Posted Sep 17, 2007 at 08:35PM by Glen D.
Listed in:
Opinions & Analysis
Tags:
Microsoft,
Sony
Ó
|
|
|
|
[Via Gamer.blorge]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
114 Comments
|
 |
by Quixand - 2007-09-17 |
|
 
|
» what do you say
QJ folks... we've been on a flame war drought recently...
i'd take "technological surface has barely been scratched" over "90 percent of the Xbox 360's system resources have already been tapped" anyday!!!!
let's face it everything has it's limitation and the PS3 handsdown wins it... and Blu Ray wins over DVD by a landslide... even with the limitations on the hardware durability it is the PS3 that's running over the 360.
the XBox 360 doesn't have the staying power to win this war... last gen Microsoft was eager to re-set the chess board cause they flat out couldn't hack it... and this year they will be the once who will eagerly want to reset the entire thing again cause it's tired old legs can't handle the marathon.
QJ folks... we've been on a flame war drought recently...
i'd take "technological surface has barely been scratched" over "90 percent of the Xbox 360's system resources have already been tapped" anyday!!!!
let's face it everything has it's limitation and the PS3 handsdown wins it... and Blu Ray wins over DVD by a landslide... even with the limitations on the hardware durability it is the PS3 that's running over the 360.
the XBox 360 doesn't have the staying power to win this war... last gen Microsoft was eager to re-set the chess board cause they flat out couldn't hack it... and this year they will be the once who will eagerly want to reset the entire thing again cause it's tired old legs can't handle the marathon.
|
Re: AoxomamoxoA - 2007-09-17 |
|
|
» ok
xbox was never made to last 10+ years. it gets a revamp every four years just like gamecube to wii.
so what youre really trying to say is,
ps2 > xbox as ps3 > xbox720
?
xbox was never made to last 10+ years. it gets a revamp every four years just like gamecube to wii.
so what youre really trying to say is,
ps2 > xbox as ps3 > xbox720
?
|
Re: Quixand - 2007-09-17 |
|
|
» AoxomamoxoA
there you are...
so you've finally managed to sell your PS3 ha??? good on you, more money for this holiday... although maybe you should have waited a bit longer to decide to do so with good games finally coming out and soon..and with MGS4 creeping its way closer along with other big guns of 2008...
anyway, i took a look at your myspace but i didn't send an invite cause my myspace is useless... just made an account and never bothered with it... i think i only have one friend there and i don't even know the guy.
note: change your primary pic... for someone who's 22 or 23 years old your pic looked like someone fresh from highschool... looked barely old enough to buy an MA game... haha!!
and also saying the XBox gets revamped every four years isn't good for the console... cause there won't be a reason to buy an XBox anymore in 2008 cause it will already be on its thrid year by then so you will have just one year to enjoy the console in it's prime basing on your statement.
there you are...
so you've finally managed to sell your PS3 ha??? good on you, more money for this holiday... although maybe you should have waited a bit longer to decide to do so with good games finally coming out and soon..and with MGS4 creeping its way closer along with other big guns of 2008...
anyway, i took a look at your myspace but i didn't send an invite cause my myspace is useless... just made an account and never bothered with it... i think i only have one friend there and i don't even know the guy.
note: change your primary pic... for someone who's 22 or 23 years old your pic looked like someone fresh from highschool... looked barely old enough to buy an MA game... haha!!
and also saying the XBox gets revamped every four years isn't good for the console... cause there won't be a reason to buy an XBox anymore in 2008 cause it will already be on its thrid year by then so you will have just one year to enjoy the console in it's prime basing on your statement.
|
Re: DVSDevise - 2007-09-17 |
|
|
» ...
There will be very little difference in games. There was a much bigger technology gap between the PS2 and Xbox 1. The Xbox 1 being a much more powerful console. Third party development is struggling with the PS3 with 95% of multi platform games performing better on the 360. The other 5% are from delayed releases that got extra development. More delays, more delays for PS3 titles. The PS3 just needs to catch up there. I know Quixland is happy to play Madden at 30fps and yet Quixland seems to think the 360 doesn't have the staying power? What? Even games developed natively for the PS3 like Sega Rally Revo are running better on the 360. The 360 has triple the install base yet Sony expects developers to invest ridiculous amounts of money making there games run on their platform. With horrible sales in the US and Japan the PS3 isn't going to be the cash cow the PS2 was. Games like Bioshock, Halo 3, Mass Effect and Alan Wake are so *****ing epic that they are taking gaming in the west to a new level.
It's funny that Sony fanboys want to rub the magical invisible graphical power of the PS3 in 360 owners faces. I've had my console since 2005, I got countless last gen Sony exclusives, I've got amazing titles that rip your console to pieces, I'm looking forward to the best gaming line up this holiday season, I've got the game of year in Bioshock (yes obvious prediction), and last years game of the year (Gears of War), almost all my cross platform titles perform the best on my console, less delayed game titles, I get hundreds of demos before every other platform, regular arcade titles guaranteed every week, the best online gaming service available on a console, movies on demand and a choice of a next format if I want it (not forced onto me).
2 years of great next gen gaming, and the PS3 owners are still waiting with a hope that they might get a couple of games like Lair that aren't possible on the 360 and offer 4.5/10 gaming experience unrivaled by any other game with it's crapiness.
I thought PS3 games were suppose to be better than the 360's straight out the gate? Next gen doesn't start until Sony says so, right? Someone wake me up when it happens. I'll still be gaming on the strongest platform with the best next gen gaming experience. It's too late to stop it after September 25th, Sony wont win back America this generation.
There will be very little difference in games. There was a much bigger technology gap between the PS2 and Xbox 1. The Xbox 1 being a much more powerful console. Third party development is struggling with the PS3 with 95% of multi platform games performing better on the 360. The other 5% are from delayed releases that got extra development. More delays, more delays for PS3 titles. The PS3 just needs to catch up there. I know Quixland is happy to play Madden at 30fps and yet Quixland seems to think the 360 doesn't have the staying power? What? Even games developed natively for the PS3 like Sega Rally Revo are running better on the 360. The 360 has triple the install base yet Sony expects developers to invest ridiculous amounts of money making there games run on their platform. With horrible sales in the US and Japan the PS3 isn't going to be the cash cow the PS2 was. Games like Bioshock, Halo 3, Mass Effect and Alan Wake are so *****ing epic that they are taking gaming in the west to a new level.
It's funny that Sony fanboys want to rub the magical invisible graphical power of the PS3 in 360 owners faces. I've had my console since 2005, I got countless last gen Sony exclusives, I've got amazing titles that rip your console to pieces, I'm looking forward to the best gaming line up this holiday season, I've got the game of year in Bioshock (yes obvious prediction), and last years game of the year (Gears of War), almost all my cross platform titles perform the best on my console, less delayed game titles, I get hundreds of demos before every other platform, regular arcade titles guaranteed every week, the best online gaming service available on a console, movies on demand and a choice of a next format if I want it (not forced onto me).
2 years of great next gen gaming, and the PS3 owners are still waiting with a hope that they might get a couple of games like Lair that aren't possible on the 360 and offer 4.5/10 gaming experience unrivaled by any other game with it's crapiness.
I thought PS3 games were suppose to be better than the 360's straight out the gate? Next gen doesn't start until Sony says so, right? Someone wake me up when it happens. I'll still be gaming on the strongest platform with the best next gen gaming experience. It's too late to stop it after September 25th, Sony wont win back America this generation.
|
Re: Quixand - 2007-09-17 |
|
|
» AoxomamoxoA
about the pic...
don't get me wrong... i didn't say anything bad about the pic i'm just saying that you look so young for your age (even for a girl) if that picture is recent...
about the pic...
don't get me wrong... i didn't say anything bad about the pic i'm just saying that you look so young for your age (even for a girl) if that picture is recent...
|
Re: Quixand - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» Devise
i think the article clearly explains how with the "Now" the 360 is doing better with games and i quote:
"better games are coming the Xbox 360's way because developers are finding it easier to make games when they're not worrying about running out of memory"
but the point of the article is with the "Long Run" and i quote:
"Ultimately, the source says that the Sony PS3 will surpass and outlast the Microsoft Xbox 360 with superior game quality to make it win this gaming generation"
so there's not really a point in enumerating all the current games you have right now as we are clearly talking about what's still yet to happen...
and no, enumerating all the current accomplishment that the two year old 360 has had over the barely one year old PS3 is not "staying power"...
we could talk about the "Now" anyday as what we do whenever a current game comparison comes out, current sales figures, current game releases... and i'm game for that and you know that... but in this article it is not about the "Now" but more of how the PS3 will separate itself from the 360 in the future... so your basis of argument are weak.
as i said everything has it's own limitation and sadly the 360 has nothing on the PS3 and none of your points effectively contradicts that... you can tell me now on what aspect will the PS3 come short compared to the 360 in the long run, i'm more than willing to be proven wrong.
anyway, just got back from JB Hifi and got my copy of the Spiderman Trilogy on Blu Ray... so i'll just check the posts again tomorrow.
i think the article clearly explains how with the "Now" the 360 is doing better with games and i quote:
"better games are coming the Xbox 360's way because developers are finding it easier to make games when they're not worrying about running out of memory"
but the point of the article is with the "Long Run" and i quote:
"Ultimately, the source says that the Sony PS3 will surpass and outlast the Microsoft Xbox 360 with superior game quality to make it win this gaming generation"
so there's not really a point in enumerating all the current games you have right now as we are clearly talking about what's still yet to happen...
and no, enumerating all the current accomplishment that the two year old 360 has had over the barely one year old PS3 is not "staying power"...
we could talk about the "Now" anyday as what we do whenever a current game comparison comes out, current sales figures, current game releases... and i'm game for that and you know that... but in this article it is not about the "Now" but more of how the PS3 will separate itself from the 360 in the future... so your basis of argument are weak.
as i said everything has it's own limitation and sadly the 360 has nothing on the PS3 and none of your points effectively contradicts that... you can tell me now on what aspect will the PS3 come short compared to the 360 in the long run, i'm more than willing to be proven wrong.
anyway, just got back from JB Hifi and got my copy of the Spiderman Trilogy on Blu Ray... so i'll just check the posts again tomorrow.
|
Re: DVSDevise - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» ...
Well I guess the Xbox 1 won last generation then.
Great games and depth of library will come from install base (though it might not help the Wii as much because it's targeted at the very casual gamer and has a poor game attach rate). The title "Processor will decide winner of console war" is totally false. That was my point. My point was also that the Xbox and Playstation are much closer in power then last generation, and every developer in the world will agree with that.
Lets ask Hideo Kojima what he thinks:
'HK: Maybe some nuance or a small details here and there might be different, but I feel that hardware is no longer a matter. I'm just talking about PS3, 360 and PC. Revolution [Wii] is totally different, but there are really no differences among the other three."
Games with great stories and gameplay is going to be the main focus. Almost anyone can make a great looking game, but if the game sucks (like Lair) then it doesn't matter.
And games for the PS3 have been in development as long as the 360. You forget that the console release was delayed a year. That didn't stop software from being developed. Most titles take 2 to 3 years to build if not longer.
Well I guess the Xbox 1 won last generation then.
Great games and depth of library will come from install base (though it might not help the Wii as much because it's targeted at the very casual gamer and has a poor game attach rate). The title "Processor will decide winner of console war" is totally false. That was my point. My point was also that the Xbox and Playstation are much closer in power then last generation, and every developer in the world will agree with that.
Lets ask Hideo Kojima what he thinks:
'HK: Maybe some nuance or a small details here and there might be different, but I feel that hardware is no longer a matter. I'm just talking about PS3, 360 and PC. Revolution [Wii] is totally different, but there are really no differences among the other three."
Games with great stories and gameplay is going to be the main focus. Almost anyone can make a great looking game, but if the game sucks (like Lair) then it doesn't matter.
And games for the PS3 have been in development as long as the 360. You forget that the console release was delayed a year. That didn't stop software from being developed. Most titles take 2 to 3 years to build if not longer.
|
Re: Constantinecy - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» Devise
I will strongly advise you to do a quick research regarding processor advancment over the years in comparison with RAM increases.
You will find out that the leaps done regarding processor power and numbers are almost every couple months (Intel Core duo.. 6 months later Intel quad core) whereas RAM takes 2 years perhaps longer to go from the 562 Mb standard to 1Gb and another 4 years to jump to a standard of 2Gb(still 80% of pcs have 1GB RAM).
So my point is as the years pass and programs, games and hardware are getting more complex and advanced, the more processing power you need.
The 360 lacks in PP compared to the PS3 but it has more RAM, when you are done with your research you will realise that RAM comes second to Processing power giving the PS3 the lead.
Oh you said and we all know that Microsoft in a couple of years should release their new xbox (720!!??), you sound like its a good thing.... Tell that to the future 20 million or more 360 owners which will once again be left out in the cold by their god MIcrosoft like when they droped support of the xbox!!!!
My advise to you my friend is to either sart saving up for the new xbox or just buy a ps3 so when its time to throw the 360 into a dark storage corner you wont have to miss anything eg the winner of this next gen war.
I will strongly advise you to do a quick research regarding processor advancment over the years in comparison with RAM increases.
You will find out that the leaps done regarding processor power and numbers are almost every couple months (Intel Core duo.. 6 months later Intel quad core) whereas RAM takes 2 years perhaps longer to go from the 562 Mb standard to 1Gb and another 4 years to jump to a standard of 2Gb(still 80% of pcs have 1GB RAM).
So my point is as the years pass and programs, games and hardware are getting more complex and advanced, the more processing power you need.
The 360 lacks in PP compared to the PS3 but it has more RAM, when you are done with your research you will realise that RAM comes second to Processing power giving the PS3 the lead.
Oh you said and we all know that Microsoft in a couple of years should release their new xbox (720!!??), you sound like its a good thing.... Tell that to the future 20 million or more 360 owners which will once again be left out in the cold by their god MIcrosoft like when they droped support of the xbox!!!!
My advise to you my friend is to either sart saving up for the new xbox or just buy a ps3 so when its time to throw the 360 into a dark storage corner you wont have to miss anything eg the winner of this next gen war.
|
Re: Advertising - |
|
|
|
Re: DVSDevise - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» Ninja Attack!! Waaaah
Constantinecy , You accuse me I saying stuff I didn't even say. I never said anything about RAM, CPU's or GPU's.
The one thing I will say is that there was only a 6 year gap between the PS2 and PS3. And if Sony hadn't had so many problems with producing components it would have been 5 years. And what do you know, there was a 5 year gap between the PS1 and PS2.
But yes the PS2 is still getting software support but only because of it's large install base from last generation with most of it coming from third parties.
But Sony has given the PS2 first party support after the PS3 release I hear you say? You must be so happy Sony released God Of War 2 for the PS2. Support the older system, you don't need a PS3 version right? That was stupid.
Sony can't afford to launch PS4 2 years after the next Xbox which is due in 2010 based on general 5 year console life span, so expect a PS4 in 2011 when that 10 year lifespan goes to crap when Sony has less than a 3rd of the PS2 install base left. Lets see how much third party support it's getting then.
Unfortunately Microsoft didn't own the tech inside the Xbox 1 and had to discontinued production because it was sold at a loss and was never going to be sold at a profit. Also launching the 360 in 2005 allowed MS to steal Sony loyalty from third parties who were keen to start releasing their next gen games after the 5 year life cycle. Now Sony is in Microsoft's position last gen. Who knows if PS3 sales remain as bad as they are Sony might be forced to launch the PS4 after 4 years. Only difference is that Microsoft wouldn't give them the year head start, so the launches would be neck and neck.
I dunno you think the PS3 is going to win, but you also thought a $100 price cut was going to help PS3 sales. 130k sales in the US in the second month after the price cut isn't exactly a positive result.
Constantinecy , You accuse me I saying stuff I didn't even say. I never said anything about RAM, CPU's or GPU's.
The one thing I will say is that there was only a 6 year gap between the PS2 and PS3. And if Sony hadn't had so many problems with producing components it would have been 5 years. And what do you know, there was a 5 year gap between the PS1 and PS2.
But yes the PS2 is still getting software support but only because of it's large install base from last generation with most of it coming from third parties.
But Sony has given the PS2 first party support after the PS3 release I hear you say? You must be so happy Sony released God Of War 2 for the PS2. Support the older system, you don't need a PS3 version right? That was stupid.
Sony can't afford to launch PS4 2 years after the next Xbox which is due in 2010 based on general 5 year console life span, so expect a PS4 in 2011 when that 10 year lifespan goes to crap when Sony has less than a 3rd of the PS2 install base left. Lets see how much third party support it's getting then.
Unfortunately Microsoft didn't own the tech inside the Xbox 1 and had to discontinued production because it was sold at a loss and was never going to be sold at a profit. Also launching the 360 in 2005 allowed MS to steal Sony loyalty from third parties who were keen to start releasing their next gen games after the 5 year life cycle. Now Sony is in Microsoft's position last gen. Who knows if PS3 sales remain as bad as they are Sony might be forced to launch the PS4 after 4 years. Only difference is that Microsoft wouldn't give them the year head start, so the launches would be neck and neck.
I dunno you think the PS3 is going to win, but you also thought a $100 price cut was going to help PS3 sales. 130k sales in the US in the second month after the price cut isn't exactly a positive result.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"xbox was never made to last 10+ years. it gets a revamp every four years just like gamecube to wii."
That is the EXACT argument that blows everyone's excuse of the PS3 being too expensive. Yes, both MS and Nintendo are on the same release schedule but look at the cost difference!
Why do MS users spend $400 every 4 years and call that OK but Sony users spending $600 for the next 10 is WAY too expensive?
The only excuse is that 360 fanboys suck at math or are horrible at finances. :)
"xbox was never made to last 10+ years. it gets a revamp every four years just like gamecube to wii."
That is the EXACT argument that blows everyone's excuse of the PS3 being too expensive. Yes, both MS and Nintendo are on the same release schedule but look at the cost difference!
Why do MS users spend $400 every 4 years and call that OK but Sony users spending $600 for the next 10 is WAY too expensive?
The only excuse is that 360 fanboys suck at math or are horrible at finances. :)
|
Re: Mister Common Sense - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» right on Devise
The XBOX 360 is going to have at least a 6 year lifespan, since it has the games to support it.
The Wii hype will end long before that. Mario and the rest of Nintendo's characters are going to be doing the same crap, and the third party developers are going to forget about the obsolete system when they can't figure out anything new to do with the controller.
Besides, the Wii is only $30 cheaper than the 360, and since it's still sold out for some insane reason, it will probably still cost more than the 360 on Ebay.
The XBOX 360 is going to have at least a 6 year lifespan, since it has the games to support it.
The Wii hype will end long before that. Mario and the rest of Nintendo's characters are going to be doing the same crap, and the third party developers are going to forget about the obsolete system when they can't figure out anything new to do with the controller.
Besides, the Wii is only $30 cheaper than the 360, and since it's still sold out for some insane reason, it will probably still cost more than the 360 on Ebay.
|
Re: rawrskies - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» 2c
Not to mention a tricked out 360 is already pretty close to a PS3.
If anyone believes that the the Xbox won over PS2 last gen, then they're whack. End of.
As for the current gen, I agree with most - the PS3 is currently being whacked. However, we still haven't seen the real blockbusters released on either system yet. Halo 3 is due soon. At that point, more people will be going 'omfg, 360 is sex'. I think you'd have to wait until the PS3's big guns come into play. Namely MGS4, and the FF series. By that time, there'll be a clear picture of which wins technically- RAM vs CPU.
With that said, PS3 has quite a bit to go, but I'm fairly confident in them eventually sweeping up this gen too.
Not to mention a tricked out 360 is already pretty close to a PS3.
If anyone believes that the the Xbox won over PS2 last gen, then they're whack. End of.
As for the current gen, I agree with most - the PS3 is currently being whacked. However, we still haven't seen the real blockbusters released on either system yet. Halo 3 is due soon. At that point, more people will be going 'omfg, 360 is sex'. I think you'd have to wait until the PS3's big guns come into play. Namely MGS4, and the FF series. By that time, there'll be a clear picture of which wins technically- RAM vs CPU.
With that said, PS3 has quite a bit to go, but I'm fairly confident in them eventually sweeping up this gen too.
|
Re: MyDixieNormous - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» holy
dumb fruck! u ppl r typn out essays ovr videogames. get over it there both equally good in there own way
dumb fruck! u ppl r typn out essays ovr videogames. get over it there both equally good in there own way
|
Re: Aces In The Palm - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» yeah
its called a discussion
try reading it
you might learn something
its called a discussion
try reading it
you might learn something
|
Re: Constantinecy - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Devise
Where's the ninja? (lol)
Anyway am quoting you
Devise: The title "Processor will decide winner of console war" is totally false.
My post was based upon what you said. Thats to prove that you intenosionaly or not mentioned CPU's.
As for the rest of your comments thats your logic speaking it doesnt mean its shared by everybody else...well exept Mister common sense.
Enjoy your 360, me..am enjoing my games not my ps3...
Where's the ninja? (lol)
Anyway am quoting you
Devise: The title "Processor will decide winner of console war" is totally false.
My post was based upon what you said. Thats to prove that you intenosionaly or not mentioned CPU's.
As for the rest of your comments thats your logic speaking it doesnt mean its shared by everybody else...well exept Mister common sense.
Enjoy your 360, me..am enjoing my games not my ps3...
|
by Volomon - 2007-09-17 |
|
|
» Dumb article.
Uh, PS3 ram is more powerful than Xbox ram so this article is retarded. PS3 ram is XDR the fastest in the WORLD. At 3.2Ghz its only a 256 stick but is still more powerful and faster than 512 at 700Mhz. That just by itself. Xbox box would first have to beat that before it could even deal with the other 256 @700mhz.
You'd need over a GIG of ram in the Xbox before you could say that Xbox is winning in ram.
Uh, PS3 ram is more powerful than Xbox ram so this article is retarded. PS3 ram is XDR the fastest in the WORLD. At 3.2Ghz its only a 256 stick but is still more powerful and faster than 512 at 700Mhz. That just by itself. Xbox box would first have to beat that before it could even deal with the other 256 @700mhz.
You'd need over a GIG of ram in the Xbox before you could say that Xbox is winning in ram.
|
by Volomon - 2007-09-17 |
|
|
» Why?
Why post an article about a blog site that doesn't know what its talking about? It makes QJ.net look bad really bad.
Why post an article about a blog site that doesn't know what its talking about? It makes QJ.net look bad really bad.
|
Re: Advertising - |
|
|
|
Re: Shatterdome - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» I agree...
The site doesn't even know the real difference in ram...it's not the total size that differs (well slightly because of the OS on 360 being smaller) but is mainly how it's divided and accessed on PS3....if they didn't bother to make that distinction why would I beleive anything they say ?
The site doesn't even know the real difference in ram...it's not the total size that differs (well slightly because of the OS on 360 being smaller) but is mainly how it's divided and accessed on PS3....if they didn't bother to make that distinction why would I beleive anything they say ?
|
by Bobby Brown - 2007-09-17 |
|
|
» The war continues...
I love to read more episodes of this next gen consoles war...
I love to read more episodes of this next gen consoles war...
|
by Master Chef - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» The Wii has proven
That graphics mean nothing in this "war". The average consumer doesn't give a sh*t which console is more powerful, just which is cheaper and has more fun games.
The title of this article should've been "360 and PS3's RAM, Processor will decide who takes 2nd in console war". The Wii has already won. And even at that it wouldn't be a very good article. If the 360 has more, better games, even if the graphics aren't quite as good, it will take 2nd, and if the PS3 ends up with more, better games, it will take 2nd. And those better games depend largely on the developers making them, not how gogd the RAM is.
The claim that the 360 has been 90% tapped sounds like bullsh*t, either coming from a dev that doesn't know what its talking about or from a dev that doesn't exist, and this is just for attention. While it's definitely true that the Cell is no where near fully utilized yet, the 360 is not 90% used just two years in.
Who is Gamer.blorge anyway? If this was true, wouldn't this "unnamed source" have reported it to someone who actually matters?
That graphics mean nothing in this "war". The average consumer doesn't give a sh*t which console is more powerful, just which is cheaper and has more fun games.
The title of this article should've been "360 and PS3's RAM, Processor will decide who takes 2nd in console war". The Wii has already won. And even at that it wouldn't be a very good article. If the 360 has more, better games, even if the graphics aren't quite as good, it will take 2nd, and if the PS3 ends up with more, better games, it will take 2nd. And those better games depend largely on the developers making them, not how gogd the RAM is.
The claim that the 360 has been 90% tapped sounds like bullsh*t, either coming from a dev that doesn't know what its talking about or from a dev that doesn't exist, and this is just for attention. While it's definitely true that the Cell is no where near fully utilized yet, the 360 is not 90% used just two years in.
Who is Gamer.blorge anyway? If this was true, wouldn't this "unnamed source" have reported it to someone who actually matters?
|
Re: Aces In The Palm - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» fun games ha!!!
i have wii, x360 and ps3
i have 1 game fo wii (wii sports) and dont really have any intention of getting any current nintendo titles
my ps3 and x360 are well fed however
the wii is seldom mentioned in console wars because its the hardcore gamers that want to argue which is better, and the wii is not a hardcore gamers console
its a lollipop console
i have wii, x360 and ps3
i have 1 game fo wii (wii sports) and dont really have any intention of getting any current nintendo titles
my ps3 and x360 are well fed however
the wii is seldom mentioned in console wars because its the hardcore gamers that want to argue which is better, and the wii is not a hardcore gamers console
its a lollipop console
|
by Kingofdaberbz - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» well the wii will win
In the long run the Wii will win so graphix don't matter as much to the average consumer but there are to facts last gen like the xbox>ps2 but throughout the xbox 1 lifetime they had the graphics even though the xbox 1 was more powerful devs. have no reason to spend more money giving the xbox 1 better graphics why? it was all about the ps2 they sold more games now this gen it's the other way around xbox 360 games sell more that won't change xbox gamers buy more games that's what devs. look at how much Money they can make they wouldn't waste more money on the ps3 version when xbox 360 sell more ps3 will have some powerful exclusives like the xbox 1
In the long run the Wii will win so graphix don't matter as much to the average consumer but there are to facts last gen like the xbox>ps2 but throughout the xbox 1 lifetime they had the graphics even though the xbox 1 was more powerful devs. have no reason to spend more money giving the xbox 1 better graphics why? it was all about the ps2 they sold more games now this gen it's the other way around xbox 360 games sell more that won't change xbox gamers buy more games that's what devs. look at how much Money they can make they wouldn't waste more money on the ps3 version when xbox 360 sell more ps3 will have some powerful exclusives like the xbox 1
|
by arishay - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» Wait a minute
So folks attack one console to the next. Whatever. I'll poke this fire. Anyone here seem to remember we have an awesome title on the way called GTA 4? Sure it may be coming out on the XB360 but PS3 owners are getting it too. There are plenty of games being released for Sony's super-console. I know something we are getting that Microsoft will never get the graces of seeing on its platform: Final Fantasy. Rumor or not, I personally believe that there IS a VII remake on the way. Irregardless, what about if you have a PSP? Where is XBP? I didn't see one. Darn. I guess when i'm out getting coffee for the morning and I jump in my car, i'll log into my PS3 and check my downloads and heck, maybe i'll even stream some music or a movie while i'm chilling out at the airport. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure the XBOX360 doesn't even touch that yet. It's a media center yes, but you have to be there to use it. Wasn't that Microsoft's grand plan? Wasn't the XBox supposed to be the ultimate media hub, whether used for games or not?
So as far as a total system and what it can do, hands down, the Sony lineup still cuts the cake.
So folks attack one console to the next. Whatever. I'll poke this fire. Anyone here seem to remember we have an awesome title on the way called GTA 4? Sure it may be coming out on the XB360 but PS3 owners are getting it too. There are plenty of games being released for Sony's super-console. I know something we are getting that Microsoft will never get the graces of seeing on its platform: Final Fantasy. Rumor or not, I personally believe that there IS a VII remake on the way. Irregardless, what about if you have a PSP? Where is XBP? I didn't see one. Darn. I guess when i'm out getting coffee for the morning and I jump in my car, i'll log into my PS3 and check my downloads and heck, maybe i'll even stream some music or a movie while i'm chilling out at the airport. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure the XBOX360 doesn't even touch that yet. It's a media center yes, but you have to be there to use it. Wasn't that Microsoft's grand plan? Wasn't the XBox supposed to be the ultimate media hub, whether used for games or not?
So as far as a total system and what it can do, hands down, the Sony lineup still cuts the cake.
|
Re: Kingofdaberbz - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» huh?
@arishay GTA4 is coming on both so im pretty sure the average consumer would buy it on the cheaper console n 360 has over 1000 hours of digital entertainment they have more media then itunes I know the ps3 aint got that but when it comes down 2 it all the consumers want are games n 360 has plent at a cheaper price I cant imagine the ps3 outselling the 360 is only if they have a drastic price drop with n with plent more games it was already proven ppl care more about fun-good stry graphix are not a issue.
@arishay GTA4 is coming on both so im pretty sure the average consumer would buy it on the cheaper console n 360 has over 1000 hours of digital entertainment they have more media then itunes I know the ps3 aint got that but when it comes down 2 it all the consumers want are games n 360 has plent at a cheaper price I cant imagine the ps3 outselling the 360 is only if they have a drastic price drop with n with plent more games it was already proven ppl care more about fun-good stry graphix are not a issue.
|
by jschloer - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» Microsoft looking to shorten lifecycle?
I've been thinking lately that maybe Microsoft doesn't even care if they win this time around. They've gotten enough good content to be very competitive, something the original xbox really wasn't. So for them they've probably already reached their goal. Plus they seem to have a shorter view of the console lifespan than Sony. MS isn't going for a ten year console(neither is Sony, but they advertise that way). In 2-3 years, odds are that the best games probably will be on the PS3. The 360 will be 5 years old at that point though, and ready for a refresh, right when the PS3 is catching it's stride. If MS merely updates the platform, by adding processor cores/ speed, more memory, bigger/guaranteed hd, HD format of the day, better GPU(maybe PPU), and price it competitively with the PS3, they could really steal the show( especially given that developing for it would be similar to the current 360). That will force Sony's hand, to either take the chance of alienating it's PS3 customers by building a new machine quicker than they would have liked, or continue on with what will be a substantially less powerful console.
Either way, I think the next few generations will overlap quite a bit. Probably getting to the point that Sony and Microsoft never face each other at the same time. It's probably best for both companies, since each will get to share the "most powerful console" crown an equal amount of time. The fact that gaming studios, like id, are working on gaming engines which easily scale up to the current hardware leader will make this an even more tractable situation. Heck even the fanboys will win, since they'll get to trade leadership of the console market every couple years.
I realize I'm leaving the Wii out in all this, but they're really the dark horse in all this. Where they'll go in the next generation is anyone's guess. The only thing we know for sure is that in term's of sales they're killing this generation. and have reestablished themselves as the gaming leader.
I've been thinking lately that maybe Microsoft doesn't even care if they win this time around. They've gotten enough good content to be very competitive, something the original xbox really wasn't. So for them they've probably already reached their goal. Plus they seem to have a shorter view of the console lifespan than Sony. MS isn't going for a ten year console(neither is Sony, but they advertise that way). In 2-3 years, odds are that the best games probably will be on the PS3. The 360 will be 5 years old at that point though, and ready for a refresh, right when the PS3 is catching it's stride. If MS merely updates the platform, by adding processor cores/ speed, more memory, bigger/guaranteed hd, HD format of the day, better GPU(maybe PPU), and price it competitively with the PS3, they could really steal the show( especially given that developing for it would be similar to the current 360). That will force Sony's hand, to either take the chance of alienating it's PS3 customers by building a new machine quicker than they would have liked, or continue on with what will be a substantially less powerful console.
Either way, I think the next few generations will overlap quite a bit. Probably getting to the point that Sony and Microsoft never face each other at the same time. It's probably best for both companies, since each will get to share the "most powerful console" crown an equal amount of time. The fact that gaming studios, like id, are working on gaming engines which easily scale up to the current hardware leader will make this an even more tractable situation. Heck even the fanboys will win, since they'll get to trade leadership of the console market every couple years.
I realize I'm leaving the Wii out in all this, but they're really the dark horse in all this. Where they'll go in the next generation is anyone's guess. The only thing we know for sure is that in term's of sales they're killing this generation. and have reestablished themselves as the gaming leader.
|
Re: logicbomb.de - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» ^^^^^^
Excellent post!
Excellent post!
|
by god0fgod - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» RAM?
I heard the consoles have the same amont of ram only the 360 can share all the ram between it's CPU and GPU while the PS3 has seperate memory.
I heard the consoles have the same amont of ram only the 360 can share all the ram between it's CPU and GPU while the PS3 has seperate memory.
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by ISOHaven - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
I don't know who this "source" is but he/she is nothing but a parrot. Everything in this article was already known.
The 360 was nothing more then an Xbox v1.5. Hell, it took them a v1.6 just to add a no brainer HDMI port. MS should be ashamed of themselves for releasing a product that wasn't advanced enough to be considered NEXTGen. After all the 360 is nothing more then SAMEGen.
The 360 is about as revolutionary as the PSP Slim.
As more and more BluRay games hit the market, it's going to become painfully clear that the 360 needed to spend more time in development as well as why the PS3 is worth the extra money. Unless of course 360 owners don't mind having to swap discs multiple times during game play.
I don't know who this "source" is but he/she is nothing but a parrot. Everything in this article was already known.
The 360 was nothing more then an Xbox v1.5. Hell, it took them a v1.6 just to add a no brainer HDMI port. MS should be ashamed of themselves for releasing a product that wasn't advanced enough to be considered NEXTGen. After all the 360 is nothing more then SAMEGen.
The 360 is about as revolutionary as the PSP Slim.
As more and more BluRay games hit the market, it's going to become painfully clear that the 360 needed to spend more time in development as well as why the PS3 is worth the extra money. Unless of course 360 owners don't mind having to swap discs multiple times during game play.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Well done
For one of the dumbest posts in this thread so far. Your post is a demonstration of fanboyism at it's purest and insecure best. :)
It's no wonder then that you were incapable of understanding what the PS exclusive dev Naughty Dog were talking about later in this thread.
For one of the dumbest posts in this thread so far. Your post is a demonstration of fanboyism at it's purest and insecure best. :)
It's no wonder then that you were incapable of understanding what the PS exclusive dev Naughty Dog were talking about later in this thread.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
I own a PS3, Wii and 360. Try again.
In order of use:
Wii
PS3
PC
360
The ONLY time I play my 360 is when a game is not available for the other two or my PC.
Why? Because there is nothing special about it. That's not "fanboyism", it's called preference. I prefer quality over anything else.
I own a PS3, Wii and 360. Try again.
In order of use:
Wii
PS3
PC
360
The ONLY time I play my 360 is when a game is not available for the other two or my PC.
Why? Because there is nothing special about it. That's not "fanboyism", it's called preference. I prefer quality over anything else.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» I don't care what you *say* you own
When you reduce your arguements to calling consoles by stupid names (Xbox v1.5), SAMEGen etc, instead of offering a constructive thought out arguement in an adult manner, then yes, that's nothing but fanboyism I'm seeing in your post (and claiming you own the console in question doesn't change that).
When you reduce your arguements to calling consoles by stupid names (Xbox v1.5), SAMEGen etc, instead of offering a constructive thought out arguement in an adult manner, then yes, that's nothing but fanboyism I'm seeing in your post (and claiming you own the console in question doesn't change that).
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"When you reduce your arguements to calling consoles by stupid names (Xbox v1.5)"
You can think it's stupid all you want. However I've had discussions with ACTUAL MS fanboys and they agree. In fact since I've made that 1.5 comment from BEFORE the 360 was released, I've seen it made many time by other people in the industry.
"SAMEGen etc, instead of offering a constructive thought out arguement in an adult manner"
Adult manner? You post how "dumb" things are and you expect adult conversation? Practice what you preach!
Obviously it hurts you to have anyone speak of the 360 with anything other then extreme praise. Get over yourself.
"When you reduce your arguements to calling consoles by stupid names (Xbox v1.5)"
You can think it's stupid all you want. However I've had discussions with ACTUAL MS fanboys and they agree. In fact since I've made that 1.5 comment from BEFORE the 360 was released, I've seen it made many time by other people in the industry.
"SAMEGen etc, instead of offering a constructive thought out arguement in an adult manner"
Adult manner? You post how "dumb" things are and you expect adult conversation? Practice what you preach!
Obviously it hurts you to have anyone speak of the 360 with anything other then extreme praise. Get over yourself.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Do continue
"Adult manner? You post how "dumb" things are and you expect adult conversation? Practice what you preach!"
Actually I do practice what I preach, but I also call a spade a spade, and that was a very dumb post.
"Obviously it hurts you to have anyone speak of the 360 with anything other then extreme praise. Get over yourself."
Strange, because I thought I'd would need to own a 360 first to actually care. But go ahead, knock yourself out if it makes YOU feel better, and makes you feel like you're accomplishing somethingm but that will not stop me disagreeing with you in the same way I was recently argueing with a 360 fanboy who says Blu-ray is not needed and gave the poor reviews of Lair and the 6-7 hours gameplay of Heavenly Sword as examples. I was a PS3 fanboy according to him. :)
So go ahead ISOHaven, unlike you, I don't have issues with any console.
"Adult manner? You post how "dumb" things are and you expect adult conversation? Practice what you preach!"
Actually I do practice what I preach, but I also call a spade a spade, and that was a very dumb post.
"Obviously it hurts you to have anyone speak of the 360 with anything other then extreme praise. Get over yourself."
Strange, because I thought I'd would need to own a 360 first to actually care. But go ahead, knock yourself out if it makes YOU feel better, and makes you feel like you're accomplishing somethingm but that will not stop me disagreeing with you in the same way I was recently argueing with a 360 fanboy who says Blu-ray is not needed and gave the poor reviews of Lair and the 6-7 hours gameplay of Heavenly Sword as examples. I was a PS3 fanboy according to him. :)
So go ahead ISOHaven, unlike you, I don't have issues with any console.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"Actually I do practice what I preach, but I also call a spade a spade, and that was a very dumb post."
Wow! So it's ok for you call a post dumb but if anyone else does they are childish?
You are a total waste.
"Actually I do practice what I preach, but I also call a spade a spade, and that was a very dumb post."
Wow! So it's ok for you call a post dumb but if anyone else does they are childish?
You are a total waste.
|
Re: logicbomb.de - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» LOL!!!
ISOHaven,
Your idiocy is astounding and highly entertaining!
don't stop now! show those xbots what for!
ps3 is teh winn!!11!1
the 360 only has shooters and racing games, but we got Warhawk (shooter), Resistance FAIL of Man (another shooter) and Motorstorm (racing).
Take that, crapbox3s.h.itty.!!!!!!11!11!
ISOHaven,
Your idiocy is astounding and highly entertaining!
don't stop now! show those xbots what for!
ps3 is teh winn!!11!1
the 360 only has shooters and racing games, but we got Warhawk (shooter), Resistance FAIL of Man (another shooter) and Motorstorm (racing).
Take that, crapbox3s.h.itty.!!!!!!11!11!
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Keep going, you're funny! :)
"Wow! So it's ok for you call a post dumb but if anyone else does they are childish?"
Calling a console by silly names is not the same as saying a post is dumb.
Now if I called you ISOGayden or A$$HoHaven, then THAT would be childish, but calling you or your post dumb is not.
Come on, is it really that difficult for you to understand?
"You are a total waste."
Really, so why are you wasting so much time replying. :D
"Wow! So it's ok for you call a post dumb but if anyone else does they are childish?"
Calling a console by silly names is not the same as saying a post is dumb.
Now if I called you ISOGayden or A$$HoHaven, then THAT would be childish, but calling you or your post dumb is not.
Come on, is it really that difficult for you to understand?
"You are a total waste."
Really, so why are you wasting so much time replying. :D
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» :)
"ISOHaven, Your idiocy is astounding and highly entertaining!"
Agreed, but it's fun. :)
Shame Unregistered Gamer isn't here to join in (although he takes perhaps take it a little too seriously I feel).
"ISOHaven, Your idiocy is astounding and highly entertaining!"
Agreed, but it's fun. :)
Shame Unregistered Gamer isn't here to join in (although he takes perhaps take it a little too seriously I feel).
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are. If my opinion is that the 360 is nothing more then an Xbox v1.5 then that's my opinion. Nothing you say will change that. Instead you take complete offense to the comment? That's your problem.
Yes, YOU are a waste. I however am not wasting my time with my opinion.
It's always the same thing with you MS fanboys. If anyone says anything negative about the "xbox" you get all pissy about it.
Tell us how much you dislike the PS3 or Wii. I couldn't care less. You would be entitled to your opinion as well.
As I said before:
The 360 is about as revolutionary as the PSP Slim.
You call that dumb? Good for you.
@logicbomb.de, how dumb can you be? I never said the PS3 wins over anything. Wow, the amount of ignorant children on this forum is outstanding!
How does a console win? Sales? Game sales? To each person a console wins based on the game quality it brings to that person.
However, what logicbomb.de fails to realize is that this discussion was about technological advances. So tell us logicbomb.de since you seem to be so quick to dish out the garbage...what is the great technological advance of a faster CPU? Faster GPU? A DVD player? Wireless controller? Component output? In MY opinion...NOTHING!
What the technological advance of a Bluray drive? Bringing HDMI to a console? Bringing REAL 1080p? In my opinion, that makes it a winner based on THIS DISCUSSION.
Don't like it? Good for you.
I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are. If my opinion is that the 360 is nothing more then an Xbox v1.5 then that's my opinion. Nothing you say will change that. Instead you take complete offense to the comment? That's your problem.
Yes, YOU are a waste. I however am not wasting my time with my opinion.
It's always the same thing with you MS fanboys. If anyone says anything negative about the "xbox" you get all pissy about it.
Tell us how much you dislike the PS3 or Wii. I couldn't care less. You would be entitled to your opinion as well.
As I said before:
The 360 is about as revolutionary as the PSP Slim.
You call that dumb? Good for you.
@logicbomb.de, how dumb can you be? I never said the PS3 wins over anything. Wow, the amount of ignorant children on this forum is outstanding!
How does a console win? Sales? Game sales? To each person a console wins based on the game quality it brings to that person.
However, what logicbomb.de fails to realize is that this discussion was about technological advances. So tell us logicbomb.de since you seem to be so quick to dish out the garbage...what is the great technological advance of a faster CPU? Faster GPU? A DVD player? Wireless controller? Component output? In MY opinion...NOTHING!
What the technological advance of a Bluray drive? Bringing HDMI to a console? Bringing REAL 1080p? In my opinion, that makes it a winner based on THIS DISCUSSION.
Don't like it? Good for you.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Oh dear! I see I've toughed a nerve!
"It's always the same thing with you MS fanboys. If anyone says anything negative about the "xbox" you get all pissy about it."
And it's always the same with childish individuals like yourself, who get all upset and annoyed when people disagree with you and so you immediately assume people are fanboys for doing so.
Predicatable, classic, simple minded logic, but still funny. :D
"It's always the same thing with you MS fanboys. If anyone says anything negative about the "xbox" you get all pissy about it."
And it's always the same with childish individuals like yourself, who get all upset and annoyed when people disagree with you and so you immediately assume people are fanboys for doing so.
Predicatable, classic, simple minded logic, but still funny. :D
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"And it's always the same with childish individuals like yourself, who get all upset and annoyed when people disagree with you"
Wrong again! You did not disagree with me. The only thing you did was call my post dumb and call me a fanboy.
And I quote:
"For one of the dumbest posts in this thread so far. Your post is a demonstration of fanboyism at it's purest and insecure best."
Let me guess, that's an example of the adult/mature discussion you are after?
"And it's always the same with childish individuals like yourself, who get all upset and annoyed when people disagree with you"
Wrong again! You did not disagree with me. The only thing you did was call my post dumb and call me a fanboy.
And I quote:
"For one of the dumbest posts in this thread so far. Your post is a demonstration of fanboyism at it's purest and insecure best."
Let me guess, that's an example of the adult/mature discussion you are after?
|
by wilmheath - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» Microsoft and Wii have already won
Owners of either console are already enjoying top notch games. I'm partial to the xbox due to the types of games I enjoy but I've spoken with many Wii owners that are more than happy with their games. The ps3 is headed down the same path as the xbox 1 with it's one awesome game and a lot of hype and hope. Why do people hold on to this hope instead of playing great games now? I just don't get you all.
Owners of either console are already enjoying top notch games. I'm partial to the xbox due to the types of games I enjoy but I've spoken with many Wii owners that are more than happy with their games. The ps3 is headed down the same path as the xbox 1 with it's one awesome game and a lot of hype and hope. Why do people hold on to this hope instead of playing great games now? I just don't get you all.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
Well, that is certainly your opinion and not fact.
What is this ONE game you speak of? Personally I absolutely love two games so far and I'm dying while waiting for a few others to be released.
Well, that is certainly your opinion and not fact.
What is this ONE game you speak of? Personally I absolutely love two games so far and I'm dying while waiting for a few others to be released.
|
by Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» Fact: All quotes about how much a console is tapped are BS
As stated by Naughty Dog last gen.
http://www.naughtydog.com/jak1/20Questions.htm
"Q) What percent of the PS2’s power are you using?
A) People think of systems as glasses and ask: “how full is the glass”. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works. Any developer who gives you a “percent of system used” answer is blowing smoke. The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others. And game after game, we ALL get more out of systems than we did on the previous title. Think of it this way. If the system is a glass, some developers pour in rocks till the glass overflows and then call it quits. They would claim that they use 100% of the systems space. And it is true that no more rocks fit. Some will even put in a rock too many and the game plays slow or runs funny. But there is still some space left for smarter developers. They pour pebbles into the cracks left by the rocks, and they get more into the glass. Then they call it 100% full. But some Developers will then pour in sand, to fill the cracks between the pebbles. They get even more out of the system, yet it is still just 100% full. Some developers go the extra distance, and they pour in water. Then the glass is truly full, right? Sure, but just for this title, because some of the rocks can be replaced with pebbles that do the same thing, if you work hard at it. And some of the pebbles can be made into sand. And some sand can be pressed to water. No developer ever gets a glass filled with only water, no developer has that much time, so no developer truly fills the glass. We just get more and more out of the 100%."
They were one of the few devs who managed to push the PS2 more than anyone else when their games were released (and games using their game engine), so they certainly know what they're talking about. And hence the claim that 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped already is just speculative nonsense.
As stated by Naughty Dog last gen.
http://www.naughtydog.com/jak1/20Questions.htm
"Q) What percent of the PS2’s power are you using?
A) People think of systems as glasses and ask: “how full is the glass”. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works. Any developer who gives you a “percent of system used” answer is blowing smoke. The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others. And game after game, we ALL get more out of systems than we did on the previous title. Think of it this way. If the system is a glass, some developers pour in rocks till the glass overflows and then call it quits. They would claim that they use 100% of the systems space. And it is true that no more rocks fit. Some will even put in a rock too many and the game plays slow or runs funny. But there is still some space left for smarter developers. They pour pebbles into the cracks left by the rocks, and they get more into the glass. Then they call it 100% full. But some Developers will then pour in sand, to fill the cracks between the pebbles. They get even more out of the system, yet it is still just 100% full. Some developers go the extra distance, and they pour in water. Then the glass is truly full, right? Sure, but just for this title, because some of the rocks can be replaced with pebbles that do the same thing, if you work hard at it. And some of the pebbles can be made into sand. And some sand can be pressed to water. No developer ever gets a glass filled with only water, no developer has that much time, so no developer truly fills the glass. We just get more and more out of the 100%."
They were one of the few devs who managed to push the PS2 more than anyone else when their games were released (and games using their game engine), so they certainly know what they're talking about. And hence the claim that 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped already is just speculative nonsense.
|
Re: logicbomb.de - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» WTF?!!
Intelligent conversation, sources cited, well thought out arguments, PROPER PUNCTUATION?!
I'd have never thought it possible had I not seen it with my own eyes!
Unregistered Gamer, the next beer is on me.
Best thing QJ has done in a long time is to remove anon posting.
Intelligent conversation, sources cited, well thought out arguments, PROPER PUNCTUATION?!
I'd have never thought it possible had I not seen it with my own eyes!
Unregistered Gamer, the next beer is on me.
Best thing QJ has done in a long time is to remove anon posting.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
Naughty Dog is blowing smoke themselves.
There are many ways to measure "resources". One of them is code optimization based on hardware.
Potential and how WELL you code for hardware go hand in hand. So YES you can measure the potential or percentage used on hardware assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question.
Naughty Dog is blowing smoke themselves.
There are many ways to measure "resources". One of them is code optimization based on hardware.
Potential and how WELL you code for hardware go hand in hand. So YES you can measure the potential or percentage used on hardware assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» ^^^Oh please
Firstly, thanks logicbomb.de :)
Now to you ISOHaven.
Gee, who should I listen to, a top developer responsible for some of the most technically impressive games last gen on the PS2, or some anonymous gamer online who's only claim to fame is posting on a forum?
Naughty Dog are spot on with those comments, and so I suggest you read them again and try to understand what is actually being said.
You're the one blowing smoke unfortunately, since your comments regarding measuring potential is empty rubbish with no foundation in truth, because you can NEVER know for a fact what the full potential actually is! So you cannot give percentages.
When coding 3D line drawing and wireframe vector graphics routines in assembler on a z80 based computer in the 80s, my first programs were very fast. They were pushing the CPU to the limits...with CERTAIN instructions. I then I realised that by using different registers, I can save a few cycles and therefore achieve faster results. Then I found I could use alternative instructions to save a few more cycles, again improving performance. Then I found I could save memory significantly by using self modifying code (changing values in memory to alter the code in realtime, which breaks all the rules for reliable code). My routines were as fast as anything I'd seen in commercial games at the time, and there were still ways I could speed it up further (changing the way I used log tables for multiplication and division, and combining them with sine tables for example). And this process goes on and on.
The point is, there are MANY levels of optimization to improve performance, from the methods, algorithms and databases used within a program or game right down to the assembly code itself, and even then, a new idea could arrive offering a different and faster way of achieving the SAME result! Therefore there is NO SIMPLE measure of potential as you seem to think exists, and therefore no way for a developer to state with confidence a percentage to how much a console has been tapped! Hence as Naughty Dog correctly states, any dev that does so is simply blowing smoke.
Firstly, thanks logicbomb.de :)
Now to you ISOHaven.
Gee, who should I listen to, a top developer responsible for some of the most technically impressive games last gen on the PS2, or some anonymous gamer online who's only claim to fame is posting on a forum?
Naughty Dog are spot on with those comments, and so I suggest you read them again and try to understand what is actually being said.
You're the one blowing smoke unfortunately, since your comments regarding measuring potential is empty rubbish with no foundation in truth, because you can NEVER know for a fact what the full potential actually is! So you cannot give percentages.
When coding 3D line drawing and wireframe vector graphics routines in assembler on a z80 based computer in the 80s, my first programs were very fast. They were pushing the CPU to the limits...with CERTAIN instructions. I then I realised that by using different registers, I can save a few cycles and therefore achieve faster results. Then I found I could use alternative instructions to save a few more cycles, again improving performance. Then I found I could save memory significantly by using self modifying code (changing values in memory to alter the code in realtime, which breaks all the rules for reliable code). My routines were as fast as anything I'd seen in commercial games at the time, and there were still ways I could speed it up further (changing the way I used log tables for multiplication and division, and combining them with sine tables for example). And this process goes on and on.
The point is, there are MANY levels of optimization to improve performance, from the methods, algorithms and databases used within a program or game right down to the assembly code itself, and even then, a new idea could arrive offering a different and faster way of achieving the SAME result! Therefore there is NO SIMPLE measure of potential as you seem to think exists, and therefore no way for a developer to state with confidence a percentage to how much a console has been tapped! Hence as Naughty Dog correctly states, any dev that does so is simply blowing smoke.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"Gee, who should I listen to, a top developer responsible for some of the most technically impressive games last gen on the PS2"
That's a joke right? A dev tooting their own horn is what you call top notch information? Hilarious! Chevy is the #1 selling truck according to Chevy.....and Ford is the #1 selling truck according to Ford.....and GMC is the #1 selling truck according to GMC.... again, hilarious!
"or some anonymous gamer online who's only claim to fame is posting on a forum?"
HAHAHAHA! I'm guessing you justify everything in life with that info. Whatever you say bud, you seem to know everything including the people on this forum.
Enjoy!
Here's where I shoot down your ability to read and understand:
"because you can NEVER know for a fact what the full potential actually is!"
....and I repeat, "assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question."
Please try to understand the second time around.
Here's another gem:
"Then I found I could use alternative instructions to save a few more cycles, again improving performance."
I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you just agreed with me 100%.
By realizing you screwed up your code the first time around you ACCEPTED THE FACT that you WASTED the hardware's potential. Waste is the same as NOT USING.
"therefore there is NO SIMPLE measure of potential as you seem to think exists"
HAHAHAHA!!!!!! This is proof positive that you took offense to my post and now you're just rambling on to make some empty point. Why do I say this? Because I NEVER claimed anything was simply. Now you're just making up stuff and assuming things.
Dev'ing code that wastes resources is the same as NOT using the machines potential. Until NO ONE on this planet can further optimize code being used on any particular piece of hardware, you have NOT used that machines full potential. Thus "Naughty Dog" is 100% WRONG in saying that all Dev's use FULL POTENTIAL all the time.
"every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game"
That comment alone is absolute crap. Every? 100%? It's all BS.
"Gee, who should I listen to, a top developer responsible for some of the most technically impressive games last gen on the PS2"
That's a joke right? A dev tooting their own horn is what you call top notch information? Hilarious! Chevy is the #1 selling truck according to Chevy.....and Ford is the #1 selling truck according to Ford.....and GMC is the #1 selling truck according to GMC.... again, hilarious!
"or some anonymous gamer online who's only claim to fame is posting on a forum?"
HAHAHAHA! I'm guessing you justify everything in life with that info. Whatever you say bud, you seem to know everything including the people on this forum.
Enjoy!
Here's where I shoot down your ability to read and understand:
"because you can NEVER know for a fact what the full potential actually is!"
....and I repeat, "assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question."
Please try to understand the second time around.
Here's another gem:
"Then I found I could use alternative instructions to save a few more cycles, again improving performance."
I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you just agreed with me 100%.
By realizing you screwed up your code the first time around you ACCEPTED THE FACT that you WASTED the hardware's potential. Waste is the same as NOT USING.
"therefore there is NO SIMPLE measure of potential as you seem to think exists"
HAHAHAHA!!!!!! This is proof positive that you took offense to my post and now you're just rambling on to make some empty point. Why do I say this? Because I NEVER claimed anything was simply. Now you're just making up stuff and assuming things.
Dev'ing code that wastes resources is the same as NOT using the machines potential. Until NO ONE on this planet can further optimize code being used on any particular piece of hardware, you have NOT used that machines full potential. Thus "Naughty Dog" is 100% WRONG in saying that all Dev's use FULL POTENTIAL all the time.
"every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game"
That comment alone is absolute crap. Every? 100%? It's all BS.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» ^^^ Exactly the response I expected from you
Nowhere in that statement are Naughty Dog 'tooting their horn'. Nowhere are they saying they are better than anyone else. So again, you fail to understand what you read.
They are stating EXACTLY the same thing another dev stated at the time (can't recall who right now) when asked how much they were pushing the PS2. They refused to give percentages, but instead said games always pushes the hardware 100% by definition (as Naughty Dog says). Some gamers understood what was meant at the time, but gamers like YOU thought they were claiming they've tapped the PS2's full potential already.
"....and I repeat, "assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question.""
And I repeat, you can never KNOW for a FACT what the full potential is. ASSUMPTIONS are not facts, therefore anything based on ASSUMPTIONS is simply guesswork, and therefore any measure of percentage based upon those ASSUMPTIONS are just guesses!, and therefore such guesses as to how much a game is pushing the hardware IS blowing smoke ISOHaven!
That will ONLY change when guesswork is replaced by FACT, and that is not possible.
Besides, this is the same nonsense we went through last gen, with certain devs claiming they've got XX% out of the PS2, and yet looking back, they were ALL meaningless guesses.
"By realizing you screwed up your code the first time around you ACCEPTED THE FACT that you WASTED the hardware's potential. Waste is the same as NOT USING."
Again you missed the point (as expected). I found alternative ways and better ways of achieving the same result. This is the same processs devs go through when improving a game's performance, hence the term optimization, and therefore the reason why the longer they work on a game, the better they can improve it's performance.
Heavenly Sword devs wanted to use HDR in their game. ALL the standard methods such as FP16 available to them via RSX were not good enough and had restrictions (such as no HDR and AA at the same time). Then one of the programmers thought of a new way to implement HDR on the PS3, a method which can be used with AA, and THIS is the method used in the game. They called their method NAO32.
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t+9374
^Change the plus character to equals in that link to make it work, or use google and search for 'NAO32' (that's the letter 'O', not zero) .
According to you, they and every PS3 dev before them, screwed up their initial code when implementing HDR, when in fact, like me, they simply found a NEW and faster way of implementing the same effect. That's called progress ISOHaven, and it's something that can't be measured in advance.
So all games are 'wasting' the hardware's potential by definition, since they will never get 100% out of it, because there is always room for improvement.
"Thus "Naughty Dog" is 100% WRONG in saying that all Dev's use FULL POTENTIAL all the time."
They didn't say full potential, they said 100% of the systems power. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.
Read the analogy about the glass again! The glass being full is analogous to the systems power (i.e. 100%), the AMOUNT they squeeze into the same glass using progressively smaller rocks/substances is analogous to it's potential!
Optimization allows you to replace the larger particles with smaller ones, getting you closer to it's full potential but never reaching it. That's what I mentioned about my own code, and that's what happens in games. It's the process that leads to getting more out of the same hardware.
So Naughty Dog are 100% correct. For EVERY game running on the PS3 and 360, the hardware is running at 100% all the time, it cannot run that particular code any faster! When you see slowdown in a game, it is not the CPU or GPU slowing down, they are still running at 100%, but slowdown means they cannot process the data fast enough. It doesn't matter whether this is due to bad coding or system limitations, the slowdown can only be avoided by makin
Nowhere in that statement are Naughty Dog 'tooting their horn'. Nowhere are they saying they are better than anyone else. So again, you fail to understand what you read.
They are stating EXACTLY the same thing another dev stated at the time (can't recall who right now) when asked how much they were pushing the PS2. They refused to give percentages, but instead said games always pushes the hardware 100% by definition (as Naughty Dog says). Some gamers understood what was meant at the time, but gamers like YOU thought they were claiming they've tapped the PS2's full potential already.
"....and I repeat, "assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question.""
And I repeat, you can never KNOW for a FACT what the full potential is. ASSUMPTIONS are not facts, therefore anything based on ASSUMPTIONS is simply guesswork, and therefore any measure of percentage based upon those ASSUMPTIONS are just guesses!, and therefore such guesses as to how much a game is pushing the hardware IS blowing smoke ISOHaven!
That will ONLY change when guesswork is replaced by FACT, and that is not possible.
Besides, this is the same nonsense we went through last gen, with certain devs claiming they've got XX% out of the PS2, and yet looking back, they were ALL meaningless guesses.
"By realizing you screwed up your code the first time around you ACCEPTED THE FACT that you WASTED the hardware's potential. Waste is the same as NOT USING."
Again you missed the point (as expected). I found alternative ways and better ways of achieving the same result. This is the same processs devs go through when improving a game's performance, hence the term optimization, and therefore the reason why the longer they work on a game, the better they can improve it's performance.
Heavenly Sword devs wanted to use HDR in their game. ALL the standard methods such as FP16 available to them via RSX were not good enough and had restrictions (such as no HDR and AA at the same time). Then one of the programmers thought of a new way to implement HDR on the PS3, a method which can be used with AA, and THIS is the method used in the game. They called their method NAO32.
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t+9374
^Change the plus character to equals in that link to make it work, or use google and search for 'NAO32' (that's the letter 'O', not zero) .
According to you, they and every PS3 dev before them, screwed up their initial code when implementing HDR, when in fact, like me, they simply found a NEW and faster way of implementing the same effect. That's called progress ISOHaven, and it's something that can't be measured in advance.
So all games are 'wasting' the hardware's potential by definition, since they will never get 100% out of it, because there is always room for improvement.
"Thus "Naughty Dog" is 100% WRONG in saying that all Dev's use FULL POTENTIAL all the time."
They didn't say full potential, they said 100% of the systems power. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.
Read the analogy about the glass again! The glass being full is analogous to the systems power (i.e. 100%), the AMOUNT they squeeze into the same glass using progressively smaller rocks/substances is analogous to it's potential!
Optimization allows you to replace the larger particles with smaller ones, getting you closer to it's full potential but never reaching it. That's what I mentioned about my own code, and that's what happens in games. It's the process that leads to getting more out of the same hardware.
So Naughty Dog are 100% correct. For EVERY game running on the PS3 and 360, the hardware is running at 100% all the time, it cannot run that particular code any faster! When you see slowdown in a game, it is not the CPU or GPU slowing down, they are still running at 100%, but slowdown means they cannot process the data fast enough. It doesn't matter whether this is due to bad coding or system limitations, the slowdown can only be avoided by makin
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Cut off before the end.
As I was saying, slowdown can only be avoided by making changes and optimizations to the code to get more out of the same hardware, hence improving performance and hopefully eliminating any slowdown.
""every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game"
That comment alone is absolute crap. Every? 100%? It's all BS.""
No, it's you who doesn't understand it. The hardware is always running at 100%, so it's down to the devs to get as much out of that hardware as they can. The hardware doesn't change, the code DOES, and that's where the potential lies. This is what Naughty Dog are saying.
As I was saying, slowdown can only be avoided by making changes and optimizations to the code to get more out of the same hardware, hence improving performance and hopefully eliminating any slowdown.
""every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game"
That comment alone is absolute crap. Every? 100%? It's all BS.""
No, it's you who doesn't understand it. The hardware is always running at 100%, so it's down to the devs to get as much out of that hardware as they can. The hardware doesn't change, the code DOES, and that's where the potential lies. This is what Naughty Dog are saying.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Wow
Long time since I've been here, seems to be registered posters only now (is this recent?). Anyway.....
ISOhaven wrote: "That's a joke right? A dev tooting their own horn is what you call top notch information? Hilarious! Chevy is the #1 selling truck according to Chevy.....and Ford is the #1 selling truck according to Ford.....and GMC is the #1 selling truck according to GMC.... again, hilarious!"
And where does Naughty Dog say they are the best? You are very arrogant if you think your opinion counts for more than a dev like Naughty Dog, a developer who seems to be continuing their great work with Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for the PS3. They have proved there ability for pushing hardware, you have not.
Now I can understand fully what ND are saying, so why can't you? It's not rocket science.
ND are right because the potential is found in the *way* the hardware is used, and this is constantly improving over time, making the term "full potential" a moving target, and one which you can not measure with any degree of certainty.
You also said "assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question.""
As Unreg says, you can never know for a fact what the full potential is. So that "high mark" you mention is always questionable because it's only going to be a guess based upon assumptions, and it will be different for each dev. So if one devs says they're using 20% of the PS3's potential but another dev says they're using 40%, that does not mean the second dev is getting twice as much out of the PS3 as the first, they may actually be getting the same, depending on what each *thinks* is the full potential of the console.
As said already, it's a guess, nothing more and nothing less, and this is why ND says they're blowing smoke.
I have to agree with that statement.
Long time since I've been here, seems to be registered posters only now (is this recent?). Anyway.....
ISOhaven wrote: "That's a joke right? A dev tooting their own horn is what you call top notch information? Hilarious! Chevy is the #1 selling truck according to Chevy.....and Ford is the #1 selling truck according to Ford.....and GMC is the #1 selling truck according to GMC.... again, hilarious!"
And where does Naughty Dog say they are the best? You are very arrogant if you think your opinion counts for more than a dev like Naughty Dog, a developer who seems to be continuing their great work with Uncharted: Drake's Fortune for the PS3. They have proved there ability for pushing hardware, you have not.
Now I can understand fully what ND are saying, so why can't you? It's not rocket science.
ND are right because the potential is found in the *way* the hardware is used, and this is constantly improving over time, making the term "full potential" a moving target, and one which you can not measure with any degree of certainty.
You also said "assuming you know FOR FACT what the full potential actually is. It's that "high mark" that is in question.""
As Unreg says, you can never know for a fact what the full potential is. So that "high mark" you mention is always questionable because it's only going to be a guess based upon assumptions, and it will be different for each dev. So if one devs says they're using 20% of the PS3's potential but another dev says they're using 40%, that does not mean the second dev is getting twice as much out of the PS3 as the first, they may actually be getting the same, depending on what each *thinks* is the full potential of the console.
As said already, it's a guess, nothing more and nothing less, and this is why ND says they're blowing smoke.
I have to agree with that statement.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"They are stating EXACTLY the same thing another dev stated at the time (can't recall who right now)"
How convenient.
"but instead said games always pushes the hardware 100%"
More BS. According to this garbage solitaire pushes my hardware 100%?
You can say it over and over again all you want. It wont make it true.
"And I repeat, you can never KNOW for a FACT what the full potential is."
HAHAHAHA!!!!! That's exactly what I had to repeat to you. I guess you DIDN'T "get it" the second time around.
"Again you missed the point (as expected). I found alternative ways and better ways of achieving the same result."
WRONG! You did not achieve the same result. In FACT you stated, "I can save a few cycles and therefore achieve faster results"
So let's see:
"same result"
"faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point.
Stating "alternative ways" of improving code is how devs get themselves to sleep at night. Sloppy code is sloppy code. I bet you're one of those devs that would select all fields from all tables and then proceed to loop your app to death.
"They didn't say full potential, they said 100% of the systems power. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING."
That's right. YOU stated potential. Either way, that is still 100% false.
"So Naughty Dog are 100% correct. For EVERY game running on the PS3 and 360, the hardware is running at 100% all the time, it cannot run that particular code any faster! "
Run code faster? Excuse me? Um... you are completely WHACKED in your thinking. Are you trying to tell us that by stating every game runs at the consoles clock speed, that game is running at 100% of the systems resources? HA! You are a laugh a minute my friend.
Executing "any" code does not translate to 100% of a consoles resources.
"They are stating EXACTLY the same thing another dev stated at the time (can't recall who right now)"
How convenient.
"but instead said games always pushes the hardware 100%"
More BS. According to this garbage solitaire pushes my hardware 100%?
You can say it over and over again all you want. It wont make it true.
"And I repeat, you can never KNOW for a FACT what the full potential is."
HAHAHAHA!!!!! That's exactly what I had to repeat to you. I guess you DIDN'T "get it" the second time around.
