@minator

Quote:

hat's confusing though, or just plain wrong.

You're right, I could have written this a bit clearer. Well, the main point remains the same the RSX and Cell should be looked at in combination with each other.

@MikeB

Quote:

The optimization of game engines can differ greatly from platform to platform to get the most out of the platform, both the XBox and PS2 have their advantages. So no, the XBox was not more powerful in all regards. For example the PS2 CPU can do 6.2 GFLOPS and the X-Box can do 3.2 GFLOPS, so almost twice as powerful, but if you adopt such a tunnel vision (not looking at the GPU, system bandwidth, RAM, etc), in effect you start to lose sight of the whole system.

Sorry, stop twisting it around, that's just crap. The XBox was significantly more powerful than the PS2 and that's from someone who didn't like it and preferred the PS2.

_________________

@BrianK

You assume the XBox 360 will actually be used with 100% efficiency unlike the PS3?

@MikeB

Quote:

the XBox was not more powerful in all regards. For example the PS2 CPU can do 6.2 GFLOPS and the X-Box can do 3.2 GFLOPS, so almost twice as powerful, but if you adopt such a tunnel vision (not looking at the GPU, system bandwidth, RAM, etc), in effect you start to lose sight of the whole system..

Here again we see the claimed performance numbers PS2 twice as fast as the Xbox. Were games twice as good? Nope. These numbers are closer this generation. Many 360 fans give the nod for performance to the PS3. But they also realize these consoles are closer then the 2x number we see here of last gen. Being the 2x number didn't press twice the complexity or twice the graphical power I think the 360 fans are, definitely compared to you, less enthustiastic that the PS3 is going to usher in this area of unbridled gaming performance.

Look I'll have both, PS3 is scheduled this summer to be at my house. (Gotta build the coiffer.) I expect the PS3 to do well but I'm rather doubtful that more then a handful of games will be more impressive then the 360. They are pretty evenly matched and I think we'll see games of more even caliber.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Feb-2007 at 03:58 PM.

@AMiGR

Quote:

Sorry, stop twisting it around, that's just crap. The XBox was significantly more powerful than the PS2 and that's from someone who didn't like it and preferred the PS2.

Please cut this crap, you make it sound like I claim the PS2 is more powerful than the XBox overall!

@MikeB
Quote:

You assume the XBox 360 will actually be used with 100% efficiency unlike the PS3?

Ah no see later posts from Minator and myself.

@BrianK

Quote:

Here again we see the claimed performance numbers PS2 twice as fast as the Xbox. Were games twice as good?

I just provided *1* technical example where the PS2 performs well. WIth your kind of reasoning the Atari ST was more powerful overall than the Amiga 500 was, this due to a faster CPU. Well that wasn't really the case for most games.

How good games are, you have to judge from a personal perspective. Maybe I have more fun playing New Super Mario Bros on my Nintendo DS than you have fun with Halo on your XBox. This doesn't say much about CPU or GPU performance.

IMO more interesting than fighting yesteryear's wars between the XBox (RIP) and the best selling PS2:

Phil Harrison:

"I think PlayStation 3 needs to stand for gaming and digital entertainment in the living room pushing the envelope of high definition, pushing the envelope of broadband, and of course that includes more than just games,"

"We don’t have the announcements that you’re probably looking for today, but it is digital data. We have a hard drive, we have a commerce engine, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out we will have that on the network very shortly."

Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 03:51 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

While I'm sorry to hear about your girly hand issues your personal issues

Probably mine is/are bigger than your's!

@minator

Quote:

Quote: What about the Xbox processor? It's shown real world tests of ~115Gflops. Love to know how they managed that ...it's peak is only 76.8 GFLOPs.

Actually good comment. I was just gonna ask the same question...

Quote:

Getting something up and running on the 360 is easier as the CPU is closer to a conventional desktop processor. However this advantage is being eroded somewhat by Cell compilers which can already target existing code to the SPEs (even Linux on PS3 can do this).

Actually, I don't know. I'm just playing a round with some Linux spe stuff. We are using some proprietary animation png format here. It's pretty simply to port (err re-write). If people know how png is organized, then you'll know that data are stored in chunks. Now, if you pack multiple frames into one file, you have some kind of trivial animation format.

You could have a pretty custom chunk decoder for each chunk in the png. Now, what I am playing around with is, to customize the chunk (IDAT) decoder to run on the SPE. Now, combine that with an animation and a ring buffer and I can virtually decode multiple frames at the same time.

