f



WTF, only 128MB MAIN RAM for PlayStation 3

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=276182

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0709/kaigai101.htm (in
Japanese)



translation... 
(I didn't do translation, it's in a post from the first url):



Directing to the board during 2005, the DRAM vendor runs

The next generation PlayStation (PlayStation 3? ) The memory XDR DRAM
which is adopted (Yellowstone:
イエロストー&#12531 the road map,
this week is held in Tokyo, with "Rambus Developer Forum (RDF) Japan
2004" it became clear.


The engineering sample of XDR DRAM of Samsung 
As for the latest important update 2 points below. (1) there is no big
modification in the schedule of XDR DRAM which is required on DRAM
vendor side, there is no big modification in the schedule =
PlayStation 3. (2) specification of memory which is loaded onto
PlayStation 3 was modified, was not the 512Mbit tip/chip and it became
the 256Mbit tip/chip.

The largest customer of XDR DRAM, the SONY computer entertainment
(SCEI) PlayStation 3 as for being is open secret. Powerful application
for the time being sees in other things and from the fact that it does
not hit, the start-up of XDR DRAM is presumed that PlayStation 3
bears. In other words, it links the schedule and specification of XDR
DRAM, closely with the schedule and specification of PlayStation 3.

(1) XDR DRAM schedule is almost the sort of RDF of last year. Toshiba
which takes charge of the development/the production of XDR DRAM, 3
corporations of エルピーダメモリ
and Samsung Electronics being even, start the production of XDR DRAM
in the board during 2005. This has meant the fact that start of the
production of PlayStation 3 is set to the board during 2005. In other
words, PlayStation 3 during 2005, how being slow, is that the
possibility of appearing to 2006 first half is high. Schedule of DRAM
side from the almost same thing, as for the schedule of PlayStation 3,
from last year largely it is presumed that it is not modified.

Actually, as for a certain industry authorized personnel "as for the
schedule of present XDR DRAM, you say that the timing which very limit
is in time in schedule of the largest customer" is. In addition,
another industry authorized personnel "is not the case that 3
corporations have kept pace separately. It does not become the same
timing you do not obtain as a result ", whether or not" it is in time
to the schedule which destination requires, you think that with, use
ratio of the XDR DRAM memory 3 is decided. Because of that, you must
defend desperately schedule, ", you said.

By the way, presently, as for the Cell processor which is the heart of
PlayStation 3, already completing the design, it has become clear for
the sample to have come out. In the Cell processor itself, interface
of XDR DRAM memory is seen that it is built in. Toshiba and Samsung
have already produced the first silicon which has been designed with
512Mbit, using that, it is presumed that the operation verification of
Cell is done. With this, it is the case that the trend of the inside
two of the principal components of PlayStation 3 has become clear.


The latent market of XDR DRAM due to Toshiba The Toshiba with RDF of
last year latency market estimate


- Is loaded onto PlayStation 3 the memory chip which in modification

With schedule it is XDR DRAM which is not modification, but in product
plan there was big modification. That is capacity of memory chip.

At stage of last year, as for XDR DRAM it was the schedule which it
mass-produces starts from the 512Mbit tip/chip. You started also 3
corporations, first with 512Mbit, as for the 256Mbit tip/chip the
cutdown edition from 512Mbit (as for the design of the basis it is
same) you had come to the point of throwing with following. However,
presently, also 3 corporations it has changed to the policy of
starting production from the 256Mbit tip/chip. For example, a certain
vendor cancels the design of the 512Mbit tip/chip which was developed,
has done again to design 256Mbit to main.


Samsung XDR DRAM road map The Toshiba XDR DRAM road map The Toshiba
with RDF of last year road map


This meaning simply one. The memory chip which is adopted for
PlayStation 3, from 512Mbit is dense to 256Mbit Toda who becomes
modification. Actually, a certain industry authorized personnel "has
heard that for cost reduction, request of the customer in 256Mbit
became modification," that you say.

From 512Mbit the modification to 256Mbit not being limited to a simple
story that the memory chip which is loaded onto PlayStation 3 changed.
It suggests that it is important modification in the specification
itself of PlayStation 3. As for the possibility of being thought two.
(1) the memory quantity which is loaded onto PlayStation 3, from 256MB
of expectation of beginning was reduced by half to 128MB. (2) the
memory zone of PlayStation 3, was redoubled to approximately
51.2GB/sec from approximately 25.6GB/sec of expectation of beginning.
The possibility of having this either modification is high.

In case of former it means to decrease the memory quantity for cost
reduction and, in case latter it means to increase memory zone for
efficiency request. In case latter, there is a possibility of having
modification even on memory interface side of the Cell processor and
the media engine of PlayStation 3.
0
optimusprimettf
7/10/2004 1:12:05 AM
comp.sys.powerpc.tech 819 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

48 Replies
326 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 25

"Combaticon" <optimusprimettf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70f5558f.0407091712.4e37dcad@posting.google.com...
> http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=276182
>
> http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0709/kaigai101.htm (in
> Japanese)
>
>
>
> translation...
> (I didn't do translation, it's in a post from the first url):
>

short version -
4 * 256 Mbit memory chips gives PS3 128 MB memory.

developers will not be happy, but will be forced to work on PS3 because
it'll sell no matter what is inside.
Hell, Sony could put dog shit in a box with PS3 scrawled on it, and it would
still sell like hotcakes.


0
SLIisBACK
7/10/2004 2:15:41 AM
Combaticon wrote:
> http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=276182

It doesn't matter as long as Sony hype it to be the best thing in the 
world ever, people will buy it. If you're annoyed about it, how about 
you don't buy it?
0
Fry
7/10/2004 9:00:56 AM
"SLIisBACK" <SLIrocks@aol.com> wrote in message
news:xdSdnQNE-O_azHLdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>
> "Combaticon" <optimusprimettf@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:70f5558f.0407091712.4e37dcad@posting.google.com...
> > http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=276182
> >
> > http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0709/kaigai101.htm (in
> > Japanese)
> >
> >
> >
> > translation...
> > (I didn't do translation, it's in a post from the first url):
> >
>
> short version -
> 4 * 256 Mbit memory chips gives PS3 128 MB memory.
>
> developers will not be happy, but will be forced to work on PS3 because
> it'll sell no matter what is inside.
> Hell, Sony could put dog shit in a box with PS3 scrawled on it, and it
would
> still sell like hotcakes.

Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load of ram,
there's no comparison between the ram you need to run computer games and the
memory you need to run great games on a dedictated console.  This is
ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard DDR computer ram.



0
Les
7/10/2004 3:46:23 PM
"Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load of ram,
> there's no comparison between the ram you need to run computer games and the
> memory you need to run great games on a dedictated console.  This is
> ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard DDR computer ram.
>
>
>

Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have at least
twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing a machine months
after Microsoft that is not the technology leader in all ways...if the PS3 has
more processing power but the Xbox2 has more memory, some developers will be
able to make equivalent performing games on both consoles....


0
Arnaldo
7/10/2004 7:12:48 PM
"Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>
> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load of
ram,
> > there's no comparison between the ram you need to run computer games and
the
> > memory you need to run great games on a dedictated console.  This is
> > ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard DDR computer ram.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have at
least
> twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing a machine
months
> after Microsoft that is not the technology leader in all ways...if the PS3
has
> more processing power but the Xbox2 has more memory, some developers will
be
> able to make equivalent performing games on both consoles....
>


good observation.


0
SLIisBACK
7/10/2004 7:51:37 PM
"Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>
> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load of
ram,
> > there's no comparison between the ram you need to run computer games and
the
> > memory you need to run great games on a dedictated console.  This is
> > ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard DDR computer ram.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have at
least
> twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing a machine
months
> after Microsoft that is not the technology leader in all ways...if the PS3
has
> more processing power but the Xbox2 has more memory, some developers will
be
> able to make equivalent performing games on both consoles....

No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing power
although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster processor than the
PS3.



0
Les
7/10/2004 8:32:00 PM
"Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2lb221Faht3iU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing power
> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster processor than
the
> PS3.

Moore's Law.


0
Bill
7/10/2004 10:14:25 PM
* "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net>  on Sat, 10 Jul 2004
| Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have at
| least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing a
| machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology leader in all
| ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the Xbox2 has more
| memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent performing games
| on both consoles....

Two words regarding Xbox Next being first of the next generation consoles
on the market and having the best specs on paper:

Saturn, Dreamcast

Being the technology leader means exactly squat when it comes to console
and game sales.

-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin.
That and five bucks will get you a  \ 
 small coffee at Starbucks           \ 
0
ghintec
7/11/2004 3:05:14 AM
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Les Dennis <linker500@removeyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing power
> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster processor than the
> PS3.

Processor speed has little to do with power or performance.  PCs and Macs 
use different types of processors, but this doesn't mean that a 1Ghz x86 
PC is faster or more powerful than a 1Ghz Macintosh.

Even if the Xbox2 does have a faster processor, that alone isn't going to 
make it the more powerful console.
0
Doug
7/11/2004 5:40:18 AM
Les Dennis wrote:
> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load
>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard
>>> DDR computer ram.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have
>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing
>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology leader
>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the Xbox2 has
>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
>> performing games on both consoles....
>
> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing power
> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster processor
> than the PS3.

At the end of the day, as long as it has the following, I'll be happy:

+ A hard drive (doubles as virtual RAM, just like the Xbox now)
+ Hardware 50/60Hz selectable mode from the OS
+ Built-in screen allignment controls in the OS, not the games
+ The ability to run my current PS2 collection.

Processing power means squat if the games turn out to be crap. As I see it,
people are forever using the PC model as a means of comparison between the
consoles, but it is the programmers themselves that will make use of whatever
resources are available to them. If they are crap at programming, the processor
will be forced to compensate. If they are good at programming, the extra power
is there to push the game further. Sloppy programming is compensated on the PC
by the constant need to upgrade, but on a console, the hardware is fixed,
forcing the programmers to do their job for a change.

The launch PS2 titles had limited graphics by today's standards, yet games now
are really pushing the PS2 to it's limits, despite the limited memory (it's only
real limitation). Game maps are getting bigger (apparently, GTA San Andreas will
feature three cities, all the same size as Vice City), graphics are better
defined, and new lighting effects which were unique to the Xbox are now being
software-coded into PS2 games (see the various Tom Clancy Xbox ports), without
any serious side effects. The only real limitation the PS2 has against the Xbox
is it's inability to handle in-game Dolby Digital (lack of memory), but how many
people on here can actually raise their hands and say they have a Dolby Digital
sound system? Probably a quarter at most.

The Xbox and GC may have better hardware if put side-by-side with the PS2, but
the PS2 can still hold it's own against them.

Paul.


0
Paul
7/11/2004 2:58:49 PM
optimusprimettf@yahoo.com (Combaticon) wrote in message 

[snip]

Dear "Combaticon", if that is indeed your real name,

given that any respectable video card in 2004 has 128MB of RAM by
itself, it seems obvious that the shipping-in-2006 PS3 is not going to
have only 128MB of main RAM.  Do you really think Sony is only going
to have managed to quadruple the main RAM in the system over six
years?!?

If the average amount of main RAM doubled every 2 years, the PS3
should have 256 MB, and that's almost certainly an underestimate.  It
should be something like doubled every 18 months, which would put it
at:

32 MB * 2^(6 years/ 18 months) = 32 MB * 2^4 = 512 MB, 

just as we would expect.  Sony spent a mint providing us with, what at
the time were fairly impressive and expensive components for the PS2,
such as 32MB of 3.2 GHz RAMBUS RAM, and two of the largest
microprocessors in the world, and it paid off brilliantly;  holding
its own against the later-released XBox and GC, and selling > 70
Million PS2s to date (and still going strong) and allowing them in the
long run to amortize the intial production costs, and turning huge
profits for the company.

Now they're buiding a platform they expect to last at least as long,
so do you really think they are going to shoot themselves in the foot
and cut corners so drastically as you are suggesting?

Don't you people ever get tired of saying dumb things?!?  Quit playing
armchair engineer.  Quit playing armchair executive.  You don't know
WTF you're talking about, so kindly refrain from littering these
newsgroups with your poorly thought out, reactionary posting.

The PS3 will not have a paltry 128 MB.  Quit regurgitating everything
you read on the web.  It makes you look like the idiot you apparently
are.
0
a_noether_theorem
7/11/2004 6:33:39 PM
> just as we would expect.  Sony spent a mint providing us with, what at
> the time were fairly impressive and expensive components for the PS2,
> such as 32MB of 3.2 GHz RAMBUS RAM, and two of the largest
> microprocessors in the world, and it paid off brilliantly;  holding
> its own against the later-released XBox and GC

The PS2 does NOT hold its own again the Xbox or the Gamecube 
graphically. Games on both systems look far better than PS2 games. The 
only time a PS2 version of a game looks nearly as good as an Xbox or 
Gamecube version is when the game has been designed for PS2 and then 
ported to GC or Xb. If you look at games designed for GC or Xbox and 
then ported down to PS2, they look terrible in comparison; Sonic Heroes 
for example.

I'm not saying either console is "better" because of it... But to say 
that the PS2 can hold its own against the Xbox or the Gamecube is 
stretching the truth just a little too much :)
0
Fry
7/11/2004 11:58:37 PM
In article <656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com>, ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net 
says...
>
>
>
>"Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load
>> of ram,
>> there's no comparison between the ram you need to run computer
>> games and the
>> memory you need to run great games on a dedictated console.  This
>> is
>> ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard DDR computer ram.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have
>at least
>twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing a
>machine months


You are an *FUCKING* IDIOT! The PS3 IS NOT A DAMNED PC NOR IS 
IT DESIGNED BY MORONIC PC GAMERS!

You cannot compare the PS3 to anything from the PC/Microsoft world. 
The basic hardware design is too diffrent for any such comparisons
to be meaningful.







0
Chris
7/12/2004 5:01:59 AM
In article <wu2dnf6yNcBW1W3dRVn-uw@comcast.com>, SLIrocks@aol.com says...
>
>
>
>"Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> >
>> > Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
>> > load of
>ram,
>> > there's no comparison between the ram you need to run computer
>> > games and
>the
>> > memory you need to run great games on a dedictated console. 
>> > This is
>> > ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard DDR computer ram.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
>> have at
>least
>> twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing a
>> machine
>months
>> after Microsoft that is not the technology leader in all ways...if
>> the PS3
>has
>> more processing power but the Xbox2 has more memory, some
>> developers will
>be
>> able to make equivalent performing games on both consoles....
>>
>
>
>good observation.
>
>

*WHEN* exactly did computer *MEMORY* take on the fuctions of a *CPU*?

Do *EITHER* of you actually know what role either a *CPU* or *MEMORY* 
play in a device?

Or have you been watching "Star Trek:The Next Generation" for 
your eductation in basic science and technology?









0
Chris
7/12/2004 5:15:00 AM
In article <2lb221Faht3iU1@uni-berlin.de>, linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk says...
>
>
>
>"Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> >
>> > Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
>> > load of
>ram,
>> > there's no comparison between the ram you need to run computer
>> > games and
>the
>> > memory you need to run great games on a dedictated console. 
>> > This is
>> > ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard DDR computer ram.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
>> have at
>least
>> twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing a
>> machine
>months
>> after Microsoft that is not the technology leader in all ways...if
>> the PS3
>has
>> more processing power but the Xbox2 has more memory, some
>> developers will
>be
>> able to make equivalent performing games on both consoles....
>
>No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing
>power
>although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster processor
>than the
>PS3.
>
>
Anyone who actually knows anything about hardware,which pretty 
much rules *YOU* out.....




