Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

what is as powerful as an xbox 306 in terms of graphics?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 28, 2006 6:25:26 PM

What card can give graphics at the same capability as an xbox 360?
March 28, 2006 6:38:17 PM

Specs are similar to the X1900 XT... not sure about clockspeeds, maybe the XTX is closer.
March 28, 2006 6:42:47 PM

A 7800GT would match it on the nVidia side.

But go with the 7900 GT. Cheaper than XBOX 360 and much faster!
Related resources
March 28, 2006 6:44:07 PM

Will the specs of the ps3 be published once it is released? I'm thinking about building a rig that will be better than the ps3 in terms of graphics and speeds
March 28, 2006 6:57:11 PM

Actually none of them can right now, I dont see any chips oyt therer with 10 megabytes of cache on die. Some of the current chips are getting really close to the same performance such as the radeon xt1900xtx.
March 28, 2006 7:17:25 PM

Quote:
Actually none of them can right now, I dont see any chips oyt therer with 10 megabytes of cache on die. Some of the current chips are getting really close to the same performance such as the radeon xt1900xtx.

The xbox 360 is the best value for money in terms of gaming systems. To have a comparable PC, you're going to spend $2000+. You'll spend more on the graphics card for the PC than you'll spend on the 360.
March 28, 2006 7:33:40 PM

Quote:
A 7800GT would match it on the nVidia side.



That's pretty optimistic in the 7800's favor...

Both the X1900 and XBOX 360 have 48 shader units... the 7800 GT has 20.

Even the 7900 GT and 7900 GTX have 24 shaders, half that of the XBOX 360 and X1900.

In shader heavy stuff (new & upcomign titles), shader power rules. The 7800 GT is most certainly not up to par compared to an X1900.
March 28, 2006 7:40:36 PM

Well, we know it's not all about shaders. That's only part of the story.

The XBOX just has an ATI GPU right? And it can only be as fast as what was out 6 months ago when the thing was launched. PCs are already on the next generation and faster. The 7900GTX of course blows it away.

But I'm not sure on what ATI chip is exactly in there, just going off common sense here. But I'd take my $350 and put it on a 7900GT card before an XBOX 360 that's for sure. A whole PC system would cost more of course but I've already got that.
March 28, 2006 7:42:40 PM

im definately getting a 40inch+ lcd hdtv to hook up wid my rig
March 28, 2006 8:29:15 PM

Quote:
The XBOX just has an ATI GPU right? And it can only be as fast as what was out 6 months ago when the thing was launched. PCs are already on the next generation and faster. The 7900GTX of course blows it away.


6 months ago, the fastest videocard was the 7800 GTX, and the 7900 is a 7800 GTX with higher clockspeeds.

It's not apples to apples so it's possible to compare, but IMHO if you took the Xbox360 GPU and made a videocard out of it it'd be closer to an X1900 than a 7900.

I put more stock into shader power than you do, sure I'll agree to that. Shaders may be only part of the story, but architecturally it's really all we can compare with. Onboard ram? Memory bus? Not really comperable because of the system specifics.
March 28, 2006 9:14:14 PM

Nothing out is on par with the 360. It's got two gpus[ at 500mhz I think] and Unified shaders. I have heard that it's the first DX10 gpu and is beyond sm3.
The thing is it's not just a gpu, the whole thing is a dedicated gaming system. It can't be viewed outside of the whole, if you put it a pc it wouldn't even work as it is.
The x1900 may beat it on paper but will never see optimization. No one out there has a os and game made just for your system. By the time you start really use the cards potential it's old news. Your OS takes up alot of resources Just look at halo and what a pc needed to play it at xbox levels.
March 28, 2006 9:41:15 PM

Quote:
Nothing out is on par with the 360. It's got two gpus[ at 500mhz I think] and Unified shaders. I have heard that it's the first DX10 gpu and is beyond sm3.
The thing is it's not just a gpu, the whole thing is a dedicated gaming system. It can't be viewed outside of the whole, if you put it a pc it wouldn't even work as it is.
The x1900 may beat it on paper but will never see optimization. No one out there has a os and game made just for your system. By the time you start really use the cards potential it's old news. Your OS takes up alot of resources Just look at halo and what a pc needed to play it at xbox levels.


Excellent point concerning Halo on the PC vs. the original X-Box. The original XBox was a lowly Pentium 3 (either a 700 or 733) with 64 MB of RAM that was shared with a video card that was about equal to a GeForce3. If you think a PC with those specs will play Halo or Halo 2... well, you're living on another planet.
March 28, 2006 9:51:41 PM

Quote:
The original XBox was a lowly Pentium 3 (either a 700 or 733) with 64 MB of RAM that was shared with a video card that was about equal to a GeForce3. If you think a PC with those specs will play Halo or Halo 2... well, you're living on another planet.


Actually, if memory serves the original Xbox was a Celeron, not a P3 (!).
March 28, 2006 9:53:44 PM

I'm gonna stick by my original specs... I believe it was a full blown P3.
March 28, 2006 9:54:43 PM

Detailed specifications
CPU: Micro PGA2 733 MHz Intel Coppermine Core. Basically a Pentium III.
Intel IA-32 instruction set
SIMD: SSE. Four single-precision floating-point numbers in one instruction.
Theoretical maximum 4 FLOPS/cycle (2.9 gigaFLOPS for Xbox)
Pentium III had architectural drawbacks that lessened real-world SSE throughput.
SIMD: MMX. Integer functions. Switching between FPU and MMX is slow, so not of great use for 3D rendering tasks. Often used for audio and video.
133 MHz FSB. Same as fastest Pentium III EB CPUs.
32 kB L1 cache. 128 kB L2 Advanced Transfer Cache (256-bit). Same size as Celeron, but 8-way associative like Pentium III E.
March 28, 2006 10:01:06 PM

128k of L2 cache = Celeron in my book :) 

Reduced cache has been the hallmark of celerons since they were invented...
March 28, 2006 10:02:46 PM

In all other respects it is a P3. Since that's the only Celeron specific trait I'm sticking with my original analysis. The 133 FSB wasn't found on Celerons until much later. Give it up old timer!
March 28, 2006 10:10:36 PM

Your mistake is expressed mathematically thusly:

P3 - (L2 cache) = (Celeron)

I can overclock a celeron, but it's still a celeron.

YOU give it up! :p 
March 28, 2006 10:12:31 PM

Quote:
In all other respects it is a P3. Since that's the only Celeron specific trait I'm sticking with my original analysis. The 133 FSB wasn't found on Celerons until much later. Give it up old timer!


What I don't understand is why the hell are you guys arguing about the specs of the XBOX?

And I prefer to play games on a PC rather than a console. But here's my logic on why a console is a better value than buying a new gfx card for my PC.

Right now:
XBOX 360 $400
7900GT $300
Antec TPII $100
XBOX 360 Game (NFS:MW) $60
PC Game (NFS:MW) $0 (I already have it)
PC is cheaper

Two years from now:
XBOX 360 $0
8900XTG (or whatever is second best) $300
Conroe CPU (my P4 will be 4 yrs. old and obselete by then) $300
Conroe Mobo $100
2GB DDR2 $100
X360 game (NFS:LW least wanted :)  $70(!)
PC Game (NFS:LW) $40
XBOX 360 is cheaper

Five years from now:
XBOX 540 $500
New PC $1500

An XBOX 360's CPU won't be obselete until the next XBOX comes out. Same with the XBOX graphics card. Buying the latest and greatest graphics card for a CPU is $300+ a pop. And then, a year later, the rest of the system will be obselete.

Even though I've always played PC games, I'm considering an XBOX 360 rather than a new graphics card to replace my shitty x600. I'll hook the XBOX 360 up to my LCD with one of those adapters that they sell.
March 28, 2006 10:15:17 PM

Because our hubris demands satisfaction. :D 
March 28, 2006 10:27:52 PM

Quote:
Because our hubris demands satisfaction. :D 

ROFL :) .
March 28, 2006 10:49:37 PM

Quote:
Game consoles are budget, regardless how much they cost. Keep in mind, to fully enjoy XBOX360, you need a HDTV, if you don't have one, you will probably buy one. A good one costs about $1000 (here in Canada), plus the 360, it'll end up costing as much as new rig. I'll say PCs are better than gaming consoles, but it's personal preference.


And you wouldn't want this same monitor on your PC becuase ???

If your going to count the cost of an HD TV in the price of XBOX360, why don't you discount the price of a 19" Viewsonic LCD for every XBOX owner who just hooked it up to his already owned TV.

Let's try to compare apples to apples. If you look at cost per performance basis, XBOX blows away the PC. Just look at frames per second divided by dollars spent.

But of course, I'd like to see someone do their taxes on XBOX.
March 28, 2006 11:02:36 PM

Quote:
Game consoles are budget, regardless how much they cost. Keep in mind, to fully enjoy XBOX360, you need a HDTV, if you don't have one, you will probably buy one. A good one costs about $1000 (here in Canada), plus the 360, it'll end up costing as much as new rig. I'll say PCs are better than gaming consoles, but it's personal preference.


And you wouldn't want this same monitor on your PC becuase ???

If your going to count the cost of an HD TV in the price of XBOX360, why don't you discount the price of a 19" Viewsonic LCD for every XBOX owner who just hooked it up to his already owned TV.

Let's try to compare apples to apples. If you look at cost per performance basis, XBOX blows away the PC. Just look at frames per second divided by dollars spent.

But of course, I'd like to see someone do their taxes on XBOX.

The best solution would be to build yourself an $800 PC and buy a $400 X360. Then get a $1800 HDTV. All for the price of a gaming PC.
March 28, 2006 11:07:29 PM

Quote:
Specs are similar to the X1900 XT... not sure about clockspeeds, maybe the XTX is closer.
Interesting...
Quote:
Processing Powerhouse

The custom-designed Xbox 360 central processing unit (CPU) runs at a breakneck speed, thanks to its three separate core processors that clock in at 3.2 GHz each.

Xbox 360 boasts a custom ATI graphics processor that clocks in at a blistering 500 MHz. If you want to get even more technical (and who doesn't?) Xbox 360 can take advantage of more than four times as many polygons as the original Xbox® console, and more than four times (seeing a pattern here?) the number of pixels per second.
With your understanding, the X1900 XT is only 4X as powerful than a Geforce 3.
March 28, 2006 11:16:21 PM

Quote:
With your understanding, the X1900 XT is only 4X as powerful than a Geforce 3.


I never said that or even hinted at it. Not sure how you came up with that quote, dude...
March 28, 2006 11:39:47 PM

You guys are missing one big point. Nearly all current graphics
cards will give better detail than a 360. The 360 is limited to 1080i.

Even the cheapers cards will do 1600. Now for frame rates obviously
you need to spend more dough.
March 29, 2006 12:03:33 AM

A higher rez will only do so much. Besides 1280 * 720 isnt exactly low.
March 29, 2006 12:21:27 AM

Quote:
A 7800GT would match it on the nVidia side.

But go with the 7900 GT. Cheaper than XBOX 360 and much faster!


#1, the question that started this thread is pointless. A console uses a GPU completely different (e.g. draw calls on the Xbox 360 are way faster through the API than in DX9 because it is fixed hardware).

#2 the Xbox 360 GPU (Xenos) is much faster in most situations than a 7800GT!

"Most" being the key operative because Xenos only as 16 Texture Management Units @ 500MHz so the 7800 would do better on standard PC DX9 games with heavy texturing; but future looking at Shader Heavy SM3.0 style code Xenos is hands down much faster. Xenos is just a different chip--very console centric. It is NOT a PC chip. Check my post history, I did a lengthy post on how the Xbox 360 as a total design is targetted to alievate a number of PC bottlenecks. In the real world it is not a matter of the NV/ATI game of "My number is bigger than yours" but alieviating the choke points. So we can go down the line benchmark by benchmark, but they tell us little about (a) architectural effeciency and (b) features.

On Architecture, the 360 is way more effecient with unified shaders + eDRAM. The eDRAM means memory & fillrate are NEVER a bottleneck (well, if they are tiling and doing an early Z pass... something some early games did not do). On the shaders, long story short there is never a perfect balance between PS and VS. Although a superscalar design, dependancy means one waits on the other frequently. And games, game scenes, and even render phases on a single frame go from one extreme to the other. Unified Shaders mean smarter use of resources. e.g. Vertex Shaders tend to be very bursty--so dedicating all 48ALUs to vertex work means you can quickly push through it.

So on face value Xenos has more floating point performance than a 7800GTX 256MB (240GFLOPs to 199GFLOPs) but less than the 512MB version (255GFLOPs), Xenos is more effecient. ATI stated their own designs are only 50-70% effecient in regards to Shader utilization; Xenos closer to 95%. Other archectural advantages is the Xbox CPU can write directly to the GPU at an effective bandwidth of 20GB/s without touching the FSB or the Memory. So a lot of the effects you could do in DX10 Geometry Shaders can be done on the Xbox, but not a PC (PC CPUs have limited CPU-GPU bandwidth and x86 chips have poor floating performace; Xenon has better bandwidth and it can do 3B dotproducts per second per core with the beefy Vector units and has D3D compression for vertex data). And as we all know ATI's chips kill NV's chips in SM3.0. Xenos is not quite as good as the X1900XTX, but it is close (e.g. batch size is 64 in Xenos, 48 in the X1900).

As for Features, Xenos has some nice perks. Unified Shaders also means you can do vertex shader effects not really possible on a chip with 6-8 Vertex Shaders with weak texturing abilities. All 48 of Xenos' shaders can do VS tasks and have access to the Texture Units. From a superficial view features make it VERY hard to compare numbers 1-to-1. e.g. On the PC you need a lot of memory bandwidth to do FP16 blending for HDR. The 360 has a native FP10 blending format that allows HDR effects with no penalty (this is why almost every Xbox game has HDR). Ditto on AA which is a minor performance hit.

So we can say, "Hey, the PC GPU has more X, Y, Z" but the console does not necessarily need such if it has features that "cheat" and do intensive tasks for free.

Basically without a CONTEXT you cannot really say what is faster, etc. All we know right now is MS got dev kits out late and most games have been rushed and devs have struggled with the CPU (in order, small cache, weak branching). That said a number of titles have looked very good (PGR3, CoD2, Kameo, Fight Night, Oblivion, Ghost Recon).

Only the future will tell us how good it is--basically how many devs build Xbox specific games to use the hardware. As long as pubs keep putting PC ported titles that are texture heavy it will never stretch its legs. e.g. The X1900 is frequently no faster than the X1800 because games are NOT using the extra shaders. Ditto Xenos. Until games become shader heavy AND leverage SM3.0 features Xenos will keep performing like a 16 pipe (or even 8ROP!) GPU!


Anyhow, as others have said, I find it "surprising" someone would say the 7800GT and not the 7800GTX. The only thing the GT has an advantage at is TMUs and it gets spanked in shader performance, SM3.0, memory bandwidthl, features (I didn't even mention the HOS and hardware tesselation support Xenos has), and so forth.

#3, the 7900GT was over $300 the last time I checked. The Xbox 360 is $299 in the states. How you claim it is cheaper/faster I am not sure...

Quote:
The 7900GTX of course blows it away.


Is this the same 7900GTX that gets creamed in heavy dynamic branching tasks due to poor SM3.0?

