Relative Power of Consoles
- Thread starter Nightz
- Start date
- Status
I'd say in terms of graphics it'll probably take a year or so after the PS3 is out to see PC's match it, although it's entirely possible with these 2 new consoles since they are customized a fair amount (eDRAM on the 360, CELL helping RSX on the PS3), it might take a bit longer for the PC market to catch up.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
How do you figure? ATI is saying that you won't see a comparable GPU hit the desktop market any time soon.
nVidia is saying essentially that they were screwed, had to do a rush job and transfer their desktop tech to the PS3 at the last minute, and that by the time the PS3 launches there will be superior GPUs available for the desktop market.
And when nVidia says that, I'm ass/u/me'ing that they are talking about their own products, not guessing about what ATI is doing.
So at least in terms of the GPU, ATI was able to build a console-specific GPU because they had the time and prep to do so. nVidia slapped together a powerful GPU, but its essentially a redressing of their desktop part which will be available before the PS3 even launches.
I don't blame nVidia on this, from what I've read it's Sony's fault for believing the Cell was so great it didn't need a GPU.. then they found out that wasn't the case, had to rush and bring on nVidia and change their entire memory structure and are left with a CPU that is very powerful (although not as earth shattering as originally reported), and a GPU that will be outclassed by the time the system is released. While ATI, OTH, had time to develop a GPU that was strictly console based, wouldn't make fit the desktop market, and is far more specific.
I think the X360 will be the most powerful thing for about 6 months. I think 6 months - 1 year after the X360 launches there will be more powerful systems available to the High End PC user. That means, that the PS3 has a window of at most 6 months when they are also better than whats available to the desktop market.
That's the real kicker with the X360's "early" release, and I really can't believe it isn't discussed more. The X360's release positions it to be the most powerful piece of hardware for atleast 6 months and up to a year. The PS3 launching later, closes that window by at least 6 months, and personally, I believe by the time the PS3 launches, there will be more powerful desktops available.
PS3 will still be great, don't get me wrong. It'll still be a $299-$499 console that produces graphical images that are on par with or just slightly behind $4000 desktops.
But when the X360 launches, it'll be a $299-$499 console that will produce graphical images that you simply can't buy no matter how much money you spend on your desktop.
nVidia is saying essentially that they were screwed, had to do a rush job and transfer their desktop tech to the PS3 at the last minute, and that by the time the PS3 launches there will be superior GPUs available for the desktop market.
And when nVidia says that, I'm ass/u/me'ing that they are talking about their own products, not guessing about what ATI is doing.
So at least in terms of the GPU, ATI was able to build a console-specific GPU because they had the time and prep to do so. nVidia slapped together a powerful GPU, but its essentially a redressing of their desktop part which will be available before the PS3 even launches.
I don't blame nVidia on this, from what I've read it's Sony's fault for believing the Cell was so great it didn't need a GPU.. then they found out that wasn't the case, had to rush and bring on nVidia and change their entire memory structure and are left with a CPU that is very powerful (although not as earth shattering as originally reported), and a GPU that will be outclassed by the time the system is released. While ATI, OTH, had time to develop a GPU that was strictly console based, wouldn't make fit the desktop market, and is far more specific.
I think the X360 will be the most powerful thing for about 6 months. I think 6 months - 1 year after the X360 launches there will be more powerful systems available to the High End PC user. That means, that the PS3 has a window of at most 6 months when they are also better than whats available to the desktop market.
That's the real kicker with the X360's "early" release, and I really can't believe it isn't discussed more. The X360's release positions it to be the most powerful piece of hardware for atleast 6 months and up to a year. The PS3 launching later, closes that window by at least 6 months, and personally, I believe by the time the PS3 launches, there will be more powerful desktops available.
PS3 will still be great, don't get me wrong. It'll still be a $299-$499 console that produces graphical images that are on par with or just slightly behind $4000 desktops.
But when the X360 launches, it'll be a $299-$499 console that will produce graphical images that you simply can't buy no matter how much money you spend on your desktop.
^^ If you look close enough, you'll be able to see the tape hanging out of your ps3. Maybe even some staples. Rush job like that, it's only normal 
There are two problems with your theory Rancid, one leaves out the additional power that features such as CELL helping out the RSX or the eDRAM on the 360 brings. The second problem is that you are assuming that games will actually be written to take absolute full advantage of the highest end hardware the second it comes out, which we know isn't the case. Games usually take a while to catch up (minus the occasional outstanding game engine), and PC games have to be written to take into account multiple specs while consoles can have more power squeezed out of them. I don't think you should dismiss the sheer amount of power the CELL can add to the RSX if it helps out... Just look at The Getaway demo from Sony's E3 press conference... it was all done WITHOUT the RSX, but it looks better than almost anything you'll find today. With those two pieces of hardware working together even better results will be achieved. The 360 will also have its advantages over PC's, with "free AA" as well as a 6 thread CPU. It is for these reasons that I don't see PC's passing the consoles for a little while even though one specific component on the PC may have passed the consoles tech wise.
Its not a rush job . They looked at time tables and figured it would be better and cheaper to adapt a desktop part in development than to try and make a custom gpu in the time frame they had .
the rsx should be more than powerfull enough to mate to the cell and in the end the graphics will be a tad better than the x360 in the long run but that is to be expected with the small timeframe between the two releases
the rsx should be more than powerfull enough to mate to the cell and in the end the graphics will be a tad better than the x360 in the long run but that is to be expected with the small timeframe between the two releases
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Maybe the desktop equivalent for RSX won't even be clocked as high as the RSX, I mean isn't RSX made in 90nm and G70 in 110nm, or is my memory playing tricks on me. I personally think it's quite possible that RSX is still the fastest GPU when PS3 will be released, unless R500 is faster than that, has that been decided by the way?.
If we assume that the XBOX 360 will ship in Nov. of this year, it will clearly be a better gaming value than an equivalently priced PC. if we guess that the XBOX 360 will be priced in the $300-400 range, no PC in the same price band will be able to touch its gaming capability.
If we are willing to compare a XBOX 360 to a top end PC gaming system (which will cost thousands of dollars) then not surprisingly the PC will win.
PC's continue to evolve rapidly in terms of CPU performance, GPU performance, memory and storage capacity. By Nov. of this year the top end PC will offer Dual Core processors, >2GB of RAM, either R520 or G70 in SLI mode, >400GB of hard disk space, and perhaps even a PPU add-in board. The PC will offer significantly more graphics processing power than the XBOX 360 and will run at higher resolutions and higher framerates.
If we are willing to compare a XBOX 360 to a top end PC gaming system (which will cost thousands of dollars) then not surprisingly the PC will win.
PC's continue to evolve rapidly in terms of CPU performance, GPU performance, memory and storage capacity. By Nov. of this year the top end PC will offer Dual Core processors, >2GB of RAM, either R520 or G70 in SLI mode, >400GB of hard disk space, and perhaps even a PPU add-in board. The PC will offer significantly more graphics processing power than the XBOX 360 and will run at higher resolutions and higher framerates.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
jvd said:
Sorry, JVD but I don't understand what it is you're trying to say.
When I say "rush job" I'm saying that TIME played a factor in the final decision making process, and therefore.. the final product.
You're saying it wasn't a rush job, but that they did what they could in the alloted time frame.
I see those two statements as complete opposites.
I see a situation where ATI had the time to develop a console-specific GPU and did such. And where nVidia didn't have the time to develop completely new hardware and so they took their desktop design and mated it to the Cell for the PS3.
After all, isn't that exactly what nVidia themselves have claimed, or am I getting wrong information? (Could be very possible after reading all these different sites, engaget, InQ, B3D, FS, EB, etc.)
For starters.. do we all agree that ATI states the R500 in the X360 is superior to anything we'll see any time soon on the desktop? And do we all agree that nVidia stated that by the time the PS3 is released there will be superior GPUs available for the desktop?
Or do we disagree on those two statements? I'm just trying to figure out where it is this discussion/debate should start.
(Oh.. and in case it matters, because.. it apparently does on these some times "heated" forums.. you could classify me as an nVidia fanboi. I went from 3DFX to nVidia and that's where I've stayed on the desktop. But then again, that's why I'm blaming the PS3's "short comings" on Sony and not on nVidia
)Christ.. I've never owned an ATI product. The first one might very well be the X360.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
RancidLunchmeat said:
Yes those are important questions, Is R500 supposed to be more powerful than R520, or just better suited for X360, because I keep hearing about 2xR420 for both of them. And what would that faster nVidia GPU be at the time of PS3 launch. G70 probably isn't superior to it, are they going to release another card before PS3 comes out?.
Actually, ATI didn't state that the R500 would be more "powerful" than anything you'd see on the desktop for a long time, they stated that you wouldn't see anything like it. The reason behind that is mostly the eDRAM, but also because the system has its northbridge on the CPU. In the case of the PS3, they decided to go a different route and instead of including eDRAM (which in some things may be better but in some things may be worse), they decided to go for more overall system bandwidth. (I'm basing this statement on the fact that the GPU for the 360 has a 22GB/s bandwidth to main memory while the RSX can theoretically have 45ish GB/s bandwidth to the 2 sets of 256MB of RAM). Some people see this as a sign tha tthe GPU for Sony's PS3 was rushed, and some think that Sony had different contingencies and finally decided on nVidia. In either case, you're getting a powerful GPU from both companies, and we really can't compare them at the moment until we know more.
Even if a superior GPU is released on the desktop, you can't downplay the importance of allowing the CELL to do some of the graphics processing (and there are rumors the 360 can do the same to a lesser extent). You also can't downplay the importance of having a processor powerful enough to constantly feed the GPU with data so the GPU isn't waiting on the CPU.
Even if a superior GPU is released on the desktop, you can't downplay the importance of allowing the CELL to do some of the graphics processing (and there are rumors the 360 can do the same to a lesser extent). You also can't downplay the importance of having a processor powerful enough to constantly feed the GPU with data so the GPU isn't waiting on the CPU.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
dcforest said:
So.. Let me get this straight, just so we both understand each other:
You think that by the time the X360 is released, the desktop PC will already have surpassed it in terms of power and results?
I think that's a bold prediction, because I don't think dual core processors, extra RAM, etc.. will matter to any application available. If the R520 comes out in "sli" (forgot ATI's marketing term, sorry), and the G70 releases in SLI prior.. then maybe.
But if that's the case, why is ATI stating that you won't see graphic performance available from the R500 any time soon? Surely they know what dual R520s will do compared to an R500.
The other thing that we have to mention is that.. Come on. How many people really have displays that can take advantage of (anybody's) "sli"? It only matters when you are running extremely high resolutions, and really.. Resolutions above 1080p. [Although I could be wrong]
I know it doesn't make a difference to me if I'm running a 6800U or twin 6800U in SLI, because my HDTV can't handle resolutions high enough to take advantage of the 6800U in SLI. Because I'm resolution limited, the extra power is just wasted.
You've got to have a really great monitor in order to actually take advantage of SLI, and most of us (could be wrong) would rather have a larger screen with a lower resolution than a smaller screen with greater resolution.
Clearly, if you've got the larger screen that also handles higher resolutions, you're my huckleberry. But that's gotta be less than 1% of the market.
RandcidLunchmeat,
I'm not talking about some super high resolution modes for SLI. Microsoft has stated that they are aiming for 720p to be the standard resolution for XBOX 360 games (they also support 1080i). 720p is only 17% more pixels than 1024x768, which is a very common resolution for PC games. So 720p is not very high res compared to today's PC games. If you look are current generation GPU SLI benchmarks, running 1024x768 with 4xAA, 8xAF is piece of cake at high frame rates. You can even run a game like HL2 at 1280x1024 (42% more pixels than 720p) at >60 fps in SLI mode.
G70 SLI or R520 in "SLI or whatever ATI calls it" will be able to run at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF at very high frame rates. 1600x1200 is a common monitor resolution and is very comparable to 1080p (1080p is 8% more pixels than 1600x1200). I won't comment specifically on R520 or G70 performance compared to XBOX 360 GPU, as that is still under NDA until products are announced. If you believe the rumors on various websites, both GPU's will launch before XBOX 360 so people will be able to compare for themselves.
I'm not talking about some super high resolution modes for SLI. Microsoft has stated that they are aiming for 720p to be the standard resolution for XBOX 360 games (they also support 1080i). 720p is only 17% more pixels than 1024x768, which is a very common resolution for PC games. So 720p is not very high res compared to today's PC games. If you look are current generation GPU SLI benchmarks, running 1024x768 with 4xAA, 8xAF is piece of cake at high frame rates. You can even run a game like HL2 at 1280x1024 (42% more pixels than 720p) at >60 fps in SLI mode.
G70 SLI or R520 in "SLI or whatever ATI calls it" will be able to run at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF at very high frame rates. 1600x1200 is a common monitor resolution and is very comparable to 1080p (1080p is 8% more pixels than 1600x1200). I won't comment specifically on R520 or G70 performance compared to XBOX 360 GPU, as that is still under NDA until products are announced. If you believe the rumors on various websites, both GPU's will launch before XBOX 360 so people will be able to compare for themselves.
Geeforcer,
See above. The difference between 1600x1200 (1,920,000 pixels) and 1080p (1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels) is only 8% which is negligible. 8% extra pixels is not noticeable to average the human eye. The only real difference between the two resolutions is aspect ratio: 1600x1200 is 4:3 and 1080p is 16:9 (widescreen).
See above. The difference between 1600x1200 (1,920,000 pixels) and 1080p (1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels) is only 8% which is negligible. 8% extra pixels is not noticeable to average the human eye. The only real difference between the two resolutions is aspect ratio: 1600x1200 is 4:3 and 1080p is 16:9 (widescreen).
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
How is this XBox360 beating PC supposed to achieve this with PCI Express?
There is absolutely no chance of a PC beating the XBOX360 this year.
The easiest part to surpass would be the GPU, but the CPU is too much for PC to hope to match this year.
There is absolutely no chance of a PC beating the XBOX360 this year.
The easiest part to surpass would be the GPU, but the CPU is too much for PC to hope to match this year.
- Status
Similar threads
