Nvidia's response to RSX vs 7900 GTX

[Se7enwolf]

I had e-mailed Nvidia asking if the RSX is better or comparable to the 7800 and 7900 graphics cards and here was their response.


Hello Josh,

Thank you for contacting NVIDIA Customer Care.

I understand from your email, that you would like to know if the RSX GPU of the Sony Play station 3 better than a GeForce 7800 GTX and the GeForce 7900 GTX graphics GPUs.

I am sorry but we cannot compare the RSX GPU with the GeForce 7800 GTX and GeForce 7900 GTX GPUs. They have totally different architectures. RSX was designed specially for the Play station 3 .It is a specialized GPU designed for the Play station 3 consoles. Some of the overhead in the GPU designs for PC's is not present in the Play station 3. So, you cannot compare the RSX GPU with the GeForce series cards.


Please feel free to contact us, if you have any further questions.

Regards,
NVIDIA Customer Care.


Guess I should have asked if the RSX has the same graphical capabilties as them. Oh well.

Fixed your broken quotes for ya. - The_One

[Lefein]

I've been trying to tell ya'll! Show me a PC game that has an animation system on par with Uncharted... exactly! It's always been apples and oranges and all those people telling you that the RSX is a 7800 are just trying to feel better about their console of choice. Don't always believe what you hear on the internet. Is the shader logic probably NV47 based? Probably, but calling RSX a 7800 because of that is tantamount to calling a Harley Davidson motorcycle "car" because it has wheels that spin!

[prostreetcamaro]

Well considering the 8800 cards blow the 7900 and 7800 cards out of the water just goes to show how far consoles are behind PC's anyway. I would honestly say the RSX is comparable to the 7800 and 7900 cards. Its not even close to the 8800 cards and its only a couple months before the 9XXX cards come out so it will be even farther behind.

Me hugs my 8800GTX :D

[EddieDZ]

thats understandable.. the RSX is a graphics chip.. .. the 7800/7900 GTX's are graphics cards. i think maybe the problem was with your initial question. try rephrasing it then emailing them again haahah

[Black F 0 X]

im not trying to start anything but isnt the RSX have twice the power/graphics as the 6800 or 6600?

[Se7enwolf]

I dont think they would ever give a straight answer anyways of if the PS3 could produce graphics on par with PC's running those cards.

someone else here can try and e-mail them.

[tuaamin13]

thats understandable.. the RSX is a graphics chip.. .. the 7800/7900 GTX's are graphics cards. i think maybe the problem was with your initial question. try rephrasing it then emailing them again haahah

Well the card is basically a chip slapped on a board so you can put it in your system. I think he phrased it well enough.

I'm surprised they even answered, and just didn't pull "We can't release that information."

[coolguy]

the RSX specs are top serect,... and allways will be top serect but that cool u tryed to get it out of them..

[Black F 0 X]

arent pcs the best for graphics period... thats why they have the games it does and the best gaming computers(alienware) cost up to 5000 dollars...for a computer....

[Mikleran]

Please, somebody send Nvidia a definition of what a 'conjunction' is!

[tuaamin13]

arent pcs the best for graphics period... thats why they have the games it does and the best gaming computers(alienware) cost up to 5000 dollars...for a computer....

Alienware is overpriced on some stuff.

But still, we get your point.

Though, if you dropped some cash on a 1080p bigscreen, it might add up to more than a PC.

[jubeininja69]

who really cares about pc. some people are paying $400 for a card and yet still complain the 40gb ps3 is to expensive.

[hisame]

It just amaze me how some of you have the time and energy to do somthing like that.
Nvidia already officially said they won't release any technical info on RSX in any recent time.
Personally I think that has to do with the design of RSX is very specialised.
Frankly it can be a target of bashing for PS3, that's my believe of the matter.

[mickice]

who really cares about pc. some people are paying $400 for a card and yet still complain the 40gb ps3 is to expensive.

Thankyou! PS3's are as cheap as $650 in my country right now and I paid $1200 for my PC last year and it doesn't even come close to Uncharted or Ratchet and Clank.

I do only have a 7600GS video card, lol. Oblivion even looks and runs better on a PS3 then my computer. All that for $650 and i can even get a Linux based operating system running it? It's a total joke, lol...

[Treefrog]

I don't think many people understand the fact that, it isn't just the RSX doing the grunt work, the Cell is also doing a helping hand. Its the RSX + Cell that enables the PS3 games to look so magnificent. Without the combination, perhaps games like Uncharted and R&C would never look as good as they do. Killzone for sure, and FFXIII wouldn't be possible at all, in my opinion.

I'm no electronics wizz, but i do understand the relationship between the RSX + Cell, and at this early stage in the PS3s life, it really does show.

[crxdriver]

Well considering the 8800 cards blow the 7900 and 7800 cards out of the water just goes to show how far consoles are behind PC's anyway. I would honestly say the RSX is comparable to the 7800 and 7900 cards. Its not even close to the 8800 cards and its only a couple months before the 9XXX cards come out so it will be even farther behind.

Me hugs my 8800GTX :D

What do you think by that ? You are saying that you can play Crysis on your 8800GTX locked on 30 fps ? No, you're no. Maybe RSX is 7900, but everything else is 2 or 3 times faster in PS3 than in any PC, so PS3 can run locked 30fps in Uncharted, or locked 1080@60 in Gran Turismo. PC is way behind PS3, and it will be equal when you make it double the power of PS3, and it is impossible today, and in the next 3 or 4 years. But in that time, PS3 will have 10 top of the line, the best of the best games, and PC will have 1. Go get back and count shaders and polygons, and we will play the best games possible.

[prostreetcamaro]

who really cares about pc. some people are paying $400 for a card and yet still complain the 40gb ps3 is to expensive.


I care about the PC. The PC is my number 1 gaming platform of choice but thats because I love FPS games and to me they down right suck with a controller. With that said you are right about the price of video cards. People bitch and moan about a $400 console when a top of the line video card costs $600+. Maybe I would like consoles better had I started on them but I started my gaming on a pc. Thats not to say I dont like consoles. I think they are great but just for fps games.

[charmingcharlie]

and we have yet another thread where people spread rubbish about PC's costing thousands of pounds/dollars/euros and that they don't have half the power of the PS3. I mean don't you people get tired of this rubbish. I mean people are going OMGZ look at uncharted in 720p, erm wow I haven't used such a low resolution as that in years on my PC. I just don't see the point of these threads, you are not going to convince me I should ditch my PC for the PS3 anymore than I am gonna convince you to ditch the PS3 for the PC.

[prostreetcamaro]

What do you think by that ? You are saying that you can play Crysis on your 8800GTX locked on 30 fps ? No, you're not, and you never will be. Maybe RSX is 7900, but everything else is 2 or 3 times faster in PS3 than in any PC, so PS3 can run locked 30fps in Uncharted, or locked 1080@60 in Gran Turismo. PC is way behind PS3, and it will be equal when you make it double the power of PS3, and it is impossible today, and in the next 3 or 4 years. But in that time, PS3 will have 10 top of the line, the best of the best games, and PC will have 1. Go get back and count shaders and polygons, and we will play the best games possible.

Yes I do with everything at medium to high and it still looks better than any console game I have ever seen (I play at 1680X1050). Not only that but there are hidden settings in crysis waiting to be unlocked when new hardware comes out that will be able to play it. Im not some kiddy spouting off stupid remarks here. I havent the slightest clue where you think the ps3 is so powerful. I understand the cell is great and very powerful at what it does but that is limited to its design. Do you think for one second they wouldnt produce a cell for desktop computers if they felt it would work well in a pc? Have you seen how laggy windows xp is running on the ps3? It cant handle that basic operating system but it can fold with the best of them and thats what i mean when I say it does great for what it was designed to do. A core 2 duo and 8800 ultra or gtx is alot more powerful over all and soon the 9XXX series cards will be out to widen the gap even more.


Oh and BTW hondas are slow. :p

[radgamer420]

Well considering the 8800 cards blow the 7900 and 7800 cards out of the water just goes to show how far consoles are behind PC's anyway. I would honestly say the RSX is comparable to the 7800 and 7900 cards. Its not even close to the 8800 cards and its only a couple months before the 9XXX cards come out so it will be even farther behind.

Me hugs my 8800GTX :D

And you came to the conclusion that the RSX is a 7800 or 7900 based on what facts again? The truth is nobody knows what it's comparable to but Nvidia.

[charmingcharlie]

And you came to the conclusion that the RSX is a 7800 or 7900 based on what facts again? The truth is nobody knows what it's comparable to but Nvidia.

Well since neither Sony nor Nvidia want to step up and tell us we can only draw our own conclusions. I mean I don't want to suggest that there is anything fishy about the NDA they have. It just seems incredibly strange to me that if the RSX was something special you would have both companies shouting from the roof tops about it. I mean am I the only one that finds that just a lil bit odd.

[tuaamin13]

Yes I do with everything at medium to high and it still looks better than any console game I have ever seen (I play at 1680X1050). Not only that but there are hidden settings in crysis waiting to be unlocked when new hardware comes out that will be able to play it. Im not some kiddy spouting off stupid remarks here. I havent the slightest clue where you think the ps3 is so powerful. I understand the cell is great and very powerful at what it does but that is limited to its design. Do you think for one second they wouldnt produce a cell for desktop computers if they felt it would work well in a pc? Have you seen how laggy windows xp is running on the ps3? It cant handle that basic operating system but it can fold with the best of them and thats what i mean when I say it does great for what it was designed to do. A core 2 duo and 8800 ultra or gtx is alot more powerful over all and soon the 9XXX series cards will be out to widen the gap even more.


Oh and BTW hondas are slow. :p

Man, even TRI-SLI 8800 Ultras can't run Crysis more than an avg 30fps, on High. Who the hell can run Ultra High with any decent framerate?
http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=495

About laggy Win XP: The OS isn't even written for the Cell! It's written for an x86 processor. Try reading something in Italian, or French, or German (something you don't know). You'll get through it eventually, because there's similar words, but you miss out on a lot. Anyhow, I wasn't aware XP was running on the PS3 without running it via Wine or something on Linux. You're running an OS on top of an OS in that case, of course it's going to be crap. Try running a virtual PC, and inside that virtual PC, run another Virtual PC. Then talk about lag.



Im not some kiddy spouting off stupid remarks here. I havent the slightest clue where you think the ps3 is so powerful.It's more of a supercomputer than a desktop computer anyhow. Chain 8 of them and you can run astrology models all you want.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2007/10/ps3_supercomputer

[modus]

Thankyou! PS3's are as cheap as $650 in my country right now and I paid $1200 for my PC last year and it doesn't even come close to Uncharted or Ratchet and Clank.

I do only have a 7600GS video card, lol. Oblivion even looks and runs better on a PS3 then my computer. All that for $650 and i can even get a Linux based operating system running it? It's a total joke, lol...

$1200 for a computer? That's garbage honestly, and a 7600GS? And of course Oblivion is going to run better on consoles, it's scaled down. The graphics on consoles are usually medium settings, like UT3. On PC's you will always get better graphics if you can run the game on High and that's the point of PC gaming. Plus the keyboard & mouse is superior in RTS, FPS and MMO gaming. I don't really get the Linux remark, Linux is an OS which is used on computers.

It still sickens me though that even with all the high tech things the PS3 has it still is the console with the worst sales on the market right now and you can really only blame Sony for that.

[Stewie Skywalker]

I've been trying to tell ya'll! Show me a PC game that has an animation system on par with Uncharted... exactly! It's always been apples and oranges and all those people telling you that the RSX is a 7800 are just trying to feel better about their console of choice. Don't always believe what you hear on the internet. Is the shader logic probably NV47 based? Probably, but calling RSX a 7800 because of that is tantamount to calling a Harley Davidson motorcycle "car" because it has wheels that spin!

Let me pose a question to you if Naughty Dog were to make Uncharted for PC do you honestly think it wouldn't look the same if not better. Like you can't be serious I don't give a **** what a Cell processor can do. If you think an 8800GTX and a Quad Core can't reproduce Uncharted as its seen on PS3 if not better your only kidding yourself. There aren't even any big name developers trying to do a game like uncharted so what kind of comparison is that.

[radgamer420]

Well since neither Sony nor Nvidia want to step up and tell us we can only draw our own conclusions. I mean I don't want to suggest that there is anything fishy about the NDA they have. It just seems incredibly strange to me that if the RSX was something special you would have both companies shouting from the roof tops about it. I mean am I the only one that finds that just a lil bit odd.

I see your point but "drawing your own conclusions" is not the answer either. The RSX is no slouch judging by the graphics I've been seeing so its a very capable GPU obviously. Although I'm not trying to say PS3 will outdo a high end PC but I doubt very much that RSX is a 7800 or 7900.

[Rapture]

How would I contact NVidia?

[Rynoboy]

keep in mind they can unlock things out of the RSX that devs would not normally do on Computer GPUs

[Stewie Skywalker]

Such as? And I'm asking seriously here not being a smart ass.

[naruto007]

arent pcs the best for graphics period... thats why they have the games it does and the best gaming computers(alienware) cost up to 5000 dollars...for a computer....

alienware is the worst way to waste money..

you can build an extreme gaming pc for $2000 on newegg

[Rynoboy]

Such as? And I'm asking seriously here not being a smart ass.
If you are talking to me then I will tell you
by that I mean they can utilize it more than they could with a PC because not every PC has a Nvidia 8800GT
but every PS3 has a RSX


alienware is the worst way to waste money..

you can build an extreme gaming pc for $2000 on newegg
indeed with aleinware you are paying for the name

[Stewie Skywalker]

Oh well what you said was different you said unlock things that PC GPUs can't do. Your response was different, you pretty much said they could better utilize what they got. A game like Crysis is coded for the HIGHEST end of PCs so the lower end cards like the 8800GT do what they can do to the best of their abilities. Comparing the PC to PS3 in those terms doesn't really work. This whole discussion doesn't quite work because there is no real concrete info on RSX and it seems to be made totally different although I haven't seen a spec sheet for it so say otherwise. We can all agree it must be a little good I mean we all have seen GT5.

[Se7enwolf]

All i want to hear from Nvidia is if the PS3 as a whole can have games with graphics comparable or better then whats capable on the high end computers and graphic cards or if it can't.

a good question to ask Cryteck

"Think you can rework Crysis to look and run as good on the PS3 as it can on high as it does on the PC with little to no sacrifice to physics and gameplay?"

[Rapture]

Where do you get these E-Mail addresses?

I'd really appreciate it if you gave me them, so I may ask my own questions.

[SillyHatMafia]

Actually if im not mitaken, i read from nVidia themselfs that the RSX would be outdated as soon as it came out. ANd about a month before the RSX came out, the 8800GTX released. It is compareable to the 7800/7900 line. The 8800 line is better. With that said, you can pull off insane stuff on PS3 cause there is no upgrading, so developers can push the chip to the limit, rather than not puch it and rely on new graphics.

[Se7enwolf]

Where do you get these E-Mail addresses?

I'd really appreciate it if you gave me them, so I may ask my own questions.


just go to contacts/faq on the Nvidia site and Ask a Question and a question sheet will pop up for you to fill out.

[lintama]

keep in mind they can unlock things out of the RSX that devs would not normally do on Computer GPUs

Also keep in mind that the RSX is a chipset, not an added on peripheral(splchk)card. If compared to anything recent or of similiar capabilities, I would kinda compare it to an old Motorola 68000 series CPU units, where it would compute GRFX and sound and decompile as well, all on the same chipset. However, the drawbak to using such an architechture, is that you would have to write very specific and precise code for the CPU. With the Cell BE it would be ideal to use a a board with two like CPU/GPU, this way when you are compiling data you can effectivly swap between the CPU/GPU as if they were the same device.

[FANTASYX72]

If only we were able to open the ps3 and put in different model graphic chips

[chugs]

Let me pose a question to you if Naughty Dog were to make Uncharted for PC do you honestly think it wouldn't look the same if not better. Like you can't be serious I don't give a **** what a Cell processor can do. If you think an 8800GTX and a Quad Core can't reproduce Uncharted as its seen on PS3 if not better your only kidding yourself. There aren't even any big name developers trying to do a game like uncharted so what kind of comparison is that.

Lets imagine in an alternative reality, Sony builds a $1500-$2,000 PS3 (the equivalent price of current high-end PC capable of uber awesome graphics).

Considering specs of the PS3 we all know and love, it could be easily argued that this $2,000 PS3 would, have specs, and ablitity, that would far exceed an equivlantly priced PC rig.

Hell it can be argued that a $600 PC (is there such a thing?) is utterly smashed by a $600 PS3.

What i'm trying to say is that if you engineered a PS3 to have 2-3 Gb of ram, a massively expanded bus, (not that it really needs it at the moment) and say the chipset of a 8880 Ultra (or whatever the best model is), coupled with a beefed up Cell you'd have a device that far exceeds (because of its inherent advantages) the abilities of a equivalent costing PC ).

[Lord Arklon]

All i want to hear from Nvidia is if the PS3 as a whole can have games with graphics comparable or better then whats capable on the high end computers and graphic cards or if it can't.

a good question to ask Cryteck

"Think you can rework Crysis to look and run as good on the PS3 as it can on high as it does on the PC with little to no sacrifice to physics and gameplay?"
That may not be the best question to ask Crytek. what was the last PS3 game they developed? They would probably give us an answer we wouldn't want to hear.

[ps3guysnowy]

Yes I do with everything at medium to high and it still looks better than any console game I have ever seen (I play at 1680X1050). Not only that but there are hidden settings in crysis waiting to be unlocked when new hardware comes out that will be able to play it. Im not some kiddy spouting off stupid remarks here. I havent the slightest clue where you think the ps3 is so powerful. I understand the cell is great and very powerful at what it does but that is limited to its design. Do you think for one second they wouldnt produce a cell for desktop computers if they felt it would work well in a pc? Have you seen how laggy windows xp is running on the ps3? It cant handle that basic operating system but it can fold with the best of them and thats what i mean when I say it does great for what it was designed to do. A core 2 duo and 8800 ultra or gtx is alot more powerful over all and soon the 9XXX series cards will be out to widen the gap even more.


Oh and BTW hondas are slow. :p

The 1300 hp 1.5 liter F1 Hondas dominating the series over Ferraris and Williams from 1988-1992 were very slow. Please enlighten us as to when the last time was an American manufacturer dominated an actual motorsport like F1. Or when the last time an American manufacturer produced a car that could attain 4 gs of lateral acceleration. It would be awesome to see a prostreet Camaro running at Suzuka against a Mclaren/Honda powered MP4/4 from 1987.

[Stewie Skywalker]

Lets imagine in an alternative reality, Sony builds a $1500-$2,000 PS3 (the equivalent price of current high-end PC capable of uber awesome graphics).

Considering specs of the PS3 we all know and love, it could be easily argued that this $2,000 PS3 would, have specs, and ablitity, that would far exceed an equivlantly priced PC rig.

Hell it can be argued that a $600 PC (is there such a thing?) is utterly smashed by a $600 PS3.

What i'm trying to say is that if you engineered a PS3 to have 2-3 Gb of ram, a massively expanded bus, (not that it really needs it at the moment) and say the chipset of a 8880 Ultra (or whatever the best model is), coupled with a beefed up Cell you'd have a device that far exceeds (because of its inherent advantages) the abilities of a equivalent costing PC ).

Why the hell are you talking about what ifs thats not the point. What if they did this what if they did that we are talking about what they HAVE now.

[Hexadecimal]

I think people need to be careful when contrasting between console and PC hardware. Think back to the Xbox, it had a Pentium 3 and a GeForce 3 and 64MB of memory, but a PC with those specs can't run Halo, or Halo 2, or <insert pretty game here>. This shows there isn't a direct relationship between raw computing power and what gets put on the screen when comparing PC and consoles. So I wouldn't count out Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 simply because their hardware is slightly dated.

[chugs]

Why the hell are you talking about what ifs thats not the point. What if they did this what if they did that we are talking about what they HAVE now.

huh ^^

I quote:
Let me pose a question to you if Naughty Dog were to make Uncharted for PC do you honestly think it wouldn't look the same if not better. Like you can't be serious I don't give a **** what a Cell processor can doDude you were the one in the first place proposing "what if's".

The second point is that you were making it clear that PS3 does medium grade graphics.

I'm just highlighting that the PS3's dollar to cost benefit far outweights the pro's of purchasing a PC rig that you seem to think is the bee's knees.

I'm also saying that PS3, scaled to a cost of a high end-PC would still out punch it. Hell I think a Ps3 is as good as a high end PC, especially when you factor in ease of use, error/driver free gaming and seamless (for AAA titles at least) graphics/frame rates.

[dog77_1999]

A similar priced PC will not have the capabilities as a console. The PC must be able to do other things, and that flexibility requires more resources. And also consider a PS3 will be the same as the next PS3, you can definatly optimize it to push pass comparable cards(like the 7900).

However, it is stupid to argue that the PS3 is more powerful than anything that you can buy today. The PS3 runs most games at 720p, while the PCs run at much higher resolutions(I never go below 1080p with my computer).

Now you could argue that the PS3 can do 1080p. Yes is can, but it won't have all of the bells and whistles that you would see at 720p. I can only imagine if PCs were capped at 720p what they would be capable of doing.

[Hexadecimal]

It is also stupid to argue that the PS3 is less powerful because televisons today are designed with lower resolutions than some computer monitors.

[Tetsu]

Yes I do with everything at medium to high and it still looks better than any console game I have ever seen (I play at 1680X1050).
You're putting two things together in that sentence that don't apply.

Yes, PC games have higher resolution than PS3, 360 or Wii.

No, games don't look better than PS3 games.

I know of no racing game that looks better than Gran Turismo 5.

I can spend four times the price of the PS3 to get a PC capable of making Crysis look great. But is that really worth it? To me it isn't, nor is it to millions of others.

PC gaming is all right, but many of us are tired of having to upgrade to get better looking games, and would rather let the developer do all the upgrading for us. ;)


I'm just highlighting that the PS3's dollar to cost benefit far outweights the pro's of purchasing a PC rig that you seem to think is the bee's knees.

I'm also saying that PS3, scaled to a cost of a high end-PC would still out punch it. Hell I think a Ps3 is as good as a high end PC, especially when you factor in ease of use, error/driver free gaming and seamless (for AAA titles at least) graphics/frame rates.
Quoted for truth..

[FantasyStar]

/\

Can't say it better myself. Ask yourself, if PC gaming is as great as it should be and if it kicks the console gamer's ass so much then why is it that consoles still exist? The answer to that is simple. It's cheap, it's fun, and it's only a one-time entry fee.

[TylerPwnsYou1986]

who really cares about pc. some people are paying $400 for a card and yet still complain the 40gb ps3 is to expensive.



I don't know if you ever heard of Dyson. But they make 500 dollar vacuum cleaners :lol:.

[charmingcharlie]

I am not even going to bother with this thread anymore, it is clear so many of you have gone way off topic and are just using it to bash PC gaming once again. Seriously you guys are becoming really insecure.

[Hexadecimal]

ehh, I don't see any PC bashing in this thread.. I see a civil argument about the advantages and disadvantes of consoles and PCs.

And if anyone in this thread is insecure, it you. Your first post was a stab at the PS3 for its 'low' resolution and an accusation of PS3 fans trying to convince you to choose a PS3 over PC.

[Vulgotha]

The problem with the people advocating the PC edge is this:

1. There is this abstraction layer called OpenGL and Direct X = Card specs do not become what they really push in game. They're "Limited" in order for more PC's to run the games.

2. Due to the fact that games are made for a plethora of gaming Rigs (or casual PC's) no particular chipset is ever looked at and exploited. Basically you have these incredibly and massively powerful cards that are being underutilized, and even when used its ineffeciently. Brute power, but no finesse.


I'm not saying that the PC doesn't have graphical advantages in certain games (like Crysis). But understand that your not getting the peformance your paying for.. Unless your using that card for Rendering, in which case you very well might be.

[PS3-The Ultimate Machine]

A console is ALWAYS less advanced than pcs.But a console is a hella lot more fun and rewarding.

[Tetsu]

charlie, if you're a happy PC camper, what are you doing on a Playstation board?

And what Vulgotha said. Plus you have a huge resource pit called Windoze.

[charmingcharlie]

ehh, I don't see any PC bashing in this thread.. I see a civil argument about the advantages and disadvantes of consoles and PCs.

And if anyone in this thread is insecure, it you. Your first post was a stab at the PS3 for its 'low' resolution and an accusation of PS3 fans trying to convince you to choose a PS3 over PC.

Yeah but oddly enough this topic is supposed to be about the response the topic creator recieved from Nvidia regarding the RSX Vs a 7900 GTX, I do not see anywhere in the title anything to do with "why you gave up PC gaming" or "give us 10 reasons why you think PC gaming sucks" or "state in a comical way how many times people upgrade their PC".

As for me being insecure because I stated a fact that 720p is a low resolution compared too today's standards, then I will hold my hands up high, yes I am totally insecure that you lot are using a 720p res (and the fact you think that is impressive really makes me feel insecure), there I have admitted it, the least you can do is do the same.


charlie, if you're a happy PC camper, what are you doing on a Playstation board?
Because there is one game (GTA 4) I am interested in and it isn't announced for the PC, so I am weighing up the options on whether to buy a console to play it. However from what I have seen so far playing a game in 720p doesn't exactly float my boat, but I am insecure that way.

[Hexadecimal]

The problem with the people advocating the PC edge is this:

1. There is this abstraction layer called OpenGL and Direct X = Card specs do not become what they really push in game. They're "Limited" in order for more PC's to run the games.

2. Due to the fact that games are made for a plethora of gaming Rigs (or casual PC's) no particular chipset is ever looked at and exploited. Basically you have these incredibly and massively powerful cards that are being underutilized, and even when used its ineffeciently. Brute power, but no finesse.


I'm not saying that the PC doesn't have graphical advantages in certain games (like Crysis). But understand that your not getting the peformance your paying for.. Unless your using that card for Rendering, in which case you very well might be.

Game consoles also use DirectX (xbox 360) / OpenGL (PS3), it's just that the console implementations are very stripped down and most of the unnecessary stuff is taken out and optimizations are added.

[jlippone]

Game consoles also use DirectX (xbox 360) / OpenGL (PS3), it's just that the console implementations are very stripped down and most of the unnecessary stuff is taken out and optimizations are added.
You can also access the chips to the metal or trough some alternate APIs.
Overall it is very different from PC developement obviously as you don't have to worry about those billions of computer combinations and that the game would work properly on at least some of them.

On consoles you have one or two very similar platforms and you can do all the crazy things that made old good game coding so incredible.
In every boot there's clean memory with known variables and processes in background, you know how something performs by the spec and you really can see the difference when you change something.

If someone would open GPU drivers for PC enviroments we could code in same manner for some PCs, but that time has gone as people don't want to boot system trough DVDs to some native game enviroment.
Something like barebone linux/dos with direct access to some specific systems, you could push them in exactly same way as consoles and start counting cycles and latencies. ;)

[Hexadecimal]

I don't see your point...As if there is some massive difference between drawing using OpenGL calls and writing the subroutines myself? And with the advent of shading languages, it makes even more sense to use an API such as OpenGL.

[TopGunZ]

Well....although this might sound as flamebait... The past few weeks I have finished 3 let's say very good, not AAA, titles on PS3, am playing 3 very good titles at this point and yet PC users STILL try to figure out how and when they will fully enjoy ONE mediocre (but super duper graphical) game... Now who is the real and well-enjoying gamer and who is simply a tech junkie?

[Tetsu]

I don't see your point...
What they're getting at is something postulated by many of us back when I was a PC gamer around 2002 or so, and that's the GameOS, either Linux or something small and tight which didn't fill up the PC's ram and resources like a leaky water bed.

[MEMEROOT]

Hate to join the argument but we do have some games released on both consoles and PC's
Unreal tournament III
Orange Box
Bioshock
Call of Duty 4

now some of these games are meant to be the consoles best lookers and in each and every case the textures, fps and resolution is higher on the PC's even my laptop reaches 60fps at 720p on UTIII on high.

[godofspeed]

Of course PC's games graphics will be always better than consoles. But is it worth it? To get that kind of quality, i need to buy a 8800gtx card, which is already more expensive than the PS3. At least in SG it's more expensive.

In SG, PS3 = $559(40gb)
8800GTX = $700+
512MB 8800GTS = $550

Which is more worth it? PS3's graphics come close to the PC version, and you will have to buy a good processor and 2GB of RAM so it does not lag.

[TheSkeptik]

To bad pc games are becoming extinct slowly but surely. They will always have games but they are losing more and more to consoles and the ones they do get are dumbed down because of multiplatforming. And yeah, I will say it. Crysis is OVERRATED.

[MEMEROOT]

godofspeed

I quite agree, right at this moment you would be crazy to upgrade your pc over geting a 360 or ps3, however the same could certainly have been said 2 years ago when the 360 came out, perhaps hiven teh price cuts now is the time for picking up a Ps3 as there weren't that many good games this year.

However come next fall even a middle of the road pc will be significantly more powerful than the consoles and a top end will make a mockery of both of them, this is the last christmas of (almost) parity.

[bluedust]

The problem with these types of discussions is that only a few (if any) people know what they are actually talking about. Everybody else just says what makes sense in their mind. It is nice to get an official word from Nvidia but anyone who is knows that computer architectures differ between PC and consoles would work not to ask such a question.

I have an PS3, Xbox 360 and PC because they are all extremely good at what they are designed to do and I only ever compare the final outcome: the game. When you start comparing components you run in to trouble. I will not go into the reasons why you should not compare them because they have been stated so many times before.


This is a message to people who actually know what they are talking about that are trying to explain the facts to people who are just plain ignorant:

Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience.

[Mikael]

Of course PC's games graphics will be always better than consoles. But is it worth it? To get that kind of quality, i need to buy a 8800gtx card, which is already more expensive than the PS3. At least in SG it's more expensive.

In SG, PS3 = $559(40gb)
8800GTX = $700+
512MB 8800GTS = $550

Which is more worth it? PS3's graphics come close to the PC version, and you will have to buy a good processor and 2GB of RAM so it does not lag.
Or you could buy a 8800GT 512. VERY close to GTX performance for half the price. Assuming you have a monitor and the basics (keyboard, mouse, DVD) from an older computer, you could probably build a computer around the 8800GT for not much over $1000. Then you have a computer that even handles Crysis well. Far from the 2-3000$ people are often talking about.

[FantasyStar]

The problem with these types of discussions is that only a few (if any) people know what they are actually talking about. Everybody else just says what makes sense in their mind. It is nice to get an official word from Nvidia but anyone who is knows that computer architectures differ between PC and consoles would work not to ask such a question.

I have an PS3, Xbox 360 and PC because they are all extremely good at what they are designed to do and I only ever compare the final outcome: the game. When you start comparing components you run in to trouble. I will not go into the reasons why you should not compare them because they have been stated so many times before.


Exactly. I own a kickass PC, a Xbox 360 & PS3 because I know they're all good at what they do, granted the PS3 will win! (*smirK*). You can never compare a PC to a Console not because of the raw processing power of both, but the purposes of what they stand for. I think the Halo example for Xbox sums it up nicely right?

The Xbox had a Pentium III and a Geforce 4 Chip and can run Halo flawlessly, now use the same brand names for a PC and suddenly, Halo won't run!! OH NOESZ!!!!111!!1.

Both are designed for different things. So how can you compare them together? It's like comparing a Core2Duo against the Cell Processor. or the RSX against a 7800GTX. It's stupid cause they were bred for different things.

[MonkeyClaw]

Well considering the 8800 cards blow the 7900 and 7800 cards out of the water just goes to show how far consoles are behind PC's anyway. I would honestly say the RSX is comparable to the 7800 and 7900 cards. Its not even close to the 8800 cards and its only a couple months before the 9XXX cards come out so it will be even farther behind.

Me hugs my 8800GTX :D

You hugs your insane price you paid for a video card too! I will stick with my PS3, I have long gave up trying to be on the leading edge on PC gaming, especially when there are only a handful of games that can even take advantage of it...and sorry, even though Crysis does look good I am still more impressed with what Killzone 2 looks like...the face detail and realistic movements of all the characters is amazing!

[bahamot]

Or you could buy a 8800GT 512. VERY close to GTX performance for half the price. Assuming you have a monitor and the basics (keyboard, mouse, DVD) from an older computer, you could probably build a computer around the 8800GT for not much over $1000. Then you have a computer that even handles Crysis well. Far from the 2-3000$ people are often talking about.

8800GT + 2 GB RAM + E4400 = frame drops + tearing in The Witcher.
8800GT + 2 GB RAM + E4400 = frame drops in World in Conflict.

All @ 1680x1050.
The Witcher: 2xAA + 16AF.
World in Conflict: Medium/High setting.

To be really frank, I'm kinda regret with my decision to upgrade my VGA ...

[chugs]

You can also access the chips to the metal or trough some alternate APIs.
Overall it is very different from PC developement obviously as you don't have to worry about those billions of computer combinations and that the game would work properly on at least some of them.


I don't see your point...As if there is some massive difference between drawing using OpenGL calls and writing the subroutines myself? And with the advent of shading languages, it makes even more sense to use an API such as OpenGL.

Although this sort of talk turns me on (in more ways then one) maybe we could setup another thread to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of, chip to metal or using an API. Personally I the chip to metal solution guy, sounds so darn sexy. Something Arnie should of said in Terminator.

To rant further about the PS3 over PC debate.

I really don't know how many people can claim PC superiority. I've seen high-end PC's playing high-end PC games and I really don't discern a whole lot of difference, especially since these devices are connected to small 22inch (or smaller) monitors.

What I do appreciate, as a result of having to support PC's for the last 10 years of my life, is the utter pain and angiush that goes into maintaining, supporting the stupid things. A PC is like having ten jealous wife discovering you in bid with 10 equally jealous mistresses.

Look the wrong way and bam you've got a DLL problem. Kiss your PS3 and your PC decides deciedes to tell you that your drivers are wrong, promptly crashing. Dare not to spend 1 hour of every day of the rest of your life, cleaning, deleting, installing, moving, reviewing, holding, hugging and maintaining the **** thing and the whole thing will fall over.

Reinstall XP and you lose 2 hours of your life. Viruses and worms require a stupid amount of vigilances.

For a device you've purchased really to play games and do a bit of email/word, it'd seem that the amount of effort you put in far exceeds the results. You spend a fortune on these things only to find a drunken drugged out Hollywood starlet is more reliable. Don't get me started on drivers, hardware faults (hmmm dry joints anyone), heat, and complexity that would drive a mathematics genius mad. Seriously anyone who lays claim to PC gaming superiority is just utterly insane and should be branded a mad man.

If 720p is not good enough for you then you've got bigger problems in your life.

[CivicFox]

To rant further about the PS3 over PC debate.
10 years! ten years is along time to hate against the software, hardware, input/output and enjoying the pros and cons about PC gaming. In ten years one would already appreciate his own "Screen Size" (as you put it) alongside with the software DLL problems and the responsibilities of keeping your machine at its peak performance. Ive hardly seen people complain about why they had to reinstall their windows xp, but the hardcore gamers tell me that they dust off their machine and reinstall windows every... 4 to 10 months, "just to keep things clean". I doubt seriously you had any special time with you PC when gaming and that "Ten year" amount of time you've had with it. Especially the fine points of upgrading it, and appreciating the game software running better as the years pass by.

[mertle]

8800GT + 2 GB RAM + E4400 = frame drops + tearing in The Witcher.
8800GT + 2 GB RAM + E4400 = frame drops in World in Conflict.

All @ 1680x1050.
The Witcher: 2xAA + 16AF.
World in Conflict: Medium/High setting.

To be really frank, I'm kinda regret with my decision to upgrade my VGA ...

that sounds like you have a bottleneck something in your system not upto spec to run it that quality and speed. Quite frankly people make mistakes in pc builds motherboards are often overlooked for that leading edge graphics card or processor. The motherboard is the most important tool of your machine. Thats not even considering pushing the boat for the latest ram to also help the smooth transfer of data. Making sure the HDD has the data bus speed and despite ide advancements Scsi based system is the quickest.

I scoff at anybody who says they get a top range leading edge gamebuster pc for $2000 when the graphics card is $650. The sums dont add up what the outlay is needed.

It simply not possible to get the performance with no lags at good/high specs you will have to put another $1000 on that to even just get close.

You can get a reasonable middle ranged one for this price but you want the power then you have to spend the dosh which would run games reasonably fast and smooth.

Now I wont insult the inteligence to say ps3 is the best but for the price what most can afford its easily the best.

Its fsster than $1000 machine as its built for one purpose data streaming and gaming. Pc processors or multi functional and this why consoles become good value. both cater for different markets but you have to really spend to get the power for pc to compensate. Consoles have very good value in price to power.

[Tetsu]

Ive hardly seen people complain about why they had to reinstall their windows xp, but the hardcore gamers tell me that they dust off their machine and reinstall windows every... 4 to 10 months, "just to keep things clean". I doubt seriously you had any special time with you PC when gaming and that "Ten year" amount of time you've had with it. Especially the fine points of upgrading it, and appreciating the game software running better as the years pass by.
*raises hand*

I'm quite sick of fussing with PCs, and overhauling them every 6-10 months. Mine has been in that cranky stage where it's telling me it's time to reformat. And I've just about had it. Back a million things up. Find my resource files, patches, drivers, install discs, order a couple pizzas since it'll take a while. It's like rebuilding your car every half a **** year! So Micro$oft is supposed to have created the "perfect" WIndoze?

Vista.

Ugh... things changed around. Bloated. Resource ravenous. Expensive. ARGH.

I wish Apple had taken over the world.

*hugs his PS3*

[bahamot]

mertle (http://www.ps3forums.com/member.php?u=34044) :
My mobo is Abit IP35-Pro, which I'm pretty sure is not the bottleneck. And I've spend quite a fortune on building my PC. The spec is following:
- 2 GB RAM PC5300
- E4400
- Asus 8800GT
- Abit IP35Pro
- Audigy2 ZS
- Emu 1212m
- AMCC 9650SE-4LPML
- Coolermaster iGreen 600W
- Coolermaster CM Stacker STC-T01

Now, please tell me which part of it is the bottleneck?

See the issue when building the PC? I don't have this issue when buying my PS3...
Anyhow, sorry for being OT.

[GHoltz]

This incessant desire to figure out 'which graphics card' is in the PS3 needs to stop. It is completely pointless.

The PS3 is not a desktop computer.

The graphics cards that are in peoples computers at home right now are built to overcome the archaic and clunky architecture the standard x86 system is built around. Desktop GPU are designed to overcome four fundamental problems with x86 pcs:

1) The weak main CPU
2) The slow bus connecting the CPU to other components like the GPU
3) The lack of direct control developers have over the flow of data back and forth over the bus to the GPU
4) The lack of direct control over data residing in the GPU

This has led pc game developers to design their game engines around these fundamental realities resulting in:

1) A separation of graphics and collision/physics/game logic data - where the former exists almost entirely on the GPU and the latter exists almost entirely on the CPU side of the system
2) Handling of game/level data where every piece of geometric data is dumped over the slow bus at level start and left there for the extent of the level
3) A focus on minimizing interaction between the CPU and GPU side since everything you pass back and forth has to go through a driver that is written by some third party that you have no control over

This is not how any sane person would design a modern piece of graphics hardware. But it is the reality of the desktop pc being made by multiple independent parties.

The PS3 is designed around the unification of game logic/physics/geometry data on the Cell side and pixel data on the RSX side of the system. So instead of your game's geometry sitting off across some slow bus you have no control over you have direct access to the your games geometry directly with the SPUs instead of the silly little limited(and poorly named) vertex 'shaders'.

The RSX side is mainly concerned with taking graphics commands from the Cell side and paint triangles. It does have a decent amount of vertex processing power like in a desktop GPU but it is used mostly for static/unchanging graphics data.

That unification of game logic/game geometry/collision data all on Cell is what makes the PS3 so good and a joy to work with.

A graphics engine for the PS3 will end up working like this(not necessarily any specific order):

1) Game startups up on the PPU
2) Static geometry is transfered over to the RSX side
3) Tasks for the SPUs are fired off
4) After transforms, animation,lighting,etc work gets finished by the SPUs graphics commands are fired off to the RSX side to paint pixels
5) Static geometry is rendered through vertex and fragmentshaders
6) Post processing is done on framebuffer sections by the SPUs

Ideally you have as many things going on at once with as little latency as possible, ie. new vertex data is being dma'ed in while you are working on the current set and so on.

The only way to compare the RSX to a desktop GPU is as part of the Cell/RSX unified graphics system. Just talking about RSX by itself makes as much sense as trying to compare just the vertex or fragment shaders in one graphics card to another card.

[Vulgotha]

Game consoles also use DirectX (xbox 360) / OpenGL (PS3), it's just that the console implementations are very stripped down and most of the unnecessary stuff is taken out and optimizations are added.

They had a big discussion about this on B3d, including Fran, nAo, and Arwin got involved (if I remember) Sure. The Consoles use OpenGL and DirectX, but they're not used as abstraction layers, you get to play with the real card numbers and tell it what to do.

There is no "Watering down" For multiple hardware set ups. Thats why the common example is the Xbox GPU being able to perform some effects that newer and more advanced members of the same family weren't able to do- due to to DX limitations on the PC.

OpenGL and DX on the consoles act in a very radically differant way then their PC counterparts.

[FantasyStar]

This incessant desire to figure out 'which graphics card' is in the PS3 needs to stop. It is completely pointless.

The PS3 is not a desktop computer.

The graphics cards that are in peoples computers at home right now are built to overcome the archaic and clunky architecture the standard x86 system is built around. Desktop GPU are designed to overcome four fundamental problems with x86 pcs:

1) The weak main CPU
2) The slow bus connecting the CPU to other components like the GPU
3) The lack of direct control developers have over the flow of data back and forth over the bus to the GPU
4) The lack of direct control over data residing in the GPU

This has led pc game developers to design their game engines around these fundamental realities resulting in:

1) A separation of graphics and collision/physics/game logic data - where the former exists almost entirely on the GPU and the latter exists almost entirely on the CPU side of the system
2) Handling of game/level data where every piece of geometric data is dumped over the slow bus at level start and left there for the extent of the level
3) A focus on minimizing interaction between the CPU and GPU side since everything you pass back and forth has to go through a driver that is written by some third party that you have no control over

This is not how any sane person would design a modern piece of graphics hardware. But it is the reality of the desktop pc being made by multiple independent parties.

The PS3 is designed around the unification of game logic/physics/geometry data on the Cell side and pixel data on the RSX side of the system. So instead of your game's geometry sitting off across some slow bus you have no control over you have direct access to the your games geometry directly with the SPUs instead of the silly little limited(and poorly named) vertex 'shaders'.

The RSX side is mainly concerned with taking graphics commands from the Cell side and paint triangles. It does have a decent amount of vertex processing power like in a desktop GPU but it is used mostly for static/unchanging graphics data.

That unification of game logic/game geometry/collision data all on Cell is what makes the PS3 so good and a joy to work with.

A graphics engine for the PS3 will end up working like this(not necessarily any specific order):

1) Game startups up on the PPU
2) Static geometry is transfered over to the RSX side
3) Tasks for the SPUs are fired off
4) After transforms, animation,lighting,etc work gets finished by the SPUs graphics commands are fired off to the RSX side to paint pixels
5) Static geometry is rendered through vertex and fragmentshaders
6) Post processing is done on framebuffer sections by the SPUs

Ideally you have as many things going on at once with as little latency as possible, ie. new vertex data is being dma'ed in while you are working on the current set and so on.

The only way to compare the RSX to a desktop GPU is as part of the Cell/RSX unified graphics system. Just talking about RSX by itself makes as much sense as trying to compare just the vertex or fragment shaders in one graphics card to another card.

/\

I approve of that post! :)

[AFSOCOM]

*raises hand*

I'm quite sick of fussing with PCs, and overhauling them every 6-10 months. Mine has been in that cranky stage where it's telling me it's time to reformat. And I've just about had it. Back a million things up. Find my resource files, patches, drivers, install discs, order a couple pizzas since it'll take a while. It's like rebuilding your car every half a **** year! So Micro$oft is supposed to have created the "perfect" WIndoze?

Vista.

Ugh... things changed around. Bloated. Resource ravenous. Expensive. ARGH.

I wish Apple had taken over the world.

*hugs his PS3*

I give Apple another 10 years before total domination of the market. ;)

[CivicFox]

*raises hand*

I'm quite sick of fussing with PCs, and overhauling them every 6-10 months. Mine has been in that cranky stage where it's telling me it's time to reformat. And I've just about had it. Back a million things up. Find my resource files, patches, drivers, install discs, order a couple pizzas since it'll take a while. It's like rebuilding your car every half a **** year! So Micro$oft is supposed to have created the "perfect" WIndoze?

Vista.

Ugh... things changed around. Bloated. Resource ravenous. Expensive. ARGH.

I wish Apple had taken over the world.

*hugs his PS3*
Im not going to argue with you, but that ten year timespan you pulled is hard to believe, at some point with your experience on reinstalling your software have you ever thought about keeping your media in an external HDD? Alot of PC gamers partition their content. Once again, 10 years with that experience is hard to believe you when through without improving your PC lifestyle.

[chugs]

Im not going to argue with you, but that ten year timespan you pulled is hard to believe, at some point with your experience on reinstalling your software have you ever thought about keeping your media in an external HDD? Alot of PC gamers partition their content. Once again, 10 years with that experience is hard to believe you when through without improving your PC lifestyle.

working in the IT business, supporting people with many a PC problem (not gaming related) its hard enough to get these things to work for general desktop applications let alone gaming. WAN/LAN issues just add to the mix (hell they're a significant part of my day to day work).

Yes you can partition drives, have backups, even an image/ghost but those things only shelter you so far from problems. Hardware issues that manifest themselves as software bugs, no partition in this world is going to fix that. Driver faults, and convoluted processes to uninstall and reinstall drivers. Cryptic boolan esque errors messages that make utterly no sense. Cascade of errors cause further problems.

The industry to seems to think that every game is a hyperactive 10 hour a day dedicated PC guru. That is not the case.

I don't appreciate your disdain for what is utterly obvious to even blind freddy, that the PC, as a gaming platform is an utter oxymoron.

Anyway I rest my case with GT5 - there is no game PC or on any other platform that comes close to that quality of graphics, frame rate etc.

For $600 bucks that is.

For utter pop in and play ease.

Without having to find a driver

[-=*7*=-]

Well considering the 8800 cards blow the 7900 and 7800 cards out of the water just goes to show how far consoles are behind PC's anyway. I would honestly say the RSX is comparable to the 7800 and 7900 cards. Its not even close to the 8800 cards and its only a couple months before the 9XXX cards come out so it will be even farther behind.

Me hugs my 8800GTX :D

First of all you didn't read a word that was said and you miss the whole point. Your PC even with an 8800GTX can't compete with the console package that is the PS3!!!

He's talking Bandwidth OVERHEAD OF THE PC! Meaning: Quote "Because of excess or indirect computational time used by the PC's architecture, memory, bandwidth, and other resources required or expended in the PC computing environment"! (this is a quote from a friend who works in PC Mainboard Design)

In another words this Nvidia guy isn't going to tell you just what the RSX is, he's just saying it would not run in a PC because the architecture requires a much higher amount of memory and has much lower bandwidth available than the PS3. Just like a straight 8800 GTX main chip wouldn't work in the PS3 in and of itself.

What he's not saying in any way shape or form is that the PC architecture is in any way shape or form superior to that of the RSX/Cell based PS3!

Because at this point the Benchmarks being produced by programs such as FOLDING@HOME and Games like "Uncharted" (which lefein explained, no PC game equals in animation abilities) that on the PS3 has NO LOADING SCREENS, along with procedurally rendering everything from Clouds, Water, and even Volumetric Wind that affects everything from leaves swirling to trees swaying in direct proportion to the real time environment!!!

A lot to mentally digest I know. But the end scene in Uncharted is the quintessential example of what Sebastien Deguy of ProFX said the PS3 would demonstrate by year's end (loading procedurally generated graphics in either REAL TIME or close to it).

The reason is quite simple. When you look at benchmarks from their own site. A PC with an Nvidia 8800 GPU benchmarked the loading of their "Bayou Demo" in 5 seconds. An Xbox 360 was benchmarked loading the same scene in 10 seconds. The PS3 did have a benchmark up on their site loading it 4 times faster than the PC w/8800 card (taken down for whatever reason, who knows Nvidia or Microsoft complained as they're customers of their Middleware too!!!???). But the point is that the PS3 is loading scenes far more complex in "Uncharted" in REAL TIME = 0.0 seconds w/out LOAD Screens once the game itself is loaded!

NEITHER YOUR PC W/8800 GPU NOR THE XBOX 360 CAN DO THAT WITH THESE COMPLEX SCENES LIKE THE END ONE IN "UNCHARTED"!!! 8)

.....now hold your tail between your legs, so as to not "P" on the floor as you attempt to comprehend this!!!

[Tetsu]

Im not going to argue with you, but that ten year timespan you pulled is hard to believe, at some point with your experience on reinstalling your software have you ever thought about keeping your media in an external HDD? Alot of PC gamers partition their content. Once again, 10 years with that experience is hard to believe you when through without improving your PC lifestyle.
I partition. I have four partitions on two drives. But I don't trust Windoze not to frook something up tragically during a format and reinstall.

Every ninny knows the warning. "Before formatting and reinstalling your OS, BACKUP ALL FILES. You may be sorry otherwise."

For pete's sake, nothing you do will protect you from registry corruption. The Registry of course being a huge text file. A file which begins corrupting itself within the first five minutes of your brand new OS install.

Dude, I have been there. Nothing makes it easy, or foolproof. I'm just sick to death of Microsoft's shotty monopoly over the OS world.

*hugs his PS3 again*


I give Apple another 10 years before total domination of the market. ;)
Well, there is a God... ;)

[shinigamiboy]

i was wondering if the 8800GT anygood???
building new pc, but aint got a clue wot to get..
so need help

[MEMEROOT]

uncharted this, uncharted that....

shame all the dual platform games run better on pc - though admittadly URIII runs better on my laptop (with a single 7900 card so perhaps its just lazy devs...)

[Tetsu]

The 8800GT is a great card. If you like to read and want some recommendations on killer PCs from budget, serious to extreme, go here:

Sharkyextreme.com (http://www.sharkyextreme.com/)


shame all the dual platform games run better on pc - until six months pass.
There, fixed for you. ;)

[weskurtz81]

Correct me if I am wrong please.

My take on this, from my own knowledge in computer systems.

The 8800GTX is probably superior in every way to RSX. IF the two were running a race side by side with no other variables involved (the PS3 or the PC), the 8800GTX should smoke it.

The variables are the systems and the games. The PC is a resource hog with massive overhead. So much performance is robbed from your high end GPU in a PC because of the way the system runs, and because the games are made to run on so many different pieces of hardware.

On the console side, even though the systems specs (excluding IBM's Cell) might be weaker, the fact that the games are designed around a SPECIFIC hardware set, and that hardware has very little overhead (IE. MUCH MORE EFFICIENT), you are able to get much more with power in comparison to PC gpu's.

In conclusion, the 8800GTX is more powerful, but it's very likely you won't see it's what it could do because of the architecture of a PC.

[mertle]

mertle (http://www.ps3forums.com/member.php?u=34044) :
My mobo is Abit IP35-Pro, which I'm pretty sure is not the bottleneck. And I've spend quite a fortune on building my PC. The spec is following:
- 2 GB RAM PC5300
- E4400
- Asus 8800GT
- Abit IP35Pro
- Audigy2 ZS
- Emu 1212m
- AMCC 9650SE-4LPML
- Coolermaster iGreen 600W
- Coolermaster CM Stacker STC-T01

Now, please tell me which part of it is the bottleneck?

See the issue when building the PC? I don't have this issue when buying my PS3...
Anyhow, sorry for being OT.

yep them specs look fine. I was not having ago at you its just some just buy the processor and graphics card and think this is all they need. Sorry if my post rubed you the wrong way it was not meant to be more to try help why you got issues. I assume your HDD is clean and upto date with drivers.

The last pc I built it I had to wait for a driver to built to stop the duel pipeline from crashing my pc. Windows would never check both pipelines and it just shutdown crashing the registry. No doubt six months down the line MS might solve yours.

I personally always buy server boards as these can be a beast in data transfer.

My machine getting dated and just like many feel I cant be bothered to go through it all again.

[Mucho Gonzales]

I think their point is, you can't look at the graphics system of the PS3 without considering the entire system, where as on a PC the graphics card is a separate entity altogether that is outside the entire system. A PS3's arcitechture is completely different than a standard PC in that it was designed to work well together and complement all of its components.

I'm sure as a whole the PS3's graphics hardware is a step above the 7800 and 7900 in a standard PC, but since it is a generation behind the 8800 series a PC with that series card is probably more powerful, but the PS3 will eventually catch up to that calibur of game design because of developers getting better at designing for it.

[BenL]

and we have yet another thread where people spread rubbish about PC's costing thousands of pounds/dollars/euros and that they don't have half the power of the PS3. I mean don't you people get tired of this rubbish. I mean people are going OMGZ look at uncharted in 720p, erm wow I haven't used such a low resolution as that in years on my PC. I just don't see the point of these threads, you are not going to convince me I should ditch my PC for the PS3 anymore than I am gonna convince you to ditch the PS3 for the PC.

Name a game on the PC, other than Crysis, that looks better than Uncharted.

[weskurtz81]

Name a game on the PC, other than Crysis, that looks better than Uncharted.

Resolution doesn't automatically mean the game looks good. You can have a game running at 1080I with no AA or other eye candy, or a game running at 720P that will look noticeably better because of other video options that are enabled. From my experience, it is normally better to sacrifice a little resolution in order to achieve a little better visuals.

However, in PC FPS's, I normally turn everything off because it's much easier to spot people when they cannot hide in shadows, foliage, and other areas!;)

But once again, a thread that has been turned into the PS3 v World. It happens in every thread that says anything positive about the PS3. And, the funny thing is, quite often (not every time), it's a PS3 owner who is lashing out at other camps, which generates a response from the "other" guys and starts this whole mess.

[OKlondon]

Ofcourse PC games will overtake console games, that logical Crysis is the best looking game out there and can be argued that a console game wont beat it for sometime. However you dont need to spend a 2000 pounds on a pc to see amazing graphics if you own a ps3, you dont need to install a game and you dont need to worry about all the hassles surrounding pc and pc gaming.

In the end you pay for what you get, but remember that pc games are rarely built for the most powerful card out there. There is only a few games that are really built and take advantage of the 8800 card, while ps3 games try to utilise the full power of the ps3. Also ps3 games dont need to worry about a OS.

[jubeininja69]

yeah comparing just the RSX to the 8800GTX i'd would say the 8800GTX is stronger. but than again we can only guess since the RSX works the cell which blows aways those duo or quad core processors the GTX works with. and plus PC has more RAM so in a sense they can't really be compared completely but only partially.

[Fangrim]

Here's my email to NVidia:



Dear NVidia!

I've been an avid NVidia Graphics Card buyr for more than 8 years. I've owned a total of 5 NVidia cards in that period of time, and when it came to choose a gaming console, I chose the PLAYSTATION3, to support you guys.

I've been wondering though... What's the specs of the RSX chip? Please tell me, I will keep it a secret forevers and evers!

Is it better than the Xenos?

Please tell me the truth. If you don't, bunny dies.

http://mknord.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/bunny_1-small.jpg

[prostreetcamaro]

First of all you didn't read a word that was said and you miss the whole point. Your PC even with an 8800GTX can't compete with the console package that is the PS3!!!

He's talking Bandwidth OVERHEAD OF THE PC! Meaning: Quote "Because of excess or indirect computational time used by the PC's architecture, memory, bandwidth, and other resources required or expended in the PC computing environment"! (this is a quote from a friend who works in PC Mainboard Design)

In another words this Nvidia guy isn't going to tell you just what the RSX is, he's just saying it would not run in a PC because the architecture requires a much higher amount of memory and has much lower bandwidth available than the PS3. Just like a straight 8800 GTX main chip wouldn't work in the PS3 in and of itself.

What he's not saying in any way shape or form is that the PC architecture is in any way shape or form superior to that of the RSX/Cell based PS3!

Because at this point the Benchmarks being produced by programs such as FOLDING@HOME and Games like "Uncharted" (which lefein explained, no PC game equals in animation abilities) that on the PS3 has NO LOADING SCREENS, along with procedurally rendering everything from Clouds, Water, and even Volumetric Wind that affects everything from leaves swirling to trees swaying in direct proportion to the real time environment!!!

A lot to mentally digest I know. But the end scene in Uncharted is the quintessential example of what Sebastien Deguy of ProFX said the PS3 would demonstrate by year's end (loading procedurally generated graphics in either REAL TIME or close to it).

The reason is quite simple. When you look at benchmarks from their own site. A PC with an Nvidia 8800 GPU benchmarked the loading of their "Bayou Demo" in 5 seconds. An Xbox 360 was benchmarked loading the same scene in 10 seconds. The PS3 did have a benchmark up on their site loading it 4 times faster than the PC w/8800 card (taken down for whatever reason, who knows Nvidia or Microsoft complained as they're customers of their Middleware too!!!???). But the point is that the PS3 is loading scenes far more complex in "Uncharted" in REAL TIME = 0.0 seconds w/out LOAD Screens once the game itself is loaded!

NEITHER YOUR PC W/8800 GPU NOR THE XBOX 360 CAN DO THAT WITH THESE COMPLEX SCENES LIKE THE END ONE IN "UNCHARTED"!!! 8)

.....now hold your tail between your legs, so as to not "P" on the floor as you attempt to comprehend this!!!

I see you people still dont get it do you? I am talking pure graphics not how a game loads on the fly. The graphics are better on a high end pc plain and simple end of story and that gap is only going to get larger and larger.

On a side note controllers SUCK for fps games IMO. :p

[mcav]

These threads are going to be tremendously funny in a few years time when PS3 games look 2 and 3 times better than they do now and people will STILL be going on about how "THE PC" can do better.

Never mind "THE PC" - what about "YOUR PC!" Because unless EVEYRY PC can do it - it's not worth discussing.

Oh - that's all PC gaming out of the window :)

[CossackNoodle]

Like other posted fine pc can look better at a price and at a price you have to keep spending every six months.

The PS3 you dont have to the graphics improve at no extra cost becuase the devs get better and we all know the launch titles look and run badly compared to the games released near end of a consoles life.

And maybe i am falling for the cell+rsx+bluray hype but I truly believe this is going to be the best playstation to date(i think ps1 was greatest console).

[ocholoco]

rsx is gooder than what it has been said

[psycho_rez]

PC's dont offer much these days, now that the consoles are out, and they wont offer much till the consoles are close to death i reckon, only game that interests me on pc is Crysis...but thats it..And heck no im not paying a fortune for a rig to run crysis on max, and see it go obsolete after a few months >.>....Consoles offer the games right now, and besides, no other game on pc beats the best looking console game "uncharted" BUT crysis IMO.

Bottom line, console gaming is where its all at right now, a kickass pc right now wont do any good, unless its a rig that can run Crysis on max...

[hisame]

Some people like to spend less then $200 for game.
SOme like to spend less then $300 for games.
SOme like to spend over $400 for games.
Some people like to spend over few $ks for games.

[uptownrockstar]

this has been a very informative thread, and it defines why i'm happy to be a member of PS3FORUMS.

i havent checked the specs on my pc (dell:(), put computers arnt for games anymore imo. techwhores.

[hisame]

I spend over $1000 on my PC box, yes just the box no minitor nos software no craps.
It still won't paly any PC games with reasonable quality.
I am happy that it can decode my FullHD and 7.1 animes long time in the future.

[weskurtz81]

I spend over $1000 on my PC box, yes just the box no minitor nos software no craps.
It still won't paly any PC games with reasonable quality.
I am happy that it can decode my FullHD and 7.1 animes long time in the future.

Hisame,

If you spent over 1K for the box alone (USD?), and it won't play games worth a ****, then I am sorry to say it but you got hosed.

You can build a **** fine gaming PC for a $1000.

Are you referring to some other denomination?

[daggy]

PC's dont offer much these days, now that the consoles are out, and they wont offer much till the consoles are close to death i reckon, only game that interests me on pc is Crysis...but thats it..And heck no im not paying a fortune for a rig to run crysis on max, and see it go obsolete after a few months >.>....Consoles offer the games right now, and besides, no other game on pc beats the best looking console game "uncharted" BUT crysis IMO.

Bottom line, console gaming is where its all at right now, a kickass pc right now wont do any good, unless its a rig that can run Crysis on max...
Bull****, PC has the BEST lineup of 2008, with the most exclusive AAA games coming out on it, including tons of great multiplat games:

Starcraft 2 (AAA exclusive)
Empire: Total War (AAA exclusive)
Spore (AAA exclusive version)
Sins of a Solar Empire (AAA exclusive)
Gray Matter
A Vampyre Story
Sam & Max: Season two
Still Life 2
Simon the sorcerer 4
Dragon Age (AAA exclusive)
Space Siege
Guild Wars 2 (AAA exclusive)
Warhammer Online (AAA exclusive)
WoW: Lich King (AAA exclusive)
Stalker: CS
Far Cry 2 (AAA exclusive)
Storm of War: Battle Of Britain (AAA exclusive, this game will beat the **** out of Ace Combat 6)
Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark
Mafia 2
Fallout 3
Heavy Rain
Alan Wake
GTA4
Sacred 2
Project Offset
Bionic Commando
Devil May Cry 4
Splinter Cell 5
RAGE
Assassin's Creed
The Club
Mercenaries 2
Alone in the Dark 5
Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom

And this was from a quick search. Shall we compare AAA exclusives between PC/PS3/360? PC wins.

[arcticreaver]

wow that is an impressive amount of games for the PC. but seriously, i don't have 500 bucks available every time a new video card comes out.

[Hexadecimal]

How are you comparing games that nobody has played yet?:confused:

[lintama]

Wow nuthin' like an ol' fashend pwnin'


First of all you didn't read a word that was said and you miss the whole point. Your PC even with an 8800GTX can't compete with the console package that is the PS3!!!

He's talking Bandwidth OVERHEAD OF THE PC! Meaning: Quote "Because of excess or indirect computational time used by the PC's architecture, memory, bandwidth, and other resources required or expended in the PC computing environment"! (this is a quote from a friend who works in PC Mainboard Design)

In another words this Nvidia guy isn't going to tell you just what the RSX is, he's just saying it would not run in a PC because the architecture requires a much higher amount of memory and has much lower bandwidth available than the PS3. Just like a straight 8800 GTX main chip wouldn't work in the PS3 in and of itself.

What he's not saying in any way shape or form is that the PC architecture is in any way shape or form superior to that of the RSX/Cell based PS3!

Because at this point the Benchmarks being produced by programs such as FOLDING@HOME and Games like "Uncharted" (which lefein explained, no PC game equals in animation abilities) that on the PS3 has NO LOADING SCREENS, along with procedurally rendering everything from Clouds, Water, and even Volumetric Wind that affects everything from leaves swirling to trees swaying in direct proportion to the real time environment!!!

A lot to mentally digest I know. But the end scene in Uncharted is the quintessential example of what Sebastien Deguy of ProFX said the PS3 would demonstrate by year's end (loading procedurally generated graphics in either REAL TIME or close to it).

The reason is quite simple. When you look at benchmarks from their own site. A PC with an Nvidia 8800 GPU benchmarked the loading of their "Bayou Demo" in 5 seconds. An Xbox 360 was benchmarked loading the same scene in 10 seconds. The PS3 did have a benchmark up on their site loading it 4 times faster than the PC w/8800 card (taken down for whatever reason, who knows Nvidia or Microsoft complained as they're customers of their Middleware too!!!???). But the point is that the PS3 is loading scenes far more complex in "Uncharted" in REAL TIME = 0.0 seconds w/out LOAD Screens once the game itself is loaded!

NEITHER YOUR PC W/8800 GPU NOR THE XBOX 360 CAN DO THAT WITH THESE COMPLEX SCENES LIKE THE END ONE IN "UNCHARTED"!!! 8)

.....now hold your tail between your legs, so as to not "P" on the floor as you attempt to comprehend this!!!

[charmingcharlie]

How are you comparing games that nobody has played yet?:confused:

Well it usually works for PS3 owners :p sorry couldn't resist that. Seriously I can't believe this topic is still going, it is nothing but misinformation and people's hate. I mean if console gaming fits you then great, but for some people console gaming isn't a good fit but PC gaming is. Neither is better than each other, however for some insane reason there are some insecure people on this board that just haveeeeeeee to try and convert people to the chosen way.

[-=*7*=-]

Originally Posted by -=*7*=- http://www.ps3forums.com/pimages/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?p=2281326#post2281326)
First of all you didn't read a word that was said and you miss the whole point. Your PC even with an 8800GTX can't compete with the console package that is the PS3!!!

He's talking Bandwidth OVERHEAD OF THE PC! Meaning: Quote "Because of excess or indirect computational time used by the PC's architecture, memory, bandwidth, and other resources required or expended in the PC computing environment"! (this is a quote from a friend who works in PC Mainboard Design)

In another words this Nvidia guy isn't going to tell you just what the RSX is, he's just saying it would not run in a PC because the architecture requires a much higher amount of memory and has much lower bandwidth available than the PS3. Just like a straight 8800 GTX main chip wouldn't work in the PS3 in and of itself.

What he's not saying in any way shape or form is that the PC architecture is in any way shape or form superior to that of the RSX/Cell based PS3!

Because at this point the Benchmarks being produced by programs such as FOLDING@HOME and Games like "Uncharted" (which lefein explained, no PC game equals in animation abilities) that on the PS3 has NO LOADING SCREENS, along with procedurally rendering everything from Clouds, Water, and even Volumetric Wind that affects everything from leaves swirling to trees swaying in direct proportion to the real time environment!!!

A lot to mentally digest I know. But the end scene in Uncharted is the quintessential example of what Sebastien Deguy of ProFX said the PS3 would demonstrate by year's end (loading procedurally generated graphics in either REAL TIME or close to it).

The reason is quite simple. When you look at benchmarks from their own site. A PC with an Nvidia 8800 GPU benchmarked the loading of their "Bayou Demo" in 5 seconds. An Xbox 360 was benchmarked loading the same scene in 10 seconds. The PS3 did have a benchmark up on their site loading it 4 times faster than the PC w/8800 card (taken down for whatever reason, who knows Nvidia or Microsoft complained as they're customers of their Middleware too!!!???). But the point is that the PS3 is loading scenes far more complex in "Uncharted" in REAL TIME = 0.0 seconds w/out LOAD Screens once the game itself is loaded!

NEITHER YOUR PC W/8800 GPU NOR THE XBOX 360 CAN DO THAT WITH THESE COMPLEX SCENES LIKE THE END ONE IN "UNCHARTED"!!! 8)

.....now hold your tail between your legs, so as to not "P" on the floor as you attempt to comprehend this!!!

I see you people still dont get it do you? I am talking pure graphics not how a game loads on the fly. The graphics are better on a high end pc plain and simple end of story and that gap is only going to get larger and larger.

On a side note controllers SUCK for fps games IMO. :p

Sorry but you are the one that doesn't get it and are going away with it still stuck in your head that the RSX is a 76xx, 78xx or 79xx chipset, when the man from Nvidia himself says it's NOT even Related in the slightest to the PC GPU cards.

What is the RSX? We know under the cap are 4 memory modules and the actual silicon chip does not relate in size to any of the "On Die Silicon", on any other GPU Nvidia has put out so far. Whether or not it has some of those components (like transistors) is not the point. One question comes up (as in past interviews and technology releases), it has been stated that the RSX is capable of not only keeping up with the massive Bandwidth flow (of this Unified Console Architecture), comprised of the Cell BE's 76+ GB per second (Rambus own specs) FLEXiO bus connection to the RSX, but exceeding it (which your PC can't come close to).

Unless you're foolish enough to even consider IBM, Sony, Nvidia and Toshiba engineers were foolish enough to bottleneck this kind of awesome power of the Cell pumped into and through an inferiorly designed GPU (top engineers in world of electronics, not a toy company -Nintendo, nor a half baked software company spreading more lies and propaganda non-existent hardware proficiency). Common logic dictates that equally massive Bandwidths must also reside within the RSX (such as Element Interconnect bus w/in Cell of 200+ GB/s speeds). This kind of interconnect is not in any of Nvidia's former cards and indeed it may only now be incorporated into their new 9xxx GPU cards.

Unfortunately on PC's, as yet have no bus interface capable of handling this kind of computational power, other than FLEXiO itself (which does not come in modular form - removable card interface except for high end server applications). So actual throughput on PC's are the ones that are bottlenecked and constrained in an open box system that only gets 30% of it's power ever realized. The closed box console platform is capable of 90+% utilization (PS3 is only now using 30% of that in "Uncharted").

That my friend is why your PC with a 78xx or greater (even 8800 GPU can not run "Uncharted" or "MGS4" or the future all consuming claimed resource utilization of FFXIII (said to be going to use the full specs of the PS3)!

Add to this that the RSX is the most Expensive part in the PS3 (more expensive than the BD player and Cell chip itself, and you must realize that we're talking "Cost to Produce - not sell to you or I", which is in real numbers greater cost than the G82 Silicon in 8800 GPU). Somehow logic has to tell you that means that it's not an 76xx, 78xx or even an 88xx chunk of silicon as a part, because it costs almost as much to produce the RSX Silicon (note: GPU card itself, contains many other components that are incorporated into the dedicated gaming platform that is the PS3. Your computer is a general purpose machine that has far different requirements than a console that are separated from the Mainboard CPU by the PCI-E bus)!

Therefore it's the other way around. Computers are built for planned obsolescence, whereas consoles are designed and built for a specific purpose and in all actuality are usually not exceeded by the average PC market well into their life cycle. This time around will no doubt, not be an exception, as the PS3 with it's 9 core Gaming/Graphics designed CPU has barely been touched and Square Enix's claims that they will harness 100% of the PS3's power has been greatly exaggerated this early in it's life cycle! 8)

I say PS3's truth behind the machine, still has yet to be fully revealed. Barely "1" year into into it's life cycle, that the "Rumors of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated"! Will the PC eventually overtake the PS3 (through it's planned obsolescences)? Yes! But not until your common PC jumps onto a BIGGER WIDER BUS, to take them there!

Note: Basically any motherboard bus interface is limited to 15GB/s transfer speeds. Until ATI incorporates it's CPU/GPU on same die solution the end of next year, Computers are limited to a Freeway sideshow for gaming!!!

@lintama (http://www.ps3forums.com/member.php?u=56836)
Glad you found the humor in my unraveling this thread's comments attempting to underscore the Power of the PS3! ;)

[poematik14]

I've been trying to tell ya'll! Show me a PC game that has an animation system on par with Uncharted... exactly! It's always been apples and oranges and all those people telling you that the RSX is a 7800 are just trying to feel better about their console of choice. Don't always believe what you hear on the internet. Is the shader logic probably NV47 based? Probably, but calling RSX a 7800 because of that is tantamount to calling a Harley Davidson motorcycle "car" because it has wheels that spin!

Animation systems and movement dynamics are generally handled by the CPU. Unless you are talking about shading and AA, not physics.

Clarify please.

PS: To the poster above me, just be quiet. You have no idea what you are talking about, and your comments towards MS and Nintendo just show how ignorant you really are.

[Hexadecimal]

Sorry but you are the one that doesn't get it and are going away with it still stuck in your head that the RSX is a 76xx, 78xx or 79xx chipset, when the man from Nvidia himself says it's NOT even Related in the slightest to the PC GPU cards.


It's been known forever now that RSX is based on nVidia's G70 architecture.

[IhateBestBuy]

Uhh please...pc nerds go away...

[poematik14]

Uhh please...pc nerds go away...

In case you havent noticed, consoles and PC's share the same insides.

[IhateBestBuy]

In case you havent noticed, consoles and PC's share the same insides.

You don't have to tell me...I am well aware. What I do not care one bit about is computer gaming. That is why I want all the people saying PC gaming is better than console gaming and there are better titles coming out on pc etc etc.to leave..:sleep:

[chugs]

It's been known forever now that RSX is based on nVidia's G70 architecture.

I'm a little curious, what official documentation actually explains what the RSX is based on?

Also -=*7*=- makes a claim that PCs have a 15gb/s max bus capacity.

The PS3, as I've ascertained from several threads on ps3forums.com, ones even you've been been involved in, have conclusively stated that the bus on the PS3 has much bigger capacity.

Is -=*7*=- correct in stating that the RSX a) is as fast or close to the bus speed on the PS3 and that b) as a result means that the RSX cannot be based on the G70 since that design is no where capable of even 15gb/s let alone the massive capacity the Ps3 has.

This is further reinforced since not even Nvidia's 8 series is capable of supporting the sort of bus the PS3 has.

[Hexadecimal]

I'm a little curious, what official documentation actually explains what the RSX is based on?



Everyone remembers this slide:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3672/3dps309qg8.jpg




Also -=*7*=- makes a claim that PCs have a 15gb/s max bus capacity.

The PS3, as I've ascertained from several threads on ps3forums.com, ones even you've been been involved in, have conclusively stated that the bus on the PS3 has much bigger capacity.

Is -=*7*=- correct in stating that the RSX a) is as fast or close to the bus speed on the PS3 and that b) as a result means that the RSX cannot be based on the G70 since that design is no where capable of even 15gb/s let alone the massive capacity the Ps3 has.

This is further reinforced since not even Nvidia's 8 series is capable of supporting the sort of bus the PS3 has.Video cards in PC's are limited by the bus connecting them, a PCI-Express bus has a maximum bandwidth of 8GB/sec read and 8GB/sec write

The bus between Cell and RSX in the PS3 is 15GB/sec read and 20GB/sec write

[weskurtz81]

Sorry but you are the one that doesn't get it and are going away with it still stuck in your head that the RSX is a 76xx, 78xx or 79xx chipset, when the man from Nvidia himself says it's NOT even Related in the slightest to the PC GPU cards.

What is the RSX? We know under the cap are 4 memory modules and the actual silicon chip does not relate in size to any of the "On Die Silicon", on any other GPU Nvidia has put out so far. Whether or not it has some of those components (like transistors) is not the point. One question comes up (as in past interviews and technology releases), it has been stated that the RSX is capable of not only keeping up with the massive Bandwidth flow (of this Unified Console Architecture), comprised of the Cell BE's 76+ GB per second (Rambus own specs) FLEXiO bus connection to the RSX, but exceeding it (which your PC can't come close to).

Unless you're foolish enough to even consider IBM, Sony, Nvidia and Toshiba engineers were foolish enough to bottleneck this kind of awesome power of the Cell pumped into and through an inferiorly designed GPU (top engineers in world of electronics, not a toy company -Nintendo, nor a half baked software company spreading more lies and propaganda non-existent hardware proficiency). Common logic dictates that equally massive Bandwidths must also reside within the RSX (such as Element Interconnect bus w/in Cell of 200+ GB/s speeds). This kind of interconnect is not in any of Nvidia's former cards and indeed it may only now be incorporated into their new 9xxx GPU cards.

Unfortunately on PC's, as yet have no bus interface capable of handling this kind of computational power, other than FLEXiO itself (which does not come in modular form - removable card interface except for high end server applications). So actual throughput on PC's are the ones that are bottlenecked and constrained in an open box system that only gets 30% of it's power ever realized. The closed box console platform is capable of 90+% utilization (PS3 is only now using 30% of that in "Uncharted").

That my friend is why your PC with a 78xx or greater (even 8800 GPU can not run "Uncharted" or "MGS4" or the future all consuming claimed resource utilization of FFXIII (said to be going to use the full specs of the PS3)!

Add to this that the RSX is the most Expensive part in the PS3 (more expensive than the BD player and Cell chip itself, and you must realize that we're talking "Cost to Produce - not sell to you or I", which is in real numbers greater cost than the G82 Silicon in 8800 GPU). Somehow logic has to tell you that means that it's not an 76xx, 78xx or even an 88xx chunk of silicon as a part, because it costs almost as much to produce the RSX Silicon (note: GPU card itself, contains many other components that are incorporated into the dedicated gaming platform that is the PS3. Your computer is a general purpose machine that has far different requirements than a console that are separated from the Mainboard CPU by the PCI-E bus)!

Therefore it's the other way around. Computers are built for planned obsolescence, whereas consoles are designed and built for a specific purpose and in all actuality are usually not exceeded by the average PC market well into their life cycle. This time around will no doubt, not be an exception, as the PS3 with it's 9 core Gaming/Graphics designed CPU has barely been touched and Square Enix's claims that they will harness 100% of the PS3's power has been greatly exaggerated this early in it's life cycle! 8)

I say PS3's truth behind the machine, still has yet to be fully revealed. Barely "1" year into into it's life cycle, that the "Rumors of it's demise have been greatly exaggerated"! Will the PC eventually overtake the PS3 (through it's planned obsolescences)? Yes! But not until your common PC jumps onto a BIGGER WIDER BUS, to take them there!

Note: Basically any motherboard bus interface is limited to 15GB/s transfer speeds. Until ATI incorporates it's CPU/GPU on same die solution the end of next year, Computers are limited to a Freeway sideshow for gaming!!!

@lintama (http://www.ps3forums.com/member.php?u=56836)
Glad you found the humor in my unraveling this thread's comments attempting to underscore the Power of the PS3! ;)

I just wanted to add something to this bus argument. MANY tests have been done on the buses in PC's. From what I can remember, the PCI Express bus is NO WHERE NEAR saturated. Even when PCI express came out, AGP still wasn't saturated either.

PC video cards have been tested at different bus speeds, and at the time PCI Express came out, they also tested the AGP counter parts which showed little to no gain (if I remember correctly).

So, the entire point here is, bus speeds don't mean a **** thing if the components running on them don't use them to the fullest.

Now onto RSX. You claim the cost to produce RSX is as high or higher than that of G80-82? I think that is false. The die size of RSX is roughly half the size of G80, and still substantially smaller than the 65nm G84(8800GT). So, if you could, please explain exactly how it costs more for them to make it.

I think the only reason the PS3 would need that type of bus would be because of Cell and the amount of data that is constantly being traded between Cell and RSX. But, PC's simply DO NOT saturate the PCIE bus unless you start slapping a bunch of cards in the system, one card DOES NOT do it.

Edit: you can test this yourself. Play with system clock speeds, and see which one effects the system them most. Mess with your memory, mess with a CPU OC, and mess with the GPU clock and GPU memory clock. If the bus was already saturated, increasing the GPU clock/memory frequency, then it wouldn't do anything if the bus was already saturated. You can also choke the bus down, and see how far down you can go before it starts to actually hurt performance.

[Hexadecimal]

One of the tricks behind speed is to use the bus as little as possible. The bus is always slow compared to memory, doesn't matter if you have the fastest bus out there.

[weskurtz81]

One of the tricks behind speed is to use the bus as little as possible. The bus is always slow compared to memory, doesn't matter if you have the fastest bus out there.

Yeah, I was just reading some stuff on the PS3 system bus, and it is actually slower than the PCIE bus in PCs, and slower than DDRII 800. But, as I said before, bus speeds are not all that important today, they can stuff so much data into the processors, that the processors are not starved of information.

[TopGunZ]

Aaaaah the quintesence of being a console gamer... you don't give a **** about all those technicalities...you slap the darn disc inside and enjoy... end of story...

[psycho_rez]

Bull****, PC has the BEST lineup of 2008, with the most exclusive AAA games coming out on it, including tons of great multiplat games:

Starcraft 2 (AAA exclusive)
Empire: Total War (AAA exclusive)
Spore (AAA exclusive version)
Sins of a Solar Empire (AAA exclusive)
Gray Matter
A Vampyre Story
Sam & Max: Season two
Still Life 2
Simon the sorcerer 4
Dragon Age (AAA exclusive)
Space Siege
Guild Wars 2 (AAA exclusive)
Warhammer Online (AAA exclusive)
WoW: Lich King (AAA exclusive)
Stalker: CS
Far Cry 2 (AAA exclusive)
Storm of War: Battle Of Britain (AAA exclusive, this game will beat the **** out of Ace Combat 6)
Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark
Mafia 2
Fallout 3
Heavy Rain
Alan Wake
GTA4
Sacred 2
Project Offset
Bionic Commando
Devil May Cry 4
Splinter Cell 5
RAGE
Assassin's Creed
The Club
Mercenaries 2
Alone in the Dark 5
Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom

And this was from a quick search. Shall we compare AAA exclusives between PC/PS3/360? PC wins.

Sorry, but most of those are multiplatform games, you try to prove that the pc has more to offer yet you state More multiplatform games than exclusive ones..

The only Two games on that list that are exclusives to the pc that are REALLY GOOD are starcraft 2 and Far cry 2, and what do you mean by spore being an exclusive version?. spore is multiplatform.

Dont throw some no name, sorry excuse for a game in my face, im not talking out of my ass, i used to pc game before i got my ps3 and i still play games on my pc, so dont think im some idiot that doesnt know what he's talking about, and what games on pc are worth having and not having.

And oh, here's a list of to be released games from IGN: http://pc.ign.com/index/release.html

Which one of these do you think will be a triple A title?...Wakfu?, Desert diner?..horse and musket 3?..And i have NO idea why the game titles in most of the To be released games are so long, Thing is, im not saying the pc doesnt offer ANYTHING in 2008, im saying the consoles offer more, and thats the truth. accept it.

[radgamer420]

Aaaaah the quintesence of being a console gamer... you don't give a **** about all those technicalities...you slap the darn disc inside and enjoy... end of story...

LOL You got that right. Best comment in the whole thread.

[charmingcharlie]

The ultimate proof was really always staring us in the face. I am afraid to say I don't think the RSX is up to much. I am basing this on 2 things. Firstly the NDA, I mean if the RSX could do have the stuff some people in here claim it can do, you would have Sony yelling about it from the rooftops.

Secondly and this is the most incriminating bit of evidence of all, I have always found when companies start giving their products awful names, it is to hide what they are in reality. come on the "reality synthesizer" sounds like a **** cheap North Korean midi keyboard. I mean the name Cel BE not too fancy, not claiming to be able to code the universe (it lets the console users make those claims) so you kinda believe it does have the guts to do some of the stuff that it is claimed to do.. However "Reality Synthesizer" I mean come this has "this product isn't actually that good, but we slapped on this really cool name on it to make it sound great" :p :p :p

[FantasyStar]

/\

I dunno man, that prison storm level in Lair really does scream "Reality Synthesizer".

[psycho_rez]

I dont care if the RSX is weaker than the 8800 GTX or not, all im saying. Uncharted looks better than ANYTHING out on pc right now, EXCEPT for crysis, and there wont be a better looking game than crysis for a looooooooooooooong time, im thinking maybe Far cry 2, but thats way far off.

Nobody knows whats in the RSX, and nobody will, so untill i see most of the PC games pwn everything thats out on the ps3, graphically wise that is, im going to assume the RSX is a powerful piece of hardware for now, and your forgetting that the Cell CPU is capable of Shader calculations, from what ive heard anyway.

Im sure after a while PC games will pwn everything out on consoles, graphically, But why does that matter much?, most of the games are going to be released on the consoles.

[Lozt_again]

PC Gaming was over the minute Deus Ex popped out. I've yet
to see a PC game with the must have aspects of that game.
Even with the terrible wooden plank death scene where you
just topple over backwards like a disregarded ladder on a windy
Friday afternoon. There is just nothing that inspires me there
now.

As far as I'm concerned PC gaming is superficial yet remains
for the elite. What's with that? It's like being invited to the PlayBoy
mansion. That's what. All looks and no substance(whichever
fullfillment you were looking for ;)).

Is it like a requirement nowadays when building a game for the
PC. You know, have no story, be shiny to cover up lack of substance
and god forbid if you do have any ideas of grandeur, please make
sure your game looks like a PS2 one or less so people can actually
play the god **** thing.

That was all in my honest opinion.

P.s. Real time strategy saves the PC.

[ttech10]

Bull****, PC has the BEST lineup of 2008, with the most exclusive AAA games coming out on it, including tons of great multiplat games:

Starcraft 2 (AAA exclusive)
Empire: Total War (AAA exclusive)
Spore (AAA exclusive version)
Sins of a Solar Empire (AAA exclusive)
Gray Matter
A Vampyre Story
Sam & Max: Season two
Still Life 2
Simon the sorcerer 4
Dragon Age (AAA exclusive)
Space Siege
Guild Wars 2 (AAA exclusive)
Warhammer Online (AAA exclusive)
WoW: Lich King (AAA exclusive)
Stalker: CS
Far Cry 2 (AAA exclusive)
Storm of War: Battle Of Britain (AAA exclusive, this game will beat the **** out of Ace Combat 6)
Digital Combat Simulator: Black Shark
Mafia 2
Fallout 3
Heavy Rain
Alan Wake
GTA4
Sacred 2
Project Offset
Bionic Commando
Devil May Cry 4
Splinter Cell 5
RAGE
Assassin's Creed
The Club
Mercenaries 2
Alone in the Dark 5
Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom

And this was from a quick search. Shall we compare AAA exclusives between PC/PS3/360? PC wins.

I remember recently reading something about EA having Mercenaries 2 exclusive to the PS3 so you can cancel that one. R* has yet to say anything about GTA4 on PC. RAGE? When was that announced it would come out in '08? Devil May Cry 4... unlike with the 2 consoles Capcom has not said a release date for the PC with this one.

Then you have all these "AAA exclusives", well 8. You even listed ones that are a new series and no one has even played yet. I could do the same with the PS3. Haze, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, Resistance 2, Getaway, Eight Days, Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Mercaneries 2 (listing because company still says PS3 exclusive), Infamous, SOCOM: Confrontation, Jak and Daxter... etc.

So there's 12 good PS3 exclusives for next year, not to mention all the other exclusives that I didn't list because they're not as looked forward to. Add to that the ones that are also coming out on other systems and I'd say that it beats the PC list.

Oh yea, and PS3 users won't have to spend more money to upgrade something in there PC so that they can play the game to its highest potential.

I like PC gaming but I mean... the only game that I HAVE to buy on it is Crysis. I think more people care about the exclusives that come out on either the PS3 or 360 and probably the only exception to that is WoW.

[daggy]

I remember recently reading something about EA having Mercenaries 2 exclusive to the PS3 so you can cancel that one. R* has yet to say anything about GTA4 on PC. RAGE? When was that announced it would come out in '08? Devil May Cry 4... unlike with the 2 consoles Capcom has not said a release date for the PC with this one.

Then you have all these "AAA exclusives", well 8. You even listed ones that are a new series and no one has even played yet. I could do the same with the PS3. Haze, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, Resistance 2, Getaway, Eight Days, Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Mercaneries 2 (listing because company still says PS3 exclusive), Infamous, SOCOM: Confrontation, Jak and Daxter... etc.

So there's 12 good PS3 exclusives for next year, not to mention all the other exclusives that I didn't list because they're not as looked forward to. Add to that the ones that are also coming out on other systems and I'd say that it beats the PC list.

Oh yea, and PS3 users won't have to spend more money to upgrade something in there PC so that they can play the game to its highest potential.

I like PC gaming but I mean... the only game that I HAVE to buy on it is Crysis. I think more people care about the exclusives that come out on either the PS3 or 360 and probably the only exception to that is WoW.
"Is Mercenaries 2 exclusive to the PS3?
Mercs 2 will be available on the 360, PS2 and PC, in addition to the PS3."
From official site.
DMC4 is also annouced for PC, just like all the previous games. Do some research.

Want to compare AAA exclusives?
Starcraft 2
Empire: Total War
Spore (exclusive version)

Sins of a solar Empire
Dragon Age (Bioware RPG)
Guild Wars 2
Warhammer Online
WoW: Lich King
Far Cry 2
Storm of War: Battle Of Britain

10 AAA PC exclusives, and that's from just the list below by a quick check.
Now PS3:

GT5
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
Eight Days
Infamous

Just 5 confirmed AAA for PS3... tsk tsk.

Haze? I'll bet all my money it won't be an exclusive and it'll come out on 360/PC a few months later. I think the game won't be great anyway.
Getaway? The last 2 games had very average reviews, so why put it as AAA?
Socom? none of their games were AAA to begin with, so I doubt they'll start now.
FF13? Think 2009.
Resistance 2? If resistance is AAA then I could add 5 or 6 more 'AAA' games to the PC.
Jak and Daxter? no videos and no release dates yet.

10 PC vs 5 PS3.....

[Frag_Gordon]

RSX=240 mm2
G70 (7800 GTX)=334 mm2 (110 nm)
G71 (7900 GTX)=196 mm2
G73 (7600 GS)=126 mm2

Manufacturing process
RSX 90 nm
G70 110 nm
G71 90 nm
G73 90 nm

Transistor count:
RSX 300M+
G70 300M
G71 278M
G73 177M

Memory connection:
RSX 128 bit GDDR3 (650-700 MHz) and 128 bit XDR (3,2 Ghz)
G70 256 bit GDDR3 (600 MHz)
G71 256 bit GDDR3 (800 Mhz)
G73 128 bit GDDR3 (700 MHz)

Memory bandwith:
RSX 22,4 GB/s+35 GB/s=57,4 GB/s
G70 38.4GB/s
G71 51.2 GB/s
G73 22.4GB/s

[MEMEROOT]

just going back over the old s***t

"NVIDIA contacted us today after we published the "PlayStation 3 GPU Less Powerful than GeForce 7800" story based on a report found at The Inquirer. Derek Perez, NVIDIA's Director of Public Relations, was kind enough to provide us the actual paragraph from the September issue of PSM. Here is the information from the blurb in question:

There's no doubting that NVIDIA's new 7800GTX is the ultimate in PC graphics technology. The card's G70 GPU, which is more than twice as powerful as two of NVIDIA's previous top-of-the-line 6800 boards, shares a lot of similar workings with the PS3's RSX chip - only it isn't as fast. Oh, and it retails for $599.
The article actually says the GeForce 7800 GTX is not as fast as the RSX graphics processing unit that NVIDIA developed for the PlayStation 3.
"

also of amusing interest was the old unified shader argument

"Unified v separate on the PC, and Nvidia’s stance
Nvidia have previously stated in public that they do not believe that unified shader architectures are the way forward. Windows Graphics Foundation 2, the version of DirectX that will ship with Longhorn, will be designed around the idea that the graphics card will have unified vertex and pixel pipelines, but will not require that to be the case. Given that ATI is working with Microsoft now on unified parts on next-gen DirectX, whilst Nvidia is saying that it doesn’t think this is the best idea, does Richard think that Nvidia will suffer, in the long run, on the PC platform from not following Microsoft?

“I’d love to say yes… I’d love to say that Nvidia are going to be stuck when it comes to Longhorn. But actually I do think they will have a unified shader architecture by the time WGF2 comes around. This time around, they don’t have the architecture and we do, so they have to knock it and say it isn’t worthwhile. But in the future, they’ll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that they’ve cracked how to do it best. But RSX isn’t unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful.
"


looking at the G80

For GeForce 8800 GT Tech Specs, please click here.

NVIDIA® Unified Architecture
Unified shader architecture
GigaThread™ technology
Full support for Microsoft® DirectX® 10
Geometry shaders
Geometry instancing
Streamed output
Shader Model 4.0
Full 128-bit floating point precision through the entire rendering pipeline "

[antipod]

Who cares if the PC has a couple of more so called AAA titles than the PS3? There is a bigger chance I buy all those titles on the PS3 than the equal amount for my PC, even though the titles are cheaper for the PC. The only two PC titles I will buy are Starcraft 2 and WoW:WotLK (which shouldn't be included in the list since it is an expansion imho) but I probably end up buying 10 PS3 games next year.

Comparing AAA titles between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 is more valid as I see it. I'm just a bit tired of buying computer games as most likely I end up wanting to buy new hardware as well because the new game won't run properly.

Anyway, enough of the game comparison as this thread was about the GPU's, which in itself is irrelevant as well. Personally I don't care if the RSX isn't as good as the newer chipsets for the computers... I would never want the situation on the PC for my console anyway, that sort of defies the purpose of them. I rather have the lesser hardware which the developers can optimise the hell out of.

[AFSOCOM]

Thinking about it the PS3 indirectly uses unified shader architecture through the Cell and RSX. So while, no, the RSX isn't a unified shader GPU. Developers can utilize the cell to do whatever they'd like in that sense. That's the beauty of the 2 working together.

[psycho_rez]

"Is Mercenaries 2 exclusive to the PS3?
Mercs 2 will be available on the 360, PS2 and PC, in addition to the PS3."
From official site.
DMC4 is also annouced for PC, just like all the previous games. Do some research.

Want to compare AAA exclusives?
Starcraft 2
Empire: Total War
Spore (exclusive version)

Sins of a solar Empire
Dragon Age (Bioware RPG)
Guild Wars 2
Warhammer Online
WoW: Lich King
Far Cry 2
Storm of War: Battle Of Britain

10 AAA PC exclusives, and that's from just the list below by a quick check.
Now PS3:

GT5
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
Eight Days
Infamous

Just 5 confirmed AAA for PS3... tsk tsk.

Haze? I'll bet all my money it won't be an exclusive and it'll come out on 360/PC a few months later. I think the game won't be great anyway.
Getaway? The last 2 games had very average reviews, so why put it as AAA?
Socom? none of their games were AAA to begin with, so I doubt they'll start now.
FF13? Think 2009.
Resistance 2? If resistance is AAA then I could add 5 or 6 more 'AAA' games to the PC.
Jak and Daxter? no videos and no release dates yet.

10 PC vs 5 PS3.....
funny you say ONLY 5 ps3 exclusives for 2008.

And oh, you act like those TEN pc exclusives are Triple A titles :???:.



Starcraft 2: Never played the first one but ive heard a lot, so yes this one will own.

Empire total war:...?...please.

Spore "exclusive version": tell me what do you mean by this?.

Sins of a solar Empire: Sounds like a Very TRIPLE AAA title indeed..>.>.

Dragon Age (Bioware RPG): Zoftmog!...Teh bioware makez thiz game!!. so it must mean its OWNAGE right?.

Guild Wars 2: Guild wars sucked.

Warhammer Online: SUCKS.

WoW: Lich King: WoW....You know what, im fine with this, this is a AAA title too!, not just an expansion pack >.>.

Far Cry 2: Yes, it will be ownage.

Storm of War: Battle Of Britain: Please, dont mention some stupid arse game that you THINK might be good.



And hey!, i can mention some games that are exclusive to the ps3 too!, and you probably never heard of em, doesnt mean they are going to be AAA titles.

THE ONLY GAMES in that list that stand a chance against PS3's Little big planet, MGS4 and Killzone 2 "just to mention a few"...ARE...Far cry2 and starcraft 2.

[weskurtz81]

Thinking about it the PS3 indirectly uses unified shader architecture through the Cell and RSX. So while, no, the RSX isn't a unified shader GPU. Developers can utilize the cell to do whatever they'd like in that sense. That's the beauty of the 2 working together.

No unified shader architecture, that's not how it works. I understand what you are saying, but it's incorrect. We can make points in that manner all day long and they will never be correct.

[MEMEROOT]

can you explain to be how cell can make rsx use a unified shader architecture???

regardless the point I was making wasn't whether one was better than the other but rather that the rsx = g70 chipset not g80. ie that rsx is roughly the equivilent of the 7800/7900 given it uses the same basic architecture.

which is fine and as would be expected

[Bust Nak]

Empire total war:...?...please.
...
...
THE ONLY GAMES in that list that stand a chance against PS3's Little big planet, MGS4 and Killzone 2 "just to mention a few"...ARE...Far cry2 and starcraft 2.
Oooo, that's fighting talk! You can't just dismiss those games like that. How about if I say:
killzone 2: killzone sucked.
Little big planet:...?...please.
etc...:rolleyes:

[daggy]

funny you say ONLY 5 ps3 exclusives for 2008.

And oh, you act like those TEN pc exclusives are Triple A titles :???:.



Starcraft 2: Never played the first one but ive heard a lot, so yes this one will own.

Empire total war:...?...please.

Spore "exclusive version": tell me what do you mean by this?.

Sins of a solar Empire: Sounds like a Very TRIPLE AAA title indeed..>.>.

Dragon Age (Bioware RPG): Zoftmog!...Teh bioware makez thiz game!!. so it must mean its OWNAGE right?.

Guild Wars 2: Guild wars sucked.

Warhammer Online: SUCKS.

WoW: Lich King: WoW....You know what, im fine with this, this is a AAA title too!, not just an expansion pack >.>.

Far Cry 2: Yes, it will be ownage.

Storm of War: Battle Of Britain: Please, dont mention some stupid arse game that you THINK might be good.



And hey!, i can mention some games that are exclusive to the ps3 too!, and you probably never heard of em, doesnt mean they are going to be AAA titles.

THE ONLY GAMES in that list that stand a chance against PS3's Little big planet, MGS4 and Killzone 2 "just to mention a few"...ARE...Far cry2 and starcraft 2.
It just really shows that you know nothing about PC games:

Empire: Total War -- the sequel of the award winning 'Rome:Total War', which was one of the best RTS in the last few years with 92% average on Metacritic.

Spore -- It's coming also to DS and Mobile, but they're different versions.

Sins of a solar Empire -- Very experienced developers behind this game, and trully amazing visuals that all graphic whores will enjoy, with a combat 'Homeworld'-like.

Dragon Age -- Not so much that it's Bioware, but it's more that Dragon Age is the spiritual sequel of Baldur's Gate!!

Guild Wars 2 -- preferences, if you didn't like it, it's because it's not your thing. I enjoyed the first Guild Wars actually, very deep gameplay.

Warhammer Online -- Supposedly the WoW killer, and it comes from a well-known franchise.

WoW: Lich King -- it might be an expansion pack, but it's an AAA expansion pack that has a bigger gameplay-life than most games and that will be one of the best-selling titles next year.

Storm of War: Battle Of Britain -- tsk tsk, if you were an hardcore PC gamer you would've atleast heard about Maddox, the developers of the best Flight Sim of this decade (IL-2 Sturmovik, 91% Metacritic). It will beat the crap out of Warhawk and Ace Combat 6, trust my words.

Oh yeah, I forgot PS3 has LBP too, so 10 PC vs 6 PS3 AAA exclusives. Just admit it, PC has more and bigger exclusives.

[furby]

I've been trying to tell ya'll! Show me a PC game that has an animation system on par with Uncharted... exactly! It's always been apples and oranges and all those people telling you that the RSX is a 7800 are just trying to feel better about their console of choice. Don't always believe what you hear on the internet. Is the shader logic probably NV47 based? Probably, but calling RSX a 7800 because of that is tantamount to calling a Harley Davidson motorcycle "car" because it has wheels that spin!
I hope your not saying that the PS3 is above PCs in graphical abilities in that first sentence? :|

[-=*7*=-]

Everyone remembers this slide:
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/3672/3dps309qg8.jpg

Video cards in PC's are limited by the bus connecting them, a PCI-Express bus has a maximum bandwidth of 8GB/sec read and 8GB/sec write

The bus between Cell and RSX in the PS3 is 15GB/sec read and 20GB/sec write

This slide does not say exactly what the RSX is and it certainly doesn't say it's any one of the PC cards Nvidia has put out (76xx,78xx, 7950 or even 8800 GPU's). If you want to take this ignorant supposition further, even the 8800 could be said to be nv47 based and you'd be right, because it is all part of the Nvidia Family!

RSX just being nv47 based doesn't mean jack...t! How many cores are there, could it have more cores or more or other processors on it? Could it perhaps have streaming processors as the nv82 and nv92? These are the basic distinctions that separate the Nvidia generations of graphics processors. The only thing new in GPU's is Unified Shader Model with not only more processors, but actual STREAMING PROCESSORS (though a GPU can be called a streaming platform itself, it doesn't need streaming processors for that)!

A sure means of testing this all out, is to compare the rendering abilities of the PS3 to a PC with an Nvidia 8800 GPU, along with say the Xbox 360 with Xenos. Then we have something to go by. It can't be the actual displaying of a scene either, as these should all be similar to one another (a scene being a timed sequence of events, animations, sound and pictures). The performance difference of platforms can only be judged by the loading time of the same exact scene, with all the same complex texture rendering, sound and animations. Along with other aspects involved in the rendering and displaying of a game scene on each platform.

For our purposes, ProFX Engine runs texture rendering graphics, and Epic's UE3 Engine is being used for animations and audio in this "Bayou Demo" Benchmark. This is about as close as we are ever going to get comparing hardware performance specs to give us our answer as to just what, is possibly under the hood of the RSX/Cell run PS3 Platform!

Now I'm pretty well fed up with Sony's, Nvidia's and many of you on this forum, insisting on linking the RSX to being a nv47 chip only. Without any modifications or more likely additions. Everyone is denying some facts and believing false information that makes the RSX out to be simply an unaltered nv47 chip. These companies have falsely kept the truth tied up in multiple contradictions, even in their own information releases (and that chart above). With us PS3 fans groping at justifying buying a PS3 while being attacked in here from all sides defending it. While these corporations let us all get slammed for having recogized what you people are afraid to face about all of these Corporations.

Because, if the truth was known, these companies like Microsoft, Nvidia and Sony would have a hard time selling you their Operating Systems and PC hardware designed around planned obsolescence. When the fact remains the PS3 is a closed box design that is not modular or upgradeable. Except by software and firmware released to reveal hidden or disabled features (similiar to MS telling us Xbox 360 was only capable of 720P and didn't have a scaler in it). But the power and computing potential certainly are upgradable on either of these consoles and this is the only reason neither Sony nor Nvidia have announced exactly what the RSX is, to the World!

With a little logical exercise in deductive reasoning, we can come to a reasonable conclusion as to if we (so called fools by you people) bought a gimped last generation, over priced, PC GPU in the OVER PRICED, MONSTER COST to build PS3 (that you people claim Sony was fool to build). Especially if it costs what isuppli said it does (a whole 30% more than the Cell BE itself)!

I'll tell you what, if I am a hardware manufacturer, I'm sure as h*ll not going to pay more than triple the cost of an nv47 7800 chip and over a third more than my main CPU Processor chip to build it. We have companies like Sony that are only too happy to let us wallow in the ignorance of these known facts. Simple logic and reasoning should lead us to understand that the RSX is NOT simply an NV47 based chip, but has lots of other goodies still hidden, when properly related to actual Benchmark Performance!

Here's the first reason that proves this point. NONE of these PC nv47 based Nvidia GPU's have "Streaming Processors" (we know how many and the type of processors each of the 7800 series GPU's have, but not the RSX). What we do know is the 8800 series does have streaming processors and this along with Unified Shader Model, is the biggest difference between the generations. It's why a PC with an 8800 GPU has been benchmarked with half the loading time of the Xbox 360! As both a 7800 and Zenos are fairly comparable. Right? ....and the Xenos should even be better than the 7800 nv47 chip at loading up ProFX's "Bayou" Demo. Right? Load time for a Core Duo PC w/Nvidia 8800 = 5 seconds on these benchmarks. Benchmark for loading same demo on a similar machine with the 7800 GPU 12 seconds. Time for Xbox 360 to load "Bayou Demo" ??? Just 10 seconds and that's without any of streaming processors in the Zenos GPU, but still being based on Unified Shader Model.

But with the PS3 using an unoptimized ProFX Engine, it benchmarked at 1.2 Seconds. Beating out the PC with an 8800 GPU by over 4 TIMES and the Xbox 360 by over 8 TIMES!

Sebastien Deguy (CEO of Allegorithmic, makers of both MapZone and ProFX Rendering Engine), has said that his ProFX Engine (when properly optimized) "should run impressively fast" and proof of this should be demonstrated by this year's end. Well can't get any faster than the Real Time Loading of Games!

Now (near the end of the year), we have the PS3 running games like "Ratchet n Clank" and "Uncharted" loading scenes in REAL TIME, without any load screens and the animations, procedurally generated textures in "Uncharted" are running LIVE and Dynamically rendered with them all correlating in time. Water to wetness, wind to tree movement in a animated, living, breathing environment! Not only can a PC with Core Duo and "7800" GPU not do this, but neither could a PS3 with a 7800 GPU do this! NOR!!! ...could an Xbox 360 with it's 10 second load time on "Bayou Demo" alone. Or even your God All Mighty Duo Core PC (for 6 months claim to fame) with an Nvidia 8800 GPU!

(only card in a PC that can touch this is the as yet released nv92 based PC/GPU's and AMD's Spider platform with a Quad Core CPU and Quad GPU cards in a PC. All of these will still have some kind of load screen in standard non-streamed games - non MMORPG type, in other words) PS3's incomparable, Asynchronous, 9 core Cell processor is what can bring games alive even beyond the pre-rendered textures and canned animations of "Crysis"!

Want Proof??? You got it! This is a screen shot I took last June 20th 2007 and it is completely un-doctored in any way. I have the original with the creation date on it, in the same place as when it was stored on my PC, unmodified!

Note: This screenshot capture of the Benchmarks and the shot of ProFx's 4D page (designating Sony and the PS3 as the only platform connected to ProFX's 4D - Future). It mysteriously disappeared the next week. As the guards in MGS would say, "huh?!? But as you see here, that empty ProFX 4D Tab at their web site now, at one time had Sony Middleware icon on it. NOT Microsoft Middleware or Epic's UE3 Middleware, but Sony Middleware!

That 4D Page tab now is empty! WTF??? LOL and What did Kutaragi say? "The FUTURE is NOW on PS3", along with "PS3 is 4D" and "PS3 is LIVE". Which obviously (unless your either ignorant, dumb or blind) means it loads in REAL TIME!
http://www.profxengine.com/?PAGE=FUTURE
http://www.box.net/shared/static/vnn2eiicc8.jpg


The Benchmark Page that mysteriously changed with the deletion of the PS3 Benchmark:
http://www.profxengine.com/?PAGE=GALLERY.DEMOS.bayou
http://www.box.net/shared/static/yzlyg66o8g.jpg

....and for those of you that really are near blind or don't use Firefox with picture Zoom extension, here's a better more readable pic of it!
http://www.box.net/shared/static/99kv4xyosw.jpg


These Benchmarks basically throw any and all arguments right out the door and present more than adequate proof that the RSX has been improperly labeled and any specs presented here are indeed founded on undeniable misnomers, exaggerations and mis-representations by Corporations along with the Media. All to sell you a new PC and the hardware that goes in it, year after year after year!!! 8)

Note: Some here question how the RSX (includes 4 64MB modules on die) could be said to cost more than 8800 GPU's nv82 silicon and comparing die size doesn't work either in defining it. As the nv47 90nm die is Larger than the 90nm RSX or the 90nm nv82. The fact is that the RSX under that cap is slated to or is already at 65nm process, itself. The fact of the matter is, this was a complaint concerning the nv47 chip structure. Is that it was rather large and it could not be shrunk to 65nm process (interconnects, etc). So now all together, just say it! ....I promise it won't hurt... "The RSX must not be an nv47 based chip with that generation's rather large interconnects and processors. Because it has the addition of smaller *Streaming Proccessors* along with some kind of new smaller, higher bandwidth, interconnects for these streaming procs"!

***If you need a link to "Costs Analysis" of PS3, or to Sebastien Deguy's statements concerning the performance of the PS3, let me know! Also, Nvidia has as yet defined exactly what the nv92 is exactly. We do know that the cost of the top of the line 8800 chip is high and both

[psycho_rez]

Oooo, that's fighting talk! You can't just dismiss those games like that. How about if I say:
killzone 2: killzone sucked.
Little big planet:...?...please.
etc...:rolleyes:
Umm..killzone 1 did suck, im not denying that, its just that he mentioned games that dont have half the hype any one of the ps3 games have.

[psycho_rez]

It just really shows that you know nothing about PC games:

Empire: Total War -- the sequel of the award winning 'Rome:Total War', which was one of the best RTS in the last few years with 92% average on Metacritic.

Spore -- It's coming also to DS and Mobile, but they're different versions.

Sins of a solar Empire -- Very experienced developers behind this game, and trully amazing visuals that all graphic whores will enjoy, with a combat 'Homeworld'-like.

Dragon Age -- Not so much that it's Bioware, but it's more that Dragon Age is the spiritual sequel of Baldur's Gate!!

Guild Wars 2 -- preferences, if you didn't like it, it's because it's not your thing. I enjoyed the first Guild Wars actually, very deep gameplay.

Warhammer Online -- Supposedly the WoW killer, and it comes from a well-known franchise.

WoW: Lich King -- it might be an expansion pack, but it's an AAA expansion pack that has a bigger gameplay-life than most games and that will be one of the best-selling titles next year.

Storm of War: Battle Of Britain -- tsk tsk, if you were an hardcore PC gamer you would've atleast heard about Maddox, the developers of the best Flight Sim of this decade (IL-2 Sturmovik, 91% Metacritic). It will beat the crap out of Warhawk and Ace Combat 6, trust my words.

Oh yeah, I forgot PS3 has LBP too, so 10 PC vs 6 PS3 AAA exclusives. Just admit it, PC has more and bigger exclusives.

You dont get me, those games might be good games, And i might have overreacted about some of those games, for that i apologize.

But Out of all those games that you mentioned, only Two of them have enough hype to match Ps3's Killzone 2's and such.

not a lot of people exactly heard about storm of war...or even empire: total wars, or sins of solar empire, i mean come on, Not many will suddenly convert to PC gaming because of games like that.., you cant compare a not very well known pc game to a well known ps3 game.

I can mention a ****load of not known ps3 exclusives too, , but it doesnt mean they actually will be any good....

[daggy]

You dont get me, those games might be good games, And i might have overreacted about some of those games, for that i apologize.

But Out of all those games that you mentioned, only Two of them have enough hype to match Ps3's Killzone 2's and such.

not a lot of people exactly heard about storm of war...or even empire: total wars, or sins of solar empire, i mean come on, Not many will suddenly convert to PC gaming because of games like that.., you cant compare a not very well known pc game to a well known ps3 game.

I can mention a ****load of not known ps3 exclusives too, , but it doesnt mean they actually will be any good....

Umm..killzone 1 did suck, im not denying that, its just that he mentioned games that dont have half the hype any one of the ps3 games have.
All the games I mentioned are from AAA backgrounds (with exception of Warhammer Online). The Empire game you totally disregarded (with the ...?...) is the sequel of 92% Rome: Total War (you never heard of this game?).

I don't care about hype. I don't care if the game is hyped or not. I just mentioned games that will most likely be AAA. Hype has no bearing on the quality of the game. That is also why I mentioned LBP for PS3, we all know LBP will probably have a tough time selling.

Quality of the game makes it AAA. Not Budget, nor Hype.

[MEMEROOT]

-=*7*=- you are a **** and you sound like one.

yes rsx and cell might do some great stuff, heck in benchmarking it might even be fantastic however the facts are

that on ALL cross platform titles the PC will outperform the ps3 on res and fps

that rsx is a last gen video card

that ps3 is still - regardless - the most powerfull console - but sadly is not as powerful as a pc costing 6x the price

[hisame]

These comparisions are just stupid.
If you like it and you can afforward it.
That's all it matters.

[lintama]

@ _=7=_ HAHHAHAH thats great, its nice to actually see someone around here who knows WTF is up

[MEMEROOT]

lintama you probably also believe that the jews started the 2nd world war because some one stated some figures.

@ _=7=_ doesn't know ****

[lintama]

lintama you probably also believe that the jews started the 2nd world war because some one stated some figures.

@ _=7=_ doesn't know ****


What the hell does that have to do with anything at all relating to this thread?

[weskurtz81]

This slide does not say exactly what the RSX is and it certainly doesn't say it's any one of the PC cards Nvidia has put out (76xx,78xx, 7950 or even 8800 GPU's). If you want to take this ignorant supposition further, even the 8800 could be said to be nv47 based and you'd be right, because it is all part of the Nvidia Family!

RSX just being nv47 based doesn't mean jack...t! How many cores are there, could it have more cores or more or other processors on it? Could it perhaps have streaming processors as the nv82 and nv92? These are the basic distinctions that separate the Nvidia generations of graphics processors. The only thing new in GPU's is Unified Shader Model with not only more processors, but actual STREAMING PROCESSORS (though a GPU can be called a streaming platform itself, it doesn't need streaming processors for that)!

A sure means of testing this all out, is to compare the rendering abilities of the PS3 to a PC with an Nvidia 8800 GPU, along with say the Xbox 360 with Xenos. Then we have something to go by. It can't be the actual displaying of a scene either, as these should all be similar to one another (a scene being a timed sequence of events, animations, sound and pictures). The performance difference of platforms can only be judged by the loading time of the same exact scene, with all the same complex texture rendering, sound and animations. Along with other aspects involved in the rendering and displaying of a game scene on each platform.

For our purposes, ProFX Engine runs texture rendering graphics, and Epic's UE3 Engine is being used for animations and audio in this "Bayou Demo" Benchmark. This is about as close as we are ever going to get comparing hardware performance specs to give us our answer as to just what, is possibly under the hood of the RSX/Cell run PS3 Platform!

Now I'm pretty well fed up with Sony's, Nvidia's and many of you on this forum, insisting on linking the RSX to being a nv47 chip only. Without any modifications or more likely additions. Everyone is denying some facts and believing false information that makes the RSX out to be simply an unaltered nv47 chip. These companies have falsely kept the truth tied up in multiple contradictions, even in their own information releases (and that chart above). With us PS3 fans groping at justifying buying a PS3 while being attacked in here from all sides defending it. While these corporations let us all get slammed for having recogized what you people are afraid to face about all of these Corporations.

Because, if the truth was known, these companies like Microsoft, Nvidia and Sony would have a hard time selling you their Operating Systems and PC hardware designed around planned obsolescence. When the fact remains the PS3 is a closed box design that is not modular or upgradeable. Except by software and firmware released to reveal hidden or disabled features (similiar to MS telling us Xbox 360 was only capable of 720P and didn't have a scaler in it). But the power and computing potential certainly are upgradable on either of these consoles and this is the only reason neither Sony nor Nvidia have announced exactly what the RSX is, to the World!

With a little logical exercise in deductive reasoning, we can come to a reasonable conclusion as to if we (so called fools by you people) bought a gimped last generation, over priced, PC GPU in the OVER PRICED, MONSTER COST to build PS3 (that you people claim Sony was fool to build). Especially if it costs what isuppli said it does (a whole 30% more than the Cell BE itself)!

I'll tell you what, if I am a hardware manufacturer, I'm sure as h*ll not going to pay more than triple the cost of an nv47 7800 chip and over a third more than my main CPU Processor chip to build it. We have companies like Sony that are only too happy to let us wallow in the ignorance of these known facts. Simple logic and reasoning should lead us to understand that the RSX is NOT simply an NV47 based chip, but has lots of other goodies still hidden, when properly related to actual Benchmark Performance!

Here's the first reason that proves this point. NONE of these PC nv47 based Nvidia GPU's have "Streaming Processors" (we know how many and the type of processors each of the 7800 series GPU's have, but not the RSX). What we do know is the 8800 series does have streaming processors and this along with Unified Shader Model, is the biggest difference between the generations. It's why a PC with an 8800 GPU has been benchmarked with half the loading time of the Xbox 360! As both a 7800 and Zenos are fairly comparable. Right? ....and the Xenos should even be better than the 7800 nv47 chip at loading up ProFX's "Bayou" Demo. Right? Load time for a Core Duo PC w/Nvidia 8800 = 5 seconds on these benchmarks. Benchmark for loading same demo on a similar machine with the 7800 GPU 12 seconds. Time for Xbox 360 to load "Bayou Demo" ??? Just 10 seconds and that's without any of streaming processors in the Zenos GPU, but still being based on Unified Shader Model.

But with the PS3 using an unoptimized ProFX Engine, it benchmarked at 1.2 Seconds. Beating out the PC with an 8800 GPU by over 4 TIMES and the Xbox 360 by over 8 TIMES!

Sebastien Deguy (CEO of Allegorithmic, makers of both MapZone and ProFX Rendering Engine), has said that his ProFX Engine (when properly optimized) "should run impressively fast" and proof of this should be demonstrated by this year's end. Well can't get any faster than the Real Time Loading of Games!

Now (near the end of the year), we have the PS3 running games like "Ratchet n Clank" and "Uncharted" loading scenes in REAL TIME, without any load screens and the animations, procedurally generated textures in "Uncharted" are running LIVE and Dynamically rendered with them all correlating in time. Water to wetness, wind to tree movement in a animated, living, breathing environment! Not only can a PC with Core Duo and "7800" GPU not do this, but neither could a PS3 with a 7800 GPU do this! NOR!!! ...could an Xbox 360 with it's 10 second load time on "Bayou Demo" alone. Or even your God All Mighty Duo Core PC (for 6 months claim to fame) with an Nvidia 8800 GPU!

(only card in a PC that can touch this is the as yet released nv92 based PC/GPU's and AMD's Spider platform with a Quad Core CPU and Quad GPU cards in a PC. All of these will still have some kind of load screen in standard non-streamed games - non MMORPG type, in other words) PS3's incomparable, Asynchronous, 9 core Cell processor is what can bring games alive even beyond the pre-rendered textures and canned animations of "Crysis"!

Want Proof??? You got it! This is a screen shot I took last June 20th 2007 and it is completely un-doctored in any way. I have the original with the creation date on it, in the same place as when it was stored on my PC, unmodified!

Note: This screenshot capture of the Benchmarks and the shot of ProFx's 4D page (designating Sony and the PS3 as the only platform connected to ProFX's 4D - Future). It mysteriously disappeared the next week. As the guards in MGS would say, "huh?!? But as you see here, that empty ProFX 4D Tab at their web site now, at one time had Sony Middleware icon on it. NOT Microsoft Middleware or Epic's UE3 Middleware, but Sony Middleware!

That 4D Page tab now is empty! WTF??? LOL and What did Kutaragi say? "The FUTURE is NOW on PS3", along with "PS3 is 4D" and "PS3 is LIVE". Which obviously (unless your either ignorant, dumb or blind) means it loads in REAL TIME!

A few quick questions for you. How long was RSX in development? Wasn't the PS3 originally going to use Cell to render without a "GPU" in the unit?

[lintama]

Aside from the Jew comment, your really have a low uunderstanding of architecture and how CPU/GPU parallel processing as one unit has any benifits, its sad really.

[chugs]

Wouldn't Epic have the best experince so far in knowing whether a PS3 is as capable of a high end PC, with UT3 being a meaty cross platform title?

WHy don't we have any epic employees on this darn site. Where the hell do they hang out

[lintama]

A few quick questions for you. How long was RSX in development? Wasn't the PS3 originally going to use Cell to render without a "GPU" in the unit?

I dont mean to answer for the guy for I am unsure how long the RSX was in development ,and yes, origionally the RSX was not in the equation and SONY was goingt o put in a a different Cell BE, however, due to time, they decided they could as easily make yp for the slower version of Cell with a GPU that would do some sub routines for the BE, it will fill pallets, pump poy's, etc.etc., its bascially a very specialized chipset, design with the BE in mind only, we will never see anything like it in a commercial setting, it would be uncompatable with anything on the market. Thats why this argument is so ridiculously funny, you can't compare it with anything, its a one time only deal. Design ONLY as a buffering device for a BE setting, its brilliant really.

For example GT5:prologue has 16 cars on screen at one time each consting of 200,000 polygons, now at 200,000x16 @ 60FPS = 192 MILLION POLYS PER SECOND AT 1080p, not counting the tracks, clouds, physics, and 7.1 True HD sound, that is an IMMENSE amount of computing power,, please, name one PC game that does that.

[Jabjabs]

-=*7*=- That would easily have to be one of the worst examples of mashing tech jargon together and biggest demonstration of lack of knowledge on how these things actually work that I've seen in the last year, easily. Example...



But with the PS3 using an unoptimized ProFX Engine, it benchmarked at 1.2 Seconds. Beating out the PC with an 8800 GPU by over 4 TIMES and the Xbox 360 by over 8 TIMES!


ProFX load times measure CPU speed not GPU.


few quick questions for you. How long was RSX in development? Wasn't the PS3 originally going to use Cell to render without a "GPU" in the unit?

It was contracted in 2003 but we don't really have an idea of the production time line, we could guess that it was any where between 1 to 3 years. That said coming in at only a little over $30 million in development from Sony I would be guessing more towards the 1 year mark if even that. Just for comparison sake just ot show how little that really is, the GPU in Xbox 1 cost $300 Million and Xenos in 360 cost $500 million that said the latter MS did get to keep all IP of the chipset.


For example GT5rologue has 16 cars on screen at one time each consting of 200,000 polygons, now at 200,000x16 @ 60FPS = 192 MILLION POLYS PER SECOND AT 1080p, not counting the tracks, clouds, physics, and 7.1 True HD sound, that is an IMMENSE amount of computing power,, please, name one PC game that does that.

Do remember to factor in LOD as well, it would be no where near that 192M mark in game that said it's still easily the most impressive racer out there by a long shot. Comparing it to PC racers though is very difficult because there isn't much of a market for them on PC and thus there is not much to go from for comparisons sake, also on PC racers have usually not gotten the attention technology wise like FPS game do.

[lintama]

Wouldn't Epic have the best experince so far in knowing whether a PS3 is as capable of a high end PC, with UT3 being a meaty cross platform title?

WHy don't we have any epic employees on this darn site. Where the hell do they hang out

Its really hard to compare, since, the PS3 is basically emulating to act as PC harware does, sure it does an OkAY job, matter of fact, it probably does that better than a PC would do at emulating Ratchet and Clank or Uncharted, simply because of the vast differences in hardware. Unless of course if you are using the PS3 as lead hardware, then you can just keep in mind that you will be porting it, and you can leaave applicable flags in you programming process, in this case you will be able to seperate various objects and data packets that will do better as an oiptimized forethought onto PC/360 hardware. It would be easier to do this than porting 360/PC ->PS3.

[lintama]

LOD? level of detail? If that is what you mean, I will look and see if they are scaling all 200000 poly to resolution or if they are simply adding poly to compensate for distance, my guess would be that they are scalling to the resloution and keeping a true 200,000 poly count. Also, any game would due, as far as the comparison goes, I haven't looked into it some maybe you could shed some light.

[Mikael]

:mrgreen: You're such a joke -=*7*=-.


The performance difference of platforms can only be judged by the loading time of the same exact scene, with all the same complex texture rendering, sound and animations.
Hey! I know, let's quantify how good a game runs by using the level load time. I bet that's very representative of how the customer perceives the game.

Yeah, right. You post so much ****, it's a total mess to wade through it all.

[shambles2]

It's sad when MEMEROOT makes newbie accounts to continue his personal attacks. Anyways...

Since almost none of us are chip engineers, and none of us developed the RSX this whole debate has about as much merit as it did when the first PS3 came out. Let's bury this poor horse until nvidia/sony (if ever) decides to release specs.

[tuaamin13]

All the games I mentioned are from AAA backgrounds (with exception of Warhammer Online). The Empire game you totally disregarded (with the ...?...) is the sequel of 92% Rome: Total War (you never heard of this game?).

I don't care about hype. I don't care if the game is hyped or not. I just mentioned games that will most likely be AAA. Hype has no bearing on the quality of the game. That is also why I mentioned LBP for PS3, we all know LBP will probably have a tough time selling.

Quality of the game makes it AAA. Not Budget, nor Hype.

Riddle me this: Can there be a blockbuster that's not AAA? Obviously there can be AAA titles that aren't blockbusters (ICO anyone?)

Example: Halo3 is most definitely a blockbuster. It also had a ton of hype. If we for a moment accept the argument that Halo 3 is actually Halo 2.5 HD, would the title still be AAA? <I'm not saying H3 = H2.5HD, just hypothetical>

Anyhow, you know why PC games has more exclusives, more AAA? It's because it's been out longer, and more people program for it. It's easier, it's cheap, and pretty much everyone has a PC these days.

[chugs]

It's sad when MEMEROOT makes newbie accounts to continue his personal attacks. Anyways...

reallly, how does one establish this dastard act of cheating?


Since almost none of us are chip engineers, and none of us developed the RSX this whole debate has about as much merit as it did when the first PS3 came out. Let's bury this poor horse until nvidia/sony (if ever) decides to release specs.

But that's the fun of this thread, its a combination of laymen, programmers, trolls, newbies, oldies and a various others all coming in with bits and pieces.

Just because Sony hasn't released the figures doesn't mean we can't, and for that matter, shouldn't debate.

Anyway the debate is this:

Can a PS3 equal or exceed the quality of graphics that a high end PC is capable of?

Well with GT5 I'd say that debate is truly answered, yes a PS3 is more then capable of seamless, 60fps, 1080p graphics. Notwithstanding the dozens of objects, complex physics, and audio.

With Crysis with 3X8800GT cards only running at 36fps (http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2007/12/this_is_what_triple_sli.html) and the graphics in question being as good as GT5 clearly the PS3 is doing exceedingly well, and by that measure yes the debate is answered: the PS3 is equal, and more then likely exceeds the capabilities of current generation of a ultra high end PC rig.

Yes some of the naysayers can claim different programs are optimised for different hardware but the debate never required the PS3 to be qualified in that manner.

Regarding the RSX debate I'd say if the chip is as bad as the naysayers claim then how in earth is the PS3 capable of GT5? Clearly the RSX is doing more then has been disclosed by Sony.

Could a 7 series Nvidia card (not just a chip) do something like GT5, nup of course not.

Hell uncharted, and heavenly sword, warhawk clearly demostrate a computing device that is not working on last generation hardware

[Black F 0 X]

man i saw this alienware computer that cost 5k that is 5000 dollars five-thousand to break it down thats a lot of money for a computer but i guess the super computer gamers can have that

[jlippone]

LOD? level of detail? If that is what you mean, I will look and see if they are scaling all 200000 poly to resolution or if they are simply adding poly to compensate for distance, my guess would be that they are scalling to the resloution and keeping a true 200,000 poly count. Also, any game would due, as far as the comparison goes, I haven't looked into it some maybe you could shed some light.
Most likely that they have premade LoD models for cars and they just use the low poly models depending on distance and amount of cars visible.
This has been the most common method for objects for over ten years.
There is limit of one or two cars to have highest LoD level and the rest can have about as much polygons combined.

It is also good to remember that when you have highly complex objects like cars, it is good to use low level LoD for distant objects as they tend to have less aliasing.
This is due to having less polygons with size of under one pixel/sample and shapes like wheel rims.

[weskurtz81]

Sorry guys, but still do not agree that RSX is as powerful as the 8800 series. If it was truly that powerful, then why haven't they released it to the PC market. The GPU already exists, so my not slap it on a card and sell it to two markets? I think the efficiency of the system is what gives the games the great graphics, not the power of the GPU alone. When Cell is added into the equation, the games being designed around 1 hardware configuration, and how everything is designed MAINLY around running games, then it makes perfect sense that it should have some good looking games.

As far as the argument about raw power of RSX or G80, I don't think that RSX has anywhere near the raw power of G80. But when you take into account the rest of the hardware, and how efficient it all is when working together, and how much more efficient the coding is, then the hardware doesn't need to be as powerful to shine because the software isn't nearly as bloated and the hardware is MUCH more efficient at it's single task of running games.

[-=*7*=-]

A few quick questions for you. How long was RSX in development? Wasn't the PS3 originally going to use Cell to render without a "GPU" in the unit?

Originally the PS3 was going to use two Multi-core Cell processors, yes! One dedicated to graphics and the other to CPU tasks. But on the programing side this would have been an even greater nightmare for them to learn, let alone the learning curve to program an Asymmetrical 9 core CPU. But Ken Kutaragi not only wanted the MOON, he wanted the planets, stars and the sun to power the PS3. Ken wanted a 1000 fold increase in generational processing power to be the heart and soul of his Playstation 3. He was certainly not easy to please and that's considering he had some the best engineers from every continent of the world working on this project in Austin, Texas.

IBM assigned Jim Kahle, the IBM engineer who became the chief architect of Cell to work with Kutaragi. Kahle's first task was to talk Ken down from that 1000 fold increase in computing power to a still outrageously steep 100 fold increase. One time Ken Kutaragi even had him scrap his progress and start over. Jim Kahle had also been the engineer on the first IBM multi-core processor and was known for his equally fanatical obsession with perfection.

This is a quote from a story relating some of the events leading to the creation of the Cell Heart of the PS3. The first and only processor with a proper name that would also be the first Asymmetrical Multi-core chip and it was all hand laid up and designed on very large boards (circuitry, processors, interconnects, caches, and both the FLEXiO controller to RSX and XiO controller, which would route off Cell through FLEX PHASE to PS3's XDR memory). The results of this hand built, proper named chip are demonstrated here (note: Intel, AMD have used Computers to do this work on their modern computer chips and they are always named with code names):

Kutaragi named the chip Cell because he thinks of each computing device as part of a larger networked organism, held together by Cell chips. By the spring of 2004, crunch time had come for the team: Cell prototypes arrived in Austin from IBM's plant in Fishkill, N.Y. The engineers loaded the Linux operating system on the chip. They turned it on. It worked on the first try. Cheers erupted from the relieved engineers. Champagne corks popped.


Then one senior engineer, impatient with the pace of the testing, yelled, "Crank it up!" They got the chip up to 5.6 gigahertz before its voltage regulator popped. (It was designed to operate at between 3 and 4 gigahertz.) "If you don't get smoke at some point," Maeurer says, "you're probably not pushing things hard enough."
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/06/01/8263444/index.htm

Another very interesting link that explains just how the PS3 was "BORN" not created! LOL ;)

http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2005JUN/C/2005JUN_INT_WK2.HTM

The Father of Playstation honored by Time's Man of the Year Award (Development of RSX had been in full swing for over a year at this point, April of 2004. So total time in development is thought to be more than likely close to 4 years.):
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994014,00.html


@Jabjabs
Great to see you show up. I was expecting you! LOLz ....just testing to see if you could manage to notice that what I said did not correspond to what was stated in the Benchmarks! ;) ...you didn't even read these did you? Textures generation time, not loading time! hehe So what you and others here are telling me, is that Cell alone with just 30% of it's power utilized and a limp **** 7600 chip is whipping up on these other two platforms, or would you rather it be a combination of Cell BE and the RSX as a much stronger chip than anyone here believes. Also if it is all about CPU, then what's the point of putting the 8800 GPU on that Benchmark???? ;) ...or did this even occur to you? :D ....OK, you can go now. I'm through having fun with you!!!


Textures generation time:
1.2 seconds on PS3
5 seconds on GeForce 8800 GTS
10 seconds on Xbox 360OK .... OK one final jab, since you are all knowledgeable about all things, including the PS3 and it's games (though you don't have one, or want one). My buddy Kutaragi and I have stated that the PS3 is 4D! ...that said, and backed up by that ProFX's captured page, what do you think is 4D? .... and have you seen it done in Real Time (not just pre-rendered) in any other game on any other platform? Just to clue you in, since I doubt you even went to the ProFX site, 4D = 3D Space + Time as the fourth dimension. So would you say Drake and the other characters in "Uncharted" are 4D? Notice their textures change/morph in real time when they got wet and then dried off .... oh sorry, I forgot you don't have a PS3, so lets just pretend you do. Would them accumulating cuts and scratches and the progression of time right up to the sunset, account for 4D Procedurally Rendered Textures (as demonstrated in ProFX's "Bathroom Demo")? How about volumetric water and wind that actually affect the environment in Real Time, would that be 4D?

Now I want you to think about this and tell me, since you also probably played Bioshock and Crysis, whether there was any of these 4D Real Time Live Procedurally Generated Textures in those games? ....and it's OK if you require some help in discerning this in any other games. I want to be fair, really! I will concede that there is actually some pre-rendered 4D in UT3! :D

How about Crysis? Yeah.... I've been playing it on my dog slow (is it my GPU that's slow or just the game) Core Duo CPU, PC with one single 8800 GPU, and it was just wonderful how the pre-rendered trees and foliage waved in a looped animation to a breeze that wasn't there. Plus hey that exoskeleton kept dry even when it rained. Remarkable isn't it?! But you go ahead and find your own examples of non- Real Time 4D in some games on other platforms! ;)

[weskurtz81]

IBM assigned Jim Kahle, the IBM engineer who became the chief architect of Cell to work with Kutaragi. Kahle's first task was to talk Ken down from that 1000 fold increase in computing power to a still outrageously steep 100 fold increase. One time Ken Kutaragi even had him scrap his progress and start over. Jim Kahle had also been the engineer on the first IBM multi-core processor and was know for his equally fanatical obsession with perfection.


This is a quote from a story relating some of the events leading to the creation of the Cell Heart of the PS3. The first and only processor with a proper name that would also be the first Asymmetrical Multi-core chip and it was all hand laid up and designed on very large boards (circuitry, processors, interconnects, caches, and both the FLEXiO controller to RSX and XiO controller, which would route off Cell through FLEX PHASE to PS3's XDR memory). The results of this hand built, proper named chip are demonstrated here (note: Intel, AMD have used Computers to do this work on their modern computer chips and they are always named with code names):
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/06/01/8263444/index.htm

Another very interesting link that explains just how the PS3 was "BORN" not created! LOL ;)

http://www.eetasia.com/ARTICLES/2005JUN/C/2005JUN_INT_WK2.HTM

The Father of Playstation honored by Time's Man of the Year Award (Development of RSX had been in full swing for over a year at this point, April of 2004. So total time in development is thought to be more than likely close to 4 years.):
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994014,00.html


@Jabjabs
Great to see you show up. I was expecting you! LOLz ....just testing to see if you could manage to notice that what I said did not correspond to what was stated in the Benchmarks! ;) ...you didn't even read these did you? Textures generation time not loading time! hehe So what you and others here are telling me, is that Cell alone with just 30% of it's power utilized and a limp **** 7600 chip is whipping up on these other two platforms, or would you rather it be a combination of Cell BE and RSX as a much stronger chip than anyone here believes. Also if it is all about CPU, then what's the point of putting the 8800 GPU on that Benchmark???? ...or did this even occur to you? :D ....OK, you can go now. I'm through having fun with you!!!

It's funny that you mention Jim Kahle, I conversed with him via a few emails trying to determine who was responsible for Cell. I didn't know who the guy was when I sent the email, and after a couple of emails he sent me back some pretty good info. It was just dumb luck that he was the guy I chose to send the email to.

[bahamot]

Well guys as much as we love our PS3, but the RSX on its own is not spectacular. In terms of GPU alone (i.e. without the whole architecture), RSX is certainly inferior compare to 8800GT series. But couple with CELL, it's a whole different story. Just head up to Beyond3D forums for more reading ...

[-=*7*=-]

It's funny that you mention Jim Kahle, I conversed with him via a few emails trying to determine who was responsible for Cell. I didn't know who the guy was when I sent the email, and after a couple of emails he sent me back some pretty good info. It was just dumb luck that he was the guy I chose to send the email to.

You what??? ...this guy is a god in the world computer chip design. I've emailed others within IBM and it's surprising how accessible, some of these Masterminds are. No doubt Jim Kahle (and his web pioneering brother Brewster), will be in the history books your great grandchildren read on the revolutionary jump in CPU's, early in the 21st Century called the Cell!

So maybe I should be asking you questions! :D

[weskurtz81]

You what??? ...this guy is a god in the world computer chip design. I've emailed others within IBM and it's surprising how accessible, some of these Masterminds are. No doubt Jim Kahle (and his web pioneering brother Brewster), will be in the history books your great grandchildren read on the revolutionary jump in CPU's, early in the 21st Century called the Cell!

So maybe I should be asking you questions! :D

Yeah, I know..... BLASPHEMY!!!! I was digging through some IBM white pages about Cell, ran across his name, and decided he was as good a place as any to start. He didn't go into any technical specs about the CPU itself, he mainly gave me a time frame, who contributed what and how much. He told me that he feels that he is the father of Cell, and it was IBM's idea born through his direction of the team. He also said that Ken K. made alot of the final decisions on structural designs like number of SPE's, because they were the customer (Sony PS3). I have the email, I will copy it and throw it back into circulation again tomorrow when I revisit the thread.

I was very surprised though when he told me who he was. I really wonder what he was thinking when I sent him that email though. I also wonder how in the world he even got my one little lonely email, as I am sure he received TONS of emails on a regular basis!

[AFSOCOM]

@ -=*7*=-

Even though the RSX isn't a unified GPU. Can developers utilize the Cell and RSX to act the same as a unified GPU would?

[Jabjabs]

Most likely that they have premade LoD models for cars and they just use the low poly models depending on distance and amount of cars visible.
This has been the most common method for objects for over ten years.
There is limit of one or two cars to have highest LoD level and the rest can have about as much polygons combined.

It is also good to remember that when you have highly complex objects like cars, it is good to use low level LoD for distant objects as they tend to have less aliasing.
This is due to having less polygons with size of under one pixel/sample and shapes like wheel rims.Just to add a little more, LOD is also used to help save on rendering times significantly at the pixel level. Say we do have the 8 most distant cars at 200K polygons per model, on average you are looking at them taking up only about 200K pixels on screen at most per frame and it's at this point that we stumble into sub pixel rendering territory and the horrors it brings. Cramming some odd 1.2 Million polygons into 200K pixel on screen becomes a rendering night mare since you have to calculate your vertices's at higher precision and have you pixel rendering run at higher accuracy as well other wise it can become an aliasing mess that rips through memory bandwidth and fill rate and nether is a good thing.

By all means LOD has no real major benefit outside of performance since it can be a burden on memory and processor time (determining LOD scaling per object) but it's a nessecary technique to get decent speed while maintaining high quality models.


@Jabjabs
Great to see you show up. I was expecting you! LOLz ....just testing to see if you could manage to notice that what I said did not correspond to what was stated in the Benchmarks! :wink: ...you didn't even read these did you? Textures generation time, not loading time! hehe So what you and others here are telling me, is that Cell alone with just 30% of it's power utilized and a limp **** 7600 chip is whipping up on these other two platforms, or would you rather it be a combination of Cell BE and the RSX as a much stronger chip than anyone here believes. Also if it is all about CPU, then what's the point of putting the 8800 GPU on that Benchmark???? :wink: ...or did this even occur to you? :grin: ....OK, you can go now. I'm through having fun with you!!!
The load times they talk about are texture generation times, I've dabbled with ProFX tools before and that is how they go about demonstrating them, they call them load times simply because that's how they are going to be seen by people. And anyway even if it was just load times they are talking about that would be measuring HDD/Disc drive speeds and not CPU/GPU speeds. ;)

RSX is not a dogged 7600 and it's most definitely not a 8800 chipset but as far as the benchmark is conserned, why did they use a 8800 card? Simple because thats the target market they are going for, they are going to show how it performs on a modern PC and nothing else, it's the way all benchmarks go these days.

Also as for RSX I worked in a private games company down here as a Environment modeler during mid 06 and have through those few months did get some more detailed knowledge of RSX than most people in the public, I had to since I had to deal with converting every mesh to the Ps3 build of the game, that said at that point the Ps3 version ran terribly and the software tools I was using where privative but having some basic additional knowledge of RSX did come in handy.

I just think you are making it out to be much more than it really is. There is some special sauce in there but I think you are jumping ahead to far with your expectations of what RSX really is.



My buddy Kutaragi and I have stated that the PS3 is 4D! ...that said, and backed up by that ProFX's captured page, what do you think is 4D? .... and have you seen it done in Real Time (not just pre-rendered) in any other game on any other platform? 4D the progression of time... kind of like how the roads and buildings age in Sim City. ;) You know that game from 1990.

It's nothing more than a newage buzz word don't get caught up in the hype because that's all you are doing. It might not be 3D or procedurally generated texture but is has all the elements of the 4D game going for it.

Progression of time in games in nothing new, sure now days it's moving onto a more physics/procedural environment based effects but that's just the evolution of technology the idea is very old indeed.

I've seen cases like yours a thousand times before and it always seams to be based around hype that Kuturagi used to spew out, he was a technology genius but he did say some crazy stuff. I'll skip the rest of your 4D rant because it's just the usual arguments that others have put forward without really understanding what they are really talking about.


OK .... OK one final jab, since you are all knowledgeable about all things, including the PS3 and it's games (though you don't have one, or want one).

So would you say Drake and the other characters in "Uncharted" are 4D? Notice their textures change/morph in real time when they got wet and then dried off .... oh sorry, I forgot you don't have a PS3, so lets just pretend you do.

Dude I've had a Ps3 since launch down here , I also have a 360 and had a Wii for a few months. I wanted one and got one, heck I even have my PSN tag in my Signature! :lol: I've even played quite a few games with people on these forums before, best you don't assume something for slanderous purposes just because I disagree with you.

Also yeah I've played Uncharted, it's really cool and I love what they did with the water effects on people but unfortunately that would be a part of the prerendered 4D effects you so hate. ;)

[MEMEROOT]

"It's sad when MEMEROOT makes newbie accounts to continue his personal attacks. Anyways..."

not quite sure what to make of this, I have only ever used this one account. My apologies if my post was a little rude however it does strike me as odd that when pointing out a simple fact that rsx is G71 based that that we get a load of flak regarding rsx+cell = unified shaders etc...

there is NO WAY that any processor could do what you are claiming, rsx's physical architecture does not support unified shaders.

to quote

"the design [g80] is a major shift for NVIDIA in GPU functionality and capability, the most obvious change being the move from the separate functional units (pixel shaders, vertex shaders) within previous GPUs to a homogeneous collection of universal floating point processors (called "stream processors") that can perform a more universal set of tasks.
"

Now perhaps you are suggesting using using the spe's? Well to be honest you are quite right in this case, unified shaders can be run on the spe's however the inefficiency would be emence due to the number of cycles that would be required to complete and the texture cashe issues..... There is a reason RSX is in the ps3 not a second cell processor

Moving on to the 4d remarks, do you just immediately believe every buzzword that gets passed along or are you just pretending, sure it's a nice concept and no doubt the processing power today allows a more advanced interpretation than say that of Fable however I cant see how it is all that intensive to manage after all once the texture is generated/selected the process of placing, lighting etc.. is the same.

On the subject of ps3 runing UTIII under emulation.... lol

[lintama]

Sorry guys, but still do not agree that RSX is as powerful as the 8800 series. If it was truly that powerful, then why haven't they released it to the PC market.

How would they release a Chip, thats soldered to a board, to the public? Or an even better question. Why would they release a GPU with absolutly ZERO market? They wouldn't thats why, there are no CPUs on the market to date on the market, in PC that would even be able to use an RSX chip. An 8800 is there to make up for the lack of graphical power of a Quad core or Dual core or AMD whatever, x86 processors are not made to push heavy graphical applications, thats why yopu have to by GRFX cards, SuperStarDustHD runs very well at 1080p, 60fps, True COlor Pallet, and all SPE driven if I am not mistaken.

[weskurtz81]

How would they release a Chip, thats soldered to a board, to the public? Or an even better question. Why would they release a GPU with absolutly ZERO market? They wouldn't thats why, there are no CPUs on the market to date on the market, in PC that would even be able to use an RSX chip. An 8800 is there to make up for the lack of graphical power of a Quad core or Dual core or AMD whatever, x86 processors are not made to push heavy graphical applications, thats why yopu have to by GRFX cards, SuperStarDustHD runs very well at 1080p, 60fps, True COlor Pallet, and all SPE driven if I am not mistaken.

Ummm.... I don't quite understand what you are saying.

RSX is a GPU is it not? Now, G80 is a GPU, to the naked eye it will look very similar to RSX just larger. Of course they don't release the chip to the end user, but they do send them to companies like XFX and MSI and others, those guys put those chips onto PCB's with the memory and everything else. I don't think Nvidia actually makes any of the store bought cards, only the GPU's.

So, I am not really sure what you meant by that post, I was actually very confused by what point you were actually trying to make. Do you care to give it another shot and just tell me what the point is?

Edit: oh you are saying that RSX is too powerful to use in a PC? Did you honestly think I thought they would release the ACTUAL GPU? Come on man, don't be so dense, I think you might be able to assume that I was referring to those things that go into PC's that you and I call video cards..... you know those things with GPU's on them. RSX is a GPU.

The point is, if RSX is so powerful, why not slap it onto a PCB and sell it as a PC GPU? Because it's not as powerful as what they are already selling.... easy. Why would they waste the time to produce a product which is less powerful then one that they are already producing? It would be a waste, kill two birds with one stone, sell it to the console market and the PC market.

Why would they have ZERO market? They modify it a little, slap it on a PCB, and harness the almighty power of RSX in a PC. If you honestly don't think that there is a market for high end GPU's on the PC market, then something is wrong. I am sure Lucas Arts, or Pixar, or any number of other studios would like to have some high end GPU's do some rendering. I mean hell, they would have to deal with a crappy FX8800(whatever they call the workstation version).

[Bust Nak]

How would they release a Chip, thats soldered to a board, to the public? Or an even better question. Why would they release a GPU with absolutly ZERO market? They wouldn't thats why, there are no CPUs on the market to date on the market, in PC that would even be able to use an RSX chip. An 8800 is there to make up for the lack of graphical power of a Quad core or Dual core or AMD whatever, x86 processors are not made to push heavy graphical applications, thats why yopu have to by GRFX cards, SuperStarDustHD runs very well at 1080p, 60fps, True COlor Pallet, and all SPE driven if I am not mistaken.
So you are saying PC users need to buy powerful graphics cards because PC CPU's are not made for graphics, where as the Cell don't need as powerful a GPU to get good graphics? So you do agree that the RSX isn't as powerful then?

[Tetsu]

that ps3 is still - regardless - the most powerfull console - but sadly is not as powerful as a pc costing 6x the price
Err... are you being sarcastic, and I'm not catching it? ;)

Why is that sad? You have to be making a funny here. Having a console that powerful is an epic achievement. Having ANYTHING that powerful is a monumental achievement.

But let's take MEM's statement at face value, because this is what PC gamers always boil things down to. "The graphics already blow the PS3 graphics away." This is the basic crunch of PC gaming, pure, raw graphics. What about it? I'm not going to be bothered to check out the texture properties in Crysis, but let's say that at full power, the texture color bit depth is 20 bit. That would be a color palette of 2,097,151. Impressive I'm sure. And let's suppose that the texture palette in Uncharted is 18 bit. That would be 524,287 colors. Okay, that's about 1/4 and not nearly as impressive looking on paper.

But on the screen, where it really matters, are you going to see any difference? This isn't even the rest of the scene, just textures. If you can't, then you're just gloating over imperceptible specs, and to me, that's what matters, perceptible specs. Stuff I can actually see. And to be honest, Crysis doesn't look all that realistic to me. Battlefield 2 (PC) looks better to my eyes.

What about resolution? Yeah, when you get anal picky, Gran Turismo 5 Prologue has visible pixels at 1080. But unless you have MEM's $3000+ PC, it will too. I'm flatly astonished at how good GT5 Prologue looks on my Bravia. I've looked at scenes up close to the TV, and the fine details are just stunning. As said before, there's nothing like it on any PC game I'm aware of.

You can have a thousand times higher resolution on your PC games. I'll take the realism of GT5.


Just because Sony hasn't released the figures doesn't mean we can't, and for that matter, shouldn't debate.

Anyway the debate is this:

Can a PS3 equal or exceed the quality of graphics that a high end PC is capable of?

Well with GT5 I'd say that debate is truly answered, yes a PS3 is more then capable of seamless, 60fps, 1080p graphics. Notwithstanding the dozens of objects, complex physics, and audio.

With Crysis with 3X8800GT cards only running at 36fps (http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2007/12/this_is_what_triple_sli.html) and the graphics in question being as good as GT5 clearly the PS3 is doing exceedingly well, and by that measure yes the debate is answered: the PS3 is equal, and more then likely exceeds the capabilities of current generation of a ultra high end PC rig.

Yes some of the naysayers can claim different programs are optimised for different hardware but the debate never required the PS3 to be qualified in that manner.

Regarding the RSX debate I'd say if the chip is as bad as the naysayers claim then how in earth is the PS3 capable of GT5? Clearly the RSX is doing more then has been disclosed by Sony.

Could a 7 series Nvidia card (not just a chip) do something like GT5, nup of course not.

Hell uncharted, and heavenly sword, warhawk clearly demostrate a computing device that is not working on last generation hardware
Quoted for truth. I would have to add that Sony hasn't even released the specs on the PS1 as far as I know, so we may never know what RSX truly is. But with the above details, does it matter?

And @ daggy:

Your list of AAA PC titles are admirable, but they seems to only matter to you. If you gave me all those games, including full WoW (not a fan), I'd still rather play

Gran Turismo 5
Metal Gear Solid 4
Final Fantasy XIII
Uncharted
Naruto
Warhawk
Motorstorm
etc ;)


So you are saying PC users need to buy powerful graphics cards because PC CPU's are not made for graphics, where as the Cell don't need as powerful a GPU to get good graphics? So you do agree that the RSX isn't as powerful then?
We're saying because the PC doesn't seem to be able to deliver games which look like Final Fantasy or Gran Turismo - or PC game makers don't feel the need to, it doesn't have to be an 8800GTX if it can do stuff like it's doing on the PS3 now. And keep in mind, games are only going to grow in magnificence, with no need to upgrade whatsoever.

And wes, that seems to be what lintama was saying. RSX on it's own might be kind of wimpy. It's Cell which gives it the uber power.

[-=*7*=-]

@ -=*7*=-

Even though the RSX isn't a unified GPU. Can developers utilize the Cell and RSX to act the same as a unified GPU would?

We don't know that the RSX "isn't" a Unified Shader Model GPU for sure! Because we really don't know what's in this GPU. How many pipelines and whether they are vertex or pixel pipelines has never been answered by either Nvidia or Sony. It's any one's guess just what Sony did in response to MS and ATI announcing and launching the Xbox 360 with Xenos GPU and it's verified "Unified Shader Model Architecture".

But this is the Luxury of launching a year later for them. They get to pull MS's machine apart and see what's in it. Did Sony have "Nvidia" jump back in to change some things in the RSX or was it already there? More than likely yes, some things were changed. Whether or not it was putting more pipelines in and them being "Unified Shaders", is anyone's guess!!! ....they had been working on their own version of "Unified Shader Architecture" around the same time as ATI and that's what's in 8800 GPU! ;)

So maybe when you realize that one of the main benefits of Unifying Shaders is increased speed/less time and you see PS3 render Heavy Texture Laden games (like "GT-5 Prologue" with around 6 car models at a full 200,000 polygons w/LOD and progressive meshing for longer distances, at least 2 million Polygons in a frame turning a corner on the London Track! ...oh and that's at original 1080P 60FPS ;) ), you and others here will eventually realize that the RSX is not the weak puppy they imagine it to be! .....and it it is weaker than Xenos, it isn't by much! That's if it really is, and I highly doubt that!

Actually we don't know for sure where the 7.1 8 channel Surround Sound is generated even!?!. This normally takes a specialized chip that is not on the Cell with dedicated audio processors. Lot's of audio can be done in software on Cell, but what's coming out of the PS3 is infinitely Better and Stronger than what can be done with software (like on Xbox 360). So there are only two other places for that to be generated. Either RSX with Nvidia's "Sound Storm 2" or or a part of the Sony/Toshiba Super Companion chip!

One of many links saying PS3's audio is done on the RSX!
http://www.techspot.com/news/21052-nvidia-soundstorm-2-to-power-playstation-3-audio.html

Most people are betting on, it's being in the RSX, as it's even in some Sony Charts! 8)

Note: There are other things being done on RSX than people realize. Things that tie Audio to Graphics as an interactive cohesive unit. For instance, Kojima is putting an audio reactive 3D ring around the player that indicates which direction a person is by their footsteps.

[weskurtz81]

And wes, that seems to be what lintama was saying. RSX on it's own might be kind of wimpy. It's Cell which gives it the uber power.

That's the thing Tetsu. I don't give a **** if RSX runs at 5hz, and has 2Kb of memory. The end result is ALL that matters when your sitting in your home playing some games.

I just cannot agree with everyone saying it is more powerful than the 8800 series. If it wasn't originally unified shader, they don't just decide to make a minor change to it, that is a redesign.

Cell and RSX working together is where the magic will happen. Neither one was powerful enough to do it alone, but together, we are seeing some very good results. But people just need to realize that it's not as powerful as the GPU on the 8800GTX, AND BE HAPPY WITH IT! It doesn't matter that it doesn't have the same raw power, and the arguments that it is as powerful serve no purpose. Just enjoy the **** games and stop trying to make it into something it isn't.

[lintama]

That's the thing Tetsu. I don't give a **** if RSX runs at 5hz, and has 2Kb of memory. The end result is ALL that matters when your sitting in your home playing some games.

I just cannot agree with everyone saying it is more powerful than the 8800 series. If it wasn't originally unified shader, they don't just decide to make a minor change to it, that is a redesign.

Cell and RSX working together is where the magic will happen. Neither one was powerful enough to do it alone, but together, we are seeing some very good results. But people just need to realize that it's not as powerful as the GPU on the 8800GTX, AND BE HAPPY WITH IT! It doesn't matter that it doesn't have the same raw power, and the arguments that it is as powerful serve no purpose. Just enjoy the **** games and stop trying to make it into something it isn't.


I think what people are trying to say is, the entire PS3 is a GPU, thats it, and unless we start look at the device as a whole it dosen't make any sence.

[-=*7*=-]

How would they release a Chip, thats soldered to a board, to the public? Or an even better question. Why would they release a GPU with absolutly ZERO market? They wouldn't thats why, there are no CPUs on the market to date on the market, in PC that would even be able to use an RSX chip. An 8800 is there to make up for the lack of graphical power of a Quad core or Dual core or AMD whatever, x86 processors are not made to push heavy graphical applications, thats why yopu have to by GRFX cards, SuperStarDustHD runs very well at 1080p, 60fps, True COlor Pallet, and all SPE driven if I am not mistaken.

Not going to fully disagree with you, just make some adjustments. First of all Nvidia does not own the RSX chip. It was custom designed for Sony by them! ...Sony holds all rights and trademarks to it. They have however already made at least one other product besides the PS3 with the RSX as part of the configuration already. Plans for further marketing of the Cell/RSX combo are in the process of development!

There are many links about Sony's launch of it's Cell/RSX Computing board. Here's the main one! .......There is also some talk that Toshiba and Sony are working on a hush, hush project that will incorporate both chips (whether Sony is merely licensing RSX to Toshiba as vice versa Super Companion Chip deal, nobody knows)! ....rumors rumors and more rumors. LOL But these Computing Boards "har har" ;) are the real deal and already out. So I would say you're at least partially right!

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200708/07-070E/index.html


http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/shared/images/trans.gif
* The Cell/B.E. is a high-performance microprocessor jointly developed by Sony, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and IBM Corporation.
* RSX® is a graphics processor jointly developed by NVIDIA Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
* 4K: image resolution of 4096 × 2160 pixels (H × V) - more than four times the resolution of full HD (1920 × 1080).
* "Cell Broadband Engine" is a trademark of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.Note: The exact same chips that are in the PS3 are capable of pushing out "4K" : images with resolutions of 4096 x 2160 - more than four times the resolution of full HD (1920 x 1080P)!!! WOW! Does that sound like the RSX is a wimpy nv47 chipped 7800 GPU???? LOLz ;)

"kind of wimpy"??? I say there's more "Beef" in this chip than most of you even realize! ......and I think even Popeye and Wimpy would agree that the RSX is the Spinach in this combo Beef/Vegie Burger!!!




http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/12/killzonexmas.jpg

[lintama]

I'd love to have a Vio laptop with that set up, stream line to the PS3, oh that would be nice. Just read that SONY link, thats very interesting, 4K? Huh, who'd a thunk it? Ohh just seen where it s been shown that SCC can record 48 simultanious MPEG 2 inputs at one time, nice.

[-=*7*=-]

I'd love to have a Vio laptop with that set up, stream line to the PS3, oh that would be nice. Just read that SONY link, thats very interesting, 4K? Huh, who'd a thunk it? Ohh just seen where it s been shown that SCC can record 48 simultanious MPEG 2 inputs at one time, nice.

Yes people forget that PS3 equals 3 in more ways than one, and simply overlook the Super Companion Chip. But if ever there was a Gourmet Graphics Combination Burger for us Popeye (Cell) combo Wimpy(GPU) fans, it would include this chip as it's Lettuce, Tomatoes, Pickles and Onions and we'd let the fastest bus interfaces (Rambus's FLEXiO and FLEX PHASE), this side of Mars to serve up it's slick super fast condiments! :DD

*** The guys calling the RSX "wimpy"!!!! ...... don't realize that in this generation that phrase can only be applied to the Nintendo "Wiimpy" console! ;)

In the Future, this "Menage A Trois", in the PS3 will no doubt, eventually 3Peat into the History Books (it may take the 10 lifespan of the console, but patience is a virtue few here have), with Jim Kahle as Papa, Toshiba as it's Mama and Ken Kutaragi as the Marriage Counselor! LOL

That Laptop you're wishing for? .....is most indefinitely in the works as a Killer Multi-media Laptop with an OLED SCREEN capable of contrast ratios of 1,000,000:1 and yes that says 1 million to one w/resolution so Real it's close to being there!!! .....that Sony Computing board being smaller than the PS3 board with very low wattage, would fit very nicely in one! ;)

[Tetsu]

Okay, so maybe wimpy was a bad choice of words. ;)

Even if the RSX can't measure up to the 8800, it's no biggie to me. For one thing, I'm just not impressed with PC gaming any more outside of darn few shooters. And if the RSX was put on a graphics card, it would still utterly smoke my 6800GTS, which I'm still very happy with.

But what makes me truly happy is what a magnificent machine the PS3 is. A console that can make me forget PC gaming almost entirely is a dream system in my book.