He thinks you guys are the same person. He called Starcraft a douche bag (and you because he thinks your one in the same)
starcraft said:
That there is one of the many articles on the subject of the PS3's ability to run AI relative to the 360's ability. At the end of the day your trying to convince me that a developer whose salary is directly paid by the multinational who owns the console a game is exclusive to is more reputable than one is who paid by an independant third-party. As for why they would compress? I think it was Shams (you know that guy, the Mod that works for an Australian tech consulting company) who first explained to a rather aggressive person like yourself that compression simply makes good economic and technological sense. If one doesn't compress, one fills up and slows down one's servers and data banks faster, and make data transfer between development sites far slower and more costly. The only reason not to maximize compression from the outset is the PR value of saying, "we need Blu-Ray." I might add that the read speed of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive is slower than the 360's DVD drive's read speed, resulting in the neccessity of duplicating data on the Blu-Ray disk to improve stream speeds. http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=4 "In IBM’s controlled testing environment, their optimized code on 8 SPE only yielded a performance number of 155.5GFLOPS. If it took 8 SPE to achieve that, no way 6 will be able to and that testing was done in a fashion that didn’t model all the complexities of DMA and the memory system. Using a 1Kx1K matrix and 8 SPE they were able to achieve 73.4GFLOPS, but the PS3 uses 6 SPE for games and these tests were done in controlled environments. So going on this information, even 73.4GFLOPS is seemingly out of reach, showing us that Sony didn’t necessarily lie about the cell’s performance as they made clear the 218GFLOPS was “theoretical.” But just like Microsoft they definitely wanted you to misinterpret these numbers into believing they were achievable." That is an exert from a tech analysis that indicates that in a gaming environment, the PS3's processor could not even reach one third of the 'potential' performance Sony states that it has. IT also points out that your statement about SPE's and their use is complete crap, as one is disabled, and one is used to run the PS3's OS. If you read the entire article (which I won't post as it is 11 pages long), you'll find that none of the PS3's SPE's operate REMOTELY like conventional 3.2 GH processors. The article also discredit's the read speed of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive, and indicates that the PS3 doesn't have nearly the RAM neccessary to support the kind of detail and game length advantage you seem to believe the format gives the PS3. Now your trolling and personal attacks can easily be undone by apologizing to me. I assure you I will accept your apology. Here are some things to remember in future: -If you start a thread saying one console's exclusive could be done better on another console, and then scream at the people who discredit your comments that they are 'fanboys' you will come off looking a little strange and illogical. -This is an internet forum, not CNN. You cannot expect posts based on common sense to have a source at the end EVERY SINGLE TIME. -If you ARE going to have a source based argument, it would be better to base it on tech articles and third-party statements like I have, rather than simple quoting Sony employees, who clearly have a vested interest. |
I'm responding in the order of your comments, so here it goes-
- I read the exact same article you did and I previously recognized the same quote and once again, they do not state why it is possible. So Ubisoft is being fan-boyish just the way you and I are.
- If you look at Insomniacs track record, whether it's what they say or create, they're credibility is impeccable. Now, I'm not going to get into who is the better developer though I have my opinions so let's agree to disagree.
- As for why they didn't compress, It probably was for the sake of saying they need blu-ray. I recognized that too and hoped you wouldn't say it but you have to admit games like Ratchet and Resistance do need the space. As for how fast media is ripped off the disc, Blu-ray's outer layers take longer to read but as the lazer moves towards the inner layers, they are ripper at around 32 mb/s. Over the span of a minute it averages about 16.8 mb/s compared to dvd's constant 16 mb/s. This small difference doesn't matter much. The fact that dvd's rip data at a constant rate of 16 mb/s means that the shorter a multiplatform game's load times are the shorter they will be on a dvd when compared to blu-ray. As for the initial start-up on most games, blu-ray will have the edge.
As for the article, I've read all of those tech comparisons since the beginning of the console war. Analysts can prove anything one way or the other just the way a scientist can fix an experiment. It's all a matter of bias and both you and I know that. But none the less, the PS3's theoretical CPU power is still higher than the 360's and nothing in that article says anything about the PS3's power compared to 360's. All it says is that neither console can reach its theoretical apex which is irrelevant in this argument.
Anyway, I've learned something from all of this. People have their opinions and it's a waste of time trying to change them. Anyone can spin anything any way they want and we both know what we're talking about so let's just end this stupid fanboy crap before this goes any further. What do you say? Deal?
| Tird fergesson said: I'm responding in the order of your comments, so here it goes- - I read the exact same article you did and I previously recognized the same quote and once again, they do not state why it is possible. So Ubisoft is being fan-boyish just the way you and I are. - If you look at Insomniacs track record, whether it's what they say or create, they're credibility is impeccable. Now, I'm not going to get into who is the better developer though I have my opinions so let's agree to disagree. - As for why they didn't compress, It probably was for the sake of saying they need blu-ray. I recognized that too and hoped you wouldn't say it but you have to admit games like Ratchet and Resistance do need the space. As for how fast media is ripped off the disc, Blu-ray's outer layers take longer to read but as the lazer moves towards the inner layers, they are ripper at around 32 mb/s. Over the span of a minute it averages about 16.8 mb/s compared to dvd's constant 16 mb/s. This small difference doesn't matter much. The fact that dvd's rip data at a constant rate of 16 mb/s means that the shorter a multiplatform game's load times are the shorter they will be on a dvd when compared to blu-ray. As for the initial start-up on most games, blu-ray will have the edge. As for the article, I've read all of those tech comparisons since the beginning of the console war. Analysts can prove anything one way or the other just the way a scientist can fix an experiment. It's all a matter of bias and both you and I know that. But none the less, the PS3's theoretical CPU power is still higher than the 360's and nothing in that article says anything about the PS3's power compared to 360's. All it says is that neither console can reach its theoretical apex which is irrelevant in this argument. Anyway, I've learned something from all of this. People have their opinions and it's a waste of time trying to change them. Anyone can spin anything any way they want and we both know what we're talking about so let's just end this stupid fanboy crap before this goes any further. What do you say? Deal?
|
The article does assert that the PS3's theoretical power, whilst higher than the 360's, will struggle to make games look any better until the end of the generation, when the difference will be marginal. The console's ability to do this will be further limited by the PS3's limited memory.
As for the Blu-Ray part, I was always under the impression the PS3's Blu-Ray drive was locked at a constant speed like TotalWar23 said.
Finally on the Ubisoft vs. Insomniac side of things, we'll have to agree to disagree like you said. I try to never base an argument solely on a first-party developer's comments, no matter how highly I regard that developer.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
| TheRealMafoo said: The fastest location is a small part of the disk. Not a lot of data can be stored, and retrieved, at those speeds. |
I'm not sure about that? How much data?
But I'm sure you read this article"
Having just got the newest February 2007 issue of EGM (you guys should subscribe and keep print alive, it's wholesome and woody!), perhaps the most interesting tidbit is hidden in the middle of a story about Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD. Specifically, it comes from Todd Howard, talking about the PlayStation 3 version of Oblivion.
Howard notes: "Drive speed matters more to me [than capacity], and Blu-ray is slower", with EGM revealing that "the PS3 Oblivion team compensated for the slower drive by duplicating data across the Blu-ray disc, making it faster to find and load."
Well, I say ugh - that sounds like a terrible kludge to have to do. What happens if you don't have your pieces of data correctly sync-ed and one of them is an old version of an object/piece of code and one is a newer version? Unless this was well-dealt with, it could lead to some nasty issues, I'd imagine.
OK, so apart from you wags who are now proclaiming: 'So _that's_ what the Blu-ray's extra disc capacity is used for!', it's worth mentioning that Oblivion for PS3 has now been pushed out to March 2007, even though it was officially going to be a launch title until November 8th or so of last year - that is to say, very close to the PS3 launch date.
Not sure if this was unfortunate planning on Bethesda's part or technical difficulties, but I noticed a bunch of two-page adverts for Oblivion, specifically mentioning the PS3 version, in the holiday issues of Official PlayStation Magazine and EGM - so I'm guessing that marketing was booked before the game was pushed back. Ouch. Still, I imagine that the final product will be up to scratch.
[UPDATE: A perceptive comment from 'Marvin' is worth reprinting: "You'd automate the duplication at the image creation stage to avoid any stale data problems. People have done this on other platforms before for the same reasons - particularly the PSP, with its horrible UMD seek times. However, it does rather negate the whole increased storage capacity advantage."]
The BR is locked at a total speed of 9MBs. The DVD is 10.6 to 4.4. So at it's best it's 1.6 faster, but at it's worst it's 4.6 slower. I don't know if the change is linear, as the disk speed changes on the DVD drive, but if it is linear, that would put no more then 1 gig at a faster speed.
Also, it's rumored that the BR in the PS3 can do 100 and 200 gig disks when they come out. If that's true, I would assume the read times go up, as the disk spins at a relatively slow rate now. It would probably go up 50-100%.
As for the oblivion article, I have seen it. I also head it was blown out of context. The PS3 version loads faster then the 360, and has longer draw distance, and less load screens. This would indicate that not only does it load faster, but it loads more data in that time. not sure how that could be posable if the drive is slower. (optimized code maybe).
i can't find the article, but it said that the main reason they duplicated data, is that they had the space, and it improved load times, so why not? Even if it was already faster loading then the 360, if you can improve load times by using space you don't otherwise need, why not do it?
| TheRealMafoo said: The BR is locked at a total speed of 9MBs. The DVD is 10.6 to 4.4. So at it's best it's 1.6 faster, but at it's worst it's 4.6 slower. I don't know if the change is linear, as the disk speed changes on the DVD drive, but if it is linear, that would put no more then 1 gig at a faster speed. Also, it's rumored that the BR in the PS3 can do 100 and 200 gig disks when they come out. If that's true, I would assume the read times go up, as the disk spins at a relatively slow rate now. It would probably go up 50-100%. As for the oblivion article, I have seen it. I also head it was blown out of context. The PS3 version loads faster then the 360, and has longer draw distance, and less load screens. This would indicate that not only does it load faster, but it loads more data in that time. not sure how that could be posable if the drive is slower. (optimized code maybe). i can't find the article, but it said that the main reason they duplicated data, is that they had the space, and it improved load times, so why not? Even if it was already faster loading then the 360, if you can improve load times by using space you don't otherwise need, why not do it? |
See, I hear differently (devs put their biggest data on the faster load speed) but seeing as I don't know how much data the outer layers can stored, I can't make an argument.
Also, yes, they solved the problem by making duplicate data but that was a solution to the PS3's slow drive speed (Oblivion PS3 was delayed possibly due to this problem). the quote was "the PS3 Oblivion team compensated for the slower drive by duplicating data across the Blu-ray disc, making it faster to find and load." And Oblivion in general was actually superior to the Xbox 360 version. There's also the fact for Capcom, Lost Planet and DMC4 needed hard drive installations for the game to run on the PS3. You could also say hey, since the PS3 has a hard drive, why not use it? But if Capcom was able to make the games run on the 360 without needing a hard drive, why couldn't they have done it with the PS3?
I dont know which is the most powerful PS3 or xbox360..they are both quite powerful. The difference on the two is that PS3 has newer technology in it. The cell and bluray is what pc's will move on in the near future. Seriusly i think that dvd is not enough anymore. Not just for developers of games but for a lot of applications we normal people do. like coping stuff on disk. Last night i copied the entire Lost series for a friend on disk, around 80 episodes...well i wish i had a blueray writer...
To fight on which is faster or what is better really does not have any point.
I like technology when its moving forward..
PSN: methys
totalwar23 said:
See, I hear differently (devs put their biggest data on the faster load speed) but seeing as I don't know how much data the outer layers can stored, I can't make an argument. Also, yes, they solved the problem by making duplicate data but that was a solution to the PS3's slow drive speed (Oblivion PS3 was delayed possibly due to this problem). the quote was "the PS3 Oblivion team compensated for the slower drive by duplicating data across the Blu-ray disc, making it faster to find and load." And Oblivion in general was actually superior to the Xbox 360 version. There's also the fact for Capcom, Lost Planet and DMC4 needed hard drive installations for the game to run on the PS3. You could also say hey, since the PS3 has a hard drive, why not use it? But if Capcom was able to make the games run on the 360 without needing a hard drive, why couldn't they have done it with the PS3? |
They could have done this with the PS3. You seem to be forgetting the advantages that a hard drive install brings with it. But I agree, the choice should exist on the PS3 to not mandatorily install the game on the HD. But if developers can note advantages like no loading times because of the HD install, then there is really no reason for them to justify putting more dev time into the game to make it have the option of not installing it.
This debate must be conceded from each side in some ways. Yes Blu-Ray is an advantage. At this point in the lifecycle of this generation developers typically do not use Blu-Ray to its fullest potential by increasing story lines and gameplay drastically becuse of it.
What they do though is include lossless 7.1 audio, workarounds for better load times, additional content (as seen in Stranglehold).
The point being, Would Gears 2 benefit from Blu-Ray? - Absolutely. But not so much in some of the ways in which the original post suggests.
Gears 3 is far enough out however, that IMO Blu-Ray could become a distinct advantage to accomplishing longer gameplay in addition to better audio/graphics/content/features.
And Gears 2 could absolutely Run just as good if not better on the PS3, but there is the fundamental paradox being that it would take a lot more dev time to accomplish such a thing.
Either way, I guarantee it won't happen for Gears 2. And if Microsoft knows what is good for them- they will secure what is now the platforms largest exclusive franchise for the third iteration of the game.
̶3̶R̶D̶ 2ND! Place has never been so sweet.
i alo want GT on HD-dvd
| TheRealMafoo said: The BR is locked at a total speed of 9MBs. The DVD is 10.6 to 4.4. So at it's best it's 1.6 faster, but at it's worst it's 4.6 slower. I don't know if the change is linear, as the disk speed changes on the DVD drive, but if it is linear, that would put no more then 1 gig at a faster speed. Also, it's rumored that the BR in the PS3 can do 100 and 200 gig disks when they come out. If that's true, I would assume the read times go up, as the disk spins at a relatively slow rate now. It would probably go up 50-100%. As for the oblivion article, I have seen it. I also head it was blown out of context. The PS3 version loads faster then the 360, and has longer draw distance, and less load screens. This would indicate that not only does it load faster, but it loads more data in that time. not sure how that could be posable if the drive is slower. (optimized code maybe). i can't find the article, but it said that the main reason they duplicated data, is that they had the space, and it improved load times, so why not? Even if it was already faster loading then the 360, if you can improve load times by using space you don't otherwise need, why not do it? |
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
