How did Microsoft manage to do it???

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

septicvirus

sony got stuck trying to make "teh cell" perform as a gpu as well as a cpu. so instead of delaying the p3 again they went to nvidia and asked for a qiuck fix and the rsx was it.

[QUOTE="septicvirus"]

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

jxditu

sony got stuck trying to make "teh cell" perform as a gpu as well as a cpu. so instead of delaying the p3 again they went to nvidia and asked for a qiuck fix and the rsx was it.

But why wouldn't they go get a GPU that was the same or even a bit better than the one already in the 360? did they think they could trick all sony fans forever? are they still tricking sony fans?

Simply because MS has a better understanding of what kind of architecture is best for processing software.

is it really a surprise?

Hmmm ATI was allready at the point where they could mass produce unified shader GPUs?2FacedJanus

Do you think Sony tried to pull off a big hoax? Meaning, after losing so much time and R&D costs with the cell, they opted to recoup some of the money by using an inferior, less expensive GPU.

Ultimately, they believed they could sell 5 million PS3's before anyone even noticed. I think they were planning on selling just on hype and potential. Fanboys may be playing a role in their plan by continually hyping the Cell.

[QUOTE="jxditu"][QUOTE="septicvirus"]

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

septicvirus

sony got stuck trying to make "teh cell" perform as a gpu as well as a cpu. so instead of delaying the p3 again they went to nvidia and asked for a qiuck fix and the rsx was it.

But why wouldn't they go get a GPU that was the same or even a bit better than the one already in the 360? did they think they could trick all sony fans forever? are they still tricking sony fans?

they didnt have the time to wait for a new design. MS knew from the start what they wanted to do as far as a gpu. sony thought they were going to be slick and have the cell peform the operations of both the gpu and cpu. sony already wited too long to release the ps3 and adding to that time would have made it even worst.

Don't forget - the PS3 launched several months later than it was supposed to because of severe shortages and manufacturing issues of Blu Ray diodes.

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

septicvirus

Ask the person with a melted mother board.

Because they plan Ahead.

havent you learned anything?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

septicvirus

The thing is that there was very little further development of the PS3 the last 1,5 year before it was released. They would of course have released far earlier if they could get their precious cell and blu-ray produced in mass quantities. Which they couldn't. They took a gamble. And lost.

So the PS3-hardware is not 'never' than the 360 at all. It just came later to the market.

[QUOTE="jxditu"][QUOTE="septicvirus"]

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

septicvirus

sony got stuck trying to make "teh cell" perform as a gpu as well as a cpu. so instead of delaying the p3 again they went to nvidia and asked for a qiuck fix and the rsx was it.

But why wouldn't they go get a GPU that was the same or even a bit better than the one already in the 360? did they think they could trick all sony fans forever? are they still tricking sony fans?

the cost of it, it they did ps3 might cost more than 600 bucks

[QUOTE="2FacedJanus"]Hmmm ATI was allready at the point where they could mass produce unified shader GPUs?septicvirus

Do you think Sony tried to pull off a big hoax? Meaning, after losing so much time and R&D costs with the cell, they opted to recoup some of the money by using an inferior, less expensive GPU.

Ultimately, they believed they could sell 5 million PS3's before anyone even noticed. I think they were planning on selling just on hype and potential. Fanboys may be playing a role in their plan by continually hyping the Cell.

I could see Sony doing this

Do you think Sony tried to pull off a big hoax? Meaning, after losing so much time and R&D costs with the cell, they opted to recoup some of the money by using an inferior, less expensive GPU.

Ultimately, they believed they could sell 5 million PS3's before anyone even noticed. I think they were planning on selling just on hype and potential. Fanboys may be playing a role in their plan by continually hyping the Cell.

septicvirus

Hoax no? Did they indeed overhype their system's capabilities? yes. Did they indeed hype the cell as a gift from god? Yes. Would they have been better off if they opted for just taking multiple general purpose cores? Yes, so far I don't know about the Cell being massively used in other products, and I believe that was the whole point of the cell. In my opinion, they would've been better off getting a different cpu for their PS3 and waited until the cell could actually be mass produced properly, then use a highly advanced version of the CELL for PS4, along with proper development tools and all that.

But hey, who am I to talk like this, I know jack **** about making consoles.

But I think sony's biggest flaw was misjudging their userbase, the people who bought a ps2 bought it to play games, they aren't media center enthusiast. I think this is one of the main reasons that the price is affecting PS3 sales so much. Because if that same userbase will plop down 600,- for a machine they will mainly play games on, they expect super graphics, blowing the 360 out of the water and making the extra 200 well worth it. But instead, you get a system, that's 200,- more than a 360, and games that don't look better than 360 games.

[QUOTE="septicvirus"]

Do you think Sony tried to pull off a big hoax? Meaning, after losing so much time and R&D costs with the cell, they opted to recoup some of the money by using an inferior, less expensive GPU.

Ultimately, they believed they could sell 5 million PS3's before anyone even noticed. I think they were planning on selling just on hype and potential. Fanboys may be playing a role in their plan by continually hyping the Cell.

2FacedJanus

Hoax no? Did they indeed overhype their system's capabilities? yes. Did they indeed hype the cell as a gift from god? Yes. Would they have been better off if they opted for just taking multiple general purpose cores? Yes, so far I don't know about the Cell being massively used in other products, and I believe that was the whole point of the cell. In my opinion, they would've been better off getting a different cpu for their PS3 and waited until the cell could actually be mass produced properly, then use a highly advanced version of the CELL for PS4, along with proper development tools and all that.

But hey, who am I to talk like this, I know jack **** about making consoles.

But I think sony's biggest flaw was misjudging their userbase, the people who bought a ps2 bought it to play games, they aren't media center enthusiast. I think this is one of the main reasons that the price is affecting PS3 sales so much. Because if that same userbase will plop down 600,- for a machine they will mainly play games on, they expect super graphics, blowing the 360 out of the water and making the extra 200 well worth it. But instead, you get a system, that's 200,- more than a 360, and games that don't look better than 360 games.

I think you're right. Playstation fans wanted super graphics out of the PS3, not a jack of all trades.

Sony wanted to see Blu-Ray and not a gaming machine. This is why they failed.spidey008

i agree, the ps3 is a media device (so says Sony themselves) and not a gaming machine. If they focused more on games they would be ahead of the pack right now bur because of the all-in-one approach, it kicking them in the butt. I as a gamer care about games, not blu-ray and communications. I got a PC for that stuff.

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

septicvirus

I would like to recommend that all clueless and ignorant people stop making hardware threads. Thank you!

Now, to answer your question, just because the PS3 launched a year after the 360 does NOT mean it started development later, had the specs approved later or used newer hardware. The PS3 and 360 were in development for the same amount of time and basically had their finaly specs finalized at the same time. The problem was that, while MS was able to rush out their hardware, Sony had delay after delay after delay due to hardware manufacturing problems, lawsuits over their controller and a possible redesign, problems with BR manufacturing, and of course the issue of devs not getting their devs kits soon enough to make games available for an earlier launch.

So while there are many issues to criticize SOny over, this idea that time is all that matters when it come to hardware shows nothing but the ignorance some people have when it comes to anything more than a year old.

Point of thread?

PS3 is still more powerful.

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

septicvirus

Um both were finalized long before they were announced. The PS3's delay was because they had alot of trouble with Cell yields and Blu Ray diods. Sony never had a custom GPU designed like MS. They were originally going to use two Cell CPU's but that didnt work so they had to use an off the shelf G70.

Easy to say the only effort Sony put into the PS3 was the graphics and the blu-ray drive.

Microsoft put a master game system and easy to use gameplay controls.

Exactly!

[QUOTE="septicvirus"]

How did Microsoft manage to release the 360 one year before the PS3 and still have a better GPU?

How is this possible? Shouldn't the technology have been a little old by the time the PS3 came out?

TOAO_Cyrus1

Um both were finalized long before they were announced. The PS3's delay was because they had alot of trouble with Cell yields and Blu Ray diods. Sony never had a custom GPU designed like MS. They were originally going to use two Cell CPU's but that didnt work so they had to use an off the shelf G70.

So is all this talk about the Cell working w/ the RSX to eventually produce better graphics than the 360 really just wishful thinking?

This debacleclearly shows the sony executive staff for the group of bumbling idiots they are. Their business plan, while in the "best intrests of the consumers" and certaintly in the best interest of blu ray ( and the only hope it had), were very poorly executed. From a competition standpoint, a software giant like microsoft that has a clear understanding of the most optimal system infastructure was also aggressive in its release of the 360.

Point of thread?

PS3 is still more powerful.

Armored_cell

I thought it was already proven false by facts in another thread.

They definitly saved some time on 'Quality Control', which has caused 360 owners to invent the 'Towel' trick.flazzle

huh? we were talking about why the gpu is better on a system release a year earlier. A good GPU seems pretty important to a gaming system to me...