PSVita Uncharted 3 better graphics then 2 ? How does golden abyss compare

[thehunter01]

UC3 on top, golden abyss at bottom- all cutscenes use in game engine confirmed by naughty dog.
Also if you can find a better picture for golden abyss, give a link and i will change it

Sully UC3 vs UC2

Water- UC3

Golden abyss

most if not all of the uc3 department got pushed from gci trailer that was specifically made. the E3 demonstration clearly wasn't anywhere near that level. Therefor its not how the game is going to look like. Its probably a gci enhanced video part. like the earlier trailer of uncharted 3. therefor the comparison is false in my opinion.

 

[thehunter01]

Yeah i know, and thats only multiplayer, single player is so much better. I use to think that Vita was as powerful as ps3 but after looking into ps3 tech i realized that the ps3 cell is 3x the power of the 360 cpu. Also the cell can do the same graphical calculations that the gpu does and raises floating point numbers past 360. The 360 does 1.1 gflops, and the PS3 does 2.1 gflops and 360 can do 355 billion floating point performance, and ps3 can do 2.1 trillion floating point performance AND PS vita has a better CPU then 360. Also this is because PSV has a quad core and 360 has a triple core

what has anything to do with anything, you are just pulling out numbers that have absolute no translation towards hardware performance aspect.

Do you actually know what the numbers mean?

The PSvita cpu's 4 cores combined are about on the performance of 1 single xbox360 cpu.

You are comparing oranges with apples. it says absolute nothing.

The ps3 has a incredible fast cell cpu ( for the console generation ) but clearly lacks dedicated gpu power, the xbox360 has faster gpu / slower cpu which makes it push beyond easiler the same or better graphical solutions on gpu level without having to dig into a whole cell system. therefor you can conclude that both systems ps3/xbox360 are about equal, everybody got there strenghts and lows.

The PS3 / xbox360 ultilize top notch products. the vita is still a generation on gpu level and on cpu level multiple generations away from it.

The whole thing about the vita = small screen which makes it beyond more easier to push lower graphical enviroments to make it appeal higher quality.

 

[thehunter01]

I don't think so, because the clockspeed for the 360 xenon cpu is 3.2ghz to Vita's max theoretical performance of 2ghz per core.

Mhz has absolute nothing to do with anything if the architectures are no exactly the same. MHZ is just a number inside a formula to jump towards other numbers that can translate towards the power of a device.

a 1ghz 3ds cpu for example isn't coming close towards a 1ghz a9 cpu for example through other factors.

The same goes for gpu's. a pica200 on 200mhz isn't coming anywhere near close a 200mhz powervr gpu.

 

[thehunter01]

It can't handle ffxiii, but is still very capable

and the other comment about uncharted isn''t able to run on the xbox360. which is not completely right.

Both games are clearly capable of running on a xbox360. the reason only why its not there or lacking like the ps3 version = because developers that do push hardware will have massive issue's with both consoles.

The PS3 is a strong device on cpu level + alocating gpu tasks towards cpu department. If you want to port this you either have to entirely rebuild the game for the xbox360 or just to downgrade it towards levels that it becomes acceptable for the company.

The same thing basically happens with the xbox360>ps3. if a game is builded for the xbox360 like alan wake and ported towards the ps3, a company needs to massively downgrade the graphical quality in order to make it run on the gpu of the ps3. or either program the entire thing again.

This is what crysis 2 for example did. Program it from the bone on the ps3 and xbox360. but it costs a lot to do this. Final fantasy clearly didn''t had the budget for it and did go cheap on the port solution through going almost bankrupt by the game.

The architectures are massively different from the xbox360 and ps3. thats why i stated earlier that both consoles have problems with eachother games unless they are optimized for it.

the ps3 can for example jump towards larger open world games on a lesser graphical solution really really good. But the xbox360 prevents this from happening as the xbox360 was build around a 50/50 cpu/gpu. and not a 75/25 cpu/gpu solutoin as the ps3. The extra gpu power is easily allocated towards higher quality graphical games without much of a efford. but other things get sacrificed.

As people want more and more realistic games, the ps3 gets basically murdered by a crappy gpu which limits the cell massively. as the cell gets massively cannibalized through supporting the gpu with tasks in order to get the same appearence as the xbox360 version.

PS3 was build around having massive worlds on clean + a big more graphical solution quality ps2 games. Not for high graphical 2/3 characters upfront and small area's. where the xbox360 shines on and the gaming has jumped towards it in order to keep remotely in track with PC's through being able to dump a hell lot of polygons in order to give the same appearance while simple pulling this filtering out on PC department.

The PS3 would indeed be stronger through its cell, if the cell could do where it was builded for entirely, and not limited by a gpu that eats its resources up massively in order to get the same solution.

therefor neither console is stronger then the other, while they do have both advantages over eachother. the xbox360 has clearly the gpu department which is beyond stronger as dedicated hardware, and the ps3 has the cpu department.

thats why you see downgraded mmo's ( or atleast planned ) on the ps3 earlier and running mostly better then the xbox360.

 

[Lenny Lautengco]

and the other comment about uncharted isn''t able to run on the xbox360. which is not completely right.

Both games are clearly capable of running on a xbox360. the reason only why its not there or lacking like the ps3 version = because developers that do push hardware will have massive issue's with both consoles.

The PS3 is a strong device on cpu level + alocating gpu tasks towards cpu department. If you want to port this you either have to entirely rebuild the game for the xbox360 or just to downgrade it towards levels that it becomes acceptable for the company.

The same thing basically happens with the xbox360>ps3. if a game is builded for the xbox360 like alan wake and ported towards the ps3, a company needs to massively downgrade the graphical quality in order to make it run on the gpu of the ps3. or either program the entire thing again.

This is what crysis 2 for example did. Program it from the bone on the ps3 and xbox360. but it costs a lot to do this. Final fantasy clearly didn''t had the budget for it and did go cheap on the port solution through going almost bankrupt by the game.

The architectures are massively different from the xbox360 and ps3. thats why i stated earlier that both consoles have problems with eachother games unless they are optimized for it.

the ps3 can for example jump towards larger open world games on a lesser graphical solution really really good. But the xbox360 prevents this from happening as the xbox360 was build around a 50/50 cpu/gpu. and not a 75/25 cpu/gpu solutoin as the ps3. The extra gpu power is easily allocated towards higher quality graphical games without much of a efford. but other things get sacrificed.

As people want more and more realistic games, the ps3 gets basically murdered by a crappy gpu which limits the cell massively. as the cell gets massively cannibalized through supporting the gpu with tasks in order to get the same appearence as the xbox360 version.

PS3 was build around having massive worlds on clean + a big more graphical solution quality ps2 games. Not for high graphical 2/3 characters upfront and small area's. where the xbox360 shines on and the gaming has jumped towards it in order to keep remotely in track with PC's through being able to dump a hell lot of polygons in order to give the same appearance while simple pulling this filtering out on PC department.

The PS3 would indeed be stronger through its cell, if the cell could do where it was builded for entirely, and not limited by a gpu that eats its resources up massively in order to get the same solution.

therefor neither console is stronger then the other, while they do have both advantages over eachother. the xbox360 has clearly the gpu department which is beyond stronger as dedicated hardware, and the ps3 has the cpu department.

thats why you see downgraded mmo's ( or atleast planned ) on the ps3 earlier and running mostly better then the xbox360.

PS3's gpu bottlenecking it's cell cpu? That sucks for PS3, but it also basically screams PS4.

So what do you think about Vita? Can Vita run FFXIII or other large world game?

 

[equilibrium75]

and the other comment about uncharted isn''t able to run on the xbox360. which is not completely right.

Both games are clearly capable of running on a xbox360. the reason only why its not there or lacking like the ps3 version = because developers that do push hardware will have massive issue's with both consoles.

The PS3 is a strong device on cpu level + alocating gpu tasks towards cpu department. If you want to port this you either have to entirely rebuild the game for the xbox360 or just to downgrade it towards levels that it becomes acceptable for the company.

The same thing basically happens with the xbox360>ps3. if a game is builded for the xbox360 like alan wake and ported towards the ps3, a company needs to massively downgrade the graphical quality in order to make it run on the gpu of the ps3. or either program the entire thing again.

This is what crysis 2 for example did. Program it from the bone on the ps3 and xbox360. but it costs a lot to do this. Final fantasy clearly didn''t had the budget for it and did go cheap on the port solution through going almost bankrupt by the game.

The architectures are massively different from the xbox360 and ps3. thats why i stated earlier that both consoles have problems with eachother games unless they are optimized for it.

the ps3 can for example jump towards larger open world games on a lesser graphical solution really really good. But the xbox360 prevents this from happening as the xbox360 was build around a 50/50 cpu/gpu. and not a 75/25 cpu/gpu solutoin as the ps3. The extra gpu power is easily allocated towards higher quality graphical games without much of a efford. but other things get sacrificed.

As people want more and more realistic games, the ps3 gets basically murdered by a crappy gpu which limits the cell massively. as the cell gets massively cannibalized through supporting the gpu with tasks in order to get the same appearence as the xbox360 version.

PS3 was build around having massive worlds on clean + a big more graphical solution quality ps2 games. Not for high graphical 2/3 characters upfront and small area's. where the xbox360 shines on and the gaming has jumped towards it in order to keep remotely in track with PC's through being able to dump a hell lot of polygons in order to give the same appearance while simple pulling this filtering out on PC department.

The PS3 would indeed be stronger through its cell, if the cell could do where it was builded for entirely, and not limited by a gpu that eats its resources up massively in order to get the same solution.

therefor neither console is stronger then the other, while they do have both advantages over eachother. the xbox360 has clearly the gpu department which is beyond stronger as dedicated hardware, and the ps3 has the cpu department.

thats why you see downgraded mmo's ( or atleast planned ) on the ps3 earlier and running mostly better then the xbox360.

First of all, all the footage or pics i showed were in game, apparently you didn't know this but ALL things in that trailer were using in-game engine not cgi on ps3, confirmed by naughty dog. Also ps3 clearly has more power because the cell handles most graphics and allocates the rest to the gpu. Dice talked about this and how the spu's would make the ps3 the best console version. Also john carmack said that ps3 has potentially 20% more power- you can try to reverse this claim, but he has come back multiple times and said that with a lot of time ps3 has more potential, and THQ said ps3 has more potential , also dice has said the same, quantic dream has said heavy rain is easily only possible on ps3. And i can give you unending quotes about ps3 being better, from major devs including kojima. I try not to bring much tech talk into this when i can just give you quotes from devs because its faster. Either way i can back this all up with links for all this, i didn't want to take that time but i will if its needed to prove this,

Here is one link though for uncharted 3http://www.tqcast.com/2010/12/11/na...ailer-was-all-from-in-engine-actual-gameplay/

 

[equilibrium75]

PS3's gpu bottlenecking it's cell cpu? That sucks for PS3, but it also basically screams PS4.

So what do you think about Vita? Can Vita run FFXIII or other large world game?

It doesn't suck for the ps3 read my post before this. The ps3 has quite a bit more power left- confirmed by sony santa monica, quantic dream, THQ, guerrilla games,EA. Also EA said that 360 was maxed out. GOW3 dev said gow3 uses less than 50% of the ps3

 

[equilibrium75]

and still see how amazing it is!!!
GOW 4 WOULD BE LEGENDARY!!

I really like this. But where could they go with GOW now?

 

[equilibrium75]

PC rendered GCi trailer, has nothing to do with the real thing. Dont get illusions. its not going to look like that at all maybe ps4 can pull it off. but the ps3 is clearly not able to do this.

Clearly the ps3 can do this AKA ALL IN GAME FOOTAGE. No illusions, this was made on ps3 and is in game- naughty dog confirmed, their legit also they said in a interview that Drakes fortune could maybe work on 360, but the visuals would be downgraded. Read these links

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/08/29/naughty-dog-uncharted-2-not-possible-on-xbox-360-only-ps3/

http://n4g.com/news/341616/uncharted-2-cutscenes-are-rendered-in-game/com

http://www.gamestooge.com/2007/11/18/interview-uncharted-drakes-fortune-possible-on-360/

http://playstationlifestyle.net/201...ses-in-game-assets-to-flabbergast-spectators/

Best quote------------------http://www.psu.com/THQ-Dev-says-+qu...s-on-PS3-than-360+quot;-News--a0003291-p0.php

http://www.psu.com/Cage--Heavy-Rain-not-possible-on-Xbox-360-News--a007234-p0.php

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/232755/no-way-mag-would-work-on-360-zipper/

Also nothing has reached the level of realism of heavy rain. I firmly believe that unless you present facts and a basis for your argument, then really there is nothing to back it up and quotes from devs is about the best way to prove this.

 

[equilibrium75]

Sony said themselves that they didn't want to max out the ps3 till the end of its life cycle which is ten years. GOW2 maxed out the ps2 in 2007. ITS only normal for uncharted 3 to look much better then uncharted 2

 

[awesomeness]

I really like this. But where could they go with GOW now?

gow itself has a very good concept and in every god of war he dies.......... so the guys can surely make up something......... and now knowing the ps3 power in full they would surely bridge the gap b/w reality and awesome graphics!!

 

[thehunter01]

First of all, all the footage or pics i showed were in game, apparently you didn't know this but ALL things in that trailer were using in-game engine not cgi on ps3, confirmed by naughty dog. Also ps3 clearly has more power because the cell handles most graphics and allocates the rest to the gpu. Dice talked about this and how the spu's would make the ps3 the best console version. Also john carmack said that ps3 has potentially 20% more power- you can try to reverse this claim, but he has come back multiple times and said that with a lot of time ps3 has more potential, and THQ said ps3 has more potential , also dice has said the same, quantic dream has said heavy rain is easily only possible on ps3. And i can give you unending quotes about ps3 being better, from major devs including kojima. I try not to bring much tech talk into this when i can just give you quotes from devs because its faster. Either way i can back this all up with links for all this, i didn't want to take that time but i will if its needed to prove this,

Here is one link though for uncharted 3http://www.tqcast.com/2010/12/11/na...ailer-was-all-from-in-engine-actual-gameplay/

I specifically saw a trailer at the time of when the trailer got released about the head of uncharted 3 development how they rendered the gci trailer for the upcoming reveal of there game, they even demonstrated how they created it.

He specifically called it out as a GCI trailer to build a opening for there game trailers. He did aimed at this point towards PC rendering solutions.

And from what you saw him demonstrate it had a ton more solutions inside the model then any this gen console could ever push out.

That trailer is unrealistic and a bullshot to say it on a friendly level if they really place it out as a ps3 rendering video. Which isn't the case at all. The model that you placed out has probably 10 times more polygons then the ps3 could every push out.

The link says its ingame engine and gameplay, but where it was rendered on is a entire different thing. Its clearly a PC where it was rendered on frame by frame.

Its the same with mobiles and unreal 3 engine. While its possible for mobiles to run it, there isn''t nearly enough resources to build a ps3 quality game out of it through the lack of performance. the same apply's here. my point basically still stands.

 

[thehunter01]

Clearly the ps3 can do this AKA ALL IN GAME FOOTAGE. No illusions, this was made on ps3 and is in game- naughty dog confirmed, their legit also they said in a interview that Drakes fortune could maybe work on 360, but the visuals would be downgraded. Read these links

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/08/29/naughty-dog-uncharted-2-not-possible-on-xbox-360-only-ps3/

http://n4g.com/news/341616/uncharted-2-cutscenes-are-rendered-in-game/com

http://www.gamestooge.com/2007/11/18/interview-uncharted-drakes-fortune-possible-on-360/

http://playstationlifestyle.net/201...ses-in-game-assets-to-flabbergast-spectators/

Best quote------------------http://www.psu.com/THQ-Dev-says- quot;Potential-for-better-graphics-on-PS3-than-360 quot;-News--a0003291-p0.php

http://www.psu.com/Cage--Heavy-Rain-not-possible-on-Xbox-360-News--a007234-p0.php

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/232755/no-way-mag-would-work-on-360-zipper/

Also nothing has reached the level of realism of heavy rain. I firmly believe that unless you present facts and a basis for your argument, then really there is nothing to back it up and quotes from devs is about the best way to prove this.

Didn't readed them all, but from the first link this was said by them:

First of all, we fill the Blu-ray 100 percent, we have no room left on this one. We have 25GB of data; we’re using every single bit of it. It’s the combination of Blu-ray and hard drive. You can play the entire game without loading. We don’t require an install. We’re doing all the post-processing effects on the SPUs [Synergistic Processing Units]. The quality of the depth of field we have, you can’t do that on the Xbox.
We’ve invested a lot of time maximizing the power of the machine. That’s our job, to make the PS3 shine.

He's mainly talking about shader solutions + disc space. Which is exactly where the PS3 + cpu shines at. the other solutions it clearly doesn't and i dont hear them talk on it at all.

Exactly as he states and as i stated in my reaction above. it shines on that department indeed teh SPU's ( or to keep it simple the processor cores where it's able to work with ).

Just as i mentioned. they dedicate SPU's towards gpu tasks in order to support the lack of power in there gpu. and this is why if you maximize the game onto a ps3, its unable to run at the xbox360. But the same thing basically happens when you turn stuff around.

If you push a 500 million polygonal character inside the screen, the xbox360 will run it easily. the ps3 will die out entirely.

Its exactly as i mentioned above really. Heavy rain was exactly being made specifically on the strong points of the ps3. But if they actually did go the xbox360 route they would have to need to program that device towards his strenghts and those strenghts are basically where the ecenomy is moving towards it. 50/50 cpu/gpu solution. and i wouldn''t be suprised if its going 25/75 cpu/gpu solution in the future.

The disk space is a non issue, you can install the entire game on the xbox360, or just swap discs. Not a big issue at all.

They basically state yes the current project we have is only able to work with the ps3, because we programmed it towards its strenghts.

They never stated its absolute impossible to get the game to run on the xbox360 at all. And if they state it they are utter morons that have absolute no idea themselves.

The ps3 is what it is. Its a incredible fast cpu + shader applications. but the gpu is lacking in performance and power. thats why they have to push out spu's towards graphical solutions in order to enhance it.

Thats why developers made a few jokes when the vita wasn't changing towards a powervr6, oh sony can we have some more spu's then?

I will read your other articles later through.

readed a few more, and they basically all state the same thing i already discribed hdd/shader applications / physics etc. all the same stuff. Its where the PS3 shines on and the xbox360 isn't. But for pushing high polygonal worlds like the witcher 2 the ps3 clearly isn't going to work well with it.

 

[thehunter01]

Sony said themselves that they didn't want to max out the ps3 till the end of its life cycle which is ten years. GOW2 maxed out the ps2 in 2007. ITS only normal for uncharted 3 to look much better then uncharted 2

Its not something they can choose for really, its a matter of optimizing code.

The PS3 is extremely difficult to push. thats how the creator liked its hardware design. He wanted to push people with challanges and see what they where able to push out of it. It worked with ps1/ps2 but clearly the budgets for the ps3 became a hell lot more different and problematic to go there.

Over the years new tools get builded that optimizes solutions and make things faster which gives developers more resources. Trick here trick here gives additional performance in order to raise the bar.

But there is no way in hell that a systme can push like those screenshots atleast 10times more polygons through a bit optimizing.

If they said that they didn''t wanted to max out the ps3 at the end of its life cycle they where either trolling / talking pr nonsense / or where hyperboling like hell.

It doesn't take a scientist to jump towards such a conclusion.

I dont wanna detalk uncharted team as they are doing a great job with a limited console. But there uncharted 3 game is clearly not up towards new modern PC games level of graphical horse power where for example the witcher 2 shines for example with. The game pushes on my PC on high around 2 billion polygons in enviroment and around 200 million polygons for characters that walk into it. There is no competition. they can motion capture that and this, but the fact stays at the end of the day, that uncharted 3 graphically is outdated through having limited hardware to work on for its main console.

I cant wait on a ps4 with a cell 2 and a proper videocard. that thing is going to be a beast. But i somehow got the feeling again they wont push it on that department and end up exactly the same with limitations regard this generation consoles.

The ps3 was designed for big massive open worlds of a bit more higher detailed character level from the ps2. thats where the cell was builded for. The gpu was just a addition to calculate the graphical extra effects. But that clearly changed over time towards cannibalizing the cpu massively.

 

[thehunter01]

PS3's gpu bottlenecking it's cell cpu? That sucks for PS3, but it also basically screams PS4.

So what do you think about Vita? Can Vita run FFXIII or other large world game?

The fun part about vita is that everything is really scale able. For example it has multiple cores on both solutions on the gpu/cpu solution.

If you got a mmo world they can clock down for example the gpu towards 2 cores and power up the 4 cored for example 25% in order to push more solutions.

If they want a high quality pool game for example that is mostly focused on polygonal pushing, they can cut down 1/2 cpu cores on power and fire up the gpu with additional mhz if needed.

The vita is a beyond better architecture more like the xbox360 then the ps3 ever was. There is no cannibalizing on CPU level through having to support solutions on akward weird solutions in order to push decent performance out of it.

The vita can probably run anything what the ps3/xbox360 pushed out on its own screen with reduced solutions on polygons/geometric etc. its clearly not going to represent the looks of top games on ps3/xbox360 through lack of processing power but it will come fairly close towards it. The more simplistic games like fighters etc will probably look equal towards there console counter parts.

 

[awesomeness]

The fun part about vita is that everything is really scale able. For example it has multiple cores on both solutions on the gpu/cpu solution.

If you got a mmo world they can clock down for example the gpu towards 2 cores and power up the 4 cored for example 25% in order to push more solutions.

If they want a high quality pool game for example that is mostly focused on polygonal pushing, they can cut down 1/2 cpu cores on power and fire up the gpu with additional mhz if needed.

The vita is a beyond better architecture more like the xbox360 then the ps3 ever was. There is no cannibalizing on CPU level through having to support solutions on akward weird solutions in order to push decent performance out of it.

The vita can probably run anything what the ps3/xbox360 pushed out on its own screen with reduced solutions on polygons/geometric etc. its clearly not going to represent the looks of top games on ps3/xbox360 through lack of processing power but it will come fairly close towards it. The more simplistic games like fighters etc will probably look equal towards there console counter parts.

super star dust delta , wipeout , little big planet come awfully close to ps3 quality so we are pretty sure that except for the best games , vita and ps3 remain the same!!

 

[equilibrium75]

I specifically saw a trailer at the time of when the trailer got released about the head of uncharted 3 development how they rendered the gci trailer for the upcoming reveal of there game, they even demonstrated how they created it.

He specifically called it out as a GCI trailer to build a opening for there game trailers. He did aimed at this point towards PC rendering solutions.

And from what you saw him demonstrate it had a ton more solutions inside the model then any this gen console could ever push out.

That trailer is unrealistic and a bullshot to say it on a friendly level if they really place it out as a ps3 rendering video. Which isn't the case at all. The model that you placed out has probably 10 times more polygons then the ps3 could every push out.

The link says its ingame engine and gameplay, but where it was rendered on is a entire different thing. Its clearly a PC where it was rendered on frame by frame.

Its the same with mobiles and unreal 3 engine. While its possible for mobiles to run it, there isn''t nearly enough resources to build a ps3 quality game out of it through the lack of performance. the same apply's here. my point basically still stands.

That trailer was all in game. Naughty dog confirmed it on twitter and lots of sites talked about how amazing it was that it was in game I repeat NOT IN GAME. I can give you the link for all these sites

 

[equilibrium75]

Didn't readed them all, but from the first link this was said by them:

He's mainly talking about shader solutions + disc space. Which is exactly where the PS3 + cpu shines at. the other solutions it clearly doesn't and i dont hear them talk on it at all.

Exactly as he states and as i stated in my reaction above. it shines on that department indeed teh SPU's ( or to keep it simple the processor cores where it's able to work with ).

Just as i mentioned. they dedicate SPU's towards gpu tasks in order to support the lack of power in there gpu. and this is why if you maximize the game onto a ps3, its unable to run at the xbox360. But the same thing basically happens when you turn stuff around.

If you push a 500 million polygonal character inside the screen, the xbox360 will run it easily. the ps3 will die out entirely.

Its exactly as i mentioned above really. Heavy rain was exactly being made specifically on the strong points of the ps3. But if they actually did go the xbox360 route they would have to need to program that device towards his strenghts and those strenghts are basically where the ecenomy is moving towards it. 50/50 cpu/gpu solution. and i wouldn''t be suprised if its going 25/75 cpu/gpu solution in the future.

The disk space is a non issue, you can install the entire game on the xbox360, or just swap discs. Not a big issue at all.

They basically state yes the current project we have is only able to work with the ps3, because we programmed it towards its strenghts.

They never stated its absolute impossible to get the game to run on the xbox360 at all. And if they state it they are utter morons that have absolute no idea themselves.

The ps3 is what it is. Its a incredible fast cpu + shader applications. but the gpu is lacking in performance and power. thats why they have to push out spu's towards graphical solutions in order to enhance it.

Thats why developers made a few jokes when the vita wasn't changing towards a powervr6, oh sony can we have some more spu's then?

I will read your other articles later through.

readed a few more, and they basically all state the same thing i already discribed hdd/shader applications / physics etc. all the same stuff. Its where the PS3 shines on and the xbox360 isn't. But for pushing high polygonal worlds like the witcher 2 the ps3 clearly isn't going to work well with it.

You realize that uncharted 2 has the highest polygon count for any characters and its on ps3. All cutscenes from uncharted 2 are in game and the 360 hasn't produced anything on that level. All im saying is that the cell + gpu > 360 gpu+ xenon. If a game is made on 360 and ps3 and you build each from the ground up, and spend two years on the 360 version you will max it out, if you spend 3 on the ps3 version it will look better, john carmack has said many times that ps3 has more power but only exclusives or spending a lot of time on the ps3 will push it far past the 360, because the cell has a ppu double thread core, 7 spu's, and the spe's, its very complicated because they will have to segment certain parts on to each spu. But, the cell is essentially another gpu, and you can just use the ppu for most cpu parts, and use the rest of the cell as a very powerful gpu.

Sony was going to only put the cell in the ps3 because of it's power but they threw in a gpu last second to make it easier for dev's

Also the gpu is not way worse then the 360's the ps3 does 24 pixel pipelines with 8 vertex pipelines compared to 360's 48 unified pipelines, the 360 gpu is not way better, the ps3 gpu does some things better actually, But ps3's cell(cpu/gpu) is 3x as powerful as the 360's cpu

Also many 3rd party dev's have said ps3 simply has more power and more potential, i dont know why your spinning their words.

Best quote------------------http://www.psu.com/THQ-Dev-says- qu...s-on-PS3-than-360 quot;-News--a0003291-p0.php

 

[equilibrium75]

The fun part about vita is that everything is really scale able. For example it has multiple cores on both solutions on the gpu/cpu solution.

If you got a mmo world they can clock down for example the gpu towards 2 cores and power up the 4 cored for example 25% in order to push more solutions.

If they want a high quality pool game for example that is mostly focused on polygonal pushing, they can cut down 1/2 cpu cores on power and fire up the gpu with additional mhz if needed.

The vita is a beyond better architecture more like the xbox360 then the ps3 ever was. There is no cannibalizing on CPU level through having to support solutions on akward weird solutions in order to push decent performance out of it.

The vita can probably run anything what the ps3/xbox360 pushed out on its own screen with reduced solutions on polygons/geometric etc. its clearly not going to represent the looks of top games on ps3/xbox360 through lack of processing power but it will come fairly close towards it. The more simplistic games like fighters etc will probably look equal towards there console counter parts.

Here is another link where carmack says development is easier on 360 but the ps3 has more total processing power

http://n4g.com/news/824349/john-carmack-thinks-the-ps3-is-the-second-best-console-ever-made/com

By the looks of it, it seems your a 360 guy, but there is simply no game on 360 that rivals UC3, GOW3, KZ3, heavy rain. Also why are all 360 exclusives in 540p- halo reach, alan wake, halo 3.

The only 360 game that comes close is crysis 2 for the nice lighting, but once the game was out people realized that most of crysis 2's lighting was pre baked-Crysis 2 on console has no GI at all. It’s a fake obtained with light globes (few light globes) put around the environment on purpose. The rest of the illumination is achieved by a unique directional light that act as a sun light- lot user., not the lighting they said it was also lens of truth said that kz3 ran at a steady 30fps frame rate, and crysis 2 dropped to 15 fps at times, and kz3 was 720p( c2 was 540p) has 0 screen tear and had higher res textures. They are a known site that usually picks 360 in head to heads but atleast they realize the truth. Also Digital foundry said that kz3 was graphics king, and so did Game informer

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/2/

 

[equilibrium75]

Its not something they can choose for really, its a matter of optimizing code.

The PS3 is extremely difficult to push. thats how the creator liked its hardware design. He wanted to push people with challanges and see what they where able to push out of it. It worked with ps1/ps2 but clearly the budgets for the ps3 became a hell lot more different and problematic to go there.

Over the years new tools get builded that optimizes solutions and make things faster which gives developers more resources. Trick here trick here gives additional performance in order to raise the bar.

But there is no way in hell that a systme can push like those screenshots atleast 10times more polygons through a bit optimizing.

If they said that they didn''t wanted to max out the ps3 at the end of its life cycle they where either trolling / talking pr nonsense / or where hyperboling like hell.

It doesn't take a scientist to jump towards such a conclusion.

I dont wanna detalk uncharted team as they are doing a great job with a limited console. But there uncharted 3 game is clearly not up towards new modern PC games level of graphical horse power where for example the witcher 2 shines for example with. The game pushes on my PC on high around 2 billion polygons in enviroment and around 200 million polygons for characters that walk into it. There is no competition. they can motion capture that and this, but the fact stays at the end of the day, that uncharted 3 graphically is outdated through having limited hardware to work on for its main console.

I cant wait on a ps4 with a cell 2 and a proper videocard. that thing is going to be a beast. But i somehow got the feeling again they wont push it on that department and end up exactly the same with limitations regard this generation consoles.

The ps3 was designed for big massive open worlds of a bit more higher detailed character level from the ps2. thats where the cell was builded for. The gpu was just a addition to calculate the graphical extra effects. But that clearly changed over time towards cannibalizing the cpu massively.

That video WAS ALL IN GAME, OK?

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/280466/features/full-uncharted-3-trailer-dissected/

Here is an article that says this, now i know pc has 10x the power of consoles but this below is still achievable with PS3 hardware- if you dont believe naughty dog or any of these sites, thats your problem.

So I repeat, for skeptics

This IS IN GAME

america did land on the moon

and Kennedy assassination wasn't a gov cover up

Uncharted 3′s Debut Trailer Uses In-Game Assets to Flabbergast Spectators

12/11/2010 Written by Jonathan Leack

When Naughty Dog released Uncharted and Uncharted 2, both became objects of inspiration for video game developers looking to push visual design to the next level. Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception debuted its first trailer at the VGAs today, and in a similar fashion people across the globe wonder how the series’ level of detail is so refined. So much, in-fact, that some have been saying that the recent trailer is all composed in CGI.

Naughty Dog has declared on Twitter that the debut trailer for Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception was all composed with in-game assets:

Yes, #UNCHARTED3 trailer was all from in-engine + actual gameplay. 11-1-11!!​

As if Uncharted 2: Among Thieves wasn’t visually stunning enough, Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception looks like another advancement in power. The lighting effects, facial animation, and cinematic qualities shown in the latest trailer are all arguably the best we’ve seen in the industry, and a solid addition to Naughty Dog’s expansive resume of games with outstanding presentations.