PS3 to run at 120fps?

Well thats not the only thing he mentions the PS3 would be good for, he also mentions rendering multiple HDTV broadcasts.
 
steviep said:
Yes, TVs that run at 120fps :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Not quite sure why the rolleyes here? Either I am misunderstanding your intention or you are unaware that most tv's (CRT at least) run at either 50hz or 100hz(the better ones) which effectively limits frame rates just as refresh rates do on a pc. It's probably a whole lot more complex than that though.

Dano.
 
I'd be happy if they made 60fps the minimum requirement for all games, which I'm sure both the Xbox 360 and PS3 are capable of. Of course, this is assuming the programmers have the resources to optimize the game to do so.
 
I don't think he means the games run at 120 fps. I think he means the hardware outputs video at 120 cycles instead of 60 cycles.

Theoretically, it will provide a smoother display. I'm not really sure we will see any real improvement.
 
Wondernerd said:
I don't think he means the games run at 120 fps. I think he means the hardware outputs video at 120 cycles instead of 60 cycles.

Theoretically, it will provide a smoother display. I'm not really sure we will see any real improvement.
Click to expand...
:confused:

It doesn't matter what the output from the PS3 is, when the output device is limited to something less.

This is "supposed" to be for "future" TVs. Are there even plans in the TV pipeline for this?

Really it sounds like marketing BS, OMG 120FPS!!!
 
FPS over 85 are bullshit. Any serious Quake players know how FPS and refresh rate work together, and why refresh rate is eleventy billion times more important.
 
Geez guys, I'm not bothering to read the review cause I'm a lazy ass, but, I think the idea of the 'future' is that if it's capable of running these games (that are meant to be rather beautiful) at 120 fps, then you don't need to worry about the amazing grahpic innovations that are going to come later on. You should still get a decent/excellent framerate. At least, that's how I interpret it.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Really it sounds like marketing BS, OMG 120FPS!!!
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I'm sure we are going to hear more and more magical tales about the PS3 being more powerful than Blue Gene and enabling intersteller communication over the next 25 days.

I can't imagine the technical difficulties required to change that frame rate of TV's.
 
KillerMonkey said:
Haven't PCs been capable of putting out well over 150 fps in the past? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you could get over 500 in quake 3 with an 7800 gtx SLI setup with an FX57.

But who cares, no monitor can display that. And who cares about max FPS anyways? Really the only thing that is noticeable to gamers is FPS drops, not the max or even the average FPS.
 
I could be wrong on this one...

Isnt the eye only capable of seeing 60 frames per second and anything beyong that is indistinguishable..?

Adam.
 
adam7488 said:
I could be wrong on this one...

Isnt the eye only capable of seeing 60 frames per second and anything beyong that is indistinguishable..?

Adam.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. A 100 Hz TV looks a lot smoother than a 60 Hz one, for me at least. And I remember an article about this somewhere on the web, can't find the link, though.
 
Yeah its not true. Seems the better your display is the more you need. A movie can run 24fps, but not a game.
 
Wow, I love seeing fps threads because everybody and thier mother comes in with false information.

-Yes, your eyes can see more than "60 fps"
-Yes, a lot of people can detect it over 85... that includes quake, lol
-Most movies are at 24fps, but there is motion blur so it looks smooth
-If you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60fps, good for you. You can now enjoy your pretty looking games at 25fps.

Edit: People can even detect up to 200fps as demonstrated by a military test where they flashed an airplane.

More edit: Please read http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
 
So... one person was wrong and phrased it actually like a question. Not "Everyone." Have a beer bro! :p
 
texuspete00 said:
So... one person was wrong and phrased it actually like a question. Not "Everyone." Have a beer bro! :p
Click to expand...

Just trying to inform the [H]ard denizens.

Sure I'll take a beer, ship it on over and we'll enjoy some DoD:S matches :D
 
PCJ said:
FPS over 85 are bullshit. Any serious Quake players know how FPS and refresh rate work together, and why refresh rate is eleventy billion times more important.
Click to expand...

FPS 125 ftw
 
Do take into account displays showing more than one rendered frame per 'frame'. Gran Turismo 3 and 4, for example, display two rendered frames per NTSC frame, acting as a simulated motion blur. (I believe)

I'm all for higher frame rates!
 
h0000ray I can now play Tetris at 120fps...FINALLY! maybe even some PS1 games. Too bad games with graphics like the Killzone demo will play at 5 fps :(

TBH saying something can play games at 120fps is like Intel hyping the fact they got a chip up to 10Ghz. If my memory serves me correctly Intel got a severly stripped down chip which hardly resembled a CPU to go to 10ghz (on what cooling I dont know). The fact of the matter is it may be able to play games at 120fps...but how will those games look? I would rather have developers put the graphics power towards making the game look better and run at 60fps then look like a ps2 game and go at 120fps.
 
heatsinker said:
So gameplay is a non-issue for you then?
Click to expand...

I thought this discussion was about graphics? I really dont see how gameplay has any bearing upon me saying I would rather have nice looking graphics at 60fps then less nice graphics at 120fps...
 
SnakeIRye said:
Just trying to inform the [H]ard denizens.

Sure I'll take a beer, ship it on over and we'll enjoy some DoD:S matches :D
Click to expand...

One time there was a dude that was pretty adamant about 30 fps being ok. I gave him a similar link. He said if I believed that I believed in the tooth fairy. I fixed it for him by quoting him and changing the fairy bit to gravity and physics. :) But yeah: no interlacing, no motion blur, uber res, and now you are talking about trying to get your eyes to believe a realistic image is smooth.
 
I could really care less as to what FPS the console can put out, it's more of a question as to what refresh rate the output can display. The max FPS could be obtained by looking at a wall with a low res texture and no dynamic lighting for all we know.
 
Erasmus354 said:
I thought this discussion was about graphics? I really dont see how gameplay has any bearing upon me saying I would rather have nice looking graphics at 60fps then less nice graphics at 120fps...
Click to expand...

You said you'd rather have them put the graphical power towards making a game look better; as if it couldn't be used for creating more expansive and complex environments, sacrificing the inherent marketability of having "the most polygons" or "the best looking game" labels.
 
But Kutargi says(Not the best source for reality), TV's now can't take 120fps. Which leads me to think that he doesn't mean the speed the software is running at, but the refresh rate of the TV.

I'm not really sure what he is talking about. I know console games now have to run above 30fps. And I know PC software on a TV runs faster then 30.

Maybe I'm just being dense.

He later goes on "He emphasized that the Cell can be used to decode more than 10 HDTV channels simultaneously, and it can also be used to apply effects such as rotating and zooming."

Nice of him to not actually show the chip doing this or mentioning that this Cell is the Cell in the PS3. Somebody mentioned to me earlier that Sony is like the nerd with the Canadian girlfriend. He talks about how hot she is, but doesn't have any pictures.
 
I'm sorry, but those of you that claim a clear difference between 60 FPS and 90 FPS are a bit misguided. At about 60FPS the human eye sees "silky smooth" and it doesn't go much beyond it. Besides, most of us own LCDs, therefore we can have 7800GTX SLI setups with an FX-57 and still we'd be limited to 60FPS thanks to the 60hz refresh rate. Unless you enjoy horizontal tearing.

I wouldn't listen to Kutargi if my life depended on it. He is a master of bullshit, and claiming that the cell can power the world sounds exactly the same to me as when he said the PS2 was going to give us "toy story" graphics. We're still waiting, Ken.
 
Harrath said:
I'm pretty sure you could get over 500 in quake 3 with an 7800 gtx SLI setup with an FX57.

But who cares, no monitor can display that. And who cares about max FPS anyways? Really the only thing that is noticeable to gamers is FPS drops, not the max or even the average FPS.
Click to expand...

i had to...
q3.jpg

granted.. its looking at nothing... but even during game it runs at well over 350 usually exceeding 400, and i saw a spike to over 700, but wasnt able to catch it

back on topic, would it have been better to have said that the system will have 100% overhead in rendering power when compared to current games, trouble is the quote can be misconstreued many ways, and we dont truly know what he ment by it, would it have been better to say its capable of putting out 100% more than what a current display can handel??? we dont really know.. trying to guess what this thing can do based on these statements is like trying to guess how fast the next ferrari will go based on the fact that there gonna paint it blue...

thore
 
Point I'm trying to make is that Sony's gaming division doesn't exactly have a reputable history for providing factual statements. Even this time around, according to Sony, the PS3's CPU has about 35-40x the power, or something like that, of current intel/AMD dual-core chips in the realm of floating point operations. Yeah, and my name is Scooter.
 
steviep said:
Point I'm trying to make is that Sony's gaming division doesn't exactly have a reputable history for providing factual statements. Even this time around, according to Sony, the PS3's CPU has about 35-40x the power, or something like that, of current intel/AMD dual-core chips in the realm of floating point operations. Yeah, and my name is Scooter.
Click to expand...

floating point .. could be, as thats basicly what the ageia physics processor is,(or i have a wire crossed somewhere in my brain... could be) not saying that sony is trying to copy them, but they may have hit on the same thing, in different ways of implementing it (hell theres even a blurb on ageias site about ps3(dosnt mean its acctually in there, but they could be in cahoots, and thus the claim)(also , it only lists it as a possible compatability, along with pc platform so not really worth much, but i wouldn't put it past sony to "barrow" the tech. as thats what they do best (and by they i mean the japaneese, i dont think they have truly had any thing original sence rice .. and even that was stolen from the chinese.. [not being raceist here.. just an ass.. im in a sarcastic mood])) and the ageia is claiming atleast 40 times if im not mistaken...

thore
 
Like every other console (with the slim chance that a PPU may be in the Revolution), the PS3 will do its physics in software. Aegia will license its PhysX software for use in the SDK of the PS3, but it will still do all its physics in software, running on the general purpose CPU or SPU, just like everyone else. Your apologistic stance doesn't change the fact that Kenny boy was talking out of his arse about the PS3, just as he did about the PS2. There is no way that the PS3's CPU has 40 times the performance of today's CPUs in any kind of operations, PhysX or not. What's he going to tell us next, that the PS3 will provide us with "toy story graphics"? Well Kenny boy, Toy Story graphics in real time are STILL a ways off, 7 years later.

I understand you're trying to be, as you put it, an "ass", which is fine with me. But if you think that the Japanese haven't put out anything original in a while, please see: Katamari, Revolution controller, and DS software library. And those are just examples within the last year or so.
 
the human eye cannot detect more then 30 FPS so in essence it doesn't make one bit of difference. once the FPS drops below 30 you might notice lag or sluggishness.
 
OuTLaWzSm said:
the human eye cannot detect more then 30 FPS so in essence it doesn't make one bit of difference. once the FPS drops below 30 you might notice lag or sluggishness.
Click to expand...


OMG, stop saying that crap
 
I find changes in FPS bother me more than the actual FPS. Jumping from 40 to 100 every other seconds bothers me more than running at a constant 35.
 
OuTLaWzSm said:
the human eye cannot detect more then 30 FPS so in essence it doesn't make one bit of difference. once the FPS drops below 30 you might notice lag or sluggishness.
Click to expand...

You sir are dumb. Never post again. Ever.
 
OuTLaWzSm said:
the human eye cannot detect more then 30 FPS so in essence it doesn't make one bit of difference. once the FPS drops below 30 you might notice lag or sluggishness.
Click to expand...


dumbass!! try reading the thread before posting your COMPLETLY miss-informed response!! that has been covered a billionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn freaking times already!

dam.


SnakeIRye said:
Wow, I love seeing fps threads because everybody and thier mother comes in with false information.

-Yes, your eyes can see more than "60 fps"
-Yes, a lot of people can detect it over 85... that includes quake, lol
-Most movies are at 24fps, but there is motion blur so it looks smooth
-If you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60fps, good for you. You can now enjoy your pretty looking games at 25fps.

Edit: People can even detect up to 200fps as demonstrated by a military test where they flashed an airplane.

More edit: Please read http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Click to expand...


So for the other that say 30 / 60 FPS are the max yadda yadda yadda - each human person is different - we are not ALL the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top