Top game developers working on the PS3 have dismissed the recent claims from web news site, The Inquirer, as “entirely meaningless” and “misleading and uninformed” according to a report on GamesIndustry.biz. The claims of poor triangle performance by the Inquirer, while they may be technically true, are difficult to compare without knowing the types of tests that were run and the environment that they were run against. In the PC world, raw triangle count can only give the barest idea of performance, and according to the developers that GamesIndustry.biz talked to, “the PlayStation 2 had better tri performance than the Xbox, on paper” but “everyone knows that the Xbox was more powerful at running real games.”

Tackling the issue of the 16Mb/sec “local memory” figure, again, the developers claimed that the specification was true, but without the true context of what was being talked about. According to the report, every “developer concurred that the slide in question was referring to local memory on the RSX,” meaning that the memory access path from the Cell processor to the local RSX memory is slow. One developer stated, “it’s a total non-issue. You never, ever need to access that memory from the Cell…” Mostly, developers have found that the PS3 “was a challenge to work on… but every new platform takes a while to get used to…early PS2 games…were a real nightmare.”

Unfortunately, the developers quoted did not want to be named, for fear of NDA violations, but the quotes certainly seem to make more sense than the claims that The Inquirer was making. Certainly, there haven’t been developers lining up to bash the Playstation 3, most have been public about the performance of the hardware have been on the positive side of things; probably the most damning statement from any developer has been that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 were roughly the same in performance.

Read More | GamesIndustry.biz