Sony Tomorrow: Synergy in the Livingroom
- Thread starter Vince
- Start date
The problem, oh wise "chap", is that you back your arguement with defunct or baseless points. What London-Boy has been trying to tell you is that you continue to recite points that have been shot down previously whlie you conveniently neglected to note them and continued on posting the same drivel.
Why does the PS2 upset you so much?
Does the Xbox honestly offer 3x the graphics power of any other console? And does it pump out 125 million polygons at any time in game? Microsoft is not innocent to creating misconceptions either (which seemingly is embodied entirely with you).
You play with a double-edged sword.
Why does the PS2 upset you so much?
Does the Xbox honestly offer 3x the graphics power of any other console? And does it pump out 125 million polygons at any time in game? Microsoft is not innocent to creating misconceptions either (which seemingly is embodied entirely with you).
You play with a double-edged sword.
LogisticX:
Besides "3x the graphics power" being an unqualified term, how can people consider this generation's graphics a 100+ times increase over last as well as the possibility that next generation will be 1000 fold over the current one and yet not allow for Xbox being at least 3x "more powerful" than PS2?
A lot of people have already conceded that power increases are not just the gap between geometry capabilities or the gap between floating point potential, and that things like textures and strong support for IQ algorithms help make up the difference. That being so, even if the Xbox can't quite do 3 times the max geometry performance of PS2, doesn't its improvements to effects, IQ, textures, etc. count for something that could cover the difference?
I mean, if Xbox isn't even "3x" the PS2 with all of its advantages, you're really setting the bar high for a PS3 that's aiming for 1000x that of PS2.
I've never understood this.
Besides "3x the graphics power" being an unqualified term, how can people consider this generation's graphics a 100+ times increase over last as well as the possibility that next generation will be 1000 fold over the current one and yet not allow for Xbox being at least 3x "more powerful" than PS2?
A lot of people have already conceded that power increases are not just the gap between geometry capabilities or the gap between floating point potential, and that things like textures and strong support for IQ algorithms help make up the difference. That being so, even if the Xbox can't quite do 3 times the max geometry performance of PS2, doesn't its improvements to effects, IQ, textures, etc. count for something that could cover the difference?
I mean, if Xbox isn't even "3x" the PS2 with all of its advantages, you're really setting the bar high for a PS3 that's aiming for 1000x that of PS2.
I have to agree with Lazy8s. The PS3 hype is plain stupidity, driven by the irrational worship of those who hang on every word of PS3 future-specs.
The Pentium 4 was going to be "twice as fast as Pentium 3", and its "NetBurst" architecture would magically speed up your modem. When it was first released at 1.5 GHz, it barely outperformed the 1 GHz P3, and was slower in several benchmarks.
Before its release, the GeForce3 was said to be "7x the power of a GeForce2Ultra". Upon release, it actually got LOWER framerates than GF2U on many games due to immature drivers.
The Xbox has been quoted as "3x the power of a PS2". So how come Splinter Cell runs reasonably well on both consoles?
AGP8x was supposed to "double the speed" of AGP4x. But you can't even notice the difference between AGP4x GeForce4ti4200 and AGP8x GF4ti4200.
Yet, with PS3, we have something altogether different. The PS3 does not even dabble in puny numbers like "twice or 3x as powerful". Instead, it gives grand overarching claims of "1000x" and "several Teraflops". These grandiose claims aren't even in the same league as Intel and nVidia's lies. They are in a different league altogether.
"1000x" is far greater of a boast than Bitboys claiming a 10x increase in their videocard performance.
"1000x" is much bigger than the revolutionary claims that Transmeta made before launching their (very slow) Crusoe.
The only technologies I can think of which made such extreme claims as a 1000x performance leap... are much less reputable than the above. "Cold Fusion" - infinite amounts of power derived cleanly from water! "Ginger" - the magical vehicle that would replace the car, transform human society, and have a bigger impact on modern life than the airplane and the computer combined! The claims that Sony makes about the PS3 are so excessive, so insanely overdone, that they are simply totally dissociated from reality.
Of course, Sony's PS3 is going to be much more successful than Dean Kamen and his Segway. The PS3 is going to be a great piece of technology, and will compete easily with the Xbox2 and NGC2. However, it is simply ludicrous to believe that the PS3 will be so world-changingly wondrous. No hardware ever lives up to its pre-launch hype, but when the hype is as big as "1000x improved"... it's simply ridiculous.
PS3 hype really gets on my nerves.
The Pentium 4 was going to be "twice as fast as Pentium 3", and its "NetBurst" architecture would magically speed up your modem. When it was first released at 1.5 GHz, it barely outperformed the 1 GHz P3, and was slower in several benchmarks.
Before its release, the GeForce3 was said to be "7x the power of a GeForce2Ultra". Upon release, it actually got LOWER framerates than GF2U on many games due to immature drivers.
The Xbox has been quoted as "3x the power of a PS2". So how come Splinter Cell runs reasonably well on both consoles?
AGP8x was supposed to "double the speed" of AGP4x. But you can't even notice the difference between AGP4x GeForce4ti4200 and AGP8x GF4ti4200.
Yet, with PS3, we have something altogether different. The PS3 does not even dabble in puny numbers like "twice or 3x as powerful". Instead, it gives grand overarching claims of "1000x" and "several Teraflops". These grandiose claims aren't even in the same league as Intel and nVidia's lies. They are in a different league altogether.
"1000x" is far greater of a boast than Bitboys claiming a 10x increase in their videocard performance.
"1000x" is much bigger than the revolutionary claims that Transmeta made before launching their (very slow) Crusoe.
The only technologies I can think of which made such extreme claims as a 1000x performance leap... are much less reputable than the above. "Cold Fusion" - infinite amounts of power derived cleanly from water! "Ginger" - the magical vehicle that would replace the car, transform human society, and have a bigger impact on modern life than the airplane and the computer combined! The claims that Sony makes about the PS3 are so excessive, so insanely overdone, that they are simply totally dissociated from reality.
Of course, Sony's PS3 is going to be much more successful than Dean Kamen and his Segway. The PS3 is going to be a great piece of technology, and will compete easily with the Xbox2 and NGC2. However, it is simply ludicrous to believe that the PS3 will be so world-changingly wondrous. No hardware ever lives up to its pre-launch hype, but when the hype is as big as "1000x improved"... it's simply ridiculous.
PS3 hype really gets on my nerves.
"Instead, it gives grand overarching claims of "1000x" and "several Teraflops"."
Now your just exaggerating the fact, it's not 'several teraflops' it's just one. Ps3's processor will be able to do 1Tflop as illustrated in the Patent. Are you under some kind of delusion that 1tflop of power isn't powerfull?
"The PS3 is going to be a great piece of technology, and will compete easily with the Xbox2 and NGC2."
Why just compete? I think it will beat them all graphicly, especially since they will all be released at the same time.
We may not even see an Xbox2, since Msoft is losing more and more money each day on it.
Now your just exaggerating the fact, it's not 'several teraflops' it's just one. Ps3's processor will be able to do 1Tflop as illustrated in the Patent. Are you under some kind of delusion that 1tflop of power isn't powerfull?
"The PS3 is going to be a great piece of technology, and will compete easily with the Xbox2 and NGC2."
Why just compete? I think it will beat them all graphicly, especially since they will all be released at the same time.
We may not even see an Xbox2, since Msoft is losing more and more money each day on it.
Perhaps you should reconsider browsing the internet then... 'Hype' is simply the product group discussion and speculation. If some people are interested or enthusiastic about an upcoming product there's little you can do unless you want to censor all communications... Naturally you're going to have f@nboys and such who can turn a discussion into a flame fest, but can't blame the product for that. Besides, doesn't Xbox2 'hype' bother you too?
Steve Dave Part Deux
Newcomer
The PS2 version of Splinter Cell is a completely different engine. All the per-pixel shading and illumination has been removed, and the level designs have been modified significantly. There's no doubt as to which version looks better(not that I care, just pointing it out).
Oh man..... i mention in this thread that Sony living room network ideals are not going to work unless they can get some sort of consumer electronic standard going. Everyone has their vision on a connected home, someone just need to play leader and organise the rest.
But it is something bad about Sony, my dear Sony so whatever negative = baseless defunct blah blah blah.
Victim number 212 of the Sony hype train?
As for the misconception, imho MS came much closer to delivering what they promised(good graphics).
But it is something bad about Sony, my dear Sony so whatever negative = baseless defunct blah blah blah.
sigh....
Victim number 212 of the Sony hype train?i am not sure how to measure 3X the performance but looking at the best games on both sides, Xbox graphics wins hands down.
As for the misconception, imho MS came much closer to delivering what they promised(good graphics).
Paul said:
I doubt it will beat them graphicly. If Nintendo uses an ati chip and ms uses nvidia . Then they will surely beat the ps3 graphic chip. Since the hype surrounding that is only 250gflops. I'm pretty sure the geforce fx is doing that now. So what would future tech do ? Besides this is only if all the planets align and nothing goes wrong with sonys tech . Yields might be bad and they get a few hundred mhz less out of it than they thought. The ram might not work right and they may only be able to ship with 32 megs of on die ram. Who knows -
When the PS2 specs were released nothing graphics companies had out could touch the thing for quite some time.
No question the same won't hold true for PS3.
And if XBOX2 gets out before PS3, which msoft says will happen, PS3 will beat xbox2 graphicly it's only nature that that would happen.
As for Nintendo, they aren't ones to really look into technology much, hell the cube really isn't any more powerfull than PS2, it's just really easy to make games for and the textures are better. Other than that..
No question the same won't hold true for PS3.
And if XBOX2 gets out before PS3, which msoft says will happen, PS3 will beat xbox2 graphicly it's only nature that that would happen.
As for Nintendo, they aren't ones to really look into technology much, hell the cube really isn't any more powerfull than PS2, it's just really easy to make games for and the textures are better. Other than that..
Paul:
2. Why are you comparing a full system like the PS2 with graphic cards?
3. When the PS2 was released, nothing graphics companies had out, ignoring the Naomi 2 and various other solutions that could've been implemented into a console environment with favorable results, could touch the thing for quite some time.
1. When the PS2 specs were released, the finalized PS2 hadn't been produced or released yet.
2. Why are you comparing a full system like the PS2 with graphic cards?
3. When the PS2 was released, nothing graphics companies had out, ignoring the Naomi 2 and various other solutions that could've been implemented into a console environment with favorable results, could touch the thing for quite some time.
"I don't think you can really fully evaluate the technology of a platform solely on the software it runs or some bullet point marketting feature set..."
Just look at the specs on the thing.
"When the PS2 was released, nothing graphics companies had out, ignoring the Naomi 2 and various other solutions that could've been implemented into a console environment with favorable results, could touch the thing for quite some time."
I MEANT Pc graphics cards, and you knew damn right what I meant.
"Why are you comparing a full system like the PS2 with graphic cards?"
Comparing what graphics card companies had out at the time to what ps2 could do, this is going to be important this time because the new systems will be released just about at the same time. And Xbox2 will be using the newest nvidia/ati chip so..
Just look at the specs on the thing.
"When the PS2 was released, nothing graphics companies had out, ignoring the Naomi 2 and various other solutions that could've been implemented into a console environment with favorable results, could touch the thing for quite some time."
I MEANT Pc graphics cards, and you knew damn right what I meant.
"Why are you comparing a full system like the PS2 with graphic cards?"
Comparing what graphics card companies had out at the time to what ps2 could do, this is going to be important this time because the new systems will be released just about at the same time. And Xbox2 will be using the newest nvidia/ati chip so..
Lazy8s said:
Your forgeting that graphic card companys design a product for a 6 month - 1 year product cycle. Sony designed thiers for about 5 years.
Was the geforce 2 and radeon 64 out at that time ? I know the geforce 1 was out and its said to run doom 3 at 30fps . I think that looks just as good if not better than console games
