Sony unsure about PS3 BC

[Epiphany]

link

 

[mkreku]

At least it will be backwards compatible from hardware, and not from emulators. The solution Microsoft chose, with special game profiles that you have to download and store on the HD is 'teh suck'.

 

Also, the PS2 isn't 100% backwards compatible with the PS1, but I've never found a game that doesn't work. And I have a lot of old PS1 RPG's and platformers (girlfriend loves them).

 

Last note: take everything written on Spong with a bucket of salt. They're not the most reliable news site out there.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Theyre surprisingly honest if they give out such information. Youd expect Sony and MS to just claim "Its 100% backwards compatible" and then just ignore the complaints when it shows that it wasnt true.

[Epiphany]

Theyre surprisingly honest if they give out such information. Youd expect Sony and MS to just claim "Its 100% backwards compatible" and then just ignore the complaints when it shows that it wasnt true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Tigranes]

Either that, or the imperfect nature of the backward compatibility is so great they can't just say "none", and simply decide to concede "little".

 

Who knows, though.

[Bokishi]

Wouldn't BC be hard, considering the different GPU chipsets they are using?

[LoneWolf16]

Wouldn't BC be hard, considering the different GPU chipsets they are using?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Darque]

There were some problems.

 

I'm not to worried about this, Sony knows how big a selling point BC is, they'll make it happen.

[Oerwinde]

At least it will be backwards compatible from hardware, and not from emulators. The solution Microsoft chose, with special game profiles that you have to download and store on the HD is 'teh suck'.

 

Also, the PS2 isn't 100% backwards compatible with the PS1, but I've never found a game that doesn't work. And I have a lot of old PS1 RPG's and platformers (girlfriend loves them).

 

Last note: take everything written on Spong with a bucket of salt. They're not the most reliable news site out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think there are like 12 PS1 games that aren't compatible with the PS2... unfortunately FF Chronicles was one of them.

[Epiphany]

Wouldn't BC be hard, considering the different GPU chipsets they are using?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[alanschu]

Wouldn't BC be hard, considering the different GPU chipsets they are using?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What's that 150 MHz, 16-pixel pipeline, with the 2560-bit interface to it's memory, "Graphics Synthesizer" used for?

 

 

As for the processors, I'm not familiar enough with the R5900 compared to the R3000 (though I did find it kind of funny that the R3000 was used for the I/O for the PS2).

Edited October 26, 2005 by alanschu

[Epiphany]

What's that 150 MHz, 16-pixel pipeline, with the 2560-bit interface to it's memory, "Graphics Synthesizer" used for?

 

 

As for the processors, I'm not familiar enough with the R5900 compared to the R3000 (though I did find it kind of funny that the R3000 was used for the I/O for the PS2).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[mkreku]

Disagree again, so you continue your streak of disagreement out of spite, rather than knowledge.

 

Aah, right. We have no knowledge, but you do. Just like in this case:

 

A console isn't a computer, regardless of what people think, Hades_One.

 

You really think you're the enlightened one and we're just jealous of your vast knowledge, don't you?

[Epiphany]

Disagree again, so you continue your streak of disagreement out of spite, rather than knowledge.

 

Aah, right. We have no knowledge, but you do. Just like in this case:

 

A console isn't a computer, regardless of what people think, Hades_One.

 

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.

[Judge Hades]

I have to side with Epiphany on this one, Mkreku. I mean it was fun and fine to poke fun at E-man at the time the post was made but we all knew what he meant by it. Lets just stay current with the now and not use jibes from long past just to belittle someone.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Heres the latest on the 360 BC.

 

One thing missing from the new site is a list of current-generation Xbox games which are backwards compatible with the hard drive-equipped Xbox 360. Speaking to MTV news recently, Xbox VP Peter Moore said the list will appear on the site within the next week or two.

Edited October 26, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Judge Hades]

In either case of the PS3 or the Xbox 360 I see BC as an added bonus, not as a necessary component.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

In either case of the PS3 or the Xbox 360 I see BC as an added bonus, not as a necessary component.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depends how many games you own and what else the console has to offer. The 360 is pretty low on the ladder when it comes to what it has to offer in addition. Take a look at Kong when you get the chance.

[alanschu]

What's that 150 MHz, 16-pixel pipeline, with the 2560-bit interface to it's memory, "Graphics Synthesizer" used for?

 

 

As for the processors, I'm not familiar enough with the R5900 compared to the R3000 (though I did find it kind of funny that the R3000 was used for the I/O for the PS2).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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:

 

 

all graphics calculations were done via the CPU.

 

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.

Edited October 26, 2005 by alanschu

[Epiphany]

What's that 150 MHz, 16-pixel pipeline, with the 2560-bit interface to it's memory, "Graphics Synthesizer" used for?

 

 

As for the processors, I'm not familiar enough with the R5900 compared to the R3000 (though I did find it kind of funny that the R3000 was used for the I/O for the PS2).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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:

 

 

all graphics calculations were done via the CPU.

 

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.

[Fionavar]

Remember discuss the topic, do not debate the persona ...

[mkreku]

I have to side with Epiphany on this one, Mkreku.

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.

[Epiphany]

I have to side with Epiphany on this one, Mkreku.

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.

[mkreku]

The PS1 and PS2 do not have a GPU.

http://www.pcvsconsole.com/features/consol...laystation2.php

 

Learn.

[Epiphany]

The PS1 and PS2 do not have a GPU.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>