The Shrine

Just click now

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614619p1.html

Hey, it actually looks really nice!

UPDATE: PS3 now official confirmed for release in the spring of 2006.

Where do I put down the preorder? ;p

It's a very nice looking system. Though I have to admit, it looks identical to my scanner =P

It's specs are less than Xbox's, same power, but Xbox has double the RAM.

The controller looks kind of fucked though. It looks similar to this old cheap PC controller that I had 7 or 8 years ago.


EDIT: It seems that they have been getting a lot of negative feedback about the controller design and will probably change it.

Here's something I found:



It seems Xbox 360 will be better capable than the PS3, but I have no doubt that the PS3 will devour it in terms of games. My new PC is still better than both of them though =P

These are very early specs. And actually, it looks like the PS3 is kicking the Xbox 360's ass in specs. PS3 is splitting up the memory better, and the processor is faster. (I think the synergistic processing elements, or SPEs, are somewhat like cores. MS is using a goddamn Apple processor; that's fucking weird!) Bluetooth is more compatible; dual screen output. Slightly bigger and no wireless-a, but those are minor.

Yeah, Sony's trying to play the PR game in saying that once developers saw the PS3's specs, some moved their games over from the Xenon.

The Revolution is only supposed to be 3 times as powerful as the 'Cube, so they're already way behind in the spec wars (which, although no one knows shit about what the specs mean, seem to be a difference maker in whether or not the system is purchased; crazy things like, say, games don't seem to factor into the decision unless the specs are good). They have to pull some wild gameplay mechanics out of their ass or they're niche already.

Oh ywait, you're right. I didn't notice the other 256 MB's of RAM.

Still, they look to be about the same then. 512 MBs of RAM and 3.2 GHz processor.

sweet. That is all.

The Seeker wrote:Still, they look to be about the same then. 512 MBs of RAM and 3.2 GHz processor.

Nope. RAM and CPU are the two biggest factors in the "speed of the system". Fuck the MHz, look at the teraflops. The PS3 is basically twice as fast as the XBox 360. FLOPS, or FLoating-point Operations Per Second, are a much better measurement of speed. And half of their RAM is running at the same fucking speed at the processor!! I'm never even heard of that on PC specs!

THEY'RE MAKING A NEW WARHAWK?????

Yee!

All right, I'll trust you on this one Sine since I know jack shit about this sort of techno babble beyond drive speeds, ghzs, and amount of ram =P

Warhawk? What is Warhawk?

The Seeker wrote:Warhawk? What is Warhawk?

Warhawk = PS1 3-D open-ended flight/shooter game. One of SingleTrac's Big Three in the early days of the PS1 (along with Twisted Metal and Jet Moto). Excellent for a PS1 game.

I was hoping this new one is an update...but the early screens aren't promising on that front. Booooooooooo.

<b>EDIT:</b> GameTrailers.com's little blurb next to the trailer for Warhawk said "the early PlayStation classic returns for some next-gen dogfights." YES!

SineSwiper wrote:Nope. RAM and CPU are the two biggest factors in the "speed of the system". Fuck the MHz, look at the teraflops. The PS3 is basically twice as fast as the XBox 360. FLOPS, or FLoating-point Operations Per Second, are a much better measurement of speed. And half of their RAM is running at the same fucking speed at the processor!! I'm never even heard of that on PC specs!

FLOPS aren't a very good indication of realistic performance, either. They represent what the machine is capable of under ideal conditions. No game will achieve those numbers. Further, since these machines can now do parallel processing, programability is going to be a limitation.

This is what I think about the comparison.

.........

Don't care at all. Both are shaping up to be monstrous gaming systems. If I 'had' to pick one though. Damn. I don't know. It would likely be the PS3 as I like a lot of the developers lined up behind them.

And Holy Kittens, the Killzone and UT 2007 footage was awesome.

Either way, I very HIGHLY doubt that the next generation will look much better than Gamecube or Xbox's best looking titles. At least not for a while. Since the power of the next generation consoles probably won't ever be maxed out (like this current generation, they are still far from reaching the peak power of the Gamecube or Xbox) I highly doubt the little difference in specs will make any impact on the games. It's up to the developer at this point.

The Seeker wrote:Either way, I very HIGHLY doubt that the next generation will look much better than Gamecube or Xbox's best looking titles.

Actually, the next generation titles will immediately look better than the majority of games out now - but not in the way you're probably thinking.

The immediate difference is going to be the hightened resolution that the new consoles will output - for gamers that have HDTVs or play games on their monitors, anyway.

I think given 2-3 years there will be large enough difference; developers will need to put A LOT of money into development technology before they can make signficant leaps. But at the moment, the gap is not much. The gap between Mario 64 and Conkers Bad Fur Day, is further than the gap between the best looking games on this generation and the games of the next generation.

The games in motion, they do look fairly good, but Doom 3 (as an example) still looks about as good.

As I own a Samsung 32" HD TV that supports 1080i, I think the PS3 and Xbox 360 will be VAST improvements over the current era's consoles visually. I'm even using top of the line Component cables now, which are much better than regular AV cables.

the Gray wrote:As I own a Samsung 32" HD TV that supports 1080i, I think the PS3 and Xbox 360 will be VAST improvements over the current era's consoles visually. I'm even using top of the line Component cables now, which are much better than regular AV cables.

I do not doubt for a second the capability is there; it is just no one has yet taken advantage of those capabilities. I do not think they will for a little while.

Kupek wrote:FLOPS aren't a very good indication of realistic performance, either. They represent what the machine is capable of under ideal conditions. No game will achieve those numbers. Further, since these machines can now do parallel processing, programability is going to be a limitation.

Well, I said it was much better than MHz, and probably good for a base-level of speed, but no, neither is a good representation of speed "under pressure". For that, you'd actually need a benchmarking program, but it's not like they are going to display how many Whetstones the systems can pump out.

Yeah, the parallel processing is going to be a problem, but I would imagine it to be a golden age for parallel processing with the development of new tools to make it easier. Since both systems are going to feature it, and all of the new companies are forced to code with it, we'll get the benefits of their tools. You think we're going to be coding on single processors forever? You think we're going to tolerate the problems with parallel processing forever?

The Seeker wrote:All right, I'll trust you on this one Sine since I know jack shit about this sort of techno babble beyond drive speeds, ghzs, and amount of ram =P

Warhawk? What is Warhawk?

OMG you never played Warhawk? You missed out, this game was sooo freakin awesome.

Hmmm... okay, Warhawk = awesome. Check. What else?