Report: PS3 Surpasses Xbox 360’s Worldwide Shipped Total

[AaronSOLDIER]

DreamCast came last last gen

[TGO]

DreamCast came last last gen

More like disqualified/left race lol

Sent via Codec

[radgamer420]

More like disqualified/left race lol Sent via Codec

Yep exactly.

[radgamer420]

Looking at gaf the 360 lead has grown over the ps3 keeping it in a solid second behind wii. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Ok, I found it. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=507950

[Completely Average]

Why would it not support those TVs just because of the price? Obviously the games won't be 4K but the OS certainly will with some games' cutscenes being 4K as well. The PS3 is capable of 1080p, hardly any games use it but it's there for the likes of cutscenes like FF13 having 720p gameplay and 1080p cutscenes.

No console will support 4k resolutions because the GPU capable of delivering playable performance at that resolution doesn't exist at any price.

Look at the best you can get on the PC right now. The nVidia GTX 690 which is a $1,000 video card.

This is the performance you can get from FOUR of them in one system. That's $4,000 worth of video cards running at 2560X1600 resolution.



At 4k resolution, this $4,000 video card setup would just barely manage 60FPS in Battlefield 3.


Now, do you think it's even remotely possible that a $300-$400 console is going to have a GPU setup that's going to be that fast?

[radgamer420]

No console will support 4k resolutions because the GPU capable of delivering playable performance at that resolution doesn't exist at any price. Look at the best you can get on the PC right now. The nVidia GTX 690 which is a $1,000 video card. This is the performance you can get from FOUR of them in one system. That's $4,000 worth of video cards running at 2560X1600 resolution. At 4k resolution, this $4,000 video card setup would just barely manage 60FPS in Battlefield 3. Now, do you think it's even remotely possible that a $300-$400 console is going to have a GPU setup that's going to be that fast?

Wow. Well that settles that I guess.

[Completely Average]

Wow. Well that settles that I guess.

I hope so.

4k is a nice buzzword, but there is nothing in GPU development pipes that is even remotely capable of playing games at that resolution at any price, much less for the $300-$400 price tags that consoles are going to have to adhere to. When a single $1,000 GPU just barely breaks 60FPS on the almost 2 year old Crysis 2 at half that resolution you just have to accept that it's NOT going to happen for many more years.

I don't see 4k being a supported resolution for mainstream GPUs for at LEAST another 5 years. Maybe not for another decade. And even if you ignore the GPU, it takes almost 4GB of RAM just to create the frame buffers to do it.

[AaronSOLDIER]

Did you even read the post? Obviously not.

[Foraeli]

The thing to remember tho is that SLi setups lose a lot of performance due to its nature of linking up multiple cards, and so performance increase never scales one for one with each card added. Even a dual GPU card by itself suffers from similar problems of linking the two to work on creating the same frame together.

Here is my rule of thumb for performance gains of SLi setups:

SLi 2x cards = 1.5x performance increase

SLi 3x cards = 2.25x performance increase

SLi 4x cards = 3.0x performance.

Note that powerful cards like the 690GTX will run into huge bottlenecks and thus will lose even more performance than what you usually would when linking multiple cards in SLi.

[mynd]

Did you even read the post? Obviously not.

I did, and yeah "support" is plausible.
No more or leas plausible than the next xbox supporting it either however.

Nothing firmware updates wont allow for.

[J3ff3]

No console will support 4k resolutions because the GPU capable of delivering playable performance at that resolution doesn't exist at any price.

Look at the best you can get on the PC right now. The nVidia GTX 690 which is a $1,000 video card.

This is the performance you can get from FOUR of them in one system. That's $4,000 worth of video cards running at 2560X1600 resolution.



At 4k resolution, this $4,000 video card setup would just barely manage 60FPS in Battlefield 3.


Now, do you think it's even remotely possible that a $300-$400 console is going to have a GPU setup that's going to be that fast?

as much as i think 4k gaming is just a buzzword, this post doesn't exactly prove anything.

a single HD7970 or a gtx680 can achieve between 26fps - 45fps on battlefield 3 with high settings. and we all know that console developers are very happy to dip below 30fps. on ultra settings, fps averages were at 22fps, with a minimum of 14. but in reality you have to realise that games would be created for this resolution. no dev would bother trying to get battlefield to run at this fidelity, but that doesn't mean the new consoles won't be able to make 4k games look good. its pretty much similar of the situation today with 1080p, or even 720. games miss their target resolution to improve other aspects, or hit 1080p and make sacrifices elsewhere.


not that the nextgen consoles are going to have either of the above cards in them, although there have been rumours that the modifications to the gpu should make the 1+ TF cards behave like 3TF cards in real world performance.

i don't doubt that 4k games can look great or are achievable, i doubt the point of doing it entirely. much like 1080p this time around, but even more so, its just been a gimmick.

[Soldier 95B]

No console will support 4k resolutions because the GPU capable of delivering playable performance at that resolution doesn't exist at any price.

Look at the best you can get on the PC right now. The nVidia GTX 690 which is a $1,000 video card.

This is the performance you can get from FOUR of them in one system. That's $4,000 worth of video cards running at 2560X1600 resolution.



At 4k resolution, this $4,000 video card setup would just barely manage 60FPS in Battlefield 3.


Now, do you think it's even remotely possible that a $300-$400 console is going to have a GPU setup that's going to be that fast?

I learn something new every day!

[Soldier 95B]

Ok, I found it. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=507950

IDC is getting destroyed there.

[AaronSOLDIER]

I did, and yeah "support" is plausible.
No more or leas plausible than the next xbox supporting it either however.

Nothing firmware updates wont allow for.

Yeah I think both will support it. But I clearly said that games won't run in 4K. Well done for being the only person to actually read my post though.

[J3ff3]

Yeah I think both will support it. But I clearly said that games won't run in 4K. Well done for being the only person to actually read my post though.

bit of an overreaction?? only completely average misread your post, or at least referenced your post poorly. that hardly equates to everyone else in the thread does it?

[Yungstar 2006]

We may see some showcase games designed around 4K, but our guess is that they will be few and far between. Our information from developer sources suggests that even Sony - with much to gain in promoting 4K gameplay bearing in mind its upcoming range of screens - is making no attempt to evangelise the new display format to third-party developers, with 1080p the target resolution for Orbis titles.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...y-vs-4k-gaming

[AaronSOLDIER]

bit of an overreaction?? only completely average misread your post, or at least referenced your post poorly. that hardly equates to everyone else in the thread does it?

Since nobody else corrected him, yes.

[Bligmerk]

Then why is this site showing 4K games running with a 7970? You have to click on HD ON to get a suggestion of the effect but it is noticeable even when the video isn't in 4K. Seems 4K games do pretty well with a very powerful CPU and one top end graphics card, even though it is less than 60fps. Sony will have these covered with the PS4.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-El...-2160-1043732/

[J3ff3]

Since nobody else corrected him, yes.

why should anyone else correct him on that? i'm not here to defend your posts, i'm sure you're fully capable of doing that yourself. that doesn't mean i didn't read what you wrote correctly, i was just more interested in responding to what he had to say.

[J3ff3]

Then why is this site showing 4K games running with a 7970? You have to click on HD ON to get a suggestion of the effect but it is noticeable even when the video isn't in 4K. Seems 4K games do pretty well with a very powerful CPU and one top end graphics card, even though it is less than 60fps. Sony will have these covered with the PS4.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-El...-2160-1043732/

well, they won't. theyll have this gens games, and the equivalent, potentially at 4k. no way will they have games much more impressive than battlefield 3 @ 4k. and i'm sure many could argue that'll be a stretch.

there will be a massive trade off. which is why i said that i disagree with 4k in its entirety. its so subjective. i'm sure the 360's gpu can pull off 4k, but it all depends on what is actually being rendered on the screen.

i'd much rather have cyberpunk2077's graphics than gt5 in 4k. ones next gen, the others definitely not.

[Morganator]

Not true 4K resolution in my opinion. True 2K resolution yes, but not 4K. To me when I see the term "4K", I'm expecting the vertical resolution to be 4,000 lines or more, not 2160 lines. It's a bit of false advertisement if you really think about it since "4K" to those pushing the name seems to be 4 times the overall resolution of a 1920x1080 resolution picture or video, not 4,000 vertical lines or more. If nothing else, this is nothing short of moving the goalposts for the sake of pushing a technology that isn't even worthy of its designation. For shame.

[J3ff3]

Not true 4K resolution in my opinion. True 2K resolution yes, but not 4K. To me when I see the term "4K", I'm expecting the vertical resolution to be 4,000 lines or more, not 2160 lines. It's a bit of false advertisement if you really think about it since "4K" to those pushing the name seems to be 4 times the overall resolution of a 1920x1080 resolution picture or video, not 4,000 vertical lines or more. If nothing else, this is nothing short of moving the goalposts for the sake of pushing a technology that isn't even worthy of its designation. For shame.

just a buzzword. if they'd said '2k', well then there are lower resolutions that competitors could also assign the 2k label to.

its just like 'full HD'. what the fuck was ever 'full' about it? is 1080p now half HD?

[Morganator]

just a buzzword. if they'd said '2k', well then there are lower resolutions that competitors could also assign the 2k label to.

its just like 'full HD'. what the fuck was ever 'full' about it? is 1080p now half HD?

Exactly. It's pure unadulterated marketing tripe. These people should be sued for false advertisement.

[Bligmerk]

Not true 4K resolution in my opinion.

By your reasoning, then 1080p should have been called 1K. 4K just indicates 4 times the resolution of a 1920x1080p. So, it is roughly 4000x2160p or 4 panels of a 1080p display. Anybody that has been alive longer than 5 years knows that "standards" are a moving target, especially when slang is being thrown in to describe it. The official term for the 4K TV's and monitors is UltraHD, if that smooths some ruffled feathers. This is the recognized industry definition of 4K:

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=57419,00.asp
Refers to approximately 4,000 pixels of horizontal and 2,000 pixels of vertical resolution used in several digital formats for shooting high-quality video and scanning 35 mm frames. A 4K resolution is roughly double the horizontal and vertical resolution of a 1080p TV. A 4K TV is actually a 2160p TV, because the 4K refers to horizontal pixels rather than vertical (see chart below). Apparently this change, which adds confusion, sounds better because the number is "bigger."

You know, it is the same group of guys that were arguing what was 720p and 1080p and what HD meant when this generation began, mainly claiming that 1080p wasn't needed. Same old song, just another drop in an endless sea. It will end up the same way, in about 3 years, you won't be able to buy a 1080p, they will all be 4K. I think it is also being missed that PC's already support 4K, why is it doubtful the PS4 will not also support 4K?

[mynd]

Why not call it 4x then 4k mean 4000.
Its not 4000 frigging time the res is it?