LordTheNightKnight said:
Yes really. The RSX is powerful, but so is the Xenos. In terms of graphics generation, they are about equal. Yet the RSX has 24 standard pixel pipelines, while the Xenos has 48 pipelines with a unified structure, which every objective test (as in not trying to make Sony, Microsoft, or even Nintendo look better than the other) rates as higher capability. Think this doesn't help resolution? The PS2 has the greatest resolution of the last gen, even if the actual graphics are lesser. This is due to the greater pixel/texel fill rate, and having 16 pixel pipelines compared to 4 that the Xbox and GC had (yes, that is in their specs). That doesn't mean the PS3 will have bad resolution. It just means that the 360 can do much better than you claim. As for the RAM, the XDR has a faster clock speed, but clock speed is not the only meacure of RAM speed. Unlike a processor, RAM has to pause in between cycles. This is latency.* XDR is part of the Rambus DRAM class, which has a slower latency than standard RAM. This is because FMVs require clock speed over latency, hence why the blu-ray playback is soo good. Yet graphics need latency over clock speed. Hence the GDDR3 VRAM on the PS3 is more suited for graphics, while the XDR is used as emergency VRAM.** The 360 used all GDDR3 for its RAM. This doesn't mean the PS3 can't fit as much graphics in its RAM, and with proper use of the SPEs, can fit more in there. Yet it does mean that your claim of a gap is false, not matter how much you type "IMO". This is not up to opinion. The facts are there. Look them up. *And in case anyone brings up the connection between the XDR and the EIB on the Cell, the EIB only prevents further latency between the parts connected to it (since otherwise all those parts working at once in the cell would clog each other). It can't reduce the latency the parts already have. **Yet system RAM will work fine on either type of RAM, so things like physics and AI work fine on the XDR. |
You can't just compare the number of pipelines between the two GPUs. The RSX only has 24 pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders, compared to the 360's 48 unified shaders, but an individual unified shader is not as good as a dedicated shader for any specific task. The RSX's vertex shaders can handle 5 ops per cycle and the pixel shaders can handle 2 ops per sec, whereas all of the Xenos' shaders are only capable of 2 ops per second.
This leads to a a maximum of 136 ops per cycle for the RSX ((24 x 5) + (8 x 2) = 136) compared to a maximum of 96 ops per cycle for the Xenos (48 x 2 = 96). The fact that the RSX is clocked at 550mhz compared to just 500 for the Xenos also gives it an advantage.
Much like the Cell versus the Xenon, and dedicated versus unified RAM, it's power versus efficiency. The ps3 has more max theoretical power, with the Cell, XDR dedicated CPU RAM, more powerful Vertex shaders, and the ability of the Cell to assist the RSX, but the question is, will developers be able to take advantage of this?
Heavenly Sword, MGS4, Killzone 2, and FFXIII all say yes.
But why do multiplats look like crap on the ps3?
Because they were designed around the 360's more flexible hardware, and to port them to the ps3 would require either a complete reworking of the code or else just cutting things from the game. Developers are money-conscience and chose the latter to save time.
