Discussion in 'Audio Producers Discussions' started by Embassy Sweetz, Oct 25, 2006.
wtf, what happened to that weird banana shaped controller they originally had?
xbox 360 graphics shit so bad on regular xbox graphics... you needa peep FEAR or oblivion or some shit... somethin wit crazy lightnin, shadows, n physics...
I laugh when people talk about one bein better than the other though... both are HD 1080, got almost the same shit inside... in the end, PS3 n xbox360 are practically the same shit... very minor difference when it comes to performance mayn, really boils down to games preferences ...
Xbox360 specs - http://news.com.com/Xbox specs revealed/2100-1043_3-5705372.html
PS3 specs - http://www.ps3land.com/ps3specs.php
lmao...who gives a fuck about rumble....i aint never notice that shit anyway........
i might cop if it drops around the 300 or 400 range
i like to have a good selection of games when i get a new system....so i say after about a year and half or so, it'll drop to the point i might actually cop it......
i mean i drop 4 to 500 on cell phones....might as well do it for a game system, shit.......
yet at e3 people were able to actually PLAY builds of the games? same with any other big show?.......all the while people sayin it looks THE SAME as it did in the trailers
devil may cry 4 and mgs4>xbox360's existence
lol thats exactly like i was thinking...hopefully its cheap by then cuz imma be paying for a machine to play 1 damn game
uh no they didnt...why you making shit up....
the best looking game on ps3 so far is Resistance fall of man...and Gears of war looks better then that....
so why you makin shit up? seriously...i fuckin cant stand liars
the top is ps3...the bottom is xbox 360....i thought the ps3 was supposed to shit all over the 360?
i cant fuck with the ps3....i dont like most new japanese video games...and thats all thats on there......i dont understand...if all you play is games that come out for every system...like gta....live...madden.....it makes no sense to get a ps3...because the online system on the 360 is better.....so you can play with your boy online.....instead of the wack ass sony online shit which isnt even connected between different games...
ill stick to that^
gta 4 will be out next month for xbox 360..
nah liq GTA 4 is nov 07 not 06.
and yeh the day-one ps3 games arent touching the 360 games coming out this holiday...360 has a year head start so of course the graphics are gonna shit on the ps3's early games...give'em about a year and they're balance out..but anyone thinkin the ps3 wil be leaps and bounds above the 360 are livin a dream. they're pretty much the same spec-wise.
I dont see how anyone can think theres gonna be a big difference..........they are gonna be neck and neck.....there will be some games the 360 will look better with....and others the ps3 will look better with......
but as of this moment....the 360 has the better looking games.....easy.....
Gears of war is decent...when you see it in motion it looks weird to me. But from what i've heard the PS3 games are lookin better then 360. Motor Storm, Resistance, MSG4, Lair, Fight Night. If you wanna play the comparison game be a lil more fair lol.
theres nothing fair about that........
EA already said that the ps3 version of fight night was gonna have improvements over a year ago....it SHOULD......the 360 version of fight night is already damn near 1 year old.....
as a matter of fact...thier exact implication was that the ps3 version of fight night 3 was going to be a bit inbetween fight night 3 and 4......because it was gonna come out OFF the yearly Cycle.....
it isnt better looking cause the ps3 is more powerful...its better looking cause its been in development for a year longer.......
My comparison game was more fair.....It pitted the 2 best looking games on both systems......lets be real here....your the one picking a shitty comparison......
Resistance has bad textures compared to gears of war...mainly cause of the ps3's memory structure.......
Once again......the ps3 isnt smashing shit.....
I also read that the game developers are rushing out games for the ps3 release date and so they wont miss christmas and they would rather have the release date pushed back... b/c they are not going to be as good as they want them.... but I sure the samething happen with the 360 release.
But i am going to get a xbox360 b/c it cheaper... all i play is sports game... so i go for the cheapest system b/t the two.....
and what if blu-ray flops and hdvd becomes the standard.... it was a waste of an extra 200 bucks...
basics......EA has been putting out shitty 360 versions of thier games either way.......the 360 version of fight night was basically the xbox version with higher quality textures......
if you honestly dont think that fight night 4 will look the same on 360 and ps3 your a fool......
yeah after i said 360 and xbox graphics are almost same i realized i really only seen about 3-4 360 games being played. I like a lot of the japanese style games tho so i might still get ps3. Ima wait about a year or so after both systems are out and then decide.
lol@ posting a comparison of 2 boxing games that came out a year apart...haha...
shit the ps3 version SHOULD look better than the 360...they had dam near an extra year to fuck with it.
no game coming out this year on ANY system is fucking with gears of war graphically..thats a fact.
Yea but does a year make that much difference? Don't you think they were workin on these games at the same time? Realisticly it should look pretty much the same with slight improvements in lighting and textures...cause it is the same game lol. But thats a lil more then a slight difference.
Yo and i definantly can say Gears of war isn't the best looking game. I've seen better.
For the cats that are waiting for Ps3 to drop in price....
If sony is only releasing 2mil ps3's world wide...and they are losing $200-300 per PS3, how many years would you have to wait to get A ps3?
(sHRUGS) That's why I said it pre-flopped earlier.
1. The Xbox 360's CPU has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, and Ps3 has just one.
2. The Xbox 360 GPU has more processing power than the PS3's. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.
3. Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.
4.The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.
The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.
The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming.
Xbox 360 has three general purpose CPU cores. The Cell processor has only one.
Xbox 360's CPUs has vector processing power on each CPU core. Each Xbox 360 core has 128 vector registers per hardware thread, with a dot product instruction, and a shared 1-MB L2 cache. The Cell processor's vector processing power is mostly on the seven DSPs.
Dot products are critical to games because they are used in 3D math to calculate vector lengths, projections, transformations, and more. The Xbox 360 CPU has a dot product instruction, where other CPUs such as Cell must emulate dot product using multiple instructions.
Cell's streaming floating-point work is done on its seven DSP processors. Since geometry processing is moved to the GPU, the need for streaming floating-point work and other DSP style programming in games has dropped dramatically.
Just like with the PS2's Emotion Engine, with its missing L2 cache, the Cell is designed for a type of game programming that accounts for a minor percentage of processing time.
Sony's CPU is ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. That sort of mix makes sense for video playback or networked waveform analysis, but not for games. In fact, when analyzing real games one finds almost the opposite distribution of general purpose computing and DSP calculation requirements. A relatively small percentage of instructions are actually floating point. Of those instructions which are floating-point, very few involve processing continuous streams of numbers. Instead they are used in tasks like AI and path-finding, which require random access to memory and frequent branches, which the DSPs are ill-suited to.
Based on measurements of running next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating point—probably ~5-10%. Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else.
5.Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.
Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.
6. Even ignoring the bandwidth limitations the PS3's GPU is not as powerful as the Xbox 360's GPU.
Below are the specs from Sony's press release regarding the PS3's GPU.
-Independent vertex/pixel shaders
-51 billion dot products per second (total system performance)
-136 "shader operations" per clock
The interesting ALU performance numbers are 51 billion dot products per second (total system performance), 300M transistors, and more than twice as powerful as the 6800 Ultra.
The 51 billions dot products per cycle were listed on a summary slide of total graphics system performance and are assumed to include the Cell processor. Sony's calculations seem to assume that the Cell can do a dot product per cycle per DSP, despite not having a dot product instruction.
However, using Sony's claim, 7 dot products per cycle * 3.2 GHz = 22.4 billion dot products per second for the CPU. That leaves 51 - 22.4 = 28.6 billion dot products per second that are left over for the GPU. That leaves 28.6 billion dot products per second / 550 MHz = 52 GPU ALU ops per clock.
It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s, while the Xbox 360 GPU ALUs work on vector5s. The total programmable GPU floating point performance for the PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * 550 MHz = 228.8 GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS.
With the number of transistors being slightly larger on the Xbox 360 GPU (330M) it's not surprising that the total programmable GFLOPs number is very close.
The PS3 does have the additional 7 DSPs on the Cell to add more floating point ops for graphics rendering, but the Xbox 360's three general purpose cores with custom D3D and dot product instructions are more customized for true graphics related calculations.
The 6800 Ultra has 16 pixel pipes, 6 vertex pipes, and runs at 400 MHz. Given the RSX's 2x better than a 6800 Ultra number and the higher frequency of the RSX, one can roughly estimate that it will have 24 pixel shading pipes and 4 vertex shading pipes (fewer vertex shading pipes since the Cell DSPs will do some vertex shading). If the PS3 GPU keeps the 6800 pixel shader pipe co-issue architecture which is hinted at in Sony's press release, this again gives it 24 pixel pipes* 2 issued per pipe + 4 vertex pipes = 52 dot products per clock in the GPU.
If the RSX follows the 6800 Ultra route, it will have 24 texture samplers, but when in use they take up an ALU slot, making the PS3 GPU in practice even less impressive. Even if it does manage to decouple texture fetching from ALU co-issue, it won't have enough bandwidth to fetch the textures anyways.
For shader operations per clock, Sony is most likely counting each pixel pipe as four ALU operations (co-issued vector+scalar) and a texture operation per pixel pipe and 4 scalar operations for each vector pipe, for a total of 24 * (4 + 1) + (4*4) = 136 operations per cycle or 136 * 550 = 74.8 GOps per second.
Given the Xbox 360 GPU's multithreading and balanced design, you really can't compare the two systems in terms of shading operations per clock. However, the Xbox 360's GPU can do 48 ALU operations (each can do a vector4 and scalar op per clock), 16 texture fetches, 32 control flow operations, and 16 programmable vertex fetch operations with tessellation per clock for a total of 48*2 + 16 + 32 + 16 = 160 operations per cycle or 160 * 500 = 80 GOps per second.
Overall, the automatic shader load balancing, memory export features, programmable vertex fetching, programmable triangle tesselator, full rate texture fetching in the vertex shader, and other "well beyond shader model 3.0" features of the Xbox 360 GPU should also contribute to overall rendering performance.
The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.
The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.
Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.
The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.
HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices.
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has probably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.
However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.
No Nerdo!! No Nerdo!!
PS3 looks huge, I probably won't get it, the 360's got some crazy games coming out so throwing down 600 bones on a new system for maybe a tiny graphic upgrade if any...not worth it.
Separate names with a comma.