Quake3World

to the extent of my knowledge, xbox 360 contains 3 power pc cpu's each with 3 cores, ps3 contains cell (which according to Intels dev sheet wont be realesed for home consumption [pc flacour] for at least 10 - 15 years)


Now this is the question.



Working under the assumption that both microsoft and sony have negligible power difference's in terms of raw processing power and memory bandwidth which GPU do you think will outlast the other


ATI - *9800 ultra version * whatever its called


nvidia - *RSX chipset



Personally I dont really care which one has more power but which do you think will be able to handle the greater amount of effects and geometry




second question



Given that most games use some sort of physics handler which processor do you think will be able to handle the most amount of physics related tasks



third question -



Why didnt sony nor microsoft include a physics related chipset in their machines? Will the raw processing power be enough or will we see slowdown within heavily physics related games ?

According to Carmack physic chipsets are a bunch of crap, and the 360 is better then the ps3.

lol
What would Intel's "dev sheet" have to say about a processor they don't make? The Cell is an IBM chip.

But either way, I wont be buying either. Maybe, just maybe once the X360 with hard drive hits $199. So I'll see it in about 2008.

My PC is all the gaming machine I need.

Psyche911 wrote:lol
What would Intel's "dev sheet" have to say about a processor they don't make? The Cell is an IBM chip.

But either way, I wont be buying either. Maybe, just maybe once the X360 with hard drive hits $199. So I'll see it in about 2008.

My PC is all the gaming machine I need.

Agreed...

the gpu in 360 is a generation(imo)ahead of rsx(supposed 7800 variation).

unified shader pipelines, 10meg frame buffer dedicated to anti-aliasing.

nvidia plans to go this route in the future.

edit: unified pipelines means the pixel and vertex calculations can be done on the same pipe. current cards have pipes dedicated to each vertex or pixel ops.

with unified obviously there can be performance increase by not having idle vertex or pixel pipes.

Psyche911 wrote:lol
What would Intel's "dev sheet" have to say about a processor they don't make? The Cell is an IBM chip.

cell equivalent


given the fact that they are switching to dual core sometime in 2006/2007 its unlikely that they are going to stray from the formula they currently have in place.

The chip's makers note that Cell is not only a multi-core architecture - like the anticipated 'Antares' PowerPC 970MP - but multi-threaded too, though it's not yet clear whether support for multiple threads takes places within each core level, HyperThreading-style, or Sony and co. are simply talking about spreading threads across cores. IBM's POWER 5 architecture supports simultaneous multi-threading, so it seems likely Cell will too.

now take a look at intel developers forum documentation which clearly states they are going multi-thread around 2015


may not be called Cell but is certainly the equivalent intel flavour

pecial Purpose Hardware - Intel's take on Cell

Intel has spoken a bit about including special purpose hardware in their forthcoming processors, although there's no indication of when other than sometime between 2005 and 2015.


intels planned dev sheet.....



ps its always good to have someone come in and ridicule another without researching .... but hey its fun to go offtopic and put our feet in our mouth isnt it :icon26:

shadd_ wrote:unified shader pipelines

:icon14:

Psyche911 wrote: My PC is all the gaming machine I need.

tell me that in five years time when your pc gaming machine is used to power my console...... and I dont mean in a technical sense, I mean when its being reclaimed by fire

YourGrandpa wrote:

Psyche911 wrote:lol
What would Intel's "dev sheet" have to say about a processor they don't make? The Cell is an IBM chip.

But either way, I wont be buying either. Maybe, just maybe once the X360 with hard drive hits $199. So I'll see it in about 2008.

My PC is all the gaming machine I need.

Agreed...

Must be because Microsoft and Sony don't make shit yellow paint jobs

Psyche911 wrote:lol
What would Intel's "dev sheet" have to say about a processor they don't make? The Cell is an IBM chip.

But either way, I wont be buying either. Maybe, just maybe once the X360 with hard drive hits $199. So I'll see it in about 2008.

My PC is all the gaming machine I need.

Released: PREORDER - Nov-2005

Availability: Nov-2005
Publisher: Microsoft
Developer: Microsoft
Rating Info:

£279.99



in the states its being released for $299 dollars which I believe is less than a 3/4 range video card costs just now.

lol @ Pyro
Getting all self-defensive.

Just because PCs wont get it for 10-15 years (if it even is comperable technology) doesn't mean this console will blow PCs out of the water.

Plus, with hard drive/wireless networking & controllers, XBox Live subscription, etc. which is the only package worth getting is $400. A 7800GT is $400 and they just came out. The GTX is the only one better/more expensive and it's $479. By the time the XBox 360 ships, the 7800GT and it's ATi competitor will probably be low $300s.

I see what you're saying, about the console being cheaper, and it's true. But that doesn't mean I want one. It doesn't mean I'd have more fun with it.

Psyche911 wrote: nothing in particular

then why are posting here in this thread.

If you arent interested in owning either console, you dont know anything about the technology behind the consoles to inform anyone, and you wont have fun with either then I reiterate.....


why are you posting in here ?

It's a valid opinion.
Either people here want both, they want one or the other, or they don't want either.