-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be watching the FIFA World Cup Final?
oh well... xbox already old
- Thread starter scotty777
- Start date
GavinMannion
Executive Member
http://www.lazygamer.co.za/xbox-360/gta-iv-hampered-by-the-xbox-360/
Load of bollocks, a huge noise about a missing HDD...
I do agree though that the Core should have had a HDD, I don't see any reason to leave it out
Load of bollocks, a huge noise about a missing HDD...
I do agree though that the Core should have had a HDD, I don't see any reason to leave it out
scotty777
...doesn't know
well... no, i see my they nees the HDD, it's like with some ps3 games you need 250mb or so for a kind of install/virtual memory, thats why they need the HDD. I think the fact that both consoles only have a a pittyful 512mb of ram(unified on the xbox, and 256 for graphics/256 for system). they could just say you need a gig or so, and just make a hard drive a requirement
doobiwan
Executive Member
Lol nice selective quotes there, I like this part:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/02/xbox-360-cant-handle-all-of-gta-iv/
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163233
Basically, Cell & RSX suck a$$
The 250Mb virtual page on the PS3 is for a precache due to slow Blu-ray transfer rates. I imagine Rockstar wanted to take that further ala Oblivion. I imagine they'll just have a caveat on the box along the lines of "HD required for loadless play".
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/02/xbox-360-cant-handle-all-of-gta-iv/
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=163233
Basically, Cell & RSX suck a$$
The 250Mb virtual page on the PS3 is for a precache due to slow Blu-ray transfer rates. I imagine Rockstar wanted to take that further ala Oblivion. I imagine they'll just have a caveat on the box along the lines of "HD required for loadless play".
Last edited:
Amazing how easily one can find needless bones in one statement. Its like asking PC gamers to have more than 512MB of RAM for their latest games, the ones that WILL buy the game WILL get more than 512MB RAM simply for that.
Same will apply with GTA IV, if you want the game then have a HDD equipped X360. Its a storm in a tea cup IMO.
Same will apply with GTA IV, if you want the game then have a HDD equipped X360. Its a storm in a tea cup IMO.
scotty777
...doesn't know
hmmm... the rsx isn't slower, maybe the cell, but remember the box 360's graphics only has 36 "stream" processors, will the ps3 has 24 pixel, 24 texture, which means the ps3's gpu can do more, but it's harder to use
doobiwan
Executive Member
Sorry Scotty, but your specs are off, Xenos whomps the RSX. Sony bull strikes again.
The 360 Xenos has 48 R600 (only comes out in 2 weeks) class unified pixel shaders / stream processes, the RSX is an NV47, which is a 2 year old design which has 8 vertex shaders and 24 pixel shaders.
As important is the memory stats between the two. The RSX and Xenos both have has 128bit (22.4Gb/s) graphics memory bandwidth, but the Xenos has an additional 10Mb embedded RAM, on the chip, for things like colour, z depth, and anti aliasing, the kicker is that this stuff runs at 256Gb/s, making these otherwise costly calculations, free.
The OS has an effect as well: 360 OS is only 32Mb, in total, the PS3 OS takes 64Mb main OS and 32Mb Video RAM so where 360 dev's can theoretically allocate up to 480Mb of RAM to games assets textures etc (Say 400Mb, to allow for the engine/logic etc), PS3 dev's only have access to 224Mb, subtract 10Mb for a 720p Frame buffer and you have 214Mb.
My opinion? Well, you know that already . . .
For reference:
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=7
http://www.futurehardware.in/188137.htm
An interesting addition to the Xenos of which little mention is made, is that it supports the same GPGPU functionality as the ATI x1900. Basically, you can use the GPU to do the same type of calculations as the Cell SPU's. Then look at Folding@Home's stats . . .
The 360 Xenos has 48 R600 (only comes out in 2 weeks) class unified pixel shaders / stream processes, the RSX is an NV47, which is a 2 year old design which has 8 vertex shaders and 24 pixel shaders.
As important is the memory stats between the two. The RSX and Xenos both have has 128bit (22.4Gb/s) graphics memory bandwidth, but the Xenos has an additional 10Mb embedded RAM, on the chip, for things like colour, z depth, and anti aliasing, the kicker is that this stuff runs at 256Gb/s, making these otherwise costly calculations, free.
The OS has an effect as well: 360 OS is only 32Mb, in total, the PS3 OS takes 64Mb main OS and 32Mb Video RAM so where 360 dev's can theoretically allocate up to 480Mb of RAM to games assets textures etc (Say 400Mb, to allow for the engine/logic etc), PS3 dev's only have access to 224Mb, subtract 10Mb for a 720p Frame buffer and you have 214Mb.
My opinion? Well, you know that already . . .
For reference:
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=7
http://www.futurehardware.in/188137.htm
An interesting addition to the Xenos of which little mention is made, is that it supports the same GPGPU functionality as the ATI x1900. Basically, you can use the GPU to do the same type of calculations as the Cell SPU's. Then look at Folding@Home's stats . . .
scotty777
...doesn't know
ok... i don't want this to become one huge 360 vs ps3 fight,
Toxin
Expert Member
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
Not to doubt your fanboyism
but where did you get this from? The transfer rates for blu-ray are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster than DVD, so I can't see this. Possibly access speed? I know that some of the data on Oblivion was mirrored on the PS3 version, but AFAIK that was to speed up access speed not transfer speed.
GavinMannion
Executive Member
I don't have a clue about what you lot are talking about but I have always been under the impression that the Blu-Ray drive's transfer rate was slower than the DVD. any link to prove what you are saying in English?
doobiwan
Executive Member
Not to doubt your fanboyism
Possibly access speed? I know that some of the data on Oblivion was mirrored on the PS3 version, but AFAIK that was to speed up access speed not transfer speed.
Nope Transfer rate / Throughput rate. See here:
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/04/ps3-to-load-games-slower-than-the-xbox-360/
(summar article points to)
http://ozymandias.com/archive/2006/...0_-We_2700_re-in-Violent-Agreement_2900_.aspx
I consider myself 30% fanboy, 70% pedantic geek. It's not about one being better than the other, it's about people talking **** and others just believing any old c@rp their heros tell them that irks me. Not just with tech, with anything.
I guess some people will just believe what they want to believe. Me, I prefer facts, but ce la vie.
Last edited:
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
Ok I see your point
I can't get to those sites (blocked at work), but I do see something that looks wrong in the quote. AFAIK the basic standard throughput for Blu-Ray is 54Mbps (so that will be a 1.0x drive not a 1.5x) Thus a 2x drive will be 108Mbps or 13.5MB/s. Doesn't change your point though, which is correct.
I can't get to those sites (blocked at work), but I do see something that looks wrong in the quote. AFAIK the basic standard throughput for Blu-Ray is 54Mbps (so that will be a 1.0x drive not a 1.5x) Thus a 2x drive will be 108Mbps or 13.5MB/s. Doesn't change your point though, which is correct.
scotty777
...doesn't know
hmmm... they did do a test with loading the on the same game(Tony Hawksroject 8) and the xbox did win,
roject 8) and the xbox did win,