Support NeoGAF

[mrklaw]

I think Sony did a really good job of the architecture of the PS2. Sure, they overegged some sections (like fill rate), and there are weakspots elsewhere (complex multiprocessor, buffer memory issues etc). But overall I think its a brave bit of engineering.

So what do people expect from PS3? We seem to know about Cell, but what graphics tech do you expect to be associated with it? Will Sony drop the ball by missing out things like pixel shaders, or other now fundamental features, instead happy to plough their own furrow?

And bearing in mind Sony seeming happy to ignore the PC graphics card power struggle and architecture paths, does anyone expect anything really left-field? A new way of doing things?

Does what they have done with PSP give any clues?

 

[MrparisSM]

You think Sony did a really good job with PS2?? It didnt' even have on-board anti-aliasing. The PS2 architecture is shit compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. I really don't see them pulling off anything amazing this time around either...

 

[Panajev2001a]

You think Sony did a really good job with PS2?? It didnt' even have on-board anti-aliasing. The PS2 architecture is shit compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. I really don't see them pulling off anything amazing this time around either...

You sir ar speaking straight out of your Back Orifice.

 

[Tea Master]

PS3 will have no weaknesses except maybe complex programming issues.

 

[gofreak]

You think Sony did a really good job with PS2?? It didnt' even have on-board anti-aliasing. The PS2 architecture is shit compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. I really don't see them pulling off anything amazing this time around either...

I agree with Pana. The PS2 architecture is very different from either GC or Xbox, but that doesn't make it bad. It's a very clever piece of engineering, imo. Microsoft and Nintendo would have struggled to match it for power if they had launched at the same time as ps2. The GC architecture is very very nice aswell, but they are completely different approaches.

edit - to answer the original poster's question: it depends on your definition of a weakness. Every system has weaknesses, some more meaningful, some more academic. Hopefully PS3's will be of the latter kind.

 

[MrparisSM]

I agree with Pana. The PS2 architecture is very different from either GC or Xbox, but that doesn't make it bad. It's a very clever piece of engineering, imo. Microsoft and Nintendo would have struggled to match it for power if they had launched at the same time as ps2. The GC architecture is very very nice aswell, but they are completely different approaches.

edit - to answer the original poster's question: it depends on your definition of a weakness. Every system has weaknesses, some more meaningful, some more academic. Hopefully PS3's will be of the latter kind.

Maybe Nintendo would have, but I seriuosly doubt that Microsoft would have had any problems. The Gforce that they are using in the Xbox was out before the PS2 right? It was just modified slightly.

 

[Speevy]

Weakness:

Only two controller ports.

 

[seismologist]

I think Sony's setting up to own everybody in the graphics department. Since they make all the parts in house.

 

[gofreak]

Maybe Nintendo would have, but I seriuosly doubt that Microsoft would have had any problems. The Gforce that they are using in the Xbox was out before the PS2 right? It was just modified slightly.

No, it wasn't. The original Geforce was, but not the Geforce 3 - that was very cutting edge at the time.

According to at least one Xbox article I have read on the history of Xbox's genesis, Microsoft was planning to launch in 2000, but delayed till 2001 - one of the reasons why was because the tech they came up with seemed "unimpressive" versus PS2. They wanted to completely outdo sony, and they couldn't working on the same timeline as them.

The PS2 was miles ahead of anything in PC land at the time, even if the games themselves didn't necessarily hammer that home at launch. But technically it was.

SCEI's engineering is exceptionally ambitious, and most of the time they hit the mark (see: PSP, the constant shrinking of the PS2 die-size etc.). PS3 is their flagship, and I'm sure they'll set a very high mark for everyone else to match (or exceed, perhaps!).

 

[Panajev2001a]

Maybe Nintendo would have, but I seriuosly doubt that Microsoft would have had any problems. The Gforce that they are using in the Xbox was out before the PS2 right? It was just modified slightly.

LOL...

Yeah, slightly... only 2x the Vertex Shaders and other features not present in the GeForce 3 or the GeForce 2.

PlayStation 2 launched in March 2000.

nVIDIA could have given tops a GeForce 2 GTS with maybe some features from GeForce 3 if they rushed, bu probably a GeForce 2 GTS would have been the Xbox GPU if Xbox launched in March 2000.

From GeForce 2 to a GPU in between GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 there is a LOT of road .

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Strengths

Blu-Ray
Cell
Ram (fastest in the world currently)
Backwards Compatible


Weaknesses
Hard to program for
Low amount of ram?(like 256 Mb)


Unknown
Graphics card

 

[cybamerc]

The dev environment will be the major issue as it was for PS2 and now is for PSP. It will be interesting to see just how bad it is considering the extremely complex design of the PS3.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Unless that RAM is insanely fast, I see no logic behind such a small amount. RAM has been the achilles heel of console design since the beginning. Why doesn't someone go ball-to-the-wall in that dept.?

RAM is a lot cheaper now.

 

[sonycowboy]

Strengths:
---------------
1) Probably the best overall tech of all systems
2) Backwards PS2 compatibility
3) Blu-Ray (If it's adopted as the standard)

Weaknesses:
----------------
1) Dev Environment - Microsoft's tools and leverage of Direct X are a tough combo to beat
2) Cell programming could be difficult initially as it's a significant divergence from current processing standards
3) Blu-Ray (If it's not adapted as the standard)
4) Probably not as strong an online model as Microsoft will have, at least initially.

 

[Midas]

I'm no techie, but I have to agree with some of the people in this thread. Cant think of a single developer that haven't had anything bad to say about coding for PS2, at least in the beginning. It feels like this will be an issue of the PS3 too, but you think Sony should learn by their mistakes though...

 

[TTP]

LOL...

Yeah, slightly... only 2x the Vertex Shaders and other features not present in the GeForce 3 or the GeForce 2.

PlayStation 2 launched in March 2000.

nVIDIA could have given tops a GeForce 2 GTS with maybe some features from GeForce 3 if they rushed, bu probably a GeForce 2 GTS would have been the Xbox GPU if Xbox launched in March 2000.

From GeForce 2 to a GPU in between GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 there is a LOT of road .

Dont turn this thread into a PS2 vs rest of the world. It's PS3 we are talking about. Bitch on it while you can!

 

[firex]

I think PS3 will either have to cut back on some major accessories (probably HD if they are going for one this time) or it will be about $100 more than the other consoles, but graphically it'll be hard to tell the difference between all three.

I actually think they're going to include a DVR with PS3 as the "must-have" feature to attract people like they did with PS2.

 

[MrparisSM]

I'm no techie, but I have to agree with some of the people in this thread. Cant think of a single developer that haven't had anything bad to say about coding for PS2, at least in the beginning. It feels like this will be an issue of the PS3 too, but you think Sony should learn by their mistakes though...

Yeah, you would think so.. And could be the start of their downfall. Xbox 2 will be out first and be based on current programing techniques. Why then would they switch to PS3 that is harder to program for? And not to mention the Xbox 2 will probably have a pretty good userbase by then...

 

[cybamerc]

Why then would they switch to PS3 that is harder to program for?

Because it's a PlayStation. But yeah, what you said is what M$ is hoping for.

 

[xexex]

Playstation2 was a massive leap from Playstation in terms of power. plus it added the fundamental features missing from PS1 such as proper z-buffer, perspective correct textures, mip-mapping (some form of mm anyway), texture filtering and yes even anti-aliasing. although many PS2 games do not use anti-aliasing because of the huge hit to performance. PS2 was very different from Dreamcast, Gamecube and the later Xbox. even though Gamecube came out 18 months after PS2 (march 1999 ===> sept 2000) the PS2 and Gamecube are close to the same age as far as technology. both are late 1990s technology. both have their strengths and weaknesses compared to one another (Xbox does too).

PS2 was a bold move by Sony. dispite the PS2's obvious flaws, it was a move in the right direction. I expect Sony to have addressed the major shortcomings of PS2 with the PS3, while massively increasing the performance at the same time.

 

[Pedigree Chum]

I remember Kutaragi saying that PS3 won't be as hard to dev for than PS2 was, he's sorta putting that in practice with the PSP which has been getting good buzz from devs.

 

[refreshZ]

Just want to see if my simpleton's version of these things is in the right ballpark...

OK, in simple terms, insanely fast RAM is insanely expensive, right? And Sony create architectures where the components (CPU, GPU etc) can talk to each other similarly quickly and therefore require this insanely fast RAM (otherwise a bottleneck would form)?
Since its so expensive a small amount of this RAM is embedded to keep the price down, the idea being that these components can be synched and data streamed (?) through the RAM quickly and efficiently to make the whole process sing... So, I presume that this efficiency is hard to make work right and different enough from the PC scene (say) where huge amounts of memory and hard drives are the norm so 'efficient, streamed' memory use is not a huge requirement?

 

[Guns N' Poops]

Yeah, you would think so.. And could be the start of their downfall. Xbox 2 will be out first and be based on current programing techniques. Why then would they switch to PS3 that is harder to program for? And not to mention the Xbox 2 will probably have a pretty good userbase by then...

Daxter Two?

 

[SolidSnakex]

It feels like this will be an issue of the PS3 too, but you think Sony should learn by their mistakes though...

Well they did make the ease of development for the PSP one of their main goals.

 

[Insertia]

If developers have as much trouble with PS3 as they had with PS2 early in it's life, color me surprised. One would expect Sony to acknowledge and fix such an obvious flaw.

 

[cybamerc]

Well they did make the ease of development for the PSP one of their main goals.

PSP is a much simpler design and devs are still complaining.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

"Why then would they switch to PS3 that is harder to program for?"

First of all, they wouldn't necessarily have to switch. I mean, people are already working on PS3 projects. The Cell Workstations will be released this winter and developers decide whether or not to make PS3 games NOW. Not after the release of the Xbox 2.

As for why they'd choose the PS3? simple: a much larger user-base. Even if the Xbox 2 double it's numbers, it'd still not be half as much as the Playstation. And if the PS3 launches later, it will in all likelihood have superior hardware.

I expect the PS3 to have it's main strengths in the same areas as the PS2: massive floating point/number crunching. And I think they'll provide more RAM for the developers.

The weaknesses will probably be the same as the PS2 with harder-than-average programming.

But from the looks of things, the situation will be much improved compared to the PS2, at least if you look at the PSP as a model for future Sony consoles.

 

[refreshZ]

I'm no techie, but I have to agree with some of the people in this thread. Cant think of a single developer that haven't had anything bad to say about coding for PS2, at least in the beginning. It feels like this will be an issue of the PS3 too, but you think Sony should learn by their mistakes though...

In my opinion the PS2 out of all the consoles this gen has shown the most improvement graphically (in the right hands of course, i'm not talking piss-poor PC/XBox conversions here) since its inception - perhaps because of the difficulty curve inherant in developing for it.

 

[MrparisSM]

"Why then would they switch to PS3 that is harder to program for?"

First of all, they wouldn't necessarily have to switch. I mean, people are already working on PS3 projects. The Cell Workstations will be released this winter and developers decide whether or not to make PS3 games NOW. Not after the release of the Xbox 2.

As for why they'd choose the PS3? simple: a much larger user-base. Even if the Xbox 2 double it's numbers, it'd still not be half as much as the Playstation. And if the PS3 launches later, it will in all likelihood have superior hardware.

I expect the PS3 to have it's main strengths in the same areas as the PS2: massive floating point/number crunching. And I think they'll provide more RAM for the developers.

The weaknesses will probably be the same as the PS2 with harder-than-average programming.

But from the looks of things, the situation will be much improved compared to the PS2, at least if you look at the PSP as a model for future Sony consoles.

Why do you people keep quoting the PSP as proof? The only reason why the PSP is easier to Dev for is because it's basically a shrunk down PS2(which after 4 years SHOULD be easy to Dev for).

 

[gofreak]

Just want to see if my simpleton's version of these things is in the right ballpark...

OK, in simple terms, insanely fast RAM is insanely expensive, right? And Sony create architectures where the components (CPU, GPU etc) can talk to each other similarly quickly and therefore require this insanely fast RAM (otherwise a bottleneck would form)?
Since its so expensive a small amount of this RAM is embedded to keep the price down, the idea being that these components can be synched and data streamed (?) through the RAM quickly and efficiently to make the whole process sing... So, I presume that this efficiency is hard to make work right and different enough from the PC scene (say) where huge amounts of memory and hard drives are the norm so 'efficient, streamed' memory use is not a huge requirement?

Basically yes. With a general computer, like a PC, you're mostly working with relatively small and static datasets that require a wide variety of different operations (general purpose). With games, you have large dynamic datasets that only require a limited set of operations. PS2 was designed around that, hence its very different architecture. At the time it was, and possibly still is, implausible to put enough memory in there to hold the entire dataset. So instead, you put a smaller amount of memory, but with MASSIVE pipes to keep data moving around very quickly (which is important - the dataset is dynamic). What Sony wanted to do was to mould the PS2 architecture around typical application requirements for games, which are very different to general application requirements.

 

[gofreak]

Why do you people keep quoting the PSP as proof? The only reason why the PSP is easier to Dev for is because it's basically a shrunk down PS2(which after 4 years SHOULD be easy to Dev for).

Developer experience aside, PSP is far mroe accessible. AFAIK, it has much better libraries than PS2.

 

[Midas]

Well they did make the ease of development for the PSP one of their main goals.

A step in right direction.

 

[Midas]

In my opinion the PS2 out of all the consoles this gen has shown the most improvement graphically (in the right hands of course, i'm not talking piss-poor PC/XBox conversions here) since its inception - perhaps because of the difficulty curve inherant in developing for it.

Yeah, it looks like that. Konami is a really good example. Just look at MGS3. Feels like the PS2 wont do much better, but you never know...

 

[cybamerc]

Why do you people keep quoting the PSP as proof? The only reason why the PSP is easier to Dev for is because it's basically a shrunk down PS2(which after 4 years SHOULD be easy to Dev for).

The PSP hardware has little in common with the PS2.

 

[TKM]

Why do you people keep quoting the PSP as proof? The only reason why the PSP is easier to Dev for is because it's basically a shrunk down PS2(which after 4 years SHOULD be easy to Dev for).

Because it's nothing like a PS2? Read Sony's PSP slides from their developer presentation. They state explicitly that programming PSP was more like PSone. Less programmable, more libraries.

 

[Goreomedy]

Daxter Two?

I think you're on to something.

 

[Oh! My Car!]

I'm hoping 720p will be the standard for all games, or better.

 

[xexex]

I'm hoping 720p will be the standard for all games, or better.

IAWTP. 720p plus 8x AA

 

[Koshiro]

I think Sony did a really good job of the architecture of the PS2.

I stopped reading here.

 

[Miburou]

The PS2 was not a very well-balanced system. I'm not talking about specs, but rather about the end result as seen in games. Even now, the PS2 is still inferior to the Xbox and GC (and DC) when it comes to texturing, and it still has a rougher, more jagged look to its games.

So I hope the PS3 is a more balanced system.

 

[Elios83]

I think Sony has done a very good job with the PS2 hardware itself.When the hardware was already up and running (early 1999) it did things unthinkable for the most powerful PCs out there at the time.
The only serious mistake Sony did was not to offer developers the right support during the beginning of PS2's life.This led to really shabby first generation titles which costed the PS2 hardware a bad reputation.I don't think that if the PS2 had been launched in Japan with games as Onimusha,GT3,Devil May Cry,SSX there would have been so much criticism around its hardware...
I think Sony will capitalize on the experience with the PS2,this time they know they have serious competition from Microsoft and thus they can't allow themselves to neglect any detail.With all next gen console coming out at the same time it will be really diffucult to beat Sony,IMO.

 

[cvxfreak]

I think the flow of PS3 games will be slower than that of the Revolution and Xbox 2 in the first year or so. Sony no longer has the one year advantage to get developers to learn their system's innards. I also think price might be a factor. MS is willing to take huge losses, Nintendo goes for low cost and Sony seems to be in between. Then again, Sony shocked everyone with the PSP, so we'll see.

 

[Arcticfox]

PS3 will be using OpenGL libraries for the most part, so that should make things easier.

Also, I don't see why everyone assumes the Xenon will be so much easier for developers. Writing a threaded program to take advantage of the 6 cores in the Xenon wont be much different from a program written for the dozens of cores in the PS3. They will both be much harder than writing a single threaded program like for the games this generation, though.

 

[Elios83]

I think the flow of PS3 games will be slower than that of the Revolution and Xbox 2 in the first year or so. Sony no longer has the one year advantage to get developers to learn their system's innards. I also think price might be a factor. MS is willing to take huge losses, Nintendo goes for low cost and Sony seems to be in between. Then again, Sony shocked everyone with the PSP, so we'll see.

While it's true that developers won't have a time advantage to learn the PS3 architecture it's also true that Microsoft and Nintendo won't have a 2 year advantage on the hardware.So the situation is more than balanced.
Plus Microsoft ISN'T willing to take huge losses on the Xbox2,they (and their shareholders) want the project to be profitable by 2007 so MS will probably go the cost effective approach with the Xbox2,they are already saying in the interviews they will put the stress on the software and not on the hardware as they did with Xbox1.

 

[marsomega]

The PS2 was miles ahead of anything in PC land at the time, even if the games themselves didn't necessarily hammer that home at launch. But technically it was.

.

Miles ahead? Not likely. Then again it's not easy to compare. I would say, it was more powerful then anything at its price or less. Sure at that point the Geforce2 debuted (pleagued with inadequate memory and broken drivers but still was more then enough to "beat" a PS2), but the price of the card alone was enough to buy a ps2. We all know a graphics chip and its memory aren't the only things that make a console. For reference, a TNT2 Ultra was more powerful then the PowerVR series that the DC and Naomi were based on.

 

[MrparisSM]

I think you're on to something.

who/what is Daxter Two?

 

[xexex]

Also, I don't see why everyone assumes the Xenon will be so much easier for developers. Writing a threaded program to take advantage of the 6 cores in the Xenon wont be much different from a program written for the dozens of cores in the PS3. They will both be much harder than writing a single threaded program like for the games this generation, though.

I mostly agree, though based on the tech docs, Xbox 2 will have only 3 cores, not 6.

okay 6 'virtual cores' but not 3 actual cores

 

[gofreak]

Miles ahead? Not likely. Then again it's not easy to compare. I would say, it was more powerful then anything at its price or less. Sure at that point the Geforce2 debuted (pleagued with inadequate memory and broken drivers but still was more then enough to "beat" a PS2), but the price of the card alone was enough to buy a ps2. We all know a graphics chip and its memory aren't the only things that make a console. For reference, a TNT2 Ultra was more powerful then the PowerVR series that the DC and Naomi were based on.

I was really thinking of CPUs with that comment..the emotion engine was leagues ahead of any cpu in pc land at the time. I'm not as familiar with how PS2 stacked up to the graphics cards of the time, though I would think that PS2 as a unit would outperform a PC of the time as a unit.

 

[firex]

ok, you want real weaknesses? I expect that the PS3 will probably still have memory/loading problems unless it comes with a HD by default and uses it to install and stream content.

strengths? probably going to have a very good architecture otherwise, easier to program on (from the start) than PS2, maybe even a really solid online network at launch.

 

[Gattsu25]

who/what is Daxter Two?

a dumbshit who comes up with retarded consipracy theories usually involving Gamespot.






On Topic:


This has to be a joke thread! none of the future consoles will have any weaknesses