Well let's face it, the large majority of people that will be buying the new xbox will only know "games looks better", and not have the slightest clue about the tech that lets it happen. that said, it's impressive, and hopefully will have positive effects on the PC gaming market (ie multi-core/proc support) rather than negative (developers focus much more on console game development). The thing that's a real problem for PC users with this kind of stuff is that it's FAR easier to develop a game for a console than a PC, because there's only one hardware config and only a couple graphics settings. They don't need to account for people using FX5200s or SLI 6800Ultra's either at 640x480 or 2048x1536 4xAA 8xAF (oh that sounds tasty...)
Console gaming has completely lost any appeal to me. One because there's only one decent TV in the house and I couldn't get extended access to it if I wanted to, but mostly because PCs are just so much more multifunctional. And I hardly have the amount of customization on a controller than a keyboard.
considering the ahrdware specs the price seems amazing, but that still all comes back to you don't need to have any sort of compatibility, it's ALWAYS the same hardware set. It's exactly the same chip in exactly the same mobo using the same type and amount of ram, running the same software. And for the hard and optical drives, when you're buying ten million at a time, you get a hefty bulk-rate discount. I would certainly love to see more of this tech emerge in PCs, but the reality is that console gaming is just more popular, and it's just common marketing sense from there on in.
it's simpler. whack a disc in and it works, no faff, no upgrading, no nothing. just play.
i love my computer. but i'm not gonna spend upwards of £1000 upgrading it with components to reach a level of graphical finesse that the xbox 360 offers for £300, when in all other areas i am more than satisfied with my system's performace.
The only reason consoles arent that good at the moment imho is the graphics. Its not that there awfull, its just that theres better on offer on a decent spec PC. If the 360 can churn out a decent res (which it looks set to do, with HD resolutions like 720p/1080i and all the hardware so it seems to back it up) then it will probably end PC gaming for me. Sure, your gonna need an HDTV ready display to take advantage of it which for a lot of people is simply too much of an outlay, but times are changing with Sky set to launch their HDTV service in 2006, and a lot of manufacturers launching fairly low cost HD ready CRT displays this year. "High Deff" is rapidly becoming the new buzz word, and its only going to fuel the 360 hype. (Or the other way round)
I personally cant wait. This is exactly the the sort of thing thats needed to kick the UKs HD market up the arse (along with HD-DVD/Blueray etc). Were still years behind everyone else, and the sooner more kit starts arriving the better.
Id much rather play games with the convenience a console offers, and if the graphics are up to scratch, then the battle is won imho.
Id much rather play games with the convenience a console offers, and if the graphics are up to scratch, then the battle is won imho.
great you go play your Halo 17 while i play hl3 with my mouse and keyboard.
Xbox 2 isn't going to change the world, exactly the same way the xbox didn't. people will still want to play proper FPS's on the pc since the control system is better.
Originally Posted by Piratetaco people will still want to play proper FPS's on the pc since the control system is better.
i agree, i find that the mouse makes it 100 times easier to shoot because you can move it faster and is more precise than a joystick. although if that is the reason some ppl arent turning to the 360 microsoft might just make a wireless keyboard-type-device and mouse for the 360, that way its the best of both worlds.
Originally Posted by Piratetaco Xbox 2 isn't going to change the world, exactly the same way the xbox didn't. people will still want to play proper FPS's on the pc since the control system is better.
Who said it would change the world?
Using a mouse and keyboard for FPS's is definately better than using a joypad, but having a platform (a rather expensive one at that) for the sole purpose of playing one genre of game seems a bit OTT to me. I suppose if your really into FPS's then its not an issue.
As mattthegamer463 also mentioned, i would be pretty surprised if a mouse/keyboard wasn't made available for it. Can't you already use them for PS2s?
Dont get me wrong, im not saying everyone needs to bin their PCs and rush out and buy an Xbox360 to replace it with, but for me personally with my gaming habits (fairly casual) its makes more sense to buy a well specced console for the same price as a high end graphics card. There would have to be decent set of PC only games i felt i was missing out on to make me think otherwise.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but it's hard to image how much more wrong this article can be!
It's really not even a good idea to think of R500 having pipelines in the conventional sense, but in terms of raw texture and geometry throughput, it's more like 8 pipelines. In terms of shader power, well, R500 could be as much as 2x R420. The key point to remember is that R500 has a unified shader architecture, so all previous bets are off.
EDIT
OK, this has been discussed, and to a degree it comes down to how you describe/define ALUs.
However, in no way is it sensible to say: "R500 has 48 pipelines compared to 16 for R420."
im sorry "Using a mouse and keyboard for FPS's is definately better than using a joypad, but having a platform (a rather expensive one at that) for the sole purpose of playing one genre of game seems a bit OTT to me. I suppose if your really into FPS's then its not an issue." ok, so what do you want to play stratergy on? say command and conquer generals? huh? i HATE playing any form of stratergy (and yeah i cant spell) on a console, it sucks arse, and having that platform (albeit an expensive one - sometimes) being PC ISNT silly, as its not JUST for FPS's, id like to see people downloading music on an XBOX360 without paying for it, id like to see msn messenger on an xbox (and people actually using it LOL) and people actually using an xbox360 as there ONLY form of computer
the internet may be possible for the xbox360, but whoop? i dont think xbox360 will really affect PC gaming much, if not at all!
Originally Posted by Tolsk Did you guys ever thing that, hey it has usb ports maybe their planning on letting you use a kb and mouse?
Thing is when you get a kb/mouse for your console to play FPS games, the AI of the game is really poor, to suffice the gamers playing with a joypad/analogue. But would be cool for playing online etc i suppose.
Originally Posted by frodo id like to see people downloading music on an XBOX360 without paying for it, id like to see msn messenger on an xbox (and people actually using it LOL) and people actually using an xbox360 as there ONLY form of computer
the internet may be possible for the xbox360, but whoop? i dont think xbox360 will really affect PC gaming much, if not at all!
What has any of that got to do with gaming?
Your right, there are more games than just FPS's that benefit from a keyboard/mouse control system, but i was only responding to the comment made about FPS's in particular. Flight sims are another genre that consoles have never got right, thanks to the iffy controls and lack of hardware to make them any good.
I seriously doubt a massive change on the whole for PC gaming, and never suggested otherwise. But if its good enough, then it will make a change to me.
Originally Posted by caboosemoose It's really not even a good idea to think of R500 having pipelines in the conventional sense
Yes, I agree, you can't compare '48 of these' to '16 of those'. :)
Quote:
to a degree it comes down to how you describe/define ALUs.
Absolutely, the R500 is faster than an R420 in certain scenarios, but it ultimately depends on what scenario we're referring to before we can determine exactly how much faster than R420 this chip is.
Originally Posted by bigz Yes, I agree, you can't compare '48 of these' to '16 of those'. :)
Absolutely, the R500 is faster than an R420 in certain scenarios, but it ultimately depends on what scenario we're referring to before we can determine exactly how much faster than R420 this chip is.
By the way, welcome to the forums buddy. ;)
Thanks! Overall, I think the column needs editing - as it stands it does not flatter the author at all!
When i evaluate the impact of these next gen consoles, i just think about the time the ps2 and the xbox were released. I remember them advertising games on TV with amazing graphics and expressions (at least they were good for the time). When i actually saw the console in action though, it was no where near as good. All the screenshots you see of games right now are shot at perfect angles, during perfect moments and perfect conditions all around. The real game experience won't be actually as good. These new consoles will not kill PC gaming in anyway, nor will it have a giant impact.
They certainly are nice systems though. Just 2 weeks ago i shelled out $363 for a 6800GT, and now i am thinking - for that same money i could have bought a WHOLE system.
I hope that PC companies do learn a lesson though. I am disgusted by the thought that AMD and INTEL release their new line of processors in baby steps to milk the market. Maybe something good will happen for everybody with this next generation of consoles.
You call that a system? Not even. Sorry to say but my computer owns the Xbox 360. But on the other hand, the Playstation 3 kicks the crap outta my computer. There is no compention here. The Playstation 3 will simply kill the Xbox 360. Like come on, the PS3 has the worlds most advanced GPU in the world. And Xbox 360 is using ATI and PS3 is using nVidia. nVidia gives off better graphics no matter what. ATI is ment for speed. But in this case, nVidia kills ATI in speed. Making the PS3 the worlds most advanced gaming system in the world today. It's okay for you people who like this Xbox 360. Just face it, the PS3 is the King of all consoles.
Originally Posted by hades2004 You call that a system? Not even. Sorry to say but my computer owns the Xbox 360. But on the other hand, the Playstation 3 kicks the crap outta my computer. There is no compention here. The Playstation 3 will simply kill the Xbox 360. Like come on, the PS3 has the worlds most advanced GPU in the world. And Xbox 360 is using ATI and PS3 is using nVidia. nVidia gives off better graphics no matter what. ATI is ment for speed. But in this case, nVidia kills ATI in speed. Making the PS3 the worlds most advanced gaming system in the world today. It's okay for you people who like this Xbox 360. Just face it, the PS3 is the King of all consoles.
