PDA

View Full Version : PS3 misconceptions and spin


R600
October 28th 07, 06:30 PM
PS3 misconceptions and spin

I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers
complaining about 'lazy ports' to the ps3. They often mention how the
ps3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on
the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by
impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this
type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break
it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the ps3 will never be
as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most ps3 exclusives will
likely continue to suck. First, lets debunk a few common
misconceptions:

"The PS3 is more graphically advanced than the 360"

Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance -
in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can
perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the
360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use
simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally,
the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the
360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the
ps3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small
differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power.

"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"

In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game
code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can
probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the
audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the
breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or
underutilized. On top of that, it's usually not CPU speed that
restricts the visuals in games - it's fill rate.

"Uh, Blue Ray!"

Great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data
off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the
same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load
times, or god forbid if your streaming from disk, tighter constraints
on the amount of data you can stream.

"But it's got a lot more space than DVD"

Ok, you got me there - it does have a lot more space, and there is the
potential to use that to do something cool, but thats unlikely to be
realized in any useful way. There are tons of compression techniques
available for data and I'd personally rather be able to get my data
faster than have more of it. Most developers who use the entire Blue
Ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the ps3 such
as it's slow loading - for instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every
art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So
rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times.
If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it
would likely fit on a DVD without any problem. They do this to speed
up load times, which, as I pointed out before, are painfully slow on
the ps3. So in this case, the extra space is completely wasted.

"Once developers figure out the PS3 they'll maximize the hardware and
it will be amazing"

I suspect a small number of PS3 only developers will optimize the
hardware to do something cool. However, this will be an exception to
the rule, and will likely involved game designs that are specifically
designed for the hardware and funded by Sony. If those will prove to
be fun or not is another question.

Most of the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around
making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance
you get out of the 360 naturally. For instance, some developers are
using those extra SPU's on the cell to prepare data for the rendering
pipeline. Basically, they take the data they would normally send to
the graphics chip, send it to an SPU which optimizes it in some
manner, then send it to the graphics chip. So, once again we see an
'advantage' in hardware being used to make up for a disadvantage in
another area - a common theme with the ps3. And this introduces an
extra frame of latency into the equation, making controller response
slower.

So, the common theme is this; developers must spend significantly more
time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do
easily and with a lot less code. Lets look at how this translates into
practical realities for a moment:

Why the PS3 version often pails in comparison to the 360 version, and
why exclusives often suck:

As outlined above, getting equivalent performance out of the PS3
requires a lot of work unique to the platform, and in many cases, even
with all these tricks, you still won't see equivalent performance.
Thus, many ps3 games have simplified shaders and run at lower native
resolutions than the 360 versions. On top of this, there is shrinking
incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling.

The code needed to make the PS3 work is most likely only useful to you
on the PS3, as the types of tricks you need to do to make the thing
perform are very unique to the platform and unlikely to be useful on
any other architecture now or in the future. These issues all stem
from unbalanced hardware design, and any future hardware that is this
unbalanced will likely be unbalanced in a completely unique way.

Finally, there's the problem of resources. Game Development is, at
it's heart, a resource management challenge. Given finite resources,
do I have these five engineers work on optimizing the PS3 version to
look better, or do I use them to make the game play better and fix
bugs? Do I change my design to fit with what the PS3 hardware does
well, or simply run the game at a slightly lower resolution on the PS3
to make up for it? Developers striving to push the PS3 hardware have
often sacrificed their game in the process.

This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just
the reality from the trenches. Sony let their hardware be designed by
a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design
that would serve the game development community. They are going to
loose hard this round because of it, and I hope that in the next round
they take lessons from this round and produce a more balanced and
usable machine.

http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2007/10/ps3-misconceptions-and-spin.html

Blig Merk
October 28th 07, 07:05 PM
You're an idiot, Air-Head Raid. And to think you used to go by Cyg-
anus the Bringer of Balance. Seems like it should have been the
Buttplug of Imbalance now. And what is it with this switching between
R600 on day and NV55 the next? That long, rambling BLOG was just some
random ****head that obviously doesn't have the slightest inkling
about what he was posting about. This is what the PS3 is doing now and
it only improves more this spring and beyond. Yes, news about the
Getaway, Afrika, and Eight Days is on the way...

E-fun Game Expo 2007

GT5 Prologue
http://ruliwebimg.empas.com/data/news8/10m/27/ps3/ruliweb_ps3_02.jpg

Uncharted
http://ruliwebimg.empas.com/data/news8/10m/27/ps3/ruliweb_un01.jpg

Ratchet and Clank on 56-inch 1080p

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9099/80206615lg2.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8907/87748699cr4.jpg

Jonah Falcon
October 28th 07, 07:15 PM
What's it like to have a tiny penis, Blig?

Paul Heslop
October 28th 07, 07:30 PM
R600 wrote:

> This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing

Yes, you're right.

