AlStrong said:
The figure for RSX is misleading because it isn't calculated right, plus it's a peak figure that doesn't distinguish between pixel shaders or vertex shaders or the fact that half of the pixel shader ALUs have to handle texture addressing instructions...
Xenos is unified, so it doesn't matter, and they handle vec4+1 as opposed to vec4 on RSX/G7x. Texture addressing is fully orthogonal. Lots of devs take advantage of this since you can, for instance, issue more texture instructions whilst ALU ops complete or vice versa if for some reason the dev is doing something texture heavy, they might as well do some extra math on some other shader simultaneously.
Anyways, the main point is that directly comparing GFLOPs when the architectures are fundamentally different is pointless.
Oh yeah. It was as much joking as anything else (hence the measurement in duct tape). I took the Nvidia/ATI difference in consideration, but was having too much fun with it.
But anyway that is the type of info I like to read, but don't think to search out. I knew that 400 was a peak and felt it seemed high, but wasn't confident enough in my knowledge on it to disregard it like you did.
AlStrong said:
You're assuming 256-bit buses for both memory types.
Yes and no (although the no essentially works out that way). Yes on the GPU since there was a Game Watch article that indicated a 4870 was used so in the dev kit so I assume they would keep a 256-bit bus. The DDR3 calc was 64-bit, but using IBM's quad-channel memory interface.
Grampa Simpson said:
I really want you to start comping parts on these and calculating power budgets.
I don't think that DDR3 runs that fast in Mhz, maybe in MT/s though....
You are alive! Actually I have been trying to with those specs. For example the leaked Thames Pro is 850Mhz, 1408 ALUs and is 90W. The Lombok XL leaked amount is 900Mhz, 768 ALUs and 60W. As you can see my GPU is closer to the Lombok XL. That's also why I focused on a split pool with DDR3. As for the CPU, if the PowerPC A2 can be built with 16 cores at 2.3GHz and be 65W, I would assume the one I'm proposing could be made under 40W.
As for the memory clock, when I searched that out awhile back there seemed to be DDR3 capable of those clocks and faster. I went with that number due to the multiples.
TunaLover said:
How do you think will be the cost breakdown for the bundle?
I say:
20% controller
80% system
The high cost on the controller doesn´t allow Nintendo make a great investement in hardware, since they (historically) don´t lose money for each unit sold, and they try to keep prices low.
I don't know how they would split it, but I do know that after looking closer at the patent I'm back to expecting the minimum price to be $349.
Luigiv said:
Sort of. bgassassin is going purely by proccessor power, which are identical in architeture but 50% on the Wii. However that isn't really the whole story. The Wii's other major enhancement is that it's dog slow 16MB ARAM chip was replaced with a blazing fast 64MB GDDR3 chip. This makes a huge difference and in practise allows the devs to extract more out of the proccessors then they would have otherwise.
Yep. Like I said it was just having fun with question Ace posed awhile back and just got a little carried away.
