How important is system bandwidth

[citizen X]

: how important is system bandwidth



I know how important system bandwidth is, but I wan’t to know what u guys think, because some people don’t see that the ps3’s 48.8 GB/s is a big problem, but it is. The Xbox 360 has 5x the system bandwidth, 278.4 GB/s



: PS3's bandwidth VS Xbox 360's bandwidth



What is system bandwidth?

To put it simply, it’s like a pipeline that connects all the parts together. Think of the data as the water flowing through the pipeline.

Xbox360
The xbox360’s pipeline is, let’s say ….. 5 feet in diameter. This miens a lot of water is flowing through the pipeline at any point in time. The xbox360 has a system to make sure that the pipeline is always full of running data, that means, NO BOTTLENECKS.

ps3
The ps3’s pipeline is 1 foot in diameter because its 5x smaller. This means that there is 5x less data going through the pipeline at its best. The ps3’s design is full of bottlenecks.


PS3’s designed bottlenecks
1. The cell’s 7 SPEs need to run in order, they can’t run simoultaniously.

2. the pipeline itself, its to small

3. No way to manage a continuous flow of data through the pipeline to prevent bottlenecks.

4. The pipeline can’t be shared by the CPU and GPU at the same time, its one or the other. To me this sounds questionable, so if u have any information on this share it.


: why


because
I’m tired of people on the forum who just don’t want to talk about this big problem. They keep on saying that it’s going to be a tie. NOT IF THE PS3 ONLY HAS 48.8 GB/s.

The xbox360 uses more system bandwidth on the shading alone, then what the ps3 has all together. That means that the xbox360 uses some were Around 50 GB/s just for shading

I think that the xbox360 has a better chance of running KILL ZONE 2, at least better then the ps3

If u think I’m wrong on any of the information I shared, tell me. I know u were going to anyway






ADD ON

The CELL processor is a very powerful CPU; don’t get me wrong, I just think that this is the wrong application for the kind of processing its going to be used for. And that Sony didn’t give the new Cell technology a chance to show what it’s capable of, buy basically keeping it confined to the bandwidth barrier. Sure they can compress the dated but to what point? Compression is not the answer; compression is what u do as a last resort, not as plane B, that is meant to fix the known problem with plan A from the start.

[Grumpy Old Fart]

That's a great post cheers citizen X, and helps a non techie person like myself out.

[citizen X]

I’m glad to help but to be honest I just finished it now at 3:35. AM

and God I’m tired!!!!!!

And yes I have a life :hmpf:

[Grumpy Old Fart]

I’m glad to help but to be honest I just finished it now at 3:35.

God I’m tired!!!!!!

And yes I have a life

I certainly appreciate the input you tech guys are putting in on the forum. I'm certainly learning alot and really helps to put 'arguments' across on other sites regarding the next gen consoles.

oh and get to bed :)

[Justin Buser]

Nice article citizen X - keep an eye on the front page over the next few days ;)

[pApA SmerF01]

: how important is system bandwidth



I know how important system bandwidth is, but I won’t to know what u guys think, because some people don’t see that the ps3’s 48.8 GB/s is a big problem, but it is. The Xbox 360 has 5x the system bandwidth, 278.4 GB/s



: PS3's bandwidth VS Xbox 360's bandwidth



What is system bandwidth?
Fist of all, if u don’t know what system bandwidth is, u don’t belong in the hardware forums .
To put it simply, it’s like a pipeline that connects all the parts together. Think of the data as the water flowing through the pipeline.

Xbox360
The xbox360’s pipeline is, let’s say ….. 5 feet in diameter. This miens a lot of water is flowing through the pipeline at any point and time. The xbox360 has a system to make shore that the pipeline is always full of running data, that miens NO BOTTLENECKS.

ps3
The ps3’s pipeline is 1 foot in diameter because its 5x smaller. This means that there is 5x less data going through the pipeline at its best. The ps3’s design is full of bottlenecks.


PS3’s designed bottlenecks
1. The cell’s 7 SPEs need to run in order, they can’t run at the same time.

2. the pipeline itself, its to small

3. No way to manage a continuous flow of data through the pipeline to prevent bottlenecks.

4. The pipeline can’t be shared by the CPU and GPU at the same time, its one or the other. To me this sounds questionable, so if u have any information on this share it.


: why


because
I’m tired of people on the forum who just don’t want to talk about this big problem. They keep on saying that it’s going to be a tie. NOT IF THE PS3 ONLY HAS 48.8 GB/s.

The xbox360 uses more system bandwidth on the shading alone, then what the ps3 has all together. That miens that the xbox360 uses some were Around 50 GB/s just for shading

I think that the xbox360 has a better chance of running KILL ZONE 2, better then the ps3

If u think I’m wrong on any of the information I shared, tell me. I know u were going to anyway

also an interesting thing to point out is, that the 48.8 gps is ps3's total system bandwidth. that's for data rendering between the spe's, signaling between RAM, shader ops, die-form-routing, bit-rendering; it simply is too much to do with so little.

that's a really good analogy for bandwidth, but here's another one.

the 360's bandwidth is like a boeing 747. lots of passengers in for the trip; tons of room.

the ps3's bandwidth is like a cessna (not sure on spelling) trying to fit in all those people for a rocky trip over the grand canyon....

[pApA SmerF01]

you might like this read on the ATI xenos c1 (aka the r500)

it's really techie, and i'm just going to post the bandwidth section, but if you want the full link, pm me.

When creating a high performance computing platform bandwidth between components and operations is highly important, especially when creating a system that has to last for 3-5 years before a new version comes about, such is the world of consoles. With the Xenos processor being both a high performance graphics processing element of the XBOX 360 as well as the "Northbridge" component of the system, which is essentially the communication hub for the other components of the system, it has many interconnects and bandwidths to deal with. Below is a diagram highlighting the connection bandwidths between the most important elements it is connected to:

see picture 1

XBOX 360 Primary System Bandwidths

As we discussed earlier, the XBOX 360 carries a unified memory architecture and Xenos's parent die is acting as the Northbridge controller as well as the graphics processing device. The system memory bandwidth is 22.4GB/s courtesy of the 128-bit GDDR3 memory interface running at 700MHz. At 232M transistors the Xenos parent die isn't an enormous chip so internal memory communication isn't going to be too latency bound, hence the memory interface only needs to be a standard crossbar, which is partitioned into two 64-bit blocks. Xenos's parent die also has a 32GB/s connection to the daughter, eDRAM die Connection to the Southbridge audio and I/O controller is achieved via two PCI Express lanes which results in 500MB/s of both upstream and downstream bandwidth.

As the CPU is going to be using Xenos to handle all its memory transfers, the connection between the two has 10.8GB/s of bandwidth both upstream and downstream simultaneously. Additionally the Xenos graphics processor is able to directly lock the cache of the CPU in order to retrieve data directly from it without it having to go to system memory beforehand. The purpose of this is that one (or more, if wanted) of the three CPU cores could be generating very high levels of geometry that the developer doesn't want to, or can't, preserve in the memory footprints available on the system when in use. High-resolution dynamic geometry such as grass, leaves, hair, particles, water droplets and explosion effects are all examples of one type of scenario that the cache locking may be used in.

see picture 2

ROP Bandwidth to eDRAM

The one key area of bandwidth, that has caused a fair quantity of controversy in its inclusion of specifications, is that of bandwidth available from the ROPS to the eDRAM, which stands at 256GB/s. The eDRAM is always going to be the primary location for any of the bandwidth intensive frame buffer operations and so it is specifically designed to remove the frame buffer memory bandwidth bottleneck - additionally, Z and colour access patterns tend not to be particularly optimal for traditional DRAM controllers where they are frequent read/write penalties, so by placing all of these operations in the eDRAM daughter die, aside from the system calls, this leaves the system memory bus free for texture and vertex data fetches which are both read only and are therefore highly efficient. Of course, with 10MB of frame buffer space available this isn't sufficient to fit the entire frame buffer in with 4x FSAA enabled at High Definition resolutions and we'll cover how this is handled later in the article.

Both XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 feature UMA and graphics busses, respectively, that have been announced to use fairly fast 700MHz GDDR3 memory, but both only have a 128-bit interface. Whilst this is less of a surprise for XBOX 360 as Xenos's use of eDRAM will move the vast majority of the frame buffer bandwidth to the EDRAM interface leaving the system memory bandwidth available primarily for texturing bandwidth. It does seem odd that by the time the consoles will be released the likelihood is that high end PC graphics will using at least the same speed RAM but on double wide busses. The primary issue here is, again, one of cost - the lifetimes of a console will be much greater than that of PC graphics and process shrinks are used to reduce the costs of the internal components; 256-bit busses may actually prevent process shrinks beyond a certain level as with the number of pins required to support busses this width could quickly become pad limited as the die size is reduced. 128-bit busses result in far fewer pins than 256-bit busses, thus allowing the chip to shrink to smaller die sizes before becoming pad limited - by this point it is also likely that Xenos's daughter die will have been integrated into the shader core, further reducing the number of pins that are required.

[Grindstone]

Well, okay, we've all heard about the system bandwidth problem and how the PS3 architecture "bottlenecks" the performance. My question is, how much bandwidth do we need? We've all heard the PS3 fanboi arguments about terabytes, but the reality is, we don't need 2.18 terabytes for the type of gaming we'll be doing. So, comparatively speaking, do we need that much bandwidth for gaming?

I basically know part of the answer (more bandwidth = no bottlenecking), but I'd like to solidify my answer, and I am sure others would like to know the answer to this question as well.

[citizen X]

i did look for it on the forums

[pApA SmerF01]

Well, okay, we've all heard about the system bandwidth problem and how the PS3 architecture "bottlenecks" the performance. My question is, how much bandwidth do we need? We've all heard the PS3 fanboi arguments about terabytes, but the reality is, we don't need 2.18 terabytes for the type of gaming we'll be doing. So, comparatively speaking, do we need that much bandwidth for gaming?

I basically know part of the answer (more bandwidth = no bottlenecking), but I'd like to solidify my answer, and I am sure others would like to know the answer to this question as well.

just a quick correction, they're bragging about 2.18 teraflops.

which is basically the amount of floating-point operations the system does per clock cycle.

the only problem is that the 2.18 is what it "can" do running at 100% efficiency. but considering almost 70% of their flop count comes from the gpu, and it's only 55-70% efficient, my equations have given me the more realistic number of 1.543, .17 latent for error-correction efficiency.

with the 360, they underestimated their flop count, and with my calculations (seeing how with usa their gpu is 95-98% efficient) their actual Tflop count is 1.413,with .17 latent for error-correction efficiency.

you also have to look at this. floating point operations only count for about 20% of total system operations. the bulk of it is general and integer operations, which the xbox360 excels at.

at last calculation, the 360 is 3x more potent in general operations than the ps3 and almost 2x more efficient in its integer operations.

next time you come across a ps fanboy bragging about TFLOPS just repost this, lol.

[Grindstone]

Dangit, I meant teraflops, not terabytes (maybe next generation console, eh?). And yes, that is why I said that the supposed 2.18 teraflops were not necessary. Thanks for your breakdown, although could you explain a little more on the loss of teraflops for the two systems. Seems like you need to make a thread about this. We'll stick it to PS3 on multiple levels: teraflops, bandwidth, HD drive, etc...

Information is power.

[citizen X]

Dangit, I meant teraflops, not terabytes (maybe next generation console, eh?). And yes, that is why I said that the supposed 2.18 teraflops were not necessary. Thanks for your breakdown, although could you explain a little more on the loss of teraflops for the two systems. Seems like you need to make a thread about this. We'll stick it to PS3 on multiple levels: teraflops, bandwidth, HD drive, etc...

Information is power.

They counted the teraflops if the consol is running at 100%. The PS3’s system architecture will never allow for full 100% efficiency, it’ll only run at around 50 to 70 % tops. So that means that the teraflop count posted is over exaggerated. Like I said before and I’ll say it again, PS3 is all hype. Or just 99.9%

[Man Whore]

Okay lets see here. Okay the GPU is the A** and the CELL is the toliet bowl. So when the plumbers (Sony) laid the pipes in the house one of the plumbers hooked up 1inch pvc pipe to the toliet. So now when the GPU take a S*** it going to get clog up in the toliet. :reddy: :toilet:
http://www.domodomo.com/images/toilet_4.jpg

[Grindstone]

Uh, thank you Man Whore, for that forensic explanation and permanent image engrained in my head.

And thanks to citizen X, for skipping all toilet explanations and just providing the basic inforamtion that I needed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm heading to the bathroom for some experiments on "teraflops" or is it tera-plops...?

[zCraven15]

i think ps3 is gonna be screwed when it comes to memory bandwidth. the memory isnt just for gaming its for videos, mp3s, all sorts of xbox live downloads. neither a game or a console is made up of all graphics like ps3 plans to make their console. the 360 is gonna win the war because of the general hardware.

[shaun]

I'm not trying to be flamebait here, but I saw a couple of mistakes in your original post --

One: 7SPE's . SPE stands for 'Synergystic Processing Element' The PS3 processor has 7 of these. Each SPE has an SPU, and each SPU is capable of eight floating point instructions per clock cycle. Source (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cell/), also the Cell processor is capable of SMT, such as the Pentium 4 or IBM POWER5.

The core design of the cell allows for multiple SPE's to process at once.

2. Total system processing power. Great, the xbox has more system bandwidth, probably due largely to the integrated on die memory for the video chipset. While this is a welcome performance gain, the CELL processor is capable of assisting the RSX with graphics (Note that all PS3 rendered images at E3 were running off another cell processor, not RSX)

And having said that, we've all seen taht the totall system processing power (including GPU)

Microsoft XBox360 - 1 Teraflop
Sony PS3 - 2 Teraflops

That can account for a prettty hefty chunk of graphics processing.

However, the XBox360's GPU is unique, and I do believe that the 256gb/sec bandwidth will be a welcome increase, and largely due to the on die memory. With this setup 16 or 32 megabytes would be equivalent to a 256 or 512mb card nowadays.

I realize this is an Xbox forum, but if you're going to educate people, at least do it correctly. The xbox definately has its strengths, but know your enemy before yuo bash it.

I'm not going to sit here and argue aimlessly with xbox fanboys or ps3 fanboys, i just found it necessary to add my two cents.

[pApA SmerF01]

I'm not trying to be flamebait here, but I saw a couple of mistakes in your original post --

One: 7SPE's . SPE stands for 'Synergystic Processing Element' The PS3 processor has 7 of these. Each SPE has an SPU, and each SPU is capable of eight floating point instructions per clock cycle. Source (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cell/), also the Cell processor is capable of SMT, such as the Pentium 4 or IBM POWER5.

The core design of the cell allows for multiple SPE's to process at once.

2. Total system processing power. Great, the xbox has more system bandwidth, probably due largely to the integrated on die memory for the video chipset. While this is a welcome performance gain, the CELL processor is capable of assisting the RSX with graphics (Note that all PS3 rendered images at E3 were running off another cell processor, not RSX)

And having said that, we've all seen taht the totall system processing power (including GPU)

Microsoft XBox360 - 1 Teraflop
Sony PS3 - 2 Teraflops

That can account for a prettty hefty chunk of graphics processing.

However, the XBox360's GPU is unique, and I do believe that the 256gb/sec bandwidth will be a welcome increase, and largely due to the on die memory. With this setup 16 or 32 megabytes would be equivalent to a 256 or 512mb card nowadays.

I realize this is an Xbox forum, but if you're going to educate people, at least do it correctly. The xbox definately has its strengths, but know your enemy before yuo bash it.

I'm not going to sit here and argue aimlessly with xbox fanboys or ps3 fanboys, i just found it necessary to add my two cents.

i'll give it that you have some good tips, but your analytical statements are somewhat misleading.

to have the cell assist the rsx isn't as simple as running a channel between the two to feed, the cell has to reprogram itself to calculate the exact way the rsx does, because in the end, it all pumps out of the rsx. therefore, there's little the cell could do to help. there's a reason there aren't two cells powering the ps3. the cell wasn't designed for graphical calculations or any operations similar.

yes, the "TFLOP count" for the ps3 is about 2 (actually 1.87), but that's at MAX efficiency. due to the inefficiencies of the die cast on the gpu, the non-usa, and the in-order processes of the spes, you need to cut that number down at least 30%, while the 360 you only need to take off about 2%.

another thing to point out is that for system bandwidth, yes the 360 does have more than 5x the amount for ps3; that's partly because the ps3 bandwidth is point-to-point, while the 360's is system sharing. don't let this mislead you, because just because it's point-to-point, don't think they've given enough, because they very much haven't.

there are bottlenecks on every system. the ps had the fan problem and a little bandwidth problem that could be worked around. the xbox had gpu burnouts and die cast problems. but the ps3 bandwidth problem is A HUGE PROBLEM. you can't run next-gen elements on such a small amount. it's just not very feasible if you want to get the maximum power out of the hardware.

look, i might sound like a fanboy, but i'm not. in case you didn't know, i dink around with the alpha's and beta's over at my friend's house periodically because he's a moron (no offense, chris, but it's true).

if you want to find non-biased remarks about the hardware, you can trust me. it's good to see someone who is more technical than most finally join the forums, maybe we can debate a little later.

but for now, cheers!

[shaun]

no, for one i respect your responses. and you're correct, but i think you're a little off on that statement. bandwidth won't be such a huge difference, and i'd hardly call it a weakness. bandwidth is only one card in the deck... sony has a strong hand and so does microsoft.

really though i think this a little one sided. look, i'm not saying the ps3 is >>>>>>>>> the xbox360, but it's not going to be near as huge as some of these guys are making it out to be.

thanks for your non flaming, educated response. i enjoy educated conversation.

[pApA SmerF01]

no, for one i respect your responses. and you're correct, but i think you're a little off on that statement. bandwidth won't be such a huge difference, and i'd hardly call it a weakness. bandwidth is only one card in the deck... sony has a strong hand and so does microsoft.

really though i think this a little one sided. look, i'm not saying the ps3 is >>>>>>>>> the xbox360, but it's not going to be near as huge as some of these guys are making it out to be.

thanks for your non flaming, educated response. i enjoy educated conversation.

no problem, i enjoy intelligent conversation.

it's true, bandwidth is only one "card in the deck", but it's somewhere between the king of hearts and the ace of spades.

it is a very introcal and important piece for hardware, and the idea that sony would not provide enough tsb in their system is sad. it will hamper the system, and i feel sorry for the developers (chris) that have to deal with its effects.

[shaun]

i think you might be missing something there. the massive amount of bandwidht you speak of comes largely from the video chipset. in saying it's only a card in the deck, i mean the video is only one part... when you compare the actual speed and power of both cpu's, the memory, and the i/o subsystem, the only strong point in bandwidth is the xbox360's embedded dram->vpu speed...

and being microsoft, they overquote everything (Windows XP is the most secure version of Windows EVARRRR)

Also - Efficiency? There's no "Efficiency" factor. You've got to take into account, yes they disabled one of the SPE's for redundancy (and to cut down production costs), but you can't simply say that a processor is going to be running at 50-80% of its total power due to "Efficiency" That's a gross overstatement, and in that statemnt lies an inherent turnaround -- The XBox360's CPU is also a custom chip, with three cores, which if you think about it, if there are ANY flaws in the die of a three core chip vs an 8 core chip, which is going to suffer more?

Once again, not to sound like a fanboy, but really those numbers are quite inflated. I'll stretch to say the XBox360 has a monstrously better graphics subsystem, but cell was designed to work in many ways...

Do you know that IBM states that Cell is capable of running two operating systems at once with no degrade in performance? And once again, I'll state that at E3 when people were blown away by the PS3's graphics performance, the graphics shown were being rendered by Cell, not by RSX.

I swear I'll stop spamming you foruums with BS, but i like talking to this guy ;)

[pApA SmerF01]

i think you might be missing something there. the massive amount of bandwidht you speak of comes largely from the video chipset. in saying it's only a card in the deck, i mean the video is only one part... when you compare the actual speed and power of both cpu's, the memory, and the i/o subsystem, the only strong point in bandwidth is the xbox360's embedded dram->vpu speed...

and being microsoft, they overquote everything (Windows XP is the most secure version of Windows EVARRRR)

Also - Efficiency? There's no "Efficiency" factor. You've got to take into account, yes they disabled one of the SPE's for redundancy (and to cut down production costs), but you can't simply say that a processor is going to be running at 50-80% of its total power due to "Efficiency" That's a gross overstatement, and in that statemnt lies an inherent turnaround -- The XBox360's CPU is also a custom chip, with three cores, which if you think about it, if there are ANY flaws in the die of a three core chip vs an 8 core chip, which is going to suffer more?

Once again, not to sound like a fanboy, but really those numbers are quite inflated. I'll stretch to say the XBox360 has a monstrously better graphics subsystem, but cell was designed to work in many ways...

Do you know that IBM states that Cell is capable of running two operating systems at once with no degrade in performance? And once again, I'll state that at E3 when people were blown away by the PS3's graphics performance, the graphics shown were being rendered by Cell, not by RSX.

I swear I'll stop spamming you foruums with BS, but i like talking to this guy ;)

okay, here we go....

look, when i say efficiency, i mean the total input/output performance of the hardware compared to what it feasibly can achieve running at MAX power. you know, the number it'll never reach, but the creators like to brag about it anyways?

i say 50-70% efficiency because not only will one spe be latent, but the spe's can only handle certain, low-grade tasks.

with no branch prediction, it comes down to real-time thinking within milliseconds and if it doesn't meet the per-cycle clock ratio, you'll get backed up and the information has to be transferred to different sectors.

the ppe is the ONLY general processor in the package, and since it has to run most intricate AI, code/breakdown scenarios, data decompression, and multiple other tasks per cycle, it'll be overworked and there will be backload. since it doesn't get any real help and the spe's are filtered through it, it needs more bandwidth to actually be able to transfer needed data in real time to where it needs to be. but since it doesn't have the cushion of bandwidth, each clock cycle you get a backup.

for the 360, they designed the xenos almost perfectly. the only flaw is less cache memory bank for storing running code and such. it's way more efficient in many different ways thanks to the generality of the cores. they each help eachother, and since they are running out-of-order, you get more data flowing so no backup. they all have branch prediction and feed off of a big enough main memory bank.

you're intelligent enough to hold a very decent tech debate, which i had been waiting for, but trust me. i do this part-time, i help my buddy develop. i've seen the xbox360 hardware up close, i've touched it, dinked around with it, ran code through it, created code for architecture....i know what i'm talking about.

if you want to know the one thing i look forward to that will sway graphical and create real-time photo-realistic worlds with total independent moving ai and objects (you know, a gamers dream), look at the xbox360's ability to perform procedural synthesis.

[pApA SmerF01]

and one more thing, if you want to talk about overstatements, what about sony?

remember the emotion engine? toy story-like graphics on the ps2?

need i say more? sony lies through their teeth about a lot of stuff, but xbox has delivered on almost everything promised. that's another reason i'm choosing the 360 over sony's console.

[citizen X]

I'm not trying to be flamebait here, but I saw a couple of mistakes in your original post --

One: 7SPE's . SPE stands for 'Synergystic Processing Element' The PS3 processor has 7 of these. Each SPE has an SPU, and each SPU is capable of eight floating point instructions per clock cycle. Source (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cell/), also the Cell processor is capable of SMT, such as the Pentium 4 or IBM POWER5.

The core design of the cell allows for multiple SPE's to process at once.

2. Total system processing power. Great, the xbox has more system bandwidth, probably due largely to the integrated on die memory for the video chipset. While this is a welcome performance gain, the CELL processor is capable of assisting the RSX with graphics (Note that all PS3 rendered images at E3 were running off another cell processor, not RSX)

And having said that, we've all seen taht the totall system processing power (including GPU)

Microsoft XBox360 - 1 Teraflop
Sony PS3 - 2 Teraflops

That can account for a prettty hefty chunk of graphics processing.

However, the XBox360's GPU is unique, and I do believe that the 256gb/sec bandwidth will be a welcome increase, and largely due to the on die memory. With this setup 16 or 32 megabytes would be equivalent to a 256 or 512mb card nowadays.

I realize this is an Xbox forum, but if you're going to educate people, at least do it correctly. The xbox definately has its strengths, but know your enemy before yuo bash it.

I'm not going to sit here and argue aimlessly with xbox fanboys or ps3 fanboys, i just found it necessary to add my two cents.

Yeah I am a little one sited; u can’t expect me to trust Sony when the first thing they showed was Kill zone 2, CG MOVE? Only Sony has the nerve to show a cg movie in a game convention and call it real time and then make a excuse and then say its what we expect the console can do, why the hell would u need to pretend to play a CG move with that PS2 controller, just so u can lie about later, and yet some people bit the bait, and now we get those fan boys who are saying that “no it was real time they said it was, its going to be 3 times more powerful then the x360 bla bla bal” !!!BS!!!

And about the bandwidth, not being the most important, so called “card in the deck” it’s the nerves system of the console that connects every part together, u know that. If u think of it, every console Sony has made, always had insufficient bandwidth.

About that cell rendering on its own, there is a reason why they still need a GPU. The graphics weren’t that impressive, it was beneath next gen. standard, it dint even have textures. And not even the physics were that impressive, but making a CPU do graphic is pointless, it’s a good thing there still using GPU

You can say what ever u won’t, I may be one sided, but I’m still right, a console may have the most powerful CPU in the world, but with sh*** bandwidth it mite as well be a G5 MAC

[shaun]

careful, you'll rile up the apple fanboys. and i assure you the apple fanboys are much worse then sony or microsoft fanboys.

on a side note, i'm writing a comparative article for my website, should be up within the next week or so, i'm citing both of you, and also doing a deeper comparison based on release specs.

once again, thanks for non flaming responses :)

[pApA SmerF01]

careful, you'll rile up the apple fanboys. and i assure you the apple fanboys are much worse then sony or microsoft fanboys.

on a side note, i'm writing a comparative article for my website, should be up within the next week or so, i'm citing both of you, and also doing a deeper comparison based on release specs.

once again, thanks for non flaming responses :)

ick....i know apple fanboys. they're worse than nintendo fanboys. i've gotten into it with them when i said that 2 apple G5's were insufficient to run alpha kit hardware in the next gen. they nearly had a stroke!

if you would, please put the article up here as well, it should be an interesting read.

[shaun]

hit me up with an email

shaun [at] pixelefx [dot] com

i'll let you see it, it's being proofread right now, i'll be posting it soon

[RSFlux]

I may as well throw my two cents into the mix :) I feel you are making a lot of good points, Citizen, but I feel that you're touting some features of the 360 that aren't as strong as you make them out to be. The total bandwidth for the 360 is indeed an impressive number, but that number is made up primarily of the size of the pipe between the GPU and it's eDRAM. While this speed will allow for some awesome advances in certain rendering techniques (such as FSAA, motion blur [see Project Offset] and oher post effects), the bandwidth left to the rest of the system is not severely different than the PS3's. It is larger, but not to the extent that you made it out to be in your first post.

Simply, my point is a reiteration of your first point: That the system can only be as strong as it's weakest link. I know the chain analogy is overused, but it's very true in game programming. With many processes running in lockstep, if ANY one part of the system slows down, EVERY part of the system slows down. This not only means that a low total bandwidth will slow performance, it also means that if a specific segment is slow performance will suffer.

Now, how much will this effect the games that run on these systems? It really comes down to the programmers. The biggest problem I see with the PS3 is not specifically that it is lacking bandwidth, but that it requires so much finesse from the programmer that it would be all-but-impossible to use the system to it's potential. The PPE needs to have an even distribution of branching and data crunching instructions (that it can hand to SPEs), otherwise it will bottleneck. No code I have ever written, let alone multi-threaded, has an even distribution of this. The SPEs don't have branch prediction, so need to have their cache manually set for good performance. All 7 of them. This seems to me like it would be back to programming in assembly. If you're going to use the SPEs for procedural generation, you need to time it so the massive flow of geometry will not block the pipes to the GPU while trying to load, say, textures, even while multithreading.

With the XBox 360, these problems do not seem to exist. So while it is possible that (assuming the PS3 is indeed as powerful as they claim) the PS3 could create better games, the programming to do it would make development a living hell. With the increased needs (and costs) of moving to a next gen system, I don't see that ever happening. Add in XNA, the Live service and at least an extra 6 months on the system, I think developers are going to be much happier on the XBox.

~Flux

[pApA SmerF01]

beautiful post, flux.

you certainly hold enough knowledge about these systems as to keep this forum happy. finally some more technologically-sound members.

i have to agree with your analogy, and yes it's true that most of the number does come from the interconnectivity of the gpu and the dram, but taking that number out, and considering it's "system-share" bandwidth, it's still more than 2x the amount of the ps3 bandwidth.

oh, and my email is korneater_980@hotmail.com

[citizen X]

I may as well throw my two cents into the mix :) I feel you are making a lot of good points, Citizen, but I feel that you're touting some features of the 360 that aren't as strong as you make them out to be. The total bandwidth for the 360 is indeed an impressive number, but that number is made up primarily of the size of the pipe between the GPU and it's eDRAM. While this speed will allow for some awesome advances in certain rendering techniques (such as FSAA, motion blur [see Project Offset] and oher post effects), the bandwidth left to the rest of the system is not severely different than the PS3's. It is larger, but not to the extent that you made it out to be in your first post.

Simply, my point is a reiteration of your first point: That the system can only be as strong as it's weakest link. I know the chain analogy is overused, but it's very true in game programming. With many processes running in lockstep, if ANY one part of the system slows down, EVERY part of the system slows down. This not only means that a low total bandwidth will slow performance, it also means that if a specific segment is slow performance will suffer.

Now, how much will this effect the games that run on these systems? It really comes down to the programmers. The biggest problem I see with the PS3 is not specifically that it is lacking bandwidth, but that it requires so much finesse from the programmer that it would be all-but-impossible to use the system to it's potential. The PPE needs to have an even distribution of branching and data crunching instructions (that it can hand to SPEs), otherwise it will bottleneck. No code I have ever written, let alone multi-threaded, has an even distribution of this. The SPEs don't have branch prediction, so need to have their cache manually set for good performance. All 7 of them. This seems to me like it would be back to programming in assembly. If you're going to use the SPEs for procedural generation, you need to time it so the massive flow of geometry will not block the pipes to the GPU while trying to load, say, textures, even while multithreading.

With the XBox 360, these problems do not seem to exist. So while it is possible that (assuming the PS3 is indeed as powerful as they claim) the PS3 could create better games, the programming to do it would make development a living hell. With the increased needs (and costs) of moving to a next gen system, I don't see that ever happening. Add in XNA, the Live service and at least an extra 6 months on the system, I think developers are going to be much happier on the XBox.

~Flux

I agree. The Xbox 360 was design with the developers in mind, that’s one of the reasons why the 360 has a unified pipeline. It gives the developers a chose of how to program the game, with out so many restrictions. Shore the PS3 has the potential to make better game but at what cost, thousands of more man hours, more ours means more cost. Why would developers wont to make games on console that is a b**** to develop for, and when in the time it takes to make one game they could have bin half way finished with their second. The programming code for the PS3 needs to be very clean and specific, do to the fact that a small bottleneck in a very limited amount of bandwidth is very dangerous to the system as a whole,

The x360 has much more bandwidth, so the developers, manly the programmers don’t need to worry so much about keeping the code clean, but sins the 360 is a multi core design like the PS3, it still needs to have cleaner code then the current generation.

About my article it was really meant to explain what system bandwidth is, because some people really didn’t know any thing about the bandwidth. So I tried to keep it simple.

I agree. The Xbox 360 was design with the developers in mind, that’s one of the reasons why the 360 has a unified pipeline. It gives the developers a chose of how to program the game, with out so many restrictions. Shore the PS3 has the potential to make better game but at what cost, thousands of more man hours, more ours means more cost. Why would developers wont to make games on console that is a b**** to develop for, and when in the time it takes to make one game they could have bin half way finished with their second. The programming code for the PS3 needs to be very clean and specific, do to the fact that a small bottleneck in a very limited amount of bandwidth is very dangerous to the system as a whole,

The x360 has much more bandwidth, so the developers, manly the programmers don’t need to worry so much about keeping the code clean, but sins the 360 is a multi core design like the PS3, it still needs to have cleaner code then the current generation.

About my article it was really meant to explain what system bandwidth is, because some people really didn’t know any thing about the bandwidth. So I tried to keep it simple.

And like papa said, “finally some more technologically-sound members.” Good to have u on the forums.

[shaun]

I'm posting the article tomorrow. (Wed)

Also, if any of you are interested, we're interviewing Pete Hines about oblivion at the middle of next week, so if any of you want to drop by our forums and post some questions you want to see asked, you're welcome to.

Thanks

[VictoryOverWar]

i know how to turn on my xbox...can i talk about specs too =).....most this stuff is over my head but i love to read about it. Keep the knowledge coming

[daniel.isaac.h]

I totally agree with Flux... In the end it will be the programmers that hand a victory to either Microsoft or Sony... Remember what the Xbox is capable of doing at 733 Mhz... Really, the programmers have the last say... Microsoft has already allocated quite a bit of funds and staff to developers to best utilize the 360... Truly we don't know what the PS3 is capable of yet... When I look at Killzone (2)'s graphics and compare them to other PS3 titles they look a lot better on Killzone hmmmm... Has me suspicious too.

[shaun]

okay here it is

http://www.pixelefx.com/index.php?page=articles&name=consolewars

be gentle, it's one of my first tech-minded articles

[daniel.isaac.h]

Good read shaun... But the 360 is slated for November, and the PS3 could be pushed back to 2007... Sony plans on keeping the PS3 in the market for 10 years too... Not sure where Microsoft stands on their market strategy length but I've heard only 4-5 years, that would make an interesting add to your editorial. Irregardless, good read!

[G4everX]

Good read shaun... But the 360 is slated for November, and the PS3 could be pushed back to 2007... Sony plans on keeping the PS3 in the market for 10 years too... Not sure where Microsoft stands on their market strategy length but I've heard only 4-5 years, that would make an interesting add to your editorial. Irregardless, good read!

There is a VERY slim chance that the PS3 will be pushed back tell 2007. They would drop a larger chunk of their market share, and Sony NEEDS ALL they can get right now.

Yes, the PS3 will have a 10 year life span, but that means it will be sold for 10 years. It will be replaced in about 5-6 years, but still be on the market for the next 4-5 years, just like the PS1 is now and the PS2 will be.

[shaun]

.. my bad on december, i meant november, thanks for the catch ..

I wouldn't say that sony NEEDS anything right now, look at the current market share.

Sony dwarfs microsoft when it comes to consoles.
6 months is nothing.

Sony had considered originally pushing the PS3 back, but the only reason I could see them doing that is to bring the console's price down, which I don't see as being that serious. Microsoft releasing a 399 console was a definate plus for Sony, that means that instead of selling at 299, they can do 399 and not lose near as much money.

I'm banking on a $300 PS3 though, I think Sony has enough money to sell at that, and if they release at $300, they'll murder XBox360's sales, even with a 6 month lead. You all know this.

[citizen X]

.. my bad on december, i meant november, thanks for the catch ..

I wouldn't say that sony NEEDS anything right now, look at the current market share.

Sony dwarfs microsoft when it comes to consoles.
6 months is nothing.

Sony had considered originally pushing the PS3 back, but the only reason I could see them doing that is to bring the console's price down, which I don't see as being that serious. Microsoft releasing a 399 console was a definate plus for Sony, that means that instead of selling at 299, they can do 399 and not lose near as much money.

I'm banking on a $300 PS3 though, I think Sony has enough money to sell at that, and if they release at $300, they'll murder XBox360's sales, even with a 6 month lead. You all know this.


I got to get really for a trip to California, but I’ll talk to about this when I come back in 3 days, but for now.

U almost sound like a fan boy, if u paid attention to what Sony has bin say, you’d know that the price of the PS3 is going to be at least 599.99.

Now keep in mind that 599.99 is still wishful thinking, but 399.99……

yeah right like that’s going to happen

[shaun]

Alright, I'm done talking here. As I expected the fanboy came out in you.

Thanks

[pApA SmerF01]

ok citizen, shaun, calm down guys. look, no one here's automatically a fanboy because of their views. if that were true then i would be a fanboy for believing that the 360 is more powerful and will be cheaper.

Shaun, you should know that Sony has a lot of debt and has lost a lot of money every other division but the playstation one. it wouldn't be financially feasable for them to put out a console that costs $500 to build for $300. That's a $200 loss on every console sold. multiply that by, oh let's say, 10 million. Do you really think that SCE can take that huge of a hit? No. They're going to sell between $450-$550.

Sony can't really afford, if they're going to sell for a higher price than the 360, plus selling all accessories separately, to come out early 2007. They're going to push for a North America release most likely in Q3 of 2006. It's just logical, considering they're planning either Q1 or 2 for the Japanese release. And Europe will fall in either Q3 or Q4, depending on availability.

This isn't fanboy talk, this is just common sense.

-Sean

[citizen X]

ok citizen, shaun, calm down guys. look, no one here's automatically a fanboy because of their views. if that were true then i would be a fanboy for believing that the 360 is more powerful and will be cheaper.

Shaun, you should know that Sony has a lot of debt and has lost a lot of money every other division but the playstation one. it wouldn't be financially feasable for them to put out a console that costs $500 to build for $300. That's a $200 loss on every console sold. multiply that by, oh let's say, 10 million. Do you really think that SCE can take that huge of a hit? No. They're going to sell between $450-$550.

Sony can't really afford, if they're going to sell for a higher price than the 360, plus selling all accessories separately, to come out early 2007. They're going to push for a North America release most likely in Q3 of 2006. It's just logical, considering they're planning either Q1 or 2 for the Japanese release. And Europe will fall in either Q3 or Q4, depending on availability.

This isn't fanboy talk, this is just common sense.

-Sean

Shawn thanks




Of course the PS3 would kill the Xbox 360 if it sold for 399.99; everyone knows that, that’s not what I was arguing about. From were I was standing it looked like u were, or still believe that the PS3 is going to sell for 399.99. So that’s why I let loose.


To help u understand what I was seeing: think if some guy started saying that the xbox360 premium package is going sell for 199.99. And u know that’s not right, wouldn’t that sound like some thing a fanboy would say. And wouldn’t u say something.

If all u were saying is that if the price was 399.99 for the PS3 then Sony would win. That’s fine. But me and Papa know that’s not what u were saying.

One last thing: what does the cost of PS3 and x360 have anything to do with system bandwidth. Next time keep your post on topic

[RSFlux]

Shaun, you should know that Sony has a lot of debt and has lost a lot of money every other division but the playstation one. it wouldn't be financially feasable for them to put out a console that costs $500 to build for $300. That's a $200 loss on every console sold. multiply that by, oh let's say, 10 million. Do you really think that SCE can take that huge of a hit? No. They're going to sell between $450-$550.


While I admit a $300 PS3 is nearly impossible, a $399 one isn't. I'm not saying it's likely, but with the disk drive still not decided upon, no hard drive, and a later (and probably non-worldwide) release, Sony has some options for reducing the cost of their system. Not to metion that Sony *loves* to earn money off of peripherals instead of the core system. Also, it may be the case that Sony's partners in the cell processor have money invested in the PS3 venture other than just research, allowing for a cheaper console and a quicker proliferation of their new platform.

In short, I'm sure Sony realizes that releasing a "heaftier" system at the same price as the 360 would do massive damage to the 360's selling potential. While this isn't in line with their statements on the subject, who knows what their plans for the future are. It's always unwise to rule out a possibility just because there's a little evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, a $599 release of the PS3 would almost criple the system in the states. With a huge number of players being kids, students, or other limited income people, coming out with a system twice as much as the (still pricey) alternative would be a horrible mistake. I don't expect to see the PS3 sell for any more than $499, assuming a bare bones package.

~Flux

[RSFlux]

okay here it is

BTW, shaun, not a bad article, but it left me wanting some sort of closure. I don't feel like I gained anything from reading it, or you made any sort of strong point. Perhaps you should focus the article on something, even if the focus is that there isn't a winner yet (but say how there can be!). Try to leave the reader with something he didn't come in with, otherwise you're just relaying stats.

~Flux

[Nomino]

Sure, system bandwidth is important, but what if XBox 360 has £10 notes flowing through it and the PS3 has £50 notes flowing through it. Yes, the NUMBER of units flowing through is 5x less on PS3, but the overal value is the same.

I'm just thinking that maybe what flows through the PS3s pipeline is more efficient and therefore it doesn't need such a huge pipe? I'm totally non-techy though, so go easy!

[pApA SmerF01]

Sure, system bandwidth is important, but what if XBox 360 has £10 notes flowing through it and the PS3 has £50 notes flowing through it. Yes, the NUMBER of units flowing through is 5x less on PS3, but the overal value is the same.

I'm just thinking that maybe what flows through the PS3s pipeline is more efficient and therefore it doesn't need such a huge pipe? I'm totally non-techy though, so go easy!

not really. it needs a larger cache of bandwidth, even if it's point-to-point. There's just too much information to move with such a low amount.

[Jeet]

.. my bad on december, i meant november, thanks for the catch ..

I wouldn't say that sony NEEDS anything right now, look at the current market share.

Sony dwarfs microsoft when it comes to consoles.
6 months is nothing.

Sony had considered originally pushing the PS3 back, but the only reason I could see them doing that is to bring the console's price down, which I don't see as being that serious. Microsoft releasing a 399 console was a definate plus for Sony, that means that instead of selling at 299, they can do 399 and not lose near as much money.

I'm banking on a $300 PS3 though, I think Sony has enough money to sell at that, and if they release at $300, they'll murder XBox360's sales, even with a 6 month lead. You all know this.
i honestly dont think that Sony is willing to lose $200 on every PS3 made

[citizen X]

i honestly dont think that Sony is willing to lose $200 on every PS3 made

My thoughts exactly :tee: :top:

[shaun]

You guys can talk about who can afford it and who can't. Microsoft has a huge market cap, approximately 300 billion, Sony caps at approx 35 billion.

If these are correct, then Sony will lose roughly 1.5 billion on sales in the first year. That's not a big deal. Microsoft lost a ****load, near a billion in the first year of the XBox, and the same with the PS2, it lost more than half a billion.

Everyone knows console makers lose money in the first few years. Sony has been the leader in consoles for years, I know this is an XBox forum, and I'm not being a fanboy, just stating facts.

Look at market shares of Sony vs Microsoft in the console market, even considering XBox live. Sony can afford it fine, and will.

I have sources close to Sony that state a 299 launch is likely, the MOST it will be is 399.

Console makers have to decide HOW MUCH they want to lose in the first year, that's all. They will lose money no matter what. It's an issue of product.

Sales, revenues and money will be left up to developers. If the XBox360 is easy to develop on, and lots more great games come out on it, it will sell well, but the PS3's saving grace is backwards compatibility ALL THE WAY back to PS1, not selectively.

I have no problem with people believing that either console is better, but don't call me a fanboy and make it sound like I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'm simply sharing FACTS and OPINIONS I have. That's what forums are for, FACTS and OPINIONS.

If you can't prove your point without calling names, then don't bother trying to prove a point.

Thanks

[citizen X]

Your right, forums are for facts and opinions.

I know for a fact that Sony said, at their own conference that the PS3 will be expensive. Why would they say some like that when their price is going to be the same as the x360?

Sure they can change their mind and sell it cheaper but I just want proof of that.

I don’t think Sony will sell it for 399.99. the new (cell) CPU is very new, and as all of us knows, any new hardware is always very expensive. Plus their putting all that extra stuff like 7 controllers and I don’t know how many USB 2.0 ports and any thing u can think of. And u cant for get the new Blue ray format. All that stuff adds up and selling it for 399.99, looks to be just too big of a loss for every console Sony sells.

[daniel.isaac.h]

Ok, Shaun buddy you've taken a lot of flak... I admire that you are here gathering facts... Every side has it's story, Xbox360 has a rather convincing one, so does Sony.

I've heard from my sources [MAS Inc, Vast Inc, and Matrix Dist. (All of which have direct contact with Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft)] that the PS3 will be $599.

Now, do I believe them? No, not exactly. Although they told us that 360 would be in two bundles back in June, and there accurate prices/release date... Same with the PSP. I will not go as far to assume anything on the PS3...

If, the PS3 were released tomorrow there would be no doubt in my mind that it would be at least $599. But they do have quite a few options at hand with a later release date. Mass Production is Sony's best friend/foe... They have quite the power when it comes to the good ole assembly line. Let's just hope they don't repeat history like the defunked PS1, PS2, and PSTwo (slim model). I won't get into the hassle that Sony put me through with the PSTwo... For 3 months they were defective... They never went public with it either! 80% defective. I counted as they came in... One by one the customers came in to ***** at me. I had to send them to Sony after 31 days! You can imagine the hell I had to go through with that. Seeing that I manage this store. Grrr...

Now, Microsoft is not innocent... Seeing that 1 out of 1,000 Xboxes released before October 23rd, 2003 had the possibility of the power cord heating up after 12 hours of gameplay. M$ didn't hide it. They went public, sent thousands of power cord replacement for free! No Shipping!

Ok, I just had my M$ is God moment. lol.

Seriously though... If the PS3 releases in Q2 of 2006 it could mean a higher priced PS3... All I can say is that if it is, I'm sure you will get a lot of "I told you so's" from here. Including me. If it is postponed to 2007 or Q4 of 2006 I will totally agree with you! And you and I will give out a ton of "I told you so's". :)

In all honesty, I trust my distributors when they say that the 360 is coming out on the 15th... Do I tell the customers that? No, I can't risk my profession with assumptions... I do tell them the 100% proof truth. When they ask me how much the PS3 is gonna be... I just tell them I dunno. I've found that people like the facts. Opinions turn people off.

I enjoyed reading your article. The fact is that the PS3 will have better specs. No way around that! System bandwidth is a big thing... but the CELL processor is a totally new item! Who really knows how much bandwidth it will need to utilize it correctly?

The problem is, Sony will lose it's steam with developers this time around... The term exclusive title is slowly fading away. It will take developers at least 3-4 years to utilize 70% of the hardware capabilities in my observation. By then M$ might have a new Xbox.

The truth is...

We will see.

[shaun]

My sources will beat your sources up! ;)

No, but really. You make a few good points. I emailed one of my sources today after I read this post, and got an interesting tidbit of information -

If Sony releases the PS3 at its expected time (~March 2006), at 299, they will lose (approximately) 1.5 BILLION dollars. That's a hefty loss, but imagine, I belive it's a smart marketing move. Make Microsoft feel comfortable with a 400 dollar console, then release a 300 dollar console.

Think about it guys.

I'm not taking sides at all, and really, I couldn't care less, as I'll obviously own both consoles... But when you compare the two, Sony has history in consoles.

And just an FYI, Xenon actually costs more than Cell to make. XBox360 will have add-in support for either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD at the point when the dominant medium takes the lead... And really, manufacturing prices don't matter. .. I've said this (i believe) three times now, Manufacturers lose a ****load of money in the first few years, but they make it up later.

When you compare the two - Sony has a library of games stretching all the way back to the PS1, Microsoft has a limited library of games (as it is), and even moreso limited by the backwards compatibility.

XBox live will be great for sales, but one product does not a great company make. Microsoft will have to pull out all the stops in their 6 month lead, everyone said the PSP would flop, it's too expensive, it's too this, it's too that, all the Ninentdo ***boys... erm, fanboys, sorry, said that the DS would murder the PSP's sales.

Let me check numbers here, let's see, in its first month the PSP outsold the DS year to date... In its first launch in Europe it broke every handheld record as far as sales (DS sold 85,000 at launch, PSP sold 185,000).

Don't doubt Sony. I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but look at the entire playing field. Both companies have a huge backing, and have some strong ammunition, but really... Don't chalk it up to one company.

Both consoles will sell, and they'll sell alot.

My sources say $300, yours say $600. One of ours is full of ****. ;)

I'm betting on $300-$400.

[daniel.isaac.h]

1. Who are your "sources"? Cuz mine will kick their butt too. lol. :P

2... Don't call anyone a *** while on this forum. That pissed me off.

3... I too will own both consoles! Both systems have there great selling points...

4... Please entail... I am willing to admit when I am wrong... Just please tell me how Sony will do this...

[shaun]

I would tell you my sources, but then they'd have to kill you.

Cmon, Nintendo fanboys deserve no less ;)

Sony will do it the same way they do everything. Sony has massive producing power. Even though Microsoft has more money, Sony's just tricky like that.

I'm just spewing what I've heard. As you said, my sources could be wrong and so could yours. But a $600 console doesn't make sense to me...

[Heclo]

lets get something clear: the xbox360 does not have a higher main memory bandwith than the ps3, and u cant just add up all the memory bandwith's of a system and say: "this is the systems total memory performance"

the xbox360 has 512MB of GDDR3 memory running at 700Mhz, producing a bandwith of 22.4GB/s
it then has a graphics "cache" of 10MB EDRAM producing 256GB/s
this smallsize memory will mainly be used to store shaderoperations, frametables ect. NOT textures, which is the data that takes up most memory, and bandwith, they will be stored in the main memory, which have a bandwith of 22.4GB/s as i stated before.

the ps3 has 256MB of XDR ram running synchronized with the cell eg. 3.2Ghz, though on the high clock speed, sony states that it only produces a bandwith of 25.6GB/s
it then haves 256MB GDDR3 ram running at 700Mhz which produces (you've guessed it already :) ) 22.4GB/s, as dedicated video ram. this mean's it will be used as storage for texture, shader, vertex and other operations.

all this add's up to, that the xbox360 will have a slight advantage over ps3 bandwith wise, because of its capability of almost instant shader/vertex operations, but only slight advantage, i think about 10-15%

and before you flame me to death, research my claims, they are taken directly from ms/sony statements

EDIT: all this said i still think xbox360 is going to be the best console, because of its more traditional architekture, maybe in 5 years from now, when we sum up all the games from each console, the ps3 might have the most beautiful game of all the games, but the xbox360 will have a higher number of beautiful games (did that make sense?)

[seTclock]

even if the impossible happens and sony prices the PS3 at $299 to undercut Msoft, who in their right mind thinks that Msoft will KEEP the premium system at $399?? coming out at least 6 months later in No way helps sony with price point... Msoft will have the established base to absorb the loss of matching sonys lower price

i can actually see the Opposite happening.. sony releases the PS3 Q2 2006 at $349+ and Msoft dropping the 360 to $299 premium and $249 core (or PS3 at $399 and 360 premium at $349)
i dont think theres a great chance of this because some consumers think that you get what you pay for and Msoft might not want their product to be thought of as the "cheaper product", but I must reitterate that i Dont see msoft not matching sony if sony decides to have a price war

[pApA SmerF01]

lets get something clear: the xbox360 does not have a higher main memory bandwith than the ps3, and u cant just add up all the memory bandwith's of a system and say: "this is the systems total memory performance"

the xbox360 has 512MB of GDDR3 memory running at 700Mhz, producing a bandwith of 22.4GB/s
it then has a graphics "cache" of 10MB EDRAM producing 256GB/s
this smallsize memory will mainly be used to store shaderoperations, frametables ect. NOT textures, which is the data that takes up most memory, and bandwith, they will be stored in the main memory, which have a bandwith of 22.4GB/s as i stated before.

the ps3 has 256MB of XDR ram running synchronized with the cell eg. 3.2Ghz, though on the high clock speed, sony states that it only produces a bandwith of 25.6GB/s
it then haves 256MB GDDR3 ram running at 700Mhz which produces (you've guessed it already :) ) 22.4GB/s, as dedicated video ram. this mean's it will be used as storage for texture, shader, vertex and other operations.

all this add's up to, that the xbox360 will have a slight advantage over ps3 bandwith wise, because of its capability of almost instant shader/vertex operations, but only slight advantage, i think about 10-15%

and before you flame me to death, research my claims, they are taken directly from ms/sony statements

EDIT: all this said i still think xbox360 is going to be the best console, because of its more traditional architekture, maybe in 5 years from now, when we sum up all the games from each console, the ps3 might have the most beautiful game of all the games, but the xbox360 will have a higher number of beautiful games (did that make sense?)

Wait, let's get something clear here first. You said in the first sentence that the Xbox360 does NOT have a higher main memory bandwidth than ps3, then near the end, you say it has a slight advantage bandwidth-wise.

Which is it?

[TRouBLe]

Xbox360 is NOT a 400buck console.
It's a 300bucks console. 300$ is the main system without HDD.
PS3 is roumored to be 500$ or something like that. Without the HDD.
So even if PS3 comes @ 400$ 360 is 100$ cheaper.
I have read this opinion at an article here at planetxbox360.com

[Romper Stomper]

If they are losing billions of dollars why do they bother making consoles?

[TRouBLe]

Becasuse later on the make profits (huge profits)
Don't forget that the lifetime of a console is 4-5 years

[seTclock]

they make their money on the software, live subscriptions, etc...

it would be akin to a cable company giving you an HDTV at a huge loss knowing you'll be buying their HD cable service, PPV movies, etc.

[TRouBLe]

Yeah that's right too.
But Microsoft's new policy about third party accesories will cost em money.
Any way i always prefer first party products( except the system link?)

[Heclo]

Wait, let's get something clear here first. You said in the first sentence that the Xbox360 does NOT have a higher main memory bandwidth than ps3, then near the end, you say it has a slight advantage bandwidth-wise.

Which is it?

i said the xbox360's main memory bandwith is slower than that of the ps3, but architecture wise the xbox360 has an edge, because of that ultra fast 10MB of graphic operation storage. and also because of that unification of graphic and main memory, it gives the developers the freedom to choose how much they weight graphics vs. other aspects of games, where the ps3 only have those 256MB of "do with it what you like" memory, and 256MB of graphic memory which might very often not be used in its entiety.

[Romper Stomper]

Becasuse later on the make profits (huge profits)
Don't forget that the lifetime of a console is 4-5 years

How do they make huge profits later if the price of the 360 goes DOWN. From the rediculous amount we pay for games? :D

[ace2cloud]

I had no idea, thanks Citizen X.

[citizen X]

No problem

[Diamond]

Uh, thank you Man Whore, for that forensic explanation and permanent image engrained in my head.

And thanks to citizen X, for skipping all toilet explanations and just providing the basic inforamtion that I needed.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm heading to the bathroom for some experiments on "teraflops" or is it tera-plops...?

Lol good one sir.

[Diamond]

just a quick correction, they're bragging about 2.18 teraflops.

which is basically the amount of floating-point operations the system does per clock cycle.

the only problem is that the 2.18 is what it "can" do running at 100% efficiency. but considering almost 70% of their flop count comes from the gpu, and it's only 55-70% efficient, my equations have given me the more realistic number of 1.543, .17 latent for error-correction efficiency.

with the 360, they underestimated their flop count, and with my calculations (seeing how with usa their gpu is 95-98% efficient) their actual Tflop count is 1.413,with .17 latent for error-correction efficiency.

you also have to look at this. floating point operations only count for about 20% of total system operations. the bulk of it is general and integer operations, which the xbox360 excels at.

at last calculation, the 360 is 3x more potent in general operations than the ps3 and almost 2x more efficient in its integer operations.

next time you come across a ps fanboy bragging about TFLOPS just repost this, lol.

Will do. In fact, I think it would be quite an idea to re direct people from other forums to this one. There are many, many, many forums out there with people fighting over this spec over that spec.

To tell you the truth, these forums are the best ones I've seen yet. Some people here are just brilliant. I haven't been into other forums where they can debate on issues by going into technical info and breaking it down to a nickel.

I'm considering the idea of posting a link to this thread in other forums, still at the 'caveman' stage of debating. I think by 'caveman', you all know what I really mean.

Good work everyone. I love reading all the tech specs. It's inspiring.

[Diamond]

.. my bad on december, i meant november, thanks for the catch ..

I wouldn't say that sony NEEDS anything right now, look at the current market share.

Sony dwarfs microsoft when it comes to consoles.
6 months is nothing.

Sony had considered originally pushing the PS3 back, but the only reason I could see them doing that is to bring the console's price down, which I don't see as being that serious. Microsoft releasing a 399 console was a definate plus for Sony, that means that instead of selling at 299, they can do 399 and not lose near as much money.

I'm banking on a $300 PS3 though, I think Sony has enough money to sell at that, and if they release at $300, they'll murder XBox360's sales, even with a 6 month lead. You all know this.


This is getting EXTREMELY annoying.

The 400$ Xbox 360 IS THE PREMIUM PACK WITH EXTRA GOODIES

the 300$ Xbox 360 is the CORE SYSTEM WITHOUT THE EXTRAS

Whatever Ps3 is going to be will just be an ordinary CORE SYSTEM as systems always are when released!

Therefore if(big IF) Ps3 is out for 400$ IT IS STILL COMPARABLE TO THE 300$ XBOX 360 AS THEY WILL BOTH BE CORE TYPE RELEASES!

Poeple need to GET IT IN THEIR HEADS THAT THE 400$US VERSION OF XBOX IS THE PREMIUM PACK THAT COMES WITH EXTRAS!

STOP COMPARING THE EXTRAS PACK WITH THE PLAIN CORE TYPE SYSTEM THAT SONY ALWAYS RELEASES!

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The extras are always optional. NOBODY HAS TO BUY THE PREMIUM PACK! MS said the games were being designed so you don't NEED the hard drive or any extra ****. It's purely OPTIONAL. Buying the CORE SYSTEM is like buying any other console to date. When buying a regular system you get the Console, a Controller, and the hookup cables. THAT'S IT! Any releases that came with games or extra goodies were JUST THAT! EXTRAS! I bought the Holliday Pack when I got my Xbox. It came with Amped 2 and Topspin for an extra 20$. I could have bought my regular xbox without it.

The hard drive BEFORE was essential because that's how Xbox games were designed, therefore it was part of the system! But as I said, MS has states it's making SURE that all games can run optimally WITHOUT relying on a hard drive this time around! It's OPTIONAL THIS TIME. If anyone has a link to an article on that, please post it.

OK, THANKS FOR LISTENING EVERYONE... Now I'm gonna go eat like 5 Asprins.

[TRouBLe]

How do they make huge profits later if the price of the 360 goes DOWN. From the rediculous amount we pay for games? :D

The price goes down but so does the production cost. So they make money from the difference.
Xbox is kinda an exception cause Microsoft was taking a big hit for each console and that's the reason it recently got out the "red" line.

(P.S. You're right that's why Xbox games are so **** expensive)

[daniel.isaac.h]

Here's a great read! It addresses how ****ing important system bandwidth is! How interesting the cell is. grrrr... Please read this Shawn


http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p2.html

[Diamond]

Daniel has a really good link. I read it from the PS3 Bashing thread. This entire debate about the hardware vs software capabilities between the Xbox 360 and the PS3 is broken down a nickle here, no screw it, I'm gonna say penny this time. This article is very interesting. You should all be sure to check it out. I think you'll be satisfied with what you see.

Which system do you think really comes out on top in the end? Check out his link!

Simply amazing. :top: :tee: :lollypop:

[shaun]

The IGN article was interesting, but quite frankly it WAS a Microsoft report. Of course the XBox360 came out on top.

This has gone far beyond smart conversation, and quite frankly (as was stated two or three posts now), this is a PS3 bashing forum, and as such I won't be able to have an unbiased or even dually educated conversation.

The XBox360's SYSTEM bandwidth is NOT massively more than the PS3's. It's the god damned GPU's MEMORY bandwidth. Someone here needs to drive that into your heads.

Granted, the XBox has some strong points, but when you compare the two, it's like comparing the PS2 and Xbox. Xbox has a single 700mhz cpu, the ps2 has a 333(?)mhz processor, with some separate units for other calculations.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but this is my last post here, since from here will lose all logic, and begin fanboyness:

The XBox games don't look _that_ much better than the PS2 games, nor do they play much better. In all reality it'll come down to which games are developed best (which has been my main conclusion this entire time).

Who gives a flying **** that the XBox360's main system bandwidth (aka GPU to embedded GPU dRAM bandwidth) is ten times that of the PS3's system bandwidth (memory bandwidth). That's like saying my V6 has more power at the flywheel than your V8 does at the wheels....

Really, all games will be roughly the same, and contrary to PS3 and XBox360 fanboys, neither system will OMGWTFBBQ ROXOR UR SOXORS OFF and put the other out of business. Both systems will sell out at the holidays. Most of us will own both systems.

And yes, I'm quite aware the OMG OMGOGMOGMOGMGMWTFBBQLOL 399 XBox set is the SUPER DUPER LOADED BULL**** OVERHYPED **** version. Quite aware. Beyond me how a 20gb hdd and a wireless controller is worth $100, but more power to you.

And really, it's silly to say that Cell is "dumb". In actuality it's a much more powerful unit, but it has a specific use. I think it was silly to design cell for the PS3, but it will have its uses, and FAR more uses than Xenon will have.

I recall how much everyone said how bad Sony sucks for selling an HDD separete for the PS2, and yet everyone says "Oh, that's fine, it's a core system just like everything else. Of course it doesn't have an HDD."

...

And yes, I've heard reports from multiple sources that the PS3 will be 299, 399, 499 and even 549.

Guess what, none of you know. None of you know which will be better, and all speculation turns to name calling in forums.

Thanks for the brilliant conversation, those of you with an IQ, and thank you for the non-fanboy conversation from the abovementioned people. I'm simply trying to cut myself from this before it turns to namecalling.

If anyone cares to speak with me any further, email me or hit me up on my forums.

[daniel.isaac.h]

The IGN article was interesting, but quite frankly it WAS a Microsoft report. Of course the XBox360 came out on top.

This has gone far beyond smart conversation, and quite frankly (as was stated two or three posts now), this is a PS3 bashing forum, and as such I won't be able to have an unbiased or even dually educated conversation.

The XBox360's SYSTEM bandwidth is NOT massively more than the PS3's. It's the god damned GPU's MEMORY bandwidth. Someone here needs to drive that into your heads.

Granted, the XBox has some strong points, but when you compare the two, it's like comparing the PS2 and Xbox. Xbox has a single 700mhz cpu, the ps2 has a 333(?)mhz processor, with some separate units for other calculations.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but this is my last post here, since from here will lose all logic, and begin fanboyness:

The XBox games don't look _that_ much better than the PS2 games, nor do they play much better. In all reality it'll come down to which games are developed best (which has been my main conclusion this entire time).

Who gives a flying **** that the XBox360's main system bandwidth (aka GPU to embedded GPU dRAM bandwidth) is ten times that of the PS3's system bandwidth (memory bandwidth). That's like saying my V6 has more power at the flywheel than your V8 does at the wheels....

Really, all games will be roughly the same, and contrary to PS3 and XBox360 fanboys, neither system will OMGWTFBBQ ROXOR UR SOXORS OFF and put the other out of business. Both systems will sell out at the holidays. Most of us will own both systems.

And yes, I'm quite aware the OMG OMGOGMOGMOGMGMWTFBBQLOL 399 XBox set is the SUPER DUPER LOADED BULL**** OVERHYPED **** version. Quite aware. Beyond me how a 20gb hdd and a wireless controller is worth $100, but more power to you.

And really, it's silly to say that Cell is "dumb". In actuality it's a much more powerful unit, but it has a specific use. I think it was silly to design cell for the PS3, but it will have its uses, and FAR more uses than Xenon will have.

I recall how much everyone said how bad Sony sucks for selling an HDD separete for the PS2, and yet everyone says "Oh, that's fine, it's a core system just like everything else. Of course it doesn't have an HDD."

...

And yes, I've heard reports from multiple sources that the PS3 will be 299, 399, 499 and even 549.

Guess what, none of you know. None of you know which will be better, and all speculation turns to name calling in forums.

Thanks for the brilliant conversation, those of you with an IQ, and thank you for the non-fanboy conversation from the abovementioned people. I'm simply trying to cut myself from this before it turns to namecalling.

If anyone cares to speak with me any further, email me or hit me up on my forums.



LMAO,

Yeah I can read, I know M$ published it. Just as unimportant as system bandwidth is you your eyes, CPU power is in Xbox fans eyes. lol.

While that report was by M$, Sony has not countered it with anything semi-intelligent. All they do is praise the Cell technology. In all fairness they have something worthy of praise. :)

Yes, I will own both systems.

"Who gives a flying **** about system bandwidth?"
I do! Anyone who made a computer will understand how truly essential it is. Alongside CPU performance! hehe.

I agree that the games will look totally about the same! lol. :) It will be a little harder for developers to make them for the Cell architecture. But not nearly as impossible as many have claimed. lol.

I think that anyone looking into the potentials of the next gen systems has to put emotions aside! Look at three things and see which one matches their liking...

1) Game Line-Up
2) The consoles target audience (The console is going to release games for one audience... cough cough gamecube)
3) The Console... Do you want a super uber media center/gaming/online system? Or just gaming?

At first when I read your little comment, I was pissed off. Then I thought about it and felt bad for you. Like I told my co-workers.

If you don't know what you are talking about don't be emotional.

lol. People just post really uninformed posts.

Like, "Cell is Dumb"
OMFG!
That is an amazing technology.

I would feel very awkward posting on a PS3 site.

Truth is, if you were looking to change our minds about PS3... It won't happen.

I still don't like Sony personally because:

1) They release defective systems that they don't acknowledge for about 6months.
2) They treat people like morons when you call.
3) Their online play sux!

I do like sony because...

1) They always are backward's compatible.
2) I like fires. lol.
3) The PSP! Dood it wrocks! No defects either!

[daniel.isaac.h]

Oh and yeah the PS2 has 294.912Mhz not 333 mhz

[Grindstone]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but this is my last post here, since from here will lose all logic, and begin fanboyness:

And really, it's silly to say that Cell is "dumb". In actuality it's a much more powerful unit, but it has a specific use. I think it was silly to design cell for the PS3, but it will have its uses, and FAR more uses than Xenon will have.

And yes, I've heard reports from multiple sources that the PS3 will be 299, 399, 499 and even 549.

Guess what, none of you know. None of you know which will be better, and all speculation turns to name calling in forums.

Thanks for the brilliant conversation, those of you with an IQ, and thank you for the non-fanboy conversation from the abovementioned people. I'm simply trying to cut myself from this before it turns to namecalling.


I've edited your comments down to those that I wish to comment on.

First and foremost, too bad this is your last post, I hate it when people throw in the towel and give up. If you truely are concerned about name-calling and blatant fanboism (although this is planet xbo360, not PS3land), I can assure you that I will be monitoring this thread, and if such became a problem, it would quickly remedied by myself or one of my associates.

Anyone who has labeled the Cell tech as "dumb", is rather unlearned. The Cell is an impressive piece of hardware, but, we have yet to see how it will be successully utilized in a gaming console. It may have far more uses than the Xenon, but while it is stuck in a PS3, none of those uses may come to fruition. Stating that the Cell should not have been used in the PS3, however, does have some validation as an AMD or P4 may have been more appropriate considering the usage the Cell will get.

We have heard and read that the PS3 will be around $475 US dollars to make. Armed with that information, we can surmise that the price will be around there. I would stipulate that anyone anticipating a $299 launch is living in a fantasy world as even Ken K. has stated that it will not be cheap.

As to system bandwidth, well, as you may have already read- have you built a computer lately?

Nevertheless, bon voyage, may the PS3 live up to your expectations. Wouldn't hurt to have you visit again.

[Arqentus]

Who gives a flying **** that the XBox360's main system bandwidth (aka GPU to embedded GPU dRAM bandwidth) is ten times that of the PS3's system bandwidth (memory bandwidth). That's like saying my V6 has more power at the flywheel than your V8 does at the wheels....


I'm amazed to read this from somebody claiming to be Editor in Chief.

While the PS3 & Xbox360 have about the same bandwidth from there GPU to there video memory ( or system ram in the xbox360's case ). That "flying ****" embedded memory has a advantage you can not underestimate.

By having that 10mb dram, you can do all those niftly little things like AA, zbuffer etc at a high speed, and widout even taxing the GPU -> video memory. While the PS3 needs to do all this in its video memory. The effect is, the xbox360 can offload a lot of bandwidth to this dram, while the ps3 can not.

All of a sudden, by just looking at the effect of AA ( and not even taking in account the other niftly things you can do ), will free up bandwidth.

So, the xbox's bandwidth to the system memory is maybe 90% when AA is active. While the ps3 is maybe 70%. These are just guess figures. But AA also takes a nice big chunck out of your memory requirements. If AA is done in advanced, you need less memory.


Also, the 100$ hd/wireless remark. Thats a special case, becouse its sata 2.5" hd's, and they do are expensive. My advice, get a core, and plug in a 3.5" IDE with a Sata converter or a Sata 3.5" hd ( if ofcourse thats possible aka, if MS hasent locked the console only to there hd's ). Sata hd 160GB: 60 a 70€'s + wireless controller = +- 30 a 40€ ... e voila. 8* more storage & all the benefits ;)

"silly to design cell for the PS3". I agree here with you. The Cell is a multi media cpu and thats its weakness. A lot of its true power will never be used becouse of its design. Also, lets not forget, the cell becouse of its orthodox design is not exactly the most easy thing to program for.

I for one have some very big questions to Sony's desision to use 2 differende split memorys. 250MB video ram & 250MB system ram. I fear this is going to be a limiting factor. Yes, Sony said that the GPU can access the system ram for more storage, but at what cost? That means the access needs to take a detour, and i fear this means a hit on anything you place in the general memory.

Also, can the system access the video ram ( i have not seen any declaration from Sony on this ).

As you can tell, there are several design flaws that i my opinion will create problems in the future for the PS3. Where i most salute MS ( definatly NOT one of the things i like to do ) on the Xbox360's design, while it looks weaker vs sony's big number show, in reality it just might end up stronger as games get more & more heavy in the future.

[shaun]

Okay okay okay. To regain my credibility here (I was at work when I made the earlier post, so I was rather rushed and didn't get to read over it until I got home), I'm going to go ahead and come back here.

One, Daniel; Granted, this is an XBox360 forum, however your statements prove to me that you in fact have not done much research, or that if you have, you fail to see things on a level plane. Your sarcasm wasn't appreciated, nor did it really prove anything. So thanks for your response.

Two, Daniel; About system bandwidth, I understand the benefit of SYSTEM bandwidth, but the bandwidth being spoken about here is actually, to be specific, the speed at which the GPU communicates with the eDRAM on the SAME DIE. If it were any slower I'd have to seriously doubt it. If any of you paid attention to my article, you'll note that I praised this technology, as it severely closes the gap between RSX and itself. I simply stated that one powerful component does not a great system make, and stating the system bandwidth as 10x that of the PS3 is false, and misinformed. Do your homework before you try to make me look stupid.

Grindstone; I appreciate your response, and yes, I agree with everything you wrote. This is an XBox forum, not a PS3 forum, and I notice that, however some people are incapable of discussing rival technologies without getting their panties in a wad (Exhibit: Chevy and Ford people).

Argentus; Once again, quick post. Read the sentence above to daniel about system bandwidth. I've built quite a few computers recently, and yes I notice the great difference, however, the "System Bandwidth" being displayed does not reflect the entire system bandwidth, just the graphics subsystem.

Now, in reading a few articles from Anandtech and Arstechnica, I came across some developers who stated quite clearly that the PS3 and XBox360 really don't differ much in CPU power, in truth the slower main core of the PS3 but the added "helper" units sort of level the field. Really. This is from the developer's mouth.

The two graphics subsystems? Definately XBox360. Very powerful. I have no arguments there.

The price? As of late, Sony has become quite brilliant at marketing, but as such, so have Microsoft and every other gaming "regime" ;) But really, yeah, it's probably speculation. I could name probably 20 sources half of which gave me varying answers. Upon looking at things now, yeah, I'm probably rooting for around 399, but I do find it odd that that the PS3 popped up on a few internet sites at $299.

Cell was designed as a supercomputer chip, with unrivaled floating point performance and clustering abilities. Flat out? Yeah, it's not really a great gaming cpu.

Look guys, I've got to make this clear. I'm not emotional, nor did I get my feelings hurt, nor am I "dreaming"... I'm speculating, just like every other one of you. I do my homework, and I try not to shoot from the hip.

Hopefully I've solved all of the responses to my post and regained my credibility. I'm going to get some food now ;)

[citizen X]

The IGN article was interesting, but quite frankly it WAS a Microsoft report. Of course the XBox360 came out on top.

This has gone far beyond smart conversation, and quite frankly (as was stated two or three posts now), this is a PS3 bashing forum, and as such I won't be able to have an unbiased or even dually educated conversation.

The XBox360's SYSTEM bandwidth is NOT massively more than the PS3's. It's the god damned GPU's MEMORY bandwidth. Someone here needs to drive that into your heads.

Granted, the XBox has some strong points, but when you compare the two, it's like comparing the PS2 and Xbox. Xbox has a single 700mhz cpu, the ps2 has a 333(?)mhz processor, with some separate units for other calculations.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but this is my last post here, since from here will lose all logic, and begin fanboyness:

The XBox games don't look _that_ much better than the PS2 games, nor do they play much better. In all reality it'll come down to which games are developed best (which has been my main conclusion this entire time).

Who gives a flying **** that the XBox360's main system bandwidth (aka GPU to embedded GPU dRAM bandwidth) is ten times that of the PS3's system bandwidth (memory bandwidth). That's like saying my V6 has more power at the flywheel than your V8 does at the wheels....

Really, all games will be roughly the same, and contrary to PS3 and XBox360 fanboys, neither system will OMGWTFBBQ ROXOR UR SOXORS OFF and put the other out of business. Both systems will sell out at the holidays. Most of us will own both systems.

And yes, I'm quite aware the OMG OMGOGMOGMOGMGMWTFBBQLOL 399 XBox set is the SUPER DUPER LOADED BULL**** OVERHYPED **** version. Quite aware. Beyond me how a 20gb hdd and a wireless controller is worth $100, but more power to you.

And really, it's silly to say that Cell is "dumb". In actuality it's a much more powerful unit, but it has a specific use. I think it was silly to design cell for the PS3, but it will have its uses, and FAR more uses than Xenon will have.

I recall how much everyone said how bad Sony sucks for selling an HDD separete for the PS2, and yet everyone says "Oh, that's fine, it's a core system just like everything else. Of course it doesn't have an HDD."

...

And yes, I've heard reports from multiple sources that the PS3 will be 299, 399, 499 and even 549.

Guess what, none of you know. None of you know which will be better, and all speculation turns to name calling in forums.

Thanks for the brilliant conversation, those of you with an IQ, and thank you for the non-fanboy conversation from the abovementioned people. I'm simply trying to cut myself from this before it turns to namecalling.

If anyone cares to speak with me any further, email me or hit me up on my forums.

Back to system bandwidth

Ok first off u said that 48.8gbs is the GPU bandwidth. Well that’s fine but u forgot the fact that the x360’s system bandwidth is unified so the developers have the choice in how much bandwidth is being used on any thing in the game. So if they wanted to, they could use 100gps just on the shading.

But really 278.8gps of system bandwidth is probably just too much right now but its there for the future, the extra bandwidth is for the games that are coming out in 3-4 years. Unlike Sony, MS thinks ahead, and prepares for the problems that all game developers deal with close to the end of a consoles life cycle.

Right now they may be using a lot of the bandwidth but guaranteed the programming for the games are not as clean as they can be, so it takes more bandwidth. Probably in the last years of the consoles life we’ll have very, very clean programming and even then it will be using every last bit of bandwidth for those games.


GAMES

Have u ever seen or played the chronicles of Riddick. That game looks just unbelievable for its time, if it only had anti-aliasing. No way could that game be played on the PS2.

And have u noticed that most of the games made on both of the consoles, the Xbox almost always has better frame rates, and faster load times and on Burnout 3 the Xbox had better frame rates and sharper graphics. But what did the PS2 version have that the Xbox didn’t: ………..more sparks, yes people the PS2 had more sparks in the game.


About the best developed games:

The x360 is design with the developers in mind and BLA BLA BLA. We’ve heard this before, and it's true. The x360 makes it easer for the artist and musician to truely to do what they always wished they could do with almost no limitations what so ever.

And yes the best consoles are defined by its games and well, most the developers Sony use to have for themselves are now working with MS as well. So chances are that it will be very close this time around, regarding the game quality and game diversity. But the fact that Sony is older and therefore has a bigger fan base will probably pull Sony through into the next round as the leader. But Sony knows they will be in serious trouble next time around.



One more thing-

The CELL processor is a very powerful CPU; don’t get me wrong, I just think that this is the wrong application for the kind of processing its going to be used for. And that Sony didn’t give the new Cell technology a chance to show what it’s capable of; by basically keeping it confined to its bandwidth barrier. Sure they can compress the data but to what point? Compression is not the answer; compression is what u do as a last resort, not as plan B, that is meant to fix the known problem with plan A from the start.




One last thing shaun, i wouldn't start taking in *, it make u look like a ….., trust me I'd know. I said some thing on the forums when I was angry. And ended up being a complete misunderstanding and I admit it happened to me more then once, So now I try not to use * any more even if I think I know I’m right (not that I’m saying your never right) this Is just a suggestion from a fellow member not meant to be an insult.

[citizen X]

Speculating… that’s all we can do when it comes to Sony’s PS3. All I hope for Is that we as a whole don’t end up looking like complete morons when the PS3 finally comes out.

Thanks for explaining your speculations. You’re not the only one that ever needed to.

Glad to still have u in the forums

[Diamond]

Is shaun still trying to convert us into PS3 fans? I'm sorry but I can't even read his posts. It looks to me like we've all explained the same things to him several times over and he still doesn't understand. It looks very tiring so I just skimmed it.

Sorry dude, but this is going a little too far. It's giving me a very unprofessional impression. The bandwidth issue has been explained over and over and I'm just tired of hearing this.

[shaun]

My apologies that you can't read. I'm not trying to convert you into a PS3 fanboy, and really, as I said before, I could care less what you think. You've all told me many times the samethings, which I never really argued with.

Quit being so narrowminded. You, my friend, are being a fanboy.

[Diamond]

My apologies that you can't read. I'm not trying to convert you into a PS3 fanboy, and really, as I said before, I could care less what you think. You've all told me many times the samethings, which I never really argued with.

Quit being so narrowminded. You, my friend, are being a fanboy.

Wow, so defencive. I seem to have hurt your feelings.

Now lets break some things down...

"My apologies that you can't read."
Neither can you, obviously. I stated I don't want to read your posts because it was tiring, and to be honest I think I'd have more fun shaving my chest with an electric sander.

"I'm not trying to convert you into a PS3 fanboy..."
Could have fooled me. Why do you insist on taking this topic down the crapper with you. Most of us strongly believe in the facts we were given. You're not going to form a little anti-360 rebellion in these forums so, please, stop with the naysaying.

"I could care less what you think."
Then why do make such a big deal over it?

"You've all told me many times the samethings, which I never really argued with."
Never argued with? Is that some kind of joke? All I've seen from you is arguing about how the 360 sucks at this, sucks at that.

"Quit being so narrowminded. You, my friend, are being a fanboy."
I can't write a comment on this without laughing at the hypocrisy. No comment.

I'm done here, regardless of the inevitable and pointless reply you're going to make. Have fun with your PS3 shaun. I'm tired of the bickering.

[G4everX]

This thread is halarious!

Summery

-Shaun want to be right, or he wouldn't have come back.
-Fanboys Suck
-Xbox 360 and PS3 are both good machines.

Happy? :elefant: :elefant: :elefant: :elefant: :top: :top:

[pApA SmerF01]

Wow, so defencive. I seem to have hurt your feelings.

Now lets break some things down...

"My apologies that you can't read."
Neither can you, obviously. I stated I don't want to read your posts because it was tiring, and to be honest I think I'd have more fun shaving my chest with an electric sander.

If you don't read the posts, you don't have room to talk.
"I'm not trying to convert you into a PS3 fanboy..."
Could have fooled me. Why do you insist on taking this topic down the crapper with you. Most of us strongly believe in the facts we were given. You're not going to form a little anti-360 rebellion in these forums so, please, stop with the naysaying.

He's not pulling an anti-360 rebellion in the forums, he's just trying to share his opinion and he's felt bastarized by the fellow members on here about it!
"I could care less what you think."
Then why do make such a big deal over it?

Because it's image. It's not about what you say or think, it's how you put it out that make people care.
"You've all told me many times the samethings, which I never really argued with."
Never argued with? Is that some kind of joke? All I've seen from you is arguing about how the 360 sucks at this, sucks at that.

Has he stated that the 360 sucks? NO. He's posted his opinion on the 360 advantages. You're taking his words the wrong way!
"Quit being so narrowminded. You, my friend, are being a fanboy."
I can't write a comment on this without laughing at the hypocrisy. No comment.

He actually isn't a fanboy and some of the things that people (you yourself included) have been posting in this thread is fanboy-ish.
I'm done here, regardless of the inevitable and pointless reply you're going to make. Have fun with your PS3 shaun. I'm tired of the bickering.

Look, if you guys don't calm down this heated discussion and get back onto the topic, I'm closing this thread. FINAL WARNING.

[Diamond]

Some of us are just a bit tired of an arguement that goes in circles, sorry.

So how about that bandwidth on the Xbox 360 guys? It's pretty sweet I hear ;)

[daniel.isaac.h]

Heyy Shaun, I hope you didn't think I was aiming my sarcasm at you alone. Like you, I'm just fed up with people saying that either of the systems are better than the other.

In actuality, what it has become is not a comparison of the systems but of people.

I'm not dumb, I know you aren't.

Try avoiding this,

"This has gone far beyond smart conversation, and quite frankly (as was stated two or three posts now), this is a PS3 bashing forum, and as such I won't be able to have an unbiased or even dually educated conversation."

Like I previously posted "I am going to buy both systems"

I apologize for my comment about "When did you last build a computer?"
That was rude and I'm sorry shaun.


"One, Daniel; Granted, this is an XBox360 forum, however your statements prove to me that you in fact have not done much research, or that if you have, you fail to see things on a level plane. Your sarcasm wasn't appreciated, nor did it really prove anything. So thanks for your response."

I've done my research... I've also quoted my sources.

Sarcasm? Well I'm sorry... That came after the Nintendo ***-Boy comment. That brought your argument from thought-related, to emotional.


"Two, Daniel; About system bandwidth, I understand the benefit of SYSTEM bandwidth, but the bandwidth being spoken about here is actually, to be specific, the speed at which the GPU communicates with the eDRAM on the SAME DIE. If it were any slower I'd have to seriously doubt it. If any of you paid attention to my article, you'll note that I praised this technology, as it severely closes the gap between RSX and itself. I simply stated that one powerful component does not a great system make, and stating the system bandwidth as 10x that of the PS3 is false, and misinformed. Do your homework before you try to make me look stupid."

I'm looking back and I can not see anywhere where I posted that the Bandwidth will be "10x faster". I didn't write the article at IGN.com. I know M$ did, I just thought it was a "interesting read". I'm sorry if it seemed I was trying to "make you look stupid". I did do my homework. :)

We both are in the same industry...
We both have our sources...
We both prefer one system over the other but will own both...
We both have a good understanding of both systems...

We ALL should be able to get along!

I agree with Papa Smerf...

This blog has become more of a judgement of people not the systems.

I think everyone agrees with me on that...

[daniel.isaac.h]

Oh, and when I said, "I think everyone agrees with me" I meant with my comment about the judgement of people not the consoles.

Just for the record. :)

[shaun]

lol, can't we all just be friends? hahaha. btw i was talking about the ign article. and since we're all trying to make nice now, sorry about the nintendo ***boy comment ;)

I'll have you know, i'm laughing sitting here. This has gone way too far.

Sorry for everyone I've offended (except Diamond), You guys are cool people. I enjoy this forum.

Oh, and to the guy up there who tried to summarize the thread.. g4ex or something:
1. I came back because the moderator stepped in and confirmed my beliefs.
2. The conversation grew up.
3. Yes, fanboys suck, we agree here.
4. Both are good systems, and most of us will own both.
5. I don't care if I'm right. I'm right in my mind just like you're right in yours. Right is relative.

[Grindstone]

Awe, group hug! C'mon, group hug everybody. There, everyone feel better? No one has any underlying issues to expel anymore?

Good. Though I think smerf01 has merit with his statements, I think locking this thread may be a little over-the-top, as there is some noteworthy information posted in this thread. Maybe we'll just edit some crap out. But, we should remind ourselves that this is just a topic on bandwidth, and not flagrant insults towards our mothers. Ergo, there is no need to get emotional over gaming console hardware. Really, it'll be old news soon anyway.

Now then about system bandwidth...

[daniel.isaac.h]

Yay! Group hug! Lol. Good to know everything's cool wit everyone. :)

[Diamond]

lol, can't we all just be friends? hahaha. btw i was talking about the ign article. and since we're all trying to make nice now, sorry about the nintendo ***boy comment ;)

I'll have you know, i'm laughing sitting here. This has gone way too far.

Sorry for everyone I've offended (except Diamond), You guys are cool people. I enjoy this forum.

Oh, and to the guy up there who tried to summarize the thread.. g4ex or something:
1. I came back because the moderator stepped in and confirmed my beliefs.
2. The conversation grew up.
3. Yes, fanboys suck, we agree here.
4. Both are good systems, and most of us will own both.
5. I don't care if I'm right. I'm right in my mind just like you're right in yours. Right is relative.

LMAO. I really did hurt your feelings :laugh:

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings, shaun. I whole-heartedly apologize. I mean it too, I'm not sarcastic here. I didn't realize I could bring out the worst in you. Sorry man. For real.

Now like Grindstone said, lets get back to bandwidth ;)

I found this article on the 360 vs PS3 hardware with a chart comparison sheet. I'm not sure how entirely acurate it is, seems to lack something. however, it seems to show the majority of the specs which seem mostly acurate to me. Check it out!

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-1985-x-x-x

What do you guys think? Looks to me like they're both going to be the about same in the beginning. I guess in the long run we'll really see how the systems can handle the games to come as the bandwidth demand for games increases.

What would be nice is to get a report from the developers and see exactly how much bandwidth their games use and where it's used. I'm sure that's probably 'classified' from the public though.

[shaun]

Okay, I apologize. And you didn't hurt my feelings. This is the internet, man. I just simply decide through talking to people who I like and I don't like. Just like you do, I'm sure.

For a period of time there, I didn't like you. But I'm over it. I just had the ****tiest food ever at Denny's and now I think I hate it more than you, so you're off the hook. Glad we're all on the same page.

Firstly (thirdly), You're right, Diamond. The launch games are going to kick ***. Third or fourth iteration, people will fully learn and utilize the systems to their potentials... We all know both systems are going to sell out, and contrary to people's beliefs, I still don't really care who agrees with me.

As for Bandwidth, my partner on PixelEFX is writing a very very informative article about system bandwidth, probably one of the most in depth ones I've read so far. It's in the finishing stages, we're going to go ahead and post it hopefully by the weekend, but I don't want to speak for him.

As usual, we're going to post a link to this site in the article, considering this conversation (thread) has riled up so much in all of us ;)

Expect to see something within the next week.

Btw, mods, if you don't want me posting links to my site on here let me know, I just don't know where else to post links to my articles. I want a new title. I'm not a newbie damn you ;)

Thanks

[Diamond]

Okay, I apologize. And you didn't hurt my feelings. This is the internet, man. I just simply decide through talking to people who I like and I don't like. Just like you do, I'm sure.

For a period of time there, I didn't like you. But I'm over it. I just had the ****tiest food ever at Denny's and now I think I hate it more than you, so you're off the hook. Glad we're all on the same page.

Firstly (thirdly), You're right, Diamond. The launch games are going to kick ***. Third or fourth iteration, people will fully learn and utilize the systems to their potentials... We all know both systems are going to sell out, and contrary to people's beliefs, I still don't really care who agrees with me.

As for Bandwidth, my partner on PixelEFX is writing a very very informative article about system bandwidth, probably one of the most in depth ones I've read so far. It's in the finishing stages, we're going to go ahead and post it hopefully by the weekend, but I don't want to speak for him.

As usual, we're going to post a link to this site in the article, considering this conversation (thread) has riled up so much in all of us ;)

Expect to see something within the next week.

Btw, mods, if you don't want me posting links to my site on here let me know, I just don't know where else to post links to my articles. I want a new title. I'm not a newbie damn you ;)

Thanks

Yeah, don't forget. It's not the hardware that determines the outcome, it's the developer. If the developer makes a game that looks like crap, the hardware isn't going to make it look any better. IF the developers can fully make use of the bandwidth I think we'll see some amazing games. If by the time the developers only begin to tap that potential and the "next" generation of consoles come around I'm going to be really disappointed.

I still think the Xbox has another good 2 years to it. I would have still bought tons of games... It's alright though. I understand how MS wants to take the lead this time and I guess they were ready for it. They seem to be all set and I actually agree with their desicion to stick with DVD's. They're cheaper and have plenty of room. If some of the next gen games are too big, give us a second disc. I put up with that with Final Fantasy games back in the day so I don't see why it makes a big deal, if it means saving a lot of money.

But yeah, all I'm gonna say is, I really hope the developers r