Please Clear This Up - What PC GPU Does the XBOX 360 & PS3 Use?

[Shifty Geezer]

A lot of people say that RSX is close to 7600GT but RSX has 300 mil transistors beside 7600GT's 177 million

They're wrong RSX is a G70 derivate - GeForce 7800 at 302 M transistors. We also don't know for sure that stuff like PureVideo was cut. Seems stupid not to, but we don't know. We do also know it has some unspecified tweaks such as a little extra cache

Did'nt Sony include all the fixed function stuff in there figure?

nVidia count fixed function FLOPs for their cards. They provide a 1800 GFlop figure, to which Sony add 200 GFlops for Cell, and hey-presto, 2 Teraflops. That's a problem with non-standard FLOP counting. The same occured on XB360 when MS announced it's 1 Teraflop power ahead of PS3's showing; round up whatever floating point operations you can find no matter where they are and produce one super-sized metric.

 

[icecold1983]

my statement was to question the accuracy of those specs, not say rsx is more powerful than g80. i dont see how rsx can have so many more flops than g70.

 

[Neb]

They're wrong RSX is a G70 derivate - GeForce 7800 at 302 M transistors.

It think people think that it has more in common with the 7600GT becouse the rops are the same for the RSX and 7600GT (8 rops) and the memory bus width (128-bit). As for the rest it should be compared to a 7800 and the extra cache may have its benefits when it work with Cell amongst other things.
But the full specs for RSX aren't released yet or did I miss that?

 

[pjbliverpool]

It think people think that it has more in common with the 7600GT becouse the rops are the same for the RSX and 7600GT (8 rops). As for the rest it should be compared to a 7800 and the extra cache may have its benefits when it work with Cell amongst other things.
But the full specs for RSX aren't released yet or did I miss that?

Same number of ROPs and same memory bus (128bit). Also similar memory speed resulting in similar overall memory bandwidth. But in every other way that we know of its a 500Mhz G71.

 

[pjbliverpool]

my statement was to question the accuracy of those specs, not say rsx is more powerful than g80. i dont see how rsx can have so many more flops than g70.

It doesn't, they are just counting them differently. By the same measure the 7900GTX would weigh in at well over 2.3 TFLOPS.

 

[icecold1983]

was referring to the 370ish number.

 

[pjbliverpool]

was referring to the 370ish number.

It includes the free FP16 normalise worth *I think* 11 FLOPS per cycle in each of the G70 pixel shaders. Thats available in the PC parts aswell but isn't counted as part of the overall programmable shader power.

Im not sure if R5xx, Xenos or G80 have something similar.

 

[Butta]

Who cares what the RSX is equal to on its own... I am far more interested in finding out what it will be capable of given its high bandwidth connection to Cell. Once Edge tools start being leveraged and developpers begin pushing the combo of Cell + RSX more efficiently, we will see what the machine is capable of. There are too many factors to consider to specifically say that RSX equals such a PC component as none exists. Let's give it a year or so and then make judgemens...

ex: PS3 at 720p and 4xMSAA is comparable to a 7900GTX with a 2Ghz Core2Duo and 1GB memory.

Anything else is just plain pointless... for the time being we could look at the performance achieved in Oblivion and extract what kind of computer configuration would give us similar results (knowing that things will improve considerably in the following year)

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Who cares what the RSX is equal to on its own...

Its interesting because the GPU is going to do most of the rendering.

There are too many factors to consider to specifically say that RSX equals such a PC component as none exists. Let's give it a year or so and then make judgemens...

I disagree, while all consoles get better and better with time due to the nature of a closed-box environment, knowing what kind of GPU it has is VERY interesting.

ex: PS3 at 720p and 4xMSAA is comparable to a 7900GTX with a 2Ghz Core2Duo and 1GB memory.

Oh on earth did you come up with this?

Anything else is just plain pointless... for the time being we could look at the performance achieved in Oblivion and extract what kind of computer configuration would give us similar results (knowing that things will improve considerably in the following year)

Actually, that would be completely pointless.

 

[pjbliverpool]

ex: PS3 at 720p and 4xMSAA is comparable to a 7900GTX with a 2Ghz Core2Duo and 1GB memory.

I would be interested to hear a devs view on that because I think even when sticking to that res you could probably get more out of the PC if each were pushed to its limits.

Certainly the 512MB dedicated to the GPU and 1GB for the system would go a long way, as would the extra GPU processing power from the higher clock speed and the greater memory bandwidth. Im sure you could also do something with all that extra fill rate aswell even if your only sticking to 720p.

Obviously Cell could bring a lot to the table graphics wise but whatever it brings in rendering it would be giving up in AI and physics over the Core2. How much, if anything can it afford to give up in those areas before it falls behind?

Im guessing you could get more out of the PC but I'll leave that one for the devs to comment on.

 

[Butta]

I would be interested to hear a devs view on that because I think even when sticking to that res you could probably get more out of the PC if each were pushed to its limits.

Certainly the 512MB dedicated to the GPU and 1GB for the system would go a long way, as would the extra GPU processing power from the higher clock speed and the greater memory bandwidth. Im sure you could also do something with all that extra fill rate aswell even if your only sticking to 720p.

Obviously Cell could bring a lot to the table graphics wise but whatever it brings in rendering it would be giving up in AI and physics over the Core2. How much, if anything can it afford to give up in those areas before it falls behind?

Im guessing you could get more out of the PC but I'll leave that one for the devs to comment on.

It was simply an example... I did not mean for anyone to take it as fact. I could have used any specs... I was simply trying to make a point that it may be more accurate to compare an entire system config rather than just the GPU!

OK. Let me make it more realistic...

Ex: PS3 (Cell + RSX) at 720p and no AA is comparable to a 7900GT (256MB) with a 2Ghz Core2Duo and 512MB memory

 

[Butta]

Its interesting because the GPU is going to do most of the rendering.

What about things like culling, z-clipping, occlusions, lighting that can be leveraged with the inclusion of Cell

I disagree, while all consoles get better and better with time due to the nature of a closed-box environment, knowing what kind of GPU it has is VERY interesting.

Is the GPU alone any benchmark for what can be achieved graphically? If not then why is it soooo interesting?

Oh on earth did you come up with this?

It was an example of how things should be compared and not by ANY means accurate!

 

[Cheezdoodles]

What about things like culling, z-clipping, occlusions, lighting that can be leveraged with the inclusion of Cell

Did you read what i wrote? THE GPU IS GOING TO DO MOST OF THE RENDERING, no matter how you spin it, no matter what the cell can theoretically do or not, the GPU is going to do most of the graphical work. Therefor it IS interesting to know what this GPU can do.

Is the GPU alone any benchmark for what can be achieved graphically? If not then why is it soooo interesting?

Its certainly a much better benchmark than speculating in things we do not know, and cannot say for sure. No matter what way you spin it, the GPU is going to do most of the graphical work, whatever the Cell is going to do to help graphically, is going to hurt other aspects, physics, ai, etc.

Of course, based on your post history (where there is a clear trend) i can see why you (a long with a lot of other pro-ps3 people) like to say things like "comparing gpu's" is not important bla bla bla.

Infact i haven't seen one thread about the RSX without somebody with a bias talk about the Cell+RSX, and how the RSX alone isn't important.

If this is Cell+RSX is so interesting, then i guess we should stop talking about what the Xenos is capable of either, because obviously, using the Xenon as a leverage it can achieve better graphics.

In fact, going by your logic, we should just stop discussing console GPU's ever, because obviously, due to the fact that they are closed-box setups, developers are going to do stuff with the CPU to help out the GPU eventually.

 

[Butta]

Did you read what i wrote? THE GPU IS GOING TO DO MOST OF THE RENDERING, no matter how you spin it, no matter what the cell can theoretically do or not, the GPU is going to do most of the graphical work. Therefor it IS interesting to know what this GPU can do.

I guess what I am saying is we already know the RSX is basically a 500Mhz 7800GTX with the ROPS and fillrate of a 7600. Based on this information alone we can determine the performance of the RSX... what more are you trying to figure out from these specs? It is far more interesting to focus on what Xenos can do as there is no real GPU equivalent. On the PS3 side of things it is more interesting to find out if the Cell + RSX will provide as we pretty much KNOW what the RSX specs are capable of.

 

[Diamond.G]

I guess what I am saying is we already know the RSX is basically a 500Mhz 7800GTX with the ROPS and fillrate of a 7600. Based on this information alone we can determine the performance of the RSX... what more are you trying to figure out from these specs? It is far more interesting to focus on what Xenos can do as there is no real GPU equivalent. On the PS3 side of things it is more interesting to find out if the Cell + RSX will provide as we pretty much KNOW what the RSX specs are capable of.

So the real (and I guess more accurate) question should be: Is the Cell+RSX more capable than the G80 (8800GTX by itself or in SLI).

I, for one, am curious to hear the answer to that. I am pretty sure nAo or one of the Deans could probably answer the question (assuming not under nda...).

It is like every generation we hear how much better the consoles are at making games, but I never thought of that as the whole truth. And it seems this generation the PC's have caught up in sheer graphics power much faster than they did in previous generations. Which I guess is the fault of MS/Sony for using PC derived parts.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

So the real (and I guess more accurate) question should be: Is the Cell+RSX more capable than the G80 (8800GTX by itself or in SLI).

In terms of what? Rendering power? a 8800GTX would rape it in pretty much everything.

Fillrate numbers, bandwidth, memory, shader power...

 

[Diamond.G]

In terms of what? Rendering power? a 8800GTX would rape it in pretty much everything.

Fillrate numbers, bandwidth, memory, shader power...

But what about all the thing Butta said here?


Does the Cell+RSX combo come close to the 7950GT2?

 

[Butta]

But what about all the thing Butta said here?


Does the Cell+RSX combo come close to the 7950GT2?

There is no way that the RSX + Cell combo will deliver better graphics than a 8800GTX!! However, given that current RSX can deliver give or take the performance of a 7900GT... what significant differences can Cell make? If any at all

 

[Neb]

There is no way that the RSX + Cell combo will deliver better graphics than a 8800GTX!! However, given that current RSX can deliver give or take the performance of a 7900GT... what significant differences can Cell make? If any at all

The 8 rops and 128-bit memory bus for the RSX in comparision with the 7900GT (16 rops, 256-bit bus) puts RSX behind in many situations, AA and anisotropic filtering for example.

 

[Butta]

The 8 rops and 128-bit memory bus for the RSX in comparision with the 7900GT (16 rops, 256-bit bus) puts RSX behind in many situations, AA and anisotropic filtering for example.

Yes, I think that is what was meant from more or less. The RSX is more fillrate limited. However, in terms of pixel and vertex shader power I think my statement is fairly accurate.