Two Worlds 2's developer: PC and PS3 have a little bit more power

i didnt think people would have such a hard time with this, i really didntTintedEyes

but still more powerfulTintedEyes

i didnt think people would have such a hard time with this, i really didntTintedEyes

OFC people have hard time in accepting something thats lie thats spread since E3 05...

In case you missed it...

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/ReclusiveSpirit/john-carmack-unplugged-xbox-360-ps3-98107.phtml

I think this says the best...

"Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3"

"...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." And about a minute and a half later, just in case we didn't quite hear him correctly the first time, he said, "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space."

Ofcourse Cell has more theoretical power but as many said(including Carmack) when you actually start to develop game you have to dedicate alot of Cell resources for what RSX SHOULD do and then theoretical means jack...

Crytek...

"I mean essentially the game we run is about the same. Probably one's stronger on the GPU side, one's stronger on the CPU side, so depending on what you're doing where, the PS3 does perform here sometimes better, the 360 performs other things better, but overall by the time the game ships it'll be absolutely the same."

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]but still more powerfulThe_RedLion

[QUOTE="The_RedLion"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"]but still more powerfulTintedEyes

Carmack said that on anything strictly graphical side 360 is better platform.So said one of his programmers in one of his post on one of the forums.Ps3 handles a.i and physics great,no slack but when it comes to gfx it lacks quite a bit...

and there it is.TintedEyes

i didnt think people would have such a hard time with this, i really didntTintedEyes

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="The_RedLion"] Carmack said it was MARGINALLY (as, very little) more powerfulBus-A-Bus

Carmack said that on anything strictly graphical side 360 is better platform.So said one of his programmers in one of his post on one of the forums.Ps3 handles a.i and physics great,no slack but when it comes to gfx it lacks quite a bit...

[QUOTE="The_RedLion"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"]but still more powerful whether you find it relevant or notTintedEyes

Thats what he meant about PS3 higher peak performance.

Basically you are saying: `hey, you have the best version of the game but my console is more powerfull, take that`

Well, i would take the objective result over the virtual assumption any day :P

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] and there it is.TintedEyes

Carmack said that on anything strictly graphical side 360 is better platform.So said one of his programmers in one of his post on one of the forums.Ps3 handles a.i and physics great,no slack but when it comes to gfx it lacks quite a bit...

He said that CELL(in lot of his interviews) has more FLOPS(theoretical power) on it BUT in reality you just cant get it because you have to dedicate a LOT of it for helping out RSX.BTW Xenos has 40GFLOPS more than RSX and its efficiency is in real life 95%-100% because unified structure and RSXs is about 65% at best...So when you look at it that way they are easily very equal.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Carmack said that on anything strictly graphical side 360 is better platform.So said one of his programmers in one of his post on one of the forums.Ps3 handles a.i and physics great,no slack but when it comes to gfx it lacks quite a bit...

Bus-A-Bus

He said that CELL(in lot of his interviews) has more FLOPS(theoretical power) on it BUT in reality you just cant get it because you have to dedicate a LOT of it for helping out RSX.BTW Xenos has 40GFLOPS more than RSX and its efficiency is in real life 95%-100% because unified structure and RSXs is about 65% at best...So when you look at it that way they are easily very equal.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]i didnt think people would have such a hard time with this, i really didntmarklarmer

[QUOTE="marklarmer"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]i didnt think people would have such a hard time with this, i really didntTintedEyes

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Carmack said that on anything strictly graphical side 360 is better platform.So said one of his programmers in one of his post on one of the forums.Ps3 handles a.i and physics great,no slack but when it comes to gfx it lacks quite a bit...

Bus-A-Bus

He said that CELL(in lot of his interviews) has more FLOPS(theoretical power) on it BUT in reality you just cant get it because you have to dedicate a LOT of it for helping out RSX.BTW Xenos has 40GFLOPS more than RSX and its efficiency is in real life 95%-100% because unified structure and RSXs is about 65% at best...So when you look at it that way they are easily very equal.

oh its not meaningless, it proves me right about what i been sayinTintedEyes

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] but did he not also say ps3 was more powerful?TintedEyes

He said that CELL(in lot of his interviews) has more FLOPS(theoretical power) on it BUT in reality you just cant get it because you have to dedicate a LOT of it for helping out RSX.BTW Xenos has 40GFLOPS more than RSX and its efficiency is in real life 95%-100% because unified structure and RSXs is about 65% at best...So when you look at it that way they are easily very equal.

NO.He said there is more THEORETICAL power on CELL but in real life in strictly graphical stuff 360 has ps3 beaten.He proved that by his latest quote(one of b3d guys mailed him,he is very honest and down to earth guy) where he said

"They are close enough that I could fairly easily design a workload that would make either system look superior. For Rage, we have to expend more effort on the PS3 to maintain 60 hz than we do on the 360, but the PS3 is able to transcode more texture pages in a frame, which helps in some cases."

It proves that they are very close and that both have their strengths...

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="marklarmer"]you mean cherry-picking meaningless quotes whilst disregarding completely contradictory ones from the same source. Looking at your deliberately antagonistic sig its pretty easy to see why you insist on taking one particular point of view.

Ravensmash

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]oh its not meaningless, it proves me right about what i been sayinThe_RedLion

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] oh its not meaningless, it proves me right about what i been sayinTintedEyes

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] but did he not also say ps3 was more powerful?i_am_interested

He said that CELL(in lot of his interviews) has more FLOPS(theoretical power) on it BUT in reality you just cant get it because you have to dedicate a LOT of it for helping out RSX.BTW Xenos has 40GFLOPS more than RSX and its efficiency is in real life 95%-100% because unified structure and RSXs is about 65% at best...So when you look at it that way they are easily very equal.

I wrote-95%-100% because in unified structure your loads(vertex and pixels) are CONSTANTLY changing but hardware takes care of that automatically while in RSX(and other older architecture gpu) you have dedicated vertex and pixel alus so when one cant do a job quick enough the other one stalls and waits for it to finish.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

He said that CELL(in lot of his interviews) has more FLOPS(theoretical power) on it BUT in reality you just cant get it because you have to dedicate a LOT of it for helping out RSX.BTW Xenos has 40GFLOPS more than RSX and its efficiency is in real life 95%-100% because unified structure and RSXs is about 65% at best...So when you look at it that way they are easily very equal.

Bus-A-Bus

I wrote-95%-100% because in unified structure your loads(vertex and pixels) are CONSTANTLY changing but hardware takes care of that automatically while in RSX(and other older architecture gpu) you have dedicated vertex and pixel alus so when one cant do a job quick enough the other one stalls and waits for it to finish.

if thats the conclusion you want to draw, fine, but what i have been saying has till been confirmedTintedEyes

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]if thats the conclusion you want to draw, fine, but what i have been saying has till been confirmedThe_RedLion

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]they are...odd last I checked the 360 had more games then the ps3, and still has more A, AA, and equal in AAA games...JohnF111

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"] You sound as though you're just unwilling to accept that you're not right in the way you initially thought. If he said that the 360's hardware is superior in some areas (graphics), then surely that means it is more powerful in that area? Hooray, a conclusion.Ravensmash

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] 100% efficiency? are you joking? it never stalls? it never misses a cache?i_am_interested

I wrote-95%-100% because in unified structure your loads(vertex and pixels) are CONSTANTLY changing but hardware takes care of that automatically while in RSX(and other older architecture gpu) you have dedicated vertex and pixel alus so when one cant do a job quick enough the other one stalls and waits for it to finish.

I hope you have a good link for that otherwise you are just talking nonsense...Here,from Ati...

http://www.motherboardpoint.com/ati-xenos-x360-gpu-summary-t73793.html

"ATI suggests that their testing achieves an average of 95% efficiency of the shader array in general purpose graphics usage conditions"

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] i am right, he confirmed what i have thought and been saying, twist it all ya want

TintedEyes

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

This claim is simply unpossible...

I was going to buy their game (Two Worlds 2 : For Real) for 360, but now I might not also.

You don't talk crap about my family or my consoles...or I won't give you money.

