Topic: Unified Architecture Gives Xbox 360 The Graphical (Read 294 times)

blackchild1101 · « **on:** June 10, 2005, 08:40:00 AM »

Took this from the Xbox-scene main page.

What are your thoughts? Kinda sounds like a attempt to down play Nvidia's next gen RSX, for the PS3 if you didn't know.

QUOTE

For its part, NVIDIA has repeatedly downplayed the importance of unified shader architecture, and has publicly stated that it doesn't believe that this is the best path to improved graphics performance.

Hmm sounds like the rivalery that started on the PC is heating up on the consoles.

QUOTE

Huddy believes that this position is marketing bluster from NVIDIA, rather than being based on any genuinely held beliefs about the technology in question.

My thoughts exactly.

QUOTE

"This time around, they don't have the architecture and we do, so they have to knock it and say it isn't worthwhile," he said. "But in the future, they'll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that they've cracked how to do it best. But RSX isn't unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful."

If M_hael is around please post your toughts on the subject.

QUOTE

Of course, neither the RSX nor the Xenos exists in final silicon form yet, and the claims of both NVIDIA and ATI need to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt as a result. Although they're both based on IBM-manufactured chips and PC-like graphics parts, the architecture of the Xbox 360 and the PS3 is radically different and direct comparisons are difficult.

Interesting to say the least.

It all boils down to the games and devs. Which ever system is more "dev friendly" will have the best looking games at launch.

Infamous_One · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2005, 09:33:00 AM »

Cell chip will fail , NVIDIA is crap. - Remember those words.

blackchild1101 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 10, 2005, 11:38:00 AM »

QUOTE

Cell chip will fail , NVIDIA is crap. - Remember those words.

Noted...but not really a praticle respones

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 10, 2005, 11:57:00 AM »

QUOTE

Of course, neither the RSX nor the Xenos exists in final silicon form yet, and the claims of both NVIDIA and ATI need to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt as a result.

Thats odd as one of the so-called developers on this site said they had ATI R500's in their devkits since February.

QUOTE(Infamous_One @ Jun 10 2005, 11:44 AM)

Cell chip will fail , NVIDIA is crap. - Remember those words.

Cell may fail, but explain how Nvidia is crap when they are the world-wide leader in graphics technology (I like ATI more, but please explain yourself on that comment). You know them things called programmable shaders that make games looks so pretty now................Nvidia created programmable shaders.

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 10, 2005, 12:12:00 PM »

QUOTE(Kraptreon @ Jun 10 2005, 02:15 PM)

I allways though you can't tell a computers preformance by whats written on paper, you have to do real test like a benchmark

incognegro · « **Reply #5 on:** June 10, 2005, 04:29:00 PM »

QUOTE

That is very true. On paper the Geforce FX 5900 kills the Radeon 9800 Pro, but in real tests it proved opposite.

which says alot about the RSX vs. Xenos war!

KAGE360 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 10, 2005, 07:12:00 PM »

whoever said that nvidia still holds the bigger share of the market?? i honestly think they have been going downhill since they bought out 3DFX.

i thought ATI was the market leader now by a wide margin

Deftech · « **Reply #7 on:** June 10, 2005, 07:29:00 PM »

maybe 2 years ago nvidia was the leader, now the market share pie changes here and there, and ati has been the leader more times than not in the past 24 months.

http://www.xbitlabs....0129025439.html

http://www.cdrinfo.c...px?NewsId=13540

QUOTE

As Jon Peddie Research notes: approximately 60.2 million PC graphics devices shipped from eight suppliers in Q1'05, a 6.2% decline from the previous quarter and a 4.9% increase over the same period the previous year. The desktop graphics segment saw a 7.9% decline in quarterly shipments with discrete desktop shipments falling 8.2% sequentially. Integrated desktop shipments fell 7.8% on a quarterly basis.

ATI maintained its lead in the discrete desktop segment during Q1'05 by a margin similar to that of the fourth quarter. ATI's discrete desktop shipments declined 9.0% sequentially and its share in the segment fell slightly from 51.9% in Q4'04 to 51.4% in Q1'05. Nvidia's discrete desktop shipments declined 8.0% sequentially and its segment share was essentially flat, growing from 46.7% to 46.8% during the same period.

JPR estimates that 14.6 million mobile graphics processors shipped from six suppliers in Q1'05, down a mere 0.2% from the previous quarter and up 40.8% year-over-year. Mobile graphics held a record 24.4% share of the total graphics market during the period. Shipments of integrated graphics chipsets for notebooks outpaced those of discrete (stand-alone) mobile graphics processors in Q1'05, showing sequential growth of 12.6% and annual growth of 71.2%. Discrete mobile controller shipments fell 15.8% sequentially but grew 9.1% year-over-year.

Intel surpassed ATI as the largest PC graphics supplier to the mobile market in the first quarter with its share growing from 39.5% to 50.8% sequentially. ATI's share fell from 42.9% in Q4'04 to 35.5% in Q1'05. ATI's loss of share came on increased shipments from Intel of integrated chipsets for notebooks. During the quarter, Intel launched its mobile 915 PCI Express chipset (formerly code named Alviso) with integrated graphics based on the GMA900 engine and subsequently saw its mobile chipset shipments increase 28.4% sequentially and 148.3% year-over-year during the period.

http://www.jonpeddie...atch_Q404.shtml

QUOTE

ATI was the leading supplier of discrete graphics devices in 2004, with 51.5% of the market, up from 40.2% in 2003. Nvidia held 46.3% of the discrete market during the period, down from 54.1% in 2003. Shipments from ATI and Nvidia together accounted for 97.8% of the discrete graphics market in 2004, up from 94.3% in the prior year. Consolidation has reshaped the graphics industry in the recent years, and smaller suppliers such as 3Dlabs and Matrox no longer command significant share of the discrete graphics market.

http://www.jonpeddie...atch_Q105.shtml

Check the chart on the above link...Atis had the lead for atleast 12 months...

ATI overtakes NVIDIA in graphics market share
by Scott Wasson - 09:07 am, January 28, 2004 (see following link)

http://techreport.co...earticle.x/6191

for those who dont see it in black and white...

Thats January of '04, 17 months ago, and Ati has held it since, hence the above links/info showing this. Just posting this to avoid future arguments...have a nice night and eat lots of

blackchild1101 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 10, 2005, 08:28:00 PM »

Yeah, benchmarks are the only way to prove who is the top dog in this race for next-gen.

Kinda funny though, MS v.s. Sony, ATI v.s. Nvidia, Blu-Ray v.s. HD-DVD... a lot is riding on this year, and next year, console war.

I'm preety sure that the next gen RSX and Xenos will be some of ATI's and Nvidia best work, repectively.

QUOTE

Thats odd as one of the so-called developers on this site said they had ATI R500's in their devkits since February.

Yes, they have the card but not in it's final form. But as of right now the RSX technically doesn't exsit, at least not yet.

mgamer20o0 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2005, 08:33:00 PM »

i think its all just marketing on both sides. until both are out and been in development in a while its hard to know what one is better.

Kira Yamoto · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2005, 11:56:00 PM »

QUOTE(mgamer20o0 @ Jun 11 2005, 04:44 AM)

i think its all just marketing on both sides. until both are out and been in development in a while its hard to know what one is better.

deftonesmx17 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 11, 2005, 12:25:00 AM »

QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Jun 10 2005, 09:23 PM)

whoever said that nvidia still holds the bigger share of the market??

Nobody said that.

Deftech.......just because ATI sold more cards in the past two years, does not mean that the majority of PC's on earth have them. MANY MANY people are running 3-5 year old systems with their Geforce 3's and Geforce 4's. I know people that just got rid of their Geforce 2's when Half-Life 2 came out.

Example. $ony is the world-wide leader of console technology. In the past year they have sold less systems than M$, but they are still the leader as a whole.

mikeandbandit · « **Reply #12 on:** June 11, 2005, 06:31:00 AM »

this is the area where we get into theorical vs realtime performance, as was said current pc cards have a real world performance of about 50-60% kinda like having a v-8 engine with with only 4 cyclinders working at a time. the ati by contrast SUPPOSEDLY has 100% efficiency, so if both cards worked at 100% efficiency then the ati card would be somewhat slower for the simple fact that the unified arch is not as quick as a dedicated arch at full effiency. however, since by the very nature of dedicated arch, they cannot run at full effiency the unified shader grabs an edge, so basically the r500 is a v6 engine running on all cyclinders while the rsx is a v8 engine running on 4 cyclinders, so while the v8/rsx appears to have a clear advantage, the r500 makes use of its full power effectively as its not really a function of good programming, its native to the hardware so all devs can easily take advantage of its graphical capabilities.

P@nz3R · « **Reply #13 on:** June 11, 2005, 09:39:00 AM »

QUOTE(Infamous_One @ Jun 10 2005, 05:44 PM)

Cell chip will fail , NVIDIA is crap. - Remember those words.

Deftech · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2005, 10:36:00 AM »

QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Jun 11 2005, 04:36 AM)

Deftech.......just because ATI sold more cards in the past two years, does not mean that the majority of PC's on earth have them.

Author Topic: Unified Architecture Gives Xbox 360 The Graphical (Read 294 times)