Was I right or what

[Haitoku]

BREAKING NEWS: PS3 HARDWARE SLOW AND BROKEN

 

Game over, Haitoku. Game over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You did read the article I posted right?

 

... and why aren't you quoting Kaz Hirai saying thank you to Microsoft?

[LoneWolf16]

The misunderstanding evident in the linked story relates to the distinction between local video memory and local system memory. The slow read speed under discussion is indicative of the feature's lack of utility. This is even reflected on the slide's statement: "No, this isn't a typo ..." A contact at Sony confirmed this telling me, "Again I cannot imagine a situation where you have any SPU reading from the RSX local memory." Nothing to see here, folks.

 

From the article Haitoku linked.

 

Epiphany.

[Haitoku]

The misunderstanding evident in the linked story relates to the distinction between local video memory and local system memory. The slow read speed under discussion is indicative of the feature's lack of utility. This is even reflected on the slide's statement: "No, this isn't a typo ..." A contact at Sony confirmed this telling me, "Again I cannot imagine a situation where you have any SPU reading from the RSX local memory." Nothing to see here, folks.

 

From the article Haitoku linked.

 

Epiphany.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What's really strikes me as sad is that he probably didn't even bother to do any research on the hole thing before posting it... He just went into rabid X-Box Fan mode and posted it... even though the information came from a unreliable source and there was PLENTY of information that suggested it wasn't true.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Haitoku

[Cantousent]

It's simply that you can't trust anyone. I don't just mean that for Epiphany, although I was rather irritated that, right after someone sticks up for him, he responds by trying to pick a fight. Nevertheless, I don't trust any of you. We'll see, soon enough, whether the PS3 is a difficult system.

 

Oh, and by the way, making even the pretense of being fair-minded could do wonders for your believability. If you think that statement is directed at you, it undoubtedly is.

[Darque]

I won't really trust anything except having the console in my hands

 

And that won't be until at least a year after launch

[10k fists]

They do?  I really don't see much difference in graphical appearance in a game for the X Box to a game for the X Box 360.  For example take King Kong.  Graphically the games are practically identical to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you serious?

 

You really think that something like this, looks pratically identical to this?

 

Normally I don't resort to posting links, as it's not worth my time, but come on...

[10k fists]

The misunderstanding evident in the linked story relates to the distinction between local video memory and local system memory. The slow read speed under discussion is indicative of the feature's lack of utility. This is even reflected on the slide's statement: "No, this isn't a typo ..." A contact at Sony confirmed this telling me, "Again I cannot imagine a situation where you have any SPU reading from the RSX local memory." Nothing to see here, folks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course they can't imagine a scenario where Cell would need to access more RAM, because they didn't design the system to do as such. It's a rather foolish PR comment, that would be like designing a car that could only go 70mph, and then when someone wants to go 80, the manufacturer says "we didn't see any situation where you'd need to go 80mph"...

 

I can promise you that games will require Cell to access data that's in both the main and local memory, that's why they allowed RSX to access both pools of memory at a fairly decent rate. It's just unfortunate that when Cell needs that information, developers will have to have RSX move it from GDDR3 to the XDR pool. It's not uncommon for developers to do these types of tasks, but it involves more work, and isn't as streamlined as it should be.

[alanschu]

Naturally because it's PS2 versus XBOX, he'll find a way to point out that it is not an appropriate comparison.

[10k fists]

Naturally because it's PS2 versus XBOX, he'll find a way to point out that it is not an appropriate comparison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I pulled that image from the Xbox section for the game, so apparently, they share identical art assets, as do nearly all of EA's cross-platform games.

[alanschu]

I can promise you that games will require Cell to access data that's in both the main and local memory, that's why they allowed RSX to access both pools of memory at a fairly decent rate.  It's just unfortunate that when Cell needs that information, developers will have to have RSX move it from GDDR3 to the XDR pool.  It's not uncommon for developers to do these types of tasks, but it involves more work, and isn't as streamlined as it should be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not necessarily. Depends on what (and more importantly how much) they have to move.

 

 

Having said that, isn't the "local memory" essentially the cache for the RSX? Why would the Cell need access to that?

[10k fists]

Not necessarily.  Depends on what (and more importantly how much) they have to move.

 

 

Having said that, isn't the "local memory" essentially the cache for the RSX?  Why would the Cell need access to that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The GDDR3 (local memory) is the 256MB memory pool for RSX, since Sony opted to go with a non-unified memory architecture for the PS3. A bounding factor for Cell is that there is, effectively, only 192MB of XDR RAM for it to use, since 64MB is being reserved for the OS, and other system related functions. A lot of people don't realize just how much of a bandwidth monster Cell is when running at anywhere near high capacity (high not meaning peak of course). That's why it's hooked up to a 25GB/s memory pool. There are possible situations where computationally intensive algorithms that read in and output a lot of data would need to go somewhere, and the 192MB pool not be enough. But developers will most likely have to work around such situations and try to make sure that everything fits into the 192MB pool. They'll do it, because they need to, but it just comes full circle in that the PS3 is complicated to code for, when compared to the 360. The unified architecture is actually starting to work in Microsoft's favor for ease of development.

 

I really wish Sony had decided to go with a unified architecture, it would have made things a lot easier, and they would have really gotten a lot more potential out of Cell.

[alanschu]

Didn't you promise that the Cell would require the RSX local memory, only to just now say that developers will work with the 192 MB constraint?

 

I can promise you that games will require Cell to access data that's in both the main and local memory

 

But developers will most likely have to work around such situations and try to make sure that everything fits into the 192MB pool. They'll do it, because they need to

 

Some other concerns:

 

There are possible situations where computationally intensive algorithms that read in and output a lot of data would need to go somewhere, and the 192MB pool not be enough

 

I don't suppose you would have an example of one of these algorithms? What exactly is this algorithm doing?

 

But developers will most likely have to work around such situations and try to make sure that everything fits into the 192MB pool. They'll do it, because they need to, but it just comes full circle in that the PS3 is complicated to code for, when compared to the 360. The unified architecture is actually starting to work in Microsoft's favor for ease of development.

 

Isn't this the way things have always been for years? People criticized the PS2 for having only 32 MB of memory and only 4 MB of video memory. Yet it was far and away the most successful console, having the largest installed based as well as most product support.

 

This may make the XBOX 360 easier to code for, but it wouldn't make it any harder to code for the PS3 than it already is for the PS1/XBOX/NES. Memory constraints have been the status quo.

 

Besides, with the focus on graphics (and after talks with John Buchanan, University Liaison for Electronic Arts, as well as discussions from a talk that Bioware provided at my University regarding pathfinding.....his name unfortunately escapes me ), it sounds like it's optimistic to assume that 256 MB (or more) of the XBOX 360 memory will be used by the Xenon over the graphics processor. A stronger argument for unified memory (and a knock on the PS3), is that there is only 256 MB of video memory. I believe it was Jonathan Schaefer (my boss), that inquired with the Bioware representative about how much memory in the new consoles would be allocated for AI. He was not optimistic. The talk was in December, but IIRC the number he cited was maybe 5% in a typical game. John Buchanan mentioned that while the absolute amount of memory for AI would increase, it's percentage of total memory was decreasing, with very large increases in demand for graphics.

 

As an aside, it ironically seems as though, according to the Inquirer's article, this will be less of an issue with the PS3 as I originally thought it would be.

[10k fists]

Didn't you promise that the Cell would require the RSX local memory, only to just now say that developers will work with the 192 MB constraint?

 

Games will need it, but developers will most likely work around it. It's a situation similar to the lack of a "next-gen" medium in the 360. Developers will work around it, but games at some point will need the additional space. My first comment was based on my belief that the 360 will be the lead platform for most non-exclusive 3rd party games. If that is so, then in the future developers are going to have a hard time trying to get the games to run on the PS3 if they start pushing Xenons capabilities.

 

Yeah, there's a lot of "ifs", but what good is a discussion without a bit of "if"?

 

I don't suppose you would have an example of one of these algorithms?  What exactly is this algorithm doing?

 

A lot of FPU work where Cell is crunching a lot of numbers is a likely scenario. Be it some new physics system or taking some of the geometry load off RSX. Remember, the entire focus of Cell was it being a floating point beast, which it is. But in the PS3, it may not have the ability. RSX is fairly weak compared to Xenos, and will have a hard time "keeping up" once developers get more familiar with the hardware. It's already going to be strapped for bandwidth far sooner since it lacks the eDRAM. At first, I never thought it would be a problem, since Cell and RSX were designed to work well together, but with the GDDR3 being effectively removed from Cells access, anything it needs from there, will have to go through RSX first. Again, it's not an uncommon task, but it still uses bandwidth and "wastes" cycles that could have been spent on something else.

 

Isn't this the way things have always been for years?  People criticized the PS2 for having only 32 MB of memory and only 4 MB of video memory.  Yet it was far and away the most successful console, having the largest installed based as well as most product support.

 

This may make the XBOX 360 easier to code for, but it wouldn't make it any harder to code for the PS3 than it already is for the PS1/XBOX/NES.  Memory constraints have been the status quo.

 

The success of the console played a large role in developer support. Had the Xbox come out first and gotten a foothold in the userbase, do you honestly think as many developers would have used the PS2 as their platform of choice? The library wasn't huge because developers enjoyed coding for the platform, it was big because almost 100 million people bought the machine.

 

Memory constraints will always be an issue, if you gave developers 9GB of memory, they'd find a way to want 10GB. It's more about choice. The 360 is completely unified, giving developers a choice of just how much memory they need at a given time. Again, as developers get more familiar with the hardware, they'll start optimizing everything better, and the issues of these 1st gen games will truely be a thing of the past.

 

I guess that's why I'm upset with Microsoft for pushing the 360 out so soon. It would have been better had they waited until Spring 06 to launch the console, they would have had less of a shortage, and developers would have had almost six more months to get their launch games ready.

 

Besides, with the focus on graphics (and after talks with John Buchanan, University Liaison for Electronic Arts, as well as discussions from a talk that Bioware provided at my University regarding pathfinding.....his name unfortunately escapes me ), it sounds like it's optimistic to assume that 256 MB (or more) of the XBOX 360 memory will be used by the Xenon over the graphics processor.  A stronger argument for unified memory (and a knock on the PS3), is that there is only 256 MB of video memory.  I believe it was Jonathan Schaefer (my boss), that inquired with the Bioware representative about how much memory in the new consoles would be allocated for AI.  He was not optimistic.  The talk was in December, but IIRC the number he cited was maybe 5% in a typical game.  John Buchanan mentioned that while the absolute amount of memory for AI would increase, it's percentage of total memory was decreasing, with very large increases in demand for graphics.

 

As an aside, it ironically seems as though, according to the Inquirer's article, this will be less of an issue with the PS3 as I originally thought it would be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While it may be uncommon for Xenon to require more than 256MB, it's a lot easier to justify since Xenos has the eDRAM will alleviates a great deal of bandwidth consuming processes. I don't think video memory will help with the streaming of game cells or proceedural synthesis that's the big "buzz" right now... That's cool you got to talk to some people in the industry though, it's always interesting to hear what they have to say, and to try and get a real opinion out of them. It seems like Carmack is the only one that will really run his mouth, everyone else seems to walk on eggshells when it comes to the Playstation and Xbox brands.

 

I guess their mentioning of unified memory supports half of what I said though. I always look at both extremes, as one of the situations is likely to happen. If developers are more concerned with the lack of graphics memory, then my first scenario of Cell/Xenon requiring more memory isn't as likely to happen... But at the same time, if graphics is their focus, then they'd likely want to use Cell to push more geometry, which would require more memory, which would lead right back to the problem of Cell not being able to access the GDDR3 pool.

 

It's all a shame, as I think pushing these processors would offer more "next-gen" gameplay, and for me, would be much more entertaining than extra neat "next-gen" graphics.

[alanschu]

A lot of FPU work where Cell is crunching a lot of numbers is a likely scenario. Be it some new physics system or taking some of the geometry load off RSX. Remember, the entire focus of Cell was it being a floating point beast, which it is. But in the PS3, it may not have the ability. RSX is fairly weak compared to Xenos, and will have a hard time "keeping up" once developers get more familiar with the hardware. It's already going to be strapped for bandwidth far sooner since it lacks the eDRAM. At first, I never thought it would be a problem, since Cell and RSX were designed to work well together, but with the GDDR3 being effectively removed from Cells access, anything it needs from there, will have to go through RSX first. Again, it's not an uncommon task, but it still uses bandwidth and "wastes" cycles that could have been spent on something else.

 

Well, it's just that you mentioned computationally expensive, requiring large amounts of memory. I find that those don't go together that often. If something takes up large amounts of memory, it's probably done so to reduce computational cost (since reading from memory is fast, and you can store data computed earlier).

 

I've only taken a basic algorithms course, so I'm not an expert, but it seems like many of the computationally expensive algorithms aren't really huge memory hogs. Not compared to the computer ticks anyways. Computer cycles are often orders of magnitude higher than memory usage. This is because time is much more available than memory. You can always wait longer for something to finish. You can't finish if you run out of memory though.

 

If a processor becomes sufficiently fast, the need to store computed data (which is done for speed reasons) becomes less important (depending on the operation).

 

Given the floating point power of the Cell, I wouldn't be too concerned about memory limitations for FP computations.

 

The success of the console played a large role in developer support. Had the Xbox come out first and gotten a foothold in the userbase, do you honestly think as many developers would have used the PS2 as their platform of choice? The library wasn't huge because developers enjoyed coding for the platform, it was big because almost 100 million people bought the machine.

 

Well, the Dreamcast was before the PS2, as was the Saturn compared to the PSX. IIRC, the Sega Master System was out before the NES too wasn't it? Being first is a bit overrated IMO.

 

While it may be uncommon for Xenon to require more than 256MB, it's a lot easier to justify since Xenos has the eDRAM will alleviates a great deal of bandwidth consuming processes. I don't think video memory will help with the streaming of game cells or proceedural synthesis that's the big "buzz" right now

 

The big buzz words I'm hearing (though I don't follow consoles as much anymore) are things like photorealism and magnificent graphics, with "big bux" allocated to graphics. I wouldn't be surprised at all if at half (if not more) of the unified RAM goes towards graphics resources.

 

You talk about the high bandwidth of the eDRAM. I know it has a 256 GB/s internal memory bandwidth, but from what I have read that only really benefits things like Z Buffering and Antialiasing. Just an assurance to make sure that the bottleneck isn't there, so to speak.

 

But at the same time, if graphics is their focus, then they'd likely want to use Cell to push more geometry, which would require more memory, which would lead right back to the problem of Cell not being able to access the GDDR3 pool.

 

Not really, as shaders are making additional geometry less important.

Half-Life 2 pushes less polygons than Doom 3, and aside from shadows, looks much better (at least in my opinion). The per-pixel effects shifted the focus away from simply more triangles. Besides, in the example you provide, the Cell not being able to access the GDDR3 pool is irrelevant as the RSX would be using it all anyways. There'd be no memory available from the GDDR3 pool.

Edited June 8, 2006 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

I'd just like to say that I have no idea what any of this technical gibberish means, and for some reason I am consequently glowing happily.

[mkreku]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=65384

 

This sounds promising:

 

"Once people start doing really impressive stuff on PS3 and Xbox 360, they're both going to be much the same [in terms of difficulty]," he concluded. "Sony's giving us better tools this time around - they're still not great at communicating and there are some weird holes in their developer support, but they've learned a lot of lessons from PS2."

[Epiphany]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=65384

 

This sounds promising:

 

"Once people start doing really impressive stuff on PS3 and Xbox 360, they're both going to be much the same [in terms of difficulty]," he concluded. "Sony's giving us better tools this time around - they're still not great at communicating and there are some weird holes in their developer support, but they've learned a lot of lessons from PS2."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From PS3 developers!

 

lol

[metadigital]

That sounds reasonable: PS2/PS3 developers are stating that the development process will be better, from their point of view.

 

Surely that makes for better games, even in Epiphany-land?

[alanschu]

Who else can comment on whether the development tools of the PS3 are better than the PS2 than people that developed on the PS2, and are now developing on the PS3?

[Darque]

From PS3 developers!

 

lol

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Duh.

[alanschu]

Actually, now that I think about it, all of the people that talk about how easy it is to develop for the XBOX 360 aren't XBOX 360 developers :D

[Darque]

hahahahahaha

[Cantousent]

And yet another round of shadow talking nonsense all around. This isn't a debate about whether one system is better than another. It's advocacy of your particular favorite system.

 

Now, I'm sure that we could discuss the validity of sources all day. You have a point that it is the PS3 developers who make positive statement about the PS3. After all, it's in their best interest to reassure the public in regards to the PS3. By the same token, you have a point that the folks who have the most experience with the PS3 are the developers working with it. Fair enough. So, you both have a point.

 

However, nothing anyone says ever seems to give you even a moments pause, alan. Seriously, you really do come across as the PS3 defender extraordinaire. Epiphany comes across as the XBox 360 defender extraordinaire. 10k, whom I believe sounds like Briareus [sic] from the IP boards, sounds clearly in favor of the XBOX 360, but does not sound rabid.

 

Let's take the statement: "Once people start doing really impressive stuff on PS3 and Xbox 360, they're both going to be much the same [in terms of difficulty]," he concluded. "Sony's giving us better tools this time around - they're still not great at communicating and there are some weird holes in their developer support, but they've learned a lot of lessons from PS2."

 

That seems positive to me. If I read between the lines because, while they're the best at assessing the PS3, the developers still have a vested interest in PS3 sales, then I can see that the PS3 is coming along in terms of support. There are still problems, but they hope to have the PS3 somewhat on par with the Xbox360 in terms of difficulty. That makes sense.

 

The difficulty argument is pointless on its face. For one thing, what end consumer gives a crap about how hard it was to make the game? When I pick it up off the shelf, I don't care if the process was hard. I only care that the game is good. So, the "shadow" point is that the PS3 is a difficult beast and that the games won't be as good because of the work involved. That's not a real point. We'll see whether the game are good once the games hit the shelf. Arguing how hard the games are before the system ships is just plain dumb.

 

Before you PS3 hacks get too excited though, it would be nice to see you guys give at least some sort of nod to the fact that, apparently, even according to those all knowing PS3 developers, the PS3 can be a difficult system.

 

What I'm saying is, a pox on both your houses. These threads have never been about discussing real issues. They always inevitably boil down to some console loving wonk pushing his system because he thinks it's best. What a pain in the ass.

[alanschu]

However, nothing anyone says ever seems to give you even a moments pause, alan. Seriously, you really do come across as the PS3 defender extraordinaire. Epiphany comes across as the XBox 360 defender extraordinaire. 10k, whom I believe sounds like Briareus [sic] from the IP boards, sounds clearly in favor of the XBOX 360, but does not sound rabid.

 

I'm only a "PS3 defender extraordinaire" when it's being targetted. I've also been an "XBOX 360 defender extraordinaire" when PS3/PS2 advocates target it. Unfortunately my experiences have me dealing more with PS3 attackers than XBOX 360 attackers. Though it was the other way around this generation (I did my share of XBOX defending).

 

 

As for advocacy of my "favourite system," I plan on purchasing neither the PS3 nor the XBOX 360 (or the Wiii for that matter). Neither side has my support, nor will they receive my money. I care not for either system. Just like I did not care for the PS2 nor the original XBOX. However, if I were to choose a console I 'preferred' from the current generation, it would be the XBOX. This is because, as a PC Gamer, I recognized that the existence of the XBOX could mean that games made for the XBOX could easily be made for the PC (given their similar hardware). I recognized the fact that the PC gaming market is significantly smaller than the console market, and that the advantages of having a console similar in spec to the PC could result in a benefit for myself.

 

If you want to refer to any bias, then refer to it as anti-Epiphany bias, not PS3/XBOX 360 bias. After having him insult my intelligence by regurgitating Microsoft press releases and saying such gems like "I believe there is far more code than simple "choice" strings that

create a fully dynamic and robust AI" and "There is no GPU in the PS1 or PS2," all the while ignoring posts that reference interviews such as the EA one (mentioning that the PS3, and specifically the Cell, would be useful in procedural animations such as those in Spore), as well as Tim Sweeney's comments and whatnot. He wrote them off as being in Sony's pocketbook and therefore not being valid comments at all. To top things off, he tried coming back and tooting his own horn by starting this very thread.

 

 

I couldn't give two ****s about which console wins or not. I do however, follow their technical aspects a little bit because I am an aspiring game developer. I recognize that my career choice may in fact have me developing for these systems.

Edited June 8, 2006 by alanschu

[Haitoku]

Okay, PS3 being a new platform and all will probably take a lot of adjustment and in some cases, be very difficult to code for (much like the PS2 initially was).

 

Happy now Eldar?

 

Anyways, I think Epiphany's original post has be debunked which what this topic was about.