DanneSandin said: so, this would mean that ps4 and nextbox is in the same ball park as the wii u? or does anyone disagree with that? |
Even the worst rumor about PS4 / 720 put it at least 3x the Wii U in power.
DanneSandin said: so, this would mean that ps4 and nextbox is in the same ball park as the wii u? or does anyone disagree with that? |
Even the worst rumor about PS4 / 720 put it at least 3x the Wii U in power.
At the time how new was the PS3 and X360's GPU when it released, was it based off a high end GPU or mid range?
Gilgamesh said: At the time how new was the PS3 and X360's GPU when it released, was it based off a high end GPU or mid range? |
A mid rage next gen AMD GPU I guess... Radeon 8850.
man what I disappointment!!! Please chunky, come in here and tell me these fools are wrooong!!! D:
I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!
Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.
Gilgamesh said: At the time how new was the PS3 and X360's GPU when it released, was it based off a high end GPU or mid range? |
From what I remember, the PS3 GPU was/is the equivalent of a scaled down NVidia GeForce 7800 which was a fairly high/mid end-chip at the time although the next gen of graphics cards with combined shader architecture were ready to release around the sametime the PS3 was released.
The 360 used a GPU based loosely on the X1800 GPU of AMD/ATI. Again, fairly high/mid-end. So both were at the lower end of high-end.
Edit: The difference now is that even mid-range cards now require extra power (>75Watts) so Sony/MS may be limited in what cards they choose based on power draw.
Scoobes said: From what I remember, the PS3 GPU was/is the equivalent of a scaled down NVidia GeForce 7800 which was a fairly high/mid end-chip at the time although the next gen of graphics cards with combined shader architecture were ready to release around the sametime the PS3 was released. The 360 used a GPU based loosely on the X1800 GPU of AMD/ATI. Again, fairly high/mid-end. So both were at the lower end of high-end. Edit: The difference now is that even mid-range cards now require extra power (>75Watts) so Sony/MS may be limited in what cards they choose based on power draw. |
Just to remember...
The R500 Xenos (X360's GPU) was the first GPU created by ATI based in the R500 generation... just some months after 360 release the AMD showed the R520 (X1800)... so the X360's GPU was based in the latest GPU tech by ATI (AMD).
Another good think about the Xenos is the fact it have a lot of features (eg. Unified Shaders) that ATI just released on PC with the R600 (HD 2000)... so the X360's GPU tech was at least one year ahead anything existent in PC market at the launch.
ethomaz said:
Just to remember... The R500 Xenos (X360's GPU) was the first GPU created by ATI based in the R500 generation... just some months after 360 release the AMD showed the R520 (X1800)... so the X360's GPU was based in the latest GPU tech by ATI (AMD). Another good think about the Xenos is the fact it have a lot of features (eg. Unified Shaders) that ATI just released on PC with the R600 (HD 2000)... so the X360's GPU tech was at least two years ahead anything existent in PC market at the launch. |
Very true. Although NVidia released their first unified shader cards in 2006 so it was only 1 year out in terms of PC tech. I think AMD updated their unified shader tech before release and was an evolution of the 360's shader architecture.
I still don't think we're going to see anything similar happening with the PS4/720. The power draw would simply be too much to go with a high-end card. The desktop AMD 7870 (high-mid range card) has a max power draw of 175W. The X1800 had a power draw of only 112W even though it was AMD's high-end card at release.
DanneSandin said:
|
Well, they are more powerful for sure, but not like the difference this gen. I believe its far more closer to the PS2/Xbox levels or even PS2/Gamecube. Point being, that they share a lot of the same tech, just different raw power where as Wii was not only more of a difference in raw power, but also lacked quite a bit of various tech.
Scoobes said:
From what I remember, the PS3 GPU was/is the equivalent of a scaled down NVidia GeForce 7800 which was a fairly high/mid end-chip at the time although the next gen of graphics cards with combined shader architecture were ready to release around the sametime the PS3 was released. |
The GPU in the PS3 IS a GeForce GT7800. When the dual-cell design fell flat, Sony had no time left for anything really new. Sony paid $20mio to NVidia for a slightly modified 7800 design (the dram bus interface was changed to an XDR interface, and unneded video circuitry in the GPu was taken out.
drkohler said:
The GPU in the PS3 IS a GeForce GT7800. When the dual-cell design fell flat, Sony had no time left for anything really new. Sony paid $20mio to NVidia for a slightly modified 7800 design (the dram bus interface was changed to an XDR interface, and unneded video circuitry in the GPu was taken out. |
Just had a quick look and you're pretty much right. A few minor differences:
Difference RSX | nVidia 7800GTX
GDDR3 Memory bus width 128bit | 256bit
ROPs 8 | 16
Post Transform and Lighting Cache 63 max vertices | 45 max vertices
Total Texture Cache Per Quad of Pixel Pipes (L1 and L2) 96kB | 48kB
CPU interface FlexIO | PCI-Express 16x
Technology 90nm | 110nm
But the same chip otherwise.