PDA

View Full Version : RSX discovered to be significantly weaker than 7800 GTX ?


Pages : [1] 2

AirRaid
04-02-06, 11:16 PM
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29673

http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=19285&start=0

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=54240

http://rei-rom.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55681


It was previously believed that PlayStation3's graphics processor, the RSX aka Reality Synthesizer, would be a custom G70 (NV47) which is the GeForce 7800 GTX, or the newer 90nm version, the G71 ~ GeForce 7900.

It was known since E3 2005 that PS3's RSX GPU would only have a 128-bit memory bus connected to the GDDR3 memory.

It was believed that RSX would only have 8 pixel pipelines aka ROPs (not to be confused with pixel SHADER pipes) compared to the 16 pixel pipelines ~ ROPs that are in both G70 ~ GeForce 7800 GTX and G71 ~ GeForce 7900.

but now word is spreading that RSX is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS POWERFUL than even this known reduction compared to GeForce 7800 and 7900.

It has been discovered that RSX only produces 384 floating point operations per clock cycle (MHz) compared to the 700+ (in the 700s) floating point operations per clock cycle that the G70 ~ GeForce 7800 GTX does.

It is now suspected (not yet proven) that RSX has 6 Vertex Shaders
( instead of 8 ) and 12 Pixel Shaders ( instead of 24 ) that both GeForce 7800 GTX and 7900 have.

IF TRUE, this would bring RSX *closer* in performance to the less-powerful G73 ~ GeForce 7600 GT

now, in some of the other threads, the OP is saying that
RSX = GeForce 7600 GT.

that would not be precisely correct. i.e. the 7600 GT has 5 Vertex Shaders and RSX might have 6.


however, it looks VERY likely that RSX is a lot LESS powerful than the

high-end PC Nvidia GPUs.

and could very well make RSX significantly less powerful, when all is said and done, than the ATI Xenos GPU in Xbox 360.


If RSX has 24 pixel shaders, why was that not displayed in the recent GDC slide ?

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20060329/3dps309.jpg

mike686
04-02-06, 11:21 PM
Uhm...I highly doubt it. Why would Sony screw themselves like that? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

parecon
04-02-06, 11:28 PM
Not that I really care but I don't that can be true. Like the above poster said, knowing that the 360 has been out for quite awhile using a much more powerful processor, why would Sony release something later that is very less powerful. Doesn't make any sense, thus I doubt its going to happen.

AirRaid
04-02-06, 11:32 PM
Not that I really care but I don't that can be true. Like the above poster said, knowing that the 360 has been out for quite awhile using a much more powerful processor, why would Sony release something later that is very less powerful. Doesn't make any sense, thus I doubt its going to happen.

well it is very possible.

Sony released the PS2 in 2000 with a graphics chip that did not have some of the features that the PowerVR2DC chip in Dreamcast had in 1998.

Sony released the original Playstation slightly later than the Saturn, but Saturn had 1.5 MB of video memory compared to PS1's 1 MB. the Saturn had 512K of CD-ROM cache compared to the 32K in PS1. the Saturn had superior 2D sprite handling capabilities compared to the PS1. the Saturn had superior audio processor compared to the PS1. even though PS1 was more powerful in its one strong area, 3D graphics.

Dazz
04-03-06, 12:22 AM
With consoles it's diffrent as games are desgined for that console from the ground up so they can get more out of the chip then they can for PC.

Darkfalz
04-03-06, 12:35 AM
With consoles it's diffrent as games are desgined for that console from the ground up so they can get more out of the chip then they can for PC.

TV resolution is also 640x480, now imagine how much power any 7x00 series has to spare running at that resolution. Even 720p isn't particularly high.

GamerGuyX
04-03-06, 01:10 AM
TV resolution is also 640x480, now imagine how much power any 7x00 series has to spare running at that resolution. Even 720p isn't particularly high.

That no longer applies with the next-gneration of consoles. All games are created with HDTV resolutions in mind (720p: 1280x720, 1080i/p: 1920x1080).

Currently all 360 titles are developed in 720p and are downscaled to 640x480 for standard TV's.

DMA
04-03-06, 01:39 AM
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=67340

Wrong forum trolly. :)

H3avyM3tal
04-03-06, 04:39 AM
Well, if the ps3 will give me graphics such as MGS4, I would say that a 7600 is a preety darn good gpu.

Bad_Boy
04-03-06, 05:09 AM
http://www.nforcershq.com/article3417.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/07/11/nvidia_rsx_interview/2.html
bit-tech.net chats with NVIDIA's David Kirk and discusses upcoming NVIDIA technology, the G70, PS3 RSX - and what the future holds for PC gamers:

The graphics processor in the PlayStation 3 is NVIDIA-designed and is called RSX. How does it compare next to the 7800? "The two products share the same heritage, the same technology. But RSX is faster," said Kirk.
take that as whatever youd like. maybe sony/nvidia will clear things up at e3.

toxikneedle
04-03-06, 11:10 AM
Well, if the ps3 will give me graphics such as MGS4, I would say that a 7600 is a preety darn good gpu.
Yeah I have seen some very impressive tech demos on my PC as well, yet the games didn't quite look like them...

surfhurleydude
04-03-06, 11:23 AM
That no longer applies with the next-gneration of consoles. All games are created with HDTV resolutions in mind (720p: 1280x720, 1080i/p: 1920x1080).

Currently all 360 titles are developed in 720p and are downscaled to 640x480 for standard TV's.

Actually, so far games created for XBox 360 in 1080i aren't 1920x1080, it's a 540p signal upscaled to 1080i. Lame.

toxikneedle
04-03-06, 11:52 AM
Actually, so far games created for XBox 360 in 1080i aren't 1920x1080, it's a 540p signal upscaled to 1080i. Lame.
That's because there's no way a 360 can handle running games at that high res with a good framerate...

Can your PC run Call of Duty 2 @ DX9 1920x1080 w/ 60fps?

rAdIOhEaD
04-03-06, 12:09 PM
Yeah I have seen some very impressive tech demos on my PC as well, yet the games didn't quite look like them...

I would agree with you but, we are talking about a Metal Gear game by Hideo Kojima and this guy always delivers what he shows in his presentations, same thing happened when he showed the first MGS2 trailer for PS2, a lot af nay sayers said the trailer was fake and he delivered, you can talk crap about any other Ps3 you want, but not this one my firend, since the ps1 he has always given us the same graphics he showed in his demos.

GamerGuyX
04-03-06, 01:00 PM
Actually, so far games created for XBox 360 in 1080i aren't 1920x1080, it's a 540p signal upscaled to 1080i. Lame.

No 360 game to date was made or meant to have a native 1080i/p resolution. ALL games are native 720p with the only exception being PGR3 and it's native res of 1024600.

Really the only thing I find lame is Sony's promise of having all games being native 1080p.

Sazar
04-03-06, 01:28 PM
This is only surprising if you were head over heels and bought everything the marketing tossed out there.

The ps3 is still going to look fine and play fine (if/when released). The overall PACKAGE delivered is the key thing.

The x360 has proven itself to be a pretty decent product, shipping, delivered, some good titles out there to use it with. If the ps3 has these components, which eventually it will, there is no reason why the established user-base sony has will not endear themselves to the product.

evilchris
04-03-06, 01:42 PM
Actually, so far games created for XBox 360 in 1080i aren't 1920x1080, it's a 540p signal upscaled to 1080i. Lame.
Wow, when did you dream that line up? Same time you dreamt up Sony wasn't paying royalties to NV per chip sold?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=comktNews&storyid=URI%3a2006-03-23T210526Z_01_N23330678_RTRIDST_0_TECH-NVIDIA-SONY.XML&rpc=11

In the case of the PS3, the engineering contract is the smallest of three revenue streams Nvidia collects. It also gets a licensing fee paid out each quarter until mid-2009 and collects a royalty on each chip Sony makes.

Son Goku
04-03-06, 03:54 PM
If the gfx processor seems weaker then Xbox 360, it might seem strange considering it's latter release date, but I guess we'll see. If one were really looking for something by which Sony could shoot themself in the foot, one really only needs to look no further then the delays that had been incured to include a Blu Ray drive in the console. Given the possible cost this could add, along with a possible increase in game costs (if Blu Ray disks and burning equipment is more expensive for game mfgs to acquire)? Keep in mind that if manufacturers have to pay more for Blu Ray media to sell, they're going to want to collect that additional cost somewhere...

If the cost is higher, one would almost expect them to plan on delivering that something more that would help justify the cost to a price conscious consumer. However, plans and development also take time and PS3 wasn't always slated for a summer 2006 launch in Japan with a early 2007 release for the US. A past delay might not be met with a re-design which could perhaps delay it further... Hmm... Perhaps we will find out more at E3, which will give us something more to go on...

ENU291
04-03-06, 04:43 PM
Actually, so far games created for XBox 360 in 1080i aren't 1920x1080, it's a 540p signal upscaled to 1080i. Lame. Like someone noted there are no games now or ever that will run native at 1080i on the Xbox360. Another note is that there is no pixel or resolution difference between 540p and 1080i. This is because at 1080i or 540p a screen can only display 540 lines per 1/60th of a second. The same about of data is being displayed at any give time.

Nutty
04-03-06, 05:32 PM
That no longer applies with the next-gneration of consoles. All games are created with HDTV resolutions in mind (720p: 1280x720, 1080i/p: 1920x1080).

Currently all 360 titles are developed in 720p and are downscaled to 640x480 for standard TV's.

Most 360 games are lower res than that and upscaled. It doesn't have enuff embedded DRAM for 720p with some features enabled.

evilchris
04-03-06, 06:33 PM
Like someone noted there are no games now or ever that will run native at 1080i on the Xbox360. Another note is that there is no pixel or resolution difference between 540p and 1080i. This is because a 1080i or 540p a screen can only display 540 lines per 1/60th of a second. The same about of data is being displayed at any give time.

You sure there will *never* be any? Matrix ran at 1080i on Xbox 1.

Buenamos
04-03-06, 06:40 PM
You sure there will *never* be any? Matrix ran at 1080i on Xbox 1.

keyword *native*

evilchris
04-03-06, 06:49 PM
keyword *native*

Matrix ran NATIVE 1080i on Xbox 1. It was not upsampled and the drastically increased resolution of all textures/world was easily noticed.

|MaguS|
04-04-06, 12:58 PM
Matrix ran NATIVE 1080i on Xbox 1. It was not upsampled and the drastically increased resolution of all textures/world was easily noticed.

So does Dragon's Lair 3D.

Tygerwoody
04-04-06, 02:19 PM
when will you all learn

Xbox360 > Any PC throughout all time > PS3

:rolleyes: