I know this was a few pages ago, but, and sorry if it's already been cleared up, but, when MikeB said the PS3 was "ahead of it's time," he meant there was hardware inside the PS3 that software couldn't quite tap into back in 2006, because it wasn't advanced enough to take advantage of it. It had tech so good that it couldn't be used to it's potential in 2006, and in that sense, it was ahead of it's time... Not because 15 million or however many PS3s got together and decided to create, and jump through a time warp.

That, however is impossible to do.

Also, you guys have got to remember that the bigger 360 games get, the smaller they'll get (think about it).  There's only so much you can cram into a dual layered DVD disc.  I wouldn't be surprised if some games in the future for 360 had to be DLC because they couldn't fit the game on 1 disc, and didn't want to go through the expenses of handling 3+ discs for a single game.

I can see the PS4 using 250GB Bluray discs, at the very smallest (Dual Layered).

MikeB said: Squilliam said: He was talking GPU alone... If it wasn't a hack job then why was it so inefficient? For example all the modifications done to it were to hack stuff out to better fit the PS3 (ROPs) and it still has the major hallmark of an AGP interface GPU because the reads to main GPU memory from the CPU are stupidly slow. Boy oh boy, why would the Cell need to use the GPU's memory in normal situations? In general it makes no sense as the XDR is faster and provides far lower latencies for the CPU to work with. Changing a game engine to allow the GPU (big amounts of graphics data) to make use of the XDR memory however can make sense and it can do so at great speed. Actually the RSX can access both types of memory simultaneously, about doubling the potential bandwidth.

Its very useful for testing purposes. Its not that its important its more that it shows how similar the PS3 part is with the AGP part.

Squilliam said: MikeB said: Squilliam said: He was talking GPU alone... If it wasn't a hack job then why was it so inefficient? For example all the modifications done to it were to hack stuff out to better fit the PS3 (ROPs) and it still has the major hallmark of an AGP interface GPU because the reads to main GPU memory from the CPU are stupidly slow. Boy oh boy, why would the Cell need to use the GPU's memory in normal situations? In general it makes no sense as the XDR is faster and provides far lower latencies for the CPU to work with. Changing a game engine to allow the GPU (big amounts of graphics data) to make use of the XDR memory however can make sense and it can do so at great speed. Actually the RSX can access both types of memory simultaneously, about doubling the potential bandwidth. Its very useful for testing purposes. Its not that its important its more that it shows how similar the PS3 part is with the AGP part.

Agreed and usually for that the bandwidth should be more than sufficient. Tests performed while under development does not really affect the performance of the enduser's final product.

MikeB said: XxXProphecyXxX said: @nightsurge Since you sound like you know evrything about all this I assume you have a proper link to back it up no? so if you dont mind kind sir I would like to see it plz. IMO just ignore that FUDboy, here's a press release from 2004: "The companies have been jointly developing a custom graphics processing unit (GPU) incorporating next-generation GeForce technology - the graphics hardware behind NVIDIA's PC products - for the past two years, which will be used alongside SCEI's own system solutions for next-generation platforms featuring the Cell processor." http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/nvidia-partners-with-sony-on-playstation-3-graphics-hardware

Nice try Mike.  More of your deceipt tactics, I see.  And now you are flaming people.  I seriously don't see how you don't get banned after all the times I have reported you for flaming/trolling.  They were developing GPU's for their other Cell based products.  The fact they even mention the PS3 anywhere in the article was just speculation.  The actual GPU designed JUST for the PS3 was a last minute hack job to help out the Cell so they wouldn't be destroyed by MS in the graphics department.

"For the PS3 Sony wanted to have a technology advantage so they developed, in conjunction with Toshiba and IBM, the Cell processor. A clean sheet design with many innovations this took $400 million and four years to develop. The intention was to use two of these in the PS3, one as CPU and one as GPU. However at the last minute Sony realised that the Cell GPU wasn’t up to the job so they went to nVidia and bought their 7800GTX GPU."

@ nightsurge

IMO you're a plain and horrible troll...

Sony and NVidia speculating about their own project and intentions?

"TOKYO and SANTA CLARA, CA—DECEMBER 7, 2004—Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI) and NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA) today announced that the companies have been collaborating on bringing advanced graphics technology and computer entertainment technology to SCEI’s highly anticipated next-generation computer entertainment system"

"Over the past two years NVIDIA has worked closely with Sony Computer Entertainment on their next-generation computer entertainment system."

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_17342.html

In addition it's interesting to note ATi and Microsoft only signed a partnership for the XBox 360 by the second half of 2003, alledgedly according to analysts at the time because NVIDIA wasn't interested.

Of course, the XBox 360 also released a year earlier than the PS3, so that's about 2 years less time than there was for the RSX to be ready. There are also clear signs the XBox 360 was rushed onto the market, this is evident from the extreme failure rate of the hardware, this is the perspective of various component suppliers as well and insider leaks confirmed this.

So really...

@MikeB

 

First of all RSX does NOT have more raw processing power than the Xenos, quit spreading lies.

 

"The intention was to use two of these in the PS3, one as CPU and one as GPU. However at the last minute Sony realised that the Cell GPU wasn’t up to the job so they went to nVidia and bought their 7800GTX GPU. This gave them a number of disadvantages:

* It wasn’t designed or optimised as a console GPU. It was designed and optimised as a PC GPU.
* The whole architecture of the console was compromised by the last minute change.
* The 7800GTX has less raw processing power than the Microsoft Xbox 360 GPU."

http://www.1emulation.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27740

 

Dont try to change it around and spread some lies. RSX is less powerful compared to the Xenos.

 

http://www.ps3power.com/xbox-ati-vs-ps3-rsx.htm

 

A PS3 website even reports that the RSX isnt as powerful as the Xenos.

 

So this kind of shit again. I'll try to convince people of the differences for the last time.

PS3 - 218GFLOPS from teh C3LL + 228GFLOPS from the RSX = 446 GFLOPS
256MB XDR DRAM at 25.6GB/s plus 256MB GDDR3 at 22.4GB/s, like 72MB for OS, uses OpenGL. Raw stronger by quite a margin, suffers from memory issues and odd architecure.

X360 - 115GFLOPS from the Xenon + 240GFLOPS from the Xenos = 355GFLOPS
512MB GDDR3 ram at 22.4GB/s plus 10MB EDRAM at 32GB/s, 32MB for OS, uses DirectX 9. Uses 12x DVDs. Friendly platform, easy to develop due to DX9 and extra RAM.

@ Garnett

That article just said what was ATi's claims, namely that the Xenos is better. It did not claim it to be more powerful in terms of raw performance, as of course the RSX can do more shader ops per second. The core of why ATi says the Xenos is better is because it's more flexible. But of course the Cell's SPUs are even more flexible with regard to additional graphics operations.

We have seen some horrible write-ups from XBox fanboys over the years on the PS3 hardware, if any of those were true we wouldn't have games like Uncharted 2 on the PS3 today.

MikeB said: @ Garnett That article just said what was ATi's claims, namely that the Xenos is better. It did not claim it to be more powerful in terms of raw performance, as of course the RSX can do more shader ops per second. The core of why ATi says the Xenos is better is because it's more flexible. But of course the Cell's SPUs are even more flexible with regard to additional graphics operations. We have seen some horrible write-ups from XBox fanboys over the years on the PS3 hardware, if any of those were true we wouldn't have games like Uncharted 2 on the PS3 today.

You are such a spreader of FUD, MikeB.  The Xenos is better than the RSX in all but like 2 out of 10 categories.  If you had 2 Xbox 360s, one with the RSX and one with Xenos, the Xenos one would see much better graphics performance.

And Mike, why do you keep ignoring those quotes from people saying how the PS3 was originally going to use 2 Cells (1 for CPU and 1 for GPU) but at the last minute realized that wouldn't cut it, so they bought the 7800 from nVidia?