PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => PS3 Discussion => Topic started by: Seed_Of_Evil on November 14, 2002, 11:04:58 AM
-
All we have listened that sentence several times, but it seemed to be a dummy quote from any stupid web. But read now carefully the next piece of news:
IBM has announced that, thanks to the technology SiGe, the processors will reach speeds of up to 150 Ghz in less than two years.
The transistor in which this technology is based, offers a yield 4 times superior and it is 65% faster that the last announced models.
At the moment, the matter transistors are made of is the Silicon. The technology SiGe, leaves of the current base of production, but adding a new component, the Germanium (Ge) to improve the yield and speed of commutation of the digital circuits that form the current microprocessors.
Although at level of domestic hardware this technology is a little big for us, it is interesting to know about fellow men advances.
If I remember fine, IBM is working with Sony to make the "heart" of the next Sony\'s console. Do you imagine a 150GHZ graphic chip? 1000 times more powerful than PS2 indeed.
-
150 GigaHertz?
couple that with 32 megs of vram and we got teh win!
-
It sounds like they are using the:
Hundreds of
Yen
Production
Engine
.... or H.Y.P.E. as we like to call it.
The PS2 is nothing like they said it would be.
-
I cannot figure out how the games of that system will look. They\'re official news released from the marketing department of IBM.
-
Thanks for the info Adan.. surely interesting. I doubt will have that fast of a CPU.... and I\'m actually not so sure if that would be good anyway. Just imagine... those speeds could end to one unbalanced system. Where do you get the memory fast enough to "feed" a 150 GHz processor? With the speed increase, you\'ll be also looking at a dramatic increase in costs aswell.
The PS2 is nothing like they said it would be.
Word to that... it\'s actually proving itself to be even better! :eek:
-
ok....lets just imagine, that is gonna be reality... imagine eh ->
the graphical quality which that will enable in PS3 games will
imo create controversy. Just think about all that \'horrible video-
game violence\' which kids will play in realistic visuals. Of course
I know devs will always stylize their visuals to set it apart from
reality..... but narrowmindend parents and Liebermans are
bound to do something :eek:
-
Of coarse, as we head into the era of photo-realistic graphics, people of coarse will find a way to blame it on videogames and so forth. But this has been around ever since videogames started to become violent. The Lieberman and the narrow minded parents will try to do something, so, but someone from the other side (game developers, gamers) won\'t simply let themselves be censored (even though a few, like good ole Sony America, are prefectly fine with SOMe of it) so, while it won\'t stop the debate (I\'d even say it will intensify it) don\'t expect major government intervention (might be a few states passing so and so law, but the Supreme Court will probably throwout many of the excessive laws).
-
I read that Sony was looking at making the PS3 a non-console.
i.e. a service. Something along those lines.
Like you might download the PS3 on your PC, and play that
way. Or via your TV. etc. Anyone else read this rumor?
-
Originally posted by johnyaya
I read that Sony was looking at making the PS3 a non-console.
i.e. a service. Something along those lines.
Like you might download the PS3 on your PC, and play that
way. Or via your TV. etc. Anyone else read this rumor?
I posted some info from an article in the latest PSM that talked a little bit about this. Here\'s a quote from the article:
"There\'s also word this month - from Sony itself - that PS3 might not just be limited to the console domain. A spokesman for Sony Computer Entertainment went on record saying that PS3 could take the form of an operating system that could run on a variety of devices, allowing them to play PS3 games.
So, instead of a PlayStation with DVD capabilities, you might have a DVD player with PlayStation capabilities. Or a toaster that can play Final Fantasy? Hmm...
:alien:
-
I hope PS3 wont be like what the article described it might be.
-
Whithin the gaming world, I cant see any more consoles getting THAT much better graphics wise. Although speed wise.. as the GHz above note, will greatly approve and say bye-bye to loading times and freezes, and all that other crap PS has gone through. The sky\'s the limit.
-
We might be taking too much into what the article is saying about the PS3. It didn\'t say that the PS3 isn\'t a game system, just that, it isn\'t LIMITED to a box with a PS3 logo game system. So, yes, we will see PS3 in a DVD player, TiVo, etc. but doesn\'t mean that the PS3 won\'t be base gaming system either.
-
PS4= VIRTUAL REALITY! Place on head and play!
-
IMO Sony is trying to make PS3 something as common,necessary or famous as a TV,a DVD player, a VHS etc(generally everyday entertainment and communication devices) thats the reason why they are trying to make it so powerfull(make it future proof for many many many years to come) and a feature available in many common devices
-
1000 times faster, that would be very special if they could achieve that. Imagine playing the next gen GTA on that machine!
-
Well, 150 GHz would be insane... imagine, 150 billion clocks a second with what... 128 bit internal buses? Damn, you do the math and see how much of information will be going through the chip. Hell, I don\'t think there\'s any medium by then that could possibly keep up with the sheer amount of data needed to fully maximize the bus. It\'s already quite an achievement what Sony did with the 2560 bit GS <> VRAM bus @ 150 MHz (48 GB/s). 128 bits @ 150 GHz would be something like 2.4 TB/s. That\'s TERA-BYTES we\'re speaking here... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Proud To Be
Whithin the gaming world, I cant see any more consoles getting THAT much better graphics wise. Although speed wise.. as the GHz above note, will greatly approve and say bye-bye to loading times and freezes, and all that other crap PS has gone through. The sky\'s the limit.
Well, what about: Higher resolution textures, real-time shadows from EVERY object (imagine GTA with shadows being cast from every car, every pedestrian, every building, and the shadows would be determined by the sun\'s position in the sky!!!), higher polygon models to the extent where you can\'t see where one poly ends and another begins. Yeah, you\'re right, they won\'t get that much better. :p
-
Originally posted by Kurt Angle
1000 times faster, that would be very special if they could achieve that. Imagine playing the next gen GTA on that machine!
It would be like your actually there :eek:
-
Imangine shooting someone in there head and seeing realistic looking brain flying out the other side. :O
-
Originally posted by Echo
Well, what about: Higher resolution textures, real-time shadows from EVERY object (imagine GTA with shadows being cast from every car, every pedestrian, every building, and the shadows would be determined by the sun\'s position in the sky!!!), higher polygon models to the extent where you can\'t see where one poly ends and another begins. Yeah, you\'re right, they won\'t get that much better. :p
Smart ass.
-
"There\'s also word this month - from Sony itself - that PS3 might not just be limited to the console domain. A spokesman for Sony Computer Entertainment went on record saying that PS3 could take the form of an operating system that could run on a variety of devices, allowing them to play PS3 games.
So, instead of a PlayStation with DVD capabilities, you might have a DVD player with PlayStation capabilities. Or a toaster that can play Final Fantasy? Hmm...
If it isn\'t a console like the PS2, Sony will fail a ****ing toaster WTF, and downloading games is ****ing stupid.
-
It\'s a buncha hype again. PS2 was hyped up even MORE and just a year later a console was released that was more powerful than Sony\'s. All I hope for PS3 is at least 64mb of VRAM and GTA X will be a smooth 60 fps with great looking textures.
-
Originally posted by THX
......All I hope for PS3 is at least 64mb of VRAM and GTA X will be a smooth 60 fps with great looking textures.
64MB of VRAM? I thought PS2 had like 32MB.... and all you want is twice that much? I think that might be a bit too little.
-
I think ps3 won\'t be 150 ghz. Seems like about 2 ghz to 3Ghz to me...it\'s likely to be around 3 Ghz to me.
3 Ghz is a lot. That\'s 10x faster than ps2 300 mhz. Not even Intel Pentium 4 right now is at 3 Ghz yet.
Something tells me ps3 is capable of pushing 20 billion polygons per second without effects and 4-5 billions with effects per second. That will be around 83 million polygons per frame @ 60fps. 83 millions polygons per frame is much higher than what ps2 can do per second which is 66 mil pps. I am just guessing and estimating. So don\'t take this too serously.
