Gamepro: PS3 faster than Xbox 360, but harder to work with

[Ub3r-L33ch]

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?arti...SUIT&ATTR=DIGG

Developers have a choice, then: Leverage the superior performance of the PS3 at an additional cost, or make due using a more developer-friendly, less-capable Xbox 360. Despite added development challenges, the Dr. Dobb's report ultimately advocates the PS3's untapped potential. "Programming the Cell processor may be tricky, but the performance gains are worth the effort." One of their benchmarks observed Cell performance to be 22 times higher than a comparable Intel chip.

This seems to be at least a little bit of proof of what a lot of people are saying about the PS3. Though I am sure the fanboys, PS3 haters, and Sony haters will doubt every single bit of it and call the site and/or article Sony biased ... oh well ...

I am kind of skeptical of the Cell being 22 times more powerful than a comparable Intel chip, but with being how well the PS3 runs F@H I'm sure it is quite powerful.

[triple_A]

Its really freaking fast at certain calculations, but slow as hell at others..

If i remember correclty its really good at, for example, physics.
but its terribly slow as a GAMING cpu, wich is kind of a shame since its beeing used in a gaming console..

[Richie P]

Not surprising tbh.

There was load of info flying around about the Cell well before launch and yes, in some specific benchmarks, because of the architecture, it can be that much better.

PS3 was always gonna be a b!tch to code for, hence why the first games only looked 'as good' as 360 games, surprisingly, as most were dumb ports.

Unfortunately the major limitation of the PS3 is that 90% of it's power is in the Cell, and not the graphics chip.

[realsmasher]

why is he talking about cpu only ?

look at what we are talking : full-hd(1920*1080) with a 7900gtx or something like that.

who will think about those cpus, when it comes to that resolution on that gpu ?

don't makes sense to me.


when i want to run for example Oblivion on my mashine in full-hd, it don't matters if my cpu runs with 1600, 2400 or 3000mhz. the gpu makes it unplayable, no matter what cpu i have inside.

[Ub3r-L33ch]

why is he talking about cpu only ?

look at what we are talking : full-hd(1920*1080) with a 7900gtx or something like that.

who will think about those cpus, when it comes to that resolution on that gpu ?

don't makes sense to me.


when i want to run for example Oblivion on my mashine in full-hd, it don't matters if my cpu runs with 1600, 2400 or 3000mhz. the gpu makes it unplayable, no matter what cpu i have inside.

I have heard some mentions that the Cell processor can handle some functions of a GPU so that the GPU itself doesn't really have to be heavily relied on. I saw someone post a comment on Digg about this and mentioned some demo that was running on the PS3 utilizing just the Cell processor and it was very graphic intense. Whether or not this is true I am not sure.

[direowls]

Ah Gamepro, the bastion of hardware benchmarking...

when i want to run for example Oblivion on my mashine in full-hd, it don't matters if my cpu runs with 1600, 2400 or 3000mhz. the gpu makes it unplayable, no matter what cpu i have inside.

Games for consoles are heavily optimized for that console. You can't compare how the 7800GTX performs in the PS3 to its performance on a PC.

[ahmad]

Games for consoles are heavily optimized for that console. You can't compare how the 7800GTX performs in the PS3 to its performance on a PC.

Its much more than that. To make the Cell not seem completely useless, all the vertex functionality of the g70 (not even g71) they put in the ps3 was cut, and vertex data was passed to the Cell. You would think that would give you a boost, but it decreases performance and that is clear with common sense. You introduce latencies when you do stupid stuff like this and effectively reduce the number of polygons the GPU can display on the screen.

No body is going to be writing games for the Cell.. no one has the time or developers that care. Thanks to SONY, the Cell is already history.

[Ub3r-L33ch]

Its much more than that. To make the Cell not seem completely useless, all the vertex functionality of the g70 (not even g71) they put in the ps3 was cut, and vertex data was passed to the Cell. You would think that would give you a boost, but it decreases performance and that is clear with common sense. You introduce latencies when you do stupid stuff like this and effectively reduce the number of polygons the GPU can display on the screen.

No body is going to be writing games for the Cell.. no one has the time or developers that care. Thanks to SONY, the Cell is already history.

I'm not sure what you mean by no one is going to be writing games for the Cell. There are already tons of games in development for the PS3. Some very good ones from the same companies that made stuff for the PS2 .... can I have some of what you are smoking?

[ahmad]

I'm not sure what you mean by no one is going to be writing games for the Cell. There are already tons of games in development for the PS3. Some very good ones from the same companies that made stuff for the PS2 .... can I have some of what you are smoking?

People are writing games for the RSX using existing APIs.. which deal with the GPU only. Read my statement again.

[triple_A]

PS2 was the same story..
whats up with sony and its consoles, it makes no sense

[Ub3r-L33ch]

People are writing games for the RSX using existing APIs.. which deal with the GPU only. Read my statement again.

Well I'm not sure exactly what you mean then. If they make a game for the PS3 are they not already programming for the Cell by doing that? Or are you just saying they are not coding specifically for the Cell processor and just using it minimally to make the game and relying on just the GPU?

[Ub3r-L33ch]

PS2 was the same story..
whats up with sony and its consoles, it makes no sense

Yeah PS2 was the same way in the beginning, which is why eventually I think the PS3 will be fine. The only problem is that the PS2 had a head start, coming out first. This time the PS3 does not have the same head start, so developers are shy of programming for it, when the 360 has already been out for awhile and much more established to program for.

[ColonelCain]

This has been the general consensus since the next-gen console war came about. Now it has been put into words.

Currently, it seems that there are *slightly* better graphics on the 360, but within the next 6months to a year, the PS3 will be ahead, and that won't change for the rest of these consoles terms.

[XS2K]

Look at these videos PS 3 vs. X360 1 and 2 there will be a 3rd part soon....
Edited,anyway the first video was right under the second

[Mav451]

Look at these videos PS 3 vs. X360 1 and 2 there will be a 3rd part soon....

Your first link is going to Newegg's listing of a X1950XT...

[Ub3r-L33ch]

Ah Gamepro, the bastion of hardware benchmarking...

Well actually Gamepro wasn't the one that did the benchmarking or study or whatever you call it. It was a study done by Daniele, Oreste, and Fabrizio that are affiliated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. There is a link to that in the article, but here it is:
http://www.ddj.com/dept/64bit/197801624

[yaddam205]

They just now figured that out?

We knew this on release of PS3 specs.

[DilTech]

Its much more than that. To make the Cell not seem completely useless, all the vertex functionality of the g70 (not even g71) they put in the ps3 was cut, and vertex data was passed to the Cell. You would think that would give you a boost, but it decreases performance and that is clear with common sense. You introduce latencies when you do stupid stuff like this and effectively reduce the number of polygons the GPU can display on the screen.

No body is going to be writing games for the Cell.. no one has the time or developers that care. Thanks to SONY, the Cell is already history.

Someone still doesn't know this industry very well...Especially since sony is going to be releasing their new SDK for the ps3 soon, and it's quite a bit better.

For two, with multi-platform engines, there's developers already doing all the major work for people.

UE3.0, Cryengine 2, id Tech5... All being set up to be cross-compatible with both plat-forms... Also, just to inform you, there's games already in the works for the PS3 that are definitely going to be chart toppers.

Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, The new Rachet and Clank, Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection going online this month....

Also, for the record the RSX is based on the G71, it's 90nm you know.

[Ub3r-L33ch]

Someone still doesn't know this industry very well...Especially since sony is going to be releasing their new SDK for the ps3 soon, and it's quite a bit better.

For two, with multi-platform engines, there's developers already doing all the major work for people.

UE3.0, Cryengine 2, id Tech5... All being set up to be cross-compatible with both plat-forms... Also, just to inform you, there's games already in the works for the PS3 that are definitely going to be chart toppers.

Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, The new Rachet and Clank, Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection going online this month....

Also, for the record the RSX is based on the G71, it's 90nm you know.

Good stuff there. IIRC Tekken 5 DR is already on the PS network too.

And correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know all the technicalities, but consoles have always been better at utilizing hardware than a PC right? Because the hardware is strictly used for games? So eventhough the 7 series nVidia card on the PS3 is a slightly toned down version doesn't mean it is crap.

[Kunaak]

the funny thing about them always trying to compare the PC and PS3 together is... the PS3 never looks as good as my PC does.

Carbon is far better on my PC.
Oblivion is far better... faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrr better on my PC.
these are the only PS3 games I've tried so far, that I own for my PC as well.

theres just no comparison... at all.
I dont care how many cores a console has.
how much ram. how many points it can do at FAH or anything else.

if my PC still runs games better...
what could it possibly matter how many cores the PS3 has?

I know the PS3 is a technological marvel and all that hooblooey, but at the end of the day, my PC is still better then the PS3. so guess what I play my games on?

the PS3 is good in the sense that you understand, its just a console.
its the same PS3 today, as it will be in 4-5 years.
but PC's evolve almost every month.
where will your PC be in 4-5 years?

I like gaming, and I like consoles, I dont care about graphics 100% of the time, after all, I tried the WII, I loved it. its great fun. it doesnt blow me away in any way other then how much I forgot the game looked like crap... but I had fun.
I like the PS3, I love my 360.
I have fun with any game where I can get it.

but at the end of the day... my PC is still the best when it comes to gaming.

[Kingcarcas]

Gamepro? The same place that was taking bribes for reviewing games? I'll take this guys opinion over them any day.

[SafeFire]

Well uber, yes and no.
On windows, mac or even linux, most of the time you have a lot of stuff running in the background which of course, takes up some or a lot of cpu power.
While on a console, only the game and the simple OS is running which gives the console more time to focus just running whatever game you're playing.
Also, one of the most important aspects in discussing the difference between PC and console is that when developing a game for a console one has fixed set of specifications, be it the cell and a Geforce 7900GTX for the PS3 or whatever the 360 is running, the developes usually don't need to worry about how well the engine they're using or creating scales, because of the unchanging specifications of the console.
This as opposed to developing a game for the PC or mac where you as a developer may have to deal with multiple graphics chips, CPU architectures, mutli operating systems, let alone having to deal with engine scaling to make your game compatible with the widest array of systems.

EDIT: btw kunaak, not to be a pain in the back or anything, but it looks to make as though comparing the pc to the console a whole lot right there

[Ub3r-L33ch]

Gamepro? The same place that was taking bribes for reviewing games? I'll take this guys opinion over them any day.

Well again as it was said earlier, it wasn't Gamepro that "submitted" this information if you will, they just reported the findings from here:
http://www.ddj.com/dept/64bit/197801624
That is in the article, as well as my post earlier in here ... did you bother to read any of the posts in here?

the funny thing about them always trying to compare the PC and PS3 together is... the PS3 never looks as good as my PC does.

Carbon is far better on my PC.
Oblivion is far better... faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrr better on my PC.
these are the only PS3 games I've tried so far, that I own for my PC as well.

theres just no comparison... at all.
I dont care how many cores a console has.
how much ram. how many points it can do at FAH or anything else.

if my PC still runs games better...
what could it possibly matter how many cores the PS3 has?

I know the PS3 is a technological marvel and all that hooblooey, but at the end of the day, my PC is still better then the PS3. so guess what I play my games on?

the PS3 is good in the sense that you understand, its just a console.
its the same PS3 today, as it will be in 4-5 years.
but PC's evolve almost every month.
where will your PC be in 4-5 years?

I like gaming, and I like consoles, I dont care about graphics 100% of the time, after all, I tried the WII, I loved it. its great fun. it doesnt blow me away in any way other then how much I forgot the game looked like crap... but I had fun.
I like the PS3, I love my 360.
I have fun with any game where I can get it.

but at the end of the day... my PC is still the best when it comes to gaming.

How many generations of consoles have you played? I have never seen a case where I thought a game on a console looked better than on the PC. This has always been the case AFAIK. It will never change either, unless they make consoles upgradeable, but at that point it isn't even a console anymore. So yes, I agree with you 100% on this, and I'm sure no one else will argue that fact.

However, consoles are still fun. They have alot of games that PCs do not have. You can have alot of 2+ player games on a console that you won't find on a PC.

So there are advantages and disadvantages to each one. I love consoles and PCs.

[saaya]

its a common marketing comment nowadays if a product doesnt perform.
its the firmware/driver/software not using it properly.

blablabla... show me a game on ps3 that looks much better than a game on xbox360 to prove this or shut up sony! :P

[Ub3r-L33ch]

its a common marketing comment nowadays if a product doesnt perform.
its the firmware/driver/software not using it properly.

blablabla... show me a game on ps3 that looks much better than a game on xbox360 to prove this or shut up sony! :P

So far most of the games have been ports, that's why they look like shlt. The rest just haven't had much effort put in to them. Eventually they will be good.