Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent Review

By Tom Bramwell Published 10 April, 2007

Whose side is he on?

Version tested: PlayStation 3

Not every game looks amazingly realistic. Not every game has fancy menus. Not every game has the official licence, name or tits. Not every game has Mark Hamill doing voice acting. Alright, every game does have Mark Hamill doing voice acting, but not every game has Mark Hamill doing voice acting on a Tuesday. What we can rely on though - what holds the world to order - is the understanding that if someone shoots Mark Hamill, or indeed anyone, to death, they will fall down on cue.

So it'd be pretty rubbish if you heard gunshots after somebody had fallen over, and indeed it is pretty rubbish when this happens in Splinter Cell: Double Agent on the PlayStation 3. It happens on level one, when your little agency cohort gets a bit ahead of himself and finds himself captured by Islamic extremists. It's a pitiful sight (and, eventually, sound), and it's symptomatic of a port that's at best loveless and sometimes rather hateful - something made all the more annoying given how brilliant Double Agent was on the Xbox 360.

Splinter Cell has always built tension effectively, but Double Agent took things further, putting you in the hands of opposing masters; your ultimate goal was to infiltrate and undermine a terrorist organisation, but to do that you'd have to appease them while you kept your NSA bosses happy, by snipping wires and drawing on terrorist faces while they slept. All sorts of things affected the trust your superiors had for you, and some decisions were genuinely troubling: told to kill a helicopter pilot, would you pull the trigger in his face, knowing that he's dead anyway, or risk pissing off your terrorist boss by refusing? With multiple objectives competing for your time and competing with one another, staying undercover was just as important as finding cover had ever been.

'Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent' Screenshot 1

Some of the best missions take place at the terrorist HQ, but you get to tour the world too.

Double Agent on PS3 is ostensibly the same game - with the same training levels, the same single-player campaign, the same nonsense story you probably won't care about, and a couple of new multiplayer levels that will be released on Xbox 360 before long anyway - but in making the transition to Sony's new console, something's gone wrong. Things are rubbish even before you start, as once-smooth load-screen cinematics shudder and crackle distractingly. In-game, your first task is to infiltrate a geothermal plant in Iceland: on Xbox 360, there's barely a frame missing; on PS3, the frame rate's dipping below the surface of acceptability before you've even climbed out of the water. Were this because the game was trying for 1080p it might be understandable, but Double Agent runs in the same 720p resolution on both consoles. Glitches, like the aforementioned gunshot mentalism, do little to convince you of the game's composure.

Fortunately, it's a problem that seems to lessen once the game gets going, and the rest of the package is much the same as it is on Xbox 360. The campaign mode is an agreeable selection of levels that involve all the requisite sneaking around, and trying to avoid discovery by keeping an eye on guards, grabbing them by the neck and dropping silently onto their heads when the need takes you, and everything you need is at your disposal.

'Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent' Screenshot 2

And now you can be a girl visually, as well as sounding like one.

The controls are much as they were, allowing you to manoeuvre Sam Fisher around with the left stick and rotate the camera with the right, while shoulder and face buttons swap between inventory items and perform stealthy take-downs. The main change is that you're given the option to pick locks using the Sixaxis' tilt sensor. Instead of rotating the analogue stick until you feel a buzz, you now tilt the controller left and right until the tumblers in the lock start to jiggle visibly. If you're not taken with this, you can switch it off and simply rotate and watch for movement, but there's nothing massively wrong with the new system, even if it is a bit throwaway.

Turning in the direction of the Internet (hello), Double Agent distinguishes itself with a pair of new multiplayer maps and a new skin - the female spy. The latter is what it is (a character model with ladybumps), while the former are more likely to appeal to people who've already played the initial missions extensively, and so may be welcome, but will no doubt attract more interest when they arrive on Xbox Live along with the girlie spy. Otherwise, the multiplayer side of the game is set up in much the same way. The menus are laid out slightly differently, but you can still set up squads, look at global leaderboards for challenges and versus levels, and view your friends list. And that means you get the same excellent, balanced game of cat-and-mouse, as mercenaries try and stop the nimble spies reaching and hacking their data, with the same system of bonuses, unlockables and upgrades to add further incentive to return, which you will, time and again. There are six more expert co-op challenges here, too.

'Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent' Screenshot 3

It was a lousy job, but balancing a lamp on his back was all that Sam could do with that haircut.

Overall, if you've got the option to choose between the two, the Xbox 360 version is definitely preferable. What more the PS3 has will be added via downloads, and in technical terms there's no debate. Taken alone though, Double Agent on the PS3 is still a fine game, and its clunkiness is excusable when taken in the context of its achievements, dragging fans out of their comfort zone in commendable fashion, and arguably providing enough content between its separate single- and multiplayer components that each could stand alone. It's not the easiest game for newcomers to approach (the tutorial's dreadful), but even stealth virgins will see the light after an hour or so in the dark, and probably ought to add another mark to the score. Make ours a double.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (111) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • Yossarian #1 5 years ago

    ouch

  • SeesThroughAll #2 5 years ago

    Lazy port then. Glad I skipped it.

  • Yossarian #3 5 years ago

    "Broken Port... = 8/10 ???"

    speaks more to the quality of the underlying game than anything else. IGN's review was even more scathing; they even did an Insider comparison video to show just how ugly the PS3 version is in comparison to the 360 one.

  • JediMasterMalik #4 5 years ago

    Ubisoft in lazy port shocker!

  • The-Bodybuilder #5 5 years ago

    Any explanations as to why it's such a crappy port?

  • JediMasterMalik #6 5 years ago

    @bcolter - Motorstorm is very smooth, it's just the store demos which are crappy.

  • SeesThroughAll #7 5 years ago

    I was playing Motorstorm on a PS3 at Futureshop on the weekend and it seemed to be really choppy... Is this just a demo? Does the actual game have this problem?

    I have MotorStorm, and so far I have only noticed a framerate drop once (when half of the vehicles were crashing on eachother) since I first booted it. Dunno about the demo, but you're definitely not running the same game if you got something "choppy".

  • SeesThroughAll #8 5 years ago

    Any explanations as to why it's such a crappy port?

    Ubisoft aspires to be the next EA?

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #9 5 years ago

    "Any explanations as to why it's such a crappy port?"

    I hear Unreal Engine 3 "doesn't work very well" on PS3.

    "Broken Port... = 8/10 ???"

    Game earns it in spite of the port, basically.

  • Dizzy #10 5 years ago

    8 is high for this version.

    >I hear Unreal Engine 3 "doesn't work very well" on PS3.

    True... some blame it on texture memory problems.
    Edited by 1 at 10/04/07 @ 14:14

  • Yossarian #11 5 years ago

    [link url=http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/5850/bscap0034qe5.jpg
    ]http://im g413.imageshack.us/img413/5850/...[/link]

    versus

    http://im g413.imageshack.us/img413/5850/...

  • Stormflood #12 5 years ago

    Question for you PS3 folks... I was playing Motorstorm on a PS3 at Futureshop on the weekend and it seemed to be really choppy... Is this just a demo? Does the actual game have this problem?

    No. Smooth as.

  • JediMasterMalik #13 5 years ago

    @Yossarion - We've established it's a bad port.

  • Yossarian #14 5 years ago

    don't cry

  • JediMasterMalik #15 5 years ago

    Grow up Yossarion.

  • SeesThroughAll #16 5 years ago

    @ disc: I thought it was the other way around, the CPU could read/write on the whole 512, while the GPU could only use half.

  • Tonka #17 5 years ago

    Ubi has realized where short term cash lies. New console owners wanting something to play. Will it pay off in the long run though?

    You decide

  • bonker #18 5 years ago

    Blimey, so much for Teh Power Of The Cell ...

    Are there actually ANY 360/PS3 games that are clearly and undeniably BETTER on the PS3?

  • Dizzy #19 5 years ago

    Yes indeed Disc.. it is the other way around. The 360 GPU has full access.

    So maybe SC3 is one of those games that break the GPU memory barrier of the PS3? Then again it could also just be a crap port :) (even then I wonder why it runs so much worse). OFC it could also be the 10MB extra super fast GPU memory of the 360 that makes the difference in a straight port without work for optimizing for PS3.
    Edited by 2 at 10/04/07 @ 14:34

  • Uncle_Fishboy #20 5 years ago

    I bought the game on the 360 on the strength of the eg review and thought it was all very ho-hum. So my advice would be to buy neither of the versions, as they are both rubbish

  • JediMasterMalik #21 5 years ago

    @bonker - Oblivion is one afaik.

    Not that it matters, the power of a system is never tested by ports is it?

  • The-Bodybuilder #22 5 years ago

    >"@Yossarion - We've established it's a bad port. "

    Yes we have, just never knew how bad until yoss posted those pics.

    YIKES.

    I'm no techie, but I've also heard about this UE 3 stuff too. Any actual reasons why? especially when (it seem like) most games these days use that same bloody engine.

  • Hog-lumps #23 5 years ago

    it'd be pretty rubbish if you heard gunshots after somebody had fallen over

    Well it depends how far you are stood from them at the time..........
    (speed of sound < speed of light)

    :)

  • GamesConnoisseur #24 5 years ago

    The worrying issue is that for multi-platform releases, multi-platform owners would likely choose X360 version over PS3 version if the shoddy port becomes the norm. The larger install base of X360 and ease of crossover from PC to X360 would mean that this would be the main platform and that PS3 having problem with large textures. I saw the Insider video and was shocked to see the prison guard having crappy face and uniform texture (look at the US flag badge on arm) compared to X360.

    Still I ll own PS3 mainly for its exclusive and have said elsewhere that I would probably choose X360 over PS3 for multi-platform as I am Gamerscore whore!

  • rudedudejude #25 5 years ago

    The power of the CELL!!

    Watch out, when it's emotion engine kicks in it'll have you in tears over Sam Fisher.
    Edited by 1 at 10/04/07 @ 14:35

  • gizmo #26 5 years ago

    Reading quite a lot about frame rate issues on the PS3 when compared to the 360 versions of the same game. :|

  • tonynibbles #27 5 years ago

    Clearly ported to PS3 badly, it suffers in single player from framerate issues, unresponsive controller issues and some severely frustrating camera angles.

    Even the ubisoft startup logo stutters, with the audio jumping - which to me highlights the entire game as a shoddy port.
    There is no excuse for this.

    Online is smooth though, with all the XMB friends features as you'd expect.
    Edited by 1 at 10/04/07 @ 14:45

  • joeking #28 5 years ago

    Aren't most multiplatform developers using the 360 as their lead platform? If so, isn't this to be expected? No big deal. They're both pretty much the same game still.

  • Overlush #29 5 years ago

    It's not good whichever way you look at it. Either it's a downright lazy port (which is putting me off getting Vegas and GRAW for PS3), the PS3 is proving hard to get to grips with or it just isn't anywhere near as powerful as the 360.

    Not sure which is worse :(

  • enzima #30 5 years ago

    @ bcolter

    I also have motorstorm, and imho its a very over rated game. nothing special about it, i think everybody is talking about that cuz after resistance there is not much else to play (especially if you own a 360). I might try RR7 (that in the end is always fun, and you always know what you are getting). I think my biggest disappointment on motorstorm was the graphic (so ugly imo) cuz gameplay is not so bad. its very balanced (a bike is not always better than a truck, which is not always better than a rally car....). But i bet that in 1 year nobody will even remember about it. At the moment ps3 is great as a blu ray palyer (no sarcasm) and its woth to appreciate her for that. In september, then we-ll talk games....

  • JediMasterMalik #31 5 years ago

    @enzima - If you think Motorstorm is ugly, you need to see an optician.

  • SBfistfun #32 5 years ago

    Double Anal more like

  • septimus #33 5 years ago

    @enzima - Or stop playing on a crappy 14" portable.

  • Tweakmonkey #34 5 years ago

    If it's that bad shouldn't it have failed Sony QA?

  • Chtulie #35 5 years ago

    So this is the best Splinter cell port from the x-box to another console yet?

  • aldo_14 #36 5 years ago

    It's not good whichever way you look at it. Either it's a downright lazy port (which is putting me off getting Vegas and GRAW for PS3),

    But that wouldn't be like Ubisoft!!! ;)

    the PS3 is proving hard to get to grips with or it just isn't anywhere near as powerful as the 360.

    I think pretty much as soon as the tech specs of both machines were known, the general consensus amongst techy-heads was that the PS3 had a pretty decent (but not huge) power advantage over the 360 - but also a design that'd make it very hard to reach that optimum (kind of like the PS2s' utterly terrifying design, if you compare God of War 2 to launch titles). Since then I think MS added an extra wodge of RAM to the 360 (before said machines release) to narrow the gap and perhaps give it an advantage in that area, but AFAIK the situation is simply that the PS3 is playing catchup on both developer experience and the tools available and if it is ever fully harnessed (a very big if) it will be the 'superior' machine (in a technical sense, anyways...).

    Anyways, methinks it'll still be a year before you can judge the PS3, same as the 360 launched with some pretty indistinguished games. Which is handy, as maybe by then it'll be a price that won't require you handing over your firsborn to LoansDirect.

  • pbdarko #37 5 years ago

    >I hear Unreal Engine 3 "doesn't work very well" on PS3.

    True... some blame it on texture memory problems.<

    Isn't this unreal engine 2.5.

    I thought RSV was ubi's first unreal engine 3

  • SBfistfun #38 5 years ago

    "If it's that bad shouldn't it have failed Sony QA?"

    superroflmao adventure

  • mkreku #39 5 years ago

    Anyone have any links to the rumours about UE3 problems on the Playstation 3?

  • enzima #40 5 years ago

    @septimus

    maybe you meant a 32" 720p/ 1080i lcd samsung? or you are having trouble respecting somebody´s opinion because its different from yours? or cuz you own only a ps3? do you at least have a hdtv?

  • spongebob #41 5 years ago

    I like how the reviewer says that the port sucks totally from the technical point of view and still goes on to give it an eight out of ten. I guess that ratings system is just a joke and something you just forward to the publisher, then?

    Lot of rumors about the alleged PS3 problems. I think it's safe to bet that any old rumor is as good as the next so if someone of you feels better thinking PS3 is **cked because it has a slow BD-drive or because UE3 doesn't work properly on the machine then, please, feel free to enjoy the information any which way you want. You perverts :)
    Edited by 1 at 10/04/07 @ 15:49

  • JediMasterMalik #42 5 years ago

    Like I said, optician. DO IT!

  • MasterControlProgram #43 5 years ago

    As someone already pointed out, lazy ports from Ubisoft are no breaking news.

    Take Capcom's PC line owned by Ubisoft: I'm grateful I can have those games on PC, but Devil May Cry 3 and Resident Evil 4 for PC are just clearest examples of laziness, while Onimusha 3 (after the patch) was surprisingly OK...

    Looks like SC:DA, although maybe conceived as a multiplatform effort, was then treated as a standard and lazy port.

  • Stormflood #44 5 years ago

    SC:DA uses UE2.5

    However, there was concern last year about UE3 on PS3 as Mark Rein had touched upon in this interview: [link url=http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story =11102
    ]http://ww w.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_in...[/link]

    As Gears Of War ends, Rein explained that the concentration is changing to making the Unreal Engine 3 engine for PlayStation 3 better. He notes: "We have a couple of worried customers" regarding the PlayStation 3 and UE3, who are asking: "How are we going to get it to perform as well as the Xbox 360"? But this is now what Epic is concentrating on, as it moves toward the completion of Unreal Tournament 2007 "some time in 2007."

  • aldo_14 #45 5 years ago

    IIRC the 360 has a better GPU. (DX 9.9 essentially).

    The PS3 can do better physics, etc. if teh power of the Cell is properly utilized. Oh, and more storage through Blu-Ray.

    I think that sounds right; albeit I think it's kind of muddy as both ATi & Nvidia would give different answers on the GPU thing based on their own interests....from what I can tell the PS3 was, or perhaps even still is, designed to place some graphical stuff on the PUs rather than purely through a GPU, and the inclusion of the nVidia chip was a design compromise.

    It's pretty hard to find info on this, at least for an uneducated pleb like me :). I don't think the 360 (or, in comparable terms, the PS3) uses a Direct X 9.9 though, AFAIK it's a 9.0c level thing. That's kind of a guess, though.

    I like how the reviewer says that the port sucks totally from the technical point of view and still goes on to give it an eight out of ten. I guess that ratings system is just a joke and something you can forward to the publisher, then?

    Well, to play devils' advocate, he could be ranking gameplay over relatively minor technical issues; that is, as a standalone game it's fun, and not compromised too much by the worse technical er....thingys.

    I did expect a much lower ranking based on the review, though. Perhaps yon reviewer figured the discussion of the gameplay could be found easily on the 360 review and it was more useful to focus on the (mostly technical issues) differences between the two.

    However, there was concern last year about UE3 on PS3 as Mark Rein had touched upon in this interview: http://ww w.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_in...

    Well, it doesn't mean there are actually problems, though - it could be down to the pain-in-the-arseness of the PS3 to work with or something, or the console still being a bit of an unknown quantity.

    (god, I sound like a Sony adverty person with all these 'defensive' replies - for some reason I feel obliged to reply with caveats in threads like these....)
    Edited by 1 at 10/04/07 @ 16:02

  • bonker #46 5 years ago

    "@bonker - Oblivion is one afaik.

    Not that it matters, the power of a system is never tested by ports is it? "

    K, I haven't seen/heard anything about Oblivion yet.

    Well no, not necessarily but it's just a mite concerning that the PS3 is arriving to the party 18 months late and, let's face it, isn't cutting the mustard. Not only is it clearly not on a par with the 360 NOW but it's actually struggling to deliver last year's 360 output satisfactorily.

    Not having a fanboy dig here, just genuine concern that the PS3 desperately needs a couple of uber AAA titles to settle things down ...

    MS must be pissing themselves ...

  • JediMasterMalik #47 5 years ago

    Wrong, it's delivering well with exclusives, and let's face it, people don't buy new console for multiplatform titles. Well, not people with any sense anyway.

  • JediMasterMalik #48 5 years ago

    I'm going to apply for a restraining order.

  • JediMasterMalik #49 5 years ago

    lol

  • Darren #50 5 years ago

    One thing no one has mentioned is that the P3 version of SCDA uses v-sync so it has a lower framerate but no ghastly tearing like the 360 version. That does not excuse the poor textures and other technical issues though...

  • aldo_14 #51 5 years ago

    I have to call that one... Since when do bad frame rates and audio issues not affect the rating of a game? Dropped frames affect game play... They detract from the overall experience... Rating the game 8/10 is telling the publisher its "OK" to do crappy ports... An 8/10 is a "Recommended Purchase" in my books...

    I realize that Eurogamer has a large interest in facilitating the sale of product, but if the reviews do not reflect the true quality of the game? Where is the journalistic integrity?

    I expect the reviews to be more critical.

    Well, surely it depends how much the reviewer feels that issue affects the gameplay overall? It is stated that said problems 'lessen' and that the rest of the game is comparable to the 360, and of course the conclusion did give a reasoning for how (little?) those problems factored into the eventual score, even whilst recommending the (higher review rated) 360 version ahead of it.

    I've not played the game, in any case, so I'm not going to argue with the experience of either the reviewer or those who have and disagree with it. However, it just strikes me as, I dunno, distasteful to be shouting 'journalistic integrity' and making allegations of corruption because you disagree with the score and AFAIK haven't even played the game in question (please correct me if wrong in this).

    Especially as it's not as if Ubisoft / Sony are the only companies who advertise on games websites - do we assume that any review of a game whose published has an advertising budget will be biased, then? Fair enough if it's something like Driv3r which turns out to be awful, but as far as I know this isn't that case.

  • manic_mouse #52 5 years ago

    I've heard of many developers complaining about the PS3's RAM situation compared to the 360. The way it's split up seems to be an obstacle to developers getting the best graphics out of the machine. This seems to be the situation here, with the PS3 simply not having enough RAM available for the GPU to use for textures.

    But for a machine allegedly twice as powerful as the 360 (or so say Sony) this doesn't bode well. In both multiformat and exclusive games the 360 has a graphical edge over the PS3 thus far. Either devs are having trouble with the PS3 or it simply isn't all that more powerful than the 360 (if at all).
    Edited by 1 at 10/04/07 @ 17:18

  • Xerx3s #53 5 years ago

    Not that it matters, the power of a system is never tested by ports is it?

    No, it just uses a newer shader thingy that was released as a patch on the 360 iirc.

  • Moz #54 5 years ago

    If you read the review, it seems to say that the frame rate issues and that are only noticable in the first section of the game, just in true EG fasion they have focuse aslmost entirely on that point.

    I'm not yet conserned about how future ports are going to turn.

    Just have to remember what Need for speed most wanted was like on the 360 (Don't think the frame rate ever got above 25fps and most of the time it seemed more like 20!) to know that it's still early days.

  • MasterControlProgram #55 5 years ago

    Well, Need for Speed tends to stay around 20fps on whatever platform, no matter how powerful...

    I think it's one of the worst game engines ever, at least from NFS:Underground onward. Not that this detracted anything from its success.

  • Stormflood #56 5 years ago

    @aldo_14

    My link to the Rein quote wasn't to prove there's a 'problem', just that these little remarks can easily snowball into problems without anyone checking the source quote. :)

  • cyber_nicco #57 5 years ago

    I've given this a 7. Surely that fixes things...

  • cyber_nicco #58 5 years ago

    Shit, I gave it something other than a 7 by accident...

  • Gurgeh #59 5 years ago

    @Manic Mouse: "I've heard of many developers complaining about the PS3's RAM situation compared to the 360. The way it's split up seems to be an obstacle to developers getting the best graphics out of the machine. This seems to be the situation here, with the PS3 simply not having enough RAM available for the GPU to use for textures"

    [link url=http:/ /www.ddj.com/dept/64bit/197801624?pgno=2
    ]http://ww w.ddj.com/dept/64bit/197801624?...[/link]

    "the most radical peculiarity for programmers is that SPEs have.. a 256-KB-scratchpad memory called "local store" (LS)... All the variables you declare are allocated in the LS and must fit there. Larger data structures in main memory can be accessed one block at a time; it is your responsibility to load/store blocks from/to main memory via explicit DMA transfers. You have to design your algorithms to operate on a small block of data at a time, fitting in the LS. When they are finished with a block, they commit the results to main memory, and fetch the next block...

    "The PPE, SPEs, and memory controllers are connected by the EIB bus... Cell programmers face issues of process mapping and congestion control—traditional problems of parallel computing. Additionally, the larger the blocks are, the higher their EIB transfer efficiency. So programmers are pressured to keep data structures small enough to fit the LS, but large enough to be transferred efficiently on the EIB...

    "Unfortunately, the compiler won't help you with parallelization, choice of optimal data structure size, scheduling of transfers, SIMDization, loop unrolling, and the like. You have to do that manually."
    Edited by 1 at 10/04/07 @ 18:14

  • tiddles #60 5 years ago

    It's a sad fact that many of those purchasing this game will neither know nor care that it looks better on 360.

  • numptyboymatt #61 5 years ago

    Had this on the 360 and thought it was rubbish and it looks like the PS3 version is following suit. Just glad I traded it in when I did!

  • spongebob #62 5 years ago

    Thank you Gurgeh for information that is of no interest to any gamer.

    Important thing that needs to be stressed:
    The score for the PS3 version of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Double Agent is misleading. Read the review and see for yourself.

  • Overlush #63 5 years ago

    "In short, the Cell offers an impressive potential for performance. However, due to its architecture and limited support offered by the compiler, you can't expect to exploit this potential by just recompiling your current applications"
    http://ww w.ddj.com/dept/64bit/197801624?...

    Too next gen for it's own good, then and certainly a bad candidate for 'porting'. Let's just hope the sales figures pick up over the next few years or devs may never bother to go to the effort of truly exploiting it's power.

  • Overlush #64 5 years ago

    Anyhoo:

    Ask me to recount SS1 and I can. I vaguely remeber SS2. I never could be bothered to finish SS3 and SS4 left me cold.

    I don't like MGS either.

    I DO love stealth games though, so...WHERE THE FECK IS THIEF!!!!

  • bonker #65 5 years ago

    "This does seem to be a reoccurring problem doesn't it? I mean as far as I can see, the only PS3 port that is actually as good as the 360 version is Oblivion (as mentioned by others) which has had an extra years dev time. I think it's pretty shocking tbh, I mean I doubt the 360 ports of VF5 or DMC4 will be borked (in fact they may even offer more functionality). Ok, we all know that a 'lazy' port has nothing to do with the power of the PS3 etc but surely a console is only as good as the games it plays, I'm unimpressed so far."

    Well if it was one or two games then I wouldn't think much of it but how many are we into now - double figures yet? Not only are the PS3 versions not clearly better in some way but some of them aren't even complete! (VT online etc).

    I really do strongly suspect that we're seeing difficulties with the PS3s h/w architecture here and it's severely hampering development timescales. It's to be expected of course but it's the degree of it that would have me concerned. I'd have thought esoteric architecture + 'power of the Cell etc' would have cancelled themselves out somewhat and you'd end up with something decent rather than falling short of milestones met by the 360 12 months ago ...

    Anyway, it is what it is. I just hope they get their shit together and start releasing some quality PS3 titles. 360 owner or not, I don't want this to be a one-sided contest and it's starting to look a little embarassing ...

  • bonker #66 5 years ago

    ""The PPE, SPEs, and memory controllers are connected by the EIB bus... Cell programmers face issues of process mapping and congestion control—traditional problems of parallel computing. Additionally, the larger the blocks are, the higher their EIB transfer efficiency. So programmers are pressured to keep data structures small enough to fit the LS, but large enough to be transferred efficiently on the EIB...

    "Unfortunately, the compiler won't help you with parallelization, choice of optimal data structure size, scheduling of transfers, SIMDization, loop unrolling, and the like. You have to do that manually." "

    K, well that explains some of it then lol

    They're going to need to develop an engine within an engine to cope with all that shit, meanwhile the games get f*cked ...

    PS: re "engine within and engine"; doubtless this is what the Unreal Engine guys are referring to when they say they're going to try and improve how it runs on PS3 ...

  • bonker #67 5 years ago

    An even better quote:

    "Software that exploits the Cell's potential requires a development effort significantly greater than traditional platforms. If you expect to port your application efficiently to the Cell via recompilation or threads, think again."

    Bugger.

  • fingersthebeaver #68 5 years ago

    Firstly on the whole Oblivion issue, from what I have heard there is very little difference betwwen the 360 and PS3 when the new shader patch is applied, is this wrong?

    Just a thought but a lot of people are saying that the PS3 is graphically less powerfull weather due to memory or chip, but better at physics.

    As far as I am aware in games physics is mostly used to create more particles in destruction, or movement.

    I rememeber reading a review of a new physics card for PC's about a month ago and the end result claimed the physics was brilliant when exploited but overall led to problems and slowdown as the graphics card struggled to render the polly's the physics card was requesting, could this be a problem for the PS3?

    Please don't take this as an attack on the PS3 but I am intrigued as to your opinions

  • Scimarad #69 5 years ago

    Don't buy these crappy ports! It's the only way they'll get the message unfortunately:-(

  • #70 5 years ago

    bonker wrote "I really do strongly suspect that we're seeing difficulties with the PS3s h/w architecture here and it's severely hampering development timescales."

    This is pure bs.

  • #71 5 years ago

    Excerpts from Yosuke Hayashi interview (director for Ninja Gaiden Sigma).

    ..we want to provide an experience that looks totally new and fresh. One of the best ways to do that was to have a game that runs at a 1080p with a constant 60 fps, and utilizes real-time self-shadowing. No other game as accomplished all three of these goals at once.


    As far as A.I. goes people have played our game before will see that we've made some subtle improvements. A lot of it has to do with using all the Cell's SPU processors.


    And by the look of the screen shots this game is really looking good.
    [link url=http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps3/games/previews/107393 .shtml
    ]http://ww w.gamepro.com/sony/ps3/games/pr...[/link]

    I believe that many developers just suck. They don't want to put any affort into learning how to program the PS3, they try to port their PC/X360 code over to the PS3 and are happy that it works without any greater effort. Developers that learn to program the PS3 will get a lot of juice out of it. Just lool at the PS2 and what they've managed to squeeze out of it.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #72 5 years ago

    Hansi320: Unless you were already involved in programming a hardware demanding PS3 title I'd rather believe the developing studios and people with a little insight in technology and ignore your "this is bs" comment.

    Parallelization is difficult enough already and the PS3's design definetly doesn't make it easier as far as memory management is concerned. And yes this will eventually be a problem because you either don't use multiple SPEs or you only use a fraction of the power. Neither way is desireable solution.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #73 5 years ago

    Just lool at the PS2 and what they've managed to squeeze out of it.

    Fair point. Too bad it took nearly 10 years whereas the UE3 engine worked wonders only a year and a half after the 360's launch.

  • #74 5 years ago

    I can understand that it is hard to learn how to utilize the PS3 in an effective way. But like this developer says, "http://ww w.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/ne... it sounds like a bad excuse from developers that haven't put in the time necessary to really push the PS3.

  • MaxiSleep #75 5 years ago

    Hansi320


    "I can understand that it is hard to learn how to utilize the PS3 in an effective way. But like this developer says, "http://ww w.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/ne... it sounds like a bad excuse from developers that haven't put in the time necessary to really push the PS3."

    Until there are more ps3 then 360 in the developers main market they wont be arsed. That is the unfortunate fact of the marketplace. Therefore expect the jap developers to get up to speed first, followed by europe and america in about 1-2 years time. (so games out 2-3 years will benefit)

    (there will of course be noble exceptions, I am referring to the "average" game)






  • Der_tolle_Emil #76 5 years ago

    I guess if there was no 360 and no management than it would indeed be an excuse. But don't forget that titles these days cost more than ever. Looking at it this way:

    360, 1 1/2 years development, 10 million userbase
    PS3, 3 years development, 1 million userbase

    It it is easier to develop for the 360 which it obviously is (if only because it has been around one year and developers already have experience with the hardware) then I can imagine why developers are more likely working towards the 360 and porting to the PS3.

    It is an approach Nintendo took with the DS and the Wii. An earlier codename of the DS was developer's system (or developer system) and just look at the prices of Wii SDKs. The thing is incredibly cheap compared to other console SDKs and the Wii is easier to develop for just because the hardware is limited. You don't have to worry about shaders or models using tons of polygons - the hardware could not cope with it anyway and it will never look as good as the 360 so why try. It takes a huge burdon off the developers. Not everyone can afford artists working on high poly models and hire people to do the animation. The Wii gives smaller developers the chance to develop games that don't look like shit compared to other games because the Wii games of big developers simply cannot look all that much better because of the hardware. There is much less risk developing for the Wii because the SDK is cheap and you don't need 2 years or more to come up with a game.

    Comparing the 360 with the PS3 it is very likely the same. The 360 is easier to develop for and if I can get two good looking games on both the 360 and the PS3 then this is clearly prefereble to just one really good looking PS3 game and lacking a 360 version.

    The reason why so many games this generation are multiplatform is the fact that the costs are so high you simply cannot risk releasing the game on a single platform only and thus having only half the userbase.

    It was a bad decision to make the PS3 hard to master albeit it being very powerful. It seems not all too many developers are wanting to take the risk of developing for the PS3 only or with the PS3 as the first console in mind besides the usual exclusive games like Final Fantasy which would probably appear on the PS3 only too if it was only half as powerful as the 360.

    In the long run games will look really good on the PS3 but I think that it will cost Sony a lot in the early years. I really cannot see the PS3 overtaking the 360 and the Wii is a very strong competitor too.

    Well I wrote too much anyway. But even if it is an excuse of developers I can totally understand why they don't want to put in the effort. Why do it the hard way when there is an easy (and much more cheaper) way too?

  • El_Che_True #77 5 years ago

    haha...the excuses. How about the following analysis.

    1. PS3 is completely overrated
    2. To get a game to look nearly as good as its 360, it takes an extra year of development, because the architecture of the HARDWARE SUCKS!
    3. GPU on 360 is flat out better than the PS3
    4. You clowns can wait another 10 year to fully realise the Bull Shit power of the PS3, which sony has promised and LIED to you since day one. I've been enjoying the 360 for a year and half now. The 360 delivered it's promises earlier, better, and at a cheaper price point.

    5. 360 is just a better product, end of story.
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/07 @ 03:51

  • gizmo #78 5 years ago

    Surpised by how different the quality is between version though;

    Screen comparisons

  • jebus #79 5 years ago

    GamesConnoisseur
    10-Apr-07 14:35:47 The worrying issue is that for multi-platform releases, multi-platform owners would likely choose X360 version over PS3 version if the shoddy port becomes the norm.

    Why is that a worrying issue - unless you work for Sony?

  • zuljin #80 5 years ago

    Der_tolle_Emil
    "Fair point. Too bad it took nearly 10 years whereas the UE3 engine worked wonders only a year and a half after the 360's launch."

    So your saying the XBox360 has reached it's limit? It took 10 years for devs to squeeze every last ounce out of the PS2, it will take 10 years for devs to do the same for both XBox and PS3.

    And if people are going to pick on random features of the cell processor, at least just start by reading the manual :)
    http://ww w-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/tec...

  • Der_tolle_Emil #81 5 years ago

    I'm not saying the 360 has reached its limit but devs were a lot quicker achieving visuals that far surpass everything else on the console. I cannot remember any other console where only a year after the lauch games already made such a leap forward.

  • Obsequious #82 5 years ago

    ^MGS 2 back in '01, a year after the PS2 launch. FFX, ICO and GT3 all appeared at around the same time too; all a far cry from Fantavision, no?

    Actually, such "big leaps" are de rigour for a console in the lifespan stage that the 360's in now; the only notable exception was in the case of the original Xbox, whose stellar launch titles arguably hung around it's neck like an albatross for the following few years.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #83 5 years ago

    Obsequious: To be honest I never was all that much interested in the PS2 and its games. Actually I was thinking more of the xbox and also the cube and maybe even the n64. The really stunning games, at least what I call stunning, all came at the very end. It was Conker for the xbox and the N64 and Resident Evil 4 for the cube. I own a n64 and a cube and as far as I remember it took more than a year for a game like Gears of War to appear.

    All I'm saying is that I think that PS3 developers will need more time to really get the hardware. Of course I cannot tell for sure and we will see in a year from now. The technology of the PS3 is new territory for many developers and it simply takes time to master it.

  • miiiguel #84 5 years ago

    I heard somewhere that 360 was but shooters...
    I wonder if PS-fundamentalists enjoy this RPG ?

    Aren't some of you tired of waiting, I mean since 2005 I hear you say "in a year!!! we'll see it in a year!!!", FFS, what about now ?

    I'll be playing Xbox 1040 and Wii2k10 and you'll still saying "the Cell! the Cell! in one year, in one year". C'mon, the party is now!
    Edited by 2 at 11/04/07 @ 11:47

  • spongebob #85 5 years ago

    Der_Tolle_Emil: Obsequious: To be honest I never was all that much interested in the PS2 and its games. Actually I was thinking more of the xbox and also the cube and maybe even the n64. The really stunning games, at least what I call stunning, all came at the very end. It was Conker for the xbox and the N64 and Resident Evil 4 for the cube. I own a n64 and a cube and as far as I remember it took more than a year for a game like Gears of War to appear.

    All I'm saying is that I think that PS3 developers will need more time to really get the hardware. Of course I cannot tell for sure and we will see in a year from now. The technology of the PS3 is new territory for many developers and it simply takes time to master it.

    Hey Der_Tolle_Emil, nice way to prove that your previous posts about PS3 were actually not based on facts at all and were fanboy ranting. "As far as I remember" just doesn't cut it if you want to back your opinions with factual information.

    I think you should seriously think twice next time before posting. And while you are it, check the screenshots of PS3 games that are going to be released around this September (Lair, Ratchet & Clank, Heavenly Sword and maybe KillZone). These are games that are coming out in the same time as for example Gears of War came out on X360's developing cycle.

    At the same, there's no excuse to jerky graphics and flat out glitches in a game. But this is a completely different issue to the one you talked about, which was the quality of the graphics and special effects.

  • rudedudejude #86 5 years ago

    "or, just don't buy the fifteenth sequel in a series, especially one with annual updates."

    Guess that rules out the Entire Games Offering of EA then.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #87 5 years ago

    I know my latest comment makes my earlier once look plain stupid. I just think that we are near the point where the effort it needs to use all the available technology is becoming just too expensive and time consuming. There will be the time where the hardware will be able to do more than developers can actually put into a game. The PS3 is a powerful machine but I still believe that the effort it takes to utilize the power will become too much for some developers. And the developer comments about the PS3 sound exactly like that - it takes a lot to master the PS3, possibly more than developers want to. Especially since there are alternatives (360). The PS3 hardware concept may seem somewhat unbalanced and I truly believe that this will affect game development in the first couple of years.

    I thought it was appearent in the PS2's lifecycle as well. I guess I was wrong.

  • spongebob #88 5 years ago

    Good news about PS3 for the developers is that in time all the major commercial game engines (and game developing frameworks) will be updated to use the maximum potential of the machine. This means of course that most developers don't need to know all of the inner workings of the machine, they just need to licence the right toolsets. At the same time it means that even smaller developers can easily get in on the game.

    This is one of the biggest differences between developing for new generation machines and the older ones. Developers don't build everything from ground up. This way they can concentrate on making good games and interesting gaming experiences and still get all the special powers of different platforms they're developing for.

    So, in a way, I think people are overstressing the cross-platform developing in the longer run. The real battles between different gaming platforms will be fought with exclusive games, and even then it's not about the technical aspects that count, but the overall experience.

    Of course there will always be screenshot comparisons and other bull****, but that's obvious when testosterone filled young males try to show off. Whose got the best bump mapping is not far off from best bipecs or biggest subwoofer. Boys will be boys...

  • GamesConnoisseur #89 5 years ago

    I giggled when I read some diehard Sony fan refusing to accept that PS3 version can be so bad in place compared to X360, insisting that it was a fake. If you still have doubt go see IGN Insider head to head comparsion or even better waste your money on PS3 inferior Double Agent

    Gizmo's link above can take you to a photo side by side comparsion

    And no I am not Sony staff, I only commented generally that it is worrying especially for those expecting differently, and consider the costs of huge investment to get the over hyped console.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #90 5 years ago

    So, in a way, I think people are overstressing the cross-platform developing in the longer run. The real battles between different gaming platforms will be fought with exclusive games, and even then it's not about the technical aspects that count, but the overall experience.

    You are right about the exclusives and that technical aspects don't count there. But with multiplatform games they somewhat do have a slight importance. You can compare 360 games with their PS3 counterparts and you can notice a difference. Although I would wait for the PS3 games that are ported onto the 360. If they look better on the 360 too than it will be interesting to know why. Otherwise I also don't think that ports really show how powerful a machine can be.

    As for winning the battle by exclusives: I is still a huge factor because there will be people buying 360s for Halo and there will be PS3 buyers just to play the next Final Fantasy but they are far less important than in earlier generations now that so many titles are multiplatform.

  • Vin #91 5 years ago

    Kato wins the thread.

  • spongebob #92 5 years ago

    As long as the bad ports are for games I don't care for, it's all fine :)

  • Pulsar_t #93 5 years ago

    What is all this ruckus? SC:DA sucks on ALL platforms. MGS3 pips it easily. Note how almost no one actually discussed the game itself.

    Ubi's ports are shite and you know it. Let's give the PSThree a chance. :p

    /devil's advocate mode.
    Edited by 1 at 11/04/07 @ 19:00

  • Pulsar_t #94 5 years ago

    And WHY OH WHY EG did you give this an 8? GamesTM gave the 360 version a 7 and even that was them being generous.

    Is there anyone left to trust with reviews nowadays?

  • Les #95 5 years ago

    Anyone still interested in one of the most soulless franchises?

    "To be fair mate, Ninja Gaiden has always looked good and if you compare the age old Xbox1 game with the PS3 update, you'll find the difference is a bit shameful.

    PS3 screens Xbox1 screens

    Not a hell of a difference at all ..."

    There's not a lot of previewers agreeing with you on that one... But the art direction of NG was always terrible and no amount of pixels is gonna change that.

    ""The real battles between different gaming platforms will be fought with exclusive games"

    I would have agreed with you last gen but with a larger number of so called 'exclusives' becoming multi-plat this gen I'm not sure if you're right. I mean If these shoddy PS3 ports continue, will I really still buy a PS3 just for say FFXIII (if that stays exclusive, which I doubt) even though 90% of the PS3's titles are available on the 360 and are marginally better? Not so sure tbh... "

    Uhmm, he mentions exclusives and then you start about multiplatform games? There will be less, I agree but that's kind of besides the point... More than ever, exclusives will show the strengths of the respective platforms as they all have radically different hardware capabilities this time around, far more differentiated than last gen.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #96 5 years ago

    More than ever, exclusives will show the strengths of the respective platforms as they all have radically different hardware capabilities this time around, far more differentiated than last gen.

    I actually think the exact opposite. They are technically different but so powerful that I cannot think of something that extraordinary the other console cannot come up with too in one or another way. The difference was enormous in the former generations - one console mode 7 and the other not. Then CD medium vs cartridges. After that came online. But now? When it comes to 360 vs PS3 both are online, both are very powerful and what any of the two can do better the other one can possibly do the same; Maybe a bit limited but there is nothing that one console can do that the other cannot.

  • spongebob #97 5 years ago

    Kato: Wrong again, the PS3 and 360 may have different hardware but the difference in their capabilities is not what I would consider "radical" at all. I won't bother going into detail as Der_tolle_Emil has already covered it for you.

    I take it you're a skilled coder who has explored the possibilities of both consoles to the extreme, hence knowing what their true capabilities are. I also understand you are able to show me some concrete evidence that backs these claims.

    Because in any other case I think you are just another fanboy who reads too much game news and thinks that quotes from random developers at such an early stage of both consoles lifecycle are something you can draw conclusions on. Even conclusions that would hold true for the next five years.

  • TRUTH #98 5 years ago

    Now that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 specifications have been announced, it is possible to do a real world performance comparison of the two systems.

    There are three critical performance aspects of a console:

    * Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance.
    * The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell.
    * Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance
    * The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU.
    * Memory System Bandwidth
    * The memory system bandwidth in Xbox 360 exceeds the PS3's by five times.
    RSX GPU

    * 550 MHz
    * Independent vertex/pixel shaders
    * 51 billion dot products per second (total system performance)
    * 300M transistors
    * 136 "shader operations" per clock

    The interesting ALU performance numbers are 51 billion dot products per second (total system performance), 300M transistors, and more than twice as powerful as the 6800 Ultra.

    The 51 billions dot products per cycle were listed on a summary slide of total graphics system performance and are assumed to include the Cell processor. Sony's calculations seem to assume that the Cell can do a dot product per cycle per DSP, despite not having a dot product instruction.

    However, using Sony's claim, 7 dot products per cycle * 3.2 GHz = 22.4 billion dot products per second for the CPU. That leaves 51 - 22.4 = 28.6 billion dot products per second that are left over for the GPU. That leaves 28.6 billion dot products per second / 550 MHz = 52 GPU ALU ops per clock.

    It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s, while the Xbox 360 GPU ALUs work on vector5s. The total programmable GPU floating point performance for the PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * 550 MHz = 228.8 GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS.

    With the number of transistors being slightly larger on the Xbox 360 GPU (330M) it's not surprising that the total programmable GFLOPs number is very close.


    The PS3 does have the additional 7 DSPs on the Cell to add more floating point ops for graphics rendering, but the Xbox 360's three general purpose cores with custom D3D and dot product instructions are more customized for true graphics related calculations.

    The 6800 Ultra has 16 pixel pipes, 6 vertex pipes, and runs at 400 MHz. Given the RSX's 2x better than a 6800 Ultra number and the higher frequency of the RSX, one can roughly estimate that it will have 24 pixel shading pipes and 4 vertex shading pipes (fewer vertex shading pipes since the Cell DSPs will do some vertex shading). If the PS3 GPU keeps the 6800 pixel shader pipe co-issue architecture which is hinted at in Sony's press release, this again gives it 24 pixel pipes* 2 issued per pipe + 4 vertex pipes = 52 dot products per clock in the GPU.

    If the RSX follows the 6800 Ultra route, it will have 24 texture samplers, but when in use they take up an ALU slot, making the PS3 GPU in practice even less impressive. Even if it does manage to decouple texture fetching from ALU co-issue, it won't have enough bandwidth to fetch the textures anyways.

    For shader operations per clock, Sony is most likely counting each pixel pipe as four ALU operations (co-issued vector+scalar) and a texture operation per pixel pipe and 4 scalar operations for each vector pipe, for a total of 24 * (4 + 1) + (4*4) = 136 operations per cycle or 136 * 550 = 74.8 GOps per second.

    Given the Xbox 360 GPU's multithreading and balanced design, you really can't compare the two systems in terms of shading operations per clock. However, the Xbox 360's GPU can do 48 ALU operations (each can do a vector4 and scalar op per clock), 16 texture fetches, 32 control flow operations, and 16 programmable vertex fetch operations with tessellation per clock for a total of 48*2 + 16 + 32 + 16 = 160 operations per cycle or 160 * 500 = 80 GOps per second.


    CPU
    The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.

    The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.

    The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming.

    Xbox 360 has three general purpose CPU cores. The Cell processor has only one.

    Xbox 360's CPUs has vector processing power on each CPU core. Each Xbox 360 core has 128 vector registers per hardware thread, with a dot product instruction, and a shared 1-MB L2 cache. The Cell processor's vector processing power is mostly on the seven DSPs.

