• 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.

PS3's Nvidia RSX GPU

P

pookgai

n00b
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
57
Based on the future generation Nvidia platform. Its more powerful than 2 SLI linked 6800 Ultras. It renders PS3 games at 2000x1000 Res. It renders colors at 128 Bit, while the current generation PC games have the max of 32 Bit. It renders Movie quality Gfx in real time.

For more information, watch Sony's pressconference: Sony E3 Pressconference
 
that's pretty cool

it'll be interesting to see which will perform better out of the xbx360 or the ps3
 
pookgai said:
Based on the future generation Nvidia platform. Its more powerful than 2 SLI linked 6800 Ultras. It renders PS3 games at 2000x1000 Res. It renders colors at 128 Bit, while the current generation PC games have the max of 32 Bit. It renders Movie quality Gfx in real time.

For more information, watch Sony's pressconference: Sony E3 Pressconference
Click to expand...
games and current monitors dont support 128bit color but the video cards can deffinitely deliver 128bit color...shit my Gforce fx5600 256mb could do 128bit color (they called it 128 bit "studio precision" color)
 
Man I don't know what I want


XBox because it has ATI, or Playstation Despite having nVidia. :(
 
yeah, but the xbox 360 is backwards compatible too. It will be interesting to see what happens. The roles have been reversed this time around with Microsoft being the first to the table and with Sony not releasing till around 6 months later. I can't wait to seee to what happens, I havn't been interseted in consoles since I bought a playstation back in '97, but thses are looking really promising :)
 
* U * K * N * hell.....man that was aesome...cant w8 to play on them...makes my x850xt pe seem a bit 'weak' and my 3500+amd very 'weak' :mad:
 
I think the real battle will be the games on offer, not the consoles themselves.
Despite the XBox being far superior on paper, the PS2 was the biggest success, just because it had a lot of games, and the quality of those games well made up for the deficiency on the hardware side.
This time the hardware seems to be a much closer match, so I guess it will be even more about which games rather than which hardware.
 
Scali said:
I think the real battle will be the games on offer, not the consoles themselves.
Despite the XBox being far superior on paper, the PS2 was the biggest success, just because it had a lot of games, and the quality of those games well made up for the deficiency on the hardware side.
This time the hardware seems to be a much closer match, so I guess it will be even more about which games rather than which hardware.
Click to expand...
i agree in fact i do not believe there has ever been a generation where the system hardware was so similar i mean shit two of the new gen consoles use power pc cpus and an r520 variant
 
Can anyone confirm this:

Here are the facts: Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.

PS3:

CPU=0.25 TFlops

GPU=1.80 TFlops for both Pixel and Vertex Shaders

XBOX360:

CPU=0.18 TFlops

GPU=0.88 TFlops for Unified Shaders=1.75 TFlops for combined Pixel and Vertex Shaders

So the PS3 has a total theoretical of about 2 TFlops and XBox 360 has about 1.9 TFlops (counting Pixel and Vertex shaders separately, as the PS3 does).
Click to expand...
 
No. Both lack a PPU. MS has a PPU on the software side, but not hardware.
 
Tiny said:
No. Both lack a PPU. MS has a PPU on the software side, but not hardware.
Click to expand...
so it uses ageia's new engine but not the hardware...right, or did microsuck make their own engine
 
I don't know who 'microsuck' is, but I know Microsoft is using the Ageia SDK.
 
Tiny said:
I don't know who 'microsuck' is, but I know Microsoft is using the Ageia SDK.
Click to expand...
im sorry im just not a big fan of the name microsoft so i held a gun to bill gates head and made him change the name to microsuck :eek: ....lol. Damn now i have that "i wish linux had good game support" feeling in my stomach again
 
Tiny said:
Can anyone confirm this:
Click to expand...

Well, it's not that simple really. ATi's strategy is just different.
NVIDIA uses units optimized for vertex processing, and different units optimized for pixel processing.
ATi's units may be slower, but it can use more of them at the same time. It's really hard to say how they compare in performance, because it depends a lot on the game you're playing.
It's a lot like HyperThreading and multi-CPU on the CPU-side... Sometimes a single high-speed CPU is better, sometimes a slower multicore/HT CPU is better.
I think it's safe to say however that the ATi approach will excel at high polycounts, because in the worst case it can just have loads more units working on the vertices than NVIDIA can.

But you can't just count the units double, since they cannot process vertices and pixels at the same time.
 
Thanks for sheding some light on that.

To me that reads that they are both real close, or equal.
 
Both have a PPU, as one of the multiple processors/threads will be dedicated to physics... however this will be by software.
The PS3 has more horsepower, but the XBOX is easier to work with, as Microsoft has released some great tools, whilst the PS3 and its cell processer need some rampant relearning among programmers...
f
 
Tiny said:
Thanks for sheding some light on that.

To me that reads that they are both real close, or equal.
Click to expand...

Well, to me it means that they could possibly have quite different games... The XBox having very highpoly games, but with less advanced pixelshading, and the PS3 having lowpoly games with more pixelshading.
It all depends on what the hardware can do best, and how the developers choose to take advantage of it.
 
Oh, I would also like to add that the XBox appears to have 3 fully functional cores, while the PS3 has a Cell processor.
This means that the PS3 has 8 cores, but only one is a regular fully functional core, comparable to one of the cores of the XBox.
The other 7 cores are 'helper' cores, and cannot access memory directly. They have their own on-chip memory (basically some kind of cache), and it is the task of the regular core to upload data and code to the 7 helper cores, and downloading the results and using them.
It is pretty safe to say that the XBox will be easier to program for than the PS3. But at this time I have no idea what the faster solution will be in practice. I suppose it depends a lot on the task at hand. Some things may implement quite well on the Cell architecture, while others may be virtually impossible to implement, reducing the Cell to effectively single-core performance.
At any rate, just adding the maximum flops of the units together isn't a good way to compare CPU performance either, just like GPU performance can't really be compared that way.
 
freddiepm61 said:
Both have a PPU, as one of the multiple processors/threads will be dedicated to physics... however this will be by software.
The PS3 has more horsepower, but the XBOX is easier to work with, as Microsoft has released some great tools, whilst the PS3 and its cell processer need some rampant relearning among programmers...
f
Click to expand...

Not true.
Last night I watched the PS3 gamespot video where some 24 min into the presentation Jen-Hsun Huang enters, tells about the arcithechture of the RSX, and after a short technolygy demo, something cool happend...

Tim Sweeny enter the stage, and the ran Unreal Engine 3 on the PS3 realtime.
Look better than the openning vidoe for Warhammer 40K - DoW.
They ran it agin, pasused it and strolled along, and Tim Sweeny said it had only taken them 2 month of coding to get the UE3 to run on the PS3.

Tim sweeny further stated that the architechture of the PS3 with it's Cell-CPU and the RSX-GPU made it possible to implement all their PC-coding knowlegde into PS3 games fairly simple.

Terra - Reality bites :)

PS. The RSX have 128 precision...just like the Go 6800 Ultra, while the 6800 Ultra only have 32 bit (wich I have mentioned before Perhaps this is a dumb question.... )
 
Terra said:
PS. The RSX have 128 precision...just like the Go 6800 Ultra, while the 6800 Ultra only have 32 bit (wich I have mentioned before Perhaps this is a dumb question.... )
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? All GeForces have had 128 bit precision since the FX series. That's the whole point of DX9/SM2.0, basically.
And the whole fuss about the FX series was that they were too slow at 128 bit, so they had to run at partial precision (64 bit), which didn't look as good as ATi's 96 bit.
 
"It is pretty safe to say that the XBox will be easier to program for than the PS3."

maybe.... just depends on what kind of middleware development software they use.
 
geekcomputing said:
"It is pretty safe to say that the XBox will be easier to program for than the PS3."

maybe.... just depends on what kind of middleware development software they use.
Click to expand...

Well I was thinking more along the lines of writing that middleware...

But when it comes to middleware software, well, XBox is probably the winner, with DirectX/XNA and all that.
 
So does anyone have a high-poly count low pixel shader image vs. a low-poly high pixel shaded image?

I don't know the difference.

Also, I read somewhere that when the PS3 outputs to two monitors at the same time, it won't go higher than 720p on either. It will do 1080p on one, but not two at the same time.
 
Scali said:
What are you talking about? All GeForces have had 128 bit precision since the FX series. That's the whole point of DX9/SM2.0, basically.
And the whole fuss about the FX series was that they were too slow at 128 bit, so they had to run at partial precision (64 bit), which didn't look as good as ATi's 96 bit.
Click to expand...

I havent examined any of the specs at hand, but its possible the posters here are talking about color depth/bits per pixel in general, not shader precision. i.e. like Voodoo3 was 16bit, TNT2 was 32-bit, GeForce 6800 was 32bit (w/ FP32/128-bit color precision shaders), maybe next gen we will see 64bit or 128bit color depth.
 
All this 128bit percision that MS/sony/whoever are flying around with is all just basicly HDR, its not no 128bit output if thats what your thinking.

The bigger question is, can CRT (or any monitor/TV for that matter) even output more than '32bits'?
 
DarkBahamut said:
All this 128bit percision that MS/sony/whoever are flying around with is all just basicly HDR, its not no 128bit output if thats what your thinking.

The bigger question is, can CRT (or any monitor/TV for that matter) even output more than '32bits'?
Click to expand...

not that you would notice any difference
 
tranCendenZ said:
I havent examined any of the specs at hand, but its possible the posters here are talking about color depth/bits per pixel in general, not shader precision. i.e. like Voodoo3 was 16bit, TNT2 was 32-bit, GeForce 6800 was 32bit (w/ FP32/128-bit color precision shaders), maybe next gen we will see 64bit or 128bit color depth.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to actually display 64-bit or 128-bit floating point...
First of all, negative values would never work... Secondly, having values > 1.0 would also be a big problem. You'd melt your screen if you'd want to display a value of 1.0*10^5 :)
It's also quite useless to have more than 10 bits per channel, because the eye is not sensitive enough. So I can't imagine the 128 bit meaning anything other than shader precision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top