Playstation 3 Specs

[JasonGW]

Very true Jason! The developers are going to have to learn the capabilities of the new generation of gaming machines, but I'm sure everyone is willing to wait. Look how far we have come since the Atari 2600! That was some 22 years ago and look how far we have come! Yes, at first the games are more about the capabilities, but the gameplay does get better.

@ sonu27 : If you read below the picture it says :

The Cell processor that was discussed at the press conference is made up of nine separate cores. There is a single 64-bit Power Processing Element (or Power Architecture Core) and eight Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). The Power Processor Element (PPE) can best be thought of as a variation of a Power PC processor, though it's an entirely new design, intending on "overseeing" the work of the whole Cell processor. The PPE sends off various instructions to the 8 SPEs, which can then work autonomously.

@ JasonGW : I was only posting the article because it explained what SPE stood for and how it was involved in the whole process. By no means was I posting this as accurate specs, just an informative article on SPE for sonu27. I just noticed something...you and me joined on the same day and have relatively the same number of posts!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, Atari..., here check this out: Atari 2600 History. This sucker came out in *1977*, 28 years ago!

I do agree that gameplay will *eventually* improve in the new generation, as it always does, it's just that it won't be *first* priority. Unfortunately, the storytelling and gameplay aspects always seem to really hit their stride near the *end* of a console's life, LOL. Not *always*, but often, especially in the last couple of generations. I'm still not convinced we'll have a boom like the SNES's in the near future as a result of all the copycat games that developers are churning out left and right these days. I do remain hopeful, though

Jason

[TheBlackMan]

We should all just stick with the good old PC for gaming! It'll never die out!

@ JasonGW: The 22 year ago thing was just an estimate. I just did a quick google and got a bunch of returns for 1983, which is explained in the article you posted. C'mon, the Atari is 12 years older than me! How am I supposed to know. I just remember playing Pitfall and Frogger for hours!

Well, since I'm on the topic of Atari 2600 here are some specs!

CPU: 8-bit 6507

RAM: 128 Bytes

ROM: 6K max

Cpu Clock:1.19 MHz

Graphics Clock: 3.58 MHz

Colors: 16 (4 on screen)

Slot Config: Rom access only

CPU Avail: Less than 50%

Resolution: 192x160

Sound: 2-channel

Sources :

Source #1

Source #2

Source #3

[Tokugawapants]

I'd like the PS3 better if it actually *existed*, but I'm afraid that pre-rendered videos and empty plastic shells under glass aren't all that impressive to me. I DO like the *design* of the PS3 better than the XBox 360, but I do NOT like Sony's hype, misinformation and blatant dishonesty to the audience that makes them anything other than the trash manufacturer that they really are.

Jason

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I might just be out of the loop, but how are you getting this information? What evidence makes you say that all Sony is spitting out is misinforming and dishonest? From what I can remember, PS2 games looked like they did in the first screenshots, even though they didn't look like what they were said to look like further in the past. I've never had any problems with Sony as a manufacturer, and considering that Microsoft has had to recall Xbox products whereas Sony has not had to recall PS2 products (although, to be fair, the recall wasn't too dramatic), I would think that the exact opposite is true about the quality of manufacterers.

[TheBlackMan]

It's basically personal preference. One person will have a preference for Sony and another for Microsoft. The two will argue for their company as superior leader, but the truth of the matter is it's all personal preference. I have no complaints from either companies. They both have great games and the graphics are great!

[JasonGW]

I might just be out of the loop, but how are you getting this information? What evidence makes you say that all Sony is spitting out is misinforming and dishonest? From what I can remember, PS2 games looked like they did in the first screenshots, even though they didn't look like what they were said to look like further in the past. I've never had any problems with Sony as a manufacturer, and considering that Microsoft has had to recall Xbox products whereas Sony has not had to recall PS2 products (although, to be fair, the recall wasn't too dramatic), I would think that the exact opposite is true about the quality of manufacterers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must be out of the loop entirely, LOL I went through FOUR PS2's during the first 90 days of launch due to the (very well documented--google it!) problem with the laser going bad. The initial batch of PS2's were *awful*. This was recently repeated with the PSP launch, where tens of thousands were returned due to multiple bad pixels on their screens. I didn't buy one, but my *one* friend who did buy one went through THREE of them before he got one without dead pixels.

As for the PS2's games, Sony originally claimed a "66 million polygons!" figure as compared to the Dreamcast's 3-4 million. Of course, what Sony failed to mention is that Sega's figure included textured, shaded, lighted polygons, whereas Sony's figure included flat, unshaded, unlit polygons. Apply your effects (textures, lighting, shading) and voila! PS2 drops to around 4-5 million polygons. In short, they *lied* to the public and to their fans in order to kill their competition. Take a look at any game that has a PS2 version AND a Dreamcast version. In all cases the DC version looks as good or better. An excellent example is DOA 2, which looked better on the Dreamcast thanks to its native support for AA, which PS2 cannot do in hardware.

If you want to see an example of misleading information, look at Sony's press conference this year for pS3. First they show you the Cell processor diagrams and claim that at 3.8Ghz it will process 2.18 TFlops as compared to the XBox 360's 1.15 TFlops. A few pages later they show PS3 specs with a 3.2Ghz CPU, yet they keep the 2.18 TFlops figure. So are we to believe that a roughly 20% DECREASE in CPU speed for CELL has absolutely no performance difference? If that's true, then why bother even *talking* about a 3.8Ghz since it offers no benefit over the 3.2Ghz part, which will obviously get greater yields?

Watch Sony's announcement point for point. It attempts to do exactly ONE thing: It attempts to take the main points of XBox 360 and 1up them. Then they start throwing in nonsense features that have no business in a game console, such as a freaking *router*. Then we get a bunch of pre-rendered videos (exception: Unreal Engine 3 demo, but even that was scripted and had no interactivity besides moving the camera) running on hardware that wasn't even described but was *presumed* to be an early build of a PS3. So we've got pre-rendered videos and concept "we think we can make the games look like this" videos, but NO actual gameplay and *nothing* functional enough for a hands on demonstration. Sony showed *not one* playable piece of software at E3, nor even a view of the hardware that you could see or examine. Instead they had some plastic shells, under glass, with a little sign saying "Concept only". Well *that's* nice.

Honestly, Sony had NO business making an announcement at this E3. It's painfully obvious that they have *nothing* to show and that the PS3, as it stands, is pure, unadulterated *VAPORWARE*. They had one purpose and one alone in making any such announcement at this E3: To attempt to derail Microsoft, and they're willing to mislead and defraud the public at large in order to do it.

Jason

[TheBlackMan]

You make it sound like XBox doesn't have any problems : Click Here.

I understand what you are saying though. All of it is to generate publicity. Most people fail to read the print reading, "Design and specifications are subject to change without notice." This exact sentence is in this press release. It's all about making money!

[JasonGW]

You make it sound like XBox doesn't have any problems : Click Here.

I understand what you are saying though. All of it is to generate publicity. Most people fail to read the print reading, "Design and specifications are subject to change without notice." This exact sentence is in this press release. It's all about making money! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hey, I never said it hasn't had a few issues, did I? However, I can't say that I know anyone *personally* who's had a problem, and I've had mine since launch with *zero* issues. Too bad I can't say the same for Sony. IMO, they didn't get the PS2 *right* until the miniaturized version, which I replaced my old PS2 with because it was on the blink *again*.

My point was just that Sony's got *nothing* to show right now, they **** well know, they're scared sh1tless that Microsoft will take the market by storm when they hit 6 months or more before Sony can, and they're desperate to try and steal some of that thunder.

From all appearances, Sony got caught with their pants down and is now scrambling to try *desperately* to confuse and mislead consumers in an effort to prevent the XBox 360 from having a huge launch.

Jason

[un4given1]

OK, let's not forget that Microsoft XBox hit a year after PS2... You really can't compare the two... they have a year of technology difference. So, Sony announced it at E3 to "derail" XBox, then Microsoft comes back and announces that Halo3 will be released the same day as PS3. It's a big game... I have personally owned my PS2 since the months after it was released. I have had it since and not had any problems. I however know that my friend has replaced his XBox 3 times... So, for as many stories as someone else might have, someone else has the opposite. I know 5 people with the PSP and not one has had a problem with it either.

[squip]

Bear in mind, too, that the primary core of the CELL processor is based off the PowerPC design from IBM, the same chip that powers Macintosh computers and another variant, the XBox 360 CPU (which has three full-purpose cores, each with multiple thread support enabled for a total of 6 concurrent processing threads).

Jason

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes with that...is the xbox running 1 single prosessor with 3 cores or 3 seperate prossessors?

[TheBlackMan]

@ JasonGW: You might find this article interesting. I have Kutaragi's e-mail if you want to express your opinion on the whole issue to him. I'm just kidding. LOL!

[JasonGW]

Bear in mind, too, that the primary core of the CELL processor is based off the PowerPC design from IBM, the same chip that powers Macintosh computers and another variant, the XBox 360 CPU (which has three full-purpose cores, each with multiple thread support enabled for a total of 6 concurrent processing threads).

Jason

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes with that...is the xbox running 1 single prosessor with 3 cores or 3 seperate prossessors?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's 1 one processor with 3 cores, which is *literally* 3 processors on one physical chip. The multithreading gives it 6 threads, which isn't exactly like 6 full processors. Maybe more like 4.5-5 full processors worth of threading capability.

Now as for Kutaragi's comments, puh-lease. His opinion is clearly biased and his sole goal is to sell more PS3's. He very clearly underlines his ignorance of the XBox 360's architecture by stating that all MS has done is increase graphics capability over the original XBox, which simply isn't true (and even a cursory evaluation of published specifications will make that fact quite clear.).

In particular, it's clear enough that Microsoft has, in this current generation, soundly kicked Sony's a** in areas like Online play, gamer interaction, community building, content distribution, etc. etc. In terms of advancing gameplay design, Sony's PS2 accomplished *nothing* new. Microsoft has done an enormous amount of innovation in this area, with XBox Live being the clearest example of that (an example which, one might also point out, that Sony is so far behind that they amount to little more than a blip on the scope.)

When it comes to *innovative* games and gameplay, Sony doesn't even register on the radar of what's been done and is *being* done by companies like Nintendo, Sega and a few others. Sony so far, from Generation 1 of Playstation to Generation 2 has given more and more of the same old games and clones of the same old games. Aside from a tiny handful of well made games from companies like Konami, Square (and Square doesn't even bother *innovating* anymore, they just make very good games in the same old mold) and Namco, there is very little worthy of note on PS2. I highly doubt that the inclusion of a router is going to enhance or spur innovative gameplay for the new Playstation.

Jason

[un4given1]

JasonGW, I will not argue with you about your points about Microsoft... however I believe you are a little off with your comments about Sony.

[squip]

Thankyou jason

[JasonGW]

JasonGW, I will not argue with you about your points about Microsoft...  however I believe you are a little off with your comments about Sony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so? If you care to explain, I'd love to hear it, as I haven't said anything that isn't *well* documented about PS2/1 (which aren't *horrible* systems, by any stretch, they just aren't the end-all be-all of gaming that Sony claims) and reasonable speculation about PS3.

Jason

[SiMoNsAyS]

what if we all don't write posts impossible to read?

at this moment is clear that on the paper ps3 beats xbox 360 in probably all ways but we must agree that console war is not finished as it mostly depends on the upcoming titles.

this thread is supposed to be based on new generation consoles specs and not on m$ vs. sony or similar...