Ghostbusters On PS3 Lags Behind 360: Dev Explains

Richard Leadbetter – Director of HD consultancy Digital Foundry and author of Eurogamer's multiplatform comparison Face-off features – tweeted that playing Ghostbusters on the PS3 was like "time-warping back to the dawn of PS3 development." Ouch! That's especially painful to read considering the high hopes Terminal Reality – developers of the just-released Ghostbusters game – have for their multiplatform Infernal Engine.

Instead of leaving it up to internet Matlocks, Joystiq asked Terminal Reality to comment on the controversy. A spokesperson for the developer told them, "For the record, the PS3 version [of Ghostbusters] is softer due to the 'quincunx' antialiasing filter and the fact we render at about 75% the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screen shot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 – but we managed to squeeze 3 out of 4 textures as full size on the PS3." So: is the PS3 "maxed out"?

The story is too old to be commented.
Forrest Gump3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

It is,but the American 'press' are still butthurt that Sony made this an exclusive in Europe,hence the reason why they're wasting their time trying to convince people to buy the 360 version.

Also,notice the "So: is the PS3 "maxed out"? " comment.This is a result of Electronics Arts and NOT a Sony affiliated company stating the Xbox 360 is maxed out.Y'see,these children that are posing as games journalists are the problem.

Silellak3347d ago

Basically, yes. But, the N4G Fanboy Wars must continue, and Ghostbusters is the latest battleground for this epic conflict.

Because, as we all know, the superiority of one multiplatform game on either console can single-handidly turn the tide of the entire console war.

Darkeyes3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

So now the dev complain about the lack of RAM huh? Frankly, after seeing those GT trailer comparison, I hardly found any difference between both except that the PS3 version was lighter and 360 was darker... nothing that cannot be handled by just tweaking the brightness and contrast of the TV. One seriously has to strain his eyes to spot the difference. But the 360 fanboys won't stop beating the dead horse. For them all multi-plat look way better on the 360... The difference is striking I tell ya... like between PS2 and Xbox... blah blah blah. People should seriously stop living in 2007. If one shows 2 shots of games like RE5, COD:WAW, UFC,RFG,Prototype and tells to spot the superior one, then one can hardly point out any difference between them.

And the main irony here is that the game isn't even that good looking. I mean even recent games like Infamous are much better looking. And that 'PS3 is maxed out...' LMAO. They say it after seeing a few videos of a crap looking game,again LMAO... Uncharted 2 says HI.

Just play the darn game. If you have Aliasing issues, just reduce the sharpness of the TV, if you feel the 360 has a darker looking version, just decrease the brightness. Trust me tweaking the TV can make a game a hell lot beautiful. Just stop whining over a few boxes not present in one version or the fire effect not as good as the other version. The devs are humans not Gods, some difference is bound to happen.

Ghostbuster might be one of those exception, but seriously, recent multi-plats are so identical, that I don't know why people even compare them.

el zorro3347d ago

There is a sizable gap in graphical fidelity between the PS3 and 360 versions. The 360 verions runs at a higher resolution, higher quality textures, less screen tearing, is sharper, has higher quality anti-aliasing (quincunx sucks) and has less glitches according sources that have compared both versions.



When you can see differences like those in a screenshot, I tell you, those differences are going to be greatly magnified when you play it on a large HDTV.

Here is the ars technica article:

Here is what Grandmaster at beyond3D had to say about Ghostbusters on PS3:
"There is nothing wrong with MazingerDUDE's analysis of Ghostbusters. I mean, the difference is night and day and I have retail code for both. It's the worst cross-platform development I think I've seen in ages... like time-warping back to 2006."

Now here we have the developers themselves admitting that the game is softer and has 3/4 the texture quality of the 360 version.

Are you guys really going to go on pretending that the two versions are basically the same?

evildeli3347d ago

It's about time Terminal Reality says something. Too bad it looks like back peddling. I'd like to see what Sony has to say about how they couldn't make Ghostbusters look the same across the platforms. And you can't say it can't be done. Ask EA and Fight night. They can show you how to make a game look the same.

IdleLeeSiuLung3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

Well this is an official admittance that the PS3 version runs at 3/4s the size of texture quality. Because you are using fanboy goggles and can't see the difference doesn't mean others can't.

It is kind of sad to see such sub par work when clearly other developers have been able to do better on the PS3. Even more damning is Mark Randel's of Terminal Reality's quote:

"We're one of the few developers who love the PS3 and have a great time with it. We have great technology for the PS3 and we want to show it off."

Show it off they did alright!

Personally, I would not buy the game as a sign that I don't support shoddy work. In Terminal Reality's defense though, the PS3 is harder to program for than the 360.

0verdrive3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

the quote from the article is pretty ridiculous

firstly, they said that the reason the ps3 version looks worse is because it has less ram. LESS RAM? wtf are they talking about?! just because the ram is separated does not mean that it has LESS ram. ridiculous. and they are proud of being able to fit 3/4 the textures on the ps3 version? lol, it really goes to show how the (lazy) porting process works. if they actually went to the trouble of using BOTH of the 256mb sticks of ram, rather than just using one, the game would probably look exactly the same on both. but they went ahead of gave us a shloppy port.

secondly, who the hell cares? why is everyone raising a stink about this? in motion the games look too similar to tell. look at the freaking video! they had to zoom in like 3x just to show you the texture work. even if there was a sizable difference who the hell is going to run the games side by side other than these fcking stupid comparison sites? wtf is everyone whining about. jesus. most of these fanboys arent even going to get the game for either system.

and correct me if im wrong, but dont you get a freaking movie with the ps3 purchase? jesus. is the difference THAT bad that its worth missing out on a free movie? especially since its pretty much gonna be ghostbuster fans buying the game anyways.

stop cutting your damn wrists, fanboys! shiit!

INehalemEXI3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

EA used to have the same problems though before they got there sh!t together on PS3 development, I think it was a Madden game that had similar issues.

see what I mean? Devs are not going to get it down there first crack at it with out help.

gamesR4fun3347d ago

"A spokesperson for the developer told us,"

jus joystick makin noise...

Genesis53347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

Is the PS3 maxed out? No this developer simply doesn't know how to code for it. Guess they should of ask for some help. If they are running into memory problems they are not using the SPU's properly.

beavis4play3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

ratchet: TOD - 360 has no animated game that looks as good.
KZ2: 360 has no FPS that looks as good.
MGS4: 360 has nothing that looks as good.
uncharted: 360 has nothing that looks as good.

then there is UC2, GOW3, heavy rain, ratchet:aCiT,the last guardian........ come on man, i don't think you're looking at the games.

a disagree with no response? that's laughable.

CWMR3347d ago

"ratchet: TOD - 360 has no animated game that looks as good.
KZ2: 360 has no FPS that looks as good.
MGS4: 360 has nothing that looks as good.
uncharted: 360 has nothing that looks as good.

then there is UC2, GOW3, heavy rain, ratchet:aCiT........ come on man, i don't think you're looking at the games. "

-Ratchet TOD doesn't look anything special, lot's of games look that good on the 360, including good ole Banjo & Kazooie. You can argue about which game is better overall but B&K is every bit as beautiful as R&C TOD.

No first person shooter on 360 might look as good as KZ2, but Gears of War 2 looks just as good.

MGS4 is nothing special, even Assassin's Creed looks better than it. Konami said Metal Gear Solid Rising is going to look better anyway.

Gears 2 looks as good as Uncharted.

Good looking games can obviously be created on the PS3, but come on, those are just a few games.-

Real Gambler3347d ago

When you're a spokeperson for a company, you usually have a name!

We also know the "spokeperson" doesn't know anything about programming because he would have said "the PS3 and the 360 have the same amount of memory, but the memory handling on the 360 is better for extra textures and we didn't want to tweak our engine for the PS3. It was easier to drop textures"

Now, looks like maybe the "spokeperson" was the janitor?

BlackTar1873347d ago

and just want to play a game sometimes. the difference your ref are there i wont denie it but you cannot tell in game well not on my big 47' sharp aquos you cant but let me guess you can its pathtic your in eveyone of these threads and in reality if you play the game and not use nonsense you cant notice the difference your sad man real sad.

Now people syaing there is no differnce are just as sad as you are because there is its noticeable when yuo play a game by screenshots like this but not when in full motion. But ill tell you i almost stopped shooting this ghost becasuse i saw some blur on the wall and i said oh no i got ripped off its no longer fuin any more ; ( /sarcasm

BWS19823347d ago

discussion (flame war?) if this was 2006 or's not, so there's really no reason such discrepancies should arise on multiplat's....the industry's moved beyond such issues, for the most part. This should be an obsolete concept, but apparently it's not.

mynd3347d ago

@0verdrive : They arent talking about total ram, they are referring to Vram.
As for the sub 720p resolution, thats due to bandwidth limitaitons within the XDR<->Vram. PS3 has always has these limitattons, most 1st party developers "work around" them, a lot of multiplatform games "dumb down" texture requiremtns on the 360 these days to account for the difference. Good on TR for at least not dumbing down the textures on the 360 version so they matched the PS3 version.

gaffyh3347d ago

@1.12 - It's obvious you don't own a PS3. I own a PS3 and 360 and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that in every case of your argument, you are wrong.

Banjo looks nowhere near as good as Ratchet & Clank. Texture quality, models, voice acting (which is none existent pretty much in Banjo), and gameplay is much much better in Ratchet & Clank.

Gears of War 2 looks good, textures and bump-mapping effects help this, but imo it sometimes looks over-sharpened. Killzone 2 however STILL looks better than Gears, something to do with the atmosphere and lighting, it is fantastic.

MGS4 looks a lot better than Assassin's Creed, the only reason you'd say it doesn't is if you haven't actually played both games. Assassin's creed looks good, but character models are much much better in MGS4.

It's obvious you are a fanboy, I could deconstruct every argument you made, like why did you bring up MGS: Rising? How does that help your argument in anyway? The game is coming out late 2010/2011 at the earliest so it SHOULD look better than MGS4, and it's multiplatform game.

How stupid can fanboys honestly be?

On topic - This is always the case with ported multiplats, PS3s RAM is separated and therefore a direct port always affects texture quality on PS3. Infinity Ward do it right, build the game from the ground up on both systems. Or if you want a pretty much equal looking game, start on PS3 and port to 360.

CWMR3347d ago


-And I tell you that I do own both consoles. I have gone back and forth on these games lots of times and that is how I see things. I don't see how you think what you do if you really are an owner of both consoles.

Ratchet TOD doesn't look anything special, lot's of games look that good on the 360, including good ole Banjo & Kazooie. You can argue about which game is better overall but B&K is every bit as beautiful as R&C TOD. Textures, color saturation, sharpness all look at least as good in B&K as in R&C, and let's not forget that B&K has a real-time lighting engine whereas R&C does not.

*No first person shooter on 360 might look as good as KZ2, but Gears of War 2 looks just as good. The textures in KZ2 are generally quite inferior to those in Gears 2. Gears 2 also looks sharper and clearer and generally has a better frame rate. I don't like the blurry image quality of KZ2. THe lighting in KZ2 is generally pretty good but character shadows are low resolution and kind of blocky looking. Lots of light sources and shadows in KZ2 environments are pre-baked, i.e. not actual dyanmic shadows. Anyway that is some of the technical stuff, but what it comes down to is that when I am playing KZ2 I am not thinking oh this looks better than Gears 2. I have played them back to back and although they are very different looking games I think they are equally graphically amazing.

MGS4 is nothing special, even Assassin's Creed looks better than it. Flip back and forth between the two games and you will see what I mean. AC looks more detailed, sharper (full 720P vs 1024 x 768), equally good lighting, better animations and much larger environments.

Konami said Metal Gear Solid Rising is going to look better anyway. I point this out because what's the point of saying "na, na, na, the 360 can't do MGS4" when MGSR on 360 is going to look better.

Gears 2 looks as good as Uncharted. Better textures, less screen tearing, slightly sharper picture quality (but Uncharted is probably one of the sharpest looking PS3 games I have ever seen), all in all I just think they look about the same.

INehalemEXI3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

the ps3's XDR RAM operates @ 3.2GHZ vs the 360's unified DDR @ 700MHZ.... the VRAM operates at 700MHZ same as the 360's.

if anything its a lot faster and it surely is. You just can't use it in the same way as a PC or 360 to get its full potential since the RAM is not unified. The PS3's RAM resources are built to enhance the cells operation while leaving the RSX a bit hungry and so if your games not taking advantage of the cell its going to show.

nbsmatambo3347d ago

if i was head of gaming @ Sony, i would just commit 1 of the best 1st party studios to make this worries about quality cuz all of the 1st party nd 2nd party studios produce amazing games =)

Bathyj3347d ago

The thought of Ghostbusters Maxing out PS3 is just too funny.

I'm starting to think they did this on purpose.

"Contraversy creates cash."

Ju3347d ago

Dev: "Hey, we got only 256MB vmem. How do we get the textures in there ?". Artist: "Ah, just let me scale it down". Done. Game gets released. Some "port" still work that way it seams. LOL.

I thought they wrote their own engine ? Pity, its at 2006 level. Maybe next time, if they survive.

lordgodalming3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

@1.0: Totally a rehash. But N4G will never get out from under this bridge as long as the Troll Wars continue.

And anyway I'm suspicious. I have no trouble believing the game looks better on 360. No problem. However, the PS3 screenshot they used looks worse than the game runs on my SDTV. How is that possible?

