Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

power of RSX: ps3 GPU+ other questions

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
May 28, 2006 3:26:46 PM

how can rsx render graphics at a much better and faster standard than the 7900 GTX. since the 7900 GTX is equal in specs to rsx.

does this mean the cell processor takes the some of the graphics load off the GPU?

finally, what console has better graphics

Xbox 360 or ps3

and is a pc a better gaming machine than next-gen consoles?

thanx

More about : power rsx ps3 gpu questions

May 28, 2006 4:09:32 PM

The rsx cannot, and never will render as fast as a 7900 GTX, or 7800 GTX for that matter, the memory bandwidht going to the RSX is a max of 22 gb/s compared to the 7900 GTX's 51.2 gb/s of memory bandwidth, also the RSX is only clocked at 550 mhz. Secondly never beleive anything sony tells you about their system specs, because absolutely every playstation e3 showing has always been packed with lies, ps2 was supposed to get Toy Story graphics, they said it would perform with 75 million polygons per second, the console came out with 7 million polygons per second. The pc is also the best, and fastest gaming platform of them all, and always will be. Crytek wanted to make sure that everyone knew that, by releasing Crysis on the pc, and they have stated that if they were to put crysis on any of the consoles, they would have to degrade, graphics, physics, ai, and gameplay, just to get a solid frame rate on the "next gen" consoles, and if there is one developer that I trust it is Crytek. And to answer your other question, no the ps3 does not have better graphics then the 360, there is no ps3 game that is in-game, that looks near as good as GOW, Mass Effect, Bio Shock, PGR3, TDU, etc....
May 28, 2006 4:46:44 PM

just to clerify i know there is only a single RSX in the PS3 sorry for beilieving in the rumor sights. also just to add input that pc gamers are right, with SLI and crossfire PC resolutions can scale higher than a x360. such as in Oblivion which i believe the lighting is more realistic on the PC. Plus Maximum pc has stated that with SLI and big memory that current graphics cards have thay are better than the console but agree that it is powerful in the xbox 360 versus gaming rig article. But I do have one question why isnt the PC version of Graw not modeled after the 360s version, from screenshots i have seen the PC version is modeled after the Xbox and PS2 versions. I know that PCs can run the 360s version, was it some type of microsoft 360 exclusive or did ubisoft just didn't bother to make it work for the PC. or does someone actually have GRAW for PC and the box cover art is wrong and it's exactly like the 360 version.
Related resources
May 28, 2006 5:17:36 PM

There is only one RSX chip in the ps3, and its only a modified 7800, nothing more or less, its just fabricated on 90 nm silicon. There isnt a 360 version of CRYSIS, and there never will be, this is stated by crytek. I will say 400 times over, the ps3, 360, have not one graphical performance advantage over the pc, no matter how well optimised their code is. If anything the only "next gen" console that has any gpu advantage is the x360, not the ps3 in anyway or form. How ever the 360 as a whole is not near as power ful as high end gaming machines, and atm the PPU does nothing but lag down framerates, or increase the frames by 2 fps. With quad cores on our doorstep, we will NEVER nead a ppu. Crysis is the most advanced game ever created, and makes every american,japanese engine look like a toy, as if they were created in the stone age.
Crysis, dev interview, click on E3 2K6 GT Interview

http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2509
May 28, 2006 5:22:34 PM

There is only one G71 core in the PS3, and you don't know anything about the console, do you? :lol: 
May 28, 2006 5:24:23 PM

Quote:
With quad cores on our doorstep, we will NEVER nead a ppu.
Even a quad core CPU won't be capable of putting out the sort of floating point calculations that are needed for realistic physics.
May 28, 2006 5:26:48 PM

Have you played cell factor without the PPU ? I have and it works seamlessly. Except there arent any liguid physics, or cloth, but honestly they look a step back from what we have, and I think those are both perfectly possible on a multithreaded code, and played on a dual core processor.
May 28, 2006 5:50:53 PM

You've found one example, but based off current processor architecture, quad cores won’t be able to put out the kind of numbers we’re looking for.
May 28, 2006 6:16:40 PM

I just dont think, until anyone sees any real results of this Ageia physics card, I dont really think that the Idea will fully take off, as I dont know about you, but id much rather spend 400 $ cdn on something else....crysis has enough level of immersion and physics that game worlds dont really need much more, and they dont recommend a Physx card.
May 28, 2006 6:26:51 PM

I agree with you 100% on that; that's why you don't see "AGEIA PhysX" in my signature. :lol: 

If AGEIA did fix the the performance issues, and the price went down I'd consider buying.
May 28, 2006 6:51:14 PM

sorry about he dual RSX thing i've just seen what i suppose is a rumor on 1up and OPM that the PS3 boast two maybe. but i agreed with you on the fact that the GTX is a much better performing GPU even without a physics accelarator as no current game would really benifit much from it. As for the CRYTEK thing. in all the interviews i have seen and read they have not denied it as a possibility of being on the 360 due to one thing ELECTRONIC ARTS pays the bills if they want it they will get it though i agree that it will be watered down, i was just using it as an example with the HALF-LIFE2, after all it runs on the xbox but anyone whos played it onthe system knows the framerate sux and pratically breaks the system i am not expecting CRYSIS to come fully tact but look just as beautiful
May 28, 2006 7:15:21 PM

heh look its always gonna be like this, the PC gaming systems will always be able to beat the latest and greates of consloes because there is no way to upgrade anything on the console while computers will always have someting newer and faster to put on it. also you will have to wait for final release of the console to know the true specs. but yes the PS3 will beat 80% of the computers that have Graphics power lees then a 6800ultra or X800XT because consoles sole purpose is to deliver gaming performance so this means they will be able to deliver near equal performance to most mid level pc systems in game to a certain degree but thats only in some aspects for the system. oh and yes the PS3 will be able to beat any XBOX360 game because it will be able to run at higher resolutions and a faster more powerful GPU and CPU. this was how microsoft did it when they released their first XBOX about 12 months after the PS2 had come out, they had acsess to better tech stuff so it was able to beat the PS2 all around.
May 28, 2006 8:24:47 PM

Quote:
The rsx cannot, and never will render as fast as a 7900 GTX, or 7800 GTX for that matter, the memory bandwidht going to the RSX is a max of 22 gb/s compared to the 7900 GTX's 51.2 gb/s of memory bandwidth, also the RSX is only clocked at 550 mhz. Secondly never beleive anything sony tells you about their system specs, because absolutely every playstation e3 showing has always been packed with lies, ps2 was supposed to get Toy Story graphics, they said it would perform with 75 million polygons per second, the console came out with 7 million polygons per second. The pc is also the best, and fastest gaming platform of them all, and always will be. Crytek wanted to make sure that everyone knew that, by releasing Crysis on the pc, and they have stated that if they were to put crysis on any of the consoles, they would have to degrade, graphics, physics, ai, and gameplay, just to get a solid frame rate on the "next gen" consoles, and if there is one developer that I trust it is Crytek. And to answer your other question, no the ps3 does not have better graphics then the 360, there is no ps3 game that is in-game, that looks near as good as GOW, Mass Effect, Bio Shock, PGR3, TDU, etc....
why do you guys rely on scecs. you have proof of what runs better by just looking with your eyes. Play oblivion on a pc, then play oblivion on a 360, completely smooth on a 360, runs like shit on max graphics with my 7800 gtx fx 55 and 2 gigs of ram. Its getting annoying hearing all you pc fanboys in denial. Just f*cking look at how smooth games run on x360 compared to the same games on a pc, its crap.(this is all coming from a pc gamer, so please hold the "consol fanboy remarks") "" the playstion 3 graphics doesnt even compare to a 7800 or a 7900"...i have one question, are you blind!? look at the in game trailers, its absolutely amazingly photorealistic with completely smooth gameplay. who cares of the speeds or pipelines or flibaflops something runs at..alls i know is that, when i play Oblivion on a pc, it runs like compeltely sh*t, even with a 512 video card. Compared to a 360, and looks exactly the same. only runs 50 times better. Ghost recon is another thing..you cant even run it at max settings with a 7800 gtx, THATS PATHETIC! for a 489 dollar video card. but yet you say the 360 isnt as powerful than current pcs?????? YOUR BLIND if you say that. f*ck looking at specs...put oblivion pc version, next to a 360 version, and be prepared to watch the frames drop astounishly as you go into an outside environment. when the 360 version is smooth as butter.
May 28, 2006 11:33:10 PM

Why dont you name those IN-GAME ps3 games that actually look good, now I want you to show me real gameplay that looks good, no cinematics or cutsceene bullshit. You do know that theres something messed up with your pc if it doesnt run oblivion properly with your hardware. And ill guarantee that the pc doesnt have to load as much as the 360, ill also say that the ps3 is not near as powerfull as any pc out, and its not as fast as the 360 either, because of its bottlenecked archetecture, especially in the cell. Crysis would never have a hope in hell of running on any console, out and coming out this means 360, and ps3. There isnt one ps3 game that looks good and is in game, they all suck, GT HD, looks absolutely horrendous, so does Resistance Fall of man, and those if you havent noticed are ALL in game, MGS4 cutscene doesnt count. Put the pc side by side with the 360, and notice the pc still playing the game, while the 360 loading... You know what is annoying all of the ps3 fans praising sony for their WUNDER BOX, when they all fall for sonys bullshit every E3, wheres the toy story graphics on the ps2 sony ???? I dont see them, take consoles for what they are, a cheap substitute for a pc, they are pcs ugly brother, and would never go anywhere if it wasnt for the innovations that take place in the pc world, pc fans are actually smarter and more experienced then moronic console fans, and know what the hell they are actually talking about.... and if you say that any of those consoles are more powerfull then the gaming pc's of today, then youd better get a reality check. You also do know the pc version of GRAW looks alot better,has better physics, much better particle effects, and better ai....dont you ? the xbox 360 version was scaled down.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2759&p=5
what were you saying about it not running good ?, this is just an assumption but its most likely running on a X1900xtx, as their previous testing was done on a X1900 xtx,and this is just a performance update, so im assuming they used the same hardware. The fact of the matter is the GRAW xbox version lags to around 20 fps @1280x960, this machine is running on 1600x1200, and never lags below 27, with higher quality textures, and pixel shading, etc. I also hope that you know by the time the ps3 comes out the pc will have the R600 which is a monster with 64 pipelines configured in a unified archetecture with 512 mbs of GDDR4, we will also have the conroe which would rip the cell or the xenos to shreads without even breaking a sweat.

Once again to tach, the crysis developer in that video I sent you stated that crysis wont be coming to the consoles, and they specifically wanted everyone to know that the pc is the most powerful gaming platform.
May 29, 2006 7:51:39 PM

Quote:
With quad cores on our doorstep, we will NEVER nead a ppu.
Even a quad core CPU won't be capable of putting out the sort of floating point calculations that are needed for realistic physics.

I was about to say the same thing. Instead I would have said,

With quad cores on our doorstep, we will NEVER nead a GPU.

Which is a lie. The GPU and PPU are vector friendly processors that eat generic CPUs for dust when doing matrix/vector operations. SSE is a joke.
May 29, 2006 8:12:05 PM

You can't honestly believe that the Xbox360 uses the same settings as a PC on the highest quality.
May 29, 2006 9:07:24 PM

Quote:
You can't honestly believe that the Xbox360 uses the same settings as a PC on the highest quality.
Looks exactly the same, and runs smooth constantly on a 360. nothing more to say. Iv seen both, my eyes dont lie.
May 29, 2006 9:28:47 PM

Quote:
You can't honestly believe that the Xbox360 uses the same settings as a PC on the highest quality.


That is silly I doubt a games console will ever keep up with a top spec PC, compare pictures of a XBOX 360 and a PC in Oblivion. I have an Xbox 360 and the graphics don't compare to my PC.
May 29, 2006 9:45:36 PM

Quote:
there are two RSX chips in a PS3


1) Where did you get that the PS3 has 2 GPUs in it?

