MikeB said: @ erikguy The PPE doesnt process any game information. It just distributes processing jobs to the SPEs. Sure it does, many multi-platform PS3 games don't even use the SPEs yet. For example the visually impressive yet mediocre game Genji 2 is confirmed not the be using the SPEs at all. Reread the long list of developer comments, PS3 developers are still just in the process of moving more of their game engines onto the SPEs. By doing so, they actually take workload off the PPE, which can then concentrate on for example AI or other things, but like in Heavenly Sword and Lair the opposite can also be done by putting much of their AI on the SPEs.

Hi everyone, i read VGcharts daily, but only decided to join the forums after reading this amusing thread.

 (if anything i am a Nintendo fanboy) 

Anyway on with my point: I find it strange that a game like Genji 2 is confirmed to not be sing the SPEs at all when they will be using the sony PS3 complier, which as any good complier would optimize the code as best as the can to use idle SPE.

Sure programming directly for the SPEs would give better results than the generic complier, but i really find it hard to believe that the SPEs are not used at all.

I have no arguments that the CPU on the PS3 has higher potential than the Xenon, but the Graphic chip on the Xbox is far better than on the PS3 which in my opinion makes up for it’s down fall.  That coupled with the xbox being released a year earlier should provide a huge advantage for MS as with time the DEVs are able to optimize their code to push out a little bit more.

I like to think of it this way, we can always talk about what’s coming in 6- 12 months but I want to play it now and not waste my time. The Xbox360 through this generation will be the now, while PS3 will be the later (except for timed releases which have been engineered to tackle this). I don’t want to be the person playing the hottest game 6 months after my friends when they have moved onto something better and newer!!!!!

MS only blunder this generation is the RROD, if they tackle it soon then they will be dominant, if they don’t the PS3 may edge them out. ( anyone that flames that Xbox live costs money hasn’t even experienced it and doesn’t know what they are missing)

My only other issue about the memory bandwidth / latency issue is that no one has taken the time to really explain it to MikeB fully, I don’t have the time at the moment to explain it fully, but its my opinion that if explained fully and correctly MikeB opinion may sway a little. (If I do get time, I will make a post)

A games developer started this thread on another site. (Not sure if I can mention site. If I'm aloud tell me.)

What follows is a copy and paste of his first post.


360 or PS3: A Game Developer's Perspective

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I try to not get annoyed with all the fanboy comments, all the misinformation about the consoles, etc.

I am a game developer, and I've worked professionally in the games industry for 11 years.

If people are looking for the best console out there, I will tell you my opinion. First, I will not cover Wii as I've not had first hand experience with it as a developer. But from what I've played (I have one) the Wii doesn't cut it for me as a hardcore gamer. So, if you are here reading this, just forget the Wii.

Now, the 360 or PS3. I hear tons of garbage, lies, about both systems. Let me try and set things straight. Please note, I have 1st hand experience on both consoles.

1) Graphics: from my experience and that of peers, the 360 actually has a slight edge with its graphics chip than the PS3 does. But the PS3 can use its SPU to help the graphics. So, visually, you should expect most games to look about the same across either console. It is really a tie, a dead heat, and if you waste time trying to claim either console has superior graphics well, the game industry is laughing at you.

2) CPU power: in theory, the PS3 has the edge. However, due to the complexity of the PS3 it is actually hard to reach those performance highs. Due to the more flexible nature of the 360 cores as opposed to the PS3 SPU's, I have to give the edge to the 360 because it is far easier to reach the 360 theoretical power than the PS3.

3) Memory. The PS3 is segmented, 256/256. That sucks. The 360 has 512Mb unified. That rules. 360 wins.

4) DVD vs Bluray: Many fanboys make a big deal about Bluray, and how it is needed for games. Honestly, it is nice. It is one area that developers can not worry about, and as a result you'll see a PS3 exclusive talking about how big each level takes (2Gb, so on). That is because, basically, they can be lazy with Bluray. They can duplicate data, a lot, to help their load times. They can include multiple languages. But, end of day, I don't believe consumers will see a difference or care about these. So Bluray allows a developer to be a bit more lazy with their disc layout and usage. This isn't true for 360. Developers need to care more about it. It is an issue. But - it isn't a deal breaker. Most developer would honestly tell you, 9GB of game data is a hell of a lot once things are compressed and 360 can compress stuff really well on disc. Load times are slower on blueray, it's a fact. But the PS3 can cache on their hard disk, so that helps. Overall, I would give this a tie... or perhaps slight edge to PS3 only because it means you have an HD video format built into the system.

