Sony delays PS3 to 2006, concentrates on PSP !?

[Paul]

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

There are a handfull of games that have better textures than DC's best games.

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?

Are you retarded or what? Those pictures I showed you ARE RC2. And they have better textures than SA2, which isn't impressive in the first place.

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.....

And who says ps3 has to surpass those super computers to be powerfull?

FLOPS=POWER chap, you don't see these super computers relying on MHZ rather than FLOPS do you? Everyone measures super computer power based on FLOPS.

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??

Ps2 blows away a GF2 spec wise, and texture wise. Let's see a GF2 do SH3's cutscenes in real time at 60fps? With all those detailed textures.

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

Well if a game looks better, it obviously HAS TO HAVE the better textures on those polygons right? You just proved yourself wrong.

 

[Phil]

chap:

why are you ignoring what is being said?

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?

Forget R&C: taking J&D and your arguement ends right there. Even if the textures are about on the same level, you are still missing out on the fact that all the games that are being listed have way more geometry around. In case you still haven't noticed: as geometry increases, so does texture demands. It is easier to make a game look good using less polygons. In turn, how good do you think SA2 would look once it would push about half as much geometry as J&D does?

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??

And guess what: A GF2 has better IQ than all consoles out on the market today. What's your point?

 

[PC-Engine]

R&C2 looks like it's gourad shaded from those pictures

 

[Paul]

And what about my 1 liner that SONY owns less than 5% of Square now? Where's your answer to that???

Here it is, it's still an influence. Who is square going to turn too first when making a game, the company which actually owns a part of them, or some company which doesnt.

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

Everyone will be moving eventually, and no other company has shown as much interest as Sony and Toshiba. If Cell won't be 1tflops as you claim than there would be no reason not to have cell on 90 nm at first, THAN moving down later correct?

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?

Cell is SCALIABLE. Meaning you can alter it's power depending on the device it needs to be in, but Kutagari and others have said that cell will be 1tflops in power. Meaning, 1tflops is the base power, it can get scaled down from that.

 

[chaphack]

There are a handfull of games that have better textures than DC's best games.

SA2 60fps 480p full 3D. I am waiting.

Are you retarded or what? Those pictures I showed you ARE RC2. And they have better textures than SA2, which isn't impressive in the first place.

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! I am sure even the hardest PS2 fanboys will NEVER have said RC textures > SA textures, oh wait....
why dont you ask the nicer PS2 fans like Marc or Pana about this. they are smart and sane enough for you to believe.

And who says ps3 has to surpass those super computers to be powerfull?

40gflops -> 1tflops is not surpassing, i am not sure what is...

FLOPS=POWER chap, you don't see these super computers relying on MHZ rather than FLOPS do you? Everyone measures super computer power based on FLOPS.

if ps3 does 1tflops comparable ratings to those supercomputers...hmmm.
why dont you wait till the full Ps3 specs is out before assuming anything? you will look less like an idiot then.

Let's see a GF2 do SH3's cutscenes in real time at 60fps? With all those detailed textures.

SH3 cutscenes ARE NOT 60fps. They are just limited view cutscenes and they do not look as good as you think. Play UT with the highres textures pack at 640x480, with your GF, and they will kill SH3, ingame or cutscenes, texturelly!

Well if a game looks better, it obviously HAS TO HAVE the better textures on those polygons right?

firstly NO. MGS2 has crap for textures, yet it makes up with the animations and effects.
secondly, what looks better? RC over SA? VERY DEBATABLE! I rather take the balanced SA over polyugly RC. Hell, i rather take JD over RC1.

 

[PC-Engine]

Here it is, it's still an influence. Who is square going to turn too first when making a game, the company which actually owns a part of them, or some company which doesnt.

No it isn't an influence and Square has said they'll develop on whatever platform they choose and that was BEFORE the merger.

Everyone will be moving eventually, and no other company has shown as much interest as Sony and Toshiba. If Cell won't be 1tflops as you claim than there would be no reason not to have cell on 90 nm at first, THAN moving down later correct?

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

Cell is SCALIABLE. Meaning you can alter it's power depending on the device it needs to be in, but Kutagari and others have said that cell will be 1tflops in power. Meaning, 1tflops is the base power, it can get scaled down from that.

...and that is exactly my point. If they can't reach the 1 TFLOPS goal then they'll scale it down and if they scale it down then PS3 won't be pushing 1 TFLOPS.

 

[chaphack]

chap:

why are you ignoring what is being said?

Forget R&C: taking J&D and your arguement ends right there. Even if the textures are about on the same level, you are still missing out on the fact that all the games that are being listed have way more geometry around. In case you still haven't noticed: as geometry increases, so does texture demands. It is easier to make a game look good using less polygons. In turn, how good do you think SA2 would look once it would push about half as much geometry as J&D does?

what am i ignoring? i think you guys are the ones ignoring.

i am simply looking for a 3D PS2 game, geometry limited or unlimited, that does SA2 textures at 480p 60fps. There is NONE. period.

NO ONE is disputing the fact that PS2 does TnL much better than DC, but why cant you PS2 advocates admit PS2 texturing weakness? Did you read that CLUT vs VQ topic, it further adds to bad PS2 texturing.

Now when you bring Xbox and GC in, with games like Halo2 Fable RS, that destroy PS2 in both geometry and textures and IQ. You see, PS2, even for its time, does NOT overcome DC completely, unlike Xbox and GC over PS2. Did i shatter your beliefs?

Geddit????

 

[Paul]

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! I am sure even the hardest PS2 fanboys will NEVER have said RC textures > SA textures, oh wait....
why dont you ask the nicer PS2 fans like Marc or Pana about this. they are smart and sane enough for you to believe.

Why do you continue to say RC? IT'S RC2 GET IT RIGHT. Look at the screenshots, they are better than SA2, better yet look at the gameplay movie. I have PLAYED SA, it's nothing spectacular graphics wise.

40gflops -> 1tflops is not surpassing, i am not sure what is...

So your telling me than 1tflops isnt powerfull? Give me a break, get out of here.

why dont you wait till the full Ps3 specs is out before assuming anything? you will look less like an idiot then.

So your basicly calling pana and any logical person here an idiot too, there is enough proof to conclude that ps3 will be capable of 1tflops. Open your eyes for starters, and go look at those huge PS3 topics pages back.

firstly NO. MGS2 has crap for textures, yet it makes up with the animations and effects.

Than it doesn't look better does it? Animations don't have anything to do with the quality of the image on screen, effects is debatable. MGS2's textures crap? They are incredibly high res and great, go play the actuall game some time.

RC over SA? VERY DEBATABLE!

So basicly you call me an idiot for saying RC2 has better graphics than SA, and then you are debating it? Make up your mind kid.

 

[chaphack]

And guess what: A GF2 has better IQ than all consoles out on the market today. What's your point?

my point? a simple reply to Paul's "blew everything else" statement.

 

[Paul]

No it isn't an influence and Square has said they'll develop on whatever platform they choose and that was BEFORE the merger.

But yet they have continued to develop first for Sony systems.

 

[megadrive0088]

alright first off. 1 TFlops is NOT a marketing word at all. its a math performance figure used by the entire computing world. something like say, 'Emotion Synthesis' which Sony touted around in the early PS2 days, that is a marketing word.

I have no trouble believing Sony will hit 1 Tflops with PS3. that is the barest of the bare minimums that would even start to be impressive to me. I was hoping for several teraflops. Sony had said that Cell would be in the teraflops range of performance. I was hoping for 5-12 Tflops. with perhaps 2-3 sustained tflops. that would be the most obvious way Sony could have claimed 1000x PS2 performance. now that would have been 1000x PS2 in raw performance.

however PS3 is likely to only have maybe 200~300x the raw performance of PS2. more like 1-2 Tflops. the rest will come from hugely increased efficiency because of all the embedded memory and caches, massively increased interger performance (PS2 was weak in that regard) rasterising features of the GS3/Visualizer, etc.

So bottem line, 1 Tflops is not something to argue about as far as it being a marketing thing. unless Sony badly messes up Cell (which would also reflect on IBM and Toshiba) its not worth guessing at this point if PS3's Cell configuration will hit 1 Tflops, just as its not worth wondering if PS2's EE can hit 1 Gflops.

 

[Paul]

my point? a simple reply to Paul's "blew everything else" statement.

Let's see a GF2 do SH3.

 

[Phil]

what am i ignoring? i think you guys are the ones ignoring.

i am simply looking for a 3D PS2 game, geometry limited or unlimited, that does SA2 textures at 480p 60fps. There is NONE. period.

NO ONE is disputing the fact that PS2 does TnL much better than DC, but why cant you PS2 advocates admit PS2 texturing weakness? Did you read that CLUT vs VQ topic, it further adds to bad PS2 texturing.

Now when you bring Xbox and GC in, with games like Halo2 Fable RS, that destroy PS2 in both geometry and textures and IQ. You see, PS2, even for its time, does NOT overcome DC completely, unlike Xbox and GC over PS2. Did i shatter your beliefs?

Geddit????

You are ignoring the fact that texture demands increase as geometry does. And you are somewhat limiting the outcome of your arguement by wanting 480p, as most games are ment to be run on an interlaced TV set (PS2). You can dish all you want about textures, but as long there are games with high quality textures such as Silent Hill 3 or *beautiful* games such as Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3, I don't know why I should admit anything.

Metal Gear Solid 2 puts any game on DC to shame, regardless of the amount of geometry or textures it is pushing or lacking. What do you care which is pushing more vibrant textures?

Now when you bring Xbox and GC in, with games like Halo2 Fable RS, that destroy PS2 in both geometry and textures and IQ. You see, PS2, even for its time, does NOT overcome DC completely, unlike Xbox and GC over PS2. Did i shatter your beliefs?

Actually I very much argue that. Neither Xbox or GameCube have games that 'destroy' PS2 in either geometry or textures or IQ. Sorry, but just as you like to bring up your SA2 comparasment - show me a game on Xbox that looks and plays as realistic as GT3/concept wet-stage (and please leave out the 30 fps games). Halo or Halo 2 can't even sustain a DECENT 30 fps framerate, so what's your point about SA2 textures with 480p etc? I'm not going to bash Xbox games because admittedly, some of them do look impressive. None of those games "destroy" PS2 games in that regard though. The fact that you are raving on about how DC beats PS2 in image quality and textures - makes it even more laughable that you think Xbox and GameCube "destroy" PS2.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

my point? a simple reply to Paul's "blew everything else" statement.

Let's see a GF2 do SH3.

It's probably doable at 640 x 480 @ 30FPS.

 

[PC-Engine]

But yet they have continued to develop first for Sony systems.

So has some other non SONY owned developers...your point?

BTW Megadrive, 1 TFLOPS can be used as a marketing tool and until you have a working chip let alone a product that proves otherwise, it's hype.

 

[chaphack]

Look at the screenshots, they are better than SA2, better yet look at the gameplay movie. I have PLAYED SA, it's nothing spectacular graphics wise.

please start another poll topic about SA1/2 textures vs RC1/2 textures, i dare you.

o your telling me than 1tflops isnt powerfull? Give me a break, get out of here.

why should i get out of here? i think this board does not need delusional folks like you.

PLEASE GET THIS INTO YOUR MIND --------> NO ONE IS SAYING 1TFLOPS IS NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH, BUT WHETHER PS3 REALLY DOES HAVE THAT 1TFLOPS RATING THAT IS IN SYNC WITH THOSE "SUPERCOMPUTERS", and not Sony's own ratings, AND WHERE DOES THOSE 1TFLOPS REALLY GO INTO MAKING BEAUTIFUL GAMES

They are incredibly high res and great, go play the actuall game some time.

you.got.to.be.joking.

So your basicly calling pana and any logical person here an idiot too

in all honesty and in all the time i have been here, i hate to sound rude, but i have to give that title to you.
pana and the rest are much more logical and coolheaded about things and they definitely will not claim RC textures over SA.

and then you are debating it? Make up your mind kid.

because RC is throwing more polygons around than SA, while SA does much better textures.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Saem,

I think we cannot judge things on the EE clockspeed... Sony's manufacturing abilities ( and the fact that IBM and Toshiba are both involved in the actual design of the chips ) are looking to be much better than what they were in 1999...

5.6 GHz Tejas and a ~4 GHz Cell processor ( Broadband Engine ) could be possible in late 2005.

 

[Paul]

If square continues to develop for Sony systems they will continue to do so in the future. Sorry, but I don't see Square dropping their bags and running to Nintendo anytime soon as you want happening, nor do I see them going to MS and develop games just about exclusivly. Especially since sony owns a part of them and they have a great relationship.

 

[Gubbi]

So basically you are saying that Intel in 2 years could take an IA-64 chip ( what Madison, Merced ??? Well the ex-Alpha guys are already at work on another brand new IA-64 core... who would work at this super IA-64 chip you are talking about ? ) and do what it took IBM something like 7-8 years ? ( Cell base ideas started a long while ago in IBM labs ) including a new OS and programming languages supporting it ?

Yes they could. P2 -> P3 was such a transitition. Power 4 ->PPC 970 was another. Just under a year.

IA64 is probably not the most obvious, because of die size and power consumption.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[chaphack]

You are ignoring the fact that texture demands increase as geometry does. And you are somewhat limiting the outcome of your arguement by wanting 480p, as most games are ment to be run on an interlaced TV set (PS2). You can dish all you want about textures, but as long there are games with high quality textures such as Silent Hill 3 or *beautiful* games such as Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3, I don't know why I should admit anything.

Metal Gear Solid 2 puts any game on DC to shame, regardless of the amount of geometry or textures it is pushing or lacking. What do you care which is pushing more vibrant textures?

1)Sony should have done better to have better textures to go with the improved TnL of PS2, but they didnt. Bad design, lack of balance. period.

2)480p is as much of a feature as dishing out, say more geometry. period.

3)Beautiful they might be, but you cannot admit PS2 texturing has not improved over what Sega gave us 18months ago. period.

4)If we dont care about vibrant textures, why do we have to care about zillions of polygons or tons of pixel shadings. While i know great hardware alone dont make beautiful games, but since we are on hardware smartware, why should we leave out the ability to make beautiful textures?