Would like to see performance analysis on 960x1080.
The Framerate Analysis Thread part 2
- Thread starter grandmaster
- Start date
Would like to see performance analysis on 960x1080.
performance wise almost identical, strangly tearing is more ps3 issue then x360 thats uncommon. Ill wait for DF analyse .
grandmaster
Veteran
Identical to the first game, perhaps...
eeh the terrible difference about 14% torn of tearing and 3 fps in the struggle scene, a real shame ...
nevertheless 360 has the nod but said are almost identical it isn't sure a blasphemy .
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really strange for a ubi game
I don't understand why ubi don't ask to insomniac the trick to use triple buffers how did ND...Not really strange for a ubi game
thats the problem with all ubi games i have, sure they looks nice but you always find something very annoing about them. Tearing, framerate you name it. I know its not only ubi but dear God after realasing so many games on x360/ps3 steady framerate with no tearing is that much im asking for? It ruins whole experience for me.
and yes i know im trolling
Re: triple buffering. By my working there is at least one situation where it can increase latency (where latency is the time between rendering beginning and the completed frame being displayed).
Take a double buffered 60 fps game where the game is stable. Each frame should take no longer than 1/60th of a second from rendering beginning to being switched to the front buffer. If the period of time to complete the rendering is 90% of frame time, for triple buffering, the time between rendering beginning and the frame being displayed would vary between 90% and <180% of frame time, with the average being higher than the 100% of frame time for double buffering.
Similar situations could arise with other numbers, where render time rounded up to the nearest whole multiple of refresh time (double buffering) is lower than render time + (roughly) 0.5 * refresh time.
Perhaps you could switch off triple buffering in some of these situations (with the loss of frame rate if frame rate drops below its capped level), and switch it on again when you most want it.
I'm a fan of triple buffering personally, and have used D3D overrider for quite a while. Can't say it's ever done anything other than improve my experience over double buffering. I can see situations where constant triple buffering might not be optimal though, from a pure latency POV.
Take a double buffered 60 fps game where the game is stable. Each frame should take no longer than 1/60th of a second from rendering beginning to being switched to the front buffer. If the period of time to complete the rendering is 90% of frame time, for triple buffering, the time between rendering beginning and the frame being displayed would vary between 90% and <180% of frame time, with the average being higher than the 100% of frame time for double buffering.
Similar situations could arise with other numbers, where render time rounded up to the nearest whole multiple of refresh time (double buffering) is lower than render time + (roughly) 0.5 * refresh time.
Perhaps you could switch off triple buffering in some of these situations (with the loss of frame rate if frame rate drops below its capped level), and switch it on again when you most want it.
I'm a fan of triple buffering personally, and have used D3D overrider for quite a while. Can't say it's ever done anything other than improve my experience over double buffering. I can see situations where constant triple buffering might not be optimal though, from a pure latency POV.
grandmaster
Veteran
eeh the terrible difference about 14% torn of tearing and 3 fps in the struggle scene, a real shame ...
Well that all surely all depends on how much of the game is said to stress the engine? This is another example of how FPS and tearing averages can mean very little out of context particularly when performance is very variable.
But it is interesting that the conclusion of those who've played the game on both systems (well, myself and LoT at least) doesn't tally with your conclusion... which I assume isn't based on actual gameplay.
Last edited by a moderator:
It needs to distinguish the personal technical obsession with the normal impressions of common people here: talking of impressions on the ps3 we notice only a more frequent presence of tearing, so said almost identical it isn't absolutely a blasphemy. But I know if you perceived how terrible the 'lag' on ps3 cod 4 & mw 2 even to define more playable the 360 version, I can't to imaginate how appears to your eyes ac 2 on the ps3. :smile:
grandmaster
Veteran
This is a technical forum concerning technical discussion and the "normal impressions" of common people or indeed less common people are completely irrelevant, as are attempts to derail this topic by getting upset about the MW2 piece.
Lens of true conclusion: The winner of this assassination is the Xbox 360. Both versions were very close in every category except performance. Screen tearing is a major performance problem and we at the Lens of Truth, quite frankly, can't stand this. With the PlayStation 3 version having close to 3 times the amount, it was the only issue that prevented a tie.
Last edited by a moderator:
The dev on GA forum also said more effort was put into the PS3 version and that it was pretty much the lead platform to insure it wasn't gimped.
Completely different games with completely different needs. You can't blindly compare games this way without understanding the major difference in game design.
Not really strange for a ubi game
Completely different games with completely different needs. You can't blindly compare games this way without understanding the major difference in game design.
Last edited by a moderator:
Infamous use triple buffers.
I finally spent some time playing Lost Planet 2 on PS3, solo. Much to my surprise, there is a large difference between it an online (frame rate wise, but the first level lacks AA anyway).
My eyes aren't playing tricks on me and the PS3 demo specific areas do have frequent jolts above 30Hz (ladder climbing in the second area looked almost 60Hz). I know PS360 compared online of both versions and an average IIRC which includes the two additional areas on PS3. Can anyone (or PS360 if you happen to catch this) have a look at the offline on the PS3? He's done a single player 360 one already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-283-zCiYL8
EDIT: Co-op of the same level on both:
http://zoome.jp/ps360/diary/404
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVwAiN6b7wQ&feature=related
I'm impressed by the parity overall compared to the first game.
My eyes aren't playing tricks on me and the PS3 demo specific areas do have frequent jolts above 30Hz (ladder climbing in the second area looked almost 60Hz). I know PS360 compared online of both versions and an average IIRC which includes the two additional areas on PS3. Can anyone (or PS360 if you happen to catch this) have a look at the offline on the PS3? He's done a single player 360 one already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-283-zCiYL8
EDIT: Co-op of the same level on both:
http://zoome.jp/ps360/diary/404
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVwAiN6b7wQ&feature=related
I'm impressed by the parity overall compared to the first game.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are right but sorry for the ot, infamous had even hdr ... ac 2 not use so expensive tecnologies, has low buffers too ... I haven't the basis to say sure but even no way ...
Your posts are versus; to be OT it would be best to direct them inline with the topic and use other threads to post these thoughts when inbounds of the forum. Your posts are not Framerate Analysis, but the last couple posts have been clearly targeted 3 PS3 developers/titles as a basis for why questioning other titles and criticizing "Graphic Techniques" of AC1/2 and not the framerate.
And to re-emphasize the point of Al--just because 1 (or 2 or 20) games do something doesn't mean another game can flip the magical switch and make it happen. In the case of Triple Buffering you would need to know the memory budget (just an example). To counter, "Well, PS3-Game-X has better tech and they do it" is a complete non-starter! You don't know, for example, if the game in question has a different memory budget for music or textures.
This is a disturbing trend: assuming because 1 game does something it is trivial for other engines/designs.
Final ot just to reply: will see when the next the getaway coming wheter or not triple buffers is possible in this type of games. From what I have seen ac 2 is full of glitch & popin evitable; I'm almost pretty sure if triple buffer can run in a game how unchy 2 (the first was close to 50% of torn, don't forget) a game like ac 2 can do too with a good optimization.
Similar threads
