Can the tech heads explain the power differences between Xenon/PS3?

P

Pedigree Chum

Banned
I know all the details aren't out yet, but can some tech head give me a gist of it? Is Cell really going to blow away the Xenon CPU? Why is it funny that Xenon supposedly has a Terraflop of FPU's? etc...

Also, both systems should launch within 5-6 months of aach other (Xenon -> US Nov 2005, PS3 JP March 2006 (going by their timeline)). So I don't see how Sony could make this thing a beast in comparison to Xenon is so little time, it's not like PS2/Xbox it the amount of time MS had to make their system much more powerful. From what I see the systems seem much more comparable from what we have to go on...am I way off base?
 
Pedigree Chum said:
I know all the details aren't out yet, but can some tech head give me a gist of it? Is Cell really going to blow away the Xenon CPU? Why is it funny that Xenon supposedly has a Terraflop of FPU's? etc...

Also, both systems should launch within 5-6 months of aach other (Xenon -> US Nov 2005, PS3 JP March 2006 (going by their timeline)). So I don't see how Sony could make this thing a beast in comparison to Xenon is so little time, it's not like PS2/Xbox it the amount of time MS had to make their system much more powerful. From what I see the systems seem much more comparable from what we have to go on...am I way off base?
Click to expand...

This thread was useless and has a psycho agenda.
 
Amir0x said:
This thread was useless and has a psycho agenda.
Click to expand...

All the tech speak in other threads are going way way over my head. I just want some clarification...as everything I read about both systems seems comparable, I don't get why people are saying that PS3 will destroy Xenon (for example, but CPU's are multi-core...is Cell more impressive cause of a cool name? I don't get it).
 
Don't take this the wrong way, but do we really need threads like these now?
At least wait for official specs before starting these kind of discussions.
 
There are one million threads about this and none of them really gives you any info. So I personally say wait and see.
 
Shompola said:
There are one million threads about this and none of them really gives you any info. So I personally say wait and see.
Click to expand...

Alright, I guess I'll wait it out for more info. Lock this bitch down mods.
 
What we know:

Xbox > 1TFLOP (by some measurement, we're not sure exactly how)
PS3 ???

That's all we know right now. The rest is speculation.
 
PS3>Xbox2*, where the ">" is less than the difference between the PS2 and the Xbox, but more than the difference between the GameCube and the Xbox.
 
sonycowboy said:
What we know:

Xbox > 1TFLOP (by some measurement, we're not sure exactly how)
PS3 ???

That's all we know right now. The rest is speculation.
Click to expand...
That was both accurate and concise, thread over.

That's seriously about all we know so any further speculation in the manner won't really lead us anywhere other than fun imaginative scenarios.
 
That's seriously about all we know so any further speculation in the manner won't really lead us anywhere other than fun imaginative scenarios.
Click to expand...

I thought we had pretty solid info on Xenon's CPU/PS3's CPU though? Couldn't we do some sort of comparison there?
 
I'd say the situation will look similar to the gap that divided the Dreamcast from the PS2. Xbox2 games will look spectacular, sure, but it'll definitely encounter limitations that the PS3 won't find itself constrained by. As I've said in the past, the real difference between the systems won't be observable from a purely graphics standpoint. No, it is going to come down to more substantive facets of game design -- mechanics, ai, physics, etc.

Those looking for anything more than a marginal disparity in graphics, will be disappointed. Those looking for added weight to the gameplay, will see a huge difference between the two.

All this attention given to the PS3 and Xbox2 is amusing, given the Revolution lingers just a few paces away.
 
Blah. The most "powerful" system next generation is going to be the console with the best industrial design. I'll explain.

Points:
1. IBM is manufacturing the processors for both Xenon and PS3. They'll probably be on the same process and use the same manufacturing technologies.

2. NVidia is making the graphics chip for Sony; ATI for MS. Both use similar production technologies (TSMC or whoever they use) - IBM may make the NVidia chip though, but NVidia may push the process? Speculation.

3. Both next gen CPU's will have "custom", fast memory pipes; the transfer protocols may be different and the XDR Rambus crap might allow for faster overall speeds on PS3. However, the manufacturing tech of the chips themselves will be the same for PS3 memory and XBOX memory; i.e. every clock tick will produce roughly the same amount of heat (per transistor switching, etc.), each memory bit will use the same number of CMOS transistors, etc.

4. CPU's might be manufactured on a better process than graphics chips and memory (produce less heat & require less energy per "operation")

5. Relative to Xenon, PS3 will probably push more work onto the Cell than the graphics chip

6. Heat builds up in the system regardless of what is producing it.

With these fast systems, more than ever, it comes down to managing heat, energy, and efficient computing cycles. They both are going to have ENORMOUS issues getting all the heat out of a small box easily. Things will have to be slowed down once they start cramming their development systems together.

Since so much is similar in production and layout, the levels of heat in both designs will keep them close in terms of performance, unless one has a fantastic industrial design. However, I can't help but believe that heat/power will keep them very close even if the PS3 has a few more efficient design methods in a few places (memory, IBM making the graphics chip, CELL, etc.). It should still be close.

Just a rant/thought. Sorry for excluding Nintendo - we don't know much.
 
peedi said:
I'd say the situation will look similar to the gap that divided the Dreamcast from the PS2. Xbox2 games will look spectacular, sure, but it'll definitely encounter limitations that the PS3 won't find itself constrained by. As I've said in the past, the real difference between the systems won't be observable from a purely graphics standpoint. No, it is going to come down to more substantive facets of game design -- mechanics, ai, physics, etc.

Those looking for anything more than a marginal disparity in graphics, will be disappointed. Those looking for added weight to the gameplay, will see a huge difference between the two.

All this attention given to the PS3 and Xbox2 is amusing, given the Revolution lingers just a few paces away.
Click to expand...


Really? When DC launched, it was an underpowered product. heck. They even made profits on the $199 launch price tag, iirc. Speaking of launches, they were a year and a half apart! But Microsoft and Sony are both going to be losing a lot of money on each console no doubt this time. So you're looking at a 6 month window from 2 high end machines instead of a 18 month window from a value machine and a high end machine.

Nice thinking. O_o.
 
note, the following is just speculation on my part:
both consoles will have comparable GPUs, and thereby similar polygonal output.
if the ps3 cell cpu includes 4 SPEs, both systems will have comparable CPU power. in this case xenon would win in the graphics department due to MS developed software tools and their support system.
however, i think the ps3 might just have multiple cell units with 8 SPEs each (i am thinking 3 cells). which, consequently would make it "magnitudes more powerful". with this power, the ps3 CPU array could be used to layer the image produced by the GPU with lots of effects, only limited by RAM, and bus bandwidth. xenon would be bottlenecked by a less powerful CPU. so in essence the ps3 developers would have the freedom to utilize that extra cpu power to either do a lot of post processed effects, filters etc, or use it for complicated physics and AI routines, as they see fit.
i'd say you would see similar world detail in both consoles, but ps3 would probably be able to do a lot more fancy effects while throwing you the same visuals as xenon.
 
Screw the tech differences I want to know the magic voodoo these companies are doing in order to release these systems at a reasonable market price. ;)

It's insane how powerful they are!
 
garrickk said:
snip
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting they'll pretty much be mirror images of each other, but you should take another look, at least on the CPU side. From what we know, there are some significant differences there.
 
oh, another point of interest, IBM is also apparently developing the Revolution CPU. i mean what the fuck is actually going on next gen? :lol
i was reading my latest issue of "spectrum" magazine last night and noted that IBM is pretty much switching over to becoming a software giant, they sold off their HD manufacturing industry to Hitachi, sold off their laptop and PC industry to a Taiwanese manufacturer. and they moved completely to a business server/applications role. so all they are doing for the 3 console manufacturers is basically consultation and laughing their way to the bank.
 
garrickk said:
Blah. The most "powerful" system next generation is going to be the console with the best industrial design. I'll explain.

Points:
1. IBM is manufacturing the processors for both Xenon and PS3. They'll probably be on the same process and use the same manufacturing technologies.

2. NVidia is making the graphics chip for Sony; ATI for MS. Both use similar production technologies (TSMC or whoever they use) - IBM may make the NVidia chip though, but NVidia may push the process? Speculation.

3. Both next gen CPU's will have "custom", fast memory pipes; the transfer protocols may be different and the XDR Rambus crap might allow for faster overall speeds on PS3. However, the manufacturing tech of the chips themselves will be the same for PS3 memory and XBOX memory; i.e. every clock tick will produce roughly the same amount of heat (per transistor switching, etc.), each memory bit will use the same number of CMOS transistors, etc.

4. CPU's might be manufactured on a better process than graphics chips and memory (produce less heat & require less energy per "operation")

5. Relative to Xenon, PS3 will probably push more work onto the Cell than the graphics chip

6. Heat builds up in the system regardless of what is producing it.

With these fast systems, more than ever, it comes down to managing heat, energy, and efficient computing cycles. They both are going to have ENORMOUS issues getting all the heat out of a small box easily. Things will have to be slowed down once they start cramming their development systems together.

Since so much is similar in production and layout, the levels of heat in both designs will keep them close in terms of performance, unless one has a fantastic industrial design. However, I can't help but believe that heat/power will keep them very close even if the PS3 has a few more efficient design methods in a few places (memory, IBM making the graphics chip, CELL, etc.). It should still be close.

Just a rant/thought. Sorry for excluding Nintendo - we don't know much.
Click to expand...

Very interesting insight. Makes a lot of sense. Hopefully they don't let Kutaragi dictate form over function like he did with PSP. MS, on the other hand, usually go with function over form so, I'm not as worried. ;)
 
gofreak said:
You seem to be suggesting they'll pretty much be mirror images of each other, but you should take another look, at least on the CPU side. From what we know, there are some significant differences there.
Click to expand...

No, that's not was I was getting at.

They are manufactured similarly. So, the hundreds of millions of transistors in each will produce a similar amount of heat per operation. They are going to generate a shit load of heat.

Efficiency of processing is going to be important, yes. Bottleneck elimination or control is important, yes. So in memory bandwidth. I just think that a major limiting factor will be heat, and they will have similar heat pumps. It's thermodynamics.

Smashing all this crap in a little box? I think it will be a HUGE engineering constraint and I think it will act to keep the systems closer in performance than is often speculated.
 
garrick you just made a tremendously important point. efficient heat circulation will be extremely important to keep these processors running at average speeds and in stable condition.
 
They're all going to be powerful enough to make beautiful graphics. I mean this is going to be the first generation of hardware where you don't need to worry about the power of the machine..... They are all going to look better than the current X-box (which already looks really, really nice), so it's all gravy baby!


Really it's the first time in gaming history when the power of the machine should be a non-issue.... imagine walking into the local game store and knowing every game you pick up is going to, at the very least, look better than the highest end (current) X-box game......we're almost there. Enjoy.
 
MetalAlien said:
They're all going to be powerful enough to make beautiful graphics. I mean this is going to be the first generation of hardware where you don't need to worry about the power of the machine..... They are all going to look better than the current X-box (which already looks really, really nice), so it's all gravy baby!


Really it's the first time in gaming history when the power of the machine should be a non-issue.... imagine walking into the local game store and knowing every game you pick up is going to, at the very least, look better than the highest end (current) X-box game......we're almost there. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

I don't agree at all. There will not be ANYWHERE near the amount of memory! And there won't be any local mechanism to store massive amounts of cached data (HDDs). This will still limit games immensely. They will still have small environments.

In fact, if they make an HD leap in texture resolution and polygons, and only a 4x (or 8x) leap in the amount of memory, what are they going to do?

What, are you going to stream all the data? If the Xenon has a DVD drive, it will be slow as hell streaming data. You don't want a 16x DVD drive in you machine - the disc spins at 10,000rpms for 16x and your box will be buzzing like a refridgerator. Add to that all the noise of the fans required to displace the heat generated in a tiny plastic box and you have a consumer electronics machine that sounds like a small plane.

There will be the same old issues next gen - they'll just look sharper. They also be hampered by the same, limiting, controllers.

I'm still psyched.
 
You're saying they'll look like high res verisons of what we're playing now? Yea right...there's no way... Look at the leap the PS2 took over the PS1. Expect nothing less than that. You're setting yourself up to not be disappointed, but have a little faith.
 
But isn't the whole Cell architecture based on Kutaragi's argument about the need to "free" computing from RAM constrains?

They will still have small environments.
Click to expand...

You mean like those of Jak & Daxter? I think I can live with that :P
 
Pedigree Chum said:
That's very true. But I bet some lzay devs will shit on your graphics dream.
Click to expand...


Alright, worst case, you have to do a tiny amount of research to make sure it's a nice looking game...do we do any less now? I still say it will be a non issue. We are passing a mile stone here.
 
Here is the magic question, to me...

Xenon system has 1 teraflop

Xenon CPU is ~80-90Gflops.....say 100Gflop to give a nice round number...

Where the fuck is the other 900+Gflops coming from??? the R500???


I think MS backed themselves into a corner when they said the XBOX had, IIRC, ~140Gflops or something like that :lol

They have no choice *but* to say Xenon=>Teraflop....it came back and bit them on the ass...
 
Kleegamefan said:
Here is the magic question, to me...

Xenon system has 1 teraflop

Xenon CPU is ~80-90Gflops.....say 100Gflop to give a nice round number...

Where the fuck is the other 900+Gflops coming from??? the R500???


I think MS backed themselves into a corner when they said the XBOX had, IIRC, ~140Gflops or something like that :lol

They have no choice *but* to say Xenon=>Teraflop....it came back and bit them on the ass...
Click to expand...

yo momma.
 
Kleegamefan said:
Here is the magic question, to me...

Xenon system has 1 teraflop

Xenon CPU is ~80-90Gflops.....say 100Gflop to give a nice round number...

Where the fuck is the other 900+Gflops coming from??? the R500???
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere a while ago that NVidia were counting their NV4x performance as in and around the teraflop range, so, you know..;) It's a little bit meaningless, and not very comparable with either CPU flops or competitor flops (probably, since I doubt everyone counts GPU performance the same way).

But yeah, that gulf does nicely highlight the "credibility" of that figure as as a worthwhile one ;)
 
Bah, the Rev will crush them both, but through a Wi-Fi connection, thereby fooling causal gamers to believe that the Rev actually has mastered the Force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom