Proof PS3 Rage already using PC level “super texture” pack?

Game.Blorge writes: "All of the hints dropped by id Software seem to indicate that Rage for the PS3 may be the best console version and even go toe-to-toe with the PC version.

If id Software has somehow managed to bridge the gap between the PC and the PS3 while using the same high-res graphics using the “super texture” pack running at 60fps, that would be a monumental achievement."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
fluffydelusions3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

"toe-to-toe with the PC version"

No just no. Console versions will be great but it's not matching the PC version. Even _if_ it has better textures PC version will run at higher FPS and have higher resolution options in addition to all the usual tweaks available. And given the fact that this is id this is sort of a no-brainer. id invented the genre and pride themselves on graphics.

dirkdady3886d ago

I agree, it wont be 100% toe-to-toe with PC, as you can theoretically get above 60fps and high resolution than console. But it may be enought to bridge the gap between upper-middle class PCs to consoles.

Dante1123886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

@ Panda

I hope the 360 version will be the same with it's recommended 21GB full install too. Wish I could use that but I only have a 4GB 360.

dirkdady3886d ago

"The Xbox 360 offers full disc installs, but doesn’t appear to install a separate “super texture” pack."

@ Dante112, probably not..
the 360 install just seems to be the regular full game install to hard drive and doesn't appear to install a separate set of textures.

reynod3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

Well console gamers can only make themselves feel better by listening to such stuff.

Most of the time they even get deluded by the devs. Devs feed console gamers all sort of crap... "oh we are using 100% of so and so hardware only this time we really mean it."

Repeatedly most of the console gamers will fall for this sort of crap only to be dissapointed when the game actually releases and real head to head comparisons are made.

Imo console gamers need to wake up, there is no way 6 yr old tech is going to perform anywhere close to entry to mid range PCs of today, Nvm the highend that was out of reach even when consoles launched.

HeavenlySnipes3886d ago

because you said it? I'll keep that in mind....

kikizoo3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

Stop overhyping pc power, i knwo exactly what is a good pc games, and you can't find tons of games with better graphics than ps3....most of the games don't use the extra power new high end pc have, because most of pc are not powerfull enough, devs have to devellop for the majority.

"to perform anywhere close to entry to mid range PCs of today"

LOL, even with best pc, it's close, better, but close...

@reynod, keep dreamin, i have a good pc, multi are most of the time the same games (with better resolution/aa, sometime) and i know exactly that you can't find a single uncharted, a single lbp, a single gow3, and most of the better games on's sure bbc3 and best new pc games will have the best graphics with a high end pc/cards, but it's a minority of games, and pc...

reynod3886d ago


Lol what are you on about. Even multiplats on PC look better then PS3 exclusives. Lol spam disagree as you will, its true. Its arite mate, some dev will cheer ya up by promising how well they are utilizing the Cell lol, have fun facing disapointment after disapointment. Sad some PS3 fans actually took comments like 120fps seriously lol.

Elyxir-pSx3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

PC gaming sucks(my opinion), and can you name all of these so-called multiplats that look better than PS3 exclusives?

Bladesfist3886d ago


Bad company 2

Computersaysno3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

This is my worry. PS3 gameplay footage, taken with a cam off screen at TGS last week.

The framerate is very dodgy and stuttery. I hope that this is a early build and the finished thing is far better. The game has gone gold BTW, several weeks ago.

PS3 won't match PC, its just not possible unless Id have gimped the PC version on purpose, and i doubt that! Does anyone REALLY believe that PS3 can match an Id coded PC game unless Id have been lazy on the PC side? REALLY?

I agree with reynod that many multiplats on PC look better than any PS3 game. This is just how it is though- you have to expect that now PS3 is 5 years old!

Still i would expect PS3 to have the best console version, which is surely the most important point for the PS3 guys right?

pixelsword3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

Yes. Just Yes;

It's funny that Carmack's word can't be questioned when he talked about the PS3 being inferior to the 360 before he even had his hands on it, but when once he has his hand on it and made a game, then he "hints at" this, all of a sudden, credibility goes out of the window.

He himself said that people were looking under the tables or whatever to see if it wasn't running on a HIGH-END PC.

So yah; it's entirely possibly that the PC version of a uber-graphically strong game made by the PC genius himself may have found it's match on the PS3, and the PS3 may be the one to get if you don't have a high-end PC.

Ju3886d ago

Same video, less studdering (IMO):


Can be anything. From bad camera, video encoder, etc.

Looks good to me.

radphil3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

"kikizoo + 3h ago
Stop overhyping pc power"

I just kinda facepalmed at this.

Static hardware is apparently greater than evolving technology then.

Just because the software doesn't use it, doesn't mean the technology is crap. Look somewhere else other than games, if you want to see the true tech.

wicko3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

PS3 doesn't have enough VRAM to support higher resolution textures than PC (and neither does 360). 256MB for PS3, vs on average probably 1GB on PC. 8GB install = uncompressed textures, animation, meshes, etc. The game takes multiple discs on 360 so it is understandable that they'd want to have such a large install. It means they can stream textures quickly and reduce pop-in, and stream other assets if their engine supports it.

I don't really know why people expect 6 year old hardware to suddenly outperform < 1 year old hardware. I am perfectly happy with my PS3, games still look great these days, and I probably use it more than my PC. Apparently I'm a more rational PS3 owner than others posting here..

peeps3886d ago


"Just because the software doesn't use it, doesn't mean the technology is crap."

Isn't that that the guys point though? I mean we all know the tech in PC's is constantly improving... but that doesn't mean it's used that much by games.

Take your average multiplat game that releases across ps3, 360 and PC. If they release the game on either the ps3 or 360 they know every single owner of either console can play their game and have the same experience as the next.

Now say they turn they make that game on PC use the latest technology available, the fastest processers, best GPU's etc etc. The game looks stunning... problem is how many people have the latest tech, and thus the game doesn't actually sell.

The point is games on PC are held back a great deal because they need to appeal to as many people as they can so whats the point making a game that can only run on very high end hardware if that sort of spec isn't common in the gaming market

radphil3885d ago (Edited 3885d ago )


What you said it's true, especially from a business standpoint.

The point I go across, is those here thinking that a system can match up to the specs of a PC, because they have to limit themselves to adapt for all, where as they're either instigating, or ignorant of the matter.

The person I quoted made it as if PC can't get any higher gap than consoles now, in which is a costly mistake.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 3885d ago
fluffydelusions3886d ago ShowReplies(11)
kevnb3886d ago

it looks really good on consoles, and amazing on pc. The engine appears very well optimized and scales well.

Laika3886d ago Show
Ju3886d ago

I was pretty impressed by the recent released Circus gameplay which was all PS3. Quite awesome footage with steady - and fast (!) - framerate.

If the controls are not the id typical controls (Enemy Territory anyone???) id might be on to something here.

showtimefolks3886d ago

and looks good i could careless about how it compares to other versions.

Jocosta3886d ago

Oh I wonder where all those disagrees came from?

drosera13886d ago Show
xTHRASHx3886d ago

@ Dante

No matter the size of the install the video card and CPU in a 360 can not match up to a gaming PC. Thats GAMING PC, not the one your mom has in the basement that gathers dust and you sometimes play Sims on inbetween Call of Duty and fapping.

saladthieves3885d ago

Finally good to see developers taking advantage of a platform's strong points, such as the PS3's blu ray capacity.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 3885d ago
Pandamobile3886d ago

Yeah, okay. 8 GB install automatically means that they've loaded the super high res texture pack?


dirkdady3886d ago

Tim Willits explained that the 8GB install was specially approved by Sony.. he said it will allow them to use Rage textures at the highest level possible.. ie. PC high-res texture settings.

It sound very plausible given, Carmack saying Doom 4 for Ps3 could come with super texture pack.

Pandamobile3886d ago

When Rage comes out and every texture on the PS3 version is 1024x1024 or 2048x2048 like on the PC texture pack, I will eat my own shorts.

fluffydelusions3886d ago

You are indeed correct about the 8gb but there are other factors to consider as well.

imaballa993886d ago

Can anyone even tell the difference after 1080p resolution?

Pandamobile3886d ago

It's not game resolution it's texture resolution.

And yes you can.

Ducky3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

Having textures isn't just a matter of storage.
You need a suitable amount of memmory to actually load and display those textures, which the current consoles lack.

Also, from what I'm aware of, the 'super-texture' pack isn't the same as the vanilla PC hi-res texture settings.

The article also seems to have dubious information, such as RAGE using all 8 SPEs of the cell.

Kamikaze1353886d ago


Yeah. If you have a large monitor (over 30 inches), you'll notice a difference between 1080p and higher res.

LightofDarkness3886d ago

Actually, most would argue that you need to go to 2560x1440 once you reach 27", although often the dot-pitch is so small at that res that it's hard to read the standard font-sizes/text on a screen that size.

kaveti66163886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

"will allow them to use Rage textures at the highest level possible.. ie. PC high-res texture settings."

Highest resolution possible for the PS3.

"In addition, Willits recently revealed that the team has optimized Rage to work on the PS3 so all eight of the CELL cores or SPEs are utilized to prevent nasty texture pop-ups."

It's amazing that iD managed to use 8 SPUs when 1 of them is permanently disabled and another is used strictly for the OS. This website is not retarded at all. Excellent journalism.

kevnb3886d ago

highest level possible on ps3, nothing to do with what can be done on pc.

fr0sty3886d ago

Studies show that on screens smaller than 32 inches, the average human eye cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. The same applies to 1080p on screens smaller than 60 inches. Of course, PC gamers sit much closer to their screens than console gamers do on average, so they can tell resolution differences a bit better, but the fact remains that going above 1080p on screens smaller than 32 inches means you hit a point of diminishing returns before long.

The PS3's textures may not be pixel for pixel as sharp (you still have to fit those textures into RAM, regardless of how much disc space you have), however ID know their stuff and I'm sure they'll manage to surprise us when it comes to the resolution of textures they are able to stream from PS3's HDD.

As for those wondering if 360's disc install will provide the same results, here's why it can't. Not every Xbox 360 has a hard drive, and not even all of them that do have one large enough for all 3 discs. So, ID cannot rely on every user being able to take advantage of higher resolution textures being put on the disc, they still have to be able to stream those textures directly off the disc as well. Since DVD doesn't have the same data read rate as a hard drive (much slower), they have to use textures that can be streamed direct from the DVD. I doubt they will put lower res AND higher res textures both on the discs, as they already have to split the game across 3 discs and that'll surely make that data footprint even larger if they include 2 sets of textures.

Ju3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

@FatOldMan while video memory is a limiting factor, given the fixed HW definition of a console allows you to implicitly use those features to circumvent some limitations. E.g. 8GB are basically "virtual" video memory. That, combined with a full 20+ GB/sec bandwidth allows to stream textures to the small size VMem (consider this 1st level GPU cache instead).

As long as you can guarantee this environment (which every PS3 can!) you can use those features to its fullest advantage. Something id has done.

BTW: Using compressed data on the HDD and the SPUs to do realtime decompression bascially accelerates drive bandwidth as well; which is obviously the slowest component in this flow. However, compressed data with realtime decompression basically work as a bandwidth multiplier.

kaveti66163886d ago

frosty there's a difference between overall game resolution and the texture resolution of assets present in the game.

You're right that you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on smaller screens, but you certainly can tell the difference between high-res assets and low-res assets.

The PS3 uses 256 megs of video ram. That means that none of the textures assets on the PS3 version of the game can be rendered at higher than 256, unless the 256 megs from XDR is also used, but even the, the max res is 512.

Here's a link that explains in more detail.


Therefore, there is no way that the PS3 version will have a "super PC texture pack."

It may have higher res textures than the 360 version because of reasons that have been mentioned endlessly on this site.

Ju3886d ago

You know that VRAM is only required by the GPU to render one (!) frame, right? As such, it depends how many texture sources it can access at this very moment (that is in say 16ms/60fps). The GPU hardly renders a frame reading the whole amount of video memory (one framebuffer is much much smaller, depending what ales is stored besides RGBA, Z and other buffers - I would guess anywhere between 4-16MB - yes that's all you need in most cases).

That said, a PC needs a huge chunk of video memory, because all (!) textures need to be preloaded into VRAM - there is no way even a modern PC these days streams textures with high resolution over the PCIe bus.

Of course, this is the most common used way to render a scene. On consoles, however, devs need to be creative to work around that. But swapping textures from VRAM to HDD is possible and quite common for high end games; giving you basically virtual VMEM (in that case, almost 8GB VMEM).

Petro3886d ago

I can clearly see that most here doesn't know that texture resolution is not the same as the resolution of the screen. As a game developer I can say that you can most certainly see a difference in a texture that is 1024x1024 versus a texture that is 2048x2048, actually you can just make a image in what ever CG program you use and just compare a picture that is 1024x1024 to the 2048x2048 one. Would give you a sample pic but I cant be arsed to and most of the skins I make are 512x512 - 256x256 as I make a strategy game. But for a FPS you can easily get a way with 1024 or with 2048.

fr0sty3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

Kaveti, my response was to imaballa's question. I am fully aware of the difference between texture and screen resolution. And never once did I say anything about the textures being the same resolution as they are on PC... did you even read my second paragraph? however, if they bother creating 3 separate texture packs, one for 360, one for PS3, and one for PC, remains to be seen. PC may get gimped by PS3's limitations due to them not wanting to spend time and money making a higher res texture pack. knowing id's obsession with detail, however, they'll likely do it.

swinesucker3886d ago Show
swinesucker3886d ago Show
iamgoatman3886d ago


Whats worse is that more and more seem to be joining every day, that or the multiple account trolls are really committed.

I mean 79 degrees for fluffydelusions comment is just plain ridiculous, it's blatantly obvious that a LOT of people on this site don't like the truth and instead of coming up with an coherent reply (haven't seen one yet) they just mash disagree button and take peoples bubbles.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 3886d ago
dcortz20273886d ago Show
RyuCloudStrife3886d ago ShowReplies(1)
Bladesfist3886d ago


LMAO complete bullcrap. Please post a link to these studies. Anyone with a monitor and eyes can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Their is more than twice the pixels in their

PS3Freak3886d ago Show
qwertyz3885d ago

lol the ignorance is astounding. the ps3 will never match the pc version john carmack himself said that modern pcs are are already an entire GENERATION ahead of consoles and that RAGE will look much better on pc.

Because the game has an 8gb install doesn't mean it has the high res texture pack because it doesn't it just means party of the agme is stored on the hard drive so that game loads faster because the ps3s blu-ray drive has a slow read rate compared to the 360s dvd.

Rage is 22gb on both 360 and ps3 john carmack said this himself he also said that if the 360 version is installed fully hard drive it will outperform the ps3 version because sony only allows PARTIAL installs and not full ones.

RAGE on pc will make the ps3 and 360 versions look like ps2 games ID software already said the pc version would be FAR FAR superior so anyone that believes the ignorant person that wrote the article doesn't know anything about technology

besides the ps3 only has 6 spes available to game developers( 1 was disabled to increase manufacturing yield and another 1 is reserved for the OS)

Carmack HIMSELF said that the pc verison of RAGE will have 3x the texture resolution of the console version.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3885d ago
life doomer3886d ago ShowReplies(1)
kingdoms3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

LOL Plenty of PS3 titles needs to be installed not for extra benefits but because the PS3 can't run certain engines without doing this.

How does giving kudos to Sony for allowing ID to make the game on par or close to the other versions translate to matching PC or edging out the 360 version like in the other article? lol

The author is actually mixing quotes made by ID from a long time ago when MSFT wouldn't let ID use more than 2 discs with recent remarks thanking Sony for allowing them to make their jobs easier.

From 2008 and before ID and MSFT worked out a deal for more discs. John was just fussing back then because MSFT wouldn't allow ID to make the game they knew the could on the 360 with only two discs

"According to Carmack, the royalty fees to include a third disc in the Xbox 360 version would be so high that it simply isn't a feasible solution, with the programmer hoping for Microsoft to make a concession. He stressed that the issue is merely a storage problem and has nothing to do with the power of the Xbox 360 hardware, while adding that the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray format is Sony's one leg up on the competition."

yesmynameissumo3886d ago

It'll be ok man. Just play the 360 version and keep bitching about the PS3. Shouldn't be a stretch for you. I think it's always best to focus on the console/corporation rather than the quality of the games available. Don't you? Of course you do.

TKCMuzzer3886d ago (Edited 3886d ago )

It's a long comment and I have read it but strangely I still have no idea what your trying to say.
I always assumed it was more to do with the relative disc drive speeds rather than the game engine but like many on here, what do I know.

HINDERIZATION3886d ago ShowReplies(1)