Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2013]

Wat? Because I expect the later UE3 porting ps3 should be more close to the 360 counterpart, like the others later multiplat, it means that I think ps3 is superior? It's a provocation or what else? If you don't know the reason simply dont' reply, I don't think it's a good idea to derail the thread in a member/console war.

 

I wasn't establishing a rule to the effect of "PS3 is superior at open-world games", in fact I was providing counter examples to disprove the opposite statement.

 

No console war BS going on here. I'm simply stating that comparison face-offs have the 360 performing better for the majority of multiplat games yet you continue to be surprised.

My point is that multiplat games seem to favor the 360 strengths and not the PS3. PS3 first party games have been impressive and that is in my opinion due to the devs not worrying about multiplat development.

I don't understand why you are so being so defensive.

 

I believe he was expecting a technical discussion as opposed to some sort of face-off score comparison. Previous face-offs don't give us enough information to make a definitive determination. For example why does Frostbite 2 seem to work better on PS3 than the 360, and what does Skyrim being awful on Sony's console have to do with it? Establishing a trend or general rule is difficult because we don't know enough about each game's implementation on each platform to say what the problem is.

 

Another thread that's complete shit.

 

I'm sorry for the ot, just to be clear, it's not matter to be too much defensive; if you claim something like I think ps3 is superior of 360 just because I expect some multiplat more close, well, I don't understand how can't be a bit lame. Simply I'm genuinely curious about UE3 gap on ps3, that's all, I think it's normal ask something like that in a tech forum.

 

Demo showdown: Crysis 3 multiplayer beta

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis-3-multiplayer-beta-demo-showdown

 

"what we believe to be shader model anti-aliasing (SMAA) which uses a different kind of temporal filter that features less double image 'ghosting' artifacts on fast-moving scenes and objects."

Er....

 

Spec analysis: Durango vs. Orbis

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-spec-analysis-durango-vs-orbis

/ Ken

 

That analysis seems to be mostly the distilled discussion held here already, without nothing new to contribute.

 

Pure laziness. How long would it take him to look up the correct description?

 

The most interesting thing from that article is that DaE is behind the vgleaks leaks.

Or maybe he's just confused or DaE is trolling him - since on his twitter DaE is saying the vgleaks specs are wrong, or he's just trolling us.

 

Well, the whole X360 spec was leaked before release, except maybe the RAM amount was only 256MB. But the system diagram was all around at least a year before the release as I recall.
So it wouldn't be a surprise if these were final specs... but then again maybe MS has become better at security in the past 8 years.

 

DaE probably gave the February 2012 Docs to various sites... The recent and actual spec docs are in the hands of Kotaku. (DaE promised that kotaku is going to release another Durango Story soon)

 

The specs would not have changed majorly since Feb 2012, all I can see changing is clock speeds.

 

Or maybe the truth is that he sold (instead of gave) the spec docs to Kotaku and now he's trolling you for $$$.

 

Says who? Anything can happen. But we will see when Durango is finally official Announced. Until then, all is speculation and rumors.

 

While I agree with this assertion (luerre's comments on GAF strongly suggest as much), let's not pretend this is a general rule of thumb like many on the internet currently are. Orbis evidently saw a pretty major change in its specs not all that long ago (late summer, according to Arthur Gies).

Personally I think there will be a paradigm shift of how ppl view these machines and their graphics capabilities, but it won't come from the specs we have today changing so much as the context they are being viewed in. I think Durango's architecture will become viewed in the context of being designed for virtual memory applications and as such some of the flops/bandwidth comparisons will no longer make any sense as they really are apples to oranges.

I also expect lots of cognitive resistance to changing the context this stuff is judged in for ppl who are becoming accustomed to speaking of the Durango as a 'weak' console and those who will be desperate to force implausible comparisons between typical off the shelf PC GPU's and the graphics hardware in that particular console. It seems lots on the internet are foregoing rational skepticism in favor of eagerly accepting the idea that Durango is weak as some very obvious red flags go ignored.

This DF article in particular seems to be ignoring said red flags, but to be fair, it is so long and detailed they likely wrote it when the first stuff was leaking and just iterating/adding stuff to it, so maybe they just didn't consider some of the other arguments out there.

 

PS4 didn't have any hardware "upgrade" AFAIK. Leaked target specs are from late 2011, and they show exact same GPU, 4 core Steamroller (which is replaced by 8 core Jaguar) and 2GB of GDDR5 pushing for 4GB.

Leaks are pretty consistent with target specs.

 

The leaks show 4GB of GDDR5 with rumours of 8GB (wont happen)