Rumble Roses developer on PS3 & X360

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

No, you need to look at you exmaple more closely. PS2 had a more powerful CPU, but weaker GPU. Much of the CPU's resources are given over to graphics, plus the GPU lacks some important IQ features.

So in crude terms...

PS2 CPU > XB CPU
PS2 GPU < XB CPU

If you look at next-gen, the GPU's are presuambly very similar in performance, so the crude comparison is

PS3 CPU > XB360 CPU
PS3 GPU = XB360 GPU

Which is where it doesn't balance out, in PS3's favour. But I wouldn't consider performance advantage on such a crude comparison. You could have...

PS3 CPU > XB360 CPU
PS3 GPU < XB360 GPU

...but without knowing what level of difference there is and where one component has to make up for deficiences in the other, it's a meaningless comparison. That's why the whole architectures need to be considered.

 

[onetimeposter]

No, you need to look at you exmaple more closely. PS2 had a more powerful CPU, but weaker GPU. Much of the CPU's resources are given over to graphics, plus the GPU lacks some important IQ features.

So in crude terms...

PS2 CPU > XB CPU
PS2 GPU < XB CPU

If you look at next-gen, the GPU's are presuambly very similar in performance, so the crude comparison is

PS3 CPU > XB360 CPU
PS3 GPU = XB360 GPU

Which is where it doesn't balance out, in PS3's favour. But I wouldn't consider performance advantage on such a crude comparison. You could have...

PS3 CPU > XB360 CPU
PS3 GPU < XB360 GPU

...but without knowing what level of difference there is and where one component has to make up for deficiences in the other, it's a meaningless comparison. That's why the whole architectures need to be considered.

PS3 CPU will perform more powerfully than Xbox 360 if optimised to a level with which it was designed.

 

[dukmahsik]

PS3 CPU will perform more powerfully than Xbox 360 if optimised to a level with which it was designed.

what about in terms of non flops? the make up of a game is more non flop intensive correct?

 

[onetimeposter]

what about in terms of non flops? the make up of a game is more non flop intensive correct?

yes but if optimised fully (5th generation PS2 game like Burnout Revenge) a PS2 game will look better than Xbox

 

[Bobbler]

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.

You are though, this whole thing started because you interpreted a quote by a dev as saying that the Xenos was the best when all he said was "it set a new standard" which doesn't say anything about the PS3's GPU (which may well be at that "standard" or above it -- we don't have much info on the RSX outside its clockspeed and that its based on a G70). The Xenos offers some flexibility, but that flexibility isn't necessarily programmable in the way that the Cell and XCPU are -- the flexibility is in the hardware (unified shaders) and through one feature, memexport.

 

[onetimeposter]

You are though, this whole thing started because you interpreted a quote by a dev as saying that the Xenos was the best when all he said was "it set a new standard" which doesn't say anything about the PS3's GPU (which may well be at that "standard" or above it -- we don't have much info on the RSX outside its clockspeed and that its based on a G70). The Xenos offers some flexibility, but that flexibility isn't necessarily programmable in the way that the Cell and XCPU are -- the flexibility is in the hardware (unified shaders) and through one feature, memexport.

yet when asked what advantage PS3 will have , he said Processing (GFLOPS) and Rendering (CGI doesnt matter in games). he mentioned Xbox 360 as having set a standard for graphics. Cell would be harder to optimise than Xenos utilisation for Xbox 360


Interesting note is I talked to a gearbox developer who said that like the last generation, next gen will utilise 100% possible CPU power and 20% GPU power and that will go on until it goes to around 100% fully optimised CPU power and 90-100% utilised GPU power

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...and the potential of Xenos is greater than RSX.

Measured in what way, and how does that help? How much better is Xenos than RSX and what does that result to in the games? More polygons? Better shaders? Better physics? Better AI? In your XB vs PS2 example the difference between machines was in image quality, but in gameplay there's little difference. But the PS2 CPU was going to making up those visuals. Unless RSX is severly under the performance of Xenos and Cell needs to use much of its processing to help push the visuals up to comparative with XB360, the situation won't be repeated. You seem to have a theory that Xenos >>> RSX which isn't one most people on this board share. The two are probably quite evenly matched.

 

[Bobbler]

yet when asked what advantage PS3 will have , he said Processing (GFLOPS) and Rendering (CGI doesnt matter in games). he mentioned Xbox 360 as having set a standard for graphics.

He mentioned Xbox360 when asked about the Xbox360, he mentioned PS3 when asked (after) about the PS3 -- there was no comparison done. Maybe he said it set the standard because it was coming out first? The first thing out usually sets the standard, I don't think anyone without a twisted mind could interpret that as saying that the Xbox360 was the only one reaching/meeting/creating that standard.

 

[dukmahsik]

You are though, this whole thing started because you interpreted a quote by a dev as saying that the Xenos was the best when all he said was "it set a new standard" which doesn't say anything about the PS3's GPU (which may well be at that "standard" or above it -- we don't have much info on the RSX outside its clockspeed and that its based on a G70). The Xenos offers some flexibility, but that flexibility isn't necessarily programmable in the way that the Cell and XCPU are -- the flexibility is in the hardware (unified shaders) and through one feature, memexport.

id say those 2 flexibility traits of xenos is huge esp USA

 

[onetimeposter]

Measured in what way, and how does that help? How much better is Xenos than RSX and what does that result to in the games? More polygons? Better shaders? Better physics? Better AI? In your XB vs PS2 example the difference between machines was in image quality, but in gameplay there's little difference. But the PS2 CPU was going to making up those visuals. Unless RSX is severly under the performance of Xenos and Cell needs to use much of its processing to help push the visuals up to comparative with XB360, the situation won't be repeated. You seem to have a theory that Xenos >>> RSX which isn't one most people on this board share. The two are probably quite evenly matched.

Measured in the way off efficiently outputing the graphics to the max potential of its theoritical output. The two may be evenly matched but its a given that Xenos has more potential in terms of output of full potential. X800 was probably utilised to about 50-60%, Xenos could be done upto 90%. Thats why when you overclock the processor it can give you faster results but not necessarily better graphics (which Xenos could do)

 

[onetimeposter]

He mentioned Xbox360 when asked about the Xbox360, he mentioned PS3 when asked (after) about the PS3 -- there was no comparison done. Maybe he said it set the standard because it was coming out first? The first thing out usually sets the standard, I don't think anyone without a twisted mind could interpret that as saying that the Xbox360 was the only one reaching/meeting/creating that standard.

no when asked about Xbox 360 he said the console has set a new standard in graphics and when asked about PS3 he said PS3 has more processing (GFLOP) power and more rendering (CGI) power.

 

[onetimeposter]

it is also a fact that PS3 can have games which are Bigger than Xbox 360. that would be good because BluRay wouldbe needed for bigger environments. But bigger doesnt mean better. atleast not in most cases

 

[Bobbler]

id say those 2 flexibility traits of xenos is huge esp USA

Except Unified shaders are passive -- it isn't really flexibility that can truly be taken advantage of. You throw shaders at the GPU and it takes care of it, it isn't like you're going to get more performance than what the 48 mini-pipes can do by creating some sort of ratio. The RSX's 24 pixel pipes are arguably (on paper, I think) about as powerful as the 48 Xenos pipes -- then you have the 6 Vertex pipes to play with too. The flexibility is present in the form of efficiency which makes up for power -- if done correctly the RSX could well be more powerful, but the shaders must be taken care of in a way that isn't commonly done. That isn't a true form of flexibility and potential -- there is a drawback to it, the maximum power is capped but the average power is increased (and we don't know if that average power is the same as RSX's -- I imagine it is though).

Memexport is another story -- I'm not really sure what that will allow, to be honest.

 

[onetimeposter]

Except Unified shaders are passive -- it isn't really flexibility that can truly be taken advantage of. You throw shaders at the GPU and it takes care of it, it isn't like you're going to get more performance than what the 48 mini-pipes can do by creating some sort of ratio. The RSX's 24 pixel pipes are arguably (on paper, I think) about as powerful as the 48 Xenos pipes -- then you have the 6 Vertex pipes to play with too. The flexibility is present in the form of efficiency which makes up for power -- if done correctly the RSX could well be more powerful, but the shaders must be taken care of in a way that isn't commonly done. That isn't a true form of flexibility and potential -- there is a drawback to it, the maximum power is capped but the average power is increased (and we don't know if that average power is the same as RSX's -- I imagine it is though).

Memexport is another story -- I'm not really sure what that will allow, to be honest.

for memexport read the thread in Console Talk by gamemaster.
for Xenos, read the article by Dave to see how powerful it really is compared to current Gen PC GPUs

 

[3roxor]

for memexport read the thread in Console Talk by gamemaster.
for Xenos, read the article by Dave to see how powerful it really is compared to current Gen PC GPUs

There aren't any benchmarks for the Xenos so I don't know what you mean with "to see how powerful it really is compared to current Gen PC GPU" We DO have the Xbox360 to look at and make judgements from that.

 

[Bobbler]

for memexport read the thread in Console Talk by gamemaster.
for Xenos, read the article by Dave to see how powerful it really is compared to current Gen PC GPUs

I didn't say I didn't understand either of them, I said I didn't know what Memexport will actually allow (that is new and worth doing).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Where does Dave's article state that Xenos is that much more powerful than conventional GPUs? It goes into great detail into the workings and ATi's efficiency claims but there's no real-world evidence for it having considerably more power available for use in close boxed system. As discussions on this board have already considered, it'll be intersting to see what benefit US brings, but it isn't a magic solution to getting 2x the power from the same silicon budget. Or even if it was, the fact that 1/3rd of the GPU is taken up with eDRAM on Xenos means less silicon for those US. I would expect at best Xenos on average would outperform RSX by 25%. That is assuming it's efficiencies are around 90% whereas RSX is down around 70% (which in a closed box isn't as likely as a PC's use), and everything else is equal which isn't easy to determine from theoretical tech-specs alone.

 

[onetimeposter]

Where does Dave's article state that Xenos is that much more powerful than conventional GPUs? It goes into great detail into the workings and ATi's efficiency claims but there's no real-world evidence for it having considerably more power available for use in close boxed system. As discussions on this board have already considered, it'll be intersting to see what benefit US brings, but it isn't a magic solution to getting 2x the power from the same silicon budget. Or even if it was, the fact that 1/3rd of the GPU is taken up with eDRAM on Xenos means less silicon for those US. I would expect at best Xenos on average would outperform RSX by 25%. That is assuming it's efficiencies are around 90% whereas RSX is down around 70% (which in a closed box isn't as likely as a PC's use), and everything else is equal which isn't easy to determine from theoretical tech-specs alone.

I guess we will have to see ingame graphics on a years time dont we, How do you assume RSX will be 70% because thats mighty high for a PC architecture isnt it?

 

[Love_In_Rio]

The 48 Xenos pipes would be similar in peak performance to the 24 pixel pipes in RSX if the 2 ALUs of the last ones would be independent, but one of them is linked to the texture fetcher, meanwhile in xenos this doesn´t happen. Xenos is way more powerful than anything out there. A good example would be to compare GOW running in the ULTRA SLI in E3 , that has a shader power similar to GF 7800, and GOW now running in Xenos ( both using only one core-thread )... the first one run 20-25 fps and now it runs 30 fps. By the way, you can find this statement in the blog of Cliffy B:

"I have seen the future - the next generation of consoles. I have had more than a taste of what true next generation gaming is going to have to offer and I'm here to tell you -

You're in for something special.

I can't speak much for Sony right now - yeah, we're working on stuff for the PS3 but honestly I'm so busy with Gears that it's all I'm seeing and I can tell you - Microsoft is giving you a hell of a system. This thing is a BEAST and is capable of MUCH GREATNESS.

Sigh. That's all I can say so far. I am, after all, under NDA."

http://cliffyb.1up.com/

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes. I assume (or rather guess with a pie in the sky figure) RSX will be 70% utilised based on discussion on this board about efficiencies. I don't think there exists any data on GPU usage for certain games. Have ATi and nVidia published how much of their GPU's are sitting idle during games? But figures I remember seeing placed GPU efficiency at around 70%. Again no hard evidence.