PS3's RSX has been down graded in frequency. Link inside

[gi0rgi0]

Originally posted by: hans030390
To be quite honest, I am not against any of the next-gen systems. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I'll just put out a few thoughts about each console:

1. Xbox 360 - It's nice looking, and the games are nice looking too. But I have yet to see many good games...you know, the types that sell the system...on it. Gears Of War may or may not work, but I think to the general public it is unknown. They will not be saved by GoW, I promise you that. Halo 3, however, may turn out to be great. Halo 2 was, in my opinion, a big letdown. Other then that, Xbox 360 only has HD and good graphics that make it a "next-gen" console. It's lacking support for the new disk formats (HDDVD/BR). Ok, great...you can get a usb HDDVD drive for $200. Last time I checked...that boosts the cost right up to the PS3. Hmmm...I know they won't force you to buy it, but they really want you to.

2. PS3 - It's expensive. I'll say that again. It's expensive. Now, I don't know why people are complaining about "it's not a good deal at all." Apparently the world has been overrun by blind people. How much will a blu-ray drive cost for the PC? More than the PS3. Not to mention the cell has the capability to be better than the 360 CPUs...I'd have to say we're getting a very good deal, looking at the hardware. Ok, so you don't get a choice on whether or not you get BR. Tough. You can't deny that having a system that can play BR games (which could be a HUGE advantage, considering the space) and play movies would be pretty nice. Oh, wait. They lowered the clocks. Big deal, companies do that. I'm pretty sure a 10% decrease in GPU clocks won't do a whole lot. When I overclock my 6600gt by 10%, I promise you...it doesn't do a whole lot...Not to mention, companies work around this. Also, considering the library that Sony has/will have with games (with the Playstation systems), I'll be playing some very nice games on it. $600 seems expensive...but it's really not outrageous. I do have to admit the motion sensing controller is odd though...

3. Wii. I like how it works. The DS didn't win in graphics, yet I love the touch screen. I believe the Wii will have the same effect. It's cheap too. Can't beat that.

I think this "war" going on is pretty silly. Someone says a rumor, and people go "OMG SONY IS TEH SUXORZ!" To be quite honest, Sony will likely win just based on their grip they have on the console market.

Halo AND Halo 2 combined did not make the Xbox the winner. I doubt Halo 3 or GoW will really make the Xbox 360 become the winner...in the long run.

The only thing really keeping the PS3 from being as successful as the PS2 would be the cost.

Sony isn't going anywhere...The new systems will all be nice, depending on the games you want.

I like cake.

I think its a good deal. I figure $300 for a blu ray player that can also upconvert current dvds and another $300 for next gen gaming system. $600 is a lot but Ive dropped a lot more over the years upgrading my pc's. Plus the joy of playing ps games in high def. Priceless

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: hans030390
To be quite honest, I am not against any of the next-gen systems. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I'll just put out a few thoughts about each console:

1. Xbox 360 - It's nice looking, and the games are nice looking too. But I have yet to see many good games...you know, the types that sell the system...on it. Gears Of War may or may not work, but I think to the general public it is unknown. They will not be saved by GoW, I promise you that. Halo 3, however, may turn out to be great. Halo 2 was, in my opinion, a big letdown. Other then that, Xbox 360 only has HD and good graphics that make it a "next-gen" console. It's lacking support for the new disk formats (HDDVD/BR). Ok, great...you can get a usb HDDVD drive for $200. Last time I checked...that boosts the cost right up to the PS3. Hmmm...I know they won't force you to buy it, but they really want you to.

2. PS3 - It's expensive. I'll say that again. It's expensive. Now, I don't know why people are complaining about "it's not a good deal at all." Apparently the world has been overrun by blind people. How much will a blu-ray drive cost for the PC? More than the PS3. Not to mention the cell has the capability to be better than the 360 CPUs...I'd have to say we're getting a very good deal, looking at the hardware. Ok, so you don't get a choice on whether or not you get BR. Tough. You can't deny that having a system that can play BR games (which could be a HUGE advantage, considering the space) and play movies would be pretty nice. Oh, wait. They lowered the clocks. Big deal, companies do that. I'm pretty sure a 10% decrease in GPU clocks won't do a whole lot. When I overclock my 6600gt by 10%, I promise you...it doesn't do a whole lot...Not to mention, companies work around this. Also, considering the library that Sony has/will have with games (with the Playstation systems), I'll be playing some very nice games on it. $600 seems expensive...but it's really not outrageous. I do have to admit the motion sensing controller is odd though...

3. Wii. I like how it works. The DS didn't win in graphics, yet I love the touch screen. I believe the Wii will have the same effect. It's cheap too. Can't beat that.

I think this "war" going on is pretty silly. Someone says a rumor, and people go "OMG SONY IS TEH SUXORZ!" To be quite honest, Sony will likely win just based on their grip they have on the console market.

Halo AND Halo 2 combined did not make the Xbox the winner. I doubt Halo 3 or GoW will really make the Xbox 360 become the winner...in the long run.

The only thing really keeping the PS3 from being as successful as the PS2 would be the cost.

Sony isn't going anywhere...The new systems will all be nice, depending on the games you want.

I like cake.

have you even read anything about Gears of War , Dead Rising , Mass effect , Darkness , Lost Planet , Lost oddessey , Blue Dragon ??? Just watch the trailer of mass effect and you will know its an RPG that will be compare to high level quality Final Fantasy. Forza was much better than GT3 , it had way better car damage system , physic , AI and best of all Awesome online play. GT3 had better sound and craploads of content but i would chose Forza anyday and Forza 2 will be supper awesome with Wireless force feedback wheel. I just think that most of you just have a bad perception on xbox 360 :!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Sony had to cook up such an "awesome" processor to try and sell their system that they lost sight of the goal - create a gaming console to sell games.

Same mistake they made with the PS2, look how badly that turned out for them.

They were still first out of the gate with the PS2, so it isn't the same mistake now is it? Cell and BD have caused delays and problems so far and are forcing Sony to be last ones to release their system, as opposed to locking down their current fan base before they have chance to jump ship.

With Cell and a top of the line GPU and RAM all packed into a (relatively) tiny chassis you get a noise/thermal disaster.

Xenon+Xenos are larger, hotter, more expensive and more complex then Cell+RSX. That is a point of fact.

Then it must be hardware issues that they'd need to be reducing clock speeds for, which is what this thread was started about. Even if it is just a rumor, why is the system all that much larger than the 360?

Such a ?super? processor is completely unnecessary for any tasks in mind; Sony would have been 10x better off using a cheap CPU solution the likes of what is in the 360 with a larger focus on the GPU - and the kicker, a PPU. Not only do I believe it would have been easier to partition engineering resources to put together such a system, I believe it?d be easier to produce games for such a system vs. trying to get work done from the work horse Cell processor.

Ageia disagrees with you. They say that Cell can run everything their PPU can- with power to spare.

You're missing the point; I'm saying Cell is over the top. They could have avoided cost, time, software development and other issues by going with a different setup; but they had to have their Cell to boast about. 10x better and 10x more power are two very different things, I said better.

I believe it?d be easier to produce games for such a system vs. trying to get work done from the work horse Cell processor.

PS2 required assembly to get decent performance out of. Again, clearly the very easy to dev for XBox must have dominated the market due to this.

Sony no longer has all the 3rd parties by the balls like they did during the start of the PS2.

Instead, Sony is trying to give us a system that (well they want us to believe) is too powerful/versatile to use just for games - which is a huge mistake. Just like with the PSP, I believe Sony is going to lose not just in hardware sales but in software sales because they?ve lost focus on bringing a product to do what we want - play games. Yes it can play games, but Sony is trying to target more than just gaming; it is hard to hit multiple targets with one bullet

As opposed to MS who is using the 360 as their trojan to push a media center hub into your livingroom. This isn't from a business perspective- this is slapped in my face whenever I want to do something gaming related on marketplace. MS is doing exactly what you are lamenting Sony for- the only difference is Sony isn't selling a package so incredibly crippled it is unuseable in the capacity they are trying to push(have fun watching those HD trailers MS throws in your face without the $100 optional HD).

If you honestly want to talk about a company focused on games then bring up Nintendo. Sony and MS are trying to do the exact same thing, just one of them has proven they know what they are doing multiple times while the other has only managed to fail in nearly every obiective.

I failed to mention Nintendo flat out, but that is what I was talking about with the PSP reference (of which the only real competition is from Nintendo, and Nintendo is dominating with their Advance / DS), but I could see how you could fail to connect that invisible dot as you failed to do with many other things I was talking about. I should have been more specific.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: gi0rgi0

Originally posted by: hans030390
To be quite honest, I am not against any of the next-gen systems. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. I'll just put out a few thoughts about each console:

1. Xbox 360 - It's nice looking, and the games are nice looking too. But I have yet to see many good games...you know, the types that sell the system...on it. Gears Of War may or may not work, but I think to the general public it is unknown. They will not be saved by GoW, I promise you that. Halo 3, however, may turn out to be great. Halo 2 was, in my opinion, a big letdown. Other then that, Xbox 360 only has HD and good graphics that make it a "next-gen" console. It's lacking support for the new disk formats (HDDVD/BR). Ok, great...you can get a usb HDDVD drive for $200. Last time I checked...that boosts the cost right up to the PS3. Hmmm...I know they won't force you to buy it, but they really want you to.

2. PS3 - It's expensive. I'll say that again. It's expensive. Now, I don't know why people are complaining about "it's not a good deal at all." Apparently the world has been overrun by blind people. How much will a blu-ray drive cost for the PC? More than the PS3. Not to mention the cell has the capability to be better than the 360 CPUs...I'd have to say we're getting a very good deal, looking at the hardware. Ok, so you don't get a choice on whether or not you get BR. Tough. You can't deny that having a system that can play BR games (which could be a HUGE advantage, considering the space) and play movies would be pretty nice. Oh, wait. They lowered the clocks. Big deal, companies do that. I'm pretty sure a 10% decrease in GPU clocks won't do a whole lot. When I overclock my 6600gt by 10%, I promise you...it doesn't do a whole lot...Not to mention, companies work around this. Also, considering the library that Sony has/will have with games (with the Playstation systems), I'll be playing some very nice games on it. $600 seems expensive...but it's really not outrageous. I do have to admit the motion sensing controller is odd though...

3. Wii. I like how it works. The DS didn't win in graphics, yet I love the touch screen. I believe the Wii will have the same effect. It's cheap too. Can't beat that.

I think this "war" going on is pretty silly. Someone says a rumor, and people go "OMG SONY IS TEH SUXORZ!" To be quite honest, Sony will likely win just based on their grip they have on the console market.

Halo AND Halo 2 combined did not make the Xbox the winner. I doubt Halo 3 or GoW will really make the Xbox 360 become the winner...in the long run.

The only thing really keeping the PS3 from being as successful as the PS2 would be the cost.

Sony isn't going anywhere...The new systems will all be nice, depending on the games you want.

I like cake.

I think its a good deal. I figure $300 for a blu ray player that can also upconvert current dvds and another $300 for next gen gaming system. $600 is a lot but Ive dropped a lot more over the years upgrading my pc's. Plus the joy of playing ps games in high def. Priceless

What happens if Blu-ray fails , Currently they are having a such a hard time getting Dual Layer BD media out , they choice JAVA GUI which is making programmer lazy and current GUI is no where the level of HD-DVD simplicity and usefulness , they are using a Mpeg 2 still which is crazy as VLC is the best HD codec for HD content. They also don't have the movies coming out at fast rate as HD-DVD is already over 200 HD-DVD. Also the latest review say Blu-ray Video aren't upto high Image Quality standards of HD-DVD. Check the review where they play the same Movie that is out HD-DVD/Blu-ray and HD-DVD has a much better Playback Quality. Also HD-DVD has 200 Titles out while Blu-ray is hopping to release 75 Blu-ray Movies title by October 2006.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Just because you haven't place decent game doesn't mean the whole console is crap

So far. I have a Gamecube, xBox and PS2 and I have yet to see any game (that I can't get on a PC) on the 360 that makes it worth buying.....maybe in a year or two.

also your just sound like a noob by saying true next gen :?

What makes the 360 so next gen? No 1080p, no Blu-ray, no multi-display, it's like a regular xbox with a new video card.

You just sound like Sony Die IDIOTIC fanboy.

:roll: and you sound like someone on the losing end of an argument.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Just because you haven't place decent game doesn't mean the whole console is crap

So far. I have a Gamecube, xBox and PS2 and I have yet to see any game (that I can't get on a PC) on the 360 that makes it worth buying.....maybe in a year or two.

also your just sound like a noob by saying true next gen :?

What makes the 360 so next gen? No 1080p, no Blu-ray, no multi-display, it's like a regular xbox with a new video card.

You just sound like Sony Die IDIOTIC fanboy.

:roll: and you sound like someone on the losing end of an argument.

Rockstar Table tennsi :?
Dead rising only reason it failed to get high score was because of the crapy save system , watch gamespot live review and you will understand why that game is really awesome
Saint row not a total GTA clone , got really good action combat system
Cromohounds a really good online game
Motor GP 06 < best Motor racing game on any platform
GRAW << the game is totally different from PC version and has one of the best online co-op gameplay ever seen in a game

When you state a next gen console :! HD-DVD/Blu-ray got crap all to do with its that is used to watch video content , they don't enhance your games. Playstation 3 doesn't have muti-display support idiot. Also you forget to see if PS3 doesn't catch up with XBOX Live service they will suffer real bad in Western Market.