Id / John Carmack announces the PS3 version of RAGE will run at only20-to-30fps, breaking promise of all versions running at 60fps. Meanwhilethe Xbox 360 version still runs at 60fps

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 21:20:37 -0400, "Tom" wrote:



"Memnoch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:14:17 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll
wrote:


I would say that within the next 5 years or so, realtime graphics on
PC will rival the first Toy Story movie. Many would say PC graphics
have already surpassed Toy Story, but they confuse realistic artwork
with technical graphics quality, and it just isn't true.

Interesting that you mention Toy Story (2005). Compare that to say Final
Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). Even 8 years later that film has
phenomenal artwork. Games wise I think Toy Story has been surpassed and I
don't think we are too far from equaling the Final Fantasy film.

You mean 1995 for Toy Story :-). I agree with your statement though. I
actually went and saw FFTSW at theatres, and though I was blown away by the
graphics animation in that movie, still unrivalled even for any PC animation
to this day, but the story was pretty weak so I thought it was not worth it.

I think "Last Flight of the Osiris" is probably better actually and would love
to have seen a full length Matrix animated movie of this quality.

In article , Mario Speranda says...

BS to English: "We just dont have the know-how".

Why does "The Bog" on COD4 turn into a 0.5FPS lagfest on the PS3?


--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Aug 1, 7:34*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT), argento32



wrote:
On Aug 1, 2:38*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT), argento32

wrote:
On Aug 1, 1:15*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:57:35 -0700 (PDT), argento32

wrote:
On Aug 1, 4:00*am, wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:13:43 -0700 (PDT), parallax-scroll

wrote:
On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT), Air Raid

wrote:
The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than
thePlayStation 3version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals.

I realize this post is intended to start a flame war, and as a fan of
PC gaming, I often try to wind up the console players, but lets take a
serious look at the issue.

Rage was programmed by id, traditionally a PC game company.
The XBox360 shares so much architecture with the PC, that it's not
surprising an id game would run well on it.

Actually that is not really true. *Although the Xbox 360 shares much
in common with PC architecture on the software side, as far as
Microsoft's tools, development environment, DirectX API, etc, but if
you take a close look at the actual hardware architecture of the 360,
it's not a PC at all. *
The Xenon CPU is a custom triple-core PowerPC.
No PC uses PowerPC CPU that I'm aware of. *

Which is really a testament to how good DirectX is at running on
multiple CPU platforms. *What a shame that the PS3 came out with the
selling point that it was some sort of super computer of the future,
with all sorts of mind boggling possibilities, when the reality is
that the aging XBox 360, despite it's on-paper specs, simply had a
much more mature software architecture with which to build games upon.

The Xenos GPU, is also a
custom piece of silicon, that has no direct PC counterpart.

Very true, because the average 3 year old PC runs circles around it.
We would need to go back further to find a true PC counterpart.

Although
PC GPUs that shipped after the 360, starting with the R600 (Radeon HD
2900), took after the 360's GPU, it would not be correct to say the
360's graphics architecture is based on any PC design. *The embedded
graphics memory is one of many features that make the 360's Xenos GPU
a very "anti PC" architecture. It's not unlike the GameCube & Wii,
which, like 360, use a PowerPC CPU and a highly custom, console-
specific GPU created from the ground up specifically for the console.

Not disagreeing, would just like to once again point out that all
these games, despite their higher price tag, not only perform inferior
to their PC versions, but also lag behind in terms of control options,
modifications and the like.

Unlike the original Xbox which used a GPU (NV2A) very similar to the
GeForce 4. Overall, Xbox was just a slightly modified PC in almost
every way, from it's Celeron/Pentium III CPU, to its bus architecture,
to its GPU.

They should have made the 360 more like a PC, since a PC is better at
gaming.

The PS3 actually has more PC-based architecture in it than the 360
does. *

Difficult to imagine. *The PC and Sony are kind of like a water and
wood combination.. *the result can be pretty in the short term and
tends to rot over time.

While the CELL CPU is totally alien to PC architecture, the RSX
GPU is very much a PC-based design, it's basicly a stripped down
GeForce 7800.

How unfortunate for those that paid a lot for this crapstink thinking
they would get entertainment value out of it.

The few technical articles I've read about the PS3 seem to infer that
its an extremely powerful console, but that power is difficult to
exploit.

And power that is difficult to exploit is not very powerful is it?

Sony built something great, but also very proprietary. If you
look at their technology through the years, that is very typical Sony.

That's Sony alright. *Every technology decision is founded in "how can
we lock them into our brand?", rather than "how can we make our brand
known for value proposition to the consumer". *Just like Apple..

For programmers that aren't completely immersed in PS3 architecture,
making a port must be very difficult.

Making a fun game has been a challenge for them too.

The PS3 is really not much more powerful than the Xbox 360. *The
biggest advantage PS3 has, is the amount of floating point performance
it gets from the CELL CPU (over 200 GFLOPs) *It's roughly twice that
of the Xbox 360 CPU (over 100 GFLOPs) .

If only processing floating point numbers were fun, this would make
for great gaming!

The 360's Xenos GPU is very much superior to the RSX GPU in PS3..

Therein lies the crux of the thread subject line.

For the most part, the extra power that CELL has, has to go into
making up for the shortcomings of RSX, just to get roughly upto the
360's level in graphics. *Sure there are some PS3 games specifically
written to take full advantage of the architecture which outperform
any 360 game, yet there are so many more 360 games that outperform the
same game on PS3, and some 360-only games that outshine anything on
PS3.

And almost all of them, where a port to PC was even attempted, perform
better than either one, offering better graphics, even with lots of
other services running in the background, an e-mail client, the PC
doubling as a web server, and so forth.

Overall the 360 and PS3 *are very close in capability, much closer
than PS2 and original Xbox. * Both consoles are well behind even
modern low-end PCs that have decent gaming performance.

Amen brother.

I must say, as a console gamer, I am already looking forward to the
next-gen Xbox3 and PS4, as well as the rumored 'Wii HD'

The innovative Wii controller throws a whole different topic in. *They
did something nobody else was doing, focused on having fun, and
benefitted from it. *Hats off to Nintendo.

As a tech enthusiast, as far as the PC side, I am looking forward to
the upcoming DX11 GPU from AMD & Nvidia, the R8xx/Evergreen and GT300,
as well as Intel's 'manycore' Larrabee architecture.

Is there really any evidence that DX11 will be that more compelling
than DX10? *And was DX10 really that much more compelling than DX9?
I'm not trying to be overly skeptical here, as I look forward to new
technology too, but I get the increasing sense (especially after
eyeballing FC2 at DX10 at high resolutions with everything maxed) that
we are "there" when it comes to graphic quality, and that game
developers should be focusing on things like immersion, value to
consumer, overall fun factor. *Breaking away from the hyped corporate
marketing-team inspired bull**** and focusing on how to appeal to
gamers rather than buyers of well advertised crap.

Screw tech talk.

I find PC Gaming annoying and prefer console gaming. I don't care what
the power under the hood is. I know what I like though and PC gaming
isn't for me I'll take my PS3 and 360 anyday.

It's okay man. *A lot of people just stick to playing tic tac toe on
paper because it gives them a headache to try to wrap their feeble
minds around the technology.

I see PC gaming as the lowest level on the gaming rung.

Then you're clearly out of touch with it.

Enjoy your moms basement and your WOW.

I'm too busy enjoying your sister's vagina and her hummer skills. *Now
THAT's what makes me go "wow".

Girls don't touch trolls like you.Stick to your fantasies. Did you
have to look up all those big words yourself it did mommy help you?

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT), argento32
wrote:

Girls don't touch trolls like you.Stick to your fantasies. Did you
have to look up all those big words yourself it did mommy help you?

The guy is a name changing troll in the newsgroup, but if you're going
to play match-wits, he definitely has you beat.

Perhaps just leave it alone.

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:32:07 -0400, Tim O
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT), argento32
wrote:

Girls don't touch trolls like you.Stick to your fantasies. Did you
have to look up all those big words yourself it did mommy help you?

The guy is a name changing troll in the newsgroup, but if you're going
to play match-wits, he definitely has you beat.

Perhaps just leave it alone.

You might need to re-phrase that so he can understand it. Concessions
need to be made in cognitive disabilities due to long term console
gaming.

On Aug 2, 2:32*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT), argento32

wrote:
Girls don't touch trolls like you.Stick to your fantasies. Did you
have to look up all those big words yourself it did mommy help you?

The guy is a name changing troll in the newsgroup, but if you're going
to play match-wits, he definitely has you beat.

Perhaps just leave it alone.

I feel far from beat but he is pretty much just a pest. In a game of
wits he comes out empty handed.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 13:12:59 -0700 (PDT), argento32
wrote:

On Aug 2, 2:32*pm, Tim O wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT), argento32

wrote:
Girls don't touch trolls like you.Stick to your fantasies. Did you
have to look up all those big words yourself it did mommy help you?

The guy is a name changing troll in the newsgroup, but if you're going
to play match-wits, he definitely has you beat.

Perhaps just leave it alone.

I feel far from beat but he is pretty much just a pest. In a game of
wits he comes out empty handed.

I think you are both childish little ******s but what do I know? :-)

On Jul 30, 2:48*pm, Air Raid wrote:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=220530

Carmack: Rage runs faster on Xbox 360
Thursday 30-Jul-2009 5:33 PM PS3 version at 30fps, PC and 360 60fps,
id reveals
25 Comments

The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than
the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals.

In a ten-page reveal in its latest issue, Edge writes that the Xbox
360 version of Rage - which uses id's new Tech 5 engine - matches the
60fps framerate of the PC version, while PS3 runs at just "20-30fps".

It's not mentioned whether the PS3 framerate will be addressed by the
game's eventual release.

"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance
out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little
bit slower - no two ways about that.

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the
same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what
a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he
said.

The PS3 edition was thought to be the most technically capable of the
console pair, thanks to id being able to squeeze the gigantic shooter
onto a single-player Blu-ray disc, compared to Xbox 360's four DVDs.

The developer also confirmed that a Mac version of Rage is still in
development.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------

First of all, before anyone says anything, the blame for this squarely
rests on Sony's decision to accept a rather weak GPU from Nvidia. The
RSX GPU in PS3 is basicly a stripped down, downgraded version of the
NV47 / G70 / GeForce 7800 GTX released in mid 2005 for PCs. * * The
RSX is also significantly weaker than the Xenos GPU in Xbox 360, in
most areas.

GeForce 7800 vs RSX comparison
-pixel rendering pipelines/ROPs-
GeForce 7800: 16
RSX: 8

-pixel fillrate-
GeForce 7800: 6800 Mpixels/sec (16 ROPs x 430 MHz)
RSX: 4000 Mpixels/sec (8 ROPs x 500 MHz)

-external memory bus width-
GeForce 7800: 256-bit
RSX: 128-bit

-external bandwidth-
GeForce 7800: ~54 GB/sec
RSX: ~22 GB/sec

Is anybody even that interested in this game? I was excited when I
first heard that id was coming out with a new game, then when I read
the concept that excitement fizzed out like a can of soda that was
just opened.

I can see where the company would want to focus more on the Xbox 360
and the PC, but could we leave the blatant PS3 bashing out of this?

On Jul 31, 8:50*am, William Wparks023@gmail wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert P Holley

wrote:
Poor Sony. They just can't catch a break this generation. They are
dead last in sales (and the gap is increasing), their library is much
worse than the X360 (source: gamerankings) and about 95% of all the
multiplatform games are better on the X360.

Hard to believe this is the same company that dominated the previous
two generations.

Yeah and don't forget all the people who died either trying to get one
of these (either trampled by crowds after waiting in line for 12 hours
or shot/stabbed/decrapitated during console robbery gone bad).

Too bad the consolers haven't realized PC games always have been and
always will be superior, in every way.

Maybe because they're not.

From a technical perspective, PC games will continue to dominate
because there are much higher specs for the hardware.

However, there are plenty of games that were conceived by console/
portable-only developers that are awesome.

On Jul 31, 3:53*pm, Memnoch
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:51:09 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"

wrote:

"William" Wparks023@gmail wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert P Holley

Too bad the consolers haven't realized PC games always have been and
always will be superior, in every way.

on a pc costing the price of an xbox 360 ?
and its a shame there's less and less big games getting released for the pc
every year due to nobody wanting to pay for them.

Perhaps then we need new, tougher anti-piracy software so that people have no
choice but to buy the software? ;-)

LOL

Good point.