bit-gamer.net

Carmack: Rage runs slowest on PS3

Carmack: Rage runs slowest on PS3

The PlayStation 3 version of Rage is currently running at only half the speed of the Xbox 360 and PC versions.

Speaking to CVG in a new feature on id Software's new post-apocalyptic game, Rage, John Carmack has confirmed that the PlayStation 3 version of the game will run noticeably slower that on the Xbox 360 or PC.

The game, which is projected for a 2010 release on all platforms, will be a free-roaming RPG and FPS hybrid with a heavy focus where players are able to compete in races through the wasteland in order to unlock car and weapon upgrades.

According to Edge magazine the game runs at a smooth and brisk 60 FPS on the Xbox 360 and comparable PCs, but struggles to keep things at 20 - 30 FPS on the PlayStation 3. In a series of candid comments about the capability of the PlayStation 3 hardware, Carmack squarely places the blame on the GPU.

"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," Carmack admits. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360."

Carmack also says that the architecture of the CPU is a bit of a hassle to design for too and, while the PS3 processor is "about the same" as that in the Xbox 360, the Xbox 360 is just simpler to work with.

"The 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," Carmack says.

This isn't the first time that developers have said the PlayStation 3 is difficult to work with either - a number of developers in the past have made such claims, though Sony hasn't issued a formal reply that we know of.

What's your opinion of the PlayStation 3? Let us know in the forums.

UPDATE:
Further details have emerged from the article, with Carmack promising that the PlayStation 3 version of Rage will be up to scratch before the game is released.

"Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform," said Carmack.

50 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
liratheal 31st July 2009, 14:12 Quote
A primarily PC developer is having issues with a PS3 title?

Say it ain't so!
Mister_Tad 31st July 2009, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it

Not "Our coders lag a little behind in getting the performance out of it" then
mjm25 31st July 2009, 14:18 Quote
Mr Carmack knows his onions. at least this time we have some detail on why it's difficult to work with (rasteriser etc) i don't necessarily understand it but i trust Mr Carmack not to bullshit. people will still say he doesn't know what he's doing, which will be a giggle!
Mister_Tad 31st July 2009, 14:21 Quote
I didn't say that they don't know how to get the performance out of it. I suspect that its just more effort to get it to run as well on the PS3 than its worth.
will. 31st July 2009, 14:22 Quote
You say that, but then Naughty Dog and Criterion get along just fine (Drakes fortune and Burnout Paradise). I still think it's a mild case of the lazies...
xaser04 31st July 2009, 14:22 Quote
Joes can you please update your story with the update from the link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CVG link

Update: Edge has posted further details from its article saying that Carmack is confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: "Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.

"The work remaining is getting it locked so there's never a dropped frame or a tear, but we're confident that we're going to get that."
DragunovHUN 31st July 2009, 14:33 Quote
"We made the PS3 hard to develop for on purpose" - Sony
cjoyce1980 31st July 2009, 14:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by will.
You say that, but then Naughty Dog and Criterion get along just fine (Drakes fortune and Burnout Paradise). I still think it's a mild case of the lazies...

hmmm.... i don't thing the god father of FPS could be called lazy and Carmack is a guy that knows what is on about. the fact the GPU rasteriser is just a little bit slower and the cell is not as easy to splitting it all into jobs on the PS3 as the 360 and PC.

so buy 2010 the game should look good on all platforms with PC being the obvoiusly
Goty 31st July 2009, 14:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_Tad
Quote:
The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it

Not "Our coders lag a little behind in getting the performance out of it" then

QFT.

The computing power is there, they just need to use it.
Narishma 31st July 2009, 14:37 Quote
As always, this seems to be a misquote by some "journalist" who doesn't know what he's talking about.
CardJoe 31st July 2009, 14:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Joes can you please update your story with the update from the link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CVG link

Update: Edge has posted further details from its article saying that Carmack is confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: "Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.

"The work remaining is getting it locked so there's never a dropped frame or a tear, but we're confident that we're going to get that."

Done - cheers and +rep for the tip.
xaser04 31st July 2009, 14:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Joes can you please update your story with the update from the link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CVG link

Update: Edge has posted further details from its article saying that Carmack is confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: "Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.

