Poor console CPU performance, claim game devs

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: ZimZum
I agree with Ben. If you read the article, in the case of the Xbox 360's CPU it isn't that the the performance wasn't there its that the Devs they talked to weren't writing multi-thread code to take advantage of its multi-core design. Using PC ports and lazy coding is hardly the best way to gauge performance of next gen Consoles. Wait till we see some games written from the ground up to take full advantage of what the Xbox360 and the PS3 have to offer.

I also agree, lets see if we are saying the same thing a year from now. :beer:
edit: just read the entire thread and realized that the article is no more. Was a good read also. Wonder why beyond3d is down.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: UNCjigga
Why don't Sony and MS just write their own game engine(s) for their own consoles and save developers a hell of a lot of trouble for 1st gen games? They should have internal developers working alongside the hardware engineers writing code as the system is developed. Then instead of just giving your 3rd-party licensees dev kits, hell just give them the fvcking game engine to boot (of course this only works for exclusive titles, but ensures the developer doesn't port it to another console!)

I think that is why MS is pushing XNA so much for game development. It's not an engine but a development suite that is supposed to make life easier for developers.

 

[zimu]

word version of article, if forum has it removed:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=22MHBFC1

 

[Koing]

lol @ true gamer

A gamer will just get what console has the games they want. If it is on a PC that will be it. If it is on an xbox360 it will be that. If the PS3 has crappy games for 'that' gamer he won't get it.

Funny the article was pulled but this other guy has it on his blog/ website.

Koing

 

[Koing]

Although both manufacturers royally screwed up their CPUs, all developers have agreed that they are quite pleased with the GPU power of the next-generation consoles.

Thatprobably didn't go down too well and is imo too harsh. The PS2 CPU isn't the greatest in the world but it can perform for console gaming. It would certainly not run very well at all on a PC but that isn't what it is about. I believe the next generation consoles will all perform well. If the games come out like they did at the preview at launch (not likely) but a few years down the line I'll be happy. GT5 in 720P?

Koing

 

[BenSkywalker]

Yeah, I hear Japanese developers don't use PCs when they write the code and create their models.

You would be correct when talking about the currently available platforms besides the XBox in terms of writing code- why would you expect anything different? VS.net doesn't make the best environment for writing MIPS assembly and testing it

North Americans and Europeans are also prone to lying anonymously with nothing to gain.

You mean besides their jobs? PC centric developers have nothing to gain by PC gaming being as large as possible after all.....

Xbox1 and 360 don't run directx and cross-platform middleware is unheard of, making comparisons impossible.

Show me currently available cross platform middleware for the upcoming consoles. For that matter, show us the final rev dev kit from Sony that these 'honest' developers are using to condemn the architecture.

Out of order execution isn't a big deal that's why it's not on every cpu for more than the last decade.

Remember to limit yourself to consumer market general purpose processors. In order vector processors certainly aren't a new idea.

Wasting RAM on 1080p with AA for the 12 people that will have 1080p sets even a few years from now makes a lot of sense considering how limitless 512mb of shared RAM is.

That's a whopping 63MB(1080p w/AA)- less then 12% of total system memory or looked at another way less then 24% of dedicated graphics memory. The PS2 only uses up a bit under 100% of its' dedicated graphics memory for back buffer while the XBox doesn't have any dedicated vid memory.

You know a lot more than Anand about these issues, thanks for sharing.

Know more then Anand about consoles? That isn't saying much.

BFG-

I mean who really expected these in-order processors to beat PC CPUs and still cost console prices?

Why would the cost be a factor? The materials cost of building processors is very low and Sony/MS at most are paying licensing fees to the respective IP holders(Sony is the IP holder with Cell, so they aren't even paying that). Anand's article was certainly invalid- the basis for his comparison was single threaded code written in C/C++ and compiled on beta level compilers and then run on non final hardware. You can not honestly expect any rational person to accept any sort of conclusions from that- even trying to come up with a conclusion on those factors should bring credibility issues up.

 

[blckgrffn]

Yeah, cause Anand knows nothing about them. Seriously, you don't seem to have much clue about hardware architecture or coding at all. What a console fanboy you are - completely bought into all the marketing hype. Do you think that they really care about you, the end user? Nope, the same way that Intel doesn't care, and even AMD. They want your money. If you think that you are buying the best thing since sliced bread, than the marketing boys have certainly had their way with you, since you obviously don't take into account anything we say to contrary and just blindly believe that these companies would make a decision that could possibly be anything but stellar.

Nat

 

[fzaba]

Originally posted by: zimu
word version of article, if forum has it removed:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=22MHBFC1

THANK YOU!

 

[blckgrffn]

Direct link:

Word Document <-- now working!

Thanks to Zimu for the content!

Nat

 

[Homerboy]

wait wait... why was it taken down?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Homerboy
wait wait... why was it taken down?

Likely due to the fact Sony & Microsuck were mad that AT basically revealed just how crappy their next gen consoles are :laugh:

 

[Homerboy]

Im guessing that because most of the feedback was coming from developers who had developer kits sent to them, MS/Sony starting railing on their developers for trash talking.

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
Yeah, cause Anand knows nothing about them. Seriously, you don't seem to have much clue about hardware architecture or coding at all. What a console fanboy you are - completely bought into all the marketing hype. Do you think that they really care about you, the end user? Nope, the same way that Intel doesn't care, and even AMD. They want your money. If you think that you are buying the best thing since sliced bread, than the marketing boys have certainly had their way with you, since you obviously don't take into account anything we say to contrary and just blindly believe that these companies would make a decision that could possibly be anything but stellar.

Nat

:thumbsup: Good post blckgrffn.

 

[RussianSensation]

Sony May Lose Up to 1.18 Billion on PlayStation 3 ? Merrill Lynch.

Here is more wonderful news for the console market.

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
With respect to bang for the buck, I understand that it depends on the person's budget and gaming preferences. But I find it hard to believe that most teenagers or game players would pick a $1000 gaming PC over 3 next generation consoles.

Don't find it hard to believe. I know thousands of gamers who would rather spend thousands on a decent PC then waste their money on a console. I'd be happy to direct you to countless websites/communities or irc servers/channels where you can meet them.

You dont think if you bought every single hit on those 3 consoles, that the number of great games wouldn't exceed those on a PC in any given year? Well that depends what type of games you like of course. Then again consider that you'll have to upgrade your PC probably at least twice over the lifetime of those consoles. But given that console games outsell pc games like 5:1, unfortunately the majority aren't into pc gaming like us because it is simply too expensive.

Sorry but the number of great PC games far exceeds the number of "great" console games. It may be true that a lot more console games are released than PC games among the 3 console systems but the majority of those games released are utter garbage. For example, most xbox fans believe Halo was the best game for that system. No offense but Halo sucked compared to the countless FPS series of titles released on the PC. Let's name a few. Quake series, Unreal series, Serious Sam, Battlefield Series, Call of Duty, Solder of Fortune, Doom Series, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein/Enemy Territory, Jedi Knight.... Should I go on? Besides, any real "hit" on the consoles will usually be released for the PC anyway including games like GTA or Halo. For me and so many others it makes no sense to waste any money on consoles. Especially when I can buy a single game for the PC and sometimes be happy playing it for more then a year. Name a console game where I can get that satisfaction.

Personally, I think a true gamer will own both consoles and PC games. But if I was on a budget and had to choose one, I'd pick consoles simply due to the variety of games they offer at fraction of the hardware cost that PC gaming requires over the lifetime of those very consoles.

A true gamer... haha. I worked for Midway Home Entertainment for 3 years and I must say after playing countless console games for hours and hours endlessly everyday I still couldn't wait to get off from work to go home and play games on my PC. Fact of the matter is PC titles hold people's interest so much longer than games released on a console. Think of the thousands who have been playing the same MMO like Everquest for the last 7 years or the whole slew of hardcore gamers still playing Quake 1 released in '96 competitvely online. Like others have said before, I cannot wait till the day I can play an FPS title like Quake 4 for example on the same server as Xbox 360 or PS3 people. I can only imagine the catastrophic pwning of noobs.

 

[blckgrffn]

LOL, that would be fun... what, you don't have a keyboard and mouse, let me frag you over and over! Yay!

