Eh?
If you make theories on false assumptions, maybe.
Sorry to disappoint you, but "AI and physics" do not require even 10% of the processing power required for the rendering loop, if it's done right.
RAGE : It Deserves its own thread now!
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
- Status
Eh?
If you make theories on false assumptions, maybe.
Sorry to disappoint you, but "AI and physics" do not require even 10% of the processing power required for the rendering loop, if it's done right.
What's iD's pedegree with working with consoles? How many console games have they released that have made good, efficient use of the hardware? They are a PC orientated developer, because that's their history. Years and years of design philosophy and previous experience is going to bias their thought processes into methods that are an instant fit for the PC space. They then have to address this and rethink solutions for consoles, needing to learn how best to use the hardware, which takes considerable time and effort and experience. Even experienced console developers have trouble utilising a new console's hardware on their first titles, and if they're a long lived developer, they'll have done this several times and know what to look for yet still have issues!When you're working on a project, any project, sometimes you'll have things working swimmingly and you'l be all happy, and other times you'll hit frustrating problems and you'll get annoyed. This can spill into discussion. eg. Ask me about a buggy game after it's just crashed several times on me and I'll likely give a list of faults and describe it as worthless. Ask me about the same game when it's working and I'm enjoying it, you'll get a different answer highlighting the joys of the same title.To be honest I'm so confusehow someone has just said, one day ps3 has a little more raw power to use, the day after it didn't , rsx sucks; another ps3 better texture, no wait 360, no ps3 again has more split memory; but 360 60 fps confirmed, no but needs more sweat to ps3, no rsx slower but ps3 will be better but 360 will be the same
In this case, if iD have been working on AI say and have a target, and find with an implementation that PS3 runs it faster than that target, they'll have a 'high' for PS3, and when asked about development, they may well say (being normal conversational human beings rather than guarded PR specialists), "Oh, we're really pleased with PS3! It munches through AI much faster than the other platforms. It's a great little machine." Then development continues and they hit a brick wall regards PS3 graphics, and are banging their heads trying to get it working. In these cases you always look at your other systems and think, "it was easy on that machine! Why does this one have to be such a pain?! Why can't everything in life be easy?!" Someone then asks how development is going and that frustration can spill over. "Graphics are looking great, but PS3 is really struggling. It's rubbish by comparison. How the hell are we supposed to make this damned box do anything?! Piece of %*!@#." And then another day, they'll find they can do something else, a change to their data structure and memory access patterns, and it'll be all roses again.
These are people with human emotion colouring their postions. Without any cold, scientific approach, all these WIPs are hazy information. You get PR people fending off the critical eyes with bland or confused remarks in many cases, while the interesting 'real life' comments from the front line are much more raw and personal.
As I say, don't look to the WIP comments to give an idea of consoles (or anything really!), and look at the final game. These peridioc interviews don't serve to tell us about the game or machines, but give an insight into the development process and what flaming, spiked hoops developers are jumping through to get us our games!
To be honest I'm so confuse
Apparently Edge updated the article:
http://www.edge-online.com/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360
Kotaku reported that Carmack has more to say:
http://kotaku.com/5327686/id-responds-to-playstation-3-rage-ruckus
It's another case of gaming media failure, or "traffic driving" exercise.
EDIT: Really, we should turn this thread into a Megatexture appreciation thread, while it garners so much attention now.
So despite them being a PC developer RAGE's graphics is running way faster on X360 than on PS3 (both are consoles) despite RSX being basically a modified PC GPU while Xenos isn't? So because they're a PC developer they can't program a PC GPU as well as a console GPU?
Isn´t the Xenox closer to a current GPU than the RSX?
Usually JC designs his work towards the GPUS that is coming, not those that are outdated. Besides it may just be that this engine can use the edram to it´s advantage.
These consoles are more than just their GPUs; Xenos is as much a PC GPU as any other in design, just it was forward thinking with US; some GPUs are faster than others (are you surprised XB360's GPU is running faster than RSX given all we know?); and we don't know what standard of GPU iD are designing for anyway.
PC experience does not make PS3 easier to extract performance from than XB360. You really should know that by now from all the discussion here!
current-and-next-generation-parallelism-in-game -SIGGRAPH 2008 by ID Soft's Jon Olick.
http://s08.idav.ucdavis.edu/olick-current-and-next-generation-parallelism-in-games.pdf
Maybe surprising to some people after seeing "20 fps RAGE we have know" argument,ID Soft really did lots of research on cell processor.
http://s08.idav.ucdavis.edu/olick-current-and-next-generation-parallelism-in-games.pdf
Maybe surprising to some people after seeing "20 fps RAGE we have know" argument,ID Soft really did lots of research on cell processor.
This might be partly true, but in the case of Rage I think it was more developed first and foremost as a solution to memory/texture restrictions (especially on consoles), which have been mostly status quo for some time now. So they thought up megatexture, and now are faced with adapting it to current hardware. I admit to not being 100% up to speed on megatexture, but from what I've read I suspect the ability to do a significant amount of pixel work in vertex shaders should give xenos a very tangible optimization advantage. That could also be why the now ancient 4+ year old xenos is able to run this modern tech at 60fps, although somehow I seem to be the only one around here impressed by this apparently.
Eventhough JC is a visionary man i don´t think he aimed this at Consoles, i think he started with the issues he had with PC´s at that time. And i think that even though much changed (1GB graphic cards!) some of those problems is still real (much higher resolution textures is required today).
As a side benefit his engine fits perfectly with this console generation that seems starved for memory (actually the biggest console flaw imho). The only thorn is the PS3 having to rely on the SPU´s to look good. Since he always starts with what he expects from the future GPU´s and kind a designs "backwards" there was bound to be problems with the PS3, they knew this and hired someone to solve it, i just hope they got someone just as good to replace him, which i am afraid they didn´t.
Don't worry Joker i am also very impressed by what they've done.:smile:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
These consoles are more than just their GPUs; Xenos is as much a PC GPU as any other in design, just it was forward thinking with US; some GPUs are faster than others (are you surprised XB360's GPU is running faster than RSX given all we know?); and we don't know what standard of GPU iD are designing for anyway.
PC experience does not make PS3 easier to extract performance from than XB360. You really should know that by now from all the discussion here!
I think his point was...
The Cell CPU is far more foreign to ID than the CPU in the X360. Yet they haven't had any significant problems coming to grips with it.
On the other hand, the RSX is a pretty bog standard DX 9.0ish GPU, while the Xenos is less PC standard. And in this case, they are having problems with the more PC like GPU. Add to that RSX is a Nvidia derived GPU which Carmack has preferred working on in the past. And which Carmack has much experience with (the GPU the RSX is derived from). I'm willing to bet the PC part the RSX was derived from will have the same limitations.
So long point short. Console CPU no problemo. PC GPU, can't get it to run at speed (currently).
Thus it isn't the console part of the equation they are having trouble with. It's the part that's most identical to PC and the part Carmack is the MOST familiar with, that they are having trouble getting good speed out of.
I'd expect them to get this resolved before release though. Hopefully without sacrificing IQ.
Regards,
SB
It's not that the RSX is a more PC-like GPU than the 360. It's that the 360's GPU is simply faster in some ways, and more progressive/advanced in some ways (where most of its unique architectural traits have made it or will make it into future PC components). A raw GPU speed advantage (in some situations at least) is going to pretty much be immediately obvious and apparent in the benchmarks right from the get-go, and is hard to compensate for early on in development. This raw GPU speed advantage is directly related to some of the advanced eccentricities of the 360's ATI GPU architecture, and it doesn't need much of a programming learning curve or extra coding gruntwork from the developers to manifest itself as in-game, real-world performance..
I don't think anyone at id has ever made a dramatic comment. They've all been pretty straighforward developer observations. If you're going to get something running on the hardware, you've got to call the problems like you see them so you can deal with them. Ignoring them isn't going to help. It's the fact that these AREN'T PR statements that throws people...they see an honest observation and interpret it like it's a broad statement about the quality of something. Really what Carmack says is really just what he means. If he says the PS3 version isn't running as fast as the 360 version right now in the development process and it's because of X, or he says that the 360's texture compression will be a little higher so technically they won't be quite as good as the PS3's, THEN THAT'S ALL HE MEANS. It doesn't mean that they intend to release a slow game on the PS3, or that he thinks the PS3 sucks, or that the game will look noticeably worse on the 360, or that he thinks that the 360 sucks, or any of that crap. The only difference between id and other developers is most other developers would never be honest enough to say things like that.
Well the Xenos (not including the eDRAM die) isn't too far off from R600 architecture isn't it? Though isn't there a disparity in the stream processor cluster scheme, but still somewhat comparable?
Almost the same as R5xx (http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/R5xx_Acceleration_v1.3.pdf)
From the Direct3D point of view it's even irrelevant, exactly the same, as any D3D-compatible PC GPU.
Don't be afraid, they got one of the best cardinals in pectore of the PS3.
Uhh interesting, so is he already there or... well i guess you can´t tell, but it´s interesting , thanks for the info
Your statement gives justice to 360 hardware but not at all to the ps3, because it isn't a news said it isn't only rsx based. Achieve the better results with cell & rsx combination destroy completely the rsx architecture pc-like gpu. Just watch ubisoft engine: it needs two years of work (prince of persia) to achieve similar results of 360 performance. Work to the ps3 for the first times is a totally mess especially for pc developers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
