Rumble Roses developer on PS3 & X360

[Lysander]

X2cpu and cell are not operative fully yet (i.e.optimisation of cores), X2cpu has (I think) more integer power and cell more fp power, and yes both cpus are in need for good programers; making inductions out of this halfass comments is stupid

 

[Bobbler]

It's amazing how some people can spin positive statements into negative ones...

 

[onetimeposter]

X2cpu and cell are not operative fully yet (i.e.optimisation of cores), X2cpu has (I think) more integer power and cell more fp power, and yes both cpus are in need for good programers; making inductions out of this halfass comments is stupid

it was the same case with PS2 and Xbox but PS2 had also more integer power AND Fp power compared to a 733 Mhz Intel Processor. but this time Xbox 360 has more integer power and PS3 has more fp power. Im surprised people dont realise its happening again

 

[Bobbler]

it was the same case with PS2 and Xbox but PS2 had also more integer power AND Fp power compared to a 733 Mhz Intel Processor. but this time Xbox 360 has more integer power and PS3 has more fp power. Im surprised people dont realise its happening again

You're confusing the situation a bit. I don't think any dev out there would say that the PS2 CPU was patently more powerful in any way (except at producing particles, but that had more to do with the bandwidth to the 4mb of edram).

 

[onetimeposter]

You're confusing the situation a bit. I don't think any dev out there would say that the PS2 CPU was patently more powerful in any way (except at producing particles, but that had more to do with the bandwidth to the 4mb of edram).

It is a fact that PS2 was FP wise and Integer wise more powerful than Xbox. the comparison is like 6 Gflops for PS2 and 2.4 Gflops for Xbox (something close to that), Dont you remember when Xbox was about to come out in 6 months and Sony said PS2 will still be more powerful than Xbox

 

[therealskywolf]

Onetimeposter, i still haven't understood your point.

Sorry...but what are you trying to say? Only thing i know is that the Xbox came 2 years after the Ps2, had double the ram and Pixel Shading Support and could obviouslly push more polygons. The PS2 came 2 years after the Dreamcast and it had much more ram too...and a faster CPu.

Ps3 is coming 5 months after the Xbox 360. HAs the Same Ram...the GPU should be on par if not weaker and has a faster CPU. My point? These 5 months can't be equal to those 2 years that seperated Xbox from Ps2 and Ps2 from Dreamcast. It's common sense.

Edit: Unless of Course, Ps3 comes at a 400$ bare hands price point or higher.

 

[onetimeposter]

Onetimeposter, i still haven't understood your point.

Sorry...but what are you trying to say? Only thing i know is that the Xbox came 2 years after the Ps2, had double the ram and Pixel Shading Support and could obviouslly push more polygons. The PS2 came 2 years after the Dreamcast and it had much more ram too...and a faster CPu.

Ps3 is coming 5 months after the Xbox 360. HAs the Same Ram...the GPU should be on par if not weaker and has a faster CPU. My point? These 5 months can't be equal to those 2 years that seperated Xbox from Ps2 and Ps2 from Dreamcast. It's common sense.

Edit: Unless of Course, Ps3 comes at a 400$ bare hands price point or higher.

yes it has double the ram but PS2 had XDR Ram (same as PS3) and Xbox had a much weaker bandwidth worth of ram even if it was double. Pixel shading support = GFX card which is what im trying to say

Ps2 was a more powerful processor (theoretically)
Xbox was a more powerful GFX Console (theoretically)

And you can see the difference. what? there is no difference, its happening exactly as before.

 

[onetimeposter]

Onetimeposter, i still haven't understood your point.

Sorry...but what are you trying to say? Only thing i know is that the Xbox came 2 years after the Ps2, had double the ram and Pixel Shading Support and could obviouslly push more polygons. The PS2 came 2 years after the Dreamcast and it had much more ram too...and a faster CPu.

Ps3 is coming 5 months after the Xbox 360. HAs the Same Ram...the GPU should be on par if not weaker and has a faster CPU. My point? These 5 months can't be equal to those 2 years that seperated Xbox from Ps2 and Ps2 from Dreamcast. It's common sense.

Edit: Unless of Course, Ps3 comes at a 400$ bare hands price point or higher.

does the RSX have a memory controller for Cell to access it? if not then RSX can access the XDR Ram but Cell cant access RSX Ram (so its not the same ram as xbox 360)

 

[Bobbler]

It is a fact that PS2 was FP wise and Integer wise more powerful than Xbox. the comparison is like 6 Gflops for PS2 and 2.4 Gflops for Xbox (something close to that), Dont you remember when Xbox was about to come out in 6 months and Sony said PS2 will still be more powerful than Xbox

In theory, yes -- it did have a higher peak Gflop rating and was able to do a lot of things well (if you spent the time)... Gflops aren't the only thing that is important. For example: PS2 was an in-order cpu (wasn't it?), the Xbox cpu was OOO -- you were able to get a lot more out of the Xbox cpu than you could from the PS2 cpu by just throwing code at it. The two next gen CPUs are on relatively even ground in that they are both in order and PPC based (or somewhat, at least, in the Cell's case). The comparison between the PS2 cpu and Xbox cpu is a bit silly, one is an off the shelf monster (relative to the PS2 cpu) and the other is essentially a vector unit masquerading as a CPU...

 

[therealskywolf]

yes it has double the ram but PS2 had XDR Ram (same as PS3) and Xbox had a much weaker bandwidth worth of ram even if it was double. Pixel shading support = GFX card which is what im trying to say

Ps2 was a more powerful processor (theoretically)
Xbox was a more powerful GFX Console (theoretically)

And you can see the difference. what? there is no difference, its happening exactly as before.

The ps2 didn't have XDr memory. For a moment there i thought you knew what you were talking about.

 

[Bobbler]

does the RSX have a memory controller for Cell to access it? if not then RSX can access the XDR Ram but Cell cant access RSX Ram (so its not the same ram as xbox 360)

Yes, the RSX can access XDR/GDDR and the Cell can access the XDR/GDDR -- both can dip into each other's pools.

 

[onetimeposter]

In theory, yes -- it did have a higher peak Gflop rating and was able to do a lot of things well (if you spent the time)... Gflops aren't the only thing that is important. For example: PS2 was an in-order cpu (wasn't it?), the Xbox cpu was OOO -- you were able to get a lot more out of the Xbox cpu than you could from the PS2 cpu by just throwing code at it. The two next gen CPUs are on relatively even ground in that they are both in order and PPC based (or somewhat, at least, in the Cell's case). The comparison between the PS2 cpu and Xbox cpu is a bit silly, one is an off the shelf monster (relative to the PS2 cpu) and the other is essentially a vector unit masquerading as a CPU...

Yes but didnt Gabe Nevell AND Carmack both says PS3 is completely different than Xbox 360 as Xbox 360 is much closer to PC design in terms of multithreading. (the situation and processees are different, but the outcome will eventually be the same)

 

[onetimeposter]

The ps2 didn't have XDr memory. For a moment there i thought you knew what you were talking about.

System Memory: 32 MB Direct Rambus or RDRAM (note that some computers use this type of RAM)


XDR Ram is the successor of Rambus RDRAM (same company made it)


Also note the fact that PS2 was a 64 bit platform while Xbox was essentially 32 bit

 

[onetimeposter]

Yes, the RSX can access XDR/GDDR and the Cell can access the XDR/GDDR -- both can dip into each other's pools.

Does RSX have a memory controller for Cell to Access GDDR Ram?

 

[Bobbler]

yes it has double the ram but PS2 had XDR Ram (same as PS3) and Xbox had a much weaker bandwidth worth of ram even if it was double. Pixel shading support = GFX card which is what im trying to say

Ps2 was a more powerful processor (theoretically)
Xbox was a more powerful GFX Console (theoretically)

And you can see the difference. what? there is no difference, its happening exactly as before.

Except your whole arguement is based on a twisted interpretation of what a dev said -- that Xenos is somehow more powerful (and for your case to work it'd have to be far more powerful, like the Xbox1 GPU was compared to the PS2's GS). (and as someone else mentioned the PS2 didn't have XDR).

I think therealwolfsky probably has it fairly correct -- the PS3 seems to be a bit more powerful, "how much?" is the important question, though. The answer: Probably not much. The difference certainly won't be anything near the difference between the Xbox1 and PS2 -- time just doesn't allow that kind of power difference in 5 months (compared to 2 years for PS2 vs Xbox, and Xbox was losing money hand of foot for the best stuff in their package). The games will be the deciding factor more so now than any other generation -- graphics between the two should be almost exactly the same (GPUs look very comparable, and CPU seems to have a slight edge on PS3 -- but how much will that difference make when it really comes down to it? not much, especially to most dev's who don't want to spend the extra time for extra leaves floating around). However, the way you are grasping at straws to somehow prove the point that the consoles will be the same is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The Fact of the matter is if Cell's potential can be realised then the Xenos potential is as high as the Cell potential, so its a safe assessment that Xenos is either on par with RSX or its more powerful (if its potential like cell is realised).

Why are you relating performance of XB360's GPU with PS3's CPU?

The memory bandwidth of the D3D compression being compressed in a Xbox 360 presentation showed a doubling of bandwidth

What reason do you have to think RSX won't have compression technologies? I think we can be confident nVidia are including various BW conserving features

Its not that simple as just having more FLops and that means better graphics and a better game.

I'm well aware of this. Hence I explained my reasoning. A problem with CPU efficiency is accessing the data which is the slowest part of the chain, and the Cell structure was designed to address this in a way which I think, based on the tech papers, will prove quite effective for those that learn how to make the most of it.

 

[onetimeposter]

Why are you relating performance of XB360's GPU with PS3's CPU?
What reason do you have to think RSX won't have compression technologies? I think we can be confident nVidia are including various BW conserving features
I'm well aware of this. Hence I explained my reasoning. A problem with CPU efficiency is accessing the data which is the slowest part of the chain, and the Cell structure was designed to address this in a way which I think, based on the tech papers, will prove quite effective for those that learn how to make the most of it.

im not relating it. im comparing that if developers can utilise the potential of Cell it would be as great as developers utilising the potential of Xenos.

RSX will have compression technologies, its not that weak, but not as powerful as Xenos or knowing Nvidia it would have stated that our GPU is more powerful.

The Xenos was also designed to have maximum Efficiency, it will be a matter of time which one is utilised to potential first, Xenos or Cell.

 

[Bobbler]

Does RSX have a memory controller for Cell to Access GDDR Ram?

Does it need it? RSX can use XDR and/or GDDR and Cell can use XDR and/or GDDR.


Additionally the bitness of the CPU is moot -- 64 bit is beyond the accuracy that any game needs anyways (16bit can work in a lot of situations). The PS1 was "32bit" and the N64 was "64bit" -- didn't matter.


Someone help please! Get this clown out of here!

 

[onetimeposter]

Except your whole arguement is based on a twisted interpretation of what a dev said -- that Xenos is somehow more powerful (and for your case to work it'd have to be far more powerful, like the Xbox1 GPU was compared to the PS2's GS). (and as someone else mentioned the PS2 didn't have XDR).

I think therealwolfsky probably has it fairly correct -- the PS3 seems to be a bit more powerful, "how much?" is the important question, though. The answer: Probably not much. The difference certainly won't be anything near the difference between the Xbox1 and PS2 -- time just doesn't allow that kind of power difference in 5 months (compared to 2 years for PS2 vs Xbox, and Xbox was losing money hand of foot for the best stuff in their package). The games will be the deciding factor more so now than any other generation -- graphics between the two should be almost exactly the same (GPUs look very comparable, and CPU seems to have a slight edge on PS3 -- but how much will that difference make when it really comes down to it? not much, especially to most dev's who don't want to spend the extra time for extra leaves floating around). However, the way you are grasping at straws to somehow prove the point that the consoles will be the same is a bit ridiculous.

Im not grasping at straws, its a fact that the potential of Cell is greater than Xbox 360 CPUs and the potential of Xenos is greater than RSX.

 

[onetimeposter]

Does it need it? RSX can use XDR and/or GDDR and Cell can use XDR and/or GDDR.


Additionally the bitness of the CPU is moot -- 64 bit is beyond the accuracy that any game needs anyways (16bit can work in a lot of situations). The PS1 was "32bit" and the N64 was "64bit" -- didn't matter.


Someone help please! Get this clown out of here!

yes it needs it because Cell has a memory controller for RSX to access it.