Quantcast
Rumour: Sony's PS5 is definitely more powerful than Microsoft Project Scarlett

Forums - Sony Discussion - Rumour: Sony's PS5 is definitely more powerful than Microsoft Project Scarlett

Which will be the more powerful?

PS5 53 63.86%
 
XB4 30 36.14%
 
Total:83
Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

How would you explain then that among all Devs on PS3 ND were the ones having more efficiency on the development?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9813111one piece of evidence of ND using assembly and other means to "manually tweak" the code to the level of counting cycles to match.

They optimized their workload for the Cells SPE's more effectively than any other developer.
It is easy to utilize all the SPE's by making your workload parallel, it's another keeping them fed constantly, which is where Naughty Dog showed it's prowess.

Your link backs up the evidence I provided earlier that they used C++.
Assembly is not machine code.

the-pi-guy said:

Just wanted to point out that technically, you can combine C++ with in-line Assembly (which is essentially readable machine code), this link has an example of what that'd look like:

https://www.cs.uaf.edu/2012/fall/cs301/lecture/10_01_link_with_cpp.html

It's still not something that most developers would want to do, because the compiler is usually going to write better optimized code.

But, Ferrari's link here actually purports that Naughty Dog did use assembly with C++: "instead dedicated their efforts to rebuilding the tools, engine, and game in C++ and assembly language."

 It also mentions in there that they used Assembly and C++.

Assembly isn't machine code, there is still a conversion that takes place by using an "Assembler". - If the original argument was about Assembly, then my original statements would indeed be false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language#Assembler
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-machine-code-and-assembly-language/

Many developers will leverage assembly when targeting low-level API's anyway for parts of their code base.

I have programmed in Assembly and have even designed a virtual CPU in my course work.  

I know the difference.  

Each command in assembly corresponds with a machine code instruction.   

So if I wrote a program:

li $s0, 5

li $s1, 6

add $s1, $s0, $s1

Each one of these commands gets replaced with a specific opcode, and each register ID, or value gets translated to it's binary representation.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1253272/whats-the-relationship-between-assembly-language-and-machine-language

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code

"A much more readable rendition of machine language, called assembly language, uses mnemonic codes to refer to machine code instructions, rather than using the instructions' numeric values directly. "

There is no advantage of using "machine code", over assembly because the latter is just a readable version of the other.  From an optimization standpoint there's no difference.  



Around the Network

Sony will sell PS5 for $499 at a loss for maybe $200, but will make it up in game sales.



DonFerrari said:

Nope, my argument was that ND used a closer to the metal language than other devs as a reason their game where over the others. They had to go closer to the metal exactly to make sure they were using the HW as best as possible.

As far as I know Assembly is "as close as possible" without really writting 0 and 1.

You sure? Because this is what you said:

DonFerrari said:

We had plenty of reports on Naughty Dog doing basically write to machine on PS3, may as well have done on PS4 but haven't seem evidence of it (or other devs).

Which is a false statement as they didn't "basically write to machine on PS3".

*************

The point is, Naughty Dog wasn't writing any "lower" than other games, even on other platforms, it is written in C++ with some Assembly that interfaces with the low-level API's, drivers and other software layers.

It's not "lower level" than the Xbox alternative, they are both low level.



Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope, my argument was that ND used a closer to the metal language than other devs as a reason their game where over the others. They had to go closer to the metal exactly to make sure they were using the HW as best as possible.

As far as I know Assembly is "as close as possible" without really writting 0 and 1.

You sure? Because this is what you said:

DonFerrari said:

We had plenty of reports on Naughty Dog doing basically write to machine on PS3, may as well have done on PS4 but haven't seem evidence of it (or other devs).

Which is a false statement as they didn't "basically write to machine on PS3".

*************

The point is, Naughty Dog wasn't writing any "lower" than other games, even on other platforms, it is written in C++ with some Assembly that interfaces with the low-level API's, drivers and other software layers.

It's not "lower level" than the Xbox alternative, they are both low level.

Read "the-pi-guy" answer, on Assembly translating to what I said. You may claim it is a false statement, I would say it is at most imprecise.

And I don't remember any 3rd party going this route to optimize their code, nor any MS dev, not even other Sony devs on PS3. No other company was looking this deep in tailoring the code. That was even the reason gave for why the remaster took so long to be made when compared to other ports from PS3 to PS4.

That also doesn't deny the fact that MS going for multiplat on PCs with DirectX will probably use less of low level specialized code for Xbox on their games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Time critical stuff is always programmed in Assembly language. Other stuff might be, too, if you have talented "Hand Assemblers" in your code grouip. As compilers mature over time, less and less code is hand assembled. That rule applies to everything, not only consoles. Of course, writing in Assembler takes more time and is more error prone than simply using a high-level language, hence one tries to stay away from it as much as possible.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Read "the-pi-guy" answer, on Assembly translating to what I said. You may claim it is a false statement, I would say it is at most imprecise.

