PS3/360/Rev [Archive] - E-mpire Forums

View Full Version : PS3/360/Rev

Pages : [1] 2

PhYmon

07-02-2005, 10:28 PM

Some people are saying that because the PS3 is going to have two separeted memories that with generated a big bottle neck on the system! and that the 360 isnt going to have that much becuase of the unifed memory architecture, what do u think guys! im really confuse now!! :S

Danji

07-02-2005, 10:41 PM

No, in fact it will generally help keep it so the system does not have a system bottle neck. Both memories can work at once for both devices as opposed to the Xbox 360 where if the processor is using the memory than the GPU has to wait until the Processor is done to access the memory. Also the bus between the Cell and RSX is massive meaning that they can work independently and individually incredibly efficiently.

rpgamer_2k5

07-02-2005, 10:49 PM

Actually, the Cell and RSX have a seperate pathway to both memory modules so it does use a unified architecture (it is probably a bit less efficient though). However let us keep in mind that the PS2 used a unified memory (32mb) so Sony would certainly make sure that PS3 was just as efficient.

The unified memory architecture is simply all hype. The Xenos should be much more limited since the eDRAM will be taking a huge transistor count and the total count is comparable to the RSX. ATI's desktop part will not have unified architecture shaders plus Nvidia believes that such a design should not be used right now, since it is not that efficient. Keep in mind that the RSX specification and hardware specifics have not even been disclosed yet.

It seems that the PS3 will be the big kid in the block this time and will be able to tweak their console if MS comes with something special (doubt it).

PhYmon

07-02-2005, 11:20 PM

I c know! another think that i dont get is what is the 10 edram that the 360 has on it! and whats the different to the ps3!

rpgamer_2k5

07-03-2005, 01:06 AM

I c know! another think that i dont get is what is the 10 edram that the 360 has on it! and whats the different to the ps3!

PS3 lacks the 10mb of eDRAM unlike the PS2. This is because the frame buffer is not sufficient for Sony's needs hence no eDRAM. Also keep in mind that eDRAM does take up a big share of the total transistor count of CPU since it is embedded onto the part. Even though MS and ATI is claiming alien-like buffering, I'm quite certain that it is not special because Sony would have definitely opt for it since it was featured on the GS.
.
..I wonder what hardware of the PS2 will be kept on the PS3. Could it be the GS?

PhYmon

07-03-2005, 04:27 AM

Red_Eyes

07-03-2005, 05:38 AM

Well i dont really know what hardware is going to keep from the ps2; i have another question how many polygons can handle the RSX? and who do u think is gonna look better?! the RSX or the ATI customized

You mean how many polygons the rsx can handle, not how many polygons can handle the rsx. And the answer to that is... Tokyo game show. Everything will be reveal then.

PhYmon

07-03-2005, 06:02 AM

And when is going to be!?, can somebody tell me i mean the tokyo game show

shadowofomioc

07-03-2005, 06:04 AM

PhYmon

07-03-2005, 06:16 AM

Yeah, know that but that cant tell me how powerful is going to be! well i guess i will have to wait until then!

Tacitblue

07-03-2005, 05:24 PM

According to the official stats 360 can do 500M tri's with "non trivial" shaders. PS3 should be in the hundreds of millions as well. I understand that 360 might actually push more poly's potentially, but one cannot count out a second plus generation shader model 3 unit that is RSX for taking polys and making them pretty.

PhYmon

07-03-2005, 06:28 PM

All i see about the 360's graphics is that has unified architectured and that has 500M, and in the current PC graphics card are about 850M, i dont know but for me it sucks man!!

rpgamer_2k5

07-03-2005, 07:11 PM

The Cell and RSX will both be able to pull off some impressive polygons. If anything the RSX should be able to generate as much as the Xenos.

Gounmckuber

07-03-2005, 07:52 PM

If the rsx polycounts are on par or above the xenos youll still get some imperssive graphics but if devs use the cell+rsx like Domination has explanied, then thats where the graphics go from impressive to amazing. If youre using the cell to carry some of the work then the rsx gets let loose from its cage... so to speak ;-)

Gounmckuber

07-03-2005, 07:59 PM

Its also confirmed that the 360 cpu wont get involed in graphics work, right? If true then the ps3 will likely destroy 360 in graphics but thats just my opinon. :-) They could very well look exactly the same because of some lazy devs ;-)

rpgamer_2k5

07-03-2005, 08:11 PM

We have been hearing about the Cell doing post-processing graphics operations but maybe it is possible for the Cell to take certain graphics tasks, refine, break up then send it off the SPEs to further refine and then the RSX which will do its stuff. :D

Yup, I'm imagining alot, but maybe it is possible =)

PhYmon

07-03-2005, 08:54 PM

cpiasminc

07-03-2005, 09:41 PM

According to the official stats 360 can do 500M tri's with "non trivial" shaders. PS3 should be in the hundreds of millions as well.
Well, I have to wonder how trivial they really mean -- If you think of the simplest rendering scheme -- that is, no color info, no texture info, no lighting, no pixel processing, just raw tris, it takes 4 shader ops to set up one vertex (basically, just transform the points). If geometry is sufficiently stripified, you can tend towards a longitudinal average of 1 vertex = 1 triangle. So in theory, you can do 48 / 4 * 500 MHz = 6 billion tris per second.

Unfortunately, the setup engine can't actually issue that many tris to the pipeline. It can only issue 1 vertex every cycle. So that basically means 500 million is an absolute limit. If we assume per-vertex lighting, nothing per-pixel, all 48 pipes would be dedicated to vertex processing, then that gives us up to 48 cycles of vertex shader code per vertex and you can still maintain 500 million tris per second. Yeah, 48 cycles is pretty non-trivial, but per-vertex operations are not exactly the pinnacle of graphical achievement.

If you assume there will be per-pixel processing, on average, only about 9 or 10 pipes will be open to vertex shaders. An average of 9-10 cycles per vertex shader to maintain 500 million per second? Well, I'd have to say that does fall into the semi-trivial range. It's just shy of what you'd need for some basic normal mapped polys, assuming 1 instruction per cycle, that is (note that basic means no skinning) -- normal mapped without specular would be possible, though.

nemesis121

07-03-2005, 09:47 PM

The spec list for PS3 reads like it's twice the power of 360, from the 100 billion shaders, 8 USB 2.0 ports, 50 million dots, and a bunch of blah, blah, blah, PS3 CPU has the edge over 360 CPU, as for RSX that is still up in the AIR, and another thing transistor counts plays no role in the GPU's powers, for those who don't know ATI's cards have always been lower in transistor count, any where between 60-80 million lower, the main reason why I prefer Nvidia over ATI is because there drivers.

The proof of who's powerful will be in the games, when we see it with our own eyes we will know who has the power, my next gen gaming will begin fall 05, I can't wait to get my hands on Perfect Dark, hopefully GTA4 will be a launch title for PS3, if not I will buy tekken 6 and maybe 2 others

rpgamer_2k5

07-03-2005, 11:26 PM

The proof of who's powerful will be in the games, when we see it with our own eyes we will know who has the power, my next gen gaming will begin fall 05, I can't wait to get my hands on Perfect Dark, hopefully GTA4 will be a launch title for PS3, if not I will buy tekken 6 and maybe 2 others
Well, nemesis121, the videos Sony presented at E3 are far superior than the Xbox 360 counterpart. Matter of fact it went so far we had individuals make up stories about all the PS3 videos being doctored. We were hearing news and even insider information that MS had sent out dev't kits to various developers, blah, blah, blah. Or that Xbox 360 will look initially better, blah, blah, blah. MS is releasing the Xbox 360 at November and right now it is no longer impressing me. Now I will likely purchase the Xbox 360 after purchasing the PS3.

Nemesis:
PS3 CPU has the edge over 360 CPU, as for RSX that is still up in the AIR, and another thing transistor counts plays no role in the GPU's powers, for those who don't know ATI's cards have always been lower in transistor count, any where between 60-80 million lower, the main reason why I prefer Nvidia over ATI is because there drivers.
If you're going to actually purchase the PS3, be a bit more neutral in your observations. There are just too many users engaging in some love affair with Microsoft. If you think that device drivers is the main reason why it looks down to ATI then guess what, you will learn when the RSX is unvieled. The RSX has not been phased by the overly hyped Xenos at all. :)

1. What? Transistor count means more features (more shaders, pixels, etc, etc) and various extra features can certainly help in boosting performance. A good share of the G70's transistor count actually comprises of features that assist the CPU in multimedia operations. The Cell on the other hand will be able to movies, the fancy graphics is all our programs, etc pretty well hence no assistance from the RSX is required. This will mean that those features will be discarded and we'll be seeing some other features exclusive to the PS3. =)

2. The Xenos will feature eDRAM which actuallly has a huge transistor count (100 million) bring the total count to 332 million transistors. Let me remind you that the eDRAM concept is not new as many try to claim, the PS2 also had eDRAM on the GS, yes it was no VRAM, it was a frame buffer. Ken Kutaraji has explained that eDRAM will not cater to PS3's performance standards. :)

3. We really don't know much about the RSX but it is pretty obvious that it will atleast match the Xenos to killing the overly hyped part. The RSX would be a second generation RSX and since it will work very closely with the Cell, I expect some very pretty vistuals.

Metal Sphere

07-04-2005, 12:40 AM

Well, nemesis121, the videos Sony presented at E3 are far superior than the Xbox 360 counterpart. Matter of fact it went so far we had individuals make up stories about all the PS3 videos being doctored. We were hearing news and even insider information that MS had sent out dev't kits to various developers, blah, blah, blah. Or that Xbox 360 will look initially better, blah, blah, blah. MS is releasing the Xbox 360 at November and right now it is no longer impressing me. Now I will likely purchase the Xbox 360 after purchasing the PS3.

Nemesis:

If you're going to actually purchase the PS3, be a bit more neutral in your observations. There are just too many users engaging in some love affair with Microsoft. If you think that device drivers is the main reason why it looks down to ATI then guess what, you will learn when the RSX is unvieled. The RSX has not been phased by the overly hyped Xenos at all. :)

1. What? Transistor count means more features (more shaders, pixels, etc, etc) and various extra features can certainly help in boosting performance. A good share of the G70's transistor count actually comprises of features that assist the CPU in multimedia operations. The Cell on the other hand will be able to movies, the fancy graphics is all our programs, etc pretty well hence no assistance from the RSX is required. This will mean that those features will be discarded and we'll be seeing some other features exclusive to the PS3. =)

2. The Xenos will feature eDRAM which actuallly has a huge transistor count (100 million) bring the total count to 332 million transistors. Let me remind you that the eDRAM concept is not new as many try to claim, the PS2 also had eDRAM on the GS, yes it was no VRAM, it was a frame buffer. Ken Kutaraji has explained that eDRAM will not cater to PS3's performance standards. :)

3. We really don't know much about the RSX but it is pretty obvious that it will atleast match the Xenos to killing the overly hyped part. The RSX would be a second generation RSX and since it will work very closely with the Cell, I expect some very pretty vistuals.

Just to point something out rpgamer, the RSX is based on a second generation G70, not RSX. So, while being more capable than the 7800GTX, it won't be based on nVidia's high end card which should come shortly after the R520 launch.

rpgamer_2k5

07-04-2005, 01:59 AM

LOL. I ain't perfect so I'm bound to make errors. :grin:

cpiasminc

07-04-2005, 04:05 AM

Ken Kutaraji has explained that eDRAM will not cater to PS3's performance standards.
That, I seriously doubt is really the case. I think it just has more to do with the fact that a sufficient amount of eDRAM to cater to RSX would have been insanely expensive and made for a huge die. Think about dual 1920x1080 at 128-bit HDR -- About 64 MB of eDRAM necessary... and that's without AA. Although, I guess if you do a whole daughter die thing like Xenos, since it's HDR, supersampling is a given, so you can just send across pixel writes to the framebuffer as 2x2 supersampled blocks which get averaged before writing, and then you don't need the 4x increase in actual eDRAM. Either way, 64 MB of eDRAM is a hell of a lot. That's damn expensive.

Although, I still think Xenos's 10 MB of eDRAM is way undershooting. 12 MB would have been the magic number for having 720p with MSAA and all. But 10 is just... well... saddening.

Rukawa

07-04-2005, 04:49 AM

We can still use tilling on Xenos to save memory

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=05#tiled

Nvidia also have patent somekind of tilling

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1='6,911,983'&OS=
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1='6,911,984'&OS=

Thanks to Jaws at B3d (The Patent Hunter)

cpiasminc

07-04-2005, 07:07 PM

Tiling works fine to keep 720p with antialiasing in a 10 MB buffer... you can also do 1080i, assuming you can guarantee 60 fps, but you can basically forget about 1080p. Simple reason being that you've got to be able to at least store the final antialiased image and a working tile. You can never go below that amount unless you're going to work only on tiles in eDRAM and then dump to VRAM when each tile is rendered (which really defeats the end goal of relying on the extreme bandwidth that eDRAM can offer).

No matter what, dual 1080p at 128-bit HDR will take up a minimum of 64 MB, and that's just for the color buffer.

Raijin

07-04-2005, 09:01 PM

I think you won't be able to do dual 1080p with the PS3...

Domination

07-04-2005, 10:11 PM

It was already addressed that you could.

jako

07-04-2005, 11:19 PM

It was already addressed that you could.
First hi to everyone !!

I've always thought about this dual 1080p that it could bring us 3D images with glasses. I've never really believed this dual TV thing.
What do you think of that ?

p.s : excuse my writing I'm french.

rpgamer_2k5

07-05-2005, 12:28 AM

First hi to everyone !!

I've always thought about this dual 1080p that it could bring us 3D images with glasses. I've never really believed this dual TV thing.
What do you think of that ?

p.s : excuse my writing I'm french.

Facts have nothing to do with one's opinion. I believe so many things are not possible but that does not mean it cannot happen. Sony has confirmed that we'll be seeing dual 1080p output on the PS3 along with the Killzone/FFVII/Etc level graphics. :)

Domination

07-05-2005, 02:26 AM

First hi to everyone !!

I've always thought about this dual 1080p that it could bring us 3D images with glasses. I've never really believed this dual TV thing.
What do you think of that ?

p.s : excuse my writing I'm french.

Well, I think it's going to expand the gaming community a great bit, not only in games but many other dozens of features to come in the future. Like the DS, I think this panorama view will allow a great advantage for such games such as football or FPS. And without having gamers break the bank, the options of using such a feature will be supported with all televisions sets and computer monitors, from 480i to 480p to 720p to 1080i to 1080p. So using an HDTV is not mandatory if you can't afford one. As long as there are two around the house that supports the above, you are good to go.

Also, instead of viewing your friends in a small pip-like screen when talking to them while gaming, you can view them on an entirely different set if you want in its full/a much larger size. I'm not sure if Sony will make that available on a single screen or not. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Grandia

07-05-2005, 05:58 AM

KlawHammer

07-05-2005, 06:56 AM

Well i wouldnt say due to the effiecency of the GPU, as both ATi and nVidia would make graphics chipsets almost alike to each other - although they could be a possiblity that the GPU on the Xbox360 could be at a somewhat larger advantage as you said because of AA.

Rukawa

07-05-2005, 01:53 PM

Xenos Fill Rate isnt great at all.
Isnt MSAA need pixel fillrate , not to mention SSAA
Their "free AA" only for MSAA, for SSAA i dont think 360 games gonna use it. Since the Smart Memory not contain SSAA ops.

I believe the efficiency things ATi been babling about just to minimize pipeline stall. ATI said all Xenos shaders can process vertex at one time then switc h at pixel. They said that RSX pixel shaders still need to wait (stall) while the vertex shades process the vertex.

Wonder if next gen games gonna needs a lot of vertex processing ( Geometry Instancing, Paralax Mapping , Vertex texturing. Please explain to us cpiasminc)
since Nvidia on Geforce 7800GTX shaders focus a LOT at PS , less on VS

Wonder which is better
1080p with 2xMSAA VS 720p with 4xAA

rpgamer_2k5

07-05-2005, 04:56 PM

One of the big advantages of the 360 ATi chip, other than its efficiency, is the fact that it can handle AA with basically no performance hit. So is this really as big as an advantage as Microsoft is touting it as? Would this allow the Xbox360 to pull away from the PS3 in terms of graphical capablities? (I've heard even that the 360 has greater technical potential due to the GPU, and the efficiency of the hardware)

I just want to know what it all means.

Do you still actually believe in that?

The Xenos can do AA with a low performance hit. The frame buffer concept was also used by the PS2 (4mb eDRAM) so I'm quite sure Sony was thinking about using a eDRAM buffer on the RSX. However, it seems like Sony has been able to overcome this issue (Note: RSX has NOT been unveiled) and hence no eDRAM buffer. It's pretty obvious that 12mb of eDRAM cannot be used by 1080p but such resolution really doesn't require AA. From 720p and below, AA is required. Sony is not stupid, they know that most users will be using televisions with a resolution before 1080p therefore they most likely have some other strategy planned.

Note2: RSX will not feature any of the multimedia accelerations features we see on the G70.

Note3: RSX will actually have a greater transistor count since it appears that the G70 has a good amount of transistors saved up.

Proposition: The two points above tells us that features dealing with anti-aliasing will be in. Who knows, maybe the 45nm eDRAM will be embedded onto the RSX.
.
Really when we speak of the AA of both systems, we are basing steady info eg. MS) against vague sources (eg. Sony). Such comparisons are unfair and it is pretty apparent that those individuals out on the other forum are just in MS's camp.

Note3: There is a reason why Sony is keeping quiet, and expect to her more at TGS, if not later. :laugh:

rpgamer_2k5

07-05-2005, 05:37 PM

Damn this forum is slow and my crappy PIII is making it worse.

[Continue]
Grandia:
" (I've heard even that the 360 has greater technical potential due to the GPU, and the efficiency of the hardware)"
Those claims are from individuals on a specific forum that many of us know. This 'efficiency' and greater 'potential' are from individuals that cannot analyze technology with a sound mind. Allow me to go elsehwere..., to be a intellect one needs to stay away from emotions because that is the same reasons why geniuses become mere idiots! The RSX specification and designs have yet to be released and we have comparisons. I'm not saying, don't compare a complete Xenos with an unknown RSX, I'm saying be partial. That isn't asking for too much, is it?
.
..
...Even compared to the G70, the Xenos won't be walking over it too easily. A 'slightly modified' G70 that can work closely with the Cell will likely overwelm the Xbox 360. A G70 using its actual total transistor count will make it even more unlikely. A slightly modified G70 working closely with the Cell along with a nearly-unlimited amount of bandwidth will only mean wonders. We have seen the Getaway movie, that was rendered by 1 Cell alone.

Unified Architecture:
There is really nothing to special about this architecture, yet. Why? For one, it is quite new and even Nvidia said that this architecture needs to be more developed. ATI's PC piece will not be using unified shaders. If new un-orthodox architecture means better than damn, it must mean that those individuals (the same that downplay Cell) acknowledge that the Cell will pwn them all since its architecture is not conventional like the XeCPU. :)

Let me ask you a question, if the Cell was used as a GPU what type of architecture would the Cell GPU fall in?

Hint: SPEs can do both vertex and pixel shading operations. Matter of fact, the Cell would do VERY nicely; refer to Getaway demo. :)
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
When you answer that,
Final Q: Why is the RSX being used as the GPU over the Cell?

xbdestroya

07-05-2005, 06:08 PM

Final Q: Why is the RSX being used as the GPU over the Cell?

Ease of development as opposed to a new exotic architecture is my guess. Also some say that the Cell GPU project fell behind schedule, became too expensive, or failed to meet expectations. Maybe any or all of those things play into it, but I really feel that the first sentence of mine must have played at least a significant role when NVidia was pitching Sony on this.

Also I think the primary reason why we don't see ATI with a unified shader PC part out yet is because they're waiting for WGF 2.0 to finalize before releasing it; which allows them to milk an additional generation of 'follow-up' tech and keep some surprises in store for later. Whether it will be flat-out better or not, who knows - but there are definite positives to it.

jako

07-05-2005, 09:19 PM

Well, I think it's going to expand the gaming community a great bit, not only in games but many other dozens of features to come in the future. Like the DS, I think this panorama view will allow a great advantage for such games such as football or FPS. And without having gamers break the bank, the options of using such a feature will be supported with all televisions sets and computer monitors, from 480i to 480p to 720p to 1080i to 1080p. So using an HDTV is not mandatory if you can't afford one. As long as there are two around the house that supports the above, you are good to go.

Also, instead of viewing your friends in a small pip-like screen when talking to them while gaming, you can view them on an entirely different set if you want in its full/a much larger size. I'm not sure if Sony will make that available on a single screen or not. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I totally agree with you Domination, my point was just that I don't think that a great part of PS3 owners will have two TVs in their living room (it is too expensive, it takes too much place and furthermore it isn't usefull at all except for gaming). My wife would kill me if I'd tell her I'll put another TV right next to my 82cm one ...:))
BUT having wireless glasses with 2 small LCD 1080p screens in front of my eyes, YES, we would have such an incredible 3D experience.

OutlawAdidas

07-05-2005, 09:47 PM

Domination

07-05-2005, 09:49 PM

I totally agree with you Domination, my point was just that I don't think that a great part of PS3 owners will have two TVs in their living room (it is too expensive, it takes too much place and furthermore it isn't usefull at all except for gaming). My wife would kill me if I'd tell her I'll put another TV right next to my 82cm one ...:))
BUT having wireless glasses with 2 small LCD 1080p screens in front of my eyes, YES, we would have such an incredible 3D experience.

That's true, but you're forgetting about one thing - the HD era. The more consumers adopt these types of television sets, the cheaper it'll be to get a standard television set. Here are a few examples: when I first purchased a 34" standard television set, it was over $1000 a few years ago. Now i can get that same television set for just over half that price and an HDTV for around the same price at Best Buy. About ten years ago, a 20" television set costed around $500 (depending on the type you're purchasing). Now you can pick up that same 20" for around $100 if not less. Hell, you can now go to a pawn shop or a yard sale or a news paper (depending on what you consider quality or not) and get a very affordable,compatible television set without breaking the bank. Of course it comes with cost, but just like anything else, it would be no different than purchasing a game or two.

Now, if Sony's PS3 console only supported HDTV, I would see a major problem with this feature taking off even a little bit. But they're reaching out to all the consumers and not just the fortunate ones.

Domination

07-05-2005, 10:49 PM

you can throw in all these damn specs and figures and ofcourse share your opinions, but when it comes down to it, its how the developer uses them within the games. Please remember that everything you've seen on the Xbox 360 has been based on the alpha and beta kits and not the final version, but just a precursor. Most of the 360 games were just running on 25-30% of its power, now if thats the case then the PS3 has a fight on its hands. We just gotta wait and see.........

Becoming a little uptight, aren't we? Listen, no one is saying the Xbox won't perform well to the PS3. When Microsoft started taking about the dev kits of the Xbox 360 and its comparison to the PS3 specs, thirty persent sounds really amazing. But as I pointed out many, many times before. Sony doesn't look to be going in the same direction as Microsoft. With Microsoft, it's GPU to GPU and CPU to CPU. There is nothing different in their approach to solving the graphics solution. They are still following the ancient way of building a better machine: more money equals better hardware. With Sony, it seems they are taking a round of short cuts to do the same job and more.

It's like I explained in the graphics thread, if Sony is doing what I think they are, that 30% isn't going to mean much at all because the GPU will be hinder and exhausted by the multiple jobs it'll have to take on compared to a GPU that is capable of focusing on a single job.

Coded-Dude

07-05-2005, 11:07 PM

rpgamer_2k5

07-05-2005, 11:18 PM

rpgamer_2k5

07-05-2005, 11:45 PM

Ease of development as opposed to a new exotic architecture is my guess. Also some say that the Cell GPU project fell behind schedule, became too expensive, or failed to meet expectations. Maybe any or all of those things play into it, but I really feel that the first sentence of mine must have played at least a significant role when NVidia was pitching Sony on this.

We did see the Cell performing graphics operation so it doesn't seem quite difficult to pull off IMO. The Cell SPEs, as you know are pretty much GPUs and could perform quite nicely in shader operations. The reason I believe the Cell was not used as a GPU because it's just a waste, while doing good in shading, over-all it probably out-do the next generation GPUs.

Also I think the primary reason why we don't see ATI with a unified shader PC part out yet is because they're waiting for WGF 2.0 to finalize before releasing it; which allows them to milk an additional generation of 'follow-up' tech and keep some surprises in store for later. Whether it will be flat-out better or not, who knows - but there are definite positives to it.

That does make sense. I will have to read some more unified shader architecture. It does seem effective using a shader to do both pixel and vertex operations than seperate pixel or vertex shaders but I haven't seen enough that proves that such an architecture can defeat the older counterpart.

rpgamer_2k5

07-06-2005, 01:35 AM

PhYmon

07-06-2005, 03:19 AM

I dont know! what good could be have ""the best 3d graphics chip"" when they dont even have the space on the DVD to make the developers express themself; i mean, i read an articule where says that the 360 is going to u a double layer of DVD to the next generation consoles which means 9GB, where the developers says that they can created a sequences of about 2GB which means that the rest of the space will be nothing IF they are going to make HD graphics! i see the future of the XBOX i dont know u decide the destiny.. heyy if u want to check it out here is the link
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9917

Grandia

07-06-2005, 05:53 AM

rpgamer_2k5

07-06-2005, 10:18 PM

Thanks for the explanation rpgamer. One more thing, what do you think makes the RAM set up in the PS3 "not so nice" compared to that of the Xbox360? (I thought that in a way, the PS3's RAM was unified, since the CELL could access the VRAM, and the RSX could access the main RAM.)

Well in theory they should be the same but one 512mb module would movement much more efficient. For example if a Cell needs to use the 256 mb module for shader operations then it would have to send that data to that module while on the other hand the XeCPU just bring it over to the 512mb module. It looks a bit more efficient IMO, but that could just be me since I'm a bit more used to the more conventional unified architecture used by the Xbox and PS2. We'll have to see how things turn out, just like the over a billion dollar lose the PS3 is expected to face. :twitch:

xbdestroya

07-06-2005, 10:29 PM

I think as WGF 2.0 takes hold in the next two years or so, and in conjunction with XNA, that the 360 will likely enjoy some speedy ports over from the PC side of things to 360. Likewise the 360's use of unified shaders, again with XNA thrown in there, will probably mean some quick ports over from 360 to PC when WGF 2.0 gets implemented.

This doesn't really have anything to do with anything right now, just trying to introduce a new element into the debate. I think that WGF 2.0 requiring unified shader support, and R500 being compliant in, supposedly, at least this regard plays well to Microsoft's ultimate plan of creating a sort of seemless PC/XBox experience down the line; as hinted at by the notion that PC users will be able to access Live and that usb-XBox controllers will function on the PC.

Grandia

07-06-2005, 10:40 PM

Well in theory they should be the same but one 512mb module would movement much more efficient. For example if a Cell needs to use the 256 mb module for shader operations then it would have to send that data to that module while on the other hand the XeCPU just bring it over to the 512mb module. It looks a bit more efficient IMO, but that could just be me since I'm a bit more used to the more conventional unified architecture used by the Xbox and PS2. We'll have to see how things turn out, just like the over a billion dollar lose the PS3 is expected to face. :twitch:
Alright thanks. I was wondering what Todd Howard meant in EGM when he commented on the PS3's RAM set up and why it wasn't so nice.

Domination

07-06-2005, 11:00 PM

@ OutlawAdidas - You are correct in your statement; (XBOX NOT RUNNING AT 100% during the demo)
So.....Are you implying that the PS3 was running at 100% and what you saw is what you expect as a final product?
Because if anything the PS3 has more room for improvement that 360 does.

It will definately be a fight, but I actually think SONY will do better this round than they did in the last(and they did pretty damn good)

If you are going to argue that XBOX360 will improve overall as development improves, you would have to make the same argument for playstaiton(who has better support and more room for improvement)

Not just that, but developers had Microsoft's kits a whole lot longer. I believe about a year and a half compared to Sony's two to five months. And even with the low clocked Cell, developers have not even begun tapping the processor yet, never mind the RSX. There is definitely a lot of improvenment on Sony's end. But I still don't see why this is so surprising to some people. Before Sony ever showed off the footage, it was already stated that their kits were magnitudes or 3x more powerful. Maybe it's just that some are still baffled by the leap in such a short time.

saxdawg00

07-06-2005, 11:52 PM

NeoPlayStation

07-07-2005, 05:25 AM

Has anyone read,

Ray Tracing on Programmable Graphics Hardware.; Timothy J. Purcell, Ian Buck, William R. Mark, & Pat Hanrahan; (Standford University)

This white paper is sponsored by Sony, Nvidia along with DARPA and Sun. :)

Do you have the link?

Edit:

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/rtongfx/

By the way, ATI is a sponsor too:

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/rtongfx/slides/slide35.png

OutlawAdidas

07-07-2005, 05:45 AM

Guys, Sony hardly showed anything. It was all CGI. I saw mainly gameplay graphics from the 360. I stood in front of a guy who played Call of Duty and I must say that I was very impressed...........with that game. Sony has yet to show gameplay footage. Whereas MS did show gameplay. I'm not saying that Sony didn't have the PS3 up to 100% but they certainly didn't show anything amazing..unless you like CGI. Sure the PS3 could also out perform the 360, but until we actually see proof or a sample, I'd rather wait until both systems are out, instead of basing everything on samples of whats to come.

Viper

07-07-2005, 05:50 AM

jaxmkii

07-07-2005, 05:56 AM

I dont know, but i rather that the RSX do all the job and leave the Cell to do some other heavy stuff, cuz already the RSX has 1.something Gflops on it! so u see it has such a powerful 3d card; and leave the Cell to do some AI, Sound Processing, manange the network connections and I/O controllers and some much more! what do u think!? leaving the cell just to do all the back ground stuff is like. letting a F1 car run just to keep your ipod and cell phone charged. a compleat waste of power and very backwards thinking... do you work for M$???

OutlawAdidas

07-07-2005, 06:00 AM

Roberto, I believed the same thing but it seems as thought the Killzone demo was on actual hardware running at 5 fps and sped up for viewing.

I do believe that overall, PS3 will be superior to Xbox 360 graphically. In fact, I have no doubts about it all all.

So the KillZone demo was on actual hardware whereas the 360 games weren't. Wow. Still, both pieces of hardware has their advantages and disadvantages. But it is way to soon to be talkin about which has the better graphics. For one, I can say that Dead Rising for the 360 is one of the most realistic next gen game. But it all depends on if the developer can still invest alot of time into graphics and so forth. Remember, dev cost has gone up and we are going from single threadin to multi-threaded games. If devs can invest, then some games will simply look like ......meh.

rpgamer_2k5

07-07-2005, 06:55 AM

Neo Playstation: You are correct, ATI is a sponsor as well and an ATI card using ray tracing isn't impossible either. Even if I didn't include ATI, one can see that they are also moving toward more programmable shaders trend. Ray tracing capability might not just be present on the PS3 but also the Xbox 360. As for a link, I didn't get that paper from that site, I got it from elsewhere. I didn't use google, it I just search through a journal database.

OutlawAddidas: Whether you think all of the games Sony presented starting from the Playstation is fake will only demonstrate that you have some extremist leaning towards the box. Let's see, FF-VII was in realtime, matter of fact Square-Enix confirmed this and if you're espionage is tellling otherwise it still wouldn't change this fact. Killing Day, Getaway (rendered by the Cell), Unreal 2007, F1, Alan Wade, Ni-Oh, Mobile Suit Gundam, Heavenly Sword, MotorStorm, and a few other were all in real-time whether recorded footage (like footages of Halo one can find on IGN Xbox). Killzone wasn't the only game there and Unreal 2007 equally matched Gears of War. Matter of fact most of the demos were prepared in 1-2 months on dev't kits using prototype Cell, Geforce 6800 SLI, and PCI-E.

Expect ALL the demos, including Killzone to look much better if given more time but with a complete dev't kit, it will be even more better!

Metal Sphere

07-07-2005, 07:18 AM

What you guys are forgetting, or at least not mentioning is that the demos shown at E3 were likely only using the PPE just like Unreal 2007, like Tim Sweeney said. Not only that, but the bus between the RSX and Cell is far greater in the final unit than in the alpha kits these demos were run on. Coupled with the short development time they had, and we're going to be seeing some amazing games once devs get a hold of the SPEs and the final PS3. By all indications, this incarnation seems easier than the PS2 to program for if the comments over on Beyond3D by guys like Deano C are anything to go by.

Weren't the kits present at E3 running an early Cell with 2 6800 Ultras SLIed? Since the RSX isn't based on the current G70 (7800GTX) but the second generation of it, we'll be seeing visuals and potential that far outstrip the capabilities of 2 little ole Ultras.

rpgamer_2k5

07-07-2005, 08:15 AM

Yes, the kits were using 2 Geforce 6800 Ultra in SLI configuration. The G70 provides greater performance and that is the case even though it uses a next generation architecture which no game right now is designed for. The Geforce 7800GTX will likely not compare to the RSX in comparison.

Rukawa

07-07-2005, 10:06 AM

Actually PS3 alpha devkit is using SLI Geforce 6800 GT from PSM

pipi

07-07-2005, 10:28 AM

PS3 is less powerful than what we are led to believe, 360 is more powerful than what we are seeing. It is a wash. :pinky:

Domination

07-07-2005, 11:07 AM

I believe that most people are still used to the general opinion that PS2's graphics were inferior to the original xbox, which explains all of this doubting and downplaying of the PS3's graphics capabilities (which has yet to be fully disclosed): they're just applying that same attitude to the next generation of consoles and I think alot of people will be pleasantly surprised come next year.

That is exactly what's being done. But many people forget that Microsoft launched the Xbox almost two years after Sony launched the PlayStation 2. Sony was competing with the Dreamcast at the time just before Microsoft swooped in. Not only did they have a chance to improve on their hardware that would power the Xbox, but they new Sony's every move before hand, from DVD playback to online to HDD, etc.. With Sony's console already finalised and on the market shelves, it was little they could change to compete with Microsoft's console head on. It is what Kutaragi was talking about when he said, "Beating us for a short moment is like getting in a lucky shot to a shihan (master), and Microsoft is still not a black belt." All of that relates to how they were able to conquer a piece of the market for themselves for that brief time.

But like I said awhile back, Sony's PS2 was able to keep up with both later gen consoles (Game Cube & Xbox) despite it being released two years earlier. If that could happen with a two year old console, just imagining it launching at the same time as the other or afterwards back then, and it could have been far worst, which is what we are witnessing now. Unlike this gen, Microsoft is now having to outclass Sony with a blindfold on, something they aren't used to. Without knowing their hand, you can see the difficult time they are now having. It is what those hardcores aren't used to seeing in Microsoft, which is why you are witnessing a lot of the negative behavior. But as it was pointed out, Microsoft is usually the adopter and rarely the leader in a lot of the things they do. What they are doing now should not have been a surprise.

pipi

07-07-2005, 11:18 AM

PS3 lacks the 10mb of eDRAM unlike the PS2. This is because the frame buffer is not sufficient for Sony's needs hence no eDRAM. Also keep in mind that eDRAM does take up a big share of the total transistor count of CPU since it is embedded onto the part. Even though MS and ATI is claiming alien-like buffering, I'm quite certain that it is not special because Sony would have definitely opt for it since it was featured on the GS.
.
..I wonder what hardware of the PS2 will be kept on the PS3. Could it be the GS?

As it was mentioned, Ati gpu traditionally has lesser trans than Nvidia. Check out 97/800 and FX5x00 cards. :)

Xenos still has about 200m trans, but you also have to assume Nvidia actually has the time to modify the G70 variant RSX significantly to be counted at 300m trans. Why is Nvidia using similar slides for RSX and G70 presentation?

eDram being not enough for dual 1080p is but Sony bullocks. The current PS3 memory bandwidth is just barely faster than Xbox 360.

Xbox 360 eDram is not just for AA, but to clear up traditional bottlenecks that would have lag heavy graphics.

Domination

07-07-2005, 11:25 AM

pipi

07-07-2005, 11:31 AM

But like I said awhile back, Sony's PS2 was able to keep up with both later gen consoles (Game Cube & Xbox) despite it being released two years earlier. If that could happen with a two year old console, just imagining them launching at the same time or after back then could have been far worst, which is what we are witnessing now. Unlike this gen, Microsoft is now having to outclass Sony with a blindfold on, something they aren't used to.

...Or you could imagine, Xbox 360 being in PS2 position, but instead of 24 months lag, it is just 6 months lag, with fully customed hardware.

I know a couple of information that will send Sony fans shellshocked.

Domination

07-07-2005, 12:06 PM

...Or you could imagine, Xbox 360 being in PS2 position, but instead of 24 months lag, it is just 6 months lag, with fully customed hardware.

I know a couple of information that will send Sony fans shellshocked.

That's true,....with your average company. But I could also imagine the DS in the same position as that PSP, which makes your point a bit moot since they were released a week apart from one another. Distance apart means absolutely nothing; it is the company behind the hardware. And since a company like Sony is more aware of this field than your average company, it's easily understandable at why their ambitions would be a lot greater than their competitors. What you seem to think is Microsoft can be Sony if they want. That would be the same as me telling you that you could be a sea creature just because you can swim.

pipi

07-07-2005, 01:38 PM

pipi

07-07-2005, 01:58 PM

You cannot compare NDS to the Xbox 360. You can, but you will surely end up disappointed. Nintendo can make the NDS as powerful as the PSP if they wanted, but they know their handheld war like the back of their palm. NDS is designed for purposes they see fit.

MS is competing directly with Sony in the console war. Carry on thinking PS3 has magical powers, if that makes you sleep sound now, just don't cry to us when you power on your PS3.

PhYmon

07-07-2005, 03:07 PM

So the fanboy of microsoft still believe that their system will be powerful enough to bet Playstation on the field, first u dont have enough space on ur DVDs, secound they have to emulated their original system in order to get access to the backwards compatibility access that owns Nvidia and thats cuz Microsoft didnt think that they would ever need the compatibility to the old console, third the cell has so much power that by itself can render all the complex of a landscap without using the RSX. pipi go and do pipi in some other place, u cant just handle the truth!

CrumCon

07-07-2005, 03:13 PM

as a sample MotorStorm and Killzone has been confirmed to be real-time, and we all agree these games are the best.. yes i mean the BEST looking next-gen to date. its not something like the plastic looking Gear of wars or UT2K7 or other games.

judging by E3 performances, PS3 delivers life-like graphics ( MotorStorm, Gataway ) unlike the plastic looking X360 games (they r still impressive tho) but MotorStorm and Gataway blows EVERY single X360 games.. yea yea stop the crap that X360 still using incomplete dev-kits.. cause so is PS3

pipi

07-07-2005, 03:14 PM

O~kay. :smoke:

My shoulders are ready for fanboys to cry over.

PhYmon

07-07-2005, 03:21 PM

hey pipi dont say anything if u dont have any smart things to tell us or something useful!

pipi

07-07-2005, 03:23 PM

PhYmon

07-07-2005, 03:34 PM

:sleep: :sleep:

Grandia

07-07-2005, 04:45 PM

Angeljuice

07-07-2005, 04:49 PM

I feel sorry for Sony fanboys, sometimes. Poor them, I despised Sony for their sly deceptive tactics to get fanboys really pumped up but once they power up with an X360 side by side...and then.. the damage control begins. Things that PS3 can't handle, they suddenly won't matter for games. Things that PS3 is better will get amplified through the roof. After Sony "excellent" E3, i know it is unthinkable now, i know... I do wish you keep in mind what i have said, come back to me after 2006. mmkay? :smoke:

Oh dear, another one who believes M$'s "don't believe your eyes" message. The thing is ALL M$ is dealing in is hype. I've seen with my eyes what both machines were capable of.

I saw everybody shell-shocked and depressed on the xbox forums for 2 or 3 days after the SONY presentation, feeling they'd been told a pack of lies by M$. Then a few "independent sources" reported that PS3 was all pre-rendered and 360 was a "real representation of next gen graphics", everybody swallowed it like some kind of "magic pill" because it instantly made them feel better.

Look beyond what you're being spoon-fed by "independent sources".

I'm not aware of anything that the 360 is capable of that the PS3 isn't, so I don't agree with your view about what features will be "amplified through the roof", in fact M$ decision to provide such powerful vertex rendering technology on Xenos (which goes completely against the current direction of most developers), is just about the only such feature I can forsee being blown out of all context in that way.
Japanese developers are already complaining about the 9 gigs DVD limiting content (they tend to use more in-game video clips than the west, and will have difficulty in producing the kind of HD content that they wish to). So I think that blu-ray is ALREADY more than an exotic luxury extra.

Coded-Dude

07-07-2005, 05:12 PM

pipi........

If XBOX pwns so much why has it not yet turned a profit, and what makes you think 360 will do any better?
Also, what is it about the 360 that you think will make it BETTER than PS3?

Viper

07-07-2005, 05:55 PM

It doesn't matter to MS if they are not number 1, yet. as long as they chomp down on Sony market share and turn a profit
They'd have to make over $4 billion in profits from the Xbox 360 to turn a full profit on the Xbox brand and that doesn't include R&D, Marketing and nVidia licensing which could easily knock them back into the red this generation.

No company will take losses for two whole console generations and continue on. Investors and stock holders will go elsewhere.

Killzone and MotorStorm were running real time but at only a few frames per second. They were recorded and sped up for presentation. On full hardware, framerates should be acceptable.

By the way, MS is also well known for its 'sly deceptive tactics'. I'm sure you are familiar with them using photoshop to enhance screen shots during the release of the Xbox? And then to charge $30.00 just to watch DVD's?

Raijin

07-07-2005, 07:01 PM

Huh, I would to know where did you see that Motorstorm was in real-time? To me, it appears clearly that it's CGI... I mean, cm'on, it can't be the game?

jako

07-07-2005, 07:13 PM

[QUOTE=pipi
I know a couple of information that will send Sony fans shellshocked.[/QUOTE]

Be carefull Pipi, you remind me someone caller Deadmeat (not sure of the name) that told us he knew something about the Cell (before its release), and that thing let him said that the cell wasn't that powerfull....And he got fired from this forum.
So if you know something SAY IT...

jako

07-07-2005, 07:21 PM

What you guys are forgetting, or at least not mentioning is that the demos shown at E3 were likely only using the PPE just like Unreal 2007, like Tim Sweeney said..

Is this true ?
If it is, then that would mean that for once PCs will have a hard time to get over consoles. I don't think UE3 can work on a curent high end PC (or may be at 800X600), so when devs will use all SPEs and RSX fully, the PS3 will be a lot ahead of PCs.

rpgamer_2k5

07-07-2005, 08:06 PM

As it was mentioned, Ati gpu traditionally has lesser trans than Nvidia. Check out 97/800 and FX5x00 cards. :)

This generation we see ATI having a slight edge with certain games however it certainly does not beat Nvidia's part when it comes to features. As I have stated earlier, expect the RSX to have features (maybe some more shaders) since it has a high transistor count.

Xenos still has about 200m trans, but you also have to assume Nvidia actually has the time to modify the G70 variant RSX significantly to be counted at 300m trans. Why is Nvidia using similar slides for RSX and G70 presentation?

Why isn't Nvidia pertaining to the RSX? Why are not aware that the RSX is a second generation G70 when it is so readily available on the net? The RSX even though based on the G70 is a very different chip especially since it will not have the multimedia acceleration features of the G70 plus it is designed to work close with the Cell. The RSX will be so integrated to the Cell it would be almost like an SPE. That's the only way a Cell <---> RSX configuration is going to work.

eDram being not enough for dual 1080p is but Sony bullocks. The current PS3 memory bandwidth is just barely faster than Xbox 360.

Oh really? I never knew the PS3 has a slightly greater memory bandwidth than the Xbox 360. Really, provide me some figures.

Xbox 360 eDram is not just for AA, but to clear up traditional bottlenecks that would have lag heavy graphics.

Yes, Z buffering and others. Well this concept is not unique to the Xbox 360, it can be found on the PS2. That's my point, this feature was a PRO for Sony and even MS developers liked it. If Sony dumped eDRAM on the RSX, it tells you that they got this covered by other means. 10mb of eDRAM cannot even cover 720p, probably 12mb would be required. 1080p would just be very costly and dual is impossible.

Domination

07-07-2005, 08:20 PM

I didn't say MS will become Sony overnight. It will be a slow process, if ever. It doesn't matter to MS if they are not number 1, yet. as long as they chomp down on Sony market share and turn a profit, doing so, MS will be content to just stay in the console wars.

I am very sure Xbox 360 will serve up healthy plates of crow to all haterz.

You're clearly mistaking. Actually they do care about the position they are in. This was mentioned on more than a few occasions. They are expecting to get first place next-gen.

You cannot compare NDS to the Xbox 360. You can, but you will surely end up disappointed. Nintendo can make the NDS as powerful as the PSP if they wanted, but they know their handheld war like the back of their palm. NDS is designed for purposes they see fit.

MS is competing directly with Sony in the console war. Carry on thinking PS3 has magical powers, if that makes you sleep sound now, just don't cry to us when you power on your PS3.

LOL! Do you have any idea how that sounds? Let me break it down for you.... Once upon a time Nintendo was the soul supplier to the home console market BEFORE the handheld came along. Are you telling me that they didn't know that like the back of their hand before they were over-taken by the competition? Please, man. If you're going to justify only one side, at least make it not be so obvious.

Also, Microsoft was competing directly with Sony before, with time playing against the both of 'em, but that still didn't change the results much compared to what we are now seeing.

rpgamer_2k5

07-07-2005, 08:28 PM

Wait, what?!?!

MotorStorm has been confirmed to be Real-Time? No friggin' way, that trailer looked too amazing to be real-time...I mean, too me, that was the more impressive trailer than all of them shown. I still have problems believing Killzone was real-time, let alone MotorStorm.

The term 'belief' is so impressive. Say if I believe in god, I do because I believe so. I have not seen him or her or it, yet still continue to believe. You see when accessing facts there are no conventions. It is good to employ alot of doubt but too much isn't good either. I can see where you're coming from, you just don't believe that such graphics is possible but we have confirmation that both Killzone and MotorStorm is in realtime. Believing it or not isn't really the issue and since Sony has been providing me an excellent system for two generations; I definitely will not doubt them.

pipi: I really feel sorry for fanboys like you. Not only are you rambling anti-Sony rethoric but you're doing it on a PS3 forum. If we were blind then you would be experiencing some issues that I'm not aware of.

"Poor them, I despised Sony for their sly deceptive tactics to get fanboys really pumped up but once they power up with an X360 side by side...and then.. the damage control begins."

What are you some sort of messiah of the forums? If you really think that everything shown or stated by Sony is just made up. If you believe that all Sony has is a case with the PS2.5 in it then you really need to look elsewhere. Don't get the PS3, don't enjoy this amazing system, heck move over to your board. It is obvious you just don't look at things with a neutral eyes, too much emotion in your post; I have been slightly fanboyish on PS3 forums to boost the atmosphere and generation but you're trying to dismiss us as foolish lambs.

"After Sony "excellent" E3, i know it is unthinkable now, i know... I do wish you keep in mind what i have said, come back to me after 2006. mmkay?"

I will be back. I was here when the PS2 was out, I used a different username and posted in a different manner but I'll make it noticeable by posting under this account. I used to read about the PS1 at school, was hyped up and then had the same experience when purchasing the console from Futureshop. I closely watched the PS2, watched the videos which were available, was extremely excited along with high expectations, dished out over $500 on the PS2 along with 2 memory cards and an extra controller, played for countlesss hours, enjoyed, kept on enjoying, and still enjoy playing the console. Matter of fact I still enjoy playing the Playstation, I insert Xenogears in my PsOne (which I also purchaseD) and continue on playing.

Sony always fulfilled their promises hence we 'fanboys' are here, looking closely at the PS3. Many have been here before the PS1 and PS2 launch while on the other hand we have Xbox-leaning individuals on Sony boards closely watching the Xbox. I won't lie, I have alot of time, studies won't be starting til fall but going on forum with users that you find foolish is really a waste of time.

rpgamer_2k5

07-07-2005, 08:36 PM

He probably doesn't. For him to have such information, he would have to work for either Sony, IBM or Nvidia; not everyone in the three companies are aware of the developments. It's pretty obvious where he's coming from, if he has some white paper from a closed source then many of us would have had access to it too.

Domination

07-07-2005, 08:48 PM

Be carefull Pipi, you remind me someone caller Deadmeat (not sure of the name) that told us he knew something about the Cell (before its release), and that thing let him said that the cell wasn't that powerfull....And he got fired from this forum.
So if you know something SAY IT...
He's definitely not Deadmeat.

What are you some sort of messiah of the forums? If you really think that everything shown or stated by Sony is just made up. If you believe that all Sony has is a case with the PS2.5 in it then you really need to look elsewhere. Don't get the PS3, don't enjoy this amazing system, heck move over to your board. It is obvious you just don't look at things with a neutral eyes, too much emotion in your post; I have been slightly fanboyish on PS3 forums to boost the atmosphere and generation but you're trying to dismiss us as foolish lambs.

I would say more alone the lines of uninformity.

Sony always fulfilled their promises hence we 'fanboys' are here, looking closely at the PS3. Many have been here before the PS1 and PS2 launch while on the other hand we have Xbox-leaning individuals on Sony boards closely watching the Xbox. I won't lie, I have alot of time, studies won't be starting til fall but going on forum with users that you find foolish is really a waste of time.

Not everything, but that's why I love competition. :aim;-]:

Junox50

07-07-2005, 10:12 PM

What are you some sort of messiah of the forums?

LOL!!

rpgamer_2k5

07-07-2005, 10:21 PM

Dominion:
I would say more alone the lines of uninformity.

Hmm..it appears that he's on the Xbox corner of the forum. I will try to be less aggressive since I presumed that he's from the more extreme Xbox forums.

Not everything, but that's why I love competition.
They provided most that they promised. Internet capability and those extra features that the Japanese got would have never sold well in the West. Those media centre gadgets are available at Videogame Import stores but those products don't sell to well down here.

Yes, competition is good. When Xbox came out, it provided features that Sony lacked. Examples include Xbox Live, HDD, impressive sound and graphics while Nintendo brought us GBA-to-GC, and graphics. This console war will only bring more to the table and as a customer, I am very happy. :)

Domination

07-07-2005, 10:46 PM

Dominion:

Hmm..it appears that he's on the Xbox corner of the forum. I will try to be less aggressive since I presumed that he's from the more extreme Xbox forums.

They provided most that they promised. Internet capability and those extra features that the Japanese got would have never sold well in the West. Those media centre gadgets are available at Videogame Import stores but those products don't sell to well down here.

Yes, competition is good. When Xbox came out, it provided features that Sony lacked. Examples include Xbox Live, HDD, impressive sound and graphics while Nintendo brought us GBA-to-GC, and graphics. This console war will only bring more to the table and as a customer, I am very happy. :)

I admit, they did in its own way. But they didn't drop the price/vaule pack of the PSP after a million units, and they stop supporting the HDD. Competition is what's going to push them, though.

rpgamer_2k5

07-07-2005, 11:49 PM

The HDD was destined to die because of improper support. Sony should have solf the HDD at a lower rate and allowed users to save on the HDD. If sold earlier, it would have done much better.

A bit off topic:
The PSP value pack is just pathetic, those headsets are hideous. I would like to see Sony retailing the standard pack. I don't need no 32mb memory, I have a 64mb stick nor do I need to sub-standard case. I just want the PSP, AC adapter, and instructions.

I really see potential in the PSP, the ability to run homebrew applications is very nice.
Sony if smart would be also pushing towards a more open PSP just like the PS3. If Sony is smart they would support homebrew apps that include calculators, text reads, browser, music/video players, etc. Hacks like KXploit is meant to go against the 1.5 firmware which is not allowing us to run homebrew apps. :( Sony's next firmware should allow homebrew applications to be run on the PSP.

xbdestroya

07-08-2005, 01:16 AM

Grandia

07-08-2005, 01:50 AM

The term 'belief' is so impressive. Say if I believe in god, I do because I believe so. I have not seen him or her or it, yet still continue to believe. You see when accessing facts there are no conventions. It is good to employ alot of doubt but too much isn't good either. I can see where you're coming from, you just don't believe that such graphics is possible but we have confirmation that both Killzone and MotorStorm is in realtime. Believing it or not isn't really the issue and since Sony has been providing me an excellent system for two generations; I definitely will not doubt them.
Alright, I'm just having a hard time to swallow the fact that both of them are real-time. I just don't see the final product of those games looking like the videos. (I mean, PS3 trailers were all over the place. You have Killzone, Formula One, and MotorStorm [and others] that looked amazing, then you had I-8, Fifth Phantom Saga, and a bunch of others that looked decent, but not anywhere as good as Killzone or MotorStorm. I personally am leaning towards I-8 and the rest as to what we are going to see from the PS3. But then you have Heavenly Sword, which is basically real-time, and has been confirmed to possibly look even better at release.) I would love to eat my words, and have my PS3 launch games look like those shown, but I don't see it happening.

rpgamer_2k5

07-08-2005, 02:06 AM

That is because of the development kit status, a few should have the more later ones while also need to remember about the time. Keep in mind that the development team also matters too, at times you got a team in which graphics is their forte while for others it would be gameplay. Also lets remember that the Killzone demo had much more time put into it. OTOH, the FFVII technical demo was done in a month or so and SE claimed that it would look much better if given more time. Tim Sweeney went even further by claiming that they can exceed Killzone's graphics! Such comments tell us that PS3 will be showing us graphics at the level of Killzone and MotorStorn. :)

TGS will really surprise us all.

Saibo

07-08-2005, 02:32 AM

This generation Polygons have pretty much been put on the backburner. The talk now is about shaders, dot products per second, triangles, etc. No mention of polygons has been made by anybody.

But, the PS3 can handle 90 billion dot products per second and is capable of 150 billion shader ops per second. The amount of Triangles ( i look at this as polygons a little ) is not known yet, but more info will be known soon enough. But, the 360 can handle I believe it was 360,000,000 triangles per second so you can up that a few hundred mill atleast to get PS3's number.

Incorrect, as far as people dont mention polygons. When developers talk about polygons/sec they almost 99% of the time refer to triangles/sec a triangle is still a polygon, it is the lowest common denominator of a polygon. Plus most game tesselate the mesh and count triangles not polygons(quads,N-gons). So triangles/polygons still matter, the higher the better. Even if we knew what PS3 could do in terms of triangle/sec we wont know what the real world performance would be(with AI, shaders,texture,lighting,etc), Miyamoto once said, if you add lighting, the number of triangles get cut in half, texture it gets cut in half again,etc..i think he is refering to real world performance, maybe it was a over simplification on his part or a misunderstanding on my part? This was mention in regards to GameCube HW BTW.

I also want to mention that alot of people, think Cell is not good for software rendering, THEY base this on the fact that most software renderer uses 64 bit float point precision for lighting, objects, etc. But they fail to see that Maxwell Renderer uses 32-bit float point precision, which is something Cell excels at. Maxwell doesnt suffer from aliasing issue, or the need of anti-aliasing at all, unlike Mental Ray. Now if they could produce something along the lines of maxwell software rendering in realtime, there would be no need of anti-alias all. AA would be a thing of the pass.Maxwell also, use real world camera models, so DOF and motion blur are free and does not increase the rendertime. Likewise that'll be free, if something like maxwell software rendering could mention in realtime. But the real question is, would PS3 200 + GFLOPS be enough to write a realtime software renderer ala maxwell, yet still be able to handle physics,AI, meshes,etc ? cpiasminc any thoughts about this, since you are a programmer?im just a artist.

Metal Sphere

07-08-2005, 04:39 AM

Is this true ?
If it is, then that would mean that for once PCs will have a hard time to get over consoles. I don't think UE3 can work on a curent high end PC (or may be at 800X600), so when devs will use all SPEs and RSX fully, the PS3 will be a lot ahead of PCs.

Yup, it's true. Once they get the hang of using the SPEs and start making multithreaded games, we'll see some really gorgeous games.

[quotefrom Mark Rein, of Epic (Unreal Engine 3 guys):
GS: How has it been programming for the Cell processor? Have you tapped into the extra processing cores yet?

MR: We haven't really delved into the Cell all that deeply yet. All we've done is mostly take advantage of just the normal PowerPC core and the RSX graphics, so we really look forward to getting home and tackling all kinds of cool stuff on the Cell. Ultimately, Cell is like a super-MMX processor, and as you know, Unreal was Intel's poster child for MMX many years ago. We're going to be able to do a lot of cool stuff on it. Especially great physics--the NovodeX guys are going to get their API put on it.[/quote]

Rukawa

07-12-2005, 05:50 AM

Look what i found, lets discuss it
author : fouad

I think its time for my article to appear in earth on the internet on this great forum ( I’ve seen and followed a lot of forums but beyond3d forum is one of the best most serious and enjoyable forums on the net ! )
I heard and read a lot of crap, misunderstanding, misleading analysis, false statements, lies, hypocrisies…etc, and I just cant continue only reading so much crap without doing anything. So I decided to create this article based on a lot of sources, relying on what logic analysis agree with. And I hope people will enjoy it, and will finally hear, understand and enjoy the truth !

1/ PS3 design :

A/ Why SONY would spend more than 5 years of development, collaborating with Toshiba and IBM one of the best companies in semiconductors and supercomputers technology in the world , and spending more than 3 billion $ (2 billion $ of investment on R&D and more than 1 billion $ in building manufactories), using the most intelligent and genius computer scientists in the world to develop the CELL ?!!!! WHY ?!!!! why after all this the CELL is only TWICE more powerful than the XeCPU in floating point calculations and is less powerful than the XeCPU on general purpose integer calculations ?!!!! Is sony (ken kutaragi and his team ) crazy ?!! Stupid ?!! Wasting time and money on something not worth it ?!! though they could just do like Microsoft (spending less than 1 billion $ on XeCPU ) and by spring 2006 getting a CPU a little more powerful than XeCPU but more efficient and less expensive than CELL?!!...OR is there something a lot of people didn’t understand about CELL ?!!! is the CELL more than a stupid investment from sony ?!!...

Answer : YES of course . The CELL is more than a stupid idea. Because when I read what a lot of people say in the Internet, I got the idea of them thinking the CELL is a stupid idea from sony and its only marketing ! So I understand how people unbelievably underestimate the importance of CELL and its power for PS3, and how they don’t understand why 5 years of development and 3 billion $ were spent on developing it. I will try to answer the question in 5 points :

1.1/ The power of the CELL :

Its true that CELL is only twice more powerful than XeCPU in terms of floating point calculations ( the CELL of PS3 has one PPE plus 7 working SPEs running at 3.2 GHZ), and that CELL is less powerful in general purpose integer calculations ( If we suppose that the 1 PPU is more or less almost as powerful as one of the 3 cores of the XeCPU, although this is of course not accurate ). BUT you have to know that floating point calculations are more important in multimedia and video games than integer general purpose calculations. Why ?!!
The definition of FLOPS by the internet encyclopedia wikepedia is : “Short for floating-point operations per second, a common benchmark measurement for rating the speed of microprocessors. Floating-point operations include any operations that involve fractional numbers. Such operations, which take much longer to compute than integer operations, occur often in some applications. “
Source : (wikepedia )
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/FLOPS.html

Floating point calculations are the way to go if a developer want to create a very complicated specialized physics engine and AI engine, animations, simulations…etc. CELL is not a PC where you run 5 MS WORD windows, with 3 excel windows, and playing media player mp3 music in the background, with 10 internet explorer windows, and other programs to download games and movies from internet…etc. All this in the same time, so you need a lot of RAM, a big HDD, and a lot of general purpose integer calculations. NO ! the CELL is not designed for this kind of work or applications, but its designed like the emotion engine of ps2 ( the cell at this point of time is even more ambitious than the EE at its time ) mainly for multimedia and video games, those applications doesn’t need a lot of integer general purpose calculations capabilities, but a lot of floating point calculations. SO sony is not foolish to spend 3 billion $ and 5 years of development collaborating with the best semi conductor companies in the world ( Toshiba and IBM ) to create a CPU that is a monster in integer calculations, and not so good on floating point calculations. Sony concentrated mainly on floating point calculations because the main purpose of CELL is to run games not MS office applications.

Want proof that FLOPS are the way to go to create physics, AI, complicated animations, complicated simulations ? OK, I will give 2 main proofs :

1/ The emotion engine of PS2 ! this is the best proof, because if you want to wonder how a CPU created in 1999, did almost everything the GPU+CPU of xbox1 did when running multi platform games ( gameplay, physics, AI, particle effects, vertices, any visual effects you see on screen…etc ) to the point where you could consider the GPU of ps2 ( GS the graphics synthesizer ) as a ROP unit only + textures processing ! you wonder how ?!!! the answer is : the flops capabilities of EE ( 6.2 GFLOPS compared to 1.4 GFLOPS of semi P3-celeron xbox1 CPU, and this is why the EE is far more powerful than the xbox CPU )
2/ Second proof, if you still don’t believe me that FLOPS are the way to go to create complicated physics, than look at AGEIA which intend to release a PPU ( physics processing unit ) using mainly FLOPS !

Also if saying TWICE more powerful is not impressive for you. Than you have to think about it this way : the XeCPU is already unbelievably powerful ( believe it or not but you have to know that the most powerful Intel or AMD CPU in the world that you could buy for your home use does no more than 10 GFLOPS/S ) with the 115 GFLOPS/S of the XeCPU this is just unbelievably powerful. so if the CELL is twice more powerful than a CPU that is already unbelievably powerful…this is not less than revolutionary. And you have to imagine the effort and money and time for MS and IBM to spend if they want to make the XeCPU even more powerful, ask them how much time they will need to make their CPU more powerful than the CELL in floating point calculations ; they will answer : this will take a lot of time !
Because as you know passing from 100 GFLOPS to 200 GFLOPS is a lot more difficult than passing from 6 GFLOPS to 12 GFLOPS ( which is also twice more power ) . Also passing from 100 to 200, means CELL could execute 100 more GFLOPS/S than XeCPU !!! its 100 more GFLOPS/s more`…its not like passing from 6 to 12 ( 6 GFLOPS/s more power ) NO. Its 100 GFLOPS/s more.
Ask Intel for example, how much difficult and how much time they took to double the power of a P4 2 GHZ ! ( this took them 3 years ! from 2002 ( 2 GHZ )to beginning 2005 (3.4 GHZ ) ) and ask NVIDIA why its GF6 created in 8 months was twice ( 2X ) more powerful than GF5. But the GF7 created on 12 months is only 1.5 more powerful than GF6 ! the answer is easy : P4 at 2 GHZ and GF6 were already very powerful, so doubling their power is a very difficult task and will take much more time.
So we have not to underestimate the power of the CELL, and we have to understand that the CELL wont be topped in floating point calculations power by any other PC CPU at least for 4 years. So in terms of pure power for video games the CELL is revolutionary and 3 billion$ and 5 years of development time and collaborating with IBM and Toshiba are all fully justified.

1.2/ the CELL is more than a powerful CPU :

the challenge and problems when creating the CELL were not only to create a powerful CPU, but also to create good interfaces that could beef it with bandwidth ( So they used the most advanced technology in this domain the FlexIO from Rambus) the other challenge was to create great internal
memory control with high speed bandwidth and to include on each SPE an internal memory, and making the management of the bandwidth as efficient as it could be. And if in theory the CELL is a very simple design : a PPU with a lot of SPEs. In practice its another story. Executing the design by Toshiba and IBM and sony was a very difficult task in terms of semiconductors production technology .

1.3/ CELL can connect automatically with any other CELL :

Yes, one of the main objectives of ken kutaragi in creating the CELL was to make it able to create a virtual network, by connecting many CELLs. Again in theory this is very simple, but in practice it’s a different story. The CELLs could connect to each other on the same board, and work together automatically ( unlike classic P4s destined for home use from Intel where only 2 of them could work automatically together, but a lot more CELLs could work automatically together on the same board ) Also the CELLs could connect to each other on a network, so they could exchange data or even work together ! All this with a high automatic level of security.

1.4/ SONY and TOSHIBA will produce the CELL
not IBM :

If sony spent 3 billion $ in creating the CELL, it was also to create manufacturing, so this will allow sony to decrease costs in the long term, unlike Microsoft which will pay other companies to produce xecpu, and its not Microsoft which will produce directly the xecpu.

2/XBOX 360 is an unbalanced system :

Is it true that xbox 360 could do free 4x AA at 720p resolution ? Of course NOT…

When it was announced by MS that the xbox360 will have 10 MB of EDRAM at 256 GO/s, and this will allow it to do free AA at HDTV resolutions, anyone even with little knowledge about hardware, knew that 10 MB is just insufficient to do this. So everyone wondered about the truth . Fortunately the beyond3d article by Dave BAUMANN about xbox360 graphics clarified all this and revealed the truth : There is 10 MB of eDRAM on xbox360 which is not sufficient to do 4X AA at 720P and 1080i resolutions. So the solution was tile rendering, (as the article of Dave Baumann said : the solution is to divide the screen into multiple portions that fit within the eDRAM render buffer space) as you can see requiring a tile rendering technique to do anti aliasing, doesent make it free anti aliasing . Because rendering consume power, so there is no real HDTV free AA on xbox 360. Furthermore in the article of dave we have the following (ATI have been quoted as suggesting that 720p resolutions with 4x FSAA, which would require three tiles, has about 95% of the performance of 2x FSAA.) Do you know what does this mean ?!!
This means that if what they are saying is true, so passing from 2x AA at 720P to 4x AA at the same resolution will hit the performance of xbox 360 by 5% ! and if we suggest this same rate, than going from no AA at 720P ( no tiling required) to 2x AA ( 2 tiles required ) will hit the performance of xbox 360 by at least 5 % or more !!! meaning that at a minimum passing from no AA at 720P to 4x AA at 720P will hit the performance of xbox360 by at least 10 % !!! Now where is the free AA here ?!!
Do the same analysis for 4x AA at 1080i and you will conclude that at least to pass from no AA at 1080i ( no tiling needed ) to 4x AA at 1080i ( 4 tiles needed ) you will get at least 15 % hit in performance !!!
And if Microsoft consider this as free AA than even PS3 has almost free AA with its RSX ( almost 20-30 % real hit in performance when using 4x AA at 1080i resolutions in today actual games, ( officially its even less than 10 % ! like the official Microsoft numbers for the hit of performance on xenos when using AA ! Ironic…) and this wont change a lot in future games, because they will be more shader intensive rather than polygons intensive or even texture intensive )
So please don’t be fooled by the advantage of doing free AA, due to the using of an eDRAM of 10 MB. Because as you have seen this is not true. And there is no free AA at HDTV resolutions on xbox360.
So please stop believing anything, before you are sure of it.

Now lets look at the second main advantage of having eDRAM on xbox 360 : Economize bandwidth, by using the bandwidth of edram to do AA, and Z-buffer, and stencil. so the bandwidth of the GDDR3 ram will be used for shaders, and textures . But even this relative advantage against PS3, was simply killed due to memory bandwidth sharing between XENOS and XeCPU ( 22.6 GB/S ) so if we assume the CPU will need 50% of bandwidth 11.3 GB ( when running complicated physics, AI and animation engines ) than only 11.3 GB/s will be available for the GPU which is not sufficient, and will limit the power of the xbox 360 GPU.

NOTE : With the SATURN-3DO-PS1-N64 generation ( saying it’s the 32 bit generation its not accurate as you know), the trend (or the concentration of developers) was to create more polygons. With the DC-PS2-XBOX-GC generation the concentration of developers was to create better textures ( Sony failed to anticipate this fact, thus leading them to not include a S3TC texture compression technology, and to choose bandwidth over quantity of memory, which was a wrong choice for the GPU, but a great choice for the CPU ) but with next generation games the concentration will be to create better more complex shaders. So this will minimize the requirement for more bandwidth and more memory quantity ( I am not saying bandwidth and memory quantity aren’t a bottleneck on PS3, but I am saying that this Is less of a problem than it was in the previous generation ). So in the next generation we will return to the case of first 3D generation consoles : The CPU will be more important ( complex animations, physics, AI and simulations ), and the limits will be more of a processing power ( to do longer complicated shaders ) than bandwidth or memory quantity. ( thanks GOD for this because as you know its easier for manufacturers to improve processing power than to improve bandwidth )

Disadvantages of 10 MB of eDRAM :

We have just seen that the advantages of having eDRAM are just killed. Now lets look to the disadvantages : there is 332 million transistors on XENOS, but only 252 million transistors are used for LOGIC and calculations ( processing ) ( 232 million transistors for the mother die ( pipelines ) and 20 million transistors used on the back buffer, daughter die, for AA, z buffer, and stencil )
So if there was no eDRAM, ATI could use all 332 million transistors for logic and processing power ! ( like the 300( or a little more ) million transistors for the RSX ) this does mean that the RSX has 300 million transistors dedicated to processing, and xenos only 252 million transistors )

Now lets look more closely to RSX, sure we don’t know detailed informations which GPU the RSX will be, but we know SUFFICIENT enough informations, at least to make a comparison with XENOS.

We know 3 things about RSX :
1/ Its based on the G70 of NVIDIA, so we wont see radical differences in design, like big difference in the number of pixel or vertex shaders, or how complicated they are.
2/ it will be build on a 90 nm process, running at 550 MHZ ( or it wont differe a lot from this ).
3/ it has been designed to work with CELL, so the RSX use almost the same FLOPS programs language as CELL ( no conversion needed to communicate for efficiency, so each one understand the other ), and the interface to communicate with CELL is flexIO at 35 GB/S.

And for the rumors that the G70 has more than 32 pipelines, and they were disabled by NVIDIA, this is NOT TRUE ! Its impossible, technically or logically.
( I could elaborate on this on this forum, or maybe in part2 of my article)
but now lets concentrate on RSX, it wont be a 32 pipeline GPU, but only 30 or even 28. ( 2 or 4 will be disabled for redundancy a la one SPE of CELL ) and this for sure.

So lets assume there is 30 pipelines on RSX ( 22 pixel pipelines and 8 vertex pipelines )
The 8 vertex pipelines of RSX are as capable as the pipelines of XENOS. But the 24 pixel pipelines are a lot more powerful, also the RSX is 550 MHZ unlike the xenos : 500 MHZ.

So in terms of raw power the RSX is much more powerful ( 1.5 times more powerful ) than xenos.

But Microsoft and ATI claims that XENOS is much more efficient than RSX and that this efficiency make it more powerful ! lets analyse this :
There is a uinified shader architecture on xenos ( each pipeline could do a vertex or a pixel shader )
The benefits are clear : this makes the GPU more flexible and more efficient. WHY ? simply because suppose on RSX you need less than 8 vertex shaders, ( say for example a game needs only 6 vertex shaders ) than you have 2 wasted vertex shaders! Now suppose you need more than 8 vertex shaders, say for example 10, but you have only 8 and you cant use the pixel pipelines in doing vetex shaders. But if you have a unified architecture than you use the GPU more efficiently in distributing workload among pipelines as needed by the scenes of the game.

Its clear that a unified architecture is the future of GPUs. But saying rise some important questions about the real efficiency of the Xenos, because as you know xenos is the first unified shader architecture not only from ATI but in the whole world ! so there is no experience in doing a unified architecture therefore we don’t know if Xenos will really be as efficient as claimed or not ! for example having a unified pipeline rise some problems that didn’t exist on a separated pipeline architecture like : the results from the vertex processing must have sufficient memory on GPU to be placed until it will be used by a free pipeline, than those results must be sent rapidly and efficiently for pixel processing, and since each pipeline could execute only one vertex shader or one pixel shader at the same time, than this is really a big problem because if a result from a vertex shader has no enough memory to be placed, or its not sent rapidly to the adequate free pipeline, than you have just a system that is blocked ! Of course ATI thought very well of those problems, and implemented solutions to them, but how efficient those solutions to those problems are especially for a first attempt at doing unified archictecture well determine how efficient is the new architecture.
Lets assume this new architecture is 100% efficient and no problem mentioned before occure when processing data. Than
we could understand why ATI and MS claim that the unified architecture is more efficient than a separate architecture, but does this make the XENOS more powerful than RSX ? NO

For many reasons :

1/ the raw power of the RSX is 1.5 more than xenos and even if we accept that xenos is more efficient, this only take full effect on some minor special cases, and even if we consider only those cases, the more efficiency just wont make the xenos as powerful as RSX.

2/ video games need a lot more pixel shaders than vertex shaders ( this is obvious because on screen there is a lot more pixels than vertices, also higher rez and quality textures and particles, make far more visual impact than just more polygons or geometry, so developers since the 128 bit generation concentrate less and less on adding polygons on their games ) so this just minimize the gain in efficiency when having unified pipelines.

So to make xbox360 as efficient as possible against PS3 there is a lot of conditions :

1/ the game must need more than 8 vertex shaders ( very complex geometry ) and minimize the need of pixel shaders. ( as I said the RSX is better than xenos in running pixel shaders intensive engines, with little vertex shaders )

2/ the game run at 720P with 2x anti aliasing. ( so no tiling needed, and we have a real total free AA as claimed by MS)

3/ there is no complicated physics, collision detection, partical effects physics, real time calculated animations, complicated simulations, and complicated AI. So the CPU wont be a limit factor for the GPU and wont need a lot of bandwidth, so the free bandwidth could be used by the GPU xenos.

Now lets look at what future games will demand :

1/ complicated physics, AI, animations and simulations.

2/ a lot more complicated pixel shaders.

3/ 1080i and 1080p resolutions with 4x anti aliasing, 8x anisotropic filtering, HOS ( high order surfaces ), 64 bit or even 128 bit HDR( crazy kazunori yamuchi and his team ! we know him ! he implemented 1080i for GT4 on PS2, and he dropped the online at the last minute after years of working on it and this was for me a big shock ! ) , high rez normal mapping, soft self shadowing, advanced motion blur effects…etc.
( the only future effect that is suitable for xenos is displacement mapping, and unfortunately it seems future games wont use a lot of displacement mapping for many reasons…not our subject here )

We clearly see that those conditions decrease the gain of efficiency of xenos against RSX and given 1.5 times more raw power of rsx against xenos, this make the ps3 more capable graphically than xbox360, and clever developers on PS3 could create things just impossible to run on xbox360.

BUT………. The big differences that you will see between xbox360 games and some PS3 games aren’t in graphics…but in other departments of next generation video games…but this is on my PART 2 of the article. ( didn’t finished it , I will also talk on part 2 about disadvantages of ps3…problems with sony and Microsoft strategies…video games industry…etc )

Voidler

07-12-2005, 06:03 AM

That was a good read, I dunno how reliable, but interesting none the less. I'm wondering though, the eDRAM may just bring them back on equal playing ground. Apparently it can output 4X's MSAA + HDR + Z removal + alpha blending + stencil shadows + something ATI calls "fluid reality" ( things like hair and cloth anitation ), all at a less than 5% performance hit. You know this is going to be a huge drawback on the RSX in the longrun, I mean it can't even do HDR and MSAA at the same time. I wish PS3 did feature something like that :(

CrumCon

07-12-2005, 06:56 AM

Damn that was a long ass post.

i'll read it sometime tho

Danji

07-12-2005, 07:50 AM

Interesting post and a lot of the things it said were..interesting to say the least.

xbdestroya

07-12-2005, 08:09 AM

LOL, Rukawa what are you up to, posting that locked B3D article. You better be the author in disguise or something! ;)

Anyway the article has it's heart in the right place, but some of it's facts and supports are just off. Then again some of it's others are true. Since I have the majority of my PS3 interest in Cell though, I'll just point out some Cell related ones.

By far, the cost of the fab facilities has been Sony's greatest cost with Cell. I think their R&D expenses were roughly ~$700 million for the chip, with over $3 billion in fab costs. Also investment in a chip line does not automatically equate to a sound business move. If you look at Itanium and Intel, you see that billions upon billions can indeed lead to commercial failure, regardless of underlying strengths.

That being said, I wish Cell the best. :)

Rukawa

07-12-2005, 01:43 PM

Yes its from B3d but i m not the author ( i already said at first two line)
If i m the author , i will post in here first

STI already said that Cell R&D cost 400 million, Sony and Toshiba also investing in 65 nm fab as far i know

Voidler

07-13-2005, 11:14 AM

http://www.nvidia.com/page/specs_gf7800.html

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm

Check this out. It says the 7800 does 860 million vertices, and the Xbox 360 system as a whole does 500 million triangles. Aren't vertices two triangles? Or are they just the same thing? I'm not sure, I think I'm probably wrong here. But still, it looks like the 7800 alone owns the X360, lets not get the RSX and Cell involved.:P

sousuke

07-13-2005, 02:41 PM

...Aren't vertices two triangles? Or are they just the same thing?
Aren't triangles three vertices?
So "7800 does 860 million vertices" = "7800 does 286 million triangles".
But maybe I'm wrong here ;P

Ok, actually you can use one vertex for more triangles (with a triangle-strip) so in the best case scenario you could do ~860 million triangles.

Voidler

07-13-2005, 04:11 PM

No a polygon is three vertices. Maybe vertices and triangles are the same thing?

The_One

07-13-2005, 04:14 PM

Triangles are made from three vertices. Polygons, on the other hand, can be any amount of vertices from 3 to infinite. Of course, if it uses three vertices, then it'll just be considered a triangle.

Voidler

07-13-2005, 04:33 PM

A single polygon is made of three vertices though. What are triangles to a polygon?

cpiasminc

07-13-2005, 05:26 PM

If you stripify geometry, you can get down to a lower limit of 1 vertex per triangle. If you're not familiar with the idea, think of it like this -- consider a square. It's made up of two triangles. No matter what you think of "polygons", the hardware only draws triangles anyway. You think of the first triangle in the square : three vertices. Now there's one more triangle. However, this second triangle uses two vertices from the other triangle. Those two vertices are still sitting in the post-transform cache anyway, so the GPU won't really do any unnecessary math on it -- so all we need to do is send one more vertex and we've got the second triangle. So instead of 6 vertices, we sent 4 to the card and got 2 tris out of it.

Similarly, if you did this with a strip of two squares, you'd only need to send 3 vertices for the first tri and one vertex for each extra tri. Making 6 vertices for 4 tris. You can see where this is leading, I hope...

And in practice, you'll usually see a ratio with indexed trilist packets getting to average about 1.25 vertices per tri. The obvious exception is things like particles and sprites where you can't get below 2 vertices per tri.

Angeljuice

07-13-2005, 06:25 PM

Similarly, if you did this with a strip of two squares, you'd only need to send 3 vertices for the first tri and one vertex for each extra tri. Making 6 vertices for 4 tris. You can see where this is leading, I hope...

And in practice, you'll usually see a ratio with indexed trilist packets getting to average about 1.25 vertices per tri. The obvious exception is things like particles and sprites where you can't get below 2 vertices per tri.

Using this rule, 7800 produces 860 million vertices = 688 million triangles.

PhYmon

07-13-2005, 07:13 PM

Using this rule, 7800 produces 860 million vertices = 688 million triangles. even with that amount ot triangles still beeting up the 360

cpiasminc

07-13-2005, 09:39 PM

Metal Sphere

07-13-2005, 10:20 PM

Sounds like the limitations of the setup engine pretty much put you in that position. R500 only issues one vertex to the shader pipes per cycle. Whereas G70, sounds like, it issues 2 vertices per cycle.

That also suggests that RSX at 550 MHz will be able to push 1.1 billion verts per second.

I've heard that 1.1 billion figure thrown around and debunked by folks saying that after all is said and done, the actual number is far from it. What can you say about the realistic ramifications of such a high number?

cpiasminc

07-13-2005, 11:16 PM

Well, yeah, the original calculations that arrived at the 1.1 billion figure come out like so --
The simplest possible vertex operation you can have is just 4 instructions. That is, transform the vertex position and do nothing else. Assuming a lucky case of perfect SMT threading and staggering, having 8 vertex pipes / 4 instructions run on each pipe equals 2 vertices per cycle assuming 1 instruction is 1 cycle.

Is this type of vertex shader of a measly 4 instructions really realistic? Well, when you're sending software-generated shadow volume manifolds, it is. Not when you're rendering actual geometry, though. It's much more realistic to see vertex shaders that are some 20-50 instructions long, which makes for an entirely different animal performance wise. However, this problem is really universal to all programmable GPUs.

At 50 instructions-length, you're talking a best-case scenario of 88 million vertices per second (@550 MHz). Actually, a truly best case scenario would be under the assumption that every other instruction is a co-issued op, in which case, you'd get as much as 176 million vertices, but I find that to be unrealistic since you can only co-issue vector against scalar ops.

Brad

07-14-2005, 02:34 AM

hmm riveting

Rukawa

07-14-2005, 03:26 AM

David Kirk said that 1 SPE can calculate 800 million vertex but is it useful and he also said SPE is more flexible than VS in term of programable

version

07-14-2005, 04:47 AM

Raijin

07-14-2005, 04:55 AM

if scene very complex and has 10 billion polygons, then ps3 can do it with 60 fps.

WTF???

Rukawa

07-14-2005, 12:53 PM

David Kirk said

This SPE itself strength, if is willing to believe SCE to performance indicator speech, even if is one SPE operates in 3.2gHz, carries on the Vertex processing the speed also can achieve each second 800000000 (800M) Vertex, this already was equal the quite several Programmable Shader ability which had to ordinary GPU. Moreover if compares may sequence the ability (Programmablity), SPE has may use the integrity the C++ language degree, by far surpasses ordinary Programmable Shader in this aspect.

www.marsgame.com/Hardware/Class16/200505/8011.html
Machine translation
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.marsgame.com/Hardware/Class16/200505/8011.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDavid%2Bkirk%2B%2BRSX%2B%2BSPE%2B%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

maybe 800 million without subdiv, bezier, nurbs or displacement mapping

10 billion polygon ?
I doubt developer gonna use all the SPEs just for graphic except Team Ninja maybe

Voidler

07-14-2005, 02:10 PM

10 billion would be absolutely crazy. But still.. Let me get this straight, is it possible for a PS3 game to actually have over a billion polygons on screen at a time?:)

PhYmon

07-14-2005, 04:12 PM

well voidler i think that u have to wait until the next playstation meeting, thats coming up the next week from today. And i bet that they are going to kick really hard to the x360 and will give some more info about the new hardware (hopefully some more specs about the RSX)

rpgamer_2k5

07-14-2005, 05:28 PM

Exactly. We still do not know anything about the RSX. This so called Geforce 7800GTX clone is really gonna be intense. What Sony and Nvidia has available will allow so many wonders. :D

xbdestroya

07-14-2005, 06:00 PM

1 spe can do about 200-300 million polygons/s with subdiv, bezier, nurbs or displacement mapping

if scene manager read the Z-Pyramid from RSX, able to do oclusion culling on objects with own bounding-box or -sphere

SPE rendering "only" visible objects, if you use 2 SPE , you can compute about 500 million visible polygons/s, this is 10 million polys/frame but you have 1 million pixels on screen :LOL
if scene very complex and has 10 billion polygons, then ps3 can do it with 60 fps :)

XENOS run good only with 2 pass, this is max 250 mill polys/s, but i dont know able to read the Z-pyramid

Version always a good time when you pop up. :)

You mentioned something that I've been curious about lately though; has Sony mentioned NURBS lately outside of the PSP? They seemed so excited about it for awhile, and now it just seems to have died down on their end.

Grandia

07-14-2005, 07:20 PM

xbdestroya, I've got a question for you. Could you take a look at this topic over at TXB. (I know, it's TXB, but sometimes they have interesting information.)

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=359211&page=3

Is anything that they're saying correct?

NeoPlayStation

07-14-2005, 07:32 PM

David Kirk said that 1 SPE can calculate 800 million vertex but is it useful and he also said SPE is more flexible than VS in term of programable

Do you have the link?

xbdestroya

07-14-2005, 07:35 PM

Well I'm a member of TXB as well, so no worries in pointing