Soccer and Tennis, is that all the PS3 is better at? View

The 360 GPU is the first ever to acheive almost 100% of its theoretical #'s where as the PS3 GPU is 60%, which means the 360 GPU is still stronger, it is stronger than a 7900GTX and X1950XTX as well.

EA Developer: Xbox 360 will triumph over PS3 due to performance and support

An EA developer has called in to let Maxconsole know that he believes the Xbox 360 will triumph over the PS3 due to its better performance and more rounded support. These claims come on the revelation that development of Army of Two on the Xbox 360 manages to yield a maximum of 60fps while the PS3 version struggles to reach 30fps currently. Army of Two is expected to hit retail shelves during November. View

I told all the PS3 fanboy in the thread about the RSX being more powerful than Xenos. SOny is losing at the HARDWARE battle who would have thought that? Me all PS3 is, is a fancy blu-ray player, and you can't even watch blu-ray without HDMI unless you want to watch it at 480p. I can watch al HD-DVD's at 1080i without HDMI on my 360. HAHAHAHAHHA

PS3 fanboys AM CRY. Look at my post in the other thread the 360 GPU slaughters the 7900GTX and X1950XTX which are way more powerful than the RSX.

THE 360 GPU IS MORE POWERFUL THAN A 7900GTX and X1950XTX which is way beyond the PS3's GPU. Xenos can actually sustain its max outputs, where as the PS3's GPU is only 60% efficient, which means it is very WEAK in comparison. Xenos will kill the 7900GTX and X1950XTX, something the PS3 can't.

First to put this to rest the PS3 has a severe memory limitation when compared to the 360. Example: I did notice a report done by 1up.com that talked about the main memory in regards to PS3 version of Oblivion and downloadable content. In that report they said that the memory that the PS3 had could not hold all the downloadable content that has come out on XBOX 360 so in that case it is a big deal. The developer had to choose the content for Oblivion on PS3 instead of including it all. That is a limitation that will continue to get worse as games grow larger and larger in games of this type. SO EVEN IF THE PS3 GPU IS MORE POWERFUL COMBINED WITH CELL YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW BECAUSE OF SEVERE MEMORY LIMITATIONS. Look at Prey, couldn't be done on the PS3, again GRAW2 and Rainbow Six Vegas devs are having a he11 of a time working with the PS3 memory limitations, I guarantee FRAMERATE ISSUES.

Quote from a developer: From all I've seen, and overall feeling here at my work (no, it's not MS, it's an independent developer) the 360 is way better from memory, graphics, overall CPU power and functionality. and it's clearly easier to develop for, as well.

Want to know why Xenos doesn’t need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It’s just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it’s the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos’ MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable “streamout” which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos’ other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360’s GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI’s unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner.

I’ll borrow a quote from Dave Baumann since he explains it rather well.

“With the capability to fetch from anywhere in memory, perform arbitrary ALU operations and write the results back to memory, in conjunction with the raw floating point performance of the large shader ALU array, the MEMEXPORT facility does have the capability to achieve a wide range of fairly complex and general purpose operations; basically any operation that can be mapped to a wide SIMD array can be fairly efficiently achieved and in comparison to previous graphics pipelines it is achieved in fewer cycles and with lower latencies. For instance, this is probably the first time that general purpose physics calculation would be achievable, with a reasonable degree of success, on a graphics processor and is a big step towards the graphics processor becoming much more like a vector co-processor to the CPU.”

And about the DX10 features, PS3 will never be able to go past DX9 level, but the X360 has a large portion of the DX10 features already built-in. So once developers get a better grasp of shaders, you will see the X360 surpass the PS3 as far as graphics are concerned.

Plus anything Cell can do Xenos can do as well with it's 4 Vector ALU's. Look at the water effect that are acheived in Bioshock, I guarantee the PS3 would choke on that.

All crossplatform games have a higher framerate on the 360, making them better.

TO BIGMAC: I would eat your d!ck, but when I pulled down your pants all I found was a sticky picture of the Xbox 360. View

NEW INFO: An EA developer has called in to let Maxconsole know that he believes the Xbox 360 will triumph over the PS3 due to its better performance and more rounded support. These claims come on the revelation that development of Army of Two on the Xbox 360 manages to yield a maximum of 60fps while the PS3 version struggles to reach 30fps currently. Army of Two is expected to hit retail shelves during November.

Link: http://www.maxconsole.net/?...

THE 360 GPU IS MORE POWERFUL THAN A 7900GTX and X1950XTX which is way beyond the PS3's GPU. Xenos can actually sustain its max outputs, where as the PS3's GPU is only 60% efficient, which means it is very WEAK in comparison. Xenos will kill the 7900GTX and X1950XTX, something the PS3 can't.

First to put this to rest the PS3 has a severe memory limitation when compared to the 360. Example: I did notice a report done by 1up.com that talked about the main memory in regards to PS3 version of Oblivion and downloadable content. In that report they said that the memory that the PS3 had could not hold all the downloadable content that has come out on XBOX 360 so in that case it is a big deal. The developer had to choose the content for Oblivion on PS3 instead of including it all. That is a limitation that will continue to get worse as games grow larger and larger in games of this type. SO EVEN IF THE PS3 GPU IS MORE POWERFUL COMBINED WITH CELL YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW BECAUSE OF SEVERE MEMORY LIMITATIONS. Look at Prey, couldn't be done on the PS3, again GRAW2 and Rainbow Six Vegas devs are having a he11 of a time working with the PS3 memory limitations, I guarantee FRAMERATE ISSUES.

Quote from a developer: From all I've seen, and overall feeling here at my work (no, it's not MS, it's an independent developer) the 360 is way better from memory, graphics, overall CPU power and functionality. and it's clearly easier to develop for, as well.

Want to know why Xenos doesn’t need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It’s just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it’s the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos’ MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable “streamout” which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos’ other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360’s GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI’s unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner.

I’ll borrow a quote from Dave Baumann since he explains it rather well.

“With the capability to fetch from anywhere in memory, perform arbitrary ALU operations and write the results back to memory, in conjunction with the raw floating point performance of the large shader ALU array, the MEMEXPORT facility does have the capability to achieve a wide range of fairly complex and general purpose operations; basically any operation that can be mapped to a wide SIMD array can be fairly efficiently achieved and in comparison to previous graphics pipelines it is achieved in fewer cycles and with lower latencies. For instance, this is probably the first time that general purpose physics calculation would be achievable, with a reasonable degree of success, on a graphics processor and is a big step towards the graphics processor becoming much more like a vector co-processor to the CPU.”

And about the DX10 features, PS3 will never be able to go past DX9 level, but the X360 has a large portion of the DX10 features already built-in. So once developers get a better grasp of shaders, you will see the X360 surpass the PS3 as far as graphics are concerned.

on the other hand, Xenos has a more advanced level (for lack of a better phrase) of pixel-shading because it goes well beyond shader model 3.0 whereas RSX is stuck at just slightly above 3.0

CROSS PLATFORM TITLES MAY LOOK THE SAME BUT THEY SURE AS HELL DON"T RUN THE SAME. 360 wins in that category fangirls. 360 ftw View

RSX operates at 50-60% efficiency, so take away the 40% and Xenos is faster. Xenos operates at 90-95% efficiency. So RSX operates at about 180+ GFLOPS and Xenos operates at 216+ GFLOPS. Xenos can display alot more polygons than RSX and way more vertices calculations.

Nvidia's RSX 'Reality Synthesizer' GPU for Playstation3 has 300 million transistors, and no super-high bandwidth eDRAM to take the load off of the main memory bandwidths in PS3. The daughter die on the 360 GP is capable of calculations as well.

Sony's much better at hype than Microsoft, they were last generation and we all know whose machine is more powerful. View

I've been telling you all along, the 360 GPU is a monster the PS3 GPU or Cell can't touch it's efficieny. It is the first GPU ever to run at 90-95% efficiency. PS3 fanboys am cry. I guess the 360 is the most powerful next-gen machine after all.

Thats why Killlzone won't touch gears of war or mass effect. PS3 will never ever have graphics like that. Even physics will be better on the 360.

Oh and Xenos is a custom GPU, it is made to CRUNCH NUMBERS, way better than cell at it too. Because Cell will never operate at 90-95% efficiency. The only reason Sony put a GPU in the PS3 is because Cell couldn't hang with current GPU's. So basically the Inquirer is right, the Xenos would kill Cell at Folding, by about 30%.

Update: Dude you can;t be serious about Lair and Heavenly Sword? Heavenly Sword looks horrible, alot of low rez textures, Lair don't even get me started on the PS2 upgrade game. THose games do not have the texture quality or lighting of Gears of War, even Unreal Tournament 3 can't hang with gears of ware, and Unreal Tournament 3 looks better than Lair and Heavenly Sword. View

Blu-Ray and the Cell weren't an advantage for Namco. LOL View

The GPU is what matters guys and it is old tech. View

You are wrong with those #'s. THe 360 gpu can push more vertices and polygons than the RSX, ALOT more. The 360 gpu operates at 90-95%efficiency, where as the RSX operates at 50-60% (RSX=OLD TECH). So even if the RSX had higher theoretical #'s it would never acheive 60+% of that. So in the real world where I live the RSX is weaker and the games show it my friend.

Xenos Specs:

337 million transistors in total
500 MHz 10 MiB daughter embedded DRAM (eDRAM) framebuffer on 90 nm process
NEC designed eDRAM die includes additional logic for color, alpha blending, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing
105 million transistors [2]
8 Render Output units
500 MHz parent GPU on 90 nm TSMC process of total 232 million transistors
48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines[3]
Unified shader architecture (each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders)
2 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle (1 vector4 and 1 scalar, co-issued)
10 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
48 billion shader operations per second theoretical maximum (2 ALU x 48 shader pipelines x 500 MHz)[3]
240 GFLOPS (10 FLOPS x 48 shader pipelines x 500 MHz)[4]
MEMEXPORT shader function
Support for a superset of DirectX 9.0c/API DirectX XBOX 360, and Shader Model 3.0/3.5
16 filtered and 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock
Maximum vertex count: 1.6 billion vertices per second
Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second[3]
Maximum texel fillrate: 8 gigatexel per second fillrate (16 textures x 500 MHz)
Maximum pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA), or 32 gigasamples using Z-only operation; 4 gigapixels per second without MSAA (8 ROPs x 500 MHz)[1]
Maximum Dot product operations: 24 billion per second

RSX Specs:

500 MHz G70 based GPU on 90 nm process[1]
300 milllion transistors total
Multi-way programmable parallel floating-point shader pipelines
Independent pixel/vertex shader architecture
24 parallel pixel pipelines
5 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle (2 vector4 and 2 scalar (dual/co-issue) and fog ALU)
27 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
8 parallel vertex pipelines
2 shader ALU operations per pipeline per cycle (1 vector4 and 1 scalar, dual issued)
10 FLOPS per pipeline per cycle
Announced: 74.8 billion shader operations per second theoretical maximum ( ((5 ALU x 24 pixel pipelines) + (2 ALU x 8 vetrex pipelines)) x 550 MHz )
Calculated: 68 billion shader operations per second theoretical maximum ( ((5 ALU x 24 pixel pipelines) + (2 ALU x 8 vetrex pipelines)) x 500 MHz )
Announced: 1.8 TFLOPS (trillion floating point operations per second)
Calculated: 364 GFLOPS ( ((27 FLOPS x 24 pixel pipelines) + (10 FLOPS x 8 vertex pipelines)) x 500 MHz )
8 Render Output units
24 filtered and 32 unfiltered texture samples per clock
Maximum vertex count: 1 billion vertices per second (8 vertex x 500 MHz / 4)
Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per tirangle)
Maximum texel fillrate: 12 gigatexel per second fillrate (24 textures x 500 MHz)
Maximum pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA), or 32 gigasamples using Z-only operation; 4 gigapixels per second without MSAA (8 ROPs x 500 MHz)
Maximum Dot product operations: 33 billion per second
128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with high dynamic range imaging
128-bit memory bus width to 256-MiB GDDR3 VRAM
Memory clock: 1.3 GHz (650 MHz × 2)[2]
Maximum bandwidth bitrate: 20.8 GB per second
Support for a superset of DirectX 9.0c/API and Shader Model 3.0

As you can see the Xenos trumps the RSX in vertices and polygon count, and also sports a higher shader model. Look at the games they are the proof, that Xenos is very efficient and trumps NVidias sad offering. View

I just copied and pasted for the source. Don't get all defensive over a shiny black box. View

Guess the analysyst forgot to mention Universal re-iterated no plans to support Blu-ray this year. They specifically mentioned 100 "Exclusive" titles. The speculation is just that...speculation. Let is not forget that neither format amounts to more than a micro fraction of numbers compared to DVD. The PS3 is a game console that doesn't have enough games yet and is a capable movie player. Let us get real here. A million PS3 and Standalone BD players plus better current release schedule should equal a BD whitewash and that really isn't happening.

Guess the analysyst forgot to mention Universal re-iterated no plans to support Blu-ray this year. They specifically mentioned 100 "Exclusive" titles. The speculation is just that...speculation. Let is not forget that neither format amounts to more than a micro fraction of numbers compared to DVD. The PS3 is a game console that doesn't have enough games yet and is a capable movie player. Let us get real here. A million PS3 and Standalone BD players plus better current release schedule should equal a BD whitewash and that really isn't happening. View

Look at 99% of multi-platform games, they either look worse on PS3 or play worse, and sometimes both like the last Splinter Cell. Even if the RSX's #'s were higher than Xenos it still wouldn't be more powerful. RSX is old tech, which runs at 50-60% efficiency only reaching half of it's respected theoretical power. The Xenos on the other hand can reach 90-95% efficiency due to unified architecture, basically beating RSX to a pulp. No game on the PS3 will surpass Gears of War or Mass Effect. You guys wasted $600 on a movie player, when I can walk down to compusa and get a 7800gtx for a couple hundred bucks and have a PS3. View

The PS3 is holding the graphics back. I see a trend with multi-platform games that are both on the PS3 and the 360. The textures suck and make the graphics look hrrible. Exclusive XBox 360 games blow any PS3 game out of the water. Mass Effect, Gears of War, Lost Planet native 1080p anyone? View

Hardly anyone owns a PS3! View

Game looks like crap, Lost Planet looks alot better in my opinion. View

Because the PS3 is performing horribly compared to it's older brothers. The PS3 will never surpass the 360 in world-wide sales. View

I thought track deformation was only possible on the POS3? View

And about 40 HD-DVD movies, just pre-ordered the matrix trilogy. View

The pics attached of DOA 4 looks way better! Too much HDR on the Sigma screenshots looks like an uprezzed xbox game, oh wait it is. LOL View

Dead or Alive 4 looks way better than this shyte. PS3 fanboys get worked up over some ugly games. I guess it's because they have never played Gears at 1080i. View