Oh good grief, this again?
WHAT games are running at 1080p? Why does having to fall back to main RAM to handle video stuff not cut into the system's performance? You're going to have to come up with an explanation for how apparently bandwidth makes no difference when dealing with video rendering.
And no, I'm still not wrong about interlaced and progressive scan being different.
[quote name='TURBO']...Thus 1080i or 480p; what's better?[/quote]
1080i, obviously
then you began to argue the very well known & understood industry fact that the 360 has a better GPU while the PS3 has the (potentially) better CPU.
Yes, it's just so amazingly well known.
I probably asked this before, and certainly wasn't answered-WHY is it a better GPU? But before answering that, you still need to answer the above.
...ex. Soul Calibur 4 runs 1365x960 on 360 and 1280x720 on PS3 {1280x576 in 1080i/p; needs cell to scale}.
And which of those resolutions is 1080p?
as for the eDRAM bit (dismissing the very obvious fact that this is your argument's red herring), you said and i quote "video RAM" when talking about it. video RAM aka VRAM is technology from the 80s & it was high end back when i had it in my diamond stealth ISA card. but it is certainly not in the 360. "video cache" again is not eDRAM, the eDRAM doesn't store video, it's used to accelerate the logic unit & the front buffer never touches it.
"e" = "embedded". Not "magicalicous".
Video = "RAM used by the GPU".
again i said "There is no rapid drop off in performance."; yes there is a drop in performance BUT NOT a rapid one. Because the speed with which it can access the logic unit even when the 10MB is full is still faster than the PS3 can
How, exactly? Through the use of magic? The PS3's CPU and the rest of the system are using bandwidth from a separate stash of RAM. The 360 it's all using that same stash of RAM.
if the 10MB ever gets full it doesn't stay full long w/ 256GB/s running into the logic unit.
"If" it ever gets full? No, WHEN it gets full and it switches to another tile it has to stick that into main RAM, that the CPUs are using.
You could say the same about RSX having a rapid drop off in performance if you rendered beyond what the hardware is capable of. it's ridiculous.
Of course you can say the same thing, EXCEPT I'M SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO MEMORY BANDWIDTH.
re: 3Dc, you say "There's no reason to convert 3Dc to Nvidia's format on a dedicated piece of hardware like the PS3-they're just going to put textures in Nvidia's native format to begin with." as i said before, this nVIDIA technology you keep alluding to doesn't exist. V8U8 is not a nVIDIA tech & again it's not even 1/2 as good as 3Dc at compression or IQ. V8U8 is the only DXN compression embedded on the RSX & 7 series.
And yet the PS3 doesn't have texture issues...
...Because interlaced signals were designed for CRT TVs & modern TVs are pixel refresh based. why didnt the support for i just end? because then all the VCRs, DVD players, camcorders, etc.. that output i would stop working.
What does this have to do with anything? Of COURSE TVs have to keep accepting older inputs. That doesn't mean people are rushing to send interlaced signals from new devices to new displays.
Why didnt all HDTVs support progressive? because at the time deinterlacers worked better, were more advanced.
No, because for the display technology at the time it was much cheaper to do interlaced. That's the same reason we ever used interlaced to begin with.
again the PS3's memory set up is NOT normal. it's nowhere near it. maybe because you think PCs have separate DDR & GDDR that it's like XDR & GDDR... but on PCs 1) the GPUs dont use system memory
They do, they just try not to because it's slower, and typically they have plenty of video RAM.
2) the bus is completely different.
In terms of the actual interface they're using, that's probably true. In terms of how it works from a high level perspective, it's the same idea.
As Square said, they could do a working rough port FF13 from PC to the 360 in a matter of days where the PS3 would take months {FF13 being deved on PC}.
Because the 360 uses basically the same tools and APIs as Windows, and that was a Windows game. I was talking about the MEMORY setup. Most gaming PCs have main system RAM and large video RAM. NONE have a small cache of RAM on the GPU (aside from small caches), and high end GPUs aren't stuck on a unified memory architecture.
Some things just cant be parallelized & getting those things to work w/o clogging the PPU is the cause of 90% of PS3 programming headaches.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the Xbox's 10MB video RAM.
as for the "specs" where are you getting your specs from exactly (& dont even try to say a white paper)?
Uh...the publicly available specs? 22.x for the video RAM, 25ish for the main RAM. 22.xish for the 360's entire RAM (aside from the 10MB). It seems like you even quoted those at some point.
I can tell you're not going to believe anything i say though considering how long youve been arguing this very understood fact & i'll leave you w/ a recent quote from Quakecon by John Carmack. You know, the father of the FPS & programming genius.
He's said other things since that, but FINALLY that's something about the 360's GPU being a bit faster. More likely though it just depends how you use them, if you look at how more or less equivalent GPUs on PC do. Some games fair better on one design or the other, but for a game system you're going to tailor it to the hardware you have.
but from what i understand it's more him having a problem w/ the excessive per DVD licensing fees MS wants; which gets expensive in games w/ over 2. He's said if he could have 3 it wouldn't be an issue (w/ RAGE) but as it stands there will have to be cuts to the 360 version if MS doesn't concede the fees & let them put it on 3 DVDs. Pretty bold of him to say this publicly; which imo is more proof he's got balls of steel & isn't afraid to speak the truth.
Yikes! Microsoft charges PER DVD?!? What the heck is that about? If that's for real that's not going to do them any favors. I mean obviously if they manufacturer them they need to pass on the fees for the disc, but other than that... They'll need to quit doing that if that's for real.
#
.
