1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Xbox360 vs PS3 apples to apples high level comparison

Discussion in 'Xbox Forums' started by Nick Laslett, May 23, 2005.

  1. Nick Laslett

    Nick Laslett
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    51
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +1
    For those of you that are interested in a less biased, more technically minded comparison of the two systems, please read these extracted posts from a thread at Beyond3D. http://www.beyond3d.com

    Warning this is a long post.

    Many thanks to Jaws for his efforts in composing this post. The original can be found here.

    http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23228&sid=96f1b5958f81f924e5721b6d681ff1ba


    Jaws
    We've recent mis-information flying around, I' thought I'd *try* to 'normalise' available metrics for both systems to give an apples to apples high level architectural comparison so you can make your own conclusions.

    I'm only going to provide 'normalised' total system metrics compared to the above image as this is all we can compare across both systems at the moment until more details are released.

    1) Shader ops

    Shader ops in isolation are not very meaningful, but I'll try to compare to the above

    Earlier discussion on a shader op,

    http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23169

    -PS3

    claimed PS3 ~ 100 billion shader ops per second

    Cell ~ 8 shader ops per cycle (7 SPU + VMX)

    8*3.2GHz ~ 25.6 billlion shader ops per second

    RSX ~ 136 shader ops per cycle

    136*0.55GHz ~ 74.8 biilion shader ops per second

    total= 74.8+25.6 ~ 100 billion shader ops per second

    PS3 ~ 100 billion shader ops per second


    -X360

    xGPU ~ 96 Shader ops per cycle

    96*0.5 GHz ~ 48 billion shader ops per second

    xCPU

    6*3.2~ 19.2 billion shader ops per second (3 VMX + 3 FPU)

    total= 48+19.2~ 67.2 billion shader ops per second

    X360 = 67.2 billion shader ops per second



    2) Dot products


    -PS3

    claimed PS3 ~ 51 billion dot products per second

    Cell ~ 8 per cycle (7 SPU + VMX)

    8*3.2GHz~ 25.6 billion dot products per second

    RSX ~ 51-25.6 ~ 25.4* billion dot products per second

    * deduced from claim

    PS3 ~ 51 billion dot products per second



    -X360

    claimed xCPU ~ 9 billion dot products per second

    xCPU~ 3 dot products per cycle (3 VMX)

    3*3.2 GHz ~ 9.6 billion dot products per second

    xGPU ~ 48 dot products per cycle (48-way vec4)

    48*0.5 GHz ~ 24 billion dot products per second

    total ~ 9.6 + 24 ~ 33.6 billion dot products per second

    X360 ~ 33.6 billion dot products per second


    3) TFLOPS

    Some theory to the madness,

    http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=523362#523362


    PS3 ~ 2 TFLOPS

    X360 ~ 1 TFLOPS

    Cannot derive these figures but both companies have used peak total system flops which cannot be compared with single/double precision programmable flops. On their own they do not mean much but they are apples to apples between X360 and PS3, IMHO.


    4) Memory

    FYI, earlier bandwidth discussion,

    http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23011

    I'm going to normalise bandwidths and memory so that they are more comparable. What I mean by this is that 25 GB/s access to 256 MB is equivalent to 50 GB/s access to 128 MB or equivalent to 100 GB/s access to 64 MB etc etc...and assuming the same latencies apply...

    Currently AFAIK,

    * The 256 GB/s is not a physical inter-connect bandwidth, it's the intra-EDRAM module bandwidth *within* the EDRAM module. The inter-connect bandwidths between xGPU and the EDRAM module are 32 GB/s write and 16 GB/s read. These are the numbers from the 'leak' and the 256 GB/s is the 'effective' bandwidth. Since both systems will use compression/ bandwidth saving techniques, I'm using physical inter-connect bandwidth to a better apples to apples comparison.


    Starting point,


    [X360: CPU<==21.6 GB/s==>GPU]----48 GB/s* ----[10 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [512 MB]



    [PS3: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----22.4 GB/s ----[256 MB]
    |
    |
    25.6 GB/s
    |
    |
    [256 MB]


    >>>>>memory b/w and memory amounts normalise for PS3 to match X360<<<<<<<<


    [X360: CPU<==21.6 GB/s==>GPU]----48 GB/s* ----[10 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [512 MB]



    [PS3: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----48 GB/s----[119.5 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [293 MB]


    >>>>>FSB, CPU-GPU normalise for X360 to match PS3<<<<<<<<


    [X360: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----48 GB/s* ----[10 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [316 MB]



    [PS3: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----48 GB/s ----[119.5 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [293 MB]


    It's now easier to compare physical bandwidths and memories across both PS3 and X360 to give a better sense of data flows and data access. If the 256 GB/s* effective bandwidth of the EDRAM replaces the 48 GB/s* physical bandwidth, then it's easier to map and compare both architectures data flows IMHO.


    [X360: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----256 GB/s* ----[10 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [316 MB]


    >X360 normalised total system + VRAM = 326 MB


    [PS3: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----48 GB/s ----[119.5 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [293 MB]


    >PS3 normalised total system + VRAM =412.5 MB


    5) Summary

    So normalising and apples to apples figures for the above total system spec for PS3 are,

    PS3 vs X360

    PS3 ~ 100 billion shader ops per second
    X360 = 67.2 billion shader ops per second

    PS3 ~ 51 billion dot products per second
    X360 ~ 33.6 billion dot products per second

    PS3 ~ 2 TFLOPS
    X360 ~ 1 TFLOPS

    PS3 normalised total system + VRAM =412.5 MB
    X360 normalised total system + VRAM = 326 MB

    Normalised,

    Code:


    [PS3: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----48 GB/s ----[119.5 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    [293 MB]



    [X360: CPU<==35 GB/s==>GPU]----256 GB/s* ----[10 MB]
    |
    |
    22.4 GB/s
    |
    |
    This is as close an apples to apples comparison that can be made with available info.

    No flames please, if they're are any mistakes or inconsistencies, then please let me know and I'll amend the data above. Also, I'm assuming equal efficiency across both systems with compilers, code etc.

    I'll re-iterate, it's a peak, apples to apples comparison, or as close to what we can get with available info at the moment without isolating any single components like CPUs, GPUs, bandwidths, total RAM etc...it's a total system vs system.

    IMHO, they'll both have their strenghs and weaknesses and will both be great systems but the PS3 has overall balance and power suited to a games console.

    Hopefully this helps and you can make your own conclusions...

    [​IMG]

    Here is an interesting clarification on the difficulty of any comparision from Acert93 in the same thread.

    Why are we counting the shader power of 7SPEs and the VMX units?

    First, it is unrealistic to count those units (At least counting all of them) because they will be used for game data processing.

    Second, if we want to count that power for shader ops we should not be double dipping. We should not be counting the SPEs or VMX units for CPU power if we are going to lump them in with shader op power.

    They cannot do both at once.

    Also, as the RSX is a traditional GPU (vertex and pixel shader units), you will not want the VS units sitting idle. While the CELL can surely take on some of the vertex load, the question I have is how much before it becomes counterproductive, i.e. You begin to have VS units sitting idle + using SPEs for vertex processing when those SPEs could be doing something productive, like phyics or AI! We do not know the answer to that question yet but we should not be making assumptions either.

    So why not look at the CPUs FLOPs, a certain figure with some relevance, instead of the rough "total system performance" numbers? We are already looking at the shader power in the GPU section, would it not be best to just isolate each part, determine its relevance and any bottlenecks, and THEN look at the big picture?

    Also, in the list of the Top500 Super Computers there are computers with lower theoretical FLOPs performance that outperform computers with higher theoretical FLOPs performance. So while there is no doubt that the CELL has a superior theoretical max, we should see how that works in games (not just streaming some HD threads, which a streaming processor is designed for).

    For example, is the flexibility of the VMX units going to give make up some room for the XeCPU, is the streaming architecture going to be difficult for games, is the 256K SPE cache too small, is the XeCPU just a rag tag 3 core general processor that will wilt away under TRUE multithread tasks.

    For all we know is that the CELL may perform much closer to its theoretical compared to the XeCPU and thus widening the gap, or the reverse may be true. While these last few points are outside the apples-to-apples directly, they are very relevant to the point:

    How will these chips perform in a gaming environment.

    No where in here do I find anything about the bandwidth savings the Xenos has by using a very fast/small backbuffer and tiling the framebuffer.

    You are not going to get apple-to-apple comparisons on systems with different designs. Leaving out the bandwidth savings for the eDRAM because there is no comparable part on the PS3 is like leaving out the SPEs on the CELL because there is no comparable part on the XeCPU.

    Also:

    :?:

    Since when did FLOPs become the only valid metric for measuring processor performance? Floating point processing power is great for physics and vertex processing... but not all game code is of this type. And some game code, like AI, is going to be tweaked a bit to work on the SPEs.

    Anyhow, both chips have PPC core(s). If the intent is to compare the systems "apples-to-apples" I find the lack of this information disconcerting. It is not sexy, but those general processing units is what have made PC and console games for the last 20 years what they are.

    The designs are very different and balanced in different ways with different technologies and methods to arrive at the same conclusions.

    I think you need to re-examine your methodology. Different designs and philophies in the systems and without taking that into consideration we are not comparing apples-to-apples, just similar numbers that may or may not have the same effect on each design.

    IMO, you did take into account the savings of memory bandwidth from the eDRAM and you have not given any comparison of the PPC cores. I would suggest adding it. If they do not work within your framework then I would have to conclude your framework is what we call in theological circles, "Frame setting" or "Forcing a world view".

    To reiterate, they are different designs and design philosophies.

    Just because we are comparing some apple-to-apple metrics does not mean we arrive at an apples-to-apples conclusion, especially when we are discounting some apple-to-apple comparisons and when we are not taking design flow into consideration.

    No offense, but I do not think this methodology is very helpful to arrive at any clear conclusions. At least not at this point. But I am glad it helped you to arrive at your own conclusion :p
     
  2. CrispyXUK

    CrispyXUK
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Land of the Living, Essex
    Ratings:
    +34
    tehy R de R0xx0rs then? :)
     
  3. PiePie

    PiePie
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Frankly, I didn't understand any of that. I gave up with the terminology when I first heard the term "pixel shader" a few years back.

    i liek ps3 coz it ownz the other consols GTA 4eva and that prooves it!
     
  4. Tejstar

    Tejstar
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    22,520
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    If I understood what all that meant! :laugh:
     
  5. Chox1988

    Chox1988
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    16,824
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    basingstoke
    Ratings:
    +9,280
    jesus christ this post was long. I agree GTA 4eva if only the PS2 had halo on it, stupid microsoft exclusive
     
  6. AML

    AML
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,989
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Ratings:
    +229
    Why post such a "fan boy" comment like that in this post?

    GTA is also available on the XBox, so i dont see the point.

    The PS3 is far from "owning" anyone yet.

    Spec wise, I dont see a huge difference. Granted, the PS3 does have over all higer specs, but that means nothing untill we see games actually runing on the machine.
    Same for the 360.

    Once these machines are actually out and games are runing on them we can start to talk about who owns who.
     
  7. drskhaled

    drskhaled
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,541
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +108
    The only owning thats gonna happen is me when i own a ps3 (er and a 360)
     
  8. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    neither consoles can do anything yet, as neither have been released, nor specs confirmed.
     
  9. David Mackenzie

    David Mackenzie
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,213
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    Ratings:
    +1,310
    Lies, damned lies and statistics!!!

    I'm choosing to ignore these numbers for now and wait and see the results we get with the actual games. Remember what it was like before the launch of the PS2 - insane number crunching got people believing that the system would render photorealistic visuals, when in reality, there are a lot of games on the system that look worse than Sega Dreamcast ones.
     
  10. explicitlyrics

    explicitlyrics
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    NW London
    Ratings:
    +9
    I agree, once the fully built demo units start arriving then a comparison can start to be made. The PS3 does look mroe powerful, but then according to Hideo Kojima, creator of the Metal Gear Solid series, he has expressed his doubts about the “high standard that Sony is expecting” from PlayStation 3 development. For Kojima, Xbox 360 is “a little bit more down to earth”.
     
  11. Shin Akuma

    Shin Akuma
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,676
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +76
    I am myself a bit disappointed when I read in Gamespot that what was shown on E3 sony conference was not acctual PS3 doing those thing i.e. game demos etc, it was acctual PC working with same technology as PS3. :eek:
     
  12. scrapbook

    scrapbook
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002
    Messages:
    7,117
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +529
    :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
  13. AML

    AML
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,989
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Ratings:
    +229
    Dont tell me you thought those videos were actual game footage?

