PS2 more "PC\'ish" than Xbox

Originally posted by Heretic
For the record: I think Sam is the Man, I like him as a person and respect him as a mod. You may well say ‘you got a strange way of showing it dude\'. True, but if I didn\'t think highly of him I\'d never of bothered to try and say more than just my little spiel about the topic at hand.

Ok, thanks man. I respect that. No hard feelings.

"So from what I read so far, people think that PC components are bad. What\'s so bad about PC components if they all contribute to an awesome system like Xbox is?" - DirectXbox

Well the Pentium III used in the Xbox is a modified version, so I\'m not quite sure if it would work in a PC either. The thing is, it\'s x86 archetecture using slight modifications of off the shelf hardware. As has been said before, x86 archetecture is NOT optimal for gaming. The Xbox kicks ass in graphics, but that\'s because it has the NV2A. If it wasn\'t for the graphics chip.. the Xbox wouldn\'t be able to do jack sh*t. Now the PS2 on the otherhand has a weaker (and often neglected) GPU in it. A lot of what the NV2A does in the Xbox, the Emotion Engine does in the PS2. If the GPU in the PS2 were beefed up to the NV2A\'s standards, there\'s no way in hell the Xbox could keep up with Sony\'s console.

So really, even though it\'s the most powerful console out there this generation, the P3 processor is really holding the Xbox back from what it could have been if it had an archetecture (and processor) fully optimised for gaming.

Those are some serious thoughts being thrown there. I do believe that MS knew the NV2A(200mil to Nvidia to develop) would not need much CPU remember it started out at 500MHZ the move to the 733 was mostly symbolic. The Graphics Synthesizer in the PS2 was ahead of its time. The concept alone was market changing. The PS2 looked to blow everyone out of the market. In order the save thier part of the market Nvidia developed the GPU which promised to help slower CPUs and take the lions share of the graphics processing chores. Now the GF3=NV2A are almost CPU-GPU all on thier own not relying on the Main Prossesor for as much help as before. The P3 is backing up the NV2A which is the real star of the X-Box. Keep PLaying.
________
Avandia Lawsuit

Originally posted by Ethan_Hunt
Samwise where the **** are you getting your info from?how the hell do you know what the Xbox is going to have and what it isnt?alot of the new PCish things for the PS2 are for the internet,the things you require to view the web properly these days,and i am very happy that sony,has these deals wrapped up.
My views of you as a mod have really gone down,i carnt believe you started a thread like this!!!!!!!

Just what the hell are you referring to???

So you think that the Dev kit is what the final Xbox will look like? Why don\'t you read the CVG article on what the final Xbox looks like...

You know what they said? IT boots up in under a second and the only thing you see is an Xbox logo...

Learn to think before you open your mouth.

Originally posted by SonyFan
I think Samwise was totally in the right to post this subject. The PS2 is becomming more an more like a PC with it\'s functionality every day. Hell you can even program on it thanks to Ybasic or whatever that program Sony released in Europe was. Not to mention the Linux dev kits that while being meant only for developers are being sold to anyone who can foot the cash. (Least, that\'s the way I understand it.) I don\'t think there\'s anything wrong with that. Remember that all these add-ons are just that... add-ons. The PS2 can be a Mini-pc... IF you want it to be one. At it\'s core, it\'s still a kick ass gaming console.

Now I\'m not going to act all innocent and say I\'ve never called the Xbox a mini-pc. I have, several times. But I wasn\'t complaining about the functionality.. I was complaining about the archetecture. Personally, no matter how well it works, I still think MS set the console industry backward a few steps by using off the shelf PC components and sticking to the X86 archetecture. Yeah, it\'s tried and true.. but there\'s gotta be a better way out there. It\'s through experimentation and trying new things that more efficent and better hardware configurations are discovered. The Dreamcast, PS2, and GameCube have all created (or hired someone else to create) new archetecture for their consoles. And I applaud their efforts to further the industry through innovation. But not Microsoft. They may have the most powerful hardware, capable of creating graphics which will send you into an eplileptic seziure of joy... but as Ryu once said.. As far as innovation and originality is concerned, Xbox\'s hardware brings nothing new to the gaming table.

SonyFan,

You don\'t have to have an entirely different architecture to make a console.  And in fact, the x86 IS a new architecture. How many other consoles utilize it? ZERO.

Why try and re-invent the wheel? You only end up doing injustice to yourself. MS realized that to get the greatest bang in the least amount of time, the X86 was the best way to go. It would keep their costs low, people were already familiar with it, and it is a very powerful architecture.  Sure, they could have gone with a different machine altogether, but that would mean higher costs incurred, and there are no appearant benefits to having a different architecture. The Xbox is already touted as the most advanced of the next gen consoles.

So why would MS go for a different architecture? For the sake of saying they did and to incur a higher cost? That is a stupid reason to do anything.

Originally posted by TheMistaWhoKnow
You don\'t have to have an entirely different architecture to make a console.  And in fact, the x86 IS a new architecture. How many other consoles utilize it? ZERO.

Why try and re-invent the wheel? You only end up doing injustice to yourself. MS realized that to get the greatest bang in the least amount of time, the X86 was the best way to go. It would keep their costs low, people were already familiar with it, and it is a very powerful architecture.  Sure, they could have gone with a different machine altogether, but that would mean higher costs incurred, and there are no appearant benefits to having a different architecture. The Xbox is already touted as the most advanced of the next gen consoles.

So why would MS go for a different architecture? For the sake of saying they did and to incur a higher cost? That is a stupid reason to do anything.

And to piggyback of THeMistWhoKnow\'s post, you guys also have to realize that this is Microsoft\'s FIRST attempt at a console. It does not make sense for them to enter into the fray and try to revolutionize gaming w/ a unique architecture that has never been thought of before. Maybe w/ the Xbox2 but not their first outing. THe same goes for the PS2. Do you think Sony would still be around if they tried to break into the industry with a chip like the Emotion Engine? Developers are already hesitent to jump on board w/ a new company and if the architecture is totally new to them they are even less likely to support them.

Originally posted by fastson
"There were also indications that the hardware is not entirely stable yet - a crash during Nightcaster revealed a familiar looking PC boot screen, and a Microsoft representative explained that the memory configuration on the floor models was different than that of the final version."

Nuff said!

   hehehe, you arn\'t that bright, are you?  The games were on PC\'s!!!!!!  They were on unfinished development kits and the final console was shown with final hardware behind closed doors.

  By the way, I was at E3.  Nintendo\'s games also crashed.  Silicon Knight\'s Eternal Darkness went down like the titanic.

  At least the xbox and gamecube won\'t boot up with a browser using flash, real audio and the like.

  This is what is so unattractive about the PS2 to me.  I own a laptop and two desktop PC\'s, the last thing I need is another computer (ala PS2), thanks but no thanks.

You Dont have to make PS2 into a computer. They only offer the products, no one is forcing you to go online with it, buy a keyboard and mouse, or anything else. Fact is, without all the so called computer attachments, without all them, the machine still has some GREAT games.

Eric Jacob

Originally posted by AlteredBeast
You Dont have to make PS2 into a computer. They only offer the products, no one is forcing you to go online with it, buy a keyboard and mouse, or anything else. Fact is, without all the so called computer attachments, without all them, the machine still has some GREAT games.

Eric Jacob

Indeed, nobody says you have to buy those things. GT3, MGS2, FFX etc. runs just fine without those. They are just options.