Next Generation GPU's -Comparing the next gen systems. Will we see a large graphical leap?

[foogledricks]

Sorry to post so quickly, but you're all too slow. About Xbox 360 being underpowered. We've discussed some supposed developer quotes about this here. It wouldn't be surprising that Xbox 360 be lesser powered than the PS3, given the time to release difference, and the fact that MS is focusing on making Xbox 360 affordable.

 

Also relevant is the fact that MS is mandating HD resolution and anti-aliasing, which takes system resources that could otherwise be used to push polygons, or render higher framerates.

 

But if 360 really has 512MB or Ram, three PowerPC processors, and a next generation ATI graphics chip set, it is hard to imagine that it won't look a step better than the best looking PC games on the most powerful PC of today or even a year from now. That sounds pretty on par with what the Xbox was at its time of release.

 

Besides, I'm finding that the fidelity of game images exceeds the resolution of my TV at the moment. 480p just doesn't seem to cut it in 3D games. I really think that the HD mandate is more important than achieving another step in photorealism. What do you guys think?

[JFo]

I really think that the HD mandate is more important than achieving another step in photorealism. What do you guys think?

 

I would tend to think that displaying a game at HD resolutions would aide in making a game look more photorealistic.

 

As for how the Xbox 360's performance will compare to the PS3, it's hard to say, given we don't know when the latter system will launch other than sometime next year. If the difference is around a year, I would think that the PS3 would certainly prove itself to be more powerful system in terms of graphics in much the same way the Xbox is more powerful than the PS3. Yes, maybe both systems will support HD resolutions and mandate anti-aliasing, but a system that comes out a year after the 360 might be able to push more polygons and better perform many other advanced technical feats that I don't understand.

 

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. To think that a system like the PS3, which will be released at a later date, won't show a noticeable difference over the 360 is like suggesting that you can't make anything more advanced than the 360. I'm sure we all know that's not the case.

 

Ultimately, I don't think the 360 will be underpowered at all. The PS3 could very well be a more powerful, but that doesn't mean that the 360 won't be a capable machine that can play great games.

[foogledricks]

I won't get really excited until I see some good software for it.

Must..not..throw...gauntlet...down... I too will reach the pinnacle of my excitment when seeing the details of the actual games. BUT I'm coming from a more enthusiast perspective. We already know that we'll be getting the latest Madden, Halo, and Jade Empire. We each have our lists of franchises and genres that we gobble up every year. I don't need to SEE or PLAY the latest Halo/Ninja Gaiden to know that I'll be buying and playing them. What gets me excited (within the hardware context of this discussion) is the platform-specific gravy like, "Will I being playing Halo 3 in 1080i" ,"Will I be mocking LCVGers with inferior Ninja Gaiden 2 leaderboard rankings, "Will I be scoring a hat trick on Travis while taking shit with my wireless controller?", etc...

 

All three platforms will have great games. But which one will have the gravy to make me love it like my Tivo or my Xbox.

[rustyjaw]

I really hope we see high-quality anti-aliasing in this generation. I realize graphics aren't everything, but I'm really tired of aliasing. Some games have managed to do a decent job this generation (Rallisport 2, for example), but to me it's the single most distracting graphical feature in 3D games (at 640x480 at least). 720p will automatically help with aliasing, since each pixel will be smaller, but serious FSAA on top of that would be great.

[merlot]

I'd be willing to bet that a more powerful, PS3 1st round titles will not look better than Xbox360 titles. The Dreamcast held up just fine against the PS2 graphically.

 

I hope MS studied the Dreamcast failure; early release, less power (we dont know that for sure though), and less hype. Well, at least more hype than the Dreamcast ever had.

[foogledricks]

I would tend to think that displaying a game at HD resolutions would aide in making a game look more photorealistic.

Our disagreement hinges on our respective definitions of the word photorealistic, I suppose. But I think it is fair to say that VIRTUA RACING will never look photorealistic no matter what resolution you viewed it at. Photos viewed on my television (480i) are in fact photorealistic, obviously. So it isn't about resolution. In fact, resolution can actually expose lack of photorealism. Because all the little graphical tricks are more obvious when you see them up close in higher resolution. This is the same reason why actors with bad skin don't like HD : )

[Romier S]

Must..not..throw...gauntlet...down... I too will reach the pinnacle of my excitment when seeing the details of the actual games. BUT I'm coming from a more enthusiast perspective. We already know that we'll be getting the latest Madden, Halo, and Jade Empire. We each have our lists of franchises and genres that we gobble up every year. I don't need to SEE or PLAY the latest Halo/Ninja Gaiden to know that I'll be buying and playing them. What gets me excited (within the hardware context of this discussion) is the platform-specific gravy like, "Will I being playing Halo 3 in 1080i" ,"Will I be mocking LCVGers with inferior Ninja Gaiden 2 leaderboard rankings, "Will I be scoring a hat trick on Travis while taking shit with my wireless controller?", etc...

You miss the point in terms of why I want to SEE the software. I understand where you're coming from in wanting to know the specifics of the platform. However for me, MS can throw about all of the technical qualifications they want in any number of lists. They can tell me about how photorealistic something is until thier tongues falls out. It honestly does very little to make me enthusiastic. Until I see those games in person, I tend to keep expectations in check. Remember the tech specs for the PS2 and how Sony and co. were lobbing about statements of "Toy Story like graphics"?

 

Now, I'm all for seeing the look of the system itself, the controllers, and the features like the case moddding/Hard Drive. That list of Xbox Live features is also really exciting (the most exciting part of Dan's post in fact!). Tech specs mean very little to me until I can gauge what the actual games are going to look like by seeing them in the flesh. I'm also very interested to see the software from some of these new Japanese developers that are onboard (Q Entertainment especially).

 

Commenting on the Xbox360 being underpowered or not; I don't see that as being a concern. The PS2 is by and large considered to be "underpowered" yet I own a ton of games (132 to be exact) for it that I've gotten a ton of enjoyment out of (regardless of whether they support 480p or not). As long as the Xbox360 has games I want to play on it, I'm not much concerned with how it compares to anyone else out there. Of course I'm coming from the perspective of someone that likes the thought of having all games in 1080i or 720p but doesn't necessarily NEED it to enjoy what I'm playing (and I'll be buying all the next gen consoles anyway so...)

[General Zot]

I don't know about the PS3 being that much better than the Xbox 360. If anyone cares to step back about 5 years and read all the smack Sony was spewing about how powerful the PS2 would be (and yadda yadda) then look what it delivered, you would see a real nice gap of truth. It was supposed to murder the Dreamcast in quality and honestly, some of the DC titles still look better than many PS2 titles released today. Obviously, the quality for the PS2 games has gone up over the years, but really there are only a handful of titles that I would classify as head and shoulders above the 1st gen (like God of War.)

 

MS made similar hyperbolic claims, but I would argue in terms of technology they were much closer to true than Sony. They did give away the ethernet adapter for online, the games did look incredible, the sound was DD 5.1, it was fairly easy to program for.

 

Now we come to this generation. MS is going with a PowerPC type configuration, familiar to many programmers and very friendly for 360/PC ports. They are including wi-fi for free, all wireless controllers, free XBL for all console owners, and tons of media enhancements. Sony is rapping on about the theoretical power of the cell, but how can we confirm/deny their claims? Has anyone here programmed for it? Know anybody personally who programmed for it? Know anyone who knows someone that has programmed for cell? Most likely no, no, and no. So there is no justify any claims of how powerful or easy to program it is when really all we have is Sony's word. Unless MS really f's things up, I know that the PowerPC is an easy and exceptionally powerful system to program for. It's a known quantity and that quantity is great.

 

Maybe the cell will kick the crap out of every known CPU configuration and be easy as pie to program (since it is a totally new architecture I doubt the ease of initially programming though.) But until we start getting non-Sony feedback about it, I'm not buying any of their bridges just yet.

[Romier S]

Obviously, the quality for the PS2 games has gone up over the years, but really there are only a handful of titles that I would classify as head and shoulders above the 1st gen (like God of War.)

Yeah. I disagree in about every way I could, but that's for another thread.

[rustyjaw]

Now we come to this generation. MS is going with a PowerPC type configuration, familiar to many programmers and very friendly for 360/PC ports...Sony is rapping on about the theoretical power of the cell, but how can we confirm/deny their claims? Has anyone here programmed for it?.

 

AFAIK, the Cell also has a PowerPC core.

[Camp]

I'm of the opinion that Microsoft is keenly aware that content is the key to success. I'm really not that concerned that the games won't be there. It's probably fair to say that the Xbox 360 was planned to be the difference maker from the get go. They knew they couldn't take down Sony in one round and I'm willing to bet Microsoft has put ample resources into making sure 360 launches with an impressive line-up.

 

I'm just not worried about the software. I like what Microsoft has been doing for the last year and a half with Xbox and I expect that to only get better with the 360.

 

As far as hardware comparisons go, I just don't see as much potential for great differences this time around. The Dreamcast vs. PS2 comparisons simply don't work in this generation. The Dreamcast still looks good because it was almost able to match the PS2 in real-world polygon performance. However, the PS2's texture abilities eclipsed the Dreamcast's capabilities. The ability to display high poly-count characters with much more realistic textures made a world of difference between the Dreamcast's early bid for a new generation and the real "next" generation starting with the PS2. Texturing is really the telling difference between PS2/Xbox and the Dreamcast.

 

This time around the nVidia and ATI chipsets in the PS3 & 360 are probably going to be supporting the exact same texturing technologies we've come to know on the current generation. The big difference is that we'll get these with less cost to other resources and at a much higher resolution (720p/1080i). I'm no Carmack but I certainly don't see any graphics technologies on the horizon that will be employeed by one console over the other. I really think these two systems will be as close in terms of real world performance as the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube are today.

 

Even if the Cell is "three times as fast" as the Xbox 360 (as reported by many rumor sites) it likely won't translate to the screen -especially not until late in the console's lifespan. Still, I expect Sony's console to do amazing things -on paper.

 

Having somewhat equal consoles could prove a boon for gamers. If Sony matches with a hard drive and real online service (leveling the playing field) perhaps we can get off the damn hardware issue and really get to the core of improving gameplay.

[Josh]

I take this to mean that Microsoft has already sent a ton of PD info to all major journalists, with a NDA to hold off until Thursday night. 360 will be taking over this board at the end of this week!

 

Well then that wouldn't be an IGN *exclusive* now, would it?

[JFo]

Photos viewed on my television (480i) are in fact photorealistic, obviously. So it isn't about resolution.

 

So, you're saying that when people talk about high definition as if it's like looking out a window, it has nothing to do with the fact that the resolution is leaps and bounds beyond a 480i signal?

 

Obviously, resolution isn't everything. Texturing, character design, and any other number of factors can contribute to the photorealistic quality of a video game image. Pumping up the resolution can only enhance the effect and give it that "window on the world" quality.

 

As an aside, I hope the goal of game designers in the next generation is not to simply try to recreate reality in a virtual environment. Photorealism in games like Splinter Cell is nice, but I fear that this new-found horse power will push developers to create nothing but realistic worlds because they assume that everyone wants that. If there's a sense that everything has to look real, we may lose out on some of the more whimsical worlds video games can produce in titles such as Psychonauts and Viewtiful Joe. Such a thing would truly sadden me, as these new systems should expand what game makers can do.

[merlot]

The Dreamcast still looks good because it was almost able to match the PS2 in real-world polygon performance. However, the PS2's texture abilities eclipsed the Dreamcast's capabilities. The ability to display high poly-count characters with much more realistic textures made a world of difference between the Dreamcast's early bid for a new generation and the real "next" generation starting with the PS2. Texturing is really the telling difference between PS2/Xbox and the Dreamcast.

I have to disagree. IMO, the Dreamcast did start the next generation. If not, would you place it with N64 and PS1? I would hope not. The technical abilites of the DC far exceeded those 2 consoles, whereas the PS2 never had such are large gap, despite having better textures.

[paul h]

What really intruiges me right now with all this next-gen stuff is exactly what the hell have Sony got up their sleeves? We all know Xbox360 will have quite a number of very good exclusives like Ninja Gaiden, PGR, Dead or Alive, Forza, Halo etc. but what franchises are Sony preparing behind the scenes to counter those.. ok they have GT, God of War, all the Square Enix games, Twisted Metal, WipEout (mmmm PS3 WipEout), Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank.. are those big enough/popular enough to stand toe to toe with Halo? I'm not so sure anymore, if i were Sony i'd be feverishly attempting to sew up some water tight third party exclusivity deals on games the likes of Devil May Cry, GTA and Resident Evil.

