Motorstorm Dev Interview | Game only using 15-20% of SPU powaa!

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/interviews/38/1

Wonder what will happen when devs start using Cell + RSX more fully? :shock:

MotorStorm only uses between 15 and 20 percent of available SPU resource, so we're aiming to achieve a 5 fold increase in SPU performance, which should allow us to do some awesome stuff

B3D: Cell's ability to assist RSX in rendering operations has been a topic of much debate and speculation of late. Was Cell used in Motorstorm to perform any lighting, vertex, or other transform work?

Scott Kirkland: We don't use the Cell's SPUs in this way at the moment. All of our lighting and transformation work is done in the RSX's pixel and vertex shaders.


Our SPU exploiting systems consist of:

i) Havok physics.
ii) Determination of object visibility.
iii) Concatenation of hierarchies.
iv) Billboard object culling and vertex buffer creation.
v) Updating of particles and vertex buffer creation.
vi) Updating of vehicle dynamics.
vii) Updating of vehicle suspension constraints.
viii) Audio (MultiStream).
ix) Video decoding.

B3D: Further to that, do you believe that as the generation progresses, cooperative rendering techniques will become a larger part of what grows to define baseline PS3 rendering methods, or are your thoughts that such efforts will play out more or less in niche areas?

Scott Kirkland: If by "cooperative rendering" you're referring to SPUs supporting the RSX, I strongly believe that this approach will become far more widespread. In addition to reducing the vertex load on the RSX through the use of culling and vertex pre-processing, this approach also provides an efficient mechanism to introduce procedural geometry.

The leap in performance provided by Cell gives us the bandwidth to significantly reduce RSX time spent processing vertices that don't contribute to the final scene. The favoured approach is to use SPUs to generate minimal scene/instance specific index and vertex buffers from compressed data.

:shock:

DISCUSS!

If devs can use the Cell and RSX's power to the fullest. We would have photo realistic graphics. Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

Maybe because the SPU's are usless for most games and in some cases its impossible to split up the code in order to work with the SPU's. Since you can only use 5 of the SPU's for games, 20% would mean they are using 1 SPU out of 5. Basically this is saying... we could have done motorstorm on 1 of the 3 xbox cores.

EDIT: why are u guys saying it would look any better if they could use the other 4 SPU's? this is the CPU not the graphics card we are talking about. does buying a 3 ghz processor for your pc make it look better then a 2 ghz processor? no its the graphics cards and the amout of graphics memory that determines how much texture detail and the # of polygons

If devs can use the Cell and RSX's power to the fullest. We would have photo realistic graphics. Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

HarpoonArtic

This guy is doing this to piss every hermit and lemming off, and about the article, thats great we'll have to wait to see what happens.

Maybe because the SPU's are usless for most games and in some cases its impossible to split up the code in order to work with the SPU's. Since you can only use 5 of the SPU's for games, 20% would mean they are using 1 SPU out of 5. Basically this is saying... we could have done motorstorm on 1 of the 3 xbox cores.

deadlypencil

u a dev?  if not, why are you commenting on what devs can and cannot do? :| 

[QUOTE="deadlypencil"]

Maybe because the SPU's are usless for most games and in some cases its impossible to split up the code in order to work with the SPU's. Since you can only use 5 of the SPU's for games, 20% would mean they are using 1 SPU out of 5. Basically this is saying... we could have done motorstorm on 1 of the 3 xbox cores.

Dreams-Visions

u a dev?  if not, why are you commenting on what devs can and cannot do? :| 

Well i did develope games for cellpnes in my last job. so i think i know more then most of the clueless fanboys on here. Ive done alot of multithreaded games and its IMPOSSIBLE to break some things up. Months ago people were saying ooo you can just put the AI code on 1 SPU and the pathing on another SPU blah blah blah... but they dont understand that teh SPU's dont share memory and you cannot do anything complicated on the SPU's. fanboys just like to live in their own little world beleive whatever they want.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="deadlypencil"]

Maybe because the SPU's are usless for most games and in some cases its impossible to split up the code in order to work with the SPU's. Since you can only use 5 of the SPU's for games, 20% would mean they are using 1 SPU out of 5. Basically this is saying... we could have done motorstorm on 1 of the 3 xbox cores.

deadlypencil

u a dev? if not, why are you commenting on what devs can and cannot do? :|

Well i did develope games for cellpnes in my last job. so i think i know more then most of the clueless fanboys on here. Ive done alot of multithreaded games and its IMPOSSIBLE to break some things up. Months ago people were saying ooo you can just put the AI code on 1 SPU and the pathing on another SPU blah blah blah... but they dont understand that teh SPU's dont share memory and you cannot do anything complicated on the SPU's. fanboys just like to live in their own little world beleive whatever they want.

In reality, it's not important to be able to do *everything* on the SPU's, right?  But you can undoubtedly do a helluva lot of things.  They felt like they could either add 80% more things to the SPU's burden by adding more things to the game, or to offload more things to the SPU's.  that's really the bottom line.

Is there going to be a Motorstorm 2? If so then hopefully they add a lot more content. Like a lot more tracks than the first game had, and off-line multi-player. That should help the Value. Thats the main reason why the first one flopped because it scored so low in the "Value" category. And maybe Motorstorm 2 will showcase this "hidden powaa!!!!!!" that they're talking about. EnergyAbsorber

motorstorm was rushed out the door so fast that they didnt even include split screen, more content, etc. So yeah, expect Motorstorm 2 to look MUCh better.

Is there going to be a Motorstorm 2? If so then hopefully they add a lot more content. Like a lot more tracks than the first game had, and off-line multi-player. That should help the Value. Thats the main reason why the first one flopped because it scored so low in the "Value" category. And maybe Motorstorm 2 will showcase this "hidden powaa!!!!!!" that they're talking about. EnergyAbsorber

there will be a Motorstorm 2.

maybe motorstorm 2 might look really close to that 05 target demo.GermanShepard06

I'd rather that they finish Motorstorm 1.  :P 

Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

HarpoonArtic

*hands you a flame shield*

GL buddy =/ The Hermits gonna **** you 

If devs can use the Cell and RSX's power to the fullest. We would have photo realistic graphics. Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

HarpoonArtic

loll

RSX doesnt even beat me 2 year old 7800 gtx muchless a 8800 GTS.

motorstorm looks better then any 360 racer out there. including forza2 demo... i cant even imagine how it really could looke20Dylan

lol, ive seen forza2 and motorstorm forza2 looks better

[QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"]

Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

Smakkjoo

*hands you a flame shield*

GL buddy =/ The Hermits gonna **** you

his post didn't warrant someone being kind enough to give him a flameshield.  He said nothing worth defending. 

Right, another PS3 only developer praise PS3 crap hardware, so how do they know they use only 20%, and why not use 100% intead ? I mean why not do MORE when you KNOW you use less at this point ?

I smell BS !!! Of the HUGE kind, but i will give the benefit of the doubt

Also it is not like 360 CPU cores and 6 threads are used anywhere 100% too, only after years of optimization those will be fully used too

Just like any other console. The Wii will have great graphics about 2-4 years from now. The PS3 will have amazing graphics 2-4 uears from now, and the Xbox 360 will have even better graphics 1-3 years from now (considering it has been out for a year). wapahala

Best post in this thread so far.

If devs can use the Cell and RSX's power to the fullest. We would have photo realistic graphics. Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

HarpoonArtic

ROFL :lol: You have no idea of what your talking about :lol: And your sign call for a Self-ownage :lol: ! 

If devs can use the Cell and RSX's power to the fullest. We would have photo realistic graphics. Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

HarpoonArtic

Your ignorance is too powerful to imagine so.... where did you get your facts on the rsx vs the 8800 gts ??

The rsx can't even stand up to to the 360's..never mind you must be a troll because you know better. 

[QUOTE="cobrax80"]If what he says is true than that is amazing.greg_splicer

Gears of War devs confirmed they only use 30% of CPU power on 360, and CPU on 360 can be used 100 times better for rendering than PS3 one, since it has MEMEXPORT and direct CPU cashe addressing, PS3 does not making any REAL connection inefficient

Also i would like to note that cell CAN'T help in any way with pixels the PS3 GPU, since PS3 has fixed shader pipeline, no matter how cell helps with polygons, the shaders will ALWAYS be limited, no matter if you all 7 SPU's for vertex

BUT if 360 CPU is used for making vertex processing to help the GPU, then the UNIFIED shaders can assign more pixel shaders to the rendering on the GPU, making it ideal in efficiency

Sp on PS3 you can produce more geometry ONLY with cell, and you can shade it better or shade it at all, when on 360 if let's say Gears 2 uses another 30% of CPU power on 360 for vertex processing, they can have far more pixel power for rendering and shading them, which feat IS cool, can't wait to see what they come up with in Gears 2

Sorry for my stupidity, but what is teh SPU ?

PS3 will probably last for 10 years at this rate.ToScA-

lmfao, ps3 sucks people get over it, stop believeing sony dev propaganda.

if ps3 is so powerful how come motorstorm struggles to run 30 fps with crap textures and no anti aliasing and only 720p? LOL

lmfao, ps3 sucks people get over it, stop believeing sony dev propaganda.

if ps3 is so powerful how come motorstorm struggles to run 30 fps with crap textures and no anti aliasing and only 720p? LOL

bobogoeroeofog

It does sound pretty fishy to me.

lmfao, ps3 sucks people get over it, stop believeing sony dev propaganda.

if ps3 is so powerful how come motorstorm struggles to run 30 fps with crap textures and no anti aliasing and only 720p? LOL

bobogoeroeofog

You forgot the totally EMPTY levels .... not a pebble around, or a tree, maybe if they use 120% of cell, they reach what 360 does now with the 100xmore STUNNING Flatout Carnage, that has huge number of trees, grass, objects around, 100 x the physics going on, next gen lighting to the max, shadows from trees etc, fully amazing HDR use etc etc etc

[QUOTE="ToScA-"]PS3 will probably last for 10 years at this rate.HarpoonArtic

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will  will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

[QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"][QUOTE="ToScA-"]PS3 will probably last for 10 years at this rate.mattbbpl

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will  will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

[QUOTE="bobogoeroeofog"]

lmfao, ps3 sucks people get over it, stop believeing sony dev propaganda.

if ps3 is so powerful how come motorstorm struggles to run 30 fps with crap textures and no anti aliasing and only 720p? LOL

greg_splicer

You forgot the totally EMPTY levels .... not a pebble around, or a tree, maybe if they use 120% of cell, they reach what 360 does now with the 100xmore STUNNING Flatout Carnage, that has huge number of trees, grass, objects around, 100 x the physics going on, next gen lighting to the max, shadows from trees etc, fully amazing HDR use etc etc etc

motorstorm has deformable ground though, that's more next gen physics on objects, sega rally on xbox360 will have deformable terrain though.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"][QUOTE="ToScA-"]PS3 will probably last for 10 years at this rate.HarpoonArtic

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will  will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

actually, ps3 only has 1 general processing core and 6 spu's synergestic processing units, which are not cores and only usefull number crunching stuff, they cant handle all the stuff a general purpose core can.

xbox360 has 3 general purpose processing cores.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

HarpoonArtic

Not a single one of those cores (not even the main one, nevertheless the DSPs) is as powerful or as efficient as modern x86 core.  I could begin to go into the technical reasons why, but I doubt you'd understand anyway. By the way, I'm not a hermit - I simply enjoy technology since I work in the technology industry.

[QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

mattbbpl

Not a single one of those cores (not even the main one, nevertheless the DSPs) is as powerful or as efficient as modern x86 core.  I could begin to go into the technical reasons why, but I doubt you'd understand anyway. By the way, I'm not a hermit - I simply enjoy technology since I work in the technology industry.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

HarpoonArtic

Not a single one of those cores (not even the main one, nevertheless the DSPs) is as powerful or as efficient as modern x86 core. I could begin to go into the technical reasons why, but I doubt you'd understand anyway. By the way, I'm not a hermit - I simply enjoy technology since I work in the technology industry.

Again?! Fine... Give me a second. 

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"][QUOTE="ToScA-"]PS3 will probably last for 10 years at this rate.HarpoonArtic

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it only technically have 1?   

Sorry for my stupidity, but what is teh SPU ?

hellraiser_07

well its Super Power Unit duh! 

overall xbox360 CPU IS more powerful for gaming than cell.bobogoeroeofog

Wrong, also, you seemed to have pulled that out of your hat. 

[QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="HarpoonArtic"][QUOTE="ToScA-"]PS3 will probably last for 10 years at this rate.agentfred

All conclusion with no supporting evidence. May I ask what makes you think that the PS3 architecture will will still be viable in 10 to 14 years? We're already on quad-core CPUs with a 45nm manufacturing process. According to Moore's law, computer technology should be around 32 times more powerful in 10 years and 128 times more powerful in 14 years (2 to 5th and 2 to the 7th). Moore's law actually states that it should be even more powerful than that (it's supposed to double every 18 months as opposed to every 2 years), but I gave you a break and went conservative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it only technically have 1?   

actually, ps3 only has 1 general processing core and 6 spu's synergestic processing units, which are not cores and only usefull number crunching stuff, they cant handle all the stuff a general purpose core can.

xbox360 has 3 general purpose processing cores.

sorry had to post it again^ FACT.

If devs can use the Cell and RSX's power to the fullest. We would have photo realistic graphics. Since RSX is atleast 2x more powerful than the 8800 GTS.

And the Cell is too powerful to imagine so...

HarpoonArtic

I know, but some silly devs make their games multiplat so they don't really have time to use the PS3 cell or RSX properly, and even if they did, they wouldn't to make the games look and play 'equal' so everyone loses out like they did when M$ ruined GTAIV

[QUOTE="bobogoeroeofog"]overall xbox360 CPU IS more powerful for gaming than cell.agentfred

Wrong, also, you seemed to have pulled that out of your hat. 

nope, 3 core's is better than 1 core with 6 fake cores lol.