Truespeed said:You must be talking about Christophe's quote. I'm more inclined to believe a person that has actually programmed for the Cell, has an idea of the actual utilization reported by their diagnostic tools and is a member of one of the most talented development studio's in the world that has consistently delivered on every console game they've shipped (in HD, no less). 100% utilization of theoretical performance is impossible, but 30% of theoretical is entirely believable. But, then I'm more inclined to believe an actual programmer than a circus ring leader.
yea, the gaming industry is full of trustworthy people, they never lie to their customer, it's not like they want to sell their product, be it a game or the whole graphics engine, why would they abuse their naive fanbase who knows shit about the technical side of things
for instance, there are people on gaf who thing MLAA is the second coming of christ, the best AA solution eva !!1 or really think MLAA = 16xMSAA, the truth is far from it, it's not even a good solution at all... the only thing worse is QAA, it has some positive points like it doesn't blur the picture like QAA and it offloads the AA job from GPU to the CPU which saves a bit of video ram, but here is the thing, it barely works in motion, just check Killzone2 (QAA) vs. Killzone3 (MLAA), the later one has much more noticeable aliasing
MLAA
MSAA
point is the PS3 isn't good at doing AA because of the FP16-Rendertargets bottleneck
ok back ontopic:
fiction - truth
one of many examples
and you should learn to be a bit more pessimistic, your dose of "I dig every shit they throw at me" is unhealthy
but the truth is, the average customer/gamer doesn't care at all about those things, only the enthusiasts care (I really don't like the term core/hardcoregamer), and they're the minority. But if you care, at least try to get your facts right and don't believe everything a salesman tells you.
// reading my post days after is painful, god my english sucks big time