Xbox 360 eDRAM benefit turns into a liability.

  • 80 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
Upon the Xbox 360 launch one of the most heralded features of the new hardware was the eDRAM that accompanied the Xenos GPU. The eDRAM is an embedded 10MB bank of DRAM with additional logic for post processing effects. It seemed like a win-win situation where developers could get "free" AA, DOF, motion blur, etc. Well it turns out that nothing is "free", everything has a price. The 10MB of eDRAM isn't large enough to store a 720p image, the largest image that can be stored is in a non-standard-sub-HD video mode dubbed "640p". Consequently many Xbox 360 games (Halo 3, PGR3/4 etc) aren't native HD. There is a work around called "tiling" which breaks the image into individual parts for processing and then reassembles them for display. Tiling itself takes time and CPU cycles negating the benefits of the eDRAM. This fact is apparent in the PGR3/4 developement cycle. The Xbox 360 launch title PGR3 was not HD only 640p, the reason for this, as stated by the developers, was that they didn't have time to implement tiling for the launch. Time goes by an PGR4 is released at 640p with no tiling. Why? Because tiling isn't free. It is simply easier to lower your target from HD to 640p. The eDRAM limitation is propagating the use of 640p* to other big franchises such as Halo and COD. And thanks to the Xbox 360 being the lowest common denominator development platform the eDRAM limitation is spilling over onto the PS3 via multiplatform games. So much for Peter Moore's "HD era". *to be perfectly fair there is a two-fold benefit to using 640p as opposed to HD: obviously the first benefit is that it can be processed in the Xbox 360's eDRAM the other being that it is simply less pixels for the hardware to have to push around (a kind of intermediary step between SD and HD).
#2 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

#3 Posted by crispytheone88 (901 posts) -

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

mattbbpl

Agreed, this is very nitpicky, the fact remains, anything over 480p can be considered HD

as for tiling, the bandwidth of the 360 memory is so fast the tiling CAN be used with little effect on performance

#4 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

mattbbpl
Not only does 640p have less detail than 720p but also 640p is accompanied by upscaling which adds in artifacts (this is why you will hear people say that SD broadcasts actually look worse when displayed on an HDTV).
#5 Posted by _pulser_ (252 posts) -
It's very difficult to tell the difference between 640p and 720p. 1080i is king though, and after Christmas I'll be playing my 360 on a 42 inch 1080i TV.
#6 Posted by BambooBanger (1360 posts) -

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

#7 Posted by real45 (548 posts) -
Wow. Gears,Lost Planet,Bioshock,are probally not 720 either.
#8 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

BambooBanger
What PS3 games, other than muli-plats, aren't in HD?
#9 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

skektek

Not only does 640p have less detail than 720p but also 640p is accompanied by upscaling which adds in artifacts (this is why you will hear people say that SD broadcasts actually look worse when displayed on an HDTV).

Maybe I'm the only one who can't tell the difference between the two. Either way, I still can't tell the difference so it doesn't bother me.

#10 Posted by SolidTy (42446 posts) -

It's very difficult to tell the difference between 640p and 720p. 1080i is king though, and after Christmas I'll be playing my 360 on a 42 inch 1080i TV._pulser_

It doesn't matter. Didn't you read?

It's up to the developers to use the system properly if you want anything over 640p native.

#11 Posted by BambooBanger (1360 posts) -
[QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

skektek

What PS3 games, other than muli-plats, aren't in HD?

What PS3 games, other than multi-plats, are there ?

#12 Posted by SolidTy (42446 posts) -
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

BambooBanger

What PS3 games, other than muli-plats, aren't in HD?

What PS3 games, other than multi-plats, are there ?

Oh c'mon.

Just look up any 1st party Sony title, it's not hard.

#13 Posted by PayDaMurdaMan (585 posts) -
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

crispytheone88

Agreed, this is very nitpicky, the fact remains, anything over 480p can be considered HD

as for tiling, the bandwidth of the 360 memory is so fast the tiling CAN be used with little effect on performance

Well actually 480i is SD and everything in between 480i and 720p is considered ED (enhanced definition). I agree though that this is nitpicking by a fanboy.
#14 Posted by ProductNumber49 (3840 posts) -

Wow. Gears,Lost Planet,Bioshock,are probally not 720 either.real45

OOOoo they are horrible games now :?

#15 Posted by pilotc (3986 posts) -
Where is your PROOF? Can I see a LINK? And how come Sega has virtual tennis at Native 1080p..and yes its native ...go look it up. There are plenty of games at true 720P..I call BS.
#16 Posted by the1stmoonfly (3293 posts) -
The ED ram is like 10 times fast than the normal ram, thats why its only 10meg. It was designed to do this and tiling isnt a problem but either way, games are looking good so I dont realy care.
#17 Posted by RonnieLottinSF (1474 posts) -
I can't tell the difference so you fail.
#18 Posted by Hoobinator (6899 posts) -
Must be why the PS3 version of COD4, (made by a separate and IW's best team) was in a sub-720p resolution. Looks like the problem is also inherent with the PS3.
#19 Posted by lordxymor (2438 posts) -

Most people can't tell the difference between 640p upscaled to 720p, 720p to 1080p or even native 720p and 1080p(which is almost twice the pixel count!). But bigger resolution certainly is better if you can have it for the same price.

Now what's the native resolution of Ps3 games? I highly doubt they are different from 360 games.

#20 Posted by haols (2348 posts) -
The "not native HD" resolutions have nothing to do with eRAM. It is simply that todays consoles are far too weak to properly display HD content.
This is hardly surprising, try to run good games on high resolution with a single 7800GT (Around the same level as the GPus of consoles), at 1920X1080 it wont be easy to get playable frames and lots of details.

Now of course consoles are different, it is easier to optimise for a closed box. However, optimising is just that, small tricks to run better, such tricks are never free of cost. There will always be a limit to what the consoles can and can't do. HD seems to be just on thet border.
#21 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
Must be why the PS3 version of COD4, (made by a separate and IW's best team) was in a sub-720p resolution. Looks like the problem is also inherent with the PS3.Hoobinator
I don't think inherent means what you think it means. I explained the connection between the eDRAM limitation and the few multi-plats on the PS3 that are not native HD in my original post.
#22 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -

Most people can't tell the difference between 640p upscaled to 720p, 720p to 1080p or even native 720p and 1080p(which is almost twice the pixel count!). But bigger resolution certainly is better if you can have it for the same price.

Now what's the native resolution of Ps3 games? I highly doubt they are different from 360 games.

lordxymor
No. PS3 games are in HD with the exception of COD4.
#23 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

BambooBanger

What PS3 games, other than muli-plats, aren't in HD?

What PS3 games, other than multi-plats, are there ?

Are you seriously that naive?
#24 Posted by Dreams-Visions (26569 posts) -
[QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

skektek

What PS3 games, other than muli-plats, aren't in HD?

But everything at a reasolutino above 600p is HD, is it not?

#25 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

Dreams-Visions

What PS3 games, other than muli-plats, aren't in HD?

But everything at a reasolutino above 600p is HD, is it not?

I'm not real sure what the technical cutoff is when not using standard resolutions.

480i is standard def, 480p is extended def, and 720p/1080p are hi def. The areas in the middle of those appear to be gray areas.

Probably best not to get too involved with the tags associated to them. The actual resolutions (i.e. 640p, 720p, etc) are more descriptive anyway.

#26 Posted by -RPGamer- (34283 posts) -
And yet the games look really good. Sure actual 720p would look better. Better enough to care? Not in my opinion.
#27 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="BambooBanger"]

I suppose the PS3's many "non-HD" games can be attributed to Peter Moore as well :roll:

The fact that games look above and beyond that of last-gen is enough for me.

Dreams-Visions

What PS3 games, other than muli-plats, aren't in HD?

But everything at a reasolutino above 600p is HD, is it not?

No. Anything between 480 and 720 would be considered EDTV. We can argue about how subjective the difference is but the point is that the target was a predefined standard that wasn't reached. I'm not saying its the end of the world or even a show stopper, I'm just pointing out the interesting turn of events.
#28 Posted by jangojay (4044 posts) -
At 1080p for some reason I get alot of frame rate issues with my xbox. There a alot of slow down in gear and a smaller but noticeable amount in halo. I had to turn it down to 720 =/. Should I get an elite?
#29 Posted by LoserMike (4915 posts) -

Uhh.... Sorry to burst your bubble but the GPU also has access to the 512MB of GDDR3 RAM that it shares with the rest of the system. The eDRAM like you mentioned is mainly used for anti-aliasing, z-buffering, and alpha-blending. The eDRAM isn't used for storing images.

The reason why many Xbox 360 games are kept at 640p is to keep framerates stable. As any PC gamer knows, the higher the resolution, the lower the framerate. This is more of a GPU/CPU/whole system RAM problem than just the eDRAM.

#30 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -

Uhh.... Sorry to burst your bubble but the GPU also has access to the 512MB of GDDR3 RAM that it shares with the rest of the system. The eDRAM like you mentioned is mainly used for anti-aliasing, z-buffering, and alpha-blending. The eDRAM isn't used for storing images.

The reason why many Xbox 360 games are kept at 640p is to keep framerates stable. As any PC gamer knows, the higher the resolution, the lower the framerate. This is more of a GPU/CPU/whole system RAM problem than just the eDRAM.

LoserMike
Did you even read my post? [QUOTE="SkekTek"]...The eDRAM is an embedded 10MB bank of DRAM with additional logic for post processing effects. It seemed like a win-win situation where developers could get "free" AA, DOF, motion blur, etc....

...*to be perfectly fair there is a two-fold benefit to using 640p as opposed to HD:.....it is simply less pixels for the hardware to have to push around...SkekTek
#31 Posted by Bdking57 (1320 posts) -

I hope you mean 1080P... 1080i looks worse then 720P in most cases. 1080P appears to have much less jaggies

It's very difficult to tell the difference between 640p and 720p. 1080i is king though, and after Christmas I'll be playing my 360 on a 42 inch 1080i TV._pulser_

#32 Posted by Mystery_Writer (7901 posts) -
where does madden fit in all this?
#33 Posted by Hoobinator (6899 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Must be why the PS3 version of COD4, (made by a separate and IW's best team) was in a sub-720p resolution. Looks like the problem is also inherent with the PS3.skektek
I don't think inherent means what you think it means. I explained the connection between the eDRAM limitation and the few multi-plats on the PS3 that are not native HD in my original post.

In your original post you suggest it's a case of the 360 holding the PS3 back. But I've clearly debunked this with the FACT that COD4 was made by a separate and IW's best team working solely on the PS3 version. So explain to me how the 360 is holding back the PS3?

I'll answer: It's not. There are plenty of games that look great and run at 720p on the 360. GRAW2 and GEOW are the two that spring to mind straight away.

#34 Posted by LoserMike (4915 posts) -
[QUOTE="LoserMike"]

Uhh.... Sorry to burst your bubble but the GPU also has access to the 512MB of GDDR3 RAM that it shares with the rest of the system. The eDRAM like you mentioned is mainly used for anti-aliasing, z-buffering, and alpha-blending. The eDRAM isn't used for storing images.

The reason why many Xbox 360 games are kept at 640p is to keep framerates stable. As any PC gamer knows, the higher the resolution, the lower the framerate. This is more of a GPU/CPU/whole system RAM problem than just the eDRAM.

skektek

Did you even read my post?
...The eDRAM is an embedded 10MB bank of DRAM with additional logic for post processing effects. It seemed like a win-win situation where developers could get "free" AA, DOF, motion blur, etc....SkekTek
...*to be perfectly fair there is a two-fold benefit to using 640p as opposed to HD:.....it is simply less pixels for the hardware to have to push around...SkekTek

Yeah, I read your first post:

The 10MB of eDRAM isn't large enough to store a 720p image, the largest image that can be stored is in a non-standard-sub-HD video mode dubbed "640p". skektek

My reponse is that the eDRAM isn't used to store images, the 512MB GDDR3 RAM is used to store images. The 512MB is shared, any part of the 360 can use it whether it is for graphics, sound, physics, or AI. Like one of the posters above mention, it isn't the eDRAM fault that the 360 can't perform 720p at stable framerates, it's the whole System fault. To perform 1080p a system would need 1GB of RAM at minimum.

#35 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Must be why the PS3 version of COD4, (made by a separate and IW's best team) was in a sub-720p resolution. Looks like the problem is also inherent with the PS3.Hoobinator

I don't think inherent means what you think it means. I explained the connection between the eDRAM limitation and the few multi-plats on the PS3 that are not native HD in my original post.

In your original post you suggest it's a case of the 360 holding the PS3 back. But I've clearly debunked this with the FACT that COD4 was made by a separate and IW's best team working solely on the PS3 version. So explain to me how the 360 is holding back the PS3?

I'll answer: It's not. There are plenty of games that look great and run at 720p on the 360. GRAW2 and GEOW are the two that spring to mind straight away.

I'm not sure how I can dumb it down any further... I honestly don't know what you fail to understand about lowest common denominator and multi platform. And why did bring up GRAW2 and GeOW? I didn't say nor imply that all 360 games are limited.
#36 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="LoserMike"]

Uhh.... Sorry to burst your bubble but the GPU also has access to the 512MB of GDDR3 RAM that it shares with the rest of the system. The eDRAM like you mentioned is mainly used for anti-aliasing, z-buffering, and alpha-blending. The eDRAM isn't used for storing images.

The reason why many Xbox 360 games are kept at 640p is to keep framerates stable. As any PC gamer knows, the higher the resolution, the lower the framerate. This is more of a GPU/CPU/whole system RAM problem than just the eDRAM.

LoserMike

Did you even read my post?
...The eDRAM is an embedded 10MB bank of DRAM with additional logic for post processing effects. It seemed like a win-win situation where developers could get "free" AA, DOF, motion blur, etc....SkekTek
...*to be perfectly fair there is a two-fold benefit to using 640p as opposed to HD:.....it is simply less pixels for the hardware to have to push around...SkekTek

Yeah, I read your first post:

The 10MB of eDRAM isn't large enough to store a 720p image, the largest image that can be stored is in a non-standard-sub-HD video mode dubbed "640p". skektek

My reponse is that the eDRAM isn't used to store images, the 512MB GDDR3 RAM is used to store images. The 512MB is shared, any part of the 360 can use it whether it is for graphics, sound, physics, or AI. Like one of the posters above mention, it isn't the eDRAM fault that the 360 can't perform 720p at stable framerates, it's the whole System fault. To perform 1080p a system would need 1GB of RAM at minimum.

Yes it is, the eDRAM is a frame buffer that stores the final image for post processing.
#37 Posted by Hoobinator (6899 posts) -
[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Must be why the PS3 version of COD4, (made by a separate and IW's best team) was in a sub-720p resolution. Looks like the problem is also inherent with the PS3.skektek

I don't think inherent means what you think it means. I explained the connection between the eDRAM limitation and the few multi-plats on the PS3 that are not native HD in my original post.

In your original post you suggest it's a case of the 360 holding the PS3 back. But I've clearly debunked this with the FACT that COD4 was made by a separate and IW's best team working solely on the PS3 version. So explain to me how the 360 is holding back the PS3?

I'll answer: It's not. There are plenty of games that look great and run at 720p on the 360. GRAW2 and GEOW are the two that spring to mind straight away.

I'm not sure how I can dumb it down any further... I honestly don't know what you fail to understand about lowest common denominator and multi platform. And why did bring up GRAW2 and GeOW? I didn't say nor imply that all 360 games are limited.

Are you simple? How can it be dumbed down when separate teams were working on the 360 and PS3 versions of COD4???? The team working on the PS3 was not porting, or bringing over anything from the 360 version. It was made and optimised according to only the PS3 hardware.

It's astonishing that you don't get it. The 360 and PS3 had separate development cycles, yet they both ended up being sub-720p resolutions. It goes to show that the problem also lies with the PS3.

If I can't simplify it any further for you then just think of the 360 and PS3 COD4 games as separate games, they were made separately.

And I brought up GEOW and GRAW2 to show that the EDRAM is not a hindrance when you've got great looking games on the system running at 720p and AA.

#38 Posted by Fumpa (3307 posts) -
Bummer for PS3 owners.
#39 Posted by farrell2k (5808 posts) -
[QUOTE="crispytheone88"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

PayDaMurdaMan

Agreed, this is very nitpicky, the fact remains, anything over 480p can be considered HD

as for tiling, the bandwidth of the 360 memory is so fast the tiling CAN be used with little effect on performance

Well actually 480i is SD and everything in between 480i and 720p is considered ED (enhanced definition). I agree though that this is nitpicking by a fanboy.

Nooooooo.

ED = 480 or 576 progressive.

HD = ANYTHING over 480 or 576, 720 and 1080 are just more comon HD resolutions.

@ TC. 640P is HD, whether you want to believe it or not.

#40 Posted by Heil68 (43465 posts) -
1080 is where its at.
#41 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]Must be why the PS3 version of COD4, (made by a separate and IW's best team) was in a sub-720p resolution. Looks like the problem is also inherent with the PS3.Hoobinator

I don't think inherent means what you think it means. I explained the connection between the eDRAM limitation and the few multi-plats on the PS3 that are not native HD in my original post.

In your original post you suggest it's a case of the 360 holding the PS3 back. But I've clearly debunked this with the FACT that COD4 was made by a separate and IW's best team working solely on the PS3 version. So explain to me how the 360 is holding back the PS3?

I'll answer: It's not. There are plenty of games that look great and run at 720p on the 360. GRAW2 and GEOW are the two that spring to mind straight away.

I'm not sure how I can dumb it down any further... I honestly don't know what you fail to understand about lowest common denominator and multi platform. And why did bring up GRAW2 and GeOW? I didn't say nor imply that all 360 games are limited.

Are you simple? How can it be dumbed down when separate teams were working on the 360 and PS3 versions of COD4???? The team working on the PS3 was not porting, or bringing over anything from the 360 version. It was made and optimised according to only the PS3 hardware.

It's astonishing that you don't get it. The 360 and PS3 had separate development cycles, yet they both ended up being sub-720p resolutions. It goes to show that the problem also lies with the PS3.

If I can't simplify it any further for you then just think of the 360 and PS3 COD4 games as separate games, they were made separately.

And I brought up GEOW and GRAW2 to show that the EDRAM is not a hindrance when you've got great looking games on the system running at 720p and AA.

Whoa, I'm going to back up for you. You are all over the place assuming things that I never said. The eDRAM does not allow for free effects. You must either A. use tiling which negates the point of the additional onboard logic in the eDRAM or B. reduce the resolution and clarity of the final product and upscale it. That is all I stated. I did not state that there are not other options such as precluding the eDRAM entirely and processing AA, DOF, etc traditionally (or taking the hit and use tiling). I did not state that good games (even HD games with AA, DOF, etc) could not be achieved using the later two techniques (if not others). As to COD4 360 vs COD4 PS3 development: obviously both teams had the same 640p target (again the lowest common denominator). A target that was set (either technically are arbitrarily) not coincidentally by a system with a history of using 640p as a target.
#42 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
[QUOTE="PayDaMurdaMan"][QUOTE="crispytheone88"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

farrell2k

Agreed, this is very nitpicky, the fact remains, anything over 480p can be considered HD

as for tiling, the bandwidth of the 360 memory is so fast the tiling CAN be used with little effect on performance

Well actually 480i is SD and everything in between 480i and 720p is considered ED (enhanced definition). I agree though that this is nitpicking by a fanboy.

Nooooooo.

ED = 480 or 576 progressive.

HD = ANYTHING over 480 or 576, 720 and 1080 are just more comon HD resolutions.

@ TC. 640P is HD, whether you want to believe it or not.

HD isn't an arbitrarily defined resolution it is a specifically defined standard for transmission and reception (ATSC).
#43 Posted by user_nat (3130 posts) -
So um.. just don't use the eDRAM then? How is that a liability.. its not like the competition has that to give it an advantage over the xbox.
#44 Posted by L1qu1dSword (2835 posts) -

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

mattbbpl

I have noticed many newer 360 titles go up to 1080p ( assuming you have HDMI). I agree that the difference here is extremely negligable and just looks like another desperate attempt by a cow. I mean if they can't get something better then this they just look bad.

#45 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -
So um.. just don't use the eDRAM then? How is that a liability.. its not like the competition has that to give it an advantage over the xbox.user_nat
The possibility of precluding the use of the eDRAM is discussed in the thread. It is a liability in the sense that if it is used resolution has to be sacrificed. It is also a liability in the sense that it opens the door for setting a bad precedent for development.
#46 Posted by user_nat (3130 posts) -

[QUOTE="user_nat"]So um.. just don't use the eDRAM then? How is that a liability.. its not like the competition has that to give it an advantage over the xbox.skektek
The possibility of precluding the use of the eDRAM is discussed in the thread. It is a liability in the sense that if it is used resolution has to be sacrificed. It is also a liability in the sense that it opens the door for setting a bad precedent for development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if what I think your saying is correct. Does that mean that very few games have actually used the eDRAM then. Because the vast majority of titles are 720p (or rarely higher). 600/640p titles are like.. Halo 3, PDZ, CoD4, TH:AW and the PGR games? (I'm sure there are probably a few others). So either 90% of 360 titles don't use the eDRAM or the eDRAM can be used for 720p. Or I'm completely wrong, which is an option I don't like :P

#47 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

I can't tell the difference between 640p and 720p unless I get down and look at two relatively large images side by side.

Most people can't tell and, hence, don't care. Shoot, the PS2's graphics were atrocious compared to both the Xbox and the Gamecube, yet it's still heralded as a great system.

L1qu1dSword

I have noticed many newer 360 titles go up to 1080p ( assuming you have HDMI). I agree that the difference here is extremely negligable and just looks like another desperate attempt by a cow. I mean if they can't get something better then this they just look bad.

Just for your own information (it might be beneficial to you, I don't know), but HDMI isn't a requirement for 1080p. HDMI basically just gives the consumer more stringent DRM, audio and video in one cable, and a richer color set.

#48 Posted by L1qu1dSword (2835 posts) -

[QUOTE="user_nat"]So um.. just don't use the eDRAM then? How is that a liability.. its not like the competition has that to give it an advantage over the xbox.skektek
The possibility of precluding the use of the eDRAM is discussed in the thread. It is a liability in the sense that if it is used resolution has to be sacrificed. It is also a liability in the sense that it opens the door for setting a bad precedent for development.

I think a bad precedent for development is the skimping of important gaming features like video ram by SONY in favor of pushing their NON-gaming interests down the throats of their once-massive fanbase. Blu-Ray is just flat out unnecsary. It drove the cost of the console way up while also causing it to lose out in additional technologies that would have given the company a better edge going into this battle. I'm sorry but 256mb of vid mem is just not enough for a console that costs as much as the PS3 has this generation.

Thankfully the people have spoken and SONY's arrogant treatment of fans has been noted and responded to by the consumer and SONY suffers. The companies that focus on the games are the ones that win. That's what made PS2 so great. That's what make 360 and Wii hands down better.

#49 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="user_nat"]So um.. just don't use the eDRAM then? How is that a liability.. its not like the competition has that to give it an advantage over the xbox.user_nat

The possibility of precluding the use of the eDRAM is discussed in the thread. It is a liability in the sense that if it is used resolution has to be sacrificed. It is also a liability in the sense that it opens the door for setting a bad precedent for development.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if what I think your saying is correct. Does that mean that very few games have actually used the eDRAM then. Because the vast majority of titles are 720p (or rarely higher). 600/640p titles are like.. Halo 3, PDZ, CoD4, TH:AW and the PGR games? (I'm sure there are probably a few others). So either 90% of 360 titles don't use the eDRAM or the eDRAM can be used for 720p. Or I'm completely wrong, which is an option I don't like :P

It would be my guess that the games that are sub-HD are using the eDRAM while games that are native HD are either using eDRAM with tiling or precluding the eDRAM entirely.
#50 Posted by skektek (5575 posts) -

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="user_nat"]So um.. just don't use the eDRAM then? How is that a liability.. its not like the competition has that to give it an advantage over the xbox.L1qu1dSword

The possibility of precluding the use of the eDRAM is discussed in the thread. It is a liability in the sense that if it is used resolution has to be sacrificed. It is also a liability in the sense that it opens the door for setting a bad precedent for development.

I think a bad precedent for development is the skimping of important gaming features like video ram by SONY in favor of pushing their NON-gaming interests down the throats of their once-massive fanbase. Blu-Ray is just flat out unnecsary. It drove the cost of the console way up while also causing it to lose out in additional technologies that would have given the company a better edge going into this battle. I'm sorry but 256mb of vid mem is just not enough for a console that costs as much as the PS3 has this generation.

Thankfully the people have spoken and SONY's arrogant treatment of fans has been noted and responded to by the consumer and SONY suffers. The companies that focus on the games are the ones that win. That's what made PS2 so great. That's what make 360 and Wii hands down better.

The PS3's RSX is a TurboCache GPU, it addresses both banks of 256MB memory. While the amount of available memory is less on the PS3 thanks to the bloated OS (which I personally think is stupid) it is not as low as you think it is.