Support NeoGAF

[USC-fan]

*Snip*

After all that we still dont have a fucking clue to what MS is talking about .

 

[guch20]

Laughing at my jokes. I'm a big cheese around these parts. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Omg you're the funniest person on the Earth! Non-Junior me please!

 

[CLEEK]

I was not aware that DF had a reputation to shit up in the first place. Richard Leadbetter is well known for being a blatant MS and 360 fanboy and because of this almost all of their cross-platform 360 Versus PS3 game comparisons were unreadable biased trash.

This is simply not true. The reason most DF Face Offs favoured the 360, is the 360 versions usually outperformed the PS3 versions. But in the times when the PS3 version was better, DF clearly states so. And you will see Leadbetter gush over the tech behind Naughty Dog, Guerilla Games or Santa Monica games, and happy conclude that games like TLoU are the very pinnacle of tech this gen.

 

[Skenzin]

After months of possible good Xbox One hardware news I refuse to believe another secret hardware boost originating from an internet source. The whole things is just getting depressing at this point. I'll wait to here performance leaks from multiplatform devs around early Oct. Then we will hear game X is having trouble getting decent framerate from system Y. Until dev houses start to fine tune performance on these systems around launch windows, we don't know how weak or powerful One will be.

 

[Gestault]

I'm sorry I don't follow what your example was supposed to show and how it relates to the 88%. Feel free to elaborate?

Yes, 5 apples is 50% of 10 apples. Yes, 5 apples is 50% less than 10 apples. While 10 apples is a 100% increase in apples from 5 apples. We've had this song and dance before around the difference in FLOPS. What is that supposed to show with regard to these numbers?

We know 192 is 88% more than 102. What people are seemingly querying is why is the new figure 192. A doubling, i.e. a 100% increase, would be 204.

What exactly are you trying to say with your example?

EDIT: I see you edited. No 10 apples is not 50% more than 5 apples, when using the original amount as a base. It is 100% more apples than 5 apples.

I didn't change a dot of text with regard to the numbers. You read it wrong, based on your accusation. Let's look at my original words:

If they're saying they discovered that they can read/write simultaneously when previously they had assumed they could only do one or the other (so firmware/tools would have been set up with that assumption), wouldn't the roughly doubling of memory transfer speed (simultaneous reading/writing compared to sequential) via the eSRAM/DDR3 combination account for an 88% (if not more) theoretical bump in memory performance?

To clarify, they're saying they discovered that the eSRAM/DDR3 combination can read and write simultaneously. This creates an effective doubling the memory rate, which would be a 100% increase in speed, assuming no inefficiency. Inefficiency could amount to 12% when they allow for some basic variables. Much lower the more that's accounted for. But a number ~88% is not a crazy one, unless there's something about this I'm missing.

My comment was directly in response to people saying the idea of finding an additional 88% of memory efficiency was preposterous. You may have dragged an unrelated topic into it, I'm not sure.

I made clear to say this was based on a rudimentary examination of the ideas, and I'd like someone with more advanced knowledge of the memory tech to address it. You, with respect, are having difficulty even grasping the numbers and are hung up on ego and minutia. Your assumption that I've modified the numbers because they now appear accurate to you is an indication of that. I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm confident my basics are correct.

 

[guch20]

I was not aware that DF had a reputation to shit up in the first place. Richard Leadbetter is well known for being a blatant MS and 360 fanboy and because of this almost all of their cross-platform 360 Versus PS3 game comparisons were unreadable biased trash.

Is he really known to be biased or is that just something people accuse him of because his job kinda puts him in those crosshairs.

Not an accusation against you or anyone else, mind you. It's just that back before Microsoft shit the bed with Xbone, I never really had a favorite console, but had often been accused anyway, simply for stating the ugly truth.

I guess I'm asking for examples.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

- People also found out that specialguy is Rangers from B3D, not that it means much tbh.

It means quite a lot. The guy is a huge fanboy. He is partial. And yet he says he hears 'things', just to gain more credibility of the stuff he says.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I didn't change a dot of text with regard to the numbers. You read it wrong, based on your accusation. Let's look at my original words:

To clarify, they're saying they discovered that the eSRAM/DDR3 combination can read and write simultaneously. This creates an effective doubling the memory rate, which would be a 100% increase in speed, assuming no inefficiency. That inefficiency could amount to 12% when they allow for some basic variables. Much lower the more that's accounted for.

My comment was directly in response to people saying the idea of finding an additional 88% of memory efficiency was preposterous. You may have dragged an unrelated topic into it, I'm not sure.

I made clear to say this was based on a rudimentary examination of the ideas, and I'd like someone with more advanced knowledge of the memory tech to address it. You, with respect, are having difficulty even grasping the numbers and are hung up on ego and minutia. Your assumption that I've modified the numbers because they now appear accurate to you is an indication of that. I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm confident my basics are correct.

The statement I commented on was this:

"If I have 5 apples and I double my apples to 10, it's a 100% increase in apples but also only 50% more apples when compared to the original amount."

Which was and is inaccurate.

I didn't say you modified your numbers, I said you edited in your same inaccurate statement again.

This isn't minutiae, it's basics. I'm having no difficulty grasping your numbers. They're simply wrong.

Your example is odd. If you're simply saying that some 12% is lost in some mysterious fashion (on a theoretical maximum - which would be odd as it's supposed to be a theoretical maximum ignoring inefficiencies, as a real world performance number is given at 133GB/s as noted below), then I have no idea what your comment on apples is supposed to imply, as it seemed to say that people were misinterpreting the mathematics that arrive at 88%; that the 88% and a 100% improvement could be viewed as the same depending upon the starting point.

 

[CLEEK]

I didn't change a dot of text. You read it wrong, based on your accusation. Let's look at my original words:

To clarify, they're saying upon discovering that the eSRAM/DDR3 combination can read and write simultaneously. This creates an effective doubling the memory rate, which would be a 100% increase in speed, assuming no inefficiency. That inefficiency could amount to 12% when they allow for some basic variables. Much lower the more that's accounted for.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the original article and claims.

Theoretical maximums by their very nature do not factor in inefficacies. Hence the article saying real world improvements (e.g. factoring in inefficacies) was 133GB/s.

The valid point everyone keep making is if MS have found out a way to double the bandwidth of the ESRAM, that new figure would be exactly twice that (100% increase) of the initial 102GB/s theoretical max. But it's not, it's 88% increase, or 1.92x more. The figures just don't add up.

I think that DF just jumped the gun and wrote an article before they had clarified the finer details (and the audience for DF articles are all about the finer details). I don't believe that MS are lying, or have fabricated numbers, or even that this confirms a downclock. MS (or a dev privy to the info) just need to clarify the maths behind it.

 

[I2amza]

I didn't change a dot of text with regard to the numbers. You read it wrong, based on your accusation. Let's look at my original words:



To clarify, they're saying they discovered that the eSRAM/DDR3 combination can read and write simultaneously. This creates an effective doubling the memory rate, which would be a 100% increase in speed, assuming no inefficiency. Inefficiency could amount to 12% when they allow for some basic variables. Much lower the more that's accounted for. But a number ~88% is not a crazy one, unless there's something about this I'm missing.

My comment was directly in response to people saying the idea of finding an additional 88% of memory efficiency was preposterous. You may have dragged an unrelated topic into it, I'm not sure.

I made clear to say this was based on a rudimentary examination of the ideas, and I'd like someone with more advanced knowledge of the memory tech to address it. You, with respect, are having difficulty even grasping the numbers and are hung up on ego and minutia. Your assumption that I've modified the numbers because they now appear accurate to you is an indication of that. I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm confident my basics are correct.

The inefficiencies are already accounted for in the 133 GB/s. That is the realistic scenario. Theoretical numbers normally go for best number possible without taking any other negatives into the scenario, that's why it's theoretically the max number which is impossible to achieve in the real world.

 

[beast786]

After all that we still dont have a fucking clue to what MS is talking about .

