MikeB said:
dahuman said:
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:
dahuman said:
MikeB said:
IGN: "Yerli went on to describe how the engine is being built to perform across platforms. "The CE3 runs currently at more or less the same quality bar. I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same, but the engine is diverting computation needs to power subsystems available to the PS3, and the 360 differently, and PC differently."
Hopefully their engine wll end the 360 vs PS3 propaganda wars (engine of probably the most hyped FPS PC game to date). Optimising for the Cell's SPEs consumes a lot of time if they want to use their full potential, so differences may become more obvious (of course a multi-platform game still will have trouble optimising fully for the PS3, as you can't have one version with twice the amount of on screen activity compared to another version, which cannot handle this. This like the devs of Ghostbusters for example explained in the past, being able to achieve twice as much in this regard on the PS3 if there were no 360 version to worry about).
|
well, it's not exactly news that the PS3 has much more potential computation power vs the 360, it just has a lower memory bandwidth but it's able to handle a lot more things at once if the game is exclusively optimized for PS3. most devs would just stick to their multiplat equation though so they can make more money =P. in the end, good games will be good games, doesn't matter what it's on.
|
Memory bandwidth is much greater on the PS3. If you're thinking 256Gb/s for eDRAM to GPU, it's actually 32Gb/s. If you're not thinking about and coming up with "lower memory bandwidth", I don't know how you could come up with that.
|
right, i didn't clarify enough, i was refering to the eDRAM to GPU which results in the ability to use higher texture resolution on the 360, PS3's other aspects on memory is a little faster -_^b
|
The GPU/EDRam provides significant bandwidth issues, this due to tiling on the 360. To add AA to a 720p game, the 360 has to split data to the main RAM, resulting in far less efficiency (add 16FP HDR and you'll get unacceptable results). This 360 main RAM is shared by the GPU and CPU, unlike what is the case on the PS3, so more main bandwidth on the PS3 (seperate buses). The XDR is also faster to work with, especially relevant with regard to the CPU, which requires low latency to get the most out of.
The two big texture quality related advantages the PS3 has over the 360 when tapping its full potential, is Blu-Ray disc (high quality textures take up a lot of space) and the Cell is far more powerful for procedural synthesis of textures.
|
Procedural textures doesn't have much to do with the memory bandwidth that I was talking about =P it's pretty much a different technique altogether and more about balance in between instruction and texture bandwidth.
I have argued the same thing about blu ray to another dev in the past but that's more of a moot point in the end(I was more on the side of PS3's blu ray) because on one hand, you have smaller storage that is DVD, the other hand, larger storage with lower memory bandwidth for raw textures, those 2 companies should have just made 1 god damn console with all the features combined but then it'd cost like 1000 dollars at launch and nobody would buy them but that's off topic.
As far as HDR goes, 360 can just stick to 10FP HDR for all I care, I'm mainly a PC gamer anyways muwahaha. I've always thought of the PS3 as technically superior to the 360 anyhow, I just don't deny certain facts about both consoles since they have different ways of doing things a lot of the times.
