What is Digg?194 Comments
- latova, on 10/27/2007, -9/+354The other 80% of the PS3's power will be used to display EA's ingame ads.
- nachochease, on 10/12/2007, -20/+166Obviously EA hasn't yet figured out how to take advantage of the PS3's processors. The current generation of games are just upgraded PS2 games that don't utilize the PS3's eight core architecture.
- MOGua, on 10/12/2007, -53/+149How can you be using only 20% of the PS3's power and yet you get frame rate problems?
- RazorElite, on 10/12/2007, -30/+89By the time they figure out how to use 100%, will it be too late? Not to mention, will it be cost-prohibitive (expensive as *****)?
- mark_in_bc, on 10/12/2007, -64/+123Maybe it's not possible to use more than 20% of the power.
- ucbmckee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+63They're probably using 100% of the CPU, but doing so very inefficiently. If I had to guess, I'd say they probably haven't figured out how to parallelize and/or setup their code for pipelining. It's like the myth that we only use 10% of our brain (it's *****, trust me) - we use 100%, but we don't always use that 100% efficiently, so theres horsepower to spare, if you can just figure out how to use it.
- 81v3d07g0d, on 10/12/2007, -5/+56isnt that how its always been?
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+56"How can you be using only 20% of the PS3's power and yet you get frame rate problems?"
How can you hop on one leg and still find it difficult to stand up straight?
We know UbiSoft through a fit in a press statement when the PS3 was released. I could never understand why they were quite literally whining and throwing temper tantrums about translating games from Xbox 360 to PS3. Now I know why. - ForlornHope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39"Chief Visual Officer"? Now there's a fun title to put on your business cards.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Seriously. Consoles last 5 years, and games usually get better and better visually throughout just about the entire lifespan.
This seems like the normal situation to me. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30How is this relevant? What? Are you referring to this article? It's not Sony speaking here.
As to the "Emotion Engine lies", it's just normal industry BS.
Like Peter Moore saying next-gen (360) will graphics will be so engaging you'll think you're in a lucid dream. Or Seamus Blackley saying Xbox (original) will have "Toy Story" graphics.
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-250632.html
If you only concentrate on the marketing-hype, you can find fault with all the game industry players. Stop being so pessimistic. - MrWolf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36I think the CPU can undertake some limited graphic duties, but mostly the increase in CPU efficiency will be used to increase complex physics or lightning effects.
- joaob, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39At this rate it will take 5 years to get to 100%
- afeitarse, on 10/12/2007, -20/+45"How can you be using only 20% of the PS3's power and yet you get frame rate problems?"
That's the most retarded logic I've ever heard. It's likely that you have frame rate problems BECAUSE the EA is only using 20% of the PS3's power and not more. - pipdip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27This highlights something that many have been saying for a while. The PS3 is very powerful, (slightly) more powerful than the 360. However, developing for it is very difficult. You can have all the power in the world but unless you have an efficient way to use that power, you probably won't use it. Hopefully developers will find ways to harass more of the power of the PS3 but maybe they won't.
- rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22for the PS2 MGS: Snake Eater is a prime example. That games graphics are unbelievable! It came out almost 2 years ago though. So, no, it doesnt take the full life span of the machine. It takes dedication and work.
- SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24This just in.... EA only using 20% of their brains.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28"By the time they figure out how to use 100%, will it be too late? "
Actually, probably yes. But it's like that for all consoles. Developers take a while to really figure out how to exploit the system's good areas... by that time, a new one is usually in the works anyways. I read that in an interview, who it was though, escapes me. - webdevil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20SWEET......I should only have to pay 20% of the price for the game.......um or not
- P5ycHo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17If you read between the lines, you'll see that they actually tell you that they are sorry for the crappy product they've delivered.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You apparently have no idea what an "in order execution" processor is.
In order execution is a LIMITATION, not something to strive for. If your processor cannot complete instructions out of order, then when an instruction cannot complete quickly, it holds up all instructions behind it, slowing down execution.
The good news is that with intimate knowledge of your platform and a good compiler, the compiler can generate code to minimize the penalties incurred by in order execution. But it will never surpass a CPU that has all the same specs, but can do out of order completion.