SolidTy

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="The_RedLion"] It's not me who said it was not relevant, it was Carmack: "being 20 % more easily develop is much more important that be 20 % more powerful".PAL360

Thats what he meant about PS3 higher peak performance.

Basically you are saying: `hey, you have the best version of the game but my console is more powerfull, take that`

Well, i would take the objective result over the virtual assumption any day :P

most evidence this gen has supported that the 360 can maintain a higher average output, while the ps3 can have a slightly higher output but on average is lower.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] but still more powerfulsavagetwinkie

Thats what he meant about PS3 higher peak performance.

Basically you are saying: `hey, you have the best version of the game but my console is more powerfull, take that`

Well, i would take the objective result over the virtual assumption any day :P

Exactly.We all know just how much power and FLOPS Cell losses because of RSX...

Its like saying Mercedes C AMG is better driving car than M3 because it has 30PS more.But on the track they are equal or Merc losses because of worse transmission,handling and weight.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Dude, you've ignored all of the quotes which prove that he thinks they are pretty much equal....Bus-A-Bus

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] but he still said himself ps3 was more powerful, thats all i said :)TintedEyes

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

All i know is that when he compared them(and even this quote from 2 weeks ago...) he said that when you actually go to performance comparison,its not really apples to apples,on anything strictly graphical side 360 got ps3 beaten...

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] but he still said himself ps3 was more powerful, thats all i said :)TintedEyes

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="PAL360"]

Thats what he meant about PS3 higher peak performance.

Basically you are saying: `hey, you have the best version of the game but my console is more powerfull, take that`

Well, i would take the objective result over the virtual assumption any day :P

Bus-A-Bus

Exactly.We all know just how much power and FLOPS Cell losses because of RSX...

Its like saying Mercedes C AMG is better driving car than M3 because it has 30PS more.But on the track they are equal or Merc losses because of worse transmission,handling and weight.

This is pretty much clear to everyone, has been for a while I think. But clearly the PC is much more powerful than either.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] in the quote he says ps3 is better with raw graphical operations not 3360 any that isnt the point, he said the ps3 is more powerful thats all i said here,TintedEyes

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] higher peak doesn't equate to more powerful, because of platform inefficiencies and bottlenecks you might be able to at some point reach a higher peak, but you will maintain a much lower throughput vs peak. most evidence this gen has supported that the 360 can maintain a higher average output, while the ps3 can have a slightly higher output but on average is lower.savagetwinkie

Exactly.We all know just how much power and FLOPS Cell losses because of RSX...

Its like saying Mercedes C AMG is better driving car than M3 because it has 30PS more.But on the track they are equal or Merc losses because of worse transmission,handling and weight.

Does it have something to do with the fact that the best looking PS3 games are more linear (GOW3 for ex) and the best looking 360 ones are open world games (RDR for ex)?

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Exactly.We all know just how much power and FLOPS Cell losses because of RSX...

Its like saying Mercedes C AMG is better driving car than M3 because it has 30PS more.But on the track they are equal or Merc losses because of worse transmission,handling and weight.

PAL360

Does it have something to do with the fact that the best looking PS3 games are more linear (GOW3 for ex) and the best looking 360 ones are open world games (RDR for ex)?

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

I wrote-95%-100% because in unified structure your loads(vertex and pixels) are CONSTANTLY changing but hardware takes care of that automatically while in RSX(and other older architecture gpu) you have dedicated vertex and pixel alus so when one cant do a job quick enough the other one stalls and waits for it to finish.

Bus-A-Bus

I hope you have a good link for that otherwise you are just talking nonsense...Here,from Ati...

http://www.motherboardpoint.com/ati-xenos-x360-gpu-summary-t73793.html

"ATI suggests that their testing achieves an average of 95% efficiency of the shader array in general purpose graphics usage conditions"

unless i have a link? modern day gpus dont come anywhere near 100% efficiency, just because pixel and vertex operations are never stalled by each other doesnt mean the gpu never stalls, you just completely avoided my cache miss comment

do you even know how graphics programmers interact with gpus, especially the xenos on 360? they do it through abstraction layers APIs ie directx, they have no idea when the gpu is stalling nor can they program around those stalls

i like how you keep bringing up the RSX regarding the ps3s theoretical performance, good thing they keep shifting those vertex jobs over to the cell so they dont have worry about stalling the rsx's pixel jobs

the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either wayTintedEyes

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] current gpus today with unified architectures dont come ANYWHERE NEAR 100% efficiencyi_am_interested

I hope you have a good link for that otherwise you are just talking nonsense...Here,from Ati...

http://www.motherboardpoint.com/ati-xenos-x360-gpu-summary-t73793.html

"ATI suggests that their testing achieves an average of 95% efficiency of the shader array in general purpose graphics usage conditions"

unless i have a link? modern day gpus dont come anywhere near 100% efficiency,just because pixel and vertex operations are never stalled by each other doesnt mean the gpu never stalls, you just completely avoided my cache miss comment

do you even know how graphics programmers interact with gpus, especially the xenos on 360? they do it through abstraction layers APIs ie directx, they have no idea when the gpu is stalling nor can they program around those stalls

edit: cache thrasing is also high risk with SPU local memory

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either waysavagetwinkie

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"]the best part about this is that since he said ps3 is more powerful people damage control with 360 is easier to develop for, yet ps3 has the best graphics out on consoles, so it wins either wayTintedEyes

edit: he said 360 was more powerful but that was a fairly long time ago, the only thing i've seen about ps3 being better is blu-ray and peak power.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] current gpus today with unified architectures dont come ANYWHERE NEAR 100% efficiencyi_am_interested

I hope you have a good link for that otherwise you are just talking nonsense...Here,from Ati...

http://www.motherboardpoint.com/ati-xenos-x360-gpu-summary-t73793.html

"ATI suggests that their testing achieves an average of 95% efficiency of the shader array in general purpose graphics usage conditions"

unless i have a link? modern day gpus dont come anywhere near 100% efficiency, just because pixel and vertex operations are never stalled by each other doesnt mean the gpu never stalls, you just completely avoided my cache miss comment

do you even know how graphics programmers interact with gpus, especially the xenos on 360? they do it through abstraction layers APIs ie directx, they have no idea when the gpu is stalling nor can they program around those stalls

i like how you keep bringing up the RSX regarding the ps3s theoretical performance, good thing they keep shifting those vertex jobs over to the cell so they dont have worry about stalling the rsx's pixel jobs

You see,this is why i dont really like SW...You are fool if you post sources of your posts.I could understand you saying your opinion about game but you cant squash what company that makes gpu has said,and if old shader architecture efficiency is about 65% its more than possible to be 95%.Again,you did not provide any link thus your opinion worths nothing on SW.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] Dude, you've ignored all of the quotes which prove that he thinks they are pretty much equal....Bus-A-Bus

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

Majority of the game code like physics, animations, AI, Particles effect, data streaming, multi threading computations are primarily runs on raw CPU power. 360's graphics chip is slightly more powerful but PS3 has lot more processing power. According to IBM, PS3's 7 SPUs, each with 4 parallel vector cores produces 100+ Giga flops of peak performance, combined that with blue ray media capable of holding 5x storage, makes it a very powerful machine overall;)

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] but he still said himself ps3 was more powerful, thats all i said :)fun-da-mental

Ok,he said more theoretical power BUT why did he say that on anything strictly graphical 360 outperforms ps3?That means 360 is more powerful doesnt it?

Majority of the game code like physics, animations, AI, Particles effect, data streaming, multi threading computations are primarily runs on raw CPU power. 360's graphics chip is slightly more powerful but PS3 has lot more processing power. According to IBM, PS3's 7 SPUs, each with 4 parallel vector cores produces 100+ Giga flops of peak performance, combined that with blue ray media capable of holding 5x storage, makes it a very powerful machine overall;)

edit: btw, the cells job is primarily fixing what the rsx can't do to keep up with the xenos

ai is branch intensive and not something you'd see on FP calucations which is the SPU's job

physics/animations/particle effects all benefit from parrallel processing, so a graphics card is suitable for those calculations. In fact thats why nvidia has Physx built in, to give it much more complex physics system.