Harrison pledges Epic support

By Games Industry.biz Published 23 July, 2007

UE3 optimised for PS3.

Worldwide Studios boss Phil Harrison has admitted that Sony didn't initially offer Epic enough support with optimising the Unreal Engine 3 for PS3 - but said the situation has now changed for the better, GamesIndustry.biz is reporting.

Speaking to Game Informer Harrison said, "If we're honest, we didn't do enough of a good job supporting them and getting them the tools and technology early enough."

"Also, Epic isn't a huge company. They don't have unlimited resources. We have parachuted in some of our SWAT team of super engineers to help them. Specifically, to optimise for SPUs (Synergistic Processing Units), which are the point of difference that the Cell Processor has."

According to Harrison, the process of optimising the SPUs is already underway - and it will have very positive results for those both creating and playing PS3 games.

"The benefits that it yields to end developers, whether they're writing exclusive titles or multiplatform titles, is that the performance on PS3 goes up exponentially - and it will make for a much better game experience," he stated.

Pop over to GamesIndustry.biz for plenty more industry facts to process.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (116) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • hugejeans #1 5 years ago

    wow

  • el-bandito #2 5 years ago

    "We have parachuted in some of our SWAT team of super engineers to help them"

    glol

  • macksed #3 5 years ago

    I always imagined that The Sony Super Engineers could fly :(

  • JediMasterMalik #4 5 years ago

    lmao

    All in all this is very good news for PS3 owners, since so many next-gen games are utilising this engine, it should mean far less shoddy ports and multiplatform games should perform well on the PS3. It should also allay some of the fears that PS3 development is difficult.

  • gallow #5 5 years ago

    Do they wear their pants outside their stockings?

  • BadBoyBonner #6 5 years ago

    "Also, Epic isn't a huge company. They don't have unlimited resources. We have parachuted in some of our SWAT team of super engineers to help them. Specifically, to optimise for SPUs (Synergistic Processing Units), which are the point of difference that the Cell Processor has."

    Statement entered into Bablefish - spin removal plug-in.

    "Epic like most companies, has not got unlimited resources, which you require to get Xbox360 performance out of the PS3. In knowledge of that fact, we have had to send in, the few people in the entire world, that can make sense of the bewildering architecture used, for no good reason, on the PS3. Even with those engineers there, we are still unsure if they can get games running on the PS3 that don’t look terrible in comparison to the 360 which is cheaper, older and beating us hands down."
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 12:02

  • Fernando #7 5 years ago

    Glad to see Sony helping Epic

  • sharpfish #8 5 years ago

    BadBoyBonner > that translation plug-in got it spot on :)

  • Salvia #9 5 years ago

    "we have had to send in, the few people in the entire world, that can make sense of the bewildering architecture used, for no good reason, on the PS3"

    Strange... our engineers had no problem in figuring out the PS3 hardware in a relatively short space of time.
    It sounds almost like you're some sort of fanboy...

  • Fernando #10 5 years ago

    @Badboy

    *sigh*, didnt take long for positive Sony news to get spun to negativity

  • GamesConnoisseur #11 5 years ago

    Sony have belately waken up to the fact that there are a lot of multi platform games that is showing X360 to be better than PS3, and they urgently need to do more to help out developers to ensure that this trend wont continue.

    Good for PS3 owners who are tired of getting their faces rubbed in by delighted X360 owners (who deep down actually expected the reverse to be true!). For multi platform owners like me and others, we can see with our own eyes that even recent games like Darkness, X360 still own the 'better gfx HD lmao' crown but as we knew PS3 still need more time for its game to be properly optmised.

    Sony doing something with Epic is a right direction as JMM say earlier.

  • dredd97 #12 5 years ago

    'It sounds almost like you're some sort of fanboy...'

    now whatever made you think that huh? ;)

  • jack_klugman #13 5 years ago

    "Epic isn't a huge company...". The irony.

  • mattigan #14 5 years ago

    It's not what was said but the way that they said it that has riled people I think, which is par for the course with Sony.

  • Darren #15 5 years ago

    Well it's a miracle that Rainbow Six Vegas turned out as well as it did on the PS3 then if that was using an unoptimised version of the Unreal Engine 3!

    I guess for the forseeable future I'll have to buy all my UE3-based games on the Xbox 360 until Epic have it running properly on the PS3. Does this mean that the forthcoming Unreal Tournament III, which is initially exclusive to the PS3, will be the first game to benefit from this "optimisation"?

  • onyxbox #16 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    oh dear.

    I don't know if it's just me but, 360 fans are starting to sound so desperate these days that I'm beginning feel the need to disassociate myself with 'that' crowd.




  • dredd97 #17 5 years ago

    'It's not what was said but the way that they said it that has riled people I think, which is par for the course with Sony. '

    wow you must be easily offended....

  • Gurgeh #18 5 years ago

    "I don't know if it's just me but, 360 fans are starting to sound so desperate these days that I'm beginning feel the need to disassociate myself with 'that' crowd. "

    Might want to read that interview, as other websites are interpreting this in an unreal-engine-doesnt-work-well-on-PS3-so-thats-why-epic-are- being-sued way:

    "GI: I’ve heard from a number of developers that one of the problems with porting a game that’s based on Unreal, or having a multiplatform game that’s based on Unreal, was because Epic didn’t have their tech up to speed and they were waiting for updates. Is this basically saying, “It’s going to get fixed, it’s going to get better?”

    Harrison: Yes, I think that’s a fair summary"


  • Overlush #19 5 years ago

    "Sony have belately waken up to the fact that there are a lot of multi platform games that is showing X360 to be better than PS3"

    Such as? I was under the impression that there's a lot of lazy, late ports out there that make the PS3 look bad, but games released on both platforms at the same time, do no such thing.

  • Xerx3s #20 5 years ago

    "Specifically, to optimise for SPUs (Synergistic Processing Units), which are the point of difference that the Cell Processor has."

    That's funny. I could have sworn that the UE3.0 wasn't optimised for multi core cpu's and stuff like that. Isn't epic blazing trumpets about how UE4.0 will do all this?

  • BadBoyBonner #21 5 years ago

    @Salvia

    “Strange... our engineers had no problem in figuring out the PS3 hardware in a relatively short space of time. It sounds almost like you're some sort of fanboy... “

    Obviously the implication there is that you are a lot smarter than all the guys at Epic who have produced the UE3 engine. Unsure how they would feel about that.

    In addition, the implication is that your teams technical prowess also exceeds John Carmacks, and his opinion of development on PS3.

    Perhaps you should take pity on those mentioned above. You could offer some guidance and show them how they could learn to become better developers.

    Salvia you will have to forgive my ignorance if you have mentioned it on EG before; what ground breaking engine is it that you and your team are licensing on PS3 to everyone else?

    Only seems fair that I know, otherwise it is impossible for anyone to make an informed decision against what you and your team have produced (easily in a short space of time) in comparison to others.

  • Dizzy #22 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    ROFL

    Well I guess PS3 will have a good running version of the Unreal ENgine by XMas 2008 ;)

    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 12:41

  • zuljin #23 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner
    You do realise many game developers are under NDA?

  • Dizzy #24 5 years ago

    >Unreal Tournament 3 is released in November

    Yeah.. but it might run like shit compared to PC/360 versions?

  • BadBoyBonner #25 5 years ago

    @onyxbox

    oh dear.

    I don't know if it's just me but, 360 fans are starting to sound so desperate these days that I'm beginning feel the need to disassociate myself with 'that' crowd.


    Hang on a minute, how does that make me a fan boy by saying that Sony are Pissed at how shoddy their games are running in UE3?

    You think if it was running better on PS3 than the 360 - that they would be sending engineers in?

    What other conclusion is there to be drawn?

    If you want my personal view on both machines it is this.

    The PS3 is MORE powerful than the 360 - no doubt about it. The trick is that tapping 95% of the 360 power may take exponentially less than getting 95% out of the PS3.

    I'd guess it is probably 30% more powerful if the code is flawless (and someone will do something specific on it that looks mind blowing), but for most dev's, the effort required to get at it starts to raise exponentially. Not the fault of the PS3 per se, but obviously Sony's machine is quite different from what everyone else is doing. And if you are not crushing the market share, then there is much less incentive to understand the difficult thing when the easy thing can be produced yielding better sales at a cheaper price.

    Hence the current shoddy 360 ports to PS3 that are doing the machine a great disservice.

  • BadBoyBonner #26 5 years ago

    @zuljin
    You do realise many game developers are under NDA?

    Well looking at most people details on here, I am unsure how you could identify anyone, that does not want to be identified (no picture, friends games list, game alias etc.)

    I could talk big.

    Well when me an my mates had a quick shifty at the PS3 we couldn't imagine why anyone was struggling, we coded a few games at the fabled 120Fps while watching the Amir Kahn fight. We can't understand how anyone else is struggling it is so easy, you writethe code an the PS3 just does it, it's awesome.

  • onyxbox #27 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    Point taken, I took your comments the wrong way.

    At least once the middle-ware is fixed/optimised to run correctly on PS3 then tapping 95% on both machines becomes just as easy.

    I think Sony are doing the right thing and helping the middle-ware (and probably getting the UT3 timed exclusive deal out it at the same time).

  • BadBoyBonner #28 5 years ago

    @Disc

    Agreed - but all non-biased opinion, of leading industry figures, is that the PS3 is harder to develop for, at the moment.

    And lets be honest, if the machines were reversed and the 360 was the PS3 and Microsoft had brought it out a year after the easy to program, market leading PS3. MS would have had the shit ripped out of them. The thing I admire the most is that the arrogance that Sony have shown, is almost shown to be true, hardly affecting sales. It [PS3] came out a year later with games that do not look as good [as the 360], yet Sony are still doing OK. MS would have probably bombed with the same scenario.

  • zuljin #29 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner
    "I could talk big."

    Well no shit. In fact anyone could say that despite being on any website. I could meet you in real life and tell you all I know about PS3 hardware and you could still turn round and say "oh but you could've gotten that from Wikipedia".

    My point was that if you're going to label him anything for not answering your question, that there is a very good reason for doing so. The only game developer I know of thats revealed what hes working on openly was the guy working on Haze (nekotcha is it?).

  • lambtron #30 5 years ago

    "It's fucking hard work to tap 100% of the processing power of both the PS3 and 360...

    Heck, it's fucking hard to tap 50% efficiently."

    Well its impossible to tap 100% for a real world application. Might be possible to do so for some kind of very specific tech demo (e.g. just streaming or something). Everyone who has ever taken a class in machine architecture knows that theoretical performance stats are BS. And you're sposed to be a dev Disc - shame on you ;).

  • ecureuil #31 5 years ago

    Big Phil is a fucking legend.

  • BadBoyBonner #32 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    And what label did I use then?
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 13:06

  • lambtron #33 5 years ago

    Hmm legend isn't the word I would have chosen...

  • BadBoyBonner #34 5 years ago

    "Hmm legend isn't the word I would have chosen... "

    Nor me...talk about someone who’s career was taken into the stratosphere by the success of the Playstation Brand - and he doesn’t seem like the type to be able to breath very well up there – and seemingly slips into delirium now and again.


  • GamesConnoisseur #35 5 years ago

    Overlush: head over to any head to head comparsion in EG or IGN and even Gamespot. They all virtually show that on same day release or later port that X360 edge it graphically. GFX is the most important compasion point especially in HD generation era.

    Sure there are some games that you cant tell the difference and need mega HD screen to spot any, but if you check out even in current PSU3 mag issue 12 'from method to multi-platform madness' (one of the better read PS3 mags in my opinion) they berate the fact that X360 is visually better, less slow down in lot of important games to date.

    This do not reflect on hardware in my view, but rather not sufficent optmisation and will be quite interesting to see the difference where PS3 is THE lead platform.

  • Salvia #36 5 years ago

    "Obviously the implication there is that you are a lot smarter than all the guys at Epic who have produced the UE3 engine. Unsure how they would feel about that.

    In addition, the implication is that your teams technical prowess also exceeds John Carmacks, and his opinion of development on PS3. "

    Thanks for proving without a doubt you are a grade A idiot.
    You took Harrison's statement and twisted into something completely made up. I simply pointed out that your implications are wrong and now I'm supposed to justify what I wrote. Nice moves, fanboy.
    Oh and don't bother, you're on ignore (along with so many other 'tards on this site )

  • Steroyd #37 5 years ago

    In addition, the implication is that your teams technical prowess also exceeds John Carmacks, and his opinion of development on PS3. "

    Have you heard what he said against Multi-core CPU's in general or was that, that other PC dev that hasn't developed on Console's Gabe Newell?

    I'm amazed you've managed to twist this BBB, did you not see the article of Silicon Knights Suing Epic for this exact same reason?

    And he's developing on the Xbox 360 exclusively.

  • woodnotes #38 5 years ago

    Kind of pathetic really. If Sony released decent tools in the first place, then they wouldn't need to 'fly in' their special ops team.

  • penhalion #39 5 years ago

    @Jedimastermalik

    Er ke? Your logic it a little flawed unless you were being sarcastic (which I would agree with). If even Epic need to have Sony fly in some engineers then you now have proof of what everone developing for it (including me) has been saying all along. The fracking thing is a nightmare.

    Epic should never have promised to deliver whe they did as they would have known well in advance of that date that they were in trouble on the PS3 port.

  • BadBoyBonner #40 5 years ago

    They are not my implications. They are facts, facts that developers (not I) have stated, repeatedly. In support of that fact would also be the information itself - i.e. Sony have sent in engineers due to lack of efficiency in UE3.

    Funny that when you have been asked to put your money where your mouth is, you have chosen to offer absolutely no support to your argument; which is what I always suspected.

    The pluralistic ignorance you display by putting people on ignore, who are citing informed and articulate opinion, is a character trait you are no doubt fond of.

  • JediMasterMalik #41 5 years ago

    @penhalion - What was flawed in what I have said? It's OBVIOUS developers have had it tough with PS3 development, with UE3 being so popular Sony helping it out is a good thing for PS3 owners. No sarcasm necesssary. I don't see what logic was flawed, it makes perfect sense.

  • BadBoyBonner #42 5 years ago

    @Steroyd

    "Silicon Knights Suing Epic for this exact same reason?"

    Erm, so I guess your a big believer in guilty till proven innocent then?

    Instigating legal proceedings means nothing, other than they have proven, to the trier of fact, the reception of an evidential issue when taken at it’s HIGHEST, COULD lead to a judgement in their favour.

  • GamesConnoisseur #43 5 years ago

    disc: It may be that X360 will likely be visually better throughout the generation give or take few games, though assurance that being lead platform would not make any difference graphically may not be correct. As I am seeing rumours of the new PES taking big advantage of Blu ray storage and storing up to 18 GB of textures and X360 would have to make do with compressed textures?

    I would agree to date X360 handle textures better than PS3 due to hardware memory setup, but there will come a tipping point where optical storage space for storing more uncompressed textures may be an advantage? Especially if PES thing is true.

  • Penguinzoot #44 5 years ago

    Like I said the other day, this is exactly the sort of stuff Sony needs to be doing instead of moaning that 3rd partys can't cut it.

    Fortunate Sony has a few parachutes lying around ;-)

  • Dizzy #45 5 years ago

    >18 GB of textures and X360 would have to make do with compressed textures?

    This would be funny if it is not sad. How many times do we have to explain this? Well I am NOT going to... I am done with this "compressed" texture bullshit.

    GamesConnoisseur you are NOT.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 13:47

  • Steroyd #46 5 years ago

    Erm, so I guess your a big believer in guilty till proven innocent then?

    Instigating legal proceedings means nothing, other than they have proven, to the trier of fact, the reception of an evidential issue when taken at it’s HIGHEST, COULD lead to a judgement in their favour.

    Of course I'm a believer of innocent till proven guilty, but there's been similar rumblings with other devs like the Lost Odysee Devs for example.

  • BadBoyBonner #47 5 years ago

    STEROYD – Agreed. I think everyone with an understanding of the dev process, can see Epic have been stretched (they probably being one of the few who were very happy for the PS3 being delayed - thus not stretching them even further.)

    Gears, showed that UE3 runs on the 360, not brilliantly, but good enough for most things. Does anyone ever get all the support that they want? The key is if it has fallen below reasonably expected levels.

    Nobody knows but the two companies involved at the moment. If it is found Epic could have done more, but that in reality, A GAME, but not THE GAME, Silicon Kinghts had envisaged could have been produced, on the balance of probabilities, SK may find themselves with a large legal fee.

    Hope SK have not forgotten that whoever they went to for advice on how to proceed, had a vested interest to instigate legal proceedings, as they will get paid regardless of outcome.

  • RexRunti #48 5 years ago

    Didn't the Darkness use the PS3 as it's lead platform? I'm not aware of any differences there except slower loading screens on the PS3 (haven't seen a comparison yet and I'm nowhere near 100% sure the PS3 was the lead).

    Also didn't Sony push UE3 on devs as an example that you could get a decent engine on the PS3? I think it's safe to assume that the PS3 is a bitch to program for and we'll have to wait a while before we see any "twice as powerful as 360" quality games.

    Oh @GamesConnoisseur where the textures come from makes no difference as in game they need to be already in the memory before they are actually used (can make a difference to loading times though as compressed extures can be pulled off the disc faster but requires some processing from the cpu but then the Blu-Ray in the PS3 actually reads slower than the 360s dvd). It could make a difference to sprawling words (like Oblivion) but the PS3s advantage here is that the textures can be stored on the HDD first as HDDs (especially SATA) are way faster than any optical media.

  • GamesConnoisseur #49 5 years ago

    Dizzy: I take it you are not dizzy with happiness!

    My point was more of where blu ray optical storage space would become an advantage in being able to store more graphical data while yes not as good in memory set up as X360.

    Leaving aside compressed/uncompressed texture comment which obviously get up your nose, I was disagreeing with blanket assurance that PS3 even if a lead platform will not ever be as good or better than X360.
    There will be games that are visually better on PS3 but as I have said earlier X360 so far is showing PS3 up even if only slightly in some games.

  • zuljin #50 5 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner
    "And what label did I use then?"

    You didn't use any label. I didn't say you did. I said if you are going to label him based on an answer to that question.

    (Although from your post it is very easy to see that you think he is lying.)

  • Dizzy #51 5 years ago

    >Leaving aside compressed/uncompressed texture comment which obviously get up your nose

    There is no such thing as uncompressed textures.

  • GamesConnoisseur #52 5 years ago

    RexiRunti: Thanks, that certainly do mean that PS3 can have an advantage in certain type of games. I do notice that PS3 generally have a longer loading than X360.

    In my view HDD not being wholly included in X360 (what with two different core and premium sku) is going to become a problem in future, as already limited to DVD space and there are core owners out there so developers would not include HDD option as available to old xbox or PS3.

    So each platform have an advantage in certain settings, at moment X360 clearly leads on a visual stake across the board. But will that be for whole generation? That is not yet clearly concluded in my view.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 18:04

  • Gurgeh #53 5 years ago

    "I do notice that PS3 generally have a longer loading than X360."

    IIRC blu-ray drives have a much longer spin start-up than dvd drives.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #54 5 years ago

    Licensing the Unreal engine has always been a matter of being tossed the scraps from Epic's table. In my experience (which was at the UE1/UE2 crossover period) the builds given to developers were ropey as fuck until they put their own game out.

    Looks like the same has happened here, with no decent 360 engine till Gears shipped, and no decent PS3 engine at all yet, since Gears was only ever destined for 360 and PC. As for support, they rely largely on licensees helping each other out, either via a mailing list or their UDN wiki site. They don't have anything like the dedicated support services the likes of Havok have or Renderware had, because, as Mark Rein says, they're a small company and they want to keep it that way.

    The upside, of course, is that you get a full working AAA game to build your on top of, once Epic have finished theirs.

  • BadBoyBonner #55 5 years ago

    Gurgeh

    Do not forget also, the Xbox 360's 12x DVD, reads at 16MB/second, giving it a clear speed advantage over the PS3's 2x BD drive at 9MB/second, thus making for significantly faster load times in games (that haven't been dumped to the HD), as well as a much cheaper component price.

  • Machiavellian #56 5 years ago

    People are giving props to Sony for sending help to Epic like this was some type of charity by Sony. There is nothing Charitable about this situation. The UE3 Engine has a lot of licensees and good many of them are creating Xbox 360 and PS3. There are some very important games coming out that are using UE3 and if Sony doesn't want their system to appear to be the 360 stepchild the best help developers like Epic post haste.

    Also from what I have heard, sending support and help to developers from MS is quite common, I wonder why it took so long for Sony to understand. I guess when you are the market leader, you can tell the developers to find the solution themselves instead of giving them the tools and support needed to produce the best games possible on your system.

    How many times have I read about shitty ports and developers being lazy but no one has pointed out how poor support and shitty Sony tools are for helping those developers produce games on the PS3. I think we all should take a step back and look at the root cause of bad ports to the PS3 which is Sony. I am sure there are Developers producing bad ports but maybe they could up the level if they actually had support from Sony.

  • GamesConnoisseur #57 5 years ago

    Dizzy: sure you may be right that there is no such thing as uncompressed texture as I am no programmer (the closest was to copy in spectrum program listing from speccy mag). Would you say that larger optical space would mean an advantage in holding more data and thus potentially more visually appealing game?

    Developers can just have X360 as the most common denominator for multi platform games, thus possibly PS3's blu ray factor not going to be fully taken advantage of.

    Such as Xbox was not used to the full potential due to PS2 being the lead consideration in last gen. However that would not be the case with the first party games. Though I believe that so far of PS3 first party games released, nothing yet that X360 cannot do just as well.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 14:33

  • Steroyd #58 5 years ago

    BBB there is no such game as Gears on the PS3 that show what UE3 can do probably why Sony took the opportunity of UT3 further than if it would have been if it was console multiplatform (i.e the Sony ninja's), there's such a big gap between 3rd and 1st party on the PS3 it isn't funny.

    The DVD drive speed has to account double layer, and it won't always spin at full tilt.
    Put simply the DVD is less efficient at drive speeds than Blu-ray.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 14:35

  • smoothn00dle #59 5 years ago

    From the "Silicon Knights vs Epic" Complaint document No 07-00275

    Epic is playing everyone -M$, Sony and their licensees. Sony lost a few games because of Unreal Engine3. Epic never intent to optimize their engine for PS3. It is just lip service. Sony sent in their SWOT team to make sure Epic do their job properly.

    Epic, by keeping the console war in stalemate as long as possible. The value of their engine will skyrocket Just like Jade Raymond did with Assassin Creed playing the exclusive game between M$ and Sony. First AC was PS3 exclusive than multi platform. I wonder how much M$ paid for AC? likely millions but not as close to the GTA4's deal.

    360 is the weaker hardware. Epic and M$ want to deny other parties' the access to Unreal engine technology. M$ was on their knees to Epic. Then Killzone2 showed up.. I respect Sony's "don't reply on anybody" policy. In two years' time, Sony closed the gap between them and the leader. The biggest threat to Epic is the cellchip and Killzone2 engine.

    "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer" -Mobutu, a ruler of Zaire\the Congo
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 14:39

  • Dizzy #60 5 years ago

    "Would you say that larger optical space would mean an advantage in holding more data and thus potentially more visually appealing game? "

    More data for' levels and/or cutscenes? Yes. More data to make game look better? No.

  • BadBoyBonner #61 5 years ago

    Steroyd - the speeds I gave were not my opinion but came from Sony Development head and current technical director for Ubisoft, Mark DeLoura, regarding Sony's Blu-ray

    Here is the link the the full article - http://ww w.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_in...

  • Machiavellian #62 5 years ago

    After watching some ingame movies of Killzone2, it didn't look better than Gears of War instead it looked just a tad better than resistance. Forget the trailer part of the Killzone2 but actually look at the ingame movies where someone is actually playing. Looking at UE3, I will also state that Killzone 2 has a ways to go before matching it as well.

    Anyway to state that MS and Epic is teaming up to hold back the PS3 is definitely on par with the silliest thing I have heard today. I get your joke but you need to refine your skills if you want to make it sound witty or funny.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #63 5 years ago

    That'$ a hell of a con$piracy theory yo've got there, $moothnoodle.

    You $tab at them good from your mother's ba$ement!

    Edit: found the Penny Arcade link after all.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 15:11

  • 2099net #64 5 years ago

    smoothn00dle what are you on about?

    Why would Epic not want their engine running to speed on the PS3. There's a lot of PS3 licencees already! Some of them very important (SquareEnix). Do you really think MS paid them off? It's not as if Epic are toeing to Microsofts official "Games For Windows" party line.

    Secondly, Assassins Creed was widely reported to be shown on 360 hardware, even in the days it was "a PS3 exclusive". Why the hell would they then demand money from Microsoft for releasing it AT THE SAME TIME as the PS3 version, when its been well known that the reason it never became a PS3 "exclusive" was because Sony let it slip through their fingers (along with a lot of other exclusives).

    Never put down to conspiracy what you can put down incompetence, and this story reeks of imcompetence. On Sony's side. They just don't have decent software development tools ready. Rather odd really, considering the PS3 was only delayed from its original mooted release because of "blu-ray" issues, not internal hardware or software issues.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #65 5 years ago

    I wouldn't blame Sony's development tools as much i would blame the chip architects. More cores == more complexity == more difficulty. More different instruction sets on the one machine == more complexity.

    Unless the development tools you're talking about are whole engines, it's still going to be more of a bastard job wringing as much out of PS3's eight cores with two different instruction sets as you can get out of 360's 3 cores that are all the same. Of course, it doesn't help that the PS3 (reputedly) has an inferior GPU since that's where the most obvious graphical differences will come from.

    Mind you, 360 and PS3 are still probably the most closely matched competing consoles ever in terms of the end result.

  • smoothn00dle #66 5 years ago

    @Machiavellian
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Shows the man's taste.

    "make it sound witty or funny"
    Good, don't want sound like a "smart@rse". If what I said is a joke, Sony wouldn't send Epic a whole team of specialists and work for free. Epic has delivered quality 3d engine to different platforms. Did M$ send in their "ranger" to optimize GOW for them?

    Why after three years start from UT3 first ran on PS3, Epic still can't deliver PS3 engine to their licensees on time? The funny part is the licensees already paid the money and signed the contract with Epic to fund Epic's next adventure. The PS3 game developers who use Epic are screw. Meanwhile Epic's Xbox only Gear of War run awesomely. It was not even on PC. Epic clearly give Xbox360 a priority. As the result, a few PS3 games got cancel.

    @Machiavellian, Yeah! The joke is on the licensees and Sony. M$ must be laughing.

  • Penguinzoot #67 5 years ago

    smoothn00dle - I think you may need to replace your tinfoil hat. It seems to be faulty. ;-)

  • Xerx3s #68 5 years ago

    Xerx3s: UE3 certainly uses the hardware threads on the 360 and Ageia uses any number of threads they want on PC/PS3. Could certainly be better and Havok has a better multithreaded solution.

    I didn't say that it didn't use it. I said that the engine wasn't optimised for it because when they started to layout the roadmap for it they didn't have the tech. Epic wrote a bit about how they are planning further ahead this time and are actually taking into consideration the tech that we won't even be getting in our wildest dreams (like IBM's 30 core cpu).

    I can't seem to find the article though. :/

  • RexRunti #69 5 years ago

    @smoothn00dle

    To avoid allegations of fanboyisms I suggest either refering to the big three as MS/Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo or M$/Micro$oft, $ony and NinYENdo. I suggest the former.

    And I especially like how you start off with what appears to be a quote and then start talking bollocks to sumarise:

    'From the "Silicon Knights vs Epic" Complaint document No 07-00275 : M$ suxrs, Sony ftw!'

  • Calgon #70 5 years ago

    Ok I think some people are forgetting that no matter how much they optimise for the SPE's 1 they have their weaknesses, 2 PS3 will be GPU and memory limited before 360 will be... Think of it this way take PS3s CPU and pair it up with Xenos and 360 memory architecture and you have the best perfoming console as it is now its unfair to give either that title(any system is only as good/fast as the end result.. the slower parts have an impact on this. Sony want us to beleive we can focus on just one and decide that way because they do have the strongest CPU - but it was costly and could have been done cheaper with more conventional methods as far as performance goes... they failed on that front).

    Anyway CPU wise Cell isnt better in every respect I love it when fanboy talk about "general processing power" for Xenon and try and say "oh but thats just for spreadsheets and wordprocessors" where do they come up with this shit?(only show limited knowlege) , Xenon has the kind of power that is versitile rather than specialised... if you over specialise you will limit yourself in some ways(GPUs are in the works to carry a bit more general processing power).

    Also after doing some digging today some of the figures we have for memory and CPU comparisons have changed:

    PS3 OS: 52mb(most recent report I can find but this isnt an official source so it could still be higher) - still larger than 360s and doesnt change the fact that they will always be working with less than 256mb of RAM for CELL(204MB if the figures I have now are correct)

    360 CPU sytem reservation: "For CPU reservation, core 0 is completely available to the game, and the system reserves a small percentage (think single digits) of core 1 and 2." This sounds like its been split between two cores, one thead on each? So this could actually mean its only necessary to use one thread(bare essential running in the background and the other thread pops up when the system needs it in non gaming tasks) whilest gaming. The single digit percentage might mean once devs really get to grips with handling mulithreading, all threads could be in use for gaming, otherwise that sounds wastefull because its not even using a quarter of a threads potential(even adding the full amount together... I cant think of a need to split this across threads from two cores otherwise). Theres still a way to go before we see the "untapped potential" of the 360 CPU with its multithreading, let alone the 360 GPU... 360 ftw? ;)
    Edited by 2 at 23/07/07 @ 16:31

  • Xerx3s #71 5 years ago

    Sure it may be more capable at physics and it may have more storage but you cant see that in screenshots and screenshots are all we care about.

    A problem that has been pestering the games industry for the last decade or two unfortunately. Superior gameplay < Fancy screenshots on the back of the tin.

  • Calgon #72 5 years ago

    RexRunti - Yeah seems to be a fairly accurate veiw of his posts Ive read so far. To think there are Sony fanboys talking about an air of desperation in others posts is amusingly hypocritical too :D but thats just another day on EG(business as usual).

  • Gouki #73 5 years ago

    This is to badboy bone head or whatever he's called. I can sit here knowing I wont suffer from the ring of death. It is great turning good news into bad but people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. If Sony would have had this problem the likes of you would have had a field day. 33% already returned, and everyone has a design flaw, agreed at present not resulting in a mass recall! In the PC forums you get people helping each other, best settings, etc... Here u just get bitchin. Sure the PS3 is difficult to programme for but the 360 is not without its faults.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 16:41

  • zuljin #74 5 years ago

    @smoothnoodle
    "If what I said is a joke, Sony wouldn't send Epic a whole team of specialists and work for free. Epic has delivered quality 3d engine to different platforms. Did M$ send in their "ranger" to optimize GOW for them?"

    Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have all sent in "SWAT" teams to help out with devs. In fact, all tool creators do. The guys from Havok come by our office few times a year to update us on what they've been working on, and how to get the most out of their engine.

    @Calgon
    "Anyway CPU wise Cell isnt better in every respect..."
    On pure horse power, yes it is. The hard part is finding processes you can apply the SPUs to.

  • Calgon #75 5 years ago

    zuljin no it isnt... "overall" raw horse power yes... but not "in every respect", a key distinction and absolutely correct(already explained why too), to argue with that doesnt give you much credibility since its a well known fact.

    The hard part is finding processes you can apply the SPUs to
    It sounds almost like you understand it there... kind of a contradiction if Im reading that right.

    Its a more specialised CPU offers more power overall but isnt better at ALL gaming related processing(thats just the way SPEs were made... room for improvement in future designs, like any other CPU out there)... Xenon simply has a few advantages of its own(but still ultimately not as powerfull overall), one day Sony and its fanboys will just face it that CELL didnt turn out to be the superchip that does everything better than other CPUs(not by a long stretch of imagination). The PS3 also loses out to the 360 in other VITAL areas of performance between these systems.
    Edited by 9 at 23/07/07 @ 17:58

  • smoothn00dle #76 5 years ago

    @RexRunti
    My summaries for u is "that's business"

    @zuljin
    That is a good points. How many times did Sony update Epic's PS3 knowledge in the past? If Sony provide substantial support to Epic and Epic still can't provide the PS3 engine on time, this information would favor Silicon Knights in court. It would provide my theory is right or wrong *v*

    You seems to know things. which game company are u working for and yr specialty?

  • subtlesnake #77 5 years ago

    Seems like you're employing the standard bait-and-switch tactic, BadBoyBonner. You originally said.

    "Epic like most companies, has not got unlimited resources, which you require to get Xbox360 performance out of the PS3."

    The implication there in what you've said is that it's almost impossible to get PS3 titles up to their 360 counterparts. Yet, you provide no evidence to support this, and later switch to the statement that:

    "Hence the current shoddy 360 ports to PS3 that are doing the machine a great disservice."

    Obviously, your original claim is quite ridiculous given that many mulitiplatform titles look at least as good on the PS3 as they do on the 360 - and in some cases they look *better*, despite the fact that the 360 is still the lead development SKU. Wonder where all those unlimited resources are coming from, eh?

    You then said:

    "Even with those engineers there, we are still unsure if they can get games running on the PS3 that don’t look terrible in comparison to the 360 which is cheaper, older and beating us hands down."

    Now you're implying that developers don't even know if they can get good looking games on the PS3. If that isn't a troll, what is? Unless you actually believe that every game developed for the PS3 looks terrible.

    No one is denying that the PS3 is harder to code for, but that doesn't make the ridiculous exaggerations contained in your first comment valid. We've had some poor PS3 ports, and equally many ports where there is very little difference at all between the two versions. And the situation has already begun to improve - Dirt on the PS3 has an improved framerate, and according to Criterion, Burnout: Paradise will look better on the PS3.

    You mention Carmack. Perhaps you'd like to know that id Tech 5 is running at 60 FPS on both the 360 and PS3 with the exact same assets.

    "I'm not that aware of what our competitors are doing and what they're promising with their road map, but when people walk into our booth, they see that we have four platforms running at 60Hz with the exact same assets. We probably have artists in the company that aren't aware we have our new technology running on the PS3 because you need to do absolutely zero changes, no packaging, no extra baking, no extra steps, to get to the PS3."

    [link url=http://www.gamespot.com/news/6175061.html?tag=la testnews;title;1
    ]http://ww w.gamespot.com/news/6175061.htm...[/link]

    With regards to UE3, I think it's worth remembering that the engines' multithreaded renderer, "Gemini" was only completed in mid-2006, so Epic are simply well behind with multithreading.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 18:38

  • aidey6 #78 5 years ago

    I wonder if they are sending in SN Systems to help Epic, I know they used to be a middleware supplier until Sony bought them about two years ago..

  • GamesConnoisseur #79 5 years ago

    RE smoothn00dle: what game company you work for?

    I never noticed in EG forums (from what I ve seen at least) those who are in the industry actually give details of who they work for and on what games.

    I think we all are better off keeping things as they are, so people would be more free to contribute and we all are the better for it. Some of us are just a game players (i.e. moi) and others would be obviously much more active in the industry and there are potential for problems.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 18:45

  • Calgon #80 5 years ago

    Dirt on the PS3 has an improved framerate, and according to Criterion, Burnout: Paradise will look better on the PS3.


    Is the PS3 version of Dirt still not out yet? you know harder to develop for or not thats quite a bit of extra development time which just makes me think... is that all? Imagine if theyd spent that extra time on the 360 version too... unless Codemasters and others really want to lose sales they better watch out because thats kind of short changing the 360 owners(unless Sony is paying for extra dev time theres no point risking it).

    Criterion were always going to lead on Sony's platform for that game(they've been sucking up to Sony for ages now... since the first Burnout) and to say the game isnt even out yet(how far along are they in development? how long ago was the game announced infact?)... saying such things so soon is not wise, could they be any more obvious about where the majority of effort is gonna go? Guess they arent selling enough on 360 then, gonna sell even less now if thats what they are up to(still going to slow them down in comparison no matter how experienced they think they are with Cell like programming*parralel - in order ect*).
    Edited by 4 at 23/07/07 @ 19:25

  • zuljin #81 5 years ago

    @Calgon
    "zuljin no it isnt... "overall" raw horse power yes... but not "in every respect""

    Okay. Now what I said:
    "On pure horse power, yes it is."

    We're saying the same thing.

    "Its a more specialised CPU offers more power overall but isnt better at ALL gaming related processing(thats just the way SPEs were made... room for improvement in future designs, like any other CPU out there)..."
    If they were "improved" like you say, it would just be a 7 core CPU. This is a balance between performance and cost. And ofcourse it isn't better in all instances, why else would there be 2 different architectures in one chip? New version of Havok will run purely on SPEs. Hair and dynamics from HS are done on SPEs. Ditto for weather effects on F1. It is an arse, but you'd be surprised what you can and can't do on it.

    Midnight reading for you:
    [link url=http://www-01.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib. nsf/techdocs/FC857AE550F7EB83872571A80061F788/$file/CBE_Tuto rial_v2.1_1March2007.pdf
    ]http://ww w-01.ibm.com/chips/techlib/tech...[/link]

    @smoothn00dle
    Not sure TBH. I know Sony tools have improved an awful lot in recent times, and the devstation lectures have been immensely useful.

    Who I work for isn't really important, though I'll happily say I'm physics-y / gameplay programmer. Hence why I know about the Havok guys. Used to be the other way round, we used to go on a long weekend to Dublin for lectures. That was before I arrived tho :(

  • Calgon #82 5 years ago

    zuljin: Oh I think I know all I need to about CELL(enough about what it does well and not so well and why to discuss and compare), just clearing that up about the differences in the statements(overall and raw have importanting meanings here) btw:

    why else would there be 2 different architectures in one chip?
    Are you suggesting the PPC core?(which Im sure you know isnt directly comparable to the Xenon cores) cant have the best of both worlds from what I hear, full SPE utilisation means PPE will mostly have its hands full or atleast have alot less to give than without it(theres been talk about not needing this in the future but its not been overly convincing since there is usually no source for it and no direct quotes from anyone creditable, also this was in the first explanations of the CELL design, to get optimal performance you use it how it was intended). Its that simple Cell is powerfull but Xenon does best it in some areas(since Xenon was designed for gaming by IBM and the xbox team... why would any descions made on the 360 CPU be anything but gaming they knew what Cell was about before they designed it and they had the choice to do as they please this time around... custom/console hardware this time around unlike last time unlike Xbox 1).
    Edited by 10 at 23/07/07 @ 20:10

  • zuljin #83 5 years ago

    @Calgon
    "why else would there be 2 different architectures in one chip?"
    "Are you suggesting the PPC core?(which Im sure you know isnt directly comparable to the Xenon cores)"

    It really was intended as simply as possible, which is that multiple architectures are never really desirable, and shows that each have their own benefits. And yes it is comparable to a Xenon core. Its not comparable to the full CPU.

    "...cant have the best of both worlds from what I hear, full SPE utilisation means PPE will have its hands full(theres been talk about not needing this in the future but its not been overly convincing since this was in the first explanations of the CELL design, to get optimal performance you use it how it was intended)."

    No, full SPU utilisation will mean the PPU will be sitting there doing bugger all. That is the single resounding statement from every lecture I've attended. Do not let the PPU do anything. Easier said than done tho.

  • Calgon #84 5 years ago

    zuljin - I said directly... meaning there are some key differences to the cores, Xenon cores are more powerfull and highly customised(because they are expected to do more... IBM and the Xbox engineers knew what they were up against with CELL as has been said), perhaps I should have been clearer they are based of the same technology though yes.

    Wasnt the aim to have the PPU act as the controller(which would mean its not doing any of the processing so to speak but its not just sat doing nothing its in use) fetching, balancing and filling the pipelines, without which they couldnt be running at optimal performance?
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 20:19

  • MouzerMalti #85 5 years ago

    wooooooooow

    super engineers...

  • Jas315 #86 5 years ago

    Wait... what is it I see... SONY POSITIVE NEWS?!.... woah... hardly likely...

    Wait, what else have we got here... people arguing about pointless DRIVEL... how so very likely!

    /Hands out lives for a special purchase price

  • Dizzy #87 5 years ago

    " IBM and the Xbox engineers knew what they were up against with CELL as has been said), perhaps I should have been clearer they are based of the same technology though yes. "

    Kinda funny you said that... the engineers from IBM that worked on Cell contain some of the same team members that worked on Xenon :)

  • Calgon #88 5 years ago

    Dizzy except CELL started development far before Xenons did, which was kind of my point and even funnier kay? :)

    You got a link stating which members? or do you beleive theres like 2 teams of engineers at IBM or something? lol Id have to say thats veeeeery unlikely(but if correct from the time leaving that project to joining the CELL one they didnt have time to change much... apart from not being aloud to use some of it since MS owns that particular chip... they were more likely require to join because of concerns about getting the thing working properly on time along with raising yeilds ect... there was alot of problems before launch and it has cost them alot to get CELL out there) because what I said is sort of a quote from a member of the Xbox Team(think it was that documentary thing before launch). Anyway trust me Xenon cores are different(added dot product computation, more advanced VMX and other custom features added for 360), the PPU in CELL has another purpose entirley to them,
    Edited by 8 at 23/07/07 @ 23:03

  • zuljin #89 5 years ago

    @Calgon
    Calgon
    "Wasnt the aim to have the PPU act as the controller(which would mean its not doing any of the processing so to speak but its not just sat doing nothing its in use) fetching, balancing and filling the pipelines, without which they couldnt be running at optimal performance?"

    Nail, head. The idea is to put branching code onto PPU, and linear on SPU. You can do anything you like on the SPU as long as you realise you have a 256kb limitation. Its like having 6 extra pcs, with no memory. Currently some games don't even really use them, let alone use them well.

    @warzin
    "Will you care about the PS3 architecture in another 10yrs?"
    If I'm still coding for the platform, yes. Yes I will.

  • Calgon #90 5 years ago

    You can do anything you like on the SPU as long as you realise you have a 256kb limitation.

    Well nobody said it couldnt do anything other cores could do... rather they are faster at some things and much slower at others.

  • subtlesnake #91 5 years ago

    "Is the PS3 version of Dirt still not out yet? you know harder to develop for or not thats quite a bit of extra development time which just makes me think... is that all? Imagine if theyd spent that extra time on the 360 version too... unless Codemasters and others really want to lose sales they better watch out because thats kind of short changing the 360 owners(unless Sony is paying for extra dev time theres no point risking it)."

    They've indicated that the improvements are a result of the PSSG rendering platform provided by Sony, so it doesn't seem like the 360 would benefit in the same way by having extra development time.

    http://uk .gamespot.com/video/932887/6174...

  • Calgon #92 5 years ago

    subtlesnake: Let me get this straight you are trying to argue that extra development time wouldnt have benifited performance? Of course it would, that IS the reason devs delay games, to spend more time polishing them, PSSG rendering platform or not thats not a very smart assumption... 360 could easily have matched PS3 performance in Dirt with that extra development time(its easier to develop for to begin with and it already has all the tools it needs so most likely would have gained even better results... PSSG is only going to speed things up a little, lets see if they can get them out at the same time as the 360 version now they have it then or like this one its an unfair comparison)... wake up this was paid for by Sony(they didnt like this since it ruined the "only on Cell" Motorstorm blag, they are aware they are loosing credibility... from harrissons monthly soundbites to the blogs, they are desperate to sell us this "untapped potential" blag... just like the PS2 before it).
    Edited by 9 at 23/07/07 @ 23:22

  • BadBoyBonner #93 5 years ago

    @subtlesnake

    Point One - is taking the piss. Parachutes are often used in emergencies – as appears here in my opinion. Troops are parachuted in to neutralise problems – as there appears to be here, in my opinion. The PS3 is not running the UE3 as well as the 360 - in my opinion. The fact is, a machine produced a year later, with the remit of being cutting edge, should have put the 360 in the shade. It has not done that - in my opinion.

    Perhaps you find it difficult to perceive irony. Quick definition being “Irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience [me], which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, etc.”

    The true irony being (according to Sony) the PS3 is meant to easily outperform the 360 - with mention being made of 1080p, 120Hz games, (for an extra splash of irony Unreal Tournament was used in) touting it's superiority - HD gaming starts when they it starts etc etc etc

    Point two.. “and in some cases they look *better*” Without ever stating which and why?

    Point three - See point one – plus anyone developer that states PS3 is very easy to developer for seems to be trying to massage their own intellectual ego.

    Point four - glad you agree with it being hard to develop for PS3. Perhaps your American (I do not know) and find it difficult to perceive irony. Quick definition being “Irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience [me], which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, etc.”

    Point five – Carmack stated the difficulty developing for the PS3 not me. The fact that he has his tech running on it at 60hz, does not show that it wasn’t a pain to develop for in comparison to the 360 – which is exactly what HE stated.

    Point Six – who exactly are Epic behind with regard to a AAA published title incorporating multithreading? Can’t see any dev’s on any platform, with a published title that outstrips Epics rendering engine.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 23:35

  • Monkey-Wizard-Ken #94 5 years ago

    @Harrison pledges Epic support
    Just maybe, Epic is struggling to get the PS3 version running at 30 frames per second?
    And Sony desperately need a game to put up against Halo3?
    I'd also bet that the PC and 360 versions are running just fine with half the effort!
    Hang-on, I wonder why Dirt was delayed.

  • JYM60 #95 5 years ago

    Comments section lives up to reputation.

  • smoothn00dle #96 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    My understanding of the cellchip is a single CPU core multi-processing unit. Cell in one single assembly call can run up to seven instructions. For example:

    to do the following equation
    (2x2) + (20/5) + (7x 3) =??

    Assembly call one
    SPU1 SPU2 SPU3
    (2x2) (20/5) (7x3)
    =4 =4 =21 Pass this to SPU4

    Assembly call two
    SPU4
    4 + 4 +21
    = 29

    Cellchip finished this equation in two assembly calls.

    Xenon has three CPU cores. In each core, a single assembly call can only do one instruction at the time. Do you think Cellchip has better efficiency in assembly level?

    What do you think about Xenon "cache" vs Cellchip "local store" and programmable Direct memory access(DMA)?

    Do you guys do much assembly level programing in both Xbox360 and PS3? Which one more?

  • SentientNr6 #97 5 years ago

    If anyone would have predicted this 2 years ago, we'd call him a fanboy.
    No doubt the PS3 will be a good system some day. In te mean team my money stays in my pocket.

  • davisorle #98 5 years ago

    "We have parachuted in some of our SWAT team of super engineers to help them. Specifically, to optimise for SPUs"

    Yeah... send more of your swat teams everywhere so you can end up having a couple of good games on that stupid console since its so easy to develope for.. fuckin loosers.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #99 5 years ago

    @smoothnoodle

    Multi-core CPUs don't work like that. In 'normal' multi-core operation (like on 360 and multi-core Intel/AMD chips in PCs and macs), each CPU works on a single operating system thread (or two if it's got 'hyperthreading', like 360 has got). They don't just zing variables about to one another, each one has a seperate job to do.

    The same holds for PS3 (and PS2 whose Vector Units are the precursor of the SPU), each SPU has a linear set of tasks to do for itself. The difference is that instead of being 'normal' code, the SPUs just do rapid number crunching without much (any?) logic in it.

    Naturally, this is much more awkward for programmers, especially since Sony's home consoles seem to be pretty much the only popular computing systems that have this sort of architecture.

  • Dizzy #100 5 years ago

    "You got a link stating which members? or do you beleive theres like 2 teams of engineers at IBM or something? lol "

    Yeah I did have a link somewhere (Gamasutra?). Anyway.. some of the experience from the Cell design went into Xenon, so in some ways they are quite similar ;) Nuff said about this anyway... I am a software guy and I prefer to talk about the software side of things ;) I think most people now realise that 360 and PS3, while different beasts, have exactly the same performance for the average game (a pretty bad situation for Sony IMHO).

  • Penguinzoot #101 5 years ago

    Xenon has three CPU cores. In each core, a single assembly call can only do one instruction at the time. Do you think Cellchip has better efficiency in assembly level?

    The 360 has three CPU cores, each of which runs two hardware threads, giving a total of 6 hardware threads altogether. Since each core can execute 2 instructions simultaneously (1 per hardware thread), giving a total of 6 simultaneous instructions overall.

  • Gurgeh #102 5 years ago

    Shacknews has interviewed several developers with experience of the UE3 engine and issues with Epic's support - a good read

    "In our case, we ended up having to choose between shipping late or implementing the missing features ourselves. We chose the latter, because we had the talent and the resources to do so, but it did add many more programmers--and work hours--than what we had initially planned. It also greatly soured the reputation of UE3 within [our company], a reputation that was already not very high because of the high licensing cost of UE3."

    [link url=htt p://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=468
    ]http://ww w.shacknews.com/featuredarticle...[/link]

  • Calgon #103 5 years ago

    Dizzy what experience? I dont really see what you are trying to say... my point was CELL was well known before Xenon development started AND even if any Xenon members did join that CELL team afterwards it HAD to be during crunch period because they were behind schedual with it and to begin with there wasnt alot of time between the two (6 months?)... I know whats not in the core too(I was only clearing up a misconception repeated too often when the IBM CPU cores are mentioned, Xenon cores are different and do have 360 specific features... perhaps owned by MS when they bought the chip, doesnt matter if not since they arent in the CELL PPU, which was designed for a different purpose) is the point, take a look at what I said.
    Edited by 5 at 24/07/07 @ 14:15

  • subtlesnake #104 5 years ago

    "subtlesnake: Let me get this straight you are trying to argue that extra development time wouldnt have benifited performance? Of course it would, that IS the reason devs delay games, to spend more time polishing them, PSSG rendering platform or not thats not a very smart assumption... "

    No, I'm saying the performance improvements would have been different, and the 360 wouldn't necessarily have been able to match up with the PS3. I mean if they'd made some general tweaks to their engine, added better shaders, then maybe you could claim that they'd be able to port them over the to the 360 easily. But otherwise it depends how much they can squeeze out of the 360, given that you'd expect them to have harnessed relatively more of its power the first time around

    "360 could easily have matched PS3 performance in Dirt with that extra development time(its easier to develop for to begin with and it already has all the tools it needs so most likely would have gained even better results... PSSG is only going to speed things up a little"

    Why do you say that? Running tasks on the SPEs has proved to be several times faster than running tasks on the PPE, and PSSG takes many rendering tasks and ensures they take full advantage of the available SPEs:


    "PSSG for example, treats the interface between the geometry pipeline (usually running on SPEs) and a vertex shader in the same way as it treats the interface between the vertex shader and the pixel shader. So it's just a backward extension of the pipeline onto the main CPU, where everything is much more flexible. The two things you mention - lighting and particles - are things that we can already drop fairly seamlessly into the PSSG geometry pipeline and run on SPEs. Particle processing especially has an advantage over current GPU based techniques because of the generality of the SPE (and over a traditional CPU as well due to the speed and parallelism of Cell)."

    [link url=http://linuxps3.net/articles/features/sonys-pssg- project-5.html
    ]http://li nuxps3.net/articles/features/so...[/link]

    Where is the equivalent optimisation for the 360, especially if they're already taking advantage of all 3 cores?

  • subtlesnake #105 5 years ago

    "Point One - is taking the piss. Parachutes are often used in emergencies – as appears here in my opinion. Troops are parachuted in to neutralise problems – as there appears to be here, in my opinion. The PS3 is not running the UE3 as well as the 360 - in my opinion. The fact is, a machine produced a year later, with the remit of being cutting edge, should have put the 360 in the shade. It has not done that - in my opinion.

    Perhaps you find it difficult to perceive irony. Quick definition being “Irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience [me], which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, etc."

    So you're admitting that the statement "Epic like most companies, has not got unlimited resources, which you require to get Xbox360 performance out of the PS3" is inaccurate? Because that's all I'm arguing.

    As for irony - look at your own definition, and notice the phrase "discordance between the real and the ideal". My point was that your original comment didn't represent 'the real'. With that aim, I specifically highlighted two sentences and asked you defend them, which you've failed to do.

    Finally, as an aside, the fact that the PS3 was released a year after the 360 means little, because it still had to use the exact same 90 nm process, so the limits on the number of transistors its CPU or GPU could contain were the same.

    "Point two.. “and in some cases they look *better*” Without ever stating which and why? "

    Because it was a throwaway point. The fact that so many 360 and PS3 titles look identical in itself is enough to dispel this notion that limitless or almost-limitless resources are not required to get the two platforms performing similarly. Anyway, I mentioned Dirt and Burnout. Of released games, there's also Oblivion.

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=7896 3&page=2
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...[/link]

    "Point three - See point one – plus anyone developer that states PS3 is very easy to developer for seems to be trying to massage their own intellectual ego. "

    So you're not even going to bother defending this:

    "Even with those engineers there, we are still unsure if they can get games running on the PS3 that don’t look terrible in comparison to the 360 which is cheaper, older and beating us hands down."

    Again, all I'm pointing out is that your first post was a ridiculous over exaggeration

    "Point four - glad you agree with it being hard to develop for PS3. Perhaps your American (I do not know) and find it difficult to perceive irony. Quick definition being “Irony is understood as an aesthetic evaluation by an audience [me], which relies on a sharp discordance between the real and the ideal, and which is variously applied to texts, speech, events, acts, etc.”

    Well, it would help if your original comment actually contrasted reality with the ideal. It would also help if you actually made the contrast at all! Your original comment doesn't even refer to Sony's ideals.

    "Carmack stated the difficulty developing for the PS3 not me. The fact that he has his tech running on it at 60hz, does not show that it wasn’t a pain to develop for in comparison to the 360 – which is exactly what HE stated. "

    No, but it shows that it can be done within a reasonable timeframe, and with a reasonable amount of effort (Carmack has said that he's not particularly focused on keeping the two versions in sync

    "But we’re not going to do much until we're at the point where we need to bring it up to spec on the PlayStation 3. We’ll probably do that two or three times during the major development schedule. It’s not something we’re going to try and keep in-step with us."

    [link url=http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Sto ry/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm?Page=3
    ]http://ww w.gameinformer.com/News/Story/2...[/link]

    And of course developers that license Carmacks' engine will be able to benefit from the cross-platform performance parity themselves. I'm simply taking a pragmatic perspective: are developers managing to bring PS3 games up to parity with 360 games? Answer: yes. And from Sony or the consumers' perspective, that's really all that matters. It's the end result that we're going to use to justify Sony's choices, not the fact that some programmer had to stay up really late to get a new feature working on the PS3.

    "Point Six – who exactly are Epic behind with regard to a AAA published title incorporating multithreading? Can’t see any dev’s on any platform, with a published title that outstrips Epics rendering engine."

    How about the 360 launch titles? Kameo, PGR3 and COD2 all used multiple cores. Even Prey, released around the time that Epic had just finished their Gemini renderer, ran on 3 cores. If they were that late on the 360, you could see them being late on the PS3, which is much more heavily multithreaded, no? I mean from what I've gathered, Gemini just splits the renderer off into another thread, so they're not even taking full advantage of the 360's threads/cores.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #106 5 years ago

    Where is the equivalent optimisation for the 360, especially if they're already taking advantage of all 3 cores?

    Well, you can almost always make things faster if you spend enough time optimising. The equivalent of using the SPEs on 360 is converting more code to use VMX vector maths, as well as managing cache-efficiency and eliminating pieline stalls due to logic branches (which is the sort of thing you have to do anyway to use SPEs properly).

    As was mentioned above (in an incorrectly interpreted way, as it happens), Xbox 360 cores are capable of consuming two instructions every cycle. Very well optimised Xbox 360 titles can manage about 1.2 instructions per cycle. That means there's theoretically about 40% spare capacity kicking about that could be unlocked with time.

    Just a little something for those that worry 360 doesn't have anything in the bag to counter all this 'developers learning to tap more of the power of the Cell' propaganda.

  • BadBoyBonner #107 5 years ago

    SubtleSnake

    From the presentation of your arguments you seem to be intelligent and articulate – which leaves me to surmise that you are purposefully missing the ironic part . Having to break down an ironic joke into it’s constituent parts deprives it of all humour.

    However, as you are baiting me to respond I shall.

    The definition (which you go on to use yourself) "discordance between the real and the ideal".

    Do you really think that you need to argue against me and my opinion as you think I, an informed and educated man, really in all honesty think it takes (a theoretically impossible) unlimited amount of funds?

    The joke is in the statement – it is a flawed proposition, an impossibility, something that could not exist. Applying such intellect as you posses yourself to debunk a statement of impossibility was a waste of time. Perhaps a little more lateral thought applied to statements and their actual meaning would save you the time of analysing something that is impossible, and was stated as such, so it could be understood to be ironic.

    Point Two – perhaps you mean in stills? [PS3 looking as good as 360 currently]– I have not played a game in stills as yet, and I personally prefer them to be moving, as smooth as possible. Even in still’s, all of EA’s games display better lighting on the 360 and sharper textures – look at the BMW logo on the Car’s in the [PS3’s crowning glory] GT5 shots it’s difficult to read the alpha numeric characters. Sony’s decision for it’s memory model, and it’s subsequent impact on texture quality, has been universally panned.

    Point three again – me stating what I did is not merely “a ridiculous over exaggeration” but actually impossible – hence the irony.


    Point four – “Well, it would help if your original comment actually contrasted reality with the ideal.”

    It did, it contrasted what was actually spent [reality] against spending all the money in the world[the ironic ideal].


    Point five - "Carmack stated the difficulty developing for the PS3 not me. The fact that he has his tech running on it at 60hz, does not show that it wasn’t a pain to develop for in comparison to the 360 – which is exactly what HE stated. "

    You said - No, but it shows that it can be done within a reasonable timeframe, and with a reasonable amount of effort (Carmack has said that he's not particularly focused on keeping the two versions in sync.

    Hmm, the word reasonable is legalistically used to cover the widest gamut of possibilities, and is no doubt why you have chosen it, to sound specific without actually being so. Having read the hyper link you supplied here’s the bits you missed.

    GI: You talked a lot about the Xbox 360. What are your thoughts on the PlayStation 3 now that you’ve had more time on it?

    CARMACK: We’ve got our PlayStation 3 dev kits, and we’ve got our code compiling on it. I do intend to do a simultaneous release on it. But the honest truth is that Microsoft dev tools are so much better than Sony’s. We expect to keep in mind the issues of bringing this up on the PlayStation 3…..None of my opinions have really changed [about the PS3]on that. I think the decision to use an asymmetric CPU by Sony was a wrong one.

    That kind of backs up my “does not show that it wasn’t a pain to develop for in comparison to the 360 – which is exactly what HE stated;” absolutely to the letter. Thus you have stated the obiter dicta of Carmacks statement or comments and completely missed the ratio decidendi.

    On a side

    “Finally, as an aside, the fact that the PS3 was released a year after the 360 means little, because it still had to use the exact same 90 nm process, so the limits on the number of transistors its CPU or GPU could contain were the same.”

    You are now telling me that the smallest mass produced fabrication plants at the time [earliest reports being June/July2006] the PS3 was constructed was 90nm? That is what your are saying. It HAD to use the 90nm process.

    So no processors were feasibly processed at 65nm in 2005 then, like the core2duo samples and Pentium 4? If the PS3 had come out the year before like it said it would then yes I agree financially but not technically, but not when it came out so much later. Fact is, the machines development must have been cut off, long before it was released, otherwise it would have used 65nm. As a further aside N.B. Intel will release 45nm Core 2 processors shortly [link url=http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/45nm_technolo gy.htm
    ]http://ww w.intel.com/technology/silicon/...[/link]

    Point Six – Kameo – Not too bad based on Gamecube-Xbox update and didn’t sell very well, PGR3 rendered at 600x1024 to enable it’s release at a frame rate that was half [30fps instead of 60fps] of what had been promised at 720p, Call of Duty 2 – best of the 3 you have mentioned but completely dumped anisotropic filtering and slowed down terribly at times.

    If other devlopers in the industry didn’t agree with my opinion of UE3, then they would not have chosen to develop their games with it now would they? Whether that turns out to be a good decisions remains to be seen.
    Edited by 2 at 24/07/07 @ 17:20

  • Penguinzoot #108 5 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    As was mentioned above (in an incorrectly interpreted way, as it happens), Xbox 360 cores are capable of consuming two instructions every cycle. Very well optimised Xbox 360 titles can manage about 1.2 instructions per cycle. That means there's theoretically about 40% spare capacity kicking about that could be unlocked with time.

    I bow to your better understanding of the hardware ;-)
    /bows and doffs hat

  • subtlesnake #109 5 years ago

    "Well, you can almost always make things faster if you spend enough time optimising. The equivalent of using the SPEs on 360 is converting more code to use VMX vector maths, as well as managing cache-efficiency and eliminating pieline stalls due to logic branches (which is the sort of thing you have to do anyway to use SPEs properly)."

    Thanks for that. I thought I read that the VMX units on Xenon weren't fully usable, or there were large limitations. Anyway, from what you've said it seems like you are making use of them, so that's good.

    I guess I just thought that Codemasters would be able to do more with the PS3 version within the same time frame, because the optimisations were already given to them by the PSSG platform.
    Edited by 1 at 24/07/07 @ 20:12

  • subtlesnake #110 5 years ago

    "From the presentation of your arguments you seem to be intelligent and articulate – which leaves me to surmise that you are purposefully missing the ironic part . Having to break down an ironic joke into it’s constituent parts deprives it of all humour."

    If someone doesn't understand a joke then there's no chance they'll find it funny anyway, and if they do understand then it's job done! I can see what's ironical about Sony's situation, and the irony comes from the discord between what they promised (or at least what people 'felt' they promised) and what they delivered, what fans expect from the Playstation brand and what the Playstation brand actually represents. As your definition indicates, this is the difference between the actual and the ideal.

    So to show the irony, you have to compare what Sony actually did, with the 'ideal'; to show the irony present in a situation, you have to actually describe that situation. And over exaggerating, or misrepresenting the situation prevents you from doing this. So in your original comment you talk about how you need 'unlimited resources' to get the 'more powerful' PS3 up to par with the 360. That would be ironic were it not for the fact that the PS3 doesn't require unlimited resources. In fact, when you look at the reality of the situation, it seems like you only need a few good coders to exploit the potential of the PS3, not a gargantuan team.

    So as you can see unless the supposed irony is grounded in the reality of the situation, it's meaningless, and it was those exaggerations in your original comment that I took issue with.

    "Do you really think that you need to argue against me and my opinion as you think I, an informed and educated man, really in all honesty think it takes (a theoretically impossible) unlimited amount of funds?"

    Well unlimited doesn't have to be used in the literal sense; it can mean implausibly or unrealistically large - that's the impression I got from your original comment. In any case, the smaller the exaggeration, the better. Perhaps I'm just tired of the internet in general, but I wish people would ground their comments in the actual reality of the situation, and its complexities – the fact that first parties have been exploiting the potential of the SPEs, the fact that Sony do have teams supporting third parties, and the fact the we're 1 year into a 5 year console lifecycle.

    "The joke is in the statement – it is a flawed proposition, an impossibility, something that could not exist."

    Unless it relates to reality, it's not irony. There must be a "discordance between the real and the ideal". You seem to be saying that it's funny to think of a world in which the PS3 requires an infinite amount of resources: "a flawed proposition, an impossibility", and maybe, but I don't see what that has to do with Sony's current efforts.

    "perhaps you mean in stills? [PS3 looking as good as 360 currently]– I have not played a game in stills as yet, and I personally prefer them to be moving, as smooth as possible. Even in still’s, all of EA’s games display better lighting on the 360 and sharper textures – look at the BMW logo on the Car’s in the [PS3’s crowning glory] GT5 shots it’s difficult to read the alpha numeric characters. Sony’s decision for it’s memory model, and it’s subsequent impact on texture quality, has been universally panned."

    I'm talking about the comparisons where sites have run both games side by side. According to Eurogamer the PS3 version looks just as good in Rainbow Six: Vegas, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2007, NBA 2K7, NHL 2K7, Def Jam: Icon, Virtua Tennis 3 and NBA Street Homecourt.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=74502
    http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=75856
    <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=78963&q uot;>
    http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=78963&l t;/a>

    "It did, it contrasted what was actually spent [reality] against spending all the money in the world[the ironic ideal]."

    Ok, so it's ironic that Sony spent a lot of money on a console? That was the sole 'ironic' point you tried to make?

    "Hmm, the word reasonable is legalistically used to cover the widest gamut of possibilities, and is no doubt why you have chosen it, to sound specific without actually being so."

    But that's the point, isn't it? None of our language is specific, none of these claims about one platform being hard or easy to develop have any verifiable meaning. I say "the PS3 is easy to develop for" you say: "no it isn't". On what basis do you decide who is right? Unless you're gong to break these claims down into actual, validatable differences relating to how the PS3's hardware has affected the projects using it, there's really not a lot of point making them. And you need to be a developer to do that properly, so that's why I tend to avoid these sorts of discussions.

    I mean look at Carmack's project. You say he found the PS3 was a pain to develop for. But considering both platforms have reached performance parity, what does that really mean? Go on, assess the 'costs' that the PS3 hardware will have on id's project. Tell us what would have been different, had Sony gone with a different design.

    All I was doing was saying, "look these games look as good on the PS3, so it seems it is feasible without any huge development changes", referencing the supposed impossibility of such a situation in your original comment. That was the context of the word reasonable. But since you're not standing by those comments, it doesn't seem that there is any common ground for argument.

    "That kind of backs up my “does not show that it wasn’t a pain to develop for in comparison to the 360 – which is exactly what HE stated;”

    I never denied that the PS3 requires more effort to harness fully. I just don't think it's possible for us to qualify what that means, for PS3 titles now and in the future.

    "You are now telling me that the smallest mass produced fabrication plants at the time [earliest reports being June/July2006] the PS3 was constructed was 90nm? That is what your are saying. It HAD to use the 90nm process."

    It had to use the 90 nm process because Intel wasn't licensing out their fabs to Sony, not because the process had never been used in any form before. IBM's 65 nm process became available earlier this year. Same with all the other fabs. If Sony had been able to use the 65 nm process, they would have done so (cost reduction is pretty important to them, as you can imagine).

    "Not too bad based on Gamecube-Xbox update and didn’t sell very well, PGR3 rendered at 600x1024 to enable it’s release at a frame rate that was half [30fps instead of 60fps] of what had been promised at 720p, Call of Duty 2 – best of the 3 you have mentioned but completely dumped anisotropic filtering and slowed down terribly at times."

    And what does that have to do with multithreading? My point was simply that since Epic were late to the party with the 360 (taking advantage of multiple cores), it's feasible that they were also late to the party with the PS3 too (taking advantage of the available SPEs).
    Edited by 3 at 24/07/07 @ 20:28

  • Calgon #111 5 years ago

    subtlesnake you sound like are taking wild guesses as to the outcome but they are not even logical guesses.

    YES the 360 can easily match the PS3 version of Dirt(do you even beleive for a second that however it turns out when they are finally finnished that it's going to be too much for 360?... theres nothing in the first party line up like that either so I dont know where you get the idea) and yes its highly likely Sony paid for extra development time(its the only logical explanation... what gain would they have for holding it back to do this?).

    I mean if they'd made some general tweaks to their engine, added better shaders, then maybe you could claim that they'd be able to port them over the to the 360 easily.
    What do you think they do when they delay games? This is exactly what they are doing with the PS3 version from the sounds of it, if you were talking soley about improved framerate, this could be acheived many differentways on any platform.

    First off let me get this straight about what we know so far, so you cant spin this into another "PS3 is the most awesome power" arguement(not that it would have worked over one game). Its fairly obvious that optimisations for the SPEs this rendering platform brings will increase PS3 performance(like optimisations for Xenons cores or the GPU Xenos, in the 360, would bring for 360 performance) but it only means it takes less effort than before(providing it works as advertised and its not like they werent being used before and now they are... its because devs have been having a hard time with them and this is a step in the right direction) and hopefully it will speed up development too but it doesnt appear to have had that effect yet.

    360 has no CELL what it does have is Xenon which offers multithreading(6 harware threads) which still has a way to go before devs are utilising this to its full potential(even the PC devs... a plus point is 360 development can benifit a little from their progress in this area and vice versa). Most importantly although the learning curve isnt quite as steep 360 does have a more capable GPU which levels the playing feild somewhat(in some cases you could find the PS3 not able to match it perhaps?) Xenos which has alot left in store for developers to optimise for and improve perfmance with as a result.

    Back to what we know about Dirt:

    The PS3 version of Dirt is the best version - faster frame rate, loads faster and has better sound(7.1) than 360 and PC versions.. correct? (I've heard no mention of any visual differences yet but Im sure they are desperately trying to with the extra time they have)

    Its important to know which is the lead platform when comparing (Sony fanboys have shouted about this often enough)... turns out its the PS3, is it not strange that the lead platform version is still not finnished and the other versions have already been out for quite a while?(isnt that backwards compared to the norm?)

    What do we know about the engine?

    Its name is Neon and it was built with the PSSG rendering platform at its core >with assistance from Sony!
    Now think about this logically with this at its core(from the beginning?) there are two likely reasons for the delay:

    1) It didnt look any better(or it was the worst version which would have been an embarressment and ruin the new rendering platform hype) so Sony paid them to make sure this version was the best before they released it(shame it still took them alot longer to do it though)

    2) Sony had a deal with Codies from the begining tied in with the engine support, new tools... free Sony marketing and hype perhaps?(you know the bald fella is going to spin this one for all its worth and leave out any parts that give the game away if that the case)
    Edited by 9 at 24/07/07 @ 22:26

  • BadBoyBonner #112 5 years ago

    Subtle-Snake

    “Unless it relates to reality, it's not irony.” Erm, it does relate to reality, this is based on reported news.

    “Well unlimited doesn't have to be used in the literal sense;” you could have stopped there.

    It was used in the literal sense – as anyone could see from what I have written about the statement.

    Once again you are purposefully misinterpreting what someone has very clearly stated to try and support your own argument.

    I could go on for each point in turn – but I won’t.

    YOUR ARE ARGUING AGAINST WHAT THE ACTUAL MAKER OF THE STATEMENT INTENDED - WHEN THEY ARE UNEQUIVOCALLY EXPLAINING TO YOU WHAT THEY PROPOSED.

    There is no need for you to interpret what I may have implied when I am explaining to you explicitly the meaning.

    I have told you what I meant, accept it.


    **Just so you can see what I actually meant, ya know as in literally, without you trying to twist through interpretation my meaning, to support your arguments, here’s a bullet pointed version.

    1) I think it is funny Sony are panicking that there console is struggling
    2) I think it is funny the PS3 does not stomp all over the 360 being released as it was a year later.
    3) I think it is funny that the dirty trick [promised total technical supremacy]that worked on the Dreamcast has failed on the 360 – we are all a lot more savvy.
    4) I think that some of the 360 ports [most notably Fight Night 3] look terrible on the PS3.** I disagree totally with most of what EG said about the comparisons. An example being mistaking a lack of motion blur as clarity and the lighting as subtle when it is completely incoherent, was a journalistic disgrace. Check out the Second FN3 image on EG, when viewing original to see the stencil used around the fighter on the PS3 version to try and replicate the 360’s global fidelity.

    If you want a decent comparison go to [link url=http://hlime.wordpres s.com/2007/06/27/june-07-comparison-xbox-360-graphics-vs-ps3 -graphics/
    ]http://hl ime.wordpress.com/2007/06/27/ju...[/link]
    Gamespot’s December 06 comparison concluded:
    1. “The Xbox 360 had better graphics in almost all the games we examined.”
    2. “[T]he Xbox 360 games generally offered better framerates.”

    Gamespot’s June 07 comparison? While the PS3’s game graphics have improved, the 360 still offers the better graphics of the two systems. In detail, after the jump.
    1. Xbox 360 offered better antialiasing (cleaning up jagged lines) overall
    2. Xbox 360 offered better texture quality overall
    The games compared are Armoured Core 4, Def Jam Icon, NBA Street Homecourt, Virtua Tennis 3, Oblivion, Spider-Man 3, and MLB 2K7.


    5) I think about 80% of developers have gone on record to state the PS3 is a pain to develop for – and the fact that they have developed on it in no way goes to show it isn’t a pain in the arse to develop for.

    “Compare the XBox 360 Xenon processor’s teraflops processing power to the PS3’s Cell teraflops performance, game developers largely agree that the 360’s Xenon is the far easier processor to program “

    6) I think the PS3 may be more powerful than the 360 in niche areas – but the effort required to release the power into meaningful improvements – has become economically unviable for most developers to tap into.

    [link url= http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
    ]http://uk .xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/6...[/link]

    Ultimately I imagine the Epic – Sony – agreement went something along the lines of Epic stating to Sony.

    “UE3 works on PS3, we can complete all our licensing obligations with it. No it isn’t as good as the 360 version. We are not going to spend much more on developing it as we have hit the steep economic hardship of diminishing returns, but if you want to have a go, for free, be our guest.”


    On another note

    The article [ps3 v 360] on EG that you placed a hyper link for has me, on there at post 105. To save you the effort of looking for it I enclose it below.


    BADBOYBONNER
    24-MAR-07 18:30:28 IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THIS…..

    The 360 was already delivering or exceeding PS3 quality nearly a year and a half before the PS3 launched here in the UK. Any more than 6 months is risky, over 12 is leaning towards a market share suicide, even for the leader.

    Most people simply want the best as soon as possible. If the consoles had been released at opposite times I would be a PS3 owner - I am a technical "FanBoy". I do not look upon manufactures as Pseudo football teams, to be worshipped through thick and thin - merely at who has got the product that appeals to me the most at the right time.

    Microsoft would have been ridiculed had they brought the 360 out now, if the PS3 had launched when the 360 did.

    I still can not quite believe Sony have got off as lightly as they seem to have. Anyone else would have been crushed, releasing (as Sony have IMO) something with no discernable advantages to the competition so late to the party. Indeed only the strongest of market leaders could attempt such a feat, and they have, but at what cost? We will probably only know for sure in a generations time, but if Sony expect their revenues of the PS3 to be propping up the rest of the company they could be in for a rocky ride compared to the last generation.

    Sony seem to have a great fondness for leaving 5 years between console launches - can any of us really envisage Microsoft waiting over 6 years from the launch the 360 to bring a new console out? Highly unlikely I am sure we all agree.

    So with Microsoft probably on course to secure as much market share as Sony in this one - if they (MS) can release the 360 successor, with full backward compatibility (IMO-highly likely as MS now own their Own GPU even though ATI engineered it unlike with the previous Xbox and Nvidia) it feels as if Microsoft are on target to dominate another sector; which I hasten to add leaves me with mixed feelings.

    PERSONALLY ONLY 2 THINGS MATTER TO ME,
    1) I WANT THE BEST EXPERIENCE
    2) AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME

    AND THE WORRY FOR SONY IS, THAT THE PS3 SATISFIED NEITHER CRITERIA.
    Edited by 2 at 25/07/07 @ 01:07

  • smoothn00dle #113 5 years ago

    @subtlesnake
    @Calgon
    @BadBoyBonner

    By the look of comments' length, I thought you guys are one person. This page is going to buffer overrun soon. *v*


  • subtlesnake #114 5 years ago

    "It was used in the literal sense – as anyone could see from what I have written about the statement. "

    I was just explaining my interpretation (so you could make sense of my earlier comments), that's all. I wasn't telling you what you meant. I actually addressed what you said you meant later:

    "You seem to be saying that it's funny to think of a world in which the PS3 requires an infinite amount of resources: "a flawed proposition, an impossibility". “ That would be me assuming you meant the statement in the literal sense.

    "Once again you are purposefully misinterpreting what someone has very clearly stated to try and support your own argument."

    I'm pointing out that making ridiculous statements (impossible or not) about Sony and in their failings stops you from actually assessing those failings properly, stops you from showing the irony in the situation (because you're not describing the situation). There's nothing ironical about a nonsensical statement that has no basis in reality. I explained this in the first two paragraphs of my last post, so I'm not sure what to add now.

    To recap:

    You made some initial comments about the supposed impossibility of developing for the PS3 platform. I interpreted them as exaggerations and called you out. You said that they were really attempts at ironic humour (and later added that they were meant to be taken literally). I responded that unless the statements reflected reality (and they didn't since you yourself claim they represented an impossibility - it doesn't take an infinite amount of resources to develop for the PS3) there's nothing ironic about them. They contrast an unreality with an ideal!

    So frankly, I still have no idea what you originally meant.

    "Just so you can see what I actually meant, ya know as in literally, without you trying to twist through interpretation my meaning, to support your arguments, here’s a bullet pointed version."

    That's fine, and that's actually you trying to look at the reality of the situation, not make up some irrelevant fictional reality in which the PS3 requires an infinite amount of resources to harness.

    "If you want a decent comparison go to http://hli me.wordpress.com/2007/06/27/ju.."

    OK, fair enough, but you could equally use your original argument - if you need direct screen captures to notice the differences, and if Eurogamer misses them when playing both games side by side, are they really that great?

    In NBA 2K7: "Small textures like the logos on the court and the jerseys on the players look crisper on the PS3. The same textures are slightly blurrier on the 360, but the Xbox 360 makes up for it with better framerates." In Marvel Ultimate Alliance: "you'll have to make your Marvel Ultimate Alliance decision based on Xbox 360 rumble support versus PS3 Sixaxis control since the graphics seem to be identical on both systems." In Tiger Woods "Without direct screenshot comparisons, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two versions, aside from a slight variation in crowd size and placement. However, with a direct screenshot comparison, we notice that Tiger's belt buckle stands out and his shirt texture has better visibility in comparison to his attire on the PlayStation 3. The trees on the PlayStation 3 version of Tiger look fuller compared to the 360's trees."

    Again, from that Gamespot article:

    "Our quick seven-game tour has shown that the PlayStation 3's game graphics are getting closer to the Xbox 360's."

    So given the visual differences are in many cases very small (and have diminished), the question of whether the PS3 will be able to completely catch up is very much an open one.

    "I think about 80% of developers have gone on record to state the PS3 is a pain to develop for – and the fact that they have developed on it in no way goes to show it isn’t a pain in the arse to develop for "

    You have to define what "a pain to develop for" actually means. A hundred developers will give a hundred different statements relating to a hundred different situations. But yes, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it does require more work to exploit the power of the Cell. I've never disagreed with that.

    "I think the PS3 may be more powerful than the 360 in niche areas – but the effort required to release the power into meaningful improvements – has become economically unviable for most developers to tap into."

    People made the same claims about the PS2's architecture, which had far worse tools and according to Guerrilla, was harder to develop for in many respects: "And as for the PS2 vs PS3 development question. I was chatting to Michiel and he was telling me how crazy-easy it was compared to the PS2 and how much quicker things have been going for them. I will take his word on that"

    [link url=http://free-playstation-3-pictures-news-...
    ]http://free-playstation-3-pictures-news-...[/link]

    The point is that knowledge and expertise aren't static - developers are continually learning about each system, adding more and more optimisations to their arsenal, understanding how best to multithread their games. So the Dirt team now have a platform that's able to take advantage of the PS3's power, a platform that they'll be able to expand on for future titles. Suddenly the PS3 doesn't seem so difficult to harness…

    It's the same thing with Carmack's engine, which inexperienced developers will be able to license, so they can actually exploit some of the potential of the PS3. In fact that's how it should work, and it's only because UE3 is so far behind that these issues are so apparent. When UE3 catches up then the PS3 will seem a lot less scary.

    In fact in a few years time, we'll all be running 16 core systems, the PS3 will still be around and it will seem like a rather uninteresting architecture. PC devs will be facing the some of the same challenges PS3 developers faced! But even at the point we are now, I don't see how you can state categorically how much of the PS3's power developers will be able to harness. For example:

    "The flipside of very innovative hardware is that it takes you a while to get up to speed with it. The learning curve is steeper in that you have to get into it and understand exactly what the benefits are, and understand exactly how to do certain things to get the most out of the platform," Wilday says of PlayStation 3." "With Xbox 360 obviously development is simpler. The development tools and support you have are obviously excellent. So that really is the trade-off."

    Taking this on its own, you would probably use this quote to argue that the PS3 version will look worse than the 360 version, that developers will not be able to make worthwhile use of the PS3's hardware. Yet:

    "But Wilday admits that, for the moment, Sega Rally - due for release on both formats in September - "looks identical" across the pair.

    "We've sat them side by side and you're really hard-pushed to tell the difference. I think that's a testament to where you are with both platforms. "

    [link url=http://ww w.gamesindustry.biz/content_pag...
    ]http://ww w.gamesindustry.biz/content_pag...[/link]

    Another multiplatform title, CoD 4, looks to be running just as well on the PS3, without any major problems, since the team already had experience with the PS3 before they started the project.

    "Guys, I have been seeing lots of folks talking about how they are going to be getting the shaft on PS3. Once and for all, let me say, CoD4 on the PS3 is going to KICK BUTTOCKS! [forum filter]

    We have had some of the most talented developers in the world working on the PS3 version since day one. Before they had anything to work with with CoD4, they were taking CoD2 and bringing it over to the PS3. This gave them a massive understanding of how the PS3 hardware works (and only took them a few months). As soon as CoD4 was ready to be under full development, that team began optimizing the game for the PS3. Which was in month 4 or 5 I believe.

    We just blew Sony's socks off at E3. They wanted to know why all 3rd party games didn't have console parity like we do. They are EXTREMELY excited about CoD4 for the PS3.

    Stay tuned for updates on special CoD4 luv on the PS3."

    "and yes, PS3 version has 60 FPS minimum."

    [link url=http://ww w.evilavatar.com/forums/showthr...
    ]http://ww w.evilavatar.com/forums/showthr...[/link]

    "UE3 works on PS3, we can complete all our licensing obligations with it. No it isn’t as good as the 360 version. We are not going to spend much more on developing it as we have hit the steep economic hardship of diminishing returns, but if you want to have a go, for free, be our guest."

    Rein says: "The interesting thing here is if you look at this build, here, and compare to where we were last year with Gears of War we're actually a little further ahead. In other words, Unreal Tournament 3 is probably running better today on Playstation 3 than Gears of War did last year on 360. And there's still, as I say, lots of time to make it even better."

    [link url=http://uk .gamespot.com/video/928117/6174...
    ]http://uk .gamespot.com/video/928117/6174...[/link]

    As for diminishing returns, even first party devs are using a fraction of the SPEs power, so it's really a case of how long it will take developers to gain the knowledge to exploit that power, as they did with the Playstation 2.

    "For us, the most exciting part of the PS3 has been the cell processor, the SPUs specifically. In our highest density scenes right now, we are currently using about 30 percent of the SPUs' capabilities--with the SPUs doing lots of heavy lifting for us on rendering, visibility, particle systems, skinning, animation blending, and so on...this with scores of pedestrians, cars, fires, etc., all going on. And the best part? We've not made any significant attempts to even optimize the SPU code. I think it's reasonable to guess we could put 10 times as much stuff on the SPUs and still make our frame budgets. It's really pretty amazing."

    [link url=http://uk .gamespot.com/ps3/action/infamo...
    ]http://uk .gamespot.com/ps3/action/infamo...[/link]

    "The article [ps3 v 360] on EG that you placed a hyper link for has me, on there at post 105. To save you the effort of looking for it I enclose it below. "

    Not sure what this has to do (directly) with the discussion. I agree that launching late might have been a huge mistake for Sony, but we're one year into a 5 year console cycle, and the majority of business gets done at the $199 price point, which neither Sony or Microsoft are close to yet (discounting the core, which has a low adoption rate, just like the 20GB PS3 SKU did). In 2 years time everything will be completely different, and Sony's initially bad publicity will be forgotten, just like the PS2's was. The PS3 will probably have reached price parity with the 360 by then, and developers will leveraging Cell's power much more effectively.
    Edited by 2 at 25/07/07 @ 17:08

  • subtlesnake #115 5 years ago

    "subtlesnake you sound like are taking wild guesses as to the outcome but they are not even logical guesses."

    In what regard? You don't think it's logical to suppose that a game developed to the PS3's strengths might run better on the PS3? Or that Codemasters might be able to make better use of the 'extra time' with Playstation 3 version, because they have to toolset to exploit its theoretical advantages? I'm just looking at the pragmatics of the situation. I'm not saying that given a different team, focused on the 360, the 360 version couldn't have come out better.

    "YES the 360 can easily match the PS3 version of Dirt"

    And how do you know that?

    "do you even beleive for a second that however it turns out when they are finally finnished that it's going to be too much for 360?"

    It seems unlikely that the 360 won't ever be able to perform as well as the PS3 version, given how early we are into both console's lifecycles, but its a question of how much time and effort it would take Codemasters' to bring the 360 version up to par, and what changes would be needed.

    "What do you think they do when they delay games? This is exactly what they are doing with the PS3 version from the sounds of it, if you were talking soley about improved framerate, this could be achieved many differentways on any platform."

    Of course - different ways. That was my point. On the Playstation 3 they're getting more performance by using the PSSG platform to take better advantage of the SPEs. That doesn't apply to the 360 version, so it will be a question of how much they'll be able to squeeze out elsewhere. Given that the Cell seems to have much more potential in a few specific tasks - geometry processing, ray tracing, physics, even A.I, I'm simply considering the possibility that for the algorithms Codemasters are using they may find that the PS3 performs better, especially considering the optimisations have already been 'given' to them by the PSSG platform.

    Consider that the 360's HD DVD decoder took 4.7 million lines of code to write, uses all 6 threads and "the player software pushes Xbox 360 harder than any other (save, perhaps, Gears of War during some particularly busy parts of the game)."

    [link url=http://blogs.msdn.com/xboxteam/archive/2006/ 11/03/emergence-day.aspx
    ]http://bl ogs.msdn.com/xboxteam/archive/2...[/link]

    On the other hand the Cell only needs 3 SPEs

    "The current decoder can decode full HD H.264 with 3 SPEs"

    [link url=http ://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=36188
    ]http://fo rum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...[/link]

    So where the Cell is suited to a task, it can do extremely well. And, physics seems to be one of those tasks. With Havok 4, Havok was able to match the performance of a triple-core PC (supposedly they use a quad-core processor with the fourth core idle) with the Cell, while using only a very small amount of the SPEs power (each SPE having about 20% utilisation).

    [link url=http://ps3.qj.net/Showing-off- Havok-4-0-Physics-Engine-for-the-PS3/pg/49/aid/64305
    ]http://ps 3.qj.net/Showing-off-Havok-4-0-...[/link]
    [link url=http ://forum.beyond3d.com//showthread.php?t=33306
    ]http://for um.beyond3d.com//showthread.ph...[/link]

    With Havok 4.5, when they finally started to take advantage of the available SPEs, performance increased 5 - 10 times!

    [link url=http://ps3.qj.net/Havok-4-5-Enjoy-ALL -your-SPUs-in-FULL-PS3/pg/49/aid/80351
    ]http://ps 3.qj.net/Havok-4-5-Enjoy-ALL-yo...[/link]

    "Its fairly obvious that optimisations for the SPEs this rendering platform brings will increase PS3 performance(like optimisations for Xenons cores or the GPU Xenos, in the 360, would bring for 360 performance) but it only means it takes less effort than before"

    I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. Untapped performance is untapped performance. I mean as I said in my response to BadBoyBonner, the Infamous developer claimed that they were only using 30% of the SPEs power, so it seems like there is a lot of untapped potential. And as I've shown, in a few applications, the PS3 is going to be much faster than Xenon.

    "Its name is Neon and it was built with the PSSG rendering platform at its core >with assistance from Sony!
    Now think about this logically with this at its core(from the beginning?) there are two likely reasons for the delay:"

    I'm not saying Sony funding/co-marketing isn't a possibility, I just don't see the point speculating. The issue concerns what they could have done on the 360 within the same timeframe, not why the timeframe exists in the first place.
    Edited by 1 at 25/07/07 @ 17:11

  • Calgon #116 5 years ago

    subtlesnake: I know half of what you are saying you dont understand properly(or you wouldnt have bothered bringing them up and quoting them... just because it sounds good to your ears) and youve ignored a fairly large amount of my points given(Im fully aware already of the differences between the hardware in detail... it doesnt appear you are or you wouldnt not be claiming such things about PS3 potential being vastly greater than 360s at any point... "untapped potential is..." also plentyfull on 360 my friend ;) )

    Of course - different ways. That was my point. On the Playstation 3 they're getting more performance by using the PSSG platform to take better advantage of the SPEs. That doesn't apply to the 360 version, so it will be a question of how much they'll be able to squeeze out elsewhere.

    Ok to bring it up to par with the PS3 version isnt as hard as you are making it out to be (these are experienced developers whove optimised their engines for all sorts of harware before its nothing new... I dont get why you are confused here) nor is it as far off as you are making out(a testiment to the 360 hardware if anything)... its the better version but its not 'that' much better from what Ive seen(the latest screenshots are no better... recent build too) and heard(check my last post where I describe the known differences).

    If this was a stealthy way of saying the SPEs will help PS3 do things 360 cant(which Im glad you arent trying to say will not be the case in this game) this is what I and countless others have already addressed countless times(but some seem intent on ignoring... they are different machines, with different strengths and acheive results in different ways) and thats also why the "untapped potential" trick is missleading, any numbers given are guesstimates from developers(its like pre-renderd target footage it sounds nice but not always an indication of the real world and only Sony could think of using such tactics...) they have no meaning other than they know they can get more out of the hardware(the only "sure" way of knowing "how much" is getting the result/benchmark). I mean how you can turn around and say theres X% "untapped potential" left in the PS3 and only Y% beggars beleif its pointless trying(efficiency, bottlenecks and all the other hidden limitations not used in "RAW theoretical claims" has massive baring on real world performance... they are already close enough without all this). PS3 wont be blowing 360 away ever in graphics processing/visuals(thats not one of its advantages) and to be honest I dont see it blowing it away in any sense where gaming is concerned(I was going to quote your decoding comparison to outline this... but I'll just say this code is nothing like game code and it was already known that Cell excels in this application the most over any other... continuous streams of data to crunch through in a linear fasion).

    a) Cell is the stronger CPU and although important its only the CPU and its not "that" much stronger(as you say faster in some "applications"/areas BUT as I said slower in others...) everything can be done on the SPEs that is their aim but they are not faster at everything, its necessarry to have the PPE act as a controller if they want to utilise every available SPE effectively otherwise they cant do that, so the increasing list of applicatications they are doing on the SPEs doesnt automatically mean they or even Cell as a whole is faster at them)
    b) 360 other strong points such as the GPU - Xenos, memory architecture and few parts of Xenon which are equally important(this simply means you will never see the kind of advantage you are suggesting) for overall in-game performance.

    Given that the Cell seems to have much more potential in a few specific tasks - geometry processing, ray tracing, physics, even A.I,

    Any form of decent AI, I beleive Xenon is better equipt for, branching code is something it handles far better(I dont know when this was spun into a CELL advantage but I cant see why), likewise for dynamic physics apparently(more complicated that streaming floating point but Ive yet to see an example of it)... geometry processing(unproven... I dont buy it really and besides they will still be GPU limited before 360 devs will so its pointless arguing), it may do ray tracing better but dont be expecting see much of it from any console(most likely for a few effects not enough to really get excited about like a game engine based off it).

    developer claimed that they were only using 30% of the SPEs power, so it seems like there is a lot of untapped potential.
    You were missing my point... these percentage claims you keep linking to are all tied in with the untapped potential hype(yes it is hype... doesnt mean its completely made up but its not some PS3 exclusive only possible on consoles with SPEs in them and more importantly it is missleading) those that arent first party quotes(where youd expect nothing less) and those that are most likely paid for or atleast in Dirts case persuaded(they helped them with the engine and and provided support on the new rendering platform they were put up to it deffo). Sony say devs think PS3 is more powerfull MS say devs think 360 is the most powerfull(Pete got it in again at E3 if you noticed) while most third party devs unvested in either party say they can do exactly the same things on both consoles there isnt much difference there. Would it help if MS got some devs to quote some guesstimations of untapped potential percentages? I doubt it would, just more meaningless figures being banded around. Those buying into this untapped potential who bought a PS3 in hopes of it should have waited before buying to see if it holds true first(or bought a good PC instead?)... I dont think the situation will change much neither are going to stand still untill they run out of ways to optimise further/untap more power and thats not likely to happen at any point -with either of these consoles- this gen .
    Edited by 15 at 26/07/07 @ 14:36

  • subtlesnake #117 5 years ago

    "I know half of what you are saying you dont understand properly(or you wouldnt have bothered bringing them up and quoting them... just because it sounds good to your ears) and youve ignored a fairly large amount of my points given(Im fully aware already of the differences between the hardware in detail... it doesnt appear you are or you wouldnt not be claiming such things about PS3 potential being vastly greater than 360s at any point... "untapped potential is..." also plentyfull on 360 my friend ;) )"

    I'm not a developer, so no I don't fully understand the hardware. If you are, then fine, I bow to your superior knowledge. But if you're not, then I think we're in the same boat, and frankly you should be quoting developers, too, because you can't possibly hope to understand all the technicalities yourself.

    "it doesnt appear you are or you wouldnt not be claiming such things about PS3 potential being vastly greater than 360s at any point... "untapped potential is..." also plentyfull on 360 my friend ;) )"

    But it's relative, isn't it? Yes, developers may be able to get closer to the 360s maximum rate of 2 instructions per clock, and yes they'll be able to learn to make better use of the VMX units, but as I've shown, in algorithms where the floating point power, streaming capabilities and fast access to local storage provided by the SPEs are taken advantage of, the Cell can offer up an order of magnitude of extra performance.

    Now, obviously this doesn't guarantee that the Cell will be faster than the 360 overall, for any given game, but it does at least open up the possibility. You seem to be arguing that the PS3 can't have any architectural advantages over the 360, as if the 360 is somehow perfectly suited for every application!

    "youve ignored a fairly large amount of my points given"

    I really wasn't sure how the bits on Xenon/Xenos related to your point, and none of that information was new to me.

    "Ok to bring it up to par with the PS3 version isnt as hard as you are making it out to be (these are experienced developers whove optimised their engines for all sorts of harware before its nothing new... I dont get why you are confused here) nor is it as far off as you are making out(a testiment to the 360 hardware if anything)... its the better version but its not 'that' much better from what Ive seen(the latest screenshots are no better... recent build too) and heard(check my last post where I describe the known differences)."

    But look, this is all just hearsay. You can say "well, it's really quite easy to get up to par" and without and backing or some sort of real world reference, it's quite meaningless. You're not working for Codemasters, you don't understand the engine the Dirt team is using or how it is suited to the Cell, and you haven't even provided any evidence to support your claim here. So if all you're going to say is "yes, it is, you're wrong" and make vague allusions about the 360's hardware, this discussion is pointless.

    My argument goes like this:

    The PS3 is much faster than the 360 in a few applications, but for the purpose of argument I'll pick physics. To demonstrate this, I've shown that the Cell can beat a triple core PC 5 to 10 over. Xenos is a triple core PC, and will be significantly slowed down by its in-order execution (Carmack says without optimisation, code runs half as fast as it would on an equivalently clocked pentium 4).This means that the only chance Xenon has of making up the PS3s performance is with its VMX units. However, as indicated by developers in the thread I linked to, the VMX units in Xenon will not be able to make a huge difference. Therefore, I conclude that Cell is much faster at physics.

    Now, as Codemasters have some of the tools to harness the PS3's ability in this area, and if their game is relatively physics bound (it is a racing game after all) the PS3 may run the game at faster framerates with comparatively less development effort. In other words, it is possible that given the same development time, the PS3 version could still come out with better framerates. I am additionally including the possibility that the PS3 may be faster in other areas, like A.I.

    "If this was a stealthy way of saying the SPEs will help PS3 do things 360 cant(which Im glad you arent trying to say will not be the case in this game) this is what I and countless others have already addressed countless times(but some seem intent on ignoring... they are different machines, with different strengths and acheive results in different ways) and thats also why the "untapped potential" trick is missleading, any numbers given are guesstimates from developers(its like pre-renderd target footage it sounds nice but not always an indication of the real world and only Sony could think of using such tactics...) they have no meaning other than they know they can get more out of the hardware(the only "sure" way of knowing "how much" is getting the result/benchmark)"

    But developers do benchmark - that's how they come up with these figures in the first place; by profiling the hardware and determining that X SPUs are idle for X amount of time. I don't see how you can argue that unused clock cycles don't represent unexploited potential.

    "I mean how you can turn around and say theres X% "untapped potential" left in the PS3 and only Y% beggars beleif its pointless trying(efficiency, bottlenecks and all the other hidden limitations not used in "RAW theoretical claims"

    The claim was about the SPUs, not the overall performance of the system as a whole, and developers already know the bottlenecks they're working with. Additionally, they never said how easy it would be to harness that extra power, and I didn't make any statements about it either. The point was simply that the potential performance is there, (and the developer wouldn't mention it if he didn't think it would be possible to tap into that potential at some point in time. Note that the Infamous dev said they were running unoptimised (!) code on the SPUs.

    "PS3 wont be blowing 360 away ever in graphics processing/visuals(thats not one of its advantages)"

    That relates to the RSX, so its really a different discussion.

    "and to be honest I dont see it blowing it away in any sense where gaming is concerned(I was going to quote your decoding comparison to outline this... but I'll just say this code is nothing like game code and it was already known that Cell excels in this application the most over any other... continuous streams of data to crunch through in a linear fasion)."

    I just used it as a demonstration of the difference that an architectural advantage can make. And hints can help with branch prediction, loops can be unrolled, individual gameplay algorithms can be extremely parallizable. For example, pathfinding has been shown to run extremely well on the Cell, contrary to people's claims that the processor would be uniformly terrible at A.I.

    "Cell is the stronger CPU and although important its only the CPU and its not "that" much stronger(as you say faster in some "applications"/areas BUT as I said slower in others...)"

    And if a game is focused on the things the Cell does well? Look, I'm not trying to make a statement about the proportion of games that will favour the Cell, only that some will, i.e games that do take advantage of the processors' floating point performance and potential for parallism. And I'm just supposing that Dirt might be one of these games. You on the other hand seem to be arguing that Cell's or the PS3's every architectural advantage will be cancelled out by some equal disadvantage elsewhere - as if there's some magical law that stops the system from ever being faster than the 360, in any application.

    "its necessarry to have the PPE act as a controller if they want to utilise every available SPE effectively otherwise they cant do that, so the increasing list of applicatications they are doing on the SPEs doesnt automatically mean they or even Cell as a whole is faster at them)"

    And what does the fact the PPE has to have to act at the controller have to do with the SPE's architectural advantages?

    "360 other strong points such as the GPU - Xenos, memory architecture and few parts of Xenon which are equally important(this simply means you will never see the kind of advantage you are suggesting) for overall in-game performance."

    I'm not suggesting that the PS3 will be an order of magnitude faster over all, only that Cell's superiority in certain algorithms may push overall performance in the systems' favour, as games aren't just bound by fillrate or pixel shader throughput.

    "Any form of decent AI, I beleive Xenon is better equipt for, branching code is something it handles far better(I dont know when this was spun into a CELL advantage but I cant see why),"

    You say "far better". Are you going to qualify that? Both systems have trouble with branching code. Xenon is, like the Cell, an in-order processor, but it only has a small amount of cache, spread over 6 threads, and uses weak branch prediction. If there is an advantage, it's not exactly a huge one. And this is where the Cell's advantages play out, with its fast access to local storage and easy parralism:

    "Branching is a common technique...where a program randomly chooses a few samples from a larger set of options, and then tests each to see which is the best...Most developers have claimed that the SPUs would be absolutely terrible for branching. As Sony put it however, branching is absolutely terrible for ALL processors. In their experience, they said, it is less terrible for the SPUs however. In the upcoming game Heavenly Sword, they said that moving the branching AI off of the Power Processor Unit (PPU) increased the performance of that particular process. In other words, the same branching ran better on the SPUs."

    [link url=http://slinux.net/topi c/tidbit
    ]http://slinux.net/topi c/tidbit
    [/link]

    And lets look at how the Heavenly Sword developers have been taking advantage of those SPEs:

    "Essentially we have built a separate game that runs along side the normal game… The armies can swap into the main game when required… its totally seamless to the player but internally there are two distinct game play systems.

    So basically you have the army game which has up to 2180 AI’s (I checked the other day cos somebody on Beyond3D asked and I didn’t actually know, its can probably go a little higher but thats the current number embedded in the code) running on SPUs with the normal main game logic mainly running on PPU."

    [link url=http://blog.deanoc.com /?cat=12
    ]http://blog.deanoc.com /?cat=12
    [/link]

    "[According to DeanoC blog, the game can calculate AI for 2180 enemy soldiers.]

    Slightly more now, we hit that limit... so I managed to pack the data more (each grunts state is down to 48 bytes from 64) so our current high is ~2400. In theory we could get near 3K if we need to (we should now have the RAM to go that high, just haven't needed to test it yet)."

    [link url=http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread. php?p=965969&highlight=2180#post965969
    ]http://fo rum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...[/link]

    "likewise for dynamic physics apparently(more complicated that streaming floating point but Ive yet to see an example of it)"

    All physics simulation is dynamic, isn't it? And yes, physics was one of those branch-heavy applications the Cell was meant to do badly at.

    "geometry processing(unproven... I dont buy it really and besides they will still be GPU limited before 360 devs will so its pointless arguing), it may do ray tracing better but dont be expecting see much of it from any console(most likely for a few effects not enough to really get excited about like a game engine based off it). "

    I agree that's it not clear how some of these advantages will play out. But for example, ray tracing is required for parallax occlusion mapping (essentially a more advanced version of parralax mapping that gives the illusion of self-shadowing, perspective correct geometry, using just a flat texture). So a game that makes heavy use of some of these more advanced techniques, may run faster on the PS3.

    "You were missing my point... these percentage claims you keep linking to are all tied in with the untapped potential hype"

    Perhaps, but I'm not saying that there's some magical 'hidden' power within the PS3 that will allow it crush the 360, and neither is the developer I quoted. All I'm saying is that in many scenarios, the PS3 is operating at a fraction of its potential.

    "while most third party devs unvested in either party say they can do exactly the same things on both consoles there isnt much difference there"

    Well broadly speaking that's true, and if you're multiplatform dev your aim will be to get both platforms running equally well.