JokesOnYou3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

I own both and I have a 50" Sony hdtv, but I never understand why ps3 folks think ps3 games are "unmatched" when it comes to graphics, I own KZ2 and Gears2 and I said before that KZ2 has better graphics because YES it does but honestly its only a slight edge and as I said before in some areas like textures, Gears2 is still better. Truth is I think many sony folks are still living off sony's pre-launch hype about how powerful ps3 is, but the reality is although there are some great looking ps3 games, there isn't much difference between Gears2 and KZ2(a game that cost a fortune and took forever to make) that leads any normal gamer to believe that the ps3 has anything more than a percieved edge on paper, Dave Shippy(IBM) and countless other devs NOT affiliated with sony have said they are very close, and each has some strengths and weaknesses when it comes to game development= but sony extremists will never believe that because it hurts their ego. Yeah Banjo Nuts & Bolts looks every bit as good as Ratchet TOD however I think Ratchet TOD was much better game, personally Rare pissed me off with the direction of Banjo, luckily I didn't buy Banjo cause from the little I did play I didn't like at all.


Lifendz3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

Looks good to me. If some dev's engine doesn't run well on PS3 maybe that's a knock on their engine and not the system. Sorry but as long as Killzone 2, MGS4, and Uncharted 2, God of War III, GT5, the last guardian, etc are done on PS3 I can't help but believe that the system isn't "maxed out."

MRMagoo1233346d ago

I like how the most rabid 360 fans always seem to own ps3s as well funny that cos you guys talk about how much sony but raped you and you hate them but then have there products in ur house with your first love 360 i highly doubt you guys have ever seen a ps3 besides in a store next to a dead 360 why pretend everyone can see your comment history we know you dont own one.I can pretend i own a 360 too if i want but i wont because basically i dont want one cos there sh!t.OT who could care less how a movie tie in game looks at all is anyone actually gonna buy it really , i wasnt even slightly close to rentig it let alone buying it.

BadboyCivic3346d ago

if you spend enough time on N4G you would know that

mynd3346d ago

@ IDemonstalkerXI
Yes I know this, although speed is need by th ecell, it's feeding 7 chips thats way mor ethan double the 360, that and they all have to acces ther eown little store, so it gets quit ebusy when streaming. The XDR need sthat speed. But this is nothing to do with that, it's about being bale to get you GPU to talk to textures as fats as possible.
The bandwith limitations between the Vram and RSX has nothing to do with the Cell. It can certianly help by storing vertex data in the XDR, but textures need to be in that vram. It's effectivly a closed loop.

Downtown boogey3346d ago

OMFG!! How stupid are these people!!

INehalemEXI3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

there is a thing called procedural textures, which is cpu intensive. You don't seem to understand how the cell works or even what it looks like.

The cell is 1 chip , and it only has 1 PPE for logic the 7 SPE's crunch what the PPE feeds it. Its not 7 chips accessing RAM. Also the CELL and RSX are never fighting for RAM as would happen with a unified architecture which the 360 uses.

On the flip side the 360 has a gpu that can draw on a full 512mb of RAM which is nice and the gpu has the on board edram dedicated to AA. They both have strengths and weaknesses.

It does depend on the engines , engineers etc. to make use of those strengths and when developing for both you will run into weaknesses of both systems and thus the game wont be the greatest it can be. Where do you get this bandwidth issues from cause the PS3 mobo has a slightly greater bandwidth, minus the onboard gpu aa dedicated edram the xenos has.

mynd3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

"there is a thing called procedural textures, which is cpu intensive. You don't seem to understand how the cell works or even what it looks like."

I think I understand a hell of a lot more than you do form what you say below.

"The cell is 1 chip , and it only has 1 PPE for logic the 7 SPE's crunch what the PPE feeds it."
Not even close to correct.
"Its not 7 chips accessing RAM. Also the CELL and RSX are never fighting for RAM as would happen with a unified architecture which the 360 uses."

It is 7 seperate stores aceesing the main memory, the SPU's dont even have to touch the PPE. As fro fighting for memory the 360 gets around this. Trust me the 360 aint starved.

"On the flip side the 360 has a gpu that can draw on a full 512mb of RAM which is nice and the gpu has the on board edram dedicated to AA. They both have strengths and weaknesses."

Correct, but the PS3's strengths is not texture memory or procedural textures, procedural textures have to be created and decompressed into vram like everything else, saves on stoarge space but no impact inside memory. The PS3 doesnt need to save on storage space, not with Blu-ray.

