Support NeoGAF

[tehama]

http://www.buzzscope.com/news.php?id=2292

Just peeped this. Even though the earlier stories of RSX being greater than the 7800 GTX were a no-brainer, I had no idea nVidia would release a GPU that would beat their own RSX by the time PS3 launches. That's pretty quick.

 

[Timen]

the design for RSX was finalised, what? over half an year ago? it would make sense for them to have a faster card at the ready by the time it ships.

 

[Myoclonic Jerk]

POWWEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[flipswitch]

So when do we think the PC is going to catch up in terms of overal power? (cell/gpu)

 

[tehama]

All the RSX is is a slightly higher clocked G70. The rest of the architecture is unchanged. The 7800s were underclocked so that they could easily stay ahead of the game.

This is still different than the Xbox Vs Geforce 3 situation where the Xbox was similar to a Geforce 3.5 and having the additional Vertex Shading unit had it ahead of the desktop part for some time.

 

[Zaptruder]

Ain't killin' shit bitches. PCI-E limitation will guarantee that.

and throw in a CELL, and we won't see anything top the PS3 in practical terms until late 2007, 2008...

 

[tehama]

Ain't killin' shit bitches. PCI-E limitation will guarantee that.

and throw in a CELL, and we won't see anything top the PS3 in practical terms until late 2007, 2008...

We're talking about comparing the GPU to the GPU, not comparing the CELL to typical PC CPUs

 

[Izzy]

All the RSX is is a slightly higher clocked G70. The rest of the architecture is unchanged.

Somehow I doubt you're privy to RSX info...

 

[tehama]

Somehow I doubt you're privy to RSX info...

It's already been released and various reports and information that's been on the net since the 7800 GTX launch have stated as much. If you look at the specs of the 7800 GTX and compare it to the RSX, the only difference is the clock speed which in turn allows it to put out a greater number of instructions and operations per second, higher fill rate and bandwidth and floating point.

It's not about being privy to RSX info, it's as simple as reading.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

Ain't killin' shit bitches. PCI-E limitation will guarantee that.

and throw in a CELL, and we won't see anything top the PS3 in practical terms until late 2007, 2008...

...what limitation I didnt know any game was close to saturating that bus let alone agp x8. I guess its a good thing amd plans to integrate the southbridge into its chips though huh? Pc's will have better gpu's oh but for a price...theres always a PRICE.

 

[McFly]

We're talking about comparing the GPU to the GPU, not comparing the CELL to typical PC CPUs

You can't compare a GPU to a GPU without talking about how the GPU communicates with the rest of the system (Bus, RAM, CPU ...), that's like comparing a submarine with an other submarine without talking about water.

Fredi

 

[tehama]

You can't compare a GPU to a GPU without talking about how the GPU communicates with the rest of the system (Bus, RAM, CPU ...)

Of course you can. If you want to talk about total system performance, you talk about the CPU, Bus, etc. If you're talking about two GPUs that are derived from the same core and are trying to just discern what the differences are between those two discrete parts alone, then you can compare just the GPU to the GPU. Isolate the variables kid.

 

[Inumaru]

Ain't killin' shit bitches. PCI-E limitation will guarantee that.

and throw in a CELL, and we won't see anything top the PS3 in practical terms until late 2007, 2008...

Puh-leeeze. I want to love it as much as the next PS3 tech whore, but you don't seriously believe this [2008], do you? I think the normal 6 month window (console-to-PC leadtime GPU superiority) applies here, just as it always has... There's no magic that makes Sony (or Nvidia crafting for Sony) craft things 2 years ahead of everything else. If you believe this, you're delusional.

 

[EternalDarko]

Ain't killin' shit bitches. PCI-E limitation will guarantee that.

and throw in a CELL, and we won't see anything top the PS3 in practical terms until late 2007, 2008...

PCI Express limitation? what are you on about... the damn thing isn't even being properly tapped yet, and as another user said; we haven't even reached the full limits of 8x agp.

 

[Izzy]

PCI Express limitation? what are you on about... the damn thing isn't even being properly tapped yet, and as another user said; we haven't even reached the full limits of 8x agp.

Ehhh, just because PC devs didn't exploit it doesn't mean that's it's not a limitation.

 

[McFly]

Isolate the variables kid.

And? At the end what you've isolated is a number on a paper that has no effect to the real world (games) for most likely years. It's just a "my penis is bigger" game you play, not a "my penis is better for what it is used for" game.

Fredi

 

[tehama]

It's just a "my penis is bigger" game you play, not a "my penis is better for what it is used for" game.

Fredi

Well, whatever you're talking about is your own business. Everybody in here is just talking about the RSX GPU compared to the G70 GPU that will be out next Spring.

 

[EternalDarko]

Ehhh, just because PC devs didn't exploit it doesn't mean that's it's not a limitation.

What?

Just because it may be a limitation 6 or so years down the line, doesn't mean that it would have any effect on PC's easily outdoing console graphics in 2 years time or earlier....when UE4 games are ready basically. DX10 is only a year away, R600 will be able to easily outdo RSX and Xenos graphics, but taking into account that a game would need to be available with that graphics capability for it to be official, is why I state UE4.

 

[Izzy]

What?

Just because it may be a limitation 6 or so years down the line

It's a limitation now. X360 and PS3 in particular have much more bandwidth, and console devs are bound to exploit it.

 

[EternalDarko]

They do have more bandwidth, but you're not taking my other point into account. In a years time, PC's will have better gfx tech, regardless of the bandwidth difference between them and consoles; games will still be able to look better than PS3 stuff especially when they use all new and amazing tech that DX10 has to offer. DX10 is a complete reworking of the DirectX codebase with all the crap thrown out and lots of new features that have been added that will give a much higher graphical output than is possible with DX9 class hardware. PC games will look better in 2 years time, just accept it.

 

[Izzy]

They do have more bandwidth, but you're not taking my other point into account. In a years time, PC's will have better gfx tech, regardless of the lack of bandwidth; games will still be able to look better than PS3 stuff especially when they use all new and amazing tech that DX10 has to offer. DX10 is a complete reworking of the DirectX codebase with all the crap thrown out and lots of new features that have been added that will give a much higher graphical output than is possible with DX9 class hardware. PC games will look better in 2 years time, just accept it.

Of course they'll look better - I was specifically referring to bandwidth.

 

[EternalDarko]

It's still not a limitation though.....there is a difference in the bandwidth garnered by next gen consoles compared to PC's; but that's they way they are designed.

Zaptruders comment was stating that due to PCI-E being a limitation, that PC's will not be able to out-do PS3 class graphics; that's simply not true. DX10 class hardware will all use PCI-E.

 

[Striek]

Wow thats unexpected. A high-end GFX card in the future will beat a high-end GFX card from now? Say it aint so!

What did you expect? Sony are meeting or exceeding expectations with a healthly transistor budget (as is Microsoft), by 2006 a high-end GPU won't be constrained to ~300million transistors. Also NVIDIA is switching to 90nm process which will allow them to increase the size of their high-end GPUs, along with architectural enhancements/improvements in the future.

I guess some people really believe Xenos will be unmatched for years.

 

[tehama]

Wow thats unexpected. A high-end GFX card in the future will beat a high-end GFX card from now? Say it aint so!

The RSX isn't a high end graphics card from now. It's a high end graphics card in the future also and this is a comparison between it and it's G70 based relative that will be released around the same time. They both have speeds/features beyond the current 7800 GTX, but nVidia is saying the desktop part will be the more powerful.

 

[gofreak]

This is nothing new, NVidia has said before that a PC GPU of theirs will beat RSX either by the time PS3 launches or fairly shortly after that (Burke said the former, Kirk said the latter).

And of course, that is simply looking at the GPU in isolation..you won't have CPUs that can feed a GPU like Cell can for quite some time I don't think.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

fools

 

[Striek]

The RSX isn't a high end graphics card from now. It's a high end graphics card in the future also and this is a comparison between it and it's G70 based relative that will be released around the same time. They both have speeds/features beyond the current 7800 GTX, but nVidia is saying the desktop part will be the more powerful.

Its obvious your intentions in creating this topic (especially the sensationalist title), but the RSX has taped out whereas the hypothetical GPU that it is being compared to has not. Thus, RSX is based on todays technologies and you are comparing it to tomorrows.

I refuse to believe someone could be inane enough to believe that the talented engineers at NVIDIA couldn't beat their own product given more time and a larger transistor budget.

 

[AB 101]

It's already been released and various reports and information that's been on the net since the 7800 GTX launch have stated as much.

The Inquirer.

 

[tehama]

Its obvious your intentions in creating this topic (especially the sensationalist title), but the RSX has taped out whereas the hypothetical GPU that it is being compared to has not. Thus, RSX is based on todays technologies and you are comparing it to tomorrows.

I refuse to believe someone could be inane enough to believe that the talented engineers at NVIDIA couldn't beat their own product given more time and a larger transistor budget.

If this is a chip that's going to be out next spring (the desktop part) chances are that it could have taped out by now as well. Considering all reports have been that nVidia has had the G70 taped out for a VERY long time before the RSX or 7800 GTX unveilling, the architecture is pretty stable and a clock increase wouldn't necessitate waiting to the last minute for another tape out.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm gonna do a take back on my PCI-E comment.

There. Done.

 

[fugimax]

Hardware-wise, I think PCs we'll be more powerful almost at "Day 1." (PS3 may reign shortly).

Software-wise, it will take PC game-makers 6m-1y to catch-up with the production quality some PS3 games will have.

 

[fortified_concept]

Well and Ati will probably have a Xenos "killer" by the time nVidia's RSX "killer" is released. Is there any real point to this thread, besides the obvious?

 

[sonycowboy]

Well and Ati will probably have a Xenos "killer" by the time nVidia's RSX "killer" is released. Is there any real point to this thread, besides the obvious?

Nope. Just the obvious. The 7800 > RSX FUD only lasted a couple of hours, so a new line of defense is needed. Enter, this thread.

:lol

and TeamXbox really jumped on the news yesterday. Here's a little graph they created based on 7800 numbers :lol

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Nope. Just the obvious. The 7800 > RSX FUD only lasted a couple of hours, so a new line of defense is needed. Enter, this thread.

:lol

and TeamXbox really jumped on the news yesterday. Here's a little graph they created based on 7800 numbers :lol

That shit is so fucking stupid.

 

[fortified_concept]

Nope. Just the obvious. The 7800 > RSX FUD only lasted a couple of hours, so a new line of defense is needed. Enter, this thread.

:lol

and TeamXbox really jumped on the news yesterday. Here's a little graph they created based on 7800 numbers :lol

:lol The fanboys are getting pretty desperate down there.

 

[Forsete]

Damn, I think I better skip the PS3 and get a real brute force PC instead. :/

Spoiler

Not really.

 

[Striek]

If this is a chip that's going to be out next spring (the desktop part) chances are that it could have taped out by now as well. Considering all reports have been that nVidia has had the G70 taped out for a VERY long time before the RSX or 7800 GTX unveilling, the architecture is pretty stable and a clock increase wouldn't necessitate waiting to the last minute for another tape out.

The fictious GPU being discussed is the G75 or even G80 isn't it?
I think we would have heard if it had taped out.

Nope. Just the obvious. The 7800 > RSX FUD only lasted a couple of hours, so a new line of defense is needed. Enter, this thread.

:lol

and TeamXbox really jumped on the news yesterday. Here's a little graph they created based on 7800 numbers :lol

*waiting for them to revise PS3 numbers up in light of new evidence*
.
.
.
*crickets*


Hah really all that shows (to the technically uninclined) is that Xenos isn't much more powerful than a 7800.

 

[Lord Error]

Well and Ati will probably have a Xenos "killer" by the time nVidia's RSX "killer" is released. Is there any real point to this thread, besides the obvious?

Heh, I'd almost bet that some beefed up variation of R520 will be technically more powerful, even though the advantage might get lost in pitfalls of PC architecture.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Yup, it's expected there'll either be an Ultra card or the G80 (which might be labeled "Ultra") shortly after the PS3 launch. That timetable might change if ATI springs any suprises in the GPU market before then. Xenos may have the unified-shaders, but there's already been talk of R520 beating it in performance. ATI and NVidia have much bigger fish to fry in the long run, and I think their obligations to both companies are only up to producy launch. I would assume both MS and Sony would have gotten some deal where their GPUs won't be bested by the PC sector parts until a certain time period. We'll see. PEACE.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

What? DX10 is only a year away, R600 will be able to easily outdo RSX and Xenos graphics

Theoretically sure, but I bet we'll be hard pressed to find any PC games that take real advantage of the new API for quite awhile. Thats what the bottom line is, not the potential of the hardware but the actual games that get produced on the platform. And with PCs thats always a clock that runs a little slow. It took nearly 2 years before DX9 cards actually had their muscle flexed and Far Cry is still quite modern today among it's peers, well over a year later. There's always going to be the lowest common denominator with PC development, you just cant get around it. Whereas the closed box of consoles gets tapped through its cycle in ways state of the art GPUs never can. It was well into the 3rd generation of Xbox games before DX9 finally got exploited and PC games actually started looking significantly more complex (not accounting for image quality).

Meanwhile these latest consoles will have considerable CPU-GPU bandwith to go along with a paradigm shift in applied CPU power, as well as a relatively sizable amount of memory to last on. Outside of image quality I dont see the Console to PC gap widening for at least a couple generations after the PS3 launch, and it could be even longer depending on what some of the new hardware designs bring to the closed box environment.

 

[xexex]

this is actually older news than most people can imagine. this has been in the planning for years. since 2002-2003 when Nvidia started working on the chip that is being called "an RSX-killer" in subject header of this thread. it's called NV50 or NV5X. it'll be out by spring-summer 2006 before Microsoft releases Longhorn / Windows Vista.

the NV5X will support DirectX10 and WGF2.0 and therfore, Vertex, Pixel Shader 4.0


Nvidia mentioned the NV50 R&D in fall 2002 when they paper launched NV30 GeForceFX.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Theoretically sure, but I bet we'll be hard pressed to find any PC games that take real advantage of the new API for quite awhile. Thats what the bottom line is, not the potential of the hardware but the actual games that get produced on the platform. And with PCs thats always a clock that runs a little slow. It took nearly 2 years before DX9 cards actually had their muscle flexed and Far Cry is still quite modern today among it's peers, well over a year later. There's always going to be the lowest common denominator with PC development, you just cant get around it. Whereas the closed box of consoles gets tapped through its cycle in ways state of the art GPUs never can. It was well into the 3rd generation of Xbox games before DX9 finally got exploited and PC games actually started looking significantly more complex (not accounting for image quality).

Meanwhile these latest consoles will have considerable CPU-GPU bandwith to go along with a paradigm shift in applied CPU power, as well as a relatively sizable amount of memory to last on. Outside of image quality I dont see the Console to PC gap widening for at least a couple generations after the PS3 launch, and it could be even longer depending on what some of the new hardware designs bring to the closed box environment.

Yeah, on the actual graphical side of things, consoles should enjoy the same year+ advantage they've always had. The PC has bottlenecks, and it's also hard for a PC dev to create a bunch of high-end graphics assets when it'll only be used by a small fraction of the market. I mean, we've had SM3.0 cards for a while now, yet we're only now seeing games that truly start utilizing them.

Both 360 and PS3 have much bigger pipes to their CPUs, so it should let them stretch their legs for a little bit. And they won't need a PPU to enjoy great physics, they'll get it out of the box. But considering a high-end GPU retails for more than a whole console, it's expected that the performance advantage won't last forever. Performance is fleeting. PEACE.

 

[dorio]

This info isn't new. Nvidia stated that they would have a more powerful desktop part when the ps3 is released awhile ago.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

Theoretically sure, but I bet we'll be hard pressed to find any PC games that take real advantage of the new API for quite awhile. Thats what the bottom line is, not the potential of the hardware but the actual games that get produced on the platform. And with PCs thats always a clock that runs a little slow. It took nearly 2 years before DX9 cards actually had their muscle flexed and Far Cry is still quite modern today among it's peers, well over a year later. There's always going to be the lowest common denominator with PC development, you just cant get around it. Whereas the closed box of consoles gets tapped through its cycle in ways state of the art GPUs never can. It was well into the 3rd generation of Xbox games before DX9 finally got exploited and PC games actually started looking significantly more complex (not accounting for image quality).

Meanwhile these latest consoles will have considerable CPU-GPU bandwith to go along with a paradigm shift in applied CPU power, as well as a relatively sizable amount of memory to last on. Outside of image quality I dont see the Console to PC gap widening for at least a couple generations after the PS3 launch, and it could be even longer depending on what some of the new hardware designs bring to the closed box environment.

Are you kidding me, yeah theres a lowest common denominator but thats exactly why video options are in the game and on your graphics driver. I suppose you have never heard of a little game called EQ2 ...I dunno what lowest denominator that game was aiming for but the memory and video requirements for that game were insane. It really depends on the developer, not a fact of life on PC's. Doom 3 wasnt a game someone with a 4 year old pc could run with ease at full rez, nor was HL2, this argument doesnt really stand up. The pace at which pc's are improving is quickening not slowing down(SATAII, integrated southbridge, integrated northbridge, DDR2 etc), YES the next gen cards from ATI and Nividia will wtf pwn what is going into the Xbox360 and PS3. As it was stated before the RSX and R500 have been taped out for quite some time. Considering Nvidia is going to have another chip ready in the spring and the PS3 is launching in the spring i would HOPE the team assigned to make the NEXT generation graphics chip can outdo the RSX if not they're fired. Come on now this is just like any other kind of R&D theres always someone working on the next best thing. On the hardware side yes consoles will be dated...what ISNT dated in the tech world by the time it comes out? Consoles are no different...BUT there is a silver lining, if it works on ONE console it works on ALL consoles. The PS3 and Xbox360's advantage is simple , its programmers will be able to go straight to the asembler if they want with FULL confidence. Programs in assembler can run up to 10 times as fast as a high level language. That is the xbox360's advantage that is the RSX's advantage its SOFTWARE, remember software is the other half of this equation. IBM's power pc 970 is a beast but apple worstations get F'd in the mouth by Opteron workstations in benchmarks that are historically apple dominated because OSX has so many friggin layers to its shell it doesnt work as well with the 970. Software people it counts!

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Really Big Paragraph

Um, were you arguing with me in there? Of course the hardware will be superior, I didnt say otherwise. I was specifically talking about software and the trends in development on the PC platform.

 

[Kobold]

I'm a fan of Xbox, but I don't want to be in any way associated with news on TeamXbox.com... ( I swear, they have some interesting articles and I envy their ability to deliver early reviews, but that fanboyish ultra-biased 'news' is really a disgrace to webjournalism all around)

 

[mrklaw]

nobody done the 'ferrari engine in a beetle chassis' analogy yet?

If we agree that 'more expensive than a console' graphics card you buy the day after PS3 is out is more powerful than the graphics chip inside PS3, will you go away? It doesn't mean anything, but it seems like it'd make you happy

 

[pestul]

PCs of late 2006 will probably be faster than PS3 (perhaps not in bandwidth) in both cpu & gfx. A single-threaded athlon 64 is actually faster for general purpose than a 3.2GHz Cell. Throw in a AGEIA Phyx add-on chip (yeah, they'll force us to buy them just like they did with soundcards and the first 3d accelerators).. and the gap will widen.

But will it be worth the price? Probably not.

 

[GeoramA]

Nope. Just the obvious. The 7800 > RSX FUD only lasted a couple of hours, so a new line of defense is needed. Enter, this thread.

:lol

and TeamXbox really jumped on the news yesterday. Here's a little graph they created based on 7800 numbers :lol

TXB... :lol

What a joke of a fanboy site that is

 

[Dr_Cogent]

PCs of late 2006 will probably be faster than PS3 (perhaps not in bandwidth) in both cpu & gfx. A single-threaded athlon 64 is actually faster for general purpose than a 3.2GHz Cell. Throw in a AGEIA Phyx add-on chip (yeah, they'll force us to buy them just like they did with soundcards and the first 3d accelerators).. and the gap will widen.

But will it be worth the price? Probably not.

I doubt that highly.