Console wars get dirty

by Anand Lal Shimpi on 5/23/2005 2:28 PM EST
Comments Locked

32 Comments

Back to Article

  • a sad pc user..... - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    sometimes i really wonder about if it is worth it to customize a gamer cpu, seeing that all of the ps3s stats. why is it sooooo cheap to have an 8 core cell cpu, but it costs 1001 dollars to buy a top of the line 2 core?
  • Anonymous - Thursday, June 2, 2005 - link

    "MS is talking in nebulous terms about "general purpose" processing - but what exactly does that break down to? Game logic? Do we really need 3 cores for just game logic? I guess I'm wondering - who's right about what types of processing need optimising?"

    And this, folks, is what is going to determine the victor of the next-gen console wars, IMHO. With CELL, you no longer have to hire artists to animate scenes: just physically simulate them. Programmers are cheap, artists aren't.
  • MDme - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    I will eagerly await your article on this Anand. All this marketing hype is not good. people are misled and the developers themselves can not be trusted as they are all on the payroll of sony and MS.

    i personally do not like the fabled sony strategy of using pre-rendered "done to spec" demos + throwing of incredible numbers by sony to "fool" people. don't forget the Emotion Engine. If you carefully look at the sony numbers, they speak in terms of teraflops, gigaflops, etc..etc.. numbers which really mean little to gamers esp if the numbers are theoretical maximum assuming the massive parallel architecture of the cell is achieved.

    the analysis of MS was i think a reaction in an attempt to fight marketing/tech jargon with their own jargon as well.

    So knowledgeable people like you, Anand can make a difference. Please make it soon.
  • Brad Grenz - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    "I wanna know if the R500 really has 48 pipelines becuase that way more than what ATi puts on their GPUs for computers and thats their big seller."

    48 shader units. The part actually only produces 8 pixels per clock. The unified shader architecture is so different you can't really quantify it using current parlance.
  • gert - Friday, May 27, 2005 - link

    "Where is the skepticism of Sony's numbers? Everyone speaks of them as gold..."

    I disagree; most people are very skeptical of everything said by either Sony or Microsoft. The articles on this site very clearly state skepticism on both sides.

    There is a huge amount of "fanboy" noise; but isn't there always?
  • IGotItFree - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link

    I wanna know if the R500 really has 48 pipelines becuase that way more than what ATi puts on their GPUs for computers and thats their big seller.
  • Knitecrow - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link

    A 221mm^2 die? Better yeilds without a doubt.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they disabled some of the piplelines in the 300 Million transistor GPU to improve yields there as well.
  • clauzii - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link

    Remember, in the PS is @ 3.2GHz, and one SPE is disabled, so it would be around 50 Watts, still a lot but easier to cool.

    BTW: I would like to know if the 8th SPE is disabled merely as a product of better yield or for redundancy as some sites states??
    ´Caus if it´s redundancy it is something quite new in a console´... ;) ??
  • blois - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link

    I have a concern over power consumption of Cell processors. It is said to be very power hungry. I have read that it is about 80watt @4Ghz
    I think it is a major disadvantage for a living-room destined device, because it will need huge fan making huge noise.
  • Knitecrow - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link

    Hannibal from arstechnica has done it again. He has posted part one of the series

    "Inside the Xbox 360, part I: procedural synthesis and dynamic worlds"

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360...


    As always, it is a good read.

  • Creathir - Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - link

    Where is the skepticism of Sony's numbers? Everyone speaks of them as gold...
    Just playing devil's advocate. I really find is sickening in how Sony is always looked upon as this "credible source"... these are the same people that brought us MiniDisk and BetaMax... they also have always inflated their numbers considerably. I do like Microsoft, I won't be ashamed to admit it, but I don't take their numbers at face value either. I look to Anand and such sources for a non-biased view. However, many other sites are talking of Sony's numbers as if they are straight from God's mouth... and the "war" is already over. I hate to burst people's bubble, but I hardly believe this to be the case...
    As I’ve always said, the true winner here will be the gamer… only good things will come out of stiff competition.
  • clauzii - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Ups - THIS article:
    http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RW...
  • clauzii - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    This CELL-article is quite indepth on the core structure - quite technical though ;)
  • JoeS - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Anand,

    In the PS3 DocOc demo (http://media.ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615000/vids_... Sony showed off an impressive demo combining satellite imagery with depth mapping which generated earth’s terrain for simulated flight in real-time. It was composed entirely within the Cell processor. The RSX GPU was not used at all.

    Does this provide any insight into a comparison of each systems CPU potential?

    Does this provide any insight into the potential of the Cell/RSX combination versus the X360’s CPU/R500 combination?
  • nowayout99 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    MS spinning the media? I'm shocked. The content has been pretty well disected as containing half-truths, assumptions, opinions, taking things out of context, and trumpeting hollow victories (i.e. total system bandwidth and "general" processing power)
  • eric - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Hello,

    I am looking forward to your analysis. A few things you might touch on.

    1) I assume a multi-threaded game might have separate threads for things like path finding, collision detection, AI, physics, etc. Would you expect, in general, a cell SPE or one of the xCPU hardware threads to perform better for such work?

    2) How much computation/bandwidth will be taken
    up in the RSX if it performs 4xAA?

    3)Given the information you have available, which GPU do you think is superior?

    4)Both Sony and MS presented maximum performance
    figures. Which system do you expect to be able to closer achieve their respective limits?

    Thanks,
  • Peter Kelly - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    My biggest complaints with the article were:

    1) X360 CPU = 3x PS3 CPU for general purpose performance - can you really just throw away the SPEs for "general purpose" tasks (whatever they are?). There's integer performance on there too, at least. I was under the impression that the SPEs could run general purpose code, even if it wasn't optimised for it - assuming your "general purpose task" can be split over multiple cores, a X360 core would have to be 3x faster than a SPE in order to even be as fast as the PS3 GPU at that task (you could match off one PPE against one X360 core pretty fairly, I think, leaving 6/7 SPEs to face off against 2 X360 cores).

    2) The bandwidth comparison - as others have pointed out, surely the comparison is flawed if over 90% of your bandwidth is to ~2% of memory? Versus 100% of bandwidth to 100% of ram? Counting edram bandwidth like this - especially if it's just between the edram's own logic and its memory - puts us on a slippery slope where we could be counting cache bandwidth or SPE bandwidth, I think.

    3) The GPU comparison - seems to be based completely on assumptions about the RSX architecture in the absence of details? Seems to ignore scalar performance on the nvidia side in his Gflop calculation? Assumes that nvidia's shader op figure includes all the things he adds into Xenos'?

    I'm glad Anand his having a look at this! So much FUD, imo. One thing I'd also like to see him touch on, if possible, is the processing requirements of games - if speeding up certain areas gets you a disproportionate speedup overall. I was under the impression that physics took a MASSIVE proportion of CPU time in a game - surely if you can even just speed up that, you'll see a big benefit overall (isn't this why we have physx on the PC side)? MS is talking in nebulous terms about "general purpose" processing - but what exactly does that break down to? Game logic? Do we really need 3 cores for just game logic? I guess I'm wondering - who's right about what types of processing need optimising?
  • clauzii - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Is one of the beautiful things of the SPEs not that the 256KB actually can act as both cache and memory, ie. SPEs containing cache instructions??

    "Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult."

    Isn´t this statement dependent on how good development tools the amount of ´control´ these tools give/have on the SPEs??
  • dwell - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    I'd love to hear your interpretation of MS document Anand. I started reading beyond3d's take on the document when it first surfaced on majornelson.com. I can't pretend to understand the content at their level, hopefully you will break it down for the layn00b.
  • blup23 - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Someone did a little analysis of MS analysis, if anyone's interested:

    http://forums.gamespot.com/gamespot/show_messages....
  • G-Unit - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    no one seemed to object to sony's marketing hype when they claim that their console is faster than xb360 (even though no final consoles of either platform actually exist). now it's microsoft's turn to fight marketing with marketing.
  • GhandiInstinct - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Anand,

    Sorry, not too aware with specifics of that particular aspect of gpus, really wanted to mean to ask the difference in architecture with the RSX and ATi's card. I heard the word synthesized somewhere = )
  • Knitecrow - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    The Console Wars -- The Next Generation:
    The whole X360 specs vs. PS3 specs have spawned a perpetual flame war across most dedicated gamming sites -- the likes of which I’ve not witness in my life time.



    Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics:
    I believe both Microsoft and Sony are responsible for pushing the myth that is flops. It gives the perception that 1Tflops has some significance or actually means something. While Microsoft seems to have bent numbers, it seems Sony, in typical “Sony Style”, only made up numbers to make them look bigger than Microsoft numbers.

    Architecturally I can see each console having it advantage and disadvantage: with the edge given to Sony for raw power and to Microsoft for a well balanced architecture has looks easier to code and harness. But nowhere do I see the difference being 2X or even 1.5X as Sony have you believe.



    Time Line:

    - Microsoft throws out 1Tflop number, and reconfirms some of the specs on its website. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm

    - Sony steals Microsoft’s thunder by showing CGI game footage and/or tech demos and throwing out PS3 specs -- impressive numbers that trump X360’s specs.

    - Given the stark contrast between PS3 and X360 powerful as assessed from games footage -- it is not surprising to learn of the alpha kits and that game footage only represent 1/3 of actual power. Surprisingly Microsoft didn’t play up this fact before.

    - Allegations arise over authenticity of Kill Zone 2 footage and the entire Sony presentation.

    - Superior architecture of the R500 in X360 convinces many that it is the more powerful. Tech sites such as anandtech are used to justify such claims

    - Infamous comparison by Major Neilson and posted verbatium by IGN. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

    - Some developers add to the fire by stating PS3 is the superior platform:
    Factor 5 Drops Xbox 360 Support in Favor of PS3
    http://news.com.com/In+console+smackdown,+games+ar...
    “The choice boiled down to performance, Eggebrecht said at E3 in Los Angeles. His company has worked with Microsoft's Xbox 360, but found PlayStation 3's 3.2GHz Cell chip offered more processing power. The additional performance allows the gang at Factor 5 to more easily simulate the real world for a better game experience, he said.”





    Anand, I look forward to what you have to say like so many other gaming enthusiasts. Undoubtly, every word will be analyzed by fanboys to determine a winner. I must warn you fanboys show a rabid ferocity that surpasses most soccer hooligans.



  • JoeS - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    Sony's VP confirmed KILLZONE footage was actual game play in video interview here:
    http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748475/vids_1.h...

    Don't know whether to believe him or not. Not saying he's being deliberately deceitful, but sometimes these guys feel compelled to answer all the questions thrown at them in an interview even though they don't have all the answers.
  • Randy - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    This is interesting. I know that the 360 demos were running on alpha hardware capable off approximately 30% (or so the press says) of total system power.

    Meanwhile the Sony hype machine has been going, showing off pre-rendered stuff claiming it was realtime (see Killzone 2). The other side of it is if memory serves me correctly Sony overhyped the PS2 at it's unvieling, showing off things that were a bit far-fetched and I also remember the PS2 having some serious design flaws that hampered it's performance.

    I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think it's a whole lot closer than what the press is saying. I egarly await your article.
  • JoeS - Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - link

    With Microsoft's Allard's interview (http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9096... and this latest response, it certainly appears that MS was sent reeling by Sony's E3 presentation and is clearly on the defensive.

    Curious about the significance of this statement:

    "Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth."

    This comment seems to run counter to your review of the Cell processor's multiple SPE design as the superior gaming chip design:

    "The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are NOT APPROPRIATE for game programming."

    I'm a big fan of your site and look forward to seeing your evaluation of the MS comparison.
  • Omihall - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link

    Do you feel that you can definitively say whether the Xbox 360's GPU is better than the PS3's? Based on what has been presented it would seem to be especially if the edram is used to it's full potential beyond just Antialiasing.
  • msva124 - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link

    This is a dissapointment....when I saw the title "Console wars get dirty" I thought it had something to do with porn.
  • Shawn Blais - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link

    Can you discuss how the improved FLOP capabilities of the CELL will impact the system Graphics?

    Where will all this power show through? Will it be Graphically? or more AI and Physics?

    Also, how do you expect the 4XAA to factor in? The ATI chip will provide it at a 1-4% performance hit. Any idea on the NVIDIA performance hit with 4XAA and how they compare?
    thx!
  • ChrisH - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link

    Why do MS and other companies keep doing likes like adding together bandwidth in different areas of the system to get "Total Bandwidth"? So you can make multiple busses and add them together to get a larger total when having one, fast, unified bus might be faster in real world performance, but you can't add them up to a big number? Can you break down the differences between the bus architectures of the PS3 and Xbox 360 since I'm sure that MS chart is incredibly misleading. Thanks.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link

    GhandiInstinct

    I'm not sure what you mean by synthesized GPU; all GPUs are synthesized from RTL, which is the only use of the word synthesized I can think of off the top of my head that applies to GPUs.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • GhandiInstinct - Monday, May 23, 2005 - link

    Is there a benefit with synthesized gpu over regular?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now