Why does Sony create such wacky architectures?

[Guest]

Hey Faf, how would a 2 EE 2 GS PS2 work?
will it R0cXoR mE boOx0rs or just give a slight graphics boost

 

[Panajev2001a]

That's not exactly true.
Sound chip is a duplicate PSX sound chip.
Both use a Mips CPU.
Both have a movie decoder and transform processor coupled to the cpu.
Finally, according to your own words, the PS2 rasterizer is just 16x PSX.
(I still disagree on that, but just thought I'd mention it).

Yes, it's true PS2 is UMA styled and PSX wasn't really, but you can't argue based solely on that that they have no similiarities.

Thanks Fafalada, I was trying to get this point across, but you have been able to put it in an even more concise form and you know Deadmeat is good at selective quoting/remembering things and we need the argument written well

 

[PC-Engine]

And you expect Sony to drop their PS2 designs just like that? Would a PS2.5 compete well against Xbox?
Yes,PS2 has been underwhelming but it is still cool considering its age.

We don't know why SONY chose to design the PS2 the way they did. Some claim the "untapped abilities" principle. Others claim it's so that developers would have a hardtime porting to other consoles or being preoccupied with the steep learning curve and not having any time for anything not PS2. We do know that it was not the best design available at the time.

Even if they have the money, releasing a DC1.5 would be a quick bye bye to that money. Hey, Sony could have slapped a PS2.5, by adding another EE+GS pair to compete with Xbox in 2001, but they are wise enough not to do that.

Releasing N2 as a DC1.5 would've also fragmented the market and SEGA knows this from past experience, yet another reason why it wasn't realized.

SONY didn't need a PS2.5. Xbox wasn't and still isn't a threat to PS2. It's already entrenched.

 

[Panajev2001a]

another reason is cost reduction... they control and produce the chips too and they can apply the latest technologies just discovered to the HW to make it cheaper to manufacture and they have shown this model can work...

 

[wazoo]

Back in 2000 I could have made the same sentence about DC and PS2 :

The DC was already showing its limitations with relatively low poly games, hardly any lighting, single pass texturing (but very high texture quality), long loading times. If you program the ps2 without knowledge, you got something of this level or even worse. Things have changed.

halo, doa3, wreckless, PGR, Splinter Cell, motoGP, Fever,...

If you like to think the difference is large, ok. Reminds me too much of those stupid "Riva128vsVoodoo1" discussion on PC boards.

 

[Phil]

PC-Engine:

We do know that it was not the best design available at the time.

Considering everything, I doubt you know what would have been best or not. There's so much to consider, beginning with the potential performance (paper specs), real world estimates, R&D costs, production costs, cost reduction and I'm sure many other issues.

Out of Sony's perspective, I think they managed things quite well:

They're making money on PS2, able to reduce production costs (thus being more than just competitive), very good actual performance judging by latest game efforts and the age of the hardware...

Of course, there's always something better when thinking of performance. Considering actual costs of memory and Sony's available budget though, I doubt you have enough insight to proclaim a different design to be better.

 

[PC-Engine]

I don't claim to know what the best design at the time was. Whether or not SONY's design was better than other available designs at the time is up for debate. IMO N2 is better than System 246 from efficiency, to cost, to development ease, to image quality, to performance

As a matter of fact if SONY released N2 and named it PS2, the end result for SONY would still be the same...actually probably better with regards to development ease

 

[V3]

We don't know why SONY chose to design the PS2

Actually we do, from when they announced it, Sony R&D made the PS2 like that, so they are able to to have steeper progression curve in the time Versus performance graph.

There you go.

 

[Guest]

We don't know why SONY chose to design the PS2

Actually we do, from when they announced it, Sony R&D made the PS2 like that, so they are able to to have steeper progression curve in the time Versus performance graph.

There you go.

 

[V3]

Yep, the advantage was small for PS2, but by PS3 or PS4, it will be considerable. So my take, like I said before, "off the shelf" component will move into more exotic architecture as well. Making PS3 look normal

 

[Phil]

. IMO N2 is better than System 246 from efficiency, to cost, to development ease, to image quality, to performance

Don't take this offensive PC-Engine, but do you have factual information on exact costs of all components from the Naomi 2 board? If not, I think a debate regarding this speculative discussion is rather a waste of time...

 

[PC-Engine]

You don't really need exact costs to come to the conclusions presented. It's not rocket science. A little reseach goes a long way. Some of the individuals who were involved with the N2 design team posts on this board

I think everyone who has been following the console hardware costs since 1998 can extrapolate the numbers. M$ never revealed the actual costs to manufacture the Xbox, but most of the informed people here know to a certain degree. Of course if you're demanding the impossible like extact costs then I can't really help you there.

 

[bleon]

Some of the individuals who were involved with the N2 design team posts on this board

Really? who is that, I wouldnt mind reading some of their previous posts

 

[PC-Engine]

Some of the individuals who were involved with the N2 design team posts on this board

Really? who is that, I wouldnt mind reading some of their previous posts

Simon F, but he probably can't really reveal much

Edit: should read "close to the design team".

 

[V3]

All I know is System 246 was cheaper than N2.

 

[PC-Engine]

All I know is System 246 was cheaper than N2.

Not when the N2 design was finalized.

Oh yeah you need to clarify, cheaper to buy or cheaper to manufacture

 

[Guest]

Heya! how about my 2 PS2 into 1 PS2 question?

PS2.5
2 EE 300mhz + 300mhz
2 GS 150mhz + 150mhz
8mb vram
64mb ram
4mb aram
4mb iop ram

Would that work????????

 

[Phil]

You don't really need exact costs to come to the conclusions presented. It's not rocket science. A little reseach goes a long way. Some of the individuals who were involved with the N2 design team posts on this board

Costs are very important my friend. For instance, you name external costs and manufacturing costs - what about expected cost decrease over time? What about the addition of given resources to produce certain things on your own (e.g. existing plant for production of CPU etc)? It's all very relevant when designing a console with a life span of over 5 years...

 

[V3]

Oh yeah you need to clarify, cheaper to buy or cheaper to manufacture

To buy, of course. If N2 is cheaper to manufacture, then Sega is really reaping me off

 

[PC-Engine]

Well considering SEGA's VF4 runs on N2 and it's popularity, SEGA can pretty much charge what they want to the arcade operator. 8)

Costs are very important my friend. For instance, you name external costs and manufacturing costs - what about expected cost decrease over time? What about the addition of given resources to produce certain things on your own (e.g. existing plant for production of CPU etc)? It's all very relevant when designing a console with a life span of over 5 years...

Of course they're, nobody said otherwise and still doesn't change the fact that N2 costs about the same as Sys246 to manufacture...maybe even cheaper