Are the XBOX 360s graphics better than the X800GTO2?

[Dehx]

I realize that, but the architecture is comparable, so therefore speeds do matter.

48 vs 48, fight falls to clock speed.

 

[AMDCam]

Oblivion runs on my PC @ 1280x720 widescreen with 4xAA and 16xAF and HDR , everything maxed out on my X1900XTX and loads faster and runs better than it does on the XBOX 360.

Oh, and just so everyone knows for sure.

What is contained in the XBOX 360 is as close to a X1900 as anything.

from : http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/xbox360/nextgengraphics.htm



From ATI's website, for the X1900XTX (which runs as 650 Mhz btw, not 500 Mhz like the X360.. shhesh, even the X1900XT runs faster.)

http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1900/Products.html
http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html
http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1900/specs.html

Yeah man, uhh you're a little off here. First off, just cause it loads faster on your X1900 system might mean the port to the 360 is badly done (Half-Life 2 for Xbox?). So yeah it's cool that you got a X1900XT but I'm sorry man, the 360 will eat that thing alive if software allows it. Congrats though on being an owner.

Also, as everyone says, core speed is NOTHING (well neither is RAM speed) if the hardware isn't good. Like the 9600 has a 500mhz core, and the 9800 only had like a 300mhz core, but the 9800 was twice the power.

Plus the 360's GPU is still a little farther ahead than the X1900, and without Windows and universal system requirement drawbacks, the 360 is about 3 times as powerful as even the most demanding X1900-requiring game right now (if there was one).

 

[Satchmo]

AMDcam, i was saying what you just stated in the first place the Xbox360 GPU is ahead of any card available for PC use, so i thank you for reinforcing the correct side of the arguement.

 

[AMDCam]

I know man, that's why I said "as everyone says" and stuff like that. I always acknowledge and support people I agree with, it's not like I didn't read your posts.

 

[AMDCam]

http://www.behardware.com/articles/...tx-x1900-xt-and-x1900-crossfire-in-tests.html

That's a good article. Kind of hard to understand though.

Anyways, with two x1900's in crossfire, I think that would shame the xbox360.

No one's talked about this dumbass thing?

Dude, a Vertex Shader and a Pipeline are 2 totally different things man. It's got 16 pipes and 48 vertex shaders. Nice but that's NOT 48 pipes. If it was, with ATI's architecture, a 48-pipe X1900 would eat everything on the market alive, there is NO class that could stand up to it.

And a Crossfire X1900XT I guarantee will be gone (to compete with the 360) in less than 2 years, first off it doesn't have DX10 and second off performance-wise, I'd say a Crossfire X1900XT pack is pretty much exactly on par with a custom-for-360 made Xbox 360 game, and that's only right now, I mean developers are still half-assing ports and 360 games. If the Xbox can pull off Doom 3 when PC users needed a full 4-or-more times as powerful (as the Xbox's GPU) card to handle the same graphics, I'm about 1000% sure Crossfire X1900's are not gonna stand up to the 360 in the future. Not just cause of the software requirements (SM 4, Direct X 10), but because even specs-wise it's only about 160% more powerful than the single-card 360, and seeing as how the original Xbox's hardware was a couple years BEHIND computers when it was released and STILL needed 4x less power than PC's to do the same stuff, imagine what the ahead-of-every-computer-available (3-core processor, more powerful than X1900XTX graphics card) 360 will need to have computers compare.

 

[bigboi86]

No one's talked about this dumbass thing?

Dude, a Vertex Shader and a Pipeline are 2 totally different things man. It's got 16 pipes and 48 vertex shaders. Nice but that's NOT 48 pipes. If it was, with ATI's architecture, a 48-pipe X1900 would eat everything on the market alive, there is NO class that could stand up to it.

And a Crossfire X1900XT I guarantee will be gone (to compete with the 360) in less than 2 years, first off it doesn't have DX10 and second off performance-wise, I'd say a Crossfire X1900XT pack is pretty much exactly on par with a custom-for-360 made Xbox 360 game, and that's only right now, I mean developers are still half-assing ports and 360 games. If the Xbox can pull off Doom 3 when PC users needed a full 4-or-more times as powerful (as the Xbox's GPU) card to handle the same graphics, I'm about 1000% sure Crossfire X1900's are not gonna stand up to the 360 in the future. Not just cause of the software requirements (SM 4, Direct X 10), but because even specs-wise it's only about 160% more powerful than the single-card 360, and seeing as how the original Xbox's hardware was a couple years BEHIND computers when it was released and STILL needed 4x less power than PC's to do the same stuff, imagine what the ahead-of-every-computer-available (3-core processor, more powerful than X1900XTX graphics card) 360 will need to have computers compare.

First off, the XBOX when it first came out WAS more powerful than the average PC. It had a Geforce 2 graphics card in it and at the time of development that was some of the fastest graphics available. It didn't take long for PC's to surpass that.

I expected PC's now to do the same thing when the XBOX 360 was first coming out, and now they are catching up. Within this next year Xbox 360 wont be able to touch PC graphics.

AMDCam, you are obviously mistaken what pixel pipelines are.

Features:
384 million transistors on 90nm
fabrication process
48 pixel shader processors
8 vertex shader processors
256-bit 8-channel GDDR3
memory interface
Native PCI Express x16 bus interface

Nowhere did I say a pixel pipeline was a vertex shader.

Custom ATI Graphics Processor:

500 MHz
10 MB embedded DRAM
48-way parallel floating-point dynamically-scheduled shader pipelines Unified shader architecture

Can you see a similarity? No?

 

[Dehx]

ok, the X1900 have 16 pipes with 3 pixel processors per pipe. the x360 is the same, the only thing different as far as that goes is that the X360 has unified shaders that will be DX10. BTW, it'll be a while before you see any major DX10 titles pour off the shelves.

Regardless, when the R600 comes out with 64 unified shaders, it will eat up the X360.

 

[AMDCam]

First off, the XBOX when it first came out WAS more powerful than the average PC. It had a Geforce 2 graphics card in it and at the time of development that was some of the fastest graphics available. It didn't take long for PC's to surpass that.

I expected PC's now to do the same thing when the XBOX 360 was first coming out, and now they are catching up. Within this next year Xbox 360 wont be able to touch PC graphics.

AMDCam, you are obviously mistaken what pixel pipelines are.

Features:
384 million transistors on 90nm
fabrication process
48 pixel shader processors
8 vertex shader processors
256-bit 8-channel GDDR3
memory interface
Native PCI Express x16 bus interface

Nowhere did I say a pixel pipeline was a vertex shader.



Can you see a similarity? No?

I do got you man, but look:

WTF are you talking about?

http://www.ati.com/products/RadeonX1900/specs.html

48 pipelines buddy.

those were your words. Not once did I even say PIXEL (pipelines) for you to get confused with.

Plus maybe at the time of development the GeForce 2 was state-of-the-art, but the 360 was even AHEAD of it's time when it was released. Plus yeah, specs-wise the R600 might "kill" the 360 technically , but as I recall with Xbox it took until the GeForce 6800/Radeon X800 series to kill the original performance-wise. And I remember I built my first computer in 7th grade, like about the exact same time the PS2 was released, and my card was a GeForce TNT2 Riva 32mb (don't know if the TNT2 series was the GeForce 2) and it was out-of-date when I had it. I'm not sure though, maybe you're right about the GeForce 2 being the best back then.

 

[wazzledoozle]

The Xbox 360 gpu has unified shaders so it cant even be compared to any current graphics card, its a completely different beast.

And I disagree with it taking the Geforce 6/X800 series to compete with the Xbox, my Radeon 9600 was muc better than my xbox performance-wise and could run higher resolutions. Xbox games dont look great once you experience 1280x960 at 100 fps.

 

[AMDCam]

oh okay fine, the high resolution is one thing. But still, could your 9600 run Doom 3 with Ultra quality?

And that's EXACTLY what I was saying about the 360's GPU. It might be CLOSE to an X1900XTX, but it's still got even more advanced features and is more powerful.

 

[bigboi86]

oh okay fine, the high resolution is one thing. But still, could your 9600 run Doom 3 with Ultra quality?

And that's EXACTLY what I was saying about the 360's GPU. It might be CLOSE to an X1900XTX, but it's still got even more advanced features and is more powerful.

Do you realize what res the original xbox runs natively? That's less than 640x480 res, sure a 9600 can play it on high or ultra quality with decent framerates.

 

[wazzledoozle]

oh okay fine, the high resolution is one thing. But still, could your 9600 run Doom 3 with Ultra quality?

And that's EXACTLY what I was saying about the 360's GPU. It might be CLOSE to an X1900XTX, but it's still got even more advanced features and is more powerful.

The xbox couldnt run ultra because all it is is high optimized for 512 mb of video ram. On the other hand, it ran whatever they optimized pretty well at the crap resolution of tv's.

At the same resolution my 9600 could have easily run doom 3 better at high detail.

You really cant compare the Xbox 360 gpu to anything except the R600, so dont try.

 

[Satchmo]

that is true TV resolution is extremely low.

xbox 360 runs nativly at a slightly higher resolution than most CRT moniters.

 

[wazzledoozle]

that is true TV resolution is extremely low.

xbox 360 runs nativly at a slightly higher resolution than most CRT moniters.

Xbox 360 CAN run at a higher resolution, but thats only if you have a HDTV. And 720p still isnt as good as crt's, since tv resolution is measured in the vertical lines not horizontal,
720P= 1280x720
1080i= 1920x1080

The xbox360 cant do progressive 1080p, so 1080i is worthless, because drawing every other line on every other refresh pass doesnt do well with blur in games. So the best gaming experience would be at 720P, which isnt as good as most crt monitors which do 1280x960 easily, or 1280x1024.

 

[AMDCam]

But I think you guys would agree, on a monitor/PC 640x480 is DISGUISTING like unusable because of the blockiness and no detail. But on a TV/Game System no one has problems with low resolution. So technically 720p might not be as high-res as a CRT monitor, but it looks a hell of a lot better, even on a screen 10 times the size of a monitor at the same resolution. HD is "wow that looks GREAT", high resolution on a monitor is "this is how it should be played, looks just like a TV version, who really cares?". and I'm pretty sure the 360 IS able to do 1080p with certain games (I hear), and truthfully interlaced is NOT that bad, don't make it out to be unusable, it just creates blur in some games, sure it's annoying, but it's not 100% of the time. And supposedly 1080 res is really not that noticable over 720p

 

[wazzledoozle]

The reason games look fine on tv's at the low resolutions is because they have blurring between frames. PC's dont do that.

 

[AMDCam]

why not? it's a REALLY effective effect if that's all it does. and monitors and TV's are the same technology so why not?

 

[Satchmo]

maybe something to do with different signals...TV's using analog, and PCs using VGA- digital.

 

[wazzledoozle]

why not? it's a REALLY effective effect if that's all it does. and monitors and TV's are the same technology so why not?

Blurring would look horrible on the smaller sized, yet higher resolution pc monitors. You already have a small space to define a line, now blur it even slightly and it gets very hard to tell whats going on. It works for TV's because you have a lot more room to work with.