It is not what each peice does differently that counts it is when all the peices work togethor that counts.
Anyway, with the specs of both consoles now fully released it is possible to do a REAL TIME comparinson of the 2 consoles,your about to see what most of the sony representetives didnt want you to see.
Comparing these two GPU's is like comparing Apples to Banana's. RSX on paper will have certain advantages over Xenon, and Xenon will have certain advantages over RSX.
There is the element of co-operation with the CPU we also have to consider.
Ok, lets put up the specs for the RSX as published.
- 550 Mhz
- 51 billion dot products/sec count's for total system performance
- 300 Million Transistors
- 136 shader operations per clock
good now that's for the facts as presented to us, we have 550 MHz of power to work with
The Cell and the RSX together are capable to produce 51 billion dot products. I think it is interesting to take a closer look at this claim especially, since I worked with this bit while the specs of both consoles first became public, the important thing is that many people just compare the seperate peices of each console which effectivley tells us nothing, as its what happens when all the parts work together that counts, to PS fanboys and PS3 no-it-alls it will be music to there ears, but to us who know about comoputers and know how to compare them,ill tell you one thing, sony has lost alot of its credibility ;).
Anyway. Since the Cell will have 7 SPE's all being able to do a dot product per cycle, we have some numbers to work with, we can put the numbers in a small calculation.
7SPE's * 3.2(ghz) = 22.4 billion dot products/sec for the CPU
since we had 51 billion in total , we will have to substract them to know what is left for the GPU.
51 - 22.4 = 28.6 Billion dot products
When you devide this number to the clockspeed of the GPU you will get 52 ALU operations per clock as they are called.
Now as stated before, the RSX's architecture is not that different from the GeForce 6800 and so it will use Vector4 standards.
Since ATI's architecture is done with Vector5s it will handle the material a bit different. Now there also the Multiply Add instructions, in short MADD instructions to work with. In plain English MADD means that the vector graphic will be recalculated to it's precise position, and the instruction always sort of double checks before we get output, that's why we have throw in the 2 value in the end calculation.
So, what we have here is this.
52 ALU ops * 4 floats (vector4s) * 550 (clockspeed) * 2 (MADD) =228.8
Gflops for the RSX and Cell as a team.
If we do the same with the specs of Xbox 360 we will find that it does the following, all the numbers provided through the same calculation though with the Xeon the dot products are devided over it's 3 cores.
48 ALU ops (less than PS3) * 5 floats (vector5s better than PS3) * 500 (less than PS3) * 2(MADD) = 240 Gflops for Xenon, and Xeon as a team
This is one example of how this Xenon GPU together with the Xeon does more with less, and in this case it will give slightly better graphics.
So in theory we have a more powerful RSX with more Mhz's at it's disposal which due to some limitations within the architecture, it can not be used to it's full potential.
overall the RSX basically is a current gen processor which is overclocked, since it's architecture is not that different from it's predecessors (e.g the geforce 7800)
I think in the end it will most definately come to the creative sollutions of the game programmers. Which is when the xbox 360 wins overall as What many people are missing is that the new architecture of ATI opens new ways in terms of graphical development, and the 3 core CPU helps greatly too,as the Cell has only one PPE to the IBM's Xeon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window.
dommage que je doi aller dormir parce que je la rallumerai bien
) des sims on line version sony?? 