PS3: Unreal Tournament 2007

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Both of you (three/udontneed) bring up some very interesting points. After reading the discussion my view of the Xbox360 and the PS3 have changed. We're going to have to wait until the PS3 is released to see what it's really capable of.

EDIT: I actually enjoy reading their "discussion". They are discussing a hot topic, and they're doing it in a civilized manner. Let them continue.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

yeah, nerd fights are just stupid ... consoles are consoles... all have their pluses and minuses ... it's like arguing over intel vs amd. no one cares, so just stop.

[Noveed]

Excuse me?

Please do your homework before making useless troll posts like this. I think I've made it quite clear that my discussions of the PS3 architecture have absolutely nothing to do with my employer. If you don't believe that, then that's your choice. Just keep the personal insults to yourself.

Furthermore, I have made no conclusions about the PS3's real-world performance (which would be impossible since it doesn't exist yet) - and only refuted the invalid or unsubstantiated claims of people like "udontneed2know."

Claims that the PS3 is architecturely superior to the Xbox 360 are completely unfounded in reality, just as are claims to the contrary.

I prefer to discuss facts, not opinions. It's a fact that rendering at 1280x720 in FP16 with 2x mutlisample AA will require 2-4 times as much bandwidth as the PS3 has available (assuming 60FPS). It's something in the neighborhood of 90 GB/sec. The RSX GPU has 22.4GB/sec of bandwidth to its VRAM. According to "udontneed2know" (though I've seen no documentation from Sony) - the RSX can also access the system memory using some sort of UMA or AGP-like interface. Even given the most optimistic numbers (22GB/sec + 25GB/sec for VRAM plus system RAM), you're still at about half the requird bandwidth.

You can cut the framerate down, reduce the size of the Z-buffer, make trade-offs in texture filtering, etc. But you're going to have to give up something. Even Sony can't defy basic laws of arithmetic.

ignore him, i bet hes jealous that you work for MS, anyways nice to see some geek info floating about here now and then it shows not everyone is brain dead on a monday ;)

[icecaveman]

I can say with confidence PS3 won't have superior graphics to Xbox 360 but they will look very similar.

Some games will look slightly better on PS3 since the CELL can process, for example HDR

in Metal Gear Solid 4 they use for example the CELL to do HDR so stop claiming it will be incapable of doing HDR and FSAA simultaneously.

However PS3 WILL NOT have superior graphics like many people claim and most games even have a possibility to look better on Xbox 360 since it's far easier to develop for... Xbox 360 has slightly better GPU but since the CELL can process some of the GPU data I say the consoles couldn't be much more tied for the lead.

Look at Playstation 2 compared to Gamecube and the original Xbox, you will see far more difference in these games than you will in the next generation, Playstation 2 was technically almost a generation behind Gamecube and Xbox because of it's total lack of Pixel Shaders and hardware bump mapping.

[Xero]

LOOKY ME! I SPEND MY WHOLE DAY ARGUING OVER WHICH NEXT GEN CONSOLE IS MORE POWERFUL!!

MY CONSOLE IS MORE POWERFUL, THERFOR ALL THE WOMEN LIKE ME AND I HAVE A 12FT PENIS!!!!!

No one cares guys, just leave it.

You sir are a loser.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

yeah, nerd fights are just stupid ... consoles are consoles... all have their pluses and minuses ... it's like arguing over intel vs amd. no one cares, so just stop.

Have you read my post? :rolleyes:

Their discussion is not out of hand. If it was, the mods would've locked this thread already. Furthermore, people can learn alot from what they're posting.

[firen]

LOOKY ME! I SPEND MY WHOLE DAY ARGUING OVER WHICH NEXT GEN CONSOLE IS MORE POWERFUL!!

MY CONSOLE IS MORE POWERFUL, THERFOR ALL THE WOMEN LIKE ME AND I HAVE A 12FT PENIS!!!!!

No one cares guys, just leave it.

no reason posting if YOU don't care, and don't speak for everyone thanks :)

[GNRambo]

no reason posting if YOU don't care, and don't speak for everyone thanks :)

its not that i dont care, its that they argue in every single thread in this forum. They should just make a definitive argument thread.

Anyways i wub you guys :wub:

edit: <-----hey im the opposite of 1337 now :happy:

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I can say with confidence PS3 won't have superior graphics to Xbox 360 but they will look very similar.

Some games will look slightly better on PS3 since the CELL can process, for example HDR

in Metal Gear Solid 4 they use for example the CELL to do HDR so stop claiming it will be incapable of doing HDR and FSAA simultaneously.

While I agree with most of your post, HDR is a factor of the rasterization engine and I see no possible way that the Cell could help with that (same for FSAA).

Look at Playstation 2 compared to Gamecube and the original Xbox, you will see far more difference in these games than you will in the next generation, Playstation 2 was technically almost a generation behind Gamecube and Xbox because of it's total lack of Pixel Shaders and hardware bump mapping.

Based on current information, I would predict that the Xbox 360 will be in the same position (as hardware/graphics go) as the previous Xbox. The PS3 will be analogus to the GameCube. And the Revolution will be closer to the PS2 of the previous generation.

But that's entirely speculation and I make no claim otherwise.

[udontneed2know]

So pretty much you have no clue and just speculating off of your " facts" which arent actually facts just your rather pathetic opinions.

There is no point in debating facts with you dude. I posted so much actual fact directly from IBM's mouth that you have no clue as to even comprehend that I'm not even going to waste my time anymore lol. Cell is FAR more advanced then the generic Xenon processor and the system has plenty of bandwidth to handle anything thrown its way, including real-time Raytracing.

The proof is in the pudding. PS3 games in their earliest stages look better with better physics, better lighting, better everything then finished 360 titles and anything upcoming on the 360. Yet somehow the Xbox360 is leagues ahead of the Playstation 3?

Come back to reality, its warmer here. We'll see the truth though down the line lol. Its not like the PS3 will never release and the games will never be seen by the public again. We'll see them, play them, and in the end through these next 5 years the Xbox360 will be lagging far behind and only a couple of titles made by the top development minds will even be able to match the PS3 in a few areas.

What the hell information are you going on anyways? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO INFORMATION AVALIABLE THAT EVEN REMOTELY PLACES THE PLAYSTATION 3 BEHIND THE XBOX360. No spec, no bandwidth numbers, no polygon counts, NOTHING.

God your dilluded man lol.

Just to add some more facts to this thread, since well .. Three is only adding BS to the thread. Heres another link to shut you up and prove you wrong for about the 10th time.

http://ps3dev.info/content/view/18/2/

In the Alfred Molina head demo, much of the processing (sub-surface reflection/translucency; high dynamic range lighting) was done on the Cell rather than the RSX graphics chip. This demonstrates that although the Cell chip will be extremely useful for complex physics and A.I., it will also be capable of powering hardcore mathmatical graphics problems itself, sending results to the render hardware

So what was that? Cell wouldn't help with HDR lighting because of blah blah you don't have a clue? Yeah ... that about does it.

Again, in the first landscape demo, only the Cell is used by a software renderer to produce a real-time landscape from satellite imagery and heightmap data, along with procedural clouds - the graphics chip just rendering the end result

Edited December 13, 2005 by udontneed2know

[tHa_vIlLaMaN]

The proof is in the pudding. PS3 games in their earliest stages look better with better physics, better lighting, better everything then finished 360 titles and anything upcoming on the 360. Yet somehow the Xbox360 is leagues ahead of the Playstation 3?

You do realize that Sony has to approve all the media being released on the PS3 right?

So if they have this whole image of technical superiority going on at the moment, why would they release media that is on-par or sub-par to those of the '360?

They themselves said:

...what I can say is as soon as we feel that the quality of the software is up to where we expect it to be, and that we're confident of us being able to present that to everybody and everybody go home with the impression that, yes, these guys are really pusing the envelope in terms of what they bring to gameplay, graphic quality, and everything else." "... we'll present those games just as we're good and ready to go"

Like it or not we will all have to wait until the PS3 is realeased, and has the games which we've seen the "demos" for, along with others to truely tell what kind of graphical performance we can expect out of it. Because if a system has spectacular looking games at the dawning of its life, the visuals and other aspects of its games will only get better over its lifespan.

And you can't say you know the games will look "that good or even better lol", since all we have seen so far is what Sony wants us to see (as per my above quote).

So until you see someone, wether it be at CES or elsewhere, with a controller in their hand playing a game, you can't (or shouldn't) come to all these conclusions so quickly. That's just folly.

Don't tell me that all your (presumably factual) assumtions are based on the numerous papers you've read or benchmarks done by they very people trying to market their product. An Intel P4 has certain application where it completely destroys an Athlon, and also vice versa. I'm sure this will also be the case with Xenon and the (more PR friendly) Cell.

So in essence all I am trying to say is; stop being an evangelical fanboy, rediculing people because they don't share your and Sony's marketing team's perpective. And try to have a civil discussion without all the lols :no: . Please

Thank You dammit! :cool:

[udontneed2know]

I'm just real tired of seeing Three tell everyone else they are wrong and how they are basing their knowledge off of opinions and not facts like him, when its exactly the opposite. I'll supply facts all day long just like I have in this thread and he'll just ignore then and continue on spreading false information.

I seriously hate that crap. People who ignore the actual facts but at the same time tell everyone else they are wrong when they seriously have no clue.

Cell cant help in HDR, yet it can accomplish it and every other graphical trick on its own. Cell and Xenon are identical, yet they share almost no similarities. Xbox360's GPU is more powerful, even though every single number says otherwise in a big way and the games show otherwise. PS3's bandwidth is too low for HDR and AA, even though its much higher then the 360's. Geforce is incapable of HDR and FSAA, even though it has been capable of that since HDR was avaliable and FSAA is just a laughable thing. Three saying the specs of the 360 blow the PS3's away and game over or whatever he says and then I provide the specs where the PS3 blows the 360 away, and they are ignored so he goes back to the bandwidth thing and his assumptions of " nothing matters, 360 still wins ".

Just annoying.

[tHa_vIlLaMaN]

I'm just real tired of seeing Three tell everyone else they are wrong and how they are basing their knowledge off of opinions and not facts like him, when its exactly the opposite. I'll supply facts all day long just like I have in this thread and he'll just ignore then and continue on spreading false information.

I seriously hate that crap. People who ignore the actual facts but at the same time tell everyone else they are wrong when they seriously have no clue.

Cell cant help in HDR, yet it can accomplish it and every other graphical trick on its own. Cell and Xenon are identical, yet they share almost no similarities. Xbox360's GPU is more powerful, even though every single number says otherwise in a big way and the games show otherwise. PS3's bandwidth is too low for HDR and AA, even though its much higher then the 360's. Geforce is incapable of HDR and FSAA, even though it has been capable of that since HDR was avaliable and FSAA is just a laughable thing. Three saying the specs of the 360 blow the PS3's away and game over or whatever he says and then I provide the specs where the PS3 blows the 360 away, and they are ignored so he goes back to the bandwidth thing and his assumptions of " nothing matters, 360 still wins ".

Just annoying.

:no:

You both have your bias, even though for different reasons. You both see each platform in the light you want to, ignoring some aspects while amplifying others (both good and bad) of your prefered platform. It's just simple psychology.

A person will do their best to shine the best possible light on whatever they like to try and convince other people to like it also, while searching meticulously for something in order to put it in the worst light possible as this may make others feel less about it, even if it requires twisting the truth a bit.

You're both guilty of one of these things or another(along with some others whom shall remain nameless). So for you to try and come off innocent, is in a word; Wrong.

Sentance: One week of research of the opposing platform and a month of rehabilitaion at FA - 'Fanboys anonymous'.

Bailiff....

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I'm just real tired of seeing Three tell everyone else they are wrong and how they are basing their knowledge off of opinions and not facts like him, when its exactly the opposite. I'll supply facts all day long just like I have in this thread and he'll just ignore then and continue on spreading false information.

A quote from a Sony marketing person isn't a "fact." Numbers are facts.

Cell cant help in HDR, yet it can accomplish it and every other graphical trick on its own. Cell and Xenon are identical, yet they share almost no similarities.

You're suggesting that game developers will use the Cell to do their color fills? For texturing? Please tell me at what resolutions you expect the Cell to be able to do software rendering. This should be good.

Xbox360's GPU is more powerful, even though every single number says otherwise in a big way and the games show otherwise.

Define "more powerful." More technologically advanced? Hell yes. Better for a console? Probably.

PS3's bandwidth is too low for HDR and AA, even though its much higher then the 360's.

How many times can I say it? For 1280x720 with FP16 and 2x FSAA at 60FPS, the PS3 needs to use ~96GB/sec of bandwidth where it has 22.4GB/sec to the VRAM and allegedly has some kind of access to the 25GB/sec system memory.

For the same resolution with the same FP16, 2x FSAA, and 60FPS - the X360 needs 96GB/sec of its 256GB/sec EDRAM bandwidth.

So how, again, does the PS3 look better here?

Geforce is incapable of HDR and FSAA, even though it has been capable of that since HDR was avaliable and FSAA is just a laughable thing.

It's not incapable of FSAA or HDR. It's incapable of doing both at the same time. Nvidia has admitted this, you won't? The only PC GPU currently capable of doing both is the x1800.

Source: "The later released GeForce 7800 GTX, however, had enough speed to allow using OpenEXR with some comfort, but it still didn?t permit to combine it with FSAA."

Another source: "We know NVIDIA supports HDR so what is the big deal you might ask? Well, ATI supports HDR together with anti-aliasing. So far they are alone doing this."

Three saying the specs of the 360 blow the PS3's away and game over or whatever he says and then I provide the specs where the PS3 blows the 360 away, and they are ignored so he goes back to the bandwidth thing and his assumptions of " nothing matters, 360 still wins ".

You haven't given me specs. You've given me numbers like "2 TFLOPs" that mean absolutely nothing.

[udontneed2know]

Funny thing, even though the Geforce 7800 is supposely incapable of providing both at the same time like the specialized architecture of the brand new ATI processors, it still outperforms the ATI processors in most benchmarks utilizing FSAA and HDR. Suprise suprise.

A quote from a Sony marketing person isn't a "fact." Numbers are facts.

Yes, and every single number points to a much higher advantage for the PS3. Yet you ignore those numbers and just continue along the path of complete foolishness.

You're suggesting that game developers will use the Cell to do their color fills? For texturing? Please tell me at what resolutions you expect the Cell to be able to do software rendering. This should be good.

Your joking right? If you actually think this sort of thing requires some sort of magic processor then you sir need some education. Cell can do ANYTHING a GPU can, only it is completely programmable which alone gives it a trully massive advantage over GPU's of today. The internal bandwidth is leagues ahead of any GPU and the Pixel pushing when you do the numbers is 5x higher then the best GPU today. Cell can do whatever the programmer wants it to do. I've already posted about this stuff, try reading for once instead of going off your own insane opinions. Cell can do HDR lighting, it can do geometry, it can do per-pixel illumination, it can push shaders, it can do whatever ... the ... programmer .. wants. And will still have 4SPE's and the PPE to utilize for AI, physics, whatever.

How many times can I say it? For 1280x720 with FP16 and 2x FSAA at 60FPS, the PS3 needs to use ~96GB/sec of bandwidth where it has 22.4GB/sec to the VRAM and allegedly has some kind of access to the 25GB/sec system memory.

For the same resolution with the same FP16, 2x FSAA, and 60FPS - the X360 needs 96GB/sec of its 256GB/sec EDRAM bandwidth.

Good sweet lord. Thats the bandwidth to the on-chip RAM dude. You think that measily 10MB of RAM will be enough to handle FSAA and HDR lighting? Education, get it please. The GPU-CPU bandwidth of the Xbox360 is officially only 5.6Gb/s. And theres nothing allegedly about it, the RSX and Cell were designed from the ground up to be coherent with one another and be able to speak to the others RAM for any purposes that would be required.

t's not incapable of FSAA or HDR. It's incapable of doing both at the same time. Nvidia has admitted this, you won't? The only PC GPU currently capable of doing both is the x1800.

Yet it does both at the same time. How amazing is that concept. The Geforce 7800 GTX is incapable of doing both at the same time, but the latest benchmarks for the new 7800GTX put it once again passed the x1800 while doing both FSAA and HDR. Hell the x1800 was only 5-10FPS higher then that of the GTX when doing both HDR and FSAA.

And what happened to all that needed bandwidth to accomplish FSAA and HDR at high resolutions? Even the Geforce 6800 is capable of accomplishing the task and almost reach a 30FPS mark.

Your whole logic in this entire thread is null and void and based off your own little assumptions and horrible math.

You haven't given me specs. You've given me numbers like "2 TFLOPs" that mean absolutely nothing.

.........

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[magik]

This is great! I love you guys :)

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Funny thing, even though the Geforce 7800 is supposely incapable of providing both at the same time like the specialized architecture of the brand new ATI processors, it still outperforms the ATI processors in most benchmarks utilizing FSAA and HDR. Suprise suprise.

So it can't do it, but it does it faster?

Yes, and every single number points to a much higher advantage for the PS3. Yet you ignore those numbers and just continue along the path of complete foolishness.

Got an example?

Your joking right? If you actually think this sort of thing requires some sort of magic processor then you sir need some education. Cell can do ANYTHING a GPU can, only it is completely programmable which alone gives it a trully massive advantage over GPU's of today. The internal bandwidth is leagues ahead of any GPU and the Pixel pushing when you do the numbers is 5x higher then the best GPU today. Cell can do whatever the programmer wants it to do. I've already posted about this stuff, try reading for once instead of going off your own insane opinions. Cell can do HDR lighting, it can do geometry, it can do per-pixel illumination, it can push shaders, it can do whatever ... the ... programmer .. wants. And will still have 4SPE's and the PPE to utilize for AI, physics, whatever.

So you're suggesting that a 21 million transistor SPE is better than a 330 million transistor GPU? Give me a break.

Implementing something like OpenGL rendering on the Cell in software with acceptable performance would be virtually impossible. Getting it to rival a modern GPU is a pipe dream.

The Cell isn't magic. It's a variation on traditional RISC designs with lots of parallel execution units and small caches really close to the execution units. Like Intel's Itanium design, it relies heavily on compiler optimizations and being given the "right" tasks.

Good sweet lord. Thats the bandwidth to the on-chip RAM dude. You think that measily 10MB of RAM will be enough to handle FSAA and HDR lighting? Education, get it please.

Maybe you should have done your math homework back in middle school. 1280x720 is a 7MB framebuffer.

7MB is less than 10MB. 1080i would be about 8MB.

What's more, if the framebuffer is larger than 10MB - the Xenos chip uses tiled rendering. Maybe you should educate yourself.

The GPU-CPU bandwidth of the Xbox360 is officially only 5.6Gb/s. And theres nothing allegedly about it, the RSX and Cell were designed from the ground up to be coherent with one another and be able to speak to the others RAM for any purposes that would be required.

Huh? Give me a source. The published FSB of the Xbox360 is 21.6GB/sec. What's with the made-up numbers?

Yet it does both at the same time. How amazing is that concept. The Geforce 7800 GTX is incapable of doing both at the same time, but the latest benchmarks for the new 7800GTX put it once again passed the x1800 while doing both FSAA and HDR. Hell the x1800 was only 5-10FPS higher then that of the GTX when doing both HDR and FSAA.

Can anyone else make sense of this paragraph? It can't do it, but it's faster, because it's only 5-10FPS slower (which tells you nothing of the % improvement). How about you try again.

And what happened to all that needed bandwidth to accomplish FSAA and HDR at high resolutions? Even the Geforce 6800 is capable of accomplishing the task and almost reach a 30FPS mark.

Now you're just lying.

Kind of like you lied about the Cell raytracing claim that you misquoted.

[spvath]

This thing is getting heated and terribly exciting! FSAA, GPU, HDR, RSX, SPE !!

Keep it up, fellas, I'm loving reading this.

[jerry]

Can anyone else make sense of this paragraph? It can't do it, but it's faster, because it's only 5-10FPS slower (which tells you nothing of the % improvement). How about you try again.

He doesnt know 6800 or 7800 cannot do FSAA+HDR at all. :rofl:

Now you're just lying.

Kind of like you lied about the Cell raytracing claim that you misquoted.

He is lying (or) trying to twist every way he can (like PR bull ****).

[Brandon Live Veteran]

What's funny is that he was blathering about Raytracing - he quoted (but didn't link to) a source that was talking about ray-casting.

There's a huge difference there... Ray-casting on the Cell would work great for 2D terrain rendering (like the old Bryce style apps). But is completely useless for modern 3D games. Of course, "udontneed2know" doesn't actually know what he's talking about. So he found that post on an IBM dev forum and thought it meant something that it didn't.

[jerry]

What's funny is that he was blathering about Raytracing - he quoted (but didn't link to) a source that was talking about ray-casting.

I called him out earlier on that, looks like 'copy-pasting' a lot of stuff and some people are going "oooh, aaah" :rofl:

[Michael1406]

What are you talking about? They work in different ways? What does the PS3 play games in reverse or something?

We've known plenty about both systems since their unveiling at E3. Theres only 1 Playstation 3 that exists and thats the one thats been talked about for 7 months now.

The only technical thing we don't know about the PS3 is all the juicy little inner details of the RSX. But we can guess considering it will be more powerful then the 7800GTX which pushes 800,000,000 triangles per second. That alone beats the 360's mark of 500 triangles per second.

We know enough to know whats up. So those who have been paying attention will talk plenty.

I said they worked in different ways because I have seen the specs of both systems enough to know that the hardware works in different ways on each system. This post explains it in greater detail.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...ost&p=586906521

[udontneed2know]

Oh goodie, more fun for me.

So it can't do it, but it does it faster?

FOOL lol. LEARN TO READ EVEN YOUR OWN STATEMENTS. Supposely the Geforce 7800GTX is unable to do HDR and FSAA right? Right?! Then why in all the benchmarks where HDR and FSAA 4x is implemented does the Geforce take the lead? Hmmm how perplexing for a processor that is supposely incapable of the feat.

So you're suggesting that a 21 million transistor SPE is better than a 330 million transistor GPU? Give me a break.

Implementing something like OpenGL rendering on the Cell in software with acceptable performance would be virtually impossible. Getting it to rival a modern GPU is a pipe dream.

The Cell isn't magic. It's a variation on traditional RISC designs with lots of parallel execution units and small caches really close to the execution units. Like Intel's Itanium design, it relies heavily on compiler optimizations and being given the "right" tasks.

You really need to touch up on your desktop search programming skills for one, because the Windows search program sucks ass. For two, you have absolutely no clue about graphic programming. Being able to speak to the GPU directly instead of having the CPU talk to it in machine language indirectly is a major benefit that unloads massive amounts of flexibility into the equation. And you know what, I've already posted various comments from IBM themselves talking about the graphics capability of the Cell processor. So your just going around in circles dude, welcome to 2 days ago and in fact 3 years ago.

Implementing something like OpenGL rendering on the Cell in software with acceptable performance would be virtually impossible. Getting it to rival a modern GPU is a pipe dream.

What is OpenGL the only language you know or something? There are a billion ways to make a processor output graphics dude, OpenGL is just one of them. This is exactly my point. I've already talked about this **** awhile ago, YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO COMPREHENSION OF ANYTHING IN THE REAL WORLD lol. I've said this stuff already. Its rather pointless trying to debate with you when all you do is sprout BS, I call youo nthe BS and provide facts from the experts, and then you just ignore it and 6 responses later go back to what I've already talked about before. THIS IS WHY SONY WENT WITH NVIDIA BACK IN 2002. They wanted the programmers to have a very well known API like OpenGL/ES to ease development. Going with Dual Cell would have destroyed anything out on the market but would have been about 50x more complex to learn then providing a GPU.

But, that does not change the fact that Cell is a highly capable graphic pusher. If it wasn't Disney and Pixar wouldn't be contemplating using the Cell Blades in rendering farms. If it wasn't they wouldn't have been able to accomplish what they did with The Getaway: Future Vision at E3 which uses nothing but the Cell processor.

And if you actually read what I quoted about Ray-Casting you would have also read that IBM has a fully working real-time ray-tracing up and running on Cell. Your going to be fired soon dude if you can't even comprehend these little things I'm talking about here.

You see, the sad thing here is this stuff is from about 3 years ago. Your living in your own little bubble where Microsoft of all people are somehow good at creating anything. OH WAIT YOU WORK FOR THEM. So its basically forced on you to blow smoke up peoples asses all day long while chomping handburgers and telling your boss you'll have that section of program done by sometime in 2008.

Learn to listen, read a little bit and maybe I'll come back and debate with you. Until then, well .. its rather pointless. You think the 100Gflop number in Xenon is double precision : laugh : . You think the Geforce 7800 is incapable of HDR and FSAA at the same time, yet I'm able to run HL2 Lost Coast with FSAA x4 with HDR lighting turned on with my ****in Geforce 6600. Your whole perception on reality is based on paperwork built by Microsoft worshippers which is pretty sad to say the least. Just because an architecture isn't built around specifically supplying an easier way to accomplish something does not mean its actually incapable of doing it ... idiot lol.

Huh? Give me a source. The published FSB of the Xbox360 is 21.6GB/sec. What's with the made-up numbers?

I saw it on one of your precious websites I'll have to go back and find once again for you. I've seen those " published " specs as well but then I saw another number from one of these websites. Oh well, either way the PS3's bandwidth is still much higher lol.

And did you actually say post numbers? I've already posted them. Once again, your inability to read or remember is staggering.

9 billion dot products per second for 360 compared to 50 billion for the PS3. 2 Tflops overall system performance compared to 1Tflop from Xbox360. 48 billion shaders per second for Xbox360 compared to 100+ billion shaders per second for Playstation 3. MAJOR Cache advantage for Cell compared to Xenon. Massive internal bandwidth advantage for Cell compared to Xenon.

But anyway, I'm sure you'll come back with " but I don't understand, if the Geforce 7800 is incapable of HDR and FSAA then why are you saying its capable of it". Wah wah I don't understand. Lemme skip passed this entire post and retype the same exact thing I've been typing over and over and over again for the past 4 pages lmao.

[magik]

For those that have no idea what's going on, if you really read what threedaysdwn is talking about and compare it to what udontneed2know is saying, it's blatantly obvious that udontneed2know has no idea what he's talking about. In terms of education, it's obvious that udontneed2know resorted to insults rather than trying to proove that threedaysdwn may be wrong (which he apparently failed). Still, it's an interesting read nonetheless.

I was at BestBuy the other day and a couple of the employees were talking about 360 vs PS3. One of them kept boasting: "PS3 is 1080p, not i... p!!!"

haha, if only knew what was to become of his precious 1080p graphics-wise :blush:

[udontneed2know]

Believe what you like. I'm the only one actually providing facts this entire thread though.

Funny how that works. You believe a guy who thinks the Cell is copying the Xenon even though Xenon was started 2 years after the Cells design started. You believe a guy who thinks the Xenon is capable of 100Gflops of DP performance on a 3 core processor architecture. You actually believe a guy who thinks in todays world fully loaded textures with FSAA and HDR take up only 8MB of buffer space lmao. Buy hey, its up to you to believe what you want.

The proof is in the pudding. When I actually see a 360 game that even greatly enhances that of what we've seen out of todays PC's then I'll begin thinking of the 360 as an actual architectural and graphical competitor to the Playstation 3. But that day has still yet to come.

Quake 4 chugs. Gears of War after a full year and months still chugs. Full Auto which was shown at E3 a long time ago still chugs on the 360.

Then you have UT2007, running on un-optimized code at 720p at 49FPS lol. You have Heavenly Sword throwing around 30,000 models at the screen at once, using individualized AI routines, using 1080p at a solid framerate with many more months of final kit development time to go. Then you have Warhawk and Gundam, both looking in playable fashion better then they did in their respective demos.

The proof is in the pudding. Show me proof of the 360's capabilities please. Because well, I've yet to see anything that can't be done on my computer right now, and in Quake 4's case, with a much smoother framerate.

Its going to be absolutely hilarious to see you guys eating your words lol. When the 360 is chasing after PS3 launch games for the next 2 years.