Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

I don't care what they say about PS3, Last time I belived PS2 was going to have FFVIII CGI graphics in real time because they said that was true,well Im still waiting. If Cell is so good, put one of those clusters to good use and cure cancer and then that will appease me. How many people even have a TV that can do 120FPS? How many people even have a HDTV? Why bring the cost of things even higher (development side) to make a game 120fps?

Originally Posted by CocheseUGA Turn it up, Err.

Fire it up!

this just reinforces my belief that the PS3 will be at least 450 dollars.

Originally Posted by Ikohn4ever this just reinforces my belief that the PS3 will be at least 450 dollars.

Um, the FPS is determined entirely by the game engine.

All Sony is doing is modifying the video card to have 120 fps output, which will cost at most $3 per unit.

Call it forwards-compatability.

It sounds good to me, in theory...

Let's say a game... say... Call of Duty 2... runs at 60 FPS just roaming an empty street on XBox 360. Now you get into a huge firefight, and the frame rate drops to a noticable 30 FPS. It's annoying, right?

Now let's say you're playing it on PS3. 120 FPS just roaming an empty street. However, once you get to a huge ass firefight, you won't be able to notice any chopiness!

Again, this is all in theory and above my head and I probably just made myself sound like an ignorant bastard. But, I don't think this is necessarily a matter of how remarkable it will look running at 120 FPS... but rather how remarkably it will conistently run. Even if it looked the same at 120 FPS and 60 FPS, wouldn't a "low" of 60 still be a "high" for everything else?

Erm...

Originally Posted by Quackzilla Um, the FPS is determined entirely by the game engine. All Sony is doing is modifying the video card to have 120 fps output, which will cost at most $3 per unit. Call it forwards-compatability.

$3 per unit * 50,000,000 = $150,000,000 That is a lot of cash to spend on something that might never be used by even one consumer.

It sounds good to me, in theory...

Let's say a game... say... Call of Duty 2... runs at 60 FPS just roaming an empty street on XBox 360. Now you get into a huge firefight, and the frame rate drops to a noticable 30 FPS. It's annoying, right?

Now let's say you're playing it on PS3. 120 FPS just roaming an empty street. However, once you get to a huge ass firefight, you won't be able to notice any chopiness!

Again, this is all in theory and above my head and I probably just made myself sound like an ignorant bastard. But, I don't think this is necessarily a matter of how remarkable it will look running at 120 FPS... but rather how remarkably it will conistently run. Even if it looked the same at 120 FPS and 60 FPS, wouldn't a "low" of 60 still be a "high" for everything else?

Erm...

ITs just marketing hype. I doubt we will see any games that actually utilize this. I actually would rather they stay at 60FPS (which is perfectly fine) and use that extra power to keep it at 60FPS constantly while doing other calculations like AI, and such.

If you read the article, Ken Kutaragi doesn't actually say that this will be used at all, he just says that it is possible. So really, he could mean that if PS3 were using most of its power on FPS, it could do 120 FPS. But he spins it in a way that makes some people believe that PS3 games will actually run at 120FPS. This is true of a lot of statements. I know he does exaggerrate a lot of things but there are very few times that he flat out lies. The problem is, he conveniently words things so that everyone on the internet blows them out of proportion and believes it to be true, when things like 120FPS, were never actually promised.

Anyway, I'm 99% that this is nothing but hype and will most likely not be used.

Originally Posted by dpatel ITs just marketing hype. I doubt we will see any games that actually utilize this. I actually would rather they stay at 60FPS (which is perfectly fine) and use that extra power to keep it at 60FPS constantly while doing other calculations like AI, and such.

You have no understanding how a game/rendering engine works.

who cares.........its the games that matter

Hmm...one thread here suggests that the PS3 can do 120fps, another suggests all the tester units died due to overheating. What to believe?

I run at 120 FPS

ask me how the queen of England is doing?

(zip)

She's Fine

This is just stupid. The FPS of a game depends entirely on the software, not the hardware. They can give the hardware speed and memory, but in the end the masterful coding (or lack there of) is what's going to push that hardware to the extreme. Posting hardware specs is more meanigful than statements like this--and has be reinteratted over and over--even that is pure hype.

They ought to put out the fires inside their demo units before boasting on the FPS of games that don't exist yet.