Which console will make it?

[smelanson]

We all have our preference based on previous consoles, games, etc. But which one do you think will make it in the end? The XBOX has great games but all the good games it has have usually came out for PC, not to mention the hardware issues that it has. The PS2 is a good system, most of its games are not out for the PC and there is no real hardware issue at this time. It is a bit outdated though being 1-2 years older then the other consoles. The Gamecube with its very unique design and games that you will never see on the PC. It also has a bit of upgrade ability with the up and comming Gameboy adapter which will give it a larger selection much like the PS2. My money is with a company that has been around for a long time and knows what there doing, Nintendo!

[bdmst16]

I honestly think that we now have a solid three way race in the console wars. I don't see either one dying out.

1.) PS2 is the most successfull of the three, but had one year without competition. The worldwide userbase is huge. Sony isn't going anywhere.

2.) The Xbox gained a lot with the bundle package this Christmas, and Xbox Live is very successful. Outsold the PS2 Adpater by 86%. If Bill wants the Xbox to stay afloat, he has the capital to do so.

3.) Nintendo is the granddaddy of the group. The revenue brought in from the GBA alone could secure Nintendo's future. Mario, Link, Metriod, Donky Kong...etc.etc, these names carry too much weight to go away.


All three systems are selling relatively well, with bigger and better games coming out in the near future. It looks like the market can sustain three consoles :D

[AllGamer]

quite flankly NONE OF THEM will make it

since they keep releasing a new Console ever 1.5 year

so it's totally pointless

PC is best :D :D :D

but right now PS2 is taking the lead :p

:t

[Bigjakkstaffa]

None - theyre all a waste of money on old technology IMO

--Jakk:t

[JuNacy]

ALL of them will make it, at least until the next generation of systems are released. Despite how most people here feel about consoles, they aren't going anywhere and will continue to be around in some form or another. They can't be stopped!!! :D

[RamonGTP]

I'll have to disagree on the "old technology" myth... When the PS2 first came out certain games like GT3 had better graphics then any PC game, and ran at a solid 60fps. Even now, although the PS2 isn't as powerfull as today's PC's, the technology inside the box is still newer. The PS2 was designed from the ground up, everything in there was designed SPECIFICALLY for the PS2. For example the processor is a 128bit, the processor in PC's.... 32bit. I'll let you figure out on your own which technology is the newer of the two.

Oh, as far as which will make it... C'mon now, there is there really a need to create ANOTHER topic on this? It's been beat to death already. All the consoles have been around for well over a year now and all of them have a solid customer base. It should be obvious by now that Sony has a comfortable lead for this generation of consoles and they're all old enough by now that there isn't going to be a sudden growth spurt or decline of sales to change that. When the next generation of consoles is available, this could all change. Then you can create a poll asking which will make it. Until then, i'd recommend doing a search, cuz i'm sure no one is going to say anything in this thread that hasn't already been said in the many others like this that have already been created.

[bdmst16]

Its pointless to try to compare the two. One costs thousands of dollars the other one a few hundred. One cost hundreds more to upgrade, the other can't be upgraded at all.

Lets not get into which is better:rolleyes:

[BahamutFFL]

PS2 will make it for sure. XBOX will make it just because Microsoft has more money then most countries. Gamecube may make it but it's not better then the other two.

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by AllGamer
since they keep releasing a new Console ever 1.5 year
:t



Thats not true. Only the XBOX and gamecube were like that. All of the other consoles were about 4-5 years apart.:t


Super nintendo-1991
N64 and playstation-1995
PS2-2000
XBOX and camecube-2001(just a few more months and it would have been 2002)
XBOX2 and PS3- expected to be here at 2006


By the timeline, it shows how much I have been around:rolleyes:

[Imperion1]

Biz, ya forgot about the Original Nintendo that came out in either 1985 - 1986.:p

[KraZy_SkitZy]

Awe.... My Genesis rulez!

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by Imperion1
Biz, ya forgot about the Original Nintendo that came out in either 1985 - 1986.:p


Like I said. My timeline shows how much I have been around:rolleyes: The originail nintendo came out before I was born;) :rolleyes:

[toastmaster]

nes came out before you were born? man, i feel old, although there are probably tuns of other members going "what? old? you're still in high school!" anyway, i think the ps2 has a solid lead right now. xbox has sweet graphics and the bonus of storing saves on a hard drive, but is hampered by the collosal size, and the controller comparable to a bread wrapper filled with concrete. also the financial issues of having to sell something like 38 games per system to break even (i saw that in an essay someone did, research the economics of the xbox). gamecube discs only hold 1.5gb, as opposed to the 8+gb on xbox/ps2 discs. sony's main advantage is the massive towers of great games for the ps2. although none of these will be remember by the time the ps9, x refrigerator crate, and game triangular prism* are released, so it's a moot point, really.



*yes, i saw those in a gaming magazine

[racronus]

xbox and ps2 will make it, I don't think gamecube will. The only reason ps2 is better off in the market is because it has more cames because of the orginial playstation.

xbox and ps2 both have futures the xbox2 and the ps3 whereas gamecube does not, so far.

gamecube also lacks the "whole package," just gaming and no dvd. For this reason less families buy it, parents want something for themselves if there going to spend $$$ on a console for their kids.

[RamonGTP]

Originally posted by racronus
xbox and ps2 will make it, I don't think gamecube will. The only reason ps2 is better off in the market is because it has more cames because of the orginial playstation.

xbox and ps2 both have futures the xbox2 and the ps3 whereas gamecube does not, so far.

gamecube also lacks the "whole package," just gaming and no dvd. For this reason less families buy it, parents want something for themselves if there going to spend $$$ on a console for their kids.

Well, gamecube is actually outselling the xbox so if xbox is gonna make it, NGC should as well ;)

[BahamutFFL]

Originally posted by RamonGTP


Well, gamecube is actually outselling the xbox so if xbox is gonna make it, NGC should as well ;) the main reason xbox will make it is becuase of all the money microsoft has. However Nintendo has a pretty large amount too.

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by Imperion1
Biz, ya forgot about the Original Nintendo that came out in either 1985 - 1986.:p

and also you guys forgot the

Atari(s)
Intellivision
Coleco Vision
Sega Genesis
Turbo Graphics 16
Turbo Graphics 16 CD
Neo Geo
Sega Genesis 2 (or whatever the name)
Sega Dreamcast
....
and many more :p :t

[Bizkitkid2001]

Yeah but where are the years AG;)

[JuNacy]

and the ones that failed.....

Sega Saturn (still a good console though)
Atari Jaguar
Phillips CD-i
Nintendo Virtual Boy
Indrema L600

[Bizkitkid2001]

Don't forget the dreamcast;)


That was my favorite one out of them all:(

[Tick]

Console? whats a Console? *sarcasim*

Why would anyone need one? My comp does that and more!

Tick

[bdmst16]

JuNancy --- The Nintendo Virtual Boy flopped?!?!? When did this happen?? Pure 32-bit all red processing power :D . The VB is an animal

[JuNacy]

Oh man, ever try playing a game on that thing for an extended period of time? Sucker made me dizzy as hell.....

[dragflameson]

X-Box is going to go somewhere in the future. Its going to be tied into computers by some means and it will be some cool tech fad that everyone will want. Thats what I think anyways.

Drag

[toastmaster]

20 minutes on a virtual boy will burn an image of wario into your retinas. which would be scary as hell for someone who dropped acid immediately beforehand. no matter which way you turned, he'd be chasing after you.

[Tick]

They got you now, Your going to spend more money! Just got this in the mail! PS3 (http://www.gamespy.com/hardware/january03/playstation3/) Have fun!

Tick

[_Mystical_Night]

PS2 looks like its going to be the best , nintendo is aiming for little kids , x-box nobody likes much around where I live because of its big controllers and how it resembles a computer

[_Mystical_Night]

game boy advanced (nintendo) seems to own the handheld gaming system department tho :p but that will never bring them as much cash as consoles

[Bizkitkid2001]

I wonder if this will work? Gathering power from other computers and playstations at rest over your network?http://www.gamespy.com/hardware/january03/playstation3/

[Tick]

posted that link already... P see prev post PS3

[stix_kua]

None...






why you ask?

Because people will never understand that consoles are a waste of time and money...

Here's the breakdown:

$250 for the console(on average)
$55 per game(PS2 prices at prices)
$55 per game(Xbox prices at most)
$45-50 per game(GameCube, maybe more)


Real-life scenario:

Joe buys PS2(-200)
Joe buys GTA-Vice City(-50)
Joe buys "Game A" (-50)
Joe buys "Game B" (-50)

Joe has already spent $350...this could have bought Joe a decent computer and a couple of games :)

Joe made big mistake...

Hehehe...

[RamonGTP]

Originally posted by stix_kua
None...






why you ask?

Because people will never understand that consoles are a waste of time and money...

Here's the breakdown:

$250 for the console(on average)
$55 per game(PS2 prices at prices)
$55 per game(Xbox prices at most)
$45-50 per game(GameCube, maybe more)


Real-life scenario:

Joe buys PS2(-200)
Joe buys GTA-Vice City(-50)
Joe buys "Game A" (-50)
Joe buys "Game B" (-50)

Joe has already spent $350...this could have bought Joe a decent computer and a couple of games :)

Joe made big mistake...

Hehehe...

I'd like to see you build a decent computer computer and get 2 games for $350, and then when you do that, lets compare those games to the console games and see which is better. :rolleyes:

[killer_teddy]

PS2 will allways be around especially when the PS3 is released.
The question is Xbox or GameCube IMO GC will die but its Ninty so that would be immpossible. Xbox well thats M$ They wont let anything die they will force it to succeed.
Should be a bloody good fight.:t

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by Tick
posted that link already... P see prev post PS3


Stupid me. Didn't see that PS3 was a link in your post.:rolleyes:

[extreme_gamer]

PS2 will eventually sink down as low as sega (which half of everything i need to use it are in my closet), but PS2 is, i think the best console, all the games are very good, and xbox and others have great games, and sucky ones, which kinda evens out the greatness of the xbox and gamecube, just wait for a new grand theft auto:r :r :r :r :r

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by extreme_gamer
but PS2 is, i think the best console, all the games are very good,

So you think that dance dance barbie is good? :rolleyes: Or that britney spears game is good?:eek: The majority of PS2 games suck. Every game console has sucky games, its because everyone has an opinion.

[extreme_gamer]

depends, no lol, i mean that the good games are good, and for xbox, the games that look good are good and sometimes sucky

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by stix_kua
None...






why you ask?

Because people will never understand that consoles are a waste of time and money...

Here's the breakdown:

$250 for the console(on average)
$55 per game(PS2 prices at prices)
$55 per game(Xbox prices at most)
$45-50 per game(GameCube, maybe more)


Real-life scenario:

Joe buys PS2(-200)
Joe buys GTA-Vice City(-50)
Joe buys "Game A" (-50)
Joe buys "Game B" (-50)

Joe has already spent $350...this could have bought Joe a decent computer and a couple of games :)

Joe made big mistake...

Hehehe...


That will very hard to build a gaming computer for only $350. The monitor itself is going to be at least $100. You could also look at it this way.

Joe buys XBOX(-200)
Joe gets game A free with xbox
Joe gets game B free with xbox
Joe buys Ghost Recon(-50)
Joe buys xbox live(-50)

Joe has only spent $300....this is much better than a $300 computer.:t ;)

[extreme_gamer]

you could also look at it this way :

Joe buys P4 2.4 (-180)
Joe buys case (-70)
Joe buys radeon 9700 (-250)
Joe buys sound card (-100)
Joe buys cdrom drive (-50)
Joe buys 100gb hard drive (-120)
Joe buys floppy drive (-10)
Joe buys motherboard (-80)
Joe buys some kick @rse speakers (-350)
Joe buys some more good stuff (-500)
Joe buys two really great games (-102)


JOE has now spent about $2000 for one of the most kick **** computer's in his block! And he might easily add on $500. THIS is much better than any console on the market right now.:r :D :p :t

[Bizkitkid2001]

hehe......did joe win the lottery?:p

[extreme_gamer]

you could say so, it's free from the virtual world though:p

[RamonGTP]

Originally posted by extreme_gamer
you could also look at it this way :

Joe buys P4 2.4 (-180)
Joe buys case (-70)
Joe buys radeon 9700 (-250)
Joe buys sound card (-100)
Joe buys cdrom drive (-50)
Joe buys 100gb hard drive (-120)
Joe buys floppy drive (-10)
Joe buys motherboard (-80)
Joe buys some kick @rse speakers (-350)
Joe buys some more good stuff (-500)
Joe buys two really great games (-102)


JOE has now spent about $2000 for one of the most kick **** computer's in his block! And he might easily add on $500. THIS is much better than any console on the market right now.:r :D :p :t

Yes, but $2000-2500 is a FAR FAR cry from the $350 he said would buy Joe a computer AND a couple games... Keeping in mind computer games cost just as much as console games do, so thsoe couple game just ate up $100... so now Joe only had $250 for a computer... Not only a computer, but he said DECENT computer... If you're gonna compare consoles to PC's... atleast be SOMEWHAT realistic there guy

[bdmst16]

HAHAHAHAH, 350 for a gaming computer. A $350 computer could barely run XP, let alone new games.

