Gee, how funny

[Epiphany]

"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...

[alanschu]

What? No mention about the Emotion Engine part of the PS2 CPU?

[Judge Hades]

Both PS3 and X Box 360 has aspects that will attract and detract developers. So what?

[Epiphany]

What?  No mention about the Emotion Engine part of the PS2 CPU?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Darque]

*yawn*

[alanschu]

What?  No mention about the Emotion Engine part of the PS2 CPU?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's not what you were saying earlier though.

 

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

 

The Emotion Engine is the core of the PS2. You were saying that it was just a part of the PS2's processor, when it's the amalgamation of the various cores and Vector Units existing on the processor.

 

 

How can something be PART OF (as you indicated) the CPU, when the sum of its parts includes the CPU?

 

What does the Graphics Synthesizer of the PS2 do again?

 

You should stop claiming to have some sort of technical knowledge about anything, when it's clear you don't really know what you're talking about. And you can't try to backtrack what you say either (ala the 64-bit numbers bull**** and now the Emotion Engine garbage).

 

 

The funny thing is, what exactly have you accomplished here? I've never seen someone dense enough to keep coming to a place where people all know he's full of it, and basically has zero influence on any of their decisions. You have no credibility on these boards (justifiably so, given you're wrong about so many things), which is why people are intentionally obtuse to you, regardless of what you say. You criticize people for being "buying into the Sony hype" when you've done the exact same thing with Microsoft's hype.

Edited November 3, 2005 by alanschu

[GhostofAnakin]

G I P funny.

[Kaftan Barlast]

If the system shares a larger "pool" of memory instead of having seperate mem for the GPU, wont that mean a substantial loss of bandwidth?

[Epiphany]

What does the Graphics Synthesizer of the PS2 do again?

 

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.

 

The funny thing is, what exactly have you accomplished here?  I've never seen someone dense enough to keep coming to a place where people all know he's full of it, and basically has zero influence on any of their decisions.  You have no credibility on these boards (justifiably so, given you're wrong about so many things), which is why people are intentionally obtuse to you, regardless of what you say.  You criticize people for being "buying into the Sony hype" when you've done the exact same thing with Microsoft's hype.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[kirottu]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, not according to this Ars Technia article.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You

[Darque]

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.

 

What's that... the PS2 had the best sales and widest game library?

 

I totally agree with you Epiphany.

 

The X360 is smoke and mirrors.  End of discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couldn't agree more

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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.

 

What's that... the PS2 had the best sales and widest game library?

 

I totally agree with you Epiphany.

 

The X360 is smoke and mirrors.  End of discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I couldn't agree more

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The 360 launch in Norway (came across it when looking for info on the pandemic/bioware thing).

 

An anonymous retail source in Norway, speaking to US technology site Gizmodo, said that stores in the country are each being allocated 20 units of the new console for the launch day - 14 Xbox 360s and six Core System packs.

 

However, according to the retail source cited in the report, they'll only get their allocation if they sign a form guaranteeing that all 20 units will be sold out on day one (presumably based on preorders), and what's more, Microsoft is insisting that two games be sold with each console.

 

"Microsoft Norway even said themselves that they're gonna use the 'Sold Out' as a marketing strategy to hype the console," he told the site.

 

Initial volumes of the Xbox 360 are expected to be low due to the worldwide roll-out of the console, but Microsoft has promised to support retail with ongoing shipments of the hardware right up to Christmas and beyond.

 

Its policy of demanding a sell-out first day from smaller stores is also not unusual; one UK retail source told GamesIndustry.biz this afternoon that many platform holders in the past have requested that retailers give guarantees about sell-through levels on day one and tie ratio of software in order to be given sensible allocations of consoles

 

I've got a bet on with someone that the PS3 will outsell it on day one Japan vs The world.

 

I figure they have shipped so few units so they can crow about selling out on day one that I have a good chance of winning :D

[alanschu]

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.

