WTH IGN?! They posted the spec analysis from Major Nelson!!

[blakjedi]

I'm a big supporter of the X360 and I think what MS did was wrong, but it was no different than the lies Sony has been spreading at E3 either.

Is it really so difficult to grasp the fact that hyping up your own product is different to slinging mud at the competititon? I'm probably the most impartial person when it comes to consoles since the last one I owned was a SNES and I've never been a big fan of them since. But I've been taking in the E3 hype and I'm simply giving my opinion.

I think in all honesty Sony began the "comparisons." Naturally the would not highlight comparisons that were negative for them would they?

 

[funkonaut]

But the Killzone trailer was gameplay footage...

I hate to bring up Killzone again, but the original Killzone was touted as a Halo killer and we all know that fps-genre was dominated by Xbox, now sony comes guns plazing with ridiculous prerendered footage of this new unbelieveable Halo killer, and they do it so that some of us actually believe it, I know that's not actually bashing the opponent, but it's part of the hype game anyway.

Only problem with that is that multiple Sony reps have gone on the record with both G4TV and IGN and said that the Killzone footage was actual gameplay footage, not pre-rendered on non-Sony hardware.

 

[trinibwoy]

I think in all honesty Sony began the "comparisons."

 

[Titanio]

I think in all honesty Sony began the "comparisons." Naturally the would not highlight comparisons that were negative for them would they?

There's comparisons and comparisons.

Again, Sony made one comparison based on transparent and actually comparable figures.

These "comparisons that are negative for them" are often skewed completely out of shape in order to try and make them look negative. Others are based on numbers which aren't transparently deriveable - apples and oranges in other words. They throw in "statistics" to boot. We could magic up an equally preposterous set of comparisons that make any system look "bad"

 

[Qroach]

oh come on... remember the Xbox 1.5 comment? There wasn't a war of marketing between these two until Sony fired the first shot by making comments about xbox 360 compared to the "power" of PS3.

 

[eDoshin]

It was a stupid move on their part anyways. The kind of negative reaction that's been generated out of this is not something they want, and I would not be surprised if this article re-emerges and bites them back in the future (if only as fanboy fodder for kick MS around). Sony has always been regarded as king of hype .. u don't want to be know as king of lies.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Can someone please link to that first XB 1.5 quote. I'd like to read in context. Were Sony asked about their opinion on XB360, or did they just approach journalists to say their piece on the competition?

 

[cthellis42]

I think in all honesty Sony began the "comparisons."

I think he's referring to the graphs from the PS3 presentation that compared the PS3 and to the Xbox 360 and other machines in various ways. (Which, if I remember correctly, were mainly floating point calculations for the Cell, and main memory bandwidth.) You can't tell anything about the whole system and its end-products that way, of course, but it wasn't quite the apples-to-anvils charts this Nelson character tossed out.

 

[function]

You don't think that the graphs shown in the Sony press conference, complete with numbers showing the PS3 to have twice the "system terraflops" of Xenon were designed to give a "misleading" representation of the two systems relative strengths? They must have been, or else why else show something that according to everyone "in the know" means pretty much bugger all?

They weren't comparing "System terraflops" - in the introduction to CELL, they were showing how their CPU [CELL] competes in floating point performance compared to the PS2's EE, a Pentium CPU and the Xbox360's CPU. The information is publicly available, so I don't see where the problem is.

EDIT: And it wasn't terraflops either, it was all stated in GFLOPs.

I've seen the slides about Gflops CPU performance, but I thought they'd also talked about the PS3's total system teraflop performance and compared this figure to Xenon. *If so* that's a case a case of using probably misrepresentative figures to make your competitor look comparatively worse.

Currently downloading the full conference, will check to see if they actually did this, or whether it's an internet myth that shouldn't be bought in to.

 

[trinibwoy]

oh come on... remember the Xbox 1.5 comment? There wasn't a war of marketing between these two until Sony fired the first shot by making comments about xbox 360 compared to the "power" of PS3.

The Xbox 1.5 comment relates to design and function, not architectural or performance superiority. It reads as "different" whereas the MS slides read as "better".

 

[Acert93]

Sony's comments regard XB360 are (based on KK's interview) that it's not far removed from existing PC designs, a design that XB copied. In their terms (marketting terms perhaps) it's not a new geneation of architecture, only a new generation of components. That can be argued.

Hey Shifty,

Good posts lately man, but I do disagree with this.

If Sony can say the Xbox 360 is not far removed from the PC, it would be just as valid, if not more so, to say the PS3 is less removed from the PC.

-PCs typically have 1 general processing core,
-with Floating Point intense features (VMX, MMX, SE).
-PC's are a NUMA design.
-PC CPU's have a pool of main memory.
-Gaming PCs have a GPU that have distinct vertex shader and pixel shader units
-and the GPU has its own pool of memory.
-PC GPUs can access the main memory primary dedicated to the CPU

To compare the PS3

-PS3 has 1 general processing core (the PPC in the CELL)
-with Floating Point intense features (SPE).
-PS3 is a NUMA design.
-CELL has a pool of its own main memory (XDR)
-The RSX GPU has distinct vertex shader and pixel shader units
-and the GPU has its own pool of memory
-RSX can access the main memory pool primary dedicated to the CPU

Now PCs do not have FlexIO, are not designed with 7 SPEs for streaming techniques, do not put all their eggs in the Floating Point basked (PCs are great for what they are... we need to remember that, they are not game-first designs), and the PCs do not have a fast of loinke the GPU to the CPU. I am not sure if the RSX can directly read from the L2 cache of CELL, but with 20GB/s write and 15GB/s read over FlexIO it may not be much of an issue.

So we can see STRONG similarities between the CELL and a PC. Btw, that is a good thing.

But looking at the Xbox 360 there are more differences.

-Xbox 360 has not 1, not 2, but 3 general processing cores, each able to do 2 hardware threads
-with Floating Point intense features (VMX).
-Xbox 360 is a NUMA design.
-xCPU shares a memory pool with the R500 GPU
-The R500 GPU has Unified Shaders which can perform either vertex or shader ops
-and the GPU has its own pool of eDRAM for a frame buffer

The R500 can also read/write at like 20GB/s from the xCPU L2 cache. In the patents it was described that the CPU could take on some of the vertex processing load; with unified shaders this could be a significant plus because the GPU would not have Vertex Shader units sitting idle.

Another point: R500 has its own API; while we do not have enough info on the PS3, I have heard it will use OpenGL.

So... to be blunt: If the Xbox 360 is not far removed from a typical PC according to KK, then it is just as valid to note the PS3 similarities to the PC.

BOTH SIDES ARE GIVING FUD.

I am not denying the innovation of the immensely powerful CELL processor. But the overall design of the PS3 is very PC like--and that is a great thing for developers. Both Sony and MS took different paths on the CPU.

Sony went for more FP power.
MS went for more general processing power.

On this forum in particular there is a tendancy to focus only the FP power of CELL. Yes, it is amazing. But while the xCPU has about 55% of FP power, the VMX units are more versatile AND the xCPU has a significant edge in general processing power.

No one every wants to talk about that. It is not sexy, it is not "new". But games are not only composed of vertex tasks and physics.


Anyhow, both Sony and MS are going to play the PR game. And as we know Shifty a LOT of people (especially new people) at B3D will get caught up in it. It is our job to try to disseminate the BULL from the relevant.

'look how much better we are then our competitors'. They've given specs, and some question the validity of those specs (peak rates etc.). If they have, please let me know.

At the E3 conference they specifically put slides up comparing the PS3 to the Xbox 360, so yes they were comparing "how much better" they were than their competitor.

And while they did not necessarily take any cheap shots (some of the comparisons are apples-to-oranges) they at no time mentioned any pluses for their competitors. Of course, we would not expect that

Surprisingly the Major Nelson CRAPTOPIA does They actually do admit the PS3 does come ahead in some area. But that does not in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM justify some of the COMPLETELY MISLEADING comparisons.

Btw, both PR machines were going good this EA. At first we had a whole thread here bashing Gears of War saying it was CGI. Turned out it was not, but it did not prevent attacks on it. I would mention another PR thing but I do not want my thread derailed!

This has been the worst E3 EVER imo. So very few actual NEXT GEN games showed/played. I am all about the GAMES, and MS/Sony dissappointed. But that is just me.

 

[Qroach]

The Xbox 1.5 comment relates to design and function, not architectural or performance superiority. It reads as "different" whereas the MS slides read as "better".

No way, Sony's comment relates to a performance and visual superiority through a "quantum leap in technology". They didn't make the comments to relate to design and funciton.

"We look at delivering a quantum leap in technology, not just Xbox version 1.5,"

here's a link to where the full article was pasted in another forum.
http://forums.antimpc.com/lofiversion/index.php/t13086.html
i don't have the original link.

 

[Acert93]

I think he's referring to the graphs from the PS3 presentation that compared the PS3 and to the Xbox 360 and other machines in various ways. (Which, if I remember correctly, were mainly floating point calculations for the Cell, and main memory bandwidth.) You can't tell anything about the whole system and its end-products that way, of course, but it wasn't quite the apples-to-anvils charts this Nelson character tossed out.

Correct, it was only apples-to-asparagus.

The designs, and design philosophies, are different. For example, comparing the GPUs transistor to transistor is meaningly because ATI and NV have a history of different transistor effeciency, they have totally different designs for shading, and R500 uses some of its transistor budget for eDRAM while the RSX seems to dedicate more of that to logic.

We can only appreciate the machines holistically, and that includes developer tools, developer support, and service/features.

I have not decided which, or either, I will get at this point. I like the CELL and large bandwidth on the PS3, I like the LIVE features, HDD, general processing power, and R500 w/ eDRAM on the Xbox 360. I want to learn more about the RSX and I want to see some real games before I make any decisions.

Both look really amazing to me. Just different. We can argueing over who has more bandwidth, general processing power, more FP power, better GPU all day long... but holistically I can appreciate both designs. Really, both cutting edge and it is really unfair to call either Xbox 1.5 or PS 2.5. Just amazing machines.

 

[cthellis42]

oh come on... remember the Xbox 1.5 comment? There wasn't a war of marketing between these two until Sony fired the first shot by making comments about xbox 360 compared to the "power" of PS3.

Oh, it trails back and forth a lot. The guys ALWAYS want to snipe at each other. They're competitors, dammit, do you think they're going to be nice? (I've seen more encouraging comments come out of people during E3, though. Maybe the comraderie of the convention affected a few talking heads. Heh...)

WHO WILL WIN? The Xbox 1.5, or the hard to program-for PS3 designed to win science fairs?! ...who cares?

The only real issue I have is a "news site" posting fanboyish glurdge like that. The same reason I don't expect them to link 99% of the threads in this forum.

And sadly, I think it's doubtful they'll ever call anyone's attention to the kind of articles Hannibal eventually writes. :?

 

[Qroach]

I know, but calling it xbox 1.5 simply implies it's not a true successor to xbox when PS3 is. But yeah they will take shots at each other all the time. IMO that was the first meaningfull shot, as it spread like wildfire throughout the media.

 

[Qroach]

hmmm apprently they said the xbox 1.5 comment more than once.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2005/0521/e304.htm

For us it's very acceptable that Microsoft invests in this area. But just upping output resolution of a conventional game console and improving graphics power don't expand the world of game consoles as of today. This is only XBOX 1.5 rather than a next-generation XBOX. Rather than replacing what existent game console vendors have been doing with high-performance hardware, I want them to find a totally new field by their own originality. If they do so, we can expand the world of computer entertainment together.

Interesting comment. Meanwhile sony hasn't annouced any plans for the online service and alternate ways publishers can make money off the core retail market. They also barely talked about features for linking up to other devices. So how is sony expanding the market? MEH.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

And there is this also


http://www.nforcershq.com/article2956.html

"We want to pack everything in today and future-proof this as much as possible," said Kazuo Hirai, the head of Sony's U.S. game unit, in an interview. "It's a box made of future technology as opposed to Xbox 1.5, which seems to be a combination of things available today," added Hirai, president and CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment America."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The recent quote from KK was in response to a question 'what does he think of XB360'. He downplayed it of course. I'd like to know where this statement first came from. This PR material from MS wasn't after any journo's approached them for an opnion on PS3, but at the end of the show as a 'counterstrike'.

Acert93 - I'm not saying I agree with their idea that XB360 = XB1.5, but I think that's different to something like 'XB360 has 5x the bandwidth of PS3' which is a real pie-in-the-sky figure, more extravagent I think than 66 million/s! (though in the same vein). And there comments regards Cell being not-very-useful...

All companies are entitled to spout how great their machines are. I don't expect any to recognise the good points of their competitors. I'd say overall that Sony are more 'professional' or 'expert' in their hype and figures. They don't lie outright, but use 'advantageous' figures, though fairly comparable from what I know. eg. The graph comparing processors was legitimate figures freely available.

If companies start sending their own head-to-head comparisons between them and their competitors (not just fair comparisons like price or interest rates that ads use these days)...man, FUD is going to become the biggest growth industry of the early 21st century!!!

 

[cthellis42]

Correct, it was only apples-to-asparagus.

The designs, and design philosophies, are different. For example, comparing the GPUs transistor to transistor is meaningly because ATI and NV have a history of different transistor effeciency, they have totally different designs for shading, and R500 uses some of its transistor budget for eDRAM while the RSX seems to dedicate more of that to logic.

Yeah, I already mentioned that part. But that particular presentation didn't do anything more than the usual "put white-paper numbers" on a chart and let people decide what they will. It's the typical presentation we ALL know and love in the tech field, and the only people who really care are the ones who'll eventually be doing an in-depth look section-by-section anyway. 99% of everyone else either doesn't know what it means or are are fanboys looking for the biggest comparison number to trumpet--both equally ignorable.

Nelson's took not a sly "hope you don't look further" presentation, but quite illogical combinations of numbers, spun some others through assumption and conjecture, spiced up his commentary with lovely phrases like "claimed advantage," sometimes making declarative comparisons through assumption and incomplete information... And considering this was a "world class technology team" "uniquely qualified" to cut through the smoke and mirrors and compare the 360 to the PS3, you'd think they could do a better job of it.

In conclusion, I can at least still snack on asparagus, and I'm not going to judge the quality of the dinner on one vegetable.

 

[Acert93]

My point was more directed toward the PC architecture comment from KK. You had mentioned it could be argued; looking at the systems in general as I did clearly demonstrates as many, if not more, points of contact between the PS3 and current PCs than the Xbox 360 and current PCs.

And his other comment that the Xbox 360 is "todays" technology is also just as misleading. Both have some new and some proven tech. The proven tech is much safer and comfortable in many ways to be honest. The RSX is a big score for Sony IMO, I would not want to be downplaying having the Top of the Line GPU--the best 3D chips in the world for the price--in my system. I would be saying, "We got a GPU that makes PCs cry, they cannot even get this power with a $1000 GPU!"

They both are giving FUD and Sony is no more honest about it than MS. And like I said about the Sony slides, while they may have some relevance, they are not holistic. Statistics, unless looked at objectively, are misleading. Yes, lets crucify MS for trumping up their BW when Sony shot the first round and conveniently "forgot" that the X360 BW is not directly comparable because of the frame buffer. Simirarly I did not see a Sony slide comparing their 1 PPC to MS's 3 PPC for general interger performance. Sony was very selective--as you would expect--in representing what numbers they want. You are right--what do you expect? But I wont defend either of them!

Sony knows they have a different design from MS, and they are playing the number game just as much. Maybe not as much creativity, but it is no different. If MS and Sony are going to isolate one metric, one aspect, one benchmark of their system performance AND then add that to other areas without giving an Apples-to-Apples this thinig is going to get out of control. Opps, already did. This is N64 vs. PS vs. SS vs. M2 all over again.

It is all stupid. For the next year they will argue over HW, when reality we want GAMES. And both companies came up WAY short in games at this E3. In that regards both get Fs.