If Ps4 and Xbox 720 are weak

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

Uhm, no.

Anyway, what exactly is the point you are trying to make? That teh optimizations are going to automagiclaly make crappy hardware perform like high end hardware? Cause that's just BS.

Kinthalis

Some observations:

-You jump to conclusions

-You are a "know-it-all" type

-You come off like a raging nerd boy

:lol:

I was sharing some cool information from an established developer. That article reads like dream compared to the sour attitude and crap posting you've shown so far.

- You're an idiot.

- You're an idiot.

- Oh, look at that, you're an idiot.

When come back, bring an argument.

- You're an idiot.

- You're an idiot.

- Oh, look at that, you're an idiot.

When come back, bring an argument.

Kinthalis

Lame. I never argued anything. I've made it clear I was sharing information. Mostly to back my assertion that next-gen HD Twins will not pack high-end hardware. 04carrera and I have similar opinions on the hardware. 360 was ~190W under load with Gears and still had thermal issues. So that means A10-5800k+7670 crossfire like rumors have been saying, or FX quad with 7750/70 discreet GPU. 7850 at best.

You kinda just jumped in, flappin' yer gums like you knew something. It's painfully obvious you're a raging PC nerd fanboy.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Which means a cpu and gpu between 3-4x stronger then current however you cant just look at brute processing and say its weak, when we will see native direct x 11 and shader model 5 based games over current direct x 9 shader model 3 games and major increase in memory usage in games instead of only 512mb of memory for system and video usage we will see 4-8x times the amount used. That alone will allow make a giant leap in gaming options in general from graphics to level sizes,MP player counts to interactivity of the games. Also need to point out also the PS4 AMD APU design base that was reported also pointing toward a low cost high efficiency, designs from both companies. 04dcarraher

I know the cpu will be slow compared to the 360's cpu but it will obviously be stronger then the 360's CPU.I except a decent leap over this gen, but not an oh my god leap like this gen.

Btw, AMD A10-5700 (with quad core CPU @ 3.4Ghz and AMD Radeon HD 7660D) has 65 watts TDP. There's an exponential rise in TDP beyond 3.4Ghz.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] I doubt they will go below 3ghz, AMD APU's ie A10 5800k only has a TDP of 100w, and that's including a 3.8 ghz cpu with a IGP. 7660. So a plain CPU would be like 50w TDP.. Also a quad core bulldozer at 3.8 ghz would be well over 3x the processing power. 04dcarraher

Interesting excerpt from a DF interview with 4A'sOles Shishkovstov:

Digital Foundry: How would you characterise the combination of Xenos and Xenon compared to the traditional x86/GPU combo on PC? Surely on the face of it, Xbox 360 is lacking a lot of power compared to today's entry-level "enthusiast" PC hardware?

Oles Shishkovstov: You can calculate it like this: each 360 CPU core is approximately a quarter of the same-frequency Nehalem (i7) core. Add in approximately 1.5 times better performance because of the second, shared thread for 360 and around 1.3 times for Nehalem, multiply by three cores and you get around 70 to 85 per cent of a single modern CPU core on generic (but multi-threaded) code.

---

This, along with geometry and texture LOD is the essence of console optimization.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="super600"]

I know the cpu will be slow compared to the 360's cpu but it will obviously be stronger then the 360's CPU.I except a decent leap over this gen, but not an oh my god leap like this gen.

ronvalencia

Btw, AMD A10-5700 (with quad core CPU @ 3.4Ghz and AMD Radeon HD 7660D) has 65 watts TDP. There's an exponential rise in TDP beyond 3.4Ghz.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] I doubt they will go below 3ghz, AMD APU's ie A10 5800k only has a TDP of 100w, and that's including a 3.8 ghz cpu with a IGP. 7660. So a plain CPU would be like 50w TDP.. Also a quad core bulldozer at 3.8 ghz would be well over 3x the processing power. 04dcarraher

