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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS3 Has “Tight memory, Poor IO Performance” – John Carmack

Rainbird said:
goforgold said:
Rainbird said:
goforgold said:
pezus said:
What excuse did he have for the PC version? Surely not tight memory...

no no no that shit doesn't count here.....just typical behavior from the 360 community, carry on

You know what typical behavior there is in this thread? PS3 fans being butthurt that some developer raises legitimate critizisms about their platform. What he said is 100% correct, and those exact points are extremely important to RAGE, because of its technology.

It's not id that don't know their stuff, it's the PS3 that can't keep up.

the fact that ALL three versions have problems and the differences are barely noticable and we getting the ps3 version can't keep up....can't keep up what, loading a texture .002 seconds as fast as 360... I mean if it was like Bayonetta, Fallout where the differences were pretty major you guys would have a point, my point is not that the ps3 doesn't have short commings but the people in here talking as if it's the only platform with problems and that they THAT noticeable is pretty laughable and like I said... typical given the people doing the talking

carry on though

The thread is about John Carmack answering a player on why the PS3 version isn't as good as the other versions. And that's because the PS3 isn't as strong as the 360 and PC are in the areas that matter to RAGE. Some people then get mad at him for telling the truth. It's completely silly!

That's not to say the other versions don't have problems, but the PS3 version is notably behind the 360 version in visuals because of the pop-in and having its resolution reduced more often.

no....not notably, barely actually

but....carry on



Around the Network
selnor said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
pezus said:
What excuse did he have for the PC version? Surely not tight memory...


This. The main issues were not about the console version, but rather the PC version which has been getting the most heat from gamers. Everyone knew the PC version blows the console versions away no matter what. Carmack has already stated that consoles held him back from making the game what it could've been exclusive to PC. He a lot of like other PC devs earlier on in the gen had the same problems with the PS3 not truly understanding how the PS3's architecture works. Everyone knows games that aren't made specifically for the PS3's architecture will not come out as good as it should on a multiplatform level. This is why exclusives couldn't be more imperitive for Sony, because they need to show the world exactly how powerful their console is compared to the Xbox 360 which is majorly praised for most powerful games being ported from PC. Sony cannot say the same. The exclusives show off the consoles power and that is that. Carmack should've known that from the very beginning after large criticisms from PC devs surfaced. People will continue to enjoy Rage whether its on the PS3 or 360. The game had fun gameplay and the AI was awesome, but the storyline to me was weak and the only thing I see it winning this year is best PC game. I doubt that though being that the Witcher 2 came out.

That doesnt really make sense anymore. 

I bbelieve most consider Uncharted, Killzone  and GOW as the best of the best as far as exclusives go for PS3. I agree as I do wiith Gears Of War 3 they look amazing.

The truth thoug is you cannot put those engines in the same breath as ID Tech 5 or Frostbite 2.0.

And retrospectively even begin to compre them wit a straight face  against Rage or Battlefield 3. The reason is simple.

Rage runs at double the framerate. That means that double the frames are stored iin the 256mb Ram the PS3 has available for te GPU. Its using double the memory that any exclusive PS3 or 360 game is using other than  Forza 4 and partially GT5 & GOW3 ( GOW3 running at 45 FpS and T5 as low as 48FPS ).

so even when Sony's first party devs have attempted to run games at 60fps they have had games with detail flaws and drops in framerate throught the game or in GOW3's case a very linear small gameplay environment game. 

The fact that ID have made the game look beautiful on PS3 and keep a higher framerate than either first party attempt from Sony all while doing this in a much much much larger gameplay environment proves this whole First party BS is smoke and mirrors now.

Uncharted looks great. But again has small gameplay areas and semi cutscene areas. Hell the devs are quite smart with UC. Take these sand clips being thrown around here on VGC. What are they 3 second GIFs?

Take a look at the actual gameplay segment and you soon realise its an intro to a level. Where when Drake gets over that brow the sand doesnt move like that under his feet anymore and actually doesnt move  at all. He enters te city via a breaking roof and the play area is very small. Clever choices. Because the real meat of the gameplay doesnt have these effects when the game cant handle it. And its all only 30 FPS. Using half of the memory for Frames that Rage does.

After playing FM4 it actually shows up GT5 in terms of engine and so called PS3  power. Admitedlly we need to wait for Digital Foundry for sure, but I'm betting FM4 doesnt dip to  48 FPS like GT5. Both GT5 and Forza 4 aim for 60 FPS, wilst trying to maintain videlity  in visuals. Much bigger test and impessive than a god looking 30 fps Gears 3 or UC3. Technically 60FPS is ALOT harder on the consoles due to the RAM. Because your asking to use double  the amount before youve even added any Graphics. 

