Shifty Geezer said:
Off topic discussions!!!! and random fights!....its like a pub in here...no alcohol...but lots and lots of drunks!
*Sigh* The Inquirer Strikes Again: RSX "Slightly Less Powerful" than 7800
- Thread starter Alpha_Spartan
- Start date
Off topic discussions!!!! and random fights!....its like a pub in here...no alcohol...but lots and lots of drunks!
soildsnake
Newcomer
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9132/PlayStation-3-GPU-More-Powerful-than-GeForce-7800/
*Sigh*~ Inquirer Again
*Sigh*~ Inquirer Again
They've probably been sniffing glue. Only explanation.BlueTsunami said:
london-boy said:Uhm Maybe cause they're ports of PC games to the Xbox?
Riddick isn't, that was xbox to PC. Im pretty sure SC:CT was developed concurrently for both systems aswell.
Halo, Splintercell 1, Rallysport Challenge and Yager are good examples of Xbox --> PC ports. Fable should be a good measure aswell.
LOL, so let's recap.
A site publishes (incorrect) new item. Inq jumps on the bandwagon and publishes news story WITHOUT giving credit to where they got it from (they added it, later). Then, when the story they've originally stole/claimed as their own doesn't bear out, they do "Hey, what do you want, it's someone else's fault". If everyone ever need more proof that Inq is the blight upon the internet, here you go.
A site publishes (incorrect) new item. Inq jumps on the bandwagon and publishes news story WITHOUT giving credit to where they got it from (they added it, later). Then, when the story they've originally stole/claimed as their own doesn't bear out, they do "Hey, what do you want, it's someone else's fault". If everyone ever need more proof that Inq is the blight upon the internet, here you go.
Last edited by a moderator:
Geeforcer said:
Yep. Tabloid site (as Shifty state). Thats all that needs to be said about it....when your source is a forum poster, you know the site has some reliable information...but this isn't new..I mean...its the Inquirer...no standards at all.
mckmas8808
Legend
BlueTsunami said:
I'm not going to lie man. This kind of pisses me off. They have a new story on there stating that the PS3 will be able to play Unreal Tournament 2007 with a keyboard and mouse!!!
Now the problem is can/should I believe that? That's the problem when a site like that losing credability.
mckmas8808 said:I'm not going to lie man. This kind of pisses me off. They have a new story on there stating that the PS3 will be able to play Unreal Tournament 2007 with a keyboard and mouse!!!
Now the problem is can/should I believe that? That's the problem when a site like that losing credability.
Mckmas what are you talking about 'losing' credibility? Are people here really not familiar with the Inquirer apart from the stories that get posted here? Believe me this RSX thing is not the first, and won't be the last either. Listen, once you get to know the Inquirer you know it's not their responsibility to filter the news they report, it's yours to do the filtering for yourself.
On their keyboard + mouse reporting, I'm 100% confident that that is indeed what Sony stated as their intention - but that doesn't mean it will get implemented in the end.
I read the Inquirer every day just to make sure I don't miss anything out there, but you just have to be ready to take it on yourself to toss half of what you read out when it *feels* suspect. Their console coverage is especially sporadic/useless, because it seems a new area entirely they only recently started focusing on, and most of their info on the subject comes from sites like this one here.
Tap In said:I don't know but I find it a great source for adding people to my Ignore list.
Am I on your ignore list
Just to keep my comment on topic...heh...Yeah..the Inquirer isn't to be believed...I guess its made so you look into the story yourself. I just don't like they...hey, its his fault..attitude...man up Inquirer!
fearsomepirate said:
That is nice.
Now go read the original statement by me. It is about GPU's within their respective architectures. Get a PC with 733MHz Celeron, 64MB of total memory, and then test the restults.
Anyhow, I am pretty sure you guys are not playing the same games I am with a TI 4200 (which has faster memory and faster core). The Ti 4200 has better fillrate and can support higher resolutions, but when it comes to framerate and graphics features the Xbox tends to shine against contemperous systems. Looking at a non-contemperous setup is kind of misleading; e.g. Doom 3. Doom 3 uses the CPU for a bit of the shadow work, so running on a 3GHz machine is not going to represent a 1.2GHz machine of the Xbox1's time. That said, a 3GHz P4 with 512MB DDR400 and a 128MB Ti 4200 is only able to output 38fps in Doom 3 @ 640x480. That is a fast modern machine--so the machine is no bottleneck--and a GPU with more memory than the entire Xbox system, and yet the results are pretty shocking. But that is only one example. While The Ti 4200 is being forgotten in the PC space (e.g. BF2 does not support it) the Xbox is getting games that look pretty nice like this:
Far Cry Instincts: GT Combat Gameplay HD
http://www.gametrailers.com/search.php
The poiint was that the PS3 will push games much further with the RSX than current PCs will with G70.
Not only is it closed boxed and devs can program to the metal, the overall system compares much more favorably to modern PCs than the PS2/Xbox1 did in their time. For example, the Ti 4200 had a 128MB variant, whereas the Xbox1 had a total of 64MB of memory. This time around the consoles are getting 512MB of memory which is double your typical high end GPU and is equivalent to the total system memory of a typical mainstream game machine.
No one said that it cannot make games look better. Technologically it is ahead.
Yet you have missed the point that a technologically inferior part is able to keep pace with a technologically more advance part. The Ti 4200 has more memory, faster memory, and a faster chip. Yet toss it into a Celeron 733MHz and we get... ? We know this much: Doom 3 on the Xbox is gonna mop the floor in frame rate and quality compared to a Ti 4200 in a Celeron 733MHz.
Acert93 said:
The system isn't a bottleneck but nor is it adding anything to the framrate because the game is completely bottlenecked by the GPU. Knock that system down to an AthlonXP 1500+ and DDR233 and you probably wouldn't lose more than 1 or 2 fps.
Thats true but it doesn't support the argument of which one (NV25 or NV2a) is producing superior graphics. It could be argued that BF2 is beyond the xbox while the graphics of FCI are matched by the graphics of Farcry on the PC runnig on a GF4Ti.
Im pretty sure that when the Xbox launched, the most vid mem you could get on a card at the time was 64MB. 128MB versions were released later. By the time X360 arrives we will probably have 512MB GPU's so in that departement they are failry equal (although to be fair they are still some months ahead as there will be a longer gap until 1GB cards are released).
As mentioned above, this will probably be equal to high end GPU's by the time X360 launches (R520/G70Ultra) and I would argue that the your average new build gaming PC these days should come with 1GB of system memory while real high end systems should be starting to impliment 2GB (BF2 and FEAR can both benefit from the extra memory).
However, again, the PC's are behind by a few months as while they have 4x as much system memory as the X360, it will be a fairly new thing at the high end while 4x when the xbox was launched was fairly common in gaming PC's.
True but when you bring the rest of the system into it your no longer comparing just the GPU's which was how this comparison started. PC's need to run an OS in the background and so will obviously need more CPU power and memory. Its debatable how much more but I would estimate a 1.2Ghz Athlon + 256MB system RAM would even things up. Obiovuly the way PC devs use memory is no where near as efficient as console devs though since 256MB is not enough for many modern games. Thats one area where PC devs get very lazy simply because they can rely on most machines having so much RAM.
c0_re said:
By the time the PS3 is launched and there are at least a couple of faster parts available on the PC, the GTX will have come down a lot in price.
That price differential is what brings in reality with these consoles. Maybe we shouldn't be asking how gloriously "powerful" they are, but instead just where did they cut corners on the overall machine to get it down to the $400 they seem to be planned to cost..... Though obviously they are taking ~$100 losses, and these are in the unique console-world position of being stunningly mass-produced which gets MS/Sony/N some serious discounts.
In 12 months a 7800GTX will still cost at least $300 I'd imagine.
In 12 months a 7800GTX will still cost at least $300 I'd imagine.
pjbliverpool said:
Not true.
1. Doom 3 is highly dependant on CPU performance--like I said, the shadowing techniques are offloaded to the CPU.
2. Doom 3 CPU benchmarks clearly show Doom 3 is CPU limited at low resolutions. An FX-53 can church out 103.4 FPS while an XP 2000+ can only churn out 46fps.
And in our context we are talking about bringing that all the way down to a PIII 733MHz w/ 64MB of total memory. So in that context the Xbox Doom 3 game is achieving *significantly* more than the same PC hardware.
BF2 uses PS1.4. The GF4 only supports PS1.3. So it is an issue of featureset.
But that is the point--on a closed box this can be worked around, and indeed, *is* quite frequently. One look no further than the "normal mapping" hack on the PS2. The features and abilities of a closed box platform are far extended beyond that of the PC featureset. Why? It is a closed box, exploted, and exposed.
And this does not even begin to engage early gen games that console games frequently use all the features on a platform while the PC counterparts are still supporting legacy APIs and hardware. That is just another way that console hardware is used in a way that PCs dont have an advantage.
As for Far Cry Instincts, you would really argue that?
Wrong again.
The GeForce 3, which launched in March 2001 and had a Fall 2001 refresh (Fall 2001 is when the Xbox1 shipped), had 128MB variants. You are talking a street price of below $160 for 128MB GF3 cards.
So not only was 64MB not the most, 128MB cards were affordable.
It is not equal.
1. Mainstream priced GPUs in the Xbox1 era (which is relevant in relation to market penetration and dev support) were getting 2x the memory of the *entire* Xbox1 system.
2. We are seeing the reverse now: Xbox 360/PS3 have 2x the amount of RAM of *high end* (e.g. 7800GTX) GPUs and 4x the ram of a *mid range* GPU (e.g. 6600GT with 128MB).
3. We wont be seeing 1GB cards anytime soon. We already got a taste of 512MB cards--which were insanely priced (seeing a 6800Ultra with 512MB for $1,000) and they offer almost no benefit at this time. This is partly related to the games, but also significantly related to A) GPUs are doing more shader work and the need for masses of textures has been alieviated some and B) memory bandwidth is frequently the limiting factor, in addition to the fact more bandwidth, and not more memory, results in a better performance boost. The speed/space tradeoff thresh hold has hit some boundaries on the PC (yet we see on the console side solutions like eDRAM that alleviate massive bandwidth loads).
Overall your view of the market is incorrect IMO. I am not sure how this is equal:
Xbox 1 w/ 64MB memory & 2001:
• $160 GPU with 128MB memory
Xbox 360 w/ 512MB memory & 2005:
• $160 GPUs with 128MB memory
• $300 GPUs with 256MB memory (the $300 class is where you see the memory being beneficial)
• $500-$1000 GPUs w/ 512MB memory (and totally worthless due to PC game design and bandwidth limitations)
Further, the Xbox1 had a mere 6.4GB/s of bandwidth for the total system. The Ti4200 had 7.1GB/s alone.
Fast forward: The 6600GT has 16GB/s of bandwidth. The 7800 GTX has 32-35GB/s (depending on model). The PS3 has 48GB/s and the Xbox 360 has 22GB/s + 256GB/s for back buffer processing (with a 32GB/s link between the logic for stencil, Z, alpha, AA to the core shader logic).
Whereas in 2001 the Xbox1 had less total bandwidth than a GPU alone, in 2005 we are seeing consoles with MORE bandwidth/effeciency than the top end GPUs.
I am not seeing anything equal about More Memory + More Bandwidth.
Checking the Valve stats 512MB seems to be more common than not for system memory.
As for BF2, they are [very very very ineffeciently] memory swapping, using the system memory as a cache. In the realm of consoles:
1. The Xbox 360/PS3 have 512MB of memory completely accessible by the GPU. PCs are looking at swapping data from the system memory to the GPU. A 128MB or 256MB GPU is not enough to hold 350-450MB of graphics data. A console with 512MB of memory is not going to need to do all this swapping.
2. Different designs. Comparing a PC game--which is very ineffecient with memory--to a console is not fair. If you don't know why please start a new thread on this and some developers can give you some lengthy replies
3. Different philosphies. A PC game is going to be designed with the PC in mind. On the consoles there is a lot of dynamic streaming. Comparing the bottlenecks on a PC game is not really a 1-to-1 relevant comparison to the console space.
Actually this line of questioning was initially based on quoting MY statements (which LB responded to back and forth to you). The point I made, and L-B restated, was that RSX is going to be utilized better and produce better looking games than G70.
Why?
1. Closed platforms are more effecient and streamlined.
2. Devs will design to the strengths of the specific hardware instead of designing to the lowest common denominator through an API. This means hardware specific features--that are IGNORED on the PC--will get exposed
3. Developers can leverage the advantages of the entire platform--CELL, XDR, etc--and produce effects that G70 in its contemporary setting wont ever see.
4. RSX and Xenos are top of the line GPUs with more memory than their contemporary GPUs and have more memory bandwidth. This was not the case with NV2a, yet it can be argued persuasively with facts that the Xbox1 put its hardware to better use than the competing hard from 2001.
Funny thing is, the Ti 4200 shipped in April of 2002. A GF3 Ti 200 with 64MB (6.4GB/s!) memory is a MUCH more even comparison as that shipped in Fall of 2001.
That kind of puts things into perspective. Comparing a GPU that was commercially avialable 6 months AFTER the Xbox1 launched is odd in many ways. And even then the Xbox1 holds it own with less memory, slower memory, a slower CPU, and less GPU clock speed.
Comparing the results from a P4 3GHz w/ 1GB of memory or a 2000+ AMD with 512MB of memory with a GPU released later with better specs than what was on the market at the time sounds pretty unbalanced.
Really, the simplest way to look at it is: The Xbox 1 got a lot more out of a PIII 733MHz & NV2a with 64MB of memory compared to a PIII 733MHz & Ti4200 with 64MB video memory and 128MB of system memory (to be generous).
And as pointed out the situation with memory size, speed, and CPU performance has changed this gen. Consoles are not taking a back seat this time around.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 86764
- Games