By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Why is there soo much negativity in any 360 related thread?

joeorc on 08 March 2010

John Carmack interview with Wired re: PS3


"It's not a bad console; it's certainly far better than everything else
except maybe the Xbox 360. In an ideal world PlayStation 3 will be more
powerful, but for the vast majority of the cases, you'll be able to
effectively exploit more power from the 360."

Rage preview/interview

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off..."

Another interview

, "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

...

..."Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there.

...


"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

on blu-ray

"And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't.."

Crytek

Cavet Yerli on Cryengine 3

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

http://www.destructoid.com/how-does-cryengine-3-run-differently-on-ps3-and-360--132464.phtml

.. If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" - This after commenting that they wanted to make Crysis 2 the most shader heavy game yet.

Odds are though i'm sure you will counter these statements with your own. My question is, why do you think your links over-rule mine?

Especially when we have previews like this

Rage runs faster on 360

"You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine (CryEngine 3) appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video."

which, in apperently real-life situations paint an opposing picture.

 

Question is that engine made for Direct X or OPEN GL?

everything you just posted is pretty straight forward ..

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

that would be..o'l my 3rd party which use what when they develop game's, multi-platform engine's

Sony first party game's show otherwise

so if Microsoft's machine Has so much more where is Microsoft's 1st party engine's for the xbox360?

why are thay not showing off their own engine's can do for the xbox360?

 Sony has shown many time's the game engine's they are running on the PS3 1st and 2nd party.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
Twistedpixel on 08 March 2010
Garnett said:

Sony said PS3 will be twice as powerful as Xbox 360

"According to IBM’s white pages, the cell processor being used in the ps3 is considerably less powerful than what it has been hyped up to be.
Sony officially revealed the PS3 and for the first time at E3 2005, and claimed that their Cell processor would be capable of 200 GFLOPS.

When physically tested however, only 155.5 GFLOP’s were actually achieved (see Table 4) with a total efficiency rate of 75.9%.
Because of manufacturing yield issues, the PS3 will only use 7 SPE’s with the theoretical peak for the PS3’s Cell processor being reduced to 176 GFLOP’s, each running at 25.12 GFLOP’s.

http://ps3.qj.net/Inside-the-PS3-s-O...g/49/aid/21047
According to the (unbiased) site above, the PS3 will also constantly reserve 1 SPE** for running its operating system. Now that there is actually one less SPE reserved for gaming purposes, it is definite that the ps3’s cell will only be capable of 114.4 GFLOP’s for the purpose of game processing."

 

The Xbox 360 has 3 general-purpose 2-threaded CPU's, which generates a proven 115.2 GFLOP’s which is dramatically easier for developers to utilize. By now it should be pathetically obvious that sony is no where near as far ahead as they try to lead you to think (keep in mind they claimed that the ps2 was more powerful than the original xbox, but were proven wrong publicly, since the xbox was indeed twice as powerful).

Remember the Xbox 360 also has part of the processor reserved for OS functions. In addition to this, its probably easier to devote one whole thread/processing element to a problem than to share execution resources and potentially conflict, in addition to this the Cell CPU probably makes better use of each execution unit due to the cache/streaming architecture. So I suspect the achieveable performance for the PS3 is about spot on whilst the Xbox 360 is a little over-exagerated there.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

xxmob on 08 March 2010

well its better then youtube ill take this site over youtube any day




joeorc on 08 March 2010
NightAntilli said:
joeorc said:
NightAntilli said:

That "slightly better" part is too vague to try to say anything objective about it. Especially with the word "here" behind it. That could mean anything. He could mean a specific task, he could mean the whole engine (which you want to believe), he could mean in that particular demo, we don't know.

And yes, the PS3 has more theoretical power and more peak performance. However, theoretical/peak power and actual performance can be very deceiving. That's also seen with graphics cards on the PC market. There have been many examples where one card would have more flops than the other, but the one with lower flops still outperformed the higher one. I'm not saying it's definitely the case with the X360 and PS3, however, the PS3 has an unnecessary complex architecture. This architecture is more prone to bottlenecks than the X360. It's like the X360 and PS3 having a race, the X360 having a car with max speed 100mph, the PS3 a car with max speed 150mph, the only difference is, the road the PS3 needs to drive on has 500 big holes per mile and a few horses crossing the road now and then, while the X360 only has 200 holes with bunnies crossing the road. You get the idea.

see that right there, do you even know why the PS3 is designed along those line's.?

do you even care?

more prone to bottle neck's?

how so..by multiplatform developer's who what develop mainly with The idea to avoid getting their code more streamlined.?

Mike Acton pointed out many thing's that's quite wrong with the development community in the very reason on how they look at development on the PS3.

o'l but your right , it's not that the developer's that need to change it's the PS3 design that needed to be more cookie cutter.

 

To be honest, I don't really care why the architecture is the way it is. Some people say it's to allow the graphics to get better over time, which is nothing but a lame excuse in my opinion. And actually, the one who is hurt the most by this is Sony. They need to put much more resources into developing for the PS3 than if the architecture was a bit more simple. They are the ones losing money over this. Aside from that, you really can't force a 3rd party developer to put more effort on your platform than on the other one. They do what they can within the limited time span, and chances are, the easier platform to develop for is gonna get the cake.

how do you know that it's an excuse:

you just stated:

"To be honest, I don't really care why the architecture is the way it is"

so why would you call it a lame excuse, how do you know for sure if you don't care?

as for

the easier platform take's the cake

what cake?

sofar the number of system's are all over 30+ million and the PS3 is getting most if not all 3rd party game's that the xbox360 is getting.

so what cake would that be?



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

selnor on 08 March 2010
CGI-Quality said:
jesus kung fu magic said:
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:
RAZurrection said:
CGI-Quality said:

Really? 3rd Parties such as Id Tech 5 & Crytek, two of the most tech driven in existence (and two of the devs that people such as yourself  & RAZurrection use as references with graphics discussions), have agreed that the PS3 has more raw power, but that's besides the point. Unless you can factually prove that Sony somehow falsified their statements, you can't say what promises were broken.

One things for sure selnor, you use reviews as the template when judging graphics and right now, reviews are giving the nod to the PS3.

Yeah, see here's another problem, there's links and articles available which state the direct opposite, but you treat it like it's fact.

Let's have em.

John Carmack interview with Wired re: PS3


"It's not a bad console; it's certainly far better than everything else
except maybe the Xbox 360. In an ideal world PlayStation 3 will be more
powerful, but for the vast majority of the cases, you'll be able to
effectively exploit more power from the 360."

 

Rage preview/interview

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off..."

Another interview

, "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

...

..."Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there.

...


"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

on blu-ray

"And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't.."

Crytek

Cavet Yerli on Cryengine 3

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

http://www.destructoid.com/how-does-cryengine-3-run-differently-on-ps3-and-360--132464.phtml

.. If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" - This after commenting that they wanted to make Crysis 2 the most shader heavy game yet.

Odds are though i'm sure you will counter these statements with your own. My question is, why do you think your links over-rule mine?

Especially when we have previews like this

Rage runs faster on 360

"You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine (CryEngine 3) appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video."

which, in apperently real-life situations paint an opposing picture.

Neither Carmack nor Crytek call the 360 more powerful. They both agree that it takes more to get out of the PS3, but neither have said the 360 IS the more powerful machine, which is what you're arguing.

In fact, in my links, Carmack admits to having a 360 preference, while also admitting that the PS3 has more peak power. Crytek admits that the PS3 version of Crysis 2 will be better, like I said, slightly though.

In other words, you haven't proven anything.

You seem to have not read the whole thing.....after he talks about the ps3 having more peak power he goes off into only saying that that is in only in theory.

Where does he state the 360 is the more powerful machine though? That's the argument with RAZ. You aren't keeping up.

Seriously CGI. You dont see it? Are we all reading the same thing? Please dont give me more twists. Ideal world is referring to ( theoretical power ). Noone will likely ever know if the PS3 is more powerful. The 360 is far from maxxed. As we are just getting the first games pushing propietry engines forward after M$ set up the studio to help devs with graphics. Funny enough, both coming from 3rd party devs ( Remedy and Bungie, albeit close devs ).

Those links were seriously in favour of 360. With more than 4 comments outright saying PS3 is not more powerful. IT completely shows my point that 3rd parties are on the fence either side. In fact where 3rd parties are concerned they often say more of the time that the 360 has the raw power in the real world. It's only ever Naughty Dog etc that say otherwise. I cant wait for 2011. 360's 2nd year of propietry rngines. And the new CRYENGINE 3, Rage and Betheda engines. They will all beat this years efforts.



Around the Network
selnor on 08 March 2010
joeorc said:

John Carmack interview with Wired re: PS3


"It's not a bad console; it's certainly far better than everything else
except maybe the Xbox 360. In an ideal world PlayStation 3 will be more
powerful, but for the vast majority of the cases, you'll be able to
effectively exploit more power from the 360."

 

Rage preview/interview

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off..."

Another interview

, "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

...

..."Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there.

...


"On the processing side it's a little bit more complicated, where the main processor on the PS3 is roughly equivalent to one of the three processors on the 360. But then you wind up saying, you have to compare two other symmetric processors on the 360 versus the eight quirky cell processors. And that comes down to one of those questions, where if you just look at the raw numbers, the cells are much more powerful. Many more flops on there, in theory you can do a lot more, but that's where you come to the difference between theory and practice. And given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board."

on blu-ray

"And if it winds up getting a benefit because of the blu-ray and having the better compression on there, then it's going to wind up looking like the PS3 was the better machine, even though it really wasn't.."

Crytek

Cavet Yerli on Cryengine 3

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

http://www.destructoid.com/how-does-cryengine-3-run-differently-on-ps3-and-360--132464.phtml

.. If the game’s shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" - This after commenting that they wanted to make Crysis 2 the most shader heavy game yet.

