the 360 it will be utilised too.
It was 128mb, what the PS3 os used early on. It never reached 14mb ; in the end it used 50mb while Xbox 360 os used only 32mb.Your view of the Xenos with the Darkness seems more like the 512MB of unified RAM played a bigger part for DirectX lead developers working with the PS3 in its early days, where 90MB or more (iirc) were being used by the OS, and even when fully optimised PS3 devs still had to deal with the flexIO as P Panajev2001a talked about even when the OS was using just 14MB of the GDDR3.
And your CRT also as light and as thin as an LCD tooYes. Even before 2007. Almost as easy as it is today.
Yes. Even before 2007. Almost as easy as it is today.