the GPU (Graphics Processing unit). The 360's Xenos GPU is also slightly more powerful for running current graphics engines and, in terms of complying with Windows Graphic Foundation 2.0 (compatible with future versions of Direct X, shader models, etc.) is a full-generation ahead of the RSX. "One of the key ideas behind a unified architecture is to move the GPU from a rendering only processor to a complete compute processor. Right now all the GPU does is render 3D and displays it on your screen (yes it does more like 2D, video etc... but for the point of this article we are talking about 3D). With a unified architecture the GPU becomes more. It becomes a processor that can do almost anything that needs code processed. This means the GPU can take on more functions like physics, AI, animation and many other processes that can benefit the gaming experience. DirectX 10 and a unified GPU architecture helps a video card become an all-in-one Swiss army knife of game processing.
The 360's OS on the other hand uses only 3% of its CPU time on Cores 1 and 2, while Core 0 is free altogether, and 6.25% (32mb) of its 512mb RAM, this means that the 360 has more processing power available for in-game graphics and physics. Meanwhile, the ps3's OS…
"In the case of the PS3 this equates to 12.5% of the available Cores on the CPU always reserved, an additional 12.5% sometimes taken by the OS, 12.5% of the available RSX memory and 25% of XDR Cell memory. Balancing these out, one could argue that Sony has removed up to 25% of the available CPU power and 18.75% of RAM for these features as well as others that are not mentioned here or will be added in future updates to the PS3 Operation System."
Wow, 18.75% (96mb) of the ps3's 512mb of total RAM, vs. 6.25% (32mb) of the 360's 512mb RAM, say, that means the ps3 has 416mb RAM left vs. the 360's leftover 490mb RAM for graphics…
I could be wrong, but isn't 490mb greater than 416mb???
The 360's Xenos GPU is slightly more powerful for running current graphics engines and, in terms of complying with Windows Graphic Foundation 2.0 (compatible with future versions of Direct X, shader models, etc.) is a full-generation ahead of the RSX. "One of the key ideas behind a unified architecture is to move the GPU from a rendering only processor to a complete compute processor. Right now all the GPU does is render 3D and displays it on your screen (yes it does more like 2D, video etc... but for the point of this article we are talking about 3D). With a unified architecture the GPU becomes more. It becomes a processor that can do almost anything that needs code processed. This means the GPU can take on more functions like physics, AI, animation and many other processes that can benefit the gaming experience. DirectX 10 and a unified GPU architecture helps a video card become an all-in-one Swiss army knife of game processing. Those are the ideas at least, how it all works out is up to the game content developers
ps3 GPU stands at 228.8 GFLOPS
360 GPU stands at 240.0 GFLOPS
I thought it was about time that people realised this. As with the PS2, Sony have duped everybody into believing the PS3 was more powerful with FAKE pre-rendered 'target render' footage before E3 and clever wording.
Most people are convinced that the PS3 is more powerful and will produce better graphics and performance in games. I looked into this, I read about the specs. It turns out that the hardware is almost identical, however, whilst the Xbox 360 makes good use of it, the PS3 doesn't even have the power to use half of it's hardware properly. The way the cores are designed make it really difficult and non flexible for developers, and then I saw a graph...
Turns out the Xbox 360 has more of what's called "System Memory Bandwith". In fact, it has SIX TIMES what the PS3 has. So you're probably wondering what that means. Well, it's for actually USING the hardware and memory to render the game. You see how on the Xbox 360 all the textures look so nice and 3D and shiny? How everything has that extra photo realism to it rather than just looking painted on? Turns out the PS3 doesn't even have HALF of the system memory bandwith required to pull that off decently (you'll notice a lot of their E3 videos have very flat, last-gen looking textures).
So I looked at some more graphs, and although the difference is small, the Xbox 360 has more power on all of them, except for one. I looked into that remaining one to see what it was for, and it was for, surprise surprise, video playback. PS3 is a powerful blu-ray movie player which just so happens to be able to play games. Most likely built around Final Fantasy, so Square can make super ultra high definition FMVs with a few not-so-special playable bits inbetween.
Maybe a lot of that was a bit technical and boring, but my point is, it seems we were all duped. Everywhere people are talking about how the PS3 is apparently more powerful, but it's not true, at least not for gaming, and the difference is bigger than we thought. Now if only people would realise this.
Log in to comment