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

Forums - Microsoft - Carmack: Rage runs faster on Xbox 360

Reasonable on 03 August 2009

Just want to add - many people are taking his comments as referring to the potential 'end state' of the engine/game.

Bear in mind the context of his comments are more of a 'status of development so far'.

When he mentions the challenges of handling split memory he's not talking about a situation where they're finished and have done the best they can - he's talking about an ongoing development effort, for example.

From his full comments the clear indication is that currently the status of development is as follows:

1) PC - most stable and furthest along
2) 360 - next most stable position
3) Ps3 - next most stable position

Now, we're talking about arguably the foremost developer of gaming engines in PC history, so the above is not a surprise.

However, given id's track record of well optimized code and dedication to getting the code right vs good enough, I have no doubt that the 360 and the PS3 will in their turn end up in a position alongside the PC for this engine in terms of target metrics (e.g. 60fps, etc).

And for those who might be worried by the performance of Enemy Territory (which wasn't great on HD consoles) - remember id made it clear that was a PC only engine that was ported to 360 and PS3 with minimal optimization and variable results.

id Tech 5 is their first engine developed from the ground up to support HD consoles - so why don't we give them time to finish it and review the results before we judge how well a job they did?



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
eb30577 on 03 August 2009

Update: Edge has posted further details from its article saying that Carmack is confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: "Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.

"The work remaining is getting it locked so there's never a dropped frame or a tear, but we're confident that we're going to get that."



Reasonable on 03 August 2009

^^

Yup - that's what I've been saying for last few posts. Even more amusingly he notes issues with texture handling on 360 that Edge didn't initially print - hence making it clear that both console versions need work in different areas vs PC version.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Lord Flashheart on 03 August 2009
eb30577 said:
Update: Edge has posted further details from its article saying that Carmack is confident that the PS3 version will match that of all other supported platforms: "Everything is designed as a 60 hertz game. We expect this to be 60 hertz on every supported platform.

"The work remaining is getting it locked so there's never a dropped frame or a tear, but we're confident that we're going to get that."

Wasn't that in the original article that was posted? I'm sure I read that but everyone seemed to ignore it and attack him outright.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

JaggedSac on 03 August 2009
Squilliam said:
Procrastinato said:
Squilliam,

You realize that particle system code varies widely from game engine to game engine, and that their usage in a product really has a lot more to do with that implementation than the hardware, yeah?

presumably, the only real hardware effects of the PS3 and the X360 on particle engines, in general, would be that a properly written engine on the PS3 could simulate many more particles than the 360, and a properly utilized engine on the 360 could spend more time doing particle fill and overdraw, assuming the pixel pipes were available for it.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Yes I do, but the underlying strengths and weaknesses of the architecture does help to define the implementation of software layers overtop the hardware architecture. All PS3 games for example could implement MSAA if they wanted to sacrafice in other areas, whereas the Xbox 360 has to sacrafice less to implement MSAA, therefore more Xbox 360 games implement MSAA than do PS3 games.

All I was trying to say is that the Xbox 360 rulz over all, er I mean that the performance of a system is a function of money x talant x time x system achievable performance. Therefore if the Xbox 360 is faster, its faster up until the point where you cross a threshold where you can achieve more performance on the PS3 with the same effort. If the line for most games falls before the PS3 development shines then in practical purposes its the more powerful architecture and if the line is after the point where the PS3 starts to shine then the PS3 is the more powerful architecture.

Well put.  Tools, tools, tools.   I would like to know how MS's 360 development tools differ from PS3 ones.



Around the Network
NightAntilli on 03 August 2009
JaggedSac said:
Squilliam said:
Procrastinato said:
Squilliam,

You realize that particle system code varies widely from game engine to game engine, and that their usage in a product really has a lot more to do with that implementation than the hardware, yeah?

presumably, the only real hardware effects of the PS3 and the X360 on particle engines, in general, would be that a properly written engine on the PS3 could simulate many more particles than the 360, and a properly utilized engine on the 360 could spend more time doing particle fill and overdraw, assuming the pixel pipes were available for it.

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Yes I do, but the underlying strengths and weaknesses of the architecture does help to define the implementation of software layers overtop the hardware architecture. All PS3 games for example could implement MSAA if they wanted to sacrafice in other areas, whereas the Xbox 360 has to sacrafice less to implement MSAA, therefore more Xbox 360 games implement MSAA than do PS3 games.

All I was trying to say is that the Xbox 360 rulz over all, er I mean that the performance of a system is a function of money x talant x time x system achievable performance. Therefore if the Xbox 360 is faster, its faster up until the point where you cross a threshold where you can achieve more performance on the PS3 with the same effort. If the line for most games falls before the PS3 development shines then in practical purposes its the more powerful architecture and if the line is after the point where the PS3 starts to shine then the PS3 is the more powerful architecture.

Well put.  Tools, tools, tools.   I would like to know how MS's 360 development tools differ from PS3 ones.

Well MS is more restrictive than Sony.. If you want an example look here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-directx-360-performance-blog-entry



Truth does not fear investigation

Lord Flashheart on 03 August 2009

That's not it.
The old dev kits which didn't have enough ram and poor dev tools are what was throttling the 360.
With the new dev kits, tools and engine MS has provided expect to see a huge leap in quality from the 360.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Domicinator on 03 August 2009
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
Whats funny is Carmack is the most highly rated and respected graphics guru in the entire gaming industry.

Now watch as PS fanboys make themselves look foolish by saying he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Carmack has finally shown Sony have always talked BS about the power of PS3.

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. So you're trying to tell us what Sony has shown with the PS3 is BS? Compare PS3 games to PS2 games graphically and see who's foolish. Beyond that, why does the industry KEEP giving PS3 games the thumbs up in terms of graphical fidelity, and they keep doing it over the 360. What, are they "PS fanboys" too? It's "foolish" to be so one-sided that you're willing to spout such nonsense to prove a point.

Wow how you've changed over the last few months...

There have been plenty of games where the media has given the 360 the thumbs up over the PS3 in the graphics department.




Domicinator on 03 August 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Domicinator said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
Whats funny is Carmack is the most highly rated and respected graphics guru in the entire gaming industry.

Now watch as PS fanboys make themselves look foolish by saying he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Carmack has finally shown Sony have always talked BS about the power of PS3.

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. So you're trying to tell us what Sony has shown with the PS3 is BS? Compare PS3 games to PS2 games graphically and see who's foolish. Beyond that, why does the industry KEEP giving PS3 games the thumbs up in terms of graphical fidelity, and they keep doing it over the 360. What, are they "PS fanboys" too? It's "foolish" to be so one-sided that you're willing to spout such nonsense to prove a point.

Wow how you've changed over the last few months...

There have been plenty of games where the media has given the 360 the thumbs up over the PS3 in the graphics department.

Multiplatform, sure.

Exclusives.....In the past, yep. However, name the ones sitting above Killzone 2 please...I haven't seen ANY 360 exclusives receiving more praise, atm, than Killzone 2. Beyond that, Uncharted 2 looks to take it's place.

Don't blame me, I'm going by what the media thinks...

a) You probably shouldn't do that (go by what the media thinks.)

b) The media's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's (in other word's, opinions are like ass holes)

c) What are those awesome looking games really doing for the PS3?  Not selling systems, that's for sure.




Domicinator on 03 August 2009
CGI-Quality said:
Domicinator said:
CGI-Quality said:
Domicinator said:
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
Whats funny is Carmack is the most highly rated and respected graphics guru in the entire gaming industry.

Now watch as PS fanboys make themselves look foolish by saying he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Carmack has finally shown Sony have always talked BS about the power of PS3.

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. So you're trying to tell us what Sony has shown with the PS3 is BS? Compare PS3 games to PS2 games graphically and see who's foolish. Beyond that, why does the industry KEEP giving PS3 games the thumbs up in terms of graphical fidelity, and they keep doing it over the 360. What, are they "PS fanboys" too? It's "foolish" to be so one-sided that you're willing to spout such nonsense to prove a point.

Wow how you've changed over the last few months...

There have been plenty of games where the media has given the 360 the thumbs up over the PS3 in the graphics department.

Multiplatform, sure.

Exclusives.....In the past, yep. However, name the ones sitting above Killzone 2 please...I haven't seen ANY 360 exclusives receiving more praise, atm, than Killzone 2. Beyond that, Uncharted 2 looks to take it's place.

Don't blame me, I'm going by what the media thinks...

a) You probably shouldn't do that.

b) The media's opinion is just as valid as everyone else

c) What are those awesome looking games really doing for the PS3?  Not selling systems, that's for sure.

That has nothing to do with anything. The point is, the media sees PS3 games visually ahead of 360 games, which was why you quoted me in the first place. My opinion of it, as with yours, is also irrelevant. Also, can you not win this argument without sales being brought up?

Well, I guess if we're going to talk about "winning" the argument (I know by your post history that you ALWAYS get the last word, so I'm not going to try), I should probably mention that just about every time some graphical power house comes out on the PS3, the developer eventually admits that the same game is totally possible on the 360. 

Sony isn't on to some big secret here that nobody else is privy to.  If you cut out all the marketing talk and all the puffery, the two systems are pretty comparable.  Up until KZ2 came out, Gears 2 was a front runner for the best graphics crown.  And we all know full well that MGS4 and Uncharted would run fine on the 360.  And I'm sure when Forza 3 comes out, at least some journalists are going to crap their pants about the graphics and claim it's the best thing out there.  And when GT5 comes out, I'm sure everyone will change their tune again.  And then Mass Effect 2 or some other 360 exclusive will trump that.

My point is that graphics don't sell systems.  You don't have to get all butt hurt if a game doesn't run as well on the PS3 as it does on the 360. What you should get butt hurt about is that all the games that were SUPPOSED to sell systems (save for MGS4) have NOT sold systems.  And isn't that what this website is all about?  Everyone gets all up in arms about every little negative headline about every console because they're afraid it will mean certain death for their console of choice.  It seems like PS3 fans are always walking around wringing their hands and whining about all the things that the PS3 WILL have in the year 200_.  And let's face it, 360 fans have had plenty of reasons to rub it in over the last few years and probably still will for a couple more years.