Datos graficos PS3/XBOX360

Dasny escribió:Mas que nada me gustaria saber vuestras opiniones al respecto;



Para esa gente sibarita en hardware, ven lo mismo que yo en caso de ser cierto, una clara diferencia en cuanto a rendimiento?

NaN escribió:Pero ahí solo se tiene en cuenta la GPU no?
Si es así, ya se sabia que la GPU de 360 era mejor que la de PS3, pero que la CPU de la PS3 era mas potente que la de 360.

Gnoma escribió:
Yo no es por joder, pero normalmente, mi tajeta grafica realiza todo el trabajo en entornos 3d, mi cpu, esta obsoleta. Digo yo que la cpu en entornos 3d no se usa para casi nada, salvo para los procesos tipicos de sistema y programa. O no?

monpf escribió:Yo no soy entendido, pero segun esos datos el xenon es mucho mas potente cuando aqui la mayoria decia que iban a estar igualados.

Some PS3 GPU (RSX) specs are still not confirmed.

firewire escribió:Ya empezamos con los datos técnicos... las cifras importan, pero no son concluyentes!

RubénGM escribió:¿Pero no está ya en la calle? ¿De cuando es la comparación?

Ya empezamos con los datos técnicos... las cifras importan, pero no son concluyentes!

Sobre todo cuando ps3 es la gran damnificada al publicar dichos datos.

corpa escribió:
Pero las consolas son un sistema cerrado que se puede aprovechar mejor. Mira PS2, que no tiene GPU y ha parido cosas tan loables como GT4, MGS3 o GOW.

corpa escribió:
Pero las consolas son un sistema cerrado que se puede aprovechar mejor. Mira PS2, que no tiene GPU y ha parido cosas tan loables como GT4, MGS3 o GOW.

los albertos escribió:
Cuando antes con el CELL si eran super concluyentes y definitorios de la gran ventaja de PS3

Como ser verdad solo el 30% de estos datos que paliza que le da el Xenos al RSX. Siempre Sony le vendio al mundo el CELL (la moto) pero de las ruedas (el RSX) mejor no hablar.

monpf escribió:Y lo de los 500 millones de triangulos que mueve el Xenon?Eso es como los 75 millones que movia la PS2 o realmente tiene el doble de potencia poligonal que la PS3?

Bromas aparte, luego uno ve juegos como el Virtua Tennis 3 a 1080p y 60fps y coge estos datos, los imprime, se va al baño a defecar y así estos datos al menos sirven para algo, limpiarse el trasero

TOJ escribió:existen cosas que no tienen ningún tipo de discusión:

la gpu de la xbox360 es mejor que la de la ps3, exactamente está una generación por delante. Solo hay que recordar que las nuevas nvidia 8800 tienen una arquitectura semejante, similar a la gpu de la xbox360. por lo que separa a una gpu de la otra es exactamente una generación de desarroyo en gpus.

la cpu de la ps3 es mas potente que la de a xbox360, como en el caso anterior el cell es el siguiente paso de el powerpc que se utiliza en la xbox360. con una diferencia el powerpc de la xbox360 es un powerpc muy mejorado y muy facil de programar por cualquier programador, sus caracteristicas multicore y multihilo lo hacen situarse por encima de los actuales procesadores de doble nucleo de pc y probablemente por encima de los quadcore que estan por llegar.

el cell como procesador es mas potente que la cpu de xbox360, pero tiene sus problemillas. Al ser un procesador principalmente destinado a superordenadores está especialmente diseñado para el calculo secuencial y los saltos aleatorios en programacion le hacen mucha pupa. normalmente en las cpus de este tipo se dedican a realizar calculos intensivos con muy pocos saltos logicos y en caso de salto reasignan trabajo a otra cpu y continuan con su trabajo. de ahi bienen esos datos tan magnificos de potencia, pero en realidad con una programación para juegos la potencia real del cell no es el doble que la del powerpc de la xbox360, ni de coña, ojala lo fuese, pero no lo es.

y para terminar hay que señalar que lo que realmente importa para la potencia final de la consola es la union de cpu,gpu y memoria. en esto sin duda quien tiene las de ganar es la xbox360 con su acertada arquitectura de memoria unificada y sobre todos con esos 10 mb integrados en la gpu.