An no, this is not really harder to implement then say on a multi core cpu. One can learn how to do things like this without being a game professional. The standard available linux distros allow you to do that. Actually a first version would use a files system and a multithreaded decoder with a read method to stream from a file. The spe version works similar, except the streaming function will read from main mem (treading main mem like a kind of a file system).

That file system approach is required, because the SPE has to load a data block into its local mem before it can process it. Thats actually similar what you would do with buffered I/O. It is my understanding, the research is going on, to integrate this I/O into a compiler level (means, e.g. the mem translation is build into the function call, or so). If that is true, SPE code can simply treated like a sub routine call (with some limits).

While SPE usage requires some tinkering, I don't think its so much harder to use then say a multicore.

For the gpu performance, it seems that more and more companies use the spe to "assist" (or extend?) shaders. I would guess, that DX10 like shaders will be possible with the DX9 style RSX in the future, means the gfx output in the PS3 is scaleable even though the RSX is a pretty locked down design.

One wish though. Hopefully SONY/NVidea will bring full OpenGL2 (and XGL) to PS3/Linux asap.

_________________
AmigaOne XE G3/933/VIA/FM801/R200 (fixed),
G3SE/600/Voodoo3/Sil680/RTL8139/SBLive! (noiseless!)
µA1-MK2/G3/933/R200/CMI8738
XE/G4 (broken 7450/800)

@MikeB

Quote:

@BrianK Quote: Here again we see the claimed performance numbers PS2 twice as fast as the Xbox. Were games twice as good? I just provided *1* technical example where the PS2 performs well. WIth your kind of reasoning the Atari ST was more powerful overall than the Amiga 500 was, this due to a faster CPU. Well that wasn't really the case for most games.

Acually it's a reflection of what your opinions read as. You continue to express how excited you are for the Cell, and I'll give you it is pretty cool. But when it comes to games these 2 consoles are more evenly matched then last generation. They both can carry HD content in various forms -- harddrive, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD. They both can serve as Media centers though I haven't see the PS3's answer for integrating into a total home solution. Perhaps they could work with Apple and integrate with iTV making a different solution then Microsoft or DIY for everything as in a Linux answer. They both come down to what the user wants.

Sony is likely certain to keep a lead a 70% marketshare is indeed impressive. But, they won't get that this time. The 2 others - Nintendo and Microsoft - are both gaining marketshare over last gen. Looks like Nintendo may pull off the impressive feat of beating Sony. They're doing well, even if you want to claim they are not.

I would like to see all 3 survive in the market. Microsoft is focusing on Sony as the one to beat. Sony is focusing on Microsoft . I think in ways they are making each other better. Microsoft lead the way with harddrives, online use, and making a media entertainment center. Sony appears to be trying to lead with next gen HD formats and a slightly different CPU technology.

@MikeB
Quote:

3) High definition TVs are still expensive and therefore not yet that widespread.

Do you have some figures to back that up? I find it unlikely that adoption of HD in Japan is significantly less than in the US. (I did a quick search, but got many false hits, etc..)

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@BrianK

Quote:

Sony is likely certain to keep a lead a 70% marketshare is indeed impressive. But, they won't get that this time. The 2 others - Nintendo and Microsoft - are both gaining marketshare over last gen. Looks like Nintendo may pull off the impressive feat of beating Sony. They're doing well, even if you want to claim they are not.

Quotes please? IMO globally the Nintendo Wii is doing excellent, I don't think this will last for many years though, but very impressive for a relatively small company compared to Sony and Microsoft. The XBox 360 is doing OK globablly, the console is doing very well in North America and UK! 9 million after 2 Christmases in three major markets is not bad at all, but IMO neither too impressive for a mammoth company like Microsoft.

@wegster

Quote:

Do you have some figures to back that up? I find it unlikely that adoption of HD in Japan is significantly less than in the US. (I did a quick search, but got many false hits, etc..)

Who is making comparisons with the US or Europe in this regard? Why can't one reason (I rank lower than available games and unit price) hindering widespread PS3 adoption in Japan, not be possible in the US and Europe as well?

I think HDTV adoption will get a significant push in 2007 but even more so in 2008, which benefits the PS3 market and vice versa.

@ Jorge / Minator

Thanks for some interesting postings.

@BrianK

Quote:

So, it seems if still 50MB there may be a few exceptions.

Indeed. The general rule of thumb is still 50 MB - the limit was imposed to make it possible to download games onto memory cards. Now 512MB cards are coming out, but there will only be exceptions where it can't be helped. Newly developed games will generally fit into 50 MB.

@MikeB

Quote:

The XBox was released 1 year after the PS2, tech-wise it wasn't superior in all regards

How so?

Off the top of my head I can think of:
No USB ports (rarely used for anything) (and even then there were adapters for Xbox-USB which you could use one of the four inputs for)
No firewire - which wasn't used for anything on the PS2 and eventually cut.
No dvd playback from the start (which was cheap to add if you wanted it - again you didn't have to pay for it if you didn't want to - notice a pattern?)

On the other hand it had four controller inputs, better performing/looking games, a harddrive, custom soundtracks in almost all games with your own music, Xbox Live (and built-in ethernet).


Im trying really hard to think of some relevant aspects where the PS2 was superior. I can't think of any though. The Dreamcast made PlayStation games look better than PS2 did, but then again that was stopped by Sony suing Bleem! to death like they did Lik-Sang...

@jtsiren

Quote:

Some argue Controller S (and the subsequent Xbox 360 controller which is pretty much based on it) are the best shaped controllers out there

Brrr. Controller-S was a nightmare for me. I hurried up and bought four of the original controllers while I still could ^_^ I have long fingers and tiny controllers like the dual shock hurt my hands (arthritic-like condition) because of their ergonomics which are geared more towards Japanese hands.

The 360 controller fixed what was wrong with the Controller-S though (better feel and the black/white buttons were moved to a sensible place). I'd say it's definitely one of the best traditional controllers ever - if not hands down the best.

Quote:

As for kudos to Sony, just had another nice afternoon with PSP and GTA: LCS. Damn some of those missions are hard. Even if PSP is just PS2 level tech-wise, the portability and the sharp screen make the graphics look very impressive. I like that little beast.

I've had ups and downs when it comes to PS3. I have a little handful of games that I like a lot on it, but the machine's form factor is just so... impractical. Having PS2 level loading times, relatively poor analogue controls (and no right stick, sigh) tends to result in me mostly playing C64 games on mine in VICE - and even then I usually prefer to use my TV and a real C64 for that.

I guess I would appreciate mine much more if I did more commuting with 1 hour train rides or so. As it is now I tend to pick up the DS for a quick fix on the go.

I agree about the PS2. It certainly has quite a handful of games that are worth getting it for, but I tend to only get exclusives for it, because, as you say, multiplatform titles were better on Xbox (and often on Gamecube too). Gamecube had the same problem though: I only bought the exclusives.

@Trezzer

Quote:

fit into 50 MB

Just to put this in relation. Each PS1/PSP download game on the PS3 network is about 150 to 500MB download (more likely 250 for the small ones). I was a bit optimistic to get 3 games onto my PSP - on a 1GB stick. Nope. Wasn't. Need a new 2 or 4 or 8GB memory stick ASAP

_________________
AmigaOne XE G3/933/VIA/FM801/R200 (fixed),
G3SE/600/Voodoo3/Sil680/RTL8139/SBLive! (noiseless!)
µA1-MK2/G3/933/R200/CMI8738
XE/G4 (broken 7450/800)

@MikeB

Quote:

For example the PS2 CPU can do 6.2 GFLOPS and the X-Box can do 3.2 GFLOPS, so almost twice as powerful, but if you adopt such a tunnel vision (not looking at the GPU, system bandwidth, RAM, etc), in effect you start to lose sight of the whole system.

It's funny though, because that's *exactly* what you're doing with the PS3.

Bottom line: The Xbox was by far the most powerful machine in the last generation. The games effectively showed that (including your precious God of War 2).

Did it matter that the PS2 CPU could do 6.2 GFLOPS while the Xbox one could only do 3.2? Clearly: Not at all.

That's why numbers can be so deceiving - and why you may well be wrong about the potential of the PS3.

@Trezzer

Quote:

How so?

See what happens if I don't highlight text?

To quote myself:

"The XBox was released 1 year after the PS2, tech-wise it wasn't superior in all regards"

" So no, the XBox was not more powerful in all regards. For example the PS2 CPU can do 6.2 GFLOPS and the X-Box can do 3.2 GFLOPS, so almost twice as powerful, but if you adopt such a tunnel vision (not looking at the GPU, system bandwidth, RAM, etc), in effect you start to lose sight of the whole system."

IMO some major reasons why the PS2 crushed the XBox:

1) Great exclusive games
2) Backward compatibility
3) Feels and looks more like a nice games console and less like a cut down PC in an ugly box.

Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 06:51 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 18-Feb-2007 at 06:50 PM.