Developer: PS3, 360 graphics "impossible to tell apart"

So they actually worked with the final developing kit for the PS3.
I remember when they said that the PS2 graphics (emotion engine) would beat out all of the competition. Those were the days!

Thats good. it makes potential buying a 360 over a PS3 a little better for my graphics whore side. I'm glad this whole "4D" business has been blown out the water too, damn Sony hyperbole.
Though I'm still to get a 360, I played a bit on GRAW and Full Auto and wasn't that impressed with the graphics. Especially Full Auto that looked like a DC game with higher resolution and particle effects.

Uhhh well let's see. The developer is making a game for both systems, therefore it'd be stupid for them to herald one system over the other. They said the SCREENSHOTS would be indiscernable, but that doesn't mean one won't have a smoother framerate than the other. This is also only for one game. The statements mean absolutely nothing.

Just a point of contention, as far as the "cpu advantage" this is strictly under specific code, The cell processor has incredible Flop number however, interger and branch prediction suck hard.
The 360 cpu by contrast has "3x" the interger processing power of the cell as well as 4KB branch prediction (while not the absolute best out there, thats pretty darn impressive, especially for a console) In addition both core are in-order, however the 360 cpu has OOOe on its vmx units giving it an advantage of not being a strict in-order cpu. As the final issue, the 360 gpu has direct access to the cpu cache. This is important as it streamlines the process of procedural sysnthesis. In the method, the cpu can process and dictate animations, generate geometry, even create variables on procedurally generated textures. The result is a texture, animation, AI, etc. is stored as an equation, rather than a jpg, script, or animated path. This translates into gaming where now every 4 feet of dirt no longer looks the same, but is generated on the fly and creates "natural" varibles as you would see in wood, stone, or other natural materials. To way the console is built its possible to do, as well as create a fighting game where the moves are generated on the fly, i.e. if you punch someone it the back its possible to do context senstive moves where the enviroment and position of the other character are all taken into consideration thus making the movements appear move like a carefully staged movie than an interactive fighint game.

Why this is importan and how it compares to the PS3?

Having direct access to the cpu cache dictates that procedurally generated content does not need to travel back through RAM. This is significant as this is the bottleneck. In fact the 360 is built around the principal of keeping content out of RAM. The edram ensures the frambuffer which is the most bandwidth constrictive element and also the source of bottlenecks for games is keep out of the system RAM. Again using procedurally generated textures and geometry, particularly on more mundane elements like trees or nautral objects will further free ram and bandwidth, two VERY restrictive commodities.

The Ps3 by contrast must push everything through RAM including the framebuffer, with only approximately twice the bandwidth of the 360 the Ps3 will be severly ram/bandwidth restrained.

Holy shit!!! Did that dude seriously just flip over that squad car with just a crowbar?? You can only imagine what kind of destruction actual firearms would cause.

But seriously though, I'm a bit surprised to see that they think the 360 has a slight GPU advantage, I thought it was pretty cut and dry the PS3 had an advantage in all categories.

It really excites me to think that we may actually have 2 very similar consoles and a good old fashioned console race a'la the 90s with the Genesis and SNES. Welcome back the glory days.

Joseph-
Why wouldn't the developer critique each system then give their strengths compared to the other?
As if Microsoft would give reprisals to any developer that suggests Sony has greater capacity to do anything. Which is a stupid idea because without developer support there would be no games.
The developers for a lot of games have been saying this for some time now. It should be no suprise.

The more complicated things get, the more that can go wrong. I'm disappointed that developers aren't doing more thourough testing to ensure the framerates don't drop. What, are we supposed to buy upgrades for these things?

It'll be interesting to see how Wii compares. Nintendo says gamers won't notice a difference. Oh, really? Just the lack of RAM alone is a problem.

Only a few developers will be good enough to utilise the full potential of the PS3, but they're developers we know and respect. Basically, just look at any game on the PS2 that bowls you over and you can start putting together names like Naughty Dog, Criterion, Sony London Studios, and half a dozen or so others. They mightn't be plentiful in number, but their pedigree is hard to argue with. MGS4 will look amazing, but lets not forget Kojima said the 360 could handle it. I wouldn't be surprised if MGS4 looks better than any 360 game out at the same time, but then I think that says more about Kojima and his team than the power of the console. MGS3 looks better than most GameCube and XBox games.

Anyone who can use the ps3 to it's full potential will make a game that is notably better than what the 360 can do, but more teams will be able to get the full power out of the 360. so i wouldn't be surprised if the 'average' 360 game looked better than the average ps3.

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out. You only need, say, two titles at launch and half a dozen titles in the first year of the 'beyond 360 looks' to convince people the ps3 is more powerful, but i don't think it'll be a no brainer on choosing which version of a multiplatform to buy.

Hoffy, I've always been hearing that the 360's GPU is slightly better than the PS3's. The only people I've ever heard different off are Sony, or people quoting Sony's figures. The 360's part is custom designed for the console, where as the PS3's part is a PC part adapted for console in a much shorter space of time. It might have similar or more raw power, but it's not as refined as the 360's which has some really clever things built into it that make it much more adaptable and flexible.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying for awhile now. Anyone who expected the S3 to blow the Xbox 360 out of the water is either a fanboy or insane.

Wait. So what was Sony showing me at last year's E3 then? If ya got it, flaunt it and if not, follow Sony: Just lie.

Yeah, this isn't new news. Developers have been saying that since E3. Both about the PS3 having a CPU advantage, and 360 having a GPU advantage.

And to #8... How can you say that? You say that MGS4 will look so great, and quote the fact that Kojima said it could run on a 360.. but go onto perpetuate the myth that the PS3 is still that much better then the 360.

From one of my friends who's working on a PS3 game, There is a slight advantage, but nothing as drastic between the Xbox and PS2. I think the consoles are much much closer then one thinks. And looking at how many Japanese developers who are actually making 360 games... the dev environment must be better as well.

People, people please! Games won't decide the outcome of the next gen ware, that's just plum silliness...It will be the movie studios!...at least according to Wedbush Morgan Securities.

To go along with what plagiarize said, it's not about hardware in this day and age. After all the talk it comes down to third party support and brass that develop triple A titles consistently.

@ Eric

They never said that... I suppose you're refering to the Sony is more interested in Blu-Ray deal? They said that the format will survive *because* the playstation 3 will have won the console war again, and thus put millions of next generation format players in households across the world for a very fast paced and expanding HDTV market.

Eric, I get your sarcasm there, but if Blu-Ray really takes off, that could very well be the case.

If all the movie studios end up dropping out from HD-DVD and backing Blu-Ray, we could see the PS3 dominate the console race and see Sony dominate our livingrooms. Obviously, this is Sony's plan.

I have a feeling though, that DVD is far from dead yet and people aren't going to be ready to switch to a next-gen optical format for years to come.

The installed base of HD users is still incredibly low, and when you factor in the price of HD sets, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players, and the whole HDMI/DRM debockle, anyone who doesn't question the jump to the "HD Era" is a little out of touch with the rest of reality.

While most readers here on Joystiq may be ready and willing to pay thousands of dollars for a new TV, another thousand for a next-gen DVD player and premiums for HD cable content, the rest of the world isn't. Not yet at least.

-David-

My interpretation was based more on sarcasm(thought I made that clear sorry). But look closer at the issue of blu-ray and who wins the console war, and it becomes more of a "what came first the chicken or the egg" question. Will the PS3 win out BECAUSE of blu-ray or will blu ray win BECAUSE of the PS3?

Xbox Live is better than anything Sony tries to copy.

To Eric

I didn't mean to jump on your comment or anything it's just that a lot of that sensibility has been flying around the internet for the last few days and I want to make the study they did clear. Just for the record, it's more then fair to assume that should blu-ray become industry standard in 5 years(eg this will NOT be decided over night) it will most assuredly be in some significant way have been from the PS3 influence.

Quick jab at Hoffy, the current HD userbase isn't necessarily that low, last count I believe around 10% market share for TV's and expected to boom fervently over the next 5 years, just want to make sure people know the digital age here to stay.

console freaks are such noobs. Anyone who has been into pc gaming (where all the tech comes from) for any period of time will know that it is unrealistic to expect that the cpu or gpu in either system is going to be significantly more powerful than the other companies product. It just doesn't work that way. Moore's law works! All it takes is a quick glance around the industry and you will quickly see that nobody is making a product that is 2-3x faster than their top competition. Sony knows it can make these claims because most of its customers don't know or care to know otherwise.

