Can Bethesda's programmers shorten the loading times for PS3's version of oblivion?

Was 360's case of constantly loading (2-3) unchartered areas a case of programming or hardware limitations (mainly the RAM)?

Can the PS3's CELL/RSX do any different?

Btw, I just signed up for Beyond3d, I have some ideas about CELL and RSX mostly from reading threads here in the past, but yes I would like an explanation please...

Thanks....:D
 
Was 360's case of constantly loading (2-3) unchartered areas a case of programming or hardware limitations (mainly the RAM)?

Can the PS3's CELL/RSX do any different?

Btw, I just signed up for Beyond3d, I have some ideas about CELL and RSX mostly from reading threads here in the past, but yes I would like an explanation please...

Thanks....:D
The PS3 and Xbox 360 have the same amount of RAM and the Xbox 360 (premium) and the PS3 have hard drives. So I would be surprised if they were noticably different.

Perhaps they have a better time with the streaming off the Blu-ray drive; the 2x drive in the PS3 and the 12x DVD drive in the Xbox 360 are each better and worse than the other, depending on who you talk to. This could be the deciding factor.
 
SPEs could be dedicated to compression/decompression, and if GDDR3 becomes a bottleneck (i.e. no rewrite to manage GDDR3 and XDR) having a smaller graphics pool could increase load times.

But the fact the PS3 has a HDD standard on every single unit should be a big win, as well as the extra space on BDR could allow more repacking of tracks into commonly accessed chunks, thus reducing latency/seek time.

In theory the PS3 has a bit of technology in its favor to have some pretty nice load times if a developer focuses on the issue. Hopefully when we get our hands on the first titles this will be the case.
 
SPEs could be dedicated to compression/decompression, and if GDDR3 becomes a bottleneck (i.e. no rewrite to manage GDDR3 and XDR) having a smaller graphics pool could increase load times.

But couldn't you bypass the GDDR3 bottleneck by using XDR via FLEX I/O, or is that much easier said than done?
 
Oblivion uses HDD in 360 Premium quite intensively, so I don't think standard HDD will help PS3 in this case. Though I thought that after late spring/summer update streaming and loading were generally much improved and it's not a big deal now.
 
But couldn't you bypass the GDDR3 bottleneck by using XDR via FLEX I/O, or is that much easier said than done?

You can, it is only a issue of whether they will and if any penalties for texturing from XDR fit within the performance envelop they are seeking. As a PC dev for a title already out for 9 months they may be doing a quick and dirty port. If they go a route of only utilizing GDDR3 for texture cache then load times could be reduced.
 
CAN they...? Sure!

The real question, however, is "will they bother?" :p

Exactly. It is hard to say anything at this point as the screenshots still look early and are missing a lot of stuff. All depends how much effort they want to put into the project.
 
The excellent thing that came out of this Oblivion for PS3 announcement is that I can finally bring my love/hate (some would argue 200% hate only, but what do they know, hey?) comments on Bethesda products to the Console forum.
Can Bethesda's programmers shorten the loading times for PS3's version of oblivion?
There's noticeable loadings in the PC version, which utilise and rely exclusively on the PC HDD to load data.

Now, given that the PS3 version should rely on the BRD disc (slower than a HDD @7200RPM) and the PS3 HDD (@5400RPM), that the game will display the same art assets and given the important fact that Bethesda's -as a devhouse- programming skills leaves a lot to be desired, the only logical answer is: no, the loadtimes on the PS3 version shouldn't be shorten, nor I doubt Bethesda could even do it if they wanted it to.
 
I predict the same, or slower load times based on the slower read speeds with bluray. Oblivion does not make efficient use of the HDD at all imo.
 
I predict the same, or slower load times based on the slower read speeds with bluray. Oblivion does not make efficient use of the HDD at all imo.

I get the impression that the lowest common denominator of Oblivion's performance comes from the speed that it can get data from the DVD, since the HDD does not seem to have significant impact outside of caching assets. In which case, it's probably worth finding out how well Game Bryo works with redundant data to minimise seeks.

People keep mentioning that the size of Oblivion on the 360 is the same if not a tiny bit more than the PC install, which suggests there is little to no redundancy on the disc itself. If that is the case, then I think a lot of what is holding up load speeds on 360 (and probably the stuttering that occasionally happens) is the additional seeks. A lot of that potential throughput from the 12x DVD drive is lost when excess seeks are made thanks to a dataset compacted for minimal storage usage rather than streaming efficiency.

I'm not saying it would work miracles, since the PS3's drive does still have a lower throughput and significantly slower seek times than the 360's, but it should go some way to help with load times. It should also help in making the game world smoother as textures are streamed off the disc without too much seeking. I think that just transposing the assets as they are existingly packaged would have definitely proved untenable for the PS3 given its drive performance, so there has to be reliance on redundancy in my opinion.

I'm going to be really non-committal here though, since it depends on too many factors like the developer talent, port budget, engine suitability, and the way that the game was designed in the first place. I would at least hope they are addressing the issues that a slower performing BD-ROM drive poses.
 
I get the impression that the lowest common denominator of Oblivion's performance comes from the speed that it can get data from the DVD, since the HDD does not seem to have significant impact outside of caching assets. In which case, it's probably worth finding out how well Game Bryo works with redundant data to minimise seeks.

People keep mentioning that the size of Oblivion on the 360 is the same if not a tiny bit more than the PC install, which suggests there is little to no redundancy on the disc itself. If that is the case, then I think a lot of what is holding up load speeds on 360 (and probably the stuttering that occasionally happens) is the additional seeks. A lot of that potential throughput from the 12x DVD drive is lost when excess seeks are made thanks to a dataset compacted for minimal storage usage rather than streaming efficiency.

I'm not saying it would work miracles, since the PS3's drive does still have a lower throughput and significantly slower seek times than the 360's, but it should go some way to help with load times. It should also help in making the game world smoother as textures are streamed off the disc without too much seeking. I think that just transposing the assets as they are existingly packaged would have definitely proved untenable for the PS3 given its drive performance, so there has to be reliance on redundancy in my opinion.

I'm going to be really non-committal here though, since it depends on too many factors like the developer talent, port budget, engine suitability, and the way that the game was designed in the first place. I would at least hope they are addressing the issues that a slower performing BD-ROM drive poses.

But if Bethesda didn't go to the effort of utilixing the ~4gb they had left on the 360 disc for redundant data, what are the chances they'll do that for PS3?

I dunno, seems like they will have their plate full getting it ready for launch, let alone have time for optimizing load times very much.
 
But if Bethesda didn't go to the effort of utilixing the ~4gb they had left on the 360 disc for redundant data, what are the chances they'll do that for PS3?

I dunno, seems like they will have their plate full getting it ready for launch, let alone have time for optimizing load times very much.

Hopefully the OPM article will have a few answers for us. The cynic inside me thinks that irrespective of what Bethesda actually does for this game, it's going to get bandied about as a poster child for or against Blu-ray as a storage format. :/
 
Bethesda couldn`t shorten the shlong of a serial rapist even if he was threatening their anal cavities...so, in short, no:)
 
Man, we could go on about "Couldn't Bethesda's programmers..." for ever. The answer is no, they suck too much.
 
If Bethesda puts multiple languages on the disc I'm definetly going to play it in French or some other crazy moon language like that! Voiceovers never sound as bad when you have no idea what they are saying.
 
Can the PS3's CELL/RSX do any different?

Oh it could be better on the X360 as well, but unfortunately Bethesda Softworks (i hope i spelled that right) coding skills leaves a lot to be desired.

The seek times will probably be better, but other than that, i dont see them actually giving an effort to make them better. And i doubt they could if they tried.
 
Back
Top