    Everyone knows that Sony always show FMV!

    No one even has PS3 Dev kits yet. No one has even tried to make a game for the machine yet. Maybe at this years Tokyo Game Show in September we MAY see something but I doubt it.

    I imagine they will have playable demos at NEXT years E3.
     
  14. scrapbook

    scrapbook
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2002
    Messages:
    7,117
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +529
    Well I didn't think they were game footage.....but Pc's!!!!!!! Geez
     
  15. Mad Jack

    Mad Jack
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    453
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Ratings:
    +40
    Again, why do you think Sony are any worse than Microsoft? I found this relating to the Xbox in Edge (May 2000):

    "At the conference, technical demos on a prototype model were given, including a video showing prerendered graphics and examples of realtime physics."

    Any of that sound familiar? ;)
     
  16. Smegaman

    Smegaman
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    at the end of the day, these figures mean nothing, look at the DC vs PS2, it took the PS2 well over a year after it's western release to start thinking about showing it was any more powerful than the DC but Sony's figures suggested it was actually 22x more powerful. Microsoft say the Xbox is 10x more powerful than the Gamecube.

    We'll know which has the best graphics when they're both released and running games that challenge the hardware so what? 2007 would be a good time to start drawing conclusions once developers have had chance to get their heads around how all the systems work and we see the first of the 2nd gen titles.
     
  17. CAS FAN

    CAS FAN
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    34,988
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    The Wheldon Road end!
    Ratings:
    +8,132
    Here's an interesting article comparing the power of the 360 & PS3. ATI seem to think that their unified pipeline route will make the 360 faster & more powerful than the RSX powered PS3. On one hand you'd expect ATI to big up their chip over Nvidia's but I guess there must be some truth behind their claims.
     
  18. harrisuk

    harrisuk
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,322
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +58
    Of course this is the case as the processor that will be in the PS3 isnt even ready yet !! All the demos were run on PC architecture running the PS3 test bed.

    EA games and a number of other major studios also confirmed that they were yet to receive PS3 developement kits so its unlikely that there is much third party software in developement for the console as yet.

    Bottom line. Until both consoles have been released and developers have had a chance to properly play with the technology no one knows which console will provide the best games.

    If Sonys programming launguages from the PS1 and PS2 are anything to go by though I wouldnt have faith in 3rd party developers being able to get the best out of the PS3 hardware anyway :rolleyes:
     
  19. Shin Akuma

    Shin Akuma
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,676
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +76
    To play PS1 and PS2 games on PS3, PS3 will have some software and similar chipset which is used in older playstation so realy PS3 will be all new system with some old component only for backward compatability.
     
  20. Tejstar

    Tejstar
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    22,520
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    I don’t give two monkey’s about specs, I’m looking for a revolutionary game. Alas, maybe it’s a factor of being older & more cynical, but I don’t think there will be a truly revolutionary game on any next-gen console! Hoping to be proved wrong…
     
  21. CAS FAN

    CAS FAN
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    34,988
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    167
    Location:
    The Wheldon Road end!
    Ratings:
    +8,132
    Oh come on, surely the Revolution will give you the revolutionary games that you yearn for :D . I personally can't wait to see what revolutionary antics Mario gets up to this time :D :rotfl: :rolleyes:
     
  22. orange66

    orange66
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    everyone remember one vital vital fact; both Microsoft and Sony went to IBM and hijacked the same cpu (the one in the power mac G5) and tweaked it for their own use. The road map for that cpu is slow to put it mildly. If either sony or microsoft start using claims like "this is 50 times more powerful than the other guys" You KNOW they are full of horse crap.



    Sony for example claim that the cell component will blow everything away. Ok if this is true and they are that clever, how come they didn't have the collective intelligence to design a cpu from scratch and had to go to IBM for one?
     
  23. harrisuk

    harrisuk
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,322
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +58
    Exactly. According to industry insiders the complexity of the Cell processor has led to significant delays at the design stage and it will be difficult to manufacture.

    Bottom line they dont even have a prototype yet so what does this mean for the actual street date of the PS3 ?????
     

Share This Page

Loading...