Do you expect the ps3 will be the most powerful system?

[randycat99]

I'd expect PS3 to be *upto* 3-4 times

you understand that 3-4 times more power nextgen is more significant than 3-4 x was past gen ? (ie :2Gflops versus 6 gflops this Gen ,and 80 gflops versus 240 gflops nextgen) .

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.

...or will they? The precedence on Xbox releases seems pretty clear when it comes to ports from other consoles (PS2, for example). Many times it is claimed the port is a "downgrade" since it is "limited" by the way the artwork is originally conceived for the PS2 game. So it is quite dubious to make assurances that Xbox developers will bother to "tweak" to exploit the perks of the hardware. It will be same as usual- pack it, ship it, and then have the Xboys and game reviewers "knowingly" blame console xyz for a bad port.

I guess we won't have to worry too much about poor ports to Xbox2 this time around, since PS3 will, indeed, be more powerful, anyways. There won't be much reason for them to complain, as well. If they are unsatisfied with the port quality, it will be clear (using the same logic they typically wield), that the "bottleneck" was their very own, beloved XB2.

 

[pahcman]

more humble fair imo?

It was once said ps3 will have better cpu Xenon will better gpu. It can still be this way, but things have more levelled off both ways.

once sony got nvidia, now both are competing on the same gpu level, also 90nm vs 90nm?
cell ps3 early hype was 65nm 32spe 4ghz 1tflops, now is 90nm 8spe 256flop 4ghz. but there are now rumors within 4ghz is too hot for console and well..
still shld better than Xenon cpu but 65nm 1tflops box seem so silly now.

i duno why i keep putting nm versus there, but under past impressions that the smaller nm will automatic get u better power? so whadever shrugs?


the ram bandwidth it seem is rumored about the same 256mb 25gb/s.

i doubt neo geo genesis wide if they come about the same time at same price.

 

[pahcman]

hmm yeay speaking of downgrade bottleneck, i see interesting things.

console fans are quite voiceful about the pc model where today u have super power A64bits X850xtupe etc, but games are mindfully written for modest gf4mx.

but is same thing with consoles. after experience RE4, i wish more games are based at least the GC, if not Xbox. in fact this event is more cross evident since we getting more multiports. seems the lowest common denomintor is ps2 .
of coz, doubt next gen the disparity will be that heavy bogging down.

duno what im rambling about since this event have been, is and will alway be around as consoles 5 year life span and PCers don alway buy latest hw.

 

[jpinard]

Well unlike the EGM article, I have worked on both the X-Box 2 AND the PS3, and I can say without a doubt the X-Box 2 has more power (currently), and this time around renders images with more color, clarity, and overall richness. Ironically the PS3 images are more washed out than the original X-Box - due to the anti-aliasing techniques they're using. Maybe it was the prot we were working on but I kind of expected it to be the opposite. Side by side ports the X-Box 2 ran smoother than the PS3, but it could be due to PS-3 programming nuances. At this point in time however, expect the X-Box 2 to be a faster system out-of-box, and is definately easier to develop for.

 

[passerby]

Please name us a Xenon system-level library function that is unique to it, and explain why it is unique to that system. Thank You.

 

[randycat99]

Would that be the "vivid color and pixel richness" system library, you ask of? Why yes, I speak jive.

 

[GwymWeepa]

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

Umm, how did you assume that exactly? I think we'll see improved AI and physics, but not to the degree they can be improved by given the hardware...and I very strongly doubt many games on ps3 will rely so heavily on the monstrous CPU that their AI and physics engine couldn't remain intact in an Xbox2 port.

 

[_phil_]

, how did you assume that exactly?

we've been playing with some cpu centric toys recently ,Novodec for physics,a Massive(tm)-like realtime solution (for mass people behavior) ,and also with a fully realtime Endorphin-like solution for individual character physics/behavior.
I can tell you ,in order to combine these , a 3-4x more global power makes actually a lot of difference.

 

[one]

BTW, if it's old sorry, I found a laughable but well-crafted web site about the Cell processor - CELL INDUSTRIES - Supercomputer Applications for the Cell Processor via this nutty article.
Apparently this CELL INDUSTRIES is run by this crazy guy Jim Trounson and it has absolutely no relation to STI. Basically he claims STI should open-source the Cell.

 

[Fafalada]

I have no idea of anything about the speeds... however, this:

Ironically the PS3 images are more washed out than the original X-Box - due to the anti-aliasing techniques they're using.

is pretty damn funny thing to hear, especially when one knows which NVidia chip sits in existing PS3 devkits...

 

[leechan25]

Well unlike the EGM article, I have worked on both the X-Box 2 AND the PS3, and I can say without a doubt the X-Box 2 has more power (currently), and this time around renders images with more color, clarity, and overall richness. Ironically the PS3 images are more washed out than the original X-Box - due to the anti-aliasing techniques they're using. Maybe it was the prot we were working on but I kind of expected it to be the opposite. Side by side ports the X-Box 2 ran smoother than the PS3, but it could be due to PS-3 programming nuances. At this point in time however, expect the X-Box 2 to be a faster system out-of-box, and is definately easier to develop for.

Then you woke up!

 

[gamepower]

If this engine run on next gen consoles with 60 Frame/s,then we can
say they are powerful:

 

[rabidrabbit]

That does not look much better than current gen PC games.
Far cry looks as good, of couse the character model is more detailed, but you could do that scene even with Ati 9800 card and good cpu with 60fps.

