will PS3's GPU be more modern than PS2's GS for its time?
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Akumajou said:
Yeah, only it's not comparable at all. As we have discussed ages ago a loooong time ago, those PC chips might have features that are absent on GS (since everything is absent from GS, pretty much), but the GS is so much faster than them it's not even funny.
So, no, they're not comparable. Not from a preformance point of view, not from an architectureal point of view (just the fact that one has 4MBeDRAM is a big hint), not from a targetted audience point of view, not from a functionality point of view, even the targetted resolution is completely different.
Streaming levels never became a standard, and there is no "reason" behind it. It just happened because on consoles it's a more clever design, which sadly has its limitations anyway. I never praised Sony as being the first to do that (although they are, in the end). Seems you're a bit defensive when it comes to Sony.
I'm not a "believer". You said something, it's wrong. Over.
Well then maybe you need to look at old threads on this forum with posts from people who you might believe more than you believe me. Although i see the Force is strong in you, not much will convince you of what at the end of the day is true.
I don't hate that game, why would you think that? Because i'm making some point in favour of Sony, now i hate everything Sega-related? Hell, 2 days ago i was the daily Nintendo Fanboi for defending them, the day after i was the daily Nintendo Hater for slating them, today i'm the Sega Hater....
Again, your point being? I had a Genesis and i know what it could and what it could not do. Not sure what this has to do with the current discussion, or are you gonna take more rabbits out of your hat, and mention all the great things Sega ever did in their life, just so they look better in your eyes? I love Sega, the most fun i've had in my life was with my Genesis, i'm just sad they haven't been able to keep up with their standards lately. Does that make me a Sega hater, just for pointing it out? If anything, it makes me more of a Sega fan for demanding more of them, considering the quality of their old products.
Again, your point? My point was that the die shrink helped Sony reduce the size and cost of the PS2, because the smaller chips now run cooler than the early ones which needed lots of (noisy) active cooling. So, what's the problem here?
Sounds to me like you're another one of the boys who bought into the hype, got burnt, and now are Sony haters. For your information, i began playing videogames on my Commodore64. Actually even before, with those stupid Tiger portable videogame things.
So, thank you, i was around very much at the time PS2 was released, i listened to all the hype and knew what was hype and what was reality. Seems like you didn't.
PS2 was released in 1999. And now we need to punish Sony for having the design of a chip completed a few months before actually releasing it? Jesus, someone really has a chip on their shoulders then!
There are many reasons why Sony couldn't release PS2 sooner, one of the biggest was that they weren't getting good enough yields on their chips, especially the GS if i remember correctly.
MOMMY MOMMY BIG BAD SONY CAME AND STOLE THE MARKET!!! Get the f**k over it, Sega were broke, they couldn't stand a chance against anyone. Sony only did what they had to do, they didn't steal anything from anybody, they worked hard to get where they are, and it's still paying off now against 2 newer consoles.Well that's bad for them. Sony obviously has better advisers who saw a market for all-in-one boxes and they aggressively pursued their objective. If Sega and Nintendo are stuck with their ideals, that's too bad for them. Or now we have to punish Sony for pursuing their objective and kmake products that are bought by hundreds of milliosn of people around the world? If anything, let's punish the lazy ones who think they can give us the same formula of the last 20 years over and over again.
Why would you say that? I was playing games before Sony came into the market and i will play games well after they go bust.
Offensive? Not at all, i just went "not again!!" cause not too long ago SegaR&Deadmeat opened a thread on the subject. And it got very nasty obviously.
I never doubted that. I used to own VF4 and V4EVO. I know what they look like.
Good god!! Your spite for Sony really is deep, jesus!! You could have said "WEE WEE BIG BAD SONY GAVE THE SDKS TO OTHER PEOPLE FIRST WEE WEE KONAMI ASSLICKER SQUARE ASSLICKERS WEE WEE" and it would have made the same impact.
I still fail to see your point, you keep stating the obvious, then when i tell you u've stated the obvious, u go "Well DUH!"... :? :?
You're not PC-Engine by any chance are you? Just checking...
As i said, you keep stating the obvious, then when i ask you why you're doing that, you just go "Gee i wonder why...!"
Whatever.
In the US? No. In the UK, yes i do.
YAWN. Oh it's the "PS2 was just a DVD player that could play PS1 games!! UNACCEPTABLE!!" argument...
You're replying like this to a totally neutral statement i made. Meh...
Getting bored now... Your point? My point was, obviously early dev kits are buggy, the important thing is that there are always constant revisions. Why do you have to pick up the Saturn-PS1 issue? Who cares? We're talking about soemthing else! Keep you Sega-Sony love-hate thing out of this! Or are you gonna play the Saturn card and the Genesis card every time you feel like you have to prove a point?
Your point? Of course it's a standard! Do you really expect those companies to have fully functional, 100% bug-free SDKs at launch, when they even know very little about their own new architecture?! What is your point?!!
