*Sigh* The Inquirer Strikes Again: RSX "Slightly Less Powerful" than 7800
- Thread starter Alpha_Spartan
- Start date
Sony PS3 (RSX) 24 Pixels per clock on 90nm
Hi
To me it looks about right.
Nvidia's GeForce 6800 Ultra 16 Pixels per clock (130nm) 512 MB $599. us
Fill Rate: 6.4 (billion pixels/sec.) @400MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 33.6 GB/sec (256-bit)
http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_6800.html
Nvidia's GeForce 7800 GTX 24 Pixels per clock (110nm) 256 MB $549. us G70
Fill Rate: 10.32 (billion pixels/sec.) @430MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 38.4 GB/sec (256-bit)
http://www.nvidia.com/page/specs_gf7800.html
Nvidia's GeForce 7800 Ultra 24 Pixels per clock (90nm) 512 MB $699. us G75
Fill Rate: 12.0 (billion pixels/sec.) @500MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 44.8 GB/sec (256-bit)
?
Sony PS3 (RSX) 24 Pixels per clock (90nm) $? . us NV-50
Nvidia's RSX Fill Rate: 13.2 (billion pixels/sec.) @550MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 22.4 GB/sec (256-bit)
http://www.us.playstation.com/Pressreleases.aspx?id=279
Nvidia's GeForce 8800 Ultra 32 Pixels per clock (90nm) 512 MB $799. us G80
Fill Rate: 17.6 (billion pixels/sec.) @550MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/sec (256-bit)
?
I think this looks close to the spec?
Hi
To me it looks about right.
Nvidia's GeForce 6800 Ultra 16 Pixels per clock (130nm) 512 MB $599. us
Fill Rate: 6.4 (billion pixels/sec.) @400MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 33.6 GB/sec (256-bit)
http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_6800.html
Nvidia's GeForce 7800 GTX 24 Pixels per clock (110nm) 256 MB $549. us G70
Fill Rate: 10.32 (billion pixels/sec.) @430MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 38.4 GB/sec (256-bit)
http://www.nvidia.com/page/specs_gf7800.html
Nvidia's GeForce 7800 Ultra 24 Pixels per clock (90nm) 512 MB $699. us G75
Fill Rate: 12.0 (billion pixels/sec.) @500MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 44.8 GB/sec (256-bit)
?
Sony PS3 (RSX) 24 Pixels per clock (90nm) $? . us NV-50
Nvidia's RSX Fill Rate: 13.2 (billion pixels/sec.) @550MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 22.4 GB/sec (256-bit)
http://www.us.playstation.com/Pressreleases.aspx?id=279
Nvidia's GeForce 8800 Ultra 32 Pixels per clock (90nm) 512 MB $799. us G80
Fill Rate: 17.6 (billion pixels/sec.) @550MHz
Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/sec (256-bit)
?
I think this looks close to the spec?
Last edited by a moderator:
aaronspink
Veteran
ToxicTaZ said:
I think that is actually wrong... Pretty sure the 7800 can only do 6.88 GigaPixels per second, after all, it only has 16 ROPs. Hmm, class action time
Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.
While studying Discrete Maths at university our lecturer regailed us with amusing (or at least, he thought so) anecdotes of how he and the 'legal department' would sit around trying to construct non-ambiguous English sentences. English isn't rigidily structured+defined. If you want to dissect sentences and put words under a microscope you can find all sorts of different meanings. This is what most country's legal systems are based on - lawyers trying to interpret the written laws in different ways. To comical effect here the UK recently there was some legal dispute where the Judges were getting upset that Parliament, who decides what laws there need be and constructs the wording of those laws, were telling the Law system how those laws are to be interpretted.Azrael said:
It's quite likely nVidia chose the words 'Powerful' and 'Fast' because it reads better. When writing it's good to mix up different words with the same meaning to avoid repetition. Sure you can debate this statement and all it's inherent ambiguities 'til the cows come home but that won't provide any definitive answers. Me, I'll just wait and see what's in the box.
But but but I read on PSi that it would have 32pipes and be overclocked to 700MhzAcert93 said:It ain't mo powaful than teh 32 pipe 7800 Ultra
It was PSM that actually wrote it. And yes, obviously when writing you try to use as many synonyms as possible, how bland would pieces be otherwise?
Nvidia up in arms at Playstation 3 SNAFU
http://theinquirer.net/?article=25862
http://theinquirer.net/?article=25862
The UK media industry (much like every other I guess) seems divided into intelligent sites and tabloids. CnVG has the flippant approach to news stories, adding in as much reference to poo, toilets and pubs as they can in any article and claiming they understnad so little of tech they don't even know a megabyte is, but once or twice they actually covered a tech story with a little more maturity. The Inquirer models itself on a tabloid approach to attracting readers.
one said:
Hiding behind their sources is very cowardice. They should take responisblity in the fact that many eyes look upon them for rumors and their very influential. Man up Inquirer...even I...a random internet forum poster would still had suspicions about that post in that particular thread.
Funny article though, "The Internet Imploded!"
london-boy said:
Lol, Doom 3, HL2, Farcry, UT2K4, Unreal 2,
All those games and pretty much every other PC game runs perfectly fine on a GF4Ti powered PC at xbox resolution with only minor details reduced (or in some cases none).
And pretty much every game thast on both systems runs better on the GF4Ti powered PC. If DOA3, PDO or Otogi were ported to PC they would be no different.
xbdestroya said:
They seem made up to be gloating over that price so much. Funny, I don't see them mention anywhere how they have to wait nearly a year to get their hands on it while PC gamers are using it now, and how by the time it comes to the PS3, it will be almost last gen PC hardware.
Funny that.
pjbliverpool said:
No. Doom3 or HL2 or FarCry at GF4 level of detail would NOT look like the best looking games on Xbox. But if thinking that makes you feel better, go for it.
If DOA3 or Otogi were to be coded for PC, they would have much higher system requirments.
Obviously, if they were coded for a single PC (meaning for one configuration of PC that's always the same) which has a GF4, it would run the same or marginally better than on Xbox. That's not the point here. The point is that closed platforms will always allow developers to extract performance more than on PCs simple because they don't have to worry about trying to run the game on 8902 million different configurations of PC. It's really a simple idea to grasp.
pjbliverpool said:
... poor fanboism.
Here's a hilarious quote by the developer of KUF2 about the new game:
IGN: Why have you concentrated on the Xbox platform exclusively?
DL: Because of the scale of the battle, and the number of units we want to support. With the Xbox, we were able to bring that scale of war by bringing 200 units on any one screen and 3000 units on the battlefield. I think only Xbox could help us realize our original concept, and I think it helped us do it pretty well.
... XBOX /CPU 733Mhz/ + XGPU 233MHz /SM 1.x/ + 64 MB UMA
.
.
From IGN about Ikusa Gami which means "War of Gods":
Genki seems to be taking a shot at the madness of the battles in KOEI's Dynasty Warriors franchise, but on an unprecedented scale. The game promises to feature battle scenes with up to 65,535 units. This figure includes both allies and enemies, with both sides sending out massive armies for a fight to the end. Units can be seen far into the distance, and pack the screen so tightly that it's tough to see the ground below.
... PS2 /CPU 295+2xVU 295Mhz/ + GS 148Mhz /SM .. non est/ + 32/4 MB eDRAM
.
.
?????? /nothing to compare with/
... PC /CPU at 750Mhz/ + GF4 32MB + 32 MB syst.ram
No need to call out ******ism and stuff.
The main point here is not that NV2A is more powerful than a NV25, or that RSX is that much more powerful than a G70. They're both quite similar to their PC counterparts in fact.
The point is that a NV25 (or a G70) used in a closed platform will let the developers reach their theoretical performance much more easily than on PC if only because they will have 5 years to get to grips with the in and out's of the architecture, whereas every 8 months or so they have a new architecture on PC to code to and try to "scale" to. Building an engine from the groud up for a single PC architecture would be financial disaster and hasn't been done since the days of 3Dfx.
The main point here is not that NV2A is more powerful than a NV25, or that RSX is that much more powerful than a G70. They're both quite similar to their PC counterparts in fact.
The point is that a NV25 (or a G70) used in a closed platform will let the developers reach their theoretical performance much more easily than on PC if only because they will have 5 years to get to grips with the in and out's of the architecture, whereas every 8 months or so they have a new architecture on PC to code to and try to "scale" to. Building an engine from the groud up for a single PC architecture would be financial disaster and hasn't been done since the days of 3Dfx.
blakjedi said:
... try to ask HIM /M.A.Rein from EPIC/
On PS3 UE3: "It took less than a week to get the engine up and running, without rendering, with just wireframe rendering - out at Sony's office. The first couple of days the guys were just playing - we had no idea they would come home with a working engine. That surprised us because you know it has a new processor and all. And then once we got the kit it took a couple days to get it rendering, and maybe another week or two to make it fast and efficient and learn our way around it."
On PS3 dev kit: "Any time we created any content it looked exactly the same on PC as it did on PS3. The only thing was, even though we had these *expletive deleted*-kicking Nvidia 6800 Ultra SLI systems, when we got the actual RSX card, even though it's not running anywhere near full speed, it was more than twice as fast as our SLI setup."
london-boy said:
Considering Doom 3 looks identical on a GF4Ti to a 7800GTX version at the same settings, and considering medium setiing has 90% the visual fidelity of high or ultra high on the PC, then yes it does look better than any xbox game. HL2, also looks better on a GFTi than any xbox game and can probably handle 1024x768 at full DX8 details.
Games like Max Payne 2, UT2K4, Mafia and Unreal 2 will run at max detail on a GF4Ti at much higher res than 480p.
In CPU and memory yes, because those two elements are not comparable in PC's and consoles. However in GPU, most certainly not, just like every other xbox to PC port.
Marginally better? The Ti can have over double the effective memory bandiwdth for a start without even getting into the massive clock speed differences or many efficiency enhancements that nvidia made to the architecture.
Aside from your silly exageration, I agree. And the fact that the GF4Ti clearly outperforms the xbox under real world situations means that it must be either significantly more powerful than the nv2a, or the fixed system advantage must be much smaller than most people make out.
Seriously, look at the performance of any number of xbox to PC ports on a GF4Ti at 480p and tell me its performing worse than the xbox.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 86764
- Games