[Question] Processor on 360 and PS3?

This sounds pretty dumb, but I need to get this cleared out ._.

I heard that 360's graphic processor is equivalent to the one on PS3, is this true? I been looking for articles to clear this out but when ever I find one the article gets to technical =/

Anyone help?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Basically yes, but the CPU of the PS3 essentially lets more go on. If you want to be technical about the potentials and such, the PS3 can perform better, but you'd want to leave it at that without starting up a big flame war.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by NaYa NuhYa

This sounds pretty dumb, but I need to get this cleared out ._.

I heard that 360's graphic processor is equivalent to the one on PS3, is this true? I been looking for articles to clear this out but when ever I find one the article gets to technical =/

Anyone help?

That's because the answer is technical.

What exactly are you trying to ascertain here? "graphics processor"? Are you talking about the GPU?

If you're just trying to figure out which one has the bigger e-penis, go do something useful instead. It really just comes down to which one has games that you want to buy (for whatever reasons you come up with).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The graphics potential on both in raw power are pratically the same.

However as Lukage touched on the PS3 essentially allows more to go on at once. Meaning that when more objects appear in a game, the graphics power is divided between all the objects in the scene or level. Meaning the less things on screen on average, the better the overall graphics.

So if both the PS3 and 360 were to render a single object to their maximum capability the object would look pretty much the same on both.

However where the difference comes in is when you want to do more. While powerful graphics processors are great, all the assets have to be assigned by the processor. Which at the same time is dealing with AI, physics, lighting, collission, etc... meaning that the 360 can only do 2 of these things at a time (hence dual-core). So the more you dedicate to graphics the weaker your other areas get, and visa-versa.

On the PS3 however due to it's 7 cores it can do 7 things at once before things have to be prioritized, allowing a more equal quality of all your ellements. And as such if done right graphics "can" be better because you can have a dedicated core that ONLY does graphics. Or if it's that important you can assign multiple cores to the same task.

That's pretty much the basics of the differences between the two. Hopefully that makes some kind of sense for you ^^;

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The Xbox 360 has a number of Genesis games on it, which means it has the power of Blast Processing mk.II HD Edition. Do you know what Blast Processing means?! Say goodbye to slow games like Supah Marieo Cart and say HELLO to Ecco the Dolphin. You'd better, too. Ecco's fucking smart. He'll jump out of the ocean, barrel roll, and slap you right in the kidney. But then we have the PlayStation 3, which is powered by



And how can you refuse that kind of raw power? You simply can't. Buy a Jaguar, 64-bit. Do the math.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Slayer X

However where the difference comes in is when you want to do more. While powerful graphics processors are great, all the assets have to be assigned by the processor. Which at the same time is dealing with AI, physics, lighting, collission, etc... meaning that the 360 can only do 2 of these things at a time (hence dual-core). So the more you dedicate to graphics the weaker your other areas get, and visa-versa.

On the PS3 however due to it's 7 cores it can do 7 things at once before things have to be prioritized, allowing a more equal quality of all your ellements. And as such if done right graphics "can" be better because you can have a dedicated core that ONLY does graphics. Or if it's that important you can assign multiple cores to the same task.

That's not quite how it goes: while the PS3 has 6 "sub-cores" that run at the same raw speed, they have a much more specialized design and can't simply do everything that the main core, or any of the cores on the Xbox 360, can do. In particular, AI would be extremely difficult to run on them. On the other hand, they're absolutely phenominal for something like physics or other math-heavy calculations.

Also, the Xbox 360's CPU is triple core, not dual core as you stated, and also supports 2 threads per core (essentially meaning that two processes can be running on each core at the same time and that the only parts of eachother that will be slowed down is when they're accessing the exact same resources from the CPU). So essentially, the Xbox 360 can do at least 3 things at once, and at most 6 things at once, without slowing down.

So basically, it comes down to 3 general purpose cores which can do pretty muich anything confidently and can have two threads run on each, vs. 1 main core and 6 sub-cores which are extremely fast for some tasks and totally useless for others. I guess you could call them equal overall but each excel at certain things, however there's definitely a gap between what each is capable of.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Actually...

"On May 17, 2005, Sony Computer Entertainment confirmed some specifications of the Cell processor that would be shipping in the forthcoming PlayStation 3 console.[15][16][17] This Cell configuration will have one Power processing element (PPE) on the core, with eight physical SPEs in silicon." -Wikipedia

One of the PS3's cores are designated to the OS... so it has 7 cores.

You're also right about the 360's cores, However once again, one is for OS operations only hence why I only said that it had 2 cores.

FELIPE NO

Actually, six is correct. It's funny that you quote Wikipedia, because the sentence following immediately after what you quoted states:

"In the PlayStation 3, one SPE is locked-out during the test process, a practice which helps to improve manufacturing yields."

One is locked out to improve chip yields, and another is dedicated to the OS as you mentioned, which leaves developers six SPEs to work with. Not that any of this matters, because if there's supposed to be a difference in visual quality between the two consoles, I've seen no evidence of it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Well it's not like there was much difference between the Xbox 1 and the PS2 at first either. However KillZone 2 looks to be the starting point of when you will see a DRASTIC difference between the two. Even though LAIR if you play it on a HDTV still looks better then anything to date.

It does kind of suck that I missed that one line however I was in a bit of a hurry to go unloade my car so I just kind of used the find feature and quoted the sentence that I did. That's what happens when one hurries I suppose.

@Solis
I'm going to try and find the article online that was in this months PLAY that had an interview with Ninja Theory where they discussed a lot of these PS3 downfalls like AI. It seems that current AI isn't the best for the Cell, however more modern forms of AI seems to be not only better for the SPE but also for the end product. They also went on to discuss how Heavenly Sword will have 4X AA and combines HDR lighting with full normal mapping. (AA + HDR isn't supposed to be possible on the PS3 according to rumour lore)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by ramoth

That's because the answer is technical.

What exactly are you trying to ascertain here? "graphics processor"? Are you talking about the GPU?

If you're just trying to figure out which one has the bigger e-penis, go do something useful instead. It really just comes down to which one has games that you want to buy (for whatever reasons you come up with).

That's why I am asking -_-, I am asking fellow GFF members to help me out which hs better GPU.

I am not comparing which has bigger e-pen0r, is it so wrong trying to see the specs of consoles out in the market?


Why bother posting if you aren't going to help out -_-
-----------------------------------------------------

Anyways, thanks guys for the reply.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Slayer X

Well it's not like there was much difference between the Xbox 1 and the PS2 at first either. However KillZone 2 looks to be the starting point of when you will see a DRASTIC difference between the two. Even though LAIR if you play it on a HDTV still looks better then anything to date.

Err, even when the Xbox was first released, it's technical superiority was more than evident. Halo and DOA3 obviously looked far better than what the PS2 was capable of. Games released or shown shortly after launch like Wreckless and Splinter Cell were obviously a HUGE leap forward from what the PS2 had, whereas we're almost a year into the PS3's release and it still has yet to show any clear advantage over the Xbox 360 (and in fact, seems to be at a disadvantage a majority of the time).

I'm not sure what you mean by Killzone 2 being a starting point where you'll see a drastic difference between the two though...the game looks nice, but it doesn't look superior to what's on the Xbox 360.

Quote:

You're also right about the 360's cores, However once again, one is for OS operations only hence why I only said that it had 2 cores.

That's not true at all, a core is NOT locked out in any way for OS functions. It only requires around 3% of the second and third cores processing power: GotFrag DPAD - DPAD Home News Story - End all arguments: PS3 vs 360. The OS doesn't cause any noticable impact on game performance, since 99% of the time the main core would be the one that's running at its maximum load, with the other two cores mainly used for suplimental calculations. Although it should be noted that the PS3 OS requirements on that page are going to be lowered in an upcoming firmware update (at least in RAM usage).

