[hexus.net]AMD claims it will power another gaming device

[railven]

As someone who owns all the above consoles, you are getting some of the facts incorrect. Jaguar was incredibly cutting edge by 1993 standards.... It had a 64 bit data bus and was powered by 5 processors.... -- The hardware was a powerhouse, but it was crippled by a rush through development and had awful support from the parent company. For a 1993 era game console to be able to run a game like Skyhammer -- is actually pretty amazing (even if it wasn't technically 3D):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Jh79AdVSo

The Jaguar at its release was the most powerful game console in existence. But the PS1 replaced it for most powerful console when it debuted.

You must have eaten up the hype. Game you linked released in 2000. What made it so advanced?

Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis - 1994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Ow3w2DIRc

Star Fox for SNES - 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TF5evojYA

Shoot, before Skyhammer came out Shadow Squadron 32X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xrlM9MJc8I

EDIT: Actually my favorite - Colony Wars on PSX - 1997, 3 whole years before Skyhammer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLlwfYwKBm0#t=157

Again, the Atari Jaguar wasn't the "fastest console." You got taken in by the hype. That's like arguing a highly clocked Bulldozer is the fastest CPU because it has more cores and clocked higher. Just look at the technical designs for the Atari Jaguar. It slogan of "Do The Math" was a joke on itself because it used 2x32bit processors, not a 64bit one (it was advertised as a 64bit system). That's like Sega responding with "The Sega CD+32X combo is a 64bit system because it uses a 16bit processor on the Sega, a 16bit processor on the Sega CD and a 32bit processor on the 32X"

Slapping together a bunch of separate cores doesn't not designate "cutting edge." Or "fastest."

The Dreamcast hardware was mostly killed by software piracy. It was incredibly easy to pirate CD-Rom software during that era and the Dreamcast hardware didn't even need to be modded to read it. The DVD advantage of the PS2 was mostly for playing movies, as most games (Dead Or Alive, for example) looks and play identically on both consoles.

DC died due to piracy, and if you tinfoil hat - MSFT's involvement, however, the issue was using "cutting edge hardware" whether it played a role in providing a development advantage is not the issue.

DVD was "cutting edge" to consumers when the PS2 launched. It was the cheapest DVD player. Blu-Ray played a similar function for PS3. It can be argued Blu-Ray provided no benefit to development as most 3rd party titles eventually reached acceptable parity and Xbox360 used DL-DVD.

The 3DO was just an ill-conceived device -- they really couldn't decide whether it was a movie player or game console throughout most of its like... The same problem that doomed CD-i and Amiga CDTV.

That issue with these devices (not too sure on Amiga, I was too young for that one) was that PSX hadn't yet invented the loss leader. So you had these devices that were basically costing $600+ and not providing anything visually appealing to what was already on the market. Considering a console from 1989 was doing faux 3D was blowing these consoles out of the lime light. Sega did a good job upgrading the Genesis creating a name for itself. Nintendo didn't even have to do anything it rode brand name even to this day.


And this is just a testament to how consoles back in the day TRIED to push limits. They didn't just release limped. I know why Sony/MSFT went this route (profits) I never once denied it. But people are jumping through hoops acting like "this is the norm for consoles." Note: At no point did I say a console was better than a PC.

 

[turtile]

Okay, so let's sum up the off-topic posts in this thread:

Step 1:Build powerful console and sell it for a loss
Step 2:?
Step 3: PROFIT

Now about that new Nintendo system...

 

[AnandThenMan]

It slogan of "Do The Math" was a joke on itself because it used 2x32bit processors, not a 64bit one (it was advertised as a 64bit system)..

The blitter and object processor in the Jaguar were both 64 bit. I don't know if I would call it a 64 bit system but it's not as simple as saying there were two 32 bit processors. In fact the system had 3 processors, a 68000, a DSP, and the Jaguar which was both a 32 and 64 bit processor on a single piece of silicon. It was actually a very complex piece of hardware for its day and such most games didn't even begin to harness the available power. Rayman was one of the few that used at least some of the capability.

 

[Shivansps]

The blitter and object processor in the Jaguar were both 64 bit. I don't know if I would call it a 64 bit system but it's not as simple as saying there were two 32 bit processors. In fact the system had 3 processors, a 68000, a DSP, and the Jaguar which was both a 32 and 64 bit processor on a single piece of silicon. It was actually a very complex piece of hardware for its day and such most games didn't even begin to harness the available power. Rayman was one of the few that used at least some of the capability.

ok the mods can lock the thread now, there is nothing more to say here.

Okay, so let's sum up the off-topic posts in this thread:

Step 1:Build powerful console and sell it for a loss
Step 2:?
Step 3: PROFIT

Now about that new Nintendo system...

What about a yearly subscription for multiplayer(and Sony does not pay for those "free" games btw), and get money out of every game copy sold? And lets not forget that make a game for it is not free either.

If there is something that Sony does very well is getting money off the averange joe whiout he ever figuring it out.
You never ever finish paying for that thing, by buying games or paying the plus you are paying for it, now if the PS Plus may be a good deal or not to some people thats another thing.

 

[AnandThenMan]

ok the mods can lock the thread now, there is nothing more to say here.

It's a fact. The console was bewildering to code for so some games simply used the 68000. It also had a memory management bug IIRC which didn't help either.

 

[Shivansps]

It's a fact. The console was bewildering to code for so some games simply used the 68000. It also had a memory management bug IIRC which didn't help either.

There is so much that the GPU can do, there is so much that the CPU can do, and 6GB of RAM+VRAM is not a lot either, they will run dry fast in the following years. You just cant do magic. You need to accept that the CPU on the consoles is not a lot more than the ones present on a $120 BT tablet + the IGP + AVX. Thats the true, a BT quad, like the one on that $119 7" tablet that anandtech just published a review is about equal to a 1.6Ghz x4 jaguar, games are limited to a x6 1.6 jaguar, there just not a lot of power there, and thats the whole point of the discussion that is several pages long already.

Devs are going to adapt like they did on the old gen, probably with a chainsaw, that is not good for the games.

 

[railven]

The blitter and object processor in the Jaguar were both 64 bit. I don't know if I would call it a 64 bit system but it's not as simple as saying there were two 32 bit processors. In fact the system had 3 processors, a 68000, a DSP, and the Jaguar which was both a 32 and 64 bit processor on a single piece of silicon. It was actually a very complex piece of hardware for its day and such most games didn't even begin to harness the available power. Rayman was one of the few that used at least some of the capability.

Can I use a 64bit app or OS on a 32bit processor?

Look at the two processors that handled the actual render path and system. They were 32bit.

http://www.vgmuseum.com/systems/jaguar/

- "Tom"
- 750,000 transistors, 208 pins
- Graphics Processing Unit (processor #1)
- 32-bit RISC architecture (32/64 processor)

- "Jerry" - 600,000 transistors, 144 pins
- Digital Signal Processor (processor #4)
- 32 bits (32-bit registers)

This "64bit" processor got BTFO by a 32bit processor ADD-ON and by a 32bit processor stand alone.

EDIT: This controversy continues to this day. The validity of it being classified as a 64bit system is still up in the air. The only confirmation it's a "64bit system" is the architect.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Read the specs for yourself, they are exactly as I stated. Anyway time to move on from the Jaguar, agreed?

 

[railven]

Read the specs for yourself, they are exactly as I stated. Anyway time to move on from the Jaguar, agreed?

Agreed.

 

[turtile]

ok the mods can lock the thread now, there is nothing more to say here.

What about a yearly subscription for multiplayer(and Sony does not pay for those "free" games btw), and get money out of every game copy sold? And lets not forget that make a game for it is not free either.

If there is something that Sony does very well is getting money off the averange joe whiout he ever figuring it out.
You never ever finish paying for that thing, by buying games or paying the plus you are paying for it, now if the PS Plus may be a good deal or not to some people thats another thing.

You have to understand that Sony is financed by debt. The few subscriptions they do have for the network are nowhere near paying it off. Servers aren't free, the backbone to the web isn't free, power and employees to run the center/marketing/finances...

Sony was losing $2-300 for PS3s when they were released just selling them. That didn't include development and marketing costs for the system. And their financial reports only show the amount of money paid down to its debt for loses. So in reality, they are probably still paying for the last console.

On top of that, keeping the retail price high like the $600 PS3 lowers the market saturation. That means there are less games sold, less subscriptions sold, the development costs per console sale (hardware and software) soar...

My point is, the replies in this thread don't seem to understand how to operate a business.

If Sony and Microsoft didn't have massive access to cash and/or debt, they'd be out of business from the last generation.

 

[ShintaiDK]

yet dropped windows media center support on the Xbone...

Ya, MS can screw themselves, that's the exact reason why I didn't even want one actually. MS just dropped support for something that should have worked out of the box, and worked WELL given this "It's an entertainment system too!" thing they were trying to push.

Thats another tragic part. The media center was dropped so MS could save some pennies due to codec cost and such. the same applies on the PC why Windows 8/8.1 dont have the media center. But something you can buy as an addon for 10$.

 

[MisterLilBig]

So you are saying if the consoles had more powerful hardware, the designers wouldnt use it? It is a chicken vs egg argument in a way, but the limiting factor is the hardware. The designers are designing down to that. But I dont mean that in a bad way, even a top end PC has limits. It is just that I dont understand why some of the console and AMD fans get so defensive when the console's limits are pointed out. They are a good compromise between power usage, price, and performance, but certainly not cutting edge hardware.

Not like you said it, but similar. I am saying that a developer who has no reason to do extra work, will not do the extra work. And that should be quite understandable, and that is Ubisoft as an example, and others.

One designs and optimizes for the most common spec. If there is reason to, one optimizes for a specific target also.

That's the question. From this thread alone I learned the people defending the consoles don't even own them, have zero interest in them and will most likely not buy one. Knowing Sony's key power focal point I can say they designed a great Console. MSFT hasn't given a direct reasoning for their choices, well except they didn't want to repeat RRoD. But that was solved by using a giant half empty box with a fan half the size of it. Haha.

I defended what consoles are, not what they should be, could be or I want them to be.

What I can say is, from this thread alone I learned the people criticizing the consoles don't have a clue of what they are like, the decisions, the design and the business of game software and game hardware development.

People claim these are just some "tablet chips", what none sense. It has small low power cores, the cores, everything else is way beyond any APU ever created, it consumes like 15-18 times more power than any tablet.

And, don't both consoles have extra processors for specific tasks? I know the XOne has them, yet no one has pointed them out yet.

The peak GFLOPS of the PS4 is up to 2.5 times more of an i7-4770R.
The XOne, almost 2 times more of an i7-4770R(you know, the super expensive to get GT3e APU).
The PS3 has 422 GFLOPS.
The i7-4770R has 832 GFLOPS.
(GFLOPS used as a simplistic measure of performance, difference and improvement.)

Meaning, we are 2-3 years away from being able to get something like a console, feature, performance, size, anything really and still it would be more expensive.

 

[ShintaiDK]

instant FUD opportunity.. hard to pass by is it not.

- In other news, the same reporter explained why Intel has not moved beyond 4 cores for mainstream : The software is just not there. Over to you Roger, with the weather, is it gonna rain?

Or was that another Shintai? I keep mixing em up.

How is it FUD? Its a simple fact. But hey, better go for the person than the ball?

If you had kept focus, you would notice I added the loss of the 3GB memory part to the original poster and simply made a summom up. Or you had have noticed earlier when I advocated for 4 faster cores than 8 slow.

And thats a real shame, only 4.5-5.5GB left for games sets its limits when 8-16GB is the norm today for new systems. Not to mention the terrible slow cores and why dualcores run these console ports so well.

 

[NTMBK]

Anyone comparing to tablets, remember one thing- thermal throttling. The PS4 may only run at 1.6GHz, but that clock is rock solid. It won't drop down to half that frequency just because you loaded the GPU at the same time.

 

[MisterLilBig]

If the console games had the full 8GB of RAM available to them, us PC gamers would need atleast 12GB of RAM minimum.

My question is, isn't a minimum increase of 20 times more dedicated memory towards games enough to see some changes in the next 5 years? Remember, most last gen games only had 256-512MB's to work with.


**Edit: Added below**


To add to the choice of cpu cores argument, specifically, the Core i5 3570 at 3.4 GHz puts out 105 GFLOPS. That is higher than the PS4's cpu cores, and lower than the XOne's cpu cores.
PS4's Jaguar has 102.4 GFLOPS. XOne's Jaguar has 112 GFLOPS.

Even more to add, if you went for 4 cores on the consoles, you end up screwed, 4C/4T, for the design of them you need at least 2 threads or 2 cores, for OS and background tasks.
What, an i7? Yeah, price. An i5? There goes performance. Atom? Maybe, but intel gpu not good enough.

An AMD chip was and still is the best option. The next best thing would of been an ARM chip. And then, a PowerPC chip.

Each decision made was good for PC gamers.

Out of Order cores.
More cores.
More RAM.
Mainstream PC ISA.
CPU performance in the same league as Ivy Bridge.
Incomparable SoC performance.
Comparable low level API or the promotion towards lower level API's for the rest of us.
Awesome PC compatible controllers.

 

[SickBeast]

The CPUs in these AMD APUs are too weak. Even with 8 cores they are only half as powerful as a dual core i3. It's really hard to program games to properly use 8 cores.

The graphics portions of the APUs are very good, but with such a terrible CPU it really holds back what the developers can do.

 

[monstercameron]

The CPUs in these AMD APUs are too weak. Even with 8 cores they are only half as powerful as a dual core i3. It's really hard to program games to properly use 8 cores.



The graphics portions of the APUs are very good, but with such a terrible CPU it really holds back what the developers can do.

Yeah tell the frostbite team or the kill zone team...or even the infamous as team that it can't be done. Highly threaded engines have already been deployed in quite a few games. These "weak" cores have in effect future proofed this gem of consoles.

 

[cytg111]

One might even suspect that the console makers consulted with these studios on what kind of hardware, given an envelope, they'd prefer? Maybe?

 

[MisterLilBig]

The CPUs in these AMD APUs are too weak. Even with 8 cores they are only half as powerful as a dual core i3. It's really hard to program games to properly use 8 cores. The graphics portions of the APUs are very good, but with such a terrible CPU it really holds back what the developers can do.

My answer to this comment was already given on a post before it, so, I'll copy paste it here.

Me: "To add to the choice of cpu cores argument, specifically, the Core i5 3570 at 3.4 GHz puts out 105 GFLOPS. That is higher than the PS4's cpu cores, and lower than the XOne's cpu cores.
PS4's Jaguar has 102.4 GFLOPS. XOne's Jaguar has 112 GFLOPS."

The 4 core Intel Core i5-3570 at 3.4GHz is weaker than the 8 core XOne Jaguar at 1.7GHz.

 

[MisterLilBig]

One might even suspect that the console makers consulted with these studios on what kind of hardware, given an envelope, they'd prefer? Maybe?

MS and Sony do, Nintendo makes the choices based on their own.

 

[ShintaiDK]

To add to the choice of cpu cores argument, specifically, the Core i5 3570 at 3.4 GHz puts out 105 GFLOPS. That is higher than the PS4's cpu cores, and lower than the XOne's cpu cores.
PS4's Jaguar has 102.4 GFLOPS. XOne's Jaguar has 112 GFLOPS.

Its quite meaningless isnt it. The Cell in theory can provide 230Gflops. Yet its much slower. My Haswell is also 200Gflops or so. Yet its not twice as fast as a 3570K.

Even more to add, if you went for 4 cores on the consoles, you end up screwed, 4C/4T, for the design of them you need at least 2 threads or 2 cores, for OS and background tasks.
What, an i7? Yeah, price. An i5? There goes performance. Atom? Maybe, but intel gpu not good enough.

Why would you need 2 cores for OS/background? I am sure you could settle for 1. If it was even needed at all.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

You must have eaten up the hype. Game you linked released in 2000. What made it so advanced?

Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis - 1994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Ow3w2DIRc

Star Fox for SNES - 1993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TF5evojYA

Shoot, before Skyhammer came out Shadow Squadron 32X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xrlM9MJc8I

EDIT: Actually my favorite - Colony Wars on PSX - 1997, 3 whole years before Skyhammer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLlwfYwKBm0#t=157

Again, the Atari Jaguar wasn't the "fastest console."

Slapping together a bunch of separate cores doesn't not designate "cutting edge." Or "fastest."

Incorrect. The Jaguar was indeed faster on a hardware standpoint. Skyhammer was actually developed in 1994-5 but was shelved by Atari's demise. Atari Corp shut down in 1996 -- so all games released for Jaguar were done by 3rd Party / enthusiasts after that point (the 2000 release was through Songbird Productions if I'm not mistaken).

The 32X was released a year later than Jaguar -- yet was inferior hardware. All you need to do is look at Doom on both systems.... Even John Carmack has gone on the record that the Jaguar was the most powerful console of 1993.... But clearly no match for the PS1 which was the actual nail in the Jaguar's coffin.

Starfox is no comparison -- it was a on-rails shooter that simply scaled and rotated. Nothing technically impressive about it (and never has been), the Sega CD could do the exact same thing (Batman Returns driving sequences for example).

Skyhammer was a 3D space shooter like the PC's Descent or G-Police on the PS1. Shadow Squadron is indeed an awesome game (I have it and a 32X) -- but again, a game without any texture mapping. Skyhammer is a more technically impressive feat on older hardware.

The Jaguar was indeed the PS3 of its era -- incredibly powerful hardware that was a nightmare to program. Most games (usually were straight ports from 16 bit computer or consoles) running on the Motorolla 68K processor only (Rayman) which is why the console has such a lousy reputation.... The development tools for the more powerful chips (Tom & Jerry) were practically non-existent.

As for the 5 chip approach.... During the early days of multitasking, multiple hardware chips was one of the strategies. The Amiga was considered a pretty good computer for its day and used a similar approach for its hardware design. We can Monday Morning quarterback it now (I think the PS1's single powerful chip is the best approach personally -- much easier to program).... But they were trying to innovate at the time.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yeah tell the frostbite team or the kill zone team...or even the infamous as team that it can't be done. Highly threaded engines have already been deployed in quite a few games. These "weak" cores have in effect future proofed this gem of consoles.

Isnt it more the games than the engine? As far as I know only a single Frostbite 3 game scales to 8 threads, and thats BF4. not to mention the obvious scaling issue.

What makes you think in any way that more slow cores are future proofed? This is the absolute best case scenario and we saw it in a single game.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The CPUs in these AMD APUs are too weak. Even with 8 cores they are only half as powerful as a dual core i3. It's really hard to program games to properly use 8 cores.

The graphics portions of the APUs are very good, but with such a terrible CPU it really holds back what the developers can do.

Since you are an expert on game development for game consoles, how many games have you personally published on Xbox One or PS4?

Crickets.... yeah.....

 

[monstercameron]

Isnt it more the games than the engine? As far as I know only a single Frostbite 3 game scales to 8 threads, and thats BF4. not to mention the obvious scaling issue.

What makes you think in any way that more slow cores are future proofed? This is the absolute best case scenario and we saw it in a single game.

It is future proofed in the sense that it will take time for devs to fully utilize multithreading, which means probably more years of research.