RSX: 1.1 billion vertices/sec?
- Thread starter BOOMEXPLODE
- Start date
- Status
hasanahmad
Banned
Why is it that everyone here is trying to find the smallest proof that Xenos is poorer than RSX
Shogmaster
Regular
hasanahmad said:
It's all the rage. Everyone's doing it. Sorta like coke in the 80's.
DeathKnight
Regular
Well, get back to us when you accomplish thatFafalada said:
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I think the question most people want to know here, based on the main question/subject of this thread:
Can Playstation3 push 1 billion polygons per second
polygon count is not as simple a question to answer as it was 5,6,7,8 years ago 8)
Can Playstation3 push 1 billion polygons per second
polygon count is not as simple a question to answer as it was 5,6,7,8 years ago 8)
Megadrive1988 said:I think the question most people want to know here, based on the main question/subject of this thread:
Can Playstation3 push 1 billion polygons per second
polygon count is not as simple a question to answer as it was 5,6,7,8 years ago 8)
People no longer cares about polygon count as much as it did 5 or 10 years ago...lol.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
some other things I was going to say:
Cell itself should be able to calculate several billions of polygons, much like Xenos could also calculate / transform several billion polygons. but then to setup that amount would be impossible. so then we need to know how many polygons can PS3/RSX setup, and also render/display on screen with at least some level of texture & pixel shading.
I'll bet that with the max level of pixel shading it can do, plus lighting and everything else, Xbox1 only gets a few million polygons per second in games. lets say that amount is 5 to 9 million (and that is being generous) going to a few hundred million (not billion) with actual Xbox360 and PS3 *games* is going to be a huge leap.
Cell itself should be able to calculate several billions of polygons, much like Xenos could also calculate / transform several billion polygons. but then to setup that amount would be impossible. so then we need to know how many polygons can PS3/RSX setup, and also render/display on screen with at least some level of texture & pixel shading.
I'll bet that with the max level of pixel shading it can do, plus lighting and everything else, Xbox1 only gets a few million polygons per second in games. lets say that amount is 5 to 9 million (and that is being generous) going to a few hundred million (not billion) with actual Xbox360 and PS3 *games* is going to be a huge leap.
Why do you think we'll get closer to those theoretical numbers than we got with the xbox1? Xbox1 was quoted at 100 million polys vs. 500 million for xenos and 1.1 billion for RSX. We got no where close to those numbers on xbox. What makes you think we'll get there this gen?Megadrive1988 said:
Shogmaster
Regular
ralexand said:
It's been repeatedly stated that Xenos can hit 500M polygons per second with non-trivial shaders. XBox 1 level shaders should allow X360 to get pretty close to 500M, but I'd rather see 50~75M with next gen level shaders.
We discussed the setup rate in another thread; basically we are at a point where more is not necessarily better in that there are limitations to our displays, memory, bandwidth, and reality. e.g. The Xbox and PS can theoretically transform more triangles than any real game would realistically use. From the 1st 3D gen to the 2nd 3D gen we saw the systems go from the 120k-600k range to the 66M-120M range for triangles/s--a whopping 100-fold increase in theoretical performance. So seeing a 5x-10x increase seems meager. But I think these numbers are much more realistic and relevant considering the limitations of a TV, even a HD TV.
Based on what some of the devs have said, the 360 could get close to the 500M mark with Xbox1 style shaders. But that wont happen. Games will be using modern lighting, shadowing, and effects. So even then the 500M limit is not really relevant because the systems does not have the power to shade that many triangles with next gen quality effects. Not to mention large triangle meshes take up space and bandwidth. The 500M number is more reaslistic than the Xbox 120M number, but it is still a theoretical limit that most games wont even get close to being limited by.
Acert93 said:
Based on what some of the devs have said, the 360 could get close to the 500M mark with Xbox1 style shaders. But that wont happen. Games will be using modern lighting, shadowing, and effects. So even then the 500M limit is not really relevant because the systems does not have the power to shade that many triangles with next gen quality effects. Not to mention large triangle meshes take up space and bandwidth. The 500M number is more reaslistic than the Xbox 120M number, but it is still a theoretical limit that most games wont even get close to being limited by.
If you consider an average vertex shader length of 20 instructions * 500,000,000 vertices/sec for a total of 10 billion vertex instructions/sec and an average pixel shader length of 100 instructions * 28,000,000 pixels/sec ( computed 1280x720 x 5 times overdraw x 60 fps ) for a total of 28 billion pixel instructions/sec. Our example needs a grand total of 38 billion instructions per second.
Using Xenos (considered by most as the low-end ) as an example, running at 500Mhz and 96 instructions per clock, would be able to compute 48 billion instructions per second. So 500 million triangles + nice pixel effects aren't outside the realm of possibility for these consoles.
Using Xenos (considered by most as the low-end
) as an example, running at 500Mhz and 96 instructions per clock, would be able to compute 48 billion instructions per second. So 500 million triangles + nice pixel effects aren't outside the realm of possibility for these consoles.The GameMaster
Newcomer
If the RSX can setup 1.1 Billion VERTICES per second that would come out to be 366 Million TRIANGLES per second (1 triangle = 3 vertices and 1 square = 4 vertices). XENOS can setup 500 Million POLYGONS (assuming triangles) per second or 1.5 Billion VERTICES per second. The thing to note here is that those 1.1B vertices/sec for the RSX (and this is assuming the RSX is what we think it is) is that this is the BEST CASE scenerio assuming 1 light and no textures or shaders while it was noted by Microsoft (not sure if I believe this or not, but after looking at the technology I might) that they could SUSTAIN 500 Million polygons/sec (1.5 Billion vertices/sec) WITH textures and simple shaders.
I guess the long story short is that XENOS has a very large advantage in terms of polygon count, but does not have as much advantage in shader performance (though still faster than the RSX/GF7800GTX). It is still up to the developer though as the developer can choose to go shader heavy or geometry heavy or a healthy mix of the two.
Of course the Cell *COULD* potentially help out with the graphics... and I know a lot of people have been saying that, but it is terribly inefficient doing so and would take up additional system memory not to mention would make developer's lifes utter nightmares. Also remember, however, XENON can also help out XENOS in graphics and arguably do a better job at it due to the UMA memory as well as certain features present in hardware on both the CPU and GPU.
I guess the long story short is that XENOS has a very large advantage in terms of polygon count, but does not have as much advantage in shader performance (though still faster than the RSX/GF7800GTX). It is still up to the developer though as the developer can choose to go shader heavy or geometry heavy or a healthy mix of the two.
Of course the Cell *COULD* potentially help out with the graphics... and I know a lot of people have been saying that, but it is terribly inefficient doing so and would take up additional system memory not to mention would make developer's lifes utter nightmares. Also remember, however, XENON can also help out XENOS in graphics and arguably do a better job at it due to the UMA memory as well as certain features present in hardware on both the CPU and GPU.
- Status