Posted Aug 06, 2008 at 09:12PM by Glen D.
Listed in:
PlayStation 3
Tags:
GPU,
Naughty Dog
Ó
|
 As great as the PlayStation 3 exclusive Uncharted: Drake's Fortune looked when it launched last year, Naughty Dog says the game was only able to harness around 30 to 40 percent of the console's total power. Co-lead designer Richard Lemarchand was interviewed over at ThreeSpeech and he explained what he meant when he made the statement.Lemarchand said that he believes they barely scratched the surface on the PS3's potential back in Uncharted's development phases. He said a lot of the unraveling should be don on taking advantage of the Cell Processor's cores to get the most out of the system. "Part of the skill of developing for the PlayStation 3 is getting the GPU to farm jobs out to the six SPUs - seeing which SPUs are idling and can take up some of the slack in a frame-to-frame kind of way," he told ThreeSpeech. "That's why we think we're probably only using 30 or 40 per cent of the power of the PS3 right now, and there's this great, untapped potential," the developer added. "All third-party developers can get the Edge libraries for free and are going to be able to use them in their own ways, to get more and more and more out of the PS3 over the years." Pretty exciting stuff, eh? Let's hope developers, both first-party and third-party, eventually get to find ways on how to maximize the platform's potential. We know games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and possibly Heavy Rain are trying to do just that, so let's hold our breaths keep wishing for the best. Related articles: |
|
|
[Via ThreeSpeech blog]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
4 Jumps
Phoenix Game Engine (Lua) 0.02
22 Comments
|
 |
by Advertising - |
|
 
|
|
by Mr Toasty - 2008-08-06 |
|
 
|
» heads up
Your title could be a bit misleading. Mr Lemarchand is saying that they haven't used the PS3's power nearly as *efficiently* as it could be used, but people tend to think that PC and console percent usage is the same thing. On a PC the game uses a certain amount of power and then other programs can use what is left over. On a console, the game uses all of the hardware it is able, but how well it does that is the key.
Naughty Dog devs themselves have used a "glass" analogy. Think of the console as a glass, devs can fill that glass with rocks, (processes), but there are little spaces between the rocks. They can pour smaller rocks into those spaces, using up the previously wasted space. They can do this even further until every space in the glass has been filled, and nothing is wasted. Of course it's doubtful any dev has been able to 100% efficiently use any hardware.
Your title could be a bit misleading. Mr Lemarchand is saying that they haven't used the PS3's power nearly as *efficiently* as it could be used, but people tend to think that PC and console percent usage is the same thing. On a PC the game uses a certain amount of power and then other programs can use what is left over. On a console, the game uses all of the hardware it is able, but how well it does that is the key.
Naughty Dog devs themselves have used a "glass" analogy. Think of the console as a glass, devs can fill that glass with rocks, (processes), but there are little spaces between the rocks. They can pour smaller rocks into those spaces, using up the previously wasted space. They can do this even further until every space in the glass has been filled, and nothing is wasted. Of course it's doubtful any dev has been able to 100% efficiently use any hardware.
|
Re: Glen D. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» @ Toasty
Well put. I respect your understanding of the matter, but all I'm doing here really is reporting what they said. I'm in the business of telling people what happened, but I'm not going as far as interpreting it. Still, it's great that you're giving people that info because it enhances everyone's ubderstanding.
Well put. I respect your understanding of the matter, but all I'm doing here really is reporting what they said. I'm in the business of telling people what happened, but I'm not going as far as interpreting it. Still, it's great that you're giving people that info because it enhances everyone's ubderstanding.
|
Re: Twenty-Se7en - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» respect
I didn't really expect to read a comment from a staff member (or anyone to be honest) that offered such a well rounded compliment for what some has provided. You have my respect for that.
I didn't really expect to read a comment from a staff member (or anyone to be honest) that offered such a well rounded compliment for what some has provided. You have my respect for that.
|
Re: Mr Toasty - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» @ Glen
Fair enough, I actually didn't pay attention to the "Naughty Dog:" part of the title, implying it was a direct quote.
Thanks for the response, and like Twenty-Se7en, you have my respect.
Fair enough, I actually didn't pay attention to the "Naughty Dog:" part of the title, implying it was a direct quote.
