mboost-dp1
Hvem vinder konsolkrigen?
Terra, har du ikke forstået endnu at vi ikke taler om hvad der har bedst performance? Er det ikke ligegyldigt hvilket hardware man har, hvis man synes at spillet man spiller er rigtig godt?
Du spiller garanteret kun så du kan se hvor vild grafikken er, men hvad er så pointen i spillet? synes du spillet bliver bedre af at have i baghovedet, at ens maskine er bedre end andres?
Og mht. at konsoller holder udviklingen tilbage: Der er fanme en grund til at mange udviklere skifter til konsoller. Primært pga. piratkopiering, men også fordi at der jo ikke er folk der gider at opgradere deres computer længere og have de sygeste specs.
computere som über gaming maskiner er en uddøende race, se selv hvor stødt salget stiger i "svagere" computere, såsom netbooks. Folk er ikke interesseret i at bruge mange penge på en klam stor spand med neonlys der står i hjørnet og larmer, bare så de kan køre de nyeste spil. Istedet vælger de fleste at have en lille og ergonomisk computer til alt det praktiske data arbejde, og så købe en konsol til at spille på.
Velkommen til nutiden terra, du er lidt bagefter og håbløst umoderne;)
Du spiller garanteret kun så du kan se hvor vild grafikken er, men hvad er så pointen i spillet? synes du spillet bliver bedre af at have i baghovedet, at ens maskine er bedre end andres?
Og mht. at konsoller holder udviklingen tilbage: Der er fanme en grund til at mange udviklere skifter til konsoller. Primært pga. piratkopiering, men også fordi at der jo ikke er folk der gider at opgradere deres computer længere og have de sygeste specs.
computere som über gaming maskiner er en uddøende race, se selv hvor stødt salget stiger i "svagere" computere, såsom netbooks. Folk er ikke interesseret i at bruge mange penge på en klam stor spand med neonlys der står i hjørnet og larmer, bare så de kan køre de nyeste spil. Istedet vælger de fleste at have en lille og ergonomisk computer til alt det praktiske data arbejde, og så købe en konsol til at spille på.
Velkommen til nutiden terra, du er lidt bagefter og håbløst umoderne;)
Helt enig - spil handler vel i bund og grund kun om at have det sjovt, så har man det ikke sjovt nok - prøv noget andet. Sådan havde jeg det med pc fordi der var for langt imellem de gode spil. Dem der endelig kom var ports af konsolspil, og var af blandet kvalitet. Jeg havde faktisk helt glemt at spil handlede om at have det sjovt - men har nu fået åbnet øjnene igen efter at spille mere konsol.
En anden ting er jo at konsoller idag ikke kun er til at spille på, der er også messenger, mediecenter, trailers,, demoer, voice/video chat, gruppechat(ala ventrilo, filmudlejning, sociale medier og meget mere. konsoller kan jo idag rigtigt mange ting som pc'er kan - og tror psyborg har fat i det rigtigt når han siger at pc'en som en spillemaskine nok ikke har den store fremtid, og nok ender som rent arbejdsmaskiner (selvom den har 1000 x hurtigere hardware).
Derudover bliver der lavet rigtigt gode spil til konsoller - og jeg har det som med musik - er skidtet godt nok, betaler jeg det gerne. Men størstedelen af de pc spil jeg har spillet på det seneste har ikke været 200 kr værd...og nu vil de muligvis hæve priserne.
Man slapper også af på en helt anden måde når man ligger i sin sofa 2-3 meter fra sit tv, end man gør foran et skrivebord på en kontorstol.
Der er jo en grund til at det er populært - det er som med heroin - så mange mennesker kan ikke tage fejl.
En anden ting er jo at konsoller idag ikke kun er til at spille på, der er også messenger, mediecenter, trailers,, demoer, voice/video chat, gruppechat(ala ventrilo, filmudlejning, sociale medier og meget mere. konsoller kan jo idag rigtigt mange ting som pc'er kan - og tror psyborg har fat i det rigtigt når han siger at pc'en som en spillemaskine nok ikke har den store fremtid, og nok ender som rent arbejdsmaskiner (selvom den har 1000 x hurtigere hardware).
Derudover bliver der lavet rigtigt gode spil til konsoller - og jeg har det som med musik - er skidtet godt nok, betaler jeg det gerne. Men størstedelen af de pc spil jeg har spillet på det seneste har ikke været 200 kr værd...og nu vil de muligvis hæve priserne.
Man slapper også af på en helt anden måde når man ligger i sin sofa 2-3 meter fra sit tv, end man gør foran et skrivebord på en kontorstol.
Der er jo en grund til at det er populært - det er som med heroin - så mange mennesker kan ikke tage fejl.
#155
I lige måde kære Terracide. Kunne man oddse på indholdet af dine indlæg ville jeg smide hele min månedsløn på at mindst ét af dine næste fem indlæg indeholder et af følgende ord; fallacy, dum, n00b, l33t og LALALALALALALALALALLALALALA.
Men fortsæt endelig - det er fantastisk underholdende at læse dine indlæg. Man bliver gang på gang forbavset, forundret og, hvis jeg må være så fri, lidt interesseret i, hvad der mon foregår bag din skærm. Er du mon en troll eller er du bare sådan?
I lige måde kære Terracide. Kunne man oddse på indholdet af dine indlæg ville jeg smide hele min månedsløn på at mindst ét af dine næste fem indlæg indeholder et af følgende ord; fallacy, dum, n00b, l33t og LALALALALALALALALALLALALALA.
Men fortsæt endelig - det er fantastisk underholdende at læse dine indlæg. Man bliver gang på gang forbavset, forundret og, hvis jeg må være så fri, lidt interesseret i, hvad der mon foregår bag din skærm. Er du mon en troll eller er du bare sådan?
#155
Jeg tror ikke du fanger pointen, er faktisk ikke helt sikker på du egentligt læser hvad der bliver skrevet før du allerede har postet et svar. Et lille råd kunne være: Når du har skrevet dit svar, så prøv at læse den kommentar du besvarer en gang til inden du trykker Indsend.
Jeg tror ikke du fanger pointen, er faktisk ikke helt sikker på du egentligt læser hvad der bliver skrevet før du allerede har postet et svar. Et lille råd kunne være: Når du har skrevet dit svar, så prøv at læse den kommentar du besvarer en gang til inden du trykker Indsend.
#155
Lad nu være med at gentage dig selv og forstå det nu at PC ikke er det eneste og bedste i verden, og lyt til hvad de andre skriver.
Læs dog hvad folk har og skrive i stedet for at se blindt over tingende som du konstant gør. Jeg kan ikke forstå hvorfor du skal være så skide stædig... Men okay, du gir tilsyneladende god underholdning til folk der læser med.
Lad nu være med at gentage dig selv og forstå det nu at PC ikke er det eneste og bedste i verden, og lyt til hvad de andre skriver.
Læs dog hvad folk har og skrive i stedet for at se blindt over tingende som du konstant gør. Jeg kan ikke forstå hvorfor du skal være så skide stædig... Men okay, du gir tilsyneladende god underholdning til folk der læser med.
hehe tror vi alle er ret enige så =)
Og Terra, jeg er ked af det, men jeg må altså se mig selv nødsaget til reporte dig som troll. Det er den eneste forklaring på din opførsel, selvom mig og mine venner nu har haft det ret så sjovt over dine kommentarer:)
For at være ærlig, så tror jeg du bevidst vælger at ignorere hvad vi skriver, og derfor laver flamebait hele tiden. Det er ikke accecptabelt på et forum, du hører ikke til her.
Jeg vil sende en PM med hvad jeg skriver til admins, og du vil nok få at høre for det i nærmeste fremtid.
Og Terra, jeg er ked af det, men jeg må altså se mig selv nødsaget til reporte dig som troll. Det er den eneste forklaring på din opførsel, selvom mig og mine venner nu har haft det ret så sjovt over dine kommentarer:)
For at være ærlig, så tror jeg du bevidst vælger at ignorere hvad vi skriver, og derfor laver flamebait hele tiden. Det er ikke accecptabelt på et forum, du hører ikke til her.
Jeg vil sende en PM med hvad jeg skriver til admins, og du vil nok få at høre for det i nærmeste fremtid.
#155 Jeg tror faktisk ikke du har fattet hvad "moving the goalposts" betyder - faktisk er jeg ret overbevist om at du ikke gør!
Den eneste der faktisk har forsøgt at lave "feature creep" er dig selv!
Prøv i stedet at forholde dig til hvad andre skriver - hvis du magter det. Personligt tror jeg ikke du er intelligent nok til at føre en dialog, men du kan da prøve at modbevise mig...
Den eneste der faktisk har forsøgt at lave "feature creep" er dig selv!
Prøv i stedet at forholde dig til hvad andre skriver - hvis du magter det. Personligt tror jeg ikke du er intelligent nok til at føre en dialog, men du kan da prøve at modbevise mig...
Jeg postede det faktum(for ydelse er ikke fuzzywarm feelings) at begge konsoller yder af H.. til..., det fornærmede konsol-n00b's så meget at nogle slå de små grå fra og prøvede at argumentere for at deres konsol ydede lige så godt som en PC(se #89)...hvilket er ustyrligt morsomt...da dette nu har slået fejl, så ændres "debatten" (se #152,) og #161 viser at fallacies i den grad grad bruges...da "min konsol er en super-duper-computer" faldt, kom afledning...nu er det ikke ydelse, men "sjov" der er den det nye "mål"...hence "moving the goalposts"...
Terra - Keep 'em comming...oO(Og så siger de Kamerikanere er dumme *LOL*)
Terra - Keep 'em comming...oO(Og så siger de Kamerikanere er dumme *LOL*)
#163
Nej? Det startede med at du sagde, at cell ydede som en P4 1.4Ghz (#30)? Hvilket du jo som forventet ikke har fomået at bevise endnu... ikke desto mindre reporter jeg dig stadigvæk, du diskuterer som et hidsigt dampbarn, og jeg synes det er pinligt at jeg skal belære et voksent menneske om, hvordan man fører en god diskussion. Det er ikke accepteret at opføre sig sådan på et forum.
Desuden betyder fallacy vildfarelse/fejlagtighed, og synes ikke rigtigt at give mening i dine sætninger. Dumt at bruge et ord bare fordi du har set/hørt andre gøre det, uden at vide hvad det måske egentlig betyder.
Nej? Det startede med at du sagde, at cell ydede som en P4 1.4Ghz (#30)? Hvilket du jo som forventet ikke har fomået at bevise endnu... ikke desto mindre reporter jeg dig stadigvæk, du diskuterer som et hidsigt dampbarn, og jeg synes det er pinligt at jeg skal belære et voksent menneske om, hvordan man fører en god diskussion. Det er ikke accepteret at opføre sig sådan på et forum.
Desuden betyder fallacy vildfarelse/fejlagtighed, og synes ikke rigtigt at give mening i dine sætninger. Dumt at bruge et ord bare fordi du har set/hørt andre gøre det, uden at vide hvad det måske egentlig betyder.
#163
Ak, du vil bare blive ved.
Min post i #89 gik på, at en konsol ydede bedre end en PC til tilsvarende pris, da den kom frem. Det virker ikke som om du er ordblind, så det må enten være fordi du ikke kan forstå det jeg skriver eller fordi ikke kan forstå, at folk har en anden mening end dig. Hvilken af disse to er det?
Grunden til at debatten ændres er vel primært din skyld. Du formår gang på gang at ødelægge en ellers sober og fin debat med dine latterlige indlæg, der ikke har andet formål end selvhævdelse og selviscenesættelse.
Nu er jeg jo så medskyldig i, at du har fået dine five minutes of fame i den her tråd, men jeg bliver virkelig ked af det, når selvhøjtidelige typer som dig synes det er sjovt/sejt/fedt (vælg selv) at svine samtlige folk til uden noget at have i det.
Jeg er som sådan ligeglad med om du er uenig i det jeg skriver eller ej, men du er det perfekte eksempel på hvorfor fri abort er sådan en dejlig ting.
@Alle andre
Og så vil jeg da lige benytte lejligheden til at beklage flamebaiten ovenfor, men nu har jeg forsøgt med fornuft, sarkasme og jokes. Intet trænger igennem, så måske man skal prøve på hans niveau? Omvendt, så bliver jeg jo nok slået på erfaring nu :<
Ak, du vil bare blive ved.
Min post i #89 gik på, at en konsol ydede bedre end en PC til tilsvarende pris, da den kom frem. Det virker ikke som om du er ordblind, så det må enten være fordi du ikke kan forstå det jeg skriver eller fordi ikke kan forstå, at folk har en anden mening end dig. Hvilken af disse to er det?
Grunden til at debatten ændres er vel primært din skyld. Du formår gang på gang at ødelægge en ellers sober og fin debat med dine latterlige indlæg, der ikke har andet formål end selvhævdelse og selviscenesættelse.
Nu er jeg jo så medskyldig i, at du har fået dine five minutes of fame i den her tråd, men jeg bliver virkelig ked af det, når selvhøjtidelige typer som dig synes det er sjovt/sejt/fedt (vælg selv) at svine samtlige folk til uden noget at have i det.
Jeg er som sådan ligeglad med om du er uenig i det jeg skriver eller ej, men du er det perfekte eksempel på hvorfor fri abort er sådan en dejlig ting.
@Alle andre
Og så vil jeg da lige benytte lejligheden til at beklage flamebaiten ovenfor, men nu har jeg forsøgt med fornuft, sarkasme og jokes. Intet trænger igennem, så måske man skal prøve på hans niveau? Omvendt, så bliver jeg jo nok slået på erfaring nu :<
#164
Terracide refererer til en logisk fejlslutning når han snakker om fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Terracide refererer til en logisk fejlslutning når han snakker om fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28microprocessor%29#Console_video_games skrev:Sony's PlayStation 3 video game console contains the first production application of the Cell processor, clocked at 3.2 GHz ... Only six of the seven SPEs are accessible to developers as one is reserved by the OS
http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/36 skrev:Sony says the PS3 can do about 2 teraflops - twice the Xbox 360’s power!
(Har andre steder læst det som 1.8 TFlops)
http://movementarian.com/2006/08/18/flops-mips-watts-and-the-human-brain/ skrev:AMD Athlon @ 600 mhz – 2.4 gigaflops (single precision), 1 gigaflop (double precision)
Pentium 4 @ 2 ghz – 8 gigaflops (single precision)
Pentium 4 @ 3 ghz – 12 gigaflops
Athlon 64 X2 4600 – 14.7 gigaflops, 17400 MIPS
G5 Dual 2.3GHz – 30 gigaflops
XBox 360 Xenon chip -115 gigaflops
XBOX 360 Xenos graphics chip – 240 gigaflops
nVIDIA 7800 GTX 512 – 200 gigaflops
ATi X1900 – 553.8 gigaflops
PS3 Cell @1800 gigaflops != GForce 7800 GTX @200 GFlops != P4 1.4 GHz @<8 GFlops
Claim that PS3 Chip is slow = FAIL
XBoksen er langsommere men har været langt billigere og et år ældre.
Styresystemer man selv installerer er langsomme på PS3 da de kun får 1 kerne til rådighed ud af 7.
(Flops er det, der skal til for at lave udregninger på vectorer etc.)
terracide (163) skrev:#161 viser at fallacies i den grad grad bruges...
Okay, jeg er overbevist - du er en troll!
Det eneste du bedriver er trolling - du kommer med intet nyt, og du forsøger bare at piske en stemning op...
Den eneste der har sat en goalpost som hedder ydelse er dig - vi andre gider bare ikke spille bold på dine mål, det har du bare ikke fattet - så dum er du!! :)
#167:
Cell CPU != RSX...kom nu ind kampen...og Folding at home er en forvredet tommestok og bruge, da det jo er IO insrtukser og ikke OoO data som spil er f.eks.
Skal vi helt ned og begynde at citere de links jeg før har postet?
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=...
"PS3 CPU & 360 CPU
Let us start off by just showing what Microsoft and Sony released to the public in regards to the cpus in both their machines. Many press releases in many different formats and or styles, but this is the gist of it.
360 Central processing unit (aka Xenon)
•90 nm process, 165 million transistors (65 nm process SOI revision in 2007)
•Three symmetrical cores, each one SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz
•One VMX-128 SIMD unit per core, dual threaded.
•128×128 register file for each hardware thread, 2 sets per VMX unit
•1 MB L2 cache (lockable by the GPU)
•Dot product performance: 9.6 billion per second (33.6 billion combined with GPU)
•115 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance
•ROM storing Microsoft private encrypted keys
360 CPU information provided by Microsoft
PlayStation 3 Central-processing unit (aka Cell Broadband Engine)
•PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
•1 VMX vector unit per core
•512KB L2 cache
•7 x SPE @3.2GHz
•7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
•7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
•Dot product performance 22.4 billion (51 billion combined with GPU)
•1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
•Total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
PS3 CPU information provided by Sony
Now before I get into it I’d like to point out that while both consoles have powerful CPUs both Sony and Microsoft have played a dirty little numbers game with everyone… numbers that can easily be misinterpreted by most people to mean “The one with the highest numbers must be the better of the 2” and that isn’t how it works at all (atleast not all the time and here is the kicker both Sony and Microsoft want you to misinterpret the numbers).
Why isn’t a “higher is better” mentality always a safe bet? Simple really, one has to take into consideration important things like the architecture. To only concentrate on the raw numbers without understanding the specifics of how it operates can lead to mistakes like this example here “Midway has a car that can reach a top speed of 180MPH and Australia has a car that can reach a top speed of 90MPH.” Someone only looking at the raw numbers may assume “This is far too easy clearly Midway is going to win because his car goes up to 180MPH” Now did anyone stop to consider the fact that maybe Australia is not only the better driver of the 2, but his car has quicker acceleration plus better braking and the road they’ll be racing on is dripping wet and packed full of sharp turns which may prevent the more inexperienced driver from banking on all that raw speed?
Not the best of analogies, but this will teach everyone to be cautious when they see either side throwing around their Megahertz, dot products and GFLOPS. I’m not saying the numbers are 100% meaningless as there are numbers that are actually trustworthy, but its getting you all ready for what I’m about to tell you.
Dispelling Some of the Hype
Now there are people that look at the 360 having a triple core processor and the PS3 with the much publicized Cell Processor and start to wonder…
•#1 How in God’s name can the 360 ship with a 3 core processor in November 2005 while there isn’t an available purchase for 3 or 4 core CPUs for desktop computers?
•#2 Why didn’t Intel or AMD manufacture and start selling such a processor at the same time or before the Xbox 360 shipped?
•#3 How can the cell have 1 Power PC core and, in addition to that, have 7 SPE, which are basically seven extra processors?
•#4 Everyone knows processors aren’t cheap and when you factor in everything else you need, it’s even more expensive. How can Microsoft get away with charging as low as $299 for the Xbox 360? How can Sony get away with charging as low as $500 for the PS3, when the processors themselves cost 90% of the PS3’s price or cost more than $500?
Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: The processors inside these machines are extremely powerful and cutting edge you literally have a supercomputer in your home as the Xbox 360 has 1 Teraflop worth of computing power and the PS3 has 2 Teraflops worth of computing power.
TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.
The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.
Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: Thanks to these multi-core processors developers will be able to multi-thread their games and get significant performance improvements and achieve Artificial Intelligence in games that people previously thought impossible for a videogame. It’ll be as if you’re playing with another living breathing human being.
TRUTH: “What is the big deal? How exactly does the fact that both processors being “In-Order Execution” CPUs hurt them? Well, see the 3.2GHZ clock speed for both CPUs? The type of nasty game code, full of branches, loops etc… that would’ve been greatly improved speedwise, thanks to out-of-order execution and a wider execution core is not there to help, so that 3.2GHZ actually performs slower than out-of-order execution CPUs available to desktop computer users.
This brings us to the very reason why both the PS3 and Xbox 360 are using multiple processors in an effort to combat the lack of an instruction window and the fact that they have a narrow execution core. It gets even better, because this very same code that they hope to speed up using parallelism on multiple cores isn’t by any means parallel programming friendly.
On the other hand, Graphics-related code is great on both these processors, as graphics code is nice and parallelism friendly. There is a reason people consider graphics accelerators to be the poster child for parallelism. As a matter of fact, it’s the most successful form of parallelism the field of computer science has ever witnessed. GPUs are able to get all transistors firing that actually produce a significant real world benefit to the people using the product.
For the CPU to become more like the GPU is the ultimate goal for many and AMD together with ATI seem to be going for it. The cell processor is actually one such attempt to do so, but it’s not yet at the level everyone had hoped. (Perhaps a bit early as a cell like CPU isn’t on Intel’s to do list until about 2015) Long story short, both Microsoft and Sony have given developers more than enough on the graphics side of things, but at the same time, are asking developers to do more with less on the aspects of the game unrelated to graphics"
A bit of review
•#1 Both consoles are using in-order execution CPUs that are half the speed of out-of-order execution processors when it comes to running most game code, especially the more troublesome type which contains branches, loops and pointers.
•#2 The very code they’re hoping to get improved performance out of isn't the type to lend itself so easily to multi-threading… to say it's hard would be the understatement of the century.
Here is a bit of what John Carmack, technical director of id Software, has to say about this.
“I do somewhat question whether we might have been better off this generation having an out-of-order main processor, rather than splitting it all up into these multi-processor systems.”
“It’s probably a good thing for us to be getting with the program now, the first generation of titles coming out for both platforms will not be anywhere close to taking full advantage of all this extra capability, but maybe by the time the next generation of consoles roll around, the developers will be a little bit more comfortable with all of this and be able to get more benefit out of it.”
But it’s not a problem that I actually think is going to have a solution. I think it’s going to stay hard, I don’t think there’s going to be a silver bullet for parallel programming. There have been a lot of very smart people, researchers and so on, that have been working this problem for 20 years, and it doesn’t really look any more promising than it was before.”
Everyone should be aware that these processors while powerful and a leap over what the current generation consoles had, they aren’t the second coming they were marketed to be and what drives this point home even further is the fact that Multi-threaded programming on these CPUs will definitely not be achieved at the snap of a finger; the developers have their work cut out for them.
How is one CPU better than another?
GFLOPS is something that gets thrown around a lot, but it should be clear that the peak theoretical GFLOP numbers for both these CPUs are:
•115GFLOPS Theoretical Peak Performance for 360 CPU
•218GFLOPS Theoretical Peak Performance for PS3 CPU.
These CPU theories will not be achieved in real world performance. What IBM did when testing for theoretical peaks on both CPUs can't really be considered as representative of how the processors would actually perform in real world situations, because of the type of testing done is too controlled. It’s a much too perfect of an environment and game development is going to involve an unforgiving environment that doesn’t cater so well to the perfect environment the CPUs were tested under.
The GFLOP numbers for the PS3 were calculated based on 8 running SPE, so the fact that the PS3 uses only 6 SPE for game applications lowers the peak theoretical even further, as majority of the floating point work on the PS3’s CPU is done via the SPE. Each SPE has a peak theoretical of 25.6GFLOPS. So the total peak theoretical performance for all 6 SPE would be 153.6GFLOPS, but why is that number also not achievable?
In IBM’s controlled testing environment, their optimized code on 8 SPE only yielded a performance number of 155.5GFLOPS. If it took 8 SPE to achieve that, no way 6 will be able to and that testing was done in a fashion that didn’t model all the complexities of DMA and the memory system. Using a 1Kx1K matrix and 8 SPE they were able to achieve 73.4GFLOPS, but the PS3 uses 6 SPE for games and these tests were done in controlled environments. So going on this information, even 73.4GFLOPS is seemingly out of reach, showing us that Sony didn’t necessarily lie about the cell’s performance as they made clear the 218GFLOPS was “theoretical.” But just like Microsoft they definitely wanted you to misinterpret these numbers into believing they were achievable.
Even while taking all of this into consideration, the CPUs can’t reach those crazy performance numbers; the PS3’s cell still comfortably comes out on top in terms of overall floating point capability, but it should be known that the available power on the PS3’s cell will be significantly more difficult to harness than the available power on the 360’s CPU.
It’s also worth mentioning that even the PS2 CPU had more than twice the GFLOPS of the original Xbox’s CPU, but it didn’t necessarily lead it to being the performance winner. This time around, while the cell has the GFLOPS advantage, its advantage isn’t quite as big as the PS2 CPU had on the Xbox. This teaches us that there is more than one meter of real world performance.
The PS3’s cell processor has 1 Power PC core similar to that of the 3 Power PC cores sustaining the 360’s 3 core design (without the vmx-128 enhancements available on each of the 360’s cores) and 7 SPE (synergistic processing element). The 8th is disabled to improve yields. One of the SPE is used to run the PS3’s operating system while the other 6 are available for games. The reason the PS3’s CPU will be significantly more difficult to program for is because the CPU is asymmetric, unlike the 360’s CPU. Because of the PS3 CPU only having 1 PPE compared to the 360’s 3, all game control, scripting, AI and other branch intensive code will need to be crammed into two threads which share a very narrow execution core and no instruction window. The cell’s SPE will be unable to help out here as they are not as robust; hence, not fit for accelerating things such as AI, as it’s fairly branch intensive and the SPE lacks branch prediction capability entirely.
I’m sure people remember from the section detailing how the 360 and PS3’s processors are less robust compared to processors we use on our desktop computers and the consequences of being in order execution. Well the PS3’s SPE are further stripped down than even the Power PC Cores and, as a result, isn’t as capable of handling as many different types of code like the 1 Power PC Core available on the PS3’s cell or the 3 Power PC Cores available on the 360’s CPU. The problem with being asymmetric is when you program for the Power PC Core on the PS3 CPU, the method of programming you used to get the most out of that Power PC core is no longer effective when breaking off tasks for the SPE to work on. Going from the PPE to the SPE on the PS3 requires a different compiler and a different set of tools.
When you come to the realization that the key to making up for the CPU is in-order execution is the rather complicated parallel programming, you realize that the CPU being asymmetric and having just a single PPE makes something that was already extremely difficult even more difficult. So a developer’s job is harder when you factor in that the PS3 has a 512KB L2 cache which is half the size of the 360 CPU’s 1MB L2 cache… that single PPE the PS3 CPU has isn’t receiving much help with branches in the cache department.
Microsoft made a better decision from the perspective of the developer; it's still difficult, but much easier compared to working with the Cell architecture. The 360’s CPU isn’t asymmetric like the PS3’s cell and has 3 PPE as opposed to 1, but all 3 are robust enough to help handle the type of code only the PS3’s single PPE is capable of handling. When Microsoft says they have three times the general purpose processing power this is what they mean. Based on the simple fact that the 360 has 3 Power PC cores to the PS3’s 1, more processing power can be dedicated to helping with things such as game control AI, scripting and other types of branch intensive code.
From the perspective of a developer the 360’s CPU’s biggest advantage is that all 3 of the 360’s cores are identical, all run from the same memory pool and they’re synchronized, in addition to being cache coherent. You can just create an extra thread right in your program and have it do some work. This allows the developer to create very nice structures so if you know how to get the best possible performance out of one core you know how to get the best possible performance out of all 3 because they operate in perfect synch.
Each core on the 360’s processor is capable of performing 2 threads each (Think of it as similar to hyper threading), so the 360’s CPU is capable of handling 6 simultaneous running threads at once. This brings me to a very important advantage for the PS3’s Cell CPU, its concurrency. While the 360 CPU may be able to handle 6 processor threads simultaneously it still only has 3 physical CPU cores so every 2 threads must share processing power on a single core. Whereas with the PS3, it has 1 PPE and 6 SPE for games, which are like extra physical processors). If each of the PS3’s 6 SPE used for games are working on a specific task such as collision, cloth physics, animation, water surface simulation or particles, they wouldn’t need to worry about processing power being taken away from another part of the game because the SPE don’t share processing power.
The only cause for concern would be the 512KB L2 cache being shared by 7 simultaneous running SPE and a PPE, but that’s what developers are for; they work around things like this. In practice, this should allow PS3 games to potentially have more things going on at once than 360 games. Ignoring the difficulties of programming for the PS3 CPU, it should be known that the PS3’s CPU is very good when it comes to vertex-related operations because the PS3’s CPU handles graphics code better than the 360’s CPU. It is also possible that through good parallelism of physics code on the SPE that physics code could also run better on the PS3 CPU due to the concurrency advantage.
The 360 CPU however, due to its 3 symmetric General Purpose Cores, is not only much easier to program for than the cell, but having 3 PPE capable of handling things such as AI also means the 360’s CPU will be the better of the 2 CPUs when it comes to AI code. Either way we can look forward to great things from both CPUs in the future.
Before I end off, I’d like to point out a game that in my opinion, from a technical standpoint, is one the most brilliant uses of the PS3’s CPU. All things considered, such as in-order execution and the other complications of the architecture, Heavenly Sword is quite the standout in nearly every regard: incredible combat animations, awesome group enemy AI, and great physics. At the very least this is what I gathered from seeing videos of the E3 demo; it’s a reminder that regardless of the challenges, there are developers that are up to the challenge and its only going to get better with time."
The Cost of the Operating System
This will be a much shorter section than the others just showing how much of each console’s resources are allocated to run the operating system.
Starting off with the Xbox 360 here is what we are looking at.
The 360 operating system is constantly running in the background and I’d go into what it offers, but everyone most likely knows by now so I’ll go straight to the resource allocations.
Everything comes at a cost and here are the costs for the 360.
•32MB of the 512mb of available GDDR3 RAM
•3% CPU time on Core1 and Core2 (nothing is reserved on Core0)
Microsoft still has room left from what they’ve already reserved for future updates.
Transitioning to the PS3’s Operating system here is what the resource allocation looks like.
Sony of course has decided to match Microsoft by using a constantly running in the background Operating system and here is what it includes. Again I will not be going into what it offers as most already know by now.
The costs for the PS3’s operating system are as follows
•32mb of the 256mb of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
•64mb of the 256mb of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
•1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved
•1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games have to give it up if requested)
Now the thing that probably jumps at people the most is the fact that the 360 uses much less resources to run its operating system. How could this be? No answers were provided on exactly why (Nondisclosure Agreements Suck), and while I may have a couple of technical reasons for why that may explain it, I don’t truly know so I wont attempt to. I assume maybe it has something to do with Microsoft’s experience with Operating Systems. Or it could be the ps3’s browser nobody really knows and the people that do know wont talk.
RSX (PS3GPU) & Xenos (360GPU)
Alright let’s get underway the GPU inside the PS3 is NV47 based which is another name for the 7800GTX. It has 24 pixel shader pipelines and 8 vertex shader pipelines. It’s capable of 136 shader operations per clock and according to Sony it has 256MB of GDDR3 memory at 700MHZ and performs 74.8 billion shader operations per second. Sony also said it’s capable of 1.8 teraflops, which I can tell everyone right now with 100% confidence isn’t true (numbers game) I’m not entirely sure of all the little tricks they used to arrive at such an extreme flops number, but rest assured it isn’t a type of a performance this GPU will ever really achieve. PC videocards such as the X1900XTX have far more raw horsepower than either of the 2 videocards in either console and is pushing a GPU clock speed of up to 650MHZ (some have shipped at 675MHZ) along with 24 more pixel shader pipelines and yet the X1900XTX is just over 500GFLOPS so to even begin entertaining the thought that a less advanced GPU with significantly less raw power could brute force 1.3 teraflops better performance is wishful thinking, but there is no cause to be angry at Sony in this case as they are entitled to market their product regardless of how they choose to do it. As long as they avoid disturbingly untrue statements about the competition its all fair game as far as I’m concerned)
I’m sure some people are wondering how Sony came to the conclusion that the RSX does 136 shader operations per clock or even 74.8 billion shader ops per second? Easy
# The RSX has 24 pixel pipes (each of which performs 5.7 ops) 5.7ops *24 Pixel Pipelines=136.8 shader ops per clock.
# The RSX is clocked at 550MHZ *136 shader ops per clock =74800 (or 74,800,000,000)
There is talk and even an event which took place in Japan in which Sony attended claiming that the RSX will no longer be 550MHZ and it will instead be clocked at 500MHZ and the 256MB of GDDR3 will now be @650MHZ instead of 700. Now there is a lot pointing to this being true, but Sony still hasn’t officially come out and admitted so I’m not sure what to think, but this is a perfect opportunity to see if we learned how to calculate this stuff.
If the RSX is clocked at 500MHZ*136 shader ops per clock that would make the new shader operations per second for the RSX 68 billion instead of the original 74.8 billion weakening the GPU’s performance, but I guess we wont truly find out till the PS3 releases because if anyone has noticed Sony has never posted the RSX clockspeed on the official ps3 site nor did they re-iterate the RSX clockspeed at E3 06. The RSX has 20.8GB/s of video memory bandwidth from the GDDR3 ram. The RSX has an extra 32 GB/sec writing to the system's main memory. If the RSX can fully utilize the memory system it can achieve pushing out 58.2GB/s worth of pixel rendering to memory. The RSX is pretty much a 7800GTX class GPU in some cases its worse in some cases better, nothing that is really new. Now the same can’t be said about the 360’s GPU at all.
Now the 360’s GPU is one impressive piece of work and I’ll say from the get go it’s much more advanced than the PS3’s GPU so I’m not sure where to begin, but I’ll start with what Microsoft said about it. Microsoft said Xenos was clocked at 500MHZ and that it had 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines (48 unified shader units or pipelines) along with a polygon performance of 500 Million triangles a second.
Before going any further I’ll clarify this 500 Million Triangles a second claim. Can the 360’s GPU actually achieve this? Yes it can, BUT there would be no pixels or color at all. It’s the triangle setup rate for the GPU and it isn’t surprising it has such a higher triangle setup rate due to it having 48 shaders units capable of performing vertex operations whereas all other released GPUs can only dedicate 8 shader units to vertex operations. The PS3 GPU’s triangle setup rate at 550MHZ is 275 million a second and if its 500MHZ will have 250 million a second. This is just the setup rate do NOT expect to see games with such an excessive number of polygons because it wont happen.
Microsoft also says it can also achieve a pixel-fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second. This GPU here inside the Xbox 360 is literally an early ATI R600, which when released by ATI for the pc will be a Directx 10 GPU. Xenos in a lot of areas manages to meet many of the requirements that would qualify it as a Directx 10 GPU, but falls short of the requirements in others. What I found interesting was Microsoft said the 360’s GPU could perform 48 billion shader operations per second back in 2005. However Bob Feldstein, VP of engineering for ATI, made it very clear that the 360’s GPU can perform 2 of those shaders per cycle so the 360’s GPU is actually capable of 96 billion shader operations per second.
To quote ATI on the 360’s GPU they say.
"On chip, the shaders are organized in three SIMD engines with 16 processors per unit, for a total of 48 shaders. Each of these shaders is comprised of four ALUs that can execute a single operation per cycle, so that each shader unit can execute four floating-point ops per cycle." •48 shader units * 4 ops per cycle = 192 shader ops per clock
•Xenos is clocked at 500MHZ *192 shader ops per clock = 96 billion shader ops per second.
(Did anyone notice that each shader unit on the 360’s GPU doesn’t perform as many ops per pipe as the rsx? The 360 GPU makes up for it by having superior architecture, having many more pipes which operate more efficiently and along with more bandwidth.)
Did Microsoft just make a mistake or did they purposely misrepresent their GPU to lead Sony on? The 360’s GPU is revolutionary in the sense that it’s the first GPU to use a Unified Shader architecture. According to developers this is as big a change as when the vertex shader was first introduced and even then the inclusion of the vertex shader was merely an add-on not a major change like this. The 360’s GPU also has a daughter die right there on the chip containing 10MB of EDRAM. This EDRAM has a framebuffer bandwidth of 256GB/s which is more than 5 times what the RSX or any GPU for the pc has for its framebuffer (even higher than G80’s framebuffer).
Thanks to the efficiency of the 360 GPU’s unified shader architecture and this 10MB of EDRAM the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost. ATI and Microsoft’s goal was to eliminate memory bandwidth as a bottleneck and they seem to have succeeded. If there are any pc gamers out there they notice that when they turn on things such as AA or HDR the performance goes down that’s because those features eat bandwidth hence the efficiency of the GPU’s operation decreases as they are turned on. With the 360 HDR+4XAA simultaneously are like nothing to the GPU with proper use of the EDRAM. The EDRAM contains a 3D logic unit which has 192 Floating Point Unit processors inside. The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU’s workload.
Xenos writes to this EDRAM for its framebuffer and it’s connected to it via a 32GB/sec connection (this number is extremely close to the theoretical because the EDRAM is right there on the 360 GPU’s daughter die.) Don’t forget the EDRAM has a bandwidth of 256GB/s and its only by dividing this 256GB/s by the initial 32GB/s that we get from the connection of Xenos to the EDRAM we find out that Xenos is capable of multiplying its effective bandwidth to the frame buffer by a factor of 8 when processing pixels that make use of the EDRAM, which includes HDR or AA and other things. This leads to a maximum of 32*8=256GB/s which, to say the least, is a very effective way of dealing with bandwidth intensive tasks.
In order for this to be possible developers would need to setup their rendering engine to take advantage of both the EDRAM and the available onboard 3D logic. If anyone is confused why the 32GB/s is being multiplied by 8 its because once data travels over the 32GB/s bus it is able to be processed 8 times by the EDRAM logic to the EDRAM memory at a rate of 256GB/s so for every 32GB/s you send over 256GB/s gets processed. This results in RSX being at a bandwidth disadvantage in comparison to Xenos. Needless to say the 360 not only has an overabundance of video memory bandwidth, but it also has amazing memory saving features. For example to get 720P with 4XFSAA on traditional architecture would require 28MB worth of memory. On the 360 only 16MB is required. There are also features in the 360's Direct3D API where developers are able to fit 2 128x128 textures into the same space required for one, for example. So even with all the memory and all the memory bandwidth, they are still very mindful of how it’s used.
wasn’t too clear earlier on the difference between the RSX’s dedicated pixel and vertex shader pipelines compared to the 360s unified shader architecture. The 360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines capable of accepting either pixel or vertex shader operations whereas with the older dedicated pixel and vertex pipeline architecture that RSX uses when you are in a vertex heavy situation most of the 24 pixel pipes go idle instead of helping out with vertex work.
Or on the flip side in a pixel heavy situation those 8 vertex shader pipelines are just idle and don’t help out the pixel pipes (because they aren’t able to), but with the 360’s unified architecture in a vertex heavy situation for example none of the pipes go idle. All 48 unified pipelines are capable of helping with either pixel or vertex shader operations when needed so as a result efficiency is greatly improved and so is overall performance. When pipelines are forced to go idle because they lack the capability to help another set of pipelines accomplish their task it’s detrimental to performance. This inefficient manner is how all current GPUs operate including the PS3's RSX. The pipelines go idle because the pixel pipes aren't able to help the vertex pipes accomplish a task or vice versa. Whats even more impressive about this GPU is it by itself determines the balance of how many pipelines to dedicate to vertex or pixel shader operations at any given time a programmer is NOT needed to handle any of this the GPU takes care of all this itself in the quickest most efficient way possible. 1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360’s gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360’s GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times.
Want to know why Xenos doesn’t need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It’s just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it’s the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos’ MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable “streamout” which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos’ other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360’s GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI’s unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner.
I’ll borrow a quote from Dave Baumann since he explains it rather well:
“With the capability to fetch from anywhere in memory, perform arbitrary ALU operations and write the results back to memory, in conjunction with the raw floating point performance of the large shader ALU array, the MEMEXPORT facility does have the capability to achieve a wide range of fairly complex and general purpose operations; basically any operation that can be mapped to a wide SIMD array can be fairly efficiently achieved and in comparison to previous graphics pipelines it is achieved in fewer cycles and with lower latencies. For instance, this is probably the first time that general purpose physics calculation would be achievable, with a reasonable degree of success, on a graphics processor and is a big step towards the graphics processor becoming much more like a vector co-processor to the CPU.”
Og få mig slet ikke startet på de 10 MB EDRAM, som er alt for lidt 720p @ 4xAA kræver ~12MB, så tiling er nødvendingt, altså dele skærmen up i 2 dele og derved komme under 50% ydelse...
Terra - Kig på hardwaren...den yder ikke magisk bedre fordi den sidder i en konsol.
Cell CPU != RSX...kom nu ind kampen...og Folding at home er en forvredet tommestok og bruge, da det jo er IO insrtukser og ikke OoO data som spil er f.eks.
Skal vi helt ned og begynde at citere de links jeg før har postet?
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=...
"PS3 CPU & 360 CPU
Let us start off by just showing what Microsoft and Sony released to the public in regards to the cpus in both their machines. Many press releases in many different formats and or styles, but this is the gist of it.
360 Central processing unit (aka Xenon)
•90 nm process, 165 million transistors (65 nm process SOI revision in 2007)
•Three symmetrical cores, each one SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz
•One VMX-128 SIMD unit per core, dual threaded.
•128×128 register file for each hardware thread, 2 sets per VMX unit
•1 MB L2 cache (lockable by the GPU)
•Dot product performance: 9.6 billion per second (33.6 billion combined with GPU)
•115 GFLOPS theoretical peak performance
•ROM storing Microsoft private encrypted keys
360 CPU information provided by Microsoft
PlayStation 3 Central-processing unit (aka Cell Broadband Engine)
•PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
•1 VMX vector unit per core
•512KB L2 cache
•7 x SPE @3.2GHz
•7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
•7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
•Dot product performance 22.4 billion (51 billion combined with GPU)
•1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
•Total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
PS3 CPU information provided by Sony
Now before I get into it I’d like to point out that while both consoles have powerful CPUs both Sony and Microsoft have played a dirty little numbers game with everyone… numbers that can easily be misinterpreted by most people to mean “The one with the highest numbers must be the better of the 2” and that isn’t how it works at all (atleast not all the time and here is the kicker both Sony and Microsoft want you to misinterpret the numbers).
Why isn’t a “higher is better” mentality always a safe bet? Simple really, one has to take into consideration important things like the architecture. To only concentrate on the raw numbers without understanding the specifics of how it operates can lead to mistakes like this example here “Midway has a car that can reach a top speed of 180MPH and Australia has a car that can reach a top speed of 90MPH.” Someone only looking at the raw numbers may assume “This is far too easy clearly Midway is going to win because his car goes up to 180MPH” Now did anyone stop to consider the fact that maybe Australia is not only the better driver of the 2, but his car has quicker acceleration plus better braking and the road they’ll be racing on is dripping wet and packed full of sharp turns which may prevent the more inexperienced driver from banking on all that raw speed?
Not the best of analogies, but this will teach everyone to be cautious when they see either side throwing around their Megahertz, dot products and GFLOPS. I’m not saying the numbers are 100% meaningless as there are numbers that are actually trustworthy, but its getting you all ready for what I’m about to tell you.
Dispelling Some of the Hype
Now there are people that look at the 360 having a triple core processor and the PS3 with the much publicized Cell Processor and start to wonder…
•#1 How in God’s name can the 360 ship with a 3 core processor in November 2005 while there isn’t an available purchase for 3 or 4 core CPUs for desktop computers?
•#2 Why didn’t Intel or AMD manufacture and start selling such a processor at the same time or before the Xbox 360 shipped?
•#3 How can the cell have 1 Power PC core and, in addition to that, have 7 SPE, which are basically seven extra processors?
•#4 Everyone knows processors aren’t cheap and when you factor in everything else you need, it’s even more expensive. How can Microsoft get away with charging as low as $299 for the Xbox 360? How can Sony get away with charging as low as $500 for the PS3, when the processors themselves cost 90% of the PS3’s price or cost more than $500?
Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: The processors inside these machines are extremely powerful and cutting edge you literally have a supercomputer in your home as the Xbox 360 has 1 Teraflop worth of computing power and the PS3 has 2 Teraflops worth of computing power.
TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.
The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.
Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: Thanks to these multi-core processors developers will be able to multi-thread their games and get significant performance improvements and achieve Artificial Intelligence in games that people previously thought impossible for a videogame. It’ll be as if you’re playing with another living breathing human being.
TRUTH: “What is the big deal? How exactly does the fact that both processors being “In-Order Execution” CPUs hurt them? Well, see the 3.2GHZ clock speed for both CPUs? The type of nasty game code, full of branches, loops etc… that would’ve been greatly improved speedwise, thanks to out-of-order execution and a wider execution core is not there to help, so that 3.2GHZ actually performs slower than out-of-order execution CPUs available to desktop computer users.
This brings us to the very reason why both the PS3 and Xbox 360 are using multiple processors in an effort to combat the lack of an instruction window and the fact that they have a narrow execution core. It gets even better, because this very same code that they hope to speed up using parallelism on multiple cores isn’t by any means parallel programming friendly.
On the other hand, Graphics-related code is great on both these processors, as graphics code is nice and parallelism friendly. There is a reason people consider graphics accelerators to be the poster child for parallelism. As a matter of fact, it’s the most successful form of parallelism the field of computer science has ever witnessed. GPUs are able to get all transistors firing that actually produce a significant real world benefit to the people using the product.
For the CPU to become more like the GPU is the ultimate goal for many and AMD together with ATI seem to be going for it. The cell processor is actually one such attempt to do so, but it’s not yet at the level everyone had hoped. (Perhaps a bit early as a cell like CPU isn’t on Intel’s to do list until about 2015) Long story short, both Microsoft and Sony have given developers more than enough on the graphics side of things, but at the same time, are asking developers to do more with less on the aspects of the game unrelated to graphics"
A bit of review
•#1 Both consoles are using in-order execution CPUs that are half the speed of out-of-order execution processors when it comes to running most game code, especially the more troublesome type which contains branches, loops and pointers.
•#2 The very code they’re hoping to get improved performance out of isn't the type to lend itself so easily to multi-threading… to say it's hard would be the understatement of the century.
Here is a bit of what John Carmack, technical director of id Software, has to say about this.
“I do somewhat question whether we might have been better off this generation having an out-of-order main processor, rather than splitting it all up into these multi-processor systems.”
“It’s probably a good thing for us to be getting with the program now, the first generation of titles coming out for both platforms will not be anywhere close to taking full advantage of all this extra capability, but maybe by the time the next generation of consoles roll around, the developers will be a little bit more comfortable with all of this and be able to get more benefit out of it.”
But it’s not a problem that I actually think is going to have a solution. I think it’s going to stay hard, I don’t think there’s going to be a silver bullet for parallel programming. There have been a lot of very smart people, researchers and so on, that have been working this problem for 20 years, and it doesn’t really look any more promising than it was before.”
Everyone should be aware that these processors while powerful and a leap over what the current generation consoles had, they aren’t the second coming they were marketed to be and what drives this point home even further is the fact that Multi-threaded programming on these CPUs will definitely not be achieved at the snap of a finger; the developers have their work cut out for them.
How is one CPU better than another?
GFLOPS is something that gets thrown around a lot, but it should be clear that the peak theoretical GFLOP numbers for both these CPUs are:
•115GFLOPS Theoretical Peak Performance for 360 CPU
•218GFLOPS Theoretical Peak Performance for PS3 CPU.
These CPU theories will not be achieved in real world performance. What IBM did when testing for theoretical peaks on both CPUs can't really be considered as representative of how the processors would actually perform in real world situations, because of the type of testing done is too controlled. It’s a much too perfect of an environment and game development is going to involve an unforgiving environment that doesn’t cater so well to the perfect environment the CPUs were tested under.
The GFLOP numbers for the PS3 were calculated based on 8 running SPE, so the fact that the PS3 uses only 6 SPE for game applications lowers the peak theoretical even further, as majority of the floating point work on the PS3’s CPU is done via the SPE. Each SPE has a peak theoretical of 25.6GFLOPS. So the total peak theoretical performance for all 6 SPE would be 153.6GFLOPS, but why is that number also not achievable?
In IBM’s controlled testing environment, their optimized code on 8 SPE only yielded a performance number of 155.5GFLOPS. If it took 8 SPE to achieve that, no way 6 will be able to and that testing was done in a fashion that didn’t model all the complexities of DMA and the memory system. Using a 1Kx1K matrix and 8 SPE they were able to achieve 73.4GFLOPS, but the PS3 uses 6 SPE for games and these tests were done in controlled environments. So going on this information, even 73.4GFLOPS is seemingly out of reach, showing us that Sony didn’t necessarily lie about the cell’s performance as they made clear the 218GFLOPS was “theoretical.” But just like Microsoft they definitely wanted you to misinterpret these numbers into believing they were achievable.
Even while taking all of this into consideration, the CPUs can’t reach those crazy performance numbers; the PS3’s cell still comfortably comes out on top in terms of overall floating point capability, but it should be known that the available power on the PS3’s cell will be significantly more difficult to harness than the available power on the 360’s CPU.
It’s also worth mentioning that even the PS2 CPU had more than twice the GFLOPS of the original Xbox’s CPU, but it didn’t necessarily lead it to being the performance winner. This time around, while the cell has the GFLOPS advantage, its advantage isn’t quite as big as the PS2 CPU had on the Xbox. This teaches us that there is more than one meter of real world performance.
The PS3’s cell processor has 1 Power PC core similar to that of the 3 Power PC cores sustaining the 360’s 3 core design (without the vmx-128 enhancements available on each of the 360’s cores) and 7 SPE (synergistic processing element). The 8th is disabled to improve yields. One of the SPE is used to run the PS3’s operating system while the other 6 are available for games. The reason the PS3’s CPU will be significantly more difficult to program for is because the CPU is asymmetric, unlike the 360’s CPU. Because of the PS3 CPU only having 1 PPE compared to the 360’s 3, all game control, scripting, AI and other branch intensive code will need to be crammed into two threads which share a very narrow execution core and no instruction window. The cell’s SPE will be unable to help out here as they are not as robust; hence, not fit for accelerating things such as AI, as it’s fairly branch intensive and the SPE lacks branch prediction capability entirely.
I’m sure people remember from the section detailing how the 360 and PS3’s processors are less robust compared to processors we use on our desktop computers and the consequences of being in order execution. Well the PS3’s SPE are further stripped down than even the Power PC Cores and, as a result, isn’t as capable of handling as many different types of code like the 1 Power PC Core available on the PS3’s cell or the 3 Power PC Cores available on the 360’s CPU. The problem with being asymmetric is when you program for the Power PC Core on the PS3 CPU, the method of programming you used to get the most out of that Power PC core is no longer effective when breaking off tasks for the SPE to work on. Going from the PPE to the SPE on the PS3 requires a different compiler and a different set of tools.
When you come to the realization that the key to making up for the CPU is in-order execution is the rather complicated parallel programming, you realize that the CPU being asymmetric and having just a single PPE makes something that was already extremely difficult even more difficult. So a developer’s job is harder when you factor in that the PS3 has a 512KB L2 cache which is half the size of the 360 CPU’s 1MB L2 cache… that single PPE the PS3 CPU has isn’t receiving much help with branches in the cache department.
Microsoft made a better decision from the perspective of the developer; it's still difficult, but much easier compared to working with the Cell architecture. The 360’s CPU isn’t asymmetric like the PS3’s cell and has 3 PPE as opposed to 1, but all 3 are robust enough to help handle the type of code only the PS3’s single PPE is capable of handling. When Microsoft says they have three times the general purpose processing power this is what they mean. Based on the simple fact that the 360 has 3 Power PC cores to the PS3’s 1, more processing power can be dedicated to helping with things such as game control AI, scripting and other types of branch intensive code.
From the perspective of a developer the 360’s CPU’s biggest advantage is that all 3 of the 360’s cores are identical, all run from the same memory pool and they’re synchronized, in addition to being cache coherent. You can just create an extra thread right in your program and have it do some work. This allows the developer to create very nice structures so if you know how to get the best possible performance out of one core you know how to get the best possible performance out of all 3 because they operate in perfect synch.
Each core on the 360’s processor is capable of performing 2 threads each (Think of it as similar to hyper threading), so the 360’s CPU is capable of handling 6 simultaneous running threads at once. This brings me to a very important advantage for the PS3’s Cell CPU, its concurrency. While the 360 CPU may be able to handle 6 processor threads simultaneously it still only has 3 physical CPU cores so every 2 threads must share processing power on a single core. Whereas with the PS3, it has 1 PPE and 6 SPE for games, which are like extra physical processors). If each of the PS3’s 6 SPE used for games are working on a specific task such as collision, cloth physics, animation, water surface simulation or particles, they wouldn’t need to worry about processing power being taken away from another part of the game because the SPE don’t share processing power.
The only cause for concern would be the 512KB L2 cache being shared by 7 simultaneous running SPE and a PPE, but that’s what developers are for; they work around things like this. In practice, this should allow PS3 games to potentially have more things going on at once than 360 games. Ignoring the difficulties of programming for the PS3 CPU, it should be known that the PS3’s CPU is very good when it comes to vertex-related operations because the PS3’s CPU handles graphics code better than the 360’s CPU. It is also possible that through good parallelism of physics code on the SPE that physics code could also run better on the PS3 CPU due to the concurrency advantage.
The 360 CPU however, due to its 3 symmetric General Purpose Cores, is not only much easier to program for than the cell, but having 3 PPE capable of handling things such as AI also means the 360’s CPU will be the better of the 2 CPUs when it comes to AI code. Either way we can look forward to great things from both CPUs in the future.
Before I end off, I’d like to point out a game that in my opinion, from a technical standpoint, is one the most brilliant uses of the PS3’s CPU. All things considered, such as in-order execution and the other complications of the architecture, Heavenly Sword is quite the standout in nearly every regard: incredible combat animations, awesome group enemy AI, and great physics. At the very least this is what I gathered from seeing videos of the E3 demo; it’s a reminder that regardless of the challenges, there are developers that are up to the challenge and its only going to get better with time."
The Cost of the Operating System
This will be a much shorter section than the others just showing how much of each console’s resources are allocated to run the operating system.
Starting off with the Xbox 360 here is what we are looking at.
The 360 operating system is constantly running in the background and I’d go into what it offers, but everyone most likely knows by now so I’ll go straight to the resource allocations.
Everything comes at a cost and here are the costs for the 360.
•32MB of the 512mb of available GDDR3 RAM
•3% CPU time on Core1 and Core2 (nothing is reserved on Core0)
Microsoft still has room left from what they’ve already reserved for future updates.
Transitioning to the PS3’s Operating system here is what the resource allocation looks like.
Sony of course has decided to match Microsoft by using a constantly running in the background Operating system and here is what it includes. Again I will not be going into what it offers as most already know by now.
The costs for the PS3’s operating system are as follows
•32mb of the 256mb of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
•64mb of the 256mb of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
•1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved
•1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games have to give it up if requested)
Now the thing that probably jumps at people the most is the fact that the 360 uses much less resources to run its operating system. How could this be? No answers were provided on exactly why (Nondisclosure Agreements Suck), and while I may have a couple of technical reasons for why that may explain it, I don’t truly know so I wont attempt to. I assume maybe it has something to do with Microsoft’s experience with Operating Systems. Or it could be the ps3’s browser nobody really knows and the people that do know wont talk.
RSX (PS3GPU) & Xenos (360GPU)
Alright let’s get underway the GPU inside the PS3 is NV47 based which is another name for the 7800GTX. It has 24 pixel shader pipelines and 8 vertex shader pipelines. It’s capable of 136 shader operations per clock and according to Sony it has 256MB of GDDR3 memory at 700MHZ and performs 74.8 billion shader operations per second. Sony also said it’s capable of 1.8 teraflops, which I can tell everyone right now with 100% confidence isn’t true (numbers game) I’m not entirely sure of all the little tricks they used to arrive at such an extreme flops number, but rest assured it isn’t a type of a performance this GPU will ever really achieve. PC videocards such as the X1900XTX have far more raw horsepower than either of the 2 videocards in either console and is pushing a GPU clock speed of up to 650MHZ (some have shipped at 675MHZ) along with 24 more pixel shader pipelines and yet the X1900XTX is just over 500GFLOPS so to even begin entertaining the thought that a less advanced GPU with significantly less raw power could brute force 1.3 teraflops better performance is wishful thinking, but there is no cause to be angry at Sony in this case as they are entitled to market their product regardless of how they choose to do it. As long as they avoid disturbingly untrue statements about the competition its all fair game as far as I’m concerned)
I’m sure some people are wondering how Sony came to the conclusion that the RSX does 136 shader operations per clock or even 74.8 billion shader ops per second? Easy
# The RSX has 24 pixel pipes (each of which performs 5.7 ops) 5.7ops *24 Pixel Pipelines=136.8 shader ops per clock.
# The RSX is clocked at 550MHZ *136 shader ops per clock =74800 (or 74,800,000,000)
There is talk and even an event which took place in Japan in which Sony attended claiming that the RSX will no longer be 550MHZ and it will instead be clocked at 500MHZ and the 256MB of GDDR3 will now be @650MHZ instead of 700. Now there is a lot pointing to this being true, but Sony still hasn’t officially come out and admitted so I’m not sure what to think, but this is a perfect opportunity to see if we learned how to calculate this stuff.
If the RSX is clocked at 500MHZ*136 shader ops per clock that would make the new shader operations per second for the RSX 68 billion instead of the original 74.8 billion weakening the GPU’s performance, but I guess we wont truly find out till the PS3 releases because if anyone has noticed Sony has never posted the RSX clockspeed on the official ps3 site nor did they re-iterate the RSX clockspeed at E3 06. The RSX has 20.8GB/s of video memory bandwidth from the GDDR3 ram. The RSX has an extra 32 GB/sec writing to the system's main memory. If the RSX can fully utilize the memory system it can achieve pushing out 58.2GB/s worth of pixel rendering to memory. The RSX is pretty much a 7800GTX class GPU in some cases its worse in some cases better, nothing that is really new. Now the same can’t be said about the 360’s GPU at all.
Now the 360’s GPU is one impressive piece of work and I’ll say from the get go it’s much more advanced than the PS3’s GPU so I’m not sure where to begin, but I’ll start with what Microsoft said about it. Microsoft said Xenos was clocked at 500MHZ and that it had 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines (48 unified shader units or pipelines) along with a polygon performance of 500 Million triangles a second.
Before going any further I’ll clarify this 500 Million Triangles a second claim. Can the 360’s GPU actually achieve this? Yes it can, BUT there would be no pixels or color at all. It’s the triangle setup rate for the GPU and it isn’t surprising it has such a higher triangle setup rate due to it having 48 shaders units capable of performing vertex operations whereas all other released GPUs can only dedicate 8 shader units to vertex operations. The PS3 GPU’s triangle setup rate at 550MHZ is 275 million a second and if its 500MHZ will have 250 million a second. This is just the setup rate do NOT expect to see games with such an excessive number of polygons because it wont happen.
Microsoft also says it can also achieve a pixel-fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second. This GPU here inside the Xbox 360 is literally an early ATI R600, which when released by ATI for the pc will be a Directx 10 GPU. Xenos in a lot of areas manages to meet many of the requirements that would qualify it as a Directx 10 GPU, but falls short of the requirements in others. What I found interesting was Microsoft said the 360’s GPU could perform 48 billion shader operations per second back in 2005. However Bob Feldstein, VP of engineering for ATI, made it very clear that the 360’s GPU can perform 2 of those shaders per cycle so the 360’s GPU is actually capable of 96 billion shader operations per second.
To quote ATI on the 360’s GPU they say.
"On chip, the shaders are organized in three SIMD engines with 16 processors per unit, for a total of 48 shaders. Each of these shaders is comprised of four ALUs that can execute a single operation per cycle, so that each shader unit can execute four floating-point ops per cycle." •48 shader units * 4 ops per cycle = 192 shader ops per clock
•Xenos is clocked at 500MHZ *192 shader ops per clock = 96 billion shader ops per second.
(Did anyone notice that each shader unit on the 360’s GPU doesn’t perform as many ops per pipe as the rsx? The 360 GPU makes up for it by having superior architecture, having many more pipes which operate more efficiently and along with more bandwidth.)
Did Microsoft just make a mistake or did they purposely misrepresent their GPU to lead Sony on? The 360’s GPU is revolutionary in the sense that it’s the first GPU to use a Unified Shader architecture. According to developers this is as big a change as when the vertex shader was first introduced and even then the inclusion of the vertex shader was merely an add-on not a major change like this. The 360’s GPU also has a daughter die right there on the chip containing 10MB of EDRAM. This EDRAM has a framebuffer bandwidth of 256GB/s which is more than 5 times what the RSX or any GPU for the pc has for its framebuffer (even higher than G80’s framebuffer).
Thanks to the efficiency of the 360 GPU’s unified shader architecture and this 10MB of EDRAM the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost. ATI and Microsoft’s goal was to eliminate memory bandwidth as a bottleneck and they seem to have succeeded. If there are any pc gamers out there they notice that when they turn on things such as AA or HDR the performance goes down that’s because those features eat bandwidth hence the efficiency of the GPU’s operation decreases as they are turned on. With the 360 HDR+4XAA simultaneously are like nothing to the GPU with proper use of the EDRAM. The EDRAM contains a 3D logic unit which has 192 Floating Point Unit processors inside. The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU’s workload.
Xenos writes to this EDRAM for its framebuffer and it’s connected to it via a 32GB/sec connection (this number is extremely close to the theoretical because the EDRAM is right there on the 360 GPU’s daughter die.) Don’t forget the EDRAM has a bandwidth of 256GB/s and its only by dividing this 256GB/s by the initial 32GB/s that we get from the connection of Xenos to the EDRAM we find out that Xenos is capable of multiplying its effective bandwidth to the frame buffer by a factor of 8 when processing pixels that make use of the EDRAM, which includes HDR or AA and other things. This leads to a maximum of 32*8=256GB/s which, to say the least, is a very effective way of dealing with bandwidth intensive tasks.
In order for this to be possible developers would need to setup their rendering engine to take advantage of both the EDRAM and the available onboard 3D logic. If anyone is confused why the 32GB/s is being multiplied by 8 its because once data travels over the 32GB/s bus it is able to be processed 8 times by the EDRAM logic to the EDRAM memory at a rate of 256GB/s so for every 32GB/s you send over 256GB/s gets processed. This results in RSX being at a bandwidth disadvantage in comparison to Xenos. Needless to say the 360 not only has an overabundance of video memory bandwidth, but it also has amazing memory saving features. For example to get 720P with 4XFSAA on traditional architecture would require 28MB worth of memory. On the 360 only 16MB is required. There are also features in the 360's Direct3D API where developers are able to fit 2 128x128 textures into the same space required for one, for example. So even with all the memory and all the memory bandwidth, they are still very mindful of how it’s used.
wasn’t too clear earlier on the difference between the RSX’s dedicated pixel and vertex shader pipelines compared to the 360s unified shader architecture. The 360 GPU has 48 unified pipelines capable of accepting either pixel or vertex shader operations whereas with the older dedicated pixel and vertex pipeline architecture that RSX uses when you are in a vertex heavy situation most of the 24 pixel pipes go idle instead of helping out with vertex work.
Or on the flip side in a pixel heavy situation those 8 vertex shader pipelines are just idle and don’t help out the pixel pipes (because they aren’t able to), but with the 360’s unified architecture in a vertex heavy situation for example none of the pipes go idle. All 48 unified pipelines are capable of helping with either pixel or vertex shader operations when needed so as a result efficiency is greatly improved and so is overall performance. When pipelines are forced to go idle because they lack the capability to help another set of pipelines accomplish their task it’s detrimental to performance. This inefficient manner is how all current GPUs operate including the PS3's RSX. The pipelines go idle because the pixel pipes aren't able to help the vertex pipes accomplish a task or vice versa. Whats even more impressive about this GPU is it by itself determines the balance of how many pipelines to dedicate to vertex or pixel shader operations at any given time a programmer is NOT needed to handle any of this the GPU takes care of all this itself in the quickest most efficient way possible. 1080p is not a smart resolution to target in any form this generation, but if 360 developers wanted to get serious about 1080p, thanks to Xenos, could actually outperform the ps3 in 1080p. (The less efficient GPU always shows its weaknesses against the competition in higher resolutions so the best way for the rsx to be competitive is to stick to 720P) In vertex shader limited situations the 360’s gpu will literally be 6 times faster than RSX. With a unified shader architecture things are much more efficient than previous architectures allowed (which is extremely important). The 360’s GPU for example is 95-99% efficient with 4XAA enabled. With traditional architecture there are design related roadblocks that prevent such efficiency. To avoid such roadblocks, which held back previous hardware, the 360 GPU design team created a complex system of hardware threading inside the chip itself. In this case, each thread is a program associated with the shader arrays. The Xbox 360 GPU can manage and maintain state information on 64 separate threads in hardware. There's a thread buffer inside the chip, and the GPU can switch between threads instantaneously in order to keep the shader arrays busy at all times.
Want to know why Xenos doesn’t need as much raw horsepower to outperform say something like the x1900xtx or the 7900GTX? It makes up for not having as much raw horsepower by actually being efficient enough to fully achieve its advertised performance numbers which is an impressive feat. The x1900xtx has a peak pixel fillrate of 10.4Gigasamples a second while the 7900GTX has a peak pixel fillrate of 15.6Gigasamples a second. Neither of them is actually able to achieve and sustain those peak fillrate performance numbers though due to not being efficient enough, but they get away with it in this case since they can also bank on all the raw power. The performance winner between the 7900GTX and the X1900XTX is actually the X1900XTX despite a lower pixel fillrate (especially in higher resolutions) because it has twice as many pixel pipes and is the more efficient of the 2. It’s just a testament as to how important efficiency is. Well how exactly can the mere 360 GPU stand up to both of those with only a 128 bit memory interface and 500MHZ? Well the 360 GPU with 4XFSAA enabled achieves AND sustains its peak fillrate of 16Gigasamples per second which is achieved by the combination of the unified shader architecture and the excessive amount of bandwidth which gives it the type of efficiency that allows it to outperform GPUs with far more raw horsepower. I guess it also helps that it’s the single most advanced GPU currently available anyway for purchase. Things get even better when you factor in the Xenos’ MEMEXPORT ability which allows it to enable “streamout” which opens the door for Xenos to achieve DX10 class functionality. A shame Microsoft chose to disable Xenos’ other 16 pipelines to improve yields and keep costs down. Not many are even aware that the 360’s GPU has the exact same number of pipelines as ATI’s unreleased R600, but to keep costs down and to make the GPU easier to manufacture, Microsoft chose to disable one of the shader arrays containing 16 pipelines. What MEMEXPORT does is it expands the graphics pipeline in more general purpose and programmable manner.
I’ll borrow a quote from Dave Baumann since he explains it rather well:
“With the capability to fetch from anywhere in memory, perform arbitrary ALU operations and write the results back to memory, in conjunction with the raw floating point performance of the large shader ALU array, the MEMEXPORT facility does have the capability to achieve a wide range of fairly complex and general purpose operations; basically any operation that can be mapped to a wide SIMD array can be fairly efficiently achieved and in comparison to previous graphics pipelines it is achieved in fewer cycles and with lower latencies. For instance, this is probably the first time that general purpose physics calculation would be achievable, with a reasonable degree of success, on a graphics processor and is a big step towards the graphics processor becoming much more like a vector co-processor to the CPU.”
Og få mig slet ikke startet på de 10 MB EDRAM, som er alt for lidt 720p @ 4xAA kræver ~12MB, så tiling er nødvendingt, altså dele skærmen up i 2 dele og derved komme under 50% ydelse...
Terra - Kig på hardwaren...den yder ikke magisk bedre fordi den sidder i en konsol.
#173:
Igen, du har et 7800GTX til at levere graffiken, hvilken del af "hardware yder ikke magisk bedre bare fordi det sidder i en konsol"
Kig på link til de spil jeg har postet før i denne tård...eller nævn mig et spil du mener har høj IQ på en af brødkasserne, så skal jeg vise dig bedre...ball in your court.
Igen, du har et 7800GTX til at levere graffiken, hvilken del af "hardware yder ikke magisk bedre bare fordi det sidder i en konsol"
Kig på link til de spil jeg har postet før i denne tård...eller nævn mig et spil du mener har høj IQ på en af brødkasserne, så skal jeg vise dig bedre...ball in your court.
#176:
Folk ber selv om det når de tydeligvis ikke læser mine links...havde du en titel til mig,...eller var det bare tom snak?
Batman Brødkasse:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/batmanarkha...
Batman PC:
Groft sagt kan man sige at videoer viser brødkassen(uden PhysX)..man skal så huske at køre spillet kører i lavere opløsning på brødkassen uden A og lavt AF...og uden dynamic cloth, smoke, destractables ect...
Terra - Fuck jeg er imponeret...eller noget *host* *HARK* *host*
Folk ber selv om det når de tydeligvis ikke læser mine links...havde du en titel til mig,...eller var det bare tom snak?
Batman Brødkasse:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/batmanarkha...
Batman PC:
Groft sagt kan man sige at videoer viser brødkassen(uden PhysX)..man skal så huske at køre spillet kører i lavere opløsning på brødkassen uden A og lavt AF...og uden dynamic cloth, smoke, destractables ect...
Terra - Fuck jeg er imponeret...eller noget *host* *HARK* *host*
øh, til grin igen Terra.
Nej, CELL er ikke = RSX, det er to forskellige chips. Hvis du mener omvendt, så giv et link.
For det andet, så modsiger den artikel du har linket til sig selv. Han kommer med et eksempel hvor han skriver at arkitekturen er vidt forskellige på CPU'erne, altså at de ikke kan sættes op mod hinanden i samme datamiljø. Derefter sammenligner han det alligevel med en PC cpu, hvilket han jo før det selv har skrevet er dumt.
Forstår egentlig ikke helt hvor du vil hen med det? Du løber om hjørner med dig selv.
Og forresten, synes du at forskellen på graffiken i de to links du har linket til, retfærdiggører at give 10k mere for en maskine? Og udover det, så er det en utrolig stor forskel i kvaliteten på videoerne, hvor PC udgaven er "Show Off", du er rigtig dårlig til at finde eksempler.
Nej, CELL er ikke = RSX, det er to forskellige chips. Hvis du mener omvendt, så giv et link.
For det andet, så modsiger den artikel du har linket til sig selv. Han kommer med et eksempel hvor han skriver at arkitekturen er vidt forskellige på CPU'erne, altså at de ikke kan sættes op mod hinanden i samme datamiljø. Derefter sammenligner han det alligevel med en PC cpu, hvilket han jo før det selv har skrevet er dumt.
Forstår egentlig ikke helt hvor du vil hen med det? Du løber om hjørner med dig selv.
Og forresten, synes du at forskellen på graffiken i de to links du har linket til, retfærdiggører at give 10k mere for en maskine? Og udover det, så er det en utrolig stor forskel i kvaliteten på videoerne, hvor PC udgaven er "Show Off", du er rigtig dårlig til at finde eksempler.
Det gør CELL: http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid...
#135: Nice svar. Det passer bare ikke sammen med min post, for deri modsvarer jeg allerede dit svar, og derved har du intet nyt bragt på banen. Men tillad mig at være pædagogisk (i håb om at du DENNE GANG vil læse min post før du evt. skulle svare).
Hvis der var 2mill Vista brugere, og spilfirmaerne regnede med disse købte mange spil og deres køb afhang af DX10, så ville de se på forventet salg >/=/< omkostning ved at lave DX10 og derefter bestemme hvad der skulle laves.
DX9 er den mest udbredte standard på pc pga. XP, så den vil altid være et evt. udgangspunkt. MEN uanset vil ovennævnte overvejelse, altid afgøre beslutningen om at følge NOGEN standard.
1. Realistisk forventet udbredelse af produktet
2. Nødvendigheden af arbejdet før salget bliver en realitet
Opvejes ALTID imod
3. Omkostningen ved arbejdet.
Hvis der var 2mill Vista brugere, og spilfirmaerne regnede med disse købte mange spil og deres køb afhang af DX10, så ville de se på forventet salg >/=/< omkostning ved at lave DX10 og derefter bestemme hvad der skulle laves.
DX9 er den mest udbredte standard på pc pga. XP, så den vil altid være et evt. udgangspunkt. MEN uanset vil ovennævnte overvejelse, altid afgøre beslutningen om at følge NOGEN standard.
1. Realistisk forventet udbredelse af produktet
2. Nødvendigheden af arbejdet før salget bliver en realitet
Opvejes ALTID imod
3. Omkostningen ved arbejdet.
psyborg (184) skrev:Og hvad angår grafik, fra 2007:
*LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL*
Lad os kigge på gameplay:'
Død, statisk verden med masser af foialge clippng...er det hvad ud kalder godt?Og du kan nok godt finde et PC eksempel der er bedre fra 07, men ikke desto mindre er det oppe i en kaliber hvor man ikke kan sige det er "lysår" bagefter.
Lær at læse...
#185:
Du gør røv og nøgler, men lad os da lytte til hvad Carmack ss
iger om det at porte:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169099
Eller kig på alle de andre spil, jeg har linket til før...konsoller er forældede og det bliver værre måned for måned...og de er med til at holde spil tilbage...pga. deres ringere hardware.
Ville du game på en top of the line PC fra 2005 i dag og betragte det som værende godt?
Der er også andre link i den her tråd du tydeligt vis ikke har læst, hold op med at spilde min tid.
Du gør røv og nøgler, men lad os da lytte til hvad Carmack ss
iger om det at porte:
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169099
Eller kig på alle de andre spil, jeg har linket til før...konsoller er forældede og det bliver værre måned for måned...og de er med til at holde spil tilbage...pga. deres ringere hardware.
Ville du game på en top of the line PC fra 2005 i dag og betragte det som værende godt?
Der er også andre link i den her tråd du tydeligt vis ikke har læst, hold op med at spilde min tid.
#187
Carmack siger noget, som ingen (eller meget få) er uenige i.
1. Han siger, at når det næste Doom kommer, så er PC'en langt langt foran de nuværende konsoller.
2. Han siger, at FPS skal spilles med mus/keyboard.
Ad 1 - Det tror da pokker.. Når Doom 4 udkommer (2011?), så er xboxen 6 år gammel.
Jeg er stadig ikke helt med på, om du stædigt vil holde fast i, at man i 2005 kunne lave en PC, der var bedre end en xbox til samme pris - eller om du fortsat vil bræge op om alle mulige irrelevante ting, der intet har med noget at gøre?
Carmack siger noget, som ingen (eller meget få) er uenige i.
1. Han siger, at når det næste Doom kommer, så er PC'en langt langt foran de nuværende konsoller.
2. Han siger, at FPS skal spilles med mus/keyboard.
Ad 1 - Det tror da pokker.. Når Doom 4 udkommer (2011?), så er xboxen 6 år gammel.
Jeg er stadig ikke helt med på, om du stædigt vil holde fast i, at man i 2005 kunne lave en PC, der var bedre end en xbox til samme pris - eller om du fortsat vil bræge op om alle mulige irrelevante ting, der intet har med noget at gøre?
"By the the time that the next Doom game ships to consoles, PC will be light years ahead of current consoles." In other words, the PC version of the new Doom should look significantly better than on the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, whereas the console ports of Rage will be more or less the same visually." ...
Jeg syntes det er interessant at Carmack siger at grafikken i Rage bliver mere eller mindre ens på console og pc. Det kan jeg ikke rigtigt få til at hænge sammen.
Jeg syntes det er interessant at Carmack siger at grafikken i Rage bliver mere eller mindre ens på console og pc. Det kan jeg ikke rigtigt få til at hænge sammen.
... Hvorfor er det vigtigt hvad der er i af hardware? Lad os da nu bare nyde de spil der er og som ikke har problemer med at køre på gammelt hardware?
Spillene kører flydende så skal vi da ikke brokke os over hardware
Terra-> konsoller bliver solgt med underskud... ja men sku da ikke flere tusinde. I dare you to find en maskine fra 2005 til lidt over Xbox'ens pris der kan gøre arbejdet MEGET bedre.
Spillene kører flydende så skal vi da ikke brokke os over hardware
Terra-> konsoller bliver solgt med underskud... ja men sku da ikke flere tusinde. I dare you to find en maskine fra 2005 til lidt over Xbox'ens pris der kan gøre arbejdet MEGET bedre.
Så meget i diskuterer med terra får man lidt fornemmelsen af at han har ramt et blødt punkt?
Hvorfor bliver i ved ellers?
Kan jeres browser ikke lukkes eller hvad?
Hvorfor bliver i ved ellers?
Kan jeres browser ikke lukkes eller hvad?
Space Hopper (193) skrev:Så meget i diskuterer med terra får man lidt fornemmelsen af at han har ramt et blødt punkt?
Hvorfor bliver i ved ellers?
Kan jeres browser ikke lukkes eller hvad?
Det kan sammenlignes lidt med et trafikuheld. Man er forfærdet, men kan ikke lade være med at kigge.
I det her tilfælde er vi også forfærdede over manglen på intelligens, men vi prøver alligevel at hjælpe manden.
Rainmeter (190) skrev:fordi du stinker både bogstaveligt og sikkert os i virkeligeheden
du bør nok lige slå bogstaveligt op næste gang før du begynder at "dishe" folk. Så du ikke gentager dig selv.
Yderligere: Pc'en er bedre end konsolerne ydelsesmæssigt, tilgengæld kan de på pc'erne slippe af med at slamkode som en satan.. modsat med at de på konsolerne, er nød til at optimere koderne for at trække de sidste krafter ud. Ikke at det gør op på nogen måde, men det er svært at stille ydelsen i bås da de ikke rigtig er sammenlignelige.
Ingen tvivl om at man på en pc kan klare mere, men konsolerne er jo mere gameplay samt oplevelse, end grafik. Det er det faktum at du sætter dig ned med en controller, gerne med en ven eller to.. alt afhængigt af hvad din personlighed kan præstere.. og så spiller man.
#187
Øh, "LOOOOOOOL" selv? Ja, jeg synes faktisk det er pænt lavet, hvorfor har du ikke linket til noget du synes er "über pC GRraffiXx" endnu? Og desuden, hvorfor linker du igen til en video af dårlig kvalitet, samt den eneste bane i spillet hvor man kun skal skyde fra en bil? Hvis du ser slutningen af videoen kan du umuligt påstå at det er en "død og statisk verden", så er du bare på tværs og ignorant. Det må jo betyde at du ikke sætter dig ordentligt ind i spillet før du kritiserer det... pinligt.
Mht. din kommentar om et spil fra 2005, kan vi så hermed slå fast at du synes et spil er dårligt hvis det ikke har den nyeste graffik? Altså, at et spil du spillede i f.eks 2003, som du syntes var overdrevet fedt, er mega ringe idag?
Øh, "LOOOOOOOL" selv? Ja, jeg synes faktisk det er pænt lavet, hvorfor har du ikke linket til noget du synes er "über pC GRraffiXx" endnu? Og desuden, hvorfor linker du igen til en video af dårlig kvalitet, samt den eneste bane i spillet hvor man kun skal skyde fra en bil? Hvis du ser slutningen af videoen kan du umuligt påstå at det er en "død og statisk verden", så er du bare på tværs og ignorant. Det må jo betyde at du ikke sætter dig ordentligt ind i spillet før du kritiserer det... pinligt.
Mht. din kommentar om et spil fra 2005, kan vi så hermed slå fast at du synes et spil er dårligt hvis det ikke har den nyeste graffik? Altså, at et spil du spillede i f.eks 2003, som du syntes var overdrevet fedt, er mega ringe idag?
#189
Ja, er enig i at der ikke er noget som rigtig kan hamle op mod crysis, selvom jeg nu ikke synes det er "helt" så pænt på low settings, men ja, smag og behag. Men er nu stadig ikke enig i, at uncharted har en statisk og kedelig grafik.
Men det jeg vil frem til er, at selvom Crysis er meget pænere, bliver det så et bedre spil af den grund?
Ja, er enig i at der ikke er noget som rigtig kan hamle op mod crysis, selvom jeg nu ikke synes det er "helt" så pænt på low settings, men ja, smag og behag. Men er nu stadig ikke enig i, at uncharted har en statisk og kedelig grafik.
Men det jeg vil frem til er, at selvom Crysis er meget pænere, bliver det så et bedre spil af den grund?
#198 Crysis er et FÆNOMENALT eksempel på, at du netop kun koncenterer og fokuserer på grafikken - det skal bare se godt ud, så kan det gameplaymæssigt være pisse lige gyldigt...
Drakes har en så godt fortalt historie, og så fedt et gameplay at det slår Crysis med mange mange længer - bort set fra, parakdoksalt nok, at det er for kort :)
Og her komme så er andet problem - beauty is in the eye of the beholder - det du synes er fedt, synes jeg måske er noget lort...
Det ædre dog ikke på, at du stadig ikke har fattet at denne tråd handler om hvem der vinder konsolkrigen - at du så bringer pc'ere på banen, demonstrere meget fint din manglende intelligens...
Drakes har en så godt fortalt historie, og så fedt et gameplay at det slår Crysis med mange mange længer - bort set fra, parakdoksalt nok, at det er for kort :)
Og her komme så er andet problem - beauty is in the eye of the beholder - det du synes er fedt, synes jeg måske er noget lort...
Det ædre dog ikke på, at du stadig ikke har fattet at denne tråd handler om hvem der vinder konsolkrigen - at du så bringer pc'ere på banen, demonstrere meget fint din manglende intelligens...
- Forside
- ⟨
- Forum
- ⟨
- Afstemninger
Opret dig som bruger i dag
Det er gratis, og du binder dig ikke til noget.
Når du er oprettet som bruger, får du adgang til en lang række af sidens andre muligheder, såsom at udforme siden efter eget ønske og deltage i diskussionerne.
- Forside
- ⟨
- Forum
- ⟨
- Afstemninger
Gå til bund