Not true. The PS3 had what was essentially half of a nvidia 7950gt.
Half of a current radeon 7950 would roughly be a radeon 7750.
How do you figure? A 7950 or abouts there would be perfectly inline with the 360/PS3's hardware relative to when they were released. All of the rumors are pointing to something in the 7670-7770 range, likely with lower clock speeds. A 7670 could certainly be considered an HTPC GPU, especially by the time one of these consoles actually comes out. It would be comparable to a PS3 launching with an Nvidia 6600 GT, and that's being generous. That wouldn't have impressed anybody then either.
MS would have to release the 720 with a GPU comparable to the fastest AMD GPU out at the time, with technology that won't even available on the PC for another generation for things to be comparable to the last console release. Instead, we're getting a GPU that was mid-range 2 years ago.
No, it's not that much faster, just compare 6970 with Tahiti LE.
Tahiti is just 22% faster despite having it's core clocked over 8% faster and more memory bandwidth to boot. After equalizing clocks it would be about 15% faster. How did you come up with that 50% figure? It's just ridiculous.
Not true. The PS3 had what was essentially half of a nvidia 7950gt.
Half of a current radeon 7950 would roughly be a radeon 7750.
same shaders, same bandwidth, shame clocks...
http://www.inpai.com.cn/doc/hard/168475_30.htm
the review in this link was using the RC11 drivers... you can give more than 20% since last driver...
3 games? I linked a comparison with a broad variety of games, and on average faster clocked Tahiti with the same number of shaders was 22% faster with new drivers that boosts performance than Cayman, so GCN is certainly less than 20% faster shader for shader than VLIW 4. It makes sense since average VLIW 4 utilization is about 3.5 shaders.
BTW. that Chinese comparison is with Pitcarin not tahiti. VLIW isn't a bad idea for purely graphics workloads, it's probably more efficient in terms of performance per mm2, 1-way shaders were introduced due to compute performance which VLIW is generally very weak at barring some exceptions.
keep in mind that the PS3 was released around the same time as the Geforce 8800GTX, and the PS3 GPU was significantly slower than even a 7950GT, so it wasn't great...
keep in mind that the PS3 was released around the same time as the Geforce 8800GTX, and the PS3 GPU was significantly slower than even a 7950GT, so it wasn't great...
I seem to recall it was a 7800 derivative, but my memory is awful
No matter how you slice this though, the PS3 (and the Xbox) GPU's were in no way top of the line at release. They were at best upper midrange in comparison to PC video cards. At that time, midrange was really a $100-$150 card.
Try clicking the wiki link I posted before ^^
While I agree in the PS3 case I'm not so sure in Xbox 360 case, the best GPU on the market when it was released was R580 on 1900XTX and 1950XTX which had GDDR4 memory, the only card to use them. So the silicon was comparable but PC cards were faster clocked (650MHz vs 500MHz Xenos) and had more memory bandwidth then the whole Xbox360, but Xenos was a newer unified architecture. Both had 48 shaders. Then there was GeForce 7950 GX2 which was dual GPU card and was obviously faster in terms of raw FPS. Due to power limits and cost we will never again have a console with a GPU that could rival PC's best.
Well, I'm really saying the PS3 and the Xbox 360 didn't rival PC's best at the time anyway
But yes, it does look like the new consoles will be farther away from the best than the last gen was at release.
On the other hand, the 'best' today is far more extreme than it was back then. It kind of hit me the other day looking at Frys. A GTX 660, which is supposedly a 'mid tier' graphics card like a x6xx Nvidias have always been, costs upwards of $250 unless you mail order it.
The 8600GT was released with an MSRP of $150 in 2007.
I'm just not sure that the market is the same one that existed back in 2006, or that these cards that we call 'mid range' are really all that mid range.
It feels like the GPU market has moved upscale, alienated itself, and is now in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of IGP and APU type systems.
Well, I'm really saying the PS3 and the Xbox 360 didn't rival PC's best at the time anyway
But yes, it does look like the new consoles will be farther away from the best than the last gen was at release.
On the other hand, the 'best' today is far more extreme than it was back then. It kind of hit me the other day looking at Frys. A GTX 660, which is supposedly a 'mid tier' graphics card like a x6xx Nvidias have always been, costs upwards of $250 unless you mail order it.
The 8600GT was released with an MSRP of $150 in 2007.
I'm just not sure that the market is the same one that existed back in 2006, or that these cards that we call 'mid range' are really all that mid range.
It feels like the GPU market has moved upscale, alienated itself, and is now in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of IGP and APU type systems.
Why don't they use, say, an Intel i5 2500K and overclock it to 4.5GHz as it needs little voltage to achieve this speed. As for the GPU why not use a Radeon HD 7870 XFire?
Sure, it's gonna cost $800 but those console types will pay whatever Microsoft or Sony tell them to pay.
This way you have a console that rivals today's modern PCs and the ports will be alot better graphically then they are now compared to PC-only games.
Why don't they use, say, an Intel i5 2500K and overclock it to 4.5GHz as it needs little voltage to achieve this speed. As for the GPU why not use a Radeon HD 7870 XFire?
Sure, it's gonna cost $800 but those console types will pay whatever Microsoft or Sony tell them to pay.
This way you have a console that rivals today's modern PCs and the ports will be alot better graphically then they are now compared to PC-only games.
Heh. That defeats the point of consoles. A lot of people buy consoles instead of gamin PC's because they are a lot cheaper and (sadly) often offer the same gaming experience. If they price them that high MS and Sony might as well just sell pre-built gaming PC's.
Why don't they use, say, an Intel i5 2500K and overclock it to 4.5GHz as it needs little voltage to achieve this speed. As for the GPU why not use a Radeon HD 7870 XFire?
Sure, it's gonna cost $800 but those console types will pay whatever Microsoft or Sony tell them to pay.
This way you have a console that rivals today's modern PCs and the ports will be alot better graphically then they are now compared to PC-only games.
The PS3 BOM cost was what at the start, 800-850$?
Sure, it's gonna cost $800 but those console types will pay whatever Microsoft or Sony tell them to pay.
Memory bandwidth is something we have no information on at the time, but one of the big issues that held the previous console generation back was memory bandwidth -- the GPUs in each console were essentially neutered with half the bandwidth of their desktop counterparts or less. I hope we get a 7850's full bandwidth in the PS4, or at least a worthwhile eDRAM solution to make up for reduced bandwidth.