 

Ah, so now you are referring to a "standard" GPU.

 

The Graphics Synthesizer is just like the GPUs prior to the GeForce. IT (and not the CPU) performed the instructions for the rendering and filtering and whatnot directly on hardware. The CPU did none of these calculations, and it was the standard since 3dfx released the original Voodoo chipset in the mid 1990s. The graphics responsibilities of the CPU was the geometery calculations.

 

As for the "part of" the CPU problem, you are employing straw man. It was you that said that the Emotion Engine was part of the CPU. This is also not correct. The Emotion Engine IS in effect the CPU. Don't mislead the statement by trying to state the following:

Just because the CPU is broken down into various sections does not change the simple fact that all these "PARTS" are part the CPU.

 

I never made any claim along the lines of what you said. You said that the Emotion Engine was part of the CPU. The Emotion Engine is the amalgamation. You cannot claim that it is "part of" anything, when it is the ENTIRE thing.

 

 

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.

 

 

When you say gems like "I believe there is far more code than simple "choice" strings that create a fully dynamic and robust AI" you pretty much stamped "I have no idea wtf I'm talking about regarding AI and just regurgitate the stuff I read on the internet" on your forehead.

 

 

As for the rest of your points, I couldn't care less. I haven't really gotten into much discussion with you about any of it because I don't care about any of it. Until we actually have the final products for either, everything they discuss IS hype. I tried having a dicussion about unified memory mentioning that it can have drawbacks, such as how it is done on PC machines where the video shares the same memory, but your "constructive reply" was just "A PC is not a console." Hades' comment of "a computer is a computer" is still an accurate one though. If something is a clearcut advantage on a console, then it should be a clear cut advantage on any computer as well. I actually don't disagree with you that a unified memory architecture has definite merits, and was trying to actually have a discussion with you about them. Unfortunately you opted for a snarky reply instead.

 

 

Finally, there is no point in discussing hardware technicalities with you, when you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of it with current technology. The situation is compounded by the fact that you obtuse in your (lack of) understanding. It's clear you are going to stick to your guns regarding the CPU performing all the graphics calculations despite the fact that it is 100% incorrect. The Emotion Engine DOES calculate the geometry and passes that information to the graphics synthesizer. But there's a lot more to graphics than just geometry.

[Meshugger]

As an Engineer in IT, i find this somewhat like picking straws, eventhough alanchu is right about the A.I-part. I want a game where the A.I. fully utilizes the Genetic Algorithm.

[Darque]

The 360 launch in Norway (came across it when looking for info on the pandemic/bioware thing).

 

An anonymous retail source in Norway, speaking to US technology site Gizmodo, said that stores in the country are each being allocated 20 units of the new console for the launch day - 14 Xbox 360s and six Core System packs.

 

However, according to the retail source cited in the report, they'll only get their allocation if they sign a form guaranteeing that all 20 units will be sold out on day one (presumably based on preorders), and what's more, Microsoft is insisting that two games be sold with each console.

 

"Microsoft Norway even said themselves that they're gonna use the 'Sold Out' as a marketing strategy to hype the console," he told the site.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's just... sad

[mkreku]

So maybe the Epiphany was right about one thing.. Or maybe that article was the opinion of ONE person. Who knows.

 

We'll see what the developers in general say in a few months.

[alanschu]

I've only briefly covered the genetic algorithm, but it looked pretty neat.

 

 

Most of my formal education is still elementary Artificial Intelligence, but I did work with Dr. Michael Buro (he made Logistello, the AI that demolished the world champion in Othello 6-0) on his ORTS project his summer.

 

Just in case people don't believe me, Here's the link.

 

Scroll down and you'll find my name (Allan Schumacher) as a contributor. It was basically my first real foray into AI and has me seriously considering the idea of applying for graduate school in the field of Artificial Intelligence.

 

I guess my school (University of Alberta) is actually quite reknowned for it's AI department (though CompSci as a whole is worried that we're becoming too specialized). I was at a talk by Electronic Arts and their University Liason (John Buchanan) basically said that their games group, led by Johnathan Schaefer is one of the most prolific AI departments in the world. They made a fully adaptive learning AI for one of the FIFA games (I think 2004). The only reason why EA has chosen to not implement it is that adaptive AIs do not have a static knowledge base, which "scares" them. While it probably wouldn't happen, they are concerned that a bug hidden in there somewhere might not come out for some while, at which time it manipulates the knowledge base in some way that the AI no longer performs properly. Given the dynamic nature of adaptive AI, it's pretty difficult to test all possible inputs.

 

It's really cool stuff. Apparently Johnathan Schaefer's Chinook AI for Checkers is recognized as the first AI to win in a human world championship.

 

It was cool seeing Russell and Norvig cite the works of both Chinook and Logistello in our AI textbook as well.

[Epiphany]

As for the rest of your points, I couldn't care less.  I haven't really gotten into much discussion with you about any of it because I don't care about any of it.  Until we actually have the final products for either, everything they discuss IS hype.  I tried having a dicussion about unified memory mentioning that it can have drawbacks, such as how it is done on PC machines where the video shares the same memory, but your "constructive reply" was just "A PC is not a console."  Hades' comment of "a computer is a computer" is still an accurate one though.  If something is a clearcut advantage on a console, then it should be a clear cut advantage on any computer as well.  I actually don't disagree with you that a unified memory architecture has definite merits, and was trying to actually have a discussion with you about them.  Unfortunately you opted for a snarky reply instead.

 

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.

 

You

[Lare Kikkeli]

Talking about beating a dead horse...

 

It's the games that matter, not the tech.

 

it remains to be seen which one wins.

[alanschu]

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.

 

How is it so different?

 

How does unified memory help a console and only a console, but not a computer? (Not just PCs. To reiterate, when Hades said "a computer is a computer" he was using the most basic definition of a computer, because consoles in fact are computers. If you want to talk about PC IBM/Compatible Intel/WIndows boxes, at least be consistent with your terminology and use "PC" exclusively. Once you use the word "computer" after somebody says "A computer is a computer" you are not talking about PCs exclusively anymore).

 

 

But anyways, seriously. How is Unified Memory a clear cut advantage to a console computer, but a non-console computer is a completely different bag?

[Epiphany]

But anyways, seriously.  How is Unified Memory a clear cut advantage to a console computer, but a non-console computer is a completely different bag?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[alanschu]

The thing is, computers are capable of still working regardless of having 128 MB of memory or 1 GB of memory.

 

Why does variable memory affect unified architectures more than the distinct architectures we have now?

 

What you said is definitely an advantage of the constant parts of a console, but I don't see how it supports a unified memory architecture.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If anything it's the reverse since you don't have a set ammount for specific tasks, rather you have to juggle it between them.

 

Only a "good" thing if you have no intention of pushing the machine to it's limits. Otherwise your always going to have to compromise between graphics and performance.

[Epiphany]

If anything it's the reverse since you don't have a set ammount for specific tasks, rather you have to juggle it between them.

 

Only a "good" thing if you have no intention of pushing the machine to it's limits. Otherwise your always going to have to compromise between graphics and performance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

The thing is, computers are capable of still working regardless of having 128 MB of memory or 1 GB of memory.

 

Why does variable memory affect unified architectures more than the distinct architectures we have now?

 

What you said is definitely an advantage of the constant parts of a console, but I don't see how it supports a unified memory architecture.

 

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.

[alanschu]

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

 

I think you trailed off mid-sentence there. And you can still make judgements as to how much of the RAM is allocated to video.

 

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.

 

Those decades worth of programs still work on current unified memory architectures that exist in some PCs today though. Making a transistion to unified memory wouldn't render previous works obsolete. There is an issue with sharing video memory in current computers, but it's not memory allocation nor is it backwards compatibility.