Posted 10 December 2007 - 11:32 AM
Posted 10 December 2007 - 08:25 PM
Do you know what my favorite console is?
But now I haven't even touched my 360 in like 2 months besides when I beat Gears of War in 2 days
Edited by xNFx 37, 10 December 2007 - 08:25 PM.
Posted 11 December 2007 - 05:00 AM
Do you know what my favorite console is?
I agree, off the new consoles I would pick the Wii, but from all of the systems, I pick the 64. Granted I haven´t played on it much because my TV is acting up and gives me gray pictures for the 64.
"Good character is something you cannot fake. And it always comes full circle at the end."
Posted 11 December 2007 - 09:31 PM
Posted 12 December 2007 - 03:28 AM
Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:08 AM
I actually didn't see that choice.
PSN: ultra920 MGO:ultra920 shoot me an MGO invite if you play
Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:43 AM
It's sort of a mixed bag. On one hand, the graphics are awesome, but on the other, you have to spend 8 hours a day grinding to get anywhere.
That's weird Piney, I've never heard of the "go outside". Whats its processing power? /sarcasm
Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:11 PM
Thats true but for a good gaming PC its about five grand, I think thats a bit out of his price range.
Are you shitting me? Whoever told you that is a tool. I spent $1,200 to build. I run CS:S at an average of 110+ frames. I can run Crysis and COD 4 on high settings perfectly fine WHILE running two instances of Folding @ Home. So, take your piece of shit Alienware and shove it.
As for the vote:
PC (Most versatile - I haven't ever encountered a game that I really wanted to play that wasn't on PC, plus, I can justify upgrades more because I need them for work also.)
Outside (Most productive)
Wii (Most unique. I wouldn't play games seriously on here, but it's fun for a group.)
360 (Halo 3)
My personal choice would be a PS3 because they look pretty cool (should be getting the 60GB one for Xmas ^^) and are technical better in every way to all the other consoles atm. You can even install other OS's on it... and use most USB devices and bluetooth headsets/stuff.
I'm not sure if the PS3's architecture has changed in the past year, but...
There has been a long (and quite ridiculous) debate going on throughout this past year concerning the power of the xbox 360 vs. the power of the ps3. Why has this debate been absolutely ridiculous? Because the truly more powerful system has already been confirmed, but not publicly. Much of this may be very hard to understand if you're not a tech-geek, so don't say I didn't warn you.
According to IBM's white pages, the cell processor being used in the ps3 is considerably less powerful than what it has been hyped up to be.
Sony officially revealed the PS3 and for the first time at E3 2005, and claimed that their Cell processor would be capable of 200 GFLOPS.
One may wonder how they got that figure? IBM's own white pages:
As seen from the link (in Figure 5) the Cell has a theoretical peak of 201 GFLOP's– running 8 SPE's at 25.12 GFLOP's apiece (Table 2). This is where Sony gets their 200 GFLOP figure from.
When physically tested however, only 155.5 GFLOP's were actually achieved (see Table 4) with a total efficiency rate of 75.9%.
Because of manufacturing yield issues, the PS3 will only use 7 SPE's with the theoretical peak for the PS3's Cell processor being reduced to 176 GFLOP's, each running at 25.12 GFLOP's. Utilizing the same 75.9% efficiency, it is easily interpolated that the PS3's Cell CPU will only be capable of 133.6 GFLOP's.
The Xbox 360 has 3 general-purpose 2-threaded CPU's, which generates a proven 115.2 GFLOP's which is dramatically easier for developers to utilize. By now it should be pathetically obvious that sony is no where near as far ahead as they try to lead you to think (keep in mind they claimed that the ps2 was more powerful than the original xbox, but were proven wrong publicly, since the xbox was indeed twice as powerful). The ps3 will, once you have taken into account thetotal amount of resources that will be used by their respective operating systems, end up with less CPU power available for graphical and physics processing than the 360.
According to the (unbiased) site above, the PS3 will also constantly reserve 1 SPE** for running its operating system. Now that there is actually one less SPE reserved for gaming purposes, it is definite that the ps3's cell will only be capable of 114.4 GFLOP's for the purpose of game processing.
