Ken Kutaragi:" I can produce the PS3 anytime"

[Bigus Dickus]

Are you completely forgetting that in just a few years MS's second console has evolved (oops, didn't you say they don't do this?) from a modified PC into a custom built console, very sophisticated in its own right? It has a custom adapted core, and a GPU designed from the ground up for a console.

That is very very debatable if you compare it with Sony's R&D spending although I dont know exact figures.
An indication that prooves my point.Its an undeniable fact that Sony and Nintendo have pushed further.Actually considering the accumulated capital Sony has compared to MS's super profitable company Sony did push more than what MS could but didnt.

I'm sorry, but what I stated isn't debatable. I think it can be universally agreed that the original Xbox was a modified PC, and that the Xbox 360 is a sophisticated custom built console. It is also a fact that the 360 has a custom adapted CPU core, and a GPU designed from the ground up for console application.

Thus, what I stated is fact, it isn't debatable.

What may be debatable, and what I made no statements about, is whether the 360 or the PS3 is more "custom designed" than the other (which seems to be what you are rambling about). The 360 has a significantly modified CPU core that has its ancestry in the standard PowerPC core. Its GPU is fully custom designed, in every way, for life inside a console.

The PS3 on the other hand has a CPU that, while having common ancestry in the PowerPC core, is highly modified and is essentially adapted in every way for life inside a console. It is, in many ways, like the Xenos GPU inside the 360. But the PS3 appears to have a rather routine PC-based graphics processor, a moderately modified NVIDIA off-the-shelf part. So one console has a "more custom designed" GPU than the other, and one has a more custome designed CPU than the other. As far as I'm concerned, its a wash, and all I can really say is that both bring exciting things to the table and are both highly sophisiticated custom built consoles.

 

[Nesh]

I'm sorry, but what I stated isn't debatable. I think it can be universally agreed that the original Xbox was a modified PC, and that the Xbox 360 is a sophisticated custom built console. It is also a fact that the 360 has a custom adapted CPU core, and a GPU designed from the ground up for console application.

Thus, what I stated is fact, it isn't debatable.

What may be debatable, and what I made no statements about, is whether the 360 or the PS3 is more "custom designed" than the other (which seems to be what you are rambling about). The 360 has a significantly modified CPU core that has its ancestry in the standard PowerPC core. Its GPU is fully custom designed, in every way, for life inside a console.

The PS3 on the other hand has a CPU that, while having common ancestry in the PowerPC core, is highly modified and is essentially adapted in every way for life inside a console. It is, in many ways, like the Xenos GPU inside the 360. But the PS3 appears to have a rather routine PC-based graphics processor, a moderately modified NVIDIA off-the-shelf part. So one console has a "more custom designed" GPU than the other, and one has a more custome designed CPU than the other. As far as I'm concerned, its a wash, and all I can really say is that both bring exciting things to the table and are both highly sophisiticated custom built consoles.

It is very very debatable actually.Its simple.MS could have spent more in the R&D to offer something more groundbraking.Well they dont care.Why should they anyways?They arent afraid of anything to try more.Are they?
Instead, Sony a smaller company, with less capital revenues has spent more on R&D to create something that if succesful will have more uses, broader and more benefits in the market.
We will see when the PS3 is released.

 

[scooby_dooby]

It is very very debatable actually.Its simple.MS could have spent more in the R&D to offer something more groundbraking.Well they dont care.Why should they anyways?They arent afraid of anything to try more.Are they?
Instead, Sony a smaller company, with less capital revenues has spent more on R&D to create something that if succesful will have more uses, broader and more benefits in the market.
We will see when the PS3 is released.

MS makes Xenos, a completely custom form the ground-up console GPU.

Sony uses RSX, a customized off the shelf PC GPU.

And you accuse MS of not doing enough R&D? What is this the twilight zone?

Where was Sony's R&D for RSX? They were busy concentrating on BR(to win a format war) and CELL (to sell in CE devices) that they didn't even create a dedicated console GPU.

How you can slam MS for lack of R&D is beyond me. If they didn't care about innovation, why did they spend 3 years designing Xenos from the ground up? If they truly didn't care, as you claim,they would simply have gotten the latest PC card and tweak it for the console (like XBOX1, and PS3) instead of wasting all that money on 3 years worth of R&D.

 

[expletive]

Instead, Sony a smaller company, with less capital revenues has spent more on R&D to create something that if succesful will have more uses, broader and more benefits in the market.
We will see when the PS3 is released.

Which means absolutely zero to a gamer buying the console. Realize why SOny is using BR and developed cell and youll quickly find it has a lot less to do with creating the best game console than you seem to think.

 

[Ben-Nice]

Which means absolutely zero to a gamer buying the console. Realize why SOny is using BR and developed cell and youll quickly find it has a lot less to do with creating the best game console than you seem to think.

That's a shock. Let me guess they are trying to make money, who would have thought of such a ridiculous thing. To think MS or Sony truly care about giving the consumer the best console is laughable. It's about $$'s.

 

[scooby_dooby]

That's a shock. Let me guess they are trying to make money, who would have thought of such a ridiculous thing. To think MS or Sony truly care about giving the consumer the best console is laughable. It's about $$'s.

You make $$$ by providing the best console you can. That's called competition.

Of course they care about giving the best console, they have to, otherwise the competitors will take their marketshare.

The point was that Sony has to ALSO concentrate creating technology for use in other divisions beyond console(because they are somewhat financially unstable), so in that sense they are less focused on strictly producing the best game console they can, they have priorities elsewhere.

 

[c0_re]

Right. Even moreso ironic that its because of contracts that bend Nvidia's way, that the sale of each Xbox contributed to the R&D funding that went into development of hardware like the 6800/7800/RSX. As soon MS works out BC on 90+% of its library the old xbox is gone... and rightfully so.

ROFLMAO, so M$ partly funded(indirectly) the developmetn of the RSX, oh thats too dam funny!

 

[expletive]

That's a shock. Let me guess they are trying to make money, who would have thought of such a ridiculous thing. To think MS or Sony truly care about giving the consumer the best console is laughable. It's about $$'s.

Did someone say that either of these companies wasnt in it for the money?

The point is that Sony spent ALL that money on the cell becuase they wanted to create a scalable product that could be used in a range of CE devices, not just consoles. If MS had the same design goals for Xenon, then they may have needed to spend as much. They didnt need an ubiquitous processor though, so they spent much less developing the Xenon which they felt is the ideal 'console' CPU. They in turn then spent R&D dollars on Xenos which they figured was the key for making a powerful games console.

So MS had different design requirements for their hardware, you cant compare what they spent for R&D to Sony. However if you must, scooby ably pointed out that they did spend the last 3 years or so developing Xenos which is an evolutionary, if not revolutionary, part at this point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony include MS software on their VAIO PCs, so they likewise contributed to the RnD of XB360. All these compnaies trade funds, compete on one area, and cooperate in another. People really have to stop thinking in terms of corporate allies and enemies. There's no such thing in business. There's only changing allegiances that follow where a compnay feels it'll make most money.

 

[expletive]

ROFLMAO, so M$ partly funded(indirectly) the developmetn of the RSX, oh thats too dam funny!

As nintendo did on Xenos.

 

[Bobbler]

The point was that Sony has to ALSO concentrate creating technology for use in other divisions beyond console(because they are somewhat financially unstable), so in that sense they are less focused on strictly producing the best game console they can, they have priorities elsewhere.

I'd say the opposite. Because the PS brand is their bread and butter, they have to concentrate much more on it. They are using it to push things like BR, and Connect integration (for movie/music/game DLs later on) at seemingly no cost to us. They expect the users will buy movies and such off Connect or on BR as additional revenue sources (and pushing other Sony products at the same time). They can "lose" more (put more into it) because they have more to gain by it (the success of some of their other product lines). I imagine they'll try to use the PS3 to push some of their HDTVs too (although the Bravias are sexy enough to sell themselves!).

 

[one]

MS makes Xenos, a completely custom form the ground-up console GPU.

Did they? I'd thought ATi did. For one, the eDRAM part appeared already in an ATi patent "Video graphics system that includes custom memory and supports anti-aliasing and method therefor" in 2000. Unified Shader? I don't think ATi had no research for it before MS came to them in 2003 as a potential mobile GPU core.

 

[blakjedi]

As nintendo did on Xenos.

Not sure. I get the impression that Xenos was a totally side project completely and solely funded by MS. Xenos has no antecedents and no descendants... yet.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I'd say the opposite. Because the PS brand is their bread and butter, they have to concentrate much more on it. They are using it to push things like BR, and Connect integration (for movie/music/game DLs later on) at seemingly no cost to us. They expect the users will buy movies and such off Connect or on BR as additional revenue sources (and pushing other Sony products at the same time). They can "lose" more (put more into it) because they have more to gain by it (the success of some of their other product lines). I imagine they'll try to use the PS3 to push some of their HDTVs too (although the Bravias are sexy enough to sell themselves!).

I can't really argue with that logic, it's a very good point. However, it still doesn't mean that MS is in anyway lacking, or being lazy with their own R&D efforts, which is the idea that Nesh keeps clinging too and won't let go of.

The fact that Sony is so reliant on PS3 to keep their company afloat is their own problem, and there's no reason to hate on MS just because they are in a more secure position financially.

Their actions speak for themselves. Through their actions MS has proven they are serious about investing in, and designing a true games console from the ground up. There's no reason to marginalize the work they've done, and pass it off as some half-hearted attempt.

The fact they have release a console 6-8months befoer the competition, that is expected to basically as powerful as the Sony offering(which is very heavily subsidized due to teh fact it's the crutch that props up Sony), speaks volumes about the level of commitment they have to R&D and designing a true console.

 

[Megadrive1988]

It is very very debatable actually.Its simple.MS could have spent more in the R&D to offer something more groundbraking.Well they dont care.Why should they anyways?They arent afraid of anything to try more.Are they?
Instead, Sony a smaller company, with less capital revenues has spent more on R&D to create something that if succesful will have more uses, broader and more benefits in the market.
We will see when the PS3 is released.

I don't see where you are coming from

the first Xbox was basicly a modified PC using modified off the shelf parts. but not Xbox 360. The 360 is almost completely custom. its CPU is very custom, and its GPU is totally custom. the only major non-custom parts are the GDDR3 memory, DVD drive and harddrive. The Xbox 360 is not an X86 PC like the Xbox was.

PS3 is partly custom (Cell, XDR memory) and partly off the shelf (RSX GPU which is basicly a modified NV47/G70).

I don't see where you are coming from

 

[scooby_dooby]

Did they? I'd thought ATi did. For one, the eDRAM part appeared already in an ATi patent "Video graphics system that includes custom memory and supports anti-aliasing and method therefor" in 2000. Unified Shader? I don't think ATi had no research for it before MS came to them in 2003 as a potential mobile GPU core.

Yes they did, ATI worked for MS in a collaborative effort with their own engineers. And give me a break, no-one is suggesting they invented new technologies on the spot.

The Xenos GPU itself was built for console's from day 1. Therefore IS completely customized, it's the very definition of being completely customized.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I don't see where you are coming from

the first Xbox was basicly a modified PC using modified off the shelf parts. but not Xbox 360. The 360 is almost completely custom. its CPU is very custom, and its GPU is totally custom. the only major non-custom parts are the GDDR3 memory, DVD drive and harddrive. The Xbox 360 is not an X86 PC like the Xbox was.

PS3 is partly custom (Cell, XDR memory) and partly off the shelf (RSX GPU which is basicly a modified NV47/G70).

I don't see where you are coming from

I don't think he realizes that MS has created a second console called XBOX 360.

All his arguments seem to be about the original XBOX, as if in some vacuum. Newsflash: Everything they did on XBOX1, they've done the opposite with 360. In other words, most of your arguments no longer make sense.

 

[Bobbler]

I can't really argue with that logic, it's a very good point. However, it still doesn't mean that MS is in anyway lacking, or being lazy with their own R&D efforts, which is the idea that Nesh keeps clinging too and won't let go of.

The fact that Sony is so reliant on PS3 to keep their company afloat is their own problem, and there's no reason to hate on MS just because they are in a more secure position financially.

Their actions speak for themselves. Through their actions MS has proven they are serious about investing in, and designing a true games console from the ground up. There's no reason to marginalize the work they've done, and pass it off as some half-hearted attempt.

The fact they have release a console 6-8months befoer the competition, that is expected to basically as powerful as the Sony offering(which is very heavily subsidized due to teh fact it's the crutch that props up Sony), speaks volumes about the level of commitment they have to R&D and designing a true console.

No doubt, I don't think MS skimped on their R&D. I imagine the R&D budget for X360 was a lot more than with Xbox -- they went custom on everything so they could keep their costs low while giving the most within that cost.

X360, PS3, and Rev will all offer very good values for their prices, and the fine details of their R&D are really irrelevant if you enjoy the product. On the game console front they all offer the hardware to make games enjoyable, and that IS the most important part... everything else is just frosting (they all offer different things, in that respect).

 

[one]

Yes they did, ATI worked for MS in a collaborative effort with their own engineers. And give me a break, no-one is suggesting they invented new technologies on the spot.

The Xenos GPU itself was built for console's from day 1. Therefore IS completely customized, it's the very definition of being completely customized.

Let's just review what your point was...

Sony uses RSX, a customized off the shelf PC GPU.

And you accuse MS of not doing enough R&D? What is this the twilight zone?

Where was Sony's R&D for RSX? They were busy concentrating on BR(to win a format war) and CELL (to sell in CE devices) that they didn't even create a dedicated console GPU.

Wow, so there was a PC GPU with FlexIO?! That's news to me.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Let's just review what your point was...

Wow, so there was a PC GPU with FlexIO?! That's news to me.

What do you think customized means?