GT6 Framerate depends on which console you have.

Discussion in 'Gran Turismo 6' started by xSNAKEx, Dec 27, 2013.

  1. kennylmao

    kennylmao

    Messages:
    3,859
    Location:
    Malaysia
    If it did then how would the older consoles run newer games which rely on the performance of newer consoles?

    It most likely has to do with the hard drive and some other stuff which I'm not familiar with but I'm positive about the hard drive. The 320GB (Toshiba, not a Sony! :p) that came with my PS3 was getting bad and in GT5, track textures weren't loading, photomode pictures generate super slow, garage would load slow, everything was slow. Gun wouldn't appear in BF3. Everything was bad with the bad hard disk. At first I thought my PS3 was starting to die on me. Swapped in a 500GB HDD and it fixed EVERYTHING.

    You know what, someone go buy a brand spankin new console from each revision and test out GT6. That'll settle it once and for all.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
  2. eSZee

    eSZee

    Messages:
    11,214
    Location:
    United States
    The point of this thread was to show revisions matter. That was never proven.
     
  3. phil_75

    phil_75

    Messages:
    2,913
    Location:
    England
    No, "Sharpen" is actually giving you better performance as he said.
    It disables the AA freeing up resources.
    "flicker reduction" is bad on framerate.
     
  4. alphabetagaga

    alphabetagaga

    Messages:
    61
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    nor was this
     
    Griffith500 and MatskiMonk like this.
  5. mark5916

    mark5916

    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Greece
    Well, i tried different things out, but i found my remedy...

    I left all default, and the only thing i changed was the console to 720p.

    Now i have no micro freezes, either in car view or replay....

    btw. I have the ultra slim (white) PS3 with 500GB disk.
     
  6. eSZee

    eSZee

    Messages:
    11,214
    Location:
    United States
    You're right. Apologies.

    1. I had a 60gb launch model as well as the new red superslim. They both ran the game with the same exact issues. Neither was perfect.
    2. All revisions of the console have kept performance the same.
    If consoles made ~7 years apart, with thousands of hours of difference in usage time don't show a difference in performance, to me there is no difference.
     
  7. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    38,465
    eSZee wasn't the one who made a thread claiming that the differences existed.
     
  8. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,633
    Not really relevant. The discussion is useful, do not bully people into censoring it. I'm sure somebody learned something; I know I did.
     
  9. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    38,465
    It's relevant to the idea that the onus on providing proof is equally important for the claim against the status quo as well as the one affirming it, as was the intent of highlighting the two supposedly contrasting posts. My issue was the attempt to point out hypocrisy where it wasn't there. Not to defend the attempt to shutter the thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
  10. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,633
    This thread neither proves nor disproves either claim, and the "burden of proof" does not lie on any individual. This has been a collaborative effort, it is not a competition.
     
    baja_j likes this.
  11. xSNAKEx

    xSNAKEx

    Messages:
    1,210
    Location:
    Australia
    Guys Guys. A lot of negativity being thrown around here for no reason (maybe fanboi-ism?). Griffith is right on the money.

    All I did was I observed something and reported it here giving with as much information as I could. Take from it what you will. Maybe all varying ps3 models perform the same, and each console differs on an individual basis like some are saying. I don't know. I did not test more than 1 of the same model as I have said all along.

    The point is there is definitely a difference from one console to another because I did a back to back test in many identical curcumstances. I ran the tutorial race on my slim and jiggled the car, and MASSIVE ammounts of tearing. I did the same on the 3002b slim and there was no screen tearing.

    I've bought the same car on my 2001 slim and it jerked as I made the purchase animation and it jerked badly. I bought the same car on the 3002b slim and it was smooth. Thats proof enough for me. Whether you beleive it or not I don't really care. I dont have access to a capture card to record at 60fps and analysis software. Nor do I feel the need for it as I the case is clear in my mind.

    I made some videos with a phone camera but the phone recording itself is bad enough that is nullifies the point of demonstrating performance. Uploading it to youtube jerks the video around even more. I could record real life and it would jerk on my phone, let alone recording a TV screen thats then uploaded to youtube and then played on your monitor. You have to see it in person.

    But, here is a video I recorded of the 3002b slim playing the tutorial race.

    The FPS was silky smooth and it had no screen tearing.



    Perhaps you guys can try replicate that driving in that tutorial on your ps3s. The badly performing systems get lots of screen tear around after the 30second mark corner approaching the left hand turn.

    All you need to do is make a new ps3 user account and start gt6 on that profile.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
  12. BWX

    BWX

    Messages:
    2,005
    So you named the thread
    "GT6 Framerate depends on which console you have."

    Which you have absolutely no way of knowing, or proving.

    You don't even have a way of measuring frame-rates, so you cannot even claim one is higher than another, let alone that it is because of different console revisions.

    You could have named it,
    "GT6 perceived performance is different on my consoles" and no one could argue, and you wouldn't be making claims you cannot possibly prove, and that make no sense. "Performance" can mean stuttering or jerkiness, which you might be able to show with an HD video, but that still wouldn't prove it is because of the revision of the console..

    Which could be due to any number of variables.. So thread title, and claim, is incorrect. Of course people are going to disagree.

    Proof of what? That one console jerked. That's it. You cannot possibly know why, or make claims that it is because of the console revision.




    Before you mentioned in this thread that you think it has something to do with "processing power" differences between console revisions. That's what you claimed the entire time.

    There is no "processing power differences" between console revisions, so that is impossible.

    Oh, here's the quote...

    So that's why people are arguing with you.. You make claims that are impossible for you to prove, and if you did have the equipment to prove it, you'd only prove yourself wrong. One PS3 has no more "processing power" than another. A different manufacturing process has nothing to do with it if it is a chip with identical architecture and speed.
     
    Emet_PL likes this.
  13. lTwiSparkle

    lTwiSparkle

    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It is a fact that later console revisions have better performance due to better components and other problems being rooted out.

    I think Snake is trying to point out that, with GT6 maxing out the hardware, the later and more "optimized" consoles perform much better than the older versions; possibly due to a number of factors such as how hot the console gets and how much energy is being pumped into the fans, etc..

    Of course, proper ventilation of any PS3 will result in better performance under stress. So really, it will vary from player to player thanks to a lot of variables :l

    I think ._.
     
  14. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    38,465
    Then I guess it's just me, but I'd certainly say that the burden of proof lied far more on the person who made a thread titled "GT6 framerate depends on which console you have" with specific claims related therein attempting to justify it rather than the people who say that it doesn't in response to when that first person failed to provide anything but anecdotal evidence (and various suppositions/statements of questionable veracity) to prove it does.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2014
  15. Connorman95

    Connorman95 (Banned)

    Messages:
    91
    Location:
    United States
    Fat... The SX4 Base model makes the display lag :(
     
  16. BWX

    BWX

    Messages:
    2,005
    NO. Wrong.

    "Performance" such as heat dissipation or creating less heat, or less noise or more longevity? Yeah.. Performance as far as game "running faster"? No. It is not "a fact"..

    Ok, bored with this.. bye lame thread!
     
    Emet_PL and lTwiSparkle like this.
  17. lTwiSparkle

    lTwiSparkle

    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    No, perhaps not "faster", but maybe with less issues caused by hardware stresses?

    I have no absolute proof and do not claim to have any, but from what I can gather with my limited experience of gaming, my games have been a LOT smoother when my system has had more room to breathe.

    There's a video on one of my old YouTube channels demonstrating (with an FPS counter no less) that when my PC was well ventilated during play on Audiosurf, I was achieving 100+ FPS in comparison to a lower 40ish FPS during times when my PC didn't have an external fan running (it's really clunky and old).

    Now there are other variables that can affect this, yes, and maybe it doesn't apply to the PS3's, but that is actually quite a large difference and the most obvious assumption to make is the heat. And with newer PS3's doing heat management much much better than the older ones, I simply made the connection. I am sorry if it is wrong, I just dislike seeing another massive debate/bordering-on-insult-argument on GTPlanet over these things.

    I'll see if I can dig up the video or perhaps reupload it if you would like s:

    Again, sorry if I'm wrong.
     
  18. ryzno

    ryzno Premium

    Messages:
    4,955
    Location:
    United States
    Old school fatty 80g. I rarely experience graphics lag. But when drag racing, Ive noticed when there is alot of smoke and people moveing. When both cars launch, there will be a lag causeing a bogg which ruins the run.
    I have also tested this when offline and experience the same graphics lagg.
    Doing seasonals I have not noticed any graphics lagg. As far as trees and pop ups I pay attention to the track.
     
  19. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,633
    All things considered, the title is accurate. The thread has already elicited (and the OP has agreed) that there is not necessarily a concrete relationship between model and "performance"; but what is certain is that some people are clearly having a better time of it than others. It varies from console to console. The performance depends on which console you got, which seems to be true even amongst equivalent models.

    However, you can guarantee that, all else being equal, a furred-up fatty (etc.) will run hotter than a furred-up 45 nm slim. The general expectation among those who know about chip design is that thermal throttling is present on the chip (as a simple extension to the load-dependent throttling that definitely is there), so the fatty will be closer to whatever limit is present (which may itself vary from model to model; but that doesn't change the outcome here). Add in variance from dodgy coolers, that from manufacturing variance (different voltages required to maintain stock clocks) and that from the specific environment, and the possibility space starts to make sense (even if we can't directly quantify any of it).


    Some models will probably be running slow for different ultimate reasons (proximate cause likely to be "too hot"), and without servicing several thousand of them, we won't know for sure what the patterns are (Sony would have had an idea and integrated that knowledge into revisions, though - even on the "same model"). But, crucially, we don't need to know what the patterns are, if performance drops are due to thermal throttling (it might be interesting to explore what else it could possibly be).

    For now, if your PS3 is running badly, check the cooling - check the fans work, check you've got clear flow into and out of the console - and if possible through the console, and make sure dust is nowhere to be seen.


    @xSNAKEx may benefit from editing the first post.
    If there is contention with the basic idea that the game runs better or worse for different people, regardless of any notion of console (or display!) variability, that may be a long discussion.
     
    Furinkazen and Tornado like this.
  20. MatskiMonk

    MatskiMonk

    Messages:
    12,842
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    CECH20003A 120GB slim

    Overall not too bad performance. Bathurst is the real teller though, FPS drops dramatically when coming down the mountain. One car on track, bumper cam.

    So, I tried Normal / Flicker Reduction / Sharpening options, and there was no difference in any. Haven't driven in the rain or at night yet.

    The only predictable tearing I get is at the last corner at Brands.

    My HDD only has GTA:V & save game, and GT6 & Savegame.
     
  21. mark5916

    mark5916

    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Greece
    And have you tried all those consoles with the same HDD at least. ???

    That should give some good results. !!!!
     
  22. xSNAKEx

    xSNAKEx

    Messages:
    1,210
    Location:
    Australia
    Actually as has already been said, no it wont. The performance issues I have seen been more to do with rendering and/or processing and not loading.

    Though, I already have tested different hard drives on the same console.

    I have compared gt6 from the slowest old hdd to a ssd. It had no impact or FPS or tearing juddering etc.

    What it did have an effect on it micro freezes. It definitely reduced the occurrence of those, but mostly in menus. In game, the sudden appearance or loading of textures for example was also minimised.

    Lets say you went of track and the game reset you back on the road, the SSD image would be ready instantly whilst the Hdd still had pop ups coming up while you drove. The HDD many times was even black screened. I.e you would
    hear the sound but no image loaded.

    Thats all it made a difference to.

    The best thing I can do for you guys is upload a recording of the tutorial race between the worst and best console. Be warned though, because of the camera phone they look similar in performance even though they are worlds apart.

    Keen eyes viewers should be able to spot the fps difference and tearing though.
     
  23. mark5916

    mark5916

    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Greece
    Then it's more HDD related as the console itself...

    As you say a SSD eliminates the micro freezes, faster loading times...

    I agree with that, as a have tried GT5 on a SSD and the loading times where really fast compared with the conventional HDD drive. !!!!!

    The bad is, a had micro freezes with Mass effect 2 every 2 sec with the SSD drive. !!!!!!
    That's weird i know, but it was like that. So i changed my SSD again. !!! lol
     
  24. xSNAKEx

    xSNAKEx

    Messages:
    1,210
    Location:
    Australia
    Well if you are talking about loading times or microfreezes, then yes the hdd plays a part. However that was not the point of the thread. Microfreezes are never an issue when actually racing. The juddering/tearing/low fps etc is all a result of the rendering power.
    The worst you can get with the absolute slowest HDD ever is some texture pop ups or things appearing in the rear view mirror. If anything, a slow HDD would boost fps as there is less detail for the GPU and CPU to render.
     
  25. OdeFinn

    OdeFinn

    Messages:
    2,643
    Location:
    Finland
    @xSNAKEx, hdd is one biggest heat source on ps3.
    Would be nice to see test on identical hdd, and or ssd.

    On GT5 there was similar things on performance, my friends launch model fatty was faster on loading and overall comparing to mine fatty 80gb. Both were running on original hard disks.

    High temperature makes electronics run always slower. Cold makes them run faster until the point when circuits starts go short.

    I'm guessing at most of this thread differences are from temperature variation.
     
  26. eSZee

    eSZee

    Messages:
    11,214
    Location:
    United States
    Is it really? I would've assumed cpu, gpu, power supply, several areas on the mobo contributed much more heat that the HDD.
     
  27. Ridox2JZGTE

    Ridox2JZGTE

    Messages:
    11,660
    Play games that access HDD frequently - GTA V, Fallout, Max Payne etc for a few hours. Turn off then take out the HDD, it will be hot, similar to laptop HDD that runs hot, sometimes hotter. The heat usually goes up to the BR drive above it ( on Slim PS3 ), the BR drive may run hot at times as well, when the game frequently read from the disc.
     
  28. turdhat

    turdhat

    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    United States
    I have heard many say coming down the mountain in bathhurst is really bad. I am very sensitive to frame rate and notice nothing jarring there. I have a 60 gb fat upgraded to a 320gb. I notice bad frames at Sarth right at the start of the race.
     
  29. eSZee

    eSZee

    Messages:
    11,214
    Location:
    United States
    Bathurst is bad almost everywhere, not just the mountain. If you're looking for differences between going down or up you won't likely see them.
     
  30. turdhat

    turdhat

    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    United States
    It is bad in cockpit I see. I mostly use bonnet cam and it is a lot better. I might switch to 720P myself after some testing. I have a Harmon Kardon AVR that takes all of my HDMI inputs. It has a killer video scaling chip touted as being very high end. I have found if I run 720p and let the receiver then upscale it back to 1080p then the TV doesnt have to scale with it's inferior chip. The result is better than I expected even on a 55 inch. Yes, it is more jaggy but not be enough to offset the frame rate gain. Still, more testing is needed.