PDA

View Full Version : The Xbox 360 CPU is greater than 3ghz?



Griking
10-25-2005, 06:56 AM
It sounds like it does according to this (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051025/D8DF19NG0.html) new article.

I always thought it was going to be 2ghz.

"The IBM-built chip features three customized PowerPC computing engines that can each handle two simultaneous tasks at clock speeds greater than 3 gigahertz. It was customized for Microsoft in less than 24 months from the original contract."

Joelius
10-25-2005, 08:45 AM
O_O

I'm confused now. Is that clocked with half of the processor working on one thing, and the other half on the other, instead of using all 4 or 6 like it can do? I would understand how that would give it increased speeds.

kevin_psx
10-25-2005, 08:49 AM
wikipedia says both the 360 and ps3 are 3200 megahertz

gepeto
10-25-2005, 08:55 AM
From what I under stand the 360 will have Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each. From a technical standpoint that is power that cannot be denied.

Gemini-Phoenix
10-25-2005, 09:20 AM
What I don't understand is how a home console can have that much processing power, when the top range PC's are more or less the same.

My PC is a twin 3.4ghz Intel P4, so it seems hard to believe that the next wave of home consoles will be able to match it! What is the point in having a PC in the first place in that case, if consoles are going to be just as good (Or better) than them?

I didn't shell out 2,500 just for some punk-ass 13 year old GameFAQ's geek to say "Yeah, but my PS3 / X360 is just as powerful...", because you just know that's what is going to happen...

kevin_psx
10-25-2005, 09:25 AM
My PC is a twin 3.4ghz Intel P4, so it seems hard to believe that the next wave of home consoles will be able to match it! What is the point in having a PC in the first place in that case, if consoles are going to be just as good (Or better) than them?

Because your PC will have a 20 gigahertz cpu in 2010, while consoles are still stuck at 3.2

Not as clear-cut as the 1980s is it? Back then wecould get a 16-bit computer while Atari/nintendo were still stuck at 8-bit. Or a 1000 megahertz pentium, while ps1/n64 were still <100 megahertz. The PC-console gap is shrinking.

Consoles caught-up to Arcades & soon they'll do the same to PC gaming.

Gemini-Phoenix
10-25-2005, 09:29 AM
But who is to say that in three years time, they won't come up with a next generation...

Am I also mistaken, but aren't they having difficulties in breaking the 4ghz barrier in PC's, simply because the processors get far too hot and they can't keep them cold enough. Only PC's I know of that run higher than 4ghz are custom ons which have been overclocked and have nuclear cooling systems or something... :/

jajaja
10-25-2005, 09:37 AM
What is the point in having a PC in the first place in that case, if consoles are going to be just as good (Or better) than them?

PC isnt a pure gaming machine. Its used for "everything" :)
Consoles are mainly made for gaming only (movies and music too). Consoles doesnt need upgrade either.

kevin_psx
10-25-2005, 09:41 AM
But who is to say that in three years time, they won't come up with a next generation...


??? 3 years? No post-1990 generation's been that short, has it? Sony says their ps3 is good for 10 years. I don't believe it, but probably 6 years at least - 2012 - before we see a ps4.

gepeto
10-25-2005, 09:58 AM
It is not for us to understand. That what makes it so great.
Multiple core is not new to pc's. Servers use multiple cpus.
To be able get that power for 300 to 400 dollars is a steal.

It is the razor blade /razor theory Gillette lose's money on the razors but makes a killing on the blades.


What kills me is people will sit and try to analyze and knock the 360 without understanding its true power.

From a tech point of view I don't care what the ps3 puts out the with proper programming the xbox 360 will be able to do it.

I will tell you this the software has not caught up to the hardware.. I have yet to see a game come out and the requirement is a 3.2 core minimum. Half life 2 minimum was 1.2ghz recommended 2.4ghz.

That is why when the 360 comes out don't expect mind blowing games initially. It is a year or 2 that the real power will be displayed.

To break it down and make it easier to understand. A man is in the room and can lift 300lbs if you put 75lbs in one hand and 75lbs in the other hand even Though I can lift 300lbs if 200lb comes along I will have to free up one hand to lift the 200lbs.

Now if there are 3 men in the room that can lift 300lb apeice in theory 900lbs can be lifted at the same time. That is why I believe microsoft went ahead and released the 360 because in the end the system is way ahead of it time. cpu power is cpu power. All for games amazing.

googlefest1
10-25-2005, 10:12 AM
But who is to say that in three years time, they won't come up with a next generation...

Am I also mistaken, but aren't they having difficulties in breaking the 4ghz barrier in PC's, simply because the processors get far too hot and they can't keep them cold enough. Only PC's I know of that run higher than 4ghz are custom ons which have been overclocked and have nuclear cooling systems or something... :/

i dont think the problem is keeping them cool -- its keeping them cool dirt cheap - materials science will find something that will help this problem - also the posibilty of a "diferent kind" of proccessor is not far fetched (for a few years down the road)

Arkaign
10-25-2005, 11:16 AM
Mhz is definitely not everything. Google for Carmack's observations on Xbox360 vs. PC performance, those IBM cores can't really hold up to more general-purpose cores like Athlon 64 and P4/P4D.

And, they don't have to, they will be more than adequate, the real focus is on the graphics subsystem. Over the years, more and more processing has been moving from the cpu onto the gpu when it comes to what matters in games.

In games, these days the gpu is *the* crucial element for performance. I did an expirament with a couple systems and found it funny :

New 3.6Ghz P4 Dell with ATI X300 PCI-Express Video, 2048MB of DDR-II, was outrun by a 4-year old Athlon 1.2Ghz with 512mb and a Geforce 6600GT. Doom III, Same OS, same resolution, same settings. The better video card (from the same generation!) trumped 2.4ghz clock difference and 1536MB of additional (and faster) memory.

For a PC/Windows platform, the Xbox360 processor performance would probably be roughly equal to a 2.6Ghz P4, according to reasonable estimations. Couple that with the combination of a cutting-edge gpu and a *much* cleaner custom OS that doesn't bog down like Windows, and you get a game platform that will probably run equal to Dual-Core Athlon 64 or P4Ds.

kevin_psx
10-25-2005, 11:17 AM
From a tech point of view I don't care what the ps3 puts out the with proper programming the xbox 360 will be able to do it. microsoft went ahead and released the 360 because in the end the system is way ahead of it time. cpu power is cpu power. All for games amazing.


Than why does the PS3 metal gear solid demo look soooooo much better than any of the X360 demos? All the 360 character models look like freaking toys with their extremely shiny skin. The Metal Gear Solid demo is teh r03Kers! Makes the 360 look like previous gen.

LOL

sorry couldn't resist

devils advocate
10-25-2005, 11:26 AM
From a tech point of view I don't care what the ps3 puts out the with proper programming the xbox 360 will be able to do it.


Than why does the PS3 metal gear solid demo look soooooo much better than any of the X360 demos? All the 360 character models look like freaking toys with their extremely shiny skin. The Metal Gear Solid demo is the r03Kers! Makes the 360 look like previous gen.

LOL

sorry couldn't resist


Prove it. Show me proof of an actual PS3 console running that demo.


Sorry, couldn't resist LOL

Arkaign
10-25-2005, 11:28 AM
Well, both the Xbox360 and PS3 are more than capable of producing outstanding visuals, what it comes down to is what kinds of games you want to play.

I had a Xbox, loathed Halo (prefer PCs for FPS), and sold it pretty quickly after I didn't find any other interesting titles.

I had a PS2, had fun with a few games, and sold it, got into more PC RPGs and FPS.

I may check into the PS3, I doubt I'll ever touch a 360.

goatdan
10-25-2005, 11:32 AM
But who is to say that in three years time, they won't come up with a next generation...

Am I also mistaken, but aren't they having difficulties in breaking the 4ghz barrier in PC's, simply because the processors get far too hot and they can't keep them cold enough. Only PC's I know of that run higher than 4ghz are custom ons which have been overclocked and have nuclear cooling systems or something... :/

i dont think the problem is keeping them cool -- its keeping them cool dirt cheap - materials science will find something that will help this problem - also the posibilty of a "diferent kind" of proccessor is not far fetched (for a few years down the road)

It's constantly five years between console generations, except with Sony who wants to only upgrade once every 10 years. The reason the Xbox 360 is coming out when it is now is because it is forcing Sony's hand early. Sony didn't want a new console now. They wanted more profit out of the current one. Microsoft wanted to develop a new console that would cater better to consumer's wants, so the Xbox 360 was born, and then Sony was forced to develop the PS3. Why are there all these rumors that it is delayed? Because Sony isn't altogether that serious about it, which I do feel will bite them in the ass.

As for console's getting better processing power and computers getting better processing power, what is going to happen is more specialized processing. A 20GHz processor isn't that much better than a 4GHz processor if your RAM and GPU are going to be relatively similar. My computer at home is slower than my work computer, but it plays games MUCH better because it has a performance graphics card it in.

In general, I think we'll see more dual-core GPUs, and if we don't go beyond 3 to 4GHz in the future, it won't matter too much.

kevin_psx
10-25-2005, 11:35 AM
Prove it. Show me proof of an actual PS3 console running that demo.

Not poking fun at the X360. I was poking at YOU (friendly of course). Re-read you last post - we can almost see the drool. You're an Xbox fan - even if Microsoft put a slow 500 megahertz machine, you'd say it was the best.

PS3 Demo Pics:
http://www.forum-125.com/c/ikonboard.cgi?s=d8056ae3810d4daa12dc5f1e715346d5;a ct=ST;f=25;t=1683;hl=metal+gear+solid+demo

That link includes a playable movie of actual ps3 hardware (minus the GPU which don't exist yet).

k

Arkaign
10-25-2005, 11:40 AM
Not poking fun at the X360. I was poking at YOU (friendly of course).

Re-read you last post - we can practically see the drool. You're an Xbox fan. Biased.

PS3 Demo Pics:
http://www.forum-125.com/c/ikonboard.cgi?s=d8056ae3810d4daa12dc5f1e715346d5;a ct=ST;f=25;t=1683;hl=metal+gear+solid+demo

As opposed to someone with 'PSX' in their name .. doesn't count as bias? LOL

Seriously, I had an Xbox and hated it. Oh well. From everything I can tell, the 360 will be more of the same. I guess I'm biased against it because of my experince with it's predecessor. I remember trying to play a DVD on it, and it not working because I didn't have the DVD kit. Boy was I pissed. DVDs played on my PS2 withOUT spending $XX on a damned kit.

I'm not sure I had a point here :eek 2: LOL

gepeto
10-25-2005, 11:44 AM
From a tech point of view I don't care what the ps3 puts out the with proper programming the xbox 360 will be able to do it.


Than why does the PS3 metal gear solid demo look soooooo much better than any of the X360 demos? All the 360 character models look like freaking toys with their extremely shiny skin. The Metal Gear Solid demo is the r03Kers! Makes the 360 look like previous gen.

LOL

sorry couldn't resist

Konami has always put out a great looking Metal Gear game
I'm sure when the konami team work on the game for the 360 i'm sure it will look just as great. But i'm not impressed with Demo presentation video I want to see it running in a machine with a controller in hand being played.

I give microsoft all the credit in the world for being honest they come to the expo shows with real PLAYABLE games not what will be. They could have very well played the just video of what it will look like game. remember the Ps2 expo that show the old mans face, the emotion engine hype, did sony even come close to the hype specs of the ps2. I think not. I am from the will believe when I really see it group.

kevin_psx
10-25-2005, 12:10 PM
As opposed to someone with 'PSX' in their name .. doesn't count as bias? LOL

kevin_psx sounded cool. Other option was harleykevin! ;) I'm biased but not by hardware. I always end up liking the weakest least-powerful console (atari, nes, ps1, et cetera). ??? Don't know why?


Next-gen I have no favorite yet. Taking a 'wait-and-see' attitude.

k

kevin_psx
10-25-2005, 12:10 PM
I am a fan of all the systems. I'm sure the Ps3 will be great, along with the Rev and 360. And I'll buy all three. I just will not buy Sony's pre release bullshit.

Agree 100%! I won't buy all 3 (probably only 2) but I have no favorite yet. Taking a 'wait-and-see' attitude.

Thing is - microsoft's pre-release bs is no better than sony's. "What we showed you at E3 was only 33% of an xbox 360." uh huh. riiiight.

k

devils advocate
10-25-2005, 12:15 PM
Prove it. Show me proof of an actual PS3 console running that demo.

Not poking fun at the X360. I was poking at YOU (friendly of course).

Re-read you last post - we can practically see the drool. You're an Xbox fan - even if Microsoft put a slow 500 megahertz machine, you'd say it was the best.

PS3 Demo Pics:
http://www.forum-125.com/c/ikonboard.cgi?s=d8056ae3810d4daa12dc5f1e715346d5;a ct=ST;f=25;t=1683;hl=metal+gear+solid+demo

Careful how you stereotype. It only shows a narrow view from yourself.

I am a fan of all the systems.

I also find the hype produced by Sony before the launch of their systems disdainful.

Dreamcast launch anybody? Any one remember the promises that the emotion engine would take the world by storm,and that its volume knobs would go to 11 for that extra "push" right over the cliff ..yada yada ? And how much better WERE ps2 launch titles than Dreamcast?


I'm sure the Ps3 will be great, along with the Rev and 360. And I'll buy all three. I just will not buy Sony's pre release bullshit.

Zubiac666
10-25-2005, 04:03 PM
It is the razor blade /razor theory Gillette lose's money on the razors but makes a killing on the blades.

what?
Do you mean that MS will earn cash on software and loose $ on hardware?



What kills me is people will sit and try to analyze and knock the 360 without understanding its true power.

From a tech point of view I don't care what the ps3 puts out the with proper programming the xbox 360 will be able to do it.

The same could be said about the PS3.If devs use the true power of the PS3(which means: All the cell-cores) I'm sure the games will look even better than the MGS4 trailer(which I didn't find THAT impressive...same goes to all the 360 games as well).



I will tell you this the software has not caught up to the hardware.. I have yet to see a game come out and the requirement is a 3.2 core minimum. Half life 2 minimum was 1.2mhz recommended 2.4mhz.

wow, I didn't know that my SNES is able to run Half Life 2.
^_^



Now if there are 3 men in the room that can lift 300lb apeice in theory 900lbs can be lifted at the same time. That is why I believe microsoft went ahead and released the 360 because in the end the system is way ahead of it time. cpu power is cpu power. All for games amazing.

cpu power means (almost) nothing nowadays.
Graphic chip,archicture,RAM etc are far more important than raw CPU power.
that's why some games for the ~400Mhz gamecube could easily compete(in things like graphics and GFX) with some of the best xbox(~700Mhz) games.

GrayFox
10-25-2005, 04:13 PM
I agree that MGS4 looks amazing, but remember..

- Konami and Kojima are making it, they produce some of the best looking games.
- MGS4 was not yet currently running on actual PS3 hardware.
- Also, MGS4 is not going to be coming out for a good 2 years probably. By that time, I assume developer's will have a good grip on 360's hardware, and will be able to push some solid visuals.

CartCollector
10-25-2005, 04:19 PM
On processor speeds:

P4s running at 3.x GHz often do worse game- and graphical benchmark-wise than A64s running at 2.x GHz in equivalent systems. Why? There's other factors involved, including operations per clock cycle (Pentiums have 6, Athlon 64s have 9), how memory is controlled (Pentiums on the motherboard, Athlon 64s on the processor) and how many bits the processor's registers are (but many programs don't take advantage of 64-bit processing power... yet). Anyway, there's more to look for to determine processing power than just raw GHz.

goatdan
10-25-2005, 04:31 PM
(but many programs don't take advantage of 64-bit processing power... yet).

Man!!! The Jaguar and N64 were so ahead of their time, PC's are just beginning to catch up!

I'm just kidding. I just can't wait to hear everyone debate about which system has 512 bits... Ugh.

gepeto
10-25-2005, 04:52 PM
It is the razor blade /razor theory Gillette lose's money on the razors but makes a killing on the blades.

what?
Do you mean that MS will earn cash on software and loose $ on hardware?

Gepeto said:
Yes Most video game makers manufactures initially lose money on hardware and make money on the software side.
I believe with the new ps2 slim model sony now doesn't lose money but I believe xbox still loses money not as much.



What kills me is people will sit and try to analyze and knock the 360 without understanding its true power.

From a tech point of view I don't care what the ps3 puts out the with proper programming the xbox 360 will be able to do it.

The same could be said about the PS3.If devs use the true power of the PS3(which means: All the cell-cores) I'm sure the games will look even better than the MGS4 trailer(which I didn't find THAT impressive...same goes to all the 360 games as well).

Gepeto said:
True but what were your reasons that you found the demo not impressive. I wasn't impressed because I didn't see it running in a ps3 with controller in hand.



I will tell you this the software has not caught up to the hardware.. I have yet to see a game come out and the requirement is a 3.2 core minimum. Half life 2 minimum was 1.2ghz recommended 2.4ghz.

wow, I didn't know that my SNES is able to run Half Life 2.

Gepeto said;
You got me multitasking but you get the point.
^_^



Now if there are 3 men in the room that can lift 300lb apeice in theory 900lbs can be lifted at the same time. That is why I believe microsoft went ahead and released the 360 because in the end the system is way ahead of it time. cpu power is cpu power. All for games amazing.

cpu power means (almost) nothing nowadays.
Graphic chip,archicture,RAM etc are far more important than raw CPU power.
that's why some games for the ~400Mhz gamecube could easily compete(in things like graphics and GFX) with some of the best xbox(~700Mhz) games.


Gepeto definately said:
Man Please that argument doesn't make sense. If that was the case people would only upgrade there video cards and never upgrade there cpus go ahead throw half life 2 in a p3 650 with a ati 9800 graphic card and see what you get. I will take a faster multiple processors any day. Bottomline is faster cpus mean faster processing power and a key point I stated earlier proper programming. Quick question what are the so called Graphic chip,archicture doing for the ps2 the ps3 hype sounds awful similar to the ps2 hype. I love all systems but i call it like I see it show me.

Anexanhume
10-25-2005, 10:47 PM
If you really want to know the details, follow this link http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050629-5054.html and the two links to the articles about xenon and the cell.

You'll quickly see that comparing current generation PC processors is not possible because there are designed completely different from xenon and cell.

Xenon and cell ( which are functionally equivalent in many ways ) rely on the programmer for a lot of things. They lack beefy branch prediciton ( the ability to tell when instructions will not be executed sequentially ), but as a result, this frees up a LOT of die space.

They rely on the programmer to branch predict for them and schedule code efficiently. Xenon and cell also rely on the programmer to be able to stucture the code to basically have 6 or 8 independent sequences of code running at the same time. This can be difficult.

They also rely on the programmer to effectively use the cahce. By giving that control, the programmer has the best knowledge of what data needs to be readily available to the processor and decrease the number of lengthy memory accesses.

Another function that xenon employs is procedural synthesis. Basically, instead of storing a crapload of vertices for an object in memory, the a core takes some general data for an object and generates all the vertices for the gpu to work on. This frees up a lot of memory space.

Although these processors have a very high theoretical computations per second figure, this is contigent upon the fact all 6 or 8 threads continuously have work to do. Here is the programmer's burden. The advantage is that you get a processor capable of a lot more number crunching in roughly half the die space of p4.

So, I think that the first gen games won't look that much better than the 1st, but as the programmers get more use to multi-threaded programming, these processors will become beasts.

Any ps3 fan boys shouldn't be quick to dismiss the 360. Development costs of the ps3 is scaring away some Japanese developers, and since the cell architecture relies on even more independent threads available, which is coupled with the fact that the cell is an array of 7 general purpose units with an 8th controlling unit whereas the xenon is basically 3 of those "smarter" controlling units capable of 2 threads a piece, those 7 general purpose units can look pretty useless if the main unit can't orchestrate the threads efficiently for them.

The 360 is supported by Microsoft's SDK support, including things like XNA and AGEIA's physics SDK, which can ease the burden on developers.

Arkaign
10-25-2005, 11:09 PM
Semi-confusing thread ..

Quick points :

*MGS4 is not running on final PS3 hardware yet, but on various development hardware

*Comparing the 360, PS3, or PC Cpus cannot be done by Mhz/Ghz. Only by tasks and environments that are particularly suited. PC cpus are very 'general-purpose' and can deal with the spastic nature of OSes like Windows, running a huge variety of apps/threads. Xenon and Cell are not up to that task, and they don't have to be, they're far more suited for the highly specific code to run games.

*The video subsystem is critical beyond comparison for playing games. You can take a 4-year old cpu and a recent video card (Athlon 1.2 + GF6800AGP) and run circles around a 4-year old video card and new cpu (Athlon FX-57 + Geforce 2 Ultra). Yes, there is a necessity for having a decent cpu, but for games, it's better to have an average processor and a cutting-edge video card, rather than a cutting-edge processor limited by an average video card.

*The capabilities of the new game systems far exceed the humble abilities of the PS2/Xbox/Cube. The determining factor for success is going to be the quality+quantity of the games, not the small variables in performance between the systems themselves.

*The PS2 lived up to and exceeded the videos that they distributed pre-launch, do a yahoo video search and hunt down what Sony sent out, the PS2 more than lived up to what Sony said it could do. The marketing blabber about 'Emotion Engine' made it sound huge beyond what it actually was, but the statements of fact were sound.

*Xbox360 will likely have impressive games from the starting line, considering the streamlined software development kit and more standard hardware as compared to the PS3. The PS3's unnerving complexity probably means that the development costs/timeframe/final quality will improve over time, but be difficult to begin with. Basically a repeat of PS1 and PS2. A nice slow burn, decent capabilities to start, with payoffs coming in the coming years.

Did I miss anything?

njiska
10-25-2005, 11:39 PM
Semi-confusing thread ..

Quick points :

*MGS4 is not running on final PS3 hardware yet, but on various development hardware

*Comparing the 360, PS3, or PC Cpus cannot be done by Mhz/Ghz. Only by tasks and environments that are particularly suited. PC cpus are very 'general-purpose' and can deal with the spastic nature of OSes like Windows, running a huge variety of apps/threads. Xenon and Cell are not up to that task, and they don't have to be, they're far more suited for the highly specific code to run games.

*The video subsystem is critical beyond comparison for playing games. You can take a 4-year old cpu and a recent video card (Athlon 1.2 + GF6800AGP) and run circles around a 4-year old video card and new cpu (Athlon FX-57 + Geforce 2 Ultra). Yes, there is a necessity for having a decent cpu, but for games, it's better to have an average processor and a cutting-edge video card, rather than a cutting-edge processor limited by an average video card.

*The capabilities of the new game systems far exceed the humble abilities of the PS2/Xbox/Cube. The determining factor for success is going to be the quality+quantity of the games, not the small variables in performance between the systems themselves.

*The PS2 lived up to and exceeded the videos that they distributed pre-launch, do a yahoo video search and hunt down what Sony sent out, the PS2 more than lived up to what Sony said it could do. The marketing blabber about 'Emotion Engine' made it sound huge beyond what it actually was, but the statements of fact were sound.

*Xbox360 will likely have impressive games from the starting line, considering the streamlined software development kit and more standard hardware as compared to the PS3. The PS3's unnerving complexity probably means that the development costs/timeframe/final quality will improve over time, but be difficult to begin with. Basically a repeat of PS1 and PS2. A nice slow burn, decent capabilities to start, with payoffs coming in the coming years.

Did I miss anything?

Very well said. You're correct that the PS2 did live up to the tech demos, but to be fair, it did take a fair amount of time.

Sony is promising the predicted PS3 graphics by saying this is what the system is capable of, not this is what the launch titles will look like.

With the 360 on the other hand, MSFT has stated that the launch titles won't look that spectacular because developers haven't adjusted to it and learn how to squeeze every ounce of power out of it. Honesty and Microsoft, a rare combination.

Looking at it in the right prespective i figure this generation is going to progress just like the last. Neither system will have overly special launch titles. The PS3 won't launch with games that live up to the hype but after a year and a half or so the developers will catch up.

The 360 will also get progressively better with time. Such is the nature of the beast. Systems are never maxed out in the first 3 years of their life.

kevin_psx
10-26-2005, 07:36 AM
Did I miss anything?


Nintendo Revolution?

REVOLUTION = IBM PowerPC CPU "Broadway":
ATI GPU "Hollywood"
??? unknown system bus speed
1T-SRAM by MoSys
512 MiB built-in flash memory (acts like hard drive)

Plus downloadable games!

devils advocate
10-26-2005, 08:40 AM
Semi-confusing thread ..

Quick points :

*MGS4 is not running on final PS3 hardware yet, but on various development hardware

*Comparing the 360, PS3, or PC Cpus cannot be done by Mhz/Ghz. Only by tasks and environments that are particularly suited. PC cpus are very 'general-purpose' and can deal with the spastic nature of OSes like Windows, running a huge variety of apps/threads. Xenon and Cell are not up to that task, and they don't have to be, they're far more suited for the highly specific code to run games.

*The video subsystem is critical beyond comparison for playing games. You can take a 4-year old cpu and a recent video card (Athlon 1.2 + GF6800AGP) and run circles around a 4-year old video card and new cpu (Athlon FX-57 + Geforce 2 Ultra). Yes, there is a necessity for having a decent cpu, but for games, it's better to have an average processor and a cutting-edge video card, rather than a cutting-edge processor limited by an average video card.

*The capabilities of the new game systems far exceed the humble abilities of the PS2/Xbox/Cube. The determining factor for success is going to be the quality+quantity of the games, not the small variables in performance between the systems themselves.

*The PS2 lived up to and exceeded the videos that they distributed pre-launch, do a yahoo video search and hunt down what Sony sent out, the PS2 more than lived up to what Sony said it could do. The marketing blabber about 'Emotion Engine' made it sound huge beyond what it actually was, but the statements of fact were sound.

*Xbox360 will likely have impressive games from the starting line, considering the streamlined software development kit and more standard hardware as compared to the PS3. The PS3's unnerving complexity probably means that the development costs/timeframe/final quality will improve over time, but be difficult to begin with. Basically a repeat of PS1 and PS2. A nice slow burn, decent capabilities to start, with payoffs coming in the coming years.

Did I miss anything?

Very well said. You're correct that the PS2 did live up to the tech demos, but to be fair, it did take a fair amount of time.


Hmmm... When I was mentioning Sony's pre launch bullshit, I wasn't even thinking of their videos. More of their entire launch campaigns.

I think their tech specs were even pretty close, albeit completely unimportant except to.... A techy. And with 51 million users, I'm betting they're a small percentage.

Sony's PS and ps2 launch campaigns were never so much about why their product was great, but about how the others were either overpriced or underpowered, and that you , the saavy consumer should wait for Sony.

Any body remember what their speech was competing against the launch of the Saturn? No, it wasn't that their machine would be better, or even worse. They competed on price point, and price point alone.
A one second speech "299.99" (100 less than the Saturn)then they left the stage.

The PS2? Wait for us! Wait for us! Shouted Sony, our emotion engine will bring you to tears! We'll have a yarouze (user programming model) available just like for the PS...... Still waiting.


PS3? Look at our great demo!!!!!!! Please look.. Don't buy into the 360 or Rev hype, if youll just wait for us, look what you'll get... Just look at our demo...................Just don't ask how we're running it.

I just find their marketing like a bad politicians campaign. They tend to try to hurt the other candidates instead of having a platform of their own.
One would expect those tactics of MS, not Sony.. LOL

Other thing that makes me sad, is everyone comparing tech specs. It's ridiculous. And will have NOTHING to do with how good the games for the next gen systems are. Nor, how well they sell. Save for some people on this site i suppose.
This gen will follow the same cycle as every other;

1. launch games are ok, to some degree, with a real stand out or two.

2. Mid gen titles are hitting their stride..

3. final wave of titles will be spectacular, with only some budget titles with bad production values being the real duds.

njiska
10-26-2005, 10:29 AM
3. final wave of titles will be spectacular, with only some budget titles with bad production values being the real duds.

Whith the sole exception of RockStar games who will hold on to it's first gen Graphics. LOL

Arkaign
10-28-2005, 06:20 AM
Well, having played 2 of the playable 360 games, I'm losing what little enthusiasm I had for the oncoming set of systems. I'm thinking the PS3 launch demos will be similarly lame.