Sony delays PS3 to 2006, concentrates on PSP !?
- Thread starter chaphack
- Start date
1)If you arent the one that can see differences between SNES/GENNY/NEOGEO or PSX/SS/N64/3DFX or GF2/GF3/GF4 games, then you probably wouldnt notice the DC/PS2/GC/XB diff.
2)MotoGP wetstage or Quantum Redshift wetstage, try those games out. Dont forget to watch the textures and IQ too.
Those are 1st~2nd gen games i must say too.3)We havent played H2 yet. Even if it does not do STABLE 30fps, the amount of stuffs going there makes it the most technically impressive console game imo.
Paul said:
Talk about butchering...
my original reply:
"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."
Paul said:
That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that 5% ownership means squat. Who's to say that won't go multiplatform next gen? Regarding Square, I don't like turn based RPGs which they're arguably good at producing so whether or not they develop for GCN2 doesn't affect me one way or another. FFCC looks like something I would like to play though because it's not turn based and since it's already on GCN I'm happy.
chap:
I don't agree. As long as PS2 continues to impress with games such as MGS3 and Gran Turismo 4 which look absolutely stunning, I fail to see why you are so concerned about textures. Reminds me something rather funny: played Halo again this weekend - where's the IQ, textures and geometry that put PS2 to shame?
If it's so important to you, buy the blaze VGA adapter as most PS2 games store full framebuffers anyway. Or if you are just bringing this up to prove a point about of the technical performance of a system, then the knowledge of games using full-frame buffers should be enough to put that to shame also.
If they are beautiful, why are you still argueing then? Lets take SH3 for example: the texture detail is immense yet at the same time pushing impressive lightning, shadows and geometry. You are obviously still missing out on the fact that *if* SA2 would have that much geometry going on, that the texture detail would sink.
As long as a game is beautiful, quit your whinning about texutres. It's either beautiful or not.
Read no. 3. A game is either beautiful the way it is or not. As simple as that. MGS2 just like MGS3 are beautiful games and IMO surpass any other game I have seen this generation regardless of how little textures it is pushing. That is all that matters for me.
I don't agree. As long as PS2 continues to impress with games such as MGS3 and Gran Turismo 4 which look absolutely stunning, I fail to see why you are so concerned about textures. Reminds me something rather funny: played Halo again this weekend - where's the IQ, textures and geometry that put PS2 to shame?
If it's so important to you, buy the blaze VGA adapter as most PS2 games store full framebuffers anyway. Or if you are just bringing this up to prove a point about of the technical performance of a system, then the knowledge of games using full-frame buffers should be enough to put that to shame also.
If they are beautiful, why are you still argueing then? Lets take SH3 for example: the texture detail is immense yet at the same time pushing impressive lightning, shadows and geometry. You are obviously still missing out on the fact that *if* SA2 would have that much geometry going on, that the texture detail would sink.
As long as a game is beautiful, quit your whinning about texutres. It's either beautiful or not.
Read no. 3. A game is either beautiful the way it is or not. As simple as that. MGS2 just like MGS3 are beautiful games and IMO surpass any other game I have seen this generation regardless of how little textures it is pushing. That is all that matters for me.
because that *ahem* I... comment was meant for you and only you...
SERIOUSLY, ps folks, why is it that hard to understand what non-ps folks are saying? Why man why???? Why cant you accept the goodwill of us non ps folks, our good advicet of not playing along with Sony propoganda? Lets just take a step back and wait for things to really play out and when they do, and when they dont deliver, is it that hard to accept criticism??? lets give praise where praise is due and criticism where they derserved.
SERIOUSLY, ps folks, why is it that hard to understand what non-ps folks are saying? Why man why???? Why cant you accept the goodwill of us non ps folks, our good advicet of not playing along with Sony propoganda? Lets just take a step back and wait for things to really play out and when they do, and when they dont deliver, is it that hard to accept criticism??? lets give praise where praise is due and criticism where they derserved.
chap:
1.) Who said I don't see the difference?
2.) Played both and can't say I'm too impressed as far as realistic graphics goes. MotoGP looks nice though - still, seeing Gran Turismo 4 I believe it raises the bar again quite a bit. Also, neither game *destroys* PS2 games.
3.) Haven't played it, but I have seen various videos. IMO the game looks ugly once you get past the shiny reflections on the characters. I agree that it is impressive though thanks to the amount of things going on. On a side note; from what I have seen of Halo 2, textures are everything but impressive. Hopefully indoor stages will be more impressive in that regard. And technically impressive? IMO, I can't take any game serious that can't maintain a stable framerate most of the time. I'd much rather have a bit less impressive graphics and a Timesplitters framerate/precision then what is being delievered in Halo(1/2).
1.) Who said I don't see the difference?
2.) Played both and can't say I'm too impressed as far as realistic graphics goes. MotoGP looks nice though - still, seeing Gran Turismo 4 I believe it raises the bar again quite a bit. Also, neither game *destroys* PS2 games.
3.) Haven't played it, but I have seen various videos. IMO the game looks ugly once you get past the shiny reflections on the characters. I agree that it is impressive though thanks to the amount of things going on. On a side note; from what I have seen of Halo 2, textures are everything but impressive. Hopefully indoor stages will be more impressive in that regard. And technically impressive? IMO, I can't take any game serious that can't maintain a stable framerate most of the time. I'd much rather have a bit less impressive graphics and a Timesplitters framerate/precision then what is being delievered in Halo(1/2).
Phil
1)Because PS2, using CLUT of whatever does not do textures deservingly of high praise. The lack of nice filtering made things worse. Of course certain games do textures worthy of PS2 praise, but not where they should be, 18months after the DC. btw Halo2 >>> Halo1
2)Blaze adaptors i guess are just upscanned linedoublers, not the real deal. What is the point of having a full framebuffer when you cannot display them?
3)There is beautiful and there is beautiful. You have to look at what, where the beauty is. Where SA2 will be, we will not know, since DC is the older hardware. Going by the Naomi2 thread, i believe if that is the system Sega could release in 2000, i am pretty sure it can do the view limited SH3 easily. You get where i am going with this?
4)It is hardware bitching ya see! I am not disputing beautiful artwork just the PS2 hardware. It could, it should have been better.
1)Because PS2, using CLUT of whatever does not do textures deservingly of high praise. The lack of nice filtering made things worse. Of course certain games do textures worthy of PS2 praise, but not where they should be, 18months after the DC. btw Halo2 >>> Halo1
2)Blaze adaptors i guess are just upscanned linedoublers, not the real deal. What is the point of having a full framebuffer when you cannot display them?
3)There is beautiful and there is beautiful. You have to look at what, where the beauty is.
Where SA2 will be, we will not know, since DC is the older hardware. Going by the Naomi2 thread, i believe if that is the system Sega could release in 2000, i am pretty sure it can do the view limited SH3 easily. You get where i am going with this? 4)It is hardware bitching ya see!
I am not disputing beautiful artwork just the PS2 hardware. It could, it should have been better.Phil 2
1)In that case i cannot dispute anything, I just hope you can see the XB diff with the future releases, that pushes the hardware. Play on HDTV too.
2)Well they are doing what GT3 wet stage does, i thought that was the point? As for GT4, another guy at GA, who is close to the PD team, said the graphics difference will not be that bar and up. Ask marc. Though the NY track does looks nice, i can also the badass shimmering as well.
3)PLAY THE HALO 2 !!!!
I am off for now!
1)In that case i cannot dispute anything, I just hope you can see the XB diff with the future releases, that pushes the hardware. Play on HDTV too.
2)Well they are doing what GT3 wet stage does, i thought that was the point? As for GT4, another guy at GA, who is close to the PD team, said the graphics difference will not be that bar and up. Ask marc. Though the NY track does looks nice, i can also the badass shimmering as well.
3)PLAY THE HALO 2 !!!!
I am off for now!
oh chap, you're making an ass out of yourself here, can't you see that?
Just forget for a moment what image technics the console is using and look at the damn games. As long as the textures are *nice* who cares if it's CLUT or JPEG or anything really? Play the games and leave it at that.
Also, I dare to say - Xbox or GameCube are both not as much ahead as they should be. In fact, after seeing MGS3 and GT4, I would say the difference between PS2 and DC is larger than PS2 to Xbox.
Who cares how it does it? As long as you get a flicker free picture on your VGA monitor, what do you care?
This is not about Naomi 2. We already debated this. BTW; I tell you where SA2 would be: it would look worse because added geometry would require more textures. Get it?
Yes it is - and without the required knowledge, if I may add. I respect people who criticize when at least they know what they are speaking of. You however, even fail to see the simple fact that added geometry requires more textures. How can you argue with someone like that?
marconelly!
Veteran
I know some people here claim to have some kind of 'magical; GF2 cards that apparently perform 2x as good as mine, but on my config, SH2 was running pretty crappy, even at 640x resolution. Considering that SH3 is even more advanced, I dunno... I'd rather not try it on my PC. Same goes to MGS3, it runs like *total crap* on my config.
Panajev2001a said:
I disagree.
First off, lets look at the Power 4, it's not a particularly custom processor. It shows too, it's clock rate is rather sad for the pipeline length. Excluding the bug -- which doesn't exist in all I2s they've taken it out anyways-- Intel is throughly spanking IBM with it's I2 --clock rate vs pipeline length, even though it's on a far weaker process.
I really don't think they'll be able to have comparable clock rates. 4GHz, seems too generous, especially considering I don't think the necessary money is there to build such a CPU and manufacture it cheaply. Additionally IBM's process tech only starts comparing to Intel's once you spend huge amounts of money on it --per wafer cost goes through the roof. Just ask Transmeta. =)
I see the following from Intel alone:
- LARGE clock rate advantage.
- Enhanced ALUs and more of them
- Enhanced FP performance via SSEx
- More instructions per clock from the trace cache.
- Large and faster cache heirarcy
- Enhanced Hyper-Threading
- Possible Multi-core.
- Additionally light workload.
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Well... we do not know if Cell is receiving the same kind of automated design that was behind the POWER4.
I do not think we should assume this...
After all the reason behind that choice of IBM was to allow POWER4 and POWER4+ to beat Itanium 2 on the market ( McKinley and Madison ) and they managed it and the CPU still performs quite well...
Cell might be a different case...
As far as manufacturing processes are concerned Toshiba and SCE are going to be ready next year ( mid 2004 ) to mass manufacture 65 nm chips on 300 mm wafers.
This is the process that is going to be used for Sony's Cell chips...
Faster ALUs, yes I can give it to them due to clock-speed advantage and very good branch prediction...
More ALUs than Cell ? The Broadband Engine chip is expected to have something like 128 Integer Units and 128 FP Units.
SSE delivering enhanced performance... well they could start adding more than 8 XMM registers and maybe add FP MADD instructions and allow non destructive instructions ( ex: R1 = R2 * R4 + R5 instead of op1 = op 1 <arithm> op2... ).
Enhanced Hyper-Threading... that is nice ( trust me, I do believe it is a ncie addition as this way the IPC is effectively increased, better efficientcy is achieved ), but the Cell chip will use Multi-Threading as well...
Uhm... I thought you were talking about the enhancements of a 2005 IA-32 chip ( based of the Netburst architeture ) over the current Northwood...
Sorry I misunderstood it as a "vs Cell" kind of comparison...
I do not think we should assume this...
After all the reason behind that choice of IBM was to allow POWER4 and POWER4+ to beat Itanium 2 on the market ( McKinley and Madison ) and they managed it and the CPU still performs quite well...
Cell might be a different case...
As far as manufacturing processes are concerned Toshiba and SCE are going to be ready next year ( mid 2004 ) to mass manufacture 65 nm chips on 300 mm wafers.
This is the process that is going to be used for Sony's Cell chips...
Faster ALUs, yes I can give it to them due to clock-speed advantage and very good branch prediction...
More ALUs than Cell ? The Broadband Engine chip is expected to have something like 128 Integer Units and 128 FP Units.
SSE delivering enhanced performance... well they could start adding more than 8 XMM registers and maybe add FP MADD instructions and allow non destructive instructions ( ex: R1 = R2 * R4 + R5 instead of op1 = op 1 <arithm> op2... ).
Enhanced Hyper-Threading... that is nice ( trust me, I do believe it is a ncie addition as this way the IPC is effectively increased, better efficientcy is achieved ), but the Cell chip will use Multi-Threading as well...
Uhm... I thought you were talking about the enhancements of a 2005 IA-32 chip ( based of the Netburst architeture ) over the current Northwood...
Sorry I misunderstood it as a "vs Cell" kind of comparison...
When I said more ALUs, I meant more than they currently have in the Northwoods.
Actually, my post was confused now that I look back at it, at times it's future P whatever vs northwood and at times vs Cell.
Basically it breaks down into clock rate and process vs PS 3 Cell and enhancements vs Northwood.
Actually, my post was confused now that I look back at it, at times it's future P whatever vs northwood and at times vs Cell.
Basically it breaks down into clock rate and process vs PS 3 Cell and enhancements vs Northwood.
zidane1strife
Banned
Hmmm... well ifyou're arguing about higher rez... than yeah.... but if it's 640 rez IQ.... I really doubt that, the gforce line has always had the worst IQ in the pc gpu market... AFAIK
Phil 3
1) you are the one sounding like ass. dont you get it??? read the clut/vq/s3tc thread, you will noticed that what was put out mimicks my exact concerns with ps2 textures = limited texture sets, grainy lowres dithered look. i play the games and i noticed all that. xbox to ps2 is probably much better than ps2 to dc ever was. watch the new Xgames if you still cannot see the diff with first gen stuffs.
2)i care because it will not be as crystal sweet as real vga and it will have tearing during quick scenes.
3)no, why dont you get it? the way you are asking is equivalent of me asking, where would PS2 MGS2 be if we throw tons of sweet texturing and pixel effects at it at 480p? it will run like shit. get it? You are using the advantage of newer hardware over older hardware, unlike me trying to show that older stuffs from DC has not been matched by PS2.
4)and you fail to understand what i am trying to say alll along, that even with older stuffs from DC, that PS2 failed to overpowered. so how does that sound to ps2 folks who insisted that PS2 blew away everything DC? See where i am coming from?
The way you put it, as if Sony is justified at crapping the textures. They are not i tell. Balance is beautiful.
1) you are the one sounding like ass. dont you get it??? read the clut/vq/s3tc thread, you will noticed that what was put out mimicks my exact concerns with ps2 textures = limited texture sets, grainy lowres dithered look. i play the games and i noticed all that. xbox to ps2 is probably much better than ps2 to dc ever was. watch the new Xgames if you still cannot see the diff with first gen stuffs.
2)i care because it will not be as crystal sweet as real vga and it will have tearing during quick scenes.
3)no, why dont you get it? the way you are asking is equivalent of me asking, where would PS2 MGS2 be if we throw tons of sweet texturing and pixel effects at it at 480p? it will run like shit. get it? You are using the advantage of newer hardware over older hardware, unlike me trying to show that older stuffs from DC has not been matched by PS2.
4)and you fail to understand what i am trying to say alll along, that even with older stuffs from DC, that PS2 failed to overpowered. so how does that sound to ps2 folks who insisted that PS2 blew away everything DC? See where i am coming from?
By improving on the quality of the textures, like what Xbox and GC did?
The way you put it, as if Sony is justified at crapping the textures. They are not i tell. Balance is beautiful.
No, but we are allowed to discuss about upcoming technology in a civilized and enthusiastic manner.chaphack said:yes and instead we should always wank off with the lastest vague sony's propaganda, ya right?
You can do that too, just start a new therad for your preferred subject, and adhere to that subject.
I suggest you try that, create a thread about your favorite console, do not even mention your most hated console(s) there, talk absolutely only about that subject.
It would be interesting to see the direction where that thread would go.
There's no need to go in pointless textures schmextures debates rebates, and always bring out your obviously biased views. Those established arguments you are constantly using (blurry textures, shimmering, jaggies...) bring absolutely nothing new or constructive to these discussions.
Please, chappy happy, do not spoil or interrupt other peoples' conversations. I'm sure your mother has taught you better manners than what you're presenting here.