PS3 a 1000 times the power of PS2? I don't think so!

[Conker Live]

I have been reading (off and on) the Sony-Nvidia thread and noticed this same claim come up that we have all heard before....and that is 'Sony said that PS3 would be 1000 times more powerful than PS2'.

This is not true at all. Sony made some comments/predictions about their GSCube evolution and there they said that the 3rd generation of the EE and GS would be in the GSCube for 2005 and that the 2005 GSCube would have 1000 times the power of the PS2, not PS3. Then they went on to say that at the time PS3 would be coming around the corner...no mention of expected power. Even if the PS3 used the 3rd gen. EE and GS it still wouldn't have the 1000x the power because the GS cube would have mutliple EE and GS chips.

I find it funny that the gaming media industry (including major sites like IGN) have thought that Sony stated PS3 would have 1000x the power of the PS2.....

Well, it doesn't matter now because Sony has decided to go another route with this Cell processor.

 

[London Geezer]

Matey, u're a few months late. We got over that a loooong time ago.

Even at 1Tflop, PS3 would only be 161 times as powerful as PS2.

But then we have to see what PS3 will be able to render, and see how long it would take little old Ps2 to render the same thing.

Why am i even replying to this?

 

[Nyo_S23]

how about dual gpu with dual sli added to put a cherry on top.

 

[Titanio]

Even at 1Tflop, PS3 would only be 161 times as powerful as PS2.

I dount we'll "even" see that.

I can see a lot of people getting the impression that 1TFlop is the "official Beyond3D expectation" given the regularity with which it keeps being mentioned, particularly lately - and subsequently label PS3 a "disappointment" or "failure" when PS3 isn't actually that powerful.

 

[London Geezer]

Well yeah, even the 1Tflop is probably not gonna happen, although now Sony have NVFlops rating behind them...

 

[Jov]

Well yeah, even the 1Tflop is probably not gonna happen, although now Sony have NVFlops rating behind them...

Happening or not, just knowing the Cell WorkStation to be the dev platform for the PS3 is at the TFlopz (as stated) is exciting already...

Hell if the PS3 just provdes a similar jump like the PS2 did, I am already

 

[London Geezer]

Well yeah, even the 1Tflop is probably not gonna happen, although now Sony have NVFlops rating behind them...

Happening or not, just knowing the Cell WorkStation to be the dev platform for the PS3 is at the TFlopz (as stated) is exciting already...

Hell if the PS3 just provdes a similar jump like the PS2 did, I am already

Oh definately agreed, and join me in congratulating the poster on how useless this thread is.

 

[cthellis42]

The Xbox 2 could talk all the legs off an Arcturan Mega-donkey, but only the PS3 could persuade it to go for a walk afterwards.

 

[Spidermate]

I have been reading (off and on) the Sony-Nvidia thread and noticed this same claim come up that we have all heard before....and that is 'Sony said that PS3 would be 1000 times more powerful than PS2'.

This is not true at all. Sony made some comments/predictions about their GSCube evolution and there they said that the 3rd generation of the EE and GS would be in the GSCube for 2005 and that the 2005 GSCube would have 1000 times the power of the PS2, not PS3. Then they went on to say that at the time PS3 would be coming around the corner...no mention of expected power. Even if the PS3 used the 3rd gen. EE and GS it still wouldn't have the 1000x the power because the GS cube would have mutliple EE and GS chips.

I find it funny that the gaming media industry (including major sites like IGN) have thought that Sony stated PS3 would have 1000x the power of the PS2.....

Well, it doesn't matter now because Sony has decided to go another route with this Cell processor.

How long has it been before you finally started opening up to the other competitors? :? I'm serious, too.

 

[Conker Live]

I have been reading (off and on) the Sony-Nvidia thread and noticed this same claim come up that we have all heard before....and that is 'Sony said that PS3 would be 1000 times more powerful than PS2'.

This is not true at all. Sony made some comments/predictions about their GSCube evolution and there they said that the 3rd generation of the EE and GS would be in the GSCube for 2005 and that the 2005 GSCube would have 1000 times the power of the PS2, not PS3. Then they went on to say that at the time PS3 would be coming around the corner...no mention of expected power. Even if the PS3 used the 3rd gen. EE and GS it still wouldn't have the 1000x the power because the GS cube would have mutliple EE and GS chips.

I find it funny that the gaming media industry (including major sites like IGN) have thought that Sony stated PS3 would have 1000x the power of the PS2.....

Well, it doesn't matter now because Sony has decided to go another route with this Cell processor.

How long has it been before you finally started opening up to the other competitors? :? I'm serious, too.

What are you talking about?

 

[Megadrive1988]

and that is 'Sony said that PS3 would be 1000 times more powerful than PS2'.

This is not true at all.

Conker, you're actually wrong there.


1.) Sony officials have been quoted at least several times saying that PS3 will be 1,000 times more powerful than PS2. or that PS3 chip performance will be a 1,000 times greater than that of PS2.

2.) about 3rd generation EE and 3rd generation GS: these were intended for Phase 3 creative workstations, not GSCube. the GSCube is slightly different from any of the creative workstation plans Sony mentioned. though indeed GSCube is the closest thing Sony did to implementing a Phase 1 workstation (workstation with 10x the performance of Tool/PS2)

3.) the PS3 was also meant to use 3rd gen EE and GS, not *just* Phase 3 creative workstations.

4.) even more powerful creative workstations would have been made from multipule EE3s and GS3s, thus, having more power/performance than a PS3. PS3 would probably be using one EE3 and one GS3.
(we now substitute EE3 with Cell-CPU and GS3 with Sony-Nvidia GPU)


so, even though PS3 may not meet the '1,000 times PS2' goal, Sony *did* in fact state that PS3 would have 1,000 times the performance of PS2 at least several times, starting in the fall of 1999.

 

[Conker Live]

You are right, they are called creative workstations. But as I remember, these stations included technology from Silicon Graphics in the form of a work stations that would access a central server, this server is the GSCube. The total system is a creative work station.

I did acknowledge that the PS3 was to use EE3 and GS3...but I stated it in the fashion I did because PS3 won't use them.

I just don't remember Sony stating time after time that PS3 would have that power. I'm going by the official press release.

 

[see colon]

sony also said that ps2 would not render polygons, with heavy hinting that everything would be NURBS years before the ps2 launch. i wish i could find the interview... i also remember a sega employee being asked if he was worried about ps2's non-polygon approach, and his reply being basicly "we can toss around triangles so fast you can't tell they are triangles anyway".

it's all hype, even if they somehow reached 1000x the performance of ps2, there's no real way to prove or disprove a statement like that. hell, the sness was probably 10000x faster than the nes at 3d!

 

[Wunderchu]

and that is 'Sony said that PS3 would be 1000 times more powerful than PS2'.

This is not true at all.

Conker, you're actually wrong there.


1.) Sony officials have been quoted at least several times saying that PS3 will be 1,000 times more powerful than PS2. or that PS3 chip performance will be a 1,000 times greater than that of PS2.

2.) about 3rd generation EE and 3rd generation GS: these were intended for Phase 3 creative workstations, not GSCube. the GSCube is slightly different from any of the creative workstation plans Sony mentioned. though indeed GSCube is the closest thing Sony did to implementing a Phase 1 workstation (workstation with 10x the performance of Tool/PS2)

3.) the PS3 was also meant to use 3rd gen EE and GS, not *just* Phase 3 creative workstations.

4.) even more powerful creative workstations would have been made from multipule EE3s and GS3s, thus, having more power/performance than a PS3. PS3 would probably be using one EE3 and one GS3.
(we now substitute EE3 with Cell-CPU and GS3 with Sony-Nvidia GPU)


so, even though PS3 may not meet the '1,000 times PS2' goal, Sony *did* in fact state that PS3 would have 1,000 times the performance of PS2 at least several times, starting in the fall of 1999.

Megadrive1988 is basically correct, AFAIK ..





... as I have posted in more than one other thread:

here's a pic. from GDC 2002:

(I found that pic from this thread: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8927 )





and here's another article:

http://psx.ign.com/articles/072/072237p1.html?fromint=1

 

[Phil]

Is it really that important that we take that claim so serious?

At the end of the day, that claim was aimed solely at average consumers that can't quantize the meaning of FLOPS and bits. To us techies, a number is baseless without its type/identification. 1000 can mean anything - as it stands, it's just a number and in the end will or will-not be met regardless how powerful PS3 turns out to be. In some people's eyes, PS2 is 300 times more powerful than PSone, by others, it'll never - regardless of facts, numbers or far-fetched conclusions. I can understand the 1000 number being thrown around on more casual boards, but on a board like beyond3d, it really shouldn't be used and certainly not as reference anyway.

A number like 1TFlop of course is a different story... at least that number has a meaning attached to it (FLOPs). I'd rather take something like that as reference rather than some number that could mean anything.

 

[cthellis42]

I'm not sure why anyone puts stock in those kinds of numbers regardless. Many times they're strictly for marketing purposes and impressing the plebeians, at others bragging rights and expectations for many years down the line (which we all know are infallible, right?), and regardless--they rarely bear any real relation to what we're most interested in, and are still subject to individual interpretation even after real-world testing and performance starts.

Frankly, I think the saddest part are simply those who look to such statements for some real meaning in them--whether they want to use it positively or negatively.

 

[Conker Live]

Good find Wunderchu. My information was based off an article from EE Times.

I know when to admit I'm wrong.

Notice they say Real Time CG at 18000x PS1....well PS3 would be at 300,000x according to that chart.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

In other words: We all agree that they were bullshit marketing numbers. I can live with that.

 

[Conker Live]

Johnny pretty much said it. I just hope people don't fall into the hype trap again...just like all the hype for the PS2...look at the machine now. It's just a normal videogame machine but in 1999 Sony had people believeing that it would make them breakfast. PS3 is just another evolutionary step just like Xbox 2 and GameCube 2 will be.

And as for all the talk about Ray Tracing in that other tread...yeah, what ever. No chance of that happening until PlayStation 4, Xbox 3.

 

[cthellis42]

In other words: We all agree that they were bullshit marketing numbers. I can live with that.

I've said that from the beginning. I don't deny flatly that it's impossible for them to reach their stated objectives (whether we're talking terafloppiness in some calculation direction or "1000x a PS2" in another), but the overall picture has always been just what will it mean?