What the hell has a triple core 3.2Ghz custom built PowerPC processor made by IBM for Microsoft's next generation console got to do with G5 processors?? Bugger all that's what, aside from the fact that these will be the first mass produced multiple core chips from IBM, it means very little.
The Xbox is small, the PowerMac is big, it needs water cooling. The G5s can't go to 3.2Ghz like the Xbox does, even with just the single core. This means that the Xbox chip is probably less complicated enabling the clock speed to be pushed up, and produces far less heat. It's a completely different chip, with completely different pros and cons. This means nothing for Apple and nothing for WWDC.
if everything was so impossible like you say it is here i don't think we could fly airplanes, or even.. have stuff like powermac's with tiger on it.
dare to have some fantasy dude... everybody knows apple will eventually come up with dual core technology.. they're also fighting the 3GHz barriere, because IBM can't do it... seems somehow they kinda did it.. ok it's another cpu but then what?
It's a different chip, I never said anything about it being impossible. It just has no relation to the G5, just because it's made by IBM people jump around screaming that dual core G5 announcements are imminent. Apple just updated the top of the range G5 line. Besides dual core G5s unless the have four cores (two cores on one processor each) would be a step backwards - they have to share FSB bandwidth.
I'm just fed up with the dual core hype, it's mostly just a "look we have them too!" argument.
S-video or not, I'm sceptical. An average Toy Story frame took slightly below eight computer hours on a Sparcstation 20.
I'm not sure how good a sparcstation 20 is, but I doubt it was terribly impressive by 2000 standards. Of course, the bigger deal is that it was rendering for film-sized output, which is a lot more pixels than 640x480. multiply that by another 4 to find how many times more pixels than 320x240, which is the default for most composite video signals.
I don't really have anything to prove -- or for that matter any message -- other than the fact that the xBox 360 may not be the top performer of the next gen. I'm not convinced that the PS3 will be the be-all-end-all of near-term console hardware, but I do have to step back and appreciate what they are doing: changing paradigms to improve the overall performance in a big way. Improving the paradigm (typically noted as "software") makes the same task orders of magnitude faster. Shoving more electricity at the problem usually helps in a very limited, very linear way.
thats a pretty nifty looking xbox but there should be the old style 4 ports, can it play the old xbox games as well such as halo??? have they come out w/ a price yet? or no?
As far as the previous poster who said the Revolution is coming out last, from what I have read it is coming out around the same time as the PS3. I guess we'll find out more at E3.
Also, I currently own a PS2 and an Xbox and I must say that for the most part, save for a small few games, this generation of systems was entirely uninspiring, especially the PS2. If I get one of the HD generation systems it will be the Revolution, or probably none at all. I agree totally with Mr. Iwata of Nintendo, and John C Dvorak for that matter. We've come to a point where hardware alone cannot drive console gaming. We need new, fresh and innovative games that aren't some FPS or a rehash from prior systems.
BTW, how goes your 125 million poly/sec xbox games?
I don't care about polys/sec, but AFAIK the Xbox can push higher resolutions then the others offering more HD gaming. But hell, even games at 1080i aren't pushing many polys or textures even. We have exhausted this generations abilities with HD.
Quote:
Kotatsu said: Every Xbox 360 game will be 16:9 and 720p/1080i. It's not optional, every game must support this.
If that is fact, I'm more then happy. Developers like Bioware who feel that (paraphrasing) "Even if we had the resources for 16:9, we won't release a game capable of widescreen display". You have to FORCE developers, either through publishers ("Want a release, develop for HD) or some other arm twisting. There is NO REASON 16:9 can't be supported in every game, even if it has to be "zoomed" and actually cut down on vertical resolution. But I'm ranting now.
All next-gen systems pulling HD (and games) supporting HD, I'm happy. I'm not a person to be high on graphics but HD (16:9 alone if need be) is a deal-breaker.
Which controller pad is best is another golden chestnut of the gaming world. Personally I rate the Cube pad best, although not for any game with digital input.
Yeah the GC pad digital is bad. When I play GameBoy Player its almost always using a linked GBA. I like how the GC pad feels in my hand, and has the most friendly key layout. Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't want multiple buttons, all the same size with tons of combinations of them. I like how the buttons on the GC face are different in size and shape.
Quote:
The best all round pad (inc digital) I would have to say is the Xbox Controller S.
I've really enjoyed the S model, except for the black/white and start/select buttons are out of reach.
Quote:
PS2's Dual Shock has a horrid D-Pad and the left thumbstick is in the wrong place (should be where the D-Pad is),
The whole point in the design of DualShock is that the pads were symmetrical. At least that is my understanding. Problem is that few games use that concept. Plus you have to remember DualShock was also a stop-gap early on, guess they just kept the old layout for "legacy use". Sad to mentiont that in a video game thread though.
But Sony does seem to have problems understanding where to place their analog, case in point the PSP.
For the life of me I can NOT use the analog nub in Wipeout Pure for any span of time. It just hurts after a short while. They should have swapped positions, or slightly move the dpad down and move the nub above. Fine by me, I pilot best using digital but that doesn't leave Sony to make such a screw-up ergonomically.
I have large hands, but have used just about every console controller ever released with ease. They screwed up on the PSP, when shoulder buttons need to be used constantly, simple as that.
Quote:
plus the [PS2 Dualshock] pad has no analogue triggers crippling it for racing games. I'm not a fan...!
Really? I can play racing games equally well using triggers or dual analogs, Gran Turismo helped with that. What won't sit well is how the PSP will pull off racing games when the only analog device can't easily be used when shoulder buttons are. If I want manual, I'll have to use the dpad. Then there is the fact that you have no analog brake/accelerator method. WRC and Gran Turismo will be fun.
If that is fact, I'm more then happy. Developers like Bioware who feel that (paraphrasing) "Even if we had the resources for 16:9, we won't release a game capable of widescreen display". You have to FORCE developers, either through publishers ("Want a release, develop for HD) or some other arm twisting. There is NO REASON 16:9 can't be supported in every game, even if it has to be "zoomed" and actually cut down on vertical resolution. But I'm ranting now.
Of course there's a reason: Cost and time and QA vs. market size. Everyone can run 4:3. A much smaller subset can run widescreen. Are the additional sales for widescreen support worth the cost of implementing and testing it? Developers and (especially) porting houses are already worried about the amount of money it takes to develop a modern game.
Where there's a clear financial incentive to support a feature, game developers will support it. MS is forcing developers to 16:9 because right now, that incentive isn't there. There's nothing wrong with MS doing that—if the gamble doesn't pay off and HDTV adoption remains lackluster, MS loses too. But there's also nothing wrong with a game developer or publisher or porting house looking at a niche feature and deciding that they don't have the time or the money to support it.
Sure, but I don't require "real" 16:9 anyway. Really is it that hard to just "zoom" widescreen, cut off some horizontal resolution. I know HD and widescreen is still niche, so I don't expect miracles when I get down to it. If memory serves even Wipeout 3 (a Playstation game, PS1) had a widescreen option. Doesn't need to be true widescreen if that requires too much effort, just give widescreen users an option even if it isn't true.
Some more details of the Nintendo Revolution have been revealed. According to this article, it will utilize four 2.5 Ghz IBM G5 procs and a custom Ati RN520 graphics chipset - and is expected to be released mid-2006.
Sure, but I don't require "real" 16:9 anyway. Really is it that hard to just "zoom" widescreen, cut off some horizontal resolution.
Not without testing the impact on game play.
Besides, who buys a wide screen in order to see less of the game? I can imagine the uproar when someone releases "widescreen support" that reduces the effective field of view...
Besides, who buys a wide screen in order to see less of the game? I can imagine the uproar when someone releases "widescreen support" that reduces the effective field of view...
I'd welcome such support in many games.
When I play I want to have a cinematic, fun experience, not measure my FOV.
Comments
got confused with all the sony stuff...
quit bashing folks...
so, what ya think? "3 symmetrical cores at 3.2 GHz each" -> wwdc?
The Xbox is small, the PowerMac is big, it needs water cooling. The G5s can't go to 3.2Ghz like the Xbox does, even with just the single core. This means that the Xbox chip is probably less complicated enabling the clock speed to be pushed up, and produces far less heat. It's a completely different chip, with completely different pros and cons. This means nothing for Apple and nothing for WWDC.
dare to have some fantasy dude... everybody knows apple will eventually come up with dual core technology.. they're also fighting the 3GHz barriere, because IBM can't do it... seems somehow they kinda did it.. ok it's another cpu but then what?
btw this is a public forum.. no need be pissy..
I'm just fed up with the dual core hype, it's mostly just a "look we have them too!" argument.
Originally posted by Gon
S-video or not, I'm sceptical. An average Toy Story frame took slightly below eight computer hours on a Sparcstation 20.
I'm not sure how good a sparcstation 20 is, but I doubt it was terribly impressive by 2000 standards. Of course, the bigger deal is that it was rendering for film-sized output, which is a lot more pixels than 640x480. multiply that by another 4 to find how many times more pixels than 320x240, which is the default for most composite video signals.
I don't really have anything to prove -- or for that matter any message -- other than the fact that the xBox 360 may not be the top performer of the next gen. I'm not convinced that the PS3 will be the be-all-end-all of near-term console hardware, but I do have to step back and appreciate what they are doing: changing paradigms to improve the overall performance in a big way. Improving the paradigm (typically noted as "software") makes the same task orders of magnitude faster. Shoving more electricity at the problem usually helps in a very limited, very linear way.
Originally posted by ic1male
The spooky thing is it's got a "3.2GHz custom PowerPC processor with 3 symmetrical cores". Hmmm.
Keep in mind the cores are massively dummied down over the PPC970.
Also, I currently own a PS2 and an Xbox and I must say that for the most part, save for a small few games, this generation of systems was entirely uninspiring, especially the PS2. If I get one of the HD generation systems it will be the Revolution, or probably none at all. I agree totally with Mr. Iwata of Nintendo, and John C Dvorak for that matter. We've come to a point where hardware alone cannot drive console gaming. We need new, fresh and innovative games that aren't some FPS or a rehash from prior systems.
Originally posted by Tuttle
BTW, how goes your 125 million poly/sec xbox games?
I don't care about polys/sec, but AFAIK the Xbox can push higher resolutions then the others offering more HD gaming. But hell, even games at 1080i aren't pushing many polys or textures even. We have exhausted this generations abilities with HD.
Kotatsu said: Every Xbox 360 game will be 16:9 and 720p/1080i. It's not optional, every game must support this.
If that is fact, I'm more then happy. Developers like Bioware who feel that (paraphrasing) "Even if we had the resources for 16:9, we won't release a game capable of widescreen display". You have to FORCE developers, either through publishers ("Want a release, develop for HD) or some other arm twisting. There is NO REASON 16:9 can't be supported in every game, even if it has to be "zoomed" and actually cut down on vertical resolution. But I'm ranting now.
All next-gen systems pulling HD (and games) supporting HD, I'm happy. I'm not a person to be high on graphics but HD (16:9 alone if need be) is a deal-breaker.
Now... how long till Katamari Damacy 3: The HD?
Originally posted by kotatsu
Which controller pad is best is another golden chestnut of the gaming world. Personally I rate the Cube pad best, although not for any game with digital input.
Yeah the GC pad digital is bad. When I play GameBoy Player its almost always using a linked GBA. I like how the GC pad feels in my hand, and has the most friendly key layout. Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't want multiple buttons, all the same size with tons of combinations of them. I like how the buttons on the GC face are different in size and shape.
The best all round pad (inc digital) I would have to say is the Xbox Controller S.
I've really enjoyed the S model, except for the black/white and start/select buttons are out of reach.
PS2's Dual Shock has a horrid D-Pad and the left thumbstick is in the wrong place (should be where the D-Pad is),
The whole point in the design of DualShock is that the pads were symmetrical. At least that is my understanding. Problem is that few games use that concept. Plus you have to remember DualShock was also a stop-gap early on, guess they just kept the old layout for "legacy use". Sad to mentiont that in a video game thread though.
But Sony does seem to have problems understanding where to place their analog, case in point the PSP.
For the life of me I can NOT use the analog nub in Wipeout Pure for any span of time. It just hurts after a short while. They should have swapped positions, or slightly move the dpad down and move the nub above. Fine by me, I pilot best using digital but that doesn't leave Sony to make such a screw-up ergonomically.
I have large hands, but have used just about every console controller ever released with ease. They screwed up on the PSP, when shoulder buttons need to be used constantly, simple as that.
plus the [PS2 Dualshock] pad has no analogue triggers crippling it for racing games. I'm not a fan...!
Really? I can play racing games equally well using triggers or dual analogs, Gran Turismo helped with that. What won't sit well is how the PSP will pull off racing games when the only analog device can't easily be used when shoulder buttons are. If I want manual, I'll have to use the dpad. Then there is the fact that you have no analog brake/accelerator method. WRC and Gran Turismo will be fun.
I always use the extra L and R buttons for Freeze and Defrosting game states. Additionally the D-pads are actually pretty good for snes use.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Ironically, PS 1 styled controllers(and PS 2 as well, but the analog sticks are negligible here) make really good SNES controllers for emulation.
I always use the extra L and R buttons for Freeze and Defrosting game states. Additionally the D-pads are actually pretty good for snes use.
That's funny considering that PS 1 was originally developed to be an add-on to the SNES.
Originally posted by IonYz
If that is fact, I'm more then happy. Developers like Bioware who feel that (paraphrasing) "Even if we had the resources for 16:9, we won't release a game capable of widescreen display". You have to FORCE developers, either through publishers ("Want a release, develop for HD) or some other arm twisting. There is NO REASON 16:9 can't be supported in every game, even if it has to be "zoomed" and actually cut down on vertical resolution. But I'm ranting now.
Of course there's a reason: Cost and time and QA vs. market size. Everyone can run 4:3. A much smaller subset can run widescreen. Are the additional sales for widescreen support worth the cost of implementing and testing it? Developers and (especially) porting houses are already worried about the amount of money it takes to develop a modern game.
Where there's a clear financial incentive to support a feature, game developers will support it. MS is forcing developers to 16:9 because right now, that incentive isn't there. There's nothing wrong with MS doing that—if the gamble doesn't pay off and HDTV adoption remains lackluster, MS loses too. But there's also nothing wrong with a game developer or publisher or porting house looking at a niche feature and deciding that they don't have the time or the money to support it.
Article.
I have to say this, but is the new Nintendo console by any chance going to be water cooled????
Originally posted by IonYz
Sure, but I don't require "real" 16:9 anyway. Really is it that hard to just "zoom" widescreen, cut off some horizontal resolution.
Not without testing the impact on game play.
Besides, who buys a wide screen in order to see less of the game? I can imagine the uproar when someone releases "widescreen support" that reduces the effective field of view...
"OH HAY WHATS GOING ON IN THIS WAREHOUSE?"
- *headshot*
"OMG WTF?"
- "lol widescreen"
Bill Shakespeare ain't got shit on me.
Originally posted by Amorph
Not without testing the impact on game play.
Besides, who buys a wide screen in order to see less of the game? I can imagine the uproar when someone releases "widescreen support" that reduces the effective field of view...
I'd welcome such support in many games.
When I play I want to have a cinematic, fun experience, not measure my FOV.