@ gorgepir

No, please provide a reliable source. Not some XBox 360 fan assumptions please.



No, apart from early confusing due to ATi's statement everyone know it's 48 billion shader ops per second as advertised by Microsoft.



Which is correct, but read every word which is bolded. ATi states this correctly, but fanboys mistakenly misinterpret this as shader ops per second. Apples and oranges my friend.

pexthewex said: Assigment... no i just need someone that understands all that tech and explain what it means in normal people's english. Christmas is near and i haven't deceided which console to buy. i don't want to know which console is better because none is better they are all different. I know people always say buy the console with the games you like, but the games i like have most gone multi-platform. There's only 1-2 exclusive games on the PS3 that i want and they are MGS4 n FF13. On the Xbox 360 Gears of War is great. Halo 3 is very good and can't wait for GTA IV. With both consoles marketing plot saying that their product can do this and that have all this processing power and teardrops and whatever. Also with Sony coming out and saying games in 2008 and later will have 1080p and they have only really used 30% or whatever of the PS3 potiential. Sorry for posting like 3-4 times well i had to post on each forum like - Sony and Xbox. I thought i would alot of opinions and answers. Anyway i offended people then please by all means close all the other topics, but please keep this i think this is in the right forum section. As far as the Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD i've heard from store mangers that i talk to that in the future all studio companies will release on Blu-Ray, even Paramount, but becasue of Microsoft giving out $100 million cheques they are requred to support only HD DVD. So from that you can see my dilemma i don't want to a product and later become useless because the other consoles has the same game with the same or better quality.

At the end of the day none of the tech stuff will matter. Only the politics. Most companies will only make one version and port the other over. In this case it's very unlikely they'll make a PS3 version then port down. Combine it with the fact that the 360 has more consoles the chance is even less likely of PS3 being the lead on the majority of projects. Even if the PS3 comes back it likely won't beat the 360 in America. Basically the 360 is going to be the lead platform more often then not so most multi-plat games will likely look the same... while some may run better for 360 since they were made for 360 first. The PS3 exclusives will likely look better then the 360 exlcusives... but which games will be better is up in the air.

Ahh I see now, you are also like the heavenly sword devs. By saying I was a fanboy you are wrong my friend, I have no interest in the Xbox360 whatsoever. What I am against is spinning the truth.
The first point I could concede, because although it is a rumour, it seems to be true. I have only seen once that it was said that it is clocked at 550 about a year ago, and after that nothing was mentioned. I might be wrong, just my impression. Also even if you keep it clocked at 550 it is still just 74.
What do you think a shader units ops do? Each shader can do 4 ops (shader ops) and since you have 48 shaders that comes to 48*4 = 192. What do you think the floating point op is used for then when it is in the shader unit?

@ makingmusic476

+1 Insightful.

@ crumas2



Which is both an advantage and a disadvantage, developing a game engine from scratch for the PS3 will yield much greater results but will also take significant more time to develop.

In the case of Unreal Tournament 3, the advantage is that on the XBox 360 this Unreal Engine already supported all 3 Xenon cores, which helped the PS3 port of Unreal Tournament 3, the UT3 version for the XBox 360 will benefit from the PS3 version of UT3 as the code will be more cache friendly it will be interesting to see what UT3 will be like on the 360 (for Gears it was claimed to push the system to its max, but...) this game may actually push the 360 to its max potential for real.

@ gorgepir

I wasn't really referring to you, I was more referring to the endless misinformative articles available on the internet. Maybe up to 50% of websites state the wrong figures.



You took the misinformation as being the truth.

Maybe, I haven't opened one myself to see.

makingmusic476 said: How's this for a good comparison between the ps3 and 360: Final 360 development kits arrived in September of 2005 (source - TeamXbox). Final PS3 development kits arrived in August of 2006 (source - GameInformer). In just a little over year after receiving final 360 devkits, Epic Games managed to release Gears of War. It was graphically stunning, a true next-generation showcase. In comparison, just a little over a year after receiving final ps3 devkits, Epic managed to create Unreal Tournament 3, a game that is superior to Gears of War in every way. The character models are more detailed, the environments are larger, and there are more characters on screen at any given time. Developers are doing more with the ps3 in less time than it took them on the 360. Uncharted is graphically superior to any other console game to date, and Killzone 2 is looking to set the bar even higher.

And what happens if it ends up looking just as well on the 360? It looks better then gears of War did, but note how he doesn't mention how it looks in comparison to the 360 version. Also saying Uncharted is graphically superior in every way is a gross overstatement... as even if it was technically superior in every way, that's not all that matters in graphics.

@ gorgepir

I understand the confusion though, Microsoft Execs have been dancing around the truth as well in interviews:

Todd Holmdahl:

"if you take into account the simultaneous texture fetches, control flow operations and programmable vertex fetch operations, you get 80 billion operations per second."

Again a correct but mistleading statement in reply to comparing the 100 billion shader operations the Cell + RSX can achieve. (RSX => 74.8 billion shader ops per second)

Take good notice of every word written in this sentence and you will have the answer to your question as well as understanding the origin of the misinformative confusion floating around. Apples operartions vs Oranges operations.

@ gorgepir

Are you able to find the answer to your question, hints:

ATi and Microsoft make 100% correct statements regarding:

"operations per second"

and

"floating-point ops per cycle"

Why won't they ever claim more than 48 billion shader ops per second? Take notice of metrics and clockrate. I think it's bad to mislead consumers like this, but all official specs sheets are still correct, 48 billion shader ops/s just like Microsoft announced.

MikeB said: Basically the article is riddled with mistakes, just some quick examples: > 360’s GPU is actually capable of 96 billion shader operations per second. Microsoft doesn't claim this, ATi was talking about floating point ops possible to achieve with the GPU, shader ops are something different, it's 48 billion shader ops per second max. > 115GFLOPS Theoretical Peak Performance for 360 CPU With a normal measure of theorectial peak it's 77 GFlops, 115.2 figure is the theoretical peak if you include non-arithmetic instructions such as permute. These are not normally included in *any* measure of FLOPs. If you want to count non-arithemitic peak figures, the usable Cell components in the PS3 will get 268 Gflops (6 SPEs + PPE) - over twice that of the 360 > 218GFLOPS Theoretical Peak Performance for PS3 CPU. Correct for 1 PPE + 7 SPEs (unlike the article claims this to refer to 8 SPEs). Of course the OS also uses up CPU cycles (like on Windows, like a Epic dev pointed out in an interview Windows/DirectX can use up 50% of available CPU cycles, this is the case for the PS3 as well as for the XBox 360, the PS3 has one SPE reserved for the OS, stuff the XBox 360 has to dedicate resources for on its 3 cores) > The 360’s 12 DVD drive has a speed of 16.5 megabytes per second compared to the PS3’s 2X Blu-ray drive which has a speed of 8.7 megabytes per second. The PS3 Blu-Ray drive achieves 9 MB/s. The XBox 360 x12 drive slows down to a x8 speed drive max like all 12x speed DVD drives for reading dual layer discs. As the Blu-Ray drive speed is sustained on average it loads faster than a 12x speed drive for dual layer discs. A DVD drive can read the outer tracks far more quickly than the inner tracks. > Using a 1Kx1K matrix and 8 SPE they were able to achieve 73.4GFLOPS That was a very early unoptimised test, later such tests showed the SPEs to achieve near 100% efficiency. Please don't use that article as a source for anything, browse through Beyond 3D forum discussions, manufacturer drive specs, university research articles and such instead.

I don't know whether to put my head through a wall or ban you; a guy asked a question and you really had nothing of substance to offer. Please stop your PS3 bullshit.

You offered completely biased technical information that tells maybe 1/4 of the story. The OP was asking a lot more than that. Mike, STOP IT. Your schtick is tired. Let it go.