If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PS3-X360 developer spills his experience: ATI Xenos GPU in X360 is superior to Nvidia RSX in PS3 for graphics rendering
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37033
QUOTE: "I'm a programmer I assure you, been one for 12 years in the games industry. No, I can't say my employers name because my comments could be construed as representing their opinion, which would get me into trouble." "There are *very* few instances where one would pick the PS3 gpu over the 360's because the PS3's gpu is weak compared to 360's. That's not just my opinion, ask other devs how they feel about it. Sony chose poorly when they chose the video hardware. Performance wise, the 360's video will out render the PS3's everytime if you feed it the same 3d scene. The only way to make the PS3 keep pace is to leverage its spu's to preprocess your 3d scene." "I have a shader that needs 8 vertex inputs, Position, Normal, Color, and Texcoord1 thru Texcoord5. Assume all inputs are packed (ie, .x, .y, ..z and .w are all used). Further, I need this shader to be applied to a mass of 100 enemies that are all close to the camera (and hence using their best lod) and are 5000 verticies each. Or if you prefer, imagine that it needs to be used on a 3d scene of 500,000 verts. These scenarios are quite common, and they *kill* RSX performance. If you don't believe me, just read the RSX docs, its right in there and it literally says "this kills RSX performance". The only way to accommodate these scenarios is to precull using the spu's. If you just rely on the RSX to do it for you, then you will never match the xenon's framerate, period. This isn't conjecture or opinion, its hardware design fact. Again, I encourage you to read the RSX docs as well as PS3 dev forums, I'm not the only one complaining about this." "I'm a 360/PS3 programmer by trade, focusing on graphics and optimization. It's fairly rare that I post, but I just got off a long crunch and have been browsing the forums more than normal to unwind Incidentally most of that crunch was spent trying to get the PS3 to match the 360's frame rate. It falls short, but it hits 30fps so we're ok. The Gran Turismo image posted above is a good shot, but its a testament to the talent of the dev crew, not just the hardware. Vertex/pixel shaders are written in HLSL and can be compiled to run on either PS3/360 although you can tweak them to suit the console. I guess my point here is that if you take that same vehicle 3d model and those same shaders that make it look all pretty, and compile/run them on the 360, it will look the same and run at a higher framerate than on the PS3. This is because the PS3's gpu isn't as good as the 360's." "I'm assuming you also know that the PS3's vertex processing units are terrible, since each extra vertex shader input ads one cycle of delay. Likewise, you probably also know that the only way currently around this limitation on PS3 is to use the spu's to preprocess all geometry by backface culling them first on cell before feeding them to the gpu. But then you are still stuck with other PS3 gpu limitations, such as not being able to do anti aliasing with floating point render targets so you can't have MSAA and HDR simultaneously." "The vertex pipeline doesn't matter when you have to waste one cycle per vertex input. In other words, the gpu stalls untill it can fetch all the data it needs before it can even start executing the vertex shader. Why is this important? Because next gen games needs lots of lookup maps to look nice, which means lots of u/v coordinates and other data that needs to be passed to the vertex shader, ie, lots of inputs. In RSX's case, that means gpu stalls. This is the RSX's well known achiles heel and is well documented. The only known work around at the moment is to use the cell spu's as another 'gpu', in this case a culling gpu, to limit the number of verts actually sent to the RSX. Whether or not RSX+SPU culling will help PS3 meet or exceed xenon's gpu performance isn't known at this point." "You don't think no msaa with floating point buffers isn't a huge limitation? There are other color spaces, but they are useless to me. I don't need 8/8/8/8 int. I need 8/8/8/8 float. In RSX's case you have no choice but to use FP16 (16/16/16/16), compared to FP8 on xenon. So you are forced to move around twice the memory on RSX if you want a floating point buffer, which means less framerate. Just try it! I'll assume your a game dev. Switch your PS3 game from FP16 to an 8/8/8/8 int format and see your framerate jump. Of course, you'll have to forgo HDR on your shipping title, but you can then do msaa. Or, go back to FP16 since HDR looks so cool, but oh ya, you then have to turn off msaa. I just don't have these headaches on 360, but I have to deal with them PS3." __________________________________________________ __________ sounds like he knows what he is talking about and is not bull****ting. everything he is saying fits well with what other developers have been saying for many months, even a year or more. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
PS3-X360 developer spills his experience: ATI Xenos GPU in X360 is superior to Nvidia RSX in PS3 for graphics rendering
Isn't this EXACTLY what has been repeatedly pointed out by various
devs? Sony have concentrated specifically on the power of the Cell because A) They know the RSX is not all that and B) it allows them to use big bloated numbers to market the thing. All that it comes down to is that the PS3 is EQUAL in MOST senses to the 360, as an overall system. HArder to program, more difficult to tap, and the first batch of games demonstrate that aptly. AirRaid Mach 2.5 wrote: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37033 QUOTE: "I'm a programmer I assure you, been one for 12 years in the games industry. No, I can't say my employers name because my comments could be construed as representing their opinion, which would get me into trouble." "There are *very* few instances where one would pick the PS3 gpu over the 360's because the PS3's gpu is weak compared to 360's. That's not just my opinion, ask other devs how they feel about it. Sony chose poorly when they chose the video hardware. Performance wise, the 360's video will out render the PS3's everytime if you feed it the same 3d scene. The only way to make the PS3 keep pace is to leverage its spu's to preprocess your 3d scene." "I have a shader that needs 8 vertex inputs, Position, Normal, Color, and Texcoord1 thru Texcoord5. Assume all inputs are packed (ie, .x, .y, .z and .w are all used). Further, I need this shader to be applied to a mass of 100 enemies that are all close to the camera (and hence using their best lod) and are 5000 verticies each. Or if you prefer, imagine that it needs to be used on a 3d scene of 500,000 verts. These scenarios are quite common, and they *kill* RSX performance. If you don't believe me, just read the RSX docs, its right in there and it literally says "this kills RSX performance". The only way to accommodate these scenarios is to precull using the spu's. If you just rely on the RSX to do it for you, then you will never match the xenon's framerate, period. This isn't conjecture or opinion, its hardware design fact. Again, I encourage you to read the RSX docs as well as PS3 dev forums, I'm not the only one complaining about this." "I'm a 360/PS3 programmer by trade, focusing on graphics and optimization. It's fairly rare that I post, but I just got off a long crunch and have been browsing the forums more than normal to unwind Incidentally most of that crunch was spent trying to get the PS3 to match the 360's frame rate. It falls short, but it hits 30fps so we're ok. The Gran Turismo image posted above is a good shot, but its a testament to the talent of the dev crew, not just the hardware. Vertex/pixel shaders are written in HLSL and can be compiled to run on either PS3/360 although you can tweak them to suit the console. I guess my point here is that if you take that same vehicle 3d model and those same shaders that make it look all pretty, and compile/run them on the 360, it will look the same and run at a higher framerate than on the PS3. This is because the PS3's gpu isn't as good as the 360's." "I'm assuming you also know that the PS3's vertex processing units are terrible, since each extra vertex shader input ads one cycle of delay. Likewise, you probably also know that the only way currently around this limitation on PS3 is to use the spu's to preprocess all geometry by backface culling them first on cell before feeding them to the gpu. But then you are still stuck with other PS3 gpu limitations, such as not being able to do anti aliasing with floating point render targets so you can't have MSAA and HDR simultaneously." "The vertex pipeline doesn't matter when you have to waste one cycle per vertex input. In other words, the gpu stalls untill it can fetch all the data it needs before it can even start executing the vertex shader. Why is this important? Because next gen games needs lots of lookup maps to look nice, which means lots of u/v coordinates and other data that needs to be passed to the vertex shader, ie, lots of inputs. In RSX's case, that means gpu stalls. This is the RSX's well known achiles heel and is well documented. The only known work around at the moment is to use the cell spu's as another 'gpu', in this case a culling gpu, to limit the number of verts actually sent to the RSX. Whether or not RSX+SPU culling will help PS3 meet or exceed xenon's gpu performance isn't known at this point." "You don't think no msaa with floating point buffers isn't a huge limitation? There are other color spaces, but they are useless to me. I don't need 8/8/8/8 int. I need 8/8/8/8 float. In RSX's case you have no choice but to use FP16 (16/16/16/16), compared to FP8 on xenon. So you are forced to move around twice the memory on RSX if you want a floating point buffer, which means less framerate. Just try it! I'll assume your a game dev. Switch your PS3 game from FP16 to an 8/8/8/8 int format and see your framerate jump. Of course, you'll have to forgo HDR on your shipping title, but you can then do msaa. Or, go back to FP16 since HDR looks so cool, but oh ya, you then have to turn off msaa. I just don't have these headaches on 360, but I have to deal with them PS3." __________________________________________________ __________ sounds like he knows what he is talking about and is not bull****ting. everything he is saying fits well with what other developers have been saying for many months, even a year or more. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
So what?
The relative power of a video game system has *never* been the determining
factor for sales during the past 30 years of gaming. Atari 2600 vs. Intellivision vs. Odyssey 2 More powerful: Intellivision Sales Winner: Atari 2600 GameBoy vs. Lynx vs. Game Gear More powerful: Lynx Sales Winner: GameBoy Nintendo NES vs. Atari XEGS vs. Sega Master System More powerful: XEGS Sales Winner: NES Nintendo SNES vs. Sega Genesis/Sega 32X/Sega CD More powerful: Sega CD Sales Winner: SNES PlayStation vs. Nintendo 64 vs. Atari Jaguar vs. Sega Saturn More powerful: Nintendo 64 Sales Winner: PlayStation PlayStation 2 vs. Xbox vs. GameCube vs. Dreamcast More powerful: Xbox Sales Winner: PlayStation 2 Nintendo DS vs. Sony PSP More powerful: PSP Sales Winner (so far): DS Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 vs. Nintendo Wii More powerful: Some say PS3, some say 360, some say 360 and PS3 are equal Sales Winner: ? ? ? (in North America, the PS3 and Wii sold out of their initial shipments, with Wii selling more than PS3, but both trailing the 360) (in Japan, the 360 is behind PS3 and Wii, despite having launched first) (in Europe, the PS3 is not yet available) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
So what?
Android wrote:
The relative power of a video game system has *never* been the determining factor for sales during the past 30 years of gaming. Atari 2600 vs. Intellivision vs. Odyssey 2 More powerful: Intellivision Sales Winner: Atari 2600 GameBoy vs. Lynx vs. Game Gear More powerful: Lynx Sales Winner: GameBoy Nintendo NES vs. Atari XEGS vs. Sega Master System More powerful: XEGS Sales Winner: NES Nintendo SNES vs. Sega Genesis/Sega 32X/Sega CD More powerful: Sega CD Sales Winner: SNES PlayStation vs. Nintendo 64 vs. Atari Jaguar vs. Sega Saturn More powerful: Nintendo 64 Sales Winner: PlayStation PlayStation 2 vs. Xbox vs. GameCube vs. Dreamcast More powerful: Xbox Sales Winner: PlayStation 2 Nintendo DS vs. Sony PSP More powerful: PSP Sales Winner (so far): DS Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 vs. Nintendo Wii More powerful: Some say PS3, some say 360, some say 360 and PS3 are equal Sales Winner: ? ? ? (in North America, the PS3 and Wii sold out of their initial shipments, with Wii selling more than PS3, but both trailing the 360) (in Japan, the 360 is behind PS3 and Wii, despite having launched first) (in Europe, the PS3 is not yet available) I still think it's a fear thing. Sad little people who have bought into something in such a big way they are scared their chosen system will crash and burn so they have to keep attacking the others or bigging up their chosen one. I used to think the dust would settle after a while and these groups would be about gaming, but the fanboy factions just can't see past their joypads. -- Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
PS3-X360 developer spills his experience: ATI Xenos GPU in X360 is superior to Nvidia RSX in PS3 for graphics rendering
"AirRaid Mach 2.5" wrote in message ups.com... http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37033 QUOTE: "I'm a programmer I assure you, been one for 12 years in the games industry. No, I can't say my employers name because my comments could be construed as representing their opinion, which would get me into trouble." "There are *very* few instances where one would pick the PS3 gpu over the 360's because the PS3's gpu is weak compared to 360's. That's not just my opinion, ask other devs how they feel about it. Sony chose poorly when they chose the video hardware. Performance wise, the 360's video will out render the PS3's everytime if you feed it the same 3d scene. The only way to make the PS3 keep pace is to leverage its spu's to preprocess your 3d scene." "I have a shader that needs 8 vertex inputs, Position, Normal, Color, and Texcoord1 thru Texcoord5. Assume all inputs are packed (ie, .x, .y, .z and .w are all used). Further, I need this shader to be applied to a mass of 100 enemies that are all close to the camera (and hence using their best lod) and are 5000 verticies each. Or if you prefer, imagine that it needs to be used on a 3d scene of 500,000 verts. These scenarios are quite common, and they *kill* RSX performance. If you don't believe me, just read the RSX docs, its right in there and it literally says "this kills RSX performance". The only way to accommodate these scenarios is to precull using the spu's. If you just rely on the RSX to do it for you, then you will never match the xenon's framerate, period. This isn't conjecture or opinion, its hardware design fact. Again, I encourage you to read the RSX docs as well as PS3 dev forums, I'm not the only one complaining about this." "I'm a 360/PS3 programmer by trade, focusing on graphics and optimization. It's fairly rare that I post, but I just got off a long crunch and have been browsing the forums more than normal to unwind Incidentally most of that crunch was spent trying to get the PS3 to match the 360's frame rate. It falls short, but it hits 30fps so we're ok. The Gran Turismo image posted above is a good shot, but its a testament to the talent of the dev crew, not just the hardware. Vertex/pixel shaders are written in HLSL and can be compiled to run on either PS3/360 although you can tweak them to suit the console. I guess my point here is that if you take that same vehicle 3d model and those same shaders that make it look all pretty, and compile/run them on the 360, it will look the same and run at a higher framerate than on the PS3. This is because the PS3's gpu isn't as good as the 360's." "I'm assuming you also know that the PS3's vertex processing units are terrible, since each extra vertex shader input ads one cycle of delay. Likewise, you probably also know that the only way currently around this limitation on PS3 is to use the spu's to preprocess all geometry by backface culling them first on cell before feeding them to the gpu. But then you are still stuck with other PS3 gpu limitations, such as not being able to do anti aliasing with floating point render targets so you can't have MSAA and HDR simultaneously." "The vertex pipeline doesn't matter when you have to waste one cycle per vertex input. In other words, the gpu stalls untill it can fetch all the data it needs before it can even start executing the vertex shader. Why is this important? Because next gen games needs lots of lookup maps to look nice, which means lots of u/v coordinates and other data that needs to be passed to the vertex shader, ie, lots of inputs. In RSX's case, that means gpu stalls. This is the RSX's well known achiles heel and is well documented. The only known work around at the moment is to use the cell spu's as another 'gpu', in this case a culling gpu, to limit the number of verts actually sent to the RSX. Whether or not RSX+SPU culling will help PS3 meet or exceed xenon's gpu performance isn't known at this point." "You don't think no msaa with floating point buffers isn't a huge limitation? There are other color spaces, but they are useless to me. I don't need 8/8/8/8 int. I need 8/8/8/8 float. In RSX's case you have no choice but to use FP16 (16/16/16/16), compared to FP8 on xenon. So you are forced to move around twice the memory on RSX if you want a floating point buffer, which means less framerate. Just try it! I'll assume your a game dev. Switch your PS3 game from FP16 to an 8/8/8/8 int format and see your framerate jump. Of course, you'll have to forgo HDR on your shipping title, but you can then do msaa. Or, go back to FP16 since HDR looks so cool, but oh ya, you then have to turn off msaa. I just don't have these headaches on 360, but I have to deal with them PS3." __________________________________________________ __________ sounds like he knows what he is talking about and is not bull****ting. everything he is saying fits well with what other developers have been saying for many months, even a year or more. You're an idot. This is over 6 months old from that lazy programmer. This has been known for over a year. He mentions to use the SPU but he's too lazy. He talks about other workarounds, but he's too lazy. It's one thing to be an idiot like AirRaid, it's another to be an idot fanboy. Did you read the reviews for Fight Night or Madden? Have you played the demo of MotorStorm? It' release in Japan is even improved. You are seeing 1st gen games on PS3 and it will be better. It's obvious Sony went with a lowercost GPU because MS has all the money can crush most any company including all game companys but with all the Xbox losses, their shareholders want to see a profit from MS this round. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
So what?
Android wrote:
The relative power of a video game system has *never* been the determining factor for sales during the past 30 years of gaming. You're right it hasn't, but I can't recall when a console has been boasted as such a superior pixel pusher as the PS3. The PS3 marketing strategy has been based around its supposed greatly superior processing power and if word starts to get around that it isn't as powerful as the hype Sony was trying to sell, then the whole imagine of the console and Sony will suffer. In fact it's already starting to happen as reputable news sources give it negative reviews because it hasn't lived up to expectations. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
PS3-X360 developer spills his experience: ATI Xenos GPU in X360 is superior to Nvidia RSX in PS3 for graphics rendering
Sony put all their focus into the cell processor, it may be "bleeding
edge", but how much better than the 360 is yet to be determined. The first run games look no better than 360 titles. The processing power alone is nothing without a quality real-time rendering engine to utilize that power. It's up to Sony to meet that challenge and give developers the tools to tap into the power of the PS3, so far it sounds like they have not. That will be a challenge for them, because it takes some really brilliant minds to push the envelope with 3D engine technology and in order to do that the engineers must first fully understand the hardware. But In a recent interview one Playstation representative said "developers will never fully tap the power of the PS3...", with that comment I'm thinking. great, then you'll never need a PS4. There's a lot of this kind of arrogant, bull**** talk coming out of Sony Computer Entertainment these days. PS3 will continue to be unimpressive. XBox 360 and Wii will steal a lot of Sony's market share over the next few years. Assuming Sony survives all their mistakes with PS3 (wouldn't be surprised if the company is done for by 2008 with their PS3 mistakes). At best Sony will share equal space at the top, PS3 will never hold a #1 spot as the PSOne and PS2 have. AirRaid Mach 2.5 wrote: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37033 QUOTE: "I'm a programmer I assure you, been one for 12 years in the games industry. No, I can't say my employers name because my comments could be construed as representing their opinion, which would get me into trouble." "There are *very* few instances where one would pick the PS3 gpu over the 360's because the PS3's gpu is weak compared to 360's. That's not just my opinion, ask other devs how they feel about it. Sony chose poorly when they chose the video hardware. Performance wise, the 360's video will out render the PS3's everytime if you feed it the same 3d scene. The only way to make the PS3 keep pace is to leverage its spu's to preprocess your 3d scene." "I have a shader that needs 8 vertex inputs, Position, Normal, Color, and Texcoord1 thru Texcoord5. Assume all inputs are packed (ie, .x, .y, .z and .w are all used). Further, I need this shader to be applied to a mass of 100 enemies that are all close to the camera (and hence using their best lod) and are 5000 verticies each. Or if you prefer, imagine that it needs to be used on a 3d scene of 500,000 verts. These scenarios are quite common, and they *kill* RSX performance. If you don't believe me, just read the RSX docs, its right in there and it literally says "this kills RSX performance". The only way to accommodate these scenarios is to precull using the spu's. If you just rely on the RSX to do it for you, then you will never match the xenon's framerate, period. This isn't conjecture or opinion, its hardware design fact. Again, I encourage you to read the RSX docs as well as PS3 dev forums, I'm not the only one complaining about this." "I'm a 360/PS3 programmer by trade, focusing on graphics and optimization. It's fairly rare that I post, but I just got off a long crunch and have been browsing the forums more than normal to unwind Incidentally most of that crunch was spent trying to get the PS3 to match the 360's frame rate. It falls short, but it hits 30fps so we're ok. The Gran Turismo image posted above is a good shot, but its a testament to the talent of the dev crew, not just the hardware. Vertex/pixel shaders are written in HLSL and can be compiled to run on either PS3/360 although you can tweak them to suit the console. I guess my point here is that if you take that same vehicle 3d model and those same shaders that make it look all pretty, and compile/run them on the 360, it will look the same and run at a higher framerate than on the PS3. This is because the PS3's gpu isn't as good as the 360's." "I'm assuming you also know that the PS3's vertex processing units are terrible, since each extra vertex shader input ads one cycle of delay. Likewise, you probably also know that the only way currently around this limitation on PS3 is to use the spu's to preprocess all geometry by backface culling them first on cell before feeding them to the gpu. But then you are still stuck with other PS3 gpu limitations, such as not being able to do anti aliasing with floating point render targets so you can't have MSAA and HDR simultaneously." "The vertex pipeline doesn't matter when you have to waste one cycle per vertex input. In other words, the gpu stalls untill it can fetch all the data it needs before it can even start executing the vertex shader. Why is this important? Because next gen games needs lots of lookup maps to look nice, which means lots of u/v coordinates and other data that needs to be passed to the vertex shader, ie, lots of inputs. In RSX's case, that means gpu stalls. This is the RSX's well known achiles heel and is well documented. The only known work around at the moment is to use the cell spu's as another 'gpu', in this case a culling gpu, to limit the number of verts actually sent to the RSX. Whether or not RSX+SPU culling will help PS3 meet or exceed xenon's gpu performance isn't known at this point." "You don't think no msaa with floating point buffers isn't a huge limitation? There are other color spaces, but they are useless to me. I don't need 8/8/8/8 int. I need 8/8/8/8 float. In RSX's case you have no choice but to use FP16 (16/16/16/16), compared to FP8 on xenon. So you are forced to move around twice the memory on RSX if you want a floating point buffer, which means less framerate. Just try it! I'll assume your a game dev. Switch your PS3 game from FP16 to an 8/8/8/8 int format and see your framerate jump. Of course, you'll have to forgo HDR on your shipping title, but you can then do msaa. Or, go back to FP16 since HDR looks so cool, but oh ya, you then have to turn off msaa. I just don't have these headaches on 360, but I have to deal with them PS3." __________________________________________________ __________ sounds like he knows what he is talking about and is not bull****ting. everything he is saying fits well with what other developers have been saying for many months, even a year or more. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
So what?
"Android" wrote in message . .. The relative power of a video game system has *never* been the determining factor for sales during the past 30 years of gaming. Atari 2600 vs. Intellivision vs. Odyssey 2 More powerful: Intellivision Sales Winner: Atari 2600 GameBoy vs. Lynx vs. Game Gear More powerful: Lynx Sales Winner: GameBoy Nintendo NES vs. Atari XEGS vs. Sega Master System More powerful: XEGS Sales Winner: NES Nintendo SNES vs. Sega Genesis/Sega 32X/Sega CD More powerful: Sega CD Sales Winner: SNES PlayStation vs. Nintendo 64 vs. Atari Jaguar vs. Sega Saturn More powerful: Nintendo 64 Sales Winner: PlayStation PlayStation 2 vs. Xbox vs. GameCube vs. Dreamcast More powerful: Xbox Sales Winner: PlayStation 2 Nintendo DS vs. Sony PSP More powerful: PSP Sales Winner (so far): DS Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 vs. Nintendo Wii More powerful: Some say PS3, some say 360, some say 360 and PS3 are equal Sales Winner: ? ? ? (in North America, the PS3 and Wii sold out of their initial shipments, with Wii selling more than PS3, but both trailing the 360) (in Japan, the 360 is behind PS3 and Wii, despite having launched first) (in Europe, the PS3 is not yet available) Did you mean the 360 was trailing??? http://www.playfuls.com:80/news_0565...mas_Sales.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
So what?
Did you mean the 360 was trailing???
http://www.playfuls.com:80/news_0565...mas_Sales.html I'm sure he meant the "overall" sales. Since 360 was out for a long time, others need time to catch up. The link you provided shows ONLY pre-christmas sale numbers, not the TOTAL number of units sold so far. Just an educated guess though, I do not have time to dig the numbers for you (you do that, if you have to). GT |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
So what?
GT-Force wrote:
Did you mean the 360 was trailing??? http://www.playfuls.com:80/news_0565...mas_Sales.html I'm sure he meant the "overall" sales. Since 360 was out for a long time, others need time to catch up. The link you provided shows ONLY pre-christmas sale numbers, not the TOTAL number of units sold so far. Just an educated guess though, I do not have time to dig the numbers for you (you do that, if you have to). GT But the fanboys would use that as a stick, doesn't matter how exact it is, as long as it backs up their arguments. Pity some of them can't spend more time playing and less time searching for tidbits on the net. (Note is used the tidbits spelling in case any of them got any funny ideas and we had to put up with shaky writing?) -- Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bad news for ATI: Nvidia to 'own' ATI at CeBit - no pixel shader 3.0 support in R420 (long) | NV55 | Ati Videocards | 12 | February 24th 04 06:29 AM |
Response by Nvidia concerning HL2 *warning, lengthy post, strong opinion content, some bad langwidge* NC-17 rating administered... | Dave | Ati Videocards | 28 | September 14th 03 05:51 PM |
Response by Nvidia concerning HL2 *warning, lengthy post, strong opinion content, some bad langwidge* NC-17 rating administered... | Dave | Nvidia Videocards | 28 | September 14th 03 05:51 PM |
Kyle Bennett (HardOCP) blasts NVIDIA | Radeon350 | Nvidia Videocards | 19 | August 14th 03 09:46 PM |
Kyle Bennett (HardOCP) blasts NVIDIA | Radeon350 | Ati Videocards | 12 | August 13th 03 09:19 PM |