Support NeoGAF

[Andrew Evenstar]

as someone who played RE5 competitively... PS3 performance was garbage compared to X360, oh man.

 

[Shangounchained]

am playing some old ps3 games, and buying ones I missed out on. mostly third parties since I picked up all the first party ones

the first party games run just fine, but oh boy, oh boy the third party games run like crap. this shouldn't have been acceptable. 80% of third party games had terrible framerate. I'd say around 40% were downright unplayable. especially games pre 2011. and oh god pretty much any black label third party game ran at like 20 fps.

how the hell do you put out a system like this?. I actually didn't buy a PS3 until like 2011 so I missed out on all that good unplayable stuff. but oh man, owning a ps3 pre-2010 must have been hell.

as an electrical and a computer engineer that system was terribly made.

Your a spoiled computer engineer and a spoiled gamer if you complainLa

am playing some old ps3 games, and buying ones I missed out on. mostly third parties since I picked up all the first party ones

the first party games run just fine, but oh boy, oh boy the third party games run like crap. this shouldn't have been acceptable. 80% of third party games had terrible framerate. I'd say around 40% were downright unplayable. especially games pre 2011. and oh god pretty much any black label third party game ran at like 20 fps.

how the hell do you put out a system like this?. I actually didn't buy a PS3 until like 2011 so I missed out on all that good unplayable stuff. but oh man, owning a ps3 pre-2010 must have been hell.

as an electrical and a computer engineer that system was terribly made.

your a spoiled computer engineer and a spoiled gamer if you complain about 20fps your downright spoiled n stupid, I came from Africa having a PS3 was a blessing never found a problem with the system I grew up playing win95,98 games on a Hp computer without hardware 3D so I played 3D games on software 3D on 14fps even less n never complained, all this business about games should be 30 fps 1080p led to babies complaining more n now they need 60fps 4K soon 120fps 8k nonesense kiddish silly stupid behaviour. The PS3 was perfect you can find any flaws but coming online n complaining about 20fps shows how in passionate u are n how spoiled dumb you are.

 

[Imtjnotu]

At the beginning of the gen it was horrible. Cod looked like ass compared to the 360 and so did bad company. But later on it got alot better

 

[Filben]

FEAR, Assassin's Creed 1, RDR1, Condemned 2, Heavenly Sword... just off the top of my head. I played all of them (except for HS of course) first on Xbox 360 and had no real issues. Later when I had a PS3 and not a 360 anymore, I bought the PS3 versions to replay them. I recognised instantly that something was "off" (first the graphics of RDR1 which I didn't remember THAT bad from the Xbox 360), then the frame rate in many games. In that moment I was sad for all those PS3 players who never experienced those games on the 360.

 

[Barakov]

I remember Splinter Cell Double Agent being downright awful. And I think some sections of the games were just eliminated to boot.

FEAR, Assassin's Creed 1, RDR1, Condemned 2, Heavenly Sword... just off the top of my head. I played all of them (except for HS of course) first on Xbox 360 and had no real issues. Later when I had a PS3 and not a 360 anymore, I bought the PS3 versions to replay them. I recognised instantly that something was "off" (first the graphics of RDR1 which I didn't remember THAT bad from the Xbox 360), then the frame rate in many games. In that moment I was sad for all those PS3 players who never experienced those games on the 360.

Jesus, Heavenly Sword. That game had to set the world record for input lag.

 

[Bryank75]

it's a disgrace to give worst performing versions a lower score? That's a bit dramatic.

Well, did they do it at the start of this generation when ps4 games were running way better than xbox games?
Nope, they abandoned the performance punishment after xbox started losing.

 

[Mochilador]

Yeah, it's bad. Even more if you came from Xbox 360, like me. The difference in performance and loading time is obvious.

 

[Panajev2001a]

thats not even half the story. it was not supposed to have a GPU. or a second ram pool. they added that after they delayed it in 2005 because 360 was too powerful on reveal. so it became 10x harder to design games for because you'd have to micromanage the resources and RAM between two parts and the bottlenecks were stupidly huge.

