What Card should be considerd equal to t ...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^What Card should be considerd equal to t ...
good question, i was wondering this myselfim pretty sure the architecture is different between the 360 GPU (or Xenon) and a PC GPU.even so, im pretty sure its up there in terms of comparisonWhat Card should be considerd equal to t ...
x1900
So Y Is PS3 graphics processors considerd stronger then xenon when a x1900 is somewhat even with a 7900gt
Well, based on core speed, memory speed, combined number pixel %26 vertex shaders, memory bus interface and memory bandwidth, I would say the closest equivalent is a Radeon X1650XT, which is 575 MHz core, 690 MHz memory, 32 shaders, 128-bit interface and 22.1 GB/s. Match this against Xenos's 500 MHz core, 700 MHz memory, 48 shaders, 128-bit interface and 22.4 GB/s.



But it's a very difficult comparison, since Xenos is largely a custom job with features you wont find on desktop PC cards, and is integrated in a very different architecture from what you would find on an x86 PC.
I think the Xenos is equal to a unifed pipeline x1950xt with Dx10 features. Could be a x1900xt, I forget.
[QUOTE=''madrocketeer'']Well, based on core speed, memory speed, combined number pixel %26 vertex shaders, memory bus interface and memory bandwidth, I would say the closest equivalent is a Radeon X1650GT, which is 575 MHz core, 690 MHz memory, 32 shaders, 128-bit interface and 22.1 GB/s. Match this against Xenos's 500 MHz core, 700 MHz memory, 48 shaders, 128-bit interface and 22.4 GB/s. But it's a very difficult comparison, since Xenos is largely a custom job with features you wont find on desktop PC cards, and is integrated in a very different architecture from what you would find on an x86 PC.[/QUOTE] Not even close to a x1650GT (which doesnt exist), considering the Xbox 360 GPU beats up on the PS3 RSX (underclocked 7900gt or mobile 7900). The thing the PS3 has going for it, is the CELL. The CELL can take some of the graphics and load it onto itself. Which is what SONY wanted. They tried to get the CELL to run the graphics, like the PS2 did. They couldnt and fell behind and asked nVidia to whip them up something.

If theyre is something close to the x1650xt, its the Wii.
[QUOTE=''RainbowWarrior0'']So Y Is PS3 graphics processors considerd stronger then xenon when a x1900 is somewhat even with a 7900gt[/QUOTE]



Really? Looking back at the specs, PS3's RSX looks more like a slightly overclocked 7800 GTX. And even then, the RSX also seems to use a 128-bit interface like the Xenos, because the 7800 GTX's memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s vs RSX's 22.4 GB/s.
Are you serious? To me the Wii feels like an X1300, or even worse.
[QUOTE=''9mmSpliff'']Not even close to a x1650GT (which doesnt exist)[/QUOTE]



Edited my post. It's the X1650XT I was talking about. Sorry for the typo.
[QUOTE=''WhiteSnake5000'']Are you serious? To me the Wii feels like an X1300, or even worse. [/QUOTE] If you read correctly,I am saying that the closest the thing to a x1650xt is a Wii. He believes the 360 is a x1650xt. Its more like a GPU stuck between a 1300 and 1600 for the Wii. The Wii is capable of running 80p and 1080p, its just it wouldnt be able to do it at the 60ps that Nintendo want all their games to run at.

I wouldnt doubt it in 2yrs we see a new Wii. They already are releasing a new one with DVD and in Black. So I wouldnt doubt a new hardware Wii is coming.
oh ok
how can a CPU processor process graphics while they are not built for it?
[QUOTE=''9mmSpliff'']If you readcorrectly,I am saying that the closest the thing to a x1650xt is a Wii. He believes the 360 is a x1650xt.[/QUOTE]



Clarification: based on raw numerical matchups of specifications. I also believed I covered myself pretty well in my second paragraph of my first post.
[QUOTE=''RainbowWarrior0'']how can a CPU processor process graphics while they are not built for it?[/QUOTE]



Actually, you would be surprised just how similar architecturally to a GPU the Cell is.
suprise me...how isa cell corediffrent from a computers core?does the cell have the same piplines that GPUS have?
[QUOTE=''madrocketeer''][QUOTE=''RainbowWarrior0'']how can a CPU processor process graphics while they are not built for it?[/QUOTE] Actually, you would be surprised just how similar architecturally to a GPU the Cell is.[/QUOTE] I always thought SONY was in trouble when they said they were going to get the CELL to run both CPU and GPU. lol. I was sitting there going, this isnt a Ps2 anymore.
[QUOTE=''madrocketeer''][QUOTE=''9mmSpliff'']If you readcorrectly,I am saying that the closest the thing to a x1650xt is a Wii. He believes the 360 is a x1650xt.[/QUOTE] Clarification: based on raw numerical matchups of specifications. I also believed I covered myself pretty well in my second paragraph of my first post.[/QUOTE]you did.
[QUOTE=''WhiteSnake5000'']oh ok[/QUOTE] sorry man, sounded rude there ''If you read correctly''
[QUOTE=''RainbowWarrior0'']suprise me...how isa cell corediffrent from a computers core?does the cell have the same piplines that GPUS have?[/QUOTE]



Well just as an example, whereas even multi-core CPUs are made up of symmetrical processing elements, the Cell is organized into a central processing element which organize a number of smaller co-processors, the latter of which provide the main processing horsepower in the chip. This is very different from an x86 desktop CPU, but somewhat similar to how GPUs organize their co-processors, namely the shader units.



Also, the Cell seems to specialize at large amounts of double-precision vector math, whereas desktop CPUs tend to be better suited for scalar instructions execution. This is also quite similar to a GPU.



And just to clarify, x86 processors also have pipelines, although they're a bit different to a GPU's pipeline.



Could the Cell actually process graphics data like a GPU? Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is this is probably the reason why Sony claimed what they did.