Dead Rising 2 PS3 Exhibits PS3 Port Syndrome

dead-rising-2-screen-tearing

The PS3 version of Capcom’s zombie massacre game Dead Rising 2 is being criticised for exhibiting major graphical issues on the PS3, whilst the Xbox 360 version is unaffected.

The issue, one of screen tearing, is said to be quite problematic:

When the game starts, screen tearing is EVERYWHERE. But frame rate persists at about 30fps even when a map is full of zombies. Which is quite impressive to watch.

On the flip side, going through the map with such horrendous screen tearing is really bad for your health. My eyes got VERY sore after half an hour playthrough.

There is some suspicion that this is the result of a patchable bug rather than a slipshod port, but whatever the case the PS3 seems to deserve its reputation for getting the short end of the stick in any multi-platform release.

Leave a Comment

147 Comments

  • Did they test this on a regular TV or an HDMI TV? I’ve played the 360 version’s prequel scenario and I have the full game on the PS3. I’m probably not paying attention that much, since I’m enjoying the game, so I haven’t noticed any major graphical issues (playing on HDMI btw).

  • wow that doesnt happen to me, btw……..fuck microsoft up there money grubbing asses, fuckers pay developers to concentrate more on the xshit version, its really sad….ah well

    the decline of video games is at hand

  • Jammed on this game all last night, haven’t had a single problem. Nitch problems have no place being spread about as if every copy is plagued by this. It’s just simply a falsehood and misinformation to boot.

  • I’m leaning more towards a patchable problem than a bad port. I had these problems on a game I was playing recently, and as soon as I downloaded a patch… problem gone!

    Though, they should have noticed this issue before releasing the PS3 version of the game.

  • the hell if they can run RE5 and DMC4 on PS3 smoothly, why can’t they do the same in Dead Rising 2? not to mention the exclusive case zero,west dlc bullshit.

    damn it capcom, at least make a exclusive Monster Hunter for the PS3 or a new Stider, Onimusha. and give suda 51 the killer 7 IP, you never used it anyways.

  • Ugh, now sankaku complex is going into the topic on the stupid screen tearing in dr2? Seriously wtf?

    NO TV, OR GAME SYSTEM IS PERFECT. 360, PS3, Etc, they all have flaws and can’t perform a game 100%. And with a game like dead rising, where there are over 5000 zombies on one stream, its no wonder that there will be screen tearing.

    Focus on other things.

    • Nah, its more due to the fact that the 360 and Windows operate in a fairly similar way, so 360->PC and PC->360 ports should be pretty painless.

      Shaun Himmerick of Midway Games said that making games for the 360 was just like coding for ‘a dumb PC’.

      Where as the PS3 system is Linux based, which is a whole different ball game…

  • It’s funny, how fast americans are assuming that there is no v-sync in PS3 version. I bet that all europeans that purchased the game (including me) are reading it now and laughing hard. NO SUCH ISSUE ON PS3 version of this game. But it makes me wonder where are those screenshots from…

  • It’s common sense, really. Ports that weren’t specifically designed for PS3 hardware are bound to play worse. It’s the same for PC games. The same game may have graphic bugs etc. on different hardware.

    Also, in such cases you can pinpoint whether the developer puts some effort into polishing their product for each console or whether they choose to take the lazy route. I’d say it’s the lazy route in 80% of the cases nowadays. Of course, this is also one of the major turnoffs regarding multi-platform titles.

  • ChaosAngelZero says:

    This is really curious. I’ve seen more multiplatform games with v-lock and, consequently, virtually no screen tearing on the PlayStation 3 than on the Xbox 360. Of course, the PS3 version of those games usually have a lower average framerate, too.

    This one case is doubly curious since I suppose Capcom used its MT Framework 2.0 for this game’s development, like with Lost Planet 2, and I take it those games generally have v-lock on the PS3 and screen tearing on the 360, not the other way around.

  • When it comes down too it, it’s not that the PS3 sucks, just it a strain on budgets and time when trying to meet the release date. Especially when you have console version already 100% complete but barely got the other at 60%. It would probably be better if most game developers use a PS3 as their native console, but then still the Xbox 360 version could be crap too. So they really are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

    For me, I’ll just buy multi-platform releases for my 360 and let that be the end of it.

  • So they have done it again. Why does this happens? Why do developpers do better jobs for the Xbox than the PS3? Don’t they know that the Xbox version will be downloaded the same day the game comes out?

  • Curious, its always the PS3 that has this problem. Either, the PS3 sucks, or the people who control this site are hardcore Xbox fans.

    Kinda like how every now and then there is an article about China with an EXTREME negative bias.

    • You are forgetting that a lot of multi-platform games are made for the XBox360 first and the PS3 second or later. Therefore, it is more likely that the PS3 is going to have problems compared to the XBox360.

  • CAPCOM: “Japan isn’t making any good games anymore”

    “we need to branch out to the West”

    “The PS3 version of Dead Rising will be the same as the 360 one”

    yeah, no.

    Anyone else notice that CAPCOM is the single reason that CAPCOM is failing these days? Firstly, they keep tossing their classic franchises to crappy western devs (Ninja Theory and such), then they release boring games like Lost Planet 2, and then they complain about how others in the industry give Japanese games a bad name. . .

    And we all know why Dead Rising 2 on the PS3 sucks; they believe that making the 360 better is more ‘western friendly’. CAPCOM has been hurting themselves, and their image so much lately, and all for the western audience, and it ain’t paying off. . . at all.

    seriously, what the hell happened to CAPCOM?

      • omg. dude. heavy duty. there at least 60$s worth of dlc just for costumes. stuff that was already programmed in the game and the fans just keep buying like idiots. that game also had a double release

    • Well I think that you suck, my dear anonymous. Play the game first, then comment. As I said before, I’m playing PS3 version on a rather big fullhd screen and cannot see a single glitch I’m about 15h into the game. I’ve downloaded hacked PC version and run it on max specs to compare with PS3. Graphics looks much crispier, loading times are cut by 2/3 but except for that it’s just the same game. I haven’t seen XO version yet, but I believe it’ll be pretty much the same as PS3 one. The only crucial difference between PS3 and XO might be loading times.

  • Once again the PS3 version of a game getting no love from the developer, and this time from a Japanese developer. I still can’t get used to this “PS3 Port Syndrome”. I mean, it doesn’t cripple my ability to play multi-platform games (since I own both consoles), but it pretty much takes away the power to choose which console to play a game on. And that kinda sucks in my opinion.

  • As someone who has the PS3 version (Australian release) i’ve been playing for atleast 8 hours and i haven’t seen a single bit of screen tearing.
    That said, there was already a patch for the game when i bought it on saturday.

  • Maybe this screen issue was fixed with patch 1.01 which I had to download right after inserting disc in the drive and that is why I have not seen screen tearing even once. Probably those screens are made on the unpatched version played on hacked PS3 without internet access :P.

  • I don’t want to sound fanboy-ish. I’m playing Dead Rising 2 since the release on friday on my PS3 hooked to the fullHD 50” plasma and I didn’t noticed a single screen tearing. But, when I played Dead Rising 1 on my XO, screen tearing was almost constant.

  • This isn’t just a bad port. It’s a bad developers choice. When asked why PS3 owners wont have access to the prequel episode of DR2, the developer snubbed PS3 owners by saying the game was on 360 first so they’re rewarding them.

    How come PS3 owners are never rewarded for being first at most existing franchises these days?

    The PS3 inferior multiplats argument doesn’t hold anymore these days in my opinion. Most new EA, Ubisoft and Activision games are on par at each console. It’s the developers who are to blame for bad ports. See Bayonetta, that is a great example of sloppy porting. The PS3 can handle the game pretty well and isn’t demanding of any aspect, yet the port sucked.

    • um… you are comparing console hardware to pc… right? every game is demanding on a console… here let me look something up from my understanding the game, bayonetta ran 60fps and ps3 could’ve push that all the time, chugging around 10fps at times.

      you are looking at 60fps for a gpu intensive game, look at it for the pc, consoles cant even push really 720p enough of the time, and can barely handle 1080p

      every game that comes out that is graphical powerful at all, uses 100% of the console hardware, and its really not letting the cpu or gpu idle.

      • Not quite. I can push 100% of my CPU through and endless loop that does absolutely nothing. PC CPUs would be completely saturated by two simple instructions:
        :here
        jmp here

        It’s one thing to push a system to it’s limit, and completely different thing to make optimal use of it’s capabilities. Poorly optimized software can barely run on more powerful hardware, while running just fine on an inferior configuration.

        • Anonymous
          23:00

          valve is going ps3 because of the way the 360 is managed. if they get steam on it, they get to update the games the way they want, and not pay microsoft to update them, or charge for the “dlc” they will get pc quality service for the console, something microsoft has yet and will never allow.

          Anonymous
          04:45

          well technical the cell is more powerful, but in practice the 360 is just as good. and if you want to compare graphics, look at gears of war, as an example of really good 360 game, sadly it docent have the stand out colorful games that the ps3 has though

          and honestly aa means nothing to me.

        • @ 23:00 27/09/2010 Sony and MS always release updated tools for development, that had little to do with complaints and more to do with their own programmers developing a greater understanding of their own platform.

          And Uncharted 2 and GOW3 were optimized for PS3, not ported. There’s a big difference between taking code than can be used easily distributed between platforms and changing it to take advantage of a crippled CPU design.

          In fact, most multi platform games are only written to take advantage of 2 CPU cores and do not take into account which core the load should be distributed. So with the PS3, which only has 1 and 7 slower co-processors, the code cannot be evenly distributed.

          It either only uses the primary CPU core and waits in queue, behind the last piece of code or it needs to be entirely rewritten to take advantage of those 7 SPUs. Which is an expensive process, as it’s like designing the game from scratch.

          So don’t blame the developers for Sony’s poor choice in hardware design.

        • @alidan
          There are more X-Box owners than PS3 owners. It’s only natural develop mainly for it. And besides, “Can be done” does not mean “can be done equally”. One [u]could[/u] port Crysis to the PS3 or 360, but that doesn’t make them anywhere near equal to the PCs that run the game 60fps with all gfx settings to maximum.

        • When did any Playstation developers say that any PS3 game can run on 360?

          Also, do you do Playstation 3 coding? I dont think so. So pleassse spare us your ignorance and just accept that the PS3 is still the more capable system of the 2, unless proven otherwise with solid evidence – “The Games”. We can argue this properly when 360 has a game with Uncharted 2/God of War 3 graphics. GOW3 in particular has lots enemies on screen at once and runs in HD on the supposedly “bitch to program” console.

          We actually officially stopped hearing the “PS3 is hard to program for” bs when Sony officially released a free development kit to developers offices and when Valve swallowed their words and scheduled a release of Portal 2 on PS3

        • you do realism that people have come out, mainly people on the killzone team, and have stated that anything we do on the ps3 we can to on the 360

          ps3 is a bitch to code for, and that is a fact, multi plat games start on the 360 first most of the time for god knows the reason, its easier to port from the ps3 to the 360 than the 360 to the ps3

          i believe when i wrote that i was reading like there were parts of the console that were idoling,

      • Wipeout on PS3 runs at 1080P at 60FPS. Any dev can choose 1080P over 720P. They choose 720P because some people only have 720P capable TVs.

        Also your point isn’t at all correct. The Cell in the PS3 consists of 8 SPEs. Multiplat devs mostly only use only a fragment of these. If you compare this game to PS3 exclusives, the difference would be very visible.

