Nvidia likely to be on board for Playstation 4 graphics
- Thread starter midnightgamer
- Start date
I think he thinks the words being used is too strong...there is nothing that SAYS that...one can infer, strech it out, speculate upon it for a while...and then conclude that nVidia MAY be asked to work on PS4 as well...
But for now I say let the PS3 launch. I remember hearing info about the PS3 about 5 months AFTER PS2 launch....so hearing PS4 info, especially when its pure conjecture, is slightly ludicrous when we are 1 year from PS3 launch.
But for now I say let the PS3 launch. I remember hearing info about the PS3 about 5 months AFTER PS2 launch....so hearing PS4 info, especially when its pure conjecture, is slightly ludicrous when we are 1 year from PS3 launch.
actually there were official Sony statements about PS3 about 5 to 6 months *before* Playstation2 came out in Japan
at least half a dozens articles on the web about PS3 in 1999, and print articles too. Next-Gen had a big one
Next-Gen - 12/99
http://img111.exs.cx/img111/5751/ps319sa.jpg
http://img111.exs.cx/img111/9094/ps327zv.jpg
EE Times - 10/06/1999
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19991006S0040
IGN - 11/17/1999
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/072/072836p1.html
CNET - 10/06/1999
http://news.com.com/Sony+PlayStation2+t...ew+home+system/2100-1040_3-231089.html
Maybe he's rpedicting the future...maybe nVidia will be involved with the PS4...but it's not pertinent to be the topic of this thread lol.
regardless, PS4 is now in R&D and it will be interesting to hear, over months and years, about what technologies are going into it, just as many of us followed the development of PS3 from 1999 until the present.
Most of that stuff is wrong though.
It's not 1000 times as powerful, it's 35 times IIRC, it doesn't have Graphics Synthesiser3 (it has the RSX, unless they want to claim they are the same thing, but it's not in house, so mayber not).
Cell is not emotion engine 3, is it?
They say 2000x1000 images, not the 4000x2000 you quoted etc etc.
So the original article is also likely to be wrong
yes I know that PS3 is only 35 times as powerful as PS2. that is now.
the 1000 times as powerful as PS2 projection was nearly 6 years ago, looooong before they had Cell and what they would ultimately put into PS2. 1000 times was what Sony said they were aiming for -- that part was not wrong. they just never made it.
so it wasnt really wrong, but overestimating what could realisticly be done.
and yes, back then, in 1999 and 2000, Sony had plans to make an Emotion Engine 3 and Graphics Synthesizer 3 for Playstation3. that was not wrong either. it was just what was planned at the time.
one *might* be able to connect some dots and say that Emotion Engine 3, with its drastically changed architecture (Sony's words) is in fact the Cell. or maybe not. who knows.
Yes, the final PS3 is using a Cell Processor for the CPU and an Nvidia RSX graphics processor for the GPU. but, at least the Nvidia GPU was not part of the plan back in 1999-2000.
the 1000 times as powerful as PS2 projection was nearly 6 years ago, looooong before they had Cell and what they would ultimately put into PS2. 1000 times was what Sony said they were aiming for -- that part was not wrong. they just never made it.
so it wasnt really wrong, but overestimating what could realisticly be done.
and yes, back then, in 1999 and 2000, Sony had plans to make an Emotion Engine 3 and Graphics Synthesizer 3 for Playstation3. that was not wrong either. it was just what was planned at the time.
one *might* be able to connect some dots and say that Emotion Engine 3, with its drastically changed architecture (Sony's words) is in fact the Cell. or maybe not. who knows.
Yes, the final PS3 is using a Cell Processor for the CPU and an Nvidia RSX graphics processor for the GPU. but, at least the Nvidia GPU was not part of the plan back in 1999-2000.
the other thing was, Sony sat down with developers after they (the developers) had a chance to work on Playstation1 in 1995. Sony asked the developers what they wanted in a next-generation Playstation. the developers came back to Sony, with the requirement of (a staggaring) 18,000 times the performance of Playstation, in order to do the sort of CGI-like graphics they wanted.
with PS2, Sony only reached 300 times the performance of PS1, but said that they would meet the rest of the goal with PS3 and make PS3 1,000 times the power of PS2.
but since PS3 is only 35 times more powerful than PS2, that means PS3 is "only" 10,500 times more powerful than PS1, and thus, have not met the original goal set by developers in 1995. not that these outdated goals and projections mean much in today world of 2005 with Cell processor and Nvidia GPUs, but at least you can sort of know where all of this came from
edit: I see that was actually mentioned in one of the articles I posted above (the need for 18,000x PS1) but I never actually got around to saying anything about it
ahh here is one of the quotes from one of the articles that mentions what I said above
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.games.video.dreamcast/msg/a98aad9b402f9771?dmode=source&hl=en
(and another one, basicly the same thing)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.xbox/msg/7f15ac44b20d3f57?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.games.video.dreamcast/msg/a98aad9b402f9771?dmode=source&hl=en
(and another one, basicly the same thing)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.xbox/msg/7f15ac44b20d3f57?dmode=source&hl=en
The prediction for 1000x as fast as the PS2 was also made before the process clock wall presented itself. 180nm and 130nm were still seeing leaps and bounds in clockspeed. It wasnt until 90nm that we started seeing minimal gains in clockspeed from a die shrink. ( perfect example would also be Intels roadmaps to 5ghz Tejas CPUs. )
Well I was trying to point that out, but the OP didn't seem to care.
As I said, predictions about PS3 were pretty much ALL wrong. And I would guess most of the predictions about the PS4 will be pretty wrong too, so there's no point in making them before the new console is released.
The OP himself showed how everything predicted when the PS2 was launched that was said about the PS3 was wrong.
I think ther eis nothing wrong with sony wanting to aim for the PS3 to be 1000x more powerful. Companies usually never deliver FULLY~ so i'd rather have a company shoot high and land at position X than shoot at a position lower than high (lets call it delta) and land at the position X-delta....
nope.
because this same thing was being done when PS2 was revealed 6 years ago -- the media and websites and magazines were talking about PS3, which to you, would have also seemed rediculous
Hey, great research here! Kutaragi's mouth is clearly to big for Sony, which is one of the reasons he was demoted. You have to take what this guy says with a grain of salt and sometimes the whole bag! Just more examples of Sony's deceit as a marketing tool.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter