WTH IGN?! They posted the spec analysis from Major Nelson!!
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
But you can do 1.33333 dots/cycleDemoCoder said:
It's most definately not representative (at least on consoles). Besides if you want to go just by "one developer" examples, I've once heard of an app that used 15MB of main memory for just strings...DaveBaumann said:
...
on a PS2...
:?
What'd be really cool is if it could distribute a render target over multiple address blocks, so then you could do perverted things like allocating your entire ZBuffer in SPE local memoriesnAo said:
Am I the only one that agrees with the author's claim that sony has a track record of overstating their numbers?
I mean I recall many things before the launch of the ps2 that when the system was finally released were all just lies, like the 60M vertices per second they claimed.
And also they claim their emotion engine is capable of 6GFLOPS, how does that compare to the intel CPU in the original Xbox? Isn't the Xbox faster but lower rated in GFLOPS?
All in all I tend to agree with the M$ guy with his statements, and considering how dirty sony can get, I dont even think its THAT worng. And whats the whole deal with sony comparing a 300 buck box to a supercomputer? I mean WTF?
But it seems to work for them, just look at they way the GC and Xbox got killed in sales this generation, even though the ps2 is the weakest hardware. Hype worked last gen.
I mean I recall many things before the launch of the ps2 that when the system was finally released were all just lies, like the 60M vertices per second they claimed.
And also they claim their emotion engine is capable of 6GFLOPS, how does that compare to the intel CPU in the original Xbox? Isn't the Xbox faster but lower rated in GFLOPS?
All in all I tend to agree with the M$ guy with his statements, and considering how dirty sony can get, I dont even think its THAT worng. And whats the whole deal with sony comparing a 300 buck box to a supercomputer? I mean WTF?
But it seems to work for them, just look at they way the GC and Xbox got killed in sales this generation, even though the ps2 is the weakest hardware. Hype worked last gen.
compres said:
And in fact the PS2 can do that.
The issue is NOT that Sony lies. The issue is that Sony fans, and MS fans, and Nintendo fans, do not understand the numbers...
And all three of their PR departments (at one time or another) have EXPLOITED the ignorance of the fans. The numbers are real... what the numbers mean is something totally different.
No single metric determines how fast a system is. If your CPU can perform 1TFLOPs but your CPU has a mere 64K L2 cache and you memory bandwidth is 1.6GB/s and you have high latency RAM you will NEVER see that figure in real world.
The numbers are there to impress, they are the bling bling. But a good system is well balanced. A balance of CPU, Memory, GPU, and bandwidth between them. It is not about being more powerful in one benchmark or another, but how well the entire system performs as a whole.
PS3 and Xbox 360 are both good designs, just different philosophies of where gaming is at and where it is headed. In some ways they have flip flopped from last gen, and in some ways both are going in totally new directions.
So yes, Sony like every other company releases big numbers to the media and fans to impress them (even though most of those numbers mean nothing to these markets), but they are not lieing. They are using the "bling" of their system to get fans excited.
And in all fairness, part of the reason is to give customers a "measuring stick" against previous consoles, so when they see the new games they can say, "Yeah, I can see the 66x improvement!" But in all fairness the other way, it gets used AGAINST other companies more often than not in fanboi magazine and argued on the net.
Anyhow, a couple bigger numbers != better in all cases. Games are diverse beasts and benefit differently depending on the system design.
Acert93 said:
I dont recall any ps2 games having more than 1-2M vertices per second. In contrast both nintendo gamecube and xbox have better models and higher poligon counts than the ps2, the difference is they claymed way lower numbers.
If the system can not even sustain 3 million in reality then I will consider 60 million very misleading. I even met someone who said the others consoles sucked so bad becouse sony had over 10x times the geometry power.
There is no way I can see this as a possitive thing from sony, seems like they like to exploit consumer ignorance, and am not only talking about their games division.
compres said:
I believe MS claimed a higher number, and in fact they did. MS claimed 125M.
Just as the MS 125M is misleading. The only company who did not really mislead last generation was Nintendo. As I explained above this is PR and it is unfair to ignorant consumers because it does mislead. BUT all of them do it to a degree.
So basically you hate Sony and therefore they can do nothing right, but MS can do the same thing and you can overlook that? Sorry, that is exactly how you are coming across since MS did the exact same thing.
jvd said:
Not calling anyone a liar
The problem with Nintendo and Sega is they are too realistic about their numbers... they need to jazz them up, quote the FLOPs of their I/O chip, cound the MHz of their wireless controllers, you know, quote big numbers to impress people so Game Magazines write about it and then they get fan mail bashing the magazine, and it spills onto the internet!Basically free advertising. If Nintendo gave a press release and said their system would operate at 24GHz and would release in 2006 they would have a TON of press! Until we find out that is the 10 wireless controllers in the 2.4GHz spectrum
But they would get the hype, and that is what big numbers are for. Maybe 1 in 50-100 people who buy a console ever hear this numbers, 1 in 1,000 know what it means (e.g. what is a FLOPs? Polygon? MIPs?) and only maybe 1 in 10,000 people who buy a console actually understand what it means if if it is relevant.But if the rest of the world is like Americans, we like to argue over baseball stats and the like. Game console numbers are no different. We may not know exactly what they mean, but gosh darn it we have an opinion!
Acert93 said:
Well you have a point, I did not know or remember the overstated m$ figures, but I dont hate sony, I dont like the word hate, reminds me of fanatical believers.
But on the other had I am just stating that they exploit consumer ignorance, not saying that m$ doesnt, I am not that much into consolles since the n64/ps.
Seriously?! OMGWTFPWNZ! Screw Sony and MS, I'm so totally getting a Nint...
...en...do?
Curse you, you bastard!
Just returning the favor. That comment made me giggle.
Don't tantalize, Faf. Please tell me you can let slip SOME P.A. numbers on titles you've worked on at this point? Pretty please?Fafalada said:Er, I guess you meant to say "DC games"?
Anyway you recall wrong