Neither box will win the war, and why would you want them to? Competition is good for everyone. Sony once had an advantage because of their developers (as nintendo did before it) But that has evaporated as console and pc developers have become analogous and cross platform development has become a smart business move. PC developers always had the advantage from a technology standpoint. They were the ones that set the bar and drove the graphic quality of games and console developers were the ones that innovated in gameplay. That has changed quite a bit over the last few years because of the successes and innovations each platform has had and it's good for everyone, regardless of which console you choose to own!

So, if the graphics are the same, and one is available TODAY what are we waiting for?

You won't be able to get a PS3 until next year since they will be more scarce than the 360 was last year. In the online arena, Sony is playing ' follow the leader'. The PS3 controller, without true analog triggers and un-ergonomical symmetry, is a pale 2nd to the 360's.

The PS3 is a glorified DVD player.

Would you buy your DVD player built into your TV?
Would you buy your game system built into your TV?
Would you buy a game system built-into your DVD player?

When I want something best in class, I buy something dedicated to that function.

Nobody wants a trojan horse.

We want to GAME!

lol this is funny. The ONE thing MS had over sony was 'better' graphics and sony went on to outsell and domintate the market. Well now that the MS no longer has the 'we have better graphics' slogon(theyll prob be the same) what advantage does MS have? Live? big deal all sony has to do is 'match' them with a decent system. Developer support? Dont make me laugh!

I guess I also forgot to mention that PS3 is actually built (in terms of the path data takes when processed by the system) much closer to a traditional PC than the 360. The REAL reason 360 games thus far have looked like crap, is because the games are not coded specifically for the 360 arch. The 360 just happens to be powerful enough to run them as well to they do. To understand this point, the RAM bandwidth in the ps3 would easily accomidate the game Oblivion without any stutters, (all else being equal) at 720P you are talking anywhere up to 512GB per sec easily needed for bandwidth. the spes or even the 360 cores could be used to push that through the small ram size. The problem occured because the 360 version was not coded strictly for the 360 thus the engine DOES NOT RECOGNIZED THE USE OF EDRAM. Edram is IMPERATIVE to 360 performance. Without coding the rendering engine to use the edram, the frambuffer must reside in the small bandwidth of the system ram. at 22GB, far to low to really handle adequately as well as attempt to handle everythign else that must fit into ram. The reality is Using edram and procedural synthesis, to processes the 360 console was actually built around, you will see amzing games and because of its design and ability to store content in the form of an equation and generate it on the fly a REAL properly coded 360 game takes MUCH MUCH smaller space on the disc media, as well as in ram.

So why isnt Oblivion coming to PS3. Everyone believes its an exclusive contract, however Bestheda has gone on record saying it will bring Oblivion to every console possible. So why not PS3?
Personally I dont think the PS3 has the branh prediction, nor interger processing to handle radiant AI, which is not by any means a typical AI script. I cant prove it, however Im pretty sure based on the way it appears to be coded...

Well, this was all kind of known. Though I'd like to know whether that is their true opinion or whether they are saying that to keep both companies happy. Whatever.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the fact that the PS3 has the Bluray drive which will make the real difference. 25Gb is a massive advantage over the max 9Gb of a DVD.

jojo29, c'mon, you've already made it clear which side you are on. wake up. Sony had a multi-year headstart, brand loyalty (from ps1) and developer loyalty. The only thing MS had working for it was better graphics capabilities. Only a fool would expect them to not win that round. If they didn't, it would go down as one of the biggest collapses in the history of any company.

Now most of those advantages have been wiped out. MS has a small headstart, the consoles are equally powerful and developers are making games for BOTH systems. Your comments about developer support show just how little you know. Your bias is apparent.

why would you want one console to "win" over the other? Are you so immature that you don't know how competition benefits everyone? wait...don't answer that.

benny, data storage is meaningless. Companies are going into debt to develop games that will fill a current DVD. They don't have the budgets or the staff to create a game that will really take advantage of 25gb. The blu-ray drive (and HD-DVD for that matter) have zero bearing on the games. They are all about market penetration. They will have no effect on game quality.

Correct jsn as I was trying to explain before disc space is meaning less, and the reality is blu-ray drive actually put the Ps3 at a disadvantage. First and formost is the area of transfer speeds, the Ps3 games on blu-ray suffer will have horrible load times, (think PSP but MUCH WORSE) unless they release Ps4 with a 4x drive it will be at a disadvantage. Next are seek times. Blu-ray drives, as do all optical media release with initially horrible seek times. This issue of seek times forces the developer to use data redundacy, basically multiple files of the file on a disc, this can actually multiple the amount of capacity media needs. The DVD drive in the 360 has incredible seek and transfer speeds. which are actually perfect for gaming. Th other issue is ram and how its used. As I explained before the Ps3 will be severely bandwidth constrainted due to its design. It actually suffers from the same bottlenecks as PCs. Anyway if you take time to read Benny you we see how the 360 design compensates for smaller disc space and in the end is perfected designed for its intentions. Its just up to developers whether they want to de lazy or not.

Is there any solid spec on the ps3 GPU? last time I checked, no. And as already mentioned the developer needs to say it will be the same for both systems, it wants you to go buy the game and cannot allege themselves to 1 console. The games being made for sony are devkits as the final spec is still in pre-release which means it can change and improve, we have not received word that the ps3 is in production have we?

Whatever comes out 2nd is always better in terms of graphics in the long run. The PS3 will be a year after the 360 thats significant.

Hold up. The 360 stutters in 1080i from time to time, even 720p. So how on earth is the PS3 going to manage dual 1080p? Are Sony playing Tetris on it?

I wonder if by the PS4's hyping moment people will still fall for all this hyperbole? As if the PS2 didn't teach the fools anything. Now PS3 too. *sigh*

I believe this story is probably very accurate, but not because of hardware. The graphics will be similar because of development cost. For this reason, I suspect even Wii's graphics will be very similar to the 360 and PS3. ESPECIALLY for 3rd parties who will not want to develope a totally separate graphics engine to make a game look better on the PS3.

This is why the Big N does not want to adopt HD................yet.

All this really reminds me of the comparisons between SEGA Genises and the SNES. No one really could tell much of a difference until the leap to 3D.

I think the next real leap we will see in Graphics will be on the PC side with physics engines.

@#2 Jay

I'm really surprised you weren't impressed by GRAW. I've never seen anything close to the graphics and gameplay that exists in that game on a console. Had some flaws, but all in all, quite impressive.

I think the non-fanboy gamers have known for a while that both systems will produce graphics that look more or less the same. The most likely factor to make a difference is the medium. The storage capacity of Blue Ray is probably overkill for the average game, but there are a few titles like Oblivion that are already pushing the limits of DVD, and I would expect CG-happy companies like Square will fill that extra space with tons of cinematics.

the nature of the cell processor is such that the handful of talented developers than can code for it, will be able to do things that other systems can't. end of story. the question is how many people can do it, and can they make great games. as i said, I expect that there'll be a number of high profile games that do, but that there won't be one system that's the default choice for multiplatform games as there was last season. some games will be better on ps3, some on 360. smaller developers won't be able to do anything nearly as impressive as what Naughty Dog for example, will be able to do with the PS3.

maybe i should have gone into a bit more detail. developers are getting used to the ps3, and i'd bet that at the launch of the ps3 360 games will look on par (even if Ridge Racer 7 and Full Auto 2 look better than RR6 and Full Auto, I doubt they'll look better than what the 360 is offering this winter). the ps3 probably the more powerful machine, but it's going to take very talented programmers to make that difference apparent.

if the games that show it off best, aren't very good (unlikely though) then that advantage isn't an advantage really.

Kojima didn't say MGS4 would look identical on the 360, just that he could have made it for 360. Personally though, I think the 360 is capable of such graphics... but I also think the PS3 is capable of games that are more visually impressive than the 360.

Take Fight Night 3, as an example. One of the things that makes that game's graphics impressive, are the slow motion knock down punch replays, that rely on physically simulating flapping cheek movement. That's something the processor will be doing. Animation is something the processor will be doing. More lifelike animation and reactions to punches would make Fight Night 3 a much better looking game. More realistic and lifelike. That's going to start happening this gen with Euphoria from Natural Motion (soon to be demoed at E3 in the new Indiana Jones game coming to both platforms) and similar middleware.

When we say 'graphics' we aren't just talking about how things look, but how they move, and that's where someone who knows what they're doing would be able to get the ps3 to shine thanks to its CPU. The PS3 NEEDS to be more powerful or people are just paying extra to get a video format that mightn't take off, and Sony with all their XBox 1.5 jokes are going to look like idiots.

I'd love to see what some of the developers that made the PS2 do things we never thought it could (GT4 in 1080i!!!) would be able to pull off on the 360, but most of those developers tend to be second and first party.

I'm not saying the PS3 will be 'soo much better' and owning a 360 already, I'm unlikely to be fighting for a PS3 at launch, because many of the next gen games I'm looking forwards too are coming out on both systems. I'm just saying that, the evidence is, that the ps3 will be a more powerful system, but a much harder system to develop for. That's where I'm coming from. Most PS3 games will be completely comparable to 360 games, but a few will surpass what the 360 can do, and whether or not that's a killing blow will depend on how many, and how good.

> I believe this story is probably very accurate,
> but not because of hardware. The graphics
> will be similar because of development cost.

I assume this to be the case as well. As a developer makes their crosspaltform game they will baseline the graphical and gameplay features based on what they can afford to consistently bring to the market. I don't see any reason why someone making a cross platform game wouldn't want to make each version look the same (as far as the ps3 and 360 are concerned, the Wii is a diff story).

Exclusives will tell the story, but that's going to be so subject and very much an apples and oranges comparison. But it'll still be fun to compare GoW and Halo3 to Killzone 2.

jojo29, please go back to surfing myspace and youtube as you have nothing valuable to offer here.

Plagiarize;

"the evidence is"?

To what evidence do you refer? Sony marketing hype? Or, are you just ignoring comments by multiple development houses putting the systems as equals? How about we take as "evidence" the only set of objective parties to have significant experience with both platforms? Nah, what would they know. I'm sure Sony is better qualified to comment on the relative performance of both systems.

@jsn

Ok yes its clear what side im on. Im a Sony/Nintendo fanboi. Thats not a secret. BUT dont assume that because i support those systems, means i want MS to fail. I don't. Honestly why would i want them to? They keep Sony/Nintendo from getting lazy and monopolizing the market. No i dont want none of the systems to fail, i just would like to see a repeat of the last gen wars only this time it'd be like this:

1.Sony
2.Nintendo
3.MS

As for 'how little you know'. Well developer support is strong for all systems BUT the LEADING console most developers are bringing their 'A' games for is the PS3 bottomline. Also need i bring up Japan? Sorry didnt mean to make you turn red on just the thought of japan. Yes the 360 has little to NO support in Japan, and that IS a big deal and if Japan wont support MS what do you think small japanese developers are gonna do? Thats right NOT support the 360. Can this change in the future? Sure, BUT the fact still remains that Sony/Nintendo already have Japan, and will trump the 360 there. shows how little YOU know, forgot to mention japan now didnt we? oh wait dont anwer that...

So you tell me, what advantages does MS have that Sony can't (decently at the least) rival? I honestly dont see it , my bro has a 360 and the only game (so far) that made me go 'DAAMN' was Fight Night. Which is pretty damn sad being that the system has been out for over 6months and despite being inferior is offered on other systems?(i think over 6months not sure dont quote me on that) and the best that it can offer are two games i can get on my PC(GWAR and Oblivion).

Also, and i think this is why im not fond of MS, is how can MS 360, who are backed by the richest man in the world and who can afford to LOSE out (how much $ was it so far $384mil again not sure) and STILL not have awesome games? Thats why i support Sony/Nintendo because they cant afford to lose.

In terms of who's going to win the next gen console war, I think you're all completely barking up the wrong tree. The fact is that most consoles are either bought by people who have no interest in or knowledge of technical information of this depth, or by parents as birthday/xmas presents for their children. The few remaining people who both understand the meaning of bottlenecks between the CPU/RAM and care about it are largely made up of fanboys, leaving only a tiny fraction of the market as impartial observers who will choose based on the technical merits of any given system.
In reality, the race comes down to the branding, PR and marketing, as well as the ability of the manufacturers to court quality developers/franchises and obviously a bit of luck. The PS2 didn't win because it was a better console (does anyone really think the controller is actually any good? I even prefered that god-awful brick that was the original xbox controller), but because Sony had a better brand and won the competition as a business.
Although the whole HD battle will doubtless influence the console war and vice versa, the next-gen competition will surely be resolved on the same principles; so with Nintendo claiming to be aiming at an entirely different market and coming out with Wii (it remains to be seen whether this will be an inspired piece of marketing genius or a piece of strategy the British commmanders at the Somme would have been proud of), Microsoft have got their work cut out if they want to overcome Sony's advantage in this area.

I didn't read all the post so if someone already said this, sorry. It may be true that the graphics of both systems may be similar, but its the GAMES that count. Which system is going to have the games I want to play. I dont have an xbox because there are no games that are xbox-only that I want to play. I like the PS2 because there are a lot of game on it that I like to play that are not available on the xbox. Ex. God of War, RE4, Kindgdom Hearts, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy X, Dragon Quest XIII, and more. Its the games that make a system, not who can edge out slightly better graphics. Course the HDMI and blueray add a lot for me on the PS3.

Well lets see... THIS developer said the PS3 had a faster CPU (and only said the 360 had a 'slightly' faster GPU). Kikizo talked to developers working with both, who said that 'The PS3 can't do anything the 360 can't, but it can do more things at once.' That and other places I don't remember.

You know, I did post earlier saying that the only place I'd heard it said the GPU in Sony's PS3 was by Sony or people parroting Sony. Sony give out theoretical maximums for all their parts, results they could never reach in the PS3 itself, Nintendo give out realworld performance of the final console, and I'm not sure where MS go for their figures. Sony have been saying that the PS3 is going to be almost a generational improvement over the 360 which is typical of their hyperbole, I just don't think they'd be stupid enough to say something like that if the system wasn't at least noticably more powerful. I'm guessing the gap will be similar to the one between PS2 and GameCube. Not enough that most people care either way, but enough that you can look at games on both systems and know that the GameCube has more power.

If you want to believe that Sony couldn't put something better than the 360 out a year later, then fine. The systems won't be equal. To know whether a developer saying they'll be 'about equal' means anything, you need to know whether or not they thought the GameCube and PS2 are 'about equal'.

"the nature of the cell processor is such that the handful of talented developers than can code for it, will be able to do things that other systems can't. end of story."

gotta love this quote, so tell me, you know this how? Im not saying its not true but could you give some technical examples of this and how the "power" of the system will translate into an actual game?

In addition, does anyone even bother to read my posts?

Man, there are alot of nervous MS fanboys responding to this blog. Try the developer is cross-platform and he's going to give a political answer. A multi-platform game will never really exploit a particular console's features to the full extent...so don't go expecting the game to look any different on either platform. But performance-wise, expect the PS3 version to be the definitive version (higher, more consistent framerate). This console war is exactly like last time's console war....except this time the big player has the better tech and is coming out a little later. I expect the difference to be PS2/Gamecube (XBOX 360) vs. XBOX (PS3). What I don't get is why anyone would want MS's console....their exclusives and first party titles suck, their tech on the overall isn't as good as the competitions, they have old tech for removable media (have fun watching your SD movies suckas!), and XBOX Live is their only selling point...which the competition will deliver for FREE by next November...and who the hell wants MS encroaching on every aspect of their life, anyway?

Face it, MS will never overtake Sony in this area. Bad brand image for megacorporations = slow adoption rate with a ceiling...unless they practically force you to buy their product a la Windows OS ;)

So far, all I've seen is the vocal minority on the internet make fools of themselves taking jabs at Sony (and even Nintendo...how could you hate Nintendo?), when they should realize it is inevitable that MS will never be the Marketshare leader. NEVER EVER EVER.

Stop shamefully trying to promote them. God...it's like all bitter SEGA fanboys of dreamcast past have attached themselves to the XBOX brand because they have nowhere else to go...and I want to throw up when I read their comments, acting like they are the source of what is right and what is wrong. Following Peter Moore to an inevitable failure is likely to be where you wind up.

#26 you are worng.

Gran Turismo 4 already fills a DUAL LAYER DVD.

The only place to go formt here for the next gen PS3 system and Gran Turismo 5 is upwards.

It's not difficult to imagine more detialed textures, more polygons in car and track models and more music tracks to listen to while driving.

I could easily forsee a need for a single layer BR discs (25 Gb) for big title games such as that.

Large PC games are heading towards multiple DVD's as well.

Somewhat misleading. He was referring only to his own title, which is multiplatform, when he said it'd be very hard to tell them apart. That's to be expected. It'll be the big-budget exclusives that show the true differences.

Oh, and he was only talking about screenshots too. Given where PS3's real strengths are - the CPU - I'd expect differences to be a lot more noticeable in motion via things like physics etc.

Bandit,

I read your posts. I have read similar things that talk about the bandwidth/bottleneck issue and how the 360 architecture streamlines this for game performance whereas the PS3 follows the typical PC architecture, i.e. CPU and GPU work/information going thru RAM. Very insightful technical information you provide.

Sounds analogous to the Athlon and Intel dual processor architecture arguements. Basically an Athlon dual will be noticeably faster than an Intel dual because of the architecture, not raw power.

For everyone talking about who will win the next console war, and the fact that it comes down to GAMES, i would agree. PS2 had a lot more games, a ridiculously more amount of games than the Xbox. I think the XNA technology and the ease of development for 360 games could even that out this generation. Anyway, the question will come to which system has the unique games that you want to play. For me that is Gears of War, Halo 3, Oblivion, Blue Dragon (sounds interesting, haven't 'seen' anything yet) and Xbox Live.

The only thing that has me interested in PS3 is MGS4. Lair I could care less about, and I don't buy the Killswitch 'actual gameplay' footage for a second.

Bandit,

I follow what you're saying about the 360. However, is it not true that the PS3 can pull a similar trick by running procedural synthesis on an SPE or two and dma'ing the results straight over to the GPU? I don't know much about the 360 hardware at the bus level, so maybe it is possible that the GPU can access the CPU cache faster on the 360, but I don't see an obvious reason why the 360 should be significantly faster at this.

Plagiarize - "I just don't think they'd be stupid enough to say something like that if the system wasn't at least noticably more powerful."

Did you sleep through all the crap they claimed for PS2? Sony wouldn't know how to make a true statement about a system if the company's life depended on it. They live for FUD and do it better than anyone. The reality will be apparent when they finally ship some games, but every seriously knowledgable techie I know, including some very senior game developers tell me the two are virtually identical in raw power -- though each has its strengths and issues. However if you listen to Sony, the thing is the next best thing to going to paradise and will create whole new worlds of gaming experiences like no one has ever seen - in 4D and on two 1080p screens at once.

Yea right. I'll close on one of my favorite pieces of Sony BS from Kutaragi-san from the last generation:

Prior to the launch of PlayStation 2, he said of the platform: "You can communicate to a new cybercity. Did you see the movie The Matrix? Same interface. Same concept. Starting from next year, you can jack into The Matrix!"

Bandit,
I thought your posts were excellent. Full of good, solid technical information. I think procedural synthesis (PS) is going to really change gaming. Do you know of any games in the works that are incorporating PS methods? Are you working on one?

S

Bandit,
I thought your posts were excellent. Full of good, solid technical information. I think procedural synthesis (PS) is going to really change gaming. Do you know of any games in the works that are incorporating PS methods? Are you working on one?

S

To Jon, the issue stems from bandwidth issues. Each frame must be composed and rendered and pushed through ram. In the 360 a scene with significant procedural synthesis will follow the following sequence

Disc-->Ram-->Cache-->CPU-->Cache-->GPU-->Edram-->Output


The PS3 as follows
Disc-->RAM-->Cache-->CPU-->Cache-->RAM-->GPU-->Ram-->Output

As can be seen data enters ram three times in the PS3 model versus once in the 360 model. This offers a SIGNIFICANT benefit as the framebuffer does not reside in system ram, nor geometry, nor procedurally generated textures, nor pre-scripted animations if actually done right. In addition the results of procedural synthesis create much more naturally and realistic A.I., movement, texture, etc. Currently 360 games use the model that the Ps3 does, which is very similar to PC path of coding. Hence they are attempting to cram stuff into the 360 ram which was never intended for that purpose, as the design of the box allows it to circumvent throwing data repeatedly into RAM and pulling it out. In essense, If done properly the 360 could use very little RAM and actually achieve more realistic results. Thats not to say Ps3 cant do procedural synthesis, however is insanely more effiecent on the 360 even down to the GPU which uses unified shaders so that the models, and data the cpu constructs do not need to be "timed" to coincide with the pipelines as each will automatically process whatever is sent to it.

Ultimately much more effiecient use of finesse rather than raw power.