|
|
|
08 Mar 2006 09:29 | Webmaster | Playstation 3 | Xbox 360 PS3Today.com | Link to this article 
Check out the first image released for the next Brothers In Arms game, heading to Xbox 360 and PS3. Word has it that it is an in-game shot, what do you think?  Add Comment  1 -
turkmen117 03.08.2006 09:56 cooool 2 -
Unregistered - hj 03.08.2006 10:10 360 graphix!Get out of my face!My C64 roxx the ps3 and the 360 together. 0.9 mhz power 3 -
ummUnregistered - ZeroCool 03.08.2006 10:27 if those screenies are ps3 ones they are sh1t if they are xbox 360 ones OMG those graphics rock man 4 -
#3Unregistered - PS3 FAN 03.08.2006 11:00 OH NUMBER 3 DONT GET JEALOUS OF THE PS3.XBOX IS GONE BYE BYE. 5 -
I am embarrasedUnregistered - Ricky 03.08.2006 11:55 If you think these graphics are sh*t, then you're an idiot. Makes me embarrased to stand next to you as a PS3 fan. 6 -
Unregistered - william 03.08.2006 12:05 heres one for you, I don't see any ps3 graphics, why? oh cause their is none for the POS3... dumba*s...let's see you got what 8 more months to wait? oh that's what I thought 7 -
GRAWUnregistered - YESSIR 03.08.2006 12:11 GRAW is out today for the 360 and it kicks as*!!! Best game so far for the 360... Nothing bad to say about this game. Next Gen graphics the game totally kicks a**!!! #3 just wanted to tell you I dont know what you waiting for. If your waiting for better graphics in the PS3 you wont get them.. Graphics on both systems will be so identical you wont be able to tell the differsnce..I feel bad for you sony boys waiting for this POS... I'll be playing GRAW after work and I wish you all could play also...GRAW is the best game in a long time!!! 8 -
This game looks good, but I am tired of looking... I want to play SOMETHING!Unregistered - Hey 03.08.2006 12:20 Game Pro has announced that the 360's version will most likely be coming out in 2006. Unfourtunately, it is beginning to look asthough the PS3 won't even be out until 2007. Personally, I have had enough! Tommarrow I am going out and getting myself a 360. Sure I'll probably get a PS3 some day but as a consumer that doesn't even own a HD TV, putting a Beta-ray drive in the system and then jacking up the price and forcing me to pay for it (never mind wait for it) is rediculous! I want to play now and after spending some time on my buddy's Xbox Live account - I am hooked. 16 - player co-op online - hell ya, ...Ghost Recon here I come! But I still will definately be watching out for this game and keeping up with the PS3 news, in anticipation of its launch! I'll see you guys at the PS3's launch but until then, I'm gamin' baby, I'm gamin' 9 -
Xtrm L1481L1TY 03.08.2006 12:23 I take it this is an Xbox 360 game as well. This same screen is featured on a 360 site: http://www.xboxyde.com/news_2630_en.html Anyhow, the screen looks great whether on the PS3 or Xbox 360! 10 -
graphics talkUnregistered - gamer 03.08.2006 12:35 Just here to post a civilized interview of teamxbox with bob feldstein the president of engineering at ati technologies inc.. You may want to read about what 360's Xenos chip does compared to PS3's Rsx chip, and what it means for games. Wether you take offense to this post is on you, but yes the interview does state that the 360's Xenos chip is capable of more/certain things than PS3's RSX chip. Take into consideration PS3's chip has been available on the market for quite some time, where as 360's distinct chipset has yet to be seen on the market for a while!. None of the most high end PC's out today (and the PS3) don't do any of the shading work or have the shading structure of the Xenos chipset. Their is also downloadable video feed of what the chipset can do... you can compare the video to that of PS3's RSX demonstration and draw your own conclusion. I do realize that both systems are very powerful as well. You should even look at some of the Revolution stuff if you get around to it, pretty impressive. Just here to post some pretty neat info! http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1458/The-Power-of-the-Xbox-360-GPU/p1/ P.S. = Also, I kind of find it troublesum that screenshots now days of games for PS3 & 360 have no seperate/distinct difference in graphics or anything. MGS4 looked gorgeous (but just like killzone I can't help but to debate wether the footage was gameplay or not)... but wouldn't all this stuff concern sony? as it's obvious there is no difference seen between the consoles as of what rainbow 6: vegas, brothers in arms 3, etc. are showing? this battle is going to be epic... next gen is panning out to look like a good fight! also anyone else in here as ticked off as I am about sony having yet to have playable ps3's? I hope they finally deliever that at E3... cause the past few game shows they've failed to deliver! 11 -
Unregistered - Mp 03.08.2006 13:03 I'm tired of world war games their are too much of them, I'd rather wait until somthing good comes out, I'll get the ps3 and a 360 but I'm not going to dish out any money for them right now becasue I don't see any interesting games. 12 -
Unregistered - hoosiredaddy 03.08.2006 13:17 man thi s game looks so good, this game will be rockin' out on 360 and ps3!!!! 13 -
#11Unregistered - sonysux 03.08.2006 13:25 GRAW released today...interesting I think so!!! 14 -
Unregistered - dont be scared you chicken to try it bawk bawk 03.08.2006 13:29 Why wait for a zillion delays just to see broken promises when you could play the xbox360 today the only true next gen system if you dont believe just try GRAW out it's amazing! 15 -
To #10 / The 360's GPU is a wonderful marvel to behold but the PS3 will also handle this game just fine because of its RAW Power!Unregistered - Burly 03.08.2006 14:00 Dude, as a techie I am proud of you. Eventhough the PS3 is being released a year-plus after the 360 doesn't actually mean anything with respect to comparing the GPU's in both systems because both the RSX and the Xenon GPU were finished in the same technology window. In other words, eventhough the PS3 hasn't yet been released; the RSX GPU has been finished for a while now. But this aspect alone misses the pure ingenious that Microsoft used in this generation when developing their Xenos GPU. You see in order to assemble the hardware for a next-generation games machine you need to understand what is required from a software stand point - and Microsoft does! Infact if you dig even further into that notion, you can also note that Microsoft has advance knowledge of the requirements for Windows Vista connectivity and future Direct X requirements. So Microsoft used this inside knowledge and approached ATI to develope something that was essentially ahead of its time, from the standpoint of Microsoft dictating where future GPU's where going based on future Direct X / Windows Vista knowledge, rather than ATI and NVidia deciding what would be best without that knowledge! Of course I am talking about unified shader architecture, shader model 4.0, future Dircet X compatible, etc, - which the 360's Xenos GPU has but the PS3's RSX doesn't. This fact alone means that you may as well think of the 360's GPU as a generation ahead of the RSX and current high-end PC cards on the market today. And if you want proof of this then just look at the future GPU's set to launch around the same time as Windows Vista from both ATI and NVidia - they both are future Direct X compatible, have both have unified shader architecture, shader model 4.0, etc (just like the Xenos GPU). Also, if you want to know why even ATI doesn't have any unified shader architecture GPU's out yet, - well it is because Microsoft learned from the last-gen, that in order to decrease component costs over the course of the systems' life cycle, you can't license the GPU technology. So now MS flat-out owns the GPU technology in the Xenos GPU, and NOT ATI, which is why ATI and NVidia are now following Microsofts lead and not the other way around. Any ways, both consoles will easily be able to handle this game because it is in the early part of the next-gen but when Windows Vista launches, along side with the next-gen GPU's from ATI and NVidia - then watch out because the 360 will begin to pull ahead in the graphics department. 16 -
ONCE AGAIN IT'S THE SOFTWARE THAT MATTERSspeedracer 03.08.2006 14:51 After reading everyone posts im still compelled to remind everyone that tech specs on hardware are fun and entertaining but its the software and playability of the games which will still define which system is going to be on top it all comes down to one thing are you a snake or a spartan? 17 -
#15BillGatesSucks 03.08.2006 15:11 The specs clearly illustrate that the RSX outperforms the 360 GPU, even if it is more future directx compliant. Which, in this case, I can't see mattering too much because the RSX doesn't use directx, it uses a stripped down, console friendly version of openGL. 18 -
