Call of Duty 4: Larger burden on Sony PS3 than Xbox 360
Filed under: Gaming, Sony Playstation 3, Xbox 360 | By: Daniel
Posted on: July 5, 2008 | 127 Comments
Games like Call of Duty 4 run at a framerate of 60 frames per second on both systems. But Call of Duty 4 is a game that experienced technical problems with various bottlenecks due to the varying levels of action that occur on the screen. The game was originally designed to run at 60 frames per second at 720p, but it caused drops in the framerate.
The proof of this is the fact that Call of Duty 4 runs at a resolution of only 640p on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. This may be “equal” in terms of what is displayed on the screen, but the FACT is that Call of Duty 4 is putting a much larger burden on the PS3 than it is the Xbox 360.
Confirmation of this can be seen in the large number of games that “run smoothly at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360, but struggle to run at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3.” That was a quote from Gamespot.
It’s simple math: The Xbox 360 can display approximately 500,000,000 polygons per second, compared to 275,000,000 polygons per second for the Playstation 3.
Multi-platform games use what is called a “Lowest Common Denominator” form of programming.
Basically, what this means is the developers start out by saying to themselves, “We need to develop a game for the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3.”
Then, the developers put limits on how many polygons they are going to put on the screen, and they determine what framerate the game will run at as a result of that number.
When the developers multiply the number of polygons displayed on the screen by the number of frames being displayed each second, they examine what that number is. Multi-platform games can NEVER display more than 275,000,000 polygons per second, or else they can’t be released for the Playstation 3, since the PS3 cannot display more than 275,000,000 polygons per second.
As a result, developers are often conservative with the number of polygons being displayed with multi-platform games, especially with the poor reputation of inconsistent framerates that the Playstation 3 has acquired over time.
It basically comes down to these THREE factors:
If a multi-platform game running at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3 uses 250,000,000 polygons or less, it gives the developers the ability to allow the Xbox 360 version to run at 60 frames per second, since 500,000,000 is double the number of 250,000,000.
If a multi-platform game running at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3 uses over 250,000,000 polygons per second, it means the Xbox 360 version is also forced to run at only 30 frames per second. This is an unfortunate situation, because it means the Playstation 3 will be using 90-100% of its power by displaying somewhere between 250,000,000 to 275,000,000 polygons per second, while the Xbox 360 will only be using 60% of its power, since the Xbox 360 has so much more polygon power.
If a multi-platform game is intended to run at 60 frames per second on the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 version will also run at 60 frames per second. The Playstation 3 version will be limited to 275,000,000 polygons per second. The Xbox 360 will also be limited to 275,000,000 polygons per second, due to the fact that 275,000,000 is the Lowest Common Denominator. This is unfortunate, because it means the Playstation 3 version will be using between 90% to 100% of the systems power, while the Xbox 360 will be using only 60% of the systems power. Call of Duty 4 is an excellent example of this situation.
The Playstation 3 only transfers data at a rate of 54MB per second as a Blu-ray player being used for movies. When it comes to gaming, there are hardware “bottlenecks” that the Playstation 3 faces, which allows the PS3 to transfer data at a rate of only 9MB per second. The Xbox 360 transfers data at a rate of 16MB per second.
The Official Playstation Magazine wrote an article about the longer load times of PS3 games shortly after the Playstation 3 was launched. The only time the PS3 does not have to deal with either noticeably or significantly longer load times is when the game is placed on the PS3 hard drive. Sadly, it often takes over TWENTY long minutes to write the game onto the PS3 hard drive. Even when a PS3 game is written onto a hard drive, the load times between Xbox 360 games and PS3 games is virtually identical, as we saw in Devil May Cry 4 and Grand Theft Auto 4.
Gamespot has conducted a Graphics Comparison between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 each year since the Playstation 3 has been available. Xbox 360 has been declared the winner of the Graphics Comparison each of the three years: 2006, 2007, 2008.
2008 shows that the gap in performance continues to get bigger, in favor of the Xbox 360. Here is the hyperlink that shows the newest comparison–one the Xbox 360 easily defeats the Playstation.
Also, the Xbox 360 uses 10MB of eDRAM. This new form of RAM technology is something that even Windows Vista-based PCs do not yet take advantage of. The next release of Direct-X on the PC will start to take advantage of eDRAM technology for gaming, but it still hasn’t happened yet.
This just goes to show you how incredibly far ahead of its time the Xbox 360 Unified-Shader GPU/Multi-Core CPU design is.
Thanks to Mike Zoran
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more Call of Duty 4, Sony PS3 news.
LOL a complete bollox article by a clear rampant 360 fanboy, M$ says your cheque’s in the post m8! I can’t believe this article even got printed, it’s pseudo-technical nonsense. And using the Gamespot (with known affiliations to MS) as a source to back up his rant is just hilarious!
The only thing this article gets right is the bit about developers catering for the lowest common denominator - that is why the 360 (being the lowest common denominator) is the lead platform on multiplat games - when the PS3 is not held back by the poorly made Windows PC clone that is the 360 you get games like MGS4, GT5, Unchartered, Ratchet & Clank, and coming up Motorstorm 2, Resistance 2, Kill Zone 2, FFXIII etc.
This article belongs back in 2005 with the other false tech-studies released by Microsoft (yes, they really were that desparate).
The saddest thing is, I actually think this guy believes this stuff!!!
One of the worst articles I’ve read in a long time, this site has just lost all credibility for posting it…
“Actually Mornelithe, 7 isn’t ‘all the SPE’s’, you dummy. PS3’s Cell chip has up to 8 SPE’s, but because of yield issues, Sony set the standard at 7 SPE’s.”
Actually Ron, games only use 6 SPE’s, but still, the Cell is way faster than anything on your favorite console (BTW, has it RROD yet? Elite cost just another billion to microsoft).
“what people fail to realize is that to take advantage of the actual performance of the cell processor and the RSX, you have to program adequately, the way first party programmers are doing it. ”
“Listen to this tard.”
I am glad your little feelings are affected, bozo.
“RSX is a PC GPU, you fool.”
Uh, no. RSX is not used in any PC out there. Of course, all components in all consoles share some similarities with their PC cousins, but if any console shares anything with a PC, it is mostly the 360 (unified memory, unified shaders, PC processor, etcetera).
“No secrets, no magic, no hidden powers to unlock and no PHd required.”
As I said above, you need an experienced graphics programmer for the RSX, not a Ph.D., unlike the Cell which is multicore programming, so most of the experienced people with that are Ph. D.’s, and that is proven by the amount of people using PS3’s at universities. You need to learn to read or improve your reading comprehension.
“The fact is, Sony admits that RSX is outperformed by 360’s GPU, WHATEVER THE REASON.”
Oh really? Where does it say? It is not valid to take false information out of your ass.
“Sony admits that Cell HELPS RSX try and keep up. 1st and 2nd party software for PS3 are optimized at great expense, something most developers wont/can’t do just to make Sony’s foolish design look good.”
Sony admits? Where? Sony said the Cell processor can be used for graphics. If anything, RSX was meant to help the Cell processor so that the Cell isn’t burdened with all the load, not the other way around. Evidently you know nothing about the Cell processor or PS3 so you shouldn’t be talking.
Anyway, as I proved you above, with NUMBERS, the RSX is more powerful than the Xenos, RSX can process half a trillion more shader operations per second than the Xenos. The only problem is that it has to be done under adequate conditions, and some developers barely know how to do that, and are more art oriented than tech oriented. Which is why Sony has had to provide EDGE tools, and soon a cross-platform engine.
Sony screwed up by making a machine that is too hard to code for and whose maximum power can only be achieved by taking the time to develop for the console; however, most developers do not have the time or money to optimize the code, especially since 360 programmers do not need to optimize the use of RAM, the use of pixel and vertex shaders, and transform their code into code usable by SPEs. So, it was not underpowering PS3, they made it too complex. But I am sure this is too hard for you.
“Please don’t say ‘kiddo’ anymore. It make me think of you as someones grandpa. Before you preach about the use of the term fanboy in this thread, try doing some reading first.”
Try doing some reading? Ha, just like you read anything about those of us that proved how wrong you and the article writer wrong? Go back to school, kiddo, I couldn’t care less about what you think.
Wow this is a great article. Really helps to make informed purchasing decisions. I now see the 360 really is a beast of a machine.
“Wow this is a great article. Really helps to make informed purchasing decisions. I now see the 360 really is a beast of a machine.”
Are you stupid? Hopefully for your own sake, you were being sarcastic.
“Sony said the Cell processor can be used for graphics. If anything, RSX was meant to help the Cell processor so that the Cell isn’t burdened with all the load, not the other way around. ”
I realize now that I am talking to a very ill informed person. You really need to do more reading about how Sony planned to use JUST cell chips in PS3 because they thought each chip would deliver 1 TFLOP and the system wouldn’t need a dedicated GPU. That’s right, dummy, you can do graphics on a CPU….IF it’s powerful enough. When it became clear that Cell couldn’t do the job, Sony grabbed up Nvidias latest PC GPU (RSX) and added flex-IO. That’s why when Sony first introduced PS3, they aid it would support 2 screens, just like PC video cards do.
I’m done schooling you. Waaaayyy too much for you to learn before you can have an intelligent conversation on this subject.
Hahaha, poor Ron Howard, Z schooled him with numbers and not facts pulled out of his ass unlike Ron, but Ron loves pretending otherwise and also has to resort to personal insults. Z, please let me continue to own him for you.
Ron, if you knew ANYTHING about the Story of the PS3, you would know that the PS3 was actually planned to have 4 cell processors. However, that would have resulted into being too expensive, especially since it would have needed more RAM (at least 2 Gigs) to actually take advantage of that, so they instead decided to reduce the specs to a Cell processor and a GPU.
Evidently, you know jack sh1t about what the Cell processor can do. Just so you know, the Cell processor can do ray-tracing up to 5 times faster than an NVidia 8800 GTX. To put it into perspective, the Cell processor craps on any GPU at several tasks. That is why when talking about Scientific Computing, Cell processor is the new thing, not GPUs, not Xbox 360, not Power PC or Intel.
That is why here at Stanford there are classes and seminars (in conjunction with the MIT) regarding how to take advantage of the cell processor in Linux programming environments (like Yellow Dog, though many here like other distributions) for applications in quantum physics, medicine, optimization and biologically related processes, especially those that includes a lot of visual feedback like black hole simulation, no help needed by the RSX (though we would love to have access to that beast). I do not expect you to know what I am talking about anyway.
You know what I expect from you though? For you to take another argument out of your ass and not deal with facts and numbers, just bogus claims as usual. I see you did not know what more to say about the RSX, so you had to mention the Cell processor because that was the only thing left to address. Too bad you knew nothing about its history and PS3 development history. Z is probably done with you like me, and so is everyone else.
Poor fanboy, you can kill yourself now.
Delusional xbots are tossing around links to this BS article at an alarming rate.
lol I tell the fanboys PS3 wasn’t supposed to have a GPU, then IBM repeats it like he’s telling me something I didn’t know.
IBM can’t read, like the other fanboys. Now you can all act like you ‘won’ and run off in ignorant fanboy bliss and find a game that uses ray tracing. rofl!
The Story of the cell processor in the PS3, or how it was supposedly gonna be a 4x Cell processor system. Knowing this, the RSX was later added to make the system cheaper and to compensate for the 3 cell processors found in the PS3, so contrary to Ron “Xbug” Howard’s claims, the RSX was added to aid the single celled PS3 for graphics, not because the Cell was weak, but because the cell was expensive.
Sony needed the power comparable to 4 cell processors but they also needed a system less expensive than a PS3 with two cell processors. Since the Cell processors were mostly going to be used for graphics, the ideal solution was a GPU in order to deliver a similar amount of performance for that dedicate purpose, since the Cell can do a lot more things which is why it is more expensive.
The only problem with that kind of architecture is that for the Cell, the RSX and the split RAM you need to optimize your code in order to achieve maximum performance, which is why it will take time to see the PS3 achieve its peak.
Sony even added more memory to the PS3, just like Microsoft to the Xbox 360, since both were gonna be originally 256 MB of RAM systems. The difference is that Sony streamlined the RAM, meaning they added 256 MB of XDR RAM, optimal for the Cell, while 256 MB of GDDR3, optimal for the RSX.
On the other hand, Microsoft had a cheaper solution and easier to program for, but at the expense of bottlenecks impacting overall performance, which is ironic considering fanboys think the 360 is bottleneck free.
Microsoft also had to add a few hardware tricks in order to have a good upscaler because they knew their system was not very capable of rendering in HD, that is why you see more games running in HD or higher resolutions on PS3 than on 360, like Ridge Racer.
After all the things we have been taught in class that we can simulate with the cell processor, it doesn’t surprise me that the PS3 has the best looking exclusives, with most things on screen be it visual effects, polygons or objects.
The fanboy delusion will never cease to amaze. Anyway, check what I found:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3644254
For those that don’t have a subscription to the economist, read this:
http://www.boosman.com/blog/miscellaneous/
February 10, 2005
The Economist on the Cell
“As its name suggests, the Cell chip is designed to be used in large numbers to do things that today’s computers, most of which are primitive machines akin to unicellular life-forms, cannot. Each Cell has as its “nucleus” a microprocessor based on IBM’s POWER architecture. This is the family of chips found inside Apple’s Power Mac G5 computers and IBM’s powerful business machines. The Cell’s “cytoplasm” consists of eight “synergistic processing elements”. These are independent processors that have a deliberately minimalist design in order, paradoxically, to maximise their performance.”
“A program running on a Cell consists of small chunks, each of which contains both programming instructions and associated data. These chunks can be assigned by the nucleus to particular synergistic processors inside its own Cell or, if it is deemed faster to do so, sent to another Cell instead. Software chunks running on one Cell can talk to chunks running on other Cells, and all have access to a shared main memory. Since chunks of software are able to roam around looking for the best place to be processed, the performance of a Cell-based machine can be increased by adding more Cells, or by connecting several Cell-based machines together.”
“All of this means that programs designed to run on Cell-based architecture should be able to fly along at blistering speeds—and will run ever faster as more Cells are made available. The prototype Cell being discussed this week runs at 256 gigaflops (a flop — one “floating-point” operation per second — is a measure of how fast a processor can perform the individual operations of digital arithmetic that all computing ultimately boils down to). A speed of 256 gigaflops is around ten times the performance of the chips found in the fastest desktop PCs today; the Cell is thus widely referred to as a “supercomputer on a chip”, which is an exaggeration, but not much of one. On the top500.org list of the world’s fastest computers, the bottom-ranked machine has a performance of 851 gigaflops. A machine based on only four Cell chips would easily outrank this…”
Cell’s debut will be in Sony’s next-generation games console, the PlayStation 3, which is expected to contain four of the beasts.”
“If the PlayStation 3 does include four Cell processors, and if they run at 256 gigaflops, and if a PlayStation 3 were available today, it would place 387th on the Top 500 list. That’s staggering.”
“After talking with my friend and colleague David Smith, I’m convinced the Cell has the potential — if it lives up to the promises made for it — to be an industry-changing event. Ray Kurzweil and many others have long argued that at some point, Moore’s Law will continue through the use of highly parallel architectures, as opposed to continually increasing the clock speed and word length of today’s microprocessors. Much evidence exists for this. Most recently, Apple’s chief financial officer called a hypothetical PowerBook equipped with a G5 processor “the mother of all thermal challenges”. The Cell addresses such challenges by providing high levels of performance using large numbers of efficient RISC-based processor cores. Instead of one very fast processor, how about eight that are moderately fast? And that’s just on one chip.”
No Ron, the reason we are schooling you is not because you knew the PS3 was not supposed to have a GPU, it is because you are making up bogus claims and actually taking yourself seriously, you even said that the Cell aids RSX, not the other way around. You can’t even address numbers and how the Cell and RSX should be used for games, I don’t expect much for you, just to keep calling us “rofl sony fanboys rofl”, as if that actually helped your argument. Poor ron.
The history of the cell processor shows how wrong you are. And yeah, no game uses raytracing (yet), but the Cell processor is good for lots of things, not just raytracing; that is why the cell processor is expensive and the RSX was needed to aid a single cell processor. Obviously, that is something you will never understand because apparently you are too dense and you’ll only keep making a comback with “rofl you sony fanboys don’t know anything rofl”.
I thought you were done? It seems that you have too much of an emotional attachment to this discussion and just have to keep coming back. Come back when you know anything. Poor fanboy.