Carmack: Rage PS3 Lagging Behind Xbox 360, PC

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

reichscythe

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2008
47
0
18,580
[citation][nom]ryokinshin[/nom]http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ [...] ne-3/47150[/citation]

Please! Go to Crytek's site and compare the specs of CryEngine 2 to CryEngine 3--CryEngine 3's quintessential specialty is SCALABILITY... meaning, it is more capable of STRIPPING-OUT/REDUCING features, effects, textures, draw-distances, on less capable systems! The idea is that, the consoles (specifically, the PS3) aren't nearly powerful enough to handle CryEngine 2, so Crytek wrote an engine that can massively scale back performance on the fly-- just to keep the framerates chugging at 30FPS!

[citation][nom]ryokinshin[/nom]Gameinformer this month has him stating the total system power gives them more to work with as well as the blu-ray advantages (2 disc Rage, 3 disc Doom 4)[/citation]

Um.. Did you actually READ the bloody interview?? Because he DIDN'T speak to any specific advantages to the PS3's power: Carmack said that there were advantage TRADE-OFFS between the 360 and the PS3 in terms of performance. Further, even though he praised the BluRay tech, he described that the ONLY advantage to BluRay would be number of discs shipped, because, even though there is greater storage space available for uncompressed textures, the PS3 doesn't have enough memory to push the extra texture data and keep decent framerates!


 

matt87_50

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2009
599
0
18,930
hmm, that doesn't mean much coming from a dev thats only ever made pc games, sure they use openGL for their PC stuff, seeing as how the xbox is directX and the PS3 is openGL, you might assume that it would actually be easier to port to the PS3, but the fact of the matter is that the xbox360 is basically the same as a PC, where as the PS3 is not, I also have it under good authority that the openGL implementation on the PS3 is shit, so if they are using that im not surprised they are having problems (there are alternatives to openGL on the ps3)
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
[citation][nom]shrex[/nom]Theres alot of games which are rendering significantly less on the ps3.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ [...] al-articlelower resolutionno AAlower framerate[/citation]



normally i don't jump on the side of sony , but this is more a point of corretion and that is, that NO curernt 360 games have AA either so the point of AA is moot as you can only get AA on the pc platform these days, i ehar alotta dummies sightign AA for 360 and i ahve enver seen AA on any 360 gmae , i can set my pc monitor to same resolutiona s the 350 adn turn my aa on and you can see a MASSIVE difference compared to 360 even when it is on 1080p , i seriously don't expect to see FSAA on cosnoels till next generation , by then the consoles wil also be able to run every game at full 1080p (some games ion 360 really slow down at 1080p and MS themselves recomends you leave it set to 780p on every game) so trhow your comment about no AA out teh window cos no console currently can run AA on high def resolutions.
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
[citation][nom]the associate[/nom]Really? Must have been at bare minimum an amd 2.8ghz triple core with an 8800gt or higher with 512ddr3 and at least 3 gigs of ram, cause thats what you NEED if you want to even try playing Grand Theft Auto 4, which consoles kill pc's in unless u have a high end quad, 4870+ or gtx260 with nearly a gig or more of on board ram, sure it was a sleasy port, but as it stands, if you want to play gta4 better on pc than a console, it's gona cost more than a PS3[/citation]

you are an idiot and im contemplaying on rahter or not i should argue with with an idiot such as yourself, because , you'll just bring me down to your level and beat me at it with exprience ...

well ehre is a try


in all reality it only takes those pc specs for GTA 4 becasue GTA 4 is one of the crappiest port jobs ever done , bad coding and wuick rush job , hence it requries more beefy hardware to run because the code is being ran so sloppy by the program. my pc which is a modest athy x2 5000+ oced to 3 ghz with only 3 gigs of ram , and a gf 9600 GT , can run crysis at highs settigns with frame rates over 60 this si FAR better than what the 360 can handle graphically, i ahve a 360 as well as teh gta 4 for it , and i can tell you crysis on high esttigns (not v.high) looks amillion times beter than gta 4 . so it is a lousy game to compare pc version to console version for , how about this , blazing angels 2 , i have the pc version as well as the 360 version the 360 version ocassionaly see a stutter from memory load whens et to 1080 p , however i can max res on my pc monitor for teh pc version and i dont see below 90 fps. Which brings me back to my original piont .. that bieing youa re a doofus ! :p
 

the associate

Distinguished
Jun 3, 2008
115
0
18,630
Did i not mention yes it was a sleazy port? I believe I did, my obvious point was the average pc cant subdue the cpu's the consoles have, yes obviously in the graphics dep consoles blow, so why do you have to act like such an asshole. If you disagree, say so and tell me why, dont be a dick about it ffs cause I wasnt
 

baterz_up

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2009
15
0
18,560
9600gt on high with 60 fps? on what 800x600? and your calling him an idiot? lol? :S

gta4 and crysis dont compare, one game needs raw power, the other needs way to much video ram, but also, crappy ports dont compare either, i kinda get ur point, but bad example, and 800x600 doesnt compare to 720P+ either, so another bad example...worse actually, I love flamers who cant flame for their own good
 

badaxe2

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2008
180
0
18,630
Each of the six SPU's on the PS3 are designed for independent/collective job management. True the RSX is slower but the Cell is designed to pick up the rendering slack, and is actually better suited to do so because of its higher bandwidth.

Meh, seems only 1st parties know how to program correctly for that system anyways. Except for perhaps Criterion and Infinity Ward.
 

cregan89

Distinguished
Feb 26, 2006
11
0
18,560
I never really understood how people could possibly claim that the PS3 had more graphics power than the 360. Yes the PS3's "Cell" CPU puts the 360's "Power PC" CPU away, but graphics aren't processed on a CPU. They're processed on the GPU. The 360's "ATI Xenos" GPU is quite a bit more powerful than the PS3's "RSX" GPU.

And nowhere does anybody ever claim that the PS3's GPU is more powerful than the 360's. Not even Sony has ever tried to claim that. You can't find one piece of legitimate documentation that claims that the RSX is more powerful than the Xenos. It's been proven time and time again. A great example is GTA4. On the 360 it runs in full 1280x720 @ 60fps. On the PS3 it had to be stepped down to 1152x640 and even then still faced substantial frame rate drops. And these are scientifically proven real world examples. "http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/grand-theft-auto-iv-ps3-vs-xbox-360-special-article?page=2"

Sure the PS3 has a more powerful CPU than the 360 (even thats debatable), but to say that the PS3 has better graphics than the 360 is a complete play on words and basically a downright lie and one of the biggest myths in the gaming world.
 

baterz_up

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2009
15
0
18,560
Who said the ps3's gpu is better than the 360? :|

if im not mistaken we were comparing a pc to the ps3, but hands down I agree and no one shouldn't, the 360's card will kill the ps3 in gta4 (mind you it was also ported TO the ps3 as well) since the RSX has a measly 256 ram as opposed to the Xenos with 512, and we all know more memory = better fps in better resolutions, regardless of the RSX having up to 224MB of the 3.2GHz XDR main memory via the CPU, since no one knows how to code properly for the ps3 still...
 
G

Guest

Guest
eh? isnt GTA4 running at ~30FPS in Xbox360? according to some benchmarks (compared when the PC version was released).
Regardless of video memory capacity, the Xbox 360 GPU's massively parallel shaders is one of it's strengths imo (Radeon X1800/X1900 class but functions similar to the HD 2000 class), compared to teh fixed/static amount of shader cores (vertex/pixel) of the PS3's RSX (around geForce 7800/7900 class GPU). Even in the PC, the X1800/1900 class gpu's outclasses the GeForce 7900 series when it comes to newer and shader heavy based games (in which games take advantage more and more these days)
 

99lawrence

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2009
9
0
18,510
[citation][nom]baterz_up[/nom]Who said the ps3's gpu is better than the 360? :|if im not mistaken we were comparing a pc to the ps3, but hands down I agree and no one shouldn't, the 360's card will kill the ps3 in gta4 (mind you it was also ported TO the ps3 as well) since the RSX has a measly 256 ram as opposed to the Xenos with 512, and we all know more memory = better fps in better resolutions, regardless of the RSX having up to 224MB of the 3.2GHz XDR main memory via the CPU, since no one knows how to code properly for the ps3 still...[/citation]

It is no lie. It's because the CPU can help RSX achieve it's potential through techniques such as vertex culling. That makes the PS3 the more capable system. The 360s Xenos is ill-afforded such luxuries. Sony did their homework and built the machine around such factors. MS did not, but were always at an advantage due to the Windows platform aiding development. Hence, certain games being "better" on the 360. Let alone porting from the 360 to the PS3. Look up NUMA vs UMA to understand why problems occur. It's not that the PS3 can't handle it. It's because developers were playing to different strengths when they first built their game engine. Xenos never has 512mb available all to itself either. That CPU has some work to do to you know.
 

baterz_up

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2009
15
0
18,560
Agreed, il read up the NUMA vs UMA thing, and i didnt know xenos didnt have all 512mb either :|
I wish developers would bother with its potential, gt5 will be in full 1080p @ 60fps so theres really no excuses...
 
G

Guest

Guest
PS 3's problem is that it's unproven tech smashed together causing a domino effect. Blurays are too slow to play off of disc, so they depend on the speed of the HDD, but the PS 3 uses a labtop HDD which is too slow to keep up speed, so then it pushes it to the ram to keep up which is the same as the 360. If any of these features were designed for speed it could out perform the 360. DVD's instead of BR, or a custom HDD, or 1 or 2 gigs of ram. Also what good does a cell processor do when the 512mb ram is standing in the way? Also the PS 3's slave processors are too weak to really increase performance as much as you'd think. And what good would it do if the graphics card is almost identical to the 360? Fun fact, the 360's triple core proceessor is actually a tweaked cell processor master.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The PS3 version runs at 60 fps, just like the 360. The rasterization is about 20% slower, but that just means it will resolution scale a bit earlier as scenes get more challenging. The framerate only drops when the load changes faster than the resolution scaling adjusts or (more commonly) the game logic overruns it's time, which we can't dynamically adjust as well.

John Carmack
 
G

Guest

Guest
What's amazing to me about this Carmack goon is a quote I read by him "We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games. That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version." The reason it doesn't run on PC is clear after reading that quote. This goon and his team of goons didn't even test it on PC. I hope this goon never sells another PC game again. I'm sure most people boycott his PC releases in the future simply on principle. What a disgusting display. Regardless of how important you see the PC market - if you release a damn game on a platform you make sure it works before releasing it. This was the most embarrassing PC release I can ever remember and this goon should be ashamed of himself for even considering himself a dev.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.