Where did you hear this? It was definitely supposed to have a GPU, but you are almost right on the second RAM pool as the GPU was meant to have a lot of eDRAM like a super GS. FlexIO was very fast, but it did have a weird speed limitation if it was not the GPU reading or writing through it (bus was meant to be full speed in both directions).

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

Where did you hear this? It was definitely supposed to have a GPU, but you are almost right on the second RAM pool as the GPU was meant to have a lot of eDRAM like a super GS. FlexIO was very fast, but it did have a weird speed limitation if it was not the GPU reading or writing through it (bus was meant to be full speed in both directions).

no it was not. it was supposed to be just the cell processor and thats it.

 

[bilderberg]

Where did you hear this? It was definitely supposed to have a GPU, but you are almost right on the second RAM pool as the GPU was meant to have a lot of eDRAM like a super GS. FlexIO was very fast, but it did have a weird speed limitation if it was not the GPU reading or writing through it (bus was meant to be full speed in both directions).

No, it was originally only going to have two Cell's.When that was scrapped the gpu was supposed to basically be a dual 7800 GTX, but that was then downgraded. Which is why the announcement trailer for MGS 4 looked and ran so much better than the final release.

 

[LordOfChaos]

They mostly weren’t that bad, but I do remember buying one of the wwe smack down games on ps3 and the frame rate was mortifying. The Xbox version was like 60fps and the ps3 version barely reached 20fps and that’s being generous.

Bayonetta probably? That PS3 port was rough



Then there was Skyrim...

no it was not. it was supposed to be just the cell processor and thats it.

This is one of those things where both sides could pull off a "technically correct", the Cell-only concept was only only in a very early concept stage and quickly retired. What did happen after was they were supposed to co-develop a GPU with Toshiba but that did not go well, so RSX was a late addition, much less custom than Xenos.

From:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0806531010/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Where did you hear this? It was definitely supposed to have a GPU, but you are almost right on the second RAM pool as the GPU was meant to have a lot of eDRAM like a super GS. FlexIO was very fast, but it did have a weird speed limitation if it was not the GPU reading or writing through it (bus was meant to be full speed in both directions).

Yeah you can see which directions it would fall off a cliff

At the end of its life when devs knew how to use the Cell SPUs, it was mostly used to just break even with a lacklustre RSX too, taking over things like AA and some pre-culling whatever it could before getting to the GPU.

Ah the 7th gen console wars, we're still talking about them now lol. This gen never had that because it was much more cut and dry with mostly the same architecture in different cuts.

 

[Chozofication_]

No, it was originally only going to have two Cell's.When that was scrapped the gpu was supposed to basically be a dual 7800 GTX, but that was then downgraded. Which is why the announcement trailer for MGS 4 looked and ran so much better than the final release.

What Nvidia and Sony were touting was something more powerful as 2 gtx 6800 ultra's.

And if they meant actual PC sli performance and not just 6800 ultra specs doubled, then it wasn't all that misleading. They legit thought they had something great, but ati rewrote the book on gpus when sony chose nvidia. Nvidia were downplaying unified shaders and Sony drank the koolaid.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

However 360 was the more powerful and much better designed machine.

It was? This is surprising as I always assumed the PS3 was more powerful, but simply a pain to develop for, not that the 360 was just flat out the better console.

But I guess it makes sense, the question is, how did Sony fuck up so bad? I feel like there's got to be some alternate universe out there where the PS3 really did turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, it's just still so hard to believe over a decade later Sony would drop the ball so hard.

No, it was originally only going to have two Cell's.When that was scrapped the gpu was supposed to basically be a dual 7800 GTX, but that was then downgraded. Which is why the announcement trailer for MGS 4 looked and ran so much better than the final release.

What a shame.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

What Nvidia and Sony were touting was something more powerful as 2 gtx 6800 ultra's.

And if they meant actual PC sli performance and not just 6800 ultra specs doubled, then it wasn't all that misleading. They legit thought they had something great, but ati rewrote the book on gpus when sony chose nvidia. Nvidia were downplaying unified shaders and Sony drank the koolaid.

the nvidia GPU was pure garbage. Nvidia gpus back in the day were downright worthless after 1 year. the PS3 GPU is nearly identical to the 7800 GT. nerfed in some areas too.

they should have really just their own damn GPU with toshiba like they did for the PS2. but considering upto 2005 they had no plans on using a GPU and the cell CPU was supposed to handle graphics operations on the SPU units. they had no time to make a custom GPU

 

[Panajev2001a]

No, it was originally only going to have two Cell's.When that was scrapped the gpu was supposed to basically be a dual 7800 GTX, but that was then downgraded. Which is why the announcement trailer for MGS 4 looked and ran so much better than the final release.

No it was not supposed to have two CELL clusters (the one in the patent was actually the LRB kind of GPU with HW rasteriser, texture units, and other fixed function logic you see on top of programmable shaders) beyond a drawing in a patent application. There was a GPU supplier before nVIDIA got involved.

 

[Panajev2001a]

the nvidia GPU was pure garbage. Nvidia gpus back in the day were downright worthless after 1 year. the PS3 GPU is nearly identical to the 7800 GT. nerfed in some areas too.

they should have really just their own damn GPU with toshiba like they did for the PS2. but considering upto 2005 they had no plans on using a GPU and the cell CPU was supposed to handle graphics operations on the SPU units. they had no time to make a custom GPU

GS was more of an internal design, Toshiba’s great co-invention (or biggest contribution) were the VU’s. Even in the patent application reference image you think of there was plenty of fixed function HW to manage tasks which are still done like that on modern HW and the SPU’s worked instead of the processing elements in today’s CU’s. Sony was indeed working on an internal design before nVIDIA got involved.

 

[Chozofication_]

Red Crayon Aristocrat

Yes 360s gpu was just much more advanced, so much so that as an absolute best case the cell at 100% utilization could only bridge the gap between the two gpus. And then 360 was just flat out superior at things like alpha effects and mssa thanks to its edram, even cell couldn't bridge those gaps.

I honestly believe if you compare both versions of mw3 you'll get an accurate representation of the gap in gpus. Much worse alpha effects and an performance hit of 10-20 fps for the ps3 version (both use msaa as well.)

Choosing nvidia, having a hoggish operating system and no edram was what hurt ps3 so much.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Bayonetta probably? That PS3 port was rough



Then there was Skyrim...




This is one of those things where both sides could pull off a "technically correct", the Cell-only concept was only only in a very early concept stage and quickly retired. What did happen after was they were supposed to co-develop a GPU with Toshiba but that did not go well, so RSX was a late addition, much less custom than Xenos.

From:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0806531010/?tag=neogaf0e-20




Yeah you can see which directions it would fall off a cliff

At the end of its life when devs knew how to use the Cell SPUs, it was mostly used to just break even with a lacklustre RSX too, taking over things like AA and some pre-culling whatever it could before getting to the GPU.

Ah the 7th gen console wars, we're still talking about them now lol. This gen never had that because it was much more cut and dry with mostly the same architecture in different cuts.

RSX actually had a lot of processing grunts (if you look at the amount of TMU’s, ROP’s, and Pixel Shaders), but with separate pixel and vertex shaders it was not nearly as flexible as Xenos was (I.e.: more work required by developers not to have performance fall off a cliff... leading to issues on third party games). Also there were apparently bugs in the HW... like for example in terms of geometry processing (reading speed impact when processing vertex attributes).

 

[DansDans]

No one mentioned Burnout Paradise? PS3 version was a dream, and devs mentioned it was lead platform

 

[Panajev2001a]

no it was not. it was supposed to be just the cell processor and thats it.

Nope . There was another supplier before nVIDIA was brought in. It was indeed Toshiba as LordOfChaos also pointed out here. Design was supposedly a very eDRAM heavy one with programmable pixel shaders only and vertex shading delegated to the main CPU. Apparently prototypes of the GPU chip were sampled and tested too.

 

[EverydayBeast]

No one wants to say that all games from that era should be remastered but acting like they’re PS1 games, no not that bad.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Bayonetta probably? That PS3 port was rough



Then there was Skyrim...




This is one of those things where both sides could pull off a "technically correct", the Cell-only concept was only only in a very early concept stage and quickly retired. What did happen after was they were supposed to co-develop a GPU with Toshiba but that did not go well, so RSX was a late addition, much less custom than Xenos.

From:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0806531010/?tag=neogaf0e-20




Yeah you can see which directions it would fall off a cliff

At the end of its life when devs knew how to use the Cell SPUs, it was mostly used to just break even with a lacklustre RSX too, taking over things like AA and some pre-culling whatever it could before getting to the GPU.

Ah the 7th gen console wars, we're still talking about them now lol. This gen never had that because it was much more cut and dry with mostly the same architecture in different cuts.

Oh, I forgot about PS3 Bayonetta. Glad I bought the X360 version instead back in the day.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

GS was more of an internal design, Toshiba’s great co-invention (or biggest contribution) were the VU’s. Even in the patent application reference image you think of there was plenty of fixed function HW to manage tasks which are still done like that on modern HW and the SPU’s worked instead of the processing elements in today’s CU’s. Sony was indeed working on an internal design before nVIDIA got involved.

why didn't they continue that innovation? honestly that what set the consoles apart from the PC. since he CPU is whatever its all the same. but if you look at the PS2 gpu specs and compare it to a PC equivalent it looks like crap. but it was efficient at handling vector graphics. and pushing pixels.

 

[Puskas]

No one mentioned Burnout Paradise? PS3 version was a dream, and devs mentioned it was lead platform

Oh, I remember that. They did it not because it was easier but to assure the best possible game across both platforms.

Nick Channon, the head cheese behind Burnout, said this was done to give both platforms the best quality game. As it is easier to port to the 360 than the other way around…. While this isn’t the first game to do this I did find it suprising since it was an EA Game… Now I really want to see how this turns out and the obligatory PS3 vs 360 video is highly anticipated.

https://www.criticalhit.net/gaming/burnout-paradise-choose-ps3-as-lead-platform/

As we know, 360 developed games end up with sub-par ports to the PS3 due to the different architectures and whatnot, but what about PS3 developed titles? Channon believes developing games on the PS3 first will actually make an impressive move onto the 360 -- making the game better on the 360 than if developed on the 360 alone. It's less complicated than it sounds.

At least, that's how we'd like to interpret his quote about leading development on PS3: "From our point of view, we've had no issues with dealing with either machine; that's what I mean by that. It seems that some games haven't always transitioned between the two well. From our perspective leading on Playstation3 has meant Xbox 360 has given us a great product."

https://www.engadget.com/2007/11/30...velopment-makes-better-360-game/?guccounter=1

 

[Virex]

And yet Sony's 1st party devs brought shame to every 3rd party developer that made sub par multiplats on the ps3. I bought most 3rd party games on the 360 as well.

 

[Panajev2001a]

why didn't they continue that innovation? honestly that what set the consoles apart from the PC. since he CPU is whatever its all the same. but if you look at the PS2 gpu specs and compare it to a PC equivalent it looks like crap. but it was efficient at handling vector graphics. and pushing pixels.

They did (but the GPU chip ended up not fit for integration and probably they were scared of further delays and got frlm nVIDIA the first chip they could give them with the benefits of their tooling and support which softened the blow), still it was not the chip that was meant to support the CELL CPU from the onset.

Edit: oh you meant why not continuing with the CELL + specialised fixed function graphics components based GPU? I think they woke up early to the software tooling issue that would have hit developer hard on the entire design as well as they had manufacturing concerns (look at the history of Intel’s LRB GPU for another very similar take to GPU design and why it kind of failed at that... rumours had it that they were pitching it for PS4 too).

PS2’s GS specs wise it did not look like crap for the time (super strong fillrate, ginormous memory bandwidth, etc...), but yes it was a really strong yet very old school design. The GS was built around the limitations people perceived the Saturn and PSOne era to have had and completely destroys those bottlenecks (some of its specs, having the ability to keep multiple rendering contexts on chip and the ridicously low penalty to change state even on s per primitive basis [keep flushing those buffers], are actually problematic for much much newer GPU’s... on even relatively modern for today GPU’s state changes can be expensive [changing texture, changing from triangle strips to fans, etc... are example of rendering “state” changes]).
The GS was finalised well before the EE was btw.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Oh, I remember that. They did it not because it was easier but to assure the best possible game across both platforms.

https://www.criticalhit.net/gaming/burnout-paradise-choose-ps3-as-lead-platform/


https://www.engadget.com/2007/11/30...velopment-makes-better-360-game/?guccounter=1

Some bugs and weird limitations aside (and well beside not having unified shaders on the GPU), PS3 was not badly designed and gaming CELL was actually leading to the best way to architect your app for parallel processing and thus even faster execution on the tri-core CPU on the Xbox 360 (which IBM sold to MS even though it co-developed it with Sony’s money lol).

 

[GamesAreFun]

And yet Sony's 1st party devs brought shame to every 3rd party developer that made sub par multiplats on the ps3. I bought most 3rd party games on the 360 as well.

That's a failing of Sony - it's not the fault of third-party developers if your architecture if obtuse to work with and poorly documented.

 

[Panajev2001a]

That's a failing of Sony - it's not the fault of third-party developers if your architecture if obtuse to work with and poorly documented.

Sure, but actually it was not obtuse, yes it had some bugs in the GPU made by nVIDIA, just required a data driven task based mental switch developers had to do over time anyways. In order to pack more punch they designed an HW around this paradigm before it was super popular across game developers, but it was the right call maybe just a bit too early. When third parties started taking PS3 as lead platform Xbox 360 games improved too.

 

[Bankai]

Come on, they're not that bad

 

[LordOfChaos]

Edit: oh you meant why not continuing with the CELL + specialised fixed function graphics components based GPU? I think they woke up early to the software tooling issue that would have hit developer hard on the entire design as well as they had manufacturing concerns (look at the history of Intel’s LRB GPU for another very similar take to GPU design and why it kind of failed at that... rumours had it that they were pitching it for PS4 too).

Funny thing is Intel could have something pretty interesting for the 9th gen by 2020, Xe graphics, 10nm chiplets, eDRAM and EMIB, they'd finally have the whole package which has kept AMD the main choice, if Xe isn't totally bunged up. Not saying anyone will pick them, Intel likes its margins and it feels pretty sure that the 9th gen twins will be Ryzen and Navi-ish based, but Intel would be the dark horse for sure if they could partner with anyone else.

While I'm on dark horses, I still really wish Apple would take the ATV's microconsole side seriously, A12X with active cooling would be a heck of a lot of power for a cheap console! The missing side is game support of any substance. If they're splashing so much money at TV, why not exclusive games.

 

[benjohn]

All I see is that the Ps3 version is inferior to X360 . Not that is "unplayable". The amount of exaggeration in this topic is fascinating to say the least.

 

[Bankai]

All I see is that the Ps3 version is inferior to X360 . Not that is "unplayable". The amount of exaggeration in this topic is fascinating to say the least.

Really? 20fps and dips below during large portions of gameplay don't bother you? I consider it unplayable in a fast-paced action game.

 

[Petrae]

All I see is that the Ps3 version is inferior to X360 . Not that is "unplayable". The amount of exaggeration in this topic is fascinating to say the least.

It was quite literally unplayable for me— I made the decision to stop playing the PS3 version after 15 minutes because the frame rate/performance was so atrocious. I couldn’t tolerate it after having played the far superior X360 version first.

 

[stranno]

Not to mention the missing ports, like Saints Row or Just Cause.

 

[Aenima]

Only thing that really bothered me last gen was the amount of games with screen tearing. I cant stand screen tearing in games. I have good tolerance to frame drops, enought to not get distracted by them or dont even noticed them.

Bayonetta and Dragons Dogma had bad frame rate on PS3 and i managed to enjoy and platinum both games.

So glad this gen is very rare to find games with screen tearing.

 

[wyvern_bloodfist]

after having to replace my x360 7 times ; and fewer exclusives (i mostly play japanese games) the ps3 was my go to console. 360 had great japanese titles until 2010; after the well went dry. i hate AAA games so it worked out well for me. for reference i own 300 games for Ps3 and 60 for xbox 360.

 

[stranno]

Only thing that really bothered me last gen was the amount of games with screen tearing. I cant stand screen tearing in games. I have good tolerance to frame drops, enought to not get distracted by them or dont even noticed them.

Even Uncharted: Drake's Fortune had a great amount of screen tearing. God bless Bluepoint's remaster.

 

[Aenima]

Even Uncharted: Drake's Fortune had a great amount of screen tearing. God bless Bluepoint's remaster.

Yes but naughty dog was smart enough to make the screen tearing only happen on the top of the screen, so it did not distracted me. There was games where the screen tearing happed all over the screen and it was very distracting and emersion breaking.

My worst experience in PS3 because screen tearing was Killer is Dead. Game was nice but the screen tearing was terrible.

 

[stranno]

Yes but naughty dog was smart enough to make the screen tearing only happen on the top of the screen, so it did not distracted me. There was games where the screen tearing happed all over the screen and it was very distracting and emersion breaking.

Screen tearing in Uncharted was all over the place, bottom, middle or top section of the screen. It was distracting as hell. Unfortunately, because the game was a masterpiece.

 

[Aenima]

Screen tearing in Uncharted was all over the place, bottom, middle or top section of the screen. It was distracting as hell. Unfortunately, because the game was a masterpiece.

Interesting. It seems you are correct, dunno why in my memory i only remember the game screen tearing happen at the top of the screen.
Other PS3 exclusive game with alot of screen tearing was Heavenly Sword. But in that one i remember the screen tearing was very distracting.

 

[Redneckerz]

am playing some old ps3 games, and buying ones I missed out on. mostly third parties since I picked up all the first party ones

the first party games run just fine, but oh boy, oh boy the third party games run like crap. this shouldn't have been acceptable. 80% of third party games had terrible framerate. I'd say around 40% were downright unplayable. especially games pre 2011. and oh god pretty much any black label third party game ran at like 20 fps.

Downright unplayable is a gross exaggeration unless you tell people what your definition of it is.

What i do know:

• Early cross-gen games usually ran worse on PS3. This is due to the fact the Cell is a complex piece of kit whilst the X360 was a more elegant game design
• Some games forfeited graphical effects. For instance, Call of Juarez The Cartel has surface shadows and reflections that are completely missing on PS3. Now, this was a 2011 title. By 2011, feature parity was slowly creeping in, which made The Cartel an oddball title.
• In the later span of the console generation, feature parity was essentially achieved and resolution differences were nips and tucks. Some titles even held a higher resolution than X360. There was also DICE that made great strides with the SPU code.
• A big key difference that isn't mentioned: Due to the exotic architecture, PS3 was way more difficult to develop and optimize for, but those games that do, which usually were exclusives, it did pay off in the end in terms of visual might.

how the hell do you put out a system like this?. I actually didn't buy a PS3 until like 2011 so I missed out on all that good unplayable stuff. but oh man, owning a ps3 pre-2010 must have been hell.

It wasn't as hellish as you perpetuate it to be - But yes, a lot of early ports did run less well than on X360. And for most of its multi-plat life, the X360 actually comes out on top as the better system. But that isn't to say there aren't games that run better - Let alone look better. I believe the PS3 in that department was better in that regard.

as an electrical and a computer engineer that system was terribly made.

It was not so much terribly made as it was the result of a design philosophy by Kutaragi that simply became unfeasiable to achieve: Doing a truckload of R&D into custom hardware and still selling it for a premium. Optimized PS3 code is wonderful, but the road to get there is dreadful.

no it was not. it was supposed to be just the cell processor and thats it.

No, the original spec called for two CELL's, and one to be used as a GPU. Thankfully that system would have made it even more expensive than it was at launch, so they went with 6800 ultra devkits and then 7800 GTX.

It is a sufficient system, the RSX i mean, but Xenos was way more elegant and forward looking: The basis from which all GPU's today are derived from.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Downright unplayable is a gross exaggeration unless you tell people what your definition of it is.

What i do know:

• Early cross-gen games usually ran worse on PS3. This is due to the fact the Cell is a complex piece of kit whilst the X360 was a more elegant game design
• Some games forfeited graphical effects. For instance, Call of Juarez The Cartel has surface shadows and reflections that are completely missing on PS3. Now, this was a 2011 title. By 2011, feature parity was slowly creeping in, which made The Cartel an oddball title.
• In the later span of the console generation, feature parity was essentially achieved and resolution differences were nips and tucks. Some titles even held a higher resolution than X360. There was also DICE that made great strides with the SPU code.
• A big key difference that isn't mentioned: Due to the exotic architecture, PS3 was way more difficult to develop and optimize for, but those games that do, which usually were exclusives, it did pay off in the end in terms of visual might.

It wasn't as hellish as you perpetuate it to be - But yes, a lot of early ports did run less well than on X360. And for most of its multi-plat life, the X360 actually comes out on top as the better system. But that isn't to say there aren't games that run better - Let alone look better. I believe the PS3 in that department was better in that regard.


It was not so much terribly made as it was the result of a design philosophy by Kutaragi that simply became unfeasiable to achieve: Doing a truckload of R&D into custom hardware and still selling it for a premium. Optimized PS3 code is wonderful, but the road to get there is dreadful.


No, the original spec called for two CELL's, and one to be used as a GPU. Thankfully that system would have made it even more expensive than it was at launch, so they went with 6800 ultra devkits and then 7800 GTX.

It is a sufficient system, the RSX i mean, but Xenos was way more elegant and forward looking: The basis from which all GPU's today are derived from.

There was another GPU deeply in the works for it and it was an internal Sony - Toshiba design that was architected to work best with CELL (optimised for ultra high bandwidth and pixel shaded workload only).

 

[Redneckerz]

There was another GPU deeply in the works for it and it was an internal Sony - Toshiba design that was architected to work best with CELL (optimised for ultra high bandwidth and pixel shaded workload only).

Interesting Got a source? Even the devkit source i am using on this does not seem to cite this.

 

[Silent Duck]

Ghostbusters... Never Forget...

 

[benjohn]

Really? 20fps and dips below during large portions of gameplay don't bother you? I consider it unplayable in a fast-paced action game.

Man you can only speak for yourself and for yourself only. Many find that game playable and enjoyable. Zelda ocarina of time is considered one of the best games ever and it barely run that fast. And this is only one example on PS3. Calling all multi-plat games on a system "unplayable" is a game I consider "Unplayable"

 

[DynamiteCop!]

I made the terrible, terrible mistake of buying the 2009 Ghostbusters game on PS3 because I figured hey, Ghostbusters is a Sony franchise so certainly PS3 would be the lead platform, right? RIGHT?

I believe it's defunct now but there's used to be a site called Lens of Truth that had articles comparing PS3 and 360 versions and the comparison between the two versions of Ghostbusters and it was unbelievable how much worse visually the PS3 version was compared to 360, just totally unacceptable.

Thankfully I was able to wash the bad taste out of my mouth by playing the PC version a couple of years later.

I think the only other third party multiplat games I played on PS3 was Batman: Arkham Asylum, which I have no idea how that compared to the 360, but it had exclusive challenges where you played as the Joker, which was neat and Soul Calibur 4, which had the better exclusive character.

But yeah, as a rule I stayed far away from any multiplat games on PS3.

Even in death this comparison will not escape you..

https://web.archive.org/web/20130423150512/http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-ghostbusters/

 

[Panajev2001a]

Interesting Got a source? Even the devkit source i am using on this does not seem to cite this.

I do or do not... who knows . Sorry man, hate to do this, but I do not think there is anything public (but you can find references to Toshiba's solution online, I think it was called RS btw...).

 

[SirKicksalot]

I finished Enslaved at 24 FPS and I liked it.

 

[Kerotan]

I wouldn't go as far as you did but yeah the blame lies with Sony. They learnt their lesson though.