 

[TalonOP]

Article with pictures uploaded and linked for the lazy.

The original article

 

[HDTVMan]

I believe everyone is too obsessed with power. Gameplay is what inherently makes a great game. I still play a lot of retro stuff and enjoy doing so because the gameplay is great. I still play my Xbox more than my pc games simply because the games are fun. It would be nice to have some more details but really when was the last time you stood still long enough to really say wow that looks great before you were picked off?

If we compare half life 2 from a Direct X7 to a Direct X9 machine the game is still fun and still looks great. The game doesnt magically svck.

By Contrast
Doom 3 plays on the regular Xbox and its a mere 733mhz cpu with 64megs of ram. It looks great but sadly gameplay lacks on doom 3. Yet it requires a PC 3 times more powerfull to play. Thats Geforce 3 technology in Xbox 1.

I have no doubt that even if the comparison is twice the CPU power that the GPU can put enough into it to make it equal to todays top games on the PC. ANd if we use the Xbox 1 capabilities and the comparison that Xbox 360 is merely 2 times xbox1 CPU then were saying the Xbox 360 cpu is equal to a 1466mhz and that xbox 1 was able to play games requiring a PC 3 times more powerfull that puts the Xbox 360 potentially into the 4398mhz cpu equivilent area.

Unified architecture doesnt have the overhead our computers have.

The Xbox 360 will look and play great. Despite what raw cpu power its contrasted to. Dont overanalyze it until its out. We would all love a X2 4800 cpu with SLI 7800 game machine but your not going to get it for $350.00

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: Avalon

1) Anand himself mentioned both the RSX and the R500 are somewhat similar to their G70/R420 counterparts, albeit with some noticeable modifications. That was all that I meant, and you should have known that.

I was saying that R500 in 360 has unified shaders and embedded ram on the gpu die. This means it is almost totally different in terms of design than R520 (which most likely wont have unified shader architecture and certainly wont have embedded dram for virtually free AA)

2) I dunno, twice as fast as a 733mhz P3/celeron hybrid sure sounds theoretically like what a 1.4 Tualatin would put out to me.

Fair enough. What I was trying to say is that game developers on a PC must target so many different configurations making it very difficult to program the games to run well on slow hardware. If you ever seen Ninja Gaiden or Need for speed underground or doom 3 on xbox with 733 celeron and geforce 3+ graphics, you'd realize that specs alone are only half the story. In fact Doom 3 on xbox looks about 80% of what it looks like on PC in my eyes. I have to play at 640x480 and it chops like crazy on a P4 3.2ghz and radeon 8500 (equivalent to geforce 3). Xbox does a much better job. So one shouldn't underestimate the potential of consoles. Sure they'll never be as good as top of the line PCs. But they'll certainly be better than gaming experience provided by A64 3000+ and 6600GT. Besides console games offer something totally different - it's a different gaming experience (ie fighting games, sports games, halo multiplayer).

With respect to bang for the buck, I understand that it depends on the person's budget and gaming preferences. But I find it hard to believe that most teenagers or game players would pick a $1000 gaming PC over 3 next generation consoles. You dont think if you bought every single hit on those 3 consoles, that the number of great games wouldn't exceed those on a PC in any given year? Well that depends what type of games you like of course. Then again consider that you'll have to upgrade your PC probably at least twice over the lifetime of those consoles. But given that console games outsell pc games like 5:1, unfortunately the majority aren't into pc gaming like us because it is simply too expensive. Personally, I think a true gamer will own both consoles and PC games. But if I was on a budget and had to choose one, I'd pick consoles simply due to the variety of games they offer at fraction of the hardware cost that PC gaming requires over the lifetime of those very consoles.

RS, as far as the GPU thing, I was just trying to keep it simple. You are correct though.
As far as bang for the buck, though, if these consoles only have the processing power of an ~1.4 Tualatin, then I know most people out there with computers have something just as good or better, and could simply rig up a video card into their existing system that would cost about the same as buying a console and some controllers. That was my angle. Naturally, if they have to go and buy an entirely new computer with the sole purpose of gaming, then console gaming becomes much more cheaper.

I'm not too sure myself what consoles if any I'll be picking up this year. I guess it just depends on the games that get released. I much prefer a console for sports and fighting games. I'm divided between a console and a PC on RPGs and adventure games. RTS and FPS games are exclusively PC for me.

I've also got a link in my OP to a copy of the article that was taken down, if anyone else is still interested in reading it.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Muscles
Like others have said before, I cannot wait till the day I can play an FPS title like Quake 4 for example on the same server as Xbox 360 or PS3 people. I can only imagine the catastrophic pwning of noobs.

muwahahahahahhahahahaahh

Yeah IIRC Microsoft said that was coming soon where they'd have a unified online universe.

 

[imported_Pablo]

I added a mirror on my site
http://www.ansonwilson.com/anandreview.htm

 

[blckgrffn]

I think that this is hosted up a fair number of places and won't be disapearing soon

Nat

 

[BGuardian75]

What's with all the console hate in here? PC gaming and console gaming are two very different things. I've been PC gaming for 15 years and to be quite honest I'm getting to the point where I *detest* FPS and RTS. I've played it all and seen it all and IMO PC gaming is stagnant and boring. Let's take Jedi Knight and comppare it to FFX .... umm you can't really for a number of reasons, one being Jedi Knight doesn't hold a candle to that game in voice acting, art direction and immersion.

Console gaming is where the money is for developers like EA and Rockstar, they make enough money to buy ID ten times over. They are two totally different markets and PC gaming is very small next to that multi-billion dollar industry of consoles. I don't even care about these next-gen consoles, but the elitist attidude of PC gaming being better is lame. How is it better? All we have on the PC is FPS, RTS, MMRPG ... none of these genres have offered anything new or interesting, just better graphics. Is THAT what makes PC gaming so good?

Now, Panzer Dragoon Saga and Ninja Gaiden for XBOX have graphics, great level design, polish and are FUN. There's nothing on the PC like that.

 

[HDTVMan]

Originally posted by: BGuardian75
What's with all the console hate in here? PC gaming and console gaming are two very different things. I've been PC gaming for 15 years and to be quite honest I'm getting to the point where I *detest* FPS and RTS. I've played it all and seen it all and IMO PC gaming is stagnant and boring. Let's take Jedi Knight and comppare it to FFX .... umm you can't really for a number of reasons, one being Jedi Knight doesn't hold a candle to that game in voice acting, art direction and immersion.

Console gaming is where the money is for developers like EA and Rockstar, they make enough money to buy ID ten times over. They are two totally different markets and PC gaming is very small next to that multi-billion dollar industry of consoles. I don't even care about these next-gen consoles, but the elitist attidude of PC gaming being better is lame. How is it better? All we have on the PC is FPS, RTS, MMRPG ... none of these genres have offered anything new or interesting, just better graphics. Is THAT what makes PC gaming so good?

Now, Panzer Dragoon Saga and Ninja Gaiden for XBOX have graphics, great level design, polish and are FUN. There's nothing on the PC like that.

Dont forget Racing and Flying games. Racing is so much fun on Xbox.
Plus silly games like Super Monkey Ball. This is great stuff.

How about Sports games like Madden. Much better on a console than a PC. Especially for head to head gaming.

Just not falling for new FPS where the levels and guns change. Its getting boring. PC games just seem to clone FPS and change the graphics every year. If PC's are going to be much more powerfull they should also be going in new directions.

Shiny Software is about the most innovative company on the PC.

 

[xtknight]

Nothing satisfies me like kicking a newbie's ass with a rocket launcher, but maybe it's just me. That's just not possible with a controller. Ever tried to play Quake 2 on N64? I have. Online play is much better on PC IMO. What bores me is single player on consoles. What about mods to games? Console doesn't have those either...(that I'm aware of.) Custom levels? Don't count on it unless Microsoft pulls something out of their rear for the XBox360. What about competitions like QuakeCon where you can watch pro players from your home PC, online? PC games are a LOT more tweakable. If PC sales were so poor why do you think Valve and id Software would waste their money making engines, and great games like Half-Life 2, Quake 4, and RTCW2? I know a lot of people who have a gaming PC along with their XBox. Face it, if there were no such thing as PC graphics cards, you wouldn't have any innovative consoles.