ATI XBOX 2 etc etc performance etc etc

[Spidermate]

You are, of course, free to think what you like. I prefer to think of great looking PS2 games as being a testament to the ability, time and insane caffeine levels of graphics programmers the world over.

What? That doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a joke,was it? :?

*shrugs*

It's only as unfair as the PS2 having more market share because it launched earlier. I don't see you crying foul over that one.

I hate to be the one to break it to you,but if this thing continues to out sell this box month after month,then there is something defintely wrong here. Meaning, there has to be more than just hype backing this systems,especially when you have another on the maket much more powerful. After all this time, obviously something isn't appealing to the consumer on the opposite side.

However,it is unfair to compare a date console to something that is almost two years newer.For instance,let's look at the PlayStation 1: Why is it that THIS CONSOLE is about as strong as the other consoles after only being a few months apart? Why is it that the PSP is about as strong if not stronger than the DS? Why is it that the PS2 doesn't lack as much in a hardware stand point to the Dreamcast as it does with two other console that are alomost a half a geaneration ahead? Either you are being very bias or you're in denial.

What I am simply getting at is,if the PS2 was released around the same time as the others or vice-versa,you would have notice very little difference in its hardware.

I don't have a clue what you're attempting to say here.

There are many things that are still under wraps here. We have not seen any of these tools tested in full yet, which is why I prefer to wait before jumping to such conclusions.

 

[Lazy8s]

Of course "better" comes down to personal expectations, but characteristics like performance, flexibility, size, power consumption, heat dissipation, manufacturing cost, and release date of the consoles' respective chipsets should be compared in order to start any kind of judgement on which design is better.

 

[Spidermate]

Of course "better" comes down to personal expectations, but characteristics like performance, flexibility, size, power consumption, heat dissipation, manufacturing cost, and release date of the consoles' respective chipsets should be compared in order to start any kind of judgement on which design is better.

Which is why the PS2 has managed to hold its own in some of these areas. But,even you have to admit here, TIME is what held this console back from the others. It is absurd to even think that any company would have built a console this dated and released it in the same time frame as the competition.What's the point in putting it on the market? There is a reason for a wait,and this wasn't one of them. People compare this console as if its hardware should have never been matched by the others regardless of the amount of time they were given.

 

[AlNom]

Wasn't there only a 1 year difference between the PS2 and the xbox/gc?

 

[Spidermate]

Wasn't there only a 1 year difference between the PS2 and the xbox/gc?

No. It was 18 to 20 months. The PS2 launched in Japan around early March 2000 while the Xbox launched in the US late Nov of 2001. that's a huge difference in hardware. The Gamecube came shortly before the Xbox,I believe, but enough to grant it a great distance in hardware from the PS2. So why shouldn't we expect the PS2 to be the lease powerful? These consoles were almost a half generation apart from one another. It's ridiculous to even compare them. Yet,the PS2 can still hold its own dispite its age. But,that's beside the point. Around the time of the PS2 launch,it was competing with the Dreamcast and the PC at that time. The other competitors fell later.

 

[AlNom]

The Gamecube came shortly before the Xbox

GC was after the xbox. I know that one for sure.

 

[cthellis42]

20 months from release dates, but I suppose one could better make the case for "lockdown" timetables--when the designs would no longer be changed--as that more reflects the tech. (Things done afterward would better reflect manufacturing capabilities and other time-to-market factors.) Only I don't know when that would be for all the consoles...

 

[Inane_Dork]

You mean, we don't already have 4 year development times?

'Course we do. I meant to state that 4 years would be common or average, which is, AFAIK, well above normal now.

 

[Inane_Dork]

What? That doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a joke,was it? :?

I see only one rational way to read it, and it's not a joke. Good looking PS2 games are more a testament to developer power than hardware power. That is, as I said, my opinion.

I hate to be the one to break it to you,but if this thing continues to out sell this box month after month,then there is something defintely wrong here. Meaning, there has to be more than just hype backing this systems,especially when you have another on the maket much more powerful. After all this time, obviously something isn't appealing to the consumer on the opposite side.

However,it is unfair to compare a date console to something that is almost two years newer.For instance,let's look at the PlayStation 1: Why is it that THIS CONSOLE is about as strong as the other consoles after only being a few months apart? Why is it that the PSP is about as strong if not stronger than the DS? Why is it that the PS2 doesn't lack as much in a hardware stand point to the Dreamcast as it does with two other console that are alomost a half a geaneration ahead? Either you are being very bias or you're in denial.

Or (c), I'm quite confused as to what you're talking about, unfortunately.

What I am simply getting at is,if the PS2 was released around the same time as the others or vice-versa,you would have notice very little difference in its hardware.

Oh, I got that. I got that several times. My counterpoint is that if you want to claim unfairness in hardware power, you must also agree that PS2 sales are unfairly ahead of Nintendo's and Microsoft's.

It's the same argument that's (rationally) leveled against Xbox fanboys. They claim the PS2 has so much more sales in part because the PS2 has been for sale much longer. It makes some sense, but in order to remove that effect, you'd also have to take away the Xbox's hardware advantage. You can have both or neither, but not just one.

There are many things that are still under wraps here. We have not seen any of these tools tested in full yet, which is why I prefer to wait before jumping to such conclusions.

Every developer I've read has talked about how next-gen development will take more resources. Which ones are you hoping will be able to make bigger games with less effort?

 

[Tuttle]

What? That doesn't make any sense. That wasn't a joke,was it? :?

I see only one rational way to read it, and it's not a joke. Good looking PS2 games are more a testament to developer power than hardware power. That is, as I said, my opinion.

"That is, as I said, my opinion."

And reality isn't going to change it. Ever.

 

[Inane_Dork]

And reality isn't going to change it. Ever.

I'm not stooping to that level. If you'd like to add anything to the conversation, though, I'd like to read it.

 

[cybamerc]

GC was after the xbox. I know that one for sure.

FYI, there's a whole world outside of the USA.

 

[cthellis42]

GC was after the xbox. I know that one for sure.

FYI, there's a whole world outside of the USA.

Aye. The GameCube launched, I believe, mid-September in Japan. In the US it launched a week after the Xbox. Either interval would keep them close contemporaries, though.

(Still would like to know on possible "lockdown" dates for them all, though.)

 

[Devourer]

It's the same argument that's (rationally) leveled against Xbox fanboys. They claim the PS2 has so much more sales in part because the PS2 has been for sale much longer. It makes some sense, but in order to remove that effect, you'd also have to take away the Xbox's hardware advantage. You can have both or neither, but not just one.

He is talking on a technology level and that alone, not about sales. They *are* just two distinct topic of discussion. The reasons for market shares are varied, and limiting to just one factor is absurd. Moreover, it has nothing to do with what he is talking about. He's just saying that, *on a performance and architectural standpoint*, posing on the same level two different technologies without *also* considering the different timeframe is ridiculous. Just like comparing an Ati 9600 with the latest Nvidia cards and concluding Ati is shit because the first is obviously dated. A fair and competent analysis of the two hardware would require much more knowledge than measuring just numbers. What, for example, if PS2 came out 20 months after Xbox? And that's July 2003 instead of March 2000 we are talking about. I don't think the Xbox would seem such a powerhouse anymore, do you?

 

[Inane_Dork]

He is talking on a technology level and that alone, not about sales. They *are* just two distinct topic of discussion. The reasons of market share are varied, and limiting to just one factor is absurd. Moreover, it has nothing to do with what he is talking about.

I'm certainly not trying to reduce market share analysis to one variable. Excuse me if I implied that.

Having nothing to do with what he's talking about, I dunno. I certainly take his hypothesis further than he does, whether you think that interesting or not is up to you. Most hypotheses make sense of their target. It's the unexpected side effects that make or break them.

He's just saying that posing on the same level two different technologies without considering the different timeframe is ridiculous. Just like comparing An Ati 9600 with the latest Nvidia cards and concluding Ati is shit because the first is obviously dated.

Again, I get this. I really don't need it explained for the 9th time. I really, truly understand it.

 

[cthellis42]

Oh, I got that. I got that several times. My counterpoint is that if you want to claim unfairness in hardware power, you must also agree that PS2 sales are unfairly ahead of Nintendo's and Microsoft's.

If you're going to leave it that simple, though, you can compare sales over the same timeframes. How many consoles had been sold by Year 1? Year 2? Tech comparisons require a lot more conjecture, since a year's sway could get a company looking in a completely different direction.

I do not believe that sales comparisons are that simple either, however. Nor will they be utterly predictable. Conjecture of a DIFFERENT sort. (And in some ways, tied in right there with the technology.)

I concur with Devourer, though. The complaints were coming from a technical direction, not an overall "who would be ahead if all the consoles were released at the same time?" Good programmers can find "poor design" in anything--essentially, anywhere the hardware holds them back while other parts of the machine have room to spare. And I'm certainly sure they'd find plenty more to complain about in 2003--knowing what they know then--in comparison to when they were originally tackling the GameCube and Xbox.

 

[Devourer]

Having nothing to do with what he's talking about, I dunno.

It's not that it has nothing to do with it in an absolute sense. The two arguments can be related the way you did. But I think he was just referring about technology, and technology alone. That's why i thought that a sales reference was a bit off topic. Just wrote to point that out, that's all really

Again, I get this. I really don't need it explained for the 9th time. I really, truly understand it.

Ops, sorry. I'm sure you do, I was just trying to strengthen his point there. Sorry if that seemed redundant

 

[Lazy8s]

cthellis42:

I suppose one could better make the case for "lockdown" timetables--when the designs would no longer be changed--as that more reflects the tech.

A chip design could be laid out and locked down today which wouldn't be possible to fabricate until five years of advancement in manufacturing technology.

The point from which a chip can rightfully be dated is when it becomes available for volume production.

 

[PatrickL]

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040930A7056.html

 

[one]

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040930A7056.html
ATI to roll out R500 GPU for Xbox 2 in 1Q 2005

Latest news
Charles Chou, Taipei; Steve Shen, DigiTimes.com [Thursday 30 September 2004]

ATI Technologies is expected to roll out a new GPU, codenamed R500, for the Xbox 2 in the first quarter of next year, according to market sources.

The R500 will be built using a 90nm process at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and will deliver performance similar to ATI’s next-generation high-end graphics chip, the R520, the sources said.

ATI is cooperating with Microsoft to develop the chip, but the software vendor will be responsible for placing orders with TSMC. ATI will receive royalties from Microsoft based on the number of chips produced.

In related news, the sources said that ATI has completed the tape-out of its R480 chip, which is due to launch in the fourth quarter. The R480 is being manufactured at TSMC, using a 0.11-micron process.

So a derivative of the R520 chip = R500 (in 90nm)?

Then, apparently, "no new Xbox in the next year" claim of Ballmer is his joke to stockholders. Or, did he suggest it would launch in Q1 2005 (Q4 FY2004)?