More info about RSX from NVIDIA
- Thread starter nAo
- Start date
No, they couldn't. It's too late to do anything but a slight clockspeed change.
But they won't. It doesn't make any sense in the console market to worry about minor differences in hardware between competitors. They could change so little at this point, regardless.
The company that wins the console wars isn't set by the power of the processors. I think Sony showed that conclusively with the Playstation 2.
But they won't. It doesn't make any sense in the console market to worry about minor differences in hardware between competitors. They could change so little at this point, regardless.
The company that wins the console wars isn't set by the power of the processors. I think Sony showed that conclusively with the Playstation 2.
@therealskywolf: If there was something above and beyond in RSX than in G70, it would make more sense for them to launch G70 and progress with their standard PC stuff and announce the 'new and exciting' RSX at a later date. If they talked up features in RSX at this point (again if there were some sort of 'secret-sauce') then it might make PC gamers spending $600 on a card a little embittered that some of those features(?) weren't included.
Again this is just in the unlikely scenario of a significant departure.
@ralexand: It's true that Sony could announce it now or six months from now and Microsoft would have roughly the same ability to modify their hardware (effectively none), but Sony's a dramatic company, so if there is something, a TGS announcement is right up their alley.
Again this is just in the unlikely scenario of a significant departure.
@ralexand: It's true that Sony could announce it now or six months from now and Microsoft would have roughly the same ability to modify their hardware (effectively none), but Sony's a dramatic company, so if there is something, a TGS announcement is right up their alley.
jvd said:
Hell, a slight clock speed increase could be great for marketing far more than just the actual performance increase.
Especially on the CPU front -- both are 3.2ghz now but imagine if one announced an increase to 3.4. There would be a clear victor, Ghz wise (which everyone here knows is moot), in the consumer joe's mind.
Who knows, while I have my doubts it'll happen (at this point it is something either company could pull), it would be kinda nice.
Given similarities in technology between XeCPU and PPE, and it looks like both are at the same frequency for yields, I imagine if MS can get sufficient yields for a faster chip, so can Sony. Cell has been up to 4 GHz and beyond (although as Sony said, cooling is an issue. Same for XeCPU though, surely?) so both chips should be able to manage that I'd have thought. If anything Cell has the advantage as the clockability of SPEs must be higher than PPEs (& Xe Cores) as they're simpler. Getting 1 PPE and 7 SPE's up to 3.5 GHz is probably more likely than getting 3 Xe Cores up that high.jvd said:
It's rather irrelevant though I think. RSX isn't going to have anything new IMO. My bet's on a (slightly ?) beefed up G70 with unneccessaries removed to make room for tweaks, and logic to aid PS2 BC. I'm sure there'd have been hints as to the existence of fancy new tricks somewhere along the line. The only reason I think people hold out for something new has been internet rumours of 3rd component helper chips and the like, which I guess were just ideas that never made it.
randycat99
Veteran
You might be stuck in 1990's thinking on that one, jvd. The "GFlops myth" has long since superceded the "Mhz myth".
Yeah, I don't know a single person who even knows what a flop is, let alone the giga kind. Perhaps the general public understands "x is faster than y cause of that one thing? you know? that thing you make video games with? Anyway, x has twice as many of those things."jvd said:
.Sis
randycat99
Veteran
Ironically, it's discussions like that, that would typify a PC user (mind you, this is not equivalent to reciprocally saying all PC users are like "that"). Most likely they will have been an XB user via the x86 connection, and most likely they will follow through with XB2 as a matter of brand loyalty (though they may come to a real surprise to find that x86 no longer exists inside XB2). Hence, whatever specs PS2 or PS3 have, will have been irrelevant anyway for that sale. Anyone else who dabbles in the "tech speak", will likely be familar with the GFLOP by now. So like I was saying, the "MHz myth" has come and gone (but that is not to dismiss the few stragglers that continue to cling to the precious MHz dick measure psychosis, to this day), and we are now in the era of the "GFLOP myth". Besides, if one participant is subscribing to the Athlon nomenclature, then clearly they have reached the level to look beyond Mhz, anyway. So all you have left is the few PC tech weenies that never got past Mhz in their thinking pattern. In the end, what they think is largely irrelevant as far as consumer base numbers, and they will be going with XB2 for the most part, anyway (presumably to assume the status of "hardcore gamer", regardless of how genuine this really is or not).
randycat99
Veteran
Sis said:
Is that right? I guess that makes some of the statements that have come from the MS PR campaign a rather peculiar choice to campaign about in the first place. Clearly they believe somebody out there is familar with "GFLOPs" and "GB/s" and "MB of RAM". Likewise, statements of "Mhz" from MS are rather sparing (but not nonexistent, of course), which suggests that they, as well, believe there isn't much "kudos points" to achieve from consumers by bandying this issue any more aggressively. Ironically, they are correct in numerous ways on this, not to mention not winning much appeal by preaching PPE-ish level Ghz specs to any audience that worships at Intel's house of P4 (that would be your core audience that seems to reflexively focus on "MHz"). So there is nothing to be gained there, in that respect (they won't be particularly impressed with the low side of the 3 Ghz range, and if they are looking for a console, it will be the one from MS, anyway).
Except there are more owners of PS2's, and thus more people who are likely to be brand-loyal for the PS3.
As far as I can tell, Microsoft's only chance of really taking away significant marketshare from the PS3 is for them to start off with a few fantastic (and exclusive) launch titles. If Microsoft can get enough people to convert to the X-Box 2 from the PS2, then that will eat into PS3's numbers. But they can only do this through the games available for the platform.
Oh, and if Microsoft can also assure backwards-compatibility, that will be a huge benefit for them. I doubt many people here own all three current consoles, but I'm sure all of us has seen at least one game (that is, if we pay attention) on each console we don't have that we'd like to play. The knowledge that our next console upgrade could allow us to play those older games too could be quite provocative.
As far as I can tell, Microsoft's only chance of really taking away significant marketshare from the PS3 is for them to start off with a few fantastic (and exclusive) launch titles. If Microsoft can get enough people to convert to the X-Box 2 from the PS2, then that will eat into PS3's numbers. But they can only do this through the games available for the platform.
Oh, and if Microsoft can also assure backwards-compatibility, that will be a huge benefit for them. I doubt many people here own all three current consoles, but I'm sure all of us has seen at least one game (that is, if we pay attention) on each console we don't have that we'd like to play. The knowledge that our next console upgrade could allow us to play those older games too could be quite provocative.