MikeB said: Those really interested in the PS3's potential, problems with legacy game engines or 360 porting, oppertunities and comparison misconceptions. Click the link within my signature.

Ha! You're only trying to get more profile views. Would work better if you'd say there's free porn behind that link. @Superchunk: Yes and no. Theoretically you could peak it's performance one part at a time, but you're not going to see a game that would blow the full system at a full steam and even less continously pushing the 100% power.

10% ??

 

Then why is Resistance only running at 720p with 30 fps??

BenKenobi88 said: But the problem with this...10% information is uber-PS3 fanboys are going to say future games will look 90% better than Resistance...whatever that means.

 That would mean 9x more. Meaning 900% more.

 Expect RFOM2 to run at 6480p @  270fps.

epsilon72 said: One of these again? We went over this before - any time a dev says "we used xx% of x console's power" you know they are just making it up.

 Yet again someone with no coding experience doubting the word of developers because they simply don't want to believe them.

 Why would they make it up? And why would so many different developers be saying roughly the same percentage? Maybe because they aren't making it up.

@ gebx

The answer to your question is quite simple, at first they adapted a PS2 engine for the PS3. With Ratchet they achieved more, with Resistance 2 they will achieve much more. They have moved almost everything from the PPE onto the Cell's SPEs for Resistance 2. Hit the link in my signature for more info.

Mummelmann said: See, the problem is this; my PC has a lot more potential than it will ever use up due to optimalization, coding, bandwidth and bus limits, spin times and downright programming. If I put my PC components to a theoretical number crunching test, the numbers would be simply staggering, but those numbers are not what I'll be getting out of my PC at any one time. Under optimal conditions, all chips can perform extraordinarily, but conditions are never optimal in a full housing of components matched by proxy and tuned to work systematically and soundly first and foremost. Take this for example; my Volvo's rear axle can stand to be pressed down by 10 metric tons without a sweat, whereas my Volvo as a whole, can't. The limit in a hardware setup's power is not in the most powerful part and its optimal and utmost performance, but rather the linkages between the chips and the very limited transistor technology that really doesn't handle heat very well. My femur can take over 280 kg's of weight on it before snapping, even without any tissue on it, but my body can't support 560 kg's without my legs buckling. Another theoretical example, and just as valid.

Sir, I admire your analogies.

famousringo said: Mummelmann said: See, the problem is this; my PC has a lot more potential than it will ever use up due to optimalization, coding, bandwidth and bus limits, spin times and downright programming. If I put my PC components to a theoretical number crunching test, the numbers would be simply staggering, but those numbers are not what I'll be getting out of my PC at any one time. Under optimal conditions, all chips can perform extraordinarily, but conditions are never optimal in a full housing of components matched by proxy and tuned to work systematically and soundly first and foremost. Take this for example; my Volvo's rear axle can stand to be pressed down by 10 metric tons without a sweat, whereas my Volvo as a whole, can't. The limit in a hardware setup's power is not in the most powerful part and its optimal and utmost performance, but rather the linkages between the chips and the very limited transistor technology that really doesn't handle heat very well. My femur can take over 280 kg's of weight on it before snapping, even without any tissue on it, but my body can't support 560 kg's without my legs buckling. Another theoretical example, and just as valid. Sir, I admire your analogies.

You make a good point, but I don't fully agree to a certain extent. I would think that consoles can be optomized more than a PC game could since the consoles have their hardware set. However, I do agree that it's probably not possible to push it to full one hundred percentage usage.

But obviously, I'm really expecting some improvements from developers as time goes on. 

@ IllegalPaladin

For the long run I certainly agree with you, consoles provide far more potential for optimisations to developers, due to one uniform architecture being developed on for a long period of time.

Next to ever changing specs there are however other issues to take into consideration when talking about PCs, namely Windows inefficiency and resource drainage. The better the OS (in terms of efficiency and performance) the less memory and CPU cycles are wasted.

An interesting quote from Tim Sweeney ( head developer at Epic):

"keep in mind that the Windows XP driver model for Direct3D is quite inefficient, to such an extent that in many applications, the OS and driver overhead associated with issuing Direct3D calls approaches 50% of available CPU cycles." Source: AnandTech interview

No Windows PC game gets near to the max potential out of PC hardware.

twesterm said: akuma587 said: epsilon72 said: One of these again? We went over this before - any time a dev says "we used xx% of x console's power" you know they are just making it up. I would obviously trust your opinion of theirs and what is written on official documents. You probably have a lot of experiencing developing games, programming, and optimizing for minimal CPU usage. No, they really are just pulling crap out of their ass.

You act as if you were some sort of programming computer gaming guy.

Also if a developer says he's only used 10% of the PS3's power... isn't that pretty much him saying "I was really lazy."

What would happen if you went to your boss and said "Yeah see this i'm handing it. I only used 10% of our resources! Man this thing could of been like 10 times better had i actually bothered to use most of this stuff!

Username2324 said: epsilon72 said: One of these again? We went over this before - any time a dev says "we used xx% of x console's power" you know they are just making it up. Yet again someone with no coding experience doubting the word of developers because they simply don't want to believe them. Why would they make it up? And why would so many different developers be saying roughly the same percentage? Maybe because they aren't making it up.

 Note that Twesterm is backing him up.

Also note that Twesterm is currently on a videogame development team. 

For PS3 no less. (Well PS3 and 360.)