The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Product name: PlayStation 3
* CPU
Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
* GPU
RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines
* Sound
Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell- base processing)
* Memory
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz 256MB GDDR3
VRAM @700MHz
* System Bandwidth
Main RAM 25.6GB/s
VRAM 22.4GB/s
RSX 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB< 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)
* System Floating Point Performance
2 TFLOPS
* Storage
Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1
* I/O
USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
Memory Stick standard/Duo, PRO x 1
SD standard/mini x 1
CompactFlash (Type I, II) x 1
* Communication
Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2)
Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 b/g
Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
* Controller
Bluetooth (up to 7)
USB 2.0 (wired)
Wi-Fi (PSP)
Network (over IP)
* AV Output
Screen size: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
HDMI: HDMI out x 2
Analog: AV MULTI OUT x 1
Digital audio: DIGITAL OUT (OPTICAL) x 1
* Disc Media
CD PlayStation CD-ROM, PlayStation 2 CD-ROM, CD-DA, CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW, SACD, SACD Hybrid (CD layer), SACD HD, DualDisc, DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side) DVD: PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM, PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW
Blu-ray Disc: PlayStation 3 BD-ROM, BD-Video, BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE.
Note: Still can't beat xbox 360
* CPU
Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS
* GPU
RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines
* Sound
Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell- base processing)
* Memory
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz 256MB GDDR3
VRAM @700MHz
* System Bandwidth
Main RAM 25.6GB/s
VRAM 22.4GB/s
RSX 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB< 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)
* System Floating Point Performance
2 TFLOPS
* Storage
Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1
* I/O
USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
Memory Stick standard/Duo, PRO x 1
SD standard/mini x 1
CompactFlash (Type I, II) x 1
* Communication
Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2)
Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 b/g
Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
* Controller
Bluetooth (up to 7)
USB 2.0 (wired)
Wi-Fi (PSP)
Network (over IP)
* AV Output
Screen size: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
HDMI: HDMI out x 2
Analog: AV MULTI OUT x 1
Digital audio: DIGITAL OUT (OPTICAL) x 1
* Disc Media
CD PlayStation CD-ROM, PlayStation 2 CD-ROM, CD-DA, CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW, SACD, SACD Hybrid (CD layer), SACD HD, DualDisc, DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side) DVD: PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM, PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW
Blu-ray Disc: PlayStation 3 BD-ROM, BD-Video, BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE.
Note: Still can't beat xbox 360
Page:
The reason the Xbox 360 will be able to perform better overall however is that it has much much better memory bandwidth.
Not according to: [URL]http://www.blogwars.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3924[/URL]
Specs side-by-side for comparison.
Not according to: [URL]http://www.blogwars.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3924[/URL]
Specs side-by-side for comparison.
ssxpro wrote:
> Problems with the PS2 on that site may not be the fault of the console
> - it appears that (in the news section, under the big PS3 picture)
> they have put the disc in the wrong way round. It could just be a
> blank with blue on both sides, but it seems unlikely.
that's so they dont advertise a game :|
> Problems with the PS2 on that site may not be the fault of the console
> - it appears that (in the news section, under the big PS3 picture)
> they have put the disc in the wrong way round. It could just be a
> blank with blue on both sides, but it seems unlikely.
that's so they dont advertise a game :|
Problems with the PS2 on that site may not be the fault of the console - it appears that (in the news section, under the big PS3 picture) they have put the disc in the wrong way round. It could just be a blank with blue on both sides, but it seems unlikely.
o.O
Does he mean THE PS3 site?
Does he mean THE PS3 site?
jj-www.funpagez.com wrote:
> PS3 website - [URL]http://www.ps3land.com[/URL]
Ahahahaha.
> PS3 website - [URL]http://www.ps3land.com[/URL]
Ahahahaha.
The PS3 is going to be amazing!!
PS3 website - [URL]http://www.ps3land.com[/URL]
PS3 website - [URL]http://www.ps3land.com[/URL]
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> From people I've spoken to, the Xbox 360 is more complicated to
> develop for than the Xbox was, but still fairly straight forward,
> similar to developing for a Mac. The PS3 however is quite a female
> dog.
We move in different circles. From people I've listened to I get the opposite impression.
> From people I've spoken to, the Xbox 360 is more complicated to
> develop for than the Xbox was, but still fairly straight forward,
> similar to developing for a Mac. The PS3 however is quite a female
> dog.
We move in different circles. From people I've listened to I get the opposite impression.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
>I'm hoping Sony do a linux on PS3 thing.
"The partner companies behind the new Cell microprocessor - Sony, IBM and Toshiba - have committed to providing full specifications to the chip and libraries for open source developers for free."
Gamesindustry.biz
>I'm hoping Sony do a linux on PS3 thing.
"The partner companies behind the new Cell microprocessor - Sony, IBM and Toshiba - have committed to providing full specifications to the chip and libraries for open source developers for free."
Gamesindustry.biz
Aftershock wrote:
> For the record, XBox only runs at 1 Teraflop (1 trillion
> floating-point operations per second), whereas PS3 runs at 2
> Teraflops - twice as much computational power. In defence of the
> XBox 360, that is better at doing "general calculatios",
> but in this respect, the PS3 has more than enough grunt in that
> department. What matters going forwards are floating point
> calculations for the advanced physics, AI, "emotion" and
> "immersion" that gamers demand these days.
The PS3 doesn't run as much as that. That's a figure based on all 7 SPEs running at maximum capacity along with the main core. That's a bit like the claims that the PS2 could produce 100 million pixels per second - technically possible, but never to occur. The main problem is that the SPEs are like PowerPC 601s, but stripped down even further, but here's the thing, you have to have seperate threads running in them all. Oh and they are all vector processors.
You'd run the host thread in the main CPU and the other threads in the SPEs. So you have one for AI, one for physics and... well you could run things like player input as seperate threads but with each SPE being a standalone unit like that you waste cycles running a thread for things like that. Running this many threads, 8 in total for maximum performance, is new in games. Very little software on ANY platform is multithreaded, let alone capable of 8 threads. It's difficult to code for this, so the software development tools will need to be very good.
The Xbox 360 has a better design in that it has three physical cores with each featuring an extra logical core. So you can run up to six threads simultaneously, but having two threads per physical core will mean one thread can use the slack the other threads leaves. This gains a bit in the performance stakes as opposed to wasting cycles.
> So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted"
> view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt,
> the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin, and the
> sooner people start to accept that, the better.
I just talked about processor power above. What I pointed out was that real world processing performance of the PS3 is nowhere near what the theoretical performance is.
The reason the Xbox 360 will be able to perform better overall however is that it has much much better memory bandwidth. And that is the main choke point in all systems nowadays. The PS3 has lots of processing power, but not enough memory bandwidth to use it. The Xbox 360 does have that bandwidth however and can keep all cores supplied. Real world performance of the Xbox 360 will be higher.
There was never any doubt that MS would have the more powerful console. IBM built and designed the processors in both consoles and since MS basically told them to build something faster, they did.
> Quite how this will translate into games (which is what really
> matters), nobody can really say yet. At the end of the day, it all
> comes down to how easily developers can access the power available in
> these machines.
Xbox 360 wins here. It uses a far more straight forward version of the PowerPC architecture that uses fixed point ALUs instead of vector processing and the need for less complicated concurrent programming. It also uses a more fully fledged version of PowerPC with more support for things like Altivec.
From people I've spoken to, the Xbox 360 is more complicated to develop for than the Xbox was, but still fairly straight forward, similar to developing for a Mac. The PS3 however is quite a female dog. If you are really good with your architectures and how to get the best out of them it will do great things. But the memory bandwidth is too low and is the single biggest flaw in the system.
In saying that, the Cell does have quite an intriguing potential. I would have liked to see more fully fledged SPEs. I'm hoping Sony do a linux on PS3 thing.
> For the record, XBox only runs at 1 Teraflop (1 trillion
> floating-point operations per second), whereas PS3 runs at 2
> Teraflops - twice as much computational power. In defence of the
> XBox 360, that is better at doing "general calculatios",
> but in this respect, the PS3 has more than enough grunt in that
> department. What matters going forwards are floating point
> calculations for the advanced physics, AI, "emotion" and
> "immersion" that gamers demand these days.
The PS3 doesn't run as much as that. That's a figure based on all 7 SPEs running at maximum capacity along with the main core. That's a bit like the claims that the PS2 could produce 100 million pixels per second - technically possible, but never to occur. The main problem is that the SPEs are like PowerPC 601s, but stripped down even further, but here's the thing, you have to have seperate threads running in them all. Oh and they are all vector processors.
You'd run the host thread in the main CPU and the other threads in the SPEs. So you have one for AI, one for physics and... well you could run things like player input as seperate threads but with each SPE being a standalone unit like that you waste cycles running a thread for things like that. Running this many threads, 8 in total for maximum performance, is new in games. Very little software on ANY platform is multithreaded, let alone capable of 8 threads. It's difficult to code for this, so the software development tools will need to be very good.
The Xbox 360 has a better design in that it has three physical cores with each featuring an extra logical core. So you can run up to six threads simultaneously, but having two threads per physical core will mean one thread can use the slack the other threads leaves. This gains a bit in the performance stakes as opposed to wasting cycles.
> So, despite what Microsoft might post in their "twisted"
> view of the numbers, at the end of the day, PS3 is, without doubt,
> the more powerful of the two machines by a large margin, and the
> sooner people start to accept that, the better.
I just talked about processor power above. What I pointed out was that real world processing performance of the PS3 is nowhere near what the theoretical performance is.
The reason the Xbox 360 will be able to perform better overall however is that it has much much better memory bandwidth. And that is the main choke point in all systems nowadays. The PS3 has lots of processing power, but not enough memory bandwidth to use it. The Xbox 360 does have that bandwidth however and can keep all cores supplied. Real world performance of the Xbox 360 will be higher.
There was never any doubt that MS would have the more powerful console. IBM built and designed the processors in both consoles and since MS basically told them to build something faster, they did.
> Quite how this will translate into games (which is what really
> matters), nobody can really say yet. At the end of the day, it all
> comes down to how easily developers can access the power available in
> these machines.
Xbox 360 wins here. It uses a far more straight forward version of the PowerPC architecture that uses fixed point ALUs instead of vector processing and the need for less complicated concurrent programming. It also uses a more fully fledged version of PowerPC with more support for things like Altivec.
From people I've spoken to, the Xbox 360 is more complicated to develop for than the Xbox was, but still fairly straight forward, similar to developing for a Mac. The PS3 however is quite a female dog. If you are really good with your architectures and how to get the best out of them it will do great things. But the memory bandwidth is too low and is the single biggest flaw in the system.
In saying that, the Cell does have quite an intriguing potential. I would have liked to see more fully fledged SPEs. I'm hoping Sony do a linux on PS3 thing.
[URL]http://img260.echo.cx/img260/7222/ps34eg.jpg[/URL]
Page: