Agreed.midnightguy said:Okay that is all well and good, saying that Xenos with its unified shader architecture is more effecient than a non-unified shader architecture, and it is fine to say that the 50 MHz clockspeed advantage that RSX has is overcome by Xenos' unified architecture, but that does not take into account the architectural advantages that RSX might have over Xenos, like more logic transistors, probably more functional units, probably resulting in more processing resources. arguements can be made in favor of either GPU. I believe that, neither clockspeed, nor unified vs non-unified will determine which GPU is better. but rather, in inner workings of each functional block, ALU, pipeline, etc, and the amount of processing resources: ALUs, pipelines, of each GPU. in otherwords, not general things like clockspeed or unifed vs non-unified (thats the layout) but the quality and quantity of the chip-architecture itself. I know I did not say that as elequently as I would've liked, but hopefuly my post can be understood
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
intresting interview with Xenos dev
- Thread starter Hajaz
- Start date
By the way, who had the flops advantage last gen. Has those numbers been calculated.KingV said:The more I hear about X360, the more it reminds me of the things we heard about the gamecube before its release. Mainly that it doesn't have the raw power of the other consoles, but is well optimized so that the end result is far superior than what you'd see based on raw specs alone. I'm no developer, but from what I've seen of the gamecube, they either low-balled their specs or did a great job optimizing the machine to make it ass efficient as possible. This worked pretty well for them, graphically speaking (commercial success aside) as the top tier gamecube games are pretty much on par with top Tier Xbox games, at a much lower launch price point. Time will tell if less = more for X360 as well.
Shogmaster said:Xenos > RSX
In terms of horsepower? Unlikely.
Shogmaster said:since Integer perf of Xenon CPU > Cell
If you mean integer mathematical performance, no it's not. It's pretty much the same situation as floating point. If you mean "the rest", even then you can't disregard the SPEs as Allard does in his comparison.
dorio said:This must have been what Deano, the ps3 Heavenly Sword developer, was referring to when he said that if you throw enough pixel and vertices at the 360 that he can see a situation where it outperforms the ps3.
I think that should be an "or". And would be pixel shading, not pixels, since RSX's fillrate should actually be quite a bit higher than Xenos's. And that'd be dependent on how well a unified ALU performs vs a dedicated unit. But yeah, if you had a really low vertex shading workload and a proportionally higher pixel shading workload, or vice versa, a unified architecture could outperform even a more powerful fixed architecture with the same workload. But that's taking an extreme case. With more typical realworld scenarios, the distribution isn't going to be so skewed.
Even then, is the game with only a few polys and lots of pixel shading, or vice versa, pushing "unified GPU A" to the limit more technically accomplished than a game mapped to more a powerful "fixed GPU B"'s architecture, pushing it to the limit? In the shading it has chosen to focus on (pixel or vertex), maybe, but overall? Probably not.
KingV said:as the top tier gamecube games are pretty much on par with top Tier Xbox games
WRONG
The more I hear about X360, the more it reminds me of the things we heard about the gamecube before its release. Mainly that it doesn't have the raw power of the other consoles,
wrong again.. it'll have plenty of raw power, and definately far more than revolution.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
He said raw performance, and that's where RSX certainly seems to look better on paper. I really don't see how anyone can be 100% sure either way, though with so little details about either of them, especially RSX.and Xenos > RSX and not much else (and those are not that clear cut either since Integer perf of Xenon CPU > Cell, etc...).
Do you have a link to that comment? I remember another comment of that kind he made that was related to something completely different (a CPU-only software rendering engine mental comparision he made)This must have been what Deano, the ps3 Heavenly Sword developer, was referring to when he said that if you throw enough pixel and vertices at the 360 that he can see a situation where it outperforms the ps3.
Marconelly said:He said raw performance, and that's where RSX certainly seems to look better on paper. I really don't see how anyone can be 100% sure either way, though with so little details about either of them, especially RSX.
Do you have a link to that comment? I remember another comment of that kind he made that was related to something completely different (a CPU-only software rendering engine mental comparision he made)
deano was talking about cpus IIRC..
Cell has a FLOP advantage, XeCPU has a flexibilty advantage... I suspect a tuned advanced software engine for both would be within 70-80% of each other. I'm not even sure that if you have lots of vertex and texture data, that XeCPU would lose
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Yeah, that's the only quote I remember him saying.
Then I guess this isn't what he was talking about. Don't see why the xcpu would have an advantage in that situation though.thorns said:deano was talking about cpus IIRC..
Cell has a FLOP advantage, XeCPU has a flexibilty advantage... I suspect a tuned advanced software engine for both would be within 70-80% of each other. I'm not even sure that if you have lots of vertex and texture data, that XeCPU would lose
dorio said:Then I guess this isn't what he was talking about. Don't see why the xcpu would have an advantage in that situation though.
He didn't say it would.
It was probably based on tech specs that they received from MS.Hajaz said:i dont see how deano couldve commented on Xenos tbh, since it wasnt in x360 dev kits at the time
thorns said:WRONG
wrong again.. it'll have plenty of raw power, and definately far more than revolution.
In your opinion, as someone who owns or has owned and traded in most of the AAA games for both systems, and a number of multiplatform titles for each, in my unexpert opinion top tier Gamecube games are graphically essentially on par with top tier Xbox games. Certainly the Xbox is more powerful, but I can't think of any single game on Xbox that makes you go "Wow, this is much better than anything on Gamecube" whereas I can think of a number of Gamecube and Xbox and Gamecube titles that are very evidently superior to PS2 games. Even in those instances, the graphical gap is not something I would consider "huge" except for maybe Halo 2 vs pretty much any FPS on either other system. If the 360 and PS3 are as close as we've been led to believe, I don't think most people will be able to tell a clear cut difference between both systems unless they are pretty much literally side by side.
KingV said:Certainly the Xbox is more powerful, but I can't think of any single game on Xbox that makes you go "Wow, this is much better than anything on Gamecube" whereas I can think of a number of Gamecube and Xbox and Gamecube titles that are very evidently superior to PS2 games. Even in those instances, the graphical gap is not something I would consider "huge" except for maybe Halo 2 vs pretty much any FPS on either other system. If the 360 and PS3 are as close as we've been led to believe, I don't think most people will be able to tell a clear cut difference between both systems unless they are pretty much literally side by side.
Play Riddick.
Redbeard said:Play Riddick.
Ok, I'll admit. That's a pretty good example. I'd forgotten all about the game due to the fact that I didn't really like it that much.
KingV said:Ok, I'll admit. That's a pretty good example. I'd forgotten all about the game due to the fact that I didn't really like it that much.
or splinter cell: chaos theory..
or doom 3..
or..
thorns said:deano was talking about cpus IIRC..
Cell has a FLOP advantage, XeCPU has a flexibilty advantage... I suspect a tuned advanced software engine for both would be within 70-80% of each other. I'm not even sure that if you have lots of vertex and texture data, that XeCPU would lose
He was definitely talking about implementing a software renderer on the CPU, not talking about the GPU in either console.
The reason why the XeCPU may have an advantage running a software renderer in some cases is that the cores potentially have access to more cache, so large textures and huge amounts of vertex data might be more efficient to process on the XeCPU (since all three cores share the same 1MB of L2 cache, vs 256K local RAM in each SPE - it might be better to have all three cores working out of the same data in the 1MB, whereas each SPE can't see more than the 256K local to each core)...
thorns said:or splinter cell: chaos theory..
or doom 3..
or..
Isn't their a Gamecube version of the splinter cell games? I've played the Xbox versions, but am really unsure how they compare to the GC versions. I didn't think the graphics in Splinter Cell Chaos Theory were really all that impressive. Riddick had a much cooler look in my eyes. Haven't played Doom 3.
Argyle said:The reason why the XeCPU may have an advantage running a software renderer in some cases is that the cores potentially have access to more cache, so large textures and huge amounts of vertex data might be more efficient to process on the XeCPU (since all three cores share the same 1MB of L2 cache, vs 256K local RAM in each SPE - it might be better to have all three cores working out of the same data in the 1MB, whereas each SPE can't see more than the 256K local to each core)...
Really bad example. The SPEs would excel at the vertex ops - data access isn't an issue there since each vertex is independent, and it's simply a matter of shipping them in and shipping them out, and besides, 7 SPEs working on vertices would be working with ~1.8MB of data directly, versus 1MB in X360. Elsewhere things may balance out a little more evenly, but vertices wouldn't be one of those places.
gofreak said:An odd choice of words given that part of Xenos's claim to fame is that it's supposed to fit more around your workload rather than vice versa. I mean, the way to reach best performance on any architecture is to map your algo to the hardware and "throw instructions at it in the right way", but Xenos is supposed to be more flexible than usual.
Gofreak, akascream read the rest of the first post!
wow... let me make it easy for you
The super cool point is that 'in the right way' just means 'give us plenty of work to do'. The hardware manages itself
rastex said:Gofreak, akascream read the rest of the first post!
wow... let me make it easy for you
My bad, that's the point they should be making, and they are. Although it won't be quite as simple as he suggests..