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

Forums - Gaming - CryEngine 3 showing 360parts vs ps3parts

dahuman on 26 March 2009
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:
dahuman said:
MikeB said:

IGN: "Yerli went on to describe how the engine is being built to perform across platforms. "The CE3 runs currently at more or less the same quality bar. I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same, but the engine is diverting computation needs to power subsystems available to the PS3, and the 360 differently, and PC differently."

Hopefully their engine wll end the 360 vs PS3 propaganda wars (engine of probably the most hyped FPS PC game to date). Optimising for the Cell's SPEs consumes a lot of time if they want to use their full potential, so differences may become more obvious (of course a multi-platform game still will have trouble optimising fully for the PS3, as you can't have one version with twice the amount of on screen activity compared to another version, which cannot handle this. This like the devs of Ghostbusters for example explained in the past, being able to achieve twice as much in this regard on the PS3 if there were no 360 version to worry about).

 

well, it's not exactly news that the PS3 has much more potential computation power vs the 360, it just has a lower memory bandwidth but it's able to handle a lot more things at once if the game is exclusively optimized for PS3. most devs would just stick to their multiplat equation though so they can make more money =P. in the end, good games will be good games, doesn't matter what it's on.

Memory bandwidth is much greater on the PS3.  If you're thinking 256Gb/s for eDRAM to GPU, it's actually 32Gb/s.  If you're not thinking about and coming up with "lower memory bandwidth", I don't know how you could come up with that.

 

right, i didn't clarify enough, i was refering to the eDRAM to GPU which results in the ability to use higher texture resolution on the 360, PS3's other aspects on memory is a little faster -_^b

 



Around the Network
dahuman on 26 March 2009
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:
Baggins said:
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
I think the PS3 version will outperform the PC version if we compare performance from the perspective of someone who appreciates the power of the cell.

 

na, the amount of memory and the difference in graphic chip performance are quiet big at this point, you don't need a CPU as powerful because your video card is doing a lot of the work, not to mention the new quad cores are pretty beasty by themselves.

 

 

He's being sarcastic mate :)

The PC graphics cards are 2 generations ahead of the PS3, nearly 4 years (long time in PC world) Memory is basically unlimited (I have 12GB in my PC). Most gamers have at least 4GB. The Cell is nowhere near as powerful as even an old Intel Q6600, would wipe the floor with it in all but the most 7 thread optimised applications...which don't actually exisit for normal people.

You aren't basing that on facts and that's why you are completely incorrect.

Example: Intel Core i7 965 XE inter-core bandwidth + cache & memory bandwidth = 106GB/s

Cell inter-core bandwidth ALONE = 197GB/s (observed)

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3782516__5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

"The IBM Systems Performance group has demonstrated SPU-centric data flows achieving 197 GB/s on a Cell processor running at 3.2 GHz so this number is a fair reflection on practice as well."

 

That doesn't have much to do with how powerful the CPU actually is, they are built for different things essentially, while the PS3 Cell's memory bandwidth is pretty good and it's built for floating point operations, it runs on a piss poor PowerPC CPU with 7 SPU cores that doesn't support out of order instruction execution and a pretty bad branch prediction. The core concept of the i7 is very different from the Cell and it's not really up to compare in essence.



Serious_frusting on 26 March 2009

looks good on both. the lighting on the ps3 version in the alley is strange. apart from that the ps3 version seems better. deffo when you go outside on the mountain



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Jo21 on 26 March 2009

PS3 memory is not a "little" faster. >_o



dahuman on 26 March 2009
Jo21 said:
PS3 memory is not a "little" faster. >_o

 

not enough to be like "ZOMGGGG~~~!" so it's a little =P. it's about 1-2% more bandwidth, if even that.



Around the Network
Username2324 on 26 March 2009

I like how the screens with stuff actually happening in them look horrible compared to the shots that are just a non-active environment.

As a side note, the shots due appear to have suffered from over compression.



Badassbab on 26 March 2009

I bet the reason there is a lot more 360 footage is cause the framerate is holding up better than the PS3 version at this moment in time.

However PS3 seems to have the better specualr mapping which gives it that shaper, shinier look.

If Fallout 3 is anything to go by than the 360 version will have a smoother framerate with it's usual AA advantage while the PS3 will have superior specular mapping to give it that extra sheen (and better physics perhaps though not evident in the video).






MikeB on 26 March 2009
dahuman said:
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:
dahuman said:
MikeB said:

IGN: "Yerli went on to describe how the engine is being built to perform across platforms. "The CE3 runs currently at more or less the same quality bar. I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same, but the engine is diverting computation needs to power subsystems available to the PS3, and the 360 differently, and PC differently."

Hopefully their engine wll end the 360 vs PS3 propaganda wars (engine of probably the most hyped FPS PC game to date). Optimising for the Cell's SPEs consumes a lot of time if they want to use their full potential, so differences may become more obvious (of course a multi-platform game still will have trouble optimising fully for the PS3, as you can't have one version with twice the amount of on screen activity compared to another version, which cannot handle this. This like the devs of Ghostbusters for example explained in the past, being able to achieve twice as much in this regard on the PS3 if there were no 360 version to worry about).

 

well, it's not exactly news that the PS3 has much more potential computation power vs the 360, it just has a lower memory bandwidth but it's able to handle a lot more things at once if the game is exclusively optimized for PS3. most devs would just stick to their multiplat equation though so they can make more money =P. in the end, good games will be good games, doesn't matter what it's on.

Memory bandwidth is much greater on the PS3.  If you're thinking 256Gb/s for eDRAM to GPU, it's actually 32Gb/s.  If you're not thinking about and coming up with "lower memory bandwidth", I don't know how you could come up with that.

 

right, i didn't clarify enough, i was refering to the eDRAM to GPU which results in the ability to use higher texture resolution on the 360, PS3's other aspects on memory is a little faster -_^b

 

The GPU/EDRam provides significant bandwidth issues, this due to tiling on the 360. To add AA to a 720p game, the 360 has to split data to the main RAM, resulting in far less efficiency (add 16FP HDR and you'll get unacceptable results). This 360 main RAM is shared by the GPU and CPU, unlike what is the case on the PS3, so more main bandwidth on the PS3 (seperate buses). The XDR is also faster to work with, especially relevant with regard to the CPU, which requires low latency to get the most out of.

The two big texture quality related advantages the PS3 has over the 360 when tapping its full potential, is Blu-Ray disc (high quality textures take up a lot of space) and the Cell is far more powerful for procedural synthesis of textures.

 



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

dahuman on 26 March 2009
Badassbab said:
I bet the reason there is a lot more 360 footage is cause the framerate is holding up better than the PS3 version at this moment in time.

However PS3 seems to have the better specualr mapping which gives it that shaper, shinier look.

If Fallout 3 is anything to go by than the 360 version will have a smoother framerate with it's usual AA advantage while the PS3 will have superior specular mapping to give it that extra sheen (and better physics perhaps though not evident in the video).

That's not really how it works man, Fallout3 was more or less a PC/360 project ported to PS3(PC version was miles ahead,) NA devs are bad at handling things more complex or different, so they are bad at porting games to PS3 or bad at making Wii games.



Squilliam on 26 March 2009
MikeB said:

The GPU/EDRam provides significant bandwidth issues, this due to tiling on the 360. To add AA to a 720p game, the 360 has to split data to the main RAM, resulting in far less efficiency (add 16FP HDR and you'll get unacceptable results). This 360 main RAM is shared by the GPU and CPU, unlike what is the case on the PS3, so more main bandwidth on the PS3 (seperate buses). The XDR is also faster to work with, especially relevant with regard to the CPU, which requires low latency to get the most out of.

The two big texture quality related advantages the PS3 has over the 360 when tapping its full potential, is Blu-Ray disc (high quality textures take up a lot of space) and the Cell is far more powerful for procedural synthesis of textures.

 

Tiling isn't a problem unless the game has significant vertex loads as tiling increases these loads by a factor of 1.7-2*. Furthermore the developer can selectively apply AA to whichever tiles he wants, so for example a game like Fallout 3 has a lot of far off buildings which fit easily into their own seperate tiles and these have a lot of straight edges which can have AA applied to them.

As for memory bandwitdth on the PS3, try taking off your blinders... I hope you noticed the low resolution particles in the explosions (KZ2), or the 1/4 resolution particles in games like Motorstoms.

Lastly, gotta love how the PS3 makes such lovely textures due to Blu Ray/Cell etc and then covers them in a Quincunx AA smear.

 



Tease.