**SPE's are floating point processors, they are also called DSP's, and SPU's. These floating point processors are NOT to be confused with cores, cores have far more prediction and calculation braches than floating point processors. As stated earlier, the 360 has 3 cores, each running at 3.2GHz, with 2 threads each. The cell also runs at 3.2GHz, but is the one and only core that the ps3 has.
Back to subject:
The 360's operating system on the other hand uses only 3% of its CPU time on Cores 1 and 2, while Core 0 is free altogether, this means that the 360 has more processing power available for in-game graphics and physics. Now, the GPU (Graphics Processing unit). The 360's Xenos GPU is also slightly more powerful for running current graphics engines and, in terms of complying with Windows Graphic Foundation 2.0 (compatible with future versions of Direct X, shader models, etc.) is a full-generation ahead of the RSX. "One of the key ideas behind a unified architecture is to move the GPU from a rendering only processor to a complete compute processor. Right now all the GPU does is render 3D and displays it on your screen (yes it does more like 2D, video etc... but for the point of this article we are talking about 3D). With a unified architecture the GPU becomes more. It becomes a processor that can do almost anything that needs code processed. This means the GPU can take on more functions like physics, AI, animation and many other processes that can benefit the gaming experience. DirectX 10 and a unified GPU architecture helps a video card become an all-in-one Swiss army knife of game processing. Those are the ideas at least, how it all works out is up to the game content developers"
(http://enthusiast.ha...W50aHVzaWFzdA==). According to this article, the unified memory of the 360 and the unified shaders, developers have the ability to use the vector processing power of the GPU, which is a big plus as it allows the developer to use the shaders when they need extra processing power.
Sony could be in a lot of trouble considering the ps3 is much more expensive than its superior rival that is using long proven technology, while the ps3 is using technology that still has yet to be proven, and has been giving sony one problem after another, causing the launch delays.
The 360's Xenos GPU is slightly more powerful for running current graphics engines and, in terms of complying with Windows Graphic Foundation 2.0 (compatible with future versions of Direct X, shader models, etc.) is a full-generation ahead of the RSX. "One of the key ideas behind a unified architecture is to move the GPU from a rendering only processor to a complete compute processor. Right now all the GPU does is render 3D and displays it on your screen (yes it does more like 2D, video etc... but for the point of this article we are talking about 3D). With a unified architecture the GPU becomes more. It becomes a processor that can do almost anything that needs code processed. This means the GPU can take on more functions like physics, AI, animation and many other processes that can benefit the gaming experience. DirectX 10 and a unified GPU architecture helps a video card become an all-in-one Swiss army knife of game processing. Those are the ideas at least, how it all works out is up to the game content developers"
"However, using Sony's claim <***>, 7 dot products per cycle * 3.2 GHz = 22.4 billion dot products per second for the CPU. That leaves 51 - 22.4 = 28.6 billion dot products per second that are left over for the GPU. That leaves 28.6 billion dot products per second / 550 MHz = 52 GPU ALU ops per clock.
*** Note, this is using sony's claim against them...
It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s, while the Xbox 360 GPU ALUs work on vector5s. The total programmable GPU floating point performance for the PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * 550 MHz = 228.8GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS."
Note, this calculation was made before the downgrade of the ps3's GPU from 550MHz to 500MHz, so redo the equation:
PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * (updated speed-->)500 MHz = 208.0GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS.
ps3 GPU went down from 228.8 GFLOPS to 208.0 GFLOPS
360 GPU has remained at 240.0 GFLOPS
I could be wrong, but isn't 240.0 GFLOPS higher than 228.8 GFLOPS? And isn't 208.0 GFLOPS lower than 228.8 GFLOPS???
xbox 360 proven superior to the ps3 through a detailed analysis based on how the systems work, and not only numbers that could very well mean absolutely nothing significant to gaming, (Sony NEVER counterattacked this like they did the downgrade rumours, which is saying a lot): www.xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
RSX Downgrade: dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/forums/thread/237189/
IBM's own white papers on the cell structure: www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pacellperf/?ca=drs-#table4
Edited by RAMBO, 12 December 2007 - 06:55 PM.
Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:45 PM
Finish those other mods so I have something else to read on here.
Now have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users