Ms next console should leave pc graphics trying to catch up for a year or two.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Yes their other CPUs have been great successes haven't they?Tasman_basic
Ibm made it not Ms, Which means profits go to Ibm.
If IBM can't compete with the greater PC CPU market, what makes you think that Microsoft will be able to even get close?
Just a question.
Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.Danm_999
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.No_worrys_mate
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
i hope you dont seriously think MS could make their own chips, that would be a nightmare. MS is a garbage developer of anything, its other people that make their stuff decent. of course windows is complete garbage, cause they wont even try on that.
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
No_worrys_mate
Microsoft may know what needs to be done as theres certainly many very competent people working in that particular company but if you know much about them you would know they are so tied up in beauracracy that they can't tie their own shoes without getting an approval from the top.
Also contrary to what you may think, it costs LOTS of money to make chip fabs, especially with IBM and Intel barrelling ahead to 45nm and beyond. So unless Microsoft gets some insane deal with a contract fab they won't be saving much money.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.No_worrys_mate
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
Err, what?
Take away what money from ATI, (I'll fill in some others for you), Intel, NVIDIA and AMD? Microsoft makes Operating Systems. It's a software firm. These other companies are hardware. Microsoft is not going to be able to compete with them in their own game.
Microsoft is not some grand king of PCs. They don't have the power to do what you suggest (and I'm not sure what you are suggesting, how is "include extra stuff" going to allow consoles to continually compete with PCs) and you seem to be rather confused about a few things.
If IBM can't compete with the greater PC CPU market, what makes you think that Microsoft will be able to even get close?
Just a question.
Runningflame570
Because ibm has to make a profit of the stuff they supply Ms, If Ms done in house development then they just need to focus on how much they loose on each console at the start which means they dont have to cut back as much things when they design it, I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, Well that wont have to happen next time around because of the things i just have said, Also the fact the Ms obviously knows where the indrustry is heading and im pretty sure they give alot of imput to companys like Ibm, Ati, Nivida and what not which affects their product in the end.
I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, W
No_worrys_mate
This is extremely unlikely. ATI was commissioned to construct the 360's GPU in 2003. Development would have occured during 2003-2004 for a 2005 release. There was no way late 2006-2007 technology would have been considered then (heck, Dx9 was only just out in 2003).
I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.No_worrys_mate
Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.Danm_999
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
Err, what?
Take away what money from ATI, (I'll fill in some others for you), Intel, NVIDIA and AMD? Microsoft makes Operating Systems. It's a software firm. These other companies are hardware. Microsoft is not going to be able to compete with them in their own game.
Microsoft is not some grand king of PCs. They don't have the power to do what you suggest (and I'm not sure what you are suggesting, how is "include extra stuff" going to allow consoles to continually compete with PCs) and you seem to be rather confused about a few things.
Firstly- Who said Ati, Secondly- You think ati is a not for profit company, Thidly- I havent seen a game really to show up Geow yet after 1 and half years after the 360 launch so why isnt it possible, Fourthly- Ms made their minds up to develop their cpus, Its obviously going to be cheaper and im shure they know what they are doing, Lastly- You say they dont have the power, What is that, You dont know the in sides and outs of Ms to say what Ms can do or can not.
Because ibm has to make a profit of the stuff they supply Ms, If Ms done in house development then they just need to focus on how much they loose on each console at the start which means they dont have to cut back as much things when they design it, I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, Well that wont have to happen next time around because of the things i just have said, Also the fact the Ms obviously knows where the indrustry is heading and im pretty sure they give alot of imput to companys like Ibm, Ati, Nivida and what not which affects their product in the end.
No_worrys_mate
Heres a hint..you are wrong. Thats not even what I was talking about, but that brings up a relevant argument against the point of this thread.
Consoles need to have some degree of affordability (see: continuing fury over PS3 price point) and that often means cutting corners in certain areas, the CPU is one of those areas. Console CPUs are very strong in select areas but usually nearly worthless in others.
Console CPUs use in-order execution which simply put means they need to perform tasks a set way, they aren't flexible and while this offers a couple of advantages over out-of-order the performance disadvantages are very significant.
Its not like designing a CPU is a simple process either, if anything that will cost them MORE than having it contracted out. If you've ever seen a motherboard close up you would know how complex it is..if anything a CPU is considerably more complex than that and they are becoming more intricate by the day.
Microsoft has something known as monopoly control over the OS market but they can't control decisions of companies that they don't have a contract with.
Now for what I WAS talking about, IBM makes their own chip architecture called the Power Architecture, both the PS3 and 360 CPUs use this to a lesser or greater degree (lesser PS3, greater 360) and its true that its very powerful but they still can't compete and they are probably in the top 3 if not the top when it comes to technical excellence within the computer field.
Microsoft is trying to delay where the industry is heading, because its heading increasingly towards open source and if that takes over Microsoft dies.
I call shenanigans on this Gilligan *points up*Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
Acemaster27
[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.Acemaster27
Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
I thought it was the Blue ray that made the Ps3 costly and secondly Ibm made the cell and not Sony so their in the same boat and Ms this gen as well.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.No_worrys_mate
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
Err, what?
Take away what money from ATI, (I'll fill in some others for you), Intel, NVIDIA and AMD? Microsoft makes Operating Systems. It's a software firm. These other companies are hardware. Microsoft is not going to be able to compete with them in their own game.
Microsoft is not some grand king of PCs. They don't have the power to do what you suggest (and I'm not sure what you are suggesting, how is "include extra stuff" going to allow consoles to continually compete with PCs) and you seem to be rather confused about a few things.
Firstly- Who said Ati, Secondly- You think ati is a not for profit company, Thidly- I havent seen a game really to show up Geow yet after 1 and half years after the 360 launch so why isnt it possible, Fourthly- Ms made their minds up to develop their cpus, Its obviously going to be cheaper and im shure they know what they are doing, Lastly- You say they dont have the power, What is that, You dont know the in sides and outs of Ms to say what Ms can do or can not.
Well firstly, you said ATI in the post I was responding to.
Secondly, yes, ATI is a business, it's trying to make money, didn't say it wasn't.
Thirdly, as for your GEOW comment, I've seen games in development coming out in the next few months that show it up, as well there is nothing else on the 360 that can compete with the apex of PC graphics (Epic themselves said the 360 was a low to mid range PC).
Fourthly, their a software company. Just because they've done well in the OS market is no guarantee everything they do turns to gold. They pretty much have no chance of breaking into a vicious market dominated by Intel and AMD, nor would they want to, they have good links with both these firms.
Lastly, I don't know the ins and outs of Microsoft, but neither do you. But I think my analysis that they are NOT going to be leading a major coup of every aspect of PC hardware is more believable.
[QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.No_worrys_mate
Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
I thought it was the Blue ray that made the Ps3 costly and secondly Ibm made the cell and not Sony so their in the same boat and Ms this gen as well.
Yeah, but the bluray player improves the graphics more. Try to play 1080p on the 360 and it wont play. Thats the drain sonys money is swirling down.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.No_worrys_mate
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
Err, what?
Take away what money from ATI, (I'll fill in some others for you), Intel, NVIDIA and AMD? Microsoft makes Operating Systems. It's a software firm. These other companies are hardware. Microsoft is not going to be able to compete with them in their own game.
Microsoft is not some grand king of PCs. They don't have the power to do what you suggest (and I'm not sure what you are suggesting, how is "include extra stuff" going to allow consoles to continually compete with PCs) and you seem to be rather confused about a few things.
Firstly- Who said Ati, Secondly- You think ati is a not for profit company, Thidly- I havent seen a game really to show up Geow yet after 1 and half years after the 360 launch so why isnt it possible, Fourthly- Ms made their minds up to develop their cpus, Its obviously going to be cheaper and im shure they know what they are doing, Lastly- You say they dont have the power, What is that, You dont know the in sides and outs of Ms to say what Ms can do or can not.
GeoW isnt the technical marvel that people make it out to be. lets take a quick look at that, notice how at any given time, there are only about 1-2 guys on screen. the character models are good, but look at the draw distance, it sucks. next is game length, short and shallow. the physics are terrible, walk over a dead body, its in one of the game videos i saw, they rolled the body like it was a rag doll just by walking over it. online is pathetic at best. take a system that cant handle graphics like that, and you have to give up some things to make it happen. you give up draw distance, game length, the amount of things that can happen on screen, physics and online.
Crysis is going to blow this out of the water, and if you ask me stalker looks better than gears easy. MS cant make their own hardware, period. they just cant do it.
[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, W
Danm_999
This is extremely unlikely. ATI was commissioned to construct the 360's GPU in 2003. Development would have occured during 2003-2004 for a 2005 release. There was no way late 2006-2007 technology would have been considered then (heck, Dx9 was only just out in 2003).
I belive that the 360 when it was developed or after i dont know was said it would of been direx 10 if some things didnt get cut back, Also you go blah blah blah, Do you know what research is, What Ms wasnt thinking of Direx10 a few years ago, Heck they already knew what they were going to do because they knew when they were going to release vista nd pretty much knew how powerful the hardware would be today.
[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.Acemaster27
Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
I thought it was the Blue ray that made the Ps3 costly and secondly Ibm made the cell and not Sony so their in the same boat and Ms this gen as well.
Yeah, but the bluray player improves the graphics more. Try to play 1080p on the 360 and it wont play. Thats the drain sonys money is swirling down.
The Blu-ray improves the graphics more? No it doesn't.
I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.No_worrys_mate
First of all ms don't make CPU's, their a software company......and secondly it would cost thousands of dollars for a console to be more advanced then a pc for the next 2 years, they would need to use a out-of-order execution CPU instead of an in-order execution cpu that are used in consoles now to keep the price down, maybe 2 quad core processors and since this will be in about a year maybe a GeForce 9 series gpu......make that 2 of them, 4 gigs of ram, blue ray and lots of other things. I cant imagine how much that would cost.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, W
No_worrys_mate
This is extremely unlikely. ATI was commissioned to construct the 360's GPU in 2003. Development would have occured during 2003-2004 for a 2005 release. There was no way late 2006-2007 technology would have been considered then (heck, Dx9 was only just out in 2003).
I belive that the 360 when it was developed or after i dont know was said it would of been direx 10 if some things didnt get cut back, Also you go blah blah blah, Do you know what research is, What Ms wasnt thinking of Direx10 a few years ago, Heck they already knew what they were going to do because they knew when they were going to release vista nd pretty much knew how powerful the hardware would be today.
you give MS way too much credit, they are not that bright. how would they be thinking of DX10 when it wasnt even an idea at the time? that and they dont develop DX
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, W
No_worrys_mate
This is extremely unlikely. ATI was commissioned to construct the 360's GPU in 2003. Development would have occured during 2003-2004 for a 2005 release. There was no way late 2006-2007 technology would have been considered then (heck, Dx9 was only just out in 2003).
I belive that the 360 when it was developed or after i dont know was said it would of been direx 10 if some things didnt get cut back, Also you go blah blah blah, Do you know what research is, What Ms wasnt thinking of Direx10 a few years ago, Heck they already knew what they were going to do because they knew when they were going to release vista nd pretty much knew how powerful the hardware would be today.
Find me a link then. I've given you solid facts and done my research about when ATI was commissioned to build the 360 GPU. Once again I've given you evidence and logical analyis, and you've resulted to childish insults.
And no, I doubt Microsoft had conceived of the Dx10 GPU 4 years before it was released. You seen to have built Microsoft up in your mind as some sort of omniscent juggernaut that sees all.
And Directx 10 isn't just software, it's a completely different architecture in the GPU.
[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.Gzus666
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
Err, what?
Take away what money from ATI, (I'll fill in some others for you), Intel, NVIDIA and AMD? Microsoft makes Operating Systems. It's a software firm. These other companies are hardware. Microsoft is not going to be able to compete with them in their own game.
Microsoft is not some grand king of PCs. They don't have the power to do what you suggest (and I'm not sure what you are suggesting, how is "include extra stuff" going to allow consoles to continually compete with PCs) and you seem to be rather confused about a few things.
Firstly- Who said Ati, Secondly- You think ati is a not for profit company, Thidly- I havent seen a game really to show up Geow yet after 1 and half years after the 360 launch so why isnt it possible, Fourthly- Ms made their minds up to develop their cpus, Its obviously going to be cheaper and im shure they know what they are doing, Lastly- You say they dont have the power, What is that, You dont know the in sides and outs of Ms to say what Ms can do or can not.
GeoW isnt the technical marvel that people make it out to be. lets take a quick look at that, notice how at any given time, there are only about 1-2 guys on screen. the character models are good, but look at the draw distance, it sucks. next is game length, short and shallow. the physics are terrible, walk over a dead body, its in one of the game videos i saw, they rolled the body like it was a rag doll just by walking over it. online is pathetic at best. take a system that cant handle graphics like that, and you have to give up some things to make it happen. you give up draw distance, game length, the amount of things that can happen on screen, physics and online.
Crysis is going to blow this out of the water, and if you ask me stalker looks better than gears easy. MS cant make their own hardware, period. they just cant do it.
Ms cant do it you say?, Am i talking to a brick wall or something, Its already been annouced that they are doing their cpu in house, Secondly Crysis is coming out two years after Geow, Thirdly- Whos says stalker looks better than Geow, What you, Oh ok, Yeah whatever man, So basicaly you going to diss a game because it doesent take place on a huge map, I cant be bothed go into the rest because you going into things that dont matter, I mean online rubbish, What the hell is that, If your talking about gameplay wise then i agree with you but it hasnt got anything to do with system hardware, Game length wtf, Yeah hardware has something to do with that, Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"]Consoles always do that though, try to remain as competitive as possible with PCs on release. And for a little while they are, but within a few months it's always the same old story of technical outstripping, and there's nothing that can be done, save having upgradeable consoles.No_worrys_mate
Well if Ms can actually start to take away the money that Ati, Ibm and what eve companys that makeprofitsfrom Ms then it will mean they wont loose as much money and maybe be able to include extra stuff, Also if anyone is going to move things along it will be Ms, I pretty shure they know what needs to be done.
Err, what?
Take away what money from ATI, (I'll fill in some others for you), Intel, NVIDIA and AMD? Microsoft makes Operating Systems. It's a software firm. These other companies are hardware. Microsoft is not going to be able to compete with them in their own game.
Microsoft is not some grand king of PCs. They don't have the power to do what you suggest (and I'm not sure what you are suggesting, how is "include extra stuff" going to allow consoles to continually compete with PCs) and you seem to be rather confused about a few things.
Firstly- Who said Ati, Secondly- You think ati is a not for profit company, Thidly- I havent seen a game really to show up Geow yet after 1 and half years after the 360 launch so why isnt it possible, Fourthly- Ms made their minds up to develop their cpus, Its obviously going to be cheaper and im shure they know what they are doing, Lastly- You say they dont have the power, What is that, You dont know the in sides and outs of Ms to say what Ms can do or can not.
GeoW isnt the technical marvel that people make it out to be. lets take a quick look at that, notice how at any given time, there are only about 1-2 guys on screen. the character models are good, but look at the draw distance, it sucks. next is game length, short and shallow. the physics are terrible, walk over a dead body, its in one of the game videos i saw, they rolled the body like it was a rag doll just by walking over it. online is pathetic at best. take a system that cant handle graphics like that, and you have to give up some things to make it happen. you give up draw distance, game length, the amount of things that can happen on screen, physics and online.
Crysis is going to blow this out of the water, and if you ask me stalker looks better than gears easy. MS cant make their own hardware, period. they just cant do it.
Ms cant do it you say?, Am i talking to a brick wall or something, Its already been annouced that they are doing their cpu in house, Secondly Crysis is coming out two years after Geow, Thirdly- Whos says stalker looks better than Geow, What you, Oh ok, Yeah whatever man, So basicaly you going to diss a game because it doesent take place on a huge map, I cant be bothed go into the rest because you going into things that dont matter, I mean online rubbish, What the hell is that, If your talking about gameplay wise then i agree with you but it hasnt got anything to do with system hardware, Game length wtf, Yeah hardware has something to do with that, Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Crysis is not coming out 2 years after Gears of War. At this point it's unlikely it's even coming out 1 year after Gears of War.
I belive that the 360 when it was developed or after i dont know was said it would of been direx 10 if some things didnt get cut back, Also you go blah blah blah, Do you know what research is, What Ms wasnt thinking of Direx10 a few years ago, Heck they already knew what they were going to do because they knew when they were going to release vista nd pretty much knew how powerful the hardware would be today.
No_worrys_mate
Bullcrap, Vista had an original launch date of 2004 and was pushed back MULTIPLE times. If they had not been in a monopolized market that would have killed its chances right there, as would some of the things like hardware requirements, cost, and UAC annoyances.
Microsoft had no way to know what hardware would be out YEARS further down the road, the stuff that came out around the same time as Vista wasn't even announced back when they began work on it.
[QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.Danm_999
Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
I thought it was the Blue ray that made the Ps3 costly and secondly Ibm made the cell and not Sony so their in the same boat and Ms this gen as well.
Yeah, but the bluray player improves the graphics more. Try to play 1080p on the 360 and it wont play. Thats the drain sonys money is swirling down.
The Blu-ray improves the graphics more? No it doesn't.
Dude, i know all about console, and the bluray player takes uber bluray laser diode processing power to run. The 360 doesn't have any blu laser diode to give it the processing boost that the PS3 has.
Dude, i know all about console, and the bluray player takes uber bluray laser diode processing power to run. The 360 doesn't have any blu laser diode to give it the processing boost that the PS3 has.
Acemaster27
Fakeboy confirmed then.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.Acemaster27
Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
I thought it was the Blue ray that made the Ps3 costly and secondly Ibm made the cell and not Sony so their in the same boat and Ms this gen as well.
Yeah, but the bluray player improves the graphics more. Try to play 1080p on the 360 and it wont play. Thats the drain sonys money is swirling down.
The Blu-ray improves the graphics more? No it doesn't.
Dude, i know all about console, and the bluray player takes uber bluray laser diode processing power to run. The 360 doesn't have any blu laser diode to give it the processing boost that the PS3 has.
So? That doesn't improve graphics. Blu-ray merely improves the disk capacity of software. You can argue the PS3's HD capability (rather irrelevant to the inclusion of gameplay since the 360 also features HD support) improves graphics, but Blu-ray doesn't.
In fact the only way Blu-ray even affects graphics is by allowing more room for textures. However, textures are so small in size to have enough to warrant an inequality between the 360 DVD9 and the PS3 Blu-ray disk would be too many textures for the CPU or GPU to handle.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I know that its the gpu that makes the graphics but Ms is going to make their own Cpu for their next gen console and this means it will probaly be very good even compared to cpus in pcs when the time comes and it willlower costs which means they can add more ram and a better gpu at price it well, Even if the 360 is $500 id be happy if Ms made the extra effort with extra power.Acemaster27
Yeah, u see sony already tried that approach with the PS3, and look at them now. Their going out of business.
I thought it was the Blue ray that made the Ps3 costly and secondly Ibm made the cell and not Sony so their in the same boat and Ms this gen as well.
Yeah, but the bluray player improves the graphics more. Try to play 1080p on the 360 and it wont play. Thats the drain sonys money is swirling down.
The Blu-ray improves the graphics more? No it doesn't.
Dude, i know all about console, and the bluray player takes uber bluray laser diode processing power to run. The 360 doesn't have any blu laser diode to give it the processing boost that the PS3 has.
umm, what? please dont speak on behalf of any console, you make them all look bad
[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]Dude, i know all about console, and the bluray player takes uber bluray laser diode processing power to run. The 360 doesn't have any blu laser diode to give it the processing boost that the PS3 has.
Runningflame570
Fakeboy confirmed then.
Wut, r u so desperate for attention that u go around calling random people fakeboys and then hope for a response?!
Wut, r u so desperate for attention that u go around calling random people fakeboys and then hope for a response?!
Acemaster27
If I was then you just gave me said attention, nice going.
[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]Wut, r u so desperate for attention that u go around calling random people fakeboys and then hope for a response?!
Runningflame570
If I was then you just gave me said attention, nice going.
I'm calling u out attention-monger
I'm calling u out attention-monger
Acemaster27
What is this, the old west? Calling me out. :lol:
[QUOTE="Runningflame570"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"]Dude, i know all about console, and the bluray player takes uber bluray laser diode processing power to run. The 360 doesn't have any blu laser diode to give it the processing boost that the PS3 has.
Acemaster27
Fakeboy confirmed then.
Wut, r u so desperate for attention that u go around calling random people fakeboys and then hope for a response?!
For what it's worth, I don't think your a fakeboy.
I just think you've got no idea,
so whens this new MS console coming out? I want to know the exact date that they'll drop 360 support.MorisUkunRasik
Knowing them? 2009
[QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, W
Danm_999
This is extremely unlikely. ATI was commissioned to construct the 360's GPU in 2003. Development would have occured during 2003-2004 for a 2005 release. There was no way late 2006-2007 technology would have been considered then (heck, Dx9 was only just out in 2003).
I belive that the 360 when it was developed or after i dont know was said it would of been direx 10 if some things didnt get cut back, Also you go blah blah blah, Do you know what research is, What Ms wasnt thinking of Direx10 a few years ago, Heck they already knew what they were going to do because they knew when they were going to release vista nd pretty much knew how powerful the hardware would be today.
Find me a link then. I've given you solid facts and done my research about when ATI was commissioned to build the 360 GPU. Once again I've given you evidence and logical analyis, and you've resulted to childish insults.
And no, I doubt Microsoft had conceived of the Dx10 GPU 4 years before it was released. You seen to have built Microsoft up in your mind as some sort of omniscent juggernaut that sees all.
And Directx 10 isn't just software, it's a completely different architecture in the GPU.
Firstly what sold facts, You didnt even give a link, But ive tried too look for i link but i not going to the effort, What i will say is that and this is what read and take no note of what i wrote aboveis that something in the 360 gpu i think some shaders wasnot activatedto save money which had something to do why it couldnt make it direx10.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="No_worrys_mate"]I belive the 360s gpu was meant to be direx10 but to save money they cut some things back, W
No_worrys_mate
This is extremely unlikely. ATI was commissioned to construct the 360's GPU in 2003. Development would have occured during 2003-2004 for a 2005 release. There was no way late 2006-2007 technology would have been considered then (heck, Dx9 was only just out in 2003).
I belive that the 360 when it was developed or after i dont know was said it would of been direx 10 if some things didnt get cut back, Also you go blah blah blah, Do you know what research is, What Ms wasnt thinking of Direx10 a few years ago, Heck they already knew what they were going to do because they knew when they were going to release vista nd pretty much knew how powerful the hardware would be today.
Find me a link then. I've given you solid facts and done my research about when ATI was commissioned to build the 360 GPU. Once again I've given you evidence and logical analyis, and you've resulted to childish insults.
And no, I doubt Microsoft had conceived of the Dx10 GPU 4 years before it was released. You seen to have built Microsoft up in your mind as some sort of omniscent juggernaut that sees all.
And Directx 10 isn't just software, it's a completely different architecture in the GPU.
Firstly what sold facts, You didnt even give a link, But ive tried too look for i link but i not going to the effort, What i will say is that and this is what read and take no note of what i wrote aboveis that something in the 360 gpu i think some shaders wasnot activatedto save money which had something to do why it couldnt make it direx10.
Here. I'm actually surprised that someone who is so unfactual and unreferenced is so pedantic he'd actually demand links to trivial items which could be found with a simple Google search.
And again, you display a complete lack of knowledge about Directx 10 GPUs. It's not related to the shaders, Dx10 GPUs have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT architecture to Dx9 GPUs that make it impossible for things to be upgraded by software changes. The best the 360 can do is mimic some Dx10 features, but even then, that ain't good enough.
It can't be done - consoles are built at a set point in time - in other words the hardware is static. But there's more to it than that.
Diminishing Returns.
Thatiswhatwillkillyouridea.Comparethe GeForce 8600gt to the GeForce 8800gts320mb - now compare the GeForce 8800gts 320mb to the GeForce 8800gts 640mb. The $150 between the 8600 and the 8800 (320mb) bought you much larger gains than going from the 320mb to the 640mb 8800gts. And going from the 8800gts 640mb to the 8800gtx? Not nearly as large of a gain as from the 8600gt to the 8800gts. Same price difference, smaller gains.
PCs outpace consoles by having the advantage of time (moore's law) on their side. A graphics card 18 months from now will have made a huge leap in capabilities while remaining the same price.
So, even if you built your console to be $800, putting in $1000 worth of top-of-the-line custom built parts, a $1000 PC 18 months down the road will beat it. And compared to the high end? Well... let's be honest, even at launch a $2500 PC bested the 360 graphically, it's just reality, someone with nearly infinite money can out-do your product that was built on a limited budget.
The goal of consoles should be to make a huge graphical leap over the console before it, and be comparable to a higher-end PC at launch. That way the console remains in the same league as gaming PCs for a number of months / years.
Well you could see the 360 has been ahead of PC graphics for over a year now...no game on PC has yet to pass Gears of War,IMO anyways.That will sood change with Crysis though.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment