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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - My XBox 360 vs PS3 comparison (mostly technical)

sieanr on 18 September 2007
starcraft said:
Most of what he has said is biased, based on bad sources or no sources at all, or completely founded on false assumptions, but you gotta hand it to Mike, he's defended those false assumptions and biased manipulations to the death in this thread.

For the record, and so I don't seem entirly bias, I think the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. However, that amount of power has been significantly overstated by MikeB as well as supported by outright stupid comparisons. The 360 has the better GPU, whereas the PS3 has a CPU better suited for visuals and physics. Whereas the PS3 has a brute strength advantage, I think the 360 is the overall more balanced and effiecient design.

What really matters is what is done with the power available. Gears looks amazing, just like heavenly sword. But when differences may really be seen in a couple years, that difference in power wont really matter.

Overall, I'd say its a lot like the GC v Xbox - at most a bit more.

 



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

Around the Network
Final-Fan on 18 September 2007

This will be a bitch to find, but common sense will tell you going trough two memory controllers adds a lot of latency.

But funny you ask for me to source things while MikeBs claims go unsourced.

The only thing he needed to source but didn't in these past few posts, AFAIK, is the "developer quotes", and for the record, MikeB, I would really like to hear your source for those before I believe them. I have asked MikeB for clarification of his arguments and points in the past, so don't pretend I'm his apologist. I've contradicted him in other threads, and will in future threads.

This will be a bitch to find, but common sense will tell you going trough two memory controllers adds a lot of latency.

If you are referring to the simple fact that the XDR memory is separated from the RSX by the Cell, then please provide your explanation of why this compares badly to the fact that the 360's CPU faces the same ordeal, only worse, and with all 512 MB of its RAM.

If you are referring to something else, perhaps the Cell's 'Ring Connector', and since you say that it is slower and has more latency than the Xenos' 'Cross type connector', you must have some idea -- which I invite you to convey to me -- as to how much slower the one is than the other. Unless, of course, you know only that it is slower but it could be by 1% for all you know. You have NEVER YET here explained why the RSX will have a disadvantage in accessing the XDR other than hand-waving about "latency" with no numbers, estimates, or even guesses as to the amounts involved.

Important!
And you have also done absolutely nothing to answer the allegation that all this is a sideshow to the true strength of the PS3's memory architecture, namely that the Cell and RSX each have 256 MB of memory that they can access without having to go through the other -- which is certainly not true of the 360.

I am not an expert, but I think I am knowledgeable enough to understand any explanation you give -- and if you are right, maybe you'll convince MikeB.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

MikeB on 18 September 2007

@ sieanr

Could you tell me how much faster the XDR is than GDDR3?


Latency should be about half that of the GDDR3.

The 360 has the better GPU, whereas the PS3 has a CPU better suited for visuals and physics.


On the latter I agree (that's a start ), on the former I believe that's a matter of perspective, preferences or opinion (strictly looking at the GPU by itself, not in the context of evaluating the GPU as part of the system as a whole): More flexible yes, more powerfull no. Talk to you guys again tomorrow.



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

sieanr on 18 September 2007

If you are referring to the simple fact that the XDR memory is separated from the RSX by the Cell, then please provide your explanation of why this compares badly to the fact that the 360's CPU faces the same ordeal, only worse, and with all 512 MB of its RAM.


The 360s memory controller is built into the GPU. Essentialy the CPU goes straight to this memory controller then to the memory. In no way does the CPU go through the GPU.

RSX has to go through two memory controllers and hop two busses to get to the XDRAM, hence more latnecy than the Xenos - unless the Sony has somehow made controllers without latency. There is also the 128bit bus to the Cell, which puts limits on how much data can be moved between the two.

And you have also done absolutely nothing to answer the allegation that all this is a sideshow to the true strength of the PS3's memory architecture, namely that the Cell and RSX each have 256 MB of memory that they can access without having to go through the other -- which is certainly not true of the 360.


The EDRAM makes up for most of the bandwidth the CPU would steal (as I've said above)

The pooled design is far more flexible, allowing a dev to devide the RAM in any way they see fit. But overall the systems are close to even with regards to memory bandwidth. Really, its just simple and easier on developers.

Keep in mind that the current PS3 design was rushed, whereas the 360 has had this design worked on for years.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

Final-Fan on 18 September 2007
sieanr said:
If you are referring to the simple fact that the XDR memory is separated from the RSX by the Cell, then please provide your explanation of why this compares badly to the fact that the 360's CPU faces the same ordeal, only worse, and with all 512 MB of its RAM.


The 360s memory controller is built into the GPU. Essentialy the CPU goes straight to this memory controller then to the memory. In no way does the CPU go through the GPU.

RSX has to go through two memory controllers and hop two busses to get to the XDRAM, hence more latnecy than the Xenos - unless the Sony has somehow made controllers without latency. There is also the 128bit bus to the Cell, which puts limits on how much data can be moved between the two.

And you have also done absolutely nothing to answer the allegation that all this is a sideshow to the true strength of the PS3's memory architecture, namely that the Cell and RSX each have 256 MB of memory that they can access without having to go through the other -- which is certainly not true of the 360.


The EDRAM makes up for most of the bandwidth the CPU would steal (as I've said above)

The pooled design is far more flexible, allowing a dev to devide the RAM in any way they see fit. But overall the systems are close to even with regards to memory bandwidth. Really, its just simple and easier on developers.

Keep in mind that the current PS3 design was rushed, whereas the 360 has had this design worked on for years.


OK, now all the facts are laid out and they seem reasonable -- I do have a couple questions if you have the patience.

1. Is there no advantage to having 2 memory controllers instead of one?

2. PS3 design rushed and 360 not? Please elaborate, and don't forget to explain why the "non-rushed" hardware was the one with well over 20% hardware failure.

(BTW I don't concede all your points but I concede that I have reached the limit of my ability to debate intelligently on this subject without doing tons of research -- which I may or may not do, but not right now.  Short version -- you may be right, but I'm only bowing out 'cause I'm outgunned.)



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
sieanr on 18 September 2007

1. Is there no advantage to having 2 memory controllers instead of one?


No

2. PS3 design rushed and 360 not? Please elaborate, and don't forget to explain why the "non-rushed" hardware was the one with well over 20% hardware failure.


Orignally Sony intended the PS3 to have 4 Cells slaved together, each with its own independant bank of RAM. Since the SPUs are similar to the shaders of a GPU, they would serve as both GPU and CPU - offering something interesting and unique for developers.

Relativly late in its design cycle Sony came to the realization that 4 Cells would be too expensive and not offer enough performance for graphics. So, Sony went to ATI to ask for a graphics solution. For a while, it looked like they were going to have a deal, but things feel through.

Sony then went to Nvidia, who offered them a quick and dirty solution. Essentially, the GPU in the PS3 is a PC card tweaked and reworked for the console (specifically a 7800 crossed with a 7600, plus a little 7900)

By contrast, MS had ATI essentially design a custom GPU that was intended to work hand in hand with the CPU from the outset. Because of this, the 360 GPU has quite a few interesting features that aren't in any other GPU and make it quite interesting. And like I said, it was designed to work with the CPU and pooled RAM from the outset.

In the case of the PS3, you have some compromises with how the RAM is split, namely the 128bit bus from the RSX to its RAM and the other 128bit bus to the CPU. In a best case scenario, this will offer better performance than a single 256bit bus, but because of various factor this is unrealistic.

The 360 overheats because of a poor GPU heatsink that was the result of a crappy engineering compromise - probably cost related.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

sieanr on 18 September 2007

Latency should be about half that of the GDDR3.


No its not, especially with the clock the XDR is at. At best its a little better, at worst its slower than GDDR3.

Still, I'd like to see you address my point about you taking the RAMs clock out of context. Namely 700mhz GDDR3 v 3.2ghz XDR.

Maybe you looked up effective clock speed?



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

MikeB on 19 September 2007

@ sieanr

No its not, especially with the clock the XDR is at. At best its a little better, at worst its slower than GDDR3.


XDR measures to achieve low latencies and high bandwidth are important for the Cell's innovative design to be more effective (of course the memory controller is located on the Cell to reduce latency, high ring and local store bandwidth).

Basically the XBox 360 has gone for a cheaper design (shared 512 MB GDDR3), GDDR3 can only connect 2 devices, so the Xenon has to share the bus with the Xenos, which would be destructive for a processor like the Cell which is much more powerful than the Xenon and with high Xenon bandwidth usage then severely limits the Xenos as the 10 MB eDRAM surely isn't enough), XDR costs Sony more and would be less beneficial to the RSX. Thus the RSX uses GDDR3 and the Cell XDR memory.

 

 Effective and peak data rates for two bus turn-arounds every 100 cycles



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

MikeB on 19 September 2007

@ sieanr

By contrast, MS had ATI essentially design a custom GPU that was intended to work hand in hand with the CPU from the outset.


Essentially, the GPU in the PS3 is a PC card tweaked and reworked for the console


I find your speculation hard to swallow for a graphics chip that was codenamed Radeon R500 (aka Xenos). Both chips have a PC heritage, for a console GPU to have similarities or a common heritage with high performance gaming/multimedia PC GPUs I wouldn't call a disadvantage per se.

The same goes with regard to CPUs, the 68000 was used by Macs and multimedia Amigas, but also by game consoles and arcade machines. I don't buy it that the XBox 360 design would be so well thought out and the PS3's general design being rushed (it should be clear by now, a lot of thought and ambition went into the design). I rather think it's the other way around, at least I would have preferred that Microsoft would have done some extensive testing.



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

MikeB on 19 September 2007

@ sieanr

Hey mikeB, have you leanred what effective clock means yet?


Do you?

BTW I never look solely at clock frequencies like many/most PC consumers, but rather look all the aspects of a chip or better yet device design.

To give you an example.

At some point I upgraded a lowend 14 Mhz 2MB chipram (shared graphics/sound/CPU memory) Amiga with a 50 Mhz CPU upgrade board together with 4 MB 60 ns (best available at the time) 32-bit fastram, resulting in huge performance gains. But a year later I upgraded to a new 25 Mhz Amiga, so a lower clocked yet higher perfomance CPU.

The first step most tech noobs would understand, but with the latter upgrade many would be scratching their head.



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