Staredit Network

What...?

You said the 64's are out and that you should wait to let technology to come out to match it, well they have 80's so I dont think that 64's are too high tech.

Dude, stop with the dumb XBox 360 website. Get some independent sources.

Floating point performance: linkage

Ah, I just read that the PS3 gpu can access the XDR Ram as well, so both the 360 and PS3 have 512mb of VRam. Sorry, heh heh.

*Edit* Mp)7-7, I think you're referring to x84 and x64. x64 is 64-bit while x84 is 32-bit. Hope that clears it up.

Uh... 64s as in 64 bit... there is no 80 bit processor.. 64 bit processors are high tech, just so you know...

So once again you dont believe me. Is it that hard to do a google check just tlo see if you might be wrong to not let everyone that views your posts to think of you as a fool.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all...rnumber=1052425

Nobody's going to view me as a fool. I'm talking about personal computers.
Did you add that whole " Is it that hard to do a google check just tlo see if you might be wrong to not let everyone that views your posts to think of you as a fool." just for a cumulative post?
Don't insult me. Also, NOBODY is going to program software for 80 bit CPUs. The switch to 64 bit hasn't really gotten that far yet.. still, there aren't 64 bit drivers for everything, and not all programs work on a 64 bit OS when programmed as 32bit.

Also, Felagund, that site you have there mentions nothing about how the PS3's floating point CPU's do not perform well in gaming. Multi-purpose CPUs, which the XBOX360 has three of, perform much better for gaming.

Also, a lot of those numbers are theoretical, like the total floating point performance. In most cases, they will never be reached.

On a final note, I think you are referring to x86, not x84.

I wasnt insulting you just telling you how easy it is to google search anything on the internet. You told me there was no 80, I checked it and there is one.

Find me one for personal computers, which is what we are actually talking about...

---

You just basically called me a fool.

Well, idk if they have them for regular computers but I was just saying that 80's are out there because you specifically said there arent 80's and I like to prove people wrong. Sorry if I made you angry.

And just so you know, even if a processor is 64 bit, or 80 bit, it doesn't make a difference unless the OS you're running on it is 64 bit, or 80 bit, etc. At least I think so ~.~[/90%sure.]

Look at the publication date (1985 if you're too lazy to look).



From here.

So basically, the XBox 360 has 3 general purpose cores that can do anything, while the PS3 has a single general purpose core and seven specialized cores that will take care of pretty much all aspects of the game leaving only a little bit of code for the general purpose core to do its job. I actually wonder which one is more powerful. The specialized cores may actually be well more powerful when it comes to computing specialized code, but I'm sure that drives development costs up because programmers have to differentiate between cores now. So yes, one advantage the XBox 360 has over the PS3 is to keep game development costs down.

*Edit* And Deathawk, if we're not allowed to talk about "theoretical numbers" and the such we can't really discuss at all, can we?

So will games actually utilliize the 8 cores the PS3 has? I have a feeling the answer is going to be no, at least not to their full theoretical potential, but who knows..

Oh, you are allowed to talk about them, but don't take them too seriously. The PS3's CPU's theoretical total floating point performance is like 218 or something, but that's not going to happen in games, because not every processor is dedicated to the game. Two of them wont be used for the games, I think.

Well I think the seperate operating cores will work best because just one does its certain job, while the others do their job. Overall the finished action could finish quicker. And the one major core in the 360 could get lagged by all the work its doing, instead of spreading that work out to other cores.

Uh, but the 360 has three multi-purpose cores to share all of it's work on...

Still the PS3 has more than 3, it still could slow those three down because of all the work they do. I mean no matter how fast it may be over time they could slow down under the usage. In the PS3's case they will probably last longer at higher speeds.

The PS3 has one multi-use processor.

No, the clock speeds of a CPU do not just randomly diminish, they will stay at the speeds they are set to. Stuff like HDD's start to break down with heat and time, not CPUs really...

The PS3 does seem to be a tad more powerful then the xbox360 in processor power. Each one of those 7 specialized can probably completely cover all the needs of their respective jobs, leaving one general to either cover what's left (if anything's not covered by the specialized ones) or just help where needed.

You guys forgot a core there, I believe.

The Ps3 has one core not in there to improve yields(number of working chips).
Then one is dedicated to the OS and can't be used for games.
This brings a total of 6 SPE's and one multi purpose core.


You missed something. The Ps3 does not have more than 3 multi purpose processors. It has one. Then it has 6 SPE's that actual games can use. The SPE's are not multi purpose. In fact they have a different compiler from the main processor and have a VERY small cache.

Also lets consider this:
What does it take to compute what will be displayed? Well you have to know where each object is....so physics. What do the AI need to know in order to go from A to B. Objects in there way? So in order to do AI you may need to do physics and geometry first.

This becomes quite the limiting factor. So while you could split up the processes on different SPE's, when it all comes down to it......how much of a difference will it really mean? Yes there will be some difference and some significant differences. For instance being able to calculate shadows and lighting on it's own core is nice.

Anyway to make this really simple: An in order processor with no instrunction set and extremely small cache clocked at 3.2ghz != quick processor. Each SPE is not that quick because of the cache problem. In fact each SPE is not that quick to begin with(In order + no instruction set), I mean really there comparable to idk a P4 at like 1.6ghz when running actual code. The small cache really blows things down.

Although when it comes down to it all....draining every ounce and spending 1 year optimizing every little piece of code..yeah the Ps3 can be slightly faster than the 360. However for the most part... it will not be that big of a deal. The CPU's will generate similar performance.


Very much true! When it comes down to real performance you wont see the Ps3 hitting anywhere near 70gigaflops and not coming anywhere near 2teraflops.
2 Teraflops would be having all 8 SPE's, about 2 gigs of ram, and absolute amazing draw dropping optimized code that is ment to only show off flop power and nothing else.


Yeah dude do your research. There are 80bit processors. Your right.
However, there have been 256bit processors for a long time to.

Heres the deal:
80bit will never be used for Pc's(I rarely ever hear of processors being out of the 2^x spectrum).
Heres the deal(btw You have to -1 from all values. all values here all unsigned integers.):
2^64 power. Thats the biggest number a 64 processor can handle with no real slowdown.
However, what if you want a number that is 2^32 power or less.... Guess what? It will operate it slower than a 32bit processor.

All the bit means with a processor is how many bits it can compute at one time. With a 64bit processor you can do 64bits at one time. This allows for efficienty with bigger numbers. However.... for gaming..idk when you will need a number bigger than 2^64 power. In fact I will never know because.....well...lol..thats a huge number.


64bit have been around for a long time. However it's just being pushed into PC's. Why? Because there has never been a need for it up until now...and even today there isn't that much of a demand for it.


Ps3 still has less the game can use?
WHY? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?
The Ps3 OS takes 32megs of VRAM from the graphics card. Then it goes and takes 64megs from the XDR ram.
Thats more than the 360. Also this takes a specific work around that may be somewhat slower compared to accessing it directly.

Throw in the 360 GPU has dedicated ram for doing it's AA, giving it an even bigger edge with ram. That dedicated ram is there to do 4xAA up to 1080p. So at top notch resolutions, the 360 GPU will basically own.

Ah, dude, the RSX whateveritscalled can do 1.8 Tflops of the ~2 Tflops of floating point performance on the PS3. The Cell cpu only has 10% fpp of the RSX.

Also, Vista and even XP in some regards show good performance increases when running in 64-bit mode (on Core or K8). Well, the Nintendo 64 had a 64-bit cpu, so they've been around quite a while. Beyond that, graphical power comes from more than just memory dedicated to it. A 512mb GeForce 7800 GTX won't perform much better than a 256mb GeForce 7800 GTX (even at all if the game requires less than 256mb). Having 10mb of eDRAM for AA is all fine and dandy, but there's nothing stopping the PS3 from taking 10mb from the XDR/GDDR3 Ram for antialiasing. But only 4x AA? AA is an old technology in itself, and I know there are different types of AA nowadays. I know that MSAA and CSAA look better than plain old "boring" AA. 16x MSAA baby! Do I smell a GeForce 8800GTX SLI setup? Yes, yes I do. No wait, that's my power supply burning from the amount of electricity the cards draw! Crap!

Anyway, the RSX is very comparable performance-wise to the ATI chip in 360. You probably won't be able to tell a difference even at 1080p (1920x1080 resolution), although you might be able to tell a difference at 2560x1600. I like how Dual-DVI > HDMI. Stupid t.v. technologies! Beyond simple processing power, there's also image quality to take into consideration. From what I've heard, only the PS3 can handle 1080i/p so far (the 360 can only handle 720p so far, but that's going to change), although they don't include the cables. Right now, if you played at 1080p, the PS3 would blow the 360 out of the water for image quality.

They do, but not everythng will run as well as they would natively on 32 bit, since not much is programmed for 32 bit. And again, drivers are still a small problem


And the 7800GTX with 512 will play much better with higher resolutions than the 256, at lower resolutions they are quite similar.

Yes, but the eDRAM is what... 250gb/s speeds or something like that..? I don't know how muych exactly it helps with anti-aliasing, but lets not compare Console performance to PC performance, it's just not fair, compare it console to console.

1000w PSU will run it nicely, but you want an nForce 600 mobo if you plan for 8800gtx SLI or else it wont run well...
I personally don't think you'll be able to tell a difference at all, only very minimum. And yes, Dual-DVI for things like thos apple 30 inch displays is cool and all, but who actually has a monitor for that.. to expensive ~.~

"The current dashboard version, 2.0.4532.0, was released on October 31, 2006.[33] It allows the Xbox 360 to output video at 1080p and installs support for Zune and the external HD DVD drive attachment. WMV files can be streamed from a computer through the use of Windows Media Connect or connected USB device. Windows Media Player 11 was added as a supported streaming program. Xbox Live Arcade can now be set to automatically download trial versions of any newly released titles. Cosmetic changes to the dashboard were also made."

I was watching Oblivion play on 1080p @ Microcenter I think, and it looked and ran very nicely

The RSX is equivlant to a 7800GTX.
360's GPU has a better architecture and is overall a much better GPU.


Your right there is nothing stopping the Ps3. But the thing is performance. It isn't great trying to apply 4xAA to high resolutions....such as 1920x1080. The 360's eDRAM is made to take care of this performance. It's made to speed it up.
just to quote(second link near the bottom)
The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU’s workload.

Xenos writes to this EDRAM for its framebuffer and it’s connected to it via a 32GB/sec connection (this number is extremely close to the theoretical because the EDRAM is right there on the 360 GPU’s daughter die.) Don’t forget the EDRAM has a bandwidth of 256GB/s and its only by dividing this 256GB/s by the initial 32GB/s that we get from the connection of Xenos to the EDRAM we find out that Xenos is capable of multiplying its effective

There RSX however does not have this or anything like it. This means when your doing 4x FSAA at high resolutions.. the performance be taking a hit.


the 360 can handle 1080p it was released as a free update via live.

Resolution wont make the graphics magically better. While they can increase detail in some places.....it wont really matter. Plus most Ps3 developers wont be using the 1080p simply because...applying AA to that can be a female dog performance wise. The 360 however has that 10 megs of ram for dedicated AA. In other words, there wont be a performance decrease.
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=7
and
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=8

in fact it would be great if you read the entire article
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

Maybe the Xenos can handle AA better, but RSX has an advantage with shaders! ~75 billion operations/sec compared to ~48 billion operations/sec. What I cannot understand though is how the RSX achieves that number with less shader operations per clock when the clock speeds are equivalent. Maybe I'm just missing something... Also, the Xenos is a custom chip by ATI while RSX is based on the (not G70 as I believed) G71 architecture. Generally ATI chips are better at shader performance while NVidia chips are better at AA, but this blows that conception away (with the places switched)! I was just reading that article, and it says the Xenos can achieve 96 billion shader operations/sec, but it's actually half that at 48 billion currently. If you want to, though, you can research that and find out why there are differences. Hmmm, this also says 48 billion. The wiki says the theoretical max is 96 billion. I bet that the site you posted just counted the theoretical max for the 360 and not the PS3. Deathawk, thanks for correcting me on that resolution issue. I had just heard that the 360 originally could not do 1080i/p, but obviously that's outdated now. I don't know if I said it before, but at high resolutions, shader performance is more important to image quality than AA. No one will dispute that it's better to have both though. However, can we agree that both consoles look kickass at top resolutions (even though they're not remotely comparable to 8800GTX in SLI)?

*Edit* Guys, can we have more technology discussions like this? Lol.

Uhh, not remotely comparable to an 8800GTX period... SLI is just overkill(for now atleast..)

About the pointing out thing, no problem??

Yeah, I want a tech forum!!

Look down ~.~

Let's petition for one!