Sony's Handicapping the PS3

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

http://www.ps3portal.com/ps3/article/352/2


Over the past couple of months we have been hearing reports from a couple of our sources who wish to remain anonymous. The following information has been validated by multiple sources that are involved in early PS3 development. While we strongly believe the following information to be correct, Sony is still in a position where they could change some of the specifics. These are not 100% set in stone, but are close to being so.

That being said, we will first start with some background information concerning Sony's PlayStation 3 competition that is known as the Xbox 360.

One of the first things that one notices when they utilize the Xbox 360 is that it has an operating system running constantly in the background, even while playing games. This is a new feature as far as dedicated Game Console hardware is concerned.

The operating system running in the background enables,

- Custom Music in all games
- Simplifying development of Online games
- Seamless updating of games when the Xbox360 is connected to the Internet
- Voice Chat across all games, even outside of the games own UI
- Notifications and messaging to be sent between users regardless of the games they are playing

As one would deduce, this does not come without its own costs in terms of power, including,

- 32mb of the 512mb of available GDDR3 RAM
- 3% CPU time on Core 1 and Core 2 (nothing is reserved on Core 0)

Everything that one wants to do involving software on a game console, specifically while the user is playing games, comes at a cost. In the case of the Xbox 360, this cost is approximately 2% of total CPU time and 6.25% of the Xbox 360's total available RAM. Balancing these out, one could argue that MS has removed a total of 4% of the Xbox 360's total available system power in order to provide these features and more which were not mentioned. They also left room, CPU and RAM wise, for future features. In other words, they are not using all of the CPU time and RAM that they have reserved to date.

This brings us to the information we have concerning the PS3. As some gamers have heard, Sony revealed at GDC this year that they will be constantly reserving 1 of the 7 available SPEs on the Cell Processor for their OS. This, we have discovered, is just the tip of the iceberg.

As was witnessed in their demonstrations at GDC, Sony is planning to have an Operating System running constantly in the background, just like one witnesses when using the Xbox 360 OS (aka Dashboard). They plan to have a "Blade" like pane that can appear out of the right hand side of the screen for viewing and participating in activities that the OS enables.

This include but are not limited to,

- Multi-User Voice Chat across all games, even outside of the games own UI
- Multi-User Video Chat across all games, even outside of the games own UI
- Notifications and messaging to be sent between users regardless of the games they are playing

Like the Xbox 360, these come at a cost and our sources have told us that these features use approximately:
- 64mb of the 256mb of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
- 32mb of the 256mb of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
- 1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved
- 1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games have to give it up if requested)

In the case of the PS3 this equates to 12.5% of the available Cores on the CPU always reserved, an additional 12.5% sometimes taken by the OS, 12.5% of the available RSX memory and 25% of XDR Cell memory. Balancing these out, one could argue that Sony has removed up to 25% of the available CPU power and 18.75% of RAM for these features as well as others that are not mentioned here or will be added in future updates to the PS3 Operation System.

The 1 SPE that can be taken away, by the system, from the games at a moments notice could be for the purposes of rendering the Blade and decoding and presenting the multiple video sources and other content onto the Blade when it appears to the user. This will have minimal to no impact on the ability of single player games to utilize the SPE, though it will likely add complications during development of games for the system. The main impact would be in Online Multiplayer games that do not have a pause option available and thus will have increased difficulty in relinquishing the SPE.

We do not claim to be technical specialists so we will reserve comment on the technical implications of this new information. We look forward to community feedback regarding this information.

**** This Article was editted incorrectly earlier, we appologize for this. The correct edits are now in place. We clarified the article to state that 12.5% of the Cores (including the PPE) is reserved always and an additional 12.5% can be reserved if requested by the OS. We also clarified that "Sony has removed up to 25% of the available CPU power.

In addition, we did not include any of the information concerning their plans for usage of the PPE core as well as information around the Blu-Ray drive being used in the PS3. We are currently following up and getting additional clarification regarding both of these.

Microsoft said a while back that this would be a software war. I wonder what adverse effects this is going to have on development.

This is probably the reason we haven't seen any actual gameplay footage on the system yet. Not playable demos but actual in game gameplay footage. A lot of people think this system is going to be the cats meow (tech wise) is going to be disappointed.

[Mochan]

Things like this disgust me, both on the Microsoft and Sony side. Go turn the consoles into PCs, why don't you. Wondering why the 360 isn't really showcasing triple the power of any PC with its triple cores and 48 shader pipes? Well there are other reasons (I've gone through them before) but running an OS in the background is simply not dedicating the console hardware to gaming that the previous consoles have been doing.

Optimization? We've all argued before that consoles get away with weaker specs than PCs because the entire platform is optimized and dedicated towards one thing: gaming. Now that this is no longer the case, it's no wonder why today's PCs are easily keeping pace with the 360, and if the reports are true, we may be seeing the same scenario wtih the PS3.

Now, Linux runs a lot better than anything Microsoft ever churned out, and sacrificing one SPE (or even two) out of the Cell's processing units is really no biggie -- there's still a lot of power left over there -- but my real concern is the RAM. If this is true and the PS3 is dedicating 64MB of its system RAM and 32MB of its GPU RAM to some turd running in the background, then I have to hand it to Sony you don't need to **** yourselves in the ass yourselves if you want to have crappy game performance. MS is trying its darndest to make you look bad, you don't have to do it to yourselves!

I've already complained about how little RAM the PS3 (and the 360) has, and this kind of thing just isn't helping.

That said, it's RIDICULOUS, just absolutely ridiculous that any simple dashboard program needs to take up 32MB of GPU RAM. What did they program Blade in, Java? Good grief, talk about inefficient. 64MB of System RAM is bonkers as well.


Well what can I say, maybe there's no need to get a console after all, if they're just turning out to be PCs! The only reason to get a console now is: The Rev -- and the PS3 for all the Sony Playstation franchises that will never make it to the PC. As for the 360? Well most of your games are coming to the PC so there's absolutely no reason to get you, unless I feel like playing Geometry Wars. Nyah!

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Things like this disgust me, both on the Microsoft and Sony side. Go turn the consoles into PCs, why don't you. Wondering why the 360 isn't really showcasing triple the power of any PC with its triple cores and 48 shader pipes? Well there are other reasons (I've gone through them before) but running an OS in the background is simply not dedicating the console hardware to gaming that the previous consoles have been doing.

Optimization? We've all argued before that consoles get away with weaker specs than PCs because the entire platform is optimized and dedicated towards one thing: gaming. Now that this is no longer the case, it's no wonder why today's PCs are easily keeping pace with the 360, and if the reports are true, we may be seeing the same scenario wtih the PS3.

Now, Linux runs a lot better than anything Microsoft ever churned out, and sacrificing one SPE (or even two) out of the Cell's processing units is really no biggie -- there's still a lot of power left over there -- but my real concern is the RAM. If this is true and the PS3 is dedicating 64MB of its system RAM and 32MB of its GPU RAM to some turd running in the background, then I have to hand it to Sony you don't need to **** yourselves in the ass yourselves if you want to have crappy game performance. MS is trying its darndest to make you look bad, you don't have to do it to yourselves!

I've already complained about how little RAM the PS3 (and the 360) has, and this kind of thing just isn't helping.

That said, it's RIDICULOUS, just absolutely ridiculous that any simple dashboard program needs to take up 32MB of GPU RAM. What did they program Blade in, Java? Good grief, talk about inefficient. 64MB of System RAM is bonkers as well.


Well what can I say, maybe there's no need to get a console after all, if they're just turning out to be PCs! The only reason to get a console now is: The Rev -- and the PS3 for all the Sony Playstation franchises that will never make it to the PC. As for the 360? Well most of your games are coming to the PC so there's absolutely no reason to get you, unless I feel like playing Geometry Wars. Nyah!


Sony want's a bunch of multi media features (MS as well) they want video chat in every game and that is supposedly going to take up a core. And all the connectivity functions with the PSP streaming data and such, vide blogs (according to PSM) there going to need a sizeable amount of memory for the OS to do all this. MS has more experience here and there code won't be as bloated. Say what you want about Windows it is compatiable with so many products you are going to have stabiltiy issues. But I trust MS to write more effiecent OS code on a closed platform than Sony.

This has the makings of the PS2 all over again unrealized power due to crappy implementation. The graphics memory is going to be enough but the system memory is going to come up short I wonder how all those physics calculations are going to be effected. Time will tell.

[Mochan]

Physics calcs don't need much memory at all.

As for MS writing efficient code on a closed platform, what are you basing your trust on? MS has no experience coding for a closed platform other than the XBox, and the XBox wasn't exactly running well due to efficiency, it was more due to sheer brute strength.

Sony has far more experience coding for a closed platform; they've been in the hardware business a lot longer and have worked on numerous closed devices and all the firmware et al needed to run them (PSP, camcorders, players, walkmans, etc.)

If I had to give an edge to the coding department I would give it to Sony. MS has proven to write bloated, buggy code. There is no real reason to believe they would do a better job in a closed system.

256MB of video memory is okay for now but 3-4 years down the line 256MB won't be enough, especially if people want photo-realistic textures. PCs are already at the 512MB mark (though no game makes use of more than 256MB right now)

[MoNkEy MaN X]

Now, Linux runs a lot better than anything Microsoft ever churned out

Gotta throw the flag on this comment. What do you considder better about Linux? Lets go through a list:

- User Interface/ User Friendly
- Hardware support
- Program Compatibility
- Depending what GUI for Linux, it can use quite a bit of resources

Now, I will say, Linux can be had for free and it works great for homebrew gamesevers, which is what I was using Linux for. Also, since you can still just run Linux command line style, I saved resources for my gameserver that way.

I'd say in terms of overall funtionality, user friendliness, and software and hardware support, windows is the best thing we have going now. Both Mac OS and Linux just don't have the wide range of support windows does. Also, they don't support the wide range of hardware(granted Mac OS is for a Mac).

[MoNkEy MaN X]

Physics calcs don't need much memory at all.

As for MS writing efficient code on a closed platform, what are you basing your trust on? MS has no experience coding for a closed platform other than the XBox, and the XBox wasn't exactly running well due to efficiency, it was more due to sheer brute strength.

Sony has far more experience coding for a closed platform; they've been in the hardware business a lot longer and have worked on numerous closed devices and all the firmware et al needed to run them (PSP, camcorders, players, walkmans, etc.)

If I had to give an edge to the coding department I would give it to Sony. MS has proven to write bloated, buggy code. There is no real reason to believe they would do a better job in a closed system.

So knowing how to code for 1 specific hardware yields better expierenced programers? Wow, I would have thought if people had to program for a wide range of hardware they would be better off and more adaptable. I thought I would just point out Windows XP system requirements:

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

• CD-ROM or DVD drive

• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Now, if MS writes buggy and bloated code, there is no way their latest home OS would run on a Pentium I which is pretty old at this point. MS has been in the software game here for a long time, I'm sure they know their way around their hardware seeing that it is pretty much a PC.

[Glockstar]

PTI... but what in thee heck is that middle game on your GamerCard?!

[MoNkEy MaN X]

PTI... but what in thee heck is that middle game on your GamerCard?!

I think it is Farcry Instincts Predator.

What does PTI stand for?

[Glockstar]

Aha. Thanks. You guys can go back to your techno-babble now; nevermind me.

PTI = pardon the interruption

[Mochan]

I'd say in terms of overall funtionality, user friendliness, and software and hardware support, windows is the best thing we have going now.

Well no complaints there. I use Windows after all, not Linux. I just meant to say that Linux isn't as bloated as Windows (unless you bloat it up yourself).


So knowing how to code for 1 specific hardware yields better expierenced programers? Wow, I would have thought if people had to program for a wide range of hardware they would be better off and more adaptable. I thought I would just point out Windows XP system requirements:

Adaptable, yes. We're not talking about adaptabilitiy though, we're just talking about a closed hardware environment. Isn't that what a closed hardware environment is? One specific hardware?

And PFAH for the system requirements. Have you even tried running Win XP on a system with those specs? Hell Win2000 doesn't run too hot on those kinds of specs! And Win2000 is a lot better optimized than XP. Running Win XP on just 128MB of RAM is suicide. You're not going to be running any major apps with any degree of smoothness on that kind of system. Even Microsoft apps like Office! 256MB is the real minimum unless all you use your PC for is typing notes in Notepad.

[MoNkEy MaN X]

Well no complaints there. I use Windows after all, not Linux. I just meant to say that Linux isn't as bloated as Windows (unless you bloat it up yourself).



Adaptable, yes. We're not talking about adaptabilitiy though, we're just talking about a closed hardware environment. Isn't that what a closed hardware environment is? One specific hardware?

And PFAH for the system requirements. Have you even tried running Win XP on a system with those specs? Hell Win2000 doesn't run too hot on those kinds of specs! And Win2000 is a lot better optimized than XP. Running Win XP on just 128MB of RAM is suicide. You're not going to be running any major apps with any degree of smoothness on that kind of system. Even Microsoft apps like Office! 256MB is the real minimum unless all you use your PC for is typing notes in Notepad.

I do understand you would be nutz to run XP on something that old but it is possible. Although Win2000 did run fine on my old PIII 800mhz with 384MB ram, but that is a big difference than a Pentium 233mhz with 128MB ram. When we gave my grandfather our old 66mhz 486DX2 back in the day, I think the most we could get out of it was 95, maybe 98, although back when the 486 computers were the best, we still used DOS and WFW 3.11.

My main point was that MS has adapted to many different types of hardware and with a closed box, everything should go smoother. Think about it, there is only one type of system to test, 1 type of CPU, 1 type of GPU, 1 type of sound card... Not like a PC which they are used to. So this is probably a breath of fresh air for them.

I hope PS3 is good, that way 360 will have competition... We need competition to keep the game going and I really hope the 360 gets even better than it already is. I also have high hopes for the REV as a good alternative gaming source.

[Rogue Bounty Hunter]

It looks like Spec Wars: The Second Year has started earlier than expected. :(

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

So knowing how to code for 1 specific hardware yields better expierenced programers? Wow, I would have thought if people had to program for a wide range of hardware they would be better off and more adaptable. I thought I would just point out Windows XP system requirements:

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

• CD-ROM or DVD drive

• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Now, if MS writes buggy and bloated code, there is no way their latest home OS would run on a Pentium I which is pretty old at this point. MS has been in the software game here for a long time, I'm sure they know their way around their hardware seeing that it is pretty much a PC.


A lot more eloquent than I my reply. But that's what I meant MS has of practice developing software that has to function on damn near unlimited range of specs and programs. To think it's going to perform flawlessly is crazy. Even with the XP is still solid (especially on a Dell)

To think that they have a close box naturally you would think there are at an advantage over Sony who can't seem to even put together a decent digital download service.

Anyway I see Sony selling the PS3 more on the features than the games. They don't have to sell the game because they have alreadly overwhelimingly successfully established the Playstation brand. There are going to sell millions on the Brand alone. And I guess all there multimedia functions (which is causing the drain on system resources) is what they are going to use to differentiate from there competitors. Personally my main interest in a PS3 right now is for the multimedia features.