So let me get this straight....

[jimithing2077]

So pretty much we are throwing around the price of $400-$500 for either the PS3 or the XBOX 360 (lets just assume that for now)

And everyone is saying how the processing power of the PS3 just owns a modern day computer and we are getting a GPU that is far from anything that we are able to have today. Sony themselves said that two 6800 cards dont even compare to the graphics processor of the PS3..

yet it almost costs around 300-400 just for a GeForce 6800 or a ATI X800 card, and then you have to shell out another 300-400 for a top of the line processor.


Why is it that we are getting unbelievable performance from a CPU and GPU in next gen consoles for around 400 yet we can't get any where near this power for our PC's commericially????

 

[Dacalo]

Your comparison sucks.

Why are you comparing with current computer hardware versus consoles that are not due until later this year or early next year?

Another thing: these companies can afford to lose some money on the consoles because they can make up the loses with software.

With computers, there is no unified market.

 

[Schadenfroh]

well, the ps3 is not going to be out untill spring 2006.... think it would be fair to compare PCs to it then?

 

[Malak]

One PS3 will sell tens of millions of units. Nvidia doesn't need to charge Sony $600 per VPU like they charge us. They'll eventually release the PC version of it and charge us an arm and a leg for it. If they charge just 1 dollar over manufacturing costs, they'll still make millions.

Same goes for every other piece of hardware in the PS3. The same applies to the Xbox 360.

Also, chances are both Sony and Microsoft will eat some of the cost of their consoles and make it up with the games and accessories. So all in all it may be a $900 system being sold for $400, but you'll need to buy another controller, an xbox live kit, communicator kit, no less than 3 games, etc etc. You pay them, one way or another.

 

[jimithing2077]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
Your comparison sucks.

Why are you comparing with current computer hardware versus consoles that are not due until later this year or early next year?

Another thing: these companies can afford to lose some money on the consoles because they can make up the loses with software.

With computers, there is no unified market.

First and foremost I dont see how you can say this comparison sucks...if it means SOOOOO much to you ill go out and say we are comparing hardware that is coming out next year. I think you and I will both know that sony will still have us beat....

It was a simple question, no need to be an ass about it

 

[jimithing2077]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
One PS3 will sell tens of millions of units. Nvidia doesn't need to charge Sony $600 per VPU like they charge us. They'll eventually release the PC version of it and charge us an arm and a leg for it. If they charge just 1 dollar over manufacturing costs, they'll still make millions.

Same goes for every other piece of hardware in the PS3. The same applies to the Xbox 360.

Also, chances are both Sony and Microsoft will eat some of the cost of their consoles and make it up with the games and accessories. So all in all it may be a $900 system being sold for $400, but you'll need to buy another controller, an xbox live kit, communicator kit, no less than 3 games, etc etc. You pay them, one way or another.

Hmmmm, very good point....

 

[apoppin]

Why? Because the PC is a multi-purpose machine.

It's O/S is designed to do many things besides game.

Game coders need to address the incredible variety of HW in a computer - their game not only needs to run well on SLI'd 6800Us on an A64 as well as Radeon 8500 and GeForce 4MX low-end cards on PIII and P4s.

OTOH, gaming consoles are designed to do one thing well - play games. And game developers need to code for just ONE set of HW per console. Not to mention the console enjoys almost "unlimited bandwith" that the PC is starving for.

That said, sometime in Late '07 with the release of R620 and G80 in "sli" configurations, "unlimited RAM", SuperFast Multi-core CPUs coupled with DX 10, SM 4.0 and Next next Gen Engines {tweaked Unreal3 + engines and Beyond] - the PC will pull ahead and console gamers will be looking forward to Xbox720 and PS4.

IF i can hook a PS3 or Xbox360 to my monitor and IF i can add a KB+Mouse, i may just choose to NOT upgrade my current rig further then 3.31Ghz and a 6800u [my last projected AGP card] and buy my first console since Genesis.
:roll:

maybe

i'd save 'serious bucks' and my computer can do anything ELSE [but play the latest games] till i upgrade sometime in '07 or '08

edited

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: jimithing2077

Originally posted by: Dacalo
Your comparison sucks.

Why are you comparing with current computer hardware versus consoles that are not due until later this year or early next year?

Another thing: these companies can afford to lose some money on the consoles because they can make up the loses with software.

With computers, there is no unified market.

First and foremost I dont see how you can say this comparison sucks...if it means SOOOOO much to you ill go out and say we are comparing hardware that is coming out next year. I think you and I will both know that sony will still have us beat....

It was a simple question, no need to be an ass about it

So comparing current pc hardware versus products that will be released in 6 to 12 months is not flawed?

Like I have stated before, Sony and Microsoft can affored to lose money on the consoles because they can make up the loses in other means.

I just stated the facts, not trying to be an ass.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: apoppinIF i can hook a PS3 or Xbox360 to my monitor and IF i can add a KB+Mouse, i may just choose to NOT upgrade my current rig further then 3.31Ghz and a 6800u [my last projectedAGP card] and buy my first console since Genesis.
:roll:

maybe

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to hook it up to a monitor. And both companies have already confirmed their units will have USB ports and be compatible with a kb/mouse.

Although... MS has reportedly said that you won't be able to use a kb/mouse as a controller. Just to type and navigate. Not sure if this is confirmed or not.

 

[jimithing2077]

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: jimithing2077

Originally posted by: Dacalo
Your comparison sucks.

Why are you comparing with current computer hardware versus consoles that are not due until later this year or early next year?

Another thing: these companies can afford to lose some money on the consoles because they can make up the loses with software.

With computers, there is no unified market.

First and foremost I dont see how you can say this comparison sucks...if it means SOOOOO much to you ill go out and say we are comparing hardware that is coming out next year. I think you and I will both know that sony will still have us beat....

It was a simple question, no need to be an ass about it

So comparing current pc hardware versus products that will be released in 6 to 12 months is not flawed?

Like I have stated before, Sony and Microsoft can affored to lose money on the consoles because they can make up the loses in other means.

I just stated the facts, not trying to be an ass.

I see what you are trying to do but im just hypothetically saying here. "I" personally think that even with the pc hardware that is going to be available to us anywhere between 6-12 months from now it will still not match the performance of the ps3 or xbox 360. I think that we will get something quite close, but nothing that can out-perform it.

What I was originally trying to get at is the fact that Sony can invest so much money into making a new "cell" processor that I dont understand why Intel or AMD have invested money to create something that powerful already. If sony can go out and give money to IBM and whoever I dont get why other mainstream CPU manufactures haven't come out with "cell technology" yet

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: jimithing2077
What I was originally trying to get at is the fact that Sony can invest so much money into making a new "cell" processor that I dont understand why Intel or AMD have invested money to create something that powerful already. If sony can go out and give money to IBM and whoever I dont get why other mainstream CPU manufactures haven't come out with "cell technology" yet

The short answer is because Sony's processor isn't bound by the same rules. It doesn't have to run all the applications that a Pentium or Athlon has to. It doesn't have to be compatible with all of the standards already out there.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dacalo

So comparing current pc hardware versus products that will be released in 6 to 12 months is not flawed?

Like I have stated before, Sony and Microsoft can affored to lose money on the consoles because they can make up the loses in other means.

I just stated the facts, not trying to be an ass.

No it is not flawed since we can project - rather accurately - how the PC's HW and the next gen consoles compare.

And the consoles will kick the PC's ass . . . MUCH worse than the original Xbox did 4 years ago . . . it only took about a year for the PC HW to catch up (with the 9700p) and at least another year for Software (in '03, with the tweaked Unreal Engine as in DE:IW).

This time it'll take nearly TWO years for PC hardware to catch up and at least another year for games . . . that's Late '07.

=========================

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: apoppinIF i can hook a PS3 or Xbox360 to my monitor and IF i can add a KB+Mouse, i may just choose to NOT upgrade my current rig further then 3.31Ghz and a 6800u [my last projected AGP card] and buy my first console since Genesis.
:roll:

maybe

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to hook it up to a monitor. And both companies have already confirmed their units will have USB ports and be compatible with a kb/mouse.

Although... MS has reportedly said that you won't be able to use a kb/mouse as a controller. Just to type and navigate. Not sure if this is confirmed or not.

i have zero doubt that all the next gen consoles will work with monitors - they support HD . . .

as to KB, it could be something similar to my Nostromo N52 [which is USB 2.0] . . . and a mouse . . . well, i can't imagine a better setup for FPSes . . . if M$ doesn't have the sense to do it, perhaps Sony will.
[they are trying to attract PC gamers, are they not?]
:roll:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: jimithing2077
What I was originally trying to get at is the fact that Sony can invest so much money into making a new "cell" processor that I dont understand why Intel or AMD have invested money to create something that powerful already. If sony can go out and give money to IBM and whoever I dont get why other mainstream CPU manufactures haven't come out with "cell technology" yet

The short answer is because Sony's processor isn't bound by the same rules. It doesn't have to run all the applications that a Pentium or Athlon has to. It doesn't have to be compatible with all of the standards already out there.

it also seems to me that this is a "gamble" for Sony . . . they are staking big bucks on the Cell processor and what better why to introduce it by featuring it in the PS3.

intel and amd are taking the "safe" route . . . . they are all going to "get there".

 

[jimithing2077]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: jimithing2077
What I was originally trying to get at is the fact that Sony can invest so much money into making a new "cell" processor that I dont understand why Intel or AMD have invested money to create something that powerful already. If sony can go out and give money to IBM and whoever I dont get why other mainstream CPU manufactures haven't come out with "cell technology" yet

The short answer is because Sony's processor isn't bound by the same rules. It doesn't have to run all the applications that a Pentium or Athlon has to. It doesn't have to be compatible with all of the standards already out there.

Ahhh simple but informs me of all i needed..thanks wingznut :thumbsup:

 

[Malak]

I'd be interested if they have a mouse and keyboard as well for the games that really need it. Otherwise, I'm just hoping I win an Xbox360 during the Mt Dew Promo..

 

[bunnyfubbles]

By the time PS3 is available we'll have SLI'd GPUs each equivilent to that of what is in the PS3 (ie twice the speed and 4x the dedicated video ram 1GB as opposed to 256MB). The one thing we probably won't have is an answer to Cell, however I'd imagine that X2's at 3GHz, AGEIA's PPU, and a ton more system ram would make up for it.

Yes, NOW the 360 and PS3 sound like killer systems, but compared to top end PC systems WHEN they're finally available, they won't be as clearly superior.

 

[DaveSimmons]

As stated above
* consoles are sold at a loss (huge at first) and profits are made from collecting licensing/royalties on ALL games
* consoles are a fixed set of hardware manufactured in million-unit lots while PCs are collections of ever-changing parts that must work together, made in smaller batches
* by the time Xbox2 is out there will be new cards from nvidia and ATI so you should compare against them. Dual-core will also be cheaper by then. By the time PS3 is out, prices on both will be cheaper.
* consoles do not need to run a full version of Windows and be compatible with any Windows application.
* intel and AMD are offering multi-core CPUs now, but they must be compatible with exsting x86 processors. Consoles use fast but stripped-down reduced-function CPUs that are good for games but are not intel/x86 or Mac/G5 compatible.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
By the time PS3 is available we'll have SLI'd GPUs each equivilent to that of what is in the PS3 (ie twice the speed and 4x the dedicated video ram 1GB as opposed to 256MB). The one thing we probably won't have is an answer to Cell, however I'd imagine that X2's at 3GHz, AGEIA's PPU, and a ton more system ram would make up for it.

Yes, NOW the 360 and PS3 sound like killer systems, but compared to top end PC systems WHEN they're finally available, they won't be as clearly superior.

1. SLI offers no improvements in games today, what makes you think it will help tomorrow?

2. If the Cell process outperforms the triple-core Xbox cpu, what makes you think PC's will be catching up with only dual-cores?

3. PPU's will help, but the Xbox 360 uses the physics SDK and has the CPU power to do the physics already. The PPU will help us catch up, for sure, but not as much as we'd like.

A year after these consoles hit, we may be seeing tech that helps us catch up. The combination of tech we'll get from multi-core, PPU's, and next gen video cards will come close, but our systems will still be loaded down with an OS designed to do anything, not just gaming. 512mb of RAM in the console is more than enough, and we are starting to need 2GB? Think about that.

 

[EmperorRob]

Originally posted by: jimithing2077
What I was originally trying to get at is the fact that Sony can invest so much money into making a new "cell" processor that I dont understand why Intel or AMD have invested money to create something that powerful already. If sony can go out and give money to IBM and whoever I dont get why other mainstream CPU manufactures haven't come out with "cell technology" yet

Unless I misunderstand the situation, Sony did not just go out and give money to IBM and ask for a killer new cpu. It's a joint effort between Sony, IBM, and Toshiba. So I would say all 3 of them stand to gain something in the long term.

http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/

http://www-03.ibm.com/chips/news/2004/0511_cell.html

 

[AlphaNex]

Obvioulsy we should all just give up on our computers because the next generation of consoles is upon us and they are very powerful. There is just no hope, the athlon64/pentium 4 will be the last generation of PC CPU's, all the servers/domain controllers/workstations/webservers/datacenters/databases/home pcs/media center pcs.....etc will all be obsolete by these new godawful jesus christ level gaming machines. I think ill go set my PC on fire, go into work tommorow with a 5 gallon bucket of water and splash the thousands and thousands of dollar server stack at one of my clients sites because next year the PS3 will be "way better" than all that obsolete crap. The new pokemon will have so many polygons on the screen that pickachu will look JUST LIKE REAL LIFE and the next anime drama story final fantasy will have 3 hour long cutscenes that LOOK JUST LIKE REAL 6 YEAR OLDS WITH PHALLIC SWORDS standing about in the rain reciting poetry.

There are always people freaking out when the new consoles come out, and yet somehow, here we still are. PC games and console games are very different, and unless some huge genetic catastrophe strikes us there will always be people who prefer one to the other.

 

[tungtung]

One of the reason why consoles can be cheap is because these consoles are single purpose machines.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: KruptosAngelos
1. SLI offers no improvements in games today, what makes you think it will help tomorrow?

Because it DOES offer improvements in games today, you must be too jealous to acknowledge it. No its not worth the money for the performance improvement but it is there. You still aren't listening though, by the time the PS3 is here we'll have single GPU video cards faster than the GPU in the PS3, then there'll be the ability to double it up with SLI.

2. If the Cell process outperforms the triple-core Xbox cpu, what makes you think PC's will be catching up with only dual-cores?

On paper it sounds better, but we don't even know if it does outpeform the XBox's CPUs. PPC technology is good, but it isn't quite as good as the A64. Do we even know if the memory controllers are going to be as effecicent?

3. PPU's will help, but the Xbox 360 uses the physics SDK and has the CPU power to do the physics already. The PPU will help us catch up, for sure, but not as much as we'd like.

Here's an example where shared memory will hurt, our PPU's will have their own dedicated memory. With a powerful PPU, what else are we going to need powerful arrays of CPUs for? AI control? Yes, that might be nice for single player games, but for online multiplayer stuff it won't be as needed as the PPU will do any of the complex physics stuff required.

A year after these consoles hit, we may be seeing tech that helps us catch up. The combination of tech we'll get from multi-core, PPU's, and next gen video cards will come close, but our systems will still be loaded down with an OS designed to do anything, not just gaming. 512mb of RAM in the console is more than enough, and we are starting to need 2GB? Think about that.

At high resolution with AA and other memory demanding features, the 512MB of ram on the consoles will be SEVERELY limmiting, especially when that memory is being shared by the rest of the system. True, it won't have an OS bogging things down but its still not ideal. You can tell they settled with less ram to save on costs, especially considering how fast it is.

You failed to mention the one thing that would have given you most support for your argument and that is in the software. While developers will have access to the resources of the next gen systems they can tap into all that power. Whereas PC game developers have to consider average power of their targeted user base, which is more than likely considerably less than that of the most powerful PC rig.

True 1080i/p gaming at the level of detail we've been shown off might still be a dream, but I do agree that consoles will have at least a few months of technological advantage for the time being.

 

[TantrumusMaximus]

There is ONLY a few areas why I refuse to go the console route:

1) The SHOOTERS SUCK! Yeah Socom 2 is a great game but who the F@#$ wants to play it with a frickin gamepad??? Any REAL hardcore gamer will demand a mouse and a keyboard. There is a crew here at work that plays that game diehard-like and begged me to join in so yeah I bought a PS/2 JUST for Socom 2..... after a week I already went through 3 controllers from breaking them in frustration, then I ordered one of the modded ones so I wouldn't accidentaly reload my gun in the middle of a fight and that one lasted 2 weeks. I got owned in a game that I should have dominated in. I am usually on top in CS Source and other shooters but put a gamepad in my hand and I feel like I am in a wheelchair.

2) There isn't the modding community for console games like on the PC.... buy a game for the PC and within a week there are already all kinds of cool things to change the game, new gun models, levels, sound changes etc!

If they can embrace the PC gamer and allow a mouse and a keyboard and give us an OS like ability to copy files etc. Then I'd sign on. Til then consoles are nothing more than beer and EA Sports & Fighter games to me.