Breaking: Intel Based Macs to run Windows with "Boot Camp"..

Apple.com ^

[Terpfen]

Yep, that's what I was referring to before--the annnounced European price is irrelevant to the US price.

[ladyshealth]

>>Nevermind things like polygon counts per model, texture memory, and soforth. 720p is merely 1280x720;

I knew this was coming next. ;-)

Some games feature hundreds (if not the thousands of Kameo's 3000+ ogre army) of enemies on screen. But most don't. Let's say most feature dozens of enemies. Both systems can handle this quite capabily running full screen anti-aliasing, texture mapping, polygons, etc.

>>The difference between the 360 and the PS3 is not 720p

720p is a restriction of sorts, limiting the amount of pixels, polygons, colors, etc that can appear on the screen. Both systems are capable of processing over a million polygons per second (at least by their claims). In fact, supposedly the 360 can process 500 million polygons per second. That's about 50 polygons per pixel at 720p! Now, reality is that it won't ever hit 500 polygons. Even beautiful high graphic demos are only hitting 500,000 polygons or so....

My point is that with the restrictions of 720p, neither system will outperform the other.

>>Another presumptious statement that has no basis in fact, because we do not have final PS3 hardware to compare to the shipping X360 hardware.

True.

>>No, no, no, no. You are again confusing fill rate, polygon counts, and physics calculations with display resolution.

No I'm not. The increase in resolution may require more polygons and physics calculations. (Polygons don't have to be increased at higher resolutions mind you, but the calculations will increase). However, not everything requires an increase. For distant backgrounds, pre-rendered scenery is fine.

Also, consider that a landscape of grass could bee just several images of different sizes copied all over the scene. You don't have to render each blade of grass, you can render 100 blades once and copy the bitmaps over and over, all while keeping a staggering level of detail. Wind? No problem -- the grass can blow in the same direction. (I used to program video games)

>>Uou can create games that allow you to view scenery for miles around, with blades of grass that have individual physics calculations for how the wind affects their swaying, and you can do it all at 320x240 if you so wish.

I think you think I'm throwing out physics and polygons etc. I'm not, I'm just saying that the relatively small window of 720p means paired up with these systems holds back the capabilities of the systems.

>> You do not need 1080p for these things, and there will be little if any PS3 games that support 1080p. You have a mistaken impression of technology, and furthermore are comparing hardware that has yet to be finalized with a shipping product.

This is very true -- it's all speculation. ;-)

>>it is just a higher resolution than console games have run at in the past. The difference between the 360 and the PS3 is not 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, but rather the sustained graphics capabilities a game can offer at a given resolution.

And my point is at 720p, neither system breaks a sweat so to speak. Niether one is going ot look any better than the other due to the limitations 720p imposes on screen real estate or polygon and physics demands.

>>Another presumptious statement that has no basis in fact, because we do not have final PS3 hardware to compare to the shipping X360 hardware.

I'll give you the point that we have no facts here. I'm just arguing from the side of the restrictions of 720p. The presumption is that both machines excel at this resolution. The 360 certainly does, and I presume Sony wouldn't release a machine that couldn't at least match the 360.

>>There are no "technical limitations of 720p." Either the hardware can output at 1280x720, or it cannot.

lol. 1280x720 is a limitation itself. There are only 921,600 pixels to work with. A system could process 4 trillion polygons per second, there aren't enough pixels to tell the difference between that and a system that does 500 million polygons per second producing a lesser quality image but at the same speed.

The end results will be "downsized" by the 1280x720 pixel array. And consider that even if a "boss" creature consists of 120,000 polygons -- not all need to be calculated to display the image. This is my point, that the limitations imposed by the pixel array itself is a limitation on the machines.

>>Well, no, now that I think of it, there are one or two that just came out. 1080p will become widely available beginning later this year, ...You can't criticize the PS3 for being delayed, then bash it for supporting output technology that's "ahead of its time."

LOL. Nothing wrong with my statement. Sony promised it spring and has backtracked, so from that perspective it's late to market. From a technology perspective, its too early to market. These are not mutually exclusive statements, contrary to what you are saying.

>> If 1080p will catch on in 2 years, why should people wait 5 years for a 1080p-capable console?

I'm not saying they will. What I'm saying is that it from a technological (not marketing or sales) perspective, it would be better for Sony to wait another year at least. Cell processor prices will drop, become more powerful and so forth. A much better system could be produced in a year or two just in time for 1080p's availability for the average Joe.

>>You're still missing the point about 1080p here: both the console AND THE GAME have to support 1080p, in addition to the TV, in order to output at that resolution.

It's true that games can use different modes of resolution. What remains to be seen is how well a PS3 can actully perform at 1080p. Speculation is that it is magnificent...

>> That's why 1080p versus 720p versus 1080i is not the big deal you claim it to be: the real competition between the PS3 and X360 will come from their ease of use for developers, their overall graphical capabilities, their installed market, and their total game development cost.

So far, Sony appears to be at a disadvantage here. More than one developer has commented that the 360 is easy to develop for. Heck, for that matter ,the PS2 has an awesome processor, but few developers took full advantage of it due to the complexity of programming it.

However, outside of platform games, games will essentially be the same on both systems. The PS3 will be able to display them at 1080p and the 360 won't. What remains to be seen, as you allude to, is how well the ps3 can perform at 1080p.

>>It is silly to say things like "the X360 will outdo the PS3 at 720p" when we don't know the capabilities of the PS3 yet.

It's silly to say either one will -- the 720p limitations are real limitations. It's probably silly to say that Sony will release a machine that couldn't hang with the 360 at 720p.

>>The PS3's "true glory" will come from the quality of its games--and the Playstation has historically offered not only the highest quantity of games, but the highest quality.

True, but it's presumed that there will be some killer games. A killer game at 720p looks fantastic at 1080p. There is a distinct difference in photorealism, etc..

>>It is difficult to beat the combination of Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, and Final Fantasy.

GT? I think it's time has passed. MGS will be a hit, GTA is also getting old. Some games, such as Final Fantasy have many years left in them. This is the danger that Microsoft faces with Halo 3 -- it may be great, but some other game will come out which is earth shattering and eclipses Halo 3. As better games come out, sure start to fade...

>>I'm sorry, but your arguments are bordering on the satirical.

;-)

[Old_Mil]

>Apple hardware quality is going to hell in a handbasket.

It's not what it was in the old days, that's for sure. Then again, the Macs of 20 years ago were so solid, I'd imagine that many of them have outlived their purchasers.

[Terpfen]

Both systems can handle this quite capabily running full screen anti-aliasing, texture mapping, polygons, etc.

I would certainly hope both consoles have polygons...

720p is a restriction of sorts

No, it isn't. It's merely a display resolution. 720p is not a technical limit in any way. The limit comes from what the hardware can handle at that resolution. The resolution itself is not the bottleneck, and every game should handle output at 720p fine. The issue is whether or not the PS3 has the horsepower to output at 1080p--1920x1080. We shall see.

The increase in resolution may require more polygons and physics calculations.

Compared to what, the previous generation? Polygon counts and physics calculations ALWAYS increase from generation to generation.

I'm just saying that the relatively small window of 720p means paired up with these systems holds back the capabilities of the systems.

You've presented 720p as a technical hurdle, one which the X360 for some reason would outperform the PS3 at, without knowing the final capabilities of the PS3. Nowhere did you say that 720p would limit the consoles--and if anything, 720p will be standard fare.

Niether one is going ot look any better than the other due to the limitations 720p imposes on screen real estate or polygon and physics demands.

There's more to a game looking good than display resolution. There are polygon counts, texture quality, aesthetic design, special effects, and so on. Suikoden V is a low-resolution game with character models of a few hundred polygons and model texture limits of 512x512, yet the game looks amazing.

1280x720 is a limitation itself.

1280x720 is not the limitation. The limitation comes from what the developer can accomplish at that resolution. And given Microsoft's requirement that every X360 game support 720p at the least, it's more like a feature.

A killer game at 720p looks fantastic at 1080p. There is a distinct difference in photorealism, etc..

Photorealism is not the sole guideline on which a game's aesthetics should be judged. I again refer to Suikoden V, which is hardly photorealistic, yet is still gorgeous.

GT? I think it's time has passed. MGS will be a hit, GTA is also getting old. Some games, such as Final Fantasy have many years left in them.

If Gran Turismo's time had passed, Microsoft wouldn't bother with Forza Motorsport. GTA is due for a revamp, and the rumors contain some pretty interesting ideas--an MMO GTA, for example. Regardless of our opinions on these games, they sell millions of copies, and will headline the PS3--and Microsoft has only one true response, and that's Forza Motorsport. KOTOR and Jade Empire do not counter Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts and Suikoden and Wild ARMs and Xenosaga and all the others. Dead or Alive doesn't counter Tekken (as much as I wish it would.) Halo and Ninja Gaiden are about the only games without true counterparts in the PlayStation camp.

The war is going to come down to games, and Microsoft doesn't have them.

[ladyshealth]

>>No, it isn't. It's merely a display resolution. 720p is not a technical limit in any way.

Really? Can you display a 4000 x 4000 image on 720p without downsizing or dropping pixels? No. If 720p didn't have limitations, you could do this. So, you'll have to ceede this point that in fact 720p restricts the amount of pixels which can be displayed, hence a limitation. To you it may not be a significant limitation, but it is a limitation.

>>The limit comes from what the hardware can handle at that resolution.

If hardware could display up to 10,000 x 10,000, 720p would still limit it to 720p resolution. Get it? It's a standard which has limits, hence a limitation.

>> The resolution itself is not the bottleneck, and every game should handle output at 720p fine.

It's not a bottlneck, but it is a restriction.

>>You've presented 720p as a technical hurdle, one which the X360 for some reason would outperform the PS3 at,

I never said the 360 would outperform the ps3 at 720p -- if you bother to READ what I said, I said neither should outperform the other at 720p.

>>There's more to a game looking good than display resolution. There are polygon counts, texture quality, aesthetic design, special effects, and so on.

True, you can have 1080p and a crappy game -- the resolution won't save it..

>>80x720 is not the limitation. The limitation comes from what the developer can accomplish at that resolution.

Sure it's a limitation. It's a finite number of pixels.. It's true that a developer can take advantage of this resolution...

>>And given Microsoft's requirement that every X360 game support 720p at the least, it's more like a feature.

720p is a standard with the limits of 1280x720. Look, you are missing the point here, the key is 720p imposes limits on what can be displayed. The machines have to work with this limitation..

>>Photorealism is not the sole guideline on which a game's aesthetics should be judged.

heh, but it is what the ps3 crowd is judging the PS3 on...

>>e war is going to come down to games, and Microsoft doesn't have them.

;-) wait till you see whats on the shelf this Christmas season..

[DemosCrash]

They never said "for the US."

Sony was deliberatly obfuscating as a means of downplaying the competitive threat of Xbox360, and the fact of the matter is that the media interpreted Sony's release date as applying to the U.S. Sony can hem and haw, but few people accept their explanation that the release date applied solely to Japan. It's just not credible, and that's why everybody announced that PS3 slipped to fall 2006.

I don't care what financial analysts say or think.

That's nice. Maybe discounting expert analysis is a good way for you to go. But I doubt it. These guys know component prices. They know what Sony's specs are. They can find out volume rates on any of the components just as easily as Sony can.

The few realtime PS3 demos we have--Metal Gear Solid 4, the Final Fantasy 7 tech demo--look noticably better than Xbox360 games.

So what. Few consumers will have 1080p. It will probably take YEARS for serious market penetration. Have you checked out the price of 1080p sets? It's ridiculous. So, whether the games look better on PS3 is interesting but largely not applicable to real world consumer use. I agree with Ladyshealth: PS3 specs were too early. Microsoft bet on the marketing data in using 720p -- and the result will probably be that Xbox360 may offer 1080p down the road when market rates justify it -- and component prices are lower. We do not know how much the PS3 will cost here--and we won't until Sony announces a price, probably at E3. My money is on $399.

[Terpfen]

Really? Can you display a 4000 x 4000 image on 720p without downsizing or dropping pixels? No. If 720p didn't have limitations, you could do this.

Except we're talking about video games here. Of course you can't view all of a 4000x4000 image in a 1280x720 window. But as far as games go, this is like complaining that you can only see the alleyway you're in, rather than the entire city. At 1280x720, you're still seeing more of the city than you would on a PS2.

I never said the 360 would outperform the ps3 at 720p

Yes, you did. Read your comment #52: "The Sony really can't outclass the 360 at 720p.."

Look, you are missing the point here, the key is 720p imposes limits on what can be displayed

And 1080p can't display your hypothetical 4000x4000 image full-screen either. That doesn't mean 1080p is a limitation on gameplay.

heh, but it is what the ps3 crowd is judging the PS3 on...

Indeed. I stay away from the GameFAQs/IGN/Gamespot/whatever forums for that reason.

;-) wait till you see whats on the shelf this Christmas season..

The PS3, of course! And depending on the PS3's price, possibly a cheaper X360... though I really doubt Microsoft will cut the price so soon.

[Terpfen]

Sony was deliberatly obfuscating as a means of downplaying the competitive threat of Xbox360

Indeed, and I've already said as much.

and the fact of the matter is that the media interpreted Sony's release date as applying to the U.S.

So Sony is now bound by the beliefs of the gaming media?

Maybe discounting expert analysis is a good way for you to go.

It absolutely is, since most analyses are nothing more than guesses as to component prices, and then a statement of a final bill of materials, with the presumption that this BOM will be the final MSRP. See Merill Lynch's report a couple of months ago.

Few consumers will have 1080p. It will probably take YEARS for serious market penetration. Have you checked out the price of 1080p sets? It's ridiculous.

Totally agreed.

So, whether the games look better on PS3 is interesting but largely not applicable to real world consumer use.

Graphics absolutely are important. Video gaming is a visual medium, and sadly, there are a lot of people who make purchasing decisions based on how pretty a game is.

and the result will probably be that Xbox360 may offer 1080p down the road when market rates justify it

They can't. The 360 cannot suddenly output at 1080p with a firmware update, and it wouldn't be worth it to release a new version of the 360 with 1080p compatibility. Microsoft will wait until the next generation to release a 1080p-capable console. Assuming their shareholders don't revolt over the massive financial drain that is the Xbox division.

We do not know how much the PS3 will cost here--and we won't until Sony announces a price, probably at E3. My money is on $399.

Agreed.

[ladyshealth]

>>Except we're talking about video games here. Of course you can't view all of a 4000x4000 image in a 1280x720 window.

Why? Because the 1280x70 array is a limitation.

>>But as far as games go, this is like complaining that you can only see the alleyway you're in, rather than the entire city. At 1280x720, you're still seeing more of the city than you would on a PS2.

Not only do you see more city, but finer details. Textures are nicer, more realistic, etc at high resolutions.

>>Yes, you did. Read your comment #52: "The Sony really can't outclass the 360 at 720p.."

Yes, but I never said the 360 outclassed the sony either, hence, they will perform the same due to the limitations imposed by 720p. That's my whole argument -- neither is going to do better...

>>And 1080p can't display your hypothetical 4000x4000 image full-screen either. That doesn't mean 1080p is a limitation on gameplay.

1080p is a limitation on game play, especially with larger monitors. What happens when organic led wall panels are the norm? 1080p will be pixelated and newer standards will be created. At some point though, the limitations are meaningless. Who is going to have a 100' x 100' screen in their home requiring 1 million x 1 million pixels?

>>;-) wait till you see whats on the shelf this Christmas season..

The PS3, of course! And depending on the PS3's price, possibly a cheaper X360... though I really doubt Microsoft will cut the price so soon.

I meant in terms of games. Most launch games are crap. It's the second wave which brings on better games...

I expect MS to seriously undercut the PS3 in price and bundle. Don't be surprised to see 360 with 2 games and 2 controllers for $225.

Don't get me wrong, I favor neither system. I have a 720p television, and either one will do fine for me. Whatever is cheaper or free is what I'll be happy with. My point is that if all you have is a 720p television, save yourself some $ and get a 360. Got a 1080p tv? Get a ps3.

The systems are so powerful now, you won't lose regardless of what system you get.

[Terpfen]

Yes, but I never said the 360 outclassed the sony either,

You didn't have to. Saying that the PS3 can't outclass the 360 is the equivalent of saying that the 360 will outclass the PS3. Let's not argue semantics here.

It's the second wave which brings on better games...

Not necessarily. The second wave brings on more technically competent games, but not necessarily better games. Barring significant developments at E3, the 360 doesn't have much to offer against the PS3's launch.

My point is that if all you have is a 720p television, save yourself some $ and get a 360. Got a 1080p tv? Get a ps3.

I have a 720p TV as well--well, 1366x768 to be exact--and I plan to get a PS3. Why? Because it will have the games I want to play. I'm also picking up a 360 at some point, whenever we find out more about Ninja Gaiden 2.

[ladyshealth]

>>You didn't have to. Saying that the PS3 can't outclass the 360 is the equivalent of saying that the 360 will outclass the PS3. Let's not argue semantics here.

If I said you couldn't beat me in a chess match, I'm not necessarily saying I could beat you either -- a draw is always possible. If you reread my posts, you can see that the context is that the Sony system will not beat the xbox, but I never say the xbox will beat the ps3. The context is that at 720p they are equal.. this isn't semantics...

>>I have a 720p TV as well--well, 1366x768 to be exact

Same here.. needed wxga resoution.

[Be_Sting]

What is a Virus?
What is a Worm?
What is a Trojan?

When I listened to PC lovers tell me that Mac should do what Windows does...
I always respond ... No, Windows needs to do what Mac does!

Now I can just respond, They do!

Are Mac's more expensive? Yes. But the last year I had to depend on a PC, I spent half the year "saving" it from everything in the world. I make too much money to spend my time "saving" something that saved me $1200. PC's become WAY more expensive than Mac's ... considering down time.

Oh, and yea, not all Mac people are more arrogant than the vast majority of PC folks.
But the most arrogant PC dude I ever met, used to brag on PC's all the time ...
Called Mac’s by real bad names …
I was in his office the other day when his whole system crashed ...
right in front me!

Delicious.

[Diligent]

Thanks for the link