RAM seems to be the main issue as far as game development on PS3

After reading around the net it seems the PS3's biggest obstacle in game development is the access to enough RAM/VRAM, made evident by mentions of framerate issues in current games. Sure the architecture is more complex, but 512megs of memory devoted to the GPU vs 256 would make that "bottleneck" complaint we often hear less of an issue.

Are there any plans down the road to upgrade RAM, or is there a way to work around it with current hardware? As far as I'm concerned, Cell has yet to prove itself from a gaming standpoint. Folding at Home to me so far is the most impressive thing I've seen from the console. Haze does look promising though, as well as the developer's praise of the PS3's capabilities.

It's no more of an obstacle for the 360, which has one 512mb stick of ddr3 ram shared between the GPU and CPU, compared to the ps3, which has a 256 mb stick of XDR dedicated to the cpu, and a 256 mb stick of ddr3 dedicated to the gpu.  Either way, they both have 512.

Also, the way the ps3s architecture is designed, the RSX has access to both pools of ram, however it's hard to access the XDR with it.  Also, the Cell can help with GPU functions, so that means the XDR can also be used for graphical calculations as a bi-product of the cell being used to supplement the RSX.  For example, Ninja Theory said that they have HDR being emulated on the Cell, instead of being run on the RSX in Heavenly Sword.

It's no more of an obstacle for the 360, which has one 512mb stick of ddr3 ram shared between the GPU and CPU, compared to the ps3, which has a 256 mb stick of XDR dedicated to the cpu, and a 256 mb stick of ddr3 dedicated to the gpu. Either way, they both have 512.

Also, the way the ps3s architecture is designed, the RSX has access to both pools of ram, however it's hard to access the XDR with it. Also, the Cell can help with GPU functions, so that means the XDR can also be used for graphical calculations as a bi-product of the cell being used to supplement the RSX. For example, Ninja Theory said that they have HDR being emulated on the Cell, instead of being run on the RSX in Heavenly Sword.

makingmusic476

Thanks for that Einstein lol.

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

It's no more of an obstacle for the 360, which has one 512mb stick of ddr3 ram shared between the GPU and CPU, compared to the ps3, which has a 256 mb stick of XDR dedicated to the cpu, and a 256 mb stick of ddr3 dedicated to the gpu. Either way, they both have 512.

Also, the way the ps3s architecture is designed, the RSX has access to both pools of ram, however it's hard to access the XDR with it. Also, the Cell can help with GPU functions, so that means the XDR can also be used for graphical calculations as a bi-product of the cell being used to supplement the RSX. For example, Ninja Theory said that they have HDR being emulated on the Cell, instead of being run on the RSX in Heavenly Sword.

matttrd

Thanks for that Einstein lol.

It's no more of an obstacle for the 360, which has one 512mb stick of ddr3 ram shared between the GPU and CPU, compared to the ps3, which has a 256 mb stick of XDR dedicated to the cpu, and a 256 mb stick of ddr3 dedicated to the gpu. Either way, they both have 512.

Also, the way the ps3s architecture is designed, the RSX has access to both pools of ram, however it's hard to access the XDR with it. Also, the Cell can help with GPU functions, so that means the XDR can also be used for graphical calculations as a bi-product of the cell being used to supplement the RSX. For example, Ninja Theory said that they have HDR being emulated on the Cell, instead of being run on the RSX in Heavenly Sword.

makingmusic476

Good job you have hurt my brain. Seriously though it's nice to see an intelligent post, we don't get too many of those.

I think the ram "problem" is just that it's a different setup than the 360s, and therefore games have to be coded in a different way. It seems like most developers are just slamming 360 code into the PS3 version and once the frame rate hits "good enough," they ship it. It's definately not the ideal way to develop for the PS3.Vampyronight

thats what I just said...... up above

THis thread is scary :shock: to many big words...

just kidding, i haven't heard the whole bottleneck complaint from any devs really, mostly just trolls who are trying to find reasons why the PS3 sucks.

just cause the 360 has 256 mb of ram, doesnt mean its the same ram used in the ps3. the ps3 uses xdr ram, 256mb of it. its 10x faster then the ram used in the 360, which means no bottle necking. the biggest issue with developers is using all 7 of the available spus on the cell processor.

they're lazy.

just cause the 360 has 256 mb of ram, doesnt mean its the same ram used in the ps3. the ps3 uses xdr ram, 256mb of it. its 10x faster then the ram used in the 360, which means no bottle necking. the biggest issue with developers is using all 7 of the available spus on the cell processor.

they're lazy.

rxjhobbz

"they're lazy. "  REVISION: "Ubisofts lazy."

xbox 360 has 522 mb ram. 512mb + 10 mb of edramaminoj

There is always one, isn't there? 

It's no more of an obstacle for the 360, which has one 512mb stick of ddr3 ram shared between the GPU and CPU, compared to the ps3, which has a 256 mb stick of XDR dedicated to the cpu, and a 256 mb stick of ddr3 dedicated to the gpu.  Either way, they both have 512.

Also, the way the ps3s architecture is designed, the RSX has access to both pools of ram, however it's hard to access the XDR with it.  Also, the Cell can help with GPU functions, so that means the XDR can also be used for graphical calculations as a bi-product of the cell being used to supplement the RSX.  For example, Ninja Theory said that they have HDR being emulated on the Cell, instead of being run on the RSX in Heavenly Sword.

It's no more of an obstacle for the 360, which has one 512mb stick of ddr3 ram shared between the GPU and CPU, compared to the ps3, which has a 256 mb stick of XDR dedicated to the cpu, and a 256 mb stick of ddr3 dedicated to the gpu.  Either way, they both have 512.

Also, the way the ps3s architecture is designed, the RSX has access to both pools of ram, however it's hard to access the XDR with it.  Also, the Cell can help with GPU functions, so that means the XDR can also be used for graphical calculations as a bi-product of the cell being used to supplement the RSX.  For example, Ninja Theory said that they have HDR being emulated on the Cell, instead of being run on the RSX in Heavenly Sword.

makingmusic476

also, to clarify, the cell in the ps3 has only 6 SPEs available for gaming, one of the eight used for the OS and one other dormant, for rendundancy, they say. but I think the seventh SPE could be activated and used for games with a firmware update. devs could design games with the seven SPEs being used, and the games would just say something like "Gameplay requires PS3 system version so-and-so". seeing as updates can come on new game disks, online, or downloaded off of seperate flash drives, this update would be incredibly easy and widespread, making it practical. this seems like a likely event in the future.Mordred19

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]also, to clarify, the cell in the ps3 has only 6 SPEs available for gaming, one of the eight used for the OS and one other dormant, for rendundancy, they say. but I think the seventh SPE could be activated and used for games with a firmware update. devs could design games with the seven SPEs being used, and the games would just say something like "Gameplay requires PS3 system version so-and-so". seeing as updates can come on new game disks, online, or downloaded off of seperate flash drives, this update would be incredibly easy and widespread, making it practical. this seems like a likely event in the future.makingmusic476

Meh.

The Ram of the X360 is 512 Mbyte at 800 Mhz, while the PS3's ram is one 256 Mbyte at 800 MHz and one 256 Mbyte at 3.2 GIGAHERTZ dedicated for the graphics card. The bottleneck comes from developers not using the speed of the RAM properly and only utilizing the memory.

 I don't believe that developers are lazy when porting something, rather they are rushed into porting something. Optimizing takes time, and time means money.

Meh.

The Ram of the X360 is 512 Mbyte at 800 Mhz, while the PS3's ram is one 256 Mbyte at 800 MHz and one 256 Mbyte at 3.2 GIGAHERTZ dedicated for the graphics card. The bottleneck comes from developers not using the speed of the RAM properly and only utilizing the memory.

 I don't believe that developers are lazy when porting something, rather they are rushed into porting something. Optimizing takes time, and time means money.

DoggySpew

http://www.psu.com/node/10967

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]also, to clarify, the cell in the ps3 has only 6 SPEs available for gaming, one of the eight used for the OS and one other dormant, for rendundancy, they say. but I think the seventh SPE could be activated and used for games with a firmware update. devs could design games with the seven SPEs being used, and the games would just say something like "Gameplay requires PS3 system version so-and-so". seeing as updates can come on new game disks, online, or downloaded off of seperate flash drives, this update would be incredibly easy and widespread, making it practical. this seems like a likely event in the future.akuma303x

As for the gpus, from what i know, the main difference lies in the architecture.  The 360s is more efficient, because it uses unified pixel/vertex shaders.  You always have what you need, either a vertex or a pixel shader, and none are ever wasted.  The RSX, however, has separate vertex shaders and pixel shaders.  The RSX initially had a higher clock speed than the Xenos, and was considered to be overall stronger in terms of sheer brute power, but the Xenos was more efficient, as stated above.  However, there have been rumors that the RSX's clockspeed was downgraded from the initial 550mhz to 500mhz (the Xenos is also clocked at 500mhz) just prior to launch (late summer or so).  If this is true, then the Xenos would be more powerful, though just barely.  However, neither nVidia nor Sony have yet to release the official specs of the RSX.  Either way, the RSX and Xenos are so close that it really won't have any impact in the long run. 

