Battlefield 3 thread - Server details in opening post -
- Thread starter [TFU] Thegoon84
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 20,189
- Location
- Middlesbrough
Soon.
Everyone gets access to the Beta 48 hours after those that have pre-ordered on origin and those that bought MOH for the early Beta access.
That's not true at all. Yes, when the PS3 was released they said it's about the same as a 7800GTX in terms of GPU performance, but not capabilities.
When games are made for consoles they are programmed to the hardware directly, not through an API like on a computer which unfortunately has a significant performance hit. If developers hard-coded a game specifically for a GTX 580 for example, it would look 5x better than BF3, no joke. However, the game wouldn't be able to run on anything BUT a GTX 580. That's why consoles can go on for so long and they don't look "that" bad. Compare what the Xbox 360 is capable of to a 7800GTX on a PC, the Xbox 360 will out-perform it with ease.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 2,815
- Location
- Staffordshire
hes right and thats why i think there should only be one graphics card for gamers from amd and nvidia, it would be really good value for money and far less problems
Oh really? I hadnt realised there was an open beta. I though you had to pre-order or have MOH.
This is good news as i was thinking of buying medal of honor just to have a go.
If it is only to get early access, i can cope with being 48 hours late to the party
. I'll be too busy playing F1 2011 anyway.That's great for people with money, but what about people who don't. Look at the range of graphics cards in price, from about 30 quid to 700 quid. It would be a very, very poor business decession to only have one graphics card. Not only that, but they would only sell a graphics card every 5 or so years. I mean, if they brought a new GPU out every year, every game programmed for that GPU would no longer work if you upgraded your graphics card.
It will never happen, that's exactly what consoles are for, and exactly why it's NVIDIA and ATI who are responsible for making the GPUs for the consoles. They already have that "niche".
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
That's a very good point you made.
I think it's the same case with PS3 which has one PPU which acts more like a general desktop processor core and 6-7 active SPUs (co-processors) for which the game has to be programmed in order to run on PS3.
Hence why it is known that ps3 cell broadband processor acts more like a gpu as games have to be specifically programmed for the cell on ps3.
Edit: that's why all the console ports we get on PC are Xbox 360 ports as it's cpu has more or less similar achitecture to a desktop cpu
Last edited:
True, but there is nothing "special" about the PS3 cell. It has always been that way and the same happens on the Xbox 360. An application that is coded for the Xbox 360 CPU won't work on a normal PC without additional programming. The only difference is, the CPU in the Xbox 360 is very simalar to a normal desktop CPU, whereas the Cell is a bit more unique.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Yeah lol
Cell was certainly overhyped when it came to be known. No doubt it is still a powerful processor when applications are specifically coded for it as it is best in number crunching tasks and can beat majority of desktop cpus in floating point calculations in single-precision.
I was reading that for [email protected], it's single-precision performance is around 200GFlops. However it takes a performance hit in double-precision and can only churn out around 18GFlops.
Now say take 6990 which is capable of 5.10 TFlops in single-precision (stock speed)
If we compare cell with 6990 in that regard, then 6990 is 25 times more powerful than cell in floating point calculations. Ofcourse there will be other factors to take into account such as architecture, etc.
Larger scale doesn't automatically mean better gameplay. Even 64 players in BF2 quite a few maps felt very empty and the battlefield experience was reduced to multiple smaller sized skirmishes spread over the map. You can only increase player count and extend maps so much before it feels like being a chore just to get into a Battle.
Nope, it has been designed with a lower and higher end in mind and it will also have been designed with scaling in mind for the future. Consoles really just factor into this as being the lower end of the scale, the engine isnt going to suffer any for having a lower end set of requirements as there will also be pc's playing on that end of the scale.
At the minute we think maps scale with player count for consoles, 24 players = tighter boundaries (which obviously makes sense), it will be more obvious what the real difference is when the Beta hits.
Just because you say so?
The last PC BF game to ship with the commo rose was back in 2006, the whole point of it was to make communication faster. Call me crazy but im pretty sure it would be obvious that Dice would be experimenting with other systems since that point. Its not like commo rose is the defining feature that makes or breaks a BF game, BF1942 and BF Vietnam managed just fine without it.
Why doesnt someone make a console that has a GTX580 with keyboard and mouse? I would definately console game then (but then it wouldnt really be a 'console' would it?!)
Well... when the 360/PS3 first came out, the GPU it was using, was potentially faster than any PC GPU available. The PS3 also supports a mouse and keyboard, it just can't be used in game (what's the point - the browser is shocking anyway). So, it was almost what you want. They won't allow mouse and keyboard in game though as it would outperform a controller and ruin other people's experience.
i think soon the consoles will have keyboards and mice as standard and you might get a high spec card as that in next ones.
look at when xbox and ps3 came out they were same as top end pcs. the companies lose on the consoles anyway .
Not really, the ps3 gpu was a 7 series with its nuts cut off and the 360 gpu was a modified version of a r520 radeon gpu which was pretty similar to an x1900.
- Status