Quote:
But I'm not sure on what ATI chip is exactly in there, just going off common sense here.


Ahhh.... well, common sense is wrong. If you read up on Xenos (check out Beyond3d.com... article there called "Demistifying Xenos" on the front page) you will see that it is aimed at resolving a number of bottlenecks and is an elegent Console design. It is not meant to be a PC solution, some comparisons are difficult, but in the console world Xenos would cream a 7800GTX or X1800XT put into a console.

Funny at your comments considering you don't know what is in it! :lol:  Almost like saying:

"A 3.2GHz P4 is faster than an Athlon64 at 2.0GHz... common sense says so". Or "2 cores is better than 1". Common sense does not tell us much about computers to be quite honest.

Quote:
It's not apples to apples so it's possible to compare, but IMHO if you took the Xbox360 GPU and made a videocard out of it it'd be closer to an X1900 than a 7900.


Thanks Cleeve. Very hard to compare as you say, a lot comes down to game design in regards to what is better. There are real reasons why a game like D3 would fly on NV but a lot of DX9 games did better on ATI GPUs. The minor differences between the PC GPUs leads to pretty big differences at times... Xenos is completely divergent.

The best we can do is talk about architecture and how it aids development and cleans up bottlenecks. Only developers know how that impacts the final product; and truly the games--the end product--will be the FINAL authority about how good the hardware is. And the fact is most good games are decided by

- Dev skill
- Dev time
- Dev budget/staff size
- Art direction/quality
- Matching of technologies with art

This is why the GCN has RE4 and Metroid, the PS2 Shadow of the Collossus, GT4, etc. The Xbox, technically, was heads and shoulders above the GCN and PS2, yet the "weaker" 2 had some great looking games.

Hardware is only 1 part of the equation.

Quote:
Actually, if memory serves the original Xbox was a Celeron, not a P3 (!).


Quote:
I'm gonna stick by my original specs... I believe it was a full blown P3.


Hybrid technically ;)  You are both right/wrong :D  It had a smaller cache and therefore was not a fullblown P3, but it had a number of P3 features. It was a Coppermine core with less cache. It has been so long, but I know it was a hybrid P3/Celeron. Google can resolve this one if we must >:) 

Edit: Here we got => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Hardware

Quote:
32 kB L1 cache. 128 kB L2 Advanced Transfer Cache (256-bit). Same size as Celeron, but 8-way associative like Pentium III E.
March 29, 2006 12:24:05 AM

Quote:
With your understanding, the X1900 XT is only 4X as powerful than a Geforce 3.


I never said that or even hinted at it. Not sure how you came up with that quote, dude...
Quote:

It's not apples to apples so it's possible to compare, but IMHO if you took the Xbox360 GPU and made a videocard out of it it'd be closer to an X1900 than a 7900.

The Xbox360 "Xenos" gpu is in no way similar to the X1900 XT beyond the point of having 48 "Shader units"; it's like saying "the X1800 XT is the same as the X800XT because they both have 16 pixel pipelines."
March 29, 2006 12:25:10 AM

It also had a 133 fsb, another Pentium feature. If that can be called a feature.
March 29, 2006 1:12:13 AM

But it ain't 1600x1200 either. Now go look for your missing eye :wink:
March 29, 2006 2:02:04 AM

Resolution isn't the single determining factor of graphics.

1080i is higher then 1600 * 1200.

I'd imagine more people play at 1280 * 1024 as well. :wink:
March 29, 2006 4:15:34 PM

what im saying is will a full blown pc built now be better than an xbox 360?
March 29, 2006 4:26:25 PM

A high end X1900XT with dual core CPU and 2 gig RAM, YES
March 29, 2006 5:09:26 PM

1920x1200 is 1080i or p

The number 1080 stands for 1080 lines of vertical resolution, while the letter p stands for progressive scan or non-interlaced. 1080p is considered to be an HDTV video mode. The term usually assumes a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, implying a horizontal (display) resolution of 1920 lines and a frame resolution of 1920 × 1080 or over two million pixels. The frame rate in hertz can be either implied by the context or specified after the letter p (such as 1080p30, meaning 30 frames per second).
March 29, 2006 5:14:23 PM

They are NOT better than PC's, X- Boxes are for the lazy.
The graphics aren't better if you don't have a TV to exploit it, plus we've (on PC's) have been doing Hi Def since you could play games at 1024 x 768.
You can only do what the X- Box let's you, that's play DVD's, play games, maybe surf, and that's it, with a computer you get so much more versitaltilty for the money.
Plus I hate using a controller, push 5 key combos for one move truly sucks.
March 29, 2006 6:02:25 PM

Quote:
They are NOT better than PC's, X- Boxes are for the lazy.


:roll:

Quote:
The graphics aren't better if you don't have a TV to exploit it


So? A quality PC costs more. And you can use the tv for more then just gaming. :wink:

Quote:
You can only do what the X- Box let's you, that's play DVD's, play games


That's what its meant to do. :roll:

Quote:
with a computer you get so much more versitaltilty for the money.


Which costs more.

Quote:
Plus I hate using a controller, push 5 key combos for one move truly sucks.


:roll:
March 29, 2006 7:12:37 PM

Quote:
what im saying is will a full blown pc built now be better than an xbox 360?


Hardware is only one part of the equation; the real question is the games. What games do you like, how many do you buy a year, where do you like to play, what controls, etc... The 360 will have more games over its lifetime, but if you have the money and only play a couple games a year the PC may be a better machine.

Anyhow, hardware is only as good as the games that are on it.
March 29, 2006 8:33:50 PM

you can definitely not compare the 360's gpu with a pc counterpart. ati uses the unified shader architecture, so all of the 48 shader units can be used as pixel or vertex shaders unlike the current pc architecture that has seperate pixel and vertex shader elements.

so the comparison can not be made.

ati is (unlike nvidia's rsx in the ps3) with the unified shader architecture on the right track though, since even windows vista is going to support this architecture in the long term.
March 29, 2006 8:40:16 PM

furthermore you can bet that the 360 gpu is capable of DX 10, since it is a product for microsoft...

so you can't really compare actual DX 9.0c hardware with that
March 29, 2006 8:41:44 PM

It is not DX-10 tho.
March 29, 2006 8:46:43 PM

Quote:
It is not DX-10 tho.


Why do you think that?

I'm sure it's not optimized for opengl, since it is a ms product.
March 29, 2006 8:51:09 PM

The only API spec that the Xbox 360 hardware meets is its own API. That is correct, the Xbox 360 GPU only meets it own Xbox 360 API specifications.
While it incorporates some lessons learned in the development of DX9 and DX10, the GPU of the Xbox 360 is very much its own and comparing it directly to anything in the PC world is simply not possible.
March 29, 2006 9:04:26 PM

Quote:
comparing it directly to anything in the PC world is simply not possible


... that's what I said


but why would ms struggle to set an own api standard for the 360, when they have their own DX and the original xbox had a geforce3(ish) gpu => DX / OGL as well. And I believe the rsx from nvidia is far closer to the pc gpus than xenos is => DX / OGL also...

i believe ati had to struggle enough establishing the unified shader architecture for the very first time alone, so there is no need to further introduce complexity (thus costs, especially for console designs!!!)to the design by introducing a new api
March 29, 2006 9:11:46 PM

What are you on?
March 29, 2006 9:19:09 PM

Quote:
What are you on?


just on 360 lol
March 29, 2006 9:23:26 PM

Quote:
What are you on?

Crack
March 29, 2006 9:23:33 PM

I don't believe anything compares to a xbox 306 :wink:
March 29, 2006 9:53:42 PM

Quote:
he's on a salary to promote the 360


yeah, and you get free crack for your 360 :wink:
March 29, 2006 10:13:19 PM

what are you talking about?
!