will Sony reach its old goal of 18,000x PS1, in PS3?

[jvd]

This is becoming sad .


Look guys .


Doubling system ram and increaseing memory speed are just as important .

There are times when more ram is more important than faster ram .

I.e fsaa . If the increased amount of textures can't fit into the memory space then an extra 30 mhz isn't going to help all that much . Where as increased memory speed will provide more bandwith and so with fsaa again if you have enough texture memory the faster the bandwitdh the higher the fps you will see .


Of course you can get a small view of a console performance by its memory size. Basicly the amount of textures it will ultimately be able to hold .

I think we can all agree that the more texture ram the better the final image will look .

But on the flip side we can all agree that another 100mhz on the ram is just as important .


For myself I rather have more memory on the next gen systems than 20-40 mhz faster memory .


That is just myself .

 

[London Geezer]

This whole argument could have ended 2 pages ago just by saying "It depends on the application you're running".

Also let's remember that a console (closed system) will run into much fewer troubles (paging for one) than the typical PC, simply because performance can be tweaked perfectly for the platform.

OF COURSE when i run Maya, i will want as much RAM as possible, even if it happens to be slower than the latest DDR.

But this is a Console Forum, therefore i'm not sure why that should matter. Ultimately on a console, FASTER RAM helps a lot and MORE RAM helps a lot too.

 

[Megadrive1988]

I find it sad that just about every console, including Xbox, has such a pathetic amount of memory. I suppose they don't NEED as much as PCs, but i think everyone would agree consoles would benifit greatly with 3-4x more memory than what the present generation machines have.

 

[Crazyace]

Consoles, by their nature are fixed - Of course having more ram would be better, and maybe a faster processor, bigger system bus, more ports, different colours, and so on.
But a console is eventually going to be 50 dollars, with profit... and the designers have to ensure that the system has a long lifespan.
Having a fixed memory size ( and other performance traits ) is not such a great limitation - Dev's know the constraints and design for those limits.

The interesting thing with Xbox is the way it seems to have been 'overengineered' to be way better than the PS2 using some almost state of the art PC parts. This gives the head start in technical terms, but will hurt in the later stages, when the units are truely mass market ( as individual physical items such as the HDD are near the flat part of their price curves )

 

[Wunderchu]

Whew ...

.... ok, now that the heated discussion on RAM seems have settled down, I think it's a good time to get this thread back on topic 8) .. (I realize that the RAM discussion actually did stem from the original topic discussion, though)




...... to answer the original question which Megadrive1988 posed, I say yes

I expect that the PlayStation 3 will be at least the same jump in power from the PlayStation 2 , as the PlayStation 2 was from the PlayStation [i.e.: 300x more powerful (by whatever the method Sony is using for their calculations of the 'powerfulness' of their consoles )]

so.. I predict (based on very little official info. or facts, and only from a 'gut feeling') that the PlayStation 3 will be at least 90,000x the power of the original PlayStation
[even with all the info. contained in the patent documents, there isn't really any official info. on what performance the actual final hardware will have] ..


on another note, but still on topic I hope ... I do not believe the PlayStation 3 will be 1000x the power of the PlayStation 2 , as Sony stated in 2002 that they were aiming for [as in the pic. I linked to on the first page of this thread (this one):

]

 

[cthellis42]

'sall moot anyway. We don't know how they're counting power, any whether you're talking FLOPS, nVFlops, SonyFLOPS, MarketingFLOPS, or something else entirely, it's fairly useless discussion. "CG" itself has very different qualities to make phrases like "real-time CG" useless as well. Are we talking about FF7's? Toy Story's? FF:TSW's? Tron's?

The nebulous "amount of power" has no firm connection to what can and will end up being delivered during a console's timeframe anyhow, so wherein lies the purpose? Basically, we'll find out when we find out--when games launch. We'll get better ideas with demos, but marketing numbers and mathematic liberties should just elicit a big shrug from us at this point. Cool to think about, and sometimes even the marketing numbers can be a lot closer to reality for certain situations, but how will it take shape in games? That's up to the developers. When they shape it into games.

Until that happens--hell, until ANYTHING is updated or made firm with official announcements--why is this topic back yet again?

 

[Megadrive1988]

it's nice to see this thread getting back on-track 8)