"The work remaining is getting it locked so there's never a dropped frame or a tear, but we're confident that we're going to get that."

Done - cheers and +rep for the tip.

Thanks Joe : )

Sorry I saw this update mentioned on another forum and thought it best to point out here too.

EDIT: Sorry I called you 'Joes' in my original post - don't know why?!
TreeDude 31st July 2009, 14:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_Tad
Quote:
The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it

Not "Our coders lag a little behind in getting the performance out of it" then

The CPU in the PS3 is potentially better than the Xbox 360. But it is much more difficult to code for. That doesn't mean their coders are bad at their job. Keep in mind they had to learn a whole new language for the PS3, but didn't need to for the 360. They are always going to be better at coding for something they have used for a long time, than something relatively new. I took a few different programming languages in collage and can tell you some are harder than others. Not just to learn, but to write as well.
shigllgetcha 31st July 2009, 14:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_Tad
I suspect that its just more effort to get it to run as well on the PS3 than its worth.

+1 sales on PS3 are lower every single month why spend the extra time and money on lower sales.
from what ive heard PC and 360 port easily. why pay one half of your team to build pc/360 and another half to do PS3. thats exagerated im sure but im just making a point.

the PS3 probably does have more power but without the motivation all the potential in the world is useless
munim 31st July 2009, 15:00 Quote
Coming from the guy that hand coded doom for the iphone, I'll trust what the man says.
lewchenko 31st July 2009, 15:06 Quote
When stories like this appear people often bring out the argument of 'The dev's are either lazy or need to learn how to use the PS3 to its full potential... after all look at whats possible with Killzone 2 etc etc'.

All very well saying that, but it ignores the realities of economics as well as the development process for most developers.

In this case, ID are primarily PC developers who have now ported their latest game and tech platform to the 360 and the PS3. Im sure porting to the 360 was relatively straightforward, but not so with the PS3.

Unless they are willing to spend a lot of time now optimising the PS3 platform to really use all those SPE's to bolster the other weaker aspects of the system, then the PS3 version will lag behind. That's just facts. Games like Killzone 2 etc are optimised in this respect from the outset because they only had to take the PS3 into consideration during development and not more conventional architectures like the PC or 360.

Anyways... the Dev's have said they will spend extra time to make it deliver the magic 60Hz in frame rates, so not to worry.

Its worth bearing in mind though that this extra development effort costs real $$ to support the PS3... a platform which is the smallest of this generation .. with sales that are getting smaller (2009vs2008) which is the opposite of the 360. If that trend continues.. dev's wont bother to spend the extra $$ to optimise for the platform, and it will continue to shrink down.
Skiddywinks 31st July 2009, 15:08 Quote
Anyone who has done their research will know that the 360's GPU is somewhat superior, and that the Cell is definitely not a game oriented CPU.

EDIT:
Besides, if they still plan on having the PS3 version running at 60fps by launch, all those crying foul that they are lazy are quite obviously wrong. They are one of the developers that has complained about the PS3's architecture but are still willing to go through the extra hassle to make sure the two console version play the same. They could have easily dropped this info, and used it as an excuse to not bother so hard with the PS3 version.
xaser04 31st July 2009, 15:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_Tad
I suspect that its just more effort to get it to run as well on the PS3 than its worth.

+1 sales on PS3 are lower every single month why spend the extra time and money on lower sales.
from what ive heard PC and 360 port easily. why pay one half of your team to build pc/360 and another half to do PS3. thats exagerated im sure but im just making a point.

Because there is still a large PS3 user base, a large proportion of which will probably buy this game.
Jamie 31st July 2009, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDude

The CPU in the PS3 is potentially better than the Xbox 360. But it is much more difficult to code for. That doesn't mean their coders are bad at their job. Keep in mind they had to learn a whole new language for the PS3, but didn't need to for the 360. They are always going to be better at coding for something they have used for a long time, than something relatively new. I took a few different programming languages in collage and can tell you some are harder than others. Not just to learn, but to write as well.

I doubt they had to learn a whole new language, it's a different toolset / api and architecture.
Evildead666 31st July 2009, 16:08 Quote
Xbox is a tri-core PowerPC arch. known.
PS3 is a PPC single core with 7 extra SPP's.

in the normal world, our quad core CPU's are not being fully used, and its been a while since we've had them.....
It takes time to learn how to multi-tread programs, and they're just getting used to programming with quad's...

For the PS3, ideally they have to know how to program for 7 cores....and small ones at that....

Its just not like anything else out there atm......
cebla 31st July 2009, 16:39 Quote
The reason that people aren't so good at breaking things up across the cores is because it is hard to do it well. It takes ages (relatively in CPU time) to synchronise data between different cores, but a lot of what is going on in a game needs to be synchronised. You want to know where the person's head is now not where it was a frame or so ago.
Lepermessiah 31st July 2009, 17:08 Quote
The PC version will be dumbed down and look and run the same as 360, no more ID purchases for me. ID lost all my respect, well, they have not exactly put out a great game in a long time anyway. Instead of making the PC version a true PC, we get 360 rubbish, thanks carmack.
Lepermessiah 31st July 2009, 17:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
Quote:
Originally Posted by will.
You say that, but then Naughty Dog and Criterion get along just fine (Drakes fortune and Burnout Paradise). I still think it's a mild case of the lazies...

hmmm.... i don't thing the god father of FPS could be called lazy and Carmack is a guy that knows what is on about. the fact the GPU rasteriser is just a little bit slower and the cell is not as easy to splitting it all into jobs on the PS3 as the 360 and PC.

so buy 2010 the game should look good on all platforms with PC being the obvoiusly


Carmack does not get a pass, and should not because of stuff they did 15 20 years ago, sorry. They are lasy when it comes to the PC version.
Woodspoon 31st July 2009, 18:18 Quote
By the ammount of times this and similar issues have come up about the PS3, I'd say that it's fairly obvious that no one is being lazy and that the PS3 really is a bit of a bitch to make games for.
dicobalt 31st July 2009, 18:24 Quote
Yay another scifi horror fps. I feel like game developers are stuck in some kind of B movie universe.
gavomatic57 31st July 2009, 19:12 Quote
Doom 3, Enemy Territory Quake Wars....anyone else not holding their breath for Rage?? I suspect I'll be too busy playing Uncharted 2 or Gran Turismo when this hits the shelves.
SNIPERMikeUK 31st July 2009, 21:34 Quote
I do not think games companies really tap the power from any system until the end of its life, so this is not such a bold claim.
talladega 31st July 2009, 21:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha
+1 sales on PS3 are lower every single month why spend the extra time and money on lower sales.
from what ive heard PC and 360 port easily. why pay one half of your team to build pc/360 and another half to do PS3. thats exagerated im sure but im just making a point.

the PS3 probably does have more power but without the motivation all the potential in the world is useless
I really dont think that the 10k - 20k that the 360 sells more than the PS3 each week is enough to not care about the PS3. That 10K-20K is very minimal and hardly makes a difference.
sandys 31st July 2009, 21:53 Quote
Thats right just check the financial results for this quarter where there hasn't been many notable releases, 1.2 million 360s sold and 1.1 million PS3s, when you consider the economic climate and price of entry for respective consoles the PS3 isn't looking that bad.

re rage, like any multiplatform if it ends up shabby on PS3 it won't get bought by me, plenty of devs can do multiplat well, there's no acceptable excuses for bad ports any more.
themax 31st July 2009, 23:11 Quote
I trust id. If anyone will put forth the time and effort to learn the PS3's architecture it's them. And Carmack, while not afraid to voice his opinion, is obviously not afraid to take on something new. Which can't be said for many other 3rd party developers these days. If nobody takes that chance, then how will anything ever advance? I'm sure if Rage turns out good, that same Dev team that took the time to learn the PS3 will have less of a problem as they develope more and more PS3 titles, which makes the cost less and less. I wish more Publishers/Devs would see it the way id does. Then again, not many devs are able to maintain their "It's done when it's done" mantra like id.