Thanks for the response, and like Twenty-Se7en, you have my respect.
|
by papajag - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» watch out
Is anyone else seeing a sequel to Uncharted....probably gonna be way better than the first one in both graphics and gameplay...most likely gonna have installation 4gb most likely...it's time to buy that brandnew and bigger hardrive and if u don't know what to buy go to YouTube to find out how and what to install
Heavy Rain looks sick if no one seen it yet search it
Is anyone else seeing a sequel to Uncharted....probably gonna be way better than the first one in both graphics and gameplay...most likely gonna have installation 4gb most likely...it's time to buy that brandnew and bigger hardrive and if u don't know what to buy go to YouTube to find out how and what to install
Heavy Rain looks sick if no one seen it yet search it
|
Re: Twenty-Se7en - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» :)
I remember watching the heavy rain 2006 virtual actor trailer and thinking, wow! I can't wait for more details.
About hard drive space -
I am curious. I know I don't buy an incredible amount of games. I have about 14-15 games in my PS3 collection. I buy the amazing games in my mind, the ones I would play over and over again.
People are talking about running out of hard drive space an awful lot. Are these people on 20-40 gig hard drives or are they talking about 60-80 gig drives too.
I have a launch 60 gig. I've installed every game I have played - and a lot of the ones I have rented are often left installed a very long time. I've come close to filling the hard drive after downloading about everything I could from the PS store. I just deleted most of the stuff I will never touch.
Are those worried about hard drive space people with dozens and dozens of purchased games?
It really does confuse me.
I remember watching the heavy rain 2006 virtual actor trailer and thinking, wow! I can't wait for more details.
About hard drive space -
I am curious. I know I don't buy an incredible amount of games. I have about 14-15 games in my PS3 collection. I buy the amazing games in my mind, the ones I would play over and over again.
People are talking about running out of hard drive space an awful lot. Are these people on 20-40 gig hard drives or are they talking about 60-80 gig drives too.
I have a launch 60 gig. I've installed every game I have played - and a lot of the ones I have rented are often left installed a very long time. I've come close to filling the hard drive after downloading about everything I could from the PS store. I just deleted most of the stuff I will never touch.
Are those worried about hard drive space people with dozens and dozens of purchased games?
It really does confuse me.
|
by Unregistered Gamer - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» It's a shame to see this from ND today.
I say this because last gen, they were one of the few devs to get the most out of the PS2, more than most, and they were highly critical of any developer who claimed they were using a certain percentage of the PS2's power, including here on their website (as Mr Toasty refers to);
http://www.naughtydog.com/jak1/20Questions.htm
"People think of systems as glasses and ask: “how full is the glass”. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works. Any developer who gives you a “percent of system used” answer is blowing smoke."
Hmmm, so what was that about blowing smoke again?
That excellent reply on their website reflects the reality of how much a games system (console or PC) is being pushed at any time, and the falicy of putting a percentage on it, and it's as true today as it's ever been.
So I'm a little disappointed to see that ND has now decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Still, their games and technical prowess more than make up for this minor issue. :)
I say this because last gen, they were one of the few devs to get the most out of the PS2, more than most, and they were highly critical of any developer who claimed they were using a certain percentage of the PS2's power, including here on their website (as Mr Toasty refers to);
http://www.naughtydog.com/jak1/20Questions.htm
"People think of systems as glasses and ask: “how full is the glass”. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works. Any developer who gives you a “percent of system used” answer is blowing smoke."
Hmmm, so what was that about blowing smoke again?
That excellent reply on their website reflects the reality of how much a games system (console or PC) is being pushed at any time, and the falicy of putting a percentage on it, and it's as true today as it's ever been.
So I'm a little disappointed to see that ND has now decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Still, their games and technical prowess more than make up for this minor issue. :)
|
Re: nyr2k2 - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» well
If you think of ND as a single entity, then it's a bit contradictory. However, ND is obviously comprised of tons of admins, devs and the like. You'll obviously hear different things from different people.
If you think of ND as a single entity, then it's a bit contradictory. However, ND is obviously comprised of tons of admins, devs and the like. You'll obviously hear different things from different people.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» Of course,
That's exactly right nyr2k2, but don't you find it a little ironic that they shoot down their own claims on their website. :)
That's exactly right nyr2k2, but don't you find it a little ironic that they shoot down their own claims on their website. :)
|
Re: Twenty-Se7en - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» True
I agree with you; however, product marketing is as much their job as building the game. I know some will argue that publishers are responsible for this but hearing from a publisher isn't nearly as exciting as hearing from the actual team that created a product.
Think about it this way - if Stephen Spielberg were to create a new film and the obvious barrage of questions were to follow while Universal Studios answered every single question with incredible detail, would you listen as strongly to their response as you would if Spielberg had answered them himself?
As a game development studio they have a few things on their mind and obviously creating a great game is up there but if they don't properly market the game then revenue will not come in, forcing them out of work.
I know you refer to this as blowing smoke but personally I don't think it that fair to lose respect for a developer simply because they need to market current projects and upcoming projects properly. Properly may come in terms of percentages that don't give readers a real understanding but to defend their percentage analysis I must point out that they have not stated that 100% potential (power) is possible.
I agree with you; however, product marketing is as much their job as building the game. I know some will argue that publishers are responsible for this but hearing from a publisher isn't nearly as exciting as hearing from the actual team that created a product.
Think about it this way - if Stephen Spielberg were to create a new film and the obvious barrage of questions were to follow while Universal Studios answered every single question with incredible detail, would you listen as strongly to their response as you would if Spielberg had answered them himself?
As a game development studio they have a few things on their mind and obviously creating a great game is up there but if they don't properly market the game then revenue will not come in, forcing them out of work.
I know you refer to this as blowing smoke but personally I don't think it that fair to lose respect for a developer simply because they need to market current projects and upcoming projects properly. Properly may come in terms of percentages that don't give readers a real understanding but to defend their percentage analysis I must point out that they have not stated that 100% potential (power) is possible.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2008-08-08 |
|
|
» Yes and no
"I know you refer to this as blowing smoke but personally I don't think it that fair to lose respect for a developer simply because they need to market current projects "
Woah there, who said anything about losing respect? :) I said I'm disappointed with ND on this issue, but (as you can see from the end of my first post) I have nothing but respect for ND.
Whilst it's true games have to be marketed, Naughty Dog had always managed to do this very successfully before without playing the 'percentages' game, and as stated, made a point of dismissing those devs that did so in the past.
Now for some general points....
As you are aware, with this kind of measure, 100% could never be reached, but then that opens the question "So what percentage can be reached?". A percentage means out of 100, it has meaning when 100% is the upper limit, and is therefore meaningless if you have no idea what the upper limit is.
So if you permit me to exaggerate for a moment, if for technical reasons they can only ever get 50% out of the PS3, then 30-40% actually represents 60-80% of the maximum performance possible!!! But if the upper limit is say 80%, then 30-40% represents 38-50% of the maximum performance. See the point I'm making?
The other problem I have is that whenever I've seen these percentage figures, it almost always seems to be based around what they're getting out of the CPU, not the console as a whole (CPU+GPU). This was true with the PS2's Emotion Engine last gen, and it seems to be the case with the PS3's Cell processor this gen.
By no stretches of the imagination are they getting only 30-40% out of the G71 based RSX GPU (known as GeForce 7900 on the PC).
Hence if they said they're getting about 30-40% out of Cell, I could probably go along with that, especially looking at it from a programmer's perspective (which I used to be back in the day). But to say this for the console as a whole just doesn't add up to me when you that the GPU into account.
I know certain gamers will disagree, but before doing so, think of your estimate into how much devs are pushing Cell and think of a seperate figure of how much they're pushing RSX, and then use this to come up with an overall figure for the console.
Ok, I've gone on long enough now, thoughtful responses leading to a good discussion are welcomed. :)
"I know you refer to this as blowing smoke but personally I don't think it that fair to lose respect for a developer simply because they need to market current projects "
Woah there, who said anything about losing respect? :) I said I'm disappointed with ND on this issue, but (as you can see from the end of my first post) I have nothing but respect for ND.
Whilst it's true games have to be marketed, Naughty Dog had always managed to do this very successfully before without playing the 'percentages' game, and as stated, made a point of dismissing those devs that did so in the past.
Now for some general points....
As you are aware, with this kind of measure, 100% could never be reached, but then that opens the question "So what percentage can be reached?". A percentage means out of 100, it has meaning when 100% is the upper limit, and is therefore meaningless if you have no idea what the upper limit is.
So if you permit me to exaggerate for a moment, if for technical reasons they can only ever get 50% out of the PS3, then 30-40% actually represents 60-80% of the maximum performance possible!!! But if the upper limit is say 80%, then 30-40% represents 38-50% of the maximum performance. See the point I'm making?
The other problem I have is that whenever I've seen these percentage figures, it almost always seems to be based around what they're getting out of the CPU, not the console as a whole (CPU+GPU). This was true with the PS2's Emotion Engine last gen, and it seems to be the case with the PS3's Cell processor this gen.
By no stretches of the imagination are they getting only 30-40% out of the G71 based RSX GPU (known as GeForce 7900 on the PC).
Hence if they said they're getting about 30-40% out of Cell, I could probably go along with that, especially looking at it from a programmer's perspective (which I used to be back in the day). But to say this for the console as a whole just doesn't add up to me when you that the GPU into account.
I know certain gamers will disagree, but before doing so, think of your estimate into how much devs are pushing Cell and think of a seperate figure of how much they're pushing RSX, and then use this to come up with an overall figure for the console.
Ok, I've gone on long enough now, thoughtful responses leading to a good discussion are welcomed. :)
|
by ISOHaven - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
Wow!!! Holy Crap!!!! I can't believe I'm reading this!!!!
It wasn't too long ago that a ND dev responded to someone else claiming to have only used XX percentage of the PS3 and this ND dev claimed those words were rubbish. He claimed it was impossible to measure any percentage of power used and that every game uses 100 percent of the consoles power.
I agrued that the ND dev was full of crap and of course two ND fanboys jumped all over me. Yet here we are listening to another ND dev claim the exact thing that another ND dev said was impossible to measure.
That "sort of" made sense. I guess it's time to visit the soda machine and wake up!!!
It's rather funny because one of the arguments was, "who am I" to go against what a ND dev says? Well, here you go! Another ND dev agrees with me. HAHAHA!!!! Anyway, half my living is coding and all I can say about this article is....yup, that sounds about right. Although only 30 to 40 is a rather low number meaning we have a lot to look forward to when they crank it up!!!
Wow!!! Holy Crap!!!! I can't believe I'm reading this!!!!
It wasn't too long ago that a ND dev responded to someone else claiming to have only used XX percentage of the PS3 and this ND dev claimed those words were rubbish. He claimed it was impossible to measure any percentage of power used and that every game uses 100 percent of the consoles power.
I agrued that the ND dev was full of crap and of course two ND fanboys jumped all over me. Yet here we are listening to another ND dev claim the exact thing that another ND dev said was impossible to measure.
That "sort of" made sense. I guess it's time to visit the soda machine and wake up!!!
It's rather funny because one of the arguments was, "who am I" to go against what a ND dev says? Well, here you go! Another ND dev agrees with me. HAHAHA!!!! Anyway, half my living is coding and all I can say about this article is....yup, that sounds about right. Although only 30 to 40 is a rather low number meaning we have a lot to look forward to when they crank it up!!!
|
Re: Twenty-Se7en - 2008-08-07 |
|
|
» Differing opinions
A kid wants candy so he goes to his mother to ask for a dollar (or these days, $5) to go to the store. The mother says no. The kid sulks and realizes that he's not getting his way. Then he's off to his father to get the money and he does.
The parents are part of the same institution but they have differing opinions. Everyone has a different perspective but you can't blame one or the other for having this difference.
I believe that Hideo (Metal Gear Solid) stated her was disappointed in the graphics they ended up with vs what he was trying to achieve yet I am sure that many of the top minds behind MGS4 were incredibly satisfied (as they should be).
It's often very amusing to hear complete opposite opinions and I must admit that what you pointed out is quite funny.
A kid wants candy so he goes to his mother to ask for a dollar (or these days, $5) to go to the store. The mother says no. The kid sulks and realizes that he's not getting his way. Then he's off to his father to get the money and he does.
The parents are part of the same institution but they have differing opinions. Everyone has a different perspective but you can't blame one or the other for having this difference.
I believe that Hideo (Metal Gear Solid) stated her was disappointed in the graphics they ended up with vs what he was trying to achieve yet I am sure that many of the top minds behind MGS4 were incredibly satisfied (as they should be).
It's often very amusing to hear complete opposite opinions and I must admit that what you pointed out is quite funny.
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2008-08-08 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"and I must admit that what you pointed out is quite funny."
That was pretty much my point. I'm not blaiming anyone for anything but in this case, one is wrong and one is right. You either CAN or CAN NOT figure the percentage of performance you are obtaining on a system.
The original comment as pointed out by Unregistered Gamer is FALSE. Him, his buddies and the existing dev where wrong and it's good to know that someone within ND is now challenging this.
"Any developer who gives you a %u201Cpercent of system used%u201D answer is blowing smoke."
That is wrong. The percentage might not be 100 percent accurate but it is possible to get very close.
"and I must admit that what you pointed out is quite funny."
That was pretty much my point. I'm not blaiming anyone for anything but in this case, one is wrong and one is right. You either CAN or CAN NOT figure the percentage of performance you are obtaining on a system.
The original comment as pointed out by Unregistered Gamer is FALSE. Him, his buddies and the existing dev where wrong and it's good to know that someone within ND is now challenging this.
"Any developer who gives you a %u201Cpercent of system used%u201D answer is blowing smoke."
That is wrong. The percentage might not be 100 percent accurate but it is possible to get very close.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2008-08-08 |
|
|
» Fine
"but in this case, one is wrong and one is right. You either CAN or CAN NOT figure the percentage of performance you are obtaining on a system."
Hmmm, I don't believe it's so black and white Mr Haven, even if they do give a figure, that doesn't mean it's right or even close to being right.
But going back to that figure of 30-40%, am I to assume that means there's 2.5 to 3.3 times more performance to get out of the PS3? If so, fine, but in what form does this potential take? In other words, is this mostly from the CPU, the GPU or both? And how much of each contibutes to that overall figure of 30-40%? Surely there's significantly more to get out of Cell than RSX? Surely it's mostly the Cell processor that holds the key to getting more out of the PS3?
"That is wrong. The percentage might not be 100 percent accurate but it is possible to get very close."
Well for the sake of argument, forget about Cell for a moment, how much do you believe the devs have gotten out of RSX (percentage wise) and how much more can they get out of it?
I'm not looking for a fight here, you know we disagree already, I'm just interested in your opinion on the points raised and discussing it with you (rather than 'shouting' at each other as we did last time on this topic :D).
"but in this case, one is wrong and one is right. You either CAN or CAN NOT figure the percentage of performance you are obtaining on a system."
Hmmm, I don't believe it's so black and white Mr Haven, even if they do give a figure, that doesn't mean it's right or even close to being right.
But going back to that figure of 30-40%, am I to assume that means there's 2.5 to 3.3 times more performance to get out of the PS3? If so, fine, but in what form does this potential take? In other words, is this mostly from the CPU, the GPU or both? And how much of each contibutes to that overall figure of 30-40%? Surely there's significantly more to get out of Cell than RSX? Surely it's mostly the Cell processor that holds the key to getting more out of the PS3?
"That is wrong. The percentage might not be 100 percent accurate but it is possible to get very close."
Well for the sake of argument, forget about Cell for a moment, how much do you believe the devs have gotten out of RSX (percentage wise) and how much more can they get out of it?
I'm not looking for a fight here, you know we disagree already, I'm just interested in your opinion on the points raised and discussing it with you (rather than 'shouting' at each other as we did last time on this topic :D).
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2008-08-08 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
"even if they do give a figure, that doesn't mean it's right or even close to being right."
Hum, I thought I made myself clear on that:
"The percentage might not be 100 percent accurate"
Not sure how to construct that any better then it already is.
"but it is possible to get very close."
Possible does not mean they are "certainly" right or "certainly" close. Possible also includes failure.
However, the issue at hand is not whether or not their percentage is right. It's about whether or not a percentage can exist.
"30-40%"
WTF!?!?!?!?! QJ finally fixed this? Awesome!!!!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"......but in what form does this potential take? In other words, is this mostly from the CPU, the GPU or both?......"
Depends on the expected outcome. Is Folding@Home saying they are only using 30%? Or is a GAME dev saying it? The problem here is you are trying lock certain text into a broad generalized aspect. That's always a NO NO!
"Well for the sake of argument, forget about Cell for a moment, how much do you believe the devs have gotten out of RSX (percentage wise) and how much more can they get out of it?"
Again, you are centering on an actual number. That's not the point. That's for an experienced PS3 dev to answer. I've never worked on the PS3. Does a car mechanic have to of worked on EVERY SINGLE car model in order to explain how difficult it is to rebuilt a transmission? No.
However, here's an example:
Game 1 - XXX amount of objects, YYY amount of fps. XXX can't go higher without the game running like crap.
Game 2 - XXX has been doubled, YYY either remains the same or is much higher. Game runs fine.
They can claim that Game 1 used 50% or LESS of the PS3's power. Their existing code did NOT properly utilize the power of the PS3. They have now gotten twice as much out of the PS3 plus they're certain they can get even MORE. Now that 50% is down to around 40% or less.
"I'm not looking for a fight here, you know we disagree already, I'm just interested in your opinion on the points raised and discussing it with you (rather than 'shouting' at each other as we did last time on this topic :D). "
Shout? WHO'S SHOUTING!?!?!?!?! ;p ;p ;p
"even if they do give a figure, that doesn't mean it's right or even close to being right."
Hum, I thought I made myself clear on that:
"The percentage might not be 100 percent accurate"
Not sure how to construct that any better then it already is.
"but it is possible to get very close."
Possible does not mean they are "certainly" right or "certainly" close. Possible also includes failure.
However, the issue at hand is not whether or not their percentage is right. It's about whether or not a percentage can exist.
"30-40%"
WTF!?!?!?!?! QJ finally fixed this? Awesome!!!!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"......but in what form does this potential take? In other words, is this mostly from the CPU, the GPU or both?......"
Depends on the expected outcome. Is Folding@Home saying they are only using 30%? Or is a GAME dev saying it? The problem here is you are trying lock certain text into a broad generalized aspect. That's always a NO NO!
"Well for the sake of argument, forget about Cell for a moment, how much do you believe the devs have gotten out of RSX (percentage wise) and how much more can they get out of it?"
Again, you are centering on an actual number. That's not the point. That's for an experienced PS3 dev to answer. I've never worked on the PS3. Does a car mechanic have to of worked on EVERY SINGLE car model in order to explain how difficult it is to rebuilt a transmission? No.
However, here's an example:
Game 1 - XXX amount of objects, YYY amount of fps. XXX can't go higher without the game running like crap.
Game 2 - XXX has been doubled, YYY either remains the same or is much higher. Game runs fine.
They can claim that Game 1 used 50% or LESS of the PS3's power. Their existing code did NOT properly utilize the power of the PS3. They have now gotten twice as much out of the PS3 plus they're certain they can get even MORE. Now that 50% is down to around 40% or less.
"I'm not looking for a fight here, you know we disagree already, I'm just interested in your opinion on the points raised and discussing it with you (rather than 'shouting' at each other as we did last time on this topic :D). "
Shout? WHO'S SHOUTING!?!?!?!?! ;p ;p ;p
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2008-08-08 |
|
|
» Thanks for that :)
Some good points, I'll pick up on a few that stand out (apologies for perhaps rambling on a little in this post);
"They can claim that Game 1 used 50% or LESS of the PS3's power. Their existing code did NOT properly utilize the power of the PS3..."
Agreed, and I have no problem with that, since it would be a relative comparison, with real data, not a comparison against a guestimate.
My problem with the 'percentage used' figure is that it's a measure against some predicted upper limit, and if they say 30-40%, then that suggests it's compared to getting 100% out of the console, hence potentially 2.5 to 3.3 times better overall performance. But many would argue that you'll never get 100% out of a console, so 30-40% is higher depending on what is considered the maximum possible out of the console (sorry, I think I'm repeating myself now).
I can understand such figures for seperate processors or processes, but combining them into an overall figure gives a false impression and tells us little about where there's room for improvement. For example, take the hypothetical Game 1 and Game 2 in your post, the limit on the number of objects and framerate depends on what the limiting factors are. If say it's heavily physics based and the number of objects was mostly limited by CPU power, then getting twice as much out of the CPU *could* result in twice as many objects possible in the game. If the framerate was limited by the GPU, then somehow getting twice as much out of the GPU could possibly result in twice the framerate, i.e. 60fps instead of 30fps. So if we were told there was potentially twice as much to be gained by either processor, then we could have predicted this.
30-40% suggests an overall potential improvement of up to 3 times what we see in Uncharted, but it says nothing about where that potential will be realised, since it doesn't tell us how much they believe the CPU and the GPU are being pushed. Is it 3 times for the CPU or for both CPU and GPU? I ask because of the following...
Going back to my statement of "the other problem I have is that whenever I've seen these percentage figures, it almost always seems to be based around what they're getting out of the CPU, not the console as a whole".... well after a lot of searching, I finally found what I was looking for;
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/10/30/getting-technical-with-naughty-dog-co-president-christophe-balestra
Quote "...and to give you an idea of the power of the PS3, we're using only 30 percent of the Cell processor..."
So it's 30% or so usage of the Cell processor within Uncharted according to Christophe, which seems to be the general concensus within ND, so I don't see how that can now scale up to represent 30-40% use of the console as a whole, unless they're claiming 30-50% usage for RSX, which is far too low for such a GPU imo. RSX is most certainly not under utilised like the Cell processor and therefore doesn't have the same potential for growth.
So for me, reading that interview with Christophe supports the idea that the potential for pushing the PS3 further lies mostly with the Cell processor, not RSX, and therefore the overall figure quoted by Richard is more about the Cell processor than the PS3 as a whole.
So for me, that overall figure of 30-40% for the PS3 is rather meaningless, but stating 30% for Cell in Uncharted is far more meaningful, and therefore I hope ND would also say how much they feel Uncharted is pushing RSX too. But somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. :|
Some good points, I'll pick up on a few that stand out (apologies for perhaps rambling on a little in this post);
"They can claim that Game 1 used 50% or LESS of the PS3's power. Their existing code did NOT properly utilize the power of the PS3..."
Agreed, and I have no problem with that, since it would be a relative comparison, with real data, not a comparison against a guestimate.
My problem with the 'percentage used' figure is that it's a measure against some predicted upper limit, and if they say 30-40%, then that suggests it's compared to getting 100% out of the console, hence potentially 2.5 to 3.3 times better overall performance. But many would argue that you'll never get 100% out of a console, so 30-40% is higher depending on what is considered the maximum possible out of the console (sorry, I think I'm repeating myself now).
I can understand such figures for seperate processors or processes, but combining them into an overall figure gives a false impression and tells us little about where there's room for improvement. For example, take the hypothetical Game 1 and Game 2 in your post, the limit on the number of objects and framerate depends on what the limiting factors are. If say it's heavily physics based and the number of objects was mostly limited by CPU power, then getting twice as much out of the CPU *could* result in twice as many objects possible in the game. If the framerate was limited by the GPU, then somehow getting twice as much out of the GPU could possibly result in twice the framerate, i.e. 60fps instead of 30fps. So if we were told there was potentially twice as much to be gained by either processor, then we could have predicted this.
30-40% suggests an overall potential improvement of up to 3 times what we see in Uncharted, but it says nothing about where that potential will be realised, since it doesn't tell us how much they believe the CPU and the GPU are being pushed. Is it 3 times for the CPU or for both CPU and GPU? I ask because of the following...
Going back to my statement of "the other problem I have is that whenever I've seen these percentage figures, it almost always seems to be based around what they're getting out of the CPU, not the console as a whole".... well after a lot of searching, I finally found what I was looking for;
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/10/30/getting-technical-with-naughty-dog-co-president-christophe-balestra
Quote "...and to give you an idea of the power of the PS3, we're using only 30 percent of the Cell processor..."
So it's 30% or so usage of the Cell processor within Uncharted according to Christophe, which seems to be the general concensus within ND, so I don't see how that can now scale up to represent 30-40% use of the console as a whole, unless they're claiming 30-50% usage for RSX, which is far too low for such a GPU imo. RSX is most certainly not under utilised like the Cell processor and therefore doesn't have the same potential for growth.
So for me, reading that interview with Christophe supports the idea that the potential for pushing the PS3 further lies mostly with the Cell processor, not RSX, and therefore the overall figure quoted by Richard is more about the Cell processor than the PS3 as a whole.
So for me, that overall figure of 30-40% for the PS3 is rather meaningless, but stating 30% for Cell in Uncharted is far more meaningful, and therefore I hope ND would also say how much they feel Uncharted is pushing RSX too. But somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. :|
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2008-08-08 |
|
|
» And...
"Shout? WHO'S SHOUTING!?!?!?!?! ;p ;p ;p"
:D :D :D
"Shout? WHO'S SHOUTING!?!?!?!?! ;p ;p ;p"
:D :D :D
|
Re: ISOHaven - 2008-08-11 |
|
|
» WTF!?!?!?!?!
You're going back to exact numbers. These are all approximates. Like I show in my example it's easy for someone to demonstrate that at a certain time they were using less then 50% of the PS3s power. For someone to claim that ANYONE using %'s is "blowing smoke" is just a flat out false statement.
In order for ANY %'s to be true or false you need an absolute upper limit. Thus, these are just approximates. They are not meant to be taken as absolute solid figures.
I see where you're coming from in regards to lumping everything into the term "PS3 Power". One would have to go back to the commenter in order to clear that up. Generally speaking, the power of a machine is it's CPU. However in a world now where GPU's are clearly more powerful (ie, a GPU can out perform a CPU in math calcs) that line is now broken and people need to be more specific.
You're going back to exact numbers. These are all approximates. Like I show in my example it's easy for someone to demonstrate that at a certain time they were using less then 50% of the PS3s power. For someone to claim that ANYONE using %'s is "blowing smoke" is just a flat out false statement.
In order for ANY %'s to be true or false you need an absolute upper limit. Thus, these are just approximates. They are not meant to be taken as absolute solid figures.
I see where you're coming from in regards to lumping everything into the term "PS3 Power". One would have to go back to the commenter in order to clear that up. Generally speaking, the power of a machine is it's CPU. However in a world now where GPU's are clearly more powerful (ie, a GPU can out perform a CPU in math calcs) that line is now broken and people need to be more specific.
|
Re: Unregistered Gamer - 2008-08-15 |
|
|
» Thanks for that ISOHaven
Sorry about the delay, I'm away at the moment and had problems gaining internet access, and even now, my time is limited, so here goes...
Some good points made (again), hopefully they can be more specific in future, since that's when I find it interesting and meaningful. For me, lumping everything together for overall power percentages seems to be like PR than anything else. But still...
Thanks for a good discussion. :)
Sorry about the delay, I'm away at the moment and had problems gaining internet access, and even now, my time is limited, so here goes...
Some good points made (again), hopefully they can be more specific in future, since that's when I find it interesting and meaningful. For me, lumping everything together for overall power percentages seems to be like PR than anything else. But still...
Thanks for a good discussion. :)
|
by Sanzee - 2008-08-08 |
|
|
» Aww come on Sony fans!!
GUYS, don't worry about what the 360 fans are saying!
I'm a 360 fan but this article totally intrigues me. Don't worry about thinking up clever comments to say back to Microsoft fans. Put aside the console wars for one minute. Let's focus on this article:
Oviously the PS3 has untapped potential. I thought the PS3 was a mistake this whole time but it turns out, they were thinking ahead. For 2008-2011, the PS3 will be able to compete because the hardware's finally being tapped into, and the built-in Blu Ray player is a deal!
But with only 2 years left until Microsoft will likely release their next console, will their be enough time for the PS3 to milk that potential? I want an honest opinion, not console-war mayhem. And tell me what other benefits the PS3 has too.
I'm not asking why the PS3 is better than the 360, I just want current-gen (2008) benefits the PS3 offers. I'll be checking up on this shortly.
~ Sanzee
GUYS, don't worry about what the 360 fans are saying!
I'm a 360 fan but this article totally intrigues me. Don't worry about thinking up clever comments to say back to Microsoft fans. Put aside the console wars for one minute. Let's focus on this article:
Oviously the PS3 has untapped potential. I thought the PS3 was a mistake this whole time but it turns out, they were thinking ahead. For 2008-2011, the PS3 will be able to compete because the hardware's finally being tapped into, and the built-in Blu Ray player is a deal!
But with only 2 years left until Microsoft will likely release their next console, will their be enough time for the PS3 to milk that potential? I want an honest opinion, not console-war mayhem. And tell me what other benefits the PS3 has too.
I'm not asking why the PS3 is better than the 360, I just want current-gen (2008) benefits the PS3 offers. I'll be checking up on this shortly.
~ Sanzee
|
by Binary - 2008-08-12 |
|
|
You appear as unregistered user now. To change this, you must register or login
| Post new comment | Submit a trackback URL |
You have to login to be able to post comments on this blog!
Featured Content
QJ.NET Blog Network  |
|
| MyQJ | Feed / PDA |
| MyQJ | RSS / PDA |
| Blog of Blogs | Feed / PDA |
| QJ.NET | RSS / PDA |
| Gaming Consoles | Feed / PDA |
| Nintendo DS | RSS / PDA |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS / PDA |
| PSP Updates | RSS / PDA |
| Wii | RSS / PDA |
| Xbox 360 | RSS / PDA |
| PC Gaming | Feed / PDA |
| Age of Conan | RSS / PDA |
| Games for Windows | RSS / PDA |
| MMORPG | RSS / PDA |
| Tabula Rasa | RSS / PDA |
| World of Warcraft | RSS / PDA |
| Science | Feed / PDA |
| Science | RSS / PDA |
| Technology | Feed / PDA |
| Apple | RSS / PDA |
| Gadgets | RSS / PDA |
| Mobile | RSS / PDA |
| Photography | RSS / PDA |
| Tech | RSS / PDA |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - August
| Most Commented | |
| (86) | |
| (81) | |
| (68) | |
| (65) | |
| (50) | |
| (43) | |
| (39) | |
| (37) | |
| (34) | |
| (33) | |
| (32) | |
| (32) | |
| (29) | |
| (28) | |
| (24) | |
| (24) | |
| (23) | |
| (21) | |
| (19) | |
| (19) | |
User Favorites - August
Apple
(3189)E3
(650)Gadgets
(3640)Games for Windows
(5978)MMORPG
(7680)Mobile
(2787)News
(848)Nintendo DS
(7075)Opinions & Analysis
(78)Photography
(446)PlayStation 3
(13214)PSP
(13446)Rumors
(168)Science
(2789)Site News
(45)Tabula Rasa
(419)Wii
(11712)World of Warcraft
(3695)Xbox 360
(14944)
Archives
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
May 2005
