Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

PS3 Delay and Beta - Tanaka InterviewFollow

#1 Jul 07 2010 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
It looks like Tanaka is making the rounds in France doing interviews for XIV. Since this is such a hot topic on these boards lately, here's the actual reason according to him about the delay for the PS3. Doing my best to translate here, still a student of French ^^

FFW : Pourquoi la version PS3 a-t-elle été repoussée ?
Why was the PS3 version postponed?

Nous avons fait tout notre possible pour sortir les deux versions en même temps, mais comme la PS3 a moins de mémoire vive, nous avons dû changer certains aspects, notamment la taille des données. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons besoin de plus de temps pour travailler sur la version console. Nous sommes vraiment désolés pour les possesseurs de PS3, mais nous allons faire de notre mieux pour sortir cette version dès que possible.
We did everything possible to put out both versions at the same time, but as the PS3 has less memory (RAM?), we had to change certain aspects, notably the size of the data. That's the reason why we need more time to work on the console version. We are very sorry for owners of the PS3, but we are doing our best to put it out as soon as possible.

FFW : Quand comptez-vous lancer les tests bêta sur PS3 ?
When do you start the beta tests for PS3?

En fait, ce mois-ci, nous allons avoir une nouvelle réunion pour décider du timing de la bêta de la version PS3. J'espère pouvoir vous donner de nouveaux détails très prochainement.
In fact, this month we are going to have a new meeting to decide the timing of the PS3 beta. I hope to be able to give new details very soon.

#2 Jul 07 2010 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Hmm, I looked it up and the PS3 supposedly only has about half a gig of ram for both the system and the graphics.
#3 Jul 07 2010 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
188 posts
So much for them having designed it around the PS3. Half a GB of RAM is abysmal though. Shame on you, sony.
#4 Jul 07 2010 at 6:21 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
The GPU is also several generations old.

I'm not at all surprised that they're running into problems, considering how beefy the recommended specs on the are on the PC.

Mykha wrote:
So much for them having designed it around the PS3. Half a GB of RAM is abysmal though. Shame on you, sony.


The 360 also has 512MB, IIRC. Game consoles are different than PC's...

Edited, Jul 7th 2010 8:23pm by Pickins
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#5 Jul 07 2010 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,457 posts
Quote:

The 360 also has 512MB, IIRC. Game consoles are different than PC's...


They don't have operating systems such as windows or leopard to sustain. There are no background applications, so consoles don't need as much ram to run smoothly. I still don't see why in this day and age anything would come with only 512mb of ram. Even those little modem size pcs have 2g. That's pretty lame.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#6 Jul 07 2010 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
41 posts
PS3 limitations already? lol.

"Mykha" wrote:
So much for them having designed it around the PS3. Half a GB of RAM is abysmal though. Shame on you, sony.


It was actually designed around the PC. SE have said this all along. It will be a port to PS3.
#7 Jul 07 2010 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
It doesn't sound like they're having technical problems developing for PS3, they just didn't plan ahead and were focusing on the PC version.

512 is not bad for a console by the way, they are not Desktops, no overhead among other things, I have read that the system cannot access the entire 512 concurrently, half for system half for graphical tasks from what I gather.
#8 Jul 07 2010 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
**
697 posts
The problem is that the RSX graphics chip used by the ps3 isn't really 512mb, its 2x256 chips, which can be a bottleneck for certain graphical data. I'm assuming they have to re-spec the graphics completely for the ps3, but my knowledge is limited a bit on how this all works.
____________________________
FFXI: Odin - Merylstryfe Summoner Woo Hoo!


#9 Jul 07 2010 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Silly question maybe... but is it possible to upgrade the RAM on a PS3?
#10 Jul 07 2010 at 8:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
I don't like this one bit. I have a bad feeling the PS3 version is gonna be scaled down.

Edited, Jul 7th 2010 9:26pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
#11 Jul 07 2010 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
***
3,811 posts
Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Silly question maybe... but is it possible to upgrade the RAM on a PS3?
Where there is a will, there's usually a way. Still, the answer is no. That's just how the system was designed, not to mention it's already 3 years old.



Here is a shot of the board if your curious.
____________________________

Quote:
The Path to **** is paved with good intentions.
#12 Jul 07 2010 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
GuardianFaith wrote:
Quote:

The 360 also has 512MB, IIRC. Game consoles are different than PC's...


They don't have operating systems such as windows or leopard to sustain. There are no background applications, so consoles don't need as much ram to run smoothly. I still don't see why in this day and age anything would come with only 512mb of ram. Even those little modem size pcs have 2g. That's pretty lame.


Because the PS3 didn't come out in "this day and age." You seem to forget that the hardware debuted almost 4 years ago.

At the time, most midrange PC's were shipping with 1GB of RAM. 512MB for a console was not too shabby in 2006...

(Gotta love how Moore's law plays out)

Edited, Jul 7th 2010 10:40pm by Pickins
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#13 Jul 07 2010 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
188 posts
Ah, my mistake then. I prefer that it's designed around PC anyways, despite me being too poor to afford a good one right now.
#14 Jul 07 2010 at 8:51 PM Rating: Default
Monsieur samosamo wrote:
It doesn't sound like they're having technical problems developing for PS3, they just didn't plan ahead and were focusing on the PC version.

512 is not bad for a console by the way, they are not Desktops, no overhead among other things, I have read that the system cannot access the entire 512 concurrently, half for system half for graphical tasks from what I gather.


It's worth noting that the low res benchmark peaks at 688mb of RAM usage. That's a pretty hefty margin beyond the 512mb allowed by the PS3. Assuming they can optimize this or that a little bit better on PS3 because it's a dedicating gaming system, they'd have to carve 35% off the PC RAM usage for it to operate on a PS3. And that's just the benchmark. There are no allowances there for large maps, heavily populated areas, or anything else that could potentially drive up the memory requirements.
#15 Jul 07 2010 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
**
472 posts
Just another reason why consoles need to go away, or evolve. Consoles have rarely been forward thinking in regards to hardware, and being able to upgrade. The N64 is the only console that I can remember, that actually allowed you to upgrade video memory. I also admit that there are good points to consoles, as well, because consoles have standard hardware. Bottom line, I love my PS3, but I don't expect it to run FFXIV at any efficient level. This is why I plan to play the game on a PC. I will be disappointed if the PS3 limits the final fantasy franchise, just like the PS2 burdened FFXI in this regard.

Even if a PS3 operating system takes less ram, you still have to factor in what it can actually push out. Imagine being in a server with a high population. Characters are all around you. The PS3 can't keep up and your framerate goes to a near zero. They are trying to push the envelope and I can say that no consoles on the market currently are able to render and keep up with the demands of a MMO with so many players and graphic demands.

Edited, Jul 7th 2010 11:13pm by Parsalyn
#16 Jul 07 2010 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
441 posts
I guess we were all wondering when 'ps3 limitations' would come out officially from SE lol

I have some sympathy for the console players, but even in the PC spectrum, most FFXI players (or even newcomers) will need a new PC to run the new game at decent-high settings.

In the end though, at least SE has designed the game with the future in mind (which means when we're all still addicted 3 years later, it still looks just as good or better than its competitors). You'd be surprised just how much better FFXI looks compared to so many F2P MMOs out there.
____________________________
War 75 Nin75 Sam75
#17 Jul 07 2010 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
The PS3 is a monster of a system but regardless of it's power, even before it's launch date i always suspected it didn't house enough ram for the future.
The blu-ray was a risky investment but in the end turned out very wise.

Some specs and then about the ram:
8 core @3.2 GHz Cell Broadband Engine with 1 PPE & 7 SPEs.
RSX @550MHz GPU 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)
More here:
http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

RAM:
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

Now over the years has been alot of talk the PS3's RAM vs Xbox 360’s RAM, saying that the 360 has more RAM to work with.
So here are some specs gathered mostly from the internet:

The PS3 has 512MB of RAM (256 for video and 256 for system).
The Cell chip has 256MB of completely sharable RAM, the GPU has 256MB of dedicated RAM.
So why does it seem still less ram than the 360 you may ask?.

The PS3 has 256mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz and 256Mb of XDR at 3.2ghz.
So? What exactly is XDR ram?:

XDR ram makes PS3 super efficient and aids in faster cache mapping, both direct and indirect.
It works by a pointer to pointer technology and needs very small buswidth for execution which is not just faster than GDDR3 but it is much more efficient.
XDR ram works by breaking down data into several packets which prevents data loss and exceptions.

The Rambus XDR memory architecture is a total memory system solution that achieves an order of magnitude higher performance than today’s standard memories while utilizing the fewest ICs. Perfect for compute and consumer electronics applications.

The PS3 has two times as much cache at 2x the speed, making it way faster for direct/indirect mapping. Not only that but it has 512k of L1 cache + 1.7m of L2 cache for the 7 spes. The PS3’s GPU, RSX was made to work with the Cell processor, it is not some GPU they took and slotted in. It is made to be compatible with the Cell.

More RAM does not mean a faster system it means more data can be stored in a fast access area. Games don’t always need 512mb of RAM.

The RSX can freely use as much of the 512MB total RAM that the PS3 has because the Cell doesn’t need much RAM because its fast enough. And the fact that the PS3 has XDR means that it has faster access to data files.

A lot of people are saying that the RSX only has 256mb of RAM, whereas the 360’s GPU has 512MB of RAM. To make it sound a bit simpler, here’s the real deal. The PS3 has it’s RAM in two separate parts, 256MB for the RSX and 256MB that can be used be either the Cell or RSX.

Lets put this in much more simpler terms:
Its not that the PS3 has less ram but houses a much more advanced type of ram technology.
If FFX14 was being built exclusively for the PS3 then SE might have utilized it's advanced technological structure which takes the most advantage of the system.

Now since FF14 was built for computers also then forget the ground up architecture and programming you would see from the PS3 in a PC version. The goal is to just make it compatible with the PS3 and attempt to bring it as close as possible to the PC version.

Even more simpler terms:
Can anyone dare tell me what PC could emulate a PS3?
The problem is that the PS3 is way too advanced and no game developer would ever create a game exclusively built around the PS3 and then release it for another system where then the requirements would seem ridiculous enough to even state.
The only way would be to reprogram that exclusive PS3 game for another system specs format which from the ground up at least mechanics wise and make it look as similar as possible.

Game developers would really never admit this stuff and will continue to use sneaky words like "this system has less ram".

____________________________
One day maybe:
ShaolinGate.com
#18 Jul 07 2010 at 10:32 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Well the problem with any game that you're trying to build on multiple platforms is that you pretty much have to build it twice.

It has little to do with "console limitations" or "PC limitations" inherently, it's just that they're trying to make something on one platform and then force it to work on another.

It's kinda like if I say "Hey, I bought this cool game yesterday" in English and then try to tell someone in Spanish "Hola yo boughto ese gameo yesterdayo"... it just doesn't work. You end up with a giant mess because you're trying to do something in a way that was not intended for the new platform.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#19 Jul 07 2010 at 10:56 PM Rating: Good
*
108 posts
PS3 LIMITATIONS!! The fact that they are already bumping up against hardware limitations is very disheartening.

Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Silly question maybe... but is it possible to upgrade the RAM on a PS3?


It is likely impossible in three ways: Firstly, there is probably no extra slot to just stick a new DIMM into. Secondly, if the first is true, the architecture won't have support for adding one, even if you were to attempt to rewire the whole thing and solder a new one onto the board. Thirdly, the firmware likely doesn't have any capacity written into it to use anything but 512 MB. It's not like a computer where it's meant to be modular so you can add or remove components. It's built to work in exactly one configuration because that's all it needs to do. I think the N64 Memory Pak is probably the last time you will see the capability for a memory upgrade on a console.
#20 Jul 08 2010 at 12:47 AM Rating: Good
***
1,457 posts
The game hasn't even come out yet and countless threads litter forum boards everywhere complaining about SE pushing the boundaries of current technology. Most of us have garbage computers (myself included), but I'm going to have to upgrade or buy a new one eventually. For now I'm going to plan on playing with low settings, but a couple years into the future (if we're all still playing as we did with FFXI.. what almost 8 years now?) you will all be very,very happy that SE did this.

/end thread
/end discussion
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#21 Jul 08 2010 at 1:48 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
GuardianFaith wrote:
The game hasn't even come out yet and countless threads litter forum boards everywhere complaining about SE pushing the boundaries of current technology. Most of us have garbage computers (myself included), but I'm going to have to upgrade or buy a new one eventually. For now I'm going to plan on playing with low settings, but a couple years into the future (if we're all still playing as we did with FFXI.. what almost 8 years now?) you will all be very,very happy that SE did this.

/end thread
/end discussion


I can almost hear my parents now; "You'll thank me when you're older!"
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#22 Jul 08 2010 at 2:54 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,246 posts
RAM will only really affect loading times and amount of things loaded. Trying pulling out half the RAM in your PC and playing a game like bioshock with 512MB RAM. It still works fine, the FPS is good, but it will hang every minute to load up what needs to be there.

This is what would have happened if they hadn't delayed the launch.
____________________________
Meowth!
#23 Jul 08 2010 at 6:43 AM Rating: Default
**
423 posts
This makes sense... Fallout 3 expansions was one game i know they didn't optimize for the Playstation 3 and because of that it crashes all the time and is virtually unplayable for the majority of PS3 owners.

Disappointing but such is life. Just wish they spent less time and money making such a sofisticated processor and more time on other limiting parts.
#24 Jul 08 2010 at 6:58 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
224 posts
I didn't have any problems with Fallout 3. Borderlands however, seems to stall for just a fraction of a second every once in a while.

On topic:

So extra loading times is what they're trying to get rid of? I understand that they don't want to release a game that's going to freeze for loading. Is that something they could have fixed after release or does that have to be altered before the program is installed?


Tanaka has us hanging. Waiting for that Ps3 beta info like a crack addict who's dealer just said he's out, but is trying to get some as soon as possible.
#25 Jul 08 2010 at 8:42 AM Rating: Decent
43 posts
Quote:
The PS3 is a monster of a system but regardless of it's power, even before it's launch date i always suspected it didn't house enough ram for the future.
The blu-ray was a risky investment but in the end turned out very wise.

Some specs and then about the ram:
8 core @3.2 GHz Cell Broadband Engine with 1 PPE & 7 SPEs.
RSX @550MHz GPU 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)
More here:
http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

RAM:
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

Now over the years has been alot of talk the PS3's RAM vs Xbox 360’s RAM, saying that the 360 has more RAM to work with.
So here are some specs gathered mostly from the internet:

The PS3 has 512MB of RAM (256 for video and 256 for system).
The Cell chip has 256MB of completely sharable RAM, the GPU has 256MB of dedicated RAM.
So why does it seem still less ram than the 360 you may ask?.

The PS3 has 256mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz and 256Mb of XDR at 3.2ghz.
So? What exactly is XDR ram?:

XDR ram makes PS3 super efficient and aids in faster cache mapping, both direct and indirect.
It works by a pointer to pointer technology and needs very small buswidth for execution which is not just faster than GDDR3 but it is much more efficient.
XDR ram works by breaking down data into several packets which prevents data loss and exceptions.

The Rambus XDR memory architecture is a total memory system solution that achieves an order of magnitude higher performance than today’s standard memories while utilizing the fewest ICs. Perfect for compute and consumer electronics applications.

The PS3 has two times as much cache at 2x the speed, making it way faster for direct/indirect mapping. Not only that but it has 512k of L1 cache + 1.7m of L2 cache for the 7 spes. The PS3’s GPU, RSX was made to work with the Cell processor, it is not some GPU they took and slotted in. It is made to be compatible with the Cell.

More RAM does not mean a faster system it means more data can be stored in a fast access area. Games don’t always need 512mb of RAM.

The RSX can freely use as much of the 512MB total RAM that the PS3 has because the Cell doesn’t need much RAM because its fast enough. And the fact that the PS3 has XDR means that it has faster access to data files.

A lot of people are saying that the RSX only has 256mb of RAM, whereas the 360’s GPU has 512MB of RAM. To make it sound a bit simpler, here’s the real deal. The PS3 has it’s RAM in two separate parts, 256MB for the RSX and 256MB that can be used be either the Cell or RSX.

Lets put this in much more simpler terms:
Its not that the PS3 has less ram but houses a much more advanced type of ram technology.
If FFX14 was being built exclusively for the PS3 then SE might have utilized it's advanced technological structure which takes the most advantage of the system.

Now since FF14 was built for computers also then forget the ground up architecture and programming you would see from the PS3 in a PC version. The goal is to just make it compatible with the PS3 and attempt to bring it as close as possible to the PC version.

Even more simpler terms:
Can anyone dare tell me what PC could emulate a PS3?
The problem is that the PS3 is way too advanced and no game developer would ever create a game exclusively built around the PS3 and then release it for another system where then the requirements would seem ridiculous enough to even state.
The only way would be to reprogram that exclusive PS3 game for another system specs format which from the ground up at least mechanics wise and make it look as similar as possible.

Game developers would really never admit this stuff and will continue to use sneaky words like "this system has less ram".


^This...

I was about to say, you make very good points and I do think that there definetely has to be some kind of misinformation. Lets face it, a computer from say... 2-3 years ago (or whenever the PS3 came out), I doubt would be able to play a game like Batman:Arkham asylum on 512mb of RAM. So I'm sure it SHOULD be obvious to everyone here, that we're not necessarily talking about the exact same kind of RAM technology here between a PC and a PS3. All I can say is... if the PS3 can make the game at least look as good as the low res (720p or whatever) benchmark and make it run with hardly any lags... I'll have to simply give in and buy a PS3. I'd like to get a new computer myself... but I'm simply not sure if that will be feasible. I'll probably be better off getting a PS3 than spending $1000.00 on a new system that might or might not run the game anyway. If they actually bother doing their homework, and make sure that it's optimized properly for the PS3, I'll be happy.

All of this being said though... I'm starting to have my doubt about whether it will be worth to play this game at all... and I'm wondering if maybe I should wait even after the game comes out on PS3, just so I can get an inside opinion from all the other PS3 owners and see whether this game will really be worth it.


Edited, Jul 8th 2010 10:48am by Yofune
#26 Jul 08 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Decent
Illicious wrote:

Even more simpler terms:
Can anyone dare tell me what PC could emulate a PS3?
The problem is that the PS3 is way too advanced and no game developer would ever create a game exclusively built around the PS3 and then release it for another system where then the requirements would seem ridiculous enough to even state.
The only way would be to reprogram that exclusive PS3 game for another system specs format which from the ground up at least mechanics wise and make it look as similar as possible.

Game developers would really never admit this stuff and will continue to use sneaky words like "this system has less ram".



That's all good information but it's still tangential to the issue. It's not about how fast the PS3 can process when it's got the data loaded into RAM. It's how much data it can load into RAM to work with without having to resort to constantly grinding away at the HDD. All the nifty technology and zippy processing means nothing if the information it needs to process is bottlenecked at the hard drive. Hence my comment about the PC benchmark using over 680mb of RAM. That's just the benchmark; I would expect when you get around to trying to render vast landscapes and dozens of on-screen models all in different armor that those requirements will increase significantly.
#27 Jul 08 2010 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
Guru
**
691 posts
Quote:
That's all good information but it's still tangential to the issue. It's not about how fast the PS3 can process when it's got the data loaded into RAM. It's how much data it can load into RAM to work with without having to resort to constantly grinding away at the HDD. All the nifty technology and zippy processing means nothing if the information it needs to process is bottlenecked at the hard drive. Hence my comment about the PC benchmark using over 680mb of RAM. That's just the benchmark; I would expect when you get around to trying to render vast landscapes and dozens of on-screen models all in different armor that those requirements will increase significantly.


Speaking of which, I've been wondering, does anyone know what the cashe looks like on the Cell processor? With the blazing speeds the Cell processor can achieve with all 7 cores running concurrently, I wonder what kind of cashe they have backing that up.
#28 Jul 08 2010 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Lets put this in much more simpler terms:
Its not that the PS3 has less ram but houses a much more advanced type of ram technology.
If FFX14 was being built exclusively for the PS3 then SE might have utilized it's advanced technological structure which takes the most advantage of the system.

Now since FF14 was built for computers also then forget the ground up architecture and programming you would see from the PS3 in a PC version. The goal is to just make it compatible with the PS3 and attempt to bring it as close as possible to the PC version.

Even more simpler terms:
Can anyone dare tell me what PC could emulate a PS3?
The problem is that the PS3 is way too advanced and no game developer would ever create a game exclusively built around the PS3 and then release it for another system where then the requirements would seem ridiculous enough to even state.
The only way would be to reprogram that exclusive PS3 game for another system specs format which from the ground up at least mechanics wise and make it look as similar as possible.

Game developers would really never admit this stuff and will continue to use sneaky words like "this system has less ram".


I'm really tired of reading Sony marketing drivel all over the internet for the last 4 years.

The only hardware 'innovation' in the PS3 was the Cell processor, and while it makes a **** fine floating point calculator for the money, a lot more goes into rendering and running a game smoothly than FLOPS. The PS3 has a 4 year old GPU in it that is severely deficient to keep up with modern rendering techniques. When the PS3 launched, it was hoped that the excess computing power of the Cell processor could be used to assist the GPU in rendering, and while it does a decent job, it has been far surpassed by even mid level GPUs on the market a year ago.

Also the system having 256MB of RAM dedicated to video isn't just a sneaky excuse developers use to put down the PS3, it's a very low amount that limits not only the number of textures on the screen at a time, but also the quality of them. The RAM was very fast when it came out, but it has also been surpassed by the on board RAM on modern video cards.

These limitations have forced modern console games to typically run in sub-1080p at a crawling 30fps. So when you design a game to take advantage of modern PCs it takes an extra 6 months to downgrade (reduce the texture size, remove post processing effects, kill the anti-aliasing) it so that it can run on the, in computer terms, ancient hardware of the PS3 or 360.


Quote:
Speaking of which, I've been wondering, does anyone know what the cashe looks like on the Cell processor? With the blazing speeds the Cell processor can achieve with all 7 cores running concurrently, I wonder what kind of cashe they have backing that up.


Funny you should mention cache. The lack of a decent cache is one of the main reasons they needed such fast memory on the PS3. When they designed the Cell processor they didn't know what they know now about sharing cache between multiple computing cores, so the Cell is really lacking.


Edited, Jul 8th 2010 9:58am by Lamnethx
#29 Jul 08 2010 at 10:37 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
105 posts
The ps3 doesn't have 8 cores either, it has 1 core, with 7 SPEs branching off from it, the 1 core is multi-purpose the 7 SPEs arent, also 1 SPEs is reserved for the operating system, leaving 6 SPEs to play with, the 6 SPEs can only be programmed to perform certain tasks, it isnt really as ALMIGHTY as sony hyped it up to be, and as the above poster said, the ps3's gpu is poor, the 360 actually has a better gpu...i totally understand why SE would be running into problems...the ps3 is known for how difficult it is to program for, and porting a very high demanding pc game over to the system is definetly a big feat for them to tackle
#30 Jul 08 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
GuardianFaith wrote:
Quote:

The 360 also has 512MB, IIRC. Game consoles are different than PC's...


They don't have operating systems such as windows or leopard to sustain. There are no background applications, so consoles don't need as much ram to run smoothly. I still don't see why in this day and age anything would come with only 512mb of ram. Even those little modem size pcs have 2g. That's pretty lame.


You're talking about consoles that were spec'd to cost less than 500 dollars, 5+ years ago. What did a typical PC look like 5 years ago?

I'm sure the next gen of consoles will have more powerful GPUs and much more on board memory, but considering no one's even talking about the next gen yet, we'll be waiting for several years at least.
#31 Jul 08 2010 at 1:29 PM Rating: Default
43 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
GuardianFaith wrote:
Quote:

The 360 also has 512MB, IIRC. Game consoles are different than PC's...


They don't have operating systems such as windows or leopard to sustain. There are no background applications, so consoles don't need as much ram to run smoothly. I still don't see why in this day and age anything would come with only 512mb of ram. Even those little modem size pcs have 2g. That's pretty lame.


You're talking about consoles that were spec'd to cost less than 500 dollars, 5+ years ago. What did a typical PC look like 5 years ago?

I'm sure the next gen of consoles will have more powerful GPUs and much more on board memory, but considering no one's even talking about the next gen yet, we'll be waiting for several years at least.


Funny you should mention that... I was reading an article on Gameinformer that stated that it might be a while before see a new PS4 or a new Xbox, reason they stated, was that because the way the systems were built, it could (their words, not mine) be possible to simply make downloadable upgrades for the system etc. So we might be stuck with the consoles we have for a while.
#32 Jul 08 2010 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
520 posts
Parsalyn wrote:
Just another reason why consoles need to go away, or evolve.


Well technically they do...every 5 or 6 years. That's just another difference between a PC and a console. Every 5 years, us console players just get a new console; the next generation PS or XBOX. For the price of a nice new graphics card for a PC (and whatever else may be outdated) we can get a whole new console.

Consoles will never go away. Not when you can get a full gaming console for $150-$200, or $300 if you're talking PS3. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a serious gaming rig, but I don't have that kind of money to buy one or build one from the ground up.

This latest announcement really does have me worried though. I'm sure they'll get the game to run just fine and dandy on the PS3, just like FFXI ran great on the PS2. But I don't want more "limitations" in the future.

____________________________
FFXI: Nyse - PLD, DNC, DRG
Asura Server

FFXIV: Nyse Celestre - Working on PLD
Ridill Server...for now.
#33 Jul 08 2010 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
The advantage console games will have over PC games is that consoles are transportable and have more easily implemented local multiplayer. It's not too difficult to unhook your PS2/PS3/360/Wii, throw it (and cables/controllers) in a grocery bag, and carry it over a friend's house, plug it in to the front of their TV and less than five minutes later, you're playing Street Fighter.

Computers on the other hand are only "easily portable" if you have a midtower or small form factor system or laptop (the latter two can overheat if they have high end parts in them), and you still have to worry about bringing your keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc unless one is on location. Unless you're on a laptop, this is all only worth if if you're going to be gaming for several hours, because when you're done, you're going to have to break it down and move it home again. Speaking on my own behalf, I use a full tower, and I admit I'm not exactly the poster child for body building, but I get a twinge in my back when I try to carry the **** thing anywhere. It's ****** heavy.

Then you have multiplayer... with few exceptions, most multiplayer PC games require both players to have a PC, and the game. Comparatively, consoles only require one console and one game.

In terms of evolution, consoles are extremely limited in that they only have what they come with. Some have managed to bypass this, e.g. the N64 memory pak or the external, upgradeable hard drives of recent systems... but you still have to buy a new console to keep up with technology.

The main difference is, consoles only have one level of performance for all their games, whereas PCs have varying levels of performance depending on your hardware, and you (usually) have the added ability to alt-tab to look stuff up, as well as easier access to a console if the game comes with one, easier access to modding games as well.

Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, and neither is likely to "just go away" anytime in the near future.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#34 Jul 08 2010 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,311 posts
I aggree Mikhalia, console and PC are not realy competitors, its like apples and oranges. I buy consoles just for party games (and RPG), and PC for online games. Then again, I'm more of a hard core gamer, and use to save a long time when I had a part time job to upgrade PC.

Don't know why found out late that their graphics were too much for the PS3 to handle tho, sony probubly told them it could handle anythnig a PC could.
____________________________
Mariox - Quetzalcoatl
75 RDM/BST/PLD/SMN.
Excalibur Obtained
--Retired 2007
#35 Jul 08 2010 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


That's all good information but it's still tangential to the issue. It's not about how fast the PS3 can process when it's got the data loaded into RAM. It's how much data it can load into RAM to work with without having to resort to constantly grinding away at the HDD. All the nifty technology and zippy processing means nothing if the information it needs to process is bottlenecked at the hard drive. Hence my comment about the PC benchmark using over 680mb of RAM. That's just the benchmark; I would expect when you get around to trying to render vast landscapes and dozens of on-screen models all in different armor that those requirements will increase significantly.


You see that is the problem that people just dont understand.

PS3 uses XDR Ram which is more efficient (and faster) than DDR type Ram.

If i programmed a game to run under a standard XDR Ram then it will not work with DDR.
I would have to reprogram that game to run under DDR type Rams.

The idea was not to increase RAM by improving DDR technology but by introducing the much better XRD Ram.

If you exclusively program a game properly under XDR technology then 256 XDR Ram would fit more, be faster much more efficient than 512 DDR types.

This is what people don't get and what developers are scared to admit because it involves more different work and currently is very exclusive to the PS3 system.
****, only DDR3 just came out and some expensive DDR 4 to 5 is being used with GPU cards.

Sony' idea was to leap into the future although in a very risky way they did with multi core chips, blu-ray, Ram and other.

The problem is that since a game isn't developed for XRD ram use, then XRD will have to be used as standard DDR type ram which it can also do.

Example:
Superman X1 developed for the PC or any other system that uses DDR type technology lets say would use 1GB of DDR Ram.
Superman X2 developed with XDR use would efficiently use 1GB of DDR Ram much better and faster under 256 XDR.

If Superman X1 wanted to be brought to a system with XDR then you would either have to remake it to Superman X2 or just
skip that and just port it with much less reprogramming so that the DDR type technology could be placed on XDR.
Now 512 wont fit as DDR in 256 XDR Ram so this is where XDR is being treated like DDR ram and not really taken advantage of.

Here is another example:
System X1 only plays WAV music files with a 512k space.
System X2 plays WAV and MP3 files with 256k space.

A large 500k WAV file will not fit under 256k of space so it must be scaled down or converted to MP3 format.
The company decides not to convert the file as mp3 as it does not play in System X1 because System X1 is currently using
only WAV methods of encryption.
To be fair the company will scale down the WAV file to play on System X2 that will play very close to System X1 which will cost less, take less time and not be exclusive to just one system.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 9:46pm by Illicious
____________________________
One day maybe:
ShaolinGate.com
#36 Jul 08 2010 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
**
576 posts
Illicious wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


That's all good information but it's still tangential to the issue. It's not about how fast the PS3 can process when it's got the data loaded into RAM. It's how much data it can load into RAM to work with without having to resort to constantly grinding away at the HDD. All the nifty technology and zippy processing means nothing if the information it needs to process is bottlenecked at the hard drive. Hence my comment about the PC benchmark using over 680mb of RAM. That's just the benchmark; I would expect when you get around to trying to render vast landscapes and dozens of on-screen models all in different armor that those requirements will increase significantly.


You see that is the problem that people just dont understand.

PS3 uses XDR Ram which is more efficient (and faster) than DDR type Ram.

...


Actually, Aurelius is right.

It doesn't matter how fast the RAM is if its capacity is too small to hold the necessary amount of data. In that case, the data have to be paged back and forth from the hard drive and it will become the bottleneck.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrashing_%28computer_science%29
(particularly the parts about virtual memory)
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#37 Jul 08 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Illicious wrote:

A large 500k WAV file will not fit under 256k of space so it must be scaled down or converted to MP3 format.


Right, and a game whose benchmark takes up over 680MB of RAM isn't going to run as well on a system with only 512MB of RAM (regardless of which type of RAM it uses) so you're left stripping down the game to make it fit or forcing some sort of virtual memory use which is SLOOOOOOWW. The game is too big. Simple. SE has to make its RAM footprint smaller. They say it's going to take 6 months or so. That's all we need to know.
#38 Jul 08 2010 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
SE has to make its RAM footprint smaller. They say it's going to take 6 months or so. That's all we need to know.


I'm curious how they'll tweak the game to fit the PS3.

I wonder if they're going to maintain two sets of textures, one for PC and a set of smaller textures for the PS3. That could save a lot of RAM and be much easier on the GPU.

I'm also assuming that the draw distance and max characters on screen will be lower than the PC version.
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#39 Jul 08 2010 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Pickins wrote:


Actually, Aurelius is right.

It doesn't matter how fast the RAM is if its capacity is too small to hold the necessary amount of data. In that case, the data have to be paged back and forth from the hard drive and it will become the bottleneck.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrashing_%28computer_science%29
(particularly the parts about virtual memory)


Dude, im not saying hes wrong.

But, unless im wrong about XDR im just saying why there are PS3 ram limitations on non exclusively developed games.

Ill give one last example because it doesn't really matter by now:

WAV file of 1 song is 24MBs
MP3 of the same song is only 3MBs

Both have the same amount information but the mp3 delivery is faster and more efficient.

Peace
____________________________
One day maybe:
ShaolinGate.com
#40 Jul 08 2010 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
*
242 posts
I'm really glad that there are people out there that know about computers so I don't have to.

*Dives back into studying for the Bar* Call me when there's a law question.

I do find the names interesting though: Thrashing, Silly Window Syndrome... haha :)
____________________________


#41 Jul 08 2010 at 9:32 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
Avatar
**
325 posts
Heres a quote I found from tanaka in an interview (probably the same one as the OP)

Quote:
“We understand the wrath of players and developers are sorry because they did everything they could to have a simultaneous release date, but unfortunately they have encountered many technical problems on the development of the game for PS3. We strive to release the game as soon as possible. If possible, we would publish the game sooner, we would like to start as soon as possible the beta on PS3.”


What got my attention was what he said about if possible they will publish the game sooner. Just a bit of hope to hang on to :)
____________________________
FFXIV
Name: Z'veagan Brolz
Server: Ultros
Linkshell/FC: Lootwhorindramafest
#42 Jul 09 2010 at 12:48 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Veagan wrote:
Heres a quote I found from tanaka in an interview (probably the same one as the OP)

Quote:
“We understand the wrath of players and developers are sorry because they did everything they could to have a simultaneous release date, but unfortunately they have encountered many technical problems on the development of the game for PS3. We strive to release the game as soon as possible. If possible, we would publish the game sooner, we would like to start as soon as possible the beta on PS3.”


What got my attention was what he said about if possible they will publish the game sooner. Just a bit of hope to hang on to :)


In before "you know who".

I don't want to say his name or he'll show up faster. Sorta like how when you say 'Candlejack', and then he
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#43 Jul 09 2010 at 9:02 AM Rating: Decent
*
117 posts
I think people who have the playstation network + package will get to beta FFXIV
#44 Jul 09 2010 at 9:06 AM Rating: Decent
Mikhalia wrote:
Veagan wrote:
Heres a quote I found from tanaka in an interview (probably the same one as the OP)

Quote:
“We understand the wrath of players and developers are sorry because they did everything they could to have a simultaneous release date, but unfortunately they have encountered many technical problems on the development of the game for PS3. We strive to release the game as soon as possible. If possible, we would publish the game sooner, we would like to start as soon as possible the beta on PS3.”


What got my attention was what he said about if possible they will publish the game sooner. Just a bit of hope to hang on to :)


In before "you know who".

I don't want to say his name or he'll show up faster. Sorta like how when you say 'Candlejack', and then he


For the record (Smiley: motz) my point isn't to crush hope...it's to keep a lid on it so that it doesn't turn into 3 weeks of front page kvetching if those hopes aren't realized. I have nothing vested in seeing the PS3 version delayed any longer than absolutely necessary.
#45 Jul 09 2010 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,535 posts
Illicious wrote:
You see that is the problem that people just dont understand.

PS3 uses XDR Ram which is more efficient (and faster) than DDR type Ram.

If i programmed a game to run under a standard XDR Ram then it will not work with DDR.
I would have to reprogram that game to run under DDR type Rams.

The idea was not to increase RAM by improving DDR technology but by introducing the much better XRD Ram.

If you exclusively program a game properly under XDR technology then 256 XDR Ram would fit more, be faster much more efficient than 512 DDR types.


The type of RAM used does not matter as much as you seem to think it does; for main system RAM, it certainly matters far less that capacity (up to a certain extent).

This is because in terms of access time and transfer speed, solid-state > magnetic > optical. If the main solid-state memory (i.e. RAM) is not large enough, there are by definition going to be more reads needed from magnetic or optical storage (i.e. hard drive/DVD-ROM/BDROM), which are several orders of magnitude slower than RAM. As an example of this, the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 (at 72 Mbit/sec) transfers data slower than the video RAM in the SNES (at 82 Mbit/sec), even though the latter is extremely slow by modern standards, being clocked at a whopping 5.4 MHz.

Shorter version: the performance benefits of XDR DRAM will not make the game's data take up any less space. And it does not make the hard drive any faster.

In fact, the XDR DRAM used in the PS3 isn't even all that revolutionary from a bandwidth standpoint; the PS3's XDR main RAM has only slightly higher bandwidth than its GDDR3 VRAM. The PS3 uses XDR DRAM not primarily for performance reasons, but because the Cell processor is specifically designed around using XDR DRAM for main system RAM.

In short, it doesn't matter how fast the XDR DRAM is - if SE can't get the PS3 client to run in only 256 MB RAM (with another 232 MB for textures, because 24 MB of VRAM are taken up by frame buffer), they're going to have to either alter the game design or accept an enormous performance hit.



The real issue as far as FFXIV goes is that the PS3 is showing it's age. 11 came out fairly early in the PS2 life-cycle, but 14 is coming out fairly late in the PS3 life-cycle. Combine that with Sony's utterly bizarre design choices (like the fact that every PlayStation console has been based on outdated or under-scaled GPU technology), and the result is that SE cannot make a game that will "push current PC limitations" without requiring major downgrades for the PS3 version.

Which is really sad considering the PC version doesn't really push the limits of what a PC can do - I can buy a brand new $370 budget PC from Best Buy, slap in a $50 graphics card (that uses a mid-range previous-generation GPU), and exceed the game's minimum requirement. A $570 low-end PC with a $125 HD 5770 is comfortably beyond minimum; a high-end gaming PC is so far beyond overkill for this game that it's almost laughable.
#46 Jul 09 2010 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
***
3,178 posts
I want links to this $350 budget PC and $50 grapchics card, please?

I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible that future expansions will not be available for PS3. First time for everything.
#47 Jul 09 2010 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
BastokFL wrote:

The real issue as far as FFXIV goes is that the PS3 is showing it's age. 11 came out fairly early in the PS2 life-cycle, but 14 is coming out fairly late in the PS3 life-cycle. Combine that with Sony's utterly bizarre design choices (like the fact that every PlayStation console has been based on outdated or under-scaled GPU technology), and the result is that SE cannot make a game that will "push current PC limitations" without requiring major downgrades for the PS3 version.

Which is really sad considering the PC version doesn't really push the limits of what a PC can do - I can buy a brand new $370 budget PC from Best Buy, slap in a $50 graphics card (that uses a mid-range previous-generation GPU), and exceed the game's minimum requirement. A $570 low-end PC with a $125 HD 5770 is comfortably beyond minimum; a high-end gaming PC is so far beyond overkill for this game that it's almost laughable.


You would think that was the issue, it all adds up. However, I'm reminded of the quality of product FFX was on the PS2 compared to the launch of FFXI. As for the graphics, FFXI's were closer to FF9 on the PSX than they were to the PS2's FFX. On the other hand, FFXIII and IV look very similar, almost identical in style and resolution. So that does confuse me a bit. Personally I feel that the PS3 won't carry FFXIV very long into the future because as you said, the PS3's life span is showing its age. That doesn't mean I think FFXIV won't be on consoles for the conceivable future. I think because of such a long entry into an old system with a game focused on future tech, SE will have no choice but to drop support of the PS3 around the time the PS4 launches in a few years. I think SE has learned that holding back FFXI because of the PS2 has proven counter-productive. Besides FFXIV won't be nearly as old by the time PS4 does launch.

Another point to mention was that the PS2 dominated the generation. PS2 >>Xbox >>GC The same isn't true for this generation. Wii >>360 >> PS3 What this means is I feel Sony will pull the plug on the PS3 when everyone starts to jump ship for either the Xbox 720 or the PS4. Either way, I think we won't be playing FFXIV long on the PS3 nor hindered by "PS3 limitations".
#48 Jul 09 2010 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
For the record (Smiley: motz) my point isn't to crush hope...it's to keep a lid on it so that it doesn't turn into 3 weeks of front page kvetching if those hopes aren't realized. I have nothing vested in seeing the PS3 version delayed any longer than absolutely necessary.

I think the person they were talking about is Runway.
#49 Jul 09 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
***
3,178 posts
Here's a thought. Suppose the PS3 can't handle future FFXIV expansion but the PS4 can. Would they change consoles mid-way through FFXIV's lifespan?
#50 Jul 09 2010 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
*
68 posts
I think he went buhbye. :)
____________________________
FFXI- (long)Retired: 75 WAR/DRG/SAM SJ PLD/NIN
WoW- Retired: 90 Tank monk, 90 Tank Druid, 85 Tank DK, 85 Tank War, 85 everything else.
(I love to tank)
#51 Jul 09 2010 at 11:37 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
Here's a thought. Suppose the PS3 can't handle future FFXIV expansion but the PS4 can. Would they change consoles mid-way through FFXIV's lifespan?


No.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)