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.
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.
Previous Article
50 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplySay it ain't so!
Not "Our coders lag a little behind in getting the performance out of it" then
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
QFT.
The computing power is there, they just need to use it.
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?!
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.
+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
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.
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.
Because there is still a large PS3 user base, a large proportion of which will probably buy this game.
I doubt they had to learn a whole new language, it's a different toolset / api and architecture.
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......
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.
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.
I read about this problem they are having with the PS3 is my latest issue of Game Informer.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
When you accomplish 1/10th as much in life, you then have a right to complain.
Cheers,
S*D
fix your post, looks like you're arguing with yourself
"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
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
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.
I hope that the extra costs developing this game to run in the PS3 platform dont get reflected in other platforms game price.
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.
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..
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.