GPU of PS3?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wich0

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
228
What GPU is present in the PS3? I searched online but it doesn't say the make of it.
 
w1retap said:
Its the Nvidia G71.. or 7900GTX based.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought it was. Except that it's got 256 memory instead of 512.

So we should all sell Ps3's and get Acura RSX's... :D
 
eh. I don't think it justifies the 500 dollar tag though. Maybe if that came with an allendale and 1Gb of RAM. Then I'll think about it :p :D
 
StealthyFish said:
eh. I don't think it justifies the 500 dollar tag though. Maybe if that came with an allendale and 1Gb of RAM. Then I'll think about it :p :D
Click to expand...

You do know that you can do a lot more on a closed system such as the PS3 with "weaker" hardware? The PS3's 512MB or RAM and VRAM are more than enough to provide graphics that the world has never seen, and it won't struggle with the framerates as PCs do.
 
xFlankerx said:
You do know that you can do a lot more on a closed system such as the PS3 with "weaker" hardware? The PS3's 512MB or RAM and VRAM are more than enough to provide graphics that the world has never seen, and it won't struggle with the framerates as PCs do.
Click to expand...

What? No. You can certainly do a hell of a lot more with less on a closed system, but there's no way it can "provide graphics that the world has never seen". The card is weaker than the XBox 360's card, and the GeForce 8 over 3 times more powerful.
 
xFlankerx said:
You do know that you can do a lot more on a closed system such as the PS3 with "weaker" hardware? The PS3's 512MB or RAM and VRAM are more than enough to provide graphics that the world has never seen, and it won't struggle with the framerates as PCs do.
Click to expand...

yeah, I know. and since the hardware is also all standardized, many games are highly optomized for the hardware used, unlike computer games and applications, which can't really be written to be optomized for any certain hardware setup cause there are so many. But still, that's pretty stupid to spend 500+ dollars on a system that can only game. Yeah, there are the guys who spend 2000 dollars on a PC, but they get more than just gaming out of it. Office and home applications are also a part of that.

but hey, I'm no console gamer, so I don't really care much.
 
Your graphics are only look as good as the technology your graphics chip is based on. Its a SM3.0 chip.. And... from what people have already been saying that have played the PS3, there are already frame rate issues.
 
i happen to enjoy, and own both console and pc systems

PC
  • RTS games
  • FPS games
  • As for getting more out of a PC, yes office applications and surfing the web are a given, you dont need a gaming rig to perform those tasks.
  • Multiplayer, nothing like ownin noobs
  • Mods :)

Console
  • When you have the guys over, you cant have them all huddled around 1 computer.
  • When the girls come over, picking up a controller is a lot less intimidating than keyboard controls
  • Every other genre such as racing, sports, action-adventure just feel right on a console.
  • No hassle, power-on and enjoy the game as it was meant to be, equal performance for everyone.
 
pr0pensity said:
This has strayed way off topic.
Click to expand...
Nah. The initial question has already been answered.. which pretty much leaves the topic open to other discussions so we don't have to create a billion other newb threads.
 
xFlankerx said:
You do know that you can do a lot more on a closed system such as the PS3 with "weaker" hardware? The PS3's 512MB or RAM and VRAM are more than enough to provide graphics that the world has never seen, and it won't struggle with the framerates as PCs do.
Click to expand...


LOL the PS3's GPU only has 256 mb dedicated and the operating system eats up 32 MB of that in addition to 64 MB more from the other 256 mb. So yeah it will struggle with framerates and will be left in the dust by the PC pretty quick. Hell its not even as powerful as a 360 overall. BTW given the amount of cross platform titles being developed, don't count on 90% of the games ever utilizing the Cell or RSX to their fullest potential. Just look at the 360, most of its games are barely a step above the Xbox 1 and its only after Epic spent so much time with Gears of War that it truly shined. Even with GoW pushing the 360 hard, its something that could easily be ported to the PC today.
 
Scyles said:
What? No. You can certainly do a hell of a lot more with less on a closed system, but there's no way it can "provide graphics that the world has never seen". The card is weaker than the XBox 360's card, and the GeForce 8 over 3 times more powerful.
Click to expand...

The card is NOT weaker than the Xbox 360's card. They're both the same generation.

But since we're on the subject, the Xbox 360 can also produce graphics that we haven't seen before. You really think that in the next 3-4 years, there won't be a game that outdoes Oblivion in graphics, that's available on the consoles? The current hardware on these two consoles is capable of playing those games that come out years from now, without much hassle. Try saying that for a 8800GTX which alone costs more than the PS3 (there is no reason to buy the $600 version), and much more than the 360.

StealthyFish said:
yeah, I know. and since the hardware is also all standardized, many games are highly optomized for the hardware used, unlike computer games and applications, which can't really be written to be optomized for any certain hardware setup cause there are so many. But still, that's pretty stupid to spend 500+ dollars on a system that can only game. Yeah, there are the guys who spend 2000 dollars on a PC, but they get more than just gaming out of it. Office and home applications are also a part of that.

but hey, I'm no console gamer, so I don't really care much.
Click to expand...

First of all, let me say that I'm not going to spend the $500 on a PS3. Too expensive for my blood. I prefer the $250 Wii more. But there are certain things that I want to make clear for those who may be willing to buy one.

The PS3 is the first console that can be claimed to not only be for gaming. Firstly, the PS3 has an "official" Linux OS made for it, made by Terra Soft called "Yellow Dog Linux." It is supported by Sony, so its no fanmod. We all know what can be had on Linux, so lets skip the details. Add to that that the PS3 also has USB Keyboard+Mouse support, and what do you have? A Personal Computer. If I was planning to buy a computer to use for not much more than the internet, or chatting or something, the $500 PS3 would be enticing. Most, if not all Instant Messengers work with Linux, and the OS includes a browser. That, coupled with the gaming capabilities, gives you a very nice computer.

True, you also need a real computer for anything productive. But no need to spend $2000 on a gaming computer then. Besides, who doesn't already have a computer.

5150Joker said:
LOL the PS3's GPU only has 256 mb dedicated and the operating system eats up 32 MB of that in addition to 64 MB more from the other 256 mb. So yeah it will struggle with framerates and will be left in the dust by the PC pretty quick. Hell its not even as powerful as a 360 overall. BTW given the amount of cross platform titles being developed, don't count on 90% of the games ever utilizing the Cell or RSX to their fullest potential. Just look at the 360, most of its games are barely a step above the Xbox 1 and its only after Epic spent so much time with Gears of War that it truly shined. Even with GoW pushing the 360 hard, its something that could easily be ported to the PC today.
Click to expand...

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of someone who has no idea of what can be accomplished on a closed system.

Riddle me this, Joker; Windows XP takes up 300MB of memory. But how much work does it have to do? How many processes does the OS need to keep it running? How much does it need to keep track of? Exactly. Now compare it to if all you need to do is provide an interface to select a game, or a browser to surf the internet. 32MB is enough for that.

BTW, the graphics card to run Gears of War on the PC at the 360's level of detail would cost about the price of the console...
 
w1retap said:
Your graphics are only look as good as the technology your graphics chip is based on. Its a SM3.0 chip.. And... from what people have already been saying that have played the PS3, there are already frame rate issues.
Click to expand...
The funny thing about consoles is that framerates usually increase over time, and games get better looking. It's all about the devs learning how to get the most out of the system.

PC devs, on the other hand, just seem to want to throw more raw horsepower at the problem. Not that this is a bad thing, or that there aren't devs that get the most out of older hardware (source engine runs well even on GF2, ffor example.)

And I thought the rsx was more of a 7800gtx than 7900gtx :shrug:
 
The RSX was based off of the 7800GTX hardware, not the 7900 series. You also get a Blu-ray dvd player with the PS3 which everyone in this thread so far has failed to mention. Blu-ray players for home or the pc cost $800-1000 alone, plus the PS3 has just came out and has first gen games.

Like IanG said, once the developers learn how to optimize for the hardware you will see games look better and play smoother. It's going to offer graphics that you'll see on the pc or maybe even better as some have said, since they have to make pc games to run on lots of hardware, where as for the PS3 it's written to play on it alone for first party & some third party titles.

Bottom line, it's going to offer some nice gaming as well as other features, even though the price tag is high for some. Got mine today and will be gaming on it later today. ;)
 
Actually, the Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive works on the computer as well with Power DVD HD. Its only $200.. so, if you total up the cost of a 7800GTX + HD-DVD drive (which is arguably better than Bluray), it is under the price of a ps3.
 
Were obviously moving towards an era will multimedia system will become one together...

just my thaught
 
pr0pensity said:
LOL?
Click to expand...

Not that there is a PC version. But if there was, that's what my statement was intended for.

w1retap said:
so, if you total up the cost of a 7800GTX...
Click to expand...

And add to that the cost of every other videocard that you will upgrade to for the next 3 years.

You do not seem to understand that while the chip may be G71-based, the performance that it offers is far above, and much more consistent than, what the PC versions can offer.
 
xFlankerx said:
Not that there is a PC version. But if there was, that's what my statement was intended for.
Click to expand...
What card would that be? I'm sure a 7900 could handle it expertly.

And add to that the cost of every other videocard that you will upgrade to for the next 3 years.
Click to expand...
You won't need to upgrade your card ever again to compete with Xbox 360 graphics.
 
xFlankerx said:
The card is NOT weaker than the Xbox 360's card. They're both the same generation.

But since we're on the subject, the Xbox 360 can also produce graphics that we haven't seen before. You really think that in the next 3-4 years, there won't be a game that outdoes Oblivion in graphics, that's available on the consoles? The current hardware on these two consoles is capable of playing those games that come out years from now, without much hassle. Try saying that for a 8800GTX which alone costs more than the PS3 (there is no reason to buy the $600 version), and much more than the 360.
Click to expand...

Who cares what comes out for consoles there will ALWAYS be better looking games on the computer. Graphically consoles will never touch the PC, simple as that. Oblivions graphics on 360 are utter garbage when compared to the computer so i really hope better does come out for the 360 so i can say how that looks like crap compared to the same game on my computer :p

And last time i checked it makes no difference if their the same generation you think every card made in a generation is the same?? They are made by different companys, I mean thats pretty silly to just assume that same generation means same performance.
 
xFlankerx said:
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of someone who has no idea of what can be accomplished on a closed system.

Riddle me this, Joker; Windows XP takes up 300MB of memory. But how much work does it have to do? How many processes does the OS need to keep it running? How much does it need to keep track of? Exactly. Now compare it to if all you need to do is provide an interface to select a game, or a browser to surf the internet. 32MB is enough for that.

BTW, the graphics card to run Gears of War on the PC at the 360's level of detail would cost about the price of the console...
Click to expand...


Well genius, the PC doesn't have shared memory between the graphics card and system unless you're talking about low end turbocache cards and their ATi equivalent. PS3 only has 256 mb of dedicated vram and it shares its other 256 mb with the Cell. If you shave off 32 mb of vram from the 256 mb right off the bat and another 64 mb from the other 256 mb of system memory, you're not left much to work with are you (I'm not even including the SPE that the OS can demand anytime)? A PC can have a wide array of configurations but even a fairly middle to high end machine has 2 GB of system ram these days so 300-400 MB of system ram usage is meaningless especially when coupled with 512 MB vram video cards.

The PS3 is not impressive in the least and like I told you earlier, its not even as powerful as a 360 IMO. Here read this:

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.
Click to expand...

Source: http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=6


P.S. I noticed how you conveniently ignored my point about cross platform games making up the bulk of the titles available for both 360/PS3 and because of that neither system will be fully utilized the vast majority of the time (makes your "closed system" point moot). Its only when the handful of games that are custom tailored (PS3 really needs this) for each system will they be able to shine (e.g. Gears of War) and even then a PC today could pretty much duplicate those graphics.
 
xFlankerx said:
You do know that you can do a lot more on a closed system such as the PS3 with "weaker" hardware? The PS3's 512MB or RAM and VRAM are more than enough to provide graphics that the world has never seen, and it won't struggle with the framerates as PCs do.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what your talking about. Sony fan boy? The PS3 has hardware that is inferior to what we can get on a PC today. Im sorry to tell you this but if you want to stay ontop of things stay away from a console. If your going to get a console get it for the gameplay of the games not the graphics its always been that way. The newer consoles are simply using hand me down computer components nothing more. If you notice each new gen of consoles comes closer to becoming a computer. In the end the two will eventually merge into one.
 
PC>PS3. Thought this was common knowledge.
Anyone that claims different is a complete fucking moron.

PS3 is for the peoples that are not into computers but still want to game..with some eye candy. Simple as that.
 
If you really wanted to get in depth... :rolleyes:

Xbox 360 vs. PS3

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

I'll save embarassment and not list the 8800GTX specs. :D

:eek:
 
I like the 360's take on graphics. Seems to be much more robust than the slap-job nvidia did with the ps3.

I have a 360 for the awesome Live stuff, but i would much rather buy an 8800GTX than a ps3.
 
I really hope they release the "Sneak King" game for PC :)

It's the only real title I'd consider playing on the 360. I'm not a PS3 fan either (unless we get some ZOE/MGS action going on).
 
Arcygenical said:
I really hope they release the "Sneak King" game for PC :)

It's the only real title I'd consider playing on the 360. I'm not a PS3 fan either (unless we get some ZOE/MGS action going on).
Click to expand...

haha QFT. Sneak King is one of many reasons why I would want a 360 :) :p
 
gorilla show said:
I like the 360's take on graphics. Seems to be much more robust than the slap-job nvidia did with the ps3.

I have a 360 for the awesome Live stuff, but i would much rather buy an 8800GTX than a ps3.
Click to expand...

ROFL, you know the funny thing is that to most console gamers the PS3's graphics are jaw dropping, I guess they've never played computer games at high res. I was at a Best Buy yesterday and I chuckled when I saw all the people camping out outside. I went inside to see the demo PS3 just to see the graphics, I was playing some racing game they had there and people around me were like "wow , it looks so real". I guest most people who are buying a PS3 are used to PS2 style graphics. I think I'll pass and stay with my pc. Also, why don 't they let you use a keyboard/mouse for FPS in a console?
 
I wonder... when they proposed the "king" for the original commercials, if they knew how hillarious it'd be?

Like, its so goddamn creepy! but so awesome at the same time. I had NO idea that you could sell hamburgers with a creepy man in a mask, with obvious pedophilliac tendencies!

Man, I want a hamburger...
 
Consoles are limited in hardware, but their games still look great and consoles games just have a certain charm. The only games that computers are good for are fps and rts. Consoles are great because you have games like RE series, Zelda series, FF series, DMC series, MGS series, GT series, GoW, fighting games, Halo and etc..
 
I must be the only one here not bent on gfx. No console will ever beat my PC's everchanging power. The only reason I turn to console is to get away from the same old setup on my PC. Thats the real reason Im excited about the Wii, bring on the innovation to games. I want to play a HL2 style game with the controller. Heres looking at you valve... I want portal on the Wii >_>
 
The ps3 and 360 both have hardware thats overkill for its purpose. Granted console games never look as good as a computer, they can look incredable given the hardware they are running on. The ps2 has 32mb of memory, thats it.

Why did sony have to be retarded and think they didnt need a gpu at first? They could have had ati on their side. :(

Then again im just getting a nintendo wii anyways. :)

Arcygenical said:
Like, its so goddamn creepy! but so awesome at the same time. I had NO idea that you could sell hamburgers with a creepy man in a mask, with obvious pedophilliac tendencies!
Click to expand...

:D
 
xFlankerx said:
Windows XP takes up 300MB of memory.
Click to expand...

Yeah, tell that to the numerous machines I've had running XP with 256MB of system RAM :rolleyes:
How much crap are you loading that you're using 300MB without any applications open? I have SQL server and a truckload of other tray apps and services running, yet my baseline memory usage is well under your quoted figure. I just did a fresh install on my mum's computer, disabled a load of useless services and loaded some antivirus software. 110MB and everything she needs is running. It's easily possible to get XP to use under 100 meg of ram (in the above example it's only using 95 - the 15 for the AV software doesn't count as OS usage), especially if it's mainly a gaming system.
 
w1retap said:
If you really wanted to get in depth... :rolleyes:

Xbox 360 vs. PS3

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

I'll save embarassment and not list the 8800GTX specs. :D

:eek:
Click to expand...

Sounds like the RSX is a customized 7900 with 24 pixel and texture units, but only 8 ROPs, and a 128-bit memory bus.

With the exception of the ROPs, that's exactly what we thought it would be a year ago. Not too impressive, but still very competitive. That 128-bit memory bus is going to hold it back once they start ramping up the "HD" textures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top