True Tech Comparison (PS3 vs. Xbox 360)

[MuGen]

Posted by someone on GameFAQs:
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/gen...topic=25771794

WARNING, tis a long read but informative read. Take it for what you will.. but this guy sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

I'm sick of XBox and Sony fanboys bashing the other system in endless flame wars. I'm sick of fanboys misquoting specs. I'm sick of trolls making bogus topics and baselessly flaming others. I'm sick of people challenging true statements and others saying "It's all about the games!" when it's painfully obvious that games will not run without adequate hardware.

I'm going to prove which system is more powerful (the PS3 in all aspects; don't flame unless you can prove you know basic and complex arithmetic as well as chipset design philosophy and are therefore adequately qualified to dispute the results), using official specs, reports, and examples designed for the intelligence level of a mitochondrion, so even a fanboy should be able to understand if he concentrates really hard.

Some aspects are glossed over, like the online comparison, because they don't really factor in to the power of the consoles.

Sources for this post include, but are not limited to, Wikipedia, the Blu-Ray Disc Association, ATi, and IBM (LOOK IT UP!).

DANGER: NUMBERS AHEAD

CPU:

(Things like VMX and byte registers are ignored because they are the same number per core for each system. Both systems support procedural synthesis, although the PS3's implementation is more efficient. Interface bus bandwidth is ignored because Microsoft did not see fit to show their numbers in this regard. The PS3's smoking hot, though. Both CPUs are built on the RISC architecture, so something like, say, running a 360 game on a PS3 won't have any process overhead other than redistribution of resources and possibly graphics translation if you're clever enough to pull it off.)

The XBox 360 has a Xenon processor with three symmetrical (read: identical) 64-bit PowerPC cores, each clocked at 3.2 GHz. All cores are capable of general purpose processing. The 1 MB L2 cache is clocked at 1.6 GHz (half the speed of the CPU). The cores use SMT and SIMD to share process load when one core is overloaded. It is unknown what programming language the SIMD units use. This system has some flaws due to latency between each core, the half-speed L2 cache, and the lack of a dedicated control core. It's also comparitively difficult to program a game to effectively use more than one core (see PS3 CPU for details).

The PlayStation 3 uses a Cell processor with 9 asymmetrical cores (one PPE to control the SPEs and 8 SPEs for actual processing, with one SPE reserved for redundancy to lower the attrition rate in manufacturing), each clocked at 3.2 GHz. All cores are capable of general purpose processing, contrary to Microsoft's claim that only one core is capable. The 512 KB L2 cache is clocked at 3.2 GHz, making it just as effective as the 360's 1 MB, 1.6 GHz L2. The cores use SIMD with 256 KB of programmable memory for each SPE to run dedicated processes, along with general purpose processes, with an atomic unit to synchronize the cores, drastically lowering latency. The SIMD units use C and XL C for instructions, and have an independent file system separate from the source data to allow for more complex programs. In contrast, the 360 has no known programmable memory for the cores, making it more difficult to program efficiently for the 360, contrary to much speculation.

Memory:

The 360 has 512 MB of 700 MHz GDDR3-RAM that the CPU and GPU share. It has a read/write speed of 22.4 GB/sec. The GPU has 10 MB of dedicated EDRAM which stores information on shader effects, alpha blending, etc., and has a read/write rate of 256 GB/sec with the logic chip, which has a 32 GB/sec bus to the GPU itself. Kinda high on latency, in my opinion (I'm referring to the delay caused by the use of external chips for graphical effects, not the bandwidth).

The PS3 has 256 MB of 3.2 GHz XDR-RAM dedicatedto the Cell chip but accessible by the GPU, with a read/write speed of 25.6 GB/sec. It also has 256 MB of 700 MHz GDDR3-RAM dedicated solely to the GPU, with a read/write speed of 22.4 GB/sec.


From: WhyNoUsernames | Posted: 1/14/2006 1:54:50 AM | Message Detail


GPU:

The 360 has Xenos, a 500 MHz GPU developed by ATi. ATi has bashed the PS3's GPU, calling it "inelegant" and claiming it's basically a 7800GTX bolted on at the last minute. Never mind that the Xenos can be considered an R500 bolted on at the last minute, with an experimental redesign that effectively hobbles it. The unified pipeline architecture that ATi claimed was so revolutionary is simply running the same pipelines for both shader and vertex effects. Since the pipelines aren't dedicated, use of one effect lowers the count for other effects (actually using the full theoretical 48 billion shader operations per second would cripple its capacity for vertex effects, for example). The logic chip used for effects is external to the main GPU, and accesses the 10 MB of EDRAM for every effect rendered, lowering its real world performance due to latency. Even if the GPU were 100% efficient without any latency, it still wouldn't be as powerful or "elegant" as the PS3's GPU.

The PS3's RSX, developed by nVidia (who Microsoft shafted because they didn't want to renegotiate their contract for less money), runs at 550 MHz. Pipelines for shader and vertex effects are dedicated, so using the maximum amount of a given effect will not impact the performance in other areas. All effects are processed internally using OpenGL/ES, without impacting polygon rate, neatly skipping over the latency and EDRAM bandwidth issues the Xenos has. The RSX also has higher vertex and shader operations per clock cycle than the Xenos, as well as a higher triangle generation rate and even the ability to utilize free SPEs to improve performance. There is some speculation that the RSX will be clocked at 700 MHz in the final version to match the memory speed, with proportionate increases in polygon and effect performance.

Online:

The 360 has 100 Base-T Ethernet, and XBox Live.

The PS3 has 3X 1000 Base-T Ethernet. Sony has not really disclosed their online plans yet, simply saying that they want the developers to be able to do what they want with it, though many people blow this out of proportion and say Sony will have no online service for PS3 users.

Controller:

The 360 has 4 ports supporting wired or wireless controllers. Not much different from the XBox.

The PS3 has support for 7 wireless controllers, with more supported via USB adapter. The PS3's dual HDMI outputs will likely be used in games that support high player counts, e.g. a Gran Turismo that allows 8 players could split the two screens into 4 areas each.

HDD:

The 360 Premium bundle comes with a 20 GB HDD, which is detachable.

The PS3 has not been confirmed to include or exclude a drive with the basic package, but there's speculation that the smallest HDD offered will be 80 GB.
From: WhyNoUsernames | Posted: 1/14/2006 1:55:28 AM | Message Detail
Backwards Compatibility:

The 360 has limited software emulation of the XBox, requiring the HDD to load unique software for each game supported. Some enhancements to XBox software are supported.

The PS3 has 95%+ emulation of PS1 and PS2 games, using system-on-chip techniques to program the Cell with system specs stored in an external chip. Many enhancements are speculated upon, but it's unknown what will actually make it into the final spec.

Drive Format:

The 360 has support for DVDs and CDs, with a proposed HD-DVD add-on (for movies only) to arrive in several months.

The PS3 supports CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray Discs, or BDs, which have higher capacity and read speeds than HD-DVD, as well as more functionality and durability.

Price and Launch Date:

Irrelevant, as the 360 and PS3's comparitive power is not dependent on launch date or price, but anyway...

360 was launched on November 11 in the US, and in Japan and Europe shortly thereafter. The American price is $300 for the Core system, and $400 for the Premium package.

PS3 is officially scheduled to launch in the spring of 2006, probably worldwide. There is no reliable evidence that says otherwise. It will cost either $300 (if Sony decides to be a price ninja), or $400 if they decide to follow Microsoft's lead. These are the only two logical sale prices for the PS3.

The Bottom Line:

Anyone who decided to do the math can see that the PS3 has the 360 beat in terms of both elegance and power. If you didn't do the math and choose not to believe the results, I won't force you to. If you did the math and don't believe the results, I recommend you actually look at the official articles on both systems, plus IBM's Cell performance article (which has all sorts of neat little goodies in it like the actual integer and floating point performance of the SPEs).

*Sighs and equips +1 Flame Shield*

[Canyarion]

I don't think Sony can release it this spring.

[DarrenMcLeod]

Haven't developers been saying there isn't much of a difference?

[Canyarion]

Probably the developers' fault.

[Teuthida]

Is there an equation for which system's games will be more fun?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Is there an equation for which system's games will be more fun?

Yes.



System + Amount of money spent on marketing X years in production = level of fun.

[KillerGremlin]

Mmmm, I smell a revolution.

If I wanted to drop 400+ dollars to game, I'd buy a PC with dual vids running SLI. For the 150 price point on the rev, and the ideal emulation.....wowza. I'll probably become a Nintendo fan again.

For what it's worth, I was less than impressed with this gen. So, I'm not going to buy any of the new consoles up front. But for college, the rev. might fit ideal dorm needs due to the fact that you'll be able to play old games on it. N64, SNES, NES....most of my fondest memories date back to those days.

[Dyne]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Is there an equation for which system's games will be more fun?

All integers.

Console - Revolution + developer

[Canyarion]

There is no $150 price point for Rev yet. Reggie said <$300, so that's what we have so far. I never said >$300, I really didn't.

[Null]

i think you mean <$300, i dont think he said it would be more then $300

[Jonbo298]

Yeah, less then $300 but I'm gonna guess $200 or less.

But eh..comparison or not, the guy seems to care more about tech then games. Just because a game looks good doesnt mean its a good game.

[MuGen]

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

Yeah, less then $300 but I'm gonna guess $200 or less.

But eh..comparison or not, the guy seems to care more about tech then games. Just because a game looks good doesnt mean its a good game.

On the contrary ... if you read the beginning he acknowledges that of course while it's 40% Hardware 60% Content....The games NEED the hardware to run.. period.

Whether he cares more about one over the other shouldn't matter. His objective in this "essay" was to draw out a technical comparison between 2 systems in lamens terms...