E3 PS3 presentation
05-18-2005, 04:24 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 627
Car Info: '07 FXT Sport / '96 STiL
E3 PS3 presentation
The PS3 looks amazing. ~250MB file.
Torrent:
http://www.fr0zen.com/users/snyder/d...hi.wmv.torrent
For the torrent impaired: (please use the torrent if you can)
http://www.fr0zen.com/users/snyder/d...ss_e305_hi.wmv
Torrent:
http://www.fr0zen.com/users/snyder/d...hi.wmv.torrent
For the torrent impaired: (please use the torrent if you can)
http://www.fr0zen.com/users/snyder/d...ss_e305_hi.wmv
05-18-2005, 05:51 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 627
Car Info: '07 FXT Sport / '96 STiL
Originally Posted by rsracer2005
did u see the new xbox. i was reading about it there is an article in time.
05-19-2005, 10:38 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: bah
Posts: 302
Car Info: POS
wow I've been reading the specs and watching all the game demos I could find, but that tech demo was great for a computer geek, like me, to watch.
Many places list the 512 system RAM as a perfect 50/50 split for main and GPU, but based on what was said in the presentation any amount can be used for graphics.
Many places list the 512 system RAM as a perfect 50/50 split for main and GPU, but based on what was said in the presentation any amount can be used for graphics.
Last edited by silentbob343; 05-19-2005 at 10:42 PM.
05-19-2005, 11:27 PM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 627
Car Info: '07 FXT Sport / '96 STiL
Originally Posted by silentbob343
wow I've been reading the specs and watching all the game demos I could find, but that tech demo was great for a computer geek, like me, to watch.
Many places list the 512 system RAM as a perfect 50/50 split for main and GPU, but based on what was said in the presentation any amount can be used for graphics.
Many places list the 512 system RAM as a perfect 50/50 split for main and GPU, but based on what was said in the presentation any amount can be used for graphics.
05-20-2005, 12:54 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: bah
Posts: 302
Car Info: POS
RAMBUS has higher latencies, but the bandwidth is huge. The reason RAMBUS died on the mainstream desktop market was because of the high licensing fees that made RAMBUS chipsets to costly. Sony is a Yellowstone technology license holder and as such had easy access to XDR tech. They used RAMBUS in the PS2 as well.
There was a was a pretty good article about the potential for XDR to be used as GPU memory as DDR type memory needed to be 256bit to keep up the bandwidth, had a higher pin count, and was costly. Of course the article was old and since then RAMBUS hit some hard times and not much came of it. GDDR3 fixed many of the DDR problems, i.e. simplified design, lower power consumption.
While I understand the PS3 uses 256MB RAMBUS and 256MB GDDR3 I have trouble assigning video and graphics labels to them as any amount can be used for video memory regardless of RAM type.
The Xbox 360 will use 512 of GDDR3@700mhz. PS3 uses 256 XDR RAMBUS@3.2GHz and 256 GDDR3@700Mhz
RAMBUS XDR 16Bit@ 3.2 GHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 6.4GB/s
RAMBUS XDR 32Bit@ 3.2 GHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 12.8GB/s
RAMBUS XDR 128Bit@ 3.2 GHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 102GB/s. I’m guessing the PS3 uses 32bit XDR RAMBUS.
GDDR3@700MHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 5.6GB/s
Of course due to memory overhead and such these speeds will most likely never hit.
To others in this thread please do interpret my post as PS3 is better than Xbox 360 because that is not what I’m saying.
There was a was a pretty good article about the potential for XDR to be used as GPU memory as DDR type memory needed to be 256bit to keep up the bandwidth, had a higher pin count, and was costly. Of course the article was old and since then RAMBUS hit some hard times and not much came of it. GDDR3 fixed many of the DDR problems, i.e. simplified design, lower power consumption.
While I understand the PS3 uses 256MB RAMBUS and 256MB GDDR3 I have trouble assigning video and graphics labels to them as any amount can be used for video memory regardless of RAM type.
The Xbox 360 will use 512 of GDDR3@700mhz. PS3 uses 256 XDR RAMBUS@3.2GHz and 256 GDDR3@700Mhz
RAMBUS XDR 16Bit@ 3.2 GHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 6.4GB/s
RAMBUS XDR 32Bit@ 3.2 GHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 12.8GB/s
RAMBUS XDR 128Bit@ 3.2 GHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 102GB/s. I’m guessing the PS3 uses 32bit XDR RAMBUS.
GDDR3@700MHz will yield a theoretical bandwidth of 5.6GB/s
Of course due to memory overhead and such these speeds will most likely never hit.
To others in this thread please do interpret my post as PS3 is better than Xbox 360 because that is not what I’m saying.
Last edited by silentbob343; 05-20-2005 at 12:56 AM.
05-20-2005, 10:13 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
The hardware for both systems is impressive, but that has never been the determining factor on which system is "better" or sells better. Software is the key to a great system. Sony keeps winning because they have had the better software for some time. I think that XBOX 360 may have the better software titles at least until further into the PS3's lifetime when developers are more familiar with the Cell processor and other unique PS3 hardware. XBOX has the clear advantage in the online gaming area, and will be dominant in that area for the forseeable future. XBOX also has the advantage of being nearly the same to develope for as its PC counterparts. The learning curve for next gen game development is going to be short on the XBOX meaning better games sooner and more titles to choose from. This will be good since traditionally everyone developes games for Sony, putting both systems on even ground. I could be wrong but I think Sony's superior harware is going to cause the software to take longer to mature but may be more sophisticated than XBOX games after a few years. Right around the time that HDTV's become much more affordable.
05-20-2005, 10:54 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: bah
Posts: 302
Car Info: POS
Yeah, Xbox will have the head start advantage that Sony had with the PS2. This means when the PS3 comes out there will be solid games available for the Xbox 360 and the PS3 will have the typical sub-par launch titles. Case-in-point Halo 360, or what ever it's called, is supposed to be released on the PS3's launch day.
As always I encourage people to buy the system that has the games they enjoy playing and does what they want/need it to do. Sticking to a system just because of the name is silly. I hope the Xbox 360 is a great system and gives Sony some good competition because ultimately it’s the consumer who benefits from their competition.
As always I encourage people to buy the system that has the games they enjoy playing and does what they want/need it to do. Sticking to a system just because of the name is silly. I hope the Xbox 360 is a great system and gives Sony some good competition because ultimately it’s the consumer who benefits from their competition.
05-20-2005, 10:58 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
Price is a strong case too. I think the cost of all this new technology is going to cost the consumer when buying a PS3, it may be as much as $200.00 more than the XBOX. The XBOX is going to be more home network freindly too I suspect. I'll probably get them both once the cost of the hardware comes down a bit.
05-20-2005, 11:20 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: bah
Posts: 302
Car Info: POS
Yeah price is said to be 500 for the PS3 and 300 for Xbox, but I'll to see official price reports before I hold that to Sony.
The Xbox 360 might be network friendlier as the first Xbox was very easy to network with. A friend of my used his as a media storage server more than playing games. I think Sony learned how much these systems are used as a complete multimedia hub and hopefully have taken that in to consideration with their networking plan.
Both share similar network specs. so it really comes down to the software to see how easy/pain-free networking will be. One thing I really like with the PS3 is the 3 different memory slots. I have a few compact flash cards for my digital camera and now I can use them to save games. If you have a PSP then you can use Sony’s memory stick, etc.
Sony included 1 gigabit Ethernet, but I’m not sure why as most people won’t have connections that fast. It might help for LAN play, but most people won’t have a 1 gigabit switch, so who knows.
One thing that Sony did that makes me a bit annoyed is the inclusion of Blu-Ray on the PS3.
I know many of you will say, “Why Blu-Ray can hold more data per disc and can do xxx”. Well truth be told Sony didn’t put this feature on their system because of games. Look at how many PS2 games need Dual-Layer DVDs, not very many. Most PS2 games are on single layer 4.7GB DVDs. EGM had an article about how long it takes a video-game production company to make DVD games. Companies that were making 15-20 games a year are now only making 7-9 games are year. So a company to make a game fill a Blu-Ray disc will produce about 2-4 games a year.
Perhaps it’s needed due to the PS3s ability to display 1080i-1080P. My question is this how many 1080i/720P Xbox games are dual-layer? I honestly don’t know as I don’t own an Xbox, so maybe the older DVD standard is too limiting. Like I said there are not a lot of dual-layer PS2 games, but it might not be the same for Xbox. If game companies really need the extra space than that’s great and I’m all for it esp. to get 720P & 1080i, but if it ends up like the PS2 with only a handful of games are on Blu-Ray and god forbid Blu-Ray isn’t adopted as the HD-DVD standard than we have a fairly useless playability feature that added cost. Hell, perhaps Blu-Ray capability only cost an extra 10 cents and I’m worried for nothing.
Sony included Blu-Ray to push its competing HD-DVD standard in to the market place and create a user base. If you are a film-production company and you are trying to determine what format to release your films on it’s common to go with a format with a fairly large installed user base. I have no problem with Sony’s strategy, but it does increase the price point of the PS3 and it’s not really needed for games. Of course Sony will say that the PS3 isn’t a game console, but rather a multimedia hub and as such needed Blu-Ray. Only time will tell if Blu-Ray will gain support or fail as there are many HD-DVD format options competing against it. And only time will tell if I, or anybody else, will use my PS3 just for games or if I will use its powerful multimedia capabilities.
I think it’s cool how the PS3 will output 1080P, but people forget that TVs that can display full 1080P cost around $20,000 and won’t become affordable for a while. Now if you have a TV or projector that can do 1080P, please invite me over so I can how good it looks
Oh well enough of my rant
The Xbox 360 might be network friendlier as the first Xbox was very easy to network with. A friend of my used his as a media storage server more than playing games. I think Sony learned how much these systems are used as a complete multimedia hub and hopefully have taken that in to consideration with their networking plan.
Both share similar network specs. so it really comes down to the software to see how easy/pain-free networking will be. One thing I really like with the PS3 is the 3 different memory slots. I have a few compact flash cards for my digital camera and now I can use them to save games. If you have a PSP then you can use Sony’s memory stick, etc.
Sony included 1 gigabit Ethernet, but I’m not sure why as most people won’t have connections that fast. It might help for LAN play, but most people won’t have a 1 gigabit switch, so who knows.
One thing that Sony did that makes me a bit annoyed is the inclusion of Blu-Ray on the PS3.
I know many of you will say, “Why Blu-Ray can hold more data per disc and can do xxx”. Well truth be told Sony didn’t put this feature on their system because of games. Look at how many PS2 games need Dual-Layer DVDs, not very many. Most PS2 games are on single layer 4.7GB DVDs. EGM had an article about how long it takes a video-game production company to make DVD games. Companies that were making 15-20 games a year are now only making 7-9 games are year. So a company to make a game fill a Blu-Ray disc will produce about 2-4 games a year.
Perhaps it’s needed due to the PS3s ability to display 1080i-1080P. My question is this how many 1080i/720P Xbox games are dual-layer? I honestly don’t know as I don’t own an Xbox, so maybe the older DVD standard is too limiting. Like I said there are not a lot of dual-layer PS2 games, but it might not be the same for Xbox. If game companies really need the extra space than that’s great and I’m all for it esp. to get 720P & 1080i, but if it ends up like the PS2 with only a handful of games are on Blu-Ray and god forbid Blu-Ray isn’t adopted as the HD-DVD standard than we have a fairly useless playability feature that added cost. Hell, perhaps Blu-Ray capability only cost an extra 10 cents and I’m worried for nothing.
Sony included Blu-Ray to push its competing HD-DVD standard in to the market place and create a user base. If you are a film-production company and you are trying to determine what format to release your films on it’s common to go with a format with a fairly large installed user base. I have no problem with Sony’s strategy, but it does increase the price point of the PS3 and it’s not really needed for games. Of course Sony will say that the PS3 isn’t a game console, but rather a multimedia hub and as such needed Blu-Ray. Only time will tell if Blu-Ray will gain support or fail as there are many HD-DVD format options competing against it. And only time will tell if I, or anybody else, will use my PS3 just for games or if I will use its powerful multimedia capabilities.
I think it’s cool how the PS3 will output 1080P, but people forget that TVs that can display full 1080P cost around $20,000 and won’t become affordable for a while. Now if you have a TV or projector that can do 1080P, please invite me over so I can how good it looks
Oh well enough of my rant
Last edited by silentbob343; 05-20-2005 at 12:01 PM.