dcm 03.08.2006 15:36 i think that you all need to shut up ps3 xbox 360 and rev are all awesome just as long as we have a game to play. then thats what counts and the games make all of the difference 19 -
To #17 - Don't hate gates, hate the delay!Unregistered - Burly 03.08.2006 16:06 Thanks for your post dude, Anyways, considering this is a bit off topic, I will just direct you to the "The Darkness Anoounced for PS3 & Xbox 360" comment section on this site for an enlightenment on the GPU comparison. But at any rate, why do you hate Bill Gates dude? I mean he personally gives more money to charity and medical research than most first world countries and you can't deny that Microsoft is good for the industry - after all they are the reason why the pressure is building up in relation to the PS3 delays, PS3 component costs / rationale, PS3's online functionality deficit, etc, etc. As a gamer I am glad that there is now 2 heavy weights in the market and not just one. 20 -
don't knowUnregistered - fan 03.08.2006 16:38 i think that sony is really stupid if he thinks that we will wait for ps3 until end of the year. and, for which game do we exactly know that is in-game, not pre-rendered... i think that if killzone2 and motorstorm arent in-game, THEN WHAT IS "NEXT-GEN"?? 21 -
BurlyUnregistered - 213213 03.08.2006 16:41 I feel like discreditting someone. Regardless of what you said about Bill Gates I do hate him; He IS the richest man yet he does not give away the largest sums of money (CEO of Intel does) this is your quote: "you can't deny that Microsoft is good for the industry" Extremely wrong, when you have basically no competion it creates an massive gap of innovation. So in turn it hurts the Industry more then helps. (Read below.) ***Over 95% of PC's can't handle Windows Vista (Mircosoft can perssure the Hardware companies easily)*** Another quote: "after all they are the reason why the pressure is building up in relation to the PS3 delay...PS3's online functionality deficit..." Delays = Blu-Ray's OMS System being patented. It's a drawback. [Online] The system can't be held back on it's OS since it's adaptive such as Xbox Live or any OS. You say only '2' Heavy Weights, you speak as if Nintendo is completely gone, or is it Playstation? Either way, you can't discredit either of them. Another thing if you were such a techie through the GPU department; why not look at the consoles of the standpoint of performance/quality, Cell Vs. TCP--It's interesting especially in the since that techies would understand what I am talking about. 22 -
#10 #15 Get your facts straight!Unregistered - Dragonopolis 03.08.2006 16:57 First of all, stop comparing apple to oranges. Here's a small tid bit on the xbox 360 from the official Xbox site: Processing Powerhouse The custom-designed Xbox 360 central processing unit (CPU) runs at a breakneck speed, thanks to its three separate core processors that clock in at 3.2 GHz each. Xbox 360 boasts a custom ATI graphics processor that clocks in at a blistering 500 MHz. If you want to get even more technical (and who doesn't?) Xbox 360 can take advantage of more than four times as many polygons as the original Xbox® console, and more than four times (seeing a pattern here?) the number of pixels per second. The RSX is the GPU of the PS3 not the CPU. You can't compare a GPU to a CPU. The Xenon is what MS calls their CPU. ATI didn't give a real name to their GPU because the did not want the public to judge the GPU based on their series of Graphic Processors for the PC. Since it was custom designed and didn't fit within the current family, this was smart because it's reputation (and ATI's) could be damaged in a comparison over their PC counterparts. So as it stands now , when you read the specs on the site it always states "ATI custom graphics processor." If you want to compare, compare the two GPUs. RSX has way more RAW power than the ATI Custom Graphic Processor running on the XBOX 360. This would seem like a huge advantage but its not. ATI customized their GPU specificly for DirectX and their unified shader tech with support for Shader model 3 and 4,which by the way, does close the Gap considerably. RSX uses OpenGL which is newer and not as finely tune as DirectX set up but that shouldn't be a problem because of the power of the RSX and Cell. Now, comparing CPU to CPU read the Xenon vs Cell a good article about the comparison is here: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=4 You Xbox fans should love it because despite it's open minded comparison there's a slight lean towards the Xbox 360's Xenon but the Anandtech guys do admit that their review of the Cell is hampered because their was (and still is to some extent) not alot of info on how the Cell processor will be implemented in games. I do want to point out that the Anandtech crew dogged the CPUs when comparing them to Desktop CPUs saying that they both fall short. They go on to say that it isn't that important for gamers because gaming is mostly GPU intensive. This may seem like an unimportant comment but it may be more important than we realize. If you look at the Cell chip design, it looks like Sony/IBM decided that just adding regular processor cores isn't going to improve gameplay that much so they just attached smaller more optimize chips that actually do gamers some good. The closest example comes to my mind is Altivec or MMX on current/old CPU designs. Extra silicon on a single core to aid in multimedia functions. Cell is similar except geared to gaming and instead of placing it all on one core they put it on smaller less expensive core that could be use in a multi-core enviroment. I know this is a lousy example, but it does prove a point. If game companies/programmers don't take advantage of the extra functionality of the Cell or the Cell's architecure is flawed in anyway (like MMX) then PS3/Cell could flop. Hope this helps.... 23 -
sorry #10 #15Unregistered - Dragonopolis 03.08.2006 17:25 I thought you said Xenon not Xenos. My fault. However, I still stand by the RSX as still having more raw power than Xenos GPU. 24 -
Ah I'm not going mad after allUnregistered - Dragonopolis 03.08.2006 17:34 You did say Xenon GPU I'm not crazy after all. However, in your defense, I believe it was a typ-o since in the rest of your topic you spell it Xenos. How unoriginal for ATI. Xenos so close to Xenon gives you a head-ache. 25 -
the good old timekingboy 03.08.2006 18:30 I remember the good old times when we appreciated good games and wanna play them despite the platform.Today is more like i curse u and u curse me back.That`s why i respect pc gamers more cuz for them it`s just about good gaming . 26 -
Unregistered - . 03.08.2006 19:55 Do we have to fight, we all know that the ps3 is better! 27 -
Unregistered - blah 03.08.2006 22:13 These screens are from the Xbox 360 game, it states so in my OXM that I got yesterday. It also says they are in engine which means they will look like that in the actual game. PS3 is cool....but 360 is now. 28 -
they're from the 360Unregistered - me 03.09.2006 02:31 yeah, i just got the april issue of OXM too. it says that these screens are from the xbox 360 version and that they're in game. I imagine that they'll look pretty much the same on the ps3 though. 29 -
Ghost Recon is beyond anything that I could have ever hoped for in the next-gen and it makes me excited, very, very excited for all that will follow!Unregistered - Ghost - hell ya! 03.09.2006 02:42 Forget about this game man, I just finished playing Ghost Recon and HOLY CRAP if everything looked and played as good as that in the next-gen then we are never going to leave our couches. Seriously, everyone on Xbox Live is flat-out exstatic - like we are all five years old agin and we just got our first bike or we are waiting up for Santa. I mean I'm sure that Brothers In Arms is going to be good and all but HOLY CRAP - I just can't contain myself; GHOST RECON IS HERE NOW AND IT IS ABOUT AS NEXT-GEN AS YOU WILL EVER GET! ... AND JUST THINK THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST GENERATION - AAAAAAAAHHHHH FREAK OUT! 30 -
-- Deleted by Mod --Unregistered - Al Qaeda member 03.09.2006 06:07 -- Deleted by Mod -- 31 -
Unregistered - Just passing 03.09.2006 07:05 This is NOT! an "in game shot" there is NO HUD, how dumb can people be? 32 -
Unregistered - ..... 03.09.2006 07:46 When constructing a video game, you can change the camera views, angles, etc... This screenshot is in engine. Not meaning it is in game, which would entail the fact that it is actual footage of the game itself being played. But this IS what it will look like. So please, stop saying there needs too be a hud jackass. 33 -
Unregistered - .... 03.09.2006 07:51 Here, i've given you a in engine shot of Halo 2, and there's NO HUD! http://media.xbox.ign.com/media/482/482228/img_2501978.html 34 -
Why cant these be game screens?Unregistered - fame 03.09.2006 11:01 Why cant these be ingame screes? Have you seen GRAW?? All I can say is Amazing!!! I just looked at the battlefiels 2 screens and trailer and they look just as good as these if not better.. Also got to add GRAW looks better than this!!! 1 MORE THING GRAW KICKS A**!!!!!!! 35 -
OMFGUnregistered - #1 03.09.2006 13:40 I think you all just need to STFU!!!!! k thx :o) 36 -
GRAW?Unregistered - 123123 03.09.2006 14:36 Yeah I watched/played it, what's so crazy awesome about it? I guess I'm hard to impress but I compared it with HE PC's; Unimpressive if present PC's can do the same. o well =X 37 -
#36 your dumbUnregistered - fameisforshame 03.09.2006 14:56 Pc's will always be ahead of console always have always will!! Not impressed with your dumb comment.. Your a hater and you cant admit to your self that the 360 is kick a@@ 38 -
Havoc 03.09.2006 15:31 It seems like overall every one is impressed with GRAW, the game looks beautiful and the games are only going to get better from here. If the 360 would of had a couple of games like this at launch, there would have been no complaining. 39 -
HAVOCUnregistered - famo 03.09.2006 16:07 I agree with you! Launch games blew balls. COD2, PGR3, PDZ, NFS were only good ones and for the first first gen games they weren't bad. Gun, Madden and the others sucked totally thrown together fast as crap to get the system some release games. All the games I have been seeing that are coming out for the 360 look just as good if not better than GRAW. GRAW kicks a@@ though!! Good to be a gamer. Going to own both consoles only if the PS3 has some promising thing MS wont have. I have a 360 and I am happy. Its awsome despite what some of the haters say. Its awsome. HAVOC have you picked up a 360 yet? If so whats your gamertag? 40 -
#37Unregistered - sjdfksjd 03.09.2006 16:22 LOL, PC (Personal Computers) are almost NEVER comparible to PC's at launchs such as GPU+CPU performances. I'm not impressed with your dipsh!t comment 41 -
#40 Unregistered - sonyblows like #40 03.09.2006 16:36 Your dumb. So what are you saying again?? Make some sense of yourself geek! Your a f@g! 42 -
#19BillGatesSucks 03.09.2006 16:53 I've read every technical comparison there is between the 360 GPU and the RSX and sorry to say (for the xbots) the numbers come out much better for the RSX. You can talk all you want about the unified shader pipelines and directx 10 future compatabilty, but developers have said the version of openGL that the RSX uses is much better to work with and the unified pipelines, which seems to be more efficient theoretically, when put into practise are not as productive. Two heavyweights? Hmmmm, I think I'll rebuttle with a quote from the man himself: "Beating us for a short moment is like accidentally winning a point from a Shihan (Karate master), and Microsoft is still not a black belt," Ken Kutaragi, Sony Computer Entertainment president. Bow to your sensei Sony, MS. 43 -
#42Unregistered - lol 03.09.2006 16:59 What developers are you talking about? web site please!! I have heard the oppossite. 360'S is newer PS3 is a year old! In the long run the developers have said the 360 gpu is better! I think you are mistaken..Now bow and suck me off you beatch! 44 -
#43Unregistered - Farenheit 03.09.2006 17:31 Oh brother the only game developers who said that they perfer the xbox 360 were Itagaki, John Carmack, and Hiro Ouji that doesn't mean all the developers that's only three. 45 -
#43BillGatesSucks 03.09.2006 17:37 What developers are you talking about? Website please. Bend over and blow yourself, peewee. 46 -
well...Unregistered - gamer 03.09.2006 17:49 With John Carmack being a huge math wizz and smart ass. For him of all developers to say 360 has the easier to develop for and all around more efficent hardwear would freaking mean something to me. Also I take 360's pipeline shaders as a big deal as because sony's chip will not offer that feature. Also as of there is no program currently out thats lets anyone utilize the cell softwear, last time I've checked. I don't see that stuff as any form of being a threat. Also if you read a bunch of back comments/stories on sony, they lie about the running speeds over and over of the cell. They lie about how their games will look and play (killzone, I know that people say MGS4... but the fake vid for killzone blew MGS4's supposivley real footage out the water... and the fact that the killzone vid has been deemed a FAKE would make that a big deal to me, considering sony for the longest time after that vid was released always claimed it was all real time at 25fps.)that would be a huge deal breaker for me. Sony always under delivers get used to it. People complained about the weight and controller of the origional xbox I can't wait to hear about PS3 when it releases cause it obviously will out weigh the 360's system and the controller don't look as handling friendly as the 360's. Sony keeps losing games/developers to 360 for a reason. Not to mention 360's graphics chip has the edge over sonys. The battle is on between the two and Im eager to see. If sony can live up to the lie's of what their games will look like, I will buy one. But considering the killzone amazing footage was fake... and the Hideo Kojima of MGS4 said it COULD in fact be done on 360 makes PS3 not look all that appetizing to me. But if sony can get it's crap together, Im open to buying it! 47 -
Unregistered - Gin 03.09.2006 18:33 Sorry I don't really care how smart Caramack really is the only good title ID software made so far that's actually worth playing is doom 3, the rest of their games aren't really all that good, I mean Quake 4 was awful. 48 -
#46Unregistered - Weib Kruez 03.09.2006 18:51 I would think differently but what your saying doesn't have substantial evidence or proof so could you provide a link other wise I'm not going to take you seriously. Plus we all know that the 360 is easier to develop games, but from common knowleadge I know it doesn't matter if game development is easier or hard it's up to the game developers to think and make something that will sell, I know a lot of developers who are lazy and don't make good games it all depends on the developers to make something worth buying for the consumer. I'm not a Sony fan or an Ms fan but I know for a fact consoles have their share of good games and bad games so I think your mistakened. 49 -
well indeedBillGatesSucks 03.09.2006 18:56 "I take 360's pipeline shaders as a big deal as because sony's chip will not offer that feature" - RSX dedicated piplines outperform 360's unified pipelines by a factor of 1.5x "there is no program currently out thats lets anyone utilize the cell software" - If you're talking about a compiler then yeah there is, IBM is developing it it's called the Octopiler. "They lie about how their games will look and play" - The only demo that was proven fake was Killzone, all others are real time or in engine. "I can't wait to hear about PS3 when it releases cause it obviously will out weigh the 360's system and the controller don't look as handling friendly as the 360's" - This is your biased xbot opinion and therefore doesn't count. "Sony keeps losing games/developers to 360 for a reason." - They are? Who? And to qualify as "keeps losing" there has to be more than one. "Not to mention 360's graphics chip has the edge over sonys" - As I stated earlier, no it does not. The RSX clearly outperforms the 360 GPU. Here are some specs I cut and pasted from wikipdeia for both GPUs, this shows that the RSX outperforms the 360 GPU: RSX Clocked at 550 Mhz 1.8 TFLOPS (trillion floating point operations per second) theoretical floating point capability Full high definition output (up to 1080p) x 2 channels Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines 136 shader operations per clock 74.8 billion shader operations per second (100 billion with CPU) 33 billion dot products per second (51 billion dot products with CPU) 128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with high dynamic range imaging 360 GPU 325 million transistors total 500 MHz parent GPU (90 nm process, 235 million transistors) 500 MHz 10 MB daughter embedded DRAM framebuffer (90 nm process, 90 million transistors) NEC designed eDRAM has internal logic for color, alpha blending, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing. 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines 3 groups of 16 arithmetic logic units 1 ALU per fragmentpipe for vertex or pixel shader processing Unified shader architecture (This means that each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders.) Support for DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0, limited support for future DirectX 10 shader models 2 Shader operations per pipe per cycle 96 Shader operations per cycle across the entire shader array Shader performance: 48 billion (48,000 million) shader operations per second (96 shader operations x 500 MHz) 8 ROPs in daughter die 16 Filtered & 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock Maximum polygon performance: 500 million triangles per second Texel fillrate: 8 gigatexel per second fillrate (16 textures x 500 MHz) Pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA) or 4 gigapixel per second without multisample anti aliasing (8 ROPs x 500 MHz) Dot product operations: 24 billion per second or 33.6 billion per second theoretical maximum when summed with CPU operations. "Hideo Kojima of MGS4 said it COULD in fact be done on 360" - Here you show your true xbot colours. yes, Kojima did say this but he also said WITH SOME LOSSES. Let it go, please, it's so old. 50 -
