RSX IS a pc gpu, an nvidia 7600 with 128bit bus
The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn
- Thread starter gongo
- Start date
RSX IS a pc gpu, an nvidia 7600 with 128bit bus
What I am telling you, is that the RSX was almost a straight PC chip derivative - the reason that PCs similarly spec'd at the time might not be playing Crysis 3 today is that the console environment is much more efficient. But if you are discussing technology, which is what you seem to be doing, I'm letting you know - the RSX was essentially an NVidia 7x00.
Ok, then 7600 can run Battlefield 3/Crysis 3/etc like in Xbox 360? interesting.
It seems to me you were talking about how advanced Xenos was in 2005 compared with PC GPU's of the time in the context of how advanced the new xbox GPU might be compared with modern GPU's.
In that context its not relevant to consider how much of a GPU's performance/potential is being used in a given platform, it's only relevant to consider how advanced/powerful it was and to answer that, you've got to assume they are both being utilised equally.
So if they are being utilised equally, then yes, there are PC GPU's (well 1, maybe 2) from 2005 that could likely run those games just as well as Xenos today.
I like the undocumented 25GB/s flexIO bus that appeared out of nowhere on this "PC gpu", nvidia is just full of surprises, aren't they?
I assume you're not suggesting that makes it a fundamentally different or significantly more performance GPU? It's one minor change to how the GPU communicates with the rest of the system. Certainly not worthy of considering it a completely different GPU. Which incidentally was more of a 7800GTX running at 500Mhz with half the ROPS and half the memory bus.
No, you're right, but it's not really "half" the memory bus either, it's the same one split in two. It does allow the Cell to do the post processing, which isn't really possible on the PC variant. Not saying it's amazing, but the performance isn't nearly apples to apples. Does it qualify as a "minor" change with how it communicates?
DX11 will be a minimum requirement for all next gen games I expect.
It's going to be a while before the min spec for PC is dx11.
I'm guessing people without a DX11 GPU simply won't be able to play next gen cross platform games.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I'm thinking that the 2GB of memory in my 680s is going to be a real problem soon...
They can just use ps360 versions as the base for the pc ports. They'll still be getting versions of cod etc for the next few years.
God I hope not. I wouldn't expect this to be the case tbh, even last gen the PC got full fat versions of console games right from the very start in most cases and relatively speaking PC's are far more powerful now than they were back then.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Isn't Crysis 3 there already?
BF3 aswell I think.
upnorthsox
Veteran
DoctorFouad
Newcomer
The quantity of false informations your are giving in your post is just overwhelming
, I dont even know where to begin and if I have the courage to comment all those falacies, what I will do is I will try to comment ONLY the most incredible fallacies you came up with, I am sure I will miss some, but lets start :not true, standard high end PC GPUs have either the recommended 2 Gb of GDDR5 for Nvidia or 3 Gb of GDDR5 for AMD. PS4 would have 3.5 Gb available GDDR5 memory, we will see how PCs can handle that (they cant, until the standard high end PC GPU would have 3.5 Gb of GDDR5, and thats not gonna happen before 2014).
Not true, the ATI radeon 1800xt launched on 5th of october 2005, had 512 Mb of RAM at 48 Gb/s. So xbox 360 had the same amount of RAM as this card, with less than half the bandwidth (21.6 Gb/s).
How is that better than ps4 ? PS4 will have 33.3% more amount of RAM than high end GPUs by fall 2013 (4 Gb VS 3 Gb), with only 30% less bandwidth (300 Gb/s VS 192 Gb/s). Thats a huge improvement VS PCs compared with the stuation of xbox360 and even more with ps3...the ps4 would be on a situation VS PCs RAM wise a lot more favorable than that of xbox360.
the wishful thinking, or I would call it blind belief is to believe that PC games in fall 2013 (this year) with their average configurations of 1-2 Gb of GDDR5 and 8 Gb of slow DDR3 main RAM, would be able to compete graphicly with ps4 games using 3.5 of GDDR5 available RAM. Unless you explain to me technically how is that even possible, I would call it blind belief.
Why are you changing between high-end and average reference points? pjbliverpool was referencing high-end, comparing high-end PCs (single card I think) to consoles of the same period. You can buy a high end graphics card now with 6GBs GDDR5. When comparing consoles to high-end PCs, the top end for PCs has been moved massively forwards. You can keep on spending to get better and better hardware. Consoles cannot compete on hardware. No way. The only way they'll compete is investment in software from 1st parties and subjective consideration of 'better'. A console game may appear with a new approach to something like animation (Uncharted's anim blending introducing a sense of realism) that is better, but the core gaming experience will undoubtedly be better on PC in measurable terms. It'll have 90+% the same game library at higher framerates and IQ from day 1.
Stop jumping to conclusions.
There is nothing so far that points to Orbis being the more powerful console besides some 50% advantage in raw GPU flops, an advantage that RSX also shared over Xenos last generation.
Bkilian also hinted that flop comparison is meaningless between consoles. So stop cherry picking his points to fit your premature agenda.
IMO I think what happened at that time was some with direct access to the paper specs, saw 8GB of memory, and what seems to be an internal comment from MS about the GPU's performance being comparable to a 680. This is what I think started the hype. Some then passed along that "Xbox 3 is going to blow people away". Once they got their hands on the actual hardware and started working on it, the tone changed. And it hasn't been hyped up since that time period.
Doesn't bother me though if something like that is the case. I'll buy any console that has the games I want and save the raw power for the PC. Heck I'd get the next Xbox just for the potential TV control features.
Haha. I had been thinking he seemed like the MS version of Jeff. I commend them on their effort though.
Yeah, because AMD saying the next Xbox could produce graphics to that of Avatar wasn't hyping anything at all.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-XBox-720-Xbox-720-Avatar-Graphics-Neal-Robison,13095.html