Post by: nolimit19 on May 18, 2005, 07:11:29 AM
Post by: ta7mike on May 18, 2005, 07:15:45 AM
Post by: RABicle on May 18, 2005, 07:52:49 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on May 18, 2005, 11:12:06 AM
Of course I'm expecting Nintendo not to go with an in-order processor since that enforces more optimization resulting in higher costs.
Post by: nolimit19 on May 18, 2005, 01:49:39 PM
Post by: Galford on May 18, 2005, 03:17:03 PM
To expand on what KDR said, the SPEs in Cell ar very simple, they are great at math
and nothing else.
As Ars-Technica, Anandtech and others haved pointed out, the SPEs on Cell have a Pentium 4-like penalty when code screws up. Which means unless you have a super-kick arse compiler or hand code the assembly language yourself, you aren't remotely going to get the performance that Sony advertises out of Cell.
Post by: niniendowarrior on May 18, 2005, 04:58:42 PM
and I have had rants on GC before... but seeing what Rev is about... I'm having my reservations... I want to see more of what it's all about. Go Revolution!
Post by: Caillan on May 18, 2005, 05:05:27 PM
Post by: Galford on May 18, 2005, 05:29:45 PM
Most of what MS has shown was in game footage produced on alpha-development kits. Most of what MS has shown will look better when November 2005 comes. When in-game footage of PS3 games start coming in, expect them to look much worse then what Sony has already shown.
Post by: PugGTI on May 18, 2005, 07:35:28 PM
although...
Quote
To expand on what KDR said, the SPEs in Cell ar very simple, they are great at math and nothing else.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE NUMBER CRUNCHING!
It can't just display an object on screen at someones whim! It has to go through countless calculations OF NUMBERS to turn the dots on your screen into a mix of only three colours.
Post by: tpfkanep on May 18, 2005, 09:35:17 PM
Post by: tpfkanep on May 18, 2005, 09:39:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PugGTI
heheh... toooo true galford.
although...Quote
To expand on what KDR said, the SPEs in Cell ar very simple, they are great at math and nothing else.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE NUMBER CRUNCHING!
It can't just display an object on screen at someones whim! It has to go through countless calculations OF NUMBERS to turn the dots on your screen into a mix of only three colours.
Erm... does one not have to take the whole system's architecture into consideration when trying to find out what is the most efficient way to display and process the info on screen? It's no use having fast processors, number cruncgers, whatever and your system has bottlenecks... in some component/bus/memory system/gfx sub-system.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 19, 2005, 05:55:10 AM
Sure, physics is the main load in games (ignoring graphics because those are mostly handled by the GPU) but modern RTSes manage to overload my Athlon 64 3000+ simply with AI calculations. That's going to be a problem. Remember, AI is the kind of stuff you'd never want to see near an in-order processor and the A64 does out-of-order execution, the performance is going to be MUCH worse on the XB360 and PS3. The Rev will most likely be out-of-order and single core because that's what game programmers want. A single core can still give a lot of performance, especially since oooE seems to increase speed by a factor of 10 (according to some GDC dev) so that 2 GHz CPU might actually outperform the Cell and XBCPU in actual use. Of course that's just a guess and since this part of the CPU performance doesn't give visual improvements (gamelogic will run faster, graphics not) people might consider the Rev weaker because they canot see the power it provides. 500 2k poly characters with dumb AI vs. 500 1k poly characters with decent AI will make people believe the 2k but dumb characters are the result of better hardware.
Post by: Galford on May 20, 2005, 06:51:05 AM
tpfkanep, you said something about overall architecture, from what I can tell, the XBox360 is going to be easier to get results out of and more flexible then the PS3.
Here why(my opinion)...
512MB UMA
Unified Shader Architecture
10 MB of on-chip embedded DRAM
Same ISA for all CPU cores
Granted once the PS3 is maxed out, it will look better then the Xbox360, but it's gonna be a while before anyone does that.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 20, 2005, 07:50:12 AM
Personally, I think it's going to be less important than ever. Quite a few people are already underwhelmed by Xbox 360 footage, and while I'm sure a lot of it is going to improve before launch, I have to wonder, if the leap from this generation to next generation isn't even that impressive, than how is anyone going to notice the graphical differences between the three next-generation systems? I'm sure super-geeks will notice, but mostly it won't matter.
I caught a bit of Sony and Microsoft's press conferences, and I was very interested to see a demo in one of them where they were showing how awesome more levels of raytracing (or something similar) is because as you turned up the brightness on the lights, everything would get grainy and washed-out with only one "pass" (I know, I'm not being very technical or accurate). Anyway, what I think was really interesting about it is how the companies are actually trying to train us to see the differences in graphical power between current generation systems and next-generation systems. Rare posted some comparison shots of Kameo on it's site, showing the Xbox version and the new version, and it's the same thing: the game definitely looks a lot better, but it's hard to notice until they clearly demonstrate it to you. This gen, we're going to have to be shown how the graphics are improved, whereas in previous generations it was obvious.
Post by: Dryden on May 20, 2005, 09:26:41 AM
Quote
Personally, I think it's going to be less important than ever. Quite a few people are already underwhelmed by Xbox 360 footage, and while I'm sure a lot of it is going to improve before launch, I have to wonder, if the leap from this generation to next generation isn't even that impressive, than how is anyone going to notice the graphical differences between the three next-generation systems? I'm sure super-geeks will notice, but mostly it won't matter.
Agreed.
This launch, unlike any before it, will not be so heavilly biased about graphic improvements. But I won't go so far to say that raw power isn't important. What about AI advancements? NPCs on screen? Human players in one arena?
If the Xbox 360 offers me Splinter Cell with 50 players on a single map, and the PS3 offers 100, with no other differences... Or if the Revolution army in Call of Duty has 2000 soldiers, and the PS3 can only support 1000... or if the complex AI on one system can't be processed without sacrificing available power...
Number crunching is going to be important if one company can take advantage of the scale on their platform.
Post by: Galford on May 20, 2005, 10:40:01 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on May 20, 2005, 09:16:30 PM
Galford: Developers so far have been stating the PS3 is easier to develop for. From the programmer's point of view, the X360 has threee independent processors while the PS3 has only one plus a few special task things. Apparently Sony has abstracted the SPUs away in the SDK so you just write normal code and the compiler figures out where to run it. The SPUs don't seem much different from the SSE and Altivec units found in home computers (well, in terms of usage) and the X360 has similar units on its cores (i.e. 3 vector processing units + GPU in addition to the 3 "CPUs").
Post by: ThePerm on May 20, 2005, 10:38:57 PM
Post by: jasonditz on May 21, 2005, 08:37:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
It's gonna be awhile before we notice a major difference in graphics. I was just reading EGM(the one with the Zelda cover) and they briefly talked about the new Tomb Raider. At one point in the article it was mentioned that the new Laura model would have twice the polys as the Laura from Angel of Darkness. When the magazine put the two models side by side, I honestly couldn't tell the difference that double the polys would make.
Except that they wrote "twice the polys" so you've got graphics mongers who claim they can tell the difference even if they can't. That's part of the problem... better graphics are getting less and less impressive.
I can definately notice the difference visually between, say, RE4 for the Cube and Code Veronica for the DC. But you know... I don't think it adds much to the experience anymore. The Dreamcast I think finally got to the point where the graphics are "fine" as far as i'm concerned. The only reason I bought the Cube was because Sega stopped supporting the DC and Nintendo had Super Monkey Ball.
And again, I can see the difference between what Sony and Microsoft are hyping for the nextgen and what most Cube titles look like... but I think its going to matter even less to me. I'd be fine if every game in perpetuity looked as good as RE4 or the new Zelda...
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 21, 2005, 01:47:04 PM
Post by: Galford on May 22, 2005, 03:10:23 PM
Post by: jasonditz on May 22, 2005, 03:43:19 PM
Post by: WuTangTurtle on May 22, 2005, 08:19:59 PM
After playing xbox 360 and seeing PS3 video showing during E3, I can say that the xbox 360 is not a huge difference and Nintendo should have no problem doing what they are able to do. PS3 on the other hand they have some insane physics and etc.
Now if you compare say PSP's "coded arms" vs DS's "Metroid Prime Hunters" you could see a big difference in both gameplay and graphics. Coded Arms had all the Graphics hands down, but Metroid Prime Hunters had all the gameplay and then some.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 23, 2005, 03:32:51 AM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 23, 2005, 01:24:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Like they did with the Sega Master System, the Intellivision, the N64, etc.
You know what I mean.
Post by: jasonditz on May 23, 2005, 03:18:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk TemporoQuote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
Like they did with the Sega Master System, the Intellivision, the N64, etc.
You know what I mean.
Yeah, I know, but I don't think those people are worth targetting anyhow.
Look at what's happening with the PSP. They're selling the hardware at a significant loss, and a lot of the earlier adopters seem to be using it as little more than a fashion accessory. The tie-in ratio is a dismal 2:1, and even that is artifically inflated because at first they only sold the thing as a bundle. That's nothing resembling a good business model.
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on May 23, 2005, 07:49:33 PM
Quote:
IBM tells all the design requirements for each of the 3 nex gen consoles
Quote: "All of these [companies] are looking for a way to differentiate themselves from each other," said IBM's Su. "What we offered them is sort of a bag of tricks in terms of processor technology ... that they could pull from to differentiate their products."
Microsoft is emphasizing Internet connectivity with its new high-definition Xbox 360, as well as other entertainment features such as the ability to connect to home computers to play music and show movies.
Sony's new PlayStation is expected to introduce a new high-definition DVD technology, called Blu-ray, along with all sorts of ways to connect with other Sony electronics such as MP3 music players and digital cameras.
Nintendo, meanwhile, is sticking fast to the gaming business. It was looking mainly for ways to better display graphics, speed up the processing power of its GameCube successor, and make it more user-friendly, with wireless controller connections and other features.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/business_24683f4d47fa40d30084.html
Quote:
I know that 14 editors already have the kits.
Activision, Atari, Capcom, EA, Hudson, Koei, Konami, Majesco, Namco, Sega, Square Enix, THQ, Ubisoft, Vu Games.
Other companies will confirm very soon.
http://www.nintendomaine.com/ndm.php?funcs=dnews:1116442391&PHPSESSID=a9540ba5efce84bd95916a2ad101c6bd
The writer doesn't include Konami but it was confirmed at the E3.
Post by: MaleficentOgre on May 24, 2005, 05:12:58 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on May 24, 2005, 08:25:24 AM
Post by: Galford on May 24, 2005, 02:53:52 PM
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
Granted it's done my Microsoft, but it talks about a couple things
we've mentioned here.
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/xbox_360_interview/
This interview is mainly about the XBox360 VPU. A lot of good info.
It points out that developers will basicly have 4XFSAA almost for free.
Well the plot thickens...
Post by: KDR_11k on May 25, 2005, 06:33:25 AM
Perhaps you mean GPU?
And "free" 4xFSAA isn't spectacular, I'm sure I wouldn't notice a slowdown if I forced my GF6800 to use 4xFSAA at all times.
Post by: nolimit19 on May 25, 2005, 09:30:38 AM
tpfkanep: this thread isnt premature or immature. all companies have released at least some specs. its worth the debate, and since there was no other thread on this subject that i could see, i think it was legit.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 25, 2005, 11:57:58 AM
But it isn't saying stuff like that, so who knows? I hope Nintendo matches the others in graphical capabilities, but I won't die if it doesn't.
Edit 1: Thanks to KDR for straightening me out earlier.
Edit 2: I agree that being able to say you have the most powerful system does mean something to some people, and I do think Nintendo will see some losses if it's system is noticeably weaker than the other two. That's why I'd like to see the company aim for similar power to the other two, even though I don't care too much. If Nintendo could manage something like 80-90% of the performance of the others, I think most people would not be able to tell that it's weaker.
Post by: MrMojoRising on May 25, 2005, 01:24:12 PM
S3 in raw power wouldn't bother me. I'm not sure i'm making sense.
Post by: MadMan on May 25, 2005, 05:40:51 PM
Q: Is Revolution "two-to-three times more powerful than GameCube"?
A: USA Today reported this news based on a comment from Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan. The information was later determined to be false. We do not yet know how much more power Revolution wields over its predecessor.
Post by: jasonditz on May 25, 2005, 06:19:12 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on May 25, 2005, 06:23:34 PM
...
Okay, that's out of the way, nobody else needs to say it.
Post by: Shecky on May 25, 2005, 06:26:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MadMan
It's been forever since I've posted here, but there's some new info from IGN's Revolution FAQ that should please Ian:
Q: Is Revolution "two-to-three times more powerful than GameCube"?
A: USA Today reported this news based on a comment from Nintendo of America's vice president of corporate affairs, Perrin Kaplan. The information was later determined to be false. We do not yet know how much more power Revolution wields over its predecessor.
Imagine that!
Imagine this!
I predict things get finalized by the end of the year for both Rev and PS3.
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on May 25, 2005, 07:36:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
That's just the kind of thing that pisses me off about Perrin. You shouldn't make off-the-cuff comments like that.
Perrin is in charge of PR, do you think she'll make a mistake like that? I'm more inclined to believe that she purposely said that as apposed to her messing up and saying that. Her job is to talk to the public, she's been doing it for years. These people know what to say before they even say it. IMO, I think this is all a set up on Nintendo's part.
Besides, there is benchmark or standards in measuring system power so who knows how everyeone's calculations match up to each other. Nintendo, MS, and Sony could all be measuring their system's power on different aspects of their systems. Also, Sony has a reputation of exagerating and MS has one for doctoring pictures, which ultimately means neither can be trusted. Nintendo has always been modest and in reality, when it all came down to it, developers always managed to push out way more than what Nintendo had always claimed was possible. As for Sony's "specs" I can only see them downgrading from here. The closer they get to release, depending on the cost of production and chips, some elements of the system might be downgraded or scrapped. Does anyone remember the psx and all how many promised features Sony scrapped from it upon release?
Post by: Don'tHate742 on May 25, 2005, 09:51:58 PM
So what your saying is Nintendo purposely made everyone think their graphics will suck so they can surprise them later when they reveal the "Revolution" by how good the graphics are as well as how small the package is.
I'd be shocked if this were true. Nintendo holds a conference (SpaceWorld) and shows the Metriod REV being played by a developer. The graphics are beautiful, the controls are perfect, and the REV is very small. Something like this could completely change the outcome of Xbox 360's launch. Not to mention how destructive the DS will already be to sales.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 26, 2005, 12:42:06 AM
Post by: Galford on May 26, 2005, 05:24:57 AM
Also, I glad to hear the 2x3 times more powerful is wrong.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 26, 2005, 09:00:34 AM
