| Pemalite said: In overall performance, the Playstation 3 was technically superior to the 360, it's not even up for debate at this point as it's been done to death. |
It's still pretty debatable. PS3 was NUMA in it's extremist form. Segmented physical memory meant level designs had to be smaller to avoid stutters, SPE's did not have access to main memory and instead had 256KB local stores so a DMA engine had to be used to communicate between the two, heterogeneous processor and virtual memory, no eDRAM (made PS3 struggled more often with alpha effects compared to 360), lower geometry performance and no unified shaders made load balancing nearly impossible so some efficiency is lost right there ... (similar situation applies to WII U)
| Pemalite said: You are just confirming my point. If a game doesn't account for a platforms various hardware nuances and suffers from erratic performance and compromises to visual fidelity, then it is a shit port. |
Calling ports shit highly undermines the technical difficulties in a developers work and I don't think you understand the hardships that technical developers have to go through ... (not every port can be built to take advantage of each platforms, much less sometimes there not possible in the case of 6th gen)
If ports were made to take specific advantages of each hardware especially in the divergent case then you'd get visual differences instead of compromise and there would be no technically "inferior" or "superior" but would probably come down to subjectivity ...
| Pemalite said: I disagree. When a game was built around the Gamecubes hardware, it showed it was a step up above the Playstation 2. |
Because many games used different technologies back then so comparisons couldn't made on a binary basis, at that point the terms "superior" and "inferior" became subjective ...
There were GC games built that couldn't be ran on the PS2 in the same way but the same easily applied the other way around. There were things to appreciate that other couldn't do so neither had a definitive advantage ... (GC wasn't very good at vertex processing or alpha effects to the same degree like the PS2 was and PS2 didn't have texture compression or a flexible texture combiner system)
I recount an instance at Beyond3D where one developer said GC was easily the worst performing platform of three based on his experience especially in the case if the GPU had to clip some triangles ...
| Pemalite said: I am aware. However the Polymorph engine will still kick the Truform engine in the nuts on the Xbox 360... Whilst the Playstation 3 weeps in the corner. |
Tessellation is useless since nearly no developers are using it anymore (concept was great but technology/implementation sucked plus there were issues with quad shading efficiency) and I doubt it's an advantage for Switch since it doesn't have a very high geometry throughput to begin with. (384M tri/s at the absolute lowest ? 360 was able to do 500M tri/s while PS3 was half rate ?) Polymorph and Truform ended up being dead silicon, I bet async compute will get more traction than current tessellation technology ever could ...
