If Sony Was Honest Last Nite....

[ps3basefan]

I watch the Sony demo at gamespot and the xbox360 game demo at teamxbox.com just now. If the PS3 demo was live game action, I think PS3 will win easily. check out the xbox360 game demo at teamxbox.....

[Z]

the biggest challenge for X2 is the fact that PS3 not only does everything better and has more of everything, it is the single notion that PS3 is indeed the most powerful. so now, PS3 is the most supported system, most widespread, most userbase, most proven, and to top it all off, it is the most powerful system with the best graphics. X2 sure is fighting an up hill battle. I also think Rev will give X2 a harder time than they did last time.

[FerrianX]

the biggest challenge for X2 is the fact that PS3 not only does everything better and has more of everything, it is the single notion that PS3 is indeed the most powerful. so now, PS3 is the most supported system, most widespread, most userbase, most proven, and to top it all off, it is the most powerful system with the best graphics. X2 sure is fighting an up hill battle. I also think Rev will give X2 a harder time than they did last time.

I know Revolution will give X2 a harder run for it's money this time round. I grew up on Nintendo, and will forever continue to support their products. Nintendo hasn't been around this long for nothing... watch the 360 take a nosedive as Nintendo sweeps past into 2nd place.

[makeitlookreal]

If Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 6.7 teraflop system.

Also, if Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 1 teraflop Broad Band Engine system.

The truth is that Sony crippled their own console and I am very perplexed. At the most the PS3 is only twice as powerful as the Xbox 360. If they had just added one more cell chip (at the MINIMUM) clocked at 4.0ghz they could have had a console that would have crushed the new XBox!

I think that it is all about money. Why make the best console they can when all they have to do is make one better than XBox 360 and still make lots of money?

My guess is that the PS4 will be coming out soon because they already have all the cell technology in place for it.

They will make a bunch of money off this system then make another one!

If Sony had just included the Broad Band Engine this system could have had a much longer lifespan!

[Brandon]

If Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 6.7 teraflop system.
I've never heard that before...ever.

[delta110]

If Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 6.7 teraflop system.

wow. i hope you don't expect people on here to take that statement seriously. :?


heh

[Red_Eyes]

If Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 6.7 teraflop system.

Also, if Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 1 teraflop Broad Band Engine system.

The truth is that Sony crippled their own console and I am very perplexed. At the most the PS3 is only twice as powerful as the Xbox 360. If they had just added one more cell chip (at the MINIMUM) clocked at 4.0ghz they could have had a console that would have crushed the new XBox!

I think that it is all about money. Why make the best console they can when all they have to do is make one better than XBox 360 and still make lots of money?

My guess is that the PS4 will be coming out soon because they already have all the cell technology in place for it.

They will make a bunch of money off this system then make another one!

If Sony had just included the Broad Band Engine this system could have had a much longer lifespan!

But they didn't. Sony did said that the goal was for PS3 to achieve 1 teraflops. And so far, PS3 has acheive 2 teraflops. So that's way way more than they hoped for. So I don't know what you are so angry for.

[Danji]

If Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 6.7 teraflop system.

Also, if Sony had been honest they would have not hyped the PS3 to be a 1 teraflop Broad Band Engine system.

The truth is that Sony crippled their own console and I am very perplexed. At the most the PS3 is only twice as powerful as the Xbox 360. If they had just added one more cell chip (at the MINIMUM) clocked at 4.0ghz they could have had a console that would have crushed the new XBox!

I think that it is all about money. Why make the best console they can when all they have to do is make one better than XBox 360 and still make lots of money?

My guess is that the PS4 will be coming out soon because they already have all the cell technology in place for it.

They will make a bunch of money off this system then make another one!

If Sony had just included the Broad Band Engine this system could have had a much longer lifespan!

You know, me having to repost this everywhere you take a s*** is making life a whole lot harder.

They never said the PS3 was gonna be 6.7 TFLOPs, they never said it was the broadband engine, and they will not release a pile of cells and call it a console. Using nothing but cells for a console would be a horrible idea because of the complexity of the software in order to do things like the RSX can do.

Do tell me, what experience do you have with engineering or programming in order to support your claims because the thought that a BBE is better than what we got is RIDICULOUS! The BBE would cost approximately $300+ and that's for it alone! You wouldn't count RAM or ports or the IOP or the CD/DVD/BD drive or anything else! The console would cost an extraordinarily large amoutn of money and it wouls suck!

Why would it suck? Because it would be so god damn dificult to program for that it wouldn't have a large enough yield to warrant that massive pile of cells.

