Report: Rage Runs Faster on 360, Carmack Confirms

[Wartz]

Why is Carmack claiming that the 360 runs it at the same speed as the PC? That is a lie. If the 360 runs it at 60 fps, any semi-decent PC will run it at 120+ easily at the same settings. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

It really worries me though that they are concentrating so hard on the consoles. Most of the time when devs do that, the PC version turns out like shit. Buggy controls, terrible AI, etc. The graphics and things like level size are usually a lot weaker than they could have been too.

If that happens Rage is a no buy for me. Carmack is a great programmer, but he hasn't made a really good game since Quake 3.

 

[joinmeindeath417]

Depends, I started gaming on Consoles and after a while i built my own PC and realized how much better PC gamers have it, from Mods to more players online to upgrading and better visuals.

And yes i have had the PS3, 360 and Wii, Sold my PS3 cause it got crappy to me, Had both 360's kill themselves and my Wii is still going strong. I do play my Wii sometimes, but all my main gaming is on the PC. I also have a N64, Geneisis, PS1, because those were the good days of gaming, the days when you didn't have to worry about a system dieing and the games just got more and more creative with each release, as the generations went on all they now try and do is copy things PC has had for years, WOW!! now we can save our games on a HDD, WOW!! now we can DL demos, omg now we can go on the webs with our consoles, its all been done before and the sooner they realize it the sooner they understand the better platform, because eventually they WILL just be turning into PC's themselves..

I know Off topic LOL.

Hence why my PS3 is in my PC specs

i USE to be a PC gamer heavily into it too, i would play wolf ET maybe 5-8 hours a NIGHT, i use to play fear, Half life ect. I can honestly say i had more fun with it AT THAT TIME

as time went on and consoles matured (mainly 360 ps3) things started to change more people played on consoles it was easier less buggy than the pc and you didnt have to worry about all those stupid modded servers with crazy stuff added to them.

i know you can filter them out and stuff, but when it comes down to it you have to be hardcore gamer to put up with some of it, and now its only getting worse with this windows live shit etc.

i think the way they are working on Rage is awesome how they aren't stressing the release date or not pressuring themselves im sure everyone will be satisfied with there copy of the game the quote that started this thread is simply not proof enough of how well its going to or not going to run, 2010 is still far away and its hard to argue anything until the final product is out, it'd be a different story if they do release the game at 30fps vs 60fps (ps3 vs 360) because the systems are similar enough and the main thing about the cell processor is its "virtual cores" can be manipulated to act as extra graphic properties etc.

 

[MadClown]

Ive allways known the PS3 had a worse GPU, nevertheless my pc still rapes it.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Hence why my PS3 is in my PC specs

i USE to be a PC gamer heavily into it too, i would play wolf ET maybe 5-8 hours a NIGHT, i use to play fear, Half life ect. I can honestly say i had more fun with it AT THAT TIME

as time went on and consoles matured (mainly 360 ps3) things started to change more people played on consoles it was easier less buggy than the pc and you didnt have to worry about all those stupid modded servers with crazy stuff added to them.

i know you can filter them out and stuff, but when it comes down to it you have to be hardcore gamer to put up with some of it, and now its only getting worse with this windows live shit etc.

i think the way they are working on Rage is awesome how they aren't stressing the release date or not pressuring themselves im sure everyone will be satisfied with there copy of the game the quote that started this thread is simply not proof enough of how well its going to or not going to run, 2010 is still far away and its hard to argue anything until the final product is out, it'd be a different story if they do release the game at 30fps vs 60fps (ps3 vs 360) because the systems are similar enough and the main thing about the cell processor is its "virtual cores" can be manipulated to act as extra graphic properties etc.

Still consider this, Why is it so hard to get things right on the Ps3. Either Sony Seriously upgrades there Firmware to make things stream easier,or they are gonna fail, I'm not saying i want them to fail cause that would be bad for all gamers. But they need to make it easier for Studio's to get the product out sooner Like Microsoft does, So we don't have to wait so long for games....

 

[joinmeindeath417]

yes they took the bullet by releasing un familar territory by using the Cell, but point is, when a company knows how to develop with the chip the games are amazing and yes im talking killzone 2, MGS4, and God of war 3, heavy rain, all look/are great examples of what can be done.

maybe they'll fix this mistake with the ps4

 

[KainXS]

Carmack is known to hate the ps3 just like valve why would you all even consider this article.

 

[Flyordie]

Hope the PC version isn't trash. And i hope its optimized and the controls aren't dumbed down.

They seriously should just make it 360 only, thats really the version they care about most since the beginning and is first priority to them, they could careless about the rest.

