MikeB said: Higher FPS = runs more steady. The Xbox360 does that, not the PS3. No, a more constant framerate means more steady. Less fluctuations in framerate. The 360 version has more noticable and significant framerate drops. Actually the most noticable difference is the fact that the Xbox360 has screen tear whilst the PS3 does not. Subjective opinion The end result is what matters the most. Worse graphics will still look worse in a slightly higher rendering resolution. It hasn't even been confirmed both versions render in different resolutions. Looking for patterns this suggests the PS3 version renders in 640p before upscaling to the output resolution (something impossible to determine by just looking at a HDTV screen), having difficulty finding the same patterns on the 360 version does not per se imply the game is rendering natively in a higher resolution. Even the guy who claims resolution differences between the two versions said: "regardless PS3 media look better for me, the light and atmosphere is more real (maybe HDR vs X360 MDR, post-process...), i agree with global reviews feeling" The same guy that said that Haze was 576P and this was later confirmed by the developers Free radical. That guy? The guy that also confirmed that GTAIV rendered at 640p? Im sure any inherant CPU advantages would be swallowed up by the inefficiencies of multi cpu design. The design is very efficient, that's why a radically new design was chosen. Unlike for other processors the Cell is able to achieve near its peak potential, also performance results go up near linear by utilizing additional SPEs (also less the case for current top multi-core CPUs). The Cell is extremely fast, but you can't take advantage of that performance in the PS3 environment so easily. For example a search program for a P4 CPU did 28 million operations per second while the Cell (Blade not PS3) did 530ish. The difference? The P4 had 60 lines of code and the Cell had 1200. Game developers are not going to optimize to that extent and you run into a ram wall as well having programs that big. I did take that into account when I considered them. Some pointers: IBM: "Game applications feature highly parallel code for functions such as game physics, which have high computation and memory requirements, and scalar code for functions such as game artificial intelligence, for which fast response times and a full-featured programming environment are critical. The Cell Broadband Engine[TM] architecture targets such applications, providing both flexibility and high performance" Sony (PR speak): "The Cell Broadband Engine has the muscle and horsepower to move beyond artificial intelligence." The way AI has been implemented in many legacy game engines is not the best approach. Funny that most game code is actually quite serial in nature. Game developers would have preferred much faster serial processors but since that wasn't going to happen they were forced to develop multithreaded designs. We can move back to say that memory topic... But hey when I hear things like the killzone 2 developers talking about how their AI scales with distance... Why did they scale it? Are they lacking Ram? Power? Both? In any case whilst the above is probably true, to achieve the cells full crippled potential inside the PS3 you would have to spend a lot of money optimizing. Probably not worth it, and they may never bother. |
Tease.
