Support NeoGAF

[szaromir]

Does splitting the ram have any actual benefit? Or would Sony have been better off leaving it unified?

It actually does have benefits. The biggest one is memory latency for CPU, which is much much bigger in 360 than in PS3. Cell communicates directly with memory, while Xenon communicates via Xenos. Plus system memory bandwidth is by itself bigger in PS3 than in 360.

 

[Avalon]

Sony and Nvidia designed the RSX so that the Cell can support it. Whereas the Xenos can work all by itself. It's just a different design choice. That's the end of story.

Okay, that clears some thing up. Still, it seems like a really odd choice. Even if the Cell was suppose to support the RSX from the start, would having unified memory have anything but positive effects on this?

 

[drohne]

one word, containing five words when read for its full mystic significance: NURBS

thread over

wait, someone post a hundred pictures of gran turismo 3

 

[LJ11]

But couldn't developers use part of the 256 sytem memory for 'texture' based needs?

If the PS3 OP system uses 64 mb of ram, I think that's probably the bigger reason as to why the PS3 is "said" to have memory issues, not so much the split in two memory sets for ram?

I have no idea how devs program this stuff. I'm sure Sony's OS complicates matters but I'm not sure what bottlenecks exist when loading textures from one pool to another.

 

[elostyle]

I think this serves as one of the most pathetic examples of why the whole next gen thing is just ****ing out of hand.
The OP said nothing about the 360, nothing about anything.

A simple statement that applies to Heavenly Sword.
Nothing more.
And people have to dogpile on to be negative and then the people defend and it just goes into a tail spin of jackassery.

The op links to a thread on a different forum comparing 360 and PS3 gpu. Besides, out of context, what does that number tell you? Exactly nothing. So if this isn't about the thread in question, we shouldn't have this thread to begin with.

 

[J-Rzez]

So, what exactly are the advantages to this?

Mmmm... you've got two pools of memory from which to texture if you really need the space -- and you get extra texture bandwidth out of it to boot. On top of that, there are a million and one ways to get much higher *effective* resolution than Gears of War exhibits while still using less texture memory and less *physical* texture resolution. Our artists have gotten really smart when it comes to these kinds of games, and they do a decent job of it on characters, but an even better job in general on environments.

Just to show it goes two ways with the RAMBATTLE Take it for what's it's worth... I haven't the slightest on this stuff...

 

[duk]

why don't you guys just go read the B3D thread instead asking GAF?

 

[sprocket]

Yes, and that "split" on the PS3 is the controvery point. "OMG UNIFIED = BETTER" vs "OMG DONT MATTER GOOD DEVS ARE OK WITH IT".

Anyways, yay, BS tech speak fanboy cock battles. Lots of fun, as usual. *yawn*

Yeah its kinda of stupid . both have their pros .

Unified is inherently slower because you have 2 sets of hardware((CPU/GPU)) feeding from the same memory bank . but then again its more efficient . EXAMPLE .you can maybe use 300 megs for vram and 212 for main ram .


Having 2 separate sets of memory IS FASTER . You can have both sets of hardware ((CPU/GPU)) access their ram AT THE SAME TIME . But then again each is set at 256 no more or no less .

 

[Blimblim]

But are these ground up builds? It's becoming more evident through the discussions we've seen that 3rd parties are suffering here because they're not grasping the differences in hardware... As the NT guys have explained, you can get what you want out of the machine, you just have to take each machine on their own merits, as common sense would explain...

This is meaningless once again... because one can counter Ridge Racer for example running 1080p native at 60fps on the PS3 more significant than on the other machine... And more time with the PS3 isn't necessarily evident in this case because more than likely they have had the same amount of time with dev kits in the long run on both machines...

Both of these games use the 360 as their reference platform, but one of them actually has the PS3 version developed alongside the 360 by a separate part of the dev team, it's a brand new engine that's developed simulaneously on both platforms.
And why are we comparing Ridge Racer 6 to Ridge Racer 7 again? Both games were released with a one year difference, and nothing proves RR6 (or 7) couldn't have run as well on the 360 in 1080p.
I wouldn't compare multiplatform PS3 titles to their 360 counterparts since it's obvious the devs must have struggled with the unstable SDKs (though don't forget they 6 more months with quasi final hardware than anticipated due to the launch delay), so for the moment we have no good element of comparison. Why don't we wait for a few months/a year and see what happens instead?

Yeah its kinda of stupid . both have their pros .

Unified is inherently slower because you have 2 sets of hardware((CPU/GPU)) feeding from the same memory bank . but then again its more efficient . EXAMPLE .you can maybe use 300 megs for vram and 212 for main ram .


Having 2 separate sets of memory IS FASTER . You can have both sets of hardware ((CPU/GPU)) access their ram AT THE SAME TIME . But then again each is set at 256 no more or no less .

Don't forget that the 360 has that 10 MB pool of incredibly fast EDRAM too.

 

[Ynos Yrros]

I don't get it.

First post is about polycount in Heavenly Sword, with nAo (Ninja Theory dev) stating that they could go evenfurther using Cell. Then people started posting other quotes bringing XBox 360 and it's superiority into it (quoting posts made by guy that says he's a dev).

Both of these games use the 360 as their reference platform, but one of them actually has the PS3 version developed alongside the 360 by a separate part of the dev team, it's a brand new engine that's developed simulaneously on both platforms.
And why are we comparing Ridge Racer 6 to Ridge Racer 7 again? Both games were released with a one year difference, and nothing proves RR6 (or 7) couldn't have run as well on the 360 in 1080p.
I wouldn't compare multiplatform PS3 titles to their 360 counterparts since it's obvious the devs must have struggled with the unstable SDKs (though don't forget they 6 more months with quasi final hardware than anticipated due to the launch delay), so for the moment we have no good element of comparison. Why don't we wait for a few months/a year and see what happens instead?

So much truth in that post. Close this thread already.

 

[Buggy Loop]

What i wonder is, what kind of crazy developer would take 192MB for coding/level, would have to be very inneficient or just plain bloated, as if someone would say, to hell with streaming.

I think 360's unified memory is an advantage in the long run, the more devs will optimize the memory required for levels by streaming it, the more memory they could have for textures, while PS3, you're maxed at 256MB no matter what.

Anyway, the 2 will look very much the same, game graphics will mostly matter with how much time and money the developer invested into it, not the actual tech, devs like Square enix will make near CGI in real-time with all their experience over the years and enormous budgets, while smaller devs will scrape resources to just try and match the competition as best as they can and or afford.

 

[Avalon]

Having 2 separate sets of memory IS FASTER . You can have both sets of hardware ((CPU/GPU)) access their ram AT THE SAME TIME . But then again each is set at 256 no more or no less .

Thanks.

 

[Blimblim]

I think 360's unified memory is an advantage in the long run, the more devs will optimize the memory required for levels by streaming it, the more memory they could have for textures, while PS3, you're maxed at 256MB no matter what.

RSX can use the main RAM rather easily. It has to go through Cell, but it's rather painless. So no, there is no 256 MB limit for the textures.

 

[szaromir]

RSX can use the main RAM rather easily. It has to go through Cell, but it's rather painless. So no, there is no 256 MB limit for the textures.

But there's still ~60MB less for textures than there is in 360 (assuming all other assets are the same).

 

[Forsete]

Where is gofreak anyway? One of the few people here that actually is good at putting technical mumbo into understandable words?

 

[OokieSpookie]

The op links to a thread on a different forum comparing 360 and PS3 gpu. Besides, out of context, what does that number tell you? Exactly nothing. So if this isn't about the thread in question, we shouldn't have this thread to begin with.

All the quote says is "we have been able to accomplish this in the game we are working on."
Thats it, there are no challenges to anyone or any format in the quoted text.
Only a simple statement.
Whatever is going on the thread its taken from is on another forum and I am sure they will be happy to have people register there to continue the good fight.

 

[Blimblim]

But there's still ~60MB less for textures than there is in 360 (assuming all other assets are the same).

Assuming it's true that the PS3 OS is using that much memory for itself as what's been said, then a PS3 game has less memory to work with than on a 360.
Then again the hard drive could be used as a rather fast swap device, if the devs take the time to actually use it correctly (unlike what happened with 99% of the Xbox1 titles)

 

[elostyle]

First post is about polycount in Heavenly Sword, with nAo (Ninja Theory dev) stating that they could go evenfurther using Cell. Then people started posting other quotes bringing XBox 360 and it's superiority into it (quoting posts made by guy that says he's a dev).



