So In Terms of Polygon Performance The X800 Beats Xenos

[Alpha_Spartan]

ATi's spec sheets say the X800 pumps out 700 million vertices per second. If 1 vertex = 1 polygon then that's 700 polygons per second. Since the Xenos can only do 500 million polygons per second, that's 500 million vertices per second. So the Xenos is weaker than an X800 in polygon performance.

 

[jvd]

ATi's spec sheets say the X800 pumps out 700 million vertices per second. If 1 vertex = 1 polygon then that's 700 polygons per second. Since the Xenos can only do 500 million polygons per second, that's 500 million vertices per second. So the Xenos is weaker than an X800 in polygon performance.

Whats the sutained polygon performance ?

What is the sustained polygon performance with simple shaders ?

With complex shaders ?


Come back when u answer those

 

[nAo]

I think ATI is saying X800 can transform 700 mtriangles/s per second, while Xenos can setup 500 mtriangles per second.
If this is the case this comparison doesn't make any sense.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Whats the sutained polygon performance ?

What is the sustained polygon performance with simple shaders ?

With complex shaders ?


Come back when u answer those

I don't have to answer those. Since 1 vertex = 1 polygon all those questions are accounted for. 700 million vertices per second is 700 million polygons per second.

 

[dukmahsik]

ATi's spec sheets say the X800 pumps out 700 million vertices per second. If 1 vertex = 1 polygon then that's 700 polygons per second. Since the Xenos can only do 500 million polygons per second, that's 500 million vertices per second. So the Xenos is weaker than an X800 in polygon performance.

I doubt this highly, 500 million polys for xenos is real world performance using non trivial shaders. there is a reason setup is limited to 500 million, to have a higher image quality! 500 is PLENTY.

 

[a688]

I don't have to answer those. Since 1 vertex = 1 polygon all those questions are accounted for. 700 million vertices per second is 700 million polygons per second.

Yes you do, don't be stupid.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

I think ATI is saying X800 can transform 700 mtriangles/s per second, while Xenos can setup 500 mtriangles per second.
If this is the case this comparison doesn't make any sense.

Enter more confusion. How many polys can the Xenos transform?

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Seriously, I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just wondering if Xenos 500 million polygons is eqivalent to the X800's 700 million vertices. If not, why not? I'm basing this question on the fact that 1 polygon = 1 vertex.

 

[nAo]

Enter more confusion. How many polys can the Xenos transform?

Much more than x800 (I'm talking about bilions of triangles per second) ,but it will be setup limited anyway, so who cares?

 

[scatteh316]

There is really no need to go into polygon numbers at this day and age, As most of the up and coming games take normal mapping to the extreme.I bet a next gen GPU with only 12 million polygons ( Actual numer from a typical game say ) could be normal mapped though out the entire of its next gen life span and its polygon limmit would never be hit.

 

[Paul_G]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=534793&postcount=88

This post may go some way towards answering your question. I may be wrong about this (I usually am), but the maximum setup limit of Xenos is 500 million triangles per second, but the actual performance, based on the numbers as presented in the above link suggest that the like for like figure with X800 is not 500 million but 6 billion.

I'm sure that the triangle setup limit is suitably lower on x800 to make a comparison with xenos similar to 700 million against 6 billion.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Okay, so if I got this right, does that mean that the X800's 700 million vertices per second is more comparable to G70's 800 million vertices per second and not Xenos' 500 million polygons per second?

 

[ERP]

Seriously, I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just wondering if Xenos 500 million polygons is eqivalent to the X800's 700 million vertices. If not, why not? I'm basing this question on the fact that 1 polygon = 1 vertex.

The problem is there is more to it than that.

I don't know what ATI are quoting with the 700 million figure, it could be transform rate or it could be setup rate, so they may or maynot be directly comparable.

If all of it's ALU's are used for vertices Xenos could transform 6billion+ verts/second, but it's setup limited to 500 million polygons.

In a real application it is unlikely that either part will be limited by the setup rate, you would have to have extremely simple tri's in your scene to make that happen, and for better or worse I don't see nextgen graphics going that way.

 

[pc999]

Probably it would much more easy to compare if we can say 500M with X instructions per pixel, with both GPUs.

 

[ralexand]

Very interesting discussion guys. I'm learning alot about how the xenos work.

So what is the instruction per vertex number for the RSX.

 

[pso]

Very interesting discussion guys. I'm learning alot about how the xenos work.

So what is the instruction per vertex number for the RSX.

1.1 billion verts/sec. I think it's the theoretical limit like the Xenos' 6 billion verts/sec.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

1.1 billion verts/sec. I think it's the theoretical limit like the Xenos' 6 billion verts/sec.

And I want to emphasize the fact that the 1.1 billion figure comes from the guesstimate that the RSX is 25% faster than the G70.

 

[AlNom]

kinda funny how MS hasn't marketed 6 Billion Vert/sec.

 

[Almasy]

pso, you´re wrong, RSX can SET UP 1.1 billion polygons per second, more than the double of Xenos´s theoretical limit. G70 can setup 2 polygons per cicle, and at 550MHz, that´s 1.1 billion.

 

[jvd]

If you can not answer my questions then there is no reason to go further . Polygon performance is not the be all end all. What if using trival shaders the x800 performance drops to 100m polygons while the xenos stays at 500m polygons ? How about if on complex shaders the xenos gets 200m polygons when the x800 can only acomplish 50m ?

These are the questions you need to naswer so that we can actualy compare the performace because quite frankly no one here should care about non textures polygons with no shaders placed on them or advanced effects. . Its like taking the ps2's 66m polygons non shaded and non filtered and using it as its something actually atainable when comparing it to other tech