Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does Blu-ray actually make games better graphics? Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    To quote a Naughty Dog dev, one of the 6 SPU's does the entire field of depth effect for Uncharted 2. Again, the Cell was originally going to be the only graphics device onboard the PS3, but to help programmers out to begin with, Sony added in a traditional GPU.
    So to put it specifically, the Cell can, and is, used both as a CPU and a GPU at the same time.
    This still fails to make the distinction between the two things I stated. Again, calculating the DoF blur is a fairly trivial task as far as graphics processing goes. You also completely ignored that I pointed out the fact that 360 shaders are capable of processing 6 times as many vertices per second, which is potentially the most deciding factor in graphics processing power.

    Just about every independent technical report you'd care to find will provide you with the same numbers I did and the vast majority come to the decided conclusion that the 360 holds a firm advantage in graphics processing.

    As a side note, the fact that it's rarely utilised due to impracticality is a definite argument against its advantageousness.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digidevil4)
    Its been said 100 times but Ill say it again.
    Blu-rays not only have more storage space, they also have a higher resolutions and higher Bit rates.
    It is not true that they are slower, think about most recent games like MW2 or DJ Hero, both of which do not involve install. Install is used to make things render faster and avoid loading screens.
    Higher resolutions? Wtf are you talking about?
    "Higher bit rates". Again, this simply isn't true. The 360 has a 12x DVD drive, which gives a maximum data transfer rate of 16MB/s. The PS3's 2x BD is capable of read speeds of up to 9MB/s. Your earlier comparison was against HD-DVD, which is neither here nor there.

    The xbox360 could not run Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, Metal gear solid 4 or any other game made for BTW because the PS3 has twice the overall performance of an Xbox 360. (Im not making that up, its in the Guiness Book of World Records.)
    Sorry, but quoting TFLOPS means absolutely nothing. Also, you're getting offtopic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    This still fails to make the distinction between the two things I stated. Again, calculating the DoF blur is a fairly trivial task as far as graphics processing goes. You also completely ignored that I pointed out the fact that 360 shaders are capable of processing 6 times as many vertices per second, which is potentially the most deciding factor in graphics processing power.

    Just about every independent technical report you'd care to find will provide you with the same numbers I did and the vast majority come to the decided conclusion that the 360 holds a firm advantage in graphics processing.

    As a side note, the fact that it's rarely utilised due to impracticality is a definite argument against its advantageousness.
    I think you missed the word "entire".
    All I'm going to say is if the PS3 could have held it's own as a next-gen console with just the Cell, the Cell plus the GPU is going to mean it outperforms the 360 - hence almost a TFlop difference in the two.
    Plus articles comparing GPU vs GPU only come to that conclusion - I've yet to find one that takes into consideration the Cell, and ones which do e.g. the Saboteur article, says its leaps and bounds beyond the 360.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by estel)
    Higher resolutions? Wtf are you talking about?
    "Higher bit rates". Again, this simply isn't true. The 360 has a 12x DVD drive, which gives a maximum data transfer rate of 16MB/s. The PS3's 2x BD is capable of read speeds of up to 9MB/s. Your earlier comparison was against HD-DVD, which is neither here nor there.


    Sorry, but quoting TFLOPS means absolutely nothing. Also, you're getting offtopic.
    Digital formats:
    720×576/480 (500 lines): DVD, miniDV, Digital8 (PAL/NTSC)
    720×576/480 (380 lines): Widescreen DVD (PAL/NTSC)
    1280×720 (680 lines): Blu-ray, D-VHS
    1440×1080 (760 lines): miniHDV, D-VHS
    1920×1080 (1020 lines): Blu-ray

    DVD is there. Also HD DVD is a step up from DVD.
    What I mean by higher resolution is that Blu-ray discs do not go lower than 1280x720
    DVDs are down at 720x576/480 (Depending on region).


    I said that BD's themselves have higher data rates.

    While a 12x BD will do 432Mbit/s and 54MB/s
    a 12x DVD will manage only 129.60Mbit/s and 16.20MB/s
    Even the highest DVD (24x) has a lower data rate.

    I dont know what BD's the PS3 uses, maby it has a rubbish drive but i know that it clearly isnt a problem as the majority of my games involved no installs and have fairly fast loading times.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Actual blu-ray discs do not directly enhance game graphics, or as you put it, give "MOAR GRAFIX POWER".

    /thread
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digidevil4)
    Digital formats:
    720×576/480 (500 lines): DVD, miniDV, Digital8 (PAL/NTSC)
    720×576/480 (380 lines): Widescreen DVD (PAL/NTSC)
    1280×720 (680 lines): Blu-ray, D-VHS
    1440×1080 (760 lines): miniHDV, D-VHS
    1920×1080 (1020 lines): Blu-ray

    DVD is there. Also HD DVD is a step up from DVD.
    What I mean by higher resolution is that Blu-ray discs do not go lower than 1280x720
    DVDs are down at 720x576/480 (Depending on region).
    This thread is discussing the media of blu-ray. Not the video format specification which is used as a standard which determines the resolution that blu-ray movies are made available at. The resolutions that you quoted above are not characteristic of the media, only the video specification. These are two entirely separate issues.

    I said that BD's themselves have higher data rates.

    While a 12x BD will do 432Mbit/s and 54MB/s
    a 12x DVD will manage only 129.60Mbit/s and 16.20MB/s
    Even the highest DVD (24x) has a lower data rate.

    I dont know what BD's the PS3 uses, maby it has a rubbish drive but i know that it clearly isnt a problem as the majority of my games involved no installs and have fairly fast loading times.
    Apples and pears. The "12x" rating system is pretty arbitrary. 12x Blu-Ray players don't really exist, and given the prevalent context of the PS3, it seems reasonable to discuss the PS3's Blu-Ray reading capabilities. Yes, 1x Blu-Ray reading /is/ faster than 1x DVD read speeds, but that doesn't mean a thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The thread should have ended a long time ago tbh.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Digidevil4)
    Heres some stuff of wikipedia:

    720×576/480 (500 lines): DVD, miniDV, Digital8 (PAL/NTSC)
    720×576/480 (380 lines): Widescreen DVD (PAL/NTSC)
    1280×720 (680 lines): Blu-ray, D-VHS
    1440×1080 (760 lines): miniHDV, D-VHS
    1920×1080 (1020 lines): Blu-ray

    BD Video movies have a maximum data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 48 Mbit/s (for both audio and video data), and a maximum video bitrate of 40 Mbit/s. This compares to HD DVD movies, which have a maximum data transfer rate of 36 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 30.24 Mbit/s, and a maximum video bitrate of 29.4 Mbit/s.

    Its not just bigger...
    Except that at 48Mbit/s you'd not get most movies onto even a dual-layer disk. Most of the blu-ray disks I've ripped have the stream at ~15-20Mbps

    (Original post by Mazty)
    I was saying the CPU of the 360 can't render for **** - a good example is to look at the CPU render test in futuremark programs. The graphics are hideous, whereas the CPU in the PS3 is used for advanced effects such as field of depth.
    The difference in GPU is very small between the 360 and PS3, but then when you take in the rendering capabilities of the CPUs as well, then the PS3 has a large advantage. Or if you just want to do loads of calculations quickly.

    Except that the CPU isn't used for rendering anything usually, and depth of field can be done on the gpu, and that cell's more difficult to code for so less developers are supporting it, and that you don't know what you're on about.


    To summarise:

    You can keep your xbox 360's and your PS3's I'll keep my PC with the graphics card more powerful (in raw Tflops) than the entire system of either :yep:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    I think you missed the word "entire".
    No, I didn't. "Entire depth of field process" means no more than simply "depth of field process", this still has nothing to do with the capability of the machine's shaders. Since you're just reiterating what you said before, I'm going to assume that you don't know exactly what "entire depth of field process" implies, either.

    All I'm going to say is if the PS3 could have held it's own as a next-gen console with just the Cell, the Cell plus the GPU is going to mean it outperforms the 360 - hence almost a TFlop difference in the two.
    Again, conjecture, and false conjecture at that. The 360 comes out on top both on paper and in practice.

    Plus articles comparing GPU vs GPU only come to that conclusion - I've yet to find one that takes into consideration the Cell, and ones which do e.g. the Saboteur article, says its leaps and bounds beyond the 360.
    I don't think you really know what you're talking about, to be honest. Even if the Cell actually does any actual graphics processing (and I'm not talking about running algorithms for DoF calculations, I'm talking about large-scale vertex processing), the 360 has 48 vertex pipelines, wheres the PS3's GPU AND the Cell PUT TOGETHER have only 16. FLOPS are pretty meaningless, too, given the degree of multiprocessing involved with graphics rendering.

    But when you first replied to me, you feigned knowledge pretty well. If I knew it'd break down quite so anti-climactically as this, I probably wouldn't even have bothered.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    Wrong - look up the functions of the Cells SPUs
    I repeat: CPUs do not render anything

    Putting a CPU and a GPU on one microprocessor does not mean the CPU (the PPE in the Cell's case, which is just a PowerPC processor and has no understanding of visuals let alone rendering) renders things. The GPU does. If the CPU and GPU are one and the same, then it's a GPGPU (which is not what I'm referring to)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidR1991)
    I repeat: CPUs do not render anything

    Putting a CPU and a GPU on one microprocessor does not mean the CPU (the PPE in the Cell's case, which is just a PowerPC processor and has no understanding of visuals let alone rendering) renders things. The GPU does. If the CPU and GPU are one and the same, then it's a GPGPU (which is not what I'm referring to)
    It is perfectly possible to render things on a CPU and just use the GPU to push an image onto the screen. Of course you don't do that because GPUs are far better at it.

    The way I understand it, the PS3's GPU is a bit less powerful than the 360s. But the SPUs on the PS3 are actually quite good at doing graphical tasks compared to a normal CPU. That's why on the PS3 you can get the SPUs to do a task you might use the GPU for on the 360. Ok, they're probably not going to be as good as a GPU is for most things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidR1991)
    I repeat: CPUs do not render anything

    Putting a CPU and a GPU on one microprocessor does not mean the CPU (the PPE in the Cell's case, which is just a PowerPC processor and has no understanding of visuals let alone rendering) renders things. The GPU does. If the CPU and GPU are one and the same, then it's a GPGPU (which is not what I'm referring to)
    Argue it all you like, but the SPUs do render. For the last ******* time, the PS3 was going to just have the Cell, no GPU, but to make life easier for devs, not the console more powerful, a GPU was added.

    So please, stop trying to argue the sky isn't blue - the Cell, the CPU DOES RENDER. Simple as that. If you don't believe it I don't care, it's still a bloody fact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    No, I didn't. "Entire depth of field process" means no more than simply "depth of field process", this still has nothing to do with the capability of the machine's shaders. Since you're just reiterating what you said before, I'm going to assume that you don't know exactly what "entire depth of field process" implies, either.



    Again, conjecture, and false conjecture at that. The 360 comes out on top both on paper and in practice.



    I don't think you really know what you're talking about, to be honest. Even if the Cell actually does any actual graphics processing (and I'm not talking about running algorithms for DoF calculations, I'm talking about large-scale vertex processing), the 360 has 48 vertex pipelines, wheres the PS3's GPU AND the Cell PUT TOGETHER have only 16. FLOPS are pretty meaningless, too, given the degree of multiprocessing involved with graphics rendering.

    But when you first replied to me, you feigned knowledge pretty well. If I knew it'd break down quite so anti-climactically as this, I probably wouldn't even have bothered.
    The PS3 has 1.8TFlops, the 360 has 1.2TFlops. That's whats on paper, as for the rest:
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/un...ell-blog-entry
    http://uk.ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/74...zet_part1.html
    http://uk.ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/74...f2_022309.html
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    The PS3 has 1.8TFlops, the 360 has 1.2TFlops. That's whats on paper, as for the rest:
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/un...ell-blog-entry
    http://uk.ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/74...zet_part1.html
    http://uk.ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/74...f2_022309.html
    Read my last post again. Quoting FLOPS means nothing, as I already explained. It's clear to me now that you're just a stupid fanboy who knows nothing about actual computing. Silly videos are meaningless. Let me spell it out for you (again):

    Vertex Shader Pipelines:
    XBox 360 GPU: 48
    PS3 GPU: 8
    PS3 + Cell: 16

    Coupled with the fact that, as you admitted, using the Cell effectively as a graphics processor is impractical, difficult to achieve and expensive, the 360 is effectively 6 times as powerful as the PS3 in terms of vertex shading, which is a key task and certainly the most heavyweight task in graphics processing at the moment.

    For the rest of the technical comparison (not that you'll understand it), see here:

    http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=19237

    By all measurements, the 360 is the stronger machine and this shows in qualitative comparisons.

    You've lost this argument, my friend. I'm going to ignore your responses from here on in as it's quite painful to watch you squirm like this, but we'll let the independent adjudicators decide which of us has won this one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by estel)
    This thread is discussing the media of blu-ray. Not the video format specification which is used as a standard which determines the resolution that blu-ray movies are made available at. The resolutions that you quoted above are not characteristic of the media, only the video specification. These are two entirely separate issues.

    I said that BD's themselves have higher data rates.



    Apples and pears. The "12x" rating system is pretty arbitrary. 12x Blu-Ray players don't really exist, and given the prevalent context of the PS3, it seems reasonable to discuss the PS3's Blu-Ray reading capabilities. Yes, 1x Blu-Ray reading /is/ faster than 1x DVD read speeds, but that doesn't mean a thing.
    Either way PS3 games still load faster then Xbox360 games. so clearly its not that big of a problem. For the record, i have both.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    Read my last post again. Quoting FLOPS means nothing, as I already explained. It's clear to me now that you're just a stupid fanboy who knows nothing about actual computing. Silly videos are meaningless. Let me spell it out for you (again):

    Vertex Shader Pipelines:
    XBox 360 GPU: 48
    PS3 GPU: 8
    PS3 + Cell: 16

    Coupled with the fact that, as you admitted, using the Cell effectively as a graphics processor is impractical, difficult to achieve and expensive, the 360 is effectively 6 times as powerful as the PS3 in terms of vertex shading, which is a key task and certainly the most heavyweight task in graphics processing at the moment.

    For the rest of the technical comparison (not that you'll understand it), see here:

    http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=19237

    By all measurements, the 360 is the stronger machine and this shows in qualitative comparisons.

    You've lost this argument, my friend. I'm going to ignore your responses from here on in as it's quite painful to watch you squirm like this, but we'll let the independent adjudicators decide which of us has won this one.
    I lost the argument? You summed up what the devs said as "meaningless", not to mention the link was published before the release of the PS3. Anything actually factual rather than speculation?
    Sure i'm the fanboy?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mazty)
    I lost the argument? You summed up what the devs said as "meaningless", not to mention the link was published before the release of the PS3. Anything actually factual rather than speculation?
    Sure i'm the fanboy?
    Someone take over, please. I'm done trying to explain simple concepts to this idiot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    Someone take over, please. I'm done trying to explain simple concepts to this idiot.
    Chill, if you're not going to look at what's presented to you why'd you say anything to begin with as clearly you aren't going to change your mind regardless of the evidence given to you.
    Insecure about a console? Oh dear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yawn PS3 fanboys again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex p)
    then you must have your face to the tv. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=64489

    or within 4 foot. you need a hd tv, and either be sitting right next to it, or have a large screen to notice the difference
    Uh no, my TV is mounted to the wall at the foot of my bed, I'd guess around 10/11 feet away from where I watch it. Images are clearer, crisper, sharper and more detailed than DVD, for example I watched Black Hawk Down on a SDTV a few days ago, it was great, last night I watched my BR copy and the difference was very, very clear. For example in the canteen scene I could see the sweat beading and falling from Jason Isaac's forehead, I certainly didn't see that as well in the SD version.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 19, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Quick link:

    Unanswered gaming threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.