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

Forums - Gaming - Square-Enix: Trouble Fitting FFXIV On PS3

dahuman on 18 July 2010
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

advanced might not be the right word actually, it's more like flexible and more powerful overall due to console restrictions.



Around the Network
dahuman on 18 July 2010
AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


CPUs by themselves usually don't have much memory.



AkibaFan on 18 July 2010
dahuman said:
kowenicki said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
thelifatree said:
tingyu said:

Umm, why argue when Square-Enix only said that they need to 'optimize' the game before porting it from a platform to another platform? They cant simply copy and paste the data, is that right? Even if they are going to port it to Xbox, they still need to optimize it cause PC and consoles are different beasts. Give me one PC setup that can run Killzone 3 3D, Wipeout 3D or Uncharted 2, yeah, guess so

:) why does crysis:warhead and metro 2033 look better than anything released on ps3 or xbox 360 yet?


cause 360 has been nearly maxed

 

and devs still aren't used to developing on PS3 AS THEY ARE ON THEIR old PC architecture

developers use OLD pc's with old processors?  O.o

devs need to model shit on something that has an actual OS and software for the modeling and coding environment with a fuck ton more memory to compensate for error reporting and debugging in sync with the console in question to trouble shoot in real time on wtf is going on. PC is not only a gaming machine, but a big ass tool box for enterprises all over the world, doesn't matter the speed, they don't need the game to run at full speed on PC to be able to develope console games or PC games(that's what testers with different PCs are for.)

i give up trying to undrstand nything u guys are talkng about



AkibaFan on 18 July 2010
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


CPUs by themselves usually don't have much memory.

ok got it. I thought sony sed ps3 was like a super computr. But they didnt put in enuf RAM



dahuman on 18 July 2010
AkibaFan said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


CPUs by themselves usually don't have much memory.

ok got it. I thought sony sed ps3 was like a super computr. But they didnt put in enuf RAM

Ram is the main issue with the PS3, it's able to offset the older video chipset with the processing power that the Cell is able to excel in to provide good graphics with the RSX and good physics, but it would have been a much more powerful machine had they put in more memory for it. It's really just wasted power if you ask me, consoles have always been bottlenecked by memory, it's quiet retarded considering how cheap memory was even 5 years ago.



Around the Network
Kynes on 18 July 2010

Really, how much of x86/x87 is used nowadays? Modern processors from Intel and AMD are RISC and vectorial, x87 is kept for backwards compatibility, almost never used, and x86 is seldom used in programs that require high performance. People talk here as if an i7 is an overclocked Pentium, but x86/x64 is really different than 20 years ago.



Darc Requiem on 18 July 2010

RAM is always an achilles heel for consoles. While PCs always out pace consoles in CPU and GPU power, PC games have to account for the fact that not everyone PC owner is going to have the latest hardware. This helps consoles platforms because while PC devs have to account for the lowest common denominator, console devs are always pushing to get the most of hardware.

RAM is another story. Consoles tend to have a brief hardware power advantage at launch but they still are at disadvantage in RAM. Consoles usually have faster RAM at launch and combined with larger overhead of PCs that helps them initially. However PC's have far more RAM. When bought my launch 360 in 2005, my desktop had 2GB of RAM and GPU had 256MB of VRAM.

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.



Solid_Snake4RD on 18 July 2010
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

PC architecture more advanced than CELL...................................lol


KillerMan on 18 July 2010
Darc Requiem said:

RAM is always an achilles heel for consoles. While PCs always out pace consoles in CPU and GPU power, PC games have to account for the fact that not everyone PC owner is going to have the latest hardware. This helps consoles platforms because while PC devs have to account for the lowest common denominator, console devs are always pushing to get the most of hardware.

RAM is another story. Consoles tend to have a brief hardware power advantage at launch but they still are at disadvantage in RAM. Consoles usually have faster RAM at launch and combined with larger overhead of PCs that helps them initially. However PC's have far more RAM. When bought my launch 360 in 2005, my desktop had 2GB of RAM and GPU had 256MB of VRAM.

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.


I have also wondered this especially as Sony launched PS3 one year later. They could have easily gone with 1gb of normal RAM and nowadays production costs would be maybe couple of dollars more than they are now with current PS3 but in exchange PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360. With this pretty many HD console buyers would have probably chosen PS3 instead of X360.



Solid_Snake4RD on 18 July 2010
Darc Requiem said:

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.


yes but that would have increased the costs even further