AMD Says the following....

Link? And is this talking about ram or GPU memory?ShaineTheNerd

They're the same frigging thing and there is NO difference electronically. Physically you can slap an arbitrary RAM type on a GPU and it will perform the same or better than it would if you threw it onto DIMMs and used it for a CPU. The only thing that distinguishes RAM is how it is allocated (logical) and where it is located (physical).

[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"]Link? And is this talking about ram or GPU memory?Aidenfury19

They're the same frigging thing and there is NO difference electronically. Physically you can slap an arbitrary RAM type on a GPU and it will perform the same or better than it would if you threw it onto DIMMs and used it for a CPU. The only thing that distinguishes RAM is how it is allocated (logical) and where it is located (physical).

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="Kaz_Son"]Taht's not what I was talking about. I was saying that GPU is more important than RAM when it comes to graphics. Even if PS4's RAM advantage isn't as big as you say the GPU advantage is significant enough to ensure that both systems won't be identical.Kaz_Son

[QUOTE="Kaz_Son"][QUOTE="superclocked"]True, but hopefully the upclock rumor from first party devs is true. An increase to just 950MHz would make it 1.84 TFLOPS vs 1.46 TFLOPS. But, even at 1.23 TFLOPS, the XBox One GPU is only 33% slower than the PS4 GPU. That's really not all that much. If someone wants the most powerful system, they should really be gaming on PC. My $200 GCN GPU put out 3.69 TFLOPS @ 1.2GHz...superclocked

[QUOTE="uninspiredcup"]

Looks like the pc wins agan. Ah wells.

meconate

wait, are PC gamers even allowed here? Thought this was console only

[QUOTE="meconate"]

[QUOTE="uninspiredcup"]

Looks like the pc wins agan. Ah wells.

mrbojangles25

wait, are PC gamers even allowed here? Thought this was console only

havent you figured it out by now? pc elites must throw themselves into any topic by any means.

i think everyone knows PC is the greatest. Why do hermits have to keep saying it over and over again. 

Anyways. PS4> Xbox one 1. In terms of hardware thats a fact.  

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"]Link? And is this talking about ram or GPU memory?ShaineTheNerd

They're the same frigging thing and there is NO difference electronically. Physically you can slap an arbitrary RAM type on a GPU and it will perform the same or better than it would if you threw it onto DIMMs and used it for a CPU. The only thing that distinguishes RAM is how it is allocated (logical) and where it is located (physical).

They're not different, at least they don't have to be. DDR3 can (and is) used for lower-end GPUs because it tends to be less expensive for the OEMs and weaker GPUs don't require as much bandwidth to perform well. That is the same stuff most PCs now use for their CPU memory and in BOTH cases it is RAM (random access memory).

Higher-end GPUs and the PS4 use GDDR5 currently because it allows for much higher memory bandwidth, meaning that it can move much more data within a given period of time at the same clockspeed. When people criticize the XBONE for using DDR3 it is because of that: the memory bandwidth is a much, MUCH lower than for the PS4 so it can (may) run into situations where it is unable to transfer data to memory fast enough which would make performance suffer.

Microsoft has added quite a few things to try to minimize how often that will occur, but almost none of them are necessary on the PS4 because it's using RAM with far superior performance. GDDR5 doesn't have any downsides compared to DDR3 other than cost (which is one of the two big reasons why your CPU doesn't use it) either and that includes latency.

Those are just two types of RAM and both types are what is known as volatile RAM meaning that they lose whatever data is on them if they lose power. There is also non-volatile RAM or NVRAM (e.g. Flash memory) that doesn't lose data when it's powered off. It's a very broad category, but generally when people talk about memory they're talking about RAM (a.k.a. primary memory), while when they talk about storage they're talking about HDDs (a.k.a. secondary memory).

i think everyone knows PC is the greatest. Why do hermits have to keep saying it over and over again. 

Anyways. PS4> Xbox one 1. In terms of hardware thats a fact.  

Ribnarak

since you brought it up, would someone please clarify who is what?

So far I"ve heard of cows, sheep, lemmings, hermits....what else is there?

Can't believe I don't know this yet lol...

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

i think everyone knows PC is the greatest. Why do hermits have to keep saying it over and over again. 

Anyways. PS4> Xbox one 1. In terms of hardware thats a fact.  

mrbojangles25

since you brought it up, would someone please clarify who is what?

So far I"ve heard of cows, sheep, lemmings, hermits....what else is there?

Can't believe I don't know this yet lol...

[QUOTE="Ribnarak"]

i think everyone knows PC is the greatest. Why do hermits have to keep saying it over and over again. 

Anyways. PS4> Xbox one 1. In terms of hardware thats a fact.  

mrbojangles25

since you brought it up, would someone please clarify who is what?

So far I"ve heard of cows, sheep, lemmings, hermits....what else is there?

Can't believe I don't know this yet lol...

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="Kaz_Son"]True, PC gaming wins either way but the PS4 is still more powerful than the XB1 for $100 cheaper and that's significant IMO.ShaineTheNerd

Why does power matter so much to console gamers?

The Xbox was multiple times more powerful than the PS2. It wasn't simply 50% more....More like 500% more.

Everyone chose the PS2 anyways because it had the most games.

 

There is nothing about the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox One that's going to actually change the gaming experience between the two systems. It'll be an almost indifferential amount (thanks to diminishing returns) that you won't know exists without going to pixel counting sites like Digital Foundry.

Ly_the_Fairy

Because they are going to be virtually sharing the same games so power is the deciding factor here....

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

Why does power matter so much to console gamers?

The Xbox was multiple times more powerful than the PS2. It wasn't simply 50% more....More like 500% more.

Everyone chose the PS2 anyways because it had the most games.

 

There is nothing about the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox One that's going to actually change the gaming experience between the two systems. It'll be an almost indifferential amount (thanks to diminishing returns) that you won't know exists without going to pixel counting sites like Digital Foundry.

GD1551

Because they are going to be virtually sharing the same games so power is the deciding factor here....

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

Why does power matter so much to console gamers?

The Xbox was multiple times more powerful than the PS2. It wasn't simply 50% more....More like 500% more.

Everyone chose the PS2 anyways because it had the most games.

 

There is nothing about the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox One that's going to actually change the gaming experience between the two systems. It'll be an almost indifferential amount (thanks to diminishing returns) that you won't know exists without going to pixel counting sites like Digital Foundry.

GD1551

Because they are going to be virtually sharing the same games so power is the deciding factor here....

Nope, your wrong. Performance > specs, xbox 360 taught us that, and E3 taught us that YET AGAIN. And quality of the online service is much more important than a theoretical advantage in specs. And then theres the the massive server support, games, hardware... sorry, power is not the deciding factor. 

Does anyone else notice how the more diehard Cows pick and choose what threads they post in? Hilarious. No reason for this not to be in that othr thread. The one most Cows are avoiding.

timbers_WSU

Strange, coming from you.

I mean, you've always come off as someone who hates when Cows go off on tangents with pointless damage control.

...lol i know lemmings have built up anger and sourness over the past few weeks/months look how fast they jump on these new threads damage controlling copy and pasting basically the same sentences to try and damage control as much as possible. They jump on it asap ... LOL whats up system wars same old shit huh xboxiphoneps3

You're in the exact same threads doing the same thing.

[QUOTE="timbers_WSU"]

Does anyone else notice how the more diehard Cows pick and choose what threads they post in? Hilarious. No reason for this not to be in that othr thread. The one most Cows are avoiding.

Trail_Mix

Strange, coming from you.

I mean, you've always come off as someone who hates when Cows go off on tangents with pointless damage control.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

Why does power matter so much to console gamers?

The Xbox was multiple times more powerful than the PS2. It wasn't simply 50% more....More like 500% more.

Everyone chose the PS2 anyways because it had the most games.

 

There is nothing about the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox One that's going to actually change the gaming experience between the two systems. It'll be an almost indifferential amount (thanks to diminishing returns) that you won't know exists without going to pixel counting sites like Digital Foundry.

sebbi11

Because they are going to be virtually sharing the same games so power is the deciding factor here....

Nope, your wrong. Performance > specs, xbox 360 taught us that, and E3 taught us that YET AGAIN. And quality of the online service is much more important than a theoretical advantage in specs. And then theres the the massive server support, games, hardware... sorry, power is not the deciding factor. 

Ok... you realize they are using the same hardware except it's better in the PS4 right? X360's performance over the PS3 was due to how complicated it was to develop for the PS3. Now Games and Hardware.. which the PS4 is going to be better with (if the 360vsPS3 is any indication). So all you got is online, which is already fine on X and PS3, so it will be fine on both.

[QUOTE="Kaz_Son"][QUOTE="superclocked"]Uuum, I'm well aware that the PS4 has a better GPU. It was the firs sentence in my post :|superclocked

PS4's 18 CU still slightly has greater register data storage L1 cache and local data store (LDS) than the X1.

12 CU: 3 MB register file, 192 KB L1 cache, 768 KB LDS

18 CU: 4.5 MB register file, 288 KB L1 cache, 1152 KB LDS

32 CU: 8 MB register file, 512 KB L1 cache, 2048 KB LDS

These are all SRAM type memory.

---

After L2 cache and global cache, the above SRAM storage are compute storage before it hits external memory (with multi-cycle latencies).

X1 has low latency 32 ESRAM which has lower latencies than both DDR3 and GDDR5, but higher than internal SRAM.

References

[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"]Link? And is this talking about ram or GPU memory?rocoswav

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx 

it's GPU MEMORY not SYSTEM MEMORY ,gddr5 only good when used for gpu memory because of high bandwidth but worse when used for system memory because of high latency that's where ddr3 shine

there's a reason why pc have 2 different type of memory ddr3 for system and gddr5 for gpu

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]

[QUOTE="ShaineTheNerd"]Link? And is this talking about ram or GPU memory?nyzma23

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx

it's GPU MEMORY not SYSTEM MEMORY ,gddr5 only good when used for gpu memory because of high bandwidth but worse when used for system memory because of high latency that's where ddr3 shine

there's a reason why pc have 2 different type of memory ddr3 for system and gddr5 for gpu

GDDR5's latency example https://www.skhynix.com/products/graphics/view.jsp?info.ramKind=26&info.serialNo=H5GQ2H24AFR

Programmable CAS latency: 5 to 20 tCK

Programmable WRITE latency: 1 to 7 tCK

DDR3's latency example http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/dram/ddr3/1Gb_DDR3_SDRAM.pdf

CAS READ latency (CL): 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11

CAS WRITE latency (CWL): 5, 6, 7, 8, based on tCK

------------

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34710477&postcount=28

Memory latency is most appropriately measured in nanoseconds. In terms of nanosecond latency, DDR3 and GDDR5 are very similar. Someone already posted a link that says that GDDR5 has programmable CAS latency (from 5 to 20 cycles), which if you take the increased clockspeed of GDDR5 into account, means that the latency in terms of nanoseconds is very similar to DDR3.

GDDR5's architecture is different from typical DDR3 in only a few important performance-oriented ways: * More banks (16 in GDDR5 versus 8 [typical] in DDR3, this is actually a latency-*reducing* feature). * More data pins per GDDR5 device (32 in GDDR5 versus [typicall] 8 or [very rarely] 16 in DDR3). This makes it so you can get all of the data for a cache line (or whatever granularity of access you're talking about), in a reasonable number of cycles from a single chip. In DDR3, all 8 chips in a rank work together to provide 64 bits per transfer of a cache line (8 bits per transfer each). This width, plus the very high clockspeed of GDDR5 has the net effect of data transfer taking *less time* with GDDR5 compared to DDR3, but data transfer is never the latency bottleneck in a DRAM system, so this part isn't very important. Suffice it to say, this does not have any negative impact on GDDR5 latency. * Obviously also very high clockspeeds and data transfer speeds.

As a source, other than the link provided earlier in the page, I myself researched DRAM for a couple years, and my lab mate just finished the GDDR5 version of his DRAM simulator, with all the industry-correct timing parameters involved, and according to him they have the almost identical latency.

-------------------

http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/so-018a

GDDR5M/DDR4 SODIMM standard coming soon for the PC.

[QUOTE="nyzma23"]

[QUOTE="rocoswav"]

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/gddr5/Pages/gddr5.aspx

ronvalencia

it's GPU MEMORY not SYSTEM MEMORY ,gddr5 only good when used for gpu memory because of high bandwidth but worse when used for system memory because of high latency that's where ddr3 shine

there's a reason why pc have 2 different type of memory ddr3 for system and gddr5 for gpu

GDDR5's latency example https://www.skhynix.com/products/graphics/view.jsp?info.ramKind=26&info.serialNo=H5GQ2H24AFR

Programmable CAS latency: 5 to 20 tCK

Programmable WRITE latency: 1 to 7 tCK

DDR3's latency example http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/dram/ddr3/1Gb_DDR3_SDRAM.pdf

CAS READ latency (CL): 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11

CAS WRITE latency (CWL): 5, 6, 7, 8, based on tCK

------------

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34710477&postcount=28

Memory latency is most appropriately measured in nanoseconds. In terms of nanosecond latency, DDR3 and GDDR5 are very similar. Someone already posted a link that says that GDDR5 has programmable CAS latency (from 5 to 20 cycles), which if you take the increased clockspeed of GDDR5 into account, means that the latency in terms of nanoseconds is very similar to DDR3.

GDDR5's architecture is different from typical DDR3 in only a few important performance-oriented ways: * More banks (16 in GDDR5 versus 8 [typical] in DDR3, this is actually a latency-*reducing* feature). * More data pins per GDDR5 device (32 in GDDR5 versus [typicall] 8 or [very rarely] 16 in DDR3). This makes it so you can get all of the data for a cache line (or whatever granularity of access you're talking about), in a reasonable number of cycles from a single chip. In DDR3, all 8 chips in a rank work together to provide 64 bits per transfer of a cache line (8 bits per transfer each). This width, plus the very high clockspeed of GDDR5 has the net effect of data transfer taking *less time* with GDDR5 compared to DDR3, but data transfer is never the latency bottleneck in a DRAM system, so this part isn't very important. Suffice it to say, this does not have any negative impact on GDDR5 latency. * Obviously also very high clockspeeds and data transfer speeds.

As a source, other than the link provided earlier in the page, I myself researched DRAM for a couple years, and my lab mate just finished the GDDR5 version of his DRAM simulator, with all the industry-correct timing parameters involved, and according to him they have the almost identical latency.

-------------------

http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/so-018a

GDDR5M/DDR4 SODIMM standard coming soon for the PC.

if it's almost identical latency why pc oem and apple doesn't make unified ram in their laptop just like ps4 ? i admire anandtech but i think apple & microsoft engineer have more experience with computer hardware than anandtech

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="nyzma23"]

 

it's GPU MEMORY not SYSTEM MEMORY ,gddr5 only good when used for gpu memory because of high bandwidth but worse when used for system memory because of high latency that's where ddr3 shine

there's a reason why pc have 2 different type of memory ddr3 for system and gddr5 for gpu

nyzma23

GDDR5's latency example https://www.skhynix.com/products/graphics/view.jsp?info.ramKind=26&info.serialNo=H5GQ2H24AFR

Programmable CAS latency: 5 to 20 tCK

Programmable WRITE latency: 1 to 7 tCK

DDR3's latency example http://download.micron.com/pdf/datasheets/dram/ddr3/1Gb_DDR3_SDRAM.pdf

CAS READ latency (CL): 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11

CAS WRITE latency (CWL): 5, 6, 7, 8, based on tCK

------------

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34710477&postcount=28

Memory latency is most appropriately measured in nanoseconds. In terms of nanosecond latency, DDR3 and GDDR5 are very similar. Someone already posted a link that says that GDDR5 has programmable CAS latency (from 5 to 20 cycles), which if you take the increased clockspeed of GDDR5 into account, means that the latency in terms of nanoseconds is very similar to DDR3.

GDDR5's architecture is different from typical DDR3 in only a few important performance-oriented ways: * More banks (16 in GDDR5 versus 8 [typical] in DDR3, this is actually a latency-*reducing* feature). * More data pins per GDDR5 device (32 in GDDR5 versus [typicall] 8 or [very rarely] 16 in DDR3). This makes it so you can get all of the data for a cache line (or whatever granularity of access you're talking about), in a reasonable number of cycles from a single chip. In DDR3, all 8 chips in a rank work together to provide 64 bits per transfer of a cache line (8 bits per transfer each). This width, plus the very high clockspeed of GDDR5 has the net effect of data transfer taking *less time* with GDDR5 compared to DDR3, but data transfer is never the latency bottleneck in a DRAM system, so this part isn't very important. Suffice it to say, this does not have any negative impact on GDDR5 latency. * Obviously also very high clockspeeds and data transfer speeds.

As a source, other than the link provided earlier in the page, I myself researched DRAM for a couple years, and my lab mate just finished the GDDR5 version of his DRAM simulator, with all the industry-correct timing parameters involved, and according to him they have the almost identical latency.

-------------------

http://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/so-018a

GDDR5M/DDR4 SODIMM standard coming soon for the PC.

if it's almost identical latency why pc oem and apple don't make unified ram in their laptop just like ps4 ? i admire anandtech but i think apple & microsoft engineer have more experience with computer hardware than anandtech

Nuff said

 

rocoswav

Once again, the weaker console, is more powerful. FoxbatAlpha

Why does power matter so much to console gamers?

The Xbox was multiple times more powerful than the PS2. It wasn't simply 50% more....More like 500% more.

Everyone chose the PS2 anyways because it had the most games.

 

There is nothing about the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox One that's going to actually change the gaming experience between the two systems. It'll be an almost indifferential amount (thanks to diminishing returns) that you won't know exists without going to pixel counting sites like Digital Foundry.

Ly_the_Fairy

Yet again someone who doesn't put all the other factors into place before claiming that power isn't always the winner.

lets put it all straight, Sony came into the game with the ps1, a new easier and cost effective cd drive than the n64 bulky cartridge, this was always going to win because of the future tech, sony's ps2 was top notch it was the only platform really to go on for third party developmet, sega mucked up with the sega saturn and nintendo went a strange way with the gamecube using them crazy small disc's, so sony was there, xbox came out a whole year after, they were a brand new system no one really heard much about it and it was after sony's ps2 that word was going about a new console. this is the reason sony won hands down, of course the xbox was going to be more powerful it was designed a year or so later.

xbox 360 won because it came out a year before the ps3, it had a great low selling point, it did have hiddne costs but these costs people justified with puchasing the console, this was the only system which was out which allowed multiplayer on a mainstream level, people paid it grew because of this, by the time ps3 came out and told people about the free online serivce, it was a little late and with the high price of the console due to the hig tech of the blu ray player it didn't sit well and for most of the gen xbox 360 won.

the wii won i know but the only reason the wii won is because it is a great little cheap party console that is the only reason it sold well not for anything else but the party games.

this time around is completely different to any other gen, we have 2 main companies now both producing on par levels of preformance, we all know deep down that no matter how much more power the ps4 has they both will look the same to the general public graphics for at least a couple of years, they are both releasing at the exact same time, and the one problem is, xbox one is 499 and ps4 is 399, does the xbox one really show anything that i want for the extra 100 no, but thats just me, this is going to be the closest war we have ever had, no one is at an advantage this time around

Once again, the weaker console, is more powerful. FoxbatAlpha

Once again?

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]Once again, the weaker console, is more powerful. faizan_faizan

Once again?

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]Once again, the weaker console, is more powerful. clyde46

Once again?

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

Once again?

faizan_faizan

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="clyde46"] The PS2 was weaker than the original Xbox.clyde46

I read it as "popular" instead of "powerful" at first aswell :P

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

Why does power matter so much to console gamers?

The Xbox was multiple times more powerful than the PS2. It wasn't simply 50% more....More like 500% more.

Everyone chose the PS2 anyways because it had the most games.

 

There is nothing about the power difference between the PS4 and Xbox One that's going to actually change the gaming experience between the two systems. It'll be an almost indifferential amount (thanks to diminishing returns) that you won't know exists without going to pixel counting sites like Digital Foundry.

kalipekona

If they care so much about graphics and performance they should be gaming on a PC.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]Once again, the weaker console, is more powerful. clyde46

Once again?

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

Once again?

superclocked

What are the reasons of Half Life 2, Far Cry, DOOM 3 and CoR:EfBB not showing up on the PS2, then? I think the GPU might be one of the reasons for that, but Half Life 2 wasn't even in the league with the others when taking graphics in to consideration. It was about physics. And as far as I remember, during the PS2/XBOX era, GPGPU computing didn't exist. Half Life 2 didn't even feature dynamic shadows.

Everyone knows the PS4 is the most powerful console in video game history. It's pointless to say the same thing over and over. Heil68

Every new generation is considerably more powerful than the last, so every new generation are the most powerful gaming consoles in history. That's just stupid to say. Shit, none of us has even played these systems yet or have seen there full potential. People are getting real premature with this power stuff. I mean look at the PS4 RAM news, just shutup until we can actually get our hands on it and see the actual facts. 

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="clyde46"] The PS2 was weaker than the original Xbox.faizan_faizan

What are the reasons of Half Life 2, Far Cry, DOOM 3 and CoR:EfBB not showing up on the PS2, then? I think the GPU might be one of the reasons for that, but Half Life 2 wasn't even in the league with the others when taking graphics in to consideration. It was about physics. And as far as I remember, during the PS2/XBOX era, GPGPU computing didn't exist. Half Life 2 didn't even feature dynamic shadows.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]The PS2 actually had a better CPU than the XBox, but the XBox's GPU was far more advanced...superclocked

What are the reasons of Half Life 2, Far Cry, DOOM 3 and CoR:EfBB not showing up on the PS2, then? I think the GPU might be one of the reasons for that, but Half Life 2 wasn't even in the league with the others when taking graphics in to consideration. It was about physics. And as far as I remember, during the PS2/XBOX era, GPGPU computing didn't exist. Half Life 2 didn't even feature dynamic shadows.

Makes sense, but can you list the PS2 games that had superior physics to XBOX games such as Half Life 2? Or even Batman Begins for that matter.

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

What are the reasons of Half Life 2, Far Cry, DOOM 3 and CoR:EfBB not showing up on the PS2, then? I think the GPU might be one of the reasons for that, but Half Life 2 wasn't even in the league with the others when taking graphics in to consideration. It was about physics. And as far as I remember, during the PS2/XBOX era, GPGPU computing didn't exist. Half Life 2 didn't even feature dynamic shadows.

faizan_faizan

Makes sense, but can you list the PS2 games that had superior physics to XBOX games such as Half Life 2? Or even Batman Begins for that matter.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]Although it was not as good, the CPU in the XBox was an x86 PC CPU. It was a Pentium 3 based Celeron. Porting games from PC to XBox was easy. The Emotion Engine in the PS2 was like the Cell in the PS3. It was an alien architecture compared to what PC devs were used to working with...superclocked

Makes sense, but can you list the PS2 games that had superior physics to XBOX games such as Half Life 2? Or even Batman Begins for that matter.

It's games would have looked like shit if they only used the CELL for raster rendering.

[QUOTE="superclocked"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

Makes sense, but can you list the PS2 games that had superior physics to XBOX games such as Half Life 2? Or even Batman Begins for that matter.

faizan_faizan

It's games would have looked like shit if they only used the CELL for raster rendering.

[QUOTE="Far_RockNYC"]

:lol:AMD

DrTrafalgarLaw

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]The PS2 actually had a better CPU than the XBox, but the XBox's GPU was far more advanced...superclocked

What are the reasons of Half Life 2, Far Cry, DOOM 3 and CoR:EfBB not showing up on the PS2, then? I think the GPU might be one of the reasons for that, but Half Life 2 wasn't even in the league with the others when taking graphics in to consideration. It was about physics. And as far as I remember, during the PS2/XBOX era, GPGPU computing didn't exist. Half Life 2 didn't even feature dynamic shadows.

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"][QUOTE="Far_RockNYC"]

:lol:AMD

II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="superclocked"]You won't find any. The Emotion Engine was mostly used for graphics, just like they planned to do with the Cell processor. Sony only put the RSX in the PS3 to combat Microsoft. Had Microsoft not entered the console market, the PS3 would've simply used a Cell processor for graphics...superclocked

It's games would have looked like shit if they only used the CELL for raster rendering.