XBox360 has the graphical edge over PS3 claims ATI

[purbeast0]

Text

It's a long article but a good read. I'll post a few quotes I thought were interesting ...

The PS3 does appear to have a huge amount of CPU power with the seven Cell cores. The problem they have is that CPU power isn?t really what developer?s need ? the bottleneck is really the graphics. Everybody is going multi-threaded and multi-core ? the Xbox 360 has three PowerPC cores, AMD and Intel both have dual-core chips, so everyone is having to learn how to write this stuff. But writing multi-threaded apps for two or three cores is difficult. Doing it for seven separate cores, when the main core has a slightly different feature-set from the other six, is very, very difficult.

By now, you?d have to have been hidden under a rock to have avoided learning the details of the ATI graphics that power the 360, dubbed Xenos. 10MB of Embedded DRAM provide enough of a buffer to enable all 360 games to have Anti-Aliasing switched on, effectively for no performance hit. The question on everyone?s lips is: is this something that?s going to turn up on the PC any time soon?

?I?d be very surprised if these hardware features were implemented on the PC any time soon,? we?re told. ?Microsoft has a very specific revision of DirectX (or Windows Graphics Foundation) for Xbox 360, just as they did with Xbox 1. DirectX for the PC includes no hardware specific instructions, because DirectX has to be 10 times more generic to work on a PC platform and the myriad of hardware configurations. I don?t think it will happen. Plus the architecture of the Xbox 360 is closed box ? that means we can do special things there which have no comparison in the PC space.

I began by asking Richard for his opinion on the Xbox 360 archtecture. ?I?m really impressed,? he commented, ?It?s way better than I would have expected at this point in the history of 3D graphics. The unified shader architecture alone is capable of giving a performance increase of a factor of nearly two over the hardware that we have in PCs today. That?s because we see many cases, and this is particularly true on consoles, where games are limited by one of the two groups of engines in the graphics chip, either the vertex engines or the pixel engines. With a unified pipeline we can now devote 100% of the hardware to which ever task is the bottleneck.?

How does he think the sharing of memory between the graphics and the main memory will affect performance? Well, Richard explains that the shared memory is ?Very different? from the technology implemented on the original Xbox, or even on today?s PC implementations.

?The intelligent memory gives pretty awesome speed ? the bandwidth is up to 2 Terabits per second. That kind of power is almost unimaginable. The old terminology of ?SMA (Shared Memory Architecture)? simply doesn?t do justice to the flexibility and power of the Xbox 360. SMA is a term we have inherited from the PC and it usually has some negative connotations, but the Xbox 360 is really nothing like that.?

I am not a hardware guru so I don't know exactly what all the terms in that article means, but I somewhat know what the majorit of it means. I am getting really excited about XBox360. I just wish it wasn't coming out in 5 months and was coming out sooner.

 

[Queasy]

I'm sure the graphics on the two will be about even. The bonus the 360 will have is that it will be well into its second generation of games by the time the PS3 comes out.

What baffles me is Sony again not including a hard drive. Ken Kutaragi confirmed that the HDD will be optional. Dumb dumb dumb move.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I'm sure the graphics on the two will be about even. What baffles me is Sony again not including a hard drive. Ken Kutaragi confirmed that the a HDD will be optional. Dumb dumb dumb move.

well the system already sounds like its going to be in the $400 price range, so I can understand why they aren't including the HD because it would make costs even more.

I agree though that in the long run the graphics will be about the same, but lets just hope that xbox doesn't have a great edge over PS3 graphically (as the way the XBox has the edge over PS2), for the sake of competition and sony, because that would really be embarassing putting a system out later and having worse graphics.

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I'm sure the graphics on the two will be about even. What baffles me is Sony again not including a hard drive. Ken Kutaragi confirmed that the HDD will be optional. Dumb dumb dumb move.

while this is true they wont include it in the actual system i am willing to bet they will ahve it in a bundle of some sort. They are saying they dont want to include it becuase some people want bigger or smaller harddrives. So by letting people by it in a bundle with their system people can choose which one they want. Does it really matter? it WILL support a HD that is Removable...so you can bring it over to your friends ps3 and just put it on. Sounds good to me.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
well the system already sounds like its going to be in the $400 price range, so I can understand why they aren't including the HD because it would make costs even more.

Originally posted by: RadioHead84
while this is true they wont include it in the actual system i am willing to bet they will ahve it in a bundle of some sort. They are saying they dont want to include it becuase some people want bigger or smaller harddrives. So by letting people by it in a bundle with their system people can choose which one they want. Does it really matter? it WILL support a HD that is Removable...so you can bring it over to your friends ps3 and just put it on. Sounds good to me.

Well, the problem with this is that developers aren't going to take advantage of something that is optional. It could potentially be like the PS2 where only two games even use the HDD.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Well, the problem with this is that developers aren't going to take advantage of something that is optional. It could potentially be like the PS2 where only two games even use the HDD.

true that, really good point. i guess sony's "use" of the HD isn't the same as MS is intending as they did w/the xbox.

what exactly does FF use the HDD for? and what is the other game that uses it?

 

[RadioHead84]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: purbeast0
well the system already sounds like its going to be in the $400 price range, so I can understand why they aren't including the HD because it would make costs even more.

Originally posted by: RadioHead84
while this is true they wont include it in the actual system i am willing to bet they will ahve it in a bundle of some sort. They are saying they dont want to include it becuase some people want bigger or smaller harddrives. So by letting people by it in a bundle with their system people can choose which one they want. Does it really matter? it WILL support a HD that is Removable...so you can bring it over to your friends ps3 and just put it on. Sounds good to me.

Well, the problem with this is that developers aren't going to take advantage of something that is optional. It could potentially be like the PS2 where only two games even use the HDD.

Perhaps..but then again..we are like a year away from the launch date for them so anything can happen and all we have to work with is talk. I would hope they just sell it with it just "technically" seprate so you can pick the size

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: Queasy

Well, the problem with this is that developers aren't going to take advantage of something that is optional. It could potentially be like the PS2 where only two games even use the HDD.

true that, really good point. i guess sony's "use" of the HD isn't the same as MS is intending as they did w/the xbox.

what exactly does FF use the HDD for? and what is the other game that uses it?

FF uses it for saving mainly. SOCOM used it for 3 downloadable maps. That's where the PS3 is going to come up short. Kutaragi is saying something about using a network of servers to store stuff but that a) requires a broadband connection and b) will still be slow as crap.

The Xbox was great because you could download maps and other additional features. Developers could also use the HDD to act as a cache to speed up loading of data. Those Bluray drives better be hellaciously fast.

 

[Ciber]

Originally posted by: Queasy
I'm sure the graphics on the two will be about even. The bonus the 360 will have is that it will be well into its second generation of games by the time the PS3 comes out.

What baffles me is Sony again not including a hard drive. Ken Kutaragi confirmed that the HDD will be optional. Dumb dumb dumb move.

I just read that and all i can say is WOW.... The man is a walking Hype machine... Never seen someone blow out so much hot air. He clearly drinks his own Kool-aid...

Smoking some good stuff.

 

[purbeast0]

So FF uses it only for saving? that is weak, as it's required for the game. it HAS to use it for other stuff.

but yea, i agree that its a bad move. it was awesome not having to ever EVER buy a memory card for xbox. it was also cool putting emulators and TV shows on my HD

 

[MaxFusion16]

I thought the ps3 is better than the xbox 360 hardware wise, at least according to this chart

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
So FF uses it only for saving? that is weak, as it's required for the game. it HAS to use it for other stuff.

Well, I should clarify. It uses it for saving/caching game information while you are playing since the memory cards are too small to hold all the data necessary while the game is being played.

 

[0roo0roo]

arstechnica has some good articles too. and yea, cell seems tobe overhyped.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: purbeast0
So FF uses it only for saving? that is weak, as it's required for the game. it HAS to use it for other stuff.

Well, I should clarify. It uses it for saving/caching game information while you are playing since the memory cards are too small to hold all the data necessary while the game is being played.

ah okay, so basically its the only game on ps2 that does exactly what every game on xbox does

 

[RagingBITCH]

pur - I'm a XBox fanboi - you know that from the article I posted yesterday. But no where in that article does ATI claim the XBox has a graphical edge over the PS3. The second page of the article states how ATI plans on making up for the "paper spec" difference though. It's more "counterpoint" to Sony's endless line of marketing hype.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: MaxFusion16
I thought the ps3 is better than the xbox 360 hardware wise, at least according to this chart

Both have their pluses and minuses. The 360 will be better at integer calculations while the PS3 will be better at floating point calculations. Both GPUs have their pluses and minuses as well as both use shaders differently.

Either ExtremeTech or Ars did a pretty good technical comparison. It'll probably be a wash power wise.

 

[shilala]

How long does it usually take before you can mod a new console after it's release?

 

[James3shin]

From what was shown at E3, namely the Unreal 3 demo, the RSX should be impressive. Tim Sweeney said the PS3 was actually pretty simply to dev for as well. Tim Sweeney is the man at Epic and Unreal tech frontman just for those that are not aware. But I would suggest taking any statements from developers that have ties with a graphics foundation or the graphics foundation itself with a grain of salt. Ofcourse ATi's is going to tout its chip is better then NV's RSX, and vice versa. I also expected Sweeney to kind of float towards favoring the RSX, with UT being part of "The Way Its Meant To Be...." bandwagon. I'll wait till the actual games out before I make any judgements on graphic superiority.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: James3shin
From what was shown at E3, namely the Unreal 3 demo, the RSX should be impressive. Tim Sweeney said the PS3 was actually pretty simply to dev for as well. Tim Sweeney is the man at Epic and Unreal tech frontman just for those that are not aware. But I would suggest taking any statements from developers that have ties with a graphics foundation or the graphics foundation itself with a grain of salt. Ofcourse ATi's is going to tout its chip is better then NV's RSX, and vice versa. I also expected Sweeney to kind of float towards favoring the RSX, with UT being part of "The Way Its Meant To Be...." bandwagon. I'll wait till the actual games out before I make any judgements on graphic superiority.

Well, the Unreal Team is heavily supporting the 360 as well with Gears of War and Unreal as well.

I take Sweeney's word with grain of salt because he was there to sell the Unreal Dev Kits. Sony and the Unreal team announced a deal not long after the presentation that the Unreal Dev Kits would be available for PS3 game development.

Both cards/consoles are going to be impressive. I just don't think one is going to blow the other out of the water by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
pur - I'm a XBox fanboi - you know that from the article I posted yesterday. But no where in that article does ATI claim the XBox has a graphical edge over the PS3. The second page of the article states how ATI plans on making up for the "paper spec" difference though. It's more "counterpoint" to Sony's endless line of marketing hype.

they say it indirectly

 

[purbeast0]

wow I just read that article about the PS3 guy and the HDD talk.

So he's saying that a 20gb HD in the XBox is not going to be enough? He also claims that 80gb and 120gb HDD's are not going to be big enough?

I guess this guy didn't understand that the xbox has an 8gb HD by default and that usually has about 5gb free on it most of the time, even after creating save profiles of over 200 games on an xbox.

I would think this guy would atleast know what he's talking about a little better than that...

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
So FF uses it only for saving? that is weak, as it's required for the game. it HAS to use it for other stuff.

but yea, i agree that its a bad move. it was awesome not having to ever EVER buy a memory card for xbox. it was also cool putting emulators and TV shows on my HD

no FF uses it for client changes from patches...
it is an MMO afterall..

 

[James3shin]

while I think Kutargi is making an excuse to have PS3's shipped with HDD's, he may have a point at the same time. Im guessing Kutargi is indirectly or by accident at best is trying to say that people will want to store HD-movies that they would buy from some online service, and that they would eat up 20GB quite easily? But I mostly feel Kutargi is copping out to keep the loss Sony is going to take to a minimum.

 

[skace]

?I?d be very surprised if these hardware features were implemented on the PC any time soon,? we?re told. ?Microsoft has a very specific revision of DirectX (or Windows Graphics Foundation) for Xbox 360, just as they did with Xbox 1. DirectX for the PC includes no hardware specific instructions, because DirectX has to be 10 times more generic to work on a PC platform and the myriad of hardware configurations. I don?t think it will happen. Plus the architecture of the Xbox 360 is closed box ? that means we can do special things there which have no comparison in the PC space.

Is ATi saying they arn't bringing a similar video card to the PC market? I don't know, that quote above angers me MORE than all the PS3 hype combined. You can't bring your hardware to the PC because the software is slightly different? Yet nVidia (IIRC) will be bringing similar hardware to the PC that is used on the insanely difficult 7 processor core?

Maybe someone more technically knowledgable can set me straight, but that smells like a load of BS, that their hardware is dictated by the Dx revision.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: James3shin
while I think Kutargi is making an excuse to have PS3's shipped with HDD's, he may have a point at the same time. Im guessing Kutargi is indirectly or by accident at best is trying to say that people will want to store HD-movies that they would buy from some online service, and that they would eat up 20GB quite easily? But I mostly feel Kutargi is copping out to keep the loss Sony is going to take to a minimum.

I believe PS2 was the only console of the previous generation that actually made money for each sale. I would assume they like that notion and will try to hit for it again. I agree though, that if they don't sell the HDD with the unit, it will get minimal use. I'm curious how big the flash cards used for saved games will be this time around.