Running the Toy Shop demo on the 360

[pakpassion]

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!

actually the way you desperetly want to discredit xenos by assuming its not that good by HOW people use thier grammar to describe is pretty desperate in my opinion. The point of the algorithm is to run fro changing it from a non unified architecture to a unified architecture. simple as that. You are contradicting yourself with the Luna demo, first you are suggesting Xenos wont run so well compared to its completely different architecture and that you assume is because its not that fast and then you say Luna wont run as efficiently because both ATI and Nvidia architectures are different. This is nothing but making a fool of yourself. The facts are infact given that Xenos might as well be more powerful than X1800 XT. and its high time people accept it if the ATI people themselves say it.

 

[pakpassion]

Each of the 48 ALUs ~ 9 Flops per cycle (vec4+scalar and scalar not madd capable, i.e. 1 flop/cycle)

This was also reported by a japanese site during E3 too...

Wow we have a new math being invented here!

 

[Edge]

> "And TWO people from ATI"

And you don't see a possible problem with that?

Most PC benchmarks show Nvidia's 7800 GTX (@ 430 MHz I might point out) as more powerful than the X1800 (running at 600 MHz)!!! Now Xenos runs at 500 MHz, and sure it has more shader engines than the X1800, but RSX will be running at 550 MHz, and most likely will have 48 pixel shaders (two per pipeline), and 8 vertex shaders. I know that just a small view of things, and I doubt we will ever get a fair comparison, as benchmarks are not run on consoles.

I guess we just have to base all our understanding on what ever ATI says?

 

[pakpassion]

Well we know it will do FP32!

wow . care to explain how it will do FP32 with HDR and AA??

 

[j^aws]

Wow we have a new math being invented here!

Sorry 'junior member' but I'm reporting you for trolling and I'm not going to reply to your previous post as you clearly want to turn this into some flamewar. And I'm apparently making a 'fool' of myself according to you...

 

[pakpassion]

> "And TWO people from ATI"

And you don't see a possible problem with that?

Most PC benchmarks show Nvidia's 7800 GTX (@ 430 MHz I might point out) as more powerful than the X1800 (running at 600 MHz)!!! Now Xenos runs at 500 MHz, and sure it has more shader engines than the X1800, but RSX will be running at 550 MHz, and most likely will have 48 pixel shaders (two per pipeline), and 8 vertex shaders. I know that just a small view of things, and I doubt we will ever get a fair comparison, as benchmarks are not run on consoles.

I guess we just have to base all our understanding on what ever ATI says?

X1800 is non unified < Xenos as unified, so clockspeed here doesnt really matter. Most PC benchmarks show 7800 running slower than X1800. how will RSX have more than 32 pipes if even the technology of un ununifeid architecture has made it very hard to even reach 32? hell even ati or nvidia havent released a 32 pipe card yet. LOL

 

[pakpassion]

Sorry 'junior member' but I'm reporting you for trolling and I'm not going to reply to your previous post as you clearly want to turn this into some flamewar. And I'm apparently making a 'fool' of myself according to you...

actually you are the one making a fool of yourself. either provide facts and figures with qoutes of what you say is true or stop spreading false information purposely. I have reported you for false statements.

 

[Edge]

Sorry I meant games, and not benchmarks. Being the fastest at running games has to rate as more important than being faster at benchmarks.

Yes, I know it's unified which just means it more efficient at balancing loads, it's not an automatic win over a traditional architecture at every game or rendering situation.

 

[Bobbler]

Hardknock: Not to rain on the parade but "quite well" isn't a comparative term (so that's one person, not two). And "on our current dataset" seems rather key as well. Also of note in the ATI pdf (done by Tatarchuk) it is mentioned that it (POM) is prohibitive to the point where in a game you'd probably want to use geometry over it. POM isn't perfect, it's one of half a dozen ways of solving the same problem (POM just happens to work well on ATI hardware for various reasons). It seems like normal/relief maps will be much more commonly used this next gen and both cards should run those much more suitably.

This is pretty unsurprising information, really. Xenos and R520 (1800XT) are pretty comparable it seems. But Xenos has the huge advantage of being in a closed box (and is "slightly" more of a shader monster than R520, no surprise there).

Xenos is slightly faster - at ~480p - than R520, but not as fast as 1600x1200 apparently (meaning it'd probably be pretty equal at the ~1280x1024 area, assumingly still going to Xenos for the win at 720p).

G70 is comparable to XT in a lot of areas (quite weaker in other areas, but RSX has a 28% clock advantage over G70 and who knows what else, so that should more than even that up).

It seems to me that in most circumstances RSX and Xenos will be pretty much the same -- Xenos will probably have the advantage in a few circumstances (parallax occlusion mapping, if that ever actually gets used) unless RSX has some overhauls to certain parts of the G70 (which is possible, but doubtful). It's all a matter of how many changes RSX has gone through vs the G70.

I wouldn't say anyone is downplaying the power of the ATI cards, but I do think this brings a bit more realistic comparison than we've previously had (great find Azrael). Xenos and R520 are similar class GPUs with slightly different targets (resolution, systems, etc).

 

[pakpassion]

Sorry I meant games, and not benchmarks. Being the fastest at running games has to rate as more important than being faster at benchmarks.

Yes, I know it's unified which just means it more efficient at balancing loads, it's not an automatic win over a traditional architecture at every game or rendering situation.

the 7800 might go ahead of X1800 when running 1024 with everything off but with everything on and at near HD resolution or higher, X1800 drills 7800 into submission

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Wow we have a new math being invented here!

Huh?? What "new" math are you talking about? Or rather, making snide remarks about? Seriously, I don't see what's wrong with Jaws' remark, it's been raked over the coals countless times on B3D and we've seen it appear in articles as Jaws noted on, I believe, 2 seperate ocassions (Gotou's papers and an online Engineering magazine whose name exacpes me). How's the math wrong?

 

[pakpassion]

Hardknock: Not to rain on the parade but "quite well" isn't a comparative term (so that's one person, not two). And "on our current dataset" seems rather key as well. Also of note in the ATI pdf (done by Tatarchuk) it is mentioned that it (POM) is prohibitive to the point where in a game you'd probably want to use geometry over it. POM isn't perfect, it's one of half a dozen ways of solving the same problem (POM just happens to work well on ATI hardware for various reasons). It seems like normal/relief maps will be much more commonly used this next gen and both cards should run those much more suitably.

This is pretty unsurprising information, really. Xenos and R520 (1800XT) are pretty comparable it seems. But Xenos has the huge advantage of being in a closed box (and is "slightly" more of a shader monster than R520, no surprise there).

Xenos is slightly faster - at ~480p - than R520, but not as fast as 1600x1200 apparently (meaning it'd probably be pretty equal at the ~1280x1024 area, assumingly still going to Xenos for the win at 720p).

G70 is comparable to XT in a lot of areas (quite weaker in other areas, but RSX has a 28% clock advantage over G70 and who knows what else, so that should more than even that up).

It seems to me that in most circumstances RSX and Xenos will be pretty much the same -- Xenos will probably have the advantage in a few circumstances (parallax occlusion mapping, if that ever actually gets used) unless RSX has some overhauls to certain parts of the G70 (which is possible, but doubtful). It's all a matter of how many changes RSX has gone through vs the G70.

I wouldn't say anyone is downplaying the power of the ATI cards, but I do think this brings a bit more realistic comparison than we've previously had (great find Azrael). Xenos and R520 are similar class GPUs with slightly different targets (resolution, systems, etc).

actually Xenos and R520 are not comparable.

1) Lack of eDRam in R520
2) Lack of Memexport in R520
3) Closed Box design as you said
4) Unified Architecture
5) 48 ALU design

if until now you still think Xenos and R520 share the same class GPU's . I wonder where you have been for so long. ATI itself says Xenos was started to be developed by a seperate team for 2 years while R520 was developed after X850 (6-11 months ago)

 

[j^aws]

actually you are the one making a fool of yourself. either provide facts and figures with qoutes of what you say is true or stop spreading false information purposely. I have reported you for false statements.

I've provided them. You're ignoring them.

To mods,

Can you check if this is the previously banned 'onetimeposter'? Thanks...

