Sony's afraid.

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: ivol07

Where can I get this 72 Beetle!? I need one now! Although it does sound to good to be true. I think I'll wait until I see both side by side....

lol

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
I posted this in the other thread so I won't bother going over it again, but the math looks right for almost everything except the bandwidth where they blatantly skewed it by using the eDRAM figure. IMHO, the systems will have different strengths; on physics-heavy games the PS3 should be more powerful whereas the X360 will do better on games that require more AI work.

Graphic-wise, it looks like they will be pretty comparable. The specs are close enough that there won't be a huge difference between the two despite the hype Sony is trying to build.

As 91TTZ said, Sony spouted off the exact same "supercomputer in a box" claims when PS2 and look at how well that turned out.

They make a lot of assumptions on the RSX comparison, being nobody knows the details of the part outside of Sony and Nvidia. They (mistakenly on purpose) compare it to a 6800 (or better two 6800s) when in fact all signs point to it being a totally different beast, probably more like the G70 but specialized to work with the Cell.

They tout the xCPUs general purpose advantages while ignoring the importance of floating point performance, especially as physics and procedural synthesis become more important players next generation.

It was overall FUD and marketing. Hopefully Anand's piece will be more rounded and show the advantages and disadvantages of both architectures.

Actually, nVidia has stated that they haven't merged the pixel and vertex shaders like the ATI did for the X360, so I think that their calculations are speculative but probably not that far off. Their only comparison to the 6800 was to figure out the number of pipes, and it does seem about right; even if they somewhat underestimated the PS3's graphics, I don't think that they underestimated them by so much that the PS3's graphics will utterly crush the 360s. I think the worst case scenario for MS is if it ends up being a difference as large as the PS2 and Xbox.

As for the floating-point perf. Yes it will be important for next gen games, but the X360 CPU is no slouch in floating point performance either. Honestly, while the Cell looks like a killer FP processor it remains to be seen if the highly parallel SPE architecture can be fed consistently enough to really show what it can do; who knows how the Cell will perform with AI code being run concurrently with physics code.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The only time console games are superior to PC's games are in sport and fighting (like DOA, etc) games.

 

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Actually, nVidia has stated that they haven't merged the pixel and vertex shaders like the ATI did for the X360, so I think that their calculations are speculative but probably not that far off. Their only comparison to the 6800 was to figure out the number of pipes, and it does seem about right; even if they somewhat underestimated the PS3's graphics, I don't think that they underestimated them by so much that the PS3's graphics will utterly crush the 360s. I think the worst case scenario for MS is if it ends up being a difference as large as the PS2 and Xbox.

Well, I don't really see the unified shader model as a performance thing as much as a flexibility thing (I'm not a hardware engineer keep in mind so feel free to bitch slap me if I'm wrong). Nvidia said they tried unified shaders with the RSX and G70 and felt it did not fit in at this time.

The biggest advantage the R500 seems to have the smart memory, which can get you "free" 4xAA @ 1080i because of the massive bandwidth of the 10MB of eDRAM and it's limited processing capabilities.

I think graphicially both systems will be about on the same page. I'd hate for one console to be WAY better than the other, all would accomplish is all the third-party games for both systems would target the lower powered system. It sucked that few games for the Xbox used shaders because devs just wrote for PS2 specs and everyone had to suffer.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Seeing the two companies trying to compare benchmarks is comical at best, since both sides will intentionally avoid comparing one of their weakpoints against the other's strongpoints. It's so easy to show intentionally misleading results and bring up worthless points to make your system seem better. In the end, the average person has no idea what's going on while the engineers at the companies keep finding new ways to mislead you.

If someone was paid to show how a 1972 Volkwagon Beetle outperforms a 2005 Ferrari Enzo, it wouldn't be hard to do. For instance you could try to show that the Volkswagon has better brakes by showing how it's able to stop from top speed in a much shorter distance than the Ferrari (of course you'll leave out the fact that the Beetle's top speed is around 65 mph compared to 200 mph for the Ferrari). Then you can throw in some useless information such as how the Beetle gets better fuel economy, which means squat to someone looking at a Enzo. Then you can show how the Beetle can reach top speed quicker than the Ferrari (again, leaving out that the Beetle will only go 65 while the Ferrari will keep accelerating).

With these systems, MS is showing how their general purpose CPU is much faster, while Sony likes to show how much floating point performance they have. One likes to show how much video memory their GPU has, while the other likes to show how much bandwidth the system has. Of course these aren't really comparable since you have to program the games for these systems differently.

But dump 1/4 of the cost of the Enzo into the Beetle and it will outperform the Enzo
Off topic, I know, but I do happen to be an aircooled VW fanboy

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: thechinesehero
cool geeks calling each other names!

1. Nobody called anyone a name.
2. Dont be ignorant.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: thechinesehero
cool geeks calling each other names!

1. Nobody called anyone a name.
2. Dont be ignorant.

he's talking about Sony (a geek) calling Microsoft (a geek) names you numbnuts.

 

[Deeko]

MS doesn't resort to low tactics? Bill Gates said this race will only have two players, that Nintendo is now a niche company and real gamers won't buy them.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Deeko
MS doesn't resort to low tactics? Bill Gates said this race will only have two players, that Nintendo is now a niche company and real gamers won't buy them.

Nintendo themselves said they're not competing with either of the other two, though.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Deeko
MS doesn't resort to low tactics? Bill Gates said this race will only have two players, that Nintendo is now a niche company and real gamers won't buy them.

Nintendo themselves said they're not competing with either of the other two, though.

They said they're going a different route in designing the console, they didn't say they're not going after the same customers. There's a difference.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Bah....I'd rather get laid than play video games. So that pwns Sony and Microsoft in my book.

Man, you must be really losing out...

Can't get laid or play video games, I'd just kill myself if I were you.

 

[40Hands]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Bah....I'd rather get laid than play video games. So that pwns Sony and Microsoft in my book.

Because you can't play video games and get laid? Maybe for a noob.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: BroeBo

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Bah....I'd rather get laid than play video games. So that pwns Sony and Microsoft in my book.

Because you can't play video games and get laid? Maybe for a noob.

Heh... must not have seen the Rez special edition with the vibrator

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

Just add it to the billions Microsoft's XBox division has already lost.

 

[Zero Plasma]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

Just add it to the billions Microsoft's XBox division has already lost.

bump for late lunch crew.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

Just add it to the billions Microsoft's XBox division has already lost.

Their XBox division's losses are subsidized. (In addition to that it's part of their Home & Entertainment division) They still name the XBox part of their core revenue.

XBox 360 won't launch for less than $300. I sure as hell hope it's not $400 like some of the morons at EBX/Gamestop were saying though.

 

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
XBox 360 won't launch for less than $300. I sure as hell hope it's not $400 like some of the morons at EBX/Gamestop were saying though.

The PS3 is launching for the same price as the PS2 did in Japan, which means it should launch for $299 over here. There's no way MS would launch the 360 for more than the PS3. I think their plan is to launch for $299 then in Q4 2006 price drop and release Halo3 to counter the PS3 launch.

BTW, the RSX is still under development, so a lot can change as far as what it's capable of.

http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/company/nvidia/g70_spec/index.html

 

[Zero Plasma]

Yeah, I like the rumored prices of $300 for a regular version and $360 for a version with extra controllers, headsets, exc.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

Just add it to the billions Microsoft's XBox division has already lost.

Yeah, exactly... they've taken a nearly $8 billion hit just to be a contender, what's another few billion to ramp up initial launch numbers? Especially if they did it as a limited-intro offer to make them fly off the shelves for the holiday season, or did a mail-in rebate.

 

[LordSnailz]

Any date on when the xbox360 will come out?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: LordSnailz
Any date on when the xbox360 will come out?

November of this year. I'm guessing sometime around Thanksgiving.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Bah....I'd rather get laid than play video games. So that pwns Sony and Microsoft in my book.

Why can't you do both? Or are the prostitutes you're going to costs so much that you can only afford one or the other?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
Their XBox division's losses are subsidized. (In addition to that it's part of their Home & Entertainment division) They still name the XBox part of their core revenue.

XBox 360 won't launch for less than $300. I sure as hell hope it's not $400 like some of the morons at EBX/Gamestop were saying though.

What do you mean by "subsidized?" Subsidies are generally paid by an outside entity which obviously isn't the case here. If you mean their losses are offset by profits elsewhere... yeah, that's generally how it works when one part of a company is bleeding cash like crazy. If you mean the losses on the systems are subsidized by game sales... no, they're still several billion in the hole including game sales.

 

[RaiderJ]

PS2 had a better selection of games (IMO) than the X-Box, especially with a computer to game on as well. Personally, I'm happy with my Gamecube & Metroid. However, XBOX 360 working as a Media Center extender is great - saves me having to buy a DVD player and standalone extender! I'll probably pick one up just for that, assuming it works as a REAL extender, not like the crappy X-Box one.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: dwell
The PS3 is launching for the same price as the PS2 did in Japan, which means it should launch for $299 over here. There's no way MS would launch the 360 for more than the PS3. I think their plan is to launch for $299 then in Q4 2006 price drop and release Halo3 to counter the PS3 launch.

BTW, the RSX is still under development, so a lot can change as far as what it's capable of.
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/company/nvidia/g70_spec/index.html

Sort of... At this point every important point in the architecture is almost surely set. They're probably working on getting it to silicon right now, going from architecture to final silicon is a very long process, especially when you're talking about a chip with over 300 million transistors. The only significant thing that might change is the core frequency. They might move it up or down slightly depending on thermals and yield, but that won't happen until they tape out.