|
120fps for PS3?
|
|
|
Richaayy
Junior Member
|
29. October 2005 @ 06:31 |
Link to this message
|
all the talk has been about 60fps and 100fps.. but apparently the next gen consoles are capable of 120fps ( so the Sony president Ken Kutaragi says)..but TVs cant display the images yet. But with the firther development of HD plasmas and lcd screens maybe they will in a few years. That will really bring the graphically power of the new consoles to a screen where they can truely be appreciated.
heres the link
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6136786.html
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
30. October 2005 @ 02:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
Its not the TVs that are the problem the fact that humans can only see something like 30fps make it seem pointless.
|
|
Richaayy
Junior Member
|
30. October 2005 @ 10:54 |
Link to this message
|
dont think thats true man, think that if it drops lower than 20-30 it becomes more noticable to the human eye but as it increases it becomes harder to notice a rise in quality on our current tvs.. for a game like burnout or any fps say.. a higher frame rate would result in a more smooth game..so when quickly turning 360 degrees in an fps or travelling at 200mph in burnout, loading of new cars, buildings ,characters and surrounding would be seemless and without any jumpy bits, like in reality. humans can preceive very very high amounts of informations instantanously. Some japanese students made a two-minute video at just under the natural resolution of the eye...it had such a high frame rate and resolution that the people they tested the viewing on became sick.. it was explained as basically being the opposite of sea sickness (where your eyes dont think your moving but your body knows it is moving on the waves)..so basically your brain thinks your moving beacuse of the images but your not.. so if humans eyes can be fooled by super images im sure a better frame rate in games would enhance gaming
(sorry if some of this sounded like jibberish, had to write it quickly..going trick'r'treatin (",) )
|
|
jpp01uk
Senior Member
|
9. November 2005 @ 04:29 |
Link to this message
|
that is in fact utter gibberish, the lot of it lol :p
p4 is right
the human eye cannot distinguish any improvement in frame quality of over 30 fps, tv, cinema and cartoons have different frame rates
cant remember the order, should do really its my job :p
i believe cinema is 24fps, tv is 30fps, cartoons used to be shot in 12fps, but now its higher for 3d apps, like the incredibles etc as you want to see fluid dynamic movements not jerky movements like in some old disney films
|
|
oofRome
Senior Member
|
14. November 2005 @ 17:52 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
so if humans eyes can be fooled by super images im sure a better frame rate in games would enhance gaming
Didn't you just say earlier that the people exposed to highter frame rate videos suffered from nauseau? How would becoming sick enhance gameplay?
Did I miss something?! :-/
|
|
Richaayy
Junior Member
|
15. November 2005 @ 02:07 |
Link to this message
|
jesus i posted this ages ago, thought it was well gone.. I read that artical on afterdawn i believe.. anyways im just assuming that a more realistic higher resolution type of gameplay would be great.. imagine playing a game that looked exactly like you would perceive it in the real world.. im sure anything like that is bout a half century away anyways.. even if the PS3 and Xbox360 can display at HD and at 120fps.. i played the 360 the other day in Dublin in Ireland and i wasnt overly impressed at all although i understand that there were no graphically good ps2 games for atleast a year and a half after its release so i didnt really expect much. Also i think in gaming a higher fps would simply result in smoother simulation in fast paced games but i dunno for sure
|
|
kookoo76
Suspended permanently
|
21. November 2005 @ 12:52 |
Link to this message
|
ps3 will run up to 120 fps, but taht s only how fast t the lk images are moving. Doesnt really matter. Just google ps3 fps in google news and you will get the article
ps3:GPU-24 pipelines producing 5.7 ops each
-700mhz ram.
-On par with geforce 7800
-rsx at 550mhz
-rsx is 1.8 tflops
ps3:CPU-Cell processor
-total of 8 spe's running at 3.2 ghz.
Cell is 218GFLOPS.
Computer Hp pavilion a700n
448 mb of ram(upgrading it to 1gb)
amd3000+
(going to have geforce 7800 soon)
Currently(a shitty intergrated via/s3)
Information about ps3's rsx is on:
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/265429
Information about The xbox360 and ps3's gpu
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2423
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
21. November 2005 @ 13:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
nah the max framerate wont be *upto 120 FPS*, that can only happen if TV's had vsync with 120 Hz refresh rates (only applies to CRT tv's), FPS is ALWAYS changing it will go way higher than that with the hardware on the 360 and PS3 at times, and it will stay high (aka 60+) even in hardcore action, thats how powerful they are (both regardless of which is the more powerful), the future is bright.
and all that stuff, about human eyes,
Yes the human eye cant see the *physical change* of the frames but the lower the framerate the more jumpy it is and the more 'shit' it is basically, the higher it is the smoother the game is and trust me, i can tell the difference between 90FPS and 100FPS i know games and PC;s very well.
all that human eye shit doesnt apply to game framerates, and people who think it does really need find out about this stuff properly.
