First of all, AMD bought ATI some time ago, so they aren't going to compete with themselves. AMD and Intel aren't going to make an Hybrid CPU/GPU chip in order to compete with nVidia. They are doing it because it makes a lot of sense in the low-mid sector, where low cost is mandatory. It makes a lot of sense for laptops, too, to have the CPU and the GPU in the same chip. With smaller technologies, and the excessive power dissipation that a high frequency gives, the CPU manufacturers have to provide something new to keep selling those chips, and an integrated GPU is the new mantra.

About your comment of the heritage of RSX, the own David Kirk from nVidia said that "The two products share the same heritage, the same technology." He even said that RSX was going to be faster, but it was before the final specs were disclosed, and with lower frequencies, the same number of active units, and a 128 bit bus, it's very rare that it could be faster. It's probably a PR stunt.

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/07/11/nvidia_rsx_interview/2

I don't know where you got the impression that RSX had anything to do with G9x, a Direct3D 10 chip, with an unified shader architecture. Please revise your "facts" before posting misinformation.

yea AMD own's ATI it does not mean their product's do not compete with their own on the market. just like the PS2 compete's with the PS3

AND THAT IS SHARE'S DOES NOT MAKE IT EXACTLY THE SAME, LOWER FREQ.?

ARE YOU SAYING THAT the RSX WAS REDUCED TO 500 Mhz?

because if you are that's not true at all that was a rumor.

the RSX is and has alway's been AT 550 Mhz

and you mean this David kirk PHD..

HIS QUOTE :

"The two products share the same heritage, the same technology. But RSX is faster," said Kirk.

That is in no way shape or form say's its a G7x, for one you can have the same core technology in chip's but the chip will not be the exact same because the the d@mn RSX chip is faster than (2) 6800 ultra's combined.

many people have speculated what the core technology of the RSX is , outside of Nvidia no one know's, its just a guess, and Nvidia has not released the full spec's of the RSX so it's become rumor after rumor on the internet what the RSX is 

the only thing Nvidia has released is that the RSX

is :

550 Mhz

based on N47 chip technology

and that it's faster than (2) 6800 ultra's combined

which put's it better than the 7800, so it's not just a Gx7 chip.  they share the same technology does not mean it's the same chip.

So, a 24 PS 8 VS, 128 bits memory bus, 700 MHz GDDR3, 550 MHz is faster than a 24 PS 8 VS, 256 bits memory bus, 850 MHz GDDR3, 550 MHz. ¿Do you know that the Nv47 (there is no N47) is a codename of the G70, the chip that the 7800 GTX uses? Faster than 2 6800 ultra's combined is a PR Stunt, I can't believe you make assumptions of a chip's performance based in so vague information. Read the specifications, and tell me how in the hell can it be faster than a 7800 GTX, and how can it have more in common with G92, being G92 a Dx10 chip, than with G70, as you said 3 posts ago.


You are really misinformed, you don't know how to read specifications, or you are simply spreading misinformation consciously.

The lesson that Sony (should have) learned from the Cell processor is one that people could have told them well before they began development on it; it doesn’t matter how theoretically powerful your processor is if it is so complicated and/or poorly suited to gaming that developers can’t approach the theoretical limits. For IBM the Cell processor was paid for research and development, and they will likely use some architectural elements in future processors; but you probably won’t see a "true" successor to the Cell processor unless Sony and/or Toshiba pays IBM to develop it.

@ HappySquirrel

But we know the Cell's potential is fully suitable for gaming and multimedia purposes and we know its theoretical limits can be reached more easily (even possible) than with other CPU architectures.

The only thing is, we knew gaming engines hadn't modernized enough for many-core or many-CPU processor architectures (like I said well before the PS3 launched) which will become more and more common in the future, also it pressures developers to design their code more efficiently. The Cell significantly helps to push technology progress forward.

We saw similar things in the past. The tech gap between 2 color, soundless, single tasking Macs towards 4096 color, stereo sound, pre-emptive Amigas was huge. PCs even had MSDOS. The Atari ST paved the way a little for the Amiga, but it took years to fully show off the system. That's natural when try to innovative and generate major technological leaps. Software development became a lot more complex.

Bullshit, Mike.

In theoritical processing power the Cell processor is still better than the high-end Intel CPUs and is dramatically more powerful than the XBox 360's CPU, in real-world in-game performance the Cell processor performs similarly to the XBox 360 CPU and is destroyed by the high-end Intel CPUs.