-
Originally posted by THX
It\'s a buncha hype again. PS2 was hyped up even MORE and just a year later a console was released that was more powerful than Sony\'s. All I hope for PS3 is at least 64mb of VRAM and GTA X will be a smooth 60 fps with great looking textures.
64 MB of VRAM is pretty useless unless you want resolutions as high as 6400x 4800 pixels (probably higher than that), which I doubt any TV will support by then... it\'s not a PC.
-
Originally posted by Echo
64MB of VRAM? I thought PS2 had like 32MB.... and all you want is twice that much? I think that might be a bit too little.
Echo, you are confuse with Main Ram and VRAM. PS2 have 32 MB of Main RAM, 4 MB of VRAM, and 2 MB of sound RAM.
64 MB of VRAM is 16x the amount of 4 MB of VRAM.
PS3 might have as many as 512 Main RAM, it\'s just a guess. maybe 128 MB of VRAM and 16 MB of sound RAM....or do it the way XBOX did it, some sort of unified RAM.
-
Paul2, you left out 2 MB for the IOP. In total, PS2 has 40 MB of RAM.
what good would be 128 MB of VRAM anyway? The way PS3 is built (similar to PS2) it won\'t need that much, especially if its general purpose will be for the framebuffer...
-
"HI. I\'m a Sony Rep and I\'m hyping something that won\'t be specs!"
:)
-
Originally posted by Adan
At the moment, the matter transistors are made of is the Silicon. The technology SiGe, leaves of the current base of production, but adding a new component, the Germanium (Ge) to improve the yield and speed of commutation of the digital circuits that form the current microprocessors.
.
they could be using Electrodeposition to create a Nanomaterials from Germanium (Ge). In theroy it would be possible to Coat the Silion Structure of the transistors with a thin layer (nano Scale) of Germanium.
reason for selecting Germanium other than its boosting properties, well it can be easyly deposited opon another metal trough either Electroplating or Electrodeposition methods.
hence the creation of the Si Ge alloy.
why do i know this ?
because i am doing a PhD on it that\'s Why
click on the attachment for an more info.
the Graph is a IE graph showing the voltahe vs the I Adm^2
at point 1
We have the formation of Ge onto the Silicon Substrate/ Cathode
were
(Ge+2 ions) + (e-2 electrons) = Ge metal
at point 2
We have the formation of Ge onto the Ge metal Substrate/ cathode.
at point 3
we have the potential start of hydrogen evolution around the cathode and as a result we have a localised pH cange around the cathode.
-
:o ooseven that sounds to "future".
-
I dont think 150 ghz is out of the question....considering 100x the current 300mhz is 30,000.... :D
It\'s too early to say technology hasnt got that far
-
Just a load of crap imo. The PS3 is probably gonna be released in 2004-2006 right? So, I doubt they have gotten this far into devolping it.
What source did you get this from?
-
Personally I dont find it strange.
-
Originally posted by Spudz
Just a load of crap imo. The PS3 is probably gonna be released in 2004-2006 right? So, I doubt they have gotten this far into devolping it.
What source did you get this from?
I got it from Vandal, the most serious videogame-site of Spain.
You think Sony hasn\'t begun the developing of PS3 yet? What do you think? A system is not made in 1 year mate.
-
People are not making any senses nowaday.
150 Ghz for ps3? You are out of your mind.
Remember PsOne? It\'s only run at 33 Mhz!!!
PS2 run at 300Mhz! To be exact, it\'s about 294.75 Mhz...
That\'s about 9x the speed of PSOne. But it doesn\'t means 9x the power of psOne. There is Emotion Engine and GPU that\'s taking into place. and Emotion Engine and GPU total performance is about 250x the power of PSOne CPU and GPU...and 300Mhz is enough to run that much power....
So, my guess for PS3 will be 3 Ghz clock rate if it follows it predecessor.
-
Yeah but who said successive consoles are going to improve in performance lineraly? I would bet the ps3 shows some exponential increases in performance. If i\'m wrong, oh well. It will be an impressive piece of hardware.
-
actually, the PlayStation consoles have increased exponentially. Just look at what speed the PC industry is advancing...
-
I think 150 Ghz is way too much. I mean, thats how much super computers have. Intel just came out with 4 GHz processor. I\'ll believe it when I see it.
-
Titan 9, or 10 years ago a 1GHZ computer was a super computer, similar to Deep Blue nowadays.
-
First off, this news is pretty much non-relevant. While I won\'t dismiss that they may have made a chip like that.. it won\'t be for use in any consumer devices for a long long time, for both the reasons seven listed and because of it\'s cost. That chip alone, were it to release in 2005, would be well over $700 alone.
Secondly, you won\'t need a processor that can compute that fast for photorealistic graphics.. so it\'d be a huge waste of power. Not to mention that games don\'t necessarrily start looking better because the hardware increases.. but you have to think of what it would cost developers to produce a game that would even come close to using 50% of it\'s full potential. Most developers would balk at the cost of Shenmue for the Dreamcast - 40 million dollars... and most of that was just adding asthetics and not so much graphics. You\'d be talking well over what it takes to make a hollywood CGI movie.. which even without big name voice actors costs roughly 80 million dollars to produce. Now imagine a console that can produce far better than FF:TSW graphics.. all the while being completely interactive and having a litteral ton of code and script running underneith.
Even with a console that powerful, you\'d still only get as much preformance out of it as game companies can afford.
Third.. don\'t get excited. This news has nowhere mentioned the words "Sony", "Playstation3", "Spokesman" or "Confirmed". Even with those words, after the debacle that was the PS2\'s pre-launch buzz I\'m surprised anyone\'s even so much as raising an eyebrow.
-
Originally posted by Spudz
Just a load of crap imo. The PS3 is probably gonna be released in 2004-2006 right? So, I doubt they have gotten this far into devolping it.
What source did you get this from?
It\'s not impossible, if you think back computer technology grows by leaps and bounds. In 1995 a 133 mhz computer was top of the line, in 2000 a 2000 mhz computer was top of the line. If you use the same percent of performance increase, in 2005 in theory you could have a 30075 mhz computer. Just food for thought.
-
Well, i believe they will get close to that, why? Some moths ago, IBM posted an article, on a new technology able to produce chips @ 0.3microns and 0.1 was already being consired also, theses news about a 150Ghz arent new 2 me, in that article i read, IBM mentioned they expected to reach 200ghz, plus something about being able of building the chip with integrated cooling system, i don´t know for sure, it envolved somethng about nanotubes.
Go ahead be scheptical ,do a reacherche yourselfs.
-
Originally posted by SonyFan
.......you won\'t need a processor that can compute that fast for photorealistic graphics.. so it\'d be a huge waste of power. Not to mention that games don\'t necessarrily start looking better because the hardware increases.. but you have to think of what it would cost developers to produce a game that would even come close to using 50% of it\'s full potential. Most developers would balk at the cost of Shenmue for the Dreamcast - 40 million dollars... and most of that was just adding asthetics and not so much graphics. You\'d be talking well over what it takes to make a hollywood CGI movie.. which even without big name voice actors costs roughly 80 million dollars to produce. Now imagine a console that can produce far better than FF:TSW graphics.. all the while being completely interactive and having a litteral ton of code and script running underneith.
Even with a console that powerful, you\'d still only get as much preformance out of it as game companies can afford.
Perhaps Sony is considering to create a console that will last for more than a decade.We know that usually a console\'s lifespan is around 5 years.With a technology so powerfull developers that wont be able to exploit even the 50% of its potential in 5 years it will happen some years later etc.
Their wont be any need of a PS4 or generally a next gen console after 5 years.You will get one system which evolves.
This will also help the PS3 Computer Entratainment System to become as common as any other household device(becasue it wont get obsolete in a matter of few years).A console that will stand next to a TV a DVD player or other entertainment offering devices in every house(What Sony envisioned with PS2 but failed).
