Jump to content


How many FLOPS are in game consoles?

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Xbox-Scene


    Memba Numero Uno

  • Admin
  • 5,202 posts
  • Location:Yurop
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 May 2008 - 02:33 AM

How many FLOPS are in game consoles?
Posted by XanTium | May 26 21:33 EST | News Category: Xbox_Xbox360
From tgdaily.com:

Recently I was asked how many TFLOPS are in all the game consoles shipped to date.

If you count central processor FLOPS then you have one answer and if you count the FLOPS potential of the GPU and add it to the CPU's FLOPS, then you have the second answer. This second version is controversial since the FLOPS of the GPU aren't used in computations and some therefore claim that the GPU should not be counted as it simply represents a theoretical number. Others argue that GPUs are used in computation - the computation of shader operations. Both sides, however, agree that there isn't yet a benchmark that can measure this discipline. And therefore I conclude that we shouldn't use them in evaluating the CPU FLOPS of game consoles.

Xbox | CPU: 1.5 GFLOPS | GPU: 5.8 GFLOPS | Combined: 7.3 GFLOPS
Xbox360 | CPU: 115 GFLOPS | GPU: 240 GFLOPS | Combined: 355 GFLOPS
Dreamcast | CPU: 1.4 GFLOPS | GPU: 0.1 GFLOPS | Combined: 1.5 GFLOPS
Wii | CPU: 60 GFLOPS | GPU: 1 GFLOPS | Combined: 61 GFLOPS
PS2 | CPU: 6 GFLOPS | GPU: 0 GFLOPS | Combined: 6 GFLOPS
PS3 | CPU: 218 GFLOPS | (GPU: 1800 GFLOPS) | (Combined: 2018 GFLOPS)

* Update: We have received numerous emails and comments voicing doubt over the floating point capability of the RSX GPU in the PS3. While original specs put the GPU at an official 1.8 TFLOPS spec, this number in fact appears to be inflated. Once we have verified the performance with the manufacturer as well as the developer, we will update this article.

Full Story: tgdaily.com

#2 NarutoKun


    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Location:BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fucking your sister, putting a fist up to your dad.
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 03:22 AM

I hope thats a typo under the GPU flops for PS3.

#3 some foo

some foo

    X-S Young Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts

Posted 27 May 2008 - 03:34 AM

even if the 360 does have less of anything it still has more and better games and not to mention better graphics

#4 dokworm


    X-S Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 27 May 2008 - 03:38 AM

The numbers are weird, there is nothing currently on the PS3 that runs noticably faster than on the 360.

With those numbers you would expect PS3 games to run at double the framerates, in higher resolution than the 360 without even having to try. Even if you took the GPU out of the equation.

#5 MysticalMagnet


    X-S Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Interests:Finished Games:<br />Madden 06<br />Pocket Bike Racer
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 03:41 AM

from the article

Update May 26, 8:19 PM EDT: We have received numerous emails and comments voicing doubt over the floating point capability of the RSX GPU in the PS3. While original specs put the GPU at an official 1.8 TFLOPS spec, this number in fact appears to be inflated. At this time, we have no reliable information stating the true floating point performance of the GPU. Some claims put the GPU in the range of the GeForce 7600 chip, which has been rated at 192 GFLOPS. Other claims, including Wikipedia, put the number at 364 GFLOPS. Since the performance of the GPU was just supplemental to this article we have removed this data from the table. Once we have verified the performance with the manufacturer as well as the developer, we will update this article. We regret any confusion the GPU floating point data may have caused. -wg

there is something wrong....was is a flop away

#6 proger


    X-S X-perience

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Xbox Version:none
  • 360 version:v5.0 (360S - trinity)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 04:16 AM

GFlops don't mean as much as people tend to think.

#7 Rickets06


    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 170 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.6
  • 360 version:v2 (zephyr)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 04:36 AM

Over at gamespot they had that graphics contest for xbox and ps and one game under the microscope was AC and I actually enjoyed the PS3's style for that particular game... less contrast, blurred visuals (sometimes cool), and anti-aliasing.

Sometimes the difference in color palettes is bad, xbox is more natural, PS3 is kinda stretching it.

#8 NarutoKun


    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Location:BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fucking your sister, putting a fist up to your dad.
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 04:47 AM

QUOTE(proger @ May 27 2008, 04:52 AM) View Post

GFlops don't mean as much as people tend to think.

Tell me about it, where's the MIPS data?

#9 anonim1979


    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 83 posts

Posted 27 May 2008 - 05:11 AM

OH MY GOD blink.gif

Those numbers - ROTFLMAO x 10 laugh.gif

PS3 vs X360
PS2 vs Wii

I can throw a dice a few times and get better ones.

Good laugh anyway.


If you want Assassins Creed comparison:

I recomend "Direct download" option and full screen viewing.

PS3 vs X360 - tearing of screen on ps3 is horrible:
(7MB small avi for framerate comparation)

2nd 360/PS3 comparison, retail version
BlimBlim :
Since some people have claimed that the retail PS3 version ran far better than the review one, I went and bought it to make sure I didn't unfairly compare both versions. So I've done another comparison video, and you'll notice that the end result is still the same. I'm eagerly awaiting some people arguing that my PS3 is either broken, my capture hardware is buggy, or I've simply cheated the video so the 360 version looked better.

And there's of course Eurogamer:

the PS3 rendition is a mocking shadow of the Xbox 360 version.

A patch is apparently forthcoming to fix 'freezing problems' but of far more consequence would be a complete optimisation of the game engine. While the 360 game drops the odd frame here and there, by and large it's refreshing at a steady 30fps. Not so with PS3 where even the most basic action on-screen sends the refresh rate tumbling dramatically. While the detail levels and texture quality appear to be identical cross-format (though PS3 has harsher contrast), the Sony machine employs a different anti-aliasing method than 360. The result is softer edges (good) but an unnecessary blur that masks a lot of the intricate detail you'll find on Xbox 360. The blurring effect is amplified still further should you play in 1080p, which I strongly recommend you avoid if your display accepts standard 720p - as all 'HD Ready' sets do.

Scaling and blurring aside, it's the frame-rate that is the key concern here, not just in terms of visual smoothness - essential in maintaining the in-game illusion of reality - but also in the perceived response from the controls. Sometimes, especially during combat, the game just feels sloth-like and cumbersome. Combo kills and counter-strikes depend on a split-second timing, and the muted response on the PS3 version makes this much more difficult.

In short then, one word sums it up for me: gutted. Despite its undeniable array of shortcomings, Assassin's Creed is definitely in my top ten titles of the year, a testament to the sheer ambition of developers today and a tantalising glimpse at the technical possibilities of the games of tomorrow. The fact that this ambition doesn't extend to offering the same quality experience to PlayStation 3 owners is bitterly disappointing.

Edited by anonim1979, 27 May 2008 - 05:16 AM.

#10 glitch666


    X-S Young Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:v3.0 (falcon)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 05:53 AM

I like where this thread is going and you are right both Microsoft and Sony are guilty of bsing the numbers to make themselves look good. Those theoretical numbers are a lot less than either Microsoft or Sony would have you believe seriously don't even pay attention to them the true performance numbers are A LOT lower than they'd have you believe. There are just now cpus showing up that can even manage to achieve 40GFLOPS worth of performance (as a theoretical number) much less 115 or 218 that the 360 and ps3 claim to be capable of.

For example that 1.8 teraflops number on the ps3 gpu isn't even true. They added up a lot of meaningless numbers to arrive to such a number. I think everyone here knows that the newest gpus for the pc have more raw horsepower than either the 360 gpu or ps3 gpu. The 360 gpu makes up for this fact by having a large amount oft of video memory bandwidth (256GB/s from the edram) and a unified shader architecture with 48 pixel and vertex shader units.

Since we all know pc gpus which run at like 650MHZ + have more raw horsepower how is they are claiming the rsx has 1.8 teraflops? Simple it doesn't ati recently just said in an interview their latest pc videocards have just over 400GFLOPS-500GFLOPS. So if these gpus are running at speeds of around 650MHZ-700MHZ a 500MHZ xenos or 550MHZ rsx couldn't seriously hope to have more raw power its just not going to happen.

Another thing to consider in regards to cell is most pieces of hardware never achieve their theoretical performance the 360's gpu due to its new architecuture is 95-99 efficient (which is a very rare case and its because of the unified shader architecture and the crazy amount of memory bandwidth that it can sustain so close to its peak performance.)

