InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
I forgot where I saw these comparisons, but I've heard that as far as GPUs go, the Xbox 360 is roughly comparable to an X1800 and the PS3 is around a 7600GT/7900GS.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
PC GPU vs PS3 GPU
- Thread starter Scooby22B
- Start date
yup the Xbox360 is running on the R500 chip which is the x1800 but the PS3 is not running on the 7series chip is an NV40 chip which means is the same as 2 Geforce 6800 GT in sli..its like pushing the 6800 to the limit of what its capable of ,graphic wize that is...
(Let's look at the maximum theoretical numbers for the Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs.)
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
Xbox 360 has the advantage in most cases.
I just wanted to make a few quick corrections to some misinformation in this thread.
Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.
The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.
Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.
As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system.
Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.
The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.
Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.
As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system.
I've seen this post before, dunno if by you, too lazy to lookup. BUT, where is this information coming from if you dont' mind providing such information?
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
Its unified, and because its made by the company that makes the DX api, you can bet its got something special.
R500 (Xbox 360) > 7800RSX (PS3), imho. however, the PS3 has four cells, or better put, four exicution cores.
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
you got some of those numbers mixed up.
The X1800 is the R520, and is NOT unified. The R500 is unified.
You cannot judge the power of the core by its number. ex the R520 is not more powerful then the R500, and even the R580 (X1900) would fail to the R500, in certian cases.
The 7 series cores are numberd G70 through G73. The NV 40 is the 6800 ultra core, and is ancient, with only 16 pipes, and built on a 130nm process. thats the same process as the Atholon XPs. Putting something that large[/l] in a PS3 is an atrocity.
an NV 40 is the core of a 6800 GT. So, one NV 40 is not the same as two 6800 GTs in sli.
you guys have to remember key architectural differances. they need to get a 1080i screen running at 60FPS. thats all they care about. it needs to be solid, and never experiance a drop in fps. so, it is not critical to have a high pixel rate on the chip. What a GPU on a console needs, just like a PC GPU, is high vertex calculations, as its the verticies that really determine how nice the game looks. Not so much any more, but the polygons a game engine were capible of rendering has skyrocketed in the past couple years. Its hard to notice now, because we've got character models like adrianna, but the engines vertex rosterization needs are growing quickly.
The ignorance in this thread is quite disagreeably mind blowing. Some clarifications are in order.
The demos you guys have played on ps3s in stores etc. are NOT representative of their respective games. I found out about this earlier this week as I started downloading and playing the demos, I was underwhelmed. I thought the graphics were pretty crap to what I was expecting. Further research indicated something that made sense. Most of the demos came out right when the ps3 came out and as such were very early builds of the game. Most games are coming out some time in march, like Motorstorm. This is one of the games that looked like the last two years of pc graphics, pretty good but not mind blowing. In sum, the demos aren't representative of the games. Capisce?
Also, if you haven't played the ps3, then you can't really comment on how it "sucksss". By the way, adding more s's doesn't emphasize a word
Along with that, launch games are either ports of existing games so the graphics are sub par or the developers need some time to learn how to use the ps3 hardware effectively.
The demos you guys have played on ps3s in stores etc. are NOT representative of their respective games. I found out about this earlier this week as I started downloading and playing the demos, I was underwhelmed. I thought the graphics were pretty crap to what I was expecting. Further research indicated something that made sense. Most of the demos came out right when the ps3 came out and as such were very early builds of the game. Most games are coming out some time in march, like Motorstorm. This is one of the games that looked like the last two years of pc graphics, pretty good but not mind blowing. In sum, the demos aren't representative of the games. Capisce?
Also, if you haven't played the ps3, then you can't really comment on how it "sucksss". By the way, adding more s's doesn't emphasize a word
Along with that, launch games are either ports of existing games so the graphics are sub par or the developers need some time to learn how to use the ps3 hardware effectively.MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
early PS3 demos were pre-rendered.
