Developer Says 2-3 Years Till PS3 is Maxed Out

[CptTripps]

[citation][nom]nate714[/nom]I think the point was games being developed (for the most part) are not approaching the PS3's potential because so many titles are built to also use the xbox360's hardware.[/citation]

Ignoarance must be bliss. The reason they aren't approaching the PS3 potential is because Sony made it so damn hard to program that people are just now getting the hang of it 3 years later. If they dumb down a multiplatform game for 360 hardware why does the dumbed down 360 almost always look better?

 

[antilycus]

sorry but as long as the MAIN SPE that controls all the PPE is still the only managing hardware of the math-co cores, the PS3 is maxed. Unless you want to rewrite all your games from scratch or make it ONLY for the PS3 (dumb thing to do from a sales stand point) then this article is useless.

 

[antilycus]

[citation][nom]nate714[/nom]I think the point was games being developed (for the most part) are not approaching the PS3's potential because so many titles are built to also use the xbox360's hardware.[/citation]
It can be done better on 360... if you don't care to do teh fact checking or are soley going to look at your viewpoint, there is no point in you even trying to debate anything because are you just taking a close minded approach to get the results that you need to accept that your choice is the best choice. Uncharted 2 is great looking, but so is oblivion...which is 2-3 years old.

 

[speedemon]

I dont believe the gpu is based on the NV47, The 7 series GPU's had fixed piplines, the GPU in the PS3 has programmable shaders and can do 1.8 terraflops... something even a GTX280 cant do.

^ dont get me wrong. I dont like or support consoles but the PS3 has some interesting hardware.

 

[antilycus]

Here is the breakdown for the people that don't know how EVERYTHING works. The ATI chip is one of a kind in the 360. For gaming its better then the RSX (NV47) chipset. There are a few main reasons such as ATi's has 48 pipelines (I think 8 on the RSX) and the ATI chipset has it's own dedicated memory allocation.

As for the processor, the XENON in the 360 is 3 full cores w/ hyperthreading/thread break down (2 processes per cycle, instead of 1). The PS3 is 6 PPE's and 1 SPE(1 full core, i might have the PPE and SPE backwards on which one is the main core) and all 6 PPE's can ONLY be accessed THROUGH the 1 SPE and the SPE has to send the jobs IN ORDER to each individual PPE. These PPE's ARE NOT FULL CORESthey are a lot like the older Math-Co processors. Meaning that if you passing SMALL amount of math crunching to the processors, they are super fast. But if you using analytical algoryhtms like ALL GAMES DO, the PPE's become bogged and the SPE (what the programmer writes) is waiting for the log of PPE tasks to complete which in turns hurts performance.

If a programmer needs to know if object model A has intersected with model object B (like a arm hitting a wall or a ball) it has to send that request to the SPE which sends it to the PPE's which take a vast amount of time compared to the XENON or even the chip in the Wii (forgot the codename).

If you wanted to use a CELL processor for mathmatical analysis it would destroy XENON and others, but the second you rely on the CELL to break down the math and figure out hundred of code object calls, its screwed. Thats why motorstorm (during the start of the race) hits about 10-16 Frames Per Second. Too many polygons, too much computation and the memory and everything else is INSTNATLY backed up

 

[fulle]

[citation][nom]td25er[/nom]There are some real winners on here..fulle..maybe you should stop puffing your chest on the internet and actually have..relations..with a woman.[/citation]

You do realize that women like assholes, right?

 

[invisik]

[citation][nom]speedemon[/nom]I dont believe the gpu is based on the NV47, The 7 series GPU's had fixed piplines, the GPU in the PS3 has programmable shaders and can do 1.8 terraflops... something even a GTX280 cant do.^ dont get me wrong. I dont like or support consoles but the PS3 has some interesting hardware.[/citation]


1.8 teraflop?? source?

 

[invisik]

^
Oh my bad i thought u meant gflops.

 

[sstym]

[citation][nom]gerohmygosh[/nom]Far Cry 2 is on the PS3/360 and they are making Crysis 2 for PS3/360.[/citation]

Sure. What resolution and what kind of settings?

 

[jerreece]

"I still think you're not going to see the PS3 really maxed out for another two to three years. We're using all of the PS3 right now, but you can always be more efficient in the way you use it."

Pick one and stick with it. Are you using it fully, or is it not yet maxed out? Sure you can optimize better, but every piece of hardware has it's max. And you can't OC someone's PS3 to make their game run better. Once you've using it 100%, that's 100%.

 

[jerreece]

[citation][nom]sstym[/nom]Sure. What resolution and what kind of settings?[/citation]

Dude!!! It's going to be in HIGH DEFINITION!!!!!

(I mean 720p... er yeah, "HD"...)

 

[yang]

this article shows how slow the console technology evolve in comparison to PC technology. In two years when the supposed PS3 potential is maxed out, we would probably have DirectX 12 and perhaps even ray tracing in games.

 

[anonymousdude]

The one thing you're forgetting is that consoles run games at lower resolutions. The max at 1920x1080. Even then the majority of games are at 720p. This means games are less demanding on the system. It is the same idea that an old PC can game, but at lower resolutions. Also a consoles OS is very minimalistic compared to Windows thus freeing up resources for the game.

 

[kiniku]

More baseless FUD, PS3 hate, from "expert" programmers that have the time to post misspelled opinions on websites.

Let's see who do we believe. PS3 game programmers from Insomniac or tech wannabe help desk jockies with opinions. The PS3 was designed for growth and longevity. The FUD "too hard to program for" dribble is getting old. PS3 exclusives showcase the GAMING power of the PS3 and it will only get better as Insonmiac states. the only time a PS3 game looks average is when it's shackled to a joint release with a 4GB DVD Xbox 360.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

Is everyone taking steroids here? Why such anger and rage? I personally think that games, no matter HOW good the hardware is, suck due to LACK of creativity. There could be some reaaaally good games that COULD have been produced. Just because YOU HAVE THE MOST ADVANCED HARDWARE doesn't mean jack shit. I don't care HOW good it looks, "crysis".. the game could always be better. Some of the best games use very basic graphics.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]CptTripps[/nom]What does this article have to do with 360 and why did you bring it up when he was talking about PC? Do you have Sony's dong down your throat so far that you can't comment on a PS3 article without bringing up the 360?PS3 has more processing power, 360 has a better vid card that allows 2xAA for almost free, PC kicks the shit out of everything, and you are a dumbass for thinking UC2 looks anything other than a well done DX9 game.[/citation]

And you have to be an ignorant ass not to see that uncharted 2 doesnt look close to a dx9 game. trying getting your eyes checked gramps

 

[invlem]

Lets face it Sony screwed up when they designed the PS3, they made a personal super computer not a console.

Gaming systems need two things, a power graphics chip and a decent CPU to support the graphics chip.
The PS3 has a mediocre graphics chip, and a retardely powerful CPU.
Unfortunately for gaming having a 7 core processor doesn't do jack if your graphics hardware can't even support 1080p resolutions.

Blu-ray is sweet for movies, but sucks for gaming because of the horrible seek times.

One thing you will notice when you buy a PS3 (as I have noticed when I got my Slim):
1. Loading times are garbage because of the Blu-Ray media.
2. It has to install practically every new game to the HDD in order to make #1 at least somewhat bearable.
3. It can't multitask worth a damn even with its Cell processor
- Start a background download from PSN network, then try running a game / movie / video / Blu-ray you'll notice the background download pause...
- Why? The 360 can do it yet it only has 3 processors (maybe the PS3 OS is just inefficiently programmed, hardware wise it should be capable)

Honestly the PS3 has hit its limit already, that or they STILL haven't figured out how to program for it.
Yes, its got a crazy powerful processor, unforunately its not powerful in the one category it should be, and that's running video games.

Its a console, it should have been designed to be a console.

 

[Guest]

If you think a video card in a console has the same, or remotely similar, duty cycle as a video card in a PC you are utterly clueless and should stop spouting off about stuff you know nothing about. A bleeding edge PC will always outperform a console, but consoles use video cards (and CPUs for that matter) exponentially more efficiently so the hardware has a significantly longer halflife.

 

[antilycus]

If I was a head programmer for a leading PS3 developement team, you bet your hide I would go out on Tom's site and tell them the PS3 isn't close to being maxed out yet. It does a couple things. 1) It makes you APPEAR as if you are some high and mighty understanding of the PS3. But if that were true, why would you not make every game 100% all the time. It would be stupid not to. 2) It falsely shows that you are a developer that can see where the future is. If you are a public company, it leads investors (people that keep your business running) to believe that you have some magic trick up your sleeve and they might take part in the next "grand theft auto" investment.

You can call me a hack or an "expert" until you are blue in the face. It still doesn't change the facts or the hardware. The hardware isn't going to change. YOu also have to keep in mind at before developement A LOT of people get together to determine the most cost efficient and most likely to generate profit console available. The nice thing about a console is everyone's hardware is the same. It gives developers more time to focus on the game and less time figuring out what customer base has what hardware installed.

For PC development, you'd be outright surprised how much time it takes to determine what you want the minimum system requirements to be and then determining if the game is still even playable at that point. When making a game, you have to make sure there is a customer base to keep your business running. I promise you that the Crysis team has missed out on a LARGE amount of sales because of them designing for the latest and greatest. If they took more time to worry about legacy systems the game would end up suffering in quality in the end. Its a line you have to draw CLEARLY in PC development while CONSOLE developers don't have to worry about that aspect at all.

And for all the PC Gamers (I used to be one) that are always touting your system is better then console X, no shit. How much have you spent in video cards in the past 5 years? Probably a lot more then the 300 I spent on launch day for my console system. In the end you get much more out of a gaming console (if you want games) then you do out of a PC, for the price. To each their own. And no the RSX chip does not support DX10 or DX11 (nor does ATI's chipset) so its all fancy DX9 work you see in Uncharted 2.

 

[brendano257]

"Scientists say it will be *insert number above infinity* years until the PC is maxed out."

=D