-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Seems no one is talking about PS3 specs
- Thread starter tsp_gatmog
- Start date
Tenacious-V said:
The former part of this quote is just wrong, plain and simple. Secondly, There is no great bandwith downfall, as shaders increase in length the computation bound overtakes the bandwith bounds and reduces RAM access requirements, which for the RSX with FP power is where much of the frame processing time will be spent. When it does need external access (as it obviously still will), the RSX has much flexibility in being able to access both it's own private VRAM pool at 22.4GB/sec and access to data from the shared XDR at 25.6GB/sec, as well as data sets from Cell's SPUs directly as long as it's under the aggregate ~80GB/sec bounds of the Cell <=> RSX bus.
The latter part is just the typical anti-Sony rhetoric which I'd advise you to stick to.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
The GPU in the PS3 has access to all the ram.
Tenacious-V
Thinks his PR is better than yours.
seismologist said:
Wow, you sure know how to take everything out of context and twist it into some fanboy garbage. I never once stated PS3 GPU was slower, I stated X360 GPU has more features (WGF 2.0). The 2 will be very comparable speed wise.
To all you guys who think I'm some fanboy grow the fuck up. I'm just trying to bring you all back to reality from the sticks Sony jammed up your asses making you think it's GOD of all consoles. YES PS3 is faster, I never disputed that whatsoever, but the leap you guys think it is between the 2 systems is NOT there. The systems are very very comparable, the GPU's are very very comparable. The R500 just has more features to utilize, I never said speed.
Vince said:
on the bandwidth side, i refer to the bottle neck coming from... where you need to transfer to gpu memory, it gouges the cpu bandwidth and when you need something from gpu memory to cpu it gouges the gpu bandwidth. The bus between the cpu and gpu are fine, but it's just an odd setup. Xbox 360 bandwidth between cpu and memory or gpu memory won't have any effect on the other bandwidth to memory.
Tenacious-V said:
Sorry, this is far too categorical, and false in some regards. Specs and details for RSX are
pretty thin on the ground. In raw power terms it's hard to see it being anything other than more powerful than R500. However that doesn't tell the whole story, the R500 is more elegant, and a unified shader architecture may be better from a real world perspective, it's certainly more flexible. The bandwidth considerations are not as clear cut as we might infer from your post, certainly r500 wont be limited by framebuffer BW, both will have BW issues. On what we know, I'd guess from a GPU perspective it looks pretty evenly matched.
There is nothing to indicate at this time that XB360 will have a graphical edge, basically because we don't have enough information.
Crazymoogle
Member
LakeEarth said:
It likely can always be used unless memory bandwidth is maxed out in every direction. Regardless of the GPU, there are things like physics, sound encoding, networking and other things that need to be dealt with every frame.
shpankey said:
While I'd shy away from the 3X figure, the PS3 is roughly 2X the X360 in terms of specifications. I wouldn't be surprised to see games on the PlayStation3 that are not feasible on X360 in the same incarnation due to the advantages Cell has over the XCPU.
For example, The PS3 Unreal Technology demo that was running at 60FPS was basically an RSX demo. Mark Rein of Epic has stated that they have yet to touch Cell in a meaningful manner. He also stated that their extracted preformance of the RSX is "nowhere near as fast as the final one will be. When we get home from E3 we'll also start diving seriously into the power of the cell processor."
krypt0nian
Banned
Is there a comparison to this gen?
What I mean to say is can you do a quick equation like PS3 is to 360 as xbox is to say PS2?
Or is it closer like xbox > gamecube?
EDIT> Holy crap, fatghost. That was scary.
What I mean to say is can you do a quick equation like PS3 is to 360 as xbox is to say PS2?
Or is it closer like xbox > gamecube?
EDIT> Holy crap, fatghost. That was scary.
Spectral Glider
Member
DopeyFish said:
That's a really impressive way of saying you have no fucking clue.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
I've heard this mentioned in a couple dev reaction quotes, but I'll wait for more information.Fatghost28 said:
Don't worry. Now that the cat is out of the bag, we'll be getting tons of articles, analysis and interviews with devs and Sony/MS. Be patient through the next few weeks and we'll get answers.
Tenacious-V
Thinks his PR is better than yours.
gmoran said:
If you go by what nvidia stated months ago, that PS3 will be based on the next geforce card. That card is the G70 (a 24-32 pipeline glorified 6800) running on a 128bit bus in the console (as per the spec of PS3) it will be bandwidth starved. That doesn't say it won't be fast as hell. When I said graphical edge to Xbox360, I meant in useable features, NOT speed. Xbox360's R500 is a generation ahead of the G70 feature wise incorporating most of WGF2.0's standard. You guys keep taking what I said out of context. I never said XBox360 would be faster, or the GPU would be faster, I stated the R500 GPU would have more features than RSX.
Vince said:
Xboxts just wanna believe long-time Sony haters senior members at beyond3d (which we know is an ATI biased site) spitting out shit specs out of their asses without having never programmed on the actual PS3 GPU. Basically, ATI with Half the transistor of the RSX just surpasses. Sony will take huge losses fabbing those enormous chips just because NVdia is lame.
tsp_gatmog
Member
Some of you are taking what Kutaragi said out of context; he didnt say PS3 is 2 times more powerful than 360, just that the CPU is.
DopeyFish said:
I do believe, now correct me if I'm wrong, that you have the scenarios somewhat confused. While transfering data will incur a bandwith hit on the hybrid-NUMA set-up, the PlayStation3 has twice the aggregate bandwith to external RAM as the X360, the scenarios you outlined are going to hurt the X360 more than the PlayStation3. For example:
Xbox360:
Code:
. / == (22.4GBsec - [i]n[/i]) ==> [R500] <== [i]64GB/sec[/i] == [b][10MB][/b]
[b][512MB GDDR][/b] |
\ == ([i]n[/i] < 10.8GBsec) ==> [CPU]Everytime the CPU R/W from system RAM, it diminished the amount of bandwith the GPU can use by n (where n scales to 10.8GB/sec). So, the CPU can reduce, theoretically, the GPUs external bandwith to 10.8GB/sec.
On the PlayStation3, the memory is segmented and NUMA-esque. The RSX can access all RAM, PS3-Cell is limited to just the XDR. Thus, the GPU can never, never have less than 22.4GB/sec of bandwith to 256MB of RAM, but can scale upto a theoretical 48GB/sec from 512MB of system RAM (this isn't counting access to Cell's SPUs).
PlayStation 3:
Code:
[[b]256MB XDR[/b]] <== ([i]25.6GB/sec[/i]) ==> [Cell] <== ([i]78 GB/sec[/i]) ==> [RSX] <== ([i]22.4GB/sec[/i]) == [[b]256MB GDDR[/b]]Endymion said:
LOL. While I appreciate the comment and I agree with many points (ATI for example), I don't think the use of "haters" who are identified as "senior members at B3D" helps my particular argument.
TheDuce22 said:Whoever was speaking for MS also stated several times that xbox 360 is the most powerful next generation platform. I dont believe either of them.
That was Petere Moore, but he wasn't referring to specs, but at the marvellous "balance" between power, tools and services.
Vince said:
IIRC, it wasn't even really an RSX "demo" insomuch as it was two Geforce 6800s SLI'd. I'd hope that they could get a fast version of the game engine running on top of the line current hardware (as that is the baseline of their current game engine in the first place). The more interesting issue is CELL and, IMO, how that's going to affect the physics / AI processing. The x360 is comparatively running on much more exotic hardware, so comparisons are hard to make.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Wow, this thread has turned out exactly the way Drinky said it would...
Tenacious-V said:
What new features? We know about eDram, but...after that? And don't say unified shading, that's not an extra "feature", it's just a different way of going about things. I could equally say that RSX's dedicated pipelines are a feature over the R500 if that were the case.
tsp_gatmog said:
I think the implication was there with the 2Tflop figure for total system power (versus 1Tflop for the X360). But yes, I think that difference is far clearer on the CPU side.
Tenacious-V said:
You deliberately implied that the XB360's GPU would be more powerful than the PS3's; and I'm sorry but there is not enough information in the public domain to state that.
If you go back and read your posts I think you'll find: you did imply R500 was more powerfull than RSX; that are no facts in your posts that support the assertion.
Vince said:
Right, and as he said:
Mark Rein said:
The early dev kit simply had two GeForce 6800 ULTRAs running in SLI mode to "approximate" RSX performance. I hardly call it a crowning achievement that Epic got it running fast on that
. Like I said, the real interesting part of what he said was how they're going to work with CELL.If I dare say, the PS3 doubles the 360's specs in a number of categories, save for bandwidth and actually memory capacity. But with diminishing returns on visuals. Even if that advantage was fully realized, it might not amount to a massive leap in visuals to the eye. Take GoW and KZ2 for instance. For all intents and purposes, KZ2 brought down the house. But was it really that huge a leap over what we've seen of GoW? If they were running at the same framerate, I don't really know. Artists will really make a difference. We kinda see it now, with a lot of PS2 games looking great on mere art assets alone. The system itself isn't that powerful, but great aesthetics can make a huge difference. I think the art quality made a big difference in a lot of the PS3 demos last night. Long story, short...let's wait and see. But the PS3 looks like it might end up being most powerful this gen, which would be rather interesting as market leader (yes...I'm totally discounting Nintendo here). PEACE.
But the PS3 looks like it might end up being most powerful this gen, which would be rather interesting as market leader (yes...I'm totally discounting Nintendo here). PEACE.CosmicGroinPull
Member
Kuroyume said:
Wow.....just....wow......
after reading your posts in this thread and others, I think you really take the cake, man. Seriously...
Nerevar said:The early dev kit simply had two GeForce 6800 ULTRAs running in SLI mode to "approximate" RSX performance. I hardly call it a crowning achievement that Epic got it running fast on that
Exactly, we're not in disagreement. I stated it was an RSX demo that showed off the GPU's potential, you - yourself - has stated that it's just an RSX approximation demonstration and that CELL will be the interesting part. Our comments are both correct, although I suppose I should have been clearer in stating that it's an approximation. *shrug*
I was trying to get across that the UT demo was focused heavily on only the RSX/GPU(s) portion of the PlayStation3 and that CELL went basically unused.
Pimpwerx said:If I dare say, the PS3 doubles the 360's specs in a number of categories, save for bandwidth and actually memory capacity. But with diminishing returns on visuals. Even if that advantage was fully realized, it might not amount to a massive leap in visuals to the eye. Take GoW and KZ2 for instance. For all intents and purposes, KZ2 brought down the house. But was it really that huge a leap over what we've seen of GoW? If they were running at the same framerate, I don't really know. Artists will really make a difference. We kinda see it now, with a lot of PS2 games looking great on mere art assets alone. The system itself isn't that powerful, but great aesthetics can make a huge difference. I think the art quality made a big difference in a lot of the PS3 demos last night. Long story, short...let's wait and see.
Agreed. What will be interesting is if that "graphical" or "power" edge the PS3 has will show through on things like framerates and AI. I expect next gen still graphics to be very comparable.
Tenacious-V
Thinks his PR is better than yours.
gmoran said:
My First Post:
My 2nd Post:
My 3rd Post:
My 4th:
Now genius where did I state R500 was more powerful?? Not once, I stated graphical edge and that's not a lie. R500 is more WGF2.0 compliant than G70. I never once said it was faster, I stated it has more features. So stfu if you can't read or comprehend things properly.
BTW, anyone know what the fillrate should be on the RSX? If it can draw 24 pixels per cycle @ 550MHz, that's 13.2GT/s. That seems aweful high IMO. But wouldn't you also want a silly amount of fillrate for a dual-screen display that should be running at least 720p? Thoughts? PEACE.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
Anyways, getting away from the tech war...is anyone happy that the two systems are pretty close in power? In the current gen sometimes I wished that some PS2 exclusive games were made on the Xbox just to see what could be done a superior hardware. Next-gen it won't make much of a difference, I know that whichever console a game comes out on it'll be bleeding edge awesome. That's a great feeling IMO
What I'm seeing from various impressions is that the hardware difference will be like NGC -> Xbox. That's very cool, not nearly as bad as PS2 -> Xbox.
What I'm seeing from various impressions is that the hardware difference will be like NGC -> Xbox. That's very cool, not nearly as bad as PS2 -> Xbox.
Tenacious-V said:
1. Graphical edge: is synonymous with more powerfull in this context (see on-line dictionary: A margin of superiority; an advantage: a slight edge over the opposition.). If you have an alternative explanation I'd be very interested?
2. More features: is also indicative of more power in the context of graphical processing. 2 chips with equal fill rate, but where one supports anisotropic whereas the other only supports bilinear; the anisotrpoic would be categorised as being more powerful.
3. More features: at no point did you elucidate on what these were.
I believe one of us truly does have problems reading and comprehending.
gmoran said:
He's just grasping at straws repeating things he doesn't know or understands. Some b3d poster writes that R500 is richer feature-wise than R520, so: "OMG, R500's features >> RSX!", just because NVdia said that the chip is based on G70. Of course, he doesn't even know what these features are and what they consist of, or IF they exist :lol
Also forgetting that RSX is just based on G70, not the same chip, a custom product embodied just for PS3 and has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Really, what a pathetic show on their part.
While neither is particularly impressive, the X360 may boast a better design by cost/capability if the PS3 is much larger and later as has been suggested. The scenario would be like last generation where DC's design was much more effective but still yieled less performance than PS2 in most aspects because of the ~3x silicon difference, fabrication size difference, and fifteen month release difference.
Sony may get the most powerful system but end up paying more than their share to get it.
Sony may get the most powerful system but end up paying more than their share to get it.
Excellent point. There won't be a least common demoninator if true.Pedigree Chum said:Anyways, getting away from the tech war...is anyone happy that the two systems are pretty close in power? In the current gen sometimes I wished that some PS2 exclusive games were made on the Xbox just to see what could be done a superior hardware. Next-gen it won't make much of a difference, I know that whichever console a game comes out on it'll be bleeding edge awesome. That's a great feeling IMO
What I'm seeing from various impressions is that the hardware difference will be like NGC -> Xbox. That's very cool, not nearly as bad as PS2 -> Xbox.
shpankey
not an idiot
Uhm... no it isn't. It's people like you that spread this complete farce.Vince said:
The only thing 2x as powerfull (in some regards) is the CPU. The whole system isn't. The GPU is barely more powerful, if at all. There's not twice as much RAM at twice the speed. There's not twice the bandwidth on everything. There's not twice the resolution.
Just stop already.