Freshmaker
I am Korean.
It arguably edged out the Xbox as well.Wasn't the Gamecube more powerful than the PS2?
It arguably edged out the Xbox as well.Wasn't the Gamecube more powerful than the PS2?
Well, most of the screenshots posted (especially on that first page) - yes, they don't. But did you see Dennis4k screenshots from The Witcher 2, Mass effect 2, Deus Ex, well, basically any screenshots by Dennis4k?
And those 2 screenshots from The Witcher 2 that I provided, do they also look ages behind those Gears 3 screenshots to you?
Geralt's model in The Witcher 2 looks more detailed than those two characters.
do those guys actually play the games at those settings, or are they bumping up AA etc just to take screenshots? Cause I have a decent PC and I never get games looking anything like that at a playable (>30) framerate. I nearly always have to use a lower level of AA if I want my effects turned up, or turn effects down to get more AA. Using a 2GB 6950 so not a top-top end card but not a crappy one
Wasn't the Gamecube more powerful than the PS2?
It came out 18 months later.
When people talk about Sony always bringing powerful consoles and packing power into their systems, it doesn't really seem relevant to point out that consoles coming out significantly after theirs were more powerful.
True, but these people are replying to others who are making it seem like Sony consistently has the strongest console which is where I see the disagreement.
Of course it was but it was released a year and a half after the PS2 so it's no surprise. The Xbox edged them both in pretty much every aspect though.Wasn't the Gamecube more powerful than the PS2?
I edited my post for clarification on that - I don't think the poster he was replying to was implying that at all. He wasn't saying Sony had the most powerful system in any generation, he's saying that they always presented a more convincing argument of next-gen-ness vs what people had seen to date. When Playstation was announced it seemed more 'next-gen' than Saturn. That the N64 came out two years later, or whatever, and was arguably more powerful, hardly seems relevant.
Of course these systems could not address future systems that hadn't been announced. No one was thinking of Gamecube when PS2 was shown and launched, it wasn't relevant to the argument at the time about what was 'most powerful' or 'next gen'. People were arguing about that with Dreamcast, and about Saturn with PS1 - those were the prior benchmarks.
It arguably edged out the Xbox as well.
So basically they always showed great tech demos when revealing their consoles?
=p
If you like, sure. I mean, there's two sides to the message Sony puts out - the machine itself, and the messaging around it. But the machines did enough to support the message in those cases. I mean, I know some people still argue about whether DC might not have been >= PS2, but Playstation definitely seemed 'fuck you, this is next-gen!' next to Saturn (with Sega literally scurrying at the last minute to beef up its system), and the combination of messaging and the machine itself with PS2 was definitely another 'this is a proper next-gen machine'. Not just because of the processing guts either, but things like the DVD drive etc. - it just was sexy and powerful. Other future systems in both cases were not in anyone's heads, weren't impairing any arguments about those systems being 'power packed' at the time.
He/she must not be very old to make that comment.
If you like, sure. I mean, there's two sides to the message Sony puts out - the machine itself, and the messaging around it. But the machines did enough to support the message in those cases. I mean, I know some people still argue about whether DC might not have been >= PS2, but Playstation definitely seemed 'fuck you, this is next-gen!' next to Saturn (with Sega literally scurrying at the last minute to beef up its system), and the combination of messaging and the machine itself with PS2 was definitely another 'this is a proper next-gen machine'. Not just because of the processing guts either, but things like the DVD drive etc. - it just was sexy and powerful. Other future systems in both cases were not in anyone's heads, weren't impairing any arguments about those systems being 'power packed' at the time.
Well, it's not more detailed - that's an overstatement of course, but they are comparable, as in "not leaps and bounds away" or "not next gen away". I mean, yes you would need a 590 or even SLI of those to keep that levels of AA and overall image quality and supposedly next Xbox could do that for $400, but still it's not something awe-inspiring compared to what we have today.Lol................ You guys are insane..
If you compare the PS1 and PS2 to what was available at the time of their release, sure, they were pretty amazing, but I was comparing them to the other consoles belonging to their respective gens, not previously released consoles.
