[Hilo Oficial]CRYSIS en todo su explendor, ¿¿Posible en PS3?? (Página 5)

Conversación publicada en el foro Juegos

Minimum (worst case) polygon count: 366.6 million polygons per second ( 1.1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per triangle)
Maximum (optimistic case) polygon count: 750 million and more depending on how many triangle strips are used in a game.

(si mire en mi propia fuente se me fueron 50 mil polygonos) (me emocione)

pero aun asi sigue generando mas polygonos RSX

(ahh y 50 mhz mas)


--
The PS3 review at CNET stated: "Paired with PlayStation 3's RSX Reality Synthesizer graphics-processing unit, a gargantuan 550MHz, 300-million-transistor graphics chip..." [7]--KingEmperor24 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RS...r%27#RSX_specs
--- [ Añadido ] -----
actually the rsx is heavily modified version of the 7800gtx. the rsx has 1.8 TFLOPs of performance and the 8800 ultra only has 500 GFLOPS so the rsx is over 3 times more faster and stronger. even the 9800 that's coming out is slower than the rsx, the 9800 has close to 1 TFLOPS but the rsx has 1.8 TFLOPS and it's over Two TFLOPs combined with the cell CPU. besides Ps3 has the cell CPU with 7 cores running at 3.2 GHz each. so ps3 has unmatched power

then..... tu solo hablaste del downgrade de 50 mhz ha y de los "shaders unificados jaa de tu favorita la xbox"

Iniciado por chidj2 Ver Mensaje
Madre mia. Ahora se nota que no entiendes lo que escribes... ¿Has leido lo que has puesto en ingles?!!!

Te lo pongo facil. Pone que RSX tiene 1.8TFlops y que seria mas potente que un SLI de 8800 Ultra o que una 9800 (grafica todavia por salir)...simplemente, sin comentarios.

Solo te digo que, justo debajo de ese texto en ingles, aparece otra persona con cierto sentido comun que advierte de todas esas burradas.

Y la frase de "jaa tu favorita la xbox" te lo ahorras. No tengo para nada suficiente confianza contigo para que vayas soltando infantilerias. Si tienes algo serio para debatir, dilo. Si es para decir algo asi, mejor no digas nada.
soloo te quise mostrar esto

the 9800 has close to 1 TFLOPS but the rsx has 1.8 TFLOPS and it's over Two TFLOPs combined with the cell CPU. besides Ps3 has the cell CPU with 7 cores running at 3.2 GHz each. so ps3 has unmatched power

y lo de los plygonos jajaja
--- [ Añadido ] -----
no mas comentarios NADIE te va a convencer d nada tu sigue en la PC

por que dicen que la grafica del xbox 360 es mejor?
por que tiene 512 para ram y graficos?

pues dejame decirte que estas un poco ma actualizado

mira

ps3 mueve 800 millones de polygonos 300 millonaes mas que el xbox 360

Minimum (worst case) polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second ( 1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per triangle)
*Maximum (optimistic case) polygon count: 800 million and more depending on how many triangle strips are used in a game.



fuente: http://www.beyond3d.com/#news35566

Buenas impresiones se han llevado en Beyond3D, sobretodo con la redundancia de unidades (cosa que no esperaban). Cosa remarcable es que se demuestra finalmente que RSX puede acceder perfectamente a la memoria X.D.R con el doble de cache que tiene para su memoria local, así las limitaciones tan rumoreadas en foros X... sobre texturas se esfuman completamente. Saludos, y espero que os haya servido .


y pues mieren lo que puede hacer cell solito (sin usar la GPU)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEg7q2lk3QM

y pues aora imginemos los que haran CELL + RSX juntos

facilmente cosas mejores que crysis solo hay que esperar un tiempo en que todo se pueda aprovechar bien
__________________
--- [ Añadido ] -----
i hate it tu eres


PCero

jaja pero investiguenle bien estas palabras

CELL haciendo RAYTRACING en tiempo real

CELL+Rsx trabajando conjuntamente al 100% y veremos despues

Iniciado por chidj2 Ver Mensaje
Disculpad que la he pifiado,

He contestado a un tema que no era este en esta sección, y cuando lei lo de las gráficas me quede to loco, y dije: Que tendra eso que ver en este momento si estamos en el Tema sobre Turok??? y es que se me habian confundido los temas ^^.

Pero bueno, modifico lo dicho para que sirva en este Tema:


A ver, que la grafica de Xbox360 es superior a la de PS3 es algo que ya esta demostrado, no va a cambiar por mucho que te guste, a ti, a mi o a los demas.

Para empezar la cifra de poligonos que pueden manejar ronda en ambas tarjetas los 500 millones, no 800, lo que pasa es que los poligonos no se trabajan solos, veras, si le quitamos todos los efectos y acciones posibles el numero se dispara y podemos obtener un número de poligonos en pantalla superio, pero cuando entran en juegos reflejos, refracciones y texturas ya la cosa cambia.
Cuando se dice que las graficas de PS3 y Xbox360 mueven 500 millones de poligonos es que mueven esa cantidad con todos los efectos, sin ellos peuden llegar a más, pero ya me diras tu.

Y ya quisiera sobrepasar en 300 millones la capacidad de la gráfica contraria, manda webos la cosa, claro, si lo que importa es el nuemro de pológonos entonces no digamos que esa cifra son poligonos planos sin efectos ni nada, y que hagan un juego a base de ellos a ver que resultado tan explendido vemos.

Y con lo de la meroria X.D.R de PS3, no nos pasemos, que su ancho de banda es de 64bits, y la consola no los usa bien, incluso suponiendo que como dices consiguiera el doble, que tampoco me he puesto a buscar lo que comentas, estariamos hablando de 128bits frente a los 256bits que posee Xbox360 que encima es para los 512 de RAM.

A ver, incluso a pesar de eso la gráfica de PS3 es muy buena, de eso no cabe duda, pero el problema venia en que PS3 no era capaz de trabajar conjuntamente el GPU con la memoria lógica y el CPU con la memoria de video.

Ademas estas cosas las podriamos discutir en otro Tema para no liarnos en este, o sino dejarlo y seguir solo con la discusión sobre la aparicion de Crysis en PS3 o Xbox360 sin tener que entrar en detalles técnicos comparativos entre las cosnolas.

Suerte a todos.

soloo te quise mostrar esto

the 9800 has close to 1 TFLOPS but the rsx has 1.8 TFLOPS and it's over Two TFLOPs combined with the cell CPU. besides Ps3 has the cell CPU with 7 cores running at 3.2 GHz each. so ps3 has unmatched power

y lo de los plygonos jajaja
--- [ Añadido ] -----
no mas comentarios NADIE te va a convencer d nada tu sigue en la PC

Iniciado por chidj2 Ver Mensaje
Pero eso que has vuelto a poner es una burrada. ¿Como va a tener RSX 1,8 TFlops si una 8800 tiene 0,5? Explicate. Y ya que estamos, como solo pones la parte del texto que te conviene, lo completo yo:

"No, the specs you posted are not the actual specs. The site that I linked to verifies it. As I already stated, here on this discussion page as well as at the main article, those specs are from the SONY PRESS RELEASE which was given at the TOKYO GAME SHOW in SEPTEMBER 2006. If you are keeping up with the timeline here, the specs that you and others constantly upgrade to were from a CES press release made WAY BACK IN EARLY 2005. You are also dead wrong about the RSX comparison to the 8800. The 8800 destroys the RSX completely and utterly, not even a GTX, a 320MB GTS will still stomp the living daylights out of any benchmark that you can provide. Sony OVERPROMISED on the RSX and couldn't deliver. Nvidia has never stated anywhere that the RSX is more powerful than the 8800 either, they only ever made comparisons to it outperforming two 6800 Ultras in SLI. A 7800GTX is even faster than dual 6800's in SLI OR the RSX, because the RSX has half the bit depth to the pipelines at only 128. What you have here is a custom GPU that was cheapened from a 7800GS, and the 7800GS is already the low-end chip. Put it to you this way, the 7800 die when it was new cost as much as half of the PS3's ultimate $800+ cost estimate. With BluRay also expensive, and the Cell itself gobbling up the rest of the development costs, do you really honestly believe that the RSX could have been that high up on the food chain? This is a commodity chip we are dealing with here.Aleksael 02:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)."

Y para acabar. Que tenga un PC no quiere decir que vaya a defenderlo. En realidad, solo juego al Starcraft.

Edito. Estoy deacuerdo con Itachi en todo. Si quereis seguir esta discusion, se abre otro hilo y punto.
miren aqui se desmiente todoooo

aunke esta en ingles


This is an article to refute and dispel the negative comments circulating around based on commments from worst anti-sony man JOHN CARMACK .
CARMACK was bashed back in 2005 when he said "[COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]Doom [COLOR=purple ! important]3[/color][/color][/color] is not possible on ps2". Gaffe proved him wrong by bringing GOD OF WAR --one of the technical and graphical marvel of LAST GEN.

as for doFrad it doesnt even know what it is talking about. Its editor was a former MS employee just like JON HANNIBAL of arsenetica. HANNIBAL was also a former MS employee

************************************************** ********

CELL vs XENON vs QUAD CORE

CELL is around 4--5x as powerful as the QUAD [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]CORE [COLOR=purple ! important]processor[/color][/color][/color]. Anyone who runs FOLDING HOME project will notice that CELL dissipates 250GFLOPS of energy per sec

However lets get down to the benchmaks
************************************************** *******


IN RAW FLOPS crunching CELL is 3x as XENON

http://members.forbes.com/global/2006/0213/070A.html

However XENON cant do any of procedural sysnthesis of PROFX

http://www.psu.com/4D-Graphics--A-re...--a1063-p0.php

Neither can it do TRE,RAYTRACING,RAYCASTING ,Linear matrices at 256k etc



*********************************************



IBM's take on XENON and CELL.


Note:- IBM is the maker of both CELL and [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]XENON[/color][/color]

Speed Thrills: Cell Zaps Rivals
Cell
IBM, SONY, TOSHIBA
Transistors
(mil)
234
Performance
(gigaflops)
230
Xbox 360
processor
IBM
Transistors
(mil)
165
Performance
(gigaflops)
77
Pentium 4
Extreme Edition 840
Intel
Transistors
(mil)
250
Performance
(gigaflops)
26

Sources: Microprocessor Report; IBM.



IBM themselves are stating that CELL is 3x as powerful as XENON in raw flops crunching. NOTE :- this report was released prior to the release of OCTOPILER ----the default [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]compiler[/color][/color] for CELL.

**************************************************

Here are the complete list of Benchmarks for Cell .
NOTE:- all these were released before the advent of OCTOPILER.

BUT according to these benchmarks a CELL is around 20x as powerful as any of the High end DUEL -CORE desktop processors including XEONS and OPTERONS


Cell beats 7800gt by 6:1 .This should give people an idea about why KZ2,LAIR and other ps3 titles look wayy better than anything available on any other platform. Cell's ability to carry out Graphical tasks are also consolidated with this benchmark

http://www.gametomorrow.com/blog/ind.../gpus-vs-cell/

****Now MC systems take on Cell

http://www.mc.com/uploadedFiles/Cell-Perf-Simple.pdf

http://www.mc.com/microsites/cell/demo.aspx

http://www.mc.com/uploadedFiles/Cell-WP.pdf

RESULT:- Cell murders [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]PC[/color][/color] cores


************************************************** ******
Now lets see what [email protected] Berkeley had to say on CELL

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~samw/pro...ll/LBLTalk.pdf

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~samw/pro...6_abstract.pdf

RESULT :- in SP calculation (which is related to gaming ) a Cell is a minimum of 10x as powerful as the most powerful OPTERON available today. The margin shoots to 60x in some perf like TRE and STENCIL

************************************************** ****


This is IBM's take on CELL.
NOTE :- the becnhmarks were released prior to the release of OCTOPILER

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/po...y/pa-cellperf/

RESULT :- Cell murders competition

************************************************** ***

MIT ---world's no 1 university in engineering is claiming that the performace of CELL could be multiplied even by 6x/7x with the release of a bypass multipurpose and multiphase COMPILERS

http://cag.csail.mit.edu/crg/papers/...rger05cell.pdf


************************************************** ****

CELL vs QUAD CORE

a [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]CELL [COLOR=purple ! important]processor[/color][/color][/color] is roughly 5x as powerful as 2X QUAD CORE setup.

http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=125691


thanks to BEYOND 3D and PSU

************************************************

Unlike normal processors a Cell do do full fledged raytracing at 720p @ 30fps

IN RAYTRACING a CELL is 130 x as FASTER as XENON /any duel core processor available today

VIDEO :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

VIDEO :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr-R4bUZIQw

****JALWA of FULL FLEDGED RAYTRACING

a CELL beats 8800 GTX in RAYTRACING by 5:1

http://gametomorrow.com/blog/index.php/?p=187

http://www.power.org/swsummit/downlo...ce_Joaquin.pdf


http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/~benthin/cellrt06.pdf


http://gametomorrow.com/blog/index.p...ing-new-focus/


http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...************** ******

NOW lets head to GPU.

there has been common misconception all around that [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]RSX[/color][/color] is weaker than XENOS which is utter BS

Lets take down the benchmarks of the 2

**********************************************

PS3 can do 51 billion dot products per second

XENOS can do 33 billion dot products per second

http://www.gamespot.com/features/612...html?type=tech

NOTE :--although RSX is 7800gtx/7900gtx based ..Its architecture has been tweaked later by NIVIDIA

Proof:-

7800gtx has 24 pixel shaders .
RSX has 28 pixel shaders . 24 of them are active and 4 are partially disabled at the moment


XENOS on the other hand is R420 based.

Here is anandtech's take on XENOS

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=7

The unified shader thing is a hoax and unlike the dedicated shaders of RSX xenos' unified pipelines are indeed very weak


RSX has a texel filrate of 13.2 g/s
XENOS has a texel filrate of 8g/s

RSX can do 136 shader ops per second
XENOS can do 96 shader ops per second

RSX has 32 dedicted pixel shaders and 8 vertex shaders
XENOS has 48 unified shaders

RSX has a clock freqency of 550 HZ
XENOS has a clock frequency of 500MHZ


RSX is DX 9 compatible but supports all future revisions of OPEN GL
XENOS supports DX 9 C+ and supports OPEN GL till 2.0 ONLY

RSX has a diameter of 258mm^2 and is a 90nm chip
7900gtx has a diamter of 196mm^2 and is also a 90nm chip
Xenos has a diameter of 160mm^2 for the mother die and 100mm^2 for the daughter die

http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=65446

[COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]PS3[/color][/color] has a total bandwidth of 22g/s + 28g/s ( video + system)
XENOS has a total bandwidth of 22g/s (unified).the edram bandwidth of 256g/s is irrelevant at resolutions above 720p.

even at lower resolutions it makes up for the lack of 360s total bandwidth . However this theory fails in games which reqires intrinsic data processing eg UT3 and DEAD RISING


************************************************** **

CONCLUSION:_ BY all means a CELL thx to EDGE and iRT is a minimum of 10x as powerful as the XENON. However the margin shoots up in some [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]applications[/color][/color] as revealed by the benchmarks.

The CELL excels in anything that requires heavy processing. A QUAD CORE to some extent can do those calculations at a much slower speed . However the XENON cant do any of the HEAVY INTRINSIC PROCESSING as in PROCEDUAL SYNTHESIS of PROFX (see above)

The RSX is also significantly more powerful than XENOS but not as efficient at the moment . BUT things would change just like the way it had after the inclusion of EDGE,iRT and RAPIDMIND SDK for PS3.


************************************************** ****

The RAPIDMIND SDK is just a tweaked version of SDK that is normally used with supercomputers.

https://developer.rapidmind.net/hidd...nux-developers

************************************************** ****


FINAL WORDS:- BY all means a CELL is wayy more powerful than not just XENON but naything available in the market today.
RSX is also more powerful than XENOS but we will have to wait a little more to see the JALWA
games like [COLOR=purple ! important][COLOR=purple ! important]LAIR[/color][/color] do consolidate this claim even as of today.



http://www.n4g.com/ps3/News-74529.aspx










DESMIENTALO
Yo puedo jugarlo al maximo,jujujujujuju
Pero no me llama la atencion,no son mi fuerte este tipo de juegos futuristas,o eso parece ser,aparte que lo fps ya empiezan ha estar hasta en los paquetes de galletas.

NO deja de ser un gran juego con unos graficos sorprendentes.

Sobre si saldra en la play3...no es que me fie mucho,hasta que no lo vea en las estanterias no me lo creere,y si sale tampoco creo que lo adquiera para mi coleccion.

Prefiero otros juegos antes que a este

Saludos y gran post

si alguien quiere hacer otro hilo?

Iniciado por chidj2 Ver Mensaje
Yo la verdad, termino mi discusion sobre este tema. Si alguien abre otro hilo y veo algo interesante que aportar, lo hare.

Mi ultimo comentario sobre chidj2:

Muchas de esas fuentes no se pueden tomar como validas por ser directamente de la propia IBM (si IBM participa en el Cell favorecera todo lo posible), por ser fuentes que no suelen tratar estos temas (el caso de forbes es como si un periodico de finanzas hablara de consolas), tambien hay articulos del 2006 donde probablemente se pensara que Cell iria a 4GHz.

Luego las comparaciones de RSX las veo absurdas. Son pruebas genericas que a saber bajo que condiciones se han hecho. Repito lo anteriormente dicho, las pruebas genericas no demuestran la potencia en la practica (¿donde has visto tu un juego donde solo veas triangulos?).

Ademas, esto parece una guerra de fuentes de informacion. En cada sitio se dice una cosa, pero parece que tu te dediques a copiar-pegar y no saber que significan las cosas.

¿No entiendes que al estar basado RSX en una 7800 no puede desarrollar la potencia que dices? Es que es absurdo(la has llegado a comparar con las 8800). Si fuera cierto, ¿por que hay juegos que se ven mejor en X360? porque vamos, con los numeros que tu das, es para pegarles a los programadores por no poder hacer eso.

Supongo que diras que no se aprovecha el hardware... pero RSX es una grafica de sobras conocida por los ingenieros (grafica usada en PC hace unos años). Con lo unico que se pelean es con la arquitectura de Cell y el sistema central que, al ser superior al de X360, se nivela la desventaja de su desconocimiento.

Saludos!
GTA 5 Red Dead Redemption 2 Final Fantasy XV Kingdom Hearts 3 The Last of Us 2 God of War FIFA 17 Final Fantasy VII Remake Horizon: Zero Dawn