the gpu's on the consoles

[easonator]

I was wondering which console has the better gpu. Both the consoles seem to have the same graphics. Both have their own exclusive games that have great graphics like MGS4 for the ps3 and Gears for 360. Out of which gpu has the edge to make better looking graphics?

Have console graphics reached it's limit? Are they going to get any better? I'm hoping I don't start a flame war, but this is the only place where I could probably get real answers lol.

 

[SunnyD]

Console graphics will always get better just as PC graphics get better - they draw on the same technologies. You have to remember that when a console is designed, it's locked into that particular graphics implementation until the next console cycle. Generally - as is the case of the XBox 360 - the GPU's in a console are somewhat more advanced than the at-the-time current generation PC counterpart, and usually become the basis for the next generation PC parts. But then 3, 5, 6, however many years down the road, GPU in the console becomes dated compared to PC parts... so the next iteration of console comes up and features an updated GPU based on current PC specifications along with enhancements that move it beyond the PC part, and the cycle perpetuates.

The key is that a console is a closed system - once it's spec'd out, the developers know what to expect, and can then code around any possible feature set the console has, while coding around possible shortcomings. With the PC world, there's always room for advancement because the PC's GPU is expected to do so much more (CAD, precision graphics, GPGPU, etc) that isn't generally in the realm of a console.

To answer your question directly (which one is better) - that's all subjective preference. Performance-wise - titles are generally written toward the entire platform for a given performance metric, and the quality of the graphics are just about the same. The real key is - which platform has the titles you will enjoy more (as both have exclusives), and which console has the peripheral feature set that would give you the most value (in the case of titles that overlap)? Personally, the PS3 has more titles that look rockin' that I don't see on the XBox, though the XBox has certain titles I would love to have that the PS3 doesn't. So what do I have? I have a Wii...

 

[Subliminal86]

IMO, the engines used to make and code games R more important than the actual hardware. last i checked the PS3 package was supposed to be stronger, bud due to the lack of experienced programmers willing to drop a ton of money to invest in optimizing the coding on the ps3, it has been limited to match the 360's performance.
most games r coded on the 360 dev kit and then ported to the PS3.
look at the past, Atari's Jaguar failed even with 64-bit processing in an era where 32-bit was the standard.

to me its all about the games, i bought both the PS3 and 360 cuz i need both to play the games i love.
----------------------------------------

to answer your question, i say CPUs r as important as GPUs.
iv seen an 8 PS3 supercomputer, but i have yet to c a 360 owner displeased with the amount of games released.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=220 <--------------- 8 PS3 supercomputer

 

[easonator]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Console graphics will always get better just as PC graphics get better - they draw on the same technologies. You have to remember that when a console is designed, it's locked into that particular graphics implementation until the next console cycle. Generally - as is the case of the XBox 360 - the GPU's in a console are somewhat more advanced than the at-the-time current generation PC counterpart, and usually become the basis for the next generation PC parts. But then 3, 5, 6, however many years down the road, GPU in the console becomes dated compared to PC parts... so the next iteration of console comes up and features an updated GPU based on current PC specifications along with enhancements that move it beyond the PC part, and the cycle perpetuates.

The key is that a console is a closed system - once it's spec'd out, the developers know what to expect, and can then code around any possible feature set the console has, while coding around possible shortcomings. With the PC world, there's always room for advancement because the PC's GPU is expected to do so much more (CAD, precision graphics, GPGPU, etc) that isn't generally in the realm of a console.

To answer your question directly (which one is better) - that's all subjective preference. Performance-wise - titles are generally written toward the entire platform for a given performance metric, and the quality of the graphics are just about the same. The real key is - which platform has the titles you will enjoy more (as both have exclusives), and which console has the peripheral feature set that would give you the most value (in the case of titles that overlap)? Personally, the PS3 has more titles that look rockin' that I don't see on the XBox, though the XBox has certain titles I would love to have that the PS3 doesn't. So what do I have? I have a Wii...

Great answer. You pretty much answered my question thoroughly.

 

[thilanliyan]

I have the PS3 and while I love some of the games on it (ie. GTA4, Uncharted)...they can't touch PC games in terms of graphics quality now (they were decent when they came out but definitely behind now). Although nowadays since most PC games are console ports, there isn't much of a difference.

The one thing I don't like about the PS3 is the lack of AA in most games I've played. I'm not sure if the 360 is better in this regard.

 

[Sentry2]

Originally posted by: thilan29
I have the PS3 and while I love some of the games on it (ie. GTA4, Uncharted)...they can't touch PC games in terms of graphics quality now (they were decent when they came out but definitely behind now). Although nowadays since most PC games are console ports, there isn't much of a difference.

The one thing I don't like about the PS3 is the lack of AA in most games I've played. I'm not sure if the 360 is better in this regard.

Not much of a difference from what I've seen.

Kinda off topic...but I do like the fact you can just stick a bigger HDD in the PS3 and go about your business. Put a 320GB in mine and love it. I've been noticing lately that some of the newer games coming out support 1080p on the 360 but only 720p on the PS3....although from every one that I've seen it seems to be rendering @ a lower res and scaling to 1080p. Could be something along the lines of what Subliminal86 mentioned though...about being coded on the 360 dev kit and then ported over...

In the end you probably won't notice much of a difference between games that show up for both systems...it's the platform specific titles and the controller that may make the difference for you(OP).

Just my thoughts :beer:

 

[RussianSensation]

PS3 - RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'

- "G70" 90nm (original spin) GeForce 7950GT clocked at 550mhz GPU
- 300 million transistors
- Non-unified (i.e. traditional) arcitecture of separating pixel and vertex pipelines:
24 pixel and 8 vertex pipelines, 24 texture filtering units, 8 ROPs
- Texture fill-rate of 13.2 GigaTexels
- Shader operations of 13,200 MOperations/sec
- Vertex operations of 1.1 Billion Vertices/sec
- Pixel fill-rate of 8.8 GigaPixels/sec
- 256MB of GDDR3 RAM with 128-bit memory bus running at an effective speed of 1.4Ghz => 22.4GB/sec of memory bandwidth
- Maximum shader operations: 136 Billion/sec
- 128-bit pixel precision for HDR
- This is a DX9.0c GPU (Shader Model 3.0)

In most simplest terms, this GPU is 7950GT with 128-bit memory vs. 256-bit of the PC version and with 256MB of ram vs. 256 or 512mb for the PC version (PC version released September 6, 2006). The PC version developed 44.8GB/sec memory bandwidth.

Xbox360 - Xenos

- R500-derivative* (but really a basis for the R600 architecture) GPU
- 232 million transistors
*R520 for the PC was a traditional style GPU, but R500 described here is actually a unified shader GPU
- 2 components: (1) GPU (2) embedded DRAM (eDRAM) framebuffer
(1) GPU: 65nm, 500mhz GPU speed, 48 unified shaders with 2x ALUs (each pipeline is capable of running either pixel/vertex shaders), 16 texture units, 8 ROPs
- Vertex operations of 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec
- Maximum shader operations: 48 Billion/sec
- Pixel fill-rate: 4 GigaPixels/sec
- Supports HDR
- This is a DX9.0c GPU (Shader Model 3.0)
- 512MB GDDR3 shared (between CPU and GPU) memory on a 128-bit bus running at an effective 1.4Ghz

(2) 65nm DRAM (eDRAM) actually includes 192 parallel pixel processors (designed by NEC)
- 105 million transistors
- 8 ROPs
- Pixel fill-rate: 4 GigaPixels/sec
- This was supposed to give low cost 4AA
- 256GB/sec internal memory bandwidth (used for z-buffering, alpha blending, antialiasing)
- 32GB/sec bandwidth between eDRAM and GPU

Basically this was a very custom setup. It's a step towards HD2600/2900 series but only has 48 shaders, but uses 2x ALU setup. So it's going to have inferior 4AA performance to HD4800 series but the embedded ram helps out here. The pixel fill-rate is a wash between the 2 gpus with NV's being superior in the texture fill-rate (historically NV's strong side anyway). I am not sure how complex the shaders are (i.e. super scalar MADDx5? probably not).

I would give the 360's GPU an edge here for several reasons:
1) Superior AA without a doubt
2) X1800/X1900 level GPU before Xenos was already superior to 7950. With this unified shader GPU, you are probably looking at HD 2600 level performance I'd say which will out perform the 7950 card.
3) Majority of the same games between the 2 consoles run faster on the Xbox (smoother framerate in sports games/racing games, etc.) - i.e. Assassin's Creed is superior on the 360 for example.

Overall though, these 2 are pretty close and as has been said above at this level you are looking at coding optimizations and so forth (because 360's 3-core CPU is rather weak). But they are vastly superior to the Wii which is around X850XT's performance if that.

 

[Insomniator]

Isn't a 2600 in any variant much slower than a 7950?

And judging by the wii's games I'd say closer to whatever was in the original xbox.. geforce 3?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Isn't a 2600 in any variant much slower than a 7950?

And judging by the wii's games I'd say closer to whatever was in the original xbox.. geforce 3?

Ya I think my "estimate" of the 2600's performance is a bit too low. Afterall you have 8 ROPs and 16 texture units on the GPU alone and that is double what the 2600XT had in each of those categories iirc. Anyway, even if the GPU is a lot faster than 2600XT, you have to consider the total system for performance. And that IBM in-order cpu processor is a dog!