One other difference between the gpus lies in their ability to produce HDR and AA.  The RSX, since it is an older nVidia model, is unable to run HDR and AA at the same time, where as the Xenos can.  However, this ultimately doesn't matter, because (as i mentioned in my first post) the Cell can assist the RSX in graphical operations, which is quite unusual for a CPU.  The example i used earlier was Ninja Theory using the Cell to emulate HDR so that the RSX can do AA.  The Cell can assist in far more ways than just that, and this is where the potential of the ps3 lies, and how it will not only recieve a boost in physics, paricle effects, AI, etc. over the 360, but also in graphics.  As the devs of Lair said, they just keep throwing more things on the SPEs.  If they find they need more room on the RSX, they just plump something else on the SPEs.  Of course, that is a far oversimplified way of looking at it.   As they can't put just anything on the RSX.  Far from anything, actually.

One of the primary things that the Cell seems to excel at is preparation of data for the RSX.  Basically, the Cell will do all the number crunching for the RSX, then the RSX just does the bare minimum of building the models, instead of having to do all the graphics calculations itself, like would normally happen with a gpu.

Actually, Sony had initially planned to include two Cell-like processors in the ps3.  One is the Cell as we know it today, and one was a slightly modified processor that would essentially act as a super-powered GPU (much like the Cell is a super-powered CPU). How, development costs were rising too high, and they knew it would probably add another $100 to the ps3's manufacturing costs, so they scrapped the idea and ran to nVidia at the last minute.  This is why the RSX is kind of rushed.

Of course, i am by no means an expert on any of this.  I was a short-lived comp sci major last year.  I loved the stuff in High School, but now that i'm in college, the actual developing bores the hell out of me.  Now i'm a music major! :D  Plan to write metal that will make your ears bleed one day. \m/ :twisted:

[QUOTE="akuma303x"][QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]also, to clarify, the cell in the ps3 has only 6 SPEs available for gaming, one of the eight used for the OS and one other dormant, for rendundancy, they say. but I think the seventh SPE could be activated and used for games with a firmware update. devs could design games with the seven SPEs being used, and the games would just say something like "Gameplay requires PS3 system version so-and-so". seeing as updates can come on new game disks, online, or downloaded off of seperate flash drives, this update would be incredibly easy and widespread, making it practical. this seems like a likely event in the future.makingmusic476

As for the gpus, from what i know, the main difference lies in the architecture.  The 360s is more efficient, because it uses unified pixel/vertex shaders.  You always have what you need, either a vertex or a pixel shader, and none are ever wasted.  The RSX initially had a higher clock speed than the Xenos, and was considered to be overall stronger in terms of sheer brute power, but the Xenos was more efficient, as stated above.  However, there have been rumors that the RSX's clockspeed was downgraded from the initial 550mhz to 500mhz (the Xenos is also clocked at 500mhz) just prior to launch (late summer or so).  If this is true, then the Xenos would be more powerful, though just barely.  However, neither nVidia nor Sony have yet to release the official specs of the RSX.  Either way, the RSX and Xenos are so close that it really won't have any impact in the long run. 

One other difference between the gpus lies in their ability to produce HDR and AA.  The RSX, since it is an older nVidia model, is unable to run HDR and AA at the same time, where as the Xenos can.  However, this ultimately doesn't matter, because (as i mentioned in my first post) the Cell can assist the RSX in graphical operations, which is quite unusual for a CPU.  The example i used earlier was Ninja Theory using the Cell to emulate HDR so that the RSX can do AA.  The Cell can assist in far more ways than just that, and this is where the potential of the ps3 lies, and how it will not only recieve a boost in physics, paricle effects, AI, etc. over the 360, but also in graphics.  As the devs of Lair said, they just keep throwing more things on the SPEs.  If they find they need more room on the RSX, they just plump something else on the SPEs.  Of course, that is a far oversimplified way of looking at it.   As they can't put just anything on the RSX.  Far from anything, actually.

One of the primary things that the Cell seems to excel at is preparation of data for the RSX.  Basically, the Cell will do all the number crunching for the RSX, then the RSX just does the bare minimum of building the models, instead of having to do all the graphics calculations itself, like would normally happen with a gpu.

Actually, Sony had initially planned to include two Cell-like processors in the ps3.  One is the Cell as we know it today, and one was a slightly modified processor that would essentially act as a super-powered GPU (much like the Cell is a super-powered CPU). How, development costs were rising too high, and they knew it would probably add another $100 to the ps3's manufacturing costs, so they scrapped the idea and ran to nVidia at the last minute.  This is why the RSX is kind of rushed.

Of course, i am by no means an expert on any of this.  I was a short-lived comp sci major last year.  I loved the stuff in High School, but now that i'm in college, the actual developing bores the hell out of me.  Now i'm a music major! :D  Plan to write metal that will make your ears bleed one day. \m/ :twisted:

AA. The RSX, since it is an older nVidia model, is unable to run HDR and AA at the same time, where as the Xenos can. However, this ultimately doesn't matter, because (as i mentioned in my first post) the Cell can assist the RSX in graphical operations, which is quite unusual for a CPU. The example i used earlier was Ninja Theory using the Cell to emulate HDR so that the RSX can do AA. The Cell can assist in far more ways than just that, and this is where the potential of the ps3 lies, and how it will not only recieve a boost in physics, paricle effects, AI, etc. over the 360, but also in graphics. As the devs of Lair said, they just keep throwing more things on the SPEs. If they find they need more room on the RSX, they just plump something else on the SPEs. Of course, that is a far oversimplified way of looking at it. As they can't put just anything on the RSX. Far from anything, actually.

makingmusic476

RSX can do HDR + AA, check out Oblivion.

I know it is based off the 78/9xx series, but that doesn't make it a 78/9xx GPU. NVIDIA could (and appears they did) easily have tweaked the chip to enable HDR and AA at the same time.

Meh.

The Ram of the X360 is 512 Mbyte at 800 Mhz, while the PS3's ram is one 256 Mbyte at 800 MHz and one 256 Mbyte at 3.2 GIGAHERTZ dedicated for the graphics card. The bottleneck comes from developers not using the speed of the RAM properly and only utilizing the memory.

I don't believe that developers are lazy when porting something, rather they are rushed into porting something. Optimizing takes time, and time means money.

DoggySpew

Actually the XDR runs at 3.2ghz which is not dedicated to the RSX. I believe the bottleneck  comes from not utilizing the Cell properly. It has to be used for graphics. RSX is probably inferior to the the xbox360's graphics card. The latter has a unified shader architecture and the eDRAM high bandwidth helps implementing some graphics features without any performance cost. These are only some speculations though. However I believe that if the Cell is used properly it could also help reducing the performance cost to the RSX and probably give the devs more flexibility to achieve better graphics. But I think it will take a lot of time till they get all this experience.

[QUOTE="DoggySpew"]

Meh.

The Ram of the X360 is 512 Mbyte at 800 Mhz, while the PS3's ram is one 256 Mbyte at 800 MHz and one 256 Mbyte at 3.2 GIGAHERTZ dedicated for the graphics card. The bottleneck comes from developers not using the speed of the RAM properly and only utilizing the memory.

I don't believe that developers are lazy when porting something, rather they are rushed into porting something. Optimizing takes time, and time means money.

CountZer0

Actually the XDR runs at 3.2ghz which is not dedicated to the RSX. I believe the bottleneck  comes from not utilizing the Cell properly. It has to be used for graphics. RSX is probably inferior to the the xbox360's graphics card. The latter has a unified shader architecture and the eDRAM high bandwidth helps implementing some graphics features without any performance cost. These are only some speculations though. However I believe that if the Cell is used properly it could also help reducing the performance cost to the RSX and probably give the devs more flexibility to achieve better graphics. But I think it will take a lot of time till they get all this experience.

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"][QUOTE="akuma303x"][QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]also, to clarify, the cell in the ps3 has only 6 SPEs available for gaming, one of the eight used for the OS and one other dormant, for rendundancy, they say. but I think the seventh SPE could be activated and used for games with a firmware update. devs could design games with the seven SPEs being used, and the games would just say something like "Gameplay requires PS3 system version so-and-so". seeing as updates can come on new game disks, online, or downloaded off of seperate flash drives, this update would be incredibly easy and widespread, making it practical. this seems like a likely event in the future.akuma303x

As for the gpus, from what i know, the main difference lies in the architecture.  The 360s is more efficient, because it uses unified pixel/vertex shaders.  You always have what you need, either a vertex or a pixel shader, and none are ever wasted.  The RSX initially had a higher clock speed than the Xenos, and was considered to be overall stronger in terms of sheer brute power, but the Xenos was more efficient, as stated above.  However, there have been rumors that the RSX's clockspeed was downgraded from the initial 550mhz to 500mhz (the Xenos is also clocked at 500mhz) just prior to launch (late summer or so).  If this is true, then the Xenos would be more powerful, though just barely.  However, neither nVidia nor Sony have yet to release the official specs of the RSX.  Either way, the RSX and Xenos are so close that it really won't have any impact in the long run. 

One other difference between the gpus lies in their ability to produce HDR and AA.  The RSX, since it is an older nVidia model, is unable to run HDR and AA at the same time, where as the Xenos can.  However, this ultimately doesn't matter, because (as i mentioned in my first post) the Cell can assist the RSX in graphical operations, which is quite unusual for a CPU.  The example i used earlier was Ninja Theory using the Cell to emulate HDR so that the RSX can do AA.  The Cell can assist in far more ways than just that, and this is where the potential of the ps3 lies, and how it will not only recieve a boost in physics, paricle effects, AI, etc. over the 360, but also in graphics.  As the devs of Lair said, they just keep throwing more things on the SPEs.  If they find they need more room on the RSX, they just plump something else on the SPEs.  Of course, that is a far oversimplified way of looking at it.   As they can't put just anything on the RSX.  Far from anything, actually.

One of the primary things that the Cell seems to excel at is preparation of data for the RSX.  Basically, the Cell will do all the number crunching for the RSX, then the RSX just does the bare minimum of building the models, instead of having to do all the graphics calculations itself, like would normally happen with a gpu.

Actually, Sony had initially planned to include two Cell-like processors in the ps3.  One is the Cell as we know it today, and one was a slightly modified processor that would essentially act as a super-powered GPU (much like the Cell is a super-powered CPU). How, development costs were rising too high, and they knew it would probably add another $100 to the ps3's manufacturing costs, so they scrapped the idea and ran to nVidia at the last minute.  This is why the RSX is kind of rushed.

Of course, i am by no means an expert on any of this.  I was a short-lived comp sci major last year.  I loved the stuff in High School, but now that i'm in college, the actual developing bores the hell out of me.  Now i'm a music major! :D  Plan to write metal that will make your ears bleed one day. \m/ :twisted:

And trust me, the Cell does a tad more than just even things out.

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

AA. The RSX, since it is an older nVidia model, is unable to run HDR and AA at the same time, where as the Xenos can. However, this ultimately doesn't matter, because (as i mentioned in my first post) the Cell can assist the RSX in graphical operations, which is quite unusual for a CPU. The example i used earlier was Ninja Theory using the Cell to emulate HDR so that the RSX can do AA. The Cell can assist in far more ways than just that, and this is where the potential of the ps3 lies, and how it will not only recieve a boost in physics, paricle effects, AI, etc. over the 360, but also in graphics. As the devs of Lair said, they just keep throwing more things on the SPEs. If they find they need more room on the RSX, they just plump something else on the SPEs. Of course, that is a far oversimplified way of looking at it. As they can't put just anything on the RSX. Far from anything, actually.

 

doolies

RSX can do HDR + AA, check out Oblivion.

I know it is based off the 78/9xx series, but that doesn't make it a 78/9xx GPU. NVIDIA could (and appears they did) easily have tweaked the chip to enable HDR and AA at the same time.

[QUOTE="akuma303x"][QUOTE="makingmusic476"][QUOTE="akuma303x"][QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]also, to clarify, the cell in the ps3 has only 6 SPEs available for gaming, one of the eight used for the OS and one other dormant, for rendundancy, they say. but I think the seventh SPE could be activated and used for games with a firmware update. devs could design games with the seven SPEs being used, and the games would just say something like "Gameplay requires PS3 system version so-and-so". seeing as updates can come on new game disks, online, or downloaded off of seperate flash drives, this update would be incredibly easy and widespread, making it practical. this seems like a likely event in the future.makingmusic476

As for the gpus, from what i know, the main difference lies in the architecture.  The 360s is more efficient, because it uses unified pixel/vertex shaders.  You always have what you need, either a vertex or a pixel shader, and none are ever wasted.  The RSX initially had a higher clock speed than the Xenos, and was considered to be overall stronger in terms of sheer brute power, but the Xenos was more efficient, as stated above.  However, there have been rumors that the RSX's clockspeed was downgraded from the initial 550mhz to 500mhz (the Xenos is also clocked at 500mhz) just prior to launch (late summer or so).  If this is true, then the Xenos would be more powerful, though just barely.  However, neither nVidia nor Sony have yet to release the official specs of the RSX.  Either way, the RSX and Xenos are so close that it really won't have any impact in the long run. 

One other difference between the gpus lies in their ability to produce HDR and AA.  The RSX, since it is an older nVidia model, is unable to run HDR and AA at the same time, where as the Xenos can.  However, this ultimately doesn't matter, because (as i mentioned in my first post) the Cell can assist the RSX in graphical operations, which is quite unusual for a CPU.  The example i used earlier was Ninja Theory using the Cell to emulate HDR so that the RSX can do AA.  The Cell can assist in far more ways than just that, and this is where the potential of the ps3 lies, and how it will not only recieve a boost in physics, paricle effects, AI, etc. over the 360, but also in graphics.  As the devs of Lair said, they just keep throwing more things on the SPEs.  If they find they need more room on the RSX, they just plump something else on the SPEs.  Of course, that is a far oversimplified way of looking at it.   As they can't put just anything on the RSX.  Far from anything, actually.

One of the primary things that the Cell seems to excel at is preparation of data for the RSX.  Basically, the Cell will do all the number crunching for the RSX, then the RSX just does the bare minimum of building the models, instead of having to do all the graphics calculations itself, like would normally happen with a gpu.

Actually, Sony had initially planned to include two Cell-like processors in the ps3.  One is the Cell as we know it today, and one was a slightly modified processor that would essentially act as a super-powered GPU (much like the Cell is a super-powered CPU). How, development costs were rising too high, and they knew it would probably add another $100 to the ps3's manufacturing costs, so they scrapped the idea and ran to nVidia at the last minute.  This is why the RSX is kind of rushed.

Of course, i am by no means an expert on any of this.  I was a short-lived comp sci major last year.  I loved the stuff in High School, but now that i'm in college, the actual developing bores the hell out of me.  Now i'm a music major! :D  Plan to write metal that will make your ears bleed one day. \m/ :twisted:

And trust me, the Cell does a tad more than just even things out.

it can generate twice the number of triangles per second, it can render half a billion more vertices per second, can deal with more pixels per second, it has a dedicated frame buffer, and (being an ATI card) it can handle anti-aliasing a lot better.

The RSX is very good with textures.

 these are numbers that will show. they are by no means small. but I think cell corrects any huge advantage. At least all info points to just that.

Now the PS3 has nVidia's RSX chip, which is based on what's known as 'G70' technology, i.e., it was based on the recently superseded 7000 series GeForce cards, more specifically the 7800/7900, two of the high-end cards in that range.

The Xbox 360 has the ATI Xenos, which is based on the upcoming series of ATI graphics cards called 'R600'. Already, this suggests that the Xenos is a more advanced chip then the RSX, it being based on a newer design.

Both are said to clock at 500 Mhz, although some say that the RSX supposedly runs at 550 Mhz. So is there any real differences between them? Well, there are a few: Namely, the Xenos has more RAM to call on, it can generate twice the number of triangles per second, it can render half a billion more vertices per second, can deal with more pixels per second, it has a dedicated frame buffer, and (being an ATI card) it can handle anti-aliasing a lot better.

The RSX is very good with textures.

But, that is the point of it. The RSX is basically there to add finishing touches to the graphics and display them, as the Cell processor has a lot more involvement in the graphics process then the Xenon on the 360 does. From this, one thing can be said: The Xbox 360 and the PS3 are very similar when you get down to the nitty gritty of the hardware inside the white and/or black box. akuma303x

The reason the Xenos can theoretically produce 2x the number of triangles as the RSX (and pixels) is because of teh unified shaders.  If ALL the shaders were being used as vertex shaders, then yes, it could create a half a billion more vertexes than the rsx can, because probably only a little over half of the RSX's shaders are vertex shaders.  Same for Pixel shaders, only the reverse.  Probably less than half of the shaders in the RSX are pixel shaders, so of cousre it would be able to compute far fewer pixels a second.  All of the Xenos' resources can be put towards either pixels, vertexes, or triangles, hence the very high theoretical maximums. 

However, in actually practice, the Xenos's gpu would NEVER do this.  The shaders would be divided between vertexes and pixels.

[QUOTE="makingmusic476"][QUOTE="akuma303x"][QUOTE="makingmusic476"][QUOTE="akuma303x"][QUOTE="makingmusic476"]

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]also, to clarify, the cell in the ps3 has only 6 SPEs available for gaming, one of the eight used for the OS and one other dormant, for rendundancy, they say. but I think the seventh SPE could be activated and used for games with a firmware update. devs could design games with the seven SPEs being used, and the games would just say something like "Gameplay requires PS3 system version so-and-so". seeing as updates can come on new game disks, online, or downloaded off of seperate flash drives, this update would be incredibly easy and widespread, making it practical. this seems like a likely event in the future.akuma303x

As for the gpus, from what i know, the main difference lies in the architecture.  The 360s is more efficient, because it uses unified pixel/vertex shaders.  You always have what you need, either a vertex or a pixel shader, and none are ever wasted.  The RSX initially had a higher clock speed than the Xenos, and was considered to be overall stronger in terms of sheer brute power, but the Xenos was more efficient, as stated above.  However, there have been rumors that the RSX's clockspeed was downgraded from the initial 550mhz to 500mhz (the Xenos is also clocked at 500mhz) just prior to launch (late summer or so).  If this is true, then the Xenos would be more powerful, though just barely.  However, neither nVidia nor Sony have yet to release the official specs of the RSX.  Either way, the RSX and Xenos are so close that it really won't have any impact in the long run. 

One other difference between the gpus lies in their ability to produce HDR and AA.  The RSX, since it is an older nVidia model, is unable to run HDR and AA at the same time, where as the Xenos can.  However, this ultimately doesn't matter, because (as i mentioned in my first post) the Cell can assist the RSX in graphical operations, which is quite unusual for a CPU.  The example i used earlier was Ninja Theory using the Cell to emulate HDR so that the RSX can do AA.  The Cell can assist in far more ways than just that, and this is where the potential of the ps3 lies, and how it will not only recieve a boost in physics, paricle effects, AI, etc. over the 360, but also in graphics.  As the devs of Lair said, they just keep throwing more things on the SPEs.  If they find they need more room on the RSX, they just plump something else on the SPEs.  Of course, that is a far oversimplified way of looking at it.   As they can't put just anything on the RSX.  Far from anything, actually.

One of the primary things that the Cell seems to excel at is preparation of data for the RSX.  Basically, the Cell will do all the number crunching for the RSX, then the RSX just does the bare minimum of building the models, instead of having to do all the graphics calculations itself, like would normally happen with a gpu.

Actually, Sony had initially planned to include two Cell-like processors in the ps3.  One is the Cell as we know it today, and one was a slightly modified processor that would essentially act as a super-powered GPU (much like the Cell is a super-powered CPU). How, development costs were rising too high, and they knew it would probably add another $100 to the ps3's manufacturing costs, so they scrapped the idea and ran to nVidia at the last minute.  This is why the RSX is kind of rushed.

Of course, i am by no means an expert on any of this.  I was a short-lived comp sci major last year.  I loved the stuff in High School, but now that i'm in college, the actual developing bores the hell out of me.  Now i'm a music major! :D  Plan to write metal that will make your ears bleed one day. \m/ :twisted:

And trust me, the Cell does a tad more than just even things out.

it can generate twice the number of triangles per second, it can render half a billion more vertices per second, can deal with more pixels per second, it has a dedicated frame buffer, and (being an ATI card) it can handle anti-aliasing a lot better.

The RSX is very good with textures.

 these are numbers that will show. they are by no means small. but I think cell corrects any huge advantage. At least all info points to just that.

[QUOTE="akuma303x"]Now the PS3 has nVidia's RSX chip, which is based on what's known as 'G70' technology, i.e., it was based on the recently superseded 7000 series GeForce cards, more specifically the 7800/7900, two of the high-end cards in that range.

The Xbox 360 has the ATI Xenos, which is based on the upcoming series of ATI graphics cards called 'R600'. Already, this suggests that the Xenos is a more advanced chip then the RSX, it being based on a newer design.

Both are said to clock at 500 Mhz, although some say that the RSX supposedly runs at 550 Mhz. So is there any real differences between them? Well, there are a few: Namely, the Xenos has more RAM to call on, it can generate twice the number of triangles per second, it can render half a billion more vertices per second, can deal with more pixels per second, it has a dedicated frame buffer, and (being an ATI card) it can handle anti-aliasing a lot better.

The RSX is very good with textures.

But, that is the point of it. The RSX is basically there to add finishing touches to the graphics and display them, as the Cell processor has a lot more involvement in the graphics process then the Xenon on the 360 does. From this, one thing can be said: The Xbox 360 and the PS3 are very similar when you get down to the nitty gritty of the hardware inside the white and/or black box. makingmusic476

The reason the Xenos can theoretically produce 2x the number of triangles as the RSX (and pixels) is because of teh unified shaders.  If ALL the shaders were being used as vertex shaders, then yes, it could create a half a billion more vertexes than the rsx can, because probably only a little over half of the RSX's shaders are vertex shaders.  Same for Pixel shaders, only the reverse.  Probably less than half of the shaders in the RSX are pixel shaders, so of cousre it would be able to compute far fewer pixels a second.  All of the Xenos' resources can be put towards either pixels, vertexes, or triangles. 

However, in actually practice, the Xenos's gpu would NEVER do this.  The shaders would be divided between vertexes and pixels.

just cause the 360 has 256 mb of ram, doesnt mean its the same ram used in the ps3. the ps3 uses xdr ram, 256mb of it. its 10x faster then the ram used in the 360, which means no bottle necking. the biggest issue with developers is using all 7 of the available spus on the cell processor.

they're lazy.

rxjhobbz

The 360 has a better RAM architecture though because it 512MB are divided between the GPU and CPU at the developers preference, the PS3 can share some of its memory but not as completely as the 360 can. Also I have read that the 360's OS requires 64MB of RAM compared to the PS3's 96MB (64MB from the XDR and 32 from the DDR3) giving the 360 a slight edge in RAM quantity (as stated the PS3 has faster RAM). Both consoles lack RAM, but the PS3 has the guaranteed hard drive which is a major bonus and helps alleviate some of it's RAM problems with buffering as opposed to the 360 which is just stuck with paltry 448 MB (effective).

Im sure it would be possible, however I dont see a significant increase in performance from doing this. Besides, I dont think there is a RAM issue. I have never heard a dev. say anything about not enough ram to work with.

If RAM were indeed a limiting factor, do you guys think it would be possible (with a firmware update) to use USB flash memory as RAM like in Windows? huriona

I dunno, I consider the PS3 well equipped to get the job done and people will know this. It's just 360's kick right now, and it'll die off. PS3's growing, and it'll grow far past the likes of 360. I mean look at what's comming up? Just give it time and all those other lazy devs will jump on the "we love PS3 now" bandwagon too. I knew when I paid 600 bucks for PS3, I knew I was buying a great system for me. I know it won't fail me. (or anybody else who likes Playstation's library of titles it seems to carry)
Denji

[QUOTE="aminoj"]xbox 360 has 522 mb ram. 512mb + 10 mb of edramHyper_52

There is always one, isn't there?

u dont like the truth? does it hurt?  

Strange how they chose to skimp on such a vital area.matttrd

i dont think the "skimmped"  i mean , do you really think they were like "bah, who needs RAM these days"  jsut to fidn out later they made a mistake?   Coem on give them more credit they arent morons,  they obviosly did it for a reason.

[QUOTE="matttrd"]Strange how they chose to skimp on such a vital area.joevfx

i dont think the "skimmped" i mean , do you really think they were like "bah, who needs RAM these days" jsut to fidn out later they made a mistake? Coem on give them more credit they arent morons, they obviosly did it for a reason.

 Exactly, these people know what they're doing. That's the reason why they've stayed in business for so long. They know what they are doing