What would Nintendo need to run UE3 on thier console?

If Epic has UE3 running on the PS3 and their only using the PPE core, and have yet to incorporate the use of any SPE. Where does the benefit come in for having them?

What would they be used for?

I'm curious as to what graphical techniques could be implemented that could run off these yet to be used cores?

I know there's some things the GPU may not be capable of in hardware, but can be mimiced in software.

So does Nintendo really need multiple cores to compete graphically, or is it about being technically on par for the sake of being?

One more question, What developers do you expect to take full advantage of each core?
 
Ooh-videogames said:
If Epic has UE3 running on the PS3 and their only using the PPE core, and have yet to incorporate the use of any SPE. Where does the benefit come in for having them?

What would they be used for?

I'm curious as to what graphical techniques could be implemented that could run off these yet to be used cores?

I know there's some things the GPU may not be capable of in hardware, but can be mimiced in software.

So does Nintendo really need multiple cores to compete graphically, or is it about being technically on par for the sake of being?

One more question, What developers do you expect to take full advantage of each core?

Adding the computational power of the SPEs will give you much much much higher polygon counts, if geometry is handled by the CPU, much much much more power for physics and animation, and pretty much whatever the developers want to do with lots of little maths monsters.
 
london-boy said:
Ooh-videogames said:
If Epic has UE3 running on the PS3 and their only using the PPE core, and have yet to incorporate the use of any SPE. Where does the benefit come in for having them?

What would they be used for?

I'm curious as to what graphical techniques could be implemented that could run off these yet to be used cores?

I know there's some things the GPU may not be capable of in hardware, but can be mimiced in software.

So does Nintendo really need multiple cores to compete graphically, or is it about being technically on par for the sake of being?

One more question, What developers do you expect to take full advantage of each core?

Adding the computational power of the SPEs will give you much much much higher polygon counts, if geometry is handled by the CPU, much much much more power for physics and animation, and pretty much whatever the developers want to do with lots of little maths monsters.

So the extra PPC in the XCPU would allow for the same exact things?

So there is a increase in level interactivity?
 
Ooh-videogames said:
So the extra PPC in the XCPU would allow for the same exact things?

So there is a increase in level interactivity?

Heh... Theoretically...

I'm not sure how the extra 2 PPCs in the XCPU will compare to the 7 SPEs on Cell though, we'll have to get info from the devs, but apparently they can get quite close under some situations according to DeanoC.
 
london-boy said:
Ooh-videogames said:
So the extra PPC in the XCPU would allow for the same exact things?

So there is a increase in level interactivity?

Heh... Theoretically...

I'm not sure how the extra 2 PPCs in the XCPU will compare to the 7 SPEs on Cell though, we'll have to get info from the devs, but apparently they can get quite close under some situations according to DeanoC.

So the SPE's are designed for those specific task?
 
What would Nintendo need to run UE3 on their console?

According to what Epic has shown so far:

DX9 Shader Model 2.0 GPU (Ideally 3.0)
512 MB of RAM
3 GHz CPU (Ideally more)
A customer base that buys FPS games

Opinions differ on whether or not these features will be available on the Nintendo Revolution. :)
 
Ooh-videogames said:
Could someone answer my other questions?

It's hard to say. They need lots of FLOPS, and a way to translate all that raw power into great graphics, for starters. And a developer-friendly programming interface.

But there are a lot of different ways to do that.
 
Back
Top