PS3 to have Mouse + KB for FPS games!

[BenSkywalker]

That's strictly the Cell, not the SPEs?

The SPEs are part of Cell- Cell is the entire chip- not just the general purpose core. I was stating just Cell as that wasn't using the RSX to offload anything nor was it the PS3 in final form(it was actually an inferior platform in many aspects compared to what the PS3 will be, but Cell has the power to do it).

But, seriously, what would anyone use this for? I haven't been following the Cell. It's more a general CPU than a dedicated DSP(?), so that's quite impressive actually.

Cell is a FP monster that craves code with lots of parallelism- given what it wants it will slaughter anything in the consumer market. OTOH- throw a lot of integer code or single threaded code at it and it can't compete with current top of the line x86 processors. Cell also needs code to be developed in a particular way to get close to its peak performance, x86 chips take insanely sloppy code and make it scream.

what i find most amusing is that by the time consoles are actually released, the mid-high end PC's are already being sold with the same level of technology, within 5 months of release mid range PC's have it....and thats at the longest......

Go ahead and point me to anything that will compare with the XB360 at launch and then point me out what is going to go toe to toe with the PS3 when it launches. Your assertion is rather laughable at present. The R500 paired with eDRAM will be doing things we won't see on PCs for some time, and then the PS3 will be coming with Cell offering a differing set of advantages over PCs- although still very real.

just some computer monitors and some high end projectors.....normal TV's that u buy in a conventional chain shop wont be higher than 720p....

Best Buy for just under $2,000.

1080p display at CompUSA although this is $5K.

1080p display at Sears.

1080p at Target.

What on Earth do you mean 'TVs you don't buy in a chain store'? What do you call a 'chain store' if the above don't qualify?

most other console games that are worth noting end up on PC....

Like GT4, RE4, the entire DragonWarrior series, all of the Castlevanias, the Soul Calibur franchise- or for a generalized example out of the top twenty games on GR four were PC while the other 16 are console titles(no surprise) and of those sixteen four were ported to the PC. Oddly enough, one of the PC titles, the second highest in their database- was console native then ported to the PC. So out of the twenty top games in GR's database you can play eight of them on the PC or eighteen of them on the consoles(nineteen if you consider HL2 is currently being ported). Out of the top twenty two are Zelda titles, no Mario.

BTW, Ben-there are readily available 15.4" LCDs that support 1920x1080 (very close at least).

And that wouldn't be superior technology how......?

Wouldn't 1920x on a 15 inch monitor make things almost unreadable and so small?

Figure that 960x600 would be a non scaled resolution and it isn't so bad.

Just pointing out that there is no inherent inability in LCDs.

Could you link me to the sub 1ms response time display for any color shift? Also, the display needs to have a contrast ration of at least 7,500:1- that would be bare minimum for tollerable display. Should be no problem as there is no inherent inability in LCDs right?

 

[knyghtbyte]

what i find most amusing is that by the time consoles are actually released, the mid-high end PC's are already being sold with the same level of technology, within 5 months of release mid range PC's have it....and thats at the longest......

Go ahead and point me to anything that will compare with the XB360 at launch and then point me out what is going to go toe to toe with the PS3 when it launches. Your assertion is rather laughable at present. The R500 paired with eDRAM will be doing things we won't see on PCs for some time, and then the PS3 will be coming with Cell offering a differing set of advantages over PCs- although still very real.

just some computer monitors and some high end projectors.....normal TV's that u buy in a conventional chain shop wont be higher than 720p....

Best Buy for just under $2,000.

1080p display at CompUSA although this is $5K.

1080p display at Sears.

1080p at Target.

What on Earth do you mean 'TVs you don't buy in a chain store'? What do you call a 'chain store' if the above don't qualify?[/quote]

Well, mebbe for the Xbox 360 things may not be quite as powerful for the matter of a couple months, but once the PhysX chip is available to put in your PC and the newer graphics card are out in full force (mebbe by Feb) then a high end PC will be able to compete with it.....as for the PS3, who knows what will end up being released by then for PCs as the PS3 shows no definite launch date, only vague assumptions for a date it will be launched.

As for the TV's, i take you are personally going to give money to the average family/person with a conventional job so they can afford one of those monsters you are linking to???......oh and lets see, how about you find how many 1080p sets there are and how many 720p sets there are and work out the difference, its safe to say there will not be that many 1080p......and they are too expensive for the average home user.......and in case you live in a very rich area, try and understand that the average income is not enough to buy more than a $1,000 set....nevermind $2,000.....and that goes for USA and the UK....(where i am)....unless you are a true hifi/HT nut you are not going to spend the money to get a 1080p because most likely you wont worry about that kind of difference in quality......

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Could you link me to the sub 1ms response time display for any color shift? Also, the display needs to have a contrast ration of at least 7,500:1- that would be bare minimum for tollerable display. Should be no problem as there is no inherent inability in LCDs right?

No inherent inability in regards to displaying one very high resolution (dot pitch), anyway. That was in response to your quote saying you hadn't seen many 17" WS LCDs. Well, we should see more soon. But no, I can't really enjoy 1080p on my 17" 1280x1024. Why do the bigger LCDs typically have lower response times? Is it because of their high resolution? Is it possible that the higher resolution the smaller LCDs get, the less motion blur there'll be? Or it's the other way around? I don't think so, because blur is even worse at the lower resolutions.

 

[hans030390]

Sweet! mouse and keyboard for FPS games! yay!

now, whats this about the 8800???...yeah....

 

[BenSkywalker]

Well, mebbe for the Xbox 360 things may not be quite as powerful for the matter of a couple months, but once the PhysX chip is available to put in your PC and the newer graphics card are out in full force (mebbe by Feb) then a high end PC will be able to compete with it.....

Within six months I would say the PC would be close to comparable in raw specs, in terms of seeing those specs utilized the XBox360 will have an enormous advantage as it is its own weakest link(as opposed to the integrated graphics paired with P4 based Celerons that are huge in the PC world).

as for the PS3, who knows what will end up being released by then for PCs as the PS3 shows no definite launch date, only vague assumptions for a date it will be launched.

Late Q1 early Q2 '06 in Japan.

As for the TV's, i take you are personally going to give money to the average family/person with a conventional job so they can afford one of those monsters you are linking to???

One of them I linked to was less then $2,000.

oh and lets see, how about you find how many 1080p sets there are and how many 720p sets there are and work out the difference, its safe to say there will not be that many 1080p

1080p sets started showing up on the market about a year or so ago and were priced in the five figure range, now they are under $2K and we are still prior to the launch of the PS3 by a decent amount of time. By mid way through the PS3's life cycle they will be the norm not the exception for anything remotely decent. At the beginning of the current generation HDTV penetration was in the low single digits, now it is closing in on 30% in the North American market.

and they are too expensive for the average home user.......and in case you live in a very rich area, try and understand that the average income is not enough to buy more than a $1,000 set....nevermind $2,000.....and that goes for USA and the UK....(where i am)....

UK disposable income, US disposable income. The US's per person disposable income is roughly 50% higher then the wealthiest section of the UK's disposable income per household. I'm not sure exactly what impression you may have of how things are in the US, but I work with someone who moved to the US two and a half years ago from the UK and the one thing he says that makes the biggest difference to him hear versus back in England was the fact that he had significantly more disposable income here(wages are nigh identical- significantly lower taxation levels).

Looking at the above numbers for disposable income per person, the difference between 2001's numbers and 2003's numbers is enough to purchase a 1080p display. Saying that $2K in realistic terms is trivial for typical US consumers for durable goods is realistic. Not for the poor, but they don't tend to drop $400 for a new consoles or $2K for a new computer either.