So would you agree it is a cost saving bottleneck with not a single technical advantage?Makes it easier to upgrade one of them
try applying that to the ps3
Could Dreamcast et al handle this/that game/effect? *DC tech retrospective *spawn
- Thread starter xaeroxcore
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sega
There are some details that people didnt mention. The PS3 GPU could access both its VRAM as well as the system XDR RAM. It wasnt necessarilly limited to the VRAM, but of course the Cell was limited to whatever Main RAM was available. Both the PS3's GPU VRAM and the Unified memory in the 360 had the same bandwidth. On the other hand the PS3's XDR memory was slightly faster than the 360's memory. The issue was that if I recall correctly, that access to XDR by the PS3 GPU had additional latency, whereas on the 360 since the memory was unified it didnt have that issue, although I am not sure if it also had its own caveats by having both the CPU and GPU accessing the same memory.
So for any RSX needs that required to access XDR, that came with latency. The other issue the PS3 had at the beginning of the generation was that it had significantly less total memory available compared to the 360 because the OS had a much larger footprint on the XDR RAM.
So devs initially had less memory to play with, plus less flexibility since the memory was not unified on the PS3, which had latency issues. This is why multiplatform games had such a huge disparity between the two originally. Sony later reduced the OS footpring and hence disparities between multiplatform games were almost barely noticeable to none on more demanding games such as the amazing Castlevania game.
The 360 had an additional memory of 10MB of eDram btw which was very fast. The 360 at the end had higher bandwidth. Thats why it had the ability if I recall to push more transparencies and objects on screen which was specifically apparent on the two versions of Ninja Gaiden 2 where the 360 was pushing higher amounts of enemies and objects. That game was clearly developed around the 360's capabilities.
I guess if you have 2 separate memory pools that would give you increased bandwidth
so no I don't agree
Last edited:
A little correction. 360 - 22.4 GB/s, PS3 - 20.8 GB/s. XDR is faster, 25.6 GB/s. So 360's VRAM have 1.6 GB/s more bandwidth. And XDR have 3.2 GB/s more bandwidth. So in raw numbers PS3 have 1.6 GB/s more bandwidth. But there is more moments. 360 have one RAM pool and EDRAM.
Too far OT for a DC and retro console discussion.
Not sure where their '24 fps' number comes from. Eyeballing that, it's clearly not 24 fps; more like half that. Quick slow-mo playback I counted 9 frames in a second from 33 seconds to 34.
I frame by framed it and got at least 20 or 21 over (roughly) that same period. Around 44 seconds into the video I got 23 updates over 60 frames (starting counting updates immediately after an a frame where an update occurred which was not counted).
Highest I got from the points I sampled was 24 or 25.
A 120 fps video from a camera with a fast shutter speed and very high quality compression would make counting frames much easier.
Edit: lowest I've got seems to be about 18 fps.
Last edited:
There's no way. It looks akin to stop motion animation rates which is 12 fps. Using Sonicfan's direct video, at quarter speed, as the clock ticks over 27 seconds, there are 9 frames to it ticking over to 28.
So now I've just used nVidia screen grab to record the video playing in YT as I can't download it (sadly VLC doesn't work), using the 44th second as you suggest. Imported the capture into my video editing and counted 12 frames.
Sadly there's no way to embed the mp4 short of uploading. I trust that isn't necessary.
It is so very clearly not cinematic 24 fps but more stop-motion-level 12 fps, I'm very surprised this is even disputed.
So now I've just used nVidia screen grab to record the video playing in YT as I can't download it (sadly VLC doesn't work), using the 44th second as you suggest. Imported the capture into my video editing and counted 12 frames.
Sadly there's no way to embed the mp4 short of uploading. I trust that isn't necessary.
Why do you need any of that. Each frame is very distinct and easily countable. Just run it at quarter speed in YouTube and count the frames. I can only conclude that you counted too many frames (60 frames on a 30 fps video?) and should instead have counted frames with the time interval.
It is so very clearly not cinematic 24 fps but more stop-motion-level 12 fps, I'm very surprised this is even disputed.
I'm using the video in the below post, the video that was titled as being 24 fps, the one you responded to where I then responded to you responding to it:
I've not counted the frames in the video you're now posting about. It's a different video by a different person.
Edit: I think you've inadvertently gone to the next video that Sonicfan posted, which does indeed have much lower framerates, in the 9 ~ 11 fps range.
Last edited:
NTSC RF, NTSC composite, PAL RGB (yay!), or VGA (ult1m8)?
I agree with you that at 44s in the first video, it's 20 something fps. At the earlier parts I counted, the driving, it's never getting that high. The off-screen one has some terrible frame pacing/weirdness, resulting in two visible changes per 'frame'. However, these are completely absent from the direct-capture, so I'm guessing it's some display-capture artefacting.
Actually I'm not even sure it's 20 fps where you say. Are we seeing TV motion interpolation in effect? There's very odd movements and smearing. You have a fairly regular 10-12 fps pacing, and then suddenly these moments of multiple small frames between larger changes, in between frames when the scenery moves but the animation doesn't change.
eg. This composite of two frames. Check the ghosting on the notice board.
I feel this source is unreliable and we don't need it anyway as we have the direct feed.
Going just off that, counting various points I'd say the game (or most accurately that video of it) is presently averaging around 10-11 fps. Lowest I've counted is 9 fps. At 1:11 frame counting in the video editor, it hits about 20 fps turning right in front of the grass but you can notice that as visibly smoother playing the video, and such smoother moments are very rare placing the average as pretty consistent with little variation.
sheathx013
Newcomer
I have no idea about the developers' true intent in the making of this game, but it is stated in this video that they "may" make a Saturn port if certain social funding goals are met.
Watching Parking Garage Rally Circuit, and thinking about the higher detail Saturn racers like Sega Touring Car Championship, I think they could make an adaptation of this game, but not what we are seeing in this hands on video. I don't think the Saturn or the Playstation or the N64 could handle *at 20-30FPS* the draw distance with the number of parked cars on screen for example. Maybe they could switch to 2D versions of cars in the back and it wouldn't be too obtrusive. The nearest equivalent to this I can think of is Formula Karts on the Saturn. At a glance they might look really similar actually.
I've seen 3D mesh transparencies in Saturn games, but not for debris and smoke in a Saturn Racer. I've seen these in Burning Rangers, and NiGHTs and Virtual On, but not a Racer. Maybe those would have to be reduced to period correct effects, or eliminated entirely.
Watching Parking Garage Rally Circuit, and thinking about the higher detail Saturn racers like Sega Touring Car Championship, I think they could make an adaptation of this game, but not what we are seeing in this hands on video. I don't think the Saturn or the Playstation or the N64 could handle *at 20-30FPS* the draw distance with the number of parked cars on screen for example. Maybe they could switch to 2D versions of cars in the back and it wouldn't be too obtrusive. The nearest equivalent to this I can think of is Formula Karts on the Saturn. At a glance they might look really similar actually.
I've seen 3D mesh transparencies in Saturn games, but not for debris and smoke in a Saturn Racer. I've seen these in Burning Rangers, and NiGHTs and Virtual On, but not a Racer. Maybe those would have to be reduced to period correct effects, or eliminated entirely.
sheathx013
Newcomer
From what I've recorded of the PS2 version, there are many between frame changes that would need to be accounted for and ruled out before arriving at a true framerate count of that version. I suspect this has to do with the 224 lines nature of the PS2 in the first place, lights and other VPU related things might change while the scene does not, etc.
If I focus on the background in the busy turning moments I might count as low as 17 frames or as high as 25 for example.
Moments I keep recounting and getting one or two higher or lower based on what I focus on:
Gameplay Start:
30
4:03-4:04 23-25
4:04-4:05 23
4:05:4:06 20
12:43-12:44 17
12:44-12:45 28
12:45-12:46 31
12:46-12:47 31
12:47-12:48 32
12:56-12:58 54 (two seconds!)
Naughty Dog was on a whole level of their own.
Also notable mention should also be made for Ridge Racer 4. The draw distances were also huge, with animated backgrounds and advanced lighting for it's time. It competed easily with GT but doing things differently.