Btw, AMD A10-5700 (with quad core CPU @ 3.4Ghz and AMD Radeon HD 7660D) has 65 watts TDP. There's an exponential rise in TDP beyond 3.4Ghz.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="PressXtoJump"]if speculations are correct, the one cell that isnt used inside the core of the ps3 is not for NOTHING, it for you.......the people.......and it could very well be dedicated for spiritual emotion and feeling, hence KARAs outcries.ziggyww

6 SPEs can be utilized for game development. One is for the OS and one is locked out to increase manufacturing yields.

I really hope that next gen consoles will bring it. I like what the 360 did stuck with dvd and spent their money on the gpu. I feel like sony should get a faster blu-ray drive and spend money on the gpu and more memory. I also hope 802.11ac,usb 3, and 500gb+ hard drive. I feel like this can be done for 399 american and be good for 5 years.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Some observations:

-You jump to conclusions

-You are a "know-it-all" type

-You come off like a raging nerd boy

:lol:

I was sharing some cool information from an established developer. That article reads like dream compared to the sour attitude and crap posting you've shown so far.

clone01

- You're an idiot.

- You're an idiot.

- Oh, look at that, you're an idiot.

When come back, bring an argument.

The guy is jack@ss.

He plops down some bits from an article without commentary, like we're supposed to magically know what he's trying to say. Two of us point out how the article is misleading/incorrect. He gets all defensive about it, and starts throwing ad-homnimems.

I figured that's all he understood, so I threw some silly ad-hominems right back.

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

- You're an idiot.

- You're an idiot.

- Oh, look at that, you're an idiot.

When come back, bring an argument.

Kinthalis

The guy is jack@ss.

He plops down some bits from an article without commentary, like we're supposed to magically know what he's trying to say. Two of us point out how the article is misleading/incorrect. He gets all defensive about it, and starts throwing ad-homnimems.

I figured that's all he understood, so I threw some silly ad-hominems right back.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="clone01"] Wow. Way to reinforce his accusation.clone01

The guy is jack@ss.

He plops down some bits from an article without commentary, like we're supposed to magically know what he's trying to say. Two of us point out how the article is misleading/incorrect. He gets all defensive about it, and starts throwing ad-homnimems.

I figured that's all he understood, so I threw some silly ad-hominems right back.

And so I'm the one that should be admonished? Not the guy who starts acting like an idiot?

I actually agree with his assesment. All he had to do is say what he thought, he didn't have to start clalign me a ranging nerd boy, whatever that means, just cause there are issues with the article he posted. IT's not like he's the author, or the developer involved.

He plops down some bits from an article without commentary, like we're supposed to magically know what he's trying to say. Two of us point out how the article is misleading/incorrect. He gets all defensive about it, and starts throwing ad-homnimems.

Kinthalis

I never addressed you, and I casually discuss these things with 04carraher and Super600 going back months now. He misread the article. No biggie. The dev was spot on.

You however, are a fanboy and started spouting crap for no reason.

So, in other words, you stooped to his level?clone01

Oh you...:P

Please do explain how one attempts to stoop upwards.

Youre gonna see powerful hardware making this conversation pointless and my crystal ball awesome. TheEroica

I wouldn't worry about it because they won't be weak!!

[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]

im still satisfied with my ps3 even today, its more about the actual games than raw hardware imo , imo as long as there will be a noticable upgrade to current gen tech im fine, but id still rather pay more to get more advanced tech , i dont understand people who rather get a cheap console at launch with weak tech than pay lets say double as much and get a better device on the long run

slipknot0129

more counting psp relaunches ,

but go on , i want that to happen , so when one of the 2 fall i can laugh at the fanboys who thought nintendo was the one to go . see 5 years is always and should always be the goal , not 10 , 10 is too long . if they did ten pc would be far ahead

and with sonys current situation power is not in their cards! i think they should be just powerful enough like wii u

ya i seriously doubt that --- not with nintendo around , , if sony and ms do ten years again it only means good for nintendo because they can really put the pressure on , lets look at xbox360 , its already been around for 2 full blown nintendo console launches , and 3 handheld launches ---dslite dsi and 3ds

mariokart64fan

You usually make really good posts, but you're dead wrong on this one. WiiU will be profitable for Nintendo, but Xbox 3 will beat it down in technology and sales.

Next gen consoles will be on par with most gaming PCs. Don't assume that everybody owns a $1000 gaming rig.

Master_ShakeXXX

i will cry if they are no real improvement!

im also HATING this huge life span consoles are having, id be much happier with shorter cycles!

whats with this 6 and 7 year old **** i want new stuff :( and F'you poor people lol

i will cry if they are no real improvement!

im also HATING this huge life span consoles are having, id be much happier with shorter cycles!

whats with this 6 and 7 year old **** i want new stuff :( and F'you poor people lol

slikonebtz

A big decider in the next gen will be affordability.

Consoles haven't been vying for the PC market in years, and with Sony's mistake with the PS3 at the beginning of this gen, I doubt either of them will be that powerful simply so they can have video game systems people can afford without selling their kidneys.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="PressXtoJump"]the article is quoting untapped cell power, i agree. were arguing something else, read back.PressXtoJump

You're arguing something else, sure. However, my link also proves you wrong. How do they tap the "power" of a disabled SPE? I'll wait :lol:

I believe the cell propaganda needs to die, it has been proved hundreds of times that ps3 had a weak hardware even for 2006 standards.

It is fairly obvious that a pc (with a 8800GTX)that is older than the ps3 still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3. In fact even a prehistoric ATI x1950 pro (that is 2 times slower than the 8800GTX) play games like crysis 2 with slightly better graphics and performance than ps3. (link)

[QUOTE="PressXtoJump"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

You're arguing something else, sure. However, my link also proves you wrong. How do they tap the "power" of a disabled SPE? I'll wait :lol:

MK-Professor

I believe the cell propaganda needs to die, it has been proved hundreds of times that ps3 had a weak hardware even for 2006 standards.

It is fairly obvious that a pc (with a 8800GTX)that is older than the ps3 still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3. In fact even a prehistoric ATI x1950 pro (that is 2 times slower than the 8800GTX) play games like crysis 2 with slightly better graphics and performance than ps3. (link)

[QUOTE="PressXtoJump"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

You're arguing something else, sure. However, my link also proves you wrong. How do they tap the "power" of a disabled SPE? I'll wait :lol:

MK-Professor

I believe the cell propaganda needs to die, it has been proved hundreds of times that ps3 had a weak hardware even for 2006 standards.

It is fairly obvious that a pc (with a 8800GTX)that is older than the ps3 still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3. In fact even a prehistoric ATI x1950 pro (that is 2 times slower than the 8800GTX) play games like crysis 2 with slightly better graphics and performance than ps3. (link)

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="PressXtoJump"] the cell, and any other hardware, is only as powerful as the software that utilizes it. the fusion reactor inside the core of the PS3, can be tweaked with a simple update.GioVela2010

I believe the cell propaganda needs to die, it has been proved hundreds of times that ps3 had a weak hardware even for 2006 standards.

It is fairly obvious that a pc (with a 8800GTX)that is older than the ps3 still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3. In fact even a prehistoric ATI x1950 pro (that is 2 times slower than the 8800GTX) play games like crysis 2 with slightly better graphics and performance than ps3. (link)

so you admit that the ps3 version is ultra fail? since the video show the ATI x1950 pro playing crysis 2 with higher rez, graphics settings and fps than ps3. also don't forget that ps3 version is in sub-HD (1024x720).

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

I believe the cell propaganda needs to die, it has been proved hundreds of times that ps3 had a weak hardware even for 2006 standards.

