PS3 to run at 120 fps?

It's possible, says Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi; all that's needed is a TV capable of displaying it.
Coming soon to an Internet message board near you: waves of more-hardcore-than-thou posters referring to any game running at 60 frames per second (fps) as "a slideshow."

Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP.

Never mind that even newer TVs aren't capable of refreshing the screen 120 times in a single second. Kutaragi said that when new technology comes to market, he hopes to have the PS3 ready to take advantage of it.

As for the Cell chip at the heart of the PS3, Kutaragi also had high hopes for its future beyond gaming. Using high-definition TV as an example, he said that the Cell chip could take advantage of the technology in many ways, such as displaying newspapers in their actual size, showing multiple high-definition channels on the screen at once, and video conferencing. He emphasized that the Cell can be used to decode more than 10 HDTV channels simultaneously, and it can also be used to apply effects such as rotating and zooming.

Later, he introduced the idea of a Cell cluster server that operates with 16 units, each consisting of eight Cell chips running at 2.5Ghz. That would be a total processing power of 25.6 teraflops. Kutaragi also outlined plans to shrink the chip from the current 90-nanometer process to a 65-nanometer process in the future and eventually down to a 45-nanometer process.

um... screen refresh rate has nothing to do with main processor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quzar

um... screen refresh rate has nothing to do with main processor.

---

exactly what I was going to say.

it does! if you dont have enough power in the proccessor you dont get a high framerate

well I guess this would give sony a great marketing edge by saying that the ps3 is so powerful that no tv can fully display the image of the ps3. Of course we all know this is sony grade bullshit. I am sure m$ will counter with 140fps. Sounds like another big dick contest about to start between the big 2.....sigh

anything above 60fps is "unoticable to the human eye" -PC Gamer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *o*

it does! if you dont have enough power in the proccessor you dont get a high framerate

---

to a point. all you have to do is update it 120 times a second, not necessarily changing what is on the screen. It is much more about the video output device being able to handle such a thing.

immagine all the subliminal messages that can be put into this... like 40 frames can be like join the army... or $#@! microsoft, buy sony stuff only... thats why they did it duh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quzar

um... screen refresh rate has nothing to do with main processor.

---

If you wish to render 120 unique frames it does. Because that means you now have 1/120 of a second to perform a cycle process vs 1/60. If you don't remember back in the ps1 days, it was considered amazing if a game was able to pull off rendering at 1/60 of a second because it was too much for the psx or n64 to handel. Take for instance F-zero for 64 which looks like ass and has very low polygon count running just so the game could lock in at 60fps vs 30fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xuphorz

anything above 60fps is "unoticable to the human eye" -PC Gamer

---

Bull S**T!

The higher the FPS, the more fluid things run & sure you might not be able to walk up and say "hey that games running at 30/60/120 frames a second" but yet if you fliped between all 3 you would instantly reconise a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSmonkey

If you wish to render 120 unique frames it does. Because that means you now have 1/120 of a second to perform a cycle process vs 1/60. If you don't remember back in the ps1 days, it was considered amazing if a game was able to pull off rendering at 1/60 of a second because it was too much for the psx or n64 to handel. Take for instance F-zero for 64 which looks like ass and has very low polygon count running just so the game could lock in at 60fps vs 30fps.

---

Yea, and i clarified in a later post in this same thread as to that fact. The only thing limiting previous systems from doing this is the actual video output hardware though. Like you said, lots of PS and N64 games ran at 30fps when they could have run at 60, What I was saying is that the PS3 being capable of outputting at 120fps says nothing about it's processing power. Same way the PS and N64 being able to do 60fps doesnt say anything about their processing power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSmonkey

Bull S**T!

The higher the FPS, the more fluid things run & sure you might not be able to walk up and say "hey that games running at 30/60/120 frames a second" but yet if you fliped between all 3 you would instantly reconise a difference.

---

I have always heard the same thing. 60 FPS is supposed to be the max fps the human eye can see. Dunno if that is true.

Read up on Frames per second at wikipedia (where it doesnt actually state what the persistence of vision is.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1timeuser

I have always heard the same thing. 60 FPS is supposed to be the max fps the human eye can see. Dunno if that is true.

Read up on Frames per second at wikipedia (where it doesnt actually state what the persistence of vision is.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frames_per_second

---

"It should also be noted that there is a rather large controversy over what is known as the "feel" of the game frame rate. It is argued that games with extremely high frame rates "feel" better and smoother than those that are just getting by. This is especially true in games such as a first-person shooter. There is often a noticeable choppyness perceived in most computer rendered video, despite it being above the flicker fusion frequency.

This choppyness is not a perceived flicker, but a perceived gap between the object in motion and its afterimage left in the eye from the last frame. A computer samples one point in time, then nothing is sampled until the next frame is rendered, so a visible gap can been seen between the moving object and its afterimage in the eye."

This is part of the problem why fps matters. More frames, usualy means less motion gaps.

Also Its been a while but in the past I have read a study showing people precieving a difference up to 1/121 of a second. I'll have to look into it some more again when i have time. Hense the BS stance as this is something i've known for a while.

A small test you can always do (if you monitor handles it), is play with the refresh hz, the higher the limit the easier it is on your eyes. The lower the more it hurts your eyes (trying to adjust to the difference). You will have no problem feeling & registering a differecen between 60, 75 & 80 hz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quzar

Yea, and i clarified in a later post in this same thread as to that fact. The only thing limiting previous systems from doing this is the actual video output hardware though. Like you said, lots of PS and N64 games ran at 30fps when they could have run at 60, What I was saying is that the PS3 being capable of outputting at 120fps says nothing about it's processing power. Same way the PS and N64 being able to do 60fps doesnt say anything about their processing power.

---

Actualy a bit wrong. In most instances the CPU & BUS speeds are the bottleneck and not GPUs. This is a huge reason more and more is being hw optimised and pushed off onto the gpu to reduce the amount handled by the cpu & transfered over the bus.

If a game was fully optimised right, it could be posible to run at 60fps. Don't forget the ps1 was missing many things in it's time so much more was done by the cpu and not gpu.

i havn't understood how to say it, i'm not talking about the gpu, i'm talking about the video output hardware. the dac, and then the output from the gpu, but not the gpu itself.

I'm talking strictly about the capability of the hardware to be able to output at a frequency of Xhz independent of wether the frames are all unique, colored, textured, whatever. You could probably modify a NES to have a 120hz output system, if you were so inclined, and that would in no way relate to it's processing power.

Once again, I'm talking about the capability of the system to do such a thing, not to take advantage of it at all. In the strictest terms, that is all the press release talks about, which in itself may be faulty. Only time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quzar

i havn't understood how to say it, i'm not talking about the gpu, i'm talking about the video output hardware. the dac, and then the output from the gpu, but not the gpu itself.

I'm talking strictly about the capability of the hardware to be able to output at a frequency of Xhz independent of wether the frames are all unique, colored, textured, whatever. You could probably modify a NES to have a 120hz output system, if you were so inclined, and that would in no way relate to it's processing power.

Once again, I'm talking about the capability of the system to do such a thing, not to take advantage of it at all. In the strictest terms, that is all the press release talks about, which in itself may be faulty. Only time will tell.

---

Ah ok. I though you were more in the guts with the way you stated it. Sure the output signal could be increased for a higher refresh rate but I think the article more ment the ps3 would be powerful enough to handle doing amazing visuals at 120fps if tv & signal processor could suport that. Thats what I got out of it.

The article probably was not translated well.