current Playstation3 dev kit has twin 6800Us in SLI. final PS3 far more powerful

[nicorulez]

Egb,you make a good point, but I have a HDTV and the difference between 720P and 1080i compared to standard television (480i) is amazing. Consider that Episode III (yeah, I know it will probably suck) is filmed digitally at 1080p (resolution of 1920 by 1080) and will broadcast as such at cinemas that support this technology. Trust me, in two to three years if you want true next gen gaming you will need a HDTV. Also, if 1080p becomes ubiquitous as videophiles want it to be, then the next gen system that supports it will get major props. Imagine gaming at that resolution with near CGI quality graphics at a steady 60 FPS. That will turn some heads and get major publicity by the news and media. If PS3 can pull it off, MS will be in trouble. Moreover, it would bode well for PC gamers as we will expect this new technology to trickle onto our systems soon after the consoles are released. Within time, we will surpass them. :D

[msxyz]

The past Sony record is full of such BS

Remeber the Playstation 2 rumors before launch ?

[|MaguS|]

But these rumors aren't coming from Sony, they are coming from Game Developers... as for the PS2 BS, well it was and wasn't the system is very powerful it just lacked the ram to do all the things neat things that we wanted it to do... Sony learned from its mistake with short changing ram, look at the PSP it was only suppose to have 8MBs and was upgraded to 32MBs, PS3 is rumored to have 512MBs of XDR-RAM...

[Ninjaman09]

Yea, yea... we've seen that before...haven't we?

Six months after their release (ps3 of xbox2) they will be old news to the pc world.

Pcs will be way ahead of them and a year after there will be no reason to compare anything between consoles and pcs.

The way i see it, the pc is becoming the ultimate elite "console" to game and nothing more, provided you can spare the extra cash :)
The keywords being "extra cash" which is the understatement of the century. A typical new console costs $300 for its first year and drops to $200 and below after that. A brand new computer with top-of-the-line hardware typically costs $3,000 and is obsolete in 2 years time. PC gaming is disproportionately expensive, in my estimation. Especially considering how very few decent games there are. :p

[saturnotaku]

A brand new computer with top-of-the-line hardware typically costs $3,000 and is obsolete in 2 years time. PC gaming is disproportionately expensive, in my estimation.

That's $3,000 if you build the machine yourself. Having someone else put it together (Dell, Alienware, et al) will add another $1,500-$3,000 to the price. The fact that PC games are tyically $10-$20 cheaper at retail than console games does not make up for the hardware outlay, not by a longshot.

[nicorulez]

Well guys, my guess was correct. According to IGN at least, the Sony PS3 will be able to output to 1080P, which is true 1920 by 1080 progressive resoution; unlike XBox 360 at 720P or 1080i. If this is true, and tv's in the next couple of years start carrying this resolution at default (which is what the industry is pushing for), I believe Sony has its trump card. Anyway, I am going to follow the live broadcast on IGN is I can. This is getting really interesting. :D

[gmontem]

But these rumors aren't coming from Sony, they are coming from Game Developers... as for the PS2 BS, well it was and wasn't the system is very powerful it just lacked the ram to do all the things neat things that we wanted it to do... Sony learned from its mistake with short changing ram, look at the PSP it was only suppose to have 8MBs and was upgraded to 32MBs, PS3 is rumored to have 512MBs of XDR-RAM...

This (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050516/sfm178.html?.v=2) press release released today says 256MB for system RAM and 256MB for video RAM.

[ninelven]

Yeah, it has 256 of XDR and 256 of GDDR. The GPU has access to the XDR though (presumedly through some variation of turbo cache).

I don't suppose nicorulez will apologize now (the gpu is essentially G70 @ 90nm).

[nicorulez]

Number nine, I will apologize once the G70 is officially released and shown to be on par with the PS3 graphics chipset. Regardless, the PS3 shown is obviously going to blow away the best PC for some time as the cell has more capability than AMD or intel at this point. ;) As for those who doubted it was more powerful than 6800U SLI, I guess the boss of Nvidia showed you wrong :eek:

[borntosoul]

hello all, first off i dont think nvidia will be holding back tech so it dont take the gloss away from the PS3---remember that NV and ATI are still fighting tooth and nail for PC GPU supremacy! my next point is that i believe that the pc will surpass next gen consols faster than it did with last generation consols. i know its hard to believe but i think it will happen----dual cpus have a long way to grow--specially 65nm comes out next year. also GPUs will also grow at incredible rates as well.........................im only talking hardware ofcourse.

but in the end u cant beat value for money a consol offers!
even if the games are more expensive,,,,,,,im pro for PCs and consols because ive used them all and will continue to do so.
BTW im not impressed by the ps3 launch, all glossed over and hyped. BIG DEAL they showed a lot of demos running...when i see the real thing (in game shots) then ill get my hopes up.

[_tf_]

here is an interesting slide from sony scea on cg programming of the ps3/cell
http://research.scea.com/research/html/CellGDC05/57.html

cheers
lars

[evilchris]

yeah no kidding...if this nVIDIA GPU is far more powerful than SLi-ed 6800Ultras, then I can't see the PS3 costing less than $800.

Xbox launched in November 2001 for $299. It had a HDD, DVDROM, controller, motherboard, video chipset superior to GF3, and power supply. At the time a GF3 AGP card for your PC cost $299.

My point is don't compare costs of PC add in cards to consoles.

[bkswaney]

Xbox launched in November 2001 for $299. It had a HDD, DVDROM, controller, motherboard, video chipset superior to GF3, and power supply. At the time a GF3 AGP card for your PC cost $299.

My point is don't compare costs of PC add in cards to consoles.

I second that. :)

They make up loosing money on the consoles in
games and extras. :)

[nrdstrm]

Exactly...If I remember right M$ was loosing $200-$250 per console when Xbox was released...

[bkswaney]

Exactly...If I remember right M$ was loosing $200-$250 per console when Xbox was released...


I thought it was 100 per unit. :confused:

[killahsin]

Borntosoul, you are correct. The PC did make Nvidia, but PS3 is going to take them globally. Also, the one who mentions that the XBox 360 GPU is bandwidth limited; have you read the specs. It has 10 mb of embedded DRAM with a bandwidth of over 256 GB/s. Here is a direct copy and paste for you so you can be enlightened.



No offense but nvidia is pretty global already lol. They sell triple figure millions of cards every year, for a long long time. And also i'm going to say this oncxe and once only. As much as console gamers want the console to be whatever amount more powerful then current pc's. It is NOT going to happen. First of all the dev kits arent running mpu's. None of the developers currently are even messing with the extra processors on either console for first gen games. Second of all with the introduction of windows 64 and more games supporting 64 bit, the texture quality alone for THIS generation of games will almost pass what we see on NEXT gen consoles. Thats with the 6800 ultra cards and sli cards. Third, lets not have the risc vs x86 debate again. It played out in the market, and there has been a clear winner for years. Third the edram is a nice feature but it in no way makes it more dominant than the pc cards that will be out at the same time. Things like 'free aa' 'free hdrr' are all bs marketing slogans. Reminds me of the 3dfx voodoo crap all over again. Not to say I didn't love 3dfx voodoo but their last card killed them. Right direction, wrong speed. It wasn't free there either. the 10 mb is nice for certain candies but thats it. It's not going to make 4x aa completly free, lol.

As much as console gamers all want the console to be vastly superior to such and such it's not going to happen. A sli setup with a physx card and a good 64 bit cpu with 1 gig of ram, will run any of the games at the same quality as what your going to see. At around equal frames i might add. Now having either of the next gen graphics cards will change that equation even more. Remove the physx card and then you will probably see the difference.

[curiousergeorge]

The Xbox GPU is one thing, people also forget that at the time of the launch of the PS2 it qualified as a 'supercomputer' using the US Mil specs of the time. I remember reading the specs of the PS2 hardware in 2000 and thinking it was flat out impossible to release a console with that amount of power. The max memory bandwidth, for example FAR exceeded anything we'd seen on the PC side.
I don't doubt that the PS3 in some ways will outstrip a SLI 6800U setup. If you read the recent Ken Kutaragi interview, he says that the PS3 GPU is not built with the same goals as a PC GPU (i.e. DX9 accel.) In pure fillrate, I think it will lose out to some of the theoretical number shown by SLI rigs under ideal conditions, but the PS3 GPU is not built to run PC games really fast. Once some more solid details emerge on the RSX, we'll be able to analyze what the RSX does better / worse than a 6800U or G70 setup. I think everyone's assuming that the RSX is much closer to the tradition PC GPU because it's not using a unified shader pipeline, but it may not necessarily turn out to be the same as a PC GPU, and for good reason.