PDA

View Full Version : Ps3...


krossfyter
Sep 7, 2002, 01:07 AM
whats yall opinions on the new ps3 that suppose to be out in 2005?...


the accelorator (http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/0719/playstation071902.html)


ps3 (http://www.psreporter.com/playstation_3_news.html)

irmongoose
Sep 7, 2002, 01:34 AM
The processor they're gonna use is 1000 times as fast as PS 2? YIKES!

You can see where the computer processor market is headed then.... 1 THz!





irmongoose

Solipsys
Sep 7, 2002, 02:00 AM
Gee, that seems like quite a ways off. By that time the PS2 is going to look pretty dated. I was pissed when I bought my PS2 a month before it dropped in price a hundred bucks, but at least now it seems like my investment will still be the "latest greatest" in game consoles for a couple more years.
I'm still blown away by the graphics of games like GTA3 and upcoming games like THPS4 prove that game developers are still able to squeeze better and better performance out of the console.

peterjhill
Sep 7, 2002, 06:22 AM
By 2005, the HDTV market should be taking off, and the prices should be way down. I was at a sony store and finally saw one, the picture was really incredible, but their reception sucked and the picture would go fuzzy every 5 seconds.

So I hope the PS3 supports the 1080p HDTV standard (I am sure it will). I have always been a Nintendo person, so I am not sure what the games are like on the PS. I have played Midnight Club, and like that, though.

I am hoping for a complete 3D platform that can put out the 1080p resolution at a very high color bit rate at full frame rate with 7.1 sound. It will have to have a harddisk inside it. I want it to also be a DVR and DVD player. I want to be able to load all my mp3s (and AAC) files onto it. I want it to have an Ethernet jack and an 802.11g network interfaces.

Is that asking for too much?

irmongoose
Sep 7, 2002, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by peterjhill

I am hoping for a complete 3D platform that can put out the 1080p resolution at a very high color bit rate at full frame rate with 7.1 sound. It will have to have a harddisk inside it. I want it to also be a DVR and DVD player. I want to be able to load all my mp3s (and AAC) files onto it. I want it to have an Ethernet jack and an 802.11g network interfaces.

Is that asking for too much?


Not for the standards which we expect in 2005, I guess.



irmongoose

mac15
Sep 7, 2002, 07:12 AM
I'm gonna buy one ASAP, well when they come out anyways

I have a PS2 and the level there is amazing, and thats on a 297mhz CPU, a thousand times faster is gonna be insane, but then sony woll change the code for writing games and developers will have to learn again, and learning the PS2 was hard enough for some cause of Sony complex Rendering engine....but all in all

The PS3 look insane, but how much will it cost

MacBandit
Sep 7, 2002, 10:07 AM
I for one am ready for a new Playstation right now.

I think a lot of what is in that article is high hopes and conjecture. Though I do think that there is a good chance that the next playstation will be extremely far ahead of the competition and quite possibly the most powerful graphics machine in the world. If anyone can do it Sony can.

King Cobra
Sep 7, 2002, 10:11 AM
Careful, guys. Read it again:

"Japanese media reported on May 6th that the PS3 console is in development. The goal is to make new processor technology, called "grid" about 200x faster than current console technology. This is almost achieving their original goal of making the PS3 1000(!) times faster than the PS2."

This doesn't say the processor will be 200 or 1000 times faster, but the technology will make the processor 200 times faster. And it also doesn't say that the technology will be 1000 times faster, but that the "original goal" was to make PS3 1000 faster as a result of the "grid" tech.

I think what could happen is that instead of using 32 or 64 bit pathways we could see multiple 64 bit pathways, or even 128 bit pathways, possibly similar to how Apple incorporates the Velocity Engine. And I don't think the processor will reach 3 digit GHz at all. I think for an *absolute maximum* the processor speed will reach 10GHz. But IMBA 4 to 8GHz is more likely.

MacBandit
Sep 7, 2002, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by King Cobra
Careful, guys. Read it again:

"Japanese media reported on May 6th that the PS3 console is in development. The goal is to make new processor technology, called "grid" about 200x faster than current console technology. This is almost achieving their original goal of making the PS3 1000(!) times faster than the PS2."

This doesn't say the processor will be 200 or 1000 times faster, but the technology will make the processor 200 times faster. And it also doesn't say that the technology will be 1000 times faster, but that the "original goal" was to make PS3 1000 faster as a result of the "grid" tech.

I think what could happen is that instead of using 32 or 64 bit pathways we could see multiple 64 bit pathways, or even 128 bit pathways, possibly similar to how Apple incorporates the Velocity Engine. And I don't think the processor will reach 3 digit GHz at all. I think for an *absolute maximum* the processor speed will reach 10GHz. But IMBA 4 to 8GHz is more likely.

What's interesting about this article is it says that the new chip will be 200x faster then current console technology. It doesn't say 200x faster the the current PS2. It then goes on to say that this will almost achieve the original goal of making the PS3 1000x faster then the PS2.

This article as you said does require careful reading.

King Cobra
Sep 7, 2002, 10:37 AM
MacBandit, read it again.

Point 1:
>(KC) This doesn't say the processor will be 200 or 1000 times faster, but the technology will make the processor 200 times faster.

>(MacBandit) What's interesting about this article is it says that the new chip will be 200x faster then current console technology. It doesn't say 200x faster the the current PS2.

I didn't mention the PS2 in my statement. And the article does not mention the chip to be faster, but the "chip technology" will be 200 times faster.

>(from the article) The goal is to make new processor technology, called "grid" about 200x faster than current console technology.

Point 2:
>(KC) And it also doesn't say that the technology will be 1000 times faster, but that the "original goal" was to make PS3 1000 faster as a result of the "grid" tech.

[First of all, let me point out that I meant to say 1000 [times], not just 1000. My mistake there.]

>(MacBandit) It then goes on to say that this will almost achieve the original goal of making the PS3 1000x faster then the PS2.

MacBandit, what happened is you stated something from the article almost word for word and I wanted to make this more clear.

>(from the article) ...achieving their original goal of making the PS3 1000(!) times faster than the PS2.

>(MacBandit) >achieve the original goal of making the PS3 1000x faster then the PS2.

MacBandit
Sep 7, 2002, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by King Cobra
MacBandit, read it again.

Point 1:
>(KC) This doesn't say the processor will be 200 or 1000 times faster, but the technology will make the processor 200 times faster.

>(MacBandit) What's interesting about this article is it says that the new chip will be 200x faster then current console technology. It doesn't say 200x faster the the current PS2.

I didn't mention the PS2 in my statement. And the article does not mention the chip to be faster, but the "chip technology" will be 200 times faster.

>(from the article) The goal is to make new processor technology, called "grid" about 200x faster than current console technology.

Point 2:
>(KC) And it also doesn't say that the technology will be 1000 times faster, but that the "original goal" was to make PS3 1000 faster as a result of the "grid" tech.

[First of all, let me point out that I meant to say 1000 [times], not just 1000. My mistake there.]

>(MacBandit) It then goes on to say that this will almost achieve the original goal of making the PS3 1000x faster then the PS2.

MacBandit, what happened is you stated something from the article almost word for word and I wanted to make this more clear.

>(from the article) ...achieving their original goal of making the PS3 1000(!) times faster than the PS2.

>(MacBandit) >achieve the original goal of making the PS3 1000x faster then the PS2.


I'm not trying to start a fight simply helping you explain to others exactly what it this article means. Basically nothing because it's all hopes and dreams at this point on the part of Sony. Though I do have some points to make. Read it again from the start.


>The goal is to make new processor technology, called "grid" about 200x faster than current console technology. This is almost achieving their original goal of making the PS3 1000(!) times faster than the PS2.<


In the first line I have here it says processor technology then it names it calling it the, "grid", saying it will be 200x faster then current console technology. It says quite plainly that the new processors goal is to be 200x faster then ANY current consoles. I say ANY because that's what I was trying to point out originally. It does not say at this point 200x faster then the PS2. This means that there is a console out there that is 5x faster then the PS2. This conclussion can be made because it does say that they want to make the PS3's cpu 1000x faster than the PS2's. You may not read it that way but this is all in one paragraph and starting from the beginning it does say the new processor.

King Cobra
Sep 7, 2002, 11:08 AM
I know you are not trying to start a fight, and I am not either. But I think we are on the same page here, as I will demonstrate.

>In the first line I have here it says processor technology...the new processors goal is to be 200x faster then ANY current consoles. I say ANY because that's what I was trying to point out originally. It does not say at this point 200x faster then the PS2.

I did not imply that the technology increase in the 200x multiple is based on the PS2 anywhere in my posts. I think that is what is confusing us both here.

>This means that there is a console out there that is 5x faster then the PS2.

Am I correct that you divided 1000x by 200x to get 5x, or did you base 5x on older technology? I'm lost here, because 5x is not implied in the paragraph. The paragraph IDs the new technology to be 200 times faster than, as you said, ANY current consoles. There is also Game Boy Advanced, but, as you said, the article deals with any current consoles.

>This conclussion can be made because it does say that they want to make the PS3's cpu 1000x faster than the PS2's. You may not read it that way but this is all in one paragraph and starting from the beginning it does say the new processor.

Actually, that is the way it is supposed to sound. But 200x dealing with any current console tech. is not exactly the same as 1000x the CPU of PS2.

So I'm still lost as to how you came up with 5x. Everything else I agree with.

MacBandit
Sep 7, 2002, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by King Cobra
I know you are not trying to start a fight, and I am not either. But I think we are on the same page here, as I will demonstrate.

>In the first line I have here it says processor technology...the new processors goal is to be 200x faster then ANY current consoles. I say ANY because that's what I was trying to point out originally. It does not say at this point 200x faster then the PS2.

I did not imply that the technology increase in the 200x multiple is based on the PS2 anywhere in my posts. I think that is what is confusing us both here.

>This means that there is a console out there that is 5x faster then the PS2.

Am I correct that you divided 1000x by 200x to get 5x, or did you base 5x on older technology? I'm lost here, because 5x is not implied in the paragraph. The paragraph IDs the new technology to be 200 times faster than, as you said, ANY current consoles. There is also Game Boy Advanced, but, as you said, the article deals with any current consoles.

>This conclussion can be made because it does say that they want to make the PS3's cpu 1000x faster than the PS2's. You may not read it that way but this is all in one paragraph and starting from the beginning it does say the new processor.

Actually, that is the way it is supposed to sound. But 200x dealing with any current console tech. is not exactly the same as 1000x the CPU of PS2.

So I'm still lost as to how you came up with 5x. Everything else I agree with.

Glad to hear we're on the same page yes I divided 1000x by 200x to get 5x. Also I'm glad to hear that we can discuss these things civilly because I see you on here a lot and I also am here a lot now. You seem very well informed on a great many topics that I find interesting also. I hope together with some help from Arn and others we can keep these people on here straight. I'll see you around. :)

Sun Baked
Sep 7, 2002, 08:24 PM
But Sony hopes to differentiate its machine--in this case, the PlayStation 3--by equipping it with a chip of unprecedented computing power, one that would make it as much as 1,000 times more powerful than the PlayStation 2.

Just because it's more "powerful" this doesn't mean you're going to be able to feed the darn thing with data fast enough to take advantage of the power.

So it should be interesting to see how much faster this thing really is in the benchmarks.

ArtMan617
Sep 9, 2002, 09:47 PM
I just hope Sony leaves in backward-compatability (like they did with the PS2)...I'm going to need something to play (what will be then) classic games like THPS4 and MGS2...and of course, I'll need to play all of Square's fine games for the PSone (FFVII, FFT, Chrono Cross, etc.)...

-ArtMan617

stromie952
Sep 10, 2002, 06:29 PM
I definitely love the backwards compatibility idea, but I wish Tecmo and other old school original Nintendo game makers would make remakes of the original games such as Tecmo Bowl and Super Tecmo Bowl (two of my favorite games of all time).

That would make Playstation 2/3 much more appealing than it already is.

bousozoku
Sep 10, 2002, 09:48 PM
I'd be thrilled because I have a Playstation (no stinking 2). However, will the PS3, or PS12 for that matter, still take forever to load games?