It's the new family plan

 

[beast786]

A recap of this thread:

- DF link for "X1 eSRAM performance increase by 88%"

- 1st couple pages of people saying good news, and others asking if it makes it better than PS4, and even some saying "CBOAT fail" - CBOAT Fail

- Some members finding that the math is wrong and in conclusion = Downclock!

- Same members stating that the DF article is pure PR from MS

- Finding out that DF's source is MS directly (pure speculation imo) due to a Tweet. Tweet Image

- At the same time we had people not knowing the movie Spaceballs............

- Oldergamer kept pulling stuff out of his arse and when asked for proof, he kept refusing and his answer was always: "It's just a simple google search away!". Needless to say it didn't go too well for him. And let's not forget this golden post here:



- Ultimatums to Oldergamer by Bish:
Ultimatum 1
Ultimatum 2
Ultimatum 3

- People also found out that specialguy is Rangers from B3D, not that it means much tbh.

- Meanwhile we had some members rambling about the cloud, cloud size, cloud cost, cloud etc....

- Then some members had a persecution breakdown of some sort and believed all of GAF was against them.

- Afterwards people started arguing about full console specs with some stating that the specs were not finalized or it's all about games (in a tech analysis thread...) and also started comparing PS3 and 360 once again.

- Then we started comparing E3 showings of Infamous SS and Forza 4. With Hawk269 saying he played the game at E3 without showing proof. The problem is that according to many, the game was not playable for anyone. Guess now he has more time for his "special showings". Here is Bish's cease and desist: Send me credentials naoooo!

Yep. This has been a pretty damn good thread so far.

LMAO

Should be in OP

 

[coldone]

Like you pointed out. Several other gaffers also been saying the same. But hey.. where is the fun in waiting for MS to answer. We need to fight it out .

All said, this is really a cool thread. I got to see a lot of new arch diagrams that weren't publicly posted else where.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the original article and claims.

Theoretical maximums by their very nature do not factor in inefficacies. Hence the article saying real world improvements (e.g. factoring in inefficacies) was 133GB/s.

The valid point everyone keep making is if MS have found out a way to double the bandwidth of the ESRAM, that new figure would be exactly twice that (100% increase) of the initial 102GB/s theoretical max. But it's not, it's 88% increase, or 1.92x more. The figures just don't add up.

I think that DF just jumped the gun and wrote an article before they had clarified the finer details (and the audience for DF articles are all about the finer details). I don't believe that MS are lying, or have fabricated numbers, or even that this confirms a downclock. MS (or a dev privy to the info) just need to clarify the maths behind it.

 

[fastford58]

A recap of this thread:

- DF link for "X1 eSRAM performance increase by 88%"

- 1st couple pages of people saying good news, and others asking if it makes it better than PS4, and even some saying "CBOAT fail" - CBOAT Fail

- Some members finding that the math is wrong and in conclusion = Downclock!

- Same members stating that the DF article is pure PR from MS

- Finding out that DF's source is MS directly (pure speculation imo) due to a Tweet. Tweet Image

- At the same time we had people not knowing the movie Spaceballs............

- Oldergamer kept pulling stuff out of his arse and when asked for proof, he kept refusing and his answer was always: "It's just a simple google search away!". Needless to say it didn't go too well for him. And let's not forget this golden post here:



- Ultimatums to Oldergamer by Bish:
Ultimatum 1
Ultimatum 2
Ultimatum 3

- People also found out that specialguy is Rangers from B3D, not that it means much tbh.

- Meanwhile we had some members rambling about the cloud, cloud size, cloud cost, cloud etc....

- Then some members had a persecution breakdown of some sort and believed all of GAF was against them.

- Afterwards people started arguing about full console specs with some stating that the specs were not finalized or it's all about games (in a tech analysis thread...) and also started comparing PS3 and 360 once again.

- Then we started comparing E3 showings of Infamous SS and Forza 4. With Hawk269 saying he played the game at E3 without showing proof. The problem is that according to many, the game was not playable for anyone. Guess now he has more time for his "special showings". Here is Bish's cease and desist: Send me credentials naoooo!

Yep. This has been a pretty damn good thread so far.

Nice! We need someone to do this with every epic thread.

 

[I2amza]

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the original article and claims.

Theoretical maximums by their very nature do not factor in inefficacies. Hence the article saying real world improvements (e.g. factoring in inefficacies) was 133GB/s.

The valid point everyone keep making is if MS have found out a way to double the bandwidth of the ESRAM, that new figure would be exactly twice that (100% increase) of the initial 102GB/s theoretical max. But it's not, it's 88% increase, or 1.92x more. The figures just don't add up.

I think that DF just jumped the gun and wrote an article before they had clarified the finer details (and the audience for DF articles are all about the finer details). I don't believe that MS are lying, or have fabricated numbers, or even that this confirms a downclock. MS (or a dev privy to the info) just need to clarify the maths behind it.

I also think DF jumped the gun, and it's biting them in the ass right now. There is no guarantee that MS/Dev will clarify at all, so I believe that DF is stuck with this black mark from now on.

 

[bobbytkc]

I also think DF jumped the gun, and it's biting them in the ass right now. There is no guarantee that MS/Dev will clarify at all, so I believe that DF is stuck with this black mark from now on.

I think Digital Foundry, for a website that is well known for technical analysis, just reported a rumour without understanding how they calculated the theoretical maximum, really did themselves no favours there. I mean, where is the analysis? The critical thinking?

 

[Templar_Dante]

I think Digital Foundry, for a website that is well known for technical analysis, just reported a rumour without understanding how they calculated the theoretical maximum, really did themselves no favours there. I mean, where is the analysis? The critical thinking?

This is what Im thinking. ^.I was hoping they would be pressed into questioning their source and getting a response from them (MS) due to such an outcry for answers.

 

[jaypah]

I have enjoyed this. Memories of ps1, dreamcast and blue shadows.

Whoa, Gamefan?

 

[Dlacy13g]

Nice! We need someone to do this with every epic thread.

I think we need someone to do this every 10 pages or so on this thread alone!

 

[coldfoot]

Theoretical maximums by their very nature do not factor in inefficacies. Hence the article saying real world improvements (e.g. factoring in inefficacies) was 133GB/s.

That's also only in a certain "real world" case. Not in all cases. I don't know how often that case would come up such that you'd use the entire 32MB ESRAM for it.

 

[Respawn]

A recap of this thread:

- DF link for "X1 eSRAM performance increase by 88%"

- 1st couple pages of people saying good news, and others asking if it makes it better than PS4, and even some saying "CBOAT fail" - CBOAT Fail

- Some members finding that the math is wrong and in conclusion = Downclock!

- Same members stating that the DF article is pure PR from MS

- Finding out that DF's source is MS directly (pure speculation imo) due to a Tweet. Tweet Image

- At the same time we had people not knowing the movie Spaceballs............

- Oldergamer kept pulling stuff out of his arse and when asked for proof, he kept refusing and his answer was always: "It's just a simple google search away!". Needless to say it didn't go too well for him. And let's not forget this golden post here:



- Ultimatums to Oldergamer by Bish:
Ultimatum 1
Ultimatum 2
Ultimatum 3

- People also found out that specialguy is Rangers from B3D, not that it means much tbh.

- Meanwhile we had some members rambling about the cloud, cloud size, cloud cost, cloud etc....

- Then some members had a persecution breakdown of some sort and believed all of GAF was against them.

- Afterwards people started arguing about full console specs with some stating that the specs were not finalized or it's all about games (in a tech analysis thread...) and also started comparing PS3 and 360 once again.

- Then we started comparing E3 showings of Infamous SS and Forza 4. With Hawk269 saying he played the game at E3 without showing proof. The problem is that according to many, the game was not playable for anyone. Guess now he has more time for his "special showings". Here is Bish's cease and desist: Send me credentials naoooo!

Yep. This has been a pretty damn good thread so far.

Thanks for the recap sir. Couldn't read through all this

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

What happened to HawkEye? Did his credentials pass the Bish inspection?

 

[I2amza]

That's also only in a certain "real world" case. Not in all cases. I don't know how often that case would come up such that you'd use the entire 32MB ESRAM for it.

Wouldn't devs just use the entire 32 MB as a frame buffer just like in the 360?

 

[MrPink93485]

What happened to HawkEye? Did his credentials pass the Bish inspection?

Failed.

Hawk269
Banned

 

[I2amza]

What happened to HawkEye? Did his credentials pass the Bish inspection?

Hawk269
Banned

His credentials were from his arse seems like.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Failed.

Hawk269
Banned

Haha oh man this thread has been amazing

 

[Averon]

What happened to HawkEye? Did his credentials pass the Bish inspection?

Got banned, which is funny because he could have argued his points using gameplay videos from Youtube or other sources. Lying about something that can be easily refuted is dumb. Why lie about something as silly as that?

 

[phosphor112]

Got banned, which is funny because he could have argued his points using gameplay videos from Youtube or other sources. Lying about something that can be easily refuted is dumb. Why lie about something as silly as that?

Console Wars bruh. Makes people insane.

 

[TrueBlueHero]

I think that DF just jumped the gun and wrote an article before they had clarified the finer details (and the audience for DF articles are all about the finer details). I don't believe that MS are lying, or have fabricated numbers, or even that this confirms a downclock. MS (or a dev privy to the info) just need to clarify the maths behind it.

That. There's obviously information missing.

 

[I2amza]

Console Wars bruh. Makes people insane.

Yeah. This is my first console launch with GAF and it has been nuts so far.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is simply not true. The reason most DF Face Offs favoured the 360, is the 360 versions usually outperformed the PS3 versions. But in the times when the PS3 version was better, DF clearly states so. And you will see Leadbetter gush over the tech behind Naughty Dog, Guerilla Games or Santa Monica games, and happy conclude that games like TLoU are the very pinnacle of tech this gen.

There is no way you can read the FFXIII 360 vs PS3 Versus that DF/Leadbetter did and actually believe what you just wrote.

I won't even demand that you Google it yourself like oldgamer. I'll link it for you:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off

 

[Deviation]

I was not aware that DF had a reputation to shit up in the first place. Richard Leadbetter is well known for being a blatant MS and 360 fanboy and because of this almost all of their cross-platform 360 Versus PS3 game comparisons were unreadable biased trash.

The best part of his cross-platform versus threads were where he'd refuse to match gamma on the two consoles and constantly refer to the PS3 version of the game as being washed out.

It got even better when he tried to tell everyone that setting the PS3 to RGB Full Range didn't do anything.

I mean, obviously, the 360 is going to look better for most third party titles because it's a simpler architecture with a more powerful GPU. But that wasn't enough for Leadbetter.

 

[Bornstellar]

Got banned, which is funny because he could have argued his points using gameplay videos from Youtube or other sources. Lying about something that can be easily refuted is dumb. Why lie about something as silly as that?

Maybe he wasn't lying but didn't want to out himself? Getting banned is better than losing your job.

Speaking of cred, have CBOAT's credentials ever been verified?

 

[astraycat]

Yeah. This is my first console launch with GAF and it has been nuts so far.

I really wish we could tag users so I can keep track of these warriors.

It's been a gloriously entertaining thread.

 

[CouldBeWorse]

There is no way you can read the FFXIII 360 vs PS3 Versus that DF/Leadbetter did and actually believe what you just wrote.

When it starts with this:

The rumours are true. Final Fantasy XIII on Xbox 360 isn't anywhere near as impressive as it is on PlayStation 3. The real kicker is that it's a lot worse than it should have been.

I'm not sure if that's a great example to prove your point.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When it starts with this:



I'm not sure if that's a great example to prove your point.

If you're going to try and disprove my point with the entire first paragraph of the article and not read the rest of it, you're definitely a real winner.

Could be worse, I suppose. You could have tried to disprove it using only the article's title!

 

[CouldBeWorse]

Maybe he wasn't lying but didn't want to out himself? Getting banned is better than losing your job.

Speaking of cred, has CBOAT's credentials ever been verified?

I actually thought about this for a second but I have to believe that bish would have handled it differently if that was the case.

My money is on Gamestop Buyer best case, but most likely he was a Store Manager.

 

[graywolf323]

Maybe he wasn't lying but didn't want to out himself? Getting banned is better than losing your job.

Speaking of cred, has CBOAT's credentials ever been verified?

John Ricciardi (johntv) has said he knows who CBOAT is and trusts his information (IIRC from when he brought him up on 8-4 Play before E3)

also didn't Bish say he did get a PM from HawkEye and was awaiting further details? that doesn't suggest that HawkEye wasn't willing to out himself

 

[i-Lo]

Maybe he wasn't lying but didn't want to out himself? Getting banned is better than losing your job.

Speaking of cred, has CBOAT's credentials ever been verified?

Some stupendous reaching here.

 

[miDnIghtEr20C]

A recap of this thread:

- DF link for "X1 eSRAM performance increase by 88%"

- 1st couple pages of people saying good news, and others asking if it makes it better than PS4, and even some saying "CBOAT fail" - CBOAT Fail

- Some members finding that the math is wrong and in conclusion = Downclock!

- Same members stating that the DF article is pure PR from MS

- Finding out that DF's source is MS directly (pure speculation imo) due to a Tweet. Tweet Image

- At the same time we had people not knowing the movie Spaceballs............

- Oldergamer kept pulling stuff out of his arse and when asked for proof, he kept refusing and his answer was always: "It's just a simple google search away!". Needless to say it didn't go too well for him. And let's not forget this golden post here:



- Ultimatums to Oldergamer by Bish:
Ultimatum 1
Ultimatum 2
Ultimatum 3

- People also found out that specialguy is Rangers from B3D, not that it means much tbh.

- Meanwhile we had some members rambling about the cloud, cloud size, cloud cost, cloud etc....

- Then some members had a persecution breakdown of some sort and believed all of GAF was against them.

- Afterwards people started arguing about full console specs with some stating that the specs were not finalized or it's all about games (in a tech analysis thread...) and also started comparing PS3 and 360 once again.

- Then we started comparing E3 showings of Infamous SS and Forza 4. With Hawk269 saying he played the game at E3 without showing proof. The problem is that according to many, the game was not playable for anyone. Guess now he has more time for his "special showings". Here is Bish's cease and desist: Send me credentials naoooo!

Yep. This has been a pretty damn good thread so far.

Ha ha... Great recap. Loved this part..

- At the same time we had people not knowing the movie Spaceballs............

 

[CouldBeWorse]

If you're going to try and disprove my point with the entire first paragraph of the article and not read the rest of it, you're definitely a real winner.

Could be worse, I suppose. You could have tried to disprove it using only the article's title!

I'm actually reading it now because it's a great trip down memory lane, but as oldergamer reminded all of us, the onus is on YOU to prove YOUR point, not on me to disprove it. I'm through the first page and he's pretty much outright bashing the 360 version.

 

[lwilliams3]

Haha oh man this thread has been amazing

What is even going on in this thread now? It is crazy on how a thread that should have been positive for XB1 ended up backfiring due to the unexplained math to get the "buffed" numbers leading to a possible GPU downclock. Someone didn't planned this too well

 

[graywolf323]

When it starts with this:



I'm not sure if that's a great example to prove your point.

I think his point is summed up by the top rated comment

"what about the worse textures, lighting and missing self-shadowing? man he tries so hard to downplay the ps3 version,this article is all about how the 360 version could have been better and not the actual differences"

 

[CLEEK]

There is no way you can read the FFXIII 360 vs PS3 Versus that DF/Leadbetter did and actually believe what you just wrote.

I won't even demand that you Google it yourself like oldgamer. I'll link it for you:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off

Holy fuck, wat? This is quite possibly the most insane post in this entire thread. Which is a pretty major achievement.

You were claiming the DF were unreliable 360 fanboys - a point I refuted - and your proof of their pro-360, anti-PS3 bias is a Face Off that spends 3 pages slating the rubbish 360 version, and categorically saying the original PS3 version is better.

Xbox 360 version was being reported as 1024x576, with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. This is up against native 720p on the original PlayStation 3 version, again with the same 2x level of MSAA, representing a fairly enormous drop of around a third of the overall resolution. So, are the stories about a reduced resolution on FFXIII 360 true? You betcha.

However, by just about every measurable criteria, it seems that the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII is a quick port where the existing PS3 material has been very roughly manhandled and bludgeoned into shape in order to work on the Microsoft console.

[QUOTE="Digital Foundry]More than that, as the alpha-to-coverage effect is now rendered at sub-HD resolutions, the process of resizing it to 720p makes it look a whole lot worse. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Digital Foundry]The results in Final Fantasy XIII aren't up to snuff - frankly, the encoding looks amateurish. To give some idea of how this all fares in motion, here's the final comparison video, showing the same scenes from FFXIII running on Xbox 360 and on PS3, in 720p mode.

So, occasionally fine, sometimes grim: a statement that effectively sums up how much of Final Fantasy XIII looks on Xbox 360 when compared to the PlayStation 3 game, meaning that if you own both consoles, there really is only one choice when it comes to the purchasing decision. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Digital Foundry]But bearing in mind that Oli Welsh's Eurogamer review is based on the superior PS3 build[/QUOTE]

 

[travisbickle]

The best part of his cross-platform versus threads were where he'd refuse to match gamma on the two consoles and constantly refer to the PS3 version of the game as being washed out.

It got even better when he tried to tell everyone that setting the PS3 to RGB Full Range didn't do anything.

I mean, obviously, the 360 is going to look better for most third party titles because it's a simpler architecture with a more powerful GPU. But that wasn't enough for Leadbetter.

What? Changing this rocked my world on the PS3. InFamous in particular looked better after setting it.

I actually thought the DF comparisons were taken in such away that full hdmi couldn't be captured, and the image being "washed out" was a consequence of this capturing technique.

 

[Majanew]

If you're going to try and disprove my point with the entire first paragraph of the article and not read the rest of it, you're definitely a real winner.

Could be worse, I suppose. You could have tried to disprove it using only the article's title!

Am I supposed to read that like a fanboy with an agenda? Looks like the PS3 has the advantage in that comparison with the 360 version having a better frame-rate.

 

[CLEEK]

I actually thought the DF comparisons were taken in such away that full hdmi couldn't be captured, and the image being "washed out" was a consequence of this capturing technique.

MS shift the gamma on the 360, so that it looks richer. So if you have a display with the same calibration, the PS3 will look less vivid than the 360. The PS3 will have 'correct' gamma.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-hdmi?page=3

Quite why this happens is something we were uncertain about before a kindly developer clued us in. From what we've learned this week, it appears that this ramping up of the gamma is actually deliberate on Microsoft's part. The actual reason it is in place on the Xbox 360 is because Microsoft believe that it looks better on the average TV. Bearing in mind the breadth of displays available and how they are typically so badly calibrated when you buy them (brightness and contrast are often ramped up in order to make them stand out on the shop floor), we can't help but think that this is a call that the developer should make.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Holy fuck, wat? This is quite possibly the most insane post in this entire thread. Which is a pretty major achievement.

You were claiming the DF were unreliable 360 fanboys - a point I refuted - and your proof is a Face Off that spends 3 pages slating the rubbish 360 version, and categorically saying the original PS3 version is better.

Wow, great job of precisely cherry-picking around the parts where Leadbetter praises the 360 for being in his opinion technically better and blaming Squenix for a shoddy port:

Built from the ground upwards with an eye towards the storage limitation of the disc, and with the different architectures of the two HD consoles firmly in mind, Square Enix would have stood a good chance of getting the game looking pretty much like-for-like on both platforms. However, by just about every measurable criteria, it seems that the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII is a quick port where the existing PS3 material has been very roughly manhandled and bludgeoned into shape in order to work on the Microsoft console.

Unfortunately, the resolution reduction here seems to be all about converting across the PS3 engine as quickly and easily as possible, and that means accessing as much of the console's power with the lowest amount of aggravation. That being the case, it looks as though Square Enix was keen to maintain the entire framebuffer within the Xbox 360's 10MB eDRAM for optimum processing speed without the need to "tile" multiples of that 10MB into main RAM.

The thing is, running in that single tile of eDRAM, Square-Enix has almost limitless bandwidth and enormous levels of fill-rate at its disposal. So it is extremely disappointing to note that the alpha-to-coverage interlace-style effect on the characters' hair remains in the Xbox 360 game.

This has to be my favorite line in this article. "Why you no use THE LIMITLESS BANDWIDTH AND ENORMOUS LEVELS OF FILL-RATE OF EDRAM, Squenix?!?!"

Introduced on PS3 presumably in order to address the bandwidth deficiency of the RSX, the fact that it has been retained on Xbox 360 in a scenario where this effect should have been easily replaced with a more conventional alpha test technique for handling transparencies is frankly puzzling.

To illustrate the improvements Xbox 360 brings to the table such as they are, here's a selection of clips put through frame-rate analysis. You'll see that while both versions can drop frames, it is the Xbox 360 version that is undoubtedly smoother on average. Minimum frame-rate is 26FPS on 360, and 20FPS on PS3. It's interesting to note that the character close-ups are seemingly no problem for the 360: 30FPS is maintained while PS3 struggles.

This has to be my favorite section of this shitstain of an article. Even though the 360 is running at a lower resolution, OMG the framerate is sometimes a little better during an in-game cutscene and I'm going to highlight this portion in a huge paragraph even though later on in the game during the open-world Gran Pulse gameplay section the framerate has been confirmed to be worse on the 360 than on PS3!

The tragedy here is that the CG is a core part of the presentation in FFXIII and it seems to be the case that the company has paid little attention to the poor quality of the final assets on the Xbox 360 version. The Microsoft XDK ships with a VC1 decoder, giving it the ability to playback video files encoded using technology supported by Blu-ray discs and players. Indeed, movie pirates out there get excellent quality VC1 encodes of Blu-ray movies that manage to fit onto a dual-layer DVD and run from the Xbox 360 dashboard.

This part is funny just because of the death of HD DVD and the fall of VC1 into disuse afterwards. I'll leave it here for posterity, as it's more or less a neutral comment.

Failing that, there are any number of h264 decoders out there that could be licensed and ported to the Microsoft console. The bottom line is that if FMV is so crucial to your game, and the storage on offer is limited, care needs to be taken so that every byte of available space makes a difference.

Here's Leadbetter providing advice to Squenix about how to spend their money. As if Squenix could not have done their own math and decided to (infamously) use Bink video instead of a more advanced codec for FFXIII on 360. It sure would have been nice if MS included an H.264 decoder in the XDK, instead of a codec that by this point was no longer used in BD movies.

However, with Crystal Tools set to become the in-house engine for future Square products, you can help but hope for more time to be spent improving the Xbox 360 rendition of the engine, and if the company wants to rely so much on streamed video sequences, clearly there are some very obvious lessons to be learned from the Final Fantasy XIII experience.

And I'm done here.

Your move, SPE.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Maybe he wasn't lying but didn't want to out himself? Getting banned is better than losing your job.

Speaking of cred, have CBOAT's credentials ever been verified?

Mods don't make those information public. And CBOAT has leaked checkable information, there is no need for a "verification" because everyone can do it themself.

The best part of his cross-platform versus threads were where he'd refuse to match gamma on the two consoles and constantly refer to the PS3 version of the game as being washed out.

It got even better when he tried to tell everyone that setting the PS3 to RGB Full Range didn't do anything.

I mean, obviously, the 360 is going to look better for most third party titles because it's a simpler architecture with a more powerful GPU. But that wasn't enough for Leadbetter.

I hate when reviewers do that. Absolutely destroys all their credibility.

 

[CLEEK]

Your move, SPE.

Absolutely mental.

The eDRAM on the 360 has more bandwidth than the VRAM on the PS3. Leadbetter was complaining that the port didn't use this advantage.

Face Offs always have frame rate tests. This was the only area the 360 version was better that the PS3 version.

The rest, well, just mental. OMG.