Is the RSX even based on the 7800?

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by BenQ, Dec 11, 2005.

  1. BenQ

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    According those these specs.....

    The 7800 GTX can do 34.4 GLFOPS ( Vertex Shaders ) and 278.6 GFLOPS ( Pixel Shaders ) for a total of 313 GFLOPS.

    Or is that the total? Is there anything in the 7800 GTX that would be performing FLOPS other than the pixel and vertex shaders?

    And then I compared that number with the RSX, which is reported to be able to manage approx 1,700 GFLOPS ( 1.7 TFLOPS - the Cell managing 200 to 300 GFLOPS ).

    I also understand that the RSX operates at a higher clock frequency than the GTX which would account for some of these FLOPS. If the 7800 GTX were running at 600mhz, the total FLOPS would be 437 GFLOPS ( 48 GFLOPS for vertex Shaders and 389 GFLOPS ).

    So the RSX can manage well over 1 TFLOPS more than a 7800 GTX ( even if that GTX were running at 600 mhz ).

    Is my math wrong, because if the RSX can manage MORE than an extra TFLOP over and above the 7800 GTX, wouldn't than mean that the RSX was way Way WAY more powerful?
     
  2. BenQ

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    The tflop numbers for the rsx are total bullshit . I'm sorry but they used that so they can claim 2tflops trumping ms's 1tflop.

    Both numbes are bull .

    I def believe the rsx is based on the g70 tech. IT could be a g71 modified or a g75 or whatever , but i believe it shares the same tech as the 7800 series .

    What really makes me believe this is when deanoc mentioned using int 8 hdr instead of fp 16 hdr . Thats not really what did it but when he mentioned that that they could use msaa with int 8 and so it was a big win .

    See the nv40 and the g70 can't do hdr floating point with msaa and it seems the rsx shares that with it . SO i highly doubt its a new tech as I"m sure in thier next generation nvidia would want to support that seeing how ati's new cards do
     
  4. ector

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sweden
    nVidia probably count every single color or texcoord interpolation as a multiply-add :)
     
  5. BenQ

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmmm. I find it hard to believe that Sony would lie THAT much about the RSX. They are claiming essentially 5X's more FLOPS for the RSX than the 7800 GTX.

    But would it really be a lie? Is there not some way you could calculate the RSX to approx 1.7 TFLOP with some funny math that might not be "technically" lying?
     
  6. flick556

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    4
    The terflop numbers include fixed function stuff.

    Maybe rsx and 7800 can do HDR + AA as fallows:

    Render one frame with HDR, show on screen

    Render next frame with AA, blend wih previous frame and show on screen

    repeat

    or

    Render one frame with HDR

    Render same frame with AA

    Blend together, and show on screen

    I think the first method will have less of a performance hit and may show good results provided things don't change to quickly from one frame to the next and a high frame rate is maintained.

    It would be unrealistic for pc devs to do this since it will only benefit one particular card but in a closed box design it does not seem too bad.
     
  7. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    You'd have to draw 2 frames for everyone u display and the rendering time will be vastly diffrent for both.

    Aside from that the final image will look fugly imo opinon , not to mention you'd prob get the same problem that ati has with temporal fsaa
     
  8. flick556

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    4

    I have heard lots of good things about TAA, only down side is it falls apart when the framerate is low.
     
  9. dukmahsik

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    9
    we know both ati and nvidia rate their flops differently, aren't historically, ati cards always had lower flop ratings? but put out higher iq at higher res
     
  10. BenQ

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just don't understand how you can fudge FLOPS numbers. Are not all FLOPS "created equal"?

    Or I guess I could understand a slight variance. But with the 7800GTX rated at less than a half a TFLOP and the RSX rated at awhopping 1.7 TFLOPS...... how can this be accounted for?

    Maybe I'm just being a noob but I saw those numbers and I thought "RSX = way more powerful.'
     
  11. Arun

    Arun Unknown.
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    302
    Location:
    UK
    NO!
    Hppe that helped. And the 512MB GTX is also in the 1.7TFlops region; you counted the "programmable" flops for the GTX only. It has the same number of special-purpose flops as the RSX, which you have to add to the programmable number. Although, TBH, only counting the programmable flops would be even fairer, in which case it is also equal. Or at least, that's what the E3 info said. It could be outdated by now.


    Uttar
     
  12. BenQ

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, both the RSX and the 7800 GTX 512, have "roughly" 400 Programmable GFLOPS, and then over 1 TFLOP of "Special Purpose" FLOPS.

    OK, ya got me. What's the difference between programmable and special purpose FLOPS?
     
  13. Gholbine

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Programmable FLOPs can do whatever the coder wishes, but fixed-function FLOPs are completely hardware based, I believe. They're there for one purpose and one purpose only, HDR for example. They can do HDR and nothing else.
     
  14. Guilty Bystander

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's not true.
    The GTX does:
    5FMACs x 2Flops/FMAC x 56ALU's x 550MHz : 1000 = 308GFlop/s of programmable GFLOP/s.
     
  15. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    Its great but u have to have framerates above your refresh rate . If frames dip for one second things start to tear in the back .

    Along with that anything lower than 75hz and you see alot of artifacts in the image .

    75hz or fps is the lowest i would use it at . I personaly perfer a 90hz refresh rate and 90fps steady to use it .

    Of course when its used right its beautifull . However your still using two images very similar to each other . In his example u will be using to vastly diffrent images
     
  16. Bill

    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    3

    Is this counting the mini-ALU's though?

    I think the reason Nvidia has been so strong lately is the mini-alu's.

    It increased their power like 20% on a per clock, per pipe basis from NV40. It's sort of been the secret to their success.
     
  17. Eleazar

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    USA
    FLOPS are arbitrary and do not reflect real world performance. Anyone who takes FLOPS seriously is out of their mind. Not only that, they do not even specify how they got that number for the FLOPS. So it could be something as simple as adding two numbers together. FLOPS carry about as much weight as saying all 300 horsepower cars are faster than all 200 horsepower cars. In fact, FLOPS carry even less weight than this statement.
     
  18. !eVo!-X Ant UK

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    3
    Should'nt this be in the console tech section??
     
  19. weaksauce

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    2
    Uhm well a 300 horsepowered car is more powerful than the 200, even if it doesn't come up in the same top velocity.

    But I don't know, it's more powerful in the way that it has higher clocks and maybe more pipes, but it has a lower memory bandwidth.
    Also, you can't really compare it to a pc card. Even if they are equal it will perform better in a console, eh.. :)
     
  20. Alpha_Spartan

    Regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    10
    How Sony got 2TFLOP. It's extremely complex code, so you might need to read it twice:

    Code:
    #include stdMSPRbullshit
    #include stdSYPRbullshit
    
    main(){
    
    int x360Gflops = MSPR();
    
    string e3Presentation = pS3Specs( x360Gflops );
    print( e3Presentation );
    
    return 0;
    }
    
    /* basically returns some PR bullshit to feed to the press and fan drones
    /  this should be followed by a mix of realtime graphics and prerendered shit to give
    /  the illusion that the PS3 is orders of magnitude more powerful than the Xbox 360
    */
    string pS3Specs( int x ){
    
    int y = 2 * x;
    return SNYPR(y);
    
    }
    
    
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...