HD problems in Xbox 360 and PS3 (Zenji Nishikawa article @ Game Watch)

you have right so why is so many negative comments on x360 ? not enought bandwitch, CPU l2 cache locking unusbale, to little pixel shading power..man so many negatives on x360 but for ps3 everything is ok it's a shading monster...

 

It doesn't quite say that, it says you may want to trade off framebuffer size against bandwidth for example, by not using FP16 buffers etc.

czekon - don't turn this into a system bash-fest. Be constructive.

 

I don't know what you have been reading but both consoles seem to be getting equal amout of heat from devs and in both cases it seem to be about bandwidth and memory personally i think this gen started a bit to early

 

I'm thinking 960 x 540 is going to become pretty familiar to people and not just for games but for CE devices as well.

 

I'd hope not. That's like half the resolution of 720p. At least 880x720 is slightly better (though not much ).

Are there many devices coming out with that res?

 

I think he is implying that they will render at that res to double to 1080i/p. Which makes sense I suppose.

 

I completely agree, I was merely making a quick summary of the Article, obviously each and every engine/game will choose how it's "best" to spend the system power.


BTW, good job avoiding feeding "trolls" sofar, people.

 

That does not sound like HD, unless you are doing atleast 720p. If developers are upscaling than the games original resolution should be listed on the back of the box. Saying otherwise is a deception!

360 sucks? That's like saying the PS2 sucks, because it's hardware was lacking in some respects, but the end result developers managed to do good things with it. It all comes down to how developers use the hardware.

Give me 720p over HDR.

Tile rendering versus traditional rendering. Kinda of reminds me about the whole PowerVR (of which I was a huge fan of) versus traditional rendering architectures, and we know how that turned out. RSX does not look so bad anymore, but then again a 24 pipeline monster never looked bad to me.

Thanks One for the translation!

 

Is that resolution not 1/4 of 1080p/i?

 

I might be stupid in this area but I just looked at the 540 and multiplied by 2 and saw 1080 and the 960 gives 1920 so I assumed that would allow for "doubling" to 1920x1080, giving 1080i/p. I have no idea about how these resolutions work so I didnt know if it mattered. Sorry about that

 

It doubles in the width and height dimensions, but doubling those quadruples the area, or resolution in this case. You can work it out by just multiplying the numbers:

960x540 = 518400
1280x720 = 921600
1920x1080 = 2073600

 

Yes it makes sense. I thought of it as doubling but geometrically speaking its four of the former inside one of the latter. Sorry again for my noob speak

 

The res I mentioned has been around for a couple years now, as a matter of fact, IF the ICT is ever implemented, this is the resolution you will get from an analog (component) output.

What is PGR3s res again?

 

1024x600, I think...?

 

1024x576 (16:9)

 

I kinda disagree with the premise of this article. Firstly the whole developer commentary seems to be a bit of a 'what if you couldn't tile'. Secondly, there's a little too much invested in PC component comparisons.

Looking at it entirely pragmatically, developers deal with what they are given and will make the best out of the hardware they've got. Bottleneck X will just be worked around because deveopers code specifically to it, unlike PC card bottleneck X because the game code doesn't care much about the card it has.

Of course games would look so much better if they were designed around a lower resolution, c'est la vie. I suppose the accusation is that the hardware doesn't do enough to match the resolution it's pitching at, but that's reading way too much into the theoretical numbers and not considering the work developers do.

 

Question on Tiliing, can you place the 'tiles' however you wish or do they need to follow a predetermined template (e.g. 1/3's vertically)? I wonder if slicing the tiles in different ways could help prevent the geometry overlap? (like cut a strip off the top of the frame that will usually only include the sky and then split the rest in 1/2, if that makes any sense)

Thanks one for the translation, i wish i could read the whole thing because it seems a pretty interesting read.

 

MGS4 didn't seem to be behind any curve to me..

 

not wanting to sound "told you so" and revive memories of months-old threads of "HD is the roxxor, SD is da d000med!111!", but i'm pretty sure for many posters on these forums those facts from the articles hardly come as any surprise. for those who bit the marketing bate, well, a reality check.

btw, i'd like to second [maven]'s question, anybody care to commment on the "L2 cache locking useless" remark?

 

AFAIK the dev has the option to set the tiling position. I guess it has to be symmetrical, but maybe not, as long as the tile fits in the eDRAM, so slicing your render target into two halves one third down the screen may be an option. Dunno about dynamic tiling either, a different tile structure per frame, or how you could measure and divide that way.

So, really, at the end of the day, I'm not very useful!