PS3 Virtua Tennis 3 in 1080p Comments by Tom Bramwell

What IronGiant said:
"Amusing how many losers think it's clever or helping gamers the world over to try to slag off Sony, PS3 or any of it's features. The PS3 is outputting at this resolution for some games, great news. Only rabid fanbois or retards would spend so much effort trying to explain why it doesn't really matter. Get a life. "

There is nothing more to say, case closed.

Garulon no way... so the roumers were true? I said that here ages ago that we could see them downgrade the clockspeed... of course they said I was crazy!

When did that happen btw? cant beleive I missed that one. There are more roumers that they may do the same with Cell now(the 2 threads of the 64 bit PPE @ 3.2Ghz would have an easier time feeding the 6-7 32bit SPUs if they were at 1Ghz or so. Just a roumer... for now :D).

Honestly, can someone tell the difference between a 1080p and a 1080i TV with a contemporanean de-interlace method ?, I mean, can you actually see the odd and even fields on a Samsung 1080i ? When I was searching for an LCD I used a 1080p video and watch it a 1080i and a 1080p and the only difference I noticed was the price.
But then again, I cannot tell the differecence between a decent MP3 and a CDA file, but my neughbour, even uses gold cables in his soundsystem...

JediMasterMalik: I rather have a Samsung that does 1080i very well that a..., how is that?... "westinghouse"...! LOL!

Why do people keep on comparing 360 with PS3? The damn later doesn't exist!!! I bet a years wage you haven't touched one yet, and you wont until next summer, at least! How can you say it's better than Xenos, oh "Mr. perfect-english-Vic" ? Compare with your PS2! That's a fair comparision 'cos you can play it now, as you could 8 years ago.
And..., will 360 games magically, esoterically start to be unplayable bad if PS3 sells cazillions consoles?, will 360 gamers be forced to not enjoy their machine if Sony releases 7 games that do 1080p ? I can't play Dead Rising tonight, because of PS3's VT3 allegedly, sometime in a distant future will do 1080p ? I doubt...

Steroyd thats nonsense the triangle setup is on the GPU and that is limited(not sure limited is the best word to use) to 275million/sec. Cell may do vertice/vertex generation(but all modern CPUs will be up to the task of anything that Cell can throw out there including Xenon... may even be stronger and as Ive said before Xenon and Xenos will be a much better pair working closely together because they were made for each other, the same is not true with Cell and RSX), perhaps some minor vertex transformation too?, these are another matter though and I doubt thered be many situations where 360 devs would go anywhere near the 500million tris/sec rate(they dont need that many for a start and theyd have no ALUs left for anything else, unless they also use the CPU, the unique cache locking feature of Xenon would be very usefull in this area ;) ) but this is one of 360s strengths over the PS3.

edit: As for drawing at the actual rendering stage to the framebuffer the split means that the best way is to have the framebuffer on the GDDR3(where the cells read spead would be 16mb/s and the write speed would be 4gb/s which is simply nowhere near as good) other ways will be possible but innefficient as Garulon has said(and I said a few pages back). The bandwidth situation is much better on 360 with Xenos having a neatly integrated memory controller(much better than Xbox was apparently) with access to all available GDDR3 memory which can be split between CPU and GPU as devs see fit and a 10mb dedicated framebuffer with very high bandwidth and its own logic(frame buffer operations such as Z and colour access patterns can use up alot of bandwidth so this is good advantage over the PS3, motion blur, AA, HDR and other frame buffer effects will be better on 360 too).

"Just make sure you got a really good 1080i screen with your Xbox 360 before you start comparing the performance on it to PS3 with a 1080p screen + game running on that resolution. "

The thing is, if you have a TV capable of 1080p it should also easily be capable of deinterlacing a 1080i/60 signal into a 1080p/30 one. If you _don't_ have a 1080i display (happily, as I have a HD CRT 1080i is _All_ I have) then it doesn't matter as it can't display the 1080p signal anyway, right?

"Garulon no way... so the roumers were true? I said that here ages ago that we could see them downgrade the clockspeed... of course they said I was crazy! "

It's quasi-offical, in that no ex-cathedra announcments have been made but pretty much all PS3 devs know about it. So far it's just GPU/GDDR3 downgrade, as far as I can tell Cell and XDR are still the E3 published speeds.

"I mean, can you actually see the odd and even fields on a Samsung 1080i ?"

Nope :)

"You can't judge the graphical grunt of the PS3 in the RSX alone because the Cell processor can help in that area also because of it's specific design."

Actually, It can't. I mean sure it can write to the framebuffer just like RSX can, but the Cells' READ speed from the Framebuffer (if you have it in GDDR3 RAM) is so awful you couldn't use it for any post-processing effects. You can shove the buffer into XDR and play with it there, but you lose a bit of RAM and perf that way. You can also render out straight into XDR, but then the Cell's bandwidth is heavily compromised.

