|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > January 2005 > The truth about XBOX2 vs PS3
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The truth about XBOX2 vs PS3
|
|
| Wayne 2005-01-27, 12:03 pm |
| I don't have time to read through all the latest posts about the next gen
consoles but I have noticed a number of things:
"Xbox 2 coming out first is a mistake, PS3 will come out more powerful and
crush them like the bug they are." (Quotes"" fictitious paraphrase of
various sentiments):
The truth is that when PS2 came out we had PSX looking games (too many)
but they learn't the machine and improved the games and matched the xbox
until recent years. The PS2 started maxing out while developers finally
took advantage of it's extra power. One reason for this would be
developers slowly improving the games style and technique but also
keeping them simular for porting purposes (until one machine maxes out).
Now Sony was first and won, and xbox last and lost, if the same happened
here then Sony would loose and xbox 2 win. It's happened in both ways
before.
The truth is that from the specs I have heard about (multiple, multiple
cored PowerPC chips) is very powerful and far in advance of present day
games requirements. So when the PS3 comes out most games might not look
any better for 2-3 years at least. In the time in between (even if it is
early 2006 instead of 2007) the massively better xbox 2 can obtain a huge
market lead (before the PS3) with non die hard PS2 users deserting the PS2
in droves. Even after the PS3 released it can maintain and build on that
lead.
The xbox 2 has an R500, is this inferior to the R520 for the PC: Remember
the Nvidia based Xbox had the original Geoforce 3 chip, which had extra
features that were not in the PC version for a couple of generations (and
not in the integrated MB chipset for years). Speculation: If MS has any
sense they will ask for extras to the PC version, even with their own
patent protect features to stop it tuning up in the PC.
"The Sony chip is just an enhanced version of the PC Geoforce line." Is
there any proof of this. I thought that Sony was working with NVIDIA on
this chip. Speculation: Combining Sony's patented 3D and workstation 3D
IP with NVIDIA's to produce a very good chip.
Come on guys, if you got multiple multi cored Power PC's and array of
cells, do you think that the differences between the PS3, R500, R520, or
NV50 graphics chips really going to matter that much (unless one has a
unique feature like advanced Ray tracing or advanced volumetric rendering
(the combined programmable rendering systems of DX10 in the R500 (I hope)
should have good support for this, but even if the PS3 doesn't, with so
many parallel processors in the cells it might not matter too much).
Now what is the Revo, 2 cm stacked, fast, low powered, PIM (processor in
memory alternative to CELL like architecture) with some extra chips and a
single multi cored chip (maybe even integrated together). This would
allow extremely low cost (in mass volume) of production compared to an
existing design (hobby of mine).
I know of one group that has tech that is around 1 million times faster
than present day PC tech, and guess what, by the looks of it they are
already behind schedule in bringing it to market.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
| |
| Radeon350@yahoo.com 2005-01-27, 12:03 pm |
|
Wayne wrote:
"The xbox 2 has an R500, is this inferior to the R520 for the PC:
Remember
the Nvidia based Xbox had the original Geoforce 3 chip, which had extra
features that were not in the PC version for a couple of generations
(and
not in the integrated MB chipset for years). Speculation: If MS has any
sense they will ask for extras to the PC version, even with their own
patent protect features to stop it tuning up in the PC."
wrong. the R500 in Xbox2 is SUPERIOR to the R520 for PCs. read the
replies in this thread and learn:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19987 - forget the
numbering it doesnt mean much. R520 is based on the R300 much like the
R420 is, only R520 goes several steps further. the R500 in Xbox2 is a
totally new design, for the most part. the Xbox did not use a GeForce3
it used NV2A which had a mix of technologies from GeForce 3, GeForce 4
and GeForce FX.
| |
| Wayne 2005-01-27, 12:03 pm |
| Yes that was my point, it is not inferior.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
| |
| Bill Cable 2005-01-27, 9:40 pm |
| "Wayne" <Wayne85@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:opsk8682g8khyzh5@w...
quote:
>
> The truth is that when PS2 came out we had PSX looking games (too many)
> but they learn't the machine and improved the games and matched the xbox
> until recent years. The PS2 started maxing out while developers finally
> took advantage of it's extra power. One reason for this would be
> developers slowly improving the games style and technique but also
> keeping them simular for porting purposes (until one machine maxes out).
>
> Now Sony was first and won, and xbox last and lost, if the same happened
> here then Sony would loose and xbox 2 win. It's happened in both ways
> before.
The xbox2 is being rushed to market to get a jump on the PS3, just as Sega
rushed the Dreamcast before the PS2. And just as Sony dampened Dreamcast
sales through hyping superior hardware, so will they do the same to the
xbox2.
It's not really a comperable situation to the xbox and PS2. The PS2 wasn't
rushed to market to beat the xbox. And the xbox entered the market as a
brand new entity, whereas Sega and Sony were both well-established.
quote:
> The truth is that from the specs I have heard about (multiple, multiple
> cored PowerPC chips) is very powerful and far in advance of present day
> games requirements. So when the PS3 comes out most games might not look
> any better for 2-3 years at least. In the time in between (even if it is
> early 2006 instead of 2007) the massively better xbox 2 can obtain a huge
> market lead (before the PS3) with non die hard PS2 users deserting the PS2
> in droves. Even after the PS3 released it can maintain and build on that
> lead.
Oh man, does that sound like an xbox fanboy's wishful thinking. First of
all, PS2 games looked NOTHING LIKE PS1 games. That's complete revisionism.
I own both. They're not even close. There wasn't anything on the PS1 that
could hold a candle to Madden, Midnight Club or DOA2:HC. The first wave of
PS2 games looked like Dreamcast games with more aliasing. So if you follow
your line of thinking, PS3 launch titles will look like xbox2 games, since
both came out half a year before the subsequent Sony competitor.
The PS2 was a bear to program for, and we can expect that the Cell-based PS3
will probably be more difficult than the xbox2, which will be essentially a
stripped-down MacG5. So there will be more of a learning curve similar to
what we saw with the PS2. But proposing that PS3 games will look inferior
to the xbox2 for THREE YEARS is just laughable. And hoping people will
migrate to the hardware-deficient xbox2 in droves during that time period is
pipe dream.
The word is already out that the PS3 will have superior hardware to the
xbox2. The console buying market is by-an-large a patient entity. And I
predict consumers will, for the most part, wait to see what Sony has to
offer before deciding on a console to purchase. Yes, the xbox2 will set
records on its launch date, and they might sell a few million before the PS3
is out of the gate, but it will suffer the same fate as the last console
that was rushed to market to get a jump on Sony.
--
Bill Cable
Steeler Fan and Star Wars Collector
http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny
Cable is incapable of contributing anything positive to this world - cstoj
| |
| Zackman 2005-01-27, 9:40 pm |
| Bill Cable wrote:
quote:
> The xbox2 is being rushed to market to get a jump on the PS3, just as
> Sega rushed the Dreamcast before the PS2. And just as Sony dampened
> Dreamcast sales through hyping superior hardware, so will they do the
> same to the xbox2.
To a degree, probably. But Xbox 2 will have many things that the Dreamcast
does not: a built-in fan base, built-in subscribers to its online service,
household name status, a proven track record in the previous generation
(Sega's cock-up with the Saturn cost them a lot of fan support), a huge
amount of third-party developer support and a massive marketing budget. Sega
had none of those things, and on top of all that Dreamcast games were
ridiculouisly easy to pirate.
No other company BUT Sony could launch a year after Xbox 2 and not only
compete but have a good chance of ultimately beating out the competitor with
the early lead. But to say PS3 will do to Xbox 2 what the PS2 did to the
Dreamcast is silly.
quote:
> The word is already out that the PS3 will have superior hardware to
> the xbox2.
Word from the PS2 fanboys was that the Xbox's wimpy P-III and Geforce 3 was
going to be underpowered vs. the PS2's almighty Emotion Engine too. Until we
see the machines running actual game code side by side, the numbers aren't
going to mean much.
quote:
> The console buying market is by-an-large a patient
> entity. And I predict consumers will, for the most part, wait to see
> what Sony has to offer before deciding on a console to purchase.
This much is true. Early adopters will of course get the Xbox 2 and have the
only next-gen machine on the block for a year, while most consumers wait for
the price to drop. But that also gives MS a year to build up support and
developers a year to work on games, and that's key. Developers haven't even
got PS3 devkits yet, which means first-gen PS3 games are going to be
competing against Xbox games that have been in development for two years in
some cases. Exclusives are going to be even more important in the next gen
than they were in this one.
quote:
> Yes, the xbox2 will set records on its launch date, and they might
> sell a few million before the PS3 is out of the gate, but it will
> suffer the same fate as the last console that was rushed to market to
> get a jump on Sony.
Ah Bill, you dear sweet fanboy. Nobody's arguing that the PS3 will be a huge
hit -- it will be, and it will probably go on to be the sales leader of the
next generation, especially since the Xbox 2 will likely flop hard in Japan
just like its predecessor did. But to compare Microsoft and the Xbox 2 to
Sega and the Dreamcast is pure ignorance.
Microsoft is only "rushing" the end of the Xbox's life cycle. They're not
haphazardly slapping together a new console at the last minute just to get
the jump on the PS3, they've been saying for over two years that they'd
launch first in the next generation. Dreamcast curse or no, the only way for
them to eat a greater portion of Sony's market share is to get a solid
toehold before the PS3 launches. If they launched side by side, Xbox 2 would
just end up being a distant second for another generation, instead of the
close second they hope to be.
-Z-
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-01-27, 9:40 pm |
| Bill Cable <cable@creaturecantina.com> wrote:
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> The xbox2 is being rushed to market to get a jump on the PS3, just as Sega
> rushed the Dreamcast before the PS2. And just as Sony dampened Dreamcast
> sales through hyping superior hardware, so will they do the same to the
> xbox2.
Sony had long stopped hyping its hardware by the time DC came out. They were
too busy hyping software - like MGS3, their web browser deal with
Netscape/AOL (which never materialized) and their ability to play DVDs.
Sega did do some advertising, but it was pretty weak, if you ask me.
| |
| Wayne 2005-01-28, 12:05 pm |
| Well I am actually A PS3 fanboy, but I am talking practical business sense
here, unlike you fanboys. The truth is a number of things can happen, and
an early release has been both beneficial and a disadvantage in different
cases.
The problem for Sony is they have so over extended the PS2 life cycle that
the games capability has become dated, giving the xbox2 a rare opportunity
to bring even better games to market before the first PS3 hits the market,
by that time the xbox2 games might improve enough to apparently compete
with the PS3 (this happened with the PS2, where the ps2 games had improved
before the xbox people got to grips with the new hardware). So the xbox2
(in the right hands) will look like the bees knees for a few years before
it becomes apparent the PS3 actually is more competitive, by the time they
can make a difference there might be an XBOX3 out to totally eclipses it.
You must remember this 5 or 7 year life cycle is actually Sony's game, MS
doesn't have to play it, that gives them the advantage.
Now this sham, about Sony's tech being better. What do you call it, when
a company finished a chip and doesn't even put it into a game system for
upto 18 months. The basic trend is that processing power doubles every 18
months, so immediately you are behind the current market, even with your
special advanced technology PC's can still compete within 6 months. Now
let's look at another company, the chip is complete and going in the new
system within months, with their own special technologies. Now you have
two systems, one nearly twice as powerful, except nobody realises it yet,
because the developers haven't caught up. The xbox2 probably needed to
come out last year, it would have been a crushing defeat for Sony. If
Sony had released a Playstation 3 when the capabilities of he PS2 peaked
out then the xbox would have been so severely crushed, and such a market
lead established before the xbox2, enough to sustain them till a cell
based PS4 (in a years or two's time). We are getting subjective here, but
look. What could have been a early PS3. I had a look at the
specifications of he PS2 when announced and identified a few problems that
the PC market was getting to grips with, bump mapping and texture
compression performance (and one of two others I can't remember). Guess
what the 3D differences between the PS2 and PSP are, relatively simple
additions? These are things that should have been on the PS2 (remember
the long delay between chip completion and product introduction again).
So a PS3 with these features and even a 700Mhz CPU (they could have done
1GHz plus last year) would have given the xbox a good thump and stayed off
the xbox2, because the games would still look good enough. Now for PC
based xbox, the PC market has 6 month cycles, they could have introduced a
compatible xbox every year, Sony would have been, probably, broke and
unable to keep up with superior machine every year, except for a year
after they release a new, non cheap, not with already designed PC parts,
product, every 5+ years. This thing of holding onto product life cycles
has sent many in the industry broke, or nearly broke, times in the last 21
years. Realistically product life cycles should be more like every 3
years, with every second life cycle having a totally new design (6 years
worth of compatibility), and every one inbetween being an upgraded design.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:44:23 -0500, Bill Cable <cable@creaturecantina.com>
wrote:
quote:
> "Wayne" <Wayne85@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:opsk8682g8khyzh5@w...
quote:
>
> Oh man, does that sound like an xbox fanboy's wishful thinking. First of
> all, PS2 games looked NOTHING LIKE PS1 games. That's complete
> revisionism.
Revisionist Fanboy Bill, I looked at the first PS2 games when the system
hit the shops, and was severely disappointed, because unlike what Sony was
showing in their demo's, a lot looked too simular to what was on the
Playstation. This is just a fact of life, that it costs money to do a
newer bigger better game (especially on a new hard to get to grips
hardware) then to port some existing rubbish quickly to the system.
Remember I am talking about early titles, not current titles (and yes
there was a few really nice advanced ones too).
quote:
> your line of thinking, PS3 launch titles will look like xbox2 games,
> since
> both came out half a year before the subsequent Sony competitor.
Unfortunately that is what keeps happening, it takes time for developers
to get to grips with a new system and for games to max out the
capabilities of an older one, it doesn't mean that the PS3 won't be a
clearly superior machine, just people will probably not notice for a while.
quote:
> will probably be more difficult than the xbox2, which will be
> essentially a stripped-down MacG5. So there will be more of a learning
> curve similar
Huh..hmm, where is the 6 3.5Ghz processor cored R500 G5, I would like to
see that?
quote:
> what we saw with the PS2. But proposing that PS3 games will look
> inferior
> to the xbox2 for THREE YEARS is just laughable. And hoping people will
Yes, who claimed that, I didn't? Many might look simular for three years
(maybe two).
quote:
> migrate to the hardware-deficient xbox2 in droves during that time
> period is
> pipe dream.
As I have just illustrated, I am not such a Fanboy, and the Pipe dream is
on the other foot.
quote:
> offer before deciding on a console to purchase. Yes, the xbox2 will set
> records on its launch date, and they might sell a few million before the
> PS3 is out of the gate, but it will suffer the same fate as the last
> console
> that was rushed to market to get a jump on Sony.
Ahem, wouldn't they need to sell a few million just to set launch
records? I think 10 million a year until the PS3 is a conservative
figure, if it somehow goes off it could be much more. I expect xbox2 may
end up with 50% of the market, and XBOX3, in maybe four years time??
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
| |
| brun132001@yahoo.com 2005-01-28, 5:38 pm |
|
Zackman wrote:
quote:
> Word from the PS2 fanboys was that the Xbox's wimpy P-III and Geforce
3 was
quote:
> going to be underpowered vs. the PS2's almighty Emotion Engine too.
Until we
quote:
> see the machines running actual game code side by side, the numbers
aren't
quote:
> going to mean much.
I'm pretty sure that the Xbox GPU is more similar to the Geforce 4 than
the Geforce 3. The Xbox GPU has more vertex and pixel shaders than a
Geforce 3 which make it more powerful at TV resolutions.
Many people are also assuming that the PS3 will be more powerful
because it is coming out later but there is no guarantee that it will
be true. Nvidia came out with the Geforce 5 series almost a year after
the ATI 9700 pro but the Nvidia cards were so inferior that Nvidia
stopped production soon after they were launched. The whole debacle
made Nvidia the laughing stock of the industry and PC gamers. Nvidia
has turned it around and I now use a 6800 Ultra as my gaming card but
there is still a possibility that a newer Nvidia GPU (PS3) will once
again be outperformed by an older ATI GPU (Xbox2). I do think that
Sony has made the right decision in turning to Nvidia though. At least
Sony developers no longer have to use complicated methods for effects
that still don't look as good as effects that are easily done on
competing hardware.
| |
| Despil 2005-01-29, 3:39 am |
| Wayne <Wayne85@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
news:opslbll5u4khyzh5@w:
quote:
> Well I am actually A PS3 fanboy, but I am talking practical
> business sense here, unlike you fanboys. The truth is a
> number of things can happen, and an early release has been
> both beneficial and a disadvantage in different cases.
>
> The problem for Sony is they have so over extended the PS2
> life cycle that the games capability has become dated,
> giving the xbox2 a rare opportunity to bring even better
> games to market before the first PS3 hits the market, by
> that time the xbox2 games might improve enough to
> apparently compete with the PS3 (this happened with the
> PS2, where the ps2 games had improved before the xbox
> people got to grips with the new hardware). So the xbox2
> (in the right hands) will look like the bees knees for a
> few years before it becomes apparent the PS3 actually is
> more competitive, by the time they can make a difference
> there might be an XBOX3 out to totally eclipses it. You
> must remember this 5 or 7 year life cycle is actually
> Sony's game, MS doesn't have to play it, that gives them
> the advantage.
MS would love to play the same game if XBox was profitable.
It is now for the first time. The reason they're rushing is
to hopefully get XBox2 to a better start. Although it seems
a bit desperate to me.
quote:
> Now this sham, about Sony's tech being better.
Why is it a sham ? Cell is almost guaranteed to be more powerful
than whatever it is that will be used in XBox2. Otherwise it
makes no sense for IBM to invest hundreds of millions of dollars
to develop a chip that will be worse than what they already
have. And as for GPU, NVidia can and has build cards that beat
ATI's, so it's not just possible but rather more likely that
PS3 will be more powerful.
quote:
> What do you
> call it, when a company finished a chip and doesn't even
> put it into a game system for upto 18 months. The basic
> trend is that processing power doubles every 18 months,
First of all it's the GHz that doubles not power, secondly
that's not even true anymore. 3 GHz Pentiums have been out for
more than a year already, and Intel still hasn't made one that
would run at 4 GHz, Do you think they're gonna hit 6 in half a
year ?
quote:
> so immediately you are behind the current market, even with
> your special advanced technology PC's can still compete
> within 6 months.
Not with Cell, not by the looks of it.
quote:
> Now let's look at another company, the
> chip is complete and going in the new system within
> months, with their own special technologies. Now you have
> two systems, one nearly twice as powerful, except nobody
> realises it yet, because the developers haven't caught up.
> The xbox2 probably needed to come out last year, it would
> have been a crushing defeat for Sony. If Sony had
> released a Playstation 3 when the capabilities of he PS2
> peaked out then the xbox would have been so severely
> crushed, and such a market lead established before the
> xbox2, enough to sustain them till a cell based PS4 (in a
> years or two's time). We are getting subjective here, but
> look. What could have been a early PS3. I had a look at
> the specifications of he PS2 when announced and identified
> a few problems that the PC market was getting to grips
> with, bump mapping and texture compression performance
> (and one of two others I can't remember). Guess what the
> 3D differences between the PS2 and PSP are, relatively
> simple additions? These are things that should have been
> on the PS2 (remember the long delay between chip
> completion and product introduction again). So a PS3 with
> these features and even a 700Mhz CPU (they could have done
> 1GHz plus last year) would have given the xbox a good thump
> and stayed off the xbox2, because the games would still
> look good enough. Now for PC based xbox, the PC market
> has 6 month cycles, they could have introduced a
> compatible xbox every year, Sony would have been, probably,
> broke and unable to keep up with superior machine every
> year, except for a year after they release a new, non
> cheap, not with already designed PC parts, product, every
> 5+ years. This thing of holding onto product life cycles
> has sent many in the industry broke, or nearly broke, times
> in the last 21 years. Realistically product life cycles
> should be more like every 3 years, with every second life
> cycle having a totally new design (6 years worth of
> compatibility), and every one inbetween being an upgraded
> design.
[snip]
| |
| Wayne 2005-01-30, 11:38 am |
| On 29 Jan 2005 03:55:31 GMT, Despil <void@void.com> wrote:
quote:
> Wayne <Wayne85@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
> news:opslbll5u4khyzh5@w:
quote:
> MS would love to play the same game if XBox was profitable.
> It is now for the first time. The reason they're rushing is
> to hopefully get XBox2 to a better start. Although it seems
> a bit desperate to me.
>
>
>
> Why is it a sham ? Cell is almost guaranteed to be more powerful
> than whatever it is that will be used in XBox2. Otherwise it
> makes no sense for IBM to invest hundreds of millions of dollars
> to develop a chip that will be worse than what they already
> have. And as for GPU, NVidia can and has build cards that beat
> ATI's, so it's not just possible but rather more likely that
> PS3 will be more powerful.
I am not up on what is happening but I have read upto 1000M/GFLOP(?) and I
though I read 226 for the xbox2, even just 250 is more. If it was a 226
to 250 competition the graphic processor can make a large enough
difference (after the developers catch up with them) to be noticeable, but
if it is 1000/226 I don't think the GPU will make very much differnce in
the end (unless they don't program a system to it's full potential). To
answer Brun, the use of the multi cored Power PC does looks like a
desperate measure to simply compete with the cell, but whatever is on tap
the developers have actually got to expand their horizons (and budgets) to
bring the extra power out. Because of the reasons I just quoted, and
maybe a Xbox3 a year or two after the PS3, MS might have the shot. All I
can say is that a PC/Apple based on the chipset in the XBOX2, or a PS3
cell based one, would be welcome. The worry is that Intel and AMD won't
be able to compete. The reason why is simple, the PC architechture limits
the core frequency and increases the core transistor count and power
consumption, they might be able to improve one of these enough, but all
three? If you look at the soon to be released VIA processor, which is a
very good comrpomise and at 1W at 1Ghz (2Ghz will be much more), this is
the present limit, look at a Risc processor (ARM or Mips) and the lowest
powered design at the same trace size will do a fraction of that and
probably be a fraction of the transistor count. Now It may come to the
point that it is easier to emulate a PC on these console processors then
to make a competitive multicored PC chip (Just look at the VIA, if they
put too many processors on one chip at 1Ghz the cost increases too much,
if they raise it to 2Ghz+ the power budget will blow out and they might
still run slower). You will notice that there has been a few PC
processors based on a MIPS RISC core emulating the the PC instrucion set
(at least the original Centuar one (that VIA bought out) was one). Even
the Athalon was based on a super risc86 microcode instruction set to
perform the PC instruction set (incidentally, it is possible to reprogram
them, there is even microcode patches out). Intel is scrambling to the
Israeli Pent M to do multi core to compete with the VIA (and Transmeta)
AMD has it's fingers in some low powered PC Tech it's got to.
quote:
>
>
> First of all it's the GHz that doubles not power, secondly
> that's not even true anymore. 3 GHz Pentiums have been out for
> more than a year already, and Intel still hasn't made one that
> would run at 4 GHz, Do you think they're gonna hit 6 in half a
> year ?
Well I misquoted that, the "Moores Law" has many different
interpretations, I don't remember but it was either the complete procesing
power, or the Ghz that would double every 12-18 months (or should I say
the chip feature size that dictates these things). While this trend has
been basically true, on average in the past, since the begining of the
PS2's life things have taken a nose dive (well even with the Pent 3). The
truth is that they are changing tactics and designs to get over these
things. I know another guy called "Moore" that has a 60 billion
instruction per second (60Ghz) 0.18 Micron multi cored design that is a
fraction of the cost and power requirement of the PC alternatives, he even
has a contract with Intel! Don't get too excited, the processors are only
very light weight (would not even beat the Pent4 2Ghz at most things, my
conjecture/guess), suitable for some processing tasks and embedded, but
Intel should take on a design like this because it would come in very
handy in the embedded market (especially the single core versions) but
still probably the best design out. Currently they are supposed to be
readying some design (I don't know if it is the one just mentioned. Just
a warning, if anybody is thinking of looking him up, don't at the moment,
his wife just died. The chip will be released to the general public at a
chip conference in a month or three, apparently it will be a OEM design
(look at very big lots). I hope to use it in my system (still tossing it
up with the ARM).
quote:
>
>
> Not with Cell, not by the looks of it.
I was talking about the PS2 and xbox decisions with somne reference to
potential for other designs, but with the cell/xbox2 the PC situation is
different, but launching against the xbox2 would severly dent it (second
time in a row) rather than waiting (is it till 2007 now or 2006?).
Double [snip ;)]>
quote:
> [snip]
Wayne.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
| |
| Wayne 2005-01-30, 11:38 am |
| Forgot to mention, the sham thing was in reply to the notion (out in
another post that the PS2 tech was better than the Xbox tech), the Cell is
clearly going to be better. They need to make at least one decision maker
game that fully uses all the PS3's ability (in an obvious way to the
potential owner) to the utmost for launch, that would probably severely
dent the the xbox2, as you now have a end of cycle game that xbox2 can't
hope to compete with. They need to release at least one such game every
6-12 months to remind the purchaser who is boss between the cell and PS3.
If they need to they need to even fully fund the game to the tune of
millions and millions each one, as a loss leader to get the image they
want for the PS3. The problem is what to do! Jumping too far ahead might
be too much for a developer to figure out a design to effectively utilise
the extra power, and visually there is only so far you can go before
increased graphics give a diminishing return on extra effectiveness, I
believe the xbox2 power marks the beginning of that trend for what you see
in front of you in a 3D world. What looks "nice enough" in front of you
might not take up all the graphics/processing power, the only way to use
the extra power is by making it "nicer" but on a diminishing return of
impact, or physics, or bigger 3D worlds etc, all stuff that the user
doesn't generally see in front of them, and for many people this is
something out of sight out of mind, obviously people here might appreciate
it more. The one thing I can think of, now, that can benefit is natural
scenes, the Jungle and grassy grass lands, and interaction with complex
environments. But a lot of this requires extra memory for retentive
models (and processing powers for natural looking formations etc), and
that is where the PS3 can really crush the xbox2. I understand the xbox2
will be 256MB or memory, and the PS3 will be 1 GB, now you can stuff a lot
into that, go into nicer (than xbox2) Jungles and free range and follow
the scenery back where you came from, and look over and interact with vast
landscapes in front of your eyes (alright a bit exaggerated that one with
1GB there should still be compromises). Even 100GB would be better.
Maybe they should make the PS3 with upgradeable memory, when it becomes
affordable and games support it, buy another module).
quote:
> Wayne.
>
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
| |
| Despil 2005-01-30, 9:39 pm |
| Wayne <Wayne85@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
news:opslex6ofhkhyzh5@w:
quote:
> On 29 Jan 2005 03:55:31 GMT, Despil <void@void.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I am not up on what is happening but I have read upto
> 1000M/GFLOP(?) and I though I read 226 for the xbox2, even
> just 250 is more.
Surprisingly for a console that should be out in 8-9 months
there's very little information on it. I've seen numbers
from 32GFlops all the way up to 250.
quote:
> If it was a 226 to 250 competition the
> graphic processor can make a large enough difference
> (after the developers catch up with them) to be noticeable,
> but if it is 1000/226 I don't think the GPU will make very
> much differnce in the end (unless they don't program a
> system to it's full potential). To answer Brun, the use
> of the multi cored Power PC does looks like a desperate
> measure to simply compete with the cell, but whatever is on
> tap the developers have actually got to expand their
> horizons (and budgets) to bring the extra power out.
> Because of the reasons I just quoted, and maybe a Xbox3 a
> year or two after the PS3, MS might have the shot. All I
> can say is that a PC/Apple based on the chipset in the
> XBOX2, or a PS3 cell based one, would be welcome. The
> worry is that Intel and AMD won't be able to compete. The
> reason why is simple, the PC architechture limits the core
> frequency and increases the core transistor count and power
> consumption, they might be able to improve one of these
> enough, but all three? If you look at the soon to be
> released VIA processor, which is a very good comrpomise
> and at 1W at 1Ghz (2Ghz will be much more), this is the
> present limit, look at a Risc processor (ARM or Mips) and
> the lowest powered design at the same trace size will do a
> fraction of that and probably be a fraction of the
> transistor count. Now It may come to the point that it is
> easier to emulate a PC on these console processors then
> to make a competitive multicored PC chip (Just look at the
> VIA, if they put too many processors on one chip at 1Ghz
> the cost increases too much, if they raise it to 2Ghz+ the
> power budget will blow out and they might still run
> slower). You will notice that there has been a few PC
> processors based on a MIPS RISC core emulating the the PC
> instrucion set (at least the original Centuar one (that
> VIA bought out) was one). Even the Athalon was based on a
> super risc86 microcode instruction set to perform the PC
> instruction set (incidentally, it is possible to reprogram
> them, there is even microcode patches out). Intel is
> scrambling to the Israeli Pent M to do multi core to
> compete with the VIA (and Transmeta) AMD has it's fingers
> in some low powered PC Tech it's got to.
Have you ever heard of paragraphs ? 
quote:
>
> Well I misquoted that, the "Moores Law" has many different
> interpretations, I don't remember but it was either the
> complete procesing power, or the Ghz that would double
> every 12-18 months (or should I say the chip feature size
> that dictates these things). While this trend has been
> basically true, on average in the past, since the begining
> of the PS2's life things have taken a nose dive (well even
> with the Pent 3). The truth is that they are changing
> tactics and designs to get over these things. I know
> another guy called "Moore" that has a 60 billion
> instruction per second (60Ghz) 0.18 Micron multi cored
Well, it takes 6 or more cycles to process an instruction
so 60GHz will not yeild to 60 billion instructions/sec.
quote:
> design that is a fraction of the cost and power
> requirement of the PC alternatives, he even has a contract
> with Intel! Don't get too excited, the processors are only
> very light weight (would not even beat the Pent4 2Ghz at
> most things, my conjecture/guess), suitable for some
> processing tasks and embedded, but Intel should take on a
> design like this because it would come in very handy in
> the embedded market (especially the single core versions)
> but still probably the best design out. Currently they
> are supposed to be readying some design (I don't know if
> it is the one just mentioned. Just a warning, if anybody
> is thinking of looking him up, don't at the moment, his
> wife just died. The chip will be released to the general
> public at a chip conference in a month or three,
> apparently it will be a OEM design (look at very big
> lots). I hope to use it in my system (still tossing it
> up with the ARM).
>
>
> I was talking about the PS2 and xbox decisions with somne
> reference to potential for other designs, but with the
> cell/xbox2 the PC situation is different, but launching
> against the xbox2 would severly dent it (second time in a
> row) rather than waiting (is it till 2007 now or 2006?).
>
> Double [snip ;)]>
>
>
> Wayne.
>
| |
|
| On 31 Jan 2005 00:31:34 GMT, Despil <void@void.com> wrote:
quote:
> Wayne <Wayne85@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
> news:opslex6ofhkhyzh5@w:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Surprisingly for a console that should be out in 8-9 months
> there's very little information on it. I've seen numbers
> from 32GFlops all the way up to 250.
Have they moved the release date up that much? I have seen numbers on it
and the range is 250-1000Gflop (forgive my inaccuracy last time I am sick
and my memory isn't upto it). The debate is on how many cells it will
have (and probably how big each is). At this rate I might guess the PS3
will be more expensive to manufacture than the xbox2, the reverse of the
situation with the PS2. The PS2 was one of the things keeping Sony going,
they don't have nearly the cash reserves of MS to bank roll a loss leader
like MS did with the xbox.
quote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Have you ever heard of paragraphs ?
Sorry, off colour, and my subjects tends to run over each other, so the
one topic per paragraph rule tends to be run over. I put the paragraph
separation in above now.
quote:
>
> Well, it takes 6 or more cycles to process an instruction
> so 60GHz will not yeild to 60 billion instructions/sec.
This is a light weight processor, not a slothly PC (that can take a lot
less than 6 cycles per instruction, given the right/ideal circumstances)
so it does 1 instruction per cycle, or 3-4 per memory cycle (no cache).
25 .18 micron processors per chip with own memory each at 2.4bip each.
The guy used to have the fastest microprocessor on the market at one time
(20 years ago), this isn't, but what can you expect for down to $1 per
Multiprocessor cored chip (all public information), certainly beats
clearspeed in costs (another parallel array processor chip competitor to
CELL, that MS should look at).
Nice chatting with you. Interesting, nobody picked up on the fact I am
planning on designing my own video game system on a 60Bip processor though.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
|
| |
|
|