Playing a game at max 24FPS will suck really really badly.
40FPS is regarded my the standard PC games to be *playable*, 50+ is what people want *at least*
if you watched 2 game stress test's (aka CS;S source) and you watched one to be set at at 24FPS (somehow, by a tech master or someone?) and one at 60FPS, you would notice a distinct difference, and you would be able to tell the difference between 60FPS and 24, regardless of that human eye crap, it doesnt apply to games (i know ive just repeated that)
Don't judge the consoles by specs, more isnt always better, espec in PS3 specs.i know the truth, ask if u wanna know.......
Do not compete without valid correct technicality on your terms of the argument.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. November 2005 @ 13:26
|
|
MrGrimace
Junior Member
|
21. November 2005 @ 13:49 |
Link to this message
|
Ripped from wikipedia:
Quote:
The frame rate is related to but not identical to a physiological concept called the flicker fusion threshold or flicker fusion rate. Light that is pulsating below this rate is perceived by humans as flickering; light that is pulsating above this rate is perceived by humans as being continuous. The exact rate varies depending upon the person, their level of fatigue, the brightness of the light source, and the area of the retina that is being used to observe the light source. Few people perceive flicker above 75 Hertz or so.
These rates would be impractical for the actual frame rate of most film mechanisms so the shutter in the projection devices is actually arranged to interrupt the light two or three times for every film frame. In this fashion, the common frame rate of 24 fps produces 48 or 72 pulses of light per second, the latter rate being above the flicker fusion rate for most people most of the time.
Video systems frequently use a more complex approach referred to as interlaced video. Broadcast television systems such as NTSC, PAL, and SECAM produce an image using two passes called fields. Each field contains half of the lines in a complete frame (the odd-numbered lines or the even-numbered lines). Thus, while only using the bandwidth of 25 or 30 complete frames per second, they achieve a flicker fusion frequency of 50 or 60 Hz, at the expense of some vertical judder and additional system complexity. The "frame rate" of interlaced systems is usually defined as the number of complete frames (pairs of fields) transmitted each second (25 or 30 in most broadcast systems). However, since a conventional television camera will scan the scene again for each field, in many circumstances it may be useful to think of the frame rate as being equal to the field rate.
For about this and video game framerates visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framerate
========================================================
Knowledge in and of itself can do no harm.
|
|
kookoo76
Suspended permanently
|
21. November 2005 @ 14:39 |
Link to this message
|
weell on sony's website , it said that ps3 will run up to 120 fps, bu t w.e
ps3:GPU-24 pipelines producing 5.7 ops each
-700mhz ram.
-On par with geforce 7800
-rsx at 550mhz
-rsx is 1.8 tflops
ps3:CPU-Cell processor
-total of 8 spe's running at 3.2 ghz.
Cell is 218GFLOPS.
Computer Hp pavilion a700n
448 mb of ram(upgrading it to 1gb)
amd3000+
(going to have geforce 7800 soon)
Currently(a shitty intergrated via/s3)
Information about ps3's rsx is on:
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/265429
Information about The xbox360 and ps3's gpu
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2423
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
22. November 2005 @ 05:31 |
Link to this message
|
they probably meant 120 fps on average, on a good performance game (one that doesnt kill even the very very best system on performance)
Don't judge the consoles by specs, more isnt always better, espec in PS3 specs.i know the truth, ask if u wanna know.......
Do not compete without valid correct technicality on your terms of the argument.
|
|
kookoo76
Suspended permanently
|
22. November 2005 @ 16:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Heck Yes!!!!!!lol what ever he said.
ps3:GPU-24 pipelines producing 5.7 ops each
-700mhz ram.
-On par with geforce 7800
-rsx at 550mhz
-rsx is 1.8 tflops
ps3:CPU-Cell processor
-total of 8 spe's running at 3.2 ghz.
Cell is 218GFLOPS.
Computer Hp pavilion a700n
448 mb of ram(upgrading it to 1gb)
amd3000+
(going to have geforce 7800 soon)
Currently(a shitty intergrated via/s3)
Information about ps3's rsx is on:
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/265429
Information about The xbox360 and ps3's gpu
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2423
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
23. November 2005 @ 06:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
yar, even the weakest system will be able to do that, as they both will be very very!! powerful.
Don't judge the consoles by specs, more isnt always better, espec in PS3 specs.i know the truth, ask if u wanna know.......
Do not compete without valid correct technicality on your terms of the argument.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
25. November 2005 @ 00:22 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the human eye cannot distinguish any improvement in frame quality of over 30 fps, tv, cinema and cartoons have different frame rates
Bs. At least I can tell the differnce between 30fps and 60fps. You must be blind if you can't see the diffrence.
|
|
kookoo76
Suspended permanently
|
25. November 2005 @ 10:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
True that
ps3:GPU-24 pipelines producing 5.7 ops each
-700mhz ram.
-On par with geforce 7800
-rsx at 550mhz
-rsx is 1.8 tflops
ps3:CPU-Cell processor
-total of 8 spe's running at 3.2 ghz.
Cell is 218GFLOPS.
Computer Hp pavilion a700n
448 mb of ram(upgrading it to 1gb)
amd3000+
(going to have geforce 7800 soon)
Currently(a shitty intergrated via/s3)
Information about ps3's rsx is on:
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/265429
Information about The xbox360 and ps3's gpu
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2423
|
|
oofRome
Senior Member
|
25. November 2005 @ 13:34 |
Link to this message
|
"Even with expensive monitors that can reach even higher frequencies, the effect is somewhat lost as the human eye has difficulty in perceiving differences in frame rates above around 50-60 fps."
There's the more accurate human perception.
Thanks for the wikipedia article, Mr. Grimmace. After reading that, the 120 fps for PS3 figure isn't that surprising at all.
|
|
kookoo76
Suspended permanently
|
25. November 2005 @ 13:39 |
Link to this message
|
Isnt lk fps..well i know what it stands for, but isnt how fast the image goes?>! I dont think fps has anything to do when like compairing system specs...example: On my n64 emulator, at the bottem right corner it states the fps, regularly 60, when i increese the speed, the fps goes up.
ps3:GPU-24 pipelines producing 5.7 ops each
-700mhz ram.
-On par with geforce 7800
-rsx at 550mhz
-rsx is 1.8 tflops
ps3:CPU-Cell processor
-total of 8 spe's running at 3.2 ghz.
Cell is 218GFLOPS.
Computer Hp pavilion a700n
448 mb of ram(upgrading it to 1gb)
amd3000+
(going to have geforce 7800 soon)
Currently(a shitty intergrated via/s3)
Information about ps3's rsx is on:
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/265429
Information about The xbox360 and ps3's gpu
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2423
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
26. November 2005 @ 00:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
"Even with expensive monitors that can reach even higher frequencies, the effect is somewhat lost as the human eye has difficulty in perceiving differences in frame rates above around 50-60 fps."
That's more like it. fps stands for Frames Per Second.
|
|
novicebb
Member
|
26. November 2005 @ 08:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am still more fasinated by the prospect of Cell processing than I am over the ps3 overall. Man what I would do with a supercomputer-what can I do? One thing that I am interested in though is what "bit" are the Nintendo Revolution, PS3 and Xbox 360? I mean I know that the Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube, and PS2 are 128 bit systems so are the next generation systems 256bit?
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
27. November 2005 @ 13:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
not sure, i think calling a system 128 bit etc, is outdated now.
because of all the more complicated better hardware and technologies coming out.
thry minght do though? (though i dont think they will)
Don't judge the consoles by specs, more isnt always better, espec in PS3 specs.i know the truth, ask if u wanna know.......
Do not compete without valid correct technicality on your terms of the argument.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
28. November 2005 @ 00:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Only n64 was 64bit, and it was just a gimmick. Ps2, xbox, xbox 360 all are 32bit. As said, bits are outdated now.
|
|
oofRome
Senior Member
|
28. November 2005 @ 20:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
"bits" aren't exactly outdated, arcanix.
I noticed you have an AMD64 processor. Catch my drift?
Sort of off topic, I suppose...
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
29. November 2005 @ 00:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
I meant to say that bits are outdated when comparing consoles. It worked earlier when the bitrates where doubled on every generation, but now the limit is 64bits (which is not used by any console, n64 being 64bit was just a gimmick). Only support for 64bits is on pc (win xp 64-bit edition), and there's no advantage using it now.
|
|
Reasons?
Suspended permanently
|
30. November 2005 @ 05:12 |
Link to this message
|
why would sony render 120 fps when it could render 45fps in higher detail. let the game devs use the systems power for a purpose, not a big number
i have a feeling that it's just a number that may be true, but is for show, and in te end the games will tax the PS3 more and it will run at 45-60 fps
Fanboy is a term used to describe someone who is utterly devoted to a single subject. This generally is followed by the devotion and support even when proved wrong.
Anecdotal, by my definition, it's the way too many people here think. It's also all the evidence you have.
Xbox 360 GT: NEGATIVE 273K
My advice: Wait for PS3.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
30. November 2005 @ 08:33 |
Link to this message
|
yer they aught to make the game effects look incredible and let the framerate be 60MIN at least.
Don't judge the consoles by specs, more isnt always better, espec in PS3 specs.i know the truth, ask if u wanna know.......
Do not compete without valid correct technicality on your terms of the argument.
|
