is the ps3 graphics chip better than the x360's

Needles · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:05

Just a simple question although is a simple answer possible, I know it is hard to tell at the moment as the ps3 has yet to really appear as finished hardware, but according the chip specifications of the RSX compared to the ati chip, is there anybody who might have enough graphics hardware knowledge to give something that comes close to an educated answer.

Many thanx

melchy · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:07

I believe in theory the ATi chip is faster due to its unified architecture. The RSX in the PS3 is essentially a 7800 as far as im aware. No doubt someone will be along to disagree completely with me.

punky_munky · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:09

Yeah it might be better but what does it really matter? Xbox is supposed to be a lot more powerful than the PS2 but you get the same games on both and I'm sure that trend will continue into the next gen.

PuncH · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:09

quality of graphics wise i believe they're pretty much the same. as melchy said, the 360 is a tad faster.

melchy · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:13

punky_munky said:
Yeah it might be better but what does it really matter? Xbox is supposed to be a lot more powerful than the PS2 but you get the same games on both and I'm sure that trend will continue into the next gen.

Like you i doubt that there will be much in the way of graphical difference in reality, games will appear on both and will probably look nigh on identical.

da_mic_1530 · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:17

this thread may kick up arguments, im leaving now

on a side note it doesnt matter which is better, as both will provide adequete gfx

Domo · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:19

It's all academic isn't it? I mean - how can anyone compare 2 machines when one of them doesn't even exist yet?

Needles · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:23

Wasn't looking to start a thread that would lead to a fanboy stand off, so please any body with the intention of doing so please put the handbag down and take 3 paces back, the question was asked in a purely technical manner, as in raw horsepower and features

Boogle · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:24

Probably mostly the same. Transistor count & speed is the restrictive force and both will have the same count more or less (the PS3 coming out later may allow for a higher clock speed). However the ATI chip has a daughter chip to either be slightly faster or match the PS3's chip.

I doubt either will be significantly better than the other.

Needles · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:24

the rsx is taped and ready to go into production so that aspect of the machine is concrete, along with processor and memory, an actual production model I think is the only thing missing

Domo · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:27

Needles said:
Wasn't looking to start a thread that would lead to a fanboy stand off, so please any body with the intention of doing so please put the handbag down and take 3 paces back, the question was asked in a purely technical manner, as in raw horsepower and features

Best left at least until both machines can be fairly compared. It won't be until we start seeing some cross platform games that anyone can make a proper judgement.
To be quite honest though, a question like that is going to start a fanboy thread - what did you expect

melchy · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:28

I think everyone in the thread is being pretty diplomatic at the moment and is pretty devoid of fanboyism

Long may that last.

fini · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:30

As melchy said - the 360's was designed from the ground up whilst the rsx is almost a last minute thing so in theory the 360's should provide a lot more grunt.

Can't we wait until the PS3's launched (sometime in 2012(?)) to compare instead of having these threads every week though?

fini

Domo · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:32

fini said:
...sometime in 2012

Perhaps Sony's strategy is to release the PS3 as a retro console

Needles · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:32

personally I have decided to jump in 360 wagon myself but, just want to know what else if anything different the ps3 is bringing to the table ( excluding format exclusives ), I know about blu-ray, although not really interested in another format to play movies on just the playing experience, and at the mo 360 live setup is what bags it for me, but if ps3 can deliver something new i'll get one of those too

Valleyman · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:45

They're both roughly similar...

The PS3 uses the G71 chipset, known as the RSX, which is essentially the new 7900GTX chip. However it will be running at lower speeds than the 7900GTX (to improve yeilds), but will be otherwise identical. It's very much a "power" chip, rather than a "clever" chip.

The xbox360 uses a unified ATI solution. It's technically more advanced in it's methods, because of the Unified Shader Architecture... whether it has more horsepower than the RSX though is kinda unknown. Also as it ISN'T based on PC hardware as we know it, it's very hard to comapre to anything we currently have.

Don't think I'm bashing PS3 here for choosing power over brains. Hey look how the PowerVR vs. Voodoo battle turned out (Oh dear, that was 10 years ago... I've been doing this for far too long). PowerVR was a substantially more intelligent chip, but got wasted by 3dfx's workhorse.

Either way both system will be great... well, one of em already is :-)

Boogle · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:48

Valleyman said:
PowerVR was a substantially more intelligent chip, but got wasted by 3dfx's workhorse.

Correction: Got wasted by Glide. The PVR chip was capable of a lot more, but Glide was the API of choice. Check out the Kyro2 (last PC PVR chip) which at £80 or so could beat the GF2 Ultra (£300) in certain games.

JUMPURS · 28 Feb 2006 at 21:54

Well i dont think we can just look at the GPU though need to look at the system as a whole. (unless you just want some specific info on the actual GPU's)
I think the 360 may have the edge with the GPU but think the PS3 has the faster processor. Also the PS3 has dedicated 256MB video memory, and 256 system memory but the 360 has 512MB shared across the both (still not convinced which is better)
Also i am sure i have read a few reports of people being concerned about a bottleneck with the PS3's memory. But who knows how it will all pan out. all i know is it is a great time for us gamers

AdWright · 28 Feb 2006 at 22:02

melchy said:
I think everyone in the thread is being pretty diplomatic at the moment and is pretty devoid of fanboyism Long may that last.

PS3 sux0rs (is that how it is written in 1337??)

Obviously just kidding - I can't believe that there haven't been any fan boy rantings yet.

On a more serious note, haven't we arrived at a stage where the consoles will all be more even in terms of performance? I know that Moore's Law says that computing power will keep increasing rapidly, but are we not nearing the stage where graphics will become photorealistic? May be not in this generation of consoles, or perhaps the next, but surely all this polygon/gigaflop/whatever oneupmanship cannot continue forever?

The games make the console

Boogle · 28 Feb 2006 at 22:03

JUMPURS said:
Well i dont think we can just look at the GPU though need to look at the system as a whole. (unless you just want some specific info on the actual GPU's)
I think the 360 may have the edge with the GPU but think the PS3 has the faster processor. Also the PS3 has dedicated 256MB video memory, and 256 system memory but the 360 has 512MB shared across the both (still not convinced which is better)
Also i am sure i have read a few reports of people being concerned about a bottleneck with the PS3's memory. But who knows how it will all pan out. all i know is it is a great time for us gamers

Aye, the X360's 512MB memory is actually faster than the PS3's video memory.