Is PS3 hard to develop for, because of CELL or ...

[gongo]

RSX being underpowered to handle multiplatform games? Not to say RSX is a bad gpu, but tbh i know from what have been gathered, its not really close to Xenos performance for developers.

Why this topic as of now when nobody really cares as much about current consoles tech? Im just intrigued that up till now, Sony seemed undecided for which hardware to go into PS4...i would imagine the smart way for them is to openly confirm they will use CELL v2 for PS4, and then give tenders to gpu makers to come make us a VFM B/B next gen gpu. Yet i see them twinkler toeing between Larrabee, Westmere, Power7, probably AMD Bulldoser too and maybe back to CELL....losing too much time for the development of PS4 platform/software...Is the original PS3 CELL that bad for developers that they have warned Sony a riot will break out if SCE went back to CELL...? Intriguing...

 

[assen]

Cell introduces the so-called "1 fps barrier": the phenomenon where you get your engine/game to barely compile for PS3, only on the PPC, and it runs at 1 fps. You have to overcome Cell, and its SPUs, to break out of there.

What hurts the "ease of development" for PS3 is mostly the business climate it is in. In a world where the 360 (and to a lesser extend, the PC) didn't exist, the PS3 would be "easier to develop" for two reasons: first, fewer people would try to shoehorn their PC/360 engines onto it, they would develop from scratch for it. And second, there would be no cries for "parity" on multiplatform releases. This ideal world, for which the PS3 was designed, was probably Sony's vision of Japan before the handhelds took over and the Wii exploded.

 

[gongo]

I could be overestimating how structured console development is....but i think right now MS would have a mapped out plan and checkpoint markers taking stock, be deep into conceptualization with ATI on their nextbox...2012 is not really that far off to make and sell a nextgen console....yet it seems that SCE do not even have a CENTRAL processing UNIT nailed down.

Back to the topic, if PS3 had launched with a jr G80, would we see much less complaints about cell?

 

[swaaye]

I'd like to know if/how the Cell CPU has proven itself to be innately superior to its brethren for gaming, to justify it being a pain in the ass. Is there some game that utilizes the CPU to do something really beneficial, something that its competitors could not do? I'm not aware of anything. I've read that devs try to figure out ways around RSX's gimpyness by using Cell for some stuff but that's not exactly something that exemplifies PS3 engineering ingenuity lol.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

G80 wasn't a financially possible solution. No point lamenting it. If you're going to consider impossible situations you may as well throw up the hypothetical situation of PS3 coming with Xenos!

 

[swaaye]

They could have dropped a R580 or even a full-on 256-bit G71 into that toaster oven. Or hell maybe give the GPU 512MB. Something to justify the initial $600 as a game machine, instead of recycling PS2's "exciting movie format that becomes a walmart commodity in 3 years" amazing-new-optical-drive. I feel that they just used PS3 as a platform to try to push their technologies instead of making a really great gaming machine.

BTW, I don't own a PS3 or a 360. Just a lame ass Wii.

 

[suryad]

What I dont understand is what is the point of building a completely separate console setup when a PC does it? Why dont they just bundle a bunch of PC parts in an HTPC box and call it a console? Thats how I look at it at least and thus we wont have this developer confusion!

 

[swaaye]

What I dont understand is what is the point of building a completely separate console setup when a PC does it? Why dont they just bundle a bunch of PC parts in an HTPC box and call it a console? Thats how I look at it at least and thus we wont have this developer confusion!

Because that would reduce their control over everything and it would just be a Vaio desktop without enough RAM and a goddawful CPU for desktop tasks.

 

[flynn]

What I dont understand is what is the point of building a completely separate console setup when a PC does it? Why dont they just bundle a bunch of PC parts in an HTPC box and call it a console? Thats how I look at it at least and thus we wont have this developer confusion!

That's been done already, it's called the Xbox. If MS decided to go with PPC hardware this time there must be a reason, don't you think?

And please, let consoles be consoles. I don't want a PC for gaming the same way I don't use a PC as a desktop computer either.

 

[Squilliam]

Its not hard to develop for independantly. Its just that theres another system, lets call it the noob box for comparisons sake. This other system makes it easier for developers to reach the heady heights of performance bliss relatively easier than the PS3. So now the PS3 developers are forced to extract more performance and quicker than they would have liked and in effect it forced a much steeper learning curve onto a console which already had a steep learning curve.

The PS3 ports were fine, until you had people start comparing them to the noob box.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's been done already, it's called the Xbox. If MS decided to go with PPC hardware this time there must be a reason, don't you think?

And please, let consoles be consoles. I don't want a PC for gaming the same way I don't use a PC as a desktop computer either.

And despite the Xbox being basically a PC in a box it was just peachy and could do just about everything the PS2 could and more as a console.

So having a PC heritage in no way cripples a console as a console.

The choice of the IBM PPC was more to do with theoretical processing power per dollar spent. I'm sure they would have been perfectly happy with a Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad. But that would have been at higher overall cost.

In hindsight it may have been better as there are some things about PPC that you need to code around/work around. Also the fact that MS wanted to have all rights related to the parts in the console that could not be sourced from multiple hardware vendors. IE - the Nvidia situation they had with the Xbox. They didn't want to have to constantly re-negotiate cost contracts everytime there was a possibility a piece of silicon could be manufactured at lower cost.

It'll be interesting if they go for another semi-custom CPU for the next Xbox.

As to the PS3, as noted before, in a world where Playstation dominates sales, the esoteric and basically proprietary nature of the PS3 wouldn't have been a problem. You either code for it and make lots of money (PS2) or code for the "lesser" machine and make less money (Xbox 1).

Only this console generation didn't turn out like Sony was expecting. The brand didn't give it instant "win." They launched late giving X360 a chance to basically determine the direction this console generation would go. And with it's ease of developement (since many devs are familiar with PC developement) devs standardized on doing that first then porting to other consoles.

Of course, for us PC fans, this has the unfortunate side effect of accelerating the move of PC devs from PC first (or only) to Console first (or only). And, of course, this migration also helped to cement the X360 as the preferred console to develope on first for multiplatform devs.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Its not hard to develop for independantly. Its just that theres another system, lets call it the noob box for comparisons sake.

Though I understand your point, the choice of the term 'noob box' I find disingenuous. No-one wants to spend time learning to do something if they can instead spend time doing it! There was a Top Gear episode where Jeremy Clarkson drove an original Model T Ford. It was a complicated dog of a car! Are we going to say anyone prefering the contemporary ease of an automatic is a sissy wanting a 'noob car'? Why, CryEngine 3 is, by your standard, the most ridiculous set of training wheels for useless game developers who are incapable of writing their own engine and need to use someone else's code!

 

[corduroygt]

And despite the Xbox being basically a PC in a box it was just peachy and could do just about everything the PS2 could and more as a console.

True, but at what cost? Although designed 2 years later, it was more expensive and obviously it would have to be more powerful than the ps2, just like ps2 was more powerful than Dreamcast.

 

[Squilliam]

Though I understand your point, the choice of the term 'noob box' I find disingenuous. No-one wants to spend time learning to do something if they can instead spend time doing it! There was a Top Gear episode where Jeremy Clarkson drove an original Model T Ford. It was a complicated dog of a car! Are we going to say anyone prefering the contemporary ease of an automatic is a sissy wanting a 'noob car'? Why, CryEngine 3 is, by your standard, the most ridiculous set of training wheels for useless game developers who are incapable of writing their own engine and need to use someone else's code!

Sorry I wasn't meaning it in a negative fashion. What I was simply referring to was how a developer in the early stages of this generation could reach a realatively higher level of technical excellence on the Xbox 360 with a shallower learning curve and the percieved difficulty related to developers trying to match that whilst scaling a doubly steep one on the PS3. They had to learn the system and get it up to speed even faster on the PS3 than the Xbox 360 and without that added pressure when they first developed for the 360 led to a perception that their experiences were 'far easier'.

Im sorry if I came off in a way that was unbecoming of the level of discussion on Beyond3d.

 

[Nesh]

And despite the Xbox being basically a PC in a box it was just peachy and could do just about everything the PS2 could and more as a console.

So having a PC heritage in no way cripples a console as a console.

I dont think thats a good example. How would have the PS2 faired if it came with PC technology from 1999?
The XBOX was based on newer technology because it came later

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The point isn't that the Xbox was faster than the PS2, I should have left that out, but left it in as it serves to bolster the main point.

A box with PC heritage is no worse as a console as a box with esoteric and parts that are different just to be different.

Or would anyone serious think an X360 featuring a Core 2 duo/quad would be a worse console than the current one with a PPC in anything but cost and possibly power consumption? I'd argue that if it was a straight PC in a box, the X360 console experience would be even better right now as there'd be less tradeoffs to work around the weaknesses in the PPC.