-
Personally, i think that the ps3 will not be able to reach this goal and if so then id really like to see what all the follow up systems will do to compete, considering there is and wont be news of xb2 or "game sphere" (or whatever comes) for a while. Im sure with the new proccessors framerates etc. will be easily managed. My only fear is that sony wont really think about the grafix because they think they can manage without them being so great. I hear that they want to focus outside of the norm and do something online or with everyday home entertainment. Whatever the case may be, im sure that everyone will be blown away when we start to see tech demos for all the new games sony has planned for ps3 launch. For now im happy : playing Red Faction 2 and Vice City :D
-
Originally posted by seven
64 MB of VRAM is pretty useless unless you want resolutions as high as 6400x 4800 pixels (probably higher than that), which I doubt any TV will support by then... it\'s not a PC.
Wrong. There can NEVER be too much RAM. 128MB is already a common place with PC graphics cards.
In a few years time, HDTV with higher resolution, although might not be mass market yet but will definitely be more widely used than today. Resoloution of 1200 x 480 (or something) will become a more common place. Furthermore, new features like 256 bit colour(supported in the latest PC cards) requires more memory than ever.
And not only that, now you can also do things like vertex buffering...that\'s right, instead of only buffering the traditional texture in the VRAM, you can also store the vertex in it.
Other things like multisampling will also be easiaer to implement without cracking everyone\'s head with more VRAM at hand.
So there can really never be enough VRAM. :)
I think 128MB VRAM MUST be the minimum for the PS3.
-
All I can say is: O_O that\'s pretty darn meaty.
Seriously. You don\'t think it will be more like 1.50gigs instead of 150gigs?
-
Mhz is probly be quite low, somewhere around 500-1500Mhz. and if it is multi chip system each chip will have different Mhz anyway.
but power comes from it being massively paraller. in similar ways as 3dlabs p10.
ok just consider it having 32x32 grid of ps2 vu0 or vu1 which would be completely transparent to user and with good luck embedded ram. which you could use for what ever you want. ie. ai, physics geometry, pixel processing.
in this way it wouldn\'t be so hard to get MUCH power, and would hit the mark of expections for year 2005-2006 when vertex-pixel pipelines should become one in hardware. (or very closely paraller, ie using pixel processors to calculate stuff for vertex processors.) and the fact that IBM has been developing embedded multi chip chips..
and theres NEVER too much memory.. quite opposite. (epspecialy when you consider that next gen consoles will have FP frame buffers, textures...)
-
Originally posted by Peltopukki
Mhz is probly be quite low, somewhere around 500-1500Mhz. and if it is multi chip system each chip will have different Mhz anyway.
but power comes from it being massively paraller. in similar ways as 3dlabs p10.
ok just consider it having 32x32 grid of ps2 vu0 or vu1 which would be completely transparent to user and with good luck embedded ram. which you could use for what ever you want. ie. ai, physics geometry, pixel processing.
in this way it wouldn\'t be so hard to get MUCH power, and would hit the mark of expections for year 2005-2006 when vertex-pixel pipelines should become one in hardware. (or very closely paraller, ie using pixel processors to calculate stuff for vertex processors.) and the fact that IBM has been developing embedded multi chip chips..
and theres NEVER too much memory.. quite opposite. (epspecialy when you consider that next gen consoles will have FP frame buffers, textures...)
wow, impressive...technical...
??i don\'t understand it though...too technical. Peltopukki, do you work in the computer industry or anything?
-
Well what if insted of putting all the calculations on a 700 + mhz processor and throw in dual processors at about 700-800 mhz? I mean ive had a fair amount of experience with dual processor computers and they seem to be extremly stable.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
Perhaps Sony is considering to create a console that will last for more than a decade.We know that usually a console\'s lifespan is around 5 years.With a technology so powerfull developers that wont be able to exploit even the 50% of its potential in 5 years it will happen some years later etc.
Their wont be any need of a PS4 or generally a next gen console after 5 years.You will get one system which evolves.
This will also help the PS3 Computer Entratainment System to become as common as any other household device(becasue it wont get obsolete in a matter of few years).A console that will stand next to a TV a DVD player or other entertainment offering devices in every house(What Sony envisioned with PS2 but failed).
Creating a console that lasted a decade does a tremndous amoount for the industry
a.) it means Sony will be able to gain profits longer
b.) developers will not need to spend money in 5 years to upgrade all there technologies for a new console
A super powerful console could last longer and take a long time to be maxxed out. With the condition that alot of developers are in trying to keep up and make profits they are probably pushing Sony to do just this
Developers could use and improve upon dev tools for 7 - 10 years instead of 3 - 5. evelopers would have more time to concentrate on gameplay ideas instead of graphics
It really makes alot of sense.
-
Originally posted by ddaryl
Creating a console that lasted a decade does a tremndous amoount for the industry
a.) it means Sony will be able to gain profits longer
b.) developers will not need to spend money in 5 years to upgrade all there technologies for a new console
A super powerful console could last longer and take a long time to be maxxed out. With the condition that alot of developers are in trying to keep up and make profits they are probably pushing Sony to do just this
Developers could use and improve upon dev tools for 7 - 10 years instead of 3 - 5. evelopers would have more time to concentrate on gameplay ideas instead of graphics
It really makes alot of sense.
horsefeathers, anyone? I mean horsesh!t!
this is full of baloney...come on. Who here actually believe ps3 will be 150 Ghz? I don\'t. Pretty sure many experts will agree with me. Even if 150 ghz is possible, what will the cost be? $2,000 alone for the Clock rate and another thousand for the Emotion Engine 3??
-
^^
someone doesn\'t know shit...
true, if we had a 150ghz right now, the price would be astronomical. But then again, if you had a 2ghz chip in 1995 you\'d be quite the popular one, no?
Technology grows by leaps and bounds every year, and 150ghz is not out of the realm of possibility.
-
well 150 ghz is a tall order, and I don\'t believe that either
but Sony can pack the machine full of ram, bandwidth and cells that run at a very high clock rate and stillproduce a machine that could take a long time to max out
Sony is splitting costs on the cell, and has 2 recently built chip making factories which really keeps the pricing down for them and gives them a HUGE advantage over any competition.
If Sony can build a machine that can last longer then 5 years and keep everyone happy, then they just did developers the biggest favor by giving a better chance at turning bigger profits in the long run.
-
if that the case.
Then ps3 will be at least 1 million times the power of ps2.
Not 1,000 times because 150 Ghz is way too much.
in coming 3 - 4 years, I doubt this can be accomplish.
If then, CG movies like Toy Story and Monsters, Inc., FF:TSW will be on the fly. Actually the graphic will be 100x better than FF:TSW.
To me, 150 Ghz is still false.
I still stick with 3 Ghz or maybe 10 Ghz at it most.
-
Why do you all seem to assume it\'d be all or bust with the clock speeds. Couldn\'t it be anything upto 150 (say 50ghz or so). That\'s just the maximum they think they\'ll have by that point in time, not what they have to run at :p
-
The cell project by itself is enough evidence of powerfull future proof hardware.The few K VUs do a difference to PS2\'s performance.Imagine the cells replacing the VUs for PS3.
Cells\' specs are impressive already.There is nothing like them.So why not expect a PS3 that will live for more than the normal lifespan of a console?Why not expect a 150Hz powerfull processor(or atleast near as powerfull)?
-
Originally posted by Paul
Wrong. There can NEVER be too much RAM. 128MB is already a common place with PC graphics cards.
In a few years time, HDTV with higher resolution, although might not be mass market yet but will definitely be more widely used than today. Resoloution of 1200 x 480 (or something) will become a more common place. Furthermore, new features like 256 bit colour(supported in the latest PC cards) requires more memory than ever.
And not only that, now you can also do things like vertex buffering...that\'s right, instead of only buffering the traditional texture in the VRAM, you can also store the vertex in it.
Other things like multisampling will also be easiaer to implement without cracking everyone\'s head with more VRAM at hand.
So there can really never be enough VRAM. :)
I think 128MB VRAM MUST be the minimum for the PS3.
That\'s where you\'re wrong Paul - it\'s not a PC. Look at how PS2 was designed and you\'ll know what I\'m refering to. PC\'s need more VRAM to overcome various bottlenecks found in todays PC architecture. The PS2 (and I suppose future consoles) won\'t need to deal with those typical bottlenecks. That\'s why the PS2 can deal with only 4 MB of VRAM - because it basically only saves the framebuffers. PS3 won\'t need 128 MB of VRAM unless they want to cache textures there - if they do plan it like this, I\'ll be disappointed since it would be a step back. Future architectures are ment to be designed differently: little memory, large bandwidth. That\'s the key to amazing performance.
-
Originally posted by seven
That\'s where you\'re wrong Paul - it\'s not a PC. Look at how PS2 was designed and you\'ll know what I\'m refering to. PC\'s need more VRAM to overcome various bottlenecks found in todays PC architecture. The PS2 (and I suppose future consoles) won\'t need to deal with those typical bottlenecks. That\'s why the PS2 can deal with only 4 MB of VRAM - because it basically only saves the framebuffers. PS3 won\'t need 128 MB of VRAM unless they want to cache textures there - if they do plan it like this, I\'ll be disappointed since it would be a step back. Future architectures are ment to be designed differently: little memory, large bandwidth. That\'s the key to amazing performance.
Nope. I can\'t agree with you there. No doubt the PS2 has a very different architecture than a PC but the 4MB VRAM is SERIOUSLY holding it back. Look at the XBOX. Even with inferior bandwidth and an age old architecture, it manage to outdo the PS2 simply with brute force. Sure it may not be elegant but who cares?? It\'s the result that counts.
The PS2 can hold it\'s own or even better the XBOX when it comes to polygon counts but is losing out to the XBOX in most cases graphically where textures and resolution is concerned simply of the small VRAM. With more VRAM, it means less ingenious headache for the programmers and nicer graphics for the consumer.
We can all talk about tech specs till we drop but the results has cemented the FACT that XBOX has superior texture simply because of a larger VRAM!!
If the PS3 is to follow the PS2 archictecture, fine, but the system must be balanced as not to be severly handicapped in other areas like VRAM.
-
XBox doesn\'t have any VRAM.
Neither does PS2.
XBox can, however, do 8x texture layers in a single pass with no hit on performance, as well as 8x (S3) texture compression.
Are you sure that\'s not the reason XBox can do better textures?
In fact, the PS2 would probably be worse if it had a lot of VRAM (or in reality, embedded texture cache) as it would likely encourage (lazy) developers to store textures, rather than stream (which is what the PS2 was designed to do).
Then again.. those lazy developers aren\'t exactly taking advantage of the PS2\'s texture streaming capabilities as is, so maybe it would be a good thing :D
-
Originally posted by Paul
Nope. I can\'t agree with you there. No doubt the PS2 has a very different architecture than a PC but the 4MB VRAM is SERIOUSLY holding it back. Look at the XBOX. Even with inferior bandwidth and an age old architecture, it manage to outdo the PS2 simply with brute force. Sure it may not be elegant but who cares?? It\'s the result that counts.
Are u watching at results of 4MB of textures on PS2 or results of more than 4MB?
We can all talk about tech specs till we drop but the results has cemented the FACT that XBOX has superior texture simply because of a larger VRAM!!
Nobody denies that.But if the PS2 had more than 4MB(like if it could stream 32MB of textures for an example)of streaming VRAM u would have seen better results than XBOX.A lot better.
-
Are u watching at results of 4MB of textures on PS2 or results of more than 4MB?
..Wha??
Nobody denies that.But if the PS2 had more than 4MB(like if it could stream 32MB of textures for an example)of streaming VRAM u would have seen better results than XBOX.A lot better
If the bandwidth wasn\'t increased accordingly, that amount of VRAM would be useless.
There are also other factors that come into play, such as texture compression and the like.
-
Nope. I can\'t agree with you there. No doubt the PS2 has a very different architecture than a PC but the 4MB VRAM is SERIOUSLY holding it back. Look at the XBOX. Even with inferior bandwidth and an age old architecture, it manage to outdo the PS2 simply with brute force. Sure it may not be elegant but who cares?? It\'s the result that counts.
The PS2 can hold it\'s own or even better the XBOX when it comes to polygon counts but is losing out to the XBOX in most cases graphically where textures and resolution is concerned simply of the small VRAM. With more VRAM, it means less ingenious headache for the programmers and nicer graphics for the consumer.
We can all talk about tech specs till we drop but the results has cemented the FACT that XBOX has superior texture simply because of a larger VRAM!!
If the PS3 is to follow the PS2 archictecture, fine, but the system must be balanced as not to be severly handicapped in other areas like VRAM.
You\'re flat out wrong Paul.
The reason why PS2 has problems with textures is not because of the VRAM size, but because of the limited bandwidth (EE <-> GS).
VRAM on PC == Texture Cache + Framebuffer
VRAM on PS2 == Framebuffer (and display lists; polygons)
From a developers point of view, I can say that you misunderstood the way PS2 was designed. Simply enlarging memory would not make "the" difference you\'re refering to.
And the Xbox [as Bobo rightfully pointed out already] btw hasn\'t got VRAM either. It\'s called a UMA and the space is found within the 64 MB of RAM. Incase you haven\'t noticed, the PS2 has a UMA as well, with the difference that the embedded memory on the GS is for the framebuffers and display lists. No textures are being cached here.
-
Pfft, way to say the same thing that I already had, seven. You just had to make it sound all intelligent :rolleyes:
;)
-
I know, I know.. :( admittedly, I didn\'t read your comments until I had posted my reply already and besides, since he was disagreeing with my post, I feel that I had to add my 2 cents in aswell. :D
No offense. ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
..Wha??
Are the results of 4MB of streamed textures the same as of 4MB of stored textures?
If the bandwidth wasn\'t increased accordingly, that amount of VRAM would be useless.
There are also other factors that come into play, such as texture compression and the like.
I ment if they made it feasable to stream them.I am not comparing the PS2\'s ability to stream textures with the XBOX\'s ability to display high quality textures.I am comparing the idea of streaming textures with the old idea of storing.
-
Are the results of 4MB of streamed textures the same as of 4MB of stored textures?
It all depends on how it is used, how much bandwidth there is, etc. Theorhetically, it can achieve far more than 4MB of stored textures. But only as much as the bandwidth will allow.
Oh, and PS2 doesn\'t have VRAM, it has 4MB\'s of embedded on board cache. Much faster, and more expensive. :)
-
ps2 have 4mb of VRAM.
I used to thought it pretty low
but comparing it to Gamecube, GCube only have 3 mb of VRAM
but because Gcube have 6x texture compression, 4 layer of textures per time, making 3mb of VRAM equals 18 mb because of the 6x compression ratio.
ps2, on the other hand was develop over a year before of xbox and gcube.
it doesn\'t have texture compression, but rather some sort of streaming technology. it can only do 1 layer of texture a time. if develop wants to get 4 layers, they have to do it again 4 times which take longer time. streaming texture is a bottleneck to many developers.
if ps2 have 6x texture compression, it would have outperform gcube.
-
Are the results of 4MB of streamed textures the same as of 4MB of stored textures?
The results are quite different, as the 4 MB must be used to save the buffers. If you add it up, you should get around 3 MB being used. That would leave 1 MB just for "cached" textures. If you stream them however, you can use far more, as the textures aren\'t saved locally but somewhere within the 32 MB of main Memory.
ps2 have 4mb of VRAM.
I used to thought it pretty low
but comparing it to Gamecube, GCube only have 3 mb of VRAM
but because Gcube have 6x texture compression, 4 layer of textures per time, making 3mb of VRAM equals 18 mb because of the 6x compression ratio.
GameCube\'s 3 MB is also only used for the buffers alone.
ps2, on the other hand was develop over a year before of xbox and gcube.
so?
it doesn\'t have texture compression, but rather some sort of streaming technology.
it certainly does. It can also decompress on the fly.
it can only do 1 layer of texture a time. if develop wants to get 4 layers, they have to do it again 4 times which take longer time.
correct, although this hasn\'t got to be a bad thing. PS2 is extreamly fast with its single-pass (thus it having a very high fillrate).
if ps2 have 6x texture compression, it would have outperform gcube.
It does have compression. The bandwidth and the 32 MB of memory is the shortage. ;)
PS: Sorry, but I\'m tired and couldn\'t bother with an in-depth reply. :(
-
You know when they say 1000 or what not faster they really mean that the CPU will be made up of CPU Cores that make up one complete CPU. Meaning 100 little cpu\'s will be on the CPU LOL they are really saying that multi-processing will allow the Speed to imitate 150 GHz so if you put 100 cores at 1.5Gig you get the 150GHz. :D
-
seven, perhaps you could explain the texture compression in the PS2 for me. I know that it can use MPeg (which can go as high as approx. 80:1), but I was under the impression that all textures had to be moved around internally in uncompressed form.
-
mpeg-2 is pretty useles for textures unfortunately, but PS2 can do CLUT compresion. The idea is to store textures in a compressed state in main memory and then decompress on the fly when sending them to the GIF (graphics-user interface: interface between EE and GS).
-
What\'s the compression ratio?
-
It quite depends on the developers effort and the texture.
Some additional information on CLUT:
The PlayStation 2’s does feature pseudo-texture-compression in the palletized textures via a CLUT. Palletized textures are 8-bit textures where the palette has been selected from a complete 24-bit range. This can reduce the texture storage requirements by almost a factor of three, and is a technique used in the Glide version of Unreal. To get around potential dithering issues, it’s possible to break up a large texture into multiple, smaller 8-bit textures; since each texture has its own palette. Of course, breaking up these textures requires developer effort. In the strictest of terms, this is texture compression in that it is a lossy representation of an original 24-bit image. On the other hand, since there really isn’t a clever algorithm involved, people usually don’t group it with VQ or S3TC/DXTC approaches.
I had a pretty good Powerpoint Presentation somewhere... but can\'t seem to find it. I\'ll post it when I do. ;)
-
So you could say it\'s possible to get to approx. 3:1 ratio?
If that were the case, would that explain why Naughty Dog push approximately 40+ MB\'s of textures when limited bandwidth should, theorhetically, be limited to about 16.8MB (at max)?
-
hum, why 16.8 MB?
-
Sorry, thinking about it, my information is way off :D.
A theorhetical limit, of probably about 20MB\'s @ 60fps
Well, the PS2 has a 1.2GB/s bus from the main ram to GS, correct?
If the PS2 were sending 1.2GB/s of textures (unrealistic) @60fps = about 20MB
Let\'s say it was sending a more realistic figure of 800mb/s, it would be about 13.4MB
At 30fps it would be double that, etc.
Or am I just completely on the wrong track here? :)
SEVEN.... I WANT TO LEARN!!
-
no no, you\'re on the right track. I knew the ~20 MB figure, just not how you got to 16.8 MB that\'s all. :D
I did read that article with Naughty Dog pushing 40 MB of textures per frame, but right now, I can\'t be sure how they managed that. The only thing that would make sense, if is the GS recognises CLUT and thus the textures are being sent "compressed". Or, what might be even more realistic to assume is that one image is made out of, lets say, 2 layers. As one bitmap, it would take up 192 KB, but if you cut it in 2 layers where 1st layer = 12 KB and the 2nd layer = 8 KB You\'d be saving an incredible amount of data. Of course to get that 192 KB texture, you would have to blend the two layers accoardingly. The effective data being streamed though would only equal 20 KB though...
make sense? If not, tell me and I\'ll make you an example with actual images. :)
-
Yah, makes sense.
I guess that would also work with the fact that I believe in the article with ND, they stated they were achieving the "equivilent" (IIRC) of 40+ MB\'s.
In your example, they are still getting the \'equivilent\' of the 192KB texture, at only 20KB\'s.
I still think you should e-mail them, though. :)
-
yeah, I guess I should... On second thought, I am pretty sure that\'s how they did it. Quite an achievement come to think of it.. that amazing amount of polygons and then the textures... :eek:
It would be interesting to know how much those 40 MB of textures would be in real numbers...
-
I\'m more interested in how the hell those textures in Silent Hill 3 are so frickin\' amazing. I\'d love to see Konami\'s figures. But they don\'t seem to be as promotional with their efforts as Naughty Dog were.
Can you picture how good MGS3 is going to look :eek: Konami are doing something right.
Or hell, just J&D 2 would be nice :D
-
Yeah... and even if MGS3 doesn\'t have those textures, simply because of the talent and artwork, it will look amazing - that I am sure of.
Speaking of WOW-effect, I still think Z.O.E2 is the most amazing thing I\'ve seen. Sure, it doesn\'t have those amazing textures, but wow, did you see the particle effects? :eek: :eek:
-
I prefer Silent Hill 3. Particularly the videos which involved the old man. Everything on his face is so detailed, from his stubble, to wrinkles, his hat. In the video where they were driving in the car, and they cut to him just as a car goes past and he turns his head. The dynamic lighting altering, and reflecting off the environment, and self-shadowing causing his NOSE to cast a shadow on his CHEEK. Aww *drool*
I swear, if it\'s not FMV, it\'s what Sony actually promised with the whole Toy Story graphics hype.
(If it is FMV though, I\'ll feel pretty stupid ;))
On a side note, we\'ve hijacked this thread! *high-fives*
-
well, I guess I\'m just still very sceptical about SH3... :) Just to say though, despite the amazing quality of the video (the car scene), it\'s evident to me at least that those are in-game sequences. I think FMV would be a tad bit more impressive... :)
Also, Konami also said that their not using any FMV this time \'round.. :D
-
Last time I checked...the project is already done and should be prepared to ship possibly with the PS3 in early 2004...and it has well over a teraflop of computing power.
-
You\'re thinking of a fake article that was circulating some time ago, Evisc. :)
The designs of Cell are finished, I don\'t believe they have a working prototype yet.
-
hum, but the 1 TFLOP figure should be quite accurate. IBM released possible specs for the CELL. I think one individual cell can perform 1 GFLOP, but the processor itself has multible cores (or cells).
-
On a further note, I just found out that the PS2 can deal with JPEG compressions. Because the IPU (Image Processing Unit) has to deal with them on the fly though, it\'s not used that much as of yet, as it\'s pretty hard to keep it efficiant. It is possible though and you may be looking at a 10:1 compression rate.
So that gives us 3 possibilities:
4bit CLUT, 8 bit CLUT and JPEG.
-
Originally posted by seven
On a further note, I just found out that the PS2 can deal with JPEG compressions. Because the IPU (Image Processing Unit) has to deal with them on the fly though, it\'s not used that much as of yet, as it\'s pretty hard to keep it efficiant. It is possible though and you may be looking at a 10:1 compression rate.
So that gives us 3 possibilities:
4bit CLUT, 8 bit CLUT and JPEG.
15:1 compression at medium quality, but only for the main memory.
I remember hearing a developer saying that he could send 5-8 MBs of texture data to the the GS per frame@60FPS, which is ok but pretty low for a system nowdays if you\'re not using any form of TC. If they used a little program to decompress the textures on the GS that would give a serious boost in texture quality in PS2 games (and solve most IQ related issues at the same time IMHO).
Those numbers Naughty Dog gave (45-60MBs/frame) are pretty close to what you could get on the PS2 if you were using 6:1 TC.
Anyway, I\'ve always had the impression that PS2\'s texture capabilities have been heavily underused at times, but it doesn\'t seem to be that easy to solve.
PS: All this threads about the PS3 all over the net are making no sense (no offense, Adan :)), which supports my theory that 90% of the hype comes directly from gamers.
-
Everyone wave to Mister. Hype . He likes making door to door stops for Sony!
;)
-
Originally posted by Bobs_Hardware
You\'re thinking of a fake article that was circulating some time ago, Evisc. :)
The designs of Cell are finished, I don\'t believe they have a working prototype yet.
Oh...sorry about that. I\'m confusng myself...:shy:
-
Anyone remember this thread where it says the ps3 will have 150 GHz processor? Heh. It seems like my guess was more accurate that its will be around 3 GHz, not 150 GHz...and i guess i was quite right as the ps3 is 3.2 GHz.
-
Anyone remember this thread where it says the ps3 will have 150 GHz processor? Heh. It seems like my guess was more accurate that its will be around 3 GHz, not 150 GHz...and i guess i was quite right as the ps3 is 3.2 GHz.
http://img.search.com/9/9a/300px-Choco_chip_cookie.jpg
-
Mmmm, cookies...
Now let\'s speculate on PS4. I say it\'ll have 27 processors, each running 800 GHz.
-
haha, funny resurrection. nice to see some old peeps and outlandish predictions.
-
Mmmm, cookies...
Now let\'s speculate on PS4. I say it\'ll have 27 processors, each running 800 GHz.
It\'ll be 10 years from now, if Sony\'s prediction is right. Hence why the push the term "long term investment" on the PS3.
-
hahaha indeed its funny how reality differs from our estimations :laughing:
-
All I wanted was 64megs of VRAM and I got 256 :D
-
It\'ll be 10 years from now, if Sony\'s prediction is right. Hence why the push the term "long term investment" on the PS3.
It will not be 10 years before the next playstation. Sony has said the same thing since the first playstation, that their consoles will have 10 year life spans. Meaning they\'ll have a shelf life of 10 years. It held true with the first PS, and it looks likely with the PS2. I don\'t see why the PS3 would be an exception.
-
Anyone remember this thread where it says the ps3 will have 150 GHz processor? Heh. It seems like my guess was more accurate that its will be around 3 GHz, not 150 GHz...and i guess i was quite right as the ps3 is 3.2 GHz.
And you resurrected a 4 year old thread to brag? It was 4 years ago dude. Who knew what was gonna happen. For all we know in 4 more years, processors could reach 300 gHz. Ya never know.
-
It seems like my guess was more accurate that its will be around 3 GHz, not 150 GHz...and i guess i was quite right as the ps3 is 3.2 GHz.
Congratulations on whatever the f*** it is you did right there. ;]
-
Congratulations on whatever the f*** it is you did right there. ;]
Paul is a time traveler dork who travels back in time to post on internet message boards about his speculation on future game consoles ;) j/k. Love ya man :)
-
And you resurrected a 4 year old thread to brag? It was 4 years ago dude. Who knew what was gonna happen. For all we know in 4 more years, processors could reach 300 gHz. Ya never know.
I suppose I do like to brag a bit about it. Also, I am like the kind of person that like to compare things. In this case, I try to make a comparison on what we thought the ps3 will have back then and what the ps3 actually have now. Its sort of like a hobby to me. I am not good at explaining it. You know how some people makes a poll or do survey to see what percentage will prefer this or how much money people spend on this product or how many units this things sold.
Its just a curiousity thing for me and in this case, I make the comparison to see how off or close our guesses are. Heh, even I wasn\'t accurate on everything on my guess on the ps3 either. Like the RAM thing, my guess was that PS3 might have 512 MB of Main Ram and 128 of VRAM, and they might do what XBOX did by making a unified Ram or something. And I was somewhat wrong as the PS3 have a bit less total RAM than I thought, and the VRAM is actually 2x more than my estimation.
Its like seeing patterns, and making guesses what it would be like on the next one. Again, I guess I am one of those weird people that have strange hobbies...
-
It will not be 10 years before the next playstation. Sony has said the same thing since the first playstation, that their consoles will have 10 year life spans. Meaning they\'ll have a shelf life of 10 years. It held true with the first PS, and it looks likely with the PS2. I don\'t see why the PS3 would be an exception.
The PS2 lasted 6 years. I think sony had mentioned that it would be between 8 and 10 years before the PS4 is out.
Sounds about right.
I don\'t recall Sony saying that the PSX would last that 10 years before the next gen. And back then, I read everything news related to the PSX. You were misinformed.
-
I suppose I do like to brag a bit about it. Also, I am like the kind of person that like to compare things. In this case, I try to make a comparison on what we thought the ps3 will have back then and what the ps3 actually have now. Its sort of like a hobby to me. I am not good at explaining it. You know how some people makes a poll or do survey to see what percentage will prefer this or how much money people spend on this product or how many units this things sold.
Haha. Gotcha. I would have done the same thing too, lol. But it is cool to compare what we were like back then and now. What are your predictions for PS4 Nostradamus? ;)
-
And you resurrected a 4 year old thread to brag? It was 4 years ago dude. Who knew what was gonna happen. For all we know in 4 more years, processors could reach 300 gHz. Ya never know.
GHz is quite an irrelevant determinant of overall speed.
-
Haha. Gotcha. I would have done the same thing too, lol. But it is cool to compare what we were like back then and now. What are your predictions for PS4 Nostradamus? ;)
Since you are also interested, let me get my crystal ball. j/k. :p
Actually this one is going to be a bit harder for me to speculate the ps4 CPU and GPU as now I was quite amaze that now we have multiple core CPUs, like Intel and AMD that introduces dual core CPUs I believe, and don\'t forget the upcoming quad core CPUs. Even the PS3 have this 8 SPEs Cell this, and 7 are activated while one is reserved. XBOX360 also have multi-core CPU too I believe.
So, I am not sure how many core CPU or SPE PS4 will have. But seeing how fast the speed of CPU is now, I guess maybe the PS4 will have around 15 to 20 GHz CPU speed?
Main RAM and VRAM is also a bit harder for me to guess now as the ps3 just launch recently. Maybe a year or two from now, it will be easier for to make a better guess by looking at the pattern of how far technology has gone. Maybe 6 to 8 Gbytes of total RAM...
now, here is this one that it\'s easier for me to guess. seeing the psone include a CD-ROM drive that also could playback CD-Audio, and ps2 added the DVD-ROM drive that could also playback DVD-Video. Now the PS3 included the next generation optical disc drive which is Blu Ray which also could playback Blu Ray Movies.
I am guessing the PlayStation 4 will include the next generation optical disc drive after Blu Ray. And that would be something similiar of HVD (holographic versatile disc). It\'s estimated that HVD can hold as much as 1 TBytes of data, and a 1x read speed of 1 Gbits per second. It wouldnt\' surprise me if Sony is going to include HVD-like optical disc for next generation after ps3. But I am leaning more toward that the HVD disc might hold more than 1 Tbytes, and possibly read speed faster than 1 Gbits per second for 1x. Maybe 2 Tbytes? 2 Gbits per second read speed per 1x? At 2x read speed, this will make it 4 Gbps. That\'s a lotta lotta data. Of course, not only can games be in this HVD-like format, so are next generation HD Video playback. Imagine playing back video 1080p in either lossless or uncompressed quality.
And of course, seeing how PS2 isn\'t quite popular with online gaming because it doesn\'t have internet connection built in, and it lack a HDD built in.
With PS3, sony is serious about internet and online gaming and the flexibility of HDD like how a computer is. They included both internet connection and HDD for both models. I guess PS4 will be the same, of course with much higher storage capacity HDD. And of course, I still think HDMI might be the normal for digital HD Video and audio too. Maybe they might go wireless HDMI connection...
again, all of this is just my speculation. And if they really wanted to include HVD-like format built in, then I think the PS4 won\'t come out until 2015 or around there? And maybe in 2010, Microsoft is going to launch their next generation XBOX....giving them a 5 years head start? headaches isn\'t it?
-
Since you are also interested, let me get my crystal ball. j/k. :p
Actually this one is going to be a bit harder for me to speculate the ps4 CPU and GPU as now I was quite amaze that now we have multiple core CPUs, like Intel and AMD that introduces dual core CPUs I believe, and don\'t forget the upcoming quad core CPUs. Even the PS3 have this 8 SPEs Cell this, and 7 are activated while one is reserved. XBOX360 also have multi-core CPU too I believe.
So, I am not sure how many core CPU or SPE PS4 will have. But seeing how fast the speed of CPU is now, I guess maybe the PS4 will have around 15 to 20 GHz CPU speed?
Main RAM and VRAM is also a bit harder for me to guess now as the ps3 just launch recently. Maybe a year or two from now, it will be easier for to make a better guess by looking at the pattern of how far technology has gone. Maybe 6 to 8 Gbytes of total RAM...
now, here is this one that it\'s easier for me to guess. seeing the psone include a CD-ROM drive that also could playback CD-Audio, and ps2 added the DVD-ROM drive that could also playback DVD-Video. Now the PS3 included the next generation optical disc drive which is Blu Ray which also could playback Blu Ray Movies.
I am guessing the PlayStation 4 will include the next generation optical disc drive after Blu Ray. And that would be something similiar of HVD (holographic versatile disc). It\'s estimated that HVD can hold as much as 1 TBytes of data, and a 1x read speed of 1 Gbits per second. It wouldnt\' surprise me if Sony is going to include HVD-like optical disc for next generation after ps3. But I am leaning more toward that the HVD disc might hold more than 1 Tbytes, and possibly read speed faster than 1 Gbits per second for 1x. Maybe 2 Tbytes? 2 Gbits per second read speed per 1x? At 2x read speed, this will make it 4 Gbps. That\'s a lotta lotta data. Of course, not only can games be in this HVD-like format, so are next generation HD Video playback. Imagine playing back video 1080p in either lossless or uncompressed quality.
And of course, seeing how PS2 isn\'t quite popular with online gaming because it doesn\'t have internet connection built in, and it lack a HDD built in.
With PS3, sony is serious about internet and online gaming and the flexibility of HDD like how a computer is. They included both internet connection and HDD for both models. I guess PS4 will be the same, of course with much higher storage capacity HDD. And of course, I still think HDMI might be the normal for digital HD Video and audio too. Maybe they might go wireless HDMI connection...
again, all of this is just my speculation. And if they really wanted to include HVD-like format built in, then I think the PS4 won\'t come out until 2015 or around there? And maybe in 2010, Microsoft is going to launch their next generation XBOX....giving them a 5 years head start? headaches isn\'t it?
nerd.
-
Since you are also interested, let me get my crystal ball. j/k. :p
Actually this one is going to be a bit harder for me to speculate the ps4 CPU and GPU as now I was quite amaze that now we have multiple core CPUs, like Intel and AMD that introduces dual core CPUs I believe, and don\'t forget the upcoming quad core CPUs. Even the PS3 have this 8 SPEs Cell this, and 7 are activated while one is reserved. XBOX360 also have multi-core CPU too I believe.
So, I am not sure how many core CPU or SPE PS4 will have. But seeing how fast the speed of CPU is now, I guess maybe the PS4 will have around 15 to 20 GHz CPU speed?
Main RAM and VRAM is also a bit harder for me to guess now as the ps3 just launch recently. Maybe a year or two from now, it will be easier for to make a better guess by looking at the pattern of how far technology has gone. Maybe 6 to 8 Gbytes of total RAM...
now, here is this one that it\'s easier for me to guess. seeing the psone include a CD-ROM drive that also could playback CD-Audio, and ps2 added the DVD-ROM drive that could also playback DVD-Video. Now the PS3 included the next generation optical disc drive which is Blu Ray which also could playback Blu Ray Movies.
I am guessing the PlayStation 4 will include the next generation optical disc drive after Blu Ray. And that would be something similiar of HVD (holographic versatile disc). It\'s estimated that HVD can hold as much as 1 TBytes of data, and a 1x read speed of 1 Gbits per second. It wouldnt\' surprise me if Sony is going to include HVD-like optical disc for next generation after ps3. But I am leaning more toward that the HVD disc might hold more than 1 Tbytes, and possibly read speed faster than 1 Gbits per second for 1x. Maybe 2 Tbytes? 2 Gbits per second read speed per 1x? At 2x read speed, this will make it 4 Gbps. That\'s a lotta lotta data. Of course, not only can games be in this HVD-like format, so are next generation HD Video playback. Imagine playing back video 1080p in either lossless or uncompressed quality.
And of course, seeing how PS2 isn\'t quite popular with online gaming because it doesn\'t have internet connection built in, and it lack a HDD built in.
With PS3, sony is serious about internet and online gaming and the flexibility of HDD like how a computer is. They included both internet connection and HDD for both models. I guess PS4 will be the same, of course with much higher storage capacity HDD. And of course, I still think HDMI might be the normal for digital HD Video and audio too. Maybe they might go wireless HDMI connection...
again, all of this is just my speculation. And if they really wanted to include HVD-like format built in, then I think the PS4 won\'t come out until 2015 or around there? And maybe in 2010, Microsoft is going to launch their next generation XBOX....giving them a 5 years head start? headaches isn\'t it?
I think I have to agree with luke man ;)
I am gonna save and remember this and hold you to this when ps4 gets released :fighting:
-
*thread resurrected*
anyway, thinking about it, i realize how off i was on this one. i doubt the ps4 will be 15 to 20 GHz, but might be 3.2 GHz multi-core processors, from quad (4), to octo-core (8) processors.
I think ps4 might have at least 6 GBytes of total ram to as much as 12 Gbytes...
I highly doubt the ps3 will have hvd (holographic versatile disc) drive, but will use existing blu-ray drive as i doubt hvd will come out anytime soon. might not come out until at least 3 years from now at the earliest.
I think the blu-ray drive speed might be at 12x.
Of course, HDMI connection is a given.
i was very wrong that the next xbox will come out in 2010 as its already the first day and first month of 2013 and xbox 360 is still going strong and the next xbox hasn\'t come out yet.
-
ps4 will be equal to a midrange 2012 pc
sony is not about to lose their ASS again like they have with ps3
It will probably have and AMD APU possibly with another chip in there to work in some sort of heavily modified "crossfire" configuration. This will allow super low power usage when using the dvr features as well as browsing the web/psn whatever
CPU will be Quad or Octo core in the 3-3.5 ghz range
4 GB Ram
2 GB GDDR for graphics
Would like to see an ssd, but will probably have a laptop 2.5 hdd in the 500 gb to 1tb range
just a wild guess....
-
i think it isn\'t really much because of the ps3 cpu and gpu that make it really expensive back then when it first comes out. its mostly because of the blu ray drive built in that makes it expensive. $200 more expensive than xbox360 back then.
nowadays, blu-ray drive are a lot cheaper. so, i think its possible to get high end cpu and gpu for ps4 that should cost $300 to $400 range.
both the ps3 and xbox360 uses IBM 3.2 GHz processors, and this single core 3.2 GHz CPU have similar performance of a dual-core 3.2 GHz CPU of a computer, i think its Intel dual-core back then. that\'s what i read back then about a videogame cpu compare to computer cpu performance.
if that is the case, i wouldn\'t be surprise if say a ps4 quad-core 3.2 GHz cpu could have similar performance of an octo-core cpu of a computer, maybe intel octo-core or maybe amd octo-core.
if ps4 have 6 cores (or hex-core), it could have similar performance of 12 cores computer cpu. or if 8 core, it could have similar performance of 16 core computer cpu.
that\'s what i thought about the hdd, it might have 2.5" hdd like how the ps3 and xbox360 are. and its probably somewhere around 500 GBytes to 1 TByte.
-
You sure it won\'t be a gazillion times more powerful?
-
gazillion times more powerful than what? are you saying the ps4 compare to ps3? or ps3 compare to ps2?
-
The PS3! I think I read it was actually 1.34 gazillion times more powerful.
But it depends if the new flux capacitor is released this spring. This would give developers more time to create launch titles for Christmas 2013.
-
lol. are you referring to the topic thread title? that the ps3 is 150 GHz? then its probably is 1.34 gazillion times more powerful than ps2.
wait. are you talking about ps4 compare to ps3? sorry, i got confused. either way, i doubt it will be gazillion times more powerful. maybe ps4 is around 500 to 1,000 times more powerful than ps3.
-
No! A GAZILLION Zillion!
-
I\'m a fucking wizard
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/PlayStation-Xbox-Radeon-APU-Orbis,15247.html
oh, and specs for both are VERY disappointing... weak ass gpu in both, but it was expected as they want to make as much profit as possible as early as possible. Compared to 7 year old consoles it looks strong... but that\'s not saying much.
-
There\'s been talk of Sony possibly having tech that will cause the Ps4 not to play used games. I understand that it would be tied to your playstation ID and such, but that would just be annoying.
I understand that dev\'s don\'t get paid from used game sales, but i don\'t think it\'s an issue to the point to where you have to have your system not play used games.
If Sony implements this, it\'ll just seem more like corporate a$$holes that are out of touch with reality...at the end of the day these are still gaming consoles...there\'s no need to be blocking used games at all.
If Sony or any other Manufacturer is hurtung that bad to the point to where they feel they need to punish consumers that actually buy used games, then they need to drop out of the console business for good...forcing you to buy new games only and then those games only work on your ID?...absolute bullS**t...if they go thru with this...
-
Xbox 720 is going to do the same thing. It\'s not just Sony but other game developers want this too. They don\'t get royalty from used game sales.
-
There\'s been talk of Sony possibly having tech that will cause the Ps4 not to play used games. I understand that it would be tied to your playstation ID and such, but that would just be annoying.
I understand that dev\'s don\'t get paid from used game sales, but i don\'t think it\'s an issue to the point to where you have to have your system not play used games.
If Sony implements this, it\'ll just seem more like corporate a$$holes that are out of touch with reality...at the end of the day these are still gaming consoles...there\'s no need to be blocking used games at all.
If Sony or any other Manufacturer is hurtung that bad to the point to where they feel they need to punish consumers that actually buy used games, then they need to drop out of the console business for good...forcing you to buy new games only and then those games only work on your ID?...absolute bullS**t...if they go thru with this...
I heard that rumor a while ago. Supposedly, now they aren\'t going to do it. If you think about it, it will actually cripple the game industry in my opinion. You have companies like Gamestop and independent gaming stores make their money mostly on used games. They risk going out of business and putting thousands of people out of work who then in turn can\'t buy their games. I think that\'s why DLC has become so important in recent years. If you buy a used game, what EA does is have you buy an online pass to access online content. They get some money from a used game that way. Plus, if a gamer really likes a game they bought used, they will buy the add on DLC. This happened with me and Mass Effect 2 as an example. I bought the game, loved it so much, I bought probably about 40 dollars of DLC from them. So they still made money.
Also, I discovered a lot of series because I bought them used. Dead Space is a good example. Well, its actually a bad example in my case but it makes my point. I bought the original as the Greatest Hits, the second used and preordered the third one. Say I did it the other way, it still created loyalty to the series with me that I will shell out the 60 dollars for the next installment.
Again, this is all my opinion and how I interpret what\'s going on :)
-
I heard that rumor a while ago. Supposedly, now they aren\'t going to do it. If you think about it, it will actually cripple the game industry in my opinion. You have companies like Gamestop and independent gaming stores make their money mostly on used games. They risk going out of business and putting thousands of people out of work who then in turn can\'t buy their games. I think that\'s why DLC has become so important in recent years. If you buy a used game, what EA does is have you buy an online pass to access online content. They get some money from a used game that way. Plus, if a gamer really likes a game they bought used, they will buy the add on DLC. This happened with me and Mass Effect 2 as an example. I bought the game, loved it so much, I bought probably about 40 dollars of DLC from them. So they still made money.
Also, I discovered a lot of series because I bought them used. Dead Space is a good example. Well, its actually a bad example in my case but it makes my point. I bought the original as the Greatest Hits, the second used and preordered the third one. Say I did it the other way, it still created loyalty to the series with me that I will shell out the 60 dollars for the next installment.
Again, this is all my opinion and how I interpret what\'s going on :)
It\'s your opinion and i completely agree with it...:fro:
-
There\'s been talk of Sony possibly having tech that will cause the Ps4 not to play used games. I understand that it would be tied to your playstation ID and such, but that would just be annoying.
I understand that dev\'s don\'t get paid from used game sales, but i don\'t think it\'s an issue to the point to where you have to have your system not play used games.
If Sony implements this, it\'ll just seem more like corporate a$$holes that are out of touch with reality...at the end of the day these are still gaming consoles...there\'s no need to be blocking used games at all.
If Sony or any other Manufacturer is hurtung that bad to the point to where they feel they need to punish consumers that actually buy used games, then they need to drop out of the console business for good...forcing you to buy new games only and then those games only work on your ID?...absolute bullS**t...if they go thru with this...
I could see this causing yet another anonymous, hurting Sony more than helping, not to mention screwing the users out of a few months of PS3 playtime.
With that being said, DRMing used games would be a terrible idea. It would hinder sales and probably kill the console sales.
What makes more sense is that they focus on digital downloads, possibly offering incentives, (lower game prices, etc), for those who download games.
-
It\'s not just Sony, MS is thinking of doing this too. Developers love this idea. They feel that their hard work to make these games, they should continue to be paid royalty fees if their games are re-sold.
I say F\'em.
-
It\'s not just Sony, MS is thinking of doing this too. Developers love this idea. They feel that their hard work to make these games, they should continue to be paid royalty fees if their games are re-sold.
I say F\'em.
That\'s why they release a SHITLOAD of DLC for each game. So we feel its incomplete and have to buy the DLC.
I could see this causing yet another anonymous, hurting Sony more than helping, not to mention screwing the users out of a few months of PS3 playtime.
With that being said, DRMing used games would be a terrible idea. It would hinder sales and probably kill the console sales.
What makes more sense is that they focus on digital downloads, possibly offering incentives, (lower game prices, etc), for those who download games.
I agree 100%. If they have DRMing for used games, people would just not buy them and it would cripple if not kill the console industry. If this were to happen, I\'d probably honestly just wait for games to go on sale on Steam and download them there and go all PC. Gotta say though, Steam is awesome. Got Spec Ops The Line for 7 bucks and I thoroughly enjoyed it :)
-
You should check out Steam Box. Valve is going to kick some ass in the console world.
-
You should check out Steam Box. Valve is going to kick some ass in the console world.
I\'ll look into it. But when I spent 2500 dollars on a customized gaming computer (mostly for photo editing or so was the excuse to myself :) ), I\'d rather get some use out of it :)
-
lol fair enough. I just prefer to play on the big screen with a controller in-hand. That\'s not to say I haven\'t played far too much WoW in my time...
-
lol fair enough. I just prefer to play on the big screen with a controller in-hand. That\'s not to say I haven\'t played far too much WoW in my time...
Understandable. But what I can do with a little furniture rearranging is move my desk and computer next to my tv, run an HDMI cable from my computer to my TV and plug in an Xbox 360 controller and I\'m good to go :)
The one thing I don\'t like about playing on my PC is having to sit in front of my monitor. I can\'t kick back on my couch during a cutscene or when the action is kind of slow. Sooner or later, I definitely am going to plug my PC into my TV.