360 and PS3 CPU Equal in Power?

When I see something as cool as KZ2 on 360 I'll believe that guy otherwise teh cell is still the best. Because we all know 360's GPU is better than PS3's which leaves it up to teh cell to support all of those effects in KZ2, btw I have finished KZ2 and it is really awesome regardless of some dark places (if you don't believe me go to KZ2 thread and look up my posts to see some pictures of the game :)abuabed

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Actually, when the 360 was released, the Xenos was ground breaking.

lundy86_4

The next time around, both companies need to work with a great cpu, and a great gpu, rather than have a more outdated re-worked gpu for consoles... and for gods sake put some more ram in there, of course it's not as easy as just sticking in an extra stick, but for god's sake, more ram is needed

actually if you do some research as I have done you will see that the cell processor calculates processes much faster than the xbox 360, translates code faster and can calculate many things in parrellel much faster but the xbox has more pipeline shaders, dedicated memmory for the gpu(512mb) oposed to the ps3's (512mb) shared and is easier to develope on. These are the main diffrences between the hardware. Technically the ps3 has the most raw power in terms of cpu power but the xbox's dedicated memmory as oposed to the same size pool of memmory means that it is alot easier to code for while the ps3 needs either special coding to use the same amount of memmory or speicial coding must be used to send information to the spu's in the ps3's cell to be processed more efficiently so basically it comes down solely to the programming. Though when programming both systems to the max of their respective hardware one can only speculate. da_iceman017

[QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"][QUOTE="KiddSushi"]

There is an interview with Dave Shippy (helped develop both the 360's and PS3's CPU) said this:

Game Informer: Microsoft used your processor in a more traditional way than the Cell. Looking at how the processor was used in both systems, which one was the more effective or powerful?

Dave Shippy: I think they're fairly equal. The interesting thing is that the PowerPC that's common to both is used in completely different ways. If you look at the CPU chip for the 360 and PS3, and the programming models and architecture, they came up with completely different solutions. And yet they use this same common core.

Interesting to hear when the general idea is that PS3 had a better CPU and the 360 had a better GPU.

McdonaIdsGuy

No not really, cos the Cell thrashes the xenon around like a baby in computing.

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

No not really, cos the Cell thrashes the xenon around like a baby in computing.

PSGamerforlife

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

[QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

No not really, cos the Cell thrashes the xenon around like a baby in computing.

PSGamerforlife

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

No one has been buying PS3s to build supercomputers, they have been buying the Cell. Even you must know by now that the cell in the ps3 is a stripped down version, not capable of out-of-order processes that gives the cell its famous number-crunching capabilities.

PS3 =/= Cell (not the full version)

While no one has bought the 360s cpu for use in a supercomputer, the 360s cpu is a powerPC cpu and there are more powerPC cpu's used in super computers than the cell.

[QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"][QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"] And you would know more than the guy working at IBM :lol: ,please don't post nonsenses if you have no idea of what you're talking about.DAZZER7

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

No one has been buying PS3s to build supercomputers, they have been buying the Cell. Even you must know by now that the cell in the ps3 is a stripped down version, not capable of out-of-order processes that gives the cell its famous number-crunching capabilities.

PS3 =/= Cell (not the full version)

While no one has bought the 360s cpu for use in a supercomputer, the 360s cpu is a powerPC cpu and there are more powerPC cpu's used in super computers than the cell.

The CELL is a powerPC variant processor, its one the best of its kind.

My PS3 is pretty sweet. I made a few adjustments and modifications based on areas where I thought IBM would have improved:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4267979.html

It runs great now. :D

[QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"][QUOTE="McdonaIdsGuy"] And you would know more than the guy working at IBM :lol: ,please don't post nonsenses if you have no idea of what you're talking about.savagetwinkie

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

But the cell provides a 30-40% boost for the GPU if used right... like in Killzone 2. A G71..cannot render what you see when you play KZ2..

but read this good info aboutRSX vs Xenos..

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant. . . . . .

You dont see the US army using PS3 pads to control robots either so 360 pad must own. Sounds like a lame argument doesnt it :roll: The army doesnt use them for gaming you know.

. . . . . .I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3. . . . . .

The cell was designed to crunch number thats why, its good for mathematical simulations, its good for using in servers that simply have to shift lots of data and its good for streaming video code a la Blu-ray. Non of this makes it a more powerful games machine. Its like me bolting a coffee maker onto the 360 and claiming its more powerful because every starbucks has one. Again its a lame argument. The cell is in there so the PS3 is a good BR player, if it wasnt for BR it (probably) wouldnt have had a cell processor.

. . . . . .and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell. . . . . .

Duh, BR again :roll:

. . . . . . . In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

PSGamerforlife

Its really obvious why Sony put the newly developed cell into the PS3, but they couldnt just admit they were USING the massive Playstation installed userbase to win a HD format war, so they twist it into some speil about how its in their to produce more powerful games. Its just sad to see there are loads of people buying into that. Face facts people, hardware wise the PS3 is just a games console when it comes to gaming and nothing truly ground breaking (same as 360). Now if you priorities incude HD movies its another story completely . . . .

[QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

You dont see the US army using PS3 pads to control robots either so 360 pad must own. Sounds like a lame argument doesnt it :roll: The army doesnt use them for gaming you know.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

The cell was designed to crunch number thats why, its good for mathematical simulations, its good for using in servers that simply have to shift lots of data and its good for streaming video code a la Blu-ray. Non of this makes it a more powerful games machine. Its like me bolting a coffee maker onto the 360 and claiming its more powerful because every starbucks has one. Again its a lame argument. The cell is in there so the PS3 is a good BR player, if it wasnt for BR it wouldnt have had a cell processor.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell. Duh, BR again :roll:

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

the1stmoonfly

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...

And that has nothing to do with:

1. the 360 being easier to develop for than the PS3, which developers are still getting better and better at developing for.

2. Games being designed from the ground up on the 360 before being ported over to PS3 as an afterthought.

3. more and more developers choosing to develop games on a multiplatform format.

Right?

Or do you really think the 360 will ever, in its life cycle, put out games that perform as well as Killzone 2, God of War III, Gran Turismo 5, Heavy Rain, etc.?

[QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

You dont see the US army using PS3 pads to control robots either so 360 pad must own. Sounds like a lame argument doesnt it :roll: The army doesnt use them for gaming you know.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

The cell was designed to crunch number thats why, its good for mathematical simulations, its good for using in servers that simply have to shift lots of data and its good for streaming video code a la Blu-ray. Non of this makes it a more powerful games machine. Its like me bolting a coffee maker onto the 360 and claiming its more powerful because every starbucks has one. Again its a lame argument. The cell is in there so the PS3 is a good BR player, if it wasnt for BR it wouldnt have had a cell processor.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell. Duh, BR again :roll:

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

PSGamerforlife

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...

I think the biggest problem is dev time for the PS3, KZ2's was what, over 4 years and GT5 still isnt here yet. Lets say for arguments sake that the PS3 is outperforming the 360 by say 10% (KZ2 isnt anything more than this margin better than say GeoW if you beleive it is better), then is double the dev time and less than half the library of titles really worth that extra 10 percent. The answer really is no, now if said problems help you win a format war and basically give you a monopoly on BR it suddenly becomes worth it for Sony. IMO the PS3 is suffering because of it, I think it would still be a clear number 1 otherwise. Ive also said before that having extra power isnt really extra power if you cant use it, and some of the cells extra abilities just dont apply to normal gaming so I dont count that when talking about a games console. My honest view is that the PS3 is the more powerful machine, but the more powerful gaming machine it isnt, or at least not enough to make any difference as any lead has to be a definitive step up. Ive certainly not seen anything that convinces me of this. I dont think KZ2 proves the PS3 is the more powerful games machine from what ive seen, but if you disagree then fine, I wont argue with your opinion.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

PSGamerforlife

No one has been buying PS3s to build supercomputers, they have been buying the Cell. Even you must know by now that the cell in the ps3 is a stripped down version, not capable of out-of-order processes that gives the cell its famous number-crunching capabilities.

PS3 =/= Cell (not the full version)

While no one has bought the 360s cpu for use in a supercomputer, the 360s cpu is a powerPC cpu and there are more powerPC cpu's used in super computers than the cell.

The CELL is a powerPC variant processor, its one the best of its kind.

I never said it wasn't!

My point matey, is that the Cell used in these clusters is not the one used in the PS3. My point is also that there are far more supercomputers that do not use the Cell.

People like you need to stop using the super-computer argument in the first place. Just because the Cell is used in a couple of super computers doesn't mean it is a super computer in itself. I know you havent exactly said that but we both know the type of hype you try to create by saying such things.

Going back to KZ2, I am still waiting for an answer to how KZ2 cannot be done on the 360? I mean specifically, what is it, the tectures? bump mapping? poly-count? Given enough time, devs on the 360 can achieve everything going in KZ2. From what I can tell the 360 has enough hardware-threads across its cores, its gpu has enough pixel-pipelines and vram etc to match what theps3 is doing. It would probably take a similar amount of development time but I bet my right leg it could be done!

The exclusives on the PS3 has shown it can do more things on screen at once compared to the X360. Look at GT5p, it has over twice the polygon count on each car compared to any other car game, and at the same time they have 16 cars on track at once. A lot of games on the X360 can use improved graphics engines from the past, while they have to make a totally new engine for the PS3, of course that takes a long time. GeoW 2 uses the UE3 engine, and that has been under development longer than the KZ2 engine, and I think the UE3 engine is less hardware demanding then the KZ2 engine. If we look back, it's clear that the PS3 has had a lot more improvement in graphics and performance compared to the X360. And though the multiplatform games still is worse on the PS3, it has shown improvements here as well.Martin_G_N

GT5 also sacrifices its graphics in other areas and also has some features left out that are in many other racers. Add to that, polyphonic (thats their name right?) are some seriously talented developers considering the previous GT games released and what they have achieved before. They are by far a very anal bunch and pay more attention to detail that the average console racing game developer. It is most certainly arguable that given the same talented developers, the same amount of deve-time, you would see something similar on 360.

