Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2010]

[Bigduo209]

I remember the DF's interview with Bizarre Creations about how they achieved split-screen (and actually the improved the frame-rate above SP). It makes me wonder how Criterion achieved split-screen in NFS:HP, and how the performance differs from the a single player setup.

Edit: Wait, does NFS:HP have split-screen? I guess because most racing games are doing it now I assumed this does too, but does this game have it as well?

 

[patsu]

Is Hot Persuit ugly or does it have limited features compared to other racers ?

 

[ihamoitc2005]

No Tearing

Dev's usually only say that when trying to do things on RSX that they can do on Xenos but then find RSX is too slow or incapable.

In this case, they have instead categorized what each GPU can do at reasonable speeds. Then, they tailor the graphics engine to ONLY use those features that work well on both GPUs.

In short, instead of attempting to beef up RSX (through SPUs) to match Xenos, they are handicapping Xenos to match RSX.

Regards,
SB

This is good to know, my friend. I am sure 360 version will have no tearing for my friend's son.

 

[Mastperf]

If tearing was a sure sign of weaker performance you might have a point.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

This is good to know, my friend. I am sure 360 version will have no tearing for my friend's son.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this? It's quite obvious that tearing/no tearing is a design philosophy tailored to each console as nothing prevents developers from using vsync on X360 similar to PS3.

However, there is at the very least, the perception that X360 users are far less tolerant of low FPS than PS3 users. Much of that stems from the perception that Xbox is thought to be dominated by FPS players, many of whom migrated from PC. Those players being far more interested in fluid and responsive gameplay than lack of tearing.

Regards,
SB

 

[Neb]

Overhead perfomance?

This is good to know, my friend. I am sure 360 version will have no tearing for my friend's son.

You mean like "Xenos having spare cycles to have vsync enabled while RSX on the edge might not have it", yes?

 

[Trejser]

Burnout Paradise have vsync, 720p resulution, AAx2 and 60 fps on both consoles. PS3 version even had slighty better framerate before patch. It's Critersion, they were able to do magic things with PS2 hardware, don't start any conspiracy theories about underused 360 hardware

 

[Neb]

Burnout Paradise have vsync, 720p resulution, AAx2 and 60 fps on both consoles. PS3 version even had slighty better framerate before patch. It's Critersion, they were able to do magic things with PS2 hardware...

Well I was not sure how to take his comment about vsync so it was a question.

don't start any conspiracy theories about underused 360 hardware

Like the PS3 conspiracy theories about underutilisation? Heck no different kind of loads, different bottlenecks but both consoles have been under high pressure the latest years by varying games. IMO mostly nowdays I see see advances in art quality but staggnating tech advances and sometimes a tradeoff for some new tech with downgrade on other tech features. :smile:

 

[patsu]

Burnout Paradise have vsync, 720p resulution, AAx2 and 60 fps on both consoles. PS3 version even had slighty better framerate before patch. It's Critersion, they were able to do magic things with PS2 hardware, don't start any conspiracy theories about underused 360 hardware

Does Burnout Paradise use SPUs for lighting at all ?

I bought a copy for its technical achievement but left it pretty much untouched on my shelf.

I think the best way is to look at the final game. If Hot Persuit is a good looking game and runs well, then it advances an alternate PS3 development approach. In Insomniac's case, it seems that they created completely specialized software (tailored for only one game) to achieve their performance goals.

I remember in the early days, Insomniac was one of the few parties who didn't like delegating entirely to dynamic SPU scheduling (SPURS). They prefer completely explicit SPU program dispatch and control, which may allow them to optimize the game for every specific situation. IMHO, it's a tedious approach, but they did it anyway (e.g., in R&C). I believe they also used the SPUs for culling and advanced physics (e.g., water simulation).

EDIT: I vaguely remember Insomniac and Guerilla Games helped NaughtyDog solve tearing issues in [strike]U2[/strike] U1 (using triple buffering ?):
http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=5545&page=2

"Studios like Guerrilla Games, Insomniac and Santa Monica Studios were great sounding boards for technical advice. Specifically Guerrilla and Insomniac helped us eliminate the screen tearing that was present in Uncharted: Drake's Fortune.

 

[PhilB]

They must have meant U2. U1 wasn't vsynced.

 

[Fafalada]

In short, instead of attempting to beef up RSX (through SPUs) to match Xenos, they are handicapping Xenos to match RSX.

Unless they will make it HDD required, streaming will still be handicapped first to run on HDDless 360 (although maybe not so much, since it's not a free-roaming game like paradise).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Unless they will make it HDD required, streaming will still be handicapped first to run on HDDless 360 (although maybe not so much, since it's not a free-roaming game like paradise).

Eh? All game tests I've ever seen, for multiplatform games, have shown that streaming from X360 DVD is faster in general and in some small cases comparable to streaming from PS3 BRD+mandatory partial HDD installs. I'm sure there's probably a corner case here or there where the PS3 version streams/loads data faster from BRD+partial HDD install, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

So, I'd imagine that also would be the other way around with streaming having to take into consideration the rather slow BRD streaming speed on PS3.

Now, if your argument was that Texture quality when streaming has to take into account the size of the DVD on X360, there might be some merit there. But again the texture quality when streaming will also be largely dependant on streaming speed from media.

Regards,
SB

 

[Mastperf]

Unless they will make it HDD required, streaming will still be handicapped first to run on HDDless 360 (although maybe not so much, since it's not a free-roaming game like paradise).

Far too many examples to the contrary for this myth to stay alive. It was a nice attempt at a save though.

 

[Billy Idol]

Yeah, but isn't this exactly what is so weird, from a tech point of view:

you have Blue Ray Drive which (see the big thread here at B3D) is comparable in speed than the DVD drive in average and than you have additionally the mandatory HDD install - and still, in all DF test cases, Xbox360 is as fast or even faster than PS3 in loadings and streamings....I asked this in another thread, long time ago: how could this be?

One answer: as Xbox360 is always lead in MP development, the devs optimized it solely for the Xbox360 DVD architecture first, hoping for the HDD in the PS3 to compensate for the BRD weakness


Some hints for this theory:

*PS3 MP games need typically mandatory install to compensate for the less optimization in the PS3 build

*HALO 3 was so optimized for the DVD, that the optional install on Xbox360 resulted in a slight worse performance according to DF...so HDD does not automatically results into better performance, if game is DVD optimized, and not HDD optimized?!

*Burnout Paradise being the first (and only?) 'dev for all platforms at the same time game':
=>PS3 version streaming pre patch was better than Xbox360 streaming
=>and Xbox360 online gaming needs HDD mandatory which is kind of hefty!! (this is still a unique requirement, never seen in any other MP game up to now, right?)

I am not sure if there was a comparison for FF13 with respect to streaming and loading! Why this could be interesting for this theory??...to my knowledge, FF13 is the first MP game developed with the PS3 as lead (in fact I even suppose that they only had PS3 in mind when the dev'ed the game)- so this would be interesting to see how Xbox360 version (being considered as a rather sloppy port) compares in disciplines streaming and loading?!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

One answer: as Xbox360 is always lead in MP development, the devs optimized it solely for the Xbox360 DVD architecture first, hoping for the HDD in the PS3 to compensate for the BRD weakness

What optimisations are there for DVD that won't benefit BRD? It's the same basic tech, only denser data. Whatever block management or file positioning that could be done, the ISO could be burned similarly in BRD to the same ends.

 

[Trejser]

Eh? All game tests I've ever seen, for multiplatform games, have shown that streaming from X360 DVD is faster in general and in some small cases comparable to streaming from PS3 BRD+mandatory partial HDD installs. I'm sure there's probably a corner case here or there where the PS3 version streams/loads data faster from BRD+partial HDD install, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

From LoT analysys:

Games that don't require install and have better loading times

Dead to Rights: Retribution

SSFIV

Games that don't require install and have the same loading times

FFXIII

Darksiders

Singularity

Resonance of Fate

Godfather 2

Golden Axe

Sonic

Dante's Inferno

Transformers: RoTF

Dead Space

MK vs. DC

Games that don't require install and have worse loading times

Dark Void

AoT:40th

Bayonetta (don't have any info about loadings after optional install)

MX vs. ATV Reflex

MW2

Tekken 6 (the same after optional install)

G.I. Joe

COJ: BiB

SFIV

BlazBlue

SCIV

Games that require install and have better loading times

Split Second

RDR

Operation FlashpointDirt 2

NFS Shift

Hawx

RE5

Skate 3

JC2

Avatar

Games that require install and have the same loading times

Batman: AA

Bionic Commando

Terminator

SSW: TFU

POP

Transformers

WWES

Brutal Legend

Marver UA

Ghostbusters

X-Men Orgins

Bioshock

Prototype

50 cent

Games that require install and have worse loading times

Bioshock 2

AC2

Borderlands

BC2

Wolfenstein

 

[ShadowRunner]

Load times and data streaming are two seperate things right? The advantage HDD has in streaming is random seek speed i would imagine. And the possibility to stream from optical media and HDD together...

 

[Mastperf]

What optimisations are there for DVD that won't benefit BRD? It's the same basic tech, only denser data. Whatever block management or file positioning that could be done, the ISO could be burned similarly in BRD to the same ends.

I was gonna ask the same question. I hear people saying "optimized for DVD but not Blu-ray" and always thought that sounded odd. With the massive amount of redundancy, it should in theory be an easy win for Blu-Ray. I don't believe the actual peak throughput is that much different (right?) between the 2 drives so there has to be another reason.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Though average transfer speeds put the two drives as being fairly similar, there have been noted cases where XB360's 12x DVD drive will have higher throughput, and I think it typically has a slight speed advantage in actual application. more often accessed data could be put on the outside tracks to gain the highest speed advantage, for example (how much do games developers actually control this sort of thing?! considering often other parts of the game tech is far from idealised use of the hardware, and often development files are burnt onto disc without being used in the final version, are they going to sweat data layout on drive?). In theory BRD should have smaller seek times for the same dataset as the information is denser, and this Googled link suggests as much (what was their random data though?), though for disk area the seek time is slower, perhaps due to slower head motors for greater the accuracy needed?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It might be just something as simple as the drive controller used in the PS3 is not as fast as that in the X360. On PC's, for example, most SATA drive controllers lag behind Intel's. The most interesting recent case is Marvell's 6 GB/s SATA controller being generally quite a bit slower than Intels standard SATA controller in most workloads other than sequential transfers.

Regards,
SB