thorns said:So PS3 will most likely have a GPU about 6 months more advanced than the Xbox 2 GPU. But what is Sony going to do with all the FLOPS of Cell if not use it for rendering?
thorns said:So PS3 will most likely have a GPU about 6 months more advanced than the Xbox 2 GPU.
thorns said:But what is Sony going to do with all the FLOPS of Cell if not use it for rendering?
Fafalada said:I'm genuienly worried that some smart ass would think it's a good idea to use EE as the sound chip also :\
gofreak said:(R5xx work has finished up, hasn't it? Or finishing up soon?)
kaching said:I didn't see what MrSingh said...I guess you guys are on the road to recovery![]()
MrSingh
Member
Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 108
Location: 尻穴の中
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:53 am Post subject:
PS3 however, will be much much more powerful than Xenon.
.MrSingh
Member
Joined: 09 Feb 2002
Posts: 108
Location: 尻穴の中
Now that we have specs, can we all agree that Xenon is already finished? MS should just give up before they dump any more money into a product that's DOA
just remember all you Sony lovers... without MS, you would be stuck with some bastardized Sony graphics solution. Competition is good!
Fafalada said:I'm genuienly worried that some smart ass would think it's a good idea to use EE as the sound chip also :\
Fafalada wrote:
It sounds likely - although perhaps some kind of cross licensing deal could be involved as well.
That wasn't worded in the PR, and you would expect it to be. However, I've just had this converstation with someone else and I think it will be one to watch for in future developments.
Quote:
But if you're right this wouldn't be just an customization of a future PC part.
IMO, no. If it is the case that Sony are driving it then its probably going to be a new design (note: "Custom" in the PR) with some/lots of NVIDIA's IP. However, if they do get a back license of tech from Sony to NVIDIA then this could end up shaping their future PC hardware.
Of course, the next thing to consider is if there actually will be future PC hardware!! Thats a joke, but you have to wonder excactly what this is going to do to their relationship with Microsoft. Its been over fairly rocky ground in recent years and they just seemed to be getting it on an even keel with NV40; I wonder how its going to colour the discussions about WGF and beyond now...
xexex said:so what's the best guess on PS3's Nvidia-based rendering technology: NV4x, NV5x, something inbetween, or something completely new?
Redbeard said:So what should I be selling?
Gek54 said:What PC game looked better than SSX and Madden on PS2 at launch?
OMG, the pain... Cannot take it *_*Freeburn said:Awwww, I'm sure with the advances in GPGPU processing you could at least get a network stack running on the GS portion alone!
xexex said:PlayStation 3
![]()
![]()
times ten @ 60 fps![]()
![]()
![]()
Duckhuntdog said:Now now, Shpankey is a well known Xbot from VE. No need to taunt, he's shocked at the announcement and lashing out. It's a natural reaction when one becomes upstaged by Sony.
MS better get that multi-platform XNA initiative moving faster...
THAT'S the thread? I saw that one, I just thought he was being his usual sarcastic self...Izzy said:
As others have pointed out, Sony's "bastardized graphics solutions" for the earlier Playstation platforms (PS, PS2, PSP) have at least been competitive with alternate graphics solutions available at around the same time, if not exceeded them. And the entire Cell project, from its inception in 2000-01, has been far more ambitious and internally motivated than any competition from MS at the time (not looking like much more of a competitor than Nintendo, from Sony's perspective) would have suggested was warranted.jedimike said:just remember all you Sony lovers... without MS, you would be stuck with some bastardized Sony graphics solution. Competition is good!
kaching said:THAT'S the thread? I saw that one, I just thought he was being his usual sarcastic self...
-MrSingh 11-02-2004You will see next gen Nvidia derivative in PS3.
Freeburn said:Let me get this straight....
You resurrected a fairly OT (or at least tangential) flamefest & minor distraction from 3 pages ago just to have a dig at a forum poster and possibly inflame more such reactions?
You suck...
No,
You fucking suck.
Thats all, carry on.
kaching said:THAT'S the thread? I saw that one, I just thought he was being his usual sarcastic self...
well I guess MS should cancel Xenon! It's all over for them already!
actually I don't know anything about Xenon. but knowing what I do know about PS3, it's funny to see the state of euphoria people are in after a few ISSC papers about Cell.
As it is, we've seen near-realistic visuals. Once they cross that line, what frontier is really left to cover?
Eh, I guess I didn't miss anything, because I saw those too. But, again, I interpreted them as sarcasm. When he talked about people being in a "state of euphoria" over scraps of Cell details, I thought he was implying that people were setting themselves up for disappointment.Izzy said:Me too, that is, until he posted the same thing on the GA.
...
On the same day.
True, but at the same time, barely anyone knew of the existance of Xbox at that time. People do know about, and are expecting, Xbox2, and I think they are further along with Xbox2 now than they were with Xbox at that time (i.e. they have invested more in it, and there's more to push them to keep to that timetable).m0dus said:Remember, they were a month away from production of the Xbox in 2000 when they decided to delay a year to get the tech up to spec.
m0dus said:Also, It might be fair to keep in mind that Sony is likely going to want a solution that is both powerful AND cost-effective, so just throwing in a PC's 'bleeding edge' chips may take somewhat of a sideseat to price.
m0dus said:From what I've read/understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), ATI has completed the foundation for what the Xbox2 GPU's architecture (the R5xx, in line with the supposed unveiling of the unit next month,) will contain, but until actual production, specs may be adjusted to allow for a more competitive chip, correct?
m0dus said:Remember, they were a month away from production of the Xbox in 2000 when they decided to delay a year to get the tech up to spec.
m0dus said:Also, It might be fair to keep in mind that Sony is likely going to want a solution that is both powerful AND cost-effective, so just throwing in a PC's 'bleeding edge' chips may take somewhat of a sideseat to price.
m0dus said:But, even so, there is still room for adjustment, I think. As far as how cost efficient--removing something like the HD should, in theory, leave them far more room to improve other areas without breaching that $300 mark, correct? And, also, I wonder about subsidies . . .
Izzy said:Xenon GPU desing is finished and some prototypes are in the hands of devs already. The only thing MS could change is:
a/add more memory
b/bring back the HD
Galian Beast said:Don't buy all that crap about the hard drive removal.
An 8 gig hard drive can be bought with tissue paper.
Seriously though... you can buy a 20 gig hard drive for 20 bucks... and thats not even buying in bulk numbers...
The dillema they'd be looking at here is that Sony/Nvidia/IBM could very well have the most powerful gaming technology available period. Upping the clock speeds on their processors and adding some ram could very well just not be enough.Remember, they were a month away from production of the Xbox in 2000 when they decided to delay a year to get the tech up to spec.
m0dus said:Agreed--my postulating was more toward the feasability of MS "closing the gap" to the point that no radical leaps between the two techs' exist.
gofreak said:They can change clockspeed, perhaps add more memory etc. if it made sense. But architecturally, things are pretty much fixed, yes.
The thing is, though, has the Xbox's HD really been utilized all that much? Aside from streamlining load times, storing D/L content, and some custom soundtracks, I don't think more than a few games really depended on it being there (oh, and enabling gamers to not have to buy memory cards, which I'm sure MS is just ecstatic about).Galian Beast said:80 million dollars is pocket change... thats like developing, producing, and advertising 8 games... compared to a huge feature that can be used indefintely by numerous developers. The opportunity cost is very small.
Galian Beast said:Hard drives are an obvious feature lacking from video game consoles.
It's a step that is needed to continue the advancement of gameplay.
It's probably something that should have started with the original cd based video game systems instead of the idea of the memory card.
Galian Beast said:It's probably something that should have started with the original cd based video game systems instead of the idea of the memory card.
Well, that's definitely debatable. I mean, GS in PS2 was definitely an unusual chip. It did some things much better than available PC GPU chips at the time, but it was also screwed up on some of the things that other standard solutions were giving us for granted. The graphics chip in PSP is again definitely at least on par and in *many* ways ahead of any other mobile graphics solutions available now, all the while allowing for an easy development process. In other words, I don't think Sony has some amateurs working on these graphics chips, like some people would like to believe.just remember all you Sony lovers... without MS, you would be stuck with some bastardized Sony graphics solution. Competition is good!