PlayStation 3 GPU Less Powerful than GeForce 7800

[Crimson Behelit]

Surely Gamespot will investigate this issue in their next rumor mill... I tend to trust Gamespot for my gaming news.

[TheTerminator]

So go buy PSM and tell us what it says. I bet its in there.

[jerry]

Get my point?

586460925[/snapback]

Not really. :unsure:

Why would a PlayStation magazine go on and claim that they heard an Nvidia spokes person confirm that RSX is "slightly less powerful" than the G70?

Its credibility would have been zero if it came from an Xbox centric source, not this time. Lets wait for confirmation. (scans)

[Laughing-Man]

So go buy PSM and tell us what it says.  I bet its in there.

586460937[/snapback]

I'm not doubting that it could be in there, I just don't like when sites base their news stories on random forum posters. If news sites llike CNN or the BBC started basing major news stories on their front page from some random forum posts, that wouldn't be very good like: **This Just In, Microsoft Buys Sony According To TeamXbox forum poster John Peters who read this in PSM** Edited August 31, 2005 by jmole

[eric zed]

And Kurtagi(sp?) said that he wants the PS3 to have a 10 year life cycle, lol.  Itll be outdated in 1-2 years.

586459800[/snapback]

So? Do you really want to have to upgrade your console? Please define outdated? A slightly faster card will be out? Pssh. I've used my Radeon 9200 PRO for 2 years strong, and it STILL runs BF2 fairly decently. Just because a better thing is out doesnt' mean it's outdated.

It's always been true PCs have superior graphics than consoles. I defy anyone to prove me wrong. I don't see this as bad news, because a console and a PC are entirely different. PC = Windows, OS, Web Browsing, Video Editing, Photoshop, other high demanding applications. Console = Videogames.

[dragon2611]

Oh doesnt anyone get the fact that console hardware is designed to display on a tv screen which is a much lower resolution than a pc therefore it doesnt need as powerfull gpu's to look good

thats howcome console games can endup looking better than some pc games even though the console has a lot lower specs.

that and you dont have to worry about all the varying hardware configurations with consoles so its easier to program for.

[toastyghost]

Oh doesnt anyone get the fact that console hardware is designed to display on a tv screen which is a much lower resolution than a pc therefore it doesnt need as powerfull gpu's to look good

thats howcome console games can endup looking better than some pc games even though the console has a lot lower specs.

that and you dont have to worry about all the varying hardware configurations with consoles so its easier to program for.

586460979[/snapback]

Except this console is explicitly designed to support not just one, but multiple HDTV outputs, at resolutions up to 1080i. Which is a very similar, if not higher (due to the widescreen aspect ratio) of the average PC user's resolution (1024x768).

Also, if anything, the consoles can be harder to program for, especially now that developers have to get to grips with multi-core CPUs and all this PS3 SPU stuff, feeding each processor the relevant info. Its totally different to anything available for development right now, so its basically the blind leading the blind.

Not to mention that on a PC, developers don't necessarily have to explicitly support the hardware; DirectX does that for them, they just have to use code thats scalable for older chipsets.

[dieterich]

The info is from The Inquirer and a XBox fanboy site. take it with a grain of salt....

[Laughing-Man]

See: Misquote leads to elongated articles across the world wide web.

Misquote leads to elongated articles across the world wide web.

What started out as a simple news post on EvilAvatar.com quickly turned into a raging inferno over how slow the PlayStaiton 3 really was. Sites such as The Inquirer and Team Xbox decided to pop their heads in for a gander at the situation and ended up joining the party.

Now, another user on EvilAvatar.com says that the quote was nonsense.

A user by the name of "Red Cloak" posted a "quote" that he said was from the "latest issue of PSM", or the September 2005 edition of PlayStation Magazine (PSM) to be more specific. The "quote" in question was said to come from an nVidia spokesman and read precisely like this:

"The GeForce 7800 is almost identical to the RSX, the rsx is only slightly less powerful."

Following up on the issue at around 3:15 PM EDT this afternoon, user "Lexicon" came around with what he says is the actual paragraph from which "Red Cloak" derived the "quote" from.

"There's no doubting that NVIDIA's new 7800GTX is the ultimate in PC graphics technology. The card's G70 GPU, which is more than twice as powerful as two of NVIDIA's previous top-of-the-line 6800 borads, shares a lot of similar workings with the PS3's RSX chip - only it isn't as fast. Oh, and it retails for $599."

Seeing as though "Lexicon" has been around slightly longer than "Red Cloak", I feel it only right to take his word on the matter. It seems too much like an ill-conceived idea for Sony to be using the RSX GPU if it has already been surpassed by the 7800 (or even the 7800 GTX) and, given the nature of the quote in question, I can't see an nVidia spokesman making such a comment.

With that said, hopefully we can put this rumor behind us and keep our minds open about Sony's PlayStation 3.

According to myself that poster may be lying too, so I put myself in quite a pickle.

[jerry]

Is the PSM that hard to get ? I thought the millions of PS zealots were not as slow.

[dieterich]

You gotta love those fanboys.... :D

[Laughing-Man]

There finally someone scanned in the image of the magazine, case closed: http://evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?...27&postcount=63

[jerry]

There finally someone scanned in the image of the magazine, case closed: http://evilavatar.com/forums/showpost.php?...27&postcount=63

586461092[/snapback]

Inquirer caught spreading FUD once again. :rofl:

[IGx89]

So one poster says nVidia said the RSX is (probably slightly) slower, while another poster says nVidia said the RSX is (probably slightly) faster; I would be inclined to believe the latter, though as I said above we'll know the truth very soon.

Also, is there any concrete evidence that proves the Inquirer is unreliable? I'd very much like to see that information, since everyone seems to just assume nothing from the Inquirer can be trusted (while the articles of theirs that I've presonally read have turned out to be pretty reliable). A quick Google search didn't turn anything up, either. I want to form my own fact-based opinion on the Inquirer, not just blindly follow the crowd.

[edit] lol, the scans were posted while I was typing this post. Anyway, I'd still like to find out why everyone thinks the Inquirer is unreliable; this case doesn't prove anything, since they gave the source of their information (though they probably should have said something about forums not being reliable sources, for the those people who aren't aware of that fact). [/edit]

[Laughing-Man]

Inquirer caught spreading FUD once again. :rofl:

586461108[/snapback]

and TeamXbox...

[Noveed]

lol the article also says the PS3 is likely to sell at 299 or 399 .... i hope it does as that is better for us brits but i really cant see that happening as Mr K.K said so himself the PS3 will be expensive....

[SkaterAustin]

im not here to say much against this entire thing, but from what ive seen with the cell processor and IBM's demos the cell it self can render all polygons and hard 3d stuff by it self, so in reality here the ps3 really doesn't need a uber kick arse gpu to do much. SO really a 7800 or close to it rsx is fast enough to take care of what needs to be done.

[IGx89]

BTW, does the article give a source or their reasoning for the RSX being faster than the GTX? That obviously isn't a quote by an nVidia spokesperson, and is in a magazine that probably is biased towards the PS3 ;).

[Crimson Behelit]

Thanks for clearing that up, jmole. Good work (Y)

[jerry]

and TeamXbox...

586461138[/snapback]

Nope.

Neowin cross-posted many such rumors before, doesnt mean Neowin is to blame.

[NextGen_Gamer]

If you just stop and think for a second, one would realize that it is near impossible for the PlayStation 3's RSX chip to be less powerful than NVIDIA's GeForce 7800 GTX card. Let's examine the FACTS for a second. First off, the GeForce 7800 GTX is built using more than 300 million transistors (302 million to be exact I think). Sony also said that RSX would take up more than 300 million transistors as well. So, right off the bat, I would have to assume that the RSX has **AT LEAST** the same amount of pixel pipelines (24) and vertex shader units (8) as the GeForce 7800 GTX. Now, since the RSX runs at 550MHz, while the GeForce 7800 GTX runs at 430MHz, RSX would clearly be more powerful (even if it would be only 10% or so).

However, I think RSX is much better than anybody has suggested. Let's look at both it's and G70's (the core codename for the GeForce 7800 GTX) development schedules. G70 taped-out back in December 2004, and was released to retail in June 2005. A perfect schedule, since it takes exactly 4-6 months after the first tape-out for the chip to be mass produced. Now, if RSX was simply a 90-nm version of the G70 (which is built using a 110-nm process), wouldn't you think that it would have been taped-out only slightly behind the G70? I would have, but the fact of the matter is that RSX has STILL NOT BEEN TAPED-OUT. That means that no one, no where, has a working chip, since the chip is technically still being developed. So unless Sony and NVIDIA have just been screwing around the past eight months, I would assume that RSX is definitely gonna have some big advantages over the G70, and not just a higher clockspeed.

Just my two and a half cents...

[techLogik]

The Inquirer is one of the least credible news sites around, sure they're fun to read sometimes, but I do some research on the side, rather than blinding believing their crap.

[seta-san]

i don't see how this hurts consoles unless two factors are true

A) gamers are nothing but graphics ###### who have no real appreciation for a fun game

and

B) The quality of televisions gets much better than HD-TV qualtiy; simular to a moniter's. HD-TVs have a picture that isn't as good as a moniter thus hide any defects in quality or resolution loss. Try playing Final Fantasy 8 on a playstation and then play it on your computer with your favorite emulator. You'll notice a game that has excellent graphics for a PSX on your TV but on your computer you will notice that squall's face is completely lop-sided.. This is a perfect example of how a TV hides flaws in image quality.

[IGx89]

The Inquirer is one of the least credible news sites around, sure they're fun to read sometimes, but I do some research on the side, rather than blinding believing their crap.

586461234[/snapback]

Off of what convincing information do you base your conclusion? I really do want to find out why everyone says they're horrible.

[JaLooNz]

Off of what convincing information do you base your conclusion? I really do want to find out why everyone says they're horrible.

586461472[/snapback]

I am also interested to know why too? Any sites that specifically say why they are so bad? AFAIK they are reasonably accurate in most of their reportings, and we must also know that sometimes rumours can be false. If they don't report some rumours, wouldn't it be just an ordinary IT news site?