PS3 downgraded again - RSX woes this time

[AirRaid]

By Charlie Demerjian: Monday 28 August 2006, 16:43
Click Here!
IT LOOKS LIKE the PS3 is way too powerful for us mere humans, and because the value is so overwhelming, Sony is going to make it a little more palatable. The RSX, previously scheduled to run at 550/700 core/memory has been realigned with expectations and the value chain at 500/650.

We can't tell you why the GPU lost nearly 10% of it's clock, it could be an NVidia screwup, or it could be Sony/Cell. Either way, it just became much less of an overwhelming value, but you get a DRM infected drive for 'free' either way.

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=33995


actually I could care less what the clock speeds for RSX/memory are.

what I wanna know is, what's actually inside and active/working, within RSX

pixel-pipelines/ ROPs: 8 instead of the usual 16 in NV40, NV47/G70/G71

vertex shaders: probably 6 instead of the 8 that are in NV47/G70/G71

texture units: supposedly the same 24 that are in NV47/G70/G71

pixel-shader pipelines: hopefully the 24 that are in NV47/G70/G71, but probably less.

external memory bus: 128-bit instead of the 256-bit bus used on NV47/G70/G71 cards



it's already been confirmed on B3D that RSX has half the ROPs of a NV47/G70/G71.

as for the vertex shaders & pixel shaders, I'm betting on fewer than NV47/G70/G71 for the sake of increasing yields.

Ken Kutaragi said last year that RSX would have "redundancy" like the CELL processor. meaning, some of the functional units in RSX would be in-active like one of the SPEs in PS3 CELL is in-active.

[|MaguS|]

This is the most retarded news ever... the specs have been finalized for awhile now. Many games are on the way to being finished to change specs at this point in time would hurt many developers... plus its from the "The Inquirer" who states no source or anything and is well never realiable.

BTW by your listed "stats" it would be weaker then a 7800GTX which Nvidia has gone on the record and stated that it is more powerful then the 7800GTX.


TGS will have 27 games playable...

[slaWter]

lol at Sony once again... BS company.

[Tikiman44]

lol at Sony once again... BS company.

AMEN.;)

[Mr_LoL]

Hopefully we will find out the comfirmed specs at TGS in a months time.

[nekrosoft13]

lol at Sony once again... BS company.

(nana2)

[Bad_Boy]

INQ....HATES the ps3. I wouldnt be surprised if they said ps3 will only have 1 launch title. They constantly spread fud on the ps3, even when proven wrong they are consistant in preaching their fud as truth.

[AirRaid]

This is the most retarded news ever... the specs have been finalized for awhile now. Many games are on the way to being finished to change specs at this point in time would hurt many developers... plus its from the "The Inquirer" who states no source or anything and is well never realiable.

BTW by your listed "stats" it would be weaker then a 7800GTX which Nvidia has gone on the record and stated that it is more powerful then the 7800GTX.


TGS will have 27 games playable...


Nvidia is full of it. this is the same company that tried to fool consumers into thinking that an NV17 was a "GeForce 4" MX when that GPU was not even on par with the lowest-end GeForce 3.

the RSX, even at 550 MHz, is less powerful than a GeForce 7800 GTX, because half the ROPs are gone, and the external bus is only 128-bit.

and that's before we find out how many active vertex and pixel-shader units there are.

[nrdstrm]

Nvidia is full of it. this is the same company that tried to fool consumers into thinking that an NV17 was a "GeForce 4" MX when that GPU was not even on par with the lowest-end GeForce 3.

the RSX, even at 550 MHz, is less powerful than a GeForce 7800 GTX, because half the ROPs are gone, and the external bus is only 128-bit.

and that's before we find out how many active vertex and pixel-shader units there are.

And yet people (you in this case) still don't take into account that consoles ONLY have to program for one set of hardware, thus optimization is alot easier. With that said, I'm thinking that the RSX WILL be on par with a 7800 (or 7900) GTX when you see it on the screen. G80 will be another story all together, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to optimize code for a console than a PC. That is just my 2 cents though...

[walterman]

I bet that even with lower specs, the machine will run games faster than a pc with equivalent gfx power.

I still can't understand why some xbox games that were designed for a PIII-733MHz with a tweaked Geforce3, run faster than the PC version on an AthlonXP with a good Geforce4 Ti.

I know that console ports sucks, but man, we're wasting an insane computing power & money due to poor or non existant optimizations.

So, that's why i think that prolly even with worse hw specs, the PS3 will run games better than the equivalent PC.

[harl]

Nvidia is full of it. this is the same company that tried to fool consumers into thinking that an NV17 was a "GeForce 4" MX when that GPU was not even on par with the lowest-end GeForce 3.

the RSX, even at 550 MHz, is less powerful than a GeForce 7800 GTX, because half the ROPs are gone, and the external bus is only 128-bit.

and that's before we find out how many active vertex and pixel-shader units there are.

Has RSX 8 ROPS?

I thought the specs of RSX wasn't public and no one knows anything about
the number of pipes, shaders or rops ...

[MustangSVT]

I still can't understand why some xbox games that were designed for a PIII-733MHz with a tweaked Geforce3, run faster than the PC version on an AthlonXP with a good Geforce4 Ti.
Which Xbox1 games exactly? I happened to use a AXP 2400+ and GF4 Ti4200 setup (and 512mb of ddr266) and games that were on PC and Xbox ran way better on my PC. Example, I beat Halo at 1024x768 with medium detail, avg fps was like 40ish. Halo runs on Xbox in best case at 640x480p with 30fps.

Kotor1, I played it on that rig at 1024x768 with all details maxed out, would average 35-40fps. On Xbox1, 640x480p with 30fps.

TOCA Race Driver 2, 1024x768, all details maxed, ~50+fps, on Xbox1, 852x480p (WS) and some AA at 60fps.

People overrate consoles. For example, the 360 is supposed to have this great X1900 in it or something like that, some kind of advanced R520/R580, some say R600, yet it runs Oblivion at only 1280x720 with no AF, maybe 2xAA and like 30fps and sometimes has some chopiness (it's like 90-95% smooth, not 100% smooth). On a X1900XT equipped PC, I'm pretty sure the game can be played at 1600x1200 with HDR on and like 16xAF. And I severely doubt the PS3 will be superior to the 360 in any way, maybe marginally, but no more.

[NoWayDude]

Shouldn't the PS3 x Xbox360 battering be on the console forum?
Sorry guys, but I fail to see the interest on the Hardware rumour mill for this news.

[retsam]

Has RSX 8 ROPS?

I thought the specs of RSX wasn't public and no one knows anything about
the number of pipes, shaders or rops ...
no one really knows what the specs are at this point...if this is a gtx derivative for cell processors then i would tend to think this is very close to the gtx except for the interface into the system itself.