PS3 og bakoverkompabilitet

[_KroSjefen_]

oki Avean..så du klarte og finne GDC demoen...var det GDC ?? er ikkje helt sikker, men uansett, har sett den videon og det ENESTE som den videoen viste var gjørme effekten i motorstorm.

 

Vi er milevis fra det vis såg på E3 alikevel, få sjå røyk, krasj, bila som krasja og deler som fyke i hytt og pine...det var ikkje på den nyaste videoen din..ja det ser bra ut, bedre enn eg hadde trudd, men langt fra bra nok.

 

utifra den videoen kan ikkje du sitte og sei at motorstorm allerede har dratt i land seieren.

 

vent til E3...DA kan vi sjå...

[Mala]

Det som er morsomt når du spør en ps-fanboy,eller en person som rett og slett bare vil ha PS3,om korfor han velger den maskinen. Når han svarer, "CELL!! KOnge rox0r 111 CPU! Beste ever!".

 

Det er jo slik Sony ha lagt fram sin CELL egentlig!

 

EDIT: Som han over her har sagt, spillen. En konsoll er aldri bedre enn spillene som finnes til den

5990501[/snapback]

Akkurat det går begge veier.. bare at med 360 så erre: "LIVE! OMFG DRITFETTKULTOMG"

5990585[/snapback]

 

Joda, bare at her er det en stor forskjell. LIVE har allerede eksistert i noen år på xbox,og er enda bedre på 360

[Dinsdale]

Sjekk her. Egentlig japansk, men noen har oversatt deler av det.

 

Er det noen som kan oversette hele den japanske, finnes den her.

 

Om 360 sin gpu

 

To call the custom-built ATI GPU found inside the Xbox 360 “powerful” is like saying Muhammad Ali was a “good boxer.” Sure, it’s true, but it doesn’t even come close to the entire truth of the matter. There are subtle yet very important aspects of the Xbox 360’s GPU that, at first glance, might not strike you as impressive. But once you take a deeper look, we’re sure you’ll agree that this is one bad chip.

 

First off, the custom-built ATI chip runs at 500MHz, a very respectable speed for a console-based GPU. It uses 512MB GDDR3 memory (which requires less power and runs cooler than previous memory types) running at 700MHz and has a 256-bit memory interface bus with a 22.4GBps bandwidth. This memory is equally accessible to both the GPU and CPU, creating what is known as Unified Memory Architecture, making graphics performance truly lightning-fast. (For more on the Xbox 360’s Xenon processor, see “Fire In The Belly” on page 137.)

Innovative use of on-die eDRAM makes sure this punch doesn’t lose its speed and impact, even at 720p.

 

Manufactured by NEC using 90nm technology, the unique 10MB eDRAM (embedded DRAM) chip provides the truly powerful benefits of the Xbox 360’s GPU. (You might note that NEC is also the provider of the Nintendo GameCube embedded DRAM, but that is an entirely different generation of eDRAM.)

 

Even running at a full 500MHz, the ATI GPU draws less than 35 watts of power, and that includes the eDRAM. The power management features found on the chip are impressive. They provide clock throttling at both a “macro” and “micro” level, powering down either large blocks of the chip or smaller logical units where necessary. The true wonder of this chip is the fact that there is no fan directly on the GPU, only a passive heatsink, which is cooled by the air drawn over it by the fans on the back of the Xbox 360. Together, these features define a truly efficient chip.

 

Sounds Cool . . . What Can It Do?

 

The 360’s GPU can produce up to 500 million triangles per second. Given that a triangle has three edges, for practical purposes this means the GPU can produce approximately 1.5 billion vertices per second. (In comparison, the ATI X1900 XTX processes only 1.3 billion vertices per second and runs at nearly double the clock speed.) For antialiasing, the 360 GPU pounds out a pixel fillrate of 16 gigasamples per second, using 4X MSAA (Multi-Sampling Anti-Aliasing). Of course, the big claim to fame of the 360’s GPU is the stunning 48 billion shader operations per second, thanks to its innovative use of Unified Shader Architecture.

 

Why is that figure so impressive? For the uninitiated, shader operations are the core of what makes a rendered graphic look the way it does. There are two separate types of shaders that are used in gaming graphics: vertex shaders and pixel shaders. Vertex shaders impact the values of the lines that make up a polygon. They are what determine how realistic animation of polygons and wireframe models will look: the swagger of a walking character, for instance, or the rolling tread of a tank as it crushes an android skull laid to waste on a charred battleground.

 

Pixel shaders, on the other hand, are what determine how realistic that charred battlefield will look or the color of the dents in the tank. They alter the pixel’s color and brightness, altering the overall tone, texture, and shape of a “skin” once it’s applied to the wireframe. These shaders allow developers to create materials and surfaces that no longer look like, say, the main characters in Dire Straits’ “Money For Nothing” video. That is, they enable developers to create games with textures and environments that much more closely resemble reality.

 

This is a wireframe pyramid, one of the simplest polygons used in gaming graphics. Each point where the lines meet is a vertex. Stitch 5 million of these together, and you begin to see why vertex shaders are so important.

 

Each of these graphics processing functions are called and executed on a per-pixel or per-vertex basis as they pass through the pipeline. Until recently, graphics processors handled each type of shader individually with dedicated units for each. Developers used low-level assembly languages to talk directly to the chip for instructions on how to handle the shaders, or they used APIs such as OpenGL or DirectX. Unified Shader Architecture changes all that by handling both shader types at the hardware level in the same instruction process. This means that the GPU can make use of the common pieces of each type of shader while making direct calls and relaying specific instructions to the shader itself. This decreases the actual size of the instruction sets and combines common instructions for two shader types into one when applicable. This is how the 360’s GPU quickly and efficiently handles shader operations. 48 billion shader operations per second, in fact.

 

How Does It Stack Up?

 

It’s tempting to compare the GPU inside the Xbox 360 to today’s high-dollar, high-performance video cards, and some who do might scoff a little. The latest graphic cards from Nvidia and ATI, such as Nvidia’s GeForce 7800 GTX and ATI’s Radeon X1900 series, are—on paper—superior GPUs. They tout processor speeds of 550 to 625MHz and memory clock speeds of 1,500MHz and above. In terms of raw horsepower, these cards are indeed brutes. Of course, if there’s one thing we’ve all learned about clock speeds in the great processor wars between Intel and AMD, it’s that raw speed hardly translates into a real measure of processing power.

 

It’s not hyperbole to say that video memory bandwidth is one of the most important (if not the most important) parts of processing and rendering graphic elements. This is simply because bandwidth and speed determine how rapidly instructions can be transferred, processed, and returned to the system. Thus it’s in direct control of overall graphics performance for a system.

 

To improve video memory bandwidth, graphics card manufacturers have resorted to the typical methods of boosting speed, such as creating wider bitpaths (512MB nowadays) or boosting core clock speed. These techniques have placed performance in the range of 40 to 50GBps at peak range, which is respectable when compared with other graphics processors. However, these figures still fall short of the Xbox 360’s 256GBps.

 

Yes, you read that right: 256GBps memory bandwidth. It’s utterly stunning, and it’s thanks to the chip’s embedded 10MB of eDRAM.

 

No currently available video card makes use of embedded DRAM. And even if one was available, it’ll be at least the end of 2006 before they’ll be of any use. That’s when Windows Vista comes out, meaning that the operating systems they’re gaming on can’t make use of Vista’s WGF (Windows Graphics Foundation) 2.0 features. This speed of instruction handling combined with Unified Shading Architecture not only makes the GPU inside the Xbox 360 the current graphics powerhouse, it also means it’ll stay that way for a number of years.

 

And even when current PC-based GPUs start catching up, it’s going to be extremely expensive to match the performance of this dedicated gaming platform. At the time of this writing, the top-level cards by ATI and Nvidia described in this article are retailing for around $560 apiece, and that’s without Unified Shading Architecture support or eDRAM. And of course, there are other aspects of the system to consider, such as the fact that the CPU and memory were custom-built for dedicated gaming performance.

 

ATI and Microsoft have truly built something special in the Xbox360’s GPU. It’s astounding to see a chip with such power run at such an efficient clock speed and generate as little heat as it does, while at the same time making use of never-before-seen technology that will surely be replicated in graphics cards and consoles for years to come. It’s comforting to know that the Xbox 360 will continue to produce visually stunning and smooth graphics well into the foreseeable future.

 

Kilde

 

Mye moro.

[Mala]

Meget bra lesning,og godt forklart

[Straffa]

Det hjelper lite spør du meg når den sliter med dagens spill. Må sette dem til 30 fps for at det skal nogenlunde gå bra.

Ta quake 4 for et eksempel. Hvordan kan det gå så bra på PC også så dårlig på 360?

Nå er ikke alle opptatt av flyt skjønner jeg, men jeg foretrekker 60 fps og det har ikke konsollen klart å levere.

Endret 26. april 2006 av avanore

[arnizzz]

Det hjelper lite spør du meg når den sliter med dagens spill.  Må sette dem til 30 fps for at det skal nogenlunde gå bra.

Ta quake 4 for et eksempel. Hvordan kan det gå så bra på PC også så dårlig på 360?

Nå er ikke alle opptatt av flyt skjønner jeg, men jeg foretrekker 60 fps og det har ikke konsollen klart å levere.

5994833[/snapback]

 

Forsåvidt enig i det. Men problemet er ikke at GPUen ikke henger med. Det er utviklerne som har utnyttet den og CPUen for dårlig. Å skrive om applikasjoner til å utnytte 3 kjerner er ikke gjort i en håndvending. På kort sikt hadde det nok 360 vært mer imponerende med en enkel-kjerne CPU. Men i årene som kommer er jeg sikker på at 3-kjerners CPU var den riktige veien å gå.

[Mala]

Det hjelper lite spør du meg når den sliter med dagens spill.  Må sette dem til 30 fps for at det skal nogenlunde gå bra.

Ta quake 4 for et eksempel. Hvordan kan det gå så bra på PC også så dårlig på 360?

Nå er ikke alle opptatt av flyt skjønner jeg, men jeg foretrekker 60 fps og det har ikke konsollen klart å levere.

5994833[/snapback]

 

Elendig port rett og slett. Dette er det flere anmeldelser som påpeker meiner eg

[SteveVice]

Det hjelper lite spør du meg når den sliter med dagens spill.  Må sette dem til 30 fps for at det skal nogenlunde gå bra.

Ta quake 4 for et eksempel. Hvordan kan det gå så bra på PC også så dårlig på 360?

Nå er ikke alle opptatt av flyt skjønner jeg, men jeg foretrekker 60 fps og det har ikke konsollen klart å levere.

5994833[/snapback]

 

Elendig port rett og slett. Dette er det flere anmeldelser som påpeker meiner eg

5995071[/snapback]

Xbox360 hadde hatt null problemer med å kjøre dette spillet, det er bare elendig portet, hadde det vert bygd fra grunnen og opp for 360'en kunne det sett bedre ut og hadde mye bedre flyt. Men det skjedde ikke, det er det som skjer med hastverksarbeid hvor de vil bare tjene mest mulig og få det ut til flest mulig fortest.

[BlastyTrasty]

Jeg er så sikker i min sak, at signaturen forblir. 

5991100[/snapback]

 

Best for deg at du er sikker i din sak ja, ellers ender det du som blir årets klovn. Uansett så burde du fjerne den signaturen.

5991114[/snapback]

Bland deg ut.

 

Det hjelper lite spør du meg når den sliter med dagens spill.  Må sette dem til 30 fps for at det skal nogenlunde gå bra.

Ta quake 4 for et eksempel. Hvordan kan det gå så bra på PC også så dårlig på 360?

Nå er ikke alle opptatt av flyt skjønner jeg, men jeg foretrekker 60 fps og det har ikke konsollen klart å levere.

5994833[/snapback]

Som Crockett og Mala sier. Hadde arkitekturen til GPU'en og CPU'en til x360 blitt utnyttet ordentlig, og spillet vært utviklet *for x360* hadde det vært noe helt annet.

Det er slikt som kommer med tiden. Se f.eks på Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. Et spill som ble utviklet orginalt for Xbox(1) - utnyttet maskinen ordentlig, og vi så jo alle resultatet. Visuelt på linje med en HIGH-END pc.

 

Dette kommer med tiden.

 

Forresten, god lesning den artikkelen Dinsdale. Endel jeg ikke visste der

 

Edit: typo.

Endret 27. april 2006 av dark by design