Weren't they only running at 2.4Ghz though?
PS3 hypotheticals thread
- Thread starter PS3MAN
- Start date
Weren't they only running at 2.4Ghz though?
Yes, Halo 3, Gears, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fable 2, Forza 2 etc…
A console buy is driving by games in first, the multi-media capacities is a plus not the principal… the exception is the PS3 who are buy more for the blu-ray in first time…
Hope so now it's more buying for the console capacities…
i think they were full speed. Not sure though.
Take a look at the Eurogamer comparison articles, all 11 of them. Multiplatform games would likely still hugely favor the 360, because the Blu-ray drive is relatively low on the "problems porting to PS3" list, way behind the weird CPU and the less available memory.
I also think consistency of experience is an Xbox advantage. By this I mean the integration of XBox Live, chat, cross game invites, presence information, achievements, scaled video output, etc. My PS3 doesn't get that much use as a game machine. It requires tinkering with the output settings from game to game for them to look their best, the way friends are accessed, matchmaking is done, features supported is all over the place from one game to the next. The other thing for me is I prefer the XBox controller. And while both sit in my living room, the XBox gets most of the game time, and the PS3 is kind of my showpiece. Blu-ray, cool menu system, blah, blah.
Getting back on topic. Has anyone noticed a consistent theme among PS3 devs in terms of most common, problematic, or easily reached bottleneck?
Getting back on topic. Has anyone noticed a consistent theme among PS3 devs in terms of most common, problematic, or easily reached bottleneck?
Mintmaster
Veteran
I think if they planned for it, yeah, it would be ready. My guess is that they always were planning for a 2006 launch, despite rumours of delays. Sony was just trying to stall people from buying a 360 by giving false hints of earlier launches.
Sony would have won that war even without PS3. They have far more brand recognition than Toshiba, and subsidizing far fewer players than they did PS3s would have sold more BR discs.
The only reason PS3 was necessary to win the war was because BR was charging a $500 premium over HD-DVD. Once that dropped to $100-200, standalone sales started evening up again. I had no idea people would pay $100 more for Sony.
I suppose it is possible that BR wouldn't have studio support without PS3, but I doubt it, as there are too many big CE names in the BR consortium. If that consortium only came together because of their belief in PS3, well, that's a different matter.
I think that was actually a very strong factor. All new formats are faced with the problem of getting a critical mass of hardware devices at startup. PS3 offered this almost as a given (though they were definitely pushing their luck!) which overcame the first hurdle. HD DVD was out for almost two years, sold all of 700k worldwide, and almost half of those were cheap console addons. I'm sure a lot of the BRD consortium were wooed with the idea of millions in install base within a year, no fuss, giving them the confidence to back the project. Without the inclusion in PS3 they'd have faced an unknown future, not known which horse to back, and the market would have suffered with impact on their bottom line.
They had 2.4ghz Cells in their 2005 dev kits (which also had a 7800GTX and 1gb ram). The finished dev kits for the X360 came around 2-3 months before launch, so i dont think its a stretch to think that Sony could have had a something like Cell+RSX devkits at the same time as Microsoft devs got their Xenon+Xenos devkits (my memory may be failing but i seem to remember that in august or something Microsoft devs still used a G5 cpu or something, atleast it was dual core and not the Xenon cpu. Xenos, probably came rather late aswell)
Betanumerical
Veteran
I would suspect a lot of developers would be using the PSGL + cg, which could be ported over to OGL + cg no?. then again, if a developer is using libgcm i don't even think a equivalent exists on PC. But I guess also, that it isn't really viable to write shaders for every possible system on a commercial PC game and as such you have to make it a bit more 'generic' then you could with consoles.
Well lets see.........
BR in the PS3 was integral to Sony pushing the standard just like DVD on the PS2, also it's an enormous advantage for devs on the PS3 as compared to the 360. While I really don't mind changing discs, I do mind shoddy packaging for multi-disc games like Lost Oddyssey which has 3 discs on the actual spindle and the last disc in a paper sleeve (CHEAP!), and even against 4 dual layer DVDs, a single DL BR disc has much more space which means Sony (and they do this) can ship a single disc with all the language soundtracks they need all on the same disc, which saves a bit on manufacturing costs. Just need to detect the region and language, and it's good to go.
As for the RAM and memory bus, it would've been way to expensive to implement unless Sony was willing to take the higher hit on losing money for each console made and sold. At that point I think it would've been better to leave hardware backwards compatibility out the door but I am glad to have full BC on my NA-NTSC 60 GB PS3.
However the value of 512 MB XDR + 256 MB VRAM on a 256 bit bus would've been awesome, as well as a fully capable G70 GPU being a straight up copy of the one used in the 7800GTX, with smaller die process and higher GPU clocks. I honestly can't understand why they partially gimped a GPU. Wouldn't it been much cheaper to just produce an exact copy for the PS3?
Right now the PS3 really just needs some games and more devs willing to give a shot at using Cell as a graphical co-processing element. If you want a good reason to why it should be used more, just look at Uncharted. Simply stunning and IMHO the best looking game on either the 360 or PS3 so far. I think Kojima should give Naughty Dog a call about PS3 graphics rendering and ask for some help
BR in the PS3 was integral to Sony pushing the standard just like DVD on the PS2, also it's an enormous advantage for devs on the PS3 as compared to the 360. While I really don't mind changing discs, I do mind shoddy packaging for multi-disc games like Lost Oddyssey which has 3 discs on the actual spindle and the last disc in a paper sleeve (CHEAP!), and even against 4 dual layer DVDs, a single DL BR disc has much more space which means Sony (and they do this) can ship a single disc with all the language soundtracks they need all on the same disc, which saves a bit on manufacturing costs. Just need to detect the region and language, and it's good to go.
As for the RAM and memory bus, it would've been way to expensive to implement unless Sony was willing to take the higher hit on losing money for each console made and sold. At that point I think it would've been better to leave hardware backwards compatibility out the door but I am glad to have full BC on my NA-NTSC 60 GB PS3.
However the value of 512 MB XDR + 256 MB VRAM on a 256 bit bus would've been awesome, as well as a fully capable G70 GPU being a straight up copy of the one used in the 7800GTX, with smaller die process and higher GPU clocks. I honestly can't understand why they partially gimped a GPU. Wouldn't it been much cheaper to just produce an exact copy for the PS3?
Right now the PS3 really just needs some games and more devs willing to give a shot at using Cell as a graphical co-processing element. If you want a good reason to why it should be used more, just look at Uncharted. Simply stunning and IMHO the best looking game on either the 360 or PS3 so far. I think Kojima should give Naughty Dog a call about PS3 graphics rendering and ask for some help
It's not possible to use the PC part in the PS3 since you need to have a different interface FlexI/O to Cell. Plus the qty's produced for PS3 alone are sufficient to achieve the same if not better price advantages. Plus, it's not really gimped, just tweaked for the buses and environment it was designed for.
Hypothetically should Sony gone with Nvidia instead of Toshiba and IBM? It is 2 years and i feel the advantage of Cell computing has yet to present itself on the PS3, if there is any at all outside all the hype.
If Sony had worked with Nvidia from the start, PS3 will have an uber GPU, with Edram that means backward compatibility. Having lost Cell, Sony need not worry about creating a new programming environment. There is less waste in the fabbing yield, 7/8 SPE not required with a traditional CPU like PS2 EE. The case of expensive XDR will be replace with the common GDDR3 ram.
There is the Xbox360 i see that uses a conventional approach in assembly and it is not at all lacking in processing realworld games, except the DVD limit.
If Sony had worked with Nvidia from the start, PS3 will have an uber GPU, with Edram that means backward compatibility. Having lost Cell, Sony need not worry about creating a new programming environment. There is less waste in the fabbing yield, 7/8 SPE not required with a traditional CPU like PS2 EE. The case of expensive XDR will be replace with the common GDDR3 ram.
There is the Xbox360 i see that uses a conventional approach in assembly and it is not at all lacking in processing realworld games, except the DVD limit.
If you would limit that comment to 'multi-platform games' then I would agree with you.
I both agree and disagree. You could just as well say that maybe Sony should have gone with ATI rather than Nvidia.
The reality remains that the 360 is proof that Microsoft was right in determining that coming out first is very important. It's definitely not everything, but it's obviously very important. Next, however, is that the reason that the 360 is doing better on multi-platform games, seems to me quite simply related to ATI's graphics card being easier to get performance out first, and the 360 being easier to code for coming from the PC space second (including a better platform / firmware SDK).
That's the big win that you see for the 360 now. As was said elsewhere, the headstart was very important and they were very successful. In the previous generation, being able to share development between PC and console wasn't as important as it is today, and the 360 is benefitting from it greatly. Also the importance of certain types of games have shifted, so that the games that were traditionally only important on PC are now also more important on the consoles. The PS3 is getting a lot more PC ports, but not compared to the 360 gets nearly all PC ports (and all big 360 titles go to PC), and they are typically worse on PS3. But in that respect, the difference between the 360 and the PS3 is tiny compared to the difference between the PS2 and the Xbox.
And the delay of the PS3 due to the blue diode has hurt the PS3 also. However, along the timescale, things still have a way of evening out. The PS3 has a lot of things going for it that will pay out over time (BluRay for games is a big win, and eventually people will understand, I'm sure of it
, the Cell is a really great processor, the Cell and RSX FlexIO integration allows for great stuff, and the Platform SDK is finally coming together along with Home, and then there are some really good exclusives coming too, and the hardware has an increasingly good public image thanks to its build quality and quietness in contrast to the 360s malaise on that front). Whether it will be enough, remains to be seen. The U.S. was quickly picking up on the Xbox already in the previous generation, and there are a lot of factors in its favor there that are the complete mirror image of why the 360 fails in Japan, which could ensure it a good position there for a very long time. If U.S. software producers continue to dominate the platform, and multi-platform developers continue to do well on the 360, that will keep it healthy for a long time.
The burden remains on Sony, where software will have to convince the audience that the hardware is really superior, or the software simply has to be superior by itself. There's a lot of potential and some good stuff has come out already, and if the Wii hadn't been there at all, then the PS3 would have had it easier. I think the Wii is taking sales more from the PS3 than from the 360 in that respect, especially in Japan and Europe, but even in the U.S.
It's going to be a very interesting time, with very big cultural divides between the different regions. Considering the way it is going now, it is very likely that we will see some interesting shifts and movements across the territories. The DS / PSP sales curves show that one type of console can reach a saturation point quicker than the other, but that both can potentially reach the same level of saturation in the end. Without wanting to resort to the typical wait and see defense of the PS3, this option is definitely possible for the PS3, and the console still has some significant software releases and price drops to go through before it reaches the level that the PS2 had it's biggest uptake.
Nevertheless, both the 360 and Wii brought their A-game against the tough Playstation brand and have done very well.
Not true. The new multicore program problems are still there to worry about. Only if Sony went with a conventional x86 CPU, quickly superceded, or a modification of EE that would allow direct progression the existing PS2 environment - a CPU designed for a different, a new development environment was going to have to be addressed. The problem so far is Sony (STI) were ahead of the game with their processor. Everyone else is going to encounter the same issues. Even XB360 does, it's just talked about a lot less because, I think, devs can get away with it running less than efficient code.
The lack of major Cell growth in other industries is a disappointment, but the payback is set to come in future hardware too. PS4 is likely to adopt the same programming model as PS3 while XB9000 and Nintendo Quw will be presenting their devs with totally divergent programming models from what the devs are used to. All in all I think Cell is set to end up a great decision when reviewed in ten years' time.
Mintmaster
Veteran
The thing is that merely "evening out" should be considered a failure on Sony's part. Wii may still have become a phenomenon no matter what the PS3 was like (though IMO Sony had an opportunity with the PS2 if they realized the signifigance of that market), but Sony really should have gone at least 70:30 vs. Microsoft if not 80:20 this generation. The PS2 momentum and PS3 anticipation were huge.
I don't really buy the blue diode theory. When looking at the PS3 software and pricing timeline, it's clear to me that this launch date was planned all along. I'll concede that maybe Sony hoped for an earlier launch in Japan, but that's it. They got it ready for holiday 2006 and didn't have any supply problems, so being ready a few months earlier wouldn't do much. No way is the diode responsible for missing holiday 2005, nor did it affect the pricing.
Mintmaster
Veteran
Nothing I've read suggests that Cell had anything to do with the graphics of Uncharted beyond basic polygon clipping/culling (which is only helpful to aid a GPU originally designed for low poly PC workloads).Right now the PS3 really just needs some games and more devs willing to give a shot at using Cell as a graphical co-processing element. If you want a good reason to why it should be used more, just look at Uncharted. Simply stunning and IMHO the best looking game on either the 360 or PS3 so far. I think Kojima should give Naughty Dog a call about PS3 graphics rendering and ask for some help
They're just good coders and artists. Don't underestimate the impact of the latter. Artistic talent (both in the content and from the coders themselves) is what really sets apart titles like Uncharted, Gran Turismo, and Gear of War.
I like to agree with you but what exclusive games may i ask have used Cell to make gameplaying experience different? I personally seen none and not very happy with it.
Mintmaster
Veteran
I'm willing to bet that their use of Cell for graphics is exactly as I described it in my post.
theres a pdf about the tech behind uncharted where the describe what they use the SPUs for
*/Scene traversal
*/Geometry processing
*/Spherical Harmonics to cube maps
*/Particle simulation
*/Water
*/Animations
*/Decompression
*/Collisions
*/Physics
*/Path Finding
ie far more than basic polygon clipping/culling , though they do mention they are doing most pervertex work on the SPUs instead of the card
*/Scene traversal
*/Geometry processing
*/Spherical Harmonics to cube maps
*/Particle simulation
*/Water
*/Animations
*/Decompression
*/Collisions
*/Physics
*/Path Finding
ie far more than basic polygon clipping/culling , though they do mention they are doing most pervertex work on the SPUs instead of the card
