PS2 and Xbox Price Drops

[uncle_jimbo]

On Monday the PS2s price was reduced to $199.95, and now, earlier today Xboxs price has been reduced to $199.95 to "make it accessible to more consumers", the only one left to make a price drop is Nintendo, I believe that another reason for the price drop is so that the Xbox is able to compete with the PS2 more directly.



-- uncle_jimbo

[tycoonist]

Nintendo could drop it's price and still make a profit. My brother read in one of his video game magazines that the Gamecube costs about $50 bucks to make. So, they could lower their price to about $129.99 and still make a nice profit.

Also, I heard that Sony is going to make up their lost money by raising the costs of their games. Yeah, that should go over well with the consumers. But, I do have to give Sony its props. They are cutting Microsoft out of the race because the X-Box is already operating at a loss with each unit they sell. By lowering their prices, Microsoft is forced to lose more money on each unit it sells.

[Mr. Sparkle]

I'd buy the X-Box just because I already have the other two. :D

Actually, all 3 of these current systems kinda suck ***. They each have only 2 or 3 really great games which are exclusive to that one console.

I still say the NES was the best gaming system of all time.

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by tycoonist
By lowering their prices, Microsoft is forced to lose more money on each unit it sells.



Thats true, but its not like old Billy Goats is going to go broke anytime soon.

[flyingV]

I love games and game hardware from Microsoft. Well, I'm still just going to wait until X-box to come down to 79.99 USD, that's how I got my dreamcast.:p

[tycoonist]

Originally posted by Mr. Sparkle
I still say the NES was the best gaming system of all time.

The games that used the light gun were the ones I loved the best. Remember Duck Hunt and Operation Wolf?

[couch potato]

Xbox definetly. Decent price, kick a** games. Then gamecube, a good deal, with few, but good, games. Then PS2, a piece of junk. enough said

[uncle_jimbo]

Originally posted by couch potato
Xbox definetly. Decent price, kick a** games. Then gamecube, a good deal, with few, but good, games. Then PS2, a piece of junk. enough said


Definitely agreed, PS2 has just sort of lost its power in the gaming world.


-- uncle_jimbo

[saladbarkid]

I'd definitely get a Gamecube over a POS2:p

[Phrost.E]

X-Box followed by GameCube in my opinion. I think Sony got lazy and complacent due to Playstation's phenomenonal success, and Sony's developers have committed the same sins. Sega's DC was mis-marketed and misunderstood, but was a great piece of hardware and home to some genuinely innovative titles - something the PS2 still lacks (witness the endless reiterations of EA Sports titles).

X-Box is a great all-round gaming solution with its PC-friendly hardware and software architecture - the inclusion of ethernet connectivity, a hard disk, and of course real-time AC-3 5.1 encoding really set it apart.

GameCube will have some great software titles without doubt (bring on Pilot Wings GC!!!) which is the whole point of having a console. I think NCL made a bad decision in going for a proprietary storage medium - why not go for a standard DVD format? They went for carts last time around with the N64 which was supposed to alleviate the piracy problem, and look how successful that was...

PS2 - outclassed and outgunned IMHO...

Slightly off-topic, but in the industrial design stakes all three systems suck. It's funny how it takes a major consumer electronics manufacturer (Panasonic) to show the world how it SHOULD be done with their gorgeous "Q". PS2 tries to be too serious, X-Box is brutally ugly design-by-committee and GameCube looks like a Tupperware lunchbox.

[JuNacy]

I'd go with either PS2 or GC. Nothing on the Xbox excites me or is worth playing at the moment (other than Halo) IMHO. But hey, to each his own..:)

[tycoonist]

Originally posted by Phrost.E
I think NCL made a bad decision in going for a proprietary storage medium - why not go for a standard DVD format? They went for carts last time around with the N64 which was supposed to alleviate the piracy problem, and look how successful that was...

Nintendo didn't go for the DVD option for games because of the cost they would have to pay the DVD industry for each system that included the DVD coding. I believed it would cost Nintendo $20 for each system, which would add up after a while, and Nintendo would only pass the costs to consumers.

However, Nintendo is releasing a DVD/game console in America probably the beginning of next year. It is already in Japan, and it is like the P2 and the X-Box. It can play DVDs and video games. However, the cost is about $300.

[Bizkitkid2001]

I read somewhere in a faq on Nintendos web site where one guy asked if the gamecube can play DVDs. Nintendos reply was, it can only if the movie was put on a mini disc dvd. Kinda stupid, huh?:rolleyes:

[tycoonist]

Their FAQs must be outdated. I did a HUGE article for my college's magazine about the X-Box and the Gamecube, and Nintendo said that they were making a Gamecube model that would be able to play games and regular-sized DVDs. That's what I got from the information that I gathered, but I could be wrong.

[JuNacy]

You must be referring to the Panasonic Q. IGN.com reviewed it awhile back...here's the link if anyone's interested and there's some pictures of it as well...Panasonic Q Review (http://gear.ign.com/articles/356/356908p1.html)

[saladbarkid]

Now that sounds like an impressive Gamecube! Little out of my price range, though.

[uncle_jimbo]

EFFECTIVE MAY 21ST, GAMECUBE IS $149.95 !!!!!!!!!!!!!



-- uncle_jimbo

[tycoonist]

I posted this before, but I'm going to post it again. If anyone has a SAMS membership, they are offering Gamecube, X-Box and P2 bundle packs for great prices. You get the console, two controllers, and at least 2 games (some even come with strategy guides). Check it ou!

[Jeff253]

It's about the games and Sony's PS2 has the most 3rd party support and has more great games. As for power, the PS2 has the most powerful CPU, the highest pixel fill rate, extremely high frame buffer and z-buffer read write bandwidth, and the highest raw geometric performance.

Those who call PS2 **** just don't know what their talking about, Sony was able to develop a revolutionary architecture that has a future in the gaming industry. That accomplished icredible raw performance, raw performance that was very difficult for Microsoft to surpass after a one year delay.

I consider the PS2 a technical marvel and consider the XBOX a step backward that was saved by the DirectX/C++ programmable GPU and easy to implement texture compression.

[Jeff253]

You want to see what PS2 is capable of:

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/getaway_e3_14.jpg/image.gif http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/getaway_e3_13.jpg/image.gif http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/getaway_e3_15.jpg/image.gif http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/getaway_e3_11.jpg/image.gif

[flyingV]

Well, since gamecube came down fifty bucks, I might get that one later. But right now I'm so poor that I want to get a PSOne for heaven sake.

peace

[JuNacy]

Begun the console war has.......Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the consoles. Also, I read something interesting a few days back about how Sony was planning to lower the price point of their games......Man, first the price of all 3 drop and now there's a possible reduction in game prices. This may be the best time to own a console....

[tycoonist]

Originally posted by Jeff253
As for power, the PS2 has the most powerful CPU, the highest pixel fill rate, extremely high frame buffer and z-buffer read write bandwidth, and the highest raw geometric performance.

Gamecube Specs:
Clock Frequency 485 MHz
CPU Capacity 1125 Dmips (Dhrystone 2.1)
Embedded Frame Buffer Approx. 2MB Sustainable Latency : 6.2ns (1T-SRAM)
Pixel Depth 24-bit Color, 24-bit Z Buffer
Texture Read Bandwidth 10.4GB/second (Peak)
Main Memory Bandwidth 2.6GB/second (Peak)

Info attained from here: http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/gcn_specs.jsp

X-Box Specs:
Central Processing Unit: 733 Mhz Intel Processor
GPU: 300 Mhz X-Chip (in conjunction with nVidia), 1 Trillion OPS, 140 Billion FLOPS
Polygons Per Second: 300 million (maximum), 150 million (with texture and lighting)
Memory Bandwidth 6.4 GB/sec
Pixel Fill Rate - No Texture 4.8 G/Sec (anti-aliased)
Pixel Fill Rate - 1 Textures 4.8 G/Sec (anti-aliased)

Info attained from here:
http://www.xboxgamers.com/hardware/console/index.shtml

Playstation 2 Specs:
CPU 128-bit Playstation 2 CPU
System Clock Frequency 294.912 MHz
Memory Bus Bandwidth 3.2GB per Second
Pixel Configuration RGB:Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8:32)
Polygon Drawing Rate 75 Million Polygons per Second

Info attained from: http://www.scea.com/news/press_example.asp?ps2=ps2&ReleaseID=9

I don't know what you mean by CPU power, but the X-Box has the fastest CPU out of all the systems. As for the graphics, the specs speak for themselves, however, all of the systems are capable of producing great graphics.

[Jeff253]

Originally posted by tycoonist


Gamecube Specs:
Clock Frequency 485 MHz
CPU Capacity 1125 Dmips (Dhrystone 2.1)
Embedded Frame Buffer Approx. 2MB Sustainable Latency : 6.2ns (1T-SRAM)
Pixel Depth 24-bit Color, 24-bit Z Buffer
Texture Read Bandwidth 10.4GB/second (Peak)
Main Memory Bandwidth 2.6GB/second (Peak)

Info attained from here: http://www.nintendo.com/systems/gcn/gcn_specs.jsp

X-Box Specs:
Central Processing Unit: 733 Mhz Intel Processor
GPU: 300 Mhz X-Chip (in conjunction with nVidia), 1 Trillion OPS, 140 Billion FLOPS
Polygons Per Second: 300 million (maximum), 150 million (with texture and lighting)
Memory Bandwidth 6.4 GB/sec
Pixel Fill Rate - No Texture 4.8 G/Sec (anti-aliased)
Pixel Fill Rate - 1 Textures 4.8 G/Sec (anti-aliased)

Info attained from here:
http://www.xboxgamers.com/hardware/console/index.shtml

Playstation 2 Specs:
CPU 128-bit Playstation 2 CPU
System Clock Frequency 294.912 MHz
Memory Bus Bandwidth 3.2GB per Second
Pixel Configuration RGB:Alpha:Z Buffer (24:8:32)
Polygon Drawing Rate 75 Million Polygons per Second

Info attained from: http://www.scea.com/news/press_example.asp?ps2=ps2&ReleaseID=9

I don't know what you mean by CPU power, but the X-Box has the fastest CPU out of all the systems. As for the graphics, the specs speak for themselves, however, all of the systems are capable of producing great graphics.

First you have to understand what the numbers mean. How did you conclude that XBOX has the fastest CPU, just because of the 733 MHz. If that's what you did, then wrong. You have to remember that frequency by itself doesn't equal performance or how fast a processor is. Here are some equations that illustrate my point:

speed = rate x time

-or-

speed or power of CPU = # of calculations x frequency (MHz)

You have to understand the two processors in some detail before concluding which is faster, so let's compare:

PS2 CPU is called the Emotion Engine. Here are facts about it: 300 MHz, 128-bit, highly parrallel processor, 128-bit ALU capable of 4-8 integer calculations per cycle, 2x 128-bit FPU capable of 20 real number calculations per cycle, 8 instructions per cycle.

XBOX CPU is a Pentium III w/ cache memory size of a Celeron. It operates at 733 MHz, 32-bit CPU. Capable of about 2.7 instructions per cycle and capablity of calculating about 1.5 real numbers per cycle.

Which is the fastest now that you have some understanding about the CPUs of both systems?

I don't want to go into the other specs, but without understanding what the numbers mean, you could jump to wrong conclusions.

Furthermore, the specs listed above for the XBOX are old. When the XBOX's GPU was running at 300 MHz, it was then downgraded to 233 MHz. The pixel fill rate listed is for a 300 MHz GPU, as you can see 4800 is divisable by 300. The pixel fill rate of the XBOX is 233 MHz, which would approximately equal 3728. The pixel fill is wrong since 233 x 4 doesn't equal 3728, this means that Microsoft or nVidia has played with this number. Looking at the specs guess what I see "(anti-aliased)", which means that the theoretical pixel fill rate of 3728 results from 4x FSAA. This is wrong, since it is the same pixels being re-rendered for anti-aliasing this will not increase pixel fill rate. Pixel fill rate for the X-box without that "(anti-aliased)" nonesense, which is the way it should be listed, is 933 M/sec or 0.93 G/sec.

Finally, I want to point out that the PS2 has a frame buffer and z-buffer read write bandwidth of 48.6 GB/sec. If total bandwidth is listed, PS2 will have an incredible 53 GB/sec while XBOX is 6.4 GB/sec (shared).

[Jeff253]

I want to also point out that XBOX is one year newer than PS2 in technology and it may not have the raw performance of PS2 but it has a 50% graphics advantage because of an easy to program GPU and easy to impliment texture compression. For PS2 to even be able to produce graphics that compare or surpass XBOX's graphics is evidence to the technical marvel PS2 is. The XBOX was supposed to be 3 times as powerful as PS2, but is barely achieving only a 50% advantage (because of the above reasons I gave) that's narrowing as the true power of the PS2's vector units are being unlocked (remember their being programmed in assembly while XBOX devs could program in C++/DirectX. The release of vector C++ for PS2 will make tapping the power of PS2 much easier and the gap between PS2 and XBOX will surely narrow).

[Jeff253]

...And one more thing, I took a look at this site:

http://www.xboxgamers.com/hardware/console/index.shtml

Some of the information there is wrong and some laughable, like 80 GFLOPS, anybody who knows what a GFLOP is would know that there is no way in hell that XBOX is capable of that. I don't even have to give an explanation of why that # is just outrageous. However, there are some who don't know what a GLOP is so I'll say why that number is outrageous.

1) For a Pentium3 to be able to do that many operations it needs to be 4096-bit and issue 128 instructions per cycle and not only that contain the operation units to perform the calculations. Since a Pentium3 doesn't have anywhere near these specs, then it's no way in hell possible for the CPU.

2) If the 80 GFLOPS is from the NV2a GPU, then why is it only able of a geometric transform every 4 cycles for each vertex shader unit, i.e. aprox. 2 GFLOPS. Surely a GPU capable of 80 GFLOPS should be capable of at least TEN THOUSAND geometric transformations per cycle. Why isn't a 80 GFLOP GPU not capable of it, Why?! Because it isn't capable of it. If it isn't capable of it then it isn't 80 GFLOPS.

3) Other than the CPU or GPU, there wouldn't be any other processor that requires that kind of GFLOP performance. 80 GFLOPS for sound, don't make me laugh.

[Bizkitkid2001]

My friend has a PS2 and I have an XBOX. I rented the new 007 game and he owns the game. We set up the systems next to eachother and I realized that the XBOX is a little faster than the PS2. It also has a little better textureing but not that much. Overall I think that both systems are great but I really believe the XBOX is just a little bit faster.

Now if anyone can find me a game that is as detailed as HALO on the PS2 then I will believe the PS2 is as fast as an XBOX. SO far I havn't found a game as detailed as some of the XBOX games.

[Jeff253]

You want examples where PS2 matches XBOX in detail, see the following images. The PS2 is fully capable of matching XBOX's graphics and is capable of surpassing them. The cases where XBOX will surpass PS2 by 50% in the graphics department is because of better textures that result from easy to implement texture compression and because XBOX is easier to program for unlike PS2. It's easier to get to XBOX's power (C++/DirectX) instead of PS2's power (assembly programming).

Halo XBOX

http://xboxmedia.ign.com/media/previews/image/halo/halotgs1.jpg

GT3 PS2

http://ps2media.ign.com/media/previews/image/gt37/gt3_16.jpg

[Jeff253]

Here's another game that matches Halo in detail and this is just the beginning of PS2's power.

The Getaway PS2:

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/getaway_e3_1.jpg/image.gif http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/getaway_e3_2.jpg/image.gif http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/getaway_e3_3.jpg/image.gif

[uncle_jimbo]

Originally posted by Jeff253
Here's another game that matches Halo in detail and this is just the beginning of PS2's power.

According to mostpeople MGS2 is about all the PS2 can do, and MGS2 slows down last I checked, and Getaway still cant match Xboxs detail.

Texture layers per pass :
Xbox = 4
Gamecube = 8
PS2 = 2

-- uncle_jimbo

[Bizkitkid2001]

I think the PS2 still doesn't look as good as the XBOX but its got the games to back it up. I like all three of the consoles. But the PS2 I think is getting kinda old now. I think I herd something about a PS3 being realesed in 2003 or 2004. Now I think that will realy kick some ***.

I really underestimated the gamecube when it first came out. Now since I play it at my friends house it is a really kick *** system. It has as good graphics as the XBOX does plus some really cool games like Resident Evil. That game I think is one of the best looking games for all three game consoles.

[Jeff253]

Originally posted by uncle_jimbo


According to mostpeople MGS2 is about all the PS2 can do, and MGS2 slows down last I checked, and Getaway still cant match Xboxs detail.

Texture layers per pass :
Xbox = 4
Gamecube = 8
PS2 = 2

-- uncle_jimbo

PS2 = 1. Furthermore PS2 doesn't need this features since 48.6 GB/sec bandwidth, XBOX and Gamecube need it, their frame buffer read/write bandwidth and z-buffer read/write bandwidth doesn't come close to the PS2s.

MGS2 is all the PS2 could do? That is not what the developer of MGS2 Hideo Kojima believes, according to him MGS2 is using less than half of the PS2s power.

Developers aren't even tapping the vector units or even have then locked together for t&l for someone to even think that PS2s power is anywhere near being maxed out.

[Jeff253]

PS3 will be coming out no earlier than 2005. I find it amusing that you think a weaker system than PS2 such as Gamecube could match the XBOX in graphics, but PS2 can't. PS2's problem is that it's difficult to program for, otherwise PS2 will surpass XBOX in graphics. Developers have to just get the VUs locked together and implement texture compression with texture streaming.

[tycoonist]

Originally posted by Jeff253
Furthermore, the specs listed above for the XBOX are old. When the XBOX's GPU was running at 300 MHz, it was then downgraded to 233 MHz. The pixel fill rate listed is for a 300 MHz GPU, as you can see 4800 is divisable by 300. The pixel fill rate of the XBOX is 233 MHz, which would approximately equal 3728. The pixel fill is wrong since 233 x 4 doesn't equal 3728, this means that Microsoft or nVidia has played with this number. Looking at the specs guess what I see "(anti-aliased)", which means that the theoretical pixel fill rate of 3728 results from 4x FSAA. This is wrong, since it is the same pixels being re-rendered for anti-aliasing this will not increase pixel fill rate. Pixel fill rate for the X-box without that "(anti-aliased)" nonesense, which is the way it should be listed, is 933 M/sec or 0.93 G/sec.

Hey, I can't help that my information is old. I got it from good websites, and I can only get what people post.

However, it is quite hard to compare graphics, even with pixel rates and GFLOPS because the game companies don't really release the "true" rates. They offer graphics rates when their system is running with very few graphics on the screen. Their rates go down whenever very graphic-intense games are played.

I'm not going to get into a debate about this. I only replied with some specs. In my opinion, I would never own a P2 or an X-Box. They load too slow (and I have played too many games to see this), and the types of games that came out for the system don't interest me. I grew up with Nintendo, and I will be a Nintendo fan until something MUCH better comes out.

Finally, don't underestimate the Gamecube. It can pump out the same types of graphics as the P2 and the X-Box, and, for the pricetag (which is 50 dollars less than the X-Box and P2) you get as good as a system like the X-Box and the P2.

[flyingV]

Well, in terms of graphics, PC is the best, heheh


There is no point to argue about which one is better, since they all pretty "affordable" now, just get all of them

(I just escaped from a mental hospital):p just kidding

[couch potato]

Originally posted by Jeff253
PS3 will be coming out no earlier than 2005. I find it amusing that you think a weaker system than PS2 such as Gamecube could match the XBOX in graphics, but PS2 can't. PS2's problem is that it's difficult to program for, otherwise PS2 will surpass XBOX in graphics. Developers have to just get the VUs locked together and implement texture compression with texture streaming. i beg to differ. 1 year ago, i bought a PS2 thinking it would rule the world. i liked it, for the most part. there weren't a lot of games i liked for it. i then started looking a xbox, and i wanted it. the games are sweet, and the graphics easily surpassed Ps2's. earlier this year, i sold my PS2 and bought an Xbox. from my experience, Xbox surpasses PS2 in every aspect except the ammount of games for it. and with the new price drops, xbox is definetly better:)

[couch potato]

Originally posted by flyingV
Well, in terms of graphics, PC is the best, heheh


There is no point to argue about which one is better, since they all pretty "affordable" now, just get all of them

(I just escaped from a mental hospital):p just kidding good point. PC is the best:D

[BadBadNeil]

Yeah it always happens, a console comes out and matches the PC in terms of graphics for a short period of time but the PC is always evolving. Sure we usually have to put up with buggy releases but we get patches, can choose tons of options, can download new addons and maps, can create mods and models, and we can play on a tv (if we really really wanted to). And then when I don't feel like playing I can save the game, minimize it surf the internet, check my email, do some work, then come back to the game. Gosh check out freakin GTA3, we can even load our own MP3s into the cars!!

The only problem with PCs is that too many ppl have too many different speeds / hardware / software so it makes it difficult to develop.

If PS2 and XBOX were $20 I still wouldn't buy them. If I want to play a console i'll go dust off my old school Nintendo (the best console ever made).

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by Jeff253
Developers aren't even tapping the vector units or even have then locked together for t&l for someone to even think that PS2s power is anywhere near being maxed out.


How come sony doesn't tell them how to do it? Just because it can have better graphics doesn't meen it does. Like what you said. They havn't even used up all of the PS2s power because its hard to progrma. Whats the use of saying that the PS2 is more powerful when game developers don't know how to even use all the power? WIth XBOX they can use up all of its power and thats why it has better graphics.


Thanks for clearing up the thing about PS3 not coming out before 2005. I wasn't quite shure about that.

[couch potato]

Originally posted by BadBadNeil
Yeah it always happens, a console comes out and matches the PC in terms of graphics for a short period of time but the PC is always evolving. Sure we usually have to put up with buggy releases but we get patches, can choose tons of options, can download new addons and maps, can create mods and models, and we can play on a tv (if we really really wanted to). And then when I don't feel like playing I can save the game, minimize it surf the internet, check my email, do some work, then come back to the game. Gosh check out freakin GTA3, we can even load our own MP3s into the cars!!

The only problem with PCs is that too many ppl have too many different speeds / hardware / software so it makes it difficult to develop.

If PS2 and XBOX were $20 I still wouldn't buy them. If I want to play a console i'll go dust off my old school Nintendo (the best console ever made). you can put mp3's into the cars of GTA3? HOW!!!:confused: :eek: