Mhm. The stricter a platform’s limitations, the more effort developers have to expend working around the limitations.
I tend to agree, storage issue aside. Even with the PS3’s purported CPU advantage, it would take a minor miracle for programmers to get their parallelism act together in order to utilize it.
In the meantime, though, Sony can ask developers to implement Folding@Home clients into the PS3 versions of multiplatform games.
His numbers aren’t that random.
I was going to let him figure that out himself, but they are indeed in some sort of order. I will let you figure the order out yourself.
I thought the RSX in the PS3 was closer to a 7600GS than a 7800, much less a GTX. Doesn’t it have a lower clock and like half the pixel pipelines of the 7800?
The RSX is 500Mhz core where the 7800GTX was like 450Mhz. As for pixel pipelines and whatnot, sony never got into that much detail, and the only people that are under NDA and, I suspect, less likely to break it than the erstwhile LOTRO players on this board.
I’ve developed this filter with the internet, where I don’t read any numbers in any names, because I decided for asthetic reasons, that names do not have numbers in them. Apologies for missing the very clever sequence of numbers.
Well, the compression tech already exists in the form of published compression algorithms. I doubt anyone is going to write their own replacement for DXTC or JPG or PNG or OGG or FLAC or whatever they wind up using, but even if you go with an established compression technology and even if you use an existing library to do it, there is always a lot of integration work you have to do both on the actual game and especially on tools programming and build management. And this isn’t even getting into the complex issues that occur when you need to balance decompression of streaming content with cpu cycles for other things. Compressing things is always much more of a pain than leaving them uncompressed.
Something of the sort. The 50mhz underclock is probably a yield thing.
I call shenanigans. I played Ridge Racer 7 today for like three hours and it didn’t look like the Ridge Racer in that video. It was much sharper and clearer. Also, it was in 1080p, which I’m pretty sure the 360 version wasn’t doing last year. So if they have to lower the resolution on PS3 games to match the resolution of 360 games, how is it a fair comparison?
1up says: “We captured images and video of several games and their Xbox 360 counterparts - using the same exact capture device, with same type of connection cables, running at the same exact resolutions.”
So yeah, turn down the resolution, use analog instead of digital cables, then show off how the two systems look the same. I can’t wait for them to do the comparison of PS3 to PS2 using a coax connection. They should be virtually indistinguishable.
The speculation on Beyond 3d, based on the size of the die, is that the RSX design has 28 pixel shaders with 4-8 of them disabled. Other than that, still aren’t a lot of specifics. But it’s definitely more than a 7600.
That’s not really my point. My point is, if blu-ray was the huge advantage in doing lots of texture variety, unique texturing, streaming worlds, etc., wouldn’t they choose PS3 as the platform? I know Carmack has been very vocal about how totally awesome the 360 development tools apparently are, but it’s not like he’s gonna shy away from PS3 development if it really opens up the kind of technology he feels he needs.
My guess is that, with 512MB of RAM, you’re going to want to do quite a lot of texture compression on either platform. And with those compressed textures, you’re going to have plenty of space on a dual-layer DVD.
The games that run long are going to be ones that use lots of video, or don’t bother to efficiently compress audio and such. Hence Blue Dragon - there’s lots of video cut-scenes, and it ends up on three discs.
K0NY - you’re right. They should compare those year-apart games using the cables that come in the box. That would be fair. ;)
Re: Oblivion - I didn’t think the frame rate itself was that bad. If you stopped moving and looked around, it was fine. It’s just that it stuttered as it loaded in the environment, and it was at its worst when you moved quickly (on horseback, etc.). Didn’t stop me from playing about 80 hours of it, though.
It’s a poor example of what can be done on the 360, methinks. It’s a licensed graphics engine not really well optimized for the kind of GPU in the 360 (at least, not when Oblivion was made), and the entire game design was built for PCs with a hard drive install, lots of RAM, and more scalable graphics. If you were going to build a game of that type for the 360 from the start, I think you would handle a lot of the code differently (witness Mass Effect, or maybe Fable 2 will be a better example when we see what that is like).
If that’s the case, the headline of the article should be “Xbox 360 games look just like PS3 games, as long as you gimp the video output.”
The video signals from 360 and PS3 are apples and oranges. PS3 is designed for digital video output. So much so, that people were saying the 20gb model was useless before they put an HDMI jack on it. This test used analog cables and was run at a resolution favorable to the 360. If they ran it through HDMI and at a resolution favorable to PS3 (1080p), the 360 side of this comparison would be blank because it supports neither.
The article is trying to make the point that there appears to be no power advantage on the PS3 side. To make that point, they had to gimp the PS3’s video output. Once again, SHENANIGANS I say!
Those boxes are one quarter the size, not half the size. They’re half along each dimension.
How many of the games showed actually support 1080p?
Is KONY kidding, or does he not realize that PS3 games aren’t rendered at 1080p?
You can do a PS3 game in 1080p, but performance limitations means most developers aren’t going to.
It doesn’t matter what internal resolution games are rendered at. All that matters in the end is what your TV can do. I look forward to an HDMI connection for my PS3 simply because it’s digital. But 720p is 720p. After that, all the image quality issues rest in the guts of the machine.
Nonsense. If the game is rendered at 720p, it will make very little difference, if any, whether the PS3 scales it to 1080p or your TV scales it to 1080p.
Umm, no. If you have a 1080p TV, games internally rendered at 640x480 will look like shite compared to games internally rendered at 1920x1080.
K0NY: None of the PS3 launch games are 1080p. What the fuck are you talking about?