PS3 vs X360: Apples to Apples high level comparison...

here http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23193

Just a few threads down.

 

Thanks I didn't realise that the major Nelson link had the same stuff . I'll go and read it now .

 

Ok, so speaking of apples to apples...
Are the CPU cores in the X360 (3) and the Cell (1) exactly identical?
If this has already been addressed on this forum, I missed it.

 

This also has its own thread and is named almost the exact same as the question you just asked... It should be in the top 5 or so forum posts.

 

Yeah, I see. But at the time I clicked to post here, that thread was much further down the page. Besides, they weren't really getting anywhere with their discussion. Nobody really knows at the present time, I guess. So I retract the question until further notice.

 

Yeah that is a big difference. Didn't the Nvidia guy say that dots per second was one of the most important things in a GPU? Or was it shader ops/sec? In one of them he was saying that something had 250 shades of light or something. I don't know it was in the conference.
________
Honda dn-01

 

Was there confirmation of this? Specifically the in-order bit?

 

I had asked in the xenos thread whether the work output spoken of related to Xenos includes the edram or is just the shader part...

"However, using Sony's claim, 7 dot products per cycle * 3.2 GHz = 22.4 billion dot products per second for the CPU. That leaves 51 - 22.4 = 28.6 billion dot products per second that are left over for the GPU. That leaves 28.6 billion dot products per second / 550 MHz = 52 GPU ALU ops per clock."

 

Sony is at it again...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050522/323/fjiiv.html

 

Sony had nothing to do with that quote by the way... Just wanted to mention that before the cries of "OMG TEH EVVIL $ONY HYPE MACHINE!!!11!!1!" This guy is mostly talking about being able to download a person's brain into a computer so you didn't "truly" die and how it'll be possible by 2050...

 

I wonder what matrix were they using. My pocket calculator is 1000 more powerful then my brain when it comes to solving differential equations within a given time span.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1818127,00.asp

8)

 

Well if each generation is even just 20 times as powerful as the last one, it will only take about 3 or 4 generations for consoles to become as powerful as our brains, according to the guy... That's about 20-25 years...
And only for consoles.

Before we get there, Blue Gene will have taken over the world 5 times and a half and we'll all be slaves of the machines.

 

256GB/s effective... between what?

 

If there are 256 GBytes/s between GPU and edram why they underdesigned their ROPs and fill rate halves when rendering to 64 bits render targets?
I don't believe in the 256 GBytes/s number as the real bandwith between GPU core and edram.

 

I don't believe there's 256GB/s between GPU and EDRAM, either.

I do believe there's 256GB/s between the ROPs and the back-buffer.

Jawed

 

Isn't that already sort of agreed upon, and because of the ROPs and eDram being on the same die you can't really call it bandwidth either?

Or am I missing something?

 

For a while people were saying that the 256GB/s figure inside the EDRAM was fictional...

It was originally described as "effective".

It would appear it's real, not effective.

Though we're still waiting to get hard facts, so I'll continue to "believe" rather than treat it as a hard fact (admittedly, hard to do).

Jawed