MacBandit
Sep 11, 2002, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
I'd be thrilled because I have a Playstation (no stinking 2). However, will the PS3, or PS12 for that matter, still take forever to load games?


In someways it will be much shorter and in others much longer. For one once they get us the internal hard drives for the PS2 we can load network games on to it and then it will load those quite rapidly due to the speed of the hard drive.

The slow part is they want us to buy or rent our games from them through the net. I don't know what amount will be that way only but I'm sure there will be a few and you will have to download or stream the entire game.

DannyZR2
Sep 11, 2002, 02:31 AM
I'm sorry, but someone's got to say it....

first of all, this is entirely dreamware, just some ceo who has no idea what is going on spouting off hopes and flashy tech words to make it sound like the ps3, if there will ever be one, is going to be better than anything ever will be.

the silly thing is that everything that comes out is usually better than the previous, and so yes, in 2005, (read 2006 for sony) when the ps3 may come out, it had better be better than the ps2 is.. (not hard to do really, since ms has done it) and i seriously doubt we can count on 1000x or even 200x the speed.. 5x, sure, but come on.. it's talking about things that don't exist yet.... using cell processing(yes it exists, but not a norm yet) and talking about pulling processor power off the internet??? from other ps3s just sitting idle???? wth is this?? sounds like talk of a ceo trying to get attention from other consoles..


one thing for sure, hopefully, is that any future sony console will be ready for broadband access out of the box, and have hdtv compatibility, (both with the xbox already have), so most of this is expected, but a lot of it is just hype.

BongHits
Sep 11, 2002, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by peterjhill

So I hope the PS3 supports the 1080p HDTV standard (I am sure it will). I have always been a Nintendo person, so I am not sure what the games are like on the PS. I have played Midnight Club, and like that, though.

1080p!? im down with that ****...i thought highest progressive scan was 720? 1080i u mean perhaps (interlaced kind of like crt...) i was at my local ABT (killer store, dont think it's a chain tho) and they have tons of flat screens and they were running HDTV football on them and it kicked ass. It's basically just nice and crisp compared to analog cable, not a major improvement that some morons have been paying 10+k for a TV (my friend has a super huge 80" widescreen HDTV that cost close to 20k so trust me, i know it's not worth it)

BongHits
Sep 11, 2002, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
I'd be thrilled because I have a Playstation (no stinking 2). However, will the PS3, or PS12 for that matter, still take forever to load games?
did anyone ever see the commercials for the PS 9?? that **** was funny as **** it was a crystal orb and the guy was just holding it and whatever he thought it did.

neway, isnt IBM helping on the Cell project for the PS3 should be very interesting to see what else that chip finds itself in (they can add and subtract various cores depending upon what the chip is required for) imagine several processors each DEDICATED to a certain task (a processor for audio, video, controlling your internet connection) and since its a PS it's gotta be under $500 so im there :D

Solipsys
Sep 11, 2002, 04:37 AM
I think this is something that Sony realizes as a major selling point for future consoles... I'd bet money on PS3 supporting PS2 games at least ( if not PS1 too).

It's the smartest move they ever made. PS has the largest game base and they want to build on that instead of starting fresh. Plus PS3 might offer HD resolution for PS2 games, much like CVGS was able to bring PS1 games up to 640x480.

And anti-aliasing for all games would be killer!

diorio
Sep 11, 2002, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Solipsys
I think this is something that Sony realizes as a major selling point for future consoles... I'd bet money on PS3 supporting PS2 games at least ( if not PS1 too).

It's the smartest move they ever made. PS has the largest game base and they want to build on that instead of starting fresh. Plus PS3 might offer HD resolution for PS2 games, much like CVGS was able to bring PS1 games up to 640x480.

And anti-aliasing for all games would be killer!

You're absolutely right about Playstation supporting PS 1 games, it was the smartest move any game system ever has made. Now instead of keeping your old games in the back of the closet or selling them for a buck each at a used game shop, you can actually buy a PS2 and still use the PS1 games. Brilliant! Hopefully the PS3 will capitilize on this as well.