Epiphany

You've not seen near final builds running then.

1. I'm not pedantic when posting on the internet. As long as the point is conveyed, regardless of literacy or proper acronym use the point is done. This is the internet, not school. But thanks for the effort, grammar cop. 2. Xenon was also the code name of the X360 CPU and the console (before X360 was made public), just like Xenos is the code name for the GPU. 3. It will, by a couple of developers. The processor will not be fully taken advantage of by the majority of the people developing for the console. It will be a similar scenario that the PS2 suffered, minus the market dominating support. The games it gets, except for the few select 1st party exclusives, and the late generation SCE games, will not fully take advantage of the Cell and all of its SPE's. Showing pretty graphics means squat when that's all the processor can do. Just look at the PS2 demos from before it was released, such as the Getaway. That didn't end up looking anything like the final product. Until actual gameplay is shown, it's all smoke and mirrors, as Sony hasn't proven they can show a scripted trailer and have it mirror the final product.

source of patent SCE has secured the patent for a new disc technology that, if used, would not allow the PS3 to read used games for that platform. The technology was invented by Kutaragi himself, as well as two others. It is indicated specifically that the technology is to prevent the use of used as well as pirated software. The technology involves actually rendering a authentication code originally encrypted on the game disk unreadable to other machines once the disk it is used.

Yes, it's pretty. But it has serious framerate problems. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can't say I noticed. Just thought of something you said Indigo Prophecy had framerate issues. Didnt happen to test them on the same PS2 did you ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow, you're such a liar... Framerate issues in a game with none (Ninja Gaiden) and then you didn't notice framerate issues in a game with known framerate issues (Shadow of the Colossus).

What about Cell? The fact that nobody will take full advantage of it? The fact that the PPE in Cell is inferior to one of the Xenon cores? You do realize that this is, yet another, time in which the X360 proves it was built to run games and the Cell wasn't. I realize you didn't want to acknowledge it months back, but it deserves to be repeated. Xenon was built to run games on the X360, Cell was built with other things in mind. Xenon can do more per instruction cycle than Cell can, so regardless of TFLOP advantages the Cell theoretically has, it holds no other advantage over Xenon. The PS3 has a GPU, it doesn't need, nor require any additional FLOP power from a graphical standpoint from the processor.

I called their "2TFLOPS vs 1TFLOP" smoke and mirrors. It's a matter of calculating peak performance vs general performance. Nvidia is using separate vertex and pixel shaders on the RSX, and ATi is using their USA. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both vertex and pixel shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATi calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATi's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance. PS3: CPU=0.25 TFlops GPU=1.80 TFlops XBOX360: CPU=0.18 TFlops GPU=0.88 TFlops for the way ATi calculates performance or: 1.75 TFlops for the way Nvidia would calculate the performance if it was their card So the PS3 has a total theoretical performance of about 2.05 TFLOPS and XBox 360 has about 1.93 TFLOPS. The difference isn't staggering. That's why Sony is pulling the smoke and mirrors, they're calculating peak performance (when it's not achievable on any level of consistancy). If anyone will be running continually higher TFLOP levels, it'll be the X360, since the entire point of USA is to keep the GPU running at near optimal level at all times. I won't even bother to address fact in detail that Cell will not be fully utilized (due to complexity and time constraints) by the majority of games. If you want to number crunch all of the time, then the Xbox 360 will win in the end. If you want to leave it to the developers, then the Xbox 360 will most likely win again, because of the easier development the console has over its rival. When you compare the PC versions, they are inferior, when you compare to other console offerings, they are superior. Haven't played it, nor seen it in person.

It's not "generic" in the sense that it's some different form of memory (if that's what you were implying). In the case of the PS3, it has 256 megs of GDDR3 memory for video, and 256 of XDR ram for the system. The X360 has 512 of unified GDDR3 ram. XDR ram @ 3.2Ghz GDDR3 ram @ 700Mhz It may appear as though the PS3 has a huge bandwidth advantage with the 256 megs of XDR, but XDR uses a 64-bit bus and the GDDR3 ram uses a 256-bit bus. Where every 8-bit gives a factor of 1, 16-bit a factor of 2. 64-bit XDR (factor of x 3.2Ghz = 25.6 GB/s bandwidth 256-bit GDDR (factor of 32) x 700Mhz= 22.4 GB/s bandwidth The difference only ends up being 3.2 GB/s in favor of the XDR. Yes, it's "better", but only marginal, but when you factor in the eDRAM on Xenos, things swing heavily in favor of the X360.

Much like the PS3/Xbox 360 - the PS2 was touted as having more "potential" power than the other consoles. Sony works in theoretical numbers, and not actual specs. When they saw the 1TFLOP for the X360, they just estimated "2 theoretical TFLOPS" for the PS3. Smoke and mirrors. Regardless, of the top of my head the best looking Xbox games would have to be: Conker - unsure about framerate, but I believe it's a steady 30fps in 480p/16:9 Doom 3 (runs at 30fps in 480p/16:9) Ninja Gaiden (runs at 60fps in 480p/16:9) Splinter Cell 3 - steady 30fps - graphically if you compare it to the PS2 version, it's generations ahead Many will argue that Panzer Dragoon: Orta would be up there as well.

Last I read, Lost Odyssey was a traditional TB style game.

Lets hope it's capable of more than that <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What else do you want it to do? It's a graphical engine that offers streaming levels and powerful physics. The quality of the game beyond that is in the hands of the developers. Lost Odyssey is supposedly using it. Mass Effect is using it.

If the console had 1.4 gig of unified memory, then 1 BG for video and 400 MB for the system would be fine. Oh, but I see what you were trying to do, you were implying that the entire sentence you quoted had me saying that 512 megs of UMA is like having an unlimited pool of RAM that will allow developers to fly to the moon and back in a matter of seconds. How typical of you. Yet with UMA, it's easier to program for. Yet a unified approach is easier to program for, it gives them more choice (which developers like to have). Unless of course, you can find a cynical developer that would rather have boundaries on everything they do, with no choices. Yeah, they'll work with it, but it won't be as easy as it is to program for on a unified setup - as is evidence by Xbox games, and the fact that XNA allows for quick ports to and from PC development. It's in the tools, and while I understand you hate to be anything but negative, you continually deny the facts that are right there for you to read. end of discussion

I'm not following your logic. If you have 512 megs of unified memory, you can make it 256/256 and "push each aspect to the limit without any worries of compromising either". You seem to be thinking that with limitations (dedicated memory) developers will maximize those limitations and when they're presented with a unified architecture they'll suddenly throw everything out the window and sacrifice stuff for the other - which is not the case. There are times when you don't need X for video, but rather X-64, so they can give that extra 64 to the system itself. With the unified shaders of Xenos, the GPU will be working at a more optimal level, so I'm going to guess that the amount of video RAM will not be as important as it will with the PS3. The USA plus the eDRAM will give it a programing edge, as well as a bandwidth edge for processing FSAA, using the Z buffer, among many other things with only a 5% performance hit. That frees up extra resources in the long run.

There is less of a compromise in a unified set up, versus what the PS3 has. You're stuck with 256/256, and you're given the option of having whatever ratio you want with the unified architecture. There is no compromise, there is choice, and it's up to the developers. Yes, but when developers are unsure as to how much people have, they can't make a judgment on exactly how much of the RAM is allocated to video vs the rest of the system. Sure, they could add variables such as It would work, but the extra work required simply wouldn't be worth the effort, aside from the fact that we have a decades worth of programs that weren't written with a unified memory architecture in mind. It would be foolish to switch to a unified setup since the platform is stable in current computers. The console has one general purpose, and that is to run video games. It's short, but I'm going home.

Bioware hasn't sold out.

PS3 games will be the same way. Deal with it if you want to play console games next gen, on a HD console.

Closed system, with identical specs across the board vs setups that vary in the thousands? When developing for a console, you have one standard to meet. You know you have A, B, C, and D. When developing for a computer, God knows what people have put in, how much RAM they have, what kind of GPU they're using, or even what type of processor they have. So when you have 512 megs of of unified memory in every console, developers know exactly how to take advantage of that.

Nobody tried to have a discussion, because everyone just started screaming "PC'S DON'T HAVE IT!" - PC and consoles aren't the same, which was the whole basis for the comment that you love to take out of context. Unified memory is a better option for developers in a console, it provides more freedom. For an actual COMPUTER (the one with the keyboard, word processing, monitor, mouse, tons of various cards and upgrades, etc...) it's a different beast. The Xbox 360 is a console, not a computer (take it word for word and out of context again please, it'll make this much more enjoyable). The simple fact of the matter is, I've been 99% CORRECT on everything regarding the X360 and the PS3 so far. You all just want to call me a fanboy, tell me I've bought into hype, or just refuse to acknowledge.

It processes the data the Emotion Engine (part of the CPU) feeds it. The PS2 "graphics synthesizer" != a standard GPU - which was my comment. Everything is done via the CPU in the PS1/PS2 -EVERYTHING. Just because the CPU is broken down into various sections does not change the simple fact that all these "PARTS" are part the CPU. Yet, continually, as more information is released regarding the X360/PS3, I'm proven correct. It's funny, that all these baseless claims of "ignorance" on the subject, yet time and time again, more information is given to the public that I've claimed on this very forum, weeks to months in advance. You're unable to refute anything I say on the two consoles I know the most about. The only thing you and the rest of the people have done is call me a fanboy, or tell me I've bought into hype. So far, you have no proof, aside from your own personal vendetta against everything I post that I've bought into MS hype. Until you can factually dismantle my comments on the X360 and PS3, then you simply have your own opinions vs mine - but the underlying difference is, your opinions haven't been proven correct yet, while mine have. First I was called a fanboy because I said the two consoles would be similar in power, and that the X360 would be a better gaming machine. Well, now that more developers are speaking out, they're all claiming the same thing. They're relatively the same, but Xenon is a better general purpose CPU. I then claimed the graphics of X360 games would be better than PS3 counterparts. This has already been proven correct by anyone without blinders on, as launch games for the X360 look much better than launch games of the PS3. The best looking game on the PS3 that was actually running on the games engine is MGS4, which isn't even better looking than Gears of War. MGS4 != 1st generation game - GoW == 1st generation game. I then talked about how the Cell/PS3 couldn't handle complex AI routines - in which you specifically said I was wrong. Well, the proof is in the pudding, and the simple fact of the matter is Bethesda made it publicly known time and time again, that every console that could handle Oblivion would get it - Guess what, it's X360 exclusive. I don't have to argue specifics with you, when developers aren't releasing their products. Or, just go watch the I-8 trailer, with gameplay footage. Look at the basic AI of "run fowards" and "stand and shoot". AMAZING STUFF. Then I said XNA would be the best set of tools to work with, and now developers are echoing those very statements. Of course, at the time (months ago) that I made this "outlandish claim" I was labeled a fanboy, and was told I bought into hype. But - I was right, they weren't. Don't even attempt to pick at "console/PC" developement kits, as XNA provides a flawless transition between the two platforms. If you design for one platform, you've designed for the other. XNA provides developers with the easiest tools they've worked with. The only prediction/opinion I was proven wrong on (and not even by you people), was when I said that MS would most likely put HD-DVD drives in the X360 before launch, and that decision would be made in late August. That didn't happen. Allard and company didn't make the announcement I thought they'd make, but MS announceed their partnership with Toshiba and the rest of the HD-DVD group instead. Time will continue to prove me right on the subject of PS3/X360. I was told I bought into MS hype regarding unified memory and its superiority over dedicated memory - looks like I was right (again). As you can tell by my posting manner/habits, I COULDN'T CARE LESS about what you people think about me. You all band together and call me a fanboy because I don't believe the PS3 is the second coming of Christ. It's commical, because they are so many cynical people on this forum that positive threads are ignored, and I made several showing cool Cell demonstrations. Sony = smoke and mirrors - history has proven this. They're trying to pull the same stunts now, that they pulled on the Dreamcast with the PS2. The X360 isn't smoke and mirrors. End of discussion.

I thought this was already covered. Ars Technia "The Emotion Engine is sort of a combination CPU and DSP Processor" Oh well, nice talking with you.

"If Revolution uses XDR RDRAM, it will probably also have a pool of some type of GDDR3 VRAM, like the PS3. I find it much more likely, however, that Revolution will have a unified memory model like that of the Xbox 360, with a single pool of 700MHz GDDR3 RAM that sits off the northbridge and is shared between the processor and an ATI-designed GPU. The Xbox 360's unified main memory model is more developer-friendly than Cell's split RAM/VRAM model, and I also think it may turn out to be more effective in the long run. Both of these factors make a unified, GDDR3-based memory model the most likely for Revolution. More developer friendly, and even someone that does this stuff everyday of their lives feels it'll be more effective in the long run. Ars Technia I said: "512 meg of shared RAM is better than being stuck with only 256 for video and 256 for the system. It gives developers more choices, which is what they need in order to provide gamers with their "visions" for games. If they only need 128 for video, then they can use the rest for streaming data, if they need 356 for video, then they can have it. How are giving developers options worse than saying you only get one option for video and system? Your logic is flawed." in response to this claim: "if either console's hardware is better it is the PS3, judging by the Video RAM (360 uses shared RAM, this is never good. ) " then I was bombarded by the following: "Really? So, if that was true, why isn't every computer in the world built with shared RAM, if it is so superior? You just don't understand anything beyond the hype of Microsoft, do you?" I then later said: "64 of shared is simply a better choice vs 32 video and 32 system. Of course, it must be a horrible idea, since developers love the freedom it provides, and the fact it's a proven formula for success in a closed system environment." But anyway...

Notice how I said "I guess". But yeah, it's over 50% in the US, so that's all that matters.

Are you really that dense? I hope you realize, that for $15 you can purchase component cables. A "deluxe" purchase is not required. The premium bundle is for the "hardcore" gamer, it's not focused on the HD gamer. They aren't charging $100 so you can play in 720p or 1080i resolutions. Try again, Beavis.

In American, we're a little more in modern times I guess. 50% of households have broadband now.