PS 3 chip faster than Intel or AMD [Archive]

Mjr7531

02-08-2005, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by danger boy
yeah what happen to Nintendo anyways? what.. 6 or 7 years ago. didn't they dominate the video game market? I know Sony and Microsoft are the currently leaders. where did Nintendo go wrong? Poor console or lack of good games?
I haven't worked a night at my job where I haven't seen at least 5 kids all with their Gameboy DS and their littler sibling with their Gameboy SP.
Besides, just it seems that Nintendo is gettin overshadowed in US, what about Japan? I don't think XBox is doing too well over there.
Sorry Trey, but I find Microsoft lacking in the ability to really put out something great, at Nintendo, those guys eat, breathe, and live Video Games, and they put that back into the games and systems, Microsoft does not, they just want to get there name somewhere else, I've played enough video games to not give a **** about 'realism.' What good is realism when the game sucks?

bknauss

02-08-2005, 04:18 PM

Mjr, I'm confused about your statements about Nintendo putting out better stuff than Microsoft. Since both of these companies primarily (or maybe solely) do the hardware, that has fairly little to do with the game sucking or not. Sure, a more powerful system allows for things like faster load up times, less pixelating, and stuff of that sort, but its the companies like Activision, EA, Sega, etc etc etc that make a game suck or not.

And if we're comparing the gamecube and Xbox head to head in a hardware battle, Xbox wins hands down. If nothing else, the discrete 5.1 wins it.

As for Japan not liking Xbox (and I've also heard those stories), I don't think Japan buys many products from America. I've known a handful of Japanese folks in my life, and they would never buy an American TV or car...

VR3

02-08-2005, 06:02 PM

The problem with universal games (play on all consoles)...

Is they are engineered after the best selling console, PS2...

Which is the weakest console out right now power and processing wise...

If universal games were engineered around the XBox, PS2 would probally just flat out blow up, or limit the games capabilities to where it looks like all of the other universal games out there...

Gamecube is actually a really fast machine...

Has a better vid card than the PS2 - PS2 has a 256 kb vid card, while the GC has a 32mb double bit rate, and the XB has a 64 mb geforce II (I think)...

I forgot the rest...

Will be interesting to see how the new consoles work out...

I think Microsoft is going to try to bump them all out of sales by releasing several versions at different times, to get a head start, then launch an upgraded version with more options when the competition launches theirs...

Just my thought...

I have liked most of XBoxes games so far, and I absolutely love Halo... Halo totally rocks, and only gets better as u turn the difficulty up

Demiurge

02-08-2005, 06:35 PM

Nintendo will always suck as long as they continute to cater to kids and only kids. They're starting to wise up a bit, but they've dug themselves a large hole.

The average gamer is 29 years old (Yes, this is a fact). Nintendo won't be anything if they can't appeal to the mass market. They don't have a niche because Sony and Microsoft have kids games as well as the adult games.

This is what has happened to Nintendo. The business choices they have made have been deplorable and they dug their own grave...fortunately for them they're not completely dead yet.

Mjr7531

02-08-2005, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Demiurge

The average gamer is 29 years old (Yes, this is a fact).
Hence why Playboy was at the last E3 ;)

About my last post, I was talking more about the games, sorry, and yes I know Japan doesn't buy as many of products as we do theres, but if XBox is being heralded as this totally amazing thing, why aren't the Japanese getting into it?
Just food for thought, not a pissing match.

VR3

02-08-2005, 09:39 PM

Because the controllers to big dangit (they cant hold it) - big just kidding, no one take it serious... PLEASE

danger boy

02-09-2005, 02:38 AM

i play my Gamecube more then my PS2. what does that tell ya? I like Nintendo better than the others

Demiurge

02-09-2005, 07:46 AM

Well, you're well in the minority. Nintendo has been dying for years regardless of personal opinion. The reason they've been dying is because they've shut themselves off from the majority of the market.....a market of which all the other manufacturers compete over the entire spectrum.

Sid was right. They're getting their asses kicked right now and opening up their market is the only thing that's going to turn it around.

We've reached a pinnacle where both stunning visual and audio can be had with stunning gameplay. No need for bad graphics and lame synthesized sounds that will make you go crazy and add nothing to the game play.

bknauss

02-09-2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Vr3MxStyler2k3
Because the controllers to big dangit (they cant hold it) - big just kidding, no one take it serious... PLEASE

Actually, that might be part of the reason the Xbox isn't doing well overseas (specifically Asia). Size seems to be a big consideration in what is purchased over there, so a big box and a big controller are probably going to detur a lot of people in Asian countries. I was in a big electronics store in Hong Kong last year, and there was not a single DLP TV there. There were tons of plasmas and LCDs... but because of the size of a DLP, I guess its not a good option for the small apartments and condos in most Asian countries.

As for Nintendo, I would like to see what their bottom line is per year as compared to Microsoft's for Xbox or Sony's for PS2. Considering the huge amount of dual screen gameboys sold during the holiday season, I wouldn't think Nintendo is really dying off. They may not be #1 in the console market, but they definitely own the portable gaming market.

PhantomOG

02-09-2005, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by PolkThug
The new chip in the PS3 is faster than any chip released by Intel thus far.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6929471/

nice... overzealous marketing and the press just eats it up. i bet the writer of that article doesn't know a computer chip from a potato chip. claims like this are comparable or worse than marketing like Bose. but if the public is gullible, they take advantage.

oh, and saying one chip is "faster" than another with a different architecture is mostly irrelevant.

PhantomOG

02-09-2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by bknauss

As for Nintendo, I would like to see what their bottom line is per year as compared to Microsoft's for Xbox or Sony's for PS2. Considering the huge amount of dual screen gameboys sold during the holiday season, I wouldn't think Nintendo is really dying off. They may not be #1 in the console market, but they definitely own the portable gaming market.
MS has never made a profit on the Xbox and they don't think they will either.
"With the current cost of goods, which we have taken down fairly dramatically, there's no way to make money on the console in this first generation." -- John Connors, CFO MS regarding the Xbox

Nintendo is consistently in the black, even with all the doomsayers. It will be interesting to see what happens now with the PSP, but I personally hope Nintendo sticks around. In my opinion their first party games have always been the best and offer alot more depth than anything available on the PS2 or Xbox. First person shooters are the most boring thing on the planet to me but that and blood guts and violence are all the general public seem to want anymore.

VR3

02-09-2005, 02:55 PM

Nintendo will not have that 'hold' on the handheld market long, Sony is coming out with the PSX, which is twice the machine the Nintendo DS or w/e...

And it wont be long until Microsoft gets into that too...

It dosnt matter if Microsoft looses or makes money, they could be in it a long time and loose millions and still be beyond a rich company...

PhantomOG

02-09-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Vr3MxStyler2k3
Nintendo will not have that 'hold' on the handheld market long, Sony is coming out with the PSX, which is twice the machine the Nintendo DS or w/e...

And it wont be long until Microsoft gets into that too...

It dosnt matter if Microsoft looses or makes money, they could be in it a long time and loose millions and still be beyond a rich company...

handheld contenders have come and gone in the past. i think Sony has a better chance than most previous competitors but it is foolish to outright assume their success.

and just because Microsoft *can* lose tons of money in the console market and survive doesn't mean they will. no company's board of directors will sit idly by and watch their company waste money. the xbox division will eventually need to be profitable or they will be killed.

bknauss

02-09-2005, 04:14 PM

Phantom - I wonder how much money they make off of licensing the "xbox" logo. That's probably where they make the money. I seem to remember seeing Sony wasn't making much of anything off of the PS2 either (or possibly losing money). I could definitely be wrong about that though!

VR3 - that's a very bold statement saying Nintendo won't have a hold on the portable market once the PSP (not PSX) comes out. Sony missed the holiday season, so that's a big strike against them trying to get a good footing in the market. Then compare the price of a DS bundle ($200 with system and game) to a PSP (rumored to be $250 by itself, cheapest preorder I've seen is $380 for a bundle... no PSP by itself yet). I just don't see them overtaking Nintendo in the portable market. As a consumer, I'm not going to get a PSP since it will have last generation's power once Xbox2 comes out. I don't have time to play portable systems either. I did when I was a kid and was riding in the car or whatever, but I'm always driving now, and when I'm home, I'd much rather play on a real TV with a real system and speakers than on a little hand sized thing.

My 2 cents. I've said my piece and will stay away from the topic so I won't keep repeating my boring self.

VR3

02-09-2005, 05:13 PM

What I'm saying is...

If/when Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo all compete within the handheld game market, Nintendo will have alot harder time competeing than just being the only one there...

And yes, there have been other contenders, but they all sucked...

I personally really like the XBox, and plan to buy a XBox 2 - as long as they release one with a harddrive. I absolutely hate memory cards...

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-09-2005, 05:17 PM

well the xbox has a hard drive, so I assume the xbox 2 will as well, probably even bigger...

Shizelbs

02-09-2005, 08:05 PM

Lets not forget that Nintendo is pretty much the lone survivor of the turbulent times of dawn of video games. They've earned their stripes.

PhantomOG

02-10-2005, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Vr3MxStyler2k3
What I'm saying is...

If/when Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo all compete within the handheld game market, Nintendo will have alot harder time competeing than just being the only one there...

And yes, there have been other contenders, but they all sucked...

Nintendo isn't the one that has to "compete". They *own* the market. Sony is the one that will have to compete. As others have pointed out, most handheld game owners are younger kids and I'm not so sure that Sony is open to going after that market. In essence it seems they are trying to create a new market for older gamers or those who see a need for a tiny movie player / mp3 player. Watching movies on a screen that is only a few inches across is stupid in my opinion, especially since the media must be purchased separately from normal DVDs. And pretty soon I'm guessing alot of cell phones will double as mp3 players so that is another dead end.

Plus they are fighting against a HUGE library of software. Nintendo handheld owners can still play games from the orignal Gameboy which are probably older than you are.

I'm not saying the PSP is doomed to failure. I am saying that it is just plain stupid to think Sony will have it easy in the handheld market. In my opinion, Sony has had a ton of success by being the first to go after older gamers in the console market. But I don't think it necessarily translates that well to the handheld market.

Jstas

02-10-2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by jdhdiggs
This stuff is so amazing. Stuff the US government would have killed for in the 60's are now put in video games... Wow

Sigh...the U.S. Government HAD stuff on that level in the 60's. If only you could see what is developed behind closed doors now.

Also, Nintendo ain't going anywhere. They have the most successful video game series in history (Super Mario Brothers) plus the most successful gaming consoles (original Nintendo) plus a multi-billion dollar a year international game business. Nintendo is a corporate giant and defintly has the resources to buy what it needs if it can't build it. Plus they have an incredible track record with thier marketing. The XBOX has the MS giant behind it with billions of yearly revenue to support it. Sony is another corporate monster that doesn't shy away from dumping money into a product to gain on its investment. In the gaming world though, they both pale in comparison to what Nintendo can do.

Keep in mind that it was only until recently that Nintendo wasn't the one pushing the boundries of the industry. Nintendo killed Sega and Atari. The Sony Playstation was only an also ran at the same time. In fact, if it wasn't for a few key game titles like Gran Turismo, Playstation wouldn't be nearly as big as it is now. Honestly, the XBOX is nothing without it's few games that get great reviews but are only available on XBOX. Can anybody say Halo 2?

Technology drives advancement in teh game consoles but without good games to play that are accessible, the game console is nothing. Look what happened to the Atari Jaguar. It was ahead of it's time but went nowhere because there was no game development behind it to support the console. So what do you get? Space Invaders with a really cool graphics overlay. The same happened with Sega. The arcade games started dying out because the consoles were getting popular. Nobody wants to continually play rehashed arcade games or Sonic the Hedgehog clones over and over again.

Nintendo, Playstation and XBOX succeed because they make it easy for development companies to create new games to support the consoles. Technology that drives them is only a bonus and often times, whether it is apparent in the marketplace or not, software drives the technology advancements in video games. Consoles are getting more and more like PC's every day. If you want to see where your consoles future is, find a great gaming PC, something from Alienware will do nicely, and get the best, whiz-bang game out there for PC's and you'll be looking at the future of console gaming.

Jstas

02-10-2005, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by bknauss
Phantom - I wonder how much money they make off of licensing the "xbox" logo. That's probably where they make the money. I seem to remember seeing Sony wasn't making much of anything off of the PS2 either (or possibly losing money). I could definitely be wrong about that though!

None of the companies make any money off of the consoles they sell. They make thier money in the games that are made for the console systems. They pay a couple of million for a game development contract, pay the developers, get and end result and start print media and packaging. It probably costs them less than 10 dollars a game and they sell them for 50-70 dollars in the stores and laugh all the way to the bank.

Jstas

02-10-2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by PhantomOG
Nintendo isn't the one that has to "compete". They *own* the market. Sony is the one that will have to compete. As others have pointed out, most handheld game owners are younger kids and I'm not so sure that Sony is open to going after that market. In essence it seems they are trying to create a new market for older gamers or those who see a need for a tiny movie player / mp3 player. Watching movies on a screen that is only a few inches across is stupid in my opinion, especially since the media must be purchased separately from normal DVDs. And pretty soon I'm guessing alot of cell phones will double as mp3 players so that is another dead end.

Plus they are fighting against a HUGE library of software. Nintendo handheld owners can still play games from the orignal Gameboy which are probably older than you are.

I'm not saying the PSP is doomed to failure. I am saying that it is just plain stupid to think Sony will have it easy in the handheld market. In my opinion, Sony has had a ton of success by being the first to go after older gamers in the console market. But I don't think it necessarily translates that well to the handheld market.

That was a dead-on assessment. My wife has a Gameboy Advance and literally all of the old Nintentedo and Super Nintendo games are available for that platform. Nintendo will always have a stangle hold on the hand-held market because they realize that thier past is where it is at and they use the hand-held market to re-introduce those games that slaughtered the competition in the market 10-15 years ago.

Sid, please tell what other hand held systems were out there other than the Gameboy and the retarded cheapy LCD stuff you could get at Kmart? The only one I can think of is the Sega hand held system which did the same thing that the N-Gage stuff does now and what the PSP and Nintendo handhelds do or are going to do. The only reason it died in the market was because the hardware was not there to support the full potential of the capabilities of the units. That and the fact that stupid 6-14 year old kids that were playing with them had no clue how to use the advanced features. It was another idea way ahead of its time.

