The slightly more curious bit, encouraging and disturbing at the same time, is the current state of RSX. The disturbing part is that the slide I was shown had "Current DEH's aren't final spec or speed" in bold letters. Speed, OK, but not final spec at this point in time leaves precious little room for debugging before the console release. On a different note the current ones are running the RSX core at 420MHz with 550 expected for launch. Memory is set at 600MHz with 700 hoped for as final.
Nothing big really, but it makes you think of how they are going to raise the speed of the GPU if already there are comments of how loud and hot the dev kits are already.
Then came the horrible news, RSX appears to be limited to setting up 275 Million triangles/second, anemic compared to the 500+ million in XBox360. When asked about this apparent thumping dished out by MS, the reply from one notable ISV relations boffin was a terse 'What a Piece of Junk'. Talk about a steak in the heart.
Half the triangle setup capability in the PS3, could things get worse? Yes, far far worse, how about another disparity of three orders of magnitude? No, I am not joking, looking at Sony's own figures, Cell appears to be pretty badly broken.
For local memory, the measured vs theoretical bandwidth is missing, I wonder why? RSX is at a solid 22.4GBps for both read and write, good job there green team. Then comes the blue team with Cell. Local memory write is about 4GBps, 40% of the next slowest bandwidth there. Then comes the bomb from hell, the Cell local memory read bandwidth is a stunning 16MBps, note that is a capital M to connote Mega vs a capital G to connote Giga. This is a three order of magnitude oopsie, and it is an oopsie, as Sony put it "(no, this isn't a typo...)".
I'm not sure to believe all of this info, but if this article is true in every sense then it would explain one thing that has been bothering me. Sony is never slow to state bloated specs but in every spec sheet/list shown by sony, not one had a polygon count on it, ever. I only assumed that it was either around the same as the 360 (500 million/secon) or polygon counts mean very little with this generation since both display so many its not worth mentioning. Well maybe its because it was below MS's count and just decided not to reveal that info. hmmm
Edited by KAGE360, 05 June 2006 - 06:02 AM.