RipTen - John says it’s not so much the power of the PS3 as it is the dev tools, which he says simply aren’t as good.
"However, he did also say that there are places in RAGE where the PS3 works and performs better because the cells have more total processing power." Ok, so what I've managed to gather from all these Carmack tidbits and interviews is that he prefers to develop on the 360 because of the superior dev tools and Microsoft's debugging process, but that the PS3 is extremely powerful, if not more so when used properly. All I know is that I'm glad RAGE looks just as good on PS3, even if it was a pain in the ass for id to do it.
Yeah... still... prepare for flames.
as much as i like the guy like he is really good programmer and all but he really talks too much as of lately what happened Carmack you used to be like the guy in the background that doesn't say much but does alot but since this gen started and he is just putting the word up XD
what??? i love hearing him talk. it's like getting a glimpse inside the mind of Neo. dude's pretty brilliant.
@malol It's not really him. It's these sites taking what they want from his interviews and turning them into articles like this one. If you believe any of the articles about Carmack lately, someone would believe that the guy has nothing positive to say and spouts crap just to keep his name in rotation. It's not him, it's these gaming sites and gullible people just eat this shit up. Look at a majority of the comments. It's mostly people trying to lure and bait PS3 owners into the flames, but luckily, most are just letting this s**t roll off of their backs.
^^Silly hit the nail on the head. I was watching Carmack's keynote presentation from Quakecon, and the whole time I was just thinking "there's so much fodder for flamebait articles to use out of context here." The keynote was literally a gold mine for these dumbass sites! John just rambles for pretty much 90 minutes straight, moving seamlessly from one subject to the next in an almost hypnotizing way--before you realize what happened, he's covered 4 different subjects while you were trying to make sense of what he just said a minute ago! The guy's a genius, and he doesn't sugar-coat anything. In context, it all sounds great, but if you quote him out of context you can very easily make it sound like he said whatever you want--especially if you're a fanboy.
yah i think you are right silly bubbles up to you
John Carmack for the President!
Datnjdom, you can't see because you're a blind fanboy. Go look at the comparisons of Gears 3 and UC3’s beta.
Gears 3 doesn't look better than UC3 by any means. They're both pretty damn close, but gears relies on a bland color palette and a ton of motion blur to hide it's imperfections, whereas UC3 has a much sharper, colorful, and more vibrant image. Both are amazing looking games, however. I really like how Gears uses camera movement when following the player, it adds a nice immersion to it that you don't see in Uncharted. However, when you really look at the two side by side, you start to see the shortcuts gears takes to achieve it's look.
@DatNJDom81 I imagine Carmack is planning on RAGE competing with PS3 exclusives graphically...
Your name says it all because it's universal that Reach is nowhere in comparison to other FPS such as Crysis 2, Killzone 3, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, etc. It was a decent looking game but please don't act like it's a graphical powerhouse especially when compared to other games such as Uncharted 2 or God of War III. Use some common sense.
i dont guess johnny was referring to dependability now was he. an he sure wasnt referrin to bein a graphical powerhouse.
I don't understand. How come whenever a multiplat has lesser resolution, framerate dips, no AA, screen tearing or glitches on one console then the other, it is a crappy port and that console is weaker. But then when some games release with a few or all these problems(Crysis 2), it is a brilliant use of the developers resources and a better fit for the game and these broken games are hailed for their amazing graphics? Wud up wit dat!
@DaTruth - I asked that very question about Crysis 2 several times and never got an answer. There are still people on here that say C2 is the best looking game on consoles, despite the obvious technical problems.
Another one of these flamebait articles that portrays Carmack as the evil guy that hates the PS3. The below article got approved TODAY but shut down by the mods and I expect the same thing to happen to this one. Lets go mods! Carmack displeased with the segmented PS3 memory http://n4g.com/news/824073/...
Did you see where he says the PS3 is more powerful and RAGE performs better on the PS3 in some spots?
Some people are so ignorant of technology that they think when he says the Cell has more theoretical peak performance that he is saying the PS3 itself is more powerful overall. This is completely false. He has said quite clearly on several occasions that 360 has a more powerful GPU and better memory architecture, while also having more RAM to work with since the 360 operating system overhead is lower. He then goes on to explain how the Cell has a higher peak theoretical performance, but makes it very clear that there is a big difference between theoretical performance and what is actually achievable in the real world given the time and budget constraints of game development. Basically the 360 unequivocally has a more advanced GPU and better memory architecture, while the PS3's CPU can do some types of calculations better than the 360's CPU (but not all--branch prediction and other similar things are better on the 360's CPU).
@starchild you are correct. Its good to know that not everyone on n4g is technologically ignorant. the 360s cpu beats that of the ps3 in 2 departments: 1)branch prediction 2)MIPS(number of instructions it can process per second) both because the ps3 has 1 ppe while the 360 has 3 ppes. the spes are not real cores they are just used as execution units by the ppe so the ppe does the instruction decoding and sends the work over to an spe etc Its true that theoretical performance don't equal real world performance an amd 6970 can do twice the flops as a gtx 580 but the gtx 580 destroys it in EVERY gane and benckmark because in real word performance the amd 6970 can only do less tahn half of its theoretical flops because of architectural weaknesses and inefficiency. Some people on here don't realize that even a core 2 duo from 2006 is more powerful than the ps3 cell and the 360s xenon cpu anyone that thinks I'm lying should go read up on cpu architectures and go into programming and maybe they'll one day be smart enough to know why the core 2 duo is superior. I'm a computer and software engineer myself and I have worked on games so I know what I'm taking about but unfortunately most people on here haven't as much as written a pixel shader in their LIVES yet talk out of their arses bet mos people on here don't even know what a pixel shader is. its really sad that people can be so ignorant as to believe that technology hasn't moved since 7th gen consoles released anyways a 2006 high end pc is more powerful than ps3 and 360 combined, consoles have been holding back pc development since they launched.
@qwertyz I think your wrong about a lot of what you just said. It's quite sad since you sound like you should know what your talking about. And yes I have programed a pixel shader before. I'm pretty certain the Cell processor with 7 spu's can do way more instructions per second. Granted it can't do more general PPE instructions but that's not what MIPS means. For the most part I believe the main PPE core in the Cell is pretty much exactly like those in the 360 minus the VMX128 instructions. Branch prediction of the PPE vs 360's cores should be the same minus whatever cache misses get you since the 360 cpu has more cache. The PPE does not do the instruction decoding for the SPUs. It does send the initial program to the SPU though. SPU's are more like mini cores with only 256K of memory. They can DMA main memory into their local store but can only operate on one small chuck at a time. Now what the cell is bad at is a lot of programs that just use the PPE. This also means multitasking since you'll have multiple programs vying over the limited PPE. The SPU's are very powerful but the 256K at once memory limit makes their use limited to specific tasks. As for a 2006 core 2 duo being more powerful, well that all comes down to the type of task you want to run. If your only crunching a bunch of numbers and the task is easily split across multiple cores then the Cell will win easily. If your trying to run Linux or any other general program the core 2 duo will win hands down. Its got gobs of silicon dedicated to do better branch prediction and out of order execution.
I think that it's funny that Carmack has reset this whole debate back to the year 2006/early 2007. Carmack's opinion is just that, HIS OPINION! The guy may have made impressive games and contributed greatly to modern gaming, but usually one can say how "great" a console is by the quality of its games. Now seriously, compare the total lineup of games the two consoles have and seriously look at which has a better quality of games. Then, and only then, can you actually say which is the better console. But Carmack's opinion is more based on the development PROCESS rather than the actual games. Of course a mostly PC developer is going to think that a console with a mostly PC architecture is the best.
@qwertyz - No, PC gamers hold back PC game development because PC game sales in general are far less than console sales year after year. Most devs don't want to take the time to max out their game on the newest PC hardware because relatively few people have that hardware.
That is like one of the best post. Theoretical power and actuality are to different things, because systems will have a bottleneck. If you aren't careful in design, those bottlenecks will prevent you from using any power you may have on paper. @MysticStrummer ***No, PC gamers hold back PC game development because PC game sales in general are far less than console sales year after year*** That is a fair assessment of the cause, but is undeniable that the console limitation is holding back PC development. If there were no consoles, surely more resources would have been put into the PC.
The CELL isn't based on an intel design it's based on PowerPC chips. the difference is the CELL is meant to be running pure assembly code not C or some other language. That is why IBM put in a special C language handler so the chip itself takes in C code and converts it to assembly code then processes it, assembly is the fastest code you can do but it's very hard for people to do stuff in it as your writing what all CPUs actually use so few people actually write assembly code. The CELL has a way higher processing ability than the intel chips but when you combine what is a windows OS cut down to just the games stuff and have the Dev support of windows then it's easy to do stuff as 99% of stuff has already been made for you. The PS3 won't have that support and you need to make everything yourself, the people who can do that will excel and those who can't won't as you can tell by the games put out.
Zag your out classed man. If you can write in assembly you are working on compilers for a CPU maker. No real developer can afford a true assembly programmer for such complex chips which is why we all waited for IBM to provide one. Yet Sony has money to burn on this. Problem is Sony isn't sending these guys out to everyone yet it's also know that everything can't be feed to the other cores. It was a great idea even intel tried it for their larrabee. I was a supporter of both but both failed to be what they needed to be almost due to inexperience. Carmack has his views but he is about results not PR. Sony would be wise to listen to him since he has a huge influence on their API OpenGL.
This is pretty much the same thing Carmack said years ago. He likes the 360 a bit better because of the development tools, but he also noted that the PS3 is bit more powerful. Multiplatform development would probably be tougher on the PS3. I would assume that developers have an easier time with exclusive PS3 games because they don't have to also make it run on other platforms.
Everyone knows PS3 can perform better than Xbox 360, there are a lot of evidence.
I think if you develop exclusively for a company like MS or Sony you are going to get a lot more direct help with development. "oh, you're making a 3rd party game? we'll send a dev kit." "oh, you're making a first party game? we'll send a dev kit and some of our best technicians."
Yes. This is only a rephrasing of what we've known all along. 360 is easier to program for than PS3. There is no evidence whatsoever that 360 is better than PS3 in terms of power, and Rage won't change that fact. There will be miniscule differences that one side or the other will jump on to prove their complete technical dominance. Meanwhile, the exclusives tell the real story. Of course, one side has been convinced that exclusives don't matter at all, which is a viewpoint that totally disregards gaming history.
SNES then PS1 then N64.
Why is the N64 even coming out of people's mouths these days? Did yall forget that was one of THE WORST consoles ever? And you know damn well aint no Zelda game make up for everything else it lacked. You can't place the N64 by the PS1 cause even the Sega Saturn was kickin it's ass.
I disagree with that! N64 was on a different level than all consoles back then. Tons of great experiences.
LOL John never said that your quote is what the author claimed John said. LOL John said ps3 had a theological prowess thats if a dev went out of their way they could get better physics. That is all. John said the 360's GPU dram/memory would yeld better real world results. LOL Words from johns mouth not blogs http://gamevideos.1up.com/v... PS3 could in theory pull off better physics http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Why are you posting a video from 2008? It's 2011 son.
"theological prowess" haha. I think you mean 'theoretical."
Didnt you know? Even Jesus game on the ps3 now!
I think PS2 is the best console of all time. -We are watching
I'd love to argue with you and say the sega mega drive was better because that was my first console, but god the ps2 is the best console.
so pretty much ps3 is more powerful than the 360, its just harder to program for and he does not like that one bit. am i right?
firemassacre, Reading comprehension is your friend.
great way to get sony fans to buy your game,when they've still got resistance 3 and uncharted to come...:)
So sony fans don't care about playing games, they care about what the maker of the game says? So saying ps3 is the second best console EVER made angers sony fans to the point of not buying a game? If so then they are a bunch of babies that do not deserve to play the game
Yeah resistance 3 looks kinda MEH. The last great Resistance title was second part. AS for Uncharted 3, no if, buts or nothing that will be amazing. BUT truth be told RAGE, graphic wise still kills both those titles!
@CrzyFooL Your very last statement is the smartest thing I've read on N4G in a long time. Bubbles up :P
Its as if I am hearing the argument I used to hear all the time 1-2 years ago but I guess he hasn't developed a game for this gen until now...I think. Its true, it took awhile for developers to get comfortable w the ps3 but many now say it is what has allowed developers to push the envelope. All I know is that they r using the same tech for the ps4 except this time around it wont take 2 -3 yrs before developers understand it. It should b interesting. I can't wait to see what epic and naughty dog do w the next generation. But, carmack is a genius. He just happened to hit the end of this cycle in which im sure he'd love more memory for the ps3 and more processing power for the 360. I dunno about the latter, but there's gotta b a way consoles can begin their merge w pcs and try memory upgrades etc. Have developers build for minimum specs, offer us the option to upgrade consoles and use higher settings. I just love the console community and would hate to lose that but I don't see how any static console can exist in a 5 year cycle without falling way behind the tech. Its moving too fast and would cost too much to build and sell a product 3 yrs ahead of its time.
"All I know is that I'm glad RAGE looks just as good on PS3, even if it was a pain in the ass for id to do it" Smartest thing I've read on N4G in a while. Someone who cares more about games than platforms.
Carmack already said that said that the 360 hardware is superior to the ps3 http://kotaku.com/5031985/r... So I think this confirms that Rage will look and perform better on 360 and that the ps3 is weaker.
You're losing a bubble on general principle. You will keep losing bubbles until you get back in your time machine (Delorian) and travel forward to 2011.
Fair point. No one can really complain that he prefers an easier option to develop for.. LAZY BONES LoL (only kidding)
Based on Carmack's comments I guess this shows it's not the size of raw processing power that matters, but how you use it. ;)
@CrzyFooL - I see where you are trying to grasp for straws there and based on the agrees and disagrees your fellow PS3 fanboys have commended you for your efforts. However the biggest quote you missed from the articles was “Well, it’s the second best console ever made”. The developer tools aside, he never said the PS3 was the best console, the dev tools are not part of the "Actual console". He could have easily said "The PS3 is better, however the dev tools need some work.", what he said was the PS3 was "The SECOND best console ever made. Try reading into that all you want. He also said "in SOME" places the PS3 performs better, that could be 1 or 2 places, he never said in "Most" places the PS3 performs better. So once again, extract whatever you need to make your fanboy heart hurt less.
It requires more time, effort and money just to make the ps3 version on par with its 360 counterpart. I don't think any developer prefers the ps3 over the 360.
"Extremely powerful". Bit of a stretch for a 6 year old piece of hardware buddy, but Ps3 fans will believe anything.
He's saying this strictly from a programming standpoint. The 360's ISA is most likely close to that of your common x86 PC.
so what did your comment have to do with that he said 360 was better than ps3?
god forbid he tell us who he's voting for in 2012.
I quit the internet this is balls
PC gaming is still for the win.
PC is not a console, it's a computer.
So is a console.
Ummm..a console IS a computer. LMAO, seriously. Google is ur friend.
Console:A panel or unit accommodating a set of controls for electronic or mechanical equipment Computer:An electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program Definition #2 a machine for performing calculations automatically @ontopic John Carmack cant seem to make up his mind. He has to be bipolar
Technically consoles are also computers, sweetheart. And we all know which "computer" platform is the most powerful today.
A gaming console is a computer, but a PC is not a gaming console.
MIND = BLOWN
nice, that's actually a good case to prove the failure in affirming the consequent: if A then B B Therefore A
Actually, it's the opposite: I can play on a computer, so it's ALSO a console, with controllers and everything. But I cannot do on a console anything I do on my computer, like work, use word and stuff, since Sony dont let us use it with other OS. So... both are computers and consoles, it's the use what make'em different. And, in that aspect, a computer is better. But, games for consoles are better.
Ofcourse PS3 is the 2nd best console, 1st is PS2 and 3rd is PS1. SNES is the 4th best console
How long have you been a gamer? Better yet, how old are you? SNES 4th?