Ok, been hoping for this patch.. Was going to check if resets were still there 24/7.. But.. The game for me now is unplayeble.. Fps drops down to 5-10 fps in gun fights.. When map loads up its like its around 15-20 fps while running around.. Dont know what they did with the patch.. But for me booting up and trying to play around 10 games was... omg

Its not the same game that i bought.. And to top it off.. Everyone now seems to run and gun or sit in a corner camping.. And i guess that has a lot to do with the frames per second atm.
Gonna put away the game for now and check the forums for updates.. But if it dosnt get fixed before the month is ended im using it to get myself a "free" copy of the next game that my local store has a trade in offer for.. Because.. a game that is unplayeble is not a game..

framerate, host selection and matchmaking the 3 biggest issues in the game werent fixed by the patch... why did they make the patch??!! WTF

framerate, host selection and matchmaking the 3 biggest issues in the game werent fixed by the patch... why did they make the patch??!! WTF

To screw with us... I bet this is why they ignored us all this time.. Because they weren't going to fix the main issues with the frame rate.

You have to love this
For so long PS3 owners thought that their 'Cell' chip meant they had something special, something that would run faster than the fastest PC out there. When games like this come out it finally makes them see that they are wrong.

There are people in the PC forum complaining that the graphics arent good enough and that they should introduce DX11 and other things the PS3 couldnt handle with its current hardware, because on even a half decent PC right now, you can run this game on ultra quality and easily max out the frame rate.

It does make me mad though that the PC game has been dumbed down to PS3 and xbox's level. They both use ancient graphics chips that are about 4-5 generations older than the current crop of PC graphics cards, which is why the PC can run this game so easily, and why some think too easily and the graphics should be beefed up.

cell chip destroy all... we can have 20 cores in PS3 but cell block it...

Haha...you seriously think so?

The cell chip has 1 'processor' unit and 7 smaller processors called SPE's which arent real cores at all as you would find in a standard dual or quad core chip. Since the way games are written for PC and xbox are so similar, and so different for the PS3 - no one will spend the time working out if the SPE's are even any use.

Anyway, for the graphics, it is much more important to have a good graphics chip, so forget the cell processor, the PS3 is based on an Nvidia 7800 GTX. Dont get me wrong, this was a good card in it's day. I had one, but that was about 5 years ago. Since then I had the 8800 GT (+1 generation), 9800 GTX (+2 generations), ATI 5870 (+3 generations) and now a GTX 580 (still +3 generations really - only just faster than 5870).

Not far off now is the new generation ATI 7xxx and GTX 6xx series cards with the new 28nm process from TWMC which are apparently a lot faster and less power hungry. So that will be +4 generations of graphics cards that the PS3 and xbox are behind.

You PS3 guys should be petitioning Sony to release the PS4 so you can have something that actually has a modern graphics chipset in it and can run something better

i own 360 and ps3, and nothing on 360 matches killzone 3 or uc2(let alone 3) .

the ps3 architecture is unique , but theoretically more powerful and we will see this over next few years, mainly in exclusives, but also in multiplats depending on whether its decent devs using it or nott. theres plenty of devs showed they can get parity if they put effort in to optimising engine.

Haha...you seriously think so?

The cell chip has 1 'processor' unit and 7 smaller processors called SPE's which arent real cores at all as you would find in a standard dual or quad core chip. Since the way games are written for PC and xbox are so similar, and so different for the PS3 - no one will spend the time working out if the SPE's are even any use.

Anyway, for the graphics, it is much more important to have a good graphics chip, so forget the cell processor, the PS3 is based on an Nvidia 7800 GTX. Dont get me wrong, this was a good card in it's day. I had one, but that was about 5 years ago. Since then I had the 8800 GT (+1 generation), 9800 GTX (+2 generations), ATI 5870 (+3 generations) and now a GTX 580 (still +3 generations really - only just faster than 5870).

Not far off now is the new generation ATI 7xxx and GTX 6xx series cards with the new 28nm process from TWMC which are apparently a lot faster and less power hungry. So that will be +4 generations of graphics cards that the PS3 and xbox are behind.

You PS3 guys should be petitioning Sony to release the PS4 so you can have something that actually has a modern graphics chipset in it and can run something better

The problem is that they want to make sales to the general public and I don't really think they would do so if they were to release another console right now at like ￡2,000+ a unit. This would probably explain why they use outdated technology - because it's cheap.

NO - NOT TRUE SUAREZ

Listen to me - cell processor doesnt make that much difference to the graphics that the PS3 can produce. It is the graphics chip that counts.

Read my post above about the PS3 using a 5 year old graphics chip, which has now been replaced not once, not twice, but 3 times and about to be 4 times by newer more powerful graphics cards.

People say the cell has so many cores blah blah blah, but remember that the number of cores the cell has is NOTHING compared to what a graphics chip has.

Compare the specs below if you dont believe me:

7800 GTX
302 million transistors
Core clock - 430 MHz
Memory Clock - 1.2 GHz

GTX 580
3 BILLION transistors (that's 10 times as many)
Core clock - 772 MHz
Memory clock - 4008 MHz

And when they released the PS3 - the 7800 GTX wasnt outdated, and it wasnt cheap, but the PS3 didnt cost a fortune.

Haha...you seriously think so?

The cell chip has 1 'processor' unit and 7 smaller processors called SPE's which arent real cores at all as you would find in a standard dual or quad core chip. Since the way games are written for PC and xbox are so similar, and so different for the PS3 - no one will spend the time working out if the SPE's are even any use.

Anyway, for the graphics, it is much more important to have a good graphics chip, so forget the cell processor, the PS3 is based on an Nvidia 7800 GTX. Dont get me wrong, this was a good card in it's day. I had one, but that was about 5 years ago. Since then I had the 8800 GT (+1 generation), 9800 GTX (+2 generations), ATI 5870 (+3 generations) and now a GTX 580 (still +3 generations really - only just faster than 5870).

Not far off now is the new generation ATI 7xxx and GTX 6xx series cards with the new 28nm process from TWMC which are apparently a lot faster and less power hungry. So that will be +4 generations of graphics cards that the PS3 and xbox are behind.

You PS3 guys should be petitioning Sony to release the PS4 so you can have something that actually has a modern graphics chipset in it and can run something better


i heard that they already are going to do something like that. Actually, i read it somewhere around 4 months ago.

you don't know how the PS3 works. You're too used to PC architecture, wherein all graphics rendering is done on the GPU. On the PS3, most graphics rendering is done on the cell. Sony actually wasn't going to include a GPU at all, they put it in as a crutch for developers because they couldn't figure out the cell yet. now that some games (killzone, uncharted) are taking advantage of the cell, the GPU is barely being used. the reason crysis 2 doesn't run as well or as graphically intense as console exclusives is because it relies too heavily on the GPU, when, if it was optimized, it would be relying on the cell.

ur not very bright are u, if u look at many articles wrtten by devs out thereNO - NOT TRUE SUAREZ

Listen to me - cell processor doesnt make that much difference to the graphics that the PS3 can produce. It is the graphics chip that counts.

Read my post above about the PS3 using a 5 year old graphics chip, which has now been replaced not once, not twice, but 3 times and about to be 4 times by newer more powerful graphics cards.

People say the cell has so many cores blah blah blah, but remember that the number of cores the cell has is NOTHING compared to what a graphics chip has.

Compare the specs below if you dont believe me:

7800 GTX
302 million transistors
Core clock - 430 MHz
Memory Clock - 1.2 GHz

GTX 580
3 BILLION transistors (that's 10 times as many)
Core clock - 772 MHz
Memory clock - 4008 MHz


[quote="miztaziggy"]NO - NOT TRUE SUAREZ

if u look at many articles wrtten by devs out there, u will see ur right and wrong.


The ps3 architecture isnt based around its gpu and isnt meant to utilise the gpu in same way 360 does. its meant to utilise its spu's to do all the work that is often loaded onto the gpu on 360.

its this completely different approach to programming that makes life difficult for multiplatform devs , especially if they havent heavily optimised their engine, as they cant simply put effects onto the gpu on ps3 like they do on 360(as long as they stay under 1152x720p they can throw in 2xAA and things like alpha transparency in for free due to 10mb edram attached to the 360 gpu). The 360 also has 512mn unified ram, as opposed to the 256mb dedicated video ram and 256mb cpu ram on ps3, which ends up resulting in bandwidth issues if they try to use ps3 gpu in same way as 360 does.
This is where issue lies, it takes more work to do things on ps3 if u are not working from ground up on it and are using middleware like ue3 or even cryengine 3. They have to learn how its best to do things on ps3, where to do it etc and this is time consuming and expensive, unless they have already invested in optimising their engine to get best out the console.

bioshock infinite devs discussing multiplatform games talk about this distinct hardware being the source of multiplatform issues here.

http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/tech-report-irrational-talks-bioshock.html

or a developer discussing the 360 vs ps3 issue way back in 2006.


"Performance: On paper, the PS3 is more powerful. In reality, it's quite inferior to the 360. Without getting into too many details, the three general-purpose CPU's the xbox360 has are currently FAR easier to take advantage of than the SPU's on the PS3. I suspect a few years down the road some high budget, first party
PS3 exclusive titles will come out that really take advantage of the SPU's and do things the XBOX 360 can't"

http://www.hardcoeware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm

The advantage the 360 has is that its easy to program for, they have all the engines designed around its strengths already like ue3 and the tools were already there from begiig as MS mde sure they were available, whereas Sony didnt ave a of this, and is only now putting in the effort to make sure devs have support and tools available

If u look at what designer of cell and xenos had to say on subject u get this answer

e genius designer David Shippy, who worked on both the PS3's Cell-specific PPU chip and Xbox 360's Xenon CPU talked about the strengths and weaknesses of both chips.

You see a Sony co-developed the Cell with IBM. In late 2002, Microsoft approached IBM about making the chip for Microsoft's rival game console, the Xbox 360. Microsoft used David Shippy experience working on the Cell to use that technology to design a console specific version.

Here's a snippet

"When asked about which CPU is more powerful, Sippy answered that "It depends... they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores... it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU. The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

"At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models," he concludes.

Shippy then was asked how hard it is to write code for Playstation 3's Cell chip, and he explained that it is really tough, but -if done right- software can "absolutely get the most out of the [Playstation 3] hardware".

"I think some of the bigger game houses that will write more high-level code would really prefer an Xbox 360 -- right out of the chute, it's easier to write code for. I think you can really leverage the Cell hardware technology -- but it is harder to get your head around.""

http://xboxrepublic.top-forum.net/t199-xbox-360-chip-equal-to-powerful-cell-says-designer-of-both


try looking at some of these figures if u want too.(not gonna pretend i undertand most of them)

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/nasim/74529

so ur facts and figures dont tell the full story im afraid mate.

ur not very bright are u, if u look at many articles wrtten by devs out thereNO - NOT TRUE SUAREZ

Listen to me - cell processor doesnt make that much difference to the graphics that the PS3 can produce. It is the graphics chip that counts.

Read my post above about the PS3 using a 5 year old graphics chip, which has now been replaced not once, not twice, but 3 times and about to be 4 times by newer more powerful graphics cards.

People say the cell has so many cores blah blah blah, but remember that the number of cores the cell has is NOTHING compared to what a graphics chip has.

Compare the specs below if you dont believe me:

7800 GTX
302 million transistors
Core clock - 430 MHz
Memory Clock - 1.2 GHz

GTX 580
3 BILLION transistors (that's 10 times as many)
Core clock - 772 MHz
Memory clock - 4008 MHz


NO - NOT TRUE SUAREZ

if u look at many articles wrtten by devs out there, u will see ur right and wrong.


The ps3 architecture isnt based around its gpu and isnt meant to utilise the gpu in same way 360 does. its meant to utilise its spu's to do all the work that is often loaded onto the gpu on 360.

its this completely different approach to programming that makes life difficult for multiplatform devs , especially if they havent heavily optimised their engine, as they cant simply put effects onto the gpu on ps3 like they do on 360(as long as they stay under 1152x720p they can throw in 2xAA and things like alpha transparency in for free due to 10mb edram attached to the 360 gpu). The 360 also has 512mn unified ram, as opposed to the 256mb dedicated video ram and 256mb cpu ram on ps3, which ends up resulting in bandwidth issues if they try to use ps3 gpu in same way as 360 does.
This is where issue lies, it takes more work to do things on ps3 if u are not working from ground up on it and are using middleware like ue3 or even cryengine 3. They have to learn how its best to do things on ps3, where to do it etc and this is time consuming and expensive, unless they have already invested in optimising their engine to get best out the console.

bioshock infinite devs discussing multiplatform games talk about this distinct hardware being the source of multiplatform issues here.

http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/tech-report-irrational-talks-bioshock.html

or a developer discussing the 360 vs ps3 issue way back in 2006.


"Performance: On paper, the PS3 is more powerful. In reality, it's quite inferior to the 360. Without getting into too many details, the three general-purpose CPU's the xbox360 has are currently FAR easier to take advantage of than the SPU's on the PS3. I suspect a few years down the road some high budget, first party
PS3 exclusive titles will come out that really take advantage of the SPU's and do things the XBOX 360 can't"

http://www.hardcoeware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm

The advantage the 360 has is that its easy to program for, they have all the engines designed around its strengths already like ue3 and the tools were already there from begiig as MS mde sure they were available, whereas Sony didnt ave a of this, and is only now putting in the effort to make sure devs have support and tools available

If u look at what designer of cell and xenos had to say on subject u get this answer

e genius designer David Shippy, who worked on both the PS3's Cell-specific PPU chip and Xbox 360's Xenon CPU talked about the strengths and weaknesses of both chips.

You see a Sony co-developed the Cell with IBM. In late 2002, Microsoft approached IBM about making the chip for Microsoft's rival game console, the Xbox 360. Microsoft used David Shippy experience working on the Cell to use that technology to design a console specific version.

Here's a snippet

"When asked about which CPU is more powerful, Sippy answered that "It depends... they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores... it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU. The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

"At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models," he concludes.

Shippy then was asked how hard it is to write code for Playstation 3's Cell chip, and he explained that it is really tough, but -if done right- software can "absolutely get the most out of the [Playstation 3] hardware".

"I think some of the bigger game houses that will write more high-level code would really prefer an Xbox 360 -- right out of the chute, it's easier to write code for. I think you can really leverage the Cell hardware technology -- but it is harder to get your head around.""

http://xboxrepublic.top-forum.net/t199-xbox-360-chip-equal-to-powerful-cell-says-designer-of-both


try looking at some of these figures if u want too.(not gonna pretend i undertand most of them)

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/nasim/74529

so ur facts and figures dont tell the full story im afraid mate.
w?ahh d?od I 0m 1MPR3ZZED o.0

Suarez - im not arguing the xbox is more powerful than the PS3 - im telling you that NEITHER of them are that powerful. The cell processor may be powerful for a 5 year old chip, but it is nothing compared to modern PC processors and GPU combinations. Why do you think they had to dumb down and lower the graphics quality in Crysis 2, never mind reduce the map sizes and physics from the first crysis, to fit a 2 year old PC game onto the consoles?

Why do you think Crysis was never released for the consoles?

Why do you think Dice have said the consoles will get a cut down version of BF3 being developed for the PC?

They cant handle it, they are both (360 and PS3) ancient and need replacing. Im mad because games are out now that are simple ports and dont tax the PC at all. Until they release next gen consoles, and realise the cell chip isnt that powerful, PC games arent going to look any better apart from the odd PC first game like BF 3 will be.

It wasnt just Making it more simple for consoles, it was the fact that PC owners moaned about the code being clunky and needing to buy a new rig and graphics card X2. But , but I still think it needs to be optimised on PC and PS3 (looks like its already been done on 360). Dx10,10 for PC and Code it correctly on Ps3 using CELL to its fullest.

Suarez - im not arguing the xbox is more powerful than the PS3 - im telling you that NEITHER of them are that powerful. The cell processor may be powerful for a 5 year old chip, but it is nothing compared to modern PC processors and GPU combinations. Why do you think they had to dumb down and lower the graphics quality in Crysis 2, never mind reduce the map sizes and physics from the first crysis, to fit a 2 year old PC game onto the consoles?

Why do you think Crysis was never released for the consoles?

Why do you think Dice have said the consoles will get a cut down version of BF3 being developed for the PC?

They cant handle it, they are both (360 and PS3) ancient and need replacing. Im mad because games are out now that are simple ports and dont tax the PC at all. Until they release next gen consoles, and realise the cell chip isnt that powerful, PC games arent going to look any better apart from the odd PC first game like BF 3 will be.

Well duh!!! Lol

Thats reason a decent gaming pc costs ￡ 450 minimum( friend is it technician and I asked him to price up a medium range gaming rig built for free and includes using windows 7 ) and the better option is closer to 600, and ps3 and 360 cost 250 or less.

Love to have pc , but can't justify it right now , not when there's some
Games that just dot come out on pc and are ps3 exclusive like uc3. I own both consoles and will probably eventually sell one and get a gaming pc( 360 likely to get heave ho, as exclusives are non existent), but will wait a bit I think , as pc versions of games often buggy as crap, and only differences are higher level aa, higher res and higher frame rate, but if no one I knows plays on pc it's kinda pointless.

Furthermore pc gaming isn't just being held back by consoles, it's being held back by the economy of industry, as it's nit financially viable to spend the extra money developing games that fully exploit pc hardware, as they dOnt make enough money off pc sales to justify it. The average gamess dev is already worried about developing for ps3 and 370 aa game costa are averaging about 30million pounds and expected to go unto 60 mil in some cases. Unless it's a huge triple a title, then they struggle to make good profit, so want to minimise how much development time us, and if u factor in new engines to exploit new hardware, then costa are going to go through the roof, and they will have a much smaller install base to make profit from,learning to use hardware etc, and devs don't want to know right now. They happy with hardware as it is, as they mainly have engines developed for consoles and optimised. Now, thus minimising dev time and cost.

That's why pc gaming being held back, as they need to keep costs down and maximise profit, not Jay keep the tech snobs happy and spending another 20 mil in process whilst making a loss in sales