Next Gen on Computers

havannick said:

but emotion engine wats that??

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_engine

i thought driect X suppose to be the main control of all graphics cause its mircosoft ^^

Click to expand...

The main control API of Windows PC graphics cards, not console graphics processing units.

deftonesmx17 said:

Seriously, most of you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

Errrr, the Crysis thing has to do with the Xbox360 not using DX10 and the game (crysis) being built around DX10.


Errrrr, where in the wide world did you come up with this. The Xbox 360 cpu is a tri-core PowerPC processor. It has nothing to do with Intel or their pentiums. The original Xbox had a 733mhz "pentium 3/Celeron" in it, the 360 has a processor made by IBM and uses three 3.2ghz PowerPC cores. The "Cell" also uses a PowerPC chip for its core processor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)


No it doesnt. The GPU in the 360 has 10Mb of eDRAM (which no current ATI PC chip has) that lets it do 4X Anti-Aliasing (and some other framebuffer functions) with zero hit in performance. Desktop GPU's do not yet have this feature.


The PS2 has the "Emotion Engine", it has ntohing to do with directX.
The Xbox was built around directx 8.
The PS3 uses openGL ES and nvidias Cg environment(something $ony likes to call PSGL), again, no directx
The Xbox 360 uses DirectX 9+ (I say Plus as it has some directx 10 features.

Click to expand...

um, the xbox 360 features an x1800 xt with 512 mb of SHARED ram which serves as Video ram and regular ram, and crysis not being used on the pc because its dx10 is PURE bs, if you knew anything youd know to versions of crysis are being released, a direct x 9 version and a direct x 10, crysis is indeed not being made on "next gen" consoles because they cant handle it, so get ur facts right before u try to prove people wrong

deftonesmx17 said:

Seriously, most of you don't have the first clue what you are talking about.

LOL

Errrrr, where in the wide world did you come up with this. The Xbox 360 cpu is a tri-core PowerPC processor. It has nothing to do with Intel or their pentiums. The original Xbox had a 733mhz "pentium 3/Celeron" in it, the 360 has a processor made by IBM and uses three 3.2ghz PowerPC cores. The "Cell" also uses a PowerPC chip for its core processor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)[/u].

Click to expand...

I miss the word equal :boohoo: Don't get me wrong I have an Xbox360 as well as a high end PC wich I happen to update every 2 or 3 months and just think for a second (not more than that 'cause I think you are smart enough) if IBM can create a chip better than INTEL or AMD, don't you think they will give them a run for their money or are they just creating CHIPS for games wich doesn't give the same revenue as the PC market? Do you know what the word "profit" means or you need to go to wikipedia?

Edit: BTW Gears of War Rocks

you're all wrong. The PS3 uses the Jesus Engine.

rikochet said:

I miss the word equal :boohoo: Don't get me wrong I have an Xbox360 as well as a high end PC wich I happen to update every 2 or 3 months and just think for a second (not more than that 'cause I think you are smart enough) if IBM can create a chip better than INTEL or AMD, don't you think they will give them a run for their money or are they just creating CHIPS for games wich doesn't give the same revenue as the PC market? Do you know what the word "profit" means or you need to go to wikipedia?

Click to expand...

The processors used in the PS3, XBOX360 and Wii are not common desktop CPU's. They are not full general purpose CPU's either like you're AMD and Intel desktop CPU's.


As for the profit thing, maybe you should wikipedia some things as IBM is doing much better profit wise than both Intel and AMD combined.

IBM 2005 Revenue = $91.1 Billion
Intel 2005 Revenue = $38.83 Billion
AMD 2005 Revenue = $5.848 billion

Hmmmm seems to me the game market, server market, and medical computing market is where the real profits are.

dvnerg said:

um, the xbox 360 features an x1800 xt with 512 mb of SHARED ram which serves as Video ram and regular ram

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X1800#X1800_series

For starters the Xenos is Unified shader architecture, the x1800 is not. That alone makes them two drastically different GPU's; or do you not even understand what that means? Actually there isnt even an ATI desktop GPU out on the maket yet that uses Unified shader architecture and still none of them have the daughter die with 10MB of eDRAM(which has 256Gb/s bandwidth) which gives performance hit free framebuffer-effects such as 4x Multisample Anti-Aliasing, HDR, alpha blended color rendering, and z testing.

I let you find out the rest for yourself, but it seems you will still argue even though you are dead wrong.

And unlike you, I will admit that maybe I was wrong about crysis, but it was only due me thinking logically to the following.
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/11651/Crytek-Next-Gen-Consoles-Are-Too-Weak-for-Crysis/

Although Crysis will support both current and the next version of DirectX, Crytek claims that only DirectX 10 allows the game to run as it was intended by the developers because the next-generation DirectX API, which will ship along with Windows Vista, allows more effects and more objects to be drawn on the screen with a smaller computational cost for the hardware.

Click to expand...

In other words, Dx10 allows the game to be played the way it was meant to be played, but if you're still stuck in a dx9 environment; you can play the watered down version.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=136952&skip=yes
"It crossed our minds," said Yerli on the next-gen question, "but we're sticking with PC. One thing about our company is that we want to focus, we don't want to do multiple things, we want to do one thing and do it well. PC is our focus right now, we were born there and we want to showcase what we can do there, before we made any move onto consoles."

Click to expand...

Then in come the contradictions as other developers working on crysis say it really has to do with them wanting to focus soley on one system (that system being the PC) so they make a great game and then they will worry about next-gen consoles if they want to port it.


Oh and lets not forget the latest news that wasnt from 4 months ago.

http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=83292
Crytek lead artist Michael Khaimzon told GamesIndustry.biz that "I don't think there would be any problem to convert" the company's high-end PC shooter Crysis to the Xbox 360 or PS3. "It's just a matter of making the decision...[and] the decision isn't mine to make," Khaimzon said.

"We would just have to see how much of a sacrifice to the game we'd have to make...maybe we could find a way to make the game look exactly the same as it does on PC on the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3," he said.

Click to expand...

lmao i was just chatting crap to see if u agreed, then i woulda bursed out laughing if u did agree with me

"512 mb shared ram"

deftonesmx17 said:

The processors used in the PS3, XBOX360 and Wii are not common desktop CPU's. They are not full general purpose CPU's either like you're AMD and Intel desktop CPU's.


As for the profit thing, maybe you should wikipedia some things as IBM is doing much better profit wise than both Intel and AMD combined.

IBM 2005 Revenue = $91.1 Billion
Intel 2005 Revenue = $38.83 Billion
AMD 2005 Revenue = $5.848 billion

Hmmmm seems to me the game market, server market, and medical computing market is where the real profits are.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X1800#X1800_series

Click to expand...

Now i know you are just a guy who doesn't research well or do not finish reading a whole article.

Cited from wikipedia :

Rank 2005 2004(company Country of origin Revenue Million $ USD)
1 1 Intel USA 35 466
2 2 Samsung Semiconductors South Korea 17 210
3 3 Texas Instruments USA 10 745
4 7 Toshiba Semiconductors Japan 9 077
5 6 STMicroelectronics France-Italy 8 881
6 4 Infineon (spin-off from Siemens Semiconductors) Germany 8 266
7 5 Renesas Technology (merger of Mitsubishi and Hitachi Semiconductors) Japan 8 310
8 8 NEC Semiconductors Japan 5 710
9 9 Philips Semiconductors Netherlands 5 646
10 10 Freescale (spin-off from Motorola Semiconductors) USA 5 598
11 14 Hynix South Korea 5 560
12 13 Micron Technology USA 4 775
13 15 Sony Semiconductors Japan 4 574
14 12 Matsu****a Semiconductors Japan 4 131
15 11 AMD (1) USA 3 917
16 17 Qualcomm (3) (fabless) USA 3 457
17 16 Sharp Semiconductors Japan 3 266
18 19 Rohm Japan 2 909
19 20 IBM Microelectronics (2) USA 2 792
20 22 Broadcom (3) (fabless) USA 2 671
Other Companies 84 191
Total Revenue 237 139

I hope you can understand this otherwise I will be very disspointed. Diversify.

haha gj

StevePitts said:

How could we possibly forget an OS that adds little or nothing to XP other than some up to date hardware support, a user interface that requires a fast graphics card and the ability to boot up and shutdown as quickly as possible whilst sacrificing data integrity?? Vista would be utterly irrelevant to gamers were it not for Microsoft's decision to withhold DirectX 10 and only make it available on that platform. So I guess my roundabout response to your comment is 'so what'??

Click to expand...

also in regard to that a third party patch will most likely be released allowing dx 10 to be used on XP... so vista will probably not be relevant to use at all i guess, unless microsoft discontinue support for it... which i doubt :sun:

rikochet said:

Now i know you are just a guy who doesn't research well or do not finish reading a whole article.

Cited from wikipedia :

Rank 2005 2004(company Country of origin Revenue Million $ USD)
1 1 Intel USA 35 466
2 2 Samsung Semiconductors South Korea 17 210
3 3 Texas Instruments USA 10 745
4 7 Toshiba Semiconductors Japan 9 077
5 6 STMicroelectronics France-Italy 8 881
6 4 Infineon (spin-off from Siemens Semiconductors) Germany 8 266
7 5 Renesas Technology (merger of Mitsubishi and Hitachi Semiconductors) Japan 8 310
8 8 NEC Semiconductors Japan 5 710
9 9 Philips Semiconductors Netherlands 5 646
10 10 Freescale (spin-off from Motorola Semiconductors) USA 5 598
11 14 Hynix South Korea 5 560
12 13 Micron Technology USA 4 775
13 15 Sony Semiconductors Japan 4 574
14 12 Matsu****a Semiconductors Japan 4 131
15 11 AMD (1) USA 3 917
16 17 Qualcomm (3) (fabless) USA 3 457
17 16 Sharp Semiconductors Japan 3 266
18 19 Rohm Japan 2 909
19 20 IBM Microelectronics (2) USA 2 792
20 22 Broadcom (3) (fabless) USA 2 671
Other Companies 84 191
Total Revenue 237 139

I hope you can understand this otherwise I will be very disspointed. Diversify.

Click to expand...

And where are your links? Oh you dont have them like I did. Imagine that.


Here is the link to your semiconductor market share, since you were not even capable of posting it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldw...re_Ranking_Year_by_Year#Ranking_for_year_2005
And as for them not making CPU's for desktop computers, that market is already filled.......so why waste the time and money to try and push a product on a market that has two great companies(with great products) already doing it. It seems IBM makes a load more revenue because they, how did you say..........diversify. You might try to say, then why does apple use intel now. Isnt it obvious at this point why they moved to intel? Windows on MAC's, end of.

And do you remember what you said in the first place that I corrected. Here let me show you again as you seem to have forgotten.

Yeah but remember this too. The triple Core CPUs form the XBOX 360 are Pentium III which today DUAL CORE Pentium IV can outperform real easy.

Click to expand...

Which I corrected, thus you were upset that I corrected you so then you proceeded to get offended over something that was never said. I never said it was better than a current desktop CPU. But since were speaking of this now, the PowerPC cores the 360 Xenon uses are not equal to a Pentium 3 like you tried to say with your response to my first correction and now I seem to have to correct you again.

rikochet said:

I miss the word equal :boohoo:

Click to expand...

Do you know what Simultaneous multithreading is? How about Hyper-threading, like current Intel Pentiums do? Yes, I knew you would have heard of HTT instead of its other name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_multithreading
This is a function Pentium 3's did not have. Did you know that each of the three cores in the 360 CPU is two way Simultaneous multithreading capable and each is clocked at 3.2 GHz. That is much more horsepower than a tri-core pentium 3 could ever be.

I suggest you stop while you are ahead. What am I talking about? You seem like the type of person who would argue about the color of the sky.



Oh and just for something ironic since we are talking about Intel and IBM(about their CPU's and how powerful they are).

Form the wiki entry on simultaneous multithreading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_multithreading#Historical_implementations

Historical implementations
While multithreading CPUs have been around since the 1950s, Simultaneous Multithreading was first researched by IBM in 1968. The first major commercial CPU developed with SMT was the DEC 21464 (EV8). This chip was developed by DEC in coordination with Dean Tullsen of the University of California, San Diego. The processor was never released, since the Alpha line of processors was discontinued when Compaq acquired DEC. Dean Tullsen's work was also used to create the Intel Pentium 4 Processor. The technology developed for this processor may eventually find its way into Tukwila, a CPU being developed at Intel by many of the engineers who designed the EV8.


Modern commercial implementations
The Intel Pentium 4 was the first modern desktop processor to implement simultaneous multithreading, starting from the 3.06GHz model released in 2002, and since introduced into a number of their processors. Intel calls the functionality Hyper-Threading Technology (HTT), and provides a basic two-thread SMT engine. Intel claims up to a 30% speed improvement compared against an otherwise identical, non-SMT Pentium 4. The performance improvement seen is very application dependent, however, and some programs actually slow down slightly when HTT is turned on. This is due to the replay system of the Pentium 4 tying up valuable execution resources, thereby starving the other thread. However, any performance degradation is unique to the Pentium 4 (due to various architectural nuances), and is not characteristic of SMT in general.

...
...
...

The IBM POWER5, announced in May 2004, which comes as either a dual core DCM, or quad-core or 8-core MCM, with each core including a two-thread SMT engine. IBM's implementation is more sophisticated than the previous ones, because it can assign a different priority to the various threads, is more fine-grained, and the SMT engine can be turned on and off dynamically, to better execute those workloads where an SMT processor would not increase performance. This is IBM's second implementation of generally available hardware multithreading.

Click to expand...

I think it has been established that the Xbox360 has impressive propietary hardware. Console gaming is where the money is and so developers are going to focus on developing for the more lucrative systems. That means that more than likely you're going to have to spend the money for the 360 or PS3 or even the Wii (Nintendo is a kind of light-weight casual gaming console) if you want to play the best cutting edge games. Of course, RPGs and FPSs will still be best on the PC. I hate to say it but PC gaming seems to be dying a slow death which is a kind of a downer because I prefer the PC to consoles. And really, to pay $400 or $600 (PS3) for top-knotch hardware is a bargain compared to spending thousands on a gaming rig that you can't even play your favorite games on because they're console exclusives.

Unfortunately, Fifa07 on the 360 has turned out to be a disappointment. Yes the gameplay is wonderful and the graphics are great in some areas (especially the player models, faces and kits) but somehow EA managed to churn out a lackluster game that overall (and I stress overall, gameplay is far superior to current gen) is not quite as good as the current-gen game. Lets hope Fifa08 is better on the 360/PS3.