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

mark johnson
October 28th 07, 07:33 PM
R600 wrote:
> PS3 misconceptions and spin
>
> I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers
> complaining about 'lazy ports' to the ps3. They often mention how the
> ps3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on
> the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by
> impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this
> type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break
> it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the ps3 will never be
> as good as their 360 counter parts, and why most ps3 exclusives will
> likely continue to suck. First, lets debunk a few common
> misconceptions:
>
> "The PS3 is more graphically advanced than the 360"
>
> Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance -
> in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can
> perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the
> 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use
> simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance. Additionally,
> the shader processing on the ps3 is significantly slower than on the
> 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the
> ps3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small
> differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power.
>

Yup your spot on with the GPU being way more powerful in the 360, but it
looks like some of the Dev's have found away to use the Cell for
graphics too, as Sony intended it for. Take a look at the latest crop of
games coming out for the PS3 and what the Dev's are saying what the
cells usage in them.

> "Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"
>
> In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game
> code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors. You can
> probably find a way to split a few things off fairly easily - put the
> audio on one processor, animation on another; but generally the
> breakup is always going to leave several of the SPUs idle or
> underutilized. On top of that, it's usually not CPU speed that
> restricts the visuals in games - it's fill rate.
>
> "Uh, Blue Ray!"
>
> Great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data
> off the blue ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the
> same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load
> times, or god forbid if your streaming from disk, tighter constraints
> on the amount of data you can stream.
>
> "But it's got a lot more space than DVD"
>
> Ok, you got me there - it does have a lot more space, and there is the
> potential to use that to do something cool, but thats unlikely to be
> realized in any useful way. There are tons of compression techniques
> available for data and I'd personally rather be able to get my data
> faster than have more of it. Most developers who use the entire Blue
> Ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the ps3 such
> as it's slow loading - for instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every
> art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So
> rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times.
> If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it
> would likely fit on a DVD without any problem. They do this to speed
> up load times, which, as I pointed out before, are painfully slow on
> the ps3. So in this case, the extra space is completely wasted.
>
> "Once developers figure out the PS3 they'll maximize the hardware and
> it will be amazing"
>
> I suspect a small number of PS3 only developers will optimize the
> hardware to do something cool. However, this will be an exception to
> the rule, and will likely involved game designs that are specifically
> designed for the hardware and funded by Sony. If those will prove to
> be fun or not is another question.
>
> Most of the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around
> making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance
> you get out of the 360 naturally. For instance, some developers are
> using those extra SPU's on the cell to prepare data for the rendering
> pipeline. Basically, they take the data they would normally send to
> the graphics chip, send it to an SPU which optimizes it in some
> manner, then send it to the graphics chip. So, once again we see an
> 'advantage' in hardware being used to make up for a disadvantage in
> another area - a common theme with the ps3. And this introduces an
> extra frame of latency into the equation, making controller response
> slower.
>
> So, the common theme is this; developers must spend significantly more
> time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do
> easily and with a lot less code. Lets look at how this translates into
> practical realities for a moment:
>
> Why the PS3 version often pails in comparison to the 360 version, and
> why exclusives often suck:
>
> As outlined above, getting equivalent performance out of the PS3
> requires a lot of work unique to the platform, and in many cases, even
> with all these tricks, you still won't see equivalent performance.
> Thus, many ps3 games have simplified shaders and run at lower native
> resolutions than the 360 versions. On top of this, there is shrinking
> incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling.
>
> The code needed to make the PS3 work is most likely only useful to you
> on the PS3, as the types of tricks you need to do to make the thing
> perform are very unique to the platform and unlikely to be useful on
> any other architecture now or in the future. These issues all stem
> from unbalanced hardware design, and any future hardware that is this
> unbalanced will likely be unbalanced in a completely unique way.
>
> Finally, there's the problem of resources. Game Development is, at
> it's heart, a resource management challenge. Given finite resources,
> do I have these five engineers work on optimizing the PS3 version to
> look better, or do I use them to make the game play better and fix
> bugs? Do I change my design to fit with what the PS3 hardware does
> well, or simply run the game at a slightly lower resolution on the PS3
> to make up for it? Developers striving to push the PS3 hardware have
> often sacrificed their game in the process.
>
> This post might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just
> the reality from the trenches. Sony let their hardware be designed by
> a comity of business interests rather than a well thought out design
> that would serve the game development community. They are going to
> loose hard this round because of it, and I hope that in the next round
> they take lessons from this round and produce a more balanced and
> usable machine.
>
> http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2007/10/ps3-misconceptions-and-spin.html
>

Once the coding has been cracked and yes some of the game Dev's have
said they have, it will take less time and people to make new games.

Rich Hutnik
October 28th 07, 07:36 PM
On Oct 28, 2:05 pm, Blig Merk > wrote:
> You're an idiot, Air-Head Raid. And to think you used to go by Cyg-
> anus the Bringer of Balance. Seems like it should have been the
> Buttplug of Imbalance now. And what is it with this switching between
> R600 on day and NV55 the next? That long, rambling BLOG was just some
> random ****head that obviously doesn't have the slightest inkling
> about what he was posting about. This is what the PS3 is doing now and
> it only improves more this spring and beyond. Yes, news about the
> Getaway, Afrika, and Eight Days is on the way...
>
> E-fun Game Expo 2007
>
> GT5 Prologuehttp://ruliwebimg.empas.com/data/news8/10m/27/ps3/ruliweb_ps3_02.jpg
>
> Unchartedhttp://ruliwebimg.empas.com/data/news8/10m/27/ps3/ruliweb_un01.jpg
>
> Ratchet and Clank on 56-inch 1080p
>
> http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9099/80206615lg2.jpghttp://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8907/87748699cr4.jpg

Right, as in upscaled images Blig:
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071026072516AATqxDU

R&C is around 700p or so, hardly 1080p, except it does upscale. Still
looks gorgeous, but my regular def TV has better looking images for TV
broadcasts.

- Rich

Khee Mao[_2_]
October 28th 07, 08:05 PM
"R600" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> PS3 misconceptions and spin
>
> I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers
> complaining about 'lazy ports' to the ps3. They often mention how the
> ps3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on
> the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by
> impressive marketing spin, and I'm often amazed at how potent this
> type of rhetoric proves to be. For those unaware, I'm going to break
> it down simply and explain exactly why ports to the ps3 will never be
> as good as their 360 counter parts,
>
>
>
like Oblivion, right?

mark johnson
October 28th 07, 11:06 PM
"Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"

In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game
code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors"

ummm hasn't the 360 got multiple processors too?

Good God, the guy who wrote this is a genius

Noozer
October 29th 07, 01:37 AM
"R600" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> PS3 misconceptions and spin

You missed one glaring advantage that the PS3 has the the 360 doesn't.

It's not locked down tight. You aren't forced to use a MS server to host
your audio/video files. You can simply swap out the hard drive in a PS3,
etc...

I'll do whatever it takes to make sure that Microsoft doesn't get any more
of my money, until they STOP trying to tell the users what they should be
doing.

Paul Heslop
October 29th 07, 01:44 AM
Noozer wrote:
>
> "R600" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > PS3 misconceptions and spin
>
> You missed one glaring advantage that the PS3 has the the 360 doesn't.
>
> It's not locked down tight. You aren't forced to use a MS server to host
> your audio/video files. You can simply swap out the hard drive in a PS3,
> etc...
>
> I'll do whatever it takes to make sure that Microsoft doesn't get any more
> of my money, until they STOP trying to tell the users what they should be
> doing.

I really don't think he cares about your arguments in favour of the
ps3

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Tom
October 29th 07, 03:36 AM
"Mark Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> "Ok, fine, but the cell is like, super powerful"
>
> In theory, sure, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. Game
> code simply doesn't split well across multiple processors"
>
> ummm hasn't the 360 got multiple processors too?
>
> Good God, the guy who wrote this is a genius

You should try and understand what you say first. Yes the 360 has 3 cores,
but they are indentical and symetrical, so they can be utilized evenly and
gaming code is a snap to write to them. The Cell has 8 totally different
non-symentrical cores or SPEs
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29#Synergistic_Processing_E lements_.28SPE.29]
(one is not used for anything but the system, and another specifically for
the OS), and to use each core, you have to write code speficic for them,
developer can use up to six. That takes some real know how and a great
amount of time, even to just use two is a little challenging.

Jonah Falcon
October 29th 07, 04:41 AM
On Oct 28, 8:37 pm, "Noozer" > wrote:
> "R600" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> > PS3 misconceptions and spin
>
> You missed one glaring advantage that the PS3 has the the 360 doesn't.
>
> It's not locked down tight. You aren't forced to use a MS server to host
> your audio/video files.

No, Sony will just let other companies charge you.

Shonk
October 30th 07, 02:44 AM
This guy's an idiot
but he is right in some respects
I own both consoles and they both have theyr advantages and disadvantages

The 360 is superior on the graphics side he forgot to mention the 10meg
embedded dram for the front frame buffer that makes a big difference

The 360 Tripple G5 Core cpu is easy to program and is fast
The 360 has 1meg of L2 Cache

Microsoft nickel and dime you for everything
129 for 120gig hd
30 for wireless headset
20 for charger
10 for battery
etc


The Ps3 has 256meg of dedicated vram which is good
The Ps3 has 256meg of main ram which is a tad low i realy wish it was 512,
the 360 has the advantage here as the 360 ram is much more flexable
if you only need 100meg of ram for the graphics card the rest can be used
for main ram

The ps3 cpu is very hard to program and only has 512k L2 but can be faster
if you spend the time

The ps3 is very well built take a look at the photo's of them in bits
sony has spent alot more on the ps3 design from the inside out

Sony dont nickel and dime you

there's alot more to each machine
but suffice to say they both have theyr up's and downs

AirRaid
October 30th 07, 10:44 PM
On Oct 28, 1:05 pm, Blig <snip>

please shut your ugly, leaking, slime-dripping ****-hole.

Mark A
October 31st 07, 01:57 AM
AirRaid wrote:

> please shut your ugly, leaking, slime-dripping ****-hole.

And they say the art of wit and repartee is dead.

Regards

Mark

Chris F
October 31st 07, 03:01 AM
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:44:58 GMT, "Shonk" > wrote:


>£20 for charger
>£10 for battery
>etc
>
sorry, but are you buying these gold-plated or what?


--

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.