Does the ps3 have enough bandwidth

[cobragt]

for HDR and AA at the same time?
I have been reading topics on the beyond3d and some of the topics suggest the ps3 has already lost to the 360 in graphics. Supposely the bandwidth of the ps3 is limited. some people have said
1980X1020 @ 30FPS, 64bit HDR and 2XAA would be frighten enough for PS3 case
as for the xb
720@60FPS with 64bit HDR and 4x AA
will the ps3 be limited when it comes to graphics?

is edram the big advantage for the 360's graphics? I wont lie but after reading so many topics on beyond3d's forums, it seems like the ps3 might lose to the 360 in graphics

 

[Nasadus]

I don't think so. I belive that the Cell is able to handle all of that without any trouble. I also think that at such high resolutions there won't be any need for AA. I would like to know where those people get their info from. Give me one thing that the X360 has that the PS3 doesn't have (in terms of performance).

The PS3 was supposed to be much more powerfull than it will be when it's released,and all thanks to nVidia. Sony intended to put 4 Cells into the PS3 but nVidia couldn't provide a card that would support such high bandwidth so they decided to go with only one Cell. Still,i don't think the X360 will outperform the PS3.

 

[tha_con]

At the resolutions that PS3 and Xbox 360 will be runnig it will be difficult to really notice any AA problems.

Also, Xbox 360 does in fact have an edge when it comes to AA, because it has 10MB of EDRAM, which is used to buffer frames for AA etc. But that is pretty much irrelivent. With all the power these consoles have, it's pretty much unncessecary, it just makes it a little bit easier to code for.

You might notice a lot of people talking about the Xbox 360's huge bandwidth, I believe the 256GB+ of bandwidth, but that ONLY applies to the GPU-EDRAM, nothign else.

For instance, the bandwidth to the Cell and RSX is larger than that of the Xbox360's GPU and it's CPU.

These peopel all fail to realize they are in fact comparing apples to oranges in terms of hardware, bother are pretty different in the way they get things done, numbers say very little in real world application, it's all in how you use it.

I can go on and on, but many people look at numebrs as if they mean anything, different numbers in different spots can come to the same real world result, fanboy's just refuse to see such.

 

[Dave A]

At the end of the day, the difference in quality games will be down to the developers. Both consoles are powerful, the PS maybe has the edge, but how much difference that will make to the developers is what counts.

 

[BlackZ28]

I'm thinking it'll all come down to the developers. Just wait!
If PS3 has crappy gfx so will X360, since these days developers like to "port" games.
But I wish sony used ATi.

 

[Omnis]

oh god, 4 Cells could've been in our wonderful ps3? damn lazyass nvidia. that thing would've been a f'ing hoss.

Edit: of course, i mean on top of the fact that it already is a f'ing hoss.

 

[tha_con]

I'm thinking it'll all come down to the developers. Just wait!
If PS3 has crappy gfx so will X360, since these days developers like to "port" games.
But I wish sony used ATi.

Actually it won't be that way this generation. It's very unlikely that PS3 will be a base platform as the PS2 was this generation. More than likely games will be developed for the Xbox360 or Revolution and then ported to the PS3, due to the unique design of the PS3.

If it were the other way then we would see games that would look extremely less impressive on other consoles, because they wouldn't take advantage of their design. It's give and let give, but it's already commonly agreed upon that PS3 will not be a base platform for development of console diverse games.

 

[Omnis]

does that mean we can expect ps3-exclusive titles to be exclusive forever? Being cell-optimized, could they be ported to other consoles successfully without sacrificing quality or performance? Like, say for games like GTA which go to xbox and PC at a much later time.

 

[Dave A]

GTA only goes to other consoles and the PC after a year because of Rockstar's deal with Sony, it has nothing to do with problems porting the game.

 

[tha_con]

does that mean we can expect ps3-exclusive titles to be exclusive forever? Being cell-optimized, could they be ported to other consoles successfully without sacrificing quality or performance? Like, say for games like GTA which go to xbox and PC at a much later time.

Well, it means that if anything is developed as a PS3 base platform title, then it will either be less impressive on another console, or will take significantly longer to come out.

It's entirely possible, that in the future, we won't see GTA titles being ported, that they could just work on exclusives for both consoles, as it could be cheaper rather than the intense work that *could* be required to port if it truely will be that different.

 

[Omnis]

GTA only goes to other consoles and the PC after a year because of Rockstar's deal with Sony, it has nothing to do with problems porting the game.

that's wasn't the point of the question.

thanks, con, for your input. i feel the same way about it.

 

[Dave A]

Oh, it's getting late here I'm a bit tired. I see you're point now. Tha Con, maybe you can explain this, because I don't see it, but why would starting from scratch, be easier and cheaper than re-using exiting models, scripts ect from the game you could port? The way I see it, is even if all you take is the games storey and models, it's still going to be easier than starting from scratch, since you don't have to write a new storey and create new models. I know it can b tricky porting, and with the rather different architechture of the new XB and the PS3, it complicates things even more, but surely things like thoes can be ported with ease, it's just (I use the word just loosely) the actual game engine and code that need looking at rather than every little thing.

They could develop the game for both consoles at the same time, as they do code for one, they're doing the same part or equivelent of code for the other.

 

[Omnis]

well, at least if they start from scratch on the different consoles, there will be no conflict with efficiency or misinterpreted script.

 

[Dave A]

Which I have absolutely no idea about . If it can be easier, fair enough, as I said I don't know much at all about this sort of thing.

 

[tha_con]

Oh, it's getting late here I'm a bit tired. I see you're point now. Tha Con, maybe you can explain this, because I don't see it, but why would starting from scratch, be easier and cheaper than re-using exiting models, scripts ect from the game you could port? The way I see it, is even if all you take is the games storey and models, it's still going to be easier than starting from scratch, since you don't have to write a new storey and create new models. I know it can b tricky porting, and with the rather different architechture of the new XB and the PS3, it complicates things even more, but surely things like thoes can be ported with ease, it's just (I use the word just loosely) the actual game engine and code that need looking at rather than every little thing.

They could develop the game for both consoles at the same time, as they do code for one, they're doing the same part or equivelent of code for the other.

It's not so much that it would necessarily be cheaper for them, but the profits yeilded would be greater.

For instance, it's fact that Xbox versions of GTA, while superior, rarely sell as well as their PS2 counter parts, mainly because the game has been out for so long.

With that said, the time constraint from the deal with sony, along with porting problems, cause more of a delay than would be intially present. With this delay, many households have already purchesed it on the inferior hardware, so, if they already have it, there is no need to buy the same game twice.

With that said, it would be more profitable for them to create two games, independant of eachother, for each console, as profits would be yielded equally. HOWEVER, this would not happen with GTA, at least not until their deal with Sony is up (which I believe San Andreas was the last...I'm not sure).

Anyway, that's just the gist of it. If they can reuse code, which is not uncommon, and create a few new textures here and there, they can sell more on that console.

Remember though, this is all in theory, and completely depends on the market, lmao. In all honesty, while it sounds like a really smart thing to do, and I would think it is, it probably would never happen because cheap profit always wins between the two. So, regardless of which would sell more, it's whichever will yeild more profit, and since the cost to port would be lower and profits would be hgiher, that would be done, regardless of how many they sell.

 

[Dave A]

Thanks for you're detail answer 👍.

 

[discopotato]

this is what ive deciphered from a forum i was reading based partially on a tech article and some from what people on both side have pointed out.

I don't think that games will be ported ps3-x360 well or the other way around. they way the proccesors work is more of a media streaming type thing rather than normal game code. the x360's isn't supposed to be great at all with game calculations, but the cell is even worse from what it seems. the SPEs(or DSPs) aren't made for basic game code, but more for graphics giving the ps3 an edge. the GPUs sound like some things will make each better. the pure clock and stuff will be better in the rsx but the 48 unified vertex shaders also seem like it'll help. also the differences between the size of blu ray vs. DVD 9 is huge. if a ps2 game is about 30 gigs, i don't think it'll be chopped down to 8.5 gigs too well, making ports difficult but also multi platform games will look better on the ps3.