How much work must the SPU's do to compensate for the RSX's lack of power?
- Thread starter Commenter
- Start date
- Status
Svensk Viking
Regular
I don't know tech, but this is what I feel about the so-called "hardware pushers" on the consoles...Just saying that so I don't get any bashing from the tech-knowledgeable
KZ2 and U2 are very linear, with small environments and not too many characters on screen at once...Banjo Kazooie and Halo 3 have bigger environments, with many characters and other stuff on screen at once
As I stated, I don't know tech so I appreciate if you don't bash me with such stuff, but I have just gotten the feeling that the 360 exclusives often are more "opened up" than the PS3 exclusives, which are quite limited linear experiences
KZ2 and U2 are very linear, with small environments and not too many characters on screen at once...Banjo Kazooie and Halo 3 have bigger environments, with many characters and other stuff on screen at once
As I stated, I don't know tech so I appreciate if you don't bash me with such stuff, but I have just gotten the feeling that the 360 exclusives often are more "opened up" than the PS3 exclusives, which are quite limited linear experiences
Well...If it was so easy to make a game look as good as UC2/KZ2 by just making it linear then why don't we see other games do it ?
Yeah but it bears mentioning because people still get confused as to why "all the spu's" aren't used. For example, just check Lucid's post that is shortly after yours. Not that I want to single him out, but this kind of thinking is very common. To paraphrase, he mentions he's read that "2 or 3 SPUs dedicated to geometry processing", then says "That still leaves another 3 or 4 SPUs (and PPU) for other tasks beyond that". But there aren't another 3 or 4 spu's to spare because people forget that there are still two full ppu/vmx cores to make up for that are present on 360 but not on PS3. So before you even touch any graphical task, you still have to spend spu's to make up for regular non graphics processing differences. This bears repeating because to this day some still think the spu's aren't used, but you have no choice but to use them just to make up the cpu divide, let alone before you even touch on graphics. Or to quickly summarize, there may be 6 spu's, but Sony partly uses one, and some of the others have to be used to perform tasks that are run on cores 2 and 3 on the 360. Then whatever is left is what you have for your graphics pipeline.
Both of our launch and close to launch 360 games used all three cores. However, they were used horribly inefficiently as in not one line of vmx code, oodles of load hit stores, tons of branching, many stalls, etc. I suppose if we wanted to be snarky at the time we could have said "We're using 100% of the consoles power" but of course that would have been completely misleading and meaningless anyways.
Why is it really that hard to believe? I think this is what is seems to come back to time and time again where psychologically people just can't accept that something is less capable just because it costs more, came out later, or perhaps because it looks physically larger. Has is never happened in the history of engineering that a product came out a touch later yet is actually worse than the competition?
nightshade said:
Who decides what "looks as good"? To me KZ2 doesn't even make my top 10 list of graphically impressive games. That makes me a heretic on forums to be sure, but it just doesn't. UC2 looks great, but it's also not the best looking game out there to me. So when you say "why don't we see other games do it", well I've already seen them do it many times because to me there are better looking games out there. So the whole idea of bringing up the same games again and again as 'fact' when it comes to which are the most graphically impressive doesn't mean anything, because what you and I think are the best looking games is almost certainly different.
The difference from GOW/GOWII to GOWIII is quite large. The introduction of global shadows is quite a large uppgrade. But mostly that Bullestorm gameplay video though dont know what platform but that was a massive improvement.
I'm sure any reasonably talented coder could write a program that would saturate all the internal buses, fill all the memory pools, and use 100% processing time on every execution unit, all the while doing nothing but drawing a black screen.
This application would utilize every bit of the hardware, but I doubt that it could be called a good piece of engineering.
This does not change the fact that the underlying engine is multiplatform oriented and probably could do better if those parts of the code were to be dropped or completely rewritten.
And Bulletstorm is multiplatform too, on top of that it's not just PC but PS3, so it still can't possibly push the 360 to its limits.
Then again, does anyone but us really care about it? As long as it looks and plays good, it doesn't matter to the market IMHO, and that's what concerns MS, not our happiness here on B3D.
corduroygt
Banned
Not a single person but the collective consensus. Judging by all the awards and reviews and people's opinions, PS3 is clearly seen as the console with the superior graphics, if only in the exclusives. Your preferences in this manner are clearly in the minority.
Not to derail the thread but what are, in your opinion the best looking PS3 games? As you are a developer yourself I'm pretty interested in what you think about the matter.
I know, it's just that IMO MS do not push their hardware with their first party efforts as Sony do on PS3 - longer development times and engines designed to run specifically on ps3
Svensk Viking
Regular
Just wanted to add that towards the end in this interview, Corrine Yu seems to be irritated that the 360 is so easy to develop for, that devs don't bother pushing it
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Insi...ngine-Architect-Halo-Team-Microsoft-Part-One/
Did you see the awards GTAIV got for everything including graphics from players and reviews?
Not saying it is bad or anyhting like that but if going by scores and hype it had it would be about the best that was created.. ever.
Yeah partially welcome to PC land where if brute force can do it then it is done that way.
Only if we consider the N64 vs. PS1 where the cart and memory issues crippled the newer product. As it is now, isn't it a common consensus in the industry that the current HD consoles offer similar performance with distinctly different strengths?
We've rarely seen developers come out and proclaim one superior, and even then it was likely in regards to their game.
Aren't KZ2's multiplayer maps just as expansive? Halo 3 is hardly an open world game. As far as platformers go, Insomniac's R&C series does have big environments and pushing a lot on screen too. Even lot of transparencies.
Last edited by a moderator:
corduroygt
Banned
I'm not talking about hype at launch, I'm going by hype 6 months/1 year after launch, as well as the general consensus, no one says GTA4 looks good any more, yet UC2 and KZ2 are amongst the best looking games for the majority.
Halo 3 also scored a 10 for graphics despite the inefficient way it did HDR and gave up scene complexity, AA and resolution, that's hype. Even the diehard fans admit that it doesn't look good but they come back for the gameplay.
Judging by the software sales, such awards and reviews and opinions matter not.
Yeah... maybe 343's Halo game is going to amaze us all. Ken Scott is definitely the kind of artist to push content that can put every other game to shame...
It sure as hell outsold KZ2, UC1-2, GOW3 and maybe even KZ3 - combined. 17 million units so far, according to Rockstar.
Well, the culling doesn't use up the 2 or 3 SPUs (whatever the number is) all the time though. As Laa Yosh and T.B. mentioned, the culling seems to take up a small portion of the CPU time. Not to mention on the PS3, you can work on more than one frames at the same time, so PS3 gets to cheat a little. Simple h/w comparisons like that just doesn't tell the full picture. It is missing the entire software design/practices in the picture.
For general computation, the PS3 has built-in features at managing memory too. I don't think we can have an apple-to-apple comparison here just because the fundamental philosophy and architecture are very different.
It is not merely an issue of spare CPU computational power or even speed. e.g. See MLAA.
EDIT:
Your discussion of AI is understandable, but also something that was previously discussed.
I think the AI view comes from the top down perspective (goal driven), where as the signal processing view comes from bottom up (implementation driven). They are flip side of the same coin -- until the researchers find new scope (for AI) in the same space, or alternate implementations (different from signal processing techniques).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked