News Carmack: Rage runs slowest on PS3

Xbox is a tri-core PowerPC arch. known.
PS3 is a PPC single core with 7 extra SPP's.

in the normal world, our quad core CPU's are not being fully used, and its been a while since we've had them.....
It takes time to learn how to multi-tread programs, and they're just getting used to programming with quad's...

For the PS3, ideally they have to know how to program for 7 cores....and small ones at that....

Its just not like anything else out there atm......

 

The reason that people aren't so good at breaking things up across the cores is because it is hard to do it well. It takes ages (relatively in CPU time) to synchronise data between different cores, but a lot of what is going on in a game needs to be synchronised. You want to know where the person's head is now not where it was a frame or so ago.

 

The PC version will be dumbed down and look and run the same as 360, no more ID purchases for me. ID lost all my respect, well, they have not exactly put out a great game in a long time anyway. Instead of making the PC version a true PC, we get 360 rubbish, thanks carmack.

 

Carmack does not get a pass, and should not because of stuff they did 15 20 years ago, sorry. They are lasy when it comes to the PC version.

 

By the ammount of times this and similar issues have come up about the PS3, I'd say that it's fairly obvious that no one is being lazy and that the PS3 really is a bit of a bitch to make games for.

 

Yay another scifi horror fps. I feel like game developers are stuck in some kind of B movie universe.

 

Doom 3, Enemy Territory Quake Wars....anyone else not holding their breath for Rage?? I suspect I'll be too busy playing Uncharted 2 or Gran Turismo when this hits the shelves.

 

I do not think games companies really tap the power from any system until the end of its life, so this is not such a bold claim.

 

I really dont think that the 10k - 20k that the 360 sells more than the PS3 each week is enough to not care about the PS3. That 10K-20K is very minimal and hardly makes a difference.

 

Thats right just check the financial results for this quarter where there hasn't been many notable releases, 1.2 million 360s sold and 1.1 million PS3s, when you consider the economic climate and price of entry for respective consoles the PS3 isn't looking that bad.

re rage, like any multiplatform if it ends up shabby on PS3 it won't get bought by me, plenty of devs can do multiplat well, there's no acceptable excuses for bad ports any more.

 

I trust id. If anyone will put forth the time and effort to learn the PS3's architecture it's them. And Carmack, while not afraid to voice his opinion, is obviously not afraid to take on something new. Which can't be said for many other 3rd party developers these days. If nobody takes that chance, then how will anything ever advance? I'm sure if Rage turns out good, that same Dev team that took the time to learn the PS3 will have less of a problem as they develope more and more PS3 titles, which makes the cost less and less. I wish more Publishers/Devs would see it the way id does. Then again, not many devs are able to maintain their "It's done when it's done" mantra like id.

I read about this problem they are having with the PS3 is my latest issue of Game Informer.

 

Is anybody else more interested in the id tech5 more than Rage itself? If they can get this running on the PS3 at 60fps maybe we'll finally see games developed that don't use Unreal Engine 3.

 

I read the full article in Edge magazine and its annoying when journalists conveniently quote parts they want for effect. They missed him saying that because of Blu ray the Ps3 is likely to have a higher resolution texture set than xbox 360 because they won't go over 4 dvds and currently to get it to fit would require lower quality textures than ps3.

Ps3's gpu is a bit down on horsepower than 360 and also cannot do tesselation which is becoming increasingly important. Ps3's relative cpu power advantage over 360 is way overstated too. it has a general processing unit and 6 much smaller bandwith spes all at 3.2 ghz. 360 has a 3 core 3.2 ghz cpu capable of hyperthreading so effectively 6 cores, but they don't have the bandwidth limitation of ps3 spe and automatically parallel process code without it having to be manually split out so much so 100% of its power is being utilised by 100% of games instead of ps3 which could be 50% because it is so difficult.

So really xbox better cpu and gpu ps3 better storage

 

it adds up over time though. there are 50 percent more 360's than ps3's. the fault of the ps3 is the gpu it just sucks. thats all there is to it. no game needs a cell processor because floating point isnt that important to make the cpu designed around it.

 

Killzone 2, GT5, Uncharted, and MGS4 says ps3 isn't too weak afterall.

 

4 Games off which one isn't even out yet, doesn't exactly make a compelling reason to purchase a >£250 platform... As a games console its a bit of a failure, if all you want is gaming the 360 is much more compelling choice economically speaking.

Having said that the PS3 feels slicker, is more ascetically pleasing, with some persuasion can be not too limited computer and with the media features can live quite happily under the telly with out sounding like a hoover. If i had the money i'd have the PS3, i don't so i'll stick with my PC.

 

i never said it did. reasons for purchasing a console are opinion based. (I have a PS3 for ONE game only. that's SOCOM. the rest are just bonus.)

it just proves the PS3 isn't too weak like people say. the 360 has a better video card, but the CELL makes up for that if used correctly. thats why the games this gen with the best graphics are on PS3.

 

The Ps3's Cell processor is far superior than any consumer micro chip currently available (core I7 or Xeon Nehalem included). The Xbox 360 has a 3.2 ghz 2 core processor based off the "Power PC' format like the cpu's in everyone's computer. Game developers are use to this format and have been programming for Power Pc cpu's for years and have become mundane and lazy in their efforts to really make ground breaking games. The Cell has a Power PC core (PPe) plus 8 additional "SPE's" or mini cores all on one silicon. Most devs just program for the single PPE core and very rarley use any of the additional 8 SPE's . Basically they program a game for the XBOX 360 then optimize it for multiple hardware configurations for the P.C. port then cram all the code unto the the Cell's PPe then cry and have a hissy fit because it wont run correctly so they have to figure out how to utilize one or two of the Cell's SPE's. If developers like were more like the pioneers at Guerrilla Games and took the effort to learn a new way to program outside the box then maybe their games might look as good as Killzone 2. Even killzone 2 doesn't utilize the Cell to it's fullest and Killzone 2's gameplay and graphics can only be compared to Crysis or Stalker Clear Sky for high end $1000 P.C.! So don't believe me just read about the Cell's architecture and you'll realize just how powerfull the PS3's games can be when programmed correctly and how lazy 3rd party developers are because you really only bought that Xbox 360 or PS3 for the first party games right? Oh and one more thing the GPU in each system are mid range ATI (xbox 360) and Nvidia (PS3) graphics cards, nothing hard about programming for those.