Jstas

02-10-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Demiurge

The average gamer is 29 years old (Yes, this is a fact). Nintendo won't be anything if they can't appeal to the mass market. They don't have a niche because Sony and Microsoft have kids games as well as the adult games.

This is what has happened to Nintendo. The business choices they have made have been deplorable and they dug their own grave...fortunately for them they're not completely dead yet.

That is a bunch of bull****. Guess what those 29 year old gamers grew up on? They cut thier teeth on Atari and Colecovision and matured on Nintendo Entertainment Systems which came bundled with Super Mario Brothers. If anything, those 29 year old gamers are the roots of the Video Game Generation and they are what is driving Nintendo to put out the sappy, family based games with cartoonish graphics and diabetically sweet plots.

It makes me feel old because all these supposed "video game experts" are 5-10 years younger than me and have no clue what the word Nintendo means in popular culture nor what it's past was or where it's roots started with Atari and it's competitors.

Bad business choices my ass! Nintendo has been around for 30 years. It ain't dyin' and it ain't going anywhere. If you think that the 29 year old gamers are what Nintendo markets to then you really have no clue what you're talking about. Nintendo markets to parents because thier games are "safer" for children and parents want an attention grabber that they can stick the noisy kids in front of for a few hours while they go and try to live thier lives like they did without kids.

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-10-2005, 02:30 PM

Best Buy has an old school game console with like 20 games or something for sale for 30 bucks.

I've seen these in the store near me for a couple months now. They had four thousand of those when I first saw them, now they're down to only a couple dozen or so on hand.

Obviously, people did the older stuff and will still buy it...

PhantomOG

02-10-2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Polkmaniac
Best Buy has an old school game console with like 20 games or something for sale for 30 bucks.

I've seen these in the store near me for a couple months now. They had four thousand of those when I first saw them, now they're down to only a couple dozen or so on hand.

Obviously, people did the older stuff and will still buy it...

admittedly there were a fair share of crappy games 10-15 years ago, but there were alot of games that had alot more to offer than some of today's bestsellers. so many people today are focused on just the graphics alone that there are a TON of "pretty" looking games that just plain suck and are no fun to play after the first 15 minutes. there is so much more that needs to go into a game to give it lasting ability than just high-end graphics.

that's another reason i hope nintendo will always be around. they are truly innovative and don't just spew out game after game with slightly improving graphics but horrible gameplay and lasting ability.

PolkThug

02-10-2005, 02:52 PM

Long live Joust!

Demiurge

02-10-2005, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Jstas
That is a bunch of bull****. Guess what those 29 year old gamers grew up on? They cut thier teeth on Atari and Colecovision and matured on Nintendo Entertainment Systems which came bundled with Super Mario Brothers. If anything, those 29 year old gamers are the roots of the Video Game Generation and they are what is driving Nintendo to put out the sappy, family based games with cartoonish graphics and diabetically sweet plots.

It makes me feel old because all these supposed "video game experts" are 5-10 years younger than me and have no clue what the word Nintendo means in popular culture nor what it's past was or where it's roots started with Atari and it's competitors.

Bad business choices my ass! Nintendo has been around for 30 years. It ain't dyin' and it ain't going anywhere. If you think that the 29 year old gamers are what Nintendo markets to then you really have no clue what you're talking about. Nintendo markets to parents because thier games are "safer" for children and parents want an attention grabber that they can stick the noisy kids in front of for a few hours while they go and try to live thier lives like they did without kids.

Is there a reason you didn't debunk my 'bull****' estimation of the situation?

Microsoft and Sony have the majority of the marked both individually and combined over Nintendo. This is a fact. You can't refute the numbers. The #1 complaint on Nintendo is they make games that are too childish and that's all they make. That's also another fact that it looks like Nintendo is trying to change now. What a '29' year old enjoys isn't what a '6' year old enjoys. Comparing what I liked in 1985 to 2004 is night and day. Microsoft and Sony appeal to the ENTIRE market...Nintendo..does not. They'd be better off sticking to just making games if they don't want to deal with the changing times. If they do, great, but they hadn't started to do that until just recently and their latest handheld is a step in the right direction.

Nintendo ain't dyin? They've been dying. Their revitalization will be solely because of the choice they make to play to the entire market of gamers and not just one segment. They're only hurting themselves by doing it and it's a moronic business choice.

I should know..our family has run a very sucessful business for the last 40 years and anyone who hasn't run a business doesn't have the first clue what goes into it. It was a moronic decison on their part and a leader was dethroned. The only way they'll ever get back on top is by outdoing Microsoft and Sony.

You can cry and be a jerk in your post some more if you want, but it doesn't change the facts. While you're at it you might want to check your attitude at the door because you turned a rather civil conversation into some real condescending b.s.....but hey...fight fire with fire...when are you actually going to refute my statement or the facts (they're stubborn things aren't they?).

Jstas

02-10-2005, 07:26 PM

Post some facts and not your opinions and I'll have something to refute.

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-10-2005, 07:31 PM

I like banana pudding

Jstas

02-10-2005, 07:35 PM

Battleships are big.

Demiurge

02-10-2005, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Jstas
Post some facts and not your opinions and I'll have something to refute.

I did. It's not an opinion that Nintendo is way behind both Sony and Microsoft and it's not an opinion that creating only kiddie games is what caused the above fact to be true.

It's also true that Nintendo can only save face by opening themselves up to more developers and gaming genres or face the wrath of the ensuing future which will completely nullify them as a major player in the gaming market.

I guess I'm just a moron though and why everything I just said is what Nintendo is striving to do (open themselves up to the entire market). Amazing. :rolleyes:

Shizelbs

02-10-2005, 08:22 PM

From Tom's Hardware

Why Is Nintendo Ignoring American Men? (http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20050210/index.html)

bknauss

02-10-2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Jstas
Post some facts and not your opinions and I'll have something to refute.

I gotta agree with Jstas on this one. Post something more than "nintendo is going to hell" and we'll take your posts seriously. Just because you're in a business doesn't mean anything. Smart businessmen don't focus on one market when they can dip their hands in one, do well (yet not dominate it), and then dominate another. To get out of the video game realm... look at what Polk is doing. They're morphing a bit from speakers and venturing into other areas. Are they going to dominate any one market? no... but when one area goes down (ie speaker sales), they can make up for it in other areas.

Demiurge

02-10-2005, 09:01 PM

Did I say Nintendo is going to hell? No I didn't.

Nintendo did lose dramatic market share with the onset of Sony to the scene and even moreso with Microsoft. These are facts. What is it you guys want me to show you? I haven't heard you deny this fact so I really don't know what all the beef is about.

Sid made a comment about Nintendo and he was pretty much right. Nintendo is actually now trying to come back into the fold and expanding itself into the market it ignored. The market it was ignoring is the same market that made them the #1 gaming company in the world...only these kids are now adults and have different tastes.

Do we still like Super Mario? Yes. Do a vast majority of people love the new wave FPS and visually stunning RPGs? Yes. I happen to like both formats.....but when I have a choice to make I make the choice to go with the companies that give me the greatest ammount of choices. That was Microsoft and Sony, not Nintendo.

It's an opinion to say that was a bad business move? If that's true why now is Nintendo moving into the market it ignored for so long? :eek:

Is it too late? Who knows...I doubt it, but it would be merely a guess on my part and I'm not sure how I come down on it.

I also own the DS, but I also feel PSP will give it very stiff competition if not kill it. It can play PS2 quality games.

I never understood the argument that Graphics AND Gameplay can't coexist. Like all graphically stunning games are somehow 'not fun'. It's such a lame argument. I love my old Nintendo games as much as the next guy, but they don't hold a candle to HL2, Raven Shield, Unreal Tournament, you name it.

Mjr7531

02-11-2005, 12:17 AM

Sorry Demi...
But when it comes to stunning FPSs and RPG, it's all at the computer, there are so many games out on Computer where you don't have to pay to play online, the abilty to get massive mulitiplayer, and still be able to use the blasted thing for something other than gaming, it really does go to computers, sure Halo was big, but no offense, it's a monotonous game, with a cult following.
As for the PSP, a wide screen doesn't sell everything. backwards compatibility, easy networking and an already big gamebase will. Again, I worked my job again, and saw even more kids playing their gameboys, I mean, people are still buying Gameboy Advance SPs! I think that Nintendo is still doing quite well, and will do so for quite some time, people really do enjoy a "childish" game, those really are the fun ones. Sure blood and guts are nice, but sometimes, its nice going to something a little less grusome.
My 2 cents...

Demiurge

02-11-2005, 12:46 AM

Again...if what you say is true...why is Nintendo moving in that direction now?

That's still the question nobody has answered for me if I'm wrong.

It's not about blood and guts and saying that a graphically stunning game is about blood and guts isn't remotely true.

Gran Turismo 4. Is that going to be on Gamecube? No. Games like that are huge and they're not on platforms that Nintendo has. That's just one small example.

All that aside...all the 'childish' games are also on the Microsoft and Sony platforms so it seems rather a moot point. Handhelds aren't consoles, but I agree Nintendo has been boss there, but then again...what competition has there been? None, really....