"Again you missed the point (as expected). I found alternative ways and better ways of achieving the same result."
WRONG! You did not achieve the same result. In FACT you stated, "I can save a few cycles and therefore achieve faster results"
So let's see:
"same result"
"faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point.
Stating "alternative ways" of improving code is how devs get themselves to sleep at night. Sloppy code is sloppy code. I bet you're one of those devs that would select all fields from all tables and then proceed to loop your app to death.
"They didn't say full potential, they said 100% of the systems power. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING."
That's right. YOU stated potential. Either way, that is still 100% false.
"So Naughty Dog are 100% correct. For EVERY game running on the PS3 and 360, the hardware is running at 100% all the time, it cannot run that particular code any faster! "
Run code faster? Excuse me? Um... you are completely WHACKED in your thinking. Are you trying to tell us that by stating every game runs at the consoles clock speed, that game is running at 100% of the systems resources? HA! You are a laugh a minute my friend.
Executing "any" code does not translate to 100% of a consoles resources.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» So where are your facts ISOHaven?
ISO wrote: "How convenient."
At least he has provided links, such as the one from Naughty Dog. What have you provided except sarcastic childish remarks?
ISO wrote: "So let's see: "same result" "faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point."
How is that a lie? Nit-picking at the exact words used doesn't make it wrong or a lie. It doesn't change the fact that he has explained the principle of getting more out of the same hardware, a concept you still fail to grasp.
So you have still failed to prove him wrong.
ISO wrote: "Executing "any" code does not translate to 100% of a consoles resources."
He is saying that the console can not run that code any faster. The hardware is fixed, so whatever code it is running, that's as fast as the console can manage, therefore it is running at 100%. To get more performance requires changes to the code and methods employed. Another concept you fail to grasp, which suggests to me you are clueless about programming.
Anyway, I'm waiting for your response on the point I made about devs quoting percentages. Like I said, one dev quoting 40% does not mean they are pusing the console twice as much as another developer quoting 20%. The one quoting 20% may actually be getting more out of the console!
Such percentages are also subject to bias. A developer trying to highlight the fact that there is much potential left in the console is likely to provide a lower, more conservative estimate (20-30% for example). Whereas a developer trying to prove they are pushing the console harder than anyone else are likely to give a higher more optimistic figure (40% or more).
Therefore you can never trust figures giving the percentage of console used from developers because a) Each have a different idea of the full potential available, making it a guess only, and b) Each are subject to bias, whether it's to please their 'masters' or to promote their achievements. So we can not consider such estimates to be accurate, and therefore it is an example of devs blowing smoke (to use ND's term).
Besides, we couldn't trust it last gen, because system usuage estimates didn't reflect on the real potential of the PS2 or how much it had really been pushed!
So why should this gen be any different?
ISO wrote: "How convenient."
At least he has provided links, such as the one from Naughty Dog. What have you provided except sarcastic childish remarks?
ISO wrote: "So let's see: "same result" "faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point."
How is that a lie? Nit-picking at the exact words used doesn't make it wrong or a lie. It doesn't change the fact that he has explained the principle of getting more out of the same hardware, a concept you still fail to grasp.
So you have still failed to prove him wrong.
ISO wrote: "Executing "any" code does not translate to 100% of a consoles resources."
He is saying that the console can not run that code any faster. The hardware is fixed, so whatever code it is running, that's as fast as the console can manage, therefore it is running at 100%. To get more performance requires changes to the code and methods employed. Another concept you fail to grasp, which suggests to me you are clueless about programming.
Anyway, I'm waiting for your response on the point I made about devs quoting percentages. Like I said, one dev quoting 40% does not mean they are pusing the console twice as much as another developer quoting 20%. The one quoting 20% may actually be getting more out of the console!
Such percentages are also subject to bias. A developer trying to highlight the fact that there is much potential left in the console is likely to provide a lower, more conservative estimate (20-30% for example). Whereas a developer trying to prove they are pushing the console harder than anyone else are likely to give a higher more optimistic figure (40% or more).
Therefore you can never trust figures giving the percentage of console used from developers because a) Each have a different idea of the full potential available, making it a guess only, and b) Each are subject to bias, whether it's to please their 'masters' or to promote their achievements. So we can not consider such estimates to be accurate, and therefore it is an example of devs blowing smoke (to use ND's term).
Besides, we couldn't trust it last gen, because system usuage estimates didn't reflect on the real potential of the PS2 or how much it had really been pushed!
So why should this gen be any different?
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"So where are your facts ISOHaven?"
If someone comes to this board and tells us they got their Kia Rio to hit 600MPH....I don't need links to tell that guy he's full of it.
"How is that a lie? Nit-picking at the exact words used doesn't make it wrong or a lie. It doesn't change the fact that he has explained the principle of getting more out of the same hardware, a concept you still fail to grasp."
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Whatever you say bud. You are lost in left field.
"He is saying that the console can not run that code any faster. The hardware is fixed, so whatever code it is running, that's as fast as the console can manage, therefore it is running at 100%. "
WRONG! What you are forgetting is that he and ND are also lumping resources into the mix. If I code a VB app to get the TIME for me, the app will run at the processors clock speed however it WILL NOT utilize 100% of the machines resources nor will it run the machine at it's full potential.
In the end if a direct quote from ND is that a machine runs at full POWER, that in itself is a useless comment. What EXACTLY are they saying? The unit runs at a full 110v? Or whatever it's DC input is? POWER means nothing in terms of code utilization.
Again, you can say it's true all you want but that wont make it true.
"Anyway, I'm waiting for your response on the point I made about devs quoting percentages."
Why would I? I found three points in your post claiming I made other points that I never made. You're as exaggerative as your "Unregistered Gamer" buddy. I never said that any specific comment on percentages was true or accurate. I simply stated how impossible it is for anyone to mention that ALL CODE uses 100% of ANY MACHINES resources. That is just plain ridiculous.
"So we can not consider such estimates to be accurate, and therefore it is an example of devs blowing smoke (to use ND's term)."
That's fine!!!! If that was ALL ND had said then they would be completely justified in their remarks. But that's NOT all they said. They had to push it even further with a bunch garbage remarks to force their opinion.
"So why should this gen be any different?"
It's not. This GEN does NOT use magical code that uses ALL resources either.
"So where are your facts ISOHaven?"
If someone comes to this board and tells us they got their Kia Rio to hit 600MPH....I don't need links to tell that guy he's full of it.
"How is that a lie? Nit-picking at the exact words used doesn't make it wrong or a lie. It doesn't change the fact that he has explained the principle of getting more out of the same hardware, a concept you still fail to grasp."
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Whatever you say bud. You are lost in left field.
"He is saying that the console can not run that code any faster. The hardware is fixed, so whatever code it is running, that's as fast as the console can manage, therefore it is running at 100%. "
WRONG! What you are forgetting is that he and ND are also lumping resources into the mix. If I code a VB app to get the TIME for me, the app will run at the processors clock speed however it WILL NOT utilize 100% of the machines resources nor will it run the machine at it's full potential.
In the end if a direct quote from ND is that a machine runs at full POWER, that in itself is a useless comment. What EXACTLY are they saying? The unit runs at a full 110v? Or whatever it's DC input is? POWER means nothing in terms of code utilization.
Again, you can say it's true all you want but that wont make it true.
"Anyway, I'm waiting for your response on the point I made about devs quoting percentages."
Why would I? I found three points in your post claiming I made other points that I never made. You're as exaggerative as your "Unregistered Gamer" buddy. I never said that any specific comment on percentages was true or accurate. I simply stated how impossible it is for anyone to mention that ALL CODE uses 100% of ANY MACHINES resources. That is just plain ridiculous.
"So we can not consider such estimates to be accurate, and therefore it is an example of devs blowing smoke (to use ND's term)."
That's fine!!!! If that was ALL ND had said then they would be completely justified in their remarks. But that's NOT all they said. They had to push it even further with a bunch garbage remarks to force their opinion.
"So why should this gen be any different?"
It's not. This GEN does NOT use magical code that uses ALL resources either.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» I see it's *finally* beginning to click for you
"WRONG! What you are forgetting is that he and ND are also lumping resources into the mix."
WRONG! Go back READ what ND actually said. I'll quote it again for you "The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems POWER on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others."
That's POWER ISOHaven, not RESOURCES, but POWER.
THAT is what you disagreed with from the start, saying it's all BS. But NS are right! That's the same point Unreg raised when he gave his coding example. If a few terms have been used loosely since then, then that's not the point, because this is all about what ND actually SAID, and they were talking about POWER.
"That's fine!!!! If that was ALL ND had said then they would be completely justified in their remarks. But that's NOT all they said."
That is ALL they said. Where in their statement do they mention resources? The referred to system POWER ONLY and provided an analogy to explain what they meant. Read their statement and tell me what else you think they said!
And you also seem to forget this is all because ND were asked "What percent of the PS2%u2019s power are you using".
They could have taken the same approach as some other devs who pulled a figure out of their a$$, but instead, they chose to challenge the whole idea of 'percentage of system power used'.
A challenge which seems to have offended you for some reason!
"They had to push it even further with a bunch garbage remarks to force their opinion."
Such as? No really, point out their actually remarks.
ND were referring to the same point I made and which you now seem to agree with, i.e. that the percentages given by developers can not be accurately compared to each other, because they all have different ideas of full potential, therefore such figures can not be considered as being accurate, they are only guesses.
"WRONG! What you are forgetting is that he and ND are also lumping resources into the mix."
WRONG! Go back READ what ND actually said. I'll quote it again for you "The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems POWER on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others."
That's POWER ISOHaven, not RESOURCES, but POWER.
THAT is what you disagreed with from the start, saying it's all BS. But NS are right! That's the same point Unreg raised when he gave his coding example. If a few terms have been used loosely since then, then that's not the point, because this is all about what ND actually SAID, and they were talking about POWER.
"That's fine!!!! If that was ALL ND had said then they would be completely justified in their remarks. But that's NOT all they said."
That is ALL they said. Where in their statement do they mention resources? The referred to system POWER ONLY and provided an analogy to explain what they meant. Read their statement and tell me what else you think they said!
And you also seem to forget this is all because ND were asked "What percent of the PS2%u2019s power are you using".
They could have taken the same approach as some other devs who pulled a figure out of their a$$, but instead, they chose to challenge the whole idea of 'percentage of system power used'.
A challenge which seems to have offended you for some reason!
"They had to push it even further with a bunch garbage remarks to force their opinion."
Such as? No really, point out their actually remarks.
ND were referring to the same point I made and which you now seem to agree with, i.e. that the percentages given by developers can not be accurately compared to each other, because they all have different ideas of full potential, therefore such figures can not be considered as being accurate, they are only guesses.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"WRONG! Go back READ what ND actually said. I'll quote it again for you "The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems POWER on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others."
I don't have to, my comments were towards a combination of what "Unregistered Gamer" and ND said. As I mentioned before you are way out in left field.
"That's POWER ISOHaven, not RESOURCES, but POWER."
"what ND actually SAID, and they were talking about POWER."
Like I said, the word POWER means nothing with how it's being used here. So tell us, how much POWER does minesweeper use? "Unregistered Gamer" interpreted POWER as something specific. THAT was the discussion. So tell us, how's the grass out there?
"ND were referring to the same point I made and which you now seem to agree with, i.e. that the percentages given by developers can not be accurately compared to each other, because they all have different ideas of full potential, therefore such figures can not be considered as being accurate, they are only guesses. "
Actually I never comment on that part until the very end. My comments were geared towards the BS 100% comment.
"The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game."
This comment is bogus and does NOT mean anything real. IF the word POWER is being used as a "layman's" term then regardless of it's intended use, it's still false.
"WRONG! Go back READ what ND actually said. I'll quote it again for you "The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems POWER on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others."
I don't have to, my comments were towards a combination of what "Unregistered Gamer" and ND said. As I mentioned before you are way out in left field.
"That's POWER ISOHaven, not RESOURCES, but POWER."
"what ND actually SAID, and they were talking about POWER."
Like I said, the word POWER means nothing with how it's being used here. So tell us, how much POWER does minesweeper use? "Unregistered Gamer" interpreted POWER as something specific. THAT was the discussion. So tell us, how's the grass out there?
"ND were referring to the same point I made and which you now seem to agree with, i.e. that the percentages given by developers can not be accurately compared to each other, because they all have different ideas of full potential, therefore such figures can not be considered as being accurate, they are only guesses. "
Actually I never comment on that part until the very end. My comments were geared towards the BS 100% comment.
"The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game."
This comment is bogus and does NOT mean anything real. IF the word POWER is being used as a "layman's" term then regardless of it's intended use, it's still false.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Continue
"This comment is bogus and does NOT mean anything real. IF the word POWER is being used as a "layman's" term then regardless of it's intended use, it's still false."
Nope, it is correct. Your console is always running at 100%. Whatever code it is running, it is running *that* code at 100%. It can not run that code any faster, so it is 100%. That's the point you miss, and that's what ND are saying. Therefore they say it's what the code is doing that determine how much you get out of the console, meaning if you design the code to achieve an effect in half the time, then you'll get twice as much out of the same hardware.
"This comment is bogus and does NOT mean anything real. IF the word POWER is being used as a "layman's" term then regardless of it's intended use, it's still false."
Nope, it is correct. Your console is always running at 100%. Whatever code it is running, it is running *that* code at 100%. It can not run that code any faster, so it is 100%. That's the point you miss, and that's what ND are saying. Therefore they say it's what the code is doing that determine how much you get out of the console, meaning if you design the code to achieve an effect in half the time, then you'll get twice as much out of the same hardware.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"Your console is always running at 100%."
Wow, that sure says a lot. Thanks for clearing that up! My consoles run at 100%. Um...ok.
So I guess you know NOTHING about any of the power saving features that are implemented into these consoles.
"Whatever code it is running, it is running *that* code at 100%."
You are talking about clock cycles/speed. So are you telling us that their use of the word POWER was layman's for clock cycles/speed? Yet ANOTHER interpretation.
Good for you.
"Your console is always running at 100%."
Wow, that sure says a lot. Thanks for clearing that up! My consoles run at 100%. Um...ok.
So I guess you know NOTHING about any of the power saving features that are implemented into these consoles.
"Whatever code it is running, it is running *that* code at 100%."
You are talking about clock cycles/speed. So are you telling us that their use of the word POWER was layman's for clock cycles/speed? Yet ANOTHER interpretation.
Good for you.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» *Yawn* Let's see now...
"So I guess you know NOTHING about any of the power saving features that are implemented into these consoles."
This is irrelevent, but hey, do explain with an example. Either 360 or PS3 will so.
"You are talking about clock cycles/speed..."
I'll wait for your example first, so that I can be sure we're talking about the same thing first.
"So I guess you know NOTHING about any of the power saving features that are implemented into these consoles."
This is irrelevent, but hey, do explain with an example. Either 360 or PS3 will so.
"You are talking about clock cycles/speed..."
I'll wait for your example first, so that I can be sure we're talking about the same thing first.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» ^^^Make it quick :)
I've got friends arriving any moment now....
I've got friends arriving any moment now....
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» I'll repeat that post with spelling corrected
"So I guess you know NOTHING about any of the power saving features that are implemented into these consoles."
This is irrelevant, but hey, do explain with an example. Either 360 or PS3 will do.
"You are talking about clock cycles/speed..."
I'll wait for your example first, so that I can be sure we're talking about the same thing.
"So I guess you know NOTHING about any of the power saving features that are implemented into these consoles."
This is irrelevant, but hey, do explain with an example. Either 360 or PS3 will do.
"You are talking about clock cycles/speed..."
I'll wait for your example first, so that I can be sure we're talking about the same thing.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
The two are not hand in hand so feel free to answer now.
Although, there's really no need. The question answers itself and there is no where for you to go with it. It was designed that way. Thus, your empty response.
The two are not hand in hand so feel free to answer now.
Although, there's really no need. The question answers itself and there is no where for you to go with it. It was designed that way. Thus, your empty response.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Don't dodge the question
I have stated enough times for you to know what I mean. I've also provided links in this thread to illustrate my points (as have some others), you on the otherhand have provided nothing.
Therefore state these power saving features of the consoles, otherwise, like everything else you're said here, it's just empty words coming from someone trying to bluff his way through the discussion.
So list the power saving features please. :)
I have stated enough times for you to know what I mean. I've also provided links in this thread to illustrate my points (as have some others), you on the otherhand have provided nothing.
Therefore state these power saving features of the consoles, otherwise, like everything else you're said here, it's just empty words coming from someone trying to bluff his way through the discussion.
So list the power saving features please. :)
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
This is so typical. You have nothing to say on a topic so you "demand" answers without first addressing the previous post.
Sorry little boy, but it doesn't work that way. The ball bounces to both sides. I'm not hitting it twice for you.
Try again:
"Whatever code it is running, it is running *that* code at 100%."
You are talking about clock cycles/speed. So are you telling us that their use of the word POWER was layman's for clock cycles/speed? Yet ANOTHER interpretation.
Good for you.
Here's a little clue for you in the meantime. Electricity generates heat based on workload. I guarantee you my consoles do NOT maintain the same temp levels all the time.
This is so typical. You have nothing to say on a topic so you "demand" answers without first addressing the previous post.
Sorry little boy, but it doesn't work that way. The ball bounces to both sides. I'm not hitting it twice for you.
Try again:
"Whatever code it is running, it is running *that* code at 100%."
You are talking about clock cycles/speed. So are you telling us that their use of the word POWER was layman's for clock cycles/speed? Yet ANOTHER interpretation.
Good for you.
Here's a little clue for you in the meantime. Electricity generates heat based on workload. I guarantee you my consoles do NOT maintain the same temp levels all the time.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF?
"In the end if a direct quote from ND is that a machine runs at full POWER, that in itself is a useless comment. What EXACTLY are they saying? The unit runs at a full 110v? Or whatever it's DC input is? POWER means nothing in terms of code utilization."
PLEASE don't tell me you think the term "power" being used here is referring to electrical power. Because it sures looks like it to me, and if it is, I'm really surprised at you ISOHaven, I really am.
Power here refers to the systems ability to process data. This is what it ALWAYS means when devs talk about power. It is never about voltages, Watts or current on any other term relating to electricity. ND, myself, Yaz and others here are talking about PROCESSING power, not electrical power.
"In the end if a direct quote from ND is that a machine runs at full POWER, that in itself is a useless comment. What EXACTLY are they saying? The unit runs at a full 110v? Or whatever it's DC input is? POWER means nothing in terms of code utilization."
PLEASE don't tell me you think the term "power" being used here is referring to electrical power. Because it sures looks like it to me, and if it is, I'm really surprised at you ISOHaven, I really am.
Power here refers to the systems ability to process data. This is what it ALWAYS means when devs talk about power. It is never about voltages, Watts or current on any other term relating to electricity. ND, myself, Yaz and others here are talking about PROCESSING power, not electrical power.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» :O
"Here's a little clue for you in the meantime. Electricity generates heat based on workload. I guarantee you my consoles do NOT maintain the same temp levels all the time."
Now I really am convince you think they were referring to electrical power. Geez, ISOHaven, if you're going to argue with people, at least understand the terms being used.
As I mentioned above, when devs discuss power for the console or PC, they are talking about PROCESSING power not electrical power. In fact, I don't ever recall any developer ever discussing the electrical properties of a console, so where you got that idea from is a mystery.
Don't take my word for it. Use google and enter the name of any console together with the word 'power', and except for reports on the power consumption of consoles, you will see it is dominated by the power in terms of their processing abilities, and that's all you'll find devs talking about, not power as in power consumption or electrical power! *rolleyes*
"Here's a little clue for you in the meantime. Electricity generates heat based on workload. I guarantee you my consoles do NOT maintain the same temp levels all the time."
Now I really am convince you think they were referring to electrical power. Geez, ISOHaven, if you're going to argue with people, at least understand the terms being used.
As I mentioned above, when devs discuss power for the console or PC, they are talking about PROCESSING power not electrical power. In fact, I don't ever recall any developer ever discussing the electrical properties of a console, so where you got that idea from is a mystery.
Don't take my word for it. Use google and enter the name of any console together with the word 'power', and except for reports on the power consumption of consoles, you will see it is dominated by the power in terms of their processing abilities, and that's all you'll find devs talking about, not power as in power consumption or electrical power! *rolleyes*
|
Re: KnowLedge - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» O-M-G! You're right!
"Now I really am convince you think they were referring to electrical power. Geez, ISOHaven, if you're going to argue with people, at least understand the terms being used."
I've been following this thread for a while now, but the posts are WAY too long for me to want to join in with the fight (and I'm sure others feel the same), but that said, I couldn't understand where isohaven was coming from until now. You are 100% correct, he does think this is about electrical power. I mean, that it so completey wrong that I just couldn't believe it, but re-reading the posts shows that you're right.
IMO, that renders everything isohaven has said on this subject as worthless cr@p, since his thinking was seriously flawed from the start.
Isohaven you're a moron. I would laugh if I hadn't been wasting my time reading your fanboy posts. You idiot! >:-(
"Now I really am convince you think they were referring to electrical power. Geez, ISOHaven, if you're going to argue with people, at least understand the terms being used."
I've been following this thread for a while now, but the posts are WAY too long for me to want to join in with the fight (and I'm sure others feel the same), but that said, I couldn't understand where isohaven was coming from until now. You are 100% correct, he does think this is about electrical power. I mean, that it so completey wrong that I just couldn't believe it, but re-reading the posts shows that you're right.
IMO, that renders everything isohaven has said on this subject as worthless cr@p, since his thinking was seriously flawed from the start.
Isohaven you're a moron. I would laugh if I hadn't been wasting my time reading your fanboy posts. You idiot! >:-(
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"ND, myself, Yaz and others here are talking about PROCESSING power, not electrical power."
1. I'm not the one talking about anything. This is your thread about ND.
2. Interesting. If that's the case then why all the BS from you about resources? Potential?
Quote from "Unregistered Gamer":
"And hence the claim that 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped already is just speculative nonsense."
YOU are the one that translated POWER into resources. Now you take that back? All of a sudden you've been talking about PROCESSING power this entire time? Wow, you sure know how to backpeddle!
"Now I really am convince you think they were referring to electrical power. Geez, ISOHaven, if you're going to argue with people, at least understand the terms being used."
Power is NOT a term used. No one makes any claim on a POWER measurement of a console yet really means processing power. Even then, processing power is NOT determined by clock cycles alone.
