The Technology of GTA IV/RDR *Rage Engine*
- Thread starter babcat
- Start date
Are you suggesting that without the SPUs, the PS3 would be producing tech like that? Seems a tad unreasonable when COD is a 2003 game! Half Life 2 or Doom 3 would have been a better comparison.
Not seems to me. I'm talking of buffer. I'm notice only the terrible blurring but not a differences in the folliage.
hmmm....checked again & you may be right.
Then again the PS3 ver is using a cheaper alternative in form of alpha test compared to 360's alpha blend
Last edited by a moderator:
I think MazingerDUDE meant that the 360 version looks closer to alpha blend. Like AlStrong said earlier it's still A2C on 360. The Rio Bravo image really shows it on the trees.
We know. And just for this some post little worried me, But back to RDR I revise my statement: it's true, use even low folliage on the ps3
Definitely a bad port, mazinger dude is right, I'm quote.
Well that pic is from COD2, a 2005 game. Doom 3 was all indoors so it's not really comparable. Did Half Life 2 run at full spec on an NVidia 7 card? I seem to recall having to disable msaa to keep performance, but it's been a while. Either way, the point was to demonstrate what used to be considered 'high tech' for an NVidia 7 card, and how much further the spu's have carried it in 2010.
Not demonstrate anything technically talking. And you know that better of me. It is how to post a pc GTA 4 pic and said this the best which pc high-end can to do.
Cool ! At least I have a better feel of the game's visual. Will check out how the game plays.
Thank god I waited this time.
That's Call of Duty 2
? I haven't played it so I don't know, but I had the impression it looked much better than that.But remember, a lot of PS3 launch titles did not/barely use the SPUs, and they were running at 720p with plenty of graphical candy (eg Genji, Resistance). They were being entirely carried by the RSX.
That's a PC shot, I do remember than the game looked better than that atleast..on 360. [it never came out on PS3 ofcourse]. Speaking of launch PS3 tittle, F1 CE is still a mighty fine example. (well its a near launch tittle, came a month later)That's Call of Duty 2
But remember, a lot of PS3 launch titles did not/barely use the SPUs, and they were running at 720p with plenty of graphical candy (eg Genji, Resistance). They were being entirely carried by the RSX.
Billy Idol
Legend
This is something I want to know as well. In a game with a lot of streaming like RDR, the large BR space could be a benefit, when you use it for a clever redundant data layout. But DF learned us that typically the the amount of data is the same on DVD and BR (maybe sanse the additional space of high quality sound). A reviewer of my local mag once even stated to this topic that they often recieve their PS3 copy on DVD (I didn't know that this is even possible?!) and that they wonder as well when MP devs will start to use the available space!
So, easy question there...without counting in the graphical side of things and ignoring the discussion of superior graphics hardware. The PS3 has a HDD+large BR space available. RDR is an open world game with lots of streaming. In average, the BR speed is the same compared to the DVD (there was a long discussion here on B3D).
Why the heck are the load times in RDR PS3 twice as large as the load times of RDR Xbox360 - this cannot be due to RSX! Joker, it would be great if you could maybe give some hints on this issue as well, because I don't understand the technical reasons for the loading issues (in fact, for me I thought that at least loading could be faster on PS3 due to the listed advantages). As I don't understand this loading issues...this is the reason where I doubt that R* put this much effort into the port (I used the word "port" because the loading issues for me indicates a port of from Xbox360 to PS3...or that RAGE is not well optimized for PS3 in this regard!)
The PS3 version only has a 600MB install (GTA4 was almost 4GB). Perhaps they could improve loads by allowing the option for more. Unless it's a world that is being generated which from the looks of the scale and type of wilderness seems very possible.
When do loads actually occur in RDR by the way? The world is completely streamed right?
When do loads actually occur in RDR by the way? The world is completely streamed right?
When you develop with in mind a single hardware is more simple to tap is potential and mask is weakness. It's simple to understand. Rage engine gives me the impressions with in mind an hardware but not the ps3. It seem more simply 'arranged.
Yup!
Ya even with their HDR solution, 4xMSAA perf. TSAA and 16xAF (Loast Coast/Cinematic Mod earlier versions). Had a 7900 series card some years ago. But yeah that is besides the point!
Last edited by a moderator:
It's difficult to make any blanket statements about the PS3 and 360 in terms of performance.
However, when it comes to PS3 exclusives, there is a fairly significant difference.
The PS3 architecture lends itself to rendering multiple frames in parallel. The SPUs can certainly help out with rendering, but what few people realise is that this often occurs in parallel with RSX.
For example, while frame X+1 is rendering, the post processing for frame X is occurring on the SPUs. This form of parallelism fundamentally cannot be done on the 360 and is simply not needed. This is clearly very hard to implement when writing a multiplatform engine.
On top of that, the SPUs are often used to do vertex processing for the RSX (Well, you basically have to). This actually takes a huge chunk of total SPU time (I believe it's around 40% for uncharted 2). Combine that with other tasks (shader constant patching, etc) and you have be very very careful in how a rendering architecture is setup to prevent stalls.
Naturally, if you are only working with the PS3 you can tailor to it a lot more.
On the other hand, the 360 has issues with memory latency. The GPU has a fairly small texture cache - and if you overrun it, the hit is usually pretty huge. Things like that. But it's more likely to get good performance from 'dumb' code. (I hesitate to use that word, as it's still very difficult thing to do - ps: anyone who utters the term 'lazy' doesn't know what they are talking about)
At the end of the day, I can bet you that some exceptionally smart people worked exceptionally hard for an exceptionally long time getting both the PS3 and 360 looking and running as good as they do. Some people forget just how old and crappy both systems are
However, when it comes to PS3 exclusives, there is a fairly significant difference.
The PS3 architecture lends itself to rendering multiple frames in parallel. The SPUs can certainly help out with rendering, but what few people realise is that this often occurs in parallel with RSX.
For example, while frame X+1 is rendering, the post processing for frame X is occurring on the SPUs. This form of parallelism fundamentally cannot be done on the 360 and is simply not needed. This is clearly very hard to implement when writing a multiplatform engine.
On top of that, the SPUs are often used to do vertex processing for the RSX (Well, you basically have to). This actually takes a huge chunk of total SPU time (I believe it's around 40% for uncharted 2). Combine that with other tasks (shader constant patching, etc) and you have be very very careful in how a rendering architecture is setup to prevent stalls.
Naturally, if you are only working with the PS3 you can tailor to it a lot more.
On the other hand, the 360 has issues with memory latency. The GPU has a fairly small texture cache - and if you overrun it, the hit is usually pretty huge. Things like that. But it's more likely to get good performance from 'dumb' code. (I hesitate to use that word, as it's still very difficult thing to do - ps: anyone who utters the term 'lazy' doesn't know what they are talking about)
At the end of the day, I can bet you that some exceptionally smart people worked exceptionally hard for an exceptionally long time getting both the PS3 and 360 looking and running as good as they do. Some people forget just how old and crappy both systems are
Thank you very much for the explanation. Pretty clear & objective.
I hope the speculations over here.Very good insight there...thanksIt's difficult to make any blanket statements about the PS3 and 360 in terms of performance.
However, when it comes to PS3 exclusives, there is a fairly significant difference.
The PS3 architecture lends itself to rendering multiple frames in parallel. The SPUs can certainly help out with rendering, but what few people realise is that this often occurs in parallel with RSX.
For example, while frame X+1 is rendering, the post processing for frame X is occurring on the SPUs. This form of parallelism fundamentally cannot be done on the 360 and is simply not needed. This is clearly very hard to implement when writing a multiplatform engine.
On top of that, the SPUs are often used to do vertex processing for the RSX (Well, you basically have to). This actually takes a huge chunk of total SPU time (I believe it's around 40% for uncharted 2). Combine that with other tasks (shader constant patching, etc) and you have be very very careful in how a rendering architecture is setup to prevent stalls.
Naturally, if you are only working with the PS3 you can tailor to it a lot more.
On the other hand, the 360 has issues with memory latency. The GPU has a fairly small texture cache - and if you overrun it, the hit is usually pretty huge. Things like that. But it's more likely to get good performance from 'dumb' code. (I hesitate to use that word, as it's still very difficult thing to do - ps: anyone who utters the term 'lazy' doesn't know what they are talking about)
At the end of the day, I can bet you that some exceptionally smart people worked exceptionally hard for an exceptionally long time getting both the PS3 and 360 looking and running as good as they do. Some people forget just how old and crappy both systems are