1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Xbox 360 graphics capability vs PlayStation3 (X360 is superior)

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by AirRaid, May 2, 2007.

  1. AirRaid

    AirRaid Guest

    http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.php?p=9235572&postcount=11

    GPU Transistor Count
    PS3 - RSX transistor count: 300.2 million transistors
    Xbox 360 - Xenos transistor count: 337 million (232 million parent die
    +105 million EDRAM daughter die)

    GPU clock
    Xbox 360 - Xenos clocked at 500 Mhz
    PS3 - RSX clocked at 500 MHz

    GPU video memory
    Xbox 360 - Xenos: 512 MB of 700 Mhz GDDR3 VRAM on a 128-bit bus
    Xbox 360 - Xenos: 10 MB daughter Embedded DRAM as framebuffer (32GB/s
    bus, multiplied by 8 thanks to multisampling unpacking for an
    effective bandwidth of 256 MB/s, the internal eDRAM bandwidth)
    PS3 - RSX: 256 MB GDDR3 VRAM clocked at 650 Mhz on a 128-bit bus
    PS3 - RSX: 256 MB of Rambus XDR DRAM via Cell (with latency penalty)

    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 - 1.1 Billion Vertices/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
    PS3 - 0.825 Billion Vertices/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

    Filtered Texture Fetch
    Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
    PS3 - 13.2 Billion Texels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
    PS3 - 11.0 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

    Vertex Texture Fetch
    Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
    PS3 - 4.4 Billion Texels/sec (if all 8 Vertex Pipelines remain)
    PS3 - 3.3 Billion Texels/sec (if downgraded to 6 Vertex Pipelines)

    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 - 17.6 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
    PS3 - 13.2 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

    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 - 26.4 Billion Pixels/sec (if all 24 Pixel Pipelines remain)
    PS3 - 22.0 Billion Pixels/sec (if downgraded to 20 Pixel Pipelines)

    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 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and
    vertices)
    PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and
    vertices)
    PS3 - 10.0 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 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
    PS3 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
    PS3 - 10.0 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
    PS3 - additional 20.0 GB/sec when reading from XDR memory (with
    latency penalty)

    Shader Model
    Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
    PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture
     
    AirRaid, May 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. AirRaid

    Mattuzzi Guest

    useless info snipped<

    thanks for that... i can finally stop worrying about it.
     
    Mattuzzi, May 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. AirRaid

    Air Raid Guest


    it's just to quiet the PS3 fanboys who think their $500 or $600 PS3
    can compete with Xbox 360 graphically, much less surpass it.
     
    Air Raid, May 2, 2007
    #3
  4. AirRaid

    RMZ Guest

    On paper statistics generally glaze people over... But the proof is in
    there and you can see this in the cross-platform games available on
    both PS3 and 360, the 360 versions look a tad better.... It brings up
    the question: what kind of person would spend up to 40% more to own a
    PS3 over an XBox 360 just on brand loyalty? I think it's incredibly
    stupid thing to do. I've heard the argument "it's the games", but
    where are these games? The XBox 360 got a year head start it will
    always have a bigger library and it looks to be getting the better
    exclusives between the two.
     
    RMZ, May 2, 2007
    #4
  5. AirRaid

    Shawk Guest


    ...you think they're reading the NVidia and ATI computer peripheral groups?
     
    Shawk, May 2, 2007
    #5
  6. AirRaid

    Tomcat Guest

    The only advantage the PS3 currently has over the 360 as a gaming
    console is better reliability (but this is becoming less an issue with
    new 360's). I think the only thing that could give the PS3 a mid-
    life boost in a couple years is after multiple price cuts the PS3 will
    be cheap enough that some of the millions of PS2 owners will start
    trading in their consoles for a PS3. Until then I don't see much
    light at the end of the tunnel for the PS3.
     
    Tomcat, May 2, 2007
    #6
  7. AirRaid

    boodybandit Guest

    MS still has a ways to go before I'd say that.
    http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=61572
    http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=61906

    http://arstechnica.com/journals/thu...-your-elite-hobbles-them-no-solution-in-sight

    http://loot-ninja.com/2007/05/02/xbox-360-120gb-hard-drive-transfer-issues/

    http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31850/118/

    http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-37230.aspx

    http://www.gwn.com/news/story.php/id/12467/Xbox_360_Elite_DVD_Drive.html

    Maybe when MS goes to the newer chipset (65nm and the BenQ DVD Drive "only")
    the system http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-37121.aspx this fall will
    finally be stable but I think it's sad it takes 2 years to get the system
    functional. Here's to hoping MS will get their act together on the "next"
    box ut of the gate.

    http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-37121.aspx
     
    boodybandit, May 2, 2007
    #7
  8. AirRaid

    Mr.E Solved! Guest

    AirRaid wrote:

    <off topic console info>

    There are reasons newsgroups have names AirRaid, one of them is to keep
    off-topic posts like this one out of newsgroups where they do not belong.

    You have violated netiquette on this topic often recently, and you are
    not doing the readers of this NG any favors by enabling replies to be
    cross posted.

    In the future, if you feel the need to send a multi-NG post, just post
    to one group at a time, so the replies do not get bounced from group to
    group. That way to get to get out your message, and the readers do not
    get frustrated with off-topic threads.

    Help us out Airraid, please.
     
    Mr.E Solved!, May 2, 2007
    #8
  9. AirRaid

    Tom Guest

    That is just plain fucked up! Now I know MS has made some bad consoles, and
    is seemingly getting that straight, though a bit late. But now they add the
    transfer woes of games and data in migration to the newer boxes along with
    the crappy assed made DVD drives. WTF! I guess if you can't get it right the
    first time, you get it right the second time, or the third time, or WTF ever
    time. I am very lucky (though this is my second box replaced last October)
    that my drive is quiet (yes I mean quiet) and has never scratched or ruined
    a game disc.

    IMHO, they made the first Xbox right the first time, what is going on?

    I'm going (pretty sure anyway) to get the Elite when the newer CPU and GPU
    chipsets are made with them, I am damn sure going to see that I get a quiet
    drive and make damn sure the retailers knows they are replacing it over and
    over again until I get the better drive, or all bets are off.
     
    Tom, May 3, 2007
    #9
  10. AirRaid

    Wolfing Guest

    Hmm... didn't even bother to read, the info comes from a
    'forum.teamxbox.com'... hmm... can we say 'biased'? Sure, lots of
    numbers and techno mambo jambo, which I'm sure if I go to a
    hypothetical 'forum.teamPS.com' they would probably have a similar
    techno mambo jambo with whatever numbers the PS3 is better than the
    Xbox.
    All in all, 99.95% of the players won't notice a difference in normal
    gaming. Maybe, if they take screen shots and analyze pixel by pixel
    there may be a difference here and there.
    Now the point remains, is the PS3 worth more than the Xbox360? My
    answer remains the same as it was a year ago... if the game library is
    bigger and, specially, more varied then yes, otherwise, no. In my
    particular case, I mostly play RPGs (turn based at that), so at this
    moment neither of the two consoles is worth buying yet.
     
    Wolfing, May 3, 2007
    #10
  11. AirRaid

    AirRaid Guest


    I think it's incredible (in a bad way) that Sony selected a graphics
    processor that would be concidered upper-mid range by mid 2005
    standards, for a console that was to be released in late 2006, and
    early 2007 in Europe. the RSX is really pathetic. instead of being a
    downgraded NV47/G70, they should've based RSX on G80 / GF 8800. even
    2/3 of an 8800 GTX (fewer stream processors, texture units, ROPs)
    would've been decent, coupled with some EDRAM. it's not like the
    G80 / 8800 was too new to be included in PS3. Nvidia had been working
    on it since 2002. before Sony's decision to drop their own GPU
    project (and/or Toshiba's GPU) so there was plenty of time.

    going back to Xbox1 in Q4 2001, the NV2A in the original Xbox had
    more geometry & lighting performance than Nvidia's highest-end PC GPU
    of the time, the GF3 Ti 500, and was almost on par with THE most
    powerful PC GPU of 2001, ATI's R200 / Radeon 8500.

    this current-gen, both consoles had GPUs that were behind the highend
    of PC GPUs, although the 360's Xenos had some advantages over even
    those with the EDRAM and unified shaders. but RSX had no
    advantages.

    Yes I know, it all comes down to GAMES, not hardware, but developers
    are the ones that make those games we love. it's too bad for
    Playstation developers that Sony shackled them with an underpowered,
    out-of-date GPU. Something developers will have to deal with until
    sometime early in the next decade when PS4 arrives. Hopefully PS4
    won't be so underpowered graphically, for its time, as PS3 is.
     
    AirRaid, May 3, 2007
    #11
  12. AirRaid

    AirRaid Guest


    those specs are not biased. as you can see, the few areas where PS3's
    RSX is ahead of Xenos, that's listed. that's also not the distorted
    "Major Nelson" spec/comparison that was done around E3 2005, either.

    most of the multi-platform games, the Xbox 360 versions look noticably
    better, even without looking at the graphics under a microscope. it's
    plain as day.

    overall the PS3 and Xbox 360 are not incredibly far apart in graphics,
    it's just that the 360 has a modest & noticable lead.
     
    AirRaid, May 3, 2007
    #12
  13. AirRaid

    RMZ Guest

    ..... and it cost quite a bit less.... and it has a bigger game
    library.... and Sony lied, lied and then lied some more about how
    awesome cell technology would be and how it would revolutionize the
    industry. Most people didn't buy into it, a few people without all the
    information trusted Sony (the only reason I bother with this NG is to
    try and get the proper information to them); then a few people. It
    seems quite a few in this NG purchased a PS3 knowing all of this...
    Someone should send them a Sony t-shirt for their loyalty.
     
    RMZ, May 3, 2007
    #13
  14. AirRaid

    vince Guest

    But the PS3 has the more powerful Flux Capacitor.
     
    vince, May 3, 2007
    #14
  15. AirRaid

    boodybandit Guest

    What drive do you have?
    All of mine are the dreaded Hitachi drive. A friend of mine has the Samsung
    and he said it's 3 times quieter than the Hitachi which he has originally.
    I thought Iwas going to score a better drive then the Hitachi or I would've
    never put the cash out for the Elite. I seriously can't believe MS is this
    f#cked to keep putting this crap ass drive in their "Elite" (maybe they
    should look up the definition of the word in the dictionary).

    The 1st XBox was awesome.
    They cut every corner possible to keep cost down on the 360 to rush it to
    the market and one up Sony. I have no problems with them doing so if the
    hardware was stable but to keep using shit parts in newer models just
    doesn't make any freaking sense.
    I didn't even tell my wife that I took back the Elite and swapped it for
    another. She would have a freaking fit. She was pissed I purchased a newer
    model with all the troubles I had with the premium units. She wanted me to
    just send my other back but I'm tired of playing that game with Mc. Texas.
    I got the Hitachi drive 2nd time around with the Elite.
    The nice thing is I have 90 days to see if Target gets the Elite in with the
    better drives.

    MS should consider themself blessed that Sony is doing so poorly with sales
    and getting decent titles out. Kind of makes me a little pissed that MS will
    have the faster chipset and BenQ drive standard this Fall. I wonder why they
    are choosing Fall to get their act together finally? Oh because Sony has
    their big titles coming out then?

    What a slap in the face.
     
    boodybandit, May 4, 2007
    #15
  16. AirRaid

    Rich Guest

    The new chipset won't be "faster", it will perform identically to the
    old chipset. However, it WILL be smaller, run cooler, and consume
    less power, thereby requiring less active cooling (i.e. fans).

    Also, I wouldn't bet on the BenQ drive being used in all new systems.
    MS will simply use whatever vendor gives them the best price on the
    day they place the orders. There ARE Elites out there with the BenQ
    drives, check forums.xbox.com and go to the "Hardware" section.
     
    Rich, May 4, 2007
    #16
  17. AirRaid

    boodybandit Guest


    This "I" know.
    Iwas hoping to be one of the lucky ones to score a Benq or at the very
    least a Toshiba / Samsung
     
    boodybandit, May 5, 2007
    #17


  18. most are not, some do. Yet it's relevant since ATI and Nvidia designed
    the GPUs for Xbox 360 and PS3.
     
    AirRaid Mach 2.5, May 5, 2007
    #18
  19. the thing is, CELL *is* quite powerful (in floating point) -- it is a
    large leap beyond the Emotion Engine in PS2. what Sony lied about
    before the PS3 was revealed at E3 2005, is how MUCH of a CELL
    processor would be in PS3. Sony said, during the years 2001-2004,
    they'd have a 1 TFLOP / TeraFlop CPU in PS3. that would've required 4
    CELLs on one chip or the equivalent of 32 SPEs, running at 4 to 4.6
    GHz.

    Instead, PS3 gets a CELL with 7 SPEs running at 3.2 GHz. this
    provides roughly only 1/5th of a TFLOP. to make matters worse, 1 SPE
    is always dedicated to the OS and isn't really used for gaming. Also a
    2nd SPE is on-standby to be used for the OS if need be. that leaves 5
    to 6 SPEs for gaming.

    Now it gets even worse, because the Nvidia RSX GPU is so underpowered,
    developers are using some of the remaining CELL SPEs to do geometry &
    lighting calculations & culling of polygons so all RSX has to do is
    act like a rasterizer / pixel painter like the Graphics Syntheiszer in
    the PS2, where it just renders / draws / displays the graphics to the
    screen. Since CELL is doing some of the work the GPU should be doing,
    it leaves even less performance for the gameplay-related side of
    gaming; physics, a.i. etc.

    PS3 would've been okay, if Sony had co-designed or ordered a custom
    Shader Model 4.0 GPU with EDRAM from Nvidia.

    In reality, even though PS3 came out later than Xbox 360, the PS3 is
    using an older GPU architecture than Xbox 360 which is really sad.
     
    AirRaid Mach 2.5, May 5, 2007
    #19
  20. And PS3 has the more powerful price-tag; $599, more powerful than even
    the Xbox 360 Elite's price-tag ;)
     
    AirRaid Mach 2.5, May 5, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.