GT6 Framerate depends on which console you have.

  • Thread starter xSNAKEx
  • 263 comments
  • 49,005 views
Zenmervolt
Regardless of the console, it's undisputed that 720p is smoother. Whether the difference is important is a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


Whilst, 1080p is lovely n' all, i always play the game in 720 now, because i can live with the lower resolution just fine, knowing the game runs better with it.

Question(s) for all: What about 1080i ? I've never known much about what 1080i is. Is it some kind of upscale for 720p although i'm sure i've read before that it's actually worse than 720p ?

My PS3 will allow me to run the game in 1080i, but do i have to take into account the TV over-riding that option, or does the tv have no influence at all ? ( 48" 1080p LED television for reference ).
 
I have 32" Samsung, 1080i looks very much the same as 1080p, just as sharp, and it's a bit more stable in frame rate compared to 1080p, the middle ground :)

Different TVs will output 1080i differently, my mates TV do not display 1080i as good as on mine.
 
"P"(progressive?) refresh full screen at one time, "i"(interlaced) refresh only "half", you can see those lines if using big screen.
 
jontikis
Which resolution do you believe is the best for my GT6? (I have a 160GB PS3 Slim)
Click to expand...
And how large is your TV? If you sit relatively close and it is over 42" I would recommend 1080p for the increased resoltion. 1080i is also an option that you could give a try, as while it isn't as good as 1080p on paper, if your TV is half-decent at de-interlacing then there will likely be no discernible difference in quality and it will run smoothly. @OdeFinn if you can see the scanlines in 1080i then your TV needs adjusting, that isn't supposed to happen.
Dimebolt
Question(s) for all: What about 1080i ? I've never known much about what 1080i is. Is it some kind of upscale for 720p although i'm sure i've read before that it's actually worse than 720p ?
My PS3 will allow me to run the game in 1080i, but do i have to take into account the TV over-riding that option, or does the tv have no influence at all ? ( 48" 1080p LED television for reference ).
Click to expand...
1080i is nearly the same resolution as 1080p, but works differently, in that rather than all pixels being refreshed at once, they change very quickly in alternating rows. This however, only matters for native 1080i TVs, a short-lived line of high-end CRTs. In practice, when you play a 1080i game, it will be upconverted to 1080p by your TV, and will run a fair bit smoother than 1080p because it places less technical strain on your PS3.
 
Last edited:
I wonder If people seeing differences maybe have consoles with slight issues creeping up they are unaware of.My younger brother has the same GT6 I do (psn version,updated to latest) but his ps3 is the first gen 160gb same hdd it came with.I have the first "slim"(i call it the pre-slim slim lol),neither version has any noticeable difference no matter whats going on.
 
nasanu
No... I really have to hold back the attacks when I read posts like yours, it blows my mind how people can make such comments when they must know they don't really understand what they are talking about on a technical level. Think about it this way, could your TV effect something happening at a TV station? Say you changed the gamma setting on your TV, would it effect the outcome of the plot of a movie you were watching? That sounds completely idiotic right? Well that is how many 'theories' posted here sound to me. Your TV brand, size, make or model has nothing to do with the framerate of the game. Maybe it can effect your perception of it, but as for what the PS3 is doing nothing changes.
Click to expand...

There. I know it has nothing to do with how the PS3 works, but the tv affecting the perception of the image. Calling me an idiot wasn't necessary. I understand how this technology works even though I'm not able to explain it at a technical level.
 
One of the issues with the PS3 when the hard drive starts to get fragmented there's no way to easily correct the issue and older machines tend to have more fragmentation issues than newer ones. The best way to test versions of the PS3 would be to take the same HDD and swap it from system to system. That way you hold one of the big variable constant.

The biggest help from a clean and un-fragmented drive will obviously be in load times, but they can help with texture loading and pop-in as well, especially given the limited RAM on the PS3 and the tendency of some games to cache to the HDD. I truly think that HDD state has infinitely more to do with performance than the hardware generation for the console.

As for me, I'm swapping out for a solid state drive soon since you can now find a decent 256 GB SSD for ~$120 US. Even a "slow" SSD will saturate the PS3's SATA 1.5 interface, true, but that's still going to be MUCH faster than a traditional platter-based drive. Still, the main reason I'm swapping is not for performance, but for reliability... My cat has a tendency to jump onto the console and sit there, staring at me, when I'm playing games and I'm leery about the vibration from that causing head crashes on the drive (I've had some issues recently with corrupt files). I figure that an SSD will solve that issue nicely while having the benefit of reducing load times and, possibly, mitigating some stutters, though I'm not holding out huge hope for that last bit.

If you don't want to bother with the expense of buying a solid state drive, I've heard that some people have had luck with backing up their PS3, formatting the drive, and then restoring, which they claim reduces fragmentation. However, I'm not sure how much that will help and there's always the risk that the backup/restore process doesn't bring things back to exactly where they once were.
 
Zenmervolt
One of the issues with the PS3 when the hard drive starts to get fragmented there's no way to easily correct the issue and older machines tend to have more fragmentation issues than newer ones. The best way to test versions of the PS3 would be to take the same HDD and swap it from system to system. That way you hold one of the big variable constant.

The biggest help from a clean and un-fragmented drive will obviously be in load times, but they can help with texture loading and pop-in as well, especially given the limited RAM on the PS3 and the tendency of some games to cache to the HDD. I truly think that HDD state has infinitely more to do with performance than the hardware generation for the console.

As for me, I'm swapping out for a solid state drive soon since you can now find a decent 256 GB SSD for ~$120 US. Even a "slow" SSD will saturate the PS3's SATA 1.5 interface, true, but that's still going to be MUCH faster than a traditional platter-based drive. Still, the main reason I'm swapping is not for performance, but for reliability... My cat has a tendency to jump onto the console and sit there, staring at me, when I'm playing games and I'm leery about the vibration from that causing head crashes on the drive (I've had some issues recently with corrupt files). I figure that an SSD will solve that issue nicely while having the benefit of reducing load times and, possibly, mitigating some stutters, though I'm not holding out huge hope for that last bit.

If you don't want to bother with the expense of buying a solid state drive, I've heard that some people have had luck with backing up their PS3, formatting the drive, and then restoring, which they claim reduces fragmentation. However, I'm not sure how much that will help and there's always the risk that the backup/restore process doesn't bring things back to exactly where they once were.
Click to expand...
Ssd don't increase loading times its been tested time and again just Google it
 
loopyloogrrr
Ssd don't increase loading times its been tested time and again just Google it
Click to expand...

Of course they don't increase loading times. They're faster. They decrease loading times.

And yes, they do decrease loading times for any action that reads from the hard drive. Obviously if the game is loading from Blu-ray an SSD isn't going to do jack, but in cases where the game is reading from the hard drive an SSD will be faster. GT5 saw load times cut significantly in many instances and the comparisons I've seen on GT6 have shown improvements in the 10% to 20% range.

While SSDs won't increase frame rates or make games run faster, I've seen some illustrations where an SSD can improve texture "pop-in" under certain conditions, and that's certainly not a negative.

That said, it's only been now that 256-gig SSDs can be had in the $120 (US) range that I'd even begin to suggest that the performance is worth it for most users. And even at that, my rationale for the upgrade isn't strictly performance. :)

For people with older systems who are experiencing issues though, I stand by my position that a new hard drive, whether SSD or not, can help. Remember, the PS3 came with 5400 RPM drives. Even an inexpensive platter-based 7200 RPM drive can improve things a bit in addition to the benefits from a lack of fragmentation.
 
Zenmervolt
Of course they don't increase loading times. They're faster. They decrease loading times.

And yes, they do decrease loading times for any action that reads from the hard drive. Obviously if the game is loading from Blu-ray an SSD isn't going to do jack, but in cases where the game is reading from the hard drive an SSD will be faster. GT5 saw load times cut significantly in many instances and the comparisons I've seen on GT6 have shown improvements in the 10% to 20% range.

While SSDs won't increase frame rates or make games run faster, I've seen some illustrations where an SSD can improve texture "pop-in" under certain conditions, and that's certainly not a negative.

That said, it's only been now that 256-gig SSDs can be had in the $120 (US) range that I'd even begin to suggest that the performance is worth it for most users. And even at that, my rationale for the upgrade isn't strictly performance. :)

For people with older systems who are experiencing issues though, I stand by my position that a new hard drive, whether SSD or not, can help. Remember, the PS3 came with 5400 RPM drives. Even an inexpensive platter-based 7200 RPM drive can improve things a bit in addition to the benefits from a lack of fragmentation.
Click to expand...
I'll take ur word for it
 
loopyloogrrr
I'll take ur word for it
Click to expand...

You don't need my word. Just look at any of the links I provided. Or this one here: http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/80334-how-to-speed-up-the-playstation-3

It's certainly not a cure-all, but it does decrease load times in-game in most instances. Plus, if you have a pet that likes to sit on the PS3, you won't have head crashes with an SSD. ;)

I've seen enough people mention that older PS3 consoles with almost no games installed and cleaner HDDs tend to run GT5 and GT6 better than similarly-old consoles with full HDDs and that shouldn't be a surprise. While the PS3's file system does have advanced routines like those used in NTFS and HFS+ that render the need for routine defragging obsolete, these routines can only run if there's sufficient free space left on the drive. Once you're down to about 10GB or less of free space the system's ability to actively avoid fragmentation diminishes and hard drive access times (for traditional platter-based disks at least) begin to climb significantly.

If you have an 80GB "fat" PS3 with 70GB of space used up, it's going to be thrashing the hard disk a lot harder than a 120GB PS3 "slim" with 70GB of space used up and that's never going to help performance. While an SSD really isn't necessary unless you're paranoid about pet-induced head crashes, even a larger traditional drive can help if your current drive is nearing capacity.
 
Zenmervolt
One of the issues with the PS3 when the hard drive starts to get fragmented there's no way to easily correct the issue and older machines tend to have more fragmentation issues than newer ones. The best way to test versions of the PS3 would be to take the same HDD and swap it from system to system. That way you hold one of the big variable constant.

The biggest help from a clean and un-fragmented drive will obviously be in load times, but they can help with texture loading and pop-in as well, especially given the limited RAM on the PS3 and the tendency of some games to cache to the HDD. I truly think that HDD state has infinitely more to do with performance than the hardware generation for the console.

As for me, I'm swapping out for a solid state drive soon since you can now find a decent 256 GB SSD for ~$120 US. Even a "slow" SSD will saturate the PS3's SATA 1.5 interface, true, but that's still going to be MUCH faster than a traditional platter-based drive. Still, the main reason I'm swapping is not for performance, but for reliability... My cat has a tendency to jump onto the console and sit there, staring at me, when I'm playing games and I'm leery about the vibration from that causing head crashes on the drive (I've had some issues recently with corrupt files). I figure that an SSD will solve that issue nicely while having the benefit of reducing load times and, possibly, mitigating some stutters, though I'm not holding out huge hope for that last bit.

If you don't want to bother with the expense of buying a solid state drive, I've heard that some people have had luck with backing up their PS3, formatting the drive, and then restoring, which they claim reduces fragmentation. However, I'm not sure how much that will help and there's always the risk that the backup/restore process doesn't bring things back to exactly where they once were.
Click to expand...

@Zenmervolt - I think you may be onto something important here with regard to fragmentation. I came up with the same theory, and decided to use the search facility to see if anyone else had previously posted it.

First, let me say that I have worked in the computer storage industry for over 45 years, and I still am.

I have three PS3s of various vintages. None of them show any frame rate issues with GT6. A common characteristic is that all of them have very underutilized hard drives. By "underutilized", I mean they all have a large amount of free space. In my PS3s, the drives are 25% or less full.

Not only does having a lot of free space tend to mean lower file fragmentation rates, it also means that the files tend to be bunched up towards the outer cylinders, where the data is denser. (This is assuming that you've never really filled the drive up, of course, so that the free space toward the center of the disk has never been used.)

Since the tracks where your data is stored are larger in capacity, this means:-
  1. The data is transferred faster, which means it takes less time
  2. There are fewer head movements for the same amount of data, which also mean it takes less time
  3. The head movements which do occur are shorter in physical distance and hence take less time
  4. The result is that disk reads and writes happen faster
My recommendation is to use the largest 7,200 RPM drive you can find, preferably 500GBs or better. The process of transferring the data over to the new drive will defragment and compact all the files, so you should be running optimally after that process.

Of course, if money is no object, buy an SSD, but again, buy the largest one available. Larger SSDs are faster.
 
As what @GBO Possum said, a 7200rpm HDD is really nice. I have popped a 500GB one into my PS3 (which is now coming up to 6 years old) and I can play GT6 quite nicely! Occasional glitches, but that's about it!
 
I have a 120GB slim that I got the month they were released, and I haven't had any major issues with it other than when I'm in 16th and can see all of the other 15 cars ahead of me which will cause a drop in framerate. It really becomes apparent when some of those cars ride into the grass and throw up dirt.
 
I have a CECH-2001A, and I haven't had massive framerate problems for now. Then again, I don't know how much FPS I have but at 1080p I have decent framerate
 
I have the 2001B and don't have any problems whatsoever. Is it really that much difference between the 2001 A and B?
 

Latest Posts

Back