Next Gen? Why Reinvent the Wheel?

[JNewt427]

I have pondered this thought for some time now, and I don't believe there is a better place to get answers to this question than here.

I have been playing video games as a mostly winter pastime's since the Atari day's, yes that's a very long time ago and I was a child, but as I grew older into the day's of Super Nintendo and F-Zero with really catching my attention to the whole.."WOW really cool graphics". Playing and owning most of the popular consoles PS1, PS2, NES64 etc. since then I have to ask the question. For a "Next Gen Console" do the manufactures understand that all I am looking for and I think I speak for a majority of others is for them to just bring "Up to date" PC type graphics to the Gaming Consoles.

I have tried to read as much as I can with all of the next Gen Gaming Consoles, and with there programming woos, probably not so much the X-BOX360 but the PS3, I have come to the conclusion that allot of game developers look at these consoles as some type of uncharted territory of programming. And I can understand with all this CELL mombo jumbo and SPU this, and SPU that. Why do the console manufactures feel they have to "Reinvent the Wheel" when all of the technology and programming is already existing. Like I said I would be more than happy with last years or even 2 years past PC graphics playing on a console I can sit in my living room and play.

Seriously why is this? and thanks to all who reply..

 

[Mize]

Uh...good gaming rig = $2,000 (Maybe $1500 if you don't mind some lag)
Great gaming rig? $3,000+

Now build that in a DVD-sized box and sell it for $300. Not easy.

 

[Todd33]

Sticking off the shelf parts into a box makes it large, expensive and ill suited for a console, ie. the Xbox. You want fast, cool and good synergy (CPU + GPU).

 

[Rangers]

Sticking off the shelf parts into a box makes it large, expensive and ill suited for a console, ie. the Xbox. You want fast, cool and good synergy (CPU + GPU).

Xbox was expensive for other reasons (hardware cost model), not "off the shelf PC parts". Else you might say the same of PS3..As far as size, an internal 3.5" HDD probably contributed most of that to Xbox. Nothing else in it couldn't have been easily shrunk. It's not like there's physical cards in there.

I dont think there's necessarily anything wrong with "with Off the shelf", after all that's basically what RSX is which is pretty decent. And PS3 and Xb360 alike would kill for an "off the shelf" G80.

There's nothing really more efficient or cool-runnin about Xbox360/PS3 components than "off the shelf" ones. Aka Cell, RSX, Xenos and Xenon were comparable in both heat and die size to state of the art 90nm off the shelf PC parts of the time, 1.5 years ago.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'd say as well as price, the reason for custom hardware is 'legs'. Clever architectures can be pushed and do more impressive things than standard architecures built on old legacies. PC hardware used in a console now will progress very little in a couple of years, whereas Cell and smart programming will push PS3 and help it keep up with some modern and expensive gaming rigs in situations.

 

[zed]

Why do the console manufactures feel they have to "Reinvent the Wheel" when all of the technology and programming is already existing. Like I said I would be more than happy with last years or even 2 years past PC graphics playing on a console I can sit in my living room and play.

show me drakes uncharted on the pc
(answer) silence

as others have said its budget constraints + also WRT cell, true it maybe reasonably hard now (not as bad as the ps2 mind) but in a few years u will have god of war 4 (or something similar that you/u didnt think was possible now ), theres is heaps of untapped potential in cell ( + soon to be on the PC with the nv90 + R700 ) makes me glad to be a programmeur

 

[Cheezdoodles]

show me drakes uncharted on the pc
(answer) silence

You really think that has anything to do with hardware? Or just the fact that nobody makes such genres for PC anymore

 

[Lazy8s]

High learning curves show more progress for a given period of time because they start farther behind, not because they end farther ahead.

Better to spend most of the curve slowly progressing in a good performance range than quickly progressing in a poor performance range.

 

[Todd33]

You really think that has anything to do with hardware? Or just the fact that nobody makes such genres for PC anymore

Agreed, the game could be done on a PC, as could any on either the PS3 and 360.

 

[zed]

You really think that has anything to do with hardware? Or just the fact that nobody makes such genres for PC anymore

the OP wrote

For a "Next Gen Console" do the manufactures understand that all I am looking for and I think I speak for a majority of others is for them to just bring "Up to date" PC type graphics to the Gaming Consoles.

thus i was showing that consoles certainly are bringing "up to date" (at the very least) pc type graphics to the table

High learning curves show more progress for a given period of time because they start farther behind, not because they end farther ahead.
Better to spend most of the curve slowly progressing in a good performance range than quickly progressing in a poor performance range.

if the rewards are higher at the end, i would choose that, true u might start behind the opposition but u will eventually overtake.
everyone remembers the winners + not who was leading in say lap 1-3

to the OP, if u want a PC like experience why not plug your pc into the tv?
personally i think most ppl want something else with a console ( which the wii sales figures seem to say )

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

if the rewards are higher at the end, i would choose that, true u might start behind the opposition but u will eventually overtake.
everyone remembers the winners + not who was leading in say lap 1-3

Problem is you can't really overtake that easily when you're the better driver, but the guy who was leading in lap 1-3 gets a new car every few laps and you're forbidden from making any pit stops.

Well, in all fairness, the fact that PC hardware is a variable and moving target is both a strength and a weakness. On the one hand, you can't quite take advantage of the hardware quite as much as you could on a console since you have to account for several potential hardware configurations and you have to avoid alienating all but the most spending-happy PC gamers. On the other hand, it means that hardware in the PC space can continue to advance and there will always be another new thing around the corner.

 

[JNewt427]

I'd say as well as price, the reason for custom hardware is 'legs'. Clever architectures can be pushed and do more impressive things than standard architecures built on old legacies. PC hardware used in a console now will progress very little in a couple of years, whereas Cell and smart programming will push PS3 and help it keep up with some modern and expensive gaming rigs in situations.

This is probably the best answer and thank you, I guess I had a different mindset to the whole situation. To me my mindset was that PC's lead the way in technology and new programming and this includes gaming, understanding that a gaming console would never come close in performance to a PC of the same time frame of technology but most certainly maybe a console could incorporate 1 or 2 year old technology and have it at a substantial discount. My mindset Analogy of technology and new programming would be the PC would be like the older brother in a family while the gaming console would be it's younger brother, the younger brother would be learning from his older brother and from his experiences, today's next gen feels more like to me that the younger brother likes to rebel a little bit.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

PC hardware used in a console now will progress very little in a couple of years, whereas Cell and smart programming will push PS3 and help it keep up with some modern and expensive gaming rigs in situations.

PC hardware used in console now will progress very little in a couple of years?

Last time i checked, PC hardware doubles in power every 18 months

 

[woundingchaney]

PC hardware used in console now will progress very little in a couple of years?

Last time i checked, PC hardware doubles in power every 18 months

I dont know about 18 months, usually 18 months is about a 20%-30% increase (approx.) in hardware output. Im thinking that as far as "doubling" in power from hardware to hardware it is probably about a 4 year span.


Although to be true I have never tried to track the concept.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I dont know about 18 months, usually 18 months is about a 20%-30% increase (

Lets take a look shall we?

In this example, lets look at nvidia GPU's, and AMD Cpu's.

Nvidia GPUs 18 months:

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (October 2003) vs Nvidia 7800 GTX (June 2005)
Geforce 4800 (Feb 2003) vs Geforce 6800 ultra extreme. (June 2004)


AMD:
AthlonXP 1500+ to 2100+ October 2001 to March 2002
AthlonXP 1700+ to 2100+ April 2002 to June 2002
AthlonXP 1700+ to 2800+ June 2002 to October 2002
AthlonXP 2500+ to 3200+ January 2003 to May 2003
Sempron 2200+ to 3000+ June 2004
Athlon64 3200+ to 3700+ September 2003 to June 2004
Athlon64 3000+ to 4000+ June 2004
Athlon 64 X2 3800 to 6000+ May 2005 to Today


Source: Source for AMD's

Now. I haven't benchmarked a geforce FX or a Geforce 4 in years, but i'm confident that both the 7800GTX and the 6800 ultra are much much much much more powerful than 30% compared to the two.

As far as CPU's goes, well.. I think it safe to say doubling in power every 18 months is easily obtainable. Especially now, when AMD and Intel are going multi-core, its rather easy to gain vast theoretical power just doing that. Take a Quad-Core (2.40 GHz) vs the first generation Conroe (E6300 (1.86 GHz), and compare theoretical power.

 

[Entropy]

Lets take a look shall we?

Sure. In the autumn 2000 I bought a Thunderbird 1200MHz.
Assuming completely complementary scaling of bandwidths and latencies, and lack of major architectural gains, doubling performance every 18 months would be equivalent of 1200*2^4.3=1200*19.6=23600MHz

If instead we assume a 30% increase/18 months we get 1200*1.3^4.3=1200*3.09=3700MHz.

Today, the fastest AMD is the updated K8 version of the same processor sold at 2800MHz (dual core though).

So which model describes reality better?

Look, single thread performance scaling has been stalling for over half a decade. There is a reason these multi-billion corporations turn to multiprocessing in hopes of keeping average selling prices up, and upgrades frequent. People who have had a clue about lithographic techniques and computer architecture have been able to foresee the current situation for roughly a decade. (20/20 hindsight helps hugely though. )

 

[cam]

PC hardware used in console now will progress very little in a couple of years?

Last time i checked, PC hardware doubles in power every 18 months

I think what Shifty Geezer was getting at was the fact that console hardware is basically a closed box for six or seven years, so the hardware must have longer legs to stretch as upgrading is out of the question.

 

[Skrying]

Uh...good gaming rig = $2,000 (Maybe $1500 if you don't mind some lag)
Great gaming rig? $3,000+

Now build that in a DVD-sized box and sell it for $300. Not easy.

No.

$900~ will buy you a great gaming rig (that includes CPU, Motherboard, memory, hard drive, video card, power supply, case) that has such powerful parts as a 8800GTS included into the build cost, high quality PSU like the Corsair 620W, and then power saving components like a A64 X2 3800+ 65W and great OCing motherboard in a Biostar TForce. This idea that $1500 is needed is just out right crazy. I could rebuild my entire rig now (which I find still great for gaming) for around $600.

 

[Todd33]

No.

$900~ will buy you a great gaming rig (that includes CPU, Motherboard, memory, hard drive, video card, power supply, case) that has such powerful parts as a 8800GTS included into the build cost, high quality PSU like the Corsair 620W, and then power saving components like a A64 X2 3800+ 65W and great OCing motherboard in a Biostar TForce. This idea that $1500 is needed is just out right crazy. I could rebuild my entire rig now (which I find still great for gaming) for around $600.

I'd say the min GPU for a real DX10 rig is a 8800GTS 640MB, which is like $350. I guess you could go rock bottom on everything else though. My 4400+ was $450 back when I bought it, I saw it with a MB for $99 in an ad the other day

 

[Skrying]

I'd say the min GPU for a real DX10 rig is a 8800GTS 640MB, which is like $350. I guess you could go rock bottom on everything else though. My 4400+ was $450 back when I bought it, I saw it with a MB for $99 in an ad the other day

What the hell is a "real DX10 rig" though? The $900 price included it, not sure how you're going to go much higher than the 8800GTS anyway (640MB was in the build BTW). Frankly I don't see DX10, I need solid performance and want to play games. It doesn't make me feel superior knowing I'm running Very High and my neighbors running only Medium... Personally if it was between $600 and $3,000 to play the same game besides visuals I know I'd go with $600 EVERY time.