It is fairly obvious that a pc (with a 8800GTX)that is older than the ps3 still play games with better graphics and performance than ps3. In fact even a prehistoric ATI x1950 pro (that is 2 times slower than the 8800GTX) play games like crysis 2 with slightly better graphics and performance than ps3. (link)

MK-Professor

so you admit that the ps3 version is ultra fail? since the video show the ATI x1950 pro playing crysis 2 with higher rez, graphics settings and fps than ps3. also don't forget that ps3 version is in sub-HD (1024x720).

Interesting excerpt from a DF interview with 4A'sOles Shishkovstov:

Digital Foundry: How would you characterise the combination of Xenos and Xenon compared to the traditional x86/GPU combo on PC? Surely on the face of it, Xbox 360 is lacking a lot of power compared to today's entry-level "enthusiast" PC hardware?

Oles Shishkovstov: You can calculate it like this: each 360 CPU core is approximately a quarter of the same-frequency Nehalem (i7) core. Add in approximately 1.5 times better performance because of the second, shared thread for 360 and around 1.3 times for Nehalem, multiply by three cores and you get around 70 to 85 per cent of a single modern CPU core on generic (but multi-threaded) code.

Bear in mind though that the above calculation will not work in the case where the code is properly vectorised. In that case 360 can actually exceed PC on a per-thread per-clock basis. So, is it enough? Nope, there is no CPU in the world that is enough for games!

The 360 GPU is a different beast. Compared to today's high-end hardware it is 5-10 times slower depending on what you do. But performance of hardware is only one side of equation. Because we as programmers can optimise for the specific GPU we can reach nearly 100 per cent utilisation of all the sub-units. That's just not possible on a PC.

In addition to this we can do dirty MSAA tricks, like treating some surfaces as multi-sampled (for example hi-stencil masking the light-influence does that), or rendering multi-sampled shadow maps, and then sampling correct sub-pixel values because we know exactly what pattern and what positions sub-samples have, etc. So, it's not directly comparable.

---

This, along with geometry and texture LOD is the essence of console optimization.
gamecubepad

PS3's aging GPU would need help from SPEs. SPEs floating point quality cannot be compared to X86's SSE.

With AMD Radeon HD GCN series http://www.amd.com/jp/Documents/GCN_Architecture_whitepaper.pdf

"fully IEEE-754 compliant for single precision and double precision floating point operations, with full speed denormals and all rounding modes"

DX9 vs DX10 workloads

[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]

im still satisfied with my ps3 even today, its more about the actual games than raw hardware imo , imo as long as there will be a noticable upgrade to current gen tech im fine, but id still rather pay more to get more advanced tech , i dont understand people who rather get a cheap console at launch with weak tech than pay lets say double as much and get a better device on the long run

ziggyww

This is true, my first gaming PC was in 2006 and it had a AMD x2 5000 and 2 7900 GTs with 2gb of ram. When Bioshock came out it was barely able to keep 40 fps at 1650 x 1050. It couldn't play dragon age origins well, framrate was worse than the console versions. My new PC's blow it away and eat everything for breakfest today, but I will agree, my PS3/360 lasted longer than my first PC.

[QUOTE="clone01"]So, in other words, you stooped to his level?gamecubepad

Oh you...:P

Please do explain how one attempts to stoop upwards.

[QUOTE="ziggyww"][QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]

im still satisfied with my ps3 even today, its more about the actual games than raw hardware imo , imo as long as there will be a noticable upgrade to current gen tech im fine, but id still rather pay more to get more advanced tech , i dont understand people who rather get a cheap console at launch with weak tech than pay lets say double as much and get a better device on the long run

ryangcnx-2

This is true, my first gaming PC was in 2006 and it had a AMD x2 5000 and 2 7900 GTs with 2gb of ram. When Bioshock came out it was barely able to keep 40 fps at 1650 x 1050. It couldn't play dragon age origins well, framrate was worse than the console versions. My new PC's blow it away and eat everything for breakfest today, but I will agree, my PS3/360 lasted longer than my first PC.

You're kidding, right? Do you think the consoles were running Bioshock at 1680x1050 at 40 FPS?

Don't be taken in by the nonsense consolites spew. Your PC was OBVISOULY running the games a lot better than the consoles. Yes, you cna't continue to max out games without upgrading, since the PC version of games tend to push the envelope in lighting/shadowing/texture effects, AA, etc, and also because you probably upgraded from a 1440x900 monitor to a 1680x1050 one, and you probably run a 1080p monitor today.

You are demanding more from your games, where as consoles stagnate.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="clone01"]So, in other words, you stooped to his level?clone01

Oh you...:P

Please do explain how one attempts to stoop upwards.

Lol! Are you under the impression that I give a $hit what you have to say?

[QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Oh you...:P

Please do explain how one attempts to stoop upwards.

Kinthalis

Lol! Are you under the impression that I give a $hit what you have to say?

Lol. Maybe fail upwards? BTW, I'm just egging on Kinthalis. He's fun to bait.clone01

Kinda reminds me of AnnoyedDragon. That guy was the greatest PC fanboy I've ever seen. The indignation was palpable.

Where are you AD? SW needs you!

[QUOTE="clone01"]Lol. Maybe fail upwards? BTW, I'm just egging on Kinthalis. He's fun to bait.gamecubepad

Kinda reminds me of AnnoyedDragon. That guy was the greatest PC fanboy I've ever seen. The indignation was palpable.

Where are you AD? SW needs you!

[QUOTE="ryangcnx-2"]

[QUOTE="ziggyww"] I think that is such BS, the way I see it alot of the games on the PC is on consoles yeah PC look better but only through constant upgrades. I think Consoles provide better value for money and doesn't age as bad as what PC's do until they have to get upgraded...Again. I got my PS3 on lunch in 2006 it cost me £425 ($682.488). But I also got a desktop in the same year for when I went to UNI and Spent £899 ($1,443.68) My PS3 plays Skyrim, Battlefield 3, Mass Effect, Dead Space etc a lot better then my more expensive Desktop. Sure my PC can play them better but I will need to thinking about buying a new CPU, GPU, and quicker ram and maybe even a new motherboard. Consoles are great and I love them but also PC's are great to but lets not kid ourselves a console at lunch will out price and out last a PC bought on the same dayKinthalis

This is true, my first gaming PC was in 2006 and it had a AMD x2 5000 and 2 7900 GTs with 2gb of ram. When Bioshock came out it was barely able to keep 40 fps at 1650 x 1050. It couldn't play dragon age origins well, framrate was worse than the console versions. My new PC's blow it away and eat everything for breakfest today, but I will agree, my PS3/360 lasted longer than my first PC.

You're kidding, right? Do you think the consoles were running Bioshock at 1680x1050 at 40 FPS?

Don't be taken in by the nonsense consolites spew. Your PC was OBVISOULY running the games a lot better than the consoles. Yes, you cna't continue to max out games without upgrading, since then PC version of games tend to push the envelope in lighting/shadowing/texture effects, AA, etc, and also because you probably upgraded from a 1440x900 monitor to a 1680x1050 one, and you probably run a 1080p monitor today.

You are demanding more from your games, where as consoles stagnate.

Oh, I think we were much to uncivilized for his tastes! :Pclone01

The unwashed consolized heathens.

[QUOTE="clone01"]Oh, I think we were much to uncivilized for his tastes! :Pgamecubepad

The unwashed consolized heathens.

It's good that you guys seem to know your placein the great higherarchy of life:P

It appears the PS4 will be extremely power as it will be using a Cell 2 chip. Here is a link proving the info:

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2011/10/22/ps4s-new-cell-chip-2-may-already-be-mid-development/

Developers have already mastered teh cell with far superior games, so it's good to see they stick with the processing architecture.

It appears the PS4 will be extremely power as it will be using a Cell 2 chip. Here is a link proving the info:

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2011/10/22/ps4s-new-cell-chip-2-may-already-be-mid-development/

Developers have already mastered teh cell with far superior games, so it's good to see they stick with the processing architecture.

