@Lou

Quote:

The problem is IBM isn't designing a faster CELL. A PS4 will require completely new hardware/architecture.

That's strange, actually I read the exact opposite from IBM! That they will use the Cell technology in new CPU designs (of course these do not require to be called a Cell processor just like not all x86 style processors are called pentium, athlon, opteron, etc, etc).

Also you can use several Cell processors together. Like scientists connect full PS3s just for increased Cell processing (included Blu-Ray, Wi-Fi, wireless, etc is not being used for that), but it's possible to fit various Cell on a single motherboard.

I know some people often write as if they know the exact dealings of Toshiba, IBM and Sony regarding developments of the Cell processor. But actually according to various sources Toshiba itself designed the SpursEngine based on the Cell processor, not IBM!

So many contradictions, I believe you have no insider information with regard to this at all...

Last edited by MikeB on 06-Jul-2010 at 08:10 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

IMO the PS4 wouldn't need a big leap, following the PS3 road sets good standards to built on further.

This question/statement has two influencing factors. First, what will the market bear. Second what does the competition have and at what price point.

Quote:

I think would not make sense for a consumer electronics company like Sony at all

I think it was not good sense to lose the first place position of last generation or all gaming profits. Companies are made to make money. Making money does things such as ensure the survival of the company's entry into the market. Also, gives the company funds to help produce future products. Without such funds Sony has little choice but to evolve the PS3 rather than innovate.

The other loss from a Sony perspective was the ubiqutous Cell based future is dead. The computing industry moved their future in a different direction. They've gone multicore and pushed the 'cell-like' functions to the GPU. If Sony wants to evolve the 'Cell' concept it's more then likely to be all their investment to do it. I wonder how much the Cell cost Toshiba and IBM?

Quote:

That's strange, actually I read the exact opposite from IBM! That they will use the Cell technology in new CPU designs

You need to read up more on the Power7 processors. There are some Cell-like concepts in it. But, the processor is not anywhere near, for example, what a Cell2 would be. Nor can all the Cell code run on the Power7 processor.

EDIT: I wanted to include some pricing info. Today the iSeries is roughly $15K/core for the blade option. AIX on the same plaform is about 1/2 that price. Certainly the majority of the pricing is tied to the OS. IBM is, undoubtably, demanding a high price for the Power7 platform. We know the marketplace for consoles won't sustain a $600 price point. Let alone a $1K+ for the processor itself. Thinking Sony can just jump on the 'cell' Power7 as it is now next gen is a strech at best. Though the Power7 might be able to be cut down to form the core of a next gen process. But, Sony would then be using something more akin to a Xenon2 than a Cell2. :End EDIT


@Lou
Quote:

A PS4 will require completely new hardware/architecture.

The Cell in the PS3 is a dead-end processor, there is no next processor in it's family. So I agree a PS4 will require a new hardware OR Sony, likely by itself, to pay for a design of Cell2. I'm doubtful with the losses of the PS3 that this course of action is going to happen.

Sony could do something like use dual Cell processors. This has some positives as well as some negatives. This would, IMO, not be a PS4 but a PS3.x. Either way Sony is sure to call the next console a PS4. They will want to get out of the dark cloud of the PS3.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Jul-2010 at 02:14 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou Quote: The problem is IBM isn't designing a faster CELL. A PS4 will require completely new hardware/architecture. That's strange, actually I read the exact opposite from IBM! That they will use the Cell technology in new CPU designs (of course these do not require to be called a Cell processor just like not all x86 style processors are called pentium, athlon, opteron, etc, etc). Also you can use several Cell processors together. Like scientists connect full PS3s just for increased Cell processing (included Blu-Ray, Wi-Fi, wireless, etc is not being used for that), but it's possible to fit various Cell on a single motherboard. I know some people often write as if they know the exact dealings of Toshiba, IBM and Sony regarding developments of the Cell processor. But actually according to various sources Toshiba itself designed the SpursEngine based on the Cell processor, not IBM! So many contradictions, I believe you have no insider information with regard to this at all...

Hmmm...
Quote:

Iwata also announced Nintendo's plans to make the successor to the Wii 3D compatible, telling Nikkei that "a full-scale entry into this field will take some time because 3D televisions will not catch on right away."

Seems a Wii successor is well on it's way and 3D compatible...ofcourse the GC was 3D compatible.....

Seems Nintendo might have been keen on 3D for a while...like over 5 years ago:
http://nintendo-revolution.blogspot.com/2005/06/3d-after-all.html

3D tech could be the next format war. Iwata has stated glasses are not the way to go.

@Lou

Quote:

3D tech could be the next format war. Iwata has stated glasses are not the way to go.

Most people need some sort of corrective lens. Seeing objects near a person becomes more difficult with time. Some statistics I've seen say 90% of people over 50 need corrective lenses to see things close up.

The big step will come with inbody computer inplants. Computerized contact lens have been shown. There's lots one could do with this sort of technology. First, the unintelligent designer of us all gave us eyes that only see in the 'visual' spectrum. Why would we not want to view X-Rays or UltraViolet directly from time to time? Second, 3DTV viewing could be linked to each contact lens and there'd be no need to wear silly glasses. Third, one could now walk around and start augmenting reality. I agree not for a few generations of consoles. I see the future of humanity is to start augmenting ourselves with technology. (We do it now as each carries a phone, then a smart phone, why would we not put this into our bodies and carry nothing? Makes sense to me. (And certainly scares many people.))

In short we could all have augmented vision like Jordi LaForge of Star Trek the Next Generation fame. But, without having to wear his silly banana clip for a visor. Image of Jordi

@BrianK

Quote:

Nor can all the Cell code run on the Power7 processor.

According to the experts the way to write properly for the Cell architecture allows such code to be easily ported to other multi-core/multi-processor architectures efficiently.

If porting code to multi-core x86 isn't much of a problem and the design principles allow for better efficiency there I don't see what's the problem with porting to Power7 series CPUs, actually I think that's even more suitable.

Quote:

I think it was not good sense to lose the first place position of last generation or all gaming profits.

Just a simple question. How much money did Sony save with regard to the HD DVD vs Blu-Ray format war due to the PS3, we know Toshiba wasted a billion USD on that.

How much money will Sony earn from Blu-Ray movies in the long run? What was the effect of the PS3 on this for the long run.

These and many more hypothetical questions you can't possibly answer. How many extra surround audio sets (not only Sony) will be sold due to the great audio capabilities of the PS3 for the long run? How many extra HDTVs/3DTVs will Sony sell for the future versus compared to having had released a non-HD PS2.5 instead? Etc, etc.

The only things we know is Sony believes the PS3 is critical to Sony's bottom line in the past (such as for Blu-Ray) and for the future (such as with regard to 3DTVs). We also know Sony had fewer financial problems compared to other Japanese consumer electronics companies, so they aren't really doing bad overall from certainly a bigger relative perspective.

I happen to share this vision with Sony since before the PS3 launched, you do not. But we can only speculate on the outcome had Sony released a PS2.5.

Probably more people would have owned a PS3 by now, but for the long run I wouldn't be so sure about this. At least I wouldn't have been really that interested in the PS3 (nor would the scientists studying the human brain, black holes, protein folding, etc, etc).

I think if you take a step back you will understand that there are many ways to look at these things, there are many unknown, we speculate on the grand implications. But I think people can speculate more open mindedly if they take such factors as written above into consideration.

Last edited by MikeB on 06-Jul-2010 at 03:37 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

And certainly scares many people.

Luckily it does, this progress needs to be widely monitored as we can't understand the long term implications of these first baby steps. And even a majority opinions (democratic decisions) can be bad decisions (like in Nazi Germany or current US due to various reasons such as misunderstanding, ignorance, egoism, fear, etc, etc).

For example imagine a chip placed into a soldiers head for them to function more efficiently, but abused maliciously so the soldier would do things which most would today consider to be immoral, like killing innocent people. Or imagine people at some point would be able to genetically alter human beings into super humans with the potential of replacing us inferior beings or fully artificial superrobots. Or imagine we would be able to fully repair damaged cells to allow current humans to become resistant to illnesses and become potentially immortal, so that maybe people must be sterilized to prevent overpopulation, etc, etc.

It's fascinating, but it's good that many people don't think about such progress in a lighthearted manner as with superhuman or very intelligent supersystems technical progress could suddenly go much quicker than we can handle (super intelligent humans or robots designing more intelligent humans/robots than we can imagine).

@MikeB

Sony will come off as a winner in the long run over all their consumer electronics lines. It's just a shame that the PS3 is a 'worse' games console due to these altera design decisions and pressures!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@MikeB

Quote:

If porting code to multi-core x86 isn't much of a problem and the design principles allow for better efficiency there I don't see what's the problem with porting to Power7 series CPUs, actually I think that's even more suitable.

We're talking about two different things here. What I'm talking about is Cell code will not run on the Power7 unless it's ported. You're discussing how easy it might be to port that code. In the case of old PS3 games on a new idealized PS4 running Power7 Sony will have to make a software layer, or use hardware again, if they want to be backwards compatible. Do able but obviously not free.

Quote:

Just a simple question. How much money did Sony save with regard to the HD DVD vs Blu-Ray format war due to the PS3, we know Toshiba wasted a billion USD on that.

Do you know the total cost to the Blu-Ray licensees for this thing? My understanding is it was in the $2-3Billion area. I'd think as Sony was the lead they likely fronted most of those losses. We'd have to look into it more to know.

Quote:

How much money will Sony earn from Blu-Ray movies in the long run?

If HD-DVD won Sony's content would be in the same position. You resell and remanufacture the recording on a new media. What Sony earns extra here is supposedly less than $1 per disc for licensing. How many Blu-Ray discs have been sold worldwide? I thought Avatar was the best selling at around 6Million. Still far short of the Billions needed for Sony to recoup their costs in Blu-Ray let alone to make up for the Billions needed for Sony to recoup their costs in the PS3.

You asked about long term? Good question. Blu-Ray is now competing with digital content distribution. So this is anyone's guess.

Quote:

How many extra surround audio sets (not only Sony) will be sold due to the great audio capabilities of the PS3 for the long run?

Statistically none. Surround sets had been selling well for a while. Consoles and DVD players have had surround for a while. Nothing new here on the PS3. A PS2 has surround (PCM via optical) certainly a PS2.5 would too.

As for 3DTV -- who knows what the future will bring. Today 70-80% of consumers are stating they are uninsterested in 3DTV. There's lots of work to do here to get the consumers drinking the kool-aid.

Quote:

At least I wouldn't have been really that interested in the PS3 (nor would the scientists studying the human brain, black holes, protein folding, etc, etc).

I hope those scientists using the PS3 don't have it set to auto update. Else the Linux is gone and they lost their project. With no Cell2 and with IBM moving to the GPU supercomputing this is a dead end.

Quote:

I think if you take a step back you will understand that there are many ways to look at these things,

Strawman. I fully understand this and Lou and I were looking at the future of the Sony gaming line through many of these things already in consideration.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Jul-2010 at 04:37 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

What I'm talking about is Cell code will not run on the Power7 unless it's ported. You're discussing how easy it might be to port that code.

I think a new PS4 CPU will be powerful enough to emulate the current Cell processor. With enough time in between generations this shouldn't be that much of a problem to do in software.

The PS2 CPU for example can be perfectly emulated by the Cell processor as for example my PS3 lacks the PS2's CPU and I am able to run the most advanced PS2 games such as the God of War series. The difficulty in emulating the PS2 more relates to the non-common operatings of the PS2's GPU and the PS3 sporting a common PC-like GPU (probably meaning some tasks will need to be carried out on the Cell's SPUs for good PS2 emulation at some point, which is probably is very hard to realize splitting tasks over various SPUs which was done by just a GPU on the PS2).

Quote:

Do able but obviously not free.

This will IMO never come free, even if they use 2 current Cells with 1 PPU and 8 operating SPUs each and operating at a higher clock frequency. Any small difference is likely to have some sort of implication and requires some workaround and indepth testing.

Quote:

I thought Avatar was the best selling at around 6Million.

That was a couple of months ago. It sold 6.2 million units in the first 3 weeks on Blu-Ray.

Quote:

What Sony earns extra here is supposedly less than $1 per disc for licensing.

I don't know the specifics on this, but even if so I assume they are making a lot more money from sales by their own Sony owned movie studios.

Quote:

Blu-Ray is now competing with digital content distribution.

Sony is also doing digital distribution, so it's not Sony vs digital distribution or something.

But surveys indicate the bulk of consumers prefer their blockbuster games and movies on solid media at this point. (also note the quality and options of Blu-Ray movies at this point is far higher than available digital versions)

Quote:

A PS2 has surround (PCM via optical) certainly a PS2.5 would too.

A PS2.5 with support for lossless 7.1 channel DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD I wouldn't consider a PS2.5-like audio solution.

I know by fact this has an influence on surround audio setup sales, but by how much I don't know. But I guess a smaller factor than on HDTV sales/consumer choices.

Quote:

Today 70-80% of consumers are stating they are uninsterested in 3DTV

Even if so, have they tried it? Will they be with the right pricing? And 20-30% of consumers interested at this point is a huge amount of consumers!

Quote:

I hope those scientists using the PS3 don't have it set to auto update.

Of course not, the PS3 can't auto-update from Linux.

Last edited by MikeB on 06-Jul-2010 at 06:19 PM.

@ BrianK

Quote:

Quote: I thought Avatar was the best selling at around 6Million. That was a couple of months ago. It sold 6.2 million units in the first 3 weeks on Blu-Ray. Quote: What Sony earns extra here is supposedly less than $1 per disc for licensing. I don't know the specifics on this, but even if so I assume they are making a lot more money from sales by their own Sony owned movie studios.

Also Sony has Blu-Ray replication plants, I assume that's also a considerable source for income. Blu-Ray disc sales are experiencing massive growth.

PS3 game sales topped 115 million last fiscal year (already considerably outperforming the XBox 360 game sales). In addition there have been multiple thousand Blu-Ray movie releases. In 2009 for just the US/Canada (!!!) 177.2 million movie discs were sold, up considerably from 82.4 million in 2008 and 19.2 millions in 2007 for Canada/US.

It is expected Blu-Ray disc sales will see great growth for 2010 as well.

@MikeB

Quote:

I think a new PS4 CPU will be powerful enough to emulate the current Cell processor. With enough time in between generations this shouldn't be that much of a problem to do in software.

I think backwards compatibility is something that should be do able next gen. If it's a PS3.5 with slightly modified Cell via Sony's demands it can be there. Or if Sony switches to something more mainstream, the power of the hexacore and dodecacores eats the Cell so. Yeah not a problem.

My point here is Sony can't switch to Power7 and assume the Cell stuff will just work. It won't. And that doesn't answer how does IBM majorly reduce the cost of a Power7 CPU so it can be commoditized to that of a console.

Quote:

I think a new PS4 CPU will be powerful enough to emulate the current Cell processor. With enough time in between generations this shouldn't be that much of a problem to do in software.

Resale of your own movies on a different format is the same no matter the format. If HD-DVD won Sony could put their content on that format. Therefore, I see this as a wash. What's special for Sony is they are able to now make money off of other people's sales because they own part of the licensing. Had HD-DVD won they would not have been able to do this.

Quote:

also note the quality and options of Blu-Ray movies at this point is far higher than available digital versions

Zune can stream 1080p and 5.1. 7.1 is rare but it's not like it can't come. The same with extras. The question is one of bandwidth and studio desire.

As for options... We saw DVDs gain options over VCR tapes. Now that Blu-Ray is what studioes are pushing the DVDs are losing the options and the Blu-Ray's have them. I think it a natural progression for studioes that as Blu-Ray takes hold they'll reduce options and move to the next big thing, which is likely to be online streaming.

Quote:

Even if so, have they tried it? Will they be with the right pricing? And 20-30% of consumers interested at this point is a huge amount of consumers!

I think we are in agreement. There is still a lot of work to get people desiring the product. As for 20% as huge? Nah about 20% are always interested in something. Heck 20% of the US still loves Bush and look at the failure that was.

Quote:

Of course not, the PS3 can't auto-update from Linux.

Yes Mike. To be pedantic I hope none reboot holding the button, accidentally booting into XMB, which if hooked to the internet will then tank their Linux. It was meant as humor. That's why the cutsey icon.

You listed in the last 3 years that Blu-Ray sold under 300Million. Impressive. If Sony is making less than $1 in licensing per disc, that none are Sony movies (best case for licensing as Sony doesn't make money paying itself), and the $2-3Billion cost to own the market from HD-DVD is the case then Sony is more then likely still in the rears. It's clear the PS3 has yet to pay back Blu-Ray nor itself at this point. It's probably more reality that Sony needs the PS3 to last a decade rather than it wants it to.

2009 market for moves in the USA? Media purchasing was down. (Sure Blu-Ray is up as it's taking over for DVD's but it appears to not be expanding the market.) Movie Theater purchase up. Video online demand is up. As a result we see studioes playing with releasing V.O.D. services prior to release on Blu-Ray or DVD. In fact at least 1 movie I know of hit the Zune VOD prior to hitting the movie theater.

@MikeB

Quote:

PS3 game sales topped 115 million last fiscal year (already considerably outperforming the XBox 360 game sale)

Considerably? Considerably means by a large amount. Xbox sales were ~104M. The PS3 rate is only 10% more. IMO "considerably" displays fanboism.

Don't forget these numbers are games sold through stores only. Online game sales are not included in those figures. The 360 has a number of their 1315+ titles only available as Live Games. Take Uno for example. Enough sales to break into the top 25 games sold for the 360. That isn't included in those numbers.

Do you know the status of the PS3 online game sales? Last I heard Xbox Live game sales was more of a money maker.

EDIT: Did you see Microsoft announced a new browser for their online games? The current one, and I agree, is no fun to browse the 250+ games. :END EDIT

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Jul-2010 at 09:22 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Zune can stream 1080p

You must know that bitrate is an important factor for end quality. 1080p with low bitrate can look a whole lot worse than 480p upscaled to 1080p with high bitrates.

Quote:

To be pedantic I hope none reboot holding the button, accidentally booting into XMB, which if hooked to the internet will then tank their Linux.

Also that will not happen, you will have to manually agree to performing any updates.

Quote:

You listed in the last 3 years that Blu-Ray sold under 300Million.

For just Canada/US, worldwide is of course much much more. 177.2 million in 2009 is more than double the sales of 2008!

Don't be surprised when in 2010 Blu-Ray movie sales for Canada/US will top those of 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 all combined!

@BrianK

Quote:

Considerably?

Of course considerably, 11 million more games sold in a year is considerable, a complex calculative formula would reveal that equals no less than 11 million selling games!

Amazing considering the considerable more XBox 360s out there by that time, remember when 360 fans hailed that platform's "amazing" game sales? Well the PS3 tops that (considerably!) last year with a smaller userbase!

@MikeB

Quote:

You must know that bitrate is an important factor for end quality. 1080p with low bitrate can look a whole lot worse than 480p upscaled to 1080p with high bitrates.

It appears that you are trying to imply the quality of 1080p is worse than 480p. I'd recommend you get educated on the topic. You might want to view the Eurogamer page on the Microsoft technology used. It's intelligent and scales to your connection size. The film starts immediately at a lower quality then scales to your bandwidth size. For a similar example flash back to HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray. Early on Blu-Ray used MPEG2. HD-DVD used VC-1. Often VC-1 looked better. Not only does bitrate matter. The encoder/decoder matters. Also the quality of the re/master matters too. Can 1080p look worse than 480p? Certainly. Is that the reality for streaming? Nope, please use some and see for yourself, assuming you have the connectivity available.

Do people want lower quality 1080p? If it's good enough I'd say yes. For comparison I throw out the popularity of the iPod. Convenience beat the much higher quality DVD-A and SACD formats. (In fact the PS3 initally played SACD but Sony cut that feature. Sony didn't allow DVD-A. IMO because Sony couldn't get licensing kick backs from the new media.) Next a family can spend $120/year on unlimited # of movies, streamed, or buy 6 Blu-Ray disc's. After the family's more popular movies are bought a rental plan makes more sense. I think the Blockbuster Video delisting from the stock exchanged and heading to bankruptcy also shows people more often want VOD instead of driving to get the physical media.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jul-2010 at 01:44 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

The encoder/decoder matters

Of course, we discussed this many years ago. In the beginning there were some differences in codecs for some HD DVD / Blu-Ray movies. This was very early in the game and is as good as a non factor.

Technically it was always known the Blu-Ray standard was much better in any regard, allowing better bitrates, providing much more capacity as well as being much better protected for damage. So with using the same codecs Blu-Ray is simply superior technically in every regard compared to HD DVD in terms of potential.

Quote:

Do people want lower quality 1080p? If it's good enough I'd say yes.

I think streaming 1080p doesn't make sense at all in low bitrates, 720p upscaled should provide better end results but in any case does not come close to the bitrates provided by Blu-Ray disc, actually 720p/1080i broadcast quality HD is usually significantly superior.

Streaming as a true HD movie format seems to be most hyped for the United States (OK one can say usually stuff is more hyped or demonised in the states than in europe by default). Ironically though the United States significantly lags behind most of western europe in broadband internet access:

The top 10 countries with highest percentage of people with broadband internet access (out of 30 countries in 2009, tiny countries not included like Liechtensten, Monaca, Luxemburg, Qatar, Bahrain, etc would otherwise top this list):

1. Netherlands
2. Denmark
3. Norway
4. Switzerland
5. South Korea
6. Iceland
7. Sweden
8. Luxembourg
9. Finland
10. Canada

The United States lags behind big European countries in 2009 including Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

Overall quality top 10 (2009, 66 countries in this study including the US):

1 South Korea
2 Japan
3 Hong Kong
4 Sweden
5 Switzerland
6 Netherlands
7 Singapore
8 Luxembourg
9 Denmark
10 Norway

Importantly for streaming quality the United States even more significantly lags behind with regard to internet speed in the average household that does have internet access as well:



Actually a new 2010 study reveals that the United States is one of the few countries where the average internet speeds actually dropped in 2010! Out of 30 countries the US dropped from rank 18 a few years ago to rank 25.

Also in theory the PS3 should be much better at decoding low bitrate advanced encoded video due to the Cell's amazing performance for decoding. I don't know if that's actually the case, but the potential is certainly there.

Last edited by MikeB on 07-Jul-2010 at 11:34 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Of course, we discussed this many years ago.

Good. I wanted to be sure if you're listing things that matter with video there is more than resolution, as you noted, and more than bitrate, as you cited.

Quote:

I think streaming 1080p doesn't make sense at all in low bitrates, 720p upscaled should provide better end results but in any case does not come close to the bitrates provided by Blu-Ray disc

If 1080p makes sense or not it depends not only on bitrate but the encoding/decoding process along with quality of the master. Is 720p better? Perhaps we'd have to see examples of different movies to see what is better or worse. Again flip back to HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray. Often the slower bitrate VC-1 was better than the faster bitrate MPEG2. Not always but enough to show that bitrate isn't the only thing going on.

And yes I did mention the current 1080p stream does not come close to the bitrates provided on a Blu-Ray. Again the iPod showed that convenience can win over quality. iPod recordings are often at a lower quality than DVD and especially than the higher quality DVD-A/SACD. In the case of the iPod the good enough won over the closer to perfect. If this happens in video too is a question that is being determined.

Quote:

Streaming as a true HD movie format seems to be most hyped for the United States

I guess we simply have more Tech Enthusiasts. The DVR is 10+ years old. Time for new Tech for video.


Quote:

Also in theory the PS3 should be much better at decoding low bitrate advanced encoded video due to the Cell's amazing performance for decoding

As you said, in theory. The Cell is likely capable of more, I think that's been demonstrated with the dozens of encoding/decoding it can do at once.

But, that example isn't what is going on here. What is going on is a single stream is being decoded to a single TV. Let's assume we have Fiber to the Home, way more streaming bandwidth than Blu-Ray. One is still limited to the TV's ability to receive a stream at a certain resolution and bit rate.

Let's give the Cell an amazing performance advantage. Let's say it uses 5% of the Cell for a stream. (Not too far off that's 20 streams). Now let's say the 360 is slower and needs to use more processor, but can still do it. Give the 360 a 70% processor utilization to decode a stream. At the end of the day the result is the same. 1 stream is displayed at the TV's maximum bitrate by either console.

Does the end user care about 5% or 70% of their processor being used? Of course not. They aren't multitasking so left over power is simply unused left over power. The user cares about the end result. In both cases the job gets done.

While the #s aren't exact I'm going to run with the 360 being powerful enough to decode a full bitrate 1080p stream, with unused processing power to spare. So, in this theory, the 1TV w/ 1stream the results are the same. There's no true advantage for the Cell.

@BrianK

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/annual-xbox-live-sales-top-1-billion

That's ONE BEEEEELLLLION!

@Lou

If that source is correct that means half of XBox 360 users do not pay extra to play online, I thought it was once claimed a majorty of 360 users pay to play online?

@BrianK

Quote:

360 being powerful enough to decode a full bitrate 1080p stream

What do you mean with "full bitrate"? Lossless audio and lossless video in FullHD? You want to stream that from remote servers with the average US household having access to internet bandwidth of less than 4 Mbits/s, which equals about half a megabyte per second?

Quote:

The Cell is likely capable of more, I think that's been demonstrated with the dozens of encoding/decoding it can do at once.

The 2005 demonstration of 48 simultaneous DVD quality decodings by the Cell processor and the other stuff you're talking about wasn't exactly what I was referring to.

With low bitrates trying to uppen the output quality a new codec could be made. Usually the "better" the codec (meaning being able to produce smaller sized data while retaining similar quality output) requires more processing power. Considering the enormous processing power (/bandwidth) of the Cell processor, in theory by splitting the data over all the SPUs can result in superior results (less data to be streamed per second). So I'm not actually referring to the Cell's ability to decode and encode various Blu-Ray quality videos simultaneously (like it can).