"Amusing how many losers think it's clever or helping gamers the world over to try to slag off Sony, PS3 or any of it's features. "

I read that as "Stop telling me the truth about the PS3!" Fine, just stick the old head in the sand, stop reading the posts, and in March 2007 hand over the best part of five hundred quid and grab those ankles :(

Anyway as fun as its been neither machine will ever make the other one look "shit" so the "its all about the games" arguement has never been stronger than it will be this coming "next-generation battle". So we could see many great games as the years progress and I have to say... I do like great games. :D

"I read that as "Stop telling me the truth about the PS3!" "

Quelle surprise. :/

Interesting comments Calgon, spoilt by some mistakes along the way. Btw, that first response to my post seems like a just a series of your opinions, with no substance to back them up.

Remember that Unified shaders were not used in nVidia’s or ATI’s top end graphics cards this generation. It doesn’t say that unified shaders are not the path for the future for both manufacturers, but it does suggest that now(2005-2006) unified shaders may not be up to par with the horsepower that can be put on a fixed function pipelined architecture. Whether or not the Xenos is actually up to par with the future GPUs that may have unified shaders will not be known until they are released and many more programmers start to actually use them and see what areas need improvement to make the architecture more refined for actual use.

Many people talk about the 10mb eDRAM but the exact nature of the AA advantage you speak of is limited to certain resolutions and pixel depths. Effects that may increase frame buffer size are FSAA, HDR, alpha blending, and z-buffering. Depending on the combination of these effects, the frame buffer size may exceed the 10MB capacity of eDRAM and force developers to come up with a tile rendering solution if they want to use the eDRAM perform those tasks. If a tiling method is used, a performance hit is still present but not many people are aware of the exact nature of what this hit actually is.

As I have been reminded by an article I read recently, 360 has more general purpose computing power, while PS3 is more specialised in nature. Ageia and other companies are proposing a new major piece of hardware on PCs to aid in processing physics in games. A certain type of processing is needed, and it is not found in traditional desktop CPUs with general purpose processing power. PS3 will surpass 360 as its CPU is built for GAMING, not running operating systems and application. What is does is give the ability to run general purpose applications faster. If the 360 had a web browser, the design for such an application would work better on a general purpose CPU. Running multiple general purpose applications is where the most benefit from a multicore general purpose CPU is held.

Also, you cliam that PS3 incorporates a PC-like design, forgetting that the bus that connects the Cell (and XDR RAM) to the RSX is significantly different from a 7800GTX in a typical PC setup. This bus has significantly greater bandwidth than a typical PC GPU has and could allow the Cell and main memory to play a bigger role in graphics. Cell will do anything you like, available memory space and your patience/competence permitting. Cell's a freely programmable general purpose multiprocessor, so it can do raytracing or whatever else you as a programmer might think of, although perhaps not in realtime.

Vic the only posts lacking any real susbstance are your posts(its simple marketing speak which was already being contested with the SOUND information I provided) and I did not make any mistakes nor forget anything of relevance to my points. You have already displayed a lack of understanding of the nature of these architectures(which I pointed out in the first quote from you) so I suggest you tell your "techie friend" to post himself. Youve failed to discredit the advantages of the USA(based simply on the unknown?... wait and see?)and if there werent clear advantages neither ATI or NVidia would be going there any time soon which they are(Xenos was on a different schedual to ATIs PC roadmap, MS may have actually pushed for this knowing this is where DX10 allowing 360 a chance to keep up somewhat and this was a perfect opportunity for ATI to get the USA right first, all funded and perhaps assisted by MS), You cannot dissmiss the 10mb of e-DRAM advantage either, 10mb always meant that tiling would have to be used(simple maths on the footprint required for HD resolutions would have told you that, its been known since Xenos was first revealed) but theres no denying that this is still a better scenario than the PS3 one because you WILL still save shitloads of bandwidth using it, thats why its there(no its not perfect but they will find a good balance soon enough and we will start to see its benefits more and more).

The RSX vs Xenos arguement was over ages ago if you knew anything, Xenos wins, its that simple and of course Sony are going to tell you Cell is all powerfull because they can get away with it, for now because its unreleased and unproven(how much interest has it received outside of Sony's own PS3? the server market has a few coming from IBM but thats about it and they are highly priced, its already looking like a failure compared to what Sony was expecting).

Cell was not built for soley for gaming, despite what Sony want you to beleive(one of its only strengths touted from the start has been decoding multiple streams on the fly which could tie in with blu-ray perhaps?... multimedia processor does not equal gaming processor, Sony fanboys are focussing on a select few things some of which may or may not even be true), why can't you see that the SPUs are essentially hacked toshiba DSPs working in parralel?(not dissing the Cell with that but theres no magic going on here is all). I garrantee you, the Cell will deffinately not be as good as Sony hypes it up to be or as it appears on paper(thats always been Sony's game since the PS2 arrived before they even started on the PS3 they learned those tricks). Ageia have been cosying with Sony and outlining the similarities with Cell they have because: a) Sony's presence would be beneficial to them. b) They have a product to sell.

The "certain type of processing needed" is floating point and with Cell its most likely limited more than Sony want us to beleive, in the types of floating point operations it(supposedly... ie they have yet to prove any of this) excells at. PPUs may never take off either, this veiw is further strengthened with ATIs physics solution which I think is a much better direction to head in and we could see Nvidia follow suit if they haven't made plans already. What do you think is better?: a card only made for Physics or a card that can be used for either graphics or physics?(people are already using crossfire and SLI, so this sort of thing would be a much more natural transition and better value for the consumer).

You haven't told me anything I haven't read yonks ago and I can see through any weaknesses in that sort of marketing speak.

This bus has significantly greater bandwidth than a typical PC GPU

Only to main memory and it needs to be... this was the case with Xbox too(also one of the benefits brought with PCI-express too though... 16x = 4Gb/s > this includes CPU reads and writes from video memory = better than the measly 16mb/s Cell read), its because the very nature of consoles allows them to do this but memory is expensive and Consoles cant be too expensive to produce. With PC GPUs/Graphics-Cards they can have their own onboard GDDR3 memory of up to 512mb with much higher bandwidth than any memory in the PS3(twice as much as XDR and all of it can be used for graphics you simply cannot compare and with PCI-Express this even less of an issue now). The bus between Cell and RSX(excluding RSX to XDR/main memory because Cell might need this for you know... operations other than graphics and that would hinder it --its still not effecient, any other ways you could care to mention would be worse still-- if Cell talking directly to the RSX was what you were also hinting at that) is not new, 360 has already had that in mind from that start ;) , only with the 360, Xenon can also lock the cache which would then be made available exclusively to Xenos(again a 360 feature and signs of more thought in the design process about the close relationship between these two components) which could have some interesting implications.

Cell will do anything you like, available memory space and your patience/competence permitting. Cell's a freely programmable general purpose multiprocessor, so it can do raytracing or whatever else you as a programmer might think of, although perhaps not in realtime.


Haha that's a keeper that is :D

Now you've just completely lost the plot, I can tell you built up to that at the end by pretending you know what you are talking about. Most CPUs can "do anything you like"... duh? it depends how fast they can do them or its pointless even trying... unless you want 5fps gaming but surely thats not "the real next-gen"? Put it this way if it was all that good at graphics processing in general, why did they change their original plan? --which was to have mutiple Cells handle everything(3 of them I think)-- because its way WEAKER than a GPU thats why! and your dreams of SLI like performance with the two working together are unfounded(even if they were originally designed to work together which we know they certainly weren't, so it was never going to happen) when held up to this simple but very true to logic(keep dreaming! ;) ).

PS3 will surpass 360 as its CPU is built for GAMING, not running operating systems and application.

Thats also a keeper! ;) and I'll say it again PS3 will NEVER surpass 360 by any significant margin. This is pointless at the moment, so I will just say lets wait and see(and once the first year's out of the way if Sony start using the "untapped potential" excuse its final if we find 360 has better graphics, and come the 2nd-3rd year if they do fall behind they will stay there).

Im sorry for that long post to rest here, I did say I was done here but he addressed me personally afterall. Plus the sort of stuff he was spouting was pure Sony propaganda/marketing-speak which I hate, not that he was overly convincing anyway with his analogy of: "Xenon = General purpose only = web browser and word processing = not usefull for games...." WTF?... Hello! Xenon designs started after Cell, when MS went to IBM they already knew what were up against and its not an off the shelf part either. MS and IBM designed this for GAMING first and foremost you only have to look at it to realise that(dot product features ect).

Wait and see peeps! \0/ 360 FTW!!!

I will try and stay clear of this thread after this since its all gone too far into the system war again.

your, you're, lol...

the eDrama continues over the intangible!
i could understand arguing as to whether a game is fun or not, but its resolution? c'mon...

makes for a fun read though.


this article says it all: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?...

Yeah, so keep bugging about what player you'll buy. I'll be taking the hybrid, kthxbye! http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...

i wonder if EG will be around so we can argue if PS(X) and XBOX(X) can produce that resolution at 60fps without stuttering...oh, and the cost of the included HDHD (high def holographic disc)

PS: OH, oh, oh! The TV too! that'll make for some reading.

console wars spawn console whores and format wars spawn format whores.

i, on the other hand, will be no whore. after all, what is there to argue?

as you were men!


haha, just kidding.

/runs

Jesus H Christ Calgon,where do you find the time to write massive posts like that?I get bored of writing replies on forums about two li....

Calgon, get out more often son.

@Calgon

Your comments about RSX and Xenos are not as unequivocal as you would have us believe.

Lets look at what Developers are saying:

Xenos has a vertex shader advantage over RSX but with Cell helping RSX, it makes comparison much more even.

RSX has a pixel shader advantage over Xenos.

RSX has 332 m

The edram in Xenos gives frame-buffer bandwith advantages although ps3 has a bandwith advantage for everything else and possibly some frame-buffer advantages too.

Thats from 2 developers from psinext and beyond3d forums.

RSX will be at a disadvantage to Xenos when it comes to framebuffer effects thanks to its 128-bit bus and 10mb of eDRAM. However, a lead developer on Heavenly Sword (yes I know its being developed by Ninja Theory, but he is in a psoition to say) has said there are ways of getting HDR+AA on PS3 games with nowhere near as much hit on RSX's power as some people have tried to make out. And remember, HS will also be presented in 1080p glory, possibly at 60 FPS :).

In fact you talk about on-paper specs until your blue in the face but practical tests are more relevant.

Unified shader technology is the direction that PC graphics are going to go. Nvidia have the G80. The thing that always struck me as kind of odd about the Xbox 360 is that it has a very early version of the architecture in that it seems to be rather under powered to run games like Oblivion. Gamespot ran a comparison on Oblivion on a low end, mid-grade, and high-end PC to see how the 360 verison matches up.

PC's with the 7800 and 7900 were both more impressive than the 360 and that was at the same resolution, which we all know PCs can have higher resolutions than x720. The good news for Sony is that RSX will probably be at least as powerful than the Xenos. Also, 1080p is not going to be a big stretch of the imagination since a 7900 can run extreme resolutions on PC that no TV in the next three or four years is going to support, albeit at a fair strain. However, I'm sure there'll be many games running in 1080p that will look optimal when compared to 720p with higher quality graphics settings.

The question is, are unified shaders that much of an advantage this generation?

Vic get over it! Xenos is stronger and more advanced than RSX thats just the way it is. The only real bandwidth advantage PS3 has now is the XDR which is less than 256mb after the OS has taken a chunk and less once Cell has taken its share for other tasks, how much do you think this will help? Not alot since its effectively only 3Gb/s faster than 360s GDDR3. There are no framebuffer advantages on PS3 at all(use your eyes the facts are there this will be done on PS3s GDDR3... best case scenario), these operations will be more costly on the PS3 including AA, HDR and motion blur.

Lets look at what Developers are saying

We will do that, most seem to be giving Xenos the nod now and we certainly wont take the word of an annonymous forum poster whos less convincing than you are(sketchy springs to mind), not even Nvidia have tried to defend that and if they had worked on a solution you can bet we'd know by now.

I suggest you give it up I have a feeling this could go on and on and on before you realise youve been powned!(haha joking but how many time do I have to say it lets just wait and see now, you know like with the obviously overhyped Cell, the real question what can we expect from the real world perfomance of Cell?)


edit: Oh and Oblivion is a first gen 360 title based off UE3 which I dont think says anything bad of the 360 because they did a good job, lets have a look at Gears of War when its out then or any of the newer games based off that engine. Lets not forget although UE3 is very scalable and supports many platforms its not a 360 engine(and although theyve recently added multithreading for GOW there wont be AA in any of the games based on that engine which highlights this... before you get chuffed its to do with how they implement shadows and the bandwidth restraints without the help of the e-DRAM so the problem would be far worse on PS3 and many PC set-ups) , futhermore the reason you're not seeing benifits of the USA is maybe because its not a DX10 engine? What it does show though is that the USA featured in the xenos holds up well even at this early stage then does it not?

Err...PS3 has 256MB of very high speed XDR main RAM running at 3.2Ghz, and 256MB of GDDR graphics RAM running at 700Mhz.

Anonymous developer? Eh? Those interviews were in PSNEXT, and I think I'm more inclined to believe them than you.

First you start yet again stating the supremacy of Xenos, then you say 'lets just wait and see now'??

GOW. Fine. But how will we compare performance with a PC running a mid/high level graphics card? I dont remember seeing a PC release on Epic's schedule.

My points are valid, which is why you probably ignored many of them. But your right lets wait and see. Comparions of games, particulary the 2nd and 3rd generations should tell us a lot. Your obviously someone that hopes MS does well in the next console war (I'm guessing your an America citizen?) and I'm sure with their new piece of kit, MS will have lots of good games, and at least solidify its 2nd place in the console market this gen.

Err... was there any point to repeating that? but I suppose since you where overly cocky in that post I will address a few things.

Once PS3 OS weighing in at 96mb(as apposed to 32mb on 360) has taken it's share of memory from XDR(64mb) and GDDR3(32mb) we are looking at 192mb XDR and 224mb GDR3.

GDDR3 on 360 is 700MHz but industry insiders and developers have reported a clock decrease in the PS3s RSX(now 500Mhz) and GDDR3(now 650Mhz), Sony havent announced this yet but given the amount of bad press theyve had recently you can see why(probably much closer to launch) but this isnt the sort of thing these types of people comment on without some certainty.

Cell and XDR are unchanged as of yet I beleive, but simply stating the clockspeed of the XDR memory suggests a lack of understanding perhaps you need educating, afterall this was concerning frame buffer bandwidth was it not? (probably the part where I said only 3Ghz advantage over GDDR3 and limited by sharing it with Cell would not go a long way to support the PS3 having an advantage here)

Yes the XDR clock is 3.2Ghz but when calculating bandwidths(for the record GDDR3 apparently still has a lower latency which would actually benifit CPU performance more... so it seems this XDR decision was made just to give the CPU access to higher bandwidth with a lower pin count*thinking about future revisions with smaller PS3 and costs perhaps?*, which is probably the arguement you should have made rather than contesting the framebuffer bandwidth) the multipliers are:

Effective clockspeed * Bus Width(in bytes, that means you devide by 8 if you didnt know ;) )

So XDR has an effectivve clock of 3.2Ghz and the effective clock of GDDR3 would be 700Mhz *2 = 1.4Ghz or at 650Mhz = 1.3Ghz to clear that up.

The Bus Widths are: XDR = 64 bits wide GDDR3 = 128 bits wide. Recent PC GDDR3 memory is typically 256 bits wide, one of the things pointed out by PC enthusiasts when the specs for both machines were released.

PS3

256mb XDR - 3.2Ghz * 8bytes = 25.6 Gb/s
256mb GDDR3 - 1.3Ghz * 16bytes = 20.8 Gb/s

360

512mb GDDR3 - 1.4Ghz * 16bytes = 22.4 Gb/s

PC GDDR3

ATI X1800 XT - 1.5Ghz * 32bytes = 48Gb/s
Nvidia 7900GTX - 1.6Ghz * 32bytes = 51.2 Gb/s (it also has twice the amount of ROPs to work with too = 16)

PC GDDR4 *starts at around 2Ghz but still 256 bus width*

2.0Ghz * 32bytes = 64Gb/s


So now weve cleared that up --it will be more than likely the framebuffer will be on the PS3 GDDR3-- we can better judge the frame buffer bandwidth comparison.

Frame Buffer Bandwidth

Xbox 360 Edram - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 GDDR3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 GDDR3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 GDDR3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

PS3 GDDR3's lower clockspeed would mean...

PS3 GDDR3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 GDDR3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 10.8 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Anonymous developer? Eh? Those interviews were in PSNEXT, and I think I'm more inclined to believe them than you.

I thought you said this was a website forum post which would not classify as a valid source(atleast not a quote as hazy as that, also even though it's visuals are overrated IMO compared to even some of the other PS3 games in developement, is there a link to where he's promised 1080p with HDR and AA @60fps or even @30fps for that matter? did he even say thats what they are "aiming" for? you need to back this up or dont bother posting it).

First you start yet again stating the supremacy of Xenos, then you say 'lets just wait and see now'??
...
My points are valid, which is why you probably ignored many of them.

I never ignored any of the points you made(first statement was just an ignorrant way to pretend you won in some way), you simply havent given justification to dismiss any of the 360s strengths at all(which you where desperately trying to do... PS3 Fanboy? and no Im not American nor do I own a 360). Enough with that though we can throw numbers around all day, the point I was making is its definetly not looking like the PS3 will have a "significant" graphical edge over the 360(so it has alot to prove before any PS3 fanboys like yourself can say that without getting laughed at ;) ).

Yes as Ive said a more even split would be ideal, but this is not what Sony wants, they showed signs they were feeling threatened at E3:05 with pre-rendered footage, along with the the words real-time or in-game and most importantly "coming soon" which is the impression they've wanted to give for over a year now(so people might hold out a bit longer, then a bit longer rather than picking up a 360 in the mean time and finding out that its actually a great console and looking at the expensive PS3 at launch and thinking "whats the point?").

Why do you see every comment as an attack on PS3 which arent in agreement with your "PS3 Supremacy" veiws? This would go against the word of every none partial Devs comments so far for a start. It's also a waste of both of our time in the end, let PS3 hit the market and then lets see some proof(games) or maybe just play those games you want(nothing wrong with that...only mine will cost less and look better :D ).

This comments section doesn't matter now because MS is now supporting 1080p with their next dash update LMAO.

Gamers ahoy! If, like me, you're a bit of a geek, you're no doubt aware of the buzz surrounding Microsoft's new gaming technology, KNOB 360.

KNOB - which stands for Kernel Network Object Blocks - is part of their Multi User Gaming System for their next generation of consoles.

Microsoft's first poke at the platform, KNOB 1, failed to rise to the occasion, with gamers, devcos and publishers disappointed with its flaccid performance. This version, however, looks to be a whole lot bigger.

A Microsoft spokesperson agreed to give us a soundbite on KNOB 360:

"KNOB 360 offers the power and flexibility to truly enable network gaming and easy connection to backend services."

Microsoft seemed to have learnt from their previous mistakes. KNOB 360 now operates on a virtual machine, called a CLR (Cunning Lingual Rimtime), designed to abstract and manage the codebase, while offering a suite of tools for developers to get to grips with.

Other experts weren't so ebullient. One market analist confided, "Until now, none of the big players have had the balls to handle KNOB", but conceded that there had been "a groundswell in popularity since the first release."

In the gaming market, KNOB 360 looks set for deeper penetration, with fanboys trumpeting KNOB in preparation to slotting it into their entertainment centers.

Whether it will come up rosie, we'll have to see...

"This comments section doesn't matter now because MS is now supporting 1080p with their next dash update LMAO."

Yeah, that's hilarious! Do you think Sony will take the little cardboard "1080P" signs off their tellies now? :)

Still not getting it..

The RSX is always using 8/24; however those 24 pixel pipelines have 2 ALU and are just as good as 48 pixel pipelines in the xenos;

on top of those the 8 vertex pipelines are able to push 1 billion vertices/second while the 48 pipelines of the xenos can push max 500 million vertices/second, which means those 8 vertex pip.. are equivalent as 96 in the xenos.

so in Xenos space, the RSX got 96/48 constant vs 0/48 or 16/32 or 32/16 or 48/0

summary:
- general processors (unified shaders arch) are less efficient in some ways than specialized ones
- the Xenos has always less computational power, in every scenario, and its unified architecture wont necessarily make up the shortfall.

Hopefully the xenos got some advantages like the EDRAM, free AA, 10bit HDR etc.
which might make the difference sometimes, and when it doesn't, then the RSX power does the difference.

Like you say, enjoy 360, and I'll enjoy PS3 games designed with HDD as standard, 1080p as standard, with higher res textures due to Blu-ray's capacity through my HDMI cable :). And Garulon, a 1-2m HDMI cable doesnt cost £60 :L.

I think I'll get by on FFXII, MGS4, VF5, Tekken, Dead Rising, Bioshock, Warhawk, GT Vision, Heavenly Sword, DMC 4, UT 2007, Spiderman, Resistance: FOM, Coded Arms Assault, Eight days, Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier, Lair, Kingdom Hearts 3, God of War 3, Wipeout etc etc.

Still not getting it..

I can see you dont get it at all and you keep switching topics randomly as a result, maybe its because you dont want to beleive it?

Judging by your botched analysis and summary I can see you dont understand Xenos at all especially in regards to the USA and the advantages it brings over the standard pipeline.
I infact in a few places it appears as though you are making things up, perhaps this will finally clear up the nonesense youve filled your head with?

The RSX is always using 8/24; however those 24 pixel pipelines have 2 ALU and are just as good as 48 pixel pipelines in the xenos

First off yes the RSX has essentially 48 ALUS (24 x 2 per pixel pipe) but these are standard pixel processing ALUs they can only be used for that, but this is why people thought it was powerfull at first.

...on top of those the 8 vertex pipelines are able to push 1 billion vertices/second while the 48 pipelines of the xenos can push max 500 million vertices/second, which means those 8 vertex pip.. are equivalent as 96 in the xenos*ROFL WTF????*.

Actually its just outlining your lack of understanding vertex processing was never a point raised by anyone outlining the strengths of the PS3 its always been soley pixel shading power (we know theres always more to the equation than that though in the real world performance though right? I'll get to that) again lets see where you went wrong:

RSX - 8 Vertex units - Yes

RSX - 1 billion vertices/s - Yes

Xenos - 48 pipelines - Yes 48 but No these arent pixel pipelines they are Unified Pipelines.

Xenos - 500 million vertices/second - haha :D NO

You see I think think what you did was take the TRIANGLE SETUP which is twice as great on Xenos than PS3:

RSX - Triangle set up = 250 Million triangles/sec *max amount it can handle, but thats not bad*

Xenos - Triangle set up = 500 Million triangles/sec

If you knew anything youd know that Xenos can be in situations where it will trounce RSX in vertex processing(possibly particle performance too).

Vertex Shader Processing

Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)*granted not going to happen*
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (8 vertex pipelines)


summary:
- general processors (unified shaders arch) are less efficient in some ways than specialized ones
- the Xenos has always less computational power, in every scenario, and its unified architecture wont necessarily make up the shortfall.*sounds like a "lalalalalala.... I cant hear you"


First off the USA is all about reducing overhead and IMPROVING efficiency over the standard pipeline we have now. Why is this? Well because a GPU like RSX will have seperate pixel and vertex shaders which may be powerfull enough in some cases(like the RSX's pixel shading abilities) but one side will usually holding the other back somewhat at all times(this is wastage as theres trasistors sat waiting which is why you'll never see anything close to the peak pixel processing figures... these figure look better on paper marginally). With Xenos once devs really get to grips with it we will find this is not the case here as its designed so every transistor is in use(pixel or vertex).
At the end of the day the OVERALL output of Xenos is higher and its easy to see(which is why theres a general agreement that Xenos is the better GPU) --with the improved effeciency and unique features along the line-- that the Xenos > Xenon has enough to keep up if not surpass Cell > RSX where realtime GRAPHICS are concerned.

Now lets show some more figures since you made so many baseless conclusions there(simply what you want to beleive rather than any factual reasoning):

Pixel Shader Processing Raw/without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines) *again not goint to happen since 360 needs atleast 8 of those for vertex processing*
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (24 pixel pipes = 48 ALUs)

Now it appears we can see the extent to which those claims of more shading power came from as it appears the RSX has a 4.0 billion advantage when all things are even(8 vertex and 48 pixel PS3 > 8 vertext 40 pixel 360) right? So even at a level that suits PS3 best the difference is 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec to 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec but can we really ignore the improved overhead and efficiency benifits of the USA? And it cirtainly doesnt look like a big difference to begin with does it?(even if it turned out that its 550Mhz which is doubtfull now thats 26.4 Billion Pixels/sec ie not much better)
Lets dig a little more and see what was meant by the final output of Xenos being better all the same though(without accounting for effeciency which couldn't be done yet anyway):

Filtered Texture Fetch *differences are though that xenos has 16 texture units seperate rather than 1 on each pipe like RSX which has its advantages too*

Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch

Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)*
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (24 pixel pipes = 48 ALUs - 16 = 32 ALUs) *

At PS3 level(16B Pixels/s) the remaining 16 Unified pipelines on Xenos could be used for vertex processing giving 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec thats twice as many as the PS3 could do.

So you see Xenos has the power, effeciency and more advanced tech and there are more situations where Xenos will have a greater output than RSX than vice-versa unlike you were trying to suggest.

Im done in this thread though so dont reply here, if you wish to contest any of this(since you seem to think you know what you are talking about) I suggest you head to this site: http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.... which is a forum much better suited to this kind of discussion and a place where this has been done in great detail.

Oh and yes buy a PS3 if you like the games(Id stick to discussing games if I were you)
I think I'll get by on FFXII, MGS4, VF5, Tekken, Dead Rising, Bioshock, Warhawk, GT Vision, Heavenly Sword, DMC 4, UT 2007, Spiderman, Resistance: FOM, Coded Arms Assault, Eight days, Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier, Lair, Kingdom Hearts 3, God of War 3, Wipeout etc etc.

When were Dead Rising and Bioshock confirmed for PS3 btw though?

Good to see your admitting the situations that RSX will be superior in. Some of those other figures you mentioned were pulled of your arse though. There's an atricle being written by a programmer who is working on both machines, and will be giving his opinions to an independent mag. I'll definately be putting it up on here, no doubt I think you'll be surprised (and possibly embarrassed) about the advantages RSX has over Xenos. The fact is, people keep banging on about how Xenos works closer to its optimum performance (95% has been quoted), but devs are finding ways of getting the most out of RSX for longer, by unloading simpler more basic graphical tasks to Cell. Which is where RSX's superior horsepower comes in.

Bioshock has been confirmed for PS3. Dead Rising will more than likely be released sooner or later.

Vic haha nice try Ive corrected you so many times and those figures are correct. You were the one quoting incorrect figures(I suggest you read that post again, it destroys your arguement even on a theoretical level which is interesting since effeciency, reduced overhead and other unique Xenos hardware features only strengthen the claim that the realworld performance of Xenos is likely much higher than RSX )... admit it you are in over your head here, I can see you dont really understand any of it.

There's an atricle being written by a programmer who is working on both machines, and will be giving his opinions to an independent mag.

Sounds good, should make for an interesting read then, I shall look forward to his thoughts. :) I do think though we should stress he's only giving opinions and he might not have worked with either of them that long yet(especially the PS3). The more I hear about real world performance comparisons the better 360 sounds though to be honest, theres been alot of reports of that even before the clock decrease. Like I said it will be interesting all the same though.

Which is where RSX's superior horsepower comes in.

RSX has pixel shading power and thats it(and you can see for yourself what was meant by marginal by so many dev even moreso now), on its own thats not enough, not nearly enough to consider it powerfull overall and Ive just shown you why(not my fault if you dont understand it the calculations have been explained). With the help of the Cell, RSX is still limited by its overall output which is still less than Xenos in most cases and certainly not enough for the significant margin you speak of in any circumstances. Its always been complete bollocks, Sony need to justify that price, its not going to have bad graphics at all but its a 360 with blue-ray at the most.

All I was doing was exposing you for the bullshit you spouted earlier, prentending you actually know the differences between the 2 machines in detail(it was obvious from your first post to your last this is not the case) , but with some of the most obvious mistakes that could be made, which just shows you're a fanboy wanting to spread the lie of Sony and no understanding of the hardware. Relax Sony arent doomed! it will still sell, its not a bad machine, I have never said any of that.

Why dont you visit that forum I suggested perhaps make a new thread and see what kind of response you get?

http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/folder.php?...

I will look out for you there unless you tell me you have nothing more to say on those matters.

"1080P doesn't matter! 1080P is all hype!"

lololoollolollollollooloololololol

'The more I hear about real world performance comparisons the better 360 sounds'.

Calgon, its all in your imaginative mind. The more you talk, the more you try to convince yourself. And while you're correct in some parts of your analysis, your fanboyishness shows through the more you type. You're just not being balanced in your appraisal, and also underestimating the likely effect the relationship between Cell and RSX will have on game development. The difference in graphics between PS3 and 360 wont be as big as between Xbox and PS2, but PS3 has the more powerful combination of CPU and GPU, despite ATI's pronouncements regarding how great its custom-made chip is. In the second and third-generation games, you can expect PS3 to start pulling away, and not just in terms of graphics, but also special graphical effects and physics. PS3 will just be better at handling more things on screen at once due to its far superior processing power.

But like you say, its all about games, and I think we can expect some corkers for PS3 at TGS, :).

HAHA how old are we? Vic youve just taken my criticisms of you, reworded it and thrown it back at me(0 points for originality). Youve even taken my arguements about Sonys hyping of Cell and applied it to ATI and Xenos(fine but I know who Im more likely to trust to deliver closer to what was promised out of those two ;) )... how low can you get though?

There was no point in bothering with that post because youve added nothing to your arguement(oh and by the way streaming between Xenos and Xenon --actually designed with each other in mind unlike Cell and RSX-- is covered on 360. Only Xenos will have full access to the 1mb Xenon cache along with this dedicated 24GB/sec line for streaming with Xenon which is 360 only, a couple of threads could be dedicated to helping Xenos if developers want to). Cell will not be the super CPU you're hoping for PS3 wont "pull away" I garrentee you will eat those words or simply fool yourself into beleiving it(rather than admit that you got caught up in Sony's hype machine and spat out).

Infact what it comes down to is you are a nothing more than a blinded Sony fanboy the increasing amount of hypocracy in your posts is getting to the point of irritating now too. You go ahead wait for that "significant advantage", getting your jollies only once a year when some Sony dev throws out a few "untapped potential" comments("oooh its gotta happen soon then... cant wait to show those 360 fanboys") or simply fooling yourself that you're getting something better("I swear there must be a few more shader effects in this game").

Enjoy that wait, meanwhile I'll be enjoying that more advanced(discounting the uneeded Blue-Ray with HDMI and overpromised Cell...) , efficient, balanced and powerfull hardware and the games I will eventually pick one up for ;)(at a much cheaper price).

No more replies now though, this is just getting dumb you are boring me!

*Checks clock* I think its time for a celebratory beer! Oh and btw dont be a douche all your life m8 ;)

"By the way streaming between Xenos and Xenon --actually designed with each other in mind unlike Cell and RSX-- is covered on 360."

Err...yeah, but uou were wrong once again on that topic. Hyping up 360 with all kinds of hyperbole, already spouted by ATI's PR team.

"you are a nothing more than a blinded Sony fanboy"

This is funny coming from someone who does nothing but criticise Sony, and laud MS as some kind of gaming nirvana.

"Enjoy that wait, meanwhile I'll be enjoying that more advanced, efficient, balanced and powerfull hardware and the games I will eventually pick one up for ;)(at a much cheaper price)".

More advanced? Surely even you're not that thick?...And while you're buying expensive MS add-ons (like a £60 Wi-Fi adaptor lol) I'll be sitting in my lounge happy that Sony included these things as standard.

"Oh and btw dont be a douche all your life m8 ;)".

What the hell kind of diss is that you uptight prick? Get back to playing those great 360 games, like err...Prey and Oblivion :). Thats what I love about the machine, so many quality exclusives...