This is living new PS3 video

Nice post DragonMasterAlex, someone needed to clear up a few of those "facts" but to be honest I'm far too lazy! :D
 
*raises hand* i have 2 quick questions if you can clarify for me

im not all that familiar with the technical jargon you used... and i think we can all assume that the higher the clockspeed... the better... right?

you got the number 52 ALU ops for the PS3 by doing this:
28,600,000,000 (dot products) / 550,000,000 (hz) = 52 ALU

and you said that the 360 had 44 ALU... and since the 360 clock speed is 500... some simple algebra would show that:
x / 500,000,000 = 48: x = 24,000,000,000
and this can be derived from... 3 cores x 3.2 (ghz) = 9.6... and since total for 360 is 33.6, you took 33.6 - 9.6 = 24... sure enough, matches up...

so... what does the 22.4 billion dot products of the PS3 cpu vs 9.6 billion dot products of the 360 cpu mean?

my 2nd question is, since we can assume that higher clockspeed is better...
then assuming that the RSX ran at 700 mhz... with everything else the same... in which case, 28,600,000,000 / 700,000,000 = 40.86 ALU....thus 40.86 ALU x 4 floats x 700 x 2 = 228.8 gflops...
and say if the clockspeed were a low 300... then the ALU would be 95.33... thus 95 x 4 x 300 x 2 = 228.8 gflops

thus being, based on your calculations, the clockspeed doesnt affect the overal gflops... since according to the formula where C=clockspeed:
(28.6/C) x 4 x C x 2... the C cancels out leaving you with 28.6x4x2 = 228.8 gflops regardless of clockspeed...

so HOW does the clockspeed really affect overall performance? since apparently in this case, it doesnt affect it at all... clockspeed can be 1 mhz and 228 gflops...
 
l177l3d said:
so HOW does the clockspeed really affect overall performance? since apparently in this case, it doesnt affect it at all... clockspeed can be 1 mhz and 228 gflops...
Click to expand...

Very, very short answer. Clockspeed does not always equal performance. Just look at the difference between the super high clockspeed P4 and the much lower clocked AMD chips which outperformed them.

Unless you wanted more detail. :D
 
im more interested in how the clockspeed DOES affect performance...
also, the calculations above does not necessarily make sense to me since the GPU clockspeed does not even factor into the equation...

as of now, just eyeballing the numbers...

PS3 cpu: 22.4, 360 cpu: 9.6
PS3 gpu: 28.6, 360 gpu: 24
PS3 gpu clockspeed: 550, 360 gpu clockspeed: 500

only difference mentioned above is that the 360 gpu uses 5 vectors vs the PS3's 4...

now these are only statistics, and statistics are usually meaningless...
so my question is, just from eyeballing, the PS3 would appear to be a considerably more powerful... and I know that the PS3 has numerous shortcomings...

im just curious to know where it all falls into place...
 
Something to toss out... didn't they say that the PS3 was clocked down to 2.8Ghz?

Just factoring that in, that's all :D
 
Doward said:
Something to toss out... didn't they say that the PS3 was clocked down to 2.8Ghz?

Just factoring that in, that's all :D
Click to expand...


The cell was downclocked or the RSX?
anyway it's all speculation right now...
from what I heard no official word from Sony
 
i have not heard that the cpu was downclocked... there were some threads saying that the gpu was downclocked to 550... although i do not know if there was official confirmation, as i see no reason why sony would volunteer such information if they did not have to, haha
 
DragonMasterAlex: I'm not going to quote your post because this thread would get to be miles long.

I wasn't BSing. NAO32 is a viable alternative to "Real HDR". I was hoping you and everyone else would look it up and release yourselves from ignorance.



So you are basing your prediction of HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray on first generation players? That makes alot sense. By the time the general public is willing to spend the ~$200 any non-afficionado woud pay for a new format the prices will have evened out. By that point there will be a million or so PS3's in the homes of Americans and with a larger library of movies I think the consumers are going to go with what's selling so they aren't left high and dry when their HD-DVD's aren't being made anymore.

Speaking of libraries. HD-DVD ~90 released and confirmed releases.
Blu-Ray ~110 released and confirmed releases.

And these are just the very first releases. As I said before Blu-Ray has 90% support from movie studios. HD-DVD has 50% support. There is only one major studio (Universal) that doesn't support Blu-Ray. Disney/Pixar, Lions Gate, Sony (of course), and MGM don't support HD-DVD. That's alot of movies you won't be able to watch on the HD-DVD players. Also a little food for thought, during the VHS vs Beta the Porn industry played a big role deciding who the victor was. Most of the Porn studios are supporting Blu-Ray over HD-DVD. link

While I certainly agree that both formats are pretty similar. Blu-Ray has the advantage of size.


*** I have to go out and get ready so I will finish this up tomorrow ***


Doward said:
Something to toss out... didn't they say that the PS3 was clocked down to 2.8Ghz?

Just factoring that in, that's all
Click to expand...

No.
 
VoodooChi|d said:
As I said before Blu-Ray has 90% support from movie studios. HD-DVD has 50% support. There is only one major studio (Universal) that doesn't support Blu-Ray. Disney/Pixar, Lions Gate, Sony (of course), and MGM don't support HD-DVD. That's alot of movies you won't be able to watch on the HD-DVD players.
Click to expand...

One comment on this... the studios obviously have money as their highest priority. Should HD-DVD take off in any major way, how long do you think they'll stay supporting just blu-ray or vice-versa?

I still think they're both going to be failures, but obviously that's just my opinion. :)
 
Holy-shit, This was one of the most interesting threads that I ever read on [H]...
It could be the drugs but I don't think so, and yet I still don't know which console
is/will (be) better. But I now know I don't care as much either because I would rather
have a quad-core cpu, Vista/DX10, 2or4-DX10 video cards and a 1080p 42" or bigger LCD.

I almost forgot,
UT2007 and some shrooms




thanks :p
 
So the ps3 is basically ai? Imo, the ps3 isn't special at all. It has a castrated g70, how people expect it to do 1080p with detailed environments is beyond me. Not like it's spe's can help out with making 1080p more feasible.
 
Psychotext said:
One comment on this... the studios obviously have money as their highest priority. Should HD-DVD take off in any major way, how long do you think they'll stay supporting just blu-ray or vice-versa?

I still think they're both going to be failures, but obviously that's just my opinion. :)
Click to expand...
I'm too drunk to conitinue the other post but i can comment one one...

That is a very good point and should one or the other "take off" companies will certainly follow and support that... but the 90% support of Blu-Ray isnt'ti without research by the production companies. You said it yourself... money is priority #1... so if they didn't think Blu-Ray was where the money was at they wouldn't support it...
 
unfortunately, i cant access either of those sites at work... also, when are the articles dated?

o wellz... I'm still waiting on some more clarification on the varying specs of the 2 systems...
 
l177l3d said:
im more interested in how the clockspeed DOES affect performance...
also, the calculations above does not necessarily make sense to me since the GPU clockspeed does not even factor into the equation...
...
im just curious to know where it all falls into place...
Click to expand...

When considering the overall power of the system you also have to factor in things like the bus speed/bandwith, memory speed/bandwith (part of the reason lower clocked opterons are faster than their comparable Xeons is the vastly greater bandwith provided by the on-die memory controller), if games are accessing the HDD at all that also becomes a factor (not saying that they will, but they may. Street Figther Alpha Anthology lets you "install" it to the PS2's hdd, if you happen to have it).
 
yeah, and i believe that is where the said "bottle-neck" occurs for the ps3... not having enough bandwidth... so does this mean that without the excess bandwidth, the additional processing power goes to waste? is it possible to make use of the additional processing power?
 
Who cares how many ALUs, FPUs, GHz, cores, etc. etc. the system has. As anyone with the slightest bit of hardware experience can tell you, theoretical numbers often DO NOT reflect real world results. They might be slightly indicative of the general performance level, but when you have 2 pieces of hardware with similar performance levels comparing these numbers will NOT tell you which is faster. You have to do real world testing to determine that.
 
l177l3d said:
yeah, and i believe that is where the said "bottle-neck" occurs for the ps3... not having enough bandwidth... so does this mean that without the excess bandwidth, the additional processing power goes to waste? is it possible to make use of the additional processing power?
Click to expand...

I believe that it by and large is wasted, but I could be wrong. But a bottleneck is a bottleneck - look how much the external memory controller has hurt Intel over the years.

Anyways, listen to dotK, he makes excellent points ;)

And besides, ultimately the games will be optimized for the hardware, so for the most part they should play fine and you're not going to notice. I mean the Xbox was significantly more powerful than the GC and PS2, but basically all that did for it was somewhat better graphics. What it's ultimately going to come down to is, which system has the better games. Remember, the PS2 was the weakest console of last gen, and in some instances was outperformed by the Dreamcast.
 
yeah, that i knew already... but i was simply following along with dragonmasters more technical post... inquisitive by nature i suppose...

nothing is 100% efficient, there is always a loss in efficiency somewhere... but i guess something that has always intrigued me is that with a team of engineers with years of experience, one would assume that specs for any of the 3 systems to be close to optimized... why have a processor at 3.2 if the system as a unit can only utilize 2.8? thats the direction im heading towards... it wouldnt make sense to just use the 3.2 number as a 'wow' factor since i doubt more than 25% of the ppl who buy these consoles actually even care about the specs... its simply adding on cost if they cannot utilize that power... stuff like this doesnt make sense, to me at least...
 
l177l3d said:
yeah, that i knew already... but i was simply following along with dragonmasters more technical post... inquisitive by nature i suppose...

nothing is 100% efficient, there is always a loss in efficiency somewhere... but i guess something that has always intrigued me is that with a team of engineers with years of experience, one would assume that specs for any of the 3 systems to be close to optimized... why have a processor at 3.2 if the system as a unit can only utilize 2.8? thats the direction im heading towards... it wouldnt make sense to just use the 3.2 number as a 'wow' factor since i doubt more than 25% of the ppl who buy these consoles actually even care about the specs... its simply adding on cost if they cannot utilize that power... stuff like this doesnt make sense, to me at least...
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that. I just think it's ridiculous how emotional people get over the hardware specs of a game console.

And those are good questions, I really don't know. And I would say it's more like 80-90% of people who buy consoles don't care about specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top