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

[Cheezdoodles]

But what about all the thing Butta said here?


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

Butta says a lot of things.

If you look at the raw numbers, there is no way in hell it can compete in terms of pure theoretical rendering power.

Now, of-course, due to the fact that console games are much more optimized than PC games, games could in some aspects look on par or better (something is impossible, like texture quality etc). Mostly because as a developer you allways find small "hacks" and work arounds to make something look better than it really is.

For example, with Killzone 2 (lets disregard the crazy AA etc), you can get the game to look close to the trailer in a lot of aspects, even tho on a strickly technical level you could never match it:

The characters are close to 1 million (or more?) poly's each in the trailer. There is no way in hell for the PS3 to actually render a game like that at a smooth framerate. However, thanks to amongst other things, shaders, you can make stuff look close, with only say 20k polygons per character. (this is a pretty bad example, but im bad at examples) .

As far as the 7900GX2 is concerned, in terms of rendering power, again the Cell+RSX combo cannot compete. The raw numbers are clear. (maybe except for vector shaders, where i can guess the Cell can help out a lot, due to the fact that G70 isnt very hot on vector math anyway).

But again, what one has to consider is that these PC GPU's are underutilized, nobody is going to make a game exactly tailored for a 7900GX2 rig, and because of that, the consoles can on some level, compete.

 

[Butta]

Butta says a lot of things.

The raw numbers are clear. (maybe except for vector shaders, where i can guess the Cell can help out a lot, due to the fact that G70 isnt very hot on vector math anyway).

and it sounds to me that you agree with the things I say... sounds exactly like what I was saying in terms of occlusions, z-clipping, etc.

I never once claimed that fillrate would be improved with the inclusion of Cell... but other things will improve. I expect that the biggest challenge for PS3 developpers will be bandwidth contention and they will need to focus on texture streaming, nAo32 type HDR implementations, AA tricks and such to remain competitve with PC GPUs

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is no way that the RSX + Cell combo will deliver better graphics than a 8800GTX!

In what system? Jeez, people! You persist in talking about these things in isolation forgetting their context. The delivery of graphics is dependent on a whole lot of parameters; silicon power is just one of those. Or do you think the moment you put an 8800GTX in your PC, it'll render everything better than the best games PS3 will ever produce?

 

[pjbliverpool]

In what system? Jeez, people! You persist in talking about these things in isolation forgetting their context. The delivery of graphics is dependent on a whole lot of parameters; silicon power is just one of those. Or do you think the moment you put an 8800GTX in your PC, it'll render everything better than the best games PS3 will ever produce?

I think he intended to say that its doesn't have greater graphics rendering ability than G80, as opposed to what we will actually see on screen.

That said im confident that G80 will be running games in a few years time (maybe sooner) that look better than the best of the best on PS3. By then they might be running at low res (~720p level) with minimal AA/AF and perhaps with some high end details turned down aswell but any well programmed game that requires you to make those kinds of sacrafices of a G80 is sure as hell gonna look amazing

 

[Butta]

I think he intended to say that its doesn't have greater graphics rendering ability than G80, as opposed to what we will actually see on screen.

That said im confident that G80 will be running games in a few years time (maybe sooner) that look better than the best of the best on PS3. By then they might be running at low res (~720p level) with minimal AA/AF and perhaps with some high end details turned down aswell but any well programmed game that requires you to make those kinds of sacrafices of a G80 is sure as hell gonna look amazing

You are right in what I meant is "graphics rendering" ability. However, Shifty if you read the previous page of threads you will realize I was trying to say the same thing you are. We are better off looking at the system as whole than just the GPU.

 

[Diamond.G]

Yes this subject is hard to quantify/quailify. The consoles are too different from PC's to make a real comparison. Of course since we live in a Capitalistic world we will never know if a SLI G80 + QX6700 (tons of fast ram) is equal to or faster than the Cell+RSX (and the rest of the system). Too many companies have shareholders to answer to. I mean in the perfect world none of the consoles that are out now would cost over 299 (isn't that what we all paid for out PS2/XBOX when they first came out?).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Of course since we live in a Capitalistic world we will never know if a SLI G80 + QX6700 (tons of fast ram) is equal to or faster than the Cell+RSX (and the rest of the system). T

What?

Dude, we know that a single G80 is more powerful in terms of rendering power. A SLI G80 + QX6700 would rape it in terms of rendering power.

The big question is if a Cell+RSX can compete in real worlds scenarios (as in games) vs a G80 setup, because of optimization on the console.

 

[Diamond.G]

What?

Dude, we know that a single G80 is more powerful in terms of rendering power. A SLI G80 + QX6700 would rape it in terms of rendering power.

Wait, now I am confused . I thought everyone was agreeing that we couldn't compare the two due to needing to look at the system as a whole. I know that the G80 is a beast, I was under the impression that we were all trying to agree on where the "goal post" is.

The big question is if a Cell+RSX can compete in real worlds scenarios (as in games) vs a G80 setup, because of optimization on the console.

Ah, okay. So we are trying to figure out if the comination of the two (Cell+RSX) is similar to say a 7950GT2. And by doing that we can say how far away from the G80 it may be. Okay I think I am on the same page now.


My lil tangent was more annoyance with lack of targeting the uber high end systems (because they are niche).

 

[pjbliverpool]

Of course since we live in a Capitalistic world we will never know if a SLI G80 + QX6700 (tons of fast ram) is equal to or faster than the Cell+RSX (and the rest of the system)

Ummm.... we know alright.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Wait, now I am confused . I thought everyone was agreeing that we couldn't compare the two due to needing to look at the system as a whole.

No, that was only butta, who doesnt like comparing the RSX to PC GPU's, because its hardly impressive.

Ah, okay. So we are trying to figure out if the comination of the two (Cell+RSX) is similar to say a 7950GT2

No, i think your still confused.

We know that a 7950GX2 have much more rendering power than a Cell+RSX. These are indisputable facts. A 7950GX2 rig, will rape a Cell+RSX at virtually everything except for maybe vertex stuff. Overall, its far more powerful.

What people are wondering, is if a Cell+RSX setup can say beat it graphically in games. As in, games will look prettier\more impressive on the PS3, than what you could run on a 7950GX2 setup, (and with what you could run on a 7950GX2 setup, as in what you can see in PC games on a 7950GX2 setup. Because obviously, if you optimized for the PC rig aswell, it would most likely be more impressive, as it really does have more rendering power)

And that is completely different as to which one is more powerful, because everybody here knows, that a 7950GX2, in terms of rendering graphics, is superior than a Cell+RSX. Thing is that no developer is making games optimized for a 7950GX2, so the PS3 has a fair chance of having more impressive graphical titles in some areas.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Wait, now I am confused . I thought everyone was agreeing that we couldn't compare the two due to needing to look at the system as a whole. I know that the G80 is a beast, I was under the impression that we were all trying to agree on where the "goal post" is.


Ah, okay. So we are trying to figure out if the comination of the two (Cell+RSX) is similar to say a 7950GT2. And by doing that we can say how far away from the G80 it may be. Okay I think I am on the same page now.


My lil tangent was more annoyance with lack of targeting the uber high end systems (because they are niche).

I don't think there is any reason why you can't compare the PS3 as a whole to a PC system as a whole on a technical capability basis. Thats not quite the same as comparing them on a real worlds results basis but its no less possible.

Whats not possible though, or at least were it gets a little fuzzy is in trying to compares RSX to G80 in terms of PS3's graphical abilities vs the PC since the PS3 really does use both Cell and RSX to render graphics while a PC generally only uses the GPU. So yes, the best way to compare would be Cell+RSX+Memory vs CPU+GPU+Memory.

But no-one would ever think that Cell+RSX+Memory could even begin to compete with a Quad Core, 2 G80's and a few Gig or RAM. Not on a pure techical ability basis anyway.

 

[Diamond.G]

No, that was only butta, who doesnt like comparing the RSX to PC GPU's, because its hardly impressive.
...snip.... Thing is that no developer is making games optimized for a 7950GX2, so the PS3 has a fair chance of having more impressive graphical titles in some areas.

I don't think there is any reason why you can't compare the PS3 as a whole to a PC system as a whole on a technical capability basis. ...snip...
But no-one would ever think that Cell+RSX+Memory could even begin to compete with a Quad Core, 2 G80's and a few Gig or RAM. Not on a pure techical ability basis anyway.

Okay, I understand now. Thank you.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

We know that on a technical basis, the RSX+Cell isnt cable of this and that. However due to the fact that its on a console, and devs only make games to work with one set of hardware, the games will be very optimized for that system. On PC's, its all about brute force, developers cannot optimize games for hardware, because everyone has a different system.

Therefore on a non-technical level, but in a real world scenario (as in games) the PS3 can compete with PC setups that are more powerful graphically. (For example a 7950GX2)

To give a better example of what i mean :

Look at the Xbox 1, it has a cheap mobile 733mhz P3, 64mb RAM (in total) and a GF3 (less powerful than a GF3ti500). Now look at some of the prettiest games that came out on the Xbox 1 ( Ninja Gaiden), and compare those games graphcially, to what you could do with a similar PC setup, a P3 733mhz and a GF3. Xbox 1 even ran Doom3.

Aside from texture quality and other limitations due to RAM, the Xbox will have better graphics. Even tho, technically its not as powerful.

See what i mean?

Edit: Didn't see your post, but i wont delete this one anyway.

 

[swaaye]

To give a better example of what i mean :

Look at the Xbox 1, it has a cheap mobile 733mhz P3, 64mb RAM (in total) and a GF3 (less powerful than a GF3ti500). Now look at some of the prettiest games that came out on the Xbox 1 ( Ninja Gaiden), and compare those games graphcially, to what you could do with a similar PC setup, a P3 733mhz and a GF3. Xbox 1 even ran Doom3.

Oh, I think some of that advantage comes simply from the fact that the machine was allowed to run at only 640x480. If you setup a P3 733EB and GF3/4 (NV2A is sorta like a NV25), and run 640x480, you could run FarCry PC pretty well. And that would be more than Xbox 1 ever did. The bandwidth and dedicated RAM that the vid card has to itself would probably actually beat up Xbox 1.

Sure the devs can really tweak down to the hardware, but the result depends on how much missed potential there is in the hardware. NV2x was designed as a PC accelerator and I think that means that it was probably pretty well utilized on PC. It's not like a quirky EE+GS.

 

[Aggressor]

I don't think there is any reason why you can't compare the PS3 as a whole to a PC system as a whole on a technical capability basis. Thats not quite the same as comparing them on a real worlds results basis but its no less possible.

Whats not possible though, or at least were it gets a little fuzzy is in trying to compares RSX to G80 in terms of PS3's graphical abilities vs the PC since the PS3 really does use both Cell and RSX to render graphics while a PC generally only uses the GPU. So yes, the best way to compare would be Cell+RSX+Memory vs CPU+GPU+Memory.

But no-one would ever think that Cell+RSX+Memory could even begin to compete with a Quad Core, 2 G80's and a few Gig or RAM. Not on a pure techical ability basis anyway.

Quad Core QX6700 versus the Cell alone, which one is better?

 

[swaaye]

Quad Core QX6700 versus the Cell alone, which one is better?

Asked a zillion times before and the answer is: it depends. Better question: is Cell even a good gaming CPU? Also asked elsewhere on these forums.

 

[Kryton]

We know that on a technical basis, the RSX+Cell isnt cable of this and that. However due to the fact that its on a console, and devs only make games to work with one set of hardware, the games will be very optimized for that system. On PC's, its all about brute force, developers cannot optimize games for hardware, because everyone has a different system.

Therefore on a non-technical level, but in a real world scenario (as in games) the PS3 can compete with PC setups that are more powerful graphically. (For example a 7950GX2)

To give a better example of what i mean :

Look at the Xbox 1, it has a cheap mobile 733mhz P3, 64mb RAM (in total) and a GF3 (less powerful than a GF3ti500). Now look at some of the prettiest games that came out on the Xbox 1 ( Ninja Gaiden), and compare those games graphcially, to what you could do with a similar PC setup, a P3 733mhz and a GF3. Xbox 1 even ran Doom3.

Aside from texture quality and other limitations due to RAM, the Xbox will have better graphics. Even tho, technically its not as powerful.

See what i mean?

Edit: Didn't see your post, but i wont delete this one anyway.

What about the use of SPUs to pre-cull vertex data?

 

[pjbliverpool]

Oh, I think some of that advantage comes simply from the fact that the machine was allowed to run at only 640x480. If you setup a P3 733EB and GF3/4 (NV2A is sorta like a NV25), and run 640x480, you could run FarCry PC pretty well. And that would be more than Xbox 1 ever did. The bandwidth and dedicated RAM that the vid card has to itself would probably actually beat up Xbox 1.

Sure the devs can really tweak down to the hardware, but the result depends on how much missed potential there is in the hardware. NV2x was designed as a PC accelerator and I think that means that it was probably pretty well utilized on PC. It's not like a quirky EE+GS.

I agree, although you also have to consider the overhead of the OS/API and background processes aswell. Accounting for this then you should probably be comparing to something like a 1200Mhz Athlon with 256MB of system RAM.

GPU's are fairly equivilent in terms of lack of overhead so either a Ti500 or Ti4200 would be most appropriate. I think that system at 640x480 could handle Doom 3 or HL2 at moderate detail which is pretty much equivilent to the best xbox graphics.

 

[Aggressor]

Asked a zillion times before and the answer is: it depends. Better question: is Cell even a good gaming CPU? Also asked elsewhere on these forums.

I did use the Search option, but im not finding a good definition for.
And yes i ment: Better question: is Cell even a good gaming CPU?

 

[Megadrive1988]

We know that on a technical basis, the RSX+Cell isnt cable of this and that. However due to the fact that its on a console, and devs only make games to work with one set of hardware, the games will be very optimized for that system. On PC's, its all about brute force, developers cannot optimize games for hardware, because everyone has a different system.

Therefore on a non-technical level, but in a real world scenario (as in games) the PS3 can compete with PC setups that are more powerful graphically. (For example a 7950GX2)

To give a better example of what i mean :

Look at the Xbox 1, it has a cheap mobile 733mhz P3, 64mb RAM (in total) and a GF3 (less powerful than a GF3ti500).

Xbox1's NV2A is significantly more powerful than GeForce 3 Ti 500. at least twice the polygon/vertex performance per cycle thanks to the twin VS in NV2A compared to the single VS in all GF3 cards. In addition, if I am not mistaken, NV2A has more pixel shaders than either GF3 or GF4, even though NV2A has less overall performance than any GF4Ti.