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

CGI-Quality said:
Domicinator said:
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. 

 

For the highlighted, Guerrilla Games, Media Molecule nor Sucker Punch have said any of the sort.

No, we don't know if PS3 games would run well on 360, or vice versa. Have you developed on either console, no, so how would YOU know that?

Also, I don't care for systems sales when I speak about graphics, so your "butthurt" comment is pointless for me. End of the day, I came to make a point. In fact, a lot of your post makes no sense if it's referenced to me. When did I say the PS3's year as was 200___? I didn't, so I'm not following a lot of what you're trying to say.

It seems you aren't able to refute my argument without sales rants, inconsistencies, and assumptions...Oh well...And btw, I only look to keep an argument alive (in reference to your "last word comment"), if there's something that can be refutted.

Dude, NOBODY on this forum is a developer, including YOU.  So to say the PS3 is the definitive all-powerful console because KZ2 has awesome graphics (Yes, I realize that's not exactly what you said) is no better than what I'm saying.  Again, opinions are like assholes.  Everybody has one.  What I do know is that the designers of both systems seem to agree that they're about equal as far as horsepower.  Yes, one has BluRay and the other doesn't.  I'll give you that.  But they're both capable of running each other's games.  I'm sure you could make a game look like KZ2 on the 360.  I'm sure there will eventually be one.  It's just that Sony got it first, and it hasn't helped sales.  Yes, I'm bringing up sales again, because that's the VERY REASON why PS3 fanboys get so defensive in the threads.  You don't have a leg to stand on because virtually NOTHING Sony has done this gen has worked out the way everyone hoped.




Around the Network
Procrastinato said:

If it weren't for the fact that engines mature over the course of a generation, and that the PS3 (this only my opinion ;) has much more room for growth at 3 years into its lifespan than the 360 has at 4... I would agree with you.

However, as time marches on, the 360 looks less and less appealing, since there's more potential on the PS3.  The odd thing is that, when comparing the platforms, people like to compare the CPUs and GPUs to back their claims... however, in my opinion, it is the lack of a guaranteed HDD on the 360 (for fast streaming -- comparing the BD and DVD is pointless when you look at the speed of the HDD), as well as more minor performance and optical disc space limitations, that will hold late-generation games back on the 360.

You are correct in that, early in the generation, development costs and time held PS3 games back, relative to 360 titles.  I believe we have, more or less, reached the midway point, however.  Games that are heavily dependant on animation (sports, like Madden, etc.) are now held back by the relative weakness of the Xenon, to the Cell.  Games which require fast streaming for seamless huge worlds -- again held back by use of a DVD vs a HDD.

I believe Carmack's latest engine tech will eventually reach a point where the HDD of the PS3 yields substantial gains over what the 360's DVD drive provides, and that the PS3 may very well provide a much-closer-to-PC experience than the 360 will.  Carmack himself has gone on and on about how Rage's streaming tech is its greatest feature... and unless they are intentionally avoiding using the HDD (to avoid large installs), I don't see the PS3 version being slow for very long, relative to its 360 cousin.

/1. According to id, Rage requires a lot of fragment processing power for its implementation of virtual texturing.
2. RSX has separate and fixed capabilities (numbers of shader units) for vertex and for fragment processing, which is enough for most games but problematic for Rage.
3. Xenos has unified shaders which can all be used for fragment processing if there's a need, so it can cope with the workload in Rage a lot better.' Link

I think that sums what is known about the engine pretty well. When it comes to shader heavy code or code which has a lot of complicated shaders the Xenos GPU does shine, which is likely why they are having problems now. This isn't your typical implementation of a game engine.

It really depends on what you're trying to do in a game which determines which system you want to throw your wrench at. Say for instance the Xbox 360 takes a few more ms to run the animations, doesn't mean that the time can't be made up elsewhere and for the build to reach frame target for both systems.

I know that the lack of a HDD for the Xbox 360 can be a pain in the butt. TBH it was probably a deliberate stab by Microsoft at the fact that the PS3 had a slower reading BR drive and a compulsary HDD, they may have taken it out so that Sony couldn't use theirs and their advantages for anything aside from multiplat games.



Tease.

Squilliam said:
Procrastinato said:

If it weren't for the fact that engines mature over the course of a generation, and that the PS3 (this only my opinion ;) has much more room for growth at 3 years into its lifespan than the 360 has at 4... I would agree with you.

However, as time marches on, the 360 looks less and less appealing, since there's more potential on the PS3.  The odd thing is that, when comparing the platforms, people like to compare the CPUs and GPUs to back their claims... however, in my opinion, it is the lack of a guaranteed HDD on the 360 (for fast streaming -- comparing the BD and DVD is pointless when you look at the speed of the HDD), as well as more minor performance and optical disc space limitations, that will hold late-generation games back on the 360.

You are correct in that, early in the generation, development costs and time held PS3 games back, relative to 360 titles.  I believe we have, more or less, reached the midway point, however.  Games that are heavily dependant on animation (sports, like Madden, etc.) are now held back by the relative weakness of the Xenon, to the Cell.  Games which require fast streaming for seamless huge worlds -- again held back by use of a DVD vs a HDD.

I believe Carmack's latest engine tech will eventually reach a point where the HDD of the PS3 yields substantial gains over what the 360's DVD drive provides, and that the PS3 may very well provide a much-closer-to-PC experience than the 360 will.  Carmack himself has gone on and on about how Rage's streaming tech is its greatest feature... and unless they are intentionally avoiding using the HDD (to avoid large installs), I don't see the PS3 version being slow for very long, relative to its 360 cousin.

/1. According to id, Rage requires a lot of fragment processing power for its implementation of virtual texturing.
2. RSX has separate and fixed capabilities (numbers of shader units) for vertex and for fragment processing, which is enough for most games but problematic for Rage.
3. Xenos has unified shaders which can all be used for fragment processing if there's a need, so it can cope with the workload in Rage a lot better.' Link

I think that sums what is known about the engine pretty well. When it comes to shader heavy code or code which has a lot of complicated shaders the Xenos GPU does shine, which is likely why they are having problems now. This isn't your typical implementation of a game engine.

It really depends on what you're trying to do in a game which determines which system you want to throw your wrench at. Say for instance the Xbox 360 takes a few more ms to run the animations, doesn't mean that the time can't be made up elsewhere and for the build to reach frame target for both systems.

I know that the lack of a HDD for the Xbox 360 can be a pain in the butt. TBH it was probably a deliberate stab by Microsoft at the fact that the PS3 had a slower reading BR drive and a compulsary HDD, they may have taken it out so that Sony couldn't use theirs and their advantages for anything aside from multiplat games.

You're manufacturing a rendering scenario which doesn't necessarily exist, Squill, with the fragment shaders argument -- but it seems as though you probably understand that.

You could use all the Xenos pipes as fragment shaders, sure, but vert processing requires some pipes, in every scenario, and in many scenarios, requires a lot of them, especially with the Xenon CPU's relative lack of mathematical muscle, compared to the Cell.

Good terrain has a ton of verts.  Skinned characters take a ton of vert processing power, which either require a lot of math horsepower on the CPU, or a lot of vert pipes.  I don't imagine you are suggesting that Rage has neither, or skimps excessively on either, in order to use more than the ~27 pipelines necessary to outperform the RSX's raw fragment shader horsepower, or that it only renders at the 630p (or whatever it is) necessary in order to really take advantage of the smallish (but fast) 10MB EDRAM of the Xenos, without resorting to tiled rendering, etc?

The rendering situation is, always, very complicated, just as you are stating.  You only get to use flexible pipes for fragment shading ops when you aren't using them for vertex ops.. The Xenos being "more powerful" than the RSX is very very app- and workload-dependant, and in many cases, only mildly comes into play, if at all.  The HDD vs DVD streaming could be a much bigger deal, going on Carmack's statements about the latest iteration of his engine in previous media quips.

 

I think MS was just being financially smart, with the lack of the HDD, personally.  They're good with the accessories and the pricing schemes, making the X360 appear to cost less, at the outset, than it really is to most.  That's just a good pricing scheme at work, "easing" the users wallet into spending the money necessary to own a nice console, rather than "you want this cool thing?  You have to pay this much..." up front thing that Sony does.

In any case, I agree mostly with your statement, but I think the possibility that the PS3 version could shine, by release, is very much in the realm of possibility, especially given the attention to the streaming technology that iD's new tech relies upon, and the advantages the PS3 has in that area.



 

Cool, I think we can leave it at that since we don't have all the information and without that we can go round and round in circles!



Tease.

Lord Flashheart said:
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.


Forza 3 is with you,Flash...same goes for Alan Wake.

WOOF!



Around the Network

The thing is those games haven't been able to take advantage of the new tools and equipment as they've only just been sent out.
If they can do that without the new tools then I can't wait til we start seeing what devs show us with the new kits.

WOOF!



It's interesting that the most advanced next-gen engines all seem to run better on 360 than PS3. MS did a much better job future proofing their system for the future than Sony did.



Not that big of a deal either way. Im sure the frame rate issue will be alot better when the game releases and who cares about multiple disks on the 360 version thats what installing it onto your hdd is for. Both versions will be awesome



Long Live SHIO!

He needs help from the ICE Team.



4 ≈ One

Ultibankai said:

Anyhow, if Carmack had been using the same methods of development that the 1st and 2nd party Sony developers had been using, I doubt this would even be an issue.

There aren't any PS3 games that approach the graphics and technology of Rage to begin with, so it's not likely there are any methods that would help. Maybe they could pull a Sony and remove the split-screen, but that would be a significant downgrade, which would inherantly detrimental to the game anyway, which would only confirm that developing it for the PS3 in mind led to downgrades.