Epiphany

Handling and outputting it are two different things. X360 one is in 720p, the other, at best, is from a 480p feed. Just because the GPU is capable of handling higher resolution textures, doesn't mean the entire console can do it. There are only a couple of games that are higher than 480p on the Xbox, so the actual, undoctored differences between this current gen and next gen are staggering. Add to the draw distance, talent of the developers, etc... Just because someone is working on a game for a console doesn't mean it's using all of the consoles power. Those are both in game screenshots, and the only available comparison between the two systems as the screenshot is from the exact same place and angle.

Well that depends what's done with it. If they are already tapping most of the power to come up with the likes of Oblivion, well like I said colour me unimpressed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Multi-threading a game, and using all available power/resources are vastly different. But yeah, you're cynical, so keep up the hate.

King Kong Fair example, as it's a 5th generation current gen game, and a 1st gen next gen game. Look at the detail difference on the Xbox and Xbox 360 versions. Quite impressive when seen side by side. Granted neither are the best work for their respective consoles, but it shows what similarly talented developers can do in a given timeframe with both generations with the exact same game.

LOL! Then I guess you'll be even more unimpressed about the PS3 and Cell - since it's a multi-threaded processor as well.

You said something along the lines of "all first generation games" - which encompasses much more than just the "launch games" - of which Call of Duty - a multi-threaded game is part of. With Oblivion only being a couple of weeks later. I also remember Cliffy B talking about Gears of War being multi-threaded, but I don't recall the source of the interview.

While I don't know all of the games, this report is, in fact false to some degree. Bethesda claimed Oblivion was "heavily" multi-threaded in a thread on their forums about that very article. While the CoD2 guys said at the Digital Life show in NYC that CoD2 used all the cores, and was multi-threaded for AI, physics, and the like. Elder Scrolls forum thread from thread:

Oddly enough, a large number of gamers are considering Kameo, Project Gotham Racing 3 and Condemned to all be killer aps for the the X360 at launch. While many FPS fanboys are considering CoD2 to be a killer ap - but PC reviews are starting to debunk that frame of mind. Regardless, you're left with an action/adventure game, racing game, and a first person game all of which are expected to be of the "killer ap" quality, much like Oblivion and Gears of War are expected.

You can side with whoever you want, it's not my problem. My problem is taking someone seriously who dismisses an entire board with statements like "you just don't understand it" when he's caught lying or being horribly wrong. Why even bother trying to reason with ignorance personified? On the other hand.. Just as "consoles aren't computers", he will never admit he was wrong when he said the PS2 doesn't have a GPU, no matter how many articles, quotes or spec. sheets we link to. "Sony has decided to combine its PlayStation CPU and GPU into one 90 nm chip containing 53 million transistors. The original PlayStation 2 featured an "Emotion Engine" based on the 300MHz MIPs R4000/R5000 hybrid CPU, and a 147MHz "Graphics Synthesizer" GPU which claimed to be far more powerful than any other GPU when it was released. The two chips were made on a .25 micron process, so by switching to the 90 nm process Sony can easily combine the cores." Source: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003May/...30506019864.htm Just because Sony decided to make the PSTwo (the slim version) and combine two processors on one chip (because, unlike the Xbox, the PS2 gets updated with new technology), doesn't mean the GPU just ceased to exist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The PS1 and PS2 do not have a GPU.

The same thing that the initial Cell design was going to be. An onboard, "GPU-like" arcitecture that was part of the CPU. The PS1 and the PS2 did not have an actual GPU like the Gamecube, Xbox, X360, or PS3. Disagree again, so you continue your streak of disagreement out of spite, rather than knowledge. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you're getting too caught up in the industry buzzwords (aka "GPU"). You stated the following: That statement is not correct. I was hoping you were going to clarify the statement with respect to hardware T&L or something. Instead you chose to insult me. The R5900 did not do all of the graphics calculations. Much like ALL of the video cards prior to the original GeForce chipset, that chip's responsibilities was rendering of the screen. At the time, this was still a humongous performance increase over the CPU doing all the calculations. At the time, T&L chipsets (aka the GeForce) actually had a performance penalty compared to letting the CPU take care of the T&L responsibilities. This was demonstrated by numerable tests in the late 1999s, showing that it was better to use the GeForce as a "standard" video card, rather than enabling Hardware T&L (assuming you had a fast processor, preferably with SSE). Thing is, most people who purchased GeForce cards were getting the high speed Pentiums (during the race to 1 GHz, new ones were coming out almost weekly). I know that the GPU of the PS2 did not support hardware T&L, but it was still a hardware solution for graphics. And it was not part of the CPU. To say that the CPU did all of the graphics calculations is incorrect. And I am not disagreeing out of spite either. It's not an opinion. I'm pointing out the mistakes you made. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is no GPU in the PS1 or PS2, all graphical opperations are done via the CPU. That's where the whole "emotion engine" came from, regarding the PS2. The emotion engine is part of the CPU - which is not a GPU.

Aah, right. We have no knowledge, but you do. Just like in this case: You really think you're the enlightened one and we're just jealous of your vast knowledge, don't you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, much like your ignorance on the concept that it was a discussion spanning more than one post, and that the topic was personal computers, revolving around gaming. But hey, if one quote out of context gives you a chubby, then by all means keep using it. Afterall, I can't imagine anything else giving a miserably cynic Swedish game reviewer any kind of hope or enjoyment from life.

The same thing that the initial Cell design was going to be. An onboard, "GPU-like" arcitecture that was part of the CPU. The PS1 and the PS2 did not have an actual GPU like the Gamecube, Xbox, X360, or PS3. Disagree again, so you continue your streak of disagreement out of spite, rather than knowledge.

The PS1 had a different GPU chipset than the PS2 (I'm pretty positive )....they didn't seem to have too much of a problem. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Neither the PS1 or the PS2 had an actual GPU, all graphics calculations were done via the CPU. So having backwards compatibility was easy between the two machines, since they were essentially the same chipsets, with higher clock speeds and more RAM.

That's what Sony did with the PS2 BC - they claimed 100% at first, and never made another public peep about it, until it was too late. It didn't hurt them, but I'm sure it annoyed someone in a key position, to make them change their policy this time around.

When the day comes that I can have all of my movies, in HD on a computer in a closet somewhere, hooked up to my TV via a GUI and scroll through my library without having to deal with DVDs and other media, I'll be happy.

link

Sony confirms parental control functionality for PS3

Yeah, I'm glad that clownboy could drop the quote (again, out of context) here. Hopefully, it'll continue to be taken as a stand alone comment, rather than part of a much larger discussion on personal computers and consoles and their fundamental differences. But hey, since you all really don't have any way of factually disagreeing with the points brought up, you have to band together and continue the ignorance. It's been fun watching you all side step every issue that was brought up because you either don't understand it, or are simply unable to actually debate it otherwise. See you the next time news arrives that's worth posting here (even though it falls on the minds of miserable cynics).

Analysts also predicted the Sony Playstation would never beat a Nintendo product. Analysts are useless. They know nothing about gaming.

Only Sony considers it a Xbox 1.5, or Sony fanboys. The simple fact of the matter is the X360 can do, graphically, anything the PS3 can do. It's amazing how uninformed people are regarding the console, and how they think that just because it's a "PS3" the console will bring some revolutionary impact on gaming. The X360 has the best development tools developers have worked with. Many developers have backed this claim, including John Carmack, in a recent G4TV interview - in which they continually tried to get him to claim the PS3 was "better". He simply looked at them and said developing for a console with better tools is superior than developing for a console that has marginally superior FLOP performance. When development cycles are in the years and years now, for many games, having the tools there, to make life easier, will only allow the product to be made with greater efficiency. The X360 will be in 3rd/4th generation games when the PS3 finally breaks out of its 1st gen games. That's what great development software does for you. But hey, reasoning and common sense never works here, so I don't even know why I try.

star wars no need more IP's

Wow, just horrible... wow.

Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon aren't launch titles, so they weren't displayed at Digital Life.

MS has said several times it's a launch title for the X360 - but Bethesda has stood by their holiday '05 release timeframe. Holiday season starts on Black Friday, so anytime from Nov. 25th on I see it releasing. I don't see the X360 version losing its shine, since the devs have said both the PC version and the X360 version are identical. They've even suggested on their forums that people not meeting the system requirements should just buy a X360 instead of upgrading their PC. They (the ones that regularly post) seem to like the console version better. But, you have to play to your larger audience, so that's what they're doing. I didn't like the combo based system that game had. It was either too clunky, or too simple. Perhaps it was just the gameplay itself. It's not uncommon for console games to have framerate issues up until the week it goes gold. I remember Bioware having issues with Jade Empire the week it went gold, and when it shipped it was pretty stable, minus a couple of areas. But they can't make engines worth squat, so I think in the hands of more capable engine builders, Jade would have not only looked better, but ran better as well.