The theoretical on the ps3's cell is suppose to be 218GFLOPS (Let me start off by saying the cell will never achieve that number I'll explain why later) The peak performance for each cell spu is 25.6GFLOPS with the one PPE on the cell probably being capable of like 38-40GFLOPS (just ballparking the figures here as I'm trying to type this up fast) Now remember how many spes are being used for ps3 games? 6 spes and 1 is being used for the operating system so that means we subtract 25.6GFLOPS from the peak theoretical 218GFLOPS which drops that peak number for ps3 games to 192.4GFLOPS.

Now there are 3 things to take into consideration with these numbers here folks wink.gif

#1 the way ibm even arrived at these peak theoretical numbers was via perfectly SETUP best case scenario situations in which everything is 100% perfect (game development is NOT like that at all so the 360 nor the ps3 will ever manage to achieve such performance numbers on a full game. They'll concentrate on a single aspect and force more and more of the same exact thing to see just how good performance can get. Games are made up of many more different elements so again these crazy theoretical performance numbers from each cpu are UNACHIEVABLE!

#2 Taking into consideration the fact that in order to achieve those performance numbers it has to be in a setup best case scenario situation remember there is no way in hell these cpus will operate at better than 66-75% efficiency. We'll come within the 66-75% efficiency range if we are lucky (may not happen till end of each console's life.)

#3 Taken into consideration games aren't limited to just one aspect there are the graphics to think about (which are getting more complex not simpler as we go on) game ai, physics, collision detection, particle systems and many other things. Taking all of that into consideration on these cpus we are now NO LONGER IN THE TRIPLE DIGIT performance numbers folks we are now down to double digit numbers and not even high double digits at that!

Let me break it down I can't give dead on accurate numbers because it all depends on how well they program for the cpus, but I can tell you my numbers will be close, but not 100% perfect without any minor miscalculations. So cell 218GFLOPS drops to 192.4GFLOPS because only 6 spes are being used for games (that 192.4 is STILL a theoretical unachievable number). Now remember the 360 and cell's cpu will at best be 66-75% efficient and that will be achieved if we are lucky.

Assuming the cell cpu is 75% efficient at all times guess what we are now looking at? 144.3GFLOPS, but wait can it get any lower in realworld performance? YES IT CAN AND IT WILL because I have yet to factor in that games don't rely on just a single aspect (like ibm concentrated on to get the bogus unachievable numbers we'll never see) games are a whole package of ai, physics, particle systems, game update, scripting that all needs to come together into one impressive package. Guys guess what we are now looking at once we take all of this into consideration? 12-45 GFLOPS worth of true real world performance and this is IF WE ARE LUCKY BOYS! We may NEVER see any of these cpus perform past 25GFLOPS in realworld gaming applications.

Now guys remember that the 360's and ps3's cpus are HEAVILY stripped down? There are things in our pc processors designed to make branch heavy code such as ai run and perform much faster well guess what? Neither the 360 or ps3 cpu has something that does that for developers they have to go back to the old way of doing things because the cpu is now helping less (they had to do this to make the chips affordable among many other things) Can you imagine the true price of a fully beefed up cell processor? Likely more expensive than the entire ps3 by itself there are single cpus right now that are more expensive than a 360 or an entire ps3 $600 model.

Guess what besides the fact that they are stripped down is preventing us from getting the true power out of these cpus? Proper multi-threading is a must and as carmack says it IS NOT an easy thing to achieve so guys we can all be content knowing that we've yet to see what any of these cpus can do. 12-46GFLOPS is the best either the 360 cpu or ps3 gpu can EVER hope to achieve in games if even past 25GFLOPS, now guys remember how hard it is to program for these consoles in the first place especially the cell cpu? Another factor getting in the way of achieving the best possible performance. The ps3 cpu has more peak power, but as carmack said its all about what you wind up delivering on the game the ACTUAL game and he feels that Microsoft made the better cpu choice for the 360 than sony did for the ps3. As you can see carmack say in this video here during E3 06 on g4tv.

http://www.youtube.c...0...ion g4 ibox

I'd give ps3 cell's max in games 12-46GFLOPS MAYBE 50 (but highly doubtful max will be achieved)
360 cpu's max in games I'd give it a 12-38GFLOPS MAYBE even 42 (but again HIGHLY doubtful of max) Rememeber these high 30s or low 40s are ONLY achieveable given perfect multi-threading (which will be extremely hard) Listen to what carmack says though he feels sony made a mistake with their cpu choice he feels the 360's numbers are much more capable of being achieved as Microsoft made it easier to do whereas sony made it MUCH harder to accomplish. If multi-threading is the key (and it is) Microsoft has made that goal easier 3 symmetrical cores all of em identical and can be programmed all the same way. It isn't like that for the ps3's cpu things are much harder.

Now the gpus on these machines are nowhere near 1 teraflop lol. I'd have to make sure, but the 360 gpu is said to be around 240GFLOPS (not 100% sure so I could be wrong) and the ps3 gpu (this i'm sure about) is 211.2GFLOPS (if rsx is 550MHZ) If rsx is 500MHZ then that will drop a bit.

But any rate the jist of this whole thing is forgot about 115 peak theoretical for 360 cpu or 218 peak theoretical for ps3 cpu in games it wont happen. The real numbers are as follows.

12-46GFLOPS for ps3 gpu maybe 50GFLOPS
12-38GFLOPS for 360 cpu maybe 42GFLOPS

Neither cpu may ever surpass 25-30GFLOPS to be completely honest. Both machines cpus were extremely overhyped, but neither company will ever tell you that.

One must be wondering where the hell is all the cell hype if none of only so much of the 218 peak theoretical can be achieved? The ps3's cell cpu can achieve triple digits, but it wont happen for games games it can achieve it in specific media related applications such as movie playback, or things such as the curing cancer thing you saw recently. The cell cpu excells at such things, but games are more than that. You see when sony says they'll make xbla type games for the ps3 as well that flat out CANNOT be done on the 360? They are looking to take advantage of the cell cpu's ability in the areas I listed to create something new and innovative that really can't be done on the 360. Pretty ironic that it may be the smaller, xbla type ps3 games that aren't achievable on the 360, I'll be able to spot the ones that are, but the ones that wont be possible on the 360 may be obvious once we see them.

Holy crap that response was long.

for the record some of what I said came DIRECTLY from some sony and 360 developers so I can pretty much guarantee that those gflops numbers while not dead on accurate are CLOSE. I was given a specific range, but they wont specify the exact numbers

To be honest platform defining titles like ff13 for ps3 or halo 3 for 360 may actually be PRAYING they can manage to achieve just 18GFLOPS, but I guess we'll see how successful they were when the games are released.

#11 NoFace


    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 254 posts
  • Xbox Version:none
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 06:39 AM

For anyone wondering, a FLOPS is a measurement of the number of Floating Point Operations Per Second that a particular CPU/GPU can do

I hope I am not pointing out the obvious unsure.gif

#12 jimbobjim


    X-S Freak

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yorkshire, England
  • Interests:Sniffing farts under the covers.
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:none

Posted 27 May 2008 - 09:19 AM

QUOTE(NoFace @ May 27 2008, 07:15 AM) View Post

For anyone wondering, a FLOPS is a measurement of the number of Floating Point Operations Per Second that a particular CPU/GPU can do

I hope I am not pointing out the obvious unsure.gif

I thought they were comparing the amount of countries the consoles have "flopped" in tongue.gif

See what I did there?

#13 Foe-hammer


    X-S Messiah

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming
  • Interests:Hunting, fishing, body building, video games
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 11:04 AM

PS3's GPU: 1800 GFLOPS.... blink.gif blink.gif

That looks FUBAR.

#14 toytown


    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 27 May 2008 - 04:09 PM

PS3's GPU: 1800 GFLOPS...

Lol, Nvidia's latest GPU which is released next month (GTX280) only does 933 GFlops, and the one inside the ps3 is 2 generations behind it, the guy just pulled the numbers from his ass.

#15 Merkaba


    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 68 posts
  • Xbox Version:v1.2
  • 360 version:v2 (zephyr)

Posted 27 May 2008 - 04:16 PM

if im not mistaken the rsx graphics chip is basically a 7 series right?

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users