http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html
Interesting , pretty much what most of system wars already knows. Although it usually takes Sony's 1st party custom engines to show off the horsepower.
Anyone disagree with the showdown?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
But really I don't know why people care so much about having the bestest specs. Specs mean crap all without the games to use them, and both systems have their fair share of quality games.
hmm weird how cnet and ign both did a comparison recently.
WilliamRLBaker
cnets done like what 5 comparison reviews since they first come out?.... dnt rly know how they keep changing every time
LOL anyone disagreeing?Of course.This was probably wrote by someone who does not even know what gpu is...So much wrong in this...I mean they gave win to ps3 on RAM side??? :lol:
Bus-A-Bus
they gave it the win for Ram Speed mostly. Yeah, I thought that was weird to. But PS3 deserved the win in every otehr catagory, and even if they did give 360 the win for RAM, itll still be 4 to 7 in favor of PS3, meaning PS3 still would have won out over all.
lol, there is so much wrong on that list that its kinda sad that IGN even published it. :|navyguy21
i wont take IGN serious till they learn how to fix there comment section.....it just bugs me alot when every second comment is a AD
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
LOL anyone disagreeing?Of course.This was probably wrote by someone who does not even know what gpu is...So much wrong in this...I mean they gave win to ps3 on RAM side??? :lol:
XboximusPrime
they gave it the win for Ram Speed mostly. Yeah, I thought that was weird to. But PS3 deserved the win in every otehr catagory, and even if they did give 360 the win for RAM, itll still be 4 to 7 in favor of PS3, meaning PS3 still would have won out over all.
Naw ps3 is better hardware(better reliability,blu ray,rechargeable controller) but their RAM thing is TOTALLY false,plus 360 cpu has 115GFLOPS,not 76 and ps3 has 204.And 360 gpu is not only better because of eDRAM,and RSX does NOT have more FLOPS.(242 vs 212).
[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Sony must have paid them Only logical conclusion.hmm weird how cnet and ign both did a comparison recently.
Anjunaddict
[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
LOL anyone disagreeing?Of course.This was probably wrote by someone who does not even know what gpu is...So much wrong in this...I mean they gave win to ps3 on RAM side??? :lol:
Bus-A-Bus
they gave it the win for Ram Speed mostly. Yeah, I thought that was weird to. But PS3 deserved the win in every otehr catagory, and even if they did give 360 the win for RAM, itll still be 4 to 7 in favor of PS3, meaning PS3 still would have won out over all.
Naw ps3 is better hardware(better reliability,blu ray,rechargeable controller) but their RAM thing is TOTALLY false,plus 360 cpu has 115GFLOPS,not 76 and ps3 has 204.And 360 gpu is not only better because of eDRAM,and RSX does NOT have more FLOPS.(242 vs 212).
yeah, but all im saying is that even if their numbers were correct they still would have given the win over all to PS3. Anyway, both are great, I think the article was mainly built for hits and or Fanboy wars.
What a surprise, the PS3 is a much better piece of hardware. It should of been common knowledge long ago the PS3 is a more powerful console.djsifer01
eh, depends who you ask.
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]
[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]
they gave it the win for Ram Speed mostly. Yeah, I thought that was weird to. But PS3 deserved the win in every otehr catagory, and even if they did give 360 the win for RAM, itll still be 4 to 7 in favor of PS3, meaning PS3 still would have won out over all.
XboximusPrime
Naw ps3 is better hardware(better reliability,blu ray,rechargeable controller) but their RAM thing is TOTALLY false,plus 360 cpu has 115GFLOPS,not 76 and ps3 has 204.And 360 gpu is not only better because of eDRAM,and RSX does NOT have more FLOPS.(242 vs 212).
yeah, but all im saying is that even if their numbers were correct they still would have given the win over all to PS3. Anyway, both are great, I think the article was mainly built for hits and or Fanboy wars.
Yap...and they nailed it ;)
[QUOTE="Anjunaddict"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]Sony must have paid them Only logical conclusion. *slams fist into palm* THAT MUST BE IT!!hmm weird how cnet and ign both did a comparison recently.
AAllxxjjnn
Just a quick question to test SW knowledge of how a system works,
In a standard computer configuration, assuming the memory is the bottleneck of the system, what would be 'better'?
a: 4GB DDR2 PC5400667mhz
b: 2GB DDR3 PC12800 1600mhz
(yes I know the difference is not the same in consoles, this is just a test in general knowledge)
So this is how Lemmngs handle finding out the PS3 is actually better at something they previously thought the 360 was better in? :roll:LOL anyone disagreeing?Of course.This was probably wrote by someone who does not even know what gpu is...So much wrong in this...I mean they gave win to ps3 on RAM side??? :lol:
Bus-A-Bus
It's hard not to agree with the points made. I didn't know the 360 had a 10/100 port! That's terrible. Gigabit speed is crucial to HD video streaming from your home network. Did they assume that everyone would be using the wireless instead?http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html
Interesting , pretty much what most of system wars already knows. Although it usually takes Sony's 1st party custom engines to show off the horsepower.
Anyone disagree with the showdown?
akira2465
[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]So this is how Lemmngs handle finding out the PS3 is actually better at something they previously thought the 360 was better in? :roll: lol, i thought Cows said IGN cant be trusted and was biased? Now they are credible? :PLOL anyone disagreeing?Of course.This was probably wrote by someone who does not even know what gpu is...So much wrong in this...I mean they gave win to ps3 on RAM side??? :lol:
oldkingallant
video out, the Ps3 may have more native 1080p, but the 360 does have them, darkstar 1, and he failed to point out that ALL games can be upscaled to 1080p on the 360, not so with the Ps3, and the hardware upscaler in the 360 is marginally better than the software upscaling the Ps3 uses,also, you cannot blame the hardware for MS only requiring the games to run in720p, apart from that i am inclined to agreehttp://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html
Interesting , pretty much what most of system wars already knows. Although it usually takes Sony's 1st party custom engines to show off the horsepower.
Anyone disagree with the showdown?
akira2465
http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html
Interesting , pretty much what most of system wars already knows. Although it usually takes Sony's 1st party custom engines to show off the horsepower.
Anyone disagree with the showdown?
akira2465
On the memory issue, Xbox 360 has memory/bandwidth saving 3DC+ texture compression hardware feature.
Read Page 6 from http://developer.amd.com/gpu_assets/GDC06-ATI_Session-Tatarchuk-ToyShop.pdf
3Dc+ texture compression was crucial
• We went from 478 MB texture memory total to 156MBWe used dec3n vertex data format to reduce memory
• Gives 3:1 memory savings
Also, NVIDIA Geforce 6000/7000 series and RSX do not support UDEC3/DEC3N. 8000 series is the first nvidia card family with DEC3N/UDEC3 support. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45737
What a surprise, the PS3 is a much better piece of hardware. It should of been common knowledge long ago the PS3 is a more powerful console.djsifer01It depends on the software. The art direction plays a big part in the overall presentation.
[QUOTE="akira2465"]video out, the Ps3 may have more native 1080p, but the 360 does have them, darkstar 1, and he failed to point out that ALL games can be upscaled to 1080p on the 360, not so with the Ps3, and the hardware upscaler in the 360 is marginally better than the software upscaling the Ps3 uses,also, you cannot blame the hardware for MS only requiring the games to run in720p, apart from that i am inclined to agree Good point. Other parts are a bit iffy. Like the GPU section. I thought the 360's GPU had a clear advantage over the PS3's. I guess according to this article it's really the ram that gives it the edge not the actual GPU. Any GPU architects here wanna clear this up?http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html
Interesting , pretty much what most of system wars already knows. Although it usually takes Sony's 1st party custom engines to show off the horsepower.
Anyone disagree with the showdown?
delta3074
[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]So this is how Lemmngs handle finding out the PS3 is actually better at something they previously thought the 360 was better in? :roll: lol, i thought Cows said IGN cant be trusted and was biased? Now they are credible? :PLOL anyone disagreeing?Of course.This was probably wrote by someone who does not even know what gpu is...So much wrong in this...I mean they gave win to ps3 on RAM side??? :lol:
navyguy21
Regardless of where he and/or cows stand, what are your opinions on IGN... should they be trusted? Should they not?
To ask a question like that, you must also let us know where you stand.
I personally don't trust any one site, I compile data from multiple sites, remove opinion and inject personal knowledge of computers then come to a conclusion.