I think some of you need to understand just what the difference is between what ID,Turn 10 and Polyphony have tried to do  and what Epic, Naughty Dog and the like attempt to do. IF you asked me what had better textures Gears 3 or Rage, Id say Gears  3. IF you asked me what was more impressive to play its age easily. 60FPS looks better not just plays better. It helps the visuals to.


Ugh... just read this dude. Carmack has issues with all the consoles, but the PS3 is a recent one he's blaming things on.  He has an issue with the PC, 360 and PS3. PC devs always have issues with something.

http://gamingbolt.com/carmack-displeased-with-the-segmented-ps3-memory

He's stated that the PS3 and 360 aren't far apart in power. It's just that the PS3 splits off its duties. Both have the same amount of ram which is the problem Carmack has. He stated that he hopes the PS4 has at least 4 GB of ram next gen. As for the PC gamers, I think he's succeeded in pissing off the wrong ones.



I think the reason why people, including me, have an issue with John Carmack's constant PS3 complaining is that he is making excuses for why RAGE isn't the graphics king. Every week I see him complaining about the PS3's memory and architecture, we've heard it all before. Until he makes a game that looks better than Uncharted 3, or whatever you think is the best looking console game, then he can shut the fuck up.



He had all the memory he wants on PC yet that version have more issues what does that tell you?



S.T.A.G.E. said:
Rainbird said:

Not with the way RAGE works. I gave a short explanation in my last post to you, I'll gladly expand on it if you want to know more.

Thats perfectly fine. let me know more, but the real issue of backlash is coming from the PC gamers, not the console gamers. Carmack is getting backhanded by all of them for not making the game up to par and now Carmack has stated that the consoles don't run with not even 1/10 of a PC's power. He's blaming the PS3 for his troubles when the PS3 owners are not the ones who are complaining. He's also stated that PC is no longer the lead platform and games are made in mind where the larger paying audience is. This is fine....but its not like they wont rip his game for fun out of spite.

And I agree that id screwed up on the PC version, and they really should have given it some more attention. Not because they need to use the PC better, but because they need to let the players have the freedom to utilize their systems the way they want. Not to mention having everything work.

What makes RAGE special compared to every other game is how it uses textures. id calls it virtualized texturing, where everything in the world is hand built, and you don't have textures that are used twice. Basically, id have created these massive textures (the technique is also called mega textures), where they have parts of these textures loaded in as needed. This means they can have a bunch of detail in the world with less RAM usage than what is usually required.

However, consoles are still very limited in RAM (PS3 slightly more so than the 360), so a lot of these texture bits have to be loaded in from the harddrive or the game disc very often (that's what Carmack means by IO. IO is input/output and refers to loading something into the RAM from some media like an optical disc). Loading from an optical disc is really slow though, and while loading from a harddrive is faster, it's still quite slow relative to the rest of the system.

Because the blu-ray drive in the PS3 is even slower than the 360's DVD drive, RAGE has to put 8 GB of data on the harddrive in order to keep down the pop-in to a tolerable level. The 360 without a harddrive install will run about the same as the PS3 version (in terms of pop-in), but because the 360 allows all the data to be installed to harddrive, the pop-in is notably reduced when you do.

That's what Carmack is referring to. The PS3 is slower to load things in, and it has less available RAM to utilize.



Around the Network
Myrmi said:
He had all the memory he wants on PC yet that version have more issues what does that tell you?


That you don't know how to read because that's already answered in this thread. Priorities.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
selnor said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
pezus said:
What excuse did he have for the PC version? Surely not tight memory...


This. The main issues were not about the console version, but rather the PC version which has been getting the most heat from gamers. Everyone knew the PC version blows the console versions away no matter what. Carmack has already stated that consoles held him back from making the game what it could've been exclusive to PC. He a lot of like other PC devs earlier on in the gen had the same problems with the PS3 not truly understanding how the PS3's architecture works. Everyone knows games that aren't made specifically for the PS3's architecture will not come out as good as it should on a multiplatform level. This is why exclusives couldn't be more imperitive for Sony, because they need to show the world exactly how powerful their console is compared to the Xbox 360 which is majorly praised for most powerful games being ported from PC. Sony cannot say the same. The exclusives show off the consoles power and that is that. Carmack should've known that from the very beginning after large criticisms from PC devs surfaced. People will continue to enjoy Rage whether its on the PS3 or 360. The game had fun gameplay and the AI was awesome, but the storyline to me was weak and the only thing I see it winning this year is best PC game. I doubt that though being that the Witcher 2 came out.

That doesnt really make sense anymore. 

I bbelieve most consider Uncharted, Killzone  and GOW as the best of the best as far as exclusives go for PS3. I agree as I do wiith Gears Of War 3 they look amazing.

The truth thoug is you cannot put those engines in the same breath as ID Tech 5 or Frostbite 2.0.

And retrospectively even begin to compre them wit a straight face  against Rage or Battlefield 3. The reason is simple.

Rage runs at double the framerate. That means that double the frames are stored iin the 256mb Ram the PS3 has available for te GPU. Its using double the memory that any exclusive PS3 or 360 game is using other than  Forza 4 and partially GT5 & GOW3 ( GOW3 running at 45 FpS and T5 as low as 48FPS ).

so even when Sony's first party devs have attempted to run games at 60fps they have had games with detail flaws and drops in framerate throught the game or in GOW3's case a very linear small gameplay environment game. 

The fact that ID have made the game look beautiful on PS3 and keep a higher framerate than either first party attempt from Sony all while doing this in a much much much larger gameplay environment proves this whole First party BS is smoke and mirrors now.

Uncharted looks great. But again has small gameplay areas and semi cutscene areas. Hell the devs are quite smart with UC. Take these sand clips being thrown around here on VGC. What are they 3 second GIFs?

Take a look at the actual gameplay segment and you soon realise its an intro to a level. Where when Drake gets over that brow the sand doesnt move like that under his feet anymore and actually doesnt move  at all. He enters te city via a breaking roof and the play area is very small. Clever choices. Because the real meat of the gameplay doesnt have these effects when the game cant handle it. And its all only 30 FPS. Using half of the memory for Frames that Rage does.

After playing FM4 it actually shows up GT5 in terms of engine and so called PS3  power. Admitedlly we need to wait for Digital Foundry for sure, but I'm betting FM4 doesnt dip to  48 FPS like GT5. Both GT5 and Forza 4 aim for 60 FPS, wilst trying to maintain videlity  in visuals. Much bigger test and impessive than a god looking 30 fps Gears 3 or UC3. Technically 60FPS is ALOT harder on the consoles due to the RAM. Because your asking to use double  the amount before youve even added any Graphics. 

I think some of you need to understand just what the difference is between what ID,Turn 10 and Polyphony have tried to do  and what Epic, Naughty Dog and the like attempt to do. IF you asked me what had better textures Gears 3 or Rage, Id say Gears  3. IF you asked me what was more impressive to play its age easily. 60FPS looks better not just plays better. It helps the visuals to.


Ugh... just read this dude. Carmack has issues with all the consoles, but the PS3 is a recent one he's blaming things on.  He has an issue with the PC, 360 and PS3. PC devs always have issues with something.

http://gamingbolt.com/carmack-displeased-with-the-segmented-ps3-memory

He's stated that the PS3 and 360 aren't far apart in power. It's just that the PS3 splits off its duties. Both have the same amount of ram which is the problem Carmack has. He stated that he hopes the PS4 has at least 4 GB of ram next gen. As for the PC gamers, I think he's succeeded in pissing off the wrong ones.



I agree. Ive already read it. Of course he wants as much ram as possible. The issues as far as PS3 and Rage are concerned are due to a few things. Popin being more obvious in PS3 version is purely down to the HDD and Bluray disc not able to send the information as fast as the HDD and Disc in 360. This is NOT Ram related. However the frequent loss in resolution and dips in Framerate on the PS3 version are due to the Ram structure the PS3 has. It doesnt matter how much the CPU in PS3 is able to help the GPU the extra 30 Frames has to be stored in the 256mb Ram on the GPU side. The CPU cannot display the frames it has to still be done by the GPU. This is why he refers to the PS3 memory being tight. This is what causes the PS3 version to frequent 680x720 resolution and dips to 47 FPS as opposed to the 360 version onl going as low as 960x720 and 58 FPS according to Digital Foundry. These are the issues the PS3 community have asked Carmack to fix, and his answer is what it is. Its down to the Ram and Speed of deporting the textures on the fly that he says cant be resolved. At least not without freeing up Ram by dropping the 60FPS glory.

selnor said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
pezus said:
What excuse did he have for the PC version? Surely not tight memory...


This. The main issues were not about the console version, but rather the PC version which has been getting the most heat from gamers. Everyone knew the PC version blows the console versions away no matter what. Carmack has already stated that consoles held him back from making the game what it could've been exclusive to PC. He a lot of like other PC devs earlier on in the gen had the same problems with the PS3 not truly understanding how the PS3's architecture works. Everyone knows games that aren't made specifically for the PS3's architecture will not come out as good as it should on a multiplatform level. This is why exclusives couldn't be more imperitive for Sony, because they need to show the world exactly how powerful their console is compared to the Xbox 360 which is majorly praised for most powerful games being ported from PC. Sony cannot say the same. The exclusives show off the consoles power and that is that. Carmack should've known that from the very beginning after large criticisms from PC devs surfaced. People will continue to enjoy Rage whether its on the PS3 or 360. The game had fun gameplay and the AI was awesome, but the storyline to me was weak and the only thing I see it winning this year is best PC game. I doubt that though being that the Witcher 2 came out.

That doesnt really make sense anymore. 

I bbelieve most consider Uncharted, Killzone  and GOW as the best of the best as far as exclusives go for PS3. I agree as I do wiith Gears Of War 3 they look amazing.

The truth thoug is you cannot put those engines in the same breath as ID Tech 5 or Frostbite 2.0.

And retrospectively even begin to compre them wit a straight face  against Rage or Battlefield 3. The reason is simple.

Rage runs at double the framerate. That means that double the frames are stored iin the 256mb Ram the PS3 has available for te GPU. Its using double the memory that any exclusive PS3 or 360 game is using other than  Forza 4 and partially GT5 & GOW3 ( GOW3 running at 45 FpS and T5 as low as 48FPS ).

so even when Sony's first party devs have attempted to run games at 60fps they have had games with detail flaws and drops in framerate throught the game or in GOW3's case a very linear small gameplay environment game. 

The fact that ID have made the game look beautiful on PS3 and keep a higher framerate than either first party attempt from Sony all while doing this in a much much much larger gameplay environment proves this whole First party BS is smoke and mirrors now.

Uncharted looks great. But again has small gameplay areas and semi cutscene areas. Hell the devs are quite smart with UC. Take these sand clips being thrown around here on VGC. What are they 3 second GIFs?

Take a look at the actual gameplay segment and you soon realise its an intro to a level. Where when Drake gets over that brow the sand doesnt move like that under his feet anymore and actually doesnt move  at all. He enters te city via a breaking roof and the play area is very small. Clever choices. Because the real meat of the gameplay doesnt have these effects when the game cant handle it. And its all only 30 FPS. Using half of the memory for Frames that Rage does.

After playing FM4 it actually shows up GT5 in terms of engine and so called PS3  power. Admitedlly we need to wait for Digital Foundry for sure, but I'm betting FM4 doesnt dip to  48 FPS like GT5. Both GT5 and Forza 4 aim for 60 FPS, wilst trying to maintain videlity  in visuals. Much bigger test and impessive than a god looking 30 fps Gears 3 or UC3. Technically 60FPS is ALOT harder on the consoles due to the RAM. Because your asking to use double  the amount before youve even added any Graphics. 

I think some of you need to understand just what the difference is between what ID,Turn 10 and Polyphony have tried to do  and what Epic, Naughty Dog and the like attempt to do. IF you asked me what had better textures Gears 3 or Rage, Id say Gears  3. IF you asked me what was more impressive to play its age easily. 60FPS looks better not just plays better. It helps the visuals to.

"256mb Ram the PS3 has available for te GPU."

the ps3 has 512 RAM

"Uncharted looks great. But again has small gameplay areas and semi cutscene areas"

if you ask me it sounds like you never played uncharted... sure uncharted isn't open world but that doesn't mean that what you said is correct either, you used this as an example 

"He enters te city via a breaking roof and the play area is very small."

what you fail to mention is that prior to that he's wandering around in a desert or in other words a wide open area... of course we have no idea just how open it is but until then i wouldn't make claims like yours

"but I'm betting FM4 doesnt dip to  48 FPS like GT5"

it shouldn't as gt5 has more things going on regardless such as dynamic weather and day-night transitions

the funny thing is that regardless of all the technical mumbo jumbo rage imo still doesn't look that good and it seems that several people agree



brendude13 said:
I think the reason why people, including me, have an issue with John Carmack's constant PS3 complaining is that he is making excuses for why RAGE isn't the graphics king. Every week I see him complaining about the PS3's memory and architecture, we've heard it all before. Until he makes a game that looks better than Uncharted 3, or whatever you think is the best looking console game, then he can shut the fuck up.

It's like comparing apples to oranges. Show me the open world game with as much detail as RAGE's that runs at 60 FPS on consoles. It doesn't exist.

And he's only complaining because he's being asked. It even says in the OP that Carmack responded to a player over twitter who had asked him why the PS3 version didn't run better.



goforgold said:

no....not notably, barely actually

but....carry on

Agree to disagree then.

And I will carry on!