This to me says more credit needs to go to sony for keeping them onboard rather than the advantages of the hardware.

[QUOTE="Martin_G_N"]The exclusives on the PS3 has shown it can do more things on screen at once compared to the X360. Look at GT5p, it has over twice the polygon count on each car compared to any other car game, and at the same time they have 16 cars on track at once. A lot of games on the X360 can use improved graphics engines from the past, while they have to make a totally new engine for the PS3, of course that takes a long time. GeoW 2 uses the UE3 engine, and that has been under development longer than the KZ2 engine, and I think the UE3 engine is less hardware demanding then the KZ2 engine. If we look back, it's clear that the PS3 has had a lot more improvement in graphics and performance compared to the X360. And though the multiplatform games still is worse on the PS3, it has shown improvements here as well.DAZZER7

GT5 also sacrifices its graphics in other areas and also has some features left out that are in many other racers. Add to that, polyphonic (thats their name right?) are some seriously talented developers considering the previous GT games released and what they have achieved before. They are by far a very anal bunch and pay more attention to detail that the average console racing game developer. It is most certainly arguable that given the same talented developers, the same amount of deve-time, you would see something similar on 360.

This to me says more credit needs to go to sony for keeping them onboard rather than the advantages of the hardware.

I love how everyone on here knows more about the two CPUs than a guy who helped make them.Zero5000X

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

PSGamerforlife

But the cell provides a 30-40% boost for the GPU if used right... like in Killzone 2. A G71..cannot render what you see when you play KZ2..

but read this good info aboutRSX vs Xenos..

Heading title "Decoupled Shader Math and Texture Operations" (PDF Page 31 or navigate to 39 of 55).

Note G7X's concurrent shader/math and texture design flaw i.e. texture operations causes stalls in pixel shader operations.This G7X issue automatically cuts down any Haxxiy's paper spec numbers, hence Haxxiy's numbers for RSX is invalid in the light of NVIDIA's paper. I would welcome Haxxiy coming over here to discuss this G7X issue.

G7X is also missing Early-Z cull, missing hardware thread front-end design, less robust branch engine and limited vertex resource. PS3 must use SPEs to fix RSX's design flaws. SPE's branch supports only static not dynamic.

G7X/RSX can't do HDR FP surface targets with MSAA. It has to use LogLuv method i.e. 5 to 7 cycle penalty which reduces pixel shader resource.

Examples of G70/G71 getting mauled by Geforce 8600 GT GDDR3(if we factor out 8 ROPs issues)

1. Geforce 8600GT (128bit wide 256MB VRAM) beats Geforce 7800GTX (256bit wide 512 MB VRAM) /7950GT (256bit wide 512 MB VRAM) in Mass Effect (Unreal Engine 3 uses deferred shading)Link1

2. Geforce 8600GT (128bit wide 256MB VRAM) beats Geforce 7800GTX (256bit wide 256MB VRAM) /7950GT (256bit wide 512 MB VRAM) in Assassins Creed v1.02Link2

3. Geforce 8600GT (128bit wide 256MB VRAM) beats Geforce 7800GTX (256bit wide 256MB VRAM) /7950GT (256bit wide 512 MB VRAM) in Crysis 1.21. Geforce 8600 GT passes several G70/G71 based SLI.Link3

Btw, RSX is a cut down G70 i.e. 8 ROPs.

Nah, I think PS3 CPU is a bit more powerful/advanced, but you won't get many differences from the 2 consoles, both lack RAM.Master-Thief-09

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="Martin_G_N"]The exclusives on the PS3 has shown it can do more things on screen at once compared to the X360. Look at GT5p, it has over twice the polygon count on each car compared to any other car game, and at the same time they have 16 cars on track at once. A lot of games on the X360 can use improved graphics engines from the past, while they have to make a totally new engine for the PS3, of course that takes a long time. GeoW 2 uses the UE3 engine, and that has been under development longer than the KZ2 engine, and I think the UE3 engine is less hardware demanding then the KZ2 engine. If we look back, it's clear that the PS3 has had a lot more improvement in graphics and performance compared to the X360. And though the multiplatform games still is worse on the PS3, it has shown improvements here as well.thesmiter

GT5 also sacrifices its graphics in other areas and also has some features left out that are in many other racers. Add to that, polyphonic (thats their name right?) are some seriously talented developers considering the previous GT games released and what they have achieved before. They are by far a very anal bunch and pay more attention to detail that the average console racing game developer. It is most certainly arguable that given the same talented developers, the same amount of deve-time, you would see something similar on 360.

This to me says more credit needs to go to sony for keeping them onboard rather than the advantages of the hardware.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell.

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

PSGamerforlife

No one has been buying PS3s to build supercomputers, they have been buying the Cell. Even you must know by now that the cell in the ps3 is a stripped down version, not capable of out-of-order processes that gives the cell its famous number-crunching capabilities.

PS3 =/= Cell (not the full version)

While no one has bought the 360s cpu for use in a supercomputer, the 360s cpu is a powerPC cpu and there are more powerPC cpu's used in super computers than the cell.

The CELL is a powerPC variant processor, its one the best of its kind.

OMG not this topic again. The PS3s CPU is more powerfull than the 360s period. No one in there right mind involed with MS and Sony is going to say one is better than the other. 1 PPE and 6 SPEs is capable of more processing power than 3 PPEs its simple logic.djsifer01

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]OMG not this topic again. The PS3s CPU is more powerfull than the 360s period. No one in there right mind involed with MS and Sony is going to say one is better than the other. 1 PPE and 6 SPEs is capable of more processing power than 3 PPEs its simple logic.MortalDecay

This thread fails. We all know cows wouldn't admit to anything that doesn't say the PS3 is 100 times more powrfull than the 360, even if it comes from someone who help CREATE the processors. How can cows even say that the PS3 has more power when we have seen NOTHING that proves it yet? The way Sony hyped the PS3, we should see a MAJOR difference. But we have seen nothing. Why aren't cows being proud that all multiplat games look 10x better on the PS3? Why are they, instead hoping that they end looking the same? Why aren't Sony's exclusives showing us something that we've never seen before? That's what was promised to us. There is no hidden power in the PS3, just like there was none in the PS2. The PS3, and the 360 are virtually the same, except in some cases the 360 seems to pull ahead in some areas. MortalDecay

The PS3's fans didn't factor in RSX's G70 design flaws with shader/math operation stalls while performing texture operations.G7X/RSX can't do HDR FP surface targets with MSAA. LogLuv HDR method induces 5 to 7 cycle penalty which reduces pixel shader resource. This is a double hit on G7X/RSX's pixel shader performance.

[QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]I dont see the USAF buying 300 360's like they did with the PS3's to build a more powerful and cheaper supercomputer than the equivelant.

You dont see the US army using PS3 pads to control robots either so 360 pad must own. Sounds like a lame argument doesnt it :roll: The army doesnt use them for gaming you know.

I dont see ANY, and i mean ANY groups building any sort of 360 cluster what so ever, like they do with the PS3.

The cell was designed to crunch number thats why, its good for mathematical simulations, its good for using in servers that simply have to shift lots of data and its good for streaming video code a la Blu-ray. Non of this makes it a more powerful games machine. Its like me bolting a coffee maker onto the 360 and claiming its more powerful because every starbucks has one. Again its a lame argument. The cell is in there so the PS3 is a good BR player, if it wasnt for BR it wouldnt have had a cell processor.

and I dont see how the Xenon will come close to decoding and streaming 48 videos at once, as toshiba demonstrated with the Cell. Duh, BR again :roll:

In number crunching, anyone can know that the Cell destroys the Xenon. Its simple to understand.

PSGamerforlife

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...

[QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"][QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"]Its also simple to see there is little difference in power between the 2 consoles gaming wise, but some people will blindly follow whatever Sony tell them too no matter what. The cell is more powerful for something, all of which arent really gaming related, and no more powerful or less powerful for some other things, all of which ARE gaming related.the1stmoonfly

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...

I think the biggest problem is dev time for the PS3, KZ2's was what, over 4 years and GT5 still isnt here yet. Lets say for arguments sake that the PS3 is outperforming the 360 by say 10% (KZ2 isnt anything more than this margin better than say GeoW if you beleive it is better), then is double the dev time and less than half the library of titles really worth that extra 10 percent. The answer really is no, now if said problems help you win a format war and basically give you a monopoly on BR it suddenly becomes worth it for Sony. IMO the PS3 is suffering because of it, I think it would still be a clear number 1 otherwise. Ive also said before that having extra power isnt really extra power if you cant use it, and some of the cells extra abilities just dont apply to normal gaming so I dont count that when talking about a games console. My honest view is that the PS3 is the more powerful machine, but the more powerful gaming machine it isnt, or at least not enough to make any difference as any lead has to be a definitive step up. Ive certainly not seen anything that convinces me of this. I dont think KZ2 proves the PS3 is the more powerful games machine from what ive seen, but if you disagree then fine, I wont argue with your opinion.

Yea, killzone 2 does use alot of trickery effects to look as good as it does, but the effects are all really advanced computational techniques.

For making those sorts of games on console, the key lies in increasing the load on the processors, like shoving many algorithms into the Cells SPE's for them to take care of it like GG did.. whilst decreasing the load on the ram.

But being able to do that right lies pretty much with SCE 1st/2nd party devs. GG didnt do ALL of KZ2 by themselves..SCE devs share tech and programming info around like crazy. GG got help from Polyphony digital, SCE santa monica studios, Insomniac, Naughty dog (which is also home to Sony world wide studios central technology group) and a couple of others..

I dont know what happened to bethesda, its as if they stood up and tripped over and landed face flat with thier understanding of cell programming...or maybe they just ported FO3 onto te ps3 as an afterthought..

But other than them...the PS3 is harder to program for than the 360...the xenos can do 4x AA with minimal performace loss, programmers are more used to the DirectX API..even tho OpenGL came before it...and the xenos supports shader model 3 and uses a more unified architecture...

The Xenos and RSX do things better in diffrent areas..but overall devs can pump out slightly more with the Xenos, somewhat easier...

Yet its the Cell which covers up the flaws of the RSX and can provide a relativaly large boost to its performance...but most non SCE devs dont really care about enchancing the graphics using the cell, it just makes things harder... it also costs more time and money.

Though there are some devs which have done things like simeltaneous devlopment and using the cells SPE for certain things...like with Dead space for example..

I dont think bethesda used the Ps3's recources for FO3 like they did with oblivion. I dont think they could be bothered.

[QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"][QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"]Its also simple to see there is little difference in power between the 2 consoles gaming wise, but some people will blindly follow whatever Sony tell them too no matter what. The cell is more powerful for something, all of which arent really gaming related, and no more powerful or less powerful for some other things, all of which ARE gaming related.Steppy_76

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...

Erm...no...I do not see the Cell as a dragster..

Its a hybrid processor with the flexibility of a regular CPU and the straight forward number crunching like ordinary GPU's...
You can just chuck anything you really want into the SPE's and it will do it for you.

!st and 2nd party devs are able to make good codes that make very good use of the cell...and they keep improving them.

Multiplats on the the other hand are just coded so the RSX renders all the visuals...

They cant be bothered using the Cell for that 'Extra graphical enchancement" the RSX needs.

It just makes things somewhat harder and takes more time. If it takes more time, it takes up a bit more money.

Both the Xenon and the Cell are in-order CPU's..both built from the same core architectures, both use the same instruction set...but its the design of each chip past the core design that makes them completely diffrent at what thier capable of..

[QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...

PSGamerforlife

I think the biggest problem is dev time for the PS3, KZ2's was what, over 4 years and GT5 still isnt here yet. Lets say for arguments sake that the PS3 is outperforming the 360 by say 10% (KZ2 isnt anything more than this margin better than say GeoW if you beleive it is better), then is double the dev time and less than half the library of titles really worth that extra 10 percent. The answer really is no, now if said problems help you win a format war and basically give you a monopoly on BR it suddenly becomes worth it for Sony. IMO the PS3 is suffering because of it, I think it would still be a clear number 1 otherwise. Ive also said before that having extra power isnt really extra power if you cant use it, and some of the cells extra abilities just dont apply to normal gaming so I dont count that when talking about a games console. My honest view is that the PS3 is the more powerful machine, but the more powerful gaming machine it isnt, or at least not enough to make any difference as any lead has to be a definitive step up. Ive certainly not seen anything that convinces me of this. I dont think KZ2 proves the PS3 is the more powerful games machine from what ive seen, but if you disagree then fine, I wont argue with your opinion.

Yea, killzone 2 does use alot of trickery effects to look as good as it does, but the effects are all really advanced computational techniques.

For making those sorts of games on console, the key lies in increasing the load on the processors, like shoving many algorithms into the Cells SPE's for them to take care of it like GG did.. whilst decreasing the load on the ram.

But being able to do that right lies pretty much with SCE 1st/2nd party devs. GG didnt do ALL of KZ2 by themselves..SCE devs share tech and programming info around like crazy. GG got help from Polyphony digital, SCE santa monica studios, Insomniac, Naughty dog (which is also home to Sony world wide studios central technology group) and a couple of others..

I dont know what happened to bethesda, its as if they stood up and tripped over and landed face flat with thier understanding of cell programming...or maybe they just ported FO3 onto te ps3 as an afterthought..

But other than them...the PS3 is harder to program for than the 360...the xenos can do 4x AA with minimal performace loss, programmers are more used to the DirectX API..even tho OpenGL came before it...and the xenos supports shader model 3 and uses a more unified architecture...

The Xenos and RSX do things better in diffrent areas..but overall devs can pump out slightly more with the Xenos, somewhat easier...

Yet its the Cell which covers up the flaws of the RSX and can provide a relativaly large boost to its performance...but most non SCE devs dont really care about enchancing the graphics using the cell, it just makes things harder... it also costs more time and money.

Though there are some devs which have done things like simeltaneous devlopment and using the cells SPE for certain things...like with Dead space for example..

I dont think bethesda used the Ps3's recources for FO3 like they did with oblivion. I dont think they could be bothered.

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...(When we see a game with the same size staff, budget, time allotment, platform specific engine, and outside developer knowledging sharing, etc etc for the 360 and it doesn't come out just as sterling, then you could say it is a more powerful gaming console. Why does KZ2 show the PS3 is more powerful when prior graphic kings on either console did not?

PSGamerforlife

Erm...no...I do not see the Cell as a dragster.. That's obvious from your post, but the cell has VERY specific areas in which it excels(like a dragster). Game code is one of the farther types of code from that "sweet spot". The Cell has those execution units available to help out the RSX simply because game code isn't parallel enough to keep the processor running full bore(which statistical analysis, folding@home do, and are where the cell shows its strengths).

Its a hybrid processor with the flexibility of a regular CPU No, it doesn't have the flexibility of a regular CPU. You have to bend your code to the cell rather than the processor being able to bend to your code. and the straight forward number crunching like ordinary GPU's...No, it's number crunching is far below GPU's...it lies somewhere between normal CPU's and GPU's in respect to this....and so does its flexibility(less flexible than normal CPU's, more flexible than GPU's).
You can just chuck anything you really want into the SPE's and it will do it for you. No, you have to turn whatever you really want the SPE's to do into things the SPE's do well. Doing what you suggest is exactly what causes poor performance of the cell.

!st and 2nd party devs are able to make good codes that make very good use of the cell...and they keep improving them. And?

Multiplats on the the other hand are just coded so the RSX renders all the visuals...No, they just don't focus as much on using the SPE's...but the PS3 version gets more timel, larger teams, etc for a reason. If they weren't using the cell to help out with visuals then the PS3 versions would look worse than 360 versions unless they dumb down the 360 version to a level the RSX can handle since the RSX is weaker than the Xenos.

They cant be bothered using the Cell for that 'Extra graphical enchancement" the RSX needs. True.

It just makes things somewhat harder and takes more time. If it takes more time, it takes up a bit more money. For the platform with the least benefits in return of investment.

Both the Xenon and the Cell are in-order CPU's..both built from the same core architectures, both use the same instruction set...but its the design of each chip past the core design that makes them completely diffrent at what thier capable of..Ok, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in china. Nobody said the Cell wasn't different...different does equal better or more powerful.

Erm...no...I do not see the Cell as a dragster..

Its a hybrid processor with the flexibility of a regular CPU and the straight forward number crunching like ordinary GPU's...
You can just chuck anything you really want into the SPE's and it will do it for you.

!st and 2nd party devs are able to make good codes that make very good use of the cell...and they keep improving them.

Multiplats on the the other hand are just coded so the RSX renders all the visuals...

They cant be bothered using the Cell for that 'Extra graphical enchancement" the RSX needs.

It just makes things somewhat harder and takes more time. If it takes more time, it takes up a bit more money.

Both the Xenon and the Cell are in-order CPU's..both built from the same core architectures, both use the same instruction set...

but its the design of each chip past the core design that makes them completely diffrent at what thier capable of..

PSGamerforlife

Relative to Radeon X1900s, SPEs are not designed for pure math speed e.g. register count for SPEs are 896 total(7 x 128) while GpGPUs like Geforce 8600 GT(G84) has 32768** (8192 32bit registers per SP cluster) registers and 3072 threads** (768 threads per SP cluster).The G84 has four SP clusters. Each cluster has 8 FMUL/FADD SP element and 2 Special SP element. Each SP element issues 2 instructions per cycle (designed to have 3 instruction issues per cycle but there's a design flaw, which was fixed in GT2x0 family).

According to Fold@Home, SPE instruction set are not designed for pure math speed unlike ATI Radeon X1900 (killed PS3 CELL twice over). RV570's F@H GPU1 was has replaced by NV CUDA/ATI CAL F@H GPU2.

While ATI Xenos's threads are not as aggressive compared to G8X or R6x0 families, Xenos still has 64 threads.

In PS3, SPEs are use for the early part of rendering pipeline.

[QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]To give you an analogy to show where your line of thinking is wrong. Think of the cell as a dragster. They are only good on long perfectly straight perfectly level roads. Most game code has either "hills" or "turns" it is very rare to have a game with an appreciable amount of code that is "flat and straight"...no matter how well you drive(how "right you use it") the scenario just doesn't exist very often in game code. Steppy_76

Erm...no...I do not see the Cell as a dragster.. That's obvious from your post, but the cell has VERY specific areas in which it excels(like a dragster). Game code is one of the farther types of code from that "sweet spot". The Cell has those execution units available to help out the RSX simply because game code isn't parallel enough to keep the processor running full bore(which statistical analysis, folding@home do, and are where the cell shows its strengths).

Its a hybrid processor with the flexibility of a regular CPU No, it doesn't have the flexibility of a regular CPU. You have to bend your code to the cell rather than the processor being able to bend to your code. and the straight forward number crunching like ordinary GPU's...No, it's number crunching is far below GPU's...it lies somewhere between normal CPU's and GPU's in respect to this....and so does its flexibility(less flexible than normal CPU's, more flexible than GPU's).
You can just chuck anything you really want into the SPE's and it will do it for you. No, you have to turn whatever you really want the SPE's to do into things the SPE's do well. Doing what you suggest is exactly what causes poor performance of the cell.

!st and 2nd party devs are able to make good codes that make very good use of the cell...and they keep improving them. And?

Multiplats on the the other hand are just coded so the RSX renders all the visuals...No, they just don't focus as much on using the SPE's...but the PS3 version gets more timel, larger teams, etc for a reason. If they weren't using the cell to help out with visuals then the PS3 versions would look worse than 360 versions unless they dumb down the 360 version to a level the RSX can handle since the RSX is weaker than the Xenos.

They cant be bothered using the Cell for that 'Extra graphical enchancement" the RSX needs. True.

It just makes things somewhat harder and takes more time. If it takes more time, it takes up a bit more money. For the platform with the least benefits in return of investment.

Both the Xenon and the Cell are in-order CPU's..both built from the same core architectures, both use the same instruction set...but its the design of each chip past the core design that makes them completely diffrent at what thier capable of..Ok, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in china. Nobody said the Cell wasn't different...different does equal better or more powerful.

The CPU of the PS3 is more powerful than the xenon in the 360, but the GPU for both is about the same and the 360 is easier to develop for.Jekken6

NVidia RSX is weaker than ATI Xenos

1. Xenos's secondary NEC built GPU has 192 pixel processors, which offloads some shader work from the primary GPU.

2. RSX's Texture operations stalls pixel shader/math operations.

3. RSX's less robust Z-Cull e.g. Early-Z cull is missing.

4. RSX's limited vertex shader resource.

5. RSX's lack of thread engine hardware.

6. RSX's lack of Geometry Tessellation hardware.

7. RSX's less robust AA hardware.LogLuv HDR + MSAA method induce 5 to 7 cycle penalty for RSX's pixel shaders. One has to be carefull with pixel shader and texture operations with RSX.

8. RSX's less robust branch unit.

[QUOTE="fortehlose"]well john carmack, a rocket scientist and founder of ID, said the 360 is by far superior to the PS3. Nagidar

He said it was "from a developers perspective". IE., the 360 is easier to develop for.

and the technical term for a rocket scientist is just an aerospace engineer which has nothing to do with electrical engineering

[QUOTE="the1stmoonfly"][QUOTE="PSGamerforlife"]

If the thing is used right, it CAN be a more powerful gaming console, seeing how much there is going on in kz2 and how smooth it runs...

PSGamerforlife

I think the biggest problem is dev time for the PS3, KZ2's was what, over 4 years and GT5 still isnt here yet. Lets say for arguments sake that the PS3 is outperforming the 360 by say 10% (KZ2 isnt anything more than this margin better than say GeoW if you beleive it is better), then is double the dev time and less than half the library of titles really worth that extra 10 percent. The answer really is no, now if said problems help you win a format war and basically give you a monopoly on BR it suddenly becomes worth it for Sony. IMO the PS3 is suffering because of it, I think it would still be a clear number 1 otherwise. Ive also said before that having extra power isnt really extra power if you cant use it, and some of the cells extra abilities just dont apply to normal gaming so I dont count that when talking about a games console. My honest view is that the PS3 is the more powerful machine, but the more powerful gaming machine it isnt, or at least not enough to make any difference as any lead has to be a definitive step up. Ive certainly not seen anything that convinces me of this. I dont think KZ2 proves the PS3 is the more powerful games machine from what ive seen, but if you disagree then fine, I wont argue with your opinion.

Yea, killzone 2 does use alot of trickery effects to look as good as it does, but the effects are all really advanced computational techniques.

For making those sorts of games on console, the key lies in increasing the load on the processors, like shoving many algorithms into the Cells SPE's for them to take care of it like GG did.. whilst decreasing the load on the ram.

But being able to do that right lies pretty much with SCE 1st/2nd party devs. GG didnt do ALL of KZ2 by themselves..SCE devs share tech and programming info around like crazy. GG got help from Polyphony digital, SCE santa monica studios, Insomniac, Naughty dog (which is also home to Sony world wide studios central technology group) and a couple of others..

I dont know what happened to bethesda, its as if they stood up and tripped over and landed face flat with thier understanding of cell programming...or maybe they just ported FO3 onto te ps3 as an afterthought..

But other than them...the PS3 is harder to program for than the 360...the xenos can do 4x AA with minimal performace loss, programmers are more used to the DirectX API..even tho OpenGL came before it...and the xenos supports shader model 3 and uses a more unified architecture...

The Xenos and RSX do things better in diffrent areas..but overall devs can pump out slightly more with the Xenos, somewhat easier...

Yet its the Cell which covers up the flaws of the RSX and can provide a relativaly large boost to its performance...but most non SCE devs dont really care about enchancing the graphics using the cell, it just makes things harder... it also costs more time and money.

Though there are some devs which have done things like simeltaneous devlopment and using the cells SPE for certain things...like with Dead space for example..

I dont think bethesda used the Ps3's recources for FO3 like they did with oblivion. I dont think they could be bothered.

In relation to Direct3D and OpenGL APIs, NVIDIA Geforce 8/9/Gt2.x0 has something similar to NVIDIA RSX Libcgm. It's called NVAPI. It's another set of "near metal" NV APIs besides NVIDIA's CUDA. NVAPI Link

"NVAPI is NVIDIA's core software development kit that allows direct access to NVIDIA GPUs and drivers on all windows platforms. NVAPI provides support for categories of operations that range beyond the scope of those found in familiar graphics APIs such as DirectX and OpenGL"

"Initially exposed only to OEMs and game developer tools, NVAPI is now available for download to all developers interested in building Windows applications on NVIDIA GPUs."

Far Cry 2 PC edition is said to use this NVAPI to expose some DX10.1 features on Geforce 8/9/GT2x0 GPUs. NVIDIA's "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" is not just dead paper weight.Far Cry 2 PC is another "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" title.

Yea, killzone 2 does use alot of trickery effects to look as good as it does, but the effects are all really advanced computational techniques.

They're not advanced, they're pretty common, motion blur is common in almost every game, good animation is not down to hardware performance and more to the motion capture studio used in the first place. Killzone 2, is an example of a very well olished game. More games would look like it if they had the similar time and effort placed on their development.

For making those sorts of games on console, the key lies in increasing the load on the processors, like shoving many algorithms into the Cells SPE's for them to take care of it like GG did.. whilst decreasing the load on the ram.

The things that are being offloaded onto the Cell with the PS3 are the types of processes that the Xenos would handle on the 360. You're still avoiding the question on specifically, what graphical techniques are used in KZ2 that cannot be done on the 360?...the reason you're not answering is there is none. Given enough time and development cost (and providing the devs are good enough unlike Too Human devs) the hardware is capable of achieving something like KZ2.

But being able to do that right lies pretty much with SCE 1st/2nd party devs. GG didnt do ALL of KZ2 by themselves..SCE devs share tech and programming info around like crazy. GG got help from Polyphony digital, SCE santa monica studios, Insomniac, Naughty dog (which is also home to Sony world wide studios central technology group) and a couple of others.. Imagine, a 360 game with this level of cooperation between studios?

I dont know what happened to bethesda, its as if they stood up and tripped over and landed face flat with thier understanding of cell programming...or maybe they just ported FO3 onto te ps3 as an afterthought.. I remember reading that their development team for the PS3 was huge compared to the 360 and thegame still ported very poorly onto the PS3.

But other than them...the PS3 is harder to program for than the 360...the xenos can do 4x AA with minimal performace loss, programmers are more used to the DirectX API..even tho OpenGL came before it...and the xenos supports shader model 3 and uses a more unified architecture...

The Xenos and RSX do things better in diffrent areas..but overall devs can pump out slightly more with the Xenos, somewhat easier...

Yet its the Cell which covers up the flaws of the RSX and can provide a relativaly large boost to its performance...but most non SCE devs dont really care about enchancing the graphics using the cell, it just makes things harder... it also costs more time and money.

Though there are some devs which have done things like simeltaneous devlopment and using the cells SPE for certain things...like with Dead space for example..

I dont think bethesda used the Ps3's recources for FO3 like they did with oblivion. I dont think they could be bothered.

PSGamerforlife

You're one of the cows who talks as if KZ2 is a gen ahead of anything on the 360. Well I'm going to explain one more time and hope it sticks. Take Gears of War for example. The models have a similar poly count, they have textures of a similar resolution (I think gears 2 may have slightly high res textures), level design is done on a similar scale, both use HDR on limited sized levels, both have normal mapping (although again this is a strength of Gears 2 imho the characters have contoured scars etc on their faces, their armor has depth etc), post processing effects such as motion blur on KZ2 are done much better but thats the art direction thay have gone for they also use like a film grain effect to make eachs cene more cinematic.

I could go on all day, the point is Killzone 2 is only on a par technically with a game like KZ2. You can't even argue with the common "with all thats going on screen at once" because Gear 2 has some levels with hundreds of locust in large outdoor environments.

If you really want to see games that cannot be rendered on the 360 or PS3, look at games such Stalker CS, CRysis and Crysis WH. These games render large open environments with full HDR, much higher resolution textures and bump maps and even at much higher resolutions.

Face it, the hardware between the 360 and PS3 are producing games that are 'on par' with each other visually this generation.