ok when i use to have 512 i could not get bf2 textures above low. So how does the xbox 360 pull of good textures with that little of memory? Can a :nerd: please explain this to me. Is it because of the cpu and 32 pixel pipeline graphics card?
It's because XBox 360 games are designed specifically for that machine, and BF2 wasn't designed specifically for your computer. BF2 isn't a very good example anyway, because system memory doesn't normally determine the resolution of textures. That's all down to video memory on the graphics card (usually). It's just that BF2 has really large maps which use tons of memory, both system and video, and there really isn't anything on the 360 that comes close.
The 512 mb of mem does hurt the xbox 360, that is why prey which is PC optimized can basically only run on low texture. The developers optimize the games to fit in 512mb. Xbox360 works in special ways. The xbox 360 only has 10mb of graphic memory, but it works differently than you think. For every single frame the memory is cleared and rewritten. Instead of everything being stored to be ready to display a frame in PC graphic cards. This type of technology is much more efficient than PC gpu's. I believe the xbox360 has the ability to function like a 1GB graphic card.
No, the 10mb is just for frame buffer. It's just barely enough for 1280x720, and for antialiasing, you have to either upscale from a lower res or use a special tiling technique that I don't quite understand. Textures and other GPU stuff are simply stored in the 360's shared 512mb ram.
Also, Xbox 360 isn't running a whole buch of stuff in the background. The opperating system used for consoles is not nearly as complex as Windows XP is. At any given time, Windows is running a couple of dozen or more processes that all take up space in the system RAM. Xbox 360's hardware is also certainly more optimized to perform a single task. Essentially, it does only one of five things: Play games, view photos, play movies, surf the net, and play music. All multi-media except surfing the net. Your PC on the other hand is designed to do a lot of different non-specific things.
The xbox has alot more memory bandwidth as well. That means that everything can be shifted between cpu and gpu faster. Plus the DVD drive has a SATA connection (I think it does, I saw a cracked open 360 somewhere when it was released). I am guessing that helps when the texture cache needs updating. Plus the 360 doesn't have windows getting in the way all the time. edit: What he said. ^
Thanks for all the info guys. The question I'm left with, is. How does the 360 compare to the PS3? I guess we won't know until the PS3 is actually ready for distribution. Anyways, I don't want to change the topic but I'd like to hear your ppl's thoughts on this.
that why vista is coming out and game mode is only for games which runs faster then normal mode in vista.
I really doubt the PS3 will have better graphics than the xbox 360, the processor looks weak, the graphics are basically a 7800gt, which we know does not compare to the xenos core, and one is a dx9 part, and the other is also, but is capable of some features from dx10.
I think PS3 will be capable of some better graphics or not better graphics, maybe just more performance.
good day, Since all current ati graphics chips are featured with the 3dc texture hardware compression, the xbox 360 is also very likely to feature the 3dc, textures and normal maps on the xbox360 will look better. And Since games for the xbox360 are specially optimized for the machine, things will look better. And Consoles are using the technique "streaming" which will help the consoles with less video memory. So some textures of the games on the PS2 still looks good thanks to its software texture compressing and "streaming" technique. And John Carmack's Mega Textures for Quake Wars will even be a great improvement for textures in 3d games for the pc platform and console.
That's yet to be seen. The PS3's hardware is largely untested in the real world. That's what I worry about. You're paying $600 for hardware that's not solid. @ Joeydoo I don't think a SATA connection would make much difference. I remember hearing that the read speed of current 16x DVD is still far lower than IDE's total bandwith.