0
Chris
7/12/2004 5:17:45 AM
> >>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load
> >>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
> >>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
> >>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard
> >>> DDR computer ram.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have
> >> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing
> >> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology leader
> >> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the Xbox2 has
> >> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
> >> performing games on both consoles....
> >
> > No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing power
> > although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster processor
> > than the PS3.
> 
> At the end of the day, as long as it has the following, I'll be happy:
> 
> + A hard drive (doubles as virtual RAM, just like the Xbox now)
> + Hardware 50/60Hz selectable mode from the OS
> + Built-in screen allignment controls in the OS, not the games
> + The ability to run my current PS2 collection.
> 
> Processing power means squat if the games turn out to be crap. As I see it,
> people are forever using the PC model as a means of comparison between the
> consoles, but it is the programmers themselves that will make use of whatever
> resources are available to them. If they are crap at programming, the processor
> will be forced to compensate. If they are good at programming, the extra power
> is there to push the game further. Sloppy programming is compensated on the PC
> by the constant need to upgrade, but on a console, the hardware is fixed,
> forcing the programmers to do their job for a change.
> 
> The launch PS2 titles had limited graphics by today's standards, yet games now
> are really pushing the PS2 to it's limits, despite the limited memory (it's only
> real limitation). Game maps are getting bigger (apparently, GTA San Andreas will
> feature three cities, all the same size as Vice City), graphics are better
> defined, and new lighting effects which were unique to the Xbox are now being
> software-coded into PS2 games (see the various Tom Clancy Xbox ports), without
> any serious side effects. The only real limitation the PS2 has against the Xbox
> is it's inability to handle in-game Dolby Digital (lack of memory), but how many
> people on here can actually raise their hands and say they have a Dolby Digital
> sound system? Probably a quarter at most.
> 
> The Xbox and GC may have better hardware if put side-by-side with the PS2, but
> the PS2 can still hold it's own against them.
> 
> Paul.

Perfect
completely agree with your post 'nough said!

laters

Dj
0
djsaltynuts
7/12/2004 8:07:19 AM
Chris Lee wrote:
> *WHEN* exactly did computer *MEMORY* take on the fuctions of a *CPU*?
> 
> Do *EITHER* of you actually know what role either a *CPU* or *MEMORY* 
> play in a device?

Time/space tradeoffs are everywhere in writing code.  A machine that can 
store frequently used images/calculations in memory might be faster than 
one that has a faster CPU but so little memory it has to recalculate 
them every time.

So you could easily have games being developed for a machine with more 
RAM and a slower CPU that are faster/better than games developed for a 
less memory but faster CPU machine (and vice versa as well).  It just 
depends on exactly what you're doing, and the skill of the development team.

It would however, make porting a royal pain, so it's not likely that an 
app developed to take full advantage of time/space tradeoffs would be 
easily portable to the other platform.

0
everlast
7/12/2004 4:12:02 PM
Fry <neilNOSP@Mjimmyeatworld.co.uk> wrote in message 

> The PS2 does NOT hold its own again the Xbox or the Gamecube 
> graphically. Games on both systems look far better than PS2 games.

Well, ok "far better" is subjective, and we'll have to agree to
disagree, but given that the PS2 was first demoed in Mar 1999 (IIRC)
and the XBox came out in late 2001 with hardware that had just
recently been completed a few months earlier, I'd say the PS2 does
incredibly well.

There was a much larger time gap between the end of the PS2 hardware
development and the XBox hardware development than the graphical
disparity would suggest.  If they had both been made from PC chips
from their respective time periods, the gap would be much, much
larger.  When the PS2 was demoed, the best PC chip on the market was
what, a TNT 1, whereas the XBox was/is made from a GeForce 3/4 hybrid?

This was my point.  The PS2 was far beyond its time when it was first
demoed, and for that poster to think that Sony is going to hamstring
it with 128 MB of RAM is completely idiotic.

There's such a dearth of critical thought in these newsgroups, and so
many short memories.  This ranks right up there with the $500 PS3
price tag that posters were fretting over.  Sheesh.
0
a_noether_theorem
7/12/2004 7:49:37 PM
Paul Evans wrote:
> The Xbox and GC may have better hardware if put side-by-side with the
> PS2, but the PS2 can still hold it's own against them.
>
> Paul.

Not true at all, PS2 ports are graphically noticably worse than the other
two platforms. Very bland textures next to XBox games, and usually far worse
jagged edges. There are exceptions, and yes, GT4 is very pretty, but for the
most part a game developed on both platforms will look better on XB. The
Cube versions tend to land in the middle but closer to XB than PS2.

Zo


0
Zomoniac
7/12/2004 8:30:34 PM
On 12 Jul 2004 12:49:37 -0700, a_noether_theorem@yahoo.com (nobody)
wrote:

>larger.  When the PS2 was demoed, the best PC chip on the market was
>what, a TNT 1,

In 1999? Hardly. And since you say "demoed", which PC chips were
"demoed" at that timeframe? Don't compare apples to oranges.

0
juha
7/12/2004 9:08:50 PM
"Paul Evans" <uknorthernerSPAMMEANDDIEYOULOWLIFESCUM2000@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:2ld2s8Fbdk3fU1@uni-berlin.de...

> The Xbox and GC may have better hardware if put side-by-side with the PS2,
but
> the PS2 can still hold it's own against them.

Why do people insist on pointless fanwankery?

The Xbox has better hardware; it has better graphics. This is not
subjective; you can put any two games fully developed for their respective
consoles side-by-side, and the XBox will look prettier.

That is not to say the PS2 is a "bad" system; it has it's advantages,
primarily it's massive library of games ranging over every imaginable genre.
That is, in fact, the reason I bought one in addition to my xbox - to get at
the system exclusive games that make the PS2 worthwhile.





0
James
7/12/2004 9:40:13 PM
"nobody" <a_noether_theorem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b7e5b017.0407121149.9c7c5f5@posting.google.com...
> Fry <neilNOSP@Mjimmyeatworld.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > The PS2 does NOT hold its own again the Xbox or the Gamecube
> > graphically. Games on both systems look far better than PS2 games.
>
> Well, ok "far better" is subjective, and we'll have to agree to
> disagree, but given that the PS2 was first demoed in Mar 1999 (IIRC)
> and the XBox came out in late 2001 with hardware that had just
> recently been completed a few months earlier, I'd say the PS2 does
> incredibly well.

I would agree that the PS2 does remarkably well for the hardware that was
available at the time of its development. This does not make mean that it
stands up to the XBox, because the XBox is doing well for the hardware
available at the time of *its* development. You draw a logical fallacy by
equating the two.

Or, to put it simply, a car that was gas-efficient in the 50's does not
stand up to a car that is gas-efficient in the 90's, even if they both have
the same percentage of superiority over their peers in their respective
time-frames. Though I suppose that comparing PS2 and Xbox is less 50's vs
90's and more 99 vs. 2000, but that's beside the point; I draw the disparity
in time frames to make the point clearer.





0
James
7/12/2004 9:43:30 PM
In article <mLyIc.203710$DG4.48723@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, 
everlast@jmjservices.com says...
>
>
>Chris Lee wrote:
>> *WHEN* exactly did computer *MEMORY* take on the fuctions of a
>> *CPU*?
>> 
>> Do *EITHER* of you actually know what role either a *CPU* or
>> *MEMORY* 
>> play in a device?
>
>Time/space tradeoffs are everywhere in writing code.  A machine that
>can 
>store frequently used images/calculations in memory might be faster
>than 
>one that has a faster CPU but so little memory it has to recalculate
>them every time.

You're now describing memory being used as a *FUCKING* Ramdisk! Not faster 
memory nor memory used as a *CPU*. 

Do you know just *WHAT* a Ramdisk *IS* and what it is *USED* for?


0
Chris
7/13/2004 4:04:21 AM
Chris Lee wrote:
> You're now describing memory being used as a *FUCKING* Ramdisk! Not faster 
> memory nor memory used as a *CPU*. 

No.  I wasn't.  And your assumptions show about where your skill level 
lies.

> Do you know just *WHAT* a Ramdisk *IS* and what it is *USED* for?


Please.

Look, if you don't even know about time/space tradeoffs in software, 
you're not worth discussing the question with.  BTW, you seem to be a 
little upset.  Perhaps you should try switching to decaf.


Post something reasonable if you expect a reply.  Strawmen will be ignored.

0
everlast
7/13/2004 7:39:46 AM
Chris Lee wrote:
> In article <mLyIc.203710$DG4.48723@fe2.columbus.rr.com>, 
> everlast@jmjservices.com says...
>>Time/space tradeoffs are everywhere in writing code.  A machine that
>>can 
>>store frequently used images/calculations in memory might be faster
>>than 
>>one that has a faster CPU but so little memory it has to recalculate
>>them every time.
> 
> 
> You're now describing memory being used as a *FUCKING* Ramdisk! Not faster 
> memory nor memory used as a *CPU*. 
> 
> Do you know just *WHAT* a Ramdisk *IS* and what it is *USED* for?
> 

You really don't understand the topic you're talking about do you? 
Everlast appears to, yet because his correct statement doesn't back up 
your warped view of the situation you have to get over excited, shout 
and swear. Nice one.

On the project I'm working on, we're going to have to compress all our 
animation data for the characters and decompress it as each anim is 
played back. If we had more RAM we wouldn't need to do that[1], and 
could save ourselves the CPU cycles spent decompressing it.

Go away, relax, learn to program, and come back when you have something 
constructive to say.

My replying to this thread neither confirms nor denies the topic, so 
don't get too excited ;-)

[1] Actually, however much RAM you have, you end up using it all and 
having to compress something, but that's games programming for you :-)

-- 
Paul Donovan
Senior Programmer, SCEE Cambridge
0
Paul
7/13/2004 9:25:40 AM
Les Dennis wrote:
> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit load
>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not bog-standard
>>> DDR computer ram.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked have
>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of releasing
>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology leader
>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the Xbox2 has
>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
>> performing games on both consoles....
>
> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing power
> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster processor
> than the PS3.

Taking that arguement to the extreme, a PC with a 3 GHz processor and 64
megs of ram would run faster than a 1.5GHz processor and a gig of RAM.  Try
building the two machines, and use them for anything - games, real world
apps, and you`d soon see that memory DOES make a big difference.

-- 
What am I selling on ebay right now?
http://tinyurl.com/38yjc


0
Simon
7/13/2004 10:16:24 AM
"James Stein" <NoSpamForMeThanks@si.rr.com> wrote in message news:<6CDIc.18884$oW6.4527230@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

> Or, to put it simply, a car that was gas-efficient in the 50's does not
> stand up to a car that is gas-efficient in the 90's, even if they both have
> the same percentage of superiority over their peers in their respective
> time-frames. 

No no no no no....  

Your analogy is completely bogus and there's no fallacy here, because
PS2 was far ahead of its time and the XBox wasn't ahead of its time at
all.  The XBox was made with off-the-shelf PC parts and it shows.  If
they were both equally ahead of their times, then there would be a 2+
year difference in their apparent graphical power, since there was a
2+ year difference between the times at which their hardware was
completed.  Actually, closer to 2.5 years.

But the apparent discrepancy is more like 1 year.  

The PS2 was demoed in the era of the Riva TNT and it had 12 pixel
pipes with 2048 bit, 48BG/sec bandwidth to the 4 MB of eDRAM on the
GPU amd 3.2 GHz RAMBUS RAM and 6.2 GFLOPs floating point performance. 
 It's nothing now, but at the time, it was *very* advanced.   So
what's the XBox?  It's just a GeForce 3 with an extra vertex shader. 
It was developed after the GeForce 3 was already launched and in
tandem with the off-the-shelf GeForce 4, which was superior to it. 
There's really no sensible comparison here.  Their relative state of
technical acheivement was not at all comparable so your analogy is
totally bunk.

And again, we return to my point.  The poster suggesting Sony is going
to put 128 MB of RAM in the PS3 is essentially suggesting that Sony is
going to produce something that is far behind its time and will have
no longevity.  The PS2 showed that Sony has taken the opposite tact: 
Build something very expensive and ahead of its time and then make up
the money in the long haul.

Giving the PS3 legs by making it very powerful initially will allow
Sony to keep it on the market longer and therefore allow them to
extract profit from it over a longer period later in life.  Given that
Sony is on their way to selling 100 million PS2s, we have no reason to
think they are going to abandon this strategy.

End of rant.
0
a_noether_theorem
7/13/2004 5:16:07 PM
"nobody" <a_noether_theorem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b7e5b017.0407130916.362314bb@posting.google.com...
>
> Your analogy is completely bogus and there's no fallacy here, because
> PS2 was far ahead of its time and the XBox wasn't ahead of its time at
> all.

I don't how anyone can say that the PS2 was far ahead of it's time, because
at no point in the PS2s life have I ever been particulary impressed with the
look of it's games.  It certainly didn't produce much more than the DC put
out during it's short life and the gap between the PS2and Xbox/GC is far
bigger than the gap between the DC and PS2.


0
Michael
7/13/2004 7:03:08 PM
"Michael Cargill" <mikementalist@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<2liprqFd6vpuU1@uni-berlin.de>...

> > Your analogy is completely bogus and there's no fallacy here, because
> > PS2 was far ahead of its time and the XBox wasn't ahead of its time at
> > all.
> 
> I don't how anyone can say that the PS2 was far ahead of it's time, because
> at no point in the PS2s life have I ever been particulary impressed with the
> look of it's games.  
> It certainly didn't produce much more than the DC put
> out during it's short life and the gap between the PS2and Xbox/GC is far
> bigger than the gap between the DC and PS2.

I can say that because it was demoed far before it hit the shelves in
the US.  This was probably a big mistake by Sony.  I'm talking about
when the hardware was finalized and when it was first demoed.  At that
point, it really was very advanced.

Then 18 months followed before it hit the US shelves and old age set
in.  By then the GeForce was released, and it was a different
landscape.  Sony should've had the thing on the U.S. shelves in '99. 
Bummer.

In the case of the XBox, it was essentially built with PC components,
and the PC development environment was already there, so they could
wait until the last minute to finalize the hardware, knowing games
would be ready for launch and not having their hardware age as
developers came to grips with it.

MS is basically doing the same thing with the XBox2, and this is the
one thing they are really doing right.  Virtually no learning curve
for development, so they can put the thing on the shelves a few months
after it's finalized.  It'll be shown at E3 2005 and launched later
that fall.  PS3 will be shown at E3 2005 and hit the US shelves a year
and four months later.

People kevetch about the PC nature of the XBox, and while MS did it
because they had to, having no way to quickly develop custom hardware,
it was a fabulous move, just unintentionally smart I suspect.


-- end main rant.


And please, the DC really couldn't touch the better late-gen PS2
games.  The first PS2 games were pretty unimpressive -- I'll give you
that -- but it's not 2000 anymore and the ol' Dreamcast doesn't really
stack up graphically.  Dust it off and remind yourself sometime.

And yeah, I'm a big Sega fan too; still got my Dreamcast.  Bought it
on midnight the day it was launched.  I'm just not kidding myself
about the graphics.
0
a_noether_theorem
7/13/2004 11:09:47 PM
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Chris Lee <clee2@envirolink.org> wrote:

> Do you know just *WHAT* a Ramdisk *IS* and what it is *USED* for?

I do, as many other readers here do as well.  *You*, apparentally, don't.

Maybe *you* should go somewhere and do some reading about things like 
computer memory architecture, with regards to buffers and cache.
0
Doug
7/14/2004 1:39:34 AM
In article <1zDIc.18883$oW6.4526525@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "James Stein" <NoSpamForMeThanks@si.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Evans" <uknorthernerSPAMMEANDDIEYOULOWLIFESCUM2000@hotmail.com> wrote
>in message news:2ld2s8Fbdk3fU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>> The Xbox and GC may have better hardware if put side-by-side with the PS2,
>but
>> the PS2 can still hold it's own against them.
>
>Why do people insist on pointless fanwankery?
>

You post the above comment then go on and post a fanwank of your own below???

>The Xbox has better hardware; it has better graphics. This is not
>subjective; you can put any two games fully developed for their respective
>consoles side-by-side, and the XBox will look prettier.
>
>That is not to say the PS2 is a "bad" system; it has it's advantages,
>primarily it's massive library of games ranging over every imaginable genre.
>That is, in fact, the reason I bought one in addition to my xbox - to get at
>the system exclusive games that make the PS2 worthwhile.
>
>
>
>
>
0
glenzabr
7/14/2004 5:03:27 AM
In article <2lhr3sFcu07iU1@uni-berlin.de>, simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk 
says...
>
>
>Les Dennis wrote:
>> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>
>>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
>>>> load
>>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
>>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
>>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not
>>>> bog-standard
>>>> DDR computer ram.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
>>> have
>>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of
>>> releasing
>>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology
>>> leader
>>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the Xbox2
>>> has
>>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
>>> performing games on both consoles....
>>
>> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing
>> power
>> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster
>> processor
>> than the PS3.
>
>Taking that arguement to the extreme, a PC with a 3 GHz processor
>and 64
>megs of ram would run faster than a 1.5GHz processor and a gig of
>RAM.  Try
>building the two machines, and use them for anything - games, real
>world
>apps, and you`d soon see that memory DOES make a big difference.
>
>-- 

No. What you're comparing/looking at is the overhead of a operating system 
like Windows.

Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as games 
do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms of processor
speed and memory.



0
Chris
7/14/2004 8:08:28 PM
In article <10f93mm30nkrdaa@corp.supernews.com>, djacobs@shell.rawbw.com says...
>
>
>In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Chris Lee
><clee2@envirolink.org> wrote:
>
>> Do you know just *WHAT* a Ramdisk *IS* and what it is *USED* for?
>
>I do, as many other readers here do as well.  *You*, apparentally,
>don't.
>
>Maybe *you* should go somewhere and do some reading about things
>like 
>computer memory architecture, with regards to buffers and cache.

Dude a ramdisk *IS* a buffer and a cache. It all depends on how you
use it.

If you're setting aside 12 megs of ram as a "Graphics Buffer" to 
store graphics and other data all you're really doing is creating a 12
meg ramdisk.

A rose by any other name.

Now if you're talking about buffers and cache as they are in the sense
they are created and used in Linux, you're talking about a whole diffrent
kettle of fish.




 

0
Chris
7/14/2004 8:21:31 PM
Chris Lee wrote:
> In article <2lhr3sFcu07iU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk says...
>>
>>
>> Les Dennis wrote:
>>> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
>>>>> load
>>>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
>>>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
>>>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not
>>>>> bog-standard
>>>>> DDR computer ram.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
>>>> have
>>>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of
>>>> releasing
>>>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology
>>>> leader
>>>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the Xbox2
>>>> has
>>>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
>>>> performing games on both consoles....
>>>
>>> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing
>>> power
>>> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster
>>> processor
>>> than the PS3.
>>
>> Taking that arguement to the extreme, a PC with a 3 GHz processor
>> and 64
>> megs of ram would run faster than a 1.5GHz processor and a gig of
>> RAM.  Try
>> building the two machines, and use them for anything - games, real
>> world
>> apps, and you`d soon see that memory DOES make a big difference.
>>
>> --
>
> No. What you're comparing/looking at is the overhead of a operating
> system like Windows.
>
> Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as
> games do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms of
> processor speed and memory.

At least your calmer now.  Completely and utterly wrong, but calm.  Games
under MSDOS ran at resolutions in the region of 320 x 240 or somthing
stupidly low.  Games on my PC now run at an absolute minimum of 1024 x 768,
often much higher.  They might have the same frames per second, but the work
being done is quite simply not comparable.

Lets use another example to show you that you`re wrong.  Lets give a console
128 megs of RAM, which is shared between everything.  Now if you need lots
of information held in RAM, rather than on disk or similar, you need to
compress and de-compress it on the fly, which takes CPU time away from doing
useful work, whereas if the console had a gig of RAM, the data could be left
uncompressed and thus save a load of CPU time.

Want more examples to show how wrong you are?

-- 
What am I selling on ebay right now?
http://tinyurl.com/38yjc


0
Simon
7/14/2004 11:07:18 PM
"Chris Lee" <clee2@envirolink.org> wrote in message news:40f5935c$0$1194$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> In article <10f93mm30nkrdaa@corp.supernews.com>, djacobs@shell.rawbw.com says...
> >
> >
> >In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Chris Lee
> ><clee2@envirolink.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Do you know just *WHAT* a Ramdisk *IS* and what it is *USED* for?
> >
> >I do, as many other readers here do as well.  *You*, apparentally,
> >don't.
> >
> >Maybe *you* should go somewhere and do some reading about things
> >like
> >computer memory architecture, with regards to buffers and cache.
>
> Dude a ramdisk *IS* a buffer and a cache. It all depends on how you
> use it.
>
> If you're setting aside 12 megs of ram as a "Graphics Buffer" to
> store graphics and other data all you're really doing is creating a 12
> meg ramdisk.
>
> A rose by any other name.
>
> Now if you're talking about buffers and cache as they are in the sense
> they are created and used in Linux, you're talking about a whole diffrent
> kettle of fish.


Been ages since I've bothered to post.  But I see this and [sigh]

This is just... so... wrong

Just what do they teach kids these days?

And the other post where you believe that the difference between a 3GHz processor w/64M and a 1.5GHz
with 1G RAM has to do with Windows bloat??? OMG!  No question that Windows is bloatware from hell
but... but... 64M vs. 1G?  Uhhh....

Good to hear that memory isn't a bottleneck...  O_O!



FYI and in the hopes that you can walk away from the discussion with a little xtra knowledge.  Doug
is referring to HW caches *not* SW caches.  Whole different ballgame.  Not to mention the fact that
the OS has almost NO bearing on this discussion whatsoever.


Jeremy






0
Jeremy
7/15/2004 12:22:46 AM
"Simon Finnigan" <simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2llslcFeedtnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Chris Lee wrote:
> > In article <2lhr3sFcu07iU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> > simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk says...
> >>
> >>
> >> Les Dennis wrote:
> >>> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
> >>>>> load
> >>>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
> >>>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
> >>>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not
> >>>>> bog-standard
> >>>>> DDR computer ram.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
> >>>> have
> >>>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of
> >>>> releasing
> >>>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology
> >>>> leader
> >>>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the Xbox2
> >>>> has
> >>>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
> >>>> performing games on both consoles....
> >>>
> >>> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing
> >>> power
> >>> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster
> >>> processor
> >>> than the PS3.
> >>
> >> Taking that arguement to the extreme, a PC with a 3 GHz processor
> >> and 64
> >> megs of ram would run faster than a 1.5GHz processor and a gig of
> >> RAM.  Try
> >> building the two machines, and use them for anything - games, real
> >> world
> >> apps, and you`d soon see that memory DOES make a big difference.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > No. What you're comparing/looking at is the overhead of a operating
> > system like Windows.
> >
> > Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as
> > games do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms of
> > processor speed and memory.
>
> At least your calmer now.  Completely and utterly wrong, but calm.  Games
> under MSDOS ran at resolutions in the region of 320 x 240 or somthing
> stupidly low.  Games on my PC now run at an absolute minimum of 1024 x 768,
> often much higher.  They might have the same frames per second, but the work
> being done is quite simply not comparable.
>
> Lets use another example to show you that you`re wrong.  Lets give a console
> 128 megs of RAM, which is shared between everything.  Now if you need lots
> of information held in RAM, rather than on disk or similar, you need to
> compress and de-compress it on the fly, which takes CPU time away from doing
> useful work, whereas if the console had a gig of RAM, the data could be left
> uncompressed and thus save a load of CPU time.
>
> Want more examples to show how wrong you are?


A fair attempt but I'm guessing that understanding the examples will be a big stumbling block to
understanding how wrong his statements were.  Good luck.  Yes, yes... Kareteka probably does run at
the "same speed" as the latest Prince Of Persia.  And?

Of course, in context, the decompression example will help make up a tradeoff between two similar
CPUs operating at different frequencies (say 2x) with slightly different amounts of memory (say 2x
max).  However, compression can only be taken so far.

And... compression savings is really just for textures.  Yes, there are other forms of compresson
(vertex chains and the like) but nothing comparable to texture compression.  Applications that start
moving away from using multiple layers of textures as the primary means of presenting an image will
have a different tradeoff to deal with.

Jeremy




0
Jeremy
7/15/2004 12:42:12 AM
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Simon Finnigan <simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> > Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as
> > games do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms of
> > processor speed and memory.

> At least your calmer now.  Completely and utterly wrong, but calm.  Games
> under MSDOS ran at resolutions in the region of 320 x 240 or somthing
> stupidly low.  Games on my PC now run at an absolute minimum of 1024 x 768,
> often much higher.  They might have the same frames per second, but the work
> being done is quite simply not comparable.

I remember running a few DOS era games at 640x480.  You also have to 
remember that back then, memory was a *LOT* more expensive.  This was when 
a 386 with 2 MB of RAM was considered entry-level.  486s were only for 
rich people (mainly because they cost close to $10k!)  Video cards had 
memory that was measured in kbytes, not MBytes like it is today.

Regardless, what the original poster is trying to point out is that DOS 
games had a lot less overhead when compared to early games running in an 
Windows environment.  

> Lets use another example to show you that you`re wrong.  Lets give a console
> 128 megs of RAM, which is shared between everything.  Now if you need lots
> of information held in RAM, rather than on disk or similar, you need to
> compress and de-compress it on the fly, which takes CPU time away from doing
> useful work, whereas if the console had a gig of RAM, the data could be left
> uncompressed and thus save a load of CPU time.

You do realize that in a normal PC, the CPU is idle something like 50-70% 
of the time because it's waiting for I/O operations to complete, right?  
This is because the CPU is so much faster than the memory bus, or the 
memory itself.  The PS3 isn't using your standard off-the-shelf RAM 
memory.  This is *VERY* high speed (and therefore, *VERY* expensive) 
memory we're talking about.  Basically, Sony is trading size for speed.  
It won't matter if they have to do more read/write operations if they 
don't take a whole lot of time.

Sure, more memory would be a good thing, but there are cost constraints to 
consider here.  A $1000 game console would be a bit of a hard sell, don't 
you think? ;)
0
Doug
7/15/2004 2:45:54 AM
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Jeremy Williamson <jeremiah.d.williamson@nodamspam.intel.com> wrote:

> Been ages since I've bothered to post.  But I see this and [sigh]

Howdy.  I remember you.

> This is just... so... wrong

> Just what do they teach kids these days?

Apparentally not much in terms of computer architecture/hw :(

> FYI and in the hopes that you can walk away from the discussion with a 
> little xtra knowledge.  Doug is referring to HW caches *not* SW caches.  
> Whole different ballgame.  Not to mention the fact that the OS has almost 
> NO bearing on this discussion whatsoever.

Yeah, and I'm a SW guy mainly by education and trade ;)
0
Doug
7/15/2004 2:54:55 AM
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Chris Lee <clee2@envirolink.org> wrote:

> >Maybe *you* should go somewhere and do some reading about things
> >like 
> >computer memory architecture, with regards to buffers and cache.

> Dude a ramdisk *IS* a buffer and a cache. It all depends on how you
> use it.

Nooooo....  Buffers and cache don't have this concept of "file system", 
much less files.  You also can't (or at least, *shouldn't*) go accessing 
random bits in a buffer or cache.  Remember, that's what the "R" in 
RAMdisk stands for.  (yes, i have seen people do some really silly things 
in code - things i wouldn't advocate upon penalty of extreme pain)

This also implies that I was talking about SW-based buffers and caches - 
which I wasn't. 

> If you're setting aside 12 megs of ram as a "Graphics Buffer" to 
> store graphics and other data all you're really doing is creating a 12
> meg ramdisk.

Uh...  Read about RAMdisks - they're quite a bit more complicated than you 
think - and not suitable for things like buffers.  Just because you 
*COULD* use a RAMdisk in this fashion doesn't mean you *SHOULD*.  You also 
seem to have forgotten that at the OS level, implementing a buffer or 
cache in memory is usually a simple structure - like an array or linked 
list.  And none of this is revelant when you're talking about the way 
buffers and cache are implemented in hardware...

> A rose by any other name.

Hopefully you're a better gardener than a HW guru...

> Now if you're talking about buffers and cache as they are in the sense
> they are created and used in Linux, you're talking about a whole diffrent
> kettle of fish.

??  How so?  I was dealing with cache back when Linux was little more than 
an interesting toy operating system being written by a college student...

After all, what OS do you think Linus used as an inspiration?  It 
certainly wasn't Windows.
0
Doug
7/15/2004 3:29:03 AM
Doug Jacobs wrote:
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Simon Finnigan
> <simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as
>>> games do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms
>>> of
>>> processor speed and memory.
>
>> At least your calmer now.  Completely and utterly wrong, but calm.
>> Games
>> under MSDOS ran at resolutions in the region of 320 x 240 or somthing
>> stupidly low.  Games on my PC now run at an absolute minimum of 1024
>> x 768,
>> often much higher.  They might have the same frames per second, but
>> the work
>> being done is quite simply not comparable.
>
> I remember running a few DOS era games at 640x480.  You also have to
> remember that back then, memory was a *LOT* more expensive.  This was
> when
> a 386 with 2 MB of RAM was considered entry-level.  486s were only for
> rich people (mainly because they cost close to $10k!)  Video cards had
> memory that was measured in kbytes, not MBytes like it is today.

He was talking about games running under dos back then running as fast as
games under Windows now.

> Regardless, what the original poster is trying to point out is that
> DOS
> games had a lot less overhead when compared to early games running in
> an
> Windows environment.

True, but DOS is so far ago it`s rediculous :-)

>> Lets use another example to show you that you`re wrong.  Lets give a
>> console 128 megs of RAM, which is shared between everything.  Now if
>> you need lots
>> of information held in RAM, rather than on disk or similar, you need
>> to
>> compress and de-compress it on the fly, which takes CPU time away
>> from doing
>> useful work, whereas if the console had a gig of RAM, the data could
>> be left uncompressed and thus save a load of CPU time.
>
> You do realize that in a normal PC, the CPU is idle something like
> 50-70%
> of the time because it's waiting for I/O operations to complete,
> right?

No I don`t realise that - mine is idle about 98% of the time when I`m not
pushing the machine.  When I`m working on it, the CPU is maxed out - but
doing monte carlo simulations of nuclear physics does that to a computer :-)

> This is because the CPU is so much faster than the memory bus, or the
> memory itself.  The PS3 isn't using your standard off-the-shelf RAM
> memory.  This is *VERY* high speed (and therefore, *VERY* expensive)
> memory we're talking about.  Basically, Sony is trading size for
> speed.
> It won't matter if they have to do more read/write operations if they
> don't take a whole lot of time.

It`s more the idea that sheers processing grunt can make up for a lack of
RAM.  It can to a small degree, but nowhere near as much as Chris seems to
think.