        • 720p = 1280×720 = 921600
          1080p = 1920×1080 = 2073600

          1152000 pixel difference, its more than 2 times as demanding to run a game at 1080p than at 720p

          game developers dont make them 720 because people dont have hd tvs capable of 1080, its the graphics they want to push cant be done smoothly enough at 1080p

          and wipe out hd, i had a laugh when i looked that up, its not always running at 1080p, it dynamically changes depending on how demanding the scene is, i found that trying to find a screen shot of the game, now that i got that out of the way, the geometry and the textures aren’t impressive. textures are a minimal yet great for a fast paced racing game, and the geometry is good enough that you don’t notice aside from screen shots, basically what i’m saying is theres a reason that game is 1080p

        • hyperthreading, it does basically what i think it does and is hard for me to explain because i suck at explaining things.

          the ps3 didnt sink because of its programing architecture the same way saturn did because of how dominant the ps1 and 2 were, and it defiantly took a hit on the development side for it.

          now i do understand professional computer things to some extend due to friends and people i know. they only program and do things a certain and often more difficult way for one reason, they have to, if there is an easier way, less time consuming, and more efficient way present to get them the same results, they do it that way.

          developers put up with it because of the market or because they don’t have a choice, not because they like to do it that way.

        • Maybe hard for you, but you are not a professional game developer like the guys who get paid to create games. Multithreading isn’t as simple as event-based programming and does require some thinking, but it’s not the dragon you make it out to be. Games in particular offer an incredible amount of opportunities for parallel execution to take advantage of.

          p.s.
          hyperthreading doesn’t mean what you think it means. Wikipedia it.

        • Anonymous
          01:21

          yea, im guessing that you are bitching that microsoft has bad shit… well yea i agree with there tactics of releasing the dx 10 and 11 only on non xp to get gamers to “upgrade”

          that aside, the coding is easy. now coding for the processor itself isnt. how many things take advantage of fucking hyperthreading? not many, because its hard. if what is said above is right, than its all sony for making it harder, its the reason that the sega saturn never took off, fucking nightmare to code for.

        • @alidan
          There are plenty of software devs who develop primarily for the PS3 and make good, well optimized games for it.

          It’s the same as the PC. While the platform is superior (performance wise) to the outdated consoles, we constantly get bad console ports that run “almost as good” on a machine that is roughly twice as powerful (flops-wise).

        • And there is your answer alidan.
          It is minimal effort to develop for xbox and PC since both are microsoft infested in terms of libraries and dev tools, but it would be effort to develop efficiently for any other platform, be that PS3 or anything else.
          Blaming Sony for not offsetting an already biased market is just stupid.
          There is just no budget for optimisations, only for features that can be sold by either being flashy or printable on the box.
          “Optimised performance” will never be one.

        • Anonymous
          20:42

          you mean blame them that no game company was willing to learn how to program for the console out right, considering the minimal tweaks they need to do t release on pc and 360.

          Anonymous
          19:52

          you have no idea how gameing works… do you?
          ill use nvidia as an exaple of there shady practices
          nvidia will support a dev team, work out code so the game runs faster on nvidia cards, and lock the code down so it only runs on nvidia and make ati (old name) has to work around so the game appears to be shittyer on there card.

          are you honestly telling me that sony couldnt have shell out the money for even 1 person to help with code in the ps3 side?

        • @alex251
          That doesn’t sound terribly convincing from a guy who doesn’t even know how to program.
          How do I know you ask? To “program a device” in software development jargon means to use a special tool called “programmer” in order to write to it’s internal firmware storage.

          Also, the PS3 is technically more powerful than the XBox. Blame the board of directors for not proving a bigger budget for the PS3 dev team.

          Fanboys be fanboys. *sigh*

        • That wouldnt make sense. Capcom is their own company and has their own way to finance the games they make. If sony or mircosoft were to be involved in financing capcom then usually the game would be exclusive to that platform.

  • Bad ports. They are everywhere…

    Well, it’s basically Sony’s fault for making programming of the PS3 so problematic that multi-platform releases won’t work as they should without huge effort.

    Multi-platform is the way to go and development is way easier on Xbox, this combination doesn’t bode well for Sony…

    • Yeah. Cell just isn’t doing anyone much favors. Also, the way PC structure of game consoles are going, we won’t need something like the Cell for massive CPU processing powers in the near future. Sony gambled and they won with Bluray, perhaps not so with Cell.

      • correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t the cell significantly less powerful than what pc’c currently have? i’m talking quad cores, not the highest end either.

        correct me, please, i would love to know more about what makes the cell so much “better”

        i see it as a 6 core processor (or is it 7) with 1 core locked out to keep yields up and 1 more core clocked to deal with encryption stuff. even where the cell is good, a gpgpu is a better alternative, again if im correct.

        • that said nothing about the implementation of it to the ps3, but it gives us a good idea. like i said 1 core is disabled on all ps3 for yields.

          so that being said and what i heard, sony was fucking retarded for thinking people would drop everything and go for that, and they may very well have, if they were first to market. but Microsoft was willing to take a fairly huge fucking hit to get dibs on first to market.

          so sony contracted for it to be built around 2000 and if im right, before there was a real multi core anything made. sony made a bold decision that made them fall behind. if they were first to market we would probably see the xbox slower, maybe more friendly, but it wouldn’t be lead system, and also for gaming pupases, the cell has 6 cores, 1 drm and 1 locked, and the 360 also has 6 cores, so anything on the cell should be capable on the 360 without major differences, its just how its optimized, and with the 360 its apparently easier to optimize for.

        • hi,
          I see you are having a conversation about the cell processor. And an intelligent one at that. This is the Internet after all.

          If you really want to know about the cell and if it is any good, why don’t you stop dicking around and watch this:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WikcTwXQXfA

          You will need a cup of coffee and 1h17min of free time (it’s THAT long). There is a preface, and the actual cell description starts at around 7:30 time point.
          I suggest you watch all of it. It will take the fanboysm and flamming to a whole new level.

          Who says Sankaku can’t provide knowledge?

          ps1. don’t worry no rick rolls or anything
          ps2. If you ‘re still at school, try it again when you are older(you shouldn’t be here in the first place)

        • so no one has to look it up, its episode 4 of Gurren Lagann, and i have voiced my opinions on that guy other places.

          its true they use little of one core, however they use even less of multi threaded cores.

          intel is multi threading the same way they did back with the p4, which is basically really shitty, the new buldozer, if i understand it right, may be more like 2 processors off one cpu instead of needing special programing to take advantage of one.

          now lastly, sony is still fucking retarded for 1 core threaded to 8 logical, if they put in 4 cores, or even just 3 like xbox and thread them to 2 each, ps3 would be the top system, as it would be easier to program for, and regardless things like more cores over more logical threads , (outside of servers and experimentals)

        • @alidan
          Coprocessing is nice, but only when there is a performance benefit for it. A very small subset of the common PC applications use even 1/10th of the capabilities of a single CPU core, let alone 100% of all. But on the other hand, all modern games make extensive use of multicore CPUs.

          Like a great man once said, the number of faces does not make you great. Minus manly points if you don’t get this reference.

        • ok im going to ask for an over simplification here, and correct me if i am WAY the fuck wrong.

          the cell, is basically like a single core processor with 8 logical cores, and 1 locked out to keep yields up (i DO know 1 “core” is locked regardless of good or bad for the sake of yields)

          its like the 6 core phenom and the 6 core intel. most applications they preform as equals, but that one rare application that comes around and knows how to deal with threads, the intel kicks the amds ass.

          if what i said was right, than sony was fucking retarded to think it would catch on.

          now as i understand the x box is 3 cores and 6 logical? right? so that puts it at the same as sony, minus the drm core.

        • anon@05:11

          “It is a single processor with independent support processors.”. So what is a processor that have independent support processor in a single die? yes, it’s a multicore processor. There are homogenous multicore processor like your current PC processor. There are heterogenous multicore processor like Cell. Each SPE can access the main memory and other storage (HDD) directly, so no need to ask the PPU if SPE want to access main memory. Again, PS OS run on SPE! Now, it doesn’t mean that even if the SPE can’t run without PPE making the Cell not a multicore processor, because it still is a multicore processor. As long the cores can do different program instruction (basically core 1 can do A stuff while at the same time core 2 can do B stuff), it’s a multcore processor. Even modern GPU is a multicore processor and that thing only run specialized code.

        • the thing is Sony wanted this to happen, just that they wanted them to have to “good version” and the rest of the consoles get the port, they stupidly ignored the fact that ppl tend to go for the path with least resistance in a console generation with games so expensive they need to be multiplatform to have any chance of breaking even and ended up shooting themselves on the foot

          many programers this generation are or have been PC programmers, theyve been working with directx and microsoft OS for years, when some dumbass showed up and said “you can program in this nonportable and completely different way for no reason OR you can program in the somewhat portable way you always have to and then subcontract someone to port it” which do you think they are going to choose ?

          they INTENTIONALLY increased the cost of making games in a generation that is choking to death because of said costs, you just cant make this crap up

        • @ 00:51 28/09/2010 You’re pretty stupid, I was not comparing a PPC chip to an X86 processor. I was sighting examples. Idiot.

          And two different branded X86 chips are not going to perform equally, that should be obvious. Just an an Athlon64 tops a Pentium 4, a Core 2 tops an Athlon X2. Never and better technology can top an insane amount of ghz, as shown by the latest generation of X86/AMD64 CPUs.

          Now STFU, stupid.

        • @ Anon 05:11:

          “Sony screwed the pooch.”

          In putting the CELL into their console, yes.

          In conceiving the CELL architecture… they share that action with IBM.

          When I first looked at the instruction set of the PowerPC, I thought, “Holy shit — some of this looks like it came from an IBM 360 (mainframe series)!”

          I later learned that PowerPC was jointly developed by IBM and Motorola.

          When I first looked at the # architecture, I thought, “Holy shit — it looks like the PPE and SPEs communicated via a version of Token Ring (a networking technology invented by IBM in the mid 1980s)!”

          Large committees and institutional political malfunctions lead to legacy crap.

          Intel has the same problem, even with its OWN CPUs.

          Look here:
          http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gbell/craytalk/sld044.htm

          Any (computer) parallelization is limited by the time it takes to co-ordinate things. In turn, that time is based on the hardware architecture.

        • You’re a bit wrong. Fanboyism seems to be effecting your ability to think.

          The cell is not a multi-processor. It is a single processor with independent support processors. Each of the 7 subs can only communicate directly with the core. They cannot pass on data between themselves. As well, the data size each support processor can actually compute is incredibly small as far as thats all concerned. Course, one of those SPE does nothing but crunch the numbers for the XMB. So there goes that. Also the bandwidth it guzzles doing that. Oh, also it takes 32mb of the 256mb the CPU is allocated.

          The fact that everything is pushed through the cell doesn’t help. Even the GPU is neutered and required to get all its permissions and push all its data back through the cell.

          It’s a crappy, crappy architecture which has everything running dependent on the cell itself, with no shared resources.

          Sony screwed the pooch.

        • “Of course on other workload, i7 can also be massively faster than i7.”

          doh…

          it should be
          “Of course on other workload, i7 can also be massively faster than Cell.”

          and in the end part…
          -As a general purpose processor, Cell is slower than current PC processor.
          -As multimedia and high performance computing processor, Cell is faster than current PC processor.

        • Depends on the workload. For some workload, it can run massively faster even compared to the fastest Intel i7. Of course on other workload, i7 can also be massively faster than i7. The key thing is that people must remember is that Cell isn’t targeted as general processor but for multimedia and high performance computing purposes.

          The big question is that is it good for a game console? I believe ultimately it is good for a game console, especially if it targeting a 10 year lifespan. Basically you can throw stuff at it that isn’t possible/too slow on 360 GPU. For example the MLAA (antialiasing technique used on God of War), it can achieve AA at a much higher level than the standard 2xAA or even 4xAA. Ultimately, the Cell is allowing programmer to implement new technique which wouldn’t be practical on other architecture.

          And to anon@23:13, CELL is a multicore processor! it isn’t homogenous, but it is multicore processor and not some crap two core on a single die stuff. I’m not an expert on this stuff, but from what I read it even beat current PC processor in terms of data communication between the cores. Yes, you can call it co-processor, it doesn’t really matter. The fact that the PS3 OS is running on the SPU instead of the PPU is good enough as a proof that each of the SPU can run general code well enough.
          And all the cores on Cell are running at 3.2GHz… yes, the SPU is also running at 3.2GHz and not 400mhz.
          Basically your understanding of Cell is way off the mark! look it up at wikipedia or google it.

          In the end…
          -As a general purpose processor, Cell current PC processor.
          -GPGPU lack that general purpose stuff. There are stuff that work better on GPGPU, there are stuff that work better on Cell. In the end, GPGPU can never be more versatile than Cell unless it has some more general processor component, which is where NVIDIA is heading.
          -PS3 is a fixed platform, thus even though at first it’s hard to program, it would only get better over time. The ceiling on PS3 is higher compared to 360 (whether most devs can reach that ceiling is another matter).

        • @01:13

          Actually I think I would put up to being sony’s fault. If none of my friends want to play tag; they want to play hide and seek, but I come out and tell everyone I’m playing tag, you can’t expect everyone in the neighborhood to just jump into my game of tag. They shouldn’t have gambled that everyone would switch from programming in what they know and what works to a totally new system.

        • Comparing a cell RISC architecture with intel/amd CISC is comparing apples and oranges. RISC is a pretty awesome platform if you just use it right. And there is the catch, it is not Sony’s mistake that game developers use visual studio and directx and have no clue how to write proper code for parallel RISC CPUs…

        • ^To anon above. You most not really understand. Your comparing a computer to a console. Of course the technology existed. Its like comparing a high end pc to a laptop. No matter what the technology, to compress any hardware to the size of a console is always going to be overpowered by pc. You talk about 3.2ghz processors, if thats true then that means in todays world there should already exist 9.2ghz. I mean if you can do 3 why not up to 9?

          Look up a high end comp and a laptop. Processing power doesnt even come close.

        • CELL is a SINGLECORE processor with 7 usable mathematic co-processors. It is not a traditional multicore processor. The primary core runs a 3.2ghz and the co-processors run at 400mhz.

          And your defense that it technology that is ‘4/5 years old’ is weak. Multi processor technology is a lot older than that, ask anying who’s had a dual Athlons, Celerons, Xenons, etc. All they did was intrigate a bunch of cores onto a single processor slot. There’s nothing special about it. Which is why there are Pentium D, AMD X2, X3, X4 and the tricore xbox360 processors.

          Sony fucked up, now you get to pay for that mistake, by trying to stick up for their stupidity.

        • The cell in the ps3 was in developed for the ps3 when the ps2 launched. I believe the ps3 came out in 06 during the holidays. Basically ur comparing technology from 4 to 5 years ago. Since the cell is in all new ps3 it doesnt change. Always remember the pc market is changing every month or so. The cell was made to last a long cycle for the ps3.

      • CELL is the worst processor design to come around, in years. A single-core processor with 7 co-processors and limited cache, sounds like something Sony would dream up.

        Why dream it up? So they could expand beyond the console market into personal computers. IBM and Sony thought that CELL would be the next PowerPC chip, if they kept the cost low by starting off with verge production quantities, so they shoved their mathematic processor inside a game console and bragged about how powerful it was.

        What they neglected to mention is the difficulty working with large amounts of code contained in game environments because of the limited amount of cache and unequal multi-core design.

        Well, neglected may not be the best word. More like they were conceded enough to believe that those issues would not stop their next system from becoming number 1. That developers would be forced to optimize their code exclusively for their system or end up with a game that does not well strongly, due to the ‘quality of the game’.

        • Wow. We have some CPU designers on Sankaku!

          The Cell processor’s vector processing units are nearly identical to a GPU’s. This is why the Cell can run Folding at Home so quickly compared to a general-purpose CPU at the same clock speed.

          It’s not unusual for RISC processors (e.g., Cell, PowerPC) to have smaller cache than CISC processors (e.g., Pentium, Core i7). Fewer instructions = less need for cache and out-of-order execution processing.

          The big problem here is the CPU is too advanced for most game programmers. Anyone old enough to remember programmers bitching about the processor in the PS2? This is like deja vu. As soon as programmers and compilers start catching up to the PS3’s raw power (and they’re starting to), you will see some incredible games. For example, Uncharted 2 is the first game that is said that uses the Cell processor to nearly 100% of its capacity.

          Programmers are trying to use PowerPC compilers to work with the Cell. Yes, it will work but without the advantages of the vector co-processors. No wonder the ports look shitty — the original code is written for a CPU without co-processors.

          Mainframes have this same problem. Designing compilers that break up processes into multiple, simultaneously-executing threads is incredibly difficult, and doesn’t work well in all cases. Some processes must be executed serially to function properly.

          Comparing ATI’s latest GPU to Sony’s 3-year-old CPU is a stupid comparison. Compare ATI’s 3-year-old GPU to the processing power of the vector processing units in the PS3 for an apples-to-apples comparison.

        • Yup, that’s the limited cache size coming back to bite them in the ass. You’d think Sony would have learned after giving the PS2 a total 2megs of vram, which caused programmers barely pull more than 2.5million polygons on a system which claimed to push 12 million polygons, that reducing memory sizes, due to the initial cost is not a good idea.

          Never Jew on the most important parts of your system. Even MS knows that. 360 was originally only going to have 256megs of shared memory. But once Epic showed them how much better Gears looked with 512, MS changed the specs. Sure, it cost them more money in the start. But we all ended up with a better system, because they weren’t stupid enough to say that’s too expensive. Both systems were sold at a loss to begin with, anyway. So why ship it crippled just to save a few more dollars? Cheap pricks.

          Anyway, for calculations, CELL is quite powerful. Not nearly as powerful as the latest GPUs, but still good. AMD’s latest ATI GPU can pull over 4teraflops, which is more than double that of CELL. That’s some serious folding power.

        • @ Anon 23:58:

          The advantages of console (vs PC) gaming WERE:

          * Relatively low entry price

          * No hassles with patches, updates, etc.

          * Fixed configuration makes things easier for devs

          As consoles have become more PC-like (*Firmware Update Complete* … “Hey, I can’t log on!!”), and more expensive, those advantages have evaporated.

        • I switched to PC this gen and I have no regrets. I’m an emu guy, so playing Wii and previous gens suit me nicely. You’re not as locked with gameplay compared to a console, plus you can have tools and mods. No slow disc reading, better hardware, etc. PS3/360 just have similar CPU capability to dies of the same size(during their initial release), while their GPUs have amounted to ~20USD purchases for ~2 yrs. Tearing, low frame amounts, visual customizations, etc are fairly simple to deal with on a PC. Users are probably the only issue, and it seems to worsen with more Apple bred drones. I gotta hand it to you though, some FABULOUS marketing statements work for even the Cell.

        • Justin TV has some streams of people playing the European/Asian version which came out a few days ago.

          It looks like a ton of fun and the 360 version runs pretty smoothly (only problem is the long load times).

          Also, Online co-op looks insanely fun. People can drop in and out and working together to kill zombies and save survivors looks like the best co-op experience I’ve seen in a game.