"MS takes sweet time with Xbox2" -Nvidia

[marconelly!]

I guess if Microsoft wanted to trample all over the PS 3 spec's, they could adopt the early 3dfx strategy of multiple chips manufactured on a mature process.

Heh, from what I understand, Cell is the architecture that is God given for a thing like that (adding more and more units to make the machine more powerful) It wouldn't surprise me if Sony pulls off something like that if MS and Nintendo announce the machine that they feel would be more powerful than theirs.

 

[jvd]

I guess if Microsoft wanted to trample all over the PS 3 spec's, they could adopt the early 3dfx strategy of multiple chips manufactured on a mature process.

Heh, from what I understand, Cell is the architecture that is God given for a thing like that (adding more and more units to make the machine more powerful) It wouldn't surprise me if Sony pulls off something like that if MS and Nintendo announce the machine that they feel would be more powerful than theirs.

isn't the point of cell many chips on one die. The cell chip that everyone is talking about is actually 16 cell chips on one die running at 3ghz which gives the p3 its 1 tflop .Talk about masive size. I think the cell chip is going to cost sony alot of money even on .65nm

 

[marconelly!]

I think the point of cell is also it's ability to locally network and share cpu resources with another cell chips integrated in the device, or available in the other local devices. Also, it was my understanding that variating the number of APUs in one local cell was something planned from the beginning (depending on the device the chip is going to be used, it can have more or less apu units).

 

[Saem]

Preamble:

From my understanding of Cell, each processing element has the same ISA, however they can different amounts of actual execution unit, so not all PUs are made equal.

Question:

Does the programmer code to the APU or does he/she code to a "greater" ISA which then appropriately translates it to instructions for the underlying ISA?

 

[randycat99]

Hey, quit infecting this Xbox2 topic with your rancid PS3 talk! You know who you are!

Oh wait, it's the same "usual suspects" that will derail a PS2/3 thread with Xbox/DC stuff! Strange, strange behavior, indeed!

 

[chaphack]

I do not claim those make the gphx superior to other consoles ( I only claim it makes it technically superior in that area, nothing else, nothing more)

In that case, there is no point in saying something which will have little effect on the final result. PS2 needs certain requirement because of how it works, and because of how it works, it does not mean that those requirement will be fulfiled.

 

[chaphack]

I think visuals coming from all three consoles next gen will be so similar that noone in the right mind will bother being obsessed over technical differences.

* PS3 can put out 15000 realtime lights on the scene! Xbox 2 can do 17000!! Holy crap it pisses all over POS3! *

Hard to say bro. GC came out a few months before Xbox and AFAIK, Xbox is doing more graphically intensive stuffs.

 

[chaphack]

If Sony can get Nvidia to do part of the Graphics Synth 3 / Visualizer
(as is rumored & even hinted at by Jen-Hsun Huang) Sony might be able to avoid the extremely disappointing feature list and image quality (for its time) of the Graphics Synth 1 used in PS2, and perhaps offset any advantage that XBox2 would otherwise have with an ATI R500~R600 based GPU.

Now that would simply rockoXOR!
Nvidia need not do a specialised chip for PS3, they can use the CELL cpus and work on PS3 rendering aspects and features. If done so, PS3 might just really in reality become a true 3D beast.

Sony IBM Toshiba just does not sound like a graphics dream team.

 

[wazoo]

Hard to say bro. GC came out a few months before Xbox and AFAIK, Xbox is doing more graphically intensive stuffs.

ps2 and Xbox were expensive consoles at their respective launch. Gc was looking for best perf/price ratio at its launch. Ms opinion is that hardware matters, Nintendo think games matters (partly because their powerful N64 flopped in front of the weak ps1).

 

[zidane1strife]

In that case, there is no point in saying something which will have little effect on the final result. PS2 needs certain requirement because of how it works, and because of how it works, it does not mean that those requirement will be fulfiled.

Yes, but at least in this thread the purpose was to point out that if the pixel areas are as advanced for their time as the areas sony focused on the last console... They'd be quite a challenge to significantly surpass...

EDITED

 

[chaphack]

Yes, but at least in this thread the purpose was to point out that if the pixel areas are as advanced for their time as the areas sony focused on the last console... They'd be quite a challenge to significantly surpass...

EDITED

Eh yes, and if MS had used a 1ghz Athlon and 256mb ram back then, Xbox will be way way ahead of the competition. If Nintendo have given Flipper a higher clockspeed and more ram too, GC would be as cool too.

You get what i mean?

 

[marconelly!]

Hard to say bro. GC came out a few months before Xbox and AFAIK, Xbox is doing more graphically intensive stuffs.

Well, my point is that doing more graphically intensive stuff next gen will not even matter. As I mentioned above - if you have a scene with 10000 realtime lights, and a scene with 15000 of them, I very much doubt anyone would see a difference - yet you need whole 1.5x more power to make the latter. If you have textures 10000x10000 pixels, noone will notice that those of 15000x15000 are better looking, etc, etc... Games will be limited solely by the vision / talent / financing of developers, not by tech specs.

 

[zidane1strife]

Oops, I didn't convey my message correctly. What I meant to say is that if PS3 is as advanced in the pixel areas, as the ps2 was in those areas it will be tough to beat.

That was the purpose of those examples.

 

[London Geezer]

Hard to say bro. GC came out a few months before Xbox and AFAIK, Xbox is doing more graphically intensive stuffs.

Well, my point is that doing more graphically intensive stuff next gen will not even matter. As I mentioned above - if you have a scene with 10000 realtime lights, and a scene with 15000 of them, I very much doubt anyone would see a difference - yet you need whole 1.5x more power to make the latter. If you have textures 10000x10000 pixels, noone will notice that those of 15000x15000 are better looking, etc, etc... Games will be limited solely by the vision / talent / financing of developers, not by tech specs.

and certainly they won't see the difference on a normal interlaced TV, which makes for more than the vast majority of people's equipment... i mean, there are more people with surround sound than there are with HDTV...