Bogard
Night Raider
Posts: 584
|
Post by Bogard on Jan 18, 2022 13:22:52 GMT
I don't quite understand the technological side of things so I'm asking, How powerful was the Ps3 more than the 360?. Today I remembered people saying the Ps3 was like three 360's rolled into one. Was it really that much more powerful?.
|
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,821
|
Post by Cervantes on Jan 18, 2022 13:48:41 GMT
That is far from the truth. As I understand, the PS3 was actually underpowered in some areas - for example, the 360 could push many more polygons per frame than the PS3, which is the reason why Ninja Gaiden 2 (360) has many more enemies on screen, at any given time, than Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 (PS3). Both systems were very comparable in the end, with advantages and disadvantages on each side.
Edit: Digital Foundry's video on NG2 discusses how that game's port shows some differences between the consoles, and how the 360 had advantages on polygon numbers and alpha effects (just look at 11:30):
|
|
billspreston
Cheru Wing
I wrote Max Reebo's first 3 hits
Posts: 336 
|
Post by billspreston on Jan 18, 2022 15:28:27 GMT
I know someone who worked on a game for the PS3(& 360). It was originally supposed to be a PS2 exclusive, I think, but it kept getting shelved & delayed so he got to program for both.
He said, and I quote 'it's a pain in the ass to code for'.
I think the baseline standard they used was something like 1 month to make a fairly complex PS1 game, 3 months to code for PS2 & 6 months for PS3. Although I could be misremembering that.
As for the actual question, I remember something about PS3s being used for their processing power in scientific research.
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,460
|
Post by stratogustav on Jan 18, 2022 15:38:22 GMT
I don't think you can measure it. The PS3 had some hidden potential that anything at the time could never dream of for the price point it was offered at, but the architecture was so complex that in order for a developer to take advantage of it they will need military level of prowess to tap into it.
In fact, it took many years for developers like Naughty Dog to start uncovering the potential of what they were able to accomplish with the system, and this was clearly noticeable with what they accomplished visually between Uncharted 1, Uncharted 2, and Uncharted 3, or other games like The Last Of Us, and even then, it is said they could have done more.
However that's not a good thing. Many developers complained about how difficult it was taking advantage of that architecture. For example the head at Polyphony who is also an important part of the directive at Sony complained about how difficult it was working on Gran Turismo for the system. So you got very important first party voices basically talking shit about the system for how difficult it was to develop for it.
This is not a good thing because not only it affected developers at the time to produce content for it, it also affected them later on for wanting to bring those titles for other platforms and systems because of the gigantic task of changing optimization for a completely different architecture that is more standard such as the one for the PS4.
This is also likely the main reason why Sony was not successful at making those PS3 digital titles available to work on PS5, which was intended to be another selling point for the system in terms of backwards compatibility, but felt like an impossible task to accomplish, and they decided to not move forward with it, limiting the backwards compatibility to PS4 only.
This is why the only solution Sony found for these titles is to port the 360/PC versions for the new re-releases, or stream the PS3 ones digitally with servers that can actually understand the native architecture of those games directly from Sony's headquarters.
So ultimately it was the 360 that had a more regular PC like functionality that had the advantage and made easier for developers and consumers to have access to that library during and after the prime time of the system, which was one of the longest running systems along side the Neo Geo, considering it launched in 2005.
So if someone bought a Neo Geo in 1990, they had support and in house first party main releases coming all the way to 2004, from there they could had bought a 360 in 2005 and have games being released for the system all the way to 2016 when it was discontinued. That's how long these systems lasted, which is truly remarkable and impressive compared to the lifespan of other systems.
|
|
MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Jan 20, 2022 1:34:57 GMT
I consulted one of my VG tech references the other night to find an answer for this thread. Here's what I found out:
The PS3 uses cell architecture for its processing, which was a new form of technology at the time and considered state-of-the-art for a console to use it, since no other home console had utilized cell architecture at that point. Unfortunately, since cell architecture had only ever been utilized in mobile devices, this led to severe difficulties in understanding the process of developing games for the system, at least with 3rd party developers. Basically, the PS3 was another infamous example of a powerful system with convoluted/foreign hardware that was notoriously difficult to develop for, much like the Sega Saturn and the Atari Jaguar. The big meanie himself Gabe Newell famously said of the PS3:
"The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted. I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a do over. Just say, 'This was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it'. "
-Gabe Newell
...although, considering this is the same shmuck who worships the Wii and the WiiU, his opinion on game consoles should be taken with a grain of salt.
Anyway, about the PS3, I also learned this:
-it's base GPU, when not optimized for its cell architecture, is 256 Mhz, which is exactly half of what the 360's was
-it's base RAM, when not optimized for its cell technology, was also exactly half of the 360's (which was 512 mb I think)
-however, it's overall maximum performance output was clocked at 2 teraflops per second, which is twice the 360's maximum performance output
So basically, when a PS3 game took full advantage of the PS3's hardware, the system could outperform the 360 by a 2:1 ratio, whereas if a PS3 game was just a straight shovel-ware port that didn't take advantage of absolutely anything extra the PS3's hardware offered, it would run at roughly half-capacity compared to the 360. This is why a lot of early PS3 multiplatform games suffered from noticeable performance issues like severe FPS drops, texture problems, etc.
I remember reading that even Sony themselves had difficulty developer kits for third-party developers to make PS3 ports because of how unfamiliar the architecture was for use in consoles. Hence, "they shot themselves in the foot" and lost a ton of money because of this fancy technology.
|
|
stratogustav
Supreme Overlord
Warrior with Bandana
Posts: 7,460
|
Post by stratogustav on Jan 20, 2022 1:54:52 GMT
That was very informative, thanks for sharing.
|
|
Bogard
Night Raider
Posts: 584
|
Post by Bogard on Jan 20, 2022 3:51:20 GMT
I consulted one of my VG tech references the other night to find an answer for this thread. Here's what I found out: The PS3 uses cell architecture for its processing, which was a new form of technology at the time and considered state-of-the-art for a console to use it, since no other home console had utilized cell architecture at that point. Unfortunately, since cell architecture had only ever been utilized in mobile devices, this led to severe difficulties in understanding the process of developing games for the system, at least with 3rd party developers. Basically, the PS3 was another infamous example of a powerful system with convoluted/foreign hardware that was notoriously difficult to develop for, much like the Sega Saturn and the Atari Jaguar. The big meanie himself Gabe Newell famously said of the PS3: "The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted. I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a do over. Just say, 'This was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it'. " -Gabe Newell ...although, considering this is the same shmuck who worships the Wii and the WiiU, his opinion on game consoles should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, about the PS3, I also learned this: -it's base GPU, when not optimized for its cell architecture, is 256 Mhz, which is exactly half of what the 360's was -it's base RAM, when not optimized for its cell technology, was also exactly half of the 360's (which was 512 mb I think) -however, it's overall maximum performance output was clocked at 2 teraflops per second, which is twice the 360's maximum performance output So basically, when a PS3 game took full advantage of the PS3's hardware, the system could outperform the 360 by a 2:1 ratio, whereas if a PS3 game was just a straight shovel-ware port that didn't take advantage of absolutely anything extra the PS3's hardware offered, it would run at roughly half-capacity compared to the 360. This is why a lot of early PS3 multiplatform games suffered from noticeable performance issues like severe FPS drops, texture problems, etc. I remember reading that even Sony themselves had difficulty developer kits for third-party developers to make PS3 ports because of how unfamiliar the architecture was for use in consoles. Hence, "they shot themselves in the foot" and lost a ton of money because of this fancy technology. That was excellent, MeleeMonk and was a very satisfactory answered my question. So that's what they meant when people said how much powerful the Ps3 was over the 360 and how it was soo powerful that most games made for it didn't even use the console to its full potential. So what they really meant was that most games didn't use the console to its full potential because they couldn't because of how complicated the hardware was to program for. |
|
Cervantes
Off-Brand Transformable Robot
A former Incompetent Evil Commander (XP: 2423)
Posts: 2,821
|
Post by Cervantes on Jan 20, 2022 4:57:58 GMT
MeleeMonk's comparison with the Sega Saturn is very apt: when fully utilized, the Saturn could do 3d games with very high resolutions, 60fps and complex models and backgrounds, as perfectly seen in Last Bronx. But programming for two video processors to work in tandem (VDP1 and VDP2), at the time, was seen as a bitch and rarely any developer besides Sega, Traveller's Tales and Lobotomy Software ever mastered it. In the end, most of its advantages over the PS1 and N64 were always underutilized, and even a major upgrade to the console (the 4MB RAM cartridge) was only used to power 2d fighting games - just imagine what it could've done for 3d games if any developer got to use it. So you have a very powerful system that almost always looks below its competition, especially for multiplatform titles.
|
|
Bogard
Night Raider
Posts: 584
|
Post by Bogard on Jan 20, 2022 14:41:44 GMT
MeleeMonk 's comparison with the Sega Saturn is very apt: when fully utilized, the Saturn could do 3d games with very high resolutions, 60fps and complex models and backgrounds, as perfectly seen in Last Bronx. But programming for two video processors to work in tandem (VDP1 and VDP2), at the time, was seen as a bitch and rarely any developer besides Sega, Traveller's Tales and Lobotomy Software ever mastered it. In the end, most of its advantages over the PS1 and N64 were always underutilized, and even a major upgrade to the console (the 4MB RAM cartridge) was only used to power 2d fighting games - just imagine what it could've done for 3d games if any developer got to use it. So you have a very powerful system that almost always looks below its competition, especially for multiplatform titles. Imagine if developers made use of the 4MB ram cartridge for 3D games. Maybe we could of had a Sonic game for the Saturn after all. |
|
Pimpjira
Guardian Force Shooter
Posts: 1,102
|
Post by Pimpjira on Jan 20, 2022 23:01:46 GMT
That is far from the truth. As I understand, the PS3 was actually underpowered in some areas - for example, the 360 could push many more polygons per frame than the PS3, which is the reason why Ninja Gaiden 2 (360) has many more enemies on screen, at any given time, than Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 (PS3). Both systems were very comparable in the end, with advantages and disadvantages on each side. Edit: Digital Foundry's video on NG2 discusses how that game's port shows some differences between the consoles, and how the 360 had advantages on polygon numbers and alpha effects (just look at 11:30): If I recall, Bayonetta also ran better on 360 than PS3. |
|
MeleeMonk
Cartoon Pony Wrangler
Part-time gamer, full-time environmentalist, and member of PAPO (People Against Palm Oil)
Posts: 3,651
|
Post by MeleeMonk on Jan 25, 2022 1:20:20 GMT
I consulted one of my VG tech references the other night to find an answer for this thread. Here's what I found out: The PS3 uses cell architecture for its processing, which was a new form of technology at the time and considered state-of-the-art for a console to use it, since no other home console had utilized cell architecture at that point. Unfortunately, since cell architecture had only ever been utilized in mobile devices, this led to severe difficulties in understanding the process of developing games for the system, at least with 3rd party developers. Basically, the PS3 was another infamous example of a powerful system with convoluted/foreign hardware that was notoriously difficult to develop for, much like the Sega Saturn and the Atari Jaguar. The big meanie himself Gabe Newell famously said of the PS3: "The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think It's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted. I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a do over. Just say, 'This was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it'. " -Gabe Newell ...although, considering this is the same shmuck who worships the Wii and the WiiU, his opinion on game consoles should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, about the PS3, I also learned this: -it's base GPU, when not optimized for its cell architecture, is 256 Mhz, which is exactly half of what the 360's was -it's base RAM, when not optimized for its cell technology, was also exactly half of the 360's (which was 512 mb I think) -however, it's overall maximum performance output was clocked at 2 teraflops per second, which is twice the 360's maximum performance output So basically, when a PS3 game took full advantage of the PS3's hardware, the system could outperform the 360 by a 2:1 ratio, whereas if a PS3 game was just a straight shovel-ware port that didn't take advantage of absolutely anything extra the PS3's hardware offered, it would run at roughly half-capacity compared to the 360. This is why a lot of early PS3 multiplatform games suffered from noticeable performance issues like severe FPS drops, texture problems, etc. I remember reading that even Sony themselves had difficulty developer kits for third-party developers to make PS3 ports because of how unfamiliar the architecture was for use in consoles. Hence, "they shot themselves in the foot" and lost a ton of money because of this fancy technology. That was excellent, MeleeMonk and was a very satisfactory answered my question. So that's what they meant when people said how much powerful the Ps3 was over the 360 and how it was soo powerful that most games made for it didn't even use the console to its full potential. So what they really meant was that most games didn't use the console to its full potential because they couldn't because of how complicated the hardware was to program for. It was my pleasure, Bogard. I'm probably just as interested in this subject as you are. Just keep in mind that I'm no computer technician, so my account on this subject is merely speculation at best. |
|
