By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ascended_Saiyan3 on 26 February 2009
Edit Thread
heruamon said:
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:
heruamon said:
I honestly believe that we will see far more from both consoles in years to come, as developers learn to manipulate the multi-core processors that they are. The Wii was not desgined for this, but Nintendo is in a great spot, since they can now take the time and do the due diligence to ensure they deliver the "right" amount of capabilty in their next console. Personally, I think PS3 and 360 could go on for another 5-7 years without a newer console, and still deliver top notch games, BUT that won't happen, and you can expect to see new systems out in 3-4 at most, imho.

Looking at the clock cycles being used on X360 games, I would say you will see very little increase in performance from X360 games.  Optimized code on the X360 (already at 100% CPU clock cycle usage) will only yield about a 15% increase in power.  On the other hand, optimized code on the PS3 (already at 100% CPU clock cycle usage) could yield 400% or MORE increase in power (based on different universities studies).  I don't believe any developer has vectorized their code for the PS3 at this point.  Naughty Dog said they just migrated their systems over to the SPEs and pipelined their engine to use 100% of the CPU clock cycles (that was the REALLY hard part), but haven't optimized their code, yet.

New PS console will most likely arrive around the same time as usual in the previous consoles lifecycle (around the 6 year mark...maybe earlier if MS jumps the gun).  The next gen would be MS's 3rd console and they haven't establishd a pattern of any kind for release, yet.  According to MS, the X360 is suppose to be supported for a total of 7 years.  The PS3 is suppose to be supported for 9 or 10 years.

 

Unlike Haloooo...I do enjoy talking about this stuff, but in the context of gaming, I have a hard time believing the PS3 has 400% more capability in the console...what's that in terms of quality, actual photo-realistic models?...I don't think current ps3 look 400% better than the ps2 game before it...time will tell, but I watch the demo of killzone, and while the game is nice looking...errr....not even close.

Haloooo is right about having a powerful beast of a machine...this isn't a drag race...it's a business, and the one who can do it cheaper and sell more wins...The Gensis was the better console...lost....so was the Sega Saturn...remember Neo Geo?  To this day, I'll say it again and again, Sony overreached with the PS3, and it squandered a critical advantage that it might never get back.  It let M$ get it's foot in the door, and they basically recharged Nintendo (the tradition console power) with the Wii. 

 

I didn't say LOOK 400% better.  Looking 400% better and and having 400% more CPU power are completely different things.  I posted the research links in this thread 2 times.  Chances are that some tasks could see a 800% speed increase from vertorizing (and that's after you have already reached 100% CPU clock cycles).  Even being ridiculously conservative, you are looking at 100% increase over the power used in Uncharted 2.

I don't know what selling more units have to do with this discussion.  That's a completely different subject matter.  However, I don't know many smart people that won't want a system offering better graphics, audio, AND gameplay (basically a better immersion experience).  These are things that more power afford you.  It also increases longevity.  Otherwise, why look forward to the next generation of consoles?  It wouldn't make much sense now, would it?