we have not see all... [Archive] - PMS

H2O SkywalkerX

09-02-2006, 04:02 PM

i disagree. in my opinion. the Wii is the only "next gen" console. it's the only thing that is bringing something really new to the table. and as we can see with the success of the DS, compared to the PSP. i believe the Wii is gong to wipe the floor.

and i agree that the 360 hasn't shown it's true potential. and it won't probably for a few more months. then we will see hopefully some good looking, and good story games. unlike prey, which looks decent, but the storyline is so dumb and short it's a pointless game.

and i think the ps3 will have the best looking and best games coming. most disagree, but i really think that it will. ps2 had hundreds and thousands of games, and at least a quarter of them are hardcore games that looked good. silent hill, mgs, dmc, for example.

so the 360 wins it in the fact that it's true potential is not seen yet, and it will have probably the best online interface. Wii wins the whole next gen war, because, well, it IS a next gen console. and the ps3 wins in gameplay and in graphics.

that's my sploog :)

SuperSaiyan4

09-02-2006, 04:19 PM

Let me ask you all...Have you all seen Gears Of War? What was that a YES? Well think again thats a NO you haven't no one has in fact I am talking about the TRUE Gears Of War ;)

Epic said that the video everyone saw of the game and parts of it being played was only running on 1 CORE and 1 THREAD the final game will be using ALL 3 CORES and 6 THREADS ;)

Also Sony have lost a lot of exclusives anyways so there aint much reason to get a PS3.

H2O SkywalkerX

09-02-2006, 04:38 PM

gears of war is going to be a bad game, on the mere fact that the gameplay looks gawd awful. and the multiplayer sucks. the graphics do look good, except for the blood effects, the blood sucks.

and that isn't completely true. ps3 and sony still have a ton of exclusives. games you probably have never even heard of in fact, but are still amazing games. DMC will not go to 360, capcom, or sony, will not let that happen. mgs, i dont remember, but i'm pretty sure it's still an exclusive, and it's an amazing game. but of course, these games are not launch titles. so it really isn't a good system to buy at launch. but neither was the 360, and people still bought it.

you can't count sony out yet, no matter how much you might want to. it's being launched soon. and if i hear from anyone that the launch titles suck, then i'm just going to say, Kameo, PDZ.

KilloWertz

09-02-2006, 10:24 PM

gears of war is going to be a bad game, on the mere fact that the gameplay looks gawd awful. and the multiplayer sucks. the graphics do look good, except for the blood effects, the blood sucks.

You don't know that. No offense, but people should play the game before passing judgment on it. I have heard nothing but great things about Gears of War from people who have played it.

CaptainDemon

09-02-2006, 10:33 PM

yeah, I have high hopes for Gears of War given Epic Games' track record for great games (minus the god awful Unreal 2). And besides, CliffyB is a pwnzor.

Dizzydude

09-03-2006, 12:18 AM

360 had a pretty killer launch, best launch of any system IMO (games wise).

How can you say Gears sucks if all you've seen are vids, and haven't played it? Yea, developers need more time to get used to the multiple processors and such. All systems bring something unique to the table, some things are totally new while others are refined from their predecessors.

Wii360 FTW!

SuperSaiyan4

09-03-2006, 04:26 AM

So extreme fanboys exist here also? lmfao.

PS3 hasnt got any games left for it - DMC4 will probably be coming to the 360 anyway Capcom USA requested to Capcom Japan to make it so.

Also Kojami said that there will be a MGS on the Xbox 360 but a different one - I dont like the game anyway so it doesnt bother me - we have HALO 3 ;)

How can a person pass judgement on a game like GoW saying its rubbish etc without even playing it? Oh wait PS fanboys.

You know what PSfanboys? I made the right choice the day I bought an Xbox because clearly I can see it HAS a bright future - awesome set of HARDCORE games not PSnoob type games, a better pad, fantastic online service, fantastic looking console AND superb add-ons to enhance my gaming experience with the periperhals etc.

All you PSfanboys get is an expensive 'Super Computer' lmfao! with no games.

What has Sony got left? MGS4 and FF? Big deal we have far more killer apps.

H2O SkywalkerX

09-03-2006, 05:08 AM

EDIT:ugh there is no point in arguing really. because we both have our own opinions and nothing is going to change that. so bleh. i might as well delete this post.

EDIT2: yeah i removed it. sorry, but it's not worth it. my opinion is mine. and to me, my opinion is right. however, don't call someone a fanboy, when you yourself are one :)

RandomHero

09-03-2006, 05:41 AM

The PS3 is just a big toaster sized PSP =P I agree that the true potential of the 360 is yet to be unleashed, but power doesn't always make a console better. When Microsoft have the competition from Sony and Nintendo they will be under pressure to deliver some top notch games, can't wait.

SuperSaiyan4

09-03-2006, 08:42 AM

Esty H2O

09-03-2006, 08:58 AM

Well, well, well, let's not fight over who's a fanboy and who's not. PS3 looks to have some power to it, when they showed the trailer at E3 (sorry Untold Legends) as for most of the other games, they were just renderings and nothing was really playable. But time will tell who will have the largest user installed base. Xbox is a great system and in no way do I plan on buying a PS3 right out, only due to the fact that the only game on that system that interests me is MGS4 (again no offence). It's just one of those things with sony this year, so far they've made a load of mistakes and prolly will make more. But they did so with the PS2's launch as well, most of the launch titles were garbage yet in the long run it outsold anything else. The point is, who cares what system is the best. It's all about the games. Oh btw, Gears of war looks great.

asphix

09-03-2006, 10:32 AM

from a purely technical standpoint.. the ps3 is leagues ahead of the x360. You really almost can not compare the two on a number crunching level. THe Ps3 would destroy the x360.

However, thats not the only thing that contributes to the end result. WHile the Ps3 is leagues ahead of the x360 with its cell processor among other components its development tools pale in comparson to those on the x360. Anyone whos been following computer gaming closely since the mid 90's will acknowledge how Direct X has pretty much single handedly revolutionized the way games are played.

It hasnt all been those uber expensive 300-600 dollar video cars. Direct X is what gave those video cards with all their Pixel and Vertex shaders purpose. Its the same on the x360... it may not be as powerful, but the development tools and the rendering language is higly optimized allowing it to create just as good if not possibly better visuals.

A good example would be Crysis coming out in tandem with Windows Vista and Direct X 10. Direct X 10 video cards wont be leagues ahead of what we see now. It wouldnt be as huge a change as if we saw Realtime Raytracing introduced.. but because directX 10 is coming along with it, the visual capabilities of the game are increased nearly 10 fold. As we see new games on Direct X 10 technology released, the graphics bar is going to be pushed to a whole new level. GFX cards normally gain all the praise and credit in this by the general consumer.. but the software that specifies how that hardware is even more important than the hardware.

Whos to say which will be better.. ps3 or x360? THats a subjective question with no correct answer to be found at the moment. The outcome depends on too many wild cards currently to be able to decisively say either way.. as is evident by the confusion and contradictions many professionals who watch the market are radiating.. however dont delude yourself that the x360 is more powerful spec. wise. Microsoft is a software company, that is what they do. Xbos live, Market Place, the dashboard, XBLA, The new small developer tool kit they just released (i forget the acronym) and their development tools and rendering engine designed to use the hardware in the x360 is where their strength lies.. and thats what they're going to use to grab market share from sony and nintendo who cant compete on that same level.

H2O SkywalkerX

09-03-2006, 11:41 AM

Whos to say which will be better.. ps3 or x360? THats a subjective question with no correct answer to be found at the moment. The outcome depends on too many wild cards currently to be able to decisively say either way.. as is evident by the confusion and contradictions many professionals who watch the market are radiating.. however dont delude yourself that the x360 is more powerful spec. wise. Microsoft is a software company, that is what they do. Xbos live, Market Place, the dashboard, XBLA, The new small developer tool kit they just released (i forget the acronym) and their development tools and rendering engine designed to use the hardware in the x360 is where their strength lies.. and thats what they're going to use to grab market share from sony and nintendo who cant compete on that same level.

^yep

Dizzydude

09-03-2006, 01:42 PM

The reason I'm not too into PS3 and all that is for a few reasons. First off, Sony seems to make a lot of blank promises, they are a "Me Too" company as in, nothing is really original. Apparently they will have achievements, they have a 'guide button', a motion sensing thing and even down to the small things like their 'premium' version even has chrome trim around the DVD drive. I mean come on! Plus with statements like, "the PS3 even rivals super-computers", no thanks.

I like to see original ideas, or refined ones that really revolutionize/evolves gaming, not some copied idea that's been done before.

RandomHero

09-03-2006, 04:10 PM

I have a better way to find out the ultimate next-gen console. It has nothing to do with the gameplay
or game quality, just medieval mayhem.

The 360 could whallop the heck out of the Wii and still have those shiny bits left to demolish a PS3.
But when it comes to controllers the nun-chuck-ness of the Wii controller easily rivals the boomerang
PS3 model. And the 360 would probably hurt if you chuck it at someone.

If you were stuck at sea with only your chosen console, anything but the Wii would be suicide as you
might be dragged to your moist demise, but the ring o' light on the 360 can be used to signal passing aircraft.

If you somehow survive and become stranded on a desert island you can quickly make a fire with the flaming
exhausts from the 360. A PS3 would crack open even the most resistant of coconuts. And you could draw a little
face on a Wii and hey presto, a little Japanese friend.

And if you have a bank balance that isn't the same as Bill Gates' the 360 and the Wii are the only practical choice.

SuperSaiyan4

09-04-2006, 04:10 AM

Xbox 360 is a games console, the PS3 doesn't know what it is:rolleyes:

Kal-El

09-04-2006, 04:23 AM

I think it's stupid to think we've seen what the 360 can do. It's only been out a year, and heck the developers still aren't using code for the multi core yet (they're still learning how to do it).

Come back with this thread 4-5 years from now. Until then it's kinda pointless. What a crappy console it would be if it's used to it's full potential in less than a year.

SuperSaiyan4

09-04-2006, 04:34 AM

Kal-El

09-04-2006, 04:40 AM

Many games are using all 3 cores, but I dont think the games are optimised to use the cores fully.

Geomatry wars uses all 3 cores and so does Dead Rising.

They are not using them the way they were intended I'm sure. Probably using all three cores as if it was one big core or something to that effect.

As I said. They are YEARS away from even coming close to the 360's full potential.

RandomHero

09-04-2006, 04:42 AM

By then the Xbox 361 will be out.

SuperSaiyan4

09-04-2006, 04:42 AM

They are not using them the way they were intended I'm sure. Probably using all three cores as if it was one big core or something to that effect.

As I said. They are YEARS away from even coming close to the 360's full potential.

Nope sorry the games DO use all 3 cores, ...Everyone knows Dead Rising uses all 3 cores its been said all over the place on the net.

Same with Geomatry wars. :rolleyes:

Kal-El

09-04-2006, 04:48 AM

Nope sorry the games DO use all 3 cores, ...Everyone knows Dead Rising uses all 3 cores its been said all over the place on the net.

Same with Geomatry wars. :rolleyes:

Um that doesn't mean they're using them independently like they were meant to be used. Even if they were doesn't change the fact that they are still years away from even coming close to the 360's full potential.

SuperSaiyan4

09-04-2006, 05:02 AM

Um that doesn't mean they're using them independently like they were meant to be used. Even if they were doesn't change the fact that they are still years away from even coming close to the 360's full potential.

Have you actually read what it says about using all 3 cores on the net or are you basing your theories on what you *think* you know? Sorry to sound rude but its best if you do some research and look into how the games are using the power of the 360 before coming to such comments.

At present Gears Of War was said to only be running on 1 Core and 1 thread, bearing in mind that there are 2 threads per core it could be also (now I am assuming) that the games which are said to be using all 3 cores are perhaps not using all 6 threads.

Some info on how the 3 cores function http://librenix.com/?inode=7913

'
What this means when you are playing video games is that the Xbox 360 can dedicate one core entirely to producing sound, while another may split running the game's collision and physics engine. The system may allocate an entire processor just to rendering hi-def graphics. It's really up to the game developers how the system's considerable resources are used. With a multi-core processor, the system is powerful enough to pull off the computational demands needed for an amazing gaming experience without even breaking a sweat. ' Taken from http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/xbox-three-sixty.htm

Proof Geomatry Wars uses all 3 cores (BUT only 3 threads not 6)

'Only a few types of object affect the grid. As the grid system is rather expensive to calculate, it actually runs on the second core along with the audio system, (the first core being dedicated to gameplay and particles, the third is used to render the audio).'

Taken from: http://www.bizarreonline.net/news_article.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=64

KilloWertz

09-04-2006, 10:28 AM

This thread wasn't intented to be pointless. Blood Raven was saying that we have not seen it all yet, which is true. Gears of War looks amazing, but just imagine what the games will be like once they learn how to use the 3 cores even better.

Dex is just saying that they are not using the 3 cores to their full extent, not that they aren't using them at all. There is little doubt in my mind that there is much more that can be done with the cores. Even so, some of these games such as Dead Rising are great, but we are just beginning to see what the system can do.

Kal-El

09-04-2006, 11:39 AM

Have you actually read what it says about using all 3 cores on the net or are you basing your theories on what you *think* you know? Sorry to sound rude but its best if you do some research and look into how the games are using the power of the 360 before coming to such comments.

At present Gears Of War was said to only be running on 1 Core and 1 thread, bearing in mind that there are 2 threads per core it could be also (now I am assuming) that the games which are said to be using all 3 cores are perhaps not using all 6 threads.

Some info on how the 3 cores function http://librenix.com/?inode=7913

'
What this means when you are playing video games is that the Xbox 360 can dedicate one core entirely to producing sound, while another may split running the game's collision and physics engine. The system may allocate an entire processor just to rendering hi-def graphics. It's really up to the game developers how the system's considerable resources are used. With a multi-core processor, the system is powerful enough to pull off the computational demands needed for an amazing gaming experience without even breaking a sweat. ' Taken from http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/xbox-three-sixty.htm

Proof Geomatry Wars uses all 3 cores (BUT only 3 threads not 6)

'Only a few types of object affect the grid. As the grid system is rather expensive to calculate, it actually runs on the second core along with the audio system, (the first core being dedicated to gameplay and particles, the third is used to render the audio).'

Taken from: http://www.bizarreonline.net/news_article.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=64

Dude Invest a little less time in playing video games, and a little more time in reading comprehension. You apparently need it.

You think that after not even a year we've seen all that the 360 can do? This is it? It's as good as it gets?

The developers are still learning how to code on the 3 cores properly. The machine isn't being pushed at all. Don't let the stories of the 360 overheating while playing dead rising make you believe that it is because it only overheats because of a manufacturing flaw.

The vents are either too small or not enough or both, and the liquid cooling system inside doesn't work as well as they thought. It's not normal that a system overheats so easily and so often. I used to have my xbox next to a heater (when I brought it to a friends house it was the only place I could put it) and it never once overheated.

As I said (and Wertz backed me up, Thanks :) ) They might be using the 3 cores, but nowhere near their full extent (as your own post proved... they're using 3 threads and not the 6). Good thing too. The thing overheats so easily now, imagin if it was being push to the limits.

PMS love

09-04-2006, 11:51 AM

I am in love with x-box no doubt about it ... but another money making scheme by microsoft I am impressed/ not suprised

H2O SkywalkerX

09-04-2006, 12:24 PM

KilloWertz

09-04-2006, 02:26 PM

No problem Dex. When you're right, you're right. :)

Kal-El

09-04-2006, 03:15 PM

super saiyan.
you really have no idea what you are talking about.
and you think you are right, dex didn't say that all of the cores aren't being used, they just aren't being used to their potential.

also, in 4-5 years, the 360 will be like the xbox, dried up and useless. and the new xbox1080 will be out. microsoft has so much money, that they don't care about the system, they just want more money, and to do that, if they make a new system every 3 years. then they will just get more and more money. even though they lost millions on the xbox.

the full potential hasn't been seen. but once it does, they will just make a new system, and have to start all over again.
360 is a game console :rolleyes: yeah, that's what microsoft made it to be. ps3 is more a console than the 360, and as asphix said, the inside specs of the ps3 are unrivaled by anything. it literally blows the 360 away.

Can't really say anything about the ps3. We haven't seen or played it yet. It's nice to throw all the best state-of-the-art technology into a box and call it PS3, but it's what they do with the tech that counts. For all we know the blue-ray tech could be so new that devs can't code for it properly causing read errors when playing or other nasty tech.

New tech is nice, but often with new tech comes new problems.

Dizzydude

09-04-2006, 07:38 PM

I don't know how the PS3 is more a console than the 360 is..?

Microsoft is a lot better at hanging on to consoles, Nintendo comes out with one every other year it seems while it took the 360 four years. PS2 didn't really see any competition so they didn't need to focus too hard on a new console, until Microsoft came in... that's just my speculation :D

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD suck, I don't think they'll catch on at all. Who's going to pay extra when you're not really getting anything out of it at all. The exact same thing happened to mini-disc players, they were better than regular CD's but they didn't catch on. It's hype over nothing.

I don't care if the PS3 can turn water into wine, it's the games I (and everyone) should care about. So far I'm having a blast with the games on the 360, so it gets my vote. Plus the online rules, support for the system itself and games are great and other new features are awesome.

SuperSaiyan4

09-05-2006, 01:26 AM

What a load of pure nonsense!

I NEVER said this is what the Xbox 360 can do now I never said that!!

I was proving a point that the games ARE using all 3 cores as plenty of times he said no they are not.

Of course the games aren't using the system to its full potential since its not using all 6 threads and developers are being pretty slacking and lazy in regards to pushing the console to its truer limits in the visuals and AI department.

So far I am the one who has been right I cannot believe the ordasity of some people who talk false and are praised by all as 'The One'.

I have given links and evidence while others just talk on what they 'think' they know.

My point has been proven and my points have been stated if you still think otherwise then good luck.

Edit: Its comments like above ^ about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray that now tell me exactly why I was getting such a response, perhaps none of you have a clue about hardware and games in general.

Oh lastly...the Xbox 360 is NOT watercooled.

asphix

09-05-2006, 07:33 AM

Super Saiyan-

Technically, they are using all three cores.. but its essentially the same as if they werent using all three cores.

It has to do with generic load balancing and the software not being fully optimized for a threaded environment. Sure all three processor cores are being "used" but the primary core is probably loaded 60-100% with the other two being loaded up to 12%. Even if a core had a 0% load balance it could be argued that it is being "used".. as long as there is a potential for it to throw out a computation here or there on demand.

Don't believe everything you read on the net. We live in an age of marketing hype where anything is said to make a buck. And that you argue that geometry wars uses three processors is laughable! 90% of the game is shader effects. Theres barely any AI, its all rudementary scripted behavior (you can replicate it in a flash environment and run it on a pentium 3!). Thats not to say the game isnt complex in its own right.. but the majority of what is taxing the system in the game is the shader effects and I woudlnt be surprised if on the cores you see a load of something close to 25% on the primary core (with 12% being the dashboard) and 0-1% on the other two cores.

No game right now "uses" all three cores, as Dex Luther said. Developers will scream that they are simply to draw attention to their game.. and I'm sure some such as dead rising will do some load balancing to throw some minor sub tasks to the secondary cores. However, the world is still just entering the age of multi-threaded programming and multi-core wont see its full potential until software developers re-work how they code.

You cant just multi-thread everything. as there is a distinct order to how data needs to be processed. Sometimes there are cases which may be an exception. Where we will start to see the multi-core design flourish is when we start seeing advanced physics and AI which will be thrown at the other cores while the primary keeps doing what its always been doing. Think the new indiana jones game being developed by lucas arts and the state-of-the-art physics / AI they are implementing. That will be possible due to intelligent load balancing and multi-core hardware.

**edit** to add some "proof" for you to read up on, check out this (http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=117084&page=1&pp=20) thread on bit tech where we discussed the necessity of quad core in relation to dual core. While it doesnt tackle the same issue directly, you can get a general idea of what multi-core is useful for.. and you can be certain if multi-core isnt being used in a desktop environment on a PC, theres no way in hell its being used on a console with game code ;)

SuperSaiyan4

09-05-2006, 07:38 AM

YOU and everyone else here that has commented thus far are NOT developers nor have you developed ANY of those 360 titles.

What marketing hype? Dont give me that nonsense developers have clearly stated on what their games are using.

Developers have stated Dead Rising uses 3 cores and Geomatry wars.

I have clearly given a link to where a dev for Geomatry wars explains on how the 3 cores are being used.

One can assume that the cores are only being used with perhaps 1 thread at a certain perecentage.

But DO NOT make up your own theories and throw them down a the table to be the gospel truth because it is NOT.

I still cannot believe the ordasity of you people and now especially you.

I thought there were some actual intelligent folk on here, perhaps I was wrong??

Who would I believe someone who doesnt know for sure or someone who does know especially the person who MAKES THE GAME?

asphix

09-05-2006, 07:57 AM

I've got a feeling even if we got the word from a developer on these forums, you would want to see a picture, scanned finger print, ID badge and bith papers to proove he is who he (or she) says they are.

This argument is pointless.. Go read up on bit tech, Anandtech, toms hardware and get some general understanding of how multi-core environments function then maybe we can try this again. I highly dislike it when people play the whole, "i need proof" cat and mouse game. Believe what you'd like.. you only harm yourself ;)

by the way, have fun with your ps3 *SUPER COMPUTER* Maybe they should launch it at > $1,000 and call it a bargain and we should all run out and buy it happily.. according to your reasoning manufacturers and developers are always right in what they claim. Oh yeah, and I almost forgot, windows is the most secure OS environment to boot! Really it is, microsoft said so themselves!

SuperSaiyan4

09-05-2006, 08:07 AM

^ Thanks for proving my point on being clueless, wow what a comeback *rolls eyes*

r33hash

09-05-2006, 09:54 AM

asphix knows best.

Its obvious that we still haven't seen the full extent of power that the 360 will eventually be able to portray onto HDTV's around the world.

SuperSaiyan4

09-05-2006, 12:01 PM

asphix knows best.

Its obvious that we still haven't seen the full extent of power that the 360 will eventually be able to portray onto HDTV's around the world.

*Sigh* for good sake I know that we haven't seen the full extent of the Xbox 360 yet, we will see what it can really do in the next 3yrs at least.

Thats going by how the last few games on the Xbox that were PC ports like FarCry and Half Life 2 were which were pretty amazing for being on the Xbox visually.

r33hash

09-05-2006, 12:39 PM

Ya. Half Life 2 looked crazy good on the Xbox.

H2O SkywalkerX

09-05-2006, 02:08 PM

^ Thanks for proving my point on being clueless, wow what a comeback *rolls eyes*

trying to bash on one of the smartest people on these forums is just dumb.

seriously, you obviously think you know what you're talking about. but in truth you have no idea. i hate people who think they are the smartest people ever.

KilloWertz

09-05-2006, 04:41 PM

Saiyan, you are saying that games are using all 3 cores but not all of the threads. Dex was not disagreeing with you there. In a way, you are both saying the same thing in that regard. This is just silly.

Kal-El

09-05-2006, 05:12 PM

blah

KilloWertz

09-05-2006, 05:20 PM

blah

Pretty much. This whole discussion has become ridiculous.

Kal-El

09-05-2006, 05:26 PM

Pretty much. This whole discussion has become ridiculous.

Just because some kid thinks he knows everything because he read it on the Internet.

SuperSaiyan4

09-06-2006, 01:03 AM

Just because some kid thinks he knows everything because he read it on the Internet.

I aint some kid.

Oh and by the way arguing with one of the smartest people on here am I? Well guess what not soo smart when one is unable to correctly read ones post and see exactly on what one is trying to say.

I cannot blame you people for arguing against me since its clear your understanding to read correctly spoken and written English is rather difficult.

Have a nice day and continue living in your cuckoo world of weird beliefs and inaccurate assumptions of what you deem to think be true.

Kal-El

09-06-2006, 01:26 AM

I aint some kid.

Oh and by the way arguing with one of the smartest people on here am I? Well guess what not soo smart when one is unable to correctly read ones post and see exactly on what one is trying to say.

I cannot blame you people for arguing against me since its clear your understanding to read correctly spoken and written English is rather difficult.

Have a nice day and continue living in your cuckoo world of weird beliefs and inaccurate assumptions of what you deem to think be true.

Dude STFU already. Your shell might be aged, but you still act like a kid.

Yes Asphix is one of the smartest person on these forums. He spends his days (ok maybe not days, but a lot of time) reading up on the latest techno bable among other things. When he posts, it's because he knows what he's talking about.

What he posted made absolute sense. Even though he can't back it up with a source (you can't always go back and find the article you read weeks later), I have no doubt in my mind that it's true.

I remember the devs themselves along with J Allard himself in many interviews talked about it would take years to learn how to use all three cores (this was back right before launch). They compared it to learning how to ride a bike all over again.

You even stated yourself that they weren't using all three cores;

Proof Geomatry Wars uses all 3 cores (but only 3 threads not 6)

Not only do you argue without all the facts, you're also bad at math.

As you said there's 2 threads per core. Assuming that both threads on the first core are used (because why would they use one thread per core?), that leaves 1 thread. Do the math. Does 1 out of 4 = 4 out of 4? No. By your own statements you contradict that the xbox 360 uses all 3 cores. You did say Geometry wars uses all three cores, right? Or did you forget? Here I'll jog your memory:

Geomatry wars uses all 3 cores and so does Dead Rising.

As Asphix said; Using a core at 12% isn't really considered "using" a core. Heck I'd say not using a core at more than 50% on a constant basis doesn't count as using a core. They'll tell you they're using all three cores though to sell games.

