Still something I'd factor into the total price If I were to choose a multiplayer game for the ps3 today.Indigo_Dingo post=9.72729.771213 said:
Why does 360 look (and run) better than PS3? (multi platform games)
- Thread starter CTU_Agent24
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What everybody else said here about the system specs. The main problem is the Cell proc. It is 6-cores, vastly different from the current systems. It is hard to say whether each of the cores is slower than the 360's cores, although I suspect they are - otherwise everybody would just stick to single-threaded games.
Anyway, besides the 360's architecture being very advanced considering that it came out a couple of years before the PS3, there is also a problem of the dev support. Microsoft has spent the last 15 years working on development environments and APIs (DirectX). These APIs are well known in the game development world. The system architecture is more familiar. The dev environment is just plain better - software is Microsoft's bread and butter, after all.
Also, designing stuff for multi-threaded systems is a pain in the ass. Unless you know exactly what you are doing, it is really easy to get into a lot of trouble. Couple this with a brand new and vastly different system (360's are a lot closer to PCs), limited developer support, and lack of an advanced and well integrated developer environment, and you have your answer.
Furthermore, as a result of all of these factors, games take a lot longer to design - and also more expensive. If for example a game is being developed for the 360 and PS3, I suspect that the 360 version will be finished sooner. Which means that the PS3 port will not be as polished as it could be.
Anyway, besides the 360's architecture being very advanced considering that it came out a couple of years before the PS3, there is also a problem of the dev support. Microsoft has spent the last 15 years working on development environments and APIs (DirectX). These APIs are well known in the game development world. The system architecture is more familiar. The dev environment is just plain better - software is Microsoft's bread and butter, after all.
Also, designing stuff for multi-threaded systems is a pain in the ass. Unless you know exactly what you are doing, it is really easy to get into a lot of trouble. Couple this with a brand new and vastly different system (360's are a lot closer to PCs), limited developer support, and lack of an advanced and well integrated developer environment, and you have your answer.
Furthermore, as a result of all of these factors, games take a lot longer to design - and also more expensive. If for example a game is being developed for the 360 and PS3, I suspect that the 360 version will be finished sooner. Which means that the PS3 port will not be as polished as it could be.
Yea, I didn't see your other post before answering your original one. And yes, you're right to a certain extent.Indigo_Dingo post=9.72729.771200 said:
That said, if a game is developed first and formost on the PS3 with a view to filling a BR disk, then it's easy enough to just use 2 or more disks when porting it across to the 360. I don't know of anyone who would be all that upset with changing disks in MGS4 at the end of each chapter, instead of waiting for a 3-4 minute install anyway.
Both systems use 3.2ghz IBM CPU's. They are just different architecture which is what makes the difference. Wont go into full details but suffice to say the PS3 architecture is better just not in a gaming role where it is fairly even to the 360. However the Cell CPU was designed to do more than just play games. Both do a great job at playing games the Cell Has more it can do well though.stompy post=9.72729.771191 said:
Cell Processor spec sheet [http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cell/Cell0_v2.html]
@ Elim
It contains 8 SPU's (Cell equivalent of 'Cores'), it just happens that the PS3 reserves two of them.
I believe I read somewhere that the 360 is easier to develop for because its innards resemble more of a PC, while the Cell Processor is mainly new technology.
I hope that Sony doesn't repeat the same mistake with the PS2, where they left developers to their own devices (resulting in devs saying that the PS2 is "hard to develop for") instead of advising them on how to properly utilize their dev kits (I read this on gamingworldx.com, unfortunately, the site is no more).
@ Elim
It contains 8 SPU's (Cell equivalent of 'Cores'), it just happens that the PS3 reserves two of them.
I believe I read somewhere that the 360 is easier to develop for because its innards resemble more of a PC, while the Cell Processor is mainly new technology.
I hope that Sony doesn't repeat the same mistake with the PS2, where they left developers to their own devices (resulting in devs saying that the PS2 is "hard to develop for") instead of advising them on how to properly utilize their dev kits (I read this on gamingworldx.com, unfortunately, the site is no more).
Elim Garak:
Exactly.
It is still unknown what they can pull out of the cell though. Uncharted is one of the prettiest games on the market and features very little loading times at all, nor an install (and loads in all its textures in the jungles faster than Halo 3). The devs said they were only using about 1/3 of all the available processing power.
But that strict limitation of memory is probably what's causing so much problems. Being unable to load textures to memory (which they do on 360 as the DVD read speed isn't fast enough to keep up with the amount of I/O required here, let alone the slightly slower Blu-Ray) forces programmers to put it on the hard drive instead from where it can load fast enough.
As far as ports go though, you want to not costumize your code too much for any of the two systems. And as the raw power of the 360 is more easily unlocked it ends up looking better.
GTA4 is a weird case as the PS3 version uses warmer colors and has several smoothing effects but still runs on a lower resolution, this makes the PS3 version look softer and feel easier on the eye. The frame rate difference is not that obvious but the 360's increased pop-in however is very easily noticed. So the technically inferior version actualy seems to look better in this case. When the game came out people initially hailed the PS3 version as the superior one, until they started going over it with a fine comb and revealed the lower resolution and the slightly more instable frame-rate.
And don't believe comparison vids anywhere, There are loads of setup and setting issues as well as tv throughput differences. If you put Gametrailers' and gamesradar's comparison vids of Assassin's Creed next to each other it's as if they swapped the names at the bottom of the screen.
Eggo:
You can in fact swap out a PS3 hard drive with no real problem... Just pull all your data onto a backup disc through the usb ports and swap it out, reinstall the OS (the system handles this itself) update it back to the proper level and copy all your data back to the drive.
You need a laptop size hd for it though (a 250gb drive is some 100$ I believe?).
edit: uhm, yeah, what Cyclo said...
Exactly.
It is still unknown what they can pull out of the cell though. Uncharted is one of the prettiest games on the market and features very little loading times at all, nor an install (and loads in all its textures in the jungles faster than Halo 3). The devs said they were only using about 1/3 of all the available processing power.
But that strict limitation of memory is probably what's causing so much problems. Being unable to load textures to memory (which they do on 360 as the DVD read speed isn't fast enough to keep up with the amount of I/O required here, let alone the slightly slower Blu-Ray) forces programmers to put it on the hard drive instead from where it can load fast enough.
As far as ports go though, you want to not costumize your code too much for any of the two systems. And as the raw power of the 360 is more easily unlocked it ends up looking better.
GTA4 is a weird case as the PS3 version uses warmer colors and has several smoothing effects but still runs on a lower resolution, this makes the PS3 version look softer and feel easier on the eye. The frame rate difference is not that obvious but the 360's increased pop-in however is very easily noticed. So the technically inferior version actualy seems to look better in this case. When the game came out people initially hailed the PS3 version as the superior one, until they started going over it with a fine comb and revealed the lower resolution and the slightly more instable frame-rate.
And don't believe comparison vids anywhere, There are loads of setup and setting issues as well as tv throughput differences. If you put Gametrailers' and gamesradar's comparison vids of Assassin's Creed next to each other it's as if they swapped the names at the bottom of the screen.
Eggo:
You can in fact swap out a PS3 hard drive with no real problem... Just pull all your data onto a backup disc through the usb ports and swap it out, reinstall the OS (the system handles this itself) update it back to the proper level and copy all your data back to the drive.
You need a laptop size hd for it though (a 250gb drive is some 100$ I believe?).
edit: uhm, yeah, what Cyclo said...
Yah, kind of hard to understand why Sony insisted on using Cells in PS3. Sure it is a very good and interesting processor architecture, but as we've seen x86 and Power PC architectures are just as good for games. And are easier to develop for. Not to mention that they are less expensive.Syntax Error post=9.72729.771274 said:
My guess is that Sony to a large degree shot itself in the foot while trying to lock in games to its own platform and reduce hacking. IE make it harder to port games from PS3 to 360.
Either that or they gave the engineers an unlimited budget and told them to go nuts - which lead to a very cool system, if not the most efficient or useful in this situation.
What do you mean backed the wrong horse? This is rather off topic, but Media Center is the most advanced and powerful entertainment system out on the market. At least as far as I am aware.Indigo_Dingo post=9.72729.771327 said:
The 360 is not being set up as a multimedia center - it is a client. You can hook it up to a Media Center PC anywhere in the house, and there are NetFlix, etc.
Sony's approach is ass backwards, though, IMHO. They are adding tuner support to the PS3 in with the DVB-T standard in Europe, but that is just a first very early step. I doubt very much that PS3 will support even a tenth of what can be done on an MCE machine. Hell, I would be very surprised if they were able to bring it over to US before 2010 (at the earliest) - too many DRM requirements. And don't get me started on Cable Labs and the digital cable hoops you have to jump though to get any PVR product shipped around here.