Adama escribió:- PS2 mejor CPU que la de Xbox con muuuuucha diferencia.

deathkiller escribió:Eso no es cierto en ningun caso practico.

deathkiller escribió:Eso no es cierto en ningun caso practico.

the_gooseman escribió:
pero en teoria si que lo es. al igual que la cpu de la ps3 es superior a la de xts (en teoria)

the_gooseman escribió:al final yo llego a la conclusion que todos tenemos. las dos maquinas son muy potentes y muy igualadas (no recuerdo una generacion con dos maquinas tan parejas en potencia...)

shadow land escribió:
snes vs md si no contamos todos los chips añadidos de ninty o sega.

filetefrito escribió:Yo diria que en esta generacion la diferencia parece bastante mas reducida si cabe ( habia alguans diferencias sustanciales a favor de snes en numero de sprites y de canales y precision de audio si no recuerdo mal, que hoy no se dan)

shadow land escribió:tampoco ha salido ps3 2 años despues con técnología dos años más nueva como en snes jejeje

shadow land escribió:
snes vs md si no contamos todos los chips añadidos de ninty o sega.

incluso si te pones un emulador ahora y compruebas las dos (o si tienes la suerte de tener las dos consolas), veras que los graficos de snes son muchisimo mas nitidos que los de megadrive (mi primera consola fue la mega y me jodia mucho tener que reconocer eso)

the_gooseman escribió:
que va, si miras las especificaciones tecnicas ls snes le daba una paliza en todo (colores en pantalla, nº de sprites, sonido...). y los juegos asi lo demostraban (no habia casi ningun multi que no fuera superior en snes, y no habia que usar screenshots para darse cuenta de que juego pertenece a cada consola como ahora)

lo que pasa es que habia muy buenos artistas en esa epoca, y para que un juego fuera "bonito" era mas cosa de los artistas que de los graficos, pero en potencia le daba una paliza.

incluso si te pones un emulador ahora y compruebas las dos (o si tienes la suerte de tener las dos consolas), veras que los graficos de snes son muchisimo mas nitidos que los de megadrive (mi primera consola fue la mega y me jodia mucho tener que reconocer eso)

The_Datore escribió:...

la resolucion de la megadrive era de 320x224 y la de snes iba de 256x224 a 512x448. no se de donde sacas que la resolucion de mega era mayor. ademas la mayoria de los juegos usaban 320x224...

"I'm a programmer I assure you, been one for 12 years in the games industry. No, I can't say my employers name because my comments could be construed as representing their opinion, which would get me into trouble."

"That's fine, they probably have played games I've programmed on, especially if they are into sports games"

"There are *very* few instances where one would pick the PS3 gpu over the 360's because the PS3's gpu is weak compared to 360's. That's not just my opinion, ask other devs how they feel about it. Sony chose poorly when they chose the video hardware. Performance wise, the 360's video will out render the PS3's everytime if you feed it the same 3d scene. The only way to make the PS3 keep pace is to leverage its spu's to preprocess your 3d scene."

"I have a shader that needs 8 vertex inputs, Position, Normal, Color, and Texcoord1 thru Texcoord5. Assume all inputs are packed (ie, .x, .y, .z and .w are all used). Further, I need this shader to be applied to a mass of 100 enemies that are all close to the camera (and hence using their best lod) and are 5000 verticies each. Or if you prefer, imagine that it needs to be used on a 3d scene of 500,000 verts. These scenarios are quite common, and they *kill* RSX performance. If you don't believe me, just read the RSX docs, its right in there and it literally says "this kills RSX performance". The only way to accommodate these scenarios is to precull using the spu's. If you just rely on the RSX to do it for you, then you will never match the xenon's framerate, period. This isn't conjecture or opinion, its hardware design fact. Again, I encourage you to read the RSX docs as well as PS3 dev forums, I'm not the only one complaining about this."

"I'm a 360/PS3 programmer by trade, focusing on graphics and optimization. It's fairly rare that I post, but I just got off a long crunch and have been browsing the forums more than normal to unwind Incidentally most of that crunch was spent trying to get the PS3 to match the 360's frame rate. It falls short, but it hits 30fps so we're ok.

The Gran Turismo image posted above is a good shot, but its a testament to the talent of the dev crew, not just the hardware. Vertex/pixel shaders are written in HLSL and can be compiled to run on either PS3/360 although you can tweak them to suit the console. I guess my point here is that if you take that same vehicle 3d model and those same shaders that make it look all pretty, and compile/run them on the 360, it will look the same and run at a higher framerate than on the PS3. This is because the PS3's gpu isn't as good as the 360's."

"I'm assuming you also know that the PS3's vertex processing units are terrible, since each extra vertex shader input ads one cycle of delay. Likewise, you probably also know that the only way currently around this limitation on PS3 is to use the spu's to preprocess all geometry by backface culling them first on cell before feeding them to the gpu. But then you are still stuck with other PS3 gpu limitations, such as not being able to do anti aliasing with floating point render targets so you can't have MSAA and HDR simultaneously."

"The vertex pipeline doesn't matter when you have to waste one cycle per vertex input. In other words, the gpu stalls untill it can fetch all the data it needs before it can even start executing the vertex shader. Why is this important? Because next gen games needs lots of lookup maps to look nice, which means lots of u/v coordinates and other data that needs to be passed to the vertex shader, ie, lots of inputs. In RSX's case, that means gpu stalls. This is the RSX's well known achiles heel and is well documented. The only known work around at the moment is to use the cell spu's as another 'gpu', in this case a culling gpu, to limit the number of verts actually sent to the RSX. Whether or not RSX+SPU culling will help PS3 meet or exceed xenon's gpu performance isn't known at this point."

"You don't think no msaa with floating point buffers isn't a huge limitation? There are other color spaces, but they are useless to me. I don't need 8/8/8/8 int. I need 8/8/8/8 float. In RSX's case you have no choice but to use FP16 (16/16/16/16), compared to FP8 on xenon. So you are forced to move around twice the memory on RSX if you want a floating point buffer, which means less framerate. Just try it! I'll assume your a game dev. Switch your PS3 game from FP16 to an 8/8/8/8 int format and see your framerate jump. Of course, you'll have to forgo HDR on your shipping title, but you can then do msaa. Or, go back to FP16 since HDR looks so cool, but oh ya, you then have to turn off msaa. I just don't have these headaches on 360, but I have to deal with them PS3."

Remember, I'm not knocking the PS3 as a whole, I was knocking its gpu.

Regarding cpu, yes its totally different arguments. The 360's is a very standard setup, a bunch of cores that can all see main memory. The advantage to this is that lots of thread coded written over the years can be ported to it easily. For example, Valve (the Half Life guys) are writing an entirely threaded engine for the PC. When it's done, porting it to the 360 will be easy. How about porting it to the PS3? Nope, won't work, it's a totally different setup. The PS3's main core is basically the same, but its spu's can't see main memory. Each one has 256k that it can work with, so you need to rewrite your code to pack things into 256k chunks, feed it to the spu's to process it, then copy it all back to main memory. In other words, you've gotta rewrite your code.

Now before I get jumped on here let me briefly mention the downsides. The 360's cpu setup is painfully easy to code for. But, they really aren't all that fast. Worse yet, all three cores use the same memory controller so the three cores are not three times the power of the one core on the PS3 due to some overhead. The PS3's spu's on the other hand are monstrously fast. You need to setup your data correctly to work with them, but once thats done then yes, the 360's cpu setup is crap compared to fully working spu's. I say fully working because most current games out there barely even touch on them, it will take time to re-write everything. I haven't done spu coding....yet. I will be though in 2007 which will be pretty cool.

I think one of you early comments sums is up. "The two consoles trade blows fairly evenly". That's part of the problem. I was expecting PS3 to offer more (especially on the gpu side of things) because it came out a year later. Instead, you could argue that they are more or less equal because one wins on video, the other on cpu. That's dissapointing to me for a box that comes out a year later and costs more.

Wow, this escalated fast. It's definitely exceeded my comfort zone though so I've used a new bogus email address to register here to make tracking me more difficult. I think I'm gonna stick to lurking from now on as I'd like to keep my job But there's a few things that need to be cleared up. I'll try to keep it short, so I'm only quoting parts of peoples posts:

"He is complaining about doing extra work to get performance to match what can be obtained on another vendors hardware."

Not exactly. I prefer working with hardware that helps me, not hinders me. The more time I have to spend getting around hardware quirks/limitations means less time to add new cool features, and the longer it takes to get the game into your hands. There are some coders that love the challenge that quirky hardware poses. My preference though is to spend my time on making the best visuals and adding new features that were impossible on old gen.

"Complaining about having to pre-cull geometry on the SPU before sending to the GPU... The fact that the Cell is good at that should be listed as a strength, but he cites it as a weakness because he does not want to spend the effort to tap that performance."

Normally i would agree with you. In this case though it's not a strength, its a requirement because you have to do it to help the PS3 keep pace with the 360. Remember as well, we already lose one spu to redundency, and another to Sony. We're left with 6, but now we need to spend some of those to help the rsx. I'd far prefer using spu's for full cloth sim on all characters, collision code, animations, etc. I don't mind learning new hardware, me and others do it all the time.

"...would not be surprised if ppl working on 360 and suddenly dropping their datasets onto RSX would not observe good numbers (and viceversa)"

This is far more true going from 360->PS3 than the other way around, again assuming gpu to gpu only. The 360 isn't flawless to be sure. Having to tile because of the tiny amount of edram is a pain, and edram resolves while quick, can still add up (you don't need to resolve on PS3). Still though, I'm far more impressed with the 360's gpu and I'm comfortable saying that feeding an identical 3d scene to PS3 and 360 will result in better framerate on 360.

"Who’s to say he isn’t jaded by his own personal feeling about Sony or it’s hardware."

I have no allegiance to with Sony or Microsoft. In fact, the PS2 is my third favorite console of all time behind the NES and the 2600.

"That and difficulty tuning his code seem to have him bitter. "

Reading back my posts, I suppose I can see how I'd be viewed as being bitter. It's more a mixture of frustration and dissapointment I'd say. I'll never understand why Sony chose that particular rev of NVidia hardware.

"The PS3 makes me work hard... screw that!"

Heh, this one is slightly amusing. We work very hard I assure you My preference is to work hard on stuff that makes the game pop, not spending tons of time just to get the machine to do the basics. That's my preference of course, we have people on staff that love the challenge of getting the PS3 to render as quick as the 360.

"But at the same time he treats the GPU as both the beggining and end of the graphics subsystem, where we know in PS3 the Cell is set to play an ever larger role as tme goes on."

That's part of the problem. I was hoping the gpu would handle itself like a modern gpu. Instead we have to use spu's to help it. The more spu's you have to use to help rsx, the less you have to spend on cool gameplay items like physics simulations.

"nyhow, I found many post by this guy (with the same residing area and screen name) asking some of the simplest questions on how to hook up his tivo to his TV. Or what’s the difference between optical audio cables and coax digital audio cable. To me even a guy with his background can figure that out by himself."

That's definitely not me. We've had tivo since 2000, and I have numerous components with either coax or optical digital out which I can hook up myself thanks The 'joker454' username is not one i chose. I picked 'joker' which was taken, and 'joker454' was suggested by the auto name generator. I suspect there are other 'joker454's out there.

"What I responded to didn't really sound like something a dev would say and contained a lot of fishy information, so I pushed it."

Ya, my first few posts were kinda ******-ish, I probably shouldn't have done that I leveled out my posts later.

"His concern over vertex attributes are very avoidable in various ways (many of which trade shader cycles for data, but since the shader instructions often don't cost you as much, it's often worth it)."

This only partly helps. It's true that in many cases is faster to just recalculate things in the vertex shader rather than passing precalculated data via vertex inputs. We already do this here and there, using PIX on a case by case basis on 360 to see where it makes sense, and likewise benchmarking PS3 to see how it likes it. But that only gets you so far. Bottom line, a next generation game uses lots of lookup maps for a variety of effects, which leads to lots of vertex inputs. Of course there are ways to simply this like packing your data, combining maps so some uv's can be tossed, etc. But you will still hit the vertex delays on rsx because some like 'position' and 'normal' are a must, so you don't have much room left to play with.

"Though I'm not sure why he's so hot on FP8... I would at least assume he meant FP10."

That's a typo on my part, 2/10/10/10 is the floating point format we need (FP10).

"There is always the possibility they are using fairly branchy pixel shaders or may have some heavy vertex work that may not port over well in a limited 2-4 month window"

Our shaders are very expensive. But then again, they look really good, and that's what nex gen is all about We can optimize them some more (we have already), but optimized shaders would still run faster on 360. Porting is not so much the problem in this case as is the rsx's unwillingless to deal with verticies. If you read the rsx docs, they are pretty much saying "please, please, please don't send verticies to rsx". The whole reason for using spu's is to do backface culling on all your verts first, that way you can send a smaller subset of verts to the rsx to get around its limited vertex processing. The rsx can backface cull them itself of course, and this does cut out pixel shader computation, but it still must run thru the vertex shader, which means it still must incur the one cycle penalty per vert input which brings rsx to its knees.

In the end my beef is with the PS3 gpu which I still feel is disappointing compared to the 360's. I have no beef with Sony or the PS3 itself. To make a nex gen game that looks of gears of war quality needs three things. Great shaders, more geometry, and lots of lookup maps. RSX has a hard time with all of those. It seems like an odd choice to me to go head to head with 360.

"we can see that many Xbox to PS ports this fall did have some issues, especially with getting framerates up. Next fall? It could be reversed.

This may very well be true! We'll have to wait and see. Spu's will help, I'll know more once I code for them in the new year.

kpi escribió:Spanish please....

deathkiller escribió:Pero lo mejor es leerse el hilo entero y ver las respuestas de otros desarrolladores y sus experiencias.

shadow land escribió:
snes vs md si no contamos todos los chips añadidos de ninty o sega.

monpf escribió:Si la xbox 360 le saca a la PS3, graficamente hablando, lo que le sacaba la snes a la megadrive, entonces la diferencia si que va a ser bastante.Porque de cualquier Donkey kong al Sonic 3D que creo que fue lo maximo a lo que llego la MD hay bastante.

No estoy hablando de cuestion temporal.