further indication that Xbox 360 has 512 MB

passerby said:
BOOMEXPLODE said:
Actually, that would be quite a change, as PS2 does not have an ON/OFF button. There is an ON/OFF switch on the back, and a reset button on the front. But, I guess you already know the the in&outs of all consoles, right?

Amazing that it's actually true - most people don't read the manual. Even when they think 'no ON/OFF button? Weird!', they won't reach out for the manual to find the '100%-I-bet-the-farm-must-be-there' 'how to switch on/off your equipment' section.

Those who don't know what I'm rambling about, DO THAT NOW. Pick up your manual and turn to the 'how to on/off' page.

I'm having trouble seeing your point here. Paraphrasing, the manual says to hold the "reset" button down for a second until the console turns off. Your point, if I've guessed correctly, seems to be that the "reset" button is the ON/OFF button. While I can imagine the poor old "reset" button having quite an existential crisis over the nature of its being and its identity as a button, seeing as it's labeled on the button itself "reset" and is identified as a "reset" button, it's safe to conclude that it is, in fact, a "reset" button. With that information in mind I've made the rather elementary observation that there is no ON/OFF button on the console. Obviously this is a silly topic to go on for so long about :p
 
mech said:
Megadrive1988 said:
RAM has always been in short suppy in consoles.


I feel that:



PS1 should have had 8 MB total (4s + 3v + 1a)

N64 should have had 9-10 MB total (unified)

3DO M2 should have had 16 MB (like the commercial / industrial M2s)

Dreamcast should've had at least 56 MB total (32s + 16v + 8a)

PlayStation2 should've had 180 MB total
(128s + 32v + 4edram + 8a + 8ps1-i/o)

Gamecube should've had 180 ~ 256 MB

Xbox1 should've had 256-512 MB


then all nextgen consoles would be into the several GB of RAM


of course, reality differs quiet alot from what we (and devs) want :)

Hahahaha, you are obsessed with "should have" specs Megadrive... I knew this was your post even before I saw the nick on the left :D

In the bottom Megadrive is a romantic,like me :oops: I wish Amiga had been the definitive hardware beast. But since the 8 bits age ( the Amstrad CPC 464 was the computer that gave me more gaming happiness ) i am willing for the time in which a perfect piece of hardware becomes the final solution forever. It´s like women...so complicated! ;)
 
Fafalada said:
Cramming all that into 128MBs and then having three times as much for textures and framebuffers would seem really odd to me.
Current assumption is that GPU will likely do VertexShading as well, so you'd probably want to keep most of your mesh data in GPU memory. Unless there's a way to feed GPU directly.

That leads me to another question. If the GPU does have vertex shaders (and it's "probably likely" given that it's based on a PC part), doesn't this raise the question of whether the PS3 really needs a CPU like Cell? I've seen developers cursing over the prospect of trying to write write optimised code for it - from scripting to physics to just about anything else. Take away most of the the graphics work, and is it really such a great choice for a console CPU?
 
seeing as it's labeled on the button itself "reset" and is identified as a "reset" button, it's safe to conclude that it is, in fact, a "reset" button.
Half right. It also has the universally-recognised on/off symbol pasted over it.

Yes we're going OT. Apologies.
 
function said:
That leads me to another question. If the GPU does have vertex shaders (and it's "probably likely" given that it's based on a PC part), doesn't this raise the question of whether the PS3 really needs a CPU like Cell? I've seen developers cursing over the prospect of trying to write write optimised code for it - from scripting to physics to just about anything else. Take away most of the the graphics work, and is it really such a great choice for a console CPU?

Unless cell somehow turns out to be a complete failure, all that power from cell can be used for alot of things.
Think of those SPEs as 8 really fast SIMD units capable of doing the equivalent of lots of SSE or 3Dnow! instructions.
They *could* also easily be used for vertex shading, but we don't know for certain what the GPU will look like.
 
Sandwich said:
Unless cell somehow turns out to be a complete failure, all that power from cell can be used for alot of things.
Think of those SPEs as 8 really fast SIMD units capable of doing the equivalent of lots of SSE or 3Dnow! instructions.
They *could* also easily be used for vertex shading, but we don't know for certain what the GPU will look like.

oh that's great... if you had 8 SPUs...
 
Sandwich said:
function said:
That leads me to another question. If the GPU does have vertex shaders (and it's "probably likely" given that it's based on a PC part), doesn't this raise the question of whether the PS3 really needs a CPU like Cell? I've seen developers cursing over the prospect of trying to write write optimised code for it - from scripting to physics to just about anything else. Take away most of the the graphics work, and is it really such a great choice for a console CPU?

Unless cell somehow turns out to be a complete failure, all that power from cell can be used for alot of things.
Think of those SPEs as 8 really fast SIMD units capable of doing the equivalent of lots of SSE or 3Dnow! instructions.
They *could* also easily be used for vertex shading, but we don't know for certain what the GPU will look like.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying you can't use lots of processing power or SIMD units (or anything else) if you aren't doing graphics work. Given the practicalities of making games, and the type of none graphics tasks that you'd want to run on a console CPU, I was asking whether Cell's design was less than ideal if you weren't applying it to large amounts of graphics work.
 
MrSingh said:
Sandwich said:
Unless cell somehow turns out to be a complete failure, all that power from cell can be used for alot of things.
Think of those SPEs as 8 really fast SIMD units capable of doing the equivalent of lots of SSE or 3Dnow! instructions.
They *could* also easily be used for vertex shading, but we don't know for certain what the GPU will look like.

oh that's great... if you had 8 SPUs...

SPEs. 8 of them yes.
 
function said:
I was asking whether Cell's design was less than ideal if you weren't applying it to large amounts of graphics work.

Ideal? Nothings ideal. XB2's rumored 3 powerPC cores are less than ideal. Dual core on the PC is less than ideal and Cell is less than ideal.
In an ideal world we could scale up Ghzes of our single cores indefinitely.

Cells approach may still be the best alternative.
 
Sandwich said:
function said:
I was asking whether Cell's design was less than ideal if you weren't applying it to large amounts of graphics work.

Ideal? Nothings ideal. XB2's rumored 3 powerPC cores are less than ideal. Dual core on the PC is less than ideal and Cell is less than ideal.
In an ideal world we could scale up Ghzes of our single cores indefinitely.

Cells approach may still be the best alternative.

Do you see colours? Or is everything grey and black to you? ;)
 
It's better to moderate expectations now ;)

Oh and of course..this is all my speculation....ahem..

I just REALLY wouldn't expect 8.
 
I'm not quoting any rumour or anything else..but 6 it's a so ugly number :)
My hopes are on a 8 SPEs CPU...I feel we'll get a full working CELL CPU :oops:
 
nAo said:
I'm not quoting any rumour or anything else..but 6 it's a so ugly number :)
My hopes are on a 8 SPEs CPU...I feel we'll get a full working CELL CPU :oops:

Marco, you shall take these 4 spe's and you shall like them! : )
 
around here, next gen hardware, especially concern cell, were too high expectations to start with.

$299 disposable game box, not super space simulator people forgets.

512mb is good tho. 1 more month.
 
Back
Top