jvd said:
To this one and the ones above it . Sony is promising the true hd console . With bluray and 1080p games . If games come out in 480p it is no longer a true hd console .
Sure it is. As long as at least 2 1080p games come out, Sony delivered everything they promised.
MS is the only one that promised HD resolutions as standard in every game. Sony made no such claim.
Can it ? At what hit to the cell processing power ? At what bandwidth and ram cost ?
At 0 hit to Cell processing power if there are unused SPE's, which there will almost certainly be, and no more ram or bandwidth than would be required on a PC running the same resolution.
show me a game that doesn't
Go into any store that sells video games, and look at any game on any system. Not one will use even 30% of that bandwidth for the CPU. Not one.
Your the one trying to prove there will be bandwidth enough for the framebuffer .The burden of proof lies with u .
no, the burden of proof lies with your silly claims. You are claiming that PS3 games will require as a minimum 3-4 times more CPU bandwidth than any game ever made on any system.
Explain to me precisely what you think those PS3 game engines will be doing that require more than 3 times the bandwidth of any game ever made.
And then explain how any of these games would be remotely possible to do on the 360, which has less than half the bandwidth for the same job.
The only other alternative is you are claiming that no PS3 game will be on the 360, because it would be impossible to port them without removing over half the game engine processing, which would fundamentally change the game.
with all the amazing things sony is saying cell can do how are u sure of that ?
Because it's not Cell's decision to make, it's the game programmers. Again, try explaining to me what a programmer is going to do with his game engine that requires a minimum of 3 times the bandwidth usage of any game ever made without touching graphics.
The bandwidth avalible in the xdr is not a fixed bandwidth number . It can be the full amount or 0 at anytime . You can not guarantee that any game will have the bandwidth left over on the xdr ram for the framebuffer .
That's as weak of an argument as saying the GDDR-3 bandwidth to the CPU in the 360 is not a fixed amount, and at any time it could be 0, which means your game couldn't run. That statement is eqaully true, and equally as realistic.
you seem good at adding numbers and debating theoreticals when it helps out sony .
Read the thread I linked to. You'll see I was debating that Sony's theoretical numbers were stupid and impossible to achieve in that thread as well.
One of us is blindly and irrationally supporting a single console, and it ain't me.
Once again you can't count on bandwidth for your framebuffer that is being used for another chip. The demands on cell and its bandwidth to xdr ram will change with each game .
And you can't count on the bandwidth being there for the Xbox CPU since it has to draw from the same memory pool as the GPU. The demands on Xenos and GDDR-3 bandwidth will change with every game.
Now, do you honestly think there will be a game that doesn't have any bandwidth for the 360 CPU to use? If not, explain why, and apply your explaination to your own argument about there not being enough XDR bandwidth to go around.
It is not a constant to add in unlike ms's edram . in one game u can have 10gb/s left over in the xdram or you can have 1gb/s left over in thexdram . The xenos allways has the full amount of bandwidht to edram in each game no matter what the x360 cpu needs .
360 bandwidth to the CPU is not a constant, unlike the PS3. In one game you can have 10GB/s left over to GDDr-3, or yyou can have 1GB/s left over. The Cell always has the full amount of bandwidth to XDR in each game, no matter what RSX is doing.
Do you see how your own claims can so easily be turned against you? The difference is, in the PS3's case, your example still leaves a running game with only FSAA lacking, but the exact same example on the 360 leaves a non-working game.
the logic in the edram doesn't do fsaa nor does it do hdr . that is in the main die .
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=02
"The eDRAM module is a separate, daughter chip which contains the elements for reading and writing color, z and stencil and performing all of the alpha blending and z and stencil ops, including the FSAA logic. "
Don't continue to debate with me until you at least learn the basics of the system you are trying to support. You are flat out wrong here, and even a quick glance at a basic spread sheet, preview, or even press release would have told you so.
Secondly your suggesting that you now have 2 chips acessing the framebuffer leading to even more bandwidth demands . Not only that but there is no metric to mesure the cell's ability to perform hdr or fsaa in any of its modes it can very well be to slow to be usable in real time .
First, 2 chips accessing the frame buffer is precisely what the 360 does.
Second, I never said Cell would do HDR.
Third, Cells ability to do FSAA should be unquestionable. The PS2's Emotion Engine can do it, why would you think for one second that Cell couldn't?
So untill you can post data to back up that in games you will be able to use cell to apply post process or during rendering fsaa or hdr with out drasticly limiting the ps3s ability to render I wont even consider this .
I'm not surprised. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, so it comes as no shock that you wouldn't believe Cell can do what the Emotion Engine can do, despite the fact that it's specifically designed to do these type functions.
No they do not because once again your forgeting the edram and its ability to remove the framebuffer overhead . You seem to forget the edram often when talking about bandwidth in regards to the two systems .
No I'm not. You are just being dense.
Explain this to me:
Xenos sends the frame buffer to a seperate memory pool, thus, removing the frame buffer overhead from the GDDR-3.
RSX sends the frame buffer to a seperate memory pool, thus, removing the frame buffer overhead from the GDDR-3.
What is the exact difference you are claiming I am leaving out? And answer without blindly spouting out theoretical numbers that you fail to understand.
Its only a comprimise if you have to trade off equal power for something else . If you can get good 2: 1 compression you can reduce your ram count by half . Thus allowing u to spend more money on actual silicon area and transitors for the gpu which in the end may be many times greater than the original siclicon you devoted to the compression .
And what precisely do you think you will be compressing, and how much actual memory will that save? Clearly you can't compress everything.
Just more theoretical numbers with no understanding to their meaning.