Odds are though i'm sure you will counter these statements with your own. My question is, why do you think your links over-rule mine?

Especially when we have previews like this

Rage runs faster on 360

"You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine (CryEngine 3) appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video."

which, in apperently real-life situations paint an opposing picture.

 

Question is that engine made for Direct X or OPEN GL?

everything you just posted is pretty straight forward ..

"We realise the PS3 is going to be the lowest common denominator for a lot of developers"

that would be..o'l my 3rd party which use what when they develop game's, multi-platform engine's

Sony first party game's show otherwise

so if Microsoft's machine Has so much more where is Microsoft's 1st party engine's for the xbox360?

why are thay not showing off their own engine's can do for the xbox360?

 Sony has shown many time's the game engine's they are running on the PS3 1st and 2nd party.


They are. First year for 360 heavy propietry engines. Alan Wake first, followed by the technical power hungry Reach.



NightAntilli on 08 March 2010
joeorc said:

Sony first party game's show otherwise

so if Microsoft's machine Has so much more where is Microsoft's 1st party engine's for the xbox360?

why are thay not showing off their own engine's can do for the xbox360?

 Sony has shown many time's the game engine's they are running on the PS3 1st and 2nd party.

MS lacked 3rd party support last gen. Their focus this gen was to have great 3rd party support. Believe it or not, that determines the success of a console a lot more than people want to admit.

Why they're not showing off? Well, Forza 3 is one, though most people don't appreciate it for what it is since the focus was not on graphics alone but also a lot of other things, not to mention the short 2 year development cycle WITH a new engine (that's pretty short actually). The only other one that comes to mind right now is Alan Wake. Developed by a small team of 30 at the beginning to around 50 right now, over the course of 5-6 years. Alan Wake is basically the only graphical marvel the X360 has right now. MS simply doesn't have that many 1st party studios or resources to build custom engines for the console, and they somehow let 2nd parties be bought by EA or other large companies. Why? Beats me.. Letting a developer like Bioware get to EA made me really go WTF. But it might be better than letting Bioware turn out like Rare... Games like Fable don't really stand out graphically, and Halo is more about scale than graphics. It's all about the priorities, and MS simply does not have graphics as a high priority, while Sony does.



Truth does not fear investigation

dsister44 on 08 March 2010
CGI-Quality said:

Just in from GameDaily:

"That said, it also applies to Sony's Santa Monica Studio, because these skilled programmers harnessed the PlayStation 3's advanced processing muscle to create the most awe-inspiring video game we've seen".

Again, I wouldn't debate it without anything solid.

What is this supposed to prove? 



S.T.A.G.E. on 08 March 2010
Mirson said:
Xxain said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The PS3 was the laughing stock of the gaming industry for good reason; Sony wasn't focused on gaming and it showed (because in truth they don't give a damn about gaming). As far as the 360's concerned, Microsoft has done so much wrong, yet did so much more right and compared to Sony, they've done leaps and bounds more for the gaming community inspiring Sony to follow suit this gen. Nintendo has done their share this gen with innovation of tech which has inspired both Microsoft and Nintendo. I was an admittedly blind Sony loyalist last gen, but eventually after taking economy class I realized it's pointless to focus so much on a brand company as they are less about gaming and are more about controlling true gaming companies which make the games. Nintendo is the only true gaming company that makes systems and makes the games from the inside.

Sony fanboys jump on Microsoft like they stole something from the industry, when they are just as relevant, if not more than Sony if you think about it as a whole (and not just their vendetta with Sony). This gen has proven that Microsoft can make sure their community gets quality games in bulk and keep them coming for a full year unlike last gen, where you received a good game once in a while. Microsoft is basically in essence the PS2 of this gen because of their ability to pull in so many games from so many 3rd party devs but actually are majorly responsible for the huge turn in PC games showing up on consoles. In essence they have more genres. Next gen might show off something different, but as far as this gen Sony is doing better, but nothing has changed for Microsoft whom has remained steadfast this gen. This is what Sony fanboys cannot stand. After God of War 3 releases the PS3 will have a severe drought until GT5 comes out at the end of the year.

uughh... did you just say SONY doesn't give damn about gaming? They lose 4 billion PS3 and get moving, They continue to push superd quality games even when they might not hold any return, Theve constructed countless studio's to make sure they get that quality, thats just a few I mean how is that the face of of company that doesn't give a damn about gaming?

Well it's true that Sony didn't care about gaming early this gen. All they cared about was their pushing blu-gays to gain market share and win the format war. They relied on brand loyalty. I mean come on, just look at the comments they made like: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even [if] it didn't have games,"

Does that sound like something a company that gives a damn about gaming would say? I admire that Sony reallized their mistakes and did a 180 with the PS3.

Exactly. I hate repeating myself to people who dont pay attention to what Sony does and says.



Icyedge on 08 March 2010

Do you realize that many persons here does exactly what they are criticism? Some of the name in here, I see them all the time posting negative things in the Sony forum. If you want that to stop, show the example! Its always a good start.