• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

VGLeaks Durango specs: x64 8-core CPU @1.6GHz, 8GB DDR3 + 32MB ESRAM, 50GB 6x BD...

iamshadowlark

Banned
Jun 22, 2011
8,718
0
0
No. When it comes to FLOPS, the CPU was around 100% more powerful in PS3's case, while the GPUs were roughly comparable (on paper, in reality Xenos was far more advanced), with Xenos having a slight advantage according to Microsoft's figures, and being even weaker according to some other suggestions made at the time. That's more than the rumored floating point processing power difference we have here.

If you're gonna call me wrong at least look up the specs lol.

Ok,

PS3= Cell 210 GFLOPS theo max +

RSX(24 * 27Flops * 550MHz)" Pixel Shader side +( 8 *10Flops * 550) on the vertex side == 400 GFLOPs(in reality this is about ten percent less because RSX shipped at 500MHz)

610 GFLOPs

360 = Xenon - 115GFLOPS + Xenos, which is too hard to compare to G70 because of architecture differences but suffice to say its no where near 50%. Don't buy into PR.

REMEMBER CITADEL said:
It wasn't just the bandwidth, it's far more complicated than that. The CPUs were incomparable, the GPUs didn't really belong to the same generations, they had different memory organization and so on. We'll see how close or far apart Durango and Orbis are in terms of architecture when we get (a lot) more data.

Of course its not the only thing, but its far and large the biggest choker on the system. Its not complicated at all. PS3 had low usable memory for the GPU, slow drive bitrates, and low overall BW. Not efficient at all and not comparable to these rumored systems.
 

gaming_noob

Member
Jan 25, 2010
5,284
329
965
Toronto
There's talk that the xbox720 GPU is not an AMD part at all. Instead it may be PowerVR. If this is indeed true, these GPU's operate on completely different architectures, and flops measures are no longer apples and apples.

Can you please provide a link to that info (CPU being PowerVR)?
 

JimmyRustler

Member
Jun 17, 2006
10,371
2,547
1,630
Many things changed since premiere of X360. They see mobile market growing and they want to show something that will say "I am different to your phone game" If their new improved Kinect always works this may be big thing to casual people.

Even if they scaled back hardware Sony will have more problems because of that. Games are scaled back to lowest dominator and for casual people 30 or 60 fps doesn't matter and someting like vsync and aa is not a concern.

So Microsoft will have console on which games will be almost the same (for casual people) and will do more for almost the same price.
The new consoles won't even matter for casual people for the first 1-2 years anyway except Microsoft pulls a miricale and blows everyone away with something totally new - which I honestly don't see happening.

So what they got to do for the start is to aim at the core. I mean, their efforts in that direction is what got them to where they are now. If they continue the road they're going right now I see Microsoft struggling big time for the first few years.
 

Perkel

Banned
Oct 2, 2010
9,673
0
705
Poland
The new consoles won't even matter for casual people for the first 1-2 years anyway except Microsoft pulls a miricale and blows everyone away with something totally new - which I honestly don't see happening.

So what they got to do for the start is to aim at the core. I mean, their efforts in that direction is what got them to where they are now. If they continue the road they're going right now I see Microsoft struggling big time for the first few years.

You see as most of us don't like kinect but technology is not bad. It is just that it don't always work well and if this is the case overall it's shit for us. If they improved it to rock solid state it could be amazing from game design standpoint and if done right it could be megaton for casual people.
 

acm2000

Member
Jun 18, 2007
6,244
762
1,420
England, UK
that GPU would make things very insteresting, depending how far they have pushed it, but it very unlikely, it will just be some form of AMD gpu
 
Aug 27, 2009
10,999
0
0
It just seem like there are no AAA third pary exclusives anymore. next gen probably will be all about first party efforts + entertainment ecosystem.

There are, but they're rare. However, if one console surges ahead next gen, that situation might change again.


If you're gonna call me wrong at least look up the specs lol.

