rec.autos.simulators

"Sony Model PS3 Blue-Ray DVD Player.  DTS, Dolby 5.1.  Remote control.
Upgradable to *** at a later date - $599"

-Larry

but as I've been saying..... the PS3 is NOT capable of the E3 2005
prerendered graphics, (MotorStorm, Killzone)   even in late-generation
PS3 games.  those prerendered graphics go beyond the limits of what PS3
can do, and we will not even see those limits until 5-6 years from now.

could we see something like E3 2005 Killzone on PS3 that is very
*significantly* toned down for realtime gameplay on PS3 in a few years?
  yes, definitally, but it won't be as good at what we saw in that
slick trailer.

lets say that the Killzone E3 2005 trailer was realtime (some say it
was using realtime assests)  but originally only ran at 2.5 to 5 fps on
PS3, then sped up to 60fps for the impressive trailer presentation -
that means PS3 is *nowhere* powerful enough to run Killzone (same
applied to MotorStorm)

lets say that, with later generation PS3 software, when developers can
push the hardware much further, that allows for a 10-15 fps Killzone
that *looks* as good as the trailer, well since 10 to 15 fps is not
60fps that is 1/6 to 1/4 the required power to run Killzone on PS3, as
it was in the trailer with no cutbacks.

now lets say, instead, that we want a 60fps Killzone on PS3,  ok that
can be done, but then the graphics DETAIL and quality will have to be
dramatically reduced to hit 60fps. because PS3 is not powerful enough
to "do" both Killzone trailer's graphical quality AND keep it up at
60fps.

to acomplish *both* the detail/quality and the framerate, you would
need a PS4 or ThirdGen Xbox.    or even something inbetween
Xbox360--PS3   and  XboxThird--PS4
that has say, 4 to 6 times the performance of PS3.  that could come in
the form of another console or platform, like how Dreamcast was
released between generations, or very early before the successful
consoles came out.

PC GPUs might be powerful enough in 2007-2008 to run Killzone graphics.
 that technology would be well ahead of PS3's RSX,  although not as
powerful as the future GPU for PS4.

And you know this how?  Are you a developer with extensive programming
and hardware knowledge?  

No, it just means that the engine wasn't optimized yet.  Assuming the
trailer was running  in real time at 5fps, why is it such a   stretch
that with some time , they could get the game running at a steady 30
fps?

And possibly 499UKP over here in the UK for just the basic version.  
That's expensive!!

Game console architecture and PC architecture are completely different.
Take for example the game Final Fantasy VII.

The PC requirments are:
        Intel Pentium 133 (recommended Pentium 200)
        4 megs Video Card (8 megs 3D accelerator recommended)
        32 megs of RAM

The Playstation's specifications are:

        1 MB VRAM
        2 MB RAM

Does your "common sense" tell you that game should not run on the
original Playstation, and barely on the PS2 with these specs:

Playstation 2:
        300 Mhz MIPS CPU (EE)
        4 MB VRAM
        32 MB RAM

Keep in mind that when you run a PS1 game on a PS2, the PS1 game does
NOT run on the  main CPU (EE), but runs on a seperate processor called
the IOP.  The IOP is basically as PS1 CPU with its own 2MB RAM, and
cannot touch the main memory.

If you've taken a computer system design course what I'm writting below
will make more sense, but you should still be able to follow it.

A PC is considered a general purpose computer.  Even if you bought it
soley for ***, it is still designed to handle all functions well.
Game consoles are designed for playing games.  Over time other features
have been added, but the main purpose of a game console is games.

Since game consoles are designed for games, the designers of the
systems make optimizations which would not be possible on a general
purpose computer.  These include:
        Custom processors, usually RISC based
        Non-removable/upgradeable parts.
        Larger data busses 64 bit (PS1) and 128 bit (PS2), when PCs
used 32 bits.
        Multiple processors/cores.

RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Chip.  RISC chips have fewer
instructions then CISC ( like Pentium) based chips.  This puts less
circuitry on the chip, meaning these chips are easier to produce,
cheaper, consume less power, put off less heat, and can have lower
clock frequencies and still compete with CISC chips that have higher
clock rates.

Not having removable parts may sound like a curse, but it is also a
blessing.  Unlike PCs where parts can be changed, programmers can not
really optimize much, since focusing on configuration will slow down
the program for other configurations, and optimizing for all
configurations is impractical. This is why programmers use libraries
like DirectX and OpenGL. They optimize for these libraries, while
hardware manufacturers write the drivers to interface the libraries
with their hardware.  This works, but the libraries add another level
of abstraction, which causes the program to run slower.

Game programers though can focus on one set of hardware, optimize for
that hardware with less layers to program though.  This gives better
performance that PCs fight against with higher CPU speeds.

The data paths allow more data to travel faster at the same time.
64 bits moves twice as much data at the same time as a 32 bit bus with
the same speed.  128 bit busses move four times as much.

Some PCs have dual cores.  The PS2 has 1 main CPU, 2 VU cpus, and an
IOP cpu.
The PS3 has 9 core/cpus, I think.  You PC has 2 at the most.  The PS3
can perform 9 calculations at the same time, while your PC does 2.

They are completely different things.  And your assumptions about the
PC world do not hold up in the *** console world.

-Mike

The difference is that the playstation and ps2 were using completely
different graphics architecture to the PC so I agree that comparisons were
not really valid. I would also argue that Final Fantasy VII is a poor
example to choose. It was a very very crude PC port with little apparent
effort spent in optimising it for the PC market. In saying that, the PC
version will have run at a higher resolution than either the Playstation or
Playstation 2 could muster. The PS3 is not using vastly different graphics
technology. It's essentially using a mid-high spec Nvidia chip which is
present in a very similar state in the PC. I'm well aware that the PC has
additonal issues which can drag down performance but I can't see the PS3
outperforming a 7800GTX SLI system with 2 gig of Ram.

That was the first game that came to mind.  Perhaps the Grand Theft
Auto games would have worked better?

Can you run GTA3 on your PC with 4MB of VRAM if you turn the resolution
down to NTSC-like settings?  Probably not.  GTA3 is listed as requiring
16 MB VRAM.
This still shows, as your agree, that the architectures are different.

I can't find any references younger then 1 year about the GPU.  From
what I can find, yes the GPU for the PS3 is based on family of nVidia
chips currently in production.
I would expect some tweaks to these chips though.  Like, they probably
COULD get rid of Text Mode, thats just speculation though.
The GPU should be embeded in the mainboard like most game systems; this
would give a slight speed increase but not much, though.

In terms of graphics alone:
Immediately, if you looked screen shots the PC would probably win.
Later on, they'd probably be close.  Even though its based on the same
chip as used in a PC, there will most likely be ways of optimizing
graphics codes for the PS3 that can not be done on the PC.
That is assuming that you can get access to the GPU directly, or
through system calls.
If the lowest level you can get too is a library, like their version of
OpenGL which is suppose to be there, then all bets are off.

In terms of a complete game:
It depends on many things.  The CPU core of your computer, to start.
If you drop such a card into a bad computer with a lousy CPU, then the
PS3 would be able to out perform it.  Highest end Intel-compatible
multicore running a two threaded program, probably.
However, the complexity of the program is also an issue.  Running just
a single threaded program, PC might win.  Performing multiple physics
calculations at the same time, PS3 wins.

In terms of cost:
Right now PS3 wins.  Yes you can out perform a PS3 with a PC, but will
cost a lot more then a PS3.
Remember, *** consoles actually lose money selling the consoles.
They make money by liscensing games.  At $600 Sony is going to lose
money, meaning the users get it cheaper then what it cost children
overseas to build it.
So the PS3 wins on cost effectiveness, at least now and in the near
future.

-Mike

It looks like we're not too far apart in our thinking. I'm reasonably
computer literate so I've got a fair idea about bottlenecks as far as PC
systems go. Not too sure about the PS3 though to be honest. And you're
absolutely right about comparing cost. As pure games machines, the PS3 and
360 are far better value for money that a top spec PC. The point I was
trying to make though is that top spec PC's with better graphics technology
than was announced for the PS3 (albeit a year ago) cannot do Killzone
trailer graphics. You could chuck two graphics cards together both of which
are higher specd than the PS3 announced graphs technology and it still
couldn't do it. In fact it couldn't even come close. I accept that it's not
a like for like comparison but I don't think it's far enough off to surprise
me on this point.
I'm not knocking the PS3. Despite the negative press I'm sure it will be a
cracking machine. It will probably also win the next gen battle though not
by as large a margin as it won the last round, but I'm a realist. I don't
really pay attention to hype and that's why I wasn't disappointed in Sony's
showing this year. One thing's for certain though......unless I see
something an awful lot more dramatic than I have so far, I wont be picking
one up at launch. Launch games are notoriously poor for any system and my
360 will be into the 2nd wave of games by then. Probably when the 2nd and
3rd wave of titles come in for the PS3 it'll be time for me to part with my
cash. Hopefully by then the price will have dipped a little as well!

Andrew

It's 50% complete.

Deal with it.

--

anyway here's a first person view which looks much better (I will hunt
down all 3rd person racing players! :) )
http://www.gameklip.com/v/695/