John Carmack interview talks PS3 & X360 [Archive]

hey69

21-Sep-2005, 20:23

-----------shamelesly copied from somewhere else---------------------------
There's a multiple page interview in the new Game Informer (Crackdown for Xbox360 from the GTA creator is the cover story). They talk about Doom for Mobile, the Doom movie, and more. Here's an excerpt of the interesting stuff...

We'd heard that one of the very first PS3 dev kits showed up at your door. Any truth to that?
Yes, we have PS3 dev kits here.

How are those working out?
The Microsoft dev kits for the Xbox 360 are much nicer. I'll say that. We do intend that on our next project, we are intentionally targeting all three platforms - PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. I've actually just this last week started moving my development focus from the PC to the Xbox 360. Microsoft has done a spectacular job of making that an easy move. You get to use the same tools, the same environment, the debugging is great, and the performance analysis tools are great.

In regards to the PS3 dev kit, has it been a big challenge from a technological standpoint?
It's actually not going to be that bad in the larger scheme of things. If you look at the previous generation, the PS2 was not a good platform for developers to work on. From a hardware standpoint, the PS3 is a lot nicer, because it essentially has a PC graphics accelerator in it and it has simple memory. I think Microsoft made a better choice with the processor technology than Sony did. But, to a first approximation, they are both plenty capable systems. I was much more down on the PS2 than I am on the PS3. I definitely did prefer the Xbox over the PS2 by a wide margin. I think I prefer the 360 over the PS3 by a less wide margin.

What are your thoughts about the potential of these two systems in the overall market?
I don't like how the hype is always so ridiculous at new console launches. Because the truth is, by the time any of these things ship, you will b

e able to buy a higher end PC. It won't have better cost performance - the value won't be as good, but for the people that try to make it sound like the PS3 is going to be an order of magnitude better than anything else, it's just not true.

On the future of Doom:
"It's likely there will be a Doom 4, but id probably won't make it." [said it would be like how Raven is doing ]Quake 4

-----------shamelesly copied from somewhere else-------------------------

Carl B

21-Sep-2005, 20:30

Isn't this a couple of months old at this point? Or is this a new interview where he's repeating similar themes?

(A link would have been nice)

hey69

21-Sep-2005, 20:38

apparently it comes from the latest magazine. since it's a print, i cant copy paste a real source

Titanio

21-Sep-2005, 20:41

Isn't this a couple of months old at this point? Or is this a new interview where he's repeating similar themes?

Column B.

Lysander

21-Sep-2005, 20:44

why ps3 beta dev kit looks so big, is there additional cooler in or something

blakjedi

21-Sep-2005, 20:54

Carl B

21-Sep-2005, 20:56

Titanio

21-Sep-2005, 20:58

Interesting that Carmack feels so strongly pro360... To me he's always seemed liek a coder's coder so I woul dthink from a technical challenge/potential standpoint he'd be PS3 all the way... *shrug* Also intersting is the he never really states why from a technical standpoint. What about the x360 CPU does he prefer? Symmetry? VMX units? Cache?

See his Quakecon keynote. The last thing he wants is "challenge", at least additional challenge beyond what he's happy to do on PCs. He regards Cell as a pain in the ass to port to, and that it pretty much requires a complete rewrite of code. X360 is not as bad in that regard. It's not about technical merit or potential, just the cost (man-hours and otherwise) to move a PC-centric codebase over to Cell. X360 is a closer model to what he'll be doing anyway for PC, but PS3 is more "out there". He generally also prefers the X360 dev environment (dev tools are an obvious advantage for MS, still, despite Sony's improvements). It should be noted that he himself characterises his complaints as "niggles" however. A lot of people blew his comments completely out of proportion back when they were originally made at Quakecon.

mckmas8808

21-Sep-2005, 21:11

hadareud

21-Sep-2005, 21:13

Good points blak. I don't understand it either. In this interview you can see the basis coming out in him a little though. I caught you Carmack.:wink:

I don't know why people think that Xbox360 is that close to PC development. Probably closer than PS3, but still quite different I think ...

Titanio

21-Sep-2005, 21:22

I don't know why people think that Xbox360 is that close to PC development. Probably closer than PS3, but still quite different I think ...

It is indeed still quite different. Carmack even complained about X360's CPU too! But it's not as different as Cell/PS3. The Crytek guys basically said the same thing - before they got PS3 kits, they thought PS3 and X360 would have similar needs and requirements, but once they got the PS3 kits they realised that PS3 was more different from X360 than X360 even was from PCs.

And the only thing Carmack is biased toward is controlling costs, which is very understandable, particularly for a dev who aims to maintain a low headcount. PS3 is marching out of step, technically, with the other platforms he's working on, and that's not a good thing for them, as it will require more work. For them, PC is the "normal" environment, and everything that diverges from that is extra work. X360 is also a little more work, but not nearly to the extent that PS3 is, for them. That's not universally the case with every, or even most devs, but it is the case with iD, so their opinion is quite understandable.

Dave Glue

21-Sep-2005, 21:22

I don't know why people think that Xbox360 is that close to PC development.
Could be he has the development systems and actual experience coding with each?

Just a crazy thought. :)
Probably closer than PS3, but still quite different I think ...
I'll try and dig up the link, but actually he's not the first developer to imply there's actually less of a gap between PC->Xbox360 than 360->PS3 (Gabe perhaps?).
Edit: Beaten to it.

version

21-Sep-2005, 21:51

http://web.axelero.hu/varga1973/xc.JPG

hadareud

21-Sep-2005, 21:54

I'll try and dig up the link, but actually he's not the first developer to imply there's actually less of a gap between PC->Xbox360 than 360->PS3 (Gabe perhaps?).
Edit: Beaten to it.

It was actually that Crytek guy who said it (I remember because I translated the interview). But like Titanio stated it's quite different still.

But I think Carmack is pretty level headed and speaks quite positive about both consoles. I guess I just wanted to point out that it's not like Carmack prefers X360 because it's essentially a PC and he just doesn't like the PS3 because he's a "lazy PC developer" (I know no one said so in this thread, but that's the number one thing that people try to discredit him by).

mckmas8808

21-Sep-2005, 21:59

http://web.axelero.hu/varga1973/xc.JPG

What did you show that for?

expletive

21-Sep-2005, 22:04

EndR

21-Sep-2005, 22:05

This is also from gameinformer, haven´t seen this posted before, but I found it to be interesting. Kind of OT but interesting..

J Allard said...
"On the CPU architecture, we've built a really high bandwidth access to memory (and decompression technology on the hardware). And a very general, all purpose computer architecture that basically allows you to write your own decompressors to decompress however you want. This is one of the reasons we went to the multi-core architecture and said, "Hey, if you're id or you're Tiburon or you're Rockstar, you can go to build a streaming decompression system that works for your environment, and we'll give you the bandwidth to do it". (Its) a very similar design to the original Xbox or to PC, where its very easy to program to and you use one of those cores and have your Rockstar I/O developer create this streaming system that's totally customized to your needs, because we've got the bandwidth and memory, and you've got the CPU horsepower. We've architectured it in a way were you can go pick up one of those CPUs to do unbelievable decompression, and there's another CPU over there that doesn't affect the game loop."

expletive

21-Sep-2005, 22:09

This is also from gameinformer, haven´t seen this posted before, but I found it to be interesting. Kind of OT but interesting..

"On the CPU architecture, we've built a really high bandwidth access to memory (and decompression technology on the hardware). And a very general, all purpose computer architecture that basically allows you to write your own decompressors to decompress however you want. This is one of the reasons we went to the multi-core architecture and said, "Hey, if you're id or you're Tiburon or you're Rockstar, you can go to build a streaming decompression system that works for your environment, and we'll give you the bandwidth to do it". (Its) a very similar design to the original Xbox or to PC, where its very easy to program to and you use one of those cores and have your Rockstar I/O developer create this streaming system that's totally customized to your needs, because we've got the bandwidth and memory, and you've got the CPU horsepower. We've architectured it in a way were you can go pick up one of those CPUs to do unbelievable decompression, and there's another CPU over there that doesn't affect the game loop."

This is referring to what architecture?

J

EndR

21-Sep-2005, 22:12

This is referring to what architecture?

J

Sorry...
I will edit the post so it becomes more apparent.. it is J Allard comments so the architecture is 360.

Titanio

21-Sep-2005, 22:13

This is referring to what architecture?

It sounds like Xenon, a MS commentary on Xenon. They've spoken before about compression/decompression on the CPU etc. although I didn't know they were talking about assigning a whole core to that.

Lysander

21-Sep-2005, 22:35

hey, version, you shrank X2cpu pic on x-axis

Gholbine

21-Sep-2005, 23:59

hey, version, you shrank X2cpu pic on x-axis

It looks pretty accurate to me, judging by the size of the Xenon cores and the PPE.

Edit: Can anyone tell me what the vertical black strips are on each SPE? Is that the local store?

Colourless

22-Sep-2005, 00:19

Yes, it's the local storage

Nite_Hawk

22-Sep-2005, 00:37

It will be very interesting to see which companies in 2 years have produced the most impressive games (be they multithreaded or not).

Nite_Hawk

ihamoitc2005

22-Sep-2005, 00:46

I hope most games do not dedicate a CPU core for compression related tasks as recommended by Allard. Its the best way to make sure that the games will look horrible because Xbox360's best chance of matching PS3 graphics is to use full GPU power for pixel-shading and do all geometry on CPU. Enough CPU bandwidth for that. Of course some games wont have as much pixel-shading requirement, but hopefully, many will since those games look better.

Lysander

22-Sep-2005, 01:21

looks pretty accurate
no it is not, can someone make comparision with equal size ppe/X2core
(without photo manipulation)

chachi

22-Sep-2005, 01:55

no it is not, can someone make comparision with equal size ppe/X2core
(without photo manipulation)
Please, no. There's already been 57 different versions of the comparison, the PPE and XCPU cores should be the same size. I have no idea why some platform advocates like to pretend there's a big difference between the two (i.e. the XCPU core = DD1 Cell!!!@ theory) when the die photo and documentation suggests otherwise, but it'd be nice if this didn't keep creeping into what seems like every thread.

The similarity comment is in regards to the programming model. The PC and 360 share one (SMP) while the PS3 needs a completely different model for the SPEs which have more limitations on what you can do (e.g. LS). It'd be easier to share code between PC and 360 without massive rewrites but the only way to write code that could reasonably be used on all platforms is if you wrote with the PS3 in mind and that would put the others at a disadvantage because they don't have the same limitations.

SubD

22-Sep-2005, 02:03

It'd be easier to share code between PC and 360 without massive rewrites but the only way to write code that could reasonably be used on all platforms is if you wrote with the PS3 in mind and that would put the others at a disadvantage because they don't have the same limitations.

What exactly are these limitations supposed to be?

overclocked

22-Sep-2005, 02:54

Please, no. There's already been 57 different versions of the comparison, the PPE and XCPU cores should be the same size. I have no idea why some platform advocates like to pretend there's a big difference between the two (i.e. the XCPU core = DD1 Cell!!!@ theory) when the die photo and documentation suggests otherwise, but it'd be nice if this didn't keep creeping into what seems like every thread.

The similarity comment is in regards to the programming model. The PC and 360 share one (SMP) while the PS3 needs a completely different model for the SPEs which have more limitations on what you can do (e.g. LS). It'd be easier to share code between PC and 360 without massive rewrites but the only way to write code that could reasonably be used on all platforms is if you wrote with the PS3 in mind and that would put the others at a disadvantage because they don't have the same limitations.

The last sentence doesnt sound right.
I take it as you mean "A game that uses SPEs heavily will put the others at a disadvantage
because they HAVE limitations". I just get confused because you write that it would be easier to code for PS3 as base and if you mean just using the PPE then it would make sence. But why would you not want to use the SPEs on the Cell IF you use it as your base and port over?

Or maybe you are speaking from a more "general" POV?

ERP

22-Sep-2005, 03:06

What exactly are these limitations supposed to be?

He's just stating that the others have more flexible access to main memory and structuring code for SPU's is probably not structuring it optimally for a more conventional Shared memory multithreaded environment.

i.e. you might be able to run code designed for an SPU on one of the XB360's processors, but it probably isn't the best way to do it. Conversely designing code for an XB360 processor means it likely won't run in the SPU's limited local memory.

chachi

22-Sep-2005, 03:32

The last sentence doesnt sound right.
I take it as you mean "A game that uses SPEs heavily will put the others at a disadvantage because they HAVE limitations". I just get confused because you write that it would be easier to code for PS3 as base and if you mean just using the PPE then it would make sence. But why would you not want to use the SPEs on the Cell IF you use it as your base and port over?
No, I mean that because the SPEs have limitations that aren't present in the other cores (e.g. PPE, x86) and that you have to design a thread that runs on one in a way that takes those limitations (LS, context switching will suck, no branch prediction, etc.) into account. There are advantages to the SPEs as well, but you're not going to want to use the same strategy for programming an SPE as you would the PPE (and vice versa).

That's not to say that Cell is bad, and on exclusive games the point is moot, but it makes things more complicated for cross-platform. If "what works on an SPE" is the measure of what will be assigned to a thread in a cross-platform multi-threaded game then that is where the others are disadvantaged.

Does that make more sense? If you go back and read some of the cross-platform developer interviews (Carmack, the Valve guy, the Crytek guy) you'll see they're all saying more or less the same thing.

Bobbler

22-Sep-2005, 03:56

No, I mean that because the SPEs have limitations that aren't present in the other cores (e.g. PPE, x86) and that you have to design a thread that runs on one in a way that takes those limitations (LS, context switching will suck, no branch prediction, etc.) into account. There are advantages to the SPEs as well, but you're not going to want to use the same strategy for programming an SPE as you would the PPE (and vice versa).

That's not to say that Cell is bad, and on exclusive games the point is moot, but it makes things more complicated for cross-platform. If "what works on an SPE" is the measure of what will be assigned to a thread in a cross-platform multi-threaded game then that is where the others are disadvantaged.

Does that make more sense? If you go back and read some of the cross-platform developer interviews (Carmack, the Valve guy, the Crytek guy) you'll see they're all saying more or less the same thing.

I think you may have hinted at this, but...

X86/PPC/etc all have rather large limitations... they just happen to have limitations programmers are accustomed to -- that's the only difference (and a very important one for early games and younger programmers).

Lazy8s

22-Sep-2005, 04:21

All of the new technologies and flexibility of the X360 would be interesting to coders. It's also the only console that's scheduled to have a state-of-the-art graphics processor at release.

The advantage of a more PC-like development environment is that the tools are more refined.

Acert93

22-Sep-2005, 05:24

I hope most games do not dedicate a CPU core for compression related tasks as recommended by Allard... Enough CPU bandwidth for that.

I am pretty sure the "compression" he is talking about it procedural synthesis. It saves bandwidth, memory space, and could use up an entire core. And since you are taking a small list and dynamically generating it one could call it a form of compression because you are taking a very small file and making it into a larger game asset.

one

22-Sep-2005, 05:44

I am pretty sure the "compression" he is talking about it procedural synthesisI think it only literally means CPU instructions that support (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=544513&postcount=35) native D3D-compressed data.

ihamoitc2005

22-Sep-2005, 06:12

I think it only literally means CPU instructions that support (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=544513&postcount=35) native D3D-compressed data.

It seems to be a suggestion about how to work around the storage capacity of the DVD and lack of a hard drive more than anything else since that's what gave rise to the streaming technology in the first place no?

wireframe

22-Sep-2005, 06:36

Interesting that Carmack feels so strongly pro360... To me he's always seemed liek a coder's coder so I woul dthink from a technical challenge/potential standpoint he'd be PS3 all the way... *shrug* Also intersting is the he never really states why from a technical standpoint. What about the x360 CPU does he prefer? Symmetry? VMX units? Cache?

I'm gonna guess that this is because Carmack prefers to spend his time innovating algorithms and ways to accomplish tasks for his games instead of learning new ways to operate on a new architecture. That is to say, I think Carmack prefers to work on getting good "generic" code instead of learning particular tricks of a certain CPU.

He has embraced smaller changes like MMX, SSE, and SSE2 on the x86 architecture, but I think the reason that ID games tend to run well is because it has good foundations, not little tweaks here and there, but fundamentally sound code. This is very different from how many Japanese developers are coding as close to the metal as possible. From what I understand, many of the better ones (Japanese) make impossible things happen through tricks that cannot be taken advantage of by simply thinking in C/C++, but requires intimate CPU architecture knowledge and assembly code.

overclocked

22-Sep-2005, 11:47

No, I mean that because the SPEs have limitations that aren't present in the other cores (e.g. PPE, x86) and that you have to design a thread that runs on one in a way that takes those limitations (LS, context switching will suck, no branch prediction, etc.) into account. There are advantages to the SPEs as well, but you're not going to want to use the same strategy for programming an SPE as you would the PPE (and vice versa).

That's not to say that Cell is bad, and on exclusive games the point is moot, but it makes things more complicated for cross-platform. If "what works on an SPE" is the measure of what will be assigned to a thread in a cross-platform multi-threaded game then that is where the others are disadvantaged.

Does that make more sense? If you go back and read some of the cross-platform developer interviews (Carmack, the Valve guy, the Crytek guy) you'll see they're all saying more or less the same thing.

Okay now im with you. I didnt thought at all you were refering the limits of the SPEs compared to the PPE/xCpu which make perfect sense in the coding department and structuring of data. I guess its a bad idea to post before sleep..

Just want to say my view on esp Gabe´s comments with many threads. I think its natural for a PC guy that just have been used to throw whatever code at all at the latest PC Cpus and it just works anyway. But i have a feeling that if thats Valves stake at the whole we aint going to see any impressive stuff later on compared to the hard working console devs effort on either console.

Acert93

22-Sep-2005, 11:59

I think it only literally means CPU instructions that support (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=544513&postcount=35) native D3D-compressed data.

My understanding that the D3D compression is for transferring information between the GPU<>CPU (mainly vertex data, ala procedural synthesis) for the point of saving bandwidth between the CPU and GPU.

I am certain they wont be designating an entire CPU for decompressing information off of the DVD; but we have heard them talk about dedicating one or two cores for procedural synthesis which is a forum of storage compression (both DVD and memory) and saves bandwidth across the board (and even more with D3D compression which is said to double the effective bandwidth for vertex data).

Anyhow, in the context of saving space on DVDs procedural synthesis makes sense sa you can store large amounts of data in small lists (that are later dynamically created) and also save a bit of RAM space as well in storage.

Wunderchu

18-Oct-2005, 20:29

summary of the recent G4 interview:Summary of the interview (I watched this a few hours ago so I may be forgetting some stuff):

- Talked about the Doom movie, showed some footage of it etc

- Talked about Raven and how they are close etc

- Reason for no flashlight/gun at the same time in Doom 3 was that earlier on it brang the frame rate down a lot cause of the dynamic lighting (or something like that). They also wanted to make it more scarier juggling a flashlight and a gun, but carmack said looking back that may not have been the best choice and Quake 4 now has the flashlight/gun combo.

- Thinks in next-next-gen (one coming up after this one, ie PS4/Xbox3) that it will be a lot harder to tell the difference between games and CG unless you closely examine it

- Seems really impressed with the 360, said that this is the first time a console has as good a development environment as PC (tools, documentation etc). PS3 has slightly more raw power, but 360 development is much nicer. 360 is the main console for iD development now.

- Skeptical about the Revolution/controller. Carmack said something about it being interesting, but that 90% of the ideas will probably be crap. Another iD guy said they will give it a chance, looking into all the consoles.

- Geoff asked about the drama at id (the founder being fired or whatever) but they kind of avoided the question saying that they are just concentrated on making great games.

- Will continue to make FPS's. Left the door open in the future for more genres, but said they are concentrated on FPS's.

- Wants to release the source code to Commander Keen, but they weren't as organized back then and they can only find bits and pieces of it.[source: http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?p=2106865 ]

Megadrive1988

18-Oct-2005, 21:07

Thinks in next-next-gen (one coming up after this one, ie PS4/Xbox3) that it will be a lot harder to tell the difference between games and CG unless you closely examine it

agreed. but only to an extent. there is a massive range of complexity and quality within what is called CG. (obviously). I don't think Xbox3 or PS4 will be capable of rivaling current (2000-2005) movie/film CG let alone film CG that will be around during those console's lifetimes. I think Xbox3 and PS4 will be able to rival current videogame CG used in PS2/Xbox/Gamecube/PC games. the Xbox360 and PS3 will likely give us graphics that are around the level of PS1 CG, with more detail, but not better quality (sometimes even lower quality).

cyberheater

18-Oct-2005, 21:45

The four key owners of id Software were on G4tv last night...

The four key owners of id Software were on G4tv last night, and they had some interesting quotes that I thought I’d highlight in case you missed them:

John Carmack: “Xbox 360 has far and away the best development tools”

John Carmack: “[talks about software development support]…and the hardware is comparable”

Geoff: “So you don’t think PS3 is going to more powerful [than Xbox 360]?”
John Carmack: “PS3 is probably marginally more powerful, in terms of raw flops and graphic operations, but that’s not really the best way to look at things. When you look at these development cycles that stretch over years and years, being 20% easier to develop on is much more important than being 20% more powerful.”

John Carmack: “I make little nitpicky decisions about say, well, I prefer the symmetric approach that MS has over the asymmetric Cell approach, but you can do great games on either one of them, and I make fundamental decisions based on development tools and depth of documentation, which Microsoft has been superior on.”

Alpha_Spartan

18-Oct-2005, 21:51

Well, Carmack's a PC guy, and 360 more closely resembles a PC developing environment than does so the PS3, so it's not surprising he would prefer it. Plus with his propensity to develop in the FPS genre, and 360's demographics lining up with that perfectly, there are any number of reasons for Carmack to prefer 360 to the PS3.
Ummm...no.

Doesn't the PS3 use OpenGL? Doesn't Carmack prefer OpenGL over DirectX? I think the "Xbox 360 is closer to a PC so PC developers like it" argument is a cop-out and so last gen. There's nothing in the Xbox 360 that you'll find in a PC or that you will find in a PC anytime soon. Hell, one can even argue that the PS3 is more PC like since it has the modified PC GPU.

PS3 is basically an OpenGL box with an Nvidia GPU. Carmack should be loving that shit. But he doesn't. In fact, he prefers a DirectX architecture over it. That says a whole lot considering who we're talking about.

nAo

18-Oct-2005, 22:00

Doesn't the PS3 use OpenGL?
Have you seen any official document from Sony stating this? I haven't...

Nesh

18-Oct-2005, 22:08

Have you seen any official document from Sony stating this? I haven't...
;)

http://news.com.com/PlayStation+3+to+be+easy+on+developers%2C+Sony+vow s/2100-1043_3-5606515.html

AlStrong

18-Oct-2005, 22:09

I think the "Xbox 360 is closer to a PC so PC developers like it" argument is a cop-out and so last gen. There's nothing in the Xbox 360 that you'll find in a PC or that you will find in a PC anytime soon. Hell, one can even argue that the PS3 is more PC like since it has the modified PC GPU.

John Carmack: “I make little nitpicky decisions about say, well, I prefer the symmetric approach that MS has over the asymmetric Cell approach

It is not about the GPU. PC's already have dual core. a.k.a. a symmetric scheme, which is fundamentally closer to the X360's CPU scheme than the PS3's.

Edge

18-Oct-2005, 22:09

Sony has made it quite clear they are using OpenGL.

I think John's comments are directly related to the CPU differences, and also having a less mature development system on the PS3 side. John background being a PC developer, and not a console developer is hardly surprising.

Console developers will certainly see the differences and jump on taking advantage of the respective differences, that a PC developer would be less than thrilled to participate in.

We have had 64-bit extensions in the PC world for quite awhile, and dual core for a decent while, and yet how many games take advantage of this. PC developers are very slow at embracing changes on the CPU side, so of course they are going to be less happy to get great performance out of CELL's state-of-the-art processors.

nAo

18-Oct-2005, 22:13

;)

http://news.com.com/PlayStation+3+to+be+easy+on+developers%2C+Sony+vow s/2100-1043_3-5606515.html Ouch! :oops:
Well..'for starters'... ;)

darkblu

18-Oct-2005, 22:25

Ummm...no.

Doesn't the PS3 use OpenGL? Doesn't Carmack prefer OpenGL over DirectX? I think the "Xbox 360 is closer to a PC so PC developers like it" argument is a cop-out and so last gen. There's nothing in the Xbox 360 that you'll find in a PC or that you will find in a PC anytime soon. Hell, one can even argue that the PS3 is more PC like since it has the modified PC GPU.

PS3 is basically an OpenGL box with an Nvidia GPU. Carmack should be loving that shit. But he doesn't. In fact, he prefers a DirectX architecture over it. That says a whole lot considering who we're talking about.

hmm, i wonder which console's alpha dev kit was a dual g4 mac with a x800..

of the two revealed next gen consoles the xbox360 definitely is the one that is closer to a dektop pc. the fact that 360 it is not a re-packed pc bolted around a uma which was the case with microsoft's previous "console" does not mean that the ps3 is more like a pc that the xbox360 is. add on top of it the software environment (dx api and nt-based os kernel) and you may directly go full subscription for msdn ; )

Richard

18-Oct-2005, 22:26

We have had 64-bit extensions in the PC world for quite awhile, and dual core for a decent while, and yet how many games take advantage of this. PC developers are very slow at embracing changes on the CPU side, so of course they are going to be less happy to get great performance out of CELL's state-of-the-art processors.

That's not always true:

Quake III had SMP support and Quake 1 supported the Pentium Pro. Unreal was one of the first to support MMX, etc.

Most of these and like 64-bit extentions and multi-core are not switches you turn for for more performance. If you only enable them you'd most likely get a performance decrease instead. For instance, Things have to mature and new groundwork has to be laid to properly take advantage of more hardware features.

If on top of this you also have less than optimal documentation and/or dev tools you're going to take longer to make use of those features properly.

london-boy

18-Oct-2005, 22:53

who resurrected this thread from the dead?!

*SLAP*

hey69

18-Oct-2005, 23:11

deep voice from outter space: "whuhaha, you cant kill my thread muhhahhah...."

ohwell : at least he says that the ps3 is more powerfull then xbox360. that should make the fans happy.

and if we didnt, we would blame it on other things like moneyhats from MS

scooby_dooby

18-Oct-2005, 23:22

Ya he says it's more powerful on paper, which mean approximately nothing! PS2 had more flops on paper, the 7800 has more flops on paper than the 520...so flops = meaningless.

As for which is closer to a PC isn't it sort of split? With the CPU for X360 being much closer to PC than CELL, however the RSX will be much closer to traditional GPU's than Xenos?

So would it be fair to say all dev's would have a greater learning curve with CELL than Xenon, and alternatively they will have a great learning curve with Xenos than the RSX. Both consoles have tons of potential, in different areas.

mckmas8808

18-Oct-2005, 23:24

the Xbox360 and PS3 will likely give us graphics that are around the level of PS1 CG, with more detail, but not better quality (sometimes even lower quality).

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We have already seen games that look better than PS1 CG. Your standards are set too low.

Richard

18-Oct-2005, 23:25

So would it be fair to say PC dev's would have a greater learning curve with CELL than Xenon, and alternatively they will have a great learning curve with Xenos than the RSX.

Probably, but Xenos is using D3D. So if both console's gfx parts have PC API support it all boils down to CPU (and general APIs).

scooby_dooby

18-Oct-2005, 23:46

Forgive me I don't sound like I know what I'm talking about, cause I don't, but I thought stuff like hardware tesselation, MEMEXPORT, unified shaders and EDRAM where all things offer alot of extra power/flexibility over a traditional PC GPU, yet dev's will have to master these techniques as time goes on.

For example, doesn't the MEMEXPORT capabilities of Xenos enable it to *possibly* perform physics calculations in a more feasable way than typical PC GPU's? aren't there many other cool new things dev's will be able to use MEMEXPORT and EDRAM for? I'm presuming these aren't going to happen overnight...

Won't the unified shaders allow dev's to break be more flexible in their game engines, not having to rely on hardwired shaders(i.e. 20% vertex 80% pixel shading)

Isn't the hardware tesselator something that will take Dev's a while to really master/utilize?

These are just off the top of my head, but they all seem like features that, in the hands of creative masterful console programmers offer a ton of exciting flexibility and power, yet will take some time to get over the learning curve.

Compared to the RSX which is basically a straight PC GPU (yes I'm assuming) which would not have any real learning curve. I don't think it's strictly about the CPU's.

Would I be correct in saying the Xenos GPU will take longer to reach it's potential than the RSX will (lets assume RSX is overclocked G70) and alternatively the CELL will take longer to reach it's potnetial than th XeCPU? That seems like a fair assessment.

expletive

19-Oct-2005, 03:05

I think John's comments are directly related to the CPU differences, and also having a less mature development system on the PS3 side. John background being a PC developer, and not a console developer is hardly surprising.

Console developers will certainly see the differences and jump on taking advantage of the respective differences, that a PC developer would be less than thrilled to participate in

Are you saying his opinion on development environemnts is not valid becuase he has primarily developed on the PC?

I think we should give this carmack guy the benefit of the doubt, seeing as he created a whole gaming genre for us and ushered in 3d acceleration and all..

:)

randycat99

19-Oct-2005, 03:34

...for PC's. (this reasoning keeps going in circles)

TrungGap

19-Oct-2005, 03:55

...for PC's. (this reasoning keeps going in circles)

Hmm, as for the future, I don't see a lot of differences between console and PC (other than currently it's closed environment vs open). However, when the PC was in its infancy it was pretty much a closed system. Developers had to be very familiar with the hardware and dig deep down to get every extra cycle out of it. As the plethora of devices and configurations started to set in, developers started to abstracted out the interfaces.

