Do you expect the ps3 will be the most powerful system?
- Thread starter GwymWeepa
- Start date
BriefcasemanX said:
People don't *choose* to play on particular arcade boards, hell few people even know what the heck they're playing on when they go to the arcades.
Back in the 90's hardware vendors could afford to splurge on arcade boards because the absurd margins on the cabinets. Arcade owners simply arent' willing to pay what they used to fill their shops with cabinets of the latest graphical whiz game today. Nowadays they just don't want to fork over the $30,000 grand when a $900-$2400 (mabye $5000 at the high-end) cabinet can bring in just as much revenue (if not more). Plus the reduced number of arcades make that harder on the hardware vendors too... The revenue streams just aren't there anymore to sustain that sort of development...
Spidermate
Regular
Inane_Dork said:
Although I could probably agree with you on that, I still prefer to remain open to both possibilities. Afterall, neither are using the same tech, and the time difference apart from one another seems to be of a great length as far as development time is concerned. But, what I'm mainly focused on right now is probably the workstation. Many seem to have already forgotten about this thing. I'm not really sure exactly how this box is suppose to work, but I do remember what the last one was capable of doing, which was much more advance than any PC or console of this gen, and that one was much older. This one here is the third installment. Which means this next console could rely on more than just what its inner hardware is able to achieve on its own like those of previous consoles.
Oh,and by the way, that last box was exactly 10x more powerful than the PS2 dispite being released around the same time. ....just something to think about.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
worse case for Xbox2:
I'd expect PS3 to be *upto* 3-4 times more powerful, on paper, and in theory, than Xbox2. that is still less than the difference, on paper, bandied about between PS2 and Dreamcast. PS2 was touted to be, conservatively, 4-5 times more powerful than Dreamcast, and upto 20 to 50 times more powerful than Dreamcast in certain areas. like, remember, 50 times more image data.
even *IF* PS3 was 3-4 times more powerful than Xbox2, it probably would not mount to much difference in first generation games. and even in later generation games, it will take PS3 developers quiet alot of effort to show a noticable difference over Xbox2.
look at Xbox and Gamecube. the Xbox is newer technology, and is several times more powerful than Gamecube on paper (going by PR spec anyway). but the difference between them in games is not so huge.
likely outcome:
I'm expecting PS3 to be maybe 2-3 times as powerful as Xbox2 in CPU power but only 50% more, or at most, 2x, in GPU power. the GPUs are going to be fairly close. PS3 GPU should have some more performance to play with. higher fillrate, higher bandwidth, higher rendering throughput, but not nearly as much of an advantage over Xbox2 GPU as there was between PowerVR2DC and GS performance difference, which was hugely in favor of GS. (not talking features or image quality, which favored DC's CLX2 / PowerVR2DC) ....Features wise, the PS3 and Xbox2 GPUs should be very close.
some people are probably still thinking that PS3 will outclass Xenon in CPU power by an order of magnitude. like 10 fold or more. they are probably thinking 1TFLOP / 1024 GFLOP PS3 CELL 'BE' CPU vs 84-100 GFLOP Xenon CPU. ....and then a PS3 GPU that outperforms Xenon GPU as much as the PS2's GS outperformed the DC's CLX2 / PowerVR2DC. this is just extremely, extremely unlikely.
I will eat the worlds population of dead crowe corpses if this happens.
I'd expect PS3 to be *upto* 3-4 times more powerful, on paper, and in theory, than Xbox2. that is still less than the difference, on paper, bandied about between PS2 and Dreamcast. PS2 was touted to be, conservatively, 4-5 times more powerful than Dreamcast, and upto 20 to 50 times more powerful than Dreamcast in certain areas. like, remember, 50 times more image data.
even *IF* PS3 was 3-4 times more powerful than Xbox2, it probably would not mount to much difference in first generation games. and even in later generation games, it will take PS3 developers quiet alot of effort to show a noticable difference over Xbox2.
look at Xbox and Gamecube. the Xbox is newer technology, and is several times more powerful than Gamecube on paper (going by PR spec anyway). but the difference between them in games is not so huge.
likely outcome:
I'm expecting PS3 to be maybe 2-3 times as powerful as Xbox2 in CPU power but only 50% more, or at most, 2x, in GPU power. the GPUs are going to be fairly close. PS3 GPU should have some more performance to play with. higher fillrate, higher bandwidth, higher rendering throughput, but not nearly as much of an advantage over Xbox2 GPU as there was between PowerVR2DC and GS performance difference, which was hugely in favor of GS. (not talking features or image quality, which favored DC's CLX2 / PowerVR2DC) ....Features wise, the PS3 and Xbox2 GPUs should be very close.
some people are probably still thinking that PS3 will outclass Xenon in CPU power by an order of magnitude. like 10 fold or more. they are probably thinking 1TFLOP / 1024 GFLOP PS3 CELL 'BE' CPU vs 84-100 GFLOP Xenon CPU. ....and then a PS3 GPU that outperforms Xenon GPU as much as the PS2's GS outperformed the DC's CLX2 / PowerVR2DC. this is just extremely, extremely unlikely.
I will eat the worlds population of dead crowe corpses if this happens.
SEGA and Sammy make a surprisingly large amount of money from the amusement sector year after year, and Sony's balance sheets from the whole PlayStation2 investment are not as rosy as some assume, with some recent quarters even ending in the red. Seeing who has made more in those respective businesses this generation might actually make for an interesting comparison (even discounting Sammy's contribution.)
randycat99
Veteran
Megadrive1988 said:
"Several times" more poweful for technology seperated by months, essentially? Perhaps, the more pragmatic, yet realistic, explanation is that this Xbox advantage of "several times" turned out to be [gasp] "hype"? Go figure.
FWIW, comparisons drawing from past competing desktop architectures to explain PS3 vs. XB2 are already pretty strained. We aren't talking about G3's and Celerons with consumer videocard-based technologies anymore. ...and here's the big kicker- you can argue that PS3 is turning out to be a dollop more complex than XB2, but making an assertion that games will come more easily for one over the other in the beginning is ignoring the basic facts. The same issues (programming for parallelism and concurrency) that will make PS3 a hairy beast to get results from will be evermore present in the form XB2 is to take. MS will be equally "underfire" to come up with a development environment that can leverage processor multiplicity as Sony/IBM. There's just no way around that regardless if you are comparing such abstract figures as 3 vs. 1, 6 vs. 9, x vs. y, or whatever makes sense for whatever argument.
On other hands, can't believe somebody is still actually building the case for arcade boards competing in the home console realm.
Last time I spent big cash in an arcade was like- 6-7 years ago??? I've even stepped into a D&B's a few times since then, just to check out the scene. It's friggen' dead, and not one machine really compelled me to juice up the ole card and kill an hour or so. Perhaps, some people here would care to post in on the last time they spent any significant time in an arcade (uhh, like that's so 90's, right? ). ...or not- perhaps it would be far better as a separate topic than here, and I think this certain poster (let's call them "lazy" for the sake of argument) knows this full well.Spidermate
Regular
Megadrive1988 said:worse case for Xbox2:
I'd expect PS3 to be *upto* 3-4 times more powerful, on paper, and in theory, than Xbox2. that is still less than the difference, on paper, bandied about between PS2 and Dreamcast. PS2 was touted to be, conservatively, 4-5 times more powerful than Dreamcast, and upto 20 to 50 times more powerful than Dreamcast in certain areas. like, remember, 50 times more image data.
even *IF* PS3 was 3-4 times more powerful than Xbox2, it probably would not mount to much difference in first generation games. and even in later generation games, it will take PS3 developers quiet alot of effort to show a noticable difference over Xbox2.
look at Xbox and Gamecube. the Xbox is newer technology, and is several times more powerful than Gamecube on paper (going by PR spec anyway). but the difference between them in games is not so huge.
likely outcome:
I'm expecting PS3 to be maybe 2-3 times as powerful as Xbox2 in CPU power but only 50% more, or at most, 2x, in GPU power. the GPUs are going to be fairly close. PS3 GPU should have some more performance to play with. higher fillrate, higher bandwidth, higher rendering throughput, but not nearly as much of an advantage over Xbox2 GPU as there was between PowerVR2DC and GS performance difference, which was hugely in favor of GS. (not talking features or image quality, which favored DC's CLX2 / PowerVR2DC) ....Features wise, the PS3 and Xbox2 GPUs should be very close.
some people are probably still thinking that PS3 will outclass Xenon in CPU power by an order of magnitude. like 10 fold or more. they are probably thinking 1TFLOP / 1024 GFLOP PS3 CELL 'BE' CPU vs 84-100 GFLOP Xenon CPU. ....and then a PS3 GPU that outperforms Xenon GPU as much as the PS2's GS outperformed the DC's CLX2 / PowerVR2DC. this is just extremely, extremely unlikely.
I will eat the worlds population of dead crowe corpses if this happens.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if this is the case, then what purpose does the workstation serve? As I said before, it may not be what the console can achieve on its own any more. Comparing GPUs, CPUs and distances apart looks to be the least relevant here.
randycat99:
For advancement to make new technology hundreds of times more powerful than old technology by the end of a console generation like every company claims, a few months should yeild an increase in "power" of at least several times. Power is an unqualified term to start with, but it usually implies how much more time it would take the older machine to render with the features that the new machine has introduced: a PS2 trying to render custom per-pixel effects and with more advanced texture filtering, for example.
i finally got experience RE4 in glory. and i conclude Xbox is not several times powerful than GC. ok RE4 may be little off in textures/iq and framerates, but it still as dropping like when i first saw NG. ps2 on other hand...
anyway i saw a topic that rumor Xbox may get RE4 port. i hope so. i fear how ps2 cant do justice to Capcom gem.
as for ps3? if it comes late, of course it have to be sold as the most powerful console. it IS sony AND now nvidia too. but i doubt its not that late unless sony want give MS too much time. couple with same gen gpu, multi ports etc etc i said b4, i dont expect the experience of next gen to be as disparity as Xbox and ps2.
anyway i saw a topic that rumor Xbox may get RE4 port. i hope so. i fear how ps2 cant do justice to Capcom gem.
as for ps3? if it comes late, of course it have to be sold as the most powerful console. it IS sony AND now nvidia too.
but i doubt its not that late unless sony want give MS too much time. couple with same gen gpu, multi ports etc etc i said b4, i dont expect the experience of next gen to be as disparity as Xbox and ps2._phil_ said:
I disagree, there's diminishing returns. Things will look more realistic, but the difference won't be as jaw dropping as it for the typical ps2 game vs. the typical Xbox game. In fact I bet a very talented studio working for the 360 can mimic to a degree indistinguishable by the casual gamer any graphics that can be produced by the ps3.
_phil_ said:
add 'MOVE' ,'REACT' ,'Behave' ,and some other cpu-centric possibilities to that perception
AI and physics seem to be the hardest thing to implement in games well, I doubt very many games will make great use of physics...and I further doubt that there will be games that have such amazing physics and AI on the ps3 that they couldn't be translated onto the 360.
The Postman
Newcomer
Hmm PS3 the most powerful? Maybe. The PS3 will have the better CPU but what the VPU, memory and memory bandwidth?
_phil_ said:GwymWeepa:
so , basicaly , you are just expecting the same games than previous gens ,but with more polys ,and more texturing?
how sad and boring.
BTW,novodec is way better than havok
Thats what I'm expecting
Halo 3 , mgs4 , grand turismo 5 , gta 6 , zelda whatever , mario whatever . final fantasy 2000
ALl looking better with a new plot or more cars and weapons
Spidermate
Regular
Maybe and maybe not. Since they are speeding up the way games are being developed, this could change, therefore, allowing more developers to experiment with new projects. I believe this is what really hindered this generation.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Games
