500 Million Poly? What is that in real game performance?

[blakjedi]

X360: 500m divided by PS2's 25m = 20 times. that sound about right.

GPU wise: PS3 should be roughly 50 times as powerful as PS2
(GS vs Nvidia GPU)

How do you get that the R500 is 20x as powerful as the GS, but the PS3 GPU is roughly 50x more poweful Where is then information on this GPU indicating it is 2.5x more powerful than the R500?

The Nvidia GPU is supposedly 2.5X as powerful as R500? Where'd you hear that?

EDIT: that question is meant for megadrive not ACert.

 

[therealskywolf]

X360: 500m divided by PS2's 25m = 20 times. that sound about right.

GPU wise: PS3 should be roughly 50 times as powerful as PS2
(GS vs Nvidia GPU)

How do you get that the R500 is 20x as powerful as the GS, but the PS3 GPU is roughly 50x more poweful Where is then information on this GPU indicating it is 2.5x more powerful than the R500?

The Nvidia GPU is supposedly 2.5X as powerful as R500? Where'd you hear that?

Yeah, Ps3 as a whole is at least 4 times more powerfull.........

 

[Wunderchu]

Nvidia's Jen-Hsun claims PS3 GPU will be 50x more powerful than PS2 graphics chip

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=113056

Quote:
Speaking at a Silicon Valley press conference, nVidia president Jen-Hsun Huang confirmed that the company has already been working on the chip for an extended time and suggested that it would be in the region of 50 times more powerful than the PS2's graphics chip.




http://www.totalvideogames.com/pages/articles/index.php?article_id=6897

Quote:
Speaking at a San Jose Press Conference, Jen-Hsun Huang President nVidia, claimed that the processor set to feature has been specifically created for the Playstation3 and is not based on a PC chipset. Huang claimed that both Sony and nVidia have been working closely for the last two years on the design of the chip, backing up earlier speculation that both companies were in collaboration.

Naturally Huang believes the Playstation3 to be far more powerful then anything currently on the market, with some vague suggestions hinting at a 50 fold increase in performance compared to the Playstation2.



okay while many will take this a pure hype, I don't. because this is much more reasonable than Sony's old claims that PS3 would be 1,000 times more powerful than PS2, which is totally not-believable. 50x more powerful is.

if you look at Nintendo64 GPU (the RCP) and the GameCube's GPU (Flipper) the Flipper is roughly 50 to 100 times more powerful than RCP. the Nintendo64 outputs roughly 160,000 poorly textured polys/sec with rendering features 'on'. whereas GameCube games have been outputing roughly 15,000,000 to almost 20,000,000 polygons/sec

[source: http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=314593 ]

 

[jvd]

X360: 500m divided by PS2's 25m = 20 times. that sound about right.

can the ps2 actually do that many polygons ?

Also comparing only polygon performance doesn't really matter . How about everything else in the system ?


Eh a few more days and we should know

 

[Acert93]

A PR quote...

Comparing a PR quote comparing the PS3 GPU with the GS with a strained comparison of the R500 with the GS to arrive at a number is not very scientific. :?

You take an Apple-to-Banana comparison, arrive at a ratio, then compare an Apple-to-Orange, arive at a ratio, then compare the ratios and viola!

If this is how MD (btw MD, enjoy your number crunching enthusiasm, even if they go off tangent at times, always fun to see your bunny trails) got his numbers that the PS3 GPU is 50x and the R500 20x in the same post, encouragine the 50>20 comparison (note: He did not directly compare the two, but he did draw out both ratios in the same post in comparing power) it is best we just dismiss this now. That is no real benchmark to compare. Sony/NV saying it will be 50x more powerful--and not knowing HOW they arrive at such--and then trying to find some meaningful comparisong between the R500 and GS (there is not one really) and quantifying it really an aimless adventure at this point.

If anyone wants to take up the torch to defend the PS3 GPU being 2.5x more powerful I would love to hear it An accessory GPU for lighting&shadowing would be one way to make a significant gap.

 

[nelg]

You take an Apple-to-Banana comparison, arrive at a ratio, then compare an Apple-to-Orange, arive at a ratio, then compare the ratios and viola!

Fruit salad. Yummy, yummy. Seriously this is how things get into the INQ.

 

[Fafalada]

This specific point hasn't been made already.

Actually it has - in many different variations.
Unless you mean in those exact same words - but then obviously any point someone else writes becomes a "new" one.

 

[Acert93]

I know Dave has harped on that; specifically that the R500 is a *console* part aimed at the special needs of a closed box *console* and therefore would be tailored, plus and minuses from a desktop perspective, to meet the special needs of this product. He specifically has mentioned the lack of need for as much fillrate, and also the need for more pixel shading power. I know that has been a big focus and how the R420/300 series cannot be compared with the R500 because their designs and "pipes" are different, the R500 being very PS oriented. Even the MS XNA slides from GDC point out similar things (e.g. the comparison to computational power to memory bandwidth and therefore the desire to move toward more proceedural textures).

But then again Jawed is kinda new and this stuff has been discussed off and on for almost a year, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt