Console Performance - Now or Later

Its not really a double edged sword. You could easly make a console that would give you "performance early" and have lots of legroom.

Just make something thats exotic enough to give devs trouble, but make proper dev tools like MS did.

The Xbox 360 isn't easier to code of mainly because of the architecture, its mainly more easy to code for because of the superior devtools.

 

Well considering multi-core is a pain for them to code for yeah, but also one thing is the Xenon is symmetrical, that alleviates some of the difficulties at least. Whereas CELL has an asymmetrical architecture which is harder to program for comparing even to the Xenon.

And didn't Sony release EDGE as a free tool to devs, doesn't it help devs to make their lives easier. I also heard the PS3 is already easy to develop for according to certain first party devs. They could be lying, but I don't doubt PS3 is easier to develop for since its initial release now that devs have more time with it and EDGE is widely available.

 

I don't understand what your trying to say here...

I know all about Xenon and Cell differences, i was just pointing out to you that there really is no double edged sword, given good enough dev tools and and exotic enough architecture you would get performance right away, and a lot of legroom in the future.

You can have both easy to achieve performance, and alot of "untapped" power.

The last paragraph seems like some kind of damage-control thingy in regards to something that i've never said.

 

Well, I understand that you can have a machine that is both a pleasure to develop for and have a lot of legroom left after eg. PCs, they have been and will be easy to develop for, and have a lot of potential. In the consoles area, 360 has less potential to extract performance because it already has untapped a bulk of its potential already, sure Gears of War didn't max it out, but I am pretty sure Mass Effect and UT3 will. There are always tradeoffs, there's no perfect machine that can both be easily extracted and still have a lot of legroom left. UNLESS 360 is insanely more powerful than PS3, given its architecture, it is easy to extract power from, and it has way more peak power than PS3, then its potential is great at the same time. PS3 and 360 are roughly equal, with the 360 showing its power earlier than PS3. Logicially, if PS3's isnt showing its grunt yet, then wouldn't it be reasonable to think it has more potential in the future than the 360? I am not saying there's no way to improve the 360, it's just the legroom is less since a lot of its power is already harnessed because of superior devtools and easier architecture.

 

This logic is well... interesting to say it in a polite way.

Why would a middleware engine that doesn't implement half the features of what the Xenos can do "max" out the X360?

And what are you basing this on, except for random guessing?

Further, what has given you the impression that a console can be maxed out? It cannot, you will never reach 100% usage of hardware, and never reach 100% perfectly optimized code. If we spend 10 more years making games for the PS2, GoW2 will look "meh" (of course diminishing results would park it eventually, and one might argue PS2 devs allready reached a point where we would have little noticeable improvement, but its never maxed out).

Not once have i made any comment saying the PS3 does not have more potential, i said it does have more "potential" 10 posts back, im not arguing that. All i did was letting you know that there doesn't have to be a double edged sword with consoles. You can achieve ease of development and "untapped power".

 

Then the argument is would you rather have more potential for later or less but more performance now. No one can really argue over which one is better then. There are proponents and opponents to both ends....This thread is pretty pointless now.

 

And 360 isn't winning by a lot in the graphics department anyway over the PS3...it's not like the multiplats suck on the PS3...So, 360 isn't really having a really huge advantage over the PS3. Sure, PS3 is hard to develop for, but things are already done to make devs' lives easier. First party games like Lair and Heavenly Sword are already showing the power of the PS3. Multiplats are designed with 360 being the leading platform, and port over to the PS3, and since they are very different beasts, the transitioning of the code could mean an adverse effect in the PS3's performance. Porting from PS3 to 360 maybe a better solution as some have said.

 

So im guessing that you have no plans to try to explain why on earth you think a middleware engine that doesn't even support tiling (a very critical feature for IQ on the Xenos) is going to max out the X360?

 

I am pretty sure X360 will be used thoroughly in Mass Effect. And look at this link:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=30197
our fellow B3D forumers already made it clear that the 360 has a lot of disadvantages using tiling.

 

Ah, you are pretty sure. Wow, great argument. So even thought we have games coming out this fall, the same time as Mass Effect, that are technically better, ME maxes out the X360 because your sure??

Look at this link first.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/1

good night.

 

Here, here!

I find it halirious that such a statement can go unchallenged on these forums, bias?

So there will be little if any difference between the 2 & minor inconsistencies may be attributed to art. HHHmmm, I should then ignore the greater theoretical output of the PS3. I should also ignore the fact the CELL & RSX are crunching through between 2GB-5GB of data / level to create those expansive environments on both HS & Uncharted. Lets simply not mention the competition has nothing to compare to that (5GB levels) even 18+months after launch.

Perhaps someone need inform these journos not to get so excited over KZ2:

The difference between Resistance & KZ2 highlights how much of the PS3’s potential is untapped. Does the competition have any such dramatic improvements or are games still measured against GOW.

As for future proofing the console I’m all for it, 7yrs + lifecycle, absolutely. I’m still buying games for the ps2 brick that sits beneath the tv.

I believe this is where I now get scolded for referencing a game not yet released & making comparisons. I couldn't help but mention KZ2 considering we are discussing the "untapped" (future) potential of the PS3.

 

Exactly...I am not bashing the 360 in anyways, its potential is there still. Mass Effect is likely to use more of its potential. However, I am betting Crytek is the developer who will fully utilize its power. They are already developing a game for the next-gens...and one team is dedicated to the PS3 and PC and 360 are together. The thing is that 360 does have a lower peak power compared to the PS3, this is not a joke, it's a fact.

 

Prey runs better on my friends' PC which is a P4 and 7600gt than on the 360...and Prey is optimized for ATI.

 

Why on earth do you think Crytek is the dev to do that?

They make pretty games for the PC, anyone can make "pretty" games for the PC.

 

It's common knowledge that the 360's edRAM is insufficient to do AA in higher resolutions...
And my friend's 7600gt runs Prey better than 360. He has both.

 

Because CryENGINE2 is the most powerful engine on the market? It is second only to idTech5.

 

The only way for the X360 do achieve AA at HD resolutions is by using tiling....

So going by the GameFAQ's logic that B3D has turned into, a 7600GT rig is more powerful than a X360! zOMG!

Just for a laugh, since we are using this silly logic, respond to this:

X360 runs Madden 08 2x better (twice the framerate, same graphics) than the PS3.

Now, whatever your response is to that, can be applied to your prey statement.

Says who? And how that applies to consoles i have no idea, as its common knowledge that you'd want a custom engine rather than a PC engine if you want to "max" out a console


Good night!

 

Take it to neogaf, there's no need for this crap here.

There are limitations that come with that hardware also and they've been discussed to death.

Should I give a shit what some journalist (whose job revolves around creating hits for his site, which is generally done via overly positive, or negative buzz) thinks about a demo/trailer of an unreleased title?

What one development team does vs what another development team does (or perhaps may do, cuz I can't find KZ2 on shelves yet) is not necessarily indicative of anything to do with untapped potential. It could just be a better choice in the way to tap resources, or how much effort was actually put into the title.

Well finally we're back on topic. Was that part of your thinking when you bought the PS2? Was that purchase in any way based on where it would be 7 years in the future?

Using an unfinished/unreleased product as an example leaves a ton of holes in any argument.

 

Seriously Geoson, just give it up. Making rediculous claims about what hardware/software is most powerful or more "untapped" is not casting you in a good light. You really don't have any clue about these things and are just regurgitating various marketing bs, so please just stop.

 

EErrr, shouldn't we just point out the fact that AA has pretty much gone missing on 360 games in general?

Isn't it particularly damning that a 1st party AAA game such as Forz2 couldn't implement AA even 18months after launch? Also how do you explain the fact MS now allows techniques that mimic AA when they had earlier set the bar so high - "free 4x MSAA on every 360 game". I anticipate getting harassed for that comment but is it not true? Has MS lowered the bar in respect to their TRCs. Is that not a step backwards?

By contrast PS3 devs seem to have no trouble implementing 4x AA & coming up creative solutions ("funky colour space") to preserve memory & bandwidth even though its not supported in hardware.

Back on topic:

Absolutely, The ps1 was still going strong & longevity played a major role in the purchasing decision. Other factors did of course include a more attractive entry price & an established games library.