Lemme Guess...

PS3?! 360 owners may even get to see the benefits of this technology. The SPUs can render certain things faster than the best GPUs (i.e. Warhawk's true volumetric clouds), so they should be more than capable of handling this engine. Great find. I hope this engine gets improved even further.

oh no

the xbox360 people are going to eat you alive for that comment

Why would they?

He is saying that the 360's SPUs can render certain things faster than the best GPUs, such as the PS3's.

ahah

Bring 'em on. They paid a lot of money for a pretty good system. They should be happy with what they have instead of wasting their time attacking random screennames. Every time i see "Eat This @%#$ Sony Fan-Boys!!!" I can't help but think to myself "all that over an electronic appliance??" But back on track, I wish i could get ahold of this kind of technology since I do 3D animation. I can get similar render results, just nowhere near as fast. Remember back when Doom 3 was the pinnacle of realtime graphics? Now look at us; we have Crysis! And eventually, some other game is gonna make that look like cat piss in comparison, hehe.

Uhhh

Yeah, Masenko claims that the 360 has SPUs (which are part of the Cell chip patented by Sony, Toshiba, and IBM), which is a bit disconcerting. I was clearly talking about a ps3 title called Warhawk. Slight confusion; no problem. The 360 has 3 stripped down, in-order, general purpose Power Processor Units, while Cell has 1 stripped down PPU and 8 SPUs which were custom built to run anything thrown at it (though they perform best with vectorized code). Why would Sony do this? well, it's because only 15~20% of game code nowadays is general purpose, while the rest (such as physics, a.i., graphics, sound) actually aren't General Purpose. And the gap is only going to widen over time. Tim Sweeny of Epic Games has repeatedly stated this. The SPUs have been benchmarked repeatedly and if programmed correctly, they run like greased lighting with 5~100fold performance increase per SPU over a G5 processor. The great thing about them is that when fed General Purpose code, they execute at a much slower rate, a rate which nearly equals that of the PPU. Seven of them work on the PS3. You do the math.

What about the GPU?

If you read the article about that particular effect, then you should know that the calculations in the demo were made using the GF 7900 GTX. That means the effect is possible to do on any capable GPU. The Final Fantasy just happens to utilize this effect. No reason why it should not be possible on the x360.

nice

Games are looking less like games. As long as they don't reach out and touch me.

shut up

shut up no one cares about ur stupid spu gpu mumbo jumbo

Interesting development...

As Katsuko noted, this is a PC demonstration running on a GF7900 GTX, hence it's possible on any capable GPU, including those in the PS3 and XBox 360. It seems everytime a graphical effect is shown, we suddenly have lengthy essays on how the Cell processor and it's SPUs made it possible, even when it has nothing to do with Cell. :)

Halo 3 lighting is Global.

Halo 3 for the 360 has global lighting! Everything in that short trailer is illuminated from just one light source, the Sun, with objects illuminated from both the Sun and the environment itself (just like that demo). http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/707/707241p1.html http://ugo.com/E3/Content/ProductViewer.aspx?ProductID=250

well

SPUs(or more correctly, the Cell) itself can already render 3D imagery. Couple it with a powerful GPU, it should be stronger than 360 by a large margin....

well, well, well

Kura, the CPU in the 360 can also render 3D imagery. Before we had 3D acceleration in PCs (1996), the CPUs used to render EVERYTHING in PC games, both 3D polygons and textures. Therefore it's nothing special. It's just that the Cell processor and Xenon are floating-point monsters and therefore can render 3D much better than modern PC CPUs. Anyway, that's another topic, because Global illumination has nothing to do with the Cell processor. As already said above, any good GPU can do it, and that's why it's being used for Halo 3 on the 360 (Thanks for the links 'I luv Games').

.

Little mystypo: Global illumination algorithms, as used in 3D computer graphics, not only ---take into account a path directly from a light source (direct illumination), but also light which has undergone reflection from other surfaces--- take into account not only the light which has taken a path directly from a light source (direct illumination), but also light which has undergone reflection from other surfaces (indirect illumination).

Yeah, they're both floating point monsters...

with one slight difference. Xenon- 115 gflops Cell- 256 gflops Though, anyone who does any research knows that Xenon's performance number is inflated since a dual-threaded PowerPC core only pushes 25 gflops in the floating point arena. And there's only three of them on the Xenos (the 30 CPU). Microsoft thinks fixed functions count, but the true theoretical max performance of Xenon is actually 75 Gflops. The Cell chip in PS3 is at a lower clock than the public benchmarks (3.2 Ghz vs. 4.0 Ghz) and missing one SPU so its true number is around 175 Gflops. And while every CPU in existence, including the G5 PowerPC, only attains 50~80% of their theoretical max, the Cell is unique in that due to the strength of its architecture (such as the 300 Gb/s EIB ring that connects all 9 cores in Cell) and the lack of cache in the SPEs, Cell can consistently maintain about 98% of that theoretical max (this design decision not only allows the SPEs to know exactly what data is in their Local Storage, but also eliminates cache misses which take hundreds of cycles to fix) But this is just from floating point benchmarks, and unfortunately Microsoft refuses to allow anyone to benchmark the Xenon(cpu) and Xenos(gpu) in the 360. Either they don't care about releasing numbers that they themselves have already generated, or they're too intimidated for the Xenon to inevitably be compared to Cell in the performance arena. Oh, to Yaz. I have to mention that a 7900 GTX is actually more powerful than the 360's GPU. The Xenos is meant to be efficient at what it does, hence Unified Shading Architecture. Unfortunately it's not as powerful as it should be. Only 500 million polys a second? the 7800 does over a billion. Dedicated shading and pixel lines in every other GPU on the market are also more powerful than the Unified strategy because they don't need to switch processing abilities, ever. ATI should've just put in the X1900; would've saved money and been comparable in performance to the nVidia 7800 (honestly, i think ATI ripped off Microsoft because all of their other GPUs kick butt, though not quite as much as nVidia's. ATI's best GPU was outperformed by the 7900 on benchmark tests as well as framerate tests on games like FEAR and Half-Life.)

#10

Quoted from your article. "During the conference Bungie explained that the demo was created using real time assets, Master Chief was controllable, and that the game used HDR (high-dynamic range) lighting, self-shadowing, and a GPU-run particle system..."

ur stupid

hahaha THE ATI GPU WASN'T BASED ON THE PC GPUS, SPEAKING OF ITS GPU, ITS MUCH MORE ADVANCED THAN THE PS3 GPU, U HAVE NO EVIDENCE. TO PROVE THAT ITS 360 GPU IS INFERIOR TO THE NVIDIA GRAPHICS CARD OUT THERE. ARE U SERIES THE 7800, ALL I GOT TO SAY UR CRAZY. THE 360 GPU IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARCHIECTURE FROM PC GRAPHICS CHIP OUT THERE.

link

u wanna discuss in the forum boards, check it out myspace.com/xbox360

Yeah, #16's sort of right.

We'll have to wait about two years to really see the true power of both platforms (maybe even longer). Maybe then the Xbox guys will give up their hate and denial. When unfinished PS3 launch titles are visually on par or greater than 2nd generation 360 titles, that says something. Both PS1 and PS2 titles matched and often exceeded system target renders within 4 years, and I'm confident that PS3 will do the same. Compare the GT 2000 video with Gran Turismo 4, or the Tekken target video with Tekken 5, and you'll see what I mean. The 360 is a pretty good system, but unfortunately it's no longer the best system. MS was expecting Sony to beat them marginally in terms of power, just as the reverse was true last generation, but unfortunately they guessed wrong and were totally blindsided. 1Tflop(360) vs. 2.18 Tflops(PS3) This kind of power difference between two competing platforms has never existed in the console wars, and it's possible that the gap will only widen.

but

well the cpu of the ps3 is greater than of the 360's cpu power but the GPU IS MUCH MORE ADVANCED FOR THE 360 THAN THE PS3. THAS A FACT

Some people!

DJ, why are you so desperate to turn this into a specs fight? Anyway, search the internet, when running at 430MHz, the G70 (GTX7800) can SETUP 860 million vertices/sec. Xenos in the 360 can calculate 500 million POLYGON TRIANGLES/SEC (1.5 Billion vertices/sec!). Hence based upon the G70/G71, many on the net have calculated the RSX at 550MHz to offer 1.1 Billion vertices/sec. Again, search the internet and you will see that estimated figure for RSX. As for your reasoning regarding dedicated shaders vs a unified shader architecture. LOL! I'm sorry but that's just pure ignorance. Go and do some research...please! So no, Xenos is not weaker. The GPU is on par, if not slightly more powerful, than the GPU in the PS3. And this isn't merely my point of view, it is held by developers working on BOTH 360 and PS3. For example; http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/704/704524p2.html "Magnus Högdahl: The PS3 will have a content size advantage with Blu-ray and a CPU advantage for titles that are able to utilize a lot of the SPUs. The Xbox 360 has A SLIGHT GPU ADVANTAGE and its general purpose triple-core CPU is relatively easy to utilize compared to SPUs. I expect that it will be near impossible to tell Xbox 360 and PS3 screenshots apart." So, you were saying?

wow DJ

wow DJ, you sure know a lot! what's your job? for me, I don't have any job, only a programmer student for canada ( So I speak french ). I just wanted to know if your job is connected with your information or it's an hobby. And to Yaz, I really don't know for myself the differance between ps3 and x360, BUT I know developpers always change their mind, some said the 360 is more powerfull, others told the PS3 was really more powerfull, The more they say the least we know, so we should not argue with this kind of comment. ( "And this isn't merely my point of view, it is held by developers" ) and for the topic, I'm really impressed, the right picture is way better!!! I'd like to see this in next-gen games!!! =D

wik wik yo

Thats pretty kewl.

DJ

Just wanted to say, you know an incredible amount DJ. Nice reads.

Actually...

"And to Yaz, I really don't know for myself the differance between ps3 and x360, BUT I know developpers always change their mind, some said the 360 is more powerfull, others told the PS3 was really more powerfull" No developers have said the 360 is more powerful overall. They may refer to certain features, afterall both consoles will have their strengths and weaknesses, but I've yet to read an interview with a developer who says the 360 is more powerful than the PS3. :| Also, developers do not change their mind to a large extent once they get their hands on the hardware. Prior to that, there's alot of speculation and estimates on what the hardware may be capable of, however once they are developing games on the consoles, they have a pretty good idea of the power available to them. DJ claimed that the GPU in the 360 was not only weaker than that of the PS3, but was even weaker than the 7800GTX GPU released around this time last year! The interview I provided is dated May 2nd THIS year, so it is up to date, from a developer working on BOTH consoles. His view is in keeping with comments I've read from other developers over the past year, and articles from reputable technical websites, all of which rate the GPUs as being very similar in terms of power. Even John Carmack has stated that thanks to Cell, the PS3 has more overall peak power than the 360. However he also states that he prefers the 360 because being 20% easier to program is better than being 20% more powerful. Yes I'm paraphasing here, but again, he says there's not much to seperate the two consoles, however for those willing to put in the extra time, effort and cost to really push the PS3, then they'll be rewarded with a bit more peak power for their games. That's hardly going to be the case if the GPU in the 360 was weaker than a 7800GTX, because the gap would be MUCH wider if that were true.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

DJ wrote "...MS was expecting Sony to beat them marginally in terms of power, just as the reverse was true last generation, but unfortunately they guessed wrong and were totally blindsided. 1Tflop(360) vs. 2.18 Tflops(PS3)" Wow! You actually fell for the TFLOP trap? :| You really believe those figures represents the difference between the 360 and PS3? That really says all that I need to know about your knowledge DJ (or lack of it).

Specs don't mean $hit.

If the game sucks. You can replicate reality graphics but if the gameplay is mediocre, the depth is lacking, and the story can be written by a 15 year old, why bother? Oblivion is still Oblivion no matter how much you wanna cut it. The 360 version did just fine. Graphics whores will point out specs and little details being dumbed down, but it's still Oblivion. It still looks great. Real Time Global Illumination looks cool, but it wont affect gameplay at all.

Thank's, Fen

One polygon has 3 vertices, but an array of 9 polygons can be contructed with 18 vertices, a 2:1 ratio. This ratio gets smaller and smaller based on how many polygons are linked together, so saying the Xenos can do 1.5 billion vertices is just plain wrong. Truthfully, it's hard to compare it to a 7800 due to shader pipeline differences, as well as different triangle measurements. (verts vs. polys, ugh) Thankfully, the SPUs on Cell can construct geometry and even shade it, so it's a nice feature that can support the GPU and allow to focus on other things. It all depends on what kind of game is being constructed, and it will be interesting to see there are any real-world benefits/detriments due to a Unified Shading architecture. It's new and unproven, but we have years to find out the results. P.S. No one outside of nVidia or Sony has any idea how the RSX works, or even what it's capable of, which is why i refrain from debating for or against that GPU.

Ok, no more specs, let's listen to the experts. :)

"If the game sucks. You can replicate reality graphics but if the gameplay is mediocre, the depth is lacking, and the story can be written by a 15 year old, why bother?" True. :D It's just irritating when I see gamers using specs they barely understand to argue that Console X is better than Console Y. And before anyone argues further, the 360 and PS3 specs have been known for over a year now, final hardware is available for both, so that's a year for articles and interviews about the power of both consoles to emerge. Therefore enough of the specs, provide comments from the experts (like I did above), i.e. go find a developer working on BOTH consoles or an article from a reputable technology based website that states that the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the 360, as claim by some here. I look forward to the results. ;)

Ok, let's move on... :)

"One polygon has 3 vertices, but an array of 9 polygons can be contructed with 18 vertices, a 2:1 ratio. This ratio gets smaller and smaller based on how many polygons are linked together, so saying the Xenos can do 1.5 billion vertices is just plain wrong. Truthfully, it's hard to compare it to a 7800 due to shader pipeline differences, as well as different triangle measurements. (verts vs. polys, ugh)" Exactly! I provided those figures because they show how easily the specs 'game' can go both ways when important details are ignored. That's why I found it annoying when you were comparing the GPUs in this way. There are too many differences and unknowns to make such comparisons. This includes TFLOPS, which are notorious for being exaggerated and distorted on GPUs (nVidia originally rated their GPU for the XBox as offering 140FLOPS!). Hence the best info we have are from experts in the field of GPU technology and from developers working on both consoles who can offer an unbiased assessment of the capabilities of the consoles. These are the people we should listen too, since they are the ones who through experience, really know what they're talking about. :)

Oops.

^^^ Correction... 140GFlops (BTW, this was before the clock speed was lowered...twice).

developers...

who work on both consoles can't say that one console is much bether(not even better) than the other. I hope you know why...

Hmmm.

"developers who work on both consoles can't say that one console is much bether(not even better) than the other. I hope you know why..." That's not what I'm saying. Developers working on more than one console will not come out and say one console is better than another. All consoles have their strength's and weaknesses, and that is what they can and do tell us. Just like last gen, and just like the developer in the link I provided earlier. So for example, when someone claims the PS3 is twice as powerful as the 360, you can see from the comments given by Magnus Högdahl above, that this clearly is not the case. Magnus isn't saying one console is better than another, he is simply stating some of the strengths of each machine.

ps3 ingame strenghts

proccessing n physics, thats the only advantage the ps3 has over the 360. graphic wise i think there the same with ps3 having more lights or more things on screens (ex. EA's medal of honor) just thinking realistically but if what sony is saying about the graphics is true then good i'll be a proud purchaser .

ps3 is awesome

I'm sure 360 cant handle this new engine.

ur stupid

well ur gay

are u sure

processor yes, but the 360 has a clear edge in physics because of very advance gpu graphics card which far more advance than the RSX.

nice info

this is what a game designer wrote about the gpu's Well it is true, that very little games will touch most of the performance out of this cards, since in PC gaming, they develop for the highest spec, medium, low, and everything else in between specs.Since they are spreading the love to all pc gamers, and not a certain few who have the highest end pc, since they have to accomadate for all different pc configurations, in order for the game to run smoothly.Since they have to develop for all pc user hardware configurations, the developers wont be able to fully utilize the hardware specific features of the said graphics card.Since, at best they use only 50% to 60% of the gpu's potential power, since there are just starting to understand the features, the ideology of those features, and how they intergrate on the hardware level.Yet, despite only using 50% to 60% of the potential power, the developers of the said game, manage to produce incredibly stunning and jaw dropping visuals.Now, when you take a custom designed ATI card, developed for a console, and then you take the design of that said chip to another level.By, developing an original and all new graphics system archiecture, that has never been seen or used before any console or pc before it.The archiecture is so *****ing bold, risky, and at the same time, immediately brilliant, that it features an 48 way unified shader archiecture in which when all 48 way pipes are maintained active, it can process an amazing 6 billion vertices per second.I think that translates into roughly 2.5 billion polygons rendered.I think im right about that figure, regardless, later on im going to do the calculations to make sure if im correct or wrong.This said chip also features an Mexeport, and thanks to it, this chip can slave any of the 3 cpu cores for graphics functions and tasks.The chip is so unique and powerful, that its not fully a DX10, and its a DX9 gpu either, seeing as it has featuresets that DX10 pc graphics cards have.The chip has 90% to 95% all of the DX110 features except for Geometry Shading.The chip can still do it, since the Mexeport, allows for the slaving of any of the 3 cpu cores, so it can hand off all of the load or whatever it needs be, to do geometry shading.This chip also has its own custom made API, and its totally different from the standard PC API'S as well.Now, people with a brain, will immediately know about which system im talking about.So, the chip sounds totally amazing, and for the uninformed, this chip is housed in the Xbox 360.It its called Xenos and it is made by ATI.The entire industry, knows and acknowledges, that the future of graphics processing, lies in the unified shader archiecture, and the 360 is the pioneeriing leader, of the said graphics revolution.It may be the clearcut leader in the coming years, but it will definitely by up there with the other pc gpu's, as the Xenos gpu was designed to be future proof, and hold its own.The unified shader archiecture, when programmed for correctly and willingly can have at least 90% efficiency resulting in a 33% increase in shader power, and can provide plenty of stunning results.Halo 3, is taking advantage of the unique archiecture and vast power of the Xenos chip, by developing an all new graphics engine, and all new global lighting system, that ligths up everything uniquely from the same source.Which is like in real life, as we get lit from one source, which is OBVIOUSLY the sun.Bungie also created an all new gpu-run particle system, that takes into account the different levels of the atmoshere.What was seen on the Halo 3 documentary was all done, on an early version of the 360 specific graphics engine that they made, and it looks absolutely incredible.Now lets shift focus to the PS3 gpu.The PS3 graphics chip is super weak by any means, as games developed from the ground up for the ps3 properly, will result in some pretty looking games as well.The problem stems, when you stuff a pc gpu in a console, with some slight modifications, and custom design it, just like u did with your cpu, the power, ef

continue

The problem stems, when you stuff a pc gpu in a console, with some slight modifications, and custom design it, just like u did with your cpu, the power, efficiency, will suffer in the long run.The ps3 has a total of 512 megs of system ram.The problem is since the Nvidia RSX(PS3 GPU) has only 256 megs VRAM, there is going to be graphical reductions, seeing as u cant run certain complex graphical algorithms, let alone shaders.It happens because of the bandwidth limitations between the gpu and cpu.So the ps3 has 256 megs of segregated ram, 256 for the cpu, and the other 256 to the gpu.The 360 on the other had, has 512 megs of unified ram, meaning that developers can use it any way they see fit, since it has a unified ram system archiecture.For example, Lets say Bungie wants to use 356 megs of ram for the graphics card, and the rest for the cpu.So it can have impeccable graphics while all at the same time, having crazy detailed A.I. and natural fluid animations.I know people are going to ask me why would any developer want to dedicate 356 megs of ram.Well for starters, its their choice, secondly., MS created new memory compression techniques, and they also implementing Procedural synthesis as well.The usage of the 360's ram is soley dependant on the developer, and their vision for the game.The Cell processor is a good archiecture, but its going to be crippled by the off the shelf gpu that the ps3 has housed inside.PS3 will have beautiful games like MGS4, Heavenly Sword, Naughty Dog's new project, Assasins Creed, etc, but in the long run, because of the crippled system memory archiecture and gpu, the ps3 will get outpaced by the 360.Before any idiotic ps3 only sheep even dare to flame me, im getting a ps3 at launch, because i care about the games, and thats why im getting a ps3.But unlike 95% of all ps3 only fans, I do what im talking about, and i can obviously back my words and im speaking fairly.I do favor the 360 more, just because MS didnt show CG movies like Killzone and pass it off as fact, and they also didnt start talking stupid and unnecessary ***** about the competition either.I understand that Sony wants the ps3 to do good, and it makes complete sense, but to utterly dismiss your competition, will get their asses dethroned from the top console marketshare spot.Everything is pointing out to a likely 2nd place, or even 3rd place finish in the console war, since they made some bad hardware decisions, and they also priced it way too high, for the average family to buy as well.Consider the premium 360 is a full $200 bucks cheaper with plenty of games, and Since Sony priced the ps3 so high, dont expect a price drop for the ps3, anytime soon.Whereas, around the Fall of 2007, the 360 will have at least a $50 dollar price drop, and games like Halo 3, and GTA4 in their corner.So its easy to understand why Sony would badmouth their competition and thats because THEY ARE AFRAID OF REAL COMPETITION.Xbox Live has inspired Sonys online network, and im glad PS3 only users, and multi-console owners, wil get to have good online play.Regardless, whatever their online network ends up being, it still wont hold a candle to Xbox Live.This is going to be an interesting console war, as soon as the other two competitors make their debut this fall.Expect all 3, to go all out with some wonderful marketing and some questionable marketing as well.In conclusion, I know its a long read, but if u a are smart and open-minded gamer and have the patience, then by all means, read my post, and hopefully you will understand and enjoy it.

PS3

Cool, this and project offset engine could get in the PS3 sdk kit stll. Maybe ff white engine can too, lol. But hey... this is no surpise to me since next gen is all about little things to big things and alot of things ppl dont think about. But I beileve mroe then just this engine is doing this kind of thing. I would think so... or there going by the old way with just the one light thing or this kind of thing not in realtime. But I stll dont think this is theo nly one doing this kind of thing in real time altho it stll could be, lol. Well this just adds on to next gen games and will help them look even more so how there suppose to for a next gen game, lol.

man to read all this page you need some time...

I think the ps3 is more powerfull, and I trust DJ because he seems to know a lot in the domain, but anyway this is true: "If the game sucks. You can replicate reality graphics but if the gameplay is mediocre, the depth is lacking, and the story can be written by a 15 year old, why bother?" so I suppose x360 have this: halo3+gears of war+blue dragon+lost odyssey+ninety nine nights and the ps3 have this: final fantasy 13+ final fantasy versus 13+alone in the dark+assasin's creed+bladestorm+coded arms-assault+devil may cry 4+endless saga+eyedentify+genji2+grand turismo 5+heavently sword+heavy rain+killing day+lair+makai wars+mgs4+hot shot golf 5+ridge racer 7+silent hill5+the next tekken+unreal tournament 2k7+warhawk I think for me the ps3 wins ( ps: I only mentionned the ps3 exclusive titles, that's why you cannot see GTA4 nor resident evil 5 nor stranglehold nor brother in arms 3 nor rainbow six vegas etc etc etc ) 499$ PS3 core: no wifi network, no media card reader, no HDMI, HD of 20g, blue-ray player 499$ X360 premium: no wifi network, no media card reader, no HDMI, HD of 20g, no hd/bd player So ps3 is cheaper? :|

whatever

gets ur facts striaght homie 399 for the 360, 360 will prove the ps3 with better games u jus watch

...

h-town's post sums is up. Although the PS3 has more brute power (really only in the CPU dept) the 360 is a more elegantly designed and efficient machine, made to play video games....the Cell was not made to play video games, it was made to run weather system simulations, and de-code satalite information and the such, Sony just decided since they were developing this new chip, they might as well throw it in their next console...but ya, I don't care cuz i'll end up owning both, just saying...

DJ, you're my hero.

I gotta admit, man, what you wrote has been one of the best discussions on the PS3 I've ever had the pleasure of reading. (Standing ovation) Keep up the good work and post more often!

most of those better games

are going to the pc too, so.... go figure.

@ #40

xbox 360 premium isnt $499. so no, ps3 is not cheaper. idiot.

Hey dj...

Are you someone from ps3forums? Lol you know alot and I was just thinking you might be, lol. Also I beileve the RSX is better then any gpu/video card out there or i nthe works at the time being, lol. I think the final RSX specs are gonna be higher and be a big surpise to alot of ppl. Just from the specs we got right now from it make it insane. And I beileve RSX will have spes or smes. That will work and read/write to the Cell spes. I think it will be spes becasue RSX in next gen and was made at a Sony place and since Sony and Nvidia both working on it I bet it does have spes. I would say 7 of them since one spe in Cell is for reduceing (or how it spelled lol) and for power. Also so PS3 can do more polygons then xbox360 you said? I mean duh I would say and I'm waiting on final RSX specs but yeah, lol. Besides I dont care when a new gpu/video card comes out that beats RSX becasue PS3 have hdmi 1.3, blu-ray, 120 bit color, Cell, 120fps, 1080p, and everything else, lol. And Cell is better at doing some stuff a gpu/video card can do and graphics, ai, physics (I spelled that wrong I think sorry lol), and better at ray tracking/ray casting then any gpu/video card. And mosh likely better at doing hdr and many of other things then a gpu/video card can do, lol. And Cell so much more powerful and have all this next gen tech inside of it, lol. To name one it would be rambus xdr running at 3.2 ghz 256mb, lol. That also the RSX can have to make it 512mb, lol and Cell can even use the gddr3 256mb inside RSX but dont know if anyone will do that or not, lol. So RSX+Cell+bluray+120fps+hdmi 1.3+120 bit color+ everything next gen, better in the PS3 beats the crap out of computers and xbox360 by far, lol. I mean pcs only have dvi and stuff when PS3 and hdtvs will have hdmi 1.3. Also PS3 will have better graphics for a long time or even till PS3 if ya ask me, lol. Becasue even when pcs get better video cards then RSX I wont care becasue no pc will have Cell besides super computers and use for the army/health and other stuff like that and not be made like the Cell inside the PS3 becasue it wont be made for gameing. The one inside PS3 is made for gameing and lots of other stuff, lol. Spes owns, lol. It makes in-oder ppe a a+ since the spes have no cehce (sorry for my spelling lol). And no pc game will be made and use Cell in a pc and no video card will work with Cell in a pc like Cell works with RSX. And no video card/cpu in a pc will work like Cell+RSX. So really PS3 will have the best looking games becasue of alot of stuff inside the PS3 + new game engines comeing out all the time + they will get to know Cell mroe and ifnd out what is best for whatever and make better games + get to know RSX more and so the true power of PS3 by RSX and Cell and bluray and hdmi 1.3 and everything else, lol. Main point is PS3 will haveb etter looking games do to Cell but also RSX + blu ray + 120 bit color + hdmi 1.3 + and everything else, lol. And the game will look better and better all the time becasue getting to know everything in the PS3 and becasue of makeing better new game engines, lol.

in some time...

right now the xbox 360 have an advance for the games, because it went out 1 full year before. But xbox only lasted 4 years, so in 3 years from now we'll have to buy an xbox720? To me, the ps3 seems cheaper like that. PS2 lasted 7 years if you count this one, and in 2k7 it have more new titles annonced ( like god of war 2 and dawn of mana ( not low profile games at all ), so I suppose the ps4 is in at least another 7 years! this mean the xbox will have the x720 AND an x1024 already sold! you say no? so this mean the xbox will last 7 years or more? if you can understand that PS3's second gen games will look better than x360 games because x360 will top in like 1-2 years, than you could say that in 7 years the ps3 games will be 2 times better looking than x360 games! So I suppose the PS3 is more powerfull in all areas is you take more than only the 1st gen games!

PS3

Even the fight night round 3 e3 2005 realtime demo is better looking then the fight night round 3 out on xbox360 that looks like clay fighters, lol. Really... PS3 games already have realtime videos/real gameplay footage and the ones playable at e3 2006 look way way way better then anything I see on pc or xbox360, lol. And these are 1th gen next gen PS3 games... It only gonna get better and better and see stuff way and far better then any PS3 game your seeing right now in 2th and basicy months and all the time see better looking games for PS3 then the games your seeing right now then there iwll be farer games looking betetr then those PS3 games and it will just keep going for the hwole PS3 life, lol.

Gee, who needs facts when faith will do?

"Even the fight night round 3 e3 2005 realtime demo is better looking then the fight night round 3 out on xbox360 that looks like clay fighters, lol." Actually no. That FN3 demo shown last year's E3 was just that, a realtime DEMO. All the action was scripted, it wasn't being played, hence you can stop the demo, rewind, go forward, change the camera angle etc, but you NEVER controlled the boxers. It's main purpose was to show off the realtime facial deformation technology. Also, it was set in an arena with 'natural light' in the background and no crowd. The same or similar arena on the 360 looks equally impressive, more impressive than those with spot lights overhead. It's interesting reading comments from those who want to believe RSX is more powerful than Xenos, even when NO developer anywhere has ever stated this (and yes, they DO have final PS3 devkits now). I've even shown already that devs consider the GPUs to be either equal or with Xenos having a slight edge. Still, what does a developer working on both consoles know, when the REAL experts are on games forums like this, right? *roll eyes*. It seems to me that some gamers here prefer to rely on nothing more than faith, instead of facts. So preach on brother DJ, I believe you have a full congregation of fanboys. ;)

Link please h-town.

Thanks for that info h-town. However, on it's own it's rather biased towards the 360, therefore could you provide a link so that we may see it in it's full context. It appears to be a forum post, hence it would be interesting to read the replies and responces in received. Besides, I like to get things in perspective. Thanks in advance. :)

RSX

DJ wrote "P.S. No one outside of nVidia or Sony has any idea how the RSX works, or even what it's capable of, which is why i refrain from debating for or against that GPU." I forgot to pick up on this point earlier. Final devkits are out now. During Sony's press conference at E3, Kaz Harai said final devkits are shipping, 6 months before launch, and many PS3 games on the show floor are running on those final tools! Therefore the reasoning that RSX cannot be discussed because only NVida and Sony knows about it doesn't hold up anymore. PS3 developers have RSX in their hands running on final devkits today! We saw some of the results at E3 this year, and therefore comments coming from developers working on those devkits gives us a good idea of it's power. These are the people we should listen to. That's why I say it's pointless people coming here comparing specs they do not FULLY understand, since it doesn't get anywhere. Some gamers seem to enjoy coming to their OWN conclusions based upon limited knowledge and yet are happy to ignore comments from experts and game developers when it doesn't conform to their beliefs. As I said, it seems to be all about faith, not facts.

Yaz talks alot of *****

nocomment

Yaz talks alot of *****

Total hypocrisy. You're all over DJ for talking specs when all you're doing is regurgitating the same kind of info with different numbers plugged into the ad-lib slots. I'm sure you have a reasonable understanding of computer architecture, but you can't defeat fact with rhetoric. DJ is drawing reasonable conclusions from current benchmarks in hardware theory. I'm a third year computer science major, and while I'll admit my training is not geared toward the hardware end of the spectrum, from what I currently understand, DJ is making alot of sense. Also, using quotes from authorities on the matter makes for a fallacious argument. They could be wrong. They could also be paid. "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981. Hell, DJ could be paid for all I know, but he's still right. The 360 is like a straight C student. Nice and safe. It's very American in that regard. Don't get me wrong though, slow and steady wins the race and all, but there's just no ignoring that the PS3 (even operating at only half its theoretical cpacity) still dwarfs the 360's performance by current PC standards ((2.18/2)-1=.09 TFLOPS [still a bajesus load]). Keep in mind that both the Cell and RSX are extremely new, and likely won't have found their groove for at least 2 years. The 360 on the other hand is using technology that my five year old computer does, so developers already know roughly what its capabilities will be. Anyway, I've said my piece. Rock on DJ. Love you Yaz. ;)

Adversary... what can I say...

"DJ is drawing reasonable conclusions from current benchmarks in hardware theory. I'm a third year computer science major, and while I'll admit my training is not geared toward the hardware end of the spectrum, from what I currently understand, DJ is making alot of sense." LOL! Give me a break. You can ONLY draw reasonable conclusions from benchmarks when you have a FULL understanding of the architecture and an understanding of what the benchmarks mean within the context of that architecture. The '2TFLOPs vs 1TFLOP' console claim is a perfect example. According to these figures, RSX offers 1.8 TFLOPS and Xenos approximately 0.9TFLOPS. Therefore your 'reasonable conclusion' here is that RSX is twice as powerful as Xenos (as DJ suggested above)! And yet this is completely false. It completely ignores the architectural differences between the two GPUs, such as the unified shaders and embedded EDRAM. Hence you will not find a single developer today who says RSX is twice as powerful as Xenos, but you WILL find those who say the GPUs are either equal or Xenos has the edge (as I showed above). Also, GPU FLOP calculations are not like that of CPUs. CPUs quote the peak performance theoretically possible from the CPU, whereas GPUs tend to quote the TOTAL performance of ALL the units in the GPU combined in parallel, even though only a subset of those units will be running in parallel at any given time! Hence you may approach the FLOP performance of a CPU (i.e. ~200GFLOPs for Cell), but you will never get close to the FLOP performance quoted for a GPU. So much for 'reasonable conclusion'. And let's take the post that stated this thread from DJ. He refers to the SPUs in Cell being able to handle this engine, when in fact the engine is currently running on a PC with a GF7900GTX, it has nothing to do with the PS3 or Cell. It's GPU based! As a result, both the 360 and PS3 will be more than capable because of their GPUs, not their CPUs. For example, Halo 3 also has realtime Global Illumination, so in fact, the Fantasy Engine is not the first. So expect to see the same in PS3 games in future. Then there's DJ's claims that Xenos is weaker than the 7800GTX GPU based upon 500 million vs 1 billion, when in fact it was a comparison of polygons vs vertices, and even then, there are questions marks over these measurements. So again, not a valid comparison (which I believe DJ also conceeds was not a valid comparison afterall). I could go on, but I hope the point has been made. You can't just take figures and arrive at conclusions without understanding exactly what the figures represent and the architecture behind those figures. Only with such knowledge can you put such figures into context and arrive at 'reasonable conclusions'. Without such knowledge, you should seek out the opinions from experts in the field, since they know what they're talking about. You're a third year computer science major, great, I wish you all the best (I know, I've been there :)), but I've been in the computer industry for almost 20 years, and so if you can seperate yourself from the '360 vs PS3' aspect of this thread and instead consider the comments I've made in this post regarding benchmarks, then hopefully you'll realise there's far more to it than just numbers.

:O

wow. yaz i was ready to argue with you at first but now i've read your last post i understnd what you mean now. great post (but i still think you talk to much :D).

Final message to Adversary...

Thanks 'kill bill g'.... I think. ;) Hopefully, Adversary understood it too. :| I'll end by repeating the quote from developer Magnus Högdahl; "The PS3 will have a content size advantage with Blu-ray and a CPU advantage for titles that are able to utilize a lot of the SPUs. The Xbox 360 has a slight GPU advantage and its general purpose triple-core CPU is relatively easy to utilize compared to SPUs. I expect that it will be near impossible to tell Xbox 360 and PS3 screenshots apart." According to the interpretation of the specs in this thread Adversary, Magnus must be wrong because 1.8 TFLOPS is greater than 0.9 TFLOP, therefore RSX must be way more powerful than Xenos. Well, not true according to Magnus (and others). Unlike ANYONE here, Magnus is actually working on BOTH consoles, he is a games developer. Therefore you have to conclude that Magnus is right and knows what he's talking about. So if he is right, then your interpretation of the specs must be wrong. As a third year computer science major, you should be willing to use this info as a learning opportunity by asking questions and trying to find out why it is wrong, you should not stubbornly stick to your views because of so-called 'reasonable conclusions'. Question the data, seek the truth, and you'll go MUCH further in your career. In computing, not everything is quite what it seems. :)

enjoyment

I gotta say.. this is pretty looking and all, but I wonder how my games will be affected. Will it suck me in more? Or will I suffer from the uncanny valley? Will it climb out the valley? Will I care that a game i'm playing is using this? Probably not. I'm your average consumer, and I want value for my money. That value is not in the eye-candy - I watch tv and movies for that. The value for money frmo video games has to come from the enjoyment of playing, and frankly.. I don't notice graphics when I really get into a game. Sure, at first it's nice and pretty, but when i'm going gung-ho, getting headshots, ducking behind barrels, teabagging, it's not the graphics i'm enjoying. It's what i'm doing that's enjoyable, and that's how I want my games to be, always.

HDRI

But there's a difference between the quality of the global illumination considering Halo3 and FF13. The 360's colour space is 10F (80bit) while the PS3's colour space is 16F (128bit) for HDR which obviously means that FF13 will have better quality global illumination. No pun intended.

correction

Obviously I meant 10 FP and 16FP HDR as in Floating Point, dunno why my 'p' key wasn't registered.