|
Home > Archive > Xbox forum > February 2005 > DICE 2005: Epic on Xbox 2, 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 |
DICE 2005: Epic on Xbox 2, PS3
|
|
| NEXT BOX 2005-02-02, 4:06 am |
| http://xbox.ign.com/articles/584/58....html?fromint=1
DICE 2005: Epic on Xbox 2
More powerful than a PC?
By Hilary Goldstein
February 1, 2005 - During a panel discussion on next generation power, Epic
Games' President, Mark Rein, revealed some interesting tidbits about
next-generation consoles. First, Rein revealed Epic was working on two
next-gen games for Xbox 2 and/or PS3. Rein says that Unreal-level graphics
that eat up 5% of a PC's processing power can chomp a massive 80% out of the
current generation of consoles. However, having worked on these two
unannounced titles, Rein noted the next-gen machines actually surpassed the
power of a current PC.
Though no one can speak specifically on either PS3 or Xbox 2, numerous
sources have told IGN that Microsoft and Sony are set to deliver consoles
worthy of the title "Next Generation."
Look for an announcement of one of Epic's two next-gen games on Wednesday.
(ATI is providing the critical graphics component for Xbox2 and Nvidia the
graphics component for PS3)
| |
| ragamuffin 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| Same thing was said about the PS2 before it was released, bla bla bla...
"NEXT BOX" <nextbox@xbox2.net> wrote in message
news:RuudnW6GFchDG53fRVn-sw@comcast.com...
quote:
> http://xbox.ign.com/articles/584/58....html?fromint=1
>
> DICE 2005: Epic on Xbox 2
> More powerful than a PC?
> By Hilary Goldstein
> February 1, 2005 - During a panel discussion on next generation power,
> Epic
> Games' President, Mark Rein, revealed some interesting tidbits about
> next-generation consoles. First, Rein revealed Epic was working on two
> next-gen games for Xbox 2 and/or PS3. Rein says that Unreal-level graphics
> that eat up 5% of a PC's processing power can chomp a massive 80% out of
> the
> current generation of consoles. However, having worked on these two
> unannounced titles, Rein noted the next-gen machines actually surpassed
> the
> power of a current PC.
>
>
>
> Though no one can speak specifically on either PS3 or Xbox 2, numerous
> sources have told IGN that Microsoft and Sony are set to deliver consoles
> worthy of the title "Next Generation."
>
> Look for an announcement of one of Epic's two next-gen games on Wednesday.
>
>
> (ATI is providing the critical graphics component for Xbox2 and Nvidia the
> graphics component for PS3)
>
>
| |
|
| On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0600, "NEXT BOX" <nextbox@xbox2.net>
wrote:
quote:
>current generation of consoles. However, having worked on these two
>unannounced titles, Rein noted the next-gen machines actually surpassed the
>power of a current PC.
LOL! As if that is any news. Hasn't that been the case with ALL new
consoles, especially non-available ones? Playstation had Battle Arena
Toshinden and Ridge Racer that a PC of that time could not have
handled.
But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially
in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.
| |
| Mike Kay 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| riku wrote:
quote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 01:53:02 -0600, "NEXT BOX" <nextbox@xbox2.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> LOL! As if that is any news. Hasn't that been the case with ALL new
> consoles, especially non-available ones? Playstation had Battle Arena
> Toshinden and Ridge Racer that a PC of that time could not have
> handled.
>
> But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially
> in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.
>
the playstation was the last console to do this, the N64, DC, ps2 & xbox
were at best on a par with top spec PC's on release, but in all honesty,
probably not even that.
thats not to say some of the games are not better o nthe console than
their pc counterparts however.
| |
| Zomoniac 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| On 2/2/05 12:02 pm, in article ctqfh4$22q$1@helium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk, "Mike
Kay" <mpk@nospamsanger.ac.uk> wrote:
quote:
> riku wrote:
>
> the playstation was the last console to do this, the N64, DC, ps2 & xbox
> were at best on a par with top spec PC's on release, but in all honesty,
> probably not even that.
I would like to challenge that a six year old PC could not have pulled off
Soul Calibur or DOA2. Not quite sure how one would prove or disprove though.
Zo
| |
| Mils Michael 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| > But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially
quote:
> in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.
Whew, hopefully a 1000? PC can surpass a 200? console.
-Moa Dragon
| |
| DalienX 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| Zomoniac wrote:
quote:
>
> I would like to challenge that a six year old PC could not have
> pulled off Soul Calibur or DOA2. Not quite sure how one would prove
> or disprove though.
>
> Zo
And neither would a 6 year old console.
--
DalienX
| |
| Andrew 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:24:06 +0100, "Mils Michael"
<mickmils@tiscali.fr> wrote:
quote:
>Whew, hopefully a 1000? PC can surpass a 200? console.
You can put together a gaming PC for less than $1000 and a console is
a lot more than $200 when released.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
| |
| Jordan 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| NEXT BOX wrote:
quote:
> http://xbox.ign.com/articles/584/58....html?fromint=1
> However, having worked on these two unannounced titles, Rein noted
the next-gen > machines actually surpassed the power of a current PC.
Since they're all derived from PC technology that seems highly
unlikely.
- Jordan
| |
| Dog Bowl 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| In article <1107368197.728571.180940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
lundj@earthlink.net says...
quote:
> NEXT BOX wrote:
> the next-gen > machines actually surpassed the power of a current PC.
>
> Since they're all derived from PC technology that seems highly
> unlikely.
Why? The base GPU for the next Xbox isn't currently avaliable, its the
next step on from the X800. Same goes IIRC with the Nvidia chip for the
PS3.
You can say that the PIV is derrived from 8086 architecture. That
doesn't mean that its going to be slower than an an 8Mhz CPU does it.
I would be *very* supprised in the Power PC based CPU for the Xbox2 or
the Cell chip [1] doesn't match or supercede the current PC generation.
Of course what spec the "current" PC is, is open to debate. That could
vary from a PIII 500 to a 3.6Ghz PIV with hyper threading, memory wise
it could quite easily be 128 to 512 meg with a GPU varying from a
Geforce 5200 up to a 6800 GT.
Of course one thing to remeber is that the base dev machine for the next
Xbox 2 titles is something like a G4(5) around 1.5Ghz with an X800 GPU.
thats pretty much decent spec for current PCs. I wouldn't be supprised
if PS3 games are being developed with 6800 GPUs in mind for comparible
performance.
[1] Although the Cell part referrs to the software to control its
transputer like activities rather than just the CPU.
| |
| Kinesin 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| Jordan wrote:
quote:
> NEXT BOX wrote:
>
>
> the next-gen > machines actually surpassed the power of a current PC.
>
> Since they're all derived from PC technology that seems highly
> unlikely.
>
> - Jordan
>
Well not really, both have moved away from x86 series cpus, neither has
to cope with legecy stuff like serial ports, and polling 8bit sockets
and they ain't some ram hungry os sat on top of the whole lot.
Custom processers, graphics and sound chips get you a hell of a lot of
performance - one of the reason that EMU's of Dreamcasts etc don't exists
--
XBL GameTag: Kinesin
(clear the weather to reply)
| |
| Mils Michael 2005-02-02, 6:07 pm |
| > You can put together a gaming PC for less than $1000 and a console is
quote:
> a lot more than $200 when released.
But then you don't get to play console games anyway,
which is pity when you take a look at the current PC game
market 
-Moa Dragon
| |
|
| On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:40:25 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
quote:
>But as always, the PCs surpass the new consoles quite fast, especially
>in the amount of RAM, but also processing power.
Maybe yes, maybe not (just because it was true on previous
generations, doesn't necessarily make it true now). Console developers
are getting much more sophisticated about designing boxes optimized
for the things that games need to do. With parallel processing, for
example, it won't be as simple as clock-speed + RAM + GPU vs.
equivalent PC stats.
| |
| Doug Jacobs 2005-02-02, 10:04 pm |
| In alt.games.video.xbox Kinesin <kinesin@stormblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
quote:
> Well not really, both have moved away from x86 series cpus, neither has
> to cope with legecy stuff like serial ports, and polling 8bit sockets
> and they ain't some ram hungry os sat on top of the whole lot.
Serial ports, polling, etc. are hardly specific to the x86. There's no
reason you could take an x86 chip and plunk it into an architecture that
didn't have these things, and it'd work just fine. In fact, the
controller on IBM's HDs used to be a 286. This didn't mean that the HD
was running windows (or even DOS) in order to control the HD though...
quote:
> Custom processers, graphics and sound chips get you a hell of a lot of
> performance - one of the reason that EMU's of Dreamcasts etc don't exists
I thought it had more to do with the fact that the Dreamcast's GDRom drive
is impossible to emulate. Even the Dreamcast warez I remember hearing
about were only of games that fit on the first part of the disc, and often
had music and cutscenes removed due to space considerations. Otherwise,
I'm pretty sure a high-end P4 system with a suitable video card would be
capable of emulating the rest of the DC's hardware.
| |
| Thomas 2005-02-03, 4:04 am |
| Joe62 wrote:
quote:
>
> Maybe yes, maybe not (just because it was true on previous
> generations, doesn't necessarily make it true now). Console developers
> are getting much more sophisticated about designing boxes optimized
> for the things that games need to do. With parallel processing, for
> example, it won't be as simple as clock-speed + RAM + GPU vs.
> equivalent PC stats.
What, you think they'll make consoles upgradable? I don't see how else they
can keep up with PC's that will be common in two years...
--
Thomas
| |
| Jan Lucas 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| Dog Bowl schrieb:
quote:
>
>
> Why? The base GPU for the next Xbox isn't currently avaliable, its the
> next step on from the X800. Same goes IIRC with the Nvidia chip for the
> PS3.
>
> You can say that the PIV is derrived from 8086 architecture. That
> doesn't mean that its going to be slower than an an 8Mhz CPU does it.
>
> I would be *very* supprised in the Power PC based CPU for the Xbox2 or
> the Cell chip [1] doesn't match or supercede the current PC generation.
Why that? Past consoles never had a extremely fast general purpose cpu.
And while the market is moving fast, not that much will happen hardware
wise in a year. Look at the current generation, they all had CPUs which
were pretty slow for their time at general purposes code, but had
additional units for doing some graphics related stuff really fast.
Match the current PC generation, not unlikely. Supercede at general
purpose code not using vector units etc. very unlikely.
quote:
> Of course what spec the "current" PC is, is open to debate. That could
> vary from a PIII 500 to a 3.6Ghz PIV with hyper threading, memory wise
> it could quite easily be 128 to 512 meg with a GPU varying from a
> Geforce 5200 up to a 6800 GT.
Let me say it like that: I find it extremely unlikely that next gen
console will have a CPU that would allow them to beat a current high end
cpu at a task like serving compiling C code, packing data, rendering web
pages etc. Basically anything that needs a good amount of cache, isn't
easy to parallize or run on vector units.
Jan
| |
| Dog Bowl 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| In article <Oz9Md.5644$8B3.1919@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
kinesin@STORMblueyonder.co.uk says...
quote:
> Jordan wrote:
>
> Well not really, both have moved away from x86 series cpus, neither has
> to cope with legecy stuff like serial ports, and polling 8bit sockets
> and they ain't some ram hungry os sat on top of the whole lot.
>
> Custom processers, graphics and sound chips get you a hell of a lot of
> performance - one of the reason that EMU's of Dreamcasts etc don't exists
>
The reason for that is more that you generally need 10x the performance
on a CPU to emulate a no native instruction set. Comparable power wise a
Dreamcast way under performs a decent PC of modern spec. Emulating it
though would require a seriously beefy PC. A better comparison would be
an Xbox emulator. Currently what little there is takes about twice the
processing power due to OS e.t.c.
| |
| Dog Bowl 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| In article <cttiib$s9$01$1@news.t-online.com>, jan@lucas-berlin.de
says...
quote:
> Dog Bowl schrieb:
>
> Why that? Past consoles never had a extremely fast general purpose cpu.
> And while the market is moving fast, not that much will happen hardware
> wise in a year. Look at the current generation, they all had CPUs which
> were pretty slow for their time at general purposes code, but had
> additional units for doing some graphics related stuff really fast.
> Match the current PC generation, not unlikely. Supercede at general
> purpose code not using vector units etc. very unlikely.
The Xbox celeron was a bit behind the current gen at the time, but way
more powerful that most PCs we were using at work :-). The PS2
processors are also very powerful but very tailored to specific apps.
Generaly PC type activities both will fall behnid though, but mostly
becuase of resource requirements.
I think the XBox processor was about a year or so behind the PC tech at
the time. This time they know they need to pull out something special
because having the initial 6 months to a year lead on the PS3 will only
be good until the PS3 comes out. After than it will have to stand toe to
toe for comparison. I expect thats why, if the 3 Xbox versions are true,
there would be a mini pc type with HDD version comming out in that sort
of time frame.
quote:
>
> Let me say it like that: I find it extremely unlikely that next gen
> console will have a CPU that would allow them to beat a current high end
> cpu at a task like serving compiling C code, packing data, rendering web
> pages etc. Basically anything that needs a good amount of cache, isn't
> easy to parallize or run on vector units.
If you are talking tasks that are not easy to parallize then probably
yes. Many tasks can be parallize, I can see compiling C code & rendering
web pages are such task for a start. On top of that you have the one or
two dozen daemons and other OS processes running that can be pushed off
to other processors and run pretty much independant. This is where the
cell technology amongst others will do well.
| |
| Andrew Ryan Chang 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>I thought it had more to do with the fact that the Dreamcast's GDRom drive
>is impossible to emulate. Even the Dreamcast warez I remember hearing
>about were only of games that fit on the first part of the disc, and often
>had music and cutscenes removed due to space considerations. Otherwise,
Oh, I don't think so.
First off, if you check the warez world, you'll see some DC ISOs
that are incredibly small.
Secondly, I think people would make emulators if they could just
because they want to say they could. Same reason they port Linux
everywhere -- sometimes it's useful and sometimes it's just because they
could.
--
"This frightens some in Washington, because they want the federal
government controlling the Social Security, like it's some kind of federal
program,"
--George W. Bush (Missouri speech, 11/03/00)
| |
| Jan Lucas 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| Dog Bowl schrieb:
quote:
>
>
> If you are talking tasks that are not easy to parallize then probably
> yes. Many tasks can be parallize, I can see compiling C code & rendering
> web pages are such task for a start. On top of that you have the one or
Compiling C code is easy to parallize if you multiple files to compile,
otherwise it pretty much impossible. Rendering web pages would very
likely require many changes to already complex code.
But I choosed these both tasks because both they benefit a lot from
large caches and console cpus nearly always had small ones.
quote:
> two dozen daemons and other OS processes running that can be pushed off
> to other processors and run pretty much independant. This is where the
> cell technology amongst others will do well.
This is a console, not a PC. They don't have dozen of mostly useless
processes running in the background. Still I agree a lot of console
tasks are easy to parallize and will benefit a lot.
But people just need to be realistic, Intel and AMD are not stupid and
while a lot money could be made in the console market, the PC market is
much bigger. So there is really no reason to expect a "perfect" CPU that
is faster than everything available at every task and cheap to produce
at the same time. I predict something like a 3 GHZ PPC, maybe with two
cores and a rather small cache, 256kb maybe. Then a bunch of floating
point units with own PC and a small scratch pad ram/cache and rather
restricted memory access, maybe just a stream feed by a sophisticated
DMA. Not a too expensive design, can be very fast at many typical media
and game processing tasks and doesn't require transistor counts that are
not from this world. The backdraw of course is not too easy programming
and not everything can be done with the APUs and thus needs to be done
with the main cpus.
Jan
| |
|
| On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:24:06 +0100, "Mils Michael"
<mickmils@tiscali.fr> wrote:
quote:
>
>Whew, hopefully a 1000? PC can surpass a 200? console.
That's a completely different discussion, because you can't compare
the hardware prices of PCs and consoles directly due to e.g.:
- different marketing model: console hardware is sold for little
profit or even at loss, the money is recouped with console game sales.
That is why console games generally cost more than PC games. Here
where I live, console games usually cost around $10-20 more than the
PC version of the same game. License fees etc., you know.
- PC can do more than a console, and has a much more modular design
(you can change your video card, sound card, PC has much more
connectors and ports than consoles etc.) and usually also has much
more hardware inside, like big hard drives, much more memory etc.. A
tighter, more integrated and more limited console design is much
cheaper to manufacture. But then, you can't install a new faster video
card inside your PS2 or XBox due to its integrated HW design, can you?
and probably many other factors.
| |
|
| On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:02:58 +0100, "Mils Michael"
<mickmils@tiscali.fr> wrote:
quote:
>
>But then you don't get to play console games anyway,
>which is pity when you take a look at the current PC game
>market
The opposite is also true, with a console you can't play great PC
games like Rome: Total War or IL-2: Forgotten Battles. If anything, I
have very hard time finding much interesting to play on consoles. Too
much just instant-gratification games that get old very fast, for
example Burnout 3, which is crap.
| |
| DalienX 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| Zomoniac wrote:
..
quote:
>
> I would like to challenge that a six year old PC could not have
> pulled off Soul Calibur or DOA2. Not quite sure how one would prove
> or disprove though.
>
> Zo
Its easy to disprove that statement, half life came out in 1998, (7
years ago) and i had no trouble running that on pc.
--
DalienX
| |
|
| On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:32:49 GMT, Joe62
<jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote:
quote:
>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:40:25 GMT, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:
>
>
>Maybe yes, maybe not (just because it was true on previous
>generations, doesn't necessarily make it true now). Console developers
I would take that bet. XBox2 hype is nothing more than the PS2 hype.
How many PS2s did Saddam own to control his SCUD-missiles, again? Or
did you know PS2 is the first console where the game characters can
have true EMOTIONS and show life-like sea waves, due to its
ground-breaking "Emotional Engine" which even cries for you?
Console manufacturers are good at coming up with crap like that. ;-)
Who are they trying to fool? (consumers, or course).
quote:
>are getting much more sophisticated about designing boxes optimized
>for the things that games need to do. With parallel processing, for
>example, it won't be as simple as clock-speed + RAM + GPU vs.
>equivalent PC stats.
As if parallel processing won't happen on PCs too. What's this talk
about "SLI" in forthcoming PC video cards, or the increased multi-CPU
support in newer Windows versions?
Likewise, consoles have been touting this "parallel processing" ever
since Sega Saturn, yet it didn't make them superior. If anything,
newer consoles like PS2 seemed to move back from lots of parallel
processing to one or few big powerful units trying to handle
everything, be it processing graphics, audio, networking etc.
| |
| Jeremy Williamson 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
|
"Dog Bowl" <dogUNDERSCOREbowl@ntlFOODworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6b4585c88c2212989719@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
quote:
> In article <Oz9Md.5644$8B3.1919@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> kinesin@STORMblueyonder.co.uk says...
exists[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The reason for that is more that you generally need 10x the performance
> on a CPU to emulate a no native instruction set. Comparable power wise a
> Dreamcast way under performs a decent PC of modern spec. Emulating it
> though would require a seriously beefy PC. A better comparison would be
> an Xbox emulator. Currently what little there is takes about twice the
> processing power due to OS e.t.c.
That's true for "pure" emulators where the you create a virtual machine in
software and compile that module which matches the hardware spec of the
original machine and the code is run on top of the software layer. But
there are shortcuts, thanks primarily to backwards compatibility, where you
can *translate* much of the functionality so you run a mixture of native
code and virtual machine for a substantial speedup (e.g. capture the part of
the code stream designated for a GPU based on the OpenGL pipe and ship it
directly to the new GPU which is backwards compatible with the one being
emulated -- or at least shares much of the functionality)
Jeremy
| |
| Dog Bowl 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| In article <cu1ba8$tmg$1@news01.intel.com>,
jeremiah.d.williamson@NOSPAMintel.com says...
<snip>
quote:
> exists
>
>
> That's true for "pure" emulators where the you create a virtual machine in
> software and compile that module which matches the hardware spec of the
> original machine and the code is run on top of the software layer. But
> there are shortcuts, thanks primarily to backwards compatibility, where you
> can *translate* much of the functionality so you run a mixture of native
> code and virtual machine for a substantial speedup (e.g. capture the part of
> the code stream designated for a GPU based on the OpenGL pipe and ship it
> directly to the new GPU which is backwards compatible with the one being
> emulated -- or at least shares much of the functionality)
>
i.e. a just in time compiler such as in the Java virtual machine. Yep
you can do that in many cases, but of course with something like a
dreamcast you will still probably end up having to run it as a VM
translating calls to the power VR chip to the respective Open GL/DirectX
calls. At least you don't have to deal with Pixel shaders and the like.
| |
| Jan Lucas 2005-02-13, 12:42 pm |
| Zomoniac schrieb:
quote:
>
>
> I would like to challenge that a six year old PC could not have pulled off
> Soul Calibur or DOA2. Not quite sure how one would prove or disprove though.
I wouldn't be that sure. Riva TNT was out in March 98. Pentium II 450
Mhz in August 98. K6-2 400 Mhz was out in November 98. In most cases
Riva TNT was faster than the PC version of the dreamcast graphic chip.
Especially K6-2 400 Mhz would have chance to rival the Dreamcast CPU.
While it was slower than the PII with regular pc games, it had 3DNow!
which provides good floating point performances if you write specific
code for it. Peak gflops values for both SH-4 and K6-2 400 are very
close with 1.4 gflops on the SH-4 and 1.6 gflops on the K6-2 400.
When Dreamcast was released in the US and Europe Hardware like the
Geforce and Pentium 3 was released or just around the corner and that is
really stuff where the Dreamcast really can't compare with.
So what really stopped six year old PCs from doing a Soul Calibur or
DOA2 is not the hardware but development models and genre perference. No
PC developer will target a fixed 2 year old hardware, it always needs to
run a broad range of hardware, so they will almost never write optimal
code for a specific hardware but code that will performance well on a
broad range. And then there is the problem that fighters aren't popular
on PCs. Did you notice that fighters are often the best looking games?
That is because they are easy to optimize for. In a fighter you always
know there are just 2-4 characters on the screen at once, so if the
hardware is fast enough to display 4 characters at once, slowdowns are
very unlikely. You also need just enough ram to keep these four
characters in RAM, not a single character more.
You are also always looking at a tiny stage, so it is very predictable
how much processing power you need to display it. Because it is that
predictable, you don't need to leave additional headroom to deal with
rare situations where the player managed to get into a fight with a
huge amount of monsters in the most complex part of the level. Your
average situation in a FPS can often require just a tiny fraction of the
processing power needed during peak situations. Because there ain't such
huge differences in fighters you can use almost the whole processing
power available in average situations because you don't need to leave a
lot of headroom to prevent slowdowns in more complexe situations. The
most complexe situations happening are just a small amount more complex
than your average situation.
Fighters also require a very small amount of processing power for game
logic, they don't need complex colission checks for example, and the
computer needs to controll just one or two characters, not the hundereds
of units it needs to controll in a RTS game. So almost all processing
power is available for graphics.
Or just asks the question the other way around? Wasn't Unreal Tournament
or Quake 3 running much better on a six year old high end PC?
In the end you need to be fair and say that these high end PCs are much
more expensive than the Dreamcast, and for the price the Dreamcast
provided really good performance. Since that, it was similiar with all
the console launches after that. The consoles provided really good
value, and because of fixed hardware and no need to support older
hardware console developers were able to do impressive stuff that was
unseen before outside of graphics demos from graphic card manufacturers
on PCs. But there wasn't a single case in the last years where console
hardware was a huge step faster than high end pc stuff.
Despite all the hype I believe it will be similiar with the "Next Gen"
consoles. At launch they will provide about the power of a high end pc
at a really good price compared to the price of the high end pc, but
within a year or one and half PC high end pc hardware will advance to a
level where console hardware will have problems coming even close to it.
Jan
|
| |
|
|