"As I mentioned above, when devs discuss power for the console or PC, they are talking about PROCESSING power"
Yup, and when they mean processing power they say PROCESSING POWER. They don't say power.
"In fact, I don't ever recall any developer ever discussing the electrical properties of a console, so where you got that idea from is a mystery."
To prove that the comment could have meant only one thing. Yet your dolt of a buddy was denying that one thing leaving only electrical power. How on earth did you miss that?
"Don't take my word for it. Use google and enter the name of any console together with the word 'power', and except for reports on the power consumption of consoles, you will see it is dominated by the power in terms of their processing abilities"
Yup, it's called a "layman's" term and I already covered that. Get with the program will ya?
Now, regardless of all your backpedaling and new branches into nothingness, none of this still negates the fact that NO single piece of code ALWAYS uses 100% of the processing power of a console. Now before you rant and rave yet again, you need to realize that the total processing power of a console includes BOTH CPU and GPU among other things. Let's use F@H again. When running folding at home my PS3 sits at certain temp. Again, X processing power + Y heat. Now run Heavenly Sword for an hour. My PS3 is now MUCH hotter. Gee, why is that? Both apps use my PS3's resources 100% all the time!!!! This is impossible!
I run Bioshock and my 8800GTX's are a certain temp. Then I get into heavy action and all of a sudden they're 20 degrees hotter! But WAIT! That's not possible according to you and ND. The WHOLE CONSOLE or PC runs with the same processing power ALL the time!
Like I said, BS! The only thing that is constant on a console are the clock cycles. Hell, you can't even say that about a PC, especially a laptop! Processing power of a WHOLE UNIT is derived from more then clock cycles.
A car goes from 0-60 in 4 seconds. The average person says that car has a lot of power! That doesn't MEAN ANYTHING about any specific part of the car. It's about as generic as you.
"ND, myself, Yaz and others here are talking about PROCESSING power, not electrical power."
1. I'm not the one talking about anything. This is your thread about ND.
2. Interesting. If that's the case then why all the BS from you about resources? Potential?
Quote from "Unregistered Gamer":
"And hence the claim that 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped already is just speculative nonsense."
YOU are the one that translated POWER into resources. Now you take that back? All of a sudden you've been talking about PROCESSING power this entire time? Wow, you sure know how to backpeddle!
"Now I really am convince you think they were referring to electrical power. Geez, ISOHaven, if you're going to argue with people, at least understand the terms being used."
Power is NOT a term used. No one makes any claim on a POWER measurement of a console yet really means processing power. Even then, processing power is NOT determined by clock cycles alone.
"As I mentioned above, when devs discuss power for the console or PC, they are talking about PROCESSING power"
Yup, and when they mean processing power they say PROCESSING POWER. They don't say power.
"In fact, I don't ever recall any developer ever discussing the electrical properties of a console, so where you got that idea from is a mystery."
To prove that the comment could have meant only one thing. Yet your dolt of a buddy was denying that one thing leaving only electrical power. How on earth did you miss that?
"Don't take my word for it. Use google and enter the name of any console together with the word 'power', and except for reports on the power consumption of consoles, you will see it is dominated by the power in terms of their processing abilities"
Yup, it's called a "layman's" term and I already covered that. Get with the program will ya?
Now, regardless of all your backpedaling and new branches into nothingness, none of this still negates the fact that NO single piece of code ALWAYS uses 100% of the processing power of a console. Now before you rant and rave yet again, you need to realize that the total processing power of a console includes BOTH CPU and GPU among other things. Let's use F@H again. When running folding at home my PS3 sits at certain temp. Again, X processing power + Y heat. Now run Heavenly Sword for an hour. My PS3 is now MUCH hotter. Gee, why is that? Both apps use my PS3's resources 100% all the time!!!! This is impossible!
I run Bioshock and my 8800GTX's are a certain temp. Then I get into heavy action and all of a sudden they're 20 degrees hotter! But WAIT! That's not possible according to you and ND. The WHOLE CONSOLE or PC runs with the same processing power ALL the time!
Like I said, BS! The only thing that is constant on a console are the clock cycles. Hell, you can't even say that about a PC, especially a laptop! Processing power of a WHOLE UNIT is derived from more then clock cycles.
A car goes from 0-60 in 4 seconds. The average person says that car has a lot of power! That doesn't MEAN ANYTHING about any specific part of the car. It's about as generic as you.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Firstly
That's not really helping Knowledge, express you opinion by all means, but let's not get that personal please.
Anyway...
"YOU are the one that translated POWER into resources. Now you take that back? All of a sudden you've been talking about PROCESSING power this entire time? Wow, you sure know how to backpeddle!"
I was always talking about processing power, hence my code example. I used the term resources because THAT is the term used in the report. Quote "about 90 percent of the Xbox 360's system resources have already been tapped" after two years in the market, while the PS3's technological surface has barely been scratched."
So, you think it's the storage resources being referred to here? Well know because certain PS3 games have filled the Blu-ray disk. So could it be memory resources? No, because again memory is being filled by next-gen games, developers can't get enough. So could it be GPU or CPU resources? Well if so, then he is obviously talking about PROCESSING POWER. THAT's the resource in being compared in that statement, not memory or storage capacity!
"Even then, processing power is NOT determined by clock cycles alone."
No-one said it was. The arguement put forward is that a CPU will run code as fast as it's capable of running, which is at a fixed speed. The only way to improve upon performance, is to change the code and data.
"Yup, and when they mean processing power they say PROCESSING POWER. They don't say power."
Of course they say power only. There are countless example online with devs only mentioning power, just as ND were asked in that link. The context is enough for anyone to determine they mean processing power, therefore it doesn't have to be stated explicitly.
http://www.gamecritics.com/node/3575
Hideo answers the same question about power. No-one need to state PROCESSING power, because it was already implied.
"none of this still negates the fact that NO single piece of code ALWAYS uses 100% of the processing power of a console."
You still have it backwards. The point being made is that whatever code you have running, the console is running it as fast as it can, and therefore your console is running at 100% performance for that code. There is NO WAY for you to make the console run that code any faster except to upgrade or overclock the CPU and/or GPU. However, this is not possible, therefore it comes down to the design of the code and therefore using the power more efficiently to get more out of it. That is what ND mean by the glass being full of rocks. The glass is full, but there are gapping holes inside which can be filled, and those holes represent unused power (and no, it doesn't mean the power is just sitting there idle, it means it's not being used efficiently). You know the rest of the analogy.
"Gee, why is that? Both apps use my PS3's resources 100% all the time!!!! This is impossible!"
Folding@Home only pushes your PS3's CPU, it's not a graphics intensive applicationl, whereas Heavenly Sword is pushing both to the max, therefore of course your PS3 will be hotter. But again that's the point, your PS3 can not run Folding@Home any faster, the CPU is at full speed processing the data as fast as it can. If you increased the speed of your Cell processor, then the performance would increase, but without that, the only way to improve the speed is to find a way to process the data more efficiently, i.e. fill in some of the holes left in the glass full of rocks. If they achieve that, then they will get more out of the Cell processor.
"I run Bioshock and my 8800GTX's are a certain temp. Then I get into heavy action and all of a sudden they're 20 degrees hotter! But WAIT! That's not possible according to you and ND. The WHOLE CONSOLE or PC runs with the same processing power ALL the time!"
Again, that is NOT what is being said. The speed of which the CPU or GPU processes the data is NOT the same as the amount of data it has to process.
If you had just one polygon triangle on the screen, the GPU will render it in
That's not really helping Knowledge, express you opinion by all means, but let's not get that personal please.
Anyway...
"YOU are the one that translated POWER into resources. Now you take that back? All of a sudden you've been talking about PROCESSING power this entire time? Wow, you sure know how to backpeddle!"
I was always talking about processing power, hence my code example. I used the term resources because THAT is the term used in the report. Quote "about 90 percent of the Xbox 360's system resources have already been tapped" after two years in the market, while the PS3's technological surface has barely been scratched."
So, you think it's the storage resources being referred to here? Well know because certain PS3 games have filled the Blu-ray disk. So could it be memory resources? No, because again memory is being filled by next-gen games, developers can't get enough. So could it be GPU or CPU resources? Well if so, then he is obviously talking about PROCESSING POWER. THAT's the resource in being compared in that statement, not memory or storage capacity!
"Even then, processing power is NOT determined by clock cycles alone."
No-one said it was. The arguement put forward is that a CPU will run code as fast as it's capable of running, which is at a fixed speed. The only way to improve upon performance, is to change the code and data.
"Yup, and when they mean processing power they say PROCESSING POWER. They don't say power."
Of course they say power only. There are countless example online with devs only mentioning power, just as ND were asked in that link. The context is enough for anyone to determine they mean processing power, therefore it doesn't have to be stated explicitly.
http://www.gamecritics.com/node/3575
Hideo answers the same question about power. No-one need to state PROCESSING power, because it was already implied.
"none of this still negates the fact that NO single piece of code ALWAYS uses 100% of the processing power of a console."
You still have it backwards. The point being made is that whatever code you have running, the console is running it as fast as it can, and therefore your console is running at 100% performance for that code. There is NO WAY for you to make the console run that code any faster except to upgrade or overclock the CPU and/or GPU. However, this is not possible, therefore it comes down to the design of the code and therefore using the power more efficiently to get more out of it. That is what ND mean by the glass being full of rocks. The glass is full, but there are gapping holes inside which can be filled, and those holes represent unused power (and no, it doesn't mean the power is just sitting there idle, it means it's not being used efficiently). You know the rest of the analogy.
"Gee, why is that? Both apps use my PS3's resources 100% all the time!!!! This is impossible!"
Folding@Home only pushes your PS3's CPU, it's not a graphics intensive applicationl, whereas Heavenly Sword is pushing both to the max, therefore of course your PS3 will be hotter. But again that's the point, your PS3 can not run Folding@Home any faster, the CPU is at full speed processing the data as fast as it can. If you increased the speed of your Cell processor, then the performance would increase, but without that, the only way to improve the speed is to find a way to process the data more efficiently, i.e. fill in some of the holes left in the glass full of rocks. If they achieve that, then they will get more out of the Cell processor.
"I run Bioshock and my 8800GTX's are a certain temp. Then I get into heavy action and all of a sudden they're 20 degrees hotter! But WAIT! That's not possible according to you and ND. The WHOLE CONSOLE or PC runs with the same processing power ALL the time!"
Again, that is NOT what is being said. The speed of which the CPU or GPU processes the data is NOT the same as the amount of data it has to process.
If you had just one polygon triangle on the screen, the GPU will render it in
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Oops
I forgot about long post being cut off.
...If you had just one polygon triangle on the screen, the GPU will render it in an incredible fast, yet finite time. It can not render that one polygon any faster than it already is. Therefore the GPU is rendering that polygon at 100% of the speed it is capable of. To render it faster, the GPU will need to run at a higher clock speed, or a faster GPU used instead. So 100% of the GPU power to render that triangle is being used (it can not render it any faster), but of course, only a fraction of the GPU itself is being used to render that 1 polygon. ND's arguement is not that 100% of the CPU and GPU are being utilised in games since that's the equivalent of the glass being full of water in their analogy. They are saying that the CPU and GPU are running at 100% to process the code and data for games, i.e. the glass is full, but full of rocks, pebbles, sand etc.
GPUs are designed to render thousand/millions of polygons per second, therefore if the GPU has to render 1 million polygon triangles, then far more of the GPU will be used (pixel and vertex shaders) and far more data will be processed by the CPU and GPU, so of course more heat will be generated compared to rendering just one polygon.
Therefore in games, when the CPU and GPU are pushed harder, with more data being processed per second, then the temperature is going to rise. But in each case, the CPU and GPU are processing that data as fast as they possibly can, and they are therefore running at 100%. When pushed to the maxed, it is equivalent to the glass being full of rocks, pebbles, sand etc in ND's analogy. However, by improving the code, devs can get more out of the SAME hardware, therefore going back to the analogy, filling in the gaps in the glass or replacing larger particles with smaller ones and therefore getting more into the glass.
So again, this all fits in perfectly with ND's comments and analogy.
Anyway, I'm not sure what part of the world you're in, but it's way past midnight in mine, so I'm off to sleep. :)
I forgot about long post being cut off.
...If you had just one polygon triangle on the screen, the GPU will render it in an incredible fast, yet finite time. It can not render that one polygon any faster than it already is. Therefore the GPU is rendering that polygon at 100% of the speed it is capable of. To render it faster, the GPU will need to run at a higher clock speed, or a faster GPU used instead. So 100% of the GPU power to render that triangle is being used (it can not render it any faster), but of course, only a fraction of the GPU itself is being used to render that 1 polygon. ND's arguement is not that 100% of the CPU and GPU are being utilised in games since that's the equivalent of the glass being full of water in their analogy. They are saying that the CPU and GPU are running at 100% to process the code and data for games, i.e. the glass is full, but full of rocks, pebbles, sand etc.
GPUs are designed to render thousand/millions of polygons per second, therefore if the GPU has to render 1 million polygon triangles, then far more of the GPU will be used (pixel and vertex shaders) and far more data will be processed by the CPU and GPU, so of course more heat will be generated compared to rendering just one polygon.
Therefore in games, when the CPU and GPU are pushed harder, with more data being processed per second, then the temperature is going to rise. But in each case, the CPU and GPU are processing that data as fast as they possibly can, and they are therefore running at 100%. When pushed to the maxed, it is equivalent to the glass being full of rocks, pebbles, sand etc in ND's analogy. However, by improving the code, devs can get more out of the SAME hardware, therefore going back to the analogy, filling in the gaps in the glass or replacing larger particles with smaller ones and therefore getting more into the glass.
So again, this all fits in perfectly with ND's comments and analogy.
Anyway, I'm not sure what part of the world you're in, but it's way past midnight in mine, so I'm off to sleep. :)
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"So, you think it's the storage resources being referred to here?"
No, however NOW you want to talk about ALL resources? I talk about resources in general and get slammed by you two. But when you do it, it's ok?
This convo is lame to say the very least.
Resources:
Power (yes ACTUAL power)
Memory
CPU
GPU
Storage
....
You can't use the term resources and ONLY mean one thing without specifying. Both you and ND do that.
So, back to one of my original comments: Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time.
"So, you think it's the storage resources being referred to here?"
No, however NOW you want to talk about ALL resources? I talk about resources in general and get slammed by you two. But when you do it, it's ok?
This convo is lame to say the very least.
Resources:
Power (yes ACTUAL power)
Memory
CPU
GPU
Storage
....
You can't use the term resources and ONLY mean one thing without specifying. Both you and ND do that.
So, back to one of my original comments: Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» Wrong as always ISOHaven
"No, however NOW you want to talk about ALL resources? I talk about resources in general and get slammed by you two. But when you do it, it's ok?"
This was never about resources in general. As I said, look at ND's statement (or do you have trouble reading it?). Not once do they mention resources, they ONLY MENTION SYSTEM POWER, i.e. PROCESSING POWER.
That's a fact ISOHaven, you can't dispute it.
ND only ever refer to system power. Therefore I'm explaining that the blogger responsible for this topic was talking about processing power when HE mentions resources.
"You can't use the term resources and ONLY mean one thing without specifying. Both you and ND do that."
Again, WHERE DO NAUGHTY DOG DO THIS? They didn't! That's a fact. ND didn't even use the word "resource" in their reply! So you lose kid.
"So, back to one of my original comments: Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time."
And going back to ND's reply, at no time did they say all code uses all RESOURCES all the time. They spoke ONLY of system power - Fact!
Sorry kid, but when you still cannot grasp the simple fact that Naughty Dog never spoke about resourceS, then you clearly show that your attack on ND was based purely on ignorance and arrogance, and not on facts of your own. You're just opinionated, and until you can grasp the SIMPLE fact that ND are only talking about system power, not all resources, then you're never going to understand what they're saying.
And I believe you were asked for a list of console power saying features which you brought into this disucssion for some strange reason. And you claimed the the PC outperforms the 360 but not the PS3, so you were asked for a list of PS3 multi-format games which outperform their PC counterparts. So where are they kid?
Put up or shut up (as you said to that idiot earlier).
Time and time again you fail to deliver on your claims. But thanks for the laugh kid, I needed to exercise my forum debating 'muscles', and you were perfect fodder for that. You put up a good fight, I'll give you that, but you're just not good enough to bluff your way through, especially when you consistantly change what ND says.
Still, thanks again and better luck next time. :D
"No, however NOW you want to talk about ALL resources? I talk about resources in general and get slammed by you two. But when you do it, it's ok?"
This was never about resources in general. As I said, look at ND's statement (or do you have trouble reading it?). Not once do they mention resources, they ONLY MENTION SYSTEM POWER, i.e. PROCESSING POWER.
That's a fact ISOHaven, you can't dispute it.
ND only ever refer to system power. Therefore I'm explaining that the blogger responsible for this topic was talking about processing power when HE mentions resources.
"You can't use the term resources and ONLY mean one thing without specifying. Both you and ND do that."
Again, WHERE DO NAUGHTY DOG DO THIS? They didn't! That's a fact. ND didn't even use the word "resource" in their reply! So you lose kid.
"So, back to one of my original comments: Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time."
And going back to ND's reply, at no time did they say all code uses all RESOURCES all the time. They spoke ONLY of system power - Fact!
Sorry kid, but when you still cannot grasp the simple fact that Naughty Dog never spoke about resourceS, then you clearly show that your attack on ND was based purely on ignorance and arrogance, and not on facts of your own. You're just opinionated, and until you can grasp the SIMPLE fact that ND are only talking about system power, not all resources, then you're never going to understand what they're saying.
And I believe you were asked for a list of console power saying features which you brought into this disucssion for some strange reason. And you claimed the the PC outperforms the 360 but not the PS3, so you were asked for a list of PS3 multi-format games which outperform their PC counterparts. So where are they kid?
Put up or shut up (as you said to that idiot earlier).
Time and time again you fail to deliver on your claims. But thanks for the laugh kid, I needed to exercise my forum debating 'muscles', and you were perfect fodder for that. You put up a good fight, I'll give you that, but you're just not good enough to bluff your way through, especially when you consistantly change what ND says.
Still, thanks again and better luck next time. :D
|
Re: KnowLedge - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» Uh huh - Look in the mirror guys, you 2 are the idiots! :P
"Put up or shut up (as you said to that idiot earlier)."
And I assume "that idiot" is me then? Right?
Well let's see now, you and isohaven (and also Yaz) have wasted soooo many hours now argueing over this ONE answer from ND? Why? Because both of you are too afraid and stubborn to back down, and so you both go on and on and on and on with BIG posts, when nothing you guys says here matters! It doesn't change anything!
Naughty Dog are right, I'm with you on that, but isohaven is too dumb to understand what they mean (iso they say system power not resources you a$$hole) and you're just as dumb for wasting all this time trying to convince a fool that ND are right.
So before any of you two hit back at me, just look at yourselves first and ask yourselves why you're really continueing with your arguement. You may not see it, but your discussion has become stupid and pointless because both of you refuse to back away from it!
And I'm the idiot? R-i-g-h-t! LOL!
So keep going guys, keeping pulling hair and and scratching with your nails, no-one cares anymore! :P
"Put up or shut up (as you said to that idiot earlier)."
And I assume "that idiot" is me then? Right?
Well let's see now, you and isohaven (and also Yaz) have wasted soooo many hours now argueing over this ONE answer from ND? Why? Because both of you are too afraid and stubborn to back down, and so you both go on and on and on and on with BIG posts, when nothing you guys says here matters! It doesn't change anything!
Naughty Dog are right, I'm with you on that, but isohaven is too dumb to understand what they mean (iso they say system power not resources you a$$hole) and you're just as dumb for wasting all this time trying to convince a fool that ND are right.
So before any of you two hit back at me, just look at yourselves first and ask yourselves why you're really continueing with your arguement. You may not see it, but your discussion has become stupid and pointless because both of you refuse to back away from it!
And I'm the idiot? R-i-g-h-t! LOL!
So keep going guys, keeping pulling hair and and scratching with your nails, no-one cares anymore! :P
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"This was never about resources in general. As I said, look at ND's statement (or do you have trouble reading it?). Not once do they mention resources, they ONLY MENTION SYSTEM POWER, i.e. PROCESSING POWER."
How many times do you need to be told the SAME THING? YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU mentioned resources. YOU are the one that COMPLETELY botched what ND was discussing by ASSUMING what they meant when they said POWER. You can deny that all you want. FACTS ARE FACTS and your BS comments are all over this thread. I have already QUOTED YOU proving as such.
"ND only ever refer to system power. Therefore I'm explaining that the blogger responsible for this topic was talking about processing power when HE mentions resources."
Yeah, because we all know what system power equates to right? I already PROVED that you and yaz both interpreted that POWER comment as something different.
"Again, WHERE DO NAUGHTY DOG DO THIS?"
They do this with term POWER. You do it with the term resources. Look pal, There is NO SUCH THING as a measurement of POWER to a console or PC. Since you seem to think there is then give us the MEASUREMENT!!!!! Quit beating around the bush and put money where your mouth is. Yaz couldn't. Give us the POWER numbers of the PS3, 360, Wii. Yaz refused to admit he had NO CLUE about what POWER actually meant. Thus I branched off into the only other possibility to flush him out with the whole electricity example. Now here I am with you.
Tell us what YOU think the POWER of the 360 amounts to.
"What percent of the PS2%u2019s power are you using?"
Forget what they are using, forget about a percentage, give us a SAMPLE number of the POWER of the PS2. Is it 42? If there is no bottom line figure to the POWER of a console then there IS NO SUCH THING as a percentage. Therefore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There would be NO SUCH THING as 100%. Plus, quit giving us this BS about ND actually meant processing power because for the TENTH TIME they did NOT mention processing power.
Have you figured it out yet?
"So, back to one of my original comments: Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time."
"And going back to ND's reply, at no time did they say all code uses all RESOURCES all the time. They spoke ONLY of system power - Fact! "
Oh man, you truly are lost. Let's break it down again, this time it will be SO SIMPLE that even YOU can figure it out.
"Unregistered Gamer" + resources
ND + power
Have you figured it out yet?
"Sorry kid, but when you still cannot grasp the simple fact that Naughty Dog never spoke about resourceS"
No, I got it, you are the one that can't keep a simple conversation straight.
"then you clearly show that your attack on ND was based purely on ignorance and arrogance, and not on facts of your own."
FACT - Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time. That take care of YOU.
There is no taking care of ND because there IS NO SUCH THING as console POWER or a measurement of SYSTEM POWER since you like to add words to others people's sayings.
"You're just opinionated"
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a FORUM! People come here to give OPINION!!!!!!!! You'll notice your ND link is nothing but OPINION! It's a friggen paragraph that someone typed up based on OPINION!
Like I said, you are clueless.
"And I believe you were asked for a list of console power saying features which you brought into this discussion for some strange reason."
Yes, asked. And?
"And you claimed the the PC outperforms the 360 but not the PS3, so you were asked for a list of PS3 multi-format games which outperform their PC counterparts. So where are they kid?"
You are asking for links when only research and numbers from various sources can provide along with experience. I am NOT going to do that much work for you. I already gave a Bioshock example. As for the PS3 out performing a PC. You need a HIGH END PC to display HD content at 1080p. First you would have to understand the difference between displaying a simple 1920X108
"This was never about resources in general. As I said, look at ND's statement (or do you have trouble reading it?). Not once do they mention resources, they ONLY MENTION SYSTEM POWER, i.e. PROCESSING POWER."
How many times do you need to be told the SAME THING? YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU mentioned resources. YOU are the one that COMPLETELY botched what ND was discussing by ASSUMING what they meant when they said POWER. You can deny that all you want. FACTS ARE FACTS and your BS comments are all over this thread. I have already QUOTED YOU proving as such.
"ND only ever refer to system power. Therefore I'm explaining that the blogger responsible for this topic was talking about processing power when HE mentions resources."
Yeah, because we all know what system power equates to right? I already PROVED that you and yaz both interpreted that POWER comment as something different.
"Again, WHERE DO NAUGHTY DOG DO THIS?"
They do this with term POWER. You do it with the term resources. Look pal, There is NO SUCH THING as a measurement of POWER to a console or PC. Since you seem to think there is then give us the MEASUREMENT!!!!! Quit beating around the bush and put money where your mouth is. Yaz couldn't. Give us the POWER numbers of the PS3, 360, Wii. Yaz refused to admit he had NO CLUE about what POWER actually meant. Thus I branched off into the only other possibility to flush him out with the whole electricity example. Now here I am with you.
Tell us what YOU think the POWER of the 360 amounts to.
"What percent of the PS2%u2019s power are you using?"
Forget what they are using, forget about a percentage, give us a SAMPLE number of the POWER of the PS2. Is it 42? If there is no bottom line figure to the POWER of a console then there IS NO SUCH THING as a percentage. Therefore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There would be NO SUCH THING as 100%. Plus, quit giving us this BS about ND actually meant processing power because for the TENTH TIME they did NOT mention processing power.
Have you figured it out yet?
"So, back to one of my original comments: Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time."
"And going back to ND's reply, at no time did they say all code uses all RESOURCES all the time. They spoke ONLY of system power - Fact! "
Oh man, you truly are lost. Let's break it down again, this time it will be SO SIMPLE that even YOU can figure it out.
"Unregistered Gamer" + resources
ND + power
Have you figured it out yet?
"Sorry kid, but when you still cannot grasp the simple fact that Naughty Dog never spoke about resourceS"
No, I got it, you are the one that can't keep a simple conversation straight.
"then you clearly show that your attack on ND was based purely on ignorance and arrogance, and not on facts of your own."
FACT - Not ALL code uses ALL resources ALL the time. That take care of YOU.
There is no taking care of ND because there IS NO SUCH THING as console POWER or a measurement of SYSTEM POWER since you like to add words to others people's sayings.
"You're just opinionated"
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a FORUM! People come here to give OPINION!!!!!!!! You'll notice your ND link is nothing but OPINION! It's a friggen paragraph that someone typed up based on OPINION!
Like I said, you are clueless.
"And I believe you were asked for a list of console power saying features which you brought into this discussion for some strange reason."
Yes, asked. And?
"And you claimed the the PC outperforms the 360 but not the PS3, so you were asked for a list of PS3 multi-format games which outperform their PC counterparts. So where are they kid?"
You are asking for links when only research and numbers from various sources can provide along with experience. I am NOT going to do that much work for you. I already gave a Bioshock example. As for the PS3 out performing a PC. You need a HIGH END PC to display HD content at 1080p. First you would have to understand the difference between displaying a simple 1920X108
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
Oops, I almost forgot! I already proved you're a liar. This is where you disappeared and yaz jumped in to defend your honor by stating this was a simple typo. What crap that is from the both of you:
"Again you missed the point (as expected). I found alternative ways and better ways of achieving the same result."
WRONG! You did not achieve the same result. In FACT you stated, "I can save a few cycles and therefore achieve faster results"
So let's see:
"same result"
"faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point.
The point here is that you CHANGE WORDS consistently in order to make your point. As well as ADD words. Saying SAME versus FASTER is NOT a typo. You two have serious issues to work out.
Oops, I almost forgot! I already proved you're a liar. This is where you disappeared and yaz jumped in to defend your honor by stating this was a simple typo. What crap that is from the both of you:
"Again you missed the point (as expected). I found alternative ways and better ways of achieving the same result."
WRONG! You did not achieve the same result. In FACT you stated, "I can save a few cycles and therefore achieve faster results"
So let's see:
"same result"
"faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point.
The point here is that you CHANGE WORDS consistently in order to make your point. As well as ADD words. Saying SAME versus FASTER is NOT a typo. You two have serious issues to work out.
|
Re: KnowLedge - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» Thanks for proving my point ISO
Yet another long worthless ranting kiddie post. How old are you boy?
Man, you are one of the biggest losers I've ever seen on QJ for a long time. LOL!
You, unregisteredgamer and yaz, should be all locked up together.
LOL! What a joke. On and on and on and on and on like dumba$$es, like it actually matters. Hehehe. YOU 100% LOSER!
Grow up, get out and get a life and quit trying to prove something that DOESN'T MATTER. But I guess you're not man enough for that. None of you.
Idiots.
Yet another long worthless ranting kiddie post. How old are you boy?
Man, you are one of the biggest losers I've ever seen on QJ for a long time. LOL!
You, unregisteredgamer and yaz, should be all locked up together.
LOL! What a joke. On and on and on and on and on like dumba$$es, like it actually matters. Hehehe. YOU 100% LOSER!
Grow up, get out and get a life and quit trying to prove something that DOESN'T MATTER. But I guess you're not man enough for that. None of you.
Idiots.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"Yet another long worthless ranting kiddie post...."
"On and on and on and on and on....."
Hi Pot, my name is Kettle!
What else you got?
"Yet another long worthless ranting kiddie post...."
"On and on and on and on and on....."
Hi Pot, my name is Kettle!
What else you got?
|
Re: Games4James - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» Something for all of you - My take
ISOHaven - You're right that KnowLedge is being a hypocrite now, given what he said to you earlier. But I don't agree with you saying ND were the ones blowing smoke, because I also can see exactly what ND are saying here.
KnowLedge - Despite your hypocracy, I agree that this thread has become ridiculous now. I hoped being registered only would mean the end of these sort of pointless arguements. I also hoped it meant the end of the kind of insults you've directed at ISOHaven. But apparently not (although QJ has improved greatly without anonymous posters).
Unregistered Gamer - I fully agree with the answer ND gave regarding system power. It was Jason Rubin who said this, and he said it here also; http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/080/080961p1.html
The answer in your link goes further with an analogy which I thought was excellent (so I've bookmarked the link), thanks, BUT... the way you've participated in this discussion leaves a lot to be desired imo, and your carelessness with some of the terminology has led to it becoming confusing and difficult to follow. You should have made your point and left it at that. I really don't see what you expected to achieve by fighting over it. Like you said, ND are the experts, they know what they're talking about. Neither you or ISOHaven are developers, so please stop fighting as if you are.
Yaz - Well you only seem to have latched onto Unregistered Gamer's posts and then added fuel to the fire yourself. This arguement probably would have died down already if you hadn't turned up to kept it going. Dont' get me wrong, you made some good points, but I don't think you helped much.
Thats all from me, that's my take on what I've read here, but I feel you guys are getting nowhere with your fighting over this issue, and guys should just _AGREE_TO_DISAGREE_ and leave it at that.
So come on guys, you are all clearly intelligent (ISOHaven, Unregistered Gamer and Yaz) and so you should agree to disagree and jsut move on, because you're not doing yourselves any favours by continuing with this battle.
Agreed? Yes? :|
(Come on, you know deep down you want to say YES ;)).
ISOHaven - You're right that KnowLedge is being a hypocrite now, given what he said to you earlier. But I don't agree with you saying ND were the ones blowing smoke, because I also can see exactly what ND are saying here.
KnowLedge - Despite your hypocracy, I agree that this thread has become ridiculous now. I hoped being registered only would mean the end of these sort of pointless arguements. I also hoped it meant the end of the kind of insults you've directed at ISOHaven. But apparently not (although QJ has improved greatly without anonymous posters).
Unregistered Gamer - I fully agree with the answer ND gave regarding system power. It was Jason Rubin who said this, and he said it here also; http://uk.psx.ign.com/articles/080/080961p1.html
The answer in your link goes further with an analogy which I thought was excellent (so I've bookmarked the link), thanks, BUT... the way you've participated in this discussion leaves a lot to be desired imo, and your carelessness with some of the terminology has led to it becoming confusing and difficult to follow. You should have made your point and left it at that. I really don't see what you expected to achieve by fighting over it. Like you said, ND are the experts, they know what they're talking about. Neither you or ISOHaven are developers, so please stop fighting as if you are.
Yaz - Well you only seem to have latched onto Unregistered Gamer's posts and then added fuel to the fire yourself. This arguement probably would have died down already if you hadn't turned up to kept it going. Dont' get me wrong, you made some good points, but I don't think you helped much.
Thats all from me, that's my take on what I've read here, but I feel you guys are getting nowhere with your fighting over this issue, and guys should just _AGREE_TO_DISAGREE_ and leave it at that.
So come on guys, you are all clearly intelligent (ISOHaven, Unregistered Gamer and Yaz) and so you should agree to disagree and jsut move on, because you're not doing yourselves any favours by continuing with this battle.
Agreed? Yes? :|
(Come on, you know deep down you want to say YES ;)).
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"I also can see exactly what ND are saying here."
It's funny, now there's three of you saying this yet no one is capable of giving any numbers or examples based on what exactly the power of a system is in order to derive a percentage.
It's almost a double edge sword. Because no one can do it, they think it proves how right ND is. Yet by proving that they also prove the figure "100%" to be a farce as well thus proving ND wrong.
"Like you said, ND are the experts, they know what they're talking about. Neither you or ISOHaven are developers, so please stop fighting as if you are."
That's where you are wrong. I don't dev games but I am a software developer and NO I will not link to my site. I don't use my name for a reason. Now this is where all the little boys and girls jump out of no where and claim that I CLAIMED to be a better dev then ND....and back and forth it goes.
"and guys should just _AGREE_TO_DISAGREE_ and leave it at that."
Awe! That's no fun! :)
I think through our actions we have already agreed to disagree. We seem to just like to agree and disagree MORE then usual :)
It's all fun and games for me here. Like I said, no names for a reason. Debates build character. They open the flood gates of possibilities because regardless of who publicly states being right or wrong, each individual knows deep down when they are wrong and they walk away with that. The result of this debate "SHOULD" be seen in that persons next debate.
"I also can see exactly what ND are saying here."
It's funny, now there's three of you saying this yet no one is capable of giving any numbers or examples based on what exactly the power of a system is in order to derive a percentage.
It's almost a double edge sword. Because no one can do it, they think it proves how right ND is. Yet by proving that they also prove the figure "100%" to be a farce as well thus proving ND wrong.
"Like you said, ND are the experts, they know what they're talking about. Neither you or ISOHaven are developers, so please stop fighting as if you are."
That's where you are wrong. I don't dev games but I am a software developer and NO I will not link to my site. I don't use my name for a reason. Now this is where all the little boys and girls jump out of no where and claim that I CLAIMED to be a better dev then ND....and back and forth it goes.
"and guys should just _AGREE_TO_DISAGREE_ and leave it at that."
Awe! That's no fun! :)
I think through our actions we have already agreed to disagree. We seem to just like to agree and disagree MORE then usual :)
It's all fun and games for me here. Like I said, no names for a reason. Debates build character. They open the flood gates of possibilities because regardless of who publicly states being right or wrong, each individual knows deep down when they are wrong and they walk away with that. The result of this debate "SHOULD" be seen in that persons next debate.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» Ok Games4James, fair point
I agree with your post, but like ISOHaven says (and I agree with him on this point), we were actually enjoying the debate here (something Knowledge completely failed to see). Yes, there were some personal insults involved, but they were tame in comparison to what we would be saying if we were really going for each other.
That said, I do agree that this has run it's course, and I've spent FAR too much time debating here as it is, not to mention the fact that some of it was during my work hours (very difficult to concentrate on the post whilst getting work done AND avoiding being caught out by my boss, hence all the typos in my previous posts! :)).
And as I'm sure you could guess from my posts ISOHaven, I was a software developer too, and for many years (I say WAS because my career is now focussed around software, hardware and management, which is not as fun but pays much better :P).
So I will agree to disagree as suggested.
Perhaps next time ISO, on another topic, we'll find ourselves fighting on the same side.
Until then....bye. :)
I agree with your post, but like ISOHaven says (and I agree with him on this point), we were actually enjoying the debate here (something Knowledge completely failed to see). Yes, there were some personal insults involved, but they were tame in comparison to what we would be saying if we were really going for each other.
That said, I do agree that this has run it's course, and I've spent FAR too much time debating here as it is, not to mention the fact that some of it was during my work hours (very difficult to concentrate on the post whilst getting work done AND avoiding being caught out by my boss, hence all the typos in my previous posts! :)).
And as I'm sure you could guess from my posts ISOHaven, I was a software developer too, and for many years (I say WAS because my career is now focussed around software, hardware and management, which is not as fun but pays much better :P).
So I will agree to disagree as suggested.
Perhaps next time ISO, on another topic, we'll find ourselves fighting on the same side.
Until then....bye. :)
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
l8r
l8r
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» Just one more point before I go
This comment stands out for me ISOHaven,
"So let's see: "same result" "faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point. The point here is that you CHANGE WORDS consistently in order to make your point. As well as ADD words. Saying SAME versus FASTER is NOT a typo."
That was the only time I felt you'd chosen to be unfair ISOHaven. We can't edit our posts, so any errors remain. It happens. It was a genuin error on my part, I simply didn't phrase it properly in that particular post, but I had explained it already before.
Prior to that, I had stated how I kept optimizing my code to get the CPU to render my code for 3D vertor graphics faster than before (no GPUs in those days). Back then, I would spend countless hours thinking of ways to trim off a few clock cycles from the code (cycles were called T-states on the Z80), especially within loops where the improvement is accumalative. And I would also work on saving bytes of memory on a computer where only several K were available for code (oh those were the days :)).
As a software developer, I thought you would have understood that ISOHaven, instead of taking that one comment literally and claiming I'm a liar because of the slight inconsistancy.
I know they say "All's Fair in Love and War", but come on. :)
Anyway, to repeat myself, hopefully next time we'll be fighting on the same side. :)
Bye.
This comment stands out for me ISOHaven,
"So let's see: "same result" "faster results"
Now you're just a liar. You will say anything to force your point. The point here is that you CHANGE WORDS consistently in order to make your point. As well as ADD words. Saying SAME versus FASTER is NOT a typo."
That was the only time I felt you'd chosen to be unfair ISOHaven. We can't edit our posts, so any errors remain. It happens. It was a genuin error on my part, I simply didn't phrase it properly in that particular post, but I had explained it already before.
Prior to that, I had stated how I kept optimizing my code to get the CPU to render my code for 3D vertor graphics faster than before (no GPUs in those days). Back then, I would spend countless hours thinking of ways to trim off a few clock cycles from the code (cycles were called T-states on the Z80), especially within loops where the improvement is accumalative. And I would also work on saving bytes of memory on a computer where only several K were available for code (oh those were the days :)).
As a software developer, I thought you would have understood that ISOHaven, instead of taking that one comment literally and claiming I'm a liar because of the slight inconsistancy.
I know they say "All's Fair in Love and War", but come on. :)
Anyway, to repeat myself, hopefully next time we'll be fighting on the same side. :)
Bye.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
I thought it was over?
If you are saying, NOW, that one of those statements was an error on your part then fine, I take back the liar comment. However prior to your last post, that was never stated. Not that I saw anyway.
However the end result still stands. You optimized your code to be more PRODUCTIVE with the machines available resources. That's fine. However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME. Even if you "ADD" the word processing before the word power that would include the GPU and I'm fairly certain that MS Word does not fully utilize my GPU POWER. I'm fairly certain the PS3 browser doesn't either, nor does flOw.
I thought it was over?
If you are saying, NOW, that one of those statements was an error on your part then fine, I take back the liar comment. However prior to your last post, that was never stated. Not that I saw anyway.
However the end result still stands. You optimized your code to be more PRODUCTIVE with the machines available resources. That's fine. However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME. Even if you "ADD" the word processing before the word power that would include the GPU and I'm fairly certain that MS Word does not fully utilize my GPU POWER. I'm fairly certain the PS3 browser doesn't either, nor does flOw.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» It is over, but I felt I had to cover point. LAST POST!
"...I take back the liar comment. However prior to your last post, that was never stated. Not that I saw anyway."
I'm pleased you took back your liar comment, thanks. I ignored it before assuming you were just saying it to annoy me, but I returned to it now because you stated it again.
"However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME."
And I have never stated that ISO, I've said it's the other way around, i.e. that the computer was always running that code at 100% of it's capabilities, because it's not possible for the CPU to run any version of the code any faster, unless you overclock the CPU. Hence the only way to improve performance is to change the code to get more out of the same CPU.
That's where the sticking point is ISOHaven, we're looking at this from two different perspectives (ND and myself on one side, you on the other side). I appreciate what you're saying, and you are right in the context of where you're coming from, but we're right in the context of where we're coming from. But until you can see where we're coming from, we'll never be in agreement.
Anyway, you're an excellent debator ISOHaven (despite your views of the 360), and so I've enjoyed the discussion.
Let's go and cross swords or join forces elsewhere on QJ.
Until then, bye.
That's all folks (definately no more posts from me here). :)
"...I take back the liar comment. However prior to your last post, that was never stated. Not that I saw anyway."
I'm pleased you took back your liar comment, thanks. I ignored it before assuming you were just saying it to annoy me, but I returned to it now because you stated it again.
"However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME."
And I have never stated that ISO, I've said it's the other way around, i.e. that the computer was always running that code at 100% of it's capabilities, because it's not possible for the CPU to run any version of the code any faster, unless you overclock the CPU. Hence the only way to improve performance is to change the code to get more out of the same CPU.
That's where the sticking point is ISOHaven, we're looking at this from two different perspectives (ND and myself on one side, you on the other side). I appreciate what you're saying, and you are right in the context of where you're coming from, but we're right in the context of where we're coming from. But until you can see where we're coming from, we'll never be in agreement.
Anyway, you're an excellent debator ISOHaven (despite your views of the 360), and so I've enjoyed the discussion.
Let's go and cross swords or join forces elsewhere on QJ.
Until then, bye.
That's all folks (definately no more posts from me here). :)
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-20 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
I wrote:
"However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME."
"Unregistered Gamer" wrote:
"And I have never stated that ISO, I've said it's the other way around, i.e. that the computer was always running that code at 100% of it's capabilities"
ND Wrote:
"every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game."
Wait ,didn't I just repeat almost word for word what ND wrote? Then "Unregistered Gamer" claims that's not what he means yet he backs them up 100%. So, which is it?
Hum....system POWER. Interesting. So here you clearly translate SYSTEM POWER to CAPABILITY. Capability closely matches POTENTIAL, yet:
"Unregistered Gamer" wrote:
"They didn't say full potential, they said 100% of the systems power. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING."
So potential and capability are NOT THE SAME THING as system power yet you are on the SIDE of capability and ND is on the side of system POWER.
That would make this comment false:
"That's where the sticking point is ISOHaven, we're looking at this from two different perspectives (ND and myself on one side, you on the other side)"
It looks more like three sides to me based on your DEFINITIONS ALONE.
Then there's:
"Unregistered Gamer" wrote:
"For EVERY game running on the PS3 and 360, the hardware is running at 100% all the time"
Interesting, once again we visit why a consoles temps change constantly.
Once again, and no one has disproved this:
The ONLY thing that is constant in PCs and consoles is the system clock. THAT'S IT! Registers do NOT swap at the same rate all the time, GPUs do NOT calculate the same number of calculations per second ALL THE TIME. System POWER does NOT equal System Clock.
This one is still the best. Let's revisit it:
ND Wrote:
"every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game."
I wrote:
"However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME."
Then "Unregistered Gamer" disagrees with ND:
"And I have never stated that ISO, I've said it's the other way around, i.e. that the computer was always running that code at 100% of it's capabilities"
You'll notice he claims it's the OTHER WAY AROUND from what I wrote yet I wrote what ND wrote THUS it's the other way around from what ND wrote.
Interesting!
I think the other guy had it right when he stated you have completely botched the terminology. The REAL problem here is that you have translated what ND said into what you THINK you thought they meant and the two clearly do not match up. Hum...wait...I take that back, it's more like ND was BLOWING SMOKE with BS terminology that doesn't actually mean anything. Why? Because after all this and 4 different people, we have a few different definitions for SYSTEM POWER. Something of which doesn't even exist and those that claim they know what SYSTEM POWER is can't even give any sample data that would justify a percentage to be derived from their ghost data. After, even 100% is derived from something.
I wrote:
"However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME."
"Unregistered Gamer" wrote:
"And I have never stated that ISO, I've said it's the other way around, i.e. that the computer was always running that code at 100% of it's capabilities"
ND Wrote:
"every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game."
Wait ,didn't I just repeat almost word for word what ND wrote? Then "Unregistered Gamer" claims that's not what he means yet he backs them up 100%. So, which is it?
Hum....system POWER. Interesting. So here you clearly translate SYSTEM POWER to CAPABILITY. Capability closely matches POTENTIAL, yet:
"Unregistered Gamer" wrote:
"They didn't say full potential, they said 100% of the systems power. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING."
So potential and capability are NOT THE SAME THING as system power yet you are on the SIDE of capability and ND is on the side of system POWER.
That would make this comment false:
"That's where the sticking point is ISOHaven, we're looking at this from two different perspectives (ND and myself on one side, you on the other side)"
It looks more like three sides to me based on your DEFINITIONS ALONE.
Then there's:
"Unregistered Gamer" wrote:
"For EVERY game running on the PS3 and 360, the hardware is running at 100% all the time"
Interesting, once again we visit why a consoles temps change constantly.
Once again, and no one has disproved this:
The ONLY thing that is constant in PCs and consoles is the system clock. THAT'S IT! Registers do NOT swap at the same rate all the time, GPUs do NOT calculate the same number of calculations per second ALL THE TIME. System POWER does NOT equal System Clock.
This one is still the best. Let's revisit it:
ND Wrote:
"every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game."
I wrote:
"However you still can not state that either versions of your code use 100% of a PCs POWER ALL THE TIME."
Then "Unregistered Gamer" disagrees with ND:
"And I have never stated that ISO, I've said it's the other way around, i.e. that the computer was always running that code at 100% of it's capabilities"
You'll notice he claims it's the OTHER WAY AROUND from what I wrote yet I wrote what ND wrote THUS it's the other way around from what ND wrote.
Interesting!
I think the other guy had it right when he stated you have completely botched the terminology. The REAL problem here is that you have translated what ND said into what you THINK you thought they meant and the two clearly do not match up. Hum...wait...I take that back, it's more like ND was BLOWING SMOKE with BS terminology that doesn't actually mean anything. Why? Because after all this and 4 different people, we have a few different definitions for SYSTEM POWER. Something of which doesn't even exist and those that claim they know what SYSTEM POWER is can't even give any sample data that would justify a percentage to be derived from their ghost data. After, even 100% is derived from something.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-21 |
|
|
» OK, I'll agree to disagree :D
Think what you like about me being here Games4james, but what am I suppose to do, wait until unregistered gamer returns instead of posting my own thoughts? BS! Besides, I think we're all in different time zones. But yeah, I agree with you saying this has gone on long enough, so I'll end with one more post as well (to isohaven).
"The REAL problem here is that you have translated what ND said into what you THINK you thought they meant and the two clearly do not match up."
And the same applies to you as well isohaven. You say they're blowing smoke because of YOUR interpretation of what you think they meant, I say they're not blowing smoke because of MY interpretation. Please don't act as if you're different just because you believe you're right.
"it's more like ND was BLOWING SMOKE with BS terminology that doesn't actually mean anything. Why? Because after all this and 4 different people, we have a few different definitions for SYSTEM POWER"
And that's where I have a problem with you saying they're blowing smoke, firstly because the question of power used is a BS question anyway, it always has been and always will be, and so effectively ND are saying any percentages given to answering that question is a BS answer because different devs will have different views on full potential (I believe you agree with that). So they did the next best thing and provided an analogy to try to explain what they meant with their so-called 'BS terminology' as you call it.
When I look back at this thread, it is STUPID that we all spent so much time arguing on what WE think they mean by '100% of the systems power' when in fact we should have focussed more on their analogy and how it explains what they meant (isn't that's the whole point of analogies?).
If Jason Rubin were here, he could have explained exactly what he meant of course (and I'm sure it wasn't suppose to be taken so literally), but instead, he left an analogy for the purpose of explaining it (you know, the analogy which you've never referred to here).
Lastly, both you (isohaven) and unregistereg gamer say you are (or were) software developers, which is fine, but it's a huge field and doesn't make you experts on game developement, much less experts on pushing the same hardware to it's limits year after year (something which happens in few software developement roles outside of console game developement). So I agree with games4james saying ND are the experts in this area, not you or unreg.
Anyway, as I've said already in the subject title, I will agree to disagree also.
By all means have the last word isohaven (I know you will) :D
Think what you like about me being here Games4james, but what am I suppose to do, wait until unregistered gamer returns instead of posting my own thoughts? BS! Besides, I think we're all in different time zones. But yeah, I agree with you saying this has gone on long enough, so I'll end with one more post as well (to isohaven).
"The REAL problem here is that you have translated what ND said into what you THINK you thought they meant and the two clearly do not match up."
And the same applies to you as well isohaven. You say they're blowing smoke because of YOUR interpretation of what you think they meant, I say they're not blowing smoke because of MY interpretation. Please don't act as if you're different just because you believe you're right.
"it's more like ND was BLOWING SMOKE with BS terminology that doesn't actually mean anything. Why? Because after all this and 4 different people, we have a few different definitions for SYSTEM POWER"
And that's where I have a problem with you saying they're blowing smoke, firstly because the question of power used is a BS question anyway, it always has been and always will be, and so effectively ND are saying any percentages given to answering that question is a BS answer because different devs will have different views on full potential (I believe you agree with that). So they did the next best thing and provided an analogy to try to explain what they meant with their so-called 'BS terminology' as you call it.
When I look back at this thread, it is STUPID that we all spent so much time arguing on what WE think they mean by '100% of the systems power' when in fact we should have focussed more on their analogy and how it explains what they meant (isn't that's the whole point of analogies?).
If Jason Rubin were here, he could have explained exactly what he meant of course (and I'm sure it wasn't suppose to be taken so literally), but instead, he left an analogy for the purpose of explaining it (you know, the analogy which you've never referred to here).
Lastly, both you (isohaven) and unregistereg gamer say you are (or were) software developers, which is fine, but it's a huge field and doesn't make you experts on game developement, much less experts on pushing the same hardware to it's limits year after year (something which happens in few software developement roles outside of console game developement). So I agree with games4james saying ND are the experts in this area, not you or unreg.
Anyway, as I've said already in the subject title, I will agree to disagree also.
By all means have the last word isohaven (I know you will) :D
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-21 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"And the same applies to you as well isohaven."
Hum...reading comp problems again. I already stated THREE SIDES. Figure it out.
"And that's where I have a problem with you..."
At least you can admit you have a problem and you're the one with the problem.
"When I look back at this thread, it is STUPID that we all spent so much time arguing"
Really? I had fun! When, if, if your old enough?, you gamble for fun but then lose too much money do you then call the venture stupid and a waste? Hum....issues...
"isn't that's the whole point of analogies?"
1. You assume that was an analogy.
2. I already addressed the analogy theory and I already stated all the different assumptions. No two people here can settle on the same outcome.
"you know, the analogy which you've never referred to here"
I've quoted them many times here. You refuse to address my comments specifically. You refuse to answer specific questions, then you demand I explain myself further on one topic. Eh, some people are what they are.
BUSTED!
"much less experts on pushing the same hardware to it's limits"
According to ND, hardware is at it's limit 100% of time thus there is no such thing as pushing hardware to a limit. Now you state otherwise? Hilarious!
"and doesn't make you experts on game developement"
Neither one of us said we were. So what exactly was the point of this comment? tsk tsk!
"By all means have the last word isohaven (I know you will) :D"
Of course I will, you asked QUESTIONS in your post.
"And the same applies to you as well isohaven."
Hum...reading comp problems again. I already stated THREE SIDES. Figure it out.
"And that's where I have a problem with you..."
At least you can admit you have a problem and you're the one with the problem.
"When I look back at this thread, it is STUPID that we all spent so much time arguing"
Really? I had fun! When, if, if your old enough?, you gamble for fun but then lose too much money do you then call the venture stupid and a waste? Hum....issues...
"isn't that's the whole point of analogies?"
1. You assume that was an analogy.
2. I already addressed the analogy theory and I already stated all the different assumptions. No two people here can settle on the same outcome.
"you know, the analogy which you've never referred to here"
I've quoted them many times here. You refuse to address my comments specifically. You refuse to answer specific questions, then you demand I explain myself further on one topic. Eh, some people are what they are.
BUSTED!
"much less experts on pushing the same hardware to it's limits"
According to ND, hardware is at it's limit 100% of time thus there is no such thing as pushing hardware to a limit. Now you state otherwise? Hilarious!
"and doesn't make you experts on game developement"
Neither one of us said we were. So what exactly was the point of this comment? tsk tsk!
"By all means have the last word isohaven (I know you will) :D"
Of course I will, you asked QUESTIONS in your post.
|
Re: Games4James - 2007-09-21 |
|
|
» That's great guys. Thanks.
>"It's funny, now there's three of you saying this yet no one is capable of giving any numbers or examples based on what exactly the power of a system is in order to derive a percentage."
There's no need really, throughout his analogy, Jason constantly says what he means by %u2018100%%u2019. He directly compares the system to a glass, and therefore the glass being full is the same as 100% systems power being used (not 100% potential), with the point being HOW the glass has been filled (with rocks, pebbles, sand and water). The glass being full of water is equivalent to using its full potential, but he says no dev will ever achieve that, therefore no dev can ever reach its full potential (it's all in his analogy).
I know you're going to challenge that, and because of this I do sincerely apologize for bringing it up having said this thread should end with everyone agreeing to disagree. However, I just wanted to add why I agree with Jason Rubin.
Unfortunately, whilst all of you were fighting over what you thought ND said or didn't say, you all lost sight of the fact that this was really about how much the 360 had been tapped compared to the PS3, i.e. the point raised in the topic to begin with.
My take on this is that since the 360 and PS3 are almost equally powerful (both have advantages and disadvantages but the PS3 does have the edge over the 360), and given what we've seen so far, it is ridiculous to suggest 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped and yet they've barely scratched the surface for the PS3 in comparison. That would be true perhaps if the PS3 was at least twice as powerful as the 360, but since this is not the case, then that statement in the blog is a gross exaggeration of the differences between the consoles.
Sadly, this thread in no longer the place to really discuss this properly due to the way it's been taken way off track, but if a similar topic does appears in future, I'll be happy to join in the discussion there instead.
*Sigh* I wished you guys had stuck to the topic, since it would have been a much better discussion imo, and I think you may have found you have more in common than you realize (or maybe not ;)).
Thanks again for agreeing to disagree.
See you guys later on QJ.
>"It's funny, now there's three of you saying this yet no one is capable of giving any numbers or examples based on what exactly the power of a system is in order to derive a percentage."
There's no need really, throughout his analogy, Jason constantly says what he means by %u2018100%%u2019. He directly compares the system to a glass, and therefore the glass being full is the same as 100% systems power being used (not 100% potential), with the point being HOW the glass has been filled (with rocks, pebbles, sand and water). The glass being full of water is equivalent to using its full potential, but he says no dev will ever achieve that, therefore no dev can ever reach its full potential (it's all in his analogy).
I know you're going to challenge that, and because of this I do sincerely apologize for bringing it up having said this thread should end with everyone agreeing to disagree. However, I just wanted to add why I agree with Jason Rubin.
Unfortunately, whilst all of you were fighting over what you thought ND said or didn't say, you all lost sight of the fact that this was really about how much the 360 had been tapped compared to the PS3, i.e. the point raised in the topic to begin with.
My take on this is that since the 360 and PS3 are almost equally powerful (both have advantages and disadvantages but the PS3 does have the edge over the 360), and given what we've seen so far, it is ridiculous to suggest 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped and yet they've barely scratched the surface for the PS3 in comparison. That would be true perhaps if the PS3 was at least twice as powerful as the 360, but since this is not the case, then that statement in the blog is a gross exaggeration of the differences between the consoles.
Sadly, this thread in no longer the place to really discuss this properly due to the way it's been taken way off track, but if a similar topic does appears in future, I'll be happy to join in the discussion there instead.
*Sigh* I wished you guys had stuck to the topic, since it would have been a much better discussion imo, and I think you may have found you have more in common than you realize (or maybe not ;)).
Thanks again for agreeing to disagree.
See you guys later on QJ.
|
Re: Games4James - 2007-09-21 |
|
|
» Cool, you're here ISOHaven
We just posted at almost exactly the same time, so I know you're here now. :)
I see you've had your last word with those two posters (*IF* they stick to their word that it's their last post), so do go ahead and respond to mine if necessary, as I'm leaving this thread for good.
I expect there's much you disagree with, and I'm perfectly fine with that, I'm just sorry that a) I didn't get here sooner to discuss it, and b) that this thread went way off track when it became a fight about ND instead of about the point raised in main topic.
I look forward to discussing it with you in another topic here sometime (believe it or not, I actually prefer people who disagree with my views, because it's more interesting and stimulating :)).
So all the best until then. :D
We just posted at almost exactly the same time, so I know you're here now. :)
I see you've had your last word with those two posters (*IF* they stick to their word that it's their last post), so do go ahead and respond to mine if necessary, as I'm leaving this thread for good.
I expect there's much you disagree with, and I'm perfectly fine with that, I'm just sorry that a) I didn't get here sooner to discuss it, and b) that this thread went way off track when it became a fight about ND instead of about the point raised in main topic.
I look forward to discussing it with you in another topic here sometime (believe it or not, I actually prefer people who disagree with my views, because it's more interesting and stimulating :)).
So all the best until then. :D
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-21 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"I know you're going to challenge that'
Nope, I already did. Anyone can go back up and read.
"you all lost sight of the fact that this was really about how much the 360 had been tapped compared to the PS3, i.e. the point raised in the topic to begin with."
Actually, that was already covered. Hardware is tapped through code. This entire convo is about how there is NO SUCH THING as tapping hardware according to ND. Hardware is 100% tapped all the time. Gee, yet another way of looking at such a broad comment.
"it is ridiculous to suggest 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped and yet they've barely scratched the surface for the PS3 in comparison."
I have always agreed with that. Especially since there is no single person that can comment on EVERY DEV company out there. That would be like AMD commenting that we've gone as far as we can with transistors. That might be true for them but they have no clue what Intel is cooking up.
"I actually prefer people who disagree with my views, because it's more interesting and stimulating :))."
ABSOLUTELY!
"I know you're going to challenge that'
Nope, I already did. Anyone can go back up and read.
"you all lost sight of the fact that this was really about how much the 360 had been tapped compared to the PS3, i.e. the point raised in the topic to begin with."
Actually, that was already covered. Hardware is tapped through code. This entire convo is about how there is NO SUCH THING as tapping hardware according to ND. Hardware is 100% tapped all the time. Gee, yet another way of looking at such a broad comment.
"it is ridiculous to suggest 90% of the 360's resources have been tapped and yet they've barely scratched the surface for the PS3 in comparison."
I have always agreed with that. Especially since there is no single person that can comment on EVERY DEV company out there. That would be like AMD commenting that we've gone as far as we can with transistors. That might be true for them but they have no clue what Intel is cooking up.
"I actually prefer people who disagree with my views, because it's more interesting and stimulating :))."
ABSOLUTELY!
|
by Quixand - 2007-09-18 |
|
|
» WOW!!!
Finally!!! a long thread of flaming!!! i missed it!!! this was my intention from the get go when i made my first post...
mission accomplished.
Finally!!! a long thread of flaming!!! i missed it!!! this was my intention from the get go when i made my first post...
mission accomplished.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Hmmm
^^^I fail to see why that's something to be smug about. :|
^^^I fail to see why that's something to be smug about. :|
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» OK
Satisfied NOW?
:)
Satisfied NOW?
:)
|
by xKtratosx - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» OMG!
This "chat" has got completely out of hands...we were suposed to talk about the future, not about now or the past.
anyways....
I really don't understand u xbox 360 fanboys, I mean c'mon there ain't a single website that talks about gaming that wouldn't have a post about "PS3 winning over xbox 360" (read first,than flame me). Yes xbox has more games, is also more known to the public and (a bad thing comming) it's been out for 2 f*cking YEARS!!! But now look at PS3 It has more better games comming, better graphics and it's been for ALMOST 1 year!!!
So who will win in a long run huh? PS3 has more potential and we just need to w8 for it to evolve, lets just wait for one more year...THEN we can compare the PS3 2 year aniversary and xbox 360 aniversary ( that is now).
For Wii fanboys there isn't much to it Wii just isn't next-gen material....sure it has new technology other than that it's shiit.
This "chat" has got completely out of hands...we were suposed to talk about the future, not about now or the past.
anyways....
I really don't understand u xbox 360 fanboys, I mean c'mon there ain't a single website that talks about gaming that wouldn't have a post about "PS3 winning over xbox 360" (read first,than flame me). Yes xbox has more games, is also more known to the public and (a bad thing comming) it's been out for 2 f*cking YEARS!!! But now look at PS3 It has more better games comming, better graphics and it's been for ALMOST 1 year!!!
So who will win in a long run huh? PS3 has more potential and we just need to w8 for it to evolve, lets just wait for one more year...THEN we can compare the PS3 2 year aniversary and xbox 360 aniversary ( that is now).
For Wii fanboys there isn't much to it Wii just isn't next-gen material....sure it has new technology other than that it's shiit.
|
Re: xKtratosx - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» forgot something :)
And one more thing, I ask that no one talks about consoles how they are wvolving now this post was supposed to be about future.
read this: http://www.qj.net/Analysts-Xbox-360-to-fall-in-distant-third-PS3-to-win-console-war-by-2009/pg/49/aid/102749
And one more thing, I ask that no one talks about consoles how they are wvolving now this post was supposed to be about future.
read this: http://www.qj.net/Analysts-Xbox-360-to-fall-in-distant-third-PS3-to-win-console-war-by-2009/pg/49/aid/102749
|
Re: xKtratosx - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» forgot something :)
And one more thing I'd like to ask that everyone talk about the future (don't brag about xbox...don't forget it has been released 1 year before..so.....shut up) not now, or the past
read this: http://www.qj.net/Analysts-Xbox-360-to-fall-in-distant-third-
PS3-to-win-console-war-by-2009/pg/49/aid/102749
And one more thing I'd like to ask that everyone talk about the future (don't brag about xbox...don't forget it has been released 1 year before..so.....shut up) not now, or the past
read this: http://www.qj.net/Analysts-Xbox-360-to-fall-in-distant-third-
PS3-to-win-console-war-by-2009/pg/49/aid/102749
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Except
The past and present are relevent to the future xKtratosx. The future doesn't exist in isolation, and the future is not a certainy, it's only speculation (including the link you've posted twice).
There is very little between the PS3 and 360 in terms of power. Devs working on both consoles know this and therefore they say this. Overall, they would say the PS3 is *slightly* more powerful than the 360 overall, but the difference is negligable, and less than the differences seen between consoles last gen.
Also, the launch date of the consoles does not mean they are exactly 1 year apart. The PS3 was delayed 6-9 months from the original launch of spring 2006. This meant PS3 devs had up to 6 months on final hardware before the console was launched, whereas 360 devs had less than 2 months on final hardware before launch.
As for the PS3 having 'more better games coming' with better graphics, that's a matter of opinion. From what I'm seeing of future games shown so far, they are still about the same on both consoles.
The past and present are relevent to the future xKtratosx. The future doesn't exist in isolation, and the future is not a certainy, it's only speculation (including the link you've posted twice).
There is very little between the PS3 and 360 in terms of power. Devs working on both consoles know this and therefore they say this. Overall, they would say the PS3 is *slightly* more powerful than the 360 overall, but the difference is negligable, and less than the differences seen between consoles last gen.
Also, the launch date of the consoles does not mean they are exactly 1 year apart. The PS3 was delayed 6-9 months from the original launch of spring 2006. This meant PS3 devs had up to 6 months on final hardware before the console was launched, whereas 360 devs had less than 2 months on final hardware before launch.
As for the PS3 having 'more better games coming' with better graphics, that's a matter of opinion. From what I'm seeing of future games shown so far, they are still about the same on both consoles.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
Don't forget that consoles are about to get ROCKED by the PC industry. A PC already out performs the 360 by leaps and bounds. Granted the PC costs more. However in two years we'll have PCs that out perform the PS3 in processing power as well as GPU power on a MID level system.
I can't speak for what Bluray will cost on PCs at that time, however installing multiple discs (DVD) on a PC isn't as bad as switching multiple discs on a console.
I played Bioshock on my PC before a friend brought it over so we could compare it on my 360. As usual, nothing special. In fact it didn't look as good on the 360 even though I've seen better DX10 games then Bioshock.
Don't forget that consoles are about to get ROCKED by the PC industry. A PC already out performs the 360 by leaps and bounds. Granted the PC costs more. However in two years we'll have PCs that out perform the PS3 in processing power as well as GPU power on a MID level system.
I can't speak for what Bluray will cost on PCs at that time, however installing multiple discs (DVD) on a PC isn't as bad as switching multiple discs on a console.
I played Bioshock on my PC before a friend brought it over so we could compare it on my 360. As usual, nothing special. In fact it didn't look as good on the 360 even though I've seen better DX10 games then Bioshock.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Really?
"A PC already out performs the 360 by leaps and bounds."
A PC also out performs the PS3 by 'leaps and bounds".
"A PC already out performs the 360 by leaps and bounds."
A PC also out performs the PS3 by 'leaps and bounds".
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"A PC also out performs the PS3 by 'leaps and bounds"."
More ignorance.
Just looking at CPU resources alone the PS3 can perform much more work then any Intel or AMD CPU today. Proof of that can be seen with Folding@Home. Both my PC and PS3 fold 24/7. I've been folding on my PC for well over a year now. How long has Folding@Home been available on the PS3? To date my PS3 has folded more jobs then my PC by just under 80%. Meaning, my PS3 is 20% away from having done the same amount of work in what little time F@H has been available on the PS3 as my PC has done in well over a year.
Yes, I always have a high end PC. I'm a little behind right now with an E6850 but I'm not upgrading again until the first 8 core CPU's hit the market in '08.
Now, let's watch this kid come back with a 4-PCU dual core setup that costs well over 4 grand as a comparison just to "force" his point.
This thread is hilarious!
"A PC also out performs the PS3 by 'leaps and bounds"."
More ignorance.
Just looking at CPU resources alone the PS3 can perform much more work then any Intel or AMD CPU today. Proof of that can be seen with Folding@Home. Both my PC and PS3 fold 24/7. I've been folding on my PC for well over a year now. How long has Folding@Home been available on the PS3? To date my PS3 has folded more jobs then my PC by just under 80%. Meaning, my PS3 is 20% away from having done the same amount of work in what little time F@H has been available on the PS3 as my PC has done in well over a year.
Yes, I always have a high end PC. I'm a little behind right now with an E6850 but I'm not upgrading again until the first 8 core CPU's hit the market in '08.
Now, let's watch this kid come back with a 4-PCU dual core setup that costs well over 4 grand as a comparison just to "force" his point.
This thread is hilarious!
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Please get your facts right
"More ignorance."
No, you are the one showing ignorance throughout this thread.
"Just looking at CPU resources alone the PS3 can perform much more work then any Intel or AMD CPU today. Proof of that can be seen with Folding@Home."
Which is outperformed by an ATI GPU, or did you conveniently ignore those figures?
http://folding.stanford.edu/stats.html
Select Client Statistics by OS.
You will see that on average, the ATI GPU offers about 2.5 times the TFLOP performance of the PS3 (and this has been the case since the beginning!). That's 0.058 for the ATI GPU (42/717) compared to 0.023 on the PS3 (815/34264). Hence the great interest in using GPUs for physics, without the need for a dedicated PPU like Aegia's Physx (which will work in UT3 btw, http://www.ageia.com/physx/ut3.html).
The fact is, the strength of the Cell processor and the CPU Xenon in the 360 is for single-precision floating-point operations. It is this area where both CPUs outperform a typical PC CPU, with Cell offering theoretically twice the fp performance of Xenon. But for general code, both Xenon and PC CPUs outperform Cell, with Xenon offering about twice the general processing power of Cell.
Hence this makes Cell ideal for Folding@Home, for multimedia operations and for games, where the increasing importance of floating-point performance means Cell will have an overall advantage over Xenon in this respect.
However, you also conveniently ignore the fact that RSX in the PS3 is the console version of G71, also known as the GeForce 7900 on the PC (RSX being the high-end version). However, GPU technology has now far exceeded RSX on the PC, and the GPU in the 360 (Xenos) is more advanced and slightly more powerful than RSX. Giving the 360 an advantage over the PS3 in this respect.
For any game, the performance is going to be determined by the power of the CPU to run general code AND perform arithmetic operations, and the power of the GPU to render graphics, all within the RAM available (the more the better).
So *overall*, the PC will offer better performance than the PS3, and therefore you can expect the PC version of UT3 to be as superior to the PS3 (and 360) versions as Bioshock is on the best PCs compared to the 360.
"Now, let's watch this kid come back with a 4-PCU dual core setup that costs well over 4 grand as a comparison just to "force" his point."
No need, I've already proven my point.
"This thread is hilarious!"
Yes, your ignorance is very amusing. Keep it up. :)
"More ignorance."
No, you are the one showing ignorance throughout this thread.
"Just looking at CPU resources alone the PS3 can perform much more work then any Intel or AMD CPU today. Proof of that can be seen with Folding@Home."
Which is outperformed by an ATI GPU, or did you conveniently ignore those figures?
http://folding.stanford.edu/stats.html
Select Client Statistics by OS.
You will see that on average, the ATI GPU offers about 2.5 times the TFLOP performance of the PS3 (and this has been the case since the beginning!). That's 0.058 for the ATI GPU (42/717) compared to 0.023 on the PS3 (815/34264). Hence the great interest in using GPUs for physics, without the need for a dedicated PPU like Aegia's Physx (which will work in UT3 btw, http://www.ageia.com/physx/ut3.html).
The fact is, the strength of the Cell processor and the CPU Xenon in the 360 is for single-precision floating-point operations. It is this area where both CPUs outperform a typical PC CPU, with Cell offering theoretically twice the fp performance of Xenon. But for general code, both Xenon and PC CPUs outperform Cell, with Xenon offering about twice the general processing power of Cell.
Hence this makes Cell ideal for Folding@Home, for multimedia operations and for games, where the increasing importance of floating-point performance means Cell will have an overall advantage over Xenon in this respect.
However, you also conveniently ignore the fact that RSX in the PS3 is the console version of G71, also known as the GeForce 7900 on the PC (RSX being the high-end version). However, GPU technology has now far exceeded RSX on the PC, and the GPU in the 360 (Xenos) is more advanced and slightly more powerful than RSX. Giving the 360 an advantage over the PS3 in this respect.
For any game, the performance is going to be determined by the power of the CPU to run general code AND perform arithmetic operations, and the power of the GPU to render graphics, all within the RAM available (the more the better).
So *overall*, the PC will offer better performance than the PS3, and therefore you can expect the PC version of UT3 to be as superior to the PS3 (and 360) versions as Bioshock is on the best PCs compared to the 360.
"Now, let's watch this kid come back with a 4-PCU dual core setup that costs well over 4 grand as a comparison just to "force" his point."
No need, I've already proven my point.
"This thread is hilarious!"
Yes, your ignorance is very amusing. Keep it up. :)
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"No, you are the one showing ignorance throughout this thread."
HAHAHA!!! Gees, what a mature, "I know you are but what am I" response. How old are you?
"Which is outperformed by an ATI GPU, or did you conveniently ignore those figures?"
Why would I discuss GPU figures when I'm discussing a CPU? Hello?!?!?! That is something YOU would do, I understand this. It's what you need to do to force your point. I don't do that.
The CPU and GPU together while create a whole system. Your BS numbers of comparing a PC GPU to a PS3 CPU is about as useful as ND's comments.
"However, you also conveniently ignore the fact that RSX in..."
I don't ignore anything. What you consistently FAIL to do is to keep the discussion within the SCOPE of what is being discussed. All your ramblings after this point are completely outside the SCOPE of my comment:
"GPU power on a MID level system."
You can TRY to compare a $2,000+ PC system to the PS3 if you want, but I doubt anyone would listen. I was discussing what PC's will be at the end of '08 based on what we know now.
My Bioshock comment was a little biased but it was based on my early comment of machine preference. However, I'm sure even a mid level system of today running DX10 would still look better then the 360. There is no such thing as a mid level system outperforming the PS3.
Even with that said, the comparison is still ridiculous as the systems are years apart. They aren't even the same class.
Articles all over the iNet claim that by '09 the PS3 will be far ahead of the 360. Hell, by then MS will have another system so how cares?
Back to my original comment which you can't seem to concentrate on:
"Don't forget that consoles are about to get ROCKED by the PC industry."
I would hardly say the PC industry ROCKS consoles at this point in time. Even with an E6850, my two 8800GTX video cards are CPU limited. This is evident by scores from a faster CPU when the GPU is specifically tested. Enter the 8 core CPU, faster bus speeds, DX10, more multi-threaded coding and all three consoles will be left in the dust.
"Rocks" is subjective, now argue all you want.
"No, you are the one showing ignorance throughout this thread."
HAHAHA!!! Gees, what a mature, "I know you are but what am I" response. How old are you?
"Which is outperformed by an ATI GPU, or did you conveniently ignore those figures?"
Why would I discuss GPU figures when I'm discussing a CPU? Hello?!?!?! That is something YOU would do, I understand this. It's what you need to do to force your point. I don't do that.
The CPU and GPU together while create a whole system. Your BS numbers of comparing a PC GPU to a PS3 CPU is about as useful as ND's comments.
"However, you also conveniently ignore the fact that RSX in..."
I don't ignore anything. What you consistently FAIL to do is to keep the discussion within the SCOPE of what is being discussed. All your ramblings after this point are completely outside the SCOPE of my comment:
"GPU power on a MID level system."
You can TRY to compare a $2,000+ PC system to the PS3 if you want, but I doubt anyone would listen. I was discussing what PC's will be at the end of '08 based on what we know now.
My Bioshock comment was a little biased but it was based on my early comment of machine preference. However, I'm sure even a mid level system of today running DX10 would still look better then the 360. There is no such thing as a mid level system outperforming the PS3.
Even with that said, the comparison is still ridiculous as the systems are years apart. They aren't even the same class.
Articles all over the iNet claim that by '09 the PS3 will be far ahead of the 360. Hell, by then MS will have another system so how cares?
Back to my original comment which you can't seem to concentrate on:
"Don't forget that consoles are about to get ROCKED by the PC industry."
I would hardly say the PC industry ROCKS consoles at this point in time. Even with an E6850, my two 8800GTX video cards are CPU limited. This is evident by scores from a faster CPU when the GPU is specifically tested. Enter the 8 core CPU, faster bus speeds, DX10, more multi-threaded coding and all three consoles will be left in the dust.
"Rocks" is subjective, now argue all you want.
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Still no evidence from you I see.
"HAHAHA!!! Gees, what a mature, "I know you are but what am I" response. How old are you?"
LOL! Is that suppose to upset me? I'm obviously older than you kid, and from reading your posts here, I'm obviously more experienced.
"Why would I discuss GPU figures when I'm discussing a CPU? Hello?!?!?!"
Because the whole system consists of the CPU AND GPU, which you admitted YOURSELF when you jsut said "The CPU and GPU together while create a whole system".
So you KNOW that it's the CPU and GPU combined, and yet you used Floding@Home running on the CPUs ONLY to dispute my statement that the PC is more powerful than the PS3. Talk about convenient fanboy logic.
So NOW that you finally admit that it's not just the CPU but the GPU also that counts, then the fact that ATI's GPU outperforms Cell for Folding@Home is relevant to the discussion.
You can't have it both ways kid. You can't use Folding@Home to make comparisons between the PC and PS3 based upon the CPUs ONLY, and they cry out that it's the CPU and GPU that makes the whole system when I point out the superior ATI GPU performance for F+H. :P
"However, I'm sure even a mid level system of today running DX10 would still look better then the 360. There is no such thing as a mid level system outperforming the PS3."
LOL! Keep telling yourself that kid. You really have no idea what you're talking about. How entertaining your stupidity is. Thanks for the laugh. :)
I'll ignore your remaining fanboy comments, perhaps someone else will like to play that particular game with you. :P
And one more point regarding the PC. We already have games available on both PS3 and PC (and 360 of course). Please state which multi-format games are running better on the PS3 than any PC available, CPU limited or not.
Oh and, I'm still wating for your console power saving features which you bluffed...I mean... stated earlier. ;)
"HAHAHA!!! Gees, what a mature, "I know you are but what am I" response. How old are you?"
LOL! Is that suppose to upset me? I'm obviously older than you kid, and from reading your posts here, I'm obviously more experienced.
"Why would I discuss GPU figures when I'm discussing a CPU? Hello?!?!?!"
Because the whole system consists of the CPU AND GPU, which you admitted YOURSELF when you jsut said "The CPU and GPU together while create a whole system".
So you KNOW that it's the CPU and GPU combined, and yet you used Floding@Home running on the CPUs ONLY to dispute my statement that the PC is more powerful than the PS3. Talk about convenient fanboy logic.
So NOW that you finally admit that it's not just the CPU but the GPU also that counts, then the fact that ATI's GPU outperforms Cell for Folding@Home is relevant to the discussion.
You can't have it both ways kid. You can't use Folding@Home to make comparisons between the PC and PS3 based upon the CPUs ONLY, and they cry out that it's the CPU and GPU that makes the whole system when I point out the superior ATI GPU performance for F+H. :P
"However, I'm sure even a mid level system of today running DX10 would still look better then the 360. There is no such thing as a mid level system outperforming the PS3."
LOL! Keep telling yourself that kid. You really have no idea what you're talking about. How entertaining your stupidity is. Thanks for the laugh. :)
I'll ignore your remaining fanboy comments, perhaps someone else will like to play that particular game with you. :P
And one more point regarding the PC. We already have games available on both PS3 and PC (and 360 of course). Please state which multi-format games are running better on the PS3 than any PC available, CPU limited or not.
Oh and, I'm still wating for your console power saving features which you bluffed...I mean... stated earlier. ;)
|
Re: Yaz - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Here at last
Ok, my friends have finally arrived (better late than never). So unlike yourself perhaps, I do have a life, and so I'm to enjoy a great evening with friends, but thanks for the entertainment here, including the way you bluffed yourway through your arguements and your attempts at annoying those you perceive to be fanboys.
There's still the lists of course, which I'm sure you'll have no problem producing, i.e. the console power saving features and the games which run better on the PS3 than the PC (especially those released around the same time). No doubt, someone else could pick up on those whilst I'm away.
Have fun on your own (as I'm sure you always do ;)).
Bye.
Ok, my friends have finally arrived (better late than never). So unlike yourself perhaps, I do have a life, and so I'm to enjoy a great evening with friends, but thanks for the entertainment here, including the way you bluffed yourway through your arguements and your attempts at annoying those you perceive to be fanboys.
There's still the lists of course, which I'm sure you'll have no problem producing, i.e. the console power saving features and the games which run better on the PS3 than the PC (especially those released around the same time). No doubt, someone else could pick up on those whilst I'm away.
Have fun on your own (as I'm sure you always do ;)).
Bye.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
A quote from Yaz:
"LOL! Is that suppose to upset me? I'm obviously older than you kid, and from reading your posts here, I'm obviously more experienced."
That is all anyone needs to know about you and your attitude. Your life is just so.....obvious!
I compare CPU to CPU, GPU to GPU and CPU/GPU to CPU/GPU.
You have fun with your mix matched bogus comparisons.
"I'll ignore your remaining fanboy comments"
First I'm a Sony fanboy, now I'm a PC fanboy? Wow, you can't seem to make up your own mind. I'm half afraid to tell you I'm actually a Nintendo fanboy. But you already figured that since I flat out gave you my console preference....right??? Do I guess that makes me a Nintendo, PC, Sony fanboy. I think we all get the jest of what's going on here. The fact that MS is on the bottom of my list, that's the real problem!
Either way, my comment still stands and you have done NOTHING to invalidate it:
"Don't forget that consoles are about to get ROCKED by the PC industry."
In fact, you keep dancing around it.
A quote from Yaz:
"LOL! Is that suppose to upset me? I'm obviously older than you kid, and from reading your posts here, I'm obviously more experienced."
That is all anyone needs to know about you and your attitude. Your life is just so.....obvious!
I compare CPU to CPU, GPU to GPU and CPU/GPU to CPU/GPU.
You have fun with your mix matched bogus comparisons.
"I'll ignore your remaining fanboy comments"
First I'm a Sony fanboy, now I'm a PC fanboy? Wow, you can't seem to make up your own mind. I'm half afraid to tell you I'm actually a Nintendo fanboy. But you already figured that since I flat out gave you my console preference....right??? Do I guess that makes me a Nintendo, PC, Sony fanboy. I think we all get the jest of what's going on here. The fact that MS is on the bottom of my list, that's the real problem!
Either way, my comment still stands and you have done NOTHING to invalidate it:
"Don't forget that consoles are about to get ROCKED by the PC industry."
In fact, you keep dancing around it.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Nope
From what I see ISOHAven, Yaz is significantly more intelligent than you. He knows how to argue with facts, you just thrash around in the dark with nothing to back up your claims.
From your comments so far, you are claiming the PS3 is FAR more powerful than the 360. Well, where are the devs working on both consoles that agree with you? Post links from those devs here.
From what I see ISOHAven, Yaz is significantly more intelligent than you. He knows how to argue with facts, you just thrash around in the dark with nothing to back up your claims.
From your comments so far, you are claiming the PS3 is FAR more powerful than the 360. Well, where are the devs working on both consoles that agree with you? Post links from those devs here.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Reading this part of the thread again...
"I compare CPU to CPU, GPU to GPU and CPU/GPU to CPU/GPU."
No you didn't. You compared CPU to CPU to demonstrate the power difference between the PS3 and PC. You gave no GPU to GPU comparisons, and you've given no CPU/GPU to CPU/GPU comparisons. This information has come from Yaz, not yourself. He provided figures which, as usual, because you couldn't challenge them with links of your own, you choose to dismiss them completely.
Were are your figures for the relative performance between Cell and Xenon for general processing performance and arithmetic performance?
"I compare CPU to CPU, GPU to GPU and CPU/GPU to CPU/GPU."
No you didn't. You compared CPU to CPU to demonstrate the power difference between the PS3 and PC. You gave no GPU to GPU comparisons, and you've given no CPU/GPU to CPU/GPU comparisons. This information has come from Yaz, not yourself. He provided figures which, as usual, because you couldn't challenge them with links of your own, you choose to dismiss them completely.
Were are your figures for the relative performance between Cell and Xenon for general processing performance and arithmetic performance?
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"He knows how to argue with facts"
He hasn't given a single fact (aside from F@H links that were completely irrelevant). Neither have YOU. The only thing you gave was an OPINION piece from ND.
"you just thrash around in the dark with nothing to back up your claims."
I speak from experience. Take it or leave it.
"From your comments so far, you are claiming the PS3 is FAR more powerful than the 360"
WRONG!!!! Once again, you have egg all over your face. I never made any such claim. What else has your brain imagined?
"No you didn't. You compared CPU to CPU to demonstrate the power difference between the PS3 and PC. You gave no GPU to GPU comparisons,"
Wow, once again, you have no clue. I was describing how I DO things. Not necessarily what I've specifically done in this exact thread. That dolt wanted me to compare CPU to GPU. I don't do that. Do you get it yet? Do you see the word COMPARE? Notice there is NO "D" at the end of it? Do you see that? It's called reading comprehension. Get to know it, learn to LOVE IT!
"Were are your figures for the relative performance between Cell and Xenon for general processing performance and arithmetic performance? "
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! I guess you missed this part:
"Now, let's watch this kid come back with a 4-CPU dual core setup that costs well over 4 grand as a comparison just to "force" his point."
Typo fixed. I can't wait to see what else you come up with.
"He knows how to argue with facts"
He hasn't given a single fact (aside from F@H links that were completely irrelevant). Neither have YOU. The only thing you gave was an OPINION piece from ND.
"you just thrash around in the dark with nothing to back up your claims."
I speak from experience. Take it or leave it.
"From your comments so far, you are claiming the PS3 is FAR more powerful than the 360"
WRONG!!!! Once again, you have egg all over your face. I never made any such claim. What else has your brain imagined?
"No you didn't. You compared CPU to CPU to demonstrate the power difference between the PS3 and PC. You gave no GPU to GPU comparisons,"
Wow, once again, you have no clue. I was describing how I DO things. Not necessarily what I've specifically done in this exact thread. That dolt wanted me to compare CPU to GPU. I don't do that. Do you get it yet? Do you see the word COMPARE? Notice there is NO "D" at the end of it? Do you see that? It's called reading comprehension. Get to know it, learn to LOVE IT!
"Were are your figures for the relative performance between Cell and Xenon for general processing performance and arithmetic performance? "
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! I guess you missed this part:
"Now, let's watch this kid come back with a 4-CPU dual core setup that costs well over 4 grand as a comparison just to "force" his point."
Typo fixed. I can't wait to see what else you come up with.
|
Re: KnowLedge - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» STFU ISOhaven, you moron
At least they (yaz and unregisteredgamer) know the difference between processing power and electically power, unlike you (see above). You're nothing but an ignorant fool, because only a fool would make such a big error and then act as if he was in the right and the devs and everyone else were in the wrong.
They were right all along to say you're dumb.
At least they (yaz and unregisteredgamer) know the difference between processing power and electically power, unlike you (see above). You're nothing but an ignorant fool, because only a fool would make such a big error and then act as if he was in the right and the devs and everyone else were in the wrong.
They were right all along to say you're dumb.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"At least they (yaz and unregisteredgamer) know the difference between processing power and electically power"
And? Quote me otherwise. In other words, put up or shut up.
"At least they (yaz and unregisteredgamer) know the difference between processing power and electically power"
And? Quote me otherwise. In other words, put up or shut up.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
Almost forgot....and, you aren't fooling anyone "unregistered gamer" or yaz. Which ever one you are.
Almost forgot....and, you aren't fooling anyone "unregistered gamer" or yaz. Which ever one you are.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» Like I said Knowlegde
Please refrain from such posting those kind of insults. That's not in the spirit of this discussion.
"Almost forgot....and, you aren't fooling anyone "unregistered gamer" or yaz. Which ever one you are."
Ah yes, the favourite "you're the same person" conspiracy theory.
Yeah, you caught me with my numerous aliases after registering here following the changes. I am also logicbomb.de, jschloer, xKtratosx, Master Chef and yes, surpisely, I am Quixand. Less surprising perhaps is the fact that I'm Shatterdome as well. And to worry a few of you reading this, I'm actually ISOHaven as well!
Can we move on now? - Yes? - Good :)
Please refrain from such posting those kind of insults. That's not in the spirit of this discussion.
"Almost forgot....and, you aren't fooling anyone "unregistered gamer" or yaz. Which ever one you are."
Ah yes, the favourite "you're the same person" conspiracy theory.
Yeah, you caught me with my numerous aliases after registering here following the changes. I am also logicbomb.de, jschloer, xKtratosx, Master Chef and yes, surpisely, I am Quixand. Less surprising perhaps is the fact that I'm Shatterdome as well. And to worry a few of you reading this, I'm actually ISOHaven as well!
Can we move on now? - Yes? - Good :)
|
by Unregistered Gamer - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» :O So much has happened since I've been away
Thanks Yaz for your excellent input, but you're wrong when you said I take this seriously, because I don't. This is just a meaningless game played online, where nothing that is said on forums like this actually matters except for those making the posts. :)
Thanks Yaz for your excellent input, but you're wrong when you said I take this seriously, because I don't. This is just a meaningless game played online, where nothing that is said on forums like this actually matters except for those making the posts. :)
|
by ENFORCER - 2007-09-19 |
|
|
» yay
that was long........ i mean im still surprise that a spammer signed up just to talk junk. hope that helped to distinguish electrical power and processing power.
that was long........ i mean im still surprise that a spammer signed up just to talk junk. hope that helped to distinguish electrical power and processing power.
|
by walker3243 - 2007-09-27 |
|
|
» omfg ffs yar
i disagree with all of you
i disagree with all of you
Contact Us:
|
The QJ.net Network |
|
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - November
| Most Commented | |
| (103) | |
| (43) | |
| (38) | |
| (35) | |
| (34) | |
| (29) | |
| (29) | |
| (29) | |
| (23) | |
| (23) | |
| (22) | |
| (21) | |
| (21) | |
| (21) | |
| (21) | |
| (20) | |
| (19) | |
| (18) | |
| (18) | |
| (17) | |
User Favorites - November
Accessories
(255)Applications
(59)Artwork
(95)Blu-Ray
(429)Cell Processor
(80)Cheats
(3)Controller
(234)Deals
(195)Events
(244)Firmware
(155)Games
(10508)Hacks and Exploits
(88)Homebrew
(65)How-To
(48)Humor
(79)Imports
(18)Interviews
(1470)Linux
(53)Mods
(57)Netcasts
(12)News
(11164)Off Topic
(1104)On Shelves This Week
(32)Opinions & Analysis
(1320)PlayStation Network
(1727)Previews
(663)QuickJump QuickPeek
(36)Reviews
(29)Rumors
(1109)Scans
(180)Screenshots
(917)Site News
(55)Videos
(2580)Weekend Warrior
(37)
Titles
Archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
