The definitive console specs thread.

[StefanS]

That chart is based on the 700Mhz clock rate. 128bit memory width x 700Mhz (1400Mhz effective) = 22.4Gb/s.

It's been said on several sites that the final clock rate ended up at 650Mhz for the GDDR memory on the PS3. Which would be 128 x 650 x 2 = 20.8Gb/s.

you're right. didn't look to closely. too sleepy...

 

[mohibbur]

From Shifty's post here

EDIT: sorry Shifty.

hey that chart was a hoax..........it was debunked by joystiq...........inquirer released those specs which were later debunked

 

[Neeyik]

I've altered some aspects of the chart now, corrected values, added further notes, etc - I'd be grateful if people could spare a moment again to cast a critical eye over it all.

 

[Mintmaster]

XBox 360 uses 700MHz GDDR3, doesn't it?

With Sony launching 1 year later, why would they reduce the clock? Would it really make any noticeable difference in cost?

 

[Rangers]

hey that chart was a hoax..........it was debunked by joystiq...........inquirer released those specs which were later debunked

No it isn't a hoax. It came from Sony's own presentation. If it was debunked by Joystiq can you link me?
________
PinkPussyCat

 

[Tap In]

XBox 360 uses 700MHz GDDR3, doesn't it?

With Sony launching 1 year later, why would they reduce the clock? Would it really make any noticeable difference in cost?

it happened at the same time the RSX clock was reduced to 500mhz

also one of the reasons for the 650 clock theory is explained here...

The memory chips being "nearer" to the graphics core, as visible on the die shots that can be found on the web, will however not give any performance advantage, and while it may increase costs very slightly, it will help for spreading the memory's heat. It should finally be noted that while the GDDR3 chips people have found next to RSX are rated at 1400MHz effective (700MHz internally), they will apparently only run at 1300MHz effective. This has most likely been done in order to also be able to use chips rated at 1333MHz effective by Samsung and possibly other manufacturers, a step which Sony might have deemed necessary to meet its long-term production goals and lifetime cost reductions.

 

[Fafalada]

What I wanted the figures to show was the size of the actual registers and not values where units can combine registers for larger values

Actually I should clarify - what the two CPUs I mentioned do is in fact having 'larger' registers.

Ie. on PS3/360 you would write matrix*vector multiplication something like
(this is purely symbolic code, so don't complain about syntax or anything )

permute     [I]vec_xxxx[/I], vec
mul         result,[I]vec_xxxx[/I],mat01
permute     [I]vec_yyyy[/I], vec
madd        result,[I]vec_yyyy[/I],mat02
permute     [I]vec_zzzz[/I], vec
madd        result,[I]vec_zzzz[/I],mat03
permute     [I]vec_www[/I], vec
madd        [B]result[/B],[I]vec_www[/I],mat04

Where each operand is a vector register.

On DC/PSP it would look like

mulvecmat   [B]result[/B],vec, Mat

Where 'result' and 'vec' are vector registers, and Mat is a matrix register.
Moreover, subcomponents of matrix/vector registers can be directly accessed AS scalar/vector registers, where on new consoles, subcomponent access requires additional permute instructions to extract the values.

I admit, just writting it out as 128/512 bits on paper makes it look a bit funny(since people still want to connect bitness with computational power, and this has nothing to do with it) - but it does serve to show a point about tradeoff of efficiency for raw power. The latest console SIMDs are considerably more primitive, but they have 4x (or more) larger register pool, and obviously run at much higher clock speeds.

 

[archie4oz]

Actually I should clarify - what the two CPUs I mentioned do is in fact having 'larger' registers.

Ie. on PS3/360 you would write matrix*vector multiplication something like
(this is purely symbolic code, so don't complain about syntax or anything )

permute		vec_xxxx, vec
mul		result,vec_xxxx,mat01
permute		vec_yyyy, vec
madd		result,vec_yyyy,mat02
permute		vec_zzzz, vec
madd		result,vec_zzzz,mat03
permute		vec_www, vec
madd		result,vec_www,mat04

Where each operand is a vector register.

On DC/PSP it would look like

mulvecmat   result,vec, Mat

Where 'result' and 'vec' are vector registers, and Mat is a matrix register.

Not to rain on your parade but those aren't really physical registers, they're just virtual registers aliased to bunches if physical ones.

Moreover, subcomponents of matrix/vector registers can be directly accessed AS scalar/vector registers, where on new consoles, subcomponent access requires additional permute instructions to extract the values.

While I know that you and nAo are probably loathing SoA formatting, *most* of use who've been doing vector programming are pretty used to it (besides, permutes maybe overkill for subcomponent access depending on what you're going to do with the values). Also thanks your SoA suffering, you've got a vector unit that can reliably clock over 3GHz and still have die space for another half dozen...

What can I say, the Ken giveth and the Ken taketh...

 

[Supernatural]

Final specs for RSX and Xenos - please help me to found them

I'm searching the final specs for RSX and Xenos.

I've found those on the web so far, but I believe they are not accurate.

Can some of the experts here correct those numbers? Thx!


GPU Transistor Count
PS3 - RSX transistor count: 300.2 million transistors
Xbox 360 - Xenos transistor count: 337 million (232 million parent die+105 million EDRAM daughter die)

GPU clock
Xbox 360 - Xenos clocked at 500 Mhz
PS3 - RSX clocked at 500 MHz

GPU video memory
Xbox 360 - Xenos: 512 MB of 700 Mhz GDDR3 VRAM on a 128-bit bus
Xbox 360 - Xenos: 10 MB daughter Embedded DRAM as framebuffer (32GB/s bus, multiplied by 8 thanks to multisampling unpacking for an effective bandwidth of 256 MB/s, the internal eDRAM bandwidth)
PS3 - RSX: 256 MB GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 700 Mhz on a 128-bit bus
PS3 - RSX: 256 MB of Rambus XDR DRAM via Cell (with latency penalty)

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 275 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.1 Billion Vertices/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 0.825 Billion Vertices/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 13.2 Billion Texels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 11.0 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.4 Billion Texels/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 3.3 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 17.6 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 13.2 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 26.4 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 22.0 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - additional 20.0 GB/sec when reading from XDR memory (with latency penalty)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

 

[infinity4]

can somebody tell me where PS3's main memory (XDR) will be used for please???

 

[JfK]

I'm searching the final specs for RSX and Xenos.

I've found those on the web so far, but I believe they are not accurate.

Can some of the experts here correct those numbers? Thx!


GPU Transistor Count
PS3 - RSX transistor count: 300.2 million transistors
Xbox 360 - Xenos transistor count: 337 million (232 million parent die+105 million EDRAM daughter die)

GPU clock
Xbox 360 - Xenos clocked at 500 Mhz
PS3 - RSX clocked at 500 MHz

GPU video memory
Xbox 360 - Xenos: 512 MB of 700 Mhz GDDR3 VRAM on a 128-bit bus
Xbox 360 - Xenos: 10 MB daughter Embedded DRAM as framebuffer (32GB/s bus, multiplied by 8 thanks to multisampling unpacking for an effective bandwidth of 256 MB/s, the internal eDRAM bandwidth)
PS3 - RSX: 256 MB GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 700 Mhz on a 128-bit bus
PS3 - RSX: 256 MB of Rambus XDR DRAM via Cell (with latency penalty)

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 275 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.1 Billion Vertices/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 0.825 Billion Vertices/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 13.2 Billion Texels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 11.0 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.4 Billion Texels/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 3.3 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 17.6 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 13.2 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 26.4 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 22.0 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - additional 20.0 GB/sec when reading from XDR memory (with latency penalty)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

Good post..

 

[JfK]

Good post..

No answer?

 

[Lazy8s]

Wouldn't the RSX's set-up rate be reduced to 250M tri/sec at the lowered, 500-MHz clockspeed?

 

[liolio]

Lazy8, i guess your right.

exture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - additional 20.0 GB/sec when reading from XDR memory (with latency penalty)

I guess we could had bandwtih for the 360 too when gpu is reading data in the l2 cache, but is way less than 20GB/s as the memory controler can the max speed of 10.8GB, and anyway it seems impossible that the xenon is able too generate so many data.

Sadly, most people in the know are uder NDA, but this seems il line with some recent statements.

 

[infinity4]

can somebody tell me where PS3's main memory (XDR) will be used for please???

anyone

 

[Supernatural]

Good post..

Thank you!

 

[Supernatural]

Wouldn't the RSX's set-up rate be reduced to 250M tri/sec at the lowered, 500-MHz clockspeed?

Thanks! Ok, first correction then:

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec (was 275 Million Triangles/sec)

What else is wrong?

 

[Jacob]

It's kind of a shame that Sony released an inferior system one year after the competition, especially considering the higher price.

Oh well, I hope good developers can make the system sort of keep up with the 360, so that multiplatform games don't get too affected by this.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Note that those numbers are talking about GPU performance only... PS3 may have a potential advantage in the CPU department assuming developers can tap the raw processing power that is there. GPU<->CPU interactions may also be more beneficial on PS3, but with NDA's on the Sony side I'm not sure if we'll ever get a definitive answer to that. And the RSX is a very capable processor in its own right, with advantages over the Xenos chip in some areas (and vice versa).

PS3 also adds hi-def movie player, standard HDD, open Linux, and some networking capabilities... albeit at a higher price.

Mind you, the 360 is a great machine and I'm enjoying the hell out of mine, but I don't think you can look at the graphics spec list above and declare that MS released the superior console spec wise a year earlier than Sony.

For the money, maybe... for being a year earlier and still cheaper... I'm starting to agree. But what will really matter in the end is the games, meaning the deals MS and Sony can sign with developers and the talent of the guys actually utilizing the power to produce games.

 

[dantruon]

Note that those numbers are talking about GPU performance only... PS3 may have a potential advantage in the CPU department assuming developers can tap the raw processing power that is there. GPU<->CPU interactions may also be more beneficial on PS3, but with NDA's on the Sony side I'm not sure if we'll ever get a definitive answer to that. And the RSX is a very capable processor in its own right, with advantages over the Xenos chip in some areas (and vice versa).

PS3 also adds hi-def movie player, standard HDD, open Linux, and some networking capabilities... albeit at a higher price.

Mind you, the 360 is a great machine and I'm enjoying the hell out of mine, but I don't think you can look at the graphics spec list above and declare that MS released the superior console spec wise a year earlier than Sony.

For the money, maybe... for being a year earlier and still cheaper... I'm starting to agree. But what will really matter in the end is the games, meaning the deals MS and Sony can sign with developers and the talent of the guys actually utilizing the power to produce games.

good post and well written, at the end of the day is all about the contents and the people behind it who deliver it.