ATI Stream processors?

The R600 technically does have 320 stream processors

They are grouped into arrays of five (4 simple shaders and one complex shader), that's where the 64 shader processors come from.

Same thing with the HD4800 series.

Id like to be the first to say...who cares....the 2900 series and 3870 series werent very good....the 4XXX series are very good...as for "wasted silicon" and that i think you would have to speak to an ati technician...its beyond us mere mortals.

Um what? The 2900 series is not as bad as everyone thinks. I have one and it performs better than you would think. The 3800 series was much better since it had the 55nm core so it runs cooler and also had more optimizations.

Way different. The only thing that is truly the same in the Xenos and the R600 is the ring bus memory controller. Other than that they are different. In shaders the Xenos chip is closer to the X1900 series of GPUs.

Its still a decent card though.

Wow, we are sure glad you aren't "ATI". The Xbox 360 video hardware is laughable compared to current cards: Xbox 360 uses TWO graphics chips, 90mm and at 500MHZ, with a unified memory architecture on a 128-bit bus. All to achieve 4xFSAA, z-buffering and alpha blending, which is common and surpassed on by the cheapest cards today.

Come August, the X360 will get a new GPU and mobo, further refining the refinements of the original which were so unstable they they cost Microsoft a billionty dollars in warranty charges.

It's ok to have an opinion, but it's not ok to think your opinions carry the same weight as someone who actually understands what they are talking about.

The 360 GPU only has 48 shaders. Imagine how much ATI can throw on now that they have moved the manufacturing process down?

The 360 gpu can do FSAA without the 10mb daughter die, it simply allowed it for virtually no performance hit something I don't see current ATI cards doing.

However from what I understand they can't implement a daughter die on a pc card due to direct X standards.

I'm Just trying to say that it's not as bad a card as BF2gameplaya would make it out to be. He is comparing it to current cards and I think it's only fair we think about what ATI could do with the design ***NOW*** not how it is currently.

When the card first came out in late 2005 it was better than the X1900 which was ATI's high end.

So if you want to compare it to today's cards then think about what they could do to it on 55nm vs 90nm.

We the PC supremasists shall clean the earth of the vile console scum!

lol gaiz don't act like I don't have a pc myself. I like owing both to get the better things out of both.

The 7800GTX is near the speed of the X1950, the ps3 gpu is supposted to be faster than the 7800GTX and the Xenos is faster than the ps3 gpu.

Don't sit here and tell me the Xenos is not as good as a Geforce 6800 which CAN run crysis. Consoles are held back by their stupid cpu designs and low amounts of memory required to run crysis. I'm not saying it could run it on medium, probably all low but it would run provided it had more memory thus not a gpu bottleneck.

protokiller you are not making much sense.
For the longest time only the highest and mightiest of GPUs can tame the wild beast that is crysis. And you are trying to tell us that a Geforce 6800 would not be a bottle neck?
What kind of fairytale land do you live in?

Also, a console playing at anything other than max settings does not count. Consoles are supposed to have only one quality setting.

I was saying the console memory bottleneck and poor cpu performance (the 360 is said to have the power of a 1.5ghz Pentium 4 per core by the quake developers) would be a bigger issue than the gpu which at least has the power to run the game but NOT on high.

In your first post you said "run crysis" not "max crysis" a thing not even $600 cards can do.

If it can't run it on high it CAN'T run it. Crysis' main selling point is graphics, no one wants to play a **** looking slideshow. Follow jaydeejohn's advice and go preach to the console freaks.

Sh!t like that cracks me up, amazing how trolls will come on and spread this sort of stuff. this ain't 2005, perhaps you should update your act, we have proper trolls on these forums not amateurs like yourself.

And if this is so, do you think theyll get the same IQ? Have you seen supcom on a console?

I thought I that was the speed when all three cores were utilized

Anyway, yes the Xbox 360 probably could run Crysis on the lowest settings (might have to modify some settings to ultra-low) at 640x480, but no one would want to play it that way. The chance of Crysis being ported to a console is pretty much nonexistant.

I started this thread to find out why Nvidia cards were pwning ATI cards with far less stream processors (or at least what they seem to advertise spec wise in retail) then I made a simple inquiry about the 360 gpu and somebody said it sucked and here we are.

And no turboflame the 360 cpu has three cores each at 3.2GHz with two threads per core (like hyperthreading since it has a long P4-like pipeline). It's very fun having people call me a troll and pc fanboys start saying consoles are trash because I hear the same thing only opposite in the console forums.

How is it hard to compare the 360 cpu to desktop cpus? Surely the developers would know how much power they are getting with relation to desktop cpus. I sorta spent some time thinking about it and if the 360 CPU has 1.5ghz Pentium 4 power per core then total therotical power should be 4.5Ghz (pentium 4 sytle) that would mean even a Pentium D @ a lowely 3GHz should have gave more performance and be easier to program for only having two cores.

I'm not trying to be a console fanboy here just trying to say that consoles are capable of a bit more than some of you might think. After all since they only have to develop for one system they can optimize the hell out of it when they make games.

hmm and you wonder why I compare you to console fanboys? That sounds like something somebody in the halo 3 forums would say about PCs.

I would say I know far more about the 360 hardware than most. Sure, you can say I don't know exactly where it fits compared to desktop gpus but at least I can tell you the hardware specs.

Most just think their consoles are gaming beasts that only a $2000 PC can match but I find myself telling those people off frequently, both my close friends I play Gears of War with for example I've got them to buy a simple graphics card and "omg all the sudden it don't suck"

Err I don't know exactly what you meant by the part in bold.

Exactly, it would look "alright". That my friend, is not the selling point of that game. Without the "omg uber" graphics it's not really that great anymore.

Like I said, programable shaders are the future, the more they are flexable the better they are, be it 10 100 or 1000

ah ok, still be my theory correct or yours it's still amazing developers can make games for that machine that look and play as well as they do with such limited power.

Excep it doesn't PWN, nVidia G80 hardware is actually pretty weak at GPGPU work, so the premise is broken. Gaming though is another story and more about the back end than stream processors. Like I said, go read up on it.

That has nothing to do with what they are capable of, in fact it's because of the optimization and single focus that you can barely squeeze out playability from what is now a very low capability system.