StealthyFish
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,591
I think this is a ridiculous waste of time. How can one argue that a gpu on a console is faster than a gpu on a computer? Another factor is CPU utilization. The bottleneck will ultimately fall upon the CPU, as the CPU doesn't have the processing capacity to keep up with the performance that the GPU can output. What I got from reading this is the equivalency of putting a P3 with a 7800GTX.... what does that get you? That'll get you a computer roughly equalling the performance of my X800 vanilla if you're lucky. That's quite a performance hit.
You can have multiple threads, but that doesn't improve the CPU's processing speed. It only allows you to have more and more characters in the game, so I don't see how you guys can start going off talking about multiple weak processors stuffed into a console. The ONLY advantage I see the consoles having over PC's is the level of optimization in games, and optimization is the only thing that is saving console games from ending up as shitty looking pixel-block object gaming or laggy gaming.
You can have multiple threads, but that doesn't improve the CPU's processing speed. It only allows you to have more and more characters in the game, so I don't see how you guys can start going off talking about multiple weak processors stuffed into a console. The ONLY advantage I see the consoles having over PC's is the level of optimization in games, and optimization is the only thing that is saving console games from ending up as shitty looking pixel-block object gaming or laggy gaming.
mista ting
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 742
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82334
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aOk3IpomA4
the Cell equals out the RSX look at the last part of the vid where ONLY the cell is rendering the terrain imagine how it would be implemented in games cell rendering environments while the RSX focus on other things
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
in a way it is DX 10, in that the R500 IS of a unified architecture!
And I HATE these rumers about the PS3.
these are the facts (verified by multiple sources) that I know about the PS3.
It contains 4 "Cells"
each cell is capible of several forms of physics calculations.
The graphics solution was codenamed "7800RSX"
It's layout is similar to that of Hyper threading only more difficult to program for.
"Its not a question of what the PS3 is capible of, its a question of what the engineers will do to full utilize it's capibillities" -- An EA software engineer.
@ people above, LINK ME to the PROOF of a 128bit wide memory bus.
LINK ME to the proof that a 6800Ultra is better then the PS3.
It seems to me this thread has become somewhat of a "Lets Bash the PS3" thread. It is
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
The PS3's strong point isn't its GPU , its the Cell Processing system. 1 Power Processor Element (PPE) & 8 Synergistic Processor Elements (SPEs) (Still considered a 8 core'd CPU though) the PPE basicly acts like a boss while the SPE's do the number crunching. The Cell CPU is much more powerful then a standard Desktop CPU which allows the PS3 to do some tricks that the 360 cant do (360 uses 3 specialized for the most part normal CPU's) But a 8800 GTX completely blows the PS3 GPU out of the water and then some.
Is being unified a requirement of DX10? This is the first time I'm reading it.
Its a requirement in sense of software, but the hardware itself does not have to be unified, seeing that its unified just means its a spec out of MS' DX10 spec, doesn't mean its DX10
also the skews for the R500 and R520 are completely different, not to mention developed at different times
not like its a really big deal, but I do remember seeing many threads before the PS3 was released that the pathway is indead 128bit
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
your post is useless
-- no offense, I see what you mean but, arguements must be had.
I would really really like to see it!
On top of that i've come to the realization when your dealing with standard def and even high def your resolution isnt actually all that high as such the massive textures really wouldn't have to be so massive.
Of couse, when your dealing with 1080i its different story.
edit: Ohhh i've made 4 posts so far, I remember this thread, I thought it died, I thought I was posting in another PS3 power arguement.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,223
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2006
- Messages
- 14,408
oh god.. not this thread again.
/unsubscribed
rofl, you guys are hilarious.
/unsubscribed
rofl, you guys are hilarious.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,223
Seriously, if you don't like this thread then why do you read it, and why do you reply in it?
you best come over son and learn. my setup kicks ass. the ps3 is the shit
no shit. its fucking sweet. such animated action. LOVE IT!!
You have a point lol
G'ßöö;1030793435 said:
People saying that the 360 and the PS3 have shit graphics have problems lol - I really am impressed by some of the graphics - Colin Mcrae: Dirt is pretty friggin sweeeeeet.
Thank you! Finally someone who knew the answer before posting random stuff. Well I have a ps3 running at 1080i on my hp 23" 1080p flat screen and boy let me tell ya the graphics are just AMAZING. Can't wait for GRAW 2. But the PS3's graphic will suck compared to a nvidia 8800gtx and soon a ATI R600
why thank u for the comple,ent and taking notice...because most people dont even know whats inside the PS3/Xbox360 they're just console gamers...and nothing more
BTW/FYI: being "the shit" in this case is a good thing. the graphics kick ass
RussianHAXOR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 5,590
PS3 CPU+G80=HOLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,168
I got a chance to play the ps3. I actually liked it. The games that were 720 or 1080 or whatever the HD, just looked great. It may not beat a pc but and I play games on my pc, but if I had the money, I would get a PS3. Like I said, I dont like consoles, but dam, it looked and played good. Now I want to go bother the neighbor and play.
PS3 + HD tv(1080) = pretty kick ass machine.
PS3 + HD tv(1080) = pretty kick ass machine.
RussianHAXOR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 5,590
yeah i played soccer on a 1080p and it was sure amazing, if only it was on a better GPU.
And what people keep forgetting, is that console games are run at a LOWER resolution than PC games...
720p is not that impressive. I'm not bashing consoles, I love them, it's just that people forget this simple fact and then they think "ZOMG THEY ARE SO GOOD CUSZ THEY PLAY AT SUCH LOW REZA! OORJSAOJFLOL!! !!!!!!! MARKETING DOES GOOD ON ME!!"
PS3 CPU+G80=HOLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
yea they should had stuck an 8800 in it
way too much power and thermal requirements for their standards, I think with the RSX they are doing just fine
although with the 8800 and the price point still at $600, I would of gotten it off the bat just to have the console for the price of a GTX
although with the 8800 and the price point still at $600, I would of gotten it off the bat just to have the console for the price of a GTX
yea they should had stuck an 8800 in it
Would never happen, first of all the PS3 been in development for about over 2 years now, and by that time the Geforce 6 Series was out and so was the 7 Series, so by that time sony had there own version of the 7 series Card, and it was about the same power as a 7800GT just for the PS3 "next Gen. system".and the 8800 series just came out about a few months back.. so thats why they didnt and no way couldnt stick an 8800 in the PS3
we have to consider price as well
who here can build a bluray capable gaming pc with a custom motion sensing input device that can output at 1920x1080 which has multifaceted inputs, hard drive, etc
i did mention bluray didnt i?
how much would a bray rom drive cost for a pc?
about the same as a ps3
$600 here people - that gives you a bluray drive, hard drive, 1080p graphics, motion controller
not to mention the almighty cell - yes almighty, look it up, if you tried to build a comparable pc you'd be well over $1500 in parts alone - not to mention the opsys and input devices
everything has its place - my pc does it jobs right alongside my wii, 360, ps3 etc
if you game you dont discriminate... you game
god of war 2 for the win
who here can build a bluray capable gaming pc with a custom motion sensing input device that can output at 1920x1080 which has multifaceted inputs, hard drive, etc
i did mention bluray didnt i?
how much would a bray rom drive cost for a pc?
about the same as a ps3
$600 here people - that gives you a bluray drive, hard drive, 1080p graphics, motion controller
not to mention the almighty cell - yes almighty, look it up, if you tried to build a comparable pc you'd be well over $1500 in parts alone - not to mention the opsys and input devices
everything has its place - my pc does it jobs right alongside my wii, 360, ps3 etc
if you game you dont discriminate... you game
god of war 2 for the win
snaggletooth
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
we have to consider price as well
who here can build a bluray capable gaming pc with a custom motion sensing input device that can output at 1920x1080 which has multifaceted inputs, hard drive, etc
i did mention bluray didnt i?
how much would a bray rom drive cost for a pc?
about the same as a ps3
$600 here people - that gives you a bluray drive, hard drive, 1080p graphics, motion controller
not to mention the almighty cell - yes almighty, look it up, if you tried to build a comparable pc you'd be well over $1500 in parts alone - not to mention the opsys and input devices
everything has its place - my pc does it jobs right alongside my wii, 360, ps3 etc
if you game you dont discriminate... you game
god of war 2 for the win
And what PS3 game outputs at 1080p native yet? None.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,933
keep on living in ignorance.
I have a PC and 360.
The 360 has better graphics on a couple games than anything the PC can do...
Kameo
Fight Night Round 3
Gears of War
Having both and being a PC gaming fan I'll tell you that if you play those three games through to the end on 360 with a quality HDTV....you'll agree -- there is no PC game that can match them.
The 360 GPU is actually of higher quality than the PS3 GPU from a really lenghty like 30 page tech article I read sometime ago...which is quite suprising because the PS3 GPU had an extra year of build time.......
cupholder2.0
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 260
Enough of this nonsense fools. The PS3 is no match to the PC. I notice that many imbeciles in this thread keep referring to the cell as some ultimate CPU, however ebola has already rendered your arguments useless and laughable.
This is what Ebola wrote
"I just wanted to make a few quick corrections to some misinformation in this thread.
Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.
The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.
Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.
As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system."
This is what Ebola wrote
"I just wanted to make a few quick corrections to some misinformation in this thread.
Firstly, all current consoles do indeed use graphic APIs. The point of such an API (e.g. OpenGL or Direct3D) is not just to unify programming across architectures, but also to greatly simplify development, so they are defiantly still very useful for consoles.
XBox 360 uses a modified version of the DirectX API system (Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput) dubbed XNA. If you know DirectX, XNA is roughly the same.
PS3 is using OpenGL (PS2 used no graphics API).
Wii is using a modified OpenGL API, assumed to be roughly 85% implemented.
The PS3's CPU is an item particularly suited to paper-benchmarking. In the real world it is less than steller. One could write a rather lengthy paper reasoning on why, but some of the jist of it I can sum up here.
Firstly, the processor is an in-order execution engine (like the XBox 360's, unlike x86 processors). This means the processor, to save costs mostly, does not reorder instructions for optimal execution at any given situation. This is a bad thing for performance for sure, but will be less so as the compilers get better.
In addition, it is not a true 8-core processor as you would think of a quad-core Intel chip. There are 8 separate processing engines, yes, but only one is a general processor (such as your x86 chip). The others are sub processors that execute (max) 128kb instruction blocks with limited instruction sets targeted mostly at 128bit vector math. In addition, one of these is reserved to manage the others, one is reserved for the OS, and another can be taken by the OS at any time with no warning to the application running. So, in reality, you have a max of 1 general core and 4 sub cores guaranteed at any time.
Oh, and the general core is roughly comparable to an 800 MHz P3.
Not to mention the difficulty of development that makes the extra power of the sub processors rather difficult to use, anyway, and very difficult to maximize.
There are plenty more reasons why the Cell is defiantly over-hyped. If you're interested, look up a lengthy article on Google.
The Cell isn't a terrible processor, just very overhyped.
Quick side note: The XBox 360's CPU is also in-order, but its three cores are three full cores, each capable of running two threads simultaneously. The OS doesn't reserve a core, but rather has the ability to use up to some percentage of resources at any time.
As for the PS3's GPU, it is, as it says in the Wiki and has been mentioned already, more comparable to a 7800, not a 6800 (or two or whatever), albeit slightly hindered by the memory system."