new realtime PS3 Killzone 2 screenshots (+small rant)

http://www.n4g.com/M/8/Images//61000/61463_med.jpg
http://www.n4g.com/M/8/Images//61000/61464_med.jpg
http://www.n4g.com/M/8/Images//61000/61465_med.jpg
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4169/0a8steammachine8xy8.jpg
http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_184442.jpg
http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_184440.jpg
http://www.enregistrersous.com/images/200381512820070714151739.jpg

graphics look decent but AFAIK the framerate hasn't been mentioned
yet. If the final game runs at 30fps I won't be impressed. If it
runs at 60fps, I will actually be impressed.

Yet remember, the CELL processor really cannot make PS3 graphics much
better than what the Nvidia RSX GPU can do on its own. So those hoping
for Killzone 2 to look anywhere near as good as the E3 2005 trailer
are going to be disappointed, even with all the money, manpower and
time put into this game.

The RSX GPU, although based on the NV47 architecture, is little more
than a stripped down, downgraded GF 7800) or GF 7900. RSX has HALF the
ROPs (pixel-pipelines) and HALF the bus width connected to graphics
memory. Therefore PS3's RSX has less raw pixel fillrate and memory
bandwidth than highend Nvidia cards from 2005.

compare RSX to its brothers used in PC cards:

G70 / GF 7800 GTX 256 MB - June 2005
core clock: 430 MHz
pixel pipelines / ROPs: 16
pixel fillrate: 6880 Mpixels/sec
memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/sec

G70 / GF 7800 GTX 512 MB - Nov 2005
core clock: 550 MHz
pixel pipelines / ROPs: 16
pixel fillrate: 8800 Mpixels/sec
memory bandwidth: 54.4 GB/sec

G71 / GF 7900 GTX 512 MB - March 2006
core clock: 650 MHz
pixel pipelines / ROPs: 16
pixel fillrate: 10,400 Mpixels/sec
memory bandwidth: 51.2 GB/sec

(PS3) RSX / Reality Synthesizer - Nov 2006
core clock: 500 MHz
pixel pipelines / ROPs: 8
pixel fillrate: 4000 Mpixels/sec
memory bandwidth to GDDR3: 22.4 GB/sec

Even if (stressing the word IF) the amount of vertex and pixel
shaders are the same as G70/G71 (8 VS & 24 PS), RSX is a pretty weak
GPU by todays standards.


PS3 launched with a GPU that was WELL below the highend in PCs at the
time.

The G80 / GeForce 8800 was out when the PS3 launched with the older
generation of GPU.

That's unheard of for Playstations. what do I mean? I mean that when
PS2 in 2000 and PS1 launched in 1994/1995, they were both ahead of the
most powerful, most expensive PCs / PC graphics cards of their time,
and by a wide margin.

PS2 launched in March 2000 in Japan. the most powerful PC card of the
time was the GeForce256 DDR (GF1). when PS2 launched in the U.S.
and Europe, the most powerful cards were: GeForce 2 GTS, GeForce 2
Ultra and the original Radeon.
PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was well ahead of those cards as far as
polygon & pixel performance as well as graphics memory bandwidth (48
GB/sec). Even though the PS2 GS was lacking in image quality compared
to PC cards, the GS made up for that with its brute power.

IMO Sony should have went for Nvidia's NV50 / G80 architecture as the
basis of PS3's GPU. I completely believe a customized G80 modified
with embedded memory would've been the perfect match for the CELL
CPU. you could say that new highend PC cards cost $500-$700, about
as much as an entire PS3. that's because they're not mass produced.
remember PS1 and PS2 both had graphics chips that were more powerful
than the most expensive PC cards of the time. in PS2's time, highend
PC cards cost $300~$400.


In a nutshell, all of the pre-rendered CGI clips that Sony showed off
at E3 2005 to hype the PS3, will not be possible in realtime, in-game
until PS4 comes out with at least 5 times the graphics power of PS3.
I don't expect a huge leap from PS3 to PS4 because Sony isn't going to
be able to afford a 100 times or greater leap in graphics performance
like they managed to get when they went from PS1 to PS2. that said,
PS4 should have adaquate power to do stuff like the E3 2005 Killzone,
Motorstorm, Heavenly Sword, Tekken, F1 Racing trailers, in game.