It was a comment about the economic side of the business of course. I'm not even sure anything else matters. It's not about designing the fastest CPU you can period, but about what you can do within given cost and power constraints. I couldn't say if it was Intel's architectural choices or their stance on IP licensing, but I can clearly see the result: Microsoft did not sign them on for a second round. They went with IBM, and lost binary compatibility in the process, which cost them extra in software development, at least for a while. They wouldn't have done that if Intel could have made them an equivalent deal.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
This grows more and more irrelevant as almost no games are designed to take advantage of PC, anymore though. Layering on AA and high rez (when Grandmasters comparisons show 1080P through the Xenos scaler doesnt look much worse than true 1080P in PC ports) to the same assets makes little difference.
I think the growth of consoles over PC has a long history and it's based on convenience, low price, and plug and play, not technical factors.
It really comes down to the market and there just aren't enough gamers out there with PCs that are better equipped than consoles to cover the costs of developing a AAA game. That's why you see so many PC developers migrating to consoles -- it's where the market is.
There is a growing market for casual games on the PC, especially those delivered online through a portal or social network. Major publishers are starting to become very active in this area.
The PC is not a console to be launched, it doesn't need AAA exclusives ... the PC will simply be there regardless. Ports, RTSs, CRPGs, MMORPGs keep it in existence. MMORPGs if nothing else will keep it so.
In a year Valve might be able to market a DX 11 PC in console form factor for 400$ ... a box which would be able to render say Mass Effect 2/3 substantially prettier than the Xbox 360. With a controlled hardware and software environment it would be be both convenient and plug and play (the gaming OS would in the default install be entirely hidden, the OS in which all official steam games would run and any games specifically designed to integrate with the box's game launcher, any normal PC use and legacy gaming would be done in a virtual OS). Although it depends a bit on how much Microsoft would try to obstruct this.
PS. the casual market isn't a market I'm interested in ... it's an orthogonal issue. It might be the bigger market, it might not be, it certainly doesn't have the games I spend money on in it. You can't service both markets at the same time and for the moment the gamer market is still there and too substantial to simply ignore. You won't pull people like me along into the depths of hell consisting of popcap games and shovelware.
In a year Valve might be able to market a DX 11 PC in console form factor for 400$ ... a box which would be able to render say Mass Effect 2/3 substantially prettier than the Xbox 360. With a controlled hardware and software environment it would be be both convenient and plug and play (the gaming OS would in the default install be entirely hidden, the OS in which all official steam games would run and any games specifically designed to integrate with the box's game launcher, any normal PC use and legacy gaming would be done in a virtual OS). Although it depends a bit on how much Microsoft would try to obstruct this.
PS. the casual market isn't a market I'm interested in ... it's an orthogonal issue. It might be the bigger market, it might not be, it certainly doesn't have the games I spend money on in it. You can't service both markets at the same time and for the moment the gamer market is still there and too substantial to simply ignore. You won't pull people like me along into the depths of hell consisting of popcap games and shovelware.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think PS4 should use a modified Cell and RSX, economic design to lower developement cost.
Just like the way Wii do it.
CPU : 2 Core PPC970 with 4 SPE each. (lot of games lag by PPC970 , SPE....under usage )
GPU : 16VS and 48PS RSX. 16ROP.
and a 2GB unified memory share by GPU and CPU.
A Double Speed of PS3 . Release at 299 Price
Sony was loss a lot of money this year. A economic design (cheap) would be better.
Just like the way Wii do it.
CPU : 2 Core PPC970 with 4 SPE each. (lot of games lag by PPC970 , SPE....under usage )
GPU : 16VS and 48PS RSX. 16ROP.
and a 2GB unified memory share by GPU and CPU.
A Double Speed of PS3 . Release at 299 Price
Sony was loss a lot of money this year. A economic design (cheap) would be better.
PPC970 is the G5, so a OOe CPU with VMX extension, it's not the PPU in CELL.
The Xenos core is more close to PPC970 than the CELL's PPU.
But yes a PPC970 with four SPE can be a interested CPU in 2005 (but probably can achieve more than 1,5 Ghz, PPC970 is a heat monster) but for a 2013 CPU I think that IBM can provide a better design.
This is sort of telling that the Valve box you're thinking of won't make a big dent into the console market. It might be console-like and have software that's available on PC but it basically stops there. Steam would be a good way to download games onto the machine but unless the machine becomes highly standardized it will be a niche product. I just don't find this type of platform being successful, especially if its laden with DRM crap.
It matters not if the machine is able to render a Mass Effect sequel better than the current gen consoles. I should correct this and say to some it will matter but to the majority it won't especially when they look at the exclusives on consoles and decide they'd rather get those. It's kind of telling where you say the casual market doesn't interest you. The gaming crowd (whether it be the hardcore type, or the more of a casual but not quite hardcore but still a gamer) will stick to consoles where they can open up the box, plug the machine into an outlet and into the back of a TV and literally plug in and play. And all that on a machine that is standardized from the get go with a controller, whatever interface, and full developer support.
Of course they'd standardize it ... not to the same extent as consoles, but keeping the number of variations very low, with their name on it they'd be defacto guaranteeing smooth operation with the entire Steam catalog.
I'm not saying this could take significant market share away next year ... I'm saying that if the consoles wait long enough eventually it starts becoming dangerous. If the gap in image quality isn't big enough, just add another year.
Consoles are laden with DRM crap, I don't see the relevance.
I'm not saying this could take significant market share away next year ... I'm saying that if the consoles wait long enough eventually it starts becoming dangerous. If the gap in image quality isn't big enough, just add another year.
Consoles are laden with DRM crap, I don't see the relevance.
BS!
An upscaled frame can not look even close to good VS a frame that has 2x the pixels, the best it can do is look the same as the input frame!!!
That is a stupid idea, why would anyone want an old out of date GPU like that?
At best it would be as fast as a low end 8800 (and at the time it would be released it would be around an order of magnitude slower than a highend PC part!) and it would be bottlenecked for no reason other than a pointless lack of unified shading architecture.
Last edited by a moderator:
DRM is probably irrelevant. What happens to the Valve box after the console makers launch their new systems that feature better graphics? Will the Valve box just get an update each new year and devs will just need to make it so their games work flawlessly on each iteration of the Valve machine?
The thing is is that console manufacturers don't tend to wait a long time. It might seem like they do because technology is always advancing, but they have their platforms for a reason. By the time the new Valve box is launched the other consoles (with their marketing, and exclusive games) will be looming on the horizon ready to cannibalize the sales of Valve box.
I guess my point is I just don't see the Valve box being competitive unless Valve really decides to go all out and market the machine as an actual brand. Steam alone won't make it a success.
The thing is is that console manufacturers don't tend to wait a long time. It might seem like they do because technology is always advancing, but they have their platforms for a reason. By the time the new Valve box is launched the other consoles (with their marketing, and exclusive games) will be looming on the horizon ready to cannibalize the sales of Valve box.
I guess my point is I just don't see the Valve box being competitive unless Valve really decides to go all out and market the machine as an actual brand. Steam alone won't make it a success.
I know that but this time Intel may have been more willing to lower its prices. They had the Larrabee to sell. And It could be one only one chip including two sandy bridge + a bunch old larrabee cores.
The number of huge cpu core" could even be 1.
If they do they will have to do the same for their system or it will equal as a competitive advantage for Sony. The ps4 could run in "native mode" linux/chomeOS (androïd?) and windows.
Actually with google ramping up to fight on the OS business, I'm not sure that being able to instal windows/7 (whatever it's named) would add significant value. Linux/chrome OS is free. This time around their would be a lot more intensive for the various linux actors to make a customized Os than for the actual ps3.
The thing would be a many core x86 and could be used as such in some case (I mean don't rely on Simd units). Whereas the system might be less efficient in game situation but is power could useful in so many way. Sony may adress a huge market. (to some extend I think Intel will set limits as they woouldn't want Sony to eat too much of their market).
I can't help but think that Nvidia made fool of Sony, they sold them an old architecture when they were working on a unified architecture while claiming to the world it didn't exist.
Nvidia has made a good job at losing potential partners in the console realm if you ask me. But that's another story.
G80 would not have been appropriate for a console.
The time frame Sony allowed for putting in a GPU was, from the reports I've read, not long enough for making a clean-sheet design based on a completely new architecture.
I think Sony knew full well what could be done with the starting conditions it supplied.
I don't remember the exactly when Nvidia and ATI launched their respective unified architecture but without handing a G80 product derivative to Sony, Nvidia could have propose them something "in between". I mean Nvidia may have not jump from a split pipeline to an unified pipeline in one time, I make the assumption that they must have some prototype "in between". I might be wrong.
??? I don't get your point, 3dilettante certainly knows that, hence his comment.
It means PS3's GPU would have been ENORMOUS and run at 200 degrees C, and required an industrial freezer unit to cool quietly in a box the size of your bedroom, or one the same sized heatsink as it launched with along with one of those fans they use in movies for creating storms.
I get this but 3dilettante too. Me too by the way.A prototype most likely, but it did take nVidia a long time to put out a mid-range component for the G8x series. It just does not seem at all likely that there was any other choice (G7x) at the time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
