What do you see the next gen consoles doing Graphicly?
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
marconelly! said:
And i can see where you are coming from . Your right money has to come some where. But i'm sure the billions it would take to make a fussion reactor is alot more than a cell chip. If on .65nm s a cell chip is going to be affordable enough to put in a 300 dollar game box then on .13 micron it should be affordable to put into a rendering studios box . would it not ? I can't invision it costing more than 2000$ to make. And thats if the yeilds are really bad . Sure a cell chip in a ps3 today might not be possible but a cell chip in the private sector today is possible.
Heh. one last time paul. Show me where i said it would be weak ? Show me where i said it would be anything less than spectacular . All i'm saying is it wont be able to do what you people are saying it can and I'm saying it was deisgined in 2002. Using ideas and thoughts that are extreme in 2002. In 2005 or 6 those ideas will be tame compared to what people are thinking. Thats the way the comptuer world works . Back when the pentium was released the 486dx was outdated and tame by comparison but when the 486dx was designed I'm sure people were drooling over it just as your doing now with the cell chip. That is what I am saying. Nothing more nothing less. Never did i once say that the xbox 2 or the gamecube 2 will stomp all over the ps3 because the cell was designed in 2002. Your just to quick to jump on me.Paul said:
marconelly!
Veteran
Maybe they don't have the actuall design completeld yet. Sure they have a patent which is just a general idea, but they have to make the actual precise design, run the simulations, etc...
Or maybe they don't want to make it using the present tech. It kinda doesn't make much sense to spend all that money building a chip on a process you know you won't be using for final mass-product. Again, just because something can be done at any cost doesn't mean much for us.
Or maybe they don't want to make it using the present tech. It kinda doesn't make much sense to spend all that money building a chip on a process you know you won't be using for final mass-product. Again, just because something can be done at any cost doesn't mean much for us.
marconelly! said:
and again. to me that doesn't matter. Its design is done. Its pantents exist now and it should be done on hardware now. Its using ideas that are current edge now. Not int 2005 ? Do you see where I am trying to go with this ? I see where you are going. Dunno if you see me though. Sorry if its me who isn't being clear enough.
"remember this paul ? that is what i was talking about when i said the quote of mine that you took out of context. Now who is twisting words around ? Please stop this now paul"
What are you talking about? You said it was too many light sources for next gen consoles to be able to do. And I said that current cards most likely could not do it, but a 2006 console would be able to handle twice as much, what's not to understand?
What are you talking about? You said it was too many light sources for next gen consoles to be able to do. And I said that current cards most likely could not do it, but a 2006 console would be able to handle twice as much, what's not to understand?
marconelly!
Veteran
Well, just if it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done at any cost. Hardware was envisioned to be made affordable, and using certain technology that is not yet availabe. If they were to make something at any cost, they might as well envision it considerably more powerful and make it today.
I guess where we differ is naming things. You consider something being this year's technology because it's designed this year, which I don't do because I don't think ideas (in this case) are bound by technology.
Besides, we really don't even know if the design for the whole thing is even done yet. All we know is that they have a general idea.
Well, if the technology is launched in 2005 then it is 2005 technology. If it is launched in 2006 then it is 2006 technology. Since it wasn't launched last year, it isn't last year's technology. It doesn't matter when the design is completed. What matters is the implementation of the design. And if the implementation of the design happens to be in 2005, then it will be 2005 technology regardless of when the design was completed.
Saem said:
well as i said, the games might not LOOK 100x better or some crazy number like that for a little thing called *point of diminishing returns*. still that does not mean that the technological achievement is not growing logarithmically, which is something that is highly unarguable.
i'm talking about pure physical technological achievement. look at transistor counts or bumps up in clock speeds. in the days of the first pentiums, clock speeds were increased of like 33-50 MHz at a time (first the Pentium 100Mhz then came the 133 then the 150 then the 166). but look at today's incereases, they're in the order of the hundreds of MHz at a time... i think it's pretty obvious it is a logarithmic growth. same for Transistor counts. (personally i would laugh if the next version of the Pentium 4 at 3000Mhz was a Pentium 4 at 3033Mhz, wouldn't you?
)still, as i said, that doesn't necessarily means that the actual software will look a million times better or whatever...
london-boy said:Saem said:
well as i said, the games might not LOOK 100x better or some crazy number like that for a little thing called *point of diminishing returns*. still that does not mean that the technological achievement is not growing logarithmically, which is something that is highly unarguable.
i'm talking about pure physical technological achievement. look at transistor counts or bumps up in clock speeds. in the days of the first pentiums, clock speeds were increased of like 33-50 MHz at a time (first the Pentium 100Mhz then came the 133 then the 150 then the 166). but look at today's incereases, they're in the order of the hundreds of MHz at a time... i think it's pretty obvious it is a logarithmic growth. same for Transistor counts. (personally i would laugh if the next version of the Pentium 4 at 3000Mhz was a Pentium 4 at 3033Mhz, wouldn't you?
still, as i said, that doesn't necessarily means that the actual software will look a million times better or whatever...
mhz doesn't matter. On most of todays chips a 20% increase in mhz equals a 9% performance increase. Intel and amd chips are not the best examples of chips to use. Now if you look at the barton and the athlon 64(clawhammer) they are talking about a 20% increase at same mhz. Which is awsome and then 30% at 64 bit operations. Thats a nice jump in the genral cpu section.
I think some of us here saw what happened when the ps2 was going to come out. The graphical leap from the psone to the ps2 is much bigger than the ps2 -ps3 jump. That is what I'm saying. I'm not saying that ps3 is not going to make the ps2 games look like crap cause they will next to ps3 games. Or at least 2nd gen (first gen allways looks just a little better than the last gen games of the last gen... thats alot of gens hehe ) Its just not going to be as big as you think it is. I predict that the lights used in games will double polygon counts will tripple and the ai and physic s(including hair and clothing) will advance by at least 2 fold. All the effects that we seen once in a blue moon will be in almost ever frame of the game and we will see 2x to 4 x fsaa. That is it.
jvd said:
how can you say that the leap between ps2 and ps3 is not as big as ps1-ps2? have u seen anything coming out of the PS3? have u even seen a ps3?
let me make an example.
the model for Lara in the tomb raider games for PS1 used like 500 polygons. in TR for PS2 she is made up of something like 5000 polygons. that is a 10x increase only in poly count. and let me say that 5000 polygons is not even that much for ps2 since someone said that some models in SH2 (ooold game) are made of up to 30000 polygons...
plus add the fact that if u wanted ps1 to even do bilinear filtering, u'd kill it...
that is one big leap. and you can realistically expect AT LEAST the same increase for PS3.
thing is, how anyone can say that the leap between this gen and the next gen (not only sony consoles here) is not gonna be bigger than the last one is just beyond me....
Similar threads