2) Learn what a freakin period is. <-- thats one right there
May 29, 2006 10:10:24 PM

Yep ive saw both, and the pc version looks MUCH better. The xbox 360 version does not run completly smooth at all, I dont think dodging to 20 fps is smooth at all. The pc version, has better textures, better physics, better pixel shading etc.... the list goes on. My eyes dont lie either, and I know the capabilities of both pc, and xbox 360, and frankly speaking, the xbox 360's triple core, 2 issue in-order processor is nothing speedy, and the gpu well it is fast, but only fast enough to keep up with what we have now. The xbox 360 nor ps3 could even hope of stacking up against an SLI or crossfire system.
May 29, 2006 10:43:32 PM

Quote:
You can't honestly believe that the Xbox360 uses the same settings as a PC on the highest quality.
Looks exactly the same, and runs smooth constantly on a 360. nothing more to say. Iv seen both, my eyes dont lie.

I am not saying that the Xbox 360 is crap it is an increadible peice of hardware for the money (got my premium for £260) but what you just said there was a load of crap I don't mean any offence but you must either be blind or have a really crap monitor. The Xbox 360 has got some very good graphics for a console but it really isn't nearly as good as a PC sorry.
May 29, 2006 10:44:37 PM

Don't get me wrong, for $400, the Xbox360 can produce amazing graphics; you however are trying to compare it to a PC which can have $1,000 of graphics hardware in it.
May 29, 2006 10:57:04 PM

This argument gets more retarded and ignorant every week when there's a new thread about it.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
June 12, 2009 2:10:29 PM


The ps3 processer doubles what the RSX can deliver - thats why it looks so good. Give the Ps3 time to develop and it rocks.
Look at Bioshock - best version. Plus it's making games that are only possible on the ps3.
All PC users are worried snobs, maintaning there fragile machines in a dark room hoping nothing goes wrong.

Plus your video playback features suck. Ps3 insnt just a games machine.
March 31, 2010 9:48:51 AM

Mike995 said:
The rsx cannot, and never will render as fast as a 7900 GTX, or 7800 GTX for that matter, the memory bandwidht going to the RSX is a max of 22 gb/s compared to the 7900 GTX's 51.2 gb/s of memory bandwidth, also the RSX is only clocked at 550 mhz. Secondly never beleive anything sony tells you about their system specs, because absolutely every playstation e3 showing has always been packed with lies, ps2 was supposed to get Toy Story graphics, they said it would perform with 75 million polygons per second, the console came out with 7 million polygons per second. The pc is also the best, and fastest gaming platform of them all, and always will be. Crytek wanted to make sure that everyone knew that, by releasing Crysis on the pc, and they have stated that if they were to put crysis on any of the consoles, they would have to degrade, graphics, physics, ai, and gameplay, just to get a solid frame rate on the "next gen" consoles, and if there is one developer that I trust it is Crytek. And to answer your other question, no the ps3 does not have better graphics then the 360, there is no ps3 game that is in-game, that looks near as good as GOW, Mass Effect, Bio Shock, PGR3, TDU, etc....


this one goes to mike I'm sorry but in regards to what you just said about the ps3 graphics performance I'm going to hve to say that what you said has almost now grounds whats so ever how can you state that the ps3 graphics power match the xbox 360's ok you've stated that games like gears of war and mass effect, and even pgr3 ae infact much better in performance and over all round yeah but when you dropped the bio shock as another game which is better I had to smile to myself in a sarcastic way, its cross format not even early in the console lifetime cross format both gmes run the SAME man give and take lol please lol give me a break your a fanboy... right ? lol anyways back to the point Gears of war is one of a best games that I liked for the graphics but I think we all know that ps3 could make this game work on their platform just as good and infact with gears 2 they could of done a better job why because your gonna hate me for saying this but ps3 would of taken advantage of the space for data whic is BLU-RAY about 4 times a much space to put higher polyons on bigger maps I'm sorry but if you look at gears 2 to can clearing see that they ran out of space on that crappy duel layer disc........ same goes for Halo3 nice game but should of been on lol 2 or even 3 disc to mess sony up..
June 11, 2010 11:42:27 AM

my personal experience comparing Sacred 2 on xbox 360 and ps3, the ps3 gets more frames and has WAY WAY less loading(thankyou blu ray). the ps3's gpu is like a underclocked 7800gt while the xbox 360 is like a 7600gt, so the ps3 is slightly more powerful
June 11, 2010 11:43:15 AM

and ive owned 3 xbox 360's and 1 ps3
!