I read about this problem they are having with the PS3 is my latest issue of Game Informer.
tuberc 31st July 2009, 23:40 Quote
[QUOTE=Skiddywinks]Anyone who has done their research will know that the 360's GPU is somewhat superior, and that the Cell is definitely not a game oriented CPU.

what a retard, there is a big difference between the ps3 and 360, just because the coders are not getting full use out of the sony machine does not mean the older xbox is better. do your research on computations per second fiend

and i dont need any **** out of anyone for punctuation, im drunk like
Mentai 1st August 2009, 00:17 Quote
Is anybody else more interested in the id tech5 more than Rage itself? If they can get this running on the PS3 at 60fps maybe we'll finally see games developed that don't use Unreal Engine 3.
AWowzer 1st August 2009, 02:47 Quote
I read the full article in Edge magazine and its annoying when journalists conveniently quote parts they want for effect. They missed him saying that because of Blu ray the Ps3 is likely to have a higher resolution texture set than xbox 360 because they won't go over 4 dvds and currently to get it to fit would require lower quality textures than ps3.

Ps3's gpu is a bit down on horsepower than 360 and also cannot do tesselation which is becoming increasingly important. Ps3's relative cpu power advantage over 360 is way overstated too. it has a general processing unit and 6 much smaller bandwith spes all at 3.2 ghz. 360 has a 3 core 3.2 ghz cpu capable of hyperthreading so effectively 6 cores, but they don't have the bandwidth limitation of ps3 spe and automatically parallel process code without it having to be manually split out so much so 100% of its power is being utilised by 100% of games instead of ps3 which could be 50% because it is so difficult.

So really xbox better cpu and gpu ps3 better storage
chumbucket843 1st August 2009, 05:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by talladega
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha
+1 sales on PS3 are lower every single month why spend the extra time and money on lower sales.
from what ive heard PC and 360 port easily. why pay one half of your team to build pc/360 and another half to do PS3. thats exagerated im sure but im just making a point.

the PS3 probably does have more power but without the motivation all the potential in the world is useless
I really dont think that the 10k - 20k that the 360 sells more than the PS3 each week is enough to not care about the PS3. That 10K-20K is very minimal and hardly makes a difference.
it adds up over time though. there are 50 percent more 360's than ps3's. the fault of the ps3 is the gpu it just sucks. thats all there is to it. no game needs a cell processor because floating point isnt that important to make the cpu designed around it.
talladega 1st August 2009, 07:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumbucket843
it adds up over time though. there are 50 percent more 360's than ps3's. the fault of the ps3 is the gpu it just sucks. thats all there is to it. no game needs a cell processor because floating point isnt that important to make the cpu designed around it.
Killzone 2, GT5, Uncharted, and MGS4 says ps3 isn't too weak afterall.
steveo_mcg 1st August 2009, 10:40 Quote
4 Games off which one isn't even out yet, doesn't exactly make a compelling reason to purchase a >£250 platform... As a games console its a bit of a failure, if all you want is gaming the 360 is much more compelling choice economically speaking.

Having said that the PS3 feels slicker, is more ascetically pleasing, with some persuasion can be not too limited computer and with the media features can live quite happily under the telly with out sounding like a hoover. If i had the money i'd have the PS3, i don't so i'll stick with my PC.
Skiddywinks 1st August 2009, 11:05 Quote
[QUOTE=tuberc;2053267]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
Anyone who has done their research will know that the 360's GPU is somewhat superior, and that the Cell is definitely not a game oriented CPU.

what a retard, there is a big difference between the ps3 and 360, just because the coders are not getting full use out of the sony machine does not mean the older xbox is better. do your research on computations per second fiend

and i dont need any **** out of anyone for punctuation, im drunk like

Hey, there is no need for insults like that, so kindly watch your language.

And your point is the same as mine; the two consoles are very different. My point is that one of the bigger differences is the way they were planned and designed. The 360 was made with games in mind, the PS3 was made with the latest technolgy in mind, somewhat regardless of what the technology is best at. Calculations per second and floating point performance aren't the be all and end all.
talladega 1st August 2009, 21:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
4 Games off which one isn't even out yet, doesn't exactly make a compelling reason to purchase a >£250 platform... As a games console its a bit of a failure, if all you want is gaming the 360 is much more compelling choice economically speaking.

Having said that the PS3 feels slicker, is more ascetically pleasing, with some persuasion can be not too limited computer and with the media features can live quite happily under the telly with out sounding like a hoover. If i had the money i'd have the PS3, i don't so i'll stick with my PC.
i never said it did. reasons for purchasing a console are opinion based. (I have a PS3 for ONE game only. that's SOCOM. the rest are just bonus.)

it just proves the PS3 isn't too weak like people say. the 360 has a better video card, but the CELL makes up for that if used correctly. thats why the games this gen with the best graphics are on PS3.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 2nd August 2009, 07:19 Quote
The Ps3's Cell processor is far superior than any consumer micro chip currently available (core I7 or Xeon Nehalem included). The Xbox 360 has a 3.2 ghz 2 core processor based off the "Power PC' format like the cpu's in everyone's computer. Game developers are use to this format and have been programming for Power Pc cpu's for years and have become mundane and lazy in their efforts to really make ground breaking games. The Cell has a Power PC core (PPe) plus 8 additional "SPE's" or mini cores all on one silicon. Most devs just program for the single PPE core and very rarley use any of the additional 8 SPE's . Basically they program a game for the XBOX 360 then optimize it for multiple hardware configurations for the P.C. port then cram all the code unto the the Cell's PPe then cry and have a hissy fit because it wont run correctly so they have to figure out how to utilize one or two of the Cell's SPE's. If developers like were more like the pioneers at Guerrilla Games and took the effort to learn a new way to program outside the box then maybe their games might look as good as Killzone 2. Even killzone 2 doesn't utilize the Cell to it's fullest and Killzone 2's gameplay and graphics can only be compared to Crysis or Stalker Clear Sky for high end $1000 P.C.! So don't believe me just read about the Cell's architecture and you'll realize just how powerfull the PS3's games can be when programmed correctly and how lazy 3rd party developers are because you really only bought that Xbox 360 or PS3 for the first party games right? Oh and one more thing the GPU in each system are mid range ATI (xbox 360) and Nvidia (PS3) graphics cards, nothing hard about programming for those.
Star*Dagger 2nd August 2009, 11:23 Quote
As far as the snide comments against the coders at iD: I know they are the best at what they do, and they have 1) created the fps genre and 2) pushed it forward at every major advancement.
When you accomplish 1/10th as much in life, you then have a right to complain.

Cheers,
S*D
Horizon 2nd August 2009, 17:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuberc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
snip

snip
*added missing tag*

fix your post, looks like you're arguing with yourself
themax 3rd August 2009, 03:18 Quote
I think some people in the thread are taking the title of the thread and iD's quote out of context. In my issue of GameInformer they have a Console/PC comparisons.

"We're getting along with the PS3 really well. We took a lot of time early on in the developement cycle on learning it" - Robert Duffy - Lead Programmer

"There's a little bit more theoretical raw performance on the PS3, so we've got a little bit more headroom" - John Carmack
Lepermessiah 3rd August 2009, 03:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
The Ps3's Cell processor is far superior than any consumer micro chip currently available (core I7 or Xeon Nehalem included). The Xbox 360 has a 3.2 ghz 2 core processor based off the "Power PC' format like the cpu's in everyone's computer. Game developers are use to this format and have been programming for Power Pc cpu's for years and have become mundane and lazy in their efforts to really make ground breaking games. The Cell has a Power PC core (PPe) plus 8 additional "SPE's" or mini cores all on one silicon. Most devs just program for the single PPE core and very rarley use any of the additional 8 SPE's . Basically they program a game for the XBOX 360 then optimize it for multiple hardware configurations for the P.C. port then cram all the code unto the the Cell's PPe then cry and have a hissy fit because it wont run correctly so they have to figure out how to utilize one or two of the Cell's SPE's. If developers like were more like the pioneers at Guerrilla Games and took the effort to learn a new way to program outside the box then maybe their games might look as good as Killzone 2. Even killzone 2 doesn't utilize the Cell to it's fullest and Killzone 2's gameplay and graphics can only be compared to Crysis or Stalker Clear Sky for high end $1000 P.C.! So don't believe me just read about the Cell's architecture and you'll realize just how powerfull the PS3's games can be when programmed correctly and how lazy 3rd party developers are because you really only bought that Xbox 360 or PS3 for the first party games right? Oh and one more thing the GPU in each system are mid range ATI (xbox 360) and Nvidia (PS3) graphics cards, nothing hard about programming for those.

Somone is terribly mis-informed (Or a Sony fanboy), Cell as a number crunching processor is more superior, but we are talking games. Cell was never intended to be a gaming processor, there are detailed articles on why cells architecture is not condusive to gaming. Cells PPE's have very little bandwidth and are very limited in what they can do. For number crunching and other uses it is great, as a gaming CPu it is worse then mainstream PC Dual core CPU's..

PS: Does not take $1000 Pc to max out crysis, lol, where you been? 5-$600 PC easily does it now.

Killzine 2 doesn't look better then MANY PC games, Clear Sky, Crysis, Age of Conan, Call of juarez., cryostasis, just to name a few etc..... Killzine does not look any better then Gears of war, and that's on 360.

Kepp in mind, the MAIN reason fewer PC games show off their graphical prowess is we get very few PC only games games, just ports, MOOT point. Notice the PC exclusives look considerably better? There is a reason for that and it is not hard to figure out.

Sony made a HUGe mistake using cell, too expensive for no benefit, now they are in last place because of it. You make out like the best devs in the world have zero clue what they are doing, there is a reason the PS3 as its best only matches the 360 in graphics. Sorry dude, you are way un-informed.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
Lepermessiah 3rd August 2009, 03:51 Quote
Also, a system is only as good as its weakest link, all this talk about cell's theoritical power is irrelevant, the GPU does most of the work and that is slower in the PS3, plus a lack of ram in either console means devs are limited.
b5k 4th August 2009, 04:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
Doom 3, Enemy Territory Quake Wars....anyone else not holding their breath for Rage?? I suspect I'll be too busy playing Uncharted 2 or Gran Turismo when this hits the shelves.
Doom 3 was considered to be more of a tech demo than a game. It was the first time in a while ID poked their head out and went for some new technology. Half-Life 2 looks better, but it's based off the old previous generation technology. Pre-rendered light / vis stored in BSP format. Doom 3 ran off a .map file (raw object data), compiled vis on level load, and rendered all light real time. It looked like ****, but it was a pretty bit leap in technology.

Splashdamage made Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. ID just gave them some tech help. I think ET:QW looks pretty good, the accomplishments with the terrain are exception.

Rage will be the first game id software has spat out since 2004. It will also be a brand new ip.
impar 4th August 2009, 10:27 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
"We made the PS3 hard to develop for on purpose" - Sony
This!

I hope that the extra costs developing this game to run in the PS3 platform dont get reflected in other platforms game price.
liratheal 4th August 2009, 10:39 Quote
I just read through this thread and I'm scratching my head.

How many of you arguing about the specs have ever written a single bit of code for either console? Would that be none of you? I think that might be the case.

Those of you arguing that game W on console Z looks better than game Y on console Z need a hearty clip 'round the earhole.

You're all wrong. Both consoles are more than capable of producing good looking games. Great looking games are few and far between, but they are there.

Arguing as to why, there is only one answer. The games that look the best on PS3, Guerilla's Killzone 2, Konami's MGS4, Naughty Dog's Uncharted: Drakes Fortune (And the sequel). They all have long histories working with Sony consoles as primary platforms - They are experienced in Sonys rather radical methods of changing hardware. They know the people they need to know to get the best help with the devkit. They're all tight-knit teams with the right contacts for their job. Only Konami, from that list, has made games for other platforms - As secondary jobs. See MGS2 Substance, Twin Snakes etc etc.

360 wise. Halo 3: ODST - As much as I hate the series, it looks good. Gears of War 2 - It's true to say the Unreal Engine runs great on anything, but they've clearly worked hard at it with the 360, and it is a very good looking game (Regardless of whether you like soldiers that're easily two people in body size). Forza 3 looks absolutely brilliant. I don't like the game, but it looks wonderful.

The fact that id are primarily a PC developer, and that they're used to PC type hardware when it comes to writing the code should mean that their early forays with the PS3 are going to be difficult - They've not had nearly the time with the platform they have with the PC (And subsequently the 360, thanks to the toolsets). Carmack will get it right - He is one of the best coders working in the industry.

Those of you saying he hasn't mattered for a long time, I urge you to go and eat a dick sandwich. He's a consistent coder, and has (Or should have) earned our respect with his countless wonderful pieces of work. The hours of fun he's provided us should allow us to let him get on with his job without badgering him about silly ****. The Ps3 version will be up to the same level as the Pc and 360.

Think he doesn't matter, go do better.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 6th August 2009, 08:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Somone is terribly mis-informed (Or a Sony fanboy), Cell as a number crunching processor is more superior, but we are talking games. Cell was never intended to be a gaming processor, there are detailed articles on why cells architecture is not condusive to gaming. Cells PPE's have very little bandwidth and are very limited in what they can do. For number crunching and other uses it is great, as a gaming CPu it is worse then mainstream PC Dual core CPU's..

PS: Does not take $1000 Pc to max out crysis, lol, where you been? 5-$600 PC easily does it now.

Killzine 2 doesn't look better then MANY PC games, Clear Sky, Crysis, Age of Conan, Call of juarez., cryostasis, just to name a few etc..... Killzine does not look any better then Gears of war, and that's on 360.

Kepp in mind, the MAIN reason fewer PC games show off their graphical prowess is we get very few PC only games games, just ports, MOOT point. Notice the PC exclusives look considerably better? There is a reason for that and it is not hard to figure out.

Sony made a HUGe mistake using cell, too expensive for no benefit, now they are in last place because of it. You make out like the best devs in the world have zero clue what they are doing, there is a reason the PS3 as its best only matches the 360 in graphics. Sorry dude, you are way un-informed.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

Core I7 +GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R + 6gb ocz1600 = $500
Hd4890+HD4890 thermaltake 850 = $700
case and fans hdd optical etc wont include those
you don't "normally" use a p.c. on a t.v
monitor 25" = $250
there is my $1000 P.C. (Powerful Computer)
your misinformed so stick to consoles and leave the grown up hardware for the big boys

No I'm not a Sony or 360 fanboy because except for the 2 or 3 really good first party games
both systems suck and they really are not different except for Halo 3 or Killzone 2 maybe 2 or 3 more for the PS3

You even said it yourself "Cells PPE's have very little bandwidth and are very limited in what they can do". your right the PPE's is meant to mostly distribute to the SPE's or communicate with other Cells, not run the whole program (1 SPE on PS3 runs the OS). The Devs shouldn't program for the PS3 unless they are going to do it right from the start.

Besides I don't see this game as being ground breaking or a must have item. This whole ordeal with the PS3 frame rate is to cover up the fact that 1. their game is gonna suck 2. they didn't take the time to program it right bottom line. Sony or Microsoft I don't care (well actually I love windows 7) Ps3 or 360 i don't care but I understand the chip that Sony Toshiba and IBM developed together to make and right now it is not even remotely being stressed as far as games go. Can't wait for Toshiba and IBM to stick it in a P.C.
liratheal 6th August 2009, 11:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Core I7 +GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R + 6gb ocz1600 = $500
Hd4890+HD4890 thermaltake 850 = $700
case and fans hdd optical etc wont include those
you don't "normally" use a p.c. on a t.v
monitor 25" = $250
there is my $1000 P.C. (Powerful Computer)
your misinformed so stick to consoles and leave the grown up hardware for the big boys

No I'm not a Sony or 360 fanboy because except for the 2 or 3 really good first party games
both systems suck and they really are not different except for Halo 3 or Killzone 2 maybe 2 or 3 more for the PS3

You even said it yourself "Cells PPE's have very little bandwidth and are very limited in what they can do". your right the PPE's is meant to mostly distribute to the SPE's or communicate with other Cells, not run the whole program (1 SPE on PS3 runs the OS). The Devs shouldn't program for the PS3 unless they are going to do it right from the start.

Besides I don't see this game as being ground breaking or a must have item. This whole ordeal with the PS3 frame rate is to cover up the fact that 1. their game is gonna suck 2. they didn't take the time to program it right bottom line. Sony or Microsoft I don't care (well actually I love windows 7) Ps3 or 360 i don't care but I understand the chip that Sony Toshiba and IBM developed together to make and right now it is not even remotely being stressed as far as games go. Can't wait for Toshiba and IBM to stick it in a P.C.

You're so very wrong with your "quote".

You do not need 6gb of RAM, nor do you need dual 4890's. A friend runs Crysis quite well on a single 4890.

Thermaltake PSU's are overpriced bits of ****. You'd be better off using a potato.

Oh, and.. I hate to break it to you, but your basic addition needs some work.. The PC you hyopthetically specced would exceed $1500 USD.

The Cell is designed as a number cruncher - See the Roadrunner, for example. See the F@H client for another example - the PS3 excells at that, even when compared to bog-standard (IE: Not purpose built folding machines) PC's.

That's not to say it's incapable as a gaming platform, Killzone 2 shows that much at the very least, but it is most certainly not the optimal chip for games consoles. Which are supposed to be easier to work with - Fair enough, the PS3 hardware doesn't vary as much as a PC can, but when you pit that against the extra 'learning' time to familiarise with the CBEA, it's hardly worth the effort - Especially for first time Sony devs.

I'm actually curious - How much of the doccumentation have you read for the Cell? I mean.. You seem to be parroting bits of it back, PPE/SPE bits mainly, but you don't seem to have the greatest grasp on how the chip is designed, and what it was designed for..
Lepermessiah 7th August 2009, 02:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Somone is terribly mis-informed (Or a Sony fanboy), Cell as a number crunching processor is more superior, but we are talking games. Cell was never intended to be a gaming processor, there are detailed articles on why cells architecture is not condusive to gaming. Cells PPE's have very little bandwidth and are very limited in what they can do. For number crunching and other uses it is great, as a gaming CPu it is worse then mainstream PC Dual core CPU's..

PS: Does not take $1000 Pc to max out crysis, lol, where you been? 5-$600 PC easily does it now.

Killzine 2 doesn't look better then MANY PC games, Clear Sky, Crysis, Age of Conan, Call of juarez., cryostasis, just to name a few etc..... Killzine does not look any better then Gears of war, and that's on 360.

Kepp in mind, the MAIN reason fewer PC games show off their graphical prowess is we get very few PC only games games, just ports, MOOT point. Notice the PC exclusives look considerably better? There is a reason for that and it is not hard to figure out.

Sony made a HUGe mistake using cell, too expensive for no benefit, now they are in last place because of it. You make out like the best devs in the world have zero clue what they are doing, there is a reason the PS3 as its best only matches the 360 in graphics. Sorry dude, you are way un-informed.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

Core I7 +GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD3R + 6gb ocz1600 = $500
Hd4890+HD4890 thermaltake 850 = $700
case and fans hdd optical etc wont include those
you don't "normally" use a p.c. on a t.v
monitor 25" = $250
there is my $1000 P.C. (Powerful Computer)
your misinformed so stick to consoles and leave the grown up hardware for the big boys

No I'm not a Sony or 360 fanboy because except for the 2 or 3 really good first party games
both systems suck and they really are not different except for Halo 3 or Killzone 2 maybe 2 or 3 more for the PS3

You even said it yourself "Cells PPE's have very little bandwidth and are very limited in what they can do". your right the PPE's is meant to mostly distribute to the SPE's or communicate with other Cells, not run the whole program (1 SPE on PS3 runs the OS). The Devs shouldn't program for the PS3 unless they are going to do it right from the start.

Besides I don't see this game as being ground breaking or a must have item. This whole ordeal with the PS3 frame rate is to cover up the fact that 1. their game is gonna suck 2. they didn't take the time to program it right bottom line. Sony or Microsoft I don't care (well actually I love windows 7) Ps3 or 360 i don't care but I understand the chip that Sony Toshiba and IBM developed together to make and right now it is not even remotely being stressed as far as games go. Can't wait for Toshiba and IBM to stick it in a P.C.

Your a fookin idiot, you do not need that high end hard ware to max out crysys:

I had a 8800GT at the time, maxed it out on 1280 X 1024, now I have a 4870, Core 2 duo @ 3,0, 4 gb ram, maxes out crysis on 1680 X 1050. Your a bafoon. You listed mroe expensive parts, means nothing, you CAN spend that much if you want, but a much cheaper PC can be had for 600 bucks, crytek also had an article on this on their web site when crysis was released. You sir, are a moron. You do not need a core i 7, nor 2 4890 idiot, look up some benchmarks.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums