dipsylalapo
Neo Member
Looks like Lockhart isn't a thing - https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/...rlett-console-next-generation-rumors-lockhart
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
- Status
Nope, 360 was.
TeamGhobad
Banned
it would bog down the entire generation. thank god its gone.
FrostyJ93
Member
I never get this. They would have had the same CPU, SSD, GDDR6 and Navi arch. Its no different from PC or Mobile. Do you guys not trust the devs to make great looking games still?
Last edited:
thelastword
Banned
Show me in specs, TF count and the best looking games last gen?
TeamGhobad
Banned
thats why it was cancelled they couldn't do that. they can't just take a 1080p game and just upscale it it will look like ass in comparison with the ps5.
FrostyJ93
Member
Idk I think it is a mistake. A $300 console for everyone and a $500 console for enthusiasts sounded great. I don't like how "no one gets left behind" got tossed out the window.
TeamGhobad
Banned
nope. a 400-500 machine for everyone is a better solution.
bitbydeath
Member
Nah, it would have been an achor around the more expensive ones neck.
There’s no way it would have only been res affected especially if the rumours were true of it being 4TF.
FrostyJ93
Member
bitbydeath
Member
Navi
Yeah even then.
thelastword
Banned
The verdict: The processors for the Xbox and PS3 are unique enough in their respective architectures that it can be difficult to make direct comparisons. However, the numbers don't lie.
The two CPU chips run at the same GHz speed, but the PS3's seven individual cores beat out the Xbox's three dual-threaded cores. And in terms of performance measured in gigaflops, the PS3 tops out at nearly three times that of the Xbox.
Interestingly, the new combined CPU/GPU chip used in the new Xbox 360 is theoretically faster than the individual chips in older models. But in order to ensure proper functionality, Microsoft was forced to install a "frontside bus replacement block" that introduces latency and forces the chip to run at the same speed as the older model. This new combined chip may edge out the PS3's CPU in terms of reliability and temperature control, but no long term tests have been performed yet.
Winner: PlayStation 3
The verdict: Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 rely on custom-designed graphics cards. The Xbox's Xenos card features more video RAM, but this RAM is shared with the console's system RAM. The PS3 has 256 MB of dedicated video RAM in addition to being able to share up to an additional 224 MB from the system RAM.
In terms of bandwidth, the PS3 slightly edges out the Xbox. However, the Xbox has the advantage of 10 MB of eDRAM. When relying on the eDRAM, system bandwidth jumps up to 256 GBps.
Ultimately, while the PS3 GPU shows higher general performance numbers, we're inclined to give this category to the Xbox based on the peak performance of the eDRAM and the general versatility of this setup.
Winner: Xbox 360
The PS3 wins pretty much everything else, sound, HDD, Bluray (physical media that actually impacted games (FF13), unlike this gen where you have to install all games to the HDD anyway. And of course to substantiate, it's power edge, was the first party games......which outshone 360 efforts by a large margin.....GT5/6, GOW3, Ascension, LOU, UC Series etc.....Note, that RSX lost to Xenos mostly due to the EDRAM here, but RSX has the edge in bandwidth otherwise....
You can read the full article here, for more details....
https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown?page=1
pawel86ck
Banned
Like I have already said before it all depends where you live. There are rich countries with 2000-3000 euro salaries, and also poor countries with 400$ salaries. In poor country even 300$ console should be expensive. IMO if someone can afford new games (50$) then 500$ price is not a big deal and especially if you look at the whole picture (5-8 years of gaming). IMO people who cant afford gaming should either do something with their life (find a better job), or play on older consoles.
Last edited:
Well, you have GPU with GFLOP advantage, more BW, much better arch (unified shaders with auto load balancing). It was clear devs had to waste 2SPEs only on vertex work because RSX was getting hammered as soon as there where alot of polys on screen.
Comparing "best" looking games is subjective. Sony studios have been much better at it then MS, even this gen. If you gave me ND with PS4Pro v any MS studio with X, I think ND would deliver better results.
By 3rd or 4th year of gen, most games werent port to PS3, but actually lead on it duo to less RAM, GPU bandwidth and complexity that meant whatever worked on PS3 will work on 360 with 2x less hussle. Most impressive game last gen was GTAV. This was 5th R* game on PS3 and was lead on PS3 and bar texture loading "bug" on 360, both consoles where pretty much exactly the same while pushing consoles to absolute limits.
Second example is BF3 that got kings threatmant on PS3 by DICE, whole deferred rendering was moved to SPEs, yet they didnt have issue replicating same on 360.
Most impressive 360 game was Tomb Raider 2016 and it is testament what good tech and art style can do on that system, on top of it, it was done by 3rd party dev and not fully funded 1st party studio.
I will have to look into B3D posts when actual devs posted back in the day as there was internal testing done by some coder (vertices, pixel pushing, texturing, shading etc) that resulted in RSX being behind anywhere from 30 to 40% from Xenos.
Btw you cannot compare RSX flops to Xenos flops, like you cannot compare Radeon Vega 64 flops to 2gen ahead 2080TI. Even though Vega is relatively close its nowhere on actual performance. Xenos was paradigm shift to unified shaders, RSX was 4 years old tech by that point.
You are also forgotting that you cannot measure GPU and CPU flops and lump them together. 6SPEs that where usable where running everything from game code, ai, physics to post processing and vertex work (which could take ~25% of their time according to ICE documentation). So just to match Xenos massive poly throughput, you had to give up 2SPEs to make job easier to RSX. Thats massive, entire system was mistake. If they put that transistor budget into custom GPU they could have had 3 core PPU design from 360 and probably Xenos+50%.
Complete mess that Ken K paid with his head
Last edited:
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Yeah, I'm a believer too. Totally plausible this is PS5...
I think our own Ovech-King is top comment on there. Nice.
Gonzalo had moved from ES to QS in April sometime. I think they can align nicely with each other.
Last edited:
luca_29_bg
Member
FrostyJ93
Member
Gatekeeping much? Gaming should be at least somewhat affordable.
Lort
Banned
The verdict: The processors for the Xbox and PS3 are unique enough in their respective architectures that it can be difficult to make direct comparisons. However, the numbers don't lie.
The two CPU chips run at the same GHz speed, but the PS3's seven individual cores beat out the Xbox's three dual-threaded cores. And in terms of performance measured in gigaflops, the PS3 tops out at nearly three times that of the Xbox.
Interestingly, the new combined CPU/GPU chip used in the new Xbox 360 is theoretically faster than the individual chips in older models. But in order to ensure proper functionality, Microsoft was forced to install a "frontside bus replacement block" that introduces latency and forces the chip to run at the same speed as the older model. This new combined chip may edge out the PS3's CPU in terms of reliability and temperature control, but no long term tests have been performed yet.
Winner: PlayStation 3
The verdict: Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 rely on custom-designed graphics cards. The Xbox's Xenos card features more video RAM, but this RAM is shared with the console's system RAM. The PS3 has 256 MB of dedicated video RAM in addition to being able to share up to an additional 224 MB from the system RAM.
In terms of bandwidth, the PS3 slightly edges out the Xbox. However, the Xbox has the advantage of 10 MB of eDRAM. When relying on the eDRAM, system bandwidth jumps up to 256 GBps.
Ultimately, while the PS3 GPU shows higher general performance numbers, we're inclined to give this category to the Xbox based on the peak performance of the eDRAM and the general versatility of this setup.
Winner: Xbox 360
The PS3 wins pretty much everything else, sound, HDD, Bluray (physical media that actually impacted games (FF13), unlike this gen where you have to install all games to the HDD anyway. And of course to substantiate, it's power edge, was the first party games......which outshone 360 efforts by a large margin.....GT5/6, GOW3, Ascension, LOU, UC Series etc.....Note, that RSX lost to Xenos mostly due to the EDRAM here, but RSX has the edge in bandwidth otherwise....
You can read the full article here, for more details....
https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown?page=1
This is misleading and pointless posting this as proof .. there are factual errors and many out of date statements.
The 360 was the better machine undoubtedly. The ps3 on the best most sophisticated cross platform spu coded games still fared worse than the 360. If the sony games were made for 360 they would have looked better been completed earlier and probably been less simplistic.
CJY
Banned
Maybe
Launching far than their main competitor makes this point moot
Not necessarily. Sony have game sales and larger install-base to call upon to offset/recoup losses on the console. Plus greater savings in economies of scale.
I think having a more powerful console this cycle might be the wrong play for MS. Instead, they should try to come out earlier, come out cheaper and with a better value service than PS5. That's the only way I, as a PS/Nintendo gamer is going to have a chance to try what they are offering. If they launch after PS5, I don't care if it's more powerful. Power seems less important than service offering, timing and pricing, but that's just my opinion.
pawel86ck
Banned
Hardware aspects aside the vast majority of multiplatform games run better on x360 and sometimes at higher resolutions (there were even multiplatform games with lower texture resolution PS3 compared to x360). IMO the best looking game on entire generation was GTA5, but when it comes to exclusive games I have played killzone 2-3, uncharted 1-3, heavenly sword, god of war 3, resistance 1-3, but gears of war 3 on xbox 360 has impressed me the most.
The verdict: The processors for the Xbox and PS3 are unique enough in their respective architectures that it can be difficult to make direct comparisons. However, the numbers don't lie.
The two CPU chips run at the same GHz speed, but the PS3's seven individual cores beat out the Xbox's three dual-threaded cores. And in terms of performance measured in gigaflops, the PS3 tops out at nearly three times that of the Xbox.
Interestingly, the new combined CPU/GPU chip used in the new Xbox 360 is theoretically faster than the individual chips in older models. But in order to ensure proper functionality, Microsoft was forced to install a "frontside bus replacement block" that introduces latency and forces the chip to run at the same speed as the older model. This new combined chip may edge out the PS3's CPU in terms of reliability and temperature control, but no long term tests have been performed yet.
Winner: PlayStation 3
The verdict: Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 rely on custom-designed graphics cards. The Xbox's Xenos card features more video RAM, but this RAM is shared with the console's system RAM. The PS3 has 256 MB of dedicated video RAM in addition to being able to share up to an additional 224 MB from the system RAM.
In terms of bandwidth, the PS3 slightly edges out the Xbox. However, the Xbox has the advantage of 10 MB of eDRAM. When relying on the eDRAM, system bandwidth jumps up to 256 GBps.
Ultimately, while the PS3 GPU shows higher general performance numbers, we're inclined to give this category to the Xbox based on the peak performance of the eDRAM and the general versatility of this setup.
Winner: Xbox 360
The PS3 wins pretty much everything else, sound, HDD, Bluray (physical media that actually impacted games (FF13), unlike this gen where you have to install all games to the HDD anyway. And of course to substantiate, it's power edge, was the first party games......which outshone 360 efforts by a large margin.....GT5/6, GOW3, Ascension, LOU, UC Series etc.....Note, that RSX lost to Xenos mostly due to the EDRAM here, but RSX has the edge in bandwidth otherwise....
You can read the full article here, for more details....
https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/08/26/xbox-360-vs-playstation-3-the-hardware-throwdown?page=1
Gears was nowhere near as impressive as GOW3 but then again its UE3 game made with budget much lower then GOW3 I am sure. GTAV was comfortably most impressive game I played last gen.
Best looking 360 exclusive was Tomb Raider 2016 no doubt.
TLZ
Banned
Aceofspades
Banned
GTAV was better on PS3 as per DF verdict. This works as an evidence that once you PS3 exotic hw. You will end up with unmatched results. Look at Sony first party output vs others. Look at Killzone 2 vs others, Uncharted 3, God of War...the last of us. Even Rockstar admitted that GTA4 was bad on PS3 because they still couldn't figure out CELL then later amended that with GTAV, hell they even praised CELL.
ResilientBanana
Member
Super Nintendo had better graphics than Sega Genesis. Fight me.
Read it again. PS3 was better duo to "bug" or whatever that was where texture under your character was muddy. Both consoles had exact same resolution, AA, and frame rate (360 slight advantage through city, ps3 when there is explosion).
What that proves is that game with biggest budget, that was made by some of technically most accomplished developers and with 5 yr dev time ended up pretty much exactly the same on both consoles, pushing them far and above what we ever anticipated (going back to 2005 E3).
What PS3 was is failure in design. It had bigger die, more transistors and was comfortably more expensive just because Sony wanted to put CPU in every household in the world. GPU was an afterthought for them.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Thats not what digital foundry and lens of truth had to say or any expert last gen Killzone 2, TLOU, Uncharted 2/3, God of War had no equals. Gears had a run until Uncharted 2 dropped it blew the door open and comparisons with Gears wasn't even fair. Like come on everyone remembers UC2 reveal no one thought what thy were seeing was possible. Uncharted won tons of awards many of which had to do with graphics and tech
Sony last and this gen basically passed the graphics benchmarks back and forth amongst each other, that is the consensus this isn't really debatable lol. I've posted articles on this before. BTW in terms of being open world and the tech behind creating such a world in GTAV I agree but no one ever brought up GTAV for best looking last Gen, graphically alot of games looked better.Pound for pound Sony exclusives looked better than their competition in their respective genres for the most part
Uncharted beat all competitors. Gears couldn't compete
TLOU blew ppls minds.
Killzone 2 next level shit even looked better than Halo bullshots micro always tried to pass as gameplay. They then compared Killzone to Crysis on PC which is wild.
God of War idk anything you could compare to it
MLB the Show no competitor to compare but always one of the best looking games.
How Sony Is Leading The Charge With The Best Looking Console Exclusives - Part 1
Our in-depth analysis on how Sony is able to develop an amazing line-up of great…
If u don't like gamingbolt many other articles on this. Digital Foundry had Uncharted on a pedastal when you look up theur comparisons to other games
as well.
Last edited:
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Gamernyc78
Banned
I was a Sega head lol and thy had some gd looking games but I give it to Nintendo as well. I also had a Turbogrfx with some dope looking games
TLZ
Banned
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Oh I was a hardcore Genesis fan.
Genesis could hold it's own in gfx and sound, it's critical weakness was the standard inclusion of the 3-button controller compared to SNES's 6-button pad.We had a(Afro Republican?) Atari ST vs Amiga thread that had some legs a few months ago. GAF is all old guys reliving the playground days.
Last edited:
Gamernyc78
Banned
Lol yeah I'm 40 Def reliving those days of "dude my console has a bigger color pallette than yours or mine can have more polygons on screen". Vicious days.
pawel86ck
Banned
I think everyone will have their own opinion. God Of War 3 and Gears Of War 3 however are totally different games. God of war 3 is a game with much bigger scale, but I could see imperfections everywhere (low resolution textures, square objects) because of that, while in gears of war 3 literally everything looked polished even from up close.
Tomb raider was also good looking game, but lighting (especially volumetric lighting), shadows quality, textures quality (metalic surfaces looked like real) in gears 3 impressed me much more. Gears of war 3 was not only extremely detailed game but also featured more varied locations compared to tomb raider.
ethomaz
Banned
It is an article based on the Thurrott article that has a thread here.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
PS3 was stronger... 360 was easier to developer.
ArabianPrynce
Member
I am curious about the tflop numbers still Matt from era mentioned something along the lines of
"there is a good reason both companies are no sharing those numbers" i am paraphrasing but you get my point. If the tflops were much higher than pro or one x i think they would be confident in mentioning it. Sure navi 8tflops = 10 tflop gcn but to the average consumer 8tflop is not much above pros 4 or one x 6tflops.
I was also reading old pages of this thread, someone mentioned that the soc is locked in 2 years before i higly doubt they got their hands 7nm+ that early when it wasnt even annouced yet.
ethomaz
Banned
He explained in another post after that... he is talking about the specs not being locked yet and MS/Sony trying to hide the final numbers from each other.
Not because TFs are low or high.
But remember when he talks about not locked he is talking about clock, cooling system and others things that affect performance... the APU’s design is pretty much done now.
Last edited:
By locked in they probably mean that major changes can't be made because they need to do all the engineering around getting it actually developed and taped out into silicon.
At this stage you can still fiddle with some stuff like the density of the memory or the clocks depending on how tolerant you are to bad yields and bom changes.
Last edited:
LordOfChaos
Member
Dear god, make a debate the 7th gen's power thread already and don't do it in here lol
Last edited:
vpance
Member
[Samsung : HBM2 data bandwidth calculation]
-An 8GB HBM2 package’s data bandwidth : 2.4Gbps per pin x 1024bit bus = 307.2GB/s
Using four HBM2 packages in a system: 307.2GB/s x 4 = 1228.8GBps = approximately 1.2TB/s
Samsung Starts Producing 8-Gigabyte High Bandwidth Memory-2 with Highest Data Transmission Speed
The new HBM2, Aquabolt™, features today’s highest DRAM performance levels, for use in next-generation supercomputers, AI solutions and graphics systemsnews.samsung.com
Or maybe HBM2E 16GB x 2 = 820GB/s
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14110/samsung-introduces-hbm2e-flashbolt-memory-16-gb-32-gbps
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Damn, it's like Lord of the Flies over at reee-. It reminds me of this chick I worked with whose breath smelled like human urine and I won't lie I had my suspicions, but you know. Anyway, I was on erowid.org trying to research potential interactions between LSD and SNRIs and I read this post about a couple who did that shit and everything made sense like Beautiful Mind.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Not announced to the public arena, but they have these in their road-maps for quite a while with AMD, and is a big part in their SOC decision making and future reductions. Not saying it will be 7nm+, but they knew about that process long before the public does.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I can't believe the last Uncharted game was made in one year!!!! CRAZY!!
Your understanding on how games are made and how they run is just wrong!
Your understanding on how games are made and how they run is just wrong!
Evilms
Banned
vpance
Member
That's too much, they don't need 64GB. 2 stacks seems like enough with a 2048-bit bus.
Last edited:
Evilms
Banned
Of course if you go on 2 stacks
and a 2048 bit bus it's 820 GB/s
TeamGhobad
Banned
i hate the console wars...
ResilientBanana
Member
What's it feel like to be exposed?i hate the console wars...
- Status