    Dot products are critical to games because they are used in 3D math to calculate vector lengths, projections, transformations, and more. The Xbox 360 CPU has a dot product instruction, where other CPUs such as Cell must emulate dot product using multiple instructions.

    Cell's streaming floating-point work is done on its seven DSP processors. Since geometry processing is moved to the GPU, the need for streaming floating-point work and other DSP style programming in games has dropped dramatically.

    Just like with the PS2's Emotion Engine, with its missing L2 cache, the Cell is designed for a type of game programming that accounts for a minor percentage of processing time.

    Sony's CPU is ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. That sort of mix makes sense for video playback or networked waveform analysis, but not for games. In fact, when analyzing real games one finds almost the opposite distribution of general purpose computing and DSP calculation requirements. A relatively small percentage of instructions are actually floating point. Of those instructions which are floating-point, very few involve processing continuous streams of numbers. Instead they are used in tasks like AI and path-finding, which require random access to memory and frequent branches, which the DSPs are ill-suited to.

    Based on measurements of running next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating point—probably ~5-10%. Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else

    Bandwidth
    The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

    The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.


    Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

    The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.

    HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices.

    CONCLUSION
    When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

    However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.
    Lastly, we were sent updated spec numbers on the Xbox's numbers, and we spoke with Microsoft's Vice President of hardware, Todd Holmdahl, about the Xbox 360's final transistor count.

    Another bit of information sent our way is the final transistor count for Xbox 360's graphics subset. The GPU totals 332 million transistors, which is spit between the two separate dies that make up the part. The parent die is the "main" piece of the GPU, handling the large bulk of the graphics rendering, and is comprised of 232 million transistors. The daughter die contains the system's 10MB of embedded DRAM and its logic chip, which is capable of some additional 3D math. The daughter die totals an even 100 million transistors, bringing the total transistor count for the GPU to 232 million.

  • Les #99 5 years ago

    @ TRUTH

    This nonsense was tiring a year ago, right now it's kind of sad. I'm very sorry you're so insecure about the capabilities of your precious 360 that you feel the need to revert to this kind of worthless display of its potential power. I advise you to go play some games instead of cut and paste bullshit from one site to the next.

    @Kato

    There’s little use in comparing stills. If you don’t mind I’d rather listen to people who’ve actually seen the game in motion.

    As for the art direction, that remains a matter of taste, I agree. Personally, I don’t think anything created by Team Ninja is beautiful.

    “I won't bother going into detail as Der_tolle_Emil has already covered it for you.”

    I don’t agree on that one at all. The CPUs of PS3 and 360 are very different, much more than the CPUs of xbox and PS2, let alone the Wii. The 360 uses a more traditional multi-core processor while the Cell has a radically different design (with all its pro’s and cons). Code optimized for the one will yield terrible results on the other or will simply not work. The different powers of these two consoles don’t necessarily have to translate in graphical quality differences (not important at all in my book but easiest to spot and therefore unfortunately the focus of most discussions) but if both consoles’ strengths are properly tapped, I expect to see differences in gameplay.

    Of course, in the end it’s up to the developers to make the most of the architectures and that will probably take a while, especially in the case of PS3 and Wii. So, as it’s the most traditional, most multiplatform games will probably be based around the 360. But I’d be surprised if a year from now, we’ll still be regularly seeing poor ports like the Double Agent one. Like Der_tolle_Emil said, there’s enough processing power to compensate for it.

    But the platform exclusives (Mario Galaxies, Alan Wake's, Halo's, LittleBigPlanet's, Gran Turismo's, Ratchet's, etc.) will be the games to show the respective platform's powers and those will probably be the ones that will prove decisive when making the buy decision.

  • TRUTH #100 5 years ago

    Like to point out i actually own a 360 and PS3(my brothers), and like to compare the system due to constant bull Sony keep telling everyone. Remember Sony's two main launch titles: Motor Storm & Resistance had been in development for 2yrs, with access to Sony's development tools. The PS3 is in fact almost the same age as 360. The PS3 development has had extra time to get the most out of the system thanks to manufacturing delays for bluray parts - this delaying it in retail - NOT game development. Actually the the delay gave them an extra 1yr+ of time to get more out the system. You can keep saying the system is just released and unable to show it's potential; but, the truth is it has had a longer development time to show the it's so call 400x more powerful then PS 2. Hasn't delivered as yet - but Motor Storm had 2 yrs development time - good but not amazing!

  • TRUTH #101 5 years ago

    Like to point out i actually own a 360 and PS3(my brothers), and like to compare the system due to constant bull Sony keep telling everyone. Remember Sony's two main launch titles: Motor Storm & Resistance had been in development for 2yrs, with access to Sony's development tools. The PS3 is in fact almost the same age as 360. The PS3 development has had extra time to get the most out of the system thanks to manufacturing delays for bluray parts - this delaying it in retail - NOT game development. Actually the the delay gave them an extra 1yr+ of time to get more out the system. You can keep saying the system is just released and unable to show it's potential; but the truth is, it has had a longer development time to show it's so call 400x more powerful then PS 2 (claimed by Sony). Hasn't delivered as yet - but Motor Storm had 2 yrs development time - good but not amazing!

    Oh! wasn't it Sony who keep boasting there systems are so powerful. Sony also got shamed at Japans electronics 2006 show, claiming Lcds were better then plasma and the best for HD, untill Pionner, Panasonic, Phillips proved them sooooooo wrong - classic Sony hype/lies.
    Edited by 3 at 12/04/07 @ 22:39

  • Les #102 5 years ago

    @ Kato

    “I didn't compare screens to imply that the PS3 game will be crap, rather to show that NG has always been visually impressive and that at a glance the Xbox1 screenies held up disturbingly well against the new version. Remember we're talking about Xbox1 not the 360, so I just expected to see instant and vast improvement visually on the PS3 screens...but I didn't.”

    I repeat: It’s no use to look at stills. But if it makes you happy, please continue to do so.

    “No, seriously, what differences do you expect to see? Exactly what is it you believe the PS3 can do that you believe the 360 cannot or visa versa?”

    If the CPU architectures are radically different, they’ll each have their own strengths and weaknesses. If developers start to exploit those, rather than putting all their effort in trying to replicate what they created on the one on the other, I think we will be pleasantly surprised. Just look at LittleBigPlanet for example.

    It’s very clear that Wii and PS3 ask more from developers than 360 does, as they stray more from the beaten path of game development. At first that will be daunting, but they might open up roads to things previously inconceivable. In the end, it’ll all be up to developer creativity (so don't expect too much from Ubi and EA).

    @ Xiphos

    Your logic is as broken as your style. It's stupid to buy a PS3 (or any console for that matter) right now if all you want to use if for is play FF XIII or any other not yet released title. But a console is an investment: costs now, benefits spread out in the future. So the potential should always factor in your buy decision.

  • spongebob #103 5 years ago

    TRUTH seems to think that only PS3 launch titles were in development for 2 years. That's not a Sony exclusive. You can bet your sweet beehive that MS exclusive launch titles on X360 were in development for 2 years or more.

    This is a tiresome subject no matter how you look at it. Even if I were a stupid fanboy I'd rather concentrate on the games than just technical data, but that's just because I am a gamer first, (alleged) fanboy second.

  • TRUTH #104 5 years ago

    The reason I'm not convinced by Sony is due to there constant bull and hype...having both systems, i can see PS3 is not the tech marvel it was hyped to be. Yes! it's early days, or is it ? Like i mentioned before the system is approx the same age as 360 (PS3 delay to manufacturing); but developers had more time to understand the system due to the delay...360 is doing every thing better - esp in games. Nothing on PS3, can match, out do any 1st or 2nd gen 360 titles; Though (PS3) they had more development time!.

    Sony's own games 2ys development which was built on SONY'S own development software and assistance: RESISTANCE TO MAN, MOTOR STORM, show the PS3 cell at work - now compare this to the rush work of Kameo (from N64, Gamecube, Xbox 1 then finally hitting 360), PGR 3 (also rushed for release of 360), Dead Or Alive 4, all these had less production time then 2ys sony's titles had, yet still they hold up to Sony's efforts. With many multi format games playing, looking better then PS3 versions - which again had extra time for development.

    XBOX 1 debut showed it was a better machine in graphics, game play then PS2 with games like: Halo, Jet Set Radio Future, Dead Or Alive, Rally Champ, and many multiformat games looked, played better then PS2 - which had plenty of extra development time for games.
    Edited by 1 at 13/04/07 @ 23:56

  • Les #105 5 years ago

    TRUTH, do you actually believe the nonsense you write yourself?! It's all bullshit and you should know that if you steer away from xbot fansites and do some proper research.

    You're either part of MS's viral marketing campaign (but not really doing a good job IMO but maybe that's part of the act), really crazy or a big MS fanboy (which is kind of crazy as well, like any fanboyism is). Either way, your posts make no sense, won't convince anyone and are therefore a bit pointless.

    @ Kato

    If you find it so boring, please shut up then. Nice of you to try and drag this into a fanboy argument like you always do. The only one blinkered here is you: ever occurred to you that maybe I only respond to your statements that I don't agree with? Not all you write is rubbish, though sadly tainted by that ever present fanboyism.

  • TRUTH #106 5 years ago

    I don't care if you think i'm a fanboy or not!...i've owned many consoles on each generation (even the 3do & Jaguar), the price of Sony console in which the games should actually play better, look better, have more options - don't, even though they they had more development time. The game's at present are struggling to improve on a system Sony claim (again!) is so much more powerful - WRONG!...Read 'TRUTH12-Apr-07 17:58:43' (above) and you see why Sony's machine will be difficult and not as flexible as 360.

    The fact is Sony's claim is looking weaker & weaker on each release: Call Of Duty 3, Splinter Cell, Madden 07, Tony Hawks, NBA Homecourt, Need For Speed,
    Ridge Racer: [link url=http://www.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6-7-com parisons-27828.phtml
    ]http://ww w.destructoid.com/ridge-racer-6...[/link]

    Even those games which have had some improvement eg: Fight Night 3 - have also had detail removed: blur effects, less detail in background, lighting, less crowed in background, odd frame rate stutter etc.

    So if i do make a negative mark about PS3 is not i'm a fanboy, it's my personal opinion, just like Sony keeps claiming about the PS3. I think for the price Sony are charging & for a games console they claiming to be the best, and those PS3 fans that it's should be able take criticism; Simply because nothing has proven
    PS3 as a gaming machine is the best.

  • Les #107 5 years ago

    "So if i do make a negative mark about PS3 is not i'm a fanboy, it's my personal opinion"

    A negative remark doesn't make you a fanboy, but constantly posting nonsense MS propaganda does. And that's precisely what you're doing (and if that’s your own opinion, it’s rather sad). You need to let go of the stupid people that do the PR for the console manufacturers and focus on the games instead. The current gen up till now is mightily disappointing, with not a single manufacturer having anything on the shelves that substantiates their claims of the greatness of their machines. Just this afternoon I walked into a game store, looked at what's on display and came to the sad conclusion that any gamer would come to: If you want to buy a console for the games, right now there’s nothing that beats the PS2.

  • TRUTH #108 5 years ago

    I don't agree 'Les' but 360 has shown what next-gen can do: Elder Scrolls, Dead Rising, Gears Of War, Vina Patna, Lost Planet, Fight Night, Ghost Recon 2 (forget the 1st), Command & Conquer, F.E..A.R,...none can be achieved on PS2/XB 1, at next gen standard. Some games are now on PS3, but this year will have many titles that improve - evolve old formulas that just improve the gameplay. At moment PS3 may lack any true single exclusive title to jump to PS3, but i think the 360 has proved next - gen can put a variety of everything and more for gaming...Oh! i do have a PS2, which i still enjoy esp God Of War II.
    Edited by 1 at 14/04/07 @ 19:36

  • Les #109 5 years ago

    "I don't agree 'Les' but 360 has shown what next-gen can do: Elder Scrolls, Dead Rising, Gears Of War, Vina Patna, Lost Planet, Fight Night, Ghost Recon 2 (forget the 1st), Command & Conquer, F.E..A.R,...none can be achieved on PS2/XB 1, at next gen standard."

    If you mean with 'next gen' standard 'more pixels' I have to agree with you. Otherwise it's as poor a generational shift as I've ever seen. None of those games use the 'next gen' power for anything relevant to gameplay. They're all the same old tired formula's as on PS2/Xbox/GC/PC that we've seen for years now. And I partly blame this on the 'no risk' design of the 360: It's only a small evolution on the original xbox. While this may be great for developers/publishers that don't have to alter the way they create games, I think it's terrible for creativity and in the end for us gamers. This generation was started before it was ready and as a result it's a lost one unfortunately. Maybe some good things will come from the Wii.

  • TRUTH #110 5 years ago

    LES...i can't see what you really expect from a next-gen system. Games like Elder Scrolls, Dead Rising, do add a next gen feel that only expensive PC could run. Also all previous gen system have always just improved formulas to previous game play from 8bit, to 16bit, to 32bit era, uptill now...Games like Gears Of War may have added 'pixel rate'; but it runs smooth, the A.i is good customed right for the game, the sound effects,atmosphere, etc...all add to the game. There is nothing wrong with improving formulas; Would you rather play Call Of Duty 1 or 3, Burnout 1 or 5, add graphics, sound, A.I, atmosphere to the formulas of game is a good thing. Take typical Fps: shoot - move - shoot; but look what extra console power has bought: Halo, Metroid (Gamecube), F.E.A.R, Call Of Duty 3, Deus Ex etc...all have have just evolved game ideas and use the power available to them with each generation system. With Bioshock, Too Human, Mass Effects, Alan Wake, all coming this year I'm sure though they use ideas from yesteryear, they still add alot more to gaming then could never be achieved on last PS2/XB1 systems. Look at the new Forza 2 coming for 360 - may be just a driving game; but! running at 60fps, beautiful realistic graphics, vastly improve A.I, millions of car options, online trading and racing, great new physics on cars, more tracks, more, more more etc...This is another example haw each gen can just improve not only in graphics. The games listed before, for me, are games only for 'next-gen' systems, simply because games like these would have to be vastly edited down to be played on PS2 or XB1. Though some games are just a evolution of previous titles: Ikari Warriors, Mercs, Commando 'is now' Lost Planet, Dungeons & Dragons 'is now' Elder Scrolls, Doom 'is now' Halo, Metroid, The Darkness etc...it always give a better, experience: Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Resident Evil, MGS( though i think there overrated) - ave just improved formulas due to each generations power.
    Edited by 3 at 16/04/07 @ 00:59

  • Les #111 5 years ago

    I don't avoid any questions/remarks. But, like in any debate, I sure as hell am not obliged to react to each and every silly fanboy argument of yours. So please, come up with some good arguments, founded in logic and I'll argue with you, or if they're sound, agree with you.

  • Les #112 5 years ago

    Wow, I can't count the times you use the word 'tiresome'... But apparently, you're still enjoying yourself our you'd shut up. :-)

    There's no contradiction: Ignoring and avoiding are different things. 'Avoiding' would mean I'd deliberately pay no attention to a good remark/question of your side, just to make my arguments look better (which of course wouldn't work on anyone with proper intelligence but it's something often used on this site as is clever use of words and trying to make people convice they said things they didn't). But ignoring a stupid remark or question is the proper thing to do in any debate: you don't waste your own time or that of onlookers.

    It seems the one needing to explain things is me...