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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - L.A. Noire - Xbox360 vs PS3 comparisson. Is this true?

brendude13 on 15 May 2011
Badassbab said:
brendude13 said:

Ahh ok, I'm a little confused but I think I get the gist of it.

So basically everything that was offloaded onto the EDRAM is offloaded onto the SPU's for the PS3?


It'll put it another way.

360 has an Edram memory set up. So you have VRAM, RAM (Both share 512MB) and embedded EDRAM (which is 10MB). The framebuffer (i.e the resolution and AA amongst other things) needs to fit within the Edram (which is 10mb in size). If it doesn't fit in then the programmer either has to downgrade something like for example the resolution until it's small enough to fit or resort to predicted tiling which can in some cases lead to performance issues as it uses CPU resources. However if the framebuffer does fit, then the 360 get's tremendous amounts of bandwidth (278.4GBs vs 48GB for PS3). This is why more 360 games feature higher res transparency effects, computationally expensive shadows, depth of field, motion blur etc.

PS3 has a traditional split memory architecture. 256MB VRAM and 256MB RAM. The frame buffer uses up the VRAM on the PS3. So basically that's 256Mb for the PS3 vs 10Mb for the 360. Because of this the PS3 can be triple buffered. Framebuffers not an issue on PS3. The issue with the PS3 is it's weak GPU but it's ok now because programmers can offload tasked that were meant for the GPU onto the Cell's extremely fast SPU's. Put it this way the 360 has 3 x 3.2Ghz processor cores, PS3 has 1 x 3.2Ghz main processor core but 8 SPU @ 3.2Ghz each, 6 of which can be used for gaming (one is disabled and the other is used for the OS). So basically the PS3 can be 720p with all the bells and whistles due to the traditional memory set up and the Cell processor. 360 could've as well if MS hadn't been so short sighted with only 10Mbs. It really needed to be 30Mb to compete against the likes of Killzone 3.

Ahh ok, I get you now.

Just one question:

Why can't everything that is supposed to fit on the EDRAM be put onto the VRAM (shared), like the PS3?



Around the Network
Squilliam on 15 May 2011
Badassbab said:


It'll put it another way.

360 has an Edram memory set up. So you have VRAM, RAM (Both share 512MB) and embedded EDRAM (which is 10MB). The framebuffer (i.e the resolution and AA amongst other things) needs to fit within the Edram (which is 10mb in size). If it doesn't fit in then the programmer either has to downgrade something like for example the resolution until it's small enough to fit or resort to predicted tiling which can in some cases lead to performance issues as it uses CPU resources. However if the framebuffer does fit, then the 360 get's tremendous amounts of bandwidth (278.4GBs vs 48GB for PS3). This is why more 360 games feature higher res transparency effects, computationally expensive shadows, depth of field, motion blur etc.

PS3 has a traditional split memory architecture. 256MB VRAM and 256MB RAM. The frame buffer uses up the VRAM on the PS3. So basically that's 256Mb for the PS3 vs 10Mb for the 360. Because of this the PS3 can be triple buffered. Framebuffers not an issue on PS3. The issue with the PS3 is it's weak GPU but it's ok now because programmers can offload tasked that were meant for the GPU onto the Cell's extremely fast SPU's. Put it this way the 360 has 3 x 3.2Ghz processor cores, PS3 has 1 x 3.2Ghz main processor core but 8 SPU @ 3.2Ghz each, 6 of which can be used for gaming (one is disabled and the other is used for the OS). So basically the PS3 can be 720p with all the bells and whistles due to the traditional memory set up and the Cell processor. 360 could've as well if MS hadn't been so short sighted with only 10Mbs. It really needed to be 30Mb to compete against the likes of Killzone 3.

When talking memory developers by and large prefer the Xbox 360 memory management model over the PS3. It simply has more memory available and more flexibility and more effective bandwidth. People talk of using the Cell to help render but that means additional buffers and additional use of memory.

You can say that on paper the PS3 and Xbox 360 have more or less the same memory however the Xbox 360 OS uses less, ED-RAM saves significant quantities of memory especially with AA and the PS3 needs additional buffers to make use of the Cell to assist with rendering. So Microsoft was not shortsighted in including ED-RAM in the Xbox 360.

The Xbox 360 has advantages, the PS3 has advantages and overall they are extremely similar in overal program performance when you weight the advantages and disadvantages of both against each other. Multiplatform developers say they are about equal and they only show advantages in specific cases where games are designed more towards their relative strengths. So even if the 360 version of L.A. Noire is better it shouldn't surprise anyone who understands the reality of the Xbox 360 and PS3's relative performance and their relative strengths and weaknesses.



Tease.

darkknightkryta on 15 May 2011
brendude13 said:
Badassbab said:
brendude13 said:

Ahh ok, I'm a little confused but I think I get the gist of it.

So basically everything that was offloaded onto the EDRAM is offloaded onto the SPU's for the PS3?


It'll put it another way.

360 has an Edram memory set up. So you have VRAM, RAM (Both share 512MB) and embedded EDRAM (which is 10MB). The framebuffer (i.e the resolution and AA amongst other things) needs to fit within the Edram (which is 10mb in size). If it doesn't fit in then the programmer either has to downgrade something like for example the resolution until it's small enough to fit or resort to predicted tiling which can in some cases lead to performance issues as it uses CPU resources. However if the framebuffer does fit, then the 360 get's tremendous amounts of bandwidth (278.4GBs vs 48GB for PS3). This is why more 360 games feature higher res transparency effects, computationally expensive shadows, depth of field, motion blur etc.

PS3 has a traditional split memory architecture. 256MB VRAM and 256MB RAM. The frame buffer uses up the VRAM on the PS3. So basically that's 256Mb for the PS3 vs 10Mb for the 360. Because of this the PS3 can be triple buffered. Framebuffers not an issue on PS3. The issue with the PS3 is it's weak GPU but it's ok now because programmers can offload tasked that were meant for the GPU onto the Cell's extremely fast SPU's. Put it this way the 360 has 3 x 3.2Ghz processor cores, PS3 has 1 x 3.2Ghz main processor core but 8 SPU @ 3.2Ghz each, 6 of which can be used for gaming (one is disabled and the other is used for the OS). So basically the PS3 can be 720p with all the bells and whistles due to the traditional memory set up and the Cell processor. 360 could've as well if MS hadn't been so short sighted with only 10Mbs. It really needed to be 30Mb to compete against the likes of Killzone 3.

Ahh ok, I get you now.

Just one question:

Why can't everything that is supposed to fit on the EDRAM be put onto the VRAM (shared), like the PS3?

Bandwidth is the reason, it's a hell of a lot faster to move something from the edram to the gpu than it is to move from ram to the gpu, that's why the PS3 can't do some things as well as the 360 can, the PS3 just can't move things to the gpu as fast.  But Microsoft kinda cheaped out and put in 10 megs instead of 30, so the frame buffer can't be fit.  So you either make it fit by cutting the resolution or you find other ways (Like tiling).  Like you could not use the edram but that's a waste of that bandwidth which is very high, even faster than what PCs can do.  On a side note the PS2 had edram instead of standard video ram, that's why devs were able to do what they could with the 4 megs that was available.  A Volition dev likened the PS2 set up to have 10 megs of ram instead of 4, just because you can move data in and out so fast.

Edit:  I just had the perfect example run into my head.  Think of the ram as warehouses, the edram is a 1000 sqft warehouse and the vram is a 512000sqft warehouse and your store is your GPU.  Now connecting these warehouses are two different highways, the vram's highway has 30km/h speed limit while the edram's highway has a 140km/h speed limit.  So if you want stuff in your store you want to grab stuff from the edram cause it just takes to long to grab stuff from your vram, but you can't fit 512ksqft woth of stuff in 1000sqft, so as you move stuff out of your edram warehouse you move stuff into it (essentially tiliing), or you shrink your stuff in your 512ksqft warehouse till its 1000sqft, but you're gonna loose stuff.  But you still want stuff coming from the edram cause it'll take like 10 minutes insead of an hour (making up the time since I never gave a distance).



RoastedChicken on 15 May 2011
Nsanity said:
Doobie_wop said:

A mod on Neogaf has said that the pictures were fake, don't know how he knows though.

Found this comparison on another site:

360 on the left, PS3 on the right.

http://www.la-noire.net/forums/thread-1032.html

 

Strange? because screen captures here show the 360 version much darker.

http://www.gamenyusu.com/component/content/article/8-all-news/505-90-untouched-screenshots-of-la-noire.html


I wouls say screen on the right are xbox pics...and no ps3 screenshot.

Historically xbox is darker than ps3 in brightness settings.

 

So, seems like PS3 was the lead platform but here's a new "ghostbusters" case. The port was better.

But like many here have said: lest wait for DF and LoT



psrock on 15 May 2011

I don't get it. All I see is two George W Bush talking. 



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Around the Network
A Bad Clown on 15 May 2011
psrock said:

I don't get it. All I see is two George W Bush talking. 


It takes place in 1947 so it would be George H.W. Bush.



19:44:34 Skeezer METAL GEAR ONLINE
19:44:36 Skeezer FAILURE
19:44:51 ABadClown You're right!
19:44:55 ABadClown Hur hur hur
19:45:01 Skeezer i meant
19:45:04 Skeezer YOU ARE A FAILKURE
19:45:08 Skeezer FAILURE*
STEKSTAV on 15 May 2011

Obv. fake.

First check out the PS3 gameplay from the Orientation gameplay video. http://youtu.be/0aJymtKwNHs

And screenshots: http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/11891/new-screens-of-la-noire-and-press-previews-from-gamesradar-game-.html

 



osamanobama on 15 May 2011
Dr.Grass said:

*Pirate Voice*

 

AAaaaargggh! CONSOLE WARZ AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!11!!1!1!ONE!!1!11ONEONE!



Nsanity on 16 May 2011

Another comparison.



SpartenOmega117 on 16 May 2011
Nsanity said:

Another comparison.


seems like the ps3 version has shadows but the 3660 version has more "color"