PS3FanMan4Life

The PS4 and 720 won't be near GTX 680 levels of power, they probably won't even come close to my Radeon 5870.

[QUOTE="PS3FanMan4Life"]

It appears the PS4 will be extremely power as it will be using a Cell 2 chip. Here is a link proving the info:

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2011/10/22/ps4s-new-cell-chip-2-may-already-be-mid-development/

Developers have already mastered teh cell with far superior games, so it's good to see they stick with the processing architecture.

MonsieurX

The PS4 and 720 won't be near GTX 680 levels of power, they probably won't even come close to my Radeon 5870.

scoots9

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]ya i seriously doubt that --- not with nintendo around , , if sony and ms do ten years again it only means good for nintendo because they can really put the pressure on , lets look at xbox360 , its already been around for 2 full blown nintendo console launches , and 3 handheld launches ---dslite dsi and 3ds

gamecubepad

You usually make really good posts, but you're dead wrong on this one. WiiU will be profitable for Nintendo, but Xbox 3 will beat it down in technology and sales.

ps1 out sold a n64 that was nearly twice as powerful , (pit goldeneye vs tommorow never dies or dn 64 to dn total meltdown)

ps2 out sold xbox -the most powerful of gen 6 and gc , which was nearly as powerful as xbox gc xbox were neck and neck through out that gen

and it is said xbox360 is more powerful dispite ps3s cell its not as bottlenecked which is why most multiplats looked better on xbox360 but what happened? a wii that was not even nearly as powerful think ps1 to n64 as it , out sold it , ,

also if wii u ends up being the weakest it also has this advantage- being released early , see ps2 , ,

xbox has never won a single gen so far and what makes you think that is going to change , we dont even know what the next xbox will do as far as pros and cons ,

if the cons out wiegh the pros (xbl graphics) then ---- good luck , because history has proven you dont need power to win a sales race

also history has proven the wii u has the early advantage coming off a successful console like the ps2 to ps1 , ,

not like xbox360 to xbox ,

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]ya i seriously doubt that --- not with nintendo around , , if sony and ms do ten years again it only means good for nintendo because they can really put the pressure on , lets look at xbox360 , its already been around for 2 full blown nintendo console launches , and 3 handheld launches ---dslite dsi and 3ds

mariokart64fan

You usually make really good posts, but you're dead wrong on this one. WiiU will be profitable for Nintendo, but Xbox 3 will beat it down in technology and sales.

ps1 out sold a n64 that was nearly twice as powerful , (pit goldeneye vs tommorow never dies or dn 64 to dn total meltdown)

ps2 out sold xbox -the most powerful of gen 6 and gc , which was nearly as powerful as xbox gc xbox were neck and neck through out that gen

and it is said xbox360 is more powerful dispite ps3s cell its not as bottlenecked which is why most multiplats looked better on xbox360 but what happened? a wii that was not even nearly as powerful think ps1 to n64 as it , out sold it , ,

also if wii u ends up being the weakest it also has this advantage- being released early , see ps2 , ,

xbox has never won a single gen so far and what makes you think that is going to change , we dont even know what the next xbox will do as far as pros and cons ,

if the cons out wiegh the pros (xbl graphics) then ---- good luck , because history has proven you dont need power to win a sales race

also history has proven the wii u has the early advantage coming off a successful console like the ps2 to ps1 , ,

not like xbox360 to xbox ,

They will be weak compared to current top PCs.

There's no way they will stuff that GTX 680 and many gigabytes of RAM in those plastic cases.

So console fanboys expecting current PC tech-demo visuals should slightly lower their expectations.

However, they will still represent a step up from the current gen consoles.

I think they could both use a setup similar to that in Wii U, i.e. reliant on the GPGPU.

It's also possible they will follow suit in the screened gamepad thing as well.