I was waiting for a sensible comparison, thank you.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
PC GPU comparable to PS3
- Thread starter Marek
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
I was waiting for a sensible comparison, thank you.
mine wasnt sensible?
I meant comparing the GPUs stat for stat in terms of I/O performance, clockspeed, shaders etc.
I don't recall quoting you and saying you said anything unsensible, but both you and helmut have danced around the numbers and facts with your arguments instead of actually comparing the hardware.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
you could read my first post?
comparing stats gpu for gpu is pointless when the gpu isnt the only thing that handles the graphics side of things on the ps3. ive said that all along.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
the spu's are supposed to be INCREDIBLY hard to program for. Also remember there is only one "real" core, the smaller cores might be accelerated for specific use and prove to be very very fast. But in essense theres nothing to prove that the Cell cpu is doing any extra work towards gpu helping at all.
Infact its highly likely not to be, because its so difficult to program for how on earth will they get good performance along with a completely incompatible gpu core that runs completely differently. Remember, Nvidia and ATI have a hard enough time getting two identical cores to work together perfectly, it still doesn't work in all games, it still doesn't scale perfectly and thats with about as balanced a communication between the cores as you can get. WHile the gpu and Cell aren't as closely connected as crossfired/sli'd cores, they use different coding, different drivers, theres likely a layer of emulation or code changing to allow graphics drivers to let both a gpu and Cell spu share a work load across a slow bus when the cores both work at different speeds which means sharing the workload would be INSANELY difficult and create all manner of latency problems. Low onboard memory on consoles would mean the SPU would either need to access the gpu memory somehow to use the textures, or would need to take up a lot of system mem, neither makes any sense.
Yes the Cell is a highly programable, versatile and fast cpu, is it remotely possible they will use it? sure, is it remotely feasable in this day and age to do so on the time scale they have and have games work perfectly? not on your nelly. Theres simply no need, in the worst case scenario games have to work on the gpu alone, and they have to be easily portable to pc/360.
It would be fairly safe to assume the SPU's are not being used for any rendering or anything significant graphics wise. The gpu is roughly a 7900, the xbox 360 is roughly a x1900 in terms of power, although its much closer by all accounts to a R600 core, but with a lot less shaders and still has about the power of a x1900. The x1900 and 7900 series, its far to say both are fairly similar in terms of power, people will design games that work on both consoles so they aren't going to design games that are too powerful for either to run.
PC's are pretty far ahead in terms of speed, but frankly, AA and AF make the scene look neater and nicer, but don't change the textures or design which is what gives 95% of the overall effect. it takes time for designers to use better hardware to make nicer textures and nicer effects with better design. Quad cores are barely under load in games, theres a lot of extra juice there, but unused as of yet. Likewise gpu's are more powerful, but at the moment that extra power is being used to light things prettier and give more AA and higher resolutions, that in the end doesn't really change the feel of games. it takes time for games to really increase in "prettyness", we've only just hit the levels we see in consoles and recent games. PC games will start to look noticeably better without lighting/aa/af/high res in over the next 6 months to a year.
As drunkenmaster said, you're talking theoretical performance. Surely if the mighty Cell was actually doing something COD4 would play in 1080p, but there's no evidence of it helping out from what I've seen.
GPU for GPU, 7950GT is definitely the most fair comparison.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
only if they rewrote the entire engine, as i also mentioned in an earlier post. i assume they didnt have the time or the knowledge to do that. what makes you think it would run at 1080p if it doesnt on the 360, anyway?
nsomniac games have released a few pdf's on using spu's and they've made pretty big strides in that area. i dont have time now to say it all here but take a look at their website, its intersting stuff
http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/techpage.php
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Google.co.uk and
Its a fact the GPU is a custom build 7900 series before we had that on the PC, we had 7800 series then.
Like for like the PC GPU's for 2+ years now are more powerfull than any Consoles GPU and the Cell and Tri core CPU's sound good but you can read they aint that special compaired to current CPU's for PC's
The fact ramains a Console is static hardware and can be far more optimised, but I have and will keep telling anyone who asks the above that a PS3 has a custom build early 7900 series Nvidia GPU.
Its based on the 7800GTX, NOT the 7900 series.
The 360 is based on the X1800 ATI card...
Which is why the 360 has better graphics for most games (and better, brighter graphics as nVidia is known for its drab dull iq until the 8800 series).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Read the WEB, some say 7800 and some say Early Custom 7900 as it has newer tech than the PC's 7800GTX,
It was a 65nm Custom GPU (Im pretty sure the 7800/7900 were still 90nm).
Either way I dont care as I think consoles suck (yes have played them all) and I was dumb enough to reply to a thread thats a multiple dupe of 100's of threads.
It was a 65nm Custom GPU (Im pretty sure the 7800/7900 were still 90nm).
Either way I dont care as I think consoles suck (yes have played them all) and I was dumb enough to reply to a thread thats a multiple dupe of 100's of threads.
