uhh thanx, lol I KNOW PIPELINE matters.I was just being stupid. Mabey i was saying it wrong. KK, the xbox360 48 pipelines are **week** **CoMpAiRiNg** to the ***vertex pipelines*** and ***pixels** Didnt i say that xbox360 has more general processing power. If you combine the floating point and gereral processing power of the ps3, and then combine the two on xbox360. Ps3 will be better overal, Not that you didnt mention that ps3 has general processing power too. YOu jsut said that it only processes tflops. Unless i misunderstood you. Please dont make long post plz plz. It's getting tireing.
sry kookoo i assumed that you already knew that the 1 PS3 core was a general performance one, with SPE's (floating point) attched. ok ill enlighten u, i do think that the PS3 is good also, so i wont just show my 360 side. floating point calculations are basically the technical name for game math's calc's. here are some things that use a lot of floating point calculations. 1) game level loading 2) running DVD's they are just 2 of more things that are 80% floating point, they are used mainly in game level loading (ON CONSOLES, on PC its mainly the hard drive that depends on level loading speed + the CPU speed (but mainly hard drive for games) as the console games disks need all the calculations (e.g. what textures to load first, where to place them , in cache etc.) plus when u put BOTH general performance + floating point together then a performance graph would show them both to be about the same (for 360 and PS3), but seen as the 360 HAS the BETTER general performance by a lot, it wins for game framerates (which matters most) although the PS3 will play DVD's better and load levels faster, but that dont matter as much. AND YES pipelines do matter (again, for GPU's) PS. im changing my internet provider today, so i wont be able to use net for 10 days, so i wont be able to reply to ur post until i can get back on just thought id let u know. also, LOL glad to se a moderator on regulary at last. i ant seen one for ages.
Truth man, well i kno wthis is ofo topic, but il just copy and paste I got a AMD 3000+ performs like a 3ghz computer (i think) but it only runs at 2.1 ghz clock speed. Can anyone explain this to me?! It says it runs at 2.1 ghz clock speed on controll panel. And since you kinda really good at expaining Cpu things and i Dont get this...and before you change the internet, reply me!lol or if there is another thread of this somone show me it. Tthruthman.: Well you see the example above, ps3 gcard may have 24 pipelines, mabey they probably run faster than 24 pipelines. imma see if nvidea uses new tech aswell, like the ecell is new tech. And what did you meen by 360 have better framerate? You meen fps? If you ment fps..wouldnt ps3 win because in articles i have read, i heard ps3 would be able to run up to 120fps, while 360 at 90fps.
ok thats because an AMD chip has 4 pipelines stages (they are COMPLETELY different to graphics pipelines, in processors lower is better, as the stages are shorter therefore they load things faster), AMD chips do have lowerclock rates, but with their super short pipelines stages(only 4) and their very large 64bit L1 Cache (compared to a intel 16Kbyte L1 cache) they perform to the equivalent of a intel processor with a higher clockrate. AMD CPU's have some neat technologies on them too which make them faster. Heres some more processor knowledge for u about intel CPU's (a PRESCOTT (socket 775 and 478) type Intel CPU has 31 stages, which is very long, more ineficcient, thats why the prescott P4's have 1Meg cache because they need it to help the processor fill up all the pipeline stages at once of else it would be a very ineffective processor.) a older northwood type P4 processor (only S478) has 20 stages, and on socket 478 coards a 3.4C (C means northwood core) and a 3.2E (E means prescott core) would be similar, but the northwood would be slightly faster in most things (games as a prime example), but the prescott would be better at encoding because it has got a much improved version of hyper threading tech, and a larger slower L2 cache (larger than northwoods 512Kbyte but its slower) and a 90nm process, unlike northwoods bigger process. and ITS MUCH hotter than the northwood when running However, for over overclocking because of its 90nm process, it can overclock better, and the proportion of performance increase against the northwood core overclocked at same clock's decreases each time, then eventually the presscott overtakes the northwood. (e.g. a stock speed 3.4E vs a 3.4C, the 3.4C will win, BUT overclock them both to 3.8GHz and the 3.2E will win the 3.2C, get it) the prescott was a model designed for intel to take future processors to higher clock speeds with. (however u need good cooling for an overclocked prescott CPU as there bloody hot.) there u go. hope that helped. o and i just found out of BT that my internet is not cancelled for at least 7 days, so i can talk on forum longer before the 10 day cut off stage, before i get signed up with a different ISP.
Lol, hes a mod!! He told me to not ask other ppl to not make there post long..lol. truthman, thanks for the info. I'm going to edit this post to support a theory I have that compairing 360 gpu with ps3 gpu is like compairing apples and oranges.. I found a really good webpage about it. And its not going to be against the 360, rev or the ps3.but not now.. KK to start off. I will talk about the pipelines.(the 360s pipelines)K first of all 60 has 48 **shader** pipelines. Each of the pipelines will be able to produce 2 shader per one cycle, amking 96 shading opperations in total. each of these pipelines features execution units that can operate on either pixel or vertex shader instructions. Now about ps3's pipelines Since Nvdia didnt release how many shader pipelines the gpu will have, everyone is expecting ti to have 24. Now, each of these pipelines will be able to produce 5.6 shader opperations. A total of 136 shader operations.(this is where my other statement comes to play, remember in my previos posts people? I said that nvideas pipelines are goign to be more powerfull thatn 360s. Well the above just proves that) BUT.. that is only shader opperations, we dont know how the 48 pipelines of the 360 will act with performance for the Gpu compairing to the ps3's which can give the 360 an advantage. But then you have to concider that the RSX's pipelines can produce more shading opperations with 24 pipelines, than what 360 can do with 48 pipelins, and that could also be with performance. Similarities of the two are: -both supports FP32.. dont really know what that meens but ok. -Both consoles are built on a 90nm process -both GPU designs are very closely tied to their console manufacturers. -The RSX GPU has a 35GB/s link to the CPU, so does the 360(i think) DIfferences -rsx -the RSX is very similar to a PC GPU in that it features a 256-bit connection to 256MB of local GDDR3 memory (operating at 700MHz). The 360 is not. -360 has 10MB of embedded DRAM. -(copy and paste)Sony has yet to announce the exact number of pixel and vertex shader units, potentially because that number may change as time goes by depending on yields. I am not finished yett, i will do some more work on this on another post relating what I have said above, to "compairing 360's GPu to ps3 GPU, is like compairing apples and oranges. And i think I was'nt against any system. O YEA.. if anyone thinks that i am wrong and they can prove it, dont critiseze me for it pretty please? I got the info above from http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2423 ... A site taht doesnt even compair the two systems, but just shows info about them.
*claps* well done kookoo, ur info is actually 95% correct. for the first time most of ur info is actually right.(rather than most of it being incorrect) the pipeline shader operations (the RSX can do more on each one), well the pipelines technically are called more powerful, thats why so many people have never heard of powerful/weak pipelines before, so its immediately rejected. no probs about the processor info. theres more but i think we noth got tired, that was enough, lol. the thing is u forgot to say anything about the Unified shader architecture, the shader pipelines, vertex and pixel are as one basically (even if a website says them seperately they are as one), and that makes them MUCH more efficient, therefore increasing the shader operations capabilities as they can focus on the specific type in play most (e.g. pixel or vertex) so if u r on a game that leans towards the pixel uses the shader archi can focus more on them resulting in a performance increase, same for if it was more vertex, resulting in higher performance (shader ops wise) than the RSX, but not by a great amount, like 10-15 % more (not much really but it IS more, lol), plus the EDRAM like u said, which is very good and the RSX doesnt have, nor will any desktop PC's have it (so i think) the RSX is a VERY VERY good card, they both are but the ATI card is a *little* bit more powerful. u actually did good on ur last post. im suprised, u are actually using non-biased websites to assist with ur info, ive seen that anandtech one before, its quite good. can u tell the difference between the biased websites (to the PS3) and unbiased ones, be honest please. there is a nice big difference isnt there. heres the scary part, EVERYTHING i posted about tech, is all what i already knew, learnt through looking into hardware in great detail, and found out from websites, and looking into what games need to work properly. And i remember all of it, i didnt look at one website when posting ANY technical posts, its all in my mind, (LOL), i really like, and am really good at computer tech stuff,
Thanx man.. i kinda wish more people know that...like mkaseatgb, whom said opposite wize many times against me...lol sorry, did'nt meen to be specific. truthman: When i first started talking about the 360 and ps3, i was like a huge sony fan. I could'nt really tell the difference between a biased website and a non biased website untill now. yea, i kinda have to admit now that gamespot is really biased, but ign is too. I dont think i'm gogin to use those websites ever again while talking about 360 and ps3. Thanx for making me relize that. Lol, since i joined AD, I'v mostly talked about tech to, its more interesting than other threads. I got to admit i still need to do alote more research on this before posting down somthing stupid again.I'v also got to admit that you REALLY know your tech stuff. I gotto learn more about 360 Xenon processor and the cell processor, before i talk about it now. Oh..one little favor.. You mentioned people from another trhead not to read my post here..lol can you atleast tell the to read the last ones iv posted? I was'nt stupid that time
Hey Truth Man or whatever. I have found your information quite helpful and good. Until now I have heard that the PS3 will blow away the 360. I really dont understand all the CPU GPU GGHSZSZ thus I am new to all this. I would be very thankful if I could have your insights on Which System is better performance wise, graphic wise, and overall better. Thanks.
Truthman, i got to desagree with you on somthing. You mentioned that the gpu of the 360 is a *little bit* better than the gpu of the ps3. Sorry man, looks like both gpu's have their ups and downs. And to me, now they're [bold]equil.[/bold] 360 has the dram thing you were talking about. ""EDRAM like u said, which is very good and the RSX doesnt have, nor will any desktop PC's have it (so i think)"" So that will give an advantage to 360.(dont know how much advantage tho.) Even though rsx has 24 pipelines, they can still produce more than the 360's right? 96 sops for 360 (136) ithink for ps3? Lets just put it this way..if 360 were to have 24 pipelines, they will only be able to produce 48sops per second. While rsx will be able to produce (136) shader ops with 24. And I am assuming this because the pipelines for the rsx are stronger, so which will make it produce more ops(not sops) So that will give an advantage to ps3.(dont know how much advantage tho.) So i guess its[bold] even[/bold]....lol, well unless you can state somthing else? Imma post the cpu stuff somewhere else, this is'nt the right thread to post it.
Truth Man I think that you missed my last post its the last one on page 2. I dont want to be like a bug to you but it woult really help me thanks.
no problem dude, all in all, the 360 is a little better than the PS3, though trying to understand that is EXTREMELY and i mean EXTREMELY complicated. they are BOTH EXTREMELY GOOD SYSTEMS, AND BOTH WILL PROVIDE EXCELLENT GAMING ENTERTAINEMENT. thanks for the compliments kookoo.
no it isnt , lol this is funny, they both are really close though. check out the post you started, the real big one of urs with the huge first post. ive done my own HUGE ass post. the parallel processing part is what you really need to focus on, then ull find out why. i also put in it some examples of how a GPU actually works (a simplified version)
I have noticed it already,I posted little, i have a big big headach today cant really concintrate on your huge ass posts.(today)
same here actually, i have extreme brain pain, but what has to be done, must be done. you gotta admit, that both of us fight like cat and dog, but its a good laugh in the works, when i read ur posts, i laugh at what you write (not because its wrong) but in the way you are arguing ur points back at me, and its good fun. as well as trying to persuade and convince the other that the 360/PS3 is best (360 for me and PS3 for u)
I have to agree with you here, but the problem is, I don't think you agree with yourself. You say not to judge by specifications, but yet you push that the 360's GPU is slightly better because of parallel processing, which if I remember correctly, is a specification. The real deciding factor isn't with specs as you say, but how the games ultimately look and feel. We can't judge by feel yet, as PS3 isn't out at the moment, but we can discuss looks by all means. There are already multiple examples of multiplatform games to compare, and frankly, they all look better on PS3. Just thought I'd point out the incongruency between your sig and posts.
My personal opinion is that the Xbox 360 is better overall than it's two competitor's. With regards to the GPU of the 360 and PS3 I think the 360's GPU is more powerfull but the PS3's CPU is more powerfull than that of the 360's. However when I say the PS3 CPU is more powerfull I say it in terms of brute force but the 360's CPU has more general prossesing power. All in all if the PS3 is more powerfull than the 360 it will only be a very slight one. If you look at the significant power difference between the xbox and PS2 you will notice a change in quality of graphics, but what you have to remember is that there is a large difference. Between the 360 and PS3 the differences in power (if any) is only slight so there will be no major reason to buy the PS3 in terms of graphical power like everyone suggest's. 360 in my eyes is better because of it's online functionality (a BIG plus) and the exclusive games that will be coming to the system over the next few years like [bold]Gears of War[/bold], [bold]Mass Effect[/bold], [bold]Too Human[/bold] and of course [bold]Halo 3[/bold]. Just one last thing I would like to add, take a look at Metal Gear Solid 4 (a demonstration of what PS3 can do), then take a look at running video of Gears of War and Mass Effect (a demonstration of what 360 can do)then reply to how good the graphics look on both sytems.
zelda 64: no one is debating the fact whihc gpu is better.(now) Just go to the forum on the link, lots of information is posted there. Lots of information there, more than two people puting down posts..lol. read it all then make your oppinions.
