Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

PS3 will be as powerful as 50 Dual G4 PowerMacs!

P

peter2002

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 1, 2002
253
1
Dallas, TX
It's still 2 years away, but it will be worth the wait. Sony's PS3 will be able to do 1 Teraflop, or about about as many gigaflops as 50 of the latest Apple Dual G4 PowerMacs.

Just think, if Apple decides to switch from the rumored 970 to Sony's PS3 CPU in 2005? A PowerMac that can do 1 Teraflop! It makes you froth. That would easily smoke anything Intel plans until 2010.

Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic Games in Raleigh, N.C., said that programming games for the PS 3 will be far more complicated than for the PS 2 because the programmer will have to keep track of all the tasks being performed by dozens of processors.

``I can't imagine how you will actually program it,'' he said. ``You do all these tasks in parallel, but the results of one task may affect the results of another task.''

But Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those processors at maximum efficiency, the PS 3 will be able to process a trillion math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 chips and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS 2.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5311288.htm

Pete :)
 
Anyone have an idea as to whether OS X could run on it and take advantage of its power?

That would be getting very close to real-time video rendering, wouldn't it?

Drool....
 
No matter how "powerful" the ps3 is, it won't make up for how SEVERLY UNDERPOWERED the ps2 is. They already f'd that one up.
 
the concept of Cell Computing is interesting. it isn't that big a deal to me that it will be in the PS3.
 
It's going to be a PowerPC chip, so It will probably go into future powermacs. It will probably be a PPC 980 or PPC 990
 
They say farther down in the story that IBM plans on using it in their servers and Toshiba might use it.
 
Am I the only one that smells BS? :eek:
Why would such (a) powerful processor(s) be put into the PS3? Since when has a video game console been much, much more powerful then a high end server and 10's of times faster then a home PC currently is. I doubt PCs or even high end servers will have that type of performance within the next 8 years let alone a gaming console (think of how much it would cost, too).

Chris
 
Originally posted by cr2sh
No matter how "powerful" the ps3 is, it won't make up for how SEVERLY UNDERPOWERED the ps2 is. They already f'd that one up.
Click to expand...

I wish people knew the truth! The reason we think the PS2 is underpowered is because Micro$oft is putting out a machine that should cost around $500 or more, and selling it for a few hundred. They admit they are losing a few hundred dollars for each maching they sell, but they are doing so to make the PS2 look inferior and therefore gain marketshare. Think if Sony could/would sell a PS2 that was running hardware worth $ 500 for $199, it would rock. Instead, they are selling us what they put into it and making a great machine. I am not saying the x-box is bad machine, in fact game do look better on it, but there is a reason (as described above) What will happen when MS gains enough market share in 5 years to no longer give people a $500 machine for $200-300...they will stop you know...cause they just want to make money...lots of it. There is a reason he is a multibilliionaire...not good business practices, unethical ones.

I am sticking with PS2! and in the future will stay with Sony.
 
They can probably do this, by basically just counting on very high MHZ on a the graphics section or card of the unit. Doesn't really mean it would be useful PC-wise. Similar to that 10 Ghz chip that intel has, but all it is was a TCP processor.
 
I just think the time frame is too far away to accurately predict the speed at all. Who knows what they'll eventually put in the thing, but I'd wager that when its shipped it won't be exactly what they're planning right now.

D
 
Originally posted by flyfish29
I wish people knew the truth! The reason we think the PS2 is underpowered is because Micro$oft is putting out a machine that should cost around $500 or more, and selling it for a few hundred. They admit they are losing a few hundred dollars for each maching they sell, but they are doing so to make the PS2 look inferior and therefore gain marketshare. Think if Sony could/would sell a PS2 that was running hardware worth $ 500 for $199, it would rock. Instead, they are selling us what they put into it and making a great machine. I am not saying the x-box is bad machine, in fact game do look better on it, but there is a reason (as described above) What will happen when MS gains enough market share in 5 years to no longer give people a $500 machine for $200-300...they will stop you know...cause they just want to make money...lots of it. There is a reason he is a multibilliionaire...not good business practices, unethical ones.

I am sticking with PS2! and in the future will stay with Sony.
Click to expand...

True dat. m$ uses this practice to invade markets. They take major losses with the hopes of taking over the market. I just hope it doesn't work in this case, because console gaming would suck, and m$ would have a gaming monopoly...
 
But then the gamecube is a lot faster than the PS2 and it costs only $100 for nintendo to make it. It is just the PS2 uses old tec compared to the other consoles. But it is true about the xbox, it cost $500 for MS to make and it is losing billions every year on it. I would have got an xbox if it wasn't made by MS, instead I got a gamecube because the graphics on the PS2 are just rubish.
 
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I have to say this...I am not a big M$ fan, but the XBox is awesome!
Click to expand...

Neither am I, and I agree the x-box is a great machine, but if too many people switch to it they will have their monopoly and we will be in a world of hurt.

You know, M$ is trying to buy all the big game developers so they only put out games for the X-box. They even tried to buy Electronic Arts...if that were to happen, the monopoly would exist in just a few years cause EA would stop putting out games for PS2 and Nintendo systems.

Microsoft has this strategy to buy(or at least invest in) all its developers and sellers. Take Best buy for example. I no longer shop there cause right after M$ bought a very large stake in Best Buy, BB stopped carrying Apple computers....connection??? This strategy has been documented may times over and is unethical when it destroys competition and helps form monopolies.

I just think that if people use their dollars to vote for their favorite companies (both products that are sold and company philosphies) then this free market economy would be much better off.
 
Now I get why people so M$ are like the borg from startrek, they just assimilate (buy up everything) and dont actually invent anything themselves. They even bought DOS of some company in the 70s. So all microsoft is, is a collection of unethical coporate types with no real knowledge of computers.
 
the xbox is ****3... ive had every major console practically all my life and i must say that the games are the LEAST FUN on the xbox... i mean the graphics are awesome, i admit, but its just not a fun machine and thats what i think console gaming is about... sony and nintendo have it all over M$ though nintendo reports similiar losses on the gamecube... M$ and Nin are practically giving away their systems right now while sony just continues to introduce new exciting games that will lead us far into the future... M$ lost this war and should just get the hell out!!! just so long as they port DOA X beach vollyball over...
 
I just think the time frame is too far away to accurately predict the speed at all. Who knows what they'll eventually put in the thing, but I'd wager that when its shipped it won't be exactly what they're planning right now.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Remember the early claims on the ps2? They were a lot different than what we got. Hey remember all those old Motorola road maps? Man, we were supposed to have some insane **** from they by now. Look what we have. 1.4 Ghz G4 still. I would not get too happy yet.
 
Re: PS3 will be as powerful as 50 Dual G4 PowerMacs!

Originally posted by peter2002

Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic Games in Raleigh, N.C., said that programming games for the PS 3 will be far more complicated than for the PS 2 because the programmer will have to keep track of all the tasks being performed by dozens of processors.
Click to expand...

I don't see why the heck it would have dozens of processors. How big would that thing be? This is probably some bull sh**.:eek:
 
Originally posted by cr2sh
No matter how "powerful" the ps3 is, it won't make up for how SEVERLY UNDERPOWERED the ps2 is. They already f'd that one up.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that the PS2 is severly underpowered. The architecture for a PS2 is very different for other gaming consoles and that makes it difficult for people to fully utilize it strenghts. It is very easy for the XBox to look good because it's a pentium 2.5 based computer.
 
I doubt there's much truth to the numbers in this article. A machine with that many processors would be impratical and expensive.

About XBox:
I don't care how great the graphics are, there are almost no good games for that system, and it isn't doing nearly as well as the PS2.

As for myself, I have a Gamecube. It's a great system, with fantastic graphics and (most importantly) some really great games (Metriod Prime, Star Fox, Smash Bros., Zelda: Windwaker, Harvest Moon: It's a Wonderful Life, to name a few).
 
Sony wanted to make an OS

Friend of mine works for Sony in Japan, she tells me that In the earlier days of the Vaio Sony wanted to build their own operating system but ran into many legal problems with M$. Sony says that Windows is not a good media platform. (sorry guys dont have any real evidence of this just word of mouth). What I do know is that Sony dont make much profit on their machines since so many licencing fees are paid to Wintel.

What I do know is that Sony approached Nintendo when the PS1 was in concept, for a collaboration on a console based on CD rom. But Nintendo rejected it.

Just a final note I know so mac users here have mixed feelings about sony products. I am a great fan Of sony products hence I own a Clie an MD player. But like to see the Vaio range switch to the OSX platform. I guess not possible since there are many complications involved. And Apple dont licence clones anymore. Just a thought:p or wishful thinking
 
Re: Re: PS3 will be as powerful as 50 Dual G4 PowerMacs!

Originally posted by me hate windows
I don't see why the heck it would have dozens of processors. How big would that thing be? This is probably some bull sh**.:eek:
Click to expand...

I think they have a very shady concept of not having one single console but different 'appliances' that communicate, each node having its own set of processors...the actual PS3 being more of a 'game environment' (or operating system). Who knows how that is going to be implemented. Anyway, as jethroted said: the PS2 was supposed to be revolutionary. It probably was when it was designed, but by the time it came out PC's were already ahead of the curve...because PC's (and yes, macs) are constantly evolving while a console is fixed in time every couple years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back