Ok,

PS3= Cell 210 GFLOPS theo max +

RSX(24 * 27Flops * 550MHz)" Pixel Shader side +( 8 *10Flops * 550) on the vertex side == 400 GFLOPs(in reality this is about ten percent less because RSX shipped at 500MHz)

610 GFLOPs

360 = Xenon - 115GFLOPS + Xenos, which is too hard to compare to G70 because of architecture differences but suffice to say its no where near 50%. Don't buy into PR.

Um, 210 GFLOPS is roughly 2 x 115 GFLOPS, which is a difference of around 100%. You don't provide the GPU figures for Xenos, but on paper the two were really close (again, not in reality), while some people even put RSX ahead. So the main difference is the CPUs, and PS3 is 100% more powerful when it comes to CPU floating point performance (again, on paper). I don't see what's so hard to comprehend there. And that's ignoring the even more ridiculous figures (for instance, 230 GFLOPS vs. 77 GFLOPS or 1.8 TFLOPS for RSX) that were being thrown around at approximately the same stage in the pre-release period we're in at the moment.
 

oldergamer

Member
Aug 20, 2004
3,643
3,393
1,605
You sure you want to go down this road? ;)

if that's the case, then it's tile based rendering in durango which would be a HUGE bandwidth saving, effectively making the bandwidth greater then the default numbers for the ddr3 memory used.

They could totally get away with cheaper ddr3 memory if that's the case. The frame buffer would use A LOT less of that bandwidth.


Some of this makes sense, but I still doubt it... hmmm...
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,895
2
0
Windsor, UK
if that's the case, then it's tile based rendering in durango which would be a HUGE bandwidth saving, effectively making the bandwidth greater then the default numbers for the ddr3 memory used.

They could totally get away with cheaper ddr3 memory if that's the case. The frame buffer would use A LOT less of that bandwidth.


Some of this makes sense, but I still doubt it... hmmm...

bandwidth is still the same using tiles, you just need less edram/temporary memory. And didn't they try that approach with 360 but the edram wasn't enough for emerging deferred rendering engines?

Maybe durango fixes that, but if 10MB wasn't enough last time, will 32MB be enough considering a likely resolution bump?
 

JimmyRustler

Member
Jun 17, 2006
10,371
2,547
1,630
You see as most of us don't like kinect but technology is not bad. It is just that it don't always work well and if this is the case overall it's shit for us. If they improved it to rock solid state it could be amazing from game design standpoint and if done right it could be megaton for casual people.
If it would be amazing, it would be extremly expensive and therefore no megaton for casual people. I really don't see Microsoft pulling Minority Report motion control quality and offer this for a cheap price point. And everything else wouldn't draw anyone, especially not the cuasuls as they already have their Kinect.

Microsoft had their miracle, just like Nintendo. It's extremly unlikely they'll get another one anytime soon. Something would have already leaked if this new technology would indeed be this mindblowing.
 

iamshadowlark

Banned
Jun 22, 2011
8,718
0
0
There are, but they're rare. However, if one console surges ahead next gen, that situation might change again.




Um, 210 GFLOPS is roughly 2 x 115 GFLOPS, which is a difference of around 100%. You don't provide the GPU figures for Xenos, but on paper the two were really close (again, not in reality), while some people even put RSX ahead. So the main difference is the CPUs, and PS3 is 100% more powerful when it comes to CPU floating point performance (again, on paper). I don't see what's so hard to comprehend there. And that's ignoring the even more ridiculous figures (for instance, 230 GFLOPS vs. 77 GFLOPS or 1.8 TFLOPS for RSX) that were being thrown around at approximately the same stage in the pre-release period we're in at the moment.

The CPU is meaningless in raw power, why on earth would you try to draw your comparison soley there? Unless its the only area where your point works. I mean you have to take some pretty big leaps of snake logic to try and push what you're saying.

GPUs being more or less equal as you say, a 100GFLOP CPU difference makes more than the rumored 50% power gap between Orbis and Durango? Really?


szaromir said:
Xenos' peak theoretical performance was 240GFLOPS

Yes I saw that but its not remotely comparable to G70. Nvidia calculated flops(I gave their formula) alot different than ATI did, plus they changed their pipelines to unified then. Best to just call them about equal.
 
Aug 27, 2009
10,999
0
0
GPUs being more or less equal as you say, a 100GFLOP CPU difference makes more than the rumored 50% power gap between Orbis and Durango? Really?

Dude. First of all, even looking at the current leaked figures there's not a 50% power gap between Orbis and Durango, that's just the difference between the GPUs. Likewise, for PS3 and Xbox 360, we're only looking at CPUs as their GPUs were roughly the same (for the umpteenth time, only on paper) or RSX was even more powerful than Xenos (400 GFLOPS vs. 240 GFLOPS; we now know that's not true in reality, but that's beside the point, we're discussing the specs as they were presented to us at the start of the last generation), which would only tip the scales in PS3's favor, making the seeming gap even larger (and that supports my angle).

So, a 100 GFLOPS CPU difference makes a 100% power gap between PS3 and Xbox 360 on that front. A 600 GFLOPS GPU difference (1.2 TFLOPS to 1.8 TFLOPS) makes a 50% power gap between Orbis and Durango on that front. I don't know how I can break this down to even more elementary math.
 

derFeef

Member
Jan 21, 2010
37,914
3
0
Ohhh shit.

Megaton if true? This has to be one of the most out there suggestions, even with the reasoning?

Nah, that would be a significant change for the leaks, and we were set with AMD for a long time now. I can't see this being true.
 

Ashes

Member
Dec 11, 2008
23,380
0
1,085
Greater London
Dude. First of all, even looking at the current leaked figures there's not a 50% power gap between Orbis and Durango, that's just the difference between the GPUs. Likewise, for PS3 and Xbox 360, we're only looking at CPUs as their GPUs were roughly the same (for the umpteenth time, only on paper) or RSX was even more powerful than Xenos (400 GFLOPS vs. 240 GFLOPS; we now know that's not true in reality, but that's beside the point, we're discussing the specs as they were presented to us at the start of the last generation), which would only tip the scales in PS3's favor, making the seeming gap even larger (and that supports my angle).

So, a 100 GFLOPS CPU difference makes a 100% power gap between PS3 and Xbox 360 on that front. A 600 GFLOPS GPU difference (1.2 TFLOPS to 1.8 TFLOPS) makes a 50% power gap between Orbis and Durango on that front. I don't know how I can break this down to even more elementary math.

Devs and generation worth of comparisons later, people are still arguing this? :p
Xenos was based on a gpu a full year ahead, iirc, whilst RSX was a middling gpu. Xenos>RSX.
CELL when you code appropriately, was used in super computers, but third party devs under utilised that. Cell > xenon, with caveats.
CPU was not as big a bottle neck as the RSX was. Spus helped in that regard, later on, after phyre engine etc..
 

Musiol

Member
Aug 30, 2009
457
0
840
Poland
http://www.vgleaks.com/durango-gpu/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The last week, we published a poll and you chose to know more about the GPU of Durango. Wishes come true. We have splitted the articled in three pages, don’t forget to read the whole work.

A better view of Durango’s GPU capabilities and performance.

Durango brings the enhanced capabilities of a modern Direct3D 11 GPU to the console space. The Durango GPU is a departure from previous console generations both in raw performance and in structure.

The following table describes expected performance of the Durango GPU. Bear in mind that the table is based only on hardware specifications, not on actual hardware running actual code. For many reasons, theoretical peak performance can be difficult or impossible to achieve with real-world processing loads.

More in the source.
 

THE:MILKMAN

Member
Mar 31, 2006
6,335
4,553
1,685
Midlands, UK
Nah, that would be a significant change for the leaks, and we were set with AMD for a long time now. I can't see this being true.

I agree it seems way left field to be PowerVR but looking at the VGLeaks site and it doesn't mention GCN or AMD on the GPU front for Durango but has no problems doing so for Orbis.

It's really weird....
 
Jan 12, 2007
61,086
1
0
Toronto, ON. Canada
I can make the new thread.

Awesome. Go for it.



 

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
19,151
1,639
1,520
Wow, nice... colored squares, I guess ?
can someone explain what I'm reading, please ? ^^