XXXXXX

258 results
1
2
3
4
5
6

This topic is locked from further discussion.

2858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 2858 Posts

[QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
superferret2029

Dude you dont even know what youre saying. polygons are basically number crunching. what century do you live in. the Cell is not "basically a supercomputer". Its a (pay attention) SCALABLE ARCHITECTURE with an emphasis on image processing.... oh by the way. the Cell is basically a souped up and upgraded PowerPC. the regular powerPC is in the 360 so saying the Cell wasnt meant for gaming basically implies the 360 wasnt meant for gaming.:lol:

Tell me what good a "scalable architecture" is in a uniprocessor machine? If the PS3 were a blade server then you'd have a point. Oh, it's emphasis in on being a DSP, it can work with a ton of video streams...once again not applicable to the PS3. The cell is a server processor that performs "well enough" to be in the PS3, but running game code is FAR from one of its strengths, bringing the "supercomputer on a chip" down to a level slightly above the 360 CPU, but without the flexibility. Oh, BTW, show me another example of a 3.2 Ghz tricore PowerPC in order to call the 360 CPU "regular powerPC". Also, simply sharing a partial architecture doesn't mean both are ill suited for gaming. The cell NEEDS extreme parallelism in its code to be running full tilt and gaming is NOT one of those applications. The cell inside the PS3 will never have all its execution units running full bore, while since the 360 has three full blown cores able to run any of the code, it can be more fully used. The cell has more theoretical performance while the 360 CPU will be used more fully. THink of it like this on a scale of 1-100 the cells theoretical peak would be a 90 while the 360 would be a 70, but real world performance more of the 360 cpu will end up being used so the cell will use 60% of that "90" while the 360 will use 90% of that "70" bringing their performance more or less the same. What you CAN do is then use some of that unused CPU power to help with graphics, but since the RSX is not as good a performer as the 360 GPU all that does is merely bring the graphics ability of the RSX up to the level of Xeos...making the performance of the two machines basically a wash. Lo and behold the games on the two systems are pretty much identical. Judging from the fact that you were pretty much compeltely wrong in your posts in this thread, and you used a metric that is pretty much irrelevant to performance to support your view, you probably will ignore this and continue on with your fanboyish dribble.

16 years ago

2858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 2858 Posts

[QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
leejohnson7

Not picking sides, but to further diversify this; the ps2 was the console which could handle the most polygons last gen, but the graphics weren't aided by this.

These threads are circular.... all we have is hearsay, assumptions and limitless bickering because nobody can prove anything.

Actually, this is untrue. Sony and MS both used theoretical maximums on untextured polygons on a strip(a strip being where one additional vertex is used to create another polygon with the other two vertexes coming from previous polygons) when you factored in texturing and polygons not on a strip the PS2's polygon pushing power dropped down to dead last with the gamecube and Xbox nearly identical to each other.

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
Steppy_76

Tell me what good a "scalable architecture" is in a uniprocessor machine? If the PS3 were a blade server then you'd have a point. Oh, it's emphasis in on being a DSP, it can work with a ton of video streams...once again not applicable to the PS3. The cell is a server processor that performs "well enough" to be in the PS3, but running game code is FAR from one of its strengths, bringing the "supercomputer on a chip" down to a level slightly above the 360 CPU, but without the flexibility. Oh, BTW, show me another example of a 3.2 Ghz tricore PowerPC in order to call the 360 CPU "regular powerPC". Also, simply sharing a partial architecture doesn't mean both are ill suited for gaming. The cell NEEDS extreme parallelism in its code to be running full tilt and gaming is NOT one of those applications. The cell inside the PS3 will never have all its execution units running full bore, while since the 360 has three full blown cores able to run any of the code, it can be more fully used. The cell has more theoretical performance while the 360 CPU will be used more fully. THink of it like this on a scale of 1-100 the cells theoretical peak would be a 90 while the 360 would be a 70, but real world performance more of the 360 cpu will end up being used so the cell will use 60% of that "90" while the 360 will use 90% of that "70" bringing their performance more or less the same. What you CAN do is then use some of that unused CPU power to help with graphics, but since the RSX is not as good a performer as the 360 GPU all that does is merely bring the graphics ability of the RSX up to the level of Xeos...making the performance of the two machines basically a wash. Lo and behold the games on the two systems are pretty much identical. Judging from the fact that you were pretty much compeltely wrong in your posts in this thread, and you used a metric that is pretty much irrelevant to performance to support your view, you probably will ignore this and continue on with your fanboyish dribble.

another lemming attempting to sound like he knows what hes saying. before i reply you, recheck the meaning of scalable processor architecture...not scalable in terms of how modifiable a server is ie. replacing the harddrives, RAID, redundancy, processor or parts replacement. unless you work for IBM all that you just said is redundant. people like you crash into technical thread and, piecing together all the technical jargon theyve ever heard, attemp to mislead everyone else. Also go and understand the meaning of multiple cores and how their utilization and efficiency are all developer/software dependent. when you learn all that, then youll rewrite your post LOL. In the meantime, along with everyone else, realize that the Cell is more powerful than the generic slighly souped up powerPC g5 in the 360as presented Factually by me using the links. When you actually get a degree in engineering, youll see what i mean

16 years ago

2669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 2669 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
Steppy_76

Dude you dont even know what youre saying. polygons are basically number crunching. what century do you live in. the Cell is not "basically a supercomputer". Its a (pay attention) SCALABLE ARCHITECTURE with an emphasis on image processing.... oh by the way. the Cell is basically a souped up and upgraded PowerPC. the regular powerPC is in the 360 so saying the Cell wasnt meant for gaming basically implies the 360 wasnt meant for gaming.:lol:

Tell me what good a "scalable architecture" is in a uniprocessor machine? If the PS3 were a blade server then you'd have a point. Oh, it's emphasis in on being a DSP, it can work with a ton of video streams...once again not applicable to the PS3. The cell is a server processor that performs "well enough" to be in the PS3, but running game code is FAR from one of its strengths, bringing the "supercomputer on a chip" down to a level slightly above the 360 CPU, but without the flexibility. Oh, BTW, show me another example of a 3.2 Ghz tricore PowerPC in order to call the 360 CPU "regular powerPC". Also, simply sharing a partial architecture doesn't mean both are ill suited for gaming. The cell NEEDS extreme parallelism in its code to be running full tilt and gaming is NOT one of those applications. The cell inside the PS3 will never have all its execution units running full bore, while since the 360 has three full blown cores able to run any of the code, it can be more fully used. The cell has more theoretical performance while the 360 CPU will be used more fully. THink of it like this on a scale of 1-100 the cells theoretical peak would be a 90 while the 360 would be a 70, but real world performance more of the 360 cpu will end up being used so the cell will use 60% of that "90" while the 360 will use 90% of that "70" bringing their performance more or less the same. What you CAN do is then use some of that unused CPU power to help with graphics, but since the RSX is not as good a performer as the 360 GPU all that does is merely bring the graphics ability of the RSX up to the level of Xeos...making the performance of the two machines basically a wash. Lo and behold the games on the two systems are pretty much identical. Judging from the fact that you were pretty much compeltely wrong in your posts in this thread, and you used a metric that is pretty much irrelevant to performance to support your view, you probably will ignore this and continue on with your fanboyish dribble.

first I am not going to read that and after looking at it I found out that your a geek.

16 years ago

27562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 45

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 27562 Posts

Why the PS3 is a more powerful system that the 360 from a techincal standpoint

It's not, they are more similar then you think

16 years ago

2858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 2858 Posts

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
superferret2029

Tell me what good a "scalable architecture" is in a uniprocessor machine? If the PS3 were a blade server then you'd have a point. Oh, it's emphasis in on being a DSP, it can work with a ton of video streams...once again not applicable to the PS3. The cell is a server processor that performs "well enough" to be in the PS3, but running game code is FAR from one of its strengths, bringing the "supercomputer on a chip" down to a level slightly above the 360 CPU, but without the flexibility. Oh, BTW, show me another example of a 3.2 Ghz tricore PowerPC in order to call the 360 CPU "regular powerPC". Also, simply sharing a partial architecture doesn't mean both are ill suited for gaming. The cell NEEDS extreme parallelism in its code to be running full tilt and gaming is NOT one of those applications. The cell inside the PS3 will never have all its execution units running full bore, while since the 360 has three full blown cores able to run any of the code, it can be more fully used. The cell has more theoretical performance while the 360 CPU will be used more fully. THink of it like this on a scale of 1-100 the cells theoretical peak would be a 90 while the 360 would be a 70, but real world performance more of the 360 cpu will end up being used so the cell will use 60% of that "90" while the 360 will use 90% of that "70" bringing their performance more or less the same. What you CAN do is then use some of that unused CPU power to help with graphics, but since the RSX is not as good a performer as the 360 GPU all that does is merely bring the graphics ability of the RSX up to the level of Xeos...making the performance of the two machines basically a wash. Lo and behold the games on the two systems are pretty much identical. Judging from the fact that you were pretty much compeltely wrong in your posts in this thread, and you used a metric that is pretty much irrelevant to performance to support your view, you probably will ignore this and continue on with your fanboyish dribble.

another lemming attempting to sound like he knows what hes saying. before i reply you, recheck the meaning of scalable processor architecture...not scalable in terms of how modifiable a server is ie. replacing the harddrives, RAID, redundancy, processor or parts replacement. unless you work for IBM all that you just said is redundant. people like you crash into technical thread and, piecing together all the technical jargon theyve ever heard, attemp to mislead everyone else. Also go and understand the meaning of multiple cores and how their utilization and efficiency are all developer/software dependent. when you learn all that, then youll rewrite your post LOL. In the meantime, along with everyone else, realize that the Cell is more powerful than the generic slighly souped up powerPC g5 in the 360

Oh really, then why did you NOT disprove anything written, and why have you

A. Incorrectly claimed the RSX is an 8800 equvilent

B. Used processor bandwidth in an attempt to "prove" the cell to be superior.

C. Incorrectly identified what a scalable architecture is. Nothing I said has ANYTHING with how modifiable a server is as far as generic parts(ie HDD's, RAID, redundancy, etc.). It refers to being able to use arrays of cell processors working together in a multiprocessor configuration. You truly are clueless.

16 years ago

4464

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#57 Heydanbud92

Member since 2007 • 4464 Posts

[QUOTE="lolkie_81"][QUOTE="superferret2029"]
As we all know, the Power PC RISC architecture expired from the Mac scene a while back when Apple decided to start using Intel processors. Somehow, Micro$oft thought it would be hot to include a dinosaur in their console. Even though the cell and power PC processors were both devd by IBM, the cell is the replacement for the Power PC. Oh BTW check these links out, youll notice that the peak bandwith for the X360s processor is a joke compared to the Cell's bandwith
XB360 peak bandwith: 21.6Gb/sec PROOF: (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1877385,00.asp)

PS3 Cell peak bandwith: 300Gb/sec (200Gb/sec sustained) and Chipset bandwith: 25.6Gb/sec PROOF: (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1877979,00.asp)
superferret2029

As we all know, the Power PC RISC architecture expired from the Mac scene a while back when Apple decided to start using Intel processors. Somehow, Micro$oft thought it would be hot to include a dinosaur in their console. Even though the cell and power PC processors were both devd by IBM, the cell is the replacement for the Power PC. Oh BTW check these links out, youll notice that the peak bandwith for the X360s processor is a joke compared to the Cell's bandwith
XB360 peak bandwith: 21.6Gb/sec PROOF: (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1877385,00.asp)

PS3 Cell peak bandwith: 300Gb/sec (200Gb/sec sustained) and Chipset bandwith: 25.6Gb/sec PROOF: (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1877979,00.asp)
superferret2029

Why the new account? I thought graphics depended on the gpu, dosent the 360 have a better gpu? Was the cell designed for use in gaming consoles? What is all that peak bandwith going to do. What is the advantage of it? How do we know the 360 cpu is not better for gaming as that is what it was designed for? The thing is 99% of people on SW dont know s***, myself included. If you cant answer any of those questions why did you make this tread?

Dude you are clearly clueless about the hardware. stick to arguing about games. I for one, know for a fact that the PS3's GPU is better and faster than the Xenos. Ive seen benchmarks on them. If you doubt me, go out and buy a NVidia GeForce 8800GTX dual processor chipset (a rough equivalent of whats running in the PS3) then buy ANY dual processor ATI shipset (since ATI made theGPU for microsoft. Run 3dMark benchmarks on them and see who comeson top. Its been well known in the PC community that NVidia chipsethave ALWAYS been more powerful than ATI chipsets. go check PCMAG.com or any computer mag that benchmark products or open up both consoles and benchmark it like yourself just like I did. You have NO technical background in hardware.You just seem to have a skill for spitting out the jargon like you know what youre talking about. I live hardware dude.

...not another fakeboy...:roll:

16 years ago

2858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 2858 Posts

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
Iceman2911

Dude you dont even know what youre saying. polygons are basically number crunching. what century do you live in. the Cell is not "basically a supercomputer". Its a (pay attention) SCALABLE ARCHITECTURE with an emphasis on image processing.... oh by the way. the Cell is basically a souped up and upgraded PowerPC. the regular powerPC is in the 360 so saying the Cell wasnt meant for gaming basically implies the 360 wasnt meant for gaming.:lol:

Tell me what good a "scalable architecture" is in a uniprocessor machine? If the PS3 were a blade server then you'd have a point. Oh, it's emphasis in on being a DSP, it can work with a ton of video streams...once again not applicable to the PS3. The cell is a server processor that performs "well enough" to be in the PS3, but running game code is FAR from one of its strengths, bringing the "supercomputer on a chip" down to a level slightly above the 360 CPU, but without the flexibility. Oh, BTW, show me another example of a 3.2 Ghz tricore PowerPC in order to call the 360 CPU "regular powerPC". Also, simply sharing a partial architecture doesn't mean both are ill suited for gaming. The cell NEEDS extreme parallelism in its code to be running full tilt and gaming is NOT one of those applications. The cell inside the PS3 will never have all its execution units running full bore, while since the 360 has three full blown cores able to run any of the code, it can be more fully used. The cell has more theoretical performance while the 360 CPU will be used more fully. THink of it like this on a scale of 1-100 the cells theoretical peak would be a 90 while the 360 would be a 70, but real world performance more of the 360 cpu will end up being used so the cell will use 60% of that "90" while the 360 will use 90% of that "70" bringing their performance more or less the same. What you CAN do is then use some of that unused CPU power to help with graphics, but since the RSX is not as good a performer as the 360 GPU all that does is merely bring the graphics ability of the RSX up to the level of Xeos...making the performance of the two machines basically a wash. Lo and behold the games on the two systems are pretty much identical. Judging from the fact that you were pretty much compeltely wrong in your posts in this thread, and you used a metric that is pretty much irrelevant to performance to support your view, you probably will ignore this and continue on with your fanboyish dribble.

first I am not going to read that and after looking at it I found out that your a geek.

In other words, you're don't have the knowledge to be able to discuss the topic, and you can't attempt to show the PS3 superiority, so you attempt to insult someone. Bravo!

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
Steppy_76

Oh really, then why did you NOT disprove anything written, and why have you

A. Incorrectly claimed the RSX is an 8800 equvilent

B. Used processor bandwidth in an attempt to "prove" the cell to be superior.

C. Incorrectly identified what a scalable architecture is. Nothing I said has ANYTHING with how modifiable a server is as far as generic parts(ie HDD's, RAID, redundancy, etc.). It refers to being able to use arrays of cell processors working together in a multiprocessor configuration. You truly are clueless.

its based on souped up 7800 but get this. the same architecture for the 7800 is used in the 8800 albeit with more memory, faster memory and a smaller nanometer manufacturing process. look it up. better yet, heres a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer%27

oh and within processors, bandwith is one of the most important things. it determines how fast the processor is. bits move faster when bandwith is larger so they are able to accomplish things quicker. check it out. should i give you a link on that too?

oh and youre the one who incorectly identified the meaning of a scalable multicore processor. if you ead my first links from pcmag, youll notice that the term refers to the scaling down or up of the number of cores as needed by the application in which the core will be used. this means that the cell can be used in supercomputer application by just adding more cores to it. the ps3 has 7. one of them is redundant. this does not mean that the ps3 is a supercomputer. it just means that its more powerful than the 3 core powerpc used in the x360 since it can multithread better assuming the developers utilize that capability as is the case in the PC world today. Now, the Xenos is weaker than the RSX simply because ATI cards never stacked up to nvidia cards in the speed dept ever (when comparing cards within the same price range). and because the Xenos was based on an architecture even more ancient than the RSX's 7800-8800GTX architecture. really, you can look these things up so i dont even know why you even try to make an argument about it. its all factual

16 years ago

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Bebi_vegeta

Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="superferret2029"]
As we all know, the Power PC RISC architecture expired from the Mac scene a while back when Apple decided to start using Intel processors. Somehow, Micro$oft thought it would be hot to include a dinosaur in their console. Even though the cell and power PC processors were both devd by IBM, the cell is the replacement for the Power PC. Oh BTW check these links out, youll notice that the peak bandwith for the X360s processor is a joke compared to the Cell's bandwith
XB360 peak bandwith: 21.6Gb/sec PROOF: (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1877385,00.asp)

PS3 Cell peak bandwith: 300Gb/sec (200Gb/sec sustained) and Chipset bandwith: 25.6Gb/sec PROOF: (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1877979,00.asp)
bungie93

I beleive the PS3 was released a full year later on? Ain't that a big gap for technologie?

