I get cookie? :D

dgsag

:shock:

Flim_Flam07

Here's some more facts to add to the only true arguments here(Highlander's and Vaizard's).

PhysX is on the 360. In fact, AGEIA tried very hard to make a statement this summer that the 360 was capable of doing physics. Earlier, an AGEIA scientist said that the PS3 was doing very well but that the 360 wasn't as good as the PS3. This was also right after Microsoft sent specs to ign and were making the claim that the 360 was just as powerful as the PS3. A few weeks later, AGEIA made a rebuttal and said that the scientists was speaking only theoretically and that the 360 wasn't performing as well "under certain conditions"..

What those conditions were at the time has never been clarified, mainly due to the fact that it could be more damaging to a prospective customer (Microsoft) if the word got out that the 360 (set to launch in 2005) wasn't as capable as a machine that already "stole the show" at E3. Now, AGEIA must not really care about pleasing MS so much, or they know that we know the writing is on the wall and are more forthcoming about the PS3s abilities when compared to the 360.

AGEIA isn't BSing anyone, they have nothing to gain by BSing people. Their bread and butter is in PC gaming and the console war has very little to do with their bottom line, ESPECIALLY since both systems will have software utilizing their DevTools.

You know why the 360 didn't do as good under those conditions???? Because it's inferior to the PS3!!!!!!

A little about the GPU...

Allow for me to paint you another picture. Unified shader technology IS the direction that PC graphics are going to go. In fact, Nvidia have a unified shader GPU in the works called the G80. The thing that always struck me as kind of odd about the Xbox 360 is that it has a very early version of the architecture in it and it seems to be rather under powered to run games like Oblivion. Gamespot ran a comparison on Oblivion on a low end, mid-grade, and high-end PC to see how the 360 verison matches up.

The 7800 and 7900 were both more impressive than the 360 and that was at the same resolution, which we all know PCs can have higher resolutions than x720. So, the good news for us is that the GPU going in the PS3 WILL be more powerful than the Xbox 360.. Also, 1080p is not going to be a big stretch of the imagination since a 7900 can run INSANE resolutions on PC that no TV in the next three or four years is going to support.

Make no mistake about it, though.. Unified shader technology is the wave of the future because it CAN do things traditional cards cannot and when the technology actually matures, you will see some amazing graphics on PC games. The good news for the PS4 is that by the time it launches, there will be multi-core Cell processors that Sony may be very wise in putting in the PS4. Imagine what the clock rate on a Cell can be five or six or even seven years down the road? On top of that, Nvidia will be well into the unified shader architecture and be able to deliver on what is only dreams and random musings from the Xbox crowd about what the GPU actually does. With high throughput and full programmability, unified GPUs matched with Cell's processing capabilities could very well be the "perfect console". IMHO

Well... If you were to look ay both of the console's specs you'd clearly see that the PS3 is far superior to the 360 in every way. Also, what I've written above is even more proof.

Don't forget that the the rsx has fully programmable shaders as well, in fact it has even more power than the xenos in that area.

the only thing it doesn't have is unified shader architecture, which allows it to use its resources better, but does not make it better than the rsx since it has less raw power overall.

with USA, the xenos can choose to use 0/48 16/32 32/16 or 48/0 pipelines for vertices/pixels.

the rsx is always using 8/24; however those 24 pixel pipelines have 2 ALU and are just as good as 48 pixel pipelines in the xenos;

on top of those the 8 vertex pipelines are able to push 1 billion vertices/second while the 48 pipelines of the xenos can only push max 500 million vertices/second, which means those 8 vertex pip.. are equivalent as 96 in the xenos.

so in xenos space, the rsx got 96/48 constant vs 0/48 or 16/32 or 32/16 or 48/0

summary:
- general processors (unified shaders arch) are less efficient than specialized ones
- the xenos has always less computational power, in every scenario

hopefully the xenos got some advantages like the EDRAM, free AA, 10bit HDR etc.
which might make the difference sometimes, and when it doesn't, then the rsx power does the difference.

The PS3 kills the 360 in every aspect.

EwokAssassin

This is SO WRONG i'm not going to even to begin to get into with you becuase you will not listen to reason for sure.

But just about every major developer and someone who knows there FACTS all agree and say the 360 GPU is better then RSX.

:shock:

Actually the version of cell in the PS3 is only 8 core. One SPE is disabled for fabrication yield purposes so it is basically useless. Another SPE is reserved for OS purposes. That leaves only 6 SPE's for developers to work with. Also each SPE has only 256k of local store. Ya sure it is fast, but 256k isn't a whole lot to work with. Also the PPE only as 512k L2 cache memory whereas the 360's cpu has 1M of cache memory. You also forgot that the 360's cpu can do 6 hardware threads.

[QUOTE="Vaizard34"]

First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives,so they can do more at a lower clock.

MrHanson6

Obviously you haven't done your homework. The 360's cpu has VMX 128, which is a large extension to ALTIVEC. Actually the 360's CPU has 2 VMX128 register files per core, one for each thread. That is 256 physical vector registers per core.

360 vs. ps3 respond to this There are three critical performance aspects of a console:
* Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell. Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.
* Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.
* Memory System Bandwidth:
Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

[QUOTE="Vaizard34"]

Here's the FACTS for foolish fanboys. Not only is the Cell the best around. The PS3's hardware overall unrinates on the competition.

The cell is clocked at 3.2GHz and has 9 cores (one control processor and 8 SPEs). You cant compair GHz to GHZ, because the processors are two completely different designs. In that case the PS3 and 360 would be the same. It just doesn't work like that. First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. Secondly, there are 8 of them(2 reserved). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. there is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated RAM instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of innefficiencies inherent in cache. 4th it has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5th, as a vector processor it can also render graphics. meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6th, blueray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. they are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 100GB. In other words the PS3 PWNs all.

Flim_Flam07

Here let me further teach some things about the PS3. Read below.

360 vs. ps3 respond to this There are three critical performance aspects of a console:
* Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell. Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.
* Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance:
The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.
* Memory System Bandwidth:
Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

Here's the FACTS for foolish fanboys. Not only is the Cell the best around. The PS3's hardware overall unrinates on the competition.

The cell is clocked at 3.2GHz and has 9 cores (one control processor and 8 SPEs). You cant compair GHz to GHZ, because the processors are two completely different designs. In that case the PS3 and 360 would be the same. It just doesn't work like that. First of all, the cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. Secondly, there are 8 of them(2 reserved). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. there is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated RAM instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of innefficiencies inherent in cache. 4th it has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5th, as a vector processor it can also render graphics. meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6th, blueray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. they are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 100GB. In other words the PS3 PWNs all.

Vaizard34

[QUOTE="Flim_Flam07"][QUOTE="highlander0659"]

Don't get ahead of yourself. New tech always needs time to work itself into things. The Cell is still currently the best CPU on the market.

Theres not a personal computer on the planet that can touch Cell in any area. Be it memory management, parallel computing, downright speed, whatever. Even the new, highly generic and underwhelming multi-core Intel and AMD processors pale in comparison to Cells capabilities.

Now that the final devkits are out and Cell / RSX are working through the incredibly fast and efficient FlexIO from Rambus those PC's they are using, no matter what they are, aren't going to be able to duplicate what a PS3 will be capable of.

This is why I've been saying for awhile that the PS3 will be able to keep pace with the PC's for years to come without problem. Its just superior in speed, precision, cycle losses being minimized, mathematic processing, physics, geometry, shaders, whatever. Maybe in 4 or 5 years a PC will exist that will make the PS3 port have to be downgraded in a way, but until then its highly doubtful.

When you add the system bandwidth, memory bandwidth, SPE local storage cycles being so incredibly low per miss, the highly parallized structure of Cell itself, the RSX's shader capabilities, Cells shader capabilities and rendering capabilities, Blu-Ray and the standard HDD .... well .... lemme just put it this way. The games showcased for the PS3 right now probably aren't even really using 5% of the systems resources or potential.

angel-of-rain

Right i see you still sucking on the Sony BS TiiiiiT Anyway Yeah frame rate issues low res texture issues downgraded graphics all say other on PS3 right now.

Dirt:lol: On 3monthlaterstation 3:lol:

[QUOTE="rdo"][QUOTE="danielsmith2020"]The cell was never designed for use in home PC's, it can't be used in combination with any PC operating system without emulation. This thread is another example of idiotic fanboys who think they know what there talking about but have no idea.Flim_Flam07

Exactly Sony's plan was for this Chip to take over and do it all media video running OS broadband the works and they just thought the world was going to bow down to the mighty FLOP CELL.:lol:

Why do you think Crazy Ken got SH?ZZZ CANNED becuase he went crazy and ran Sony into the mud