PS3 graphics, and PC graphics

[DEATHMASTER]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6125429/index.html

On the second page of this article, it says "...GeForce 7900 GTX refresh part, but the PlayStation 3 still has an advantage in that the entire system is built specifically for gaming instead of general processing" under "Synthesizing Reality", last paragraph. Anyone else think of that as a rather stupid statement seeing how a gaming pc does a lot more than just gaming usually, I mean I have xfire running, maybe downloading some stuff while playing. I just dont think it's fair to compare a super dedicated graphics gpu in the PS3 to a PCs GPU card since things run differently. If the 7900GTX didnt run "general processing" , wouldn't it be better than the PS3's GPU; or rather, it already is and the article says it in a way to undermine the 7900's actual raw power potential, not that it would really be 100% free from "general processing" since the computer needs to be running something else in the background...

 

[VirusType2]

Anyone else think of that as a rather stupid statement seeing how a gaming pc does a lot more than just gaming

No, because they are comparing what is better for games, not other things.


For the rest of your question, the answer is no. They are talking about the way with a PC information has to travel much further to communicate, and the separate components of your PC aren't designed to work together in harmony like a game console is.

The PC will always need a slightly more powerful system to run equivalent graphics. You know this.

I am interested in how things pan out with the PPU physics cards, and I hope this turns out well. If it does, expect for the PC to kick some serious console ass in the next few years - and it will, because Microsoft will never let PC gaming die without spending whatever it takes. So, PC gaming will of course catch up and surpass console graphics, as it always has. DX10 and Vista is the answer for the PC. A console is billion dollar investment for a company, and they create hardware that is ahead of its time, so it will last longer, but it is static. (It is stuck at this performance level.) The PC will become more powerful than the 360 and PS3 once DX10 comes into play a few months after the PS3 is released.

 

[operative x]

Who knows with vista too right? It may enhance GPU/CPU communication.

 

[Kyorisu]

Does anyone really care? They are certain things available only to PC and those only available to console.

 

[Bakurei]

Also when comparing consoles and pc's you need to remember that in consoles you'll always have the exactly same hardware, you don't have to worry about older hardware, gpu's etc. Not putting my head for this but sounds logical to me that this enables more optimizations and getting more out of the hardware.

And for the multifunctionality of pc you need to remember that PS3 will support Linux.

Ou and for the record I preffer pc's over consoles

 

[Dalamari]

They really didn't show any comparison shots, even though I suppose neither the PC or PS3 share titles, but it seemed like an article that basically said "OMG LOOK THE PS3 OWNS!" and then it listed some specs and showed a few screenshots

 

[VirusType2]

They really didn't show any comparison shots, even though I suppose neither the PC or PS3 share titles, but it seemed like an article that basically said "OMG LOOK THE PS3 OWNS!" and then it listed some specs and showed a few screenshots

They said when the PS3 was first announced in 2005, it was twice as powerful as the most powerful GPU, the 6800 Ultra. They say now that is only marginally more powerful than one 7900 GTX (the current top-dog from Nvidia). By the time DX10 hits in January, just after the launch of the PS3, the PS3 will already be outdone by more powerful PC hardware.

 

[Llama]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6125429/index.html

On the second page of this article, it says "...GeForce 7900 GTX refresh part, but the PlayStation 3 still has an advantage in that the entire system is built specifically for gaming instead of general processing" under "Synthesizing Reality", last paragraph. Anyone else think of that as a rather stupid statement seeing how a gaming pc does a lot more than just gaming usually, I mean I have xfire running, maybe downloading some stuff while playing. I just dont think it's fair to compare a super dedicated graphics gpu in the PS3 to a PCs GPU card since things run differently. If the 7900GTX didnt run "general processing" , wouldn't it be better than the PS3's GPU; or rather, it already is and the article says it in a way to undermine the 7900's actual raw power potential, not that it would really be 100% free from "general processing" since the computer needs to be running something else in the background...

Well within a few months of the PS3's release computers will have become more powerful again anyway, so the entire article means nothing.

 

[clarky003]

They said when the PS3 was first announced in 2005, it was twice as powerful as the most powerful GPU, the 6800 Ultra. They say now that is only marginally more powerful than one 7900 GTX (the current top dog from Nvidia). By the time DX10 hits in January, just after the launch of the PS3, the PS3 will already be outdone by more powerful PC hardware.

... and so it has always been, all tech comes and goes, the best thing of course is hardcore PC gamers don't have to wait 2 or more years before the next upgrade .

 

[Llama]

indeed. If what Virus said is true then the 8800 should beat the PS3. What to mention The fact Athlong pumps out new Processors at a fairly good rate

 

[Warbie]

By the time DX10 hits in January, just after the launch of the PS3, the PS3 will already be outdone by more powerful PC hardware.

It doesn't quite work like that, though. Consoles get FAR more out of their hardware than the pc does (hell, most of the pc hardware I buy feels dated the day it arrives) - comparing components spec for spec doesn't make alot of sense when we're dealing with a dedicated gaming machine.

 

[Garfield_]

Also when comparing consoles and pc's you need to remember that in consoles you'll always have the exactly same hardware, you don't have to worry about older hardware, gpu's etc.

That's the main advantage that consoles have to PC I'd say.

 

[VictimOfScience]

By the time DX10 hits in January, just after the launch of the PS3, the PS3 will already be outdone by more powerful PC hardware.

And so it goes...

This is just the nature of things. Consoles come out and are jaw-dropping in terms of tech, but a few months later, the PC tech once again overtakes it and since, like someone just said, console hardware doesn't change, its left behind for the next 4-5 years or so of its lifecycle.

Blu-Ray certainly goes further than any of its other kit in terms of future-proofing it a bit. MS knows this too with their introduction of their own HD-DVD peripheral. Everyone complains that the PS3 price is too high (myself included), but once you take into account the HD-DVD add-on for the 360, it'll likely cost the same amount (or more depending on your setup).

I personally don't see the point to any of the next-gen media formats yet. They were putting out games with 5 CDs before DVD-ROMs became more mainstream for games. It looks like we won't see a time when 5 DVD games are created. Devs will just throw it onto a next-gen media disc...but which one??

 

[clarky003]

Compared to the new hardware available for PC soon, the dx10 standard is a milestone above the consoles, and managing games like Crysis and games of similar quality on vastely improved PC's which is the largest leap in game visual quality in a while, will get about the same amount of usage as any next gen console would before they introduce anything new.

So I would disagree that you can't get as much out of PC hardware as you can with consoles, You can get far more, just because PC's dont have massive amounts of games dedicated to the platform like consoles doesn't mean the hardware is under used especially in PC gaming dedicated setups. It's when you use it and what you get out of it that counts, not just how much your able to use it.

 

[Gray Fox]

Warbie is right, you will need atleast a pc 2 tiumes more powerfull in raw specs to defeat a console. Now the ps3 is stronger then then 360 which has 3 3ghz cores, which equels a console of 6ghz with one core. Now that would mean you need a pc with 12 ghz to defeat that in raw power, but that sounds really unrealistic but still, PC may get better effect within a year, but the raw power won't be matched in atleast 3 years.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Compared to the new hardware available for PC soon, the dx10 standard is a milestone above the consoles, and managing games like Crysis and games of similar quality on vastely improved PC's which is the largest leap in game visual quality in a while, will get about the same amount of usage as any next gen console would before they introduce anything new.

I just hope that this means that once I get a DX10 GPU that it might be good for over a year before an upgrade is necessitated by these damn talented developers that are out there!

 

[Llama]

Warbie is right, you will need atleast a pc 2 tiumes more powerfull in raw specs to defeat a console. Now the ps3 is stronger then then 360 which has 3 3ghz cores, which equels a console of 6ghz with one core. Now that would mean you need a pc with 12 ghz to defeat that in raw power, but that sounds really unrealistic but still, PC may get better effect within a year, but the raw power won't be matched in atleast 3 years.

For a start, three cores does not mean triple the speed. Same as SLI gfx technology - 2 cards does not mean a 2x performance increase
Besides, you wouldnt need a 12 Ghz processor. Look at Athlons 64 bit ahrdware. A FX series chip with the speed of a 12 ghz chip doesnt sounds that unreasonable in the near future.
Graphics cards will have surpassed the PS3 by miles by the time its released.
Oh, and, Cell is going to be used IN COMPUTERS FIRST. Yep, thats right.

 

[Cole]

Uhh Grey Fox..there are Quad CPU's out now and Dual SLI. But what really counts is the cpu architecture.
If a Conroe or Amd 64 processor can beat an Intel P4 overlocked beyond 4ghz... and the Conroe or Amd 64 processor is about ~2.6ghz.....

Well you see the point?

DX10 should bring back the PC. Eliminating CPU bottlenecks will be a major upgade itself. Then applying everything else....one can only begin to imagine..

 

[Gray Fox]

For a start, three cores does not mean triple the speed. Same as SLI gfx technology - 2 cards does not mean a 2x performance increase
Besides, you wouldnt need a 12 Ghz processor. Look at Athlons 64 bit ahrdware. A FX series chip with the speed of a 12 ghz chip doesnt sounds that unreasonable in the near future.
Graphics cards will have surpassed the PS3 by miles by the time its released.
Oh, and, Cell is going to be used IN COMPUTERS FIRST. Yep, thats right.

1.) The sli gives about 1.5x the performance, and did I not say that the 3 3ghz cores equel about one 6 ghz core. Basicly you are correcting me while I said the same thing you are saying.

2.) Did i not say that when it comes to effects pc graphics card will surpass the ps3 quicly, so again I said the same thing you're saying.

Whne it comes to 12 ghz not sounding unreasonable in the near future, I can't comment on that. It sounded unreasonable to me, since computer cpu gainage has slowed down a lot, it's not 2x stronger every year, but I will take your word for it. And when it comes to cell beeing used on the PC I did not think that would be for atleast 5 years, I thought it would only be used in computers in companies and servers, and would be much later used in PC for compatibility issues.

Uhh Grey Fox..there are Quad CPU's out now and Dual SLI. But what really counts is the cpu architecture.
If a Conroe or Amd 64 processor can beat an Intel P4 overlocked beyond 4ghz... and the Conroe or Amd 64 processor is about ~2.6ghz.....

Well you see the point?

DX10 should bring back the PC. Eliminating CPU bottlenecks will be a major upgade itself. Then applying everything else....one can only begin to imagine..

that was alss my point, that the architecture counts, and consoles alowasy have much better and more effecient architecture then pc for gaming. Apart from that in the past it has always been so, that you need to have atleast a pc 2 times stronger then a console to be able to to have the same graphics level.

 

[Warbie]

As always, the games will do the talking. I'd take a rough diamond over a polished turd any day.

 

[Insano]

Whne it comes to 12 ghz not sounding unreasonable in the near future, I can't comment on that. It sounded unreasonable to me, since computer cpu gainage has slowed down a lot, it's not 2x stronger every year, but I will take your word for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

 

[DrDevin]

Warbie is right, you will need atleast a pc 2 tiumes more powerfull in raw specs to defeat a console. Now the ps3 is stronger then then 360 which has 3 3ghz cores, which equels a console of 6ghz with one core. Now that would mean you need a pc with 12 ghz to defeat that in raw power, but that sounds really unrealistic but still, PC may get better effect within a year, but the raw power won't be matched in atleast 3 years.

The problem is that today, all games are single threaded (or they use only a few), meaning that in the case of the Xbox 360, only one out of its three cores would be utilized when running present day game engines. The PlayStation 3 would fair no better, as the Cell CPU has a very similar general purpose execution core to one of the Xbox 360 cores. The reason this is a problem is because these general purpose cores that make up the Xbox 360’s Xenon CPU or the single general purpose PPE in Cell are extremely weak cores, far slower than a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64, even running at much lower clock speeds.

