*Sigh* The Inquirer Strikes Again: RSX "Slightly Less Powerful" than 7800
- Thread starter Alpha_Spartan
- Start date
Azrael said:
I think you'll find people are sceptical simply because of everything that has been said by both NVidia, Sony and developers about RSX since E3. It is very reasonable to be sceptical. Why engage in pointless speculation to the contrary now? The most obvious way this would be true is if Sony cut the spec, but since there's no indication of that for now, any speculation along these lines, for now, is pointless.
I think it's much easier to be sceptical of this than to eagerly accept it as truth as others would appear to want to do. Ahem.
BlueTsunami said:I never understood the "my console is more powerful than your console" type of arguments...funny seeing Playstation fans (Which i'm one also) trying to stick it to Xbox fans saying the PS3 will be technologically better than the 360...also seeing the same said Xbox fans saying its all about the games. Its good to know whats inside....but what else can be said?...where yet to see the PS3 and 360 at its full potential...and reaching the full potential of a console is up to the Developers....so its pretty much pointless..
As far as this Inquirer thing....we can all see where they get their sources from....but they have the fricken devils luck!
Which is why a cringed when someone brought the Xenos into this thread. This isn't about the Xenos, it's about the RSX. To bring the Xenos in is attempted damage control, nothing more.
aldo said:
Wha whaa whaaat?
This is an odd about face by nVidia. They are on record as stating the RSX is faster--with the caviat that they would have faster GPU's on the market by the time the PS3 is available.
As for "slightly less powerful" all one can do is shrug. That is what one would expect nVidia to say, yet their slides from E3 clearly indicate that the RSX is more powerful than a 24 fragment pixel pipeline 7800GTX--even clocked at 500MHz. A 550MHz RSX, from the chip stand point, is going to be better than a 500MHz G70. I am not sure anyone would argue against that. So chip-for-chip, RSX is better. That is Strike #1.
From a system standpoint, well, I would give a nod to a 350MHz RSX in the PS3 over a 450MHz G70 in a PC simply because a closed system is going to make better use of the hardware with software designed with it from the ground up (versus the broad spectrum of support on the PC and the DX API). I think customers with PS3's will see more out of the RSX from a graphical perspective than a PC owner every will with a G70 in their box. From a consumer experience perspective, I believe the PS3 with RSX will do things that the G70 in the PC never will be capable of with the same experience just because of the platform it is used in. One may not call this power, but I personally would define power as what the end consumer sees; and in that scenario the RSX in a streamlined closed box market will dance around G70 because it will be more effecient and programmers will get more banf for buck from that design. Strike #2.
On the other hand G70 has, in real world scenarios, more memory bandwidth. Devs will optimize and work around this as much as possible, but there is no getting around the fact G70 has a ton of bandwidth to do MSAA or HDR (but not both, which is in a way good because MSAA+HDR would be very poor in performance). And the nVidia BS slides comparing G70 and Xenos and the "free AA" were a joke (as discussed before) because their focus was on CPU limited games--and yet even then picking out the new games like Doom 3, FarCry, and HL2 clearly showed significiant hits to performance.
Bandwidth is an issue on G70 with high levels of AA and AF, so I would expect this to be more pronounced on RSX. Not a ton mind you, but 1080p with high levels of AA (as NV was trying to suggest in some PR slides) is not very realistic.
So maybe NV was trying to spin this angle?
Another angle could be th 7800 Ultra. Still a 7800-series card, a 32 pixel fragment pipe part at 450-500MHz would be more powerful than RSX. Even more, it would be "slightly" more powerful, as NV is supposedly claiming.
So if nVidia is comparing a 7800 Ultra to the RSX then their claim may be true.
But is this not all irrelevant? Obviously NV does not want to give the impression that the new consoles are better, technically, than the PC--that is bad for business in many ways! Yet they already did... So why is everyone surprised that nVidia is backpeddling?
Anyhow, it is a moot point. RSX is going to run circles around G70 because the RSX is in a closed, effecient platform with specialized, streamlined, and optimized software is developed specifically with its strengths in mind. GPUs are very frequently about BRUTE POWER in the PC space. They are an open standard with ineffecient APIs and diverse hardware. The markets are almost impossible to compare--and for that reason comparing the two chips is almost pointless. They work differently within the design philosophies in their respective platforms. Basically the same use, but completely different approaches.
And for that reason comparing the two as competitors is kind of pointless IMO.
As for "slightly less powerful" all one can do is shrug. That is what one would expect nVidia to say, yet their slides from E3 clearly indicate that the RSX is more powerful than a 24 fragment pixel pipeline 7800GTX--even clocked at 500MHz. A 550MHz RSX, from the chip stand point, is going to be better than a 500MHz G70. I am not sure anyone would argue against that. So chip-for-chip, RSX is better. That is Strike #1.
From a system standpoint, well, I would give a nod to a 350MHz RSX in the PS3 over a 450MHz G70 in a PC simply because a closed system is going to make better use of the hardware with software designed with it from the ground up (versus the broad spectrum of support on the PC and the DX API). I think customers with PS3's will see more out of the RSX from a graphical perspective than a PC owner every will with a G70 in their box. From a consumer experience perspective, I believe the PS3 with RSX will do things that the G70 in the PC never will be capable of with the same experience just because of the platform it is used in. One may not call this power, but I personally would define power as what the end consumer sees; and in that scenario the RSX in a streamlined closed box market will dance around G70 because it will be more effecient and programmers will get more banf for buck from that design. Strike #2.
On the other hand G70 has, in real world scenarios, more memory bandwidth. Devs will optimize and work around this as much as possible, but there is no getting around the fact G70 has a ton of bandwidth to do MSAA or HDR (but not both, which is in a way good because MSAA+HDR would be very poor in performance). And the nVidia BS slides comparing G70 and Xenos and the "free AA" were a joke (as discussed before) because their focus was on CPU limited games--and yet even then picking out the new games like Doom 3, FarCry, and HL2 clearly showed significiant hits to performance.
Bandwidth is an issue on G70 with high levels of AA and AF, so I would expect this to be more pronounced on RSX. Not a ton mind you, but 1080p with high levels of AA (as NV was trying to suggest in some PR slides) is not very realistic.
So maybe NV was trying to spin this angle?
Another angle could be th 7800 Ultra. Still a 7800-series card, a 32 pixel fragment pipe part at 450-500MHz would be more powerful than RSX. Even more, it would be "slightly" more powerful, as NV is supposedly claiming.
So if nVidia is comparing a 7800 Ultra to the RSX then their claim may be true.
But is this not all irrelevant? Obviously NV does not want to give the impression that the new consoles are better, technically, than the PC--that is bad for business in many ways! Yet they already did... So why is everyone surprised that nVidia is backpeddling?
Anyhow, it is a moot point. RSX is going to run circles around G70 because the RSX is in a closed, effecient platform with specialized, streamlined, and optimized software is developed specifically with its strengths in mind. GPUs are very frequently about BRUTE POWER in the PC space. They are an open standard with ineffecient APIs and diverse hardware. The markets are almost impossible to compare--and for that reason comparing the two chips is almost pointless. They work differently within the design philosophies in their respective platforms. Basically the same use, but completely different approaches.
And for that reason comparing the two as competitors is kind of pointless IMO.
What damage? AFAICS this 'news' is already confirmed as fake in the said source forum.Azrael said:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25838
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4958&page=5&pp=10Inq said:
Last edited by a moderator:
It was available, it's just that the market was different than it is today. Nvidia had next to no competition then, so their releases were not as timely. Launch prices were lower because, with no incentive to re-claim the speed crown, there was time to improve yeilds and ramp up production before release. Remember the Ti500 launched at $300 and the Ti4600 launched at $400. Compare that to the launch price of the 7800. The Xbox also launched at $300 with Microsoft losing $150 on each unit.one said:It's chronologically impossible...
Acert93 said:
Yep like the nv2a runs cirles around the NV25 today... oh wait....
The info on RSX being inferior to 7800 is fake, here is all the proof you'll need http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4958&page=7&pp=10
the same source of the original inquier article.
the same source of the original inquier article.
zidane1strife
Banned
As Vince's said, I too doubt TSMC can match SONY's 90nm process. If they're quiet about RSX it may be that it even butchers nvidia's next gpu, and sony agreed to let them slide their "pc gamers be confident in giving us your $600", after all final performance is what counts, and if it looks better it can all be chucked to "it's because of cell" which helps sony's image.
I wouldn't be surprised if sony boosts the specs, as they've done in the past, increasing clockspeed on both and also substantially increasing memory bandwith(especially if dev.s complain, which'd be the case if it's any real problem, I could see them doubling it.) with one of those new XDRs.
I wouldn't be surprised if sony boosts the specs, as they've done in the past, increasing clockspeed on both and also substantially increasing memory bandwith(especially if dev.s complain, which'd be the case if it's any real problem, I could see them doubling it.) with one of those new XDRs.
pjbliverpool said:
Show me one game running on a GF4 (NV25) that looks like DOA3 or PDO or Otogi or some of the best looking games on the Xbox running at the same speed. Hell even some of the best looking games even on PS2 and GC.
Answer: zero.
Why? Consoles are closed platforms whose performance can be extracted much more than PC GPUs for reasons which have been discussed on these pages hundreds of times.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 86764
- Games