MS: "Xbox 360 More Powerful than PS3"

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by Alpha_Spartan, Dec 9, 2005.

  1. liverkick

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    6
    What about procedural animation techniques, inverse kinematics, etc? Wont more advanced animation techniques require more processing to enable them? Endorphin's physics based Natural Motion could be an example of where these floating point heavy processors could help in the animation department.
     
  2. ROG27

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    4

    I never said anything about an order of magnitude more powerful...especially in the graphics department. In that area I think they will be pretty evenly matched (maybe with RSX having a slight edge). The differentiation will come in the form of CPU usability, which I believe, yes, CELL is an order of magnitude (or almost) more usable/powerful than the XCPU...just from the ridiculous things that it has demonstrated (on its own, unassisted many times I might add). If you haven't seen the medical imaging simulation CELL performs, you should--because Medical imaging is one of the most computationally intensive things you can do, outside of engineering-type math and simulation.
     
  3. a688

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you seen the demostrations in medical imaging using the xcpu? No? Me neither. You can't really compare them like that. Its like saying that a drag car is faster than say an F1 car. It is but only in a straight line.
     
  4. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    Physics can have a HUGE visual impact, and we've already seen that.

    His article does not say that. FP16 framebuffers are supported, but blending on them is not. FP10 will pretty much be the standard on X360.

    On bandwidth, it really boils down to whether:

    48GB/s - Framebuffer access - CPU usage is > or < or = to 22GB/s - CPU usage

    That's going to vary from title to title, obviously. Will there be a typical case? Maybe. Unless someone can propose figures for the variables above, the discussion is kind of going nowhere - but even then, nothing that's proposed can be universally applicable.
     
    #64 Titanio, Dec 9, 2005
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2005
  5. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    It goes xdr - cell - flexio- rsx- gddr . So the fastest rsx can acess the xdr ram is the speed of wich xdr is attached to cell. Which is 20 something GB/s . Doesn't matter what the flexio runs at , your limited by the bandwidth from the ram. Which is going to be hit up by the cell chip already.

    I never said it couldn't , it will only get a fraction of the bandwidth that the gddr pool gives. Because your limited by the bandwidth coming out of the xdr ram and then you have to subtract the bandwidth the cell is going to be using when acessing that memory. Then you might even have a speed reduction again in the flexio if your using that to transfer many procedurally generated textures and other post process effects .
    Some of the rsx's bandwidth will be taken by the cell chip . Both the xdr bandwidth and flexio bandwidth will be used by cel land rsx when transfering any data the two need to share or give to each other before you get to texture bandwidth.

    The question is how much bandwidth will cell consume
     
  6. dukmahsik

    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    9
    maybe he was taking into account the dev tools making it a bit more powerful?
     
  7. ROG27

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    4

    There is a good reason that CELL is actually being used in the medical field. It is far more capable than what is currently available...inclusive of multi-core workstation type cpus. If MS or IBM had a competitive advantage with the Xcpu they would have leveraged it for this purpose. So implicity, we can infer that the CELL would produce superior results to the Xcpu without it actually running this application. For reasons unbeknownst to us, the Xcpu is not being used in the Medical field, or for anything other than MS's game console (probably because it's not as well suited to such applications).
     
  8. Fox5

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,674
    Likes Received:
    5
    They're both on 90nm though, so there's no guarantee that one will be significantly more advanced than the other since they have almost the same resources to work with.
     
  9. SynapticSignal

    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    1
    you are right
    and we can't take x speed from local rsx ram, then add y speed for xdr and take the results as overall bandwidh, because, the bandwidh critical tasks cannot be splitted in two different bus and memories (es blending, aa, hdr, and all the backbuffer operations)

    so stop the "bus a + bus b = wow bandwidh" because in real world it can't help in BW bounded situations
     
  10. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    You can't split the framebuffer across two pools, at least easily*, but things like texturing? Yes. Effectively the max amount of bandwidth available to RSX across the two pools is additive.

    *I guess it'd technically be possible to some work through one bus, then move the framebuffer to the other pool and work on it there, hence splitting the framebuffer work across both pool's bw. But you're not likely to need to do that..
     
  11. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    but its not that simple as you have a second chip (cell) acessing one or both of the pools of ram. Which reduces your bandwidth numbers
     
  12. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    Of course, that's why it's the absolute MAX amount RSX could take.

    How much do you think the CPU would take?

    10GB/s maybe? That'd leave RSX with 38GB/s. Assuming Xenon took the same amount on X360*, that'd leave 12GB/s for Xenos. Meaning that RSX's framebuffer could consume up to 26GB/s before it'd have less bw left over for "the rest" than Xenos. Applying the same CPU usage numbers across both systems, the more data the CPU eats, the more Xenos hurts in this comparison.

    The problem with all of this is, there's no one set of figures that'll apply to every game.

    *of course, bw consumption on the two chips is likely to be different. But assuming equally or more efficient bw usage (which may well be the case given the greater on-chip memory on Cell, and with data access being more explicit), Cell consuming more bw would simply imply it's processing more data (and hence more powerful), which some seem loathe to concede either.
     
    #72 Titanio, Dec 9, 2005
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2005
  13. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    IT depends on what the cell chip needs and is doing . Which is exactly why I said it all depends on how much ram the cell chip needs in the other post .

    I could just as easily say the cell chip needs 18GB/s ram

    That would make it look worse .

    Or we can say 8GB/s ram and that would make it great. But we don't know . We don't know what the cell would be asked to do .
     
  14. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    As long as you hold Xenon to the same standard, the figures work out pretty much the same in every case as above.

    Saying you can't hold them to the same standard, that Cell will consume more, implies it is either

    a) inefficient in terms of bw usage (i don't think this will be the case)
    b) doing extra work that for example Xenos's eDram is doing (and isn't eating main mem bw on X360)
    c) Cell is simply pumping more data in and out (is more powerful, at least if you assume the same processing, but on more data. Of course, it could still use any greater amount of processing power given the same amount of data as Xenon, but I'm looking at the more bw intensive alternative)
     
    #74 Titanio, Dec 9, 2005
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2005
  15. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    Your wrong . Xenon is limited to how much ram bandwidth it can use as its link to the xenos is slower than the link xenos has to ram .

    So we can actualyl figure out how much of the main ram xenos will have . I believe its just over 10gbs and then there is the edram .

    With the cell with just dont know as its not really limited by anything in how much ram it can use from either pool .
     
  16. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    It's 10.8GB/s both ways (21.6GB/s total, I think). Xenon could pretty much use all of the main memory's bandwidth if it wanted to.
     
  17. nAo

    nAo Nutella Nutellae
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    4,326
    Likes Received:
    107
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Xenos doesn't 'fully' support FP16.
     
  18. jvd

    jvd
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,724
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    new jersey
    Are you sure about that , I'm pretty sure the bandwidth is lower going to the xenos from the cpu than it is from the ram .


    Either way . IF we believe the hype of cell then a more powerfull cpu should need more bandwidth .

    Of course if your like me and believe both chips are really close in performance than the bandwidth needs should be the same .

    YOur pick
     
  19. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    It's like 0.8GB/s lower:

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Joe DeFuria

    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,994
    Likes Received:
    70
    There needs to be clarification, based on how the arrows are drawn in the diagram:

    Is it simultaneous 10.8 GB/Sec to and from the CPU? (Dual single direction channels).

    and

    22.4 GB/Sec bidirectional from Parent to Ram? (1 bi-directional channel, than can max out at 22.4 GB/Sec in either direction)

    If what I described above is correct, then while total bandwith the about the same, you can can have double the bandwidth in one direction from GPU to Ram...
     
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...