How can we compare the Xenos to other unified shader PC GPUs?

[Rangers]

Specifically he said the X1800 would be faster at high resolutions and Xenos would have an edge at lower resolutions due to higher shader power and frame buffer bandwidth.

It has also been stated elsewhere by ATI that Xenos is theoratically weaker than the X1900 but should give a similar end user experience - presumably accounting for its closed box nature allowing it to go better utilised.

Maybe ATI stated that but I would like to see visuals about 2X a similar class PC card.

Camack put the advantage gained by closed box console programming at about 2X. In other words, you will get games on PS3 with it's roughly 7900GTX that eventually end up looking twice as good as PC games that use it (which would mean the games look about like 8800GTX on PC). I think that's pretty accurate, maybe a bit on the high end. To me Killzone 2 doesn't look a whole lot worse than Crysis, which requires a 8800 to even begin to run properly apparantly. Overall I think, given RAM limitations, current state of the art console visuals compare reasonably well with 8800GTX PC level visuals.

And I think you can point to console games like Ratchet and Clank, GT5, Gears of War, and Resident Evil 5 to bear this out similarly.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Maybe ATI stated that but I would like to see visuals about 2X a similar class PC card.

Camack put the advantage gained by closed box console programming at about 2X. In other words, you will get games on PS3 with it's roughly 7900GTX that eventually end up looking twice as good as PC games that use it (which would mean the games look about like 8800GTX on PC). I think that's pretty accurate, maybe a bit on the high end. To me Killzone 2 doesn't look a whole lot worse than Crysis, which requires a 8800 to even begin to run properly apparantly. Overall I think, given RAM limitations, current state of the art console visuals compare reasonably well with 8800GTX PC level visuals.

And I think you can point to console games like Ratchet and Clank, GT5, Gears of War, and Resident Evil 5 to bear this out similarly.

But it's also important to note that "acceptable"/expected framerates on a console tend to be around 30 FPS, hence why they are always locked at that framerate. PC gamers, like myself, definetly prefer the higher framerate, up close to 60. It makes me very happy to know that Infinity Ward made the effort to preserve 60 FPS gameplay for the 360 and PS3 versions of Call of Duty 4.

It is something to consider, as sometimes it can take 2x the horsepower to please a PC gamer, just to get the same graphical fidelity over twice the frames a second, yet the console version looking just as good, but locked at 30 to make it smooth and stable. Sure I know that the consoles, if they utilized no vertical sync could a good deal higher in most situations, but frame fluctuation of any kind of console game seems to be so taboo.

To be honest, I was really surprised the 360 version of FEAR didn't use soft shadowing or run at 60 FPS instead, but I guess implementing the AA would've been difficult, and the devs would've been running the risk of frame lag but not letting the game run at 60 FPS was a vanity issue perhaps?

I thought I should put that out there, even if you experts can run circles around me when it comes to programming, GPUs and computational architecture, but all of it ties into being an artist of some kind in a development team trying to create a great gameplay experience that requires skill, ingenuity, and imagination as well as some innovation.

 

[Neb]

Maybe ATI stated that but I would like to see visuals about 2X a similar class PC card.

Camack put the advantage gained by closed box console programming at about 2X. In other words, you will get games on PS3 with it's roughly 7900GTX that eventually end up looking twice as good as PC games that use it (which would mean the games look about like 8800GTX on PC). I think that's pretty accurate, maybe a bit on the high end. To me Killzone 2 doesn't look a whole lot worse than Crysis, which requires a 8800 to even begin to run properly apparantly. Overall I think, given RAM limitations, current state of the art console visuals compare reasonably well with 8800GTX PC level visuals.

A 8800GTX is far better which can be seen in games in sucha ways as better graphical features and much higher framerate than the console version. Even a 7900GT runs games at higher resolution and with more graphical features tyhan the console version (true for all ports and then some). And dont forget the RSX and Xenos has 8rops vs 16rops for 7900GT and 24rops for 8800GTX.

As for Crysis then yes you need a 8800GTX to run it v.good at highest DX10 settings. But for lower settings a slower card does good and still manages to look ace. And as for KZ2 then Crysis at medium/high or v.high setting totally eclipses it on so many points it is almost ridicolous to compare them (look at my sig, the sets ). Remember fake/pre-baked stuff vs complete real-time stuff and what it does to perfomance.

And I think you can point to console games like Ratchet and Clank, GT5, Gears of War, and Resident Evil 5 to bear this out similarly

Ratchet and Clank and it's art and stuff but technically nothing to stack up against a g80, GT5 same story (billboard tress and stuff?), Gears of War PC 1200p @ 60fps with a g80 and much better graphics (stuff not possible by console according to devs in interview), RE5 it is not out yet.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Maybe ATI stated that but I would like to see visuals about 2X a similar class PC card.

Camack put the advantage gained by closed box console programming at about 2X. In other words, you will get games on PS3 with it's roughly 7900GTX that eventually end up looking twice as good as PC games that use it (which would mean the games look about like 8800GTX on PC). I think that's pretty accurate, maybe a bit on the high end. To me Killzone 2 doesn't look a whole lot worse than Crysis, which requires a 8800 to even begin to run properly apparantly. Overall I think, given RAM limitations, current state of the art console visuals compare reasonably well with 8800GTX PC level visuals.

And I think you can point to console games like Ratchet and Clank, GT5, Gears of War, and Resident Evil 5 to bear this out similarly.

Expect all of those games would likely run just fine on an X1900XT. Its not as if we are going to need 8800GTX's to run Gears when it hits the PC, and certainly not at 720p. Just look how well UT3 runs.

I think a 2x advantage is a massive exageration unless its specifically in reference to memory size or CPU power. Its not as if the original xbox acheived anything close to what a 9700pro could when you take resolution into account. I'm more than confident that any well programmed PC port of a console game this generation would run flawlessly at a higher resolution on an 8800GTS class system and most should run at least as well on an X1900 class system. And so far, all the examples point to that being so.

 

[Nesh]

Expect all of those games would likely run just fine on an X1900XT. Its not as if we are going to need 8800GTX's to run Gears when it hits the PC, and certainly not at 720p. Just look how well UT3 runs.

I think a 2x advantage is a massive exageration unless its specifically in reference to memory size or CPU power. Its not as if the original xbox acheived anything close to what a 9700pro could when you take resolution into account. I'm more than confident that any well programmed PC port of a console game this generation would run flawlessly at a higher resolution on an 8800GTS class system and most should run at least as well on an X1900 class system. And so far, all the examples point to that being so.

Little off topic butr just wanted to know. Is a PC with a Gforce 7500, 2GB RAM, intel core 2 Duo 2Ghz enough to play Gears of War very well? Thats what I have currently

 

[Neb]

Little off topic butr just wanted to know. Is a PC with a Gforce 7500, 2GB RAM, intel core 2 Duo 2Ghz enough to play Gears of War very well? Thats what I have currently

Dont know about your GPU (at same elvels as console version) but the rest is more than enough.

 

[Nesh]

I hope it does play it well since I dont have the money to get a 360 currently

 

[Neb]

I hope it does play it well since I dont have the money to get a 360 currently

You could always buy a 8800GT for about 200-250$ which is almost the equal to 8800GTX but has less VRAM (512Mb vs 768MB). :smile:

 

[Nesh]

I am financially broke for such spending in gaming. Unfortunately I have too many obligations for my masters degree like books and other stuff. I dont have time to work. Full time programme really kills you.

 

[JardeL]

And we know RSX=7900GTX basically. Which is about 2X a 7600GT.

Based on what , prediction or knowledge ?.. I think there's something that i missed ...

It's interesting to see how RSX is changing day to day from 6800Ultras to 7900GTX ... Common idea was RSX is a 7600GT , wasn't it ?..

 

[Neb]

Based on what , prediction or knowledge ?.. I think there's something that i missed ...

It's interesting to see how RSX is changing day to day from 6800Ultras to 7900GTX ... Common idea was RSX is a 7600GT , wasn't it ?..

Not much is known (maybe i am wrong here?) about RSX except that it has similarities to G70/G71 but lacks 8 rops (8 rops vs 7900GT/GTX 16 rops and 8800GTX 24 rops). The 7600GT has 8 rops though.

The 7900GTX is 650MHz, ~50+GB/sec exclusive GPU VRAM throughoutput, 16 rops and 256-bit VRAM bandwidth, RSX is 500MHz, ~22GB/sec (penalty for use of other bus as additional?), 8 rops.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's interesting to see how RSX is changing day to day from 6800Ultras to 7900GTX ... Common idea was RSX is a 7600GT , wasn't it ?..

No. The 7600 figure comes up because of bus speed (128 bit bus IIRC) and ROPs, but the 7600 has fewer shader pipes.

This is all off topic though. I've just read through a few posts about 8800's beating X1900 bibble-babble, and I'm looking at the title and thinking to myself, '...?' Can we please keep the discussion of PC parts to their relative position to Xenos, and not run off into a disucssion of comparative PC parts. That's for the GPU forum!

 

[swaaye]

I think the biggest problem with the consoles is simply the amount of RAM they have. It's not really enough to keep the texture resolution nice and high, among other things. This can be seen in lots of games. Console generations have never really had enough RAM. It's just one of the cost cutting measures to keep the low prices that people expect.

But I do think that expecting the GPUs in PS3 and 360 to pull off 1080p is not really realistic. Not if you also want to keep the detail level decent. It seems 720p is a bit much too, at times.

I think Xenos would've completely eclipsed RSX if MS had put more EDRAM in there, so AA could be more easily used. I still think Xenos is more interesting and capable than RSX though. I've never been much of a fan of G7x. Bad image quality is their forte (I have 7800).

 

[ihamoitc2005]

But I do think that expecting the GPUs in PS3 and 360 to pull off 1080p is not really realistic. Not if you also want to keep the detail level decent. It seems 720p is a bit much too, at times.

My friend, they already have 1080p games.

Also, people say UT3 on PS3 looks amazing, and I'm sure will also look amazing on Xbox360 next year. This game is not 1080p but it shows that with much less ram these consoles can still do amazing graphics like highest end PCs because of software optmization.

No one knows real RSX & Xenos specs and benchmarks but I am sure RSX is very good. Motorstorm, GT5, Lair, Heavenly Sword, & Drake all have amazing high-definition (native 720P or higher) graphics.

Xenos I dont know. I wonder why some games are not high definition. Why is Halo3 not high definition? I dont know. There is Gears of War which has amazing graphics (still my favorite for Xbox360) and is high-definition, but Halo3 which is average graphics and is not high definition.

Only difference I can see is that Halo3 has big environments and more action. But why would that affect GPU performance? I don't know. Maybe the developers ran out of time?

 

[Neb]

My friend, they already have 1080p games.

Also, people say UT3 on PS3 looks amazing, and I'm sure will also look amazing on Xbox360 next year. This game is not 1080p but it shows that with much less ram these consoles can still do amazing graphics like highest end PCs because of software optmization.

Actually to be fair with UT3 runs 30fps+ at 720p on a medium/low-end PC (single-core A64 3200+ and 7900GT) at highest settings with 16xAF. A high-end PC tears this game apart at 45-60fps at 2560*1600 resolution!!!

 

[Kaotik]

Actually to be fair with UT3 runs 30fps+ at 720p on a medium/low-end PC (single-core A64 3200+ and 7900GT) at highest settings with 16xAF. A high-end PC tears this game apart at 45-60fps at 2560*1600 resolution!!!

That PC is far from low-end, or even medium range
From Enthusiasts point of view, it ofc is, but we're only a really small portion of the people.

 

[djskribbles]

i would consider a 7900GT mid-high range. it beats the 8600GT and is only behind the 8800 series (and the 7900GTX of course). as for the 3200+ A64, i would consider that low-mid range though.

 

[pjbliverpool]

My friend, they already have 1080p games.

Also, people say UT3 on PS3 looks amazing, and I'm sure will also look amazing on Xbox360 next year. This game is not 1080p but it shows that with much less ram these consoles can still do amazing graphics like highest end PCs because of software optmization.

Not really. The highest end PC's can run that game at 1920x1200 at ~60fps. The PS3 is not offering a similar experience. Its offering an experience similar to a budget gaming PC.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

PC Cost

Not really. The highest end PC's can run that game at 1920x1200 at ~60fps. The PS3 is not offering a similar experience. Its offering an experience similar to a budget gaming PC.

What is the cost of a PC that can do 720P/30fps? And what CPU/GPU/RAM needed. Thanks.

Also, what about Gears of War to have 720P/30fps?

 

[pjbliverpool]

What is the cost of a PC that can do 720P/30fps? And what CPU/GPU/RAM needed. Thanks.

Also, what about Gears of War to have 720P/30fps?

If we assume Gears will have similar performance to UT3 then 30fps at 720p should be easily achievable on an 8600GTS or equivilent. I don't know exact prices but your talking about one very cheap upgrade to an existing PC.