So What Are The Official Specs For the RSX?

[Neb]

You seem to be on a 'holy crusade', your word is law and your end line confirms this. Cleanup needed.

 

[fellix]

Oh, ok. So is the main advantage of the RSX over the Xenos, the extra texture piplelines which allow it to do AF and PCF, which are less common on 360 titles?

As RSX being a G70 rip-off, almost every issue can be assumed into consideration here, with some exceptions on graphics API (and driver) limitations in its PC counterpart.
AF wouldn't be any different or better, to say, for RSX and considering the architectural peculiarities, I think everyone here can guess on the capabilities.

 

[Nesh]

To put it simple, if the chip is better but not being used to its full potential, then that results in the inferior hardware producing the better graphics. See: Killzone 2, MGS4, Uncharted compared to Gears 2, Fable 2 and Halo 3.

But you dont have proof that the 3 PS3 games you mentioned didnt use Cell to assist the GPU in its visuals, since it is supposed to be weaker

 

[zoekimball]

No and I didn't mean that, but what I meant is that I can't know which use the Cell and which don't, but no matter what, the outcome in first party games is more than obvious, is it not?

 

[Asher]

No, it is not.

Frankly, Killzone 2 looks spectacular, but I've yet to play it. And MGS4 is perhaps the most graphically overrated game in recent memory for me (and I did play the whole thing through, as much as I wanted to throw my controller at the screen every time a cutscene started and prevented me from playing). Uncharted looks fantastic as well, but IMHO it is not unmatched on the 360.

The point here is we cannot state for certain what you are trying to state. We've got the issues of different budgets, different developer skillsets, different timelines all on top of different technology. You are assuming Gears of War 2, Fable 2, and Halo 3 represent the pinnacle of what can be done on the 360 and I do not agree at all. You're making far too many wild assumptions, such that this is quickly degenerating into fanboy fodder: "I think the PS3 games all look better, therefore the RSX isn't any worse technically". Way too many variables for such a bald assertion.

 

[zoekimball]

Swing and a miss.

I never stated that the RSX is TECHNICALLY any better, but actually worse (that's what "on paper" means if you didn't know). But still, PS3 platform dedicated games continuously look better than 360 equivalent of the same time frame. Besides, where's your proof that UE3 + Gears of War development time is not as long as that of Killzone 2?

Anyway, the conclusion to that is pretty much what I stated. The RSX though technologically inferior can manage to produce better looking games due to better use of it.

It doesn't matter that the Xenos is better in spec if nobody can be arsed to use its potential. Similar to why the ATi HD series failed so horribly until recently. Bad, unoptimized software.

The 360 is a baby PC in many ways which is why it attracts so many PC ports. PC games are notorious for being poorly optimized except from powerhouse studios like Valve, CryTek and id. They know what they are doing. Most every other game just wastes computing resources all over the place, which is why you see no graphical superiority on 360 although the GPU spec should allow for it.

Also, please never address me again. I'm tired of talking to people whose best skill seems to be to interpret wrongly into statements.

 

[makattack]

The 360 is a baby PC in many ways which is why it attracts so many PC ports. PC games are notorious for being poorly optimized except from powerhouse studios like Valve, CryTek and id. They know what they are doing. Most every other game just wastes computing resources all over the place, which is why you see no graphical superiority on 360 although the GPU spec should allow for it.

This comment and those similar to it makes me wonder what people mean by comparing the 360 to PCs. Maybe it's all just semantics, but this really bugs me. Other than the fact that I consider PC to be an acronym for "Personal Computer" which to me means Apple, Dell, IBM, HP, Sony, et al. systems that run linux, Windows, OSX, Solaris, et al... I'll accept that PC now-a-days stand for "Computer running Windows" but I'll use my preferred WinPC here.

I might be trying to read your mind, but are you saying that the 360 is similar to WinPCs on a hardware level or on a software level? On a hardware level, I would say even the PS3 is similar to a WinPC. I think the fact that Sony promotes its ability to run linuxPPC makes this clear. That's one level of comparison. If you look deeper, neither the PS3 nor 360 can be described as your typical WinPC. Most WinPCs are based on the x86 processor. Both the 360 and PS3 are based on PowerPC class CPUs.

In terms of software, I will agree that MS has done an amazing job making the 360 look like a Windows platform. Allowing developers to use x86 development tools (Visual Studio tools) and DirectX APIs for software development. I can't speak much of their professional development tools, but at least with the XNA Game Studio tools, you hardly realize you're deploying your code to a platform that's not binary compatible with your development work station. You are using a cross-compiler, and you hardly notice it, until you need to deploy your code to the 360.

That said, console software development means you start off with an optimized development plan. You no longer have to cater to all the different hardware combinations in the home computing universe. Don't have to worry about whether someone is using Intel vs. AMD vs. PPC -- don't have to deal with both OpenGL vs. DirectX, Nvidia vs. ATI. Keyboard/mouse vs. game controllers. It's much more streamlined. Of course, if you're a multi-platform developer, you still have those issues, compounded by the number of different platforms supported.

 

[function]

The great thing about first party platform exclusives is that they can show you whatever you want to see and there's no danger that reality might come along and upset things.

It doesn't matter that the Xenos is better in spec if nobody can be arsed to use its potential.

Might want to talk to R* about that. Or look at any of the Eurogamer 'vs' articles. Someone must be doing something right on it.

 

[Asher]

Swing and a miss.

I never stated that the RSX is TECHNICALLY any better, but actually worse (that's what "on paper" means if you didn't know). But still, PS3 platform dedicated games continuously look better than 360 equivalent of the same time frame. Besides, where's your proof that UE3 + Gears of War development time is not as long as that of Killzone 2?

You can't be serious?

The PS3 platform dedicated games continuously look better to you, because those are your biases.

Anyway, the conclusion to that is pretty much what I stated. The RSX though technologically inferior can manage to produce better looking games due to better use of it.

So what you are saying is the technology is irrelevant. That's fine, but do you know which forum this is?

The 360 is a baby PC in many ways which is why it attracts so many PC ports. PC games are notorious for being poorly optimized except from powerhouse studios like Valve, CryTek and id. They know what they are doing.

Having tried to run Crysis on my 8800 Ultra, I wouldn't be of the opinion that they know what they're doing in terms of optimization.

Also, please never address me again. I'm tired of talking to people whose best skill seems to be to interpret wrongly into statements.

Can you please try to be less rude? Honestly, just go back to GAF. You're bringing down the level of conversation on this site considerably with your rhetoric and flaming.

 

[zoekimball]

Having tried to run Crysis on my 8800 Ultra, I wouldn't be of the opinion that they know what they're doing in terms of optimization.

You just outed yourself as not having any merit in any technical discussion. People like you believe that you should be able to achieve Crysis level graphics with X graphics card and because you don't, the game is poorly programmed. It makes me sick. You should go back to GAF, not me.

I am also not going to reply to you anymore. If I am biased to believe that *gosh* Killzone 2 looks graphically superior to anything the 360 has to offer exclusively, then so is most of the forums, else there wouldn't be as much hype for the game. Then so you are biased to believe the 360 has superior looking games. So what's your point exactly?

I might be trying to read your mind, but are you saying that the 360 is similar to WinPCs on a hardware level or on a software level?

On a software level. MS have tried to emulate Windows games development environments as much as possible for the 360 and it shows. The farther intermediary software pulls you away from the hardware, the less you will be able to optimize your game for it. It's a thing that has been proven in the past.

Also, I agree with you.

 

[BadTB25]

Yes, a request for less rudeness and more technical discussion please.

Also links to prove or disprove ones arguments would be great, otherwise make clear that it is an opinion. Otherwise we're just arguing in circles--do not want GAF here.

IMO since when is it a bad thing to be easier to develop for? I'm sure the developers appreciate not making developing any harder than it is.

I don't think either system has shown the extent of its capabilities yet. Both are exotic compared to PC architecture. I'm really excited to see what KZ2, RE5 and others bring to the table in 2009.

 

[Nano]

and Xenos has little to no advantage over RSX in practice.

This is the only statement I disagree with.

In practice it *could* have a substantial advantage, mainly because it comprises some technologies and features simply not present in its 'rival'. With Xenos, there are arguably more mathematical certainties in practice that could potentially lead to graphical situations not replicable on the rival architecture without aid of its CPU. Purely in example; I could imagine some crazy situation; mainly related to advanced tessellation, vertex processing and memory streaming, where this could be the case. On the reverse, the general consensus is that there are virtually no situations that can't be replicated on the ATI chip, and in some cases 'faster' or more flexibly.

Of those who say there is little difference; you could say its a question of exactly who is asking and who is telling. After all, it is probably quite easy to come across a situation, potentially due to a multi-platform graphics engine, where neither architecture is doing much over the other, and of course a multi-platform game is expected to be agnostic in a generation where the visual capabilities are closer to one another than in any previous one (this really isn't an 8800GT vs 7800GT situation by any means).

In my opinion, the other statements were true, this is because they are possible conclusions derived from one's perception of paper or visual 'evidence'. Of course, looks can be deceiving.

 

[zoekimball]

It could That's my point exactly.

 

[Asher]

You just outed yourself as not having any merit in any technical discussion. People like you believe that you should be able to achieve Crysis level graphics with X graphics card and because you don't, the game is poorly programmed. It makes me sick. You should go back to GAF, not me.

I don't have a GAF account.

I don't have merit, fine. You can believe what you want. I don't suppose you know what a wink implies in a post, either. Some people have a sense of humour.

I am also not going to reply to you anymore. If I am biased to believe that *gosh* Killzone 2 looks graphically superior to anything the 360 has to offer exclusively, then so is most of the forums, else there wouldn't be as much hype for the game. Then so you are biased to believe the 360 has superior looking games. So what's your point exactly?

I never said the 360 has superior looking games nor did I say that Killzone 2 doesn't look graphically superior to anything on the 360. I'm just saying there's many, many factors here and to imply something about the technology, especially from someone who demonstrably doesn't know much about it nor can link to anything to back up what they're saying, is not really worthy of discussion in a technical forum.

I'm just asking you keep this discussion technical. That is the purpose of this forum. And being a little less condescending and a little more polite would go a long way, especially because in many cases you're talking to people on this site who have directly or indirectly contributed to the technologies you are talking about.

 

[Sonic]

I know I'm not a mod here any more but on behalf of the rest of us reading the thread: Please keep the discussion on a technical level or at the very least civil. There's no need to get into a heated argument about opinions that may not have been as fleshed out as they should have been.

 

[Carl B]

The question this thread asked was answered several times over in the first couple of posts, so time to lock I think. How things seem to get spontaneously contentious around here, I honestly don't understand.

Since I'm here though, BoardBonobo, in post #6 note that that paper came out before the actual launch of the PS3, so that spec refers to a static target rather than anything in the wild. In terms of the "official word" out of Sony, there is none. The spec for the RSX has never been mentioned in public by SCE ever since the launch. I think in the beginning it was due to an obtuse form of face-saving (you know how passionate they were about the PS3 tech in advance), and since then it's just become something that is not worth bringing up lest it spawn a hundred million gaming news articles: PS3 secretly downclocked! I mean c'mon, not hard to imagine know it happening, and probably Sony sees that as well. So - enough that anyone that cares to research it is well aware of the situation. Like AlStrong already pointed out, there exist some good threads from the past around here discussing the matter.