So how did the PS3 strategy fare?

[Blurry]

Sorry for the stupid question - but how is the PS3 more powerful?

I thought the 360 had a better gpu - hence inherently better graphics than the PS3.
(512mb R500-based GPU + 10mb EDRAM vs 256mb g7xxx based).

Not to mention the 360 has a better scaler (I think the Ps3 has a weird horizontal only scaler, hence why GT5 is rendered at 1024x1080).

 

[Fefster]

Sorry for the stupid question - but how is the PS3 more powerful?

I thought the 360 had a better gpu - hence inherently better graphics than the PS3.
(512mb R500-based GPU + 10mb EDRAM vs 256mb g7xxx based).

Not to mention the 360 has a better scaler (I think the Ps3 has a weird horizontal only scaler, hence why GT5 is rendered at 1024x1080).

CPU wise is more powerful.But yeah,on the gpu side the 360 has an edge and that's why multiplatform games run at a lower res on the ps3.What really makes the ps3 a better product is their first party devs.I bought the playstation 3 just for the exclusives and i wasn't disappointed.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

CPU wise is more powerful.

I think even that is debatable in terms of real world usefulness. In terms of theoretical figures the Cell is a step ahead, but the types of workloads these systems see isn't really conducive for this architecture. In a way it reminds me of the Sega Saturn and how many developers struggled with its two chip design.

 

[Reliant]

I don't know about their strat. I can say that I have had all 3 consoles at the same time, and now I only own the PS3. I love the 1st party titles. Also, I will most likely get flamed for this, but I've sent my Xbox in a total of 5 times cause of RROD. I didn't want to give another few hundred dollars to get a slim and fix the issue when my PS3 has been rock solid. Just sort of put me off.

 

[RavenSEAL]

CPU wise is more powerful.But yeah,on the gpu side the 360 has an edge and that's why multiplatform games run at a lower res on the ps3.What really makes the ps3 a better product is their first party devs.I bought the playstation 3 just for the exclusives and i wasn't disappointed.

Multi-Platform games run at a lower ress on PS3?

 

[RobDickinson]

Some have yes. Well noted.

The 360 is easy to get the power out of it (though that isnt to say it doesnt have some tricks of its own, it does). 6 equal threads no split in memory between the cpu/gpu, and an easy to code for dx part for the GPU, and all of microsofts software tool/libraries to design and build for.

The Cell is a nightmare to code for. Its superb if your code fits its best profile, but games most always dont. So your stuck using the two main threads and trying to make some use of the cells other limited threads.

I remember when Home was going to be PS3's breakthrough lol. To expensive and too late to market, when the competition has compelling products.

 

[micrometers]

I think even that is debatable in terms of real world usefulness. In terms of theoretical figures the Cell is a step ahead, but the types of workloads these systems see isn't really conducive for this architecture. In a way it reminds me of the Sega Saturn and how many developers struggled with its two chip design.

You would think that they would have learned the lesson from the PS2 and made it easier to program for.

 

[RobDickinson]

Its not like they even continued that known architecture, hell they culdnt even emulate it because the ps2 has more bandwidth at one point than the ps3...

 

[Kromis]

...Since with the PS3 the calculation is if you're going to pay $150 for a blu ray player might as well pay another $100 to get games and other stuff with the PS3...

Blu-ray players still cost over $100? Color me surprised.

 

[RobDickinson]

Ebay seems to thing $50 for a sony bluray player is more than achievable.

 

[Fefster]

Multi-Platform games run at a lower ress on PS3?

Obviously not every single multiplatform game runs at a lower res on the ps3 but some do. Check this out. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Rockstar games run at an higher res on the 360.

 

[PrayForDeath]

There was an interview with someone from either the uncharted or the resistance 2 dev team who spoke about, I'm pretty sure it was in GameInformer. He said all the cores did give clear advantages, but I can't remember what he goes into.

I watched the bonus dev interviews on the Uncharted 2 disc, and one of the videos was called "Mastering the Cell" or something along those lines (can prolly find it on youtube.)

Anyway, they managed to use the cell cores to offload some processing load off the GPU (I believe depth of field and motion blur were all done on the CPU). So there's that.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Naughty Dog says that they're using about 1/3 of the PS3's Cell processor. Even if they could somehow use up 100% I'm not sure it would matter so much since the main bottleneck for games is always the GPU, thus the NVIDIA part.

Actually, they mentioned in a video that this was the case in Uncharted one. But by UC2 they finally managed to tap into the full power of the Cell processor.

 

[darkxshade]

I think Sony shot themselves in the foot trying to future proof the PS3 with the all powerful Cell. I think they would have done better if they had used a chip half as powerful and launched at a better price point of $300-500. Those first 3 years were critical and they were moving at a crawl so it ended up setting them back more than anything. IMO, the PS3 didn't really "launch" until the slim line.

 

[BD2003]

I watched the bonus dev interviews on the Uncharted 2 disc, and one of the videos was called "Mastering the Cell" or something along those lines (can prolly find it on youtube.)

Anyway, they managed to use the cell cores to offload some processing load off the GPU (I believe depth of field and motion blur were all done on the CPU). So there's that.

They can also do some pretty good antialiasing with it.

Imagine you had a team to manage.

Xbox CPU is like having three average intelligence employees with two hands. (Triple core + SMT)
Cell/PS3 is like having one really smart employee with one hand, and 7 idiot savants that are good at only a few specific things, also with one hand.

One is clearly easier to manage.

Theres more raw power there with the PS3, its just incredibly inefficient. The GPU shaders aren't unified, the memory is rigid 256 main/256 GPU etc.

Xbox was built for flexibility and efficiency without a struggle. PS3 requires that struggle...but if they take the time to organize their code in such a way that not too much of its resources sit idle, it can do great stuff.

 

[micrometers]

Actually, they mentioned in a video that this was the case in Uncharted one. But by UC2 they finally managed to tap into the full power of the Cell processor.

interesting.

I was playing uncharted 2 the other night and it is unbelievably beautiful.

Though the basic God of War/Zelda/Prince of Persia gameplay is a little old hat at this point. And it's laughable how Nick Drake can pwn so many professional soldiers without a scratch, Tony Montana like.

 

[micrometers]

I guess the best way to look at it is: was the cell fast and cost-effective at the time of manufacture (2006) to justify the esoteric and complex architecture? Someone said that the cell pushes 25 million double precision polygons while the core i7 pushes 80 million. Back in 2006 the cell likely outran the pentium M or whatever was the fastest x86 processor.

Also I read somewhere that the ps3 has an ageia chip?

 

[Slick5150]

Sorry, but most of this discussion on archcitecture and whatnot seems moot to the OP question of "how did the PS3 strategy fare?". It took Sony from console dominance w/ the PS2 to 3rd place behind Nintendo and Microsoft. So, from a pure strategy standpoint, it failed miserably. You can argue its technical merits, but that doesn't change where it took Sony from where it was in the market.

 

[BD2003]

I guess the best way to look at it is: was the cell fast and cost-effective at the time of manufacture (2006) to justify the esoteric and complex architecture? Someone said that the cell pushes 25 million double precision polygons while the core i7 pushes 80 million. Back in 2006 the cell likely outran the pentium M or whatever was the fastest x86 processor.

Also I read somewhere that the ps3 has an ageia chip?

Ps3 does not have an Ageia chip.

You can't really make a direct comparison to an x86 chip because they're so different. And theres no single measure of performance. Clearly the cell is decent tech, but it hasn't proven to be anything particularly special.

They made some choices that in retrospect paid off pretty well, namely bluray. I wouldn't put the cell into that category. It's just a CPU. Theres nothing it enables the PS3 to do that the 360 can't essentially match.

 

[Corporate Thug]

I pretty much retired my 360 when I got a PS3...I think the only game I turned it on for was GoW3.

 

[Macamus Prime]

3rd party games get screwed.

Look at Skyrim. And, the Call of Duty games - Black Ops in particular. There is a considerable amount of noise regarding technical issues, bugs and hacks.

If you have a 360 and PS3, you are generally "safer" by getting the 360 version.

In regards to strategy, it's goal was to be #1 this generation. That it would sell, even if there weren't any games for it. Clearly, they are very far from that goal.

 

[sourceninja]

I always found the controls laggy on the ps3. Most of my friends agree. I sold my ps3 last year sometime after sony took away linux.

 

[bobdole369]

You would think that they would have learned the lesson from the Sega Saturn and made it easier to program for.

(FTFY)