Consoles for $200 are the best deals, because you can't match that in the PC world. Also, many, many PS2, Xbox games aren't 49.99 anymore.

Halo - $25 brand new
Robotech - $25 brand new
Devil May Cry - $19.99 brand new

Its all about money. If you got over a grand, then build yourself a nice PC, but for sub $500, you can't beat the consoles.

[Optimus Prime]

Originally posted by bdmst16
HAHAHAHAH, 350 for a gaming computer. A $350 computer could barely run XP, let alone new games.

Consoles for $200 are the best deals, because you can't match that in the PC world. Also, many, many PS2, Xbox games aren't 49.99 anymore.

Halo - $25 brand new
Robotech - $25 brand new
Devil May Cry - $19.99 brand new

Its all about money. If you got over a grand, then build yourself a nice PC, but for sub $500, you can't beat the consoles.

Decent Computer :

Athlon XP1600+ : £60
512 MB SDRAM : £80
MSI Mobo : £50
Geforce 3 Ti500 : £90
Heatsink : £20

That totals to: 300, add another 50 for speakers, mouse and keyboard.

350 for a system that would outperform any console.

And games that are far cheaper.

My computer can run the newest games. An XBOX couldn't run DOOM III @ 1024x960 @ Highest Details, its all about ratio, if a PC game was ported to a console it would be run @ 640x480 and at low - medium details. Then you get a spack saying "a pc aint better, it runs on my console"...

It's all about ratio and intelligence, some people in this thread show a distinct lack of.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Ahem, not to be a stickler but you forgot to add at least anothor 70 quid for HDD, CDROM and Floppy ;)

Plus about a hundred for a monitor

--Jakk:t

[Optimus Prime]

I already had that in my old PC, if you are going to buy a brand-new PC then yeah, it would cost more. But for someone already owning a decent PC but needs upgrading or has the option to buy a console, that doesn't really count, as everyone would go for the console, because if you don't have a PC already, you probably don't know jack-***** about them.

[bdmst16]

Well thats quite an assumption that the $350 was for just upgrades.

And the system that you "built" for $300, I would really like to see Doom III runing at 1024x960.

This isn't rocket science. Consoles are cheaper, and for good reason. They aren't suppose to have the life span of a computer. To build a PC from ground up, you're going to have to plunck down $800 to 1K for a "decent" computer.

[Optimus Prime]

Well thats also quite an assumption that i said my computer could run DOOM III @ 1024x960 isn't it? :rolleyes:

Consoles are going to be cheaper, i never said they weren't, i'm just saying, a PC has better graphics usually.

[Bizkitkid2001]

Just do what I did. get an XBOX and a decent computer. Then just borrow your neibhors PS2 and gamecube:p :D

[extreme_gamer]

what, and when they want them back, say you lost the xbox?:rolleyes: all i need is.... $1000 and i can have not 2, but 3 computers with some vid graphics, with cable fast internet!:D

[_Mystical_Night]

robotech = :x :x :x :x

[_Mystical_Night]

Console = $200

l33t video card that supports direct x 9.0 games = $180

[Bizkitkid2001]

Originally posted by extreme_gamer
what, and when they want them back, say you lost the xbox?:rolleyes: all i need is.... $1000 and i can have not 2, but 3 computers with some vid graphics, with cable fast internet!:D



How can you lose an XBOX?:eek:

[bdmst16]

I love whenever these topics come up. On one side you have the die-hard PC'ers that believe that console just suck. And on the other side you have the Console'ers who believe that the consoles are just as good as PC.

These topics are gay, no one ever convinces the others that they are right. Why don't we just lay this to rest and agree that most games are fun, no matter the platform. And that any Army Men game from 3DO sucks.
:D

or "My 2000XP/GF 4 4600 whoops your PS2" -- "oh yeah, well I can play Vice City and Final Fantasy X"

In the end, is either one that intellegent? :rolleyes: Play what you have and enjoy what you have.

PS. Robotech is that good :p Music, Cell-shading its really the best Robotech (even though 98% of the past stunk) game out there.

[extreme_gamer]

i dont know how you can lose an xbox, it's a thought!:t

maybe you just accidently spilled a glass of orange juice on it, lol:p

[JuNacy]

Originally posted by bdmst16
I love whenever these topics come up. On one side you have the die-hard PC'ers that believe that console just suck. And on the other side you have the Console'ers who believe that the consoles are just as good as PC.

These topics are gay, no one ever convinces the others that they are right. Why don't we just lay this to rest and agree that most games are fun, no matter the platform. And that any Army Men game from 3DO sucks.
:D

or "My 2000XP/GF 4 4600 whoops your PS2" -- "oh yeah, well I can play Vice City and Final Fantasy X"

In the end, is either one that intellegent? :rolleyes: Play what you have and enjoy what you have.

PS. Robotech is that good :p Music, Cell-shading its really the best Robotech (even though 98% of the past stunk) game out there.

Well, you have to expect that sort of thing in a PC forum. You ever been to a console-only forum? They can be just as bad and usually worse. The PC gets no love in those types of forums....It's usually about how much a certain console sucks anyway....It doesn't really matter though because as long as people have opinions, then something's always going to suck more than something else. I just consider myself lucky because I practically own or have owned any console that's come out after the atari 2600 and I have a decent PC as well. Won't hear any complaints from me. I'm just here to game....:)

[$1500-P4 gamer]

I loved the dreamcast(and still have it) which was light years ahead of the ps one/n64. Anyhow- the downside will always be with consoles is sucky graphics all theway. Heck they made a big deal of 64bit graphics procesing WoW! Doesnt the p[c now have a 256bit gpu? Yes! A tv is shet for playing games and monitor res. out of a ps2 isnt gonna happen. What are they playing at like 640x480 16bit color at 30fps? LOL pcs you want 1600x1200 32 bit 100+fps, course it will cost more $.LOL Point is these consoles arent powerfull at all. LOL 128bit tyea, graphics/cpu procesor. Onbard graphics suck. And consoles kinda use onboard graphics folks. Plus shared mem-. Compaired to seperate cpu and Gpu plus REAL system mem you cant compete! Long live pc's. Consoles got the last of my $ for good. Plus you gotta buy a whole new console + games for your upgrade. Me- a quick upgrade or two and all is well plus my older games still work. Oh and want cheat guides etc. No prob. get online with your pc and download'em. Lan partys are fun. And I can be productive with my toy-try typing a resume on your ps2:p Or edit your photos or do anything productive other than shutting your kids up for 10 minutes. I say give him a broken pc and he'll be busy all week trying to figure it out!:D

[Light Vader]

^^^^ Yet another example of what bdmst16 was talking about.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Dont see what ya mean there Light Vader

:rolleyes: I got a Dreamcast a PS one and a N64- your point-DOH:p

[Light Vader]

DOH what? :confused: :rolleyes: All I said is that you're the epitome of bdmst16's comment. I'm sorry you don't like the new consoles that are out but to say that the graphics suck is only an opinion not fact. It's your opinion so hey, that's your opinion, and if that's how you feel then that's cool, but it's still very subjective. You said yourself that they suck. Long live consoles! And yes, I also have a very good PC too :p

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Of course its only opinion. Could care less who owns a console. Really!:p But compairing a tv's graphics to a monitor is just fact not opinion. My dreamcast games are 10x better on the monitor output then the tv's. Same console two dif. outputs and the mon. wins by far. If you cant see that then ya need glasses. thats fact not opinion. And its also fact that a tv in NTSC runs at 29.97fps at a lot lower res than monitors due with todays games. Its also fact that it takes tons more rendering power to play games at this higher res. than at a lower one. I dont hate consels but like the Amish (weird all quote)"their just technologically impaired" Hehe. So some of what I said surely was opinion. But not all of it.:D

[Light Vader]

I'm not debating that games look better on a monitor vs. tv. Of course it will look better on a monitor due to the higher resolution. But you did say that the graphics of consoles were "sucky all the way" and that comment right there is opinion, not fact. If you can't see that the graphics capabilities of the latest generation of consoles is pretty decent considering the resolution that a tv puts out, then you need glasses. Not as good as the PC, but not bad for 640x480.

[bdmst16]

Just cause NTSC runs at 29 fps doesn't mean that a TV can only display that.

"NTSC stands for National Television Standards Committee. It is the video transmission standard for North and Central America, including Mexico and Canada, and Japan. Its technical format is 525 lines per frame with roughly 30 fps (frames per second) refresh rate. It is pretty much synonymous with composite video when talking about a video signal, but is not necessarily equivalent to the output from a video capture card that may claim to be NTSC-legal."



Progressive Scan DVD show 60 frames per second ( 60 full fields) on normal analog televisions

"a progressive-scan player's 480p output displays 60 full frames per second" - crutchfield

480i - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
480p - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
720p - The picture is 1280x720 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
1080i - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
1080p - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.


and most xbox/gamecube/ps2 first person shooters also try to lock the frame rates at 60 frames per second.

Thats some bad info your spreadin on fps on TV's :D

"The game's fluidity is rock solid at 60 frames in the single-player mode, and almost always in the multiplayer ones too, which means so much more for a game of this type than some added graphic finesse." -IGN on Timesplitters 2

"Advanced 3D engine draws beautifully detailed worlds with massive geometry, crisp textures, lighting and particle effects and more at 60 frames per second ....Supports progressive scan for HDTV users " -IGN on Metriod Prime

So with just two reviews we can see that 1.) TV's can display more than 29-30 fps

2.) Consoles aren't limited to 480 lines of resolution

So yes, there are opinions, truths, and some stuff thats just plain wrong

;)

[$1500-P4 gamer]

You missen ONE thing there bdmst16 that makes it 30fps. Its 60 INTERLACED! LOL so its only showing everyother line per frame. So 60/2='s 30fps. Unless you are deinterlacing with a pc for dvd (which I do) but cant do on a Ps2 etc. without a seperate $ hardware deinterlacer and yes it does make the image look better. Hehe and on a monitor its deinterlaced so everyline shows image.:p
Im also well awair that you can go higher than 640x480 16bit on a console as my tv out on ati 8500 is max of 1024x768 32bit BUT name a few games on console that really run at that once.;)

[bdmst16]

Agreed about the part about how many games actually take advantage of the high res feature.

You're close on the 60/2 interlaced, but not 100% correct. Normal broadcast television and video inputs run interlaced, but progressive scan splits the (60/2) interlaced picture to give 60 "full frames" per second.

The ghetto chart I made

"480i - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
480p - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
720p - The picture is 1280x720 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
1080i - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
1080p - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second."

The xxxi stands for interlaced pictures which would be the (60/2)

But xxxp stands for progressive scan which is true 60 frames per second.

Im not arguing about consoles not fulling using the technology available to them, but that a "normal" analog TV can display 60 full deinterlaced frames per second

And new HD TV's (which will replace analog:D ) can have much higher res.

Its only a matter of time that HD will completely replace analog and the current consoles can then take advantage

[grimfandango]

You guys forget somethin


PS3 will be out this year. :eek:


And that will best everythin else around!


:t

[bdmst16]

grim, no offense, but I think you better stop sniffing the sharpie markers or, think about visiting different websites for information.

The PS3 processor "Cell" isn't going into production until late 2004 which means no actual commerical releases at least until 2005 (Japan) and even later for the rest of the world.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[grimfandango]

Originally posted by bdmst16
grim, no offense, but I think you better stop sniffing the sharpie markers or, think about visiting different websites for information.

The PS3 processor "Cell" isn't going into production until late 2004 which means no actual commerical releases at least until 2005 (Japan) and even later for the rest of the world.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Junior!
:D


All i heard was that the PS3 will consist of cells, each one containing a CPU, probably a PowerPC, and eight APU's (vectorial processors) each with 128K of memory.

It will run at 4GHz, producing a staggering 256Gflops, with the cells connected to the central 64MB memory through a switched 1024bit bus.


Now that is indeed something..
:x

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Originally posted by grimfandango


Junior!
:D


All i heard was that the PS3 will consist of cells, each one containing a CPU, probably a PowerPC, and eight APU's (vectorial processors) each with 128K of memory.

It will run at 4GHz, producing a staggering 256Gflops, with the cells connected to the central 64MB memory through a switched 1024bit bus.


Now that is indeed something..
:x
I believe it when I see it. I mean a 4gig cpu powered console. Its gonna cost too much to produce alone and at those sepcs availability isnt gonna be for a LOOOONG time there. Cause the parts only are gonna cost mroe than a awsome 3gig pc right now.:eek: And seeing how hardware wise the Xbox (CPU and Video card G3 anyone)wipes the floor up with the ps2 I KNOW gates will out trump'em again.:D

[Bigjakkstaffa]

4ghz CPU and a centralmemory size most PC's were packin back in 98'. I mean c'mon, consoles are technology retarded PC's

--Jakk:t

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Originally posted by bdmst16
Agreed about the part about how many games actually take advantage of the high res feature.

You're close on the 60/2 interlaced, but not 100% correct. Normal broadcast television and video inputs run interlaced, but progressive scan splits the (60/2) interlaced picture to give 60 "full frames" per second.

The ghetto chart I made

"480i - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
480p - The picture is 704x480 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
720p - The picture is 1280x720 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second.
1080i - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 interlaced frames per second (30 complete frames per second).
1080p - The picture is 1920x1080 pixels, sent at 60 complete frames per second."

The xxxi stands for interlaced pictures which would be the (60/2)

But xxxp stands for progressive scan which is true 60 frames per second.

Im not arguing about consoles not fulling using the technology available to them, but that a "normal" analog TV can display 60 full deinterlaced frames per second

And new HD TV's (which will replace analog:D ) can have much higher res.

Its only a matter of time that HD will completely replace analog and the current consoles can then take advantage

Agreed. I wasnt awair that PS2 and Xbox were progresive scan. Seeing how that is the case its lots better than older consoles. HD tv rules BUT Plasma owns'em all!:D

[bdmst16]

"So far the chip triumvirate of IBM, Sony and Toshiba, which pledged $400m to the project and sent engineers to a joint development center located in Austin, Texas, has been short on details of how Cell could benefit each company.

The processor has always been associated with Sony's PlayStation 3 and peer-to-peer computing, but will do more than allow players to battle opposing characters in multiplayer Internet games, Kahle said.

But Cell will go "beyond gaming to just entertainment in general," Kahle said.

From his own analysis, Doherty believes Cell will create a new extensible computing platform. A set-top box containing a Cell chip could, for example, combine to share processing power with a Cell-powered high-definition television to render the graphics of an animated movie.

"It's like a beehive -- cell components can also be ganged together," he said.

This ability to change rapidly between states will make devices more flexible, but also give the living room a big boost in computing power when devices interact, making for much livelier games, movies and other entertainment-related experiences.

While Cell will provide a lot of PlayStation 3 opportunity for Sony, what will IBM and Toshiba get out of it?

For IBM, Cell represents a technology showcase. The new chip will not only illustrate IBM's design prowess, but it will also display the company's manufacturing expertise. IBM will use its bag of chipmaking tricks, including silicon-on-insulator (SOI) processes and low capacitance dielectrics, to mint Cell.

Analysts say it's not as clear what Toshiba will get from Cell. The company could also use Cell to create new consumer devices such as high-definition televisions. Or, it could use Cell in its components business; Toshiba sells a wide range of components for set-top boxes and other consumer electronics products.

What's behind Cell?
While the processor's design is still under wraps, the companies say Cell's capabilities will allow it to deliver one trillion calculations per second (teraflop) or more of floating-point calculations. It will have the ability to do north of 1 trillion mathematical calculations per second, roughly 100 times more than a single Pentium 4 chip running at 2.5GHz.

Cell will likely use between four and 16 general-purpose processor cores per chip. A game console might use a chip with 16 cores, while a less complicated device like a set-top box would have a processor with fewer, said Peter Glaskowsky, editor in chief of influential industry newsletter Microprocessor Report. Some of these cores might perform computational functions, while others could control audio or graphics.

IBM entered the dual-processor core market with the Power4, the first server processor to use a multiple-core design. Power4 pairs two 64-bit PowerPC cores on the same processor, linked by a high-speed communications pathway.

But efforts to create similar, more generic multiple-core processors -- including MAJC (pronounced "magic"), a very similar effort by Sun Microsystems -- have missed their intended mark.

The first MAJC chip was originally slated for multimedia processing, a job similar to Cell's. But instead of selling the chip to set-top box and game machine manufacturers, Sun repositioned the dual 500MHz MAJC 5200 chip as a high-end graphics processor for workstations."


Doesn't sound like a technology retarded PC to me. Consoles usually use brand-spankin new technology.

Remember the N64? Had 8 megs of memory, so what? 8 megs of rambus though, and that was back in 1996-97.

The PS2 processor "Emotion Engine" was completely built from the ground up. Not just taking an older x86 processor and strinking it down and adding more tranistors to it.

The new PS3 also looks to be built completely from the ground up from one of the greatest chip makers in the industry.

Lastly, about the low amout of central memory. Its not running any memory hoggin OS, so why would it need to have a lot? Just cause they optimize doesn't mean its weaker. How much memory does Linux ( no GUI) need? 4 - 8 megs. Consoles have less overhead when it comes to memory so thats why they don't need 512+ memory.

You don't have to like consoles, but saying they're backwards, underpowered PC's is just dumb. When the PS3 comes out, lets have a contest. What ever the price of the PS3 is, lets see what the best PC you could build for the same amount. Then lets fast foward three years without upgrading any hardware, and see which is better.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

WELL thats far off in the future. You expect Intel and amd to sit around doing nothing. I dont. And if cell tech is so great they will adopt similar. Point is when ya got a 4gig cell consoles pcs will have 8gig+ with tons more transistors per mil. so is the trend. Intel and AMD have been making chips tons longer than ps was ever even thought off. Dont expect them to sit still while consoles over take the industry-not gonna happen.

"Remember the N64? Had 8 megs of memory, so what? 8 megs of rambus though, and that was back in 1996-97"

Sorry but thats slow on the draw. Check rambus once. Rdram was around quiet longer than that.;) I understand no OS load meaning less needed mem BUT still 3d rendering is 3d rendering and in itself for scoby type charictors games 8mb system mem aint gonna cut it no way no how *ever*.:p Fact is these console hav only one task and are highly optimised for that task. Taken a pc and doing the same would KILL any console ever! Imagaine no os load huge wads of mem killer mhz cpu's and wonderious video cards that the Playwimp can only dream off.:D

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Alright enuff guys! We are trashing someones thread here. Way out of context. THis is about which console will survive not if pc's are better. K. So in that respect I say XBOX.:p

[bdmst16]

$1500, good arguements :D

What I meant with Rambus in the N64, back in 96-97 what PC where using Rambus technology? Only in the last two years has it "semi" broken into the PC market, and even then its quickly being replaced with cheaper comprable (sp?) Dual-DDR.

And IBM, who will do "most" of the PS3 chip engineering is older than Intel and AMD combined and has been producing chips since the 30's during WWII. Intel was created in 1968, by people who left IBM. So IBM, I believe, gets the upperhand. They have the worlds best R&D hands down.

As for the "take the OS off the PC for a dedicated gaming machine", yes, it would rock.....but what is that? Sounds like you made a console. But things aren't that simple. Devices would have to talk to each other, system resources have to be managed, would you have to play from CDs? , etc etc.

As much as most of you guys here hate to hear it, new consoles have alot of "new" technology in them. I'm not talking about the newest x86 chip that is just the same ol thing but smaller and faster, or the new video card with just higher clock speeds and faster memory core. But re-thinking how to get the best performance, completely disigning chips from the ground up. Understand how 64-128Mb of central memory can cut it for resource hungry 3D games.

Debates can be so much fun when intellegent people chime in! :D



---Umm, all three? Don't really see any of them failing

[$1500-P4 gamer]

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=127402
Try that link as to this
"And IBM, who will do "most" of the PS3 chip engineering is older than Intel and AMD combined and has been producing chips since the 30's during WWII. Intel was created in 1968, by people who left IBM. So IBM, I believe, gets the upperhand. They have the worlds best R&D hands down."

Yup I agree and they also have more $ from pc industry than console dont they. So that tech is gonna be on pc if its that good. See what I ment earlier. So amd/ibm hehehe.
;)

"What I meant with Rambus in the N64, back in 96-97 what PC where using Rambus technology?"

Uh yeah. THe P3 used rdram.:p

[bdmst16]

Here ya go....geez :rolleyes:

1995
Description

Nintendo64 ships with RDRAM memory interface


1999

November 1999
Rambus-based PCs and workstations begin shipping from multiple suppliers

- Both taken from rambus.com

So there is a good 4 almost 5 year difference. And 4 10/12 of a year in computer years (like dog years), thats quite a difference.

Thanks for the AMD/IBM link :D

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Alright there is a 4 year dif there but with reasoning too. I mean the P3 NOR the AMD xp's today could use that much bandwidth so it was a waiste. Also it was a bad move for Nintendo in the way that rdram was $ to make and 9 of 10 chips were bad. So prices were hiked up on the good ones to pay for that. They still are today I know this rig has pc800 rdram in it... 8mb rdram backthen was hugley $. Today only the P4 even benefits from rdram bandwidth. So why did nintendo choose it. Elementary dear watson, cause like I said before shared system and video mem. It needed all it could get in the likes of ram ALSO its seriel nature eased implementation into the systems way of sharing the system to video mem. So in that way it was a good move but not without its draw backs. Doesnt in any way mean they were quicker on the ball.:D

Ya, IBM/AMD merger sounds good dont it. Hope it means lower prices and not higher ones. Or atleast the 64bit chip being released after how long seeing how IBM already has amd beat on that task and one sitting on the shelf. All they have to do is pull the prototype and work from there. Intel should be scared-Very scared hehe.:D