sieanr on 19 September 2007
Do you?
BTW I never look solely at clock frequencies like many/most PC consumers, but rather look all the aspects of a chip or better yet device design.
BTW I never look solely at clock frequencies like many/most PC consumers, but rather look all the aspects of a chip or better yet device design.
This was targeted at your comparison of 700mhz GDDR3 being significantly slower than 3.2ghz XDR. Seriously, look up the effective clock of GDDR3 and it becomes obvious as to how overlook certain numbers to try and make your argument stronger.
I find your speculation hard to swallow for a graphics chip that was codenamed Radeon R500 (aka Xenos). Both chips have a PC heritage, for a console GPU to have similarities or a common heritage with high performance gaming/multimedia PC GPUs I wouldn't call a disadvantage per se.
Xenos has plenty of custom features designed to be used solely for the console - features that cant be found anywhere else. RSX has none.
The 7800 was hardly a "high performance gaming/multimedia PC GPU" when the PS3 was released.
The fact that the RSX is nothing more than a somewhat crippled PC GPU is a problem. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=29579&page=1
DDR3 68ns
XDR 52.5ns read
42.5ns to write
XDR 52.5ns read
42.5ns to write
Whats the clocks on those associated latencies?
As a non-tech noob, I'm sure that your aware about how a higher clock increase latency.
At some point I upgraded a lowend 14 Mhz 2MB chipram (shared graphics/sound/CPU memory) Amiga with a 50 Mhz CPU upgrade board together with 4 MB 60 ns (best available at the time) 32-bit fastram, resulting in huge performance gains. But a year later I upgraded to a new 25 Mhz Amiga, so a lower clocked yet higher perfomance CPU.
The first step most tech noobs would understand, but with the latter upgrade many would be scratching their head.
To clarify for some the 68040 CPU delivered over double the per-clock performance as compared to the 68030 CPU.
Sadly I think the fact that many consumers look primarily at clock frequencies while deciding which CPU is faster, this has hurt 68k, PowerPC CPU and other CPU designs in the past when compared to more inefficient x86 alternatives. I think this also resulted in some poor performing yet highly clocked CPUs being released in the past.
The first step most tech noobs would understand, but with the latter upgrade many would be scratching their head.
To clarify for some the 68040 CPU delivered over double the per-clock performance as compared to the 68030 CPU.
Sadly I think the fact that many consumers look primarily at clock frequencies while deciding which CPU is faster, this has hurt 68k, PowerPC CPU and other CPU designs in the past when compared to more inefficient x86 alternatives. I think this also resulted in some poor performing yet highly clocked CPUs being released in the past.
Go post this on an Amiga forum - maybe someone there will give a shit.
Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?
ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all.
"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away"
