Final Fantasy 13 to Use "Nearly 100%" of PS3

Page 2 - 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.

astrotrain1000

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2007
21
0
18,560
0
When he says 100%, I don't think he just means cpu usage. He more than likely means they are getting the most of out the system that anyone could. I'm not saying this statement is true just that he probably means that. In the quote FFVII did push the PSone. When it first came out it was one of the best looking games but by FFIX the graphics improved considerably.
 

megamanx00

Distinguished
Sep 3, 2008
713
0
18,960
17
Well, perhaps this game will simply use all available threads at near 100%. Of course if it's doing in 130 instructions what could be done in 20, then there is certainly room for improvement even if you claim it's using 100% of the PS3s power. Thing is, if it looks just as good on the 360 as it does on the PS3 when the PS3 version is being maxed out, then either the PS3 is weaker overall than the 360, or the more likely option the compiler still sux for the PS3 and is an inefficient pain, hence one more reason there are more games for the 360. Even though the Cell is superior for raw number crunching to the 3 core chip in the 360, Cell is really just one true CPU core with 7 small number crunchers while the 360 has three Power PC cores that can handle 6 threads of vector math, AI, and game engine logic.

One should also consider that the GPU in the PS3 is a basically modified GeForce 7800, and that much of it's claimed 1.8 TFlop processing power is for fixed function math like dealing with triangles and fixed function fog effects. The combined power of its shaders is much closer to like 200 GFLOPS. With the universal shader architecture of the 360 it is more efficient in shader power as opposed to the PS3 which has separate pixel and vertex shaders.

IT will be interesting to see the results when this game comes out. Will the PS3 prove it's worth the price premium over the 360 as a gaming system, or will that price premium just be for having a blu ray player? Will the 360 prove it can give smooth gameplay while making images just as good, or almost as good, as the PS3?
 

fuser

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
115
0
18,630
0
I too can use 100% of the PS3's potential:

while(1) fork();

I'll need to read the FF XIII reviews. I recall FF XI being a pain in the ass because you couldn't skip the cut scenes, and every time you died in a battle that took place just after the cut scene meant that you had to watch it again. Some of those cut scenes were 5 or 10 minutes in length.
 

cl_spdhax1

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2008
42
0
18,580
0
.. i still don't understand the article. does it mean that this FF is so graphic, audio, physic, etc sooo good that the ps3 is running all of its cores at 100% almost all of the time, or does it just meant the programmers utilized/optimized all the different cores (or engines for cells processor, i think it's called) for their different jobs/purpose?

I guess we can only wait and see.
 

runt23

Distinguished
May 29, 2006
5
0
18,510
0
That is a very broad statement. As others have said, 100% use of the hardware doesnt equal 100% use of its potential. A crap ton of games are under optimized and could do a lot better with good programing. If you can get prime 95 to work on ps3 im sure you can get it to utalize 100% of the cpu cores.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Why did they only put 256MB of ram on the PS3? That won't last 1 decade.

>> Sony uses XDR mermory which is runs much faster and provides higher bandwidth... You need to look into the memory usage efficency and not only meory size
 

demonhorde665

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
802
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]Why did they only put 256MB of ram on the PS3? That won't last 1 decade.[/citation]



wrong here , 256 mb of ram on a console goes ALOT further than 256 mb on a pc.

this is one area where consoles are ahead of pc's and that is main board buss bandwidth , the current generation of consoles are around 256 bit buss speed , while pc's are current at 64 bit buss speed on teh mainboard aka sytem ram and cpu buss , while teh video card uses a much higher buss the the fact that a vid card still has to push some data the cpu's way the video cards higher buss has to squeeze it's data intot eh cpu bus which is maller , this doenst mean that pc's are tech inferior though , this is really quite intentional because a new buss size would requrie chips made for that buss which would require code that is way difernt for this reason teh mainboard buss on comps advances slower than the main board buss on a console . basically this means comps need TONS of system ram to handle data on teh smaller buss , while a console doesnt requrie the same ram , because teh whole buss for all components are the same , so ther is no slow down between memory data fetching so they can afford to use less memory

hope this explains thigns ... 256 mg on a console will last a good deal

consider these facts aboutt eh alst generation

xbox unified memory totalling at = 64 mg

ps2 - 8 mg sound ram 8 , mg vid ram and 16 mg ,main ram
total ram = 32 mb

dreamcast 4 mg sound ram , 8 mg vid ram 12 meg system ram
total ram = 24 mg

(cant find figures for game cube but it ws between DC and ps2 if i remeber correctly)

poin t being all those systems lasted a good while , and in fact ther are still new games beign amde for both ps2 and game cube that push those systems bountries but still are doable. and i'm sure the original xbox with it's bigger memory palate would still have games being made for it if MS did not cancel the system upon 360's release. the curent gen systems have more than enouhg ram to handle their needs for the years to come before they are replaced with newer consoles.
 

safcmanfr

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
60
0
18,580
0
100% of what?

100% of its cell CPU, or 100% of its crappy GPU or 100% of its pathetic amount of RAM?

The only good component of the PS3 is the Cell Processor. I doubt they will be using 100% of that, cos the GPU and RAM wont keep up.
 

safcmanfr

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
60
0
18,580
0
It will use 100% of what?

100% of the cell processor? or 100% of its crappy GPU, or 100% of its pathetic amount of RAM?


And dont say console ram goes further than PC ram. Crytek couldnt port crysis to PS3 (or xbox) cos of the lack of ram on the console, not cos of anything else.
 

gamerk316

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2008
325
0
19,060
33
Again, RAM isn't the issue, as a result of the 256-bit bus avaliable.

Besides, Windows cheats by installing everything to a HD, and then loading into RAM, and usually not deleateing a value after it is used (to save time later). The PS3, on the other hand, will load the majority of data off the disk only as needed, and clean up after itself when data is no longer needed. Essentially, only the background, characters, sound, and the UI will be in RAM at any one point. Cutscene taking place? Close down the UI to free up space (windows would just leave it in RAM to prevent having to re-load it later).

Hence, you can get by with far less resources. This also explains why console releases are far more stable, becuase as a result of not storing everything in RAM at once, an individual bug is easy to track down.

And for the record, the PS2 had a 300 something MHz main CPU. Its all about how you use the hardware, not how good that hardware is.
 

techguy911

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2007
251
0
18,940
3
Yea WHEN is it going to be released 2050? i have been waiting for years.

This console is no longer next gen video,ram and cpu have evolved beyond what the ps3 has to offer.

 

Startingline13

Distinguished
Oct 17, 2008
38
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]kiniku[/nom]Compared to the storage capacity of the PS3 you'd be lucky if you could get three pages of spoken words of uncompressed language on the 360 compared to the PS3. 4GB vs 50GB. Nice try though.[/citation]


Well if you are going to try to use a dual layer Blu-ray disc (50g) you might as well inlcude a dual layer DVD into the equation as well. (8g)
 

FlayerSlayer

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2009
82
0
18,580
0
Wait, FF7 took advantage of the PS1? FF8 or FF9 maybe, but FF7 was so drastically underusing the hardware with untextured polygons, a low 'gon count, and barely and other effects.

But really, I'm thinking it will run just as well on X360 as on PS3, just maybe needing to change discs on X360. (For the record, I'd but PS3 before XBox360, but right now have neither.)
 

JonnyDough

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2007
496
0
18,940
3
Final Fantasy died for me when it got all Japanime. I played the original on NES and the newer ones just don't really interest me. If I can't understand the stupid game I'd just as soon stick with getting a Wii and play Legend of Zelda.
 

JonnyDough

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2007
496
0
18,940
3
I'm slightly annoyed (although also slightly aroused) by the characters in FF now. They're always half asian and half caucasian. Why can't they just Hispanic? At least that way they'd be believable. These sorta Asians with blue green eyes kind of irk me. To Japanese software developers: Is it so hard to make regional games? Talk about cutting costs.
 

ninjis

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]Why did they only put 256MB of ram on the PS3? That won't last 1 decade.[/citation]

It's the same reason there was only 1MB of graphics memory in the gamecube, it's extremely fast and is on a very wide bus. They sacrificed the ability to keep a lot of data in memory for being able to move data in and out of memory really quickly. The only time they pay a penalty for this is when the system must go back out to disk for something.

The 360 might suffer graphically by having a shorter drawing distance, and it might not have quite the power the ps3 has when it comes to parallel processing, but given square's attention to detail I imagine that the 360 version won't leave the shop until both version are virtually identical both in appearance and performance.
 

joebob2000

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2006
525
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]wrong here , 256 mb of ram on a console goes ALOT further than 256 mb on a pc. this is one area where consoles are ahead of pc's and that is main board buss bandwidth , the current generation of consoles are around 256 bit buss speed , while pc's are current at 64 bit buss speed on teh mainboard aka sytem ram and cpu buss , while teh...[/citation]

You are right that performance is directly related to bus speed, but it's measured in clock cycles not in bits (bits do play a role, however.) The ability to use a given amount of memory more efficiently is thanks to single tasking, something that consoles can take advantage of since not too many people want to check their email while they play COD 4.

Oh, and you spelled "the" wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Streaming Video & TVs 2
E Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 8
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 16
G Streaming Video & TVs 33
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 33
tuanmai Streaming Video & TVs 21
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 76
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 36
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 34
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 16
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 30
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 28
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 21
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 24
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 33
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 20

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS