-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Xbox 360 Specifications! - LIVE 2 info
- Thread starter midnightguy
- Start date
Guy LeDouche
Banned
you make no sense. you are excused.3rdman said:
when he is talking about 1.75x, 2.4x, etc, he is talking about GFlops.
The first version, full-powered Cell is 256 GFlops. Newer revisions are close to 300. PS3 will have a first version, <full-powered Cell.
Compared to, X360 which has anywhere from 70-90 GFlops, based on the leaked info.
F
Folder
Unconfirmed Member
LOLGashPrex said:and we have our real specs folks
midnightguy
Member
3rdman said:
okay,
with PS3, I think the Cell will be doing all or some of the geometry, lighting, vertex shader calculations / transformations / computations, but NONE of the actual rendering / rasterizing / drawing / pixel shader / graphic FXs work, which will ALL be done by the Nvidia GPU. and the Nvidia GPU will be able to take on *some* of the geometry/lighting/vertex shader work, if needed (it will be flexible enough and that is the role of a GPU anyway) even though Cell could handle all of front-end stuff (front end of the graphics pipeline) ....
Cell is not for rendering/rastering.
Cell is not a graphics processor, but can feed a graphics processor geometry, lighting, vertex shader data, if needed, and in PS3's case, probably will.
3rdman said:
a) The PS3 GPU may well be a vertex and pixel shader (this seems most likely to me)
b) A PS3 CPU handling vertex shading would still, I think, have more power left over than the entire X360 CPU (dedicating 2 or 3 SPEs to vertex shading would probably be "enough").
c) This would leave the PS3 GPU to dedicate all its logic - probably as much as X360's entire GPU at least - entirely on pixel shading..which would make the most difference visually. Again, though, I don't think the GPU will be a pixel shader only.
d) The X360 core may not be getting away scott-free from vertex work - a MS patent talked about using one of the cores as a geometry processor. This would likely be optional for developers though.
Unfurtunately you're not right.midnightguy said:
R500 has NOT 48 pixel pipelines, it has 48 ALUs and 8 ROPs.
That means R500 can't output more than 8 pixels per clock, even if ALUs running a 'simple' shader can output more than 8 pixels per clock R500 can't write out all these pixels and ALUs will simply stall.
The good news is that R500 can output 8 pixels per clock even when 4x MSAA is on (with 32 bits render targets and alpha blending off)
Fillrate is 4 GigaPixel/s
truffleshuffle83
Banned
so do you think with an output of hdmi/dvi the xbox 360 will up convert the dvd signal as well when watching movies???
Guy LeDouche
Banned
Largely based on assumptions, press releases, interviews and educated guesses.Nostromo said:
1. ISSCC had full-powered Cell at 4Ghz, 8SPE, etc. That gave you 256 Gflops as they announced
2. It's always been assumed that PS3 would not need/have a full-powered Cell.
3. Revisions to boost performance have been recent and Sony wouldn't need that extra horsepower anyway for the PS3.
1 x 8 SPE with a scaled back clockspeed is most likely (with possibly 1 SPE 'locked' for background work)
Guy LeDouche
Banned
haha no problem. I get most all my info from GAF, B3D and a few friends with connections at Sony (good enough that I hear about a few things before they are announced, but not even in the same time zone as Blim and the like). Just weed out the bullshit and fanboy wars and you hear alot.Nostromo said:
I'm surprised how quiet Sony has been so far. They still have more than a year, but its funny to watch Sony sit back and let MS blow their wad early, only to come in with a money shot of epic proportions all over Microsoft's face. 1 week to go. I don't even care what happens a year from now or two years from now or who is the market leader after 5 years. I just want E3 to fucking start already.
midnightguy
Member
Nostromo said:
It's an Nvidia GeForce NV5x or NV6x based something or other :lol
seismologist
Banned
Nostromo said:Unfurtunately you're not right.
R500 has NOT 48 pixel pipelines, it has 48 ALUs and 8 ROPs.
That means R500 can't output more than 8 pixels per clock, even if ALUs running a 'simple' shader can output more than 8 pixels per clock R500 can't write out all these pixels and ALUs will simply stall.
The good news is that R500 can output 8 pixels per clock even when 4x MSAA is on (with 32 bits render targets and alpha blending off)
Fillrate is 4 GigaPixel/s
So that would put Xbox 360 at 2x the fillrare of PS2?
That cant be right.
midnightguy
Member
Nostromo said:Unfurtunately you're not right.
R500 has NOT 48 pixel pipelines, it has 48 ALUs and 8 ROPs.
That means R500 can't output more than 8 pixels per clock, even if ALUs running a 'simple' shader can output more than 8 pixels per clock R500 can't write out all these pixels and ALUs will simply stall.
The good news is that R500 can output 8 pixels per clock even when 4x MSAA is on (with 32 bits render targets and alpha blending off)
Fillrate is 4 GigaPixel/s
wow that SUCKS! no way. cause that is less fillrate than the original-original Xbox1 spec from year-2000, which was 4.8 GigaPixels/s
:lol
<screams, Panajev! make this right, make it all sound better!>
:lol
The Faceless Master
Member
okay, so i noticed USBx3, Wifi, Wireless controllers, etc.. and evn removable faceplates....
BUT NO MENTION OF A NIC/LAN
don't tell me they cheaped out on that too...
all this wireless bullshit is getting to be overbearing...
it'd be ok if it was a choice, but come on...
BUT NO MENTION OF A NIC/LAN
don't tell me they cheaped out on that too...
all this wireless bullshit is getting to be overbearing...
it'd be ok if it was a choice, but come on...
Nostromo said:Unfurtunately you're not right.
R500 has NOT 48 pixel pipelines, it has 48 ALUs and 8 ROPs.
That means R500 can't output more than 8 pixels per clock, even if ALUs running a 'simple' shader can output more than 8 pixels per clock R500 can't write out all these pixels and ALUs will simply stall.
The good news is that R500 can output 8 pixels per clock even when 4x MSAA is on (with 32 bits render targets and alpha blending off)
Fillrate is 4 GigaPixel/s
But those 4 gigapixels are with pretty good shaders applied, and with 4xAA, compared to PS2 4gigapixels raw rate, which is untextured, un-everything. Should be pretty nice.
the 'downside' is that simple games won't have more fillrate than shader-heavy games. So just make your games use a lot of shaders please
midnightguy
Member
Nostromo said:
I know, I know - Xbox1 fillrate is 932 Mpixels/s - I even said that before. :lol
ok, but 4 GigaPixels/sec for Xbox360 is still only just over 4x more than Xbox1. it makes no sense. even if that is what it is. are we sure the final Xbox 360 spec is the SAME as the old leaked Xenon spec ?
seismologist
Banned
Nostromo said:PS2 fill rate with textured triangles is 1.2 Gigapixel/s, not 2.4 Gigapixel/s
So what does this mean? The Xbox 360 number still sounds low. I mean modern graphics cards are already at like 5G/s.
It seems like the additional fillrate on Xbox 360 will barely be enough to handle the increase to HDTV resolution.
Am I missing something?
Guy LeDouche said:
This is incorrect, the production version is the 235mm2, DD2 revision. ISSCC-Cell has been around for quite some time.
His numbers are legit and from the GigaPixel responce to MS's tender. IIRC, they inflated the number to "equivalent" fillrate based off their exemption from overdraw (OD = 4).
And it's not free!!
so its gonna come standard 20gb with an optional 40gb hard drive? either that or this spec sheet is wrong because the ourcolony picture specifically said 40gb right?
unless it comes with 20gb builtin and an optional 20gb which would bring the total to 40gb (which would explain the possibility of an led display on the side of the optional HD).
unless it comes with 20gb builtin and an optional 20gb which would bring the total to 40gb (which would explain the possibility of an led display on the side of the optional HD).
midnightguy
Member
seismologist said:
modern highend graphics cards are at, more like, 6 to 8 Gpixels/s i think.
(newest fastest ATI cards 16 pipelines, 525 MHz core = 8.4 Gpixels/s! )
edit: 8.6 Gigapixels/s for R480 in Radeon X850 XT (~540 MHz core)
http://ati.com/products/radeonx850/RadeonX850SeriesBrochure.pdf
I was hoping R500 in Xenon would break through that 10 Gpixel/sec barrier :lol
The Faceless Master
Member
because MS is the king of common sense...FiRez said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Che said:
i think the rumors were 3 versions. two at launch (one w/o a hard drive, and one w/ a hard drive).. and then later the fully featured PSX-like system.
"unless it comes with 20gb builtin and an optional 20gb which would bring the total to 40gb (which would explain the possibility of an led display on the side of the optional HD)."
Hint: the presence of an LCD display on the side to display capacity was purely idle speculation. the photo that prompted the idea also shoots it down at the same time, beccause the actual "40 GB" writing doesn't correspond to an LCD, or even Dot Matrix font, unless it's a really high resolution dot matrix, wich would be stupid for something on the side of the console that just displays disk capacity.
The "40 GB" was just a hard label.
Hint: the presence of an LCD display on the side to display capacity was purely idle speculation. the photo that prompted the idea also shoots it down at the same time, beccause the actual "40 GB" writing doesn't correspond to an LCD, or even Dot Matrix font, unless it's a really high resolution dot matrix, wich would be stupid for something on the side of the console that just displays disk capacity.
The "40 GB" was just a hard label.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
just read the fucking thread and stop asking stupid questions.Striek said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Che said:
the new info doesnt really say if the harddrive will be included or not. there is also nothing stopping MS from releasing that 'third' version later on either.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
no, it's because your questions have already been answered in previous pages. We don't need to waste time going back over the cliff's notes version because you are too fucking lazy to just read a few pages of the thread.Striek said:
I don't even post here that much. what? <2 posts per day? Yeah, I sure have an 'important posting routine'.
Well, I just got pissed off. I asked a question that no one had to answer, but I dont feel flaming me is an appropriate response by him. I did, btw, read the TeamXbox thread about this and didn't feel like trawling through the same responses over here.GhaleonEB said:
Thank you for your answer, btw.