Playstation 3 Cell chip and Xbox 2's three intel chips

[dream431ca]

You read the title right...the rumor is that the Xbox 2 could have 3 intel CPU's which run at 3.5 Ghz each..which is a whopping 10.5 Ghz!! Of course this is all speculation. Also the PS3's cell chip is looking awesome. I have provided links to both topics. I think it is very interesting how some companies are really trying to go over the top.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4242447.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4242447.stm

EDIT: Also what do you think about the nintendo revolution??

 

[Tr0n]

You read the title right...the rumor is that the Xbox 2 could have 3 intel CPU's which run at 3.5 Ghz each..which is a whopping 10.5 Ghz!! Of course this is all speculation. Also the PS3's cell chip is looking awesome. I have provided links to both topics. I think it is very interesting how some companies are really trying to go over the top.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4242447.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4242447.stm

It wouldn't be running at 10.5 ghz.

You need to read up on how dual processing with x86 works.

 

[dream431ca]

It would'nt be running at 10.5 ghz.

You need to read up on dual processing.

What would it be...?? Just curious.

 

[lePobz]

Yeah... GHz are clock cycles, if you have one person riding a bike at 20mph and then two more people on bikes join in, also riding at 20mph, they dont all merge into one big uberbike thats magically doing 60mph ... there's just 3 of them still doing 20mph.

In terms of processing power though, they can carry out more or less 3x the load of one CPU (depending on how the instructions are shared across the three) so ... where was I .... erm.... yeah, whatever.

 

[dream431ca]

Yeah... GHz are clock cycles, if you have one person riding a bike at 20mph and then two more people on bikes join in, also riding at 20mph, they dont all merge into one big uberbike thats magically doing 60mph ... there's just 3 of them still doing 20mph.

In terms of processing power though, they can carry out more or less 3x the load of one CPU (depending on how the instructions are shared across the three) so ... where was I .... erm.... yeah, whatever.

So basically they just lighten the load (so to speak)...like time divison multiplexing. Ahhhh...I get it now...basically the other 2 chips are filling in for the zeros of the first intel chip...I know it sounds weird but it's hard to explain but I think that is whats happening..thanks. :thumbs:

 

[Tr0n]

So basically they just lighten the load (so to speak)

Pretty much doing that.

For games you won't see a major improvement or any improvement for that matter.

But the xbox 2 I think isn't just gonna be intended for gaming.We just have to wait and see.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

EDIT: Also what do you think about the nintendo revolution??

My hopes and prayers go with the Revolution. Games are getting a bit rehashed on these systems and the only new things added are better graphics and some various measures of fine-tuning.

I think the gaming industry needs a change or two and I think Nintendo has the balls to deliver. It's gonna perform, there's no doubt about it, but I hope it's just different. Like when we have games being developed for all three systems, if the industry persists the way it has been, there's nothing to set the three games apart. Although not divulging any details, Nintendo has affirmed and reaffirmed that the Revolution will compete. It will have all the bells and whistles, but it's going to offer features and aspects that will change the way you and I play games and will set it apart greatly from it's competition.

The way I look at it is that Sony and Microsoft have pretty much already shown their hand in the next-gen console wars. Their systems are bigger and badder XBoxs and PS2s...nothing more. It's all about more power and better graphics for them. Bigger, better and badder is all fine and good, but I think we should all be thankful that at least one company is going to go out on a ledge here and provide us something completely new(hopefully) and at the very least a fresh perspective. I have faith in this company to deliver the goods.

 

[dream431ca]

My hopes and prayers go with the Revolution. Games are getting a bit rehashed on these systems and the only new things added are better graphics and some various measures of fine-tuning.

I think the gaming industry needs a change or two and I think Nintendo has the balls to deliver. It's gonna perform, there's no doubt about it, but I hope it's just different. Like when we have games being developed for all three systems, if the industry persists the way it has been, there's nothing to set the three games apart. Although not divulging any details, Nintendo has affirmed and reaffirmed that the Revolution will compete. It will have all the bells and whistles, but it's going to offer features and aspects that will change the way you and I play games and will set it apart greatly from it's competition.

The way I look at it is that Sony and Microsoft have pretty much already shown their hand in the next-gen console wars. Their systems are bigger and badder XBoxs and PS2s...nothing more. It's all about more power and better graphics for them. Bigger, better and badder is all fine and good, but I think we should all be thankful that at least one company is going to go out on a ledge here and provide us something completely new(hopefully) and at the very least a fresh perspective. I have faith in this company to deliver the goods.

There is one major problem with this....change is not always a good thing. If the system is so radical that most of the third party developers don't care for it, then nintendo is screwed. Nintendo can certainly not run a whole console by it's own...if they plan to radically change the way games are played, I hope they have consolted with the major developers to discuss the changes...to make sure they are doing the right thing.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I thought that all of the consoles, including the XBox 2 were using IBM CPU chips not Intel.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

There is one major problem with this....change is not always a good thing. If the system is so radical that most of the third party developers don't care for it, then nintendo is screwed. Nintendo can certainly not run a whole console by it's own...if they plan to radically change the way games are played, I hope they have consolted with the major developers to discuss the changes...to make sure they are doing the right thing.

In either case, developers and Nintendo alike are in it to sell games.....so it still boils down to the consumer.

Nintendo has promised that all the normal essentials will be intact...consumers are not going to have to choose on graphics, sound etc. It's becoming too easy to make games that look and sound fantastic. So if all the games look, sound and play the same on all three systems where's the variety? Nintendo's swinging for the flag and I think Sony and Microsoft are playing it safe and I don't think it's going to work this time. Make no mistake....I believe that once you cut through Sony and Microsoft's BS, you're going to have two identical game systems.

In terms of being too radical....I doubt it highly. They're not dumb. They're not going to design something that nobody wants a part of.....again...they want to sell games. In this next-gen console battle I believe that different is going to sell games. Something is going to have to stand out, because everyone knows what Sony and MS are going to bring to the table.

 

[destrukt]

err, the rumours about the xbox 2 chips were not intel. unless the rumours have changed in the last few days.

 

[dream431ca]

In either case, developers and Nintendo alike are in it to sell games.....so it still boils down to the consumer.

Nintendo has promised that all the normal essentials will be intact...consumers are not going to have to choose on graphics, sound etc. It's becoming too easy to make games that look and sound fantastic. So if all the games look, sound and play the same on all three systems where's the variety? Nintendo's swinging for the flag and I think Sony and Microsoft are playing it safe and I don't think it's going to work this time. Make no mistake....I believe that once you cut through Sony and Microsoft's BS, you're going to have two identical game systems.

In terms of being too radical....I doubt it highly. They're not dumb. They're not going to design something that nobody wants a part of.....again...they want to sell games. In this next-gen console battle I believe that different is going to sell games. Something is going to have to stand out, because everyone knows what Sony and MS are going to bring to the table.

You make a excellent point about the PS3 and the XBOX 2 being very identical, and I also think you are right about the variety, And how it comes down to the consumer...but look at the game cube. It's not doing nearly as well as the PS2 or the XBOX for one reason....marketing. There isn't many third party developers working on games for the game cube (I can't figure out why). But that's why the game cube is so behind (in sales). Sure it has technology that makes it faster than the PS2 but if your marketing sucks....you might as well quit before it gets any worse.

 

[KagePrototype]

You make a excellent point about the PS3 and the XBOX 2 being very identical, and I also think you are right about the variety, And how it comes down to the consumer...but look at the game cube. It's not doing nearly as well as the PS2 or the XBOX for one reason....marketing. There isn't many third party developers working on games for the game cube (I can't figure out why). But that's why the game cube is so behind (in sales). Sure it has technology that makes it faster than the PS2 but if your marketing sucks....you might as well quit before it gets any worse.

Actually, it's Xbox that's behind Gamecube (15 million compared to 18 million by the end of 2004). At least, worldwide. But your point stands, good marketing will sell a console, and it's hard to compete against the infinite pockets of Sony and Microsoft (at least in the west, it's Nintendo and Sony who are dominating the east).

 

[B-MAn]

In either case, developers and Nintendo alike are in it to sell games.....so it still boils down to the consumer.

Nintendo has promised that all the normal essentials will be intact...consumers are not going to have to choose on graphics, sound etc. It's becoming too easy to make games that look and sound fantastic. So if all the games look, sound and play the same on all three systems where's the variety? Nintendo's swinging for the flag and I think Sony and Microsoft are playing it safe and I don't think it's going to work this time. Make no mistake....I believe that once you cut through Sony and Microsoft's BS, you're going to have two identical game systems.

In terms of being too radical....I doubt it highly. They're not dumb. They're not going to design something that nobody wants a part of.....again...they want to sell games. In this next-gen console battle I believe that different is going to sell games. Something is going to have to stand out, because everyone knows what Sony and MS are going to bring to the table.

I;ve never really thought about it like that, but then again variety will be in the games they produce. Like PS3 will have Metal Gear Solid 4 (me hopes :angel and the new GTA (owah just imagine the new engine and draw distances) while Xbox 2 will have Halo 3 and erm... other games and what will Nintendo have? Mario and friends, dn;t get me wrong but they've always focused on the younger generation. Fair enough they may have some thing diffrent cooking up in secret but still the games will be the same with the exception of resident evil and such.

not matter what new gimmick Nintendo will have i still don;t think i would be drawn to their games. Personally i would get a PS3 first and then when the price for the xbox 2 drops i'll get it modded and as for Nintendo i would pass until they have a nice range of games which appeal to me which would be atleast 2 yrs after launch

 

[Agent.M]

no matter what new gimmick Nintendo will have i still don;t think i would be drawn to their games. Personally i would get a PS3 first and then when the price for the xbox 2 drops i'll get it modded and as for Nintendo i would pass until they have a nice range of games which appeal to me which would be atleast 2 yrs after launch

Yeah I agree Im just not that drawn to nintendo games.

 

[Warbie]

I;ve never really thought about it like that, but then again variety will be in the games they produce. Like PS3 will have Metal Gear Solid 4 (me hopes :angel and the new GTA (owah just imagine the new engine and draw distances)

Let's be fair though, there's absolutely no variety in those games you mentioned. Extra draw disatnce in GTA - not very exciting or innovative now is it?

If you want more of the same, but with better gfx, the PS3 and Xbox 2 will probably be a safe bet (I know i'm going to own them ) But for creative titles which offer something exciting and new - well, Nintendo are always infront (and have been since the begining)

Oh - if you want to sum up all the Mario, Zelda, Metroid, F-Zero etc games up as just 'Mario and friends' then that's fine (but not a very informed way to describe some of the best games ever made )

 

[B-MAn]

i never said they weren;t good games i just said they are games that don;t appeal to me metroid was fun though

As for variety i ment the variety in games for the two console i didn;t mean new games

 

[Warbie]

i never said they weren;t good games i just said they are games that don;t appeal to me metroid was fun though

As for variety i ment the variety in games for the two console i didn;t mean new games

ah - agreed. The PS has always had a nice and varied library of titles.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

You make a excellent point about the PS3 and the XBOX 2 being very identical, and I also think you are right about the variety, And how it comes down to the consumer...but look at the game cube. It's not doing nearly as well as the PS2 or the XBOX for one reason....marketing. There isn't many third party developers working on games for the game cube (I can't figure out why). But that's why the game cube is so behind (in sales). Sure it has technology that makes it faster than the PS2 but if your marketing sucks....you might as well quit before it gets any worse.

As Kage pointed out, the GameCube is #2 worldwide, but that's irrelavant.

With the PS2, XBox and GameCube there was some mistique surrounding that generation of consoles. Uncertainty in the minds of gamers concerning the XBox and GameCube as well as the incredible head-start the PS2 enjoyed has placed the PS2 and Sony in the position it's in today....and as it turned out there wasn't anything unique, aside from 1st party games, that stood out of the three. Had the Xbox and GameCube came out at the same time as the PS2, I guarantee that Sony would not be in the position it's currently in. I think it would still be doing the best, but not by the incredible margin it currently enjoys. No way. Sony has had a luxury of enjoying a head start on it's consoles....the PS1 was out quite a bit before the N64 and Saturn.

The next-gen console race is going to be a humbling experience for Sony, I believe. All three of these consoles are going to be out at relativly the same time...some actually believe Sony is going to be the last out, but who knows. Furthermore, as the price of these consoles rises, it's going to take more to attract someone, especially since they're going to be so similar and play the same games, with a few exceptions. It's no longer going to be worth it to purchase all three of these consoles...at least for the casual gamer, unless you have to play some of the exclusives that will pop up. This is where I think the marketing will come in for Nintendo...."buy the XBoX OR the PS2, but make sure you have ours, because neither of them will let you do what you can do on the Revolution"....it's that simple..whatever the special features the Revolution will have. By following the formula to a "T", Sony and MS are fixing to hurt themselves and Nintendo should be there, if they're smart, to reap the benefits of essentially competing against two identical consoles. Marketing will be simple here.

As I said before, great graphics and sound are going to be a dime a dozen in the near future....what new, intelligent gameplay aspects are you offering....how is Madden 2006 better on the PS3 than the XBox 2?? Good luck with selling that unless one or the other has a major problem. I don't think it will be hard to sell the Revolution to gamers as long as the damn thing is inspired and as the name suggests: Revolutionary or at least different in some way. What's going to be difficult is Sony taking people away from MS and vice versa, because nothing tells me that the XBox 2 and PS3 are going to be different from one another....why switch.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

I;ve never really thought about it like that, but then again variety will be in the games they produce. Like PS3 will have Metal Gear Solid 4 (me hopes :angel and the new GTA (owah just imagine the new engine and draw distances) while Xbox 2 will have Halo 3 and erm... other games and what will Nintendo have? Mario and friends, dn;t get me wrong but they've always focused on the younger generation. Fair enough they may have some thing diffrent cooking up in secret but still the games will be the same with the exception of resident evil and such.

not matter what new gimmick Nintendo will have i still don;t think i would be drawn to their games. Personally i would get a PS3 first and then when the price for the xbox 2 drops i'll get it modded and as for Nintendo i would pass until they have a nice range of games which appeal to me which would be atleast 2 yrs after launch

Fair enough...to each his own. I prefer Nintendo's 1st party development over that of Sony and MS.

I for one have a huge problem, personally, with buying both the XBox 2 and the PS3. It's going to be one or the other and a Revolution. I think that's Nintendo's key to success....make it so you can't live without the Revolution because of whatever it is Nintendo is cooking up, but can deal with having either of the other two.

The GameCube didn't have that selling point, console-wise. Nintendo cannot compete when it releases the same thing as Sony and MS. Too much money to fight with. Cues from the DS suggest when they innovate, they win. The DS doesn't come close to the power of the PSP, yet it's selling like hotcakes, has the lead over the PSP and is certainly making gamers, at the very least, have to choose.

 

[dream431ca]

Fair enough...to each his own. I prefer Nintendo's 1st party development over that of Sony and MS.

I for one have a huge problem, personally, with buying both the XBox 2 and the PS3. It's going to be one or the other and a Revolution. I think that's Nintendo's key to success....make it so you can't live without the Revolution because of whatever it is Nintendo is cooking up, but can deal with having either of the other two.

The GameCube didn't have that selling point, console-wise. Nintendo cannot compete when it releases the same thing as Sony and MS. Too much money to fight with. Cues from the DS suggest when they innovate, they win. The DS doesn't come close to the power of the PSP, yet it's selling like hotcakes, has the lead over the PSP and is certainly making gamers, at the very least, have to choose.

I like your way of thinking

If Nintendo is truely a "revolution" and if they show it at E3 and I love it...all switch. But I might even get a PS3 also..I don't know about the XBOX 2...We'll have to wait until E3..

But lets get back on topic about the PS3 cell chip. I really love how you can install new cells and remove them..which makes the chip so much more agile than other chips...which means the chip will be used in much more things than the PS3...It seems like a very interesting idea..I really hope it turns out ok.

As for the XBOX 2..you don't really need 3 processors in one console (unless the company is really desprate) or they could be running into a huge problem with heat...also if that rumor is true, that console is going to take more power than a PC to run. It will be neat to see it running.

Man....it's still 3 months till E3 and I'm already getting excited!

 

[Lt. Drebin]

I really love how you can install new cells and remove them..which makes the chip so much more agile than other chips...which means the chip will be used in much more things than the PS3...It seems like a very interesting idea..I really hope it turns out ok.

As for the XBOX 2..you don't really need 3 processors in one console (unless the company is really desprate) or they could be running into a huge problem with heat...also if that rumor is true, that console is going to take more power than a PC to run. It will be neat to see it running.

Man....it's still 3 months till E3 and I'm already getting excited!

I'm impressed by the processing power, but I think it's going to be a waste and drive up the price. They don't need that kind of power for what they're trying to achieve in gaming. Still too many limitations and too many people that don't have a digital TV or proper sound setups to completely enjoy and experience some of the games that are out on the XBox and PS2. It drives up the price IMO. Amidst all of Sony and Microsoft's babbling about the CPU, I sure hope they found time to do something special with the actual GPU. If the GPU is complete shit then there's not much help the CPU is gonna do. You do need a good processor, but I hope they cleared other bottlenecks so all that stuff doesn't become a complete waste.