PS3 vs Xbox 360

[bboldt25]

Which game system do you think is going to be better?
Xbox or PS3? I think Ps3 :)

Here are the PS3 stats:
CPU: Cell Processor
• PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
• 1 VMX vector unit per core
• 512KB L2 cache
• 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
• 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
• 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
• 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
• total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
• 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

[saphalline]

You know, we never did come to a conclusion! :p Read this thread (http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?t=41239). Lots of good info and specs there. I'm a PC purist myself, so no consoles for me. But the architectures of the consoles are nonetheless interesting from a computing standpoint - I like to keep up on the specs at the very least (since I'm a hardware person). But I wouldn't buy a console. I have to admit, they're both nice. I like the Cell CPU of the PS3, but the Xenos GPU from NVidia of the XBox 360 is truly impressive.

[i an not a nerd]

Hey saph, ATI makes the 360 GPU, not NV.

[saphalline]

Doh! Dang it all, I keep doing that! I can never keep that one straight...

[Galaxian]

i read before the highly technical data on both hardwares and read responses from development teams.

basically it seems the developers werent at all happy with multi core, mainly cuz its a ton more work and they have to relearn everything, microsoft stated that they expect it to be at least 2 years before games fully use just 2 of the 3 cores, currently only streamlined data is used for the second core to aid in loading,physics and audio.

as for the ps3 some tech guru's said the spe's were pretty much useless, the tech data says they can only stream data, that is for instance audio sounds, they cannot do the calculations as would an actual cpu would do, so basically its a single 64bit cpu, its aided with the help of spe's if code permitting but apparantly its very difficult to code for..so they say, apparantly the cpu's of both systems are about as powerful as an athlon xp 3200

with everything being shared and streamlined for specific hardware its easier fo developers to tweak but apparantly their both capable of rendering games as good as the latest pc technology

naturally they'll beable to squeeze alot more over the years but no doubt you can expect to see the difference in graphics between pc's and consoles in about 3 years which isnt bad really.

nintendo?..well nintendo is a cute company arnt they

[i an not a nerd]

nintendo?..well nintendo is a cute company arnt they Darn strait! They have some really fun games. I love the mini-games in Mario64DS. I spend a ton of time on them. :) Also, my friends and I play more arcade games on the xbox 360 than actual games.... Perfect Dark is fun, but gets old quick!

[/QUOTE]with everything being shared and streamlined for specific hardware its easier fo developers to tweak but apparantly their both capable of rendering games as good as the latest pc technology[/QUOTE]

Well, my current PC can push out games as well as the xbox 360, and with the card i'm ordering my rig should be able to pwn the new consoles.

naturally they'll beable to squeeze alot more over the years but no doubt you can expect to see the difference in graphics between pc's and consoles in about 3 years which isnt bad really.

Hey look at the difference between halo and halo 2! theres squeezing the most out of a system for ya! And about the difference between PCs and consoles, the consoles won't be able to compete with PCs at all this time next year.

[Galaxian]

Hey look at the difference between halo and halo 2! theres squeezing the most out of a system for ya! And about the difference between PCs and consoles, the consoles won't be able to compete with PCs at all this time next year.

considering that the current games are only using 1 of the 3 cores, not to mention the new ati chip has features that no current nv or ati card has right now and also that likely these new batch of games where slapped and shipped out since 360 has only been in full development for 18 months, then..no insult intended but its a tad arrogant to say any pc ownes it at this particular moment

[i an not a nerd]

Well, the ATI chip on the Xbox 360 is based on the x1900 chip. In fact, the x1900 is more powerful than the 360 chip in some ways. It has faster RAM, faster GPU speed, more transitors, etc. In terms of features, the only thing that the 360 gpu has the upper hand on is the Unified Shader Architecture. And about the multiple cores being able to do things such as audio, physics, etc in a year or so, the Creative X-FI can theoreticaly outperform most CPUs, the AGEIA PhysX processor will be supported by alot of games in a year, and in a year, there will be a whole new generation of graphics cards that will make the 360 GPU outdated! You can't seriously expect the 360 to look as nice as computer graphics in a year, let alone 3 years (which is what Microsoft expects the 360's life to be.) As for now, my computer can churn out higher res. and more AA than the xbox 360 already. When I get my new vid card, and eventually a Crossfire setup, it will put the 360 graphics to shame.

[saphalline]

It's important to consider that the XBox 360 will remain cheaper than a PC in relation to its performance for quite some time. Not only that, but you're comparing the best that PC hardware has to offer. It will be a long time before the average PC gaming hardware approaches the capabilities of the XBox 360. If you look at your computer compared to mine, for instance, you'll see a big difference in gaming performance! ;)

I'm a bit behind myself, but at this point I'm saving up for a major hardware coup that will blast my current system out of the water! Granted I could do that now, but I'm aiming for an upgrade that will literally flatten my current system, not just beat it. As such, I'm aiming for a future dual-core AMD CPU on the new socket with DDR2 and perhaps even an X1900 or NVidia's answer to it. My current system serves me well and plays the games I want decently enough, so I'm patient and willing to wait. But it doesn't compare to the XBox 360, and you can't build a new system that compares to the XBox 360 for what it costs to buy one. Nevermind how much it cost to make, it matters how much it costs to buy.

There's no simple answer when comparing the latest console to a gaming PC. The original XBox stretched the limits by providing a darn good gaming system for a good price. The XBox 360 pushes it a little farther by edging closer to a gaming PC. In terms of the hardware, the XBox 360 is far more powerful and far cheaper than the average gaming PC out there. That fact can't be ignored. But for myself, I also can't ignore the fact that when I'm done gaming, I can surf the web and watch DVD's and do homework on the same machine that I can play games. The XBox 360 can't do that.

[i an not a nerd]

Hehe, well if you are comparing the Xbox 360 to an average computer, then yes it is much better. What I am doing is comparing the most powerful of the console world to the pretty powerful of the computer world.

But for myself, I also can't ignore the fact that when I'm done gaming, I can surf the web and watch DVD's and do homework on the same machine that I can play games. The XBox 360 can't do that.

Hehe, no it can't! For the price of the Xbox360 you can get a basic computer that does a whole lot more!

If you don't mind me asking, what are you planning to blow your system out of the water?

If you are considering getting a X1900 series card, get the X1900XT. I just got that card, and it is amazing. I OC'ed the card higher than the XTX version with the stock cooler! WCing gets the max temp down to 58 celcius.

[saphalline]

I figure I might have enough to do an $800 core upgrade by the end of summer. I'm planning on waiting that long because I want to use the new socket from AMD and I want to get one of their new upcoming CPU's and I want it to be dual-core. By that time, dual-core should be pretty cheap and the DDR2 support will also be cheaper. I also want to be looking at the successors to the R580 and G70. ;) Those two are powerful, but the pipeline layout isn't quite mature enough yet (not enough balance).

The main thing is that I can save up more money than what I have now, and by waiting (which is fine by me) for the next generation of platforms, I can get hardware that will be better because it's newer and I'll be able to afford more expensive parts. It will also be more upgrade-friendly, but that's to be expected of any new generation of hardware.

This is my idea for my own upgrade, and I feel it will be more satisfying in the long run. Not that I mind doing little upgrades every few months, but I also like a BIG upgrade every few years. It puts hardware advancements back in perspective...

[i an not a nerd]

Hehe, I'm also thinking of getting one of the new mobos soon and using my current pieces to build my sister a computer, she is always using mine for RCT3 and such. I'll get a crossfire mobo and a crossfire x1900 and it will fly! Hopefully i won't need any upgrade (of the core stuff) for a couple years... besides HDs and stuff.

Btw, is DDR2 better than DDR? I know DDR is slower, but do the tight latencys make up for it?

Also, about the vid card balance. Do you think that the ATI shader intensive cards or the Nvidia pixel pusher cards are more balanced for games? My own opinion is that ATI is better at higher res. and with AA and AF on max. The cards would be better improved though if they could add more parellel proccessing..... or perhaps have multiple cores? One for shader stuff, one for pure pixel pushing? That would be insane, and take alot of power....

[saphalline]

The cards would be better improved though if they could add more parellel proccessing..... or perhaps have multiple cores? One for shader stuff, one for pure pixel pushing?The way VPU's/GPU's are designed, they are already incredibly parallel and have individual execution units - so they're already doing this stuff. Ever since the GeForce256... things changed so much...

DDR2 is going to end up being better than DDR. The latencies for DDR2 have already improved a lot, and the scaling of speed is becoming more and more important to the CPU. As CPU's move towards dual-core and multi-core as a standard feature, the level of cache that interacts with the RAM will become increasingly reliant on transferring very large chunks of data (relative to CPU cache). With the direction that CPU's are going in (like Intel's roadmap of adding L3 cache in just a couple years) I don't doubt that DDR2 will become desireable for both Intel and AMD. DDR2 is also cheaper to produce, uses less energy, and is much more scalable in speed (DDR2-667 is already widely available).

As for the balance, most games right now benefit from pure pixel-pushing power. But this is mostly due to them not being shader-intensive in the least. As Doom 3, HL2, and Splinter Cell 3 showed us, using SM 3.0 goes a long way towards realism even if polygon count and resolution go down. When I first played Doom 3 using a GF4 Ti 4400, it was the most beautiful game I had ever played at 640 x 480! :D Later on, I got to watch my friend (Orion) play Splinter Cell 3 on a 6600 GT SLI system at 1280 x 1024 with AA and SM 3.0 - and d@mn if some of those scenes weren't the most impressive I've ever seen from a PC game. Realistic imaging comes from shaders, not polygons or resolution. So anyone buying/building a new gaming system would do well to invest in shaders and not pixel-pushers.

[i an not a nerd]

The way VPU's/GPU's are designed, they are already incredibly parallel and have individual execution units - so they're already doing this stuff. Ever since the GeForce256... things changed so much...

Sorry, I meant that maby they could incorperate multiple GPUs into the system, one for shaders, and one dedicated to pixels or AA?

THx for the info on DDR2 btw.

SC3 is a sweet looking game..... YOu should also have a look at Serious Sam 2.

[Galaxian]

ive been wondering when multiple gpu cores will come about, probably work better and cheaper than SLI.
i know the 360's ati has a "daughter die" a seperate chip that handles all AA/AF with no load on gpu..this should be standard on all cards

i read that gpu's are more powerful than cpu's, more transistors..etc...why arnt gpu's being used to replace cpu's then..whats the difference?

[i an not a nerd]

Well, my guess is that the GPU is not designed for what a CPU is made to do, just the same as a CPU is not made to do what a GPU can do (intergrated graphics are the prime example of that).

Here is a diagram ripped from some x1900 review.

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/1985/flowdiagramlg7yd.th.jpg (http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=flowdiagramlg7yd.jpg)


Hopefully that diagram shows how a GPU works somewhat....

A CPU is not like this, it is made to take lots of different data and process it into many different things, not to shade and texture things.

Hope ths helps, Saph can probly better explain....

[jlreich]

I asked that question once. It came down to what i an not an nerd said. GPU's are made to do one thing, pump out what you see on the screen. The old adage of do one thing and do it the best applies here. GPU's would not be very good for the general purpose processing that CPU's handle. There are actually many many different types of processors, each good at doing specific types of tasks.

Over the years some of the better design ideas of certain processors has been integrated into the design of the current CPU's we use today. So there's always hope. :p

[Galaxian]

i see, thanks for info
but i remember in the old consoles where the processor did everything...those were the days :)

but i think dual core gpu's are more than possible

[jlreich]

but i think dual core gpu's are more than possible
Oh yes. In fact they are already out there. Have a look at this. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814125210

Imagine two dual GPU 7800GTX's in SLI. :eek:

[Galaxian]

Oh yes. In fact they are already out there. Have a look at this. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814125210

Imagine two dual GPU 7800GTX's in SLI. :eek:

i meant dual core, where 2 gpu's would be on the same chip itself, kinda like the new amdx2 processors

but that particular card has some problems, and if you use 2 in sli its impossible for the system to read more than 3 gpu's and it had some major issues, there was a big article about it at wwwtomshardware.com

[jlreich]

Yeah I think read that article.

And I was just dreaming about two dual GPU 7800's. :cool: It never hurts to dream. :p Actually if I remember right, the dual core GPU was born out of a bet between two guys drinking a few beers. :D