If you ask someone who knows that they are doing "would you like an in order execution processor", they'll never say "yes, please, that would be great!". Instead they'll say "if I give up out of order completion, what do I get instead?" It appears MS answered this question with "more cores", which is a proper answer.
All your weakest link stuff is just reverse justification. You cannot make a judgement about how a system as complex as PS3 or 360 will perform by comparing only one component. There are tradeoffs to everything. Sony and MS made different ones, and each will pay the price in different instances. Each made their tradeoffs believing they were the right ones and would produce superior performance under the right circumstances.
Who are you to look at the systems and say one will always be better than the other? - SSCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15EA also said that Gears of War does not have impressive graphics. This I guess is them comparing Army of Two to GoW.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Which is important. The PS2 went from Orphen to Final Fantasy X in 6 months. Metal Gear Solid 2 in about a year.
- graemee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14You do realize there's an edit time available to fix your comments. Because dude, it needs it.
- lhnz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15LOL I JUST DOWNLOADED PS3!!!112123
- davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Scrappy, that was the point. He was being sarcastic.
- JayD16, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Its harder then the 360 maybe but its been said that its easier to code for then the ps2.
- Lamtd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I believe that's because the SDK tools are far from being mature. For instance, the Octopiler wasn't quite ready in February, so I guess there's still a lot of room for improvement. Check out http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060225-6265.html for more info about this.
Also, just like with the PS2, developers need to learn about the new architecture; first games weren't using the two vector units at all, that's why the early games sucked in terms of graphics. Granted, it might take a couple of years, and that might hurt Sony a lot, but there's no doubt that newer games will look much better than the first wave. - BrotherGA2, on 10/12/2007, -13/+23I call BS...and he said overall power...not just CPU or GPU...
- LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17EA only "capable of" using 20% of PS3 power!
There... fixed that for you. - bokchoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I might get dugg down for this but I'll just say it, but maybe it's true.
Look, at the start I'll admit I thought the 360 was utter *****, the XBox 1.5, and I didn't believe a word anyone said that it hasn't reached "full potential". Anyway, a few games later (namely Gears of War) I was convinced.
So now with the PS3, yeah Sony messed up launch big time, but I'm going to invest a TEENY bit of faith that yeah, the "full potential" has yet to be reached. The situation is so stacked against Sony right now that it's almost pitiful, so no one might expect maybe a comeback, which is something they really need.
Look, I don't want to see any company fail, that means less good games on the market and the concept of Blu-Ray did appeal to me. I mean, who really hopes that the next console is REALLY *****, that's like hoping when you walk outside "I hope I get shot today so my day will be utter ***** and I can bitch about it online all day." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I hope they only charge 20% of the game's MSRP, then.
- subxero37, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15@nachochease: The Playstation 3 has only six usable cores out of eight. One is there to make the PS3's yield percentage a bit higher, and one is reserved by the system. But yeah, even then, programming to take advantage of six cores is no easy task.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14PS3 came out 3 WEEKS AGO! Of course the installed base is small.
You say MS has the first mover advantage? Yeah, just like Peter Moore's last baby, Dreamcast. It sold a lot of units before the PS2 sold one, and... PS2 beat it soundly.
You're way oversimplifying the situation such as to make your arguments pretty ridiculous.
The vast majority of next-gen titles will be cross-platform anyway. Developers won't choose between 2M PS3s (after Euro launch) and 9M 360s. They'll take 11M of both. - shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Ugh, it's 3 cores, with 2 threads each, which is a total of 6 different threads. Please, get your facts straight.
- earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No, it has ONE 3-core processor
- Pureeviljester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well look at the FF12 that came out for the PS2 and compare it with earlier games.. huge difference.
Imaging what the comparison will be with PS3 games now and the games 2 years from now. - cha0sth30ry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It maybe true, but I'd like to hear that from a developer working on the PS3 - not a dumb suit.
