If I have a car that has 550 Hp and you got 500 who's got the more powerful car?

Is Sony's NVIDIA more powerful just because it has 50 more MHz than 360's?

Please state your credentials when answering, I do not want someone who works at Wal-Mart answering this.

Understood?

Thank you guys and galz!

PS. dont forget to vote

BEST GRAPHICS ON 360 IS MW2!
SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN?

Wow... I actually wrote out a thought-filled article when I read your original post. Then when I finished writing it I refreshed to see what other people had said only to get your second post.... *Sigh* What a waste of time this was. Well I guess I'll post what I wrote anyways, although it all feels kinda useless now.

Horse power is not the only factor in the more powerful car debate and the same is true with the whole MHz/GHz race.

In the case of cars, more raw power could be used for speed or for towing capacity. First you have to define what you mean by "more powerful". Obviously a Ford truck at 550 HP will be faster than a 500 HP Mustang. However, the Mustang will be faster. Which one is "more powerful" depends on what aspect of performance you're looking at.

The horsepower of a cars engine is not directly comparable to the frequency of a graphics processor. The power generated by an engine can be used for many things as stated above. The frequency of a GPU is just how often the states of items being processed are updated. In the debate of the Xenos vs RSX (which are the two frequencies you've listed) what matters more is how many items are being dealt with at any given time; the efficiency. If you were to compare this to your car analogy (which I personally wouldn't), this quality would be defined by how many passengers the car was built to carry. It would be more like a race between a supercar and a high end luxury car to carry 100 passengers from point A to point B. The supercar can only carry 2 passengers but can travel marginally faster than the luxury car but the luxury car can carry 5 passengers.

Why this makes all the difference between the RSX and the Xenos is because the RSX's architecture is static. What's there is there and can only be used the way it exists. There are a given number of texture pipes and a given number of shader pipes (I'm a little rusty on the numbers but I believe it's 24 and 24 or 24 and 16, respectively). The Xenos has 48 pipes but they are dynamic. Each pipe can perform the tasks of either a texture or shader pipe. So say we have a shadow heavy moment in a game with simple textures. The RSX would utilize what it has been designed to use for shadow processing, namely the 24 pipes while the texture pipes might go under utilized. The Xenos Unified Shader can use more than 24 for these situations in order to process the image quicker and would be using all the pipes at all times (all times is unrealistic for anyone who knows more about execution units, but the efficiency is vastly superior to the old method).

So in a one on one performance match up I'd say more often than not, the Xenos would provide higher performance. But the entire dynamic changes when the RSX gets help from the Cell. That's something I haven't looked much into with all this school keeping me busy.

As for my credentials, I am a 4th year student in Electrical Engineering(/Computer Engineering) at the University of Waterloo. I've had jobs involving iPhone development, .NET and ASP development, and some other software related jobs. I've dabbled a bit in DS and Wii game design but don't have much to show for it with time restrictions.

My vote goes to "stupid topic".

Credentials:
I develop Swedish penis enlargers for a living.

@priteshmodi
I can't believe you actually took the time to write this. This topic is obviously meant as flamebait.

You made the male edge?? www.maleedge.com

That's so awesome...

@ Damnyouall, are your eyes broken? don't write when asked not to. You don't qualify.

That could be the greatest invention in the history of mankind.

You deserve to win a Nobel prize

Clock speed is just one part of what makes a graphics card perform well, and not even the most important. Number of shaders, design of shaders, memory bandwidth, driver design, code optimisation are some other factors.

Look at a (Prescott) Pentium 4 3GHz versus an (Ex) Athlon 64 2.2GHz. The Athlon is clearly faster in benchmarks, because on each clock it can execute more instructions.

The consensus seems to be that the 360's GPU is faster. But you will be able to find certain games, or certain benchmarks, where the PS3's GPU is faster.

I am a computer engineer that works for a research company. I have 6 years of schooling and 4 years of experience. I've ridden motorcycles for 4 years, and I can completely disasemble a car (if given the time, tools and motovation which rarely occors )

Anyways, the key thing, is that you are forgetting the power to weight ratio. A 400lb 120Hp motorcycle will beat any 3ton 500Hp pickup truck. Sure it won't be able to pull as much, but it will be faster, which is more important in my comparisons. Anyways, the PS3 (phat) is heavier than the X360, so those extra 50 MHz are just used to pull the extra weight of the PS3. This gives the X360 the advantage in the graphics edge which is why all the multiplatform games look better on X360.

RSX was downgraded over 3 years ago man.

It's 500 MHZ vs 500MHZ