The linker is a lot faster.
You'd be stunned how much of your day you spend waiting for a compile to finish.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
The linker is a lot faster.
You'd be stunned how much of your day you spend waiting for a compile to finish.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Actually, based on the game resolutions done here, PS3 has the higher average resolution (just above HD, IIRC). I did the math on that, some time ago. I will find the link.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1581459&postcount=76
EDIT: However, you could still be correct about the amount of sub-HD games on the PS3. It's just that the overall average resolution is above HD.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well avg. of 3-4 games of 1024x600 and one 1080p will be HD, but obviously we would say more games are "sub hd".
Shyeah, whatever. But PS4 is going to have 16GB of flash memory on board?!
The most powerful PC that you can make:
Intel E7 eight core
> 8 gig of DDR3 2133
2xGTX 690
The second:
Intel E7 eight core
> 8 gig of DDR3 2133
2x7990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpPHre2IU6Y&t=0m17s
Intel E7 eight core
> 8 gig of DDR3 2133
2xGTX 690
The second:
Intel E7 eight core
> 8 gig of DDR3 2133
2x7990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpPHre2IU6Y&t=0m17s
If Sony misses the mark and came with a system with no clear advantage (/ or light disadvantage), I think there are going to be a lot of tears on the webz...
I still think that it is borderline suicidal for Sony to go head to head with MSFT at this point but it could be worse, like rushing the system and dealing with RroD like C....r f..k they can't financial deal with...
I'm pretty dark about Sony right now, 4 big CPU cores by selves should burn quiet some power, it could get really ugly if on top of similar or lesser performances the system is significantly less power efficient with an impact on form factor or the cost of the cooling solution or what not.
I also wonder what will be the reaction to the lack of BC on the system (whereas it seems to me a bit more likely for MSFT to pull it even though it would require another engineering "tour de force").
I still think that it is borderline suicidal for Sony to go head to head with MSFT at this point but it could be worse, like rushing the system and dealing with RroD like C....r f..k they can't financial deal with...
I'm pretty dark about Sony right now, 4 big CPU cores by selves should burn quiet some power, it could get really ugly if on top of similar or lesser performances the system is significantly less power efficient with an impact on form factor or the cost of the cooling solution or what not.
I also wonder what will be the reaction to the lack of BC on the system (whereas it seems to me a bit more likely for MSFT to pull it even though it would require another engineering "tour de force").
DuckThor Evil
Legend
The description is so vague that it could easily mean second most powerful chip, so basically a Pitcairn.
I hope both consoles are on equal grounds, would hate if one gets overshadowed and forged to oblivion (ok, slight hyperbola) but MS as company would look pretty stupid if they don't go for the "kill" now.
In comparison with last gen they aren't loosing billions from previous gen console, they will actually be making hefty profit on 360 next year, and than the year to come too. They also have solid revenue from LIVE and can even sell Durango on contract. Plus, they gained huge market in US where they are practically household name when gaming is mentioned.
Sony on the other hand doesn't have a lot of headroom and their direction does seem a bit foggy at the moment. They don't want to be left behind in performance race, but they can't lose much money on their next console, especially if they even think of coming out later. That would be their Dreamcast moment (not hyperbola).
In comparison with last gen they aren't loosing billions from previous gen console, they will actually be making hefty profit on 360 next year, and than the year to come too. They also have solid revenue from LIVE and can even sell Durango on contract. Plus, they gained huge market in US where they are practically household name when gaming is mentioned.
Sony on the other hand doesn't have a lot of headroom and their direction does seem a bit foggy at the moment. They don't want to be left behind in performance race, but they can't lose much money on their next console, especially if they even think of coming out later. That would be their Dreamcast moment (not hyperbola).
anexanhume
Veteran
They have to go head to head because it's a brand image thing. They've lost that image in most other venues of consumer electronics and games are one way to keep it up. I think they clearly have a better repertoire of 1st party developers and IPs attached to their brand to build on.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if either system had BC. They either have to put a cell in the ps4 (expensive in many ways) or use Cell 2 (which doesn't exist). MS has no incentive to given that the PS4 won't have it as a selling point. Then once you get into devoting a team to that, which costs money, and you weigh that against porting 360 games and redistributing via Xbox Live (which makes money), the choice seems rather obvious.
BC is almost expected but when you look at its heritage, there's no reason to expect it. Modern age BC started on the PS2 with PS1 BC. That was possible because the PS1 wasn't bleeding edge hardware by any means. PS2 to PS3 didn't happen because of hardware incompatibilities and the difficulty of software emulation, so they slapped a PS2 inside every PS3. Xbox to 360 only happened because Microsoft has extreme software expertise and their CPU wasn't bleeding edge.
Wii and Wii U BC has only happened because their chips are essentially the same damn architecture.
Both MS and Sony are switching architectures this time so it's just an insurmountable task given the complexity of their previous CPU designs. It also doesn't make financial sense.
The short of it is, I'm finding it difficult to find a bad way to interpret that statement given the 1 to 2 TF rumors we've had thrown at us.
I think this would happen only if the 2 systems compete on equal grounds with regards to price too.
There needs to be a quiet significant difference in pricing, and possibly match the price by solid availability at launch. I think that they should try to make a 249$ single SKU happens (16 or 32GB of Flash and a standard HDD slot), 299$ if they have to make the HDD standard.
In both case they should make it so they can shave 50$ if needed or to create extra intensive during the holidays seasons (before price reduction kicks in).
As you said, MSFT can use "live" to make up for loses (though it takes away some costumers imho), they have a neat advantage wrt to software and software environment, they have Kinect which is a reasonably known brand (for the mass public), they have smart glass, they have a lot of traction in US, they also have more money.
Imo that would be from their side misplaced pride pretty much as the PSV is over specced and thus over priced.
I see no relation between their strong IP and hardware sorry.
I would be really iffy about it too, though I'm close to sure that Sony can't, whereas MSFT can (try at least...).
You can still come with remake a bit later on in the console life (and it would be trivial as this gen seems to be nothing less but closed box PC, it would be mostly a damned easy port from the old PC versions, I could see EA refeeding people a reworked, stream lined version of Mass effect trilogy for example).
Well peoplke have buy quiet some content ( I mean xbla games) on Live and the PSN then there are (full downloaded) games, etc. If they can pull it at the cost of paying a couple of top developers they may very well decide it is worth the money.
Well we don't really know what they did on the GPU either but Nintendo is hell bent on making no effort at all on that front, they are imo to pay the price...
Do you know how much the guy that pulled out Bc on the 360 got paid?
I think you don't neither I did but I would avoid making such big assumption.
MSFT may end up with another SMP set-up, a UMA and possibly a pool of fast memory, so overall from a high level something pretty close to the 360. Still a "tour de force" but nowhere near emulating the Cell, pretty much in the ballpark of doing what they did with the first xbox.
I don't see either the point about "the complexity of their previous CPU design" I would not be too surprised if the celeron in the first xbox was in many regards more complex than Xenon.
Last edited by a moderator:
...and when your CPU silicon budget is peanuts :smile:Anything's possible for a price and (lack of) supply.
The most powerful PC that you can make:
Intel E7 eight core
> 8 gig of DDR3 2133
2xGTX 690
The second:
Intel E7 eight core
> 8 gig of DDR3 2133
2x7990
Not even close....
Not insurmountable. Not easy by any means, but it can be done. The tricky bits would be highly optimized VMX128 code. Might be able to offload some of that to a couple of CUs doing GPGPU. A full emulator solution like the 360 is unlikely, but there are other ways of solving the problem.
Quite a few guys, and they were paid normal developer salaries, although I suspect they got good bonuses that year. They were so valued that for years their official titles in the company directory was "Emulation Ninja". Most of them still work in the Xbox org, along with Dave Cutler, who wrote the NT kernel.
It's not about the developer salaries though, it's about the testing effort involved. Every backcompat title had to have thousands of hours of testing before it could be added to the list of allowed titles, and every update to the backcompat subsystem required a full test run through all previously incompatible titles to see if any of them could now be moved into the compat list. Luckily they had the concept of versioned backcompat, or previously compatible titles would have had to be run through the new emulator too. That still happened for titles that had some issues, so that they could be moved to the new emulator version if they improved performance.
Effectively, every title added to the compat list cost the company a hundred thousand dollars, not counting lost game sales because now people were playing an older game instead of buying newer ones. The benefits of adding a game to the list was _maybe_ an old xbox diehard user would now switch and buy a 360 (on which the company would lose money) and then play their old game (from which the company no longer made any money - with exceptions like Halo 2). For new users it was essentially irrelevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not there anymoreSo...bkilian, how is everything going in that Xbox fortress in Redmond
Yesterday was my one month anniversary at my new non-microsoft job.- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