The only thing that differentiates that pic from current graphics is that it's a bit more richer in shadows, at least in the character. Those in the world could as well be pre-baked (though they probably aren't as if the trees would sway, the clouds move, the earth rotate... the shadows would have to move as well, surely next gen they'd have to do that ).

Add more of those characters to the scene and then you'd need more power, but overall I expect more from next gen consoles.

Really, there's little in that pic that screams "next gen console"

 

[passerby]

when one knows which NVidia chip sits in existing PS3 devkits...

Hmmm... is it in violation of NDA to tell us if the GPU part in the current dev kits are in 'near final form'?

 

[Xenus]

I doubt it since Nvidia said it wouldn't tap out till fall.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Well unlike the EGM article, I have worked on both the X-Box 2 AND the PS3, and I can say without a doubt the X-Box 2 has more power (currently), and this time around renders images with more color, clarity, and overall richness. Ironically the PS3 images are more washed out than the original X-Box - due to the anti-aliasing techniques they're using. Maybe it was the prot we were working on but I kind of expected it to be the opposite. Side by side ports the X-Box 2 ran smoother than the PS3, but it could be due to PS-3 programming nuances. At this point in time however, expect the X-Box 2 to be a faster system out-of-box, and is definately easier to develop for.

oh brother.

hey you know what? Nintendo64 also has more power, color and richness than PS3.

 

[Fox5]

I think Xbox 2 could be more powerful than the PS3 because the PS3 is relying heavily on Cell. I don't think Cell will be a flop, but I think it will fall well short of expectations. If Ps3 significantly relies on Cell for graphics then, at least until developers become more skilled at programming for it, that Xbox 2's bigger reliance on a gpu will pay off. I think Cell will be more powerful than any computer cpu now, but will be crushed by the dual core cpus available when PS3 arrives.

 

[Carl B]

I think Xbox 2 could be more powerful than the PS3 because the PS3 is relying heavily on Cell. I don't think Cell will be a flop, but I think it will fall well short of expectations. If Ps3 significantly relies on Cell for graphics then, at least until developers become more skilled at programming for it, that Xbox 2's bigger reliance on a gpu will pay off. I think Cell will be more powerful than any computer cpu now, but will be crushed by the dual core cpus available when PS3 arrives.

I think you are very much overestimating what the PC world is going to be receiving in terms of dual cores in the near future. I know that for all practical purposes, anyone with a top of th eline processor now will more or less be taking a step backwards by buying a Smithfield processor.

Though I give more respect to AMD and their Toledo implementation, it'll be some time before that offers better performance to their FX-55 as well.

 

[Fox5]

I think Xbox 2 could be more powerful than the PS3 because the PS3 is relying heavily on Cell. I don't think Cell will be a flop, but I think it will fall well short of expectations. If Ps3 significantly relies on Cell for graphics then, at least until developers become more skilled at programming for it, that Xbox 2's bigger reliance on a gpu will pay off. I think Cell will be more powerful than any computer cpu now, but will be crushed by the dual core cpus available when PS3 arrives.

I think you are very much overestimating what the PC world is going to be receiving in terms of dual cores in the near future. I know that for all practical purposes, anyone with a top of th eline processor now will more or less be taking a step backwards by buying a Smithfield processor.

Though I give more respect to AMD and their Toledo implementation, it'll be some time before that offers better performance to their FX-55 as well.

Well, I'm assuming optimized code will be available for dual cores. Considering PS3 is coming out in 2006, I think dual 2.5ghz athlon 64s could best it.(though only slightly once ps3 is fully optimized for) If cell was x86 based, it's not like it would give great performance if plopped into a pc right now, it would likely perform much worse.

 

[Carl B]

I think Xbox 2 could be more powerful than the PS3 because the PS3 is relying heavily on Cell. I don't think Cell will be a flop, but I think it will fall well short of expectations. If Ps3 significantly relies on Cell for graphics then, at least until developers become more skilled at programming for it, that Xbox 2's bigger reliance on a gpu will pay off. I think Cell will be more powerful than any computer cpu now, but will be crushed by the dual core cpus available when PS3 arrives.

I think you are very much overestimating what the PC world is going to be receiving in terms of dual cores in the near future. I know that for all practical purposes, anyone with a top of th eline processor now will more or less be taking a step backwards by buying a Smithfield processor.

Though I give more respect to AMD and their Toledo implementation, it'll be some time before that offers better performance to their FX-55 as well.

Well, I'm assuming optimized code will be available for dual cores. Considering PS3 is coming out in 2006, I think dual 2.5ghz athlon 64s could best it.(though only slightly once ps3 is fully optimized for) If cell was x86 based, it's not like it would give great performance if plopped into a pc right now, it would likely perform much worse.

I think what you're writing about is a very POV type situation; I agree that as far as x86 goes, a dual core chip would be able to dominate Cell, but then again so could a single core. If we're talking about flops, then obviously Cell would humiliate dual, quad, octal, and on down in terms of multi-core x86 chips. That assumes a frequency wall has been hit for a while.

And just looking at things from a practical perspective, not x86 or flops performance, I don't see multi-core x86 chips catching Cell when it comes to media performance, and I don't see Cell knocking the x86's off their own perch. Still, if you can get Cell emulating x86 well enough to send and receive email and do some word processing, for a lot of people that negates the need for an Intel or AMD machine.

Not anyone on this forum presumably, but no small part of the populace.