Rage on PS3 currently running considerably slower than PC & 360 versions.
General Gaming DiscussionUse this section to discuss all things relating to PC gaming, including games that are coming soon, released games & classic gaming and also post here for general mmorpg chat that is not covered by an individual mmorpg section.
Rage on PS3 currently running considerably slower than PC & 360 versions.
Carmack: PS3 rasteriser is slower than Xbox 360
Game development legend and id Software co-founder John Carmack has never been shy to offer his honest opinion on each console, and he's been at it again when talking about the studio's latest game, Rage.
In an interview with EDGE (via CVG), Carmack has revealed why the PS3 version of the game is currently running slower than the Xbox 360 and PC versions.
"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," said Carmack. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that.
"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said.
It has to be said that if the ps3 is supposedly better on tech specs than the 360 which is 3years older then how come there are no cross platform games that look or run better on it??? cant always be down to lazy or incompetent programmers.
That does make interesting reading, not having a ps3 I wouldn't be able to put it to the test. What I am curious to know is, does it really make that much difference to your gaming experience?
Would reading the article make anyone who was in the market for one less likely to buy?
"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," said Carmack. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that.
It has to be said that if the ps3 is supposedly better on tech specs than the 360 which is 3years older then how come there are no cross platform games that look or run better on it??? cant always be down to lazy or incompetent programmers.
It's not about the programmers at all its about the developers trying to make as much money out of a game as they can.
They have 2 consoles to sell on one 3 years older with older technology that the other can be made to use. They design on the Xbox as its easier to do the work being so close to PC workings and having 3 years to work on routines and stock methods knowing they can port this to Sony.
If they designed for the PS3 then they would use the technology best suited to get the performance from the new technology but this is then not transferable across to the 360 platform without huge engine re-writes.
So basically what the guy in the article is saying is this game we developed on the 360 runs a bit slower on the PS3 because the PS3 has to emulate a 360 and jump through extra hoops to do the same as the ageing alternative.
They won’t do it the other way as the 360 would not be able to emulate the newer methods the PS3 offers but that is why the PS3 comes out looking worse as no game developer is going to offer exclusivity to a console with so many millions of both being sold its just bad business.
The exclusives are the only games you can use to compare the consoles and then you get in to a whole bag of mashings as you then can’t compare them technically
I have both consoles and I tend to think that the PS3 has the edge on graphics but the 360 has the games at the moment.
It's not about the programmers at all its about the developers trying to make as much money out of a game as they can.
They have 2 consoles to sell on one 3 years older with older technology that the other can be made to use. They design on the Xbox as its easier to do the work being so close to PC workings and having 3 years to work on routines and stock methods knowing they can port this to Sony.
If they designed for the PS3 then they would use the technology best suited to get the performance from the new technology but this is then not transferable across to the 360 platform without huge engine re-writes.
So basically what the guy in the article is saying is this game we developed on the 360 runs a bit slower on the PS3 because the PS3 has to emulate a 360 and jump through extra hoops to do the same as the ageing alternative.
They won’t do it the other way as the 360 would not be able to emulate the newer methods the PS3 offers but that is why the PS3 comes out looking worse as no game developer is going to offer exclusivity to a console with so many millions of both being sold its just bad business.
The exclusives are the only games you can use to compare the consoles and then you get in to a whole bag of mashings as you then can’t compare them technically
I have both consoles and I tend to think that the PS3 has the edge on graphics but the 360 has the games at the moment.
I have both, and I really didnt see much of a difference, if your talking about excuslives, I think Gears 2 is by far one of the most detailed and best looking games, but it does use the unreal engine, so I dunno if its kind of cheating.
I hear the Xbox is a lot better of processing multiple things at once, while the ps3 just has raw power, so in some aspects the PS3 can come out worse. Not that I know a lot about both inside lol
I'm sure the PS3 will eventually look better, not by much though, as the detail on the Xbox games are pretty incrediable anyway, its going to be hard to notice it getting much better, the only way would be to have a LOT going on in one screen.
They say they both have advantages when working with them and as an end user I think the difference between the two is so small it's hardly worth worrying about. I would let the dev’s worry about the specs and just go with the console you prefer as they are both great machines. Chances are you won’t even notice a difference. For every PS3 game that someone throws up as the best graphics ever someone else will find a 360 one. There’s no end to it.
I have both but prefer the 360 as I think Live is just so much better than PSN. PSN has the basics – and it’s free - but it doesn't have the community features and integration and that for me is a big deal. I'm sure it will catch up though it's made great strides over the last couple of years. But it seems that Live just feels more immersive and offers more features which when buying a multiplat sways my hand each time.
The other deal breaker for me is the controller. The six axis just doesn't feel right in my hands any more. I loved it with the PS2 but maybe I've got too used to the 360 controller now. Should it not have evolved a bit more by now? It still seems geared up so the D-pad and buttons fall under my fingers whilst the analogue sticks and triggers are a bit out of place and an afterthought (which is the opposite of the 360 controller). That's great for fighting games but not so hot for FPS and driving. I think that's just different strokes for different folks though, plenty of people love the 6-axis.
The 360 joypad is just spot on! Plus as you said, Live is leaps and bounds ahead of PSN and is just by truly brilliant.
yeah and costs you every year to be able to play multiplayer online which on ps3 is free.
I think live is a bit much to be honest they should have at least multiplayer ability on silver to some degree - rip off tbh
I also don't like the fact that microsoft buggered up media player to the point that it kills any pc acting as a server to the point you have to disable the media centre abilities of the pc so it doesn't crash whereas the ps3 works like a dream.
I like both consoles but my ps3 offers me more than just gaming and with better facilities for it too ( i love vidzone ) and if Microsoft offered it i bet it would be on gold
Rage on PS3 currently running considerably slower than PC & 360 versions.
) and if Microsoft offered it i bet it would be on gold 
Linear Mode
