|
|
|
ps3 graphic
|
|
Moderator
|
12. December 2005 @ 17:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
did you meen that he can rejoin from kookoo76 by abiding the rules
He can rejoin but he'll need a different username. Once a nick has been banned it's gone forever.
Quote:
Or does he have to make a whole new account
Yup.
Quote:
He doesnt have two email accounts
Not my problem. He should've thought of that before.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 |
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
13. December 2005 @ 08:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
ahh kookoo, what can i say, you constantly ignore the things that i say to you dont you.
but first, lets get the shared RAM debate out of the way.
SHARED RAM is BETTER than individual RAM because it increases bandwith, you can cross-link the latencies of the RAM between the CPU and GPU, and there is no need for fastwriting as the RAM is directly shared. (so there are more system recourses available).
i DONT know why you thought that it was bad kookoo, even a computer amateur should know that.
the more bandwith the merrier.
plus BECAUSE of parallel processing the core speed can be lower and it can still run faster than the RSX with its higher clockspeed. (like nvidia's PC cards w/lower clockspeeds vs ATI's higher clockspeeds, they ran as fast as each other, and in 50% of tests Nvidia card was faster, ATI in other half), jees, kookoo, ive said it many many times but CLOCKSPEED doesnt always matter, plus all the pipelines mean that the clockspeed doesnt have to be as high.
because of more pipelines it can do more things at once.
shader ops are just what happen in the pipelines and they are ONLY 1 thing that occours.
for PC cards - because ATI had less pipelines (X1800XT has only 16, and GTX has 24) they used BRUTE CLOCKSPEEDS to get more done in the pipes that they had,
Morepipelines = more things can be done at once.
the Nvidia GTX can do more things at once compared to X1800XT but it does them at a slower rate in eaqch pipe.
(all of this pipe stuff im talking about is excluding the shader ops, as they are only 1 thing done out of others, for some reason you seem to *hard hug* the shader ops thing, let loose man it bringing you down).
The more pipelines there are, the lower the clockspeed can be.
so to have 48 pipelines (which excluding shader ops, TANS the RSX) with a 500Mhz core is INCREDIBLE, no card like it ever has been made.
so if you do a proportional calculation you will find the ATI card apsolutely *owns* the RSX.
(shader ops dont matter too much kookoo)
this is for workload excluding shader ops .
for ATI: 500 x 48 = 24000
for Nvidia: 550 x 24 = 13200
so there you have it, operations wise the ATI kicks the RSX's a*s.
plus superior parallel processing
plus HRD with AA (which ALL Nvidia cards inc. RSX cant do properly)
plus adaptive Antialiasing
**PLUS UNIFIED SHADER ARCHITECTURE** (KICKS ass big time, FAR better than RSX's if it is having one, nvidia have yet to confirm, the USA is the bell of the ball for when it comes to shader optimisations).
so kookoo, it may have less shader operations, but with what it does have it has the unified shader architecture to optimise and mix them better than the *gods* could between pixel and vertex, it is better overall in shader performance too. (RSX uses a brute number of shader operations vs ATI ultra optimised ones with USA method, it turns out shader operations wise the ATI card just wins by a wee tiny little bit).
ATI Xenon GPU (360) has victory. (still the RSX is FABULOUS)
if anyone reads this im sure they will agree (it helps A LOT if you know about GPU's, but ive made it understandable for even if you have only a little GPU knowledge - *i think*, at least i tried to.
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.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. December 2005 @ 08:20
|
|
ThEeOnE
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. December 2005 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
[kookoo]
truth man first of all.
Quote:
this is for workload excluding shader ops .
for ATI: 500 x 48 = 24000
for Nvidia: 550 x 24 = 13200
so there you have it, operations wise the ATI kicks the RSX's a*s.
You did it all wrong, as i said before that each pipeline the rsx produces produces almost three time more than the ati
And second this is relating to me saying the ammount of pipeline doesnt matter
technicall it would be
5.7x24x550=75240 =RSX
2x48x500=48000
So you statement is wrong and all made up.
You forgot that pipelines are weak and strong which I've already said.
and for the lat time
If the rsx can produce that many shader ops for each pipeline, it will do the same with ops.
The pipelines arent weaker for the actualy opperations per seccond
You forgot all about the power of the pipeline
and yett again rsx > ati
get over it.
And since i have a feeling what you are gonna say.
say that the ati can produce 1 OPS
the ps3 will produce arround 3x more
So ps3 will be 2.7OPS
Do the math.
RSX 2.7x24x550=35640
ATI 1x48x500=24000
just so you dont say i said SHADER OPERATIONS, that was ACTUALL OPPERATIONS Per sec.
WoOt...I aM tHe OnE............
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. December 2005 @ 11:12
|
|
ThEeOnE
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. December 2005 @ 10:16 |
Link to this message
|
[kookoo]
second of all Quote:
plus BECAUSE of parallel processing the core speed can be lower and it can still run faster than the RSX with its higher clockspeed.
They measured the mhz as if it were paralel processing.
Quote:
plus superior parallel processing
plus HRD with AA (which ALL Nvidia cards inc. RSX cant do properly)
plus adaptive Antialiasing
Lol, the ati can produce better pics wow, thats not graphics.
pipeline power doesnt change when its doing OPS, not SOPS, OPS. The power of the pipeline will stay the same. And power,.(bruit power) comes from tflops, which the ps3 has double than the xbox360.)
Quote:
jees, kookoo, ive said it many many times but CLOCKSPEED doesnt always matter
The clock speed affects it, it makes it more clearer and smoother. I already defined that.)
Quote:
so kookoo, it may have less shader operations, but with what it does have it has the unified shader architecture to optimise and mix them better than the *gods* could between pixel and vertex, it is better overall in shader performance too. (RSX uses a brute number of shader operations vs ATI ultra optimised ones with USA method, it turns out shader operations wise the ATI card just wins by a wee tiny little bit).
Where to start, you do not know if the rsx wil lhave a unified architecture. It's most likely they will, like it said on anandtech.
And i already said that the rsx wil completly beat ati in shader ops!!
Dont you remember?
rsx 136 sops
ati 96
Quote:
SHARED RAM is BETTER than individual RAM because it increases bandwith, you can cross-link the latencies of the RAM between the CPU and GPU, and there is no need for fastwriting as the RAM is directly shared. (so there are more system recourses available).
You forgot that there are different types of ram!!!!!
DDram is better than sdram.
Ps3 has the better ram. need proof?
ps3 256 mb operates at 700mhz
xbox360 512 shared ram totals at 700mhz
ps3 700mhzx2 is 1.4ghz
xbox360 700mhz.
You are proved wrong completley
Stop denying it
PS. im making a new account.
Quote:
The more pipelines there are, the lower the clockspeed can be.
Actually no. The power and the speed of the pipelines determine the clock speed. the 24 pipelines has more power than speed than all 48 pipelines combined. Thats why the rsx has the clock speed of 550mhz, and the xbox360 is clocked at 500mhz.
Secondly if the ati were to have 48 pipelines, and each of them can do as much as one rsx pipeline can, the clock speed for the xbox360 will be 1ghz. So that just proves you 100% wrong.
Quote:
because of more pipelines it can do more things at once.
And your little thing on 48 pipelines can do more seperate opperations at a weak pace is 100% wrong aswell.
The gpu is for graphic processing unit. GRAPHICS, its not a CPU to multi task. YOu should know better than that.
CPU just tells what the GPU what to put on the screen. And the RSX is more powerfull than the ATI.
and if you disagree with this, it will actually go against you.
If as you say that the pipelines will do seperet opperations(100% wrong) that would mean little opperations on the actual graphics, causing BAD graphics.
WoOt...I aM tHe OnE............
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. December 2005 @ 11:21
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. December 2005 @ 11:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yea im going to be talking on my new account now, since my old one is bann. I am kookoo76. So Nephilim, ill talk on my account. Since you say kookoo76 cant come back....:(
>_<
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. December 2005 @ 17:31 |
Link to this message
|
I forgot to add somthing to this
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so kookoo, it may have less shader operations, but with what it does have it has the unified shader architecture to optimise and mix them better than the *gods* could between pixel and vertex, it is better overall in shader performance too. (RSX uses a brute number of shader operations vs ATI ultra optimised ones with USA method, it turns out shader operations wise the ATI card just wins by a wee tiny little bit).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where to start, you do not know if the rsx wil lhave a unified architecture. It's most likely they will, like it said on anandtech.
And i already said that the rsx wil completly beat ati in shader ops!!
Dont you remember?
rsx 136 sops
ati 96
And unified architecture uses all its pipelines to do different Graphic tasks. Since ps3 has more ops, it will still beat the unified architecture. I explained more on my thread. Check that one out, im tired of using this thread for this debate.
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. December 2005 @ 17:31
|
Moderator
|
14. December 2005 @ 05:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
KoOkOo67
Your sigs way too big. Read the forum rules for guidelines on sig size limits. There's a link to the forum rules in my sig.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. December 2005 @ 05:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, i will
Is that ok?
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2005 @ 05:35
|
Moderator
|
14. December 2005 @ 08:32 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
1. Text-only signatures should have at most 5 lines of text.
You have eight showing up on my screen, champ.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2005 @ 08:33
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. December 2005 @ 08:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
K, got it, all done
but, im not the only one with more than 5text sigs. I've seen some ppl in the Other pc hardware threads. So i thaugh it would be ok to have like 7 lines of text. Sorry bout that though!
>_<
|
Moderator
|
14. December 2005 @ 14:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks. The others will be dealt with in due time.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33
|
|
TruthMan
Member
|
15. December 2005 @ 08:16 |
Link to this message
|
what, it will go against me if i reply, WHY WILL IT? u fool.
and quite simply dude i can say that what you said about my info, ITS WRONG. jesus you dont know sh*t.
you put shader ops with normal ops together in the equations and i clearly stated that what i put was EXCLUDING shader ops.
the ATI CLEARLY has more general processing operations, and if you really think that it doesnt then you need to flush urself and try again, because it just shows me how much you dont know if u persist on stating technically wrong information.
PLUS shader ops wise, the USA if truly a definative thing that many cards wanted to have, but the ATI card in the 360 is the first true one.
the Nvidia one will not be as advanced nor as good, because it doesnt need to be, because it has more raw-power shader operations (it has more).
I never meant *actual* seperate shader operations, but can seperate the pixel and vertex shader ops more because of the USA, and it can focus on what is needed to be done first more. its mainly pixel ones, thats why there are more pixel pipelines than vertex ones in traditional graphics cards.
when u said
"Lol, the ati can produce better pics wow, thats not graphics."
well you are a flamin IDIOT. adaptive AA with HDR enabled is for when playing the games, SO IT IS IN GAMEPLAY THAT YOU SEE IT, AND IN SCREEN SHOTS ALSO. that alone proves that you really dont know a bloody thing about ingame graphics.
practically all of the things that you tried to prove me wrong with is incorrect information. making you look like a fish barrel.
for the PS3 ram thing, the 256 MB modules ARE SEPERATE, AND EACH SEPERATE MODULE IS 700MHZ, because their seperate you DONT times them together, (2 256mb modules at 700Mhz (350Mhz effective as DDR is doubled) DOES NOT equal 1.4Ghz, if you think that is true, then ALL pc's with 2 slots of 400Mhz RAM will have 800Mhz altogether, NO PC HAVE THAT HAPPEN, SO YOU ARE SO WRONG
plus SHARED RAM is better at its got increased bandwith and THERE IS NO NEED FOR FAST WRITING, so there are more system resources available. i DONT KNOW WHY YOU THINK THAT PS3 is better RAM WISE, dude you dont know enough information to fully compete and try to win with your technical points, because there nearly all wrong. LEARN MORE STUFF!!
even *if* the RSX beats the ATI in shader ops, what will it gain overall - really?. ill use this example question belw to refer to that what i just said.
i want you to tell me what shader ops are primarily used for/in, and see if you are correct. if you *actually* know then its no big deal, as its not a great important detail in games. they dont help improve textures, HDR, Anti Aliasing, Anisotropic Filtering or geometry performance much at all. so tell me your answer on what they are used in primarily.
so less shader ops really doesnt matter too much.
when you said
<<"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
plus BECAUSE of parallel processing the core speed can be lower and it can still run faster than the RSX with its higher clockspeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They measured the mhz as if it were parallel processing">>
you couldnt be more wrong. parallel processing is a different aspect, its the way the data is processed/rendered/displayed.
thats why a lower clockspeed Nvidia card can provide similiar performance to a higher clocked ATI card (like 6800Ultra (400Mhz) vs X800XT PE (560Mhz), they both had 16 pipelines.
<the ATI X800XT PE didnt use parallel processing much at all yet it had a higher clockspeed, but performance was similar>.
well that proves another part of your info wrong.
heres another point, the new 6800GS PCI-E card is replacing the 6800GT. and heres the thing. the 6800GS has a much better clockspeed than the GT (425 vs 350) but it has 4 less pipelines - so in total it has 12 - but each one can do 2 more shader ops (so number of shader ops is more). But regardless of the the much higher clockspeed and more shader ops, overall performance compared to the GT is lower. so those 4 pipes made a difference didnt they even with better shader ops, and even with a better clockspeed. apply the same principle (which is the same for RSX vs ATI Xenon 360 card) to the RSX vs the 360 ATI card, and the ATI has a swift and decisive victory. - 95% of that info about 6800GS vs 6800GT taken from Custom PC magazine january edition issue 28. the other 5% was me peicing it together so it made sense. Custom PC have never been wrong with tech info and they are incredible reviewers. they are professionals.
Yet again, more points for me to say - clockspeed means how fast data is rendered and displayed by the core. a higherclockspeed makes a card faster in one aspect. just because a card has a higher clockspeed doesnt mean that things will look smoother, if that was true then all decent ATI PC cards would dominate the Nvidia ones. smoothnes of graphics is all to do with framerate, the higher the framerate the smoother the graphics are (basically the smoother the game runs).
and the more powerful a card is, the better the framerate (when not comparing image quality during gameplay - which ATI wins due to HDR with <adaptive> AA). the power of a card is when ALL aspects are taken info place and added together.
this graphics card war is about which card offers better framerates when you think about it. and also (a bit) about image quality.
but we already know that ATI has better image quality.
dude you REALLY NEED to learn *even* more info (you do know quite a bit*ish*) but its just not accurate.
i just proved ur ass 100% wrong.
AND ITS TECHNICALLY CORRECT, which most of ur info wasn't.
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 @ 10:19 |
Link to this message
|
k first off, Quote:
you put shader ops with normal ops together in the equations and i clearly stated that what i put was EXCLUDING shader ops.
No i didnt, the total OPS happening in the rsx 1 pipeline will have almost tripple than what the xbox360 at one pipline can do. So for each opperation, NOT SHADER OPPERATION, will always have arround 3x more for every pipeline.
Quote:
and quite simply dude i can say that what you said about my info, ITS WRONG. jesus you dont know sh*t.
OOO really?
This seems right to you?
for ATI: 500 x 48 = 24000
for Nvidia: 550 x 24 = 13200
How the hell did you get this? You didnt even put the pipeline power. One pipeline for the rsx is almost 3 x more powrfuller!
That is wrong you doof.
Quote:
practically all of the things that you tried to prove me wrong with is incorrect information. making you look like a fish barrel.
I JUST PROVED YOU WRONG.!
And on my thread, it already tells you why the xbox360 ram is bad! Why didnt you read it? You just said it was wrong when it was right.
Quote:
<the ATI X800XT PE didnt use parallel processing much at all yet it had a higher clockspeed, but performance was similar>.
well that proves another part of your info wrong.
once again, the performance for the ati with he dual processing was 500mhz. ps3 550mhz. Which means the rsx graphics will be more smoother and clearer.
Quote:
Yet again, more points for me to say - clockspeed means how fast data is rendered and displayed by the core.just because a card has a higher clockspeed doesnt mean that things will look smoother,
Ive already said the higher the clearer the smoother the graphics!!!!!!! your wrong get over it
Quote:
the higher the framerate the smoother the graphics are (basically the smoother the game runs).
Here you are wrong both ways! Do you know why ps3 can handle 120 fps(framerate per second) and 360 cn only do 90? Because the rsx clock speed is higher than the xbox360, making the images look more crisp and better.
RSX IS better overall! It has more pros than cons. IT beats the ATI
Quote:
dude you REALLY NEED to learn *even* more info (you do know quite a bit*ish*) but its just not accurate.
i just proved ur ass 100% wrong.
Im not accurate?!?! You just said this
Quote:
for ATI: 500 x 48 = 24000
for Nvidia: 550 x 24 = 13200
NO its not
it would be
ati 500x(48x2)=48000
rsx 550x(24x5.7)=75240
And the actuall OPS will always be that fraction higher
And whats with the insults now? WTF i did'nt insult you
You 100% wrong im right!
And truthman i typed that info, i just did it on my sis account cause i didnt have a new account. Iv'e said already kookoo76 at the top of each one..but w.e
RSX beats ATI xenos..frag
Quote:
even *if* the RSX beats the ATI in shader ops, what will it gain overall - really?. ill use this example question belw to refer to that what i just said.
1)Since the rsx beats ati in sops, it will beat it in all opperations to that fraction of how the rsx sops can do. 1 pipeline does 5.7, ati does 2 sops per. So it would always be
5.7/2 = 11.4/2 and so on.
136/96= 272/192 always
And as you said, the more pipelines the better the graphics
The rsx will be equivelent to more than 48 pipelines
which means better graphics
And the unifed. True the unifed achitexture wins. But witht the rsx architecture that much more powerfull, the rsx beats the xenos
And yett they didnt decide on what the rsx architecture will be.
PS, xenos architecute at peak does'nt beat the rsx at its ratio, that was pointless what you said, you take it as the rsx equivelent to the ati, which the rsx is powerfuller.
And just so you get it in your head
xenos at 90 fps maximum
rsx at 120 fps at maximum
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2005 @ 10:48
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
15. December 2005 @ 14:49 |
Link to this message
|
Truthman, just to prove even more that ps3's ram is better.
ps3 CPU 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz
GPU 256MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz
xbox360512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz
10MB Embedded DRAM
HuhDo you see that the 256mb of ram opperates at 3.2ghz? While 360's opperates at 700mhz shared.
And dont include 10mb of embedded dram, it's not that good, and the fact that it's DRAM, not DDRAM, ddram being better than dram. Makes the 360 even more worse.
The XDR ram that the ps3 will have is goign to be the fastest ram on the market when it comes out. Keep that in mind.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/storage/toshiba-first-...
http://www.techworld.com/storage/news/index.cfm?NewsID=3395
>_<
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. December 2005 @ 14:52
|
|
KainX
Suspended permanently
|
18. December 2005 @ 11:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah truthman it dosen't matter
Ps3 uses both XDR and GDDR3
the XDR is at 3.2 Ghz
and the GDDR3 is at 700 Mhz
even with the 360's unified memory architecture its still not faster
3.2Ghz is better than 700Mhz
The Japanese consumers know this well
Seeing how the Xbox 360 launch failed totally in japan recently
currently have these consoles
Gamecube
Xbox
Ps2
Dreamcast
Phantom
Gba
psp
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. December 2005 @ 11:36
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
KoOkOo67
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
18. December 2005 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not to mention its XDR ram, the ram that is goign to be the fastest ram next year when toshiba is releasing it.
>_<
|
|
