Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-09-2013, 07:59 AM   #651
itsmydamnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 601
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltree86 View Post
So at least the upcoming generation of consoles will not support 4k resolutions. Because the hardware in rumors can't really support all that. I would imagine that in a closed system the level of optimization attained with multi threading will usher the same PC versions to actually improve when the developers re-apply their learning to the PC cases.

sort of , 360 is already 6 threads. its more about what the lowest common demoninator cpu target is, so far it seems to have been around 4 threads.
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 09:30 AM   #652
Dresdenboy
Senior Member
 
Dresdenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 343
Default

I'm discussing the future console specs with a coworker each week. He assumes 4K and stereoscopic 3D support. Full HD 3D would mean twice the 1080p graphics output and 4K would result in 4 times as much pixels to be drawn. But given the perceivable resolution at certain viewing distances it should be possible to avoid any AA then. An addin card/module solution might also work, possibly with a 20 or less nm GPU solution at the time when 4K becomes mainstream, which might be a few years away.


Regarding the economics of console HW vs PC:
The console makers might not only count on game license income, but also on future price drops of its main components after process improvements. Thats a benefit of nearly unchanged specs over a lifecycle.
__________________
Twitter: Dresdenboy
Blog: http://citavia.blog.de/
Dresdenboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 09:35 AM   #653
blackened23
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,368
Default

4K gaming is not realistic for upcoming hardware, that just will not happen.
blackened23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 10:05 AM   #654
Maragark
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
Right and the 7800 is less powerful too.
Both of those GPUs are more powerful than their console alternatives, with the PS3 featuring a cut down 7800GTX and the Xbox360 using a cut down X1800.
Maragark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 10:12 AM   #655
Lepton87
Golden Member
 
Lepton87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Poland(EU)
Posts: 1,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maragark View Post
Both of those GPUs are more powerful than their console alternatives, with the PS3 featuring a cut down 7800GTX and the Xbox360 using a cut down X1800.
You're wrong about Xbox360, Xenos is a completely reworked unified architecture, X1800 is still a non-unified architecture with dedicated pixel shaders and vertex shaders.
__________________
i5 2600K@4778MHz(47x101.7MHz) 1.45V,Noctua NH-D14, Asus Maximus IV Extreme, 8GB Corsair 1866MHz, Gigabyte GTX Titan, Sandforce 2 120GB + Sandforce 1 60GB 2x2TB WD Caviar, BE Quiet 1200W, dell u2711
Lepton87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 11:42 AM   #656
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maragark View Post
Both of those GPUs are more powerful than their console alternatives, with the PS3 featuring a cut down 7800GTX and the Xbox360 using a cut down X1800.
You're wrong. Im not even talking about the PS3. Haven't you spread enough nonsense for a single lifetime?
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)

Last edited by 2is; 02-09-2013 at 11:50 AM.
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 12:51 PM   #657
SickBeast
Lifer
 
SickBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,188
Default

It's disappointing that the new consoles aren't pushing the envelope they way the older ones typically have. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 had very powerful GPUs. In the case of the Xbox 360, it had a next generation GPU that was significantly better than the PC equivalent, plus it had some kind of crazy GPU buffer memory that made it even faster.
__________________
Asus X53E l i3-2350M l 16gb DDR3 l OCZ Agility 4
SickBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:18 PM   #658
insertcarehere
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy View Post
He assumes 4K and stereoscopic 3D support. Full HD 3D would mean twice the 1080p graphics output and 4K would result in 4 times as much pixels to be drawn. But given the perceivable resolution at certain viewing distances it should be possible to avoid any AA then. An addin card/module solution might also work, possibly with a 20 or less nm GPU solution at the time when 4K becomes mainstream, which might be a few years away.
I can't see how an add-in card module can work very well in any way, even disregarding the fact that no interface will be able to provide even near the bandwith such a gpu needs, developers will still have to accomodate for people who don't have this add-in card
insertcarehere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:32 PM   #659
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickBeast View Post
It's disappointing that the new consoles aren't pushing the envelope they way the older ones typically have. Both the PS3 and Xbox 360 had very powerful GPUs.
Maybe MS and Sony looked at the bottom line financially, and saw that they lost money this last generation, and chalked that up to their high-cost (at the time) hardware?

Thus opting for something more affordable hardware-wise, and more cost-effective overall.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 01:43 PM   #660
SickBeast
Lifer
 
SickBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualLarry View Post
Maybe MS and Sony looked at the bottom line financially, and saw that they lost money this last generation, and chalked that up to their high-cost (at the time) hardware?

Thus opting for something more affordable hardware-wise, and more cost-effective overall.
I think it was that combined with the fact that you only need so much power for 1080p resolution. It's still disappointing though from a gamer's perspective.
__________________
Asus X53E l i3-2350M l 16gb DDR3 l OCZ Agility 4
SickBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 02:32 PM   #661
Maragark
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
You're wrong. Im not even talking about the PS3. Haven't you spread enough nonsense for a single lifetime?
Nonsense like what? Like this? As for the consoles, that's what they're equivalent to.

Xenos:
Process Size: 90 nm
Transistors: 232 million
Die Size: 182 mm^2
Shading Units: 48
TMUs: 16
ROPs: 8
Compute Units: 3
Pixel Rate: 4.00 GPixel/s
Texture Rate: 8.00 GTexel/s
Floating-point performance: 48.00 GFLOPS
GPU Clock: 500 MHz
Memory Clock: 700 MHz, 1400 MHz effective
Memory Size: 512 MB
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus: 128 bit
Bandwidth: 22.4 GB/s

X1800 XT:
Process Size: 90 nm
Transistors: 321 million
Die Size: 288 mm^2
Pixel Shaders: 16
Vertex Shaders: 8
TMUs: 16
ROPs: 16
Pixel Rate: 9.60 GPixel/s
Vertex Rate: 9.60 GVertices/s
Texture Rate: 9.60 GTexel/s
GPU Clock: 600 MHz
Memory Clock: 700 MHz, 1400 MHz effective
Memory Size: 512 MB
Memory Type: GDDR3
Memory Bus: 256 bit
Bandwidth: 44.8 GB/s

The X1800 XT is clearly better than Xenos and was released a month before it.
Maragark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 02:57 PM   #662
SickBeast
Lifer
 
SickBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,188
Default

Maragark you are wrong.
__________________
Asus X53E l i3-2350M l 16gb DDR3 l OCZ Agility 4
SickBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2013, 04:35 PM   #663
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maragark View Post
Nonsense like what? Like this? As for the consoles, that's what they're equivalent to.
Nonsense like the vast majority of your posts here at Anandtech... Oh look, multiple people telling you you're wrong... Again. Shocker.

Also, Gabe does not determine success of gaming PC's. Are you really clueless enough to think Gabe, the guy behind the largest digital distribution service on PC is impartial and has no motive to push one platform over the other? Nevermind, stupid question based on your post history.
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)

Last edited by 2is; 02-09-2013 at 04:39 PM.
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 03:42 AM   #664
MightyMalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 292
Default

For sure 4K gaming is out of the question, but 4K video? Different story.

This generation will concentrate on full 1080p type resolutions.
MightyMalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 03:51 AM   #665
Maragark
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickBeast View Post
Maragark you are wrong.
How am I wrong? Simply because you say so? I posted the specs for Xenos and the X1800 XT and the specs for the X1800 XT are clearly better.
Maragark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 03:57 AM   #666
sontin
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,059
Default

The specs of the X1800XT are not better at all.
Xenos has 48 Vec4+1 unified shaders, r520 only 16 vec4+1 ps and 8 vec4 vs.

Xenos has twice the shaders but up to 3x the ps and 6x the vs performance.
sontin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:15 AM   #667
Maragark
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
Nonsense like the vast majority of your posts here at Anandtech... Oh look, multiple people telling you you're wrong... Again. Shocker.
Just because a couple of people disagree with a post, that doesn't make it nonsense. Since I made those comments, Tom's have done an SFF gaming build guide and Gabe has been speaking about the PC in a console form factor in the living room. It's pretty obvious SFF PCs are becoming more common and pretty soon they'll be the norm. You'd have to be completely devoid of common sense and real life experience to think that a cheaper, smaller, better performing and more functional SFF PC would not compete with a console in taking a poor persons cash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
Also, Gabe does not determine success of gaming PC's. Are you really clueless enough to think Gabe, the guy behind the largest digital distribution service on PC is impartial and has no motive to push one platform over the other? Nevermind, stupid question based on your post history.
Are you really so delusional as to think that SFF PCs, with the backing of Valve, have zero chance of success?

It's pretty funny seeing you bring this back up simply because you can't refute the fact that the X1800 XT is better than Xenos, as shown by the specs I posted.
Maragark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:24 AM   #668
Skurge
Diamond Member
 
Skurge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Namibia
Posts: 4,899
Default

You guys can't be serious.

Xenos faster than R520?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1719/7
__________________
Intel Core i5-4670K |MSI Z97-Gaming 5|32GB DDR3-1600|Gigabyte R9 290 Windforce CF [stock]|Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB|Corsair AX860 PSU|Corsair 750D|Windows 8.1 Pro|Samsung U28D590D|Logitech G27 Racing Wheel|Nexus 5 32GB
Skurge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:31 AM   #669
Maragark
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sontin View Post
The specs of the X1800XT are not better at all.
Xenos has 48 Vec4+1 unified shaders, r520 only 16 vec4+1 ps and 8 vec4 vs.

Xenos has twice the shaders but up to 3x the ps and 6x the vs performance.
The specs for the the X1800 XT are clearly better. Yes the Xenos, has more shaders and uses a unified architecture but that's the only thing about it that is better.

The X1800 XT has:

89 million more transistors,
2x the ROPs,
more than 2x pixel fill rate,
greater texture fill rate,
higher gpu clock,
2x memory bus width,
2x memory bandwidth.

But yeah, nevermind all that, Xenos uses unified shaders, therefore it must be better.
Maragark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:35 AM   #670
zebrax2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skurge View Post
You guys can't be serious.

Xenos faster than R520?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1719/7

Quote:
Performance of this hardware is a very difficult aspect to assess without testing the system. The potential is there for some nice gains over the current high end desktop part, but it is very difficult to know how easily software engineers will be able to functionally use the hardware before they fully understand it and have programmed for it for a while.
zebrax2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:44 AM   #671
Maragark
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zebrax2 View Post
At the time of that article, the top-end ATI card was the X850 XT.
Maragark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 05:54 AM   #672
Lepton87
Golden Member
 
Lepton87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Poland(EU)
Posts: 1,634
Default

I think Xenos is more comparable to R580 then it is to R520, don't forget that it has a big Edram(for the time) which allows AA at much reduced performance impact. Anyway, it's a discussion that people had 7 years ago
__________________
i5 2600K@4778MHz(47x101.7MHz) 1.45V,Noctua NH-D14, Asus Maximus IV Extreme, 8GB Corsair 1866MHz, Gigabyte GTX Titan, Sandforce 2 120GB + Sandforce 1 60GB 2x2TB WD Caviar, BE Quiet 1200W, dell u2711
Lepton87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 08:14 AM   #673
Gideon
Member
 
Gideon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepton87 View Post
I think Xenos is more comparable to R580 then it is to R520, don't forget that it has a big Edram(for the time) which allows AA at much reduced performance impact. Anyway, it's a discussion that people had 7 years ago
Xenos could actally be considerably faster in heavily shader-bound games than R520 (X1800), however R580 (X1900) should have been faster across the board (with the exception of some corner-case scenarios like being extremely vertex-bound).

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/454..._X1900_XT.html

Anyway, these guys who are whining, why we don't have the highest end GPUs in the consoles are missing a very important point:

1) The top of the line cards of the time, X1800 and X1900, have a TDP between 100 - 135 W.
2) Radeon 7970 Ghz edition has a TDP of 300 W.

You can't fit such a beast into a console chassis ! The First iteration of Xbox 360 was considered quite bulky and noisy for a console, despite having a GPU with 3x smaller power draw, than the current high-end!

Even vanilla 7950 with its 200W TDP is too much. A Radeon 7850 (130 W TDP), or something with a similar power draw, is about the maximum Microsoft could comfortably fit into the chassis, without resorting to expensive cooling measures.

So yeah, Microsoft did undershot with it's GPU compared to Xbox 360 at its time, but it didn't do it nearly as much as many claim. Tahiti is simply too big a chip to be used in a console, even the upper end Pitcairns are iffy!
Gideon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 08:46 AM   #674
Enigmoid
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,227
Default

I think when making this comparison its more relevent to compare xenos to the best card at the start of manufacturing as compared to the best card at approximate date of release.

You really cant expect them to be able to put a card in that was released months after they started manufacturing.
Enigmoid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 11:24 AM   #675
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maragark View Post
Just because a couple of people disagree with a post, that doesn't make it nonsense.
Same tired excuse. If it makes you feel better, that's not the only reason

Quote:
Are you really so delusional as to think that SFF PCs, with the backing of Valve, have zero chance of success?

It's pretty funny seeing you bring this back up simply because you can't refute the fact that the X1800 XT is better than Xenos, as shown by the specs I posted.
Are you so delusional to think people outside of enthusiasts know who gabe even is? The "backing" of valve? What does that even mean? Are they subsidizing the cost? Are they giving them away? Or is this "backing" Consist of a guy sitting in a chair.... Talking? Kind of like what you're doing?

And bring what back up? I'm pretty sure anything that was rehashed was your doing. How can anything you say be taken seriously when you can't even keep up with the BS that comes out of your own mouth?
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.