I mean are Sega's various PC based arcade systems any less of an arcade machine because they use off the shelf PC parts?

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

The point isn't that the Xbox was faster than the PS2, I should have left that out, but left it in as it serves to bolster the main point.

A box with PC heritage is no worse as a console as a box with esoteric and parts that are different just to be different.

Or would anyone serious think an X360 featuring a Core 2 duo/quad would be a worse console than the current one with a PPC in anything but cost and possibly power consumption? I'd argue that if it was a straight PC in a box, the X360 console experience would be even better right now as there'd be less tradeoffs to work around the weaknesses in the PPC.

I mean are Sega's various PC based arcade systems any less of an arcade machine because they use off the shelf PC parts?

Regards,
SB

Well, is there a way to measure this?

Also by taking into consideration the GPU which was also customized in some form? I mean its not just the CPU. I think these companies think ahead of time when designing their hardware

I think the decision depends on when the company starts the development of the hardware.

I am sometimes curious as to how the PS2 would have faired in 2005 if Sony chose off the shelf PC parts for it in 1999 (since thats when the hardware was finalized).

Arcade machines are arcade machines, they are build to produce certain types of games. They arent "tested" as much as consoles through all kinds of games and genres though. So I am not sure if its an apples to apples comparison

 

[AmFreak]

Or would anyone serious think an X360 featuring a Core 2 duo/quad would be a worse console than the current one with a PPC in anything but cost and possibly power consumption?

There wasn't even a Core2Duo when the 360 came out.

I'd argue that if it was a straight PC in a box, the X360 console experience would be even better right now as there'd be less tradeoffs to work around the weaknesses in the PPC.

What is the weakness of the PPC ?
I mean i know of weaknesses of the 360 PPC like the In Order Execution - but what weaknesses have PPC in general ? - It's just an ISA. The 360 CPU is what it is because Microsoft wanted it this way.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well, is there a way to measure this?

Also by taking into consideration the GPU which was also customized in some form? I mean its not just the CPU. I think these companies think ahead of time when designing their hardware

I think the decision depends on when the company starts the development of the hardware.

I am sometimes curious as to how the PS2 would have faired in 2005 if Sony chose off the shelf PC parts for it in 1999 (since thats when the hardware was finalized).

Arcade machines are arcade machines, they are build to produce certain types of games. They arent "tested" as much as consoles through all kinds of games and genres though. So I am not sure if its an apples to apples comparison

The GPU in the the X360, if you ignore the edram, is more a standard PC GPU than what is found in the PS2. Likewise with the GPU in the PS3. The Wii however still does have a quite console centric GPU.

The arcade bit is there to point out that the applications created for a product serve more to define what a product is than what components are used to make a product.

Cost considerations may still determine that some components will still benefit from some form of customization from a PC standpoint. Things such as cost to manufacture for required capabilities. Power consumption (which influences cooling) requirements.

Additionally, consoles are now asked to do far more than their historic predecessors. When PS2 was being created it's arguable that it could have benefitted from a PC GPU, but at that time GPU capabilities and performance characteristics were still in rapid flux. Pre-2000, there was still lots of ways the 3D accerlated GPU could go. T&L was relatively new. Fast forward to when this generation was being made. GPU capabilities are pretty set. What's changing now is the level of programmability and how much of that programmability will be accelerated.

Looking at the CPU side of things. Back in the PS2 days a console was a console. There was very specific requirements to just run a game. You didn't need all the general purpose stuff a standard PC CPU could do. So it makes sense to trade off on some of those features for for game focused units. Again fast forward to current/future consoles and we're seeing more a convergence. Suddenly we're seeing more uses of general function units common in PC CPUs needed for consoles. Does it really make sense to spend 10's or even hundred's of millions to develope a custom CPU?

Add to that increased complexity of "next gen" features and graphics will lead to increased dev time. Is it really wise to then throw in esoteric, console specific parts to learn and program for? When the exact same results can be attained with PC parts or PC derivative parts (X360 CPU/GPU) at far lower R&D costs?

After all it's the applications (games) and interface (OS) of your console that will determine how people view your box.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There wasn't even a Core2Duo when the 360 came out.

My mistake for not doing due research on what CPU's were available at the time. Change it to Core Duo, it'd be a similar comparison to Core 2 Duo.

As to the specific weaknesses, I can't pull any off the top of my head, just that I'm aware of them from reading the various threads in the console tech sub forum, and how devs have mostly figured out how to work around the differences from a traditional PC CPU.

Regards,
SB