starcraft said:
That there is one of the many articles on the subject of the PS3's ability to run AI relative to the 360's ability. At the end of the day your trying to convince me that a developer whose salary is directly paid by the multinational who owns the console a game is exclusive to is more reputable than one is who paid by an independant third-party. As for why they would compress? I think it was Shams (you know that guy, the Mod that works for an Australian tech consulting company) who first explained to a rather aggressive person like yourself that compression simply makes good economic and technological sense. If one doesn't compress, one fills up and slows down one's servers and data banks faster, and make data transfer between development sites far slower and more costly. The only reason not to maximize compression from the outset is the PR value of saying, "we need Blu-Ray." I might add that the read speed of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive is slower than the 360's DVD drive's read speed, resulting in the neccessity of duplicating data on the Blu-Ray disk to improve stream speeds. http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=4 "In IBM’s controlled testing environment, their optimized code on 8 SPE only yielded a performance number of 155.5GFLOPS. If it took 8 SPE to achieve that, no way 6 will be able to and that testing was done in a fashion that didn’t model all the complexities of DMA and the memory system. Using a 1Kx1K matrix and 8 SPE they were able to achieve 73.4GFLOPS, but the PS3 uses 6 SPE for games and these tests were done in controlled environments. So going on this information, even 73.4GFLOPS is seemingly out of reach, showing us that Sony didn’t necessarily lie about the cell’s performance as they made clear the 218GFLOPS was “theoretical.” But just like Microsoft they definitely wanted you to misinterpret these numbers into believing they were achievable." That is an exert from a tech analysis that indicates that in a gaming environment, the PS3's processor could not even reach one third of the 'potential' performance Sony states that it has. IT also points out that your statement about SPE's and their use is complete crap, as one is disabled, and one is used to run the PS3's OS. If you read the entire article (which I won't post as it is 11 pages long), you'll find that none of the PS3's SPE's operate REMOTELY like conventional 3.2 GH processors. The article also discredit's the read speed of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive, and indicates that the PS3 doesn't have nearly the RAM neccessary to support the kind of detail and game length advantage you seem to believe the format gives the PS3. Now your trolling and personal attacks can easily be undone by apologizing to me. I assure you I will accept your apology. Here are some things to remember in future: -If you start a thread saying one console's exclusive could be done better on another console, and then scream at the people who discredit your comments that they are 'fanboys' you will come off looking a little strange and illogical. -This is an internet forum, not CNN. You cannot expect posts based on common sense to have a source at the end EVERY SINGLE TIME. -If you ARE going to have a source based argument, it would be better to base it on tech articles and third-party statements like I have, rather than simple quoting Sony employees, who clearly have a vested interest. |
I'm responding in the order of your comments, so here it goes-
- I read the exact same article you did and I previously recognized the same quote and once again, they do not state why it is possible. So Ubisoft is being fan-boyish just the way you and I are.
- If you look at Insomniacs track record, whether it's what they say or create, they're credibility is impeccable. Now, I'm not going to get into who is the better developer though I have my opinions so let's agree to disagree.
- As for why they didn't compress, It probably was for the sake of saying they need blu-ray. I recognized that too and hoped you wouldn't say it but you have to admit games like Ratchet and Resistance do need the space. As for how fast media is ripped off the disc, Blu-ray's outer layers take longer to read but as the lazer moves towards the inner layers, they are ripper at around 32 mb/s. Over the span of a minute it averages about 16.8 mb/s compared to dvd's constant 16 mb/s. This small difference doesn't matter much. The fact that dvd's rip data at a constant rate of 16 mb/s means that the shorter a multiplatform game's load times are the shorter they will be on a dvd when compared to blu-ray. As for the initial start-up on most games, blu-ray will have the edge.
As for the article, I've read all of those tech comparisons since the beginning of the console war. Analysts can prove anything one way or the other just the way a scientist can fix an experiment. It's all a matter of bias and both you and I know that. But none the less, the PS3's theoretical CPU power is still higher than the 360's and nothing in that article says anything about the PS3's power compared to 360's. All it says is that neither console can reach its theoretical apex which is irrelevant in this argument.
Anyway, I've learned something from all of this. People have their opinions and it's a waste of time trying to change them. Anyone can spin anything any way they want and we both know what we're talking about so let's just end this stupid fanboy crap before this goes any further. What do you say? Deal?