Even Microsoft has been quoted saying

The majority of developers are doing things no differently than they have been on the PC. A single thread is used for all game code, physics and AI and in some cases, developers have split out physics into a separate thread, but for the most part you can expect all first generation and even some second generation titles to debut as basically single threaded games. The move to two hardware execution threads may in fact only be an attempt to bring performance up to par with what can be done on mid-range or high-end PCs today, since a single thread running on Xenon isn’t going to be very competitive performance wise, especially executing code that is particularly well suited to OoO desktop processors.

All audio chores and real time content decompression (for the 360) must be done by the CPU, so elliminate 1 spe or part of 1 360 CPU.

You can't compare the design of the cell and 360 to a desktop processor in pure Ghz speed. With the cell being a cacheless in order processor and the 360 being a stripped down version of a desktop processor they require completely different styles of coding compared to your average desktop CPU. If you were to compare an A64 to the cells ppe or the 360 cores you would find the Athlon to be much faster (not to mention a dual core version).

 

[Kyorisu]

Stop comparing PC's to Consoles. They both serve different purposes.

 

[Llama]

There were 6ghz pentiums last year. I dont think its that unreasonable to ecept an athlon running like a 12ghz by next year

 

[smwScott]

The thing that bugs me is PC only people always say that PC hardware surpasses consoles within a few months of their release. This is true, but it's also irrelevant. It takes quite a long time before developers release games that actually use that hardware, not to mention the insane prices that hardware costs when it's first released. By the time developers get around to using the latest graphics card, console developers have already figured out how to get similar effects out of the older hardware with much more optimized code.

Look at PS2 now ... it's still getting releases that would be considered impressive by PC standards. Granted there's nothing on the level of Half-Life 2 or FEAR, but damn good nonetheless. My point is this: in 2000 spending $300 on a PS2 was a much better decision than spending $300 on a graphics card (Geforce 2 or 3 maybe?) that today would be completely worthless.

 

[Warbie]

The thing that bugs me is PC only people always say that PC hardware surpasses consoles within a few months of their release. This is true, but it's also irrelevant. It takes quite a long time before developers release games that actually use that hardware, not to mention the insane prices that hardware costs when it's first released. By the time developers get around to using the latest graphics card, console developers have already figured out how to get similar effects out of the older hardware with much more optimized code.

Look at PS2 now ... it's still getting releases that would be considered impressive by PC standards. Granted there's nothing on the level of Half-Life 2 or FEAR, but damn good nonetheless. My point is this: in 2000 spending $300 on a PS2 was a much better decision than spending $300 on a graphics card (Geforce 2 or 3 maybe?) that today would be completely worthless.

Well said.

 

[Gray Fox]

You can't compare the design of the cell and 360 to a desktop processor in pure Ghz speed. With the cell being a cacheless in order processor and the 360 being a stripped down version of a desktop processor they require completely different styles of coding compared to your average desktop CPU. If you were to compare an A64 to the cells ppe or the 360 cores you would find the Athlon to be much faster (not to mention a dual core version).

yes you can compare them, just like you can compare an athalon 64 fx to a pentium. You simply look at what they can deliver, and if a athalon 64 2 ghz can deliver as much as a pentium 4 4ghz in a certain aplication, then you say it's as strong as a 4ghz pentium. In the past it so that you needed a 2x stronger pc atleast to match a consoles strength in game, I went by that information.

 

[Gray Fox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

Formulations of Moore's law

The most popular formulation is of the doubling of the number of transistors on integrated circuits (a rough measure of computer processing power) every 18 months. At the end of the 1970s, Moore's Law became known as the limit for the number of transistors on the most complex chips. However, it is also common to cite Moore's law to refer to the rapidly continuing advance in computing power per unit cost.

A similar law has held for hard disk storage cost per unit of information. The rate of progression in disk storage over the past decades has actually sped up more than once, corresponding to the utilization of error correcting codes, the magnetoresistive effect and the giant magnetoresistive effect. The current rate of increase in hard drive capacity is roughly similar to the rate of increase in transistor count and has been dubbed Kryder's law. However, recent trends show that this rate is dropping, and has not been met for the last three years.

Another version states that RAM storage capacity increases at the same rate as processing power. However, memory speeds have not increased as fast as CPU speeds in recent years, leading to a heavy reliance on caching in current computer systems.

Your link just confirms what I said.

 

[Insano]

Your link just confirms what I said.

Not really.

There has been a 6 ghz last year so that means that if Moore's law is right concerning CPU's, there is going to be a 12 ghz next year.

However, memory speeds have not increased as fast as CPU speeds in recent years,

The only sector where Moore's law hasn't applied anymore for the last 3 years is the RAM sector, there is not a line saying that the CPU development has slowed down.

 

[Gray Fox]

I'm sorry then, then i misread that.

But as far as the 6ghz go's. can you give me a link for proof. And I understand that it can actually be a 2 ghz, that is as strong as a 6ghz pentium. Cause pentium is what manufacturors use as standard as far i know for the consumer pc market, or thats atleast what AMD does. Because I have yet to see a 6ghz sold comercially, as far as I know. More's law only applies pure technically, not when it comes to the consumer market. I haven't even yet seen a pc with a 5ghz been sold, and my 2.4 ghz is was cutting edge 4 years ago for a consumner market pc.

 

[Insano]

But as far as the 6ghz go's. can you give me a link for proof.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1886023&postcount=24

As long as he's not lying

 

[Llama]

I'm sorry then, then i misread that.

But as far as the 6ghz go's. can you give me a link for proof. And I understand that it can actually be a 2 ghz, that is as strong as a 6ghz pentium. Cause pentium is what manufacturors use as standard as far i know for the consumer pc market, or thats atleast what AMD does. Because I have yet to see a 6ghz sold comercially, as far as I know. More's law only applies pure technically, not when it comes to the consumer market. I haven't even yet seen a pc with a 5ghz been sold, and my 2.4 ghz is was cutting edge 4 years ago for a consumner market pc.

It was in Pc Gamer UK, Issue 143/

www.akida-pc.com

Edit: Bugger, link not working.

 

[Cole]

You can compare Ps3 and Pc and Xbox 360...but there is a signifcant problem when you compare them.

Why does it matter? Lets say your comparing the 360 and Ps3. They have completely different ways of doing things. Yes you can compare them. But it is no easy task. It all matters how well you've coded on each of them. I mean you could make a game on the 360 run like crap on the Ps3 and vice versa.

It all matters how optimized, how you designed the engine from the ground up, and etc... Cell's main limitation is the cache for each ppe therefor it streams information. So yes you could take an application and test it on each. Yet if that application is designed to use 3 cores it will be faster on the 360. Yet redesign the application from the ground up, to use lets say 2 ppe's to do calculations while the main processor is working on something else to have the data the main processor needs ready before it's finished with it's current task. Well then that program will dominate on the Ps3.

But heres another problem. You cannot just task a program from the 360 and run on the Ps3. The program has to almost be completely recoded. In terms of rendering(DX and OpenGL), networking, taking advantage of PPE's and Extra Cores, Graphic Card Functions(Nvidia and ATI), Declarations & Functions so the compiler can read it, diffrent libraries, etc...

You cannot just port an application from the 360 and Ps3, they have way to different designs. When you code something in C++ on a PC both Intel and AMD processors can read it. Yes they are different designs on processing but they both understand and have the same fundamentals. Cell takes a completely different approach on processing uses different fundamentals it cannot understand the same logic.

 

[Gray Fox]

I know all that mineral, but when making these comparisons ones assumes that the program which is beeing run is optimized for each console. you could make a program that counts how much poly's each console generates, and the porgram is written in the language of the console and is optimized for that console. That could be a fair comparison, now that doesn't take in to account how a console or computer can do other things like physics or AI. And it's never going to be that precise.you won't be able to say that computer is 2.456 times better or worse. But roughly you can find out which is stronger.

For example you can optimize a 600 hz pc with the best graphics card at the time that cpu came out, and you will never be able to get the kind of graphics a ps2 can can do which runs on a 300hz core. Now they may have different hardware and totally different software. But you can still make a comparison.
A supercomputer works a lot dofferent then a household pc, but you can still give a rough estimate how much times that supercomputer better is then a household pc, and it may work on a totally different logic and fundamentals, but you can still compare them.

 

[Cole]

Yes but still the comparisions are not that accurate. The Ps3 is twice as fast as the 360. Why? Because in my comparison the Ps3 can do double the float point operations than the 360 every second. The Ps3 is not twice as fast as the 360.

Because yeah you could optimize the program for each console. But there are levels of optimizations. Proof? First Ps2 games vs Newer Ps2 games. There have been A LOT of new optimizations and techniques.

So you could heavily optimize something for the 360 and redo it completely but not really take advantage of the Ps3...what ones gonna be faster?

Not only that but lets say you do a performance test using physics. The Ps3 will just dominate due to each PPE is actually heavily optimized to do float point processing. Which is why the Ps3 can be considered "Twice as fast as the 360" yet this just float point processing. When you throw everything else in the Ps3 is no where near twice as fast. So yeah you can make comparisions, but they don't really mean shit.

Now lets go with your comparision. What if somebody wants to compare there 600mhz pc with the Ps2. A company makes a pc game with every possible optimization possible, and just gets it to work on the Ps2. It then turns out the Pc is doing better than the Ps2.

The fact is, when it comes to comparing the speed of 360 and Ps3 and Pc, it is the skill of the programmers who made the application.

 

[Gray Fox]

Now lets go with your comparision. What if somebody wants to compare there 600mhz pc with the Ps2. A company makes a pc game with every possible optimization possible, and just gets it to work on the Ps2. It then turns out the Pc is doing better than the Ps2.

Someone could also make a optimized game for the n64 and then port it really unoptimized to the ps3 where it runs shittier and say. See n64 is more powerfull. But that is simply not the case. When test are run to compare consoles they are optimized enough for each console to give a decent estimate of which one is stronger. And if thy architectures differs a lot then you can also just test for what kind of aplication each console is better suited, for one with heavy physics use, or poly's or AI. Now if two consoles are about the same strength then you can't draw certain conclusion. But if they are not a test will clearly show. You use unrealisticly bias methods of comparison to illustrate your point, and draw your conslusion.

 

[weskerQ8]

if you campare them in graphically way, then the pc win for sure ( coz there is no limit in pc's power )

 

[DrDevin]

For example you can optimize a 600 hz pc with the best graphics card at the time that cpu came out, and you will never be able to get the kind of graphics a ps2 can can do which runs on a 300hz core. Now they may have different hardware and totally different software. But you can still make a comparison.

I've gotten GTA: Vice City to run on an 800mhz duron with a 9200se to run at 30+ fps at 1024x768 max settings.

Compare this with the faster chip in the xbox which was a P3/Celeron hybrid. The game ran at 640x480 and was limited to 30fps.

This is the same game on both systems with the PC version using higher resolution textures. The PC also had much much faster loading times then the XBOX.

There is nothing stopping a PC from having the same performance as a console it is just not practical to optimize the game for so many different configurations.

 

[Kyorisu]

The fact is, when it comes to comparing the speed of 360 and Ps3 and Pc, it is the skill of the programmers who made the application.

Thankyou someone finally knows what they're talking about.

Consoles are for the average or just freakish gamer who must own everything. You buy the console, buy the $5000 TV (Plasma? half bright soon enough), and the games.

Now as far as I know X360 games are more expensive than PC games at the moment. Atleast down here. $10-$20 per game adds up.

 

[Warbie]

Consoles are for the average or just freakish gamer who must own everything.

Or for the gamer who wants to play the best video games around

You don't need the $5000 tv btw - but it's certainly nice to have one. Going back to a monitor feels like a big step back once you're used to a big screen.