The Flaws of the PS2

Do you know the difference between CISC and RISC??? CISC is better used for running Windows while RISC is better used for stuff like games.

I have a bad feeling you don\'t know what the real difference is. But okay, I\'ll give you a chance to prove me otherwise. You seem to think that RISC is better for handling OS\'s... fine, so tell me what makes you think that CISC is better for OS\'s and a RISC for games?

Do you know the difference between Pentium and Celeron? If you did, you would not want Celeron unless you want a short hardware life

Again, I presume you don\'t really know the difference or else you wouldn\'t be making such a big deal out of it. As I said, the CPU of the Xbox is not a Pentium nor is it Celeron.

I\'m just pointing out the flaws of Xbox as they claim to be the most powerful and they are full of it. We already know the serious lack of good games but their main argument is how great their hardware is.

Floating point Peformance is a very important factor unless you want simple games that just show off nice pretty colors. Whether PS2 games will end up using that potential is another question but I know that Xbox has have that potential and it already shows.

Believe it or not, I am known for being one of the most biased PS2 members around here and I will agree that we might feel the same way about Microsoft and there claims. The way you post and deliever your arguements though, give me unfortunately more reason to defend Xbox more than taking yourside simply because your points are so weak and foolish, furthermore absolutely irrelevant. One thing for example is your floating point arguement. Of course the PS2 has a much higher floatingpoint performance than the XCPU, but guess what - it also needs to since it has to handle much more performance consuming tasks. Ever wonder what the XCPU does? Yeah, a bit of AI here and there and other in-game devoted tasks. It does not need a super highperformance chip for that. Duh!!

smoke\'em trees = 420blunt &LiteItUp

Believe it or not, I am known for being one of the most biased PS2 members around here and I will agree that we might feel the same way about Microsoft and there claims.

Not as of lately...IMO, you\'ve lightened up quite a bit.

--->Has a fondness for the old, cut-throat seven...likes the new just as much.

Do you know the difference between CISC and RISC??? CISC is better used for running Windows while RISC is better used for stuff like games.

i cant believe someone would say that and actually believe it

ignorance is truly bliss

This is going to get ugly.

I think he\'s smoking something other than trees. :rolleyes:

This thread still alive?

I just hope smok\'em doesn\'t argue in the same vain as coke or clowd.  Neither one of them has common sense, the lack thereof can be a powerful tool to piss people off...

We\'ll see what happens...

You know Ken Kutargi said it best "Microsoft has taken themselves out of the console war already with the x box\'s cpu."

He didnt say CPU exactly but something about the x box\'s graphics or Cpu,  whatever the case he said microsoft x box is exactly what smoke\'m entrees has been saying about it,  a big polygon pusher with nothing else

Thank you Clowd

To seven:

Ok then Mr. I know it all.  You are so damn smart then please enlighten me and all others.  And I am not being completely sarcastic because I just got back into learning bout PCs, although I did some research bout the MS Xbox chip and asked two ppl at work bout the validity of statement of CISC vs RISC.  So then teach me master.

Xbox chip is inferior.  This is shown in their games.  The graphics chip is superior, but who cares when the gameplay sux.

MS is not using Intel anymore for the Xbox 2 and it just seems like they realized they got ripped off.

Xbox fanboys try claim that Xbox chip is a P3 chip while it is not.  More like a Celeron 2.

gr0an

dude yer making us look bad, sheesh

oh and, RISC > CISC

I thought ps2 could push more polygons than xbox, am I being misinformed here? I read somewhere that xbox could do 38 million polys max with two textures on them, but when the textures where of, there\'d still be only a max of 38 million.
(ps2 can do like 66 million or something)
someone?

uGH, if this thread turns into tech-babble then im out

pointless to argue about specs when its the games and gameplay that counts  (and are very worth arguing about )

I\'m with mm...laters.

will check in to make sure someone\'s not flinging too much poop

Ok then Mr. I know it all. You are so damn smart then please enlighten me and all others. And I am not being completely sarcastic because I just got back into learning bout PCs, although I did some research bout the MS Xbox chip and asked two ppl at work bout the validity of statement of CISC vs RISC. So then teach me master.

I\'m disappointed now. I was really hoping you would fill me in on your thoughts..
A CISC based processor uses complex instructions to minimize program code and therefore also RAM. In that essence, less code is needed to perform a complex task.

A reduced instruction set computer, as the name already lets you assume, uses less and more simplified instructionsets to perform its tasks. Because of that, programs tend to be bigger because they require more steps or instructions to perform a complex instruction.

Conclusion: While a RISC is faster at performing instructions than a CISC, it needs to process more instructions to perform the same task. There\'s more to it, but I won\'t go into addressing modes, registers etc.

I really don\'t see why you\'re basing your whole PS2 is better than Xbox arguement on a simple CISC vs RISC arguement. There are much more important and interesting things to argue about when comparing those two (totally different) platforms. It\'s like argueing PS2\'s graphics suck because it only has 2 controller ports. :rolleyes:

Xbox chip is inferior. This is shown in their games. The graphics chip is superior, but who cares when the gameplay sux.

If you\'re unhappy with the gameplay, you should blame the developer instead of a piece of hardware that just does its job.

MS is not using Intel anymore for the Xbox 2 and it just seems like they realized they got ripped off.

LOL, what are you saying? Microsoft\'s dumping (lets assume this is true) Intel because of their CISC/x86 architecture that enables windows to run on any PC? That\'s got to be the most pathetic reasoning I\'ve ever heard.

Xbox fanboys try claim that Xbox chip is a P3 chip while it is not. More like a Celeron 2.

*points to last reply where this has already been answered.

Not as of lately...IMO, you\'ve lightened up quite a bit.

Yeah, perhaps... maybe just because there aren\'t any real good debates on anymore. I\'ve also been in quite a lot of stress at work, so I wasn\'t able to post here that often either. :-/

You seemed to have lightened up quite a bit aswell too tho...