Sweeet! Maybe worth me buying a ps3

Because PS3 is not region coded, all of the languages must be on every disc. Since a majority of the audio is uncompressed it takes up a huge amount of space.

The Xbox on the other hand is region coded and therefore languages are selected for each region. For that reason many of the titles which are available on both consoles only require 1 disc for each. And this is coming from someone who owns all three consoles for this generation.

Compared to the storage capacity of the PS3 you'd be lucky if you could get three pages of spoken words of uncompressed language on the 360 compared to the PS3. 4GB vs 50GB. Nice try though.

Just because they use all the components doesn't mean they use them well (especially if this is their first ps3 game). even if they are getting "100% cpu usage" there will still be optimizations and better ways to do things that will show up later in the life cycle of the console. Besides, all the games that have "stressed" the system so far have only been 720p, it doesn't matter how much tech you have going on, if your rendering at the equivalent of 1024x768 on a 40"+ screen, its gonna look pretty average (like gta for instance). That screen shot looks pretty awesome though

this was one game i bought my PS3 for...that and the blu-ray player...i do wish i bought the original 60gb version instead of 80gb but at least it has software backward compatibilty...it's not total loss but i'm still mad at Sony for getting rid of PS2 compatibility...

i'm a fan, not a huge but somewhat big, of Final Fantasy series and i'm excited for XIII and VS XIII...

for all this hype and delays, it better be worth it...i don't care about the capabilities of the console...as i have both 360 and PS3...as long as the game's great with storyline, characters, and music, all's right with the world...

uhmmm....DVDs are dual layer...at 8.7GB...

and if you can tell differences in GTA IV between 360 and PS3, you must have eyes of microscope...uncompressed audio isn't taken full advantage unless you have right equipment...

don't be a such wanker fanboy....

This may well be very good news, but at the same time, I'm skeptical. It may use all of its "power" because of inefficient coding, or it really is pushed to the limits.

I remember EPIC Games said that about Gears of War pushing the XBOX 360 to its full potential and there were basically no room for improvement. Look at Call of Duty 4 or Gears of War 2, they sure as hell look better than Gears of War 1.

I bet there's going to be new games that can push the PS3 hardware even further and that this is just marketing hype.

Why did they only put 256MB of ram on the PS3? That won't last 1 decade.

I'll use the Rocks in a glass analogy.

You can fill a glass with rocks, you can say that you've fill all of the glass that you can. But I can take pebbles, and fill in those gaps. Then I'll say I filled the glass all I can. But then you could fill in those gaps with sand, and I could fill the gaps in the sand with water.

Who is filling the glass "100%"? You can always use the space better.

Even though i've never played FF, it'll be interesting to investigate their means of almost 100% potential. Hoping they mean graphics + sound will kickass and not just reaching almost 100% capacity of a BD j/k =]

On a side note, i am more in favour of Grand Turismo. They've taken long enough -_- sheesh now there’s a game THAT should be using the total 100% ;P

You uh... know there's dual-layer DVDs, right? You're comparing a dual-layered BD with what's close to a single-layer DVD. A standard DVD holds 4.7GB, a dual-layer DVD holds approximately just over 9GB. If it's worth the $400 upgrade to buy a PS3 just to play a game without switching disks, then I wonder what you'd do without a remote.

Lol, you corrected someone with the wrong information. A Dual-Layer DVD holds 8.5GB of Data, which is less than 9GB, not more.

Technically there's 512MB. 256 for system, and 256 for graphics. XBOX 360 has 512 as well, but it's shared RAM, which sucks ona cumputer, but is great for consoles since developers write for the hardware and this gives them freedom to use the RAM for whatever they want.

Yeah, well a 100GB harddrive doesn't really store 100GB, so why don't you write a fucking letter to Seagate while you're at it.

Then what does it matter that he was off by a few GB?

Agreed, just because a programmer is tapping out the resources to run their software doesn't mean their taking the system to its limits. A better programmer could possibly render the same game using less resources without sacrificing quality.

It is probably a optimizations problems or the hardware, but I seen some games struggle with their framerates even at 720p. Metal Gear Solid, GTA 4, Killzone 2 and even the new slow-pace Resident Evil 5 I just bought have noticeable drops. So, I'm 100% there were games that pushed the outdated hardware to the limit. Still, I think it's probably one of the best console for the home right now.

You know the difference is redundant, right?




You do know that FF13 will be 3GB of game data and 47GB of pre rendered HD video?

All the cutscenes are real time rendered, just like every other PS3 game this generation. The biggest space is going to be eaten by textures and sound. MGS4 was close to breaking the 50GB mark, and none of it's cutscenes were pre-rendered.

When he says 100%, I don't think he just means cpu usage. He more than likely means they are getting the most of out the system that anyone could. I'm not saying this statement is true just that he probably means that. In the quote FFVII did push the PSone. When it first came out it was one of the best looking games but by FFIX the graphics improved considerably.

Well, perhaps this game will simply use all available threads at near 100%. Of course if it's doing in 130 instructions what could be done in 20, then there is certainly room for improvement even if you claim it's using 100% of the PS3s power. Thing is, if it looks just as good on the 360 as it does on the PS3 when the PS3 version is being maxed out, then either the PS3 is weaker overall than the 360, or the more likely option the compiler still sux for the PS3 and is an inefficient pain, hence one more reason there are more games for the 360. Even though the Cell is superior for raw number crunching to the 3 core chip in the 360, Cell is really just one true CPU core with 7 small number crunchers while the 360 has three Power PC cores that can handle 6 threads of vector math, AI, and game engine logic.

One should also consider that the GPU in the PS3 is a basically modified GeForce 7800, and that much of it's claimed 1.8 TFlop processing power is for fixed function math like dealing with triangles and fixed function fog effects. The combined power of its shaders is much closer to like 200 GFLOPS. With the universal shader architecture of the 360 it is more efficient in shader power as opposed to the PS3 which has separate pixel and vertex shaders.

IT will be interesting to see the results when this game comes out. Will the PS3 prove it's worth the price premium over the 360 as a gaming system, or will that price premium just be for having a blu ray player? Will the 360 prove it can give smooth gameplay while making images just as good, or almost as good, as the PS3?

That's nice but the real question is:
When is the price of the PS3 going to drop?

I too can use 100% of the PS3's potential:

while(1) fork();

I'll need to read the FF XIII reviews. I recall FF XI being a pain in the ass because you couldn't skip the cut scenes, and every time you died in a battle that took place just after the cut scene meant that you had to watch it again. Some of those cut scenes were 5 or 10 minutes in length.

.. i still don't understand the article. does it mean that this FF is so graphic, audio, physic, etc sooo good that the ps3 is running all of its cores at 100% almost all of the time, or does it just meant the programmers utilized/optimized all the different cores (or engines for cells processor, i think it's called) for their different jobs/purpose?

I guess we can only wait and see.

That is a very broad statement. As others have said, 100% use of the hardware doesnt equal 100% use of its potential. A crap ton of games are under optimized and could do a lot better with good programing. If you can get prime 95 to work on ps3 im sure you can get it to utalize 100% of the cpu cores.

Is it CPU power or GPU power? I wonder if there are any bottle necks in the code?

Why did they only put 256MB of ram on the PS3? That won't last 1 decade.

>> Sony uses XDR mermory which is runs much faster and provides higher bandwidth... You need to look into the memory usage efficency and not only meory size

*sniff sniff sniff*


i think i smell bull ---- !!!!

wrong here , 256 mb of ram on a console goes ALOT further than 256 mb on a pc.

this is one area where consoles are ahead of pc's and that is main board buss bandwidth , the current generation of consoles are around 256 bit buss speed , while pc's are current at 64 bit buss speed on teh mainboard aka sytem ram and cpu buss , while teh video card uses a much higher buss the the fact that a vid card still has to push some data the cpu's way the video cards higher buss has to squeeze it's data intot eh cpu bus which is maller , this doenst mean that pc's are tech inferior though , this is really quite intentional because a new buss size would requrie chips made for that buss which would require code that is way difernt for this reason teh mainboard buss on comps advances slower than the main board buss on a console . basically this means comps need TONS of system ram to handle data on teh smaller buss , while a console doesnt requrie the same ram , because teh whole buss for all components are the same , so ther is no slow down between memory data fetching so they can afford to use less memory

hope this explains thigns ... 256 mg on a console will last a good deal

consider these facts aboutt eh alst generation

xbox unified memory totalling at = 64 mg

ps2 - 8 mg sound ram 8 , mg vid ram and 16 mg ,main ram
total ram = 32 mb

dreamcast 4 mg sound ram , 8 mg vid ram 12 meg system ram
total ram = 24 mg

(cant find figures for game cube but it ws between DC and ps2 if i remeber correctly)

poin t being all those systems lasted a good while , and in fact ther are still new games beign amde for both ps2 and game cube that push those systems bountries but still are doable. and i'm sure the original xbox with it's bigger memory palate would still have games being made for it if MS did not cancel the system upon 360's release. the curent gen systems have more than enouhg ram to handle their needs for the years to come before they are replaced with newer consoles.

100% of what?

100% of its cell CPU, or 100% of its crappy GPU or 100% of its pathetic amount of RAM?

The only good component of the PS3 is the Cell Processor. I doubt they will be using 100% of that, cos the GPU and RAM wont keep up.

It will use 100% of what?

100% of the cell processor? or 100% of its crappy GPU, or 100% of its pathetic amount of RAM?


And dont say console ram goes further than PC ram. Crytek couldnt port crysis to PS3 (or xbox) cos of the lack of ram on the console, not cos of anything else.