Killzone 2 using only 60% of PS3 SPUs

[QUOTE="angry_fork"][QUOTE="spinecaton"]I really hate quotes like this, if they know they are only using 60% of the consoles power then why can't they use the remaining 40% if they know it is there?3picuri3

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

I hate quotes like that as they're always BS.

Games that are released later in a console's life-span generally look better because developers have learned how to code more efficiently for any given system's strengths, not because they've discovered some magic power locked away.

If he can truly put a figure like 60% down, he's full of **bleep** as there's no reason why they couldn't touch the other 40% - unless he's talking the two cores set aside for system and test use.

It's just a garbage PR statement that sounds good when you spit it out - it just doesn't mean anything.

killzowned24

You know it's funny how this is the best post in this thread and it's ignored.

Funny because anyone with even a basic handle on game development know this "60% of PS3 SPUs" statement is complete BS. Developer never intentionally not use all the resources available.

Then wouldn't it go over 60% in those battles? If not, that makes absolutely no sense. You hav no idea what you are talking about... 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="angry_fork"] Gran Turismo 4. One of TWO PS2 games that could run in upscaled 1080i.angry_fork

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="angry_fork"] Because not everyone has the budget, time, or man-power to do so at this moment in time. Isn't that common sense? Development gets cheaper for consoles as the years go on, we won't see the best PS3 has to offer until around 2010.NinjaMunkey01

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

I hate quotes like that as they're always BS.

Games that are released later in a console's life-span generally look better because developers have learned how to code more efficiently for any given system's strengths, not because they've discovered some magic power locked away.

If he can truly put a figure like 60% down, he's full of **bleep** as there's no reason why they couldn't touch the other 40% - unless he's talking the two cores set aside for system and test use.

It's just a garbage PR statement that sounds good when you spit it out - it just doesn't mean anything.

LosDaddie

You know it's funny how this is the best post in this thread and it's ignored.

Funny because anyone with even a basic handle on game development know this "60% of PS3 SPUs" statement is complete BS. Developer never intentionally not use all the resources available.

[QUOTE="angry_fork"]

[QUOTE="3picuri3"] again, i'll reiterate for those that didn't grasp my meaning. nothing in the last 4 was REALLY A BIG STEP UP. 3picuri3

I hate quotes like that as they're always BS.

Games that are released later in a console's life-span generally look better because developers have learned how to code more efficiently for any given system's strengths, not because they've discovered some magic power locked away.

If he can truly put a figure like 60% down, he's full of **bleep** as there's no reason why they couldn't touch the other 40% - unless he's talking the two cores set aside for system and test use.

It's just a garbage PR statement that sounds good when you spit it out - it just doesn't mean anything.

DJ_Lae

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

You know it's funny how this is the best post in this thread and it's ignored.

Funny because anyone with even a basic handle on game development know this "60% of PS3 SPUs" statement is complete BS. Developer never intentionally not use all the resources available.

rolo107

Then wouldn't it go over 60% in those battles? If not, that makes absolutely no sense. You hav no idea what you are talking about...

QFT

To be fair, most cows, not just faithful cows like killzowned24, in this thread don't have even a basic grasp of game development. It's very apparent to people who do.

[QUOTE="rolo107"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] do you lemmings even read? He says the spus are at 60 so framerate never chugs at even the biggest battles.LosDaddie

Then wouldn't it go over 60% in those battles? If not, that makes absolutely no sense. You hav no idea what you are talking about...

QFT

To be fair, most cows, not just faithful cows like killzowned24, in this thread don't have even a basic grasp of game development. It's very apparent to people who do.

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="rolo107"]

Then wouldn't it go over 60% in those battles? If not, that makes absolutely no sense. You hav no idea what you are talking about...

killzowned24

QFT

To be fair, most cows, not just faithful cows like killzowned24, in this thread don't have even a basic grasp of game development. It's very apparent to people who do.

Actually it lacks comprehension and pretty much makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

QFT

To be fair, most cows, not just faithful cows like killzowned24, in this thread don't have even a basic grasp of game development. It's very apparent to people who do.

BudsMcGreen

Actually it lacks comprehension and pretty much makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

getting to the point at which a console can be used to 100% effeciency (key word here) is a gradual process. so people should stop asking why they can't just "use it all at once"

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

getting to the point at which a console can be used to 100% effeciency (key word here) is a gradual process. so people should stop asking why they can't just "use it all at once"

Rikusaki

1) no games use 100% of the power of a CPU / GPU combination. to do so would put any system under great stress. no game is ever designed to use 100% - ever. and if you're going to bring up the 'key word' there is NO SUCH THING as 100% efficiency.

2) if Guerilla wanted to they likely could have split things up and ran them on more cores. they obviously didn't need to.

3) some terrible games come close to maxing the available assets for consoles, and the PC. implying this usage only comes with time is a misnomer, and a misunderstanding.

you people are really making a mountain out of something you're not fully grasping, and something the Guerilla didn't even elaborate on. we don't even know how they came to this figure...

I really hate quotes like this, if they know they are only using 60% of the consoles power then why can't they use the remaining 40% if they know it is there?spinecaton

P.S what about the remaining 40%? the OS?Mystery_Writer

The OS is running on the 7th SPU, with the eight being useless.

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]

getting to the point at which a console can be used to 100% effeciency (key word here) is a gradual process. so people should stop asking why they can't just "use it all at once"

3picuri3

1) no games use 100% of the power of a CPU / GPU combination. to do so would put any system under great stress. no game is ever designed to use 100% - ever. and if you're going to bring up the 'key word' there is NO SUCH THING as 100% efficiency.

2) if Guerilla wanted to they likely could have split things up and ran them on more cores. they obviously didn't need to.

3) some terrible games come close to maxing the available assets for consoles, and the PC. implying this usage only comes with time is a misnomer, and a misunderstanding.

you people are really making a mountain out of something you're not fully grasping, and something the Guerilla didn't even elaborate on. we don't even know how they came to this figure...

Yes, I know 100% effeciency is unattainable. That is an ideal that we can only get closer to without actually acheiving. I didn't really feel like splitting hairs. The keyword I wanted to point out was just effeciency.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"] ^ This. :DMordred19

1) no games use 100% of the power of a CPU / GPU combination. to do so would put any system under great stress. no game is ever designed to use 100% - ever. and if you're going to bring up the 'key word' there is NO SUCH THING as 100% efficiency.

2) if Guerilla wanted to they likely could have split things up and ran them on more cores. they obviously didn't need to.

3) some terrible games come close to maxing the available assets for consoles, and the PC. implying this usage only comes with time is a misnomer, and a misunderstanding.

you people are really making a mountain out of something you're not fully grasping, and something the Guerilla didn't even elaborate on. we don't even know how they came to this figure...

Yes, I know 100% effeciency is unattainable. That is an ideal that we can only get closer to without actually acheiving. I didn't really feel like splitting hairs. The keyword I wanted to point out was just effeciency.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

Speaking in IGN's latest Play Beyond podcast, Jeff Haynes revealed that even during the heaviest loads, Killzone 2 utilizes roughly only 60 per cent of the SPU's.

"It's incredible to see huge levels and see the deferred rendering and note that on all the SPU's, even on the heaviest load were coming up to about 60%," Haynes said. "They weren't coming close to maxing out. .They had about 40% of space before they started tripping or saw slow down on some of the processes."

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=34314

P.S what about the remaining 40%? the OS?

BudsMcGreen

Well this explains the low-poly characters and blurry textures.:oops:

lol

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

QFT

To be fair, most cows, not just faithful cows like killzowned24, in this thread don't have even a basic grasp of game development. It's very apparent to people who do.

BudsMcGreen

Actually it lacks comprehension and pretty much makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Exactly.

We could spend all day explaining this to him (and the rest of his fellow cows) and they wouldn't comprehend it because they have no game development knowledge or experience.

[QUOTE="BudsMcGreen"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] lol, look above at my post it really is not hard to comprehend is it?LosDaddie

Actually it lacks comprehension and pretty much makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Exactly.

We could spend all day explaining this to him (and the rest of his fellow cows) and they wouldn't comprehend it because they have no game development knowledge or experience.

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="BudsMcGreen"]

Actually it lacks comprehension and pretty much makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

killzowned24

Exactly.

We could spend all day explaining this to him (and the rest of his fellow cows) and they wouldn't comprehend it because they have no game development knowledge or experience.

:?Gears 2 runs perfectly fine. The only place you will notice a hitch is when you move from one checkpoint to the next. I will agree that most of the surrounding textures have been downgraded from Gears of War, excluding character models which have been improved.

The SPUs aren't graphic calculators remember, they aid the GPU but that doesn't mean the PS3 is only at 60 of it total power output.

Remember those SPEs are really powerful number crunchers to aid the PPE. So just like the PS2, the PS3 is bottlenecked at graphics, not CPU power.

QFT

To be fair, most cows, not just faithful cows like killzowned24, in this thread don't have even a basic grasp of game development. It's very apparent to people who do.

err my quotes were messed up....what ever my post was for killzowned24.

auh what ever edit:

i'll just add my post here because its cleaner and directs who i was talking to.

yeah u have no idea, u said it runs at 60 frames per second dude... u have no clue lol. ps the game is locked at 30 in 720p and has an option of 1080i which is splits it up the frame rate into two going at different times, thats 2 seperate 15fps frame rates. And thats what interlace is. For example Second 1, interlace line series A displays image half X. Second 2, interlace line series B display image half Y. It creates a whole image but with blurriness and technical resolution of 1080 but worse then 720p because of the unsavory interlacing results. 1080i was added to the game only for hdtvs that displayed 480p and 1080i which were launch hdtvs. 1080i does look better then 480p but worse then 720p... got it?

err my quotes were messed up....what ever my post was for killzowned24.

auh what ever edit:

i'll just add my post here because its cleaner and directs who i was talking to.

yeah u have no idea, u said it runs at 60 frames per second dude... u have no clue lol. ps the game is locked at 30 in 720p and has an option of 1080i which is splits it up the frame rate into two going at different times, thats 2 seperate 15fps frame rates. And thats what interlace is. For example Second 1, interlace line series A displays image half X. Second 2, interlace line series B display image half Y. It creates a whole image but with blurriness and technical resolution of 1080 but worse then 720p because of the unsavory interlacing results. 1080i was added to the game only for hdtvs that displayed 480p and 1080i which were launch hdtvs. 1080i does look better then 480p but worse then 720p... got it?

LibertySaint

and what is this talk about 1080i???

how it works from the ign interview.......However, I found that this was just the surface of some of the technical elements that have been included within Killzone 2. According to Arjan Brussee, Development Director at Guerrilla, the development team built out a deferred rendering engine, which combines up to eight separate buffers within a section to create a final image for the screen. He demonstrated this by turning on and off the Z buffers, specular lighting, texture buffers and other layers to show off the various elements that made up the composite image, and finally showed what the entire stage would look like when combined. On top of this, Arjan pointed out, lighting and motion blur effects within the game are performed as a full screen pass to blend all of these effects together. Arjan stressed that the game's engine was so detailed that, "each pixel has velocity. It's not just a special effect, but this is used for particles, it's used for explosions, and it's used for motion blurring for character movement, which adds an extra sense of depth."

There's much more to the Killzone 2 engine than deferred rendering and screen passes; in fact, Arjan mentioned that every composite that is rendered within the game is placed solely upon the SPUs to lock in the framerate at a solid 30 FPS. During small battles, one or two SPUs will pick up a majority of the action, but during heavy firefights with large explosions and numerous characters onscreen, all six SPUs will pick up the load and balance everything accurately. Surprisingly, even within the heaviest firefight onscreen, Arjan pointed out that the largest load on each one of the SPUs didn't exceed 60%, which ensured that the framerate remained consistent throughout the game. On top of this, Arjan pointed out everything from light bloom and internal lens reflection effects to true geometric particles that fly from walls and collide with the ground realistically based on the direction of an explosion. claywalker21

I love your sig!

i never said that, where is your proof??

and what is this talk about 1080i???

killzowned24

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]

err my quotes were messed up....what ever my post was for killzowned24.

auh what ever edit:

i'll just add my post here because its cleaner and directs who i was talking to.

yeah u have no idea, u said it runs at 60 frames per second dude... u have no clue lol. ps the game is locked at 30 in 720p and has an option of 1080i which is splits it up the frame rate into two going at different times, thats 2 seperate 15fps frame rates. And thats what interlace is. For example Second 1, interlace line series A displays image half X. Second 2, interlace line series B display image half Y. It creates a whole image but with blurriness and technical resolution of 1080 but worse then 720p because of the unsavory interlacing results. 1080i was added to the game only for hdtvs that displayed 480p and 1080i which were launch hdtvs. 1080i does look better then 480p but worse then 720p... got it?

killzowned24

and what is this talk about 1080i???

do you lemmings even read? He says the spus are at 60 so framerate never chugs at even the biggest battles.killzowned24

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="rolo107"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] do you lemmings even read? He says the spus are at 60 so framerate never chugs at even the biggest battles.[/QUOTELibertySaint

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="rolo107"][QUOTE="killzowned24"] do you lemmings even read? He says the spus are at 60 so framerate never chugs at even the biggest battles.[/QUOTEkillzowned24

Speaking in IGN's latest Play Beyond podcast, Jeff Haynes revealed that even during the heaviest loads, Killzone 2 utilizes roughly only 60 per cent of the SPU's.

"It's incredible to see huge levels and see the deferred rendering and note that on all the SPU's, even on the heaviest load were coming up to about 60%," Haynes said. "They weren't coming close to maxing out. .They had about 40% of space before they started tripping or saw slow down on some of the processes."

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=34314

P.S what about the remaining 40%? the OS?

Mystery_Writer

What are SPU's?nuge004

[QUOTE="nuge004"]What are SPU's?LibertySaint

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

Speaking in IGN's latest Play Beyond podcast, Jeff Haynes revealed that even during the heaviest loads, Killzone 2 utilizes roughly only 60 per cent of the SPU's.

"It's incredible to see huge levels and see the deferred rendering and note that on all the SPU's, even on the heaviest load were coming up to about 60%," Haynes said. "They weren't coming close to maxing out. .They had about 40% of space before they started tripping or saw slow down on some of the processes."

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=34314

P.S what about the remaining 40%? the OS?

Wartzay

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="nuge004"]What are SPU's?Adrian_Cloud

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]

I hate quotes like that as they're always BS.

Games that are released later in a console's life-span generally look better because developers have learned how to code more efficiently for any given system's strengths, not because they've discovered some magic power locked away.

If he can truly put a figure like 60% down, he's full of **bleep** as there's no reason why they couldn't touch the other 40% - unless he's talking the two cores set aside for system and test use.

It's just a garbage PR statement that sounds good when you spit it out - it just doesn't mean anything.

LosDaddie

You know it's funny how this is the best post in this thread and it's ignored.

Funny because anyone with even a basic handle on game development know this "60% of PS3 SPUs" statement is complete BS. Developer never intentionally not use all the resources available.