Developer says Xbox 360 more powerful than PS3

[QUOTE="bphan"]I'd rather trust a multiplatform developer than a person who only developed on Xbox 360 or PS3. Cuts out the bias in my opinion.

RavenLoud

Your info is from Oct. 2007, a time before Uncharted 1 even came out. (SW was also cow grilling paradise at the time too).

Stop trolling with old stuff, get on with the times.

Oh and "worked on Guitar Hero and Rock Band" ZOMG SUPER GRAPHIC DEV.

In 2010, he sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about (or else he could have kept his job).

RavenLoud

Weather he worked on a good graphic game or not he's still a developer and know's what he's talking about.

[QUOTE="RavenLoud"]

Oh and "worked on Guitar Hero and Rock Band" ZOMG SUPER GRAPHIC DEV.

In 2010, he sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about (or else he could have kept his job).

PtothaWHAT

Weather he worked on a good graphic game or not he's still a developer and know's what he's talking about.

OMG A SINGLE DEVELOPER DOESN'T LIKE THE CONSOLE THATS HARDER TO DEVELOP FOR

[QUOTE="RavenLoud"]

Oh and "worked on Guitar Hero and Rock Band" ZOMG SUPER GRAPHIC DEV.

In 2010, he sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about (or else he could have kept his job).

PtothaWHAT

Weather he worked on a good graphic game or not he's still a developer and know's what he's talking about.

How wrong that guy was, now the ps3 is putting out way better exclusives than the 360.

I know Cows will come in hear and try to play damage control but I got developers on my side. The ones who actually make the games. And 95% of multiplatform developers agree with me.

bphan

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]

*Reads title* Oh, this could be interesting...

[QUOTE="bphan"]

Jason Booth, a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band,

NOPE!

I'd rather trust a multiplatform developer than a person who only developed on Xbox 360 or PS3. Cuts out the bias in my opinion.

[QUOTE="PtothaWHAT"]

[QUOTE="RavenLoud"]

Oh and "worked on Guitar Hero and Rock Band" ZOMG SUPER GRAPHIC DEV.

In 2010, he sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about (or else he could have kept his job).

davidkamayor

Weather he worked on a good graphic game or not he's still a developer and know's what he's talking about.

OMG A SINGLE DEVELOPER DOESN'T LIKE THE CONSOLE THATS HARDER TO DEVELOP FOR

I wasn't bashing the PS3 i was just saying that guy made it sounds like the develpers words mean't nothing cus he didn't work on some amazing looking game.

[QUOTE="bphan"]

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]

NOPE!

godzillavskong

I'd rather trust a multiplatform developer than a person who only developed on Xbox 360 or PS3. Cuts out the bias in my opinion.

how are u inferior you guys got the better GPU the cows have a minority of excellently optimized first party titles

Microsoft could make games that rival UC2 and KZ2, but they have the worst 1st party

(Annoying Kid Talking) That's not true MS 1st party has Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, ODST, Wars, and Reach

+

=

Cow Rampage

Explain to me how an 8 core 3.2 ghz cpu

is worse than tri core cpu at 3.2 ghz.

James161324

By that logic, a 3 ghz dual core pentuim 4 from 2006 is as powerful as a 3ghz dual core i7. There is more to a processor than just the amount of cores and the clock speed.

I completely agree, i dont even own a 360. The ps3 has been way over hyped. Last gen the xbox was more powerful then the ps2, the multiplaits were always superior, this gen the ps3 is supposed to be the king but all the multiplaits are usually worse and the {graphics king} games seem to take years to make and they seem to have a small scope. To me the ps3 being more powerful is all smoke and mirriors

How wrong that guy was, now the ps3 is putting out way better exclusives than the 360.

Jfisch93

[QUOTE="bphan"]

[QUOTE="RavenLoud"]

Your info is from Oct. 2007, a time before Uncharted 1 even came out. (SW was also cow grilling paradise at the time too).

Stop trolling with old stuff, get on with the times.

James161324

Doesn't matter if it was in 2007. Still holds true today. For example, Rockstar put two separate teams to work on RDR for 360 and PS3. Guess which won?

thats because the 8 core is to hard to develop for. not because the ps3 has less power than the 360. This is coming from someone who likes the 360 more.

when is this article dated seriously i am a major PC and 360 Fan and this is total stupidity mixed with some ludacrisness ( i know itsnot a word) we all know that The PS3 i more capable than the 360, Final fantas 13, uncharted 2, Killzone 3, and God of war all prove that i hate to admit it but its the truth.AlphaJC

lol what a fool

Crytek says otherwise

I also like how the TC cited a nearly 3 year old article... at ps3 launch... the rockband developer knew so much then

*Reads title* Oh, this could be interesting...

[QUOTE="bphan"]

Jason Booth, a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band,

R3FURBISHED

NOPE!

[QUOTE="James161324"]

Explain to me how an 8 core 3.2 ghz cpu

is worse than tri core cpu at 3.2 ghz.

red12355

By that logic, a 3 ghz dual core pentuim 4 from 2006 is as powerful as a 3ghz dual core i7. There is more to a processor than just the amount of cores and the clock speed.

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]

*Reads title* Oh, this could be interesting...

[QUOTE="bphan"]

Jason Booth, a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band,

bphan

NOPE!

I'd rather trust a multiplatform developer than a person who only developed on Xbox 360 or PS3. Cuts out the bias in my opinion.

I know Cows will come in hear and try to play damage control but I got developers on my side. The ones who actually make the games. And 95% of multiplatform developers agree with me.

bphan

[QUOTE="AlphaJC"]when is this article dated seriously i am a major PC and 360 Fan and this is total stupidity mixed with some ludacrisness ( i know itsnot a word) we all know that The PS3 i more capable than the 360, Final fantas 13, uncharted 2, Killzone 3, and God of war all prove that i hate to admit it but its the truth.Advid-Gamer

techincally speaking, the 360s GPU is more powerful then the PS3s, but Devs dont take into account offloading onto the SPUs to get greater graphical fedelity. Anyway, Guitar Hero and Rock Band arent really known for their graphical prowess, so I really dont think he has much room to talk on this. He makes a good point about blurays read speeds, but thats due to PS3 having a prototype reader isntead of a proper fast reading one. So really, he made one or two good points, but the rest was just **** I think weve seen with PS3 exclusives that, if taken the time and consequintialy money, you can get better performance out of the PS3s tech. Untill theirs a 360 game that proves this wrong, its fact. Also, he discounts the "Devs being lazy" thing, but honestly, I still think that exists to a degree.

thank god its not 2007 anymore or else maybe he'd still have more graphically inept devs spewing this kind of nonsense

probably started researching caves when killzone 2 came out and probably crawled into one of them once uncharted 2 came out

doesnt want to come out or else god of war 3 might eat him

Honestly, I'd say people may way too much of a deal about power. Last gen the xbox and gamecube were clearly more powerful than the ps2 - but for most games the differences really weren't noticeable. And despite all that power, the ps2 still had the best game library by far. This gen, the 360 and ps3 are fairly comprabable when it comes to games. The wii is somewhat pathetic in terms of what it can render, but it wasn't designed to be a powerhouse gaming machine. It focuses more on other things.

i dont know as much about the PS3 hardware as i know about the Wii, but doesnt the PS3 have some sort of limit on the number of programmable shaders u can have or fixed functions. something like that i dont remember exactly. maybe it was how the RSX texture storage limit. i know it uses shared RAM so that its CPU doesnt fall behind the GPU kinda like the 360, but they did that on purpose because the CPU is also a GPGPU in a sense because the SPU's are capable of some graphical work. I am 100% sure though that it has a cap on something. Both consoles have their advanteges though. PS3 has its SPU, and superior GPGPU capabilities while 360 has the PC like architecture which everyone is used to, and its GPU is VERY good at handling shaders. Either way the end results dont look that much different, and all rely's on the devs dedication to taking advantage of a specific hardware architecture. actually IMO uncharted2 is the console graphics king. it just shows how far a dev can go if they properly utilize the hardware. u could argue that half the stuff in that game is prebaked, but either way it looks great. correct if im wrong cuz im honestly not sure about this. Wii hardware is my speciality cuz i be a sheep. :P anyway this guy probably is being a fanboy. im sure the difference between the 2 arent that great. Its just a matter of optimization and obviously this guy doesnt know how. I doubt he even used the SPE's.

Honestly, I'd say people may way too much of a deal about power. Last gen the xbox and gamecube were clearly more powerful than the ps2 - but for most games the differences really weren't noticeable. And despite all that power, the ps2 still had the best game library by far. This gen, the 360 and ps3 are fairly comprabable when it comes to games. The wii is somewhat pathetic in terms of what it can render, but it wasn't designed to be a powerhouse gaming machine. It focuses more on other things.

sonicare

The funny thing is, even though PS2 did have teh better Librarey critically and all that, I actually played my Original XBOX more then my PS2. Due to Live adn Multiplatform.

I think the cows will discount him because he developed Guitar Hero. Maybe I'm wrong. *posts*

i stopped reading at where he makes Guitar hero and Rock Band

i dont know as much about the PS3 hardware as i know about the Wii, but doesnt the PS3 have some sort of limit on the number of programmable shaders u can have or fixed functions. something like that i dont remember exactly. maybe it was how large u could make it or something like that. I am 100% sure though that it has a cap on something. Both consoles have their advanteges though. PS3 has its SPU, and superior GPGPU capabilities while 360 has the PC like architecture which everyone is used to, and is barely limited with what u can program in terms of shaders etc. Either way the end results dont look that much different, and all rely's on the devs dedication to taking advantage of a specific hardware architecture. actually IMO uncharted2 is the console graphics king. it just shows how far a dev can go if they properly utilize the hardware. u could argue that half the stuff in that game is prebaked, but either way it looks great. correct if im wrong cuz im honestly not sure about this. Wii hardware is my speciality cuz i be a sheep. :P

painguy1

This is what I know about PS3s tech limitations.

The RSX (PS3s GPU) dosent have as many Shader pipelines as 360s GPU, nor does it have as many memory pipelines or whatever. This leads to bottlenecks caused by the RAM which is 542 MBs of Ram split in half, and tied to the CPU and GPU. (276mbs for the CPU, 276mbs for the GPU and they cant be adjusted to devote more RAM to either CPU or GPU) this is what causes bottlenecks, unlike the 360 unified RAM scheme which can share any amount of the 546mb RAM 360 has between the CPU and GPU as it needs it. Meaning if the game requires more ram on CPU for a part, itll devote more RAM on the CPU. This is a overall better way to go at it. Also, the Bluray drive in teh PS3 is actually a first generation one that more close to a protoype model if anything, so it reads very slowly. This is why we have Mandatory installs on games alot of times.

The trick to getting better performance out of PS3 is to devote resources to having the SPUs of the Cell (the PS3s CPU)offload workload from teh RSX, thus freeing it up to make more advanced graphical things. However, not a whole lot of devs have the time and resources to do this properly, so we constantly have the PS3 version being a little bit worse graphicaly. And honestly, why would devs waste the extra money when:

A. 360 version is probaly going to sell more overall

B. they can release a version that works well enough on PS3, and not have to spend extra money.

This really is the price you pay when you have a overly complicated Archetecture. The only exception is PS2, but even the PS2s archetecture wasnt as complicated as PS3s and PS2 was wooping everything adn selling more software, so Devs had incentive to work extra on that.

I just have to look at the huge spaces, the lighting and huge forests of Alan Wake to know 360 is more powerfull, i dont need confirmation of any kind

I think the cows will discount him because he developed Guitar Hero. Maybe I'm wrong. *posts*

SgtKevali

i dont think its jsut cows. Anyone who has sense would maybe discount him because hes not exactly trail blazing console graphics with his games. ID is a company thats known for its graphics, and John Carmack, theyre founder and big wig, even said he believes 360s tech is better suited for game stuff, so I will take his opinon alot more seriously then this guys, even if theyre saying the same thing.

I just have to look at the huge spaces, the lighting and huge forests of Alan Wake to know 360 is more powerfull, i dont need confirmation of any kind

theseekar

How bout those dated character models then?

This is what I know about PS3s tech limitations.

The RSX (PS3s GPU) dosent have as many Shader pipelines as 360s GPU, nor does it have as many memory pipelines or whatever. This leads to bottlenecks caused by the RAM which is 542 MBs of Ram split in half, and tied to the CPU and GPU. (276mbs for the CPU, 276mbs for the GPU and they cant be adjusted to devote more RAM to either CPU or GPU) this is what causes bottlenecks, unlike the 360 unified RAM scheme which can share any amount of the 546mb RAM 360 has between the CPU and GPU as it needs it. Meaning if the game requires more ram on CPU for a part, itll devote more RAM on the CPU. This is a overall better way to go at it. Also, the Bluray drive in teh PS3 is actually a first generation one that more close to a protoype model if anything, so it reads very slowly. This is why we have Mandatory installs on games alot of times.

The trick to getting better performance out of PS3 is to devote resources to having the SPUs of the Cell (the PS3s CPU)offload workload from teh RSX, thus freeing it up to make more advanced graphical things. However, not a whole lot of devs have the time and resources to do this properly, so we constantly have the PS3 version being a little bit worse graphicaly. And honestly, why would devs waste the extra money when:

A. 360 version is probaly going to sell more overall

B. they can release a version that works well enough on PS3, and not have to spend extra money.

This really is the price you pay when you have a overly complicated Archetecture. The only exception is PS2, but even the PS2s archetecture wasnt as complicated as PS3s and PS2 was wooping everything adn selling more software, so Devs had incentive to work extra on that.

XboximusPrime

oh yeah ok. but one thing im stll not clear about.....doesnt the PS3 use the split memory because it requires less work load on the CPU(it not having to constantly reallocate data). This is important because the SPU's handle some graphical workload and it is part of the CPU so if the CPU slows down because it is reallocating data then so do the SPU's which are part of the CPU therefore graphical quality will not be as good. If the PS3 used a standard CPU design then it would make more sense to use the shared memory design right? Isnt the 360's CPU fall short of its GPU because of this? (only by a small margin ofcourse)

Lol 2007 info before even uncharted 1 came out. Looks around it's now 2010 almost june and the best looking console games are on the ps3. Now what should I believe some old out of date info or what I see :roll:

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

This is what I know about PS3s tech limitations.

The RSX (PS3s GPU) dosent have as many Shader pipelines as 360s GPU, nor does it have as many memory pipelines or whatever. This leads to bottlenecks caused by the RAM which is 542 MBs of Ram split in half, and tied to the CPU and GPU. (276mbs for the CPU, 276mbs for the GPU and they cant be adjusted to devote more RAM to either CPU or GPU) this is what causes bottlenecks, unlike the 360 unified RAM scheme which can share any amount of the 546mb RAM 360 has between the CPU and GPU as it needs it. Meaning if the game requires more ram on CPU for a part, itll devote more RAM on the CPU. This is a overall better way to go at it. Also, the Bluray drive in teh PS3 is actually a first generation one that more close to a protoype model if anything, so it reads very slowly. This is why we have Mandatory installs on games alot of times.

The trick to getting better performance out of PS3 is to devote resources to having the SPUs of the Cell (the PS3s CPU)offload workload from teh RSX, thus freeing it up to make more advanced graphical things. However, not a whole lot of devs have the time and resources to do this properly, so we constantly have the PS3 version being a little bit worse graphicaly. And honestly, why would devs waste the extra money when:

A. 360 version is probaly going to sell more overall

B. they can release a version that works well enough on PS3, and not have to spend extra money.

This really is the price you pay when you have a overly complicated Archetecture. The only exception is PS2, but even the PS2s archetecture wasnt as complicated as PS3s and PS2 was wooping everything adn selling more software, so Devs had incentive to work extra on that.

painguy1

oh yeah ok. but one thing im stll not clear about.....doesnt the PS3 use the split memory because it requires less work load on the CPU(it not having to constantly reallocate data). This is important because the SPU's handle some graphical workload and it is part of the CPU so if the CPU slows down because it is reallocating data then so do the SPU's which are part of the CPU therefore graphical quality will not be as good. If the PS3 used a standard CPU design then it would make more sense to use the shared memory design right? Isnt the 360's CPU fall short of its GPU because of this? (only by a small margin ofcourse)

im actually not well versed as to why SONY decided to use the Split memory thing. It could be for the reason you said, because CELL isnt a normal CPU. However, I think if SONY maybe opted for a stronger GPU, and a still good off the shelf CPU, and add the shared memory that 360 has, it would have actually benefited them on the multiplatform front. It really something I hope SONY rectifys with their next console.

Lol 2007 info before even uncharted 1 came out. Looks around it's now 2010 almost june and the best looking console games are on the ps3. Now what should I believe some old out of date info or what I see :roll:

ChiChiMonKilla

Keep in mind hes a multiplatform dev. So to him, 360 is actually better sutied for him because of its ease of deving.

im actually not well versed as to why SONY decided to use the Split memory thing. It could be for the reason you said, because CELL isnt a normal CPU. However, I think if SONY maybe opted for a stronger GPU, and a still good off the shelf CPU, and add the shared memory that 360 has, it would have actually benefited them on the multiplatform front. It really something I hope SONY rectifys with their next console.

XboximusPrime

yeah..oh well like u siad lets just hope sony stops with these, Vector Unit, and SPU designs

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

im actually not well versed as to why SONY decided to use the Split memory thing. It could be for the reason you said, because CELL isnt a normal CPU. However, I think if SONY maybe opted for a stronger GPU, and a still good off the shelf CPU, and add the shared memory that 360 has, it would have actually benefited them on the multiplatform front. It really something I hope SONY rectifys with their next console.

painguy1

yeah..oh well like u siad lets just hope sony stops with these, Vector Unit, and SPU designs

a "normal" cpu like that other console that needs all its threads to play a 1080p leaving none open for other tasks?

maybe some people are forgetting what else the ps3 is popular for and that it doesnt break a sweat doing so

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

I just have to look at the huge spaces, the lighting and huge forests of Alan Wake to know 360 is more powerfull, i dont need confirmation of any kind

XboximusPrime

How bout those dated character models then?

They are not dated at all tbh

Stopped reading at "most PS3 exclusives will likely continue to suck," he says."

[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]

[QUOTE="theseekar"]

I just have to look at the huge spaces, the lighting and huge forests of Alan Wake to know 360 is more powerfull, i dont need confirmation of any kind

theseekar

How bout those dated character models then?

They are not dated at all tbh

the character models arent that great. Wake is really the only decent one. Im talking gameplay, not movies.