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

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

Goodlife on 09 April 2009
cheese_man said:
What a dumb thread. Nobody post and let this go to the bottom.

 

 OK



Around the Network
Seihyouken on 09 April 2009

What year is this guy in? 2007?



NinjaKido on 09 April 2009
WereKitten said:
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.

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 until you put multisampling AA in the picture. Then the 360's pulls ahead because it's implemented in hardware, but I think you can do the same on the PS3 using shaders and the SPUs.

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.

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.

 

How many times has that been debunked ?

 

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek

 

"a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band,"


Please , GTFO ?

"PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says game Dev!"

 

I'd seriously like him to proove it , there's developers that say the PS3 is more powerful , others that say the 360 is more powerful and some that say they are pretty much the same. Well i'll believe what I can see on my TV screen and it seems to indiciate to me that , individualy (Killzone 2) and cummativley ( Uncharted ,Ratchet & Clank, GT5 , Killzone 2, MGS4 ) the PS3 holds the title , what good is it being theoreticaly powerful if that potential isn't realised ?

 

 



kirby007 on 09 April 2009

BURRNNNNNN sboys



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

WereKitten on 09 April 2009
NinjaKido said:

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.

 

...

 

How many times has that been debunked ?

 

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek

Still, the PS3 sports a constant 8 MBps versus 360's 8.2-16.5 (average 12.3) MBps.

It has a lower transfer rate. Just not terribly so, and certainly good enough to make me blame some developers that can't work with it when others could so greatly.



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

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Around the Network
gergroy on 09 April 2009
NinjaKido said:
WereKitten said:
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.

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 until you put multisampling AA in the picture. Then the 360's pulls ahead because it's implemented in hardware, but I think you can do the same on the PS3 using shaders and the SPUs.

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.

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.

 

How many times has that been debunked ?

 

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek

 

"a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band,"


Please , GTFO ?

"PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says game Dev!"

 

I'd seriously like him to proove it , there's developers that say the PS3 is more powerful , others that say the 360 is more powerful and some that say they are pretty much the same. Well i'll believe what I can see on my TV screen and it seems to indiciate to me that , individualy (Killzone 2) and cummativley ( Uncharted ,Ratchet & Clank, GT5 , Killzone 2, MGS4 ) the PS3 holds the title , what good is it being theoreticaly powerful if that potential isn't realised ?

 

 

 

 nice article btw, some guys blog, very official.  however, it does serve to confirm the developers report that the blu ray drive is slower than the dvd drive in the 360.  The ps3 is equiped with a 2XBD drive, so if you scroll down to where the guy compares the 2X BD drive to the 360 12X dvd drive you will see that the 360 has a faster transfer rate.  So, yeah, you kind of proved he was telling the truth yourself, good job! :)



MikeB on 09 April 2009

Yes, it's old and obsolete. poor guy his comment will likely hunt him for years to come.

It's the perspective of an ACTUAL DEVELOPER


He has no low-level programming experience. He's mainly an artist/game designer.

IMO take the words with a grain of salt...

Exclusives are going to "continue to suck"..... oh please..... Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, Uncharted 2, etc. Just LOL.

IMO listen to competent low-level programmers instead. He's no better than Valve's pigheaded CEO.



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

NinjaKido on 09 April 2009
gergroy said:
NinjaKido said:
WereKitten said:
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.

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 until you put multisampling AA in the picture. Then the 360's pulls ahead because it's implemented in hardware, but I think you can do the same on the PS3 using shaders and the SPUs.

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.

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.

 

How many times has that been debunked ?

 

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=23916169&user=skektek

 

"a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band,"


Please , GTFO ?

"PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says game Dev!"

 

I'd seriously like him to proove it , there's developers that say the PS3 is more powerful , others that say the 360 is more powerful and some that say they are pretty much the same. Well i'll believe what I can see on my TV screen and it seems to indiciate to me that , individualy (Killzone 2) and cummativley ( Uncharted ,Ratchet & Clank, GT5 , Killzone 2, MGS4 ) the PS3 holds the title , what good is it being theoreticaly powerful if that potential isn't realised ?

 

 

 

 nice article btw, some guys blog, very official.  however, it does serve to confirm the developers report that the blu ray drive is slower than the dvd drive in the 360.  The ps3 is equiped with a 2XBD drive, so if you scroll down to where the guy compares the 2X BD drive to the 360 12X dvd drive you will see that the 360 has a faster transfer rate.  So, yeah, you kind of proved he was telling the truth yourself, good job! :)

 

I wasn't tryin to proove the Blu-Ray drive was faster , but trying to debunk the idea that it is signficantly slower . It's evident that it isn't that much of an issue , the most graphicaly advanced console game thus far runs entirely off the disc , so did uncharted .



gergroy on 09 April 2009

@ninjakido

Why are you trying to debunk something that wasn't brought up? You are quoting werekitten and outline the line that says ps3's bluray has a lower transfer rate than the 360's dvd.  Ok, thats true, but I don't see where he says it is significantly lower...



MikeB on 09 April 2009

however, it does serve to confirm the developers report that the blu ray drive is slower than the dvd drive in the 360.


No, it's different (needs different optimization practises) but overall it's technically faster. For the small part of the disc where the 360 could load faster, it's worth noting every PS3 come with a default harddrive, which is well faster. So technically this should never really be a problem.

There are plenty of developer quotes to the contrary, if you want I can post them for you.



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