PlayStation III Architecture

[Phil]

Hey, if I rember well, Nintendo was the only one to specify a conservative estimate of real game environment causing people in some fora to bash Nintendo.

Personally, I'd take the RAW specs over estimated "guesses" anyday. It's more fun...

BTW; talking about hype, Sony released quite detailed specs compared to both Nintendo and Microsoft. Published fillrate was also quite amusing *cough* 4 GPixel/sec *cough*... anyway, enough OT from me.

 

[London Geezer]

Hey, if I rember well, Nintendo was the only one to specify a conservative estimate of real game environment causing people in some fora to bash Nintendo.

Personally, I'd take the RAW specs over estimated "guesses" anyday. It's more fun...

BTW; talking about hype, Sony released quite detailed specs compared to both Nintendo and Microsoft. Published fillrate was also quite amusing *cough* 4 GPixel/sec *cough*... anyway, enough OT from me.

...and the TOY STORY-LEVEL graphics BS... oh wait pretty much everyone has used that one already... shame nobody really got close to that.... next one is FINAL FANTASY:TSW-LEVEL graphics......

what really makes me wonder tho, is that Sony made a console that can still hold its own against 2-years younger hardware.. i mean Silent hill 3 and ZOE2 are pretty much equal or better than anything on the other 2 consoles... and thats from *underpowered, old hardware*.... go talk about HYPE........

of course now Lazy8 is gonna come in preaching about how great dreamcast and genesis are and how underrated they are in one of his 5000 words Sega-Bibles extracts.... just kidding hehehe

 

[Phil]

...and the TOY STORY-LEVEL graphics BS... oh wait pretty much everyone has used that one already... shame nobody really got close to that.... next one is FINAL FANTASY:TSW-LEVEL graphics......

IMO that quote (from whoever it might be) is pretty much arguable what it ment and how it was inteperated by the public. Try debating something as solid as fillrate when it ain't even true though... BTW; out of curiousity, does anyone have a direct quote of that rather famous "ToyStory" comment? I've been searching for it but never found any quote, just heard it at forums and a site that said about ToyStory graphics themselves upon looking at the specs. I'm also fairly certain that some people here on this forum have pointed out that that quote wasn't actually from Sony... what will it be?

It is true though that they all will hype their product. Sony of course is no exception.

I can only agree with you though london-boy - seeing Z.O.E.2 in motion, it's really hard to believe at times that it's running on PS2 hardware...

 

[maskrider]

what really makes me wonder tho, is that Sony made a console that can still hold its own against 2-years younger hardware.. i mean Silent hill 3 and ZOE2 are pretty much equal or better than anything on the other 2 consoles... and thats from *underpowered, old hardware*.... go talk about HYPE........

The latest Shin Sangomusho 3 is looking great comparing to the older ones, and Star Ocean 3 is coming on 27/Feb, and Genki's new and impressive racing game. ZOE2 is looking and playing great.

The games released these few months seriously hurt my wallet.

 

[ChryZ]

BTW; out of curiousity, does anyone have a direct quote of that rather famous "ToyStory" comment? I've been searching for it but never found any quote, just heard it at forums and a site that said about ToyStory graphics themselves upon looking at the specs. I'm also fairly certain that some people here on this forum have pointed out that that quote wasn't actually from Sony... what will it be?

I am pretty sure the ToyStory quote came from some website and not from Sony's PR staff. I guess the early tech demos caused the exaggerated expectations. Funny though, Sqaure's facial animation demo reminds me a lot of the old guy from SH3.

May 03, 1999: http://psx.ign.com/articles/067/067915p1.html

http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/news/image/ps2demo2.jpg
http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/news/image/ps2demo3.jpg
http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/news/image/ps2demo4.jpg
http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/news/image/ps2demo5.jpg
http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/news/image/ps2demo6.jpg
http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/news/image/ps2demo7.jpg
http://psxmedia.ign.com/media/news/image/ps2demo8.jpg

 

[jvd]

Eh the reason it holds its own against the gamecube and xbox is the generation of software. Sony is on its what 3 or 4th gen and nintendo and ms are on its 2nd ? Same reason why second gen and third gen dreamcast games looked as good as 1st and 2nd gen ps2 games .

 

[Phil]

Eh the reason it holds its own against the gamecube and xbox is the generation of software. Sony is on its what 3 or 4th gen and nintendo and ms are on its 2nd ? Same reason why second gen and third gen dreamcast games looked as good as 1st and 2nd gen ps2 games .

Maybe, although when a console is hyped for not only being almost 2 years younger, but also the fact that it runs on done-before hardware and its easier development, I do beginn to wonder. I guess in the end, we'll see how close they really are, but judging right now, the difference certainly isn't much.

 

[Steve Dave Part Deux]

Flipper taped-out in '99. Also, I would say that graphically the PS2 really isn't holding it's own against the best avaliable for Xbox and GC. What saved PS2 is its flexibility. Since launch, many of the perceived weaknesses of PS2's architecture have been overcome with a bit of programming ingenuity (the results of which can't be credited to Sony). With an architecture like PS2 you can't really get it right, but you can't really get it wrong. If you give developers enough headroom and the added incentive of an enormous customer base then they will do the hard work for you.
Sony's genius is in their market strategy, not their silicon.

 

[Vince]

What saved PS2 is its flexibility. Since launch, many of the perceived weaknesses of PS2's architecture have been overcome with a bit of programming ingenuity (the results of which can't be credited to Sony). With an architecture like PS2 you can't really get it right, but you can't really get it wrong. If you give developers enough headroom and the added incentive of an enormous customer base then they will do the hard work for you.

Anyone else find this comment unbelievable ungrounded? Seriously, what are you talking about.

 

[Steve Dave Part Deux]

I'm talking about Sony's posistioning of PS2 in the market. PS2's design sacrifices focus for compatibility. It would seem to me that the trick to creating a successful 3D graphics accelerator lies in how well you can predict how developers will be coding 5 years from now and what functionality they will value the most and then design your hardware to accelerate such functions. Sony wanted to be first to market with PS2 to stiffle the Dreamcast's momentum and establish themselves with developers. Sony marketed PS2 as a machine with a "revolutionary design" and convinced the gaming press that even though they would arrive later to market, Nintendo and Microsoft's machines wouldn't be able to match its power. PS2's design has allowed it to scale well in performance, but it is being left behind as shaders are becoming more aggresively adopted. It doesn't matter though, Sony has already won. They have the media presence, the games, and the name. Sony designed PS2 around the market, and did so successfully. I honestly don't what they could have improved on.
I was refering to the image quality issues associated with half-height frame-buffers and texture filtering. These problems have been eliminated through exploration of the hardware's abilities. Many of the GC's limitations cannot be substituted for due to the fixed nature of much of the hardware, however GC can natively perform many operations that PS2 cannot. It's a design philosophy that extends into marketing. Sony's approach toward both is more romantic in appearance than Nintendo or MS's which is likely why it garners more interest.

 

[Vince]

I'm talking about Sony's posistioning of PS2 in the market. PS2's design sacrifices focus for compatibility.

I'm so confused right now.

Sony wanted to be first to market with PS2 to stiffle the Dreamcast's momentum and establish themselves with developers

Um, if anything, PS2 was later than anticipates IIRC. In addition, the Emotion Engine was increased in clock.

Sony marketed PS2 as a machine with a "revolutionary design" and convinced the gaming press that even though they would arrive later to market, Nintendo and Microsoft's machines wouldn't be able to match its power.

Wai a seceond, when did Sony market PS2 as more powerful than Xbox or Cube? Alotta confusion in these statements I think. AFAIK, it was Microsoft who was all gung-ho on showing off the hardware superiority in the 2001-ish time frame. Again, Sony did little hyping on their own - they actually released some pretty real-world specs, websites just took the biggest numbers.

PS2's design has allowed it to scale well in performance, but it is being left behind as shaders are becoming more aggresively adopted.

There are two major 'shader' types: Fragment and Vertex. Sony didn't even touch the former in the GS, and the later are beyond DX9, probobly are atleast DX10 equivalent in sheer programmability.

I was refering to the image quality issues associated with half-height frame-buffers and texture filtering. These problems have been eliminated through exploration of the hardware's abilities.

How is this a problem? It's like a developer bitching about the limits on PS2.0 and then after getting familiar with his shader, realise that it can be reduced and fit inside PS1.4.

It's a design philosophy that extends into marketing. Sony's approach toward both is more romantic in appearance than Nintendo or MS's which is likely why it garners more interest.

Heh.. it's not their fault they make good looking hardware while their competitors make crap. How does Sony's great brand recognition and style get turned into almost a negative? If anything, it's MS and Ninendo's failure.

 

[Steve Dave Part Deux]

Who said Sony's image was a negative? I'm saying that initially there was much speculation regarding "flaws" in Sony's execution of the PS2 both in design and marketing. What I've come to realize is that Sony could not have executed more precisely on all fronts. Either they can predict the future or they are extremely adept at "rolling with the punches", so to speak.
The gaming press seemed ready to pronounce GC and Xbox DOA when PS2's specs were unveiled. I can only assume that they formulated such opinions based on information they had recieved from Sony reps. Though, to be fair, GC and Xbox specs were yet to be officially confirmed.
I think Sony's made sharper looking products in the past.

 

[Tokyo!]

A person could infact read through this thread and understand the Cell architecture 80%. I am certain of this! I think it is a good idea to keep this on the front page so new people who are infact share an interest in Cell can read it.

 

[Megadrive1988]

even I can understand Cell to some degree. I'm no computer engineer, I totally failed math, have no background in technology whatsoever. I'm just a videogamer, yet Cell is not that difficult to understand, at least on the level that I'm trying to understand it 8)

 

[Grall]

Why was this topic resurrected from the dead? I fail to see the point, especially since the posts added to it since like six months ago add nothing new of any sort. This thread's just a nasty amount of pages with mostly bickering and little if any useful info apart from speculation, none of which is really helpful.

I'd suggest locking this one and letting it drift back into oblivion where it belongs.

*G*