[Tom]

I'm not so sure anymore, if i were Sony i'd be feverishly attempting to sew up some water tight third party exclusivity deals on games the likes of Devil May Cry, GTA and Resident Evil.

 

I am sure after they actually announce any details about the PS3, then more info will flow as to who Sony may be courting for exclusivity. Of course, with the PS3, Sony may be trying to take a page from XBox's book and try to put out a console that sells more units because of its technological capabilities than the game library that is initially available for it.

 

That's not the case now, as the XBox finally has a great library of exclusive games backing it up, and the cross-platform titles just look better while taking advantage of the Live technology. But in the very early days it was Halo, PGR, and a bunch of good ideas on the horizon. Then once everybody realised just how superior the technology of the XBox was it seemed that the popular thing to do in the industry for the developers was jump on the Microsoft freight train.

 

Not having any details about the PS3 means everything I have said above is just random guesswork. Maybe the consoles will be indistinguishable technologically this time around and it will come back to a chess match of lining up the good publishers/developers. That would be nice.

 

I do know that if Sony doesn't start releasing good info soon, they risk losing something. Look at all the advertising buzz being caused by the "leaks" of XBox info that is occuring. This is easily the most popular thread in the consoles section of this site right now. I doubt other forums out there are much different. I hated the first XBox, and I'm even more excited for the 360 now than the PS3 just because of the teaser info we see everywhere.

[foogledricks]

I was late with my issue of EGM, but in the rumor mole section, they state that several developers saw the power of the PS3 and have switched their 360 projects over to the PS3. There has been a lot of this type of talk, and I touched on it in a previous post. What exactly would make a developer switch to developing for a new platform? I mean, doesn't the publisher have a lot of say in this? Isn't it a business decision? I suppose developing for the highest common denominator and then scaling down makes sense, though that isn't what they did this generation (PS2==>Xbox ports).

 

I'm not sure whether such speculation makes me feel more intrigued about the PS3, or concerned about the longterm prominence 360. This is a legitimate concern. I grew tired of the N64's blurry/choppy games due to my experience on the PC... so I jumped on the Dreamcast. It's life was shortlived, so I bought an Xbox and Gamecube. The Gamecube has a few awesome games, but no where near what I got out of the Xbox, so it hasn't been the best investment (worth it though). The Xbox is being succeeded after four years. Here comes the 360 which like the Xbox, may only have a four year lifespan and may give me that underpowered feeling in a couple years (like the N64). Whereas the PS3 will probably have a longer lifespan and is rumored to not have that not-so-fresh-feeling-so-soon.

 

All based on speculation and rumor, but it is a legitimate concern for someone who consistently tries to make wise purchase investments. I spent 6 months researching my TV purchase, and am second guessing my 3 year old TV purchase because it doesn't support 720p.

 

Who am I fooling. I'm going to buy a PS3 and 360. But I thought I'd disclose my thoughts.

[Camp]

I have to disagree. IMO, the Dreamcast did start the next generation. If not, would you place it with N64 and PS1? I would hope not. The technical abilites of the DC far exceeded those 2 consoles, whereas the PS2 never had such are large gap, despite having better textures.

 

This is off topic. The point isn't where I think the current gen started. I'd happily respond if you want to take this discussion to a new thread.

[merlot]

This is off topic. The point isn't where I think the current gen started. I'd happily respond if you want to take this discussion to a new thread.

I don't think it's completely off topic, since some (includng me) are making comparisons between the Xbox 360's early launch / rumored under powered against PS3's hype, later release, and supposedly much more powerful specs.

 

If the technological gap is the same as DC vs PS2, would folks consider the PS3 the real next generation and the 360 stuck in between or with the old generation like some say the DC was?

[Camp]

Alright.

It doesn't matter when the current generation started (with Dreamcast or PS2). What does matter to me is that Sega failed to see the importance of emerging texturing techniques. Part of that is because the PowerVR based GPU was fairly unique.

 

I don't think the PS2/Dreamcast issue is relevant this time around because the GPU manufacturers build toward known specifications in DirectX. ATI and nVidia use different designs to get to the same end result. That result is the same due to today's emergence of the DirectX API as a standard. At the time the Dreamcast was being developed we were in the API wild west.

 

Now that DirectX provides somewhat of a unified industry standard for graphics technology we have a good idea of what's possible between now and the next few years. It's a safe bet that the next generation GPUs in the 360 and PS3 will support features found in the current DirectX 9 and probably some found in the next version (DirectX 10, DirectX Next, or Avalon). The point is we know with a fair amount of certainty what these systems will be capable. They are designed with the same general goals in mind.

 

Each console will be using the same techniques. This wasn't the case with the Dreamcast. PS2, Xbox, & Gamecube were all designed with the same fundamental graphics techniques in mind -just like Xbox 360, PS3, and (presumably) Revolution. The Dreamcast was kind of it's own generation because it didn't share the same design principles as PS2, Xbox, & Gamecube. The texturing differences were great enough that a non-gamer could see the differences between Dreamcast & PS2 games. Such differences weren't nearly as obvious between Xbox, PS2, & Gamecube and they won't be as obvious in the next generation.

[JFo]

ok they [sony] have GT, God of War, all the Square Enix games, Twisted Metal, WipEout (mmmm PS3 WipEout), Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank.. are those big enough/popular enough to stand toe to toe with Halo? I'm not so sure anymore

 

I doubt Sony is disappointed at all with the way those games have sold. Maybe they haven't pushed the outrageous numbers that Halo and Halo 2 have, but it's wrong to suggest that Sony no longer has a strong lineup of software to bring to the PS3 because of MS's juggernaut. In fact, I would say that the sheer number and variety of quality games (many of which you mentioned) is more beneficial to hardware sales than the handful of really big franchises MS currently holds. That's not to say that the Xbox franchises aren't as good. I'm just saying that there's more of them on the PS2. Besides, wasn't the best-selling game of last year Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for the PS2?

 

I don't think Sony's in a position where they have to worry about shoring up third-party exclussive deals. With two massiviely successful consoles under their belt, they have all the clout they want with developers, and many of them would be foolish to turn away from the PS3 now. If Sony gets to where Nintendo is, then they'd have something to worry about. At the moment though, I'd say they're doing quite well.

[kelley]

It's a safe bet that the next generation GPUs in the 360 and PS3 will support features found in the current DirectX 9 and probably some found in the next version (DirectX 10, DirectX Next, or Avalon).

 

WGF(Windows Graphics Foundation) 1.0 is what DirectX 10 is now called. Also I do believe that Sony's GPU API is built off of nVidia's strength, OpenGL.

[General Zot]

For probably 75% of the people here, this is devolving into a pointless discussion. We're going to buy both the PS3 and Xbox 360 when they come out, so do we really give a damn which is more powerful and why?

 

Let's steer this thread back to discussing what we know about the next xbox and leave the PS3 to it's own thread.

[merlot]

Each console will be using the same techniques. This wasn't the case with the Dreamcast. PS2' date=' Xbox, & Gamecube were all designed with the same fundamental graphics techniques in mind -just like Xbox 360, PS3, and (presumably) Revolution. The Dreamcast was kind of it's own generation because it didn't share the same design principles as PS2, Xbox, & Gamecube. The texturing differences were great enough that a non-gamer could see the differences between Dreamcast & PS2 games. Such differences weren't nearly as obvious between Xbox, PS2, & Gamecube and they won't be as obvious in the next generation.[/quote']

Sorry, I just don't see how you can group consoles together due to similarities in graphics techniques, and I'm fairly sure the general gaming community doesn't either. The way you put it, the Sega Saturn, PS1, and N64 would be all different generations. I'm fairly positive they didn't all use the same techniques.

 

Maybe someone else can jump in here, but the next generation is usually defined by a technological leap in graphics and sound. The DC clearly had this over the PS1 and N64, but the PS2 did not have the huge leap over the DC. The PS2 was only released only a year later, correct?

 

Also, somehow I doubt Sony will be using a MS developed technology (Direct X) for their graphics.

 

[EDIT] Giga posted while I was still typing mine.... looks like OpenGL then for the PS3.

[Whooter]

For probably 75% of the people here' date=' this is devolving into a pointless discussion. We're going to buy both the PS3 and Xbox 360 when they come out, so do we really give a damn which is more powerful and why?

[/quote']

 

As the great David Byrne and the Talking Heads once said..."Stop Making Sense"...