I seems that both these next gen consoles will off blinding performance for games.
What I would like to know is what else each one can bring to the table, with a particular interest in incorporating one of these systems into a home theatre installation.
Audio and video output connections and formats would be appreciated.
The cell was not as powerful as it was initially intended to be. The original target for Cell was 1000x more powerful than ps2. This is not a misquote but direct from Ken Kutaragi and his team. The engineers tried to talk him down to a "more realistic" 100x, but as you know the final ps3 design (including the rsx) is 35x.
If the engineers would have met the original target of 1000x we would not be having this discussion and instead would be asking, "So when is MS going to pull out of the gaming biz?"
The cell in many ways is EE2. Kutaragi is very ambitious. To a fault some may say, in that he has a vision for what his products should be even though those visions do not materialize he still has the same vision of what he wants his hardware design to be. This then spills over in interviews and elsewhere I'm sure which may have had something to do with his demotion at Sony HQ.
The reason they did not go with 2 cells is because the cell could not do everything as far as rendering a image. So instead they decided to add in a graphics chip to handle the task that the cell couldnt do.
I dont know if it makes sense but i cant find the article where I read it.
Anand, do you think the xbox360 and playstion3 will be signifantly superior to the other?
Do you think there will be enough of a performance gap that we will be able to see as the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth generation of games roll out?
Or the performance gap may be small so that the advantages will be be elsewhere like...
One system is easier to develop for or some other features of the system.
I would like to know what you think about the systems from a developer’s standpoint. With the estimated cost of developing a new ‘Hi-Def’ game for these systems in the $10’s of millions... how will the different architectures effect how games are developed.
Sony has a history of not making the developers experience a top priority. Microsoft being a software company with it’s own programming suite, I’m sure made a priority of making the developers life easy.
What about game porting between systems? Given the enormous cost of developing a new title, I’m sure many game studios will release the game for multiple systems. How do you see the complexities of optimizing for the Cell effecting performance on other systems (will it just be as easy as a compiler switch /Cell vs /x360, or will it require a bigger rewrite of code)... and if porting for the cell is more difficult, will we see that most cross platform games will never take full advantage of the cell’s capabilities and therefore give an advantage to the xbox?
Sony is touting many features of the ps3 that seem... interesting. How will the Dual HDTV outputs affect the cost of the final product? What about all the memory cards it can read? And 3 gigabit Ethernet ports? It seems like Sony was just throwing ‘buz-word features’ in so they could create more hype, but the final cost of these will surely effect the product pricing. I have heard roomers that the ps3 will no come with a hard drive by default (and when you buy the separate hard drive, it will have linux pre-installed on it... is this true, does this mean we will be getting a keyboard/mouse for the ps3)... how will games performance be effected by not having a hard drive standard... sure ps3 will have 50 gig blu-ray disks, but the access time and no save’s can’t make up for not having a hard drive.
Thanks for listening, I have really been looking forward to your article!
-Robby
From looking at the numbers, the ps3/x360 will have about 30% of the memory bandwidth of the new g70. What does that translate to in realworld performance. Will either system realisticly run at 1080p at a decent framerate?
What are the possibilities of the x360 using the unified architecture for things other than graphics such as physics calcs?
Is latency an issue in either system that might limit theoretical performance?
We all know the marketing numbers, but having the intimate knowledge of both architectures and the connections that you do, I'd like to know what the real numbers are factoring in all bottlenecks.
According to arstechnica´s article, the Xbox 360 CPU is no good for non-graphics code, and the PS3 CPU might even be worse. Since what makes a game fun or not is the physics and AI above all else (for me at least), I´d like you to have your opinion on this aspect of both consoles, since the majority of arstechnica´s article is way too complex for a layman like me, as was rightfully pointed out by knitecrow (comment #12).
I´d like to know how these CPUs compare to the current generation ones, regarding non-graphics code. Are they as good as or only slightly better than last generation, are they even worse (is that possible at all?), or do you think they are more than enough for "next-generation" console gaming?
This probably is a very stupid question, but I really know nothing about CPUs, and what bothered me the most of all the things I read so far about these new consoles is the supposed weakness of their CPUs in handling non-graphics code.
Also, is the lack of an audio processor relevant, i.e. does it makes things worse on the CPU side or is there no reason to worry about that?
I´m really looking forward to your article and hope you´ll do a more definitive one when you have final versions of all consoles, like you did for the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox back in the day.
Can you please tell us what resoluions you will be able to play using a PC monitor. Would you need to have DVI interface? Would you be able to plag these consoles directly to a PC monitor?
I would like a comparison of Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 to my pong game and to the price of tea in China. Please take this request seriously as I am having trouble sleeping. Take care.
Oh Anand...I remember something...in your Xbox 360 hands-on article you mentioned about the slot at the bottom of the controller and you said that is one thing that Microsoft is being very secretive about...(you know the one for the headset, but with three slots)...
any new information on that? Any speculations? I read somewhere that that slot could be used for connecting some other type of peripherals etc...
I would also like to know what the prospects are for 1080p gaming on a 1920x1200 (obviously 60 pixels of dead space at top and bottom) 24" LCD as opposed to a standalone HDTV. If I could use a 2405FPW (or it's successor) for both PC and PS3 I would be thrilled. Personally I can't see why Sony would put out games with less detail or subpar framerates so that less than 1% of people could see them in full resolution. Even if the 360 isn't as powerful as the PS3, 1280x720 is less than half as many pixels as 1920x1080 which would seem to make 1080p a huge tradeoff. 1080p seems like the eventual standard, and I'm all for it, just seems unrealistic to me though.
Anand, are you going to talk about something in the article that we don't already know...something perhaps groundbreaking from your research into the two systems (especially since you've talked to quite a few of the Developers/Microsoft guys/Sony guys...
I'd be interested in speculations as well, like WHAT ELSE COULD these systems accomplish (what seems likely), since this is stuff that we can't get from other places and only someone who has researched the systems thoroughly would know about...
e.g.
- their use in Grid Computing
- rumors suggesting that MS might allow X360 to connect to portables like DS and PSP (maybe even cellphones) to play games???
what #10 and #17 said...I don't expect you to compare two on-paper systems...However, claims made by both camps could be dissected (I thought that was the original intent of the article)...
Specifically I don't want to see:
- Microsoft touting phenomenal performance for a machine that's not going to have that much of an edge on PCs coming out next...
- Sony fooling the public twice with their "Emotion Engine" crap...it's heading that way and one good indicator is their naming conventions: Reality Synthesizer, Exponential aesthetic, Ultimate aesthetic...where does KEN get this crap...
Will the 360 out perform the PS3, because what I found out about the Xbox360 graphic ship is unreal. The 360 can run 100% all the time, it has unified smart meomory and plus it has a unified shader architecture. So which one is better period.
Anand, there is a confusion whether mouse-keyboard combo can be used to play games in these new gen game consoles. Can U please let us know about this? Thanks.
#16: Why would 1080p be unreasonable for Sony? Current-gen PC graphics cards can run high framerates at 1600x1200 (1.92 million pixels), and 1920x1080 is only 2.07 million pixels. Given that we're talking about a next-gen graphic card, I'd expect 1080p to be a walk in the park for any new console, especially since developers can always extract more out of a console than an open platform like the PC.
Everything right now is speculation. No one can say one is superior to the other. If you do have the information and performed tests, then you can see which one is superior and where. Some games may run better on the x360, some ps3. Depending on how the developers use the system. THey are very different architecturally, but i don't think we're gonna see one system blowing the other system out. One thin gi would like to see if a system completely skips a generation ahead to BLOW OUT current generation stuff!
I'd be interested in your view as to how "appropriate" the cell architecture is for general game code development.
One of the developers for the upcoming PS3 game "Heavenly Sword" posted on the Beyond3D forums reference coding for the cell SPE's. He said it was not easy to find "work" for them, due to issues with the memory management. He explicitly said it would take a new approach to software development. That sounds troubling, in that there are likely ramifications for code reuse between titles. Not too mention the ramifications for porting the code between consoles.
I know Tim Sweeney said something about programming for the cell being "easy", but given that Epic's port of the Unreal engine to the PS3 dev kit did not use any of the SPE's, I'm taking that comment with a grain of salt. And of course, from a marketing perspective - he could say nothing else.
I personally am not impressed with the PS3 yet. I hope I'm wrong (for a really competitive gaming market) but it just does not impress me. The Cell architecture is an unproven method, which may or may not succeed, and the NVIDIA graphics processor in my opinion, from what I've read, is not as advanced as the ATI solution. Unified shaders are a terrific advantage and I believe it may be one of the key points in the question of which system comes out on top. The other four questions I have are this:
What is the cost of the system going to be?
$400? $500? All of this technology comes at a price.
Will Sony deliver on the 1080p?
They make these fantastic claims, but from some articles I've read, it only would be able to handle this resolution while playing solitaire. This leaves the question of what most games will be rendered at... and what the developers will create the textures at.
Online Content?
MS has a solid online multiplayer system and sound to be vastly improving on an already terrific service. Can Sony topple the mighty Xbox Live, especially considering Microsoft is making the service FREE on the weekends for everyone...
And most importantly, how on earth does Sony believe they can compete with Microsoft with their development environment? XNA Studio looks to be one of the greatest things to come along in a long time in regards to video game creation, and personally I feel it will have significant impacts on the industry as a whole. This is if, of course, Microsoft can deliver on their promises. If they can, I believe this "war", no matter WHAT technical specs prove to be true, will be over before it even began.
With all the hype both of these companies are known for, particularly Sony, the truth, as the saying goes, will be in the pudding. Only time will tell on which system will topple the other, and a key factor seems to be overlooked by everyone in the gaming industry, the mere fact that Nintendo has another system in the pipeline, which looks just as promising as the others have as well. That should certainly mix things up upon its release, even more so than most realize.
- Creathir
Everyone should learn that flops are useless numbers.
Do you ever see anadtech using flops to assess either GPU or CPU power/performance?
Sony saw M$ throwing around 1Tflop number (which itself is misleading) and, in typical Sony style [get it] just doubled M$ numbers to make the PS3 look superior.
After all, that is what Sony is hoping for -- the public perception that the PS3 is a whole lot more powerful than X360. Look at Ken's inflammatory remarks about the X360 being Xbox 1.5.
a page from Sony's Playbook -- Create HYP3 by any means, including throwing out misleading performance numbers. Take a look at Sony's remarks about the PS2 and its rival, the dreamcast.
One of the biggest things going against the Dreamcast was the public and even developer perception that the PS2 was superior in every way possible. Of course, the PS2 launch titles looked like crap compared to some of the dreamcast titles.
Have you read the Beyond 3d article on Xenos? If so based on what has been presented so far which GPU RSX or Xenos do you think will be more powerful. My money is on the Xenos, but I could be wrong.
Similar to #3, according to the ATI guys, separate vertex and pixel shaders are (50-60)% efficient, so that would mean PS3 2 TFLOP's claim are more like (1-1.2) TFLOP's actual. Is that true?
How efficient are unified shaders? It can't be 100% efficient like they claim, can it?
Basically do you have an idea what the "ACTUAL REAL WORLD" numbers be for both systems?
I would expect a lot of gaming sites to pick on this article because they themselves lack the expertise to write a comprehensive article on the subject. Take a look at Gamespot or IGN -- they merely parrot the PR folks. Sad state of journalism in the gaming industry. I would therefore like to see an unbiased article that cuts through the plethora of misleading marketing numbers (flops being a prime culprit)
Technical explanations such as those from arcstechnica on the Xenon CPU and the beyond3d article on the xenos are all good and well – but most people don’t have the specialized knowledge to draw conclusions even when presented with facts. I wouldn’t mind seeing anand’s commentary on the specific design choices and how they related to console gaming.
I personally would like to know:
How will specific design choice affect games and game development (given real world conditions and real world restriction)? [E.g. I personally think going with in-order processor was a bad decision]
Given a trend towards multiplatform development, what can we expect out of future multiplatform games and multiplatform development?
I know you have given hints of the RSX being similar to the G70 -- how true is it? What differentiate the RSX from the G70. Sony claims the RSX isn't even taped out. Will reviews of nivida's G70 give me an idea of what the RSX can do?
---
#9 beyond3d has the info
232 for main core
105 for daughter die
you have different silicon handling video functions... so combine it adds up to a lot of transistors
#10 I think I do remember sony touting the PS3 with multiple cell chips and no RSX. I think they changed their mind after they saw the actual performance of the cell (when used in graphics rendering) compared with PC GPUs.
Anyway, Anand, can't wait to read the article. What I want to know is in your opinion, what's hype and what's real to expect from either system (especially the PS3 since sony has a history of "hype"). I'm sure nobody wants another emotion engine. :)
I want to know if Sony really wanted to put multiple Cell chips and no RSX originaly in the PS3 (according to their patents) and why did they change their mind and go with an Nvidia GPU?
Did it have to do with manufacturing problems, and leading them to disabling an SPE?
Advantage of Unified Shaders vs Standard and who appears to have the edge in graphics Xenos or RSX. Benefits of eDRAM. Confirmation of total transistors for Xenon. Also I heard the Xenon has an interesting feature that each of the 48 ALU's have the ability to access memory anyway needed for their separate tasks.
Why are we even comparing PS3 and Xbox360? PS3 only exists on paper as of now, but Xbox360 will be in production soon. Of course, I expect PS3 to be better than X360...duh
It's probably already in there, but I would like to see how unified shaders compare to the tradition dual shader architecture, as far as performance is concerned. You hear the Xbox camp claim unified shaders are more efficient, and the PS3 camp claims unified shader can cause stalls. I don't know who to believe at this point.
Also, outside of free 4xAA, what else does the eDRAM buy in the Xbox 360, and are ATI justified in throwing around the 256GB/s number if it only accounts for a fraction of actual usage?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
43 Comments
Back to Article
Jared - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
All I want to know is which GPU is "better" for games. And I'd like the Xenos to be the better one ;) so wave a magic wand for me plz.Darkeye123 - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
When will i be able to read this article :DBeastie Boy - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
I seems that both these next gen consoles will off blinding performance for games.What I would like to know is what else each one can bring to the table, with a particular interest in incorporating one of these systems into a home theatre installation.
Audio and video output connections and formats would be appreciated.
Anonymous - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
edit - SPE'sAnonymous - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Anand, can you touch on the Lack of Branch prediction and explain how this will affect the CPE's ability ti interact with one another.Also, how will this lack of branch prediction affect development time and costs? Will it be a signifigant amount of extra work for Devs??
TheChefO - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
The cell was not as powerful as it was initially intended to be. The original target for Cell was 1000x more powerful than ps2. This is not a misquote but direct from Ken Kutaragi and his team. The engineers tried to talk him down to a "more realistic" 100x, but as you know the final ps3 design (including the rsx) is 35x.If the engineers would have met the original target of 1000x we would not be having this discussion and instead would be asking, "So when is MS going to pull out of the gaming biz?"
The cell in many ways is EE2. Kutaragi is very ambitious. To a fault some may say, in that he has a vision for what his products should be even though those visions do not materialize he still has the same vision of what he wants his hardware design to be. This then spills over in interviews and elsewhere I'm sure which may have had something to do with his demotion at Sony HQ.
A D - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
The reason they did not go with 2 cells is because the cell could not do everything as far as rendering a image. So instead they decided to add in a graphics chip to handle the task that the cell couldnt do.I dont know if it makes sense but i cant find the article where I read it.
Salman - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Anand, do you think the xbox360 and playstion3 will be signifantly superior to the other?Do you think there will be enough of a performance gap that we will be able to see as the 2nd, 3rd and 4rth generation of games roll out?
Or the performance gap may be small so that the advantages will be be elsewhere like...
One system is easier to develop for or some other features of the system.
Robby - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
I would like to know what you think about the systems from a developer’s standpoint. With the estimated cost of developing a new ‘Hi-Def’ game for these systems in the $10’s of millions... how will the different architectures effect how games are developed.Sony has a history of not making the developers experience a top priority. Microsoft being a software company with it’s own programming suite, I’m sure made a priority of making the developers life easy.
What about game porting between systems? Given the enormous cost of developing a new title, I’m sure many game studios will release the game for multiple systems. How do you see the complexities of optimizing for the Cell effecting performance on other systems (will it just be as easy as a compiler switch /Cell vs /x360, or will it require a bigger rewrite of code)... and if porting for the cell is more difficult, will we see that most cross platform games will never take full advantage of the cell’s capabilities and therefore give an advantage to the xbox?
Sony is touting many features of the ps3 that seem... interesting. How will the Dual HDTV outputs affect the cost of the final product? What about all the memory cards it can read? And 3 gigabit Ethernet ports? It seems like Sony was just throwing ‘buz-word features’ in so they could create more hype, but the final cost of these will surely effect the product pricing. I have heard roomers that the ps3 will no come with a hard drive by default (and when you buy the separate hard drive, it will have linux pre-installed on it... is this true, does this mean we will be getting a keyboard/mouse for the ps3)... how will games performance be effected by not having a hard drive standard... sure ps3 will have 50 gig blu-ray disks, but the access time and no save’s can’t make up for not having a hard drive.
Thanks for listening, I have really been looking forward to your article!
-Robby
TheChefO - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
From looking at the numbers, the ps3/x360 will have about 30% of the memory bandwidth of the new g70. What does that translate to in realworld performance. Will either system realisticly run at 1080p at a decent framerate?What are the possibilities of the x360 using the unified architecture for things other than graphics such as physics calcs?
Is latency an issue in either system that might limit theoretical performance?
We all know the marketing numbers, but having the intimate knowledge of both architectures and the connections that you do, I'd like to know what the real numbers are factoring in all bottlenecks.
Thanks Anand!
Your site is a trusted resource.
Anonymous - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
According to arstechnica´s article, the Xbox 360 CPU is no good for non-graphics code, and the PS3 CPU might even be worse. Since what makes a game fun or not is the physics and AI above all else (for me at least), I´d like you to have your opinion on this aspect of both consoles, since the majority of arstechnica´s article is way too complex for a layman like me, as was rightfully pointed out by knitecrow (comment #12).I´d like to know how these CPUs compare to the current generation ones, regarding non-graphics code. Are they as good as or only slightly better than last generation, are they even worse (is that possible at all?), or do you think they are more than enough for "next-generation" console gaming?
This probably is a very stupid question, but I really know nothing about CPUs, and what bothered me the most of all the things I read so far about these new consoles is the supposed weakness of their CPUs in handling non-graphics code.
Also, is the lack of an audio processor relevant, i.e. does it makes things worse on the CPU side or is there no reason to worry about that?
I´m really looking forward to your article and hope you´ll do a more definitive one when you have final versions of all consoles, like you did for the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox back in the day.
Andres - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Can you please tell us what resoluions you will be able to play using a PC monitor. Would you need to have DVI interface? Would you be able to plag these consoles directly to a PC monitor?Anonymous - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
I would like a comparison of Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 to my pong game and to the price of tea in China. Please take this request seriously as I am having trouble sleeping. Take care.Xboxer - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Oh Anand...I remember something...in your Xbox 360 hands-on article you mentioned about the slot at the bottom of the controller and you said that is one thing that Microsoft is being very secretive about...(you know the one for the headset, but with three slots)...any new information on that? Any speculations? I read somewhere that that slot could be used for connecting some other type of peripherals etc...
Ashahell - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
In the past it's been said that Cell-based devices could share their processors via some flavor of networking. Any new information on that?Did you get a hands-on with both new controllers? If so, any comments?
obeseotron - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
I would also like to know what the prospects are for 1080p gaming on a 1920x1200 (obviously 60 pixels of dead space at top and bottom) 24" LCD as opposed to a standalone HDTV. If I could use a 2405FPW (or it's successor) for both PC and PS3 I would be thrilled. Personally I can't see why Sony would put out games with less detail or subpar framerates so that less than 1% of people could see them in full resolution. Even if the 360 isn't as powerful as the PS3, 1280x720 is less than half as many pixels as 1920x1080 which would seem to make 1080p a huge tradeoff. 1080p seems like the eventual standard, and I'm all for it, just seems unrealistic to me though.Davediego - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
soundXboxer - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Anand, are you going to talk about something in the article that we don't already know...something perhaps groundbreaking from your research into the two systems (especially since you've talked to quite a few of the Developers/Microsoft guys/Sony guys...I'd be interested in speculations as well, like WHAT ELSE COULD these systems accomplish (what seems likely), since this is stuff that we can't get from other places and only someone who has researched the systems thoroughly would know about...
e.g.
- their use in Grid Computing
- rumors suggesting that MS might allow X360 to connect to portables like DS and PSP (maybe even cellphones) to play games???
Xboxer - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
what #10 and #17 said...I don't expect you to compare two on-paper systems...However, claims made by both camps could be dissected (I thought that was the original intent of the article)...Specifically I don't want to see:
- Microsoft touting phenomenal performance for a machine that's not going to have that much of an edge on PCs coming out next...
- Sony fooling the public twice with their "Emotion Engine" crap...it's heading that way and one good indicator is their naming conventions: Reality Synthesizer, Exponential aesthetic, Ultimate aesthetic...where does KEN get this crap...
rafiel - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
Will the 360 out perform the PS3, because what I found out about the Xbox360 graphic ship is unreal. The 360 can run 100% all the time, it has unified smart meomory and plus it has a unified shader architecture. So which one is better period.faminepulse - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
sorry, i forgot the insert the URL. here it is http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/1426faminepulse - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link
has anyone read this article on the Cell? If so, what do you guys think?PPP - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Anand, there is a confusion whether mouse-keyboard combo can be used to play games in these new gen game consoles. Can U please let us know about this? Thanks.wbwither - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
#16: Why would 1080p be unreasonable for Sony? Current-gen PC graphics cards can run high framerates at 1600x1200 (1.92 million pixels), and 1920x1080 is only 2.07 million pixels. Given that we're talking about a next-gen graphic card, I'd expect 1080p to be a walk in the park for any new console, especially since developers can always extract more out of a console than an open platform like the PC.Techie - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Everything right now is speculation. No one can say one is superior to the other. If you do have the information and performed tests, then you can see which one is superior and where. Some games may run better on the x360, some ps3. Depending on how the developers use the system. THey are very different architecturally, but i don't think we're gonna see one system blowing the other system out. One thin gi would like to see if a system completely skips a generation ahead to BLOW OUT current generation stuff!kedaha - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
I'd like to see quite an in-depth analysis at the different routes the r520 and RSX went, as well as benefits/drawbacks to both.eric - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Howdy,I'd be interested in your view as to how "appropriate" the cell architecture is for general game code development.
One of the developers for the upcoming PS3 game "Heavenly Sword" posted on the Beyond3D forums reference coding for the cell SPE's. He said it was not easy to find "work" for them, due to issues with the memory management. He explicitly said it would take a new approach to software development. That sounds troubling, in that there are likely ramifications for code reuse between titles. Not too mention the ramifications for porting the code between consoles.
I know Tim Sweeney said something about programming for the cell being "easy", but given that Epic's port of the Unreal engine to the PS3 dev kit did not use any of the SPE's, I'm taking that comment with a grain of salt. And of course, from a marketing perspective - he could say nothing else.
Thanks!
Creathir - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
I personally am not impressed with the PS3 yet. I hope I'm wrong (for a really competitive gaming market) but it just does not impress me. The Cell architecture is an unproven method, which may or may not succeed, and the NVIDIA graphics processor in my opinion, from what I've read, is not as advanced as the ATI solution. Unified shaders are a terrific advantage and I believe it may be one of the key points in the question of which system comes out on top. The other four questions I have are this:What is the cost of the system going to be?
$400? $500? All of this technology comes at a price.
Will Sony deliver on the 1080p?
They make these fantastic claims, but from some articles I've read, it only would be able to handle this resolution while playing solitaire. This leaves the question of what most games will be rendered at... and what the developers will create the textures at.
Online Content?
MS has a solid online multiplayer system and sound to be vastly improving on an already terrific service. Can Sony topple the mighty Xbox Live, especially considering Microsoft is making the service FREE on the weekends for everyone...
And most importantly, how on earth does Sony believe they can compete with Microsoft with their development environment? XNA Studio looks to be one of the greatest things to come along in a long time in regards to video game creation, and personally I feel it will have significant impacts on the industry as a whole. This is if, of course, Microsoft can deliver on their promises. If they can, I believe this "war", no matter WHAT technical specs prove to be true, will be over before it even began.
With all the hype both of these companies are known for, particularly Sony, the truth, as the saying goes, will be in the pudding. Only time will tell on which system will topple the other, and a key factor seems to be overlooked by everyone in the gaming industry, the mere fact that Nintendo has another system in the pipeline, which looks just as promising as the others have as well. That should certainly mix things up upon its release, even more so than most realize.
- Creathir
knitecrow - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Everyone should learn that flops are useless numbers.Do you ever see anadtech using flops to assess either GPU or CPU power/performance?
Sony saw M$ throwing around 1Tflop number (which itself is misleading) and, in typical Sony style [get it] just doubled M$ numbers to make the PS3 look superior.
After all, that is what Sony is hoping for -- the public perception that the PS3 is a whole lot more powerful than X360. Look at Ken's inflammatory remarks about the X360 being Xbox 1.5.
a page from Sony's Playbook -- Create HYP3 by any means, including throwing out misleading performance numbers. Take a look at Sony's remarks about the PS2 and its rival, the dreamcast.
One of the biggest things going against the Dreamcast was the public and even developer perception that the PS2 was superior in every way possible. Of course, the PS2 launch titles looked like crap compared to some of the dreamcast titles.
But I digress....
Omihall - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Have you read the Beyond 3d article on Xenos? If so based on what has been presented so far which GPU RSX or Xenos do you think will be more powerful. My money is on the Xenos, but I could be wrong.Chad - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Similar to #3, according to the ATI guys, separate vertex and pixel shaders are (50-60)% efficient, so that would mean PS3 2 TFLOP's claim are more like (1-1.2) TFLOP's actual. Is that true?How efficient are unified shaders? It can't be 100% efficient like they claim, can it?
Basically do you have an idea what the "ACTUAL REAL WORLD" numbers be for both systems?
knitecrow - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
I would expect a lot of gaming sites to pick on this article because they themselves lack the expertise to write a comprehensive article on the subject. Take a look at Gamespot or IGN -- they merely parrot the PR folks. Sad state of journalism in the gaming industry. I would therefore like to see an unbiased article that cuts through the plethora of misleading marketing numbers (flops being a prime culprit)Technical explanations such as those from arcstechnica on the Xenon CPU and the beyond3d article on the xenos are all good and well – but most people don’t have the specialized knowledge to draw conclusions even when presented with facts. I wouldn’t mind seeing anand’s commentary on the specific design choices and how they related to console gaming.
I personally would like to know:
How will specific design choice affect games and game development (given real world conditions and real world restriction)? [E.g. I personally think going with in-order processor was a bad decision]
Given a trend towards multiplatform development, what can we expect out of future multiplatform games and multiplatform development?
I know you have given hints of the RSX being similar to the G70 -- how true is it? What differentiate the RSX from the G70. Sony claims the RSX isn't even taped out. Will reviews of nivida's G70 give me an idea of what the RSX can do?
---
#9 beyond3d has the info
232 for main core
105 for daughter die
you have different silicon handling video functions... so combine it adds up to a lot of transistors
MDme - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
#10 I think I do remember sony touting the PS3 with multiple cell chips and no RSX. I think they changed their mind after they saw the actual performance of the cell (when used in graphics rendering) compared with PC GPUs.Anyway, Anand, can't wait to read the article. What I want to know is in your opinion, what's hype and what's real to expect from either system (especially the PS3 since sony has a history of "hype"). I'm sure nobody wants another emotion engine. :)
Chad - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
I want to know if Sony really wanted to put multiple Cell chips and no RSX originaly in the PS3 (according to their patents) and why did they change their mind and go with an Nvidia GPU?Did it have to do with manufacturing problems, and leading them to disabling an SPE?
Pinkus777 - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Advantage of Unified Shaders vs Standard and who appears to have the edge in graphics Xenos or RSX. Benefits of eDRAM. Confirmation of total transistors for Xenon. Also I heard the Xenon has an interesting feature that each of the 48 ALU's have the ability to access memory anyway needed for their separate tasks.firerock - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
Why are we even comparing PS3 and Xbox360? PS3 only exists on paper as of now, but Xbox360 will be in production soon. Of course, I expect PS3 to be better than X360...duhandrew - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
could you include a section on what lcd monitor would play best on these systems.Im sure most cant or wont buy a hdtv.Jason - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
720p rather.Jason - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
A summary on their HD strategies and the interfaces would be interesting. Will they support HDMI, Firewire, DVI? 780p or 1080p?Ghandi - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
XDR Advantage? Is there one?dwell - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
It's probably already in there, but I would like to see how unified shaders compare to the tradition dual shader architecture, as far as performance is concerned. You hear the Xbox camp claim unified shaders are more efficient, and the PS3 camp claims unified shader can cause stalls. I don't know who to believe at this point.Also, outside of free 4xAA, what else does the eDRAM buy in the Xbox 360, and are ATI justified in throwing around the 256GB/s number if it only accounts for a fraction of actual usage?
Anonymous - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
NO NO NO Just tell the truth!ANAND please tell us wich one kick ass the BEST.
Furango - Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - link
We all know that the ps3 is the better. Just show the article already so all the xboxfanboys can start their cries.