Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

What graphics card is the Xbox360 equivalent to?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 8, 2008 10:12:50 AM

I think they're closer to the 7900's but I'm not quite sure.
Related resources
January 8, 2008 10:19:04 AM

My friend thinks they are the same as the GeForce 8800. Is the Xbox 360 close to this?
January 8, 2008 10:29:26 AM

I have also heard 7800 GTX; there is no way it%u2019s the 8800. That is why as soon as a console comes out, it%u2019s outdated. The Xbox 360 graphics is powerful because it gets to run code that has been written exactly like its architecture and so the 8800 is needed to run that code effectively. It is becoming that when they port the games they just copy and paste the code.
January 8, 2008 12:16:55 PM

AFAIK, the Xenos is equivalent to the X1900/X1950 XT cards. So yeah, about as powerful as a 7800/7900GTX.



a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 12:43:27 PM

Trying to compare an Xbox to a PC graphic card is like apples and oranges. An Xbox is highly optimized to do 1 thing, and the games for it are written specifically to work with it. It doesn't need the highest powered graphics hardware to run it's games effectively.
January 8, 2008 1:47:54 PM

The Xbox360 "Xenos" GPU is not comparable to any desktop card. It has 48 unified shaders, tessellation support, and has 10MB of integrated eDRAM. In raw speed it's not as fast as the 8800GTX, but anything programmed for the Xbox360 will be much more optimized than a PC counterpart. The PS3's "RSX" is quite literally a 7900GT clocked to 550MHz with only 8 ROPs. While it would sound as if the PS3 would be at a disadvantage graphically, this is not the case when used correctly as the Cell is very capable of taking on rendering tasks as well, almost like a second GPU.
January 8, 2008 1:48:04 PM

The 360GPU (Xenos) was designed by ATI, so the GeForce comparisons are pretty far off. I'd say that Xenos sits somewhere between the X1900 series and the HD2900 series, probably closer to the X1900.
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 2:42:15 PM

Yeah, HY27's got it right, althoguh to add that the RSX also only has half the bandwidth of the GT at 128bit, and of course it's 'shared' memory. And while the Cell is helpful, it still suffers many of the same limitations of the GF7 series and relying on even the CELL to make up fo them is still prohibitive because of the added latency per cycle to virtualize operations that would perform much faster if they were supported in hardware, it's like being able to do HDR+AA by sending the image back through the ROPs a second time, it's possible, but the performance penalty makes it not practical.

Homerdog's got it close, with the Xenos having about the equivalent strength of a X1950Pro-X1950XT but with some extra little bits that would be similar to the HD2900.

While the RSX is the same architecture as a desktop part the Xenos is not, and add to that the added variable of eDRAM and there's really nothing similar to it.

Features and Performance wise though I'd say it's like an ATi X19xx series with some bonuses, but it definitely falls short of the GF8800/HD2K/3K series cards for both features and performance.
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 2:50:52 PM

for the 360its a beefed up x1900xt core like the rsx on ps3 is a beefed version of the 7800gtx....but these cores are highly optomised for use on there set platform. short story long....they get more bang for the buck! oh and to a note to the guy's buddy who said a 360 was in line with a 8800gtx...psshhhh rofl not even, close to twice the power in the 8800...not to say a 360 can't hold its own. it is a "platform" so it is designed to do everything this pc doesn't on a hardware/software level, it has an os that runs smooth and error free as possible with little to no cpu over head unlike windows freeing up system reasources for 3d rendering, sound or phyics.
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 2:59:42 PM

atomicWAR said:
for the 360its a beefed up x1900xt core like the rsx on ps3 is a beefed version of the 7800gtx....but these cores are highly optomised for use on there set platform.


The RSX is not higly optimized, it's a GF7900GT with half the bandwidth/ROPs, with no additional architecture benifits.
The Xenos is also not a beefed up X19xx since it came before the X1900 and also have very different architectures that owe nothing to the X1900, their functions are beefed up but the chip is not a 'beefed-up' anything else.

Probably the best article ever written on the subject wa by Wavey Dave at B3D;
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 3:14:22 PM

I have a Sapphire x1950GT. When My computer boots it says x1950GT R500 which from what I understand the "R500" is the same core chip that is in the XBOX 360. Games look great and I would say it is very comparable to XBOX 360 graphics.

Far as a GeForce 8800 that is way beyond an XBOX360.
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 3:19:47 PM

rwayne said:
I have a Sapphire x1950GT. When My computer boots it says x1950GT R500 which from what I understand the "R500" is the same core chip as the XBOX 360.


You'd be wrong on asuming they are the same, it is an R500 aka C1 aka Xenos aka son of the never launched R400, but has nothing to do with the R5xx desktop series. Read the article.

It (the X1950GT) is an R5xx series chip, RV570 to be exact; but the R500/Xenos and R520/580/RV570 are very VERY different chips/architectures.
January 8, 2008 3:50:04 PM

It's probably more like 2600xt/8600gt
January 8, 2008 4:14:01 PM

SOOO... a little off topic but which machine has the potential for better GFX X360 or PS3?
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 4:22:35 PM

Both have the potential for the same graphics... supported through the CPU.

But the X360 has the better hardware support for graphics features.
January 8, 2008 4:34:42 PM

Billy Bad Ape saves the day. You have finally resolved a debate at work with my pc vs some kids xbox360
January 8, 2008 4:40:04 PM

grieve said:
SOOO... a little off topic but which machine has the potential for better GFX X360 or PS3?
When talking strictly about the GPU, the Xbox360 definitely is superior, although the 10MB of eDRAM has already caused issues as it's been too small for the frame buffer in the example of Halo 3. The "RSX" isn't necessarily bad for a game console, but it's not quite as fast or feature rich as the Xenos, so developers will have to make up for that with use of the Cell, which in comparison to even modern desktop CPUs, is much better equipped for GPU functions. I own both systems, and to be honest would have to give the "best graphics award" currently to the PS3 as I've played nothing on my Xbox360 that can rival the quality of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. I'd almost go as far to say the graphics in a sense rival Crysis'; while Crysis is superior on a graphical level, Uncharted is still quite a treat for any PS3 owner.
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 5:18:08 PM

Yeah but Drake's is about the programming component, when playing the same titles side by side the X360 has noticeably better graphics. Since there is no X360 version of the title there's no way to compare the consoles, because too much of it is affected by optimizations and choices in even different versions of the same game.

The best comparison I've seen sofar is the one at gamespot;
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/

But really, the highest end possible of both consoles is the same because the CELL and 3CoreHT PowerPC both have the same upper-limits.
January 8, 2008 5:22:07 PM

its a modded ati chip and yes its like the 1900 series
January 8, 2008 7:40:15 PM

wow that comparison is a great find, and to me the 360 is much better looking than the ps3. The lighting is dealt with much more realistically, everything is more detailed and the textures look alot better.

In terms of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune looking better than crysis, is this after playing crysis on an 8800GT, as i think we have decided the GT has much better graphics. I didnt think anything came anywhere near close to crysis just yet.
January 8, 2008 8:01:57 PM

Yeah great comparison...only problem is that those games are horrible reference points as it is common knowledge that multiplats almost always look better on the xbox360. This has less to do with the graphical capabilities of either machine and more to do with the funds (and overall laziness of the devs, see ps3 version of orange box)as it costs more to have a good port on the ps3. Why you may ask? b/c the cell operates differently from the regular 'ol cpu (see: chip in xbox 360) and therefore you have to pay people for more hours, as the first couple of hours of each day are spent by those lazy devs whinning about how different the cell is.

I ask you all to hold off on this, which platform performs better, until the ps3 has some time to mature and gets some decent games under its belt. In other words, wait until the end of this current year when MGS4, Final Fantasy and Killzone have been released --then look me in the face and tell me that Halo looks better.

aint gonna happen.

Just my 2 cents.
January 8, 2008 8:34:41 PM

what do you mean by graphics power?

do you mean FPS or pure visual effects?

the PS3 has much more powerful physics effects, as well as lighting and textures, which will theoretically force frame rates down, however the xbox360 has better color detail and contrast.

and to the gamespot visual comparison, that is not an apples to apples comparison, for the review was done shortly after the PS3 was released and the developers had less than a year to work with the PS3 developers tool, and thus were first generation PS3 games, while the Xbox306 games were second generation 360 games.

But then again on the frame-rates, Sony recently cut the developer's tool for the PS3 in half, and will in turn give out higher quality games in terms of appearance and frame rates.

Take example the recent '08 versions of sports games like madden, fifa, ncaa, etc. these games have much better visual appearance and feel more realistic on the ps3, however the frame rates are about 10-20 less per second than the 360...

and as for comparing the 2 graphics cards to desktop counterparts is ridiculous.

For one, the RSX chip in the PS3 also is a physics processor simultaneously as a graphics processor, yes it is based off of the G71, but is still different and has added features.

and the 360's Xenos is a precursor to the R600, meaning that it uses similar technology such as stream processors but is a CUSTOM GPU.

January 8, 2008 9:07:10 PM

bstep1989, you are right there. In fact tha R600(HD2k series) uses the same technology such as the ring bus system. Probably running 256bit though. I saw a article of one of ATIs card making company released a Xenos for the PC and it blew away anything we had on desktop.

The RSX isn't bad but thats what happens when you wait to the last minute and expect the Cell to do everything. I read reports of the Cell overheating and melting the PCB/console itself.

When it comes to development on the consoles its really also due to how easy it is. Gabe Newell stated that he thinks the PS3's Cell is too hard to develop for and a lot of developers seem to want to develop more for the 360 than the PS3. I can understand considering there is now Games for Windows and XNA which allow developers to easily create a game and port it to either the 360 or Windows with ease.

When it comes to the graphics, both consoles will have their ups and downs. I feel that the 360 may be able to be better but thats depends on the devloper. In over all graphics the PC will always reign supreme. Right now nothing has the same quality as Crysis. Well maybe COD4. I for one never really liked consoles. Prefer PC gaming as its better and easier.

I think physics are a big part of the game but the main is the gameplay and graphics. Physics are coming but not until the PC has a real jump in that area it wont make much of a difference in what console people buy. Look at the Wii. It beats both companies due to the interactivity it has.
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 9:08:29 PM

echofoxtrot said:
Why you may ask? b/c the cell operates differently from the regular 'ol cpu (see: chip in xbox 360) and therefore you have to pay people for more hours, as the first couple of hours of each day are spent by those lazy devs whinning about how different the cell is.


The 3 core HT Xenon PowerPC CPU in the Xbox360 is not a "regular 'ol CPU" either, BOTH have to be programmed for differently than a PC, however I'm sure M$ has more experience with that than most.

Quote:
I ask you all to hold off on this, which platform performs better, until the ps3 has some time to mature and gets some decent games under its belt.


I say hold off on it forever, because the question has been answered simply an correctly, they both CAN display the exact same thing, however their HARDWARE support differs, the rest is software, and that will never change until they change the hardware.

Quote:
In other words, wait until the end of this current year when MGS4, Final Fantasy and Killzone have been released --then look me in the face and tell me that Halo looks better.


That assumes that no more beautiful titles come out for X360 or even than Halo3 is good looking game. On "most beautiful" settings, games like Crysis sofar destroy anything from either console, the game play is pretty boring, but the graphics are sweet, and without the hardware support and the relatively weak CPU strength of the consoles, you'll never see the same DX10 level of graphics appear on a console that could be done on a current Quad Core PC with a GF8800/HD2900/HD38xx, but you could get close.

*Warning* - If this turn into another console thread beyond the techincal aspect of graphics cards, it dies !!
January 8, 2008 9:37:31 PM

I'm sorry, my rant is more fueled by my hatred of forced multiplats. It makes no sense-- if you are going to make a game, make it well--and if you don't want to write for a certain system then don't. B/c when you don't follow this system then you end up with crappy ports. See madden fiasco, where xbox 360 runs smooth at 60fps and ps3 stuttering at 30, and then the orange box where pc and 360 are great and ps3 sucks.

This leads the masses to assume that the ps3 has lesser hardware--not true. It is the devs putting together a jimmyrigged version of the game that couldnt run well even on a system with 15 8800 ultra's--b/c its a software glitch and not a hardware problem.

Thats the irony here. You have to judge the 'quality of the hardware' based on the software it runs. Therefore we cannot accurately ascribe any performance winner as there is no true crossplatform benchmark to postulate such a matter.

i think im up to 4 cents now.
January 8, 2008 9:40:58 PM

"i think im up to 4 cents now"

Can you convert that into GBP :D 
a b U Graphics card
January 8, 2008 9:47:02 PM

echofoxtrot said:

This leads the masses to assume that the ps3 has lesser hardware--not true.



And the main thing is that it's not really about 'lesser', the RSX does have less features/capacilities than the Xenos, but neither the PS3 nor the X360 are limited to just that, and wen it comes down to it, both the Cell and Xenon are more capable overall as general purpose CPUs with the ability to render things (although likely much slower) that their VPUs couldn't, and that's why in the end that both of their limits are the upper limits of their CPU capabilities (not speed) which are similar.

And then like we've all sorta been saying it then comes down to the efficiency in which games are coded for these different (yet both capable) platforms. From the graphics card/chip side of things though it's an open and shut case, but it's not the only story.
January 8, 2008 9:56:41 PM

marvelous211 said:
It's probably more like 2600xt/8600gt

Umm no where did you get that?
January 8, 2008 10:25:30 PM

According to Wikipedia article, the XBOX 360 core has the same pixel and texel fillrates as my 8500GT at 500/1000 core and shaders.
January 8, 2008 11:13:42 PM

the wiki is not a good place to quote
January 8, 2008 11:47:12 PM

You can't really tell because the xbox games are optimized for only one system the 360, while pc games released are not optimized and are made for thousands of system.
January 9, 2008 1:45:22 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Yeah but Drake's is about the programming component, when playing the same titles side by side the X360 has noticeably better graphics. Since there is no X360 version of the title there's no way to compare the consoles, because too much of it is affected by optimizations and choices in even different versions of the same game.

The best comparison I've seen sofar is the one at gamespot;
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/

But really, the highest end possible of both consoles is the same because the CELL and 3CoreHT PowerPC both have the same upper-limits.
But it's not necessarily fair to compare a title on both platforms as the pinnacle of what each console is capable of because most developers working on the PS3 and 360 will not spend the extra resources to get the most out of the PS3 the way a PS3 exclusive developer will. When it comes to graphics in any console game out, Uncharted is in my opinion, the best hands down. I never said the Xbox360 wouldn't be capable of such things, but it simply hasn't been done yet. While it's true the PS3 isn't an ideal platform, the Xbox360 has flaws of its own, and that 10MB frame buffer is going to quickly become a burden as Bungie has already shown us.
January 9, 2008 2:56:20 AM

Well its an Ati chip for one, so I'd try equating it to an Ati card. Then you have to consider the resolution. Then compare a game available on the pc and the 360. Assuming you're using a mid range dual core cpu, I'd say the overall graphical power of a 360 is the same as a x1950 xt. And just remember they can maximize that performance due to the fixed platform and resolution.
January 9, 2008 12:07:40 PM

dodian said:
You can't really tell because the xbox games are optimized for only one system the 360, while pc games released are not optimized and are made for thousands of system.


Great example, if game makers made games according to my comptuers spec's and knew all the texture fill rate and all that other stuff Crysis might have run on very high setting without any problems.
January 9, 2008 1:55:42 PM

Has anybody actually come to a decision as to what 8 series card would be required to replicate 360 graphics on the pc? instead of just arguing on the sheer horror of asking such a heinous question? Honestly console bashers, get over yourselves!

I would personally strike out and say a 8800gts 640mb would produce equivalent grapihcs on the pc, shoddy ports and any cpu limitations aside. Did someone earlier say 8600gt?? your having a laugh mate, my old 7900gt overclocked to 700mhz core 850 mhz memory would take a large dump all over one of them and still be way off getting 360 graphics on the pc.
January 9, 2008 1:56:46 PM

systemlord said:
Great example, if game makers made games according to my comptuers spec's and knew all the texture fill rate and all that other stuff Crysis might have run on very high setting without any problems.


System lord, what settings and res have you got crysis at? and what os? Patch or no patch? Just curious thats all, cheers.
a c 130 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 2:21:46 PM

To spoonboy
As far as which 8 series card is equivelant to a 360, When i was reading the article i linked to they said that they were going to call it (the chip) the rv 500 but thought people would assume it was less of a chip than the rv520 which was the x1800 chip. So going on the assumption that its better than a X1800 chip then it has to be around the X1900 chip which then makes it in Nvidea terms one of the 7900/7950 cards.
Mactronix.
January 9, 2008 3:13:01 PM

Yeah Im up to speed on the 360 hardware, but the question is/was: what could REPLICATE the 360 on the pc. The x1900 was a super card, but would that be able to produce 360 graphics for the pc? Just think it falls short in that respect.

Id say the x1900 was a cut above the 7900 gt & gtx, had a 7900gt clocked at 700/850, crysis laughed at it, and it would laugh a fair bit less at a x1900xtx.
a c 130 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 3:43:28 PM

Ok on that basis i would say that given the kind off model numbers we are talking about that an old g80 8800GTS would be a little better and im going to open the overclocking can off worms by saying that i think the 8600GTS OC2 version MSI made or one with simuilar clocks would be as near as you could get on a 8 series card.
Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 8:00:27 PM

spoonboy said:
Yeah Im up to speed on the 360 hardware, but the question is/was: what could REPLICATE the 360 on the pc.


No it wasn't that's your own question, the actual question is pretty simple (and the reason people mainly use the GF8600 as their choice and not something like the HD2600): "Out of all the GeForce graphics cards what is the Xbox 360 graphics equivalent to" :pfff: 

So the best answer to that is the GF8600 (be it a GS, GT or GTS superclocked or slightly faster than that is debatable) the GF8800s are all far more powerful and would high-side the estimation more than the Gf8600 would possibly low-side it.

Quote:
The x1900 was a super card, but would that be able to produce 360 graphics for the pc? Just think it falls short in that respect.


That doesn't even answer your own question, because an R8500 or GF6200 could reproduce the same graphics for the PC with the CPU doing all the rendering work. Talking about the chip though you end up at the same place as the other answer.

Quote:
Has anybody actually come to a decision as to what 8 series card would be required to replicate 360 graphics on the pc? instead of just arguing on the sheer horror of asking such a heinous question? Honestly console bashers, get over yourselves!


Get over your own self, the question was already answered, and better than your comment about the GF7900 versus the 8600, no one cares about console vs PC, so stop being ignorant. :pfff: 
January 10, 2008 2:59:14 AM

spoonboy said:
System lord, what settings and res have you got crysis at? and what os? Patch or no patch? Just curious thats all, cheers.


At 1280x1024 with half my settings on medium and the other half on high, most of the graphics settings on the left are medium and on right mostly high to medium with only Postprocessing on low. Other people like to crank up the graphics settings so high that they then complain about how the game runs. If your smart you'll know which settings are the best graphics quality/performance ratio.

Ingame settings:

Texture Q = High Water Q = High
Object Q = High Post Processing Q = Low
Shadows Q = Medium Sound Q = High
Shaders Q = Medium Volumemetric Q = Medium
Physics Q = High Other one = High


January 10, 2008 3:40:10 AM

bash007 said:
AFAIK, the Xenos is equivalent to the X1900/X1950 XT cards. So yeah, about as powerful as a 7800/7900GTX.


+1

Best,

3Ball
January 10, 2008 3:47:19 AM

grieve said:
SOOO... a little off topic but which machine has the potential for better GFX X360 or PS3?


From a pure GPU perspective the 360 has the edge. The ps3 on the other hand (if programmed well) will have an edge in the CPU to help render and deal with physics and offload certain graphical assets. As far as which one will be tapped out first. Probably the 360, but when it comes to games released on both systems the 360 generally has better visual quality because of the GPU difference and the ease of programming that is the 360 compared to the ps3.

In the end they are very similar with the ps3 having slightly more overall as a system. Basically once they both reach full potential of programming I believe the ps3 will marginally take the cake, but honestly I own CoD 4 for everything there is. Yes it looks slightly better on 360 than the ps3, but man...they both look like crap compared to my PC and I never really noticed this until I compared a great game on all 3 systems. (Just thought I would add that in!)

Oh, also the 360 tends to be able to handle higher textures slightly easier because it has more memory to work with. Hope this clears it up for ya. My advice...if you can...get both systems and enjoy the best of everything. Thats what I am doing and I laugh at the people who fight over which one is better when they both have great features and games to offer.

P.S. XBL > PSN...lol, PSN is really starting to piss me off!

Best,

3Ball
January 10, 2008 7:25:29 AM

systemlord said:
At 1280x1024 with half my settings on medium and the other half on high, most of the graphics settings on the left are medium and on right mostly high to medium with only Postprocessing on low. Other people like to crank up the graphics settings so high that they then complain about how the game runs. If your smart you'll know which settings are the best graphics quality/performance ratio.

Ingame settings:

Texture Q = High Water Q = High
Object Q = High Post Processing Q = Low
Shadows Q = Medium Sound Q = High
Shaders Q = Medium Volumemetric Q = Medium
Physics Q = High Other one = High


Hmmm my system is near enough identical to yours except I dont overclock and I can run at upto 1600x1200 with all those settings on high and 4xaa...

When I was running the demo with the very high settings hack I had to have settings similiar to yours at the same resolution. Once I got the retail version without any hacks I got pretty decent playability (never once had a stutter that caused a problem playing the game from beginning to end) with all settings on high and 12800x1024 with 4xaa.

Since I completed the game the first time Ive been pushing the resolution further and playing through odd levels, Whilst I found 1600x1200 all high with 4xaa playable on the levels Ive tested it on. Ive not played the game end to end like that to be sure.

Of course if you're running DX10 under vista that might be where the difference comes from Im running DX9 under XP. Might also be drivers related Im running the second set of crysis specific beta drivers (the one that cured the odd water reflections) Im not sure if there is a new beta or final version out since then.
!