Originally Posted by frodo i mean, the specs of the machine look AMAZING to say the least, but why the hell arent we seeing this tech in PC's, what was here first! pc's or consoles?
Consoles. The Fairchild Channel F, the world's first home television game console to feature changeable game cartridges, was released in August 1976, a full five years before IBM's first PC, which was launched on August 12, 1981 :D
I can't belive that people are suggesting that this means the end of PC gaming. So long as there are PCs, there'll be PC gaming. Let's be honest, no matter how wonderful XBox3 will be, do you really want to stop using your PC? The reason we're all here in the first place is because we love arsing around with these things... modding them, overclocking them... customising them... tweaking, and personalising them to our needs. We do a whole lot more than game on them, no matter if gaming is your primary reason for building it.
On my PC, I can play some awesome games, and use Photoshop, office, design and build web pages, edit and encode music and video... blah blah... Not only that... I can open it up... buy new parts, fiddle around... just "get in there" and roll up my sleeves and get my hands dirty.. so to speak.
All XBox 3 is going to do is act as a test bed for the next gen of GPUs and graphics/memory architecture for PCs.
Plus... haven't we heard this argument before?
XBox 3 will be a great games platform, and it will only mean an end to PC gaming, if the PC was only another games platform - but it's not.
The PlayStation 3's RSX will definitely beat the XBox 360's GPU.
A for effort guys, but the Unified Shader Architecture just seems like a horrible idea. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears as though it would ruin the pipeline's latency and destroy the frame rate. The RSX (which appears as though it has conserved the architecture of a previous design - only I cannot remember which one - but probably beefed up significantly, and synergistic processing units are probably employed too) is like a bunch of assembly lines, and the XBox 360 GPU is like a Chinese guy in a hut.
The RSX will definitely beat it in pure processing power. I find it very difficult to believe that it can stand up to something with 300 million transistors, and I doubt that it can match the power of the synergistic processing units that would be employed.
Even if the XBox 360's GPU was better, the PS3's would perform better. It appears as though the XBox 360 CPU would be good at things like AI and game management, but it just doesn't have enough capability to organize scenes that would utilize the GPU's full potential.The Cell processor would blow away the XBox 360 in that realm.
It appears as though there would be a second bottleneck. Because the I/O and memory access pathways are integrated (and not as fast as the PS3's), it could not send graphics packets to the GPU and load textures and graphics scripts at the same time.
Comments 51 to 75 of 82
ReplyConsole gaming has completely lost any appeal to me. One because there's only one decent TV in the house and I couldn't get extended access to it if I wanted to, but mostly because PCs are just so much more multifunctional. And I hardly have the amount of customization on a controller than a keyboard.
considering the ahrdware specs the price seems amazing, but that still all comes back to you don't need to have any sort of compatibility, it's ALWAYS the same hardware set. It's exactly the same chip in exactly the same mobo using the same type and amount of ram, running the same software. And for the hard and optical drives, when you're buying ten million at a time, you get a hefty bulk-rate discount. I would certainly love to see more of this tech emerge in PCs, but the reality is that console gaming is just more popular, and it's just common marketing sense from there on in.
it's simpler. whack a disc in and it works, no faff, no upgrading, no nothing. just play.
i love my computer. but i'm not gonna spend upwards of £1000 upgrading it with components to reach a level of graphical finesse that the xbox 360 offers for £300, when in all other areas i am more than satisfied with my system's performace.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+UMA&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
lets hope using GDDR3 will make a big difference.
I personally cant wait. This is exactly the the sort of thing thats needed to kick the UKs HD market up the arse (along with HD-DVD/Blueray etc). Were still years behind everyone else, and the sooner more kit starts arriving the better.
Id much rather play games with the convenience a console offers, and if the graphics are up to scratch, then the battle is won imho.
great you go play your Halo 17 while i play hl3 with my mouse and keyboard.
Xbox 2 isn't going to change the world, exactly the same way the xbox didn't. people will still want to play proper FPS's on the pc since the control system is better.
Who said it would change the world?
Using a mouse and keyboard for FPS's is definately better than using a joypad, but having a platform (a rather expensive one at that) for the sole purpose of playing one genre of game seems a bit OTT to me. I suppose if your really into FPS's then its not an issue.
As mattthegamer463 also mentioned, i would be pretty surprised if a mouse/keyboard wasn't made available for it. Can't you already use them for PS2s?
Dont get me wrong, im not saying everyone needs to bin their PCs and rush out and buy an Xbox360 to replace it with, but for me personally with my gaming habits (fairly casual) its makes more sense to buy a well specced console for the same price as a high end graphics card. There would have to be decent set of PC only games i felt i was missing out on to make me think otherwise.
the GPU has 10MB of DRAM embedded into teh core. "free" AA.
don't worry, UMA is nothing to be scared of when implemented properly ;)
It's really not even a good idea to think of R500 having pipelines in the conventional sense, but in terms of raw texture and geometry throughput, it's more like 8 pipelines. In terms of shader power, well, R500 could be as much as 2x R420. The key point to remember is that R500 has a unified shader architecture, so all previous bets are off.
EDIT
OK, this has been discussed, and to a degree it comes down to how you describe/define ALUs.
However, in no way is it sensible to say: "R500 has 48 pipelines compared to 16 for R420."
im sorry "Using a mouse and keyboard for FPS's is definately better than using a joypad, but having a platform (a rather expensive one at that) for the sole purpose of playing one genre of game seems a bit OTT to me. I suppose if your really into FPS's then its not an issue." ok, so what do you want to play stratergy on? say command and conquer generals? huh? i HATE playing any form of stratergy (and yeah i cant spell) on a console, it sucks arse, and having that platform (albeit an expensive one - sometimes) being PC ISNT silly, as its not JUST for FPS's, id like to see people downloading music on an XBOX360 without paying for it, id like to see msn messenger on an xbox (and people actually using it LOL) and people actually using an xbox360 as there ONLY form of computer
the internet may be possible for the xbox360, but whoop? i dont think xbox360 will really affect PC gaming much, if not at all!
Thing is when you get a kb/mouse for your console to play FPS games, the AI of the game is really poor, to suffice the gamers playing with a joypad/analogue. But would be cool for playing online etc i suppose.
What has any of that got to do with gaming?
Your right, there are more games than just FPS's that benefit from a keyboard/mouse control system, but i was only responding to the comment made about FPS's in particular. Flight sims are another genre that consoles have never got right, thanks to the iffy controls and lack of hardware to make them any good.
I seriously doubt a massive change on the whole for PC gaming, and never suggested otherwise. But if its good enough, then it will make a change to me.
Absolutely, the R500 is faster than an R420 in certain scenarios, but it ultimately depends on what scenario we're referring to before we can determine exactly how much faster than R420 this chip is.
By the way, welcome to the forums buddy. ;)
Thanks! Overall, I think the column needs editing - as it stands it does not flatter the author at all!
They certainly are nice systems though. Just 2 weeks ago i shelled out $363 for a 6800GT, and now i am thinking - for that same money i could have bought a WHOLE system.
I hope that PC companies do learn a lesson though. I am disgusted by the thought that AMD and INTEL release their new line of processors in baby steps to milk the market. Maybe something good will happen for everybody with this next generation of consoles.
XBox 360 on [H]
still think ATI is slow?
Nezuji :)
On my PC, I can play some awesome games, and use Photoshop, office, design and build web pages, edit and encode music and video... blah blah... Not only that... I can open it up... buy new parts, fiddle around... just "get in there" and roll up my sleeves and get my hands dirty.. so to speak.
All XBox 3 is going to do is act as a test bed for the next gen of GPUs and graphics/memory architecture for PCs.
Plus... haven't we heard this argument before?
XBox 3 will be a great games platform, and it will only mean an end to PC gaming, if the PC was only another games platform - but it's not.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
A for effort guys, but the Unified Shader Architecture just seems like a horrible idea. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears as though it would ruin the pipeline's latency and destroy the frame rate. The RSX (which appears as though it has conserved the architecture of a previous design - only I cannot remember which one - but probably beefed up significantly, and synergistic processing units are probably employed too) is like a bunch of assembly lines, and the XBox 360 GPU is like a Chinese guy in a hut.
The RSX will definitely beat it in pure processing power. I find it very difficult to believe that it can stand up to something with 300 million transistors, and I doubt that it can match the power of the synergistic processing units that would be employed.
Even if the XBox 360's GPU was better, the PS3's would perform better. It appears as though the XBox 360 CPU would be good at things like AI and game management, but it just doesn't have enough capability to organize scenes that would utilize the GPU's full potential.The Cell processor would blow away the XBox 360 in that realm.
It appears as though there would be a second bottleneck. Because the I/O and memory access pathways are integrated (and not as fast as the PS3's), it could not send graphics packets to the GPU and load textures and graphics scripts at the same time.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums