@Trezzer

Quote:

We can easily agree that having more storage is a good thing generally speaking.

That's very good, at least we agree on something technical (other than scratch resistance)..

Quote:

If it comes at the cost of read access speeds/reading speeds it's not necessarily the best choice in all cases.

With regard to double layer DVDs on the XBox 360, the PS3's Blu-Ray drive is significantly faster overall when reading a Blu-Ray disc. Tricks are possible to enhance seektimes if neccessary like is done for Oblivion. Motorstorm contains mostly compressed data at a ratio 1:2, the Cell can decompress this data faster than the drive can be read data from disc, yet even at being so much compressed the game wouldn't fit on a single double layer DVD (!), games like Virtua Figher 5 allows harddrive installs for arcade-like loading speeds, etc.

IMO you fully get what you pay for! Now let the developers do their wizardry, Rome wasn't build in a day!

Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 12:04 AM.

@MikeB
Quote:

Quote: XBox 360 CPU 10.8 GB/s

XBox360 is 21.6GB/s (10.8 each way)

@AMiGR
Quote:

Eh, you do realise that both the GPU and CPU writes to the same RAM at the same speed on the XBox, meaning that the GPU doesn't have to go through the CPU to access its data and vice versa, do you?

Only the GPU has direct access, the CPU has to go through the GPU to get to RAM.
The CPU can however send data directly to the GPU.

However the 360 has eDRAM which lowers bandwidth required from main RAM - partially - in high resolution modes the eDRAM is too small and the GPU will have to swap tiles back to main RAM.

The 360 has a bottleneck because it's using a front side bus rather than a dedicated memory bus.
There are various ways around this but PS3 can do the same so it's not really an advantage.

In both systems really getting the best out of them is complex and I doubt we'll see the best for quite some time yet.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@MikeB

Quote:

With regard to double layer DVDs on the XBox 360, the PS3's Blu-Ray drive is significantly faster overall when reading a Blu-Ray disc.

No. It's potentially insignificantly faster

The 360's single layer dvd is - on the other hand - significantly faster than Blu-Ray.
The developers also have the option of placing larger files on the outer layers of the dvd disc to fully utilize the faster load times.

Quote:

games like Virtua Figher 5 allows harddrive installs for arcade-like loading speeds, etc.

This is great for families with children assuming you can then play the game without having the disc out of its cover (is that necessary, anyone?).

Personally I play games on consoles to not have to bother with installing games.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK Quote: A comparsion is interesting but does little good without taking everything into account. That's what I said in relation to earlier RSX and Xenos comparisons.

You might be interested in CPU performance.
Cell according to Sony and IBM is ~200Gigaflops per second. That is theoretical and that is using all 8 SPEs. Sony has said the developers lose 2 of those as they'd only use 7 and 1 was reserved for OS. 1/8th of 200 is 25, each SPE does 25Gflops. There's only 6 available that's 150Gflops.

How efficent is the Cell? In real world tests the best they can show is a 75.9% efficency. So the 150Gflops * .759 ~ 114 Gflops. The core itself is ~25Gflops. So what can be seen is if all things are good we'd get about ~140Gflops. Those who'd like more here's the IBM white paper.

What about the Xbox processor? It's shown real world tests of ~115Gflops. And from developers this power is easier to get to.

You've made comments about how the Cell can help the GPU. In the 360 it's the other way around. Microsoft worked on the 2 together to get performance and unify the architecture. Shown in Direct X 10 is that the GPU's shaders can be utilized for things such as AI and physics. How well the Xenos does this there isn't great info yet.

As for video performace the RSX is a higher clock speed 550Mhz vs 500Mhz. But the Xenos does more work per clock at 5 ops vs 4 ops. This gives Xenos a slight performance advantage 240Gflops vs 229Gflops in the RSX.

Looking at performance we seem to have 2 very close systems.
PS3 = 140Gflops @CPU + 229Gflops @RSX ~ 369Gflops
360 = 115Gflops @CPU + 240Gflops @Xenos ~ 355Glops

Do you now understand a bit better why people are less enthused then you are that the Cell and PS3 are this performance powerhouse. The PS3 is ahead of the 360 but when Gflops are considered it's marginally ahead. How easily the developer can get to and use this power is going to come into play. Right now the nod goes to the 360s set of tools.

Again this doesn't take everything into account. But using some actuals in performance gives us a better indication then theoretical top speed of RAM.

@Trezzer

Quote:

Some developers always want more (like Kojima) while others find it interesting to create games that fit within the current 50 MB XBLA limit (sort of like the demo scene limitations). A game like Roboblitz is kind of mind-blowing. Unreal Engine 3 and physics along with procedural synthesized textures mean they can fit a retail quality game within 50 MB.

I thought it was raised to 250MB, didn't 1UP carry such a story? Castlevania is 96MB and Worms HD is likely close to 100MB. So, it seems if still 50MB there may be a few exceptions.

Quote:

Get the console out a year earlier and let people choose for themselves if they want to play for hi-def video playback. Apparently it made a large enough part of its developer base happy that they stuck with DVD - otherwise they could of course have waited for HD-DVD and put that out as soon as possible while still retaining an edge time-wise.

The other good thing is that if HD-DVD doesn't win the user isn't out much money and there's rumors of a possible Blu-Ray player for the 360. This war likely won't have a clear victor until the 8th gen consoles come out.

@MikeB

Quote:

I have given the XBox 360 more than enough Kudos, why do I have to repeat this fact over and over again? The XBox 360 is so much more impressive to me than the cut down consolified PC the original XBox was.

I don't think you have given it enough credit, I guess that is why I am repeating it. Not to mention the fact that you continue to ignore most of the discussion as to why you shouldn't proclaim PS3 the winner or the hardware superiority race just yet, I don't think we see eye to eye on that yet either. It all just seems like Xbox 360 gets a bit of a bad rap from your side when it really isn't warranted. The debate would benefit from a more balanced approach. Just my observation.

BTW: That "cut down consolified PC" was the tech-wise superior console of last generation. I can understand why it didn't impress you as much, but that also tells me something about what in general does impress you. You should give even the original Xbox more credit, in my opinion.

Quote:

Maybe my expectations were too low as compared to your's, but I based this on the Playstation 1 and 2 so-so launch titles (I expected most ports to be roughly on par with the XBox 360, mostly they are except for a few dissapointments).

Well, that is certainly possible that our expectations were different - even likely. But you should understand that my last reference point was the last time a console game out year-ish later - and with much less hype that time around too. It was the Xbox and its launch title Halo still beats most, if not all, of the PS2 portfolio. Given the fact that the PS3 hype was huge (like all the talk of 1080p which Xbox 360 wouldn't do, and then most of the PS3 launch titles aren't even 1080p while Xbox 360 does it now too)... I think PS3 fell flat on its face in public reception for a reason. And that reason was not the Xbox 360 fanboys.

I think other posted have made observations about the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 hardware numbers that also shed some light on my new-found perspective. I don't think you are doing any favors to your position by sticking to the "no doubt in your mind PS3 will be superior" mantra.

By all means, lets continue to discuss what and why is superior, but I wouldn't call a winner yet.

@minator

I know, but the bandwidth is equal in both directions, unlike on the PS3 with regard to CPU < - > GPU, that's why I wrote it like this:

Quote:

XBox 360 CPU < - > GPU 10.8 GB/s PS3: CPU < - > Main (3.2GHz) RAM 25.6 GB/s

At first I wrote the without spaces and it wouldn't display, as AmigaWorld.net thought this was HTML code. So I edited this shortly after.

Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 12:58 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 11:18 AM.

@Trezzer

Quote:

The 360's single layer dvd is - on the other hand - significantly faster than Blu-Ray.

The advantages of Blu-Ray comes into play with larger games or enhancements like lossless 7.1 audio, smaller games which fit on single layer DVD could even be entirely copied to the PS3's 60 GB harddrive, or for instance partly HD installs with for instance only the 7.1 Audio still on the disc.

@BrianK

Quote:

There's only 6 available that's 150Gflops.

There are 7, one is used by the OS which will be used for some impressive stuff. On the XBox 360 to add such enhancements would take away general performance. Games can take advantage of the advanced features Sony has planned for the GameOS/CellOS.

Max Cell performance provided on the PS3 with one SPE disabled would be 204.8Gflops, VMX units included 218 GFLOP.

IMo if you look at the whole system the PS3 offers clearly more potential for larger more complex games.

Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 11:15 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 10:43 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 10:22 AM.

@jtsiren

Quote:

BTW: That "cut down consolified PC" was the tech-wise superior console of last generation. I can understand why it didn't impress you as much, but that also tells me something about what in general does impress you. You should give even the original Xbox more credit, in my opinion.

The XBox was released 1 year after the PS2, tech-wise it wasn't superior in all regards, the PS2 IMO was a much more suitable console. One major turn off was that the controllers were really bulky, not really well suited for tender woman hands.

But I didn't own any of the last gen (XBox) or current gen (PS2) consoles, so that would tell you enough.

@jtsiren

Quote:

I don't think you have given it enough credit

The XBox 360! Rulez! Gear is OMG! I would sell Trezzer's ass to be able to own one!

Quote:

iven the fact that the PS3 hype was huge (like all the talk of 1080p which Xbox 360 wouldn't do, and then most of the PS3 launch titles aren't even 1080p while Xbox 360 does it now too)...

The rumour of the XBox 360 not doing 1080p was started by Microsoft. Creating hype around products is normal, wasn't Windows 95 being hyped by Microsoft in your opinion?

Quote:

I think PS3 fell flat on its face in public reception for a reason

I think that's being very premature. Within the XBox 360's strongest market, North America, the PS3 will have to beat the XBox 360's sales of 951,500 units sold as of January 2006. And I think in Europe the PS3 will receive a much warmer reception with less propaganda.

@MikeB

Quote:

The XBox was released 1 year after the PS2, tech-wise it wasn't superior in all regards, the PS2 IMO was a much more suitable console. One major turn off was that the controllers were really bulky, not really well suited for tender woman hands.

Excuse me? In what we was the Xbox not superior tech-wise than PS2? I owned both and played many games on them, actually still own PS2 for Sing Star, so I can appreciate the PS2 - I just don't think it can be argued being the more powerful one... The difference of games on those consoles was usually very visible. Even "identical" multi-platformers looked far better on Xbox thanks to steadier framerates, lighting and anti-aliasing. Xbox had surround sound, PS2 mostly did not. PS2 games looked crude in comparison to Xbox games.

The original Xbox controller was certainly big (and arguably one of the reasons for a slow start in Japan), but it was eventually replaced by the Controller S (and third-party controllers were also available). Some argue Controller S (and the subsequent Xbox 360 controller which is pretty much based on it) are the best shaped controllers out there, I tend to agree. But what has tender woman hands to do with which console was more powerful?

As for "suitable console", Xbox also brought us the first mature implementation of console online play. The PS2 in this regard was a joke in comparison with its Central Station and the sort (I used both Xbox Live and the PS2 equivalent). There was also the standard hard-disk. There was a lot of good things in that huge box. It did not rule the world, but it was the most powerful console of its generation and with enough of good games available it was the number one console for many serious gamers.

PS2's strength is the content available for it. I can appreciate that and still do. Hey, I bought the PS2. Two of them. But really, there is no question as to which one was the more powerful console - and it was evident with the launch title Halo already. That is not important for all games, but many I preferred to play on the Xbox because of its more advanced tech.

As for kudos to Sony, just had another nice afternoon with PSP and GTA: LCS. Damn some of those missions are hard. Even if PSP is just PS2 level tech-wise, the portability and the sharp screen make the graphics look very impressive. I like that little beast.

@MikeB

Quote:

The XBox 360! Rulez! Gear is OMG! I would sell Trezzer's ass to be able to own one!

Quote:

The rumour of the XBox 360 not doing 1080p was started by Microsoft. Creating hype around products is normal, wasn't Windows 95 being hyped by Microsoft in your opinion?

I think certain hype is normal. Windows 95 was hyped for sure, it was a nice improvement over 3.1 too. But after hype also comes evaluation and that is now what is happening to PS3. All I'm trying to say is, much of that disappointment (initial disappointment) is because of PS3 itself, not because of some propaganda or fanboy talk.

Quote:

I think that's being very premature. Within the XBox 360's strongest market, North America, the PS3 will have to beat the XBox 360's sales of 951,500 units sold as of January 2006. And I think in Europe the PS3 will receive a much warmer reception with less propaganda.

No, I don't think it was premature. I said PS3 fell flat on its face because I think I did. I did not say it wouldn't get up and become the nro 1 seller of this console generation, it may very well do that. All I'm trying to say is, there is a reason why the response has been a bit lack-luster. Now it is up to the PS3 to improve and win our hearts and money.

Whether or not it will be the most powerful console, that remains to be seen. But I'm quite sure it will sell relatively well in any case, likely being the top console of this generation mostly because it is a PlayStation(tm) and probably pretty much as good a machine in total as the Xbox 360 is.

Last edited by jtsiren on 18-Feb-2007 at 02:16 PM.

@MikeB
Quote:

@BrianK Quote: There's only 6 available that's 150Gflops. There are 7, one is used by the OS which will be used for some impressive stuff.

Seems that you didn't read on I go to explain why there is 6. We're looking at what power the developers can use. They can use 6 out of 7 as you agree one is used by the OS. If making a game for the PS3 you only get the power of 6. Now I don't know how Linux runs but if it doesn't eat an SPE then one would get that power back. So Linux might be more powerful on the PS3 then the shipped OS. But unless the developers use Linux and replace the OS they're not going to be able to use that 7th SPE for gaming.

Theoretical Quote:

Max Cell performance provided on the PS3 with one SPE disabled would be 204.8Gflops, VMX units included 218 GFLOP.

First I added the word theoretical for you as that the # you are pressing. It's not actual go back to the link I posted read the IBM White Paper , chart #4 you can clearly see there the actual best performance they obtained is 75.9% under theoretical. So even if you argue that the 7th SPE, which developers can't use, has to be kept in you still need to deduct 24% of the theoretical max to more closely reflect performance in actual testing. So 6 SPEs, what a developer can use, is 132Gflops and 7SPEs, Linux perhaps, is 155Gflops. The included IBM white paper and the wikipedia disagree on your number both put an SPE theoretical at slighly over 25 not 29Gflops but I did the math for you off of your number.

Quote:

IMO if you look at the whole system the PS3 offers clearly more potential for larger more complex games.

I had the numbers in there for the GPUs. Xenos bests the RSX in Gigaflop performance.

If you take your numbers we have PS3 at: 6SPEs 132 + VMX 12 + RSX 229 = 373 (all 7 would be 396) versus the Xbox at 355. The difference is not much and is not going to make your desired run away complexity champion. Because the overall performance is so close what is going to make the difference is the programmer -- what tools they have and how creative they are.

@BrianK

Quote:

How efficent is the Cell? In real world tests the best they can show is a 75.9% efficency. So the 150Gflops * .759 ~ 114 Gflops. The core itself is ~25Gflops. So what can be seen is if all things are good we'd get about ~140Gflops. Those who'd like more here's the IBM white paper.

A Cell with 8 SPEs managed to get 201 GFLOPs on matrix multiplies, that's pretty close to 100% efficiency (not counting the PPE which wasn't used).

Quote:

What about the Xbox processor? It's shown real world tests of ~115Gflops.

Love to know how they managed that ...it's peak is only 76.8 GFLOPs.

The 115.2 figure is the theoretical peak if you include non-arithmetic instructions such as permute. These are not normally included in *any* measure of FLOPs.

As for being measured, where? I've never seen any 360 benchmarks and can't find any.

If you want to count non-arithemitic peak figures, the usable Cell components in the PS3 will get 268 Gflops (6 SPEs + PPE) - over twice that of the 360.

Quote:

And from developers this power is easier to get to.

Getting something up and running on the 360 is easier as the CPU is closer to a conventional desktop processor. However this advantage is being eroded somewhat by Cell compilers which can already target existing code to the SPEs (even Linux on PS3 can do this).

To get the best out of either system will require considerable work, both require careful control of local memory (caches on 360, LS on Cell) and reading & writing memory in blocks of 128 bytes (same for both but Cell can read up to 16K in a single instruction).

I think the real differences will show when developers get to this level, there's plenty of papers showing Cell can perform very well.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@jtsiren

Quote:

Excuse me? In what we was the Xbox not superior tech-wise than PS2?

Please don't turn this is a PS2 vs XBox battle, I have no interest in fighting yesteryear's wars, that war was won by the Playstation 2. Both of these consoles are significantly different, game engines optimized for the PS2 like found in 'God of War 2' may well translate very badly if ported to the original XBox.

Although on the other hand multi-platform PC games would be more easily ported to the XBox, as like I said it was mostly a cut down PC, so the PC games engines would certainly be a good fit.

The optimization of game engines can differ greatly from platform to platform to get the most out of the platform, both the XBox and PS2 have their advantages. So no, the XBox was not more powerful in all regards. For example the PS2 CPU can do 6.2 GFLOPS and the X-Box can do 3.2 GFLOPS, so almost twice as powerful, but if you adopt such a tunnel vision (not looking at the GPU, system bandwidth, RAM, etc), in effect you start to lose sight of the whole system.

This is the thing many XBox 360 fans seem to be doing.

@MikeB

Quote:

I know, but the bandwidth is equal in both directions, unlike on the PS3 with regard to CPU < - > GPU, that's why I wrote it like this: XBox 360 CPU < - > GPU 10.8 GB/s PS3: CPU < - > Main (3.2GHz) RAM 25.6 GB/s

That's confusing though, or just plain wrong.

Cell can read/write 25GB/s but it's only in one direction at a time.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@MikeB

Quote:

The rumour of the XBox 360 not doing 1080p was started by Microsoft. Creating hype around products is normal

First this was from Microsoft, one guy, and if I recall others at Microsoft quickly disagreed. Second saying no 1080p then providing it is hype? It's not hype it's under selling. Here's a hype example: Say some company were to state thier next gen console had over 2 Teraflops of computing power, built in router, dual HDMI channels and subsequently didn't provide it.

Concerning the 360 Quote:

One major turn off was that the controllers were really bulky, not really well suited for tender woman hands

While I'm sorry to hear about your girly hand issues your personal issues do not reflect on the quality of systems.

@BrianK

Quote:

Seems that you didn't read on I go to explain why there is 6. We're looking at what power the developers can use. They can use 6 out of 7 as you agree one is used by the OS. If making a game for the PS3 you only get the power of 6.

Although I understand your reasoning, IMO that's not the whole picture. The features the OS should soon provide across the whole system don't have to be implemented for individual games anymore.

@minator

Quote:

A Cell with 8 SPEs managed to get 201 GFLOPs on matrix multiplies, that's pretty close to 100% efficiency (not counting the PPE which wasn't used).

Cool to hear someone must have bested IBM's own internal and published testing. This is lower then MikeB's claimed 29Gflops per SPE. On the PS3 the 6SPEs, again which developers can use, would then get 150Gflops -- so we're still in about the same area of performance on the PS3. Up a couple precent from IBM's previous numbers.

Good catch on the 360. 115 is the theoretical performance. Actual numbers are hard to find the highest claimed actual I could find was 89.

So using minator's numbers the systems are a bit farther apart under a 20% difference. Still much closer then the Xbox vs PS2. Again I think, and it appears you might agree, the strength of the programmer and their tools are going to play a role in how these systems are used.