Hmmm........... according to ID software the 360 version of rage. Although they admitted 360 is easier to work with but they also said it would be slightly worst compared to PS3 because of restricted data on DVD. They need multiple disks for that and probably will try to put everything in 2-3 DVD but later they said they are going to make changes so that problem will not occur. Moreover MGS4 has some nice textures too... and it uses lot of blu-ray These days most games do have install in HDD and if that means no loading times, it is worth it Textures always will looks better on PC because of more memory and that is not PS3 strongest point but as already mentioned by xrc6. In total it has 256mb DDR3 + 256mb XDR @3.2ghz. This is the secret of KZ2 atmosphere: http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/game-types/first-person-shooters/guerilla-games-spus-secret-ps3-s-performance-$1262922.htm
I didn't even mention the 360? I'm talking about the PS3 vs the PC. Yes XDR ram can be used as graphics ram(hence 80% of 512 = ~400megs), but it's the equivalent of using system memory as shared memory with nvidia's turbocache. It's often avoided by developers, and it can only be read as fast as the DDR3. As for installing to the HD, there is still loading the texture from the HD into ram. It's quicker, but it still exists, so you still only get 512max memory to work with every load. Where as with a modern machine with say a GTX280 and ~4g ram, you have up to 3g of graphics memory to work with. And yes my entire point is that textures will always be better on a PC.
The reason why i said uncharted was regarded the best looking console game and it streams all the textures is because you said this, and the textures are higher in uncharted than most console games.
... 1. We are talking about console vs pc. I don't care if the best looking console game in the entire world comes out tomorrow, in this thread we are still comparing it to the best looking PC game. 2. There are multiple things that go into graphics, not just textures. You can have terrible textures and still have a good looking game. I can have a 10+M polygon character that I created, but because I made it, it would look absolutely horrible, with no detail whatsoever. 3. My point in this thread, is that the top of the line PC has the ability to - Render textures way higher then any console can. Render an enormous amount of polygons more then any console can. Render advanced shader algorithms that would bring the 7800(ps3)/Unified ATi thing(xbox) cards in the console to their knees. An Enormous memory budget. Newer DX10/DX11 features Etc.. 4. Since a console game is simply limited by all these things, it will never have better graphics then a modern day PC game.
more ram woudlnt help the current games. it restricts the devs, its not a bottleneck on any game out now. since its not upgradable, never will be. Though they do a pretty good job of working around console limitations you have to admit. I'm not sure who doesnt know that, maybe those who are not hardware enthusiasts but their better off financial wise to never experience top tech visuals. Cost wise, you cant beat a console's graphics and thats that. when i look at FC2 on ps3 and PC, obviously the PC looks clearer and better overall, but at the time i bought my gear, it costed $650 alone for the GPU. hard for many people to justify a bit better graphics and higher resolutions for the cost difference you spend to get it. enthusiasts like me and you love it and dont mind the cost...but really it is kinda stupid waste of money for what you get by comparison to a console. higher res and crisper textures is the main difference and it sure is an expensive difference too. I'd be curious to know how much guru's have spent on their rig since the PS3's release just for games, for me its more than $2k but i change hardware often yet i know its stupid money for most people considering i dont get a whole lot more out of my games for that. i do it cause i enjoy PC's but ya know.
Nice common-sense post! KZ2 looks good but it looks like the devs have done everything possible to cover up hardware limitations to make it look nice, instead of actually creating something extremely detailed etc (Crysis). A bit like taking a poor photo and photoshopping it to hell to make it look good, instead of actually taking a good photo. I guess the PC will almost always have the edge but will forever be the "untamed beast". The consoles may always lack the raw power compared to their bigger brothers but the devs know exactly what they're dealing with. To the poster that said "I'd love to see KZ2 running on a PC with a 7800" - I'd love to see the PS3 run Windows and all it's services as well as KZ2 at the same time
It's a bottleneck in terms of developing the game. http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2008/GDC2008_CrossPlatformDevelopment.pdf ^- Is a great article on console development and dealing with the memory limitations in consoles. It explains how on a PC you don't need to really worry much about texture optimizations and stuff but on a console every little detail matters. Unfortunately a lot of people don't realize these limitations. I mean just look at the original poster " BUT i have NEVER SEEN GRAPHICS LIKE KILLZONE 2". Well I guess he hasn't seen Crysis. You're right about cost. I have a PS3, have about 20+ games for it. Spent $600 on it when it was released. My PC on the other hand, I probably spent about $3000 on since 2006. I've had several memory/motherboard/graphics card/liquid cooling/hd changes. Plus the initial purchase.
I spent 700euro( cost me 200euro from selling my old stuff ) 2 years ago on my rig apart from a gfx card( 8800gt ) which cost me 230euro and is 17 months old now. The only 2 games that dont run at max @ 1680x1050 with 40FPS are Crysis/Warhead and GTA IV. I agree if you want the absolute max all the time it will cost you an absolute fortune, however ill harp back to my ps2 eara, in 5 years gaming on it i spend at least 2500 euro on peripherals( remote control, 2 mem cards, extra controller, 4 player hub ) and stuff like region free DVD, ive now got 20 full price games which i paid 60 euro each for and 5 or 6 platinum games never mind what i traded in. At the same time on the PC i spent the exact same, had the same number of games( because theyre usually way cheaper ) but ended up with a rig that only cost me 200 euro minus gfx card to upgrade to my current rig Gaming on consoles and PC costs the EXACT same over the lifetime of the console, what you spend on hardware on the PC you spend on the extra cost of games and peripherals on consoles. What i do find and which may be changing with all these ports is i got e.g. Battlefield 2 on my PC and only bought 1 game in a year and a half, that game was Resi 4 but i never played it as its not the same as the enjoyment from a few rounds of BF2. PC hardware costs a lot at the start but selling old stuff and getting new replacements reduces the cost significantly( last year i upgraded from a 4200+ X2, ASrock 939 mobo with 1.6Gig DDR1 ram to an Asus P5K pro - P35 mobo, E7200 and 2 gig DDR2 ram for a total cost of 70euro and i had the old system for 2 years at that stage ). I do spend extra money on crap for my PC( N+ wireles router, external harddrive, 360 wireless controller - becoming a necessity now, convinced herself to get a semi decent gaming laptop as opposed to intel integrated crap ) but that from enthusiasm rather than just gaming which id regard as completely seperate At the end of the day, im an enthusiast, BUT im i get more enjoyment from bang for buck than absolute best uber visuals( however i always make sure that i have something recently decent and my 8800GT isint event looking old now with the crap ports were getting on PC with the same textures etc as the console versions )
though i see what you mean, peripherals expense are your own fault. they dont have anything to do with playing the game as in how it looks and performs. same with PC. How and where you purchase your games is another personal liability cause theirs both new and used for both platforms..etc. I rent my PS3 games for $24 a month, i have payed more on some PC games i ordered due to shipping cost.....so cant really count that either
I know what you mean, its situational, the peripheral thing with extra controllers or 4 player adaptors is more inherent with consoles tough as theyre more fun for party atmospheres and for me that is their niche For me with the cost of PC game they drop to around half what they were on release on average 2 months after release, which is fine because we waited an extra 6-10 months for te PC version anyway. It depends what your into, i get a lot of enjoyment playing old stuff on the PC using Mame and the NES/Megadrive/Amiga emulators. I like my games...a lot and never tire of the old stuff, i get more time out of my PC than i do on consoles even though i try and own both always
Windows wouldn't run naively. You'd have to emulate, which emulation already takes a hell of a lot out of a system. KZ2 is made to run on the PS3, nothing else. They did that, to get the best possible visuals on a console. Not a PC, not a 360, or a Wii. Which, 2 of the 3 there are consoles, but don't have KZ2. If they tried to make something as detailed as Crysis, it probably wouldn't run. So, they do the best they can.
i think he means the concept of running an OS along with a game as opposed to just the game like in the old DOS times( where games ran far faster than with Wi*** and if games ran natively on boot on PC would run a lot faster also ) Im all for consoles looking their best and having games that take the best advantage of the hardware, but the thread is titled PC vs Killzone 2( graphics ), PC will always be ahead, its advancing all the time, console is static and yes the devs can push the hardware to the limits, but it has limits, PC's only limitation is time till the next hardare release
Exactly, which is why the "argument" of someone saying "I'd like to see a PC with a 7800 run it" is completely moot...
what i dont understand is this: a ps3 has a nvidia 7800 in it, some sexy ddr2 ram(from what i understand 512mb of it), and some processor(dont know what). Why wont they just slam a nice gpu in there? to high costs? for 650 euro(the price for a ps3 here) you can build a pc much better than a ps3 so i dont understand what they do with all the money to make a ps3, the looks, software? why dont they sit down at a table and discuss where they need to putt theyre money in and bring us a real console with a real gpu in it and a bit more ram... the moment they do that, ALL gamedevelopers will switch to consoles (since they are much easier) AND better graphics!, also way less pirating(since most pirating is done on pc's) ps. I never hope it will come to this, **** consoles a better idea: either amd or intel decides to quit giving the full market to the other company (the company decides to be real nice and keep low prices,good quality etc) same happens with ati and nvidia so they will make standard pc's like: low med high ultra hyper nerdo high game developers see that its the easiest sollution, only thing they have to do is make 1 game for 1 platform. then they make a rule all games should be playable with a medium pc. so you have 3 graphics options (med, high and ultrablablal...) tada! offcource the 4 levels of pc's are custamizable with eachother, so if you have a medium pc and you need more multitasking possibility you can only slam in some ram from the ultra hich pc, so you dont have to buy the other crap you dont need.
PS3 costs $448.73 to make. Cell costs $46.46 Gpu costs $58.01 Psu costs $21.50 add bluray, wifi, memory card reader, harddrive, motherboard... The GPU is called the RSX, its not a 7800. It was designed around the same time. But it was designed between Sony and Nvidia. Said to be 2x a 6800ultra. it runs @ 650mhz(gpu core) on 256mb of DDR3 700mhz ram. The system(PS3) runs on 256mb 3.2ghz XDR ram.
meh, just bring a fully equipped Gran Turismo and the ps3 has it's game to be proud off, no racing game has ever surpassed GT imo. They combine realism with gameplay and well... just a heapload of cars and tracks However, texture quality on Killzone trailers look rather low compared to pc. But that's common for consoles.
It's called an RSX, but the amount of vertex/pixel pipelines, their clock speed and the overall architecture puts it at basically a slightly overclocked 7800. You have to remember that the original PS3 design called for two cell processors, the second for graphics and then they opted to put in an nvidia chip at the end. Also, slapping another card is less about cost then it is about standardization. The reason why it's so much more economical to design for consoles is because they never change. When you design a game for say a PC, you account for a metric ****-ton of end user variables. API's like DX make this easier and easier but it's still tough. On a console you know exactly what you are running on. Also, the reason why they get these chips so cheap is because they buy a bunch a time. If they were constantly changing based on whats the fastest or newest they'd be buying a lot less and at more times.
If their is one thing i`ve noticed over the last 17 years of being a pc user/gamer,is that graphics have frequently take presidence over gameplay. So it`s little wonder that games like crysis may look amazing, but will not win any awards for longevity or replayability. Killzone 2 looks stunning and is backed up by great online/offline gameplay. NG consoles may not have the luxury of ludicrous amounts of ram and cpu/gpu power, but they do a damn good job when it comes to gaming.