No one's being punished, it's your attitude that's very irritating, and i've pointed it out already.
There was no point in your post, other than to tell us how Sega is a magnificent company and other aren't, that's why.
Thankfully that's already been clarified. The Xbox or the Xbox2 will never ever be able to emulate the PS2 at decent speeds. The software is far too different to make it workable at decent speeds on anything but a real monster architecture, and it has to be a monster not because PS2 is a monster, but becasue it will need a lot of overhead to translate Arab into Mongolian on-the-fly.
Quiet, l-b. I believe he has proven quite handily that you are the Great Satan. FIE!london-boy said:
And while I'm not touching the rest of this mess:
March 6th, 2000. At least I'm pretty sure it was the 6th. First week of March, at any rate. When the various stages of chip design were locked down is still debated by folks on here even now, though.
^^ OK then 2000 it is. Not sure why i had 1999 in mind...
Anyway, i just don't see the huge deal, there were obviously reasons why Sony had to sit on the design for so long. It is questionable whether they should have updated the design in that long period of time, but really, in the end it all come sdown to cost and updating it would have probably pushed the cost a bit too far, already being quite huge.
Anyway, i just don't see the huge deal, there were obviously reasons why Sony had to sit on the design for so long. It is questionable whether they should have updated the design in that long period of time, but really, in the end it all come sdown to cost and updating it would have probably pushed the cost a bit too far, already being quite huge.
The Bitch said:Quiet, l-b. I believe he has proven quite handily that you are the Great Satan. FIE!
london-boy said:
There were console games streaming data off the media long before Sony entered the market. There were M-CD and CD32 games that did this and no doubt other machines had them too (like the Commodore CDTV and the PC-Engine CD). The Saturn was paricularly capable in this regard, having a processor dedicated to CD access. If anything I think this supports your point ...
Akumajou said:
Shenmue didn't use the 4MB expansion cart. That rumour was created from assumptions made by internet types. Infact, the game was probably canned for the Saturn and switched over to DC before the 4MB expansion cart even got the go ahead.
Probably the same reason the DC needed a fan and complex cooling system (it produced a lot of heat).
function said:
There u go, even better. I never even mentioned this cause i wasn't too sure to begin with, and had nothing to do with the discussion, but just out of curiosity, what games on Saturn had no loading levels? That's quite neat.
Thanks for all the ASM info, but I really didn't think that there was too much ASM being used today. As a matter of fact, wasn't it John Carmack who stated that with today's modern development platforms, that there really is no need to use ASM? Maybe that doesn't apply to the PS2 since its architecture is much different than the XBox and GC. I do recall the wonders that Sega had done for Saturn using ASM, but that proved to be one of its downfalls as well since developing in that type of environment is much more difficult. With this next round of consoles, I can't imagine any of them using assembly.
london-boy said:
I can't think of any games that had no loading screens at all, but that's just a matter of implementation. Any time you're playing a level and the game dumps data it doesn't need any more and loads new stuff in (in a seamless fashion) it's the same process going on. You can do this based on position within a map, time passed, opponents defeated, whatever.
You could quite reasonably say that crappy fmv games like the MCDs Thunderhawk do this: the UI, cursor and overlayed effects are being manipulated real time, but the background image is being streamed in, decompressed and having "collision" detection calculated on it at the same time.
My favourite example on the Saturn was Panzer Dragoon Zwei. The (awesome) music was chip generated unlike in the first game, so you continued travelling through the levels without interruption as new data (such as for the rather impressive bosses) was loaded up.
I'm not even sure that geometry and AI would even impact each other that much. AI is mostly parsing through various types of data structures (binary trees, directed graphs) which require scalar integer operations, while geometry is mostly vector pointing point. Since floating point [VU] and integer [R5900] run in parallel on the EE I don't see why this would constitute a trade-off situation.
I think the reason for the poor integer performance on PS2 has more to do with a relatively archaic though fast (for 99-00) CPU with high latency memory and a tiny cache. That combination is pretty deadly...
I think the reason for the poor integer performance on PS2 has more to do with a relatively archaic though fast (for 99-00) CPU with high latency memory and a tiny cache. That combination is pretty deadly...
akira888 said:
I dispute the fast bit
1999 saw 7 and 800MHz Athlons and Pentium 3s, CPUs that are 4-6 times as fast on integer codes. The only advantage of the R5900 is that it's tiny.
The reason for putting such a mediocre cpu core in there must be because Sony were running on a very strict die budget. So instead of sacrificing one of the VUs and putting a more capable cpu core in there, we have what we have today, and thus a trade-off
Cheers
Gubbi
Gubbi said:akira888 said:
I dispute the fast bit
1999 saw 7 and 800MHz Athlons and Pentium 3s, CPUs that are 4-6 times as fast on integer codes. The only advantage of the R5900 is that it's tiny.
The reason for putting such a mediocre cpu core in there must be because Sony were running on a very strict die budget. So instead of sacrificing one of the VUs and putting a more capable cpu core in there, we have what we have today, and thus a trade-off
Cheers
Gubbi
erm, one of us has got his memory mixed up. i remember p3's in 1999 being 500mhz and hence nowhere near 4-5 times faster than the r5900 @ 300mhz.
Gubbi said:
fair enough. to which of those 1999 cpus does the r5900 compare as a 4-5 times slower int performer?
gleemax said:
He meant the core. Without the VUs.
Panajev,
Call this a post-mortem-post
All this is obvious to me but still not completely obvious to you and probably to others. If anyone has followed this, they deserve a medal! I'm obliged to show you why but this will be the last post on this matter from me. And hopefully It'll be clear...
When I say re-read my posts, I'm suggesting to you that you are missing something obvious like a word or something that can turn the whole discussion on his head. I'm glad that you looked up the definition for 'imply' below,
You're now on the same page but not on the right line yet. You are mistakenly taking #4 as the definition which would suit your argument. But it is irrelevant as you'll be arguing with yourself. We are trying to validate MY argument. And it is clear to me that you still have not REALLY read the post that stated this below,
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=437597#437597
This is the fulcrum of the debate and I CLEARLY meant 'IMPLY' in the context of defn. #3, i.e. 'to contain potentially' by stating 'ME' and clearly did not need your 'consent' as in #4. So you see, you can clearly construct all manner of arguments based on your definitions of 'IMPLY' as #4 but it is irrelevant because you'll be arguing with yourself.
Also, if you haven't realised yet, the above is a PARADOX,
Defn.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox
I've setup the paradox in the form "YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DON'T!"
To put it simply, if you except my premise, then you're excepting my conclusion (and I have already proved this earlier.)
"This would IMPLY the GPU to be CELL based."
Which is SEEMINGLY contradictory to ME because of your statements. (Note. 'seem' and 'me' in red above.)
If you do not except my premise then you can dispute my premise and my conclusion. Which you have tried BUT I have already shown earlier that they are valid and you have accepted them.
So this is why I kept asking you to re-read my posts and why, in my eyes, you were confused and stubborn. You can create all the intricate arguments that you want but you CAN'T invalidate MY argument.
I've ALWAYS been aware of this and I hope it's clear now. The moral of the story?
If someone offers 'Lets agree to disagree (TM)', then perhaps you should be more inclined to accept next time, because they are usually doing it for a reason!
...And I'll leave with my ultimate point, in case you've forgotten, is DO NOT discount a CELL based GPU too quickly, just because NVIDIA are involved...
THE END
Call this a post-mortem-post
All this is obvious to me but still not completely obvious to you and probably to others. If anyone has followed this, they deserve a medal!
I'm obliged to show you why but this will be the last post on this matter from me. And hopefully It'll be clear...When I say re-read my posts, I'm suggesting to you that you are missing something obvious like a word or something that can turn the whole discussion on his head. I'm glad that you looked up the definition for 'imply' below,
Panajev2001a said:
You're now on the same page but not on the right line yet. You are mistakenly taking #4 as the definition which would suit your argument. But it is irrelevant as you'll be arguing with yourself. We are trying to validate MY argument. And it is clear to me that you still have not REALLY read the post that stated this below,
Jaws said:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=437597#437597
This is the fulcrum of the debate and I CLEARLY meant 'IMPLY' in the context of defn. #3, i.e. 'to contain potentially' by stating 'ME' and clearly did not need your 'consent' as in #4. So you see, you can clearly construct all manner of arguments based on your definitions of 'IMPLY' as #4 but it is irrelevant because you'll be arguing with yourself.
Also, if you haven't realised yet, the above is a PARADOX,
Defn.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox
I've setup the paradox in the form "YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DON'T!"
To put it simply, if you except my premise, then you're excepting my conclusion (and I have already proved this earlier.)
"This would IMPLY the GPU to be CELL based."
Which is SEEMINGLY contradictory to ME because of your statements. (Note. 'seem' and 'me' in red above.)
If you do not except my premise then you can dispute my premise and my conclusion. Which you have tried BUT I have already shown earlier that they are valid and you have accepted them.
So this is why I kept asking you to re-read my posts and why, in my eyes, you were confused and stubborn. You can create all the intricate arguments that you want but you CAN'T invalidate MY argument.
I've ALWAYS been aware of this and I hope it's clear now. The moral of the story?
If someone offers 'Lets agree to disagree (TM)', then perhaps you should be more inclined to accept next time, because they are usually doing it for a reason!
...And I'll leave with my ultimate point, in case you've forgotten, is DO NOT discount a CELL based GPU too quickly, just because NVIDIA are involved...
THE END