No doubt about it. The future gaming console will move toward that direction. Given the complexity of current gen, a lot of game developers are started to use middlewares to shorten their development cycle. On top of that, both MS and Sony wanted people going through their API instead of directly accessing the hardware. This allows them to provide a migration path for the future console and maintain a pool of highly skilled high-level programmers that can quickly develop quality software for the new platform instead of spending time trying to learn the new hardware.

Because of this, I don't see any reason to discredit JC.

edit:

Actually, probably because of his PC background, he's probably more justified in his assessment.

randycat99

19-Oct-2005, 04:02

The comment wasn't to "discredit". It was context.

Nevertheless, it is still a true statement. It is a relevant statement.

TrungGap

19-Oct-2005, 04:22

The comment wasn't to "discredit". It was context.

Nevertheless, it is still a true statement. It is a relevant statement.

You're right...discredit isn't the right term. How relevant his comments are is still up for debate. I guess, I'm arguing that because of his background of programming for the PC when CGA/EGA/VGA was all you got to work with to today's PC with everything abstracted, his comments are a reflection of what lies inthe future. And who else would know about about game development with threading than JC.

If it was the PS2, then I would agree with you that...a lot of his comments wouldn't apply, because that was the only way you could extract the power from it. The PS3 and 360 have so much power, that you wouldn't want to waste your development time on doing everything to the metal. It's sort like you won't want to waste so much time to write the game entirely in asm, considering that most high-level language compilers are doing a very good job at turning out optimized code.

jpr27

19-Oct-2005, 06:59

Got this off of a website (not sure if Im able to list name of website let me know if I can and Ill list. If this was against the rules I appologize and will remove)

10/18/05

"Elaborating on past comments he has made regarding his preference towards Microsoft's next-gen console, id Software's John Carmack made several comments on G4 last night regarding Xbox 360. His relevant comments have been transcribed by various Internet Web Sites.

Bluntly, Carmack says, "Xbox 360 has far and away the best development tools." He qualifies that in terms of its impact on games, saying that "when you look at these development cycles that stretch over years and years, being 20% easier to develop on is much more important than being 20% more powerful." He notes that the PS3 is "probably marginally more powerful" than the Xbox 360, "but that's not really the best way to look at things."

Despite the fact that both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 have their pros and cons, Carmack notes, "I make fundamental decisions based on development tools and depth of documentation, which Microsoft has been superior on." This is a sentiment that has been echoed by various tradionally PC-oriented game developers in recent months when questioned as to their opinions on Xbox 360 vs. PS3.

The excerpts are from a G4 segment entitled "A Sense of Doom," which featured the four primary owners of id. For those interested, it airs again on October 22 at 5:30pm PST, October 23 at 1:00pm PST, and October 24 at 10am PST."

Shifty Geezer

19-Oct-2005, 10:24

Got this off of a website (not sure if Im able to list name of website let me know if I can and Ill list. If this was against the rules I appologize and will remove)
Quite the contrary, you SHOULD link directly to the source. If quoting another site, quote only part, not all, and link to the site so people go visit them to read the full article.

-tkf-

19-Oct-2005, 10:38

Doesn't id have a history of supporting the Console that loses the "war" ?

Jaguar, Saturn, DC?

Richard

19-Oct-2005, 12:04

I thought stuff like hardware tesselation, MEMEXPORT, unified shaders and EDRAM where all things offer alot of extra power/flexibility over a traditional PC GPU, yet dev's will have to master these techniques as time goes on.

Snip

I was only replying to your "learning curve" premise, not fulfilling the hardware's potential. Re: that, if you assume that the RSX is a modified G70 then yes, I think it would be plausible to assume the Xenon would take longer to display all its quality compared to the RSX.

Richard

19-Oct-2005, 12:10

Doesn't id have a history of supporting the Console that loses the "war" ?

Jaguar, Saturn, DC?

id has released games for the following platforms:

Amiga
PC
Sega Genesis/Megadrive
Sega 32x
Sega Saturn
Sega Dreamcast
Sony Playstation
Sony Playstation2
Microsoft Xbox
Atari Jaguar
Nintendo SNES
Nintendo Gameboy Advance
Nintendo Gameboy Colour
Nintendo N64

Rys

19-Oct-2005, 12:33

Games published based on id game IP maybe, but I don't think id actively developed for them all, did they?

Richard

19-Oct-2005, 12:41

Games published based on id game IP maybe, but I don't think id actively developed for them all, did they?

I don't know, probably not all as I don't see JC nor Mike Abrash spending time on the Gameboy. ;)

I know John did act as technical consultant on the xbox version of D3 and he did dug in on the Jaguar version of DOOM (basically, it was running far too slow so he had to help out) and he also worked on the SNES version of Wolf3D, etc.

Powderkeg

19-Oct-2005, 14:36

I don't know, probably not all as I don't see JC nor Mike Abrash spending time on the Gameboy. ;)

I know John did act as technical consultant on the xbox version of D3 and he did dug in on the Jaguar version of DOOM (basically, it was running far too slow so he had to help out) and he also worked on the SNES version of Wolf3D, etc.

He's given technical assistance, but id Software has never actually produced a console game. They don't have the staff for it.

pipo

19-Oct-2005, 14:47

I'm pretty certain he spend a lot of time on JagDoom...

Powderkeg

19-Oct-2005, 14:50

He, is one man, and not all of id Software.

Richard

19-Oct-2005, 16:40

He's given technical assistance, but id Software has never actually produced a console game. They don't have the staff for it.

Are you agreeing with me? I can't tell.

scatteh316

19-Oct-2005, 17:15

For example, doesn't the MEMEXPORT capabilities of Xenos enable it to *possibly* perform physics calculations in a more feasable way than typical PC GPU's?

Won't the unified shaders allow dev's to break be more flexible in their game engines, not having to rely on hardwired shaders(i.e. 20% vertex 80% pixel shading)

Isn't the hardware tesselator something that will take Dev's a while to really master/utilize?

I think we'll see even more.. neve seen before things not from 360, but from the Cell + RSX relationship.

What ever 360 can do with its EDRAM ( bar "free" FSAA ) can be done on Cell, and then some.

scooby_dooby

19-Oct-2005, 17:33

CELL can assist the RXS to implement effects tue, but Xenos may already be able to do the same effects on it's own.

That will then limit power availablefor CELL to act as a CPU, running AI, animations etc etc, its all about trade-offs, the fact CELL might have to step in to help RSX isn't exactly a win IMO.

Then again, if RSX proves to be on par with Xenos, maybe the extra GFX capabilities of CELL will add that extra little bit that sets PS3 games apart from X360. On the other hand, if RSX proves to be less capable than Xenos, then the CELL will be used to compensate for a less powerful GPU, hindering it's ability to act as a CPU relative to the XeCPU.

randycat99

20-Oct-2005, 02:58

It's got power to spare- power that is there to be used, so it's a moot point. :roll:

silhouette

20-Oct-2005, 04:38

id has released games for the following platforms:

Amiga
PC
Sega Genesis/Megadrive
Sega 32x
Sega Saturn
Sega Dreamcast
Sony Playstation
Sony Playstation2
Microsoft Xbox
Atari Jaguar
Nintendo SNES
Nintendo Gameboy Advance
Nintendo Gameboy Colour
Nintendo N64

Not for Amiga... I am sure of that.. Even Doom comes much later to Amiga than most of the machines listed there :-(

Reverend

20-Oct-2005, 08:24

For John's comments to be relevant in the Console industry, he/id has got to have a proven and successful gameplay/technological history (in the Console industry, again).

Hasn't happened. Not that surprising to see that all the console folks started quoting whatever John has to say about his plans for the new consoles after we all know the graphics for the next consoles are basically made by PC IHVs.

John is learning where consoles are concerned (and he never would be if it wasn't for the fact that NV and ATI are involved in a major way in those 2 consoles). Until he is a Kojima, stop making headlines about what he has to say about anything to do with consoles.

Track records in the console industry overrides first-time-and-however-innovative technological prowess one may have.

This is the console forum, not the PC forum. And we're talking about John.

wazoo

20-Oct-2005, 08:55

The only thing we know for sure about John is its modesty and honesty.

I've not read all the thread, but developping on X360 makes sense for him, considering his past, his PC experience and the small team he has. Another company with differents priorities could have different views.

SynapticSignal

20-Oct-2005, 10:30

The only thing we know for sure about John is its modesty and honesty.

I've not read all the thread, but developping on X360 makes sense for him, considering his past, his PC experience and the small team he has.

why?

Another company with differents priorities could have different views.

again, why?

wazoo

20-Oct-2005, 12:23

because the tools and docs are most likely similar to what he used before.

Nesh

20-Oct-2005, 14:47

Nesh

20-Oct-2005, 14:48

Oh and not to mention the costy cradridge based N64 :???:

Nesh

20-Oct-2005, 14:50

SOmeone edit my posts.Didnt see PS2 and PS1 in that list :razz:

Richard

20-Oct-2005, 19:29

Not for Amiga... I am sure of that.. Even Doom comes much later to Amiga than most of the machines listed there :-(

You're saying they haven't released any games on the Amiga platform but then say DOOM was released for the Amiga later than all the other platforms. ??

Anyway, they have indeed released for the Amiga and also the Apple II which I forgot to include in that listing.

Powderkeg

20-Oct-2005, 20:16

He worked on the Sega Saturn which was harder to develop on and theoritically more powerful but not on the easier to develop for and more convenient PS1? :???:

It kind of contradicts the reason he stated why he chose XBOX360

He's not saying that he won't work on other systems, he is simply saying that he is using the 360 as the base platform, and will port to other systems from there.

He worked on the Saturn, but his primary development platform was the PC.

expletive

21-Oct-2005, 01:47

therealskywolf

21-Oct-2005, 11:33

Guys trying to seperate waters. Truth is Carmack is the best individual at what he does, and there's no difference in consoles vs pcs.

Hardware is Hardware.

hey69

21-Oct-2005, 12:36

regarding the Amiga:

ID NEVER released DOOM for it:

"Christmas 1997: ID releases the source for Doom. Within a week there are
three Amiga versions, and they're already extremely impressive. Now we
know what all the fuss was about. Peter McGavin's ADoom, arguably the best
overall version takes an early lead in the "usenet cred" stakes, but is
shortly challenged, atleast for 030 users in terms of sheer speed, by
Georg Steger's DoomAttack. The developments continue apace, and sound,
joypad, network and TCP support are all forthcoming.

"

Farid

21-Oct-2005, 13:18

Guys trying to seperate waters. Truth is Carmack is the best individual at what he does, and there's no difference in consoles vs pcs.

Hardware is Hardware.
No offenses, but I have to ask... You're kidding, don't you?

Who said Carmack was the best engineer for all what's real time 3D rendering and game programming?
And who said there's no architectural differences, on a hardware and software level, between a PC and a Console?

BTW, and somehow OT, I really hope that JC stops videogames once for all, as he said he would, and just keeps working on his spacecraft toys X-Prize whatever.
I mean his opinions already wasted, for me, tons and tons of threads on PC forums, and now it seems that he decided to port the "John Cramak Said... Forum Engine" to the Console Forums... Damn him!

Richard

21-Oct-2005, 13:20

This sources seem to contradict that newsgroup posting?

http://games.ign.com/objects/025/025086.html

http://idm.gesies.com/deta_games.asp?ID_GAME=15

Though this one supports it:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/amiga/games-FAQ/

But see this Amiga review of Quake:

http://www.classicgaming.com/amigareviews/quake1.htm

Nesh

21-Oct-2005, 18:49

Guys trying to seperate waters. Truth is Carmack is the best individual at what he does, and there's no difference in consoles vs pcs.

Hardware is Hardware.
And porcelain is porcelain but a porcelain plate is not a porcelain cup.

I believe there is a difference

expletive

21-Oct-2005, 19:05

And porcelain is porcelain but a porcelain plate is not a porcelain cup.

I believe there is a difference

Maybe so, so what is it?

