Xbox 360 and PS3: Detailed Technical Analysis

[Stigmata]

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

I have a feeling this will put an end to a few undercurrent debates. If not, it's still mighty educational, and I learned a great deal about both platforms.

 

[TCfromBN]

So the 360 is, in general, superior?

 

[Stigmata]

Sort of. What I took away from this article is this:

- Sony has the upper hand (a huge, huge upper hand) with theoretical CPU and GPU power
- Microsoft has the upper hand with general-purpose CPU/GPU power

Where the PS3 fails is in developer use of the Cell processor. It's about even in terms of efficiency with the 360, but the cores aren't symmetrical (requiring more man-hours to time code execution properly between cores), and Sony doesn't provide very robust tools to allow developers to handle Cell.

What I found most interesting is: Not only is the 360's R600 more powerful and (much more) efficient than the PS3's RSX chip, it also performs nearly six times more efficiently than the RSX in Sony's touted "true-HD" resolution of 1080p. So thanks to the Xbox's recent OS update which activated support for 1080p, the 360 has the capability to pull far ahead of the PS3 in terms of 1080p performance.

 

[Qonfused]

Owned.

Basic conclusion: Sony got ****ing raped.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

The Cell chip, while indeed powerful is mostly focused towards floating point math IIRC, and is blargh on every other aspects (matrix math and such)... Floating point calculations are only like 5-10% of a game IIRC in an article I read. Obviously there is a lot more "general purpose" stuff going on in games, which the 360 excells at.

The Cell is an okay chip for games, but is so freakin' complex and not focused in the right areas. Clearly a great chip, but NOT focused towards games like Microsoft's IBM chip is. Sony is basically trying to get their Cell chip out there because they want other multimedia and military organizations to use it, which is what the Cell was built for. It was never a gaming CPU through and through.

I expect much more from my 360 when developers continue to learn how to work with multi-threaded objects.

 

[Anthraxxx]

I believe that article crushes every PS3 fanboy's dreams... that is, if only those fanboys would pull their heads out of their asses and read that article.


edit: crushes dreams in regards to actual system power and graphical performance. The ps3 is a pretty good machine... though it could do without Blu-ray

 

[TCfromBN]

Sort of. What I took away from this article is this:

- Sony has the upper hand (a huge, huge upper hand) with theoretical CPU and GPU power
- Microsoft has the upper hand with general-purpose CPU/GPU power

Where the PS3 fails is in developer use of the Cell processor. It's about even in terms of efficiency with the 360, but the cores aren't symmetrical "(requiring more man-hours to time code execution properly between cores), and Sony doesn't provide very robust tools to allow developers to handle Cell.

What I found most interesting is: Not only is the 360's R600 more powerful and (much more) efficient than the PS3's RSX chip, it also performs nearly six times more efficiently than the RSX in Sony's touted "true-HD" resolution of 1080p. So thanks to the Xbox's recent OS update which activated support for 1080p, the 360 has the capability to pull far ahead of the PS3 in terms of 1080p performance.

I pretty much got the same thing from the read.

The 360's 3 CPUs seem to be superior to the PS3's Cell:

"I’m sure people remember from the section detailing how the 360 and PS3’s processors are less robust compared to processors we use on our desktop computers and the consequences of being in order execution. Well the PS3’s SPE are further stripped down than even the Power PC Cores and, as a result, isn’t as capable of handling as many different types of code like the 1 Power PC Core available on the PS3’s cell or the 3 Power PC Cores available on the 360’s CPU. The problem with being asymmetric is when you program for the Power PC Core on the PS3 CPU, the method of programming you used to get the most out of that Power PC core is no longer effective when breaking off tasks for the SPE to work on. Going from the PPE to the SPE on the PS3 requires a different compiler and a different set of tools.

When you come to the realization that the key to making up for the CPU is in-order execution is the rather complicated parallel programming, you realize that the CPU being asymmetric and having just a single PPE makes something that was already extremely difficult even more difficult. So a developer’s job is harder when you factor in that the PS3 has a 512KB L2 cache which is half the size of the 360 CPU’s 1MB L2 cache… that single PPE the PS3 CPU has isn’t receiving much help with branches in the cache department.

Microsoft made a better decision from the perspective of the developer; it's still difficult, but much easier compared to working with the Cell architecture. The 360’s CPU isn’t asymmetric like the PS3’s cell and has 3 PPE as opposed to 1, but all 3 are robust enough to help handle the type of code only the PS3’s single PPE is capable of handling. When Microsoft says they have three times the general purpose processing power this is what they mean. Based on the simple fact that the 360 has 3 Power PC cores to the PS3’s 1, more processing power can be dedicated to helping with things such as game control AI, scripting and other types of branch intensive code.

From the perspective of a developer the 360’s CPU’s biggest advantage is that all 3 of the 360’s cores are identical, all run from the same memory pool and they’re synchronized, in addition to being cache coherent. You can just create an extra thread right in your program and have it do some work. This allows the developer to create very nice structures so if you know how to get the best possible performance out of one core you know how to get the best possible performance out of all 3 because they operate in perfect synch."

Also the GPU explinations were very in depth:

The 360's Xenos:

"Thanks to the efficiency of the 360 GPU’s unified shader architecture and this 10MB of EDRAM the GPU is able to achieve 4XFSAA at no performance cost. ATI and Microsoft’s goal was to eliminate memory bandwidth as a bottleneck and they seem to have succeeded. If there are any pc gamers out there they notice that when they turn on things such as AA or HDR the performance goes down that’s because those features eat bandwidth hence the efficiency of the GPU’s operation decreases as they are turned on. With the 360 HDR+4XAA simultaneously are like nothing to the GPU with proper use of the EDRAM. The EDRAM contains a 3D logic unit which has 192 Floating Point Unit processors inside. The logic unit will be able to exchange data with the 10MB of RAM at 2 Terabits a second. Things such as antialiasing, computing z depths or occlusion culling can happen on the EDRAM without impacting the GPU’s workload."

# 48 shader units * 4 ops per cycle = 192 shader ops per clock
# Xenos is clocked at 500MHZ *192 shader ops per clock = 96 billion shader ops per second.

The RSX:

"If the RSX is clocked at 500MHZ*136 shader ops per clock that would make the new shader operations per second for the RSX 68 billion instead of the original 74.8 billion weakening the GPU’s performance, but I guess we wont truly find out till the PS3 releases because if anyone has noticed Sony has never posted the RSX clockspeed on the official ps3 site nor did they re-iterate the RSX clockspeed at E3 06. The RSX has 20.8GB/s of video memory bandwidth from the GDDR3 ram. The RSX has an extra 32 GB/sec writing to the system's main memory. If the RSX can fully utilize the memory system it can achieve pushing out 58.2GB/s worth of pixel rendering to memory. The RSX is pretty much a 7800GTX class GPU in some cases its worse in some cases better, nothing that is really new."

# The RSX has 24 pixel pipes (each of which performs 5.7 ops) 5.7ops *24 Pixel Pipelines=136.8 shader ops per clock.

# The RSX is clocked at 550MHZ *136 shader ops per clock =74800 (or 74,800,000,000)

Probably the best breakdown of the consoles I've read to date. It clears alot of things up. Definatly a worth while read.

 

[Stigmata]

Every time I read one of these articles, I start to feel legitimately sorry for Sony. But then I remember that for every me, there's hundreds of Sony fanboys who won't bat an eye, even when Sony dishes them problematic hardware and rootkit-infected CDs :/

Really neat to see how far ahead of its time the Xenos is. Unified shaders and the EDRAM chip put it almost on par with the 8800GTS if I'm not mistaken.

 

[TCfromBN]

It surpasses the 8800 with the EDRAM:

"This EDRAM has a framebuffer bandwidth of 256GB/s which is more than 5 times what the RSX or any GPU for the pc has for its framebuffer (even higher than G80’s framebuffer)."

 

[Uriel]

It surpasses the 8800 with the EDRAM:

Wait 3 months, PC will have something else to knock the socks off of everything else.
......and yes, it will probably be really expensive
*watches HD Crysis vid again
.....and very much worth it

 

[dream431ca]

When it's all said and done, it's really up to the developers to program the game to run on each console efficiently. The rumbers really mean nothing if the developer has limited understanding of each systems' advantages and disadvantages.

EDIT: I also see how Sony tried to go a much complex route with the cell processor and RSX and got smashed by the Xenos, a simple and effecient design.

 

[Stigmata]

Wait 3 months, PC will have something else to knock the socks off of everything else.
......and yes, it will probably be really expensive
*watches HD Crysis vid again
.....and very much worth it

Correction: Wait 3 months, the PC will have something else to theoretically knock the socks off of everything else, until you realize that it can't be used to its full potential simply because the PC is not a unified or predictable platform.

 

[Cole]

Correction: Wait 3 months, the PC will have something else to theoretically knock the socks off of everything else, until you realize that it can't be used to its full potential simply because the PC is not a unified or predictable platform.

Stigmata.
Shut up!
Don't spread that propaganda here! AHH ALL LIES!

 

[TCfromBN]

Correction: Wait 3 months, the PC will have something else to theoretically knock the socks off of everything else, until you realize that it can't be used to its full potential simply because the PC is not a unified or predictable platform.

QFT. The bandwidth limitations on a PC are a major drawback when compared to the 360.

 

[Stigmata]

Stigmata.
Shut up!
Don't spread that propaganda here! AHH ALL LIES!

*activates Intel-Inside© PC Patriotism Chip with Microsoft SAM*

PEECEEFUHTEWUH

er... *fumbles with dials*

PC for the win.

 

[Uriel]

QFT. The bandwidth limitations on a PC are a major drawback when compared to the 360.

?
explain

 

[Stigmata]

?
explain

Well, PCs are made to be modular, so right there the components are separated by a greater physical distance to allow for swapping.

There's also the issue of different bus speeds for nearly every component, and the motherboard that has to be compatible with multiple bus speeds for multiple components (some of which aren't always present), and a motherboard chip that has to route communications between different buses on the board itself. Not to mention the fact that a great deal of PC hardware is built upon holdovers from the late 90's, such as physically separate vertex and pixel shaders on GPUs.

I think that's mostly accurate, but I know I missed some stuff...

 

[Naudian]

That's pretty cool about the 360 GPU.

However, if* I were to buy either of these systems I would still wait until next summer to make a final decision, based mostly on what games are out/coming out for them, and also if Blu-Ray starts to get used for something.

*I'm not.

 

[99.vikram]

PCFTW. I'm gonna start using that often.

The sheer variety and freedom in terms of modding is why PC shall always pwn that ugly little box near the TV set. :sniper:
And the freedom to use any hardware I want!

 

[Absinthe]

PCFTW. I'm gonna start using that often.

The sheer variety and freedom in terms of modding is why PC shall always pwn that ugly little box near the TV set. :sniper:
And the freedom to use any hardware I want!

Shhh.... SHHHH.... Just stop talking. Please.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Good read.

But dude, there could be baby hamsters and earwax and spaghetti under the hood for all I care as long as the games are kick-ass!!!

 

[Cormeh]

A good read, even if like me, you suck at computer related stuff.

there could be baby hamsters and earwax and spaghetti under the hood for all I care

Sounds like my PC!

 

[smwScott]

It was a good read, very informative. I've got to say that while I assume he's right ... the results don't seem to support his statements. It just seems like the average PS3 game looks better than the average 360 game, and the best looking PS3 games like MGS4 beat out the best looking 360 games like Gears of War. Still, at least I understand the inner workings of the two a bit better now.

What I found most interesting/disconcerting is his comments about Blu-Ray. All I can say is that I hope time will prove him wrong and that Blu-Ray will offer more of a benefit. The N64 was seriously hampered by space limitations on the cartridge, as was the GC to a much lesser extent. There is precedence for larger formats giving significant advantages, time will tell if the PS3 will follow that pattern.

 

[-Psy-]

Give Us Dx10 Card Ati!

D: D: D:

 

[Warbie]

It just seems like the average PS3 game looks better than the average 360 game, and the best looking PS3 games like MGS4 beat out the best looking 360 games like Gears of War.

I guess we'll see when more games have come out for both systems, but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest this, or anything on the PS3 that comes close to GoW.

 

[VictimOfScience]

or anything on the PS3 that comes close to GoW.

Give it 'til this time next year and we will see what looks like what. It'll likely take that long if not longer to get games running really beautifully on that PS3 architecture....

 

[Warbie]

Most probably. It's worth noting that all the delays have given developers considerably longer to work on their games for the PS3 launch. These games aren't first gen in the sense the 360 launch titles were - they've had as long to get used to the PS3 hardware as Epic did for GoW.

The gloves are off now, let the comparisons begin

 

[Asus]

Yeah, a number of PS3 titles don't look so hot when you zoom in and look at the textures. Sorta bland and some need AA! Although they look fine when you look at the whole picture perhaps because of art direction.

GoW looks amazing though. A lot of people said the Xbox360 version of CoD3 had a little better graphics than the PS3 version.

Remember, this is not saying which game/console is better to play or is more fun.

 

[TCfromBN]

Yeah, a number of PS3 titles don't look so hot when you zoom in and look at the textures. Sorta bland and some need AA! Although they look fine when you look at the whole picture perhaps because of art direction.

The texture problem is because the PS3 is strictly limited to 256MB of ram for the video card. For the 360 however, it can consume as much of the 512MB as needed, as long as the CPUs aren't demanding a large ammount at the same time. The GPU and CPUs can share the 512MB of ram on the 360, while on the PS3 each is given strictly 256MB to work with each. As for the AA, the 360 looks so much better in terms of HDR and AA because of the GPU it's using. The 360's GPU can do 4x FSAA at no extra performance cost and is able to do HDR + FSAA at the same time with little to no performance hit due to the extra 10MB of EDRAM built into the card.

 

[VictimOfScience]

As far as AA goes, the PS2 has never done this well and in fact does it quite poorly, so I don't think that it necessarily matters when you have a terrific library of consistently amazing titles. I mean, FF12 has jaggies all over and its one of the most fun times I have ever had while gaming.

And I don't think its fair to say that the PS3 developers have had just as much time with the hardware by now as compared to the 360 devs since they didn't get final dev kits until this Summer.

Anyway, these comparisons don't really matter because its the games that matter!!! And so far, the 360 has GoW to show off and that's about it in my book. Next year will be quite telling indeed as some highly anticipated (to say the least) titles will be releasing on both platforms. Time will tell, but the easiest way to say which system is better is to look at games that are multi-platform (once some really great ones come out that is--there's nothing really solid to use as a comparison unfortunately. Sh*t, the PS3 isn't even out yet ffs!!).

 

[TCfromBN]

Anyway, these comparisons don't really matter because its the games that matter!!! And so far, the 360 has GoW to show off and that's about it in my book. Next year will be quite telling indeed as some highly anticipated (to say the least) titles will be releasing on both platforms. Time will tell, but the easiest way to say which system is better is to look at games that are multi-platform (once some really great ones come out that is--there's nothing really solid to use as a comparison unfortunately. Sh*t, the PS3 isn't even out yet ffs!!).

Right, and why is this thread called "Xbox 360 and PS3: Detailed Technical Analysis" again?

 

[smwScott]

I guess we'll see when more games have come out for both systems, but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest this, or anything on the PS3 that comes close to GoW.

Even if you disagree that MGS4 looks better than GoW, which I agree is very much open to debate - the PS3 still has UT2k7, which is basically the same thing graphics wise as GoW.

Also ... it's really not true that the developers putting out launch titles have had as long to work with the PS3 as Epic has with GoW ... it's just not true at all. Sony didn't even get final devkits out until a couple months ago.

 

[Stigmata]

the PS3 still has UT2k7, which is basically the same thing graphics wise as GoW.

Except it's still severely limited by the PS3's GPU memory limit of 224MB (256MB - 32MB for the OS) [edit: plus the fact that the RSX performs fairly poorly compared to the Xenon, especially in 1080p]. Chances are very high that it won't look as good as Gears.

 

[TCfromBN]

All of that Blue Ray disk space for the super high-res textures but not enough GPU memory to use em.