Epic game developer calls iPad 2 graphics leap "astonishing," doubts Android can compete

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d-range View Post


    Even with all these penalties and pipeline stalls a 1Ghz A8 is not going to come close to a single Xenon core or Cell PPE, not even on heavily branched code such as AI. The difference in clock speed, FPU throughput, cache architecture and memory bandwidth is simply too big. I know the PPC cores in 360's are incomparable in performance to e.g. a G5, but we're comparing against an ARM core about as fast as a single core Atom at 1 Ghz, which is hideously slow.



    I'm really the first person to admit ARM designs are making huge inroads in terms of performance, and a dual core Cortex A9 is really starting to look very interesting compared to low end x86 chips, but a Cortex A8 beating a dual-threaded chip running at 3x the clock speed and pretty crazy FPU performance, on it's own game, that's really a bridge too far.





    The Cell is a very good chip, but time does wonders to new technologies. Now that the Cell is over 5 years old, and has had no upgrades, it isn't as astounding as it once was. The same thing is true of console graphics.



    While these devices as a whole are still better than current iPad2's, they aren't that much ahead. Other interesting facts are that much of the vaunted features of current high end graphics boards aren't even noticed during gameplay. We don't have the ability to see many defects in motion graphics that we notice in stills of the same scene. This is very well known in the motion picture and Tv industries, and it holds true for video games.



    Once we got to a certain level, better effects simply aren't noticed. I know that gamers would disagree, but it's true nevertheless. I'm not talking about obvious things such as real time rendering of plant movements in the wind, or flags flapping and such. I'm talking about things such as anisotropic filtering etc. The details are too fine at the resolution so many monitors today to notice the effect of much of this.



    At any rate, game consoles sit still as far as technology goes, while the world rapidly moves by. Now, we're hearing rumors that MS is looking for beta testers for some unannounced upgrade to the 360. This is interesting as a comparison to the past. If true at all, this is a very low level way of doing it.



    In the past, no longer than three years into a console's run, and typically about two years into it, we would be hearing about new chip designs and architectures the companies were doing R&D on. A very big deal would be made of new cpu's and gpu's, memory architectures and the like. Then, after a very visible process, including descriptions in various game and computer magazines and sites, we would get interviews and then presentation at gaming expo's. This would all happen a year before the new consoles were expected to arrive.



    It's been about five years since the last batch, and we've heard—nothing!



    Meanwhile, there will be an iPad 3 early next year, at the latest. This will likely be much more powerful, and will probably sport the fabled 2000 x1500 screen. With what we're already seeing, with gameplay on your monitor or Tv, usi g the iPad as a controller, or a phone or two as a 3D controller, how will consoles compete when you consider that the iPad let's you take it with you anywhere, and a console doesn't?



    The big three will have to scrap whatever they've been working on and confront this. And what exactly, if anything HAVE they been working on?
  • Reply 62 of 68
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading. The consoles hardware was amazing years ago. In that time little has been changed. While ARM is improving by leaps and bounds every 6 months.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The Cell is a very good chip, but time does wonders to new technologies. Now that the Cell is over 5 years old, and has had no upgrades, it isn't as astounding as it once was. The same thing is true of console graphics.



  • Reply 63 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading. The consoles hardware was amazing years ago. In that time little has been changed. While ARM is improving by leaps and bounds every 6 months.



    My thinking is that both MS and Sony are burned out by both the costs of bringing the last consoles to market, and the big losses they sustained during years of sales. They aren't in a rush to start that whole thing again before they've had a chance to make some of those losses back, particularly MS.



    Sony was canny with the PS3. it cost them more than 360 development for MS, but MS had just a standard console to show for it. Sony was using the PS3 to fund the R&D on part of the Blu-Ray design and laser development, which was why it was 10 months late and $100 per device more costly than expected at launch. But Sony has gotten billions as a result of that and killed HD-DVD as well. So they've come out well ahead. On the other hand, MS has less to show for it. And they have that $1.3 billion in an escro account to pay for service on the 360 from the red ring of death defect.
  • Reply 64 of 68
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The big three will have to scrap whatever they've been working on and confront this. And what exactly, if anything HAVE they been working on?



    I think more than all, at short term the iPad is menacing more "The big three" than PC world. The iPad only missing a credible controller for being the first true mobile game console, it shouldn't be very hard-long for Apple to enable Bluetooth HID Frameworks on iOS. Apple got right everything in place for creating a new game industry crash like in the 80' when Atari, coleco, intellivision crash all together facing new game oriented personal computer like the C64. Right now ask any kids what they would like most between a tv attach game console or and iPad.



    Think about it... The iPad2 in an 99$ Apple TV and Apple still make profit... New console is generally sold below cost.
  • Reply 65 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post


    I think more than all, at short term the iPad is menacing more "The big three" than PC world. The iPad only missing a credible controller for being the first true mobile game console, it shouldn't be very hard-long for Apple to enable Bluetooth HID Frameworks on iOS. Apple got right everything in place for creating a new game industry crash like the 80' when Atari, coleco, intellivision crash all together facing new game oriented personal computer like the C64. Right now ask any kids what they would like most between a tv attach game console or and iPad.



    Think about it... The iPad2 in an 99$ Apple TV and Apple still make profit... New console is generally sold below cost.



    What you're saying it true to a great extent. What makes the iPad such a dangerous weapon is that it threatens BOTH the gaming industries way of operating, AND the computer industries future path. The most dangerous devices are the ones that can replace more than one thing, and do it well enough so that people prefer it to the two or more things they were using until this new thing came out.



    That's why the iPhone was so disruptive. I read all the arguments of those who insisted that they didn't want all of this in a phone, but that was just a small minority. We see what happened.



    The same thing will be true for the iPad, in a somewhat different direction. If apple can get good controllers for this, then it's all over..
  • Reply 66 of 68
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The most dangerous devices are the ones that can replace more than one thing, and do it well enough so that people prefer it to the two or more things they were using until this new thing came out.



    That's why the iPhone was so disruptive.



    And I would add to this, by having multiple device unified in a way that Nintendo would not even dream about it. Let's dream a little, and think about a +600$ iPhone, 500$ iPad, 250$ iPod Touch and 99$ Apple TV with the same hardware capabilities and steam approach "buy once play on anything and free reinstallation", you've got the most fabulous armada out there to crush the gaming console industry. Apple sit on something really big, I don't know if they will handle that way.
  • Reply 67 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post


    And I would add to this, by having multiple device unified in a way that Nintendo would not even dream about it. Let's dream a little, and think about a +600$ iPhone, 500$ iPad, 250$ iPod Touch and 99$ Apple TV with the same hardware capabilities and steam approach "buy once play on anything and free reinstallation", you've got the most fabulous armada out there to crush the gaming console industry. Apple sit on something really big, I don't know if they will handle that way.



    It seems as though Apple is migrating to this model as much as they can. There is the disconnect between the keyboard model and the touch model they've got to get through with aTV. But if they can work through that with the other devices, then it could work. If they do, they only need the aTv as a passthrough. No need to have apps on that if you use you're iDevice to run them with.



    The reinstallation is pretty much here, except for the aTv. If they get iOS apps working on the Mac, it would help as well. If, somehow, they can get them working on a PC, that would cause problems for MS's model, and Google's as well.
  • Reply 68 of 68
    bigmac2bigmac2 Posts: 639member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    If they get iOS apps working on the Mac, it would help as well. If, somehow, they can get them working on a PC, that would cause problems for MS's model, and Google's as well.



    Apple still have many jokers in his sleves, many of which lots of people doesn't know about. Remember, before being bought by Apple, NeXT main product was OpenStep which was an application layer on top of Windows (The yellow box). This is how Apple could port easily any app to Windows like Safari or iTunes base on objective-c code. On Windows each of those apps got their own yellow box embeded in runtime, Apple could challenge if they wanted Java VM with what they called cocoa, this was NeXT master plan at first. With his new compiler LLVM and his JIT runtime, Apple can easy brigde between iOS and MacOS. Just look how many iOS port back to Mac populate the Mac AppStore.
Sign In or Register to comment.