nVidia may land Play Station 3 deal...

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: shady06
after losing xbox 2 they better get this one

Why? They've got plently of fortune with the Mobo Chipset Market.

xbox was a HUGE part of their profit earnings

Are you sure? I went looking over the numbers one time, and while they were a pretty sizable source of revenue, Nvidia wasn't getting much in the way of profit out of the Xbox chips.

20% of Nvidias profits come from the Xbox.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
when consoles come out, they are about half to a quarter as fast as the fastest PC, xbox, is the only exception as microsoft has cash to lsoe, and lost 150 bucks per unit sold. When n64 (93mhz) came out the had over 200 mhz machines, dreamcast came out(200mhz) they had over 500 mhz machines, then gamecube and xbox came out(485 and 733mhz) the best was 750mhz. Xbox has been the only exception and i doubt that sony or nintendo will have a console as fast as microsoft's next one. PS3 will have a cpu under 2ghz and so will nintendo's next one, xbox2 may be near 2ghz, but i will wager all will be well under 2ghz. 1.5ghz if they are lucky. look at the past as consoles come out each one is a little more then twice as fast as the last. 733mhz X 2? over 1400 mhz. and video wise, they could do fine with the same xbox gpu and a 1.5ghz cpu and make games look far better. people are expecting alot out of consoles, but they will never ever get good hardware out of consoles. meory wise, maybe 128Mb. these companies really need to re think the design of there systems. I could make a console hal the price of theres and 150% faster. here would be the specs of a system i would have made if i was in charge.

nforce 2 based chipset
athlon xp with barton core at 800 mhz. 100mhz fsb, 8X multiplier
geforce 4 ti4200, but with 32MB of integrated memory, have the clocks 200/450
2 64 sticks of pc 1600 ddr memory for dual channel
western digital 20gig hard drive
cheap 48X cd drive
case for it
cool logo
other accesories, usb controller ports, controller what not

if microsoft had amd make an athlon xp barton cpu that was cheaply made that only would hit about 800mhz, it would be great performance and under 40 bucks. then have nvidia make a gf4 ti4200 32MB that would run at a max of 200/450, that would maybe cost 40-45 bucks. have nvidia also make the cheapest possible nforce 2 motherboard thta was made with its chipset to run perfectly in sync with the memry processor and video card, the syustem would be free of bottle necks. ad all this together and you get about 160 doller console that would be more then twice as fast as xbox, much cheaper, and be made by me 🙂 my rant is over, but it was fun making a console 🙂

An 800Mhz Barton and a ti4200 would not be anywhere near as twice fast as the Xbox.

You also cant do MHz vs Mhz. Unless its of the same product line. Its like saying a Intel P4 2.0Ghz is the same speed as a Opteron 246 2.0Ghz. Theres more than just MHz, theres also IPC, and other things that determine how well a CPU preforms.

In all likely hood, if MS uses off the shelf PC parts, that are modified, the CPU will be in the 2-3Ghz range, the GPU will be 4-5 generations newer, the system will likely have 256MB of fastest RAM availible.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
when consoles come out, they are about half to a quarter as fast as the fastest PC, xbox, is the only exception as microsoft has cash to lsoe, and lost 150 bucks per unit sold. When n64 (93mhz) came out the had over 200 mhz machines, dreamcast came out(200mhz) they had over 500 mhz machines, then gamecube and xbox came out(485 and 733mhz) the best was 750mhz. Xbox has been the only exception and i doubt that sony or nintendo will have a console as fast as microsoft's next one. PS3 will have a cpu under 2ghz and so will nintendo's next one, xbox2 may be near 2ghz, but i will wager all will be well under 2ghz. 1.5ghz if they are lucky. look at the past as consoles come out each one is a little more then twice as fast as the last. 733mhz X 2? over 1400 mhz. and video wise, they could do fine with the same xbox gpu and a 1.5ghz cpu and make games look far better. people are expecting alot out of consoles, but they will never ever get good hardware out of consoles. meory wise, maybe 128Mb. these companies really need to re think the design of there systems. I could make a console hal the price of theres and 150% faster. here would be the specs of a system i would have made if i was in charge.

nforce 2 based chipset
athlon xp with barton core at 800 mhz. 100mhz fsb, 8X multiplier
geforce 4 ti4200, but with 32MB of integrated memory, have the clocks 200/450
2 64 sticks of pc 1600 ddr memory for dual channel
western digital 20gig hard drive
cheap 48X cd drive
case for it
cool logo
other accesories, usb controller ports, controller what not

if microsoft had amd make an athlon xp barton cpu that was cheaply made that only would hit about 800mhz, it would be great performance and under 40 bucks. then have nvidia make a gf4 ti4200 32MB that would run at a max of 200/450, that would maybe cost 40-45 bucks. have nvidia also make the cheapest possible nforce 2 motherboard thta was made with its chipset to run perfectly in sync with the memry processor and video card, the syustem would be free of bottle necks. ad all this together and you get about 160 doller console that would be more then twice as fast as xbox, much cheaper, and be made by me 🙂 my rant is over, but it was fun making a console 🙂

Question: Are you drunk???

First off... How is "about 160 doller console" half as much? And I'm not sure how you figure that it's "twice as fast". Oh yeah, you aren't going to fit much data on a CD.

Second off... I can only presume that you realize that the Xbox was created over two years ago.

Third off... After you create this cheap console... Do you think that everyone is going to write the BIOS, dashboard, drivers, OS, etc for free? Not only that, but do a quality enough job so that developers want to work with your genius plan?


Sorry, but it can really be annoying when everyone thinks they know so much more than the people who are actually designing these things.

 

[magomago]

Hey wing - gotta any insider info 😉 Who has the Xbox2 CPU contract? AMD or you guys...I know you wanna tell us 😀

 

[bigpow]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: bigpow
As much as I like Nvidia & Sony, I hope Sony will use it's own Emotion Engine (again) instead of using something from Nvidia.
Don't get me wrong, I've a GF4 and a PS2. I'd hate to see everything carries out Nvidia chips, diversity is GOOD.

ATi (Gamecube 2), ATi (Xbox 2), and nVidia or Sony (PS3) is not much diversity!

My point exactly!

More quality stuffs from different makers are good for the consumer
Again, only IMO

 

[bigpow]

Originally posted by: modedepe

Originally posted by: hypersonic5
I really don't think that anything that Sony cooks together internally could come even close to anything ATi or Nvidia has to offer in 2005.

Yeah I kind of agree. I think sony is going to contract with somebody else if they want to stay competitive.

Again, check out Sony PS2 (developed years before year 2000?) running its latest games such as Dark Cloud 2
Remember this was the time when 3dfx still reign?
And of course, ATI was having trouble with its driver?
Nvidia was struggling with its first Detonator (unified) release?
Matrox was dreaming about dual-head?

Geez, I've been playing games too long!

 

[mchammer187]

I am betting they will go in house and it will rock

remember when the PS2 came out the fastest video card was a Geforce 2 Ultra and 1 Ghz CPUs

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: magomago

If that was true then a lot of ps2 games would be devastatingly uglier and simplier than the Xbox counterparts because the Ps2 is a 300mhz console.

They are devastatingly uglier. Do you think the PS2 could run Doom III or Halo 2? The only reason the Xbox doesn't have more stunning titles out right now is because a lot of games are multiplatform, so the graphics have to be dumbed down to work on all 3 platforms.

 

[0roo0roo]

lol, i seem to remember how sony fanboys used to complain how a xbox was just a computer😛

 

[MournSanity]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lol, i seem to remember how sony fanboys used to complain how a xbox was just a computer😛

And they were right. The Xbox is basically a computer. It just plays games really well 😉

 

[Tret]

I think what's giving nvidia profit is their motherboards

 

