What graphics card is the Xbox360 equivalent to?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have also heard 7800 GTX; there is no way it%u2019s the 8800. That is why as soon as a console comes out, it%u2019s outdated. The Xbox 360 graphics is powerful because it gets to run code that has been written exactly like its architecture and so the 8800 is needed to run that code effectively. It is becoming that when they port the games they just copy and paste the code.
 
Hello

@ Bidybag, if your friend think the Xbox 360 gfx card is the same as an 8800 I presume he thinks they have conjurers over at Microsoft going a few years in the future to equip their machines? Even if he means the equivalent of an 8800 he is wrong, check out theese threads:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/8342
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos
 
Trying to compare an Xbox to a PC graphic card is like apples and oranges. An Xbox is highly optimized to do 1 thing, and the games for it are written specifically to work with it. It doesn't need the highest powered graphics hardware to run it's games effectively.
 


Sony's the one with the 7800GTX in their PS3.
 
The Xbox360 "Xenos" GPU is not comparable to any desktop card. It has 48 unified shaders, tessellation support, and has 10MB of integrated eDRAM. In raw speed it's not as fast as the 8800GTX, but anything programmed for the Xbox360 will be much more optimized than a PC counterpart. The PS3's "RSX" is quite literally a 7900GT clocked to 550MHz with only 8 ROPs. While it would sound as if the PS3 would be at a disadvantage graphically, this is not the case when used correctly as the Cell is very capable of taking on rendering tasks as well, almost like a second GPU.
 
The 360GPU (Xenos) was designed by ATI, so the GeForce comparisons are pretty far off. I'd say that Xenos sits somewhere between the X1900 series and the HD2900 series, probably closer to the X1900.
 
Yeah, HY27's got it right, althoguh to add that the RSX also only has half the bandwidth of the GT at 128bit, and of course it's 'shared' memory. And while the Cell is helpful, it still suffers many of the same limitations of the GF7 series and relying on even the CELL to make up fo them is still prohibitive because of the added latency per cycle to virtualize operations that would perform much faster if they were supported in hardware, it's like being able to do HDR+AA by sending the image back through the ROPs a second time, it's possible, but the performance penalty makes it not practical.

Homerdog's got it close, with the Xenos having about the equivalent strength of a X1950Pro-X1950XT but with some extra little bits that would be similar to the HD2900.

While the RSX is the same architecture as a desktop part the Xenos is not, and add to that the added variable of eDRAM and there's really nothing similar to it.

Features and Performance wise though I'd say it's like an ATi X19xx series with some bonuses, but it definitely falls short of the GF8800/HD2K/3K series cards for both features and performance.
 
for the 360its a beefed up x1900xt core like the rsx on ps3 is a beefed version of the 7800gtx....but these cores are highly optomised for use on there set platform. short story long....they get more bang for the buck! oh and to a note to the guy's buddy who said a 360 was in line with a 8800gtx...psshhhh rofl not even, close to twice the power in the 8800...not to say a 360 can't hold its own. it is a "platform" so it is designed to do everything this pc doesn't on a hardware/software level, it has an os that runs smooth and error free as possible with little to no cpu over head unlike windows freeing up system reasources for 3d rendering, sound or phyics.
 


The RSX is not higly optimized, it's a GF7900GT with half the bandwidth/ROPs, with no additional architecture benifits.
The Xenos is also not a beefed up X19xx since it came before the X1900 and also have very different architectures that owe nothing to the X1900, their functions are beefed up but the chip is not a 'beefed-up' anything else.

Probably the best article ever written on the subject wa by Wavey Dave at B3D;
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/
 
I have a Sapphire x1950GT. When My computer boots it says x1950GT R500 which from what I understand the "R500" is the same core chip that is in the XBOX 360. Games look great and I would say it is very comparable to XBOX 360 graphics.

Far as a GeForce 8800 that is way beyond an XBOX360.
 


You'd be wrong on asuming they are the same, it is an R500 aka C1 aka Xenos aka son of the never launched R400, but has nothing to do with the R5xx desktop series. Read the article.

It (the X1950GT) is an R5xx series chip, RV570 to be exact; but the R500/Xenos and R520/580/RV570 are very VERY different chips/architectures.
 
When talking strictly about the GPU, the Xbox360 definitely is superior, although the 10MB of eDRAM has already caused issues as it's been too small for the frame buffer in the example of Halo 3. The "RSX" isn't necessarily bad for a game console, but it's not quite as fast or feature rich as the Xenos, so developers will have to make up for that with use of the Cell, which in comparison to even modern desktop CPUs, is much better equipped for GPU functions. I own both systems, and to be honest would have to give the "best graphics award" currently to the PS3 as I've played nothing on my Xbox360 that can rival the quality of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. I'd almost go as far to say the graphics in a sense rival Crysis'; while Crysis is superior on a graphical level, Uncharted is still quite a treat for any PS3 owner.
 
Yeah but Drake's is about the programming component, when playing the same titles side by side the X360 has noticeably better graphics. Since there is no X360 version of the title there's no way to compare the consoles, because too much of it is affected by optimizations and choices in even different versions of the same game.

The best comparison I've seen sofar is the one at gamespot;
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/

But really, the highest end possible of both consoles is the same because the CELL and 3CoreHT PowerPC both have the same upper-limits.
 
wow that comparison is a great find, and to me the 360 is much better looking than the ps3. The lighting is dealt with much more realistically, everything is more detailed and the textures look alot better.

In terms of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune looking better than crysis, is this after playing crysis on an 8800GT, as i think we have decided the GT has much better graphics. I didnt think anything came anywhere near close to crysis just yet.
 
Yeah great comparison...only problem is that those games are horrible reference points as it is common knowledge that multiplats almost always look better on the xbox360. This has less to do with the graphical capabilities of either machine and more to do with the funds (and overall laziness of the devs, see ps3 version of orange box)as it costs more to have a good port on the ps3. Why you may ask? b/c the cell operates differently from the regular 'ol cpu (see: chip in xbox 360) and therefore you have to pay people for more hours, as the first couple of hours of each day are spent by those lazy devs whinning about how different the cell is.

I ask you all to hold off on this, which platform performs better, until the ps3 has some time to mature and gets some decent games under its belt. In other words, wait until the end of this current year when MGS4, Final Fantasy and Killzone have been released --then look me in the face and tell me that Halo looks better.

aint gonna happen.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom