 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> requirement of 1GB for years.) What is worse, the RAM is shared by the
>>>> CPU
>>>> and the GPU, in other words, the GPU doesn't have its own RAM (as is
>>>> customary in a PC). This means that graphics and other game data
>>>> have to
>>>> share the 512 MB
>> It has advantages though, like not needing to transfer any data between
>> the CPU RAM and the GPU RAM (which is a major bottle-neck in a PC,
>> causing many complex algorithms to be developed). On the xbox the CPU
>> can update textures and meshes directly without needing to either write
>> a complex vertex/pixel shader or transfer over large amounts of data
>> per-frame.
>
> Not at all in the case of the PCs. The GPU don't see the memory used by
> the CPU, and the CPU don't see the memory used by the GPU.
I don't know about PCs with shared memory (I can imagine they are not
designed for gaming speed!), I was talking about the xbox360, which is
specifically designed for gaming speed (with compromises that wouldn't
work for a normal PC).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>>> requirement of 1GB for years.) What is worse, the RAM is shared by the
>>>>> CPU
>>>>> and the GPU, in other words, the GPU doesn't have its own RAM (as is
>>>>> customary in a PC). This means that graphics and other game data
>>>>> have to
>>>>> share the 512 MB
>
>>> It has advantages though, like not needing to transfer any data between
>>> the CPU RAM and the GPU RAM (which is a major bottle-neck in a PC,
>>> causing many complex algorithms to be developed). On the xbox the CPU
>>> can update textures and meshes directly without needing to either write
>>> a complex vertex/pixel shader or transfer over large amounts of data
>>> per-frame.
>>
>> Not at all in the case of the PCs. The GPU don't see the memory used by
>> the CPU, and the CPU don't see the memory used by the GPU.
>
> I don't know about PCs with shared memory (I can imagine they are not
> designed for gaming speed!), I was talking about the xbox360, which is
> specifically designed for gaming speed (with compromises that wouldn't
> work for a normal PC).
True.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> It has advantages though, like not needing to transfer any data between
> the CPU RAM and the GPU RAM (which is a major bottle-neck in a PC,
> causing many complex algorithms to be developed). On the xbox the CPU
> can update textures and meshes directly without needing to either write
> a complex vertex/pixel shader or transfer over large amounts of data
> per-frame.
The major problem is not the speed, but the amount, as I mentioned.
The architecture would be fine, the problem is that the amount of RAM
is puny compared to modern game requirements. If the Xbox360 had, for
example, 2GB of RAM (or more), then it would really be a killer gaming
platform.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/31/2011 8:58, Warp wrote:
> example, 2GB of RAM (or more), then it would really be a killer gaming
> platform.
I have noticed that games on the xbox seem to have more prettiness than the
same games on the PS3. Even looking at youtube videos of gameplay you can
tell whether it was recorded off an xbox or a ps3.
Is that just because the games I happened to look at were more polished on
the xbox, or does the xbox have actual noticably better support for
sophisticated shaders and such?
(I also noticed that the PS3 games seem to have huge wide-open spaces that I
don't see on any xbox games, but I suspect that's just my selection of
games. Altho it would make sense, having a bluray drive and probably more RAM.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I have noticed that games on the xbox seem to have more prettiness than the
> same games on the PS3. Even looking at youtube videos of gameplay you can
> tell whether it was recorded off an xbox or a ps3.
> Is that just because the games I happened to look at were more polished on
> the xbox, or does the xbox have actual noticably better support for
> sophisticated shaders and such?
Looking at the hardware specifications of both consoles, they seem pretty
similar: Same amount of total RAM and similar GPUs (both based on the same
generation competing GPUs of ATI and NVidia respectively). The Xbox 360 GPU
might have a slight edge in that it seems to have some 10MB specialized
internal fast framebuffer that offers 4-sample antialiasing, alpha compositing
and Z/stencil buffering practically for free.
On the PS3 the RAM is divided half-and-half between the GPU and the CPU,
with the GPU having 256 MB of dedicated RAM plus access to up to 224 MB of
the main RAM (whatever that means). I suppose that means that the CPU has
only up to 256 MB of RAM to play with (unlike the Xbox 360 where the CPU
can use all of the 512 MB). I don't know if this makes a difference, but
it might.
The CPU architectures are completely different, with the one on the PS3
being extremely exotic. The PS3 suffered a lot in its initial years because
of that (no existing game engines could be easily ported to it so that they
would take full advantage of the CPU design). In fact, AFAIK it's still
suffering from it to some extent to this day. I don't know how much of an
impact this has on game visual quality and performance.
> (I also noticed that the PS3 games seem to have huge wide-open spaces that I
> don't see on any xbox games, but I suspect that's just my selection of
> games. Altho it would make sense, having a bluray drive and probably more RAM.)
There are many Xbox 360 games that have huge sceneries, such as the
Assassin's Creed series, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion, etc.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/31/2011 10:15, Warp wrote:
> Looking at the hardware specifications of both consoles, they seem pretty
I just noticed that things on the PS3 seem less ... shiney. :-) Like,
there's much more detail in batman's cape on the xbox than the ps3, from
what I can notice without having them physically side-by-side. Maybe the
dev tools for that sort of thing are easier on the xbox, so more work goes
into making it prettier. Or it might just be my imagination. :-)
> There are many Xbox 360 games that have huge sceneries, such as the
> Assassin's Creed series, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion, etc.
Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking about. I've only personally
seen it in Uncharted and inFamous, which are PS3-specific.
Thanks for the info! :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> On 3/31/2011 10:15, Warp wrote:
>> Looking at the hardware specifications of both consoles, they seem
>> pretty
>
> I just noticed that things on the PS3 seem less ... shiney. :-) Like,
> there's much more detail in batman's cape on the xbox than the ps3, from
> what I can notice without having them physically side-by-side. Maybe
> the dev tools for that sort of thing are easier on the xbox, so more
> work goes into making it prettier. Or it might just be my imagination. :-)
>
>> There are many Xbox 360 games that have huge sceneries, such as the
>> Assassin's Creed series, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion, etc.
>
> Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking about. I've only
> personally seen it in Uncharted and inFamous, which are PS3-specific.
whatever the differences, they are pretty much negligible. The bluray
would not allow for more anything than would be able to fit in the
memory at any one time. Both consoles support huge open-worlds and the
360 GPU may have an edge on graphics (or artists just the bump up
spec/normal maps for the Microsoft console on multiplatform games). The
bluray player just seems to allow for far more cinematics, scripted
events, history and voice acting, as seen in Uncharted, God of War 3 etc.
The recently released Crysis 2 is a huge open-world and has been awarded
king of graphics on consoles so far, with 360 with a slight edge at
this, that in the mouths of fanboys assume gigantic proportions.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The
> bluray player just seems to allow for far more cinematics, scripted
> events, history and voice acting, as seen in Uncharted, God of War 3 etc.
Nothing forces a game to be released on 1 DVD. Lost Odyssey comes in
4 DVDs, Blue Dragon, Star Ocean: The Last Hope and Final Fantasy XIII
com in 3 DVDs each, and Mass Effect 2 comes in 2 DVDs.
Of course a Blu-Ray can hold the same amount of data as about 6 DVDs,
so it's easier to put put even more stuff in one.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/31/2011 12:41, nemesis wrote:
> whatever the differences, they are pretty much negligible.
Oh, agreed in all ways. It's not like we're comparing the Wii or something.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Oh, agreed in all ways. It's not like we're comparing the Wii or something.
It's curious that technically the Wii is like 10 years old, yet if you
look at the sales, it surpasses the Xbox 360 and the PS3 combined. By a
large margin.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
