Truly laying the graphical/power question to rest. The full truth.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="daveg1"]ram = ???? i thought the 360 had more that the ps3?
Tony_aaaa
Nah. The 360 shares 512 MB of GDDR3 for both the GPU and the CPU, while the PS3 has 256 MB dedicated to the CPU and 256 MB dedicated to the GPU.
Read the previous posts---360 has 64MB more RAM for games (PS3's OS reservers 96MB; 360's OS reserves 32MB)
Oh jesus....they have the same amount of RAM for christ's sake.
The boxes both contain 512MB but the developers aren't allowed to use all of it. Sony's plans to use the PS3 as more than a game system mean that they reserve a much bigger block of memory, compromising the PS3 as a GAME system. 64MB differance may not seem like much to a PC, but to a closed system, only having a total of 224MB availible to your GPU (textures anyone?) is most definetly a disadvantage. The OS is in the CPU memory, not the GPU.
[QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="daveg1"]ram = ???? i thought the 360 had more that the ps3?
ZeLeam
Nah. The 360 shares 512 MB of GDDR3 for both the GPU and the CPU, while the PS3 has 256 MB dedicated to the CPU and 256 MB dedicated to the GPU.
Read the previous posts---360 has 64MB more RAM for games (PS3's OS reservers 96MB; 360's OS reserves 32MB)
Oh jesus....they have the same amount of RAM for christ's sake.
The boxes both contain 512MB but the developers aren't allowed to use all of it. Sony's plans to use the PS3 as more than a game system mean that they reserve a much bigger block of memory, compromising the PS3 as a GAME system. 64MB differance may not seem like much to a PC, but to a closed system, only having a total of 224MB availible to your GPU (textures anyone?) is most definetly a disadvantage. The OS is in the CPU memory, not the GPU. OS RESERVERS 96MB TOTAL; 64MB OF MAIN RAM; 32MB VRAM
PS3 has 416MB total available for a game. --224MB Vram, 196MB main ram
360 has 480MB total availiable for a game unified.
If you truly think the 360 or PS3 is gonna get that one game that totally makes the other system look horrible you can stop holding your breath it isn't going to happen. There both massive beasts that output awesome beautiful graphics.
[QUOTE="primetime2121"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]PC graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 and PS3 graphics
:|
What are you trying to prove exactly?
muscleserge
Gears of War graphically >>>>>> anything on PC right now
Not by much
and it is 2 years old. There is no way I would compare the 2004 Source engine to the 2006+ U3 engine, U3 looks better, and yes I have HL2. [QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="daveg1"]ram = ???? i thought the 360 had more that the ps3?
Tony_aaaa
Nah. The 360 shares 512 MB of GDDR3 for both the GPU and the CPU, while the PS3 has 256 MB dedicated to the CPU and 256 MB dedicated to the GPU.
Read the previous posts---360 has 64MB more RAM for games (PS3's OS reservers 96MB; 360's OS reserves 32MB)
Oh jesus....they have the same amount of RAM for christ's sake.
The boxes both contain 512MB but the developers aren't allowed to use all of it. Sony's plans to use the PS3 as more than a game system mean that they reserve a much bigger block of memory, compromising the PS3 as a GAME system. 64MB differance may not seem like much to a PC, but to a closed system, only having a total of 224MB availible to your GPU (textures anyone?) is most definetly a disadvantage. The OS is in the CPU memory, not the GPU. OS RESERVERS 96MB TOTAL; 64MB OF MAIN RAM; 32MB VRAM
PS3 has 416MB total available for a game. --224MB Vram, 196MB main ram
360 has 480MB total availiable for a game unified.
Got a link for the OS thing?[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="daveg1"]ram = ???? i thought the 360 had more that the ps3?
Tony_aaaa
Nah. The 360 shares 512 MB of GDDR3 for both the GPU and the CPU, while the PS3 has 256 MB dedicated to the CPU and 256 MB dedicated to the GPU.
Read the previous posts---360 has 64MB more RAM for games (PS3's OS reservers 96MB; 360's OS reserves 32MB)
Oh jesus....they have the same amount of RAM for christ's sake.
The boxes both contain 512MB but the developers aren't allowed to use all of it. Sony's plans to use the PS3 as more than a game system mean that they reserve a much bigger block of memory, compromising the PS3 as a GAME system. 64MB differance may not seem like much to a PC, but to a closed system, only having a total of 224MB availible to your GPU (textures anyone?) is most definetly a disadvantage. The OS is in the CPU memory, not the GPU. OS RESERVERS 96MB TOTAL; 64MB OF MAIN RAM; 32MB VRAM
PS3 has 416MB total available for a game. --224MB Vram, 196MB main ram
360 has 480MB total availiable for a game unified.
The REASON for this is as I've already stated, Sony has plans for the PS3 as more than a game system, hence the huge memory reserve. If it was "only" a game system, the OS wouldn't reserve any of the VRAM and much less system ram If you want to know "what exactly," talk to some developers "off the record" as to what Sony is planning. NDAs prevent anyone from coming out and stating it plainly. Sorry, but you won't get an offical reason but they WILL confirm the memory reservation thing.[QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="daveg1"]ram = ???? i thought the 360 had more that the ps3?
ZeLeam
Nah. The 360 shares 512 MB of GDDR3 for both the GPU and the CPU, while the PS3 has 256 MB dedicated to the CPU and 256 MB dedicated to the GPU.
Read the previous posts---360 has 64MB more RAM for games (PS3's OS reservers 96MB; 360's OS reserves 32MB)
Oh jesus....they have the same amount of RAM for christ's sake.
The boxes both contain 512MB but the developers aren't allowed to use all of it. Sony's plans to use the PS3 as more than a game system mean that they reserve a much bigger block of memory, compromising the PS3 as a GAME system. 64MB differance may not seem like much to a PC, but to a closed system, only having a total of 224MB availible to your GPU (textures anyone?) is most definetly a disadvantage. The OS is in the CPU memory, not the GPU. OS RESERVERS 96MB TOTAL; 64MB OF MAIN RAM; 32MB VRAM
PS3 has 416MB total available for a game. --224MB Vram, 196MB main ram
360 has 480MB total availiable for a game unified.
Got a link for the OS thing? Reserving video ram is weird.Have to display it some how..
[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="daveg1"]ram = ???? i thought the 360 had more that the ps3?
MrGrimFandango
Nah. The 360 shares 512 MB of GDDR3 for both the GPU and the CPU, while the PS3 has 256 MB dedicated to the CPU and 256 MB dedicated to the GPU.
Read the previous posts---360 has 64MB more RAM for games (PS3's OS reservers 96MB; 360's OS reserves 32MB)
Oh jesus....they have the same amount of RAM for christ's sake.
The boxes both contain 512MB but the developers aren't allowed to use all of it. Sony's plans to use the PS3 as more than a game system mean that they reserve a much bigger block of memory, compromising the PS3 as a GAME system. 64MB differance may not seem like much to a PC, but to a closed system, only having a total of 224MB availible to your GPU (textures anyone?) is most definetly a disadvantage. The OS is in the CPU memory, not the GPU. OS RESERVERS 96MB TOTAL; 64MB OF MAIN RAM; 32MB VRAM
PS3 has 416MB total available for a game. --224MB Vram, 196MB main ram
360 has 480MB total availiable for a game unified.
Got a link for the OS thing? Reserving video ram is weird.Have to display it some how..
Yeah i realiced it was a dumb statement, edited it right away :P. I'm bad at multitasking lolPC graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 and PS3 graphics
:|
What are you trying to prove exactly?
foxhound_fox
So why will Oblivion for PS3 look better then Oblivion on PC?
[QUOTE="mohammad112388"]OK--you are owned!!!!!!!!!!!!Why do 360 fans think it has more raw power. Post for Proof.(And not from a biased sight) And Are You Telling Me John Carmack (a very well known,and respected, developer) is lying. Waht do civilians and gamers know. Diddy squat. So prove me(and John) wrong and post.
Tony_aaaa
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,1551.html
During an interview with Todd Hollenshead, president at ID Software, US gaming magazine found out what the icon and gamedeveloper John Carmack thought about the two coming game consoles that will power ID Software's latest creation, Quake 4. Carmack's grade for Xbox 360 was "great" but he wasn't convinced by PlayStation 3 where the grade was "pain in my ass". This simply a jugment on how the consoles are to work with when developing games and since Xbox 360 will be launched relatively soon the devkits should be better but at the same we can't say we are surprised the PS3 is hard to master.
Quake 4 didn't turn out so well on the 360 either, like it had muddy textures and a HORRIBLE frame rate which made the game to be picked up more for the PC instead. I would say it turned out like crap on the 360 because a.) Launch title b.) Doom 3 engine doesn't seem to run too well on the ATI hardware since it was probably more optimized for nVIDIA. If this was a PS3 launch title, I don't even want to know how it would have turned out if it's already a 'pain in the ass'.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]PC graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 and PS3 graphics
:|
What are you trying to prove exactly?
Silvereign
So why will Oblivion for PS3 look better then Oblivion on PC?
It won't. Don't fool yourself. Can Oblivion on PS3 have 2048 textures? It cannot. There are mods for PC that surpasses both 360/PS3 versions in graphics.
[QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
fedameda
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Wasn't the 360 difficult to develop for? Seriously these arguements are starting to become ignorant, jealous, bias, bashings. You really think developers are not going to get the hang of the PS3 eventually. Thats what seperate people like them from people like you.
[QUOTE="Silvereign"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]PC graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 and PS3 graphics
:|
What are you trying to prove exactly?
ZeLeam
So why will Oblivion for PS3 look better then Oblivion on PC?
It wont....
Can someone repost the rumor squashed article and thee Ign article.
[QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
MGS9150
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then (360's) 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwidth would be a problem on PS3 (tounge firmly in cheek)
[QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
ZeLeam
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwith would be a problem on PS3 Those 256GB/sec EDRAM are the gimmick part of the comparison :P, you cant just add it to the whole system bandwidth. It's used for certain things, such the low-cost AA that the 360 GPU has, but ps3 has higher CPU bandwidch. Also, the 360 shared ram stops cpu and gpu from accesing it at the same time (thing that the comparisson ignores too) Well, you tell me, on a game system what requires the most bandwidth??? Frame buffer, z buffer, what needs more than those 2??
[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
Tony_aaaa
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwith would be a problem on PS3 Those 256GB/sec EDRAM are the gimmick part of the comparison :P, you cant just add it to the whole system bandwidth. It's used for certain things, such the low-cost AA that the 360 GPU has, but ps3 has higher CPU bandwidch. Also, the 360 shared ram stops cpu and gpu from accesing it at the same time (thing that the comparisson ignores too) Well, you tell me, on a game system what requires the most bandwidth??? Frame buffer, z buffer, what needs more than those 2?? SIGH, i'm just saying that you're comparing pears to apples. It IS a huge help for the 360 but you cant use it as a defining factor, and adding those 256GB/s to the system bandwidth is just _senseless_
Lets lay it on the table, and understand WHY PS3 is a dissapiontment, hardware wise.
CPU, "teh cell", not specifically designed for games, it is more powerful in theory than the 360 CPU, The advantges are the ability to take some processes from the CPU and use a SPE to process it, the problem is the programmer has to write a specific code for that SPE, making it alot more work to wring out CPU performace, which basically handles Physics, Ai, and basic system fuctions, not generally related to the Graphics.
I also want to piont out here that according to Sony, the PS2 had a much better theoretical peak performance than Xbox1, and we all know the xbox was a good bit more powerful
Xbox 360's cpu does have an avantage over teh cell, it is a triple core power pc, same speed as the cell, but it has a dual instruction chipset, so each core can handle two instuction, basically six things at once, that advatage is, while programmers have to write specific code for each of the Cell's SPE's, all the cores have the same instruction set on the 360, so processes can be placed anywhere to maximize CPU effeciency, making it alot easier to sqeeze out performance from the 360 CPU
Both CPU's are powerful, and yes the Cell IS more powerful, but in console gaming, the GPU runs the show
.
In a battle of the GPU's, its not very close, while the RSX in the PS3 is powerful, it has no advantages over the 360, in fact the 360 has a much more advanced GPU by far, with unified shader pipelines it can maximize it effeciency, so in real world gaming, the 360 is significantly more powerful, able to do more textures and more effects like lighting and AA. The RSX is obviously still able to produce some very nice graphics, but Sony could of, and should of done better, When PS2 launched, it was significantly more powerful than the Dreamcast, and it showed right away, this time, the 360 has the best looking game on the market, and there really has not been a game released yet to match it, and posting pictures of games in development don't count, we need to wait untill those games are released to see how they really turn out.
MEMORY
This is pretty easy, the 360 wins, better and more effecient OS, a unified memory structure, so the CPU or GPU can access whatever is neede at the time, with no bottlenecking, much MUCH better bandwidth, and 10mb of EDram, speeding things up in the rendering dept, and while the RSX can access part of the 256 reserved for the CPU, it does have to pass through the CPU to do it, and that does create a bottle neck.
.
In the end, the fact remains, Sony had a year to best the 360's hardware, and failed, they created a system that has more theoretical power, but to access the smallest benifit, requires the programmer to rewrite code for each little thing to bring up performance, the 360 is just a better designed game machine, and thats the facts
[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Silvereign"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]PC graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 and PS3 graphics
:|
What are you trying to prove exactly?
Silvereign
So why will Oblivion for PS3 look better then Oblivion on PC?
It wont....
Can someone repost the rumor squashed article and thee Ign article.
Wow you are so ignorant. First of all, it's not that hard to google it up. As for PS3 doing the textures better from far away, there's been already a mod out for PC on Oblivion called Landscape LOD Texture Replacement. What the precious PS3 version can't do is 2048 textures. http://devnull.devakm.googlepages.com/totoworld Please don't give me BS about PS3 version being the best. It can't do 8X AA, 16x AF.
This is all so facinatingI'm gonna center just in 2 main points that are wrong there 1) shared ram is not more efficient, it just saves money, 2) RSX real specs are still unkown
Lets lay it on the table, and understand WHY PS3 is a dissapiontment, hardware wise.
CPU, "teh cell", not specifically designed for games, it is more powerful in theory than the 360 CPU, The advantges are the ability to take some processes from the CPU and use a SPE to process it, the problem is the programmer has to write a specific code for that SPE, making it alot more work to wring out CPU performace, which basically handles Physics, Ai, and basic system fuctions, not generally related to the Graphics.
I also want to piont out here that according to Sony, the PS2 had a much better theoretical peak performance than Xbox1, and we all know the xbox was a good bit more powerful
Xbox 360's cpu does have an avantage over teh cell, it is a triple core power pc, same speed as the cell, but it has a dual instruction chipset, so each core can handle two instuction, basically six things at once, that advatage is, while programmers have to write specific code for each of the Cell's SPE's, all the cores have the same instruction set on the 360, so processes can be placed anywhere to maximize CPU effeciency, making it alot easier to sqeeze out performance from the 360 CPU
Both CPU's are powerful, and yes the Cell IS more powerful, but in console gaming, the GPU runs the show
.
In a battle of the GPU's, its not very close, while the RSX in the PS3 is powerful, it has no advantages over the 360, in fact the 360 has a much more advanced GPU by far, with unified shader pipelines it can maximize it effeciency, so in real world gaming, the 360 is significantly more powerful, able to do more textures and more effects like lighting and AA. The RSX is obviously still able to produce some very nice graphics, but Sony could of, and should of done better, When PS2 launched, it was significantly more powerful than the Dreamcast, and it showed right away, this time, the 360 has the best looking game on the market, and there really has not been a game released yet to match it, and posting pictures of games in development don't count, we need to wait untill those games are released to see how they really turn out.
MEMORY
This is pretty easy, the 360 wins, better and more effecient OS, a unified memory structure, so the CPU or GPU can access whatever is neede at the time, with no bottlenecking, much MUCH better bandwidth, and 10mb of EDram, speeding things up in the rendering dept, and while the RSX can access part of the 256 reserved for the CPU, it does have to pass through the CPU to do it, and that does create a bottle neck.
.
In the end, the fact remains, Sony had a year to best the 360's hardware, and failed, they created a system that has more theoretical power, but to access the smallest benifit, requires the programmer to rewrite code for each little thing to bring up performance, the 360 is just a better designed game machine, and thats the facts
crispytheone88
[QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
ZeLeam
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwith would be a problem on PS3 Those 256GB/sec EDRAM are the gimmick part of the comparison :P, you cant just add it to the whole system bandwidth. It's used for certain things, such the low-cost AA that the 360 GPU has, but ps3 has higher CPU bandwidch. Also, the 360 shared ram stops cpu and gpu from accesing it at the same time (thing that the comparisson ignores too) Well, you tell me, on a game system what requires the most bandwidth??? Frame buffer, z buffer, what needs more than those 2?? SIGH, i'm just saying that you're comparing pears to apples. It IS a huge help for the 360 but you cant use it as a defining factor, and adding those 256GB/s to the system bandwidth is just _senseless_Fair enough, but without that magic EDRAM there would be serious bandwidth problems---just like PS3. Pears to apples? maybe, but only because the PS3 has no pears and could desperatly use them. Even with a unified bus, the 360 really does have a measurable advantige over PS3 in bandwidth. Thats all I was trying to say, sorry, no offense intended.
[QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
ZeLeam
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwith would be a problem on PS3 Those 256GB/sec EDRAM are the gimmick part of the comparison :P, you cant just add it to the whole system bandwidth. It's used for certain things, such the low-cost AA that the 360 GPU has, but ps3 has higher CPU bandwidch. Also, the 360 shared ram stops cpu and gpu from accesing it at the same time (thing that the comparisson ignores too) Well, you tell me, on a game system what requires the most bandwidth??? Frame buffer, z buffer, what needs more than those 2?? SIGH, i'm just saying that you're comparing pears to apples. It IS a huge help for the 360 but you cant use it as a defining factor, and adding those 256GB/s to the system bandwidth is just _senseless_
Not really, basicaaly the 360 renders the image in sections, so th image you see on the screen in 1080p, would be 4 blocks, so the 360 needs the insane bandwidth to compisate for that, it has no real downside, but I agree, the 256gb/sec for total system bandwidth can be mileading, but overall the GPU in the 360 does have a mmory speed advantage over the ps3
[QUOTE="Silvereign"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Silvereign"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]PC graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 360 and PS3 graphics
:|
What are you trying to prove exactly?
Xeonz
So why will Oblivion for PS3 look better then Oblivion on PC?
It wont....
Can someone repost the rumor squashed article and thee Ign article.
Wow you are so ignorant. First of all, it's not that hard to google it up. As for PS3 doing the textures better from far away, there's been already a mod out for PC on Oblivion called Landscape LOD Texture Replacement. What the precious PS3 version can't do is 2048 textures. http://devnull.devakm.googlepages.com/totoworld Please don't give me BS about PS3 version being the best. It can't do 8X AA, 16x AF. Yep, high end pc will always be better than a console, leave PCs out of this arguments guys lol
[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
crispytheone88
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwith would be a problem on PS3 Those 256GB/sec EDRAM are the gimmick part of the comparison :P, you cant just add it to the whole system bandwidth. It's used for certain things, such the low-cost AA that the 360 GPU has, but ps3 has higher CPU bandwidch. Also, the 360 shared ram stops cpu and gpu from accesing it at the same time (thing that the comparisson ignores too) Well, you tell me, on a game system what requires the most bandwidth??? Frame buffer, z buffer, what needs more than those 2?? SIGH, i'm just saying that you're comparing pears to apples. It IS a huge help for the 360 but you cant use it as a defining factor, and adding those 256GB/s to the system bandwidth is just _senseless_
Not really, basicaaly the 360 renders the image in sections, so th image you see on the screen in 1080p, would be 4 blocks, so the 360 needs the insane bandwidth to compisate for that, it has no real downside, but I agree, the 256gb/sec for total system bandwidth can be mileading, but overall the GPU in the 360 does have a mmory speed advantage over the ps3
Agreed, tiling is an incredible pain in the ass. Surprised that the PS3 fanboys don't talk about that....
[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
crispytheone88
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwith would be a problem on PS3 Those 256GB/sec EDRAM are the gimmick part of the comparison :P, you cant just add it to the whole system bandwidth. It's used for certain things, such the low-cost AA that the 360 GPU has, but ps3 has higher CPU bandwidch. Also, the 360 shared ram stops cpu and gpu from accesing it at the same time (thing that the comparisson ignores too) Well, you tell me, on a game system what requires the most bandwidth??? Frame buffer, z buffer, what needs more than those 2?? SIGH, i'm just saying that you're comparing pears to apples. It IS a huge help for the 360 but you cant use it as a defining factor, and adding those 256GB/s to the system bandwidth is just _senseless_
Not really, basicaaly the 360 renders the image in sections, so th image you see on the screen in 1080p, would be 4 blocks, so the 360 needs the insane bandwidth to compisate for that, it has no real downside, but I agree, the 256gb/sec for total system bandwidth can be mileading, but overall the GPU in the 360 does have a mmory speed advantage over the ps3
Exactly my point, those 256GB/s is what is giving the edge to 360 atm, it's an HUGE advantage, and relatively easy to take advantage of if you look at the GPU, but it's not "system memory" per se, at least not the way that it's compared vs ps3 bandwidth
[QUOTE="crispytheone88"]This is all so facinatingI'm gonna center just in 2 main points that are wrong there 1) shared ram is not more efficient, it just saves money, 2) RSX real specs are still unkown RSX specs ARE known. Where have you been, under a rock? Specs are similar to the G70/G71. They said originally RSX was gonna be 550MHZ, but it was later downclocked to 500MHZ probably to keep costs low or something.
Lets lay it on the table, and understand WHY PS3 is a dissapiontment, hardware wise.
CPU, "teh cell", not specifically designed for games, it is more powerful in theory than the 360 CPU, The advantges are the ability to take some processes from the CPU and use a SPE to process it, the problem is the programmer has to write a specific code for that SPE, making it alot more work to wring out CPU performace, which basically handles Physics, Ai, and basic system fuctions, not generally related to the Graphics.
I also want to piont out here that according to Sony, the PS2 had a much better theoretical peak performance than Xbox1, and we all know the xbox was a good bit more powerful
Xbox 360's cpu does have an avantage over teh cell, it is a triple core power pc, same speed as the cell, but it has a dual instruction chipset, so each core can handle two instuction, basically six things at once, that advatage is, while programmers have to write specific code for each of the Cell's SPE's, all the cores have the same instruction set on the 360, so processes can be placed anywhere to maximize CPU effeciency, making it alot easier to sqeeze out performance from the 360 CPU
Both CPU's are powerful, and yes the Cell IS more powerful, but in console gaming, the GPU runs the show
.
In a battle of the GPU's, its not very close, while the RSX in the PS3 is powerful, it has no advantages over the 360, in fact the 360 has a much more advanced GPU by far, with unified shader pipelines it can maximize it effeciency, so in real world gaming, the 360 is significantly more powerful, able to do more textures and more effects like lighting and AA. The RSX is obviously still able to produce some very nice graphics, but Sony could of, and should of done better, When PS2 launched, it was significantly more powerful than the Dreamcast, and it showed right away, this time, the 360 has the best looking game on the market, and there really has not been a game released yet to match it, and posting pictures of games in development don't count, we need to wait untill those games are released to see how they really turn out.
MEMORY
This is pretty easy, the 360 wins, better and more effecient OS, a unified memory structure, so the CPU or GPU can access whatever is neede at the time, with no bottlenecking, much MUCH better bandwidth, and 10mb of EDram, speeding things up in the rendering dept, and while the RSX can access part of the 256 reserved for the CPU, it does have to pass through the CPU to do it, and that does create a bottle neck.
.
In the end, the fact remains, Sony had a year to best the 360's hardware, and failed, they created a system that has more theoretical power, but to access the smallest benifit, requires the programmer to rewrite code for each little thing to bring up performance, the 360 is just a better designed game machine, and thats the facts
ZeLeam
[QUOTE="crispytheone88"]This is all so facinatingI'm gonna center just in 2 main points that are wrong there 1) shared ram is not more efficient, it just saves money, 2) RSX real specs are still unkown
Lets lay it on the table, and understand WHY PS3 is a dissapiontment, hardware wise.
CPU, "teh cell", not specifically designed for games, it is more powerful in theory than the 360 CPU, The advantges are the ability to take some processes from the CPU and use a SPE to process it, the problem is the programmer has to write a specific code for that SPE, making it alot more work to wring out CPU performace, which basically handles Physics, Ai, and basic system fuctions, not generally related to the Graphics.
I also want to piont out here that according to Sony, the PS2 had a much better theoretical peak performance than Xbox1, and we all know the xbox was a good bit more powerful
Xbox 360's cpu does have an avantage over teh cell, it is a triple core power pc, same speed as the cell, but it has a dual instruction chipset, so each core can handle two instuction, basically six things at once, that advatage is, while programmers have to write specific code for each of the Cell's SPE's, all the cores have the same instruction set on the 360, so processes can be placed anywhere to maximize CPU effeciency, making it alot easier to sqeeze out performance from the 360 CPU
Both CPU's are powerful, and yes the Cell IS more powerful, but in console gaming, the GPU runs the show
.
In a battle of the GPU's, its not very close, while the RSX in the PS3 is powerful, it has no advantages over the 360, in fact the 360 has a much more advanced GPU by far, with unified shader pipelines it can maximize it effeciency, so in real world gaming, the 360 is significantly more powerful, able to do more textures and more effects like lighting and AA. The RSX is obviously still able to produce some very nice graphics, but Sony could of, and should of done better, When PS2 launched, it was significantly more powerful than the Dreamcast, and it showed right away, this time, the 360 has the best looking game on the market, and there really has not been a game released yet to match it, and posting pictures of games in development don't count, we need to wait untill those games are released to see how they really turn out.
MEMORY
This is pretty easy, the 360 wins, better and more effecient OS, a unified memory structure, so the CPU or GPU can access whatever is neede at the time, with no bottlenecking, much MUCH better bandwidth, and 10mb of EDram, speeding things up in the rendering dept, and while the RSX can access part of the 256 reserved for the CPU, it does have to pass through the CPU to do it, and that does create a bottle neck.
.
In the end, the fact remains, Sony had a year to best the 360's hardware, and failed, they created a system that has more theoretical power, but to access the smallest benifit, requires the programmer to rewrite code for each little thing to bring up performance, the 360 is just a better designed game machine, and thats the facts
ZeLeam
WRONG, the shared memory is a huge advantge, and there is no downside, I'm not sure how you can think LOCKING a GPU with a set amount of memory as opposed the being flexible, and allowing programmers to set those limits can be anything but good, you cab dedicate more resourses to whatever the game needs at the time, its a great setup, and the fact remains the memory bandwidth is faster on the 360, even if you take out the EDRAM bandwidth.
As for the RSX specs, how are they unknown, oh like the real specs of the xenos are unknown, that a bunch of bologna, wee all know what the RSX is, a last gen nvidia chipset, there is no question the Xenos is more advanced, and more powerful, I don't think anyone doubts that
Sigh, okay, first off, the most important part of gaming machines are the graphics processors. Example: pc can have weaker cpu(lets say dual 2.4 GHZ) compared to Xenon or Cell, but if the pc has a Nvidia Geforce 8800, ya, of course the pc would pwn. Same thing goes here. Yes, Cell can be more powerful(well, that's a complicated arguement but I'm not there yet) but, as you mentioned as well, the 360's GPU pwns the crap out of RSX. Ya, 48 shader pipelines, 10mb eDRAM, unified shaders, and 256 GB/s internal bandwith on daughter chip for frame buffer all pwn RSX. The clear winner is the 360. As for the CPU, that's complicated. The Cell is basically a single core cpu with 8 hardware threads(yes, those SPEs are threads, not cores for all ignorance out there). Is an 8 threaded cpu single core really more powerful than Xenon(3 cores all with 2 threads)? Someone mentioned earlier, "We all know power means squat. PS2, anyone?" This makes sense. PS2 back then had a single core with a co-processor(SPE) and xbox cpu only had a single core. This doesn't mean that the PS2 cpu was better. We all knew from the start the xbox cpu kicked the ps2's in the balls. Hell, the emotion engine(ps2 cpu) was soo overhyped that they claimed that it could launch nukes around the world. So, I won't make any conclusions but Xenon can actually be more powerful or vise-versa. As for RAM, unified RAM(360) is better than discrete RAM(ps3). This is because in the 360 the cpu and gpu can access the total 512 megs of RAM any way possible(cpu can access more or gpu can access more). This causes max performance(alot like the max performance you get from 48 unified pipelines instead of seperated pipelines). So the RAM part actually wins with the 360. Plus the 360 GPU has that 10mb eDRAM that I already explained. And for the software part, huh, RIGHT, lawl XD! It's like comparing windows and DOS, windows clearly wins. Microsoft is the master of software, don't even try to compete. Both the operating system and online service for the 360 win over the ps3. The day the cell is 300 percent more powerful is the day when the space time continuum explodes. Finally, the games. The list won't even grow, period. The makers for oblivion are going to release a graphics patch via xbox live so that statement was a failure. And everthing else you said. ;)The areas of graphics
GPU: 360 wins
CPU: PS3
RAM: Equal
Overall Peak performance: PS3
THE LOOK ON 360 FANS' FACES: (PRICLESS)
That is correct you ignorant (meaning lacking knowledge, so dont try to report me.) 360 fans. WIKI, the poster of a post named: Laying the Graphics question to rest. The genius only posted the highlights of the 360. In the end, the PS3 is the dominant console Hardware (and software wise).
John Carmack Himself (a 360 enthusiast) explains it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFUw29U4J8
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360. Here is that link: http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2006/11/07/ps3s-cell-three-times-more-powerful-as-the-xbox-360-processor.htm
Let us bury this, and never dig up the bones. The rest will be shown through the games. Example
PS3 OBLIVION > 360 OBLIVION
And that list will get bigger and bigger.
mohammad112388
[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="Tony_aaaa"][QUOTE="MGS9150"][QUOTE="fedameda"][QUOTE="mohammad112388"]
P.S. the cell is 300% more powerful than an Xbox 360.
Tony_aaaa
And has half the bandwidth of the 360. Give it up. The cell is like all ibm chips. It has a huge amount a processing power but no bandwidth to feed it
Thats not true PS3 actually has higher bandwidth. Read the IGN article that talks about PS3 oblivion vs 360 Oblivion it says Cell has more bandwidth. And CELL is IBM, Toshiba and Sony.
Quicker then 256GB/sec EDRAM???? WOW! ...and to think I thought bandwith would be a problem on PS3 Those 256GB/sec EDRAM are the gimmick part of the comparison :P, you cant just add it to the whole system bandwidth. It's used for certain things, such the low-cost AA that the 360 GPU has, but ps3 has higher CPU bandwidch. Also, the 360 shared ram stops cpu and gpu from accesing it at the same time (thing that the comparisson ignores too) Well, you tell me, on a game system what requires the most bandwidth??? Frame buffer, z buffer, what needs more than those 2?? SIGH, i'm just saying that you're comparing pears to apples. It IS a huge help for the 360 but you cant use it as a defining factor, and adding those 256GB/s to the system bandwidth is just _senseless_Fair enough, but without that magic EDRAM there would be serious bandwidth problems---just like PS3. Pears to apples? maybe, but only because the PS3 has no pears and could desperatly use them. Even with a unified bus, the 360 really does have a measurable advantige over PS3 in bandwidth. Thats all I was trying to say, sorry, no offense intended. lol you arent offending anyone :S, this is just tech talk. I just think that people makes a bigger deal of that EDRAM that it really is. I do think that it'd be a good idea to have used something like that for ps3. But if you look at the whole architecture, ps3 cpuram and gpuram bandwidth is higher
[QUOTE="ZeLeam"][QUOTE="crispytheone88"]This is all so facinatingI'm gonna center just in 2 main points that are wrong there 1) shared ram is not more efficient, it just saves money, 2) RSX real specs are still unkown
Lets lay it on the table, and understand WHY PS3 is a dissapiontment, hardware wise.
CPU, "teh cell", not specifically designed for games, it is more powerful in theory than the 360 CPU, The advantges are the ability to take some processes from the CPU and use a SPE to process it, the problem is the programmer has to write a specific code for that SPE, making it alot more work to wring out CPU performace, which basically handles Physics, Ai, and basic system fuctions, not generally related to the Graphics.
I also want to piont out here that according to Sony, the PS2 had a much better theoretical peak performance than Xbox1, and we all know the xbox was a good bit more powerful
Xbox 360's cpu does have an avantage over teh cell, it is a triple core power pc, same speed as the cell, but it has a dual instruction chipset, so each core can handle two instuction, basically six things at once, that advatage is, while programmers have to write specific code for each of the Cell's SPE's, all the cores have the same instruction set on the 360, so processes can be placed anywhere to maximize CPU effeciency, making it alot easier to sqeeze out performance from the 360 CPU
Both CPU's are powerful, and yes the Cell IS more powerful, but in console gaming, the GPU runs the show
.
In a battle of the GPU's, its not very close, while the RSX in the PS3 is powerful, it has no advantages over the 360, in fact the 360 has a much more advanced GPU by far, with unified shader pipelines it can maximize it effeciency, so in real world gaming, the 360 is significantly more powerful, able to do more textures and more effects like lighting and AA. The RSX is obviously still able to produce some very nice graphics, but Sony could of, and should of done better, When PS2 launched, it was significantly more powerful than the Dreamcast, and it showed right away, this time, the 360 has the best looking game on the market, and there really has not been a game released yet to match it, and posting pictures of games in development don't count, we need to wait untill those games are released to see how they really turn out.
MEMORY
This is pretty easy, the 360 wins, better and more effecient OS, a unified memory structure, so the CPU or GPU can access whatever is neede at the time, with no bottlenecking, much MUCH better bandwidth, and 10mb of EDram, speeding things up in the rendering dept, and while the RSX can access part of the 256 reserved for the CPU, it does have to pass through the CPU to do it, and that does create a bottle neck.
.
In the end, the fact remains, Sony had a year to best the 360's hardware, and failed, they created a system that has more theoretical power, but to access the smallest benifit, requires the programmer to rewrite code for each little thing to bring up performance, the 360 is just a better designed game machine, and thats the facts
crispytheone88
WRONG, the shared memory is a huge advantge, and there is no downside, I'm not sure how you can think LOCKING a GPU with a set amount of memory as opposed the being flexible, and allowing programmers to set those limits can be anything but good, you cab dedicate more resourses to whatever the game needs at the time, its a great setup, and the fact remains the memory bandwidth is faster on the 360, even if you take out the EDRAM bandwidth.
As for the RSX specs, how are they unknown, oh like the real specs of the xenos are unknown, that a bunch of bologna, wee all know what the RSX is, a last gen nvidia chipset, there is no question the Xenos is more advanced, and more powerful, I don't think anyone doubts that
Sigh, "no downside"???. YOU CANT ACCESS THE RAM FROM BOTH PLACES AT THE SAME TIME
No downside to shared??? Isn't having say, 8 processors each with 1GB ram on a discreet 6.4GB/sec connection SOMETIMES faster than say 8GB shared ram on a shared 6.4GB/sec connection???Tony_aaaaExactly. In fact, in the case of cell, the thing wouldnt work at all if it had shared ram, since cell is an in-order processor and needs a constant influx of data to work (that's the why of the XDR ram too). If you made ps3 with shared ram, 360 would be better hands down without possible argument
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment