Console version of ARMA 2

[bangtail 0]

Uh, yes really :j:

The Xenon (360 CPU) has a theoretical peak of about 115 gflops, whereas the Q6600 is ~54 gflops. That's double the floating point (math processing) power.

The Xenos (360 graphics card) is slightly more powerful than a GeForce 8800 Ultra, plus it can do dome things like 4xAA and alpha-blending with no performance penalty and has access to the main system RAM (faster CPU-GPU communication).

Seeing a Q6600 + GeForce8800 run Arma2 fine, It follows that the 360 is more than capable.

No, it isn't and it won't happen but you can keep dreaming.

Consoles are != to Gaming PCs and the 8800 is almost 3.5 years old (6600's aren't far behind).

The FP performance doesn't translate into twice the RW performance.

There is a reason why consoles are ~$300.00 and a decent gaming PC is $1500+.

Edited January 8, 2010 by BangTail

[Pulverizer 1]

Don't delude yourself. Xbox360 is made from parts that are older than four and a half years, as cheaply as possible. That was forever ago.

To get the real story, just look at the games, not the papers. Muddy textures, poor frame rates, don't render at Full HD (not even at 720p in some cases such as Halo3).

[bangtail 0]

Don't delude yourself. Xbox360 is made from parts that are older than four and a half years, as cheaply as possible. That was forever ago.

To get the real story, just look at the games, not the papers. Muddy textures, poor frame rates, don't render at Full HD (not even at 720p in some cases such as Halo3).

Indeed.

[AndresCL 10]

uh, yes really :j:

The xenon (360 cpu) has a theoretical peak of about 115 gflops, whereas the q6600 is ~54 gflops. That's double the floating point (math processing) power.

The xenos (360 graphics card) is slightly more powerful than a geforce 8800 ultra, plus it can do dome things like 4xaa and alpha-blending with no performance penalty and has access to the main system ram (faster cpu-gpu communication).

Seeing a q6600 + geforce8800 run arma2 fine, it follows that the 360 is more than capable.

O rly?

Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU

* 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each

* 2 hardware threads per core; 6 hardware threads total

* 1 VMX-128 vector unit per core; 3 total

* 128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread

* 1 MB L2 cache

CPU Game Math Performance

* 9 billion dot product operations per second

Custom ATI Graphics Processor

* 500 MHz

* 10 MB embedded DRAM

* 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines

* Unified shader architecture

Polygon Performance

* 500 million triangles per second

Pixel Fill Rate

* 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X MSAA

Shader Performance

* 48 billion shader operations per second

Memory

* 512 MB GDDR3 RAM

* 700 MHz DDR

* Unified memory architecture

Memory Bandwidth

* 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth

* 256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM

* 21.6 GB/s front-side bus

[ActionMan 10]

No, it isn't and it won't happen but you can keep dreaming.

You're flat out saying that a 360 can't run Arma2? What evidence do you have? I'm a programmer for PC/360/PS3/Wii, and console hardware is a lot more powerful that you give it credit for.

Consoles are != to Gaming PCs and the 8800 is almost 3.5 years old (6600's aren't far behind).

I never said they were equal! However, a 3.5 year old gaming PC can run Arma, and a 360 is more powerful than a 3.5 year PC... What's your argument against that?

The FP performance doesn't translate into twice the RW performance.

I know, but this kind of disparate figures (similar clock rates, simmilar cores but waaaay different FP performance) is an indicator that one machine was specifically designed to run game software while the other is a general purpose architecture costly tuned to run games.

There is a reason why consoles are ~$300.00 and a decent gaming PC is $1500+.

Yep, and besides the reasons you're thinking of, here's some other important ones:

* Consoles are sold at a *loss* (it cost microsoft money for you to buy them!)

* Consoles are mass-produced using the same parts which *greatly* reduces cost

Don't delude yourself. Xbox360 is made from parts that are older than four and a half years, as cheaply as possible. That was forever ago.

What's with this harsh language -- "keep dreaming", "delude yourself", etc?? Stop being so emotional and stick to the facts please!

It's also made for parts specifically designed for games, which were years ahead of PC parts being sold at the same time. Yes it obviously doesn't match up to a brand-new $1500 PC, but it matches up to a min-spec Arma2 PC.

To get the real story, just look at the games, not the papers. Muddy textures, poor frame rates, don't render at Full HD (not even at 720p in some cases such as Halo3).

Ok, the latest PC games are still coming out on consoles (even if they do only run at 30fps and aren't always max resolution), aren't they?

Did I say Arma2 would run at 60hz 1080p?

Who cares if it's not running on "max settings", I've already got a PC that runs Arma2 fine (and I'm guessing you guys do too), but I know plenty of people who would rather buy a subsidised, mass produced gaming machine than waste all their money on overpriced graphics cards, LCD screens and Track IRs like I do, and yes some of these people are old-school flashpoint players who'd buy Arma2 if it existed for their platform.

O rly? *specs posted*

I fail to see any kind of comparison here (like the gflops stats you quoted from me) -- what's your point?

e.g. What's the fill rate of an 8800 doing 4x MSAA? How many shader ops can it do? How does the SSE performance of an x86 PC CPU stack up against the Xenon's VMX performance?

Edited January 8, 2010 by ActionMan

[bangtail 0]

You're flat out saying that a 360 can't run Arma2? What evidence do you have? I'm a programmer for PC/360/PS3/Wii, and console hardware is a lot more powerful that you give it credit for.I never said they were equal! However, a 3.5 year old gaming PC can run Arma, and a 360 is more powerful than a 3.5 year PC... What's your argument against that?I know, but this kind of disparate figures (similar clock rates, simmilar cores but waaaay different FP performance) is an indicator that one machine was specifically designed to run game software while the other is a general purpose architecture costly tuned to run games.

Yep, and besides the reasons you're thinking of, here's some other important ones:

* Consoles are sold at a *loss* (it cost microsoft money for you to buy them!)

* Consoles are mass-produced using the same parts which *greatly* reduces cost

What's with this harsh language -- "keep dreaming", "delude yourself", etc?? Stop being so emotional and stick to the facts please!

It's also made for parts specifically designed for games, which were years ahead of PC parts being sold at the same time. Yes it obviously doesn't match up to a brand-new $1500 PC, but it matches up to a min-spec Arma2 PC.

Ok, the latest PC games are still coming out on consoles (even if they do only run at 30fps and aren't always max resolution), aren't they?

Did I say Arma2 would run at 60hz 1080p?

Who cares if it's not running on "max settings", I've already got a PC that runs Arma2 fine (and I'm guessing you guys do too), but I know plenty of people who would rather buy a subsidised, mass produced gaming machine than waste all their money on overpriced graphics cards, LCD screens and Track IRs like I do, and yes some of these people are old-school flashpoint players who'd buy Arma2 if it existed for their platform.

Firstly, I'm not emotional.

The 360/PS3 is a toy compared to a current mid to high end gaming rig (Hell, it's a toy compared to the last gen as well).

One of my Keyboards costs almost as much as a 360.

In response to the bold text, that's their problem. I'm not willing to see A2's quality sacrificed to placate these people. There are plenty of games for them to play on their consoles.

Edited January 8, 2010 by BangTail

[AndresCL 10]

You're flat out saying that a 360 can't run Arma2? What evidence do you have? I'm a programmer for PC/360/PS3/Wii, and console hardware is a lot more powerful that you give it credit for.I never said they were equal! However, a 3.5 year old gaming PC can run Arma, and a 360 is more powerful than a 3.5 year PC... What's your argument against that?

Yet the X360 does not have a Xenon CPU (wich is mainly used for servers, why would it ever be in a gaming console?) but a Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU. It is not the same architecture so BI would have to spend a bunch of time porting the PC version to the X360, dont even think about the PS3, wich is even more complicated to port.

If any console is ever getting any port of ArmA 2, is the X360, but it see that very hard to accomplish

Edited January 8, 2010 by AndresCL
I was wrong, thanks for the headsup BangTail

[bangtail 0]

Yet the X360 does not have a Xenon CPU (wich is mainly used for servers, why would it ever be in a gaming console?) but a Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU. It is not the same architecture so BI would have to spend a bunch of time porting the PC version to the X360, dont even think about the PS3, wich is even more complicated to port.

If any console is ever getting any port of ArmA 2, is the X360, but it see that very hard to accomplish

I think you are confusing Xenon with Xeon.

The 360 uses an IBM Xenon processor which has NOTHING to do with the Intel Xeon processor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

[AndresCL 10]

I think you are confusing Xenon with Xeon

The 360 uses an IBM Xenon processor which has NOTHING to do with the Intel Xeon processor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

Oops my bad, its kinda late here. Still, the X360 CPU cant match a current quad core CPU

[Stryker_1 10]

Certain games just don't play well on the console. I have a PS3 and I could never imagine playing an exact duplicate of ARMA II on that or even the Xbox 360. I have been spoiled with my PC Nostromo Gamepad and Mouse combo. Even with these two peripherals, I still need my Keyboard to play ARMA II. I'm not bashing consoles, but there is a notable difference between a true (not ported from a console) PC game versus a Console title. Sports title take the cake for the Console. Complex strategy games for the console, forget it.

[bangtail 0]

Oops my bad, its kinda late here. Still, the X360 CPU cant match a current quad core CPU

It's all good :)

[ActionMan 10]

In response to the bold text, that's their problem. I'm not willing to see A2's quality sacrificed to placate these people. There are plenty of games for them to play on their consoles.

I was originally only pointing out that the 360 is capable of running the game. If you've got some idea that selling the game on consoles is going to harm your PC experience, then that's your problem?

Did porting flaspoint to the original XBox harm the PC version (or did it bring new technology into the engine for Arma1)? You never know -- being forced to slim down and optimise things for a console might actually improve the engine / UI...

I don't really care for this argument though because it's bound to devolve into some kind of "PC pwns Console" fanboi argument. Like I said, I just wanted to point out the facts about the hardware.

Yet the X360 does not have a Xenon CPU (wich is mainly used for servers, why would it ever be in a gaming console?) but a Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU.

Zomg, homework fail. :(

Oops my bad, its kinda late here. Still, the X360 CPU cant match a current quad core CPU

As I posted earlier -- yes it can, especially in regards to math-heavy game software. The math performance of the Xenon is double that of a Q6600.

[bangtail 0]

I was originally only pointing out that the 360 is capable of running the game. If you've got some idea that selling the game on consoles is going to harm your PC experience, then that's your problem?

Did porting flaspoint to the original XBox harm the PC version (or did it bring new technology into the engine for Arma1)? You never know -- being forced to slim down and optimise things for a console might actually improve the engine / UI...

I don't really care for this argument though because it's bound to devolve into some kind of "PC pwns Console" fanboi argument. Like I said, I just wanted to point out the facts about the hardware.Zomg, homework fail. :(As I posted earlier -- yes it can, especially in regards to math-heavy game software. The math performance of the Xenon is double that of a Q6600.

It won't "devolve" into that. That's just a fact. I have nothing against consoles, as I said previously, they are great for Madden etc.

When it comes to simulations etc, the console is just not up to scratch. I don't play Madden on my PC (and I never have), similarly, I would never play A2 on a console.

PS : As I already said, the FP performance does NOT translate into double the RW performance and you are making comparisons to 3.5 year old PC hardware. Most serious gamers have moved on from the 8800 etc.

PPS : It's a bit weak to go after Andre for his mistake when he freely conceded he made one and modified his post to reflect it.

Edited January 8, 2010 by BangTail

[Forrest Gimp 10]

Uh, yes really :j:

The Xenon (360 CPU) has a theoretical peak of about 115 gflops, whereas the Q6600 is ~54 gflops. That's double the floating point (math processing) power.

The Xenos (360 graphics card) is slightly more powerful than a GeForce 8800 Ultra, plus it can do dome things like 4xAA and alpha-blending with no performance penalty and has access to the main system RAM (faster CPU-GPU communication).

Seeing a Q6600 + GeForce8800 run Arma2 fine, It follows that the 360 is more than capable.

deleted

[AndresCL 10]

I was originally only pointing out that the 360 is capable of running the game. If you've got some idea that selling the game on consoles is going to harm your PC experience, then that's your problem?

Did porting flaspoint to the original XBox harm the PC version (or did it bring new technology into the engine for Arma1)? You never know -- being forced to slim down and optimise things for a console might actually improve the engine / UI...

I don't really care for this argument though because it's bound to devolve into some kind of "PC pwns Console" fanboi argument. Like I said, I just wanted to point out the facts about the hardware.Zomg, homework fail. :(As I posted earlier -- yes it can, especially in regards to math-heavy game software. The math performance of the Xenon is double that of a Q6600.

Yes, i confused Xenon with Xeon, im more familiar to x86 architecture than RISC, althought they are pretty similar AFAIK.

Anyways, back to topic. Althought the math capabilities of the Xenon might be high, you still need a powerful GPU, and if we take a look at it (check last post: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1538416&postcount=129)

Its pretty similar to a X1950, i got one, and it runs ArmA II on low. Well, i got 2 cores and the X360 got 3, ill give you that, but still, its not enough to run ArmA II at a decent framerate in consoles, and im convinced about that.

For the record: I dont think BI would ever turn back on its PC fanbase anyway, so if they want to make a port, they are free to do it, but i wouldnt expect consoles gamers to enjoy the exact same experience that the PC version gives, especially with all the community support behind it.

It is nothing personal action, but give it a tought. It is much more than just going over the technical problems, it just would not be the same game

[EBass 0]

Did porting flaspoint to the original XBox harm the PC version (or did it bring new technology into the engine for Arma1)? You never know -- being forced to slim down and optimise things for a console might actually improve the engine / UI...

Release date of Op Flash 22/06/01

Release date of XBox 15/10/01

Release date of Arma2 17/06/09

Release date of XBox360 22/11/05

Meaning XBox tech was current when Op Flash was released and Bohemia still had to do so much optimising work. There is no way the 360 could cope.

[Tom1 10]

1GB RAM

512mb dedicated graphic

Nvidia Geforce 7500

CPU Intel Pentium 3.2 Ghz

Will ArmA2 campaign be able to playon this without 2 much problems?

[Fudgeblood 10]

1GB RAM

512mb dedicated graphic

Nvidia Geforce 7500

CPU Intel Pentium 3.2 Ghz

Will ArmA2 campaign be able to playon this without 2 much problems?

This thread is stickied for a reason. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72181

[Tom1 10]

lol i dunno wat any of that means, im new to all the pc gaming nd stuff i just want to no if anyone reconises that hardware/software watever nd would tell me if i culd play arma 2 on low with cwc frame rate. Im not fussed on payin couple of grand on pc hard/software im just buyinng pc nd wondering if this is ok. lol thnx for ur help thou

[Fudgeblood 10]

No, that PC is terrible.

Go ask what parts to get in the thread I linked you to.

[Grimnirsson 0]

Tom, with all respect, would it be too much of a hassle to write an English we all can read/understand a bit easier? Your 'phonetic' form of writing is - at least for us non-native speakers - a pain to read. Thank you very much.

Grim

[bangtail 0]

Tom, with all respect, would it be too much of a hassle to write an English we all can read/understand a bit easier? Your 'phonetic' form of writing is - at least for us non-native speakers - a pain to read. Thank you very much.

Grim

/signed

[Fudgeblood 10]

Tom, with all respect, would it be too much of a hassle to write an English we all can read/understand a bit easier? Your 'phonetic' form of writing is - at least for us non-native speakers - a pain to read. Thank you very much.

Grim

This.

It's a bitch to read Tom's posts.

[efefia 0]

Meaning XBox tech was current when Op Flash was released and Bohemia still had to do so much optimising work. There is no way the 360 could cope.

Not necesarily correct, despite it's age the 360 is aging very slowly in terms of visuals. It's also basically a Direct X 9c platform which helps, if DX10 had taken off it may not have weathered so well but as it stands currently the only big leap the PC will be making over the 360 will be when/if DX11 manages to get a foothold.

Don't forget that PC games have to be developed to be playable on the widest range of system set ups possible if they have any hope of being a commercial success, very, very few games take advantage of cutting edge PC hardware.

[Leon86 13]

Not necesarily correct, despite it's age the 360 is aging very slowly in terms of visuals. It's also basically a Direct X 9c platform which helps, if DX10 had taken off it may not have weathered so well but as it stands currently the only big leap the PC will be making over the 360 will be when/if DX11 manages to get a foothold.

Don't forget that PC games have to be developed to be playable on the widest range of system set ups possible if they have any hope of being a commercial success, very, very few games take advantage of cutting edge PC hardware.

yes, but even a mediocre pc, like a core2duo 2.5 ghz + an ati hd4850 is much, much faster then a an xbox/ps3. and that wont run arma2 smoothly with a lot going on and more then 1km draw distance. Also arma2 is usually using about 1.2GB of memory and still swapping on the hd like crazy. the laptop hd's in the consoles arent exactly raptors. This is probably why the OPF:DR world is so boring, everything uses the same textures there.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Leon86