PS3 Graphics

That suggest your graphics card isn't the bottleneck - assuming you didn't upgrade the rest of your system with it.

Well i have a AMD 955, 8gb of ram and two WD 640gb on raid 0 that tops on 200mb/s of read/write. My cpu playing FFXIV is around 50% load and the GPU goes from 30% (outside ul'dah) to 90% (on ul'dah).

I tested and i tryed chaging a lot of configuration and nothing change the fact that i have 30fps~ on ul'dah. I test my new GPU with a few others games (MW3 and AC:L) and they run flawlessly with all settings maxed (even AA @ x8).

Strange, I have never really noticed a performance difference in or around ul'dah so I've never bothered to check what my usages and I'm running a substantially less powerful card (560ti OC) - that said I'm not running the game at absolute max settings.

I did notice a substantial performance increase when I moved my install to an SSD though, I think it relates to when you load an area full of people the game loads all the armor and weapon models off disk so your frame buffer size makes no difference to performance. Raid 0 is fast but 200mb/s sounds fast for two even top of the line drives in random read/writes, is that sequential performance? If so that isn't what the game will get when loading resources off disk.

In case that sounded condescending I will just say here I'm not trying to be, I'm doing some upgrades and am genuinely curios as to where the bottlenecks happen.

Yes, is sequential reads, on random reads i get something between 100 and 150mb/s depending on the file size, anyway i notice when it load characters that i get a little freeze on the img but it don't happend again after it load all the characters (i guess that leaves the models on memory). I'm about to buy a SSD to put FFXIV and Tera there. Yesterday i tried a few ati drivers to see if it was that that was making it go slower and nothing change, i tried 12.1 (the one that come with the GPU on a cd) and 12.2 pre cert.

I guess i'll have to wait to 12.2 proper release.

BTW i'm using fraps to check the fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Signy

Yes, is sequential reads, on random reads i get something between 100 and 150mb/s depending on the file size, anyway i notice when it load characters that i get a little freeze on the img but it don't happend again after it load all the characters (i guess that leaves the models on memory). I'm about to buy a SSD to put FFXIV and Tera there. Yesterday i tried a few ati drivers to see if it was that that was making it go slower and nothing change, i tried 12.1 (the one that come with the GPU on a cd) and 12.2 pre cert.

I guess i'll have to wait to 12.2 proper release.

BTW i'm using fraps to check the fps.

---

I'm using an AMD Phenom II 965, AMD radeon HD 5870, 8gb RAM, and now an SSD (Which didn't increase my frames but lowered by overall load times by a little) and I never go below 45 FPS with 1920x1080, Draw quality 8 and everything else maxed (And like I said, I got the same frames with Standard HDs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rydin

I'm using an AMD Phenom II 965, AMD radeon HD 5870, 8gb RAM, and now an SSD (Which didn't increase my frames but lowered by overall load times by a little) and I never go below 45 FPS with 1920x1080, Draw quality 8 and everything else maxed (And like I said, I got the same frames with Standard HDs)

---

I use to have the sames fps with my 4850 (not everything maxed). I think is a driver problem. Well anyway is not unplayable and i don't want to open and change again the GPU so i'll see what i can do.

The PS3 is very limited, it already was an issue due to once again, sony's poor memory design (at least the PSvita actually comes with more).

However the new engien will allow better visuals on current pc's at a lower hit, and decent on the Ps3. They stated it will be very scalable and users can adjust it on the PC to match a wide spectrum of systems.

The thing that is affectign the PC now is load zones will return to make enviroments more varied, and the ps3 simply can't handle smooth transitions like PC's.

I'll be suprise if the PS3 can handle true 720p with high detail at 30 fps.

Do this. Go to a PS3, insert Uncharted 1, 2, or 3 (game) into drive, play... if the graphics doesn't look like that... it has NOTHING to do with PS3 limitation. Plus 30 fps isn't too bad.. you'll see when you play the titles I mentioned above ^.~)b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kazaran

The PS3 is very limited, it already was an issue due to once again, sony's poor memory design (at least the PSvita actually comes with more).

However the new engien will allow better visuals on current pc's at a lower hit, and decent on the Ps3. They stated it will be very scalable and users can adjust it on the PC to match a wide spectrum of systems.

The thing that is affectign the PC now is load zones will return to make enviroments more varied, and the ps3 simply can't handle smooth transitions like PC's.

I'll be suprise if the PS3 can handle true 720p with high detail at 30 fps.

---

uh... majority of PS3 games are played in, "true" (lolwtf) 720p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illriginalized

Do this. Go to a PS3, insert Uncharted 1, 2, or 3 (game) into drive, play... if the graphics doesn't look like that... it has NOTHING to do with PS3 limitation. Plus 30 fps isn't too bad.. you'll see when you play the titles I mentioned above ^.~)b

---

OR......
use a title that is available on both PS3 and PC....
Like SKyrim Or Assassin's Creed
Do a comparison of PS3 vs PC all maxed

The PC will look a lot better but the PS3 will still look awesome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rydin

OR......
use a title that is available on both PS3 and PC....
Like SKyrim Or Assassin's Creed
Do a comparison of PS3 vs PC all maxed

The PC will look a lot better but the PS3 will still look awesome

---

Right.. the point is.. if the graphics are crap on PS3, it has nothing to do with the PS3... since there's games like the one mentioned previously that have pretty great details for a console game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illriginalized

Right.. the point is.. if the graphics are crap on PS3, it has nothing to do with the PS3... since there's games like the one mentioned previously that have pretty great details for a console game.

---

incorrect..... you are trying to compare the graphics of single player games (UC3 has multi play, but not massive) to an MMORPG.... you can not expect them to look the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kailea_Nagisa

incorrect..... you are trying to compare the graphics of single player games (UC3 has multi play, but not massive) to an MMORPG.... you can not expect them to look the same.

---

Ok... compare BF3, COD, and SOCOM.

lol big difference.. NOT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kailea_Nagisa

incorrect..... you are trying to compare the graphics of single player games (UC3 has multi play, but not massive) to an MMORPG.... you can not expect them to look the same.

---

I never understood this... because MMO's DONT look like single player games doesn't mean they CANT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illriginalized

Ok... compare BF3, COD, and SOCOM.

lol big difference.. NOT.

---

still a big difference......

It seems some forget that MMORPGs take up more resources then normal single player and multiplayer games do...... for PCs this is no problem as they can handle it, but consoles can't why do you think FFXI never changed over the years? and other MMORPGs that where PC only did?

on a console you can not make an MMORPG with the same quality of a first party single player game -.-

Both of these MMO look kind of cartoony.

DC Universe Online. PC/PS3
Angel Love Online. PC/PS3


But.

Dust 514. PC/PS3 persistent mmofps <-- it looks like a beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrien

Both of these MMO look kind of cartoony.

DC Universe Online. PC/PS3
Angel Love Online. PC/PS3


But.

Dust 514. PC/PS3 persistent mmofps <-- it looks like a beast.

---

still very interested on how the infrastructure will work on that game, as it will be "connected" to EVE.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kailea_Nagisa

still a big difference......

It seems some forget that MMORPGs take up more resources then normal single player and multiplayer games do...... for PCs this is no problem as they can handle it, but consoles can't why do you think FFXI never changed over the years? and other MMORPGs that where PC only did?

on a console you can not make an MMORPG with the same quality of a first party single player game -.-

---

I think you're just a console hater lol.. there is no big difference. @ 30 FPS there's nothing to worry about..

BTW FFXI (was) and FFXIV are both betas for console gaming, you mad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kailea_Nagisa

still a big difference......

It seems some forget that MMORPGs take up more resources then normal single player and multiplayer games do...... for PCs this is no problem as they can handle it, but consoles can't why do you think FFXI never changed over the years? and other MMORPGs that where PC only did?

on a console you can not make an MMORPG with the same quality of a first party single player game -.-

---

you will never get console lovers to understand that consoles have limits that high end pc's, like the ones that are required specs or higher for this game, do not have. a high end pc will perform much better and faster and have a much better picture on today's new games that are coming out with the graphics they have.

yes, consoles have drastically improved over the years and the ps3's of today are fantastic by standards of 10 years ago, but the pc industry is ahead of them if you have a high end pc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rydin

I never understood this... because MMO's DONT look like single player games doesn't mean they CANT

---

There is a lot more going on in memory in an MMO than a standard offline game, with an offline game the developer knows exactly what to expect in terms of onscreen assets, fill rate and polygon count, this isn't the same case for online games.

There is a good reason why online modes for games such as CoD and GoW3 look significantly different to their offline modes.

Just to correct something, the PS3 and X360 console systems aren't capped at 30fps (they're capped around 59~60fps)... carry on with the rest of the discussion (which is otherwise futile itself, PC devs don't have to be as efficient with coding since anyone can get a decent graphics card and 8~9GB of memory while consoles are stuck with XYZ specs).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illriginalized

I think you're just a console hater lol.. there is no big difference. @ 30 FPS there's nothing to worry about..

BTW FFXI (was) and FFXIV are both betas for console gaming, you mad?

---

lol sorry but I had to laugh at this one.... console hater? yeah sure I am a console hater..... with 17 game consoles and counting

Great a PS3 vs. PC debate... When will people learn? It's like trying to compare a locomotive to a Jumbo Jet. You can't compare them. PCs have a lot more raw processing power, but software wastes a lot more cycles waiting on part of the system to catch up. Consoles on the other hand don't have to worry about "bottlenecks" like a GPU or CPU from inhibiting the other, so it's able to make much better use of the hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laraul

Great a PS3 vs. PC debate... When will people learn? It's like trying to compare a locomotive to a Jumbo Jet. You can't compare them. PCs have a lot more raw processing power, but software wastes a lot more cycles waiting on part of the system to catch up. Consoles on the other hand don't have to worry about "bottlenecks" like a GPU or CPU from inhibiting the other, so it's able to make much better use of the hardware.

---

The only reason the debate exists is because people somehow think graphics make the game. This is why gaming was such a failure before the latest generation of consoles, after all!

There were already issues with the PS3 and the game with the current engine "which suprises me with the toosl claimed to be scalable). So the rewrite had to happen.

I am sure SE will do their best to make it function on the console with it's limited capabilities. No, it won't have the potential of the PC version, it simply lacks the memory, GPU/CPU combined power. As a result of bringign it to the PS3, load zones will return, but more variety to zones will accur.

Sure, the PS3 can pull off graphical tricks when a game has limited field of view and distance, but you often see now, sistance backgrounds are blurred and static. When it comes to an MMO, things change.

I have a PS3, Xbox 360 (which the unified memory has it's advantages-slightly) but I wouldn't play this on a console, even tho I use a contoroller.


On the bottlenecking topic. The ps3 is far more prone to it. Part of it is the Memory design, split design of it, and bottleneck and shiftign between the vram and main ram.

The cells, while good on paper, are bottlenecked by the memory and lack of it. As well as they must handle all audio encoding, system fuction, and OS. A PC today is not bottlenecked as much, not with the variosu cachign options, far more avaiable memory from the get go, and the option for far superior hard drives and access times.

Will FFXIV be as good on the PS3 as middle to high end PC's? No. Will it be so much worse that it isn't worth getting? No. They can have less detail and smooth out the images, but the main thing is stability of frame rate and gameplay.

SE stated the new engine will allow graphical quality on lower end systems and the PS3, while giving the option for higher detail on higher end PC's. Testures won't be as detailed. Bump mapping not very high, Anti Alaising probably very low (as it already is if you do not override it) but there are ways to improve the look without all that.

For peopel with out decent PC's it's a good option. Most probably it will not exceed 720p, medium testure quality, nor more then 30 fps. But still very playable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illriginalized

I think you're just a console hater lol.. there is no big difference. @ 30 FPS there's nothing to worry about..

BTW FFXI (was) and FFXIV are both betas for console gaming, you mad?

---

sry XI came first to ps2 and pc much later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kazaran

As a result of bringign it to the PS3, load zones will return, but more variety to zones will accur.

---

I think this was also due to the fact that people were complaining a lot about copy paste... so the decided on smaller non-seamless zones with more variety...

I am happy with the change...
When talking about 2 variables (1. Seamless zones and 2. Copy-paste)
here is my ranking of the possibilities from best to worst
1. Best - Seamless without copy/paste (Which is probably impossible right now)
2. best practical implementation - Non-seamless (Smaller zones with loading screens) without copy/paste
3. What they tried - Seamless with copy/paste
4. Worst - Small non-seamless zones with copy/pasted environments. Glad this didn't happen

The difference between the 2 will be very little I assume.

They're working with the team that is experts with the Luminous Engine. It is the same engine that is being used for Final Fantasy Versus XIII.

"The engine is designed to support DirectX 11, and Edge say it ‘includes cloth and fluid simulation, realtime reflections and highly efficient tessellation techniques that lower the level of detail of 3D models with minimal memory usage cost."

Source: http://andriasang.com/comxrx/luminous_studio_detailed/

http://cdn.techiser.com/wp-content/u...ics-Engine.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrien

The difference between the 2 will be very little I assume.

---

The difference between PS3 and High end PC will be subjective... little to some... very major to others...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rydin

The difference between PS3 and High end PC will be subjective... little to some... very major to others...

---

i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the major part is based on how many characters you can see on the screen, and how far away you can see fine details across the field. Oh, and armor physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrien

i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the major part is based on how many characters you can see on the screen, and how far away you can see fine details across the field. Oh, and armor physics.

---

In my opinion (Which is why it's so subjective), Resolution is the major contributing factor to graphic quality...
Second would be texture quality (Which is sometimes spread over several different categories like character detail, tree detail, etc...)
Anti-aliasing would be my third
Physics would be 4th
and draw distance ranks fifth for me...

Like I said... this is just my preference... others will most certainly see things differently (Which is what makes people so interesting and diverse)
Playing at least 1920x1080 with hi textures is a MUST for me, so the PC is the way to go for my personal needs

Maybe I should wait till FFXIV releases for Orbis... lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRac25

sry XI came first to ps2 and pc much later

---

I stand corrected!


Btw I'm not trying to say that a console is better than PC. We all know that's not true, especially when a PC can always upgrade RAM, CPU, and GPU. Where as consoles.. there is no upgrading (besides hard drive), rather waiting for the next generation of consoles as a, "upgrade".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illriginalized

I stand corrected!


Btw I'm not trying to say that a console is better than PC. We all know that's not true, especially when a PC can always upgrade RAM, CPU, and GPU. Where as consoles.. there is no upgrading, rather waiting for the next generation of consoles as a, "upgrade".

---

the biggest advantage of a console is stability... If you buy a PS3 game and you have a PS3... it is guaranteed to work...
No wondering if your GPU can handle it... no upgrading DirectX... no (ok, very few) "FFXIV had to close" errors... no hardware conflicts or device driver issues.... Controller works as intended....

Console is a much more controlled environment... which is probably nice for the developer, because they don't have to make sure their game can run on a seemingly infinite variety of setups
Also because the OS is designed just for that particular console... it doesn't have all of the background processes that a PC has to have
Drivers for days.. Network sharing services, Antivirus, Firewall, Driver after driver, service after service....

Not to knock PCs though (as it is my preferred platform)
A well managed PC can be error free as well...
There is just a lot of room for user error...
But ultimately... PC's have the potential to perform better, Consoles have the potential to be more stable

Unfortuantly that console stability idea is not what you get in many console titles.

Issues after issues, from BF3, MW2, Skyrim, and many cross platform games, the conosles end up with texture issues, the ps3 with severe memory bandwith issues, and many issues not on the PC counter parts.

You can also see from sony games how they know where the limitatiosn are, and you will see it in blurred static backgrounds while the up front graphics look nice. It is very noticable.

I hve a PS3 and rarely play it. If it's on PC, I get it, often I get more titles on the 360 because the community is larger and often textures and contrast is better. THe PS3 would be next followeed by the WII. However I play PC the most, and acually will game on the go with Onlive on a tablet and use a 360 controller.

It was smart of sony to add more memory to the PSvita however. Similiar design as the PS3 but they were aware of the memory issue. THe Vita has 512mb of main ram. Then additional Vram. While the PS3 has 256mb main ram.

to be honest I'm supprised that Sony and MS don't just put 1-2GB of RAM in there systems it doesn't cost much. Or is this there idea so people will be forced to buy and make games for newer hardware

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kazaran

Unfortuantly that console stability idea is not what you get in many console titles.

Issues after issues, from BF3, MW2, Skyrim, and many cross platform games, the conosles end up with texture issues, the ps3 with severe memory bandwith issues, and many issues not on the PC counter parts..

---

These are game design issues, not console issues, ESPECIALLY since you listed Skyrim there.

Quote:

---

You can also see from sony games how they know where the limitatiosn are, and you will see it in blurred static backgrounds while the up front graphics look nice. It is very noticable.

---

I think....you're losing your point now lol, especially since this is a common technique used on pretty much any modern day system including PC.

Quote:

---

hve a PS3 and rarely play it. If it's on PC

---

Just say you prefer PC to the PS3, stop basically stating it's a bad console lol.

Quote:

---

It was smart of sony to add more memory to the PSvita however. Similiar design as the PS3 but they were aware of the memory issue.

---

There isn't a memory issue with PS3, it was the setup of the memory that was a problem, it was lower than the Vita but it was also pretty powerful type of memory, even if it was split.

The Cell.. It only does everything.

If they take advantage of the spu to handle most of the gpu work, it'll be fine. I don't know how they gonna make it work but they'll find a way. especially since they made a promise in Sony press conference at E3 two years ago i think?