As swell as the graphics system is, it shares 512MB RAM with the system so is likely not suitable for modern PC games that require 1024MB to prevent degradation from paging.
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
As swell as the graphics system is, it shares 512MB RAM with the system so is likely not suitable for modern PC games that require 1024MB to prevent degradation from paging.
Consoles are quite comfortable using data streaming. Check out the PS2's GT4 and take a few laps on the Nurburgring track. It doesn't come close to fitting in the PS2's meager 32MB of RAM- but due to the ability of developers to code for fixed platforms data streaming makes it a non issue. 60FPS rock solid.
60FPS rock solid??? what are you talking about
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Is just that a slow PC with a Geforce 3 Ti 500 could run similar games smoother and with higher details. also RESOLUTION.What exactly leads you to believe this? Feel free to discuss it on any level and explain what elements keep the NV2A from being superior to the NV20.
Why would I believe you? Why wouldn't I believe the specs listed by the parts suppliers and the manufacturer?
Microsoft says the have the better OS with minimun errors but in the demostrations even them get bluescreens.
They are using third party components, "with high end parts" which are not cheap friend. You have no idea about the costs of electronics fabrication. Do you think that fabricating a 48 pipelines (according to microsoft specs, which is not really true) GPU is cheap? Do you think that 22GB/s bandwidth RAM is cheap? Do you think that a CPU with 3 cores at 3.2GHz using liquid cooling is cheap?? You are lost.This shows your level of ignorance more then anything else in your post. There is no chance that the machine will cost more then or even $500 even.
Not higher than mine.1920x1080 is a decent amount higher resolution then most computer monitors. It's lower then my monitor, but certainly higher then most.
The eDRAM on the R500 utilized in the XB360 is plenty large enough for the back buffer, which is where all you major writes/reads are dealt with in terms of framebuffer, with room to spare for some texture cache running HDTV resolutions. This pool of ram has 250GB/sec bandwidth.
We will have to see that.
Not talking about amount o RAM, I am saying that the very low amount is in someway compensated by the high system memory bandwitdth, also the bandwith of the famebuffer of high end of actual GPUs is more than enough, and will be more than enough in also in the next gen GPUs which surely will be superior to Xbox360. The important memory in PC system for graphics performance is the GPU framebuffer which is in the card.Amount of RAM != bandwidth.
And regarding the system memory bandwith and latency, What is the superpipelined L2 cache with super advanced prediction branches present in actual PC CPUs for? That's right, to compensate the slow system memory. So what did you learn today? HIGH end videocards load all the graphics from main memory to display and process in the video card memory, no matter if the system memory is much slower, that is what the framebuffer is for.
What is different in the Xbox 360? They have a very little and superfast framebuffer which is compensated for by a high bandwidth system memory, but no dedicated to graphics, it will have to deal with data streams from 3 cores with only 1 cache block for all 3 CPUs, sound streams, video streams,ect,ect. So now I have explained why you can't compare both architectures directly because they do the work but in a different way, and the PC having always more resourses.
To sumarize. PC: high amount of framebuffer, and slow system memory. XboX 360: Low amount of frame buffer but very fast, the low amount of frame buffer may be compensated in some way by the high memory bandwidth.
I don't know what I'm talking about? You explain to me how it isn't a staggering performance advantage to have eDRAM running at roughly a quarter TB/sec versus the PC parts extremely limited bandwidth. You explain how having a UMA is not superior to segmented memory pools in a gaming application. Explain how reading and writing data to numerous pools of data across the system is a benefit and requires less bandwidth then a UMA. Obviously the XB's architecture is completely different then PCs, it needs considerably less bandwidth for comparable performance- even though it has considerably more.
Ok, maybe the next gen GPUs for PC will have also the eDRAM , and also the videocard memory, which will act as an intermediate superfast buffer. Actual high end videocard memory bandwidths are in the order of dedicated 30GB/s, which is higher than the system memory from XboX 360. Which in the end will make the PC graphic subsystem more powerfull. Most the graphics processing of the PC are up the graphic subsystem. In the Xbox 360 the things are unified.
Name them, I'll write out a brief list-
Forza Motorsports
Gran Turisimo 4
God of War
Resident Evil 4
You go ahead and find something comparable on the PC to those titles. Post the names of the games.
Those games are your personal preferences. Personally I don't like those games, specially GT4, I would rather to play NFSU2, which is much realistic experience. Don't play moto games so I don't have nothing to compare with it. Resident evil 4, I dont like to kill slow and stupid zombies, I prefer HL2 in which the enemies are much smart. God of War I haven't 'y played it so I don't have nothing to compare with.
