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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says game Dev!

Sony has said that the PlayStation 3 has more power than Microsoft's Xbox 360, but that it requires a bit of patience and legwork to leverage that power. Jason Booth, a game developer , just doesn't see it happening. He thinks game designers are trying to match PS3 games to 360 games at best.

Jason Booth, a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, has posted some interesting comments on his blog regarding "PS3 misconceptions and spin."

"I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the PS3. They often mention how the PS3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin... ports to the PS3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and ...most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck," he says.

First and foremost, Booth doesn't think PS3 really has a graphical advantage. Why? "Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance," he says. "Additionally, the shader processing on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the PS3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power."

He also suggests that Blu-ray is not really an advantage: "[It's] great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the Blu-ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if you're streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream."

He acknowledges that with the greater storage space of Blu-ray "there is the potential to use that to do something cool," but he argues that "most developers who use the entire Blu-ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the PS3 such as its slow loading."

He adds, "For instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any problem."

Ultimately, Booth says "the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance you get out of the 360 naturally... developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code... On top of this, there is shrinking incentive to do this work; the PS3 isn't selling."

Whether these comments can be taken at face value is up to you; Booth adds at the end of his post that his remarks "might come across as a lot of Sony bashing, but it's just the reality from the trenches." It's an interesting perspective nonetheless.



Around the Network

Well this wont end well.

Its like telling a mother that her baby is ugly. Everyone knows, it but no one ever says it.



Cypher1980 said:
Well this wont end well.

Its like telling a mother that her baby is ugly. Everyone knows, it but no one ever says it.

Lol

 



Then why cant we see games on xbox360 match the graphics of PS3 exclusives?

look like his opinions are for M$ to buy



Vote to Localize — SEGA and Konami Polls

Vote Today To Help Get A Konami & SEGA Game Localized.This Will Only Work If Lots Of People Vote.

Click on the Image to Head to the Voting Page (A vote for Yakuza is a vote to save gaming)

How old is this?

Do we need MikeB or bmaker 11 to tell you other wise!

PS3 is 100x more powerful than 360!



Around the Network

What a dumb thread. Nobody post and let this go to the bottom.



lanjiaona said:


Jason Booth, a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, has posted some interesting comments on his blog regarding "PS3 misconceptions and spin."

"I read various game forums from time to time, and often see gamers complaining about 'lazy ports' to the PS3. They often mention how the PS3 is the most powerful game console and blame developers working on the console for doing a bad job. Sony has all of these people duped by impressive marketing spin... ports to the PS3 will never be as good as their 360 counter parts, and ...most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck," he says.

 

Lol his games are likely to continue to suck.

 

Anyways his full of bullshit. Look at it's exclusives. Hes completely forgetting the processor because it's usually not used in graphical applications. And i also think in general that's the biggest issue. Sony is one of the few companies that uses the cell for everything, while a lot of developers just try to dump data over in a regular manner.

 

This is what santa monica is doing with God of War 3.

http://www.tilander.org/aurora/comp/gdc2009_Tilander_Filippov_SPU.pdf



Check out my game about moles ^

Prove it.



Samus Aran said:
Cypher1980 said:
Well this wont end well.

Its like telling a mother that her baby is ugly. Everyone knows, it but no one ever says it.

Lol

 

double lol

OT:  I don't see why some of you are saying this is a dumb topic.  It's the perspective of an ACTUAL DEVELOPER, not a fanboy.  God forbid somebody in the business actually talk about how things actually are, because we, as fans of games, know a million times more about the architexture and programming that goes into making games.

 



He's saying a few known things: the 360 GPU is specced higher than the PS3's, and the PS3's BluRay has a lower transfer rate than the 360's DVD.
But he's also glossing about the parallel offloading to the SPUs on the PS and being a bit limited in his vision, probably because of the techniques he's most familiar with. Basically the best proof is in existing games.

As an example: the BluRay is slower and still both Uncharted and Killzone 2 managed to stream huge quantities of data with barely noticeable hiccups and loading times.

As for the technicalities: for what I know the two GPUs have the same fillrate (4 billions pixels/sec) until you put multisampling AA in the picture. Then the 360 pulls ahead because it's implemented in hardware, but you can do the same on the PS3 using shaders and the SPUs. Games such as Killzone 2 and Uncharted certainly implemented multisampling AA in such ways.

As for the shaders he's only right about the fillrate on the 360 being higher if it can use more than 32 out of 48 pipelines (unified architecture). That means less vertex shaders, of course, whereas the PS3 has a fixed fill rate and a fixed vertex rate. You can dynamically adapt better on the 360, but the advantage is far from the 2x factor in most cases. And again, he is not thinking about using the SPUs for both vertex and pixel shading. Again look at good examples among PS3 exclusives.

In the end he has given his informed opinion, but he comes off as a bit entrenched in a PC-centric (CPU(s)+GPU) view of what makes a powerful machine for games development, thus I understand that he finds the 360 more powerful.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman