Running the Toy Shop demo on the 360

[Edge]

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

Well I did say 48 pixel SHADERS (2 per pipeline) so I'm not sure where you are getting this 48 pipelines from?

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

Forget it, I got better things to do in my life than convince you. If you don't want to look it up yourself, then don't worry about it, and have a nice day. You could not even be bothered to answer my question, so I hardly going to make any extra effort for you.

 

[onanie]

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

I suspect even Michael Dogett wouldn't know what that means, since he hasn't tested the demo on their hardware.

 

[pakpassion]

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

Well I did say 48 pixel SHADERS (2 per pipeline) so I'm not sure where you are getting this 48 pipelines from?

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

Forget it, I got better things to do in my life than convince you. If you don't want to look it up yourself, then don't worry about it, and have a nice day.

well now ur backing away from links??? i hate it when people dont that . either provide the links or its easy to know x1800 xt performs better than 7800 at higher res with hdr, aa on

 

[pakpassion]

I suspect even Michael Dogett wouldn't know what that means, since he hasn't tested the demo on their hardware.

precisely, this is the reason he said quite well.

 

[Edge]

> "well now ur backing away from links??? i hate it when people dont that . either provide the links or its easy to know x1800 xt performs better than 7800 at higher res with hdr, aa on"

Nope, no links for you. If you think X1800 is better, so be it.

 

[onanie]

precisely, this is the reason he said quite well.

Oh, so you agree with me now, and the rest of the team here

 

[Lycan]

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 have noticed a general tendecy to "overestimate" the Xenos. Now, do not misunderstand my words for the last thing I hope for is engaging in a uselsess fight on my first day on the forums. ATI has done a great job by creating a flexible and powerful GPU, but it has not come up with the greatest invention since Slice Bread. There are other variables one needs to consider before forging his opinion, let alone the fact of making comparisons. How does Xenos perform practically ? Are the figures provided by ATI undeniably true ? What could be the disadvantages of such an architecture in practice ? Claims and allegations are good, but proofs are even greater. You mentionned that Xenos was 2 or 3 times more powerful than the R520...Just one mere question...Where did you get those numbers from ?

 

[pakpassion]

Oh, so you agree with me now, and the rest of the team here

yes i agree they havent run toyshop on xenos, but i dont agree when someone says quite well means its not running good enough to be more powerful than x1800xt

 

[onanie]

yes i agree they havent run toyshop on xenos, but i dont agree when someone says quite well means its not running good enough to be more powerful than x1800xt

Hope this is not too fast for you, but I would also tell you that "quite well" also does not mean it is running good enough to be more powerful than x1800xt.

The lesson here is, that the adjective "quite well" has limited meaning in the context that it was mentioned.

 

[pakpassion]

I have noticed a general tendecy to "overestimate" the Xenos. Now, do not misunderstand my words for the last thing I hope for is engaging in a uselsess fight on my first day on the forums. ATI has done a great job by creating a flexible and powerful GPU, but it has not come up with the greatest invention since Slice Bread. There are other variables one needs to consider before forging his opinion, let alone the fact of making comparisons. How does Xenos perform practically ? Are the figures provided by ATI undeniably true ? What could be the disadvantages of such an architecture in practice ? Claims and allegations are good, but proofs are even greater. You mentionned that Xenos was 2 or 3 times more powerful than the R520...Just one mere question...Where did you get those numbers from ?

well thats odd. i have seen a tendency of alot of people doubting xenos capabilities and that somehow RSX is completely different from G70 with so much functionality it will make PS3 games look better as times goes on, which in of itself absurd. I never mentioned Xenos is 2 or 3 times more powerful, i asked Jaws to provide information on qoutes, links and facts that its not contradicting an earlier post on this thread.

 

[pakpassion]

Hope this is not too fast for you, but I would also tell you that "quite well" also does not mean it is running good enough to be more powerful than x1800xt.

The lesson here is, that the adjective "quite well" has limited significance in the context that it was mentioned.

well didnt ATI themselves say Xenos has more shader power and that unified architecture makes it more efficient compared to R520? im assuming on that..

 

[onanie]

well didnt ATI themselves say Xenos has more shader power and that unified architecture makes it more efficient compared to R520? im assuming on that..

Sure boy Enough play.

 

[Lycan]

well thats odd. i have seen a tendency of alot of people doubting xenos capabilities and that somehow RSX is completely different from G70 with so much functionality it will make PS3 games look better as times goes on, which in of itself absurd. I never mentioned Xenos is 2 or 3 times more powerful, i asked Jaws to provide information on qoutes, links and facts that its not contradicting an earlier post on this thread.

No one is doubting Xenos capabilities on this forum...It is the inverse, if you ask me ! Members have been so enthusiastic about the possibilities granted by this agressive technologies that tens and tens of topics were created to grasp its potential. Though I have not contributed to the debates, I used to read the comments, analyses and arguments posted vis-a-vis the beast, and none has claimed its inferiority to any existing (Notice the word "existing") GPU. And by the way, even if the RSX borrowed heavily (or was simply based) from the G70 plateform, it does not necessarrily mean that Nvidia solution will be obsolete and put to shame. Even a slightly modified G70 backed with the Cell could hold its own against rivals...It is the magic of working in a closed...Anyway, there is no need to speculate 'cause the information on the RSX will most probably be made available in few weeks...At least I hope so

 

[Bobbler]

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)

Surely you can understand english well enough to know I meant comparable in performance -- those things you mentioned are insignificant to the user and mean nothing really to what I was refering too (performance, not architecturally). The overall performance of both GPUs are in the same class (with one being more 720p targetted and the other being more general), as those from ATI seem to be stating. Of course we'll be seeing more out of Xenos than X1800 simply because of it being a closed box, but it doesn't mean they aren't similar in performance capabilities (unless we are to believe those from ATI don't know what they are talking about, which I suppose is in the realm of possibility).

 

[pakpassion]

Surely you can understand english well enough to know I meant comparable in performance -- those things you mentioned are insignificant to the user and mean nothing really to what I was refering too (performance, not architecturally). The overall performance of both GPUs are in the same class (with one being more 720p targetted and the other being more general), as those from ATI seem to be stating. Of course we'll be seeing more out of Xenos than X1800 simply because of it being a closed box, but it doesn't mean they aren't similar in performance capabilities (unless we are to believe those from ATI don't know what they are talking about, which I suppose is in the realm of possibility).

well in terms of performance didnt ATI say Xenos has higher efficiency than R520, higher shader power and more ALU pipes to render physics and the like depending on the developer? I would assume if Unified Architecture is being touted as the next gen for PC by ATI, then the Unified architecture is more powerful than the X1800 XT?

 

[Bobbler]

well in terms of performance didnt ATI say Xenos has higher efficiency than R520, higher shader power and more ALU pipes to render physics and the like depending on the developer? I would assume if Unified Architecture is being touted as the next gen for PC by ATI, then the Unified architecture is more powerful than the X1800 XT?

Well, when some people from ATI say both chips are comparable (and looking at the numbers and such, this is what I am picking up) then I assume they take into account such things as the higher efficiency of Xenos. The higher efficiency should make up for the clock speed difference between xenos and R520 and the difference in transistor count used on raw logic.

I wouldn't put too much into physics being done on the GPU -- the CPU should be more than capable of doing the physics (considering in most games where you'd want physics, graphics would also be pushed, leaving little room for physics to be done on the GPU -- I say most, not all).

Unified shaders in itself doesn't inherently mean more powerful.

 

[Bill]

Xenos has more shaders

R520 has a 125 mhz clock advantage

+ Branch unit.

Also ATI claims 95% efficiency on R520, same as Xenos.

 

[scificube]

I think the ATI guy said that the X1800 XT would win at 1600x1200 because Xenos would be doing allot of double work and paying some penalties at the resolution due to more tiles being needed to be swapped in and out of the eDRAM.

Basically it's extra shading power gets consumed by working on triangles at tiles edges several times over.

At 640x480 the framebuffer can fit in the eDram so no tiling is needed thus no double work or bandwith penalties and thus the extra shading power is allowed to shine.

Makes sense to me anyway

 

[PC-Engine]

Also ATI claims 95% efficiency on R520, same as Xenos.

Doing AA?

 

[pakpassion]

Xenos has more shaders

R520 has a 125 mhz clock advantage

+ Branch unit.

Also ATI claims 95% efficiency on R520, same as Xenos.

*cough* ATI never claimed R520 has same efficiency has Xenos. they said the unified architecture provides the 95% efficiency for Xenos. so if you say thats true. why dont u provide a link?