O c'mon Halo is a PIECE of crap, it is for stupid kids having the xbox and that have not played the best FPS games which are for the PC, it is boring, with a crappy visual engine, and runs like at 25FPS in the Xbox. Those who say that halo is a good game is because they have the crappy Xbox. In concensus HL2 is infiniltely superior to any Halo, just lets make a poll in this forum.Use consensus and Halo is one of the best games ever made(according to GR.com). Your oppinion is in the minority. It is VERY easy to find hundreds of games for the consoles that aren't on the PC- if you have the slightest bit of problem with it I have to wonder if you have ever walked in to a gaming store.
Also there are hundred of PC games no presen consoles. Maybe beacuse they are limited.
Only the best console games evolve to a PC improved version.
Is just that a slow PC with a Geforce 3 Ti 500 could run similar games smoother and with higher details.
Microsoft says the have the better OS with minimun errors but in the demostrations even them get bluescreens.
You have no idea about the costs of electronics fabrication.
Do you think that fabricating a 48 pipelines GPU is cheap?
Do you think that 250GB/s bandwidth RAM is cheap?
Do you think that a CPU with 3 cores at 3.2GHz using watercooling is cheap??
Using max levels of AA and AS it won't nor fast neither
also the bandwith of the famebuffer of high end of actual GPUs is more than enough, and will be more than enough in also in the next gen GPUs which surely will be superior to Xbox360.
And regarding the system memory bandwith and latency, what is the superpipelined L2 cache with super advanced prediction branches present in actual PC CPUs for? That's right, to compensate the slow system memory.
HIGH end videocards load all the graphics from main memory to display and process in the video card memory, no matter if the system memory is much slower, that is what the framebuffer is for.
They have a very little framebuffer which is compensated for by a high bandwidth system memory, but no dedicated to graphics, it will have to deal with data streams from 3 cores with only 1 cahe block for all 3 CPUs, sound streams, video streams,ect,ect. So you now I have explained why you can't compare the both architectures directly because both do the work but in a different way, and the PC having always more resourses.
Those games are your personal preferences. Personally I don't like those games, specially GT4, I would rather to play NFSU2, which is much realistic experience.
Don't play moto games so I don't have nothing to compare with it. Resident evil 4, I dont like to kill slow and stupid zombies, I prefer HL2 in which the enemies are much smart.
O c'mon Halo is a PIECE of crap, it is for stupid kids having the xbox and that have not played the best FPS games which are for the PC
In concensus HL2 is infiniltely superior to any Halo, just lets make a poll in this forum.
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Wow, you have been registered on this forum for almost a year now..... perhaps you should read it a bit more often.
Haven't seen it, DOOM 3 Xbox version is signifivcantly lower quality than in a GF3 Ti500 also not so good framerates.No, it couldn't. Check out how PCs with the specs you list handle the original SplinterCell- or how one with comparable specs runs D3 at the settings used on the XBox- it isn't remotely close. According to John Carmack you can expect a roughly 100% performance improvement coding for the XBox compared to a comparably equipped PC.
Microsoft says the have the better OS with minimun errors but in the demostrations even them get bluescreens.
The parts suppliers for the XBox are the same parts suppliers for PC hardware- think real hard and it may dawn on you why what you are saying makes no sense.
I doubt microsoft will make money from the games, since most of the games for XboX are crap. I don't think things change this time.Civility is lost, oh well, I'll go with it.
If you are to take into consideration the console business model and exactly what it entails then you familiar with the fact that the money is made entirely on software sales- the licensing kickbacks to the first parties are how they stay in business. Furthermore- if you are familiar with fabrication costs then you will realize that in reality it is a pittance compared to the research and development associated with developing the parts being made.
To draw on a couple of historical examples- the 'Emotion Engine' in the PS2 is a MIPS based processor. MIPS was formerly part of the SGI family of products and was used in their workstations along with another one of their former products- Cray Supercomputers. Obviously the hype around EE exceeded its actual capabilities, and the Cray machines used a he!l of a lot more then a single processor but the fact remains that MIPS chips such as those utilized in the PS2 were exceedingly expensive- far more costly to produce then the highest end PC parts available at the time of its launch. Then there was the GS, including 2MB of eDRAM. The complexity of the chip in relation to its desktop peers was daunting for its era- as was its fillrate coming in more then 300% higher then the fastest desktop part. Add to that a DVD drive, which was still a fairly new technology, and lesser costs(mobo, RAM etc) and under any normal electronics pricing scheme the price would have exceeded $500 rather easily. It launched at $299. Sony makes their money on the games, if the can sell their new hardware without taking a huge loss then they are doing quite well for themselves.
According to Microsoft specs those are 48 pipelines. And you still believe in microsoft specs!!48 ALUs, 8 pipelines.
My mistake i wanted to say 22GB/s which is system memory BW.Do you think that 250GB/s bandwidth RAM is cheap?
Liquid cooling(heatpipe), not watercooling. The tri core PPC chip is a lot less expensive for them then you are thinking, although they are not concerned with losing money on hardware in the least as they have proven without a shadow of a doubt over the last several years.
The water is liquid, or not?
For back buffer the XB360 is packing a quarter TB/sec- there is nothing resembling a vague chance that the PC parts will come close to that. The bandwidth of current PC parts isn't enough either- if it was then there would be no performance hit for any level of MSAA.
How do you nknow that next gen CPU won't use the same kind of back buffer, using the videocard memory which BW is superioir to 30GB/s as an intermediate buffer.
And why are you under the impression that the consoles don't have this...? In total Cell is packing 2.25MB of cache- it dwarfs PCs and has significantly more bandwidth.
I don't think the cache of cell processor dwarf PC's. Do you have proves? AMD A64 Architecture have demostrated being competitive to PowerPC architecture, and some cases superioir.
Move to main memory- move to video memory.... chewing up bandwidth. Also- video cards don't simply use their onboard memory for framebuffer, that is only a small portion of their on board memory. The majority of it is utilized for caching various types of data(be it texture data, shader programs or whatever else).
That is why the amount of frame buffer in the videocard is high and very fast, to compensate the slow memory, understand??
The data gets to video memory through AGP or PCi-e buses from main memory, that's is what the high amount and fast dedicated video memory is for , for BUFFERING those data and not losing smoothness while gaming.First, the PC overall has significantly less resources. Next- how do you think all the data for the video card gets there? You think it's magic? It has to move there from system memory(write-read-write). Same thing with sound streams and all the data that the processor needs. Big difference? PCs at their peak have less then a quarter of the bandwidth that the XB360 has- and that is comparing the highest end possible PC right now.
NFSU2 more realistic then GT4....... that is likely the dumbest thing in your post(which is saying a lot). This isn't a matter or opinion either- NFSU2 makes no qualms about the fact that it is a very unrealistic arcade style racer- GT4 is a sim. I don't really know where to start in breaking that one down- it is akin to saying Tetris is a better first person shooter then Half-Life2- it is too moronic to truly comprehend.I am talking about the phisysc and video engine of NFSU which is clearly superioir to that of GT4. Half Life 2 is one of the games best ever, at least much bette than the ultra crappy Halo. Maybe you wasn't able to play it , that is why you hate , too hard for you, I understand.
yes and It's over-over-rated.Halo for the PC average review score- 85.1%
You contradict yourself, wasn't halo the best game ever. Now you say it is HL. And Halo is inferior in every aspect to HL2, your poor review of the game is not valid.Personally I thought HL2 was inferior to Halo(although I know that I'm in the minority) the AI was a major step back from numerous other titles, the levels were extremely poorly designed and relied too much on the heavy gimmick physics(sorry Gabe, in my world hand grenads can take out plywood) the story was a joke and it was an overall poorly handled sequel to what I consider to be the actual best FPS ever made- the original Half-Life.
I realize the overwhelming majority of people will pick HL2, you are on a PC forum though. I stated that GameRankings has Halo listed as one of the best games ever and that is point of fact(that is what they say- Halo ranked 7th, HL2 ranked 9th).
People with high level of knowledge vote here, stupid kids with video consoles vote in gamerankings.
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2005/05/13/xbox_360_pc_enthusiasts/1.html
With 48 pipelines and a 3 PowerPC core at a possible 300 dallor msrp.
Where does that leave the pc community? Namely the pc gaming community.
Ben, it's just not worth it.
I am talking about the phisysc and video engine of NFSU which is clearly superioir to that of GT4.
Maybe you wasn't able to play it , that is why you hate , too hard for you, I understand.
You contradict yourself, wasn't halo the best game ever. Now you say it is HL.
Use consensus and Halo is one of the best games ever made(according to GR.com).
People with high level of knowledge vote here, stupid kids with video consoles vote in gamerankings.
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2005/05/13/xbox_360_pc_enthusiasts/1.html
With 48 pipelines and a 3 PowerPC core at a possible 300 dallor msrp.
Where does that leave the pc community? Namely the pc gaming community.
Originally posted by: doublejbass
Metacritic is where I'd turn to to compare HL2 to Halo.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2005/05/13/xbox_360_pc_enthusiasts/1.html
With 48 pipelines and a 3 PowerPC core at a possible 300 dallor msrp.
Where does that leave the pc community? Namely the pc gaming community.
Guessing it leaves the PC community behind for 12 months, by the end of its lifespan it will be like the current xBox. A low grade computer worth 50 bucks.
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2005/05/13/xbox_360_pc_enthusiasts/1.html
With 48 pipelines and a 3 PowerPC core at a possible 300 dallor msrp.
Where does that leave the pc community? Namely the pc gaming community.
Guessing it leaves the PC community behind for 12 months, by the end of its lifespan it will be like the current xBox. A low grade computer worth 50 bucks.
The next consoles will likely have longer lifespans in terms of graphics prowess because of the fact that thing are moving to the hi-def standard (including PC games). Since they'll be able to push out 1080p from the get go, and because its taken mass consumers so long to even start to move to hi-def that I'm gonna say they'll be adequate for a good little while.
I honestly don't know why so many PC gamers get so defensive and angry over this stuff, especially if its going to end up the same way as PC vs console gaming with the current gen stuff, which is what I constantly hear. Only time will tell what the truth is. Personally I think its going to be a little different this time around (for better or worse).
But it looks like this thread has turned into yet another Video thread to make baby jesus cry, so thats all I'll be saying in here. So sad that things have changed so much...
Originally posted by: Emultra
Well, I'm (nowadays/so far) a PC only gamer, but I'll say this:
Perhaps now that the consoles seem to be getting some juice, we'll finally be getting adequate ports of their games. So that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. And maybe we can play together too, it's a third multiplayer market for free, save some coding on behalf of the developers.
Originally posted by: Drayvn
Originally posted by: Pete
Sure, if not via DVI, then via component cables.Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
I wonder if it's possible to hook up the xbox 360 to my dell 2005fpw. heh
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
How many computers do you think there are working all over the world, as in single station desktops or laptops even?
Far more than any console i would imagine. And then there are CAD workstations and CGI workstations which have racks and racks of vid cards.
So at this point in time, i would say there are far more 3D cards in PCs than there are in consoles. Even if the 3D card is a Geforce 4 Ti4200 or a Radeon 8500 as they are still 3D Cards. And even if they are only in a bank managers desktop.
Originally posted by: Pete
Sure, if not via DVI, then via component cables.Originally posted by: Preti9cboi
I wonder if it's possible to hook up the xbox 360 to my dell 2005fpw. heh
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
The next consoles will likely have longer lifespans in terms of graphics prowess because of the fact that thing are moving to the hi-def standard (including PC games). Since they'll be able to push out 1080p from the get go, and because its taken mass consumers so long to even start to move to hi-def that I'm gonna say they'll be adequate for a good little while.
I honestly don't know why so many PC gamers get so defensive and angry over this stuff, especially if its going to end up the same way as PC vs console gaming with the current gen stuff, which is what I constantly hear. Only time will tell what the truth is. Personally I think its going to be a little different this time around (for better or worse).
But it looks like this thread has turned into yet another Video thread to make baby jesus cry, so thats all I'll be saying in here. So sad that things have changed so much...
You lost me there. How does your reply follow from your original post and my answer? The best-selling console games are statistically on another level than basically every PC best-seller but The Sims. Consoles themselves sell probably more than all the gaming GPUs in their lifespan.Originally posted by: scsi drv1
If console games are on another level then why have they been using pc technology since their conception? Think about it!Originally posted by: Pete
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
Originally posted by: Pete
You lost me there. How does your reply follow from your original post and my answer? The best-selling console games are statistically on another level than basically every PC best-seller but The Sims. Consoles themselves sell probably more than all the gaming GPUs in their lifespan.Originally posted by: scsi drv1
If console games are on another level then why have they been using pc technology since their conception? Think about it!Originally posted by: Pete
That's one way to state the obvious. The original Nintendo sold 50 million units. PS2 sold 80M. Have there even been 50M 3D cards sold? And console game sales are on another level from PC games.Originally posted by: scsi drv1
To say that the console selling dwarfs pc number is shearly a matter of statistics.
Now, how do those numbers relate to consoles using "PC technology?" Even if you want to say that consoles are PCs because they also happen to use transistors, I still don't see the relevance to our previous posts. I'm not dissing the PC's importance--indirectly and now ever more directly--in the current field of electronic gaming, but it's not at all related to my confirming that, yes, the mere fact that we know that consoles outsell PCs is a result of analyzing sales stats.