Support NeoGAF

[Tormentoso]

one of the funnest things is how people freely admit this now!
2005 was so fun.
still , the fact that the new vids looks so close should be applauded indeed.

And i admit that quite happily,i was one of those who defend the CG,i don't have a problem to admit it,one most learn from its mistakes,but it was like that just a CG.

 

[RavenFox]

Look at 360's exclusives..while i somewhat agree that Gears1 and Gears2 are 360's babies but not TECHNICALLY built ground up for that hardware..it was really built for PC hardware but since the 360 is closer to PC hardware then PS3 is.. .Gears1 and Gears 2 really excelled with 360 hardware to the point it could pass as in-house engine built for 360 hardware. So i would say Killzone2 is more closer to PS3's hardware then Gears1/2 is to 360 hardware... I remember CLEAR AS DAY when the Unreal Engine3 first came out how the 360 had some issues with it at first... there were some issues with UE3 at first when running on 360 hardware...so by no means is UE3 built from ground up for 360 hardware

I honestly feel the 360 overall has a very slight advantage with graphics..only because all of its hardware is in harmony with one another while the PS3 .. lets be honest now, that RSX was never in the plans from the start..it was more/less a last minute change and it shows because its damn hard to produce game as stunning as KZ2 is on PS3 hardware.. look how much money and time was poured into that title for a game that does not blow away Gears2 graphically or Crysis... to me its better looking then both Gears2 and Crysis but not by alot..who ever says by alot is VERY OFF in that judgment here.

I know the 360 is capable of Killzone2 graphics if the time and money is spent on it and of course..the raw talent of the developers making teh game.. people seem to overlook that the developers are also a HUGE factor in how good a game comes out looking..its just not about the engine, the hardware..its also the developers creating the game that makes all the diffrence too! I mean.. look at the new james bond game...it uses the same engine as COD4... which game looks better? COD4 easily looks better....PROOF of what im saying.

Lets not forget the graphics chips in these systems.. the 360's gpu is a whole generation ahead of PS3's RSX... so lets not get it twisted now you PS3 fanboys. Both consoles has its strengths and weaknesses...overall the two systems are close enough in overall power that makes it a wash when you start to factor in ease of use, tools,etc on top of the hardware...all the rest is up to the kind of talent developers have with the hardware.

As i said before... when we talk "in-house" studios... Sony has a better group of in house developers then what Microsoft has that seem to be able to make better use out any sort of hardware tossed in front of them.... just imagine what these guys would be able to do if Sony's PS3 had 360's hardware inside it...i think we would be seeing just as many graphically impressive games using 360's hardware in a PS3... its really about that raw talent behind these engines, hardware,etc..the hardware itself overall when comparing the pro's and con's of both sets of consoles are all a wash after its all said and done.. it really is with the 360 having that slight edge with a bit better hardware.

I mean we already heard from developers over and over saying this already..that the 360 overall is a bit more better overall but the differences arent that huge.. less so then last gen..and thats really the damn truth of it all. So before any fanboys go crazy over how nice KZ2 looks.. yeah i even said it looks freaking aswesome and to me is the best looking game to date including anything out there on PC's for the moment...it does NOT MEAN all of a sudden the PS3 is just oh so much more powerful then 360... Sony put in tons of time and money and got fortunate that Guerrilla Games were the guys behind the game...there for thats why this game looks so damn good.. because some very very talented developers were behind the game.

wtf? lol. Then why do all PS3 1st and second party games look better than 360 games. You wrote all this for what? We can hear and say until the sun sets 4times over but proof has to be shown on the hardware.

 

[Scottlarock]

wtf? lol. Then why do all PS3 1st and second party games look better than 360 games. You wrote all this for what? We can hear and say until the sun sets 4times over but proof has to be shown on the hardware.

wtf at this comment, the only one is uncharted and thats debateable. you say all? really?

 

[UntoldDreams]

wtf at this comment, the only one is uncharted and thats debateable. you say all? really?

This thread is hideously derailed by that errant post by Potato head and now it will become list wars.

Look the point of this entire thread (at least to me) is to discuss how the PS3 has significant computational power and how it is or is NOT being properly used in games.

To me the most impressive so far are indeed Uncharted, Ratchet, Motorstorm 1 & 2, LittleBigPlanet (the physics engine is superb), and lastly the upcoming Killzone.

I think killzone at 60% CPU SPU usage is a significant benchmark of power. 60% of the SPU array is a TON of processing power being utilized. Honestly, in raw number crunching volume the 360 and most all PC's have ZERO chance of crunching that much volume of mathematics (only 8 core Intel CPU's could pull this off). The theoretical throughput of 60% of cell power is quite honestly staggering for any other normal CPU to tackle.

They would have to get creative by culling stuff, not rendering the same volume, or cheating the amount of geometry.

 

[Kagari]

wtf at this comment, the only one is uncharted and thats debateable. you say all? really?

You're debatable.

 

[RavenFox]

Its nonsensical to say the Cell processor is not powerful. Of course it is. Very powerful.

As the successor to a series of designs from IBM (which include the 360 CPU) its a given that its a beast.

The issue isn't one of power. It has power in spades. The issue is one of Software development and the developer acceptance of this architecture.

Whether you hate or love Sony shouldn't color your words unless you want to appear silly.

The biggest impediment to efficient usage of Cell honestly has been the lack of tools and middleware software libraries.

If I told you that you had to learn a new language (like Japanese) to type your e-mails then you would probably be a little upset. Even if I said... Your emails will be delivered 1000 times faster with support for 1 gigabyte mail attachments.

You would still probably be upset that I was forcing you to learn Japanese. After all... More advanced power is useless for the common case of you sending an email.

This is the issue with cell programming. Most developers did not want to learn or change. Even if they had wanted to learn cell programming... The simple fact is that it takes time to learn how to read and write in the new architecture.

Excellent post UntoldDreams.

 

[Scottlarock]

You're debatable.

thats true.

 

[RavenFox]

wtf at this comment, the only one is uncharted and thats debateable. you say all? really?

As a whole I do. I want to apologize though getting involved with thread derailment but it was bound to happen I guess. MikeB sorry and lets get back to what this thread is really about. SPE performance.

 

[Khalifa Jayy]

Attention!


Would you bunch of crybabies quit referring to Gears of War as GoW?! That's reserved for God of War, ya blimey bastards! Quit insulting the game!


That is all.

 

[Xdrive05]

wtf at this comment, the only one is uncharted and thats debateable. you say all? really?

Having just gotten my PS3 today and downloading a metric shitton of demos, I think you'll have to add more to that list of maybe debateables. Ratchet, for one example, looked to be clearly beyond anything I would expect on my beloved 360 of two years (in terms of geometry, framerate, draw distance, and physics all together). And Uncharted too, as you already pointed out.

These exceptions are few, true, but they are resoundingly loud in my opinion. Makes me hopeful to see what else is coming along for Sony. There could very easily be a clear performance divide showing up, at least with first party titles. But as we know that doesn't amount to quality in and of itself. The next couple years will be fun either way.

 

[herod]

You can read developer interviews where they say their goal is to make is where you can't tell the difference between each platform.

then I'd have to ask which devs, and why has the policy changed for this generation?

 

[duk]

Attention!


Would you bunch of crybabies quit referring to Gears of War as GoW?! That's reserved for God of War, ya blimey bastards! Quit insulting the game!


That is all.

hmmmm

 

[UntoldDreams]

then I'd have to ask which devs, and why has the policy changed for this generation?

Its commonplace for most dev shops to not want to make shitty games.

In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say any typical person doesn't want to do a shitty job at all.

So given a multiplatform 360 and PS3 game its pretty evident any normal human being (developer) is going to say this "I'm going to try to make a great multiplatform title without any glaring flaws on ANY platform".

 

[Byakuya769]

then I'd have to ask which devs, and why has the policy changed for this generation?

I've been reading mainly, cause I dont' know enough about this to contribute really... but this is a good question. Last gen xbox had the better multi-platform games, were developers committed to making the games the same across the board then as well? Why is there a different policy now?

 

[duk]

I've been reading mainly, cause I dont' know enough about this to contribute really... but this is a good question. Last gen xbox had the better multi-platform games, were developers committed to making the games the same across the board then as well? Why is there a different policy now?

gosh, maybe just maybe, ps3 and 360 are closer in power than ps2 and xbox were?

 

[UntoldDreams]

This poor thread gets derailed every other post with System Wars.

 

[Stink]

gosh, maybe just maybe, ps3 and 360 are closer in power than ps2 and xbox were?

bu bu Cell

 

[UntoldDreams]

bu bu Cell

Don't make me pull out tons of technobabble just because you like System Wars.

 

[Hunter D]

Having just gotten my PS3 today and downloading a metric shitton of demos, I think you'll have to add more to that list of maybe debateables. Ratchet, for one example, looked to be clearly beyond anything I would expect on my beloved 360 of two years (in terms of geometry, framerate, draw distance, and physics all together). And Uncharted too, as you already pointed out.

These exceptions are few, true, but they are resoundingly loud in my opinion. Makes me hopeful to see what else is coming along for Sony. There could very easily be a clear performance divide showing up, at least with first party titles. But as we know that doesn't amount to quality in and of itself. The next couple years will be fun either way.

What do you think of Mass Effect which has 3+ characters on screen most of the time made up of 20000+ polys each and Lost Planet which is only second to crysis running on its highest setting in poly count. A game having high poly count or HDR lighting or both isn't a good indicator of system power.

 

[Byakuya769]

gosh, maybe just maybe, ps3 and 360 are closer in power than ps2 and xbox were?

great post, will read again.

Spoiler

ass.

Spoiler

no really, you're an ass

 

[thuway]

Look at 360's exclusives..while i somewhat agree that Gears1 and Gears2 are 360's babies but not TECHNICALLY built ground up for that hardware..it was really built for PC hardware but since the 360 is closer to PC hardware then PS3 is.. .Gears1 and Gears 2 really excelled with 360 hardware to the point it could pass as in-house engine built for 360 hardware. So i would say Killzone2 is more closer to PS3's hardware then Gears1/2 is to 360 hardware... I remember CLEAR AS DAY when the Unreal Engine3 first came out how the 360 had some issues with it at first... there were some issues with UE3 at first when running on 360 hardware...so by no means is UE3 built from ground up for 360 hardware

I honestly feel the 360 overall has a very slight advantage with graphics..only because all of its hardware is in harmony with one another while the PS3 .. lets be honest now, that RSX was never in the plans from the start..it was more/less a last minute change and it shows because its damn hard to produce game as stunning as KZ2 is on PS3 hardware.. look how much money and time was poured into that title for a game that does not blow away Gears2 graphically or Crysis... to me its better looking then both Gears2 and Crysis but not by alot..who ever says by alot is VERY OFF in that judgment here.

I know the 360 is capable of Killzone2 graphics if the time and money is spent on it and of course..the raw talent of the developers making teh game.. people seem to overlook that the developers are also a HUGE factor in how good a game comes out looking..its just not about the engine, the hardware..its also the developers creating the game that makes all the diffrence too! I mean.. look at the new james bond game...it uses the same engine as COD4... which game looks better? COD4 easily looks better....PROOF of what im saying.

Lets not forget the graphics chips in these systems.. the 360's gpu is a whole generation ahead of PS3's RSX... so lets not get it twisted now you PS3 fanboys. Both consoles has its strengths and weaknesses...overall the two systems are close enough in overall power that makes it a wash when you start to factor in ease of use, tools,etc on top of the hardware...all the rest is up to the kind of talent developers have with the hardware.

As i said before... when we talk "in-house" studios... Sony has a better group of in house developers then what Microsoft has that seem to be able to make better use out any sort of hardware tossed in front of them.... just imagine what these guys would be able to do if Sony's PS3 had 360's hardware inside it...i think we would be seeing just as many graphically impressive games using 360's hardware in a PS3... its really about that raw talent behind these engines, hardware,etc..the hardware itself overall when comparing the pro's and con's of both sets of consoles are all a wash after its all said and done.. it really is with the 360 having that slight edge with a bit better hardware.

I mean we already heard from developers over and over saying this already..that the 360 overall is a bit more better overall but the differences arent that huge.. less so then last gen..and thats really the damn truth of it all. So before any fanboys go crazy over how nice KZ2 looks.. yeah i even said it looks freaking aswesome and to me is the best looking game to date including anything out there on PC's for the moment...it does NOT MEAN all of a sudden the PS3 is just oh so much more powerful then 360... Sony put in tons of time and money and got fortunate that Guerrilla Games were the guys behind the game...there for thats why this game looks so damn good.. because some very very talented developers were behind the game.

You should be banned for the sheer amount of fail in this post.

 

[spwolf]

will everyone stop derailing this thread, PLEASE?!

This is not about 360, PS3 sales, or Ken the Crazy.... This thread is about how developers use spe's... so please stop posting system wars shit. Thank You!

 

[Tormentoso]

wtf at this comment, the only one is uncharted and thats debateable. you say all? really?

GT5 says Hi.


Yeah and i have see people debate here were ever Killzone 2 look better than anything on 360 or not,and is easy to see that is not debatable.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

Doesn't Carmack hate the PS3 and multi-core development? I thought the reason he didn't hate the 360 was because it's similar to the PC. He might be good, but I wouldn't count on him to do something revolutionary with the PS3 architecture.

No, Carmack said that multi-core and multi-threaded development was more difficult. And *any* coder/programmer that has had to debug a multi-threaded application, dealing with race conditions, synchronisation and deadlocks will agree that it IS more difficult. News at Ten!

Carmack:-

I make little nitpicky decisions about say, well, I prefer the symmetric approach that MS has over the asymmetric Cell approach, but you can do great games on either one of them, and I make fundamental decisions based on development tools and depth of documentation, which Microsoft has been superior on."

Carmack has equally criticized MS for DVD9 and space issues.

My main point about Rage being a good future game is that just suppose for a minute that Rage comes out and is arguably (because it always is) the best looking game out?

What does that say about the PS3 and 360 other than they are both very capable machines that top-level devs like Carmack will always be able to get to do great things.

So far I would agree that Killzone 2 IS the best looking game so far, but Rage isn't far behind technically IMHO. Of course both games are not out yet, so time will tell.
To be honest, with all the talk of Gears 2 being the best looking on 360, I'm surprised there is not more talk of Banjo N&B on 360, which technically is doing some great stuff, regardless of whether you like the artstyle.

 

[bj00rn_]

GT5 says Hi.


Yeah and i have see people debate here were ever Killzone 2 look better than anything on 360 or not,and is easy to see that is not debatable.

It's my opinion that KZ2 look like dogshite, but that's not what this thread's topic is about is it...?

I almost feel bad for MikeB now, even I can't see how he could intend the thread ending up in this idiotic subjective trainwreck. Well, it was subjective from the get go, but still...

 

[Stink]

will everyone stop derailing this thread, PLEASE?!

This is not about 360, PS3 sales, or Ken the Crazy.... This thread is about how developers use spe's... so please stop posting system wars shit. Thank You!

:lol :lol :lol

Beyond3D is here ---> http://forum.beyond3d.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15

 

[Death Dealer]

The RSX isn't weaker, it's less programmable. Quite the contrary, the tasks it's designed to do well, it does much better than xenos (fillrate and shader operations p/s and bandwidth for example). There is simply much more logic on the main die on RSX. The E-DRAM daughter die logic next to xenos is purely for the less than great "free" AA.

Burnout Paradise developer Criterion stated RSX and Xenos are very close in absolute performance, "+ - 10% of each other". As you stated, they each have strengths and weaknesses.

Also it's a myth RSX was a "last minute" decision. When it was still an idea on paper, Kutagari planned on dual cells with no dedicated GPU, but that idea was dropped early on. PS3 graphics have always banked on Cell BE assist.

 

[FirewalkR]

lol I tried.

I'm sorry MikeB, it just never works.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Oh my god I just went through a page of this thread and I think I'm going to vomit. Jesus some of you people suck.

 

[Squeak]

Also it's a myth RSX was a "last minute" decision. When it was still an idea on paper, Kutagari planned on dual cells with no dedicated GPU, but that idea was dropped early on. PS3 graphics have always banked on Cell BE assist.

It wouldn't really matter much if it was a last minute decision. The only interface between the two is the 128bit bus.
It's like a hand, that is able to use a number of tools, like a knife or a spade.
Of course they have to be matched somewhat powerwise, but it's not like a jigsaw peice that doesn't quite fit. It's all really a matter of programming Cell to talk to RSX. Just like Cell talks to the Graphics Synthesizer in some of the BC capable PS3s.

 

[MikeB]

Also it's a myth RSX was a "last minute" decision. When it was still an idea on paper, Kutagari planned on dual cells with no dedicated GPU, but that idea was dropped early on. PS3 graphics have always banked on Cell BE assist.

It's a popular myth amongst some people.

The RSX was announced in May 2005, the same month the XBox 360 was announced (which was released the same year). So it cannot be a last minute change by any reasonable measure. The 360 has clear signs of being rushed though.

The RSX design originates from the PC world but with various crucial PS3 specific adaptations (like the Xenos).

A multi-Cell design without a more dedicated or with a heavily simplified GPU although potentially very powerful for making fully ray traced games a viable option would not have been a good idea. Far too much redesign needed for legacy game engines to get the results you want, now devs have been able to adapt their game engines step by step, that wouldn't have been an option.

 

[MikeB]

Overall a good PS3 resource, a lot of effort went into this and seems pretty accurate overall and fairly up to date, PS3 secrets:

http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html

 

[DCharlie]

It's a popular myth amongst some people.

The RSX was announced in May 2005, the same month the XBox 360 was announced (which was released the same year). So it cannot be a last minute change by any reasonable measure. The 360 has clear signs of being rushed though.

this is becoming laughable.

links/backups/quotes please.

 

[Tormentoso]

I think the real advantage of the PS3 is on the CPU and the huge chunk of memory it has,people were quick to say that the xbox 360 had more GPU video memory,but fail to see that its CPU Cell has more memory than the xbox 360 CPU,been once say that Cell even consider by sony at one point to be a graphic unit,it most has at least some good juice or some good uses to been even consider that way,it doesn't quite has to be like a 7800,it could be on par or much lower than a 6800 but still has GPU quality's and that is what i think is helping the PS3 allot.

The fact that Cell can handle tasks that the xbox 360 CPU just can't is helping the PS3, the GPU pretty much do all the graphics and effects works on the 360,while on PS3 is more like a share job by the 2,and Cell take some of the jobs that were suppose to be done by the GPU and free that GPU to do other things.

And to think that SPE were say to be useless boy how hard they were proven wrong.

 

[SolidSnakex]

then I'd have to ask which devs, and why has the policy changed for this generation?

Criterion, EA Black Box, Capcom ect ect. They all say their goal is to make sure the games look the same. It's again why if you want to see what a system can do you look toward exclusive titles not multiplatform titles.

 

[MikeB]

this is becoming laughable.

links/backups/quotes please.

May 2005:
Scratching the Surface of NVIDIA's RSX
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2423&p=3

May 2005:
Microsoft announces the Xbox 360
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/12/news_6124231.html

Rushed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/13/xbox-truth

 

[Tormentoso]

this is becoming laughable.

links/backups/quotes please.

Graphics card manufacturer NVIDIA has revealed that it is collaborating with Sony on the graphics hardware for PlayStation 3, described as "SCEI's highly anticipated next-generation computer entertainment system" in press literature.

The companies have been jointly developing a custom graphics processing unit (GPU) incorporating next-generation GeForce technology - the graphics hardware behind NVIDIA's PC products - for the past two years, which will be used alongside SCEI's own system solutions for next-generation platforms featuring the Cell processor.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/nvidia-partners-with-sony-on-playstation-3-graphics-hardware

Actually he is wrong,is not 2005 is 2004 when Nvidia admited it.


Nvidia admitted that they were working with sony on the PS3 RSX on july 2004,read the bold part in fact that bold part there state that they had 2 year working already by the time the article was write,which mean like 2002 that was pretty much when the original xbox was starting.

 

[MikeB]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/nvidia-partners-with-sony-on-playstation-3-graphics-hardware

Actually he is wrong,is not 2005 is 2004 when Nvidia admited it.


Nvidia admitted that they were working with sony on the PS3 RSX on july 2004,read the bold part in fact that bold part there state that they had 2 year working already by the time the article was write,which mean like 2002 that was pretty much when the original xbox was starting.

Thanks for the correction / addition, seems like the companies have been working together for even longer than I thought.

 

[Tormentoso]

Thanks for the correction / addition, seems like the companies have been working together for even longer than I thought.

No problem body.

I think this show quite easy the GPU was not rush,i think the PS3 is getting Killzone 2 level of graphics and will probably get higher because of that,the fact that both the CPU and GPU work well together.

 

[mintylurb]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/nvidia-partners-with-sony-on-playstation-3-graphics-hardware

Actually he is wrong,is not 2005 is 2004 when Nvidia admited it.


Nvidia admitted that they were working with sony on the PS3 RSX on july 2004,read the bold part in fact that bold part there state that they had 2 year working already by the time the article was write,which mean like 2002 that was pretty much when the original xbox was starting.

DCharlie

sit down, sugar tits :lol

 

[DCharlie]

so they worked with them for 2 years, and delivered the RSX and charged how much royalties?

i was actually talking with some Sony internal guys the -day- the RSX was announced, they had zero clue it was coming. zero.

 

[Tormentoso]

so they worked with them for 2 years, and delivered the RSX and charged how much royalties?

i was actually talking with some Sony internal guys the -day- the RSX was announced, they had zero clue it was coming. zero.

Well not every one o Sony know anything withing the company at the same time,can't say for sure since i would be speculating about that.

But when i bough my PS1 and it was damage,i took it to one of the sony store's here in PR and the person who attend me didn't even know what a PS was,and that was some 2 years after i bought it.

But sensitive information is keep secret and you probably know this,more when the topic is sony.

 

[FirewalkR]

But when i bough my PS1 and it was damage,i took it to one of the sony store's here in PR and the person who attend me didn't even know what a PS was,and that was some 2 years after i bought it.

 

[DCharlie]

Well not every one o Sony know anything withing the company at the same time,can't say for sure since i would be speculating about that.

But when i bough my PS1 and it was damage,i took it to one of the sony store's here in PR and the person who attend me didn't even know what a PS was,and that was some 2 years after i bought it.

But sensitive information is keep secret and you probably know this,more when the topic is sony.

well, that is indeed true - though i'm not talking about sony store member, this is sony internal dev. Though there is a history of HW and SW literally not talking.

i dunno of course it could well be true, but i'd be surprised if it was in the works for 2 years+ given the rumoured very large royalty fee and the fact that the chip could have been so much better had it HAD that much time (?)

 

[Truant]

I can't believe you people care about this kinda stuff. I guess I'm not a technical person.

 

[spwolf]

well, that is indeed true - though i'm not talking about sony store member, this is sony internal dev. Though there is a history of HW and SW literally not talking.

i dunno of course it could well be true, but i'd be surprised if it was in the works for 2 years+ given the rumoured very large royalty fee and the fact that the chip could have been so much better had it HAD that much time (?)

dude, wtf are you even talking about anymore? He gave you an article from 2004 that says that Nvidia is working on RSX for Sony... And that article says "for past 2 years". Meaning in 2004 Nvidia said they have been working on it with Sony for 2 years.

You would be suprised? What does that mean? Nvidia announced in 2004 that they are working for chip for PS3... if your Sony friend did not know about it, then doesnt know much, does he?

 

[androvsky]

well, that is indeed true - though i'm not talking about sony store member, this is sony internal dev. Though there is a history of HW and SW literally not talking.

That's a bit of an understatement from a couple stories I'd read after Kutaragi left.

i dunno of course it could well be true, but i'd be surprised if it was in the works for 2 years+ given the rumoured very large royalty fee and the fact that the chip could have been so much better had it HAD that much time (?)

Nvidia was quite upset at how their deal with MS went for the Xbox gpu, they swore up and down they'd never enter into a deal like that again. Apparently Sony found terms more to their liking...

What happened with the RSX is that they probably finalized the design a bit too early, and when blu-ray encryption and cell yields started holding everything up it was too late to beef it up. That and they probably skimped a bit on the RSX a little simply because they had to know costs were going out of control. Even with that, it appears to be a pretty decent GPU.

 

[DCharlie]

What happened with the RSX is that they probably finalized the design a bit too early, and when blu-ray encryption and cell yields started holding everything up it was too late to beef it up. That and they probably skimped a bit on the RSX a little simply because they had to know costs were going out of control. Even with that, it appears to be a pretty decent GPU.

well, that would certainly make sense.

Meaning in 2004 Nvidia said they have been working on it with Sony for 2 years.

wow - that's even more surprising/interesting.

if your Sony friend did not know about it, then doesnt know much, does he?

wasn't just one, no one knew anything. I guess that's just how sony roll internally. I guess that might explain a few things too!

 

[Raistlin]

I can't believe you people care about this kinda stuff. I guess I'm not a technical person.

I can’t believe you people don’t care about this kinda stuff. I guess I’m not a layman.

 

[Raistlin]

That's a bit of an understatement from a couple stories I'd read after Kutaragi left.



Nvidia was quite upset at how their deal with MS went for the Xbox gpu, they swore up and down they'd never enter into a deal like that again. Apparently Sony found terms more to their liking...

What happened with the RSX is that they probably finalized the design a bit too early, and when blu-ray encryption and cell yields started holding everything up it was too late to beef it up. That and they probably skimped a bit on the RSX a little simply because they had to know costs were going out of control. Even with that, it appears to be a pretty decent GPU.

IIRC, blue-laser diode yields was actually one of the bigger (if not biggest) issues for PS3 production early on.