Mjr7531

02-11-2005, 01:15 AM

Perhaps none, but Nintendo has been able to keep it that way, for a very long time. Unfortunatly, a great majority, though not all of the graphical stunners are blood and guts, it's going to be a bit before it expands outwards. And just to be a stickler, the DS is technically a platform. ;)
Ya, know, intelligent debate like this is actually pretty nice...

bknauss

02-11-2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Demiurge
Did I say Nintendo is going to hell? No I didn't.

Go back a couple posts to this quote:
"Nintendo ain't dyin? They've been dying."

Hell... dying... same thing.

PhantomOG

02-11-2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Demiurge
Again...if what you say is true...why is Nintendo moving in that direction now?

That's still the question nobody has answered for me if I'm wrong.

It's not about blood and guts and saying that a graphically stunning game is about blood and guts isn't remotely true.

Gran Turismo 4. Is that going to be on Gamecube? No. Games like that are huge and they're not on platforms that Nintendo has. That's just one small example.

All that aside...all the 'childish' games are also on the Microsoft and Sony platforms so it seems rather a moot point. Handhelds aren't consoles, but I agree Nintendo has been boss there, but then again...what competition has there been? None, really....

dude... where is this nintendo hatred coming from?? did your parents not get you one when you were little and now you hate nintendo because of it???? :P j/k

seriously though, i don't understand why discussions about consoles always get this heated. everyone has their personal preference, but don't force your opinions on other people.

Gran Turismo? I can't stand to play it. Halo? yawn... FPS bore me to tears. Does that mean that all of them suck? No, but that affects my choice of consoles and that's why I prefer Nintendo.

Eternal Darkness, Wind Waker, Paper Mario, Mario Kart, Metriod, Mario Golf/Tennis, Tales of Symphonia... can I play any of these games on PS2/XBOX? No. Not to mention the *thousands* of classic games I can get for Game Boy and play on my TV with the Game Boy Player.

Does it piss me off that there are lots of people who love FPS and blood/guts/sex in their video games? NO. Does it piss me off that there are companies that cater to those people? NO.

Why does it seemingly piss you off so much that Nintendo makes games that I like??

I know everyone thinks that they are the center of the universe but guess what, there are a TON of products out there that you have NO INTEREST in whatsoever but the companies that make those products are doing just fine because not everyone is like you.

PolkThug

02-11-2005, 12:41 PM

I didn't expect this thread to be as entertaining as it is.:D

Anyway, I'm glad IBM made the "Cell" chip to compete with Intel for the PC market. Although AMD makes a more efficient chip than Intel, AMD's market share is miniscule. More competition in CPU's is good news for consumers.

Jstas

02-11-2005, 01:11 PM

Yes, yes it is. It'll certainly force a redesign in the Intel/AMD camp and who knows, we may even see the rebirth of the PowerPC!

PhantomOG

02-11-2005, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Jstas
Yes, yes it is. It'll certainly force a redesign in the Intel/AMD camp and who knows, we may even see the rebirth of the PowerPC!

it will certainly take more than some outrageous performance claims and one gaming console deal to even moderately break into the PC microprocessor business. Intel has shown through the years it will do whatever monopolistic/illegal tactics are necessary to retain control of the market. competition is good but don't count your chickens before they hatch. AMD has consistently made better products than Intel over the past several years and it hasn't had much impact.

i will be surprised if this gets even the notoriety the PowerPC got with Apple.

Demiurge

02-11-2005, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by PhantomOG
dude... where is this nintendo hatred coming from?? did your parents not get you one when you were little and now you hate nintendo because of it???? :P j/k

seriously though, i don't understand why discussions about consoles always get this heated. everyone has their personal preference, but don't force your opinions on other people.

Gran Turismo? I can't stand to play it. Halo? yawn... FPS bore me to tears. Does that mean that all of them suck? No, but that affects my choice of consoles and that's why I prefer Nintendo.

Eternal Darkness, Wind Waker, Paper Mario, Mario Kart, Metriod, Mario Golf/Tennis, Tales of Symphonia... can I play any of these games on PS2/XBOX? No. Not to mention the *thousands* of classic games I can get for Game Boy and play on my TV with the Game Boy Player.

Does it piss me off that there are lots of people who love FPS and blood/guts/sex in their video games? NO. Does it piss me off that there are companies that cater to those people? NO.

Why does it seemingly piss you off so much that Nintendo makes games that I like??

I know everyone thinks that they are the center of the universe but guess what, there are a TON of products out there that you have NO INTEREST in whatsoever but the companies that make those products are doing just fine because not everyone is like you.

This is what I don't understand...why do you accuse me of hating Nintendo? I own all their products other than the Game Cube. They're a great gaming company. Because I say that they've ignored a HUGE segment of the gaming market is a fact. That's not hate...it's the truth. As I said...I own the DS. Why did I spend my money on that if I 'hate' them.

I really wish people would read the posts rather than infer things that aren't there.

AsSiMiLaTeD

02-11-2005, 06:45 PM

Mrs Lippy's car.....is green

Demiurge

02-11-2005, 06:54 PM

Mrs. Lippy's ____ is pink.

PhantomOG

03-17-2005, 11:48 AM

bumping an old thread but back on topic...

an excellent article explaining the difference between Sony's "Cell" architecture/technology and the current PC's

here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=1)

if you read the whole thing (LONG) you will understand why it is naive/ignorant to make the claim "PS3 chip faster than Intel or AMD"

PolkThug

03-17-2005, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by PhantomOG
bumping an old thread but back on topic...

an excellent article explaining the difference between Sony's "Cell" architecture/technology and the current PC's

here (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2379&p=1)

if you read the whole thing (LONG) you will understand why it is naive/ignorant to make the claim "PS3 chip faster than Intel or AMD"

I'm not naive or ignorant about clock speeds. I could be misinformed. I based the statement on:

"Cell is said to run at clock speeds greater than 4 gigahertz, which would top the 3.8 GHz of Intel’s current top-speed chip."

Please paraphrase why Intel/AMD's chips are faster than Cell, that article is too long for me to read right now. :)

Thanks,
PT

PhantomOG

03-17-2005, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by PolkThug
I'm not naive or ignorant about clock speeds. I could be misinformed. I based the statement on:

"Cell is said to run at clock speeds greater than 4 gigahertz, which would top the 3.8 GHz of Intel’s current top-speed chip."

Please paraphrase why Intel/AMD's chips are faster than Cell, that article is too long for me to read right now. :)

Thanks,
PT

a claim about *clock speeds* is very different than an unqualified statement that one chip is *faster* than another.

faster implies alot more than just clock speed. if you were playing a game on a 10GHz chip that gave you 10 frames per second and the same game on a different chip with clock speeds at 2GHz but gave you 60 frames per second. which one would you say is "faster"? the 2GHz chip of course.

plain and simple --> clock speed does not equal performance.

PhantomOG

03-17-2005, 12:28 PM

and more semantics for you, but I always believed you could categorize someone who is "misinformed" as naive/ignorant on that subject. i don't mean any offense, just trying to clear up the "misinformation".

PolkThug

03-17-2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by PhantomOG
if you were playing a game on a 10GHz chip that gave you 10 frames per second and the same game on a different chip with clock speeds at 2GHz but gave you 60 frames per second. which one would you say is "faster"? the 2GHz chip of course.
No, the 10GHz chip is "faster". The PC with the 2GHZ chip has a better video card.

plain and simple --> clock speed does not equal performance. [/B]

Tell me something I don't know. This is why I use AMD.

To judge performance, I would need benchmark testing.

I stand by my statement that the cell chip is faster.

:D

PhantomOG

03-17-2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by PolkThug
No, the 10GHz chip is "faster". The PC with the 2GHZ chip has a better video card.

Tell me something I don't know. This is why I use AMD.

To judge performance, I would need benchmark testing.

I stand by my statement that the cell chip is faster.

:D

i assumed you would see that i implied both systems had all other components equal except the processor. i guess that was too big of an assumption to make about you. :P

the clock speed of a processor has no real world value to an end user in and of itself. if you believe a poorly designed processor with a super high clock speed but poor IPC/real world performance is "faster" than a slower clocked processor with higher IPC and better performance across the board than your definition of "faster" is ridiculous.

if that truly is your definition of the word "faster", then i'll cease discussion of your claim since your interpretation of the english language is so very different than mine.

:D

PolkThug

03-17-2005, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by PhantomOG
i assumed you would see that i implied both systems had all other components equal except the processor. i guess that was too big of an assumption to make about you. :P

I assumed that you would understand that faster = faster cycles, but I guess that was too big of an assumption to make about you. :P

the clock speed of a processor has no real world value to an end user in and of itself. if you believe a poorly designed processor with a super high clock speed but poor IPC/real world performance is "faster" than a slower clocked processor with higher IPC and better performance across the board than your definition of "faster" is ridiculous.

WHERE DID I MAKE A PERFORMANCE CLAIM??? To quote myself "To judge performance, I would need benchmark testing."

if that truly is your definition of the word "faster", then i'll cease discussion of your claim since your interpretation of the english language is so very different than mine.
:D

I bow to thee, Master of Semantics. I will add one extra word to the thread topic headline:

"PS 3 chip cycles faster than Intel or AMD"

Now if you think that a chip/crystal/widget that cycles at a speed of 4GHz is slower than 3.8GHz, then your interpretation of the English language is so very different than mine.

Regards,
PolkThug
:D :D :D

PhantomOG

03-17-2005, 03:16 PM

regardless of how you interpret the original comment, my whole point was it doesn't make any sense to even make the comparison in the first place. the processors are completely different architectures which means differences in clock speeds are useless information by themselves. more importantly, the architectures are SO different they can't even run with same code without recompiling.

the comparison is purely sensationalism at best. if the person reading it is someone smart enough to know that it doesn't mean squat, then its just useless information. but if the person isn't aware, then it is misleading and I was just trying to clear that up.

whether or not people make intelligent choices/comments about microprocessors might not mean anything to you, but it does to me (you could say i have a vested interest :D ). i'm sure you would defend Polk speakers from people making unclear comments that could put Polk in a bad light to those uneducated in audio matters. that's all i was trying to do here, not get into a pissing contest. i hope you can understand that.

PolkThug

03-17-2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by PhantomOG
whether or not people make intelligent choices/comments about microprocessors might not mean anything to you, but it does to me (you could say i have a vested interest :D ).

AHAAA! You're trying to discredit the competition. I remember the press release when AMD announced their 1GHz chip and beat Intel to the punch. They did it at midnight on, I forget what day, and by 12:05 the late night Intel geeks were making your same arguement you're making, and so on.

Regards,
PT

*Everything I've posted today about this has been in good fun, I'm sure we probably agree on everything computer related.

PhantomOG

03-17-2005, 03:43 PM

i wasn't trying to discredit anyone. there are pros/cons to everything. call me weird but i personally just want people to make informed decisions and comments about computer related items. i'm not trying to say that one is better than the other, just hoping to prevent people from *assuming* that based on the irrelevant comparison. there are people who *assume* Bose is better than Polk just based on sticker price. i'm sure anyone here would be first in line to enlighten those people of their mistake.

PolkThug

03-17-2005, 03:46 PM

Here's the last two paragraphs of the article that the link posts to:

"Regardless of what gaming platform you’re talking about, Cell’s ability to offer an array of cores to handle sophisticated physics and AI processing is the future. AGEIA’s announcement of the PhysX PPU (and the fact that it’s been given the “thumbs up” by Ubisoft and Epic Games) lends further credibility to Cell’s feasibility as a high performance gaming CPU.

The need for more realistic physics environments and AI in games is no illusion; the question is will Intel’s forthcoming dual and multi-core CPUs (with further optimized SIMD units) offer enough parallelism and performance for game developers, or will the PPU bring Cell-like architecture to the desktop PC well ahead of schedule? The answer to that question could very well shape the future of desktop PCs even more so than the advent of the GPU."

PhantomOG

03-17-2005, 03:56 PM

the real question (also discussed in the article) is to what level software makers are willing to increase their development times in order to boost performance. in the past they have shown negligible interest at doing this and forced hardware to make all the gains. this will have to change in the future, but makes having multiple chip architectures a burden on the industry. at the same time, competition is what has driven improvements and we would not be where we are today without it.

it will be interesting to see how it all pans out in the end.

PolkThug

03-17-2005, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by PhantomOG

it will be interesting to see how it all pans out in the end.

Exactly. It may never even make it to the home market.

PolkThug

03-27-2005, 11:54 AM

Shizelbs

03-27-2005, 05:43 PM

Damn Sony and their stupid proprietory media formats.

They can go screw themselves if they hope to make the PSP and PS3 'need each other' like Nintendo did with GB and GC.

Mjr7531

03-27-2005, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Shizelbs
Damn Sony and their stupid proprietory media formats.

They can go screw themselves if they hope to make the PSP and PS3 'need each other' like Nintendo did with GB and GC.

I think I heard somebody on NPR call it vertical integration on Sony's part...
THe problem with your last claim is that they don't really need each other. I never needed a Gamecube to play gameboy advance :)

Shizelbs

03-27-2005, 07:42 PM

Need schmeed, you know what I meant. Alls I know is there were a lot of games that to get the whole experience out of them, you needed both.

Vertical integration? I'll integrate my foot with their ass.

organ

04-01-2005, 02:02 AM

Wow, great thread.

I disagree with some of you about Nintendo. They were never dying and will continue to stay. The Game Boy is the best selling platform. The video game store I visit is doing very well in Nintendo sales. GC and GB.

One thing that will keep the game cube kicking is some of the killer exclusive titles. The Zelda and Metroid series being an example. And it's not a kiddie console. Take a look at the new Resident Evil game. GC exclusive.

I own all 3 consoles and I'll admit, the XBOX is my favorite, but all three are winners. I like XBOX the most because it has the kind of games I like. They appeal to different crowds and the Nintendo fans are very loyal.

Now about PS3. I won't believe anything until I see it in action. Sony hyped up the PS2 like mad. When people finally started playing, they realized a lot of it was BS. I was one of the 500 000 people who got a PS2 on the first day. Skipped school and lined up for hours in front of the store. It's a great machine but not as good as Sony claimed it would be.

Aaaaah, that's enough rambling for me. I'm gonna go play one of the greatest game ever right now......... "Super Metroid" on my Super Nintendo.

Maurice