Besides, launching later doesn't necessarily mean better hardware. The PS3 launched nearly a year after the 360, with a weaker GPU and a completely obtuse architechture (although the GPU fuckup was due to the decision made when Sony, fairly late into the development cycle, realized using a Cell as a replacement for a proper GPU would be madness).
We will never have the fanboys wet dream of "my console can do things your console cannot"-situation...
I dont believe Sony can take the extra costs involved in trying to out-tech everyone again and also, they have Vita to sustain as well.
Let´s brings this one up again when the machines are revealed and see if they were right or not, shall we?
It came out 18 months later.
When people talk about Sony always bringing powerful consoles and packing power into their systems, it doesn't really seem relevant to point out that consoles coming out significantly after theirs were more powerful. He didn't say Sony always have the most powerful system in a given generation, he said that they've tended to pack a lot of power in and persuade that their system was more 'next-gen'. And in the case of PS1 and PS2, that was certainly true vs the relevant points of comparison when they were announced and released. Gamecube and Xbox were not the state of the art Sony was being compared to when they released PS2, we didn't even know anything about them when PS2 first released.
Of course it was but it was released a year and a half after the PS2 so it's no surprise. The Xbox edged them both in pretty much every aspect though.
That being said Sony have always released systems that were pretty cutting edge at the time of release one way or another.
You can't make an untested (in 2000) PowerPC architecture CPU at near 500 MHz on a 250nm process. Neither could you make that huge amount of 1T-SRAM. Flipper was also definitely 2001 tech. The GameCube needed 180nm/130nm facilities and state-of-the-art graphics tech to be even possible.GameCube didn't use any tech that didn't exist when the PS2 launched.
10 years back 18 months were enough to make a tremendous difference. PC/console tech was like cellphones are now, after a year stuff got twice as fast.GameCube didn't use any tech that didn't exist when the PS2 launched, and it launched for $100 less at a profit while PS2 was sold at a loss initially. 18 months isn't enough to make that big of a difference.
You can't make an untested (in 2000) PowerPC architecture CPU at near 500 MHz on a 250nm process. Flipper was also definitely 2001 tech. Neither was that huge amount of 1T-SRAM. The GameCube needed 180nm/130nm facilities and state-of-the-art graphics tech to be even possible.
10 years back 18 months were enough to make a tremendous difference. PC/console tech was like cellphones are now, after a year stuff got twice as fast.
Technically...wasn't the PS3 supposed to have more "POWER" than the 360?
That worked out well didn't it?
PS3 CPU > X360 CPU
X360 GPU > PS3 GPU
360RAM > PS3RAM
That's debatable if you're talking about any other developer than Bethesda.360RAM > PS3RAM
I'm no technical expert, but from what I have read it seems that most developers had gripes with the fact that the PS3's RAM was split into two chunks and not a pooled RAM architecture like the 360 had. That seems a lot more prevalent than developers complaining about the PS3 CPU.
If Sony where to release a PS4 with a high amount of pooled RAM structure, an upgraded Cell CPU with more SPUs and PPUs, a faster Blu-Ray drive etc, would that really put off developers? It seems like it would be great for backwards compatibility and would enable developers to transfer over to PS4 development quite seamlessly.
That's debatable if you're talking about any other developer than Bethesda.
I feel that backwards compatibility is really the only benefit Sony gains by keeping the Cell since developers are by and large porting their SPU jobs to run on Compute Shaders instead.
That's debatable if you're talking about any other developer than Bethesda.
I feel that backwards compatibility is really the only benefit Sony gains by keeping the Cell since developers are by and large porting their SPU jobs to run on Compute Shaders instead.
Do we know what route the next Xbox is even going in? I mean if they are going for an upgraded Kinect as a big focus then the budget allocated to the core components of the system will suffer accordingly. There is potential for the PS4 to be significantly more powerful than the next Xbox even if PS4 is only moderately high-end.
I agree, but the split pool does offer better concurrent access by CPU and GPU and XDR RAM also has its advantages over GDDR3. That's why I said it's debatable.It's not, really. Even if we ignore the flexibility of the unified pool, Xbox 360 has more available RAM due to the OS having a smaller footprint and eDRAM being used as a frame buffer.
Do we know what route the next Xbox is even going in? I mean if they are going for an upgraded Kinect as a big focus then the budget allocated to the core components of the system will suffer accordingly. There is potential for the PS4 to be significantly more powerful than the next Xbox even if PS4 is only moderately high-end.
I agree, but the split pool does offer better concurrent access by CPU and GPU and XDR RAM also has its advantages over GDDR3. That's why I said it's debatable.
If I had to guess, I'd say that they'll pitch it high enough for hardcore titles like Halo but keep it reasonable so that Kinect 2 can be packed in. They'll probably try and increase their expansions into other media/devices with the same or a similar OS - Windows 8. If they can get a consistent OS or UI across all of their devices than they should be on to a winner. For example touch interfaces would work well with Kinect because they can swap out tactile contact with gestures.
Split Ram isn't an issue, it's just that the PS3 has less of it. If Sony releases an upgraded PS3 with a powerful GPU, and more RAM, I don't think any developer should have an issue with it.I'm no technical expert, but from what I have read it seems that most developers had gripes with the fact that the PS3's RAM was split into two chunks and not a pooled RAM architecture like the 360 had. That seems a lot more prevalent than developers complaining about the PS3 CPU.
If Sony where to release a PS4 with a high amount of pooled RAM structure, an upgraded Cell CPU with more SPUs and PPUs, a faster Blu-Ray drive etc, would that really put off developers? It seems like it would be great for backwards compatibility and would enable developers to transfer over to PS4 development quite seamlessly.
Could be on to winner but it also risks opening up the core gamer market more for Sony to capitalise on, and starts moving into direct competition with Nintendo, hard to say how that would end.
How is kinect doing currently? Do we think a new console with kinect focus will sell?
The 360 EDRAM has many problems itself, as it's a bottleneck for resolution, AA, HDR lightning etcetera. All I'm trying to say that the PS3's memory structure has certain advantages. While the 360 memory structure may be preferable in a larger number of cases, it is probably too black and white to say "360 RAM > PS3 RAM".Again, that's not necessarily the case (for instance, eDRAM has huge internal bandwidth and it can also be used concurrently with the main RAM). Between developers it's agreed upon that Xbox 360's memory structure is better and you can hear them complaining about PS3's solution rather often - not so the other way around.
Given the direction of Microsoft studios these days, I would be surprised if Microsoft didn't try the 'box for every member of the family' strategy straight out of the gate. Looking down their studio list, the vast majority of them are doing something with Kinect.
They've conditioned their hardcore gamers into buying Halo, Fable and Gears. They'll keep making those games and they'll continue to sell well. The box will still attract the 3rd parties too because of its popularity and because people will still want to play on Live! with their friends.
Of the three, Microsoft have made more progress into making their box the 'media centre' too. If the rumours of a built in DVR are true, they'll continue to make massive strides into that market. If everything is being downloaded through the walled garden of Live, they'll be extremely happy.
Sony's likely switch to an AMD GPU is going to cause enough problems with BC as it is. Far better making a clean break and actually designing a console that developers want.I'm no technical expert, but from what I have read it seems that most developers had gripes with the fact that the PS3's RAM was split into two chunks and not a pooled RAM architecture like the 360 had. That seems a lot more prevalent than developers complaining about the PS3 CPU.
If Sony where to release a PS4 with a high amount of pooled RAM structure, an upgraded Cell CPU with more SPUs and PPUs, a faster Blu-Ray drive etc, would that really put off developers? It seems like it would be great for backwards compatibility and would enable developers to transfer over to PS4 development quite seamlessly.
Are we expecting combined CPU/GPU boards this time around?
lolwut? it was a valid comment and is actually true. ps2 was less powerful than both and was even inferior to the dreamcast in some respects.
Sony's likely switch to an AMD GPU is going to cause enough problems with BC as it is. Far better making a clean break and actually designing a console that developers want.