|
Nvideas rsx pipelines vs 360 ATI pipelines 360 core vs ps3 cell
|
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. December 2005 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanx anubis66, Ill be doing that shortly.
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2005 @ 16:20
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
zelda64
Senior Member
|
14. December 2005 @ 21:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh my goodness, talk about kissing as* anubis66 lol.
Firstly Kookoo I have played Final Fantasy 7 and I bought Final Fantasy 9 on the PS and got onto the 4th disc but couldnt play it any more becuase it was driving me mad and I didnt like it. I also played a demo of Final Fantasy 10 on the PC. Because everyone said it was good I gave it a try. I kept on trying to like it but I just dont, it really isnt my type of game unfortunatly.
You say about the pictures that I have seen and how they are beter than the Nvidea and ATI demonstrations but there was no ATI demonstration. Atleast not like the one Sony had with the RSX. The reason why I am sceptical is that when I got excited over the PS2 before it came out I saw great images of the Getaway and was really impressed. Unfortunatly PS2 was not powerful enough to do the Getaway graphics shown at E3. I also remember a game that was shown that wowed me and the audience about a year after the PS2 release. This game was Metal Gear Solid 2, can you remember that demonstration? Well konami know how to push Playstation to it's limits just like they did with the First Playstation with Meatal Gear Solid 1. Well we have all seen Metal Gear Solid Guns of the Patriots demonstration and this is said to be in game. It looks very good and I believe it to be pushing the PS3's power to what kind of graphical images it can do going by the past. Now take a look at Gears of War in game footage on www.gametrailers.com and then you will see why I think 360 is similar in power to PS3.
I know you have given an explination with details on the graphics card but I really need to do some research to settle my mind.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2005 @ 21:34
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 02:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
The images I showed you are from in game. Gamespot played and took the image. That is what you'll be seeing durring the hi detailed cutscenes. and thats 100% of ps2 potential, and it doesnt look any diferent than images for xbox360 or ps3. So you sholdnt judge games yett, expecially when on the two consols games look almost the same.
>_<
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
15. December 2005 @ 09:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
kookoo what zelda said about more flexibality was 100% correct.
i never even mentioned that because i thought you already knew that, but ive just found out that u didnt know that.
that is another benefit of the unified shader architecture, any pipeline can be used for what is needed most. pixel and vertex etc.
im not repeating in depth again as ive said it wAyyy 2 many times, zelda, really the ATI GPU is a better faster graphics card than the RSX, dont believe what kookoo says to thwart my attempts because all i want is for people to know the truth about whats better and whats not.
im not biased but i like the 360 more because it is a more powerful system than the PS3, regardless of what the specs say, and biased websites, books, reviwes etc. most of which say the PS3 is more powerful. when i read them i get the impression that sony has paid them to say what they say, there ThAt biased.
i want people to know that the 360 is the more powerful, in addition to the better games it has (except for RPG's which are really boring, except KOTOR 1 and 2 which rock!). i dont know why the japanese people like RPG's the most out of all genres of games.
Most RPG games are made by japanese games companies (and you can normally tell when playing them that they were made in japan for some reason), but a few arnt like KOTOR 1 and 2 (Bioware and Obsidian).
ultimately though just check out what i say in the PS3 graphic forum.
<and i think that TheOne will find out that i just stubbed his big assed post that origionally was intended to prove me wrong, hehe!>
Don't judge the consoles by specs, more isnt always better, espec in PS3 specs.i know the truth, ask if u wanna know.......
Do not compete without valid correct technicality on your terms of the argument.
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 10:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
im not repeating in depth again as ive said it wAyyy 2 many times, zelda, really the ATI GPU is a better faster graphics card than the RSX, dont believe what kookoo says to thwart my attempts because all i want is for people to know the truth about whats better and whats not.
He believes what he wants to believe, you are not all mighty god to tell him what to do. RSX opperates faster, ive already said so in ps3 graphic thread, dont know why this is soo hard to understand for you. Mabey you dont like the truth even though you call yourself truthman.
Do you not understand that the ops is per second being that the rsx does more per second?
Quote:
that is another benefit of the unified shader architecture, any pipeline can be used for what is needed most. pixel and vertex etc.
Already said, i even said that. Rsx with its architecture whatever will beat xenos with unified. Even tho unifed is better than all architectures. And i've already said why. including since you dont know what architecture the rsx has which only time can tell. Rsx beats the ati both ways.
Quote:
want people to know that the 360 is the more powerful, in addition to the better games it has (except for RPG's which are really boring, except KOTOR 1 and 2 which rock!). i dont know why the japanese people like RPG's the most out of all genres of games.
You got a thick skull, and again you think your allmighty god, or w.e god exists. Ps3 is more powerfull, said millions of times, it just doesnt get through your thick skull. And just because you dont like rpg's doesnt meen that everyone doesnt. And it isnt only japaneese who like rpgs. Lots of people do. World wide. Your to steriotypical, only you would say that.
Quote:
ultimately though just check out what i say in the PS3 graphic forum.
<and i think that TheOne will find out that i just stubbed his big assed post that origionally was intended to prove me wrong, hehe!>
Watch your mouth man, you dont ever want to insult my sister again, she took that as an insult, and that was me on her account, i was just bann currently.
Quote:
ultimately though just check out what i say in the PS3 graphic forum.
yes indead check it out, he just posted a bunch of buls**t because he ran out of reasons. He posted the only good about the xenos. while the rsx has many many more.
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2005 @ 10:44
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. December 2005 @ 10:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
i for one love rpg's and i am american. my faves have been the ff series, and kotor series. i am in no way japanese. and yes the ps3 is more powerful than the 360 im every aspect. tho the one thing that is cool about 360 is its more aimed with media. but come on, its a GAME console not a media center. thats what my surround sound and dvd player are for.
|
|
charza
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 11:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello all,
I've been following this discussion for quite some time now, and it's interesting to see what people say about this topic.
First a bit on my background.
I have done an education for computer sciences with a major in 3D graphics development, and I am now working for my PhD.
Since this is so, I have worked quite a bit with hardware in terms of programming and graphics creation.
Now, first of all, Truthman, I agree with you for 100%.
You know your hardware and the way it is used in practice.
Let me warn all of you, sony is overhyping it's product once again, like they have done before.
And I am amazed to see how biased several of the webpages and magazines are.
They all try to downsize Xeon and Xenon technology, but with the arguments and testcases that most of these sources come up with , Cell and RSX will often come out way worse, yet that's a thing they do not show us of course.
Many people don't seem to grasp that ATI's Xenon truly is a revolution in terms of pipeline architecture.
Unlike the RSX the Xenon is truly next gen, and since Truthman already explained the principle quite extensively, I will not bother to do so again.
Xenon revolutionizes powermanagement within it's core, so it doesn't need all the mhz's to create a massive output.
The unified shader architecture also gives developers way more playground, and the Xbox 360 will certainly be able to incorperate more ways of instruction for creating and rendering the graphics on screen.
The RSX on the other hand will have it's massive clockspeed, but it will use it in a less efficient way.
RSX basically is a current gen processor which is overclocked, since it's architecture is not that different from it's predecessors.
I think in the end it will most definately come to the creative sollutions of the game programmers..
But in terms of hardware the Xbox 360 definately will be able to deliver more performance.
Oh yeah, about those RPG's, I think some strong titles will also come for Xbox 360, like Mass Effect, and of course Oblivion.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2005 @ 11:05
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 11:29 |
Link to this message
|
Charza, i respect you not only because you are a major in 3D graphics development, but you are the least biased person who sticks withthe 360.You also dont express you dislike with the ps3 with hate, but in a calm calm way(truthman =opposite)
I just have to disagree with you on two things.
Quote:
Now, first of all, Truthman, I agree with you for 100%.
You know your hardware and the way it is used in practice
Lol, im sure you havnt read all the posts he posts from every thread he post. He said this
rsx=550*24=13200
xenos500*48=48000
and he also said the more pipelines, the better the graphics, which i proved wrong..but w.e
the second thing is what you say about the architectures.
Check anadtech website on my signiture at the bottom, read it thuraly. You will read near the end that they said that the rsx tryed using the unified architecture, but they found that the current one they are using works better with the rsx. Meaning that the rsx will produce better graphics with the current architecture, but the unified did worse on it. They also said that they are willing to try the unifed architecture again.
This means many things.
1)obviosly nvidea is hiding something with its architecure.
2)You can'nt judge the architectures expecially when the rsx isnt confermed with its architecture.
And the second thing i'll like to say is that the rsx performs better than the xenos with either architecture.
Forgot to include this
I'm sayin that the ps3 will have better graphics while your saying that the 360 will have better performance.
you say that xenos+360cpu=performance
i say rsx+cell=(not better performance than the 360)but better graphics.
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2005 @ 11:33
|
|
charza
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 13:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
All right, I've read the signature link. KooKoo
First of all, comparing these two GPU's is like comparing Apples to Banana's.
RSX on paper will have certain advantages over Xenon, and Xenon will have certain advantages over RSX.
There is the element of co-operation with the CPU we also have to consider.
Ok, lets put up the specs for the RSX as published.
- 550 Mhz
- 51 billion dot products/sec count's for total system performance
- 300 Million Transistors
- 136 shader operations per clock
good now that's for the facts as presented to us, we have 550 MHz of power to work with
The Cell and the RSX together are capable to produce 51 billion dot products.
I think it is interesting to take a closer look at this claim especially, since I worked with this bit while the specs of both consoles first became public ;).
Since Cell will have 7 DSP's all being able to do a dot product per cycle, we hace some numbers to work with, we can put the numbers in a small calculation.
7DSP * 3.2(ghz) = 22.4 billion dot products/sec for the CPU
since we had 51 billion in total , we will have to substract them to know what is left for the GPU.
51 - 22.4 = 28.6 Billion dot products
When you devide this number to the clockspeed of the GPU you will get 52 ALU operations per clock as they are called.
Now as stated before, the RSX's architecture is not that different from the GeForce 6800 and so it will use Vector4 standards.
Since ATI's architecture is done with Vector5s it will handle the material a bit different.
Now there also the Multiply Add instructions, in short MADD instructions to work with.
In plain English MADD means that the vector graphic will be recalculated to it's precise position, and the instruction always sort of double checks before we get output, that's why we have throw in the 2 value in the end calculation.
So, what we have here is this.
52 ALU ops * 4 floats (vector4s) * 550 (clockspeed) * 2 (MADD) =228.8
Gflops for the RSX and Cell as a team.
If we do the same with the specs of Xbox 360 we will find that it does the following, all numbers provided through the same calculation though with the Xeon the dot products are devided over it's 3 cores.
48 ALU ops (less than PS3) * 5 floats (vector5s better than PS3) * 500 (less than PS3) * 2(MADD) = 240 Gflops for Xenon, and Xeon as a team
This is one example of how this Xenon GPU together with the Xeon does more with less, and in this case it will give slightly better graphics.
So in theory we have a more powerful RSX with more Mhz's at it's disposal which due to some limitations within the architecture can not be used to it's full potential.
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 14:04 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
First of all, comparing these two GPU's is like comparing Apples to Banana's.
Wow, tahts what i told truthman, but i said apples vs oranges.
You forgot all about TFlops.
System Floating Point Performance
2 TFLOPS
GPu rsx 1.8tflops
Quote:
This is one example of how this Xenon GPU together with the Xeon does more with less, and in this case it will give slightly better graphics.
Nope,The cpu wouldnt make the graphics better. The GPU makes the graphics, CPU tells the Gpu what to make.
What i am aying.
RSX>Xenos
ps3 cell<imb processor.
ps3 graphics better
xbox360 computer better
one more fact, they hav'nt decided the architecture for the ps3 gpu.
I know that the 360 combined cpu and GPU will be better at performance. But the performance wont affect it's graphics.
The xbox360 cpu can tell the gpu to produce more, but it cant tell it to produce better graphics
Do all the opperations to see which is better including all the specs.
Including the tflops and everything.
Or i will
And do it for the rsx and xenos. Dont combine the CPU. Make it xenos vs rsx, your just saying that the two combined will have better performace. Buti dont care about performance, i care about graphics, and games.
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2005 @ 14:25
|
|
Reasons?
Suspended permanently
|
15. December 2005 @ 14:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
The cell is more powerful in GFLOPS, so I dont' know what you are looking at. The Xenon CPU is advertised with that general purposed crap, but the cell pull smore GFLOPS
Fanboy is a term used to describe someone who is utterly devoted to a single subject. This generally is followed by the devotion and support even when proved wrong.
Anecdotal, by my definition, it's the way too many people here think. It's also all the evidence you have.
Xbox 360 GT: NEGATIVE 273K
My advice: Wait for PS3.
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 14:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yea, it was kinda intresting when you said that combined rsx and cell processor is 228 gflops when the cell is 218 gflops. Kinda makes siomething wrong doesnt it? Redue it, im curios for the results, you got a fact wrong making the ps3 Information wrong. Making your thesus that xbox360 will have better graphics wrong.
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2005 @ 17:48
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 15:02 |
Link to this message
|
>_<
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. December 2005 @ 18:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
i'd also like to add a tidbit to the ram. the ps3 has two separete ram places. the 360 has one. both totalling 512 excluding the minimally important edram. having the memory split will allow faster transfers. the xdr ram will be straight wired to the cpu, while the gddr3 to the gpu. this means faster load times. 512 shared means the data has to be found for the cpu or gpu, then sent, split, and delivered to the correct area. that means slower speeds.
also, i may have said this, people incluse the edram bandwidth into the system bandwith catagory to say the 360 is better by 200gbs. when almost all of it the just the edram. this pi$$es me off.
|
|
charza
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 22:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
No no, it's not that the facts I came up with are wrong, and paint the PS 3 as doing worse, as I said before, they have advantages over each other, and in some cases the Xenon/Xeon outperforms the RSX/Cell, and the other way around.
What my numbers show however, and KooKoo also sort of agrees with this is that the performance of the 360 will be a tad better overall.
Now it's not the quantity of of all these operations that matter, cause when put in a graph, you will see that both system sollutions will be so close to each other that you can conclude that they will have the same amount of power available for game development.
In short it's 2 different approaches to reach the exact same goal.
Now I would love to be able to do some programming on both of the DEV kits, to see what they are capable of, and I think soon the university where I do my research now will have both of them :), since they also have all the dev kits of the current gen.
BTW, please do not confuse Floating Point Ops with Graphical Floating Point Ops.
normal Flops are used for streaming amounts of data, and have no effect on the graphics or polygon budget, Floating Point Ops is what is done when information is loaded through a loading screen, also video streaming from a disc is done by Flops instructions, and I think it's not surprising that the Cell's focus is on Flops, since otherwise it would not have been able to playback Blu Ray content in a stable way, since that technology is also in a very early stadium.
GFlops however is the data that the game engine can put on screen and that is what you saw in the calculation.
What I conclude is that the new architecture of ATI opens new ways in terms of graphical development, and Developers can now ponder new ways of programming, while for PS 3 Developers will be bound to the more conventional ways of programming, and the power will be harder to effectively program.
I will continue analyzing both the graphical chip sets, and will take time for it, so don't expect it to be posted here tonight, as I will take a look at all the technicalities available at this moment. I will also try to incorporate Dev Kit results, when I can see the results of both the Dev Kits at the Uni.
So hang on for a while ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. December 2005 @ 22:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
you know, the conventional way has proved itself and dev teams know it well already. the new one dev teams have to learn, which takes more time. we dont even know if the new tech is better or worse only by a few calculations. many field testing and new coding will have to be done to see if it is more efficient.
|
|
zelda64
Senior Member
|
15. December 2005 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Finaly charza an man who seems more belivable when it comes to the GPU and the Ram argument.
Like kookoo67 knows, I know the basics of the technical side when it comes to consoles and Kookoo67 has tought me a few things.Thank you Kookoo67.
But just to add my little part. Because I am not as techniqualy minded as you guy's there is one advantage I might have over you lot. That advantage is marketing and sales. Your probably wondering what the hell this has to do with the next generation of computer gaming but it does hold an advantage when it comes to conferences and presentations. I have watched the Sony E3 presentation three times and all the xbox 360 presentations three times as well (this sounds very sad but I had nothing better to do). From watching these presentations with my sales knowledge and going by history you can (with a bit of homework) see all the tricks both companies are doing. From looking at the charts and statistics what Sony are potraying is a false identity. They get the public excited and creat false speculation.
Anyway I could go on with what I have found out from watching and reading but I dont want to bore you lot, besides you know my view on what console I like. I know you might look apon what I say as irelavent but please take into account that with my love for computer games and experiance in sales that I can tell what's being portrayed without having to know too much on the technical side of things.
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. December 2005 @ 02:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
np
charza:
Why did you include vector5s in your calculations, is'nt it just how much easier it is to prgram with? 5vector being easier to program with than vector4, from what ive done mreaserch. it wouldnt add to pwer though.
>_<
|
|
charza
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. December 2005 @ 07:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just a quick post.
I added the different Vector calculations because it makes a bit of difference when working with power distribution within the GPU, not only are 5s easier to work with than 4s, they also help the MADD operations and Gflops instructions, so they don't really add power in the sense of speed, but they do add efficiency to the many different operations, that's why I took them within my calculation.
And Zelda64, I agree with you about this marketing hype that's going on at the moment.
I don't say Sony's system is bad, cause it's not, but the way Sony presents it, could only raise false expectations.
They present their technology with a lot of what ifs, and maybe's, and they make claims that simply are rediculous.
I remember a presentation where the PS2 was said to be able to deliver real time graphics which could rival pixar animated features.
This claim was rediculous, and they now present the Cell as a "Supercomputer" which is absolutely not the case.
To the regular joe and the fanboys claims as these sound as sweet music, but for pro's, Sony loses a lot of it's credibility.
So all I want to do here is to establish that people won't take many of these claims too seriously, since it can backfire on Sony, and can potentially disappoint a lot of people because they overhyped a good and potent system.
|
Member
|
16. December 2005 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
For what I'v read their are pretty equal(360 and PS3), even when they use different technology. The revolution will be far behind in specs(GPU and CPU are said to barely double the Gamecube's and it might not even reach 128MB of RAM), but since it won't support HDTV, it might be enough.
Both the Cell processor powering the PS3 and the Xenon powering the 360 are highly overhyped according to the following series of articles. They even say the Xenon has the "real-life" performance of two previus XBOX processors(733MHZ). Check it out:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453
After checking their series of articles I realize that even when the triple core Xenon is said to be easier for developers to work with, the singe core Cell can do pretty much the same, only it will take more work to take advantage of it's seven specialized SPE's.
The Cell's limitation should be nullyfied by the PS3's bluray drive, since the Cell won't spend as much time as the Xenon decompresing data and developers won't have to worry for compressing and storage limitations as much as with the 360.
Also in the article, Sony is praised for offering 1080p resolution, something I personally don't care about, since the only TV's that offer this resolution are way out of my reach.
Razengan!!!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. December 2005 @ 08:58
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. December 2005 @ 10:23 |
Link to this message
|
I found a flaw in yours.
Quote:
Now as stated before, the RSX's architecture is not that different from the GeForce 6800 and so it will use Vector4 standards.
The RSX's architecture is not that different from the geforce 7800, not the Geforce 6800.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=9
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. December 2005 @ 10:35
|
|
zelda64
Senior Member
|
16. December 2005 @ 10:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes, what you guys say is true and charza I remember that to, when Sony said about the Pixar animations and supercomputer compnents. I remember reading that in the Official Playstation magazine and getting all excited. But as you say these companies over hype, more so with Sony. When watching the xbox 360 presentations they dont give as much false speculation as you will notice with the games they showed at E3. Graphicaly the games didnt look that impresive (this is because they where either imports from the xbox or simply because they where made on the very low pre devolpment kits). Sony on the other hand showed footage of Killzone 2 and got me very very excited but then it occured to me that Sony do these kind of tricks all the time and I was right, that footage was'nt in game but 'what the PS3 might be able to do in the future', SPECULATION.
Microsoft are doing thier bit of hype as well but more on the social rather than technical side of things. They describe the 360 as this mass media machine that will conect the world together, when this is obviously not the case. It will have good media capabilities (but not as good as a PC) and when it comes to 'conecting the world together' I dont think it will be as drastick as that.
So from the false identity Sony gives with the manipulation of numbers and chart's I can truely say (without that much of being too technical) that I believe Sony's PS3 will be equal to the 360 and if it does prove to be more powerful it will only have a small difference in graphical quality (not a huge difference like the xbox had over the PS2) that wont be that much to persuade the public. However we will just have to wait and see when the test on the machines capabilities are carried out.
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. December 2005 @ 13:30 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
'conecting the world together'
Connecting people?! It's more opposite, look at these forums. Its like a war. Arguements and arguements. What you will be able to see diference in is the rev. Obviosly.. Rev against these system is like xbox and ps2.
>_<
|
|
zelda64
Senior Member
|
16. December 2005 @ 14:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Conecting people, connecting the world, you catch my drift.
Well I truely belive there will be hardly any difference between graphical capabilities between 360 and PS3. It will be down to games and functionality. This is why in the long run I think the 360 will have a chance of being top if not tie with the PS3. It is True we havent heard much about the PS3's internet capabilities and it's funtions but one thing I can say is Microsoft are pro's when it comes to that area having loads of experiance and from seeing all the 360's functions and internet it will be hard for Sony to beat.
It is also true that we havent seen many of the PS3 games yet but again from the potential of these new games (with the awsome devlopers who are making them) 360 has in it's line up I consider it will be a chalange for Sony to compete with this time around. That is why my mind is on the 360 side before all of PS3's details have emerged.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. December 2005 @ 14:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Zelda, do you know that because of the shortage, xbox360 is doing worse than xbox when it first came out?
Anyways, with games taking 100% of the GPU, all the power that the two systems have is goign to be pointlesS. They design the cpu's for the two systems faster than computer processors. Games cant possibably use all that potential, they odnt need that power. The GPU they do need.
>_<
|