And I don't remember any 3rd party going this route to optimize their code, nor any MS dev, not even other Sony devs on PS3. No other company was looking this deep in tailoring the code. That was even the reason gave for why the remaster took so long to be made when compared to other ports from PS3 to PS4.

That also doesn't deny the fact that MS going for multiplat on PCs with DirectX will probably use less of low level specialized code for Xbox on their games.

I can't say for sure how common assembly is in the average dev house.  But smaller studios are definitely not going to be doing very much assembly if any at all.  Bigger devs will do some.  How much, I can't say.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Naughty Dog does more assembly than the average developer, they work closely with ICE, and they have their own developers as well.  

@bold To be fair, a big part of that is that most devs don't talk very in depth about what they've done with the engine.  Most game engines are kept on a tight leash for what is known about them.  

drkohler said:
Time critical stuff is always programmed in Assembly language. Other stuff might be, too, if you have talented "Hand Assemblers" in your code grouip. As compilers mature over time, less and less code is hand assembled. That rule applies to everything, not only consoles. Of course, writing in Assembler takes more time and is more error prone than simply using a high-level language, hence one tries to stay away from it as much as possible.

Yep.  Some of the optimizations that compilers can make are ridiculously impressive.  



the-pi-guy said:

Yep.  Some of the optimizations that compilers can make are ridiculously impressive.  

That's because the more advanced compilers tend to exploit a lot of the CPUs hidden features that a lot of programmers never take into account, such as interleaving instructions for optimised use of SMT, re-ordering assembly language for better use of eg. Intel's branch prediction logic, down to storage order and spatial locality.

From what I can understand, the Cell used the PowerPC instruction set. However, the way it processed these instructions was different to IBMs other CPUs, due to the architecture of the Cell. Therefore, it would make sense why ND might have manually optimised some code using assembly language, especially if the PowerPC compilers used were optimised more toward the IBMs CPUs and not the Cell.

However, on an architecture as old and thoroughly optimised as x86/x64, the benefits of assembly language over a well advanced compiler range from absolute minimal to counterproductive.

That being said, there may be a little gain if compilers aren't yet optimised toward Zen2. However, I doubt this will be anything like we saw with the Cell.



the-pi-guy said:
DonFerrari said:

Read "the-pi-guy" answer, on Assembly translating to what I said. You may claim it is a false statement, I would say it is at most imprecise.

And I don't remember any 3rd party going this route to optimize their code, nor any MS dev, not even other Sony devs on PS3. No other company was looking this deep in tailoring the code. That was even the reason gave for why the remaster took so long to be made when compared to other ports from PS3 to PS4.

That also doesn't deny the fact that MS going for multiplat on PCs with DirectX will probably use less of low level specialized code for Xbox on their games.

I can't say for sure how common assembly is in the average dev house.  But smaller studios are definitely not going to be doing very much assembly if any at all.  Bigger devs will do some.  How much, I can't say.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Naughty Dog does more assembly than the average developer, they work closely with ICE, and they have their own developers as well.  

@bold To be fair, a big part of that is that most devs don't talk very in depth about what they've done with the engine.  Most game engines are kept on a tight leash for what is known about them.  

drkohler said:
Time critical stuff is always programmed in Assembly language. Other stuff might be, too, if you have talented "Hand Assemblers" in your code grouip. As compilers mature over time, less and less code is hand assembled. That rule applies to everything, not only consoles. Of course, writing in Assembler takes more time and is more error prone than simply using a high-level language, hence one tries to stay away from it as much as possible.

Yep.  Some of the optimizations that compilers can make are ridiculously impressive.  

For 3rd parties I see very little reason for they to use it, because they would need to really "do the game" specially to PS3, then to X360 and then to PC (where they wouldn't be able to optimize through assembly since there would be a plethora of different HW arrangements). Plus the gains while impressive in the case of ND perhaps wouldn't be worth the hassle and cost for most devs (I love ND game, and for me their graphics were a notch ahead of everyone else, but not enough to really demand that everyone gone similar route).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

deskpro2k3 said:
Sony will sell PS5 for $499 at a loss for maybe $200, but will make it up in game sales.

There's no way they sell at a $200 loss.



twintail said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Sony will sell PS5 for $499 at a loss for maybe $200, but will make it up in game sales.

There's no way they sell at a $200 loss.

Agreed. Max I see is a $150 loss. Though, more realistically I think we'll see a $100 one.

Last edited by thismeintiel - on 18 June 2019