PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: QuDDus on May 20, 2005, 05:21:53 AM
-
http://www.techreport.com/etc/2005q2/xbox360-gpu/index.x?pg=1
Looks like the numbers that where said before where actually downplayed. Actually has double the TFLOP performance.
oops just realized this is not console forum my bad.
can someone move this?
-
Yea, def don\'t sleep on ATi. Those Canucks really know their graphics.
-
This logic is made up of 192 component processors capable of doing the basic math necessary for multisampled antialiasing.
Thats means the EDRAM has 192 processors of it\'s own that do one op per clock, for an additional 96 Billion ops per second.
-
What\'s funny, to me anyway, is that this gpu is very much custom built for the 360 unlike the PC-like RSX. I believe there were quite a few people who called it the other way around.
-
ok so what does this mean in terms of power vs the ps3?
-
Right now there\'s not enough info on the RSX to make a fair comparison, and, again, you\'re talking about two vastly different architectures.
If you want an early assessment of the ATi offering head over to beyond3d.com; the unanimous reaction is that the R500 is more powerful than initially thought.
-
This logic is made up of 192 component processors capable of doing the basic math necessary for multisampled antialiasing. If I have it right, the component processors should be able to process 32 pixels at once by operating on six components per pixel: red, green, blue, alpha, stencil, and depth. This logic can do the resolve pass for multisample antialiasing right there on the eDRAM die, giving the Xbox 360 the ability to do 4X antialiasing on a high-definition (1280x768) image essentially for "free"—i.e., with no appreciable performance penalty. The eDRAM holds the contents of all of the back buffers, does the resolve, and hands off the resulting image into main system memory for scan-out to the display.
So far it\'s hard to tell what improvement this holds over Nvidia & Sonys design. And Nvidia hasn\'t even mentioned what hit (if any) antialiasing has on overall performance.
And it seems Cell is going to have a lot to do with graphics as well. Scenes will be rendered on RSX, then shuttled back to Cell for additional effects (antialiasing, motion blur, HDR..etc). So far it seems like Xbox360 dosen\'t have this sort of flexibility. It\'s gonna be interesting once all the info is out there for both systems to see how they stack up.. because they are so different.
-
Originally posted by clips
ok so what does this mean in terms of power vs the ps3?
There is no power debate. When it comes down to graphical ability. Both console will output basicly the same graphical ability. It will come down to which console was design to better harness the graphical power.
Get both and all is solved.
-
Originally posted by JBean
So far it\'s hard to tell what improvement this holds over Nvidia & Sonys design. And Nvidia hasn\'t even mentioned what hit (if any) antialiasing has on overall performance.
And it seems Cell is going to have a lot to do with graphics as well. Scenes will be rendered on RSX, then shuttled back to Cell for additional effects (antialiasing, motion blur, HDR..etc). So far it seems like Xbox360 dosen\'t have this sort of flexibility. It\'s gonna be interesting once all the info is out there for both systems to see how they stack up.. because they are so different.
Thats why their is 10mb of edram. It will handle GPU tasks. The xbox cpu won\'t have to worry about doing anything because the gpu does it all. How can you not see this as an advantage?
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Thats why their is 10mb of edram. It will handle GPU tasks. The xbox cpu won\'t have to worry about doing anything because the gpu does it all. How can you not see this as an advantage?
damn qdog you\'re tryin to reel me in with all this techno s**t..let me try my hand at this....so if what you\'re sayin is true..maybe that is what the problem was with the playstation\'s ee right?..since the ee was doin so much at one time...so what you\'re sayin is that the box has memory that\'s used for all of that crap *effects, physics etc* without the gpu takin on alot of stress...uhm right?
-
Well the cell is seems to be powerful. We won\'t fully know it\'s capabilities until developers start puting it to use. We all know how much the cell was hyped last time around.
Overall I see each console having it advantages and disadvantages. The cell will be able to pick up the slack of the gpu. Depending how powerful the cell is will determine if can bridge the gap or not.
Again both console are designed very differently. And it is truly undetermined yet which console design will put out the best output. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
-
i\'m not saying it\'s not an advantage having the Edram directly on the GPU. I was just pointing out that maybe Cell was going to have more of a part in graphics than Xbox360\'s CPU since it\'s a more powerfull chip and has more bandwidth. Read around beyond3d and you\'ll see what people are saying.
-
Originally posted by Rikku
What\'s funny, to me anyway, is that this gpu is very much custom built for the 360 unlike the PC-like RSX. I believe there were quite a few people who called it the other way around.
I thought Nvidia was developing the RSX in the PS3 with the console\'s specs in mind
-
That\'s not the case.
EDIT: Let me elaborate before this thread goes spinning wildly out of control.
What I mean is that the RSX is not a custom solution, and it\'s not PS3 exclusive. It\'s just a derivative of Nvidia\'s G70. It will work well with the Cell, but there\'s already alot of speculation that it might not be as efficient as a custom solution could have been.
R500, however, was built from the ground up for the 360. MS owns the technology in it, and has patented several bits, so you won\'t see the same thing in the PC when the R600 rolls out.
For further clarification I suggest browsing the forums at Beyond3d. There are many threads on the subject already.
-
But eh.... Mr. Allard does take the focus off the graphics in this interview (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=59297)
I\'m not saying it\'s \'damage control\' but it does say alot about how MS will want to position the 360, knowing about the competition.
about the gpu\'s ; the crucial difference will be the unified shaders vs non unified shaders. That\'s the main difference of approach Ati and Nvidia bring to the table.
-
Knotter, what are you referring to?
-
if anyone saw the downtown london video... apparently that was done completely using cell. And the only reason I bring it up is to show how the CPU will be used differently than 360.
For example we showed the demo that renders London City, it\'s not rendered in the GPU but the CELL does lighting and texture processing then outputs it to the frame buffer. Even without GPU, only CELL can create good enough 3D graphics.
Masayuki "Masa" CHATANI, SCEI CTO
I have to say that the GPU in the 360 seems more powerful at this point, but Cell should make up for any shortcomings... time will tell
-
Well, Quddus seems to make a bit of a deal about Xbox360 gpu vs PS3 GPU...
then I read this interview and Allard, who took a \'graphics stand\' with Xbox1, takes the focus off graphics now.
Specifically about Ati\'s gpu ; that\'s where they go a different way now with the unified shader architecture, opposed to Nvidia.
-
Originally posted by JBean
and at this point I will have to say that the GPU in the 360 seems more powerful at this point, but Cell should make up for any shortcomings... time will tell
Thats exactly what I said. Both of these things are beast though.
I am hoping the cell turns out to be a great as speculation has it.
-
Originally posted by Knotter8
then I read this interview and Allard, who took a \'graphics stand\' with Xbox1, takes the focus off graphics now.
And you question why? Last I checked the Xbox is still being outsold by PS2 despite being more powerful.
In the past twenty years of gaming in which generation did the most powerful console win? The answer is none.
Microsoft\'s focus has been on games, getting more of them. They want developers to chose their platform, and you can tell that given their effort of a "balanced system" and the development tools they\'ve created (XNA).
Games = teh win.
-
Concrete number about RSX\'s fillrate and such have not been shown nor revealed.
Thus the gpu standoff is still very undecided. Good article is here (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2423)
-
We will still need to see the official specs of nVidia\'s GPU before we draw any conclusions...and that probably won\'t be finished for a few months at the least.
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
We will still need to see the official specs of nVidia\'s GPU before we draw any conclusions...and that probably won\'t be finished for a few months at the least.
Nvdia is not making a custom gpu for the ps3
just an enhancement of Nvidia\'s G70. Where their chip fails the cell processor will pick up the slack. That is why the ps3 was built for the cell and gpu to work as one.
The x360 gpu was custom built for the system.
And ps3 has to launch 6months after x360. Umm I say the chip is done. They have to have the final specs done so they can get the chip ready for testing so they can get it into prdouction.
Isn\'t production supose to start sometime this fall for the chip?
-
After the way nvdia screwed MS I see no reason why Sony would chose them.
-
Nvdia is not making a custom gpu for the ps3
Did I say that? :stick:
-
All this techno babble makes me glad I had plenty of sex when I was in highschool and left my classmate geeks alone to do their homework so they could develop these consoles for me.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
All this techno babble makes me glad I had plenty of sex when I was in highschool and left my classmate geeks alone to do their homework so they could develop these consoles for me.
That\'s always looking on the bright side.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Nvdia is not making a custom gpu for the ps3
just an enhancement of Nvidia\'s G70. Where their chip fails the cell processor will pick up the slack. That is why the ps3 was built for the cell and gpu to work as one.
The x360 gpu was custom built for the system.
And ps3 has to launch 6months after x360. Umm I say the chip is done. They have to have the final specs done so they can get the chip ready for testing so they can get it into prdouction.
Isn\'t production supose to start sometime this fall for the chip?
MS has a custom made graphics chip. Custom made could mean a few programmer headaches, but porbably not nearly as problematic as the PS2 was.
PS3 contains the "Cell" It takes many cells together to make up its the processing power, or am I understanding the concept behind the "Cell" wrong.
If it takes many cells to make up the processing power, then maybe we can assume that Sony will attach some"Cell" processors to the NVidia RSX GPU.
From premature illustration of PS3 hardware circulating it seemed like SOny was using the "Cell" for eveything. The main cell processor may many "Cells" while the Audio, video, network, I/O all have cells in place to drive them and communicate with the main processor.
This would in theory by my projections eliminate any concerns and advantage MS might have with there design.
All in all it doesn\'t matter since I will own both, but it will be very interesting to see if my theory is correct.
Of course if someone has a good article or 3 about this do share the tidbits of important info and links with us
-
Originally posted by ddaryl
MS has a custom made graphics chip. Custom made could mean a few programmer headaches, but porbably not nearly as problematic as the PS2 was.
PS3 contains the "Cell" It takes many cells together to make up its the processing power, or am I understanding the concept behind the "Cell" wrong.
If it takes many cells to make up the processing power, then maybe we can assume that Sony will attach some"Cell" processors to the NVidia RSX GPU.
From premature illustration of PS3 hardware circulating it seemed like SOny was using the "Cell" for eveything. The main cell processor may many "Cells" while the Audio, video, network, I/O all have cells in place to drive them and communicate with the main processor.
This would in theory by my projections eliminate any concerns and advantage MS might have with there design.
All in all it doesn\'t matter since I will own both, but it will be very interesting to see if my theory is correct.
Of course if someone has a good article or 3 about this do share the tidbits of important info and links with us
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/xbox_360_interview/default.asp
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzcxLDE=
-
Originally posted by ddaryl
MS has a custom made graphics chip. Custom made could mean a few programmer headaches, but porbably not nearly as problematic as the PS2 was.
PS3 contains the "Cell" It takes many cells together to make up its the processing power, or am I understanding the concept behind the "Cell" wrong.
If it takes many cells to make up the processing power, then maybe we can assume that Sony will attach some"Cell" processors to the NVidia RSX GPU.
From premature illustration of PS3 hardware circulating it seemed like SOny was using the "Cell" for eveything. The main cell processor may many "Cells" while the Audio, video, network, I/O all have cells in place to drive them and communicate with the main processor.
This would in theory by my projections eliminate any concerns and advantage MS might have with there design.
All in all it doesn\'t matter since I will own both, but it will be very interesting to see if my theory is correct.
Of course if someone has a good article or 3 about this do share the tidbits of important info and links with us
The Cell is reportedly not as difficult as the EE, nowhere close, but it\'s still going to be more work to get optimum performance out of it compared to the 360. It\'s the architecture of the system.
Cell is a multi-core cpu, and there is only one in the PS3.
I\'ll try to find a good article on Cell that\'s easy to understand...
EDIT: Understanding Cell (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379)
Meh, couldn\'t really find an easy explanation.
-
I believe there is only one processor in the PS3.Atleast thats what I understood from what I ve read so far.
After Sony demonstrated the PS3 they showed tech demos using multiple Cell processors working together but that was unrelated with the PS3.
-
The emotion engine (EE) was in a way multi-core. You had the main core, then VU0 & VU1 co-processors. These co-processors weren\'t used extensively in the first gen of ps2 games.
Cell is basically 9 seperate cores on one chip, I PPE and 8 SPE (although 1 SPE is disabled to improve yields). Explaining how it works though is something only IBM could explain at this point.
Go to beyond3d.com and go to the console forum. Tons of guys in there know their stuff and many of them have picked the xbox360 and ps3 apart.
-
Here\'s a good discussion on the Cell. ----> Click Me (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23093)
-
Well you cant understand much if you are not knowledgable on the matter.
but I know what I saw in the Getaway tech demo running exclusively on a Cell on unfinished hardware and probably on the same but improved graphics engine as the PS2\'s Getaway.
It can do a lot by itself.Which I still believe PS3\'s main difference compared to XBOX360 wont be thanks to GPU\'s performance but thanks to the Cell\'s.
How much performance can you get from XBOX360\'s CPU alone really?
Its a question I want answered.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Well you cant understand much if you are not knowledgable on the matter.
but I know what I saw in the Getaway tech demo running exclusively on a Cell on unfinished hardware and probably on the same but improved graphics engine as the PS2\'s Getaway.
It can do a lot by itself.Which I still believe PS3\'s main difference compared to XBOX360 wont be thanks to GPU\'s performance but thanks to the Cell\'s.
How much performance can you get from XBOX360\'s CPU alone really?
Its a question I want answered.
Why xbox cpu won\'t have do all the processing ps3 cell will have to do. Thats why they are trying to pack so much power into the cell.
-
Say that again? :confused:
XBOX cell?Ahm.....:rolleyes: anyways.
It depends only if the PS3\'s GPU is signifigantly weaker from XBOX360\'s.If they are similar in performance in that aspect the difference will depend on the CPU performance.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Say that again? :confused:
XBOX cell?Ahm.....:rolleyes: anyways.
It depends only if the PS3\'s GPU is signifigantly weaker from XBOX360\'s.If they are similar in performance in that aspect the difference will depend on the CPU performance.
LOL :laughing: I meant CPU
The x360 has 98 Billion ops per second
And EDRAM has 192 processors of it\'s own that do one op per.
Giving it an additional 96 Billion ops per second.
It won\'t need the cpu to handle the processing like the RSX. Everything will be done by the gpu.
-
heh I am not as knowledgable as you are so I dont understand as much :)
But I d like to see direct comparissons and explanations between the two when complete information is available for both.
My estimation though is that if Sony are indeed honest with their tech demos especially like the Killzone Demo being achievable in real time (the guy from Epic said that the tech demos are all achievable) then I expect similar GPU performance with the Cell boosting up performance.
If the killzone was accurately done to spec then something must be freeing the general performance from taking a hit.
The smoke, explosion effects, complicated physics, draw distance, moving objects, possible complex AI etc all these being processed constantly at the same time and flawlessly need huge processing power.thats why I am not sure if its achievable.
But lets assume that it is.
From what I ve heard that one of the Cell\'s main purposes is to free the GPU from doing more complicated tasks that could lead to performance hit.But the Cell I believe was designed so it wouldnt sacrifice from its power trying to "assist" either.
Its ability to handle multible tasks like a network of CPUs may mean that it can do them without sacrificing anything or atleast much.
Time will tell though
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
heh I am not as knowledgable as you are so I dont understand as much :)
But I d like to see direct comparissons and explanations between the two when complete information is available for both.
My estimation though is that if Sony are indeed honest with their tech demos especially like the Killzone Demo being achievable in real time (the guy from Epic said that the tech demos are all achievable) then I expect similar GPU performance with the Cell boosting up performance.
If the killzone was accurately done to spec then something must be freeing the general performance from taking a hit.
The smoke, explosion effects, complicated physics, draw distance, moving objects, possible complex AI etc all these being processed constantly at the same time and flawlessly need huge processing power.thats why I am not sure if its achievable.
But lets assume that it is.
From what I ve heard that one of the Cell\'s main purposes is to free the GPU from doing more complicated tasks that could lead to performance hit.But the Cell I believe was designed so it wouldnt sacrifice from its power trying to "assist" either.
Its ability to handle multible tasks like a network of CPUs may mean that it can do them without sacrificing anything or atleast much.
Time will tell though
I\'m sure SOny, Toshiba and IBM had all of this in mind when they went with the Cell\'s design
-
Yeah they had.But the question is how efficiently have achieved their target.
The Killzone trailer if proven achievable as it was shown or that it was real time footage recorded on video it will mean that they succeeded :)
-
Microsoft\'s comparison of the 360 and PS3: Click (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html)
Microsoft says the 360 easily out performs the PS3. Believe them? I don\'t think so. However, it\'s no more biased than Sony\'s powerpoint presentation.;)
-
MS sure spewed alot of numbers, and they really made it look as if the Xbox 360 destroys the PS3.
All I know is all have an Xbox 360 before Christmas, and a PS3 next Christmas
-
Originally posted by Rikku
Microsoft\'s comparison of the 360 and PS3: Click (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html)
Microsoft says the 360 easily out performs the PS3. Believe them? I don\'t think so. However, it\'s no more biased than Sony\'s powerpoint presentation.;)
WHOAH :eek: Never expected to see such a comparison.they made PS3 seem like shit!I wonder how true that is
-
I agree only time will tell.
-
lol, PR Microsoft? More from a single Microsoft guy working on Xbox live. This info is from http://www.majornelson.com
All crap anyway. Anyone can pull figures from specsheets and claim one is x times better than the other.
-
yeah, people are ripping up that majornelson.com site, made me laugh. Seriously though, they are using faulty logic and comparing two totally different graphics architectures.
Where do you draw the line on what to compare? Like you said seven, you could start adding in all the bandwidth
If the embedded memory bandwidth is going to be counted wouldn\'t it be fair to count memory bandwidth of the local store memory in the CELL SPEs?
I believe the local stores run at 128-bit at 3.2Ghz. There\'s seven of them, so that would total 358.4 GB/sec. So total system bandwidth for the PS3 would be 406.4 GB/sec compared to 278.4 GB/sec for X360.....ps3 blows away xbox360!!!1 ;)
See there, it\'s easy to play with the numbers to make either system look better.
-
Have you been browing B3d lately, JBean? ;)
I\'d prefer to point out that based on the above logic, the PS2 (would) absolutely shred Xbox to pieces (48GB/sec eDRAM bandwidth + 1.2 GB/sec (GIF<->GS) + 3.2 GB/sec (EE<->DMAC) compared to Xbox\'s 6.4 GB/sec UMA)......
-
If MS is right (which I doubt) then it would mean that Sony has spent millions for R&D to make the Cell only to have MS prove that their XBOX360 CPU route is better with a difference
-
A lot of this is BS, according to many of the tech guys over at Beyond3D. Whoever wrote this up has no clue what they\'re talking about.
-
This is probably the biggest pile of bs I have ever seen, now X360 IGN is posting what Major Nelson posted on his site. :D
The damage control teams are out in full force. 360 > PS3 indeed. :)
-
i hope that s**t isn\'t true :(...but ultimately these consoles will come out with graphics being nearly identical...and these monsters are basically gonna be the nail in the coffin for arcades...:p do people still go there anymore? :p
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
After the way nvdia screwed MS I see no reason why Sony would chose them.
Your whole thread seems like a \'wish\' that somehow PS3\'s gpu will be less strong than Xbox360\'s and that Nvidia will fall flat on it\'s face.
WTF is with that ? Like Evis said ; final numbers on RSX\'s performance have not been revealed and and has been generally acknowledged there is NO pc desktop processor which can keep up with RSX\'s data feed. The way it graphically works is indeed traditional to pc graphics cards, but it is very much intergral to Cell design.
-
The most interesting part about this whole article is that ATi\'s Xenos (GPU) + eDRAM Logic seems to have slightly more transistors than the RSX. This clearly indicates that the first rumours of Xenos being a total of 150 million transistors (excluding eDRAM of course) was wrong and that the two chips are quite close indeed. How this pans out is still unknown though - after all, the chips do pack in two different design philosophies.
-
Let\'s wait and see...
but when I read .."XBox360 has 5 times the total memory bandwidth ..I started laughing and I closed that "article"....
following his logic, PS2 would have 8 times
the memory bandwidth of XBox and we know it\'s false and really funny....as seven already said.....
-
PS3 has a dedicated bus for the RSX. Xenos has to share it with the CPU and when accessing ram.
-
Originally posted by Knotter8
PS3 has a dedicated bus for the RSX. Xenos has to share it with the CPU and when accessing ram.
Yep!
...so Sony have not still released other specs ?
...I\'m too curious....
-
Developers though seem to know more.Especially considering one of the EPIC developers\' statement on the current RSX being very far from the final thing
-
Why are people so scared to think that xbox360 has a better gpu or may output better performance. Which I think they both will have great graphics. And nobody has yet determined which design is better.
Only time will tell as to which company designs allows developers to produce better games.
Xbox already has a better gpu than ps2. Nvidia is producing a dumb down version of the G70 for ps3. The cell will be able to handle things that gpu can\'t. They will be able to work as one.
-
Nobody\'s scared.
-
scurred...
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Nvidia is producing a dumb down version of the G70 for ps3.
No they aren\'t. Of course, any new gpu developed after RSX will be better... so yeah, that makes it easy to say G70 will be better when it hits the pc market some time later.
Nobody\'s \'affraid\' that Xenos could be more "powerfull" than RSX, it\'s just that you seem to take that for a fact already without any solid evidence.
I mean, I could easily reverse the Edram argument and the 325 million transistor facts as ; facts that Xbox360 actually needs that 10mb of Edram to do 1080i at all and that the amount of 325 mil. transistors is the sum of the transistors on Xenos, the 10mb Edram sillicon and the memory controller it acts like. Plus, it\'s a chip devided over 2 dies connected by a bus which of course has no infinite bandwidth....
Like I said... final RSX the performance numbers for stuff that matters like fillrate, efficiency of shaderpaths etc will be required to make a fair Xenos - RSX comparison at a basic level.
I know that RSX has a dedicated bus to acces the Xdram. Rambus, the company which makes Xdram was asked about this matter in light of the Xenos - RSX comparison and they\'re certain the Xdram is so fast to withstand any comparison to the Xenos\' Edram method.
Of course, specs aside, the games on each platform will show which looks visually most pleasing on overall scale.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
Why are people so scared to think that xbox360 has a better gpu or may output better performance. Which I think they both will have great graphics. And nobody has yet determined which design is better.
Only time will tell as to which company designs allows developers to produce better games.
Xbox already has a better gpu than ps2. Nvidia is producing a dumb down version of the G70 for ps3. The cell will be able to handle things that gpu can\'t. They will be able to work as one.
1st. you sure seem to not want to accpet the possibility that the RSX will be measurably better then the ATI GPU in Xbox 360...
Myself I just like the technology.
2nd. The RSX is anything but a dumbed down version of the Nvidia G70. It is tweaked to match the performance of the PS3\'s Cell processor.
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2423&p=3
1.) NVIDIA stated that they had never had as powerful a CPU as Cell, and thus the RSX GPU has to be able to swallow a much larger command stream than any of the PC GPUs as current generation CPUs are pretty bad at keeping the GPU fed.
2) The RSX GPU has a 35GB/s link to the CPU, much greater than any desktop GPU, and thus the turbo cache architecture needs to be reworked quite a bit for the console GPU to take better advantage of the plethora of bandwidth. Functional unit latencies must be adjusted, buffer sizes have to be changed, etc...
According to this quote there is no PC CPU that can feed the G70. Therefore the RSX has been tuned to be able to accept the massive amount of data the Cell is capable of throwing at it. If anything the PC version of the G70 is "dumbed down"
Also of interesting note the ATI GPU in the Xbox 360 also serves as the SYSTEMS memory controller. That has to impact the GPU somewhat since the memory controller is part of the chip and services the CPU and GPU
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2423&p=2
Remember that in addition to functioning as a GPU, ATI\'s chip must also function as a memory controller for the 3-core PPC CPU in the Xbox 360. The memory controller services both the GPU and the CPU\'s needs, and as we mentioned before the controller is 256-bits wide and interfaces to 512MB of unified GDDR3 memory running at 700MHz. The memory controller resides on the parent die.
I do agree that the embedded Edram is going to give the ATI some serious improved performance, but as far as "released" specs go the PS3 and the RSX defintiely look more impressive on paper and tech demos.
However I do agree with your theory that its all irrelevant until we see and play some games.
-
Thanks ddaryl nice reading !
-
Originally posted by ddaryl
1st. you sure seem to not want to accpet the possibility that the RSX will be measurably better then the ATI GPU in Xbox 360...
Myself I just like the technology.
2nd. The RSX is anything but a dumbed down version of the Nvidia G70. It is tweaked to match the performance of the PS3\'s Cell processor.
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2423&p=3
According to this quote there is no PC CPU that can feed the G70. Therefore the RSX has been tuned to be able to accept the massive amount of data the Cell is capable of throwing at it. If anything the PC version of the G70 is "dumbed down"
Also of interesting note the ATI GPU in the Xbox 360 also serves as the SYSTEMS memory controller. That has to impact the GPU somewhat since the memory controller is part of the chip and services the CPU and GPU
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2423&p=2
I do agree that the embedded Edram is going to give the ATI some serious improved performance, but as far as "released" specs go the PS3 and the RSX defintiely look more impressive on paper and tech demos.
However I do agree with your theory that its all irrelevant until we see and play some games.
What you fail to see is that the edram gives the xbox gpu a huge advantage. Unlike the ps3 the gpu and vram will be sucked up by hi def res and FSAA.
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
What you fail to see is that the edram gives the xbox gpu a huge advantage. Unlike the ps3 the gpu and vram will be sucked up by hi def res and FSAA.
The RSX still has over 125 transitors on its chip that is not memory or memory controller. Those extra transistors represent graphical horsepower that will handle the high def and FSAA or whatever developers want the graphics horsepower of the RSX to do.
I think the Edram on the ATI GPU makes FSAA easy, but I still think NVidia\'s chip is more impressive at this junction. We\'ll have to wait for the final specs of the RSX to really understand what it\'s capabel of.
-
Originally posted by ddaryl
The RSX still has over 125 transitors on its chip that is not memory or memory controller. Those extra transistors represent graphical horsepower that will handle the high def and FSAA or whatever developers want the graphics horsepower of the RSX to do.
I think the Edram on the ATI GPU makes FSAA easy, but I still think NVidia\'s chip is more impressive at this junction. We\'ll have to wait for the final specs of the RSX to really understand what it\'s capabel of.
Transistors are only part of the battle
Have you read the offical article in this thread?
On chip, the shaders are organized in three SIMD engines with 16 processors per unit, for a total of 48 shaders. Each of these shaders is comprised of four ALUs that can execute a single operation per cycle, so that each shader unit can execute four floating-point ops per cycle
The xbox actually has dobule the TFLOP performance.
the gpu has 48 unified Pipelines, 4 Full ALUs per pipeline = 192 alu\'s
the EDRAM has an additional 192 processors of it\'s own
The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.
-
Guys you need to head over to my fav forum, http://www.beyond3d.com
GO to console section, very informative.
-
the EDRAM is basically a second "simple" GPU. That does a lot of bandwidth intensive tasks on it\'s own dedicated bus. Everyone is unsure whether doubling the TFLOP number is the best way to guage the power of this additional "back buffer". If anything it\'s only going to modify the existing geometry that it recieves from the main GPU (most notably AA). Nobody really knows how much of a boon this will be to Xenos, it\'s definately an ingenious idea.
PS3 went a different route where the RSX gets it\'s own dedicated bus to it\'s own pool of 256MB of VRAM, that it dosen\'t have to share with the CPU... with the flexibility to share the really fast 256MBs of XDR mainly used for Cell. Xbox360 that has to pump CPU & GPU data through the same bus, but that penalty gets negated somewhat with the EDRAM logic acting as a second GPU.
Nobody knows which platform will crank out more performance... until we see some benchmarks and can compare some multiplatform games. I doubt we are gonna see much difference between the two anyway.
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
Guys you need to head over to my fav forum, http://www.beyond3d.com
GO to console section, very informative.
What I gathered off beyond 3d forums.
ps3>god
xbox360>ps3
ps5>xbox360
ps9>me
xbox360=answer to all my console dreams
:laughing: naw seriously though both these consoles are powerful. Lets just enjoy them.
-
Quddus\'s problem is that he is using numbers he doesn\'t quite understand to "prove" that his prefered system is better than the other one......
-
Heheh whan I saw the XBOX360>PS3 part I rushed to http://www.beyond3d.com to see if anything new was reported since last time I checked I saw nothing that hinted to which one is better.
Well I still see nothing.No conclusions yet :laughing:
-
Originally posted by seven
Quddus\'s problem is that he is using numbers he doesn\'t quite understand to "prove" that his prefered system is better than the other one......
uhhh meh... don\'t label me for you don\'t even know me. Don\'t try and discredit me because you have no clue wtf you\'re talking about:rolleyes:
And I never said one system was better than the other. Where are you pulling this from? Oh yeah....out of your ass.
-
.
-
correction.
More powerful
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
correction.
More powerful
Show me anywhere I said any console was more powerful than the other.
I dare you!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Perhaps there is some secret translation in this---->xbox360>ps3 I still havent figured out
-
Originally posted by QuDDus
The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.
PS2 has 3.2 GB/s of system Ram and 48 GB/s of 4 mega embedded VRam for a total of 51.2 GB/s total system bandwidth....
but XBox can do better graphics with its total of 6.4 GB/s total system bandwidth thanks to its whole architecture.....
-
And he got this from http://www.beyond3d.com ???
-
QuDDus...you have no idea what the hell you\'re talking about. Just thought I should let you know.
The xbox actually has dobule the TFLOP performance.
I don\'t know what a dobule is, and the 360 doesn\'t have twice the TFLOP performance. The 2 systems are much closer than that.
And you\'re a retard for posting that bandwidth comparison because it\'s 100% bullshit and has been proven to be utter crap by many different sites.
-
Quddus:
uhhh meh... don\'t label me for you don\'t even know me. Don\'t try and discredit me because you have no clue wtf you\'re talking about
And I never said one system was better than the other. Where are you pulling this from? Oh yeah....out of your ass.
Whoops, my bad:
well my statements were confirmed. I knew ATI would make the better gpu.
I see the xgpu being more versatile and producing more performance over based on the chip design. But both gpu\'s seem to be impressive. It will comedown to overall design. ps3 seems to have gone the raw power route. And xbox360 seems to have gone for a better overall design.
Funny thing is, those quotes above are from your posts that were made just after PS3\'s specs were released - at that time, we didn\'t have accurate information on the Xenos part, yet that obviously didn\'t stop you from already concluding that "ATI would make the better gpu" or "XGPU being more versatile and producing more performance". You also seem to miraculously conclude that the Xbox360 seems to have gone for a better overal design - BASED ON WHAT?
But please, please DO continue. I already find it amusing enough that after that good laugh, you claim that I\'m the one pulling things out of my ass. Quddus, how about you stand in front of a mirror and take a good, long look...
-
Originally posted by seven
Quddus:
Whoops, my bad:
Funny thing is, those quotes above are from your posts that were made just after PS3\'s specs were released - at that time, we didn\'t have accurate information on the Xenos part, yet that obviously didn\'t stop you from already concluding that "ATI would make the better gpu" or "XGPU being more versatile and producing more performance". You also seem to miraculously conclude that the Xbox360 seems to have gone for a better overal design - BASED ON WHAT?
But please, please DO continue. I already find it amusing enough that after that good laugh, you claim that I\'m the one pulling things out of my ass. Quddus, how about you stand in front of a mirror and take a good, long look...
Umm seven where have you been? First of all, there had been tons of information on the xbox360 gpu. I mean the layout of the chip design was even leaked. I can\'t imagine why you failed to see this information. Umm maybe you just did not care too look?
I mean the internet was crawling with information and leaked specs. Before it was even said that the original specs where wrong. Nerds and geeks where already saying the obvious. Based on everything I have read and study about the xenos gpu I believe it to be the better. It is being custom built for performance after all.
Gimme ATI and custom built gpu over Nvidia anyday. Bases on how they fucked ms last gen. Nvidia is full of mistakes. And seeing how the ps3 gpu looks like a housing for the cell.
You still did not tell me how I said 360 is more powerful than ps3? All I see are playstation elites talking out of thier ass. I am talking gpu\'s that all. I never once concluded that xbox360 would be more powerful than ps3 ever.
All I was saying is that xbox360 would have the better gpu.
I don\'t know what a dobule is, and the 360 doesn\'t have twice the TFLOP performance. The 2 systems are much closer than that.
First of your the one who\'S an idiot. You have no idea what the hell your talking about. The xbox360 gpu is faster than Microsoft had originally listed it. I guess you have no idea how fast it is. And with that said. How can you question anything?
Look at the first released specs and then look at the final specs.
You\'ll find your answers.
And he got this from http://www.beyond3d.com
Nope. I got it from that IGN article that claimed xbox360 was more powerful than ps3. I didn\'t even bothered to go indepth to see if the information was correct. I just thought it would be funny to see what kind of flames it would spark.
-
Nope. I got it from that IGN article that claimed xbox360 was more powerful than ps3. I didn\'t even bothered to go indepth to see if the information was correct. I just thought it would be funny to see what kind of flames it would spark. [/B]
:confused: Well the first thing IGN said was that MS sent it.That alone takes away the validity of the article.
It is expected that some will disagree if mentioned as proof that XBOX360 GPU>PS3 GPU since it was completely made up.
I ve been browsing beyond3d to see more information yet nothing indicates to XBOX360 having a more powerful GPU.
Actually the people there found cons and pros in both GPU architectures and still they lack enough information to conclude.
PS3\'s GPU was mentioned later that it was also custom made btw.
Where did you get that information? :confused:
-
IGN had nothing to do with that article. Microsoft sent them f*cked up numbers that were based on lack of technical knowledge and bad math.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
:confused: Well the first thing IGN said was that MS sent it.That alone takes away the validity of the article.
It is expected that some will disagree if mentioned as proof that XBOX360 GPU>PS3 GPU since it was completely made up.
I ve been browsing beyond3d to see more information yet nothing indicates to XBOX360 having a more powerful GPU.
Actually the people there found cons and pros in both GPU architectures and still they lack enough information to conclude.
PS3\'s GPU was mentioned later that it was also custom made btw.
Where did you get that information? :confused:
Oh I never took the article as being valid. I wouldn\'t even attempt to make a case seeing the source.
I don\'t recall saying ps3 is having a custom built gpu. Everyone already knows that it\'s not. Must have been a mistake.
-
The RSX was made with the PS3\'s specs in mind.Its not an off the shelf PC GPU with a few tweaks.
The Cell and the GPU are created with each other\'s capabilities in mind.
And from what I ve understood in beyond3d their is more flexibility thanks to Cell\'s flexibility since they exchange work with each other(RSX).
http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=36643
Those who aren\'t in the know seem to think it\'s an off-the-shelf PC GPU, but in reality, they are totally different in their architectures.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
The RSX was made with the PS3\'s specs in mind.Its not an off the shelf PC GPU with a few tweaks.
The Cell and the GPU are created with each other\'s capabilities in mind.
And from what I ve understood in beyond3d their is more flexibility thanks to Cell\'s flexibility since they exchange work with each other(RSX).
http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=36643
Well I don\'t think the cell was created with the rsx in mind. If thats the case sony would not have contracted Nvidia. And based on the information thus given.
What I am saying is that. The cell looks like it was meant to do all the things the gpu could not handle. That is why the gpu is being design the way it is.
-
The Cell is not but the RSX might be created with the Cell in mind.Which doesnt make a difference.
The basic difference I ve noticed in the RSX compared to ATI\'s GPU is the lack of Embedded DRAM
But there was something else mentioned in beyond3d that makes up for the lack of EDRAM I dont remember precisely so I wont comment on that yet.My memory could be wrong
Cell indeed seems to do what the GPU can not handle efficiently enough according to what I ve read.But that doesnt mean that XBOX360 can generally perform these tasks a lot better.
Or probably that could be a misinterpretation.The Cell may actually be helping for tasks that a GPU generally cant handle alone.Not necesarily just the RSX
Its not worth comparing the GPUs anyways.They are both different in architecture and logic and the end result could be a lot different than what figures show.
Generally they both have cons and pros thanks to different architecture logics that gain and lose in some aspects
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
The Cell is not but the RSX might be created with the Cell in mind.Which doesnt make a difference.
The basic difference I ve noticed in the RSX compared to ATI\'s GPU is the lack of Embedded DRAM
But there was something else mentioned in beyond3d that makes up for the lack of EDRAM I dont remember precisely so I wont comment on that yet.My memory would be wrong
Cell indeed seems to do what the GPU can not handle efficiently enough according to what I ve read.But that doesnt mean that XBOX360 can generally perform these tasks a lot better.
Or probably that could be a misinterpretation.The Cell may actually be helping for tasks that a GPU alone generally couldnt handle alone.Not necesarily just the RSX
Its not worth comparing the GPUs anyways.They are both different in architecture and logic and the end result could be a lot different than what figures show.
Generally they both have cons and pros thanks to different architecture logics that gain and lose in some aspects
I agree these things have such different architecture and only time will tell what is what. All the speculation and number counting does nothing. I agree with that. It\'s hard to compare the console because the architecture is so different on both.
But like you have said they both have their weakness and strengths. I am still going with ATI though:p
-
hehe ok :)