PS3 Call of Duty 3 to have multi-player

Captain Tuttle - 1172 days ago

That it took exactly 12 minutes.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

D R Fz - 1172 days ago

- "currently running at 30 frames-per-second"
- " supposed 60 frames-per second."

Moral of the story, we know nothing. There is still little over a month left and nothing is written in stone as of the moment. Therefore, I can say that the title will give me the same experience on either console whether it is gameplay or online.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

proudtobetom - 1172 days ago

did u accually read the artical

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

kmis87 - 1172 days ago

One quick point. How can it be confirmed long ago if the specs aren't even released? Seriously.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Deceased - 1172 days ago

Everyone already know the gpu in the ps3 will use vector4's that what the 6800 nvidia cards use, so his calcualtions are correct. That is why both nvidia and ati are making unified gpu's for pc's they are more efficient, powerful, and can do both physics and AI as well. The information he got was from the SONY press release about the RSX which states:

Below are the specs from Sony's press release regarding the PS3's GPU.

RSX GPU

550 MHz
Independent vertex/pixel shaders
51 billion dot products per second (total system performance)
300M transistors
136 "shader operations" per clock

and the clock was dumbed down to 500mhz so it is even slower.

The PS3 does have the additional 7 DSPs on the Cell to add more floating point ops for graphics rendering, but the Xbox 360's three general purpose cores with custom D3D and dot product instructions are more customized for true graphics related calculations.

The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.

HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices.

Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report

D R Fz - 1172 days ago

Could you have been anymore on point with your comment. Like the rest of the world, I know that Sony has not yet released the final specs for the system so where is nathaniel getting his specs from. Even funnier, deceased said he already knew. Lol. Anyways the point of the matter is that we can all speculate but nothing is certain until we have a hold of the final product.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Arkham - 1172 days ago

Do you also have the original Star Trek episode names and numbers memorized?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

kmis87 - 1172 days ago

Doesn't the ps3 have 48Gb/s of bandwidth that the cpu and gpu have to share while the 360 only has 22.4 between the two? Also, how old was that press release, and since nothing about the actual structure or performance is known all of the calculations rely on inferred information. "It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s." From what I understand about what Nathaniel wrote, all of his calculations about gigaflops and stuff derives from this assertion. All of this crap that you're arguing comes down to an "if." Also, it's all well and good copying and pasting crap from all over the internet to justify your points, but if that stuff comes from biased sources, it's all worthless. For instance, Nate's so called "IGN article of analysis." That's just Microsoft's analysis based on assumed spec numbers and suspect comparisons. Case in point, MS claims to have over 5 times the bandwidth of the ps3. Anyone who wholeheartedly believes this crap is just blinding themselves to the bias they know is there. Also, who the hell cares about the number of gigaflops your console can perform?

Lastly, WHY THE HELL ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS ARGUMENT? I clicked on this to find out about Call of Duty 3 multiplayer and now I get to ready about fanboys bickering over which console is better, using biased numbers, and biased analysis. This is why I hate most people.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Aflac - 1172 days ago

its always fun t pwn those n00bs.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

DJ - 1171 days 20 hours ago

I've already disproved that so-called 'fact sheet' a long time ago since the data was produced by ATI in reference to nVidia's RSX chip, a chip that ATI has not even touched, let alone seen the specs for.

Every calculation that ATI provided was based off the assumption that the RSX is 6800 architecture. This is easily explainable since nVidia stated at E3 '05 that the RSX was more than twice as powerful as their 6800 graphics card.

At the time however, the 6800 was the top of the line GPU, and even the 7800 cannot do 1.8 Tflops. To think that Sony would pay nVidia $30 million to shove old architecture into their PS3 is simply foolish.

It obviously has custom architecture, as well as some really powerful processing power. Want evidence? Just look at games like Resistance, Motorstorm, F1, Heavenly Sword, Eight Days, FFXIII, etc.

It's nice that Microsoft and ATI attempted to do so much damage control after Sony beat them down at E3 '05, but pretty pathetic as well.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Donkey Slayer - 1171 days 23 hours ago

Confirmation of 1080p 60fps NBA 07:
http://www.gametrailers.com...

RR 7 has already been confirmed for 1080p 60fps:
http://static.flickr.com/88...

2K7 may be 1080p 60fps as well, but I haven't read anything on that. Just the better A.I., graphics and cloth animations for the PS3 version (developers words):
http://ps3.ign.com/articles...

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

eques judicii - 1171 days 23 hours ago

this is a pretty ignorant statement... the 360 is not old, in fact this article says its running cod3 better than the ps3..

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

Dlacy13g - 1171 days 22 hours ago

Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to say....and you fail. I have a had a 360 since launch and love it. So not only do I have my 360 and have been playing it, but now I have saved so I can buy a PS3 and enjoy both if I choose. I would say you Sony Fanboy are the unlucky one. You have denied yourself quality gaming all in the name of being a fanboy. I truly hope when you get your PS3 it meets all your expectations and makes you feel justified in your purchase. Sadly, I think you will be left a little short of feeling completely good about the PS3.

As for Call of Duty 3. I am excited for this game as I loved Call of Duty 2 on my 360.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Sphinx - 1171 days 23 hours ago

...I'll try to be civil with this reply... ok, trying to keep composed... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

DJ - 1171 days 20 hours ago

What'll you do if the PS3 version ends having a slight graphical edge? Just a hypothetical situation (they obviously won't do it due to lowest common denominator strategies). I'm still curious as to why it's being stated that the 360 is supposedly at 60 FPS instead of saying it straight up. It's a bit confusing.

BTW, it's funny that now it's been proven for the eleventh time that the PS3 has an actual, tangible, working online network the haters have resorted to attacking the system's specs with false information that was either concocted by Microsoft, ATI, or themselves.

Nothing about the RSX has been 'confirmed'. There were leaked specs, but we don't even know if those were for the preliminary RSX or the final chip. (originally the PS3 dev kits were running nVidia 7800's and 2.4Ghz Cell chips, along with only 256MB of Ram)

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Genki - 1171 days 16 hours ago

I'm not exactly tech savvy, but that was quite an informative post indeed, Enforcer, you've definitely brought some things to light.

Edit: Might I add, I appreciate when someone backs up their claim with information that they know based on their own research and knowledge, as opposed to simply following a source because...it's a source.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

DJ - 1171 days 16 hours ago

while Bladestar got promoted to 6. Enforcer argues in a mature manner and backs up his statements while Bladestar just kind of yells at everyone...did I miss something?

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Genki - 1171 days 10 hours ago

had you stated exactly what it is that he's supposedly lying about. Besides that, you claim to have done over a year of independent research, but rather than sharing that knowledge in your response, you would rather make claims about tricking others into buying systems, and saying only fanboys say that sonys system is better. I'm sorry, but that's just juvenile.

Regarding Ubisofts claims, you act as if they are the only company to favor one particular system, like no other conpany has said that their games may turn out better on PS3 hardware. For as smart as you claim to be, you should know that no two individuals, let alone companies, will program a game the same exact way, meaning that other people with different and various preferred methods MIGHT just prefer the PS3 in terms of power. Ubisoft's word isn't the gospel, you know. Besides that, they said it themselves, the 360 will be their main platform for development, and the upcoming Rainbow Six is even a port to the PS3, so from that alone you can safely assume that they probably just PREFER the 360. Don't twist the truth please, what do you think that does to your credibility?

Now, about your valid links, as you claim them, I looked at the three you gave in your post, and from what I've personally observed, they're not exactly as concrete as you would have everyone believe. I'm not saying that they're BS, (well, one OBVIOUSLY is)but you backing them up as being official is hardly 100% accurate.

The IBM link seemed good to go, I didn't see any ridiculous PR, just charts and graphs regarding the Cell, cool, no problem, looks good to me.

The one about DX10 wasn't exactly kosher though, as it clearly states at the top, that the interviewers sat down with ATI about their unified architecture. Again, I'm not saying that they were lying through their teeth or anything, because all the info seemed to make sense, but the thing is, you claim that info from sony related sources are BS, but a claim from ATI regarding their own product is truth? Newsflash, companies, for the most part won't stress much on the negative about their product , especially when there's fierce competition out there, so with that in mind, how can you take ATI's word, but when something is released by a Sony supporter, it's automatically BS? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The IGN article was commented on by the very people that posted it. I notice how you neglected to start that link on the first page, where it states in black and white that IGN isn't endorsing this particular claim, and that Microsoft has CLEARLY SLANTED the info. So much for that "official" source, huh?

You said you want to let people decide based upon the truth, yet it seems like you are sugarcoating things just as much, if not more, than those you criticize, and that angst-filled post may suggest you have a chip on your shoulder, considering all you did was more or less complain about people not believing you.

There's no doubt in my mind that you know a thing or two, as the post you have further above was quite informative, but when you can't even defend your own comments once they're contested(in a mature manner anyway), you lose whatever credibility you had. Explain why whoever was lying about what, don't point the finger and then you might make some sense.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

TheMART at Xboxkings - 1171 days 10 hours ago

CPU is optimal voor scientific calculations, but is it for games???

And the little bit of power extra has been proven marginal. Won't make that big of a difference. Not to forget, for graphics it's especially the GPU that counts.

So why do you think Sony didn't bring the 'official' spec's out yet?

They always talk big about specs on paper, like the Cell. It's of no use, but they just like TFLOPS (like with the PS2, which was the weakest in graphics although the TFLOP blabla) and other stuff never seen again in games.

So why didn't they release anything yet? A month before launch? Because they know the RSX will be slaughtered by the 360 GPU. Just simple that.

The RSX can't do HDR and 4 x AA at the same time in 720p or 1080p. 360 can.

So it's not only COD3, it's now Ubisoft also on other games like Rainbox Six. This gen games are developed on 360 and ported to PS3. Expect lower graphics, less options, just a minor game experience on the PS3.

http://www.g4tv.com/pile_pl...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Aflac - 1163 days 6 hours ago

u just make sh!t up, meanwhile all I'v doe is use valid sources, u just say theyr invalid cuz they dont tell u wat u wanna hear. BTW, if the ign article of MS's analysis really was invalid, why is it that sony NEVER slammed it as the did to th donwgrade rumors? obviously, because it was correct, therefore, it just better for them to remain silent about it than put themselves on the spot over the issue.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report