ATI - PS3 is Unrefined
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
expletive said:Convenient except for the fact that you now have to have a 2nd display in your entertainment center (or whatever) and the person youre chatting with has to watch you stare at your main game screen while you barely manage to hold a conversation.
If you have a second screen, it certainly would be convenient. Your latter point is a nothing - seriously.
Laa-Yosh said:
The second screen doesn't have to be a HDTV. You can hook up SDTVs or monitors as your second screen, via the regular AV-out or the second HDMI. For me, it'll be very easy to use my projector as the main screen and connect my computer monitor as a second screen, which is in the corner near my projector screen.
Titanio said:
So youre saying theres some relevance to having a second screen so you can video chat with someone WHILE youre playing a game? Whats the point of video chat if youre not even looking at the person while chatting? WOuldnt it be more convenient and polite to get a pop-up that allows you to pause your current game to have a video chat where youre actually looking at the camera instead of your game of MGS4?
expletive said:
I don't know what you're talking about. Do you look at people when you play with them sitting next to you? Look over to the second screen when you want to talk! Simple as that. If you're going to have video chat at all in a game, no two ways about it, it's nice to have a second screen to use that for, dedicated screen real estate versus an even temporarily obscured game display. Multi-way video chat would also be more feasible - video chat with multiple people at once. It doesn't have to be about you as the gamer using video chat either, it might be someone else in your house who wants to use it, or look a their photos, or browse the web or whatever. Think of it more generally in terms of potential multi-tasking by multiple people, out of one box.
That's the potential, anyway. We'll see what functionality Sony delivers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Laa-Yosh said:
If it hasnt taken off at all in the PC-gaming space (where the real hard-core gamers live) i cant see its now going to become relevant in a space where consumer electronics are fighting for:
1. Disposable income dollars
2. Entertainment center real estate
3. WAF (wife acceptance factor)
Titanio said:
I think a much more viable solution would be to have pop up windows for video chat on the main screen that allow everyone with a PS3 to benefit from video chat, not just those who lugged a PC monitor into the room. The window could be opened and closed with a controller button.
I dont know what you mean about having 2 people doing 2 different things on a PS3 simultaneously on 2 different screens. Particularly the things you mention, these are things that can be done easily somewhere else in the house isntead of while their sibling is blowing stuff up on 'the big screen'.
Yeah, I've never really heard about any gamer using two monitors; only about guys who hooked up their TV on the PC as well, to watch DVD or TV (via a tuner card) or even try a game sometimes.
Dual displays are pretty common in everything graphics related, though, from video editing to 3D animation.
Dual displays are pretty common in everything graphics related, though, from video editing to 3D animation.
expletive said:
It's not either/or, you can pop up sub windows on one screen too (this much has been said Masa Chatani). But IF you happen to have a second screen there, you can apparently use that extra screen space for those things if you wish.
expletive said:
Of course you can do all these things - with other hardware. As a single-box solution, if you want to be all things to all people, it'd be nice to allow different things to be done simultaneously.
BTOA said:Can you explain or link to this Huddy's comments on long-term vs brute force, because from what I get out of PS3's specs, it has both of those you just mentioned.
Long-term=Cell
brute force=RSX+Cell
Page 1, post 1 (re Huddy brute-force vs long-term).
How much Cell has entered into Huddy's calculations is an open question --that's not really his thing, I wouldn't think.
I would think part of what he's thinking on long-term is the synergy with DX10. That had to be part of the calculations for both MS and ATI; part of what both found attractive in the deal in the shape it took. For ATI, a chance to get a bit of a jump on DX10 concepts. For MS, a chance to cross-leverage some of the development skillz in the out years. "Some", because obviously edram AA doesn't translate.
Personally, I think both consoles are going to rock in the long-term and ultimate "winner" laurels will not be bestowed based on the respective GPUs involved.
All Huddy is really saying is "Remember those engineering decisions we thought were good ones when we made them? Yeah, well we still like them." After all, MS/ATI could have put together a deal more like the NV/Sony one as well, offering a custom R520 (or more likely R580). They didn't. They liked other choices better. And don't necessarily think that if they had, that they'd be in deep-doodoo now due to the engineering bug in R520. There would have been a lot more focus/resources banging on that part to get it right if it was part of a XB360 deal.
thatdude90210
Regular
Sounds pretty useful for naked gaming.Tap In said:
Alpha_Spartan
Regular
It wouldn't have been released a while ago because the chip was still at 110nm. They have to get the thing customized with FlexIO, redundant structures, take out the useless stuff and then strink it to 90nm. It may seem trivial, but Nvidia can afford to have only a few good chips coming out since it's not like high end graphics cards are mass-market items. Sony has to crank out hundreds of thousands of systems a month.Thegameman said:
Add to this the fact that this is a first for them.
Alpha_Spartan
Regular
I was referring to all of the legal shit + taking their engineering focus off of consoles and onto the PC market which is their toast and butter.Shifty Geezer said:I thought nVidia had MS over a barrel and made stupid money milking MS for overpriced components as they themselves benefited from process shrinks which they didn't pass on to MS. In what way was XB1 a bad deal for nVidia that they wouldn't want to engage in again?
Alpha_Spartan said:
Intrestingly nVidia's roadmap shifted around the time of the Sony RSX deal. Now we are hearing hints that the upcomming NV 50, due in the first half of 2006, is going to be a unified shader architecture. While David Kirk has hinted that the RSX shares the same heritage as the G70, that could have been a smoke screen.
Rambus had already completed the CELL XDR interface work for Sony, and they were free to take on a new project. So when Sony decided to go with nVidia for the GPU, they could have had a team from Rambus tackle on getting the RSX to work with FlexIO and CELL cpu. This works for nVidia because they don't want to get distracted, with the chipset work on a console like they did with X-Box 1. Who better to work on the chipset details than Rambus and they just so happen to have an XDR2 memory interface designed for a GPU.