5) Networking: hands down it goes to 360. Most in the industry think Home is a joke, and PSN is free and people get what they pay for.

6) Price: if you are an HD-hardcore nut, the PS3 is good. If you want the same type of setup with 360 (i.e. buy an HD-DVD, etc) it is more expensive. But...if you are a hardcore gamer, then 360 Premium is the way to go. 360 price is hard to beat for the amount of quality you get, games, etc... PS3 is simply priced too high for a gamer.

7) red ring of death: shouldn't be an issue...most people in the industry don't even talk about this. MS has the warranty in place, and new 360's are fixed. So... it is a non-issue. But, if we have to give a winner, than PS3 wins the "reliability" given they've not been shown to have such an issue (at least yet...knock on wood!)

8) Software: hands down, this goes to 360. More and more people in the industry are doubting the PS3 at this point. It is failing really bad in the market, in all territories. The cost/reward is simply not there. This isn't the PS2. The 360 currently has the best set of games, and it will continue to grow at a faster rate than the PS3. This will not change. If you want games, your best bet is 360. It will gain more "Sony" types of games too, not just FPS Halo clones like the 1st Xbox had a reputation for.

So...to sum up: both consoles are graphically in a dead heat, the PS3 has some advantage with bluray and reliability but the 360 has the advantage with CPU power, memory, network, price and software library.

If you are on the fence, go buy a 360. If you already made your choice, enjoy your system. If you can afford both, then do that.

End of day, as a game developer, I can only recommend a 360 to my friends.

Now MIKE B. This is why I laugh at you. A developer telling how it is. Say WHATEVER YOU WILL. In 5 years when you realise you made a fool out of yourself here, we all tried to educate you. I'll post more of his posts if you want he goes way over my head. But above he told it like it is. He developers for a very impressive company.

selnor said: Now MIKE B. This is why I laugh at you. A developer telling how it is. Say WHATEVER YOU WILL. In 5 years when you realise you made a fool out of yourself here, we all tried to educate you. I'll post more of his posts if you want he goes way over my head. But above he told it like it is. He developers for a very impressive company.

I would like to point out that that developer's entire point boils down to "PS3 is harder to develop for but has Blu-ray and Cell; 360 has the better GPU; 360 has been out longer and therefore has more and better games; RRoD is not my problem."

None of this is even remotely controversial; MikeB has stated his agreement with all the things I have said above, except for the "better games" which is only true until LBP/MGS4 hit anyway.   

Tell me something the developer really said not covered by my above interpretation AND that isn't sheer opinion.   

Final-Fan said: sieanr said: Final-Fan said: Darc Requiem said: It isn't speculation. The PS3 was originally going be powered by multiple Cells. Sony did go to Nvidia in the middle of the PS3's development for GPU. That's common knowledge. The video card thing I don't doubt is at least somewhat true, but as for the "original" Cell design, I really, really think that what you refer to is an extremely early idea -- probably one of many -- that was discarded for obvious (cost) reasons very early in the design process. Prove me wrong. The deal with nvidia happened in December of 2004, and months later the "final" PS3 specs hit at E3. Keep in mind that this deal happened when Sony was heavily hinting at a late '05 launch. Given that the Cell began development in 2001, hand in hand with the PS3, I'd say the deal was quite late. I already said that I was inclined to believe you on the thing you provided evidence for, and I said I disbelieved the thing you declined to provide evidence for. (March 2001, five and a half years before PS3 launch, =/= rushed design. Especially when the 360's Xenon processor wasn't under development until at least 2002 -- giving it two years or 40% less time from conception to market than the Cell had. If you base this supposed lack of development, as your post implies, on the fact that other aspects of the PS3 were also under development then, that only proves that Sony was MORE forward-thinking, not less.) Will you concede that the Cell design was not rushed?

Learn to read

I never said the Cell was a rushed design, just that the entire PS3 design was changed relativly late in the design phase. This is based off the fact that the Nvidia deal for the GPU didn't happen until the PS3 had already had years of design under its belt.

Changing the design around completly and adding a traditionaly GPU to the mix a year before your targeted window is the very definition of "rush job"

MS caught Sony with their pants down, launching long before they expected. Sony had to come up with something, especially when they realised that the Cell wouldn't perform well as a faux GPU. Then they ran into other issues, possibly related to the RSX being shoehorned in.

Having a console in development for 5 1/2 years before launch, yet failing to have mature dev kits available speaks volumes about the state of the PS3 at launch. You'd think that if they had things finalized long before then that that sort of thing wouldn't be a problem.

Did you get all of that; or was it too hard to comprehend?

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2004/12/07/sony-nvidia-partner-on-playstation-3-graphics-chip - maybe your inclinded to believe this instead of spending five seconds to find hundreds of google hits for stories identicle to this. Whoops!

PS3 cant do AI as well as the 360, due to the Cell

Oh shi-



You just dont get it.

See, an IBM article compared the Cell to the Amiga. That, in and of itself, is enough to prove the PS3s superiority over all other computers.

Not to mention MS killed the Amiga - which proves that MS cant make a product superior to anything.

Why does the Amiga keep getting brought into this discussion? How does the Amiga have any relevance to this discussion of PS3 design compared to 360 design? I find it funny when it's brought up though because it warrants a..."huh? What...Amiga?" reaction. By the way, Sieanr is correct in that the RSX was added quite late to the PS3 in the design process (especially if you consider that they were planning on releasing the system in late '05 and was only delayed because of the Blu-Ray specs not being finalized). I had a pretty long entry above talking about some of this, among other topics.

selnor: I'd be interested in seeing more of that developer's opinion as you said there were more entries. This has turned into an interesting thread.

Hockeymac18 said: Why does the Amiga keep getting brought into this discussion? How does the Amiga have any relevance to this discussion of PS3 design compared to 360 design? I find it funny when it's brought up though because it warrants a..."huh? What...Amiga?" reaction. By the way, Sieanr is correct in that the RSX was added quite late to the PS3 in the design process (especially if you consider that they were planning on releasing the system in late '05 and was only delayed because of the Blu-Ray specs not being finalized). I had a pretty long entry above talking about some of this, among other topics. selnor: I'd be interested in seeing more of that developer's opinion as you said there were more entries. This has turned into an interesting thread.

MikeB brings up the Amiga whenever he finds an excuse - no matter how irrelavent.

@ Hockeymac18

Except for that's not really the case. There were marketing reasons for Sony to hint to a possible pre-mature PS3 launch.

Development kits weren't available to developers until a couple of months before launch. Most developers were just using legacy stuff, Edge will help in this regard.

Having Cell processors handle the majority of PS3 graphics should have been possible, but the problem is legacy code. Legacy code needs to be adapted greatly to be broken up in pieces (it may be easier to redesign the game engine from scratch) and be distributed over the multiple SPE processors.

This is a problem with many new technologies, they will have to go up against a legacy install base. Be that much better CPU architectures (goin up x86 legacy software), a better computer or OS (going up against a monopoly of Windows software and closed standards), etc. Let's say you would develop the best OS in history, running circles around Windows, why should consumers buy your OS when all the 3rd party software they need or want is available for Windows? Why should developers support your OS, while there is no install base, it's a chicken and egg thing. IMO it made good sense for Sony to add the RSX GPU.

Having a PC style GPU in the PS3 makes sense, as developers already know how to develop games for the PC, by using just the PPE and RSX development isn't much different as compared to developing a game for a decent single-core PC or Mac.

@ Hockeymac18

Probably for a similar reason why the Forbes article in the original post mentioned it. IMO my examples adds a wider scope and perspective to judge the PS3 situation. The Amiga was revolutionary for its time, but it took game developers a while to take advantage of the design compared to the Atari ST.

One of the Amiga's main strongpoints was that the design allowed to take a lot of workload off the main CPU. The SPEs allow to take workload off the PPE (and RSX).