PDA

View Full Version : RSX at Watch Impress



version
09-25-2006, 03:51 PM
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20060925/3d_tgs.htm

Luis
09-25-2006, 04:05 PM
(part writer presumption)
Translated version (Google translate) (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watch.impress.co.jp%2 Fgame%2Fdocs%2F20060925%2F3d_tgs.htm&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=es&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools)

version
09-25-2006, 04:13 PM
downgraded g70, sony this is fine , supercomputer haha

GUNDAMSEED
09-25-2006, 04:19 PM
downgraded g70, sony this is fine , supercomputer haha


version don't have anything better to do , hopefully we won't have a MILR meltdown . Also after see some many games plus 1080p . Ps3 could have a GForce 1 for all i care .

RavenFox
09-25-2006, 04:20 PM
lol you guys are too much.

PhYmon
09-25-2006, 04:27 PM
Well I dont care about the specs anymore, after watching the games at TGS..

Luis
09-25-2006, 04:33 PM
Well I dont care about the specs anymore, after watching the games at TGS..QFT! (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Y1TOEYZ3)

cliffbo
09-25-2006, 04:35 PM
Well I dont care about the specs anymore, after watching the games at TGS..

agreed completely, time to put the specs to bed and let the games do the talking...

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 04:36 PM
I mean we already knew RSX was at 500/650, so this is nothing new.

I see Version has swung to the other side of his mood pendulum as well. ;)

Insane Metal
09-25-2006, 04:42 PM
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8076/rsxal4.jpg

Sony´s mistake is, once again, the GPU... ok, not a mistake.... but it could be better.

overclocked
09-25-2006, 04:44 PM
W impress is not a fact for a source.

PhYmon
09-25-2006, 04:45 PM
Alright lets say that Sony indeed screw the GPU but u forgot that PS3 has Cell as well to do some graphic task as well..

NeoPlayStation
09-25-2006, 04:46 PM
No "huge" chache?

Insane Metal
09-25-2006, 04:46 PM
Alright lets say that Sony indeed screw the GPU but u forgot that PS3 has Cell as well to do some graphic task as well..

No I didn´t forget, chap. It´s just that I was talking only about the GPU. ;)

cliffbo
09-25-2006, 04:46 PM
we've seen the games... Cell must be awesome...

version
09-25-2006, 04:50 PM
awesome, speaking real codesrs from it
:D

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 04:50 PM
PS for everyone that is confused and/or ready to start ranting, I will urge that you read this post here (which you should have probably anyway back in the day):

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=61024&page=16

It's not that Cell is awesome or this or that, it's that RSX@500MHz can still produce some great visuals. Cell is going to be what sets these games apart as time goes on (primarily in gameplay mechanics). And for now, the visuals are best viewed as all RSX. Remember it's not that the RSX's architecture has changed, it's just a *slight* speed downgrade.

IMO totally worth it for a cool-running, silent system with an internal PSU.

Luis
09-25-2006, 04:53 PM
Sony´s mistake is, once again, the GPU... ok, not a mistake.... but it could be better.PS3 hasn't even been released, some games are looking killer already and people still have to complain about it. If PS3 had been in the market for a year and none of the games looked next gen at all I'd understand this, but it's not like we've seen the best PS3 has to offer already. People are just complaining over something that they don't really know whether it's a bad thing or not when the truth is that we've got yet to see a good number of finished and polished PS3 games to judge it.

Pumpkin Head
09-25-2006, 04:53 PM
Whatever the specs are really don't concern me, because the games speak for there self.

curryking1
09-25-2006, 05:02 PM
PS for everyone that is confused and/or ready to start ranting, I will urge that you read this post here (which you should have probably anyway back in the day):

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=61024&page=16

It's not that Cell is awesome or this or that, it's that RSX@500MHz can still produce some great visuals. Cell is going to be what sets these games apart as time goes on (primarily in gameplay mechanics). And for now, the visuals are best viewed as all RSX. Remember it's not that the RSX's architecture has changed, it's just a *slight* speed downgrade.

IMO totally worth it for a cool-running, silent system with an internal PSU.

I think your assertion is definitely supported by a few PS3 games, and I think the one that right now stands out the most is Motorstorm. It has wicked visuals, amazing physics (sense of weightiness, the cars reactions to the terrain off of jumps and simply turning, crashing, etc.), and somehow even more outstanding animation. It moves, looks, and feels next gen whenever I watch those videos now, simply spectacular.

And perfectly silent system, very sexy on top of it's already sexy black suit.

Nameless
09-25-2006, 05:08 PM
I agree with most of the comments mentioned...
The most important aspect of gaming is the software and not the hardware.
Unless I hear developers complain about the GPU, I don't see a problem considering the G70 architechture is very powerful especially in a closed environment. The PS3 is launching with 1080P 60FPS titles!!! :shocked: I don't think anyone predicted that news... Also, the PS3 titles have a very polished CG look that no other console is delivering at the moment, perhaps this is developer talent or hardware only time will tell. Peace

Fazares
09-25-2006, 05:15 PM
i will wait for official specs.....

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 05:17 PM
Well you'll be waiting forever then. ;) (because I don't think Sony will ever release the speed officially)

Believe what you will, but with retail PS3's in production and final dev kits running 500MHz, that's pretty tenacious of you to continue to hold out hope.

EvilTaru
09-25-2006, 05:18 PM
1 bil vertex/sec? So peak theoretical vertex performance is better than the 7800? I'm surprised actually, in a good way. Some people keep trying to play the RSX was weaker than the competition and this does not seem to be the case.

OmniStalgic
09-25-2006, 05:27 PM
So what ur saying XB-about the PS3 is that the textures and stuff won't be better than any other system-but because of Cell-the gamplay has the potential to excel? Could u verify in more detail? Is that regarding animations? scope? overall size of worlds? framerate? Because that's the thing 1up has already commented on. That there's just something about the PS3 games that "felt" right-none of them explained really what tho in technical terms. I really hate comparing-but I think it was like this w/Dreamcast and PS2. Especially early on, while some really polishsed DC titles like Soul Calibur looked better than PS2-PS2 games still "felt" like they were going in a different direction. Then with games like VF4, Jak & Daxter hit-u got a glimpse of what was headed for the system. Plz don't tear me to pieces, I'm definitely not saying 360 is like the 2nd gen DC-Actually DC would've stayed competitive w/PS2 for a while if they had the support. PS2 didn't really start creating beautiful games untill MGS2 and FFX hit. I just wanted to know if this was the case w/PS3--cuz it seems quite similar...

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 05:34 PM
So what ur saying XB-about the PS3 is that the textures and stuff won't be better than any other system-but because of Cell-the gamplay has the potential to excel? Could u verify in more detail? Is that regarding animations? scope? overall size of worlds? framerate? Because that's the thing 1up has already commented on. That there's just something about the PS3 games that "felt" right-none of them explained really what tho in technical terms. I really hate comparing-but I think it was like this w/Dreamcast and PS2. Especially early on, while some really polishsed DC titles like Soul Calibur looked better than PS2-PS2 games still "felt" like they were going in a different direction. Then with games like VF4, Jak & Daxter hit-u got a glimpse of what was headed for the system. Plz don't tear me to pieces, I'm definitely not saying 360 is like the 2nd gen DC-Actually DC would've stayed competitive w/PS2 for a while if they had the support. PS2 didn't really start creating beautiful games untill MGS2 and FFX hit. I just wanted to know if this was the case w/PS3--cuz it seems quite similar...

Omni I'm not trying to deemphasize RSX's graphics potential with that post of mine so much as trying to reemphasize Cell's role in the actual gameplay experience. Those things you mention in your post - things like physics and animation - are places where Cell should/will allow PS3 to excel. And by excel I mean excel. Cell will also be able to play a strong role in particle systems, lighting, transforms, etc etc... and as the system matures these *will* have an effect on the graphics you see on the screen.

When it comes to the GPUs alone there isn't a clear-cut winner between Xenos and RSX... it depends on what the specific 'contest' is. But games are more than still shots to put up on websites, they're still shots in motion, and this is where I think the PS3 will start to deliver a more consistent and satisfying experience. And it should only get better as time goes on.

Xenos (the GPU) has it's own benefits that will come into play as time goes on graphically speaking, so certainly it's not to be disparaged.

Luis
09-25-2006, 05:34 PM
1 bil vertex/sec? So peak theoretical vertex performance is better than the 7800? I'm surprised actually, in a good way. Some people keep trying to play the RSX was weaker than the competition and this does not seem to be the case.I thought nobody else saw that.


The efficiency comparison of NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX and PS3 RSX which make the equality designI'm not sure what this really means, but all in all I don't see how the RSX is worse than a GeForce 7800 GTX given the circumstances, or even a bad GPU at all.

archy121
09-25-2006, 05:40 PM
Why are so many people worried & paying attention all of a sudden to a sites SPECULATIONS ? ? ? We have all seen these figures in speculations before.. .

This article is probably going to send concerned echoes throughout console communities everywhere & we should not help it any further.
Their is nothing i have read in the article which indicates its based on ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE. We have all seen those speculative figures long while back & there is nothing new. So all of you who are feeling inclined to throw your toys out of the pram - just take a chill pill.

Wise members will know.. Let the games speak..


And Version.. You are a nutta mate :huh:



Archy

curryking1
09-25-2006, 05:41 PM
Ya xbdestroya, please elaborate more, I would be very interested to read up on this. Maybe if that cpiasminc man is around he could add a few words too!

It seems like you're saying the differential between the PS3 and other platforms now is really...

1. the closed environment w/ a circa 7800 GTX is pwrful enough to display what is now considered next gen gfx (I don't see any PCs being capable of running Resistance at 1080p30 consistently b/c it just isn't possible to optimize that well unless the next gen of PC gfx cards come out and you have a very pwrful CPU)

2. the cell has the potential to improve the immersion of games with more physics, AI, and other possible helpful gameplay features

3. it is possible that the cell could eventually start to make a bigger dif. in the gfx of games when it is used more suitably so

So I'm kind of in the same boat Omni is in... Is this going to be like the PS2 where we see a huge gap between first gen and say, second or third gen games? last gen games?


As Omni kind of alluded to, is Motorstorm and the likes of Resistance the PS2s Jak and Daxter and Virtua Fighter 4? As in do you see PS3 games heading more into that direction of intense physics, AI, animation and whatnot as the cell is supposed to make the PS3 differentiate itself in?

This is of utmost interest to all of us since we are going to be investing a great deal of time and money into the product. But if the answers are not there, we can understand as well, so looking forward to your answer xb!

@Omni
I agree, the X360 is not going to go anywhere anytime soon, MS has proved themselves fully capable of putting out solid stuff with the Xbox, and the X360 is so much more so in a stable position. The X360 will def. make lots of $ for MS this time around.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 05:48 PM
Ya xbdestroya, please elaborate more, I would be very interested to read up on this. Maybe if that cpiasminc man is around he could add a few words too!

It seems like you're saying the differential between the PS3 and other platforms now is really...

1. the closed environment w/ a circa 7800 GTX is pwrful enough to display what is now considered next gen gfx (I don't see any PCs being capable of running Resistance at 1080p30 consistently b/c it just isn't possible to optimize that well unless the next gen of PC gfx cards come out and you have a very pwrful CPU)

Well, we've all heard my thoughts on the 1080p thing before; I still think that 720p will be the 'sweetspot' this gen, but that said, yes being in a closed environment allows devs to code specifically for the hardware rather than a generalized environment like a PC dev has to do.


2. the cell has the potential to improve the immersion of games with more physics, AI, and other possible helpful gameplay features

Yes, but AI is seperate from the physics and other stuff I mentioned. AI is a different problem to solve, and will be solved differently. We have yet to see what alogrithms will lend themselves to (easily) tapping Cell's power in this regard.


3. it is possible that the cell could eventually start to make a bigger dif. in the gfx of games when it is used more suitably so

The easy answer is yes.


So I'm kind of in the same boat Omni is in... Is this going to be like the PS2 where we see a huge gap between first gen and say, second or third gen games? last gen games?

There will definitely be a gap.

Nameless
09-25-2006, 05:49 PM
^^Unfortunately your questions can not receive a definitive answer...
Considering the PS3 has not commercially launched any answers would be based on assumptions more than fact. Based on the evidence and the known power of the Cell, the PS3 should excel in AI, Physics & animation more than "pure graphics" when compared to the 360. In many ways all of the above actually contribute to visuals so in motion many PS3 games are predicted to be more visually appealing than 360 games. We have seen this in execution when you review the launch titles for the PS3 and this intangible polished look everyone is referring to after playing PS3 games. I hope this provides some clarity. Peace

altares
09-25-2006, 05:55 PM
I dont think it is true, cause of the multiple 1080 games out there...
makeitlookreal give us some hope!!!

cpiasminc
09-25-2006, 05:56 PM
The efficiency comparison of NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX and PS3 RSX which make the equality design
I'm not sure what this really means, but all in all I don't see how the RSX is worse than a GeForce 7800 GTX given the circumstances, or even a bad GPU at all.
Looking at the Japanese text, it seems like it's trying to say that it's making a 1:1 comparison of raw performance-related figures of the two.


Why are so many people worried & paying attention all of a sudden to a sites SPECULATIONS ? ? ? We have all seen these figures in speculations before...
For that matter some of the speculations missed on accounting for certain factors. Indeed a handful of things don't quite add up. The fillrate figures are in the wrong units, for that matter -- those should be pixel fillrates. The texel fillrates are higher (and RSX should have the higher texel fillrate since it has the higher clock speed).

Sephiroth_VII
09-25-2006, 05:58 PM
MILR is gonna blow a fuse when he sees this....

EDIT: Well, you seem very skeptic about this, Cpi. That's good. I also found some of the differences to be totally insane For example, the difference in Apex efficiency seems way too big.

Any explanation for that?

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 05:58 PM
Ok Cpi I want you to realize that *some* people are going to read that post of yours and translate it in their heads to be 'RSX is upgraded!' ;)

EvilTaru
09-25-2006, 06:01 PM
Looking at the Japanese text, it seems like it's trying to say that it's making a 1:1 comparison of raw performance-related figures of the two.


For that matter some of the speculations missed on accounting for certain factors. Indeed a handful of things don't quite add up. The fillrate figures are in the wrong units, for that matter -- those should be pixel fillrates. The texel fillrates are higher (and RSX should have the higher texel fillrate since it has the higher clock speed).

From reading the original article:

860 mil vs 10 bil

6.88 bil vs 4 bil

Which ones are in the wrong units?

OmniStalgic
09-25-2006, 06:02 PM
^^Unfortunately your questions can not receive a definitive answer...
Considering the PS3 has not commercially launched any answers would be based on assumptions more than fact. Based on the evidence and the known power of the Cell, the PS3 should excel in AI, Physics & animation more than "pure graphics" when compared to the 360. In many ways all of the above actually contribute to visuals so in motion many PS3 games are predicted to be more visually appealing than 360 games. We have seen this in execution when you review the launch titles for the PS3 and this intangible polished look everyone is referring to after playing PS3 games. I hope this provides some clarity. PeaceIT provides much needed clarity Nameless. Tks XB for the info-I'm eager to see just what this system cranks out. WE've got a taste and now I want my Freakin Entrée...lol CurryKing+rep for that post. IT seems that to a certain degree, we can only speculate now if PS3 will leap as big as PS2. But going by early impression-it's looking real good man...

redrei
09-25-2006, 06:02 PM
wait, wait how the hell do you read this chart thing, is the the filling rate and apex efficiency better on the rsx or worse?! And what are rops and why are they worser on the rsx any drawbacks? or gains from this?!

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 06:08 PM
wait, wait how the hell do you read this chart thing, is the the filling rate and apex efficiency better on the rsx or worse?! And what are rops and why are they worser on the rsx any drawbacks? or gains from this?!

The ROPs have been reduced to save die space and because the bitbus width is half that of the PC part. Yes it's worse than the PC part; no having 16 wouldn't be twice as good. It's the 128-bit bus that is the main culprit, but there's simply no presently cost-effective way to address that in something like a console.

version
09-25-2006, 06:11 PM
EDIT: Version, stop being ridiculous

redrei
09-25-2006, 06:13 PM
The ROPs have been reduced to save die space and because the bitbus width is half that of the PC part. Yes it's worse than the PC part; no having 16 wouldn't be twice as good. It's the 128-bit bus that is the main culprit, but there's simply no presently cost-effective way to address that in something like a console.

Ok, thank XB but does the xenos have a 256-bit bus or is it 128 aswell?

curryking1
09-25-2006, 06:14 PM
Thanks for the rep Omni lol. I guess the only solid answer we can have at this point in time is that 'only time will tell.' When we reach the second and third gen I think we will have a much better understanding of how far (or how, not far) the PS3 will be able to go.

Thanks for the reply xbdestroya, it is very clear that we have to wait to see what happens then. Until then, I'll just be happy looking at the prettiness that is Motorstorm, White Knight, MGS4 and other current PS3 titles.

Luis
09-25-2006, 06:14 PM
Ok, thank XB but does the xenos have a 256-bit bus or is it 128 aswell?128.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 06:14 PM
Ok, thank XB but does the xenos have a 256-bit bus or is it 128 aswell?

It's 128-bit as well; Xenos' whole deal is the 10MB of eDRAM, that when used properly reduces the strain on it's external bandwidth.

mario25
09-25-2006, 06:40 PM
If this information were released last week or before I would have been so pissed of with sony, but after seeing the awesomeness that are the ps3 games right now, sony could have use a scientific calculator as the rsx and I would still be happy!!

Viano
09-25-2006, 06:41 PM
scientific calculator loL

saxdawg00
09-25-2006, 06:48 PM
scientific calculator loL

TI-RSX lol

EvilTaru
09-25-2006, 06:48 PM
It's 128-bit as well; Xenos' whole deal is the 10MB of eDRAM, that when used properly reduces the strain on it's external bandwidth.

But doesn't use of the eDRAM limits them to FP10 and make tiling more costly in comparison?

Sephiroth_VII
09-25-2006, 06:50 PM
Same here. If this "underpowered pocket calculator" is capable of something like MGS4, Lair, Motorstorm & FF XIII, I'm sold.

mario25
09-25-2006, 06:51 PM
Same here. If this "underpowered pocket calculator" is capable of something like MGS4, Lair, Motorstorm & FF XIII, I'm sold.

yep yep

cpiasminc
09-25-2006, 06:54 PM
860 mil vs 10 bil

6.88 bil vs 4 bil

Which ones are in the wrong units?
First of all, it says 1 billion vertices, not 10 billion. And actually both of those figures look wrong unless I'm missing something (they might be referring to Z-Only passes, though). Just note that figure does go down with every attribute you throw into a vertex.

The 6.88 Billion vs. 4 Billion is in the wrong units. The chart says those are texel fillrate figures -- they're pixel fillrate figures. The texel fillrates should be 10.32 Billion (7800GTX) vs. 12 Billion (RSX).


Ok Cpi I want you to realize that *some* people are going to read that post of yours and translate it in their heads to be 'RSX is upgraded!' ;)
Yes, I know. I'm sure a host of MILR posts will follow saying "We have confirmation from CPI that the figures don't add up! Can we take this to mean that RSX will be better?" followed with all this rhetoric about "CPI is an honorable man" and other such nonsense. As I recall, Antony said the same of Brutus at Caesar's wake.


But doesn't use of the eDRAM limits them to FP10 and make tiling more costly in comparison?
The problems with tiling aren't on the GPU end, they're on the CPU end (well, mostly -- there are some things that tiling precludes you from doing). The real difficulties with tiling happen to be the vertex stream issuing and breaking the scene apart. And it doesn't really limit them to FP10 or RGB8888 per se -- they can use FP10 without AA at 720p and not have to worry about tiling, but once AA or larger data formats come into the picture, poof. And the main thing that makes tiling "more costly" per se than the older deferred tiling hardware is that you have large tiles that can only be rendered to one at a time, which in turn means you have to explicitly worry about which tile you're in at a given time.

LaLiLuLeLo
09-25-2006, 06:56 PM
MILR is gonna blow a fuse when he sees this....


well at least he can stop making 'WHAT'S THE SPECS' threads.:whip:

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 06:56 PM
But doesn't use of the eDRAM limits them to FP10 and make tiling more costly in comparison?

On the 'limiting to FP10,' essentially yes - for the purposes of efficient use of the eDRAM.

For the tiling though, it doesn't make tiling more costly; rather it's the hardware consideration that allows for the Xenos tiling 'vision' to be implemented in the first place. To put it more succinctly, without the eDRAM (and it's onboard logic) there would be no tiling-based architecture here.

makeitlookreal
09-25-2006, 06:59 PM
First of all this article does nothing but pass along a few old rumors. I'm not "melted down" or anything else.

If the RSX was going to be a simple 7800 stripped down of a few components then I would say that Sony could have done a better job picking out a GPU for their console. However, they claim that they spent tons of money and time customizing the graphics chip. I believe that they must have included many optimizations for the PS3's closed environment.

For example, larger caches is one possibility. Also, the CELL is speculated by some to be able to perform vertex shading work. If this is the case I would believe the RSX was also especially tweaked to accept that kind of data better than a 7800.

Also, quite frankly, after seeing the RSX push 1080P games and that amazing AFRIKA trailer I believe it must be something more than a common 7800. I'm not saying it's some kind of G80 monster chip, but I think it's something more than Sony has been telling us.

Sephiroth_VII
09-25-2006, 07:00 PM
well at least he can stop making 'WHAT'S THE SPECS' threads.:whip:
So there is a god...

EDIT: Well, apparently not^. Perhaps I'll start praying to Ken Kutaragi instead. Maybe he can do something...:help:

makeitlookreal
09-25-2006, 07:13 PM
Everyone,

We have tons of great screenshots, trailers, and clips. But you can only watch them so many times. Also, a slew of new ones don't arrive every single day. We don't have a PS3 in our hands, don't have a single game to play, and don't even have one controller!

Quite frankly, the truth is many of us are facinated with the specs of the PS3 because otherwise there would not have been a couple pages of posts on this thread before I ever arrived! There is nothing wrong with having an interest in the PS3's specifications or information about the RSX. If nothing else it gives us another topic to discuss while waiting for the console to ship.

archy121
09-25-2006, 07:17 PM
People keep it real please..

Watch Impress has given us there SPECulation & NOT official SPEC's

lihard
09-25-2006, 07:26 PM
Have been watching these forums for a while, and just a advice to you MILR. You should really tone down your expectations before you have your final "meltdown" :laugh:

I think it's really possible that Sony just has been hyping the RSX and there wasn't much customizing done to it.

PUNK em 733
09-25-2006, 07:26 PM
I'm with Mario, if this news came out a month ago, I might have been bummed out, not pissed, but after TGS, nothing can get me down.:djparty: :cloud9:

I mean, Jesus guys we are seeing 1st gen/launch/unfinished games, that for the most part were started and worked on unfinished hardware, and look where many of these games are now graphically.


I AM PUMPED!!!

Grandia
09-25-2006, 07:28 PM
so lemme understand this. we are paying more for a console coming out a year later with a weaker gpu? why is it weaker than the 7800gtx when for what were paying and when its coming out it should be on par with the 7900gtx like the xenos is?
so ps3 gets the benefit of ai or physics which nobody will really notice while the 360 gets better looking games. this is a bad choice.

lihard
09-25-2006, 07:34 PM
How do you even know the Xenos is equal to 7900gtx?

Like to see the benchmarks for that ;) .

mario25
09-25-2006, 07:36 PM
so lemme understand this. we are paying more for a console coming out a year later with a weaker gpu? why is it weaker than the 7800gtx when for what were paying and when its coming out it should be on par with the 7900gtx like the xenos is?
so ps3 gets the benefit of ai or physics which nobody will really notice while the 360 gets better looking games. this is a bad choice.

Not been following TGS are you? :laugh:

OmniStalgic
09-25-2006, 07:43 PM
^u obviously haven't read the previous post in this thread man...u should

Luis
09-25-2006, 07:46 PM
so lemme understand this. we are paying more for a console coming out a year later with a weaker gpu? why is it weaker than the 7800gtx when for what were paying and when its coming out it should be on par with the 7900gtx like the xenos is?
so ps3 gets the benefit of ai or physics which nobody will really notice while the 360 gets better looking games. this is a bad choice.Now that's what I call not understanding things correctly :laugh:

I'll try to summarize the situation without elaborating too much on it:

PS3 has a better CPU. The GPU is different from Xenos, but in the end it's about the same. Both the CPU and GPU in PS3 have more bandwidth advantages than 360's. On top of that, you get a standard HDD, a Blu-ray drive for gaming and movie playback purposes, free online matchmaking, exclusive games...

In the end, I think PS3 games will look and play better. And if you think "nobody will really notice" things like AI or physics, then you really don't know what the next generation is about (remember that insignificant thing called "fun"?).

jaxmkii
09-25-2006, 07:48 PM
so lemme understand this. we are paying more for a console coming out a year later with a weaker gpu? why is it weaker than the 7800gtx when for what were paying and when its coming out it should be on par with the 7900gtx like the xenos is?
so ps3 gets the benefit of ai or physics which nobody will really notice while the 360 gets better looking games. this is a bad choice.

:beer: missed TGS dint ya?...


In the end, I think PS3 games will look and play better. And if you think "nobody will really notice" things like AI or physics, then you really don't know what the next generation is about (remember that insignificant thing called "fun"?).

QFT!

makeitlookreal
09-25-2006, 07:50 PM
It actually really depends on how optimized the RSX is in the PS3's closed system. If it's highly optimized to work with the CELL processor then we could see some pretty amazing things. We already know it has extra cache but I wonder what other features it offers.

Sephiroth_VII
09-25-2006, 07:54 PM
@Grandia: Have you been avoiding PS3 game trailers since TGS '05 or something?

cliffbo
09-25-2006, 07:58 PM
so ps3 gets the benefit of ai or physics which nobody will really notice while the 360 gets better looking games. this is a bad choice.
Reply With Quote

take another look at the latest tgs vids and then tell me the 360 has the better gfx. LOL

:)

makeitlookreal
09-25-2006, 08:01 PM
The graphics of PS3 games is clearly superior to 360 games. Now, that's pretty much a fact. What we need to do is figure out why exactly that is the case and it might help us learn something about the RSX.

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 08:01 PM
How do you even know the Xenos is equal to 7900gtx?

Like to see the benchmarks for that ;) .

Xenos has the same number of ROPs and same 128bit bus to memory as a 7600GT.

It has less pixel shader performance than RSX.



- The RAM bandwidth of Xbox 360 GPU is almost equal to RADEON X1600 XT and shared with CPU by UMA.

- Without the eDRAM pixel processor doing 4xMSAA, the fillrate of the GPU core itself is 4 billion texel/sec and almost equal to GeForce 7600 GT.
While the Xbox 360 has a 3.5 times broader bandwidth than the original Xbox, 720p pixels require a 3 times broader memory bandwidth. It leaves only 0.5 times headroom which is insufficient for multiple texture lookups by complex shaders.

- eDRAM is implemented to mitigate the impact of the low memory bandwidth. But FP10 + 2xMSAA requires Predicated Tiling.
Tile rendering has many performance demerits.

- In games with many chracters like N3 the cost of overlapped geometry grows large unless LOD is implemented.

- Lens effect, refraction, HDR effects such as bloom and glare, and other frame buffer filtering cause overlapped drawing near tile boundaries.
Objects that cross boundaries can't use the cache efficiently.

- CPU L2 cache locking is practically unusable.

- Since textures are stored in the shared 512MB RAM, regardless of the eDRAM size or use of tile rendering, texture lookup consumes the shared memory bandwidth. Normal mapping and shadow mapping require many texture lookups.

- So the last resort is to use Display Controller to upscale the image without using tile rendering, for example rendering FP10-32bit / 960*540 / 2xMSAA / 32bit Z (8MB).

Developer F: As for resolution I think if it's modest it's OK. Since RSX in the PS3 is a shader monster, adding more information to a pixel by executing ultra-advanced shader and then antialiasing it completely must make it look more real. I'd like to give priority to the reality charged in one pixel rather than to HD resolution.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20060426/3dhd.htm

Neither of these are magical GPU's. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Also these GPU's do not sit in a vacuum. It's very important how the system as a whole is put together and how all the different parts communicate with each other.

As they say the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. The fact that we are seeing launch graphics technically and aesthetically beyond 2nd gen XBOX 360 games bodes well for the platform.

Revenge
09-25-2006, 08:08 PM
It's 128-bit as well; Xenos' whole deal is the 10MB of eDRAM, that when used properly reduces the strain on it's external bandwidth.

128bit for xenos and xenon. RSX has 128bits just for him.

edoshin
09-25-2006, 08:08 PM
Uhmm .. did I really read that correctly? Someone thinks that AI and physics will not matter? On the contrary, I expect as much of a generational leap in physics and AI as I do for graphics.

Sephiroth_VII
09-25-2006, 08:10 PM
and almost equal to GeForce 7600 GT.
Um, I don't know what you're looking at mate, but we're discussing the 7800...

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 08:12 PM
Two things.

First of all, I would urge people that haven't viewed high-quality 360 trailers from TGS to do so, because truly it's not as if someone can say that graphically at this point PS3 is 'winning.' I truly do feel that it's in the gameplay that people are coming away feeling something is 'different,' and that seems to be the indication from those who handled playable demos on the TGS floor. Beyond that, who you consider to have bestter looking titles seems purely a matter of personal preference at this point.

The second thing - Grandia I'm not sure who we is, but you are more than welcome not to purchase the PS3, y'know? If and why you eventually do purchase one... will be the answer to yoru own question, will it not? :smoke:

overclocked
09-25-2006, 08:14 PM
Well common sense tells me that RSX is faster than Xenon. I se it as a beautiful technology but not realized really before 65nm as a low end part as Xenon(Xenos) pays for the huge caches and memories but its not big enough to take advantage of it really.
I'm a tech geek and naturally have a xenon in my living room but i must say one thing and that's i believe Sony sits with one card left. The Story in the thread was built on the rumours but i think they have a card left to play.

My personally belief is that the performance is like a 6600GT and 6800ULTRA in PS power

Fazares
09-25-2006, 08:15 PM
i own an xbox360 and i havent seen anything like lair,motorstorm or mgs4....to cite few ones...

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 08:19 PM
Um, I don't know what you're looking at mate, but we're discussing the 7800...

What are you talking about? That whole quote refers to the XBOX 360/Xenos.
I was responding to someone asking how Xenos would bench - I'm not sure why you felt the need to interject or what it is you're trying to say.

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 08:23 PM
Two things.

First of all, I would urge people that haven't viewed high-quality 360 trailers from TGS to do so, because truly it's not as if someone can say that graphically at this point PS3 is 'winning.' I truly do feel that it's in the gameplay that people are coming away feeling something is 'different,' and that seems to be the indication from those who handled playable demos on the TGS floor. Beyond that, who you consider to have bestter looking titles seems purely a matter of personal preference at this point.

The second thing - Grandia I'm not sure who we is, but you are more than welcome not to purchase the PS3, y'know? If and why you eventually do purchase one... will be the answer to yoru own question, will it not? :smoke:

XB I think you're wearing your "impartiality" badge on your sleave here.

I'll give you one example: Motorstorm and Formula 1.

Those are the best two looking next-gen racing games bar none. The lighting alone is unrivalled.

mario25
09-25-2006, 08:24 PM
People seem to forget (or try hard to) that the ps3 has 25.6 gb/s just for the cell, and 20.4gb/s just for the rsx.....plus the rsx has a dedicated bus to cell that is about 15gb/s

Other consoles have 22.4 gb/s (mind you, has some bandwidth saving features) FOR THE WHOLE SYSTEM!!

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 08:26 PM
Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

-Very hard to find reasonable figures on the comparison. These are also best case scenarios. Definetely not official numbers and I dont believe anything official exists

I think that the games are looking really comparable (if you look at gameplay shots). Also all the impressive titles for the PS3 are due to be released next year or later and should be compared to 360 titles scheduled in the same time frame.

As far as physics I havent seen anything that even comes close to comparing to motorstorm on the 360 or arguably the PC (although Im waiting for more demonstrations on Crysis).

mario25
09-25-2006, 08:27 PM
Oh crap!!...after tgs all this techincal "my **** is bigger than yours" has become pointless......I don't even think we can measure performance by mere numbers....the games have spoken!!!!

cliffbo
09-25-2006, 08:31 PM
considering the specs for ps3 are STILL not officially known i don`t see how such a comparison can be made especially as the 360 does not show that it has any such advantage in any of it`s games at all.

:)

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 08:36 PM
considering the specs for ps3 are STILL not officially known i don`t see how such a comparison can be made especially as the 360 does not show that it has any such advantage in any of it`s games at all.

:)
You sure????

GoW
Dead Rising
Lost Planet
Forza 2
Sp. Cell (although I dont really like this one)

All are impressive and showing gameplay coming out this year.

Though I agree the PS3 has some very lovely titles coming as well.

Numbers never represent anything other than potential.

overclocked
09-25-2006, 08:39 PM
Dont forget that if we are talking about B3D is a ATI 360 pro site and was driven stealth for more then past a year recently. Just a friendly reminder.

Grandia
09-25-2006, 08:40 PM
How do you even know the Xenos is equal to 7900gtx?

Like to see the benchmarks for that ;) .
ati. the xenos is on par with there next gpu's.


Now that's what I call not understanding things correctly :laugh:

I'll try to summarize the situation without elaborating too much on it:

PS3 has a better CPU. The GPU is different from Xenos, but in the end it's about the same. Both the CPU and GPU in PS3 have more bandwidth advantages than 360's. On top of that, you get a standard HDD, a Blu-ray drive for gaming and movie playback purposes, free online matchmaking, exclusive games...

In the end, I think PS3 games will look and play better. And if you think "nobody will really notice" things like AI or physics, then you really don't know what the next generation is about (remember that insignificant thing called "fun"?).
the gpu has less bandwith because it doesnt have edram. devs have already said that cell is only marginally more powerful and that the effort required to take advatnage of it to actually show any, if there are any, make it not worthwhile. and for the gpu devs have also said that the xenos is above.


:beer: missed TGS dint ya?...
i saw everything and nothing made me take back what i posted.

i jus wanna know why people arent more shocked about it. this is not acceptable not only has it been downgraded we were lied to about it being the most powerful gpu on the market by both nvidia and sony, and the fact that it shows that instead of make an awesome gpu sony settled with an average one just to shove blueray down our throats. 'us' 'we' 'our' being the gaming audience. downplaying it isnt productive sony should be called on it.

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 08:41 PM
Dont forget that if we are talking about B3D is a ATI 360pro site and was driven stealth for more then a year..
I post at B3D and I dont know where you get the impression that it is a 360 pro site, especially considering the amount of Sony devs. located there.

cpiasminc
09-25-2006, 08:43 PM
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec
The only real problems with these figures is that they're computational capacities for the vertex shader units. The real capacity to move vertices through the pipe isn't really limited by that aspect. It's limited more by things like attribute read rate and such. Also when you have things like large post-transform caches, you can get more vertices out than the theoretical computational limits suggest because so many vertices are already sitting in the cache and don't need to be recomputed. Xenos has relatively status-quo size post-transform caches, but doesn't really need as much either. RSX has enormous post-transform caches, but can see some improvements because of it.


Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
I would add that you don't really have that much at every level. It's really at the ROPs stage that you have that kind of bandwidth. The pixel shaders still only output data to the ROPs at 32 GB/sec.


Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture
They're both 3.0+, but the meaning of the "plus" sign is rather arbitrary. All it really means is that you're beyond the standard 3.0 spec.

archy121
09-25-2006, 08:46 PM
Xenos has the same number of ROPs and same 128bit bus to memory as a 7600GT.

It has less pixel shader performance than RSX.



Neither of these are magical GPU's. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Also these GPU's do not sit in a vacuum. It's very important how the system as a whole is put together and how all the different parts communicate with each other.

As they say the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. The fact that we are seeing launch graphics technically and aesthetically beyond 2nd gen XBOX 360 games bodes well for the platform.

Nice post. + Rep !

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 08:47 PM
Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

-Very hard to find reasonable figures on the comparison. These are also best case scenarios. Definetely not official numbers and I dont believe anything official exists

I think that the games are looking really comparable (if you look at gameplay shots). Also all the impressive titles for the PS3 are due to be released next year or later and should be compared to 360 titles scheduled in the same time frame.

As far as physics I havent seen anything that even comes close to comparing to motorstorm on the 360 or arguably the PC (although Im waiting for more demonstrations on Crysis).


Most of those numbers are as meaningful as Sony's 2 Teraflop figure and I think you know that.

What's important is real-world performance and results.
We've had developers discuss the bottlenecks in XBOX 360/Xenos.
It's comparable to a 7600GT in many ways.

After TGS we're seeing games that were 720p on XBOX 360 running at 1080P on PS3 and looking better (RR7 1080P/60fps, VT3 1080P).

We're seeing the Framework Engine from Capcom running at 30fps on XBOX 360 while it runs at 60fps on PS3.

We're seeing launch PS3 games beating the established graphics leaders in their genres where the XBOX 360 has failed to do so even 1 year later eg.

Motorstorm ( http://www.gameklip.com/v/1579 ) and F1 ( http://www.gameklip.com/v/1542/ ) look better than PGR3 (and run at 720P rather than 600P) whereas the first party developer of Forza can't produce a better looking game with the final system having been in their hands for a year.

The more time that passes the more I feel Microsoft's FUD at the hands of Major Nelson and the like are starting to break down.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 08:49 PM
i jus wanna know why people arent more shocked about it. this is not acceptable not only has it been downgraded we were lied to about it being the most powerful gpu on the market by both nvidia and sony, and the fact that it shows that instead of make an awesome gpu sony settled with an average one just to shove blueray down our throats. 'us' 'we' 'our' being the gaming audience. downplaying it isnt productive sony should be called on it.

People aren't *shocked* because we've known about this for like a month now.

Are you shocked Grandia?

Sony can be called out on it, but so what? No one here is buying a PS3 based on fulfilled or unfulfilled promises; they're buying it based on seeing games they want to play. And that's it.

*******************************

As for B3D, the console section is obviously pro-Sony overall - I can say this pretty comfortably. Now, obviously I wouldn't describe it as fanboyistic though; simply that a greater number of the devs there are PS devs gives it that 'Playstation' flavor. Overclocked's reference to pro-ATI has more to do with the fact that Dave B works for ATI now, but I don't think that factors in greatly to the day-to-day in console forum land.

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 08:57 PM
After TGS we're seeing games that were 720p on XBOX 360 running at 1080P on PS3 and looking better (RR7 1080P/60fps, VT3 1080P).

We're seeing the Framework Engine from Capcom running at 30fps on XBOX 360 while it runs at 60fps on PS3.

We're seeing launch PS3 games beating the established graphics leaders in their genres where the XBOX 360 has failed to do so even 1 year later eg.

Motorstorm ( http://www.gameklip.com/v/1579 ) and F1 ( http://www.gameklip.com/v/1542/ ) look better than PGR3 (and run at 720P rather than 600P) whereas the first party developer of Forza can't produce a better looking game with the final system having been in their hands for a year.

The more time that passes the more I feel Microsoft's FUD at the hands of Major Nelson and the like are starting to break down.


So these games you are suggesting are coming out when??? Motorstorm next year and who knows when for F1?? Motorstorms excels in physics not visuals in comparison. jF1 looks good but at this point


Vt tennis is a cross platform game, the 360 has no ability to play at 1080p as of right now. Perhaps also take into account the dev. differences and the PS3 being the lead platform.

These first gen PS3 games have been in dev. as long as 2nd gen 360 games with very comparable dev kits and an arguably more powerful gpu than what is in the PS3. Although their time with finalised kits is limited, true.

PGR3 spent the majority of its development on a very inferior dev kit and was released a year ago. But none the less is a beautiful racer.



We're seeing the Framework Engine from Capcom running at 30fps on XBOX 360 while it runs at 60fps on PS3.
In what instance, there is no cross platform title that I know of running at 60fps on both the PS3 and 360. Also DMC4 still has quite a ways to go before relealse.

RR7 on PS3 looks very similar to the 360 version only with a res. upgrade and releasing a year later.


We also have developer confirmation that the 360 has the better gpu.

If real world performance matters then perhaps we should wait to see actual PS3 performance and the games we are refering to. What does it matter if F1 is beautiful if it runs horribly or MS has great physics but is a racer that runs at 30mph (of course this applys to 360 titles as well such as GoW, LP, and Forza).

makeitlookreal
09-25-2006, 08:58 PM
The only real problems with these figures is that they're computational capacities for the vertex shader units. The real capacity to move vertices through the pipe isn't really limited by that aspect. It's limited more by things like attribute read rate and such. Also when you have things like large post-transform caches, you can get more vertices out than the theoretical computational limits suggest because so many vertices are already sitting in the cache and don't need to be recomputed. Xenos has relatively status-quo size post-transform caches, but doesn't really need as much either. RSX has enormous post-transform caches, but can see some improvements because of it.

Thanks for the extra bit of information CPIASMINC. Now, this is pretty interesting. Because it's another use for extra CACHE in the RSX!

section
09-25-2006, 09:00 PM
It's hilarious that most of the people on the technical side of the Beyond3D console forums "knew" so well that PS3 can't render a thing on 1080P.

Now not one, not single one of them will come out and say "I was wrong. Let's try to re-iterate how this could be technically possible".

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 09:02 PM
It's hilarious that most of the people on the technical side of the Beyond3D console forums "knew" so well that PS3 can't render a thing on 1080P.

Now not one, not single one of them will come out and say "I was wrong. Let's try to re-iterate how this could be technically possible".

Define 'technical side'... :smoke:

section
09-25-2006, 09:05 PM
Umm, well people who count all the graphics framebuffer and whatnot bandwidths and then tell everyone how it is technically an impossibility.

Of course those in the know won't say any revealing thing in such megathreads, might just snicker coyly in the corner :)

Luis
09-25-2006, 09:07 PM
devs have already said that cell is only marginally more powerful and that the effort required to take advatnage of it to actually show any, if there are any, make it not worthwhile. and for the gpu devs have also said that the xenos is above."Devs" is a very weak and random argument. You don't even seem to have well known facts to support your claims. However, a Heavenly Sword's developer said that he preferred having more transistors available on the GPU core instead of dedicating transistor budget on eDRAM because that had advantages that were more interesting for their game. Besides, we know that 10 MB is not a very good figure because 12 MB would have been much more practical in regard to the purpose behind the eDRAM in Xenos.

Cell has 50% more transistors than 360's CPU and it also has dedicated XDR memory instead of having to share GDDR3 (not a very proper kind of memory for a CPU anyway) with a GPU. Performance wise, Cell has to have some advantages that will give it an edge over 360's CPU. I'd love to see who are the "devs" that say Cell is just marginally better and the proof they have of that ;)

mmilinski
09-25-2006, 09:07 PM
We're seeing the Framework Engine from Capcom running at 30fps on XBOX 360 while it runs at 60fps on PS3.




QFT. The same thing with UE3 - UT2007 ran 49fps @ 720p on unoptimised PS3 code, whereas the same engine could barely display 15-20fps in Gears of War after 18 months of development.

It seems that data streaming and vector programming school most Playstation devs got with PS2 pays off.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 09:08 PM
Umm, well people who count all the graphics framebuffer and whatnot bandwidths and then tell everyone how it is technically an impossibility.

Of course those in the know won't say any revealing thing in such megathreads, might just snicker coyly in the corner :)


Well, anyone doing that should know it's not an impossibility - just an extremely large burden.

I would hope that no one got it that wrong, but then again I didn't follow that thread so don't know what went down.

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 09:13 PM
So these games you are suggesting are coming out when??? Motorstorm next year and who knows when for F1?? Motorstorms excels in physics not visuals in comparison. jF1 looks good but at this point


Vt tennis is a cross platform game, the 360 has no ability to play at 1080p as of right now. Perhaps also take into account the dev. differences and the PS3 being the lead platform.

These first gen PS3 games have been in dev. as long as 2nd gen 360 games with very comparable dev kits and an arguably more powerful gpu. Although their time with finalised kits is limited, true.

PGR3 spent the majority of its development on a very inferior dev kit and was released a year ago. But none the less is a beautiful racer.


Firstly I suggest you watch that Motorstorm video. It's the latest build that was delivered on the second day of TGS (the one on the first day was broken and slow). It's more recent than all the trailers or screenshots. Graphically it is unrivalled. They've come a looooooooong way since E3. I'm not the only one who thinks this. Garnett from 1up blog (no he's not the PS fanboy that's Shane you're thinking of):



http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7484956&publicUserId=5324853

TGS 2006 Game of the Show: Motorstorm

The reason is simple: it's the best looking game in action I've ever
seen running on a home console. Watching it on the screen feels like
you're right there, in a helicopter or something chasing behind this
off-road race. Everything moves the way it should; there's no weird
seams or particle effects disconnected from their source; the lighting
(and shadowing) looks natural. It creates a completely engrossing
effect.

Formula 1 also looks stunning and virtually CG-like. Both these titles have some of the best lighting I've ever seen. They are both due to release this December.

VT3 is cross platform but looks better running at 1080P on PS3 than it does running at 720P on XBOX 360:



http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200608/N06.0824.1850.31084.htm

As far as visuals, the PlayStation 3 version is notably better. With much more defined facial features, crisper stadiums, and realistic cloth movement, the PlayStation 3 version is the best looking Tennis title we’ve yet to see at this point.

As far as dev time goes: with all the months of doom and gloom about devkit's being delayed, Sony not sending out enough devkits, hardware delayed, development environment not friendly, software not mature blah blah that's been reported I'm surprised to see any games at all! Don't try and turn around and start playing the dev time card now.

My point about PGR3 is that it's the XBOX 360's best looking racer and 1 year later Forza 2 has not been able supercede it's graphics whereas 2 launch PS3 games have.

pari
09-25-2006, 09:15 PM
the gpu has less bandwith because it doesnt have edram. devs have already said that cell is only marginally more powerful and that the effort required to take advatnage of it to actually show any, if there are any, make it not worthwhile. and for the gpu devs have also said that the xenos is above.



I am not sure if I would completely agree your statement regarding cell. Programming cell requires different mindset. Ask all the PS2 developers what they think of programming for cell and I bet you they would be happier bunch. A PC developer would agree with the above statement.

If cell has a marginal performance improvement, then why is IBM putting cell along with opteron for the supercomputer in each node? Cell programming pradigm is different and it does requires more work/effort from the developers.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 09:15 PM
Yeah.

Rubbernek and Wounding, stop the game comparisons thing.

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 09:16 PM
"Devs" is a very weak and random argument. You don't even seem to have well known facts to support your claims. However, a Heavenly Sword's developer said that he preferred having more transistors available on the GPU core instead of dedicating transistor budget on eDRAM because that had advantages that were more interesting for their game. Besides, we know that 10 MB is not a very good figure because 12 MB would have been much more practical in regard to the purpose behind the eDRAM in Xenos.

Cell has 50% more transistors than 360's CPU and it also has dedicated XDR memory instead of having to share GDDR3 (not a very proper kind of memory for a CPU anyway) with a GPU. Performance wise, Cell has to have some advantages that will give it an edge over 360's CPU. I'd love to see who are the "devs" that say Cell is just marginally better and the proof they have of that ;)

10mb is what is available and yes 12mb would have been preferred. One cannot simply discredit the existance of the Edram because it isnt 12mb.

In the majority of opinions I believe the unified memory pool of the 360 is preferred to the split pool of the PS3. Architecturally speaking it seems that the 360 has the advantage as well, although this is an abstract statement in the end and should come down to a devs. prefernce.

Cell does seem to have the majority of advantages over the xenon than vice versa I would agree. I would also say that the Xenos is superior to the RSX.


Yeah.

Rubbernek and Wounding, stop the game comparisons thing.
Ok, but I was enjoying this.

LOL

liver_kick
09-25-2006, 09:19 PM
These first gen PS3 games have been in dev. as long as 2nd gen 360 games with very comparable dev kits and an arguably more powerful gpu than what is in the PS3. Although their time with finalised kits is limited, true.

So you're saying we should consider PS3's first year games as 2nd gen software? I don't think so. Regardless that PS3's alpha hardware was comparitively more mature than 360's during the same timeline, PS3 developers still have had to deal with the same stresses that come with developing for a launch-window on a brand new architecture with immature SDKs. And for Sony's hardware advantage, MS surely has had the software and tools advantage so I'd say that balances things out considerably.

1st gen PS3 games should be judged as 1st gen PS3 games, period. The fact that they're standing up as well as they are is indeed notable.

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 09:20 PM
So you're saying we should consider PS3's first year games as 2nd gen software? I don't think so. Regardless that PS3's alpha hardware was comparitively more mature than 360's during the same timeline, PS3 developers still had to deal with the same stresses that come with developing for a launch-window on a brand new architecture with immature SDKs. And for Sony's hardware advantage, MS surely has had the software and tools advantage so I'd say that balances things out considerably.

1st gen PS3 games should be judged as 1st gen PS3 games, period. The fact that they're standing up as well as they are is indeed notable.


Im saying that we should compare games that are released at the same time. Not games from a year ago to games now or games releasing in 2007 or 2008 to games releasing next month.


I agree but first gen PS3 games have been in development a considerably long time due to console delays.

makeitlookreal
09-25-2006, 09:23 PM
AFAIK, the post transform cache is 63 verts max on RSX.

section
09-25-2006, 09:27 PM
It's no gamers' loss if the first batch of PS3 games look and play well. It's also not gamers' loss if the second wave of XBox360 look and play well. Regardless of how long or short time they have been under development.

Capiche? ;)

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 09:29 PM
10mb is what is available and yes 12mb would have been preferred. One cannot simply discredit the existance of the Edram because it isnt 12mb.

In the majority of opinions I believe the unified memory pool of the 360 is preferred to the split pool of the PS3. Architecturally speaking it seems that the 360 has the advantage as well, although this is an abstract statement in the end and should come down to a devs. prefernce.

Cell does seem to have the majority of advantages over the xenon than vice versa I would agree. I would also say that the Xenos is superior to the RSX.

Unified memory in XBOX 360 causes bottlenecks due to memory contention. From WatchImpress:


Since textures are stored in the shared 512MB RAM, regardless of the eDRAM size or use of tile rendering, texture lookup consumes the shared memory bandwidth. Normal mapping and shadow mapping require many texture lookups.


Outside of frame-buffer bandwidth XBOX 360 has about half the bandwidth between CPU and GPU compared to PS3.

The advantage that Xenos has is the EDRAM for frame-buffer effects. That's the most obvious one and most likely what Starbreeze was referring to.

RSX has greater pixel shader performance and FP16 HDR with blending support compared to Xenos' FP10 with blending (which I think is responsible for the lighting advantage in games like MS, F1, MGS4).

Lighting and pixel shader power are probably two of the biggest contributors to making something look closer to CG quality.

If I had a choice between more frame-buffer effects (Lost Planet) or better lighting (MS, F1) and pixel shader performance (FFXIII) I know what I'd choose and I think we're already seeing the results of that.

cpiasminc
09-25-2006, 09:31 PM
AFAIK, the post transform cache is 63 verts max on RSX.
Interesting that he'd actually tell as much. But to give you a frame of reference, a typical size for this is something like 10-15 verts. I think the G70 PC cards were estimated (via a synthetic benchmark) to have a size somewhere in the 40s.

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 09:33 PM
Framebuffer effects still figure into the overall estimation, its not as if they dont exist. Where do you get half???

You just compared LP to a game that comes out when????????

Also MS runs at 30fps doesnt have the greates visuals and a poor sense of speed and is released when. F1 showed us a trailer and doesnt even have a release date (that I can find), nor do we know much about the game other than what is intended.


And the split pool of ram causes problems allocating more memory if the sitaution arises. There have been numerous statements regarding this.

Starbreezes statement wasnt directed at anything in particular other than the performance of the gpus.

We were asked not to compare games.

liver_kick
09-25-2006, 09:34 PM
It's no gamers' loss if the first batch of PS3 games look and play well. It's also not gamers' loss if the second wave of XBox360 look and play well. Regardless of how long or short time they have been under development.

Capiche? ;)

Agreed. :)

section
09-25-2006, 09:37 PM
Uh, there are also F1 Champion Edition gameplay vids everywhere and the release is slated for December.

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 09:38 PM
Cant find MS release date, do you have a link. Everything Im reading says TBA.

Sorry I couldnt find any releae date info for F1 if true then it is my mistake.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 09:39 PM
Liver Kick and the rest of everyone - c'mon let's keep the discussion RSX and RSX architecture, not 'real world' comparisons. We'll do one of those some other day if people want.

liver_kick
09-25-2006, 09:43 PM
You're right, I shoulda left it at sct-i/on's post. My bad.

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 09:43 PM
You just compared LP to a game that comes out when????????

Also MS runs at 30fps doesnt have the greates visuals and a poor sense of speed and is released when. F1 showed us a trailer and doesnt even have a release date (that I can find), nor do we know much about the game other than what is intended.


And the split pool of ram causes problems allocating more memory if the sitaution arises. There have been numerous statements regarding this.

Starbreezes statement wasnt directed at anything in particular other than the performance of the gpus.

We were asked not to compare games.


Starbreeze said "slight advantage". Slight advantage in what? We know for a fact it doesn't have a "slight advantage" in every area because devs (nAo, CPI and others) have said that there are areas that both out-do each other.

CPI said that specifically reps from MS and Sony came to him saying the "other guy's GPU can do this better than us".

RSX is a shader beast - confirmed in the WatchImpress article and by CPI. I don't think Xenos could outperform RSX in pixel shading even if all it's ALU's were dedicated to it (correct me if I'm wrong CPI) and that isn't likely to happen because it's still got to use ALU's for vertex shading.

rob the slob
09-25-2006, 09:43 PM
EDIT: Rob I think that that Lost Planet explosion example is a great one for 360, but I'm cutting off the game comparisons unfortunately. I'm sure you can appreciate that leaving that pic up would have spawned countless replies.

woundingchaney
09-25-2006, 09:48 PM
Starbreeze said "slight advantage". Slight advantage in what? We know for a fact it doesn't have a "slight advantage" in every area because devs (nAo, CPI and others) have said that there are areas that both out-do each other.

CPI said that specifically reps from MS and Sony came to him saying the "other guy's GPU can do this better than us".

RSX is a shader beast - confirmed in the WatchImpress article and by CPI. I don't think Xenos could outperform RSX in pixel shading even if all it's ALU's were dedicated to it (correct me if I'm wrong CPI) and that isn't likely to happen because it's still got to use ALU's for vertex shading.

Yes they did say slight, still an advantage.

Xenon has areas that outperforms the Cell does that make it a all around superior processor?

Shadint performance is the main advantage the RSX has over Xenos (maybe not only). Xenos seems superior in a plethora of other areas.

Pistolero
09-25-2006, 09:49 PM
"Im saying that we should compare games that are released at the same time"

Launch games are always rushed, no matter how hard people get at work. It's the same for every console that comes out...and will stay the same. Only a biased person would imply that first gen PS3 games should be compared to mature second gen 360 one; and even then, PS3 products compare favorably. Unless you have figures to back up your claim, I'll reject the argument of "Resistance has had the same dev time as GoW" and the such...
People embrace strange assumptions.

Pistolero
09-25-2006, 09:52 PM
"Shadint performance is the main advantage the RSX has over Xenos (maybe not only). Xenos seems superior in a plethora of other areas."

No developer has ever step up to confirm such a thing. People just held for belief, thanks to the hype surrounding Xenos and the fact that the RSX was a derivative, that the 360 GPU had the upper hand. People who were asked on B3D gave evasive responses such as : The two are powerful and everyone excels at specific tasks.

Rubbernek
09-25-2006, 09:53 PM
Yes they did say slight, still an advantage.

Xenon has areas that outperforms the Cell does that make it a all around superior processor?

Shadint performance is the main advantage the RSX has over Xenos (maybe not only). Xenos seems superior in a plethora of other areas.

"plethora" :spiny: now you're going into hyperbole territory. ;)

Anyway bottom line for me is I would take given the chance a 100 times out of a 100 greater shader performance and superior lighting to more sparks and particle effects.

We'll just have to wait and see how things play out... :stirpot:

PUNK em 733
09-25-2006, 09:56 PM
In what areas does Xenon outperform Cell? I was under the assumption that cell was vastly more powerful, and that their GPu's was were you can make a comparison.

frosty
09-25-2006, 09:57 PM
I agree. All I care is, I HAVE seen better GFX on an RSX compared to other systems, including PC. I HAVE faith that Sony won't equip their console with a weak GPU. I HAVE confidence knowing I'll be able to game in 1080p, not upscaled 720p30. And I KNOW that regardless of whether 360's games end up matching PS3's visually, that I would still rather a PS3 due to it having more bang for the buck. Games are not 100% visual, you know. Who wants to take away all the other elements? Then you'd be stuck watching a beautifully rendered but silent cutscene. Yay.

casualkiss
09-25-2006, 10:01 PM
RSX has enormous post-transform caches, but can see some improvements because of it.

Did CPI just say something new?

Regarding comparisons, I personally love it! Let's face it, debate is more fun than discussion... while not on the level of "which religion is right", its still very enjoyable. :) Just my opinion.

Second, is the final opinion that if Microsoft included 12-14MB eDRAM rather than 10MB, this conversation would be mute as tiling would not be necessary and the XENOS can dedicate its resources to whats important?

If so, what the hell was Microsoft thinking by not bumping up the eDRAM by 20% - 40%? I mean, for a relatively small expense they could have won.

Third, I played Lost Planet download... while it was interesting I can't understand what the big deal is? Maybe it was the art style that rubbed me the wrong way, but I thought it looked graphically generic.

liver_kick
09-25-2006, 10:03 PM
Xenon has areas that outperforms the Cell does that make it a all around superior processor?

Shadint performance is the main advantage the RSX has over Xenos (maybe not only). Xenos seems superior in a plethora of other areas.

Well, I won't get into the "plethora" debate. ;) But the realm of pixel shading is no small advantage to have on a GPU. Its certainly one of the most important aspects of performance to excel with on such a processor, and should be weighted as such.

Also, I don't think conflating the differences between Cell-Xenon with RSX-Xenos is accurate either. As GPUs RSX and Xenos are a lot closer in characteristics than Cell and Xenon will ever be.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 10:07 PM
Did CPI just say something new?

No. But ask yourself, have you really been following the RSX? ;)


Regarding comparisons, I personally love it! Let's face it, debate is more fun than discussion... while not on the level of "which religion is right", its still very enjoyable. :) Just my opinion.

I like debates, but this is a thread about RSX, and a forum about PS3. Now and then we let comparison threads slide, but since this thread concerns the RSX at 500MHz, and I'm responsible for 'confirming' that rumor, I'd like to keep it on track as much as possible.


Second, is the final opinion that if Microsoft included 12-14MB eDRAM rather than 10MB, this conversation would be mute as tiling would not be necessary and the XENOS can dedicate its resources to whats important?


If so, what the hell was Microsoft thinking by not bumping up the eDRAM by 20% - 40%? I mean, for a relatively small expense they could have won.

Moot, not mute. And no, it wouldn't have rendered the Xenos the 'ultimate' GPU or anything... but it would have been smart, and it's just strange that MS stopped short.


Third, I played Lost Planet download...

Ok no game discussion here, let's remember. ;)

pari
09-25-2006, 10:08 PM
Yes they did say slight, still an advantage.

Xenon has areas that outperforms the Cell does that make it a all around superior processor?

Shadint performance is the main advantage the RSX has over Xenos (maybe not only). Xenos seems superior in a plethora of other areas.

My speculation, FlexIO bus between CELL & RSX can be used as a co-processor extension bus. So RSX can act as a coprocessor to CELL which would be an interesting thing.

http://www.clarkezone.net/default.aspx?channelid=4ba65ef2-e230-436d-8a68-c4e7f3ff0de4


According to Lance, a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 processor can deliver 15 GFLOPs of raw performance (a Giga FLOP is a measure of how many floating point operations can be performed in a second). The first iteration of the Cell chip will be capable of 243 GFLOPs apparently. Thats a mighty big number! Then we heard about the Flexio bus.. this is used to connect the CPU to the GPU in place of the PCI Express bus in regular PC architecture. Apparently, the flexio bus is capable of 160 GBit/s verses PCI/Expresses 32GBit/s. Again, a big step up. We were also told that, for non-graphical applications, it is possible to use the flexio bus to gang two cell processors together to facilitate, for example, pure rendering applications that don’t require display capabilities.

xbdestroya
09-25-2006, 10:16 PM
Cell processors are capable of a two-processor glueless connection over FlexIO; I don't think RSX would see any benefit from this architectural aspect though...

makeitlookreal
09-25-2006, 10:24 PM
Yes. We did get a small bit of somewhat new information. CPI stated that the RSX had a huge post-transform cache and I did an internet search and discovered:


AFAIK, the post transform cache is 63 verts max on RSX.

Then CPI told us a typical GPU might have 15 and the G70 (according to some tests done on the card) is estimated to have around 40 or so.

Basically, we can add that the RSX has at least some extra texture cache and post-transform vertex cache.

pari
09-25-2006, 10:35 PM
Cell processors are capable of a two-processor glueless connection over FlexIO; I don't think RSX would see any benefit from this architectural aspect though...
CELL has the capability for two processor glueless connection, why not RSX? since its a customized version of nvidia GPU. Then if RSX can act as a coprocessor for CELL it woud be interesting...

overclocked
09-25-2006, 10:52 PM
If some tell me LAIR Have 4xAA also hehe i would run around and jump on my 360 hehe :)

When i looked at the movies i got this feeling like when Dreamcast came out but this time the PlayStation don't have bad games in the beginning.
I start to se the difference already and i think there's more than me.
The difference is quite big also with 2th 3th gen games coming out i think
everyone is going to be amazed like with God Of War.

Chrome
09-25-2006, 11:09 PM
I can't believe that people are trying to downplay the RSX, I find it amusing especially after TGS which was something very special. Sony came so far above their nearest rival its was unreal.

Ask people who were there and saw games running in 1080p@60fps with a never seen before quality if the RSX is the weaker GPU.
Go read Factor 5's interview for a clue on how the RSX is capable of pushing so much data ;) (very close to breaking their NDA)

Seeing is believing sometimes :D

cpiasminc
09-25-2006, 11:10 PM
If I had a choice between more frame-buffer effects (Lost Planet) or better lighting (MS, F1) and pixel shader performance (FFXIII) I know what I'd choose and I think we're already seeing the results of that.
Define what you mean by "framebuffer effects"... if you're talking about various types of blended overlays, then yeah, Xenos has the edge. Believe it or not, a pretty good example of exercising Xenos' strengths would be Viva Pinata. But if you're talking about framebuffer post-processing and stuff, then there's no reason Xenos would have any significant advantage because that implies getting a framebuffer copy out of eDRAM and in texture memory so that it can be post-processed. The final blend operation that takes place is cheap so any advantage eDRAM has at that point is small.

Also, in terms of pixel shading complexity, I don't know that FFXIII is a particularly good example. If anything, it's an example of a lot of good framebuffer post-processing for things like DOF, localized blooms, after-the-fact AA sampling, etc. The per-pixel shaders are actually not that complex in terms of illumination models and texture layering and such -- it's doing a lot of basic stuff on really good art assets. But it does drive the point that when it comes to post-processing, you have a few games you can play to make things work out nicely.

Also, there are disadvantages to having multiple memory pools (e.g. a lot of content existing in two places at once), but there are advantages as well. Having one memory pool means you have a risk of fragmentation, especially since the GPU might be creating and removing a lot of very large render targets and you have to allocate memory in the same space as all that.

altares
09-25-2006, 11:24 PM
Can anyone confirm yet if these specs are official or not?
Please SONY if you hear us, SAY SOMETHING!!! your console is about to hit the market, and we STILL dont know much about what's in it!!! It is almost a shame (Although I'm your greatest fan...)

Red_Eyes
09-25-2006, 11:46 PM
Lol. Not left to attack but a rumor unconfirmed spec sheet huh? Too pathetic.

curryking1
09-25-2006, 11:46 PM
Holy crap! I haven't seen a technology thread debate b/w these two powerhouse consoles on psinext so lively for a long time.

Whenever I read these threads though I always came away with only one thing for sure, that the PS3 or X360 is only as much as the sum of all it's parts.

I always thought this debate b/w graphics on the technological front is impossible by only containing it to the graphics chip because it's really the whole system doing work when creating graphics. Like Cell helping out for the raytracing of clouds in Warhawk (only example that sprung to my mind at this time, that one example has been stuck in my memory for so long lol!).

Isn't this whole debate rather stupid then? Because we're really not taking in all the factors that could increase the graphical fidelity on either side. And secondly, taking in all the factors is probably really complicated and would probably be virtually impossible to be oversimplified or explained in a concise manner.

Ya sure, pull out 50 thousand numbers saying the RSX is better at this and the Xenos is better at that, but it's probably pretty obvious that each graphics card is going to use it's own strengths to render similar quality graphics. It is only natural that one will eventually be known to be slightly better because they are two different things. Every downfall of both gfx cards is simply negated by something it can do better than the competition.

The fact that these comparisons can be so hotly debated only supports the most likely scenario that the RSX and Xenos are similar enough in power to not give either console any significant edge in the graphics processing.

So, in essence, I think these debates b/w the graphics cards are stupid because we know they are in the same league of power anyways.

The only dif. I ever saw was in the potential (make sure you read that word, potential, key word, right there) of the Cell over the Xenon and the way Cell may be able to aid the RSX in graphical prowess.

The Cell processor was and is still the only specific part in any of the next gen systems that MAY prove to be a differential, being the only new fangled technology with any sort of unknown "X-factor" potential (We all know generally how far the GPUs can go b/c they are more traditional than not).

And also being that the Cell has been praised over and over to be so good at A, B, and C, but not so much at D, it seems to be the only piece of the puzzle that is so often talked about more than it's X360 counterpart. So MAYBE, if there is any SIGNIFICANT difference in graphical fidelity, you'll know where it's coming from (that is if the Cell and it's RSX connection can together prove to outdo the tri-core X360 beast).

ddaryl
09-26-2006, 12:39 AM
How could people possibly be debating the RSX specs after TGS ?

4 pages of this debate after we have clearly seen what the PS3 1st gen products are going to look like.

I guess none of us has anything better to do ?

I'm just waiting for the next media blitz !

Beenie Man
09-26-2006, 12:48 AM
You guys are funny. TGS. PS3 Games. Look at graphics and gameplay. The better GPU is evident. Good bye.:quagmire:

smurfx
09-26-2006, 01:00 AM
so the rsx really is nothing but a slightly upgraded 7800 eh? well that sucks i thought it would be a little bit more powerful since the ps3 is getting released one year later than the xbox 360 and the rsx is barely as powerful as the 360's gpu if not weaker. i know the games look great right now but they could of looked better if sony had gotten a better gpu from nvidia.

Pumpkin Head
09-26-2006, 01:03 AM
It's amazing how all these troll threads show up after tgs,The games show and prove that something is very special with ps3,so the troll media consistently try to down play..Sorry it's not working sony lived up to the hype..

PUNK em 733
09-26-2006, 01:06 AM
so the rsx really is nothing but a slightly upgraded 7800 eh? well that sucks i thought it would be a little bit more powerful since the ps3 is getting released one year later than the xbox 360 and the rsx is barely as powerful as the 360's gpu if not weaker.


:susp:


*SIGH* *SHAKES HEAD*

This is what I hate...not paticularly you smurf, but ppl will try that "but it's 600$ , and coming out a yr later, and it's still has a weaker GPU" argumet.


Oh well....

version
09-26-2006, 01:08 AM
not troll , only crap
sony promise everything, but give nothing

hear anything from linux....

PUNK em 733
09-26-2006, 01:10 AM
not troll , only crap
sony promise everything, but give nothing

hear anything from linux....



I think you might be missing a few words.

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 01:10 AM
Personally, TGS made me even MORE curious about the RSX just because the graphics of several PS3 games turned out to be so darned good!

BahnNZ
09-26-2006, 01:17 AM
Well you know, it's great what you can do with a 500Mhz G70 on a 128bit bus... or two.

Playstation has never had great GPUs. For the PS1 generation N64 had the fancy GPU with mipmapping and linear filtering and the rest. Current generation XBox and GC had better GPUs. This time around... Playstation is pretty good in the GPU department. Xenos does some things better than RSX, RSX does some things better than Xenos. And both beat the hell out of Wii's GPU.

But with Playstation, it was always about the games. Keep your expectations in check. It's just a Playstation. It's about the games.

You can walk into any computer shop and buy a better GPU than RSX, but they ain't going to run Resistance, Motorstorm, FF13 or MGS4 are they?

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 01:33 AM
Quite frankly, we all know the CELL processor is very, very powerful. What we don't know as much about is the RSX and that's why we are so curious. Also, we don't know how it has been customized internally to work efficently with the CELL processor. I think it's natural that we are very, very curious.

BahnNZ
09-26-2006, 01:41 AM
Not you guy, but I see people having screaming fits because RSX doesn't perform like a $500 PC graphics card with a giant fan, seperate DC line off the PSU. Pleeezeee! :)

Focus on what's good, (Cell, Blu Ray, bus architecture), the main thing that's good(Blu Ray for games), and go hmmm... I'm glad RSX is... competitive.

Pistolero
09-26-2006, 01:59 AM
PS3 is the most powerful console, but, somehow, Sony keeps on playing it low vis a vis the GPU. It was what held back the PS2 and it is the weakest chain of the PS3. You have an incredible CPU, very high bandwidth, a new medium...and an outdated GPU. I can't feel but being depressed by their obsession to go the route of centric console. Sony is great hardware manufacturer, but Microsoft proved to be a smarter "console" manufacturer this time around (it has a bit less potential but is more balanced imo). I'll probably forget as the games keep coming in though...

PUNK em 733
09-26-2006, 02:17 AM
Well the big problem was that they were gonna make their own GPU, when that didn't pan out, they had to kinda scramble to get one in there so they signed up with Nvidia a few yrs ago.

Wasn't Sony's big plan was to use like multiple Cells for CPU and GPU duties?

xbdestroya
09-26-2006, 02:18 AM
Quite frankly, we all know the CELL processor is very, very powerful. What we don't know as much about is the RSX and that's why we are so curious. Also, we don't know how it has been customized internally to work efficently with the CELL processor. I think it's natural that we are very, very curious.

MILR we all know what the RSX is at this point, it's just you choose not to accept it as the whole story. It's exactly what we've been saying... a NV47-derived chip clocked at 500MHz with a 24/8 pipe arrangement, 8 ROPs, 650MHz memory, a FlexIO connection to the XDR memory pool, and enhanced cache size. Sony paid a bunch of money, but not enough money to produce the chip you're wishing the would have produced.


Well the big problem was that they were gonna make their own GPU, when that didn't pan out, they had to kinda scramble to get one in there so they signed up with Nvidia a few yrs ago.

Wasn't Sony's big plan was to use like multiple Cells for CPU and GPU duties?

That's a rumor more than fact... but for what you're talking about you want to research the 'Visualizer,' basically a Cell chip with half it's SPEs replaced by pixel engine 'units.' It's all part of the original 'Broadband Engine' patent that started the fire across the Internet about the Cell architecture.

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 02:20 AM
Once again, I want to say we don't know if they have went cheap on the RSX. It could be more significant than we realize.

Look, I realize *all* of what you are saying above XBD. I accept that. What I am saying is that we don't know anything about how it is organized on the inside and that is what really counts when it comes to performance. We don't know much about all those pipelines. There are tons of stuff we don't know about. We won't really know what really matters about the RSX until we know those things.

For example, with the extra transistors they could have made each and every one of those pipelines more robust. We just don't know yet.

xbdestroya
09-26-2006, 02:21 AM
Maybe - but not as significant as you'd like to think.

PUNK em 733
09-26-2006, 02:21 AM
Jesus MILR, your a madman. If you don't do drugs, you should, if you do quit.:)

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 02:26 AM
I'm not a madman. I just want to know and be told the truth and then move on to all the great games.

Raijin
09-26-2006, 02:28 AM
MILR, you have the truth, so move on games now! :p

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 02:33 AM
No, I don't. We need an official update from Sony with all the specs of the RSX including performance information. Until they do that I'm not going to play a single PS3 game, but hopefully they will give them by the time mine arrives!!!!

PUNK em 733
09-26-2006, 02:40 AM
Wait your not gonna play any games until the fuill specs come out?

Raijin
09-26-2006, 02:42 AM
Most retard thing I have ever read...
So MILR, if Sony dont give the real numbers until, say 2010, you wont play PS3 games until then?

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 02:45 AM
I have confidence that the specs will come out by launch so I have nothing to worry about.

Nameless
09-26-2006, 02:49 AM
MILR, send me your free PS3, since you are not planning on using it...
I will more than likely have a PS3, but I can sell your new one on ebay! ;)

Honestly, your getting carried away with this spec sh*t man.
It's just a console not a religion, just let it go...

cpiasminc
09-26-2006, 02:52 AM
No, I don't. We need an official update from Sony with all the specs of the RSX including performance information.
Technically, you already have all the specs. You just keep praying that there's some architectural secret you don't know about which will serve as magic pixie dust to turn it into some miracle chunk of silicon, which doesn't really qualify as a spec.

And even if there was some architectural secret, stuff like that is protected under normal intellectual property laws, not studio-level NDAs, so it's not going to be public domain knowledge... ever. Well, there's a slim chance nVidia might say something (Sony legally cannot), but that's about equal to the chance that Duke Nukem Forever will come out in 2006.

And if you also want to know about some more finer detail "spec-like" things (the kinds of raw numbers that relate to minuscule details devs are told because they should watch out for this or take advantage of that), you might want to be aware that a lot of those are protected under NDA until PS3 as a platform is killed off.

Everything else, you already know. Okay, I admit that the numbers you know are ones that Sony still asserts aren't final, but there's not much else to know... and if you seriously think there's going to be a change between now and then, all you've really sworn is that you're not going to pre-order a PS3.

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 02:58 AM
Don't we already have official diagrams of the 360's GPU, pipelines, cache sizes, various internal components, layouts, and so fourth? I don't do a lot of research on the 360 but I believe that I remember a good bit of information floating around since it launched.

I don't understand why the same information would not be released about the RSX, because the 360 would have the same type of NDAs as the PS3.

yoshaw
09-26-2006, 03:06 AM
Tech sites are going to rip apart PS3 and provide you the 'can't live without' information once its released in November. I suggest you wait until then. Bookmark anandtech and arstechnicia beforehand.

cpiasminc
09-26-2006, 03:23 AM
Don't we already have official diagrams of the 360's GPU, pipelines, cache sizes, various internal components, layouts, and so fourth? I don't do a lot of research on the 360 but I believe that I remember a good bit of information floating around since it launched.
.... no... the closest thing is people on tech sites making their own estimations and the old leaked block diagram which still had XeCPU at 3.5+ GHz and so on.

If you're expecting die photos, they'll come out in time, but die photos mean little.

xbdestroya
09-26-2006, 03:49 AM
Tech sites are going to rip apart PS3 and provide you the 'can't live without' information once its released in November. I suggest you wait until then. Bookmark anandtech and arstechnicia beforehand.

Can't do that though in a console environment...

Seriously, when PS3 launches the best that can be expected is an architectural overview, system diagram, component interface, and educated hypothesis. People will rip the console apart, show us the motherboard layout, heatsink positioning, PSU, and BD drive.... but no benchmarks, and no 'nitty gritty' architectural information beyond what Sony and/or NVidia themselves provide.

Sony and NVidia have absolutely *no* incentive to reveal the structure of the RSX's innards; it would require that a site like Watch Impress or someone else simply catch a Sony exec on a good day and talk them into doing the interview.

In fact, just as you suggested Anandtech - check their coverage of 360 upon it's launch; expect no more and no less. :)

EvilTaru
09-26-2006, 04:12 AM
No, I don't. We need an official update from Sony with all the specs of the RSX including performance information. Until they do that I'm not going to play a single PS3 game, but hopefully they will give them by the time mine arrives!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/bunny.gif

frosty
09-26-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally Posted by makeitlookreal
No, I don't. We need an official update from Sony with all the specs of the RSX including performance information. Until they do that I'm not going to play a single PS3 game, but hopefully they will give them by the time mine arrives!!!!

I'll be sure to tell omega to wait to send your PS3 until they announce the specs ;)


And even if there was some architectural secret, stuff like that is protected under normal intellectual property laws, not studio-level NDAs, so it's not going to be public domain knowledge... ever. Well, there's a slim chance nVidia might say something (Sony legally cannot), but that's about equal to the chance that Duke Nukem Forever will come out in 2006.

rog27
09-26-2006, 05:35 AM
Techwise, this generation feels alot like last generation:

PS3 comparable to the PS2

and

X360 comparable to the Dreamcast

The dreamcast was a mighty fine machine that had some gpu advantages over Sony's machine that especially affected IQ.

Sony's machine was a slight bit more powerful overall, but had a bit of an underwhelming GPU capability-wise.

Ultimately...the flexibility of the CPU in the PS2 allowed for some demonstratably awesome graphics late in the generation, especially for archaic hardware by today's standards. I expect the same parallel with the PS3. Essentially, the PS3's high-level architecture is based off some of the same fundamental concepts as the PS2's and allows for lots of flexibility from the CPU end and a reliable, run-of-the mill GPU with some "extra" system level features that enable alot of software-based rendering techniques that might crop up in the future to be utilized.

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 05:39 AM
I deleted this post because I'm an idiot to have made it, because the truth is Sony is not so stupid to not release the specifications before the console is launched. They are going to do it so I'm not going to have to worry about any stupid site like I posted about.

Just like other people have said, they will release the specs at the october event.

Kabbage
09-26-2006, 05:57 AM
- Looks at speculation sheet.

- Looks at the petty "my console's penis is bigger than your console's penis" type arguments.

- Looks at motorstorm and the games from TGS....

- Looks that the speculation sheet again ..... LOL

Specs...so overrated yet... so much is judged by these theoretical figures. LOL

frosty
09-26-2006, 06:35 AM
^lol qft.


Techwise, this generation feels alot like last generation:

PS3 comparable to the PS2

and

X360 comparable to the Dreamcast

The dreamcast was a mighty fine machine that had some gpu advantages over Sony's machine that especially affected IQ.

Sony's machine was a slight bit more powerful overall, but had a bit of an underwhelming GPU capability-wise.

Ultimately...the flexibility of the CPU in the PS2 allowed for some demonstratably awesome graphics late in the generation, especially for archaic hardware by today's standards. I expect the same parallel with the PS3. Essentially, the PS3's high-level architecture is based off some of the same fundamental concepts as the PS2's and allows for lots of flexibility from the CPU end and a reliable, run-of-the mill GPU with some "extra" system level features that enable alot of software-based rendering techniques that might crop up in the future to be utilized.


Awesome avy, first off.

But, this time there is no "Xbox" to come out after the "dreamcast" and "ps2" examples you gave. PS3 is the "xbox" so to speak, though with all the advantages every PS brand has enjoyed.

lips
09-26-2006, 06:53 AM
I would also disagree, here, because the rsx is clearly many times more capable than the xenos chip in design, architecture, memory, bandwidth, and frequency. But I can understand the argument either way, really, it would come to developer's personal preferance in the end.

LaLiLuLeLo
09-26-2006, 06:56 AM
- Looks at speculation sheet.

- Looks at the petty "my console's penis is bigger than your console's penis" type arguments.

- Looks at motorstorm and the games from TGS....

- Looks that the speculation sheet again ..... LOL

Specs...so overrated yet... so much is judged by these theoretical figures. LOL

seriously. we gotta know the theoretical maximums of the console! the video footage of the games in action just isn't enough!:drunk:

section
09-26-2006, 07:17 AM
I can see in my head a dude having just bought a spanking new PS3 sitting in a floor next to his unopened PS3 box muttering to himself "Why is RSX now so effin' incapable of showing me some sweet graphics".

<sarcasm>

Oh yeah and DON'T FORGET TO GIVE ME MY SWEET SWEET +REPS FOR L1F3. PLEEZ.

</sarcasm>

;)

Crossbar
09-26-2006, 07:48 AM
Just like other people have said, they will release the specs at the october event.
I just want to reinforce that october is very likely when at least the frequency of the RSX will go public.

I got that information from Sonys distributor in Scandinavia in an e-mail exchange I had with them after that the European launch delay became public.

I had some lengthy argument in my e-mail about the practise of taking pre-orders for an expensive system with a very secret spec, also mentioned the rumoured RSX downgrade in comparison to the public numbers from E3 2005. In the reply he said Sony will make the RSX numbers public in october.

frosty
09-26-2006, 07:59 AM
I feel that would be the perfect time for them to reveal SOME of RSX's specs, though like CPI says, I feel they won't give out every single bit.

makeitlookreal
09-26-2006, 08:53 AM
I doubt they will give out everything, but I think if the give the majority of the information (like all the specs and other info at E3 of 2005) then developers will feel more comfortable to leak out the rest of the information such as exactly how large the various caches are, any interesting tweaks, etc.

I'm not going to let myself get super stressed out about this, because I know the specs will come out before the launch.

I apologize for letting my anticipation run wild and saying some stupid stuff.

GodMachine_Iridius_Dio
09-26-2006, 09:21 AM
I can see in my head a dude having just bought a spanking new PS3 sitting in a floor next to his unopened PS3 box muttering to himself "Why is RSX now so effin' incapable of showing me some sweet graphics".


Do you take it off any sweet jumps?:drunk:

overclocked
09-26-2006, 09:30 AM
Its a rehashed NV40 architecture, quite old. G80 will come before its even out probably(crush the pc-part in performance). And there is about 20 good rewievs on G71 on the net or RSX as it is called.

As XBD said they did not pay the cash to get what you wanted.

If you want something exiting choise and buy the 360 now.

GUNDAMSEED
09-26-2006, 09:41 AM
Well truth be told i more of a CPU guy so i could care less about RSX . It pretty cool gpu that will do great in close box system . What i want to know is more about cell . Well i want get hands on it with out spending to much .

Luis
09-26-2006, 10:20 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/bunny.gifSeconded, man. I just can't believe how stupid "someone" can get over such a trivial thing. :barf:

frosty
09-26-2006, 11:09 AM
well, that "someone"'s "stupidity" has helped to uncover the complete spec list of RSX, which I am going over right now. It is compiled from various sources around the net, and is as complete as it gets for average joe IMO. All of them are within reason, so I don't doubt it. Not to mention all of it's sources being very reliable. We're working on verifying every aspect of it now, and will share it once we're through. all information that we have has been publicly shared on open public forums, so afaik no NDA's have been violated in the process. (or maybe so, but we're not the ones spilling the beans, we just compiled it all)

ddaryl
09-26-2006, 11:11 AM
No, I don't. We need an official update from Sony with all the specs of the RSX including performance information. Until they do that I'm not going to play a single PS3 game, but hopefully they will give them by the time mine arrives!!!!

So you play specs and not games.


Sorry MILR, but this is by far one of the most rediculous comments ever made in the history of comments.

frosty
09-26-2006, 11:58 AM
And I agree, it's a crazy comment to make. I too share the interest in knowing the science behind the visuals I am seeing in a game, though not enough to prevent me from enjoying a good ol' 8 bit game. I am a gamer at heart, the tech geek part is secondary, as it should be with anyone that has an interest in gaming.

version
09-26-2006, 12:52 PM
Watch not correct...

Kabbage
09-26-2006, 12:53 PM
Watch not correct...
Is that a riddle?

PhYmon
09-26-2006, 01:16 PM
MILR, I want to know the specs as well but seen the TGS was so great and the showed alot of games, I have no doubt about the system anymore, why? cuz I already can see the capabilities of the system by only watching the graphics, physics and the lists goes on.. Now I dont care if the RSX is an emotion engine tweaked.. THE GAMES ARE GREAT!!

archy121
09-26-2006, 01:35 PM
Watch not correct...
:duh:


What part from Watch is WRONG ?



:birthday:

section
09-26-2006, 01:36 PM
Who is this General Failure and why is he reading my hard drive?

By the way what are the sweet jumps? Me no habla ingles as my mother language :drunks:

xbdestroya
09-26-2006, 01:42 PM
Look, this is all we need to know:


By now, all that you need to know about RSX is already in the public domain. The clock, the bus, the number of pixel and vertex pipelines, etc. Accept that it is what it is.
The texture caches that you talk about, indeed they were increased, only to cope with the higher latency when pulling data from XDR memory. And just so you don't get any ideas, the texture buffers were increase from 48k to 96k. Nothing ground breaking.
Also the shaders got a couple of extra instructions - a fast vector normalize and some extra texture lookup logic. Nothing fancy again.
So don't look for any miracles here. If you want to feel better, understand this - noone has ever used the 'lowly' 7800GT's to it's full potential yet. That's the beauty of fixed hardware, you know all that the hardware is capable of and you don't have to worry about compatibility with 5 year old crapy cards. So that's where the true power of RSX lies - in developer's talent to extract incredible effects from a very capable and robust piece of silicon.

They doubled the texture cache. Can we finally put all this behind us?

Luis
09-26-2006, 01:47 PM
Look, this is all we need to know: they doubled the texture cache. Can we finally put all this behind us?Please! :cry2:

Red_Eyes
09-26-2006, 01:51 PM
At first, they attacked Cell. Cell proved itself. Then Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray owned. Then the Price. Sony reduced the Price. Then the games delivered at TGS. Now that they can't attack the games, they're attacking the RSX. When will this bs stop!?

ddaryl
09-26-2006, 02:02 PM
It'll never stop. It never has. The PS2 suffered the same internet fate, and it did better then expected.

I just sit back and laugh, and occasionally toss some gasoline on the fire. Then I stand back and watch the carnage. :evil:

xbdestroya
09-26-2006, 02:06 PM
Yeah, well stop tossing gasoline on the fire. ;)

frosty
09-26-2006, 06:19 PM
noone has ever used the 'lowly' 7800GT's to it's full potential yet

I do have a question regarding this statement. If you are using a 7800gt, and your PC game is runnning like crap because you have "x" ability enabled in it, be it resolution or shader effect, etc. Is that statement implying this is the case because the game has not been optimized for that card? (Assuming you are on the fastest PC hardware available)

woundingchaney
09-26-2006, 07:08 PM
I do have a question regarding this statement. If you are using a 7800gt, and your PC game is runnning like crap because you have "x" ability enabled in it, be it resolution or shader effect, etc. Is that statement implying this is the case because the game has not been optimized for that card? (Assuming you are on the fastest PC hardware available)
That has a lot to do with it. In pc gaming it also depends on y9our other system rescources (ram - speed amount, cpu, hell even the mobo).

But for the most part optimization I would say is the key. Also it depends on what your trying to do with what card. A middle line card isnt going to run newer games at high res. with all the effects on and what not. If it does do not expect a steady acceptable framerate, infact in pc gaming dont expect a steady framerate unless you enable vsync or max the engine.

LOL Hell I have a high end card and I either run 1440x900 with 4xAA or 1680x1050 without AA, never both.

frosty
09-26-2006, 07:26 PM
^I run 1680x1050 with 4x AA on UT2004 with my Geforce 6800, and still get a decent frame rate. But, pop in FEAR, and it's choking at 800x600 with any shaders turned on and such.

woundingchaney
09-26-2006, 07:40 PM
^I run 1680x1050 with 4x AA on UT2004 with my Geforce 6800, and still get a decent frame rate. But, pop in FEAR, and it's choking at 800x600 with any shaders turned on and such.
FEAR is a very rescource demanding game, much more so than UT 04 (LOL for the most part). Different games give different performance as well, also some devs target certain cards brands.

Like I can run Prey topped out at 60, but get horrible results with GRAW under the same settings. Or how Oblivion usually runs better on ATI cards or BF series runs better on Nvidia hardware (this is usually not always). Many people point to poor optimization in games resulting in poor performance, also there is hardware optimization in driver updates.

If your interested in pc gaming, I would look towards the DX10 cards coming at the first of the year or late this year.

cpiasminc
09-26-2006, 09:20 PM
^I run 1680x1050 with 4x AA on UT2004 with my Geforce 6800, and still get a decent frame rate. But, pop in FEAR, and it's choking at 800x600 with any shaders turned on and such.
UT2k4 is completely fixed-function -- there's not one shader in the whole game. They have something that is, internal to the Unreal toolset, *referred* to as shaders, but they're really fixed-function texture blend operations. Getting hardware programmable shaders into the pipeline is very possible, though not completely clean, and UT2k4 doesn't really demonstrate any of that. If you have slowdown problems in UT2k4, it's usually the CPU, not the GPU that is choking.

The fact that you don't choke on UT, but choke on FEAR at much lower resolutions suggests that the complexity of their shaders is pretty high or they're running a LOT of passes per frame... you're basically GPU-limited on FEAR, but your CPU is beefy enough to handle either (assuming there's a setting you can play FEAR on that doesn't choke).

frosty
09-26-2006, 09:41 PM
^there is, though I have a thing about throttling a game down too far, as I feel it dampens the overall experience. I just need to snag a 7900 and jump on the dual core bandwagon and stfu! ;) Then I'll be able to handle these games the way they were meant to be played..

makeitlookreal
09-27-2006, 01:16 AM
THE MOSTLY COMPLETE AND PROBABLE FINAL RSX SPECS

RSX


Core Frequency - 500MHz
Memory Frequency - 650MHZ
Bus Size: 128BIT
Pixel Shaders - 24
Vertex Shaders - 8
ROPS - 8
Total Texture Cache Per Quad of Pixel Pipes (L1 & L2) - 96KB
Post Transform & Lighting Cache - 63 Max Vertices
*A few extra shader instructions - Extra Texture Lookup Logic & Fast Vector Normalize
*FLEX IO interface to CPU (Much Faster)


7800GTX


Core Frequency - 430
Bus Size: 256BIT
Memory Frequency - 600MHZ
Pixel Shaders - 24
Vertex Shaders - 8
ROPS - 16
Total Texture Cache Per Quad of Pixel Pipes (L1 & L2) - 48KB
Post Transform & Lighting Cache - 45 Max Vertices
PCI BUS interface to CPU (Much Slower)


NOTES: About the RSX.


Total Texture Cache Per Quad of Pixel Pipes - (L1 and L2) 96KB total Texture Cache - Previously 48K
(L1 only available to Pixel Shaders)

Post Transform and Lighting Vertex Cache - 63 Max Vertices - Previously 45 Vertices
(Cache located after Vertex Shader and before the triangle setup and before the Rasterizer.)
Vertex shader --> Post Transform and Lighting Vertex Cache 63MAX ---> Triangle Setup
Texture Lookup Logic to help RSX transport data from XDR

BahnNZ
09-27-2006, 01:40 AM
FEAR will be quite a good test of RSX shader power. Just downloaded and finished the FEAR 360 demo. Plays great... Kinda looks like hell, looks better on my really old bobbins PC.

makeitlookreal
09-27-2006, 01:52 AM
CPI,

If any of the information I just posted is obviously incorrect and you would *like* to share anything please feel free to do so.

rog27
09-27-2006, 04:15 AM
It seems like Sam Kennedy at 1up agrees with my technical assessment of PS3 vs. Xbox 360:


Maybe it was that Sony just had all of its games running on super sharp flatscreen TVs, but almost everything on PS3 just looked like it was more next-gen to me. It was kind of like the difference between, dare I say it, the PS2 and the Dreamcast. Which, as you know, wasn't that big a deal at first -- the Dreamcast had some fantastic looking second gen games -- but you could still tell the PS2 was a more powerful system (and to reiterate, I'm only talking hardware here -- I know the 360 is in a much different place software-wise). I think that's a rather fair comparison, to be honest -- similarly, as with the PS2, the PS3 is a platform that will distance itself even further once developers get more familiar with the hardware. Julian Eggebrecht of Factor 5 told me that they've only just scratched the surface of what they can do on PS3, and he fully expects all second gen PS3 games -- or certainly all third gen PS3 games -- to run in 1080p.

vs.


Techwise, this generation feels alot like last generation:

PS3 comparable to the PS2

and

X360 comparable to the Dreamcast

The dreamcast was a mighty fine machine that had some gpu advantages over Sony's machine that especially affected IQ.

Sony's machine was a slight bit more powerful overall, but had a bit of an underwhelming GPU capability-wise.

Ultimately...the flexibility of the CPU in the PS2 allowed for some demonstratably awesome graphics late in the generation, especially for archaic hardware by today's standards. I expect the same parallel with the PS3. Essentially, the PS3's high-level architecture is based off some of the same fundamental concepts as the PS2's and allows for lots of flexibility from the CPU end and a reliable, run-of-the mill GPU with some "extra" system level features that enable alot of software-based rendering techniques that might crop up in the future to be utilized.

F'cking weird...I almost said almost exactly the same thing as he did, just using a different arrangement of words.

xbdestroya
09-27-2006, 04:23 AM
Hey, and I've been saying it too...

It's the Cell that will pull PS3 ahead in the end... and not only graphically, as the above PS2/Dreamcast analogy is want to imply.

makeitlookreal
09-27-2006, 04:25 AM
These increased specifications of the RSX are nothing to laugh about. They are not miraculous leaps, but they are significant. The RSX in and of itself has had improvements beyond the common PC part.

Now, combine THAT with the CELL processor helping out in many ways (even graphically with vertex work) and you have one darn amazing console!

Rubbernek
09-27-2006, 04:40 AM
RSX has more shader power than Xenos.

All that needs to be said. :)

makeitlookreal
09-27-2006, 04:45 AM
Nope. It has more than just that. It has tons more TEXTURE CACHE which could allow it's texturing to be much more efficent. Instead of having to take multiple passes to get the data of a texture like the Xenos the RSX could potentially store a large texture in one single pass.

Also, the larger post transform vertex cache could allow for an increase in vertex shader performance. For example, lets say you can re-use some of the polgons you are creating. Instead of re-processing all of them you could save some of them in the cache!

Also, having a fast vector transform built in (from what I understand) is a nice benefit.

And the extra texture logic might not mean a boost in performance, but could really make sure that getting textures from the XDR is not as difficult.

Basically, the RSX is indeed significantly more powerful than Xenos. It's not a monster uber chip, but it has a nice lead on Xenos.

makeitlookreal
09-27-2006, 05:08 AM
They have now been confirmed to actually exist. That is why they mean more now to me.

I really don't see a way that Xenos is ahead of the RSX.

1) In vertex work the RSX has been optimized with a larger post transform cache. It's already no weakling vertex wise and even if it does not quite match the polygon pushing ability of Xenos by the time you factor in the CELL helping out the RSX has won.

2) The RSX has at least the same if not more bandwidth than the Xenos. The 10MB of EDRAM is nice in the Xenos, but the PS3 has two seperate buses that can feed it data. If anything, the RSX matches the Xenos.

3) When it comes to texturing the Xenos has a little more total memory with a slightly smaller OS footprint and the 10MB of EDRAM. However, the larger texture caches and extra texture lookup logic in the RSX could at least match that.

4) The RSX clearly has more shading power than the Xenos and this has been confirmed by just about everyone.

---

I just don't see anyway at all that the Xenos has a real advantage in important areas such as these.

Also, with it's unified pipelines if it dedicates them all to producing one thing or the other then it loses the ability to do another thing. If it put all it had towards lets say poly pushing it might beat the RSX (if you don't factor in the CELL helping out). But then it would not have the shading power to pretty up those polygons.

xbdestroya
09-27-2006, 05:13 AM
MILR's above post is directed at a post of mine that I decided to delete (which is why it seems like a double post), but his response is perfectly valid and I'm going to let it sit.

I don't agree with your whitewashing of dual-buses vs eDRAM, views on texture lookups, or polygon pushing MILR, but I'm just going to drop RSX architectural discussion for awhile as something that just taxes me for little discernable return. The only thing I flat-out agree with is the shading power, and even that is nuanced.

frosty
09-27-2006, 05:46 AM
I'm actually with XBD on this one, I've seen some impressive things out of Xenos, though I feel it is more CPU bound than GPU bound in the 360. I feel the two are running side by side in comparison. Each has it's stregnths and weaknesses, as Cpi has said all along.

PUNK em 733
09-27-2006, 05:52 AM
MILR what if it come out that the RSX is weaker by a significant margin, what then?

masonite
09-27-2006, 05:57 AM
perrsonally i think that sonydelaying the release of the PS3 has actually helped them out in comparisons to the xbox - not only because devs have not had to rush their releases, but because it reminds people of the dreamcast vs ps2. Theres that gap in time that insinuates a "newer" console, and the usual ideas that later = more advanced. it just so happens that that may actually be the case.

PUNK em 733
09-27-2006, 05:59 AM
Ahh good observation.

SevenDesigns
09-27-2006, 06:23 AM
If those specs are legit, how come they never added the already known Transistors count for the RSX?

Obviously something is wrong with it. And even if it's not a godlike GPU, the games are doing the talking, and they prove the GPU is something else.

More will be known soon.

cpiasminc
09-27-2006, 06:24 AM
I really don't see a way that Xenos is ahead of the RSX.

1) In vertex work the RSX has been optimized with a larger post transform cache. It's already no weakling vertex wise and even if it does not quite match the polygon pushing ability of Xenos by the time you factor in the CELL helping out the RSX has won.
Ummm... well vertex shading isn't really the limiting factor in the vertex moving capabilities of the G7x family. It's simply that it doesn't read vertex stream data in fast enough. Even if it had infinite vertex shading power and infinitely large post-transform cache, the fact that data to process only comes in so fast means that you're limited by that. Xenos vs. just about any G7x chip -- Xenos has a 4:1 advantage, IIRC (again, indicative of the fact that nVidia doesn't believe in geometry and thinks that pixel shading power is all that will ever matter). So the fact that it has a post-transform cache of only ~14 verts is fine for Xenos, but RSX's net vertex throughput would be quite laughable if the vertex cache was that size.


2) The RSX has at least the same if not more bandwidth than the Xenos. The 10MB of EDRAM is nice in the Xenos, but the PS3 has two seperate buses that can feed it data. If anything, the RSX matches the Xenos.
I don't know about that, but the main thing is that Xenos has the framebuffer bandwidth and latency advantage, while RSX has the texture bandwidth advantage when used intelligently. The former is a strong advantage with simple pixels, while the latter is an advantage for complex pixels.

makeitlookreal
09-27-2006, 07:09 AM
Thank for the correction and the information CPI. +REP

Heinrich4
10-04-2006, 06:39 PM
Guys where cpiasminc said that the RSX is comparable with a Geforce 7900GT(in gflops sustained,gigaops etc) ? therefore I read several posts in beyond3d with same opinion.


(I wish now if this performance already counts with use of FlexIO or with access of the GDDR3 of 20.8GB/sec)

since now thanx for answers.

cliffbo
10-04-2006, 06:44 PM
on and on and on and on and on....

Sony please release the specs for the RSX, just so we can see an end to all this speculation.

i reckon that when Sony do release the specs of the RSX, the graphics on all of the release games will magically improve...

venomv
10-04-2006, 06:45 PM
i reckon that when Sony do release the specs of the RSX, the graphics on all of the release games will magically improve...


Or magically get worse......

cpiasminc
10-04-2006, 08:50 PM
Guys where cpiasminc said that the RSX is comparable with a Geforce 7900GT(in gflops sustained,gigaops etc) ? therefore I read several posts in beyond3d with same opinion.
Because of all the overclocked 7900 cards out there, I think few people know what the official spec'ed clock of the 7900 is -- RSX's is higher, btw. And the internal design specs are basically identical except for number of active ROPs. The 7900 has the greater fillrate, but RSX has the greater computational power. You can easily contrive a clear victory for either, but the practical differences won't be huge -- that's really what I was trying to say.

Not that I wouldn't prefer having the bus width and fillrate of the 7900 to boot, but there are bigger fish to deal with.

overclocked
10-04-2006, 09:29 PM
Is there something "new" that have made this thread go along, i did not se any?

EDIT

OK, Gflops counting..;)

version
10-05-2006, 11:59 AM
8800GTX
575MHz Core Clock
900MHz Mem Clock
768MB GDDR3 memory
384-bit memory interface (86GB/s)
128 unified shaders clocked at 1350 MHz
38.4 billion pixels per second theoretical texture fill-rate
450W PSU Recommended
Hard launch in second week of November

Fazares
10-05-2006, 01:17 PM
cpi take on the rsx being about the same as a 7900gt thing, looks very realistic...
heres the 7900gt official specs in this table comparison
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132

archy121
10-05-2006, 01:20 PM
To complete versions typical partial reply..




8800GTX
* 575MHz Core Clock
* 900MHz Mem Clock
* 768MB GDDR3 memory
* 384-bit memory interface (86GB/s)
* 128 unified shaders clocked at 1350 MHz
* 38.4 billion pixels per second theoretical texture fill-rate
* 450W PSU Recommended
* Hard launch in second week of November

8800GTS
* 500MHz Core Clock
* 900MHz Mem Clock
* 640MB GDDR3 memory
* 320-bit memory interface (64GB/s)
* 96 unified shaders clocked at 1200 MHz
* ?? billion pixels per second theoretical texture fill-rate
* 400W PSU Recommended
* Hard launch in second week of November


Full info here :http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4441


@Nerve-Damage do you have date when Nvidia are supposed to make the announcements on RSX & G80 GPU's ?


:smoke:

BahnNZ
10-05-2006, 01:25 PM
Got unified shaders to the PC market before ATI, ouch!

Very nice, couple of those in a box, quad core processor, bit of Crysis and Ut2007, very good way to spend an afternoon. I'll have to think about building a new PC next year. Lot of decent stuff coming to PC.

And the thing about the G80 tech, once this comes out with good supply, you can pick up a G71 based card for your PC real cheap.

But... nothing to do with RSX!

makeitlookreal
10-05-2006, 01:38 PM
Yes, if you are reading this nerve damage please ask your friend if he has heard anything new.

Insane Metal
10-05-2006, 01:44 PM
I SAID WOW O_O

Holy shit.

NeoPlayStation
10-05-2006, 01:51 PM
8800GT and 8800GTX pics.

Heinrich4
10-05-2006, 01:55 PM
Because of all the overclocked 7900 cards out there, I think few people know what the official spec'ed clock of the 7900 is -- RSX's is higher, btw. And the internal design specs are basically identical except for number of active ROPs. The 7900 has the greater fillrate, but RSX has the greater computational power. You can easily contrive a clear victory for either, but the practical differences won't be huge -- that's really what I was trying to say.

Not that I wouldn't prefer having the bus width and fillrate of the 7900 to boot, but there are bigger fish to deal with.

Thanx for answer cpiasminc.

But this probable performance of the comparable RSX to the 7900GT already counting on VRAM only or include "extra bandwith" + FlexIO (10.6GB/sec write, 15.5GB/sec read) to access part of XDRAM/25.6GB/sec?


( I have the impression the RSX under local VRAM has a performance "X" and under VRAM+FlexIo/XDR = "XY" )

archy121
10-05-2006, 02:02 PM
In regards to Nerve Damage's posting on G80<>RSX i just like to say there is the slightest possibility it could happen but where the RSX is not a full blown G80.

The G80 is being speculated on B3D to be made up of multiple cores (6-8 for GTX & 4-6 for GT) surrounded by memory - bit like Cell archtitecture. The words STREAMING are being used... I recall at one time the RSX design was speculated to be a streaming processor..

What if RSX just used partial architecture of G80 to a smaller scale e.g single/double cores & armed with some of the technology ustilised in G80 ?

Even if G80 technology has nothing to do with RSX, It still makes me think about similarties of G80 & Cell architecture (Sony & Nvidia were working close) & coincidental release dates of G80 & PS3 (RSX) exepected second week of November.

Make what you will of this.. It certainly has me wondering.


:drool:

Insane Metal
10-05-2006, 02:51 PM
Great "news":


I spent all day yesterday in Activision's Santa Monica offices playing Wii, PS3, 360, DS, and PSP games and had a great time. While everything is embargoed until tomorrow for the earliest stuff, I can say that the Wii is dang fun. I was able to pick it up, poke around with it, and check out everything about it. I can't believe how tidy it and sleek it is.

As for the games, stuff running in 1080p on the PS3 look incredible. Wii games look ok, but I don't think the best graphics are going to come out of Activision published games, but they are committed to 480p and 16:9 on their games. Everything on the 360 looked and played well, but it seems that the PS3 has the edge graphically across the board already (shader effects especially).

About 30 members of the media were there. IGN sent Matt Cassamasamasmsisnisna, Mark Bozon, and about 2 or 3 others. 1up had Matt Leone, but I think he was flying solo. There were guys from Joystiq, PGC, Gamespot, and a few other outlets as well.

Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!

and



Well, speaking with a dev that was there he said they could just do more with the PS3's ability to handle shaders. There were some distortion effects that were credited (by the developer) to the PS3's shader abilities that were absent in the same 360 title. It wasn't game changing or anything, but it looked cool.


:hugegrin:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122612

rpgamer_2k5
10-05-2006, 03:26 PM
Look at what Nvidia did by setting the G80 launch at November. Now I have to sell my G70-512 ebay and try to grab the GTS.

xbdestroya
10-05-2006, 03:41 PM
@Archy - all modern GPUs can be considered 'streaming' architectures. I'm not sure why people get excited when they read the word 'streaming,' it's not anything new or exciting guys... ;)

archy121
10-05-2006, 04:34 PM
@Archy - all modern GPUs can be considered 'streaming' architectures. I'm not sure why people get excited when they read the word 'streaming,' it's not anything new or exciting guys... ;)

I'm aware of STREAMING in the context of modern GPU's but i was not impying that context. It was speculated in the B3D thread that the G80 might be made up of a number of smaller GPU's (multi-core) working togther & surrounded by memory -'Cell like'.

:pleased:

xbdestroya
10-05-2006, 04:43 PM
I'm aware of STREAMING in the context of modern GPU's but i was not impying that context. It was speculated in the B3D thread that the G80 might be made up of a number of smaller GPU's (multi-core) working togther & surrounded by memory -'Cell like'.

:pleased:

Mmmm.... 'multi-core' is IMO the wrong way to view it, as GPU's have *always* sort of been 'multi-core' in a sense, if you think in terms of quads. I know what you're refering to, and I know what posts you're speaking of, but it's just too much grey territory. It's hard to definitively say that one of these architectures is 'like' another - just more a matter of certain aspects sharing similarities.

Now when youu say surrounded by memory though, I think you may be refering to the theorized ring-bus instead.

Newboi
10-05-2006, 05:30 PM
ATI might have a leg up in the DX10 market since it already has a unified shader card in the Xbox 360 (I know it's DX9).

They also already have GDDR4 memory in the bag.

PC discussion aside, if Cpiasminc's words didn't convince you then the actual specs of the G80 should tell you that the G80 and RSX have nothing in common.

version
10-05-2006, 05:33 PM
"G80" To Feature 128-bit HDR, 16X AA

makeitlookreal
10-05-2006, 05:49 PM
I want to hear back from Nerve Damage. However, I will admit that the chances of a RSX 2.0 is less and less.

cpiasminc
10-05-2006, 05:54 PM
But this probable performance of the comparable RSX to the 7900GT already counting on VRAM only or include "extra bandwith" + FlexIO (10.6GB/sec write, 15.5GB/sec read) to access part of XDRAM/25.6GB/sec?
Including the extra bandwidth. While framebuffer operations are still lower bandwidth overall, having that little extra texture bandwidth in a pinch is always useful.

BTW, I also have to raise eyebrows about how much actual bandwidth may be availed over FlexIO. The formal spec is 20 GB/sec read and 15 GB/sec write seen from RSX, but those figures you have are the tested results of an artificial benchmark. The real-world figures could be all over the place, but there are places where it's an obvious win.

xbdestroya
10-05-2006, 05:55 PM
It was always zero, and I doubt we'll be hearing back from Nerve-Damage on this. (though I'd certainly love to, just to see what he has to say)

cliffbo
10-05-2006, 06:27 PM
The Register is reporting that the brand new GeForce 8800 will support unified shaders *and* apparently might do physics calculations as well.
Quote:
More interesting is the rumoured but as yet unconfirmed Quantum Effects engine, which appears to be Nvidia's pitch for physics processing. Quantum Effects essentially leverages the G80 shaders' processing power for physics calculations, much as PureVideo uses today and tomorrow's GPU shaders for video processing.

maybe there`s more to rsx than we know considering there maybe more to g80.
:)

archy121
10-05-2006, 06:39 PM
Seems we might find out quite soon what his friend really saw on those papers.



Nvidia to host G80 editors day on the 18th

Add 15 minutes for slide posts

By Charlie Demerjian: Thursday 05 October 2006, 16:32
NVIDIA HAS PLANNED the usual 'editors day' for the launch of its G80 chippery. This one will be on the 18th of October in Santa Clara.

Look for the floodgates to open on the 18th 10-15 minutes after the presentations end, a bit longer if the attendees have a slow net connection.

If you didn't get your invite last week, don't hold your breath. There will also be another Euro launch event about three weeks later to coincide with the launch itself.http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34879

Also before that we have the UK digitalscarborough event where they are supposed to talk about the PS3 & RSX.

:cycspin:

Heinrich4
10-05-2006, 07:19 PM
Including the extra bandwidth. While framebuffer operations are still lower bandwidth overall, having that little extra texture bandwidth in a pinch is always useful.

BTW, I also have to raise eyebrows about how much actual bandwidth may be availed over FlexIO. The formal spec is 20 GB/sec read and 15 GB/sec write seen from RSX, but those figures you have are the tested results of an artificial benchmark. The real-world figures could be all over the place, but there are places where it's an obvious win.


http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/PS3_memory_bandwidths.jpg

Thanx a lot cpiasminc for all answers.

I was thinking about this hypothesis: counting 50% bandwidth of XDRAM is free for access RSX... and cell "eating" 4GB/sec bandwidth GDDR3 (something as 75% usefull because latencies = 20.8GB/sec=> 15.6GB/seg - 4GB/sec cell read/write acess = ~11.6GB/sec) and counted flexIO about 10.6GB+/seg (pic above) to write texture and others (post-processing in cell after pass in RSX? Its possible?), what perhaps offers something like 22/27+GB/sec bandwidth total what would come more close to 42.24GB/sec(Bandwidth Geforce 7900GT) or 31.7GB/seg "sustained" (latencies,75% of peak etc).

It makes sense ?