- autorock, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16"Power" is such a meaningless term. I'm so sick of hearing about how the PS3 is 5x as powerful as the 360, the Wii is 2.5x is powerful as the gamecube and 1.5x as powerful as the XBOX blah blah blah. Some idiot is going to take this "article" and make up an equation that goes something like this: "Since PS3 is now only using 20% of its power, in 12 months, its games will be 240% better of Gears of War, since the 360 has already reached 100% of its power by already being on the market for 12 months!" Logic. Same.
- T440, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Didn't this whole power percentage thing come up with the PS2...I seem to recall Gran Turismo 4 (maybe 3) using 25% of the Playstation 2's power.
- gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7360 has 3 general purpose cores that can run 2 threads each.
- Megatog615, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You have to buy the other 80%.
- JayD16, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9So the 360 has 6 processors now?
- nomad421, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You are correct about the In Order Execution... that was a major typo. It should have read OUT OF ORDER execution. However, both the 360 and the PS3 have in order execution chips.
Clearly, you are completely incorrect in your minimization argument. No matter how good your compile time code optimization is, it will never make up for the ability of the processor to re-order instructions in the pipeline to minimize the performance hit of waiting for a specific instruction.
"All your weakest link stuff is just reverse justification. You cannot make a judgement about how a system as complex as PS3 or 360 will perform by comparing only one component. There are tradeoffs to everything. Sony and MS made different ones, and each will pay the price in different instances. Each made their tradeoffs believing they were the right ones and would produce superior performance under the right circumstances."
No it's not. Are you telling me that a Geforce 3 wouldn't be the bottleneck in a quad core system with 4 GB of ram and a 7200rpm sata hdd. If you think that an incredibly fast array of processors can make up for the lacking graphics card, you clearly don't understand hardware. Furthermore, I'm not comparing component to component. I'm saying that the 360's GPU is better paired with it's processor than that of the PS3 where the GPU will end up being the bottleneck more often than not.
"Who are you to look at the systems and say one will always be better than the other?"
I'm not claiming to know, just voicing my opinion. I'm a PhD student in comptuer science specializing in graphics by the way, at the University of Maryland, College Park. - theratdotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5when the power of the PS3 is 100% realized, they will have released the PS4, which EA will only be able to utilize 20% of its power.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5nomad421:
I am correct in my argument. I said that the compile can mimimize the impact, but never make the same performance as the out of order execution (OOE) chip. You said I was wrong and then said the exact same thing I did.
We're both right, in that particular case.
However, you're wrong because you took the wrong side of the argument in the first place, arguing somehow that Sony would have done better compared to MS if they had OOE, when neither of them have OOE.
To be honest, I think MS made the right choice using an in-order core. There's really only two kinds of instructions that take a long time to execute. One is loads/stores and the other is divides. In a system like 360 where every unit is exactly the same, load/stores can be scheduled about as well statically (by the compiler) as by the processor. This is not the case on a platform like a PC where you might have 1 of 8 different processors and your memory might be anything from 8MHz EDO RAM to 667MHz DDR2. This restriction to in-order made it possible for MS to include more PPC cores.
As to Sony choosing a single-issue core (even more restrictive than an in-order core), I don't think we have enough info to predict right now. The crux of the question is that seemingly, 3rd party exclusives will be rare or non-existent in this generation. That means that even top-line games will have to run on two platforms and might not be optimized well for either. In that case, you want to make your platform easier to port to. MS has done that. On the other hand, Sony has put much of their effort toward 1st-party games (which are exclusives of course). 1st party games can be more optimized for your platform and might give the PS3 the edge, since if you do optimize for it, it clearly has more CPU power.
I just can't say which will turn out to be the dominant factor. We'll know more in 9 months, when the broad spectrum of games that developers targetted toward PS3 start to appear. - UnknownCzar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7When you compare EA games to games like gears of war or god of war, you can really tell they arn't anywhere near the full potential, no matter what console.
I wouldn't be suprised that EA games on the 360 are only using 20-30% of the "power," whatever that means. - galador, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Nobody will ever need more than 20% of the PS3's processing power!"
"EA needs more than 20% of the PS3's processing power to display all their ads"
Logical conclusion:
"Nobody will ever need EA." - heretrix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10It 's more like EA has 20 percent skill in making a decent game..
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Army of Two is releasing on Xbox 360 too.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 191 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is