Is the PS3 on track to deliver full specs?
- Thread starter Rash'
- Start date
There's no way to spin this into a positive. There goes the 10% RSX had over Xenos regardless of architectural differences.
At a guess I'd say the GPU's are very similar in capability now. Where before one might have surmised a slight edge to RSX.
It also explains in part why some PS3 screens had looked unimpressive, too me.
And the RAM downgrade (if true) is even worse. Bandwidth is crucial to PS3 operating without the EDRAM. AA is going to be even harder to shoehorn in.
360 had some spec downgrades perhaps, but I dont recall CARING about any of them (and I'd have remembered). In fact when the finalized specs where released, it was very positive feeling. Like "They delivered". They hit the 3.2 GHZ, the 500 mhz, and the 512 MB RAM (which was the BIG ugrade).
Have to question Sony's strategy and what they are thinking. I dont think "just as good as 360, but with Blu-Ray" is where they need to be. But apparantly they are very comfortable in that position and there ability to market it going forward, else they would have worked harder to gain a technical edge. Guess they are counting on Japan, third parties, and exclusive games, and not too worried about hardware superiority, and they might be right I suppose.
________
Avandia Lawyers
At a guess I'd say the GPU's are very similar in capability now. Where before one might have surmised a slight edge to RSX.
It also explains in part why some PS3 screens had looked unimpressive, too me.
And the RAM downgrade (if true) is even worse. Bandwidth is crucial to PS3 operating without the EDRAM. AA is going to be even harder to shoehorn in.
360 had some spec downgrades perhaps, but I dont recall CARING about any of them (and I'd have remembered). In fact when the finalized specs where released, it was very positive feeling. Like "They delivered". They hit the 3.2 GHZ, the 500 mhz, and the 512 MB RAM (which was the BIG ugrade).
Have to question Sony's strategy and what they are thinking. I dont think "just as good as 360, but with Blu-Ray" is where they need to be. But apparantly they are very comfortable in that position and there ability to market it going forward, else they would have worked harder to gain a technical edge. Guess they are counting on Japan, third parties, and exclusive games, and not too worried about hardware superiority, and they might be right I suppose.
________
Avandia Lawyers
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, Geo and I were chirping away with 500/650 hints first
And my guess Xbd's source comes via a different route than mine. Like others have noted, nothing it set in stone until launch, but it does seem that RSX @ 500MHz is a good possibility.The fact is that a 50MHz boost was never a means of claiming an *actual* edge over Xenos though... not that it wasn't implied by Sony mind you. But the battle between those two is much more architectural in nature than not, and whoever is the 'victor' will probably take a couple of years to play out. I also think that RSX should be viewed more as an extension of Cell than Xenos is an extension of the XeCPU, so what actually comprises the entirety of each consoles' respective graphics 'subsystem' may be open to some interpretation.
Hey, Geo and I were chirping away with 500/650 hints first
didn't mean to slight you or Geo, Acert... the guy I addressed was badgering XB and yes, you guys chirped, but XB sang.
But Microsoft never announced a 3.5GHz spec for 360 and then changed it.
didn't mean to slight you or Geo, Acert... the guy I addressed was badgering XB and yes, you guys chirped, but XB sang.
Actually, I'm *way* more tickled that XBD agrees with me that it's probably power/heat rather than yields.
I got there by the memory as much as anything.mckmas8808
Legend
Actually, I'm *way* more tickled that XBD agrees with me that it's probably power/heat rather than yields.
that's true... any chirping of it was often quelled based on yields being fine for similar chips... so the heat/power was a good call. :smile:
You know, it's this kinda shit, not the Inquirer's new article, but the knowledgable people in here, that fuel numbnut journalists at Joystiq and The Inquirer. It encourages them to FUD the internet and have there article's featured in the news sections of Gamespot, IGN and NextGen.biz. Then in turn twist the minds of dev's to have to come and put out another brushfire of controversy.
Incredible, absouletely incredible
It would have been better if the people of any knowledge good or bad, didn't encourage the validity of a fluff piece, until said information was completely demonstrated.
Intentional or not, it's not good behavior for people here on the internet, just look at what's happened already.
Incredible, absouletely incredible
It would have been better if the people of any knowledge good or bad, didn't encourage the validity of a fluff piece, until said information was completely demonstrated.
Intentional or not, it's not good behavior for people here on the internet, just look at what's happened already.
Nfactor I respect and understand where you're coming from, but I have a different philosophy regarding it.
IMO when bad news comes up... if it's false disavow it immediately, and if it's true engage it just as fast. Nothing is gained by silence in these particular instances, because it sets those up for frustration that 'defend' Sony (or whoever) against those who 'attack' in the interim. No one likes to feel betrayed by an entity they put effort into defending, so even though it was the Inq and Charlie and all sorts of crap I hate - I mean better just to save people the effort and frustration. No doubt that 99% of the time, Charlie *is* wrong. Just not this time.
Frankly IMO this news is not even *bad*, it's just dissapointing.
And it is dissapointing, especially with the development cycle they've had. But if that were the message that Sony would work towards in all this - that PS3 will still be 'great' - then I think people would get over this much more quickly.
Actually, I'm *way* more tickled that XBD agrees with me that it's probably power/heat rather than yields.
Actually power/heat is part of the yield equation nowadays.
Not only does your chip has to reach a certain frequency to get in a particular bin, it has to do so at a specified power level.
But yes, power is probably why they would have to do it if it comes to that.
Cheers
Well, they did somehow
That was a leaked document. An internal schematic with rough placeholder figures (this is also the document that specifies "256MB+" for the RAM, which was indeed originally intended at 256M
In fact MS was supposedly pretty angry it got out. And it got out a very long time before the specs were officially released. Microsoft does not have a good track record of keeping Xbox related secrets, secret.
________
Washington Marijuana Dispensaries
Last edited by a moderator:
So what we have now is not only a slower GPU but also slower graphics memory BW? I'd have thought that'd be a bigger concern, considering BW was the main bottleneck for RSX.
And that's not where they are. I'm as disappointed as anyone if this is final (though probably more out of principle than the actual impact on the system or its games), but let's not pretend it colours the entire system and how it compares, or that this reduction reflects on areas where the contrast has always been much larger (i.e. Cell/CPU).
