upgraded Unreal Engine 3 presentation @ GDC

  • Thread starter Thread starter AirRaid
  • Start date Start date
A

AirRaid

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6002_en.html

Pretty impressive stuff. I didn't think Xbox 360, which is 2004
technology released in 2005, would be able to render a 100 or so
creatures on-screen or produce water & fluid effects so smoothy.

The IBM Xenon + ATI Xenos combination continues to impress. As far as
I know, ee're not going to see upgraded UE3 games on PS3, although I
think the CELL + Nvidia RSX combination could probably handle it with
some tweaks.
 
AirRaid said:
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6002_en.html

Pretty impressive stuff. I didn't think Xbox 360, which is 2004
technology released in 2005, would be able to render a 100 or so
creatures on-screen or produce water & fluid effects so smoothy.

The IBM Xenon + ATI Xenos combination continues to impress. As far as
I know, ee're not going to see upgraded UE3 games on PS3, although I
think the CELL + Nvidia RSX combination could probably handle it with
some tweaks.
Click to expand...

Stop cross posting 360 stuff to PS groups troll

But since you posted this in the PS groups I will reply.

Lmaoo with a few tweaks the PS3 could handle it!!!!

With the Cell and RSX combined it would eat it for breakfast period, its
just its total ram that lets it down.

If you want to see the PS3 have more than 100 creatures on screen take a
look at HS

If you want to see smooth water and fluid effects take a look at Uncharted.

I can see once the Dev's unlock/use more SPU's on the PS3, we are going
to see games that blows our minds. (well as far as consoles go, with
such limited amout of ram)
 
Mark Johnson said:
Stop cross posting 360 stuff to PS groups troll

But since you posted this in the PS groups I will reply.

Lmaoo with a few tweaks the PS3 could handle it!!!!

With the Cell and RSX combined it would eat it for breakfast period, its
just its total ram that lets it down.

If you want to see the PS3 have more than 100 creatures on screen take a
look at HS

If you want to see smooth water and fluid effects take a look at
Uncharted.

I can see once the Dev's unlock/use more SPU's on the PS3, we are going to
see games that blows our minds. (well as far as consoles go, with such
limited amout of ram)
Click to expand...

He CAN SEE ONCE The Devs unlock the POWER Our MINDS WILL Be BLOWN!
Speaking of getting blown...
 
Mark Johnson said:
Stop cross posting 360 stuff to PS groups troll

But since you posted this in the PS groups I will reply.

Lmaoo with a few tweaks the PS3 could handle it!!!!

With the Cell and RSX combined it would eat it for breakfast period, its
just its total ram that lets it down.

If you want to see the PS3 have more than 100 creatures on screen take a
look at HS
Click to expand...

Ever play Ninety-Nine Nights (crappy ****ing game though)? there are more
than a 100 at one time on the screen.
If you want to see smooth water and fluid effects take a look at
Uncharted.
Click to expand...

Honestly, the water effects in Halo 3 were much better, even Mass Effect has
some pretty damn good looking water.
I can see once the Dev's unlock/use more SPU's on the PS3, we are going to
see games that blows our minds. (well as far as consoles go, with such
limited amout of ram)
Click to expand...

Actually Mark, if the SPEs could be used to even 75% of their total
capacity, the RAM the PS3 has right would be more than enough. The sheer
power of handling that many processes would allow for more video RAM to take
hold on the bigger pictures. That something the 360 couldn't possibly do.
 
Actually Mark, if the SPEs could be used to even 75% of their total
capacity, the RAM the PS3 has right would be more than enough. The sheer
power of handling that many processes would allow for more video RAM to take
hold on the bigger pictures. That something the 360 couldn't possibly do.
Click to expand...
And you know this how?
 
Great question!
*rolls-eyes*
Click to expand...
And? Answer the question. Otherwise you'll be mistaken for a PS3 fanboy
who doesn't actually know what he is talking about. Unless you are a
software or hardware engineer with a degree in game design I really
don't think you're qualified to make such statements.
 
Tom said:
Ever play Ninety-Nine Nights (crappy ****ing game though)? there are more
than a 100 at one time on the screen.


Honestly, the water effects in Halo 3 were much better, even Mass Effect
has some pretty damn good looking water.


Actually Mark, if the SPEs could be used to even 75% of their total
capacity, the RAM the PS3 has right would be more than enough. The sheer
power of handling that many processes would allow for more video RAM to
take hold on the bigger pictures. That something the 360 couldn't possibly
do.
Click to expand...

I normally don't waste my time responding to crap like this, but for some
reason I felt compelled to call out the utter bull-sh*t here. "The sheer
power of handling that many processes would allow for more video RAM to take
hold on the bigger pictures." <--- That may pass the muster in
alt.playstation.rocks.fanboy, but definitely not in here.

Tony
 
Gray One said:
Otherwise you'll be mistaken for a PS3 fanboy
Click to expand...

Won't be the first time. Wont be the last time. Yet I sleep comfortably
every single night and I can look myself in the mirror every morning with a
clear conscience.

But there is no mistaken what you appear to be.
 
boodybandit said:
Won't be the first time. Wont be the last time. Yet I sleep comfortably
every single night and I can look myself in the mirror every morning with
a clear conscience.

But there is no mistaken what you appear to be.
Click to expand...

Didn't seem like a particularly unreasonable question to me.
I'm a software engineer by trade and nothing in that claim made any sense to
me. I don't, though, have any knowledge of the PS3 architecture. I'd be
interested to hear in detail how 'the sheer power of handling that many
processes would allow for more video RAM to take hold', and why particularly
it would be something the 360 'couldn't possibly do'.
It just seems to me that there are an awful lot of people out there with
little or no technical knowledge who use second-hand quotes or just plain
made-up gobbledegook to try to justify their favourite toy.
I'm glad you're happy looking at yourself in the mirror, though. Well done.


Chris.

GT: SomethingWitty
 
Chris Stevens said:
Didn't seem like a particularly unreasonable question to me.
I'm a software engineer by trade and nothing in that claim made any sense
to me. I don't, though, have any knowledge of the PS3 architecture. I'd be
interested to hear in detail how 'the sheer power of handling that many
processes would allow for more video RAM to take hold', and why
particularly it would be something the 360 'couldn't possibly do'.
It just seems to me that there are an awful lot of people out there with
little or no technical knowledge who use second-hand quotes or just plain
made-up gobbledegook to try to justify their favourite toy.
I'm glad you're happy looking at yourself in the mirror, though. Well
done.
Click to expand...

Because the SPEs in the Cell processor work as separate cores, and they are
not symmetrical. Therefore, they are able to do different proccesses on
different levels, where as a symmetrical setup won't do that, they just
basically have symmetrical 3 cores (like the 360 has) that can process a lot
of things but not different things ( you don't have one core processing
physics effect, and another textures, they handle all of the effect as they
process through all three cores). IF a developer can make a game that can
use one or two SPEs for physics, two for graphical computations, and the
other 2 for whatever graphics or code, etc, then allow the GPU to do it
overall thing, the PS3 can do some effects and handle processes that the 360
could never do. The problem is, developing games that could use the full
potential of the Cell is quite expensive and, so far, no developer hs
stepped up to spend that kind of money to attempt it. Here's a good read on
a comparison of both. The article is from June of 2005, but it discusses the
hardware that exists in the PS3 and the 360 now.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

For now, I still think games on average, look better on the 360 because it
does have a more powerful graphics card, and developing games for the 3 core
CPU is a snap. The PS3 just hasn't has nay games to use the Cell to its
potential But, the game that have come out on the PS3 the past six months
have been looking good and in a few cases, better than they do on the 360.
 
Tom said:
Because the SPEs in the Cell processor work as separate cores, and they are
not symmetrical. Therefore, they are able to do different proccesses on
different levels, where as a symmetrical setup won't do that, they just
basically have symmetrical 3 cores (like the 360 has) that can process a
lot of things but not different things ( you don't have one core processing
physics effect, and another textures, they handle all of the effect as they
process through all three cores).
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's total bunkum, the fact the cores are symmetrical doesn't
mean that at all, it's quite possible to have one core processing AI, and
simultaneously another doing physics an the third processing the remaining
tasks while the graphics card handles the textures, the polygons and shades.
It's also quite easy to code processor affinity so that a single process
thread is locked to one chip in a multi core system, I should know I have
been writing multithreaded code for SMP systems for over a decade now. You
seem to have the wrong end of a very long stick.
For now, I still think games on average, look better on the 360 because it
does have a more powerful graphics card,
Click to expand...

Here is the most important thing, when it comes to game development (not my
field) but I have done some 3d work you are interested in filtrate (number of
pixels that can be redrawn per second), and polygons per second (how many
distinct entities (usually triangles) can be processed per second. The
ability to supply information to the GPU faster than it can process it is
pointless. (Stick a bottom end graphics card in a 2 Ghz Core2Solo then into a
3 Ghz Core2Quad and see the difference, a system is only as quick as it's
slowest bottleneck.
 
Depresion said:
Sorry but that's total bunkum, the fact the cores are symmetrical doesn't
mean that at all, it's quite possible to have one core processing AI, and
simultaneously another doing physics an the third processing the remaining
tasks while the graphics card handles the textures, the polygons and
shades. It's also quite easy to code processor affinity so that a single
process thread is locked to one chip in a multi core system, I should know
I have been writing multithreaded code for SMP systems for over a decade
now. You seem to have the wrong end of a very long stick.
Click to expand...

That's is not bunkem my firend, those cores process the whole of the data
between them as they need to; one is being used while the other takes over.
Those cores in the 360 CPU do not process physics specific to one core as
designed by a game, it doesn't work that way. The SPEs in the Cell can work
that way because they are totally independent of each other and not the
same, they have their own functions. Keep in mind also, that each one of
those SPEs can operate @ 3.2ghz for 7 of them. The 360 can do the same, but
it only has three. I suggest you read about the about the Cell architecture
compared to the 360s in the link I provided, it says a great deal.
 
Tom said:
That's is not bunkem my firend, those cores process the whole of the data
between them as they need to; one is being used while the other takes over.
Click to expand...

That's not true and would be totaly stupid! The fact the cores are identical
has no impact on what they can do simultaniously.
 
Gray One said:
This article was written before the systems where released... so fairly
irrelevant as a lot of it based on conjecture.
Click to expand...

No, not conjecture (you obviously didn't read it), as the article was
written with the same hardware configuration both systems have today. Do you
not read at all, or do you just react to certain words and post. If you
won't read the article, then it is reasonable to think it is testament to
you not having an understanding of how the two processors work between both
systems (or with any system for that matter).
 
No, not conjecture (you obviously didn't read it), as the article was
written with the same hardware configuration both systems have today. Do you
not read at all, or do you just react to certain words and post. If you
won't read the article, then it is reasonable to think it is testament to
you not having an understanding of how the two processors work between both
systems (or with any system for that matter).
Click to expand...
I read it... and some of it was conjecture as the full specs wheren't
public knowledge at that time. I've also read other articles that
contradict some of what it says....
 
Gray One said:
I read it... and some of it was conjecture as the full specs wheren't
public knowledge at that time. I've also read other articles that
contradict some of what it says....
Click to expand...

Oh please, it's obvious you didn't read it! None of it is conjecture, and
the specs it discusses between the two systems are what those two systems
have now, today. If you have read article that contractdict it, then provide
a link.
 
Back
Top