 

[pakpassion]

I've provided them. You're ignoring them.

To mods,

Can you check if this is the previously banned 'onetimeposter'? Thanks...

ok then provide your so called proof that Xenos is not 2x or 3x more powerful than R520 or where you said quiet well means not so well as you so well assume. you have provided nothing but your own theories and false information trolling every Xenos thread as in the recent paste countering everything DaveBaumann or Jawed said . I havent seen a shred of proof of your arguments.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

> "And TWO people from ATI"

...and most likely will have 48 pixel shaders (two per pipeline), and 8 vertex shaders.

Don't mind me, I'm just marking where this thread went from logical discussion to pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking...

 

[Edge]

> " everything off"

Everything off like what? Texture Filtering? Check the reviews, 7800 GTX at 430 Mhz wins most of the time, and most 7800 GTX cards get sold at 450 Mhz which most reviews did not take into account, and 7800 GTX wins by even more.

You even had in the graphics forum of this site people complaining about the X1800, saying how disappointed they were in it when the first benchmarks hit the web.

> "Don't mind me, I'm just marking where this thread went from logical discussion to pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking..."

Pie in the sky, like not even close? RSX is based on G70 which as 48 pixel shaders (2 per pipeline) and 8 vertex shaders. What wishful thinking?

 

[j^aws]

ok then provide your so called proof that Xenos is not 2x or 3x more powerful than R520 or where you said quiet well means not so well as you so well assume. you have provided nothing but your own theories and false information trolling every Xenos thread as in the recent paste countering everything DaveBaumann or Jawed said . I havent seen a shred of proof of your arguments.

I'll wait for mods to confirm whether you've been banned before aka 'onetimeposter'. Then I'll consider engaging in further discussions with you. Btw, it's not like Dave or Jawed haven't been wrong before. And the banned 'onetimeposter' used this argument too...

 

[pakpassion]

> " everything off"

Everything off like what? Texture Filtering? Check the reviews, 7800 GTX at 430 Mhz wins most of the time, and most 7800 GTX cards get sold at 450 Mhz which most reviews did not take into account, and 7800 GTX wins by even more.

You even had in the graphics forum of this site people complaining about the X1800, saying how disappointed they were in it when the first benchmarks hit the web.

> "Don't mind me, I'm just marking where this thread went from logical discussion to pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking..."

Pie in the sky, like not even close? RSX is based on G70 which as 48 pixel shaders (2 per pipeline) and 8 vertex shaders. What wishful thinking?

1) its wishfull lthinking that RSX will have 48 Pixel pipelines

2) Provide links to these reviews and gaming benchmark results between 7800 GTX and X1800 XT

 

[onanie]

actually the way you desperetly want to discredit xenos by assuming its not that good by HOW people use thier grammar to describe is pretty desperate in my opinion. The point of the algorithm is to run fro changing it from a non unified architecture to a unified architecture. simple as that. You are contradicting yourself with the Luna demo, first you are suggesting Xenos wont run so well compared to its completely different architecture and that you assume is because its not that fast and then you say Luna wont run as efficiently because both ATI and Nvidia architectures are different. This is nothing but making a fool of yourself. The facts are infact given that Xenos might as well be more powerful than X1800 XT. and its high time people accept it if the ATI people themselves say it.

Jaws didn't have to scrutinise ATI's grammar. It is the content that is in question, and Jaws highlighted it quite reasonably. ATI deliberately left it ambiguous, by suggesting that their hardware could run it "quite well", even though they haven't tested this yet. "quite well" is a rather subjective notion, but it seems to have struck one of your chords though.

 

[pakpassion]

Jaws didn't have to scrutinise ATI's grammar. It is the content that is in question, and Jaws highlighted it quite reasonably. ATI deliberately left it ambiguous, by suggesting that their hardware could run it "quite well", even though they haven't tested this yet. "quite well" is a rather subjective notion, but it seems to have struck one of your chords though.

why dont you mail Michael Dogett as to what Quite well means?

on a side note, they havent coded toy shop on Xenos so they dont know how well it performs. quite well means they are confident it will run as well as the X1800 XT