The PS3's graphics card was over a year old when the PS3 was released. That means the main bottleneck on video performane was the weakest part of the PS3. It was just a horrible design desicison on Sony's part.

They beleived too much into the cell numbers Tera flops and blu-ray... that they forgot about the rest of the system.

16 years ago

7026

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 7026 Posts

All I see are numbers.

I think most people know/accepted PS3 is more powerful, but how games will look and play; numbers can't tell you.

16 years ago

2858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 2858 Posts

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
superferret2029

Oh really, then why did you NOT disprove anything written, and why have you

A. Incorrectly claimed the RSX is an 8800 equvilent

B. Used processor bandwidth in an attempt to "prove" the cell to be superior.

C. Incorrectly identified what a scalable architecture is. Nothing I said has ANYTHING with how modifiable a server is as far as generic parts(ie HDD's, RAID, redundancy, etc.). It refers to being able to use arrays of cell processors working together in a multiprocessor configuration. You truly are clueless.

its based on souped up 7800 but get this. the same architecture for the 7800 is used in the 8800 albeit with more memory, faster memory and a smaller nanometer manufacturing process. look it up. better yet, heres a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer%27

oh and within processors, bandwith is one of the most important things. it determines how fast the processor is. bits move faster when bandwith is larger so they are able to accomplish things quicker. check it out. should i give you a link on that too?

oh and youre the one who incorectly identified the meaning of a scalable multicore processor. if you ead my first links from pcmag, youll notice that the term refers to the scaling down or up of the number of cores as needed by the application in which the core will be used. this means that the cell can be used in supercomputer application by just adding more cores to it. the ps3 has 7. one of them is redundant. this does not mean that the ps3 is a supercomputer. it just means that its more powerful than the 3 core powerpc used in the x360 since it can multithread better assuming the developers utilize that capability as is the case in the PC world today. Now, the Xenos is weaker than the RSX simply because ATI cards never stacked up to nvidia cards in the speed dept ever (when comparing cards within the same price range). and because the Xenos was based on an architecture even more ancient than the RSX's 7800-8800GTX architecture. really, you can look these things up so i dont even know why you even try to make an argument about it. its all factual

The 8800(a DX 10 card) in a unified shader card, and doesn't share much of its architecture with the 7800(a fixed funciton shader DX9 card) where did you get THAT from?

I never said that bandwidth isn't important. It is one of MANY factors that comprise processor performance. Using it by itself is worthless, and doesn't take into account how much bandwidth an application is actually USING. The folding@home application for the PS3 IS something that actually WILL use the bandwidth, games are NOT.

Lastly, you are correct in that that is ALSO part of the cell's scalability. You are incorrect in assuming it has anything to do with performance in the PS3. The PS3's version of cell will ALWAYS be one PPU, with 7 SPU's(unless you think the cell inside the PS3 can spontaneously fab itself some more spu's). What that is talking about is that the cell can be tailored to other applicaitons. For instance, if you were to use on inside of a TV to control it's UI you could use a 1 PPU, 1 SPU version of the cell. It also refers to being able to use more than a single cell as they do in servers(ie the lastest one from IBM uses something like 9000 cell processors).

The Xenos is NOT based on an existing PC based GPU. The RSX IS. The newest cards from Nvidia have moved to unified shaders...cards with GPU's AFTER the 7800 the RSX is based on. The Xenos is a unified shader card, and is much closer to a DX10 card than the RSX is. How you think comparing GPU's on video cards(and also restricting them to similar pricepoints) has ANYTHING to due with this argument is beyond me. Just stop dude, you don't know what you are talking about.

16 years ago

8179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 8179 Posts

[QUOTE="my_name_is_ron"]it's been common knowledge since the specs of both consoles were announced that the ps3 is more powerful. but get this sherlock, more power doesn't mean better games or guarantee success. funny how the 360 has a better library of titles and the wii, a technically inferior, is outselling both of them.superferret2029

Lets get this straight 'sherlock'...The 360 doesnt have a better library than the PS3. It just arrived before the PS3. Quantity doesnt = quality. Bald space marines and GT wannabes dont count as 'better' titles. Besides, this thread is not about sales. If you want to talk about sales, start another thread on your own. Seriously

but here´s the real kicker, the 360 has both of these things AND diversity

16 years ago

1356

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 1356 Posts

Blah blah who cares

Its a GAMING console generally meaning that it should play GAMES and since it takes so long for GAMES to be made for such a strange and powerful system the PS3 lacks GAMES while the 360 is up to its RROD nipples in GAMES

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
superferret2029

The 8800(a DX 10 card) in a unified shader card, and doesn't share much of its architecture with the 7800(a fixed funciton shader DX9 card) where did you get THAT from?

I never said that bandwidth isn't important. It is one of MANY factors that comprise processor performance. Using it by itself is worthless, and doesn't take into account how much bandwidth an application is actually USING. The folding@home application for the PS3 IS something that actually WILL use the bandwidth, games are NOT.

Lastly, you are correct in that that is ALSO part of the cell's scalability. You are incorrect in assuming it has anything to do with performance in the PS3. The PS3's version of cell will ALWAYS be one PPU, with 7 SPU's(unless you think the cell inside the PS3 can spontaneously fab itself some more spu's). What that is talking about is that the cell can be tailored to other applicaitons. For instance, if you were to use on inside of a TV to control it's UI you could use a 1 PPU, 1 SPU version of the cell. It also refers to being able to use more than a single cell as they do in servers(ie the lastest one from IBM uses something like 9000 cell processors).

The Xenos is NOT based on an existing PC based GPU. The RSX IS. The newest cards from Nvidia have moved to unified shaders...cards with GPU's AFTER the 7800 the RSX is based on. The Xenos is a unified shader card, and is much closer to a DX10 card than the RSX is. How you think comparing GPU's on video cards(and also restricting them to similar pricepoints) has ANYTHING to due with this argument is beyond me. Just stop dude, you don't know what you are talking about.

if you knew what you are talking about, you would know that there are many different variations of the 8800 not all of them DX 10 compatible. look it up on google. you are boring me with your lack of knowledge.for example there the regular 8800 then the 8800GT then the 8800GTX etc. really look it up and their specs ie. which is DX 10 compatible before you post

And if you actually took into account certain things you would realize that it would take maybe billions to build a new fabrication plant just to feed the 'unique' needs of the ATI card in the 360. Man, its obviously based on some ATI existing arcitecture. they always base it on existing arcitecture. think about it. if you were ATI/AMD what would you do: spend billions to build a new fab plant or basing it on existing architecture. SO just like the RSX the ATI xenos is based on existing architecture. OLD architecture if you will since it was based on an ancient architecture because it went into R&D and development before PS3.

By the way you seem clueless as to when bandwith is utilized. first, check the meaning of bandwith. Looks, an architectures bandwith is the single most important factor when it comes to speed. each processor or component has a bandwith and the motherboard has a bandwith a well....ie. system bus. this means how fast it is able to transfer data from say Gate A to Gate B or data moving from the RAM to the CPU or FPU. Or the GPU and CPU or even within the CPU. every application i mean EVERY application )ie. software uses bandwith) Now the question is which badwith does it use??? Folding@home uses the Cell (CPU) predominantly since it is not as graphics centric as say MGS 4 for example. But the fact remains that they ALL use bandwith.Foldin@home would mostly use the cells bandwith to transfer information say from the cpu to the fpu to the cache then to the controller for example. meanwhile MGS for would do that butnot as intensely as folding@home since it will mostly tax the gpu and the gpus physics capabilities. meaning MGS 4 would mostly use the bandwith within the GPU. irrespective of the application, they will all use the RAMs bandwith. so now, do you realize what the term bandwith means? since MGS 4 employs a more immersive experience, both sound, graphics, and processor wise, it would overall use more bandwith than folding@home which is not meant to wow a user so it mostly uses the FPU for geometric calculations.

Now as for the SPUs argument, i will not bother to address that. go to the IEEE website, or wikipedia or IBM website to understand what i wrote earlier. you type a lot but you forget to lookup what youre typing first IMO

By the way, the Xenos is not based on existing cards. you are right. its based on ancient cards circa 2007. and just because a card utilized unified shader capabilities doesnt make is close to being DX10 capable. DX10 by the way, is mainly just instruction sets written (ie. APIs) to interface between newer gpu capabilities and the sotware programers programs. just because a card has DX10 apporval stamped on it doesnt mean its a beast. it just means that it has the cardware most compatible with those instruction sets. DX is an API just like opengl is an API. meaning its all software based, read it up

16 years ago

2445

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 2445 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
superferret2029

The 8800(a DX 10 card) in a unified shader card, and doesn't share much of its architecture with the 7800(a fixed funciton shader DX9 card) where did you get THAT from?

I never said that bandwidth isn't important. It is one of MANY factors that comprise processor performance. Using it by itself is worthless, and doesn't take into account how much bandwidth an application is actually USING. The folding@home application for the PS3 IS something that actually WILL use the bandwidth, games are NOT.

Lastly, you are correct in that that is ALSO part of the cell's scalability. You are incorrect in assuming it has anything to do with performance in the PS3. The PS3's version of cell will ALWAYS be one PPU, with 7 SPU's(unless you think the cell inside the PS3 can spontaneously fab itself some more spu's). What that is talking about is that the cell can be tailored to other applicaitons. For instance, if you were to use on inside of a TV to control it's UI you could use a 1 PPU, 1 SPU version of the cell. It also refers to being able to use more than a single cell as they do in servers(ie the lastest one from IBM uses something like 9000 cell processors).

The Xenos is NOT based on an existing PC based GPU. The RSX IS. The newest cards from Nvidia have moved to unified shaders...cards with GPU's AFTER the 7800 the RSX is based on. The Xenos is a unified shader card, and is much closer to a DX10 card than the RSX is. How you think comparing GPU's on video cards(and also restricting them to similar pricepoints) has ANYTHING to due with this argument is beyond me. Just stop dude, you don't know what you are talking about.

if you knew what you are talking about, you would know that there are many different variations of the 8800 not all of them DX 10 compatible. look it up on google. you are boring me with your lack of knowledge.for example there the regular 8800 then the 8800GT then the 8800GTX etc. really look it up and their specs ie. which is DX 10 compatible before you post

And if you actually took into account certain things you would realize that it would take maybe billions to build a new fabrication plant just to feed the 'unique' needs of the ATI card in the 360. Man, its obviously based on some ATI existing arcitecture. they always base it on existing arcitecture. think about it. if you were ATI/AMD what would you do: spend billions to build a new fab plant or basing it on existing architecture. SO just like the RSX the ATI xenos is based on existing architecture. OLD architecture if you will since it was based on an ancient architecture because it went into R&D and development before PS3.

By the way you seem clueless as to when bandwith is utilized. first, check the meaning of bandwith. Looks, an architectures bandwith is the single most important factor when it comes to speed. each processor or component has a bandwith and the motherboard has a bandwith a well....ie. system bus. this means how fast it is able to transfer data from say Gate A to Gate B or data moving from the RAM to the CPU or FPU. Or the GPU and CPU or even within the CPU. every application i mean EVERY application )ie. software uses bandwith) Now the question is which badwith does it use??? Folding@home uses the Cell (CPU) predominantly since it is not as graphics centric as say MGS 4 for example. But the fact remains that they ALL use bandwith.Foldin@home would mostly use the cells bandwith to transfer information say from the cpu to the fpu to the cache then to the controller for example. meanwhile MGS for would do that butnot as intensely as folding@home since it will mostly tax the gpu and the gpus physics capabilities. meaning MGS 4 would mostly use the bandwith within the GPU. irrespective of the application, they will all use the RAMs bandwith. so now, do you realize what the term bandwith means? since MGS 4 employs a more immersive experience, both sound, graphics, and processor wise, it would overall use more bandwith than folding@home which is not meant to wow a user so it mostly uses the FPU for geometric calculations.

Now as for the SPUs argument, i will not bother to address that. go to the IEEE website, or wikipedia or IBM website to understand what i wrote earlier. you type a lot but you forget to lookup what youre typing first IMO

By the way, the Xenos is not based on existing cards. you are right. its based on ancient cards circa 2007. and just because a card utilized unified shader capabilities doesnt make is close to being DX10 capable. DX10 by the way, is mainly just instruction sets written (ie. APIs) to interface between newer gpu capabilities and the sotware programers programs. just because a card has DX10 apporval stamped on it doesnt mean its a beast. it just means that it has the cardware most compatible with those instruction sets. DX is an API just like opengl is an API. meaning its all software based, read it up

Superferret you really have no clue what you are talking about.

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
Superferret you really have no clue what you are talking about.
bungie93

typical lemming style....

16 years ago

1474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 1474 Posts

Wow this thread is entertaining. Most misinformed TC I have seen in a while:lol: . Sure the PS3 is a little more powerful. But thinking that full of fail RSX= 8800gtx is silly. Please type me a couple paragraphs on how my old 1st gen 8800gts 320mb was not DX10 compatible. Tell me why a 8800gtx can run CoD4 @ 1080p flawlessly, but its equally as powerful RSX runs it @ 600p.

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

Wow this thread is entertaining. Most misinformed TC I have seen in a while:lol: . Sure the PS3 is a little more powerful. But thinking that full of fail RSX= 8800gtx is silly. Please type me a couple paragraphs on how my old 1st gen 8800gts 320mb was not DX10 compatible. Tell me why a 8800gtx can run CoD4 @ 1080p flawlessly, but its equally as powerful RSX runs it @ 600p.
neogeo419

hey did you read my thread???? there are different iterations of the 8800 not all DX10 compatible. theres cards like the 8800gt, 8800gts, 8800gtx.

reread my thread or google before you post again

16 years ago

1474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 1474 Posts

[QUOTE="neogeo419"]
Wow this thread is entertaining. Most misinformed TC I have seen in a while:lol: . Sure the PS3 is a little more powerful. But thinking that full of fail RSX= 8800gtx is silly. Please type me a couple paragraphs on how my old 1st gen 8800gts 320mb was not DX10 compatible. Tell me why a 8800gtx can run CoD4 @ 1080p flawlessly, but its equally as powerful RSX runs it @ 600p.
superferret2029

hey did you read my thread???? there are different iterations of the 8800 not all DX10 compatible. theres cards like the 8800gt, 8800gts, 8800gtx.

reread my thread or google before you post again

Yea dude only problem is 8800gt>8800gts 320. You know why? Because 8800gts 320 is the weakest of the first gen 8800 g80 cores. The 8800gt is a g92 core. All 8800 series including the 8800gts 320, and the 8800gs ( The two weakest of the family) are dx10 cards. Thanks for playing.

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"]
Wow this thread is entertaining. Most misinformed TC I have seen in a while:lol: . Sure the PS3 is a little more powerful. But thinking that full of fail RSX= 8800gtx is silly. Please type me a couple paragraphs on how my old 1st gen 8800gts 320mb was not DX10 compatible. Tell me why a 8800gtx can run CoD4 @ 1080p flawlessly, but its equally as powerful RSX runs it @ 600p.
neogeo419

hey did you read my thread???? there are different iterations of the 8800 not all DX10 compatible. theres cards like the 8800gt, 8800gts, 8800gtx.

reread my thread or google before you post again

Yea dude only problem is 8800gt>8800gts 320. You know why? Because 8800gts 320 is the weakest of the first gen 8800 g80 cores. The 8800gt is a g92 core. All 8800 series including the 8800gts 320, and the 8800gs ( The two weakest of the family) are dx10 cards. Thanks for playing.

most cards can work in DX10 mode 'dude'. ie. most cards are DX10 compatible. only problem is only a handful have the full API specs to be fully compatible and hence yield the best results for a game designed to really utilize DX10. by the way which GT are you talking about? there are different GTs. look man, no need for fanboys on this thread. if you cant follow then dont post. there are many variations of each subsidiary. besides, whether or not xenos uses DX10 doesnt matter because the PS3 uses a different and competing API...you just got served

16 years ago

1474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 1474 Posts

[QUOTE="neogeo419"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"]
Wow this thread is entertaining. Most misinformed TC I have seen in a while:lol: . Sure the PS3 is a little more powerful. But thinking that full of fail RSX= 8800gtx is silly. Please type me a couple paragraphs on how my old 1st gen 8800gts 320mb was not DX10 compatible. Tell me why a 8800gtx can run CoD4 @ 1080p flawlessly, but its equally as powerful RSX runs it @ 600p.
superferret2029

hey did you read my thread???? there are different iterations of the 8800 not all DX10 compatible. theres cards like the 8800gt, 8800gts, 8800gtx.

reread my thread or google before you post again

Yea dude only problem is 8800gt>8800gts 320. You know why? Because 8800gts 320 is the weakest of the first gen 8800 g80 cores. The 8800gt is a g92 core. All 8800 series including the 8800gts 320, and the 8800gs ( The two weakest of the family) are dx10 cards. Thanks for playing.

most cards can work in DX10 mode 'dude'. ie. most cards are DX10 compatible. only problem is only a handful have the full API specs to be fully compatible and hence yield the best results for a game designed to really utilize DX10. by the way which GT are you talking about? there are different GTs. look man, no need for fanboys on this thread. if you cant follow then dont post. there are many variations of each subsidiary. besides, whether or not xenos uses DX10 doesnt matter because the PS3 uses a different and competing API...you just got served

This is absolute fail. Now you change it to utilize instead of compatible. You have more flip flops than Old Navy. There is ONLY ONE 8800GT. The only difference is memory. They are all g92 cores. Some are gimped by the memory(256mb), some have too much memory for a 256bit interface (1gb), and some are just right (512mb). Dude just stop you are not worth my time, and I will just ignore you now like everyone else. Please gain more knowledge next time instead of 5 min wikipedia visits between mindless drivel posts.

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"]
neogeo419

This is absolute fail. Now you change it to utilize instead of compatible. You have more flip flops than Old Navy. There is ONLY ONE 8800GT. The only difference is memory. They are all g92 cores. Some are gimped by the memory(256mb), some have too much memory for a 256bit interface (1gb), and some are just right (512mb). Dude just stop you are not worth my time, and I will just ignore you now like everyone else. Please gain more knowledge next time instead of 5 min wikipedia visits between mindless drivel posts.

LOL SELF OWNED! you said theres only one GT then you went on to name the different configurations lol! failure. by the way there are differenct GT as configured by manufacturers (not only Nvidia makes geforeces). its licensed out. look it up. no need to keep self owning:lol:

oh and theres different chipsets for each manufacturers gt if they want it(im assuming you know what that term means)

16 years ago

1086

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 1086 Posts

Dude you are clearly clueless about the hardware. stick to arguing about games. I for one, know for a fact that the PS3's GPU is better and faster than the Xenos. Ive seen benchmarks on them. If you doubt me, go out and buy a NVidia GeForce 8800GTX dual processor chipset (a rough equivalent of whats running in the PS3) then buy ANY dual processor ATI shipset (since ATI made theGPU for microsoft. Run 3dMark benchmarks on them and see who comeson top. Its been well known in the PC community that NVidia chipsethave ALWAYS been more powerful than ATI chipsets. go check PCMAG.com or any computer mag that benchmark products or open up both consoles and benchmark it like yourself just like I did. You have NO technical background in hardware.You just seem to have a skill for spitting out the jargon like you know what youre talking about. I live hardware dude.superferret2029

Dude, (I love that word) You don't know much either. The 360 GPU, has out performed the Nvidia chip in the PS3 in a number of tests. You are also working on ancient benchmarks with the PC. ATI for the last two years have blown the Nvidia chips out of the water. Check Anandtech for one. The (PS3) Nvidia chips have a complete different architecture, and can't even do AA. without software tricks. Do your research before you come in here and post things that are untrue.

16 years ago

1474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 1474 Posts

LOL SELF OWNED! you said theres only one GT then you went on to name the different configurations lol! failure. by the way there are differenct GT as configured by manufacturers (not only Nvidia makes geforeces). its licensed out. look it up. no need to keep self owning:lol:

Glad I made your life. Have fun thinking clock speeds, memory, and "licensing out" make it a totally different core, and gpu from the others. You can overclock an MSI card to be as fast as an EVGA SSC. Configurations do not= totally different gpu, but it can gimp it. It is still an 8800gt g92 no matter how you slice it. Look what you made me do you made me respond to your silly self.

16 years ago

6500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 LibertySaint

Member since 2007 • 6500 Posts

The TC has no idea what he is talking about i'm not even going to reply to him, i'm just going to say to posters that the xenos is not based on older architecture then say a nvidia 7800, the xenos is based off of a protoype r500 card which is ati's first dx 10 video cards, that doesn't mean the xenos has dx10 capabilities but it does mean that the xenos is a more efficient card, it has unified shaders, a tessalator and many other r500 prototype bonuses which help in rendering images unlike the rsx which uses old open gl and is based off of nvidia 7 series architecture that was optimized for dx9!

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"]Dude you are clearly clueless about the hardware. stick to arguing about games. I for one, know for a fact that the PS3's GPU is better and faster than the Xenos. Ive seen benchmarks on them. If you doubt me, go out and buy a NVidia GeForce 8800GTX dual processor chipset (a rough equivalent of whats running in the PS3) then buy ANY dual processor ATI shipset (since ATI made theGPU for microsoft. Run 3dMark benchmarks on them and see who comeson top. Its been well known in the PC community that NVidia chipsethave ALWAYS been more powerful than ATI chipsets. go check PCMAG.com or any computer mag that benchmark products or open up both consoles and benchmark it like yourself just like I did. You have NO technical background in hardware.You just seem to have a skill for spitting out the jargon like you know what youre talking about. I live hardware dude.loftus42

Dude, (I love that word) You don't know much either. The 360 GPU, has out performed the Nvidia chip in the PS3 in a number of tests. You are also working on ancient benchmarks with the PC. ATI for the last two years have blown the Nvidia chips out of the water. Check Anandtech for one. The (PS3) Nvidia chips have a complete different architecture, and can't even do AA. without software tricks. Do your research before you come in here and post things that are untrue.

you = fail

nvidia>ati/amd. in fact ati was failing so badly that they went on life support until amd bought them. your statement is wrong. ask anybody who tests graphics cards for a living. nvidia cards pwn ati cards. better yet check pcmag.com.

16 years ago

6500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 LibertySaint

Member since 2007 • 6500 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
superferret2029

The 8800(a DX 10 card) in a unified shader card, and doesn't share much of its architecture with the 7800(a fixed funciton shader DX9 card) where did you get THAT from?

I never said that bandwidth isn't important. It is one of MANY factors that comprise processor performance. Using it by itself is worthless, and doesn't take into account how much bandwidth an application is actually USING. The folding@home application for the PS3 IS something that actually WILL use the bandwidth, games are NOT.

Lastly, you are correct in that that is ALSO part of the cell's scalability. You are incorrect in assuming it has anything to do with performance in the PS3. The PS3's version of cell will ALWAYS be one PPU, with 7 SPU's(unless you think the cell inside the PS3 can spontaneously fab itself some more spu's). What that is talking about is that the cell can be tailored to other applicaitons. For instance, if you were to use on inside of a TV to control it's UI you could use a 1 PPU, 1 SPU version of the cell. It also refers to being able to use more than a single cell as they do in servers(ie the lastest one from IBM uses something like 9000 cell processors).

The Xenos is NOT based on an existing PC based GPU. The RSX IS. The newest cards from Nvidia have moved to unified shaders...cards with GPU's AFTER the 7800 the RSX is based on. The Xenos is a unified shader card, and is much closer to a DX10 card than the RSX is. How you think comparing GPU's on video cards(and also restricting them to similar pricepoints) has ANYTHING to due with this argument is beyond me. Just stop dude, you don't know what you are talking about.

if you knew what you are talking about, you would know that there are many different variations of the 8800 not all of them DX 10 compatible. look it up on google. you are boring me with your lack of knowledge.for example there the regular 8800 then the 8800GT then the 8800GTX etc. really look it up and their specs ie. which is DX 10 compatible before you post

And if you actually took into account certain things you would realize that it would take maybe billions to build a new fabrication plant just to feed the 'unique' needs of the ATI card in the 360. Man, its obviously based on some ATI existing arcitecture. they always base it on existing arcitecture. think about it. if you were ATI/AMD what would you do: spend billions to build a new fab plant or basing it on existing architecture. SO just like the RSX the ATI xenos is based on existing architecture. OLD architecture if you will since it was based on an ancient architecture because it went into R&D and development before PS3.

By the way you seem clueless as to when bandwith is utilized. first, check the meaning of bandwith. Looks, an architectures bandwith is the single most important factor when it comes to speed. each processor or component has a bandwith and the motherboard has a bandwith a well....ie. system bus. this means how fast it is able to transfer data from say Gate A to Gate B or data moving from the RAM to the CPU or FPU. Or the GPU and CPU or even within the CPU. every application i mean EVERY application )ie. software uses bandwith) Now the question is which badwith does it use??? Folding@home uses the Cell (CPU) predominantly since it is not as graphics centric as say MGS 4 for example. But the fact remains that they ALL use bandwith.Foldin@home would mostly use the cells bandwith to transfer information say from the cpu to the fpu to the cache then to the controller for example. meanwhile MGS for would do that butnot as intensely as folding@home since it will mostly tax the gpu and the gpus physics capabilities. meaning MGS 4 would mostly use the bandwith within the GPU. irrespective of the application, they will all use the RAMs bandwith. so now, do you realize what the term bandwith means? since MGS 4 employs a more immersive experience, both sound, graphics, and processor wise, it would overall use more bandwith than folding@home which is not meant to wow a user so it mostly uses the FPU for geometric calculations.

Now as for the SPUs argument, i will not bother to address that. go to the IEEE website, or wikipedia or IBM website to understand what i wrote earlier. you type a lot but you forget to lookup what youre typing first IMO

By the way, the Xenos is not based on existing cards. you are right. its based on ancient cards circa 2007. and just because a card utilized unified shader capabilities doesnt make is close to being DX10 capable. DX10 by the way, is mainly just instruction sets written (ie. APIs) to interface between newer gpu capabilities and the sotware programers programs. just because a card has DX10 apporval stamped on it doesnt mean its a beast. it just means that it has the cardware most compatible with those instruction sets. DX is an API just like opengl is an API. meaning its all software based, read it up

Yes all 8000 series card are dx10 capabale. Link! nvidias home page, just search 8000 series in their search bar fool. Heck the crap 8400 card is dx10 capable but that doesn't mean u should use dx10 with it because it can't even play games in dx9 well let alone 10.

www.nvidia.com

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
LibertySaint

The 8800(a DX 10 card) in a unified shader card, and doesn't share much of its architecture with the 7800(a fixed funciton shader DX9 card) where did you get THAT from?

I never said that bandwidth isn't important. It is one of MANY factors that comprise processor performance. Using it by itself is worthless, and doesn't take into account how much bandwidth an application is actually USING. The folding@home application for the PS3 IS something that actually WILL use the bandwidth, games are NOT.

Lastly, you are correct in that that is ALSO part of the cell's scalability. You are incorrect in assuming it has anything to do with performance in the PS3. The PS3's version of cell will ALWAYS be one PPU, with 7 SPU's(unless you think the cell inside the PS3 can spontaneously fab itself some more spu's). What that is talking about is that the cell can be tailored to other applicaitons. For instance, if you were to use on inside of a TV to control it's UI you could use a 1 PPU, 1 SPU version of the cell. It also refers to being able to use more than a single cell as they do in servers(ie the lastest one from IBM uses something like 9000 cell processors).

The Xenos is NOT based on an existing PC based GPU. The RSX IS. The newest cards from Nvidia have moved to unified shaders...cards with GPU's AFTER the 7800 the RSX is based on. The Xenos is a unified shader card, and is much closer to a DX10 card than the RSX is. How you think comparing GPU's on video cards(and also restricting them to similar pricepoints) has ANYTHING to due with this argument is beyond me. Just stop dude, you don't know what you are talking about.

if you knew what you are talking about, you would know that there are many different variations of the 8800 not all of them DX 10 compatible. look it up on google. you are boring me with your lack of knowledge.for example there the regular 8800 then the 8800GT then the 8800GTX etc. really look it up and their specs ie. which is DX 10 compatible before you post

And if you actually took into account certain things you would realize that it would take maybe billions to build a new fabrication plant just to feed the 'unique' needs of the ATI card in the 360. Man, its obviously based on some ATI existing arcitecture. they always base it on existing arcitecture. think about it. if you were ATI/AMD what would you do: spend billions to build a new fab plant or basing it on existing architecture. SO just like the RSX the ATI xenos is based on existing architecture. OLD architecture if you will since it was based on an ancient architecture because it went into R&D and development before PS3.

By the way you seem clueless as to when bandwith is utilized. first, check the meaning of bandwith. Looks, an architectures bandwith is the single most important factor when it comes to speed. each processor or component has a bandwith and the motherboard has a bandwith a well....ie. system bus. this means how fast it is able to transfer data from say Gate A to Gate B or data moving from the RAM to the CPU or FPU. Or the GPU and CPU or even within the CPU. every application i mean EVERY application )ie. software uses bandwith) Now the question is which badwith does it use??? Folding@home uses the Cell (CPU) predominantly since it is not as graphics centric as say MGS 4 for example. But the fact remains that they ALL use bandwith.Foldin@home would mostly use the cells bandwith to transfer information say from the cpu to the fpu to the cache then to the controller for example. meanwhile MGS for would do that butnot as intensely as folding@home since it will mostly tax the gpu and the gpus physics capabilities. meaning MGS 4 would mostly use the bandwith within the GPU. irrespective of the application, they will all use the RAMs bandwith. so now, do you realize what the term bandwith means? since MGS 4 employs a more immersive experience, both sound, graphics, and processor wise, it would overall use more bandwith than folding@home which is not meant to wow a user so it mostly uses the FPU for geometric calculations.

Now as for the SPUs argument, i will not bother to address that. go to the IEEE website, or wikipedia or IBM website to understand what i wrote earlier. you type a lot but you forget to lookup what youre typing first IMO

By the way, the Xenos is not based on existing cards. you are right. its based on ancient cards circa 2007. and just because a card utilized unified shader capabilities doesnt make is close to being DX10 capable. DX10 by the way, is mainly just instruction sets written (ie. APIs) to interface between newer gpu capabilities and the sotware programers programs. just because a card has DX10 apporval stamped on it doesnt mean its a beast. it just means that it has the cardware most compatible with those instruction sets. DX is an API just like opengl is an API. meaning its all software based, read it up

Yes all 8000 series card are dx10 capabale. Link! nvidias home page, just search 8000 series in their search bar fool. Heck the crap 8400 card is dx10 capable but that doesn't mean u should use dx10 with it because it can't even play games in dx9 well let alone 10.

www.nvidia.com

*face palm* read my above post for a reply to your rambling

16 years ago

6500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 LibertySaint

Member since 2007 • 6500 Posts

[QUOTE="neogeo419"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"]
Wow this thread is entertaining. Most misinformed TC I have seen in a while:lol: . Sure the PS3 is a little more powerful. But thinking that full of fail RSX= 8800gtx is silly. Please type me a couple paragraphs on how my old 1st gen 8800gts 320mb was not DX10 compatible. Tell me why a 8800gtx can run CoD4 @ 1080p flawlessly, but its equally as powerful RSX runs it @ 600p.
superferret2029

hey did you read my thread???? there are different iterations of the 8800 not all DX10 compatible. theres cards like the 8800gt, 8800gts, 8800gtx.

reread my thread or google before you post again

Yea dude only problem is 8800gt>8800gts 320. You know why? Because 8800gts 320 is the weakest of the first gen 8800 g80 cores. The 8800gt is a g92 core. All 8800 series including the 8800gts 320, and the 8800gs ( The two weakest of the family) are dx10 cards. Thanks for playing.

most cards can work in DX10 mode 'dude'. ie. most cards are DX10 compatible. only problem is only a handful have the full API specs to be fully compatible and hence yield the best results for a game designed to really utilize DX10. by the way which GT are you talking about? there are different GTs. look man, no need for fanboys on this thread. if you cant follow then dont post. there are many variations of each subsidiary. besides, whether or not xenos uses DX10 doesnt matter because the PS3 uses a different and competing API...you just got served

The ps3 uses open GL...did u even know that? Like come on dude if u are going argue at least know what u are talking about.

16 years ago

1086

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 1086 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
Steppy_76

Dude you dont even know what youre saying. polygons are basically number crunching. what century do you live in. the Cell is not "basically a supercomputer". Its a (pay attention) SCALABLE ARCHITECTURE with an emphasis on image processing.... oh by the way. the Cell is basically a souped up and upgraded PowerPC. the regular powerPC is in the 360 so saying the Cell wasnt meant for gaming basically implies the 360 wasnt meant for gaming.:lol:

Tell me what good a "scalable architecture" is in a uniprocessor machine? If the PS3 were a blade server then you'd have a point. Oh, it's emphasis in on being a DSP, it can work with a ton of video streams...once again not applicable to the PS3. The cell is a server processor that performs "well enough" to be in the PS3, but running game code is FAR from one of its strengths, bringing the "supercomputer on a chip" down to a level slightly above the 360 CPU, but without the flexibility. Oh, BTW, show me another example of a 3.2 Ghz tricore PowerPC in order to call the 360 CPU "regular powerPC". Also, simply sharing a partial architecture doesn't mean both are ill suited for gaming. The cell NEEDS extreme parallelism in its code to be running full tilt and gaming is NOT one of those applications. The cell inside the PS3 will never have all its execution units running full bore, while since the 360 has three full blown cores able to run any of the code, it can be more fully used. The cell has more theoretical performance while the 360 CPU will be used more fully. THink of it like this on a scale of 1-100 the cells theoretical peak would be a 90 while the 360 would be a 70, but real world performance more of the 360 cpu will end up being used so the cell will use 60% of that "90" while the 360 will use 90% of that "70" bringing their performance more or less the same. What you CAN do is then use some of that unused CPU power to help with graphics, but since the RSX is not as good a performer as the 360 GPU all that does is merely bring the graphics ability of the RSX up to the level of Xeos...making the performance of the two machines basically a wash. Lo and behold the games on the two systems are pretty much identical. Judging from the fact that you were pretty much compeltely wrong in your posts in this thread, and you used a metric that is pretty much irrelevant to performance to support your view, you probably will ignore this and continue on with your fanboyish dribble.

Well said. The TC has no idea what he is talking about and using numbers from Sony that were available before the PS3 even came out. Every test I have seen of the two systems say exactly what you just said. The TC is trolling.

16 years ago

6500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 LibertySaint

Member since 2007 • 6500 Posts

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
superferret2029

The 8800(a DX 10 card) in a unified shader card, and doesn't share much of its architecture with the 7800(a fixed funciton shader DX9 card) where did you get THAT from?

I never said that bandwidth isn't important. It is one of MANY factors that comprise processor performance. Using it by itself is worthless, and doesn't take into account how much bandwidth an application is actually USING. The folding@home application for the PS3 IS something that actually WILL use the bandwidth, games are NOT.

Lastly, you are correct in that that is ALSO part of the cell's scalability. You are incorrect in assuming it has anything to do with performance in the PS3. The PS3's version of cell will ALWAYS be one PPU, with 7 SPU's(unless you think the cell inside the PS3 can spontaneously fab itself some more spu's). What that is talking about is that the cell can be tailored to other applicaitons. For instance, if you were to use on inside of a TV to control it's UI you could use a 1 PPU, 1 SPU version of the cell. It also refers to being able to use more than a single cell as they do in servers(ie the lastest one from IBM uses something like 9000 cell processors).

The Xenos is NOT based on an existing PC based GPU. The RSX IS. The newest cards from Nvidia have moved to unified shaders...cards with GPU's AFTER the 7800 the RSX is based on. The Xenos is a unified shader card, and is much closer to a DX10 card than the RSX is. How you think comparing GPU's on video cards(and also restricting them to similar pricepoints) has ANYTHING to due with this argument is beyond me. Just stop dude, you don't know what you are talking about.

if you knew what you are talking about, you would know that there are many different variations of the 8800 not all of them DX 10 compatible. look it up on google. you are boring me with your lack of knowledge.for example there the regular 8800 then the 8800GT then the 8800GTX etc. really look it up and their specs ie. which is DX 10 compatible before you post

And if you actually took into account certain things you would realize that it would take maybe billions to build a new fabrication plant just to feed the 'unique' needs of the ATI card in the 360. Man, its obviously based on some ATI existing arcitecture. they always base it on existing arcitecture. think about it. if you were ATI/AMD what would you do: spend billions to build a new fab plant or basing it on existing architecture. SO just like the RSX the ATI xenos is based on existing architecture. OLD architecture if you will since it was based on an ancient architecture because it went into R&D and development before PS3.

By the way you seem clueless as to when bandwith is utilized. first, check the meaning of bandwith. Looks, an architectures bandwith is the single most important factor when it comes to speed. each processor or component has a bandwith and the motherboard has a bandwith a well....ie. system bus. this means how fast it is able to transfer data from say Gate A to Gate B or data moving from the RAM to the CPU or FPU. Or the GPU and CPU or even within the CPU. every application i mean EVERY application )ie. software uses bandwith) Now the question is which badwith does it use??? Folding@home uses the Cell (CPU) predominantly since it is not as graphics centric as say MGS 4 for example. But the fact remains that they ALL use bandwith.Foldin@home would mostly use the cells bandwith to transfer information say from the cpu to the fpu to the cache then to the controller for example. meanwhile MGS for would do that butnot as intensely as folding@home since it will mostly tax the gpu and the gpus physics capabilities. meaning MGS 4 would mostly use the bandwith within the GPU. irrespective of the application, they will all use the RAMs bandwith. so now, do you realize what the term bandwith means? since MGS 4 employs a more immersive experience, both sound, graphics, and processor wise, it would overall use more bandwith than folding@home which is not meant to wow a user so it mostly uses the FPU for geometric calculations.

Now as for the SPUs argument, i will not bother to address that. go to the IEEE website, or wikipedia or IBM website to understand what i wrote earlier. you type a lot but you forget to lookup what youre typing first IMO

By the way, the Xenos is not based on existing cards. you are right. its based on ancient cards circa 2007. and just because a card utilized unified shader capabilities doesnt make is close to being DX10 capable. DX10 by the way, is mainly just instruction sets written (ie. APIs) to interface between newer gpu capabilities and the sotware programers programs. just because a card has DX10 apporval stamped on it doesnt mean its a beast. it just means that it has the cardware most compatible with those instruction sets. DX is an API just like opengl is an API. meaning its all software based, read it up

Yes all 8000 series card are dx10 capabale. Link! nvidias home page, just search 8000 series in their search bar fool. Heck the crap 8400 card is dx10 capable but that doesn't mean u should use dx10 with it because it can't even play games in dx9 well let alone 10.

www.nvidia.com

*face palm* read my above post for a reply to your rambling

lol u have no idea what u are talking about and even if u did understand a little something about hardware u are not making a sign of it to anyone. It seems like u tried to pick up little bits of information from websites and used those bits to make a thread t to argue technology. An epically failing thread.

16 years ago

1270

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 1270 Posts

One thing is for sure, if you drop a PS3 on your foot it will hurt more because it is heavier.:shock: This must mean it's more powerful.

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"]
superferret2029

The ps3 uses open GL...did u even know that? Like come on dude if u are going argue at least know what u are talking about.

read my above posts and youll see i already referred to it before you popped along.besides what other API would i be talking about? naturally the OpenGL platform is next in line in terms of popularity. that and the SDKs used on ps3 were devd in linux which primarily and only uses the OpenGL API.

16 years ago

1261

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 1261 Posts

Arghh man broke people with their consoles, I own both consoles and they both serve their purposes, but please do not compare a RSX or Xenos, with anything in the 8800 family or newer, both of the consoles GPU's are stripped versions they are not true 7800 or 1900, they both only have a 128bit bus which just bottlenecks the crap out of those cards, so they are around 7600GTs, as I say consoles are fun for GTA and MGS games, which look good and I enjoy playing, if I want graphics, I turn up Crysis on my 4850 crossfire, it mops the floor with consoles.

16 years ago

1474

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 1474 Posts

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="neogeo419"]
read my above posts noob and youll see i already referred to it before you popped along.
superferret2029

A level 1 calling someone a "noob". Either you ride the short bus, or you are a BAN DODGER:o

16 years ago

13558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 Bebi_vegeta

Member since 2003 • 13558 Posts

[QUOTE="loftus42"][QUOTE="superferret2029"]Dude you are clearly clueless about the hardware. stick to arguing about games. I for one, know for a fact that the PS3's GPU is better and faster than the Xenos. Ive seen benchmarks on them. If you doubt me, go out and buy a NVidia GeForce 8800GTX dual processor chipset (a rough equivalent of whats running in the PS3) then buy ANY dual processor ATI shipset (since ATI made theGPU for microsoft. Run 3dMark benchmarks on them and see who comeson top. Its been well known in the PC community that NVidia chipsethave ALWAYS been more powerful than ATI chipsets. go check PCMAG.com or any computer mag that benchmark products or open up both consoles and benchmark it like yourself just like I did. You have NO technical background in hardware.You just seem to have a skill for spitting out the jargon like you know what youre talking about. I live hardware dude.superferret2029

Dude, (I love that word) You don't know much either. The 360 GPU, has out performed the Nvidia chip in the PS3 in a number of tests. You are also working on ancient benchmarks with the PC. ATI for the last two years have blown the Nvidia chips out of the water. Check Anandtech for one. The (PS3) Nvidia chips have a complete different architecture, and can't even do AA. without software tricks. Do your research before you come in here and post things that are untrue.

you = fail

nvidia>ati/amd. in fact ati was failing so badly that they went on life support until amd bought them. your statement is wrong. ask anybody who tests graphics cards for a living. nvidia cards pwn ati cards. better yet check pcmag.com.

Did you forget the Nvidia FX days? Seriously Nvidia only shined with the 8 series.

16 years ago

6500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 LibertySaint

Member since 2007 • 6500 Posts

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
loftus42

Dude you dont even know what youre saying. polygons are basically number crunching. what century do you live in. the Cell is not "basically a supercomputer". Its a (pay attention) SCALABLE ARCHITECTURE with an emphasis on image processing.... oh by the way. the Cell is basically a souped up and upgraded PowerPC. the regular powerPC is in the 360 so saying the Cell wasnt meant for gaming basically implies the 360 wasnt meant for gaming.:lol:

Tell me what good a "scalable architecture" is in a uniprocessor machine? If the PS3 were a blade server then you'd have a point. Oh, it's emphasis in on being a DSP, it can work with a ton of video streams...once again not applicable to the PS3. The cell is a server processor that performs "well enough" to be in the PS3, but running game code is FAR from one of its strengths, bringing the "supercomputer on a chip" down to a level slightly above the 360 CPU, but without the flexibility. Oh, BTW, show me another example of a 3.2 Ghz tricore PowerPC in order to call the 360 CPU "regular powerPC". Also, simply sharing a partial architecture doesn't mean both are ill suited for gaming. The cell NEEDS extreme parallelism in its code to be running full tilt and gaming is NOT one of those applications. The cell inside the PS3 will never have all its execution units running full bore, while since the 360 has three full blown cores able to run any of the code, it can be more fully used. The cell has more theoretical performance while the 360 CPU will be used more fully. THink of it like this on a scale of 1-100 the cells theoretical peak would be a 90 while the 360 would be a 70, but real world performance more of the 360 cpu will end up being used so the cell will use 60% of that "90" while the 360 will use 90% of that "70" bringing their performance more or less the same. What you CAN do is then use some of that unused CPU power to help with graphics, but since the RSX is not as good a performer as the 360 GPU all that does is merely bring the graphics ability of the RSX up to the level of Xeos...making the performance of the two machines basically a wash. Lo and behold the games on the two systems are pretty much identical. Judging from the fact that you were pretty much compeltely wrong in your posts in this thread, and you used a metric that is pretty much irrelevant to performance to support your view, you probably will ignore this and continue on with your fanboyish dribble.

Well said. The TC has no idea what he is talking about and using numbers from Sony that were available before the PS3 even came out. Every test I have seen of the two systems say exactly what you just said. The TC is trolling.

Oh yes what steppy_76 said totally owned the TC.

16 years ago

superferret2029

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93 superferret2029

Member since 2008 • 115 Posts

[QUOTE="loftus42"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]

LibertySaint

Well said. The TC has no idea what he is talking about and using numbers from Sony that were available before the PS3 even came out. Every test I have seen of the two systems say exactly what you just said. The TC is trolling.

Oh yes what steppy_76 said totally owned the TC.

your statement = fail

16 years ago

10934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 10934 Posts

The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
bungie93

try telling that to Uncharted and KZ2

16 years ago

6500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 LibertySaint

Member since 2007 • 6500 Posts

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="loftus42"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]

superferret2029

Well said. The TC has no idea what he is talking about and using numbers from Sony that were available before the PS3 even came out. Every test I have seen of the two systems say exactly what you just said. The TC is trolling.

Oh yes what steppy_76 said totally owned the TC.

your statement = fail

lol oh my u resorted to trolling after all the failures in this thread. The thread is done :D

[QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
ermacness

try telling that to Uncharted and KZ2

The difference with uncharted is that they optimized the cell and did not leave the rendering totally up to the rsx as well they used great techniques with shading and "texturing" (if u want to call it that, an opimzed method of bit mapping and normal mapping) to bring forth a good looking game. So pretty much they optimzed the system very well and with killzone 2, well very handy devs are optimizing as well, i can't wait for killzone 2, but just because it looks better doesn't mean the system is more powerful it just means the devs know what they are doing, as does any game on any system for that matter. Until a level, an average of games start to show up on console Y and they all look better then the other games on X, then yes there is a powerful console there, but arguing specs and systems at this time is just leveling negatives of each system out and analyzing them.

16 years ago

3021

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 3021 Posts

There is one of two things going on here, both of which are sad:

1. This guy is trying to troll with misinformation and going to extreme lengths in order to do so.

2. He actually believes that he knows what he is talking about and is blind to his innumerable errors.

Either way it's funny to watch him own himself.

16 years ago

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#97 X360PS3AMD05

Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts

I own a Ps3, but we have yet to see the "hidden powazz" of teh Cell. And the 360 has a better GPU/RAM.

16 years ago

2445

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 2445 Posts

[QUOTE="superferret2029"]
[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="loftus42"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="superferret2029"][QUOTE="bungie93"]

LibertySaint

Well said. The TC has no idea what he is talking about and using numbers from Sony that were available before the PS3 even came out. Every test I have seen of the two systems say exactly what you just said. The TC is trolling.

Oh yes what steppy_76 said totally owned the TC.

your statement = fail

lol oh my u resorted to trolling after all the failures in this thread. The thread is done :D

[QUOTE="bungie93"]
The PS3 is a more powerful system, but the xbox 360 will produce better graphics. It has a higher fill-rate and can display more polygons.
The PS3 is better at number-crunching. It is basically a supercomputer, but that does NOT mean that it can produce amazing graphics. The Xbox 360 is designed purely for gaming, and the choice of a high-end graphics card really payed off for Microsoft.
ermacness

try telling that to Uncharted and KZ2

The difference with uncharted is that they optimized the cell and did not leave the rendering totally up to the rsx as well they used great techniques with shading and "texturing" (if u want to call it that, an opimzed method of bit mapping and normal mapping) to bring forth a good looking game. So pretty much they optimzed the system very well and with killzone 2, well very handy devs are optimizing as well, i can't wait for killzone 2, but just because it looks better doesn't mean the system is more powerful it just means the devs know what they are doing, as does any game on any system for that matter. Until a level, an average of games start to show up on console Y and they all look better then the other games on X, then yes there is a powerful console there, but arguing specs and systems at this time is just leveling negatives of each system out and analyzing them.

Not to mention, we don't know how Uncharted and Killzone 2 would run on the Xbox 360. They would probably look even better thanks to the Xbox 360's GPU.

I'm guessing that the RSX is the biggest bottleneck on Uncharted and Killzone 2's performance, so they would probably look better on the 360.

Also, it isn't fact that Uncharted and Killzone 2 look better than xbox 360 exclusives. Fanboys just like to pass their opinions as fact when they are losing an arguement.

16 years ago

2004

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 2004 Posts

LOL, Like I said 99% of people on Sw, including myself dont know enough about the hardware in the ps3 and 360 to be making treads about it. The TC has been owned many times and is trying to google more info as we speak! LAMO!!!!

16 years ago

2445

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 2445 Posts

LOL, Like I said 99% of people on Sw, including myself dont know enough about the hardware in the ps3 and 360 to be making treads about it. The TC has been owned many times and is trying to google more info as we speak! LAMO!!!!lolkie_81

LMAO so true!!

16 years ago

258 results
1
2
3
4
5
6

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment