Running the Toy Shop demo on the 360
- Thread starter Azrael
- Start date
scooby_dooby
Legend
So Xenos has "slightly" more shading power than X1800? So we know how Xenos is relative to X1800, and we have test benchmarks for X1800 vs G70....
Out of curiosity, anyone know how's the X1800 stacks up to an overclocked 550mhz G70? I thought G70 was supposed to be a shading monster...how does it compare to the X1800?
Out of curiosity, anyone know how's the X1800 stacks up to an overclocked 550mhz G70? I thought G70 was supposed to be a shading monster...how does it compare to the X1800?
It's good news i guess. X360 will never had to run at a res higher than 720p so who cares if the X1800 beats it at 1600x1200? it's supposed to! Besides, just the X1800 card will prob cost more than the WHOLE X360!
scooby_dooby said:
Before anyone says GFlops are 'meaningless', blah, blah,blah...
32bit, programmable shading flops, with 'peak' issue rates,
R520, XT, 625 MHz ~ 170 GFlops
G70, GTX, 430 MHz ~ 199 GFlops
Xenos, 500 MHz ~ 216 GFlops (not 240, according to recent MS 'leak').
RSX, 550 MHz ~ 255 GFlops
Well, these are raw 'peak' shading Flops...so we'll see what transpires in forthcoming games...
london-boy said:It's good news i guess. X360 will never had to run at a res higher than 720p so who cares if the X1800 beats it at 1600x1200? it's supposed to! Besides, just the X1800 card will prob cost more than the WHOLE X360!
well, it might be important if someone well... might want to run at 1920x1080
.....nevermind.
Jaws said:
I found the math interesting.
The G70 GTX has 8.5% more peak FLOPS than the R520XT ... and yet the 1800XT is faster?
and
This is the same case for the Xenos and RSX - 8.5% more peak FLOPS ... and Xenos looks to more than likely be the faster solution.
Does this allude a more efficient engineering design with ATI parts in general or should it be chalked up in the FLOPS are meaningless column?
Azrael said:
Depends what you're measuring. The XT has more raw vertex shading flops whilst the GTX has more raw pixel shading flops. And this is reflected in the shadermark tests. However the R520 has spent transistors on improving dynamic branching and this is reflected in those tests too...
Azrael said:
The same applies here too. But this one is more tricker because Xenos has 3 SIMD engines as unified shaders. G70-RSX, has 8 MIMD VS units and 6 SIMD PS quad units with their own pros's and cons...
version said:and if rsx will has only 16 bit simds, then flops value equal zero ? :heh
Well we know it will do FP32!
What?Jaws said:
And here's why this news is so important:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24254&page=4
This demo would not run at a playable framerate on the G70 series of cards. The R520 runs it 2x to 3x faster than a G70 depending on the situation! And Xenos is even more powerful than that!!
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24254&page=4
This demo would not run at a playable framerate on the G70 series of cards. The R520 runs it 2x to 3x faster than a G70 depending on the situation! And Xenos is even more powerful than that!!
Hardknock said:
Heh, I think we'd need to know a lot more detail about the performance tests and these 'situations' before jumping to those kind of conclusions. And those figures specifically relate to parallax occlusion mapping not overall performance. It's also hardly surprising that a heavily optimised ATI tech demo performs comparatively poor on Nvidia hardware.
Hardknock said:
Before jumping up and down, you omitted subsequent paragraphs, namely,
When developing algorithms, there's always more than one way to skin a cat!
Also, he was asked,
...and his reply,
Surprise, the NV demoes don't run on ATI hardware! Therefore ATI hardware is crap!
And when asked how it would run on Xenos,
"quite well."
All this highlights is that there are 'several' means to the same 'end' and you develop for each architectures strengths whilst avoiding their weaknesses...
What does that matter? Parallax occlusion mapping is superior, which G70 can't run efficiently. That's the point.
"However, in my quality results tests for comparison of these two techniques, the relief mapping technique displayed visual artifacts on our current dataset."
No what this shows you is that Nvidia locks their demos to their hardware, while ATi's demos can be run on either hardware. Who do you think is more confident?
I don't know why you want to downplay this. 2x to 3x better performance than the Nvidia counterpart is a very considerable performance advantage. I don't care how you slice it. And TWO people from ATi have stated that Xenos would run it even better!
Hardknock said:
Erm...I'm not downplaying this demo. One person has said Xenos will run it "quite well" NOT better. The other person, has stated it would run better under certain conditions. The 2/3 x difference with G70 is for parallax occlusion mapped scenes "depending on the situation." And finally your missing the point of what an algorithm is. You develop algorithms to take advantage of the hardware, and if you design algorithms that show the SAME thing on screen then it's irrelevant what the algorithm is.
The Luna demos show subsurface scattering, would the same algorithm run as efficiently on ATI hardware? Or would they need to tune it for ATI strengths? Or why not port a Playstation game to Gamecube without fine tuning and see if it runs the same? The point being there are many ways to achieve the same results. You'd be dumb to use the architectures weakest method to do this in the 'realworld' outside of a tech demo!
Similar threads
