Who said that?
Clearly having to deal with;
-painful esram architecture
-giving up GPU resources to kinect
-dealing with a weaker GPU
-dealing with ddr3.
Magically makes the Xbox easier/better to develop on. Eventhough we see compromised games already with 900p ryse and 720p killer instinct?
You should believe Cerny, there is no doubt the PS4 is a far simpler design at first glance, and can be treated as such, but that machine is a very complex beast once you start messing around with the extra features.
Please carry on.
You don't have to believe me, listen to what Cerny had to say about it.
Indies will find it easier to work with vs the XBO however, and devs at least have the option over learning it of a period of time."The hardware is an enabler. We are very intentionally trying to make the hardware easy to learn and difficult to master.
People shouldn't write the PS4 off as simple.
For graphics? For sure.
PS3 is not the most difficult console to develop for in the history but it was for its time. right now it seems like you have no way of getting close to the power PS4 has on paper, without using the ESRAM to its fullest.
Its only an extension to the 360's setup, in a way, MS is probably penalizing themselves by giving the dev options to interact with that ESRam, on the 360 it wasn't available as an addressable par to the system.why wouldn't that be more difficult? whatever else you're saying, even if those things matter to a certain extent, what matters in the end more is that you have all this fast RAM to access and it is giving you the benefit without much effort. that is why Epic guy was so excited about it. who has praised X1's setup so far over PS4's?
Yes that certainly makes it more complex than it was, but really, its only an optional by product, devs can still use it like they did the 360. I suspect what the newer drivers did was just that, give devs an automated setup so they can use it without really thinking about it having to handle it.
Results 51 to 75 of 136
Last edited by mynd; 10-08-2013 at 00:26.
As for digging deep into libraries exploiting cache flags etc, yeah, some of that is supposed to be automated, and digging in manually can come later.
If anyone wants to try saying the PS4 isn't the simpler machine to program on... tough cookies, the guys behind Warframe will differ with you, as will many other developers.
About the above snippet...
The Sega Saturn was probably THE most notorious system to develop for having coordinate schedules between the 2 SH1 processors attached to one bus which they can't access simultaneously, or, just use one as happened often... For Americans, the PS1 Dev Kits kind of sucked too, in japanese ofcourse. The saturn sucked most though because you were putting way to much effort into hardware you KNEW was going to fail.
10-08-2013 #54Kaz Hirai: We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that developers want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?
That quote from Kaz was talking about PS3 not PS4.^ http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-har...or-on-purpose/ But since we're pulling up quotes heres what MS said about X1 http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/22/we-pur...osoft-3804061/
Last edited by mistercrow; 10-08-2013 at 02:01.
Tag, your it. Please make a nonsensical post again.
C'mon, show some SUBSTANCE.
Yes, it IS easy to program for. Here's our toolkit, including Visual Studio if you prefer that with a DX to PS4 interface library if you need to port a DX based engine to start! Or, you can just get started with our fully english ready dev kit and go native to the system. More of it's power is available at the outset from a simpler initial architecture, and, as I said, digging into what makes it even more powerful will come later, which cover's Kaz's statement.
@Sub, yea, PS3 and also Kaz doesn't know what he's talking about. what he meant to say was that there is hidden power on the PS3. but yea, we have realized that you can still have a hidden power even if it's easy to program for.
No, alot of the orignal PS1 dev kits arrived with little english documentation, no trolling, fact. It's documented.
Omar likes this post
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Rep Power
Really. All this talk of trade-offs is ridiculous. Both corporations had a solution better than DDR3 and GDDR5 at their disposal. That solution was XDR RAM. They could have easily met the power, bandwidth and latency requirements two-fold if they had chosen to and would not have had to deal with all these trade-offs. Instead, they both pushed the "EASY" button.
How about we bring this back to the thread title, as we are going back to the usual RAM layout pros and cons. What is it about GDDR5 that is uncomfortable to work with. I'll paste what I said in my last post as well...
"...Are the trade offs to CPU performance unique to GDDR5 or GDDR in general? If its to GDDR5 only, how come? but if its GDDR in general, then why was it not considered a limiting factor for the 360 which used GDDR3 for its system memory? Is it more of a GDDR5 compared to DDR3 issue where DDR is just tried and tested and GDDR for system ram will require rethinking on how you utilise the memory for CPU usage?"
If its to GDDR5 only, how come? but if its GDDR in general, then why was it not considered a limiting factor for the 360 which used GDDR3 for its system memory?
will say that we do have quite a lot of experience in terms of GPGPU - the Xbox 360 Kinect, we're doing all the Exemplar processing on the GPU so GPGPU is very much a key part of our design for Xbox One. Building on that and knowing what titles want to do in the future. Something like Exemplar... Exemplar ironically doesn't need much ALU. It's much more about the latency you have in terms of memory fetch [latency hiding of the GPU], so this is kind of a natural evolution for us. It's like, OK, it's the memory system which is more important for some particular GPGPU workloads.
Sounds like they ran into some walls on the 360.
Is it more of a GDDR5 compared to DDR3 issue where DDR is just tried and tested and GDDR for system ram will require rethinking on how you utilise the memory for CPU usage?"Digital Foundry: What were your takeaways from your Xbox 360 post-mortem and how did that shape what you wanted to achieve with the Xbox One architecture?
Nick Baker: It's hard to pick out a few aspects we can talk about here in a small amount of time. I think one of the key points... We took a few gambles last time around and one of them was to go with a multi-processor approach rather than go with a small number of high IPC [instructions per clock] power-hungry CPU cores. We took the approach of going more parallel with cores more optimised for power/performance area. That worked out pretty well... There are a few things we realised like off-loading audio, we had to tackle that, hence the investment in the audio block. We wanted to have a single chip from the start and get everything as close to memory as possible. Both the CPU and GPU - give everything low latency and high bandwidth - that was the key mantra.
but the high bandwidth is not raw. they just wanted DDR3 because they wanted to make profits out the door or close to it. they are charging you for a console that should cost the same as the PS3/360 today...were it not for the expensive cam.
At the end of the day, the GPU requires the bandwidth, not the CPU, and MS has done the best they could to facilitate that where it counts the most.
Could thye have done the other funky stuff they are doing with dual o/s etc on GDDR? Probably not with a decent amount of performance.
The sound benefits look like its more related to the dedicated hardware rather than the RAM used though.
Edit: and from Yours and Sufis discussion it looks like the OS systems/environments being a high focus.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)