Ps3 GPU Stronger than Xbox 360's GPU?????

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response? 

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

After_Math

never ever use that website as credible source 

Well that's not the point is it?

Just compare the numbers. 

550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Simple math.

Well that's not the point is it?

Just compare the numbers.

550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Simple math.

TriangleHard

It doesn't work that way, especially with video cards. 

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

After_Math

Linked 

[QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

mattbbpl

Linked

Thankyou. 

just went to the site like the layout lol.

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

After_Math

It's the same numbers Sony spewed out pre-release and they mean nothing.

[QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

mattbbpl

It's the same numbers Sony spewed out pre-release and they mean nothing.

and same numbers Microsoft spewed out means something?  

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

TriangleHard

It's the same numbers Sony spewed out pre-release and they mean nothing.

and same numbers Microsoft spewed out means something?

Incorrect, they both mean nothing. Specs on paper are never a good judge. Companies inflate their strong points, avoid even mentioning their weak points, and try to paint a picture of "higher triangles per second" or "more gigflops" equaling higher performance. These are all parts of performance, but the picture is much bigger than that. And, like I mentioned, they're inflated theoretical performance, not real world.

Edit: I had to edit my post to account for your sarcasm. Changed "Correct" to "Incorrect". Either way, they both mean nothing and they're garbage figures - from both sides. 

and pigs can fly.Big_T-Mac

in video games YES  :lol:

[QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"]and pigs can fly.hailltoyou

in video games YES  :lol:

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

mattbbpl

It's the same numbers Sony spewed out pre-release and they mean nothing.

and same numbers Microsoft spewed out means something?

Incorrect, they both mean nothing. Specs on paper are never a good judge. Companies inflate their strong points, avoid even mentioning their weak points, and try to paint a picture of "higher triangles per second" or "more gigflops" equaling higher performance. These are all parts of performance, but the picture is much bigger than that. And, like I mentioned, they're inflated theoretical performance, not real world.

Edit: I had to edit my post to account for your sarcasm. Changed "Correct" to "Incorrect". Either way, they both mean nothing and they're garbage figures - from both sides.

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure. 

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.  

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

TriangleHard

It's the same numbers Sony spewed out pre-release and they mean nothing.

and same numbers Microsoft spewed out means something?

Incorrect, they both mean nothing. Specs on paper are never a good judge. Companies inflate their strong points, avoid even mentioning their weak points, and try to paint a picture of "higher triangles per second" or "more gigflops" equaling higher performance. These are all parts of performance, but the picture is much bigger than that. And, like I mentioned, they're inflated theoretical performance, not real world.

Edit: I had to edit my post to account for your sarcasm. Changed "Correct" to "Incorrect". Either way, they both mean nothing and they're garbage figures - from both sides.

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

Yes, but it wasen't built with gaming in mind. Thats the major drawback, the cell just dosen't take games well, sonys dumb for not going with a cpu more built twords gaming. Sure the cell is more powerful, but look at how hard its been for developers to make games for. Its a shame really.  

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

TriangleHard

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful. 

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

dudy80

It's the same numbers Sony spewed out pre-release and they mean nothing.

and same numbers Microsoft spewed out means something?

Incorrect, they both mean nothing. Specs on paper are never a good judge. Companies inflate their strong points, avoid even mentioning their weak points, and try to paint a picture of "higher triangles per second" or "more gigflops" equaling higher performance. These are all parts of performance, but the picture is much bigger than that. And, like I mentioned, they're inflated theoretical performance, not real world.

Edit: I had to edit my post to account for your sarcasm. Changed "Correct" to "Incorrect". Either way, they both mean nothing and they're garbage figures - from both sides.

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

Yes, but it wasen't built with gaming in mind. Thats the major drawback, the cell just dosen't take games well, sonys dumb for not going with a cpu more built twords gaming. Sure the cell is more powerful, but look at how hard its been for developers to make games for. Its a shame really.

Yes I know that, and due to complicated structure, it becomes port unfriendly and more expensive for developers to make games for.

Still, the topic was that which system has more powerful GPU. GPU is specific part and PS3 does have more powerful GPU.

As for overall performance, I'd still say PS3 does have slight advantage but it is pretty much a wash and I'm sure all developers would rather have simple structures to make their lives easier than complicated structure who knows why they did it.  

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

mattbbpl

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful.

Both Microsoft and Sony released numbers related to their GPU and RSX reached higher number in most category.

That means that GPU is more powerful than the other.  

And again, 550 mhz > 500 mhz.  

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response? 

After_Math

They are using E3 2005 data which proves that they are idiots. For instance we now know that the 360 does 96 million shader opps per second not 48 million (it does two per clock per shader unit) and MS quoted 500 million triangles while sony said 1.2 billion vertices. A triangle has two or three vertices. Also they claim 1.8 terraflops which is pure BS considering an R600 only does 500 GFlops. The RSX is now knowm to be a cut down 7900.

It has already been confirmed that the GPU inside the 360 is infact superior to the one inside the PS3. However, the cell can be used to enhance graphical performance and quality (although I've yet to see the PS3 take advantage of this capability). Peter_Darkstar

PS3 pwns 360 in ever way:DKlash47

looking at the video.....i find the source a bit suspect to be honest. there could be a bit of bias there.

the fiures quoted for both systems by there manufacturers are complete and utter rubbish...lets get that out of the way first. those are theoretical figures and have little effect on their real world performance. hell they dont even tell us how they got those figures. did MS and sony agree on a set of tests to run?

so which is more powerful? well (note source is wikipedia)

The PS3s chip has 300million transistors and runs at 500MHz (it was supposed to be 550 but i think sony reduced it at the last minute. it has 24 pixel and 8 vertex shaders. the pixel shaders can do 5 operations per clock cycle (though in a real world scenario some of those operations will be wasted). the vertex shaders can do 2. it has access to 256MB of its own ram and can also access the other 256 through the cell (though this probably should be avoided as it puts more work on the CPU then).

The 360s chip has a 337million transistors and also runs at 500MHz. it has 48 unified shaders and each shader can do 2 operations per cycle (again some ops will be loast in the real world). it has its own dedicated 10MB of really fast memory and can readily access all 512MB of the 360s memory without bothering the CPU too much due too the unified memory architecture.

unlike the PS3s chip, the unified shaders can do pixel or vertex operations so theroetically it has 48 of both (note not going to happen in the real world, not even close). this does give more flexibility to devs as they can reprogram the chip as requirements change (eg moving from a cave to a big open area in oblivion). however the shaders only carry out 2 ops per cycle. the pixel shaders on the PS3 carry out 5. this means its going to take more unified shaders to do the same workload as the PS3s pixel shaders. in terms of vertex shaders, there the same.

so which is better> well the PS3s chip is by no means a piece of junk, nor is the 360s. the PS3s is less flexible comared to the 360s, however its pixel shaders can do alot more work when they are put too work. overall id say that the 360s does have an edge due to its flexibility though. those 24 pixel shaders would beat 24 unified shaders in pixel operations but they wont beat 36 or all 48 of them. in vertex operations the 360s chip also has a much higher count (and there both the same in terms of performance).

however there is more to consider that goes beyond the scope of this thread when looking at overall graphical performance of both systems. 

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

TriangleHard

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful.

Both Microsoft and Sony released numbers related to their GPU and RSX reached higher number in most category.

That means that GPU is more powerful than the other.

And again, 550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Ah, so now I see where you're coming from. Well, as I said previously, it doesn't really work that way (especially with video cards), but I don't want to delve into points on GPU architecture.  So let's just say that, assuming the two architectures are the same and they have the same number of shaders/pipelines then you are correct - the 550mhz part would be faster than the 500 mhz part.

Rsx pipelines
-24 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 5.7 ops.{(shader opperations per second)
-a total of 136 sops
 

ATI pipelines
-48 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 2 ops
-a total of 96 sops.{(shader opperations per second)

RSX=WINNER

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

TriangleHard

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful.

Both Microsoft and Sony released numbers related to their GPU and RSX reached higher number in most category.

That means that GPU is more powerful than the other.

And again, 550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Its actually rumored that the RSX is only running at 500Mhz. Devs are under an NDA however. The RSX is really only weaker in vertex processing.  Which can be aided with Cell using backface culling.  Basically the Cell sets up the scene and RSX renders it.

My question is when was the last time you saw an ATI graphics card that is clocked = to a Nvidia card outperform it? The X1900 had to be clocked at least 150Mhz faster than the 7900 just to beat it. Even the new R600 has to be clocked higher and paired with GDDR4 compared to the 8800 to even match it performance. This has been law for years in the videocard world.

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

After_Math

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

iwo4life

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful.

Both Microsoft and Sony released numbers related to their GPU and RSX reached higher number in most category.

That means that GPU is more powerful than the other.

And again, 550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Its actually rumored that the RSX is only running at 500Mhz. Devs are under an NDA however. The RSX is really only weaker in vertex processing. Which can be aided with Cell using backface culling. Basically the Cell sets up the scene and RSX renders it.

My question is when was the last time you saw an ATI graphics card that is clocked = to a Nvidia card outperform it? The X1900 had to be clocked at least 150Mhz faster than the 7900 just to beat it. Even the new R600 has to be clocked higher and paired with GDDR4 compared to the 8800 to even match it performance. This has been law for years in the videocard world.

I agree with that, hell ATI hasen't had a good lead sence the 9800s IMO.  

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

TriangleHard

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful.

Both Microsoft and Sony released numbers related to their GPU and RSX reached higher number in most category.

That means that GPU is more powerful than the other.

And again, 550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Zzzomg 360 is such a litttttlesrr NUBBB THE GPU is lozWer

i honestly could not care ever "EVER"

Rsx pipelines
-24 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 5.7 ops.{(shader opperations per second)
-a total of 136 sops
 

ATI pipelines
-48 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 2 ops
-a total of 96 sops.{(shader opperations per second)

 

RSX=WINNER

Klash47

Ahh no. thats the theoretical maximum. In the real world the Xenos wins due to greater efficiency. It also has free AA which helps allot.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

jhunte99

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful.

Both Microsoft and Sony released numbers related to their GPU and RSX reached higher number in most category.

That means that GPU is more powerful than the other.

And again, 550 mhz > 500 mhz.

its a video showing E32005 data which is mostly BS. It tries to argue that 1.2 billion vertices is somehow better then 500 million triangles and seems to think the Xenos does 48 shader ops per clock instead of 96. It also believes the RSX does 1.8 terraflops which is pure crap.

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

jhunte99

I would like to hear your reasoning as to how it's more powerful.

Both Microsoft and Sony released numbers related to their GPU and RSX reached higher number in most category.

That means that GPU is more powerful than the other.

And again, 550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Its clocked 140Mhz higher and is far worse.  Ati has had a lousy track record with this for the last 2-3 generations.  Unified shaders isn't as important in a closed box environment.  Plus each dedicated shader is more powerfull than each unified shader.  The eDRAM is also too small to do what it was supposed to do.  If it was 30Mb the Xenos would walk away with it.

The biggest problem the PS3 has is that Sony has reserved at last count 24Mb of Vram and 55ish MB of XDR for OS that will probably be trimmed down more when the complete feature set of the PS3 is implemented.  They just cant let all of it go and then break something down the road if they need it.  It has come down from the original 32Mb Vram and 64Mb XDR but it is still to high.

MS reserves only 32MB of ram for the OS.  That is why some early multiplatform games sucked.  When you take something with a 480Mb footprint and try and squeeze it into 416MB your going to have a bad time.

[QUOTE="Klash47"]

Rsx pipelines
-24 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 5.7 ops.{(shader opperations per second)
-a total of 136 sops

ATI pipelines
-48 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 2 ops
-a total of 96 sops.{(shader opperations per second)

 

RSX=WINNER

TOAO_Cyrus1

Ahh no. thats the theoretical maximum. In the real world the Xenos wins due to greater efficiency. It also has free AA which helps allot.

It doesn't have free AA. That is another fallacy. There is always a cost involved in AA. In order for AA to be even close to this "free" they need to tile the image on the screen. The first games that really do this are Forza 2 and Halo 3 which have been kinda lacking graphically compared to other 360 games.

As far as that first quote you have to remember that some of those 48 shaders on the Xenos have to be used for vertex.  The RSX has 8 Vertex Pipes on top of the 24 already mentioned. 

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

After_Math

:lol: you have got to be kidding me?  :lol: 

who knows

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="Klash47"]

Rsx pipelines
-24 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 5.7 ops.{(shader opperations per second)
-a total of 136 sops

ATI pipelines
-48 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 2 ops
-a total of 96 sops.{(shader opperations per second)

 

RSX=WINNER

iwo4life

Ahh no. thats the theoretical maximum. In the real world the Xenos wins due to greater efficiency. It also has free AA which helps allot.

It doesn't have free AA. That is another fallacy. There is always a cost involved in AA. In order for AA to be even close to this "free" they need to tile the image on the screen. The first games that really do this are Forza 2 and Halo 3 which have been kinda lacking graphically compared to other 360 games.

As far as that first quote you have to remember that some of those 48 shaders on the Xenos have to be used for vertex.  The RSX has 8 Vertex Pipes on top of the 24 already mentioned. 

I know it hasn't been really used but it is there. Some of the best looking games didn't use AA at all like GeoW.

A more divided up arcitechure is always more efficient. Each pshader unit in the g70 can do 5 ops per cycle but they have to be done to the same pixal. The R600 has 320SP's compared to 128 in the G80 but they are grouped into 64 vector units compared to 128 seperate scalor units on the G80. Its theoritical math power is much greater but its real world is much closer. That along with its texture limitations make it worse then the G80.

If you read any tech article from people who actually know what they are talking about they will tell you that the Xenos is diffidently better.

Rsx pipelines
-24 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 5.7 ops.{(shader opperations per second)
-a total of 136 sops
 

ATI pipelines
-48 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 2 ops
-a total of 96 sops.{(shader opperations per second)

 

RSX=WINNER

Klash47

The RSX is clocked at 550MHZ *136 shader ops per clock =74 billion 

Xenos is clocked at 500MHZ *192 shader ops per clock = 96 billion shader ops per second.

RSX: 250 million triangles per second

Xenos: 500 million triangles per second

RSX Shader Model: 3.0

Xenos Shader Model: 3.0+

RSX OpenGL

Xenos DX9L

RSX Pipelines: 24 Pipelines

Xenos Pipelines: 48 Unified Pipelines

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="Klash47"]

Rsx pipelines
-24 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 5.7 ops.{(shader opperations per second)
-a total of 136 sops

ATI pipelines
-48 shader pipelines.
-each pipeline produces 2 ops
-a total of 96 sops.{(shader opperations per second)

 

RSX=WINNER

iwo4life

Ahh no. thats the theoretical maximum. In the real world the Xenos wins due to greater efficiency. It also has free AA which helps allot.

It doesn't have free AA. That is another fallacy. There is always a cost involved in AA. In order for AA to be even close to this "free" they need to tile the image on the screen. The first games that really do this are Forza 2 and Halo 3 which have been kinda lacking graphically compared to other 360 games.

As far as that first quote you have to remember that some of those 48 shaders on the Xenos have to be used for vertex.  The RSX has 8 Vertex Pipes on top of the 24 already mentioned. 

AA is not free, thats correct, but the daughter die on the 360 gives AA and frame buffering at almost no hit on the Xenos.