So which will be more effecient, the unified shaders or the traditional shaders

[cobragt]

One console will have the advantage in visuals due to its type of shader design, even if the design wont really show a big difference in graphics, one will be better than the other. This is a metaphor I found on another board on the shaders

Say you have a four lane highway, with four lanes for both southbound and northbound traffics.........that's the seperate pipeline.

Now you have a twelve lane highway with lane's being shared by both northbound and southbound with either direction changing lanes when it needs to..............more lanes but not as effecient...........

So when it comes to visuals, which gpu will most likely have the advantage. Now the RSX on paper is more powerful than the Xenos but like some have said, raw power means nothing but being effecient does. Is it possible that with unified shaders, the BW will be wasted or something stalls. Let me quote Ken on his doubts of the unified shader

KK: The vertex shader and pixel shader are unified in ATI's architecture, and it looks good at one glance, but I think it will have some difficulties. For example, some question where will the results from the vertex processing be placed, and how will it be sent to the shader for pixel processing. If one point gets clogged, everything is going to get stalled. Reality is different from what's painted on canvas. If we're taking a realistic look at efficiency, I think Nvidia's approach is superior.


Could the unified arch be a waste of time or will it really help the 360 produce mad graphics, same question with the ps3 and the programmable shaders. And like I suggested before, both consoles will have amazing graphics but one will better.

 

[emad]

No difference. Efficiency with the raw power output they have access to is almost meaningless. All it means is that one game *might* be slightly less pretty at 1080p resolutions.

Basically, think of it this way. A computer with a mid range graphics card like the Geforce 6600gt can run games like halflife 2 at maximum graphics output with more than acceptible frame rates. We're being told to expect better graphics still since the video cards are more powerful than the best out there now. That means that the games will be far prettier than half-life 2. In fact, if the cards are that powerful, the games on ps3 will be more or less identical graphically as games on xbox360 and those will be more or less identical to those on the Nintendo Revolution.

 

[Jedi2016]

While the idea is definitely more "efficient" on paper, I don't think it'll make the slightest difference when you compare the two systems. While PS3's architecture may be independant, you're getting a lot more bang for your buck (more than twice the number of shader ops per second).

So, as folks on IGN have done, let's use the apples/oranges thing (vector/pixel shaders).

The XB360 gives you a total of twenty fruit. You can have 10 apples and 10 oranges, 15 apples and 5 oranges, or 0 apples and 20 oranges. Basically, it's more "efficient" because when you're not eating apples, you've got all these oranges at your disposal.

The PS3, on the other hand, has 20 apples and 20 oranges. You can't go over 20, though.. that's the maximum, because they're in separate baskets.

So, the way I understand it, the "advantage" in efficiency that ATI was blabbing about is completely nullified by the PS3's brute power.

Or, in GTP terms, the Volkswagen might get better mileage, but the Ferrari will whoop it on the track.

 

[cobragt]

and you will look cooler in the ferrari

 

[LaBounti]

When MS or ATI tell us what they have better then never mention what PS3 has better. To me from MS/ATI its all speculation(shifty logic) since neither hardware is complete.