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="akira2465"]video out, the Ps3 may have more native 1080p, but the 360 does have them, darkstar 1, and he failed to point out that ALL games can be upscaled to 1080p on the 360, not so with the Ps3, and the hardware upscaler in the 360 is marginally better than the software upscaling the Ps3 uses,also, you cannot blame the hardware for MS only requiring the games to run in720p, apart from that i am inclined to agree Good point. Other parts are a bit iffy. Like the GPU section. I thought the 360's GPU had a clear advantage over the PS3's. I guess according to this article it's really the ram that gives it the edge not the actual GPU. Any GPU architects here wanna clear this up?he got the part about hardare threads wrong as well, each core in the 360 runs 2 hardware threads which equals 6, the CELL still beats it though, with nearly 3 times the flops and an extra harware thread, although i thought the Ps3 actually ran 8 harware threads. EDIT: my bad, he did actually say duel thread,lol i was wrong about him being wrong (that sounds wrong don't it)http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html
Interesting , pretty much what most of system wars already knows. Although it usually takes Sony's 1st party custom engines to show off the horsepower.
Anyone disagree with the showdown?
Zero_epyon
[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="akira2465"]video out, the Ps3 may have more native 1080p, but the 360 does have them, darkstar 1, and he failed to point out that ALL games can be upscaled to 1080p on the 360, not so with the Ps3, and the hardware upscaler in the 360 is marginally better than the software upscaling the Ps3 uses,also, you cannot blame the hardware for MS only requiring the games to run in720p, apart from that i am inclined to agree Good point. Other parts are a bit iffy. Like the GPU section. I thought the 360's GPU had a clear advantage over the PS3's. I guess according to this article it's really the ram that gives it the edge not the actual GPU. Any GPU architects here wanna clear this up?http://gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html
Interesting , pretty much what most of system wars already knows. Although it usually takes Sony's 1st party custom engines to show off the horsepower.
Anyone disagree with the showdown?
Zero_epyon
Not only does 360 gpu feature completely new architecture which by itself can dedicate vertex or pixel workload as games need but it also features extremely rich feature list,designed specifically for consoles,plus it has eDRAM.Xenos is different ball game than RSX.Cell losses ~30% on just vertex culling so RSX has easier time with polygons(something at which it is limited),it also does post processing while on Xenos all 48 pipelines do it at time they are idle.Here is quote from programmer that developed on both of this consoles...
I could go on for pages listing the types of things the spu's are used for to make up for the machines aging gpu, which may be 7 series NVidia but that's basically a tweaked 6 series NVidia for the most part. But I'll just type a few off the top of my head:
1) Two ppu/vmx units
There are three ppu/vmx units on the 360, and just one on the PS3. So any load on the 360's remaining two ppu/vmx units must be moved to spu.
2) Vertex culling
You can look back a few years at my first post talking about this, but it's common knowledge now that you need to move as much vertex load as possible to spu otherwise it won't keep pace with the 360.
3) Vertex texture sampling
You can texture sample in vertex shaders on 360 just fine, but it's unusably slow on PS3. Most multi platform games simply won't use this feature on 360 to make keeping parity easier, but if a dev does make use of it then you will have no choice but to move all such functionality to spu.
4) Shader patching
Changing variables in shader programs is cake on the 360. Not so on the PS3 because they are embedded into the shader programs. So you have to use spu's to patch your shader programs.
5) Branching
You never want a lot of branching in general, but when you do really need it the 360 handles it fine, PS3 does not. If you are stuck needing branching in shaders then you will want to move all such functionality to spu.
6) Shader inputs
You can pass plenty of inputs to shaders on 360, but do it on PS3 and your game will grind to a halt. You will want to move all such functionality to spu to minimize the amount of inputs needed on the shader programs.
7) Msaa alternatives
Msaa runs full speed on 360 gpu needing just cpu tiling calculations. Msaa on PS3 gpu is very slow. You will want to move msaa to spu as soon as you can.
8) Post processing
360 is unified architecture meaning post process steps can often be slotted into gpu idle time. This is not as easily doable on PS3, so you will want to move as much post process to spu as possible.
9) Load balancing
360 gpu load balances itself just fine since it's unified. If the load on a given frame shifts to heavy vertex or heavy pixel load then you don't care. Not so on PS3 where such load shifts will cause frame drops. You will want to shift as much load as possible to spu to minimize your peak load on the gpu.
10) Half floats
You can use full floats just fine on the 360 gpu. On the PS3 gpu they cause performance slowdowns. If you really need/have to use shaders with many full floats then you will want to move such functionality over to the spu's.
11) Shader array indexing
You can index into arrays in shaders on the 360 gpu no problem. You can't do that on PS3. If you absolutely need this functionality then you will have to either rework your shaders or move it all to spu.
Etc, etc, etc...
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=57736&page=5
I know I know! The bottle neck is A! Basically it's like the whole bluray vs DVD. DVD holds less but has faster read and write speeds. Blurays hold more but suffer from slow read and write speeds. What we see here is fast memory that goes in and out quickly when done right vs putting everything you need in memory and getting it when its needed. Most ports try to dump all in memory but soon realize they run out of space. Therefore instead of optimizing the engine, the developer just makes the memory allocation smaller, like smaller, muddier, or removed textures for example.Just a quick question to test SW knowledge of how a system works,
In a standard computer configuration, assuming the memory is the bottleneck of the system, what would be 'better'?
a: 4GB DDR2 PC5400667mhz
b: 2GB DDR3 PC12800 1600mhz
(yes I know the difference is not the same in consoles, this is just a test in general knowledge)
FragTycoon
What's the point? They may as well bill at as battle of the geriatrics! I mean 2005 lolz tech, who cares?hywel69
I agree. It's been a long while since the hardware for both came out. You'd think that argument would've been settled by now.
[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="delta3074"] video out, the Ps3 may have more native 1080p, but the 360 does have them, darkstar 1, and he failed to point out that ALL games can be upscaled to 1080p on the 360, not so with the Ps3, and the hardware upscaler in the 360 is marginally better than the software upscaling the Ps3 uses,also, you cannot blame the hardware for MS only requiring the games to run in720p, apart from that i am inclined to agreedelta3074Good point. Other parts are a bit iffy. Like the GPU section. I thought the 360's GPU had a clear advantage over the PS3's. I guess according to this article it's really the ram that gives it the edge not the actual GPU. Any GPU architects here wanna clear this up?he got the part about hardare threads wrong as well, each core in the 360 runs 2 hardware threads which equals 6, the CELL still beats it though, with nearly 3 times the flops and an extra harware thread, although i thought the Ps3 actually ran 8 harware threads. EDIT: my bad, he did actually say duel thread,lol i was wrong about him being wrong (that sounds wrong don't it) "So right is so wrong, right?" - Kevin Butler I think it's due to the PS3 missing one SPU on the chip and the OS locking the other. Just a guess.
[QUOTE="hywel69"]What's the point? They may as well bill at as battle of the geriatrics! I mean 2005 lolz tech, who cares?jun_aka_pekto
I agree. It's been a long while since the hardware for both came out. You'd think that argument would've been settled by now.
Well the thing is that the change some of their insides. Like the chip sizes to save on energy and heat, networking, and overall designs. The power may be similar but the functionality is improved and differ.[QUOTE="FragTycoon"]I know I know! The bottle neck is A! Basically it's like the whole bluray vs DVD. DVD holds less but has faster read and write speeds. Blurays hold more but suffer from slow read and write speeds. What we see here is fast memory that goes in and out quickly when done right vs putting everything you need in memory and getting it when its needed. Most ports try to dump all in memory but soon realize they run out of space. Therefore instead of optimizing the engine, the developer just makes the memory allocation smaller, like smaller, muddier, or removed textures for example.Just a quick question to test SW knowledge of how a system works,
In a standard computer configuration, assuming the memory is the bottleneck of the system, what would be 'better'?
a: 4GB DDR2 PC5400667mhz
b: 2GB DDR3 PC12800 1600mhz
(yes I know the difference is not the same in consoles, this is just a test in general knowledge)
Zero_epyon
You almost brought a tear to my eye :?
Well said.
sad that people are argueing now. What a dumb comparison anyways, both console's architecture are wildly different. No reason to compare anymore. Power=/=games
What's the point? They may as well bill at as battle of the geriatrics! I mean 2005 lolz tech, who cares?hywel69wow, my point exactly.
i mean i guess we are stuck the comparasons because that's all there is but still.
lol old consoles are old right?
You people keep arguing while I play Mafia 2 on my PC which looks way better than console games.
PS3 exclusives are really good and 360 is a great allround console. You guys shouldnt be talking about graphics when playing on console.
Regarding power a maxed out PS3 with a suitable engine will run circles around the 360
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment