two words to support the xbox 360:
halo 3.
nuff said.
[snapback]48863[/snapback]
Because that's all it has OH BURN.
The PS3 looks much more impressive than the Xbox 360, which isn't much of an improvement over the Xbox. The demos were pretty impressive for the PS3 but Sony's been known to exaggerate a bit (a lot) in their demos.
obligatory "xbox is hueg lol"
i'll go with a psp as soon as its price drops when the ps3 comes out
then i wait a bit for the ps3 price to drop and grab one
then i grab a three acre lot so i have a place to store the 360 if i decide to get one
[snapback]48889[/snapback]
http://www.konami.jp/gs/kojima_pro/english/004.html (http://www.konami.jp/gs/kojima_pro/english/004.html)
Guess that screws up your plan
WTF is Nintendo doing? When Microsoft and Sony are showing off new games Nintendo gives us ANOTHER version of GBA, who the **** cares?
[snapback]48945[/snapback]
There's some articles that explain this. It basically comes down to them admitting that they are going a different path the MS and Sony. They know that MS and Sony are competing directly. They said it wasn't financially sound for them to release all their stuff when they aren't competing directly.
Jefe: Gears of War looks pretty sweet though. So it might have something else besides Halo 3. And I hear the Too Human trilogy (by Silicon Knigts) is exclusive for 360. That should be worth a 360.
One of the Fogies is a bit of a hardware nerd, and since linking to the fogey site is kinda SUSPECT i says, I'll just past his post here. Here are his thoughts on the Cell processor
pr0phetik_dreamz
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
------------------------
Firstly, you have to *really* read that article with a discerning eye, and some knowledge of how x86 vs PowerPC, and CISC vs RISC works.
Let's define CISC and RISC. CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) is a bloated architechure that uses many built-in registers and contains a lot of backwards compatibility, which takes up a lot of transisters. It emphasizes everything to the hardware level, using as little memory as possible. But its disadvantage is that it is slower at executing code. RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) emphasizes more software, and uses more memory, but it executes things faster. Technically RISC is more efficient, but you have to note that today's x86 processors (which evolved from the CISC CPUs of the 70's and 80's) contain very very little CISC backwards compatible transistors in comparison to the new instruction sets. Back then a major bulk of the processor's transistors contained this backwards compatibility, which left little room for improvement in the architechure. RISC emphasizes simpler hardware, but more complex software. Per clock, RISC performs better than CISC.... but again, today's x86 CPUs are not true CISC CPUs anymore. Today's x86 CPUs are far more similar to say, PowerPC CPUs than Apple would like to admit. A good read is here Post-RISC/CISC CPUs.
Apple likes to bang on it's "oh we're RISC and we're better" pots and pans a lot, but we have to take note that this is a POST-RISC/CISC world.. CISC and RISC have no meaning whatsoever any longer. Current mainstream x86 processors are essentially RISC processors with a backwards-compatibility CISC layer. The code is decoded and reworked on the silicon level and fed to the RISC core. But nooooooo since it has the CISC compatibility layer... it's not a "pure RISC" processor.
But anyways, I sorda digressed more than I should have.. We're talkign about the Cell!
The Cell, in many fundamental ways, is the evolution of the PowerPC architechure. It was built on IBM's Power5 line as it's execution core, with added engineering prowess by Sony and Toshiba.
That article is pretty much mostly regurgitation of known information, but just some of his benchmarks and "statements of truths" are definitely hokey. He's never touched a Cell processor in his LIFE. He's basically comparing the Cell to a PowerPC G4 (Motorola MPC7400 series). Basically he compared the G4 as the fractional unit, and multiplied everything up to get the multi-teraflop performance.
I think the Cell is a great processor, and the idea of this CPU powering entertainment devices in my household.. and all the CPUs being able to work together as a massively-parallel CPU gives me the shivers (this is a function of the "Cell;" it can intelligently connect to other Cells in other devices and share computing power over a network).
But Sony is overhyping it! Apple-type nerds who don't know better are overhyping it! It's a great CPU, but it's not as *great* as they make it out to be.
The theoretical maxes of the CPU will never be realized. I mean, how do you jump from a few gigaflops to over a teraflop? It's a marketing scam! Obviously it is impossible to manufacture a $500 "supercomputer" that they claim the PS3 is.
The Cell, like the Emotion Engine before it, will run 3D games very well, as that is what it is designed for. Everything else is secondary. Basically, it is AWESOME at running 3D games, creating the pixels, renders, synthesize audio, and create an I/O link for these games. But do *anything* else besides the specific games written for it, and it won't be able to use the 8 SPE units. Instead it will all fall on the single PowerPC core to do the job. In a sense, it will become like any regular old computer. The SPE units are useless for doing anything else than what they were specifically programmed to do. It's simply not as general-purpose as a regular CPU. The same way was the Emotion Engine,.. which was great as 3D games, but not much anything else.
I think both the Cell and the Emotion engine before it were great advances in multimedia computing. But both were very hard to create software for (the Emotion Engine used a MIPS processor + Vector Engine.. MIPS is a derivative of RISC). It will never become mainstream, unless you want to pay a lot of a processor that will compute a spreadsheet just as fast as your regular old Pentium4 or Athlon XP.
But definitely, like the Emotion Engine before it, Sony killed the Cell. They've flogged it for all it's worth. It's a great CPU, but they are overhyping it.
Simple as that.
------------------
I think the Power5 architechure by IBM is great. Oh, and btw, the XBOX 360 and Nintendo Revolution do not use Cell processors. There is no way in hell Sony would allow that, since they are part of the Cell STI alliance. The XBOX 360 and Nintendo Revolution use multi-core and hyper-threading Power5 derivatives.
[snapback]49011[/snapback]
The one thing I take exception too is the assumption that sony is going to be "manufacturing a 500$ supercomputer" as a less then spectacular event. Sony has ALWAYS lost profit on thier consoles and made it back up in the software. Computers don't acctually cost THAT much to manufacture, we just pay insane overheads as consumers so every outlet who puts thier hands on any given peice of hardware down the line gets to take away a tidy peice of profit. If we assume that sony is losing at least some money on the PS3 console sales, we must assume that the manufactureing costs are somewhere between 250 and 500$ which is an absolutly INSANE manufacturing cost for any mass produced product, leading me to belive that either sony has some pretty amazing hardware they are selling, or they are getting terribly and horribly ripped off by one of thier outlets somewhere down the line.
obligatory "xbox is hueg lol"
i'll go with a psp as soon as its price drops when the ps3 comes out
then i wait a bit for the ps3 price to drop and grab one
then i grab a three acre lot so i have a place to store the 360 if i decide to get one
[snapback]48889[/snapback]
http://www.konami.jp/gs/kojima_pro/english/004.html (http://www.konami.jp/gs/kojima_pro/english/004.html)
Guess that screws up your plan
[snapback]48918[/snapback]
indeed it does
all i need now is someone to dress up as while i camp oustide my local console retailer