[dguy6789]

true, i have a missed a few points, but an 800 mhz barton will completely flatten a 733 celeron . 512 cache to 128? all that architecture improvement. plus the video card getting its OWN vram? Yes 160 bucks is about half as much as xbox. it cost microsoft over 280 bucks to make each xbox my friend. they lose a pretty good bit of money on each one. and im not just doing mhz to mhz, the graphics power also tends to scale with the processor speed, so i didnt worry about mentioning the graphics. but the xbox has over twice the graphical power of ps2. the ps2 may be a little under a geforce 2 mx200 in graphical power. the xbox has a gf3 ti200 type video card with a few extra things. And, no console will be 1gb of meory by the next one lmao, xbox has "plenty of ram" as far as developers are concerned and it has only 64MB, and ps2 has 32, and gamecube has 40. xbox has the power to look stunning.if a game was made completely from start to finish off of xbox hardware, and was made to use it to the very fullest, the game would slap doom 3 in the face visually. the reason games liek doom 3 dont look so awesome or run so awesome on low end hardware is because they made the game out of there minds, they didnt set a very specific limitation o nhow they were going to make it. and me and a few of my buds would work on the bios.

(performance wise the gamecube's cpu is faster then the xbox's. every single cpu on a console has performed less, not mroe then what its mhz is, like, an xbox cpu at 733 mhz would be a 450+ maybe. they cut corners my friend, they do anything for raw mhz. i assure you im not drunk, but it makes me laugh how much money they wasted. true this system would be more expensive then xbox if this was released then, but im talking about now, and a new console, this would be faster and cheaper then anything they come up with)

 

[MournSanity]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
true, i have a missed a few points, but an 800 mhz barton will completely flatten a 733 celeron . 512 cache to 128? all that architecture improvement. plus the video card getting its OWN vram? Yes 160 bucks is about half as much as xbox. it cost microsoft over 280 bucks to make each xbox my friend. they lose a pretty good bit of money on each one. and im not just doing mhz to mhz, the graphics power also tends to scale with the processor speed, so i didnt worry about mentioning the graphics. but the xbox has over twice the graphical power of ps2. the ps2 may be a little under a geforce 2 mx200 in graphical power. the xbox has a gf3 ti200 type video card with a few extra things. And, no console will be 1gb of meory by the next one lmao, xbox has "plenty of ram" as far as developers are concerned and it has only 64MB, and ps2 has 32, and gamecube has 40. xbox has the power to look stunning.if a game was made completely from start to finish off of xbox hardware, and was made to use it to the very fullest, the game would slap doom 3 in the face visually. the reason games liek doom 3 dont look so awesome or run so awesome on low end hardware is because they made the game out of there minds, they didnt set a very specific limitation o nhow they were going to make it. and me and a few of my buds would work on the bios.

(performance wise the gamecube's cpu is faster then the xbox's. every single cpu on a console has performed less, not mroe then what its mhz is, like, an xbox cpu at 733 mhz would be a 450+ maybe. they cut corners my friend, they do anything for raw mhz. i assure you im not drunk, but it makes me laugh how much money they wasted. true this system would be more expensive then xbox if this was released then, but im talking about now, and a new console, this would be faster and cheaper then anything they come up with)

Dude, give it up. Let the EXPERTS at Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft design their consoles.

 

[dguy6789]

ok, was kind wondering how i would get the time to do all this anyway, lazyness.......... there is one lesson from this
"it is better to watch stuff, then to do stuff"-homer simpson

 

[bigpow]

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: magomago

If that was true then a lot of ps2 games would be devastatingly uglier and simplier than the Xbox counterparts because the Ps2 is a 300mhz console.

They are devastatingly uglier. Do you think the PS2 could run Doom III or Halo 2? The only reason the Xbox doesn't have more stunning titles out right now is because a lot of games are multiplatform, so the graphics have to be dumbed down to work on all 3 platforms.

You want to run DOOM3?
Get a PC, buddy!
Same reason for Starcraft/Age of Empire freaks out there. 😀

*edit*
(no phun intended!)

 

[bigpow]

Originally posted by: bigpow

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: magomago

If that was true then a lot of ps2 games would be devastatingly uglier and simplier than the Xbox counterparts because the Ps2 is a 300mhz console.

They are devastatingly uglier. Do you think the PS2 could run Doom III or Halo 2? The only reason the Xbox doesn't have more stunning titles out right now is because a lot of games are multiplatform, so the graphics have to be dumbed down to work on all 3 platforms.

You want to run DOOM3?
Get a PC, buddy!
Same reason for Starcraft/Age of Empire freaks out there. 😀

*edit*
(no phun intended!)

I happen to own an XBOX, PS2 and PC. (ordered according to cost, cheap - moderate - expensive)

New games released for multiple platforms (e.g.: Harry Potter?), look completely different on each platform!
I actually bought the same game, for three different platforms and tried them out.
Completely new games even on one title!
Not just because of the hardware/software, but difference in term of graphics, levels and even gameplay/plot!

This is just simply COOL 😀

 

[draggoon01]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
true, i have a missed a few points, but an 800 mhz barton will completely flatten a 733 celeron . 512 cache to 128? all that architecture improvement. plus the video card getting its OWN vram? Yes 160 bucks is about half as much as xbox. it cost microsoft over 280 bucks to make each xbox my friend. they lose a pretty good bit of money on each one. and im not just doing mhz to mhz, the graphics power also tends to scale with the processor speed, so i didnt worry about mentioning the graphics. but the xbox has over twice the graphical power of ps2. the ps2 may be a little under a geforce 2 mx200 in graphical power. the xbox has a gf3 ti200 type video card with a few extra things. And, no console will be 1gb of meory by the next one lmao, xbox has "plenty of ram" as far as developers are concerned and it has only 64MB, and ps2 has 32, and gamecube has 40. xbox has the power to look stunning.if a game was made completely from start to finish off of xbox hardware, and was made to use it to the very fullest, the game would slap doom 3 in the face visually. the reason games liek doom 3 dont look so awesome or run so awesome on low end hardware is because they made the game out of there minds, they didnt set a very specific limitation o nhow they were going to make it. and me and a few of my buds would work on the bios.

(performance wise the gamecube's cpu is faster then the xbox's. every single cpu on a console has performed less, not mroe then what its mhz is, like, an xbox cpu at 733 mhz would be a 450+ maybe. they cut corners my friend, they do anything for raw mhz. i assure you im not drunk, but it makes me laugh how much money they wasted. true this system would be more expensive then xbox if this was released then, but im talking about now, and a new console, this would be faster and cheaper then anything they come up with)

technical differences don't really matter, popularity matters more. only if the difference is significant, meaning it makes a difference in games on one console that another console just can't do. example is how ps1 took full advantage of cd-rom with full motion video. msft hoped to do same with hdd, but so far they've only used it for nice features and not something significant. a big mistake imo, and a costly one for every xbox. if they didn't have plans on great ways of using hdd, they shouldn't have added it. blinx??? was suppose to be necessary because the hdd would work in combination with xbox-live, but again, the experience on xbox isn't much different than on ps2. kinda sad for msft almost

 

[Lonyo]

I thought the Cell processor was designed to it could be used to finction in different ways, so it would be versatile and used for all the differnt functions needed within the console.
But that was just what I though, so I could be wrong.

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: bigpow

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: magomago

If that was true then a lot of ps2 games would be devastatingly uglier and simplier than the Xbox counterparts because the Ps2 is a 300mhz console.

They are devastatingly uglier. Do you think the PS2 could run Doom III or Halo 2? The only reason the Xbox doesn't have more stunning titles out right now is because a lot of games are multiplatform, so the graphics have to be dumbed down to work on all 3 platforms.

You want to run DOOM3?
Get a PC, buddy!
Same reason for Starcraft/Age of Empire freaks out there. 😀

*edit*
(no phun intended!)

I'm not trying to argue that the Xbox is a better gaming platform than the PC, because I don't think it is. The PC will always be my primary gaming system before any console will be. What I was comparing were the graphical capabilities of the Xbox vs. the PS2, in which case the Xbox clearly has more power and potential.

I'm also interested in which games you purchased for all 3 platforms that had significantly different graphics and gameplay on each platform. Aside from the occasional shader and increased texture resolution, games aren't really developed individually for 3 different platforms. It just doesn't make business sense.