Support NeoGAF

[gatti-man]

So, not only will we have re-hashed environments in-game,like Dragon Age II, we will have them across the board? I fear the future.

If PC gaming is the future of consoles then you have nothing to worry about. Art style still controls pretty much everything. Even games like cod/bf3/metro2033 all have their own distinct style. Increased detail allows for increased art style and differentiation imo. Just look at witcher 2 vs witcher. Direct sequel and characters look very different besides obvious traits.

EDIT: I honestly cant believe this thread is still going. So many hungry for next gen, feels good man.

You might not care but a lot of people care and I'm sure microsoft cares. Sony has already shown that going with bleeding edge technology which makes your system overpriced might not be the best approach.

That just isnt true. Sony got dinged by ramming bluray, a non gaming technology, down consumers throats. If Sony put more into the hardware and less into movie technology their 599 console could have paid off by showing a true divide between the 360 and ps3. What they got was the marginal success of bluray and consumers buying the ps3 early as a movies only platform.

 

[tycoonheart]

I don't care if it is going to be expensive. It'd better be powerful.

I dont' want to see another major competitor offering an overpriced old machine like Nintendo did.

You might not care but a lot of people care and I'm sure microsoft cares. Sony has already shown that going with bleeding edge technology which makes your system overpriced might not be the best approach.

 

[Durante]

So, not only will we have re-hashed environments in-game,like Dragon Age II, we will have them across the board? I fear the future.

Actually, for the given example of trees, each tree can easily be different and very detailed, without a lot of manual work going into it. That's a solved problem. The same can (but probably hasn't, yet) be done for a lot of other objects produced by natural processes for which you can program a reasonable approximation (plants, terrain, caves, whatever).

If PC gaming is the future of consoles then you have nothing to worry about. Art style still controls pretty much everything. Even games like cod/bf3/metro2033 all have their own distinct style. Increased detail allows for increased art style and differentiation imo. Just look at witcher 2 vs witcher. Direct sequel and characters look very different besides obvious traits.

And Witcher 2 has both higher res assets and a much more distinctive (and, IMHO, generally better) art style.

 

[specialguy]

You might not care but a lot of people care and I'm sure microsoft cares. Sony has already shown that going with bleeding edge technology which makes your system overpriced might not be the best approach.

PS3 was hardly bleeding edged technology if that's what you're referencing. Other than Blu Ray. In fact the GPU was about a generation behind when it launched in 2006.

Without Blu Ray Ps3 would have easily come in at 399, same as 360.

 

[diffusionx]

PS3 was hardly bleeding edged technology if that's what you're referencing. Other than Blu Ray. In fact the GPU was about a generation behind when it launched in 2006.

Without Blu Ray Ps3 would have easily come in at 399, same as 360.

Cell was very much "bleeding edge" technology at the time.

 

[blu]

Regarding the talk about car models, would anyone seriously go ahead and create the source assets for a current-gen racing game using pure polygonal modeling? I'd assume they are already at least subsurf modelled or even with some kind of parametric surfaces. If so, converting them to a next-gen pipeline should be a largely automatic process. If not, the developer deserves the headache for their lack of foresight.

They apparently did it in GT4, where they had about as much reason to go polygonal as they had this time around, otherwise we wouldn't have got what we did with the standard models *shrug*. One of the problems with very long development cycle projects, is that by the time you finish it, one or two development pipeline paradigms may have changed. Anyway, I do have my fingers crossed they had their stuff sorted out at the beginning of the GT5 cycle. I love Polyphony.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Actually you forget another GPU generation is in store in early 2012. The mid range of that generation should be equivalent to todays high end such as 6970. So even if you pretend Xbox next is launching in 2012, which I say there's no chance, but even then, you'll be looking at a whole different ball game. Xbox next can have tomorrows mid range GPU (something lets say called, 7870) and it will be just as powerful as todays high range while not being extreme on heat-power.

And as far as the DDR3, the "actual rumor" specifies some amount of Vram. For this rumor to make any sense it would likely be something like 2GB+2GB, but it seems all the uneducated or those who want to paint the next Xbox as weak continue erroneously acting as if it will have 2Gb of DDR3 and thats it, which as I've pointed out about 50 times in this thread isn't even technically possible as DDR3 is just too slow to feed a GPU.

I doubt anyone that knows even a little about this subject thinks it will only have 2 gigs of DDR3.

I'm hedging my bets on a unified memory pool of 2 gigs XDR maybe GDDR5 if MS wants to spend some cash.

 

[tycoonheart]

PS3 was hardly bleeding edged technology if that's what you're referencing. Other than Blu Ray. In fact the GPU was about a generation behind when it launched in 2006.

Without Blu Ray Ps3 would have easily come in at 399, same as 360.

Cell processor.
Hard drive (I believe the basic xbox 360 didn't come with one)
WIFI (again, I don't think the xbox 360 came with wifi at launch)

I mean, Sony definitely threw all kinds of shit in there which added up and the cost ended up being huge.

This is what I don't want to see happen again, though the cost of some of that stuff now is probably going to be cheaper than it was.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Cell was very much "bleeding edge" technology at the time.

Yeah it was but PS3 had whole bunch of shit that made it expensive with nothing to show for it or was not worth it to most people.

 

[gatti-man]

Cell processor.
Hard drive (I believe the basic xbox 360 didn't come with one)
WIFI (again, I don't think the xbox 360 came with wifi at launch)

I mean, Sony definitely threw all kinds of shit in there which added up and the cost ended up being huge.

This is what I don't want to see happen again, though the cost of some of that stuff now is probably going to be cheaper than it was.

Hard drive and wifi are bleeding edge technology? Cell processor wasnt bleeding edge it was just new tech. The large cost was blu-ray. Your argument is wrong.

 

[onQ123]

PS3 was hardly bleeding edged technology if that's what you're referencing. Other than Blu Ray. In fact the GPU was about a generation behind when it launched in 2006.

Without Blu Ray Ps3 would have easily come in at 399, same as 360.

Cell & Blu-ray was bleeding edged.

 

[gatti-man]

Cell & Blu-ray was bleeding edged.

Lets end this
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/


Bluray cost sony $350 each at launch. Done.

Edit: Cell was costly but that again was to be used in other products. It wasnt a cutting edge GAMING technology. Nothing in the ps3 was cutting edge gaming wise besides maybe the ram speed.

 

[Donnie]

Actually you forget another GPU generation is in store in early 2012. The mid range of that generation should be equivalent to todays high end such as 6970. So even if you pretend Xbox next is launching in 2012, which I say there's no chance, but even then, you'll be looking at a whole different ball game. Xbox next can have tomorrows mid range GPU (something lets say called, 7870) and it will be just as powerful as todays high range while not being extreme on heat-power.

And as far as the DDR3, the "actual rumor" specifies some amount of Vram. For this rumor to make any sense it would likely be something like 2GB+2GB, but it seems all the uneducated or those who want to paint the next Xbox as weak continue erroneously acting as if it will have 2Gb of DDR3 and thats it, which as I've pointed out about 50 times in this thread isn't even technically possible as DDR3 is just too slow to feed a GPU.

A HD6970 uses nearly 300 watts, I don't see any 7xxx card with the same performance having low enough power consumption to go in a console in 2012 (XBox 360's entire usage was around 180w max).

Also the XBox 3 rumour mentions VRAM but that does not mean 2GB, that's just wishful thinking at this point. For all we know the VRAM mentioned is just a small amount of eDram on the GPU similar to 360.

The fact is at the moment the rumours out there say 2GB DDR3 plus extra video memory for XBox and 1GB DDR3 plus extra video memory for WiiU. If you think its ok to assume XBox 3 will have loads of GDDR5 in order to come to the conclusion that it'll destroy WiiU then that's up to you, but to me its nothing but baseless assumption.

 

[tycoonheart]

Hard drive and wifi are bleeding edge technology? Cell processor wasnt bleeding edge it was just new tech. The large cost was blu-ray. Your argument is wrong.

No, they're not bleeding edge technology. But both were relatively new to consoles (though the xbox did have a HDD) and both added to the cost of the PS3.

So you say Cell wasn't bleeding edge, yet the cost of PS3 was ridiculously high. What do you think the cost of the new XBox is going to be given his rumor that it will have a 6 core processor and a very powerful GPU. Intel's top dog consumer processor are 4 cores. And the only market that goes with dual+ GPU is the enthusiast market. Given those facts, don't you foresee that if these rumors were true, the cost of this console is going to be ridiculous?

 

[DopeyFish]

I'm not forgetting anything, a HD6970 uses nearly 300 watts, any 7xxx card with the same performance isn't going to have low enough power consumption to go in a console in 2012 (XBox 360's entire usage was around 180w max).

Also the XBox 3 rumour mentions VRAM but that does not mean 2GB at all, that's just wishful thinking at this point. For all we know the VRAM mentioned is just a small amount of eDram on the GPU similar to 360. But feel free to assume that XBox 3 has loads of extra fast memory that people don't feel is worth noting, while WiiU will have only DDR3 and then call other people uneducated for making less assumptions.

Wimbledon- use the next gen mobile part

Mobile GPUs are very very powerful these days

My 6990m makes my desktop 5770 feel so old

 

[Raistlin]

I have no idea about tech stuff, but compared too the speculated Wii U specs, how much of jump is it?

We don't know enough about either, but particularly this to really say. There is zero info about actual GPU performance. All we know is it has dual GPU's (which we assume is due to it being an early dev kit).

For that matter, we really don't know much about Wii U's GPU capabilities either. Just some guesses based on early demos (which really doesn't say much), and knowledge it can push more than one screen.



Assuming these leaked specs are relatively accurate, we really only have the highest level of info. Core-counts, etc. Can't really make any serious comparisons.

 

[leadbelly]

I'm not forgetting anything, a HD6970 uses nearly 300 watts, any 7xxx card with the same performance isn't going to have low enough power consumption to go in a console in 2012 (XBox 360's entire usage was around 180w max).

Also the XBox 3 rumour mentions VRAM but that does not mean 2GB at all, that's just wishful thinking at this point. For all we know the VRAM mentioned is just a small amount of eDram on the GPU similar to 360.

The fact is at the moment the rumours out there say 2GB DDR3 plus extra video memory for XBox and 1GB DDR3 plus extra video memory for WiiU. If you think its ok to assume XBox 3 will have loads of GDDR5 in order to come to the conclusion that it'll destroy WiiU then that's up to you, but to me its nothing but baseless assumption.

I highly doubt the next Xbox will be using DDR3 VRAM.

 

[gatti-man]

No, they're not bleeding edge technology. But both were relatively new to consoles (though the xbox did have a HDD) and both added to the cost of the PS3.

So you say Cell wasn't bleeding edge, yet the cost of PS3 was ridiculously high. What do you think the cost of the new XBox is going to be given his rumor that it will have a 6 core processor and a very powerful GPU. Intel's top dog consumer processor are 4 cores. And the only market that goes with dual+ GPU is the enthusiast market. Given those facts, don't you foresee that if these rumors were true, the cost of this console is going to be ridiculous?

$399 is what I see with maybe a higher premium sku. Look at my link I posted it has a full breakdown. CPUs are not as expensive as you are thinking. Costs have shrunk on many components. Wifi, hard drives and memory have all become much cheaper. Bluray is no longer difficult to manufacture or expensive. I see a possibility for a real gaming platform in this next gen.

Remember the MS launch. The GPU was cutting edge and sure MS was selling at a loss but that was heavily offset by $100 wifi adapters and $50 controllers. Expect more of the same.

Cell was cutting edged

Cell was not and is not cutting edge gaming technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

Check out wiki. Cell is great just not so much for gaming. If cell was everything you claim it should have stomped the 360 but it didnt. Sure you can say it was the fault of the RSX or split memory pool but there is a reason cell is dead.

 

[onQ123]

Lets end this
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/


Bluray cost sony $350 each at launch. Done.

Edit: Cell was costly but that again was to be used in other products. It wasnt a cutting edge GAMING technology. Nothing in the ps3 was cutting edge gaming wise besides maybe the ram speed.

Cell was cutting edged

 

[Donnie]

I highly doubt the next Xbox will be using DDR3 VRAM.

I doubt either XBox 3 or WiiU will use DDR3 as VRAM. I also didn't say once that I believed either would.

 

[Raistlin]

Lets end this
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/


Bluray cost sony $350 each at launch. Done.

Edit: Cell was costly but that again was to be used in other products. It wasnt a cutting edge GAMING technology. Nothing in the ps3 was cutting edge gaming wise besides maybe the ram speed.

What exactly does that mean?

While yes, certain features could arguably be left out, or the weighting of performance of certain aspects may arguably be a bit different ... there isn't really a 'gaming' CPU. A CPU is a general purpose processor - and a cutting edge CPU is a cutting edge CPU whether it's in a computer or a console.

 

[gatti-man]

What exactly does that mean?

While yes, certain features could arguably be left out, or the weighting of performance of certain aspects may arguably be a bit different ... there isn't really a 'gaming' CPU. A CPU is a general purpose processor - and a cutting edge CPU is a cutting edge CPU whether it's in a computer or a console.

It means sony spent alot of money on a cpu that didnt best suit its gaming needs. Cell was tied to bluray for decoding and was part of its bluray format push, it was never about gaming. My argument is against all those using the ps3 as a metric for why cutting edge gaming consoles dont work. The ps3 was never cutting edge for gaming is my argument.

 

[leadbelly]

So you say Cell wasn't bleeding edge, yet the cost of PS3 was ridiculously high. What do you think the cost of the new XBox is going to be given his rumor that it will have a 6 core processor and a very powerful GPU. Intel's top dog consumer processor are 4 cores. And the only market that goes with dual+ GPU is the enthusiast market. Given those facts, don't you foresee that if these rumors were true, the cost of this console is going to be ridiculous?

Not necessarily no. You're forgetting the 360 came with a triple core when such CPUs weren't even out yet on PC and a GPU that had features like 'unified shader architecture' that wasn't on PC graphics cards until DX10.

It released with very much the latest hardware. Of course they took a hit on every console they sold. I imagine that hardware was subsidised as well though.

 

[Bluemercury]

So the new Xbox specs arent that great? im not following..

 

[kayos90]

Honestly, the tech doesn't have to be too great. I care more about just small advancements technically and giving us more features that I care about.

 

[specialguy]

. All we know is it has dual GPU's (which we assume is due to it being an early dev kit).

If it's like a 6990 in order to approximate the high end 7000 series that isn't even available yet...look out! Only way the dual GPU thing really makes sense.

But then again, personally I dont even believe these rumors.

 

[tycoonheart]

Lets end this
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/


Bluray cost sony $350 each at launch. Done.

Edit: Cell was costly but that again was to be used in other products. It wasnt a cutting edge GAMING technology. Nothing in the ps3 was cutting edge gaming wise besides maybe the ram speed.

There is another cost analysis done by iSuppli which said the bluray cost was only $125. I can't find the article itself on the iSuppli website, but there is another article talking about it.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/06/11/16/ps3.cost.breakdown/

And here's a breakdown of components done by another group a year after release.

http://imageshack.us/f/260/untitled2fl4.jpg/

$350 for bluray seems wayyyyy to much even at launch.

 

[Donnie]

Wimbledon- use the next gen mobile part

Mobile GPUs are very very powerful these days

My 6990m makes my desktop 5770 feel so old

Very powerful for a mobile, but much less powerful than the desktop part of the same name and there's a good reason for that. You can't just turn a 300w card into a 100w card (the maximum a new console could handle) without some extreme advances in process technology, even 40nm to 28nm wouldn't do it.

 

[onQ123]

$399 is what I see with maybe a higher premium sku. Look at my link I posted it has a full breakdown. CPUs are not as expensive as you are thinking. Costs have shrunk on many components. Wifi, hard drives and memory have all become much cheaper. Bluray is no longer difficult to manufacture or expensive. I see a possibility for a real gaming platform in this next gen.

Remember the MS launch. The GPU was cutting edge and sure MS was selling at a loss but that was heavily offset by $100 wifi adapters and $50 controllers. Expect more of the same.


Cell was not and is not cutting edge gaming technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

Check out wiki. Cell is great just not so much for gaming. If cell was everything you claim it should have stomped the 360 but it didnt. Sure you can say it was the fault of the RSX or split memory pool but there is a reason cell is dead.

you say that the Xbox 360's GPU was cutting edge but Cell wasn't, so why is it that the Cell is able to help the RSX put out games that look better than what the so called Cutting Edge GPU in the Xbox 360 can do?

 

[gundamkyoukai]

It means sony spent alot of money on a cpu that didnt best suit its gaming needs. Cell was tied to bluray for decoding and was part of its bluray format push, it was never about gaming. My argument is against all those using the ps3 as a metric for why cutting edge gaming consoles dont work. The ps3 was never cutting edge for gaming is my argument.

Cell was made for PS3 it had gaming in mind at one point of time PS3 was suppose to use 2 Cells for gfx.
We were hearing rumors of Cell long before Blu ray .
Saying Cell was not cutting edge is stupid even if you thought it was not made for gaming .
Cutting edge is cutting now matter the reason it was used for.

 

[Durante]

Check out wiki. Cell is great just not so much for gaming. If cell was everything you claim it should have stomped the 360 but it didnt. Sure you can say it was the fault of the RSX or split memory pool but there is a reason cell is dead.

The reason Cell is dead is mostly because the concept was a bit ahead of its time. Now you have GPU computing being hugely popular, which is like a worse version of it.

It means sony spent alot of money on a cpu that didnt best suit its gaming needs. Cell was tied to bluray for decoding and was part of its bluray format push, it was never about gaming.

This part is just completely wrong.

My argument is against all those using the ps3 as a metric for why cutting edge gaming consoles dont work. The ps3 was never cutting edge for gaming is my argument.

But that's because of its last-minute (in terms of console design) GPU hodgepodge, Cell is one of the reasons it can keep up as well as it does.

 

[gatti-man]

There is another cost analysis done by iSuppli which said the bluray cost was only $125. I can't find the article itself on the iSuppli website, but there is another article talking about it.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/06/11/16/ps3.cost.breakdown/

And here's a breakdown of components done by another group a year after release.

http://imageshack.us/f/260/untitled2fl4.jpg/

$350 for bluray seems wayyyyy to much even at launch.

The cheapest bluray player at launch was the ps3. The next step up for JUST a player was one thousand dollars. I know, thats why I bought a ps3 in the first place.

A year after launch has absolutely zero to do with the discussion honestly.

Cell was made for PS3 it had gaming in mind at one point of time PS3 was suppose to use 2 Cells for gfx.
We were hearing rumors of Cell long before Blu ray .

The reason it needed two cells was because cell wasnt optimal for gaming. I was hearing about bluray long before cell. It really depends on where your interests lie. Cell was put in a ps3 yes and it was made for the ps3 yes but it wasnt made for gaming.

The reason Cell is dead is mostly because the concept was a bit ahead of its time. Now you have GPU computing being hugely popular, which is like a worse version of it.

This part is just completely wrong. But that's because of its last-minute (in terms of console design) GPU hodgepodge, Cell is one of the reasons it can keep up as well as it does.

I think the reason Im running into so much resistance with you guys is you really dont remember or dont know the processing power required to decode bluray and lossless audio codecs at the time of launch. This stuff was cutting edge for home theaters and why cell was designed and chosen for ps3. Ive posted links backing up my opinions. All you need to do is read them.

 

[tycoonheart]

I think even $399 for the base package is too much. If MS can somehow do what they did with the 360 (299 base, 399 pro) it would be a win for them. I think consumers are going to balk at $399.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

The reason it needed two cells was because cell wasnt optimal for gaming. I was hearing about bluray long before cell. It really depends on where your interests lie. Cell was put in a ps3 yes and it was made for the ps3 yes but it wasnt made for gaming.

Cell was made to be a multimedia processor so that includes gaming , stream , decoding etc etc .
If cell was not made for gaming why is used to help the RSX so much and is better at certain gfx tricks

 

[DCKing]

While yes, certain features could arguably be left out, or the weighting of performance of certain aspects may arguably be a bit different ... there isn't really a 'gaming' CPU. A CPU is a general purpose processor - and a cutting edge CPU is a cutting edge CPU whether it's in a computer or a console.

Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 were powerhouses in computation, not much in game logic. A benchmark once put the Xbox 360 integer performance on par with a single core Intel Celeron (Pentium 4 grade Celeron) at 1.7 GHz. Lots of sacrifices were made for a specific type of performance and clock speed.

I'm not a developer, so I don't know if turned out to be a bad thing. I just remembered it was kind of a shock at the time as most consoles before it were actually not that kind of a deal. If the Wii U has a POWER7 based CPU it's actually much more comparable CPU architecture to the Wii/GameCube than the PS3 and 360 in some regards.

Anyway, the Cell has been a horrible decision for Sony. It was incredibly expensive, the PPE actually powered their competitor's system, it was a pain to program for for a long time, has never truly set itself apart from the competition, and has been made obsolete for what its designed for by GPGPU's from the moment it was released (by the same company that made the PS3 GPU). It's all hindsight, but I really think it turned out disastrous for Sony. I think I can say with almost complete certainty that the PS4 will not be built around Cell. No way.

 

[Durante]

I think the reason Im running into so much resistance with you guys is you really dont remember or dont know the processing power required to decode bluray and lossless audio codecs at the time of launch. This stuff was cutting edge for home theaters and why cell was designed and chosen for ps3. Ive posted links backing up my opinions. All you need to do is read them.

The simple reason why your assumption doesn't make much sense is that any system fast enough to be an HD gaming platform at a level similar to PS3 and 360 would easily be capable of decoding blu-rays, regardless of architecture.

Cell was made for integer and floating point stream processing. That includes lots of workloads from media applications as well as games and high performance computing. That's why Sony, Toshiba and IBM all had an interest in the architecture.

 

[gatti-man]

Cell was made to be a multimedia processor so that includes gaming , stream , decoding etc etc .
If cell was not made for gaming why is used to help the RSX so much and is better at certain gfx tricks

Well the RSX was a dog by most standards. It was a bandaid on top of cell to try and make their home theater box a gaming box in my opinion. Simply because a processor can do something it doesnt meaned it was designed for it. There were about 100+ articles written about how difficult the cell was to code for gaming. Google. Its even in the links I already posted.

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

I know a lot about system architecture. It seems to me that most of the claims of 2GB being sufficient are made on the basis of short-sighted extrapolation from the current state of games and some nebulous concept of each byte of console RAM being worth 4 bytes of PC RAM (which is frankly ridiculous) -- not based on any well founded architectural analysis.

For example, one argument that is often repeated is that the cost of asset creation would prevent more RAM from being used effectively. Whenever someone actually in the industry comments that assets are created at far higher resolution than they are shipped in already, such comments are just ignored and a page or two later the same invalid arguments are repeated. It's really quite annoying.

Yeah, i`m with you. I already brought the point to the table how Epic said more RAM would even speed up development because the assets are already created in high quality and they waste a lot of time to downgrade them and making sure they still look acceptable, and than fitting them in the small memory of current gen consoles. But no one will listen.

Also to point to the pc and that most game doesn`t use much more than 2 gb of ram is also so dumb. Guys, get it .... there aren`t real pc game anymore. 95% of the game are console ports with the same crappy textures. Of cause those game doesn`t need that much ram. How short-sighted can you be and refuse to look past what you know? Its ridiculous.

 

[Zoe]

Well the RSX was a dog by most standards. It was a bandaid on top of cell to try and make their home theater box a gaming box in my opinion. Simply because a processor can do something it doesnt meaned it was designed for it. There were about 100+ articles written about how difficult the cell was to code for gaming. Google. Its even in the links I already posted.

An unfamiliar architecture was hard to code for?

Shocking.

 

[gatti-man]

The simple reason why your assumption doesn't make much sense is that any system fast enough to be an HD gaming platform at a level similar to PS3 and 360 would easily be capable of decoding blu-rays, regardless of architecture.

Cell was made for integer and floating point stream processing. That includes lots of workloads from media applications as well as games and high performance computing. That's why Sony, Toshiba and IBM all had an interest in the architecture.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12195/HD-DVD-The-Real-Xbox-360-Killing-Application/

"Gandhi also revealed that so far, the HD DVD application is the only one that takes 100% of the hardware resources, all the time:

All 6 of Xbox 360's hardware threads are hard at work while playing back an HD DVD. At the moment, the player software pushes Xbox 360 harder than any other (save, perhaps, Gears of War during some particularly busy parts of the game). "




And HD-DVD was far easier on hardware than bluray codecs.

An unfamiliar architecture was hard to code for?

Shocking.

So then why was it chosen? Exactly my point.

 

[AmFreak]

Well the RSX was a dog by most standards. It was a bandaid on top of cell to try and make their home theater box a gaming box in my opinion. Simply because a processor can do something it doesnt meaned it was designed for it. There were about 100+ articles written about how difficult the cell was to code for gaming. Google. Its even in the links I already posted.

So the PS2 was made for DVD, cause programming wasn't easier on it ...
You seem to have no idea what you are talking about, if they just needed something that could decode Blu-Ray movies they could have built a dsp. How did the other players decode Blu-Ray - they didn't have a cell. How did the HD-DVD players decode HD-DVD's ? Even the 360 can play HD-DVD's with the addon, how does it do it? - Must be Aliens.

 

[Durante]

And HD-DVD was far easier on hardware than bluray codecs.

How so? The most intensive codec used by both is the same, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.

 

[tycoonheart]

Damn, even Pentium 4s and Athlon 64s were decoding bluray with ease. I don't think it takes that much of a horsepower to decode bluray.

 

[clav]

An unfamiliar architecture was hard to code for?

Shocking.

On a serious note, it seems troubling that Sony still doesn't understand CELL fully as PS2 games are not software backwards compatible through Cell even after five years of the PS3's launch. The fat PS3s originally had PS2 architecture to make BC possible.

Perhaps backwards compatibility would be possible for the PS4.

As for the old games, developers have resorted to making HD remakes for the system, which speaks volumes that it requires an extensive effort to get PS2 games running on CELL.

 

[eastmen]

Eww, that would be underwhelming really.

You should see 8X+ improvements in everything else (RAM, GPU execution units, etc), only 2x the CPU would be a problem.

The number of cores isnt so relevent as how "beefy" they are. Out of order would be great.

The cpu hardly matters at this point in time. Esp with a dx 11 gpu , tesselation will now be done on the gpu and the cpu will have less and less to do .

Yea a 6 core waternoose would be underwhelming but then again the whole chip would be less than 350m tranistors.

So they could devote a huge amount of die space for the gpu

 

[gatti-man]

How so? The most intensive codec used by both is the same, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC.

There were far more H.264 movies on bluray.

Damn, even Pentium 4s and Athlon 64s were decoding bluray with ease. I don't think it takes that much of a horsepower to decode bluray.

Now this discussion has completely derailed. The cell was chosen for bluray. There were no SOC's when the ps3 released and ALL players were dog slow besides the ps3 at time of release. Not to mention most were gimped and didnt provide full audio decoding and were 1k+. All needed a real cpu of some kind in their actual players. Sony would have been better served without the cell for gaming. They know that now and its why it wont be in ps4. If cell was a great gaming processor they would have kept it. It is not, it is great at some things but not gaming.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

On a serious note, it seems troubling that Sony still doesn't understand CELL fully as PS2 games are not software backwards compatible through Cell even after five years of the PS3's launch. The fat PS3s originally had PS2 architecture to make BC possible.

Perhaps backwards compatibility would be possible for the PS4.

As for the old games, developers have resorted to making HD remakes for the system, which speaks volumes that it requires an extensive effort to get PS2 games running on CELL.

The issue with PS2 BC isn't processing performance, it's bandwith. Cell isn't to be blamed here.

 

[clav]

The issue with PS2 BC isn't processing performance, it's bandwith. Cell isn't to be blamed here.

Can you elaborate?

What do you mean by bandwidth?

 

[eastmen]

Can you elaborate?

What do you mean by bandwidth?

the ps2 had 4MB of edram for the gpu. It had more bandwidth than what the graphics chip in the ps3 has .

just for better info , it offeerd 48GB/s bandwidth

 

[H_Prestige]

All those ps2 games on psn right now, and every single one yet to be released, are being emulated.