Compressed game data on the 360 still needs to be uncompressed. CPU core taken.

All they need to do is cache the textures of the close Area or the level in the HDD, this is easy, but it would take forever to load the data to the hdd. The smartest solution would be to cache them as you stream them on-the-fly. That's considerably more complex and since Sony provides no PS3OS or SDK function or to do this, developers will need to write a pagination sytem from the ground up.

Everything else is streamed from the disc.

2x Blur-ray drive speed = 72Mbps
12x DVD drive speed = 15.85Mbps source

hiryu3

Dude, you really, really, REALLY need to learn the difference between a megaBIT and a megaBYTE.

2x BluRay drive speed = 72 megaBITS per second.

12x DVD drive speed = 15.85 megaBYTES per second = 126.8 megaBITS per second.

that is funny. A graphics card does not do decompression of any thing link

"With PCI, texture maps are loaded from the hard drive to system memory, processed by the CPU and then loaded into the framebuffer of the graphics card."

"hiryu3

Wow.

Ok, second point of stupidity: PCI hasn't been in use for nearly seven years now for graphics. Graphics cards are on PCI-Express, not PCI. And this only applies to PCs, not to consoles. Consoles have different architecture.

[QUOTE="hiryu3"]

2x Blur-ray drive speed = 72Mbps
12x DVD drive speed = 15.85Mbps source

mjarantilla

Dude, you really, really, REALLY need to learn the difference between a megaBIT and a megaBYTE.

2x BluRay drive speed = 72 megaBITS per second.

12x DVD drive speed = 15.85 megaBYTES per second = 126.8 megaBITS per second.

that is funny. A graphics card does not do decompression of any thing link

"With PCI, texture maps are loaded from the hard drive to system memory, processed by the CPU and then loaded into the framebuffer of the graphics card."

"hiryu3

Wow.

Ok, second point of stupidity: PCI hasn't been in use for nearly seven years now for graphics. Graphics cards are on PCI-Express, not PCI. And this only applies to PCs, not to consoles. Consoles have different architecture.

I don't notice the game being uncompressed when I play itBig_Gamer_Al

what? No way. You mean your uncompressing now light never lights up on your console? LOL

Wow. Ok, second point of stupidity: PCI hasn't been in use for nearly seven years now for graphics. Graphics cards are on PCI-Express, not PCI. And this only applies to PCs, not to consoles. Consoles have different architecture.mjarantilla

You have no idea what your talking about.

The CPU reads and loads the data. It doesn't matter if its compressed or not. It's still loading the same data.

Example. You have a 100 MB compressed file and a 150 MB uncompressed file. The 100 MB file is on the faster drive (360) and the 150 MB file is on the slower drive (PS3). Who do you think will load faster?

360...... Because the file is smaller and it loads faster from the drive. CPU's can decompress on the fly. Processors are much more powerful then you give them credit for.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Wow. Ok, second point of stupidity: PCI hasn't been in use for nearly seven years now for graphics. Graphics cards are on PCI-Express, not PCI. And this only applies to PCs, not to consoles. Consoles have different architecture.hiryu3

You obviously didn't get the point the point is that:

"A GRAPHICS CARD DOES NOT DO DECOMPRESSION"

and the following statement was to show the process of textures and data going to a gpu. And last time I checked this process is still the same when it was AGP, PCI, PCI-E Mr. Wizard. So please read, think, write, read and rethink before submitting comments.

@blue_hazybasic

Sorry I corrected it.

LOL the TC has been owned. Please learn about what you are posting about before you post next time.

The GPU does decompress textures in real-time.

Obviously, there are two ways of getting data:
- loadingdata in uncompressed
- loading data in compressed, then decompress it

In MOST cases, it is FASTER to load the data in compressed, and decompress it once it is in memory.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Wow. Ok, second point of stupidity: PCI hasn't been in use for nearly seven years now for graphics. Graphics cards are on PCI-Express, not PCI. And this only applies to PCs, not to consoles. Consoles have different architecture.hiryu3

EDIT:

Even better:

Beyond3D's article on the Xbox 360's GPU. I've already set the page to the Xenos' texture processing capabilities. Here's a little snippet:

Xenos texture capabilities include support for DXTC (S3TC) texture compression routines as well as various other compression routines that are DXTC like in their operation. ATI2N (3Dc) is supported, as this is more or less just a twist of DXTC operation, as well as other compression formats that would be useful for normal maps. There are no compression methods available for float texture formats, although there are a total of 64 different texture formats supported.

LOL the TC has been owned. Please learn about what you are posting about before you post next time.

The GPU does decompress textures in real-time.

Obviously, there are two ways of getting data:
- loadingdata in uncompressed
- loading data in compressed, then decompress it

In MOST cases, it is FASTER to load the data in compressed, and decompress it once it is in memory.

DustAmulet

Not yet.

I still find it crazy that many of you are accepting that dude's post where he said that all decompression of textures is done on the GPU exclusively.

The uncompressing of texture data still requires CPU time. For example. If say a GPU was made to decompress jpeg files. Now lets say that those JPEG files were stored within a .zip archive along with other JPEG files and animation etc. The CPU still has to first decompress that Zip file to retrive the JPEG for the GPU to then decode.

When I talk about compressed data I do mean textures. However, those texture files must still be packaged down into a file for the system to load.

ITT we said that it's faster to load a compressed file than it is to load an uncompressed one. In some cases it's true. However, developers don't simply leave texture files just sitting on the disc in seperate spots. They bunch them together, pack them into as few a files as possible and compress those files further. It is the decompression of those packages that are strictly reliant on the power of the system's main processor. The GPU decompressor is specialized to only handle certain algorithms and compression techniques for image, vertex, and pixel files.

Not owned. Lems are in denial.

[QUOTE="DustAmulet"]

LOL the TC has been owned. Please learn about what you are posting about before you post next time.

The GPU does decompress textures in real-time.

Obviously, there are two ways of getting data:
- loadingdata in uncompressed
- loading data in compressed, then decompress it

In MOST cases, it is FASTER to load the data in compressed, and decompress it once it is in memory.

vitz3

Not yet.

I still find it crazy that many of you are accepting that dude's post where he said that all decompression of textures is done on the GPU exclusively.

The uncompressing of texture data still requires CPU time. For example. If say a GPU was made to decompress jpeg files. Now lets say that those JPEG files were stored within a .zip archive along with other JPEG files and animation etc. The CPU still has to first decompress that Zip file to retrive the JPEG for the GPU to then decode.

When I talk about compressed data I do mean textures. However, those texture files must still be packaged down into a file for the system to load.

ITT we said that it's faster to load a compressed file than it is to load an uncompressed one. In some cases it's true. However, developers don't simply leave texture files just sitting on the disc in seperate spots. They bunch them together, pack them into as few a files as possible and compress those files further. It is the decompression of those packages that are strictly reliant on the power of the system's main processor. The GPU decompressor is specialized to only handle certain algorithms and compression techniques for image, vertex, and pixel files.

Not owned. Lems are in denial.

Can you show us evidence that that is actually how it works? Because that sounds like a ridiculously crude solution to me. GPUs are equipped to support in hardware a multitude of texture compression algorithms, the same way they have hardware support for graphics algorithms.

Can you show us evidence that that is actually how it works? Because that sounds like a ridiculously crude solution to me. GPUs are equipped to support in hardware a multitude of texture compression algorithms, the same way they have hardware support for graphics algorithms.

mjarantilla

OK. Sit down before you fall down.

Have you ever installed a PC game? WoW for example. You know all those data.cab files found on PC game discs? Those are compressed files that contain more compressed game information. In order to access the files that the GPU can even read, the CPU has to uncompress those files and load them into main RAM.

GPU's are specialized processors for a reason. They can decode texture files very fast and render them to be output in real time. Hence why we have 3D graphics. However, if the data being sent to the GPU isn't in a data type it's decoders don't recognize (ie: compressed data packages loaded into RAM) then it has to wait for the CPU to feed it data that it can read and use.

If the GPU could really decompress and process those files on it's own then why have a CPU? Should the GPU just be called the main processor then? Wouldn't it just be like having two CPU's then?

No. A CPU is an all purpose processor, a GPU is for graphics.

Don't assume that you're the authority. There are others out there with an education as well.

OK. Sit down before you fall down.

Have you ever installed a PC game? WoW for example. You know all those data.cab files found on PC game discs? Those are compressed files that contain more compressed game information. In order to access the files that the GPU can even read, the CPU has to uncompress those files and load them into main RAM.

GPU's are specialized processors for a reason. They can decode texture files very fast and render them to be output in real time. Hence why we have 3D graphics. However, if the data being sent to the GPU isn't in a data type it's decoders don't recognize (ie: compressed data packages loaded into RAM) then it has to wait for the CPU to feed it data that it can read and use.

If the GPU could really decompress and process those files on it's own then why have a CPU? Should the GPU just be called the main processor then? Wouldn't it just be like having two CPU's then?

No. A CPU is an all purpose processor, a GPU is for graphics.

Don't assume that you're the authority. There are others out there with an education as well.

vitz3

Right, ok. Got it.

Now what makes you think the CPU has to do this decompression in the middle of hectic gameplay?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Can you show us evidence that that is actually how it works? Because that sounds like a ridiculously crude solution to me. GPUs are equipped to support in hardware a multitude of texture compression algorithms, the same way they have hardware support for graphics algorithms.

vitz3

OK. Sit down before you fall down.

Have you ever installed a PC game? WoW for example. You know all those data.cab files found on PC game discs? Those are compressed files that contain more compressed game information. In order to access the files that the GPU can even read, the CPU has to uncompress those files and load them into main RAM.

GPU's are specialized processors for a reason. They can decode texture files very fast and render them to be output in real time. Hence why we have 3D graphics. However, if the data being sent to the GPU isn't in a data type it's decoders don't recognize (ie: compressed data packages loaded into RAM) then it has to wait for the CPU to feed it data that it can read and use.

If the GPU could really decompress and process those files on it's own then why have a CPU? Should the GPU just be called the main processor then? Wouldn't it just be like having two CPU's then?

No. A CPU is an all purpose processor, a GPU is for graphics.

Don't assume that you're the authority. There are others out there with an education as well.

You have no idea how a video card works. Just stop dude.

Bundled files, whether they are .pak, .cab, etc are not compressed textures -- they are just a compressed bundle of files.

Compressed textures are by themselves individually run through a compression algorithm that is such that it is quickly decodable by the components on the video card itself. This is why if you are editing a texture file, you need a special program to edit it, because it is not like a regular bitmap that you can just open in MSPaint. The texture program can both encode and decode these textures using whatever algorithm is in place. The same encoding / decoding is done on the video card itself.

The analogy you are using is wrong. Stop assuming, do some reading please. I don't want to sound like an ass, but you are spewing so much garbage that I can't help myself.

2x Blur-ray drive speed = 72Mbps source
12x DVD drive speed = 15.85Mbps source

hiryu3

Actually, 12x DVD drive = 15.85 MBps, which is the same as 126.8Mbps. This is the top speed at the edge of the disk though,the data rate will be a bit lower near the middle. Overall, the DVD's will still be faster since any decent dev will put the bigger files at the edge.

Edit: Heh, missed the second page.

You have no idea how a video card works. Just stop dude.

Bundled files, whether they are .pak, .cab, etc are not compressed textures -- they are just a compressed bundle of files.

Compressed textures are by themselves individually run through a compression algorithm that is such that it is quickly decodable by the components on the video card itself. This is why if you are editing a texture file, you need a special program to edit it, because it is not like a regular bitmap that you can just open in MSPaint. The texture program can both encode and decode these textures using whatever algorithm is in place. The same encoding / decoding is done on the video card itself.

The analogy you are using is wrong. Stop assuming, do some reading please. I don't want to sound like an ass, but you are spewing so much garbage that I can't help myself.

rimnet00

OK you're completely missing it. You know those little bundled files? The ones that contain all those texture files? Those are the files I'm talking about. Decompressing those files to even get at the texture data is what is taking more and more time to decompress. The whole texture file decompression argument was started by you. I intially was talking about the compressed data as a whole.

So by your argument, the texture files aren't even in those packages, and are just spread across the disc. Uhh, that's going against your argument. Wouldn't loading one large file with many textures in it be faster than looking for a whole mess of files spread all over?

BTW if you're such an expert where is your graphics card lineup?

I see lots of topics regarding how compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations. If developers are forced to make games that run just as well without a hard drive then I see a problem approaching.

Developers can include highly compressed data on their game discs and the data can take quite a while to compress into the final disc image on their end, but on our end of the line that data has to be decompressed and read in real time. Doing that requires a dedicated thread to decoding the large amounts of data. This could very well end up using up an entire core of the Xenon CPU.

For example. If it took 10 minutes to compress a movie file on Bioware's end to such a small file size then it would take a hell of a lot more processing power just to read the data on our end.

Compression can save on disk space, but what many people fail to realize is that de-compression takes away clock cycles from the main game. This can degrade things like framerate, AI complexity, physics, and even sound.

Blu-ray does remedy much of this. When a file is stored on a disc completely uncompressed that data could then be streamed directly from the disc, this process saves on RAM, video memory, and most importantly CPU clock cycles.

So if even if DVD is enough this generation, as games get bigger we will begin to see more and more compression, resulting in higher decompression requirements as well.

Think about that.

vitz3

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

You have no idea how a video card works. Just stop dude.

Bundled files, whether they are .pak, .cab, etc are not compressed textures -- they are just a compressed bundle of files.

Compressed textures are by themselves individually run through a compression algorithm that is such that it is quickly decodable by the components on the video card itself. This is why if you are editing a texture file, you need a special program to edit it, because it is not like a regular bitmap that you can just open in MSPaint. The texture program can both encode and decode these textures using whatever algorithm is in place. The same encoding / decoding is done on the video card itself.

The analogy you are using is wrong. Stop assuming, do some reading please. I don't want to sound like an ass, but you are spewing so much garbage that I can't help myself.

vitz3

OK you're completely missing it. You know those little bundled files? The ones that contain all those texture files? Those are the files I'm talking about. Decompressing those files to even get at the texture data is what is taking more and more time to decompress. The whole texture file decompression argument was started by you. I intially was talking about the compressed data as a whole.

So by your argument, the texture files aren't even in those packages, and are just spread across the disc. Uhh, that's going against your argument. Wouldn't loading one large file with many textures in it be faster than looking for a whole mess of files spread all over?

BTW if you're such an expert where is your graphics card lineup?

Also, I don't claim to be an expert, but I will claim to be getting my MS in Computer Science. As for my graphics card lineup... what are you even asking?

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]

You have no idea how a video card works. Just stop dude.

Bundled files, whether they are .pak, .cab, etc are not compressed textures -- they are just a compressed bundle of files.

Compressed textures are by themselves individually run through a compression algorithm that is such that it is quickly decodable by the components on the video card itself. This is why if you are editing a texture file, you need a special program to edit it, because it is not like a regular bitmap that you can just open in MSPaint. The texture program can both encode and decode these textures using whatever algorithm is in place. The same encoding / decoding is done on the video card itself.

The analogy you are using is wrong. Stop assuming, do some reading please. I don't want to sound like an ass, but you are spewing so much garbage that I can't help myself.

vitz3

OK you're completely missing it. You know those little bundled files? The ones that contain all those texture files? Those are the files I'm talking about. Decompressing those files to even get at the texture data is what is taking more and more time to decompress. The whole texture file decompression argument was started by you. I intially was talking about the compressed data as a whole.

So by your argument, the texture files aren't even in those packages, and are just spread across the disc. Uhh, that's going against your argument. Wouldn't loading one large file with many textures in it be faster than looking for a whole mess of files spread all over?

BTW if you're such an expert where is your graphics card lineup?

Textures might be bundled together, but I don't believe they compress them further. Ever tried compressing a jpeg? The difference is tiny (only a few percent) since jpegs are already compressed and the layout of the file is near ideal. It might be me, but I'd expect that any decent dev would not compress them further.

2x Blur-ray drive speed = 72Mbps source
12x DVD drive speed = 15.85Mbps source

hiryu3

2x BR drive= 72 Mbps(note the little b)

12x DVD = 15.85 MBps(note the big B)

Since there are 8 bits to a byte(as we all know) you have to either multiply the DVD number by 8 to get its Mbps rating(126.8) or divide the BR drive by 8 to get its MBs rating(which would be 9 MBps). 126.8 is MUCH faster than 72, and 15.85 is much faster than 9.

I see lots of topics regarding how compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations. If developers are forced to make games that run just as well without a hard drive then I see a problem approaching.

Developers can include highly compressed data on their game discs and the data can take quite a while to compress into the final disc image on their end, but on our end of the line that data has to be decompressed and read in real time. Doing that requires a dedicated thread to decoding the large amounts of data. This could very well end up using up an entire core of the Xenon CPU.

For example. If it took 10 minutes to compress a movie file on Bioware's end to such a small file size then it would take a hell of a lot more processing power just to read the data on our end.

Compression can save on disk space, but what many people fail to realize is that de-compression takes away clock cycles from the main game. This can degrade things like framerate, AI complexity, physics, and even sound.

Blu-ray does remedy much of this. When a file is stored on a disc completely uncompressed that data could then be streamed directly from the disc, this process saves on RAM, video memory, and most importantly CPU clock cycles.

So if even if DVD is enough this generation, as games get bigger we will begin to see more and more compression, resulting in higher decompression requirements as well.

Think about that.

vitz3

the compression is more advanced as in the 360's OS fills in the gaps automatically with little to no usage of processing power to do so. all of the compression techiniques rely on the os and the game being up to date with updates and the os beining up to date. If you don't have online you don't need to worry about online dashbaord updates because all new games have the updates on the disc....so anyways...really the compression has a lot more to it then on pc's. consoles....just use the same premise but they are totally didffrent according to the software....i.e 360....somwhat lol....even if it is a verison of xp, the 360's os is drastically diffrent....lol

Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.rimnet00

yep for rendering while post processing is done with the cpu and ai is done with the cpu...advantage of parrallel tri-core.....there much more...but i really don't want to get into it on SW where it doesn't matter again...plus i'm not allowed to say somethings like every employ of dev studio or alike is allowed to say...well i'm not an employee of a dev studio...more or less hardware....thing...yeah....

Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.rimnet00

Actually, the GPU is dedicated to rendering graphics, and as decompression is not rendering graphics, the task falls to the CPU. Next time you feel like saying something, at least check your facts.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.psycotictaratua

Actually, the GPU is dedicated to rendering graphics, and as decompression is not rendering graphics, the task falls to the CPU. Next time you feel like saying something, at least check your facts.

Actually, no. Keep reading the thread, and you'll see he's right. The GPU is equipped with support for various texture compression formats. That's how it's been for years, with every GPU since DirectX 7. Even the GameCube decompressed textures on the "Flipper" GPU.

[QUOTE="psycotictaratua"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.mjarantilla

Actually, the GPU is dedicated to rendering graphics, and as decompression is not rendering graphics, the task falls to the CPU. Next time you feel like saying something, at least check your facts.

Actually, no. Keep reading the thread, and you'll see he's right. The GPU is equipped with support for various texture compression formats. That's how it's been for years, with every GPU since DirectX 7. Even the GameCube decompressed textures on the "Flipper" GPU.

S3 texture compression right? I think its 6:1? Didn't the original Xbox support this as well?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="psycotictaratua"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.Ramadear

Actually, the GPU is dedicated to rendering graphics, and as decompression is not rendering graphics, the task falls to the CPU. Next time you feel like saying something, at least check your facts.

Actually, no. Keep reading the thread, and you'll see he's right. The GPU is equipped with support for various texture compression formats. That's how it's been for years, with every GPU since DirectX 7. Even the GameCube decompressed textures on the "Flipper" GPU.

S3 texture compression right? I think its 6:1? Didn't the original Xbox support this as well?

I think 4:1. I think every console supports it.

So. What happens when EA's games start running at 30fps on the 360 because of all this decompression?vitz3

What happened to all of your lengthy technical explanations?

[QUOTE="vitz3"]So. What happens when EA's games start running at 30fps on the 360 because of all this decompression?mjarantilla

What happened to all of your lengthy technical explanations?

What happened to yours? Oh yeah, I stopped those in their tracks.

[QUOTE="TripleXAlexXx"][QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.vitz3

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

With that said, the textures are decompressed by the GPU.

Ouch. Sounds like this guy knows what he's talking about.

/thread.

Oh wow. I see another lem walking with a white cane.

All Graphics processors in today's console's do decompression of textures on the GPU. The data that still relies on the CPU is still quite large. Uncompressed 5.1 sound is done on the CPU, same with geometry and video files.

You go on and on about how the GPU does decompression on the fly but you forgot that you just painted yourself into a corner.

There is a limit as to how fast the GPU can access that data from Main shared RAM. The available bandwidth of the GPU is very limited. This will result in lower quality textures, and pop-in.

When the 360 begins to deal with high-quality but highly compressed texture data we begin to see it's flaws. For example the texture data in Gears of War is the victim of this limited bandwidth. I and many others have witnessed textures pop-in and look plain ugly while the 360's GPU tries to play catch-up.

There is quite literally a physical limit as to how fast the textures can be decompressed. That little decoder can only work so fast.

you have no need to compress gemoetry. Do you know that a full 3d modle is under 2mb in size of most of the time....

When animated it becomes higher deppending on bone count and howmany triangles are moved during transformation.

A fully lit 3D scene comes out at 15mb on my PC. However game engines do all the lighting and camera work via code.

So i would say its around 8 - 9mb per modle.

I am guessing by geometry you mean 3D geometry.

The draw back using Blu-Ray on the PS3 is the slow loading times.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.vitz3

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

Since the advent of S3TC, sometime in the DirectX 6 era.

PS3's operating system taking up more resources and memory is alot more important than 360 decompressing an audio codec. Or the fact 360s CD rom actually is faster and loads data faster may have a little advantage also. With games like Gears the textures were streamed and this whole arguement is stupid anyway.

I see lots of topics regarding how compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations. If developers are forced to make games that run just as well without a hard drive then I see a problem approaching.

Developers can include highly compressed data on their game discs and the data can take quite a while to compress into the final disc image on their end, but on our end of the line that data has to be decompressed and read in real time. Doing that requires a dedicated thread to decoding the large amounts of data. This could very well end up using up an entire core of the Xenon CPU.

For example. If it took 10 minutes to compress a movie file on Bioware's end to such a small file size then it would take a hell of a lot more processing power just to read the data on our end.

Compression can save on disk space, but what many people fail to realize is that de-compression takes away clock cycles from the main game. This can degrade things like framerate, AI complexity, physics, and even sound.

Blu-ray does remedy much of this. When a file is stored on a disc completely uncompressed that data could then be streamed directly from the disc, this process saves on RAM, video memory, and most importantly CPU clock cycles.

So if even if DVD is enough this generation, as games get bigger we will begin to see more and more compression, resulting in higher decompression requirements as well.

Think about that.

*Edit begins here*

I recommend you read the whole thread before you post. Many posters have flown off topic. Some mention the system's RAM and some mention the disc read speed. This topic is about how the 360 console's main CPU needs time to decompress the files that hold the main game content. The more they compress the packages to fit inside a regular DVD 9 the more end-user decompressing needs to be done.

vitz3

/thread

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

[QUOTE="vitz3"]So. What happens when EA's games start running at 30fps on the 360 because of all this decompression?vitz3

What happened to all of your lengthy technical explanations?

What happened to yours? Oh yeah, I stopped those in their tracks.

My only "lengthy technical explanation" pertained to audio files in the beginning of the thread. You were talking to rimnet, not me.

[QUOTE="rimnet00"][QUOTE="vitz3"]

[QUOTE="rimnet00"]Except you fail, the decompression is done by the GPU in realtime by dedicated hardware. So your thread is just a pile of assumption you pulled out of your rear.TripleXAlexXx

o_0 ???

What? Got any links? Since when is the decompression of execution data run on the graphics processor?

You are talking about compression of executable data? That makes your entire argument even worse.

When people (who arn't just copy/pasting) refer to "compression techniques are going to be the saving grace of the 360's storage limitations", they are refering to textures (and occationally sound and videos) - which constitute the largest portion of game data. Since when have people, or any games for that matter had anything to do with the compression of binaries? Binaries constitute the smallest portion of games, and are hardly ever a limiting factor.

With that said, the textures are decompressed by the GPU.

Ouch. Sounds like this guy knows what he's talking about.

/thread.

So. What happens when EA's games start running at 30fps on the 360 because of all this decompression?vitz3

Like Madden 08 and it's 60fps performance?

2x Blur-ray drive speed = 72Mbps source
12x DVD drive speed = 15.85Mbps source

hiryu3

That DVD is MEGA BYTES NOT BITS, get a clue. 126.64Mbps.