My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

[Final-Fan]

sieanr said:

Final-Fan said:

sieanr said:

Final-Fan said:Is it accurate? YES OR NO. IF NO, EXPLAIN WHY. Is it misleading? You've already answered "Yes." EXPLAIN WHY.

Yes, its accurate - I think that pic is from a microsoft slide.

10gbs both ways is by no means a bottleneck. I don't feel like explaining now, so maybe someone else can pick things up.

Both systems have their share of problems and flaws in their designs.

You don't have to explain (to me, now, at least) why 10.8gbs is not a bottleneck; but you certainly do have to explain why, if it is not, 20gbs/15gbs is a bottleneck in the PS3. That just doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Who said the speed between the CPU and GPU was a bottleneck in the PS3?

256bit split bus in the RSX, ring connector in cell, RSX to XDRAM - those are some of the potential bottlenecks in the PS3 I was talking about.

Xbox 360: 512 RAM-->(22.4 GB/s)-->GPU;
and 512 RAM-->(22.4 GB/s)-->GPU-->(10.8 GB/s)-->CPU
OTHER WAY
GPU-->(22.4 GB/s)-->512 RAM
CPU-->(10.8 GB/s)-->GPU-->(22.4 GB/s)-->512 RAM

PS3: 256 XDR-->(25.6 GB/s)-->Cell-->(20 GB/s)-->RSX and 256 VRAM-->(22.4 GB/s)-->RSX];
and 256 XDR-->(25.6 GB/s)-->Cell and 256 VRAM-->(22.4 GB/s)-->RSX-->(15 GB/s)-->Cell
OTHER WAY
RSX-->(15 GB/s)-->Cell-->(25.6 GB/s)-->256 XDR and RSX-->(22.4 GB/s)-->256 VRAM
Cell-->(25.6 GB/s)-->256 XDR and Cell-->(20 GB/s)-->RSX-->(22.4 GB/s)-->256 VRAM

So why is RSX to XDRAM somehow bottlenecked while the 360's CPU to RAM is not?

In addition, is not the memory achitecture much more evenly distributed to help both the CPU and GPU in the PS3 compared to the 360 as well as being faster overall (though not in every particular)?