Quote:

@Solis
I'm going to try and find the article online that was in this months PLAY that had an interview with Ninja Theory where they discussed a lot of these PS3 downfalls like AI. It seems that current AI isn't the best for the Cell, however more modern forms of AI seems to be not only better for the SPE but also for the end product. They also went on to discuss how Heavenly Sword will have 4X AA and combines HDR lighting with full normal mapping. (AA + HDR isn't supposed to be possible on the PS3 according to rumour lore)

Actually, HDR with AA isn't anything special. It's certainly not impossible: even Half-life 2 was able to accomplish that over a year ago on standard DX9 hardware (even the FX5200 could do it). It is impossible to use AA with HDR when using the FP16/32 method of HDR on Geforce 6/7 architectures (including the PS3's), but that doesn't mean there aren't other methods that can be used to achieve HDR which are compatible with AA.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "modern AI". If you're talking about something like Euphoria which is essentially AI with physics calculations on top of them, then the SPUs could be used to calculate the physics of it, but the "main" AI algorithms will still largely be dependant on the main core of the Cell processor.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

About the HDR + AA part, a lot of people speculated that it couldn't be donw on the PS3 for a long time. I know it's been done in lots of games on PC and 360 sides for a long time, I just meant that "rumour" on the PS3 end and how Heavenly Sword disproves that.

As for AI, I'm not well versed in it's technicalities, however I did manage to find this which seems more grounded then a lot of AI speculations about the PS3 hardware.

"If you haven't been up to date on the "he said, she said" of the industry, a producer working on the newest Splinter Cell game came out and said the title (a 360 exclusive) could never be on the Wii or PS3. The former due to graphical limitations, the latter due to its inability to handle AI effectively. Sony's Dave Karraker begs to differ and issued this rebuttal: "PS3 can more than handle AI, as you will see with Heavenly Sword, which has hundreds of on-screen enemies with different AI routines at one time thanks to the power of CELL."

We don't think the PS3 would have any trouble handling complicated AI processing or whatever technical jargon you want to toss in there. This is sort of interesting, since graphics were the last thing to get bashed on the PS3, but that topic seems to have silenced itself. Now we're moving on to AI? Eventually devs are just going to have to accept the possibility that, while architecturally different, the PS3 and 360 should be able to handle almost everything identically." -Nick Doerr of PS3 fanboy

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by NaYa NuhYa

That's why I am asking -_-, I am asking fellow GFF members to help me out which hs better GPU.

I am not comparing which has bigger e-pen0r, is it so wrong trying to see the specs of consoles out in the market?


Why bother posting if you aren't going to help out -_-
-----------------------------------------------------

Anyways, thanks guys for the reply.

If you aren't going to understand technical details, why does it matter what the specs are?

For what it's worth, the 360's GPU can do hardware assisted full screen effects, including 4xFSAA. 10MB of eDRAM on a daughter die with some specialized circuitry let it do that entirely in hardware. There's very little overhead, so there's no reason not to do the AA -- although you could use it for some other full screen effect as well.

Really, the difference between the two consoles is in how well developers are able to leverage the console, and those sorts of tricks are just barely starting to show up on the Y Bbox, and won't show up on the PS TRIPLE for a while. It's different to have 6way parallelism, but game developers are, surprise surprise, smart folks. They'll be able to figure it out.

So to decide which one to buy, ask yourself this question:

WHERE ARE THE GAMES?

Can we just close this thread already? Christ almighty.

How ya doing, buddy?

At least this wan't a pissing match about games and other fanboy related things. Sure I messed up a couple facts, but I didn't make them up it's just that my sources wern't straight. However it was my mistake not to follow up on my info.

But yeah, I agree that the discussion has been rapped up nicely with everything including your post. The games part is a good follow up, but something that will be an endlessly fought battle for the next five years.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Slayer X

Is this kid even for real.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by ramoth

So to decide which one to buy, ask yourself this question:

WHERE ARE THE GAMES?

On the PS2 actually, since it isn't overly complicated to make games for (PS3) or difficult to comply with (Wii's controller) or won't sell because it isn't in a generic genre (360).

Yay for next-gen.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Who needs games when we can slap fight over how many gigaflops of trash bag mapping each system can produce a second?!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Infernal Monkey

Who needs games when we can KLAX

I agree entirely.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yes. =) Now the thread can be closed!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.