7800GTX = 24 pp, 450 mhz core.

[PSUstoekl]

ok, that's all fine and dandy, but i've heard that the ps3 is using a similar G70-based solution, dubbed the "RSX", but it has 48 pp and a core clock of 550 mhz...

doesn't it sound kind of off that a $600 graphics card such as this will doon be outdone by something in a console?

i'm just a little distraught by all of this, being a PC gamer and upgrader.

 

[fstime]

ATI has their faster chip the R600 in the XBox 360 aswell.

Yes, these chips are monsters.

 

[PSUstoekl]

so, the R600 will be more powerful than the forthcoming GPU from ATi?

 

[Kalessian]

Strangely, I doubt the console GPU's will be as mighty as they appear.

 

[PSUstoekl]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
Strangely, I doubt the console GPU's will be as mighty as they appear.

true, but consider the GPU in the original PS2 (and indeed, the CPU as well). then consider the graphics seen in such games as Gran Turismo 4 or God of War. THey are, inarguably, almost nearly on par with what you see in most PC games.

 

[JBT]

The PS3 isn't going to be out for like another year? the 7800 GTX is out right now. I think that is a prety big difference between the two. Why wouldn't the RSX be better?

 

[imported_Kensai]

Those are on paper. Let's see when we actually get to try them out.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: PSUstoekl
so, the R600 will be more powerful than the forthcoming GPU from ATi?

But the R600 is coming out next year, as its a next gen GPU.

While the PS3 is using this gen but upgraded to next gen.

 

[Insomniak]

I have a feeling the console graphics chips will be hampered by low CPU performance/memory availability.

 

[Fuelrod]

What gets me are the next generation console chips and the next generation PC chips can't be that different as far as the cost to manufacturing them. Yet the next gen consoles will go for $300 to $400 for the whole system (other parts included) but the PC chips go for $500 to $600 all by themselves. To me if feels like PC gamers are subsidizing the cost for the console.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Fuelrod
What gets me are the next generation console chips and the next generation PC chips can't be that different as far as the cost to manufacturing them. Yet the next gen consoles will go for $300 to $400 for the whole system (other parts included) but the PC chips go for $500 to $600 all by themselves. To me if feels like PC gamers are subsidizing the cost for the console.

not quite

Sony is subsidizing the costs for the R&D for the PS3 GPU as M$ is doing for the x360. THEY recoup thei money thru selling games.

We are simply paying 'full price' for the GPUs in our computer.

 

[ShmooDude]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Fuelrod
What gets me are the next generation console chips and the next generation PC chips can't be that different as far as the cost to manufacturing them. Yet the next gen consoles will go for $300 to $400 for the whole system (other parts included) but the PC chips go for $500 to $600 all by themselves. To me if feels like PC gamers are subsidizing the cost for the console.

not quite

Sony is subsidizing the costs for the R&D for the PS3 GPU as M$ is doing for the x360. THEY recoup thei money thru selling games.

We are simply paying 'full price' for the GPUs in our computer.

Right Nvidia and ATI have to make a profit on the computer GPUs. Console makers however usually LOSE money on the consoles and make it up in game sales. I think one estimate I heard for the PS3 is it was going to be $400 but actually cost the company $500 to make. multiply that by some large number, I forget but its probably something over$30 million assuming similar sales to the PS2 and that's a lot of money they lose just on the consoles?

 

[PSUstoekl]

yes, shmoo, i've heard similar figures...

 

[Fuelrod]

Originally posted by: ShmooDude

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Fuelrod
What gets me are the next generation console chips and the next generation PC chips can't be that different as far as the cost to manufacturing them. Yet the next gen consoles will go for $300 to $400 for the whole system (other parts included) but the PC chips go for $500 to $600 all by themselves. To me if feels like PC gamers are subsidizing the cost for the console.

not quite

Sony is subsidizing the costs for the R&D for the PS3 GPU as M$ is doing for the x360. THEY recoup thei money thru selling games.

We are simply paying 'full price' for the GPUs in our computer.

Right Nvidia and ATI have to make a profit on the computer GPUs. Console makers however usually LOSE money on the consoles and make it up in game sales. I think one estimate I heard for the PS3 is it was going to be $400 but actually cost the company $500 to make. multiply that by some large number, I forget but its probably something over$30 million assuming similar sales to the PS2 and that's a lot of money they lose just on the consoles?

Ok, let?s use your example of the PS3 actual cost is around $500. If the cost of all the other part beside the GPU add up to $200 (which I think is a low estimate), then the actual cost of the GPU would be $300. Nvidia could therefore sell the chip for $400 and still make a healthy profit. Instead the charge $600; I still say PC users are getting screwed.

 

[apoppin]

you bet their getting screwed . . . nVidia is raking in the bucks while the raking is good . . . they don't want to get caught like ATI that has to heavily discounts it's [overlarge] inventory just to move it at a much lower profit margin.

Why do you think Ford, GM and Chrysler are selling their big pickups for THOUSANDS off? They are taking a cut on their PROFIT margin.

it's the American way to make the biggest bucks while you are "hot' and then "get by" until you are hot again.

 

[PSUstoekl]

^amen

 

[Burrbaby]

Originally posted by: PSUstoekl

Originally posted by: Kalessian
Strangely, I doubt the console GPU's will be as mighty as they appear.

true, but consider the GPU in the original PS2 (and indeed, the CPU as well). then consider the graphics seen in such games as Gran Turismo 4 or God of War. THey are, inarguably, almost nearly on par with what you see in most PC games.

True but those PS2 games run at At far less than a third the resolution; i own both games and while they are pretty the gameplay is far more important than the graphics when you play them on the same monitor, which I do.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: PSUstoekl
ok, that's all fine and dandy, but i've heard that the ps3 is using a similar G70-based solution, dubbed the "RSX", but it has 48 pp and a core clock of 550 mhz...

doesn't it sound kind of off that a $600 graphics card such as this will doon be outdone by something in a console?

i'm just a little distraught by all of this, being a PC gamer and upgrader.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=1

48PP?

 

[KeepItRed]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
ATI has their faster chip the R600 in the XBox 360 aswell.

Yes, these chips are monsters.

Yea, alot better than PC graphic cards. I'm guessing because everything is integrated and linked unlike a PC.

 

[blckgrffn]

Discussed just little already...



Nat

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
I have a feeling the console graphics chips will be hampered by low CPU performance/memory availability.

This is the mind boggler for me, these consoles will not be able to run the high res textures that they need to tax the GPU and tout superior IQ over PCs.

Even with a lean and mean OS there is no way to cram 1500MB of textures into 500MB of memory without losing a *LOT* of performance/IQ.