Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

PS3 "limitations"Follow

#1 Jun 03 2009 at 2:46 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,099 posts
Ok, lets clear up the "PS3 limitations" before they start and people scream "the PS3 is limiting FFXIV!!".

The PS3 is a beast of a console, it uses the Cell microprocessor and is capable of producing 25.6Gflops per SPE, of which 7 SPE's are available to the developer. An Intel i7 can only manage 70Gflops, the PS3 using all 7 SPE's has a theoretical output of 179.2 Gflops, so in processing power, its a PC limitation.

When released for the PC it will be a 32 bit variant, the vast majority of people out there use 32bit Windows XP, some use 32bit Vista, and the minority will use 64bit Vista. The Cell is a 64Bit CPU so will be forced into limiting its own performance for the sake of PC users, again, PC limitations (or to be more accurate, PC OS limitations).

The PS3 is quite capable of on the fly rendering to the quality of FF7 Advent Children, most modern PC's are also capable of doing this, assuming you have a very fast CPU, a very good GPU and enough RAM to cope with it.

Yes, the PS3 can get bogged down when there are a heck of a lot of graphically intense things going on around it, dropping its frame rate down, but SE realise this so will probably put in a 30/60fps cap again.

All in all, the PS3 is a lot more powerful than most current PC's that play FFXI, and unless FFXIV comes out in a 64 bit, multi-threaded version, it will actually be the PC that is holding back the development of FFXIV.

Sure, the PS3 doesn't have insane amounts of RAM (256MB main, 256MB GPU) which *is* a limitation, especially as people on PC's easily have 4GB+ these days, but the amount of RAM isn't important, its what the developers can do to use that memory efficiently, and if we've learnt one thing about SE, it is that they are more than able to push a console to its limits.

I think one of the things that people should be asking SE now though, what are the required specs for FFXIV? They will not dumb down the graphics for the PS3 version. Will XIV require at least a dual core? At least 2GB RAM? DX10 videocard or DX9? Will the vast majority of people who currently play XI actually have a system powerful enough to play XIV without requiring that they spend a couple of hundred pounds/dollars on upgrades, or in some cases, a new system?
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#2 Jun 03 2009 at 3:04 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
Lexxuk wrote:
Ok, lets clear up the "PS3 limitations" before they start and people scream "the PS3 is limiting FFXIV!!".

The PS3 is a beast of a console, it uses the Cell microprocessor and is capable of producing 25.6Gflops per SPE, of which 7 SPE's are available to the developer. An Intel i7 can only manage 70Gflops, the PS3 using all 7 SPE's has a theoretical output of 179.2 Gflops, so in processing power, its a PC limitation.

When released for the PC it will be a 32 bit variant, the vast majority of people out there use 32bit Windows XP, some use 32bit Vista, and the minority will use 64bit Vista. The Cell is a 64Bit CPU so will be forced into limiting its own performance for the sake of PC users, again, PC limitations (or to be more accurate, PC OS limitations).

The PS3 is quite capable of on the fly rendering to the quality of FF7 Advent Children, most modern PC's are also capable of doing this, assuming you have a very fast CPU, a very good GPU and enough RAM to cope with it.

Yes, the PS3 can get bogged down when there are a heck of a lot of graphically intense things going on around it, dropping its frame rate down, but SE realise this so will probably put in a 30/60fps cap again.

All in all, the PS3 is a lot more powerful than most current PC's that play FFXI, and unless FFXIV comes out in a 64 bit, multi-threaded version, it will actually be the PC that is holding back the development of FFXIV.

Sure, the PS3 doesn't have insane amounts of RAM (256MB main, 256MB GPU) which *is* a limitation, especially as people on PC's easily have 4GB+ these days, but the amount of RAM isn't important, its what the developers can do to use that memory efficiently, and if we've learnt one thing about SE, it is that they are more than able to push a console to its limits.

I think one of the things that people should be asking SE now though, what are the required specs for FFXIV? They will not dumb down the graphics for the PS3 version. Will XIV require at least a dual core? At least 2GB RAM? DX10 videocard or DX9? Will the vast majority of people who currently play XI actually have a system powerful enough to play XIV without requiring that they spend a couple of hundred pounds/dollars on upgrades, or in some cases, a new system?


The problem with PS3, as has been stated by many of the main software houses is that it is difficult and awkward to program for. Its main limitation is that games manufacturers have trouble using it to its fullest potential because they find it so tricky to do anything with.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 7:04am by jtftaru
____________________________
.
#3 Jun 03 2009 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,622 posts
It's not too tricky for SE. In all honesty, the Cell is easier to code for than the Emotion Engine in the PS2 could ever hope to be. Besides, how many MMOs look as good as Uncharted or KillZone 2? On top of that, the rumor is going about that the PC version of FFXIV will use DX10 shaders.. So, the PS3 shouldn't be holding anything back here.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 7:16am by Lefein
____________________________
Blah
#4 Jun 03 2009 at 5:52 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,099 posts
I doubt it will be just DX10 with XP being the predominant OS at the moment. Limiting it to just DX10 would hurt SE's sales.

The PS3 is really hard to code for yeah, but SE are very tallented dev's, but the Cell is frikken powerful, if they do utilise the PS3 to its *full* power, PC's will lag behind unless you're using the most cutting edge hardware.

I think thats one of the reasons why it may be a little bit slower on the take up in the PC market, FFXI is an old game so runs easily on decent systems, if FFXIV is run akin to the PS3, you will be needing a dual/quad core, tons of RAM, a videocard with at least 512MB, so it'll be an expensive option for some people, and in some cases an entire new system to run it >.<
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#5 Jun 03 2009 at 6:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Final Fantasy XI is going on six years old.

Yeah, PS3 is a beast now. You don't think in six years it's going to look like a piece of **** compared to a good PC? Smiley: lol
____________________________
Until we meet again... stay gold. *bang*
#6 Jun 03 2009 at 6:06 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
187 posts
The PS3 is state of the art right now, but in a year it will start looking outdated and PCs will overtake the technology with the new video cards and CPUs coming out soon, so until they create a console with fully upgradable components, consoles will never be above PC, which in turn means that there will be PS3 limitations in the future preventing FFXIV from being upgraded in years to come, to a certain degree.

Just my 2 pence.
#7 Jun 03 2009 at 6:14 AM Rating: Excellent
**
630 posts
edit - Blasted research making my posts slow and redundant!

I wasn't here at the beginning - was the PS2 a limitation then, or only after some years? I think the problem with "console limitations" is one of those double-edged things in that the console doesn't get upgraded over time (or rather, you have to assume the lowest model available as a dev).

Technology snowballs, so it's not a fair comparison, but look back at what computers were like 7 years ago when FF launched - XP was a baby, pentium 4 single-core processors were the hot new thing, GeForce4 Ti4200/4600 cards were just being introduced with massive memory of 64 / 128mb, etc. Compared to 'current' high-end gaming components, that's laughable. A large part of the "limitations" argument seems to be re: upgrading the client, so future components do matter in that regard. Just too early to start complaining yet - and I think we're pretty spoiled if we think PS3 graphics look awful and need an overhaul =)

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 10:16am by kskerns
#8Alrefie, Posted: Jun 03 2009 at 6:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Comparing console to PC is just dumb.
#9 Jun 03 2009 at 6:16 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
LOL, PC Limitations >.>

As the guy has stated, the PS3 is basically a super computer. This thing is really a beast and believe or not some companies have actually used it as a super computer by loading a OS on to it.

It my have been hard to code for in the past but those days are long over and most devs that say this just don't know what they're doing. Most likely while programming FFXIV for PS3 the devs are just going to find new and more exciting things they can do before they find things they can't. Don't forget this game has been in development along side FFXIII for the past few years.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#10 Jun 03 2009 at 6:29 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,246 posts
Fujitsu would like a word with you.
____________________________
Meowth!
#11 Jun 03 2009 at 8:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Sony says hi.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/10/ps3_supercomputer

http://www.physorg.com/news148749271.html
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#12 Jun 03 2009 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
Quote:
I wasn't here at the beginning - was the PS2 a limitation then, or only after some years?


yes. By march, 2003 (na release for ps2), PCs were already had more potential than PS2. I remember watching my friend play on his while I played on PC in his room and always thought how ugly everything looked on his PS2.


lol .. would ya look at that?

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 9:23am by GuardianFaith
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#13 Jun 03 2009 at 8:30 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,159 posts
Lexxuk wrote:
When released for the PC it will be a 32 bit variant, the vast majority of people out there use 32bit Windows XP, some use 32bit Vista, and the minority will use 64bit Vista. The Cell is a 64Bit CPU so will be forced into limiting its own performance for the sake of PC users, again, PC limitations (or to be more accurate, PC OS limitations).


Just because a game is 64bit doesn't mean a 32 bit system can't use it. If the game turns out the be a 32 bit game it will be because square didn't want to make it a 64 bit. I mean, Starcraft II of all games will be 64bit.
#14 Jun 03 2009 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,089 posts
Quote:
The PS3 is state of the art right now, but in a year it will start looking outdated and PCs will overtake the technology with the new video cards and CPUs coming out soon, so until they create a console with fully upgradable components, consoles will never be above PC, which in turn means that there will be PS3 limitations in the future preventing FFXIV from being upgraded in years to come, to a certain degree.

Just my 2 pence.


While this is true, the PS3 is a beast of a system and I think most of us we'll be happy with the game we get out of XIV. PS2 wasn't designed exactly for online playing while the PS3 had that as a focal point. I don't think PS3 limitations will be anywhere near PS2 limitations.
#15 Jun 03 2009 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
**
517 posts
Xbox 360 limitations....... Oh wait... HA!
____________________________
Name: Toorima
Main Job: THF
Server: Hades
Linkshell: NoIdea
Guild job: Alchemy
#16 Jun 03 2009 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
**
630 posts
Yep, at this point I think it's just that Allakhazamers like to bicker and be snarky with one another. Fujitsu thing - wow! PS3 thing - wow! (even though 10/2007 is a while ago by technology standards, I'm sure they still use that rig with great results)

By the way, you heard it here first, folks. To avoid PS3 limitations you need to run 8 of them in parallel. Spread it around. Or, if your target audience likes PS3s, to avoid PC limitations you need to run dual quad-core processors and no less than 2 1G vid cards in SLI/Crossfire. =D
#17 Jun 03 2009 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
4 posts
Lexxuk wrote:
When released for the PC it will be a 32 bit variant, the vast majority of people out there use 32bit Windows XP, some use 32bit Vista, and the minority will use 64bit Vista. The Cell is a 64Bit CPU so will be forced into limiting its own performance for the sake of PC users, again, PC limitations (or to be more accurate, PC OS limitations).

Yes, the PS3 can get bogged down when there are a heck of a lot of graphically intense things going on around it, dropping its frame rate down, but SE realise this so will probably put in a 30/60fps cap again.


Do you have any references for any of the information you have supplied? I can't imagine so. Seeing as the PS3's architecture is completely different from a PC, I can't see how you can assume the PS3 version to be the same in any way, let alone the number of different register sets with different address spaces. ****, even the PS2 has a 64-bit processor. More people are starting to (and should) use 64-bit processors on their PCs. (Edit: AND use a 64-bit OS and 64-bit software.)

Lexxuk wrote:
Sure, the PS3 doesn't have insane amounts of RAM (256MB main, 256MB GPU) which *is* a limitation, especially as people on PC's easily have 4GB+ these days, but the amount of RAM isn't important, its what the developers can do to use that memory efficiently, and if we've learnt one thing about SE, it is that they are more than able to push a console to its limits.


The PS2 has 32MB of system memory and 4MB of video memory and it produced a good looking game (whilst our opinino on graphics obviously degrades with time and technology). Two lots of 256MB should be more than enough (although 32MB is reserved for the XMB).

Lexxuk wrote:
I think one of the things that people should be asking SE now though, what are the required specs for FFXIV? They will not dumb down the graphics for the PS3 version. Will XIV require at least a dual core? At least 2GB RAM? DX10 videocard or DX9? Will the vast majority of people who currently play XI actually have a system powerful enough to play XIV without requiring that they spend a couple of hundred pounds/dollars on upgrades, or in some cases, a new system?


No-one makes a game for a market with almost no-one in it. Whilst the graphics will probably be much better, they won't restrict people with older hardware from playing.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 9:00pm by Daveyoh
____________________________
I am Daveoh
#18 Jun 03 2009 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
****
6,260 posts
Protip: There hasn't been a non-64bit-capable processor put out by either AMD or Intel in the last... three years? Longer? VIA can go stand in the cold of course (though a 5w chip running XP is still impressive).

The only issue is manufacturers putting 32bit OS on almost every system they put out because misinformed twits think they will have a compatibility issue if they buy 64bit. Thats right, its still the consumers being ******** and listening too hard to 'tech gurus' who have nothing good to say about anything 'new', ever. Same reason they don't buy Vista.

tl;dr: Self-appointed ******* experts tell people 64bit is bad (because Itanium was a flop TEN YEARS AGO), people don't buy 64bit, 64bit doesn't get implemented because nobody buys it.
____________________________
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Airships on fire off the shoulder of Bahamut. I watched Scapula Beams glitter in the dark near the Three Mage Gate...

Nilatai wrote:
Vlorsutes wrote:
There's always...not trolling him?

You're new here, aren't you?
#19 Jun 03 2009 at 10:15 AM Rating: Decent
**
253 posts
lol at people thinking that coding for ps3 is still hard, that was 2 years ago, it's not hard anymore people are already exploiting a lot of it's resources. and Square always excels in doing so.

more lol at people that still think ps3 is a small market, get your head out of lolinternet and do some actual research please.

as for limitations that's just wrong and dumb, the pcs that were out when ffxi was realeased are in all effect limiting it just as much as a PS2 they are outdatted, it happens, I know a lot of people haven't updated their pcs since then and blaiming any game limitations on the ps2 is just dumb. the same thing will eventually happen in 6~7 years with 14 and it'll be just as dumb claiming any limitations.
#20 Jun 03 2009 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
Nobody mentioned that the PS3 has a 7800GTX equivalent. This will become the limiting factor long before the Cell does.

Even my midrange 9600GT is faster, and it can be had for well under $100. How much faster will video cards be by release time? How about 5 years after release?

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 2:22pm by Pickins
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#21 Jun 03 2009 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
*
59 posts
The main limitation of the PS3 is the graphics chip.

The RSX is only able to push ~200 GFLOPS in shading power which is about equal to a 9600GT of today.

High-end dual-chip cards of today push ~1800-2400 GFLOPs.
High-end single-chip cards of today push ~1100-1400 GFLOPs.
Mid-range cards of today push ~500-1000 GFLOPS.
Low/Mid-range cards of today push ~200-800 GFLOPS.
Very Low-range cards of today push ~100-150 GFLOPS.

Basically this means that at least on the PS3 version, there won't be any crazy Crysis-like shader effects. There is also the limitation of the 256MB frame buffer, which means no sharp high-resolutions textures. Think of it like running a recent PC game with textures set to medium instead of high.

To sum it up, if they go for quality over performance, the PS3 version will likely be limited to 1280x720 @30fps. If they choose to sacrifice quality, they might be able to do 1280x720 @60fps.

If Square-Enix is feeling generous, hopefully the PC version will have an option for higher quality textures, higher polygon count models/backgrounds, and higher quality effects.

Edit: Pickins beat me to it while I was typing my post.

Edit2: I forgot to touch on Fill Rate and memory bandwidth which modern cards completely destroy the RSX in.

Low/Mid-range cards have ~125% greater pixel fill rate than the RSX.
Low/Mid-range cards have ~200% greater texture fill rate than the RSX.
Low/Mid-range cards have ~200% greater memory bandwidth than the RSX.
High-end dual-chip cards have ~250-350% greater pixel fill rate than the RSX.
High-end dual-chip cards have ~450-700% greater texture fill rate than the RSX.
High-end dual-chip cards have ~1050% greater memory bandwidth than the RSX.

Graphics cards have gotten so cheap and powerful recently, the RSX is really starting to show it's age. If Sony had put in a 8800GTX based chip (which came out so closely before the PS3 was released, it makes you wonder if NVIDIA purposefully screwed Sony over) instead of a the previous generation's 7800GTX based chip, they would have been in much better shape.

In any case, I actually have a 7800GTX 512 in my PC, so in some ways I'm happy that FFXIV's graphics will be pushing my card to the max without surpassing its limitations. Though I am long overdue for a complete PC overhaul which I plan on doing next year. There is a good chance I'll pick up a PS3 as well when FFXIII and FFXIV are released.

Edited, Jun 4th 2009 9:03am by Cyberbeing
#22 Jun 03 2009 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,099 posts
In answer to whoever it was about 64bit/32bit, its not the CPU itself, 64bit cpu's as pointed out are the norm rather than the exception, its the actual OS. If you are running a 32bit OS, the CPU runs as a 32bit CPU, but if you are running a 64bit OS, the CPU has to emulate a 32bit CPU to run the software, it can't just turn on 32bit mode, which causes a performance loss.

Will current CPU's catch up the PS3 in 7 years? Probably yeah, video card wise there are cards which beat the PS3's video card hands down, but its not just the VGA side of it, its the processing side of it. No current crop of home CPU's can match the performance of the Cell.

You also have to remember that the PS3 itself, hardware wise, is evolving, with each new generation they go to a smaller fab on the CPU's, so 1st generation PS3's are different to current generation PS3's.

That really is the area we should be looking at, the pure processing power of the PS3, this is what will not limit the PS3 in any way. Sure, in 7 years time you may say "we want better graphics!" but that in itself isn't a limitation of the PS3, its a bit like asking a 3 year old system to play Crysis at 1280*1024 at 100+fps.

PC's compared to the PS2 are also different, not long after the PS2 came out you could find emulators to get games running on a PC, sure performance took a hit, but it was possible (and with the PSP its very possible to run at 100% performance on a PC with a bit of kit Sony only made available to dev's). I doubt very much that you could emulate a PS3 game on a PC. The nearest we have is GTA IV which apparently runs like a dog on top end PC's, though that may just be down to bad coding.

So, the CPU of the Cell should be more than capable of holding its own against a PC for quite a long time, as I stated earlier, the gflop potential of the PS3 is over twice that of the fastest home CPU available today (the i7), so it'll be what, 2 years before Intel/AMD manage to get over the heat problems, lower fab processing etc. to be able to form a CPU which can achieve the same gflop rating as a PS3.

Because of this, I don't think we will see SE staying "PS3 limitations" for a very long time, because the PS3 doesn't have the same limitations that the PS2 has always had, and even with the PS2 limitations, SE has done some simply awesome things with FFXI.
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#23 Jun 03 2009 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
*
193 posts
Am I stuck in some sort of time warp?

GPU's do most of the processing nowadays and the PC chips nowadays almost bottlenecks the information coming from the GPU. You have to overclock the PC to show the power of these GPU's.

Sure you still want a fast chip, but it's really not relevant nowadays. If you have a good duo core system but run a set up of crossfire 4890's or a GTX 295 you will absolutely destroy "the cell". No amount of fan boyism or paper statistics, which NO GAME TODAY has ever taken advantage of, is going to change that.

Hey I'm a fan of the PS3. I own one. I love it.

We don't even have to wait for a year or 2 years out. PC's with a great graphics card destroy "The Cell" chip TODAY!

Not to mention everything I've been reading about new systems in the works show that we might have new systems starting in 2013. It seems like that's so far away, but it's only 3 years after this game will be released on the PS3.

I run a Wolfdale 8400 intel chip, which is only a duo core, and I have 2 Ati 4890's in crossfire. I can play every single game I own in extreme HD with everything turned on full blast.

I just hope that SE knows what it is doing so that this game can go behind just a year or two with decent graphics before being held back by the Cell processor.

#24 Jun 03 2009 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
349 posts
Yea the ps3 will eventually limit the graphical power of the game. Pcs as noted can be upgraded and todays hardware is better then a ps3. Other mmos like Eve have offered graphical update expansion packs, City of heroes is talking about doing something similair. They cant do that with ffxi because of the ps2s physical limitations.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 5:39pm by mezlabor
____________________________
That was no hemroid doctor. That was an alien hoobajoob
#25 Jun 03 2009 at 1:50 PM Rating: Default
*
215 posts
For one, it could make a 64 Bit version for Windows. Two you obviously know little about the PS3, yes it has the cell processor and basically uses none of it. Only 2 or 3 (I forget exactly how many) are actually even allowed to be used for games, the others are devoted to PS3 interface and other parts. Two, the only thing 64 bit changes is how memory much memory is addressed and how can fit in each memory slot. Most games or anything do not use hardly a fraction of that. Thats why 64 bit OSes have not surpassed 32 bit in terms of useage. More than likely this game won't even need to use 64 bit addressing. And even if it does, its nothing that a faster graphics card or game processor can't fix. Also in general, FFXI was as badly coded game, that hardly made good use of graphics cards anyways. Which is the real reason we never got nicer visuals for our PC versions. Either way the in general, MMORPGs limit their graphics to something they started with. WoW has improved slightly over the years but in general, same style and complexity with some better textures.

Expect the same with FFXIV. Besides all of that, they said the game was using in-game engine visuals on the part of the cutscene with the galka fighting on the boat. Its pretty nice and probaly some of the best visuals for a mmorpg yet, with only the also new old republic even competeing.
#26 Jun 03 2009 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
276 posts
Yeah, in a couple years SE will have the same dilemma they have now --- hold back PC graphics due to the PS3, or release a client with upgraded graphics for the PC (like Everquest did). They neglected to do the latter with FFXI, I hope they change their mind this time around. My PC is already capable of much better graphics than a PS3, in 3-4 years the PS3 is going to be a major block. I think people just vastly underestimate how fast technology moves. The PS3 is already several years old and is behind the leading edge of PCs. Heck, we'll be on the PS4 during the FF14 years. The only good news is that the PS3 should be capable of pretty much any gameplay mechanics necessary, so if Square wants they can have a decent looking game on the PS3 then update the engine for PCs in a few years to look fantastic. Things like inventory and such won't be a problem, just rendering capacity.
____________________________
FFXIV - Khyra Katze [Cactuar]
#27 Jun 03 2009 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
**
633 posts
Quote:
We don't even have to wait for a year or 2 years out. PC's with a great graphics card destroy "The Cell" chip TODAY!


I think you are wrong there, the reason being they are just recently starting to use the Cell CPU the way its mend to be used.

It's really good at processing many things happening on the same time on your screen, thus less lag in Raids etc..
____________________________
Brophy Midgardsorm

75DRK/75NIN/52BST/37THF/37WAR/37SAM/40RNG/30RDM/18WHM/15BRD/16SMN/5BLM/5MNK

精 神 の 食 べ る 人
#28 Jun 03 2009 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
312 posts
I keep seeing it being brought up post after post but honestly, if graphics are seemingly the only limiting factor for the PS3 in regards to FFXIV and the in game footage of the Galka beating on things is from the PS3 then I think we have very little to worry about. Graphics weren't exactly the most debilitating limiting factor about the PS2 after all.
#29 Jun 03 2009 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
*
193 posts
You sir are absolutely wrong.

Not only do I draw off of 1 gb of DDR 5 memory at 1000mhz, but my pc has 8gb's with potential to go higher depending on the motherboard. It ABOLUTELY DESTROYS the Cell.

The lag in raids is going to be dependent on how how much memory you have, how fast it can transfer read/write to that memory, and the GPU that is doing the reading and the writing.

The Cell doesn't do anything as fast as either the 4890 or GTX 295.

I can play my games at 2560x1600 resolution. The PS3 couldn't come close to handling any of these graphic intensive games at that resolution.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2009 7:13pm by brethartfan
#30 Jun 03 2009 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
*
215 posts
sigh, none of you have a processor better than the cell processor. Like I said, games are limited to using only part of it. Specifically 6 of them which run around 3.2 GHz each. But if a game doesnt utilize a multi-threaded archiecture it can't take advantage of this. On top of that, most games hardly use the processor and rely heavily on the video card (at least on a PC). None of you have a computer better than a PS3. PS3s are even being linked together for super computing. So no computer destroys the cell chip today. The only reason you dont even see cell chips in your computers is because its created by IBM not Intel. Which means an entirely different archieture, and lots of reprogramming no body wants to do.
#31 Jun 04 2009 at 3:14 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,099 posts
The Cell has an effective core rate of 8 cores, of which 6 (not 2 or 3) are available to be used by a game. The Cell in the PS3 is also a single useage CPU designed for a small range of tasks, an 86/86_64 is a multi-function CPU which is designed to do many things at once, from playing games, to producing huge spreadsheets, to creating 3D animation with Maya, its a generic chip.

From reading up on the Cell, it's quite possible for dev's to use the Cell itself to process GPU elements, rather than just relying on the GPU to do all the work, rather akin to what Nvidia is doing by trying to produce a CPU/GPU combination, rather than a separate CPU/GPU.

Because of the power of the PS3, and the fact that the FFXIV dev's will be working non-stop on enhancing their skills, gaining experience etc. on the PS3's coding side of things, we won't see PS3 limitations for a very long time, and then it will simply be visuals, which judging by the current screenshots will not be a limitation either, the game looks gorgeous.

Quote:
Not only do I draw off of 1 gb of DDR 5 memory at 1000mhz, but my pc has 8gb's with potential to go higher depending on the motherboard. It ABOLUTELY DESTROYS the Cell.


DDR5 does *not* exist, GDDR5 does which is VGA memory and not normal memory. If you are running GDDR5 at 1,000Mhz you are really suffering, mine on an 8800 runs at 1,600. OK, you have 8GB which you will probably never use more than 25% of at any given time unless you use very memory intensive applications (photoshop and really large files). After a hardware failiure 2 my of RAM chips fried so I'm stuck with 2GB till I can be bothered to replace it, on Windows 7 I'm currently using 43%, so less than a gig.

You are also comparing a GPU to a CPU, your CPU, no matter what it is, not even the latest i7 will *not* destroy the Cell, the Cell CPU will look at your CPU, laugh, and the hit FPO at more than twice (maybe even 6 times) the speed of the i7.

disclaimer
I'm not a PS3 fanboi, I own a PS3 yes but I prefer my PC and rarely use my PS3 for anything other than watching TV, I will be buying FFXIV for the PC and not for the PS3. I'm very much a PC fanboi, my keyboard and mouse alone costing almost as much as a PS3 would cost.
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#32 Jun 04 2009 at 3:18 AM Rating: Good
**
255 posts
@venion you're right, main PS2 problem was the fact ps2 had a crappy online system.
#33 Jun 04 2009 at 3:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
kskerns wrote:
I wasn't here at the beginning - was the PS2 a limitation then, or only after some years?


Most of what was attributed to PS2 limitations turned out to be crap when SE implemented stuff later on that people said was impossible earlier.

Boundaries were not pushed in FFXI, at least not early on.
____________________________
.
#34 Jun 04 2009 at 4:06 AM Rating: Decent
16 posts
Here's a different take, from someone who doesn't know specs all that well.

If an MMORPG comes out using a large amount of the PS3s potential, which FFXIV undoubtedly will, it will still be better graphically than most MMOs out to date. Futhermore, games on the PC aren't always upgraded graphically as time goes on, and so they tend to date regardless of being released on a console.

The PS3 also has a few things the PS2 did not, they include a decent online system, and a bigger inbuilt HD. More updates can probably be made, though I understand nothing can change the actual hardware of the system, but perhaps the way it is used can be changed to push more out of it if required. Also, the PC version may still be able to have cosmetically superior graphics and resolutions, just like the the PC version of FFXI has the advantage over the PS2 version.
#35 Jun 04 2009 at 5:07 AM Rating: Decent
6 posts
Quote:
The Cell has an effective core rate of 8 cores, of which 6 (not 2 or 3) are available to be used by a game. The Cell in the PS3 is also a single useage CPU designed for a small range of tasks, an 86/86_64 is a multi-function CPU which is designed to do many things at once, from playing games, to producing huge spreadsheets, to creating 3D animation with Maya, its a generic chip.


End discussion there :)
#36 Jun 04 2009 at 11:55 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
PS-3 is not going to be limited in terms of graphics/processing for a long time. Most of the "PS-3 limitation" if it ever exists will be years from now, when new generations of processors are coming around that surpass what the PS-3 is capable. Also, there are some inherent limitations by the simple act of making a console based MMO, which should be pretty obvious to those who play FFXI on a PC. Interface is the biggest one, IMO.

If we were incapable of dealing with the inherent limitations, we wouldn't play FFXI in the first place, so clearly that is not going to hold any one here back from enjoying FFXIV. And I don't think any one is going to notice PS-3 hardware limitations for many years to come.

Overall, not something to worry about.
#37 Jun 04 2009 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
*
193 posts
Quote:
DDR5 does *not* exist, GDDR5 does which is VGA memory and not normal memory. If you are running GDDR5 at 1,000Mhz you are really suffering, mine on an 8800 runs at 1,600. OK, you have 8GB which you will probably never use more than 25% of at any given time unless you use very memory intensive applications (photoshop and really large files). After a hardware failiure 2 my of RAM chips fried so I'm stuck with 2GB till I can be bothered to replace it, on Windows 7 I'm currently using 43%, so less than a gig.

You are also comparing a GPU to a CPU, your CPU, no matter what it is, not even the latest i7 will *not* destroy the Cell, the Cell CPU will look at your CPU, laugh, and the hit FPO at more than twice (maybe even 6 times) the speed of the i7.

disclaimer
I'm not a PS3 fanboi, I own a PS3 yes but I prefer my PC and rarely use my PS3 for anything other than watching TV, I will be buying FFXIV for the PC and not for the PS3. I'm very much a PC fanboi, my keyboard and mouse alone costing almost as much as a PS3 would cost.
I'm glad you figured out which memory I was talking about. I thought I made it pretty obvious. However that didn't stop you from pretending your mistake was my mistake.

Let's face it, you want to keep talking about how great the PS3 is and you are chatting yourself out of the fact that in 2 years time... The PS3 won't be able to come close to even the midrange GPU's. Just like the PS2. You keep talking about the cell and how powerful it is, but you fail to mention all of it's shortcomings.


I own a PS3. I love my PS3. I'm not some insipid fanboi that's going to keep pushing paper statistics and pretend it will be the pinnacle of technology for the next 3 decades. GPU's alread destroy the Cell, and everybody knows that most graphical work is done on the GPU nowadays and has nothing to do with the CPU chip. It's ok though, it's funny watching you trip all over yourself and pretend you have some inside knowledge of how great this chip is.
#38 Jun 05 2009 at 3:58 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,099 posts
It isn't paper statistics, its a well known fact that on pure processing power, the Cell trounces a generic x86 CPU hands down, some estimates put the Cells processing power at 6 times that of the current i7 CPU. In 2 years time, Intel/AMD will not have chips out which out-perform the Cell in that area simply because of the need to have their chips set as generic.

All chips generate a lot of heat, it is why you need gel to cover the CPU between the CPU and the heatsink (the process isn't perfect so the top of a CPU looks a bit like /\/\/\/\/\/\ which isn't good for heat disipation, the lower bits are not in contact with the heatsink), a heatsink, and a fan. Intel/AMD produce lower fabs (down to 45 iirc) which reduce power and also reduce the heat of a CPU.

Heat problems are why AMD/Intel stopped going upwards in speed, generally high end CPU's run at around 3.2-3.6Ghz, going any higher makes them run too hot and too unstable, so instead of continuing an upward trend where CPU's clock at 4Ghz, 5Ghz etc.. they went for cores and lower fabs and improving on current line of chips with enhancments to their production line. In 2 years time they will not have magically had the heat pixie come down and wave its magic wand and remove the physical limits on heat disipation.

Intel are intent on sticking with Moores Law, which is, the number of transistors on a chip will double every 2 years. So in 2 years time you will see a CPU with double the transistors as the current i7, but that doesn't mean double the performance, it doesn't mean double the power, it just means double the transistors which is achieved through a lower fab rating.

You obviously know very little about PC's, if you did you would not have claimed the speeds of your GDDR5, you obviously know very little about technology in fact.

I have mentioned that the GPU of the PS3 is not a limiting factor, the current GPU of the PS3 is powerful enough to make a current game which looks fantastic, the GPU of the PS3 is also able to tap into the power of the Cell, a process which Nvidia is looking at currently to produce a CPU/GPU combination, something which Intel is looking at too. Future generations of CPU's will remove a bottleneck between the CPU/GPU, modern CPU's actually offload their tasks to the GPU, but again GPU's face the same problems with heat as CPU's. My current GPU runs, idle, at 65c, the more powerful GPU's get, the more they have problems with heat disipation.

If you knew anything about CPU's and GPU's you would not be posting how your CPU trashes the Cell, you would also not be posting how in 2 years time "average" CPU's will trounce the Cell. The Cell is an evolving system used in super computers, and like the x86 line it is being refined and processed every single iteration.
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#39 Jun 05 2009 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
I just wanted to add in to this that I remember reading that the cell processors stacks on each other and that it was sony's intention to put them into other house hold devices. The idea being that lets say if your microwave had one in it to do your microwaving needs when you weren't using it for that you could then have them connect to each other for doing other tasks. So if you were the ultimate sony fan boy you could effectively turn all your home appliances into one big super computer.
____________________________
75 WHM/BLM/PUP/BRD/MNK
Clothcraft 86 Cooking 60 Rank 10
http://www.themuteki.com
#40 Jun 05 2009 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
******
21,262 posts
If I recall correctly, the Cell processor was paired up with an AMD and jury-rigged into a multi-processor blade system to take the title of the most powerful computer on the planet.

The Cell processor has a lot of horsepower. But Moore's Law says that in 7 years, processors will have doubled in potential power roughly 4 times. PCs won't be getting those hefty processors immediately, but within a few years the horsepower will probably be available on a PC too.

Edited, Jun 6th 2009 1:18am by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#41 Jun 05 2009 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
**
495 posts
There is a lot of limitations that will come with time, but they won't be anywhere NEAR as bad as the PS2's ones were. Unless more people start using 64bit OS clients that actually allows the utilization of more RAM, SE merely has to scale the coding and graphics better for the game so there won't be graphical limitations on better systems.

Remember the "PS2" Limitations were not because they were worried about graphical fedility between PC and PS2 (PS2 looks horrendous next to a good PC, even back than), but the PS2 had an absolute micro amount of on board RAM even during the days it launched which made it so they couldn't have larger quantitys of unique items on the screen or behind the scenes at one time. 528ishMBs of RAM should hold the limitations in check for a long while since 32bit OS can only use like 3gigs of RAM anyways. (which is why I always laugh at people that buy 4k RAM and still use a 32bit client, they basically wasted their own money.)

Again it was never an issue of GPU or even CPU since they scaled the visuals anyways (and added stuff that wasn't even in the PS2 version as well), it was the RAM, and only the RAM that really held the game back, whether it be inventory, to macro lines, to GUI interface issues to the limitations of races and models for current races. It will still hold it back with 528, but the amount of issues will be so much less compared to FFXI its not worth even talking about.

Edited, Jun 6th 2009 1:44am by croythegreat
#42 Jun 05 2009 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
*
166 posts
PS3 will limit FFXIV likely the same way PS2 did. Trust me. It won't be as severe (initially) in terms of graphics, but let's examine the following limitations that PS3 simply can't escape:

1.) Control. Square has to design a control system that fits on a game pad. While they did an admirable job with FFXI, I think we can all agree the UI could be smoother, the ability to 'jump' wouldn't have been bad, and certainly a mouse-control system for the camera could have been a lot more fluid than using the arrow keys. However, none of this was possible, b/c they had to make it playable on a game pad.

2.) Development time. This is more of an issue with multi-platform design than an issue with the PS3 or PC specifically. Any content updates are going to require more bug testing than normal. This slows down development time and makes it more expensive to do. A single-platform MMO doesn't have the same expense, which enables faster content updates for a better cost.

3.) Textures. This touches on the amount of RAM the PS3 has available to it. Kinda laughable when someone said that it's not the amount of RAM that matters, it's how you use it. I can think of a similar situation to that ;P but the point is, PS3 is the equivalent of a 1" long "member". A modern PC is, in comparison, 6". I don't care how you use the 1", it simply can't match the texture resolution and capability of a PC's RAM. There's also space limitations. Square isn't going to let this game get over 20GB is my hunch; doing so would alienate PS3 users who didn't have the higher end HDD. If that's not the case, this last point doesn't apply; but if it is, it's going to limit, by space if nothing else, the high-res texture availability. If you doubt they get that big, check out the Cinematic Mod for Half-life 2. The latest one is a file download close to 10 GB. In textures. For a shooter with far less diverse environments than an MMO will have.

4.) Graphics in general. This won't "appear" to be a limitation when it's first released. It's not going to be an end-all of video game graphics, MMOs never are, nor should we expect them to be. But it's going to struggle to even rival Conan is my hunch. Multiple people erroneously buy into Sony's hype that the PS3 is an immensely powerful beast. This just isn't accurate, and the telling sign is the price point. Consider the following logic: add in a monitor, peripherals, all the stuff that normally comes with a PC, and a PS3 would cost, oh, $800. WELL below a top-notch gaming PC. Now let's factor in the over-used excuse that Sony is selling these units at a loss. This may well be true -- but we know it isn't a $1,000 loss per unit, or anything remotely that high. The actual amount is about $300, tops.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/16/sony-losing-mad-loot-on-each-ps3/

for reference. So consider this system, let's be extra generous and add on another $200 for the skeptics, roughly price-equivalent to a $1200 PC. Which we know pales in comparison to a full-fledged gaming PC. The reason is that the hardware *just isn't that good*. The only reason it's capable of even doing what it has already is because it's designed to do one thing only, and that's games. But I can guarantee, by the time FFXIV is released in 2010, PCs probably will already be releasing games beyond what a PS3 can handle. By 2015, when the PS3 is well on its way following the dodo, a PC will make it look like a pocket calculator. And Square has shown no stomach for releasing expansions that are "next-gen console (in XIV's case, PS4) or PC only", which would eliminate the problem entirely and allow graphical updates in newer areas for those with better hardware.

5.) Modifications. Look at the healthy mod community WoW has; talk to almost any WoW player, and they wouldn't adventure without their favourite pack of mods. Even if it's just colouring the UI differently, or arranging it to fit your personal preference on the screen, these mods are not possible with a console release simply because Square likes "even playing fields". This is a very fair position, too, and in FFXI I've avoided even Windower, let alone botting. Yet, if this were PC only, so everyone had access to mods? How much might the game benefit? From ideas, if not polished, finished products?

As an aside, directed more at the OP: the reason I, and others I know, are worried about PS3 limitations, is not because of current capability. A PC is capable of more right now, but games will never be quite at the cutting edge, or they'd have no audience. The concern is that Square will show undying support for a dying console 5 years down the road. The PS2 for FFXI is not a limitation; it's Square's refusal to release PC and next-gen console only expansions and content. If Square had made, say, ToAU and WotG next-gen only, or even just WotG, there would be no complaints. PS2 users could still play, and most would upgrade. The concern is that Square will follow the same course in XIV as they have in XI, which would end up being a limitation 6 years from now. Guaranteed.

Edit to correct patently false statement by a previous poster:

Quote:
sigh, none of you have a processor better than the cell processor. Like I said, games are limited to using only part of it. Specifically 6 of them which run around 3.2 GHz each. But if a game doesnt utilize a multi-threaded archiecture it can't take advantage of this. On top of that, most games hardly use the processor and rely heavily on the video card (at least on a PC). None of you have a computer better than a PS3. PS3s are even being linked together for super computing. So no computer destroys the cell chip today. The only reason you dont even see cell chips in your computers is because its created by IBM not Intel. Which means an entirely different archieture, and lots of reprogramming no body wants to do.


The PS3 has a *single* main core operating at 3.2GHz. The SPEs are entirely different. It's not a "6-core" processor with all of them operating at 3.2GHz; the cooling alone would be impossible. The SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements) do much of the hard labour; the 3.2GHz core is the main element that allocates tasks to them. The reason it can be used in super computing is because the task types are different. SPEs can't do every task under the sun; the more of them able to be used, the better performance PS3 will get. But the peak performance will never be hit outside very specialized (re: non-game) situations.

Edited, Jun 6th 2009 12:32am by VhailorEmp
____________________________
Enjoy your retirement, Vhailor of Cerberus.
#43 Jun 05 2009 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
Alrefie wrote:
Comparing console to PC is just dumb.

You are comparing hardware build from the ground up to do graphics and sound in the realm of gaming to a system that is more 'multi function'.

Tailored hardware vs. universal hardware. Tailored will win hands down when sticking to its field of expertise.



Oh my god my head hurts just reading this amount of stupid
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#44 Jun 06 2009 at 12:15 AM Rating: Excellent
**
495 posts
Quote:
PS3 will limit FFXIV likely the same way PS2 did. Trust me. It won't be as severe (initially) in terms of graphics, but let's examine the following limitations that PS3 simply can't escape:

1.) Control. Square has to design a control system that fits on a game pad. While they did an admirable job with FFXI, I think we can all agree the UI could be smoother, the ability to 'jump' wouldn't have been bad, and certainly a mouse-control system for the camera could have been a lot more fluid than using the arrow keys. However, none of this was possible, b/c they had to make it playable on a game pad.




I agree with almost everything you said (RAM is like I said THE biggest pitfall for limitations in the future) except this one. PS3 has an open platform for controls including for mouse and keyboard control and I don't know a single person who plays FFXI without a keyboard even on PS2. Secondly you can control the camera and movement in FFXI on your mouse, its just not as smooth because its utilizing a control inheritantly designed around Gamepad analog control.

Personally with a gamepad and keyboard together, I have more control and more immersion than any MMORPG I have ever played. I actually wish games like WoW would make support for dual analog controls just as an option because its so much less strain on my hands (Not much strain on keyboard mouse, but what you do with wrist movements on a mouse, you can do even easier using both thumbs and don't need to move your hands). There is no way id be playing FFXI these days without a gamepad. With gamepad, I only need to use the keyboard for chat or for any commands I don't already have macroed. And I don't think I ever use mouse for FFXI with exception to just launching the game.

Edited, Jun 6th 2009 4:16am by croythegreat
#45 Jun 06 2009 at 12:25 AM Rating: Decent
**
336 posts
I just want to say that I'm only drawn to FFXI and FFXIV because they're MMOs on a console. While I may play them on a computer at some point, it will never be exclusively. I like using a controller and I don't really care much for PC games.
#46 Jun 06 2009 at 12:51 AM Rating: Good
*
166 posts
croythegreat wrote:
Quote:
PS3 will limit FFXIV likely the same way PS2 did. Trust me. It won't be as severe (initially) in terms of graphics, but let's examine the following limitations that PS3 simply can't escape:

1.) Control. Square has to design a control system that fits on a game pad. While they did an admirable job with FFXI, I think we can all agree the UI could be smoother, the ability to 'jump' wouldn't have been bad, and certainly a mouse-control system for the camera could have been a lot more fluid than using the arrow keys. However, none of this was possible, b/c they had to make it playable on a game pad.




I agree with almost everything you said (RAM is like I said THE biggest pitfall for limitations in the future) except this one. PS3 has an open platform for controls including for mouse and keyboard control and I don't know a single person who plays FFXI without a keyboard even on PS2. Secondly you can control the camera and movement in FFXI on your mouse, its just not as smooth because its utilizing a control inheritantly designed around Gamepad analog control.

Personally with a gamepad and keyboard together, I have more control and more immersion than any MMORPG I have ever played. I actually wish games like WoW would make support for dual analog controls just as an option because its so much less strain on my hands (Not much strain on keyboard mouse, but what you do with wrist movements on a mouse, you can do even easier using both thumbs and don't need to move your hands). There is no way id be playing FFXI these days without a gamepad. With gamepad, I only need to use the keyboard for chat or for any commands I don't already have macroed. And I don't think I ever use mouse for FFXI with exception to just launching the game.

Edited, Jun 6th 2009 4:16am by croythegreat


This is mostly a personal concern of mine. A few friends play on keyboard only, but a lot have grown used to a game pad. Mostly it could be fixed by simply adding re-mapping options to the game; for instance, I don't like that Auto-Lock and Rest are the same **** key. I'm 99% sure that decision was made due to limited buttons on a game pad, but it's highly irritating when someone cures you, gets auto-targeted, and you lock on them instead of sitting down. I would like an option to trigger macros with a single keystroke instead of a combination, if I so wanted. And yeah, I would like smoother control for the camera using a mouse. It's available but not great in this game largely because of how they built it. Ideally I'd see targeting and camera control entirely mouse-controlled. That's just a personal preference, though. But it's something they will never do designing for a console. It's not because they think people won't use keyboards, it's because they don't want to ship a game that has a warning label on it: REQUIRES KEYBOARD.

That being said, point taken.
____________________________
Enjoy your retirement, Vhailor of Cerberus.
#47 Jun 06 2009 at 1:14 AM Rating: Default
**
441 posts
The point of the matter is the ps3 can play ffxiv, but will it be able to handle ffxiv. If you have the original version of the ps3 like the 60 gig which i do, you will notice that the mail failure of the original ps3 was over heating, which is a common factor. The original system would over heat so much that ppl were getting failures cause of over heating. Also it is also a true fact as some one stated that graphic during high end would break down, freeze if the game become to intensive. The new version, redesign ps3 has a better air flow then the original i should know i also have this also, so it most likely will not over heat since the air flow is dispense more correctly.

But there is still a known factor that will come into play and that congestion. This system was built well but it no pc. There are aspect you must consider which is environment, elements, real time game play, effects along with partys or ppl in the surrounding area will have it tolls on this system which i fear it will not be able to handle.

Look at the ps2 for example game play is good in pt even with all effects on, but when you are in campaign battle, or besiged or dynamis, and other alliance event game play slow to a crawl, and take in consideration that the game was translated to ps2 and it still has freezeing, lag congestion, element artifacts issues when put threw strenuous activity.

Now look at the ps3, it can play a lot of the most demanding games but has it gone threw a real test for a mmorpg. I played ffxi on ps3 and it failed big time, even though it was a ps2 game on a ps3 but still in all events it could not handle a mmorpg. simply put the elements were too demanding for the system.

And for anyone who think they will be able to mule and leave there character on for days to sell stuff while there a way. i got new for you dont try it on a ps3 other wise you will be paying that 150$ every week for blowing out your system. Dont get me wrong i luv playstaion that why i have multiple ps, ps2 and ps3 but im not going to even think of the thought of placing my system threw the strainer with a ffxiv. your better off playing it on pc. Get your self a phantom II x4 amd black edition, two ati crossfire toss in 8 1066 meg ddr2 ram and rock that ****. dont kill your ps3.

and if you do decided to use your ps3 make sure you have something to cool it down, if you have the original ps3, get the new one cause the old one will over heat and died.

sorry for the rant.
#48 Jun 06 2009 at 1:54 AM Rating: Decent
Has anyone here stopped to consider how stupid this thread is? We know next to nothing about FFXIV and already we got people biting at the bit to find things to ***** and complain about. What is also stupid about this thread is people are trying to compare a x86 architecture chip to a RISC architecture chip (yes I'm looking at all you tech guru's who have posted in this thread). I'm sorry but that is just plain ignorant and all of you tech guru's should go down to your local bookstore, grab a copy of the MCDST coursework material, and slap yourself upside the head with it. If your lucky... maybe some REAL tech knowledge will ooze from the coursework material into your brain and you'll realize just how stupid it is comparing an x86 architecture chip to a RISC architecture chip.
____________________________
World of Warcraft - Khaz Modan Server
Neocron - Level 80 Fury (main spec) / Protection (off-spec) Warrior
Neodeath - Level 71 Frost (main spec) / Blood (off-spec) Death Knight
Neopriest - Level 65 Shadow Priest
Neohunter - Level 28 Beastmastery (main spec) Hunter

Ultima Online - Sonoma Shard
Neocron - Human Warrior

FFXI - Gilgamesh Server
Neocron - Taru 75BLM/51RDM/37WHM/17SCH (Retired)
#49 Jun 06 2009 at 1:59 AM Rating: Good
double-post... sorry

Edited, Jun 6th 2009 11:44am by neocronNV
____________________________
World of Warcraft - Khaz Modan Server
Neocron - Level 80 Fury (main spec) / Protection (off-spec) Warrior
Neodeath - Level 71 Frost (main spec) / Blood (off-spec) Death Knight
Neopriest - Level 65 Shadow Priest
Neohunter - Level 28 Beastmastery (main spec) Hunter

Ultima Online - Sonoma Shard
Neocron - Human Warrior

FFXI - Gilgamesh Server
Neocron - Taru 75BLM/51RDM/37WHM/17SCH (Retired)
#50 Jun 06 2009 at 2:44 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,099 posts
catwho the Pest wrote:
If I recall correctly, the Cell processor was paired up with an AMD and jury-rigged into a multi-processor blade system to take the title of the most powerful computer on the planet.

The Cell processor has a lot of horsepower. But Moore's Law says that in 7 years, processors will have doubled in potential power roughly 4 times. PCs won't be getting those hefty processors immediately, but within a few years the horsepower will probably be available on a PC too.

Edited, Jun 6th 2009 1:18am by catwho


Moore's law isn't about CPU power, its about the creation of CPU's. Every 2 years the number of transistors will double. If you look at CPU's from 2 years ago, current CPU's are not twice as powerful, current CPU's are just more friendly, better power control, better heat control, lower fab process. The actual speed of the CPU's hasn't really moved from around 3Ghz in a long time. By improving the production line (which is what AMD/Intel have been doing the past few years) they are able to eek more power out of the chips because they are running cooler.

Think of it like this. A CPU takes 100 watts to run, because its drawing 100 watts it starts to generate a fair bit of heat. If you increase the power to the CPU by 50 watts to 150 watts, it starts to generate even more heat, it does become more powerful, but it's swings and roundabouts. The more heat a CPU generates, the less efficient it is, CPU's run best when they are cooler, not hotter. Now, refine the process and let the CPU run at 50 watts, the CPU is using less power so is able to run cooler, which improves its performance also.

Once you start ramping up the power of CPU's, you run into technical issues, as I've said, the reason we're not seeing 4/5/6Ghz CPU's even though Intel/AMD were in an arms race to produce such chips, is because of the technical limitations. From memory a CPU has been overclocked to 6Ghz, but I'm pretty sure you don't want a liquid nitrogen cooler sitting next to your PC to stop it catching fire.

That is why, in 2 years time CPU's will probably still be running in the 3Ghz area, they may be nudging 4Ghz but thats about it. What you will see though is Intel/AMD adding more cores, I believe 6 cores are due to be released soon (or already have been released) with 8 cores in 2 years being a real possibility, as well as enhancing the CPU's to give more specialised functions to it, sharing the load with the GPU for instance to improve frame rates.
____________________________
A strange obsession, mine. But better to be addicted to smartphones and gismos than cocaine or ***, I suppose. Well, I don’t know, the result is the same after all, very little sleep, great expense and horrific mess everywhere.

-- Stephen Fry
#51 Jun 06 2009 at 3:03 AM Rating: Good
**
255 posts
+1 to you too, moving a character with left stick and changing view angles with right stick is cool and better than any PC mmo control
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)