Schadenfreude
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2001
- 11,391
- 3
- 0
This reminds me of the argument when the PS1 and Sega Saturn came out - if I remember, wasn't the Saturn equipped w/ multiple core processors as well?
Just an fyi, clock speed means next to nothing in today's world when comparing different components from different companies.
This reminds me of the argument when the PS1 and Sega Saturn came out - if I remember, wasn't the Saturn equipped w/ multiple core processors as well?
Doopster, you are clearly a fanboy. Personally, I don't give a crap about either console. But the speed of a given GPU has absolutely nothing to do with your desire or fanboyism. The Xbox GPU is faster. It's as simple as that. Why do you have such a hard time swallowing this?
GPU performance decreases linear as you reduce clock speed.
Pls read thread before posting.
Your missing the "in the same architecture". It is completely conceivable that a 200MHz GPU is faster then a 1000GHz GPU if the architectures for those two GPUs are different.GPU performance decreases linear as you reduce clock speed.
Pls read thread before posting.
...but I personally think the Unreal Engine as applied in the Gears of War franchise produces equally breathtaking visuals as Killzone 2.
I hate it when people use Killzone 2 as an example of "breathtaking" graphics. Sure its beautiful....when its static. The second you add any type of motion and the entire screen turns into a blurry mess of excessive mipmapping. Of course they said the motion blur was a feature (as opposed to a cheat), but anyone who knows what to look for can see the irony. Overall I liked KZ2, so i'm not saying it wasn't a good game, but the developer traded clarity for framerates and it shows. Many graphic "cheats" were employed in that game to make it run smoother.
There are games on both systems that have symptoms of this, so this isn't a anti-ps3 or pro-360 thing, but KZ2 in particular pissed me off. All the eye candy in the worlds means nothing if you have to stop moving just to see what your aiming at. That's my only beef though. Otherwise I thought it was a top notch game.
Are you sure you played the same game as me?
The excessive blur in KZ2 is well documented. It even made some people sick. If you focus on an object within the game and try to keep it in focus while moving, you'll start to see what I'm talking about. The blur is there, though I think how it impacts people varies. It doesn't bother some people at all, while with others it causes motion sickness. Regardless, its there. I don't think most people are bothered by it though, and it is likely made worse on certain tvs. To each their own I guess.
The ps3's gpu is a much weaker gpu than the 360, at least in shader ability. Thankfully, the cell is powerful enough to make up for that somewhat, at the cost of being a pain to program. (I'm assuming it can't run opengl shaders, so a lot of functionality probably has to be duplicated onto the cell that would normally be handled by apis)
The ps3's gpu is an off the shelf pc gpu.
The 360's gpu was custom made for consoles. It uses a dual die approach, with a second die consisting of super fast 10MB of edram. This allows the 360 to target either SD resolution with 4x AA or 720p with plenty of usable bandwidth for special effects, lighting, and anti aliasing. The 360 gains a lot from having its gpu designed to target TV resolutions, and its gpu is more forward thinking/advanced anyway.
I read an article a while back that detailed the costs sony and ms put into their respective systems.
MS spent something like $100 million on their cpu (about what nintendo spent on the gamecube's cpu iirc)
Sony spent $2 billion on Cell.
MS spent ~$1 billion on their gpu.
Sony spent around $100 million on theirs.
Basically, MS has an off the shelf cpu fitted to their system with a custom gpu.
Sony has a custom cpu with an off the shelf gpu fitted to their system. The ps3 also came out a year later, yet manufacturing hadn't improved any (same process nodes), so both use hardware from the same generation of manufacturing tech.
The 360's cpu is about the size of a dual core.
The ps3's cpu is about the size of a quad core.
The ps3's gpu is larger, if you discount the secondary die of the 360.
Both the 360 and ps3 gpus are about the size of current high end integrated graphics, but with better memory bandwidth.
You'd do yourself a favor if you didn't just discard what people are telling you. As has already been told to you, the 360 GPU is not the same as an X1900. Then you keep trying to say the PS3 GPU would be better when its basically a 7800GTX, which people showed you got outperformed by the GPU you thought the 360 GPU was based on. One good reason the 360 probably has better performance is the unified RAM (certainly not in all cases, but in general it would make it easier on programmers).
Thanks for your input captain obvious. I'll give you the cliffs since you're clearly not the strongest on reading comprehension.
Xbox GPU is less powerful than X1900.
X1900 GPU downclocked to 500mhz would likely be slower than 7800 series GPU at 550Mhz.
Conclusion: Xbox GPU is not proven to be more powerful nor does technical evidence suggest that this is the case.
The entire point of the thread is to make people who claim the Xbox GPU is definitively better think again.
Yes, Cell influences graphical results.
Yes, the ease of programming has a massive influence on the graphical quality of games.
I'm talking just about the GPU and the widespread assumption that the Xbox has more rendering power than the PS3.
I'm not trying to 'win' an argument, just discuss a point of view.
Thanks for your input captain obvious. I'll give you the cliffs since you're clearly not the strongest on reading comprehension.
Xbox GPU is less powerful than X1900.
X1900 GPU downclocked to 500mhz would likely be slower than 7800 series GPU at 550Mhz.
Conclusion: Xbox GPU is not proven to be more powerful nor does technical evidence suggest that this is the case.
The entire point of the thread is to make people who claim the Xbox GPU is definitively better think again.
Yes, Cell influences graphical results.
Yes, the ease of programming has a massive influence on the graphical quality of games.
I'm talking just about the GPU and the widespread assumption that the Xbox has more rendering power than the PS3.
So it would be wrong to say that the PlayStation 3s GPU is more powerful than the Xbox 360s GPU, because you cant isolate the two and compare them in a vacuum, how they interact with the CPU, with memory, etc... all influences the overall performance of the platform.
Thanks for your input captain obvious. I'll give you the cliffs since you're clearly not the strongest on reading comprehension.
Xbox GPU is less powerful than X1900.
X1900 GPU downclocked to 500mhz would likely be slower than 7800 series GPU at 550Mhz.
Conclusion: Xbox GPU is not proven to be more powerful nor does technical evidence suggest that this is the case.
The entire point of the thread is to make people who claim the Xbox GPU is definitively better think again.
Yes, Cell influences graphical results.
Yes, the ease of programming has a massive influence on the graphical quality of games.
I'm talking just about the GPU and the widespread assumption that the Xbox has more rendering power than the PS3.