Post by: KAGE360 on March 14, 2006, 03:08:00 PM
QUOTE
First off, we reported on page 2 in our chart that the capable Shader Performance of the Xbox 360 GPU is 48 billion shader operations per second. While that is what MS told us, Mr. Feldstein of ATI let us know that the Xbox 360 GPU is capable of doing two of those shaders per cycle. So yes, if programmed correctly, the Xbox 360 GPU is capable of 96 billion shader operations per second. Compare this with ATIs current PC add-in flagship card and the Xbox 360 more than doubles its abilities.
http://www.hardocp.c...ml?art=NzcxLDM=
came across this site and found this interesting. i thought that the 360 was only be able to perform 48 billion a second and with the unified shader architecture it would be a shading monster, but now it seems that its quite more powerful then i even realized.
Post by: Deftech on March 14, 2006, 03:26:00 PM
Post by: m_hael on March 15, 2006, 12:42:00 AM
MS quoted real world figures, Sony quoted theoretical figures.
Post by: leo5111 on March 15, 2006, 02:39:00 AM
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 06:32:00 AM
Post by: deftonesmx17 on March 15, 2006, 09:52:00 AM
QUOTE
will NEVER forget going to e3 showing all the ps2 tech demos and callin them game play footage 5 years later and the ps2 hasnt produced 1 game anywhere near that level of graphics
You seem to forget what those tech demos really looked like, or your head is clouded by fanboyism. The tech demos $ony showed for the PS2 looked like ass, be my guest go look for screens, you will see that the FF8 ballroom tech demo really did look pathetic or the gran turismo demo, that looked like nothing but a clean GT2. Games certainly passed them in visual quality. I take it you also forgot about the xbox and their raven demo.........yeah, the xbox has 6xAA like the raven demo had
I'm sorry but this is the most over used and most incorrect argument that xbox fans/$ony haters have to dismiss $ony............
See it did really look like ass......................
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 10:28:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Mar 15 2006, 11:59 AM) 
You seem to forget what those tech demos really looked like, or your head is clouded by fanboyism. The tech demos $ony showed for the PS2 looked like ass, be my guest go look for screens, you will see that the FF8 ballroom tech demo really did look pathetic or the gran turismo demo, that looked like nothing but a clean GT2. Games certainly passed them in visual quality. I take it you also forgot about the xbox and their raven demo.........yeah, the xbox has 6xAA like the raven demo had
I'm sorry but this is the most over used and most incorrect argument that xbox fans/$ony haters have to dismiss $ony............See it did really look like ass......................
this may be true that too many people are only pointing the finger at sony for what they did in the last generation, but there is no mistake at who is being more honest and open and who is showing us only smoke and mirrors in the coming generation. MS had real world figures and showed real-time gameplay footage even though it was mostly heavily under-developed. sony on the other hand showed rendered footage escaping the facts if it was real time or not (even though anyone with a brain knew the truth)
Post by: deftonesmx17 on March 15, 2006, 10:34:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Mar 15 2006, 12:35 PM)
this may be true that too many people are only pointing the finger at sony for what they did in the last generation, but there is no mistake at who is being more honest and open and who is showing us only smoke and mirrors in the coming generation. MS had real world figures and showed real-time gameplay footage even though it was mostly heavily under-developed. sony on the other hand showed rendered footage escaping the facts if it was real time or not (even though anyone with a brain knew the truth)
I think we all know $ony was full of shit this coming generation, I will always agree to that.
I just hate the people who seem to have forgotten what the PS2 tech demos really looked like...........they were low-res jaggie filled crap just like the real PS2 games are
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 10:38:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Mar 15 2006, 12:41 PM)
I think we all know $ony was full of shit this coming generation, I will always agree to that.
I just hate the people who seem to have forgotten what the PS2 tech demos really looked like...........its not just the tech demos that stick in my mind but also the outlandish comments made by our buddy kenny K. and ones he still makes today.
also while the ballroom dance and the GT videos were reached or passed the others were not. the tekken demo looked better then what we still have today and the head demo of the old man that they showed was never reached either IMO.
true that MS showed tech demos of their own but some can argue that the Raven demo has been reached visually as well (AA problems aside)
Post by: deftonesmx17 on March 15, 2006, 12:05:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Mar 15 2006, 12:45 PM)
the head demo of the old man that they showed was never reached either IMO.
Errr..........thats because all that was on screen was a head, if any PS2 game was nothing but a head, that would have been reached easily, but how fun would a game be if it was nothing but a head of an old man?
P.S. I dont know if you have played God of War or not, but the serpents in the first level had heads with way more detail than that of the old man tech demo.
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 12:16:00 PM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Mar 15 2006, 02:12 PM)
Errr..........thats because all that was on screen was a head, if any PS2 game was nothing but a head, that would have been reached easily, but how fun would a game be if it was nothing but a head of an old man?
P.S. I dont know if you have played God of War or not, but the serpents in the first level had heads with way more detail than that of the old man tech demo.
i understand that is why it looked so good, because its the only thing being rendered on screen, same thing with the shenmue heads that sega showed in response. also no i never played god of war, i believe about the detail but none of it changes the fact that sony is more full of it now then ever before.
i think the only thing i can say about sony meating some of their expectations with the ps2 (same with xbox), even if these systems match the expectations, its usually 4-5 years down the line when news/footage/info is available about the next generations of hardware which makes the current gen look that much more unimpressive. in the end i dont see killzone runnin on the ps3 anywhere like they showed, i think finally sony may have wrote checks even they cant cash (again).
Post by: Rubix42 on March 15, 2006, 12:18:00 PM
In my mind, what really matters is the system that has games people enjoy.
Personally, I have no use for my PS2 except for the Transformer's exclusive and the RPG's.
But I have friends who HATE Xbox and refuse to even come over and play my 360. Which blows my mind, how can you turn such a blind eye to what other items are out there?
Post by: deftonesmx17 on March 15, 2006, 12:21:00 PM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Mar 15 2006, 02:23 PM)
in the end i dont see killzone runnin on the ps3 anywhere like they showed, i think finally sony may have wrote checks even they cant cash (again).
$ony entered a Killzone when they showed that footage of "Killzone 2"
Yes I know, that was very corny
Post by: m_hael on March 15, 2006, 12:23:00 PM
QUOTE(Wedding-shirt @ Mar 15 2006, 10:23 AM)
What ATI PC card would you say is around the same performance as the R500?
no clue at all... I'm a console programmer and don't have time nor inclination to keep up with PC's.
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 12:46:00 PM
QUOTE(Wedding-shirt @ Mar 15 2006, 01:23 PM)
What ATI PC card would you say is around the same performance as the R500?
this is in no way a fact, but the "closest" that i think you can find in the PC area with ATI would be the X1900XTX with its 48 shader pipelines.
however some may say that since it doesnt have the unified shader architecture the xenos chip has it may still not be in the same league.
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 01:23:00 PM
QUOTE(jaskerzada006 @ Mar 15 2006, 03:17 PM)
The advantages of a unified arch over a dedicated one are arguable.
Which is why Nvidia or ATI hasn't gone unified on the pc.
i thought that they havent gone unified because of the standards set in the PC market. all this is supposed to change with the introduction of Vista which will make unified architecture a huge part of gaming last i read.
i think the only one here to say anything about uniified vs. dedicated would be M_hael. he's worked on the xbox and 360 which feature both architectures.
not only am i curious about the benefits but also if unified needs specific programming to take advantage of it or does it read shader code the same way? how much, if any, more control/freedom does unified offer? to me the GPU in the 360 is far more interesting then any other component in any of the 3 next gen consoles.
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 02:38:00 PM
QUOTE(jaskerzada006 @ Mar 15 2006, 04:25 PM)
I'll let NVIDIA Corp.s chief architect David Kirk do the talking.
"It's far harder to design a unified processor - it has to do, by design, twice as much. Another word for 'unified' is 'shared', and another word for 'shared' is 'competing'. It's a challenge to create a chip that does load balancing and performance prediction. It's extremely important, especially in a console architecture, for the performance to be predicable. With all that balancing, it's difficult to make the performance predictable. I've even heard that some developers dislike the unified pipe, and will be handling vertex pipeline calculations on the Xbox 360's triple-core CPU."
you sir, are a tool. your taking quotes from the competitor, that is like me coming back from a quote from someone at ATI. you would take it with a grain of salt. however there is a difference, last i checked all cards will eventually be going unified and ATI will be in the forefront. also with different architectures, your bound to have developers not fond of new techniques (gabe newell on multi-core CPUs for instace). if you quoted a developer might be a different story. where he says that consoles should be predictable, you will get as many (if not more) devs saying that a GPU should be flexable.
if your going to debate then i hope you do a better job then let the competition take their jabs on the subject for you. like i said, only developers have any real right to voice their opinions, not you, nor someone from ATI or Nvidia.
to add to my point here is a quote from a developer not hired by sony or MS:
QUOTE
Which of the Xbox 360s graphical capabilities has proved most valuable to you in game development?
Codemasters: The fully programmable shaders help matters a great deal. It allows our teams to do lots of interesting tricks and stuff. It comes back to enabling realistic lighting models I mentioned earlier which really lift the reality of an image
Codemasters: The fully programmable shaders help matters a great deal. It allows our teams to do lots of interesting tricks and stuff. It comes back to enabling realistic lighting models I mentioned earlier which really lift the reality of an image
http://www.xb360info.../interviews/149
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 02:52:00 PM
QUOTE(jaskerzada006 @ Mar 15 2006, 04:52 PM)
I don't want to debate with you.
I just want people to be aware that there are differing opinions regarding this subject and if you'd pull your dick out of M_Hael's ass you'd be able to see that.
But calling me a tool is pretty desperate.
Where did I disrespect you in such a manner?
I'll leave you to your narrow mindedness and flaming.
i already stated about people having different opinions in my last post, where i never even mentioned M_hael but quoted another developer. calling you a tool couldnt have offended you unless your mr. sensitive, as you know i was refering to you pulling a quote from Nvidia, ATI's direct competitor. just because my post didnt agree with your opinion and you have nothing better to say back doesnt mean you need to not only insult me but those who actually work in this industry.
Post by: KAGE360 on March 15, 2006, 03:16:00 PM
QUOTE(jaskerzada006 @ Mar 15 2006, 05:14 PM)
I'm glad you edited your post to take that line about m_hael being the messaih out.
It shows you know how to take advice. I'm sure he's relieved also now that your dick is no longer in him.
what do you have against those that have a right to speak about the industry? i much rather read a developer interview and get info from someone inside of the industry then to read an editor's rant about things he is not directly invovled in. unless you actually have something mature to add to this topic, why bother?
Post by: deftonesmx17 on March 16, 2006, 07:53:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Mar 15 2006, 04:45 PM)
to add to my point here is a quote from a developer not hired by sony or MS:
http://www.xb360info.../interviews/149
The dude from codemasters is talking about fully programmable shaders, which has nothing to do with unified shaders as a dedicated pipe also has fully programmable shaders, it just has separate vertex shader and pixel shader pipes.
But back to the quote from David Kirk, I like how you are dismissing something from the company who invented programmable shaders
Nvidia is not $ony, they are not a bunch of lying jackasses. Oh and last time I checked, ATI themselevs has even said they don't really know if unified shaders are any better than dedicated...............in some instances they can be in theory, but we all know what theory really means, don't we? *Think PS3 theoretical performance numbers.*
Post by: KAGE360 on March 16, 2006, 08:01:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Mar 16 2006, 10:00 AM)
The dude from codemasters is talking about fully programmable shaders, which has nothing to do with unified shaders as a dedicated pipe also has fully programmable shaders, it just has separate vertex shader and pixel shader pipes.
But back to the quote from David Kirk, I like how you are dismissing something from the company who invented programmable shaders
Nvidia is not $ony, they are not a bunch of lying jackasses. Oh and last time I checked, ATI themselevs has even said they don't really know if unified shaders are any better than dedicated...............in some instances they can be in theory, but we all know what theory really means, don't we? *Think PS3 theoretical performance numbers.*
i know that fully programmable shaders is not unified shaders, my point of the quote is that there are developers out there who really like the shader performance of the 360. i know Nvidia arent sony, and i respect the company, however they are competition to ATI which is why i dismiss them. im not saying unified shaders is this grand thing (which is why i have so many questions about it) but i dont think its correct to dismiss something before its proven.
i love Nvidia hardware, however unlike in the past during the Gforce 3 days, they are not the only clear choice now. IMHO, there is very little difference between ATI and Nvidia other then choice of brand name. they are both great technologies that have make great strides in graphics.
Post by: deftonesmx17 on March 16, 2006, 08:40:00 AM
QUOTE(KAGE360 @ Mar 16 2006, 10:08 AM)
i know that fully programmable shaders is not unified shaders, my point of the quote is that there are developers out there who really like the shader performance of the 360.
The quote you used could peretain to any GPU with programmable shaders.
QUOTE
Codemasters: The fully programmable shaders help matters a great deal. It allows our teams to do lots of interesting tricks and stuff. It comes back to enabling realistic lighting models I mentioned earlier which really lift the reality of an image.
See, he is just talking about shaders in general and how its nice that the console supports fully programmable shaders so they can create more realistic lighting and images. Heck, I bet a PC/PS3 developer has said almost that exact same quote at one time or another.
I take that back, I know PC developers have said almost that exact quote. A developer for Command and Conquer Generals said that about the Geforce FX cards, about how they can create hollywood style effects, images, and lighting due to the shaders. Valve developers said that exact same fluff about the Radeon 9700 series.
Post by: KAGE360 on March 16, 2006, 08:45:00 AM
QUOTE(deftonesmx17 @ Mar 16 2006, 10:47 AM)
The quote you used could peretain to any GPU with programmable shaders.
See, he is just talking about shaders in general and how its nice that the console supports fully programmable shaders so they can create more realistic lighting and images. Heck, I bet a PC/PS3 developer has said almost that exact same quote at one time or another.
i understand all of this. my point was that here is a developer who is happy with the 360 in terms of shaders. i mean if unified was truely such a troublesome architecture i dont think any developers would have pleasent things to say about the 360 in regards to shader performance at all. im not turning this into a "who's better" debate
Post by: deftonesmx17 on March 16, 2006, 08:50:00 AM
QUOTE
im not turning this into a "who's better" debate
Neither was I..........
I was just stating my opinion..........I don't care for what developers have to say because IMO they are just happy to have more powerful hadware than they had last generation.