So much truth in that post. Close this thread already.

Did you click on the "The Thread" link in the first post at all?

All the quote says is "we have been able to accomplish this in the game we are working on."
Thats it, there are no challenges to anyone or any format in the quoted text.
Only a simple statement.
Whatever is going on the thread its taken from is on another forum and I am sure they will be happy to have people register there to continue the good fight.

So why are we discussing this number then? Are we supposed to argue about if it is high or low or what? In the age of programmable shaders, that number is pretty much meaningless.

 

[J-Rzez]

Both of these games use the 360 as their reference platform

And it's not expected to have issues that you can't plug and play? Two totally different arch's, and it's not expected? It's just really commonsense...

Once again, my priority of investment is based on First Party, and is becoming more validated...

 

[TheDuce22]

Where is gofreak anyway? One of the few people here that actually is good at putting technical mumbo into understandable words?

Yah we need another trusted internet source like him to chime in. Its always fun watching people argue about things they dont understand using nothing but quotes from anonymous posters on a message board.

 

[OokieSpookie]

Did you click on the "The Thread" link in the first post at all?

Yeop, interesting read.
Point?

Name and point of that thread " RSX: Vertex input limited? *FKATCT"

Name and point of this thread " nAo/Marco on Heavenly Sword:"we easily render 2-2.5 MTris per frame at 30 fps"(!!!!!)"

People just can not allow threads without turning them into some next gen e-peni contest.

 

[elostyle]

Yeop, interesting read.
Point?

Name and point of that thread " RSX: Vertex input limited? *FKATCT"

Name and point of this thread " nAo/Marco on Heavenly Sword:"we easily render 2-2.5 MTris per frame at 30 fps"(!!!!!)"

People just can not allow threads without turning them into some next gen e-peni contest.

The other reply was for you. Not that one.

Yah we need another trusted internet source like him to chime in.

Is that sarcasm I sense here?

 

[NinSoX]

Yeop, interesting read.
Point?

Name and point of that thread " RSX: Vertex input limited? *FKATCT"

Name and point of this thread " nAo/Marco on Heavenly Sword:"we easily render 2-2.5 MTris per frame at 30 fps"(!!!!!)"

People just can not allow threads without turning them into some next gen e-peni contest.

The original topic in this thread was about numbers and what significance would it have if you're not comparing it with a competing platform.. The OP obviously insinuated the comparison, no doubt about it. Instead of whining about the comparisons, play along.

 

[szaromir]

Assuming it's true that the PS3 OS is using that much memory for itself as what's been said, then a PS3 game has less memory to work with than on a 360.

If you believe that this joker guy from B3D forum is indeed a developer than it is true:

Those numbers seem "more or less" in line with what we've seen. They don't include the edram that the 360 has though, on PS3 we have to use some of the precious vram for frame buffers, don't need to do that on 360. The 360's memory advantage is huge currently, although this could change if sony trims back their memory needs. I think this is a much bigger issue to multi platform devs like myself. If you just do PS3 then you may not be feeling the pain as much. Taking a 360 game that looks nice and suddenly realizing that you have to free up 60+ megabytes of memory sucks ;(

Then again the hard drive could be used as a rather fast swap device, if the devs take the time to actually use it correctly (unlike what happened with 99% of the Xbox1 titles)

The problem was Xbox wasn't primary development platform last-gen, but now if Playstation becomes primary development platform again then I believe developers will exploit every possible hardware trick to make their game look better than competition's one. But it's hard to predict at the moment.

 

[Forsete]

Yah we need another trusted internet source like him to chime in. Its always fun watching people argue about things they dont understand using nothing but quotes from anonymous posters on a message board.

Yes isn’t it? Unlike most people here, gofreak understands this crap.. His username on B3D is Titanio btw.. I didn’t notice him in that thread, I wonder where he's at?

 

[Blimblim]

And it's not expected to have issues that you can't plug and play? Two totally different arch's, and it's not expected? It's just really commonsense...

I like how you simply forgot the rest of my message. I'm saying that one of these games is being developed simultaneously on both platforms, with 2 small and separate teams of coders working on both versions of the engine. The 360 is the reference platform meaning that the PS3 version won't have more assets than the 360 one in case its engine outperformed the other one, but it doesn't mean the PS3 version is a port of the 360 one. Because it's not.
The PS3 version will just have at best the same assets as the 360 version and even have a better framerate, and if they can't get it up to speed it will have less stuff until they are satisfied with the framerate.
The other game is developed for the 360 and is being ported to the PS3 almost as a second thought. The result will without a doubt be much worse than for the first game.

If you believe that this joker guy from B3D forum is indeed a developer than it is true:

I heard about this many times, I just never had a source I trusted in the dev community who would confirm it.

 

[Haunted]

fanboy gafers disputing the significance of information they don't really understand? we're partying like it's 1999!

Well, I for one don't get the technical talk, that's for sure.

The one question I am asking myself whenever I see quotes like this (regardless who they're from - Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo devs) is: 'does this make the game more fun?' - If it does: cool! carry on then. But if it doesn't, I don't give a **** about '2-2.5MTris per frame at 30fps(!!!!!)'.

I am probably pretty alone in that thinking here on GAF though.

 

[acousticvan]

Because the title of this thread is million polygons per second.
Who has the real number for GeoW? I remember last time they said it was 1.2 Mpolygons per frame. Someone correct this?

 

[beat]

If you've got a question for the guy why don't you post it in the forum he's actually at?

Do you mean Beyond3D? Or AVS, since the B3D thread was actually calling out a poster over at AVS?

(Quick, someone send this GAF thread to some other forum!)

 

[sprocket]

In all seriousness . It really doesn't matter. Who ever has the biggest user base and is most profitable is the one DEVS are going to put more money ,time, and effort behind . Hence will more than likely have the better looking games .

 

[elostyle]

Because the title of this thread is million polygons per second.
Who has the real number for GeoW? I remember last time they said it was 1.2 Mpolygons per frame. Someone correct this?

If it was or was not, the numbers are hardly comparable.

 

[Fatghost]

Yes isn’t it? Unlike most people here, gofreak understands this crap.. His username on B3D is Titanio btw.. I didn’t notice him in that thread, I wonder where he's at?

It is the holidays after all.

 

[jett]

The poly number for GoW is probably on the low side...don't the character models have like 10k polys?

Not that it really matters.

 

[Forsete]

It is the holidays after all.

Pfft. He should be on duty 24/7.. ;P

Anyway, I think the difference between PS3s first gen games and its 2-3rd will be a big one. This is what DeanoC predicted a while ago.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/690/690241p1.html

1st Gen: PPU used for most things with the SPUs just doing some heavy lifting
2nd Gen: PPU still dominant but SPUs doing a lot more tasks.
3rd Gen: SPU completely dominant with PPU now more of a game coprocessor.

I expect the third generation of PS3 titles will really shine, the first engine that is really SPU centric and just treats the PPU as a coprocessor is going to kick arse. The SPUs are fast like greased lightning but just require a different paradigm that's not going to be fully incorporated for a few generations..."

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/690/690241p1.html

PS3s future is an interesting one.

 

[acousticvan]

If it was or was not, the numbers are hardly comparable.

It does relate to this thread because people in this thread don't care about the end result(game). They just want to know whose gun is bigger.

Again, if my memory served the number of polygons per second is 1.2M

 

[NinSoX]

Just as some people doubted Artoon with Blue Dragon....look what we have here..

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/kungfuchaos/index.html?q=kung fu kaos



By the same developer, but have since changed names.

Just sayin'...

 

[acousticvan]

Pfft. He should be on duty 24/7.. ;P

Anyway, I think the difference between PS3s first gen games and its 2-3rd will be a big one. This is what DeanoC predicted a while ago.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/690/690241p1.html



http://ps3.ign.com/articles/690/690241p1.html

PS3s future is an interesting one.

I agree with you 100%.
Just compare first and second gen 360 games and you can see the difference. Time is all needed.
But I have to give congrats to PS3 because their first gen games are on par with the 360.

 

[LuCkymoON]

Your response didn't explain C-Warrior's question. Both systems reserve space for their respective OS's. Yes, Sony's is bloated but I don't see what if anything that had to do with C-Warrior's question.

it had everything to do with his question; is it not the very reason the PS3 has less available memory?

 

[Mrbob]

Pfft. He should be on duty 24/7.. ;P

Anyway, I think the difference between PS3s first gen games and its 2-3rd will be a big one. This is what DeanoC predicted a while ago.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/690/690241p1.html



http://ps3.ign.com/articles/690/690241p1.html

PS3s future is an interesting one.

People are impatient. Especially when you are spending 600 bucks on a game system. It is a what can you do for me now world.

 

[szaromir]

I heard about this many times, I just never had a source I trusted in the dev community who would confirm it.

But did anyone of your trusted sources deny it? Because almost every developer (Starbreeze, Ubi Montreal and a bunch of others) seems to indicate that the memory difference is indeed significant and ~60MB sounds like significant difference.

People are impatient. Especially when you are spending 600 bucks on a game system. It is a what can you do for me now world.

Actually it's Sony's own fault. We all remember what was happening a year ago.

 

[TTP]

so for the moment we have no good element of comparison

Virtua Fighter 5 will show us the light! :lol

Can't wait for the "vs" threads here on GAF.

 

[Forsete]

People are impatient. Especially when you are spending 600 bucks on a game system. It is a what can you do for me now world.

Yes well thankfully MotorStorm is not too far away (for me, ;P EU launch!) and the same goes for Heavenly Sword. Two of the most impressive looking titles thus far IMO.
So even the impatient crowd should have some nice [looking] games soon, and things just take off from there.

 

[WARCOCK]

Ya those 7800gtx rock. Makes me feel that much better about my 7900gt purchase.

 

[fortified_concept]

Yah we need another trusted internet source like him to chime in. Its always fun watching people argue about things they dont understand using nothing but quotes from anonymous posters on a message board.

Say that again. I can't believe people are trying to counter what a known Heavenly Sword dev said with random quotes from anonymous deadmeats on B3D.

 

[ypo]

"The 360 is the reference platform"

translation: it's a port.

 

[Tieno]

Say that again. I can't believe people are trying to counter what a known Heavenly Sword dev said with random quotes from anonymous deadmeats on B3D.

My quotes are better than your quotes

 

[TheDuce22]

Say that again. I can't believe people are trying to counter what a known Heavenly Sword dev said with random quotes from anonymous deadmeats on B3D.

I forgot sarcasm doesnt work on the internet. The point is people have no clue what the **** either of them are talking about and have no way to judge how credible they are, yet they are sitting here debating it using those quotes as "evidence". Obviously the Heavenly Sword dev has an incentive to spin things a certian way. If either of them are doing that who here would know?

 

[J-Rzez]

I like how you simply forgot the rest of my message.

Naw... when I read what you typed, I took "reference" in a different way with the two seperate teams... To the point where it was the devs were shocked and awe'd that when they'd port it over to the PS3, it wouldn't run the same... That's all, just misunderstood what you were saying...

So, what you are saying is they developed assests for a common-denominator and have teams tweaking code for both? Not just one team trying to get code from the other team up and running on the other, and that they "may" put a lil more effort into taking advantage of possibilities the hardware may produce?

All in all, I'm just getting more and more disgusted with multiplatform games though and the efforts of 3rd party devs... I'll be sticking to more and more exclusives for each of my consoles than ever... Outside of A.Creed and possibly Army of Two (how they turn out), I'm probably giving up on it all together...

"The 360 is the reference platform"

translation: it's a port.

That's what I took it as... port to the fullest meaning of the word...

 

[TheIkariWarrior]

yeah but didn't they once again promise or say they would at least try to make Heavenly Sword 60fps?

if God of War 1 & 2 are 60fps or mostly 60fps on PS2, and Ninja Gaiden, Ninja Gaiden Black on Xbox 60fps or mostly 60fps on Xbox1, why can't we have 60fps Heavenly Sword on PS3?

 

[J-Rzez]

why can't we have 60fps Heavenly Sword on PS3?

Let's just wait and see the end result for answers... as in, how much action is going on at once... how many characters at once... how many effects... etc...