Might as well make it a really good 360 game then make it crappy ports to PS3 and PC.

Socio?

;-\
---
LOL
--
PS3 is GPU lacking and the fact it doesn't use a unified memory architecture.... eesh..

 

[CDdude55]

Socio?

?

PS3 is GPU lacking and the fact it doesn't use a unified memory architecture.... eesh..

Like i said above, i didn't put the bottom stuff there, i do hope the PC version succeeds and is not a 360 only title i could careless about the PS3's crappy GPU power.

 

[-1nf1n1ty-]

all i know as far as the ps4 goes is that intel is said to design the PS4 GPU and they're keeping the cell processor. Incase some of you want a source http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050851/intel-design-playstation-gpu

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I so don't buy that. Not a bit.

Sony doesn't want anything to do with x86 and that's all Intel cares about. We're talking oil and water here.

Microsoft might but then they'll have a problem with Xbox360 compatibility.

Nintendo, not likely. x86 is too costly and complex for their needs.


By all accounts, CELL failed. It cost a crapload of money and that didn't translate into better sales. Sony will most likely abandon the CELL for something cheaper (PS3 compatibility in a future console might be trouble).

 

[HossHuge]

all i know as far as the ps4 goes is that intel is said to design the PS4 GPU and they're keeping the cell processor. Incase some of you want a source http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050851/intel-design-playstation-gpu

The writer (Charlie Demerjian) for some reason always has a negative tone towards Nvidia.

 

[KainXS]

I so don't buy that. Not a bit.

Sony doesn't want anything to do with x86 and that's all Intel cares about. We're talking oil and water here.

Microsoft might but then they'll have a problem with Xbox360 compatibility.

Nintendo, not likely. x86 is too costly and complex for their needs.


By all accounts, CELL failed. It cost a crapload of money and that didn't translate into better sales. They Sony will most likely abandon the CELL for something cheaper (PS3 compatibility in a future console might be trouble).

for the Playstion brand yes sony should by all means abandon the cell but on the upside the cell did succeed in the supercomputing and server markets.

I also can't see sony moving with larrabee, if anything they will use a next gen nvidia architecture with mimd

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, I meant CELL as a console CPU. CELL is good for certain applications but it just isn't cost effective enough to be a good choice for the console segment.


I doubt Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony would even consider Larrabee right now. They need to see it work as a mainstream product before they go and buy millions of them. Even then, it would still be hard for them to justify the extra costs (performance and licensing) associated with x86.


I wouldn't be surprised if Sony engineers their own GPU for the next PlayStation like they did with the PlayStation and PlayStation 2. Sony really didn't gain much from collaborating with NVIDIA so I think engineering their own would be the first choice (again, it might be trouble to make PS3 games run on it though because of licensing conflicts).

 

[joinmeindeath417]

I honestly think it all depends on the end of the PS3 cycle IF it does pan out they may stick with a cell but something that is more stable and actually has more than one core, i mean the idea behind 7 virtual cores was to manipulate other things that could boost the performance or graphic power of the ps3, it was a great idea on paper, but getting it to do that. well the only ones who could so far are exclusive titles for PS3, which is how sega was with there saturn, it was a horrible system (although it was my favorite), but coding for it was a bitch and while there were good games the best ones were handled by sega.

As far as buying from intel i agree with Ford i honestly think if sony drops the cell all together (which is still up in the air) we'd see either horrible backwards compatibility if any at all, and that would be something they'd have to sacrifice because yea when sony made there own stuff it was a great product, still has a few years to catch up in terms of sales etc though unlikley i think the ps3 took the bullet here call it the dreamcast if you will.

The cell is a great piece of hardware, problem is developers step into super natural territory with it and don't really know how to utilize it and that's why it hurt sony, if developers get more familiar with it, i think they may add a new cell to the next gen system. At one time they were thinking of using a cell based GPU for the PS3 but ultimatley they went with the RSX.

 

[TheMailMan78]

All of this proves my point. "Next-Gen" consoles are over priced under powered PC's. Look at the flames one statement from one developer has caused chaos among the community. From a PC elitist perspective its pretty funny. One day they will meet the "benchmark" of 60 FPS as seen on the PC.........Ok troll rant over.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sony (not to say that Microsoft isn't too) is corning themselves in a bad place right now. The PS2 allows PSX games to be played via integrating the PSX processor into the PS2. The first PS3s did the same having not only the CELL processor but also the Emotion Engine of the PS2 and the processor used in the PSX. Sony then removed the Emotion Engine, emulating PS2 and now, PS2 support is completely gone. The only reason why the PSX support remains is because it is a cheap to manufacturer chip that runs at a 33-37 MHz.

In order for the Xbox360 to get full backwards compatibility with the Xbox, they would have to release a version that has an x86 co-processor alongside the Power PC based processor. My guess is that Microsoft will opt for anther Power PC for the next Xbox in order to not kick up all the bad publicity they got from killing the original Xbox.

Sony, on the other hand, is in deep $h!t. The only way they can get backwards compatibility is to keep the CELL (expensive). At the same time, PS2 is pretty much dead as far as backwards compatibility goes. The question is if Sony deems this acceptable or not. This realization makes me wonder if Sony is going to kill the PlayStation and make something new, from scratch, with a long-term strategy in mind (that is, one CPU architecture and stick to it). They also need to make certain that this new platform is ultra-easy to program for so it can compete with Xbox on the developer front. It may actually take more after the Wii (cheap and easy to mass produce) than the PS3.

 

[HookeyStreet]

Sony (not to say that Microsoft isn't too) is corning themselves in a bad place right now. The PS2 allows PSX games to be played via integrating the PSX processor into the PS2. The first PS3s did the same having not only the CELL processor but also the Emotion Engine of the PS2 and the processor used in the PSX. Sony then removed the Emotion Engine, emulating PS2 and now, PS2 support is completely gone. The only reason why the PSX support remains is because it is a cheap to manufacturer chip that runs at a 33-37 MHz.

In order for the Xbox360 to get full backwards compatibility with the Xbox, they would have to release a version that has an x86 co-processor alongside the Power PC based processor. My guess is that Microsoft will opt for anther Power PC for the next Xbox in order to not kick up all the bad publicity they got from killing the original Xbox.

Sony, on the other hand, is in deep $h!t. The only way they can get backwards compatibility is to keep the CELL (expensive). At the same time, PS2 is pretty much dead as far as backwards compatibility goes. The question is if Sony deems this acceptable or not. This realization makes me wonder if Sony is going to kill the PlayStation and make something new, from scratch, with a long-term strategy in mind (that is, one CPU architecture and stick to it). They also need to make certain that this new platform is ultra-easy to program for so it can compete with Xbox on the developer front. It may actually take more after the Wii (cheap and easy to mass produce) than the PS3.

Backwards compatibility has never bothered me because if I want to play 'old' titles, I will play them on the old system. Why get a 360 to play XBOX 1 titles on or a PS3 to play PS2 tiles on when either 'old' console can be picked up for peanuts?

 

[joinmeindeath417]

Sony (not to say that Microsoft isn't too) is corning themselves in a bad place right now. The PS2 allows PSX games to be played via integrating the PSX processor into the PS2. The first PS3s did the same having not only the CELL processor but also the Emotion Engine of the PS2 and the processor used in the PSX. Sony then removed the Emotion Engine, emulating PS2 and now, PS2 support is completely gone. The only reason why the PSX support remains is because it is a cheap to manufacturer chip that runs at a 33-37 MHz.

In order for the Xbox360 to get full backwards compatibility with the Xbox, they would have to release a version that has an x86 co-processor alongside the Power PC based processor. My guess is that Microsoft will opt for anther Power PC for the next Xbox in order to not kick up all the bad publicity they got from killing the original Xbox.

Sony, on the other hand, is in deep $h!t. The only way they can get backwards compatibility is to keep the CELL (expensive). At the same time, PS2 is pretty much dead as far as backwards compatibility goes. The question is if Sony deems this acceptable or not. This realization makes me wonder if Sony is going to kill the PlayStation and make something new, from scratch, with a long-term strategy in mind (that is, one CPU architecture and stick to it). They also need to make certain that this new platform is ultra-easy to program for so it can compete with Xbox on the developer front. It may actually take more after the Wii (cheap and easy to mass produce) than the PS3.

i don;t think Sony will scrap the playstation, there are loyal fans problem is there are more xbox fans. i think they just need to either give developers something better to work with, or SHOW THEM how to use the Cell, i can say that the Cell is great once again, it's just when they program for it, its not so great.

i honestly think sony will keep the Cell and make it easier to develop for, the cost of production on the ps3 went down 70 percent since its launch so the cell is going to be cheaper and cheaper as time goes on, and according to Microsoft and Sony there systems may go until 2015, which is plenty of time that if they decided to get a new architecture to build on they can include the cell chip on the ps4, allowing b/c.

Backwards compatibility has never bothered me because if I want to play 'old' titles, I will play them on the old system. Why get a 360 to play XBOX 1 titles on or a PS3 to play PS2 tiles on when either 'old' console can be picked up for peanuts?

That's you man, problem is customers look at this like "wow i get 2 systems in one sweet", or they look at it like "wow this blows i don't have room to have my xbox, ps2,ps3, and 360 all hooked up to play games"

so its more so adding a pro on the system making it a better sell point,

i have a 60gb ps3, and i baby the shit out of that think it has 2 of my favorite systems fully backwards compatible (playstation and playstation 2) along with 3, so i can't complain.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

i don;t think Sony will scrap the playstation, there are loyal fans problem is there are more xbox fans. i think they just need to either give developers something better to work with, or SHOW THEM how to use the Cell, i can say that the Cell is great once again, it's just when they program for it, its not so great.

The CELL architecture is the developers worse nightmare. They have to micromanage code for 7-8 co-processors in order to get all the power out of the system when on Xbox360/PC, the OS/subsystems take care of most/all of that. CELL is great in the super computer environment because most software for super computers are built to order; however, with most developers making games for Xbox360 first, PC second, and PS3 third, PS3 is the ugly duckling developers shake their fist at (like Carmack did). At the end of the day, for developers, multi-core is better than multi-SPE.


At the end of the day, most non-exclusive titles only make real use of the Power PC heart of the CELL processor--the SPEs are only coded for games where the Power PC isn't enough.

i honestly think sony will keep the Cell and make it easier to develop for, the cost of production on the ps3 went down 70 percent since its launch so the cell is going to be cheaper and cheaper as time goes on, and according to Microsoft and Sony there systems may go until 2015, which is plenty of time that if they decided to get a new architecture to build on they can include the cell chip on the ps4, allowing b/c.

And it is still more expensive than the Xbox360 and Wii with more iterations than those two combined. PS3, in the hardware sense, is a disaster. It was over engineered and years later, they're still trying to cut the excess out of it so Sony doesn't bankrupt themselves.

 

[joinmeindeath417]

i agree, all i was saying about the cell is by the time the new PLAYSTATION or whatever sony releases comes out the cell they use will be cheap enough to put into the system. Thus allowing backwards capability.

I mean its all opinion vs opinion right now i do agree sony bit off more than they could chew and i never said they didn't i just think that with what they show in there exclusive's that the games are great and look great, even with a less powerful gpu etc.

i do not think they'll go bankrupt from this they have too many assets and if sony went under and pulled a sega basically the console wars would be over, to me and most people the wii and 360 are totally different machines and there for if sony stopped producing gaming hardware we'd only have Nintendo and Microsoft, and well thats like night and day.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think what will ultimately decide if CELL stays or goes is the percentage of games that use the SPEs. If it is next to none (I suspect it is), there's no reason to keep it. It wouldn't be very hard for them to make up the difference with a multi-core processor.


There's other corporations much closer to bankruptcy than Sony. Sony did, however, take a huge loss on every PlayStation 3 sold. They no longer take as big of a loss as they used to and make up a lot of their losses from removing PlayStation 2 support in the PlayStation 3 which in turn boosted sales of the slimline PlayStation 2s (I'm sure they turn a profit on every unit sold there).

 

[joinmeindeath417]

i agree and as it looks like you've said the line goes 360 ported to ps3. and by doing that most companies dont even use the 7 SPU's because to them there is no need to they look at it like "well it looks close enough to the 360 version its good' but games that do utilize the cell are amazing in technical terms, look at heavenly sword it could render literally up to 1000 enemies on screen and if you actually go online and look how each developer utilize the SPU's its pretty cool its just 3rd party developers that aren't working on exclusives don't see why they need to write for the SPU's if the game is "ok" with just the single core .

Theres a few articals to break down how they did it in killzone 2 and its pretty cool.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7598043&postcount=1

and do note this was before some of these games came out.

 

[-1nf1n1ty-]

.....:3 lol I sitll wish GTA4 was a ps3/pc exclusive lol....dont mean to change the subject I sitll laugh at that today cause it made me sad

 

[KainXS]

why would you want it exclusive, I hate to say it but GTA4 plays like crap on consoles, the fps is all over the place, it usually dosen't drop under 15 to me but compared to what even a decent pc will play it at @ 720p that fps is not good at all, for example, I have a pc that costed me under 400 dollars to make with a E2140 and a 8800GS(folding pc) and it plays it over 60fps at that res and looks a good bit better than the 360 version and to me 30fps looks slow compared to 60.


flamebait

 

[joinmeindeath417]

i love how that game got a 10/10...

i thought the graphics weren't that good at all, actually they were decent at best.

anyway read that article and than argue that the ps3 is underpowered? because i read every bit of all of those articles and they prove. if you know what your doing the ps3 is a great piece of hardware