"PS3 1000 times more powerful than PS2"

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...)

[Paul2]

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.

[Paul2]

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.

[Paul2]

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

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.

[Bobs_Hardware]

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

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.