PS3 RSX vs 360 Xenos

Architecture wise 360s Xenos GPU is a generation ahead of PS3s RSX. But in terms of actualy performance there about equal. The most important thing to look at when comparing GPUs are there "features" in other words what graphical efects can 1 GPU do over another.

In PC terms this is very easy, compare the features of a DirextX8 level GPU to a DirextX9 level GPU. The difference betwen the 2 is staggering. DirectX8 cant do HDR, Parrallex mapping, soft shadows, it also has weaker shaders meaning the effects are low quality. Now from looking at RSX and Xenos there are NO effects that 1 can do over another, RSX cant do any magic voodoo effects that Xenos cant do and vica versa.

The only thing that both GPUs differ on is there API, RSX runs on a super tweaked PS3 version of OpenGL-ES 2.0 and 360 runs on slightly tweaked DirextX9. This is were the GPUs start to differ, OpenGL has always given developers better access to a GPUs features and functions then DirectX ( Hence why most movie studios render programs are OpenGL based ) dirextX doesnt allow developers to access ALL of a GPU features and functions as is has to be able to accomodate thousands of PC combinations. This is a big problem on the PC platform as it meens that some ultra high end GPU is'nt useing all of its feature set, in other words that GPU is being WASTED. But being closed platforms meens that developers can "trick" the API into allowing the hardware to do effects that the GPU supports that the API does'nt, thats why we seen the original X-Box do amazing things with its Geforce 3 based GPU. X-Box developers tricked the API and unlocked most of the Geforce 3s feature set. OpenGL on the other hand give acces to ALL of the features of a GPU. We all know that microsoft updated 360s API and they call it DX9.5, that update just unlocked more of the GPUs effects that normal DX9 would'nt allow the developers to access. Its no DX10 but its DX9 either.

So how can PS3 or 360 produce effects that 1 machine could'nt do? the answear? Do it in SOFTWARE on the CPU. Thats were Cell comes in, Cell can add effects to RSX's feature list that could'nt be done on 360 because

1. It has'nt got enough spare CPU cycles to do the effect

2. Its CPU just cant do it AT ALL

360 has a hardware fucntion called MEMEXPORT, its simular to PS3s set-up as it allows 360s GPU to "take" a whole core off the game and use it for extra graphics processing, but this set-up while helpful it has'nt got anywere near the flexibility as PS3s Cell+RSX combo.

So in the end it will all boil down to how much Cell can actually do?, how many extra sepcial effects features can Cell add to RSX? That is what will make the difference between the 2 consoles, but it wont happen ovenight, it wil take YEARS befor we start to see if Cell really can add that extra sparkle to PS3 games. And in my opinion, judgeing by what we have seen Cell do already in Motorstorm, resistance, Lair, Warhawk, MGS4 id say Cell and PS3 graphical will be awsome.

Both are so awesome that all I care about now is the artistic side of things.

and dont forget the rsx has some 8800 features , 128bit hdr lightning and flexio something or anotherCossackNoodle

1. PS3 will NEVER use 128bit, it takes up 90% of RSXs availble bandwidth.

2. the 8800 has'nt got flex i/o you *$"£%, flex i/o is part of CELL, have pcs got Cell porcessors? NO

Go home kid..

If thats the case, whats with all the lemmings claiming the 360 will dominate in graphics because it has a far better GPU? I guess like it says, that it comes down to the Cell and how devs push it to help out the RSX with visuals....Cause apparently its a great combo, but it has to be done properly. Lair might be a good example..but it'll take awhile for it to shine. Killzone 2 and MGS4 should be great examples of what the PS3/cell+RSX combo...can truly do.

You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.Nagidar

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

I like how the thread title is PS3 RSX vs 360 Xenos, but then the TC brings up the CPUs of each system.

*sigh*...going off topic in his own topic.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.mrboo15

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

[QUOTE="CossackNoodle"]and dont forget the rsx has some 8800 features , 128bit hdr lightning and flexio something or anothermrboo15

1. PS3 will NEVER use 128bit, it takes up 90% of RSXs availble bandwidth.

2. the 8800 has'nt got flex i/o you *$"£%, flex i/o is part of CELL, have pcs got Cell porcessors? NO

Go home kid..

lol(ihavetolaughotherwiseidcry )okflexiomaybewrongnotlikeiwroteitlikeiwascertain

[QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.Nagidar

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.mrboo15

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

No, it doesn't, devs make the game code, its up to the devs to determine how much power is used, that doesn't take away how much power each GPU can use. Stop with the damage control, its a fact, the Xenos has more usable power than the RSX, its up to devs on how they use that power.

[QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.Nagidar

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

No, it doesn't, devs make the game code, its up to the devs to determine how much power is used, that doesn't take away how much power each GPU can use. Stop coming up with the damage control, itsfact, the Xenos has more usable power than the RSX, its up to devs on how they use that power.

Devs can only use use as much power as there knowelge of the hardware and game code will allow them to. A developer cant go up to new hardware and say " im going to use 99% of the GPUs power" they have to LEARN it first.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.mrboo15

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

No, it doesn't, devs make the game code, its up to the devs to determine how much power is used, that doesn't take away how much power each GPU can use. Stop coming up with the damage control, itsfact, the Xenos has more usable power than the RSX, its up to devs on how they use that power.

Devs can only use use as much power as there knowelge of the hardware and game code will allow them to. A developer cant go up to new hardware and say " im going to use 99% of the GPUs power" they have to LEARN it first.

You're still with the DC, it still doesn't take away how much power each GPU is capable of, the Xenos has more available power than the RSX, you're making yourself look stupid, stop.

Considering the abundance of "expert opinions" here I'm not treating any hardware architecture discussion as anything but FUD unless I can get it confirmed someplace more reliable, such as Beyond 3D.

Still, it looks to be accurate knowing what I do.

[QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.Nagidar

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Thanks to the efficiency of the 360 GPU's unified shader architecture and this 10MB of EDRAM the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost. ATI and Microsoft's goal was to eliminate memory bandwidth as a bottleneck and they seem to have succeeded. If there are any pc gamers out there they notice that when they turn on things such as AA or HDR the performance goes down that's because those features eat bandwidth hence the efficiency of the GPU's operation decreases as they are turned on. With the 360 HDR+4XAA simultaneously are like nothing to the GPU with proper use of the EDRAM. The EDRAM contains a 3D logic unit which has 192 Floating Point Unit processors inside. The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU's workload.

Xenos writes to this EDRAM for its framebuffer and it's connected to it via a 32GB/sec connection (this number is extremely close to the theoretical because the EDRAM is right there on the 360 GPU's daughter die.) Don't forget the EDRAM has a bandwidth of 256GB/s and its only by dividing this 256GB/s by the initial 32GB/s that we get from the connection of Xenos to the EDRAM we find out that Xenos is capable of multiplying its effective bandwidth to the frame buffer by a factor of 8 when processing pixels that make use of the EDRAM, which includes HDR or AA and other things. This leads to a maximum of 32*8=256GB/s which, to say the least, is a very effective way of dealing with bandwidth intensive tasks.

In order for this to be possible developers would need to setup their rendering engine to take advantage of both the EDRAM and the available onboard 3D logic. If anyone is confused why the 32GB/s is being multiplied by 8 its because once data travels over the 32GB/s bus it is able to be processed 8 times by the EDRAM logic to the EDRAM memory at a rate of 256GB/s so for every 32GB/s you send over 256GB/s gets processed. This results in RSX being at a bandwidth disadvantage in comparison to Xenos. Needless to say the 360 not only has an overabundance of video memory bandwidth, but it also has amazing memory saving features. For example to get 720P with 4XFSAA on traditional architecture would require 28MB worth of memory. On the 360 only 16MB is required. There are also features in the 360's Direct3D API where developers are able to fit 2 128x128 textures into the same space required for one, for example. So even with all the memory and all the memory bandwidth, they are still very mindful of how it's used.

I wasn't too clear earlier on the difference between the RSX's dedicated pixel and vertex shader pipelines compared to the 360s unified shader architecture. The 360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines capable of accepting either pixel or vertex shader operations whereas with the older dedicated pixel and vertex pipeline architecture that RSX uses when you are in a vertex heavy situation most of the 24 pixel pipes go idle instead of helping out with vertex work.

Or on the flip side in a pixel heavy situation those 8 vertex shader pipelines are just idle and don't help out the pixel pipes (because they aren't able to), but with the 360's unified architecture in a vertex heavy situation for example none of the pipes go idle. All 48 unified pipelines are capable of helping with either pixel or vertex shader operations when needed so as a result efficiency is greatly improved and so is overall performance. When pipelines are forced to go idle because they lack the capability to help another set of pipelines accomplish their task it's detrimental to performance. This inefficient manner is how all current GPUs operate including the PS3's RSX. The pipelines go idle because the pixel pipes aren't able to help the vertex pipes accomplish a task or vice versa.Whats even more impressive about this GPU is it by itself determines the balance of how many pipelines to dedicate to vertex or pixel shader operations at any given time a programmer is NOT needed to handle any of this the GPU takes care of all this itself in the quickest most efficient way possible.1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360's gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360's GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times.

Want to know why Xenos doesn't need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It's just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it's the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos' MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable "streamout" which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos' other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360's GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI's unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner.

Architecture > RAW POWA!

the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost.

Make_me_win

:lol: Yea, nearly 2 years on and WTF is this FREE 4xFSAA?

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.choasgod

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

You have it backwards, the Xenos runs at 99% and the RSX at 70%.

I like how the thread title is PS3 RSX vs 360 Xenos, but then the TC brings up the CPUs of each system.

*sigh*...going off topic in his own topic.

Michael85

and how is that? put your PC gfx card configuration with various CPUs and you'll see huge differences in the outcome performance. doesn't that translate to consoles at all?

[QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.Nagidar

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

No, it doesn't, devs make the game code, its up to the devs to determine how much power is used, that doesn't take away how much power each GPU can use. Stop coming up with the damage control, itsfact, the Xenos has more usable power than the RSX, its up to devs on how they use that power.

Devs can only use use as much power as there knowelge of the hardware and game code will allow them to. A developer cant go up to new hardware and say " im going to use 99% of the GPUs power" they have to LEARN it first.

You're still with the DC, it still doesn't take away how much power each GPU is capable of, the Xenos has more available power than the RSX, you're making yourself look stupid, stop.

No your stupid, you said that Xenos is more efficient then RSX. I said that a GPU is only efficient as the game code that runs it.

So how is my statement wrong? are you trying to say that even with bad code Xenos would be more efficient then RSX even if RSX was running perfect game code?

I hope your not trying to say that :lol:

[QUOTE="choasgod"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.Nagidar

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

You have it backwards, the Xenos runs at 99% and the RSX at 70%.

:lol: You still dont get it do you :lol:

Make....did you just quote ATI PR?Runningflame570

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=7

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=8

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.mrboo15

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

No, it doesn't, devs make the game code, its up to the devs to determine how much power is used, that doesn't take away how much power each GPU can use. Stop coming up with the damage control, itsfact, the Xenos has more usable power than the RSX, its up to devs on how they use that power.

Devs can only use use as much power as there knowelge of the hardware and game code will allow them to. A developer cant go up to new hardware and say " im going to use 99% of the GPUs power" they have to LEARN it first.

You're still with the DC, it still doesn't take away how much power each GPU is capable of, the Xenos has more available power than the RSX, you're making yourself look stupid, stop.

No your stupid, you said that Xenos is more efficient then RSX. I said that a GPU is only efficient as the game code that runs it.

So how is my statement wrong? are you trying to say that even with bad code Xenos would be more efficient then RSX even if RSX was running perfect game code?

I hope your not trying to say that :lol:

God you're thick, IT DOESN'T MATTER about the game code, the MAXIMUM capable power of the GPU's is set in stone and the Xenos is "capable", read it, "capable" of using more power at a higher efficiency than the RSX. You bring up how much power both GPU's are capable of, when I prove you wrong you go off track and bring up game code, you can bring up all the game code you want, but it deosn't take away how much power both GPU's are capable of, the Xenos has more overall power than the RSX, plain and simple.

[QUOTE="choasgod"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.Nagidar

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

You have it backwards, the Xenos runs at 99% and the RSX at 70%.

Where did you guys pull these numbers from?

Both are so awesome that all I care about now is the artistic side of things.

SgtWhiskeyjack

most intelligent response i've heard all day, most copy and paste articles and claim them as their own hoping that the article, isnt quite as bad as their full on rant of speculation and thoughts would've been if they typed it themselves.

[QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]

Both are so awesome that all I care about now is the artistic side of things.

lukemorgan21

most intelligent response i've heard all day, most copy and paste articles and claim them as their own hoping that the article, isnt quite as bad as their full on rant of speculation and thoughts would've been if they typed it themselves.

I posted the page, therefore I'm not plagiarizing if thats what you mean.:)

RSX and XENOS :o! that sounded like something cool like a terminator or something but its a computer chip meh.........:|

[QUOTE="lukemorgan21"][QUOTE="SgtWhiskeyjack"]

Both are so awesome that all I care about now is the artistic side of things.

Make_me_win

most intelligent response i've heard all day, most copy and paste articles and claim them as their own hoping that the article, isnt quite as bad as their full on rant of speculation and thoughts would've been if they typed it themselves.

I posted the page, therefore I'm not plagiarizing if thats what you mean.:)

haha wasnt talking about man, its ok. i can always tell if it doesnt sound like the common system wars fanboy.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.mrboo15

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

No, it doesn't, devs make the game code, its up to the devs to determine how much power is used, that doesn't take away how much power each GPU can use. Stop coming up with the damage control, itsfact, the Xenos has more usable power than the RSX, its up to devs on how they use that power.

Devs can only use use as much power as there knowelge of the hardware and game code will allow them to. A developer cant go up to new hardware and say " im going to use 99% of the GPUs power" they have to LEARN it first.

You're still with the DC, it still doesn't take away how much power each GPU is capable of, the Xenos has more available power than the RSX, you're making yourself look stupid, stop.

No your stupid, you said that Xenos is more efficient then RSX. I said that a GPU is only efficient as the game code that runs it.

So how is my statement wrong? are you trying to say that even with bad code Xenos would be more efficient then RSX even if RSX was running perfect game code?

I hope your not trying to say that :lol:

God you're thick, IT DOESN'T MATTER about the game code, the MAXIMUM capable power of the GPU's is set in stone and the Xenos is "capable", read it, "capable" of using more power at a higher efficiency than the RSX. You bring up how much power both GPU's are capable of, when I prove you wrong you go off track and bring up game code, you can bring up all the game code you want, but it deosn't take away how much power both GPU's are capable of, the Xenos has more overall power than the RSX, plain and simple.

OMG, your sooo dumb its unreal, it has plenty to do with game code you dumb sh*t. Xenos is capable key f**king word "CAPABLE"

Capable as in PERFECT conditions, as in PERFECT game code to extract MAX performance, you tell me what developers will get PERFECT CODE writen for Xenos? The answear?

F**KING NO ONE, SO THAT 99% FIGURE WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Jesus f**king christ, stop lissening to microsofts bullcrap PR. No hardware has EVER performed at anywere near 99% efficientcy, dumba**

I hope you get suspended for that last post.

[QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="mrboo15"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]You forgot one MAJOR thing, efficiency the RSX runs at around 70% and the Xenos runs at 99% on top of being more powerfull, so no, they are not "about equal", not only is the Xenos more powerull, its more efficient.xscrapzx

wow, u lissen to microsoft and ATI to much, a GPU is only as efficient as the GAME CODE that runs it :roll:

Go home.

There are MANY resources that say the same thing, do some research instead of coming back with such a lame response.

EDIT: BTW, this thread, MADE BY YOU, is about the power of both GPU's, why come back with damage control, about how the game code runs on it, the game code has nothing to do with the power of either GPU, thats up to the devs.

Game A use's 90% of a GPUs power

Game B use's 30% of a GPUs power

Game code has everything to do with it :|

No, it doesn't, devs make the game code, its up to the devs to determine how much power is used, that doesn't take away how much power each GPU can use. Stop coming up with the damage control, itsfact, the Xenos has more usable power than the RSX, its up to devs on how they use that power.

Devs can only use use as much power as there knowelge of the hardware and game code will allow them to. A developer cant go up to new hardware and say " im going to use 99% of the GPUs power" they have to LEARN it first.

You're still with the DC, it still doesn't take away how much power each GPU is capable of, the Xenos has more available power than the RSX, you're making yourself look stupid, stop.

No your stupid, you said that Xenos is more efficient then RSX. I said that a GPU is only efficient as the game code that runs it.

So how is my statement wrong? are you trying to say that even with bad code Xenos would be more efficient then RSX even if RSX was running perfect game code?

I hope your not trying to say that :lol:

God you're thick, IT DOESN'T MATTER about the game code, the MAXIMUM capable power of the GPU's is set in stone and the Xenos is "capable", read it, "capable" of using more power at a higher efficiency than the RSX. You bring up how much power both GPU's are capable of, when I prove you wrong you go off track and bring up game code, you can bring up all the game code you want, but it deosn't take away how much power both GPU's are capable of, the Xenos has more overall power than the RSX, plain and simple.

OMG, your sooo dumb its unreal, it has plenty to do with game code you dumb sh*t. Xenos is capable key f**king word "CAPABLE"

Capable as in PERFECT conditions, as in PERFECT game code to extract MAX performance, you tell me what developers will get PERFECT CODE writen for Xenos? The answear?

F**KING NO ONE, SO THAT 99% FIGURE WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Jesus f**king christ, stop lissening to microsofts bullcrap PR. No hardware has EVER performed at anywere near 99% efficientcy, dumba**

I hope you get suspended for that last post.

Prolly will, somtime u gotta shout a little to get some fools to lissen. funny how the letters have come out that thoe :S

mrboo15 the 99% is correct since the card is free from processing anti-aliasing and all the other stuff and it can concentrate all its resources on the game itself.

Have a good day!

mrboo15 the 99% is correct since the card is free from prossesing anti-alising and all the other stuff and it can concentrate all its resuses on the game itself.

Have a good day!

Make_me_win

:lol: OMG, since the GPU does'nt handle the AA care to explain to me what does?

mrboo15 the 99% is correct since the card is free from prossesing anti-alising and all the other stuff and it can concentrate all its resuses on the game itself.

Have a good day!

Make_me_win

ya and what he said.

:lol:

the day someone gets a 99% efficient processor running, that guy is going to be multi-billion-trillionare. just charging for "processor efficiency leassons"...

[QUOTE="Make_me_win"]

mrboo15 the 99% is correct since the card is free from prossesing anti-alising and all the other stuff and it can concentrate all its resuses on the game itself.

Have a good day!

mrboo15

:lol: OMG, since the GPU does'nt handle the AA care to explain to me what does?

The custom eDRAM it has right by its side handles all those things freeing up the GPU. Read my first post.

:lol:

the day someone gets a 99% efficient processor running, that guy is going to be multi-billion-trillionare. just charging for "processor efficiency leassons"...

SambaLele

Woohoo someone with sense, sam i love you.

99% efficient :lol:

[QUOTE="Make_me_win"]

mrboo15 the 99% is correct since the card is free from prossesing anti-alising and all the other stuff and it can concentrate all its resuses on the game itself.

Have a good day!

xscrapzx

ya and what he said.

in fact no. mrboo15 remains correct. if the gpu still had to process anti-aliasing, it would count in the tasks that make it an efficient hardware.

nice article you wrote about the 360's gpu, too bad the ps3's cell pwns it.LeDavester

Hey the cell on the PS3 is what? Answer is the cpu, not the GPU. So go do your homework.

:lol:

the day someone gets a 99% efficient processor running, that guy is going to be multi-billion-trillionare. just charging for "processor efficiency leassons"...

SambaLele

Read my first post. The architecture the 360's GPU uses is gonna be used on PC GPUs from now on. Thats why nVIDIA and all the other graphic card companies are implementing similar technology now on their GPUs.

[QUOTE="LeDavester"]nice article you wrote about the 360's gpu, too bad the ps3's cell pwns it.xscrapzx

Hey the cell on the PS3 is what? Answer is the cpu, not the GPU. So go do your homework.

[QUOTE="Runningflame570"]Make....did you just quote ATI PR?Make_me_win

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=7

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=8

OH, you quoted the article the guys at Beyond3D have essentially called bull****, the one with all the broken links and google videos as its "sources".

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

:lol:

the day someone gets a 99% efficient processor running, that guy is going to be multi-billion-trillionare. just charging for "processor efficiency leassons"...

Make_me_win

Read my first post. The architecture the 360's GPU uses is gonna be used on PC GPUs from now on. Thats why nVIDIA and all the other graphic card companies are implementing similar technology now on their GPUs.

It runs at 95%-99% using 4xAA.

OMG :lol: Im laughing so hard my abs are starting to hurt. OK OK...

1. Why has now gone to 95-99%? Why have you add'd a 95% figure when you said it was 99%?

2. Only a very small percentage of 360 games use 4xMSAA so what about the games that are'nt? they are now running less then 99% efficientcy which makes you WRONG. Xenos is'nt 99% efficient is it? if its not running ALL games at 99% efficiency

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

:lol:

the day someone gets a 99% efficient processor running, that guy is going to be multi-billion-trillionare. just charging for "processor efficiency leassons"...

Make_me_win

Read my first post. The architecture the 360's GPU uses is gonna be used on PC GPUs from now on. Thats why nVIDIA and all the other graphic card companies are implementing similar technology now on their GPUs.

It runs at 95%-99% using 4xAA.

it doesn't. it's just not possible. you're buying MS' propaganda that's all.

it's just as possible as it is to get a combustion (explosion) motor to run at 99% of efficiency. it's impossible.