In other words, as Kynes said, your claims are bullshit.

I cannot because Nvidia has not released the full spec's on the RSX an most likely never will!

I am going by what Nvidia has stated.

and yet how on earth do you know RSX cannot?, that's just it by your GUESS got it .

your giving a GUESS but Nvidia stated that it is 

the RSX is more powerful than 2 6800 ultra's combined.

That is the same as ATI stating the xbox360's GPU can do more than 48 billion shader ops/ sec due to UNIFIED SHADER DESIGN, you somehow think that ATI's and Microsoft are telling the truth , but some how Nvidia and Sony are not!, if your going to be Bias I can understand that but do not try to hide behind your IDEA that you are somehoiw using fact's to back up your argument. your giving your OPINION nothing more

bu..but.. so an so Developer said..yea?

what so an so developer?

Valve?

look while I respect you and all , you are claiming that what your saying is a fact, well sparky it's not it's a GUESS, and a OPINION

that's all, nothing more nothing less.

Tell me where I've said that the XBox360 can do more than 48 billion shader ops /sec. Tell me where I've mentioned anything about ATI or Microsoft. Don't put in my mouth words I haven't said. And that's an example of a theoretical limit that it's impossible to achieve in a real environment. You could do that amount of shader ops with a 5d no stall no bandwidth no setup limitation type of shader. Something non realistic.

About the difficulties of developing a PS3 game, it's not only Valve. It's the majority of 3rd parties, it's Ken Kuratagi saying "We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10173656-17.htm

So Ken Kuratagi is liying when he says that PS3 is hard to develop for?

Maybe this thread could help you with your confusion with RSX specifications: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=29579

I do not have to put word's in your mouth Kynes, you do that all by yourself.

an

what is your referring two when you said an example of theoretical limit: was that talking about for the xbox360 or the PS3 SHADER OPS/SEC?

THE DIFFICULTIES OF DEVELOPING A PS3 GAME HAS ALWAY'S BEEN KNOWN 

because ding..ding..ding, very few game developer's did not even get a chance to even get a real development experience on the hardware until mid to late 2007, why because very few developer's had the kit's!

an

second Why on earth people keep trying to bring , but ..but ..the ps3 is too hard for 

3rd party developer's, yea no duh..you want to know why?

it's very simple

money!

Sony want's more money to go toward 1st party, they do not want to see what happen's when you have all your work stolen, because "it's easy for developer's to take advantage of the hardware" they already experienced that with 3 system's already!

People alway's bring up, 3rd party game's work on the xbox360 better, yea no duh, that's like saying these developer's who have made their game engine's that have wanted to spend more money tweaking their engine in order to make that engine work good on the PS3?

it's a no brainer, they are going to stick to what they know best , that does not mean they have very good experience with the PS3 hardware!

they gave their OPINION.

so what if it is hard, does that mean that the hardware is not good for game's?

no it just mean's it is not the same hardware they have worked with before.

because if they did, they may have a game like uncharted or uncharted 2. Or they may not it all come's down to the talent of the developer and crew. This trite about how the PS3 hardware is not good for game's because of some 3rd parties say it is not does not make it a fact.

It's just their Opinion by what little experience they have with the hardware.

and straight from you source:

RSX is going to have between 8 and 16 pixel pipelines (ROPS) with, probably 24 pixel shaders -- but actually, only the amount of texture look-ups, 24, has been announced. so it's fair to say that we still don't know alot about RSX, other than it's a scaled-down version of NV47, with enhancements for CELL and PS3 architecture as a whole.

that whole post is a guess about the hardware based on a single slide!

here also from your link:

This is an excerpt of an interview OPM did with Assassin's Creed developer Ubisoft:

OPM: What do you think about the performance of the graphics chip, the Nvidea RSX?

M.M.: The RSX-chip is also a beast. Not only is it incredibly fast, but just like in the PS2 you can have each Cell-core cooperate with the RSX independently. Other graphics chips also have decent Noraml Mapping- and Shader-capabilities, but RSX adds a lot of additional specialised filters and possibilities, leading to fabulous results in the graphics department. And what is really convenient is that Nvidia has been a market-leader for years, and everyone knows the technology and way of thinking through-and-through. This decreases the learning process considerably.