Sony delays PS3 to 2006, concentrates on PSP !?

[chaphack]

bringing up R&C in a texture arguement = point invalid!

You still havent showed me games that can best those PS2 games graphicly.

why should i? in case you still dont get it, i am just saying DC bettered the PS2 in textures and IQ, nothing else. but since you dont buy that, YOU have to show me a PS2 game that counters SA textures.

It blew the tar out of everything avaliable spec wise, and everything avaliable for some time.

A GF2 will kill the PS2 in textures and IQ.

And what did you say? This is what you said.

yes that is what i said. why dont you geddit??? DC is better at textures and IQ than PS2. can you prove me wrong? didnt we have a recent CLUT vs VQ thread?

TFLOPS a marketing word? LMAO, so I guess all those 40+TFLOPS super computers are really just a joke then? Please..

It is a marketing word because that what IT IS. we shall see how 1 tflops translate to ultrasweet uncatchable gfx, we shall see!!

 

[Saem]

Then that means Xbox2's clock speed would be around 6-8Ghz..

Call me a pesimist, but I don't think Cell will hit 3-4GHz.

 

[chaphack]

Intel roadmap indicates a 8-9Ghz cpu by 2005.

 

[zidane1strife]

Call me a pesimist, but I don't think Cell will hit 3-4GHz.

Well, somewhere I read intel thought 30Ghz would be possible at 65nm.... with the toshiba tech for making integrated ram easy and simpler, and the top manufacturing from 3 companies... cell could be quite a speedy gonzales if you know what I mean

 

[Vince]

Intel roadmap indicates a 8-9Ghz cpu by 2005.

Prescott will hit ~5Ghz by 2005. Everything else, AFAIK, is rumors and unsubstantiated by public Intel statements. Even the rumors surrounding Tejas state that by early 2005 it will be at 5.6Ghz.

 

[chaphack]

well it is true Intel speakth no official words on future speed. though the claimed leaked roadmap indicates Intel is aiming for the double digits Ghz range(Nalpham or someting) by 2005/6. we will never know till then.

 

[MfA]

They are also aiming for tripple digit Wattage.

 

[PC-Engine]

TFLOPS a marketing word? LMAO, so I guess all those 40+TFLOPS super computers are really just a joke then? Please..

Huh? The world's fastest supercomputer does 35 TFLOPS sustained 40 TFLOPS peak and there is only one in the whole world.

Again there's no proof that the version of CELL in PS3 will be capable of 1 TFLOPS.

Simply adding SIMD units will give you a giant chip ( expensive )

Says who? NEC has one running right now. It has 128 SIMD units bolted to a 16-bit controller made using 0.18u. Moving it to sub 0.1u will make it hella cheap. It's low voltage/wattage right now and can even be used in a PDA as a matter of fact. Intel can basically take a 286 and bolt on a bunch of SIMD units like NEC did.

Isn't that more or less what SCE did with the Emotion Engine though? Take an off-the-shelf MIPS design and tack 2 uber-vector-engines onto it?

Yes

Indeed, at 65nm the h/w could run significantly faster than what many have thought. I doubt it will be limited to 1Tflops, I'd say 3+Tflops or beyond is very likely...

I would call that speculation not proof.

 

[megadrive0088]

Panajev do you think the eDRAM used in Broadband Engine/EE3 and/or
Visualizer/GS3 might be 1TSRAM? (next gen 1TSRAM)

would that not massively help to improve PS3's efficiency, bringing its realworld/in-game performance closer to its paper/theoretical/claimed specs?

if its possible to put 64MB of embedded memory in the CPU, could it be all 1T-SRAM or some other SRAM-like memory like 1T-SRAM. we all know why Gamecube is so efficient with its modest performance figures. its the low latency 1TSRAM. Sony followed Nintendo a generation later by adopting Rambus DRAM in PS2 that Nintendo had used in N64 the generation before. Now, Sony has licenced the MoSys 1TSRAM that Nintendo used in Flipper. perhaps Sony will use it in PS3. (while Ninty goes on to use some even more advanced, just emerging memory technology in GC2 but thats another thread).

I forget if 1TSRAM takes up more transistors than regular eDRAM. i think it does. but wait, the NEW 1TSRAM is ment to take up less space. dont know about transistors though.

what about the GS3/Visualizer using the new 1TSRAM stuff? 32MB of that would be pretty sweet. but I was thinking more of the CPU this time.

 

[zurich]

Panajev do you think the eDRAM used in Broadband Engine/EE3 and/or
Visualizer/GS3 might be 1TSRAM? (next gen 1TSRAM)

would that not massively help to improve PS3's efficiency, bringing its realworld/in-game performance closer to its paper/theoretical/claimed specs?

if its possible to put 64MB of embedded memory in the CPU, could it be all 1T-SRAM or some other SRAM-like memory like 1T-SRAM. we all know why Gamecube is so efficient with its modest performance figures. its the low latency 1TSRAM. Sony followed Nintendo a generation later by adopting Rambus DRAM in PS2 that Nintendo had used in N64 the generation before. Now, Sony has licenced the MoSys 1TSRAM that Nintendo used in Flipper. perhaps Sony will use it in PS3. (while Ninty goes on to use some even more advanced, just emerging memory technology in GC2 but thats another thread).

I forget if 1TSRAM takes up more transistors than regular eDRAM. i think it does. but wait, the NEW 1TSRAM is ment to take up less space. dont know about transistors though.

what about the GS3/Visualizer using the new 1TSRAM stuff? 32MB of that would be pretty sweet. but I was thinking more of the CPU this time.

Cost/licensing issues?

 

[chaphack]

Tad OT:

Kojima: It's not really like working with Nintendo, it is like working directly with Mr. Miyamoto so I ask myself, "Do I deserve this? Am I allowed to do this?" It's really a test for myself. We're different creators and we will have different opinions, so we will have our ideas clash against each other. Will I be able to persuade Mr. Miyamoto, or will I be able to accept his comments? Mr. Miyamoto is the man I respect the most.

If PS3 is delayed too long, maybe Kojima might considering jumping to Miyamoto's bandwagon?

 

[Paul]

why should i? in case you still dont get it, i am just saying DC bettered the PS2 in textures and IQ, nothing else. but since you dont buy that, YOU have to show me a PS2 game that counters SA textures.

Nope, YOU SAY that DC destroys PS2 in textures, and I show you a few games that DC cannot come close to doing. As well as the sequal to rachet and clank which blows away SA in textures.

A GF2 will kill the PS2 in textures and IQ.

Too bad a GF2 couldn't come close to rasterizing SH3 huh? Or MGS2, or GT3. It doesn't have the polygon performance.

yes that is what i said. why dont you geddit??? DC is better at textures and IQ than PS2. can you prove me wrong? didnt we have a recent CLUT vs VQ thread?

And until I see a DC rendering SH3 that's wrong. Top PS2 games blow DC games away in ALL WAYS.

It is a marketing word because that what IT IS. we shall see how 1 tflops translate to ultrasweet uncatchable gfx, we shall see!!

Mhz is a marketing word, not FLOPS. You still havent answeared my question, are those huge 40+TFLOPS super computers a joke than? If FLOPS mean nothing.

Huh? The world's fastest supercomputer does 35 TFLOPS sustained 40 TFLOPS peak and there is only one in the whole world.

And this relates to FLOPS not being a marketing word how?

Again there's no proof that the version of CELL in PS3 will be capable of 1 TFLOPS.

Hmm let's see, you have the Patent and the direct reference to PS3 right in the patent. And is it a coincidence that the example that has the 4 pixel engines and all the references to a game console is capable of 1tflops?

And how about the whole ps3 being 1000X over ps2, it's not going to happen with anything less than 1tflops.

 

[PC-Engine]

And this relates to FLOPS not being a marketing word how?

Maybe because the Earth Simulator has been proven and CELL has not?

Hmm let's see, you have the Patent and the direct reference to PS3 right in the patent. And is it a coincidence that the example that has the 4 pixel engines and all the references to a game console is capable of 1tflops?

And how about the whole ps3 being 1000X over ps2, it's not going to happen with anything less than 1tflops.

The patent describes a general configuration with the goal of reaching 1 TFLOPS. There is no mention of PS3 using that configuration. You think CELL being used in other SONY devices will have 1 TFLOPS performance??? Stop dreaming man...

 

[Paul]

Maybe because the Earth Simulator has been proven and CELL has not?

So basicly, if both Cell and earth simulator were 1TFLOPS. Your saying that Cell would be shit and ES would be a god? That's the gist of what your saying.

The patent describes a general configuration with the goal of reaching 1 TFLOPS. There is no mention of PS3 using that configuration. You think CELL being used in other SONY devices will have 1 TFLOPS performance??? Stop dreaming man...

Yea, with 4 pixel engines, and then you have the infamous picture diagram, and then you have the direct reference to PS3 right in the patent.. This isn't what I would call a "general design" It's pretty damn exact.

Sony has said again and again that Cell will be 1tflops in performance, on numerous occasions.

 

[PC-Engine]

So basicly, if both Cell and earth simulator were 1TFLOPS. Your saying that Cell would be shit and ES would be a god? That's the gist of what your saying.

Huh??? CELL being capable of 1 TFLOPS is marketing HYPE at this point. It hasn't been proven. E.S. has been proven that it can sustain 35 TFLOPS so it's not marketing HYPE.

Yea, with 4 pixel engines, and then you have the infamous picture diagram, and then you have the direct reference to PS3 right in the patent.. This isn't what I would call a "general design" It's pretty damn exact.

Sony has said again and again that Cell will be 1tflops in performance, on numerous occasions.

Please come back to earth or take off them goggles or both...

 

[Paul]

bringing up R&C in a texture arguement = point invalid!

I just saw this one.

How is bringing R&C2 into this invalid? You said show me a game that had better textures than SA. I did, case closed you lose.

 

[Paul]

Huh??? CELL being capable of 1 TFLOPS is marketing HYPE at this point. It hasn't been proven. E.S. has been proven that it can sustain 35 TFLOPS so it's not marketing HYPE.

So I take it Sony IBM and Toshiba are lying? And then they write up a detailed patent to lie further?

If cell WILL NOT be capable of 1tflops at the end, then WHY are they putting it on 65 nm and then going to rush and get it down to 45? How powerfull can this thing be that it needs such a small micron process?

Please come back to earth or take off them goggles or both...

And there we go again with the infamous one liners. You can't prove my points wrong so you give some retarded little one liner with an emocation at the end, pathedic.

 

[chaphack]

Nope, YOU SAY that DC destroys PS2 in textures,

That is what i said!

and I show you a few games that DC cannot come close to doing

And none of those can prove me wrong about textures! does your brain registered what i am trying to say?

As well as the sequal to rachet and clank which blows away SA in textures.

oh god...unless RC2 has magically tapped into the amazing hidden emotion powers, it will NEVER come close to SA2. Have you even play RC1?

Too bad a GF2 couldn't come close to rasterizing SH3 huh? Or MGS2, or GT3. It doesn't have the polygon performance.

oh boyee....am i hitting against a wall??? GF2, with its better textures and IQ, proves that PS2 does not blow away everything specs wise...do you know what i am speaking here? do you even know what you have speakth??

You still havent answeared my question, are those huge 40+TFLOPS super computers a joke than? If FLOPS mean nothing.

sigh...when there is full evidence that ps3 will reach and surpass those "super computers" and when we see anything beneficial of 1tflops....until then it is all speculation, hype, sony's brainwashing at its finest.....

 

[chaphack]

bringing up R&C in a texture arguement = point invalid!

I just saw this one.

How is bringing R&C2 into this invalid? You said show me a game that had better textures than SA. I did, case closed you lose.

i repeat, HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED RC1???

oh pleasaaaa, someone, someone more "believeable" than good ol chap, someone who has played RC1, tell Mr Paul that RC1 textures are leagues behind SA1/2. please wake him up from his delusions.

 

[PC-Engine]

Huh??? CELL being capable of 1 TFLOPS is marketing HYPE at this point. It hasn't been proven. E.S. has been proven that it can sustain 35 TFLOPS so it's not marketing HYPE.

So I take it Sony IBM and Toshiba are lying? And then they write up a detailed patent to lie further?

If cell WILL NOT be capable of 1tflops at the end, then WHY are they putting it on 65 nm and then going to rush and get it down to 45? How powerfull can this thing be that it needs such a small micron process?

Please come back to earth or take off them goggles or both...

And there we go again with the infamous one liners. You can't prove my points wrong so you give some retarded little one liner with an emocation at the end, pathedic.

Dude your logic is beautiful. Everyone will be moving to 65 nm. That doesn't mean everything made using that process will be pushing 1 TFLOPS. Smaller processes means cheaper to manufacter


And what about my 1 liner that SONY owns less than 5% of Square now? Where's your answer to that??? Seems like you don't have answers to 1 liners that's why you're so afraid of them.

BTW SONY has also said they want to use CELL in other devices. How many TFLOPS do you think those CELL chips will be pushing?