EnforcerOfTheTruth 03.09.2006 19:18 LOL and yet another Xbug got exposed of playing the multiple names game. Xtrm is also #10 and #15. Before this was posted here, this funny creature said the same things to me on a forum: http://www.moviecodec.com/topics/7242p1870.html ROFL Also half of the people getting excited are probably also only Xtrm, cause this guy is freakin out about GRAW like no one else on this forum. And here are some facts: 360 GPU doesn't support shader 4.0 and dx10 only partially and Sonys OpenGL is not worse than dx, no it's even better, cause it's not that limited like dx and the devs have more freedom. The RSX is way more powerful, the only advantage the 360 GPU has is it's unified shaders architecture, but unified shaders work slower than specialised and their performance is similar to a 24 specialised pipes ATI 420 GPU ;-) Besides the specs the strongest proof is that already not finished PS3 games do things 360 finalised games can't :-D 51 -
Unregistered - me 03.09.2006 20:18 Those are 360 shots 52 -
Unregistered - jonbenet 03.09.2006 20:37 # 35, You sound like a little valley girl bi*ch. 53 -
...49...Hmm 03.10.2006 02:46 Damn well said ! 54 -
this upsets meUnregistered - truegamingfan#1 03.10.2006 04:44 With 360 just now getting it's killer ap. game, sony better start spilling the beans on what they have up it's sleave. I can't help but as a huge sony fan to feel they are running behind and need to come out guns blazing before it's too late. No one complains about how revolution isn't coming out quick enough because it was #3 last gen. Sony was #1 last gen so in some aspects it's the most wanted this time again, but then again xbox sold good enough to come in a fair enough #2. I know where I live the 360 is still selling like hot cakes. I bought a ps2 and a xbox. Found myself plsying them both equally as much. Each day they keep delaying the news that would further help them, they are making true fans lose their pure interest in the system. I played Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter today and I have got to admit it's a damn good game, seems as if it's the official killer ap. for the system. Im sure sony knows this and I think this should force them to spill it all on the system within short time. Common sony you already let me down when you told me that killzone footage was fake, that was the best footage you've ever shown of any of your next gen games. Don't let me down with not telling us all what we want to hear, if you want to get me sold on your system you need to get your info out there. Common dammit. 55 -
#54Retard 03.10.2006 10:48 Yeah, I saw GRAW, pretty neat and fun. But, I'm still sided with PS3; hopefully they'll tell us some materialistic information or at least something more to back-up. 56 -
To #49 & #53: The proof is in the pudding and the 360 will more than handle the PS3 when it comes to a Future Brother in Arms or Metal Gear Solid!Unregistered - Burly 03.10.2006 12:53 Stop! Just stop! You should never post ANYTHING to do with technical specs or benchmarks because to real techies; you just made yourself look very ignorant and lost a lot (if not all) credibility. If anything your true colours came out as a fanboy. 1) The RSX is not capable of 1.8 TFLOPS! It is capable of 228 GFLOPS (vs. Xenon at 240 GFLOPS). The Teraflop benchmark that you are referring to is a "total system" benchmark and even that is 1) very unrealistic and 2) not even very relevant when put it into the context of developing next-gen games. That 1.8 TFLOP number is probably based on theoretical peak performance but does not account for the very real bottlenecks that exists in the PS3. For example, the PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s. The Xbox 360 on the other hand has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth. But this is just the tip of the iceburg for you my friend because Sony's CPU is only ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. However, unfourtunately for you this is just not the case because in next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating - point — probably ~5-10%. The Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else. Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult. The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming and likewise your TFLOP figure is completely irrelevant because the 360 has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, the PS3 only has one! Infact, speaking from a mathematical benchmark standpoint the 360 has more than twice as much general purpose processing power. Well now that you have made me get into a CPU comparison because you wrongly posted a total system benchmark in the GPU category, I am not going to get into the GPU comparison for the sake of not taking up this entire comment page. BUT, and here is the "BUT" - I want everyone to know that the majority of the info listed here is a joke and if you think that the 360 can't handle Metal Gear Solid, then you are living in la la land because the Xenon GPU is literally a generation ahead of the existing PC-architechured RSX. Towards the middle / end of the console war, the 360 will begin to pull away graphically from the PS3 (if it hasn't already with Microsofts superior development tools and easy to develope for hardware) - but in the initial batch of games you should expect to see the most experienced developers shine regardless of what platform the games are on. Like these screen shots of Brothers in Arms for example. Both systems should be on par with each other, or at least lets hope that the PS3 doesn't start falling behind at this point. I take 360's pipeline shaders as a big deal as because sony's chip will not offer that feature" - RSX dedicated piplines outperform 360's unified pipelines by a factor of 1.5x "there is no program currently out thats lets anyone utilize the cell software" - If you're talking about a compiler then yeah there is, IBM is developing it it's called the Octopiler. "They lie about how their games will look and play" - The only demo that was proven fake was Killzone, all others are real time or in engine. "I can't wait to hear about PS3 when it releases cause it obviously will out weigh the 360's system and the controller don't look as handling friendly as the 360's" - This is your biased xbot opinion and therefore doesn't count. "Sony keeps losing games/developers to 360 for a reason." - They are? Who? And to qualify as "keeps losing" there has to be more than one. "Not to mention 360's graphics chip has the edge over sonys" - As I stated earlier, no it does not. The RSX clearly outperforms the 360 GPU. Here are some specs I cut and pasted from wikipdeia for both GPUs, this shows that the RSX outperforms the 360 GPU: RSX Clocked at 550 Mhz 1.8 TFLOPS (trillion floating point operations per second) theoretical floating point capability Full high definition output (up to 1080p) x 2 channels Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines 136 shader operations per clock 74.8 billion shader operations per second (100 billion with CPU) 33 billion dot products per second (51 billion dot products with CPU) 128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with high dynamic range imaging 360 GPU 325 million transistors total 500 MHz parent GPU (90 nm process, 235 million transistors) 500 MHz 10 MB daughter embedded DRAM framebuffer (90 nm process, 90 million transistors) NEC designed eDRAM has internal logic for color, alpha blending, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing. 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines 3 groups of 16 arithmetic logic units 1 ALU per fragmentpipe for vertex or pixel shader processing Unified shader architecture (This means that each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders.) Support for DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0, limited support for future DirectX 10 shader models 2 Shader operations per pipe per cycle 96 Shader operations per cycle across the entire shader array Shader performance: 48 billion (48,000 million) shader operations per second (96 shader operations x 500 MHz) 8 ROPs in daughter die 16 Filtered & 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock Maximum polygon performance: 500 million triangles per second Texel fillrate: 8 gigatexel per second fillrate (16 textures x 500 MHz) Pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA) or 4 gigapixel per second without multisample anti aliasing (8 ROPs x 500 MHz) Dot product operations: 24 billion per second or 33.6 billion per second theoretical maximum when summed with CPU operations. "Hideo Kojima of MGS4 said it COULD in fact be done on 360" - Here you show your true xbot colours. yes, Kojima did say this but he also said WITH SOME LOSSES. Let it go, please, it's so old. 57 -
To #49 & #53: The proof is in the pudding and the 360 will more than handle the PS3 when it comes to a Future Brother in Arms or Metal Gear Solid!Unregistered - Burly 03.10.2006 12:54 Stop! Just stop! You should never post ANYTHING to do with technical specs or benchmarks because to real techies; you just made yourself look very ignorant and lost a lot (if not all) credibility. If anything your true colours came out as a fanboy. 1) The RSX is not capable of 1.8 TFLOPS! It is capable of 228 GFLOPS (vs. Xenon at 240 GFLOPS). The Teraflop benchmark that you are referring to is a "total system" benchmark and even that is 1) very unrealistic and 2) not even very relevant when put it into the context of developing next-gen games. That 1.8 TFLOP number is probably based on theoretical peak performance but does not account for the very real bottlenecks that exists in the PS3. For example, the PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s. The Xbox 360 on the other hand has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth. But this is just the tip of the iceburg for you my friend because Sony's CPU is only ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. However, unfourtunately for you this is just not the case because in next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating - point — probably ~5-10%. The Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else. Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult. The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming and likewise your TFLOP figure is completely irrelevant because the 360 has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, the PS3 only has one! Infact, speaking from a mathematical benchmark standpoint the 360 has more than twice as much general purpose processing power. Well now that you have made me get into a CPU comparison because you wrongly posted a total system benchmark in the GPU category, I am not going to get into the GPU comparison for the sake of not taking up this entire comment page. BUT, and here is the "BUT" - I want everyone to know that the majority of the info listed here is a joke and if you think that the 360 can't handle Metal Gear Solid, then you are living in la la land because the Xenon GPU is literally a generation ahead of the existing PC-architechured RSX. Towards the middle / end of the console war, the 360 will begin to pull away graphically from the PS3 (if it hasn't already with Microsofts superior development tools and easy to develope for hardware) - but in the initial batch of games you should expect to see the most experienced developers shine regardless of what platform the games are on. Like these screen shots of Brothers in Arms for example. Both systems should be on par with each other, or at least lets hope that the PS3 doesn't start falling behind at this point. I take 360's pipeline shaders as a big deal as because sony's chip will not offer that feature" - RSX dedicated piplines outperform 360's unified pipelines by a factor of 1.5x "there is no program currently out thats lets anyone utilize the cell software" - If you're talking about a compiler then yeah there is, IBM is developing it it's called the Octopiler. "They lie about how their games will look and play" - The only demo that was proven fake was Killzone, all others are real time or in engine. "I can't wait to hear about PS3 when it releases cause it obviously will out weigh the 360's system and the controller don't look as handling friendly as the 360's" - This is your biased xbot opinion and therefore doesn't count. "Sony keeps losing games/developers to 360 for a reason." - They are? Who? And to qualify as "keeps losing" there has to be more than one. "Not to mention 360's graphics chip has the edge over sonys" - As I stated earlier, no it does not. The RSX clearly outperforms the 360 GPU. Here are some specs I cut and pasted from wikipdeia for both GPUs, this shows that the RSX outperforms the 360 GPU: RSX Clocked at 550 Mhz 1.8 TFLOPS (trillion floating point operations per second) theoretical floating point capability Full high definition output (up to 1080p) x 2 channels Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines 136 shader operations per clock 74.8 billion shader operations per second (100 billion with CPU) 33 billion dot products per second (51 billion dot products with CPU) 128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with high dynamic range imaging 360 GPU 325 million transistors total 500 MHz parent GPU (90 nm process, 235 million transistors) 500 MHz 10 MB daughter embedded DRAM framebuffer (90 nm process, 90 million transistors) NEC designed eDRAM has internal logic for color, alpha blending, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing. 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines 3 groups of 16 arithmetic logic units 1 ALU per fragmentpipe for vertex or pixel shader processing Unified shader architecture (This means that each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders.) Support for DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0, limited support for future DirectX 10 shader models 2 Shader operations per pipe per cycle 96 Shader operations per cycle across the entire shader array Shader performance: 48 billion (48,000 million) shader operations per second (96 shader operations x 500 MHz) 8 ROPs in daughter die 16 Filtered & 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock Maximum polygon performance: 500 million triangles per second Texel fillrate: 8 gigatexel per second fillrate (16 textures x 500 MHz) Pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA) or 4 gigapixel per second without multisample anti aliasing (8 ROPs x 500 MHz) Dot product operations: 24 billion per second or 33.6 billion per second theoretical maximum when summed with CPU operations. "Hideo Kojima of MGS4 said it COULD in fact be done on 360" - Here you show your true xbot colours. yes, Kojima did say this but he also said WITH SOME LOSSES. Let it go, please, it's so old. 58 -
To #49 & #53: The 360 will more than handle the PS3 when it comes to a Future Brother in Arms or Metal Gear Solid!Unregistered - Burly 03.10.2006 12:54 Stop! Just stop! You should never post ANYTHING to do with technical specs or benchmarks because to real techies; you just made yourself look very ignorant and lost a lot (if not all) credibility. If anything your true colours came out as a fanboy. 1) The RSX is not capable of 1.8 TFLOPS! It is capable of 228 GFLOPS (vs. Xenon at 240 GFLOPS). The Teraflop benchmark that you are referring to is a "total system" benchmark and even that is 1) very unrealistic and 2) not even very relevant when put it into the context of developing next-gen games. That 1.8 TFLOP number is probably based on theoretical peak performance but does not account for the very real bottlenecks that exists in the PS3. For example, the PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s. The Xbox 360 on the other hand has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth. But this is just the tip of the iceburg for you my friend because Sony's CPU is only ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. However, unfourtunately for you this is just not the case because in next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating - point — probably ~5-10%. The Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else. Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult. The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming and likewise your TFLOP figure is completely irrelevant because the 360 has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, the PS3 only has one! Infact, speaking from a mathematical benchmark standpoint the 360 has more than twice as much general purpose processing power. Well now that you have made me get into a CPU comparison because you wrongly posted a total system benchmark in the GPU category, I am not going to get into the GPU comparison for the sake of not taking up this entire comment page. BUT, and here is the "BUT" - I want everyone to know that the majority of the info listed here is a joke and if you think that the 360 can't handle Metal Gear Solid, then you are living in la la land because the Xenon GPU is literally a generation ahead of the existing PC-architechured RSX. Towards the middle / end of the console war, the 360 will begin to pull away graphically from the PS3 (if it hasn't already with Microsofts superior development tools and easy to develope for hardware) - but in the initial batch of games you should expect to see the most experienced developers shine regardless of what platform the games are on. Like these screen shots of Brothers in Arms for example. Both systems should be on par with each other, or at least lets hope that the PS3 doesn't start falling behind at this point. I take 360's pipeline shaders as a big deal as because sony's chip will not offer that feature" - RSX dedicated piplines outperform 360's unified pipelines by a factor of 1.5x "there is no program currently out thats lets anyone utilize the cell software" - If you're talking about a compiler then yeah there is, IBM is developing it it's called the Octopiler. "They lie about how their games will look and play" - The only demo that was proven fake was Killzone, all others are real time or in engine. "I can't wait to hear about PS3 when it releases cause it obviously will out weigh the 360's system and the controller don't look as handling friendly as the 360's" - This is your biased xbot opinion and therefore doesn't count. "Sony keeps losing games/developers to 360 for a reason." - They are? Who? And to qualify as "keeps losing" there has to be more than one. "Not to mention 360's graphics chip has the edge over sonys" - As I stated earlier, no it does not. The RSX clearly outperforms the 360 GPU. Here are some specs I cut and pasted from wikipdeia for both GPUs, this shows that the RSX outperforms the 360 GPU: RSX Clocked at 550 Mhz 1.8 TFLOPS (trillion floating point operations per second) theoretical floating point capability Full high definition output (up to 1080p) x 2 channels Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines 136 shader operations per clock 74.8 billion shader operations per second (100 billion with CPU) 33 billion dot products per second (51 billion dot products with CPU) 128-bit pixel precision offers rendering of scenes with high dynamic range imaging 360 GPU 325 million transistors total 500 MHz parent GPU (90 nm process, 235 million transistors) 500 MHz 10 MB daughter embedded DRAM framebuffer (90 nm process, 90 million transistors) NEC designed eDRAM has internal logic for color, alpha blending, Z/stencil buffering, and anti-aliasing. 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines 3 groups of 16 arithmetic logic units 1 ALU per fragmentpipe for vertex or pixel shader processing Unified shader architecture (This means that each pipeline is capable of running either pixel or vertex shaders.) Support for DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0, limited support for future DirectX 10 shader models 2 Shader operations per pipe per cycle 96 Shader operations per cycle across the entire shader array Shader performance: 48 billion (48,000 million) shader operations per second (96 shader operations x 500 MHz) 8 ROPs in daughter die 16 Filtered & 16 unfiltered texture samples per clock Maximum polygon performance: 500 million triangles per second Texel fillrate: 8 gigatexel per second fillrate (16 textures x 500 MHz) Pixel fillrate: 16 gigasamples per second fillrate using 4X multisample anti aliasing (MSAA) or 4 gigapixel per second without multisample anti aliasing (8 ROPs x 500 MHz) Dot product operations: 24 billion per second or 33.6 billion per second theoretical maximum when summed with CPU operations. "Hideo Kojima of MGS4 said it COULD in fact be done on 360" - Here you show your true xbot colours. yes, Kojima did say this but he also said WITH SOME LOSSES. Let it go, please, it's so old. 59 -
To #49, #51, ...#56, #57, & #58:Unregistered - Burly - Who is Sorry :) 03.10.2006 13:05 I am really sorry guys, that I like triple posted, it was an accident! I sometimes cut and paste other people's comments in the comment box so that I don't have to open two windows and I can refernce them. Well I forget to delete the post that I was commenting on in my comment and so when I posted the comments all that I could see was the end of the previous comment. So I just kept posting and posting with a portion of the other persons comment on the bottom. I actually ended my comment at "Both systems should be on par with each other, or at least lets hope that the PS3 doesn't start falling behind at this point". The rest of the coment was an incomplete portion of #49's original comment and for that I am sorry dude :) I will post my comment again below one more time so that people are not confused but once again I am very, very sorry and I won't let it happen again, Peace. 60 -
To #49 & #53 - Sorry guys and to everyone for the multiple posts - it was truely an accident :)Unregistered - Burly 03.10.2006 13:07 Stop! Just stop! You should never post ANYTHING to do with technical specs or benchmarks because to real techies; you just made yourself look very ignorant and lost a lot (if not all) credibility. If anything your true colours came out as a fanboy. 1) The RSX is not capable of 1.8 TFLOPS! It is capable of 228 GFLOPS (vs. Xenon at 240 GFLOPS). The Teraflop benchmark that you are referring to is a "total system" benchmark and even that is 1) very unrealistic and 2) not even very relevant when put it into the context of developing next-gen games. That 1.8 TFLOP number is probably based on theoretical peak performance but does not account for the very real bottlenecks that exists in the PS3. For example, the PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s. The Xbox 360 on the other hand has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth. But this is just the tip of the iceburg for you my friend because Sony's CPU is only ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. However, unfourtunately for you this is just not the case because in next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating - point — probably ~5-10%. The Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else. Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult. The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming and likewise your TFLOP figure is completely irrelevant because the 360 has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, the PS3 only has one! Infact, speaking from a mathematical benchmark standpoint the 360 has more than twice as much general purpose processing power. Well now that you have made me get into a CPU comparison because you wrongly posted a total system benchmark in the GPU category, I am not going to get into the GPU comparison for the sake of not taking up this entire comment page. BUT, and here is the "BUT" - I want everyone to know that the majority of the info listed here is a joke and if you think that the 360 can't handle Metal Gear Solid, then you are living in la la land because the Xenon GPU is literally a generation ahead of the existing PC-architechured RSX. Towards the middle / end of the console war, the 360 will begin to pull away graphically from the PS3 (if it hasn't already with Microsofts superior development tools and easy to develope for hardware) - but in the initial batch of games you should expect to see the most experienced developers shine regardless of what platform the games are on. Like these screen shots of Brothers in Arms for example. Both systems should be on par with each other, or at least lets hope that the PS3 doesn't start falling behind at this point. 61 -
Unregistered - TRUE GAMER 03.10.2006 14:14 ^^ Well like it or not, this dude sure sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I would be willing to go out on a ledge to say he IS indeed a programmer/designer of some sort. Very nice read indeed (good or bad news) I learned something new today. Thanks. 62 -
xbugterm-u got owned beatchUnregistered - That guy owned you xbugterminator.. 03.10.2006 14:20 That guy owned you a@@ xbugterminator! What about your specs now you PEICE OF SH!T!!! 63 -
Unregistered - wotter 03.10.2006 14:24 Burley, you are really funny, thinking ps3 is weaker than xbox360. Three cores better than one? Think about this: 1PPE is used to give tasks to the 7 SPE's, the PPE does nothing more, its that powerfull. Cell has power Xenos can only dream of. Xenos uses old x86 architecture, which was not made for games! Cell changes this completely, and together with RSX, its a deadly combination. Heres a quote from someone who thinks like me: "I also think that the Cell+RSX is also one of the most flexible graphical systems in the world. The combination of a specalised state of the art GPU, with the open system of the Cell (no open-gl constraints). I think it would be very very unwise to underestimate the potential here. This is because there has never been a CPU like the Cell before, and there has never been a combination of a CPU+GPU being so close together and being able to assist each other before." But let me guess, specs come from http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html ? pathetic really 64 -
Unregistered - wotter 03.10.2006 14:27 OMG SPE's have no cache? You really have no clue what you are talking about. Go back to teamxbox, SPE's have cache (256kb). This again clearly shows how ignorant and blind some people are. 65 -
Unregistered - Big Stir Stick 03.10.2006 14:28 What a bunch of "FUKN NERDS" Go get some poontang for Christ sake. 66 -
I agree with #60 - The cell was never intended for games any ways.Unregistered - Jake 03.10.2006 14:47 I think that Sony just threw the Cell into the PS3 because it is really good at processing streaming media and therefore processing high definition Blue Ray movies. However, from a games stand point, I am sure that they could nave put a better CPU set-up in the PS3 and I would not at all be surprised if the reason why they did was to recoup some of the money that they invested in making the Cell - which I believe was initially only intended to be a cheap but powerful chip that specialized in streaming media (i.e. floating point calculations). In other words, Toshiba and others have started equiping their television sets with cell processors, ...I am sure that televisions, and Blue Ray, and HD-DVD players was the original intended application for the Cell - not a games machine! If I was a betting man I would put my money on Microsoft's spec comparisons any day because to know how to build a superior console you also need to know what is required on the software end on things. Also, Game Pro announced that Brothers in Arms would be comming out for the 360 in 2006, ...at this rate it doesn't even look like the PS3 will be out til 2007. But damn these Brothers in Arms shots look good. 67 -
multiple posting burlyBillGatesSucks 03.10.2006 15:01 You're a "real techie" are you? "The Xbox 360 on the other hand has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth." - The 256 GB/s of bandwidth you mention is between the 10 megs of embedded ram on the daughter die of the GPU and the GPU, which means NOTHING considering its main use is for AA. You don't add that bandwidth to total system bandwidth...unless you're a total xbot idiot. "Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming" - The SPEs CAN handle general purpose programming, just check out the IBM website and do a little research. And they aren't processors, they are cores. "The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory - The SPEs each have 256k of cache, they DO have access to main memory via the PPE. Again, go do some reasearch at the IBM website. "They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming" - SIT have designed The Cell specifically for multi-media. Why do you think they'll be using it in HDTV sets, next gen dvd players, computers, etc? You've been hanging around too many MS forums. Oh, and you only need to click on the "Add Comment" button once. 68 -
HahaUnregistered - 23123 03.10.2006 15:51 ^^^ you owned the xbox fanboy 'burly'... ~~He's showing his real colors(as he puts it) as an xbox fan~~ ~ANY TECHIE would give 'cell' good credit as a masterpiece on a chip (that is, if someone even knows what they're talkin about.) Cell-- saying it isn't meant for gaming ~Ha, no it's just a differnt approach. 69 -
SWEET!Unregistered - -KNIFE- 03.10.2006 16:15 A next-gen Brothers in Arms! i must get this game for PS3. 70 -
To #67 and #68 - I happen to enjoy hearing what old Burly has to say, ...he makes some interesting points :)Unregistered - Rocky 03.10.2006 17:03 I mean what about that Sony employee that got fired for telling the so-called truth, ...he said, and I quote: "Now I’ve spoken with people who are on the technical side of the PS3. I’ve also talked with people on the technical side of the XBOX 360. The consistent comment I am hearing from people on my end is, “The XBOX 360 is better”. They are saying that it is capable of just doing more. (shrugs)" I think he also mentioned something about how at the start of the process he was sure that the PS3 was going to have no problems with the 360 but lately he was starting to think that they were in big trouble. Now, as a long time PS3 fan I hope that this isn't true but unfourtunately my gut is telling me that Microsoft knew what Sony had, and then matched it (if not surpassed it) and was able to get it out a year in advance becuase Sony was waiting on Blue Ray. Personally, though I think that they are both powerful enough to do some amazing things and I think that it will still be up to the develpers skill. That's why I am looking forward to Brothers in Arms because these pictures look awesome and the development teams working on this game has made skills. It will be awesome on both systems for sure. 71 -
Unregistered - Greed 03.10.2006 17:39 Oh brother I'm not taking that burly guy seriously he's just another fanboy on the net. 72 -
#62EnforcerOfTheTruth 03.10.2006 18:11 LOL first of all he didn't talk to me and secondly he talk such a ridiculous crap that it wouldn't even be difficult to own his little ass but BillGatesSucks already did it for me. I can only add that if properly coded specialized hardware can be significantly faster than general purpose hardware ;-) Go home xbugs, you got pwned way too many times 73 -
Unregistered - Nips 03.10.2006 18:29 Number 72, the ONLY THING you own is a "FleshLight" and a porn collection. You are a gem in the way nobody else is. Because no matter if your a 360 fan, PS3 fan, or PC fan ....... WE ALL HATE YOU. 74 -
WEBMASTERUnregistered - JIN KAZAMA 03.10.2006 18:57 Hey, Webmaster, can you please delete the comments that are about 360 vs. PS3. Please, that is a pointless issue and ti would really make it better to just focus on ps3 and its games and news no matter how insignificant they are. I believe if you start deleting the postings of the PS3 vs. 360, it will make your site much more professional, and not so primitive. I look forward to reading some poilte and intelligent conversations about the PS3. And if someone has something to say about the 360, then let it be an intellectual conversation, nothing like "XFLOP" or "POS3". Both systems are great, we just prefer the PS3 over the other. Thats all Thank you. 75 -
#73EnforcerOfTheTruth 03.10.2006 19:28 Sure pu$$yass ;-) Truth is I pwned way too many lil xbugs and truth is I got unlike you a beautyful girlfriend ;-) 76 -
Burly Responds - Proof that the RSX is last-generation technology, where as the 360's Xenon GPU is a generation ahead!Unregistered - Burly 03.10.2006 19:32 This is the single most important info that you will read on the Xenon versus RSX GPU's and what they mean for the upcomming console wars (i.e. Brothers in Arms 3, 4, ..5 and upward) Windows Graphic Founation (WGF) is the next major release of DirectX. It will bring about some changes regarding how shaders and the entire 3D architecture is handled in Windows. Over the course of the evolution from 2.0, 2.x and 3.0 of the pixel and vertex shader models, the abilities of pixel and vertex shaders have become very similar. Originally, pixel shaders lacked the functionality and complexity of vertex shaders. Under WGF, shader models are identical,and this identical specification makes the unification of pixel and vertex pipelines possible in hardware." The 360's Xenon GPU is one generation ahead of the PS3's RSX GPU because it is a Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0-compliant GPU, featuring unified shader architecture, and therefore is compatible with future variations of Direct X - the PS3 is not simply because it is not compliant, or in other words it does not have a unified shader architecture! In current PC GPU's and the RSX - long shader routines have to be broken up into routines that fit inside the shader length as specified. With unified shader architecture, there is just one long shader, rather than lots of shorter ones, there's less performance overhead and more code simplicity, resulting in better performance. To qoute ATI developer relations manager Richard Huddy: “Rather than separate pixel and vertex pipelines, we’ve created a single unified pipeline that can do both. Providing developers throw instructions at our architecture in the right way, Xenos can run at 100% efficiency all the time, rather than having some pipeline instructions waiting for others. For comparison, most high-end PC chips run at 50-60% typical efficiency. The super cool point is that ‘in the right way’ just means ‘give us plenty of work to do’. The hardware manages itself.” The bottom line is that there will be no GPU that matches the Xenon's graphics ability until Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0-compliant GPUs, featuring unified shader architecture, arrive from ATI and NVidia around the same time as Windows Vista. The remifications of this for the PS3 will be huge, because for example when the Unreal Engine 4.0 requires the Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0 version of Direct X, shader model 4.0 (in conjuntion with unified shader architecture) - the 360 will be able to run it but the PS3 won't! This is consistant with developers commenting that in the long run the 360 will pull away and out-perform the PS3 and also with Huddy's comments that: “The PS3 does appear to have a huge amount of CPU power with the seven Cell cores. The problem they have is that CPU power isn’t really what developer’s need – the bottleneck is really the graphics." So as you look at these shots of Brothers in Arms 3 using the Unreal Engine 3.0 ask yourself what will the PS3 do when Brothers in Arms 4 uses the Unreal Engine 4.0! Peace out, and maybe you had better start listening to Major Nelson because he is fighting a war against ignorance. 77 -
Unregistered - HickIts 03.10.2006 19:41 _XbugTerminator_, yeah but dude, your hand does not count as a girlfriend. 78 -
Kikizo...Unregistered - Bflow 03.10.2006 19:50 Well if most of you read that article on their site it pretty much gives you a detailed description of working on the very close to final PS3. The article speaks for itself and it clearly states that the PS3 can do more stuff at once than the 360. It also states that they are a lot closer in terms of power than Xbox and PS2 were. But that can change down the road once developers get more familiar with the hardware. AS far as gpu's are concerned, they are probably pretty close. IT's the cpu side that's the difference and will be the key factor when the 2nd gen and beyond games come out. Oh...And going to teamxbox.com saying that the 360 is more powerful is such a big surprise. 79 -
Unregistered - Nitz 03.10.2006 19:53 The PS3 could have a tree with like 3500 moving leaves on it casting real time shadows but the 360 could only have like 3450 moving leaves on it casting real time shadows. WOOPY DING DONG. The differnce will be so small it will not really matter at all. "THE GAME" will be the tie breaker guys ... "THE GAMES" 80 -
100%Unregistered - Bflow 03.10.2006 19:59 When has anything ran at 100% of what it's capable of. In that case we should never see slowdown in any 360 game or any game once the unified shaders come out for the PC. Oh...the Ati guy says its so much better....big surprise. Hey let's go ask Bill Gates if he thinks Microsoft is better than Apple. 81 -
#77EnforcerOfTheTruth 03.10.2006 20:15 Relly? So maybe we should find out who can only play with his hands and who not? Or maybe who got the beatyful girl and who got the ugly one? I'm always ready to put up? If you ain't, this means you are the one who's playing with his hand or got an ugly hoe bwahahahahahahaha 82 -
You are not a techie Mr. BurlyDark Samurai 03.10.2006 20:15 What you do is just copy pasting the lies of Major Nelson (an MS employee) that belong to several months back in 2005. An old biased worthless article. Oh, you forgot to copy paste the last sentence "...And clearly with a fusion of software,hardware and services Xbox360 will outperform the PS3" LOL! Well...Right! Just give it a rest okay? And Xenos is NOT SM 4.0! http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/9487/ATI-Releases-Xbox-360-GPU-Technology-Papers/ 83 -
To # 76Unregistered - Gamer06 03.11.2006 00:50 "maybe you had better start listening to Major Nelson because he is fighting a war against ignorance." Why would I want to listen to someone who is BIASED!!! as for the rest of the SH1T you spouted, Major Nelson will be fighting for credibility, once PS3 pulls ahead of X360. Your just another one of these Xbox fanboys that believes everything M$ hypnotises you into believing, your one of these that believes X360 has a graphics chip with the same power as the R600. Amazingly ATI was able to predict and make a chip so far in the future, that nothing can touch it until Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0-compliant GPU hit's the market...DUH!!! I wonder why PC is beating the focking X360 already? X360 with its Alien GPU from the future LMFAO, go play your Xflop360 little boy, we got enough SH1T coming out of the rumour mill round here already, without you bringing X360 rumours here too... 84 -
Burly give it upBillGatesSucks 03.11.2006 00:59 Your last line about major nelson has totally discredited you. You're an xbot of the worst kind. Since you seem so excited about the unified shaders, shader model 4 and directx 10 I'm going to REPOST something I posted before because you obviously missed it the first time. "Support for DirectX 9.0 Shader Model 3.0, limited support for future DirectX 10 shader models" That's right, LIMITED support for directx 10. So, your idea about it being future compliant to later version of directx is pretty much BS seeing as its support for directx 10 is limited. 85 -
Unregistered - idiot 03.11.2006 03:37 shut ur face u over sized freak , another stupid nickname , xbot ! u dont know how cool that is when u say nicknames like xflop and stuff people really respect u of saying that cause it is so cool , not! get a life u freak 86 -
IdiotsUnregistered - Eh? 03.11.2006 05:40 Honestly you guys, why the hell are you all arguing like complete idiots? It's an amazing screenshot, why is there any need to argue? 87 -
both graphics cardsUnregistered - abcd 03.11.2006 05:43 Ps3's has been available for quite some time now where as anything like 360's has yet to be produced outside of the system itself. 88 -
GUnregistered - G 03.11.2006 06:16 thing is with the unified shader's... is that NVIDIA themselves are going to be making their future graphic cards with them. 89 -
EnforcerOfTheTruth 03.11.2006 09:22 #87 LOL and why? Cause Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0 only works with unified shaders. MS gives the no choice, everybody has to use it ;-) #88 Sorry but a chip like RSX isn't available. There will be a comparable card when the PS3 is out ;-) 90 -
Burly, Burly, Burly!Unregistered - 123123 03.11.2006 09:36 Do you have an RSX ?! WOW !!! Jezus i mean you'd have to be an actual programmer to get some hard-core solid information, Seems that the only information on the RSX is vague theories that your rape and give XBOX360 all the credit (only because you are a FANBOY) Xenos = SH3.0, but w/e no matter what anyone says you SEEM to have the real evidence, you must because you favor xbox? lol phuktard. 91 -
BurlyUnregistered - I must admit Everyone 03.11.2006 09:43 I am an Xbot (*Xbox fan), I'm sorry; I am too extremely baised and I have nothing else better to do then explain why my awesome XBOX360 is superior; even to humans. 92 -
Unregistered - wotter 03.11.2006 10:34 You do the same to animals? :s 93 -
To #76 - Great read dude, I did some research and you sound like you are onto something!Unregistered - Rod 03.11.2006 15:56 All that I have got to say is that these Brothers In Arms screen shots (which OXM said were in-game, and running on the 360) look awesome and I am now totally looking forward to playing it on my 360 - that I intend to pick-up because after doing some research about unified shader architecture, and this Windows Graphic Founation 2.0 scenario I am convinced that the 360 is more than "future proof" - at least against the PS3! It's funny beacause Sony's announcement to be titled : "outside the box" should probably be "sitting outside of the next-generation, looking in" because that is what the PS3 is to me now. Thanks for the insight dude. Scencerly, former PS3 fanboy :( 94 -
To # 93Unregistered - Gamer06 03.11.2006 18:22 Your an Xbug always have been always will be, don't think we are focking dumb, you Xtard. Windows Graphic Founation 2.0, I suppose you Xbugs are going to say X360 supports this too right? your all dumb asses, the X360 GPU was created and finalised way back last year, well before PS3 GPU. NONE of you Xbugs know anything about RSX but the fact is, RSX was only recently finalised making it a newer GPU. Any sane person knows that a unified architecture is weaker than a traditional GPU, its just more flexable i.e you can use all the pipes for pixel shading if you wante |
