Graphics Capabilities: Xbox 360 vs. PS3 - A tale of the tape

[staticneuron]

LordTheNightKnight said:

What you are missing are first that the EIB is just for the parts within the Cell itself. That does allow the Cell's incredible speed, but that does not connect the rest of the system to the Cell.

Second, that it's not how fast the data travels. Any system worth its salt can do that nearly instantaneously, even the oldest systems. It's how much data can travel through a bus at a time, and how quickly the next set of data can travel.

For example, the RSX RAM, an advanced form of Rambus DRAM, does have a high clock speed. That is apparenlty why it's ideal for FMVs (hence for blu-ray playback). Yet it also has a much slower latency than other forms of RAM. Now when it comes to system RAM, clock speed and latency can be interchangable, but that means that the GDDR3 RAM that the 360 uses is on equal footing with the RSX, since it has a slower clock speed, but much faster latency.

And no, the Cell can't overcome that. If the Cell processes more than 256MB of non-graphical data, that extra data isn't fitting into the system RAM, no matter how fast the Cell processed that data. It just doesn't work that way. The data beyond those MB has to wait for the next cycle, which depends on the clock speed and latency of the RAM, hence why the 360's RAM can work just as fast.

Now things that the Cell can process faster in its RAM cycle than the Xenon can will be better on the PS3. This is why the Cell is so good at physics. They take up the same amount of memory on both systems, yet the Cell can calculate more in one real time cycle than the 360 can. And if post-processing works that way as well, then the PS3 has a way to compensate for having to use its VRAM for frame buffering and texture buffering (the 360 splits that with the 10MB of EDRAM for frames, and the 512MB of GDDR3 for texturing).

So my point is the Cell isn't set up to make the rest of the PS3 run faster. Real time graphics don't work that way.

You've lost me..... look at that diagram again...... everything connected to the EIB rins at 3.2 ghz that mens the ram and the to high speed flex I/O ports...... which the "other" devices are connected to. Please show me your sources and second of all the PS3 is supposed to be a streaming system.... meaning what ever non graphical data is supposed to be outputed as fast as it's calculated...... which should be a big deal because the majority of space on any ram in any console that is taken up is normally because of graphics. you still do not get that the 360 does not have 512 dedicated to video but is shared with the processor of the 360. The epics deved pushed for more memory but I assure it wasn't because of non-graphical data.

Why do I feel as if I have typed this before?

 Edit:

 

 

I am not sure if I said it before (wicked case of deja vu) but the cpu seems to access the memory on the same memory controller as the GPU.That is what would be considered a bottleneck one that the PS3 doesn't seem to have. You as a gamer would not see these effects because of the memexport and the Edram. This makes them more of a necessity than additional features. It isn't a crippling one because as a said above it is expected for the gpu to take up a large chunk of the bandwidth and space to the memory.