Using a core would mean it's working. If you're at work and just sit there and only type a single letter every 10 minutes. Are you really working? No. If you type really slow all day, are you really working? No (you'll get fired). If a core only does something for a second every ten minutes or so, it's not working. If a core does below 50% of it's capacity, it's not really working.

Also, How many years were the devs saying that their new game was really pushing the xbox to it's limits? Point is devs will say anything to build hype. Looks like you've fallen for it.

PS: I can read and write in the english laguage just fine, thank you. Je peut aussi lire et ecrire en Francais, merci.

SuperSaiyan4

09-06-2006, 02:56 AM

Dude STFU already. Your shell might be aged, but you still act like a kid.

Yes Asphix is one of the smartest person on these forums. He spends his days (ok maybe not days, but a lot of time) reading up on the latest techno bable among other things. When he posts, it's because he knows what he's talking about.

What he posted made absolute sense. Even though he can't back it up with a source (you can't always go back and find the article you read weeks later), I have no doubt in my mind that it's true.

I remember the devs themselves along with J Allard himself in many interviews talked about it would take years to learn how to use all three cores (this was back right before launch). They compared it to learning how to ride a bike all over again.

You even stated yourself that they weren't using all three cores;

Not only do you argue without all the facts, you're also bad at math.

As you said there's 2 threads per core. Assuming that both threads on the first core are used (because why would they use one thread per core?), that leaves 1 thread. Do the math. Does 1 out of 4 = 4 out of 4? No. By your own statements you contradict that the xbox 360 uses all 3 cores. You did say Geometry wars uses all three cores, right? Or did you forget? Here I'll jog your memory:

As Asphix said; Using a core at 12% isn't really considered "using" a core. Heck I'd say not using a core at more than 50% on a constant basis doesn't count as using a core. They'll tell you they're using all three cores though to sell games.

Using a core would mean it's working. If you're at work and just sit there and only type a single letter every 10 minutes. Are you really working? No. If you type really slow all day, are you really working? No (you'll get fired). If a core only does something for a second every ten minutes or so, it's not working. If a core does below 50% of it's capacity, it's not really working.

Also, How many years were the devs saying that their new game was really pushing the xbox to it's limits? Point is devs will say anything to build hype. Looks like you've fallen for it.

PS: I can read and write in the english laguage just fine, thank you. Je peut aussi lire et ecrire en Francais, merci.

Are you a developer? Did you make the game Geomatry Wars? No, did a developer say the game uses all 3 cores? Yes.

I understand your logic and am open to reason however since a developer has clearly said something about a game that THEY have created who should I believe you people or the developer?

I choose the developer.

Still I understand what you are trying to get at that all 3 cores are not FULLY utilised however each core is or can be used for different things as said in the links provided, since each core can be used for these functions they are still being utilised. Perhaps not fully but used nonetheless.

But to wrap it up and to put everyones minds at ease here I can understand that the games are not at present using each core 100% especially given the fact that all 6 threads are not being used.

I am going by the basis of developers saying 3 cores are being utilised - but perhaps obviously not fully.

Since I am not a child and do not wish to participate in a slagging match of any kind I take back my earlier aggressive comments and apologise.

asphix

09-06-2006, 11:24 AM

Dont mean to beat a dead horse, just attempting to pull this back into the realm of a discussion instead of a piss-fest.

For any who are interested, gamasutra has an article released today explaining game engine design in a multi-core/multi-threaded environment. Article can be found here (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060906/monkkonen_01.shtml). At the end there are links to prior articles discussing the topic which I recommend reading through as well if this article sparks an interest.

Where the whole missunderstanding is happening here is rooted in each of our definition of the word "use". Personally, if you want to be nit picky games like geometry wars for instance, do use all three cores. But, in order for a game to really "use" all three cores IMHO, there must be a huge benefit to the code being run in an environment eploying parallelism rather than a single threaded environment. Geometry wars could run identically on a single core performance-wise as it does on the multiple cores, and thus that is the basis for my argument that it does not "use" all three cores, even though technically speaking, it does. How much of a performance increase do you honestly think is seen by having audio rendering distributed to its own dedicated core? Until we start seeing games that are *only* possible in a multi-core environment, I will coninue to percieve the technology is not being fully utilized in any way that deserves massive recognition.

Its sort of like comparing someone who has three cars, and alternates between them as opposed to someone who has a single car and uses it all the time. They both use their cars, but it could be argued that the person who owns the single car uses their car more. Relatively speaking, when comparing the levels of useage, one can argue that the person who drives three cars alternately doesnt really use their cars, as there is obvious waste going on. If that person who owned the three cars had two other family members to off load the useage of the left-over cars while still alternating and doing his thing, then the argument pulls a 180.

So to clarify:

Geometry Wars : 1 person with 3 cars

Games like PDZ and PGR3 (any launch title thats void of multithreading) : 1 person, 1 car

Future Games : 3 people, 3 cars.

When the goal is the 3 cars with 3 people, 1 person with 3 cars is not "using" their cars.

At times Geometry wars could get pretty complex in terms of amount of objects on the screen (i'm sure the processors get hit with a decent load). However, it could work just as well in a single core environment. Thus when its said that it uses all 3 cores and a big deal is made of it, I call it PR bloat as its really not revolutionizing the gameplay experience. Its good to see developers meddling with multi-core multi-threaded environments though.. as they will have to or soon be left twiddling their thumbs.

Hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make. With that said, I'll take my leave from this discussion. Enjoy.

Kal-El

09-06-2006, 05:25 PM

Are you a developer? Did you make the game Geomatry Wars? No, did a developer say the game uses all 3 cores? Yes.

I understand your logic and am open to reason however since a developer has clearly said something about a game that THEY have created who should I believe you people or the developer?

I choose the developer.

Still I understand what you are trying to get at that all 3 cores are not FULLY utilised however each core is or can be used for different things as said in the links provided, since each core can be used for these functions they are still being utilised. Perhaps not fully but used nonetheless.

But to wrap it up and to put everyones minds at ease here I can understand that the games are not at present using each core 100% especially given the fact that all 6 threads are not being used.

I am going by the basis of developers saying 3 cores are being utilised - but perhaps obviously not fully.

Since I am not a child and do not wish to participate in a slagging match of any kind I take back my earlier aggressive comments and apologise.

As I said. The devs will say anything to make their game sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

I remember them saying that games like Halo 2 and Ghost Recon 2 pushed the xbox to the limits. Then they come out with games like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory that blow H2 and GR2 out of the water graphically and otherwise. How can that be? How can you have a game Better than Halo 2 if Halo 2 supposedly pushed the system to it's limits? It's not possible. Yet it happened.

You shouldn't judge by what the Devs says. They're out for money and to sell their game. They're like a politician. They'll say anything to get re-elected.

Instead read up about the technology, and with a bit of logic you can come to your own conclusion (and be like Asphix).

Basically be like Mulder; "Trust no one."

SuperSaiyan4

09-07-2006, 01:02 AM

As I said. The devs will say anything to make their game sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

I remember them saying that games like Halo 2 and Ghost Recon 2 pushed the xbox to the limits. Then they come out with games like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory that blow H2 and GR2 out of the water graphically and otherwise. How can that be? How can you have a game Better than Halo 2 if Halo 2 supposedly pushed the system to it's limits? It's not possible. Yet it happened.

You shouldn't judge by what the Devs says. They're out for money and to sell their game. They're like a politician. They'll say anything to get re-elected.

Instead read up about the technology, and with a bit of logic you can come to your own conclusion (and be like Asphix).

Basically be like Mulder; "Trust no one."

I would have thought you would have chosen Half Life 2 and FarCry being the ones that surpassed Halo 2 visually...They are very good for Xbox games and they sure have pushed the machine to the limits imo.

Anyhow yes I understand what you both mean but then again you will find a lot of people listening to developers then others trying to explain that devs are just hyping the games up.

For me next gen gaming starts with Gears Of War and thats imo, also soo far we have seen better visuals but poor frame rates, sloppy ports and thats it. Then you have Mass Effect for the AI ( I hope!)

Kal-El

09-08-2006, 01:39 PM

I would have thought you would have chosen Half Life 2 and FarCry being the ones that surpassed Halo 2 visually...They are very good for Xbox games and they sure have pushed the machine to the limits imo.

Anyhow yes I understand what you both mean but then again you will find a lot of people listening to developers then others trying to explain that devs are just hyping the games up.

For me next gen gaming starts with Gears Of War and thats imo, also soo far we have seen better visuals but poor frame rates, sloppy ports and thats it. Then you have Mass Effect for the AI ( I hope!)

I choose Splinter Cell: CT because it's visually stunning and I haven't played the games you mentioned. I only played the OXM demo of Farcry.