"It does depend on the engines , engineers etc. to make use of those strengths and when developing for both you will run into weaknesses of both systems and thus the game wont be the greatest it can be. Where do you get this bandwidth issues from cause the PS3 mobo has a slightly greater bandwidth,"
Bandiwth issue comes about fromthe framebuffer to oh ,lets see, everything ever written to it. The PS3 has the 22gb/s bandiwth between RSX and VRAM, it gets soaked very easily.
The 360 simply doesnt, it doesnt read write every frame buffer write, it just reads. Then when the frame is finished, it writes it back once from the EDRAM.
"minus the onboard gpu aa dedicated edram the xenos has".

It's that EDRAM that more than halves the required bandwith requirements for any given frame. Sure it gives you the free AA but thats not it's main purpose in life. It's a giant repository for the framebuffer so you dont end up constantly reading writing back to you vram every draw call.

VRAM(TEXTURES) -> RSX -> VRAM (FRAMEBUFFER)(every draw call)
DDR3 -> XENOS -> EDRAM (after frame complete then back to vram)

Sarick3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

How can anyone say there is no difference. After watching the game trailers comparison I saw a few key moments that did stand out. Check this video at exactly 0:41 and 2:10.

I'm not blind at least at the 2:10 marker something is definitely different at the explosion. So everyone saying the only difference is one is lighter or darker then that other missed a few things.

Aquanox3346d ago

Makes me remember when Spiderman - The game - was released and people thought Sony, being the movie publisher would push the game to show off the PS3 power. The story ended up smilary to this one.

Moral to Sony: Next time, before securing a (semi) exclusive, at least make sure it looks at least as good as the Xbox 360 counterpart. What an ironic turn of events.

3346d ago
Ju3346d ago


What you say makes sense, and yet it does not explain why there are such differences in for example Ghost Busters.

When you say VRAM->XDR->VRAM you mean texture fetches from VRAM ? Not write back or what ? And XDR->XENOS->EDR same ?

Well, EDRAM does only help you as a cache for those textures you need for the next draw cycle. And it is fair to assume that VRAM texture reads are fast enough to fetch from for every frame (that is, what VRAM was designed for), so the RSX does not run into any penalty here. Also, 10M while nice to have would - if used as a static cache - limit your texture memory even further. So, it needs to be refilled when new textures are required (VRAM cycle, flush EDRAM - like a cache mem).

But, when you say, the EDRAM is a texture cache, so is the VRAM on the PS3 (well, slower, but still). You can buffer textures in XDR, you can virtualize that mem and you can fetch those buffers directly from the RSX using DMA. So, when implemented properly, you still have a bank of 512MB (or more, if you swap a bit to the HDD - see Uncharted, which gains 768MB vram that way).

I just think these guys are using a traditional setup with a static vram buffer for textures and ran out of memory on the PS3 and thus had to scale down the resources to make them fit. They don't use any kind of intelligent texture caching or buffering. Nor do they use any advanced lightning.

BTW: Deferred rendering would use the CELL to set up lightning data in XDR to "bake a frame" for the RSX before this gets drawn. Neither this is used in this game.

INehalemEXI3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

your just pulling things out of your arse .

does that look like 7 chips to you?

"In a simple analysis, the Cell processor can be split into four components: external input and output structures, the main processor called the Power Processing Element (PPE) (a two-way simultaneous multithreaded Power ISA v.2.03 compliant core), eight fully-functional co-processors called the Synergistic Processing Elements, or SPEs, and a specialized high-bandwidth circular data bus connecting the PPE, input/output elements and the SPEs, called the Element Interconnect Bus or EIB.

To achieve the high performance needed for mathematically intensive tasks, such as decoding/encoding MPEG streams, generating or transforming three-dimensional data, or undertaking Fourier analysis of data, the Cell processor marries the SPEs and the PPE via EIB to give access."

What the makers of Cell said and what you say is opposite. I love how you said I was not even close to correct when I was on the money. They don't talk about the 8th spe being redundant so it is 7 spe's really.

The 10MB of eDRAM isn't large enough to store a 720p image, the largest image that can be stored is in a non-standard-sub-HD video mode dubbed "640p". Consequently many Xbox 360 games (Halo 3, PGR3/4 etc) aren't native HD. So again there are strengths and weaknesses.

Ju3346d ago

^^ Well, the SPUs need to access the main memory at some point. They are 7 (8) individual cpus, this is correct. And they are connected through one (buffered) bus to the XDR, which transfer data through DMA.

That said, it doesn't really matter, if you have 7 or one or how many. You have one serialized pipe to the mem. If all 7 (8 in the non-ps3-cell + the PPE) would access the mem at the same time, you run into bandwidth troubles, for sure.

However, that is, why they use a fairly large extremely fast local memory on die for the SPUs (this is fast as cache memory but behaves like DRAM) and the memory subsystem uses buffers to not starve parallel mem access (like the PS2 had a double buffer to allow CPU & VPU access memory at the same time). That said, the memory limits the bus access requirements (it is very unlikely, all 7 SPUs would initiate a parallel DMA) and second, the bus is buffered, so in case DMA request multiple read/writes the DMA engine does not get starved, but the cycle completes while the data are buffered. This is no 100% solution, but works around bus limitations pretty efficiently. BTW: All 7 spus can access the EIB at the same time without any penalty (ring buffer, bi-directional).

INehalemEXI3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

thats what I am saying dude was trying to imply that the cell was 7 chips with there own bus all waiting to access RAM. Don't forget there is L2 cache memory for these but the spe's are drawing from the EIB all symultaneously. While the EIB draws on the XDR. There is no line at the XDR. The PPU does all the traditional computations.

the control processor can place work requests into a work queue or a set of work queues. If the work requests are computationally variable and non-predictable, the SPEs can self-arbitrate for work from a single queue by using atomic operations. When tasks are predictable in duration, the control processor can distribute the work amongst separate queues for each SPE.

Now he says procedural textures are not PS3's strength too thats bull when the company that developed the middleware for PT says the PS3 does PT at a rate of 6MB per second vs 360 4MB per second.

MUNKYPOO3346d ago

hey ju, is it true what said about uncharted using 768MB of vram? if so is it easy to do, works just as good as regular ram, and how come not a lot of game developers dont use it more?

just wondering, thanks in advance

Ju3346d ago

To be honest, I vaguely remember a comment from Naughty Dog that they use some sort of VRAM virtualization to squeeze (up to ?) 768MB of VRAM out of the PS3.

I can imagine, why this works for their game, is because the constantly stream data (from BD & HDD). So, virtualization should not be a big effort in that case ("big" is relative).

If you have for example an open world, and you have a lot of texture you'd need to have at hand fairly randomly, I could imagine, this approach might not work as well (you'd need to swap the XDR constantly - with random seeks - which might have a huge impact on bandwidth, but if you can linearly stream - like in one chunk - and just fill buffers, that might work just fine).

But I am only speculating here based on my experience, logic and what I hear. So, you can say this is a rumor.

evildeli3346d ago

True. EA was less than stellar their first time out. I guess Terminal's Issue is that they praised the PS3 for so long and are now throwing them under the bus. I'd blame Sony for not making sure this game didn't look perfect on the PS3, but I'd put more blame on Terminal for not coming clean about having issues with the PS3 earlier. This just blew up in their faces. I wonder if they even thought they could have gotten away with this scam.

INehalemEXI3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

I know what your saying that there are RAM issues but its not bandwidth between RAM and RSX because the bandwidth between RSX and VRAM is slightly greater then whats between Xenos and VRAM. The bandwidth between main memory and CPU is even more greater on the PS3 too. Its not bandwidth issues.

Xenos has the onboard eDRAM since its onboard the gpu it has directly nothing to do with the bandwidth between Xenos and VRAM. Also Xenos is clocked at 500 mhz while RSX is clocked at 550 mhz the issue IMO is not bandwith between the RAM and GPU its that traditional code just works in favor of a unified RAM architecture.

jpdcmo3346d ago

For me the real problem is the 8 min 4 GB mandatory install.
Why we still tolerate this crap?
For that the ps3 always lose.

thesummerofgeorge3346d ago

Could the PS3 be maxed out? Even though there are already bigger, better looking, better in every way games available for the system, that comment just shows how this article is not news, it's a fanboy who has his lips firmly pressed against microsofts ass. Yeah they maxed out the PS3 with a multi plat Ghostbusters game, I'm so sure Ghostbusters will be superior to Uncharted, MGS4, Uncharted 2, GT5, Killzone 2 the list goes on. These games don't suffer from the problems Ghostbusters is having. They claim the game doesn't look or perform well on the system, then claim it's as good as the system's gonna get. These idiot fanboys with the minds of 12 year olds should just pack in the journalism thing, cause they FAIL at it.

ObviousTruth3346d ago

So powerful, it can brainwash you into believing it's more powerful than it actually is.

-This message brought to you by the Church of The PS Triple-

Tito Jackson3346d ago

B/c I wont be sitting 2 F*CKING INCHES AWAY from my 50inch LCD.

Sit back kids, or you'll go blind ;)

mynd3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

Demonstalker- YOu need to understand how GPU's work to understand why the PS3 has bandwidth issues between RSX and Vram.
I've alreayd sent this to one member so I may as well explain it to you all.

Lets take the example of a scene with 3 things to draw in a single frame. A car a tree and a road.

Heres how the PS3 does it (note: I am ignoring Geometry just textures).

Draw Call 1 (Car)
Car Texture (VRAM) ->Into RSX -> Out to Framebuffer (VRAM).

Draw Call 2(Tree)
Tree Texture (VRAM) ->Into RSX -> Out to Framebuffer (VRAM).

Draw Call 3 (Road)
Road Texture (VRAM) ->Into RSX -> Out to Framebuffer (VRAM).

Now lets break 1 of those calls down into cycles from the VRAM..

Texture from VRam (1 cycle)-> RSX-> Out to Framebuffer (1 wait states cycle, 1 cycle to write).

You have wait at leasts one cycle between reading and writing to the VRAM (look up wait states if you dont know what I talking about).
Now you also have to wait another wait state at the end before reading again (can be an issue but not always you may have to do other stuff anyway like render state changes). So each "draw" costs you between 3-4 cycles. Now thats somewhere between 9-12 cycles to draw those 3 things.

The 360 setup looks like this...

Draw Call 1 (Car)
Car Texture (VRAM) ->Into XENOS -> Out to EDRAM.

Draw Call 2 (Tree)
Tree Texture (VRAM) ->Into XENOS -> Out to EDRAM.

Draw Call 3 (Road)
Road Texture (VRAM) ->Into XENOS -> Out to EDRAM.

End of drawing

See what happend, instead of reading and writing from the vram , all we did was read, read, read, write.

So PS3:

Read/write/read/write/read/wr ite



Now you have 6 operatons on the Vram on the PS3, and only 4 on the 360.

Now extend that to say 100 draw calls....

Ps3: 300 read/write operations
360: 101 read/write operations.

Do it right and you also have no wait states between reads.
End result what took 9-12 cyles to do on the RSX, takes 5 cycles on the 360. Thats less than half the bandwidth requirements.
Now it's a lot more complicated than that, but that boils down the premise and the basic fundamentals of it.

Yes, the framebuffer is big enoug to handle 720p, just not with anything special (like multiple texture writes out, complicated stencial/ depth buffers). But even so, writing back to the Vram 4x vs every draw call? It's still a masisve win. Where it also really saves in is overdraw, because you never overdraw back to the Vram, only the final picture.

P.S. Yes the cell is one "chip" but still several CPU's bound together. It needs that extra rambus speed. In saying that, I dont think thats where the system is starved at all, as I point out above.

INehalemEXI3346d ago (Edited 3346d ago )

Sure the eDRAM is great yet Xbox360 takes a tiled rendering approach as the full rendertarget can't fit in the eDRAM buffer since its only 10mb So its not clean cut as you state. While it aids in ways there are also draw backs and RSX is clocked faster in the end its not as huge difference as you make it seem IMO. As long as devs code properly as exclusives show.

you don't see people trying to compare the best PS3 games to see if they match up to the best looking 360 game its the other way around unless its a multiplatform game in this case, and The cell is not multiple cpu's bound together it is one cpu. The PS3 chipset also fails less it is reliable.

Ju3346d ago


Interesting idea I must say. But still, what you describe is nothing more then a (too small) write back cache. Can the video decoder (don't want to say DAC, whatever that thing is in there) read the framebuffer from EDRAM ? (Serious question, I just don't know). Or how do you get the data out to the connector from EDRAM ? If you have to flush that back to VRAM again, then its just a write back cache.

Anyhow, its not so much of an achievement because it certainly is not visible in any fillrate benchmarks on anything nor do we see a higher resolution (which I would have guessed if the bandwidth gained is so much higher - and I mean >720p, not those sub standard HD buffers).

But OTHO, VRAM is dedicated to the GPU, DDR3 is not (in an UMA configuration), which means, DDR3 cycles are slower anyhow there, and the gain by the eDRAM might just get lost by the slower (shared) memory. It is definitively a smart idea, but I fail to see how big the performance gain really is.

+ Show (46) more repliesLast reply 3346d ago
Cajun Chicken3347d ago

The PS3 isn't maxed out until ND make their last PS3 game...oh, and then Santa Monica'll create another epic series. That's QUITE a long time.

Silellak3347d ago

Calling any console "maxed out" is ridiculous. The best developers are incredibly creative, and will always find clever solutions around the hardware limitations of ANY platform.

Why do you think PS2 games looked better than XBox and Gamecube games, despite the PS2 having the weakest hardware of the three? The PS2's huge userbase inspired developers to work around the hardware and squeeze out every ounce of power. I'm not sure it was ever really "maxed out".

el zorro3347d ago

If you think PS2 games looked better than Xbox and Gamecube games you truly are lost. That is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read.

No wonder some of you are so easily duped into believing the PS3 is the most powerful.

Transporter473347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

this is the order of how powerful the systems n if i include PC it pwns all :P

PC > PS3 > Xbox360 > Wii

PC > Xbox > Gamecube > PS2 Well then i guess Gamecube goes bfore ps2 :P

i believe that should b correct.

u got owned3347d ago

More like

PS3 > Xbox360 > Wii

Xbox > Gamecube > Ps2


STK0263347d ago

Well, I'd say that God of War 2 and FF12 looked better than most games found on either the Xbox or the GC. Of course, that's most games, not all games. Halo 2 and RE4 looking better than pretty much anything on the PS2. However, looking at the PS2's specs, which were clearly inferior (the Xbox had more than twice it's processing power), it proved that good developpers were able to use the PS2 to it's full potential.

el zorro3347d ago

More like PS3 and Xbox 360 are fairly equal, but it is much easier to get good performance out of the 360 than the PS3. You will see more games looking good on the 360 than the PS3 for this reason. The PS3 will have a few exceptional looking titles, as will the 360.

In real world terms, and speaking generally, it actually goes a little more like this:
Xbox 360 > PS3> ...Wii

u got owned3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

@ EL zorro

While i prefer my X360 over my PS3, i think you,re going a little to far saying the X360 is more powerful. Its been proven that the PS3 has the edge on performance.

el zorro3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

No it hasn't been proven. Only those that have bought into Sony's marketing believe that. Those that know anything know that it is mostly a bunch of hype and marketing BS. The PS2 was also supposedly the most powerful console according to Sony's claims, but it was clearly and unarguably surpassed by both the Gamecube and the Xbox.

Think about this, no game on the PS3 has unarguably surpassed what is available on the 360. On the other hand, the vast majority of games that are released on both platforms are provably better-looking or better-performing on the 360. That is why I said that in real world terms the 360 outperforms the PS3 more often than the other way around. The general graphical potential of both consoles, however, is fairly equal. It's just that the 360 has better tools and is much easier to get good performance out of.

u got owned3347d ago

I agree with you on that the general graphical potential of both consoles are equal, however i think the PS3 has a little edge on performance because of the cpu. Graphics, both are pretty even, but performance (physics, amount of objects on screen, things happening at once) i think Ps3 has the upper hand.

xabmol3347d ago

"PS3 > Xbox360 > Wii

Xbox > Gamecube > Ps2"

You know what's funny? Flip those around and you'll have 'em in sales order. It seems the cheapest always "wins."

@el zorro

"Think about this, no game on the PS3 has unarguably surpassed what is available on the 360."

Think about this,

Jaces3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

Uncharted, KZ2, GoWIII, Heavy Rain, GT5, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank say hi!

Stop trolling moron. If you think multiplats are a proving ground over which is the most powerful well then take off your fanboy goggles slowly...don't want to blind you with the truth.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3347d ago
Sonyslave33347d ago

Behold the power of the cell ahahhahahhahhahahha.

Parapraxis3347d ago

Behold the power of clicking "Shut User Up"
Enjoy your lack of bubbles.

ARBitrator3347d ago

Typical PS3 FANBOY response.

xabmol3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

Don't forget R&CF: A Crack in Time and The Last Guardian. Two more graphically amazing PS3 games.


"Typical PS3 FANBOY response." a typical 360 fanboy comment. ;)

oohWii3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

Spoken like a true moron, supporting another true moron.

Let me take a bubble from you. Feel free to return the favor. Oh, I forgot, you can't because whenever a PS3 fanboy is getting his A$$ handed to him in a debate, he and his buddies removes your ability debate while supporting each for making dumb comments.

Oh well, I'm gonna take yours anyway. Anyone willing to help, please feel free.

@arbitrator - I agree with you. Bubbles up!

xabmol3347d ago (Edited 3347d ago )

How am I "supporting" anyone?

Are you mentally stunted in some way?

Damn it! I'm feeding the trolls. Will I ever learn? >_<

Lifendz3346d ago

You know you're going to lose bubbles saying madness like that.