Last edited:
Cell does jack for the graphics, its a CPU pure and simple...
Although the PS3 fanboys would like to tout it as a mythical computation engine that could calculate your destiny, it is still just a CPU and there's nothing magical about it....except the name "Cell"...which seems to evoke some kinda of deranged thoughts in PS3 owners heads that it is more than a CPU...
A bit like the "Emotion Engine" on the PS2....although that was the graphics chip wasn't it...
Its just balony marketing...
FTR, the Xbox 360 has a far superior graphics setup, and a slightly inferior CPU than the PS3. Which on the whole makes the 360 superior and able to produce better games, as the CPU is far less important for 3D games than a good graphics card....As I'm sure you lot all know...
Shame the PS3 goons can't understand that sort of thing, but hey, their loss
Hmmm, maybe now they say its related to the 7900, but that in itself was based on the 7800. The 7800 is the "base" of the design. I'm sure its modified and may look more like the 7900 technically, but the production\design is rooted in the 7800...
Much like the 8xxxx cards are all based on the 8800.
Besides, the PS3 specs have set way before its release, the gap between its specs being set and released to the public and the gap between the release of 7800GTX corrolates perfectly with the release of the X1800 on the PC and the 360s graphics setup info being released...
I know that sounds like clutching at straws and a wild assumption, but if you can remember around the release of these graphics cards, and when info on how many pipelines and all that jazz was released and suddenly the NDAs being taken off the specs and them being turned into fact from rumour you will know the score.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Cell does jack for the graphics, its a CPU pure and simple...
Although the PS3 fanboys would like to tout it as a mythical computation engine that could calculate your destiny, it is still just a CPU and there's nothing magical about it....except the name "Cell"...which seems to evoke some kinda of deranged thoughts in PS3 owners heads that it is more than a CPU...
A bit like the "Emotion Engine" on the PS2....although that was the graphics chip wasn't it...
Its just balony marketing...
FTR, the Xbox 360 has a far superior graphics setup, and a slightly inferior CPU than the PS3. Which on the whole makes the 360 superior and able to produce better games, as the CPU is far less important for 3D games than a good graphics card....As I'm sure you lot all know...
Shame the PS3 goons can't understand that sort of thing, but hey, their loss
id be very careful about calling me a fanboy. you know nothing of me so id suggest you stay well out unless you do a little homework first. i wouldnt bother trying to bring the 360 in to this either. congratulations, you've just descended this in to another console wars thead. clever boy!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
@ hernaldo I went back and added fact it was a 65nm Chip when 7800 were 90nm and Im sure 7900 were also 90mm.
I know more about Nvidia than ATI but I know both were built on the PC cards but had newer tech/features than the PC counterparts for a short period of time.
Out of the 2 consoles I prefer the 360 and all that goes with it, unlike original MS seems to have marketed it better.
My m8's Bro bought a PS3 while he returned his 360 to get RRD fixed (lol) and he did not like it.
I know more about Nvidia than ATI but I know both were built on the PC cards but had newer tech/features than the PC counterparts for a short period of time.
Out of the 2 consoles I prefer the 360 and all that goes with it, unlike original MS seems to have marketed it better.
My m8's Bro bought a PS3 while he returned his 360 to get RRD fixed (lol) and he did not like it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
helmut the rsx was originally a 90nm part as well. depending on where you look, its either a 65nm part or still a 90nm part in the 40gb ps3s. i do believe its still 90nm and the cell is 65nm, but there is so much trash about it and the 40gb's on the net that i cant be bothered to dig to the bottom of it.
lets refrain from the 360 vs ps3 discussions, please?
lets refrain from the 360 vs ps3 discussions, please?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Yea, lets smash up the Consoles and play Crysis on our PC's in DX10
( I seen the video of 1st peep to buy one doing that outside store lol)
( I seen the video of 1st peep to buy one doing that outside store lol)
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
what do i know im just a fanboy lol
guys im not saying this approach will magically transform it into an all conquering graphics monster, im just saying using the psu's moves the goalposts a little. enough not to be able to comapre anything from the pc world side-by-side. that is all i m saying
guys im not saying this approach will magically transform it into an all conquering graphics monster, im just saying using the psu's moves the goalposts a little. enough not to be able to comapre anything from the pc world side-by-side. that is all i m saying
Sorry mate wasn't directed at anyone here!!!
I apologies, was generalising a little, been jaded by all the horrible forums around the net and generally don't have a good word to say about the PS3. Mainly due to the "average" owner of them...Which I must say I've only come into contact with on those nasty gaming forums generally based in the US.
Anyways, didnt mean to descend topic into fanboy nonsense, which I think I did. Sorry again.
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'
In August of 2005, an nVidia spokesperson was quoted in PlayStation Magazine as saying "the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800"
Check the bit at the bottom
In August of 2005, an nVidia spokesperson was quoted in PlayStation Magazine as saying "the RSX GPU is basically a slightly less powerful GeForce 7800"
Check the bit at the bottom
Last edited: