By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - God of War 3's anti-aliasing using the Cell's SPUs

nightsurge on 25 April 2010
MikeB said:
@ nightsurge

I repeated again in the post you are replying to that the RSX is more powerful than the Xenos.

You can reread postings by me here at VGChartz stating, the RSX is more powerful, however both GPUs provide advantages as well as disadvantages and the RSX is designed for the Cell and that the Cell + RSX >>> Xenos + Xenon.

Nothing new here.

But the RSX is not more powerful than the Xenos.... MikeB why are you going in circles with this misinformation.  Yes RSX + Cell is better than Xenos, but the RSX alone compared to the Xenos, Xenos is more powerful.

You keep trying to misinform people by saying that the RSX is more powerful when it isn't.  If you mean when combined with the Cell than you have to include that because without that tid bit it is wrong.  How do you not see this?



Around the Network
nightsurge on 25 April 2010
Icyedge said:
nightsurge said:
MikeB said:

@ nightsurge

I just said the performance of the RSX is greater than the Xenos. But you should not tunnelvision on RSX vs Xenos as the RSX was designed to take advantage of the Cell processor. So pretending the RSX is designed to operate standalone would be misleading.

The RSX is a much better fit for the Cell processor than the Xenos can be. It's more powerful at things it needs to be powerful, it's not as flexible in various ways as the Xenos, but technically doesn't need to be, this as a powerful enough CPU is more flexible at those things than the Xenos.

This is what I have been saying for so many years and it shows in modern PS3 games.

No, way to try and dodge your misinformation tactics again.  You said, and I quote:

"Many don't realize the PS3's GPU is more powerful than the XBox 360 GPU"

No where did you state anything to do with a combination of the Cell.  The whole reason the RSX is made to work with the Cell is because the original plan was to JUST use the Cell and once they realized that would not be enough to compete in the long run they added a rather weak standalone GPU to work in tune with the Cell.

As for a straight GPU comparison like you tried to claim, the 360 GPU is superior in nearly every aspect.

Im not sure if MikeB love to spread misinformation or not but in this case hes right. Just read a little farther "Many don't realize the PS3's GPU is more powerful than the XBox 360 GPU, that 360 GPU is more flexible but the Cell is far more flexibile at the stuff it's more flexible at and a hell of a lot more powerful than the 360's CPU,"

He explained just after why he meant the PS3 GPU was more powerful and flexible. Also, this thread was about the Cell being part of the GPU (or should we says GPUs) in exclusive PS3 game. Either we call it GPU as a whole (like MikeB) or we can say theres more than one GPU. The conclusion is the same anyway.

The PS3 GPU =/= Cell so i'm not sure how camparing the flexibility of the 360 GPU to the PS3 CPU explains how the PS3 GPU is better than the 360 GPU by itself... because it isn't.



Hynad on 25 April 2010

Facts: The 360's GPU is more powerful than The RSX.

The RSX in conjunction with the Cell Processor is [let's say "theoretically", so it appease the 360 crowd] more powerful than the 360's Gpu and CPU tandem.



nightsurge on 25 April 2010
Hynad said:
Facts: The 360's GPU is more powerful than The RSX.

The RSX in conjunction with the Cell Processor is [let's say "theoretically", so it appease the 360 crowd] more powerful than the 360's Gpu and CPU tandem.

Thank you   And I have no problem stating that the RSX + Cell is better than the Xenos + Xenon because the proof is in the pudding.  However, as I have said earlier, the only reason I don't like saying that is because the top of the line PS3 games all received ground up engine builds and years of development while the 360's top games all use the same multiplatform engine with some tweaking.  I just can't wait to see how games on 360 would compare if they received the same custom treatment of PS3 exclusives.



Hynad on 25 April 2010

Yes, but it is no secret that those multiplatform engines you speak of (i.e. U3E) are better suited for the PC and 360 architectures. While I do understand what you mean, the fact that those engines weren't capable of delivering the same results on the PS3 (far from it, actually) kind of balances the argument I think.

Now, Alan Wake is running on its own engine and does look terrific (except for the doll-looking characters... What's wrong with their facial expressions?), but according to early reports, and judging from the evasive responses from the developers themselves, it would seems like the game isn't running in HD resolution (i.e. 720p). The fact that the game employs a lot of post processing effects, good lighting effects, and runs at a steady 30 fps, seems to indicate that they had to cut that resolution to make everything run silky smooth.

Where games like Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 (both at 720p native), and Killzone 2 (native 1080i) were able to achieve results similar if not better at a higher resolution seems to me like proof enough that the PS3 is capable of more.

 

In the end though, I'm one of those who don't really care about picture resolution as long as it looks good on my 1080p TV,  with as little jaggies as possible.  And I'm eagerly anticipating Alan Wake, even if it falls short of being the new "graphics King" (I really don't think we'll see something more technically impressive than God of War 3 for a while.).



Around the Network
Icyedge on 25 April 2010
nightsurge said:
Icyedge said:
nightsurge said:
MikeB said:

@ nightsurge

I just said the performance of the RSX is greater than the Xenos. But you should not tunnelvision on RSX vs Xenos as the RSX was designed to take advantage of the Cell processor. So pretending the RSX is designed to operate standalone would be misleading.

The RSX is a much better fit for the Cell processor than the Xenos can be. It's more powerful at things it needs to be powerful, it's not as flexible in various ways as the Xenos, but technically doesn't need to be, this as a powerful enough CPU is more flexible at those things than the Xenos.

This is what I have been saying for so many years and it shows in modern PS3 games.

No, way to try and dodge your misinformation tactics again.  You said, and I quote:

"Many don't realize the PS3's GPU is more powerful than the XBox 360 GPU"

No where did you state anything to do with a combination of the Cell.  The whole reason the RSX is made to work with the Cell is because the original plan was to JUST use the Cell and once they realized that would not be enough to compete in the long run they added a rather weak standalone GPU to work in tune with the Cell.

As for a straight GPU comparison like you tried to claim, the 360 GPU is superior in nearly every aspect.

Im not sure if MikeB love to spread misinformation or not but in this case hes right. Just read a little farther "Many don't realize the PS3's GPU is more powerful than the XBox 360 GPU, that 360 GPU is more flexible but the Cell is far more flexibile at the stuff it's more flexible at and a hell of a lot more powerful than the 360's CPU,"

He explained just after why he meant the PS3 GPU was more powerful and flexible. Also, this thread was about the Cell being part of the GPU (or should we says GPUs) in exclusive PS3 game. Either we call it GPU as a whole (like MikeB) or we can say theres more than one GPU. The conclusion is the same anyway.

The PS3 GPU =/= Cell so i'm not sure how camparing the flexibility of the 360 GPU to the PS3 CPU explains how the PS3 GPU is better than the 360 GPU by itself... because it isn't.

 

When they use the Cell to process graphic the cell become as much a GPU as is the video card. In exclusive game they always use it, so in exclusive it is a GPU. That was the point of this whole thread to begin with. I cant see how anyone would be misinforme since it was clearly stated in the first opening post of this thread and into many others after it.



Skeeuk on 25 April 2010

has anyone seen the stage after hades on gow3? the visuals look like a painting.



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

slowmo on 25 April 2010
Hynad said:
Facts: The 360's GPU is more powerful than The RSX.

The RSX in conjunction with the Cell Processor is [let's say "theoretically", so it appease the 360 crowd] more powerful than the 360's Gpu and CPU tandem.

+1



MikeB on 25 April 2010
Hynad said:
Facts: The 360's GPU is more powerful than The RSX.

The RSX simply has more horsepower (objective fact). But if one would ignore the fact that the RSX was designed to take advantage of the Cell (a good portion of the chip is dedicated to that) one could say the Xenos operates smarter and would be more useful to most developers (subjective evalution of pros and cons). However we can't ignore the full picture (objective conclusion).



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Hynad on 25 April 2010

Core Clock Frequency
Xbox 360 - 500 MHz
PS3 - 500 MHz

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing (Vertex ALU x Clock / 4)
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture


Should I say more, MikeB?