Article on 360's gestation

[patsu]

Sony won't partner with MS because it views PS3 (and undoubtedly PS4) as a media distribution system...

When have MS ever compromised when they've had a chance to crush the rivals?

That is correct. The closest thing is iTunes Music Store + iPod but Sony also has the artists and content (music, movie and games) signed up already. It will (should ?) be willing to work with any companies who wants to tap into the 100 million+ Playstation user base ...for a fee. I'm counting PS2 and PSP as viable online nodes too.

If PS3 and its online services gain a foothold this coming generation, it will be very difficult for anyone, Nintendo or Microsoft, to dislodge Playstation next generation. Apple Computer is probably the other one to watch out for.

I'm guessing Sony will probably fumble near end of the year because the whole strategy is too convoluted to execute (The usual slowness, overheating problems, buggy software, out-of-stocked PS3, swarmed servers, dead on arrival units, ...). If Sony really delivers, then I think they rightly deserve the reward. Apple succeeded partly because of its simple plans, modest goals and raw talents. Very few organizations can deliver complex hardware and software like clockwork (Looking at Vista).

 

[one]

Today's console game business is based not only on selling hardware but on getting royalties off game softwares. If IBM had known how OS/2 would turn out they wouldn't have let Microsoft develop MS-DOS for IBM PC. Sony giving up the PlayStation OS to have MS Windows is worse than Apple giving up Mac OS to put Windows on Mac.

 

[NavNucST3]

Today's console game business is based not only on selling hardware but on getting royalties off game softwares. If IBM had known how OS/2 would turn out they wouldn't have let Microsoft develop MS-DOS for IBM PC. Sony giving up the PlayStation OS to have MS Windows is worse than Apple giving up Mac OS to put Windows on Mac.

However, in the Apple case they are actually supporting me running Windows on my Mac NATIVELY (they don't offer any type of tech support, but who cares) . If Apple and Microsoft can get along, surely Microsoft and Sony can get along in the console world.

 

[a688]

Today's console game business is based not only on selling hardware but on getting royalties off game softwares. If IBM had known how OS/2 would turn out they wouldn't have let Microsoft develop MS-DOS for IBM PC. Sony giving up the PlayStation OS to have MS Windows is worse than Apple giving up Mac OS to put Windows on Mac.

What? OS/2 was (initially) developed by both IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft purchased DOS from somebody else, they didn't initially develop it. Apple lets Windows run on Macs and I believe KK even stated (I'm not looking up proof so you can believe me or not) that Windows could run on cell (the ps3) "because it was just software".

 

[one]

What? OS/2 was (initially) developed by both IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft purchased DOS from somebody else, they didn't initially develop it.

See here for the history.
http://www.digitalresearch.biz/HISZMSD.HTM

Apple lets Windows run on Macs and I believe KK even stated (I'm not looking up proof so you can believe me or not) that Windows could run on cell (the ps3) "because it was just software".

What? OS/2 was (initially) developed by both IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft purchased DOS from somebody else, they didn't initially develop it. Apple lets Windows run on Macs and I believe KK even stated (I'm not looking up proof so you can believe me or not) that Windows could run on cell (the ps3) "because it was just software".

Check what I wrote, it's about abondoning the PlayStation software format (or Mac OS) in favor of Microsoft Windows as the consequence of the MS-Sony collaboration discussed in this thread. I don't think MS will be content with a non-exclusive Dreamcast-type deal or Sony will pay money to put Windows on every Playstation.

 

[scooby_dooby]

When have MS ever compromised when they've had a chance to crush the rivals? If they're on the up, I can't imagine the board saying 'okay, we're increasing our market share, we've got consoles selling and PCs selling. If we keep going as we're doing now, gaining market share, we'll own the digital distribution channel. So let's stop now and join up with Sony who are losing market share to us and settle for a 30% share of that market instead'!

I agree with all your points, and I agree with you that this will probably never ever...ever happen, however the console market is not one that you can just monopolize and dominate. Certainly, history has not show that this is possible. Microsoft may realize this is the case and partner with sony instead of trying to 'crush' them. I don't think it will ever happen, but I think it's still in the realm of possibility. Really depends how things shake out at the end of this generation.

It's the same thing. It's the same market, just approached from two different ends. One is to get a livingroom CE product that provides content like a PC can, and the other is to get the PC into the living room as a CE product. Whether it's badged as a PC or console makes no difference.

But they are not necessarily competing against Sony in this regard, Sony has not shown they can create a viable media centre/extender experience. MS is going full steam with windows Vista and will be competing against other 'living room' boxes coming from companies like Apple and Intel (maybe google?). MS and Sony might end up battling for that space but I think it's more likely that MS is most worried about other competitors making the windows-PC unecessary.

 

[patsu]

However, in the Apple case they are actually supporting me running Windows on my Mac NATIVELY (they don't offer any type of tech support, but who cares) . If Apple and Microsoft can get along, surely Microsoft and Sony can get along in the console world.

Not really. Since Apple lost the OS war, it has to run Windows OS due to user demand (Like iTunes running on Windows).

MS and Sony are wedging another war now. Like iPod vs PlayForSure, and Mac vs MS more than 10 years ago. There is little chance for them to work together until the dust has settled many years later.

EDIT: Damn large companies . Since both organizations are huge, they may indeed cooperate in other areas. However they will compete fiercely for the #1 console platform position.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not really. Since Apple lost the OS war, it has to run Windows OS due to user demand (Like iTunes running on Windows).

MS and Sony are wedging another war now. Like iPod vs PlayForSure, and Mac vs MS more than 10 years ago. There is little chance for them to work together until the dust has settled many years later.

Real-Talk. Oh and Shifty is basically 100% correct in this thread. The man is on fire.

 

[Gubbi]

Interesting.

Oh how I wish they would have used the 60-shader part.

Really, MS has all this money to blow, they SHOULD have ditched EDRAM and gone to a 256 bus, then gone wild on shading.

With your tremendous insight you should obviously be chief architect at either Nvidia or ATI.

Cheers

 

[Gubbi]

Real simple, in fact.

In fact, it is not.

Two reasons: Cost and power.

The size of the GPU is dictated by how much it costs to produce (and how much it is projected to cost in future shrinks). Above a certain size your BOM escalates without any real benefit performancewise.

Making it bigger also makes it hotter -> GPU doesn't fit in power envelope -> lower clock -> lower than optimal performance.

All in all the Xenos GPU seems to be particularly well thought out

Cheers

 

[Gubbi]

Do you have any idea ....<snip>

Ok. Only one thing is clear from your posts, but since ad hominem attacks are against board rules I'll refrain from telling you what that is.

Cheers

 

[Guilty Bystander]

Lets apply my wishes to Sony.

Scrap Cell.

Build in a 2.4 ghz A64 single core.

Make 7900 GTX with 256 bus, and 32 pipes AT LEAST. In fact, with such a small die, I would put two G71's in there.

Let me apply reality for you.

Cell is what drives the PS3.
Cell > Amd 64 by a whole lot.
That's why the Cell can run complex AI, complex realtime animations, complex physics similair to those produced by an Ageia PPU and run engine code etc. all with next gen graphics.
An Amd 64 can't run complex AI, complex realtime animations, complex physics etc. that's why with a PC you'll need to buy either an Ageia PPU or an extra videocard for physics and there will problably come some AI processor in the near future.

Furthermore putting in 2 G71 GPU's would drive up the costs by so much it would cost Sony atleast a $1000 to manufacture a PS3.
Also putting in 2 GPU's would require twice the amount of memory otherwise it would work and this would also drive up the costs again.

And you know what? I'd do a better job, because it's really not rocket science.

Consoles are all about power. Max power currently deals with maximizing shader power. More, more more. Whatever ATI buit in to Xenos with regards to shader power, they should have built in more. Same exact thing with Sony, and you bet your ass all the sony boys reading this wished BAD that Sony had more shader power on RSX (along with a 256 bus so as not to castrate it).

Real simple, in fact.

Man no offense but you really need to get a clue here.
Consoles are all about giving graphics and gameplay as good as possible for an as low price as possible.
Consoles shouldn't be compared with high-end expensive PC's costing ten times as much simply because the two are not competing.

Do you have any idea what dual 7900 GTX would do?

They'd make Far Cry:Crysis run and beg for mercy, that's what.

On the original topic, I kinda wish Sony put a MS OS on a combined platform BUT, do you guys realize that's the end of competition?

And do you know what kind of crappy hardware Sony would foist on us wityh no competition? I shudder to think.

You'd be looking at a 7600GT in PS3, if you're lucky, as they happily worried about Blu-Ray costs and not your gaming qaulity, after all, what else are you gonna buy a wie?. Or perhaps that alledgedly terrible Toshiba GPU they originally wanted would be the pick?

Dual 7900GTXs may have more theoretical power than the RSX but as nVidia officials say in practice the RSX has about the power of Quad SLI meaning 8 7900GTXs.

Anyway I'm so glad you don't work at Sony and influence my PS3 hardware.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Dual 7900GTXs may have more theoretical power than the RSX but as nVidia officials say in practice the RSX has about the power of Quad SLI meaning 8 7900GTXs.

Oh yes? Plese show me where nVidia say a 300 ish millions transistor chip has the power of a Quad-SLI'd 7900GTX setup with about 7x as many transistors. And then please explain to me why nVidia aren't releasing something with the phenominal power of RSX into the PC market and totally trash ATi.

 

[c0_re]

Dual 7900GTXs may have more theoretical power than the RSX but as nVidia officials say in practice the RSX has about the power of Quad SLI meaning 8 7900GTXs.

I'm not calling you a liar I just don't understnad how is this even remotly possible in our wildest wetest dreams?

 

[dukmahsik]

Let me apply reality for you.

Cell is what drives the PS3.
Cell > Amd 64 by a whole lot.
That's why the Cell can run complex AI, complex realtime animations, complex physics similair to those produced by an Ageia PPU and run engine code etc. all with next gen graphics.
An Amd 64 can't run complex AI, complex realtime animations, complex physics etc. that's why with a PC you'll need to buy either an Ageia PPU or an extra videocard for physics and there will problably come some AI processor in the near future.

Furthermore putting in 2 G71 GPU's would drive up the costs by so much it would cost Sony atleast a $1000 to manufacture a PS3.
Also putting in 2 GPU's would require twice the amount of memory otherwise it would work and this would also drive up the costs again.



Man no offense but you really need to get a clue here.
Consoles are all about giving graphics and gameplay as good as possible for an as low price as possible.
Consoles shouldn't be compared with high-end expensive PC's costing ten times as much simply because the two are not competing.



Dual 7900GTXs may have more theoretical power than the RSX but as nVidia officials say in practice the RSX has about the power of Quad SLI meaning 8 7900GTXs.

Anyway I'm so glad you don't work at Sony and influence my PS3 hardware.

amazing

 

[dskneo]

amazing

you must be laughing at the last 2 lines he wrote. Because the rest of it was spot on.

scrapping cell.... pffu... its like scrapping my penis, without it all i can do is to watch sports and action movies.

 

[Guilty Bystander]

Oh yes? Plese show me where nVidia say a 300 ish millions transistor chip has the power of a Quad-SLI'd 7900GTX setup with about 7x as many transistors. And then please explain to me why nVidia aren't releasing something with the phenominal power of RSX into the PC market and totally trash ATi.

I'm not calling you a liar I just don't understnad how is this even remotly possible in our wildest wetest dreams?

amazing

you must be laughing at the last 2 lines he wrote. Because the rest of it was spot on.

That's not me talking it's nVidia just quoting what nVidia officials said at the GDC.
Saw them saying it in a GDC video at gametrailers.

 

[Guilty Bystander]

Take a look at the video[/url I'd say.
It's the GT Quad SLI interview video at the end of the video.
He doesn't say it has the same power but like I said it'll give you about the same results.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Mwuhaha, I've been reading the thread with increasing interest, thinking 'what a damn good discussion' - and then it crashed and burned so suddenly and quickly...

Would the newbie people please let the others resume their intelligent discussion? Thanks.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Take a look at the video[/url I'd say.
It's the GT Quad SLI interview video at the end of the video.
He doesn't say it has the same power but like I said it'll give you about the same results.

You have completely misinterpreted it. He was merely saying that FEAR running at high settings was representitive of the kind of quality you will be seeing in PS3 games.

He was in no way, shape or form saying that RSX has equivilent power, theoretical or real world to a Quad SLI system (which is 4 GPU's by the way, not 8, hence quad).

Every scrap of official information we have points to the RSX being roughly equivilent to a GTX512 with an inferior memory bus making it around 1/4 the theoretical power of Quad SLI. Meanwhile, Cell adds about 70% more floating point performance to RSX assuming you dedicate all of that to shaders (although its undoubtably less effective than an equivilent theoretical floating point performance of a GPU for graphics).

As for Cell vs an A64, everything I have seen so far points to the A64 being better at AI, not Cell. Physics is another story of course but then your trading in potential graphics performance.