John Carmack about Next Gen consoles Options

[Xbox-Scene]

John Carmack about Next Gen consoles -- Posted by XanTium on January 31 22:59 EST
Here's what John Carmack (ID co-founder) to PC Gamer UK Magazine (via next-gen.biz) about the Xbox 360:
[QUOTE]
Consoles vs. PC
"The difference between theoretical performance and real-world performance on the CPU level is growing fast. On, say, a regular Xbox, you can get very large fractions of theoretical performance with not a whole lot of effort. The PlayStation 2 was always a mess with the multiple processors on there, but the new generations, with Cell or the Xbox 360, make it much, much worse. They can quote these incredibly high numbers of giga-flops or tera-flops or whatever, but in reality, when you do a straightforward development process on them, they're significantly slower than a modern high-end PC."
"...The graphics systems are much better than that, though. Graphics have an inherent natural parallelism. The capabilities of the Xbox 360 and PS3 are really good on the graphics side -- although, not head or shoulders above any PC stuff that you can buy at a higher price-point."
[/QUOTE]

Read More: next-gen.biz

[trey85stang]

interesting take from carmack considereing he was praising the x360 on development not too long ago...

[prankfurter]

interesting take from carmack considereing he was praising the x360 on development not too long ago...

yeah i was thinking the same thing...

[Deftech]

read the entire article(which was posted in gaming), he still praises it and its why its still his lead platform for all projects.

[Sanitarium]

The whole multiple core angle is retarded IMO since none of the god damn developers know what to do with it. Yet M$ and Sony tought it as the second coming of Christ. I like Carmack because he doesn't bullshit you, he knows what these systems can and can't do and he isn't in some companies pocket so they can wield him like a puppet to fight the competition.

[m_hael]

They can quote these incredibly high numbers of giga-flops or tera-flops or whatever, but in reality, when you do a straightforward development process on them, they're significantly slower than a modern high-end PC

to properly develop for consoles you don't use a straightforward development process, you optimise for the hardware which often involves some massively convoluted processes in order to arrange data to leverage the hardware as it was intended.

[Foe-hammer]

Well, I believe this is rather old news. We all have heard that the 360 cpu it a bitch to program for, when compared to something simular like a pentium D (duel core). And the reason MS went with it was because of the theoretical yields at a fraction of the cost that a pentium D would have cost.

I, myself, beleive that sticking with pentium as their cpu (pentium D perferably) would have been a better way to go, but i see why they did not considering the cost and being able to own the cpu rights. I only can imagine how bad the 360 would have dominated the ps3 if they would have had a pentium D as their cpu.

to properly develop for consoles you don't use a straightforward development process, you optimise for the hardware which often involves some massively convoluted processes in order to arrange data to leverage the hardware as it was intended.

Good point.

[Deftech]

m_hael makes a good point, and seeing as Carmacks mind works like a pc, and not a next gen console, I think it will cause the man many migraines during game development . Still, it says a lot when such a person choses the 360. I hope because he thinks in pc dev terms, that the games overall arent held back in any way.

[Jason9875]

Well, I believe this is rather old news. We all have heard that the 360 cpu it a bitch to program for, when compared to something simular like a pentium D (duel core). And the reason MS went with it was because of the theoretical yields at a fraction of the cost that a pentium D would have cost.

I, myself, beleive that sticking with pentium as their cpu (pentium D perferably) would have been a better way to go, but i see why they did not considering the cost and being able to own the cpu rights. I only can imagine how bad the 360 would have dominated the ps3 if they would have had a pentium D as their cpu.
Good point.

Why would they go Intel?

AMD ALL THE WAY!

*insert rant on netburst, and craptastic design of the P4 here*

[trey85stang]

to properly develop for consoles you don't use a straightforward development process, you optimise for the hardware which often involves some massively convoluted processes in order to arrange data to leverage the hardware as it was intended.

Carmack writes code that is portable... he does not limit himself to one platform.

[Tobb555]

The PlayStation 2 was always a mess with the multiple processors on there

The PS2 had multiple processors?

[m_hael]

Carmack writes code that is portable... he does not limit himself to one platform.

hate to close you down but... portable code is slow... period.

Carmack does NOT write portable code, he writes in a algorithmically optimal manner for a PC DX based environment...

The PS2 had multiple processors?

yes it did... the whole system is a series of different units all jammed together... main cpu, vector units & an iop that emulated psx.

This post has been edited by m_hael: Feb 1 2006, 06:25 AM

[Foe-hammer]

Why would they go Intel?

AMD ALL THE WAY!

*insert rant on netburst, and craptastic design of the P4 here*

Agree, the AMD 64 duel core is a beast of a cpu for gaming.

[miggidy]

I guess that's why Quake 4 on the X360 runs at 30 fps at best

[assmonkey]

yeah they should go with an amd or intell.But i guess they want to make a unique console instead of a pc.