Xbox 360 graphics capability vs PlayStation3 (X360 is superior)

On May 2, 2:39 pm, RMZ wrote:
On May 2, 1:59 pm, AirRaid wrote:



http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=11

GPU Transistor Count
PS3 - RSX transistor count: 300.2 million transistors
Xbox 360 - Xenos transistor count: 337 million (232 million parent die
+105 million EDRAM daughter die)

GPU clock
Xbox 360 - Xenos clocked at 500 Mhz
PS3 - RSX clocked at 500 MHz

GPU video memory
Xbox 360 - Xenos: 512 MB of 700 Mhz GDDR3 VRAM on a 128-bit bus
Xbox 360 - Xenos: 10 MB daughter Embedded DRAM as framebuffer (32GB/s
bus, multiplied by 8 thanks to multisampling unpacking for an
effective bandwidth of 256 MB/s, the internal eDRAM bandwidth)
PS3 - RSX: 256 MB GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 650 Mhz on a 128-bit bus
PS3 - RSX: 256 MB of Rambus XDR DRAM via Cell (with latency penalty)

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.1 Billion Vertices/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 0.825 Billion Vertices/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 13.2 Billion Texels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 11.0 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.4 Billion Texels/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 3.3 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x
Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
PS3 - 17.6 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 13.2 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified
Pipelines)
PS3 - 26.4 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
PS3 - 22.0 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and
vertices)
PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and
vertices)
PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and
vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - additional 20.0 GB/sec when reading from XDR memory (with
latency penalty)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

On paper statistics generally glaze people over... But the proof is in
there and you can see this in the cross-platform games available on
both PS3 and 360, the 360 versions look a tad better.... It brings up
the question: what kind of person would spend up to 40% more to own a
PS3 over an XBox 360 just on brand loyalty? I think it's incredibly
stupid thing to do. I've heard the argument "it's the games", but
where are these games? The XBox 360 got a year head start it will
always have a bigger library and it looks to be getting the better
exclusives between the two.


I think it's incredible (in a bad way) that Sony selected a graphics
processor that would be concidered upper-mid range by mid 2005
standards, for a console that was to be released in late 2006, and
early 2007 in Europe. the RSX is really pathetic. instead of being a
downgraded NV47/G70, they should've based RSX on G80 / GF 8800. even
2/3 of an 8800 GTX (fewer stream processors, texture units, ROPs)
would've been decent, coupled with some EDRAM. it's not like the
G80 / 8800 was too new to be included in PS3. Nvidia had been working
on it since 2002. before Sony's decision to drop their own GPU
project (and/or Toshiba's GPU) so there was plenty of time.

going back to Xbox1 in Q4 2001, the NV2A in the original Xbox had
more geometry & lighting performance than Nvidia's highest-end PC GPU
of the time, the GF3 Ti 500, and was almost on par with THE most
powerful PC GPU of 2001, ATI's R200 / Radeon 8500.

this current-gen, both consoles had GPUs that were behind the highend
of PC GPUs, although the 360's Xenos had some advantages over even
those with the EDRAM and unified shaders. but RSX had no
advantages.

Yes I know, it all comes down to GAMES, not hardware, but developers
are the ones that make those games we love. it's too bad for
Playstation developers that Sony shackled them with an underpowered,
out-of-date GPU. Something developers will have to deal with until
sometime early in the next decade when PS4 arrives. Hopefully PS4
won't be so underpowered graphically, for its time, as PS3 is.

On May 3, 10:00 am, Wolfing wrote:
On May 2, 2:59 pm, AirRaid wrote:http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=11

Hmm... didn't even bother to read, the info comes from a
'forum.teamxbox.com'... hmm... can we say 'biased'? Sure, lots of
numbers and techno mambo jambo, which I'm sure if I go to a
hypothetical 'forum.teamPS.com' they would probably have a similar
techno mambo jambo with whatever numbers the PS3 is better than the
Xbox.
All in all, 99.95% of the players won't notice a difference in normal
gaming. Maybe, if they take screen shots and analyze pixel by pixel
there may be a difference here and there.
Now the point remains, is the PS3 worth more than the Xbox360? My
answer remains the same as it was a year ago... if the game library is
bigger and, specially, more varied then yes, otherwise, no. In my
particular case, I mostly play RPGs (turn based at that), so at this
moment neither of the two consoles is worth buying yet.


those specs are not biased. as you can see, the few areas where PS3's
RSX is ahead of Xenos, that's listed. that's also not the distorted
"Major Nelson" spec/comparison that was done around E3 2005, either.

most of the multi-platform games, the Xbox 360 versions look noticably
better, even without looking at the graphics under a microscope. it's
plain as day.

overall the PS3 and Xbox 360 are not incredibly far apart in graphics,
it's just that the 360 has a modest & noticable lead.

On May 3, 11:29 am, AirRaid wrote:
On May 3, 10:00 am, Wolfing wrote:



On May 2, 2:59 pm, AirRaid wrote:http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=11

Hmm... didn't even bother to read, the info comes from a
'forum.teamxbox.com'... hmm... can we say 'biased'? Sure, lots of
numbers and techno mambo jambo, which I'm sure if I go to a
hypothetical 'forum.teamPS.com' they would probably have a similar
techno mambo jambo with whatever numbers the PS3 is better than the
Xbox.
All in all, 99.95% of the players won't notice a difference in normal
gaming. Maybe, if they take screen shots and analyze pixel by pixel
there may be a difference here and there.
Now the point remains, is the PS3 worth more than the Xbox360? My
answer remains the same as it was a year ago... if the game library is
bigger and, specially, more varied then yes, otherwise, no. In my
particular case, I mostly play RPGs (turn based at that), so at this
moment neither of the two consoles is worth buying yet.

those specs are not biased. as you can see, the few areas where PS3's
RSX is ahead of Xenos, that's listed. that's also not the distorted
"Major Nelson" spec/comparison that was done around E3 2005, either.

most of the multi-platform games, the Xbox 360 versions look noticably
better, even without looking at the graphics under a microscope. it's
plain as day.

overall the PS3 and Xbox 360 are not incredibly far apart in graphics,
it's just that the 360 has a modest & noticable lead.

..... and it cost quite a bit less.... and it has a bigger game
library.... and Sony lied, lied and then lied some more about how
awesome cell technology would be and how it would revolutionize the
industry. Most people didn't buy into it, a few people without all the
information trusted Sony (the only reason I bother with this NG is to
try and get the proper information to them); then a few people. It
seems quite a few in this NG purchased a PS3 knowing all of this...
Someone should send them a Sony t-shirt for their loyalty.

In article . com,
AirRaid wrote:
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=11

GPU Transistor Count
PS3 - RSX transistor count: 300.2 million transistors
Xbox 360 - Xenos transistor count: 337 million (232 million parent die
+105 million EDRAM daughter die)

But the PS3 has the more powerful Flux Capacitor.
--
vince
/***** Visit the Home of the Rancid Tofu Experience *****/
/***** http://www.garageband.com/artist/rancidtofu *****/

"Tom" wrote in message
m...

"boodybandit" wrote in message
. ..

"Tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 2, 2:39 pm, RMZ wrote:

It brings up
the question: what kind of person would spend up to 40% more to own a
PS3 over an XBox 360 just on brand loyalty? I think it's incredibly
stupid thing to do. I've heard the argument "it's the games", but
where are these games? The XBox 360 got a year head start it will
always have a bigger library and it looks to be getting the better
exclusives between the two.

The only advantage the PS3 currently has over the 360 as a gaming
console is better reliability (but this is becoming less an issue with
new 360's).

MS still has a ways to go before I'd say that.
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=61572
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=61906

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thum...ution-in-sight

http://loot-ninja.com/2007/05/02/xbo...ansfer-issues/

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31850/118/

http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-37230.aspx

http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id...DVD_Drive.html

Maybe when MS goes to the newer chipset (65nm and the BenQ DVD Drive
"only") the system http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-37121.aspx this fall
will finally be stable but I think it's sad it takes 2 years to get the
system functional. Here's to hoping MS will get their act together on
the "next" box ut of the gate.

http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-37121.aspx

That is just plain ****ed up! Now I know MS has made some bad consoles,
and is seemingly getting that straight, though a bit late. But now they
add the transfer woes of games and data in migration to the newer boxes
along with the crappy assed made DVD drives. WTF! I guess if you can't get
it right the first time, you get it right the second time, or the third
time, or WTF ever time. I am very lucky (though this is my second box
replaced last October) that my drive is quiet (yes I mean quiet) and has
never scratched or ruined a game disc.

What drive do you have?
All of mine are the dreaded Hitachi drive. A friend of mine has the Samsung
and he said it's 3 times quieter than the Hitachi which he has originally.
I thought Iwas going to score a better drive then the Hitachi or I would've
never put the cash out for the Elite. I seriously can't believe MS is this
f#cked to keep putting this crap ass drive in their "Elite" (maybe they
should look up the definition of the word in the dictionary).


IMHO, they made the first Xbox right the first time, what is going on?

The 1st XBox was awesome.
They cut every corner possible to keep cost down on the 360 to rush it to
the market and one up Sony. I have no problems with them doing so if the
hardware was stable but to keep using **** parts in newer models just
doesn't make any freaking sense.
I didn't even tell my wife that I took back the Elite and swapped it for
another. She would have a freaking fit. She was ****ed I purchased a newer
model with all the troubles I had with the premium units. She wanted me to
just send my other back but I'm tired of playing that game with Mc. Texas.

I'm going (pretty sure anyway) to get the Elite when the newer CPU and GPU
chipsets are made with them, I am damn sure going to see that I get a
quiet drive and make damn sure the retailers knows they are replacing it
over and over again until I get the better drive, or all bets are off.

I got the Hitachi drive 2nd time around with the Elite.
The nice thing is I have 90 days to see if Target gets the Elite in with the
better drives.

MS should consider themself blessed that Sony is doing so poorly with sales
and getting decent titles out. Kind of makes me a little ****ed that MS will
have the faster chipset and BenQ drive standard this Fall. I wonder why they
are choosing Fall to get their act together finally? Oh because Sony has
their big titles coming out then?

What a slap in the face.

On May 3, 7:02 pm, "boodybandit" wrote:
Kind of makes me a little ****ed that MS will
have the faster chipset and BenQ drive standard this Fall. I wonder why they
are choosing Fall to get their act together finally? Oh because Sony has
their big titles coming out then?

The new chipset won't be "faster", it will perform identically to the
old chipset. However, it WILL be smaller, run cooler, and consume
less power, thereby requiring less active cooling (i.e. fans).

Also, I wouldn't bet on the BenQ drive being used in all new systems.
MS will simply use whatever vendor gives them the best price on the
day they place the orders. There ARE Elites out there with the BenQ
drives, check forums.xbox.com and go to the "Hardware" section.

"Rich" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 3, 7:02 pm, "boodybandit" wrote:
Kind of makes me a little ****ed that MS will
have the faster chipset and BenQ drive standard this Fall. I wonder why
they
are choosing Fall to get their act together finally? Oh because Sony has
their big titles coming out then?

The new chipset won't be "faster", it will perform identically to the
old chipset. However, it WILL be smaller, run cooler, and consume
less power, thereby requiring less active cooling (i.e. fans).

Also, I wouldn't bet on the BenQ drive being used in all new systems.
MS will simply use whatever vendor gives them the best price on the
day they place the orders. There ARE Elites out there with the BenQ
drives, check forums.xbox.com and go to the "Hardware" section.


This "I" know.
Iwas hoping to be one of the lucky ones to score a Benq or at the very
least a Toshiba / Samsung

On May 2, 3:44 pm, Shawk wrote:
Air Raid wrote:
On May 2, 2:03 pm, Mattuzzi wrote:
useless info snipped

thanks for that... i can finally stop worrying about it.

it's just to quiet the PS3 fanboys who think their $500 or $600 PS3
can compete with Xbox 360 graphically, much less surpass it.

..you think they're reading the NVidia and ATI computer peripheral groups?



most are not, some do. Yet it's relevant since ATI and Nvidia designed
the GPUs for Xbox 360 and PS3.

On May 3, 1:10 pm, RMZ wrote:
On May 3, 11:29 am, AirRaid wrote:



On May 3, 10:00 am, Wolfing wrote:

On May 2, 2:59 pm, AirRaid wrote:http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=11

Hmm... didn't even bother to read, the info comes from a
'forum.teamxbox.com'... hmm... can we say 'biased'? Sure, lots of
numbers and techno mambo jambo, which I'm sure if I go to a
hypothetical 'forum.teamPS.com' they would probably have a similar
techno mambo jambo with whatever numbers the PS3 is better than the
Xbox.
All in all, 99.95% of the players won't notice a difference in normal
gaming. Maybe, if they take screen shots and analyze pixel by pixel
there may be a difference here and there.
Now the point remains, is the PS3 worth more than the Xbox360? My
answer remains the same as it was a year ago... if the game library is
bigger and, specially, more varied then yes, otherwise, no. In my
particular case, I mostly play RPGs (turn based at that), so at this
moment neither of the two consoles is worth buying yet.

those specs are not biased. as you can see, the few areas where PS3's
RSX is ahead of Xenos, that's listed. that's also not the distorted
"Major Nelson" spec/comparison that was done around E3 2005, either.

most of the multi-platform games, the Xbox 360 versions look noticably
better, even without looking at the graphics under a microscope. it's
plain as day.

overall the PS3 and Xbox 360 are not incredibly far apart in graphics,
it's just that the 360 has a modest & noticable lead.

.... and it cost quite a bit less.... and it has a bigger game
library.... and Sony lied, lied and then lied some more about how
awesome cell technology would be and how it would revolutionize the
industry. Most people didn't buy into it, a few people without all the
information trusted Sony (the only reason I bother with this NG is to
try and get the proper information to them); then a few people. It
seems quite a few in this NG purchased a PS3 knowing all of this...
Someone should send them a Sony t-shirt for their loyalty.

the thing is, CELL *is* quite powerful (in floating point) -- it is a
large leap beyond the Emotion Engine in PS2. what Sony lied about
before the PS3 was revealed at E3 2005, is how MUCH of a CELL
processor would be in PS3. Sony said, during the years 2001-2004,
they'd have a 1 TFLOP / TeraFlop CPU in PS3. that would've required 4
CELLs on one chip or the equivalent of 32 SPEs, running at 4 to 4.6
GHz.

Instead, PS3 gets a CELL with 7 SPEs running at 3.2 GHz. this
provides roughly only 1/5th of a TFLOP. to make matters worse, 1 SPE
is always dedicated to the OS and isn't really used for gaming. Also a
2nd SPE is on-standby to be used for the OS if need be. that leaves 5
to 6 SPEs for gaming.

Now it gets even worse, because the Nvidia RSX GPU is so underpowered,
developers are using some of the remaining CELL SPEs to do geometry &
lighting calculations & culling of polygons so all RSX has to do is
act like a rasterizer / pixel painter like the Graphics Syntheiszer in
the PS2, where it just renders / draws / displays the graphics to the
screen. Since CELL is doing some of the work the GPU should be doing,
it leaves even less performance for the gameplay-related side of
gaming; physics, a.i. etc.

PS3 would've been okay, if Sony had co-designed or ordered a custom
Shader Model 4.0 GPU with EDRAM from Nvidia.

In reality, even though PS3 came out later than Xbox 360, the PS3 is
using an older GPU architecture than Xbox 360 which is really sad.

On May 3, 3:16 pm, (vince) wrote:
In article . com,

AirRaid wrote:
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=11

GPU Transistor Count
PS3 - RSX transistor count: 300.2 million transistors
Xbox 360 - Xenos transistor count: 337 million (232 million parent die
+105 million EDRAM daughter die)

But the PS3 has the more powerful Flux Capacitor.
--

And PS3 has the more powerful price-tag; $599, more powerful than even
the Xbox 360 Elite's price-tag