Shifty Geezer

21-Oct-2005, 19:10

A plate is a large flatish surface, and a cup is a concave vessel primarily for holding liquids.

scificube

21-Oct-2005, 19:25

A plate is a large flatish surface, and a cup is a concave vessel primarily for holding liquids.

LOL!

Ragemare

21-Oct-2005, 19:34

Whenever a developer says something, their seems to be alot of discussion over whether or not we should be taking any notice of what that developer has to say, rather than what the developer has said. Unless somone has a serious lack of credebuility, lets say a reputation for spreading FUD or PR filth, then I find attacking somone's background rather than what they have said to be nonsensical.

I think, generally speaking, when somone starts trying to debunk a persons statements by discrediting them, it shows they don't have a convinceing argument against what that person said.

eDoshin

21-Oct-2005, 19:45

A plate is a large flatish surface, and a cup is a concave vessel primarily for holding liquids.

NO WONDER WHY MY PLATE ALWAYS RUNNETH OVER .. guess that means your forkin methods won't work in a cup

Nesh

21-Oct-2005, 21:13

Maybe so, so what is it?
I ll ask a different question.If there is no difference between platforms why does he make a distinction?Why do people discuss differences in arcitecture?Why some choose platforms over another platform?How does PC's faster evolultion affect development and tools and how that differs in consoles? ;)

expletive

21-Oct-2005, 21:42

I ll ask a different question.If there is no difference between platforms why does he make a distinction?Why do people discuss differences in arcitecture?Why some choose platforms over another platform?How does PC's faster evolultion affect development and tools and how that differs in consoles? ;)

Theres a list of obvious answers to those questions but i'd like ot hear why Carmack's prgramming experience makes him ill-qualified to comment on pc hardware but not console.

I see where youre going but I didnt make the statement, just asking someone to back up theirs, so the burden of proof is not on me. :)

J

Nesh

21-Oct-2005, 21:55

Theres a list of obvious answers to those questions but i'd like ot hear why Carmack's prgramming experience makes him ill-qualified to comment on pc hardware but not console.

I see where youre going but I didnt make the statement, just asking someone to back up theirs, so the burden of proof is not on me. :)

J
Hmm...I am just assuming there so dont take me seriously.But I am assuming thats because his best and most reckognised work is on PC.If I am not mistaken he was never known for bringing as revolutionary or remarkably impressive work in the console scene.He is mostly known fir his work on PC's.But I could be wrong ofcourse.

He is probably for PC fans what Kojima, Yu Suzuki etc are for console fans.

hey69

21-Oct-2005, 22:20

Richard

21-Oct-2005, 22:30

nope, never came out

You know, if you don't want conversations to resort to a "yes it is" followed by "no it isn't" you may want to post sources.

Secondly, what never came out? You quoted my whole post. Are you talking about DOOM or Quake?

expletive

22-Oct-2005, 00:34

Hmm...I am just assuming there so dont take me seriously.But I am assuming thats because his best and most reckognised work is on PC.If I am not mistaken he was never known for bringing as revolutionary or remarkably impressive work in the console scene.He is mostly known fir his work on PC's.But I could be wrong ofcourse.

He is probably for PC fans what Kojima, Yu Suzuki etc are for console fans.

Given the very strong similarities between the graphics technologies between PCs and these consoles (especially RSX), as well as experience in multi-threaded programming, as well as actually having ACCESS to develop on and test the hardware, i cant see how he's not VERY qualified to make the statements he did.

Now if youre talking about the overall console development lifecycle (from requirements to finished product) well yeah hes probably not as seasoned as some of the others but tahts not what we're discussing here. We're talking about his (simple, high level) evaluation and subsequent opinion of hardware and development tools. I see no reason why his opinion shouldnt be highly regarded.

I am happy to be proven wrong though, (and have!).

ihamoitc2005

22-Oct-2005, 07:54

Given the very strong similarities between the graphics technologies between PCs and these consoles (especially RSX), as well as experience in multi-threaded programming, as well as actually having ACCESS to develop on and test the hardware, i cant see how he's not VERY qualified to make the statements he did.

Now if youre talking about the overall console development lifecycle (from requirements to finished product) well yeah hes probably not as seasoned as some of the others but tahts not what we're discussing here. We're talking about his (simple, high level) evaluation and subsequent opinion of hardware and development tools. I see no reason why his opinion shouldnt be highly regarded.

I am happy to be proven wrong though, (and have!).

Comments made by Carmack cannot be considered out of the context of his continued presence since July 2000 as important member of the advisory board of Microsoft's Xbox division, no?

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=19395&DisplayTab=Article

John Carmack joins Xbox advisory board
John Carmack, the uber programmer at id Software who's responsible for such hit games as DOOM and Quake, has joined the Xbox advisory board. But don't take this as a sign that Carmack is giving up the platform-independent OpenGL for Microsoft's proprietary DirectX: Carmack says that Nvidia, which makes the display adapter for the Xbox, is working on porting OpenGL to the Xbox, which will make it easier for id to support the device. Good news all around.

What is an interesting question is what is Carmack's view of OpenGL vs DirectX after 5 years of assisting Microsoft?

Richard

22-Oct-2005, 13:51

What is an interesting question is what is Carmack's view of OpenGL vs DirectX after 5 years of assisting Microsoft?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22498

Windfire

22-Oct-2005, 16:16

Interesting that Carmack feels so strongly pro360... To me he's always seemed liek a coder's coder so I woul dthink from a technical challenge/potential standpoint he'd be PS3 all the way... *shrug* Also intersting is the he never really states why from a technical standpoint. What about the x360 CPU does he prefer? Symmetry? VMX units? Cache?

MS needs to help get Carmack's programming innovations out to other devs ASAP.

Why would you say that?

Developers do not enjoy complexity. Developers are proud of creating complex things, but not necessarly working through un-needed complexity.

For example, architecting, designing and building engines and other game technologies are fun--those are something you design abstractly more or less. Developers do not like overcoming needless hardware complexities--those only inhibit implementing their grand engine and gaming designs. If tooling is weak, or overly complex--trust me, it is not appreciated.