I would much rather some type of storage included so I don't have to mess around with memory cards. And why spend the cash on a high performance HDD when games aren't going to use it for high performance tasks?
And I would expect these consoles to launch around the same price. I don't think a HDD is going to break the bank for the 360, and Sony has the Blu-ray drive plus other extras (multiple ethernet ports, two HDMI interfaces, Bluetooth suport) that won't let them budget price this thing.
115.2 GFLOPS for the 360 CPU. And like I said, there's an photo at the PS3 press event that showed the same thing on a graph. Surely you've seen those pictures?
I wouldn't bank on a HDD being included until they say so. If they were planning on it, I suspect they would have said 'HDD included' and not specified capacity if they hadn't decided on that point yet.
You don't play specs, you play games. And I'm not sure why you think the PS3 GPU is so much better than the 360's. Care to enumerate?
At the debut of the PS2, Sony claimed it was 10 times as powerful as the Dreamcast, but it took quote a while before any PS2 games looked/played any better than the Dreamcast games. Now they're saying the PS3 is twice as powerful as the 360 -- in marketing speak, I'd call that a wash.:)
I very much doubt you will see any games support 1080p at first...and maybe not ever. Why spend the cycles rendering all that extra data that no one is going to see? I suspect that the developers would much rather use those cycles improving graphic quality or throwing more characters onto the screen at once than rendering double the data for no gain.
Almost no HDTVs support 1080p right now. And if you buy a nice HDTV today, are you going to replace it in five years? 1080p would be wasted on this generation of consoles, IMO.
I think the unified architechture is more flexible -- if you only have 128MB of graphics data it means you have 378 MB for other data on the 360, but only 256 MB on the PS3.
I can't help the feeling that the nVidia solution for the PS3 seems rushed. I believe Sony was originally planning on the Cell to do double duty as a graphics system as well, but changed course at some point and brought in nVidia. So what we have is a solution based on their PC cards that will probably run hot (300M transistors!!) and had to have it's own fixed VRAM.
The Xbox 360 CPU is actually rated at 115-130 GFLOPS depending on your source. A Sony slide at the PS3 unveiling showed it (the 360 CPU) at 115 GFLOPS.
Don't forget the hard drive: included on the 360, an expansion item for the PS3. You didn't overlook it on purpose, did you?:)
The other thing to consider is bandwidth issues. The 360 has 10MB EDRAM ebedded on the GPU with an insane 256 GB/s bandwidth to help out with AA and other effects. The PS3 GPU has to talk to VRAM at 22.5 GB/s -- seems a bit slow for HD content plus anti-aliasing and other filters. By comparison, the bandwidth for the "Graphics Synthesizer" on the PS2 was 48 GB/s.
It may have more FLOPS, but I'm not sure that's going to necessarily translate into much better games. Both systems are PowerPC derivative chips running at 3.2 GHz with PC-like video chipsets and are coming out within six months of each other. I suspect the game quality (graphics, etc) will be very close between the two.
this one affected pretty much every Mac in existence
Completely false. If you think that "pretty much every Mac in existence" upgraded to 10.3.9, then you would be wrong. If you are using hyperbole to make a troll-ish statement, then whatever. Just because an exploit exists does not mean that it is common knowledge and would have been used or even could have been used against "pretty much every Mac in existence". Please point to a report about any Macs that were rooted due to this exploit. Surely out of the millions of Macs out there, at least one was rooted if it's so easy.
I have a 32" CRT that weighs around 100 lbs and moved into a second floor apartment. The movers (with a handtruck) had little trouble with that -- especially compared to the hardwood entertainment center that must weigh 200-300 lbs. That thing is a beast!
It is much more than a simple 'UI tweak'. You don't get it. Go read some more about it. It does include grep-like content searching -- and it truly is instant. Plus, can locate/find search inside individual emails? PDF files? Word files? instantly?
You're not giving it enough credit. Try it, then trash it if you feel like it.
Doubters said the same exact thing about Doom 3 making it's way to the Xbox. Early screenshots were laughed at. People said it couldn't be done with any justice.
Now that the game's out, it's a different story. Reviews have raved about the Xbox version. I've played Doom 3 on a dual 2.5GHz Xeon with a decent video card (Geforce 5900) and played the Xbox version, and there was very little difference. Yes, the PC version was running at a higher res, but I could tell little visual difference sitting a foot away from a 21" monitor on the PC and 15 feet from a 32" TV for the Xbox. I was amazed that the Xbox version looked and played as good as it did. Gameplay was practically identical once you got past the input differences.
So feel free to continue with your nay-saying and speculation, but I don't think Value would be porting the game if it was going to look and play like shit. They would have just waited until the Xbox 2 came out.
My parents have one of the 333MHz iMacs from 1999 and my sister has the 350MHz model from 2000. Both run 10.3 without issue, ever since the RAM was upgraded. They use them for email, word processing, accounting, web browsing...basic stuff, but it works and works well.
Maybe there's a reason to not support these types of machines, but I don't know what it is.
"The first thing you'll notice in this game is that it features a great amount of licensed cars such as Ferrari, BMW, Porsche and Mercedes and many cars for each class."
I agree with most of what you said, but by that definition most "artists" today are not artists: Celine Dion, Britany Spears, etc do not write the lyrics they sing or compose the music they sing it to. They do not play instruments. They are simply singers/performers.
Just pointing out that it isn't an American Idol problem -- it's a music industry problem.
If that's so, then why is Sony putting an nVidia GPU into the PS3?
I think that using a CELL in place of the GPU may have been their original plan, but it didn't pan out for one reason or another and they fell back on nVidia for Plan B.
Have you actually benchmarked and you're sure it's drawing thats the problem?
Yes and yes. You would not believe the amount of real-time data we have to display...while polling for more data on six sockets...while remaining responsive to extremely active users. The one call that takes the most time is DrawText(). Most of the time the app is fine, it's just when the data really floods in that we get overwhelmed. But that also happens to be the most critical time for our users.
We have profiled and optimized. There are a few more non-trivial optimizations I've thought of, but they'll take some time to implement.
I can't possible emphasize how much you shouldn't re-produce the entire UI in DirectX.
This was what my gut was telling me, but I really didn't have enough experience with DX to back it up.
It's an in-house app developed for company use only. We don't deploy to off-site customers, so we have some control over what hardware it's run on. Current minimum gfx card is a GeForce4MX. Others in the mix are Radeon 9700s and GeForce 5900s.
What was your experience with your apps performance compared to regular 2D?
We're actually considering going this route with an app here at work. It's a GUI-intensive app that spends most of its time drawing to the screen using custom MFC controls. It's fast enough most of the time but begins bogging down when we try to push through too much data.
Anyone have any experience going the DirectX route? Would it possibly be faster than what we're doing today? I assumed from my experience with the interfaces on games (Unreal Tournament, etc) that DX would be slower.
Eh? MS is leaving x86 behind for the Xbox 2. They're going with some type of PowerPC based chip from IBM, rumored to be multi-core. ATI provides a custom graphics chipset that will not have a PC counterpart.
Sony is going with Cell from IBM and an nVidia graphics chipset. So I don't see a huge difference. My guess is that both consoles will have extremely similar performance and this next generation of consoles will be the most boring ever -- lots of multi-platform games that look identical.
Slashdot Mirror
I would much rather some type of storage included so I don't have to mess around with memory cards. And why spend the cash on a high performance HDD when games aren't going to use it for high performance tasks?
And I would expect these consoles to launch around the same price. I don't think a HDD is going to break the bank for the 360, and Sony has the Blu-ray drive plus other extras (multiple ethernet ports, two HDMI interfaces, Bluetooth suport) that won't let them budget price this thing.
Well, I guess I can do your research for you: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1815596,00.as p
115.2 GFLOPS for the 360 CPU. And like I said, there's an photo at the PS3 press event that showed the same thing on a graph. Surely you've seen those pictures?
I wouldn't bank on a HDD being included until they say so. If they were planning on it, I suspect they would have said 'HDD included' and not specified capacity if they hadn't decided on that point yet.
You don't play specs, you play games. And I'm not sure why you think the PS3 GPU is so much better than the 360's. Care to enumerate?
:)
At the debut of the PS2, Sony claimed it was 10 times as powerful as the Dreamcast, but it took quote a while before any PS2 games looked/played any better than the Dreamcast games. Now they're saying the PS3 is twice as powerful as the 360 -- in marketing speak, I'd call that a wash.
I very much doubt you will see any games support 1080p at first...and maybe not ever. Why spend the cycles rendering all that extra data that no one is going to see? I suspect that the developers would much rather use those cycles improving graphic quality or throwing more characters onto the screen at once than rendering double the data for no gain.
Almost no HDTVs support 1080p right now. And if you buy a nice HDTV today, are you going to replace it in five years? 1080p would be wasted on this generation of consoles, IMO.
I think the unified architechture is more flexible -- if you only have 128MB of graphics data it means you have 378 MB for other data on the 360, but only 256 MB on the PS3.
I can't help the feeling that the nVidia solution for the PS3 seems rushed. I believe Sony was originally planning on the Cell to do double duty as a graphics system as well, but changed course at some point and brought in nVidia. So what we have is a solution based on their PC cards that will probably run hot (300M transistors!!) and had to have it's own fixed VRAM.
The Xbox 360 CPU is actually rated at 115-130 GFLOPS depending on your source. A Sony slide at the PS3 unveiling showed it (the 360 CPU) at 115 GFLOPS.
:)
Don't forget the hard drive: included on the 360, an expansion item for the PS3. You didn't overlook it on purpose, did you?
The other thing to consider is bandwidth issues. The 360 has 10MB EDRAM ebedded on the GPU with an insane 256 GB/s bandwidth to help out with AA and other effects. The PS3 GPU has to talk to VRAM at 22.5 GB/s -- seems a bit slow for HD content plus anti-aliasing and other filters. By comparison, the bandwidth for the "Graphics Synthesizer" on the PS2 was 48 GB/s.
It may have more FLOPS, but I'm not sure that's going to necessarily translate into much better games. Both systems are PowerPC derivative chips running at 3.2 GHz with PC-like video chipsets and are coming out within six months of each other. I suspect the game quality (graphics, etc) will be very close between the two.
The 360 can read burned DVDs, but I don't think it has a burner itself. Check the offical specs again.
this one affected pretty much every Mac in existence
Completely false. If you think that "pretty much every Mac in existence" upgraded to 10.3.9, then you would be wrong. If you are using hyperbole to make a troll-ish statement, then whatever. Just because an exploit exists does not mean that it is common knowledge and would have been used or even could have been used against "pretty much every Mac in existence". Please point to a report about any Macs that were rooted due to this exploit. Surely out of the millions of Macs out there, at least one was rooted if it's so easy.
*cough* what's in that TV of yours? Lead? (ha, ha, that was a joke! Get it?)
0 67AXYU/104-1598514-9669555. Still no lightweight, but it's a long way from 215 lbs.
Seriously, here's a 36" Sony Wega that's 140 lbs: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
I have a 32" CRT that weighs around 100 lbs and moved into a second floor apartment. The movers (with a handtruck) had little trouble with that -- especially compared to the hardwood entertainment center that must weigh 200-300 lbs. That thing is a beast!
Your robots were intelligently designed, yes?
I missed your point.
It is much more than a simple 'UI tweak'. You don't get it. Go read some more about it. It does include grep-like content searching -- and it truly is instant. Plus, can locate/find search inside individual emails? PDF files? Word files? instantly?
You're not giving it enough credit. Try it, then trash it if you feel like it.
Doubters said the same exact thing about Doom 3 making it's way to the Xbox. Early screenshots were laughed at. People said it couldn't be done with any justice.
Now that the game's out, it's a different story. Reviews have raved about the Xbox version. I've played Doom 3 on a dual 2.5GHz Xeon with a decent video card (Geforce 5900) and played the Xbox version, and there was very little difference. Yes, the PC version was running at a higher res, but I could tell little visual difference sitting a foot away from a 21" monitor on the PC and 15 feet from a 32" TV for the Xbox. I was amazed that the Xbox version looked and played as good as it did. Gameplay was practically identical once you got past the input differences.
So feel free to continue with your nay-saying and speculation, but I don't think Value would be porting the game if it was going to look and play like shit. They would have just waited until the Xbox 2 came out.
No, find took 13 and a half seconds.
My parents have one of the 333MHz iMacs from 1999 and my sister has the 350MHz model from 2000. Both run 10.3 without issue, ever since the RAM was upgraded. They use them for email, word processing, accounting, web browsing...basic stuff, but it works and works well.
Maybe there's a reason to not support these types of machines, but I don't know what it is.
Gotham did/does use licensed cars:
3
"The first thing you'll notice in this game is that it features a great amount of licensed cars such as Ferrari, BMW, Porsche and Mercedes and many cars for each class."
http://www.pcvsconsole.com/user_review.php?rfi=14
I agree with most of what you said, but by that definition most "artists" today are not artists: Celine Dion, Britany Spears, etc do not write the lyrics they sing or compose the music they sing it to. They do not play instruments. They are simply singers/performers.
Just pointing out that it isn't an American Idol problem -- it's a music industry problem.
If that's so, then why is Sony putting an nVidia GPU into the PS3?
I think that using a CELL in place of the GPU may have been their original plan, but it didn't pan out for one reason or another and they fell back on nVidia for Plan B.
No, according to the article the 9.6 million number is the installed base for Xbox in North America, not the number of Halo2 copies sold.
Have you actually benchmarked and you're sure it's drawing thats the problem?
Yes and yes. You would not believe the amount of real-time data we have to display...while polling for more data on six sockets...while remaining responsive to extremely active users. The one call that takes the most time is DrawText(). Most of the time the app is fine, it's just when the data really floods in that we get overwhelmed. But that also happens to be the most critical time for our users.
We have profiled and optimized. There are a few more non-trivial optimizations I've thought of, but they'll take some time to implement.
I can't possible emphasize how much you shouldn't re-produce the entire UI in DirectX.
This was what my gut was telling me, but I really didn't have enough experience with DX to back it up.
It's an in-house app developed for company use only. We don't deploy to off-site customers, so we have some control over what hardware it's run on. Current minimum gfx card is a GeForce4MX. Others in the mix are Radeon 9700s and GeForce 5900s.
What was your experience with your apps performance compared to regular 2D?
We're actually considering going this route with an app here at work. It's a GUI-intensive app that spends most of its time drawing to the screen using custom MFC controls. It's fast enough most of the time but begins bogging down when we try to push through too much data.
Anyone have any experience going the DirectX route? Would it possibly be faster than what we're doing today? I assumed from my experience with the interfaces on games (Unreal Tournament, etc) that DX would be slower.
That's funny...Sony didn't expose the internals of the hardware to devs...Sony providing libraries...very funny. That's classic.
Eh? MS is leaving x86 behind for the Xbox 2. They're going with some type of PowerPC based chip from IBM, rumored to be multi-core. ATI provides a custom graphics chipset that will not have a PC counterpart.
Sony is going with Cell from IBM and an nVidia graphics chipset. So I don't see a huge difference. My guess is that both consoles will have extremely similar performance and this next generation of consoles will be the most boring ever -- lots of multi-platform games that look identical.