-- 
What am I selling on ebay right now?
http://tinyurl.com/38yjc


0
Simon
7/15/2004 9:16:01 PM
In article <2llslcFeedtnU1@uni-berlin.de>, simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk 
says...
>
>
>Chris Lee wrote:
>> In article <2lhr3sFcu07iU1@uni-berlin.de>,
>> simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>
>>> Les Dennis wrote:
>>>> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
>>>>>> load
>>>>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
>>>>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
>>>>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not
>>>>>> bog-standard
>>>>>> DDR computer ram.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
>>>>> have
>>>>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of
>>>>> releasing
>>>>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology
>>>>> leader
>>>>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the
>>>>> Xbox2
>>>>> has
>>>>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
>>>>> performing games on both consoles....
>>>>
>>>> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing
>>>> power
>>>> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster
>>>> processor
>>>> than the PS3.
>>>
>>> Taking that arguement to the extreme, a PC with a 3 GHz processor
>>> and 64
>>> megs of ram would run faster than a 1.5GHz processor and a gig of
>>> RAM.  Try
>>> building the two machines, and use them for anything - games,
>>> real
>>> world
>>> apps, and you`d soon see that memory DOES make a big difference.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> No. What you're comparing/looking at is the overhead of a
>> operating
>> system like Windows.
>>
>> Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as
>> games do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms
>> of
>> processor speed and memory.
>
>At least your calmer now.  Completely and utterly wrong, but calm. 
>Games
>under MSDOS ran at resolutions in the region of 320 x 240 or
>somthing
>stupidly low.  Games on my PC now run at an absolute minimum of 1024
>x 768,
>often much higher.  They might have the same frames per second, but
>the work
>being done is quite simply not comparable.


Eh? Let's take a look at the system requirements of a DOS-based Game
shall we?


Shadow Warrior copyright 1997 3D Realms Entertainment

System Requirements:

CPU:Pentium 66Mhz or better

Memory: 16MB RAM

Avalible Hard-Disk Space 60 MB

Distribution Media Drive: CDROM

Audio System: 100% Sound Blaster(tm) compatible

Video System: VGA 256 color or better

Input Device(s): Keyboard,mouse,joystick

O/S: DOS 6.2 or better


Sounds quite comparable to the current junk running under Windows
requiring 1.5-3 GHz processors.





0
Chris
7/16/2004 5:49:12 AM
"Chris Lee" <clee2@envirolink.org> wrote in message news:40f769eb$0$1178$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> In article <2llslcFeedtnU1@uni-berlin.de>, simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk
> says...
> >
> >
> >Chris Lee wrote:
> >> In article <2lhr3sFcu07iU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> >> simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk says...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Les Dennis wrote:
> >>>> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
> >>>>>> load
> >>>>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
> >>>>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
> >>>>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not
> >>>>>> bog-standard
> >>>>>> DDR computer ram.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
> >>>>> have
> >>>>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of
> >>>>> releasing
> >>>>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology
> >>>>> leader
> >>>>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the
> >>>>> Xbox2
> >>>>> has
> >>>>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
> >>>>> performing games on both consoles....
> >>>>
> >>>> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing
> >>>> power
> >>>> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster
> >>>> processor
> >>>> than the PS3.
> >>>
> >>> Taking that arguement to the extreme, a PC with a 3 GHz processor
> >>> and 64
> >>> megs of ram would run faster than a 1.5GHz processor and a gig of
> >>> RAM.  Try
> >>> building the two machines, and use them for anything - games,
> >>> real
> >>> world
> >>> apps, and you`d soon see that memory DOES make a big difference.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >> No. What you're comparing/looking at is the overhead of a
> >> operating
> >> system like Windows.
> >>
> >> Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as
> >> games do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms
> >> of
> >> processor speed and memory.
> >
> >At least your calmer now.  Completely and utterly wrong, but calm.
> >Games
> >under MSDOS ran at resolutions in the region of 320 x 240 or
> >somthing
> >stupidly low.  Games on my PC now run at an absolute minimum of 1024
> >x 768,
> >often much higher.  They might have the same frames per second, but
> >the work
> >being done is quite simply not comparable.
>
>
> Eh? Let's take a look at the system requirements of a DOS-based Game
> shall we?
>
>
> Shadow Warrior copyright 1997 3D Realms Entertainment
>
> System Requirements:
>
> CPU:Pentium 66Mhz or better
>
> Memory: 16MB RAM
>
> Avalible Hard-Disk Space 60 MB
>
> Distribution Media Drive: CDROM
>
> Audio System: 100% Sound Blaster(tm) compatible
>
> Video System: VGA 256 color or better
>
> Input Device(s): Keyboard,mouse,joystick
>
> O/S: DOS 6.2 or better
>
>
> Sounds quite comparable to the current junk running under Windows
> requiring 1.5-3 GHz processors.
>


"Sounds quite comparable"????  What sounds comparable exactly?

What massive leap in logic that makes these comparable am I failing to see exactly?

The fact that both come on CDs or that they both use a keyboard and mouse?


Jeremy





0
Jeremy
7/16/2004 9:40:40 PM
"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message news:10fbsfvphuu8f9e@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Jeremy Williamson <jeremiah.d.williamson@nodamspam.intel.com>
wrote:
>
> > Been ages since I've bothered to post.  But I see this and [sigh]
>
> Howdy.  I remember you.

Howdy.  I've reverted to PT lurking lately.  Because
a) it seems as if actual games are almost *never* discussed in this forum anymore.
    Vague opinions about styles of games that supposedly define one platform over another yes.
    But when's the last time specific games were discussed?  When's the last time an upcoming
    game was discussed and people were excited?  When's the last time someone asked for help
    on a game and received help?  Welll... it sure makes it faster to look through the group.
b) this news server is managing to suck more and more
c) took much time off from VGs and starting getting more active, climbing, hiking up mtns etc.
Stuff that probably wouldn't make a very good game in the first place.
d) hell froze over and I own a PC so I've been into PC games.  Civ III, SW:KOTR, Morrowind, Arx
Fatalis, Thief III, etc.  Yes, I'm a traitor but I did get the Megaman Anniversary Collection  = )

But, with the upcoming consoles coming out and the XBox2 specs leaked a couple months ago, things
are starting to heat up!  This will be a VERY interesting round.

After this round of consoles, I believe we'll be close to breaking the polygon/texture lighting
barrier and move straight into global illumination models and... and... RAYTRACING engines!!!  Yes,
I'm not kidding.  HW is almost to the point where there are many researchers who think the
impossible may actually be possible, raytracing in HW.  Exciting!


>
> > This is just... so... wrong
>
> > Just what do they teach kids these days?
>
> Apparentally not much in terms of computer architecture/hw :(
>
> > FYI and in the hopes that you can walk away from the discussion with a
> > little xtra knowledge.  Doug is referring to HW caches *not* SW caches.
> > Whole different ballgame.  Not to mention the fact that the OS has almost
> > NO bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
>
> Yeah, and I'm a SW guy mainly by education and trade ;)

But any ordinary SW person, certainly a SW person who's had to concern themselves with the
performance of their application understands how memory hierarchies operate.

Jeremy




0
Jeremy
7/16/2004 9:55:14 PM
Chris Lee wrote:
> In article <2llslcFeedtnU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk says...
>>
>>
>> Chris Lee wrote:
>>> In article <2lhr3sFcu07iU1@uni-berlin.de>,
>>> simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Les Dennis wrote:
>>>>> "Arnaldo Horta" <ahorta@spamdie.comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:656dndYe3cEzom3dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Les Dennis" <linker500@REMOVEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2laha8Fasn6kU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember the PS3 won't be running windows which saves a shit
>>>>>>> load
>>>>>>> of ram, there's no comparison between the ram you need to run
>>>>>>> computer games and the memory you need to run great games on a
>>>>>>> dedictated console.  This is ultra-high speed RAM not
>>>>>>> bog-standard
>>>>>>> DDR computer ram.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but considering that the Xbox2 specs that have been leaked
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> at least twice that amount of RAM, Sony runs the danger of
>>>>>> releasing
>>>>>> a machine months after Microsoft that is not the technology
>>>>>> leader
>>>>>> in all ways...if the PS3 has more processing power but the
>>>>>> Xbox2
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> more memory, some developers will be able to make equivalent
>>>>>> performing games on both consoles....
>>>>>
>>>>> No, memory will never make up for the sheer grunt in processing
>>>>> power
>>>>> although whose to say the xbox2 won't have an ever faster
>>>>> processor
>>>>> than the PS3.
>>>>
>>>> Taking that arguement to the extreme, a PC with a 3 GHz processor
>>>> and 64
>>>> megs of ram would run faster than a 1.5GHz processor and a gig of
>>>> RAM.  Try
>>>> building the two machines, and use them for anything - games,
>>>> real
>>>> world
>>>> apps, and you`d soon see that memory DOES make a big difference.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> No. What you're comparing/looking at is the overhead of a
>>> operating
>>> system like Windows.
>>>
>>> Remember, Games under MSDOS ran at pretty much the same speeds as
>>> games do now under Windows on much less powerful hardware in terms
>>> of
>>> processor speed and memory.
>>
>> At least your calmer now.  Completely and utterly wrong, but calm.
>> Games
>> under MSDOS ran at resolutions in the region of 320 x 240 or
>> somthing
>> stupidly low.  Games on my PC now run at an absolute minimum of 1024
>> x 768,
>> often much higher.  They might have the same frames per second, but
>> the work
>> being done is quite simply not comparable.
>
>
> Eh? Let's take a look at the system requirements of a DOS-based Game
> shall we?
>
>
> Shadow Warrior copyright 1997 3D Realms Entertainment
>
> System Requirements:
>
> CPU:Pentium 66Mhz or better
>
> Memory: 16MB RAM
>
> Avalible Hard-Disk Space 60 MB
>
> Distribution Media Drive: CDROM
>
> Audio System: 100% Sound Blaster(tm) compatible
>
> Video System: VGA 256 color or better
>
> Input Device(s): Keyboard,mouse,joystick
>
> O/S: DOS 6.2 or better
>
>
> Sounds quite comparable to the current junk running under Windows
> requiring 1.5-3 GHz processors.

Eh?  Perhaps you should take advantage of one of those many companies
offering medication online - you certainly seem to need it!

-- 
What am I selling on ebay right now?
http://tinyurl.com/38yjc


0
Simon
7/16/2004 10:48:14 PM
"Chris Lee" <clee2@envirolink.org> wrote in message
news:40f769eb$0$1178$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> In article <2llslcFeedtnU1@uni-berlin.de>, simon@therealm.freeserve.co.uk

> Eh? Let's take a look at the system requirements of a DOS-based Game
> shall we?
>
>
> Shadow Warrior copyright 1997 3D Realms Entertainment
>
> System Requirements:
>
> CPU:Pentium 66Mhz or better

Most 'current junk' requiring upwards of 1.5 ghz, so let's just multiply the
above by a factor of 20 or so.

>
> Memory: 16MB RAM

Multiply by a factor of 8.

> Avalible Hard-Disk Space 60 MB

A factor of 10.

> Distribution Media Drive: CDROM
>
> Audio System: 100% Sound Blaster(tm) compatible
>
> Video System: VGA 256 color or better
>
> Input Device(s): Keyboard,mouse,joystick
>
> O/S: DOS 6.2 or better
>
>
> Sounds quite comparable to the current junk running under Windows
> requiring 1.5-3 GHz processors.


So, in what manner are they comparable? That they both utilize keyboards?


0
James
7/17/2004 1:51:53 AM
In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Chris Lee <clee2@envirolink.org> wrote:

> Eh? Let's take a look at the system requirements of a DOS-based Game
> shall we?


> Shadow Warrior copyright 1997 3D Realms Entertainment

> Video System: VGA 256 color or better

You do realize that this game ran at best at 640x480x256 compared to 
today's games which run at higher resolutions, higher color depths, and 
also do much more complicated mathematical calculations to deal with a 3d 
environment.
0
Doug
7/17/2004 6:12:55 AM
In article <cd9is3$aen$1@news01.intel.com>,
 "Jeremy Williamson" <jeremiah.d.williamson@NODAMSPAM.intel.com> wrote:

> But, with the upcoming consoles coming out and the XBox2 specs leaked a 
> couple months ago, things
> are starting to heat up!  This will be a VERY interesting round.
> 
> After this round of consoles, I believe we'll be close to breaking the 
> polygon/texture lighting
> barrier and move straight into global illumination models and... and... 
> RAYTRACING engines!!!  Yes,
> I'm not kidding.  HW is almost to the point where there are many researchers 
> who think the
> impossible may actually be possible, raytracing in HW.  Exciting!

Well a good start with the next generation is to be freed from NTSC/PAL 
displays.  How old are these formats, over a half a century old?
0
poldy
7/18/2004 10:34:19 PM
>
>And please, the DC really couldn't touch the better late-gen PS2
>games.  The first PS2 games were pretty unimpressive -- I'll give you
>that -- but it's not 2000 anymore and the ol' Dreamcast doesn't really
>stack up graphically.  Dust it off and remind yourself sometime.
>
>And yeah, I'm a big Sega fan too; still got my Dreamcast.  Bought it
>on midnight the day it was launched.  I'm just not kidding myself
>about the graphics.

I don't know what dc you got but my dc has generally superior graphics
to my ps2. I don't even use my ps2 on my projector as scaled up to
7foot across all the terrible picture problems become too obvious. The
PS2 only gives out a resolution of about 640x400 and that uses an
interpolation technique so the true resolution is only about 640x200.
It also displays 50 (pal) unique half frames (fields) instead of
showing 25 frames split over 2 fields. This might make animation look
smoother but gives horrible jaggies and aliasing most of the time.
Because games on the dc like shenmue use masses of textures and need
texture compression and a large amount of video memory they aren't
even possible on the ps2 to the same standard. Ok the ps2 has more
memory and of course can produce a lot more polygons but in many ways
it is inferior to the dc especially with regard varied textures and
the quality of its graphics output. The clarity of the DC's VGA output
to my projector is frankly amazing. The output quality of the ps2's
component connection even in progressive is still poor.

Lets face it the ps3 will probably be another eccentric design with
fairly low performance initially like the ps2. I personally think its
quite possible it will have 128meg of memory but this might be
ultrafast and be supported by slower memory for less cpu intensive
tasks much like the gamecube design. Sony couldn't have helped to
notice that the gamcube performs very well even though its dirt cheap
to make compared to other consoles thanks to its use of very cheap
secondary memory.

I love my ps2 but technology wise its pure crap compared to xbox and
gc and is beaten in many areas by the dc. Lets face it the ps2 is the
major game format in the world and has the best possible programmers
working on it and still produces rubbish results and frame rates a lot
of the time. There must have been loads of times when I've seen an
xbox game and thought that it wasn't possible to the same standard on
ps2 but never have I ever even dreamed the same when looking at a ps2
game and thought about saying its not possible on xbox. 

Maybe Sony will comeback with a design as great as the original
playstation was in its day with the ps3. I really hope so but I won't
be surprised if ends up a technological monstrosity with a few major
weaknesses in design. The original ps2 was designed as much as
possible by Sony themselves so that licensing/royalties wouldn't be
too much. I hope this time they get the best people designing the
circuits externally. No more crappy mips embedded risc cpu cores
either. 

It doesn't really matter to Sony though as however crap the ps3 is as
long as its reasonably advanced over the ps2 people will lap it up.
The only way the xbox 2 could beat it is if it was 10x as powerful
rather than the current generation 2-3x.
0
Martin
7/19/2004 4:38:07 AM
Reply: