引用:

原帖由 zhangjingy 于 2007-8-10 16:10 发表


当然，你可以按照你的愿望理解。不过你可以根据主楼那个产品实现的功能，看看哪些C1也能做的。

天师你快指出来落数一下C1啊,还是你也不知道?

天湿，C1还能SO呢，RSX能不？

引用:

原帖由 上海恐龙 于 2007-8-10 16:12 发表


行，貌似HDR这种东西都是C1在做吧？

另外，貌似HDR+FSAA神机还没实现吧？

为什么没实现？RSX不支持FP + MSAA不代表RSX+CELL不支持吧，况且HDR的格式也不只有FP一种。HS只通过RSX就实现了NAO32 HDR+MSAA。

C1来个流体模拟或者不料模拟试试。

nAO32啊？似乎改名MDR比较合适，HDR的H体现在何处呢？32位RGB可不算哦。

引用:

原帖由 zhangjingy 于 2007-8-10 16:17 发表
C1来个流体模拟或者不料模拟试试。

这玩意CPU都可以做，不同平台用不同SDK，不等于有些可以做有些就不可以，AEGIA的官方声明看不懂么？又玩“AS SOLID AS”？

http://we.pcinlife.com/thread-805902-2-1.html
这帖前面大家在讨论硬件, 但是有个人出现了很恶心, 劲瞎扯d.

引用:

原帖由 爱你一棒陲 于 2007-8-10 16:19 发表

这玩意CPU都可以做，不同平台用不同SDK，不等于有些可以做有些就不可以，AEGIA的官方声明看不懂么？又玩“AS SOLID AS”？

谁说CPU不可以做了？C1呢？

引用:

原帖由 zhangjingy 于 2007-8-10 16:16 发表


为什么没实现？RSX不支持FP + MSAA不代表RSX+CELL不支持吧，况且HDR的格式也不只有FP一种。HS只通过RSX就实现了NAO32 HDR+MSAA。

也就是说FSAA首先不为Cell+RSX支持咯？PS3版的SCDA就是这种NAO32HDR+MSAA导致画面品质低下的牺牲者，计算效率极其低下：

http://www.gamersyde.com/game_906_19088_2_en.html

PS3 SC4 is a victim of a number of things. Obviously tools is one as well as lead SKU being the 360. But SC4 is banging on a couple of doors that are not friendly to the PS3 GPU. e.g. RSX can only do HDR through the shaders when using MSAA, Xenos can go this route or through native formats compatible with FP blending. It appears (as I am told) SC4 went the FP blending route so the boatload of extra work to redo the renderer wasn't really an option; but in the flip case with a shader based approach Xenos would have done just fine. Geometry is another issue. Xenos has a significant edge in geometry performance and is wider. This is why Sony's Edge software has a lot of culling and vertex work being done on SPEs. While you can work within RSX geometry limits just fine you are not going to run into an area where porting your geometry code to Xenos is gonna be unreasonable with a little work whereas vice versa may be significant redesign and workflow. Memory is another issue in SC4. On the PS3 you have about 386MB in a split memory configuration (512 - 96 OS - 30 framebuffer) whereas on the 360 you have about 473MB of shared memory (512-32-7). 20% less available memory is a one way issue. Add in the additional memory management of having to work in framebuffer traffic for performance as well as managing 2 memory pools and texture penalties and you just created a lot of work. And it doesn't stop there as there are compiler and tool disparities and little things--like scaling just works on the 360 and the PS3 takes more planning. And we didn't even discuss the disparity in online networks and the work involved there.

SPE真的比C1快么？

偶还以为Z大湿要教育一下PRESCOTT同学，给他好看呢，失望啊～～～

SPE是3.2ghz，C1是多少？SPE没有C1快？

你们这群人，别起伏欺负nc人士了

引用:

原帖由 zhangjingy 于 2007-8-10 16:26 发表
SPE是3.2ghz，C1是多少？SPE没有C1快？

囧rz……

原来速度可以单纯用工作频率来算了，那P4比Core Solo要强无比了，张天师，你已经强到无以复加了

另外再转一段比较公正的评价：

So while you can hold to your belief that if the tables were reversed the results would be the same, but flip flopped, I don't agree in graphic limited scenarios. It is absolutely true that there will be areas and games that RSX will do better than Xenos when designed for RSX-SPE workflow and then ported over. But there are a lot less "gotchas" -- RSX HDR formats will work fine, Xenos has more memory available with less management and possible penalties, Xenos is a geometry monster, Xenos won't be hit with fillrate performance issues, Xenos performs better at most PS SM3.0 code, etc. So where there will be deficiencies the developer can remain more focused on resolving the bottleneck or just simply disabling the graphical effect.

……如果游戏理论上单纯为RSX-SPE模式开发的话，那的确要比XENOS快；但实际应用的时候却没有那么好：XENOS有更多显存空间、更少的管理难度、更强的多边形性能、更少的帧数问题、更好的Shader性能……

连以往S系擅长的堆多边形，这次也要甘拜下风，因为C1是一个“Geometry Monster”

[ 本帖最后由 上海恐龙 于 2007-8-10 16:33 编辑 ]

我也来看你们暴天师菊花了

引用:

原帖由 上海恐龙 于 2007-8-10 16:31 发表
连以往S系擅长的堆多边形，这次也要甘拜下风，因为C1是一个“Geometry Monster”

S系的“堆多边形”从来就没在Xbox系主机面前胜出过