The BBE was designed for servers or Workstations most likely so stop being so dumb about this!

[Brandon]

Calm down there a little, Danji.

If Sony had just included the Broad Band Engine this system could have had a much longer lifespan!
100% wrong.

My guess is that the PS4 will be coming out soon because they already have all the cell technology in place for it.
Soon? Try 7-8 years from now.

The truth is that Sony crippled their own console and I am very perplexed. At the most the PS3 is only twice as powerful as the Xbox 360.
And this is a problem how?

[makeitlookreal]

For a forum moderator you sure are being rude. If you disagree with me that is fine, but please don't hurl insults and names at me.

First of all, I am sure there are sources all over the internet that Sony claimed that the PS3 would be one thousand times as powerful as the PS2. If the PS2 has a theoretical max performance of 6 point something (from what I remember 6.7 gigaflops) then a thousand times would be 6.7 teraflops. If you really want me to dig up the source I will be glad to do so, and will post probably a hundred links to back it up.

Next, I am not saying just a Broad Band Engine should be included in the PS3. The BBE would have been great. Even just some varient of it would have been great. Have I said anything against them including a top of the line video card? Nope. Not one thing!

Also, the PS3 system is not truly a two teraflop machine. It is really a 218 gigaflop machine with additional targetted flops in the GPU. Targetted flops are very narrowly used for specific purposes and are not general computing flops.

What Sony did not release was a true one teraflop (general processing) console. Which probably would have put it very close to the very end of the top 500 super computer list.

By the way, those super computers are tested for general processing flops that can be used for any calculation and not targetted flops. If Sony wants to call this system a supercomputer they are certainly free to do so, but the machine would not hit the target due to only having 218 gigaflops and everything else only being targetted performance.

By the way, what matters to me when considering purchasing the PS3 is if it will have the ability to truly dish out photorealistic real time graphics. In my opinion, that should be the goal for this new generation. If I had to somehow save and save to pay 1000 dollars for such an amazing console I would gladly do so if it had the power to pull that off.

I have nothing against you personally, and I am willing to apologize for apparently really upsetting you. That was not my intent at all, and did not realize that my simple opinions and a few statements (like how Sony did indeed claim the PS3 would be 1000 times faster than PS2) would make your life so much harder. But I am sticking by my opinions and right to post them. I'm not attacking anyone, name calling, being rude, swearing, pretend swearing, or anything like that.

Also, a PS3 with a BBE of power (or some other varient of cell chips) with everything else to go along with it (even if it did cost $1,000 dollars) would not suck. It would be an amazingly fantastic piece of hardware and developers would have the power to do things they have only dreamed about, and maybe even photorealistic graphics.

Once more, I apologize for upsetting you, but not for my opinions.

[Brandon]

First of all, I am sure there are sources all over the internet that Sony claimed that the PS3 would be one thousand times as powerful as the PS2. If the PS2 has a theoretical max performance of 6 point something (from what I remember 6.7 gigaflops) then a thousand times would be 6.7 teraflops. If you really want me to dig up the source I will be glad to do so, and will post probably a hundred links to back it up.
The chart that had the 1000x information wasn't a set goal for the PS3. It was an estimated guess that it would take 1000x the power of PS2 to create movie-like game graphics. The goal for PS3 has changed many times over the course of a few years. It would cost a LOT of many to have a 6.7 Teraflop console. You may be willing to pay 100 bucks, but it wouldn't help them in the console market. Console prices just don't get that high.

[Mordecaii]

@ makeitlookreal:

Ok, seriously... I respect your opinions, but this is the 3rd or fourth place you've posted them! Anyone who cares has read your opinions by now. Also, the PS3 GPU is much better than anyone could have expected, therefore the system is much more powerful than it would have been if it would have had a full featured CELL with a lesser GPU (like the one in the 360). Seriously, Sony lowered the CELL a bit to get not only a better GPU in the system (which will have a bigger impact on game graphics than a stronger CELL), but also to include a Blu-Ray drive and more multimedia and connectivity functions than you can shake a stick at! The BBE is economically unfeasible for the PS3, as well as being impossible to fit in a small enough console. Also, with more processors they would have needed to increase the memory which would have increased the cost even more. Finally, the bus speeds would have DRAMATICALLY dropped on the main board because of more chips all using the same bandwidth... thus creating a bottleneck. So, what am I trying to say? Sony took the smart route, and their system is more balanced and overall more powerful because of it.

[Lumine]

makeitlookreal:

If you dig up those sources you mention, and I believe it won't be hard to find them, I just ask you to look at the date of their publication. Sony hasn't been saying the ps3 will be 1000x the ps2 for a while now.

As to whether a $1000 console will be better than a ~$200 console: I understand your opinion and how you may come to it, but I think you aren't using your foresight as much as you could be. As you said, sony could just tack on a few extra cells and put out a new version... given the scalar nature of the broadband engine, they really could do the same there, then you'd be dishing out $1000 every few years instead of $200. If, however, your one singular purpose for a gaming machine is photorealistic graphics, nothing is stopping you from getting ahold of one of the workstations and getting an emulation team together. That may sound ludicrous to you, but asking for photorealistc graphics from a gaming machine right now sounds ludicrous to me.

[GodZeRo]

There is 218 GFLOP for the cell, plus 1800 GFLOP for the GPU.
So 2+TFLOPS agregrate... compare to X360's 1+TFLOP.

There's not a huge difference between 2.1 anf 6.7 GFLOP in an exponential scale.. and has out performed my expectations quite a bit.

The one thing I am suprised by is how close M$ came. ~1/2 the speed of the PS3 is way more than what I thought they could come up with.

This isn't fanboism, I honestly didn't think M$ could do that good in as little time as they have had.

[makeitlookreal]

Thank you, first of all, for at least being civil with me.

Second of all, I understand where you are coming from and your point of view. However, I feel that there are many people out there who would want a better system that the currently crippled one and would be willing to pay extra for it.

Perhaps my mindset is totally different from all of you, but I don't really care if a console is larger and/or costs more. By the way, I'm not rich by any means and will have to struggle to even afford to PS3 if it is 500 dollars. But if the extra money meant photorealistic graphics rendered in real time then it would be worth it.

However, if by the time of the PS3's release if Sony has at least one game that is truly photorealistic in real time, not severely limited in game design by being photorealistic, and the game looks the same as if I rented a movie from the video store down the street then I will take back the notion that Sony made this system too weak or crippled.

Quite simple, the first console that has a game which allows me to play through the equivalent of a movie's graphics (for example lets Ghosts of Mars, Terminator 2, or even Star Trek IV The Voyage Home) I will purchase.

If the PS3 cannot produce that then I will wait until the real next gen when Sony full-fills their goals and purchase the PS4 several years from now.

Again, thanks for being civil with me. It is very much appreciated and I don't understand why so many people are ultra-defensive around here. You see very reasonable.

[Lumine]

makeitlookreal:

Think of things this way: all of the ps3 video games will look photorealistic. They will look exactly as real as if you took a picture of yourself playing them.

I dunno man... I think you're taking the wrong kind of pictures if you don't think those screenshots look like real pictures of someone playing the game.

[makeitlookreal]

godzero,

The issue is that the GPU's flops are targetted and not general flops that can be used for any application. If this system was to be tested with the software the top 500 supercomputer list uses it would not even come close, because only the cell's 218 gigaflops would count. So it is not really over two teraflops of performance.

Also, don't be impressed by microsoft. Sony could have blown them away if they had really wanted to with the cell chip. They chose not to so they could apparently sacrifice gaming power and graphics for cost, money, savings, and profit. However, I think a moderately more expensive (but clearly more dominate) system would be just as appealing.


Lumine,

I am not an expert, an engineer, or a scientist. But I have been doing intensive reading online about how tricks, shortcuts, and all kinds of different processes are used by consoles that allow for better graphics to be done in real time than otherwise would be possible. From what I understand, the processor farms that create cinema CGI do so through brute force and number crunching. However, even current generation console graphics have reached their level by finding all kinds of ways to get the same product but with less work being done.

It is kind of like my boss has stated many times. Don't work harder when you can get more done by working smarter. If a console like the PS3 is many times more powerful than the PS2 and it also has game developers who have the time and energy to learn it's ins and outs then I believe there is a chance for photorealistic graphics. Again, you probably know much more than myself. But through rendering of various sorts, new engines, and all kinds of "tricks" that are being done I believe that photorealism is on the way.

My eagerness for a faster more powerful PS3 is because I know the more power that is available the more likely we are to have such photo-realistic graphics.

Additionally, it does not matter if the graphics are digitially and perfectly mathematically exact. What matters is that the human eye can't tell the difference between a horror movie and lets say a photo-realistic zombie game.

Everyone,

Again, if the PS3 does indeed create movie quality graphics in real time in a broad expansive game then I will say Sony was right on with their design of the PS3. Perhaps it is possible with the technology of the PS3.

[Theo]

@ makeitlookreal

I uderstand your point and I must say I personally would also pay even more than 1000$ for a more powerful and probably way bigger ps3 :lol: :wink: .

But like I have said many times before the ps3's price must be considerable for every joe in the world and on top of that it's size has to be compact, especially for the markets in Japan.

Considering these matters, I think Sony has done a excellent job! The ps3's GPU is very powerful and advanced (and I assume quite expensive...), it features the cell, blu ray, etc. And it truely tekes graphix to next-gen.

After all Sony is company wich goal is to make $. All the things that the ps3 features is not coming cheap, so I believe Sony will first lose money with every ps3 sold as it is (can't say how long though) and take profit with game sales.

[senas8]

makeitlookreal: Don't blow a blood vessel....Me pass you the Bong....

[GodZeRo]

make: I know... I'm a machine language programmer.

Those are theoretical totals, hence the word "agregrate".

[Pina]

This is the first machine to output real HD for the domestic home, and two screens at once. Its loaded with a lot of stuff internally, etc. I dont care about phtorealism, when that is achieved everybody will get bored fast by that and want crazy stuff.

I want to see this incredible power apllied to new and fresh ideas, not photorealism.

[The_One]

What Sony did not release was a true one teraflop (general processing) console. Which probably would have put it very close to the very end of the top 500 super computer list. No it would not have. Even if Sony put in 16 CELLs, it still would not be on that list, why? The Top 500 Super Computer list ALL used double precision to calculate their yields, and the single double precision yield of a CELL clocked at 4Ghz is ONLY 26GFLOp/s. ONLY 26GFLOp/s. ONLY 26GFLOp/s.

@Dnaji: Man... I know how you feel... Gah...

@ANYONE that claims "Photorealism" is on the way: NO IT IS NOT. I'm gonna have to talk like a snobbish fanboy if that's what it's going to take to drill it into those people's heads (not aiming at you, makeitlookreal, specifically):
OMFG, I'm teh 1337 h4x0rz, 4n6 (that's an "and") PS# (# = 3) 1sn'7 going to have Ph0t0r34l1st1c gr4ph1cs because it's damn near impossible even in pre-rendered graphics!

Trying to reach pre-rendered CGI level in real-time is plausible, but aiming for Photorealism IS impossible!

We can't even perfectly create a human face that's indistinguishable from real-life in pre-rendered CGI, you think we can achieve that in real-time? Give me a break :roll:.

[martel]

What's with the photorealism thing, are people taking tabs or passing a bong while they post here.

Even pre rendered things don't look truely photorealistic. I spent a summer making animations of 3D houses, very short clips. Rendering on a dual Xeon equiped PC with a gigs of ram and a high end nvidia card it took something like 8 hours to make each clip. Did they look photorealistic? Nope, not really, they where very detailed but you still couldn't mistake them for live action video unless you have sight problems or you're squinting. Not only is it unfair to expect a machine, any machine, to render photorealistic graphics in real time, it is insane to expect any model maker to be able to make 100% photorealistic models of the characters, environments etc.

[Danji]

@ makeitlookreal:

Ok, seriously... I respect your opinions, but this is the 3rd or fourth place you've posted them! Anyone who cares has read your opinions by now.

That was the main thing I was upset about Makeitlookreal. You posted your oppinion with almost verbatim differentiation in multiple threads and by the time I made that post you hadn't replied to mine in any other thread. So it seemed like you were just going to do that again.

I thought my other posts were a lot more friendly so reference them for a more warm response.

Yea, The_One, I'm in the same boat as you. Wanting photo-realism from consoles a ridiculously high expectation if we can't even achieve it in CGI.

However I agree with you, Makeitlookreal, in that if they have the right developers to work on the PS3 they can max out the cell and the result will be awesome. Not photorealistic though, sorry.

About photorealism, I think the Killzone video is more detailed than I can see with my glasses off and looks pretty real-life then so I'm gonna say that it's Photo-realistic if you're near sighted. :D

[makeitlookreal]

The closest thing to photorealism at Sony's press conference was in my opinion the Spiderman scenes. The short Spiderman movie they made was really good, but what seemed even more detailed was Doc Ocks face! I tried to look at it very closely (of course the online video stream was really bad so in real life it must have looked much better) and could barely tell that it was not real. Now, I could tell. But it was very darn close to being able to fool someone (even if after a minute or so they could tell the difference).

Also, they claimed that it was done *only* with the Cell Chip and without the GPU. They also claimed this was the case in a few other demos as well.

If they can make a face look that good now just imagine when they have ever better software, engines, and so fourth for the cell a couple years from now AND are utilizing the GPU.

I really feel that if they are not photorealistic that we really won't be able to tell the difference. My desire for them to add more power to the cell now was to insure that fact and have it sooner rather than later.

Personally, I wish that they would have tried to introduce the press conference with a claimed "video feed" from Japan of the Sony President. He would be speaking to everyone on the screen for lets say five minutes or so and then suddenly after saying he had a special surprise he would walk out from behind the screen and announce that what had been on the screen was a real time render produced with the Cell Chip and GPU.

Perhaps it could have been photorealistic and perhaps not. But either way I think it would have been a good test of the systems power.

[Danji]

Your idea for the conference seems a bit cliche, or maybe that's just me.

[cogboy]

I think that even more important than texture resolution and poly-counts is the lighting.

lighting is what truely makes something look believeable.

what i want to see is the quality and detail of models in games like killzone and tekken with the lighting of games like 3 days to vegas and the getaway.
that, as far as i'm concerned, would be worthy of the title 'photorealistic'.

[indiekid4]

sorry for the double post! Doh!! :oP

[indiekid4]

For a forum moderator you sure are being rude. If you disagree with me that is fine, but please don't hurl insults and names at me.

First of all, I am sure there are sources all over the internet that Sony claimed that the PS3 would be one thousand times as powerful as the PS2. If the PS2 has a theoretical max performance of 6 point something (from what I remember 6.7 gigaflops) then a thousand times would be 6.7 teraflops. If you really want me to dig up the source I will be glad to do so, and will post probably a hundred links to back it up.

Next, I am not saying just a Broad Band Engine should be included in the PS3. The BBE would have been great. Even just some varient of it would have been great. Have I said anything against them including a top of the line video card? Nope. Not one thing!

Also, the PS3 system is not truly a two teraflop machine. It is really a 218 gigaflop machine with additional targetted flops in the GPU. Targetted flops are very narrowly used for specific purposes and are not general computing flops.

What Sony did not release was a true one teraflop (general processing) console. Which probably would have put it very close to the very end of the top 500 super computer list.

By the way, those super computers are tested for general processing flops that can be used for any calculation and not targetted flops. If Sony wants to call this system a supercomputer they are certainly free to do so, but the machine would not hit the target due to only having 218 gigaflops and everything else only being targetted performance.

By the way, what matters to me when considering purchasing the PS3 is if it will have the ability to truly dish out photorealistic real time graphics. In my opinion, that should be the goal for this new generation. If I had to somehow save and save to pay 1000 dollars for such an amazing console I would gladly do so if it had the power to pull that off.

I have nothing against you personally, and I am willing to apologize for apparently really upsetting you. That was not my intent at all, and did not realize that my simple opinions and a few statements (like how Sony did indeed claim the PS3 would be 1000 times faster than PS2) would make your life so much harder. But I am sticking by my opinions and right to post them. I'm not attacking anyone, name calling, being rude, swearing, pretend swearing, or anything like that.

Also, a PS3 with a BBE of power (or some other varient of cell chips) with everything else to go along with it (even if it did cost $1,000 dollars) would not suck. It would be an amazingly fantastic piece of hardware and developers would have the power to do things they have only dreamed about, and maybe even photorealistic graphics.

Once more, I apologize for upsetting you, but not for my opinions.

well, im not a forum moderator , so you are an idiot...you have only just joined this forum and area already making ridiculous comments...try readying around this forum for the true info on what sony has said on the PS3 and you will NEVER see them say anything about 6.7 Tflop for PS3...stop talking out your ass Mr.

Your friend

Bill :P

[Lord Darkblade]

makeitlookreal, the PS3 will never make the top 500, even if it has a BBE inside, why? That 1TFlop you talk about is single precision, the top 500 are always double precision so your 1TFlop becomes ~ 0.1TFlop... a far cry from the top 500.

[Mordecaii]

I am also not a moderator, but I'd really appreciate it if we didn't stir up old issues indiekid4 (aka my friend Bill). 8)

[indiekid4]

I am also not a moderator, but I'd really appreciate it if we didn't stir up old issues indiekid4